This is not a correct statement. The high priest was a type of Christ before he offered "first for his own sins". The bathing in the laver typified Christ's baptism. The putting on the of priestly apparel typified Christ's growth and development during his life time. The placing of the final piece, the frontal piece which said "Holiness To The Lord" is acknowledged by bro. Stone elsewhere to have been typical of what Christ did, prior to offering the sacrifice. The High Priest was a type of Christ all the time, not just after he had offered an offering for himself. Bro. Stone knows that, but the force of this verse causes him to invent a new limitation to put on the symbolism involved.

The key to the matter are these limitations. We agree with bro. Stone in most of the things that he affirms about Christ. Our disagreement lies in the area which he denies apply to Christ. In order to make these denials, he has to take so many beautiful and powerful scriptures, and rob them of their meanings. If he only accepted them, he would see the whole picture, not just the narrow view he is taking through limiting and misapplying Bible types and figures.

Also, here is the start of another basic flaw in bro. Stone's method of interpretation. He treats the sacrifices under the law as if they actually had the power to forgive sins, which of course they did not. Paul said in Hebrews 10:4: "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." The Law only had strength, in that it prophesied of what Jesus was actually going to do. As bro. Stone has correctly said, the Law was a ritual prophesy". It prophesied of Jesus's great sacrifice. But it had no power of itself. This is important.

Therefore, the high priest was actually no different in his actual relationship to sin after he offered his sacrifice, than he was before. He "prospectively" had his sins forgiven, in that they would be forgiven because of what Jesus was going to do. But actually, there was no change. Bro. Stone ridicules (correctly) the Unamended brethren for the chemical reaction they appear to believe in at baptism, (the water automatically releasing a man from the power of the grave.) But he has his own "chemical reaction" in the sacrifices under the law. He believes that if a man offered a sacrifice for something, then he was forgiven instantly at that point. That is simply not the case, or, as Paul points out, "then would they have ceased to be offered."

The Mosaic sacrifices had no effect whatsoever, until they had been ratified through the sacrifice of Christ. Had Christ not come and successfully lived a perfect life, and lay down his life as his Father commanded him to do; the sacrifices under the law would have been of no effect. So the High Priest was not literally sinless after he offered the sacrifice because those sacrifices did not have the power to take away sin. It was all a type, all a shadow. It all prefigured what Christ would actually do.