In so saying bro. Stone argues that it is simply the "terms" which bre. Roberts and Thomas used, which is confusing us. But the reality is that bro. Stone must disagree with the entire translation of verses like Heb. 7:27, or whole subjects like the Burnt Offering, in order to defend his theory. This is how bro. Roberts interprets Heb. 7:27 and compare that with how bro. Stone just interpreted it.

"The statement of Paul (Heb. 7:27) is that Christ did "once" in his death what the high priest under the Law did daily, namely, offered "first for his own sins, and then for the people's." But there is a difference between the two cases that there always is between shadow and substance. Christ's "own sins" were not like the sins of the priests: they were not of his own committing. He was without sin, so far as his own actions were concerned.

"Yet as the bearer of the sins of his people--whether "in Adam" or otherwise--he stood in the position of having these as "his own," from the effects of which he had himself first to be delivered. Consequently, HE OFFERED FIRST FOR HIMSELF. He was the first delivered. He is "Christ the firstfruits." He obtained eternal redemption in and for himself, as the middle voice of the Greek verb euramenos (Heb. 9:12) implies. The "for us" is not in the original: R.V. omits it. He was--"Brought again from the dead through the blood of the Everlasting Covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

"But this offering for himself was also the offering for his people. The two aspects of the double typical offering were combined in one act. He had not twice to offer for himself--"By one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14).

"Yet, though combined, the two relations of the act are visibly separate. Christ was the first saved from death (Heb. 5:9)-- "Afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming" (1 Cor. 15:23). In this way the Mosaic type has its counterpart.

"There is no inconsistency whatever between these facts and the constant declaration that Christ "died for us". ALL that Christ was and did was "for us". It was "for us" he was born; "for us" he bore sin; "for us" he came under the curse of the law; "for us" he died. And the fact that personally he was without sin where all were transgressors, gives all the more point to the declaration.

"It is "for us" that he came to be in the position of having first to offer FOR HIMSELF. The "for us" does not deny that what he submitted to "for us" was our own position--"He was MADE SIN for us who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21)--and doesn't sin require an offering?"--Chdn. 1875 p. 139.

Bro. Roberts does not have the same interpretation as did bro. Stone. He has no problem in saying that Heb. 7:27 means that since Christ was made to be sin, he therefore himself, required a sin offering. The High Priest offered for his personal transgressions, that true. Bro. Stone then reasons that if Jesus offered for sin, it would have to be his own transgressions, of which he had none. But to bro. Roberts the shadow and the substance in this, mirror as close as is required. So no matter what we think as to the fact of the matter, it must be clear that bro. Roberts would not agree with bro. Stone's interpretation.

And in another place, taking issue with bro. Stone's interpretation that Jesus did not, as the High Priest offer first for himself dealt with the question this way. In "Diary of a Voyage" Sept. 1886, bro. Roberts found himself dealing with one who denied that Jesus was himself involved in his own sacrifice. These brethren were the forerunners of the Shield group, which was received into Central on the basis of the Cooper-Carter Addendum (an addendum to the BASF which is used to nullified clauses 5 and 12) in 1957.

"That as the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary that he should OFFER FOR HIMSELF, as well as for those whom he represented?


HEB 5:3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
HEB 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
HEB 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
HEB 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
HEB 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

It must be clear from this that the way bro. Roberts interpreted verses, not just phrases, differ greatly from bro. Stone's.