Doctrine

For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. –– Hebrews 13:11-13

It is very truly said that when our Christian life is over, our final judgment will not be based upon what we know, but upon what we did with what we know. Our judgment will be based upon how we applied scriptural principles in our daily lives. Even so, we should never let this saying be an excuse to de-emphasize doctrine. Doctrines, beliefs, knowledge all play a very important part in our walk.

We are living in the period of time known to us as the Harvest of the Gospel Age. The Harvest, almost by definition, is a period of separating. Scripturally, it is a separation of the wheat from the tares –– the true Christians from the false Christians –– a separation of those who are begotten of the seed of truth and those who are begotten not of the Heavenly Father, but who have a fake begetting of the Adversary and are sown by him.

The Harvest of the Gospel Age primarily has been a separation based on doctrine. As we look over the history of the Harvest period, we see five primary truths that have provided ground for separation:

1) The nature of death –– not the thought of hellfire or heaven, but a belief that the dead are really dead, awaiting the resurrection.
2) The nature of life –– the understanding of immortality, whether man is inherently immortal or whether immortality is to be gained upon certain conditions.
3) The nature of God –– “The Lord our God is one ” The understanding that the Trinity is a false teaching.
4) The nature of the present –– the belief that our Lord’s presence is a current reality, not a future hope, that he has returned and is invisibly
5) The nature of the future –– the belief that God has planned life for man both in heaven and on earth –– the belief in two This fifth teaching has many subtopics that have become doctrines that have also served to separate:

• The Ransom–– the understanding that the ransom is for All, not redemption for the believer only, but redemption for the unbeliever as
• Restitution –– a belief that life will be restored upon an Edenic earth, not an earth that will be
• The Church –– the understanding of the function of the Church and its part in both the Sin Offering and its part in the work of the
• The Covenants –– the understanding that there are different covenants for different ages and for different dispensations.

We are going to focus on just one part of this fifth area, the doctrine of the Sin Offering.

Historically, what two scriptures are the most important scriptures in the development of the Harvest Church? This is the question posed in a study led by Br. Bednarz many years ago. His answer was first, Matthew 24:3: “And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?” The discovery that the word “coming” was the Greek word parousia, which really means “present,” opened up the entire realm of prophecy that became so important in the development of the truths of the Harvest time.

The second scripture he gave was Hebrews 13:11-13. This is the verse of our theme text: “For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.”

There is the story that is told about Brother Russell –– and by Brother Russell himself –– that before writing his first book, Tabernacle Shadows, he spent hours –– nights in prayer –– trying to comprehend the tabernacle and the entire philosophy that it contained of the ransom and the sin offering. Finally, it opened up to him, and he sat down and in one burst, he wrote the whole book. Later he added the chapter on the Red Heifer, but the basic book was written in one output as he understood this text, Hebrews 13:11-13, the key verses for him in understanding the tabernacle.

Day of Atonement

Notice in verse 11 that Paul is treating the bodies and not the blood. His emphasis is on the bodies—plural: “for the bodies of those beasts (plural) whose blood is brought into the sanctuary for sin  ” This phrase limits the scope of the lesson.

Paul is not referring to the sin offerings of Leviticus 4. That blood was not brought into the Most Holy. Paul is speaking about the sin offering of Leviticus 16, about the blood of the animals whose blood was brought into the Most Holy on the annual Day of Atonement. He is concentrating on that one national sin offering.

Jesus Sanctifies

 “Wherefore Jesus … ” –– Jesus is singular, while “the bodies of those beasts” is in the plural. Jesus is one of those beasts — he is represented by the bullock of Leviticus 16. Hebrews 13:11 says that “he might sanctify the people with his own blood.” The emphasis is on sanctification –– not redemption, not a purchase –– but cleansing, making holy a process. The emphasis is not on Jesus’ death because the emphasis is not on the blood. It is on the bodies. This verse is not about a legality of a life for a life. The emphasis is on Jesus’ suffering, the burning without the camp so that he might sanctify. “He suffered without the gate.”

“Let us … ”

Now Paul brings in the other beast, the goat, representing the Church. Jesus is represented in the first beast, the bullock; the Church is represented in the second beast, the goat. Paul does not say to us to go without the camp yielding our blood, or “Go without the camp, dying as redemption for man.” No, none of this is mentioned. What is mentioned is “bearing his reproach.” The emphasis is on the suffering; it is on the experiences; it is on the method, the process of death.

Two Animals, One Sin Offering 

We noticed earlier the use of the plural in the phrase, “the bodies of those beasts  ” In Leviticus 16:11,15, the Sin Offering, the national sin offering, the Atonement Day sin offering of Israel, is described. The LORD says for Aaron to take a bullock for a sin offering and a goat for a sin offering. Notice that he does not say to take a bullock and goat for sin offerings. The bullock and the goat form one offering. The bodies of those beasts –– plural in Hebrews –– is singular in Leviticus. It is the combination of the two animals, the bullock and the goat which are brought together and form the one sin offering.

Genesis 2:23, the text that we so often use at wedding ceremonies, says, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and be joined unto his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.” The Biblical concept of marriage is that husband and wife make one flesh. There is a union, a bringing together, a viewing of the composite in the singular. Similarly, and more appropriate to our subject, Romans 12:5 says, “We, being many … ” (Revelation tells us how many: 144,000)  “We being many are one body in Christ.”

The totality of Christ –– the male figure in the Genesis marriage scripture, plus the Church, the 144,000, the female figure of the Genesis scripture –– is one. The bullock and the goat make one sin offering. Male and female make one marriage unit. Christ and the Church make one spiritual unit. The Christ, one body, head and body, are complete by being joined.

An Opposite View

Hebrews 9:12-14 seems to express the opposite of what we mean. The Hebrews 13 passage seems to clearly identify two beasts, the two parts of the one sin offering, saying that Christ is one part, and he went without the camp. The Church is the other part, and as Jesus went without the camp, so we go unto him. As the bullock had its body burned, so let the goat have its body burned. Let the two have the same experience.

Hebrews 9:12-14, on the surface, seems to contradict this concept. “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, [bullocks] but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 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?”

Notice the comparison: he says not by the blood of bulls and goats but by his own blood. Here we have the blood of bulls and goats and then we have his blood. The next verse complicates things even more. Paul refers to the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a red heifer but by the blood of Christ. He links three elements into the blood of Christ.

Paul seems to be saying here that the bull, the goat, and the red heifer all represent the blood of Christ. In Hebrews 13, there are clearly two beasts, one identified as the Church and one identified as Christ. Hebrews 9 seems to say that all the blood combined equals Jesus.

Normally we say that the bullock represents Jesus; the goat represents the Church; and the red heifer represents the Ancient Worthies. On the surface Paul seems to combine all three of these to equal the blood of Jesus. But this is not what Paul is saying.

The disharmony comes in when we assume that Jesus equals Christ. These are not totally synonymous terms. Christ means “the anointed.” Jesus is a personal name of an individual, and he was anointed for three-and-a-half years. But this anointing passed on to the Church. Paul says, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ,” (1 Corinthians 12:12) and “Ye are the members of the body of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 6:15)

Jesus is Christ only in so much as Jesus is the head. And as the head controls the body, Jesus is the controlling unit of Christ. But the Church is also the anointed, and so what Paul is really saying, definitively saying in Hebrews 9, is that the blood of bulls and goats, and the heifer [treated later], equals the blood of Christ, not the blood of Jesus. Paul’s emphasis is on Christ.

The second thing he emphasizes is the blood of Christ. Hebrews 13 does not emphasize the blood. Hebrews 13 emphasizes the bodies –– plural –– of those beasts. Hebrews 9 emphasizes the blood.

Those who say that Hebrews 9 shows that the Church has no part in the sin offering, say that only Christ affects justice, and they are right. Only Christ does affect justice. Our blood has no effect. But let’s remember that the bullock was offered first –– it had to be offered first. The goat was of absolutely no value without the bullock being offered. That blood was cleansed and then transferred to the goat. It is as though the goat is now carrying the blood of Christ, and when that blood is applied, it’s the same blood. We see the mingling of the two bloods that later is sprinkled on the altar.

Hebrews 9 is talking about the application of that merit and the source of the merit is Jesus. Paul uses the term “Christ,” though, to include the whole Church. Again, Hebrews 13 emphasizes the bodies and shows the distinction between those bodies. Hebrews 9 emphasizes the blood, showing the unity of the Church, the unity of the head and body.

The Mediator

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time” (1 Timothy 2:5,6).

This is a text that is loaded with questions. Is Paul saying that the mediator is a man? Is he saying that in order to be a mediator, one must have first been a ransom? Does the ransom qualify the mediator? Does this text elucidate or exclude the Church from being a part of the Mediator? With this last question, we must note the fact –– and it is a scriptural fact –– the word “mediator” is never used in the New Testament to refer to the Church.

Now, does this scripture dictate this fact? Our answer is No. Assumptions can be drawn, and they are logical assumptions.

In this passage in Timothy, Paul is not talking about the Church being part of the Mediator. There is no question about it. But does that mean that the Church is not part of the Mediator? No. There are two ways to scripturally look at this question.

1) We find a direct scripture verse, either Old or New Testament, that tells us plainly that the word “mediator” applies to the Church. There are none.

2) We find the concept of a mediator, type and antitype, that applies to the Yes, there does exist a type of a mediator and that type is found in Moses. This is definite, and this is scriptural. There is no question about it. Moses was a mediator, and he is referred to as such frequently in the Bible.

Do we have scriptures that apply Moses to the Church?

• Acts 3:22,23: “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me. Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the ”

Here is a text that clearly speaks of Moses being a type, but unfortunately it does not include the Church in the antitype. We are correct in assuming that this scripture does not support the Church being part of the Mediator. It only says that Moses is truly a mediator and is a picture of a greater prophet. The only conclusion we can draw is that the antitype of Moses will hold the office of a mediator.

• 2 Corinthians 3:6-8: “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament –– not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giv- eth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?”

This scripture does not state that the Church will be made able “mediators” of the New Testament. It uses the term “ministers.” That word by itself does not prove anything, on either side.

Certainly, a mediator was a minister, but so were others, such as those who carried the blood. These all ministered to the old covenant in one form or another. This verse by itself simply says that the Church is made a minister. And it says that they then have the ministration of the new covenant.

Paul here compares the ministration of the new covenant with the ministration of the old covenant, the old law. He says that as Moses had a ministry that was glorious, so this other ministry is more glorious. He identifies Moses as the old minister, not the elders who went up on the mount, not the priests, not the other roles. The minister he is talking about is Moses.

So the ministration of the “able ministers” in verse 6 will be more glorious. This text links Moses and the Church. Not only does it link Moses and the Church, but it also links them in their relationship to the ministration of the covenant. Just as Moses was the minister of the old, so Christ is the minister of the new. Just as Moses was the minister of the old, so in the ministration of the new, it includes us, the Church, the “able ministers.”

As Moses, in his ministry of the old, was the mediator, so the “us” in the new includes the work of mediation. This is the primary text to identify the Church as a part of this role in the ministration of the new covenant.

1  Timothy 2:5,6 Revisited

In the letter to Timothy, Paul says that the mediator was the man, Christ Jesus. We have noted that the obvious, definitive, interpretive meaning of that text is that Jesus is the man who died as a ransom –– a perfect man for a perfect man.

Let us consider an extended view, not a conflicting view, but an extended view of this term, “the man, Christ Jesus.”

Ephesians 4:13 says, “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”

In this verse, Paul is talking about the completion of the Church. He is talking about being beyond the veil. He is describing the ministries that we each have as pastors, teachers, helpers of various sorts, roles helping us to arrive at a unity that will eventually be realized when we come into the stature of a perfect man. But we are not going to be perfect men. The scriptures are clear. We will be perfect spiritual beings. When Paul refers to the word “man” here, he is not talking about an element of nature, but an element of totality, head and body –– until we come and form the total, the whole, the complete. And it is the total, the whole, the complete, that is the Mediator.

Ministers of Reconciliation

2 Corinthians 5:18,19 divides this ministry of the new covenant into two parts: one future and one [present].

“And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

• Verse 18 speaks about the future ministry of the new covenant. “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” Instead of using the phrase “ministry of the new covenant,” he uses the phrase the “ministry of reconciliation.” Both of these phrases are used in the same discussion in this second epistle to the Corinthians. He is linking the two The object of the new covenant is to reconcile man to God. It is to take away the heart of stone and give Israel [and the world] a heart of flesh.

In the realization of this objective, Paul is saying to the Church: you have a ministry that is committed to you, a ministry of reconciliation.

• In Verse 19, Paul tells us about what the Church has now on this side of the veil. Future is the work of reconciliation but presently “he hath committed to us the word of ” Now we can be peacemakers. Now we can preach the word of the ransom and the sin offering and its effects and its atoning features. We can talk about God’s love for all mankind and about all in their graves coming forth.

In Reprint 4496, Brother Russell suggests that there are three specific activities that we are engaged in now that are part of the reconciling work:

1) Gathering the members of the body of the great The head is Christ; he is the mediatorial head. The body needs to be gathered. Until the Mediator is complete, until we come in to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, until that man –– that perfect entity –– is complete, we must work with the word of reconciliation, bringing together the members of the body.

2) Learning and teaching others the lessons necessary to qualify for that position. In our Tabernacle studies we say, “The purpose of the sin offering is to qualify the mediator.” There is a direct We must learn now what it means to be of the human race, what are their trials, what are their experiences. We must be qualified for that future work of reconciling man to God, of being able to apply our lessons practically in the overseeing work that the Church will do.

In Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, under the word “mediator,” there is one statement that we agree with: “Jesus was uniquely qualified to be a mediator because he understood both the demands of God and the needs of man.” This is precisely what we are learning now. We are learning through our scripture study of principles, the demands of God. We are learning through the pulls of the flesh, what are the needs of man, and how these two interract. To the extent that we learn how to apply the one to conquer the other, we have what we like to term a “sin offering experience.”

3) Preparing the blood which is to be sealed –– Jesus’ blood, not our blood. While the Church is still in the flesh, Jesus’ blood is not available to reconcile the But it is used to guarantee our consecrations. That blood becomes finally prepared by our faithfulness, releasing the mortgage on it, making it available for its use to mankind.

The Red Heifer 

The sin offering and the ransom are to be kept separate and distinct. There is no question that the ransom is an offering for sin, but it is not the sin offering of Leviticus 16. There is no question that there are other sin offerings.

We find in Numbers 19:9 that the ashes of the red heifer are used as a purification for sin. The Hebrew word translated purification for sin, the word hata, is the identical word used in Leviticus 16 referring to a sin offering of a bullock and a goat.

There is much support for saying that the red heifer represents the Ancient Worthies. So why does Paul say in Hebrews 9 that the red heifer is a part of the blood of Christ?

Paul includes them because he says in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that “they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” They participated by anticipating the blood of Christ. They will be part of the sin clearance project, and that sin clearance project has ministers in heaven and on earth. Today in our world, we have slum clearance projects. The Ancient Worthies’ kingdom work will be one big Sin Clearance Project.

As a result, the blood of Christ cleansing them makes efficacious not their bodies, but their ashes. Christ’s cleansing blood makes efficacious not the Church’s ashes, but their bodies. These Ancient Worthies are used for the purification. The remembrance of their experiences brought to mankind in a personal way will be very helpful in the cleansing of sin.

The sin offering, though, is limited to the bullock and the goat, and that scripture is so well defined in Hebrews 13, the bodies of which are Christ and the Church, the two elements. All legal value is supplied by Jesus’ ransom sacrifice. The Church adds nothing. It took one perfect man to die for one perfect man to redeem mankind. There is not one iota of intrinsic merit that our imperfect flesh offers. But that is not to say that there is no value to our lives. There is tremendous value. But no legal value, no legal merit, no purchasing price. There is, however, incalculable value of experience –– a practical value, a value in learning from our experiences in order to assist.

The legal merit lies in the blood, and the blood is always the blood of Christ, never the blood of the Church. In Hebrews 13 where Paul mentions the sin offering, he is not focused on the blood, and really, the application of the blood is a part of the process. But the blood is not the sin offering. The blood is the ransom blood, ransom merit. The sin offering shows how it is applied, the method of application.

Sometimes we oversimplify the sin offering by saying, “The sin offering is the application of the ransom.” This is a true statement, but it is not the whole truth. This statement covers part of the truth, and it is a very valuable truth. The whole truth, though, is that the sin offering provides the work of mediation. When Paul speaks about the sin offering, he does not emphasize the mediation, but he emphasizes the sufferings. The sufferings teach us to identify with man and his experience.

Jesus’ Part in the Sin Offering

Adam sinned. This is a historic fact. Adam died. Again, this is a historic fact. God provided redemption for Adam and his race by providing Jesus as a ransom sacrifice. Beautiful and simple. One major problem: Jesus should still be dead if that is the end of the story. Jesus gave his life for Adam. This was the price. Adam can now live, but Jesus cannot because he gave his life.

The ransom cannot give life to Jesus. His life was the price. Justice demands that a life be given for a life. When Jesus exchanged his spirit life for a human life, did he have some change left over to cash in? No. He gave up his life fully to be the ransom price, and there was nothing left over to fall back upon.

Jesus did not come down to earth at the age of 33, consecrate, and die. He came down, entered into a contractual relationship –– a covenant –– with God at the age of 30. In this covenant, God said Die in the manner I prescribe. Die daily. Learn the experiences of man. Identify with him. If you do this, then I will give you a spiritual life. This part of the covenant, we call Jesus’ part in the sin offering.

The Church’s Part in the Sin Offering

What is the Church’s part in the sin offering? Look at the ransom again. It is a very simple formula: a perfect human life given for a perfect human life will yield a perfect human life. Is that what you expect? A perfect human life if you are faithful? Or do you expect a spiritual life? You will not gain a spiritual life under the ransom. The doctrine of the ransom does not say that a perfect human life given for a perfect human life then yields the divine nature. No.

In order to gain the divine nature, the perfect human life you are given through justification –– in prospect only, as though you have it –– is the life you are willing to give up. Double or nothing. It is as if you are saying: I am willing to give up that life –– I am willing to surrender the perfect life that Jesus bought for me with his ransom blood. I am willing to surrender my life under the same contract under which Jesus surrendered his life. I am willing to die the way he died, to die daily, to identify with man so that I may also have a spiritual life.

We see Revelation 2:10 on almost every pulpit: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life.” How beautiful. The crowning life, the divine life. Gaining divine life is the process of faithfully continuing in the covenant that in Psalm 50:5 David calls “a covenant by sacrifice.” That covenant by sacrifice is the Church’s part in the sin offering.

The Principle of Our Election 

1 Peter 1:2 encompasses the entire call of God’s plan in one short verse: “Brethren, you are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and strengthening of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Here is the principle of our election: the foreknowledge of our Father.

What does Peter mean when he says “the foreknowledge of God our Father?” He is saying that God knew ahead of time that He would need a Church. Did God need a Church to redeem mankind? No. Jesus alone redeemed mankind. God needed a Church to perfect redeemed mankind and to educate them.

To use an illustration by Br. Fay:

A man has appendicitis and goes into the hospital. He is operated on for his appendicitis and is sent home. He dies three weeks later from an infection. He should not have gone home; he should have stayed in the hospital and recovered from the operation.

In this illustration the ransom is the surgery. It removes the sin. The sin offering is the recuperation period in the hospital to remove the side effects of the sin. It is a two-step process.

When my wife received a cancer diagnosis, the doctors said, “We have a treatment for cancer, but it will not work unless you first have the tumor removed.” The tumor would continue to manufacture more cancer cells. And so it is a two-step process: first remove the tumor, and second, kill the cancer cells.

God also has a two-step process in bringing mankind back to perfection: the ransom removes the tumor –– the sin; and the sin offering removes the cells –– the side effects of sin. The foreknowledge of God is that He knew he would need a Mediator.

God does not select a bride for his Son and then decide to give her some work to do, some busy-work, no. Like any good corporate executive, God has a job to fill, and He finds the people to fill it. The job is bringing mankind up to perfection and removing sin from the earth. We “fill up that which is –– and yes, the Diaglott is right –– lacking in the afflictions of Christ,” not of Christ alone, Jesus alone, but of The Christ, of the whole body (Colossians 1:24).

The Method of Our Election 

The method of our election is through sanctification of the Spirit, through the process of being made holy through our experiences.

Sin offering experiences can come to us in different ways. We may bring on an experience by our own stupidity or our own willfulness. Even so, if we learn how to overcome, that experience is valuable, that failure is great, and we gain some knowledge. On the other hand, we may have an experience dealt to us that we did not create, nor ask for, and we are persecuted. We emerge from it and think Boy, was I good! I was persecuted for Christ. This experience is of no value at all, and we did not learn a thing. How we got into the experience does not matter. It is what we learn and take from the experience that makes the experience valuable and part of the sanctification process.

Read carefully John 17:17-20. Notice that Jesus is sanctified so that he can sanctify the Church. The Church is sanctified so they can sanctify the world.

The Purpose of Our Election

The purpose of our election is twofold: First, primarily, it is to learn obedience by becoming obedient ourselves, subduing the flesh for the function of helping mankind learn obedience. Second, the purpose of our election is to be with Christ in helping to raise the human race.

The sprinkling of the blood of Christ shows that we share with him the privilege of application, applying his merit. Just as the vessels in Exodus 24 are used to carry the blood and sprinkle the people, so we, in our cracked pots and broken vessels, can go forth and carry his blood and share in this privilege of helping others.

Summary

When we look at doctrines that separate during this Harvest period, and we look carefully at the doctrine of two salvations, we find within that doctrine, the nugget of the philosophy of the ransom and its distinction from the sin offering. We find the jewel of the Church’s part in sharing with Christ in that sin offering.

There is only one Redeemer. But Obadiah 1:21 puts it well: “And saviors [plural] shall come up on mount Zion.” There are many saviors. There are many who will assist in the salvation work. This privilege is ours if –– and only if:

1) We are faithful.

2) We use our individual experiences not to judge others, but to sympathize with others.

3) We learn to conquer sin.

The advantage is in conquering sin, not in giving in to it. We may give in for a time: a just man may fall seven times, but he must rise. He has to get up before he can fall again and again, and eventually he has to end up on his feet. So too, we must end up on our feet if we would be a part of this blessed Sin Offering which I consider one of the most beautiful, personally applicable doctrines of the Scriptures. The Sin Offering gives so much meaning to our experiences, to know that they are not just for today  They are for eternity.

–– Full Discourse,
“The Sin Offering”
Adapted and edited for print