The Memorial season is a time for reflection — for looking back on the year just ended since we last partook of the emblems together. In our reflection, we take the measure of our spiritual growth, our triumphs, and our failures. And in that looking back, we sometimes take note of and remember those who were with us at last year’s Memorial but are gone from us today. Br. Carl Hagensick died last May. I have known him for more than forty years. Many of you have known him quite a bit longer. Br. Carl was one of my mentors. He taught me the excitement of the intellectual pursuit of the truth. The two of us, being rather competitive, often found ourselves on opposite sides in a contest of ideas and scriptural interpretation. I was always overmatched, but Br. Carl, with a twinkle in his eye, and a desire for both of us to expand our knowledge of the truth and the Scriptures, made our debates an enjoyable learning experience for both of us. We always disagreed –– agreeably.

Near the end of his earthly walk, Br. Carl granted me three great personal privileges. First, he asked me to deliver the last of his discourses given while he was still on this side of the veil. It was entitled, “Blessed are the Peacemakers” — it was directed to the hearts of the brethren. My second privilege was to serve him and Sr. Marge the Memorial emblems last April at a short service at his bedside in his home. And today, I will read the last discourse Br. Carl composed before he died –– it is directed at the intellects of the brethren. Among some of the brethren around the country and the world, justification is a scriptural doctrine that creates a bit of controversy, although that is not so prevalent here at our ecclesia in Chicago. Br. Carl, always willing to hear and consider all sides of a discussion, and never afraid to share his views, regarded this doctrine as one which deserved study and an expression of his position.

When our ecclesia voted to ask Br. Carl to compose a discourse, as his strength would allow, to be read by other elders, he was energized and enthusiastic in being given this –– perhaps his last –– opportunity to still serve despite his rapidly dwindling capacity. When we gave him the news of the ecclesia’s vote on that Sunday, I still remember him telling me that he had in mind a discourse on justification. Then, with that familiar twinkle in his eye, he added, “And I think you’ll agree with it.”

One final introductory note. I’d like to describe to you how hard Br. Carl worked to compose this talk and bring it to you from his mind to my lips. It was transcribed over a period of about four months by my wife, Sr. Kathie, who would visit Carl once a week and type as Carl spoke. At first, Carl could dictate for two or three hours while Kathie typed and looked up scriptures or Strong’s Concordance references. Later he could only speak with labored breath and hardly audibly, and so each session produced fewer and fewer paragraphs or even sentences. Near the end, unable to speak at all, and barely able to move his fingers, Br. Carl pointed to letters on a piece of paper, one by one, spelling out the words he wanted to be written down, until, exhausted, he drifted off to sleep. A sentence or two took an hour or more.

But to the end, his mind and memory were as sharp as always. You’ll hear, in the last two paragraphs of this discourse, a new and challenging thought he presents and leaves for us to consider on the construction of the walls of the Tabernacle. I’ll let you know when we get to the last two paragraphs so that you can listen closely for this unusual thought.

And now, Two Aspects of Justification, by Br. Carl Hagensick …

 –– Br. Joe Megacz

Pastor Russell, in a definitive article entitled “JUSTIFICATION — WHAT? WHEN? HOW?” opens with these words on Reprint page 5959:

“Justification really means only one thing, viz; a making right, making just. Justification may be either partial or complete. In Abraham’s case it was partial. He was justified to fellowship with God because of his faith and obedience, but was not justified to life, because such a complete justification could not be accomplished, except by the redemptive work of Jesus, which had not been and could not be accomplished in Abraham’s day.” Note Brother Russell uses the terms “partial” and “complete” to describe two aspects of justification.

In Reprint 5423, Brother Russell uses the terms “tentative” and “vitalized” to describe these two aspects. Others like the word “progressive.” And still, other Bible Students prefer “prospective.” And yet others feel it is best described “in the way of,” “tending toward,” or “tentative.” None of these adjectives are scriptural. Each of them is true but only to a limited extent.

It is like the parable of the four blind men who encountered an elephant for the first time. The first felt the side and said “I perceive an elephant is like a wall.” The second stroked the trunk and said, “No, it is more like a hose.” The third, feeling the legs, saw it as a tree while the fourth grabbed hold of the tail and saw the elephant as being similar to a rope.

In our discourse today we will start with biblical terms for these two aspects: “justification by faith,” and “justification by blood.” In Romans, chapters 4 and 5 the Apostle Paul writes an extensive treatise on the subject of justification. In Romans chapter 4 he deals with justification in the Old Testament. In Romans chapter 5 he deals with it from a New Testament perspective.

In chapter 4 the main subject is the Justification of Abraham. Paul points out that justification was not a result of Abraham’s works, even the incredibly noble act of being willing to slay his own son. Rather it was the result of his faith in believing God.

This justification did not result in life but in a favored relationship with God.

In contrast, in chapter 5 Paul deals with a justification that produces life. Romans 5:1 reads, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This justification is not based on faith alone, but it is backed up by the reality of Christ’s sacrificial death.

Notice, in chapter 5 verse 1 Paul speaks of the Church being justified by faith. This, he writes, produces peace with God, since peace gives one a favored relationship with the Creator. But this peace is different than the “peace of God, which passes all understanding” (Philippians 4:7). Instead, this peace gives one the same tranquility that Jesus had when he calmly went through the trials of his life, especially the experiences of the last few days leading to his crucifixion.

Romans 5:2 says “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”

Notice the small word “also.” Also means “in addition” — in addition to having peace with God, we have something else: access to the “grace wherein we stand,” the grace of full justification. This is a grace we could not attain by faith alone, but only through the shed blood of Christ.

Paul states unequivocally that the death of Christ is an essential part of a complete justification. Romans 5:9, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.”

In verse 9 the essential words are “much more then, being justified by his blood.” It is this justification by blood that makes our salvation tenable. This just- ification by blood produces not only peace with God but “the peace of God.” Up to the time of Jesus’ death, the Mosaic Law reigned supreme. Keep it and live or dis- obey it and die. There was no middle ground. The Law demanded perfect obedience. But Jesus’ death changed all that. His death brought an end to the Law, not to its moral standard, but as an instrument for obtaining righteousness of justification.

God’s law is eternal. It does not end. It was not nailed to the cross. But what was nailed to the cross was the ability to obtain righteousness through the keeping of the Law. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” as it says in Romans 10:4.

The Law did serve one additional purpose. It identified Jesus as the Messiah because He alone kept the Law perfectly. The Law was thus “a schoolmaster” to bring the Jew to Christ, as Galatians 3:24 tells us.

Faith justification does not guarantee actual perfection. For instance, in Job 1:1 the Bible tells us that Job was “perfect and upright.” Yet Job, especially after being goaded by his three miserable comforters, is pushed into making extreme comments about God. Yet he is considered “perfect” because of his faith. Of David we read in 1 Kings 15:5, “David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

One of the benefits of faith justification is that it permits the individual to be judged, not by his works, but by his intentions. We read in 2 Corinthians 8:12, “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.”

King David, after his sin with Bathsheba, writes Psalm 51 as an abject expression of his repentance. In verse 4 he writes, oddly enough, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.” Is this a true statement? Had he not also sinned against Bathsheba and against Uriah and against the office of the King and, in fact, against the whole nation? He certainly had. But he set these aside and says, “against thee and thee only have I sinned so that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest.” In the case of Bathsheba, Uriah, the office of Kingship, and the people of Israel, he could plead that he was, after all, the King, and could command his subjects to do this or that. But by making it a simple matter between him and God, there was no excuse.

David goes on in Psalm 51:5 and asks the Lord to purge him, and not find him guilty of death but to judge him based upon his genetic heritage: “I was born in sin;” and his environment, “I was shapen in iniquity.”

The Law had a method to typically cleanse one from sin — the offering of a peace offering of bulls and goats. David acknowledges this in Psalm 51:16,17 & 19, where he writes, “For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.”

David got the point. Bullocks and goats were not what God was looking for. They were only typical of a broken and contrite spirit. David would offer both. First, he would offer a contrite spirit and then he would offer a typical sacrifice of bulls and goats.

David is requesting forgiveness, not so much on the basis of the Law, but on a new contract similar to that of the Church — a covenant of grace.

Paul writes of this in Romans 11:2-6, “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”

Along this line notice the wording of Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” An unconditional promise, not to the chosen, (the consecrated) but to the called, those who have a justification of faith, but not yet validated by blood.

Now let us consider another effect of these two aspects of justification upon the justified. Justification governs relationships. The Bible identifies five distinct relationships between God and man:

(1) Man as strangers and aliens from God
(2) Man as children
(3) Man as servants of God
(4) Man as friends of God
(5) Man as Sons of God

Regarding the first relationship — man as strangers and aliens from God –– we read in Ephesians 2:12, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” As “strangers” and “aliens” we have no justification at all and thus no standing with God.

Israel in the Old Testament were servants of God. They were given laws and told, do this, and don’t do that. As servants, they had a typical justification. It was only a picture of what real justification would be like. It was maintained, pictorially, through animal sacrifices. In Hebrews 10:4 we read, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” And as we sang in our opening hymn,

Not all the blood of beasts On Jewish altars slain
Could give the guilty conscience peace, Or wash away the stain.
But Christ, the heav’nly Lamb, Takes all our sins away
A sacrifice of nobler name And richer blood than they.

Children are prospective heirs. However, as long as they are children, their position is that of servants. The Apostle Paul writes in Galatians 4:1-7, “Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

Friendship is a closer social tie than that of a child because while one may tell a child what to do, he shares the reasons for his actions, not with a child who is not capable of understanding all the whys and wherefores, but with those who are his friends and capable of comprehending the reasons for his actions.

Abraham was a friend of God, as was Moses of whom we read, “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.” Exodus 33:11. Again in Amos 3:7 God says, “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”

Probably the best expression of this concept is found in John 15:15, “Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”

Note to whom these words are addressed. He is talking to his apostles, but he is talking to them before he died, therefore his blood was not available at that time for their justification, and yet they are in the same position as was Abraham, a friend of God. They had been justified by their faith, and not by the blood of Christ. They had received “faith justification” but not “blood justification.”

Now let’s consider another concept about justification. There are three words to describe the conditions of justification. Those three words are, (1) called, (2) chosen, and (3) faithful (Revelation 17:14).

On the Chart of the Ages, on Plane N are the “called,” while the “chosen” are on Plane L, and the faithful are on Plane K.

We call your attention to “Plane N,” which represents perfection, actual or reckoned. On this plane, we find Adam, the Ancient Worthies, and the bulk of the nominal church during the Gospel Age. These all enjoy the same relationship with God. Now, it’s easy to see how Adam and the Ancient Worthies had a similar relationship. But what about the nominal church? Why are they shown on “Plane N?” They do not share the same faith that motivated Abraham and the other Ancient Worthies to their stellar acts of faith. And yet they do have faith. Most Christians believe sincerely in Christ. This gives them a special relationship not shared with others who do not have any faith. They have a measure of justification according to their faith. Belief that Christ died for one’s sin produces a favorable result: a result that we call “justification by faith.” And yet there is no blood applied for them who have taken only this step of belief in Jesus.

This demonstrates an additional advantage to faith justification. Those who have this relationship have the opportunity to accept God’s “call” to full consecration and rise to the next step of being “chosen” as potential members of the Body of Christ and the justification by blood which coincides with their spirit begettal.

However, it is important to notice that little “Pyramid p” becomes little “Pyramid u” in the Harvest of the Gospel Age and the class so represented falls from “Plane N” to “Plane R” in the Harvest. Faith justification in the Harvest no longer guarantees a call to the high calling.

This whole procedure is well illustrated in the Tabernacle. There we have three enclosures: the court, representing faith justification; the holy, showing blood justification and the Most Holy, picturing actual justification. The court, like “Pyramid p,” was very large for “many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14).

The court was surrounded by a white linen curtain prohibiting its interior from being viewed by those outside in the camp. Whether it was made up of one continuous curtain or was assembled by smaller curtains really makes no difference. In any case, the curtain was heavy and the instructions for its construction made adequate provision for its stability.

To ensure that the curtain would not topple inward or outward they were to have two copper pegs every five cubits, one inside the court and one outside. These two pegs were connected with a rope, presumably wrapped around the top of the court posts. What does this feature represent? Copper is human perfection. Our belief in Christ is based on one simple connection between two perfect human beings — one inside the court and one outside the court. These two perfect human beings are Adam and Jesus. They’re connected by one simple thread “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). It is the simple doctrine of the ransom, one perfect man for one perfect man, that gives stability to our faith. But we need more.

There needs to be sideways stability as well. The heavy curtain would otherwise tend to pull the poles together. What gives the poles stability from being toppled toward each other? The answer lies in a simple mistranslation of the word “fillet” in Exodus 27:10. “And thou shalt make the court of the tabernacle: for the south side southward there shall be hangings for the court of fine twined linen of a hundred cubits long for one side: And the twenty pillars thereof and their twenty sockets shall be of brass; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets shall be of silver” (Exodus 27:9,10).

Now, what is a fillet? I’ve always thought of a fillet as an ornamental feature on top of the posts. I no longer think so. The word fillet according to Strong’s 2838 chashuq has, as one of its meanings, “a fence-rail or rod connecting the posts or pillars;” and it is translated in the New Jerusalem Bible in Exodus 27:10 as “rods, posts.” Rotherham translates it “cross-rods,” thus rendering it in Exodus 27:10, “and the pillars thereof, twenty, with their sockets twenty, of bronze — and the hooks of the pillars and their cross-rods, of silver.” It is thus a silver curtain rod with hooks, and a rod connecting two posts.

Silver, in the Tabernacle, is an unusual symbol, combining the thoughts of the spiritual nature, with truth, in other words, spiritual truths as in “comparing spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2:13).

I think the picture of the posts of the court of the Tabernacle teaches us this. Sideways stability among us is given by two brethren comparing spiritual things with spiritual in their fellowship. So full stability is given to our faith in both the doctrine of the ransom and our spiritual fellowship one with another.

The court was a large area, open to the entire camp of Israel, as we read in Matthew 22:14, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” All the camp of Israel was welcome in the court. 68 judges of Israel held court in the court — all except Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11:26).

We read in Romans 8:28 that all in the court were called, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” This is also shown in “Pyramid p” on the chart. All in “Pyramid p” were called. However, after 1874 this changed and ceased to support those on “Plane N,” and “Pyramid p” becomes “Pyramid u.” And, while all believers remain on “Plane N,” they no longer are all called. Thus, the court represents faith justification.

The Holy, in contrast, represents blood justification. The Holy was made of boards covered with a curtain embroidered with angels. It is odd that these angels could not be seen but were hidden behind the boards. I personally, do not believe that the angels were hidden. I believe that there were no boards in the Tabernacle. The word translated “boards” can, with equal ease, be translated “frames.” Thus, in the Holy the priest was surrounded by angels, showing full blood justification. What a delightful room it must have been. What a beautiful illustration of blood justification.

In the Most Holy this angelic framework continues with the presence of God himself. Like Jesus, we shall see Him “as He is” (1 John 3:2) ….

Here the unfinished manuscript ends, in the Most Holy of the Tabernacle. And here, we trust, Br. Carl’s life of sacrifice ended — in the Most Holy of the Tabernacle. We thank God for Br. Carl’s example and life of service.

–– “Two Aspects of Justification” (unfinished discourse)
Delivered by Br. Joe Megacz for Br. Carl Hagensick,
March 29, 2009 at his home ecclesia, Chicago Bible Students