The Sweet Savour of Our Saviour's Atonement
By Prophet Jacob R. Blandford
"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."
(Ephesians 5:2 KJV)
'There is no true way of serving God without the atonement. Leave that out, and you have left out the vital part of the whole. What service can we render to the Most High if we begin by disloyalty to him whom God has set forth to be the propitiation for sin, even his dear Son?' — Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Exposition of Numbers 8:9-12
The phrase "sweet savour" is found in the following verses — Gen. 8:21; Ex. 29:18, 25, 41; Levi. 1:9, 13, 17, 2:2, 9, 12, 3:5, 16, 4:31, 6:15, 21, 8:21, 28, 17:6, 23:13, 18, 26:31; Num. 15:3, 7, 10, 13, 14, 24, 18:17, 28:2, 6, 8, 13, 24, 27, 29:2, 6, 8, 13, 36; Ezra 6:10; Ezek. 6:13, 16:19, 20:28, 4; II Cor. 2:15
With the numerous references to the "sweet savour" in the Old Testament, I ask you: where's your "sweet savour"? The answer is in Ephesians 5:2.
The "sweet savour" offerings are mentioned 40 times in the Old Testament regarding the Levitical priesthood. But now the Levitical priesthood is abolished. There are no more Levitical atonements. And I ask. Where's your high priest? Where's your blood atonement? Where's your sweet savour?
The only "sweet savour" acceptable to God Almighty is the predestinated, eternal, New Testament offering of the Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross; and His New Testament mediation as High Priest after the Order of Melchisedec. You can't find a higher priest; you can't find a holier priesthood. (see Heb. 7:26) And you can't find a perfect, eternal sacrifice without Jesus. If you could find another sacrifice (like a catholick [cf. Heb. 6:6, 10:11] or another "heretick" [Titus 3:10 KJV]); it would be abominable, blasphemous, and presumptuous compared to the sweet, eternal sacrifice of
The King James 1611 Authorized Bible:
While the rest are wavering,
We'll be savouring—
Our Saviour that is.
And yes, that's spelt with an "o-u-r".
¨ The Good Book
¨ The Book of Truth
¨ The Book of the Covenant
¨ The Book of the Law
¨ King of the Bible versions
¨ The Monarch of the Books
¨ A.D. 1611 A.V.
¨ Standard, classical, and traditional text of the Holy Bible
¨ The old-Elizabethan, black-backed, 66-caliber cannon
¨ The roaring lion of the English Reformation
¨ Timeless Treasure (cf. Song 4:4; Ps. 119:72; Prov.
¨ THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN ALL MANNERS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE
¨ The Ultimate Ultimatum
¨ The glory of the English language. (Miscellany Press advertisement pg. 2)
¨ "the
¨ "The only great work of art ever created by a committee".
¨ Many books call themselves a bible, this is THE BIBLE: The A.V. 1611.
¨ There are lots of books that are called "bibles", but the KJV is the only HOLY BIBLE.
¨ God only has one Bible
¨ God's not the author of confusion (cf. I Cor.
¨ There's only 1 verSION, the rest are PERversions.
I'd get a big ole' 1611 King James Bible (cf. Nehemiah 8:1,3,5,8,18) chained down to the pulpit (cf. Nehemiah 8:4) of every Church in America. In most fundamentalist Churches we see a table in front of the pulpit, and on table a King James Bible on display and opened up so the whole congregation in the sanctuary can see it. (cf. Heb. 9:2; Acts
Some may say, "Well, that's a strange thing for God to put a man's name [King James] on His Bible." And here is my response from the Bible, "I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing." (Hosea 8:12)
My second response is that God used men to write the Bible. (cf. II Pet. 1:20,21) Yes, men handled the pen, but the Words came directly from heaven. (cf. Is. 55:8-11) As a matter of fact, the names of many of the Books of the Bible are named after the Prophet or Apostle who wrote that Book. If you're going to say it's strange for God to put a man's name on the English translation, then you'd also have to say it's strange for God to entitle the Books of the Bible after men. Moreover, you have to realize these were not just any men, but they were men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. (see 2 Pet. 1:19-21) And that's why Saint Paul wrote, "…when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (II Thess. 2:13) God can use any vessel he wants to get His Word out; he can override men's failures and faults with His Spirit. In John Chapter 11 God used Caiaphas to speak a prophecy concerning Christ's vicarious death, and Caiaphas did not even believe on Jesus, as a matter of fact they we're plotting His death. But God not only used they're malicious intent to speak prophecy but also to fulfill it. (cf. Acts 13:27-31)
Thirdly, King James was a Christian. He was a Protestant Christian, who personally (by the power of the Holy Ghost through faith in Jesus Christ) went head to head with the Antichrist. (see The Epistle Dedicatory) Don't you think that would make him worthy enough? He was also English, he was the King of England, and he spoke old Elizabethan (Jacobean) English. He was also a king. David was a man after God's own heart, and God made him a king. He was promised the King of kings would come from his loins.
¶ Commentary on Jude verse 3. The Holy Bible was “once delivered unto the saints” in the 1st century; and “the faith was once delivered unto the saints” in the 1st century, because the ‘once delivered faith’ is called “the word of faith” (Romans 10:8). Apostle Jude wrote his general epistle in 66 A.D. And the apostles’ writings and teachings are the summation of the 1st century apostolic faith and the 1st century apostolic Bible. The RCC, Vaticanus, and Aleph were 3 centuries late! The Greek Textus Receptus (1516) and the Elizabethan English AV (1611) are “once delivered” traditional and apostolic holy Text types.