Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13







IN VOL. III, CHAPTER II, it was our privilege to set before the dear brethren the "Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha," from the standpoint of type and antitype. This article first appeared in The Present Truth No. 1, December 9, 1918. There appeared in the January 15, 1919, "Labor Tribune," and later in the "St. Paul Enterprise," an article by J.F. Rutherford, endorsed by his six associates in bonds, repudiating our Pastor's interpretation of this subject, accepted by us and set forth in our above-mentioned article, also repudiating his and his associates' view of the subject as published in Z. 1918, beginning page 51. Apparently our presentation in No. 1 came into his hands, and was recognized by him as refuting his views given in Z. 1918, page 51, etc.:—views that were given to answer our understanding of the subject; for it is worthy of note that his new view did not appear until six weeks after the publication of our reply to the article in Z. 1918, page 51, etc.


(2) In Present Truth No. 6 (Vol. III, Chap. II), we answered his first and second new views. Some have wondered why we spoke of the dear brothers as in bonds in a paper that was not circulated until several months after their release. We reply that we wrote the article in question late in January, and had it printed in February, 1919, with the article on the



"Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha." The reprint was made, in part, because No. 1 of The Present Truth was a small edition, and had been restricted for circulation as nearly as possible among Truth people who are not adherents of the Society. We knew from certain Scriptures that our dear brethren would be released, and rejoiced greatly when we heard of it; as we were greatly grieved when we learned of their being put into bonds. So in January we decided not to publish the number before May, and so dated it. When May came, we again decided to postpone circulating the paper, believing that the interests of the brethren before the courts would be better subserved by silence on our part. (In this and in every way we knew how, we and others, falsely accused of betraying them, protected them against their prosecutors. We even went so far as to send word through M.L. Herr to J.F. Rutherford advising him, from what we had learned, along what lines the prosecution was working, that he might thus be forearmed. And yet, how thoroughly he has succeeded in misleading thousands of dear, unsuspecting sheep into the belief that we and others betrayed him and his associates and belong to the Judas class!) Then came his illness. All these things, as well as certain Epiphany Scriptures, kept back the circulation of the involved issue.


(3) In his article in Z. 1918, page 51, by the connection in which the following language occurs, he gave the impression that we were repudiating, and that he was holding to, our Pastor's view of the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha: "Where a brother gives an interpretation of a Scripture which differs from that given by our Pastor, and the latter's interpretation seems reasonable and in harmony with the plan of God, then we believe it a safe  rule to follow his interpretation, for the reason that he is the servant of the Church, so constituted by the Lord for the Laodicean period; and therefore we should expect the



Lord to teach us through him. Where there arises a doubt in the mind as to which interpretation is correct, then it is always safer to resolve that doubt in favor of our Pastor's interpretation. We believe such to be in harmony with the Lord's will." We say Amen to this; and in view of his often published repudiations of our Pastor's view of this subject, and his substituting several different views, we suggest that the Lord's words, "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee," apply to him. Hence we advise all the dear brethren to cling to that view of this subject that is in harmony with "that Servant's" view, and that the fulfilled facts prove to be true; and to repudiate the unstewardly, unbiblical, unreasonable and unhistorical views set forth by J.F. Rutherford and his associates, each one being contrary to his preceding view and his own principles, so  ably and truly stated in the above quotation of his own language.


(4) In the texts Matt. 19: 27—20: 16; 1 Cor. 10: 1-14; Ezek. 9: 1-11 is given a prophetic history of the Gospel- Harvest, both in its gatherings and siftings; and we desire to study in this chapter this prophetically outlined history for our enlightenment, encouragement and exhortation. The Lord bless us with meek hearts that we may be profited thereby (Ps. 25: 7-9).


(5) All of us recall the interpretation that our dear Pastor gave in Vol. III to the Parable of the Penny, i.e., that the day of the Parable was the Gospel Age; that its first call period was the Harvest of the Jewish Age; that its last call period was from 1881 to the end of the Gospel Harvest;  that its other calls were in periods between these two calls, and that the evening and the giving of the Penny were connected with Kingdom honors beyond the veil. But this view raised the difficulty before his mind that the murmuring must occur in Heaven—an impossible thing. This made his mind open to another interpretation that puts the murmuring this side of the veil, in the end of the Harvest.



This necessitated a change of view as to the day of the Parable; for if the day were the Gospel Age, this would make many called before 1881 live many centuries, in some cases over 1800 years, to receive their Penny. Hence he concluded that the day of the Parable was the Harvest period—1874-1914—and held this view from 1910 until his death. In Z. 1914, p. 171, col. 1, pars. 1-5, he sets forth briefly his general change of view from that of Vol. III; but does not give details, as these would have been too strong meat for the Sunday School teachers, for whom the Sunday School lessons were specially prepared, and for whom they were at that time separately published.


(6) When we study the Parable and its context we recognize this later setting of things to be true. The Parable was given to prove how there would be a difference manifested among the Lord's people connected with the giving of the hundredfold—the Penny of the Parable; for we are expressly told that the hundredfold is our reward in this life. (Compare Matt. 19: 29 with Mark 10: 29, 30.) Matt. 19: 16-30 tells us the story of the rich young ruler and of the ensuing conversation. The disciples, knowing that earthly riches were a sign of God's favor under the Law, could not understand Jesus' remarks on the special difficulties experienced by the rich in gaining the Kingdom. After Jesus explained this, Peter asked what the twelve would receive for their sacrifices. Then, having answered him, Jesus added what His other followers would get, promising them a hundredfold in this world and eternal life in the world to come. Then in v. 30 He points out that there would be a difference between certain ones whom He calls first ones and last ones in their receiving the hundredfold in this world, and life eternal in the world to come; whence He proceeds to illustrate these two things by the Parable of the Penny, introducing it by the word "for," which proves that the Parable is given to prove the statements of



Matt. 19: 29, 30 as to the difference in distribution of the hundredfold and the eternal life. A second argument also proves this: for after He finishes the Parable He draws the conclusion as a proven one: "So the first shall be last, and the last first," the very remark that He set out to prove, as Matt. 19: 30; 20: 1 show. The break in the chapter causes many to overlook the fact that the word "for," introducing the Parable, proves the Parable is given to explain Matt. 19: 29, 30.


(7) The expression, "The first shall be last and the last shall be first," is in the Bible used to designate not individuals but classes. Apart from Matt. 19: 30; 20: 16 and Mark 10: 31, it occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures, except in Luke 13: 28-30, where the Little Flock and the Ancient Worthies are undoubtedly contrasted. Here, therefore, it refers to two classes, i.e., those called last, the Little Flock, would be the first in rank among the two ruling classes in the Kingdom, and those called first, the Ancient Worthies, would be last in rank among the two classes. Therefore our understanding of the language used in Matt. 19: 30; 20: 16; Mark 10: 31, in harmony with the class use of this expression in Luke 13: 30, is the following: Those reached as the last group by the Harvest call would (as a rule) be among the first in rank (the Little Flock) of the two spiritual classes; and those reached as the first group by the Harvest call (and this group embraces, as a rule those called before the eleventh hour) will be among the last in rank (the Great Company) of the two spiritual classes. In other words, this Parable is given by the Lord to show that, connected with the giving of a certain feature of the hundredfold, symbolized by the Penny, i.e., that feature which the fulfillment proves to be the twofold smiting of Jordan, an experience would occur that would manifest a separation of some of the Lord's people from the Little Flock into the Great Company;



and that those so separated would get their Penny after the others. All of us agree that the hundredfold represents the Lord's blessings to us as New Creatures in this life, such as special knowledge of the deep things, special fellowship, special opportunities of service, etc., embryo Kingdom honors. The Parable is intended to show that there would be a difference in the giving of a certain feature of the hundredfold, i.e., opportunities of service—to the two consecrated classes, and that their separation would occur in connection with the Great Company receiving their hundredfold, their penny, i.e., opportunity of smiting Jordan the second time. These general remarks will assist us to recognize the scope and purpose of the Parable.


(8) The day of this Parable we understand to be the Harvest period, 1874-1914. It is, therefore, a symbolic day of 40 years. A working day among the Jews was a period of 12 hours (John 11: 9; 9: 4). Hence, a symbolic working day of 40 years would have twelve symbolic hours, and each of them would be 1/12 of 40 years, i.e., 3 years and 4 months. Accordingly, the 12 hours of the Parable would begin as follows: (1) October, 1874; (2) February, 1878; (3) June, 1881; (4) October, 1884; (5) February, 1888; (6) June, 1891; (7) October, 1894; (8) February, 1898; (9) June, 1901; (10) October, 1904; (11) February, 1908; (12) June, 1911, and the day would end and the evening begin October, 1914. In his Penny Tract, C.J. Woodworth altered the setting of the day from what our dear Pastor held from 1910 onward, making it begin October, 1881. He also altered the hours, making them three years in length. Hence, his day was one of 36 years, and, therefore, ended October, 1917. But this brought him into manifold difficulty: (1) it ignored the first call period of the Harvest—"early in the morning"; (2) it assumed a symbolic day of 36 years, a thing nowhere mentioned in the Scriptures, while a 40-year day is mentioned there (Ps. 95: 7-11, etc.); (3)



it implied that his Penny (Vol. VII), which was given out July 17, 1917, was distributed before his evening came, which began October, 1917; (4) it implied that all got their Penny at the same distribution, and not at two different distributions, as in the Parable. His interpretation, in so far as it differs from "that Servant's," involves, also, other inconsistencies and incongruities, some of which we will note as we proceed with this chapter.


(9) The Parable brings to our attention five calls, each one particularized (vs. 1-7), and one sifting (vs. 8-16). As we are here giving only general considerations on our texts, we leave their particulars for discussion further on in this chapter.


(10) This passage expressly teaches that it applies to the Harvests of the Jewish and Gospel Ages. This is proven in v. 11, which is correctly translated in the Diaglott as follows: "But these things occurred to them typically; and were written for our admonition on whom the ends of the Ages have come." It will be noticed that the words "ends" and "Ages" are both here translated as plurals, and this is correct. Jesus says that the Harvest is the end of the Age (Matt. 13: 39). Hence, in this verse at least two Harvests and two Ages are meant, i.e., the Harvest of the Jewish Age and the Harvest of the Gospel Age; and only these two Harvests are meant; because in these two Harvests only, as Harvests, is the Church specially tried and in special need of admonition, encouragement, etc., amid her trials. Hence, this passage is easy to place chronologically. Its time in the Gospel Harvest is the same as the day of the Parable of the Penny; but it treats some of the happenings of this day from a different standpoint from that of the Parable. This Scripture does not particularize five calls as the Parable does. Instead it gives a general description of the calling work of the Harvest. It calls attention to the fact that the events of vs. 1-5 are typical of events



connected with "us." This is seen from v. 6 (compared with v. 11), when the word typoi is properly translated types instead of "examples." V. 1 shows typically our experience during the Harvest as we are led by the Word (under the cloud) amid the race in Adamic Death (the sea) after leaving symbolic Egypt. V. 2 shows typically our consecration into Christ amid such conditions. These two verses have also an application to the faithful in the end of the Millennium. Vs. 3 and 4 show, typically, our spiritual food and drink. In these verses the call features of the Harvest are shown as one work, without particularizing five periods in which they were enacted, as in the Parable. V. 5 introduces, typically, a general statement of the sifting work of the Harvests; and vs. 6-10 set forth, typically and antitypically, the trying experiences of these five siftings, admonishing, warning, encouraging and exhorting, as the case may require. This section of Scripture does not describe the sixth sifting, which takes place after the Harvest, i.e., after October, 1914; for it expressly describes those only which occur during the ends of the Ages (v. 11), and not after the ends of the Ages. Hence, this Scripture does not refer at all to the sifting of Matt. 20: 8-16. So far our study has shown us five calls and five siftings during, and one sifting after the Harvest.


(11) In Ezek. 9 we have a picture that is closely related to our other two texts, and that describes the same general period and thing. This passage helps to cement the other two together; and the three combined give us a splendid illustration of the principle, "here a little and there a little," as one along the lines of which the Bible is written, and as one requiring us to compare Scripture with Scripture. A study of this Scripture will reveal to us the calling work of the Harvest given in a summary, somewhat like that of 1 Cor. 10: 1-4, under the symbol of the work of the man with the writer's inkhorn, and not distributedly as in the five



calls of the Parable; while the five siftings of 1 Cor. 10: 5- 14, and the sixth sifting, that of Matt. 20: 8-16, are given under the symbols of the six men with slaughter weapons, slaying in the temple, in the courts and in the city.


(12) In his book Ezekiel throughout represents the Lord's people (and not "that Servant" alone, as Vol. VII teaches) at the time of the fulfillment of the events symbolized, just as John does in the Revelation. But two instances will suffice to prove this: (1) Ezekiel lying on one side 390 days (Ezek. 4: 5, 9) symbolizes the Church doing certain things 390 years, a thing that could not be true of our Pastor alone; (2) the man with the measuring reed (Ezek. 40: 3, 4, etc.) represents "that Servant," while Ezekiel in this transaction represents the Church being instructed by him. How often did he exhort us with thoughts like those in verse 4! In 1908 he told us that the six men with slaughter weapons represent six classes of evildoers; therefore they do not represent, as Vol. VII affirms, the antitypical Elijah; for he is no evil-doer. Nor do they represent six European kingdoms, as Vol. VII also affirms; for these will not kill all of those without the mark, since this would imply the literal death of all except Truth people in Christendom; and since these powers will have perished before some without the mark will be killed; and since they have killed some having the mark. Moreover, Vol. VII makes one class kill literally, the other symbolically—a perversion. Our understanding of these six men is that they represent the six sifting classes—from 1878 until the last sifting is over. This interpretation will, under examination, prove to be in harmony with the Scriptures, Reason and Facts. Their slaughter weapons represent the six sifting errors and practices that the sifters have used and are yet using. Their coming from the North gate represents that they were, from the Divine standpoint, Great Company



members even before they would begin their sifting work; and their standing beside the brazen altar indicates  that their work has some relation (oppositional) to the antitypical sacrifices.


(13) Who is represented by the man with the writer's inkhorn? Vol. VII and most of the brethren understand that he represents "that Servant." We are satisfied that he is greatly involved in the symbol; that he was the earthly leader of the class symbolized by the inkhorn man; but, among others, for three reasons we do not think that he alone is symbolized by the inkhorn man: (1) If the six slaughter-weapon men represent six classes, it is highly probable that the inkhorn man represents a class; (2) "that Servant" alone did not put the ink on the foreheads of all that sighed and cried in the city, nor did he put all of it on some foreheads; e.g., some who could not read got the Truth from others, and not from him. This is also true of some of the blind. So, too, many were too prejudiced to read until orally they had been taught much of the Truth by others than "that Servant"; while others who did read his writings did not understand many things in them without the help of other brethren. Thus the facts prove that he did not, by the written, printed or spoken word, put the ink on all that sighed and cried in the city. Hence he alone does not seem to be symbolized by the inkhorn man. Although he furnished us with the horn, the Truth literature, and put the ink, the Truth, into it, and put it upon incomparably more foreheads than any one else, yet he did not put it on all foreheads, nor all of it on some foreheads, where it was put. In this we all co-operated with him; hence, the symbol includes others than himself. Doubtless the writer referred to in the expression, "a writer's inkhorn," is "that Servant," for he furnished us with the inkhorn, i.e., he wrote for us the Truth literature, and put into it the ink, the Truth. (3) The seal of God (Rev. 7: 2, 3)



represents the same thing as the ink. The angel here is a multitudinous one—"until we have sealed the servants of God on their foreheads." This angel represents God's people in their capacity of ministering the Truth to their brethren who did not yet have it (C 303); therefore, for the end of the Age, this angel represents the reapers, and not Jesus alone, as Vol. VII teaches; and for the end of the Age symbolizes the same thing as the man with the writer's inkhorn, who, therefore, represents all of God's people in the reaping time in their capacity of teaching their brethren the Truth.


(14) It will be noticed that the inkhorn man is not represented as going forth five times, as is the case of the Householder in the five calls (Matt. 20: 1-7); rather his work is given in summary, and not in detail. Comparing our three texts we note that they dovetail into one another; and each supplies what is lacking in the others to make a complete picture, which we get only from a comparison of all three texts. Ezekiel and Paul distribute the siftings, but not the calls; Matthew distributes the calls, but not the siftings; Matthew supplies the sifting that Paul omits; Matthew supplies the distributed calls that Ezekiel and Paul do not distribute; Paul supplies the siftings that Matthew omits, while Ezekiel gives all of them. In our study of these three texts we will dovetail them into one another, and all of us, we trust, will find a wonderful harmony subsisting between them. They give us a wonderful prophetic history of the Harvest period in its gatherings and siftings. We now proceed to give particulars.


(15) It will be noticed that, unlike the other four calls of the Parable, the first is not limited to one hour. Its time is referred to as "early in the morning" (Matt. 20: 1), while each of the other calls is connected with its particular hour, "third hour," "sixth hour," etc. There is a reason for this variation of expression: the



general call ceased in 1881; hence the general call was going on throughout the first and second hours of the Parable, i.e., October, 1874, to February, 1878, and February, 1878, to June, 1881. It was because the early morning call, i.e., the first call of the Parable, as a part of the general call, extended over the first two symbolic hours of the Parable that the Lord altered the time expression for it from that which He uses of the other calls. This significant point is wholly lost by starting the day with October, 1881.


(16) Turning to the history of the Harvest, we find that there was a call that went out from October, 1874, to June, 1881, which brought many people into the Truth, gathering them in quite a number of cases into classes. In proof of this we refer to Z. 1916, pp. 171-173. The work was extended and fruitful. Our dear Pastor assured us in 1914 that it was in September or October, 1874, that he first recognized that the Lord's Second Advent would be invisible; and he began at once to teach it to others. This was undoubtedly the first special Harvest Truth given to the Elijah class in the antitypical second cake of bread and cruise of water at His second wakening; and with this event we begin to date the 40 symbolic days' journey to symbolic Horeb, the general reaping period (1 Kings 19: 7, 8); for the object of our Lord's return for the Restitution of all things had been recognized for years before 1874; e.g., by Brother Storrs, editor of the Bible Examiner, from whom our dear Pastor learned in part to understand it before 1872 (Z. 1916, p. 170, col. 2, par. 6). The latter's learning to understand the first distinctive Harvest Truth about October, 1874, marks that date as the one with which the Harvest began. Shortly afterward he published his booklet on the "Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return," which seems to be the first distinctive Harvest publication. According to Z. 1916, p. 170, pars. 1-4, this was before 1876. In 1877 Mr. Barbour published, under



our Pastor's patronage and direction, a booklet entitled "The Three Worlds," which, with the latter's "Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return," was widely and fruitfully distributed. Furthermore, from shortly after October, 1876, to January, 1879, "The Herald of the Morning," a monthly, edited by Bros. Barbour, Russell and Paton, was circulated, giving the Harvest Message. These three, particularly the last two, did much Pilgrim work, traveling over a wide territory, covering most of the States East, and not a few West, of the Mississippi. July, 1879, The Tower appeared, giving the Harvest message. Before 1881 Mr. Paton published the Truth edition of his book, "Day Dawn," which, after 1881, he corrupted with error. Besides these three most prominent harvesters, there were a number of other able harvesters during its first call, "early in the morning." Thus we see that throughout the first two hours of the Parable, i.e., from Oct., 1874, to June, 1881, many harvesters swayed the sickle of Truth, reaped many stalks of wheat and gathered them into sheaves, classes, e.g., in Allegheny, Pa., Rochester, Dansville, N.Y., Almont, Mich., etc., every feature of this work being plainly manifest as early as the year 1876, and some features of it were performed before 1876. Thus the fulfilled facts with reference to the call, "early in the morning," agree with the thought that the day of the Parable began in the Fall of 1874, and that there was a call of two symbolic hours, i.e., 6 years and 8 months, before the call that occurred from June, 1881, to Oct., 1884, i.e., the call of the Parable's third hour, which, minus four months, the "Penny Tract" makes the first hour.


(17) Before discussing the siftings and slaughter weapons we desire to ask our readers to study the article entitled, "These Things Were Types," in Z. 1913, p. 198. A few remarks on this article will, we believe, prove helpful. It was our privilege in the Spring of 1910 to write out an extended discussion of 1 Cor. 10: 1-14,



and hand it to our Pastor. After studying it, within a week he made a brief abstract of certain features of our communication and handed it to us, asking us to go over it to see whether it fairly represented those features of our thought. This abstract, with several brief additions that we made to supply certain important omissions, is word for word the article which, over three years later, he published under the title, "These Things Were Types," in Z. 1913, p.

198. As the article shows, he omitted many of our details. Doubtless one reason why he held the article back so long was because certain of our conclusions applied to the future, and he wanted to wait and see whether the future would reveal the fulfillments. In several particulars the fulfillments came; but in one of them the fulfillment failed to materialize, i.e., we expected the antitypical plague of Num. 16: 46-50 to affect also the Truth people, which did not occur. It seems that after he was well assured that our general view of 1 Cor. 10: 1-14 was correct (for he was at first doubtful as to several particulars), he published the article without changes, apart from several of our additions, from his abstract, which we returned to him early in June, 1910. The Lord gave us this understanding, we believe, as a reward for our faithful service of the Truth in the 1908- 1910 sifting (a service so earnestly engaged in and so long continued that it resulted in brain fag, which "Harvest Siftings," whose writer did not speak from personal observation, very uncharitably and untruthfully called insanity. Our Pastor's course with this article, in publishing it in "The Tower," showed that he had a totally different opinion of our mental condition! Had he thought us insane, would he have restarted us in the pilgrim work 3½ months—by the way, a very short time to recover from brain fag—after the supposed insanity began?)


(18) While five of the siftings, as well as the five calls, can be traced in the Harvest of the Jewish Age,



we limit our study in this article to the Harvest of the Gospel Age. As we study these calls, siftings and slaughter weapons, we will see that chronologically there is a sifting and a slaughter-weapon activity during each one of the call periods, a thing that is not true of the chronological setting of things that C.J. Woodworth gives to the Parable, except in his first call period, which covers the third hour call, minus 4 months, as our dear Pastor viewed it. A study of the situation enables us to see that there should be such a sifting during each one of the call periods; for in the call, "early in the morning," there had to be a sifting at its middle, the Spring of 1878, when the fullness of the Gentiles came in (B 210-218), in order to shake out those whose crowns fell to those coming in as the fullness of the Gentiles. Hence we find a sifting during the first call beginning in 1878. So, too, from 1881 onward, the four large calls following could not have occurred, unless there were four large castings off, manifested by their four subsequent siftings; for we know that no one would have been called after the Fall of 1881, unless some of the previously called ones had lost their crowns, the predestinated number being full October, 1881. This is another point that corroborates the call periods chronologically as "that Servant" viewed them, and that contradicts the call periods as C.J. Woodworth gave them in his "Penny Parable Tract." If we had no other argument than this, his setting of the chronology of the Parable's fulfillment would be proven untrue. His view does not permit what the facts of the five calls, coming as they did during the Gospel Harvest, require, i.e., accompanying siftings proving that many crowns were lost and that large callings were required to fill the large number of places lost by those whose crowns lapsed. Accordingly, we find a large sifting and slaughter-weapon activity accompanying each of the five calls, and that beginning in each case a little after its corresponding



call began, as was written: "Go ye after him" (Ezek. 9: 5).


(19) "Now these things were types of us ['upon whom the ends of the Ages have come,' v. 11] to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted" (1 Cor. 10: 6). In these words St. Paul points out, type and antitype, the first sifting in "the ends of the Ages." The typical transaction is in Num. 11: 4-35. Shortly after leaving Egypt the people received Manna as their food by Divine provision (Ex. 16: 1-36). About a year later, shortly after leaving Mt. Sinai, the people began to weary of the Manna and to pine after the foods that they had had in Egypt. Their ungrateful murmuring displeased Jehovah and Moses. Nevertheless the Lord gave them according to their desire, sending them flesh in the form of quails from across the east arm of the Red Sea, called the Gulf of Akabah; but with the flesh He sent a plague (induced by their gluttony), which wrought much havoc and death among them. Their strong desire for Egyptian food, accompanied by their murmuring, St. Paul describes in the words, "as they also lusted," and warns those living in "the ends of the Ages" not to "lust after evil things, as [in the type] they also lusted." Hence we recognize by St. Paul's Divinely inspired explanation that the story of Num. 11: 4-35 is typical, and that its antitype is found in "the ends of the Ages." St. Paul's mentioning this story as the first of the five types of the five Harvest siftings proves that it types the first Harvest sifting.


(20) For the historical details of this sifting we refer our readers to Z. 1916, pp. 172, 173. We will here show how it was typed in Num. 11 and symbolized in Ezek. 9. Manna is used in the Bible as a type of food for heart and mind, the Truth (1 Cor. 10: 3, 4), and as Christ is the Truth (John 14: 6) it types Him, especially as the Ransom (John 6: 31-58). Just as the Israelites wearied of the literal Manna and



longed for Egypt's fleshpots, so antitypical Israelites, first in the Spring of 1878, began to weary of the Truth, especially with respect to the Ransom, and longed for teachings in harmony with the present evil world. Among Truth people, Mr. Barbour was the first to weary of, and to renounce the Ransom, which he did in the Spring of 1878, thus becoming the leader of the class who cast off the Wedding Garment "when the King came in" (Matt. 22: 11- 13). Not a few Truth people followed his unholy course. The faithful teachers in harmony with the Lord's will shortly afterwards began to defend the Truth against Mr. Barbour's fundamental error, and completely refuted him (binding him hand and foot); while by his struggling to defend his errors he was logically driven to discard one truth after another, until he was in outer darkness, in full error, seeing darkness for light, eating the unclean foods of the symbolic world, with as many as he could mislead among the Truth people.


(21) Nor did Ransom-denying limit itself to the Truth people. It shortly became frequent among the clergy and among many of their followers to deny the vicarious death of our Lord and to set Him forth merely as our Example, not as our Redeemer; and thus the symbolic plague infected vast numbers among the tentatively justified. Even beyond these it reached those who had no real faith in the Savior at all, though called Christians, i.e., those "in the Camp," working in them the denial of the Ransom as they imbibed the doctrines of Evolution, Spiritism and Christian Science, all of which logically or expressly deny the Ransom. These began after the Summer of 1878 to spread greatly. Verily they despised the antitypical Manna, the Ransom, and partook of the antitypical quail, no-ransomism's theories belonging to the present evil world! "He gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul" (Ps. 106: 15).


(22) The same general lines of thought are given



in Ezek. 9 in the symbol of the first man with the slaughter weapon. Having above given general explanations of this picture, we will here take up details. First we note in harmony with what we have just seen, that it was appropriate that the first slaughter-weapon man should take his place at the altar, since his slaying work was related to a service connected oppositionally to the Sin-offerings. In harmony with the charge, "Go ye after him," we find that the harvesters wrought several years, i.e., from the Fall of 1874 to the Spring of 1878, before the first sifting class began their work. The first sifters certainly smote with their slaughter weapon, which we understand to be no- ransomism. They spared no one, being eager to infect, and thus slay, every one with their no-ransom error. The knowledge of the Truth prevented their slaying those who received "the mark." And true enough, they began with the ancient men in the sanctuary, i.e., they began to spread their no-ransomism among the consecrated Truth people, singling out first among these the leaders and the elders. Thus the no-ransomers defiled the house, the consecrated Truth people, with error

(1 Cor. 3: 17); and the defiled parts were slain as new creatures, died as new creatures—i.e., ceased to be God's people (Heb. 6: 4-6; 10: 26-29).


(23) Next after defiling the house, these no-ransomers, with their slaughter weapon of no-ransomism, filled the courts with the slain. In the courts were the tentatively justified—and the plural, courts, seems to be used to indicate that the tentatively justified would be in  the various denominations. We are not to understand the symbol of this or any other slaughter-weapon man to mean that the same persons did the slaughtering in the sanctuary as did it in the courts, or as did it in the city; rather that they were the same class of persons, i.e., no-ransomers; e.g., the no-ransomers among the Truth people did not slay especially in the



court. This was done especially by the clericalistic no- ransomers. Even as we have seen in Vol. III with reference to the wise and foolish virgins going forth since 1829, while they are now of the same classes as then, they are not now the same persons as then. So in the Sanctuary, as no- ransomers, Mr. Barbour and his associates were of the first slaughter-weapon man; yet not they, but some of the clergy and their associates as no-ransomers, were the first slaughter-weapon man slaying in the courts, i.e., destroying those of the tentatively justified as such who imbibed their no-ransomism; and the first slaughter-weapon man, the no- ransomers, who slew in the city, which was related to the Temple, as the camp in the wilderness was to the Tabernacle, were not Mr. Barbour and his associates, nor especially the ransom-denying clergy, but the Evolutionists, the Spiritualists, the Christian Scientists, etc. Their slaying in the city symbolized their infecting with no-ransomism those who were called Christians, but who were not even tentatively justified, destroying them as nominal Christians. Accordingly, as the plague, typed in Num. 11: 33, 34, has slain among the consecrated, the tentatively justified and the worldlings we recognize it to be the same as the first slaughter weapon, i.e., no-ransomism, since the latter did the same work as was typed by the plague of Num. 11: 3, 34, i.e., slaying in the temple, in the court, and in the city. It should be here noted that the threefold sphere of activity, both in the types of Moses and the prophecy of Ezekiel, appears in all six of the siftings, and in all six of the slaughter-weapon men's activities, i.e., the sifting, the slaughtering, affected the unworthy ones among the consecrated, the tentatively justified and the merely professing Christians. How remarkably our three texts dovetail into one another in every way!


(24) We are told that the householder agreed with the laborers for a Penny a day (Matt. 20: 2). It is



certain, whether we view the early morning call as from 1874 to 1881, as our Pastor did, or as 1881 to 1884, as C.J. Woodworth does, that at neither of those times was Volume VII offered as the Penny to those who would labor throughout the day, as during that period nothing was said of seven volumes, it being thought about 1884 that three or four would suffice. But it is certain that a hundredfold in this life has been offered throughout the whole Gospel Age to the Lord's servants, and this was done, therefore, from October, 1874, to June, 1881, as well as throughout the rest of the Harvest. Hence C.J. Woodworth's Penny was not promised those called "early in the morning"; but the hundredfold, as the Penny, was.


(25) According to our Pastor's understanding of the chronology of this Parable the third hour was from June, 1881, to October, 1884. C.J. Woodworth's view fixed the third hour from October, 1887, to October, 1890. During the latter's third hour there were neither large numbers called into the Truth nor did a sifting then occur, two considerations that are fatal to his theory; while his explaining the second call as the first, and his making each hour three years, force him entirely to ignore the first call of the Harvest and to claim parabolic calls when there were no such calls made. Only in the call periods were large numbers called; only a few individuals being called at other times. If we look at the events from June, 1881, to October, 1884, we do find a widely extended call made during that time. The Lord arranged for this second call by giving our dear Pastor the light on the Tabernacle in 1879, at which time He gave him as "that Servant" charge of the storehouse, while previously he had been exercising the executive function of that office "over the household." The details respecting this call and its attendant sifting are  found in Z. 1916, p. 173, cot. 1, par. 6, to end of page 175. In this call some of the previously employed agencies for the calling