"WATCHMAN, WHAT OF THE NIGHT" EXAMINED. FURTHER P.B.I. CHRONOLOGY EXAMINED. SOME OF CARL OLSON'S CHRONOLOGICAL ERRORS EXAMINED. SOME RECENT P.B.I. CHRONOLOGICAL CLAIMS EXAMINED. SOME MORE RECENT P.B.I. CHRONOLOGICAL CLAIMS EXAMINED. SOME MISTAKES IN PTOLEMY'S CANON. ZEH—NOT THESE, BUT THIS. SOME P.B.I. ERRORS ON JEREMIAH AND DANIEL.

IN THE April 15 Herald of Christ's Kingdom, the P.B.I. periodical, appears an article of ten pages entitled: "Watchman, What of the Night?", repudiating our Pastor's chronology. In particular it denies that the Times of the Gentiles began in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar with the desolation of the land after the overthrow of Zedekiah, claiming that the Times of the Gentiles began nineteen years earlier, in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as King of Babylon. As a result they likewise state that they repudiate the chronology of the 6,000 years from Adam's creation as ending Oct., 1872, A.D., as well as the chronology of the great cycle leading up to the antitypical Jubilee, and the chronology of Parallel Dispensations. The article assures us that not only the five Herald Editors, but the seven P.B.I. Directors agree unanimously in these chronological repudiations, as well as in what they consider the Truth on these chronological periods. Quoting from Studies, Vol. II, which our Pastor wrote between 1886 and 1889, they claim that the three things therein set forth as our expectations as to 1914 "utterly failing to materialize"—(1) the utter collapse of Christendom, (2) the end of Armageddon, [Points (1) and (2) are the same event, not two different events] (3) the full establishment of the Kingdom—we were disappointed in our expectation in 1914. This, they say, necessitates a 

Gershonism. 

348 

re-examination of the chronology to find out the [supposed] mistake. 

In setting forth such a reason they overlooked the fact that ten years before 1914 our Pastor pointed out that the Time of Trouble would not begin until after the end of Gentile Times in the Fall of 1914 (Z '04, 197-199; 229, 230; the last paragraph denies that we should teach that anarchy would be over in the Fall of 1915). Hence those of us who were properly informed on the subject did not for ten years before expect the end of Armageddon by the Fall of 1914; for we for years knew that a world-wide War, to begin in 1914, would precede it (Z '04, 249; 1 Kings 19:11, Berean Comments; Amos 9:13). So, too, they overlook the fact that in 1913 the Tower cautioned us that the Church would not leave the world in 1914; and that hence the kingdom would not be fully established in 1914. Accordingly, the Herald in claiming as a ground for going back on the chronology a disappointment of our expectations in 1914 is setting forth a fictitious, a non-existent disappointment; for before that time we did not expect these things to occur in that year. Our expectations for 1914—the beginning of the great Tribulation at the end of the Times of the Gentiles, and also the end of the reaping, but not of the gleaning—were realized by the outbreak of the World War, and by the gleaning continuing in that year. The Herald Editors give as a second reason that led them to look for a mistake in our chronology—the anxiety of their readers as to the meaning of the conditions since 1914. Had the Herald Editors retained the Truth on the subject of the Epiphany, and of the separation in the Church in 1917 as the antitype of Elijah's and Elisha's separation, and had they continued to walk in the light thereafter, they would have been able to quiet the anxiety of their readers by the Lord's solution of these conditions, instead of attempting to do so by repudiating a correct chronology. Thus they have greatly erred. 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

349 

The Herald Editors tell us that they have very earnestly sought the Lord in prayer, and very diligently searched the Scriptures, to enable them to find the [supposed] mistake in our chronology. But they overlooked telling their readers that they evidently paid very little heed to the Scriptures on the subject; rather they paid very much heed to the chronologies of nominal-church writers like Usher's, and Guinness' and to heathen chronologies like Ptolemy's, whose solutions they have throughout accepted as against our Pastor's solutions, which he accepted after thoroughly examining and, for good reasons, rejecting nominal-church and heathen chronologies on the date of Nebuchadnezzar's first year as king of Babylon. Our Pastor having showed these chronologies to be wrong in Studies, Vol. II, the P.B.I. Editors should have been estopped by that fact from accepting them. In this particular these Editors have followed the same spirit as they showed in not a few cases in their interpretations of Revelation. Of course, they try to make it appear that our Pastor laid down principles, e.g., in Z '14, 5, justifying their procedure, forgetting to mention that later, when the War broke out, our Pastor claimed that our chronology was thoroughly vindicated by the facts, i.e., the Time of Trouble beginning at the time required by the chronology. We agree to his statement (which they quote to show that we are by him told to change our views as facts require): "Our expectations must not be allowed to weigh anything as against the facts"; and we add: the facts prove that what we expected before did come in 1914; hence there is no need to suggest alterations, as these Editors and Directors do, as being necessitated by the facts. The facts forbid their alterations, and justify our Pastor's view of the chronology. 

We will set forth in their order with our refutations their three supposedly Scriptural proofs that the 

Gershonism. 

350 

Times of the Gentiles began in the first instead of the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Then we will examine their attempted refutation of the 70 years' desolation of the land as being identical with the seventy years of Babylon's universal rule. 

The first (supposed) proof that they give in favor of the Times of the Gentiles beginning with the first year's reign of Nebuchadnezzar instead of with its nineteenth year are two statements in Dan. 2. In v. 1 it is stated that it was in "the second year" of his reign that he dreamed of the metallic image; and in verses 37, 38 it is stated that he was already then a universal monarch by God's appointment. Hence they reason that this being eighteen years before Zedekiah's uncrowning, the Times of the Gentiles began, not with the uncrowning of Zedekiah in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, but in the first year of the latter's reign. 

Our answer to this argument is as follows: The Scriptures date the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign from two chronological standpoints: (1) from the year in which he succeeded his father as king of Babylon, and (2) from the year in which he became the king of the World, with which latter year the Times of the Gentiles began. The latter year was in the nineteenth of his reign as his father's successor as king of Babylon. We now proceed to prove that the expression "in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar" (Dan. 2:1) cannot refer to the second year after he succeeded his father as king of Babylon, which the Herald Editors claim. 

(1) Since it was after Daniel and his three companions were by Nebuchadnezzar with Jehoiakin, the choicest Israelites, and some sacred vessels captured and sent to Babylon (Dan. 1:2), which occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year of reigning (Jer. 52:28) that these four young Hebrews were selected for a three years' student course (Dan. 1:5); and since

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

351 

it was after these three years were accomplished (Dan. 1:18) that Daniel and his companions were counted among the wise men of Babylon, and were privileged to stand before the king, i.e., be officers and councilors of his; and since it was still later that the dream of Daniel 2 occurred, and was interpreted by Daniel, the dream could not in any wise have occurred before the fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylon. Hence the expression "second year" (Dan. 2:1) cannot refer to the second year of His reign as his father's successor, but must refer to the second year of his universal reign. This we will later prove began in the nineteenth year of his reign as his father's successor over Babylon. The Herald Editors mention these three years. How could they have overlooked the fact that these three years refute their view of the "second year" of Dan. 2:1? 

(2) The three years' educational course of Daniel and his three companions could not have begun before the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign in successorship to his father as king of Babylon, because it was toward the end of his seventh year as such a king that the first Jewish captives were by him sent to Babylon (2 Chro. 36:5-7; Jer. 52:28), where they arrived during his eighth year (2 Kings 24:12), since a very expeditious journey of that distance then required at least four months (Ezra 7:9). Hence, the three years educational course could not have been finished before the eleventh year of Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylon. Hence also the dream coming still later, the "second year" of Dan. 2:1 could not mean his second year as king of Babylon, but must mean the second year of a different reign from that which Nebuchadnezzar began at least eleven years before, immediately after his father's death, i.e., it was the second year of his Universal Empire, which began nineteen years after he became king of Babylon. 

Before proceeding further we desire to make some

Gershonism. 

352 

remarks in reconciliation of the chronology on several points which are overlooked by the Herald Editors. One of these is an apparent contradiction between Dan 1:1-4 and certain other Scriptures, and certain remarks that we made in the preceding paragraphs. If we had only Dan. 1:1-4 as data, we would likely conclude that the captivity referred to in these verses occurred in the third year of Jehoiakim; but the data of 2 Chro. 36:5-7 and Jer. 52:28 prove that it occurred in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim and in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar. We harmonize the accounts as follows: Dan. 1:1, 2 mentions the time of only the first of its various events, giving the others until Jehoiakim's dethronement without their chronology, as the following proves: Late in Jehoiakim's third year (Dan. 1:1) Nebuchadnezzar in his first year left Babylon for Palestine, arriving there in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign (Jer. 25:1). Without suffering a siege at that time Jehoiakim came to terms with Nebuchadnezzar, becoming subservient to him for three years (2 Kings 24:1); then in the fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and in the seventh year of his own reign he rebelled against the former. As a result after considerable delay the former came against Jerusalem, and for the first time laid siege to the city (Dan. 1:1), taking it in the seventh year of his own reign and in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim, dethroning him and sending some of the people and some of the sacred vessels to Babylon (2 Kings 23:36; Dan. 1:2-4; 2 Chro. 36:5-7). These events occurred toward the end of Nebuchadnezzar's seventh year as king of Babylon (Jer. 52:28). Thus ended the first chapter of Nebuchadnezzar's dealings with Israel in the seventh year of his reign over Babylon. This harmonizes Dan. 1:1, 2 with the other accounts. Another point becomes clear as follows: Nebuchadnezzar appointed Jehoiakim to succeed his father; but within three months and ten days (2 Kings 24:8) 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

353 

he besieged and captured him in the eighth year of his own reign (2 Kings 24:10-12), leading captive the second group of Israelites to Babylon with some others of the sacred vessels (2 Kings 24:13-16; Jer. 52:29). In this latter verse a careless scribe inserted the Hebrew word for ten after the Hebrew word for eighth making the verse say the eighteenth year instead of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The difference in the number of the captives we harmonize as follows: the former passage gives the number of captives of all kinds, the latter does not include the members of the royal family, its relatives, the princes, their families, the men of war and the craftsmen. Thus ended the second chapter of Nebuchadnezzar's dealing with Israel, resulting in a second group of Israelites going into captivity in the eighth year of his reign, after a second siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. But the Scriptures teach that Nebuchadnezzar's sword would be unsheathed a third time against Jerusalem (Ezek. 21:14), which began in the ninth year of Zedekiah, ending during his eleventh year in his uncrowning (Ezek. 21:25-27), and in the third group of captives, and in the rest of the sacred vessels going to Babylon (2 Kings 25:1-21; 2 Chro. 36:18; Jer. 52:4-15). This occurred in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8). It was Nebuzar-adan, the general of his host, who led away the captives, as the accounts show, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8, 11, 20; Jer. 52:12, 15, 16, 24-27, 30). We harmonize the dates of the other passages with Jer. 52:30 as follows: Nebuzar-adan returned to Jerusalem from the pursuit of the fugitives (2 Kings 25:4-6, 8) on the seventh day of the fifth month (2 Kings 25:8); on the tenth of this month he entered and then began to destroy the city and temple (Jer. 52:12; 2 Kings 25:9, 10), and on the twenty-third day of this month he led away the captives from 

Gershonism. 

354 

Jerusalem (Jer. 52:30). The Herald Editors, who use this verse to disprove our Pastor's view on the meaning and time of the land's desolation, object that this last verse says this was done in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar. Our reply is as follows: Both the account in 2 Kings 25:5-12, 18-21, 22, 25 and in Jer. 52:12, 15, 16, 24-27 show that this was done in Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year. Hence we understand that out of the Hebrew text the following words have been lost after the words translated "in the year," with whose corresponding words the verse in Hebrew begins: "nineteenth and in the day," etc. In other words, the verse should read as follows: "in the nineteenth year in the twenty-third day" [of the fifth month], i.e., two weeks after beginning to destroy the city, Nebuzar-adan withdrew with the captives, leaving a few people and a governor in the land, who was murdered in the seventh month, whereupon all the remnant fled to Egypt, leaving the land "desolate'' "without inhabitant" (Jer. 26:9; 52:16; 2 Kings 25:22-26). Thus the Scriptures teach three sieges of Jerusalem and three groups of captives led away into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar and they speak of the third of these sieges, resulting in the third of these captivities, as the sword unsheathed the "third time," as its first unsheathing resulted in the first group of captives reaching Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year. These remarks harmonize the chronology completely on these subjects. 

(3) Reason suggests that the three years' educational course of the four Hebrew youths began later than in the eighth and ended later than in the eleventh year of Nebuchadnezzar; for these youths were prisoners of war; additionally they were of the royal family (Dan. 1:3). Against them some of the odium and distrust that Nebuchadnezzar felt toward its head who rebelled against him (2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chro. 36:6) must have been held. Hence they were persons

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

355 

whom the king would not trust nor promote to the extent implied in arranging to educate them to become officers and councilors of his kingdom, until sufficient time had elapsed in which they could be observed and tested as to trustworthiness and ability for an education preparatory for such responsible careers (Dan. 1:4, 5). The tender love of the prince of the eunuchs implies a long time-element intervening before this education began (Dan. 1:9). Let us assume that three years, a conservative estimate for so responsible a thing, were passed in observing and testing the trustworthiness of these youths before they were admitted into the educational school for their three years' course. This would have made their entrance into and graduation from this school respectively in the eleventh and fourteenth years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon. This consideration also disproves the thought of the Herald Editors that the dream of the metallic image, which occurred after the graduation of these Hebrew youths, took place in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon. 

(4) A fourth set of considerations disproves the point of the Herald Editors, showing additionally that the dream occurred considerably later than the fourteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign over Babylon: Considerable time must have elapsed and many events must have occurred to furnish the opportunities for Daniel and his three companions to prove themselves superior to all the king's other wise men in all matters on which he inquired of them as his officers and councilors (Dan. 1:19, 20). For these inquiries, be it noted, were made after they were made officers and councilors of the king, i.e., after "they stood before the king." The further fact that Daniel and his three companions were singled out and were expressly sought by the executioner, after the king decreed the death of the wise men for failing to tell the dream, proves that they had for a considerable time been

Gershonism. 

356 

recognized as famous among the wise men of Babylon (Dan. 2:13). Evidently also long time-intervals elapsed between the events given in each successive chapter of Daniel from the first to the fifth inclusive. Thus these lines of facts are in harmony with the date of the dream as being some years later than the fourteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign over Babylon, and of course contradict the Herald's claim. 

The four points given above demonstrate that the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign mentioned in Dan. 2:1 cannot be the second year of his reign as his father's successor as king of Babylon; for these facts prove that Dan. 2:1 refers to the second year of a reign begun many years later. Therefore, instead of Dan. 2:1, 37, 38 proving that the Times of the Gentiles began with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar as king over Babylon, as the Herald Editors with so much confidence claim, it disproves that thought, and is in line with the thought that the Times of the Gentiles began in the nineteenth year of that reign, and that the dream occurred in its twentieth year, which was his second year as universal monarch. Why did not the Herald Editors, who in their article mention the three years' schooling, see that this fact made it impossible to refer to the second year of Dan. 2:1 to the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as his father's successor as king of Babylon? Why did they not try to harmonize the facts and the chronology of Dan. 1:1, 2, which mentions the chronology of its first event only, with those of 2 Kings 24:1-21; 2 Chro. 36:5-7; Jer. 25:1; 52:28? It is impossible in harmony with justice to consider interpreters who are so careless, and who make so manifest blunders in such important matters, as clear, accurate and reliable interpreters. Let our readers remember also that they committed this blunder despite their knowing that our Pastor after careful investigation rejected the event and year in Nebuchadnezzar's reign that they

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

357 

are now advocating as marking the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles; for their present theory is of many years' standing among nominal-church writers, from whom they borrowed it. Let our readers also remember that in this matter the Herald Editors have rejected our Pastor's findings in favor of those of nominal-church and heathen chronologies. 

The second (supposedly) Scriptural argument that the Herald Editors use to prove our Pastor to have made a mistake in taking Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year as the time, and Zedekiah's uncrowning and the coincident desolation of the land as the events marking the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles, and to prove themselves right in accepting against his findings the nominal-church and heathen chronologies as giving Nebuchadnezzar's first year as the time, and Jehoiakim's becoming servile to him seven years before his dethronement as the event, marking the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles, is by them claimed to be found in Jer. 27:1-11; Dan. 1:1, 2; 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chro. 36:6. Briefly, their argument is the following: According to Jer. 27:1-11 in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim, whose reign began twenty-two years before Zedekiah's overthrow, Jehovah made a decree that all nations must be subject to Babylon for seventy years (v. 7, compare Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10). The decree thus announced was, they say, enforced in Jehoiakim's third year when he allegedly became subservient to Nebuchadnezzar in the latter's first year. In proof they quote Dan. 1:1, 2; 2 Kings 24:1. Hence they claim that Nebuchadnezzar's first year marks the beginning of Babylon's Universal Empire and of the Times of the Gentiles, nineteen years before Zedekiah's uncrowning. 

To this argument we make the following answer: This decree (Jer. 27:1-11) was made, not in the beginning, and then enforced in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign, but was made in the fourth, and then 

Gershonism. 

358 

enforced in the eleventh year of Zedekiah's reign, which was the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. In proof of the correctness of this answer we submit the following reasons: 

(1) This is in part evident from the fact that this decree was made by God through Jeremiah to the ambassadors of various countries (Jer. 27:2, 3), who were at that time accredited, not to King Jehoiakim, but to King Zedekiah for delivery to their rulers. Hence the decree was made after Jehoiakim's reign of eleven years, and Jehoiakin's reign of three months and ten days were over; hence not earlier than the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12). 

(2) This is also in part evident from the fact that at the same time that this decree was made and delivered to the ambassadors at Zedekiah's court it was also delivered to him (Jer. 27:12-15) and to the priests and to the people (v. 16). 

(3) This is further in part evident from the fact that, before this decree had been made, Nebuchadnezzar in his eighth year (2 Kings 24:12-16; 2 Chro. 36:9, 10) had already taken away the second lot of the sacred vessels—those taken in the days of Jehoiakin—while this decree threatens that if Zedekiah and the people would not be subject to it, those of the sacred vessels that yet remained would also be taken to and kept in Babylon with those formerly carried there, until Israel's return from captivity (Jer. 27:16-22). 

(4) This is directly proven by the statement of Jer. 28:1 to the effect that it was in the same year as this decree was made, i.e., in the fourth year of Zedekiah, that Jeremiah's prophecy respecting the matters treated of in Jer. 27:1-22 was contradicted by the false prophet, Hananiah (Jer. 28:1-4). 

(5) This is fully evident, because the best MSS. of Jer. 27:1 read as follows: "In the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah," not Jehoiakim. In proof please 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

359 

see Rotherham's note on this verse, giving the correction on the authority of Dr. Ginsburg, that very learned Hebrew scholar who has done for the Hebrew text of the Old Testament the work that Dr. Tischendorf, etc., have done for the Greek text of the New Testament—collated and published the variant readings of the original. Please also see the note of the A. R. V. on this verse. That the reading "Zedekiah" is the proper one is manifest from the entire chapter, particularly vs. 3, 12, 19, 20; and is unanswerably proven to be so by Jer. 28:1, which states that the whole message of Jer. 27 was delivered in the fourth year of Zedekiah, designating that year as "in the beginning" of his reign. Hence not only do Jer. 27:1-11; Dan. 1:1, 2; 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chro. 36:6; Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10 not prove that the Times of the Gentiles began with the third year of Jehoiakim, and in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar; but they most positively disprove it, and prove that they had not yet begun in the fourth year of Zedekiah. Since previously Nebuchadnezzar's sword had twice been unsheathed against Israel, these passages further prove that this decree, made in Nebuchadnezzar's thirteenth year with reference to a future event, did not go into effect until his sword's third unsheathing—in the end of Zedekiah's reign. Hence these passages prove that the Times of the Gentiles began in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign over Babylon, which was the first year of his reign over the world, one year before he had his dream of the metallic image. 

We desire to ask the Herald Editors why they quote in proof of their theories passages which positively disprove them? How could they have been so careless as to overlook the statements of Jer. 27:3, 12, 16-23 and Jer. 28:1, proving that Zedekiah was meant? The presence of those statements would have made careful thinkers pause and question whether there was not something wrong with the reading "Jehoiakim" in

Gershonism. 

360 

Jer. 27:1. We opine that hurried on by Azazel, and filled with the theories of nominal-church and heathen writers, they failed attentively to consider the oracles of God, and thus plunged themselves into this great blunder, from which a proper meekness on their part toward that Servant would have saved them. Instead, while drunk with Babylon's wine, they offered strange fire before the Lord (Lev. 10:1, 9)! 

Following nominal-church writers, the Herald Editors claim as a third Scriptural proof that Jehoiakim's subserviency beginning (not in his third year, as they claim, but) in his fourth year (Jer. 25:1; 2 Kings 24:1) proves that from that time onward Israel was subject to Gentile rule, and hence the Times of the Gentiles then began. Corroborations of this they think are Jehoiakin's uncrowning and Zedekiah's appointment by Nebuchadnezzar. To this we make several answers: 

(1) Nebuchadnezzar's relations to Jehoiakim were not those of a super-ruler, but those of a foreign invader too powerful to resist while near. 

(2) This subserviency as soon as possible was cast off and disregarded for four years (2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chro. 36:5-7). 

(3) While Zedekiah (2 Chro. 36:10) was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar after the latter's besieging, capturing and deposing Jehoiakin, Jehoiakim's successor, he was independent of Nebuchadnezzar, as Jer. 27:12-17 clearly proves. 

(4) If the mere subserviency of a Jewish king to a Gentile power and his dismissal or appointment by such a power prove the subjugation of Israel implied in the expression, the Times of the Gentiles, then the Jews became subject to the Gentiles, and hence the Times of the Gentiles began, four years before the fourth year of Jehoiakim, when Necho, king of Egypt, overthrew Jehoahaz, appointed Jehoiakim in his stead, and made Israel pay tribute (2 Chro. 35:20—36:4).

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

361 

(5) God counted Israel His typical kingdom and thus independent of Gentile power until David's descendants lost the crown (Ezek. 21:25-27). Ezek. 21 and Jer. 27 throughout are in line with this thought, showing that Israel lost its kingdom, independence, by Nebuchadnezzar's sword unsheathed the third time: at the end of Zedekiah's reign. 

The Herald Editors quote Ptolemy's canon and nominal-church writers in corroboration of their claims as to 606 B.C. being Nebuchadnezzar's first year as Babylon's king. In answer we say: 

(1) Ptolemy's canon sets the year 604 B.C. as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign over Babylon, a fact that the Herald Editors evidently know, but that they evidently conceal, proven by their giving, and that out of their proper chronological place, two years of Nebuchadnezzar's supposed coregency with his father. Why did they not place the supposed coregency at its proper chronological place at the head instead of next to the bottom of their chronological table? Was it because its position at its proper chronological place would have exposed the unreliability of Ptolemy's canon on that date—an exposure that they would not desire to be made, because fatal to their theory? 

(2) It is because the Ptolemy and the nominal-church chronologies contradict the Bible chronology previous to Cyrus' decree that our Pastor rejected them as incorrect previous to that time. Shall we with our Pastor follow the Bible chronology previous to Cyrus' decree, or shall we with the P.B.I. Editors and Directors follow heathen and nominal-church chronologies contradictory to the Bible? Which? The faithful will with Joshua say, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!" 

Of course these Editors feel that the seventy Jubilees kept by the land during its desolation are against the acceptance of their nominal-church theory by the 

Gershonism. 

362 

Lord's people, and therefore they make the most desperate efforts to dispose of them as against their theory, and in so doing have offered some tortured explanations that have been rarely equaled for unreasonableness—explanations that they have borrowed from nominal-church writers, whose views on the 70 Jubilee years they also endorse as against our Pastor's. They claim that the 70 Jubilee years that the land kept began Dec. 25, 589 B.C., when they claim Nebuchadnezzar invaded the land in the ninth year of Zedekiah, and ended somewhat earlier in the year, 520 B.C., a period of less than 69 years, during over sixteen of which they say the Israelites were in the land after their return from Babylon! And they actually proceed at great length to expound such an absurdity to people trained in our Pastor's sober ways of thinking, even assuming that these 70 years are periods of 360 days, a method that they used to palm off a nominal-church writer's (Dr. Guinness) views as against our Pastor's thought on the 3½ days during which the two witnesses lay dead on the streets of that great City! One view of this nominal-church theory is given in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, Vol. 3, 304, pars. 2, 3. 

We will give some brief refutations under two heads. We will prove (1) that the seventy years of desolation and the seventy years of Babylon's universal rule are identical; and (2) that these Editors' view of the seventy Jubilees kept by the land is grossly erroneous. 

First we remark that by Babylon's seventy years' reign we do not understand that their emperors were on the throne as universal rulers that long, but that their authority as exercised by them or by their representatives among the nations would not be overthrown entirely until the end of that period, which synchronized with Israel's arrival in Palestine after leaving Babylon in harmony with Cyrus' decree. We make this

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

363 

remark because, actually, Cyrus overthrew Babylon's last emperor in 538 B.C., a date less than seventy years after Babylon became a universal power. 

We now proceed to give briefly the proof that the seventy years of desolation and the seventy years of Babylon's universal rule are one and the same period. 

(1) The proofs already given in connection with "the second year" of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (Dan. 2:1), and the date of giving and the date of enforcing Jehovah's decree (Jer. 27:1-11) as to Babylon's universal rulership, prove this proposition and need no repetition here. 

(2) Jeremiah mentions this expression, seventy years, only three times (Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10; in the latter passage practically all versions, and that correctly, render "for Babylon," not "at Babylon") and in one of these passages—the only one where he mentions the desolation of the land as of seventy years' duration—he identifies the period of Babylon's universal rule and the period of the desolation of the land (Jer. 25:11, 12). 

(3) Daniel correctly understood Jeremiah's one and only reference to the seventy years of the land's desolation to mean the period of time during which the Israelites would be away from the land (Dan. 9:2, 7, 12, 16, 18-20). Hence he prayed for Israel's return to the land as that period was closing (Dan. 9:1-29). 

(4) Jeremiah's one and only one reference to the seventy years' desolation of the land (Jer. 25:11, 12), which he identifies with Babylon's seventy years' universal rule, and his references to the land being "desolate" "without inhabitant" (Jer. 26:4-7, 9) are by Jehovah Himself identified with the seventy Jubilees kept by the land through the absence of its inhabitants (2 Chron. 36:20-22). If these seventy Jubilees are not referred to in Jer. 25:11, 12, which verses identify the seventy years' desolation with Babylon's seventy years supremacy, where else does he foretell seventy Jubilees

Gershonism. 

364 

to be accomplished in the desolation of the land? Nowhere! Hence the seventy Sabbaths are identical with Babylon's seventy years; for 2 Chron. 36:20, 21, 22 proves that Israel was driven and kept out of the land for seventy years in order to fulfill Jeremiah's prophecy of the land's desolation for seventy years; and the only place where Jeremiah makes such a prophecy is where he identifies the land's desolation with Babylon's seventy years' supremacy (Jer. 25:11, 12). Moses' prophecy refers to the same thing (Lev. 26:33-35). Accordingly, these two expressions refer to the same period of time. 

(5) 2 Chron. 36:20-22 proves that the seventy years' desolation of the land was during Israel's total absence from the land, for these verses say that they were driven out, and then kept out of the land for seventy years in order that the land could keep its seventy Sabbaths. And it also says that as long as it was desolate—"without inhabitant" (Jer. 26:9)—it kept its Sabbaths for seventy years. Hence the seventy years of Sabbath keeping and Babylon's seventy years' supremacy are identical. 

(6) Zech. 7:5-14 generally, and particularly verses 5 and 14, show expressly that the seventy years' desolation were a period in which nobody was in the land, and that during those seventy years of desolation no one returned to the land; while the P.B.I. theory, plagiarized from the nominal church, claims that the Israelites returned and lived there over sixteen years before the seventy years of desolation were completed! 

(7) The Jubilee beginning on the tenth day of the seventh month (Lev. 25:9), and the solar year and the lunar year in Israel being in the long run equalized, which is proven by the ripening of the first-fruits pointing out the month of Nisan (Lev. 23:10-15); and the Jubilee year in the long run averaging in length the solar year, the seventy Jubilees—the seventy years of desolation—were on the average equal to

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

365 

seventy solar years; and therefore we must have a period of seventy average solar years for them, which no explanation allows other than the identity of the seventy years of desolation and Babylon's seventy years of supremacy. Hence the identical period is meant by these two expressions. 

The above seven reasons demonstrate the Scripturalness of our Pastor's views, and refute the nominal-church views on this subject, now offered us by the P.B.I. Editors and Directors. 

Having proved the correctness of our chronology on the seventy years and thus indirectly disproved the Herald's views, we now proceed to a direct refutation of the latter's thought on the seventy years as being years of 360 days and as beginning Dec. 25, 598 B.C., and ending in Nov., 520 B.C. 

(1) Whatever God's people may or may not have done before on the subject, certainly Israel never from the Exodus onward kept a year of 360 days (Ex. 12:2). Their year was a lunar year with a month added at its end whenever at that end the condition of the growing barley proved that its first-fruits would not be ripe in time for presentation in the Holy of Holies on the sixteenth of the next month (Lev. 23:10-15). Hence their years in the long run averaged a solar year of 365.242 days. Therefore the seventy years of desolation were not counted by them as consisting of 360 days each. Had they used such a year, it would have made their Passover come in the Fall 35 years after their first Passover. This consideration refutes the P.B.I.—nominal-church view on the seventy years being of 360 days each. 

(2) The Jubilee years came on an average every fifty solar years, and on an average lasted a solar year. Therefore the seventy Jubilee years—the seventy years of desolation—averaged seventy solar years, and therefore would have outlasted the period from Dec., 589 B.C. to Nov., 520 B.C. by a year and a 

Gershonism. 

366 

month. Hence this consideration refutes their thought. 

(3) It is an unproved and false assumption—the claim of the Herald—as we showed above—that there were seventy years of 360 days from Nebuchadnezzar's final invasion until the Israelites commenced again to rebuild their temple in the day of Darius; but it is further disproved, because the year of the Jews forbids such a method of reckoning, as was proved by the first point given above. 

(4) The nations, e.g., the more ancient Babylonians and the Egyptians, that used the year of twelve months of thirty days each, either at certain intervals added a month, or at the end of the 360 days added five or six days as the case required to make the years begin at their proper seasons. This is what the quotations from Sir Isaac Newton and Sir G. C. Lewis mean, as can be seen from the latter's statement (in the quotation that the Editors give they present these statements as though they favor their view, whereas they do not so do) that some of the ancients kept the year of 360 days, "determined within certain limits of error." But as we have seen, the Jews did not observe a year of 360 days, because it would have made it impossible for them to keep in the proper seasons of the year their festivals, which were fixed to the seasons of the year, e.g., the Passover in the Spring, the Feast of Tabernacles in the Fall, etc.; for with a year of 360 days, thirty-five years after the first Passover that festival would have come in the Fall, on about the fourteenth of the seventh month. Sixty-nine years later the same thing would have occurred again, with intervening ones coming on an average five to six days earlier in each succeeding year. This fact completely refutes the Herald's claims. True, God uses the year of 360 days and the month of 30 days in foretelling the time periods. For this there is the best of reasons; for had He, in foretelling these time periods by symbolic months and years, used the exact number of days 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

367 

in the lunar or in the solar months and years, the varying number of days in their months and years and the fractional parts of days in their years would have made the statement of the prophecy bunglesome, yea, almost impossible and confusing, and the work of tracing the foretold periods practically impossible. E.g., had He used lunar months, how could we be sure when to count 29 or 30 symbolic days to a symbolic month, since these do not for several reasons always alternate in the literal months, e.g., on account of the added month? Or how could we be sure when to use the symbolic added month and the year of 13 months? Or how could we be sure whether to begin to count with a month of 29 or of 30 days? All of these things would have to be considered in using the lunar months and years for symbolic time prophecy. Or if the solar months were used, how would one know whether or when to use a month of 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 days? One would be at an utter loss how to manage the fraction of a day in the 354.367 days in a lunar year, and the fraction of a day in the 365.242 days in a solar year in tracing the symbolic times of prophetic years. Hence God foretold these time periods in terms of months of 30 symbolic days and of years of 360 symbolic days. However, the years so foretold were not years consisting of 360 days, but years as we now have them. The fulfillments prove this to be the case. None of the examples that the Herald gives proves that the Bible gives us in its chronology years of 360 days. The fact that the water prevailed for 150 days, and the other fact that the ark rested on Mt. Ararat exactly five months after the flood began (Gen. 8:3, 4), do not prove that these 150 days were equal to five exact months; for the ark could have drifted to a place on Mt. Ararat and then rested there in exactly five months without the date being 150 days from the beginning of the flood. Two considerations prove this: [1] These two verses do

Gershonism. 

368 

not identify these periods. Hence this unproven, but assumed, identity cannot be treated as a proof of five months of thirty days each as being Biblical; [2] the ark drawing over fifteen cubits of water would have rested on a place fifteen cubits under the water before the water began to abate (Gen. 6:15; 7:20). Again, without any proof they assume that the 180 days of Esth. 1:4 were six months. The desperate straits to which the Herald Editors are driven in assuming a year of 360 days as Biblical, when not only is there no Biblical proof for such a year in Bible chronology, but on the contrary the Bible clearly and unanswerably proves that it used a year that in the long run averaged a year of 365.242 days, are proofs sufficient of the utter erroneousness of their position. 

(5) What if the Jews did observe the tenth day of the tenth month (Jer. 52:4) as a fast allegedly for Nebuchadnezzar's invasion, which the Herald claims, and then gives its pertinent claim that this fast was in memory of the seventy years' desolation beginning with that event? This fast does not prove their point; for, during the seventy years of captivity, they additionally observed as fast days the day of the city's capture in the fourth month and its and the temple's burning in the fifth month (Jer. 52:6, 12), and in the seventh month the day of Zedekiah's dethroning at Riblah (2 Kings 25:6) and the desolation of the land, both occurring in the seventh month (Zech. 7:5; 8:19). That the P.B.I. claim that the fast of the tenth month was for the desolation of the land is untrue, is proven by the facts: (1) that not the desolation of the land, but the siege of Jerusalem set in then; (2) that the desolation of the land occurred in the seventh month, for which the fast of the seventh month was kept during the 70 years' desolation of the land (Zech. 7:5; 8:19); (3) that the date of the Babylonians' entering the land, which the P.B.I. claim as occurring in the tenth month, is nowhere given, much less given 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

369 

as in the tenth month; it must have occurred before the tenth month, for it is far more than a ten days' journey from Palestine's northern boundary where the entrance was made, to Jerusalem; and (4) that the Jews considered Jerusalem's siege a great calamity, which justified a fast to mark its beginning. 

(6) The land did not rest from sowing (as it would have had to do, if the seventy Jubilee years continued until 520, the Herald's date for their end) from the time of the return from Babylon until many years later—over sixteen years, according to the Herald—when they began again to rebuild the temple. This is evident from several considerations: (1) The Jews would have starved unless they had sown and raised at least some crops during those many years. (2) Hag. 1:6, 4-12 directly says that the people from the time they left off rebuilding the temple until they began again to rebuild it had been sowing the land, though reaping little. Yea, they had been sowing ever since their return; but after they ceased from the work of rebuilding the temple (Ezra 4:24), the Lord punished them for their lack of zeal for His House with crop failures (Hag. 1:6, 9-11), which, of course, proves that they sowed and sought to raise crops. This unanswerably proves that the land was sown, and therefore was not up to 520 B.C., keeping its Sabbaths to fulfill seventy years. On the contrary, this proves that these seventy Sabbaths ended with Israel's return to the land; for from that time onward they sowed it; and hence none of the seventy Sabbaths were enjoyed by the land during the sixteen years from the return until, according to the Herald, the rebuilding of the temple began anew. To our astonishment the Herald uses Hag. 1:1-11 as its second most important proof that the seventy Sabbaths did not end until 520 B.C.! Do these Editors have to be taught that famine years (mentioned in these verses as being sent in punishment for the Jews' neglecting to work on the Lord's House, 

Gershonism. 

370 

and then as being ended on their beginning again to rebuild the temple) are not what the Bible means by the land resting in its Jubilee years? Must these Editors be taught that the Jubilee years for the land, as well as the seven Sabbatic years intervening, were kept by the people's not sowing their crops, and thus letting the land rest (Lev. 25:2-4, 11)? How could they have been so careless as to overlook this point and Hag. 1:6, which they quote to prove the land's resting, but which shows the exact opposite, that sowing was done, and that therefore the land was not resting those sixteen years; and thus that sixteen of the seventy Sabbaths of the land were not kept throughout the sixteen years that they claim were parts of the seventy Sabbath years? Again, we ask, Why do they so often quote passages, e.g., Hag. 1:6, to prove points positively disproven by those very passages? Is it not because they are in Azazel's hands, and are thus blinded by him, and at his direction palm off his errors on the dear unsuspecting sheep of God's flock? 

(7) Their most important argument to prove their contention that the seventy Jubilee years ended in 520 B.C. and not on Israel's return from Babylon is by them declared to be Zech. 1:7, 12, 16, particularly v. 12, which speaks of the Lord's indignation lasting seventy years, and which they say refers to the period of seventy years ending in 520 B.C. To this we answer that Editors who claim to have given a proper interpretation of Rev. 6 and its symbolic horses, as referring to the Gospel Age, should have known better than to have applied to the Jewish Age a vision (Zech. 1:8-17) that refers to some of the same things as Rev. 6, and that refers exclusively to the Gospel Age. The seventy years of Zech. 1:12 refer to the period of Spiritual Israel's captivity in Symbolic Babylon, and not to the period from Dec. 25, 589 B.C., to Nov., 520 B.C. Their use of this passage, as well as that of Hag. 1:4-11 to prove their delusion, is only another evidence

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

371 

of their drunken adherence to wrong theories of nominal-church teachers, and of their manifest unreliability as expounders of the Word of Truth. 

When we wrote against some of their Revelation explanations we raised the warning that they were giving many interpretations of nominal-church teachers, some of which were contrary to those of our Pastor, and almost all of which pertaining to passages that he had not expounded were wrong. We are reliably informed that R. E. Streeter is the one mainly responsible for introducing such nominal-church views among the P.B.I.; but all of the Editors and Directors are responsible for giving way to these. Alas, that for such "foolish Virgins"' views they are willing to repudiate our Pastor's well-proven interpretations! When we consider that these Editors promise to show in future numbers how wrong our Pastor was on the 6000 years as ending in 1872, on the Jubilees, on the Parallel Dispensations, the 2300 days, etc., suggesting to the dear unsuspecting sheep not to be alarmed at this, and that they intimate that they will do this by the use of the theory of a Scriptural (?) year of 360 days—a theory that is utterly unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactual, we are in a position to recognize the depth of delusion into which they have fallen, the proven certainty of their being in Azazel's hands, and of their being mouthpieces of him, and the dire danger to the Lord's people of permitting such persons to continue any longer as teachers in their midst. We call upon the faithful to repudiate such unreliable, erroneous and unfaithful stewards of the Truth which was committed to the custodianship of the Church by the Lord through that Servant! 

They announce May 1, 1922, that they are publishing an extra edition of their April 15 issue to circulate through their supporters their views on the Times of the Gentiles broadly among Truth people. Well, be it so! Let their partisan supporters, then, do 

Gershonism. 

372 

this, if they desire so to do; but in so doing will they not hasten the making known to all men of the folly of the P.B.I. Editors and Directors as parts of antitypical Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8, 9)? 

Since, according to their view, Zedekiah's overthrow was nineteen years later than the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles, they likewise state that they are convinced that the full collapse of Christendom will be over in 1933 or 1934. This was the view of some of the 1909 sifters. To make this view seem plausible they define the "Times of the Gentiles" to be, not the period of the Divine lease of power to the Gentiles, as our Pastor defined it (B 76, par. 2), but the period during which they would exercise universal power (H '21, 84, par. 3). While in Studies, Vol. II some expressions give also this latter thought, this was due to the fact that at that time he thought that the two terms were synonymous. Later, he came to see that they were not synonymous, from which time on he always defined the term to mean the period of the Divine lease of power (Z '04, 198, par. 1). For this reason he said, repeatedly, that sometime before Oct., 1914, the Lord would send the nations notice that their lease, the Times of the Gentiles, was expiring, and that they should vacate at that date, and that when they would refuse he would by the trouble evict them. All of us recall how he spoke of the war after it came as "eviction proceedings." Hence the time since Oct., 1914, is not a part of the Times of the Gentiles; it is the eviction time of those who are seeking to keep possession after their lease, the Times of the Gentiles, has expired. "There is a reason" for the P.B.I. Directors and Editors "teaching perverse things" (Acts 20:30) on the Times of the Gentiles. In their April 1 issue, they state that the reaping is not yet over. Their general position seems to indicate that shortly they are going to advocate some drive to finish the reaping. On this we shall see what we shall see. Let us, for our 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

373 

part, praise our God for the certainty of the Parousia and the Epiphany Truth, and for the privileges that as Epiphany-enlightened saints we have in the Parousia and the Epiphany Truth and its service (Ps. 91:1-16). 

The article that we have examined is entitled, "Watchman, What of the Night?" It is thus a question that the Editors of the Herald have asked. Having seen that their answer proves that the night is darkening about them, we would say in answer to their question, It is now night, and this night will darken more and more for them, until they have cleansed themselves. Then thanks be to God, it will become a day again for them! 

In the P.B.I. Herald of July 15, 1921, is an article in answer to some questions that are against its Editors' views and that they say were sent to them by some of their readers respecting Jehoiakim's third and fourth years and the three years' schooling of Daniel. We are satisfied that the article is another of their veiled attempts to answer some of our points against their nominal-church view of the Times of the Gentiles beginning in the third year of Jehoiakim and in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Anyone reading their article can see that they are staggering as from a hard blow, but are trying to put on a brave front. Their tone, like that of the usual errorist, is very patronizing, for they speak of those who offer irrefutable Scriptural arguments against their position as being confused, and of their willingness to help these supposedly confused brethren. The fact that they themselves are the confused ones, and yet offer to enlighten those who are clear in the matter, brings to mind the offer that slaves to corruption make to free others by enslaving them (2 Pet. 2:18, 19)! In their article on "Watchman, What of the Night?" they promised that they would prove their proposition on the Times of the Gentiles by the Scriptures alone; but in the article under review they admit that from secular history only

Gershonism. 

374 

can they answer the objections based on the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the three years of Daniel's schooling. In other words, secular history (so they claim, but we will prove later on that Ptolemy's canon disproves their claim) and not the Scriptures are to control in this matter of chronology, according to the P.B.I. Editors! 

They also claim now that the expression, "the first year of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon" (Jer. 25:1) means the first year that Nebuchadnezzar gained controllership of Judah. This is a twist worthy of uncleansed Levites and members of antitypical Jambres. We must also correct a statement that they make, to the effect that, if a Jewish king began to reign one month before Nisan, with Nisan he would enter his second year's reign. This we emphatically deny. The time of his reign before Nisan would not be counted as belonging to his own reign, but as filling up the incomplete year of his predecessor. Unless this were the case, we could not construct a chronology at all from the years of Judah's kings. And the time symmetries of God's Plan prove them to have been so treated, and this proves the P.B.I. Editors to be in error on this point. Their view would compel one to assume that each king died the day before Nisan, if one were to construct a chronology from these kings' datings—an assumption which is most unreasonable, and which, in turn, would contradict their theory on this point; for it would leave no occasion for such a theory. Our Pastor was right in ignoring the three months and ten days of Jehoiakin's reign, because they filled up the eleven years of Jehoiakim's reign, as the Scriptures show (2 Chron. 36:9, 10). The same is true in the case of Josiah and Jehoahaz, whose reign of three months ended just as the year ended (2 Chro. 36:1-4). This we know because the combined reigns of Jehoiakim and Jehoiakin ended eleven full years later, "at the year's end" (2 Chron. 36:10). Thus this point is

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

375 

against them, and, of course, binds them all the tighter. 

We deny their statement that secular history proves that Daniel was taken captive in the summer of 606. While a few secular historians may say some things to this effect respecting Daniel, they say it from their misunderstanding of the Scriptures. None of them claims to know anything at all of him from purely secular—heathen—sources, which make no mention of him. Some secular historians, like some nominal-church teachers, have tried to connect Biblical events in Jehoiakim's third or fourth year with Ptolemy's canon and with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and may, contrary to the Scriptures that we cited above, have put Daniel's captivity in Jehoiakim's third or fourth year; but as we will show most secular writers put the first and third dates later than their 606 B.C. 

Again, we deny that Nebuchadnezzar was a coregent of his father. This theory is assumed by a comparatively few nominal-church writers, who, contrary to Ptolemy's canon, date Nebuchadnezzar's making Jehoiakim subservient to him at 606 B.C.; while most nominal-church writers and nearly all secular and religious encyclopedias and Bible dictionaries, following Ptolemy, but not the Bible, date this event at Jan. 604 B.C. We do not agree with this date, believing that the inspired chronological testimony of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, who were also eye witnesses, is infinitely more to be accepted as to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar than the testimony of the heathen Berosus who lived 350 years after the events, and than that of the heathen Ptolemy who lived 750 years after the events. If the P.B.I. want to follow the heathen Ptolemy rather than the Bible let them do it, but let them not, as they do, pervert his date. His canon makes Jehoiakim's subserviency begin at the time of the death of Nebuchadnezzar's father, i.e., allegedly Jan. 604, not in the summer of 606 B.C. The error that these Editors offer ("the Scripture antedates, etc.") in

Gershonism. 

376 

the attempt shows they cannot harmonize their views of the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim with Ptolemy's canon. 

So far as we know, all secular historians and nominal-church writers accept Ptolemy's canon as placing the death of Nebuchadnezzar's father at 604 B.C.; and all of these, except a very few who do otherwise to defend an erroneous theory, make 604 Nebuchadnezzar's first year. A few of these, as stated above, holding to Israel's return from exile as taking place in 536, to keep harmony with their thought of a 70 years' captivity (the Bible nowhere teaches a 70 years' captivity; it teaches a 70 years' desolation of the land and a 70 year's supremacy of Babylon, e.g., Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10; 2 Chro. 36:21. The supposed 70 years' captivity is based upon a mistranslation of Jer. 29:10, where what should be rendered "for Bablyon" is rendered "at Babylon" in the A. V. See other versions for the correct translation), and to maintain a semblance of harmony between their date 606 for the beginning of the captivity, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and Ptolemy's canon, have invented the idea of a coregency of Nebuchadnezzar with his father for two years before he became king in their year 604. Not only is there no evidence of such a coregency, but it also cannot fit in with the date of the events that are given by Ptolemy's canon and that precede Jehoiakim's becoming subservient to Nebuchadnezzar. We ask our readers to consult the article on Nebuchadnezzar in the Britannica, the International, the Americana, Schaff-Herzog, Jewish and other Encyclopedias, and in Smith's (4 vols. edition), Hasting's (5 vols. edition), Bible Dictionaries, the Century Encyclopedia Dictionary, etc., and they will find the following dates for the following events, based on Ptolemy's canon and accepted by practically all secular historians. In fact, the only authorities that we could find who do not give all these dates are the Catholic Encyclopedia, which gives 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

377 

604 as the date of the battle of Carchemish, and McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia, which copying in the main the article in Smith's Dictionary, alters its 605 date for the battle of Carchemish to 606 to fit the theory above described, and for no other reason. 

According to these authorities, which are based on Ptolemy's canon, Nebuchadnezzar, in harmony with a frequent practice of members of reigning families, commanded his father's Babylonian armies, which, in alliance with the Medes, overthrew the Assyrian Empire, by capturing Nineveh in 606 B.C. In the Fall of 605 B.C., while acting as his father's general, not co-regent, he in one of the decisive battles of history defeated, at Carchemish on the Euphrates, Pharoah-necho, who had previously, 608 B.C., wrested Syria from the Assyrians, and pursuing him nearly to Egypt, took from his subserviency all Syria and Palestine (2 Kings 23:29-35; 24:1; Jer. 25:1; 46:1-26) on the occasion of his first invasion of these countries. The battle of Carchemish occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46:2). Early in 605, hence in the third year of Jehoiakim (April, 606 to April, 605) Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon (Dan. 1:1) to begin his campaign against Pharaoh-necho, Syria and Palestine. It was in the Fall of 605, hence in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (April, 605, to April, 604), that Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh-necho engaged in the battle of Carchemish; and it was during the former's pursuit of the latter after this battle that Nebuchadnezzar came the first time to Jerusalem, in Jehoiakim's fourth year (Jer. 25:1), in Jan., 604. The death of his father occurring at this time, he became his successor while in Palestine; hence he came to Jerusalem in the first year of his reign, 604. On hearing of his father's death, desisting from further pursuit of Pharaoh-necho, he returned at once to Babylon with a few of his troops. The fiction of a coregency contradicts the whole setting of Ptolemy's canon and its associated events. Of course, we do not accept the dates given in

Gershonism. 

378 

this paragraph—based on Ptolemy's canon—but we give them as these authorities give them. For our part, Scripturally, we believe these events occurred in each case about 19 years earlier. But we cite them to prove that Ptolemy's canon, on which the P.B.I. Editors profess to base their faith on Nebuchadnezzar's coming to Jerusalem in the summer of 606 in the third year of Jehoiakim, contradicts their view—yea, both Ptolemy's canon, which fixes the date at 604, and the Bible, which fixes the date 19 years earlier, contradict their view. Therefore their attempt (by aid of the coregency fiction, and of the unscriptural date of Daniel's captivity, which could not have occurred before the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 52:28; 2 Chro. 36:5-7), together with the unreasonable and unprovable assumptions that they make as to the time of the beginning of Daniel's schooling and of Nebuchadnezzar's dream) to harmonize the three years' schooling with Nebuchadnezzar's second year (Dan. 2:1), which according to them was 603 B.C., falls utterly to the ground. The five proofs that we gave above with reference to these three years of schooling they cannot answer. 

We have faithfully followed the Scriptures in this chronological controversy. They have neither followed the Scriptures nor secular history in harmony with Ptolemy's canon. In other words, there are three general views on this subject: (1) the Scriptural view; (2) the view of Ptolemy, favored by nearly all secular and nominal-church scholars; (3) the view of a few nominal-church scholars, who attempt to hold in part to a perverted view of the beginning of the captivity and to a view of events perverted from the standpoint of Ptolemy's canon. This third view, which is more erroneous than the second, the P.B.I. Editors champion to their confusion. It is nothing but a windy hypothesis, without one fact to substantiate it, and with the crudest distortion of plain Scriptures

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

379 

and facts as the only things urged in its defense. It is revelatory of these Editors' confusion, that they show themselves so lacking in correct judgment of both Scriptural and secular historical questions. In spite of their giving various authors' names as their authorities they seem to have confined themselves to the writings of but one school, and that the least exact of nominal-church writers on the subject under consideration, and in this whole matter have shown so transparent an inability to reason logically on the data that these set before them, that they would do well to resign their editorship; for they are evidently unqualified for such an office. Had they the spirit of a sound mind they would resign, but we do not expect them to resign. 

These Editors by their erroneous chronological claims have stirred up a veritable hornets' nest among their supporters. They did not think that there were among their readers so many thinking Christians faithful to our Pastor's correct chronological views. A large number of these refuse to follow these error-spreading Editors in their nominal-church views. This has led the Editors to abate somewhat from their confidence in their chronological errors; and the evident fear of a division with its consequent loss of members seems to prompt them to move heaven and earth to make their readers think that the time features are not a part of "present Truth," and as such are not a matter of vital importance. Such propositions they even attempt (H '21, 227-231) to prove from our Pastor's writings, by quoting from places where he mentions the main doctrinal features of present Truth; but on the other hand, as in other cases, they fail to quote from well-known writings of his where he calls the time features "present Truth," and urges their vital importance for the end of the Age. Throughout the first chapter of Studies, Vol. II, especially pages 30-32, repeatedly our Pastor speaks of the time features as

Gershonism. 

380 

"present Truth," which means, "meat in due season," and speaks earnestly of their great importance. As a refutation of the P.B.I. claims on this line we suggest that all re-read this chapter. This is also the Bible teaching on the matter (Luke 12:37, 42; Dan. 12:4, 9-12; Hab. 2:2, 3; 1 Thes. 5:1-5). If we remember that the expressions "present Truth" and "meat in due season" are equivalent terms, at once we will see the "folly" of their claims that the time features are not present Truth, nor of vital importance for the end of the Age. How manifest is their Jambresian "folly"—that in the harvest time harvest time features are not present Truth, and are not vitally important! How otherwise than by harvest time features could the time of beginning and ending the reaping work be recognized? How otherwise could one have known when to begin and when to stop reaping? The sign prophecies are not sufficiently clear-cut to mark them. It was the time features, not the sign features, that prompted our Pastor consciously to enter into the harvest work (Z '16, 171, pars. 10-12). It was also the time features that enabled him to see in 1914 that the reaping ended Oct., 1914, and, as he for nearly two years thereafter taught, that the gleaning, and not the reaping, from Oct., 1914, onward was in order. Evidently the P.B.I. Editors in opening the discussion on the chronology thought that it was meat in due season (H '21, 83-85; 115, 116). They were evidently using their chronological changes to pave the way for some (counterfeit) reaping work. In the same references they speak of the chronology as among the "vital questions of the hour." If the time features are no longer a vital question in the end of the Age, why did they, as in inquisitorial body, and as "a doctrinal clearing house," cite Bro. Cox, one of the P.B.I. pilgrims, from Boston to Brooklyn to appear before them to answer for speaking against their chronology, and for seven hours submit him to an 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

381 

inquisitorial and a doctrinal-clearing-house process in an effort, which proved futile, to make him recant the Biblical chronology given through our Pastor in favor of their unbiblical and unhistorical chronology, plagiarized from the most inexact school of nominal-church writers on the subject. Their latest change of front, to the effect that the chronology is not a part of present Truth and is not a vital question, is due, we believe, not to conviction, but to "business," i.e., to their desire as members of antitypical Jambres "to draw away disciples after them," because they now recognize that their chronological teachings have alienated a large number of their ablest and best followers, whom they want still to lead. Their efforts to "draw away disciples" in this respect are transparent to any one who has studied the way of those who "of your own selves shall" "arise, teaching perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30). Their contention on the chronology as not being a part of present Truth, by which they confuse the issue, as though any of us claim that chronology is one of the essential doctrines for salvation, is another error that Azazel has given them, and is another proof that they are (unwittingly, of course) among his mouthpieces. For this reason they are utterly unfit to teach any Little Flock members, but are just the kind of teachers ("smoother than butter") that Gershonite Levites need to mislead them in their wilderness experiences, while their fleshly minds are being destroyed as a result of Azazel's machinations and their afflicting results. We pity them indeed, and pray for their recovery in due time. But our love for the Little Flock impels us to suggest to all the Little Flock members among the P.B.I. to refuse further offers of service coming from the P.B.I. Editors and Directors, whose untrustworthiness as teachers and leaders ought to be as transparent as the noonday sun to all Truth people thoroughly instructed in, and loyal to, the Lord's teachings as given through that faithful and wise servant. "Wherefore, come out 

Gershonism. 

382 

from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you" (2 Cor. 6:17). By such coming out priestly fellowship will be withdrawn from them, though they may be given brotherly fellowship, as it will seem to be helpful and due for their cleansing. Separate yourselves, beloved brethren, from these Levites who have in their drunkenness dared approach God's holy vessels and altar for sacrificial purposes (Lev. 10:1-11; Num. 17:10—18:3). 

As connected with our subject we would here introduce an examination of several of Carl Olson's chronological errors. In presenting these he gives them as corrections of some alleged mistakes of our Pastor on the chronology. The first alleged mistake that he claims our Pastor made was his counting the period from the death of Terah and of Abraham's entrance into the land of Canaan (as synchronous with Abraham's receiving the Covenant) to the giving of the Law as 430 years, whereas Carl Olson claims on the basis of his interpretation of Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6 that it was 400 years from the death of Terah and Abraham's entering the land to the giving of the Law, and that consequently the Covenant must have been given to Abraham thirty years before, i.e., while he was in Ur of the Chaldees. We offer some arguments in refutation of this point: (1) It is true that while Abraham was yet in Ur of the Chaldees God offered to make a Covenant with him (Acts 7:2, 3); but He attached certain conditions that had to be fulfilled by Abraham before He would make the Covenant with him. These conditions were that (1) he leave his own country, (2) his kindred, (3) his father's house, and (4) go to the land to be shown him, which proved to be Canaan (Gen. 12:1). It was only after Abraham fulfilled these, conditions that the Covenant became his. He had to prove by submitting to the four above indicated tests that he was worthy of 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

383 

the Covenant, before God would give—confirm—it to him. Hence, while the Covenant was conditionally offered to him in Ur of the Chaldees, it was not given—"confirmed"—to him until he had fulfilled the conditions on which it was offered, and for, and upon the fulfilment of which it was "confirmed" (Gal. 3:17). Hence the Covenant was not given—confirmed—to him in Ur of the Chaldees, but on his entrance into Canaan. St. Stephen tells us that these conditions were by God in Ur of the Chaldees offered to Abraham for fulfilment, but he does not say one word about the Covenant being made—"confirmed"—with Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees. And the connection between Gen. 12:1 and Gen. 12:2, 3 proves that the conditions mentioned in v. I had to be fulfilled before the promises of vs. 2 and 3 belonged to Abraham. The conditions being fulfilled God "confirmed" the Covenant to him, and St. Paul said it was 430, not 400, years after it was "confirmed" that the Law was given (Gal. 3:17). This, then, is our first answer to Carl Olson's "wonderful unfolding" of new light (new darkness, in very truth, it should be called) as to the place where the Covenant became Abraham's. 

(2) The "wonderful unfolding" of new light (new darkness) becomes more apparent as of Azazelian origin when we examine his claim that Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6 prove that it was 400 years from Abraham's entrance into the land of Canaan until the Law, and that as a result it must have been thirty years before the entrance into the land that the Covenant was made with Abraham by God. As we compare these two passages we note that Acts 7:6 is not a quotation, but a paraphrase, a brief explanation, of Gen. 15:13. The following remarks will help clarify the situation: (1) Neither of the passages gives the name of the land that Gen. 15:13 describes as not belonging to Abraham's seed, and that Acts 7:6 calls "a strange land." Carl Olson's claim is that the land is the one that Abraham entered just after Terah's death; but 

Gershonism. 

384 

both verses show that the inhabitants of the land referred to would enslave Abraham's seed, which did not in any sense occur in Canaan before the giving of the Law; therefore that land cannot be Canaan. (2) The connections of both verses show that that land was a different land from Canaan (Gen. 15:14-16; Acts 7:7). (3) Gen. 15:16 and Acts 7:7 prove that Canaan is the land to which Abraham's seed would go after God should deliver them from the "strange land" of Acts 7:6 and from the "land that is not theirs" of Gen. 15:13. These three facts prove, therefore, that the land treated of in Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6 is not Canaan, and therefore Abraham's entrance into Canaan cannot be referred to in these two verses, and therefore the 400 years of those verses cannot be connected with his entering Canaan. The whole connection, compared with the facts of the latter part of Genesis and the first part of Exodus, shows that the land referred to in Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6 is Egypt. 

Another line of reasoning overthrows Carl Olson's view on Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6. As it was not Abraham, but his seed, that was to be afflicted 400 years (Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6), and as in Isaac was Abraham's seed called (Rom. 9:7), and as Isaac was not born until 25 years after Abraham entered Canaan (Gen. 12:4; 17:17), Abraham's seed could not have begun to be afflicted until some time after coming into existence, which coming into existence began 25 years after Abraham entered Canaan; but Gen. 15:13-16 and Acts 7:6, 7 speak of this seed's being afflicted 400 years up to the time of its deliverance, which occurred at the giving of the first feature of the Law—the Paschal Lamb; hence it was more than 425 years from Abraham's entrance into Canaan until the Law. Accordingly, the 400 years (Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6) have no reference to the time of Abraham's entering Canaan. 

A third consideration proves the faultiness of Carl Olson's reasoning on Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6. It

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

385 

will be noticed that both of the passages contain three statements respecting the seed: (1) its dwelling in an alien land; (2) its being enslaved by the people of that alien land; (3) and its affliction for 400 years by people belonging to that alien land. Carl Olson draws the expression "400 years," which occurs in the last clause only of these verses, into their first clause, treating it as though it stated that the dwelling in the alien land would be 400 years. If this were permissible, then the expression 400 years would have to be drawn into the second clause, and this would prove that the slavery of Abraham's seed would be 400 years, i.e., that from some time after Joseph's death (Ex. 1:6-11) until the Exodus were 400 years; hence there would be as many more years than 400 years from Abraham's entrance into Canaan until the giving of the Law as there were years from Abraham's entering Canaan until some time after Joseph's death! Thus his method of interpreting this verse, logically applied, destroys his own contention. And since we have proven the "land" of the first clause to be Egypt, his method of interpretation would make the verse self-contradictory from the standpoint of the length of the stay in Egypt and the length of the slavery; for the latter was shorter than the former; but his method of interpretation makes both the same length by forcing the insertion of the term "400 years" into both clauses. Surely the result of his method applied to the facts of the case is confusion. Manifestly the expression 400 years is limited to the third clause. How reasonable is our Pastor's explanation, that these 400 years' affliction of Abraham's seed began with the mistreatment that Isaac received at his weaning (Gen. 21:8, 9), at the hands of Hagar, an Egyptian, and her son Ishmael, who, though actually a son and thus a seed of Abraham, is not Scripturally counted as of Abraham's seed, but as of the Egyptian nation after his mother's nationality (Gen. 21:9, 21; Gal. 4:29, 30). In ancient as well as 

Gershonism. 

386 

in modern times, in oriental countries, frequently children are not weaned until from four to six years of age. As we understand matters, Isaac was five years old at his weaning; hence this episode, occurring 400 years before Israel left Egypt, and thirty years after Abraham entered Canaan marks the beginning of the affliction of Abraham's seed at the hands of the Egyptians, and is thoroughly in line with Abraham's entering the land 430 years before the Law; and this proves that the Covenant was made with Abraham when he fulfilled the conditions necessary to obtain it. His use of this passage is like a drowning man clutching at a straw! How much better it would have been, had he humbly drawn the only proper lesson that he should have drawn from the experience of teaching the terrible errors of which he has become guilty, and of which he recognizes his guilt—that he is not qualified for the office of a teacher of the General Church, and that he, therefore, should desist from further usurpation of that office. 

Like the P.B.I., and from the same standpoint, he thinks that he has found another mistake in our Pastor's chronology as to the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles. His arguments are borrowed from nominal-church writers on this point, as is the case with the P.B.I. Editors, and as our answers above to the latter's views also overthrow his views on this matter, we will not repeat them here. However, two of his thoughts in this connection should receive attention. On page 2 of his June issue he states that the seventh year of Ezekiel's captivity was the last year of Jehoiakim's reign. This is a mistake. The first Babylonian captivity of Israelites occurred at the end of Jehoiakim's and in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (Jer. 52:28; 2 Chron. 36:5-7). Ezekiel entered into captivity with Jehoiakin, and the chronology that he gives for his different visions is dated according to the years of Jehoiakin's captivity

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

387 

and Zedekiah's reign, which two events began at the same time, as the following references will prove: Ezek. 1:1, 2; Jer. 29:1; Ezek. 40:1; 33:21; 24:1, 2, etc. Hence the overturning that Carl Olson tries to put into the third or fourth year of Jehoiakim was, even in the seventh year (Ezek. 20:1; 21:25-27) of Zedekiah, yet a future thing. It occurred in the latter's eleventh year; for the prophecies of chapters 20 and 21 were given to Ezekiel on the same occasion, i.e., in the seventh year, fifth month and the tenth day of his captivity and of Zedekiah's reign (Ezek. 20:1). But even if it were, as Carl Olson claims, in the last year of Jehoiakim's reign, the entire overturning is stated as a future thing, which proves that the overturning could not in any sense refer to a past event such as he supposes to have occurred in the third or fourth year of Jehoiakim, but must have been future to Jehoiakim's last year. 

As Jehoiakin's three months' reign simply filled out his father's eleventh year, he was not counted as reigning in his own right and time; hence God said to Jehoiakim that none of his seed should sit on David's throne, Zedekiah, the last of the kings, being his brother. God's statement on this point does not mean, as Carl Olson implies, that with Jehoiakim's third year his right to reign ceased and the Times of the Gentiles commenced. However, his view of three over turnings is contradictory to Ezek. 21:25-27, and certainly is a marked example of how Azazel gives foolish thoughts to his mouthpieces. Our Pastor's explanation of the threefold repetition of the word "overturn" as being for a solemn emphasis is certainly reasonable and Scriptural. The overturning was that of Israel's royalty only; this was fulfilled in Zedekiah. 

The next point in this connection respects his claim that Daniel's age was too great for his activities, toward the end of his career, which age by errors and guesses he gives as 112 years, if the 70 years began at 

Gershonism. 

388 

the end of Zedekiah's reign. This he claims favors his understanding of the Times of the Gentiles as beginning in the third or fourth year of Jehoiakim, when he claims Daniel was taken a captive. We answer as follows: The Bible shows that the first captives and the first set of sacred vessels were taken to Babylon in the end of the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (Jer. 52:28; 2 Chro. 36:6, 7), a little over 10½ years before Zedekiah's overthrow. This would cut seven years off of Carl Olson's figures for Daniel's age. Again, Cyrus became king of Babylon in Nov., 538, and his third year would have been from Nov., 536, to Nov., 535, hence a little over 70 years after Zedekiah's overthrow. This would make Daniel's stay in Babylon until Cyrus' third year about 81 years. Carl Olson guesses that Daniel was 20 years old at his taking to Babylon. Even if this were true, his age would then have been, not 112, but 101 years, in the third year of Cyrus. For a person of Daniel's temperate habits, and with the Law's promise of many years for the obedient, Daniel at that age would have been able to do the work described as his in his book. Anna, the prophetess, was at least 105 years old, and was quite active (Luke 2:36, 37). In all likelihood Daniel was between 90 and 95 years old in Cyrus' third year. This point, therefore, does not favor the fourth year of Jehoiakim as the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles. 

As an illustration of Carl Olson's "wild speculations and fanciful interpretations," we cite his claim that Adam was thirty years old at the time of his fall. He reasons that this must be so, because the Priests and Levites had to be thirty years old before they could serve, and because John and Jesus were thirty years old when they began their ministries! We answer as follows: These all having been born as undeveloped babes had to develop into manhood, which was attained at thirty years, according to the Law. But Adam was created in perfect manhood and not under the Law.

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

389 

Hence what applied to them did not apply to him. No reason but Carl Olson's desire to have thirty years added to his chronology to give him a period for the operation of another set of foolish predictions and campaigns can be advanced for his theory that Adam was thirty years old at the time of his fall! The Bible nowhere intimates such a thought. It was born in Azazel's mind, and thence transplanted into the responsive mind of C. Olson. He claims that the 6,000 years since Adam's creation will end Oct., 1921, and that the 6,000 years from his fall will end 1951. He denies the truthfulness of the Parallel Dispensations. Like the Society leaders his views imply 51 Jubilee cycles of 50 years each since the last one before the captivity, despite God's saying (2 Chro. 36:21) that all the Jubilee years were fully kept—fulfilled—during the 70 years of desolation; therefore he gives 1944 as the beginning of the antitypical Jubilee. He seems to have cast off both of its arguments in Studies, Vol. II. He thus has no antitypical great Cycle pointing out the antitypical Jubilee. In his chronology it would end before the end of his 6,000 years! This may account for its absence from his scheme of things. We understand that he denies that our Lord's Second Advent and the First Resurrection have set in and that the Great Company is a spiritual class. In fact, he claims that he must cut loose entirely from our Pastor's teachings on prophecy, and work on entirely "original" lines. Of course, with such a standpoint, Azazel will soon take away front him every vestige of prophetic truth! What we said above about the time symmetries of God's Plan and of the Pyramid measurements applies against all his chronological vagaries, as well as against the P.B.I. errors on Chronology. 

The P.B.I. Editors are going astray on a number of subjects. Their chief errors concern the organization of the Church—a doctrinal error—and the chronology—a prophetic error. Above we have 

Gershonism. 

390 

pointed out their chief errors in these respects, as well as called attention to some of their revolutionism in practice, particularly in reference to their drawing up a Charter contradictory of the sample Charter—that of the W. T. B. & T. S.—for controlling corporations among Truth Levites. In their case the proverb is surely fulfilling—"He that says A must also say B." Surely Azazel is leading them on from one error to another, putting them under the delusion that their contradictions of our Pastor's teachings are advancing light! This has been his course with all sifters among Truth people, as the history of all six siftings shows. 

Now they are losing the Truth on the subject of our Pastor being that Servant. However, they are spreading this error with Satanic cunning and Judas-like treachery. In an article in their April 1, 1922, Herald, entitled, Whom and What Shall We Preach? amid protestations of affection and appreciation for our Pastor—of the same kind that Judas showed our Master while betraying Him—they deny that there is any prophetical, symbolic or typical Scripture that specifically refers to him (H '22, 101, par. 2), claiming that such personal and individual references are made to Jesus and the Apostles alone. They claim that it would be speculation to refer any such Scripture to Bro. Russell, and that they, for their part, would refrain from such speculation. They have in this seemingly come to agree with their ally, ex-pilgrim Melinder, in Sweden, whose reasons for denying that our Pastor alone was that Servant were reviewed in P '21, 148, 149. They tell us that they have not changed in their attitude toward, and opinion of, our Pastor (H '22, 101, col. 2, par. 1). This would mean either that they did not formerly believe that he alone was that Servant, when they called him such, or that they are now falsifying as to their former view of him. In the same connection they say that they believe he was "a [italics ours] very wise and 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

391 

faithful servant." Why did they not say that they believe that he was that wise and faithful servant? Their view that there is no Scripture that refers specifically to him implies that they deny that Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:42-46 specifically refer to him. In gross hypocrisy they quote passages from his writings that rebuke the course of some brethren who applied too many Scriptures to him, as though he deprecated all Scriptural applications to him by the brethren. He himself—modestly, of course—applied Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:42-44 to himself (D 613, 614; Z '96, 47, note particularly the second paragraph on page 47); and he never deprecated any one's doing the same. It was only when the brethren degenerated into angel-worship of him in their efforts to apply to him multitudes of inapplicable Scriptures that he deprecated and rebuked their course (Rev. 22:8, 9). 

The claim of the P.B.I. leaders that no other individuals than our Lord and the Apostles are referred to individually in the prophecies, symbols and types of the Bible not only contradicts what Bro. Russell says (C 25-59) on Dan. XI, but is also in direct contradiction of other Scriptures, e.g. Zech. 11:8, 15-17. See Vol. VI, Chap. III. If one studies the deep cunning and mock affection with which the article under review is written, he can at once see its Satanic and Iscariot-like character. It is true that they do not in express words flatly deny that our Pastor is alone meant by the expression, that Servant. This would be too dangerous to say; for this would be against their policy of drawing away disciples after themselves, since it would turn many more away from them. But what they do say certainly means this. Their fighting his chronology is in line with their denial of his being that Servant. Their fellowshipping on most intimate terms with ex-pilgrim Melinder, who they know denies that our Pastor was that Servant is in harmony with the same thing; and Bro. Frew, a pilgrim of their 

Gershonism. 

392 

own making, at Richmond, Va., some time ago, before a Class there, denied that Bro. Russell alone was that Servant. Before long we may expect them to come out openly and deny him the exclusive honor of being that Servant. Their confounding the proper application to him of certain passages with the worshiping of angels, which he condemned, will deceive only such as have not received the Truth in the love of it; and their article on the subject is a Judas betrayal of him; and this Judas-like spirit may later express itself in a final betrayal of the representatives of the entire Christ class now living in the flesh. 

The Herald Editors (H '22, 27, 28) are lukewarm and unsettled on whether the various items of Elijah's experiences and related acts from the time he saw the vision on Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19:11, 12) until Elisha's death (2 Kings 13:20) are types. They admit that our dear Pastor looked upon them as types; but they are in doubt on their being such, and confess that at least up to the present they have seen no fulfilment of Elijah's and Elisha's experiences as given in 2 Kings 2:1-19. Once some of them did see the antitypes of these things as occurring from 1874 to 1917; but through their Levitical uncleanness coming into the ascendency in their lives and works in 1918, they have lost the Truth on the subject; and, of course, denying the only factual explanation that can fit the case—see Chapter II of Vol. III—they can find no other set of facts to fit the typical events as their antitypes. This growing unsettlement of their confidence in this phase of the Truth that they once saw, like their rejection of the thought of our Pastor as being individually referred to in any prophetic, typical and symbolic Scripture (hence according to their view he is not referred to individually in Matt. 24:45-47; Luke 12:42-44), is proof positive that they are out of the Holy and are going into outer darkness. The Lord's way of proving their gross iniquity connected 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

393 

with the Fort Pitt Committee in 1918 is thus being manifested more and more as the days go by! "If the light that is in thee become darkness, how great is that darkness!" This is the reason why they do not now see any antitype to 2 Kings 2:1-19. 

The P. B. I. has republished Studies, Vol. I and is advocating, among other ways, its use for the Pastoral work. This in itself is a good work and is appropriate for Gershonite Levites; for by such work they will lead people to repentance and faith and thus to justification, and then later on to consecration; and this is the proper work of the Gershonites (Vol. VIII, Chap. II); but their Jambresianism will teach such persons that they are candidates for joint-heirship with Christ and the Divine nature, and in this way will work genuine mischief. Thus their chronological errors will pave the way for great disappointment to their converts. 

Above we refuted their nominal-churchizing and heathenizing chronology on their year 606 B.C. The brethren will be glad to learn that a goodly number of their former adherents have withdrawn their support from them, since they gave out their errors on the Times of the Gentiles beginning in the third year of Jehoiakim. In fact, the New York P.B.I. church had so many members faithful to our Pastor's chronological teachings that at the following election of its officers they voted down as Elders I. F. Hoskins and H. C. Rockwell, the only two Herald Editors who were among their Elders. From the fact that that church at the same time elected Bro. Cooke, one of the P.B.I. Directors, as one of its Elders, we infer that the Herald Editors very likely falsified when they said that the P.B.I. Editors and Directors were unanimous in believing that the third year of Jehoiakim was in 606 B.C., and that it was the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles. If these P.B.I. Editors were not in Azazel's hands, and if they were not 

Gershonism. 

394 

blinded by him, surely our answers above would have rescued them from their delusion. 

Despite the fact that we have proven that both the Scriptural and the secular chronologies disagree with their dating the third year of Jehoiakim as 606 B.C., they continue to reiterate this thought. In their Nov. 1, 1921, issue these Editors, in the main approvingly, print an article written by a Washington, D. C., brother who wishes his name withheld, but whose initials, J.A.D. (these are the initials of J. A. Devault, of Washington, D. C.) are given at the end of the article. Only on one point do these Editors express dissent, i.e., on the seventy years of desolation. J. A.D., knowing that their arguments on that point cannot be sustained, resorts to another artifice to gain the same end, i.e., of cutting off 19 years from the Bible chronology. It is indeed remarkable how errorists arrive at the same results by mutually contradictory processes of reasoning. They agree in their denial of the Truth, but reach that agreement by mutually contradictory reasoning. Thus they remind us of Samson's foxes: their burning tails are tied together, while their heads are in opposite directions! 

It will be recalled that our Pastor said that prior to 536 B.C. secular chronology is uncertain, and that therefore God to give us full assurance provided us with His chronology, covering the period in which secular chronology is uncertain, and ceased to give us His chronology only when secular chronology became certain, i.e., from 536 B.C. onward. This is, therefore, certainly a reasonable proposition. But J.A.D. claims with much positiveness that it is reasonable that we accept secular dates prior to 536 B.C., if we do so from 536 onward. However, as he proceeds he guilelessly proves that his proposition is the unreasonable one; for he gives several secular chronological tables which differ as much as three years in what he claims are the 24 years immediately preceding 536.

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

395 

It is just because of these contradictions in the secular chronologies immediately preceding 536 B.C. that our Pastor claimed that they were undependable, and therefore rejected them as correct before 536 B.C. Certainly his course was the reasonable one, and J.A.D.'s is the unreasonable one, as his own tables prove. We could not have asked him to give us better proofs for the unreasonableness of his position on this point than he has furnished us by giving us the proof from the secular chronologies that by their discrepancies and disagreements they are unreliable prior to 536 B.C. On this point we are by him reminded of the homely proverb: "Give a calf enough rope and he will hang himself." David's language certainly applies to this brother: "Tarry in Jericho until your beard be grown." "A little learning is a dangerous thing." 

In the Herald (H '21, 311, col. 2, top) the claim is made that if Bro. Russell had had the arguments presented to him which the P.B.I. Editors use for their cutting off 19 years from the chronology, he would have agreed with the P.B.I.'s position on the point. But not only does our Pastor's refuting their main points in Studies, Vol. II and in later articles prove that he had studied and rejected them, but J.A.D. also proves that they were studied by our Pastor; for he claims (H '21, 325, par. 1) that he presented these very views to our Pastor, who later rejected his findings. Thus the P.B.I.'s position on this point is doubly disproven. 

J.A.D. gives more folly (2 Tim. 3:9) by what he says about Mordecai's age as a proof that the Times of the Gentiles must have begun in the third year of Jehoiakim; otherwise, he alleges, Mordecai would have been too old—about 150 years old—at the time of his Scripturally described activity. He cites in proof of this point Esther 2:5-7 (H '21, 332), claiming from it that Mordecai went into captivity with Jehoiakim in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year; whereas the passage

Gershonism. 

396 

says that it was his great grandfather that then went into that captivity! Oh yes, his arguments are "remarkable corroborative testimony" in proof of the P.B.I. chronology! They are Jambresian folly (2 Tim. 3:9)! 

His main arguments for the cutting off of 19 years from the chronology are practically the same that we have already refuted above; hence to avoid repetition we pass them by. Later on we will refer to his efforts to make another "double" than the Biblical one taught by our Pastor. This we will do when reviewing similar features of an article in the Herald of May 1, 1922, in which the Herald endorses his view in an article entitled, More Study in the Chronology. This article was occasioned by a letter that they published which attacked their chronology, especially on the 70 years' desolation—the 70 Jubilee years—and on the Parallels. They still continue to maintain their "folly" on the 70 Sabbath-keeping years—the desolation of the land—as ending about 16 years after Israel's return from Babylon and 16 years after they began to sow seed and reap what the land yielded! Persons who, in the teeth of the clear Scriptural refutation of such a view of Sabbath-keeping on the part of the land as we gave above, will still maintain such a view are just what St. Paul says of antitypical Jambre—ever seeking and never attaining the Truth. 

The writer of the letter cites against their view Moses' statement (Lev. 26:31-35) that God would drive them out of their land and keep them out of their land, so that the land could enjoy the Sabbaths that they did not permit it to enjoy while they inhabited it. This passage expressly states that as long as they would be out of their land it would enjoy the Sabbaths that it did not enjoy while they were in it. The P.B.I. Editors try in a number of ways to evade this thought, among others, by half clearly, half obscurely conveying the idea that these Sabbaths were the Sabbaths that came every seven years, and not the

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

397 

Jubilee Sabbaths; and then they intimate that these have been kept during the dispersion since 70 A.D. This cannot be true, because the present dispersion has lasted many more years than the number of all their Sabbatic years. The Prophet Zechariah (Zech. 7:5, 12) conclusively proves that there were no Israelites in Palestine during the 70 years of Babylon's supremacy, thus corroborating 2 Chron. 36:20, 21; Lev. 26:31-35. Nay, Lev. 26:31-35 refers to the Babylonian captivity, and its Sabbaths are the Jubilees, not the seventh year Sabbaths. 

These Editors seek to evade the brother's objection by another method: they claim, despite our Pastor's rejection of that thought, that none of the captives of Israel were to be more than 70 years in Babylon; hence, they claim, this would include those who went into captivity 11 years before Zedekiah, which would make the time from his captivity until the return less than 70 years. In proof they quote Jer. 29:1-10, particularly v. 10. They stress the fact that the captives here referred to went into captivity about 10 years before Zedekiah's overthrow; yet according to their contention none was to remain there more than 70 years in all. But they base their argument on a false translation. In v. 10 the phrase "at Babylon" should read "for Babylon," (see, among others, both Revised Versions) the thought being that after the first Gentile power had exercised its full period of 70 years of exclusive Gentile royalty, and hence 70 years after the crown was taken away from Israel at Zedekiah's dethroning, that Empire would cease to keep Israel any longer out of their land. This passage does not say how long those Israelites would be in captivity. It teaches that the first 70 years of the Times of the Gentiles would be Babylon's period of universal dominion. Hence during this period Israel would have no crown. But at the end of the first period of exclusive Gentile royalty over the earth

Gershonism. 

398 

Israel would return. Therefore this passage proves the length of time from the dethroning of Zedekiah until Israel's return to be 70 years; thus instead of proving, it disproves the P.B.I. position. To base arguments on false translations, as these Editors here do, is poor reasoning and worse policy. 

Next they refer to Jer. 25:11, 12 to prove that all Israel was not out of the land 70 years. They claim that the expression "70 years" in the last clause of v. 11 applies only to the last clause of the verse, and not to the clause that says that the land would be a desolation and an astonishment. So far as this verse alone is concerned, it is impossible positively to assert what the P.B.I. Editors assert; for frequently for brevity's sake we omit the repetition of a phrase in a double sentence, when the phrase applies to both clauses, e.g., in the sentence, "He devastated the entire land and drove out its inhabitants by his army," everybody would understand that the expression, "by his army," belongs to both clauses. So in Jer. 25:11 the expression, "70 years," belongs to both of its clauses. That this is true we assert on the authority of God Himself; for He Himself says in 2 Chro. 36:20, 21 that Jeremiah's prophecy that the land would be desolate 70 years was fulfilled by God's driving them out of their land and keeping them in other lands, thus desolating it—until it was so bereaved of its inhabitants 70 years. If the P.B.I. view of the desolation were true, there would have been no need of driving them out of their land at all. All that would have been necessary for the P.B.I.'s kind of desolation would be to make the land unfruitful. In other words, sending them lean years for 70 years would have been the P.B.I. desolation, as 16 of their 70 years were lean years spent by them in their own land. But God said that the land's desolation—bereavement of the land of its inhabitants—not leanness, would last 70 years. In no other passage than Jer. 25:11 does Jeremiah

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

399 

foretell 70 years of desolation. Hence God's own explanation of Jer. 25:11 shows that the expression "70 years" in that verse belongs to the desolation of the land as well as to the universal royalty of Gentile power represented in Babylon. Therefore the expression "70 years" in the verse under consideration belongs to both of its clauses; and it proves that the desolation of the land and Babylon's supremacy were contemporaneous; therefore they began at Zedekiah's dethronement. Moreover, God's own explanation of how the land would enjoy its Sabbaths is conclusive on this point: He said that as long as Israel would be in their enemies' land—therefore out of their own land—would the land enjoy its Sabbaths (Lev. 26:31-34). Hence none of its 70 Sabbaths were kept while they were in it; and therefore the 16 years after Israel's return, claimed by these Editors as Sabbaths, were not such. 

We, accordingly, conclude that the Editors' efforts to interpret Jer. 29:10; 25:11 in a way that makes them conflict with the clear teachings of Lev. 26:31-36; 2 Chron. 36:20, 21—and we might add Zech. 7:5, 12, to which the P.B.I. Editors do not refer—in order to put upon these passages an interpretation contrary to their clear teachings, has completely failed. God's statements on this subject still stand, the P.B.I. Editors and their master, Azazel, to the contrary notwithstanding. 

We desire to emphasize the fact that we mentioned when we first answered their errors on the Times of the Gentiles—their lines of reasoning are not original with them; they have plagiarized these things from one of the most inexact schools of nominal-church chronologians! Not only so, but worse yet, their lines of reasoning are exactly the same as the Second Death sifters used in 1908-11, when after rejecting the Biblical chronology which our Pastor taught they sought to introduce error on that subject. This was a part of

Gershonism. 

400 

their contradictionism—the fifth slaughter weapon. After all, it should not surprise us that the P.B.I. Editors, as parts of antitypical Jambres, should agree with the 1908-11 Second Death sifters as parts of antitypical Jannes (2 Tim. 3:1-9); for they are their soul mates and co-workers. As Jannes and Jambores before and in the interests of Pharaoh sought to overthrow the influence and works of Moses, speaking and acting through Aaron, so antitypical Jannes during the Parousia sought, before and in the interests of antitypical Pharaoh, Satan, to overthrow the influence and work of the antitypical Moses, the Christ class beyond the veil, speaking and acting through antitypical Aaron, the Christ class this side of the veil. And likewise antitypical Jambres now, during the Epiphany, is seeking before and in the interests of antitypical Pharaoh, Satan, to overthrow the influence and work of antitypical Moses, the Christ class beyond the veil, speaking and acting through the antitypical Aaron, the Christ class this side of the veil! This, dear brethren, is the rock-bottom solution of the cause of all these sifters' errors—the sixth slaughter weapon—revolutionism. 

The P.B.I. Editors have finally come out with their new "double," which they seem to have borrowed from J. A.D. In his article, on which he gave a few comments above, he sets forth a double of 1864 years, whose first part, by subtracting 19 years from the Bible chronology, he makes end in 70 A.D. Beginning its second part in 70 A.D., he makes it reach 1934. In H '22, 138, col. 2, par. 2, the P.B.I. Editors endorse this view of the "double." Not only so, but they deny that our Pastor used the Parallel Dispensation to prove the time of our Lord's Second Advent (H '22, 139, col. 2, par. 4), which they say occurred about 1874. (How near 1874 in their opinion was it? we would fain ask.) In contradiction of this false statement that our Pastor did not use the 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

401 

Parallels to prove the time of the Second Advent we refer our readers to B 247, also 234, 235. This statement of the Editors seems to prove that they are more familiar with the writings of Foolish Virgins than with those of our Pastor, whose findings they are rejecting for those of Foolish Virgins. Of course, the new parallel and other chronological errors cause them to reject the bulk of our Pastor's findings in Studies, Vols. II and III, despite their denial of this fact. In their June 1, 1922, issue they have finally "let the cat out of the bag": they show that they have gotten their chronological errors from H. Grattan Guinness (a foolish virgin, whose findings our Pastor both verbally and in the Tower rejected). Let the brethren realize this: that R. E. Streeter, who foisted these errors on the P.B.I., is more sympathetic with H. Grattan Guinness' errors than he is with our Pastor's truths. Even before our Pastor's death R. E. Streeter preached more or less of Guinness' views. It seems that he never quite gave up many views of the Second Adventists, whom he left when he came into the Truth. He has failed to heed the injunction of Is. 52:11; he has touched the unclean thing; and as a result, he is unclean. In the letter occasioning the article in their May number, which we are now reviewing, the protesting brother—Bro. Cox of Boston, who gave up their pilgrim service because of their chronological errors—calls their attention to a number of the parallels already fulfilled as proving our understanding of the Parallel to be correct. But these Editors waive these parallels aside, claiming that they do not disprove their cutting off 19 years from the chronology. These Editors have many difficulties, and they are by their teachings proving that their false chronology contradicts practically everything as far as chronological harmony is concerned. They will have to surrender the harvest Parallels or change the harvest times. They will have to surrender 1878 as the time of Babylon's rejection

Gershonism. 

402 

and the resurrection of the saints; for only by the Parallels are these dates proven for these events. In fact, they have made a sorry mess of almost everything chronological. 

First let us look at the three Old Testament passages that treat of the "double," and see how each one of them contradicts their new "double." As the first of these we will briefly consider Is. 40:1, 2. Their claim is that the "double" of these verses and "the appointed time" of the margin end in 1934. Do these verses and the facts of the case agree with such a thought? It will be noticed that these verses show that the "comfort" of which they treat was to be proclaimed to Israel after her double was finished, and after her appointed time was completed. But the facts prove that ever since 1878 this comfort has been preached to Israel. The decree of the Berlin Conference of nations and the circulation of Delitsch's Hebrew New Testament, were the first proclamations of this comfort. Shortly thereafter, our Pastor began to proclaim this comfort to them; and for years he and the Harvest people proclaimed it to the Jews. Yea, we know that from 1910 to 1915 he and they devoted much time to that message. In 1882 Leo Pinsker, the forerunner of Herzl, began among the Jews to preach this comfort. He was joined in this by many very prominent Israelites, such as Lilienblum, Levanda, Ruelf, etc., in a world-wide proclamation of this comfort. In 1895 Herzl wrote his Jewish State, which aroused that form of agitation that is called Zionism, in the narrow sense of that term. All Jewry is now receiving this comfort. Thus we see that the predicted comfort has been proclaimed ever since 1878; and the passage says that it would not be preached until after the "double"—the "appointed time"—was completed. Therefore the "double," the "appointed time" was completed before June 11, 1878, when the Berlin Conference began the proclamation of the comfort, 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

403 

and before June 11, 1878, when Britain assumed the protectorate of Palestine for Turkey. Hence the P.B.I. view of the "double" contradicts this passage and its fulfilment. Thus their view is seen to be erroneous. 

Again, their view is in violent contradiction of the second passage that treats of the "double"—Jer. 16:15-18. Jehovah says in v. 18 that He would first punish their sins and iniquities double, before He would fulfill to them the promises of vs. 15, 16. But we know that ever since 1881 He has been bringing to Palestine ever increasing numbers of the Jews, from Russia and other countries (v. 15). We know that ever since 1878 Jehovah has been sending the "fishers" (v. 16) to draw the Israelites to Palestine with the bait of Zionism. These fishers, in part, have been those statesmen who have politically assisted Israel to return; in part those Israelitish agitators, e.g., those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, who, especially since 1881, have been arousing their persecuted brethren to go to Palestine, in hope of a home and a national government; and in part those spiritual Israelites who have been proclaiming the Biblical Zionism. Of these the harvest people and many "foolish virgins" in Babylon are examples. Thus we see that the "fishers" have been fishing them ever since 1878. But v. 18 shows that they would begin this fishing only after the "double" was over; hence the "double" was over when in the nights of June 6 and 11, 1878, the statesmen fishers as the pioneers began this figurative fishing. This consideration completely refutes the P.B.I. double ending in 1934. 

Moreover, the hunting which was to follow the completion of the "double" began in 1881 with the Russian May laws, in consequence of which Jews were fiendishly rooted up from their homes in Russia, Poland, Romania and Galicia. A hunter offers no bait to his 

Gershonism. 

404 

game. He drives and kills them without offering them even a bait. Thus the persecutors and ravishers of Israel are meant by the hunters. The series of persecutions which began in the above countries in 1881 have been continued. The Kishenev massacre of 1903, in which over 500 of the Jews were slaughtered in cold blood, was one among many of the dark deeds of the ruthless hunters driving Israel to seek refuge in other countries, among other places, in Palestine. The terrible mistreatment of the Jews by the Russian, Polish and Romanian armies in the World War are only other examples of the havoc and ruin wrought among hunted Israel by these remorseless hunters, driving large numbers of them to Palestine. But v. 18 proves that the hunting would begin only after the "double" was over. Hence the "double" was over before the Russian May laws were enacted in May, 1881, whereby the hunters began their systematic work of scouring the countries for Israelitish game. Therefore the P.B.I. double, ending in 1934, contradicts this passage and is an error. Thus we see that the second Old Testament passage treating of the "double"—Jer. 16:15-18—with its fulfilled facts completely refutes the P.B.I. double. 

So, too, does the third Old Testament passage treating of the "double" refute the P.B.I. double as being 1864 years and ending in 1934. The P.B.I. Editors make some desperate efforts to twist this passage (Zech. 9:12) into being a prophecy that makes the first part of the "double" end at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They claim that the word "today" refers only to the time when Jesus spoke; but that Jesus was prophesying of what would be done in the year 70. Let us see if the facts of the case will permit of this twist; for it is nothing else than a twist. All are agreed that from Zech. 9:9 to and including the words of v. 12, "Even today do I declare," refer to our Lord's experiences and words on the day 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

405 

when He made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem—Nisan 10, 33 A.D. Several days later (Matt. 23:38, 39) Jesus assures us of two things: (1) that their house—the house of Israel was Israel (Ezek. 37:11-14; Acts 2:36), not Jerusalem, as the P.B.I. Editors teach—had already entered into its desolation process (your house is [has been, not shall be] left unto you desolate, v. 38); and (2) that they nationally were blinded and would remain blinded until some time during His Second Advent ("Ye shall see Me no more until," etc., v. 39). Let us briefly consider these two things and we shall see that the "double"—the second part of the "double," the disfavor part—was already operating on Nisan 12, 33 A.D., when Jesus used the language of Matt. 23:38, 39. That during the second part of the "double" Israel would experience God's disfavor the other two passages treating of the "double" prove (Is. 40:2; Jer. 16:13, 17, 18). But Matt. 23:38, 39 prove that they were already, on Nisan 12, 33 A.D.—two days after Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem (Zech. 9:9-12; Matt. 21:4, 5)—suffering certain very important features of Jehovah's disfavor. Therefore this disfavor—the second part of the "double"—began before Nisan 12, 33 A.D., and accordingly 37½ years before the P.B.I.'s second part of their new double began. Hence they are proven by these passages to be in error as to when the second half of the "double" began; and these facts prove that the day the Lord declared the "double" unto them it began to operate. Thus His declaration was the pronunciation of the beginning of the double's operation, and not a prophecy of its coming years later. 

Let us notice how Israel was made desolate that day. In the following particulars their house—the house of Israel, we repeat it, was Israel, not Jerusalem, as the P.B.I. claims—was made desolate that day in the following particulars: (1) as a nation they lost God's favor that day (Zech. 9:12; Jer. 16:13, 17, 18;

Gershonism. 

406 

Gal. 4:30); (2) mouthpieceship was taken away from them nationally on that day; (3) their priesthood and sacrifices were that day made inefficacious (Dan. 9:27); (4) the promises of the Law were no more theirs nationally, only its wrath was thenceforth theirs nationally (1 Thes. 2:15, 16, "is come," has come, not shall come); (5) on that day punishments began to be meted out to them: the cleansing of the temple, the public denunciation of their leaders, etc.; (6) on that day national insight into advancing Truth was taken from them (Luke 19:42, 44; Matt. 23:39); and (7) thenceforth nationally the Lord had only rebukes, rebuffs and punishments for them, and no more shielded them from wrong and evil, because of their increasing waywardness after they were bereft of His favor. These seven particulars prove that their house—Israel—not Jerusalem simply—was from Nisan 10, 33 A.D. desolate. That its desolation had other sad consequences is only in harmony with the fact that wrath was not completed at once, but was to continue throughout the Age. In view of these facts we can readily see how ineffectual are the P.B.I.'s efforts to twist Matt. 23:38 (your house is left unto you desolate), which is a statement of a then existing fact, into a prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D.! On the "double" they are as unfortunate as they have been on their other chronological repudiations. Satan, their leader, has in this also led them into the ditch! 

After saying that many have been guilty of fanciful speculations on the parallel of the 1845 years, J.A.D. tries his hand on finding from the standpoint of an 1864 years' double a parallel for Israel's rejection in 33 A.D.; and he thinks that he has found it in 1897, in which year he claims as the parallel event that Zionism was born (H '21, 335, col. 2, par. 1)! How muddled he is on the subject is manifest from several things: (1) he attempts to parallel Israel's rejection— 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

407 

an act of wrath—with what he claims took place in 1897—which would, be an act of grace—which proves that he does not understand the operation of the parallels; and (2) he sets forth a false date for the birth of Zionism. Zionism was begun by Leo Pinsker in 1882, in a pamphlet whose theories and applications Herzl in 1895 reproduced in his booklet on the Jewish State. That Zionism, even in the sense that Herzl was identified with the work, was not born in 1897, is evident from the fact that Herzl wrote his Jewish State in 1895 and led in 1896 a company of Zionists, and through and with them called their first international Zionist Congress into public sessions in 1897. Thus Zionism, even after Herzl's manner, was born before 1897, while Zionism in other movements flourished years before Herzl was interested in the subject of Zionism. 

But the P.B.I. Editors go further, claiming with J.A.D. that the "double" belongs to fleshly Israel only, i.e., they deny that the dispensations are parallel. Even if the Bible would not directly teach it, the many parallel events and dates that our Pastor and the Brothers Edgar have presented should make candid and exact thinkers say that the facts prove the dispensations to be parallel. However, the Bible also teaches the parallel dispensations. It not only teaches the two dispensations to be of equal length (Rom. 11:25-27; Matt. 23:38, 39; Is. 40:2; Jer. 16:15-18), but additionally it distinctly teaches in 1 Cor. 10:1-14 that the Harvests are parallels, that the faithful of both Harvests are parallels, and that the calls and siftings of both Harvests are parallel. Not only are the Harvests proven by 1 Cor. 10:1-14 to be parallel, but certain periods in both Ages are shown to be parallel, i.e., the years 536 B.C. to 73 A.D. with their main events are parallel to 1309-1918 A.D. with their main events. This is shown abundantly by the facts that the Bros. Edgar present in Vol. II of the Pyramid 

Gershonism. 

408 

Passages. See, also, their chronological chart in the Bible Students Bible, noting not only the Dominion Parallels of 2520 years, but especially the parallels of the true and the counterfeit days of Daniel, the Jewish Double Parallels, and the Four Empires Parallel, all of which are annihilative of the P.B.I. chronological vagaries. In Rev. 18:6 ("Double unto her the [so the Greek] double") we have a reference to the parallel that applies from 1309 to 1918. As God began to work certain help for His true Israel through Zerubbabel, beginning in 536 B.C. and continued it until 73 A.D., so has He done for Spiritual Israel from 1309, when the Lord commissioned Marsiglio to begin to work deliverance for Spiritual Israel, until 1918, when antitypical Elijah as a class was separate from antitypical Elisha. The "voice from heaven" of Rev. 18:4 is that of the Lord's people giving certain messages connected with the chronology. This voice began in 1876 to give this message. One of the features of the message is connected with the "double" (v. 6). This message respecting the "double" began to open in 1876 and opened ever wider, until we saw and proclaimed many details of it as presented through our Pastor's and the Bros. Edgar's writings. As the Lord's people expounded it in its features from 536 B.C. to 73 A.D., over against 1309 to 1918, they were giving the message of v. 6. The expression "double the double" proves that the "DOUBLE" applies to Spiritual as well as to Fleshly Israel. And certainly these things were taught increasingly from 1876 to 1918; and this passage proves that the Lord recognizes that to be the "double" which the Lord's people, according to Rev. 18:4-6, taught as true and Biblical. Certainly, it showed grace to the faithful and wrath to God's enemies, in both dispensations, and proves that the parallels affect both Houses of Israel, and that, in both their real and nominal aspects. How do we know that the reference to "the double" in Rev. 18:6 applies 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

409 

from 1309 to 1918? We know it because in 1309 Papacy, beginning its exile in Avignon, began to receive its torments, even as Babylon 1845 years before entered into the parallel experience. From that time on—1309 A.D.—Papacy and those of Papal spirit have been having the double that the enemies of God's people had exactly 1845 years before. Hence this proves that the doubling of "the double" began for symbolic Babylon at that time. And every time the Lord's people have interpreted the "double" aright they have been crying out, "Double" unto her "the double." Thus we see that this passage completely refutes the P.B.I. double, and proves that to be the true double which the Lord's people since 1876 have proclaimed. Why did Editors who claim to have given the meat in due season on Revelation not see the meaning of Rev. 18:6? The Lord's Epiphany-enlightened saints know the answer to this question; so does the P.B.I.'s master, Azazel. 

In the June Herald the P.B.I. offer some so-called proofs for the near end (?) of the Times of the Gentiles. The Bible chronology proves that they ended in 1914. But the P.B.I., plagiarizing from Mr. Guinness, tell us that they will end in 1934. They refer to a number of his nonsensical views on lunar years of 12 lunar months and to his views of solar years with various beginnings and endings for various periods from both standpoints. "Confusion worse confounded" is a mild descriptive term for what they offer; and yet there is a plausibility in what they offer which, however, becomes apparent as a delusion when its counterfeit character is recognized. They introduce their Satanic counterfeit by a reference to the "four horns" that Zech. 1:19 says would scatter Judah, Israel and Jerusalem. They say that Zechariah's account of this matter is "a vision of Israel's future," yet they apply it to events in which three horns—powers—had already acted—Assyria, Babylonia and Persia, though to 

Gershonism. 

410 

fit their view to four horns they identify Assyria and Babylon! They stated the truth when they said that Zech. 1:18-21 was "a vision of the future," even though they explain it contradictorily as being in part in the past. We understand Judah in this passage to mean the Protestant laity, Israel the Catholic laity, and Jerusalem the true Church. The four horns that have scattered these are the rulers, clergy, aristocrats and bourgeoisie, and the four carpenters who scatter these horns are antitypical Elijah, Elisha, Jehu and Hazael. 

These Editors, in harmony with their foolish virgin allies, again assert, despite the fact that they know of our Pastor's denial of the thought, that the Mohammedan power is pictured in Revelation; and they offer what we will show is Satan's attempted counterfeits as proofs of their position in certain chronological features in which the unbiblical year of 354⅓ days figure very markedly—a proof of the Satanic origin of their theory. We are all familiar with the fact that in the Papacy Satan has given us a complete counterfeit of the organization, doctrines and practices of The Christ, and that this counterfeit also concerns the times and seasons of God's Plan (Dan. 7:25). In giving counterfeit explanations of the prophecies of Revelation Satan, through the Papacy, set forth Pagan Rome as the "Beast" of Revelation 13, and the Mohammedan power as the "Image" spoken of in that chapter, and as the "false prophet" of Rev. 16:13 and 19:20. This explains why Papists refer to Mohammedanism and Mohammed as the "false prophet." Satan used the latter power to work inimically to the Catholics, both of the East and the West in counterfeit of the Image's opposition to the true people of God; but Mohammedanism wrought practically no evil to real fleshly and real spiritual Israel. We recall that Satan worked out counterfeit days of Daniel. See Bros. Edgar's time chart on the true and counterfeit days of Daniel, in the Bible Students Bible, and their discussion of the 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

411 

subject in Vol. II of the Pyramid Passages. Satan further, in a similar manner, counterfeited the 2520 years, the 1260, 1290 and 1335 years. Of course, he knew beforehand from Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, 28 that God had threatened seven times of punishment; but he did not know whether these times would be years consisting of 12 lunar or of 12 solar months; nor did he foreknow the exact time of their beginning. Hence he counterfeited various sets of beginning dates for these 2520, etc., years, i.e., the heathen, not the Biblical years B.C., 747, 606, 604, 588 or 587, and then on the basis of years of 12 lunar and 12 solar months worked out through the Roman Empire and its successors and through the Mohammedan power certain events during the Gospel Age for the ends of the 1260, 1290, 1335 and 2520 years, in both years of 12 lunar and 12 solar months, from the above counterfeit dates in the Jewish Age. Through Mr. Guinness and others he presented these counterfeit periods as genuine! And the Azazelled P.B.I. Editors in their chronological drunkenness have fallen victims to the deception, and are now [we wrote this review in June, 1922] in their June, 1922, Herald palming off these counterfeits as genuine! 

Their persistence in their chronological errors despite clear, unanswerable refutations shows their wilfulness to be extreme and their service of Azazel in this matter to be determined. Satan's purpose through these errors is manifest: to set aside the Epiphany work and to prolong into the Epiphany the Parousia work. Their folly will become known to all men—yea, is becoming so now. In the Lord's name we call upon all who are faithful to the Parousia Truth to repudiate these false teachers and to withdraw all Priestly fellowship and support from them. Over and over again in their desire to "draw away disciples after them" they plead that differences on chronological questions be not made a test of fellowship. By these pleas they are throwing dust into the eyes of the brethren. The 

Gershonism. 

412 

question that their course calls upon the brethren to answer is not one of fellowship. It is one that concerns them as teachers. The question, therefore, is whether those who have once had the Truth, and then have forsaken it shall be accepted as teachers in the Church. To this question St. Paul's statement (Tit. 1:9) applies, and proves that these are disqualified for the teaching office, and therefore are accepted as teachers at the grave peril of those who receive them as such. We therefore counsel the brethren everywhere to do with these Editors what the New York Church has done with those of them who were among its Elders—to set them aside as teachers and not receive them as such through their writings; for they have not the first requisite of a teacher in the Church—meekness, i.e., teachableness and leadableness that makes one quick to learn of, and to obey the Lord. 

O beloved saints, who are faithful to the Parousia Truth, happy are you in being shielded from the fall of those who have fallen, and who seek to drag down others with them in their fall! Beloved Epiphany-enlightened saints, how happy is your lot, in that you see and enjoy the added safety vouchsafed you by the later "meat in due season"—the Epiphany Truth! Let us be faithful to both features of the Truth! 

In the June 15 and July 1 and 15, 1922, P.B.I. Herald, its Editors try hard to buttress their chronological errors, and do so with their usual cunning, (1) in extolling foolish virgins, from whom they have learned their prophetical errors, as helpful teachers; (2) in claiming that the P.B.I.'s fighting our Pastor's chronology is not one of antagonism to him; (3) in misrepresenting what he wrote in 1913 about his reexamining his chronology as to Oct., 1914, under certain contingencies (Z '14, 4, last par.); (4) in raising the irrelevant point of the differences on the chronology as not standing in the way of fellowship; (5) in stressing the importance of the spirit of one's acts

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

413 

as so superior to the nature of those acts, as to leave the impression that the latter is an almost negligible matter; and (6) in implying that exposing and warning against false teachers and against apostates and seducers from the Truth is railing and forbidden denunciation. On the first point we have sufficiently expressed ourselves in the past. Their course on the second point is the plainest hypocrisy; for they are fighting our Pastor tooth and nail on matters pertaining to the 70 years of desolation and 1914 as the end of the Times of the Gentiles. Their issuing so many articles on the subject plainly shows, despite their hypocritical compliments, their purpose to overthrow his more reliable views on the end of the Reaping time, on the Times of the Gentiles, on the Jubilees and on the Parallels. As to the third point, it is true that before our Pastor was thoroughly clear on the subject of the Church's leaving the world after 1914 he said that if the Church should be here after Oct., 1915; if the Time of Trouble should not then be in sight; if the nominal churches should not then have federated; and if the world should then be peaceably settling its difficulties; he would conclude that he had erred on the chronology respecting Oct., 1914, which chronology he would then have to re-examine in order to detect the error. But what are the facts on this point? Shortly afterward (in the May, 1914, Tower) he stated definitely that the Church would not leave the world by Oct., 1914, and that nothing in the chronology required it, or that the Trouble should end by Oct., 1915, as he once taught. And when Oct., 1914, had come, the Time of Trouble, which began with the World War, was here. When he spoke of the nominal church federating, he evidently meant all of the denominations being in the Federation; for from 1905 on he taught that the Federation of Churches was organized in that year in the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ; and he taught, in 1908, that through the appearance in Episcopal 

Gershonism. 

414 

pulpits of the Federation's ministers being sanctioned by a joint decree of the Episcopal House of Bishops and Deputies, the Image received its life. He had thought earlier that the Trouble would be over by the Fall of 1915; and this led him to make these four conditional statements. Of these conditions two alone were crucial to the chronology as to Oct., 1914: (1) the beginning of the Time of Trouble; and (2) the world in strife, far from a peaceable settlement of its difficulties. These two crucial conditions entered into fulfilment by Oct., 1914. Hence our Pastor, living for over two years afterward, did not find it necessary, nor did he encourage others, to re-examine the chronology with a view to finding in it an error respecting Oct., 1914, as the end of the Times of the Gentiles. On the contrary, he repeatedly asserted that the fulfillments proved the 1914 chronology to be correct. Let the P.B.I., therefore, cease their deceitful handling of this statement of his in Z '14, 4, last par. In this deceitful manner they have referred repeatedly to this statement. Nothing in his writings or spirit warrants their course in this matter. They are in their course following a different lord and spirit from what he followed, and that with opposite results. 

We covered point 4 in a former issue. On point 5 we would state that what they say on the spirit being the necessary thing to watch, compared with their conduct strikes us as identical with what the Society friends said of their spirit and that of all of the so-called "opposition" in 1917. We further add that the spirit of those who forsake important features of the Truth and spread errors in their stead is always bad, even though with words "smoother than butter" they seek to hide from the unwary the Satanic uses to which they give themselves. What they say on the 6th point is the old "stop thief" cry of the pursued wrongdoer seeking to divert attention from himself. 

In their June 15 Herald they set themselves forth as

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

415 

champions of the authenticity of the book of Daniel against Higher Critics, as though our Pastor and those who hold his views on the chronology were Higher Critics! This pose of theirs is laughable! They claim that Dan. 1:1 proves that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year and took in that year the first set of Jewish captives and the first set of sacred vessels to Babylon. It is very easy to prove both from the Bible and from profane history that such thoughts are untrue. We will give the separate proofs briefly, believing that their statement and necessary explanations will completely overthrow the P.B.I. contention on this point. 

(1) The Bible teaches that three, and only three, sets of captives were taken from Palestine to Babylon, and that the first of these captivities occurred in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, which was in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 52:28-30). Please see our statements proven in detail above on the evident addition and omission of some of the numerals in vs. 29 and 30. Hence Dan. 1:1 does not prove that the first set of sacred vessels and captives were taken in the third year of Jehoiakim to Babylon. 

(2) The Bible clearly teaches that Nebuchadnezzar's sword was to be unsheathed three, and only three, times against Jerusalem (Ezek. 21:14), the third being against Zedekiah, as Ezek. 21:14 proves; and these three unsheathings were accompanied by the three captivities referred to in Jer. 52:28-30. Hence Dan. 1:1 does not prove that the first captives and the first set of sacred vessels left Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim 

(3) The Bible teaches that Jehoiakim in his eleventh year was taken as a captive to Babylon with the first set of sacred vessels (2 Chron. 36:6, 7). Hence Dan. 1:1 does not prove that the first set of captives and sacred vessels were taken to Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year. The proof for Jehoiakim's going as a captive 

Gershonism. 

416 

to Babylon is found in the connection that the word "also" in v. 7 makes between that and v. 6. In v. 6, as the event that occurred at the end of Jehoiakim's reign, Nebuchadnezzar's binding him to carry him captive to Babylon is described. Then, telling what additionally, "also," he carried into captivity to Babylon, v. 7 mentions some of the sacred vessels. Hence this word, "also," implies that some person or thing mentioned previously, i.e., in v. 6, was also carried into captivity to Babylon. V. 6 mentions only Jehoiakim as being dealt with from the standpoint of captivity at Babylon. Accordingly, the word, "also," must refer to him; and hence by the word, "also," in v. 7 he is proven to have been taken to Babylon, Jer. 52:28 showing that others accompanied him; and this must have been at the end of his reign; for he remained in Jerusalem until his eleventh year. Jer. 22:18, 19 and 36:30 do not teach, as the P.B.I. claim, that he died at Jerusalem. The first passage teaches that he would have no royal mourning and burial, that from some place outside of Jerusalem he would be dishonorably cast forth and buried as an ass. The thought of his being cast forth from some place outside of Jerusalem and then buried as an ass would not forbid applying the expression to some place in Babylon. The Hebrew implies that from some place outside and beyond, literally, "from beyond" the gates of Jerusalem, he would be both cast out and buried as an ass. Hence this language implies that his funeral would not be at Jerusalem; it would therefore fit his being cast forth from some place in Babylon and there buried as an ass. Jer. 36:30 does not tell us where he was buried; but it shows that his burial was that of an ass, i.e., his body was left to rot on the surface of the earth, exposed to heat and frost. This proves that his death was not in Palestine; for the Jews would not let their land be Levitically defiled by a body lying unburied (which was not a man's burial) in their land 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

417 

for at least, as implied in the expression "heat and frost," a large part of a year. Hence we see that this passage contradicts the thought that Jehoiakim died and was buried in Palestine. The other passage shows that it was not at Jerusalem. 

In view of the P.B.I. contention that our Pastor dates the first captives to be taken to Babylon 18 years before Zedekiah's uncrowning, there arises the question: When, according to our Pastor's teachings, were the first Israelites taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar? To this question we give the following answer: Both the older Towers and editions of Studies, Vol. II, up to within several years of his death, show that he believed that Nebuchadnezzar, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim on the occasion of his first coming to Jerusalem, took the first set of Israelitish captives to Babylon. This can, among other references, be seen from the following quotation, taken from B 52, par. 1, in a copy of that book published in 1913: "Usher dates the seventy years' desolation eighteen years earlier than shown above, i.e., before the dethronement of Zedekiah, Judah's last king—because the king of Babylon took many of the people captive at that time [italics ours]." However, our Pastor came to see later that the first set of captives was taken to Babylon eleven, not eighteen, years before Zedekiah's dethronement, just as Jeremiah states the matter (Jer. 52:28). This can be seen from a note that in later editions he added to the statement just quoted from B 52, par. 1, as, e.g., the note in a 1915 edition of Studies, Vol. II, at the bottom of the page: "Note, however, this partial captivity occurred eleven, not eighteen, years before the dethronement of Zedekiah." In other words, our Pastor's mature thought on the date that Israel's first set of captives was taken by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, corroborates the view of that subject that we set forth above on the basis of Jer. 52:28; 2 Chro. 36:6, 7; Dan. 1:1, 2. Compare with Jer. 46:2; 25:1-11.

Gershonism. 

418 

(4) Dan. 1:2 directly teaches the thought that Jehoiakim as a captive went to Babylon. In the clause, "which he carried away," a manifest mistranslation hides the thought. The word "which" is a relative pronoun whose Hebrew equivalent is asher; while the Hebrew suffix em, the personal pronoun for them, is here used suffixed to the verb as its object. The sentence should read, "He [Nebuchadnezzar] caused them [i.e., Jehoiakim and the vessels] to go [Heb. bow] to the land of Shinar"—Babylon. The pronoun them, "em," refers as to its antecedents to both Jehoiakim and the vessels; for if the vessels alone were meant, the word for "vessels" would have been repeated, as is done in the last part of the verse when the vessels alone are meant. Hence this verse proves that Jehoiakim (and the rest of the first set of captives) and the first set of sacred vessels went to Babylon in Jehoiakim's eleventh year. Hence Dan. 1:1 does not prove that the first set of captives and the first set of sacred vessels went to Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year. The latter part of the verse shows that what Nebuchadnezzar brought to the house of his god to exhibit as trophies of victory to his god was more than the vessels which he deposited in the temple's treasures; for the disposal of the vessels is contrasted with the implied disposal of Jehoiakim (and those with him). If the vessels alone were meant as being brought to the house of his god, the pronoun them and not the noun "vessels" would have been used at the end of the sentence showing their deposit in the treasury in the house of his God. 

(5) Jer. 25:1-9, particularly vs. 1 and 9, prove that up to that part of the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign (v. 1) in which this prophecy was given, Nebuchadnezzar had not yet reached the land of Judah. Hence he could not have arrived at Jerusalem and have besieged and taken it in the third year of Jehoiakim, as the P.B.I. contend. The Lord sent Nebuchadnezzar

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

419 

against Jerusalem three times in all (Ezek. 21:1). As his second and third sendings were at the ends of Jehoiachin's and Zedekiah's reigns, the first sending must have been a composite one, covering all his operations against Jerusalem during Jehoiakim's days as king, i.e., from Jehoiakim's fourth until his eleventh year, especially from his seventh to his eleventh year (2 Kings 24:1, 2), though he first started from Babylon for this series of operations against Jerusalem late in Jehoiakim's third year (Dan. 1:1). Ezek. 21:14 and 2 Kings 24:2, 3 show that by three sword unsheathings he destroyed Judah. Jer. 25:9 shows that Nebuchadnezzar has not yet stretched out his sword against Judah and Jerusalem when it as a prophecy was uttered; but it prophesies that he would so do; while v. 1 proves that this prophecy was given in Jehoiakim's fourth year. Hence his first arrival there was after the battle of Carchemish, which occurred (earlier) in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46:2). Let us remember that Jer. 25:1-14 is a prophecy of coming events, none of which, therefore, occurred before that particular part of Jehoiakim's fourth year in which this prophecy was given. Accordingly, this verse proves that Nebuchadnezzar did not arrive at Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year, and that therefore the P.B.I. misinterpret Dan. 1:1 when they claim it teaches that the first captives and vessels left for Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year. 

(6) Secular history, in harmony with the five lines of Scriptural thoughts just given, proves that it was late in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign when Nebuchadnezzar for the first time arrived at Jerusalem. The following are facts that are well attested by secular history: During the year before Jehoiakim became king, Pharaoh-Necho (2 Chro. 35:20-24; 2 Kings 23:29) made war against Assyria and took from Assyria all of the land from the upper Euphrates southward to Egypt. This included Syria and Palestine. 

Gershonism. 

420 

This land was kept in control of the Egyptians until the battle of Carchemish, in the fall of the fourth year of Jehoiakim when it was wrested from them by Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated Necho so severely, that the latter even feared to come to Jehoiakim's aid against the former, as late as from the latter's seventh to his eleventh year (2 Kings 24:1-7). In Jehoiakim's second year, as allies, the Medes and the Babylonians, the latter under Nebuchadnezzar's direct command as his father's military representative, i.e., general, but not as his coregent, began a war of extermination on the Assyrian Empire; and in Jehoiakim's third year these allies overthrew Assyria by destroying Nineveh. Among other things, the Medes took as their booty Eastern Assyria, and the Babylonians took as their booty Southern and Western Assyria. However, a part of the territory that was allotted to Babylon was held by Necho, as shown above. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar, as his father's military representative, but not as his coregent, was, late in Jehoiakim's third year (Dan. 1:1), sent by his father from Babylon to wrest from Pharaoh-Necho that part of the Assyrian Empire which was assigned to the Babylonians, and which at that time was held by the Egyptians—all the territory from the Upper Euphrates to Egypt. Slightly more than six months later, in the fall of Jehoiakim's fourth year (Jer. 46:2), the Babylonian and Egyptian armies met and fought one of the decisive battles of the world's history—that of Carchemish-in which the Egyptian army was completely defeated and driven from the Euphrates to Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar pursuing and taking all of the territory between the Euphrates and the Nile, including Palestine (2 Kings 24:7). 

The P.B.I. Editors claim that Nebuchadnezzar, in the summer of Jehoiakim's third year, was at Jerusalem and later, in the next year, fought with the Egyptians at Carchemish. This is a pure fiction, a P.B.I. 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

421 

invention, for which not one reliable secular historian can be cited in corroboration; nor can it be successfully defended from the Bible; for during Jehoiakim's third year Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian army were warring in Assyria, a thousand miles east of Palestine; and all of Jehoiakim's reign until during the latter part of his fourth year Palestine was under Egypt's suzerainty, as it also had been from the year before Jehoiakim's reign began. A Babylonian army could not have gotten to Palestine without first defeating Necho. Immediately after Nineveh's fall, the Babylonians returned to Babylon for their triumph. In the late winter of Jehoiakim's third year (Dan. 1:1), Nebuchadnezzar started from Babylon on his campaign against Necho, which was destined to bring him for the first time to Palestine, after over a half of Jehoiakim's fourth year had passed. From this statement of proven facts it can be seen that it was a physical impossibility for Nebuchadnezzar to have been in Palestine in Jehoiakim's third year. If the Herald Editors think that they can with impunity falsify the course of history in the interests of their errors they are mistaken. Their misrepresenting the historical facts in this case is so palpable, that even a beginner in the study of the Biblical and secular history of those days can detect their brazen perversion of facts. We refer our readers to the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chro. and to any ancient history or to any Encyclopedia in corroboration of our statement of the case. In the facts of this case, though not in the years B.C., there is general agreement between secular and sacred history. Hence secular history corroborates the above five lines of Biblical thoughts proving that Nebuchadnezzar the first time did not reach Palestine before late in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign. Hence Dan. 1:1 does not teach that he reached Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year and in that year sent the first captives and sacred vessels to Babylon.

Gershonism. 

422 

(7) Finally, on this point we present a strictly literal translation of Dan. 1:1, which proves that the verse does not teach that Nebuchadnezzar reached Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim and that during that year he sent captives and sacred vessels to Babylon, but that in that year he entered upon the campaign that other passages tell us brought him, in Jehoiakim's fourth year, to Jerusalem. The translation is as follows: "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, king [prospectively; see Luke 2:11 for a parallel case, where Jesus is prospectively called Christ, the Lord] of Babylon set out for Jerusalem; and [from Jehoiakim's seventh to his eleventh year] he besieged it. The verb bow, translated in this verse, by the A. V., "came," has a variety of meanings. Primarily it means to go, to set out. On this point Davies, in his Hebrew Lexicon (p. 80, col. 2, middle), makes the following remark on this word: "Its first and oldest sense is to go [not therefore to come], when the end to be arrived at is added and the goer is thought of as at the starting point, e.g., 'Whither shall I go' (Gen. 37:30)?" The case of Jonah setting out ["to go," bow] and the ship about to set out ["going," bow] for Tarshish are very much to the point (Jonah 1:3). Among other passages, where bow undoubtedly has the same meaning, the following may be cited: Gen. 45:17; Num. 32:6; Is. 22:15. It is true that the word bow is frequently, and properly, translated "to come." But where the translation "to come" contradicts the Scriptures and also facts, as in the case before us, it should not be used as the proper translation of the word. Moreover, the primary meaning should always be preferred where it fits, as in the present case it does fit. Therefore our translation is the one based on the primary meaning of the word and fits the facts and the Scriptures above given, all three of which points are against the translation of the A. V. When the Herald Editors say that the A. V. translation is indisputably correct, they betray

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

423 

the same ignorance of Hebrew as they betray of history. We very much doubt if any of the Herald Editors knows even the Hebrew alphabet, let alone can grammatically construe and translate, a Hebrew sentence! Later on, when we discuss their remarks on the Hebrew of Zech. 7:3, 5, we will find another illustration of their ignorance of that language on which they presume to speak with such a show of authority and assurance as would presuppose their Hebrew learning. 

In first treating on the date of Nebuchadnezzar's first arrival in Palestine these Editors considered that Daniel meant that he arrived there in Jehoiakim's third year and that Jeremiah meant the same, but "antedated" it by calling it the fourth year! Now they claim that the two prophets refer to two different arrivals! As a chameleon changes its color as often as outside influences operate upon it, so do these Editors change their views to meet each new set of objections brought to bear on their errors. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the P.B.I. Editors are in total error on Dan. 1:1, on which they base their entire chronological argument. The passage teaches what we above stated it teaches, when we first answered them and showed the chronological harmonies of the passages involved in the dates connected with Israel and Babylon. 

As to their quotation from Berosus, whom they admit to be unreliable, to prove that Jewish and other captives were taken to Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year, we would say the following: Since the passage states that Egypt had already had a ruler appointed by Babylon, and that it rebelled against Babylon's rulership over Egypt, for which reason the Babylonians came against it and in the campaign took Jewish, etc., captives, Berosus cannot refer exclusively to Nebuchadnezzar's attack on Pharaoh-Necho, which was the first encounter between Egypt and Babylon; for the Babylonians did not take Egypt and appoint a ruler 

Gershonism. 

424 

over it until after Zedekiah's captivity, nor was it until in Jehoiakim's fourth year that they, for the first time, joined war against Egypt. In this passage, Berosus evidently mixes up the events of many campaigns of Babylon against the Jews, Egyptians, etc., as though they belonged to the first. Hence the passage cannot fairly be used to prove that the first set of Jewish captives were taken to Babylon a year and a half before Nebuchadnezzar's first year, i.e., in the summer of Jehoiakim's third year. 

The Herald Editors answer our claim that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's eleventh year by the statement that this was impossible, because he could not have gone from Jerusalem to Babylon and returned again, and besieged and taken it within three months and ten days, when Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim's successor, and Jerusalem were taken in the second unsheathing of the Babylonian sword against Judah. This point would not be well taken, even if it could be proven that Nebuchadnezzar went to Babylon with Jehoiakim and the first set of captives and sacred vessels; for the account is that at the end of the year—Jehoiachin, with a three months' and ten days' reign, filled out the balance of Jehoiakim's eleventh year—Nebuchadnezzar "sent" for him (2 Chron. 36:10) to Jerusalem and after his surrender had him sent to Babylon. Thus, through a representative, he came to Jerusalem against Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:10-12). The Bible does not tell us where Nebuchadnezzar went after he captured Jehoiakim; much less does it say that he went to Babylon. Hence the P.B.I.'s answer on this subject is merely a straw man of their own making and overturning. Secular history, their dense ignorance of which is again manifested by what they say on this point, gives us the solution on this subject. According to secular history Nebuchadnezzar for many years—13 in all—was besieging Tyre. It was during the course of this siege that he captured Jerusalem

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

425 

in Jehoiakim's eleventh year, and three months and ten days later captured it the second time through one of his generals, himself remaining at a central place where he could advantageously supervise both sieges—that of Tyre and that of Jerusalem. 

Even if we should grant as proven all their unprovable assumptions with reference to it, and their unfactual claims on the expression, "It came to pass," the incident with reference to the Rechabites would avail them nothing; for there were still three months left to the fourth year of Jehoiakim after Nebuchadnezzar left Jerusalem for Babylon to secure the kingship for himself on hearing of his father's death; and during these three months Jeremiah could easily have taken the Rechabites into the temple, as described in chapter 35, and have done it in the fourth year, even as the Rechabites could, in Jehoiakim's fourth year, have fled from the invading Babylonians before these three months and still have done so after the battle of Carchemish and Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Palestine. How unutterably weak is a cause that uses such points as that of the Rechabites—a point that is entirely in harmony with our view, but for their view is dependent on such a multitude of guesses, unprovable assumptions and untrue claims like that on the expression, "It came to pass," as necessarily meaning afterwards! Let them try to apply such a definition to Ruth 1:1 and numberless other passages! Their remarks in this connection on the present infinitive "to be" as denoting the future shows that they are as rusty on English, as they are ignorant of Hebrew grammar. 

What they say of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar is beside the mark, so far as our position is concerned. The above seven reasons demonstrate that the expression, "second year of Nebuchadnezzar," cannot refer to his second year as king of Babylon, but to the second year of his universal Empire, which began in the nineteenth year of his reign as king of Babylon. 

Gershonism. 

426 

The above seven reasons forbid the thought of the three years' education of the Hebrew youths ending at any time in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon. Even if we should concede the taking of Daniel, etc., to Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year, which we do not do, several of the reasons that we give above prove that their educational course of three years could not have been finished until after the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon, as distinct from his second year as universal monarch, was over. But, as we have seen, the whole P.B.I. proposition of a captivity in Jehoiakim's third year is based on unscriptural and unhistorical grounds. 

It is laughable to see the pose that the P.B.I. Editors take as supposed defenders of Daniel as against Higher Critics. In our presentation of the subject there is not the slightest taint of Higher Criticism, nor is there in it the perversion of the Scriptures nor the perversion and ignorance of secular history and of Hebrew with which the P.B.I. effort on this matter is saturated. What the P.B.I. Editors need in this matter is reformation from hypocrisy and folly, and the possession of real knowledge and meekness; for had they been meek the Lord would have guided them; but, following their own wilfulness, the Lord gave them over to Azazel, who makes them, as parts of antitypical Jambres, leaders of others into error. 

In the July 1 Herald the P.B.I. Editors, with much self-confidence, claim to find a positive proof in Zech. 7:1-5, more particularly in vs. 3 and 5, that it was 70 years from Zedekiah's uncrowning to 518 B.C.; for they interpret these verses and the connection as teaching that the 70 years' fasting from Zedekiah's uncrowning ended in 518 B.C., when they say the men came from Bethel to inquire whether they should weep and fast in the fifth month. These Editors hide the fact that from their usually given date for Zedekiah's overthrow, 587 (51 years before 536), to 518, were 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

427 

69 and not 70 years. According to their usual view, the annual fasting not having begun until 586, a year after their usual date for the temple's destruction, this would reduce the period to 69 years. Therefore this 69 years' period to which the P.B.I.'s usual chronology reduces this time cannot be the period that Jehovah gives as the time of their having fasted 70 years. The fact that they give various dates for Zedekiah's overthrow is subversive of their "sure" proof, supposedly taught by Zech. 7:1-5—that from this overthrow until 518 B.C. were 70 years. 

And these Editors refer with much assurance to what they claim is a correct translation of the Hebrew, of which they know next to nothing, as a proof of the correctness of their understanding of this section of Scripture! If they had an accurate grammatical knowledge of Hebrew and would use it honestly, Zech. 7:1-5, accurately translated and interpreted as to its teaching on the termination of the 70 years' fasting for Nebuchadnezzar's destructiveness, would, from their standpoint, be about the last passage in the Bible that they would quote to prove their chronological theories on the time of his destructiveness. The A. V. and some other translations (because their translators held the same views as the P. B. I) have darkened the thought of this passage by translating the singular demonstrative pronoun Zeh (this) by the plural (these), as though it read eleh (these), and then making it limit the word for years, instead of making it a simple demonstrative. If it would limit the word for years, it would have to be plural, eleh, whereas it is singular, zeh. We offer the following, with bracketed comments, as an accurate literal rendering of Zech. 7:2-5: "For Bethel had sent Sherezer and Regem-Melech and their men to entreat Jehovah's favor, and to speak to the priests who were at the house of Jehovah, and to the prophets, saying, Shall I, separated [alone, i.e., without waiting for others to join in renewing

Gershonism. 

428 

the discontinued custom of fasting in the fifth month], weep in the fifth month, as I did [past tense, did, not the equivalent of the present perfect tense, have done. The past tense proves that the custom of fasting in the fifth month had for some years been discontinued] this [zeh, singular, this, not eleh, plural, these] so many years? And the word of Jehovah was to me, saying, Speak to all the people of the land and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned [the past tense used here in the Hebrew shows that the returned Israelites had some time in the past given up the custom of fasting in the fifth month; for if they had continued the custom until and including the year in which they made the inquiry, the equivalent of the present perfect tense or the present tense would have been used as denoting a custom still in vogue] in the fifth and in the seventh [month], and this [singular in the Hebrew; zeh, this, (not eleh, these), does not limit the Hebrew expression for "seventy years"; for if it did, it would have been plural, eleh, these] for seventy years, did ye fast for Me, Myself?" These verses completely refute the P.B.I. claim. They show that for some years before the inquiry was made in the fourth year of Darius, the returned Israelites had given up the custom of fasting for the destruction of the temple in the fifth month, and for the uncrowning of Zedekiah and the beginning of the desolation in the seventh month. (The P.B.I.'s claim that they mourned the obscure Gedaliah in the seventh month is a stupid evasion that will deceive no thoughtful person acquainted with the facts. What they mourned was the loss of their temple, kingdom and country). These verses, therefore, prove that already for a number of years before the fourth year of Darius the Israelites had ceased observing the annual fasts which they had kept for 70 years for the desolation of their temple, royalty and land in the fifth and seventh months. Bethel, fearing this was wrong, wished to know whether it, without waiting for the other Israelites to co-operate,

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

429 

should renew the custom of fasting in the fifth month. Hence these verses prove that the 70 years began some years before 587 B.C., which the P.B.I. usually claim was the date of the destruction of Israel's temple and royalty, or some years before 588, which in the article under review they give as the date of that event. While the verses do not say just when the fasting began, in view of their showing that their 70 years' fastings had for years before 518 ceased to be kept, the only logical date for their start is 605 B.C.—on the events' first anniversaries—and for their end is 536 B.C. 

Apparently the circumstances and occasion of the question were the following: Shortly after the Israelites were by their adversaries compelled to cease from building the temple after its foundation was laid, a religious decline set in (Hag. 1:2-11), accompanied, among other things, by their ceasing to fast for the four crucial events connected with Jerusalem's overthrow in the days of Zedekiah (Zech. 8:19). When the religious revival set in connected with their commencing to build the temple anew (Hag. 1:12-14), there were many things in their conduct that called for reformation; and after the more important had received reformatory attention, about two years after their commencing again the building of the temple, the question of the propriety of fasting on those four anniversaries, particularly on that of the temple's destruction, as a pious service, began to be agitated at Bethel. Hence the incident of Zech. 7:1-5. But, as stated above, the wording of these verses unanswerably proves that for years before Darius' fourth year the people had put aside the custom of observing these four annual fasts for their calamities at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar in Zedekiah's days. Hence the passage completely refutes the P.B.I.'s use of it and proves that the 70 annual fasts had been completed years in the past, and that therefore years before 588 or 587 B.C., Zedekiah has been uncrowned. 

Gershonism. 

430 

We desire to call attention to the juggling tactics of these Editors on the date for Zedekiah's overthrow. Usually, as before stated, they give this date as 587; several times they have given it as 586; in the article under review they give it as 588. All three of these dates and others also are given for this event by nominal-church and secular historians whose uncertainty and untrustworthiness on these chronological questions are by this diversity very manifest, proving our Pastor right when he affirms that secular chronology before 536 B.C. is uncertain. At ordinary times it suits the P.B.I.'s purposes to use 587 B.C. At others their purposes make it preferable to use 586. And in the case of the article under review it suits their desires to use 588. All this goes to prove their uncertainty and unreliability on the subject. In the opening paragraph of the article that we are reviewing they speak of Zedekiah's overthrow as occurring "approximately 51 years before" the return in 536 B.C. Why did they there use the word "approximately"? Because over and over again they have on the one hand stated that this period was just 51 years and on the other hand that it ended in 536; but in this article their argument makes it necessary for them to go back 70 years from Nov. 518; hence they must light on 588! Accordingly, the word "approximately," to hide the contradiction between the two dates thus given. Slippery, indeed, are these Jambresites! Like the great Serpent, Azazel, their inspirer, they are equal to wriggling around any proposition as it suits their changing necessities! We use the words "juggling" and "wriggling" advisedly. Having seen so many examples of such juggling and wriggling on their part, is it strange that we consider these Editors lacking in the honesty indispensable in servants of Jehovah! 

In the July 15 Herald the P.B.I. Editors publish another letter from J. A.D., some of whose chronological views we answered above. Only briefly will we 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

431 

answer the new points he brings up. To palm off the P.B.I. idea that the 70 years of desolation were not observed for the seventy Jubilees, but for all the Sabbatic years, he puts a new and to him entirely peculiar and original definition—"accepting as a substitute"—on the word ratzah, translated "enjoyed" in 2 Chro. 36:21: "the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths." On his (no other's) definition—"accept as a substitute"—we would say: Neither the quotation that he makes from the notes of the Cambridge Bible, nor any Hebrew dictionary that we have consulted, nor any Biblical reference that he gives, nor any other use of the word contains such a thought. The word always contains the thought of an activity in which there is an actual or figurative delight, pleasure, satisfaction, favorableness or graciousness. Whenever it is translated "accept" in the Bible it means "graciously or satisfactorily to receive," as is evident in the case of every passage that he cites, e.g., Lev. 1:4; Lev. 26:41, 43, etc. It never means to accept as a substitute. Hence his "linguistic" proof based on his assumed knowledge of Hebrew, of which he is as profoundly ignorant as the P.B.I. Editors, that the 70 years of desolation of the land were by the land accepted as a substitute for all of Israel's seventh year and fiftieth year Sabbaths, is an unqualified misstatement without any foundation whatsoever in the Hebrew. We suggest that the brethren turn to the bottom of the first col. of p. 1189 (vol. 2) of the Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, where every passage in which ratzah occurs is cited in English, and our statement can be verified. Please, also, consult the following Hebrew dictionaries on the subject: Brown's, Robinson's, Tregelles' and Dietrich's Gesenius, pp. 953, col. 1; 993, col. 2; 778, col. 1; 818, col. 1, respectively; additional to these four, which are considered the best Hebrew dictionaries, please see the following Hebrew dictionaries: Davies, p. 603, col. 1, Davidson, p. 690, col. 2, and Strong, p. 110, word 7521. Please see, also, Young's Concordance, p. 10, under 

Gershonism. 

432 

"accept" No. 5. When will these Jambresites cease pretending reliable knowledge of Hebrew and Greek? Can they not see that thereby they are all the more manifesting their folly? They are surely giving all the opportunity to see their folly! The expression, "to fulfill" 70 years (2 Chro. 36:22) proves that all the Sabbaths that were of the kind referred to were fully kept. Therefore, there were 70 of them, and these must have been the Jubilee Sabbaths alone, and not the seventh year Sabbaths. 

J.A.D., who in the article that we above briefly reviewed gave 587 B.C. as the date of Zedekiah's uncrowning, in the article on which we are now commenting gives 588 as the date! Marvelous how events occurring thousands of years ago change their dates with the changing theory—needs of Jambresites!! And he gives authorities for his 588 date! He could also give others equally "authoritative" for 589, 587, 586, and even other dates. He thus gives more evidence proving our Pastor right in rejecting the secular chronology as uncertain prior to 536 B.C. 

As an example of one's having, figuratively speaking, burning lye in his mouth, and not knowing how to eject it, J.A.D.'s efforts to rid himself of the clear teaching of Lev. 26:31-35, 43, and 2 Chro. 36:20-22 as proofs that Israel was outside of Palestine during the 70 years, is the most striking illustration that we have ever seen. If it were not for the pity of it, we would be unable to restrain our laughter at his mental contortions. Any unprejudiced person reading what he says under the heading "Desolate without them" would spontaneously think of a dishonest lawyer trying to befuddle a jury on transparently damaging evidence against his client. Only a dishonest lawyer, a Jesuit, a Jannesite or a Jambresite would be guilty of such brazen, deceitful handling of facts and clear Biblical statements 

His efforts to make the 70 years' stretch over to

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

433 

Darius' times, 519 B.C., by the thought that the expression, "until the reign of the kingdom of Persia," is a composite one, covering the period from Cyrus' time in 536 to Darius' time, in 519, is another piece of Jambresian folly. The Lord Himself answers this (2 Chro. 36:20-23) by telling us that the Babylonian monarchs held the Israelites, who were taken in the time of Zedekiah's overthrow, in captivity until the reign of the kingdom of Persia; and since the Babylonian monarchs did not rule after 537, and since the Israelites were by Cyrus, in 537, freed from the captivity in which the Babylonian monarchs held them, the beginning of the Persian reign was not a composite one, running over 17 years. The expression evidently refers to the commencement of Persia's rulership over Babylon. The passage shows that at Cyrus' returning Israel to Palestine in 537 the 70 years' desolation were finished; therefore they began in 607 B.C. The passage directly says that the Israelites led into captivity with Zedekiah, were taken to Babylon and made servants to the Babylonian monarchs, to fulfill the 70 years predicted by Jeremiah, which God Himself here calls the 70 Sabbatic years—the Jubilees—and that when these 70 years were fulfilled the Lord through Cyrus effected their return. The following is a summary of these verses: (1) The captives taken with Zedekiah were in Babylon, subject to the Babylonian kings until Persia took the kingdom from Babylon; (2) these Israelites taken with Zedekiah were kept in Babylon under Babylonian kings to fulfill Jeremiah's prophecy respecting the land being desolate 70 years (Jer. 25:11); (3) they were kept out of their land until the 70 Sabbaths were fulfilled (Lev. 26:31-35, 43; Zech. 7:5, 14); (4) and Cyrus at the end of the 70 years effected their resettlement in Palestine, in fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy respecting the termination of the 70 years' desolation (Jer. 25:11; 29:10 "for Babylon," not "at Babylon"). No fair use of this passage will deny these propositions as being taught by it. 

Gershonism. 

434 

In closing this line of thought we remark that we have by the Lord's grace refuted every argument that the P.B.I. has used to overthrow the Scriptural chronology which we received from the Lord through that wise and faithful Servant. Surely, throughout this controversy the Lord has fulfilled in us the promise: "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that riseth against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of Me" (Is. 54:17). Praise be to our God, through our Lord Jesus Christ! As long as we abide faithful to the Lord, He will protect us from the snare of the fowler and the noisesome pestilence. Beautifully is our security described in Ps. 91. 

From Scriptural, historical, pyramidal and reasonable standpoints, we have detailedly refuted the P.B.I.'s chronological errors on the Times of the Gentiles, the Jubilees and the Parallels. The P.B.I. Editors give as one of their reasons for repudiating our Pastor's chronology their claim that Ptolemy's Canon teaches that Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in successorship to his father as king of Babylon in 604 B.C. The truthfulness of that date for that event we have Scripturally disproved from many standpoints, showing, as our Pastor taught, that even an earlier date—607 B.C.—was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as king of Babylon and was also the first year of his universal reign, in whose second year he had the dream of the metallic image (Dan. 2:1). And now comes our dear Bro. Morton Edgar and offers a fact from Ptolemy's Canon that is in line with a point that we made above, to the effect that the Scriptures date Nebuchadnezzar's reign from two chronological standpoints: (1) as beginning with his reign in successorship of his father as king of Babylon—626 B.C.; and (2) as beginning with his reign as king of the World—607 B.C. While Bro. Edgar does not mention 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

435 

this particular point, it is in line with the fact that he gives, in a letter written to a sister. We take pleasure in publishing pertinent parts of the letter, as follows: 

"There is one strange point in connection with the 'Astronomical Canon of Ptolemy,' which list of kings is much venerated by the Herald. According to this list, Nabokolassar, said to be Nebuchadnezzar, began to reign in 604 B.C. (some copies say 605 B.C.). But the name of the king who comes before this is spelled practically the same: 'Nabopolassar.' There is a difference of only one letter between them, as you will see. 'Nabo-po-lassar' began to reign, according to Ptolemy's list, in 625 B.C., or, more probably, as some have it, in 626 B.C. Therefore the 19th year after the beginning of Nabo-po-lassar's reign is 606, or 607 B.C., the very date required for the beginning of the 'great seven Times of the Gentiles,' ending in Autumn, 1914 A.D. It is quite possible, and may even be probable, that Ptolemy, or some of his interpreters, has mixed up these two names, names of two men who are said to be father and son. Nabo-po-lassar, the father, is very likely mixed up with Nabo-ko-lassar, the son. It is just as likely as not that historians made a mistake here; and that both names are really the names of one king only, and not two. There is nothing improbable in this; for such mistakes are not by any means infrequent. For instance, it is through a mistake of this very kind that Ptolemy made another well-known mistake in his list of kings, namely, by mixing up the names of two kings called Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. Ptolemy's Canon makes a mistake of ten years in the reign of Xerxes, saying that he reigned for twenty-one years, whereas reliable history proves conclusively that Xerxes reigned for eleven years only. This is important to notice; for if Xerxes did reign twenty-one years, and not only eleven, then the twentieth year of his successor, that is, Artaxerxes, would then be ten years later than we understand it to be. And if Artaxerxes' 

Gershonism. 

436 

twentieth year is ten years later, then Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, at the end of sixty-nine of which weeks Messiah was to come, would not have been fulfilled! But Ptolemy made a mistake here; and reliable history, quite apart from the Scriptural requirement, proves that Ptolemy was mistaken to the extent of ten years in the reign of Xerxes, and hence, also, of ten years in the reign of Artaxerxes. 

"There are really more than one or even two mistakes of Ptolemy; for not only are his stated years for the reigns of two kings ten years wrong each, but the date for the death of the first, and the date for the accession of the second, are also, necessarily wrong. In other words, Ptolemy made a bad blunder in his history [rather in his chronological tables—Editor] of this period. If Ptolemy made a mistake of ten years during the fifth century B.C. (he himself lived during the second century A.D., or seven hundred years later), is it unreasonable to say that he made a mistake of twenty-one years in his history [chronological tables—Editor] of the seventh century B.C.? The Herald writers ask if it is reasonable to suppose that Ptolemy made such a mistake. Well, apparently it is reasonable so to suppose; for he is now abundantly proved to have made a blunder in his history [chronological tables—Editor] of the fifth century, when one would have expected that he should have been more reliable, seeing it was about two hundred years nearer to the A.D. date. But, as I say, it is not improbable that the interpreters of Ptolemy made this mistake, and not in this case Ptolemy himself. These later interpreters, as likely as not, have mixed up Nabo-po-lassar and Nabo-ko-lassar, just as many historians mixed up Xerxes and Artaxerxes. According to Ptolemy's astronomical list, or canon, of kings, Nabopolassar began his reign in 625, or 626, B.C.; and his nineteenth year of reign then lands in 606 or 607 B.C. 'Seven times' or 2520 years from this ended in 1914, 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

437 

A.D., Autumn, which is correct. The Bible demands this, and the Bible will have my veneration and respect before any mere profane document, however supposedly accurate. 

"Then we have the explicit declaration of Daniel, the inspired prophet of the Lord, who says: 'I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolation of Jerusalem.' (Dan. 9:2.) The Herald brethren, like the higher critics, say that Daniel was all wrong! It was not, they say, seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem, but fifty-one years only! 'Daniel in the critics' den again! And Moses, the man of God, said: 'And your cities (Jerusalem, the city of the land) shall lie waste, … then shall the land enjoy her Sabbaths, while ye be in your enemies' land, etc.' And Jeremiah says that when Jerusalem was destroyed at the dethronement of Zedekiah, Judah's last king, then the land (and Jerusalem, the great city) would lie desolate for seventy years to fulfill her sabbaths of rest. All these Scriptures are very plain, and all go to show that Bro. Russell's interpretation of this feature of God's plan of the Ages was correct, and that such writers as the writers of the Herald are quite misleading. It was in 1904, or ten years before 1914, that views similar to those expressed by the Herald, first came forth. So their views are by no means new, but have been seen, and refuted, long ago. And Bro. Russell himself was one of those who pointedly refuted the wrong views now so boldly brought forward by the Herald, as if they were expressing something startling, and most unexpected new facts. There is nothing new about them; and they are certainly not facts. 

"Have you ever noticed that Nebuchadnezzar is sometimes also called Nebuchadrezzar? Just as Nabokolassar may also have been known as Nabopolassar. Note the spelling in, say, Ezekiel, and contrast 

Gershonism. 

438 

it with that in Daniel. But Jeremiah spells this name both ways. Why this peculiar change of a letter? Needless to say, the testimony of the Great Pyramid, the Lord's 'stone witness' in which Bro. Russell still declared his implicit faith in his last notice of this monument, in his new preface to Volume III just about a month before his death—is quite against the new (?) chronological views of the Herald. But of course the Herald writers have no use for the Pyramid's testimony now. They have thrown that aside, just as Brother Henninges of Australia [the chief leader of the 1908-1911 sifting—Editor] did before them, and under somewhat similar circumstances. The Great Pyramid substantiates the views held by Bro. Russell beyond all doubt." 

So far the quotation from Bro. Edgar's letter. His suggestion that one and the same person is meant by the two names spelled so nearly alike in Ptolemy's Canon and that these are variant names for Nebuchadnezzar, seems reasonable. We may add to this suggestion the following: the reason that two names are given in the Canon for one person at the two different dates probably is that that one person had these two different names given him because on these two given dates he entered into widely different capacities as a ruler—on the first date he became king of Babylon, and on the second date he became king of the World. In ancient times it was a frequent custom to give a person different names at various times in his life to commemorate special events in his career. Hence we hear of persons variously named at different times like Abram and Abraham, Sarai and Sarah, Jacob and Israel, Joseph and Zaphnath-paaneah, Gideon and Zerubbabel, Jehoiachin and Coniah, Daniel and Belteshazzar, Hananiah and Shadrach, Mishael and Meshach, Azariah and Abed-nego, Jesus and Christ, Simon and Peter, Saul and Paul, etc., etc. Of the particular man under consideration, we know that he had many 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

439 

variations in his name, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadrezzar, Nabouchodonosor, Nabouchodonosoros, Neboudrosoros, Naukookodrosoros, Nebukuduriutsur, Nabukudrachara, Nabiuvkuduurriusuur and Nabokhodrossor. Therefore it should not surprise us that he was also called Nabo-po-lassar and Nabo-ko-lassar in the Canon. His becoming king of Babylon would warrant his receiving the first name, and his changing from the king of Babylon to the king of the World would be the most natural occasion for giving him the second name; and Ptolemy could also in a most natural manner have given him double mention in the Canon at the appropriate dates to mark the two phases of his royalty. So viewed, Ptolemy's Canon would be in harmony with the Biblical Chronology which gives Nebuchadnezzar's reign as beginning at the two above-mentioned dates, thus timing two features of his royalty, one beginning in the 1st, the other in the 19th year of his reign. 

Apart from the above, how can Ptolemy on the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's and Cyrus' reign over Babylon be harmonized with the Bible's chronology for this period? We reply, they cannot as they both stand be harmonized on this subject, because Ptolemy's Canon allows only 66 years for this period, while the Bible allows 89 years for it, 19 years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign passing before the desolation began and 70 years of desolation before Israel's return in Cyrus' first year. Ptolemy's Canon for this period gives the length of the involved kings' reigns, as follows: 

‍

‍

Several ways have been suggested to harmonize these chronologies. One of them is advocated by Adam 

Gershonism. 

440 

Rutherford, who claims that Ptolemy's Canon omits three kings from its list, one called Belsumiskun, whom he identifies with the Bible Evil-Merodach, for whom he claims an 18 years' reign, according to Josephus' Antiquities, Book 10, Chap. 11, Section 2; but Josephus Against Apion, Book 1, Section 20, assigns only two years to his reign, which discrepancy introduces uncertainty. Moreover Evil-Merodach is usually identified with Ilvoradamus, which Josephus does in both places cited above, by showing that he was succeeded by the same person as Ptolemy's Canon gives as Ilvoradamus' successor. The fact that the latter's reign in the former citation through a corruption of the text is given as 40 years suggests that the 18 years assigned to the former's reign might also be a corruption of the text. In the latter citation the two reigns are given as 2 and 4 years and this agrees with Ptolemy's Canon. Again, Adam Rutherford assigns a reign of 9 months to one Laborosoarchod, whom Ptolemy does not list in his Canon. And, finally, he assigns a reign of 1 year and 9 months to Darius, the Mede, who according to the Bible reigned at least into a second year (Dan. 9:1; 11:1), before Cyrus took the royalty over Babylon (see Studies, Vol. II, 368-371). Again, by adding a year to Ilvoradamus' reign as given in the Canon, Adam Rutherford accounts for the 70 years of the desolation and thus puts the Canon into harmony with the Bible. But we suggest a simpler way to harmonize the Canon with the Bible. Accepting the thought that Ilvoradamus of the Canon is Evil-Merodach of the Bible, we think that originally the Canon assigned him a reign of 22 years expressed in Greek by the two numeral letters, Kappa (k) and Beta (b), i.e., 20 and 2, and that as often has happened in transcription the Kappa was anciently omitted and thus is lacking in all present MSS. of the Canon. And the same thing seemingly has happened in the second citation from Josephus given above. A similar mistake in the Canon, 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

441 

substituting Kappa (20) for Iota (10) gave Xerxes a reign of 21 years instead of 11 years, as required by correct history. According to 2 Kings 24:8; 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34, Evil-Merodach reigned many more than two years. Thus viewed, the following table will exhibit an harmonizing of the Bible and the Canon: 

‍

‍

The P.B.I. has appealed to Ptolemy's Canon in favor of its 51 years for the desolation, but it, as the figures above show, falls 3 years short of their 51 years. Our view harmonizes the Canon and secular history with the Bible and that in a thoroughly natural way, and shows that secular history does not contradict the 70 years' absence of Israel from Palestine in Babylon. The P.B.I. Editors are thus demonstrated as errorists of the first water on chronology, for there is not the slightest ground left, either Biblical or secular, upon which they can stand. 

It will be recalled that above we gave the following rendering of Zech. 7:2-5: "For Bethel had sent Sherezer and Regem-melech and their men to entreat Jehovah's favor, and to speak to the priests who were at the house of Jehovah, and to the prophets, saying, Shall I, separated, weep in the fifth month, as I did this so many years? And the word of Jehovah was to me, saying, Speak to all the people of the land and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned in 

Gershonism. 

442 

the fifth and seventh month, and this for seventy years, did ye fast for Me, Myself?" It will be recalled that this translation was offered in refuting the use of this passage by the P.B.I. Editors to prove that the seventy years of this passage ended in 518 B.C., and therefore began in 588 B.C., when they claimed that Zedekiah was overthrown by Nebuchadnezzar. It seems that our translation of this passage has not pleased some of the P.B.I. supporters. These insist that the word Zeh, whose English equivalent, this, we have italicized in the translation above given, means these very frequently in the Hebrew. This we deny. Zeh is the Hebrew singular demonstrative pronoun for this, and Eleh is the Hebrew plural demonstrative pronoun for these. We are aware of the fact that some translators, usually where time or manner is indicated in the context by plural nouns, have rendered Zeh by the English plural demonstrative pronoun these or by the adverb now; but this is incorrect. The rule for singular and plural demonstratives is the same in the Hebrew as in the English and admits of no exceptions, i.e., singular demonstrative pronouns are used for and with singular nouns and plural demonstrative pronouns are used for and with plural nouns, and never otherwise. 

The translators who have rendered Zeh by the words these and now, as though it limited plural nouns, or were an adverb referring to a noun of manner or time in the context, have done so more as accommodations to secure smoother English wordings, rather than as strictly literal translations. But for every such instance in the Hebrew, the singular pronoun this fits as the proper translation. When in connections indicating time or manner by plural nouns Zeh is translated by these or now, it is not used in the Hebrew to limit the nouns expressing time or manner, but is merely placed in the sentence to emphasize the thought, and the expression is to be understood as an abbreviation of language. This is expressly stated of such cases by

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

443 

Hebrew Grammarians, e.g., by Mitchell's Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, second edition, p. 416, end of note three. After citing to illustrate this use of Zeh in connection with nouns of time and manner Gen. 27:36; 31:38; Zech. 1:12; 7:3, 5 and job 19:3, he cites Gen. 31:41 (where Zeh is in the A. V. wrongly translated thus) and makes the following remarks "[Zeh is] separated from the number [20] in Gen. 31:41; li-zeh [li, to me, stands between zeh and esrim, the word for 20] (abbreviated form for this, i.e., the present period of time, I have, i.e., 20 years are ended, etc.; the other examples [Gen. 27:36; 31:38; Zech. 1:12; 7:3, 5; Job 19:3] are due to a similar abbreviation)." This explanation, of course, shows that grammatically Zeh does not limit the plural nouns in these sentences; but that an abbreviation of expression, i.e., an omission of words, has occurred, which, when given in full, shows that the word Zeh does not limit the plural noun, but is inserted into the sentence for the sake of emphasis. The connection in each case will show what must be supplied to give the full sense of the passage in question. We will quote all such passages in the A. V., adding in italics the words that the connection shows must be supplied to give the proper grammatical rendering: 

He hath supplanted me—this he did two times.—Gen. 27:36. 

This I did: twenty years I have been with thee, etc.—Gen. 31:38. 

This I have as the time of my stay: I have been twenty years in thy house.—Gen. 31:41. 

For this is the case: two years hath the famine been in the land.—Gen. 45:6. 

Ye have tempted me—this have ye done ten times.—Num. 14:22. 

Thou hast smitten me—this thou hast done three times.—Num. 22:28. 

Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass—this thou hast done three times.—Num. 22:32.

Gershonism. 

444 

The ass … turned from me—this it did three times.—Num. 22:33. 

This is the case: forty years the Lord thy God hath been with thee.—Deut. 2:7. 

God led thee—this He did for forty years.—Deut. 8:2. 

Neither did thy foot swell—this was the case for forty years.—Deut. 8:4. 

The Lord hath kept me alive, as He said—this He hath done for forty-five years—Josh. 14:10. 

Thou has mocked me—this hast thou done three times.—Judges 16:15. 

Take … this that I give you—ten loaves.—1 Sam. 17:17. 

Which hath been with me—this has been the case for days, or this has been the case for years.—1 Sam. 29:3. 

I have not been called … unto the king—this has been the case for thirty days—Esth. 4:11. 

This have ye done: ten times have ye reproached me.—Job. 19:3. 

Thou didst have indignation—this was the case for seventy years.—Zech. 1:12. 

As I did this for so many years (Zech.—7:3). There is no abbreviation of the Hebrew in this passage; for the expression, I did, occurs in the Hebrew. This verse, by using the expression, I did, proves that there are abbreviations in the other passages quoted here. 

Ye fasted and mourned … and this ye did for seventy years.—Zech. 7:5. 

Except in Zech. 7:3, in every one of the above cases, which include every passage where the singular demonstrative pronoun, Zeh, occurring in connection with plural nouns of time or manner, has been translated by these or those—plural demonstratives—it is evident that Gesenius was right when he said the expression is an abbreviated one, which when completed proves that the singular demonstrative pronoun this should be used 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

445 

in the translation. These facts demonstrate that Zech. 7:3, 5 disproves the P.B.I. contention that the seventy years of this passage were from 588 to 518 B.C. 

In Lev. 11:4, 9, 21, 29 and Deut. 14:7, 9, 12 Zeh is rendered these, but strictly speaking it should not have been so rendered. There should be substituted for each translation of the word Zeh as these in the cited passages, the word this with the word flesh supplied after it, e.g., "This flesh shall ye not eat: the flesh of them, etc." and "This flesh shall ye eat: the flesh of them, etc."—Lev. 11:4, 9. 

The only other passage where Zeh has been rendered these is Judges 20:17. Here again an abbreviated expression occurs which will be manifest from the following: "All this company were men of war." In this case, as in the cases cited in the preceding paragraph, a collective noun (hence a singular noun, implying a multiplicity of persons or things constituting the thing designated by the collective noun, like senate, army, congregation, crowd, nobility, etc.) may have been in the translators' minds; and following an English usage that permits a collective noun, when the thing thereby indicated is viewed distributively, to take a plural verb or pronoun, they may have rendered Zeh by the plural these to indicate such a thought as theirs. It would, however, have been better had they translated in every one of these cases, the word Zeh by this, supplying the collective noun needed by the context, as done above. 

Some of those who have objected to our translation of Zeh in Zech. 7:3, 5, claim that our thought on the subject is out of harmony with Drs. Strong and Young. This we deny, and on the contrary affirm that these objectors do not understand Drs. Strong and Young, who never define Zeh by the word these but by the word this or that, though they give, not as their own definitions, but as the translation of the A. V., the words these and those as translations of Zeh in the citations of the pertinent passages of the A. V. in 

Gershonism. 

446 

their concordances, and in the citation of the various translations of the A. V. in their dictionaries. This can be readily seen, e.g., Dr. Strong on pp. 1028-1030 gives all the occurrences of the word "these" in the A. V. Among them are 26 cases in which the word these is given for the Hebrew Zeh. Additionally, there is one case in which Zeh is rendered those. At the end of each of these quotations is found the numeral 2088, implying that the words these and those are the renderings of the Hebrew word that is numbered 2088 in his Hebrew Dictionary. Turning to No. 2088 in his Hebrew Dictionary, we find it to be Zeh. He defines it as the masculine demonstrative singular pronoun this or that. Then, following the colon and dash, he gives, not his definitions, but all the various translations of Zeh in the A. V. How do we know that all of the words following the colon and dash are not his definitions, but the translations of the A. V.? We answer that he himself tells us this on p. 5 of his Hebrew Dictionary under note 6 at the top of the third column, as on p. 5 of his Greek Dictionary under note 6 at the top of the third column he makes the identical statement with reference to the colon and dash which follow his definitions of the New Testament Greek words, and which precede their various A. V. translations. Our critics are, therefore, mistaken on the subject; and they are further proven not to understand Drs. Strong and Young on the subject. The proverb, "A little learning is a dangerous thing," is one that these critics might well consider before making their sharp criticisms, which flow in part out of the abundance of their ignorance of the Hebrew and of the proper handling of helps on the Hebrew and Greek languages. 

We repeat our claim: Zeh never means these. It means this and does not limit the word for years in Zech. 7:3, 5. It was correctly and literally rendered by us in these passages, while the renderings that the P.B.I. Editors offer are incorrect, are based on ignorance 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

447 

of Hebrew, violate its grammatical rules and are given to support error. 

For some time the P.B.I. Herald Editors have been publishing articles on the books of Daniel and Jeremiah. Despite our complete refutation of their chronological errors they continue to repeat them, adding nothing materially to their former views on them. Like their British colaborer, Wm. Crawford, in his course toward us in Britain, they seem to proceed on the assumption that repetition is proof. They cannot answer our arguments, and the repetition of overthrown contentions avails nothing as proof against such arguments. In their recent writings we notice more and more they refer to that Servant just as they do to various nominal-church writers, e.g., "a certain writer," "another writer," "a recent writer," etc., and degrade him in these connections to a par with nominal-church writers, approvingly or disapprovingly as they wish. And these Herald Editors are the very persons who in 1918 by a whispering campaign assassinated us among many supporters of the Fort Pitt Committee on the falsely alleged charge that we were teaching contrary to that Servant! In view of their and our courses toward that Servant's teaching since that time, how can they look the same people in the face before whom they made those charges? 

It is not our purpose to go into details on their Jeremiah and Daniel articles. On only a few points will we offer refutations of their views. In the P.B.I. Herald '24, 12, pars. 4-7, they say that nothing occurred in 1878 indicating the return of favor to the Jews at that time, and that the fact of Israel's suffering much since then proves their contention. Was it not a most powerful evidence of the return of secular national favor to Israel that in 1878 at the Berlin Congress of Nations, the European Concert of Nations (the modern phase of the fourth beast that scattered them to the four winds, taking away from them

Gershonism. 

448 

national existence) made it a matter of International Law that they be given the right of settling in Palestine with the removal of onerous handicaps from them? Was it not a most powerful evidence of the return of religious national favor to Israel that on June 11, 1878—exactly 1845 years to the day from the time when Jesus poured out the Holy Spirit on the believing portion of them (Acts 2:1-4, 33)—the Delitzsch Hebrew translation of the New Testament in its revised edition began to circulate among the orthodox Jews, which with other cooperating agencies has ever since then been so destroying Jewish prejudices against, and so enlightening Jewish eyes on, Jesus as years ago to have brought the majority of the Jews to believe that instead of Jesus having been an apostate and impostor, He was one of the greatest of their Prophets, and to have greatly decreased the prejudice of most of them? One of the troubles with the P.B.I. Editors is that they overlook the fact that time prophecies mark beginnings, not completions, of fulfilled events. Had they humbly heeded our Pastor's oft repeated expression on this subject, they would have continued to recognize in the two events just indicated the return of both secular and religious national favor to Israel in 1878. 

But their contention that the Jews, having very greatly suffered since 1878, could not in that year have had a return to favor, shows additionally that they have overlooked the operation of punishment for another feature of Israel's guilt—their suffering to the full time the other double because of other guilt. Israel has had two doubles—one of 2520 years because of their transgressions against the Law (Lev. 26:14, 15), the other of 1845 years because of the rejection of our Lord. These two forms of guilt are indicated in Ps. 107:17, where the word "transgression" refers to their rejection of Christ and the word "iniquities" refers to their sins again the Law. But what of their

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

449 

sufferings since 1914, when their 2520 years' double ended? We reply that, like the rest of mankind, and not for the two forms of guilt just mentioned, they have sinned against natural justice; and therefore in the time of wrath they must with the Gentile world suffer the wrath of the day of wrath, which began with the end of their 2520 years' double. The above observations dispose of their objection to the teaching that the double which Jesus pronounced upon the Jews began in 33 and ended in 1878 A.D. and of their claim that it continues. 

But the Herald Editors in their Daniel series proceed to other repudiations of our Pastor's teachings. Among these repudiations is their denial of our Pastor's view, which they call that of "one writer," to the effect that the three plucked-up horns were the Western Empire, and the kingdoms of the Heruli and the Ostrogoths. Their reason for the supposed necessity of repudiating this thought is, they allege, that the Western Empire was a beast, not a horn. Against this claim we offer the following reasons: (1) If their view were correct, the ten-horned beast would have been destroyed before any of the ten horns came up on its head! Thus there would have been no ten-horned beast at all! (2) But the fact of the matter is that the Roman Empire consisted of two parts, the Eastern and the Western, for sometime after the death of Theodosius, for whose two sons the division was made, the Eastern Empire having the ascendancy in the organization of the Empire, even as this was the case, more markedly however, from the days of Dioclesian, 285 A.D. to 324 A.D., at which latter date Constantine consolidated the Empire, which remained so until Theodosius' death, 395 A.D. That the Empire was, after the fall of the Western Empire as such, 476, still considered as consisting of two parts with the Eastern in the ascendancy can be seen from Gibbon's statements (Vol. IV, 11, 12, 20, 21) respecting the Ostrogoths, 

Gershonism. 

450 

who with more or less loyalty, acknowledged this ascendancy of the Eastern Empire as represented in the Eastern Emperor at Constantinople. Hence the contention of the Herald Editors that the Western Empire was not a horn, but a beast—the Roman beast—falls to the ground; and their excuse for repudiating our Pastor's view of the three plucked-up horns, and for arguing for the views of nominal-church writers is groundless. 

These editors, to prove this error of theirs, say that they do not know of a single historian who states that temporal power was exercised by the popes during the sixth century, but that they all agree that this was not done until the eighth century. They quote Gibbon to prove their point. But Gibbon, one of the ablest secular historians, in Vol. IV, 423-425, shows that the temporal power of the popes began before the days of Pope Gregory I, 590-604, and cites various exercises of temporal power in judicial and executive respects by this pope. Kurtz is one of the ablest Church historians, and he says, in Vol. I, 273, that Gregory exercised temporal power and states that this is admitted on all hands. It is doubtful if the P.B.I. Editors tell the truth as to their own knowledge when they say, "we do not know of a single historian that records this [that popes possessed temporal power in the early part of the sixth century], all agreeing that it was not until the eighth century [italics ours] … that the Roman bishops attained temporal possessions and authority." As a matter of fact we do not know of a serious historian who treats of the temporal power of the pope who does not locate its first exercises in the sixth century. While in the eighth century, through Pepin and Charlemagne, the temporal possessions and authority of the popes were very greatly enlarged, they were exercised in Rome, etc., two centuries before, as all reliable historians agree. 

At the bottom of this P.B.I. error lies the same

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

451 

mistake as was pointed out above—their failure to remember that chronology points out the time of the first beginnings of predicted events, and not so much the later details. Applying this principle to the matter in hand, we would say: There were two stages of the popes' exaltation: (1) exaltation to ecclesiastical primacy, and (2) exaltation to civil authority. The claims, with pertinent acts, to his primacy in the Church were begun in the third century, were very general in the fourth century, and were acknowledged by the Eastern and Western Emperors as against all other claimants, especially against the claims of equality by the pope's only serious rival—the patriarch of Constantinople—in favor of Pope Leo I (440-461) in 454 A.D., in connection with the Eastern Emperor's annulling the 28th canon of the council of Chalcedon (451), which claimed such equality. A law of the Western Emperor (445) made it even high treason to deny the pope's ecclesiastical primacy. Thus the pope's ecclesiastical supremacy in the middle of the fifth century was a law of both the Eastern and the Western Empires. (See Kurtz, Vol. I, 269, 270.) Biblical chronology, backed by the Pyramid's corroboration, gives the third century as the date of the beginning of the first, the ecclesiastical phase of the pope's exaltation. The decree of Justinian and its accompanying correspondence (533) only emphasized the already generally accepted belief and law of the pope's primacy in the Church, and shadowed forth the events that were connected with 539—the defeat of the Ostrogoths, the capture of their capital, king and leaders, leaving them in ruin, shortly to be annihilated as a nation. This overthrow of the Ostrogothic Empire in Italy, 539, freed the pope from restraints on exercising temporal power, and thus was the first act in the setting up of the pope in temporal power. This was quickly followed by acts of temporal power which within a half century had proceeded so far that Gibbon (Vol. IV, 423-425) 

Gershonism. 

452 

could cite many of these acts of temporal power grouping them into two kinds, judicial and executive, and give many examples of each as performed by Gregory (590-604). 

The ambition of the popes to gain political power made them pursue a course that contributed to the overthrow of the Western Empire, the Heruli and the Ostrogoths. Hence the little horn is prophetically represented as contributing to the plucking up of those three horns by its pushing them out of their place to make room for itself as it was growing, figuratively speaking, under the hide of the beast's head and before it broke through that hide. The powers and possessions granted by Pepin and Charlemagne in the second half of the eighth century gave the climax to the recognition of the special exaltation of the pope's temporal power, as the period of its adolescence was ending, just as Justinian's decree gave the climax to the recognition of the special exaltation of the pope's ecclesiastical power as its period of adolescence was ending. These considerations refute the P.B.I. Editors on the date of the setting up of the papacy both in ecclesiastical and civil power, and vindicate the views of our Pastor. The P.B.I. Editors' attempt to fix 539 as the date of the pope's beginning to obtain ecclesiastical as distinct from political power to oppress the saints, so as by this distinction to set aside our Pastor's thought that papacy's exaltation in temporal power began in 539, is contrary to history; for previous to 539 the popes had and exercised such ecclesiastical power, among other ways, as compelled persecution against saints through the civil power—Jezebel persecuting Elijah through Ahab. For at the behest of the clergy, especially of the papacy, these persecutions, which, among other forms, included imprisonment, exile, torture and in some cases death, began with the persecution of the Donatists (316 A.D.) by Constantine, after the Roman bishop and others had 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

453 

denounced them to him, which as the dates prove was even before the Nicean Council, 325 A.D. The facts in the preceding paragraphs on the popes' exaltation to ecclesiastical supremacy, especially those connected with the dates 445, 454, and 533, completely refute the P.B.I. Editors' claim that 539 marks the setting up of the papacy in ecclesiastical power, as distinct from civil power, which they falsely claim came first in the eighth century. Facts show, therefore, that this P.B.I. distinction as applied to 539 is not true; and that our Pastor was right in the claim that 539 begins the period when the saints began to be oppressed by the pope as a temporal prince, i.e., when the papacy was set up in civil power. 

As by their chronological errors these editors rejected most of the prophetico-chronological parts of Studies, Vol. II, so by their errors on the setting up of the "man of sin" they are repudiating large parts of its last chapter and parts of Studies, Vol. III. These are followed by further repudiations on their part. 

In the June 15 and July 1, 1924, Herald, the P.B.I. repudiation of our Pastor's understanding of the chronology as to the 70 weeks is set forth in detail. The year 455 B.C. for the beginning of the 70 weeks, the year 2 B.C. for our Lord's birth and the year 33 A.D. for His death are all repudiated. They follow some secular and nominal-church chronologers in giving 444 (usually 445) B.C., 4 B.C. and 29 A.D. as the years for these events; and to make the 486½ years from 444 B.C. stop at 29 A.D., they count each of these years as consisting of 12 lunar months without intercalating the 13th as needed to fix the Nisan new moon as the one nearest the vernal equinox 7 times every 19 years, and as required for the ripening of the first fruits for Nisan 16. Thus they make the time 15 such years short of the solar time. We have proven the complete unscripturalness of such a method of calculation of the Biblical years above, when answering

Gershonism. 

454 

their first published chronological error—that on the year of Zedekiah's uncrowning; and it will not be necessary to take it up here again. In the article on Mr. Panin's Chronology we showed that Artaxerxes began to reign 474 B.C. and that his 20th year was 455 B.C. In this article we will briefly examine the reason that the P.B.I. alleges requires counting years of 12 lunar months to reach from 444 B.C. to 29 A.D. in 486½ years. They allege that the "word" went forth (Dan. 9:25) to restore and build Jerusalem in Nisan (Neh. 2:1); hence they reason that 386½ solar years (the 69½ weeks until Messiah was cut off) would end Oct., while the Scriptures teach that our Lord died Nisan 14—in April. Hence they conclude that these 490 years are years of 12 lunar months. 

Facts of fulfilled prophecy refute the view of Biblical chronological years being 12 lunar months uniformly. We have, as indicated above, proved that the 70 weeks began in 455 B.C. and ended in 36 A.D. and that the middle of the 70th week was Passover, 33. But apart from this there is an acid test that demonstrates that the 490 years in question were in the long run equivalent to solar years: These 490 years were cut off from the first part of 2300 years of Dan. 8:14. The 1810 years of the 2300 remaining after the "cut off" 490 years had passed by, cannot be made years of 12 lunar months and be made to reach 1846, when both the formation of the image began, and the cleansing of the sanctuary was ended. Moreover, this date is corroborated by the Pyramid measurements, 1846, Oct., being the date at the foot of the step near the Grand Gallery's South Wall. Even if the 1810 years were by the P.B.I. conceded to be solar years they would only reach from their new view of Cornelius' conversion in Oct., 32 (the right date being Oct. 36) to 1842—4 years before the Bible, the Pyramid and the fulfilled facts prove them to have ended. But if the first 490 of the 2300 years were of 12 lunar

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

455 

months each, of course the remaining 1810 would be the same kind of years, and that would have made them end in June, 1790! Assuredly the Church class did not then receive the last cleansing from error previous to the Harvest! Hence the P.B.I. view that each of the 490 years consisted of 12 lunar months is wrong. 

Furthermore, the fact that God has never indicated in any way that He uses lunar years of 12 months in the long run, and the further fact that all His years entering into general chronology and into the prophetic periods are in the long run equivalent to solar years, at once discredit the P.B.I. interpretation and prove that in Dan. 9:25 the expression, "the going forth of the word," 'does not mean the act of Artaxerxes in commissioning Nehemiah to restore and build Jerusalem, but means the execution of the commission. If it meant the former, it occurred in Nisan—in the Spring (Neh. 2:1-6); if the latter, it occurred five days before the first day of the seventh month—in the Fall (Neh. 6:15). The former interpretation compels our saying that Christ died in the Fall; because Scriptural years in chronology, i.e., in the long run, are always, through the intercalated month required from time to time by the first fruits, the equivalent of solar years. But the fact of Christ dying in the Spring forces us to accept the second interpretation. Hence the expression, "the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem," means the execution, the going into realization of the commission—the completion of the walls which made Jerusalem a city; for a walled place, regardless of whether it contains houses or not (Neh. 7:4) is a city—ir—according to the Hebrew. And Neh. 6:15 shows that the walls of Jerusalem were completed on the 25th of Elul—the sixth month—five days before the Fall began, and that before any houses were built in it apart from the temple (Neb. 7:4). Here then we are to date "the going forth [not the authorization, but the execution of the thing 

Gershonism. 

456 

authorized] of the word to restore and build Jerusalem"—the Fall of 455 B.C. It proves our understanding of the subject to be true, and refutes another P.B.I. attempt to corrupt a truth which they formerly saw. 

They claim that Nisan 14 did not come on Friday in 33 A.D., and that the only Friday on which it came for many years before and after was in 29 A.D. This claim they advance as a proof that our Lord did not die in 33, but in 29 A.D. On this aspect of the question we have consulted many Bible Dictionaries, Religious and Secular Encyclopedias and other authorities, and they are quite unanimous in this that probably in both 29 and 33 A.D. Nisan 14 came on Friday. The reason why most incline to the 29 A.D. date is their assuming Jesus' birth to have been in 6 B.C. But authorities disagree on the basis of this: the date of Herod's death. Those followed by the P.B.I. assign his death to March, 4 B.C., on the supposed evidence of an eclipse, but the best authorities place Herod's death at I A.D., on the basis of Josephus' data as to the beginning and duration of his reign. This view does not necessitate dating Christ's birth earlier than 2 B.C.; and Cyrenius' governorship from Jan., 3 B.C. to Jan., 1 A.D. disproves the P.B.I. date 4 B.C. and certainly favors our dates, Oct., 2 B.C. for Christ's birth, Oct., 29 A.D. for the beginning, and April, 33 A.D. for the end of His ministry. The Scriptures and the clearly ascertained facts of secular chronology for the beginning of the seventy weeks, prove our viewpoint of these weeks to be correct, while the many disagreements and guesses among nominal-church writers, whose more generally accepted suppositional dates the P.B.I. largely endorses, make the latter's new views, a re-hash of unprovable nominal-church views, appear in their real character—darkness for light. 

With the P.B.I.'s repudiating our Pastor's understanding 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

457 

of the 70 weeks, they have nearly completed the repudiation of every time feature in Studies, Vols. II and III as there presented. The few remaining unrepudiated points are relatively unimportant and will in due time be cast overboard, to keep something like consistency in their views. Who says "A" must finally say "Z." 

From the Aug. 15, 1924 issue to that of Nov. 15, 1924, the P.B.I. Herald has been publishing expositions of Dan. 11:14-45 [they continued this much longer]. In these expositions its editors have repudiated our Pastor's entire viewpoint on this part of Dan. 11, and have substituted, as they acknowledge, the views of nominal-church writers, especially those of Sir Isaac Newton, who died in 1727, and of Bishop Thomas Newton, who died in 1782, 72 and 17 years respectively before the Time of the End began—facts that, in view of the angel's statement (Dan. 12:4-12) that not until 30, and especially 75, years after the beginning of the Time of the End would clearness come as to the meaning of the prophecy in Dan. 11:1412:3, should have deterred them from accepting the interpretation of these two Newtons, so different from our Pastor's. Not only so, but for Dan. 11:14-31 they give the Jewish view of these verses as correct. Like the usual errorist, seeking to palm off false interpretations under the screen of the plea that what is actually a true translation is a false one for which he has an alleged correct translation, they say that the expression of v. 14, "the robbers of thy people," is a false translation, and instead offer a series of translations intended to convey the idea that those who are referred to as "the robbers of thy people" are recalcitrant Jews and not the Syrians under Antiochus Epiphanes, the despoiler of the Jews, as our Pastor held (C 25, par. 2). The renderings they offer do violence to the text. Rotherham renders it in the text, oppressors, and in the margin, robbers, of thy people. Young renders it, 

Gershonism. 

458 

destroyers of thy people. The rendering that the P.B.I. offers makes an adjective of the noun in question and requires that the preposition min (from among) or be (among) govern the Hebrew words for "thy people," whereas neither of them nor any equivalent word is used. This shows their violence against the Hebrew, and proves their interpretation false. 

In part they seek to work up prejudice against our Pastor's view by designating it as Adventist. Again, they ignore his application of v. 14 to Antiochus Epiphanes, alleging that their view is the only one on that verse, except that which applies it to the Romans. Thus through them Satan seeks to play one of his old tricks—getting men to combat one another on the extremes of error so that the Truth that lies between these extremes may be forgotten! They continue to apply vs. 14-31 to the squabbles between Syria and Egypt, utterly ignoring our Pastor's very reasonable and factual interpretation of vs. 16-29 as applying to the Romans. Vs. 29 and 30 do not, they say, apply to Napoleon! nor do they interpret vs. 31 and 32 as applying to the Papacy. They claim these verses apply to the Romans, who, they allege, set up the abomination that maketh desolate by erecting a temple to Jupiter on the site of the Jerusalem temple, despite the fact that this occurred over a hundred years after the latter ceased to be holy (Matt. 24:15; 23:38) consecrated to God! What a flat interpretation! 

They cut out in a most arbitrary fashion all reference to our Lord in v. 22. To them the little help of verse 34 is not the Reformation Movement, but is the cessation of persecution of Christians through the union of Church and State under Constantine in the fourth century! Vs. 36-45 do not, they say, apply to Napoleon, but partly (36-39) to heathen and papal Rome and partly (40-45) to the Saracens, their and the Adventists' later "king of the South," and to the Turks, their and the Adventists' later "king of the 

Chronological Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

459 

North." Disregarding "the desire of women," to them means papal prohibition of marriage to the clergy, monks and nuns! The strongholds of v. 37 mean to them canonized saints as protectors! The Time of the End does not to them mean the period from 1799 until the Kingdom is established after Satan's empire is overthrown, but "the later times" of the Gospel Age, which their interpretation implies began about 650 A.D. and is yet on! They claim that our Pastor's view that Napoleon is described in these verses, forces the conclusion that he died in Palestine! This absurd objection they think is taught by the words following those that according to our understanding describe his stay in Palestine: "yet he shall come to his end and none shall help him." These words say not a word as to where he would be made helpless and come to an end! They claim that our Pastor's view makes the entire prophecy reach its fulfilment a century ago. This is true of that part of the prophecy treated in chapter 11, but certainly not of that part of it treated in chapter 12. After impliedly claiming that the expression, "the time of the end," covers a period of over 1200 years, they have the effrontery to claim that from our viewpoint the expression of Dan. 12:1, "at that time," i.e., during the Time of the End, forces the conclusion that Michael stood up while Napoleon was in Palestine! 

For the hodge-podge that they present, whose leading features only we have given above, they have become willing to repudiate our Pastor's sober interpretations of Dan. 11:14-45. How plainly do they show their folly in endorsing such silly interpretations and in repudiating the sober ones of our Pastor (2 Tim. 3:8, 9)! Two general considerations overthrow their whole viewpoint. First, they themselves accept the thought that the 1260 days began in 539, when the real abomination was set up (Dan. 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11); hence the 1290 days and the 1335 days they 

Gershonism. 

460 

also admit end in 1829 and 1874 respectively. Hence they must admit that the Time of the End follows the end of the 1260 years (Dan. 12:4, 6, 7, 9), and therefore must be from 1799 onward; for at Papacy's setting up (Dan. 8:1, 3; 11:31) the scattering of God's people began (Rev. 12:6; Dan. 8:11-13, 24; 12:6, 7) and was to end at the beginning of the Time of the End (Dan. 12:7). Therefore, their entire view on Dan. 11:31-45 is wrong. But there is another, even stronger, proof of the utter error of their setting of things. It is this: The angel said that the prophecy as a whole and in most of its details could not be understood until from 1829 and 1874 onward (Dan. 12:8-12), while the details of their views as well as their general setting they have, as they acknowledge, taken from Sir Isaac Newton, who died in 1727, and from Bishop Thomas Newton, who died in 1782-years before the prophecy, according to the angel, could be understood. Therefore, their general view and most of its details are utterly erroneous. Thus is their folly made known to all (2 Tim. 3:8, 9); and their attempt in the Dec. 15, 1924 Herald to give the meaning of guarding to the words "closed up" and "sealed" (Dan. 12:4, 9), instead of concealing, is thoroughly contradicted by the whole discussion from v. 4 to v. 13, where the angel shows that the prophecy would not be understood until 30 and 75 years after the Time of the End would begin.