FURTHER RIGHT-EYE DARKENING. RIGHT-EYE DARKENING ON PHILADELPHIA AND LAODICEA. RIGHT-EYE DARKENING ON THE PYRAMID. SOME FOLLIES OF RIGHT-EYE DARKENING. SOME DRUNKEN FOLLIES OF RIGHT-EYE DARKENING. 

‍

THE Society's President continues to run true to form. He continues to set forth new errors and repudiate old truths. He will go further and further into error and lose thereby more and more influence over new creatures and faithful Youthful Worthies (Zech. 11:15-17). There has been a veritable stampede away from him since the collapse of his prognostications for 1925. The announcement of each new error and the repudiation of each old truth on his part become occasions for more new creatures to leave him. Some of his errors are so transparently evident as such, that it requires no special ability to reason or acute knowledge of the Bible to see through them. If one tests his views with Scriptures, reason and facts, he can hear his theories figuratively rattle. 

More and more is he making manifest his fundamental position, i.e., that since 1918 the Lord has entered into a new and more favoring method of dealing with his supposed Little Flock and Great Company, favoring such far above His people previously. Since Elijah was supposedly transubstantiated into Elisha, the latter has been supposedly doing greater exploits than the former ever did, and has allegedly been obtaining much more favor from the Lord than the former ever did. To give Scriptural plausibility to this view he is applying to 1918 onward many Scriptures that our Pastor rightly applied to 1874 onward. Of course such applications introduce confusion where perfect

Merariism. 

332 

harmony prevailed before. This wrong viewpoint as to the condition of the supposed Little Flock and Great Company is responsible for many of his errors. From the fact that his viewpoint of the dispensational dealings since 1918 requires for its plausibility so much perversion of Scripture we conclude that it is false. These remarks will give us a vantage point from which to estimate the new errors that have come out since the Feb. 1, 1926, Tower, the last one that we reviewed up to March, 1926. We will proceed to review the issues requiring attention from then onward to Aug., 1926. 

In Z '26, 52, pars. 9, 10, J.F.R. teaches in an article entitled, "Obedience Leads To Life," that Satan was anointed to rule over the perfect Adam and to put him to death, if he disobeyed. This he claims is taught in Ezek. 28:14. That passage teaches that Lucifer was the anointed [qualified] cherub that was to cover [protect] man in Eden; but it says not one word of his being made man's ruler. Lucifer was qualified by the Lord to protect man, just as the good angels have by the Lord been qualified to protect the just (Ps. 34:7; Heb. 1:14). But who could rightly say that these passages prove that the angels, who are commissioned to protect [cover] us are thereby authorized to rule over us? Just so little can we rightly infer from Ezek. 28:14 that Lucifer was authorized to rule over Adam. Much less can it be rightly inferred from it or from Heb. 2:14, which is cited to prove it, that he was by his anointing [qualification] authorized to put Adam to death, if he disobeyed. Satan has the power of death (Heb. 2:14) in the sense that his dominion is one of death, not life—he is ruling over a dying, not a living race. He gained it as the prince of this world by usurpation since the flood, but never got it by Divine sanction or authorization, though in Eden he attempted to gain it. This claim for Lucifer is an erroneous imagination of J.F.R., without any Scriptural, reasonable or factual

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

333 

evidence. The Bible proves that Satan sought to gain power over the race by his course of usurpation in endeavoring to become God's equal (Is. 14:13, 14). In this passage the expression, "I will sit also [in addition to exalting his throne over angels] upon the mount [kingdom] of the congregation [the human family] in the sides of the north [as a spiritual ruler]," proves that Satan's attempted rulership over man was a usurped one, and as such has never been sanctioned by God. Therefore J.F.R.'s view on Satan's empire and its authority before God is totally false; and this refutes his whole position as to Satan's rights to the kingdom over man until 1914. Moreover Satan gained his rulership by becoming prince of this present evil world. Before it he had influence but not rulership over man. 

In par. 16 he sets forth the thought that God had given His word that the tree of knowledge [experience] of good and evil would produce a fruit increasing the knowledge of its eaters. Here again we meet with an imagination. Where does the Bible give or imply such a thought? By eating of its fruit in disobedience man gained a terrible experience with evil; even as, if he had abstained from eating of it, he would have continued to have a blessed experience with good. The fruit of that tree could not give knowledge, as knowledge comes not through stomach nutrition, but by brain exercise. The tree was called the tree of the knowledge [experience] of good, because, if the command of Jehovah with respect to it had been obeyed, man would have been continued in his experience with good; and it was called the tree of the knowledge [experience] of evil, because, by disobeying Jehovah's injunction as to it, man became exposed to an experience with evil, even as Satan's sin and previous righteousness made him the "one of us" knowing [experiencing] good and evil (Gen. 3:22). 

In pars. 17-23 we have some more Jambresian

Merariism. 

334 

"folly" offered us, and that with reference to the trees of life, which the article claims were a single tree distinct from the trees "good for food," and that it was a tree of whose existence Adam was ignorant and of which he never ate, or he would have been death-proof—immortal! It is true that there are three distinct sets of trees referred to in Gen. 2:9; but they are differently grouped from the way the article under review groups them. The Hebrew shows that they are grouped as follows: (1) every tree that is pleasant to the sight [ornamental trees, including flower trees and bushes]; (2) every tree good for food, even [the Hebrew word ve means even as well as and] the trees of lives in the midst of [within] the garden [there is no word in the Hebrew text for the word also, given in the A. V. in this clause]; and (3) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Against J.F.R.'s opinion we assert that God did inform Adam to eat of the trees of life; for He told Adam to eat of every fruit-bearing tree in the garden, except that of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16). This refutes the article's contention that Adam knew nothing of the tree[s] of life before he sinned. He claims that Gen. 3:22, by the words "lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever," proves that Adam knew nothing of the existence of the tree of life. Even to an English reader such a thought is not suggested by these words. To a Hebrew scholar the original completely refutes the thought under review. In the Hebrew language the imperfect tense is used to represent incompleted, continued action. The word translated "put forth" is in the imperfect tense. Hence it implies continued action. The words for eat and life forever, while in the perfect tense, are grammatically given the force of the imperfect by the Hebrew word gam, meaning also; thus they imply continued action, a thing that the very nature of one of them implies—live forever. Hence

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

335 

the verse means: lest the man continue to put forth his hand and continue to eat and continue to live forever. Therefore the tree[s] of life were not an immortality conferrer. They were a life preserver, if continually eaten of. Adam had been eating of them ever since his creation. 

The following passages prove that the Hebrew word etz, tree or trees, though singular in form, is frequently plural in meaning, especially when a descriptive noun is used after it: as trees of lives (Gen. 2:9); trees of fruit (Gen. 1:11; Ps. 148:9; Eccl. 2:5); fruit trees (Ex. 10:15; Ezek. 36:30; Lev. 23:40); trees of food (Deut. 20:20; Lev. 19:23; Ezek. 47:12; Neh. 9:25); olive trees (Hag. 2:19; Neh. 8:15; Is. 41:19); trees of the field (Ex. 9:25; Ezek. 15:6; Is. 10:19; 44:23). Thus the Dictionary and the Grammar prove our Pastor right on the tree[s] of life, and J.F.R. wrong on this subject. Adam's being driven out of the garden and the placing of the cherubim to keep him away from the trees of life prove several things: (1) that they were not a single tree in the middle of the garden (the translation should be within, not in the midst of the garden); for if they were such a tree, the cherubim, surrounding it, could have kept him from it while he, remaining in the garden, could eat of the supposedly other fruit trees; (2) that if he had remained in the garden he would have continued to eat thereof; (3) that his being driven and kept out were necessary to prevent his eating of them; [All of these thoughts disprove the theory under review]; and (4) that the theory that his once eating of the tree[s] of life would make it impossible for even God to destroy him, i.e., make him death-proof, immortal, contradicts the Bible, which teaches that corruption—the natural body—cannot inherit incorruption (1 Cor. 15:50). The thought implied in the last sentence of the article, that the opportunity of consecration for the Divine nature is still 

Merariism. 

336 

open, we have abundantly refuted in the Appendix of Studies, Vol. II. The fact that the writer of the article under review taught that the door would be closed in 1918, then in 1921, and then by 1925, and now [1926] teaches that it is still open, as he so taught after each of these dates, proves his untrustworthiness as a teacher. 

In Z '26, page 72, par. 44, he tells us that joy began in heaven in 1914, after Satan's then supposed casting out of heaven. Was there no joy in heaven when our Lord ascended, and was acclaimed by the heavenly host as Victor and Lord? Was there no joy in heaven at the millions of repentant sinners during the Gospel Age (Luke 15:7, 10)? Was there no joy in heaven when the sleeping saints were awakened in 1878? According to his teaching in this instance Jehovah Himself in heaven since man's fall, experienced no joy, until in 1914, when Satan was finally cast out, when, the article says, "Joy then began in heaven." 

In Z '26, 83-88, is an article on, "Manifestation Of His Goodness." Following certain far-fetched views of higher critics, J.F.R. in pars. 6 and 21 claims that Ps. 65 was first in Hezekiah's day after Sennacherib's defeat introduced into the temple service. This is nowhere taught in the Scriptures, and the flimsy basis for its teaching is founded partly on the higher critics' denial of the Davidic authorship of Ps. 65, and partly on a most unreliable guess. They claim that the agricultural and pastoral allusions of this psalm prove that it arose in connection with the third year harvest mentioned in Is. 37:30. This claim is a splendid illustration of the flimsiness of their guessage. There are no special shepherd allusions in Is. 37:30, which disproves the guess, and there were hundreds of other harvests in Israel besides that of Is. 37:30, from which the agricultural allusions could have been gathered. It is not unlike J.F.R. to reject Truth and 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

337 

accept higher criticism. Our readers will recall how he said that "there are mistakes … misunderstandings or misapplications … in the Bible" (Z '20, 103, par. 3). 

He further sets forth the thought that as this psalm was prepared for the temple service its understanding could come only after the Lord (supposedly first) came to His temple in 1918. Against such a view the following holds: Since Ps. 65 was understood and properly interpreted in our Pastor's day (see Berean Comments), and since J.F.R. has added nothing new to the understanding of its contents, his view of the Lord's not coming to His temple until 1918 is wrong from the standpoint of his own logic. Again, many other psalms were prepared for the temple service, yea all of them, and the vast bulk of these were understood in our Pastor's day. Therefore, from J.F.R.'s own logic it follows that the Lord came to His temple before 1918. 

He sets forth a new view on Sennacherib. He is claimed to type Satan; his army, Satan's organization (par. 20); and his fall, the overthrow of Satan's empire. This, like many other of the types of the Society's president, is supposed to stress as especially important the activities of the Society since 1918, which are supposedly greater by far than those of the faithful previously. But this view contradicts the parallel dispensations, according to which the struggle between Sennacherib and Hezekiah types the struggles of the Radicals and Conservatives in the French Revolution. The true view was first brought out by Bro. John Edgar and endorsed by our Pastor (Z '05, 179). Everything in the story of Is. 36-39 harmonizes with this view, while the one under review lacks such harmony. In par. 41, in the interests of the same error, he makes another misapplication of a clearly understood type. He claims that the overthrow of Pharaoh's army (Ex. 14:13-25) foreshadows the Time of Trouble. All of us recall that in Vol.

Merariism. 

338 

VI, 457-459, our Pastor shows that the destruction of Pharaoh and his host at the Red sea types the eternal destruction of Satan and his followers at the end of the Millennium, while the rescue of the Israelites represents the deliverance of the faithful restitutionists at that time. There can be no doubt that all of the facts are in harmony with our Pastor's thought. How demonstrative J.F.R.'s accumulating errors are of the proposition that an erroneous position leads to repudiations of opposing truths. 

In Z '26, 99-104, is an article entitled, "Hypocrisy And The True." One would think that hypocrisy would be about the last subject that J.F.R. would select for discussion, lest people's attention might be attracted to his own colossal hypocrisy. Yet he may have taken up its discussion on the principle of "stop thief" cry, in the hope of diverting attention from his own hypocrisy to that of others. Of all the hypocrites that have ever lived he is the only one who is individually pointed out as such prophetically in the Bible (Matt. 24:50). While classes of hypocrites have been prophetically pointed out, he is the only individual so pointed out. This leads us to believe that he is the greatest hypocrite that ever lived, Satan and the fallen angels excepted. When we remember that he is the little pope in little Babylon, who enacted day after day the hypocrisy that the popes of Great Babylon committed year after year, it is of course additionally evident that he is the greatest hypocrite that ever lived. Our own experience with, and observation of him, coupled with our knowledge of history, confirm us in the thought of his pre-eminence in hypocrisy. 

He rightly points his finger to the chief domain and exemplars of hypocrisy—religion and religious leaders. Herein his personal experience has doubtless come to his enlightenment; for the chief hypocrites have doubtless been the cunning, selfish, designing, power-grasping 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

339 

religious leaders, who have pulled the wool over the eyes of the people by their specious pleas of being the channels of heaven's special favors to man, e.g., the popes of Great Babylon and the pope of little Babylon. But we think he did not begin early enough with the start of hypocrisy. It began with Cain in his sacrifice as related to God and Abel's sacrifice, not in the days of Enos, the son of Seth, as he claims (Gen. 4:26). He teaches that this verse as translated in the margin, "Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord," means that hypocritically men began to use religion. Aside entirely from the question as to whether this translation is correct, how can his thought be found in this translation? It is a pure importation into the translation. But the margin gives too free a rendering. It renders a passive by the reflexive voice, for which there is a form in Hebrew distinct from the passive. The literal translation (there is no word for men here in the Hebrew) is "to call by the name of the Lord was then begun," i.e., in the days of Enos the custom was formed of using the name of God, or the word for God, in the names given to people. Thus this is seen in the name Mahalaleel, Enos' grandson, who was born when Enos was 160 years old (Gen. 5:9-13). Mahalaleel means praise of God, Mahalale meaning praise and el meaning God. Thus the name God entered first into the name of a human being in connection with the naming of Enos' grandson. The translation, "to call on the name of God [in the sense, either to pray, or to make oath] was then begun," could also be correct; but the thought of prayer thus being first begun would be incorrect, as it contradicts the fact that Cain and Abel had previously prayed, i.e., at the time of their sacrifices. Understood as teaching that in Enos' day a beginning of making oaths by God, the second translation may be the right one. The reason that we suggest both of these translations as possibly correct is

Merariism. 

340 

because the Hebrew word be may mean either by or on. And since both translations give good senses either may be correct, if we understand the second one to refer to taking oaths by God. But we are more inclined to the former than to the latter translation. However, no correct translation would give the idea that during Enos' day men began to use religion hypocritically; for Cain had already done this years before Seth, Enos' father, was born. J.F.R.'s course on this matter is a good example of his methods of eisegesis—introducing his own notions into the Bible in contrast with our Pastor's methods of exegesis—bringing God's thoughts out of the Bible. 

In par. 17 the article under review still teaches, despite our Pastor's and our refutations, that Enoch died. In this par. it also teaches that for Enoch to see death (Heb. 11:5) meant for him to observe someone die! Why not let the words, to see death, in connection with one's own death, mean what the Bible clearly shows them to mean (Ps. 89:48; Luke 2:26; John 8:51, compare with v. 52; Luke 9:27; Matt. 16:28; and Heb. 2:9)? A comparison of these passages not only shows what is meant by seeing death, but shows that for one to see death means the same as to taste death, i.e., to experience death. 

In par. 44 the false prophet is set forth as Churchianity, and not as the Federation, as our Pastor taught; and its frog is represented to be hypocrisy. His remarks on big business and big politicians seem to imply that their hypocrisies are the other two frogs. All this is in repudiation of our Pastor's teaching. His speaking of the frog coming out of the mouth of the beast occasions us to remark that he, as the pope of little Babylon, is the mouth [spokesman] of the little beast, in little Babylon, and as such by his Divine-right channel claims, is speaking forth its little frog. Just like the frog, he does look solemn, wise and great, as he swells up with pride and opens wide his mouth, but all 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

341 

he can do is to croak, lacking real wisdom and greatness, which is self-abasement—instead he is full of self-exaltation, power-grasping and lording it over others in his little frog pond. The pity of it is that so many of the Lord's people have been terrified by his croaking into re-echoing it; but we are glad to know that thousands upon thousands are getting deliverance from him. This accounts for his reporting about 10,000 less partaking of the Memorial in 1926 than in 1925—and this in spite of his claim that he has gained many new adherents during the past year. 

In pars. 23-25, it is said that the temple is the living members of the Church, i.e., the Society from 1918 onward. The Bible differs: The temple is the Church throughout the Age, and has been represented in each generation in its living members. Against the thought that the Lord came to His temple first in 1918 to judge them by fiery trials first and the nominal church afterwards, the Scriptures and the facts are eloquent and complete. The Scriptures prove that He first came to His Church in 1874 and with them began to reap, and then started to test the Church more severely, i.e., in a general sifting, with fiery trials in 1878. During the harvest periods, the ends of the Ages, these things were done as parallel acts in point of time, 1845 years apart (1 Cor. 10:1-14). The five harvest siftings, all complete by 1911, and hence before 1918, were very severe and fiery trials, as St. Paul assures us in 1 Cor. 10:1-14, and they certainly most severely tested the Church. The first of these began in 1878. Here is where judgment began "with us," after the Lord's return in its larger aspect, though as Jesus in the Spring of 30 A.D. (John 2) made His first cleansing of the temple, so in the Spring of 1875 not a few who were in the 1873-1874 Advent movement began to undergo a preliminary casting out, because unable to stand the trial of an invisible return when expecting a visible one. The Lord, as proved by the parallel in 1878, began 

Merariism. 

342 

to exercise the kingly authority with which He was invested at His return in 1874, by casting off Babylon, Nisan 10, 1878, paralleling the Lord's casting off fleshly Israel, Nisan 10, 33 A.D., not as J.F.R. claims, in 1918 and 33 A.D. as parallel dates, thus paralleling things not parallel; for the parallel affects two similar things or events 1845 years apart. Jesus' purging the Jewish temple in 33 A.D. types something in the parallel 1845 years ahead, i.e., in 1878. His coming there in 33 A.D. cannot parallel something supposed to have taken place in 1918; for these dates are more than the parallel time—1845 years—apart. In harmony with the Scriptures which put the fiery trials especially in the sifting periods, 1878-1911, though the sixth sifting beginning in 1917 has been a fiery trial, in harmony with the facts of these trials in the five siftings within those years, in harmony with the parallel dispensation dates and in harmony with prophetic chronology, we know that Christ came in 1874, did some easier testing in 1875 and began crucially, i.e., with fiery trials, to test the real Church in 1878 and shortly thereafter the nominal church, continuing this throughout the five harvest siftings. This, then, proves that Jesus began the crucial testing of the temple class in 1878—40 years before the counterfeit date. (The little Antichrist, like the great Antichrist, counterfeits every thing.) These are the Scriptural and factual evidences on the subject as we were taught them by "that Servant" and they stand, while the Jambresian folly of the Society's president in trying to parallel 33 A.D. with 1918 as the time of the beginning of the temple's testing, whereas the 1845 years lead to 1878, will soon be made known to all! Does this symbolic sorcerer think that he can with his wizard wand so enchant his readers as to make them think that 33 + 1845 = 1918? This he seeks to do when he argues that the parallel of Jesus' casting off of Israel and cleansing

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

343 

the temple was in 1918! How can brethren, trained in our Pastor's strictly logical, factual and Biblical methods of reasoning, tolerate such a pervert as J.F.R. shows himself to be in this teaching? This might do to tell his recent converts for whom he found the "Six Volumes too much to wade through" and therefore gave them "a short-cut through the Truth in the form of the Harp," but how can those trained in our Pastor's teachings endure so erratic a teacher as he is proven to be by the Jambresian "folly" just exposed? 

It is true that a great trial came in 1918 upon the Society, especially upon its leaders. But that trial was fit-man experience. One of the Little Flock's crucial trials began in 1917, the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha. But the 1918 Society experience, so far as the Society leaders and their partisan followers were concerned, was largely a punishment for their gross wickedness in connection with the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha in 1917. And the gross cowardliness of J.F.R., who, when in danger, and hoping for deliverance, faced about and advised the brethren to buy liberty bonds, and bought them himself, is very manifest. He became more guilty than the clergy whom he so roundly denounced for their war activities; for they were apparently patriotic in their activity, while he was, against better knowledge, grossly disloyal to God and stained his hands in war blood by supporting the war financially through buying war bonds and advising consecrated brethren to do likewise! His cowardliness and that of his associates he now claims was the fear of the Elijah class fleeing from Jezebel, a flight that occurred 100 years before! He blasphemes our Lord's coming to the temple and crucially testing His faithful, by degrading His activities therein to the activities of the fit man in punishing the Society section of Azazel's Goat! The Lord saw to it that they got fit-man experiences; but

Merariism. 

344 

He did it to beat them into their senses, away from their double-mindedness, and not as an experience to fit them for a supposedly greater service than the faithful Little Flock had ever had; because as members of the Great Company they are incapable of serving more effectively than the Little Flock; and the Lord loves the Little Flock so much more than He loves them that He would not give them a more honorable service than He would give and has given to His Little Flock. 

Please let us keep in mind the remark made above that the theory of J.F.R. is that since 1918, when the Lord supposedly came first to His temple to purge it with crucial cleansings, He has been honoring the partisan Society adherents with privileges and blessings above all His other people from Pentecost on, and that at that time a change of dealings from Him set in toward His supposedly faithful people. To give a seemingly Scriptural setting to this error, a large number of Scriptures have been violently wrested and tortured (2 Pet. 3:16) by J.F.R. into a totally different sense from that which they suggest and that given them by that faithful and wise Servant; and these wrested and tortured misunderstandings are by him claimed to be advancing light. There was a change in the work after the real separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha in 1917. Then the same drunken class—antitypical Elisha, the Great Company of the Society—frenzied by the first Jambresian errors, frantically performed the second smiting of Jordan, and ever since it renewed its activities in 1919 (Rev. 19:3), has largely been beating the air with its "Millions" propaganda for 1925—an illuminating example of what the supposedly greater than Elijah work really is! His other claimed new light is of exactly the same character and came from the same counterfeit sun—Satan—as his 1925 proposition; for be it noted that his drives from 1919 to 1925 had that error as their 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

345 

keynote. Yea, verily, such is his advancing light, and such is the supposedly greater honor and work than antitypical Elijah ever had! How can false propaganda be the greatest work? 

In par. 35, J.F.R. disclaims credit for originating this supposed marvelous and advancing light. He blasphemously ascribes to God the authorship of Azazel-invented theories! He is right in not ascribing the authorship of his errors of doctrine and wrongs of practice to himself; for they were made by his master, Azazel; for him does he serve, his thoughts does he spread, his wrong methods does he use, and a part of his evil organization—the little Roman Catholic Church—has he been developing among Truth people, while he has been casting aside one Divinely originated truth, practice and organizational feature after another. Therefore this supposed light that he claims will be sevenfold—perfect—by about the time his followers leave the earth, i.e., before the earthly phase of the kingdom is established, will then be recognized by all New Creatures and faithful Youthful Worthies as Egyptian darkness; for long before then will his right eye be utterly darkened (Zech. 11:17). 

In Z '26, 131-136, is published an article entitled, "Character Or Covenant—Which?" This is another article that betrays the erraticism of J.F.R. The ignorance of Greek, English and the nature of character development, the self-contradictions, the sophistries, the contrastless contrasts and the "methods of deceit" with which the article abounds, ought to convince any Truth-instructed person of the confused mind of its writer. Above all his articles that we have ever read this one proves his unfitness to teach. In pars. 5 and 6 are found some sophisms on perfection of character, which he vociferates against as though it meant sinlessness, whereas it means a disposition crystallized in Christlikeness, which is certainly a Scriptural thought (1 Pet. 5:10; Heb. 13:21; John 17:23; 

Merariism. 

346 

Jas. 1:4; 1 John 4:17, 18). He cries out in his drunkenness that the Greek word charakter, which occurs but once in the Bible (Heb. 1:3), not meaning in the Bible what the English word character does; there is no such thing as character development! Fastening on one of the meanings of the word character, person, in English, and ignoring the one used in the term character development, he tells us that we do not develop characters, but that we are characters! Here is a splendid illustration of the sophist that he is: emphasizing a meaning of the word not pertinent to the subject and ignoring that one of its meanings which is pertinent to the subject, he denies the propriety of the use of the pertinent one and insists on the application of the impertinent one to the subject! His sophistry on this subject would be a good example for a text-book on logic, to illustrate the sophism of using a word having different senses in one of its senses only, as a proof that it has not another of its senses! 

To clarify the subject we will make some explanations: In neither profane, nor in New Testament Greek, has the word charakter the meaning that we attach to the English word character in the expression character development. Our English word character has about twelve different meanings. See Century Dictionary. It has all of the senses of the Greek word charakter, plus some that the Greek word does not have, and that have been added to the word since it was taken into the English language. This fact shows the sophistry of the writer, who claims that since charakter in the Greek New Testament (where it occurs but once) does not mean what is meant by the English word character in the term "character development," there is no such a thing as character development taught in the Bible! Hence he hoots at developing a Christlike character, and derides the whole idea of character development in the article under review!

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

347 

By the word character, as used in an ethical sense, we mean the sum total of one's inherited and cultivated qualities of heart and mind, one's inherited or developed disposition. And one who denies that in this sense of the word the Bible teaches character development is either ignorant, or blinded, or wilfully dishonest. 

Let us cite some Scriptures, all of which exhort to, or treat of character development, i.e., the cultivation of Christlike qualities, whose aggregate constitutes a Christlike character: Matt. 5:3-12; 7:18, 19, 24, 25, 13:23; Rom. 6:4, 13, 19; 12:9-21; Gal. 5:22-24; 6:1, 2, 6, 8; Eph. 5:9, 10, 18-21; Col. 3:1-17; 1 Thes. 5:11-18; 1 Tim. 6:11, 12; Heb. 13:1-21; 1 Pet. 3:3-13; 5:5-10; 2 Pet. 1:3-10; 3:18; 1 John 4:7-21. Remembering what the developing of a Christlike character means—the cultivation of the graces whose aggregate constituted our Lord's perfected spiritual disposition—we at once, if we have the knowledge of God's will toward us, know that we must develop a Christlike character. If we do not develop character, why does Christ describe us as bringing forth fruit (Matt. 13:23)? If we do not develop character, why does St. Paul tell us to put on the graces of the Spirit (Col. 3:10-12)? If we do not develop character, why does he describe the qualities that we must develop as fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-24)? If we do not develop character, why do the Lord and the Apostle describe our cultivating the graces as our work of building (Matt. 7:24, 25; 1 Cor. 3:12, 14)? If we do not develop character, why does the Apostle say that our spiritual senses [graces] are exercised [developed] by use unto enabling us to discern God's will (Rom. 12:2; Heb. 5:14)? If we do not develop character, why does the Apostle exhort us to add [cultivate beside previous developments] the graces and to grow in grace and knowledge (2 Pet. 1:5-7, 3:18)? Nobody but an ignorant or a deliberately dishonest

Merariism. 

348 

or blinded person, would deny that the Bible teaches the thought contained in the terms, "character development" and "development of a Christ-like character." 

J.F.R. finds many Scriptures contrary to his "new view," and this becomes the occasion of his wresting them. He rails at the idea of character development. Rom. 8:29 was one of the passages most frequently used by our Pastor to teach that we must cultivate a Christlike character. The connection proves that the image here referred to is not the bodily image of our Lord to be gotten in the resurrection, as claimed by J.F.R., but Christ's character image. For, as our Pastor shows in Studies, Vol. VI, 181-185, Paul logically explains in vs. 28-30, in the reverse chronological order, our development by God for the kingdom: (1) after our entrance into the high calling God works (v. 28) all our experiences and privileges, etc., for our spiritual good - character development as new creatures - which God predestinated (v. 29) must be like Christ's if we are to be of the many brethren (Rom. 8:9, 14) of whom Christ is the firstborn; (2) to put us into the position to develop Christ's likeness, He previously favored us with the call to glory, honor and immortality (v. 30); (3) and to fit us for this call he previously justified us tentatively (v. 30); and (4) to fit us for such tentative justification He previously honored us with the gospel knowledge (v. 30), arousing us to repentance toward God and to faith in our Lord Jesus. Thus the connection proves that the expression, "conformed to the image of His Son," means to be developed like Christ in character; hence a character image is here meant and not the image of His body that we will receive in the resurrection. Let our readers watch for some further perversions from the Society's president on v. 30; for as it was interpreted by our Pastor, it teaches tentative justification as preceding the call to consecration and the high calling. While it is true that the Greek word eikon

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

349 

does not necessarily mean character, but means image, it does mean a character likeness, if the connection shows such to be the kind of image that is meant; as it can also mean an intellectual or even a physical likeness. The connection must determine what kind of a likeness is intended by the word eikon. Rom. 8:28-30 proves by its run of thought that character likeness to Christ is meant by the words, conformed unto the image of His Son. 

Repeatedly the article under review says of persons that they are characters, e.g., "Jehovah is the character," "Christ is a character," "you are characters." This is true enough when the word character is used in the sense of a person. But the use the article makes of this expression to deny that God, Christ, etc., have characters, but that they are characters—persons—is a sophism worthy of an ever darkening eye. It is as stupid to claim that it is wrong to say that Jehovah, Jesus and New Creatures have characters as it would be to claim that it is wrong to say that Jehovah, Jesus and New Creatures have hearts, minds and the Holy Spirit, i.e., the holy character. 

When he says that the expressions, "Jacob's character," "Esau's character," are not properly Biblical terms, saying this to bolster up his claim as against the idea of character development, he is again guilty of sophistry. The word character, not occurring in the Bible, is of course not a Scriptural term; but it is a Scriptural thought, even as the words, substitute and substitution, with reference to the ransom doctrine, are not Scriptural terms, but they certainly are Scriptural ideas. Even so character is a Scriptural idea, though not a Scriptural term. When we say, Character is what a man really is, we do not use the term character to mean a person, as the connection shows J.F.R. makes it mean; but we mean that his ethical condition is his real identity, not some external thing. In par. 24 he denies that Jesus was required to

Merariism. 

350 

develop character while on earth. In refutation we would say that Jesus as the prehuman Logos had a perfect spiritual character adapted to His spiritual plane of being, but not one adapted to the Divine plane of being; that as a human infant He had a perfect character in the sense of an undeveloped perfect disposition, that as He grew in knowledge and favor with God His perfect and undeveloped disposition was undergoing development and that by the time his testing under the Law was consummated He had crystallized a perfect human character. As a New Creature at Jordan His disposition as a New Creature was not yet developed. It became developed unto crystallization—perfection—gradually, as He faithfully practiced self-denial and world-denial, meditated on God's Word, spread God's Word, practiced its spiritual parts and suffered faithfully in loyalty to God's Word. Thus His New Creature was developed in character unto fitness for the Divine nature and His future office (Heb. 2:17, 18; 5:8, 9). To deny that He developed a Divine character from Jordan to Calvary implies that the denier does not understand the necessity of development from human dispositions to Divine dispositions to attain the Divine nature, from having human characters to gaining Divine characters—the change of character necessary for human beings to become Divine beings. J.F.R.'s contradiction of Heb. 5:8, 9, which teaches that Jesus developed obedience under suffering conditions, and thus was made perfect in character and body, is refuted by the very wording of the text itself; for the text says that He was made perfect, not that He perfected, or "completed His covenant," as the Society's president falsely alleges, perverting the passive into the active voice and then interpolating an object to the active verb. In par. 31 he confuses the Sarah Covenant with the covenant of sacrifice, treating them as one covenant. 

In discussing 2 Pet. 1:5-10, he (pars. 32-40) contradicts 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

351 

his position. It is true that he carefully avoids using the words "develop the graces," and "develop character," but he describes the thing itself: for no one can explain this problem in addition (2 Pet. 1:5-7), then making the graces so developed active after they are added, and then finally making them abound, without describing character development; for this is the cultivating of the higher primary graces, making them active and causing them to abound - develop and control all our other qualities of heart and mind. This is what St. Peter explains, and he uses the word add in the sense of development beyond what was previously had or cultivated. How can one add one grace to another unless he cultivates it? This proves that the word add is here used in the sense of develop, cultivate; and as it is the graces - qualities of heart - that are cultivated, of course character is developed; for it is cultivating ("add") the graces, making them active ("if these things be in you") and causing them to abound ("and abound") in their higher primary kinds. 

Then he affects groundlessly a contrast between developing a Christlike character and keeping our covenant. The following proves this: Our consecration is our promise to God to be dead to self and the world and to be alive to God. The carrying out of this promise develops a Christlike character; for Jesus' qualities of heart and mind as a New Creature—His spiritual as distinct from His human qualities—were developed by His remaining dead to self and the world and alive to God amid His varied experiences. For what did His carrying out of His vows move Him to do? To cultivate self-denial and world-denial, meditate on God's Word, spread God's Word, practice God's Word and suffer for loyalty to God's Word. These things developed Divine-mindedness in Him instead of His former human-mindedness, i.e., they cultivated a Divine character in Him. And when we fulfill the same covenant we develop a character like

Merariism. 

352 

His. Thus the very carrying out of our covenant produces a Divine character. Therefore the jugglery of the article, whereby the development of a Christlike character is set forth as a thing contrary to the keeping of our covenant ("Character Or Covenant—Which?") is clearly exposed. 

This teaching of a supposed opposition between character development and covenant keeping, which is treated by J.F.R. as though it meant only serving the Truth, witnessing, is doubtless the basis of his extreme emphasis on service and his comparative neglect of emphasis on the other six features of covenant keeping: (1) deadness to self and the world, (2) study of the Word, (3) watchfulness and (4) prayer according to the Word, (5) practicing the Word and (6) suffering for loyalty to all six previous parts of our covenant keeping. This extreme emphasis injures many. We certainly believe in service. It is surely one of the seven features of our covenant obligations; but to stress it one-sidedly and extremely to the comparative neglect of the other six features of our covenant obligations results in a one-sided and consequently narrow and insufficient development. A well rounded development, embracing all features of our covenant obligations, is needed if we would be conformed unto the image of God's Son. 

In Z '26, 143, last question, J.F.R. renounces another teaching of our Pastor, i.e., that the earth is purchased in the ransom. By this renunciation he makes according to our observation, a ninth impingement against the ransom, as the following will show. By his sin Adam forfeited to Divine justice (1) his right to life and (2) his life-rights. Jesus for his ransom substituted (1) His human right to life and (2) His human life-rights. One of the human life-rights is ownership of a perfect earth. This Adam by sin forfeited to Divine Justice; hence Jesus' ransom purchases it back from Divine Justice for Adam

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

353 

and his race. Therefore to deny Jesus' purchase of the earth in the ransom impinges against it; for it denies one of its features. The extreme emphasis on witnessing and the comparative neglect of emphasis on the other six features of our covenant obligations appear markedly in two articles that we will now review: Z '26, 163-168, "Sacrifice And Service"; and Z '26, 179-184, "Sacrifice And Obedience." 

The first paragraph of the article on "Sacrifices And Service" is devoted to the exposition of a half-truth. It claims that Rom. 12:1 is addressed to brethren in Christ; whereas it is directly addressed to those who have not yet presented their humanity to God, as our Pastor explained it. Hence the passage applies to the tentatively justified, inviting them to consecrate. But indirectly we may apply it, as our Pastor did, to the consecrated, as an exhortation to them to keep their bodies presented to God in their efforts to carry out their consecration. It is a favorite method of deceit in J. F. R, to state half-truths, with intent to hide the other halves, as e.g., in the matter of emphasizing vitalized justification to the ignoring of tentative justification. In par. 5 we have another illustration of a half-truth given as the full truth on faith, in the way of a definition: "Faith is an understanding and appreciation of God's Word as the truth, and a confident reliance upon that Word." The full definition of faith is: a mental appreciation of, and a heart's reliance upon, God and Christ, in respect to their beings, characters, words and works. Another half-truth is given in par. 8, where he says that "Sacrifice is the offering of anything to God by way of expiation or propitiation." While such a definition fits the sacrifice of Jesus and the Church, it cannot fit the sacrifices - consecration works - of the Ancient Worthies, Great Company, Youthful Worthies and the Restitution class. The expression that he adds as explanatory to his definition, "the destruction or surrender of anything 

Merariism. 

354 

for the sake of something else that is higher or more desirable," is false as applicable to the Christ's sacrifice. This class did not consecrate with the hope of a reward, but as an expression of supreme faith in, and love for, God, to whom out of delight, and not for a reward, they took pleasure to yield themselves. It is important to watch the definitions of a half-truth teacher, because half-truths frequently, yea usually, hide the truth and give entrance to error. 

While on this point of half-truths, we ought to mention how in Z '26, 147-152, in an article on "Holiness," he is guilty of the same method of deceit. He explains that holiness is such a devotion of self to the Lord as faithfully serves and keeps devotedly in the serving activity. Holiness not only implies devotion of self to God's service—witnessing—but the other six steps of the Christian life already mentioned, and the state of heart and mind that results from these seven activities. This error of omission on holiness is only another result of the one-sided emphasis that J.F.R. places on service. 

In pars. 14, 15 we have some more half-truths on what one sacrifices. We are there told that all the Lord's people sacrifice the same amount of things: their right to live as perfect human beings in the perfect world. This is true; but it is not the full truth. The right to live with its accompanying life-rights are not really ours. They are only imputedly ours. They could not become ours actually until restitution time comes; so actually these are now sacrificed, not as a possession, but as a hope, while we now additionally sacrifice some actual possessions: what we actually are and have as human beings. It is true that from the standpoint of what we are imputedly we all sacrifice the same amount in quantity and quality, represented by the pound, a reckonedly perfect humanity—which alike all the servants received and are to use in sacrifice. But to claim, as J.F.R. does, that there is 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

355 

no difference in the quantity and quality of what is consecrated to the Lord is, from the standpoint of what each one as an actual possession offers to God, a palpable untruth. To say, e.g., that Bro. Russell offered the Lord no more of actual possession than the least talented consecrator is a self-evident error. 

The chief error of the article under review is its half-truths on the relation of the under-priests to their sacrifice. Like the Levites, J.F.R. contends that we are not now members of the World's High Priest, and as a consequence do not share in the sacrifice, i.e., we now do no sacrificing; but that our Lord does it all. The following sentence gives J.F.R.'s view: "His [Jesus'] body members, when complete and glorified, will then become a part of the High Priest; and then, and not until then, will such body members participate in the sin-offering." (Par. 26.) This actually means that they will never participate in the sin-offering, because it is finished before they are glorified! To such nonsense does the Levitical position on the subject lead! 

Perhaps an explanation of what is meant by our High Priest offering the antitypical Lord's Goat, and of our coöperation with Him in sacrificial work may help clarify the situation. It was the ministry of Jesus that enabled us to consecrate (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 3:5); i.e., He by the Word and providences wrought a consecrating faith and love in our hearts, enabling us to consecrate; but we had to do the consecrating (Rom. 12:1). Thus we offered ourselves as presents to God; but the presents being imperfect, God could not accept them. Jesus, then, as our High Priest, by the imputation of His merit, made the present reckonedly perfect, and then He alone, without our co-operation, offered us as gifts to God (Heb. 5:1); for as yet we were not New Creatures, and were therefore not yet parts of His Body; and thus could not from any standpoint be said to have offered ourselves 

Merariism. 

356 

as parts of the Lord's Goat to God, though we as individuals presented ourselves to be sacrificed. This work of offering our humanity to God as acceptable gifts is solely the work of our High Priest. This being done by our High Priest, God accepted the gifts by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit upon us; and this acceptance of the gifts made them parts of the second part of the one great sin-offering, i.e., the antitypical Lord's Goat (Heb. 13:13); and henceforth we are represented as New Creatures in the Body of the High Priest, and in and under Him coöperate with Him in the sacrificial acts whereby our humanity is put to death (Heb. 13:13, 15, 16; 1 Pet. 2:5; 2 Cor. 2:14-17; Phil. 4:18; Rom. 8:10). Thus while our High Priest alone offers us to God, after we are offered to the Father, in Christ and under His direction we coöperate with Him in the sacrificial acts whereby our humanity is little by little and more and more used up unto death. Not only the Scriptures above quoted prove this; but the facts of our experience prove it, our preaching, teaching, witnessing, colporteuring, volunteering, sharp shooting, contributing, etc. While our humanity is passive in the hands of our High Priest, certainly our New Creatures are not passive in sacrificial service, but are very active under our High Priest's direction and power to energize our bodies in the Lord's service (Rom. 8:10, 11); for we are servants of the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:6), and are co-workers with Christ (2 Cor. 6:1). J.F.R. thinks that we as New Creatures do not coöperate with our Lord in sacrificing acts; and he uses this mistaken thought as a basis for concluding that we, therefore, do not coöperate with our High Priest in leading Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court. As the basis of his conclusion is contrary to facts as well as to the Scriptures, so is his conclusion; for Aaron after killing the Lord's goat types 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

357 

the World's High Priest, the Head and Body, and not simply the Head (Heb. 7:26, 27). 

While there was no Great Company class as such in the days of the Apostles, yet there were individuals who, having lost their crowns, as such were given experiences similar to the leading of the Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court, and to sending him away by the fit man; and in these acts certain of the under-priests coöperated (1 Cor. 5:4, 5;1 Tim. 1:20). J.F.R. evidently has confused what our dear Pastor has said on our High Priest alone offering us to God, and the separate works whereby the thing offered is sacrificially used up in the Lord's service. The former is Jesus' work alone; the latter is primarily His work, and secondarily our New Creaturely coöperation with Him. So it is in the work of leading Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court. This is the work of our Head primarily, who is pleased in harmony with the Father's plan, to use his under-priesthood in the flesh under His direction and by His power as His co-laborers in this work. Let us be faithful in such coöperation. This is our especial Epiphany work. Our understanding therefore of the Scriptures and that Servant's writings on the subject is the following: The World's High Priest has a two-fold ministry: (1) In Head and Body He first sacrifices for the world's sins (Heb. 7:27; 10:5-10; 13:10-16; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9); then (2) in Head and Body He delivers, by the At-one-ment work, the world from the sentence, power and effects of sin (Heb. 9:28; 1 John 2:2; Col. 3:3, 4; Rom. 8:18-21; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6; 21:3-5; 22:1-3). 

In T 51, par. 1, our dear Pastor, speaking of the Day of Atonement picture (Lev. 16), says: "In this type we find Aaron alone representing the entire Anointed One (Head and Body), and two different sacrifices, a bullock and a goat, are here used to represent

Merariism. 

358 

the separateness, yet similarity in suffering, of the Body and its Head, as the Sin-offering" (all italics ours). According to our Pastor, in sacrificing the bullock, Aaron types our Lord alone, and in sacrificing the goat he represents primarily our Lord and secondarily "the Church which is His Body," as chapter 4 of Tabernacle Shadows clearly teaches. Especially should we note par. 2 on page 49. Consequently the entire World's High Priest is active while in the flesh; and His second and third activities consist in sacrificing the Lord's Goat class, and in dealing with the Azazel's Goat class before his change of Garments. The picture of Lev. 16:19-22 shows this as to Azazel's Goat; and the same is manifest from 1 Cor. 5:3-13; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; Jude 22, 23, as literal passages treating of individuals who were given Great Company experiences and dealings at the hands of the Head and Body of the World's High Priest. 

Heb. 7:26, 27 is very strong as proving the activity—the ministry—of the Body, as well as the Head, while yet in the flesh. To understand clearly v. 27 we should first of all note the contrast in the first and last parts of the verse. The contrast is suggested by the words "daily" (annually, daily standing for yearly here, as a day stands for a year frequently in Scripture) and "once." The contrast is not between many sacrifices and one sacrifice, as some assume; but the contrast is between the annual sacrificing of a typical bullock and goat (in all over 1600 times did this occur), and the once sacrificing of the antitypical bullock and goat. A second thing that must be kept in mind clearly to see the thought of this passage is, the thing referred to by the expression, "this He did once." What did He do once? Our answer is, that to which the expression "this He did once" refers. This expression "this He did once" refers to the expression "to offer up sacrifice first for His own sins, and then for the people's." Accordingly, the High Priest here 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

359 

referred to "offers up sacrifice first for His own sins." Can this High Priest be the Church's High Priest alone, i.e., Jesus? We answer, Certainly not; for that would make Him a sinner, which is contrary to the Bible (Is. 53:9, 11; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Whose High Priest then is meant here? We answer, Only the World's High Priest, i.e., Jesus and the Church, as Head and Body. Thus understood the passage is clear as follows: the World's High Priest, in His Head, first offered the humanity of His Head for the sins of the World's High Priest in His Body; and then the World's High Priest, primarily in His Head, and secondarily in His Body, offered the humanity of His Body for the people's sins. There is no way of interpreting this verse as referring to any other than the World's High Priest without making Jesus a sinner. Interpreted of the World's High Priest the verse is self-harmonious, harmonious with all other Scriptures, all Scripture doctrines, God's character, the sin-offerings, the Bible's purposes and Facts. This passage, therefore, proves that the Body of the World's High Priest under and with His Head, Jesus, exercises His ministry during the Gospel Age. The I. V. translates v. 26 as follows: For it behooved us [to be] such an High Priest, holy, etc. Here, as in v. 27, the High Priest is the World's, not the Church's High Priest, i.e., the Head and Body. St. Paul's exhortation to the Body of the World's High Priest, "Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach," proves the same thing. So does St. Peter's statement, "Ye are a Holy Priesthood, to offer up sacrifices." Numerous other Scriptures prove the same thought. Additional to the passages cited we offer the following: Matt. 16:24; Mark 10:35-39; John 17:18; Rom. 6:3-11; 8:10, 17; 1 Cor. 15:29-34; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 1:24; 2 Tim. 2:10-12; 1 Pet. 2:19-24; 3:14, 17; 4:12-14, 16, 19. All of these passages show that we are ministering

Merariism. 

360 

sacrificially now as parts of the World's High Priest. Therefore in harmony with the Scriptures and that Servant's writings we teach that the World's High Priest, The Christ, Head and Body, ministers from 29 and 33 A.D. until 2874 A.D. During the Gospel Age He ministers the sacrifices as the basis of the Atonement, and for Azazel's Goat, and during the Millennial Age He will minister the At-one-ment between God and the people. 

It is, of course, our Head who sacrifices us, and that because He is both our High Priest and our Head. However, in certain stages of the sacrificial acts we coöperate, after our High Priest has sacrificed us, i.e., has made the offering of us to the Father - a work in which we in no sense coöperate, though before that occurred we had to present (Rom. 12:1) ourselves to God for sacrifice and be submissive in His hands. The steps are the following: Heeding the Lord's invitation, "Present your bodies a living sacrifice," we offered ourselves as gifts to God. It was Jesus' ministry that worked a consecrating faith and love in our hearts by the Word of God whereby we, who apart from Him can do nothing (John 15:5), were enabled to offer ourselves as gifts, or presents. But these presents being imperfect, God could not accept them, since anything short of actual or reckoned perfection is not pleasing to Him. It is the office of a high priest to make the persons and works of those for whom he acts as high priest acceptable to God (Heb. 2:17; 1 Pet. 2:5), and to offer their gifts and sacrifices (Heb. 5:1). Therefore, our High Priest undertakes to make our imperfect gifts, our humanity, and our sacrifices, works, acceptable to God (Heb. 13:15, 16). The first of these He does by imputing a sufficiency of His merit on our behalf to bring up our gifts, our bodies, to perfection. This He does exclusively. Then He alone without our aid or coöperation offers us, individually, 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

361 

to God as gifts, and thus fulfils a high-priestly function. 

But this is not all; for the Lord's Goat is a Sin-offering, not a gift. The gift was offered to God. He accepted it by the impartation of the Holy Spirit, at the hands of our High Priest, not at our hands. It will be remembered that the gift that we presented, but that was not acceptable until covered by Jesus' merit, was unconditional: The Father was offered the gift for any purpose that He might desire. Hence its entire disposal and use were left unconditionally to His good pleasure. He has been pleased to accept the gift and convert it into a sin-offering—not that He must so do, but that as an act of grace He was pleased so to do. The thing that was an accepted gift was then offered by our High Priest to the Lord as a part of the second Sin-offering, each individual gift being now a part of the Lord's Goat. It was the exclusive work of our High Priest to offer the accepted gift as a part of the second sin-offering, because Jehovah was pleased to have it changed into a part of that offering for sin. The Head alone offers the sin-offering. Our part in these acts was merely a passive one—we remained inactive, though we were willing that any disposal pleasing to God might be made of us. At the time we did not know that Jesus offered us to the Father in these two ways. We simply lay, as it were, dead in His hands. Thus the offering of the gift and of the sin-offering was Jesus' exclusive work. Not before, but instantly after His offering of us as parts of the sin-offering, we became members of the High Priest's Body by being begotten as New Creatures; and only from then on do we coöperate with and under our Head in the various sacrificial acts whereby our human all is consumed for the Lord, even as the members of the natural body coöperate with the natural head. This does not mean that there is an equal partnership on the part of our Head and 

Merariism. 

362 

ourselves as His Body members in the subsequent acts of sacrificial work, even as the members of the natural body do not have an equal partnership with the natural head in the acts of the human body. This Scriptural illustration of the natural head and body in their coöperation gives us a very accurate view of the coöperation of the Head and Body of the World's High Priest. The natural head does all the planning, willing, directing and empowering for the members of the natural body, and for each one according to its function. The natural members do not coöperate in any of the planning, willing, directing and empowering, but they coöperate in the execution of the acts planned, willed and directed, for which power is given by the natural head. 

Thus our Head in the sacrificial works whereby the sacrifice is consumed does all the planning, willing, directing and empowering for each member of the Body of the World's High Priest. He plans and wills which one to use and which one not to use, how, when, where and for what to use or not use each member. He directs the whole operation by making such providential arrangements as are necessary for the execution of the specific work that is to be done or left undone. He likewise teaches each member what, how, when and where he is to do in the execution of the sacrificial acts. He also empowers each member to do the sacrificial acts by the promises, encouragements, restraints, corrections and instructions of the Truth, which He gives to each member of His Body. He further empowers them by strengthening their New Creatures for the sacrificial work and making the providences of each one of such a kind as will enable him to do the will of the Head in each sacrificial act. This, then, is the work of the Head of the World's High Priest in every one of the sacrificial acts following the offering of the sacrifice. Of course this is the overshadowing, the all-important, part of the sacrificial

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

363 

acts following the offering which He exclusively makes. And what are our parts in the sacrificial acts subsequent to His offering of us to the Father as parts of the sin-offering? Exactly that which a natural member of the natural body does to the plans, volitions, directions of the natural head, according to its empowerments. Thus we must respond to what He plans, wills, directs, in that for which He empowers us, by executing in and under Him His plans, volitions and directions, by His empowerment. We must therefore by the qualities that He has already wrought in us learn for every separate sacrificial act what His plan, will and direction for us are. This we do by a study of His Word, Spirit and Providence; and we must accept and use the strength that He gives us by His Spirit and Word, and use the supports that He offers us by His Providence for empowerment to execute the sacrificial acts that He as our Head plans, wills and directs for us. And we must execute the acts themselves. Thus there is a continual coöperation of the Head and of the individual members of the World's High Priest in executing each separate sacrificial act. Thus, for example, in our mission toward the brethren each one of us and under our Head lays down his life for the brethren in a vast number of sacrificial acts, all of which our Head plans, wills and directs, and for all of which we accept and use the empowerment that our Head gives. This matter is so apparent from the many Scriptures already quoted, from our Pastor's numerous explanations and exhortations on the subject, and from the experiences of every one of the members of the Body of the World's High Priest, that unless we understood that the Levites are in Azazel's hands, and as a result express his thoughts, we would be at a loss to explain how some of them could be so thoughtless as to teach that the World's High Priest will not be active until after glorification!

Merariism. 

364 

A caution is here necessary: While the Head of the World's High Priest sacrifices each member of His Body and does the primary part in the subsequent sacrificial acts in which each one of His Body members as a secondary part coöperates, each individual member of the World's High Priest, after the Head has done His primary part in the subsequent acts of sacrifice, in and under His Head sacrifices himself alone—he does not sacrifice, use up the rights of, his fellow-members. Our privilege toward one another is in and under our Head to assist as we can by teaching, encouraging, supporting and helping our fellow-members to perform the sacrificial acts that our Head has planned, willed and directed for them to do, and to do which He empowers them, when He indicates that we are to give them our assistance in their sacrifice. In so doing the Body-members coöperate with their fellow Body-members in their sacrificial acts, but do not sacrifice one another. Each individual member, though helped by other members, is to carry out his own consecration. All of this coöperation is beautifully illustrated in the mutual care of the members of the natural body. 

Some of the Levites raise the objection that we can no more deal with Azazel's Goat than we can sacrifice the Lord's Goat. We answer that there is no parallel whatever in the character of the two works. Even if we should be sacrificing other members of the Lord's Goat as such, which we do not do, there would be no parallel between the two acts; for sacrificing the Lord's Goat is a totally different thing from leading forth Azazel's Goat to the gate and to the fit man and delivering him to Azazel. How do we lead it to the gate? By resisting its revolutionism. How do we deliver it to the fit man? By withdrawing Priestly fellowship. How do we deliver it to Azazel? By withdrawing all brotherly help and favor. Why can we not do these things as well, for example, as we do the

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

365 

opposite acts: (1) Support the fellow-members in their sacrifices; (2) give them Priestly fellowship; and (3) give them our brotherly help and favor? The two sets of acts just instanced are a contrasted parallel; and at once a sound mind will admit that the two sets of acts can be and are done. Moreover, the fact that St. Paul and the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 5:1-13) gave the incestuous brother in their midst the treatment that is a strict parallel to that which the Priesthood now gives Azazel's Goat proves conclusively that we, as an Under-priesthood, can and should coöperate with our Head, while in the flesh, in leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate and to the fit-man, and in delivering him to Azazel for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saved—a result that proves that our work toward Azazel's Goat is a Priestly work—a work well pleasing to the Lord. It would be just as logical to deny that as a part of the Priesthood we can assist the Priesthood (Rev. 19:7), and can give testimony to the world of the coming Kingdom (Matt. 24:14), as to deny that as a part of the Priesthood we can act toward Azazel's Goat. But let us not forget that the Levites are denying our coöperation with our Head in sacrifice, just to overcome the thought that we can under our Head deal with them as a part of Azazel's Goat, which we can do as typed. 

If we do not now coöperate with our Head in the sacrificial acts whereby our humanity is consumed as a part of the sacrifice of the antitypical Lord's Goat, why does St. Paul exhort us as that Goat to "go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach" (Heb. 13:13)? Why does he exhort us by Him to offer the sacrifices of praise to God [preach things reflecting credit on God], as sacrifices pleasing to God, if we do not now share in the sin-offering (Heb. 13:15, 16)? Why does St. Peter assure us that we are a holy Priesthood to offer sacrifices, if we do not now 

Merariism. 

366 

share in the sin-offering (1 Pet. 2:5)? Why does St. Paul call us in the incense of our sacrifices a sweet savor of Christ unto God, if we do not now share in the sin-offering (2 Cor. 2:14-17; Phil. 4:18)? If we do not now share in the sin-offering, why does St. Paul say, If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin [as a sin-offering] (Rom. 8:10)? If we do not now share in the sin-offering, how could we as parts of the Mediator serve the New Covenant in the work on its seal (2 Cor. 3:6)? If we are co-workers with Christ, why do we not share with Him in that which His Work in the flesh was—a sin-offering (2 Cor. 6:1)? If we do not share now with Him in the sin-offering, how can we now be suffering and dying with Him (Rom. 6:3-11; 8:17; 2 Cor. 1:5; 1 Cor. 15:29-34; 4:10; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10; 2 Tim. 2:10-12; 1 Pet. 2:19-24; 3:14, 17; 4:12-14, 16, 19)? If we are not now sharing in the sin-offering, how could we be taking up the cross and following Christ (Matt. 16:24)? If we are not now sharing in the sin-offering, how could we be now drinking of His cup and be in process of being baptized with His baptism (Mark 10:35-39)? If in this life it is not possible for us to share in the sin-offering, how can we share in it at all, seeing the sufferings for sin are limited to the fleshly life (1 Pet. 4:1)? Surely the Levitical position on this subject is in the most direct contradiction to the Scriptures, our Pastor's writings, the facts of our experience and the conclusions of reason. By claiming that the Body members of Christ cannot on this side of the vail have any part in the sin-offering, J.F.R. has in fact, though perhaps not intentionally, repudiated the Church's participation with her Lord in His sacrificial cup, and has actually, though perhaps not intentionally, joined the 1909 sifters in denying our sharing in the sin-offering, so far as the Church's participation in its sacrifice is concerned. 

Having shown and disproved the foundation error 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

367 

in the article under review, we will now briefly refute its incidental errors. In par. 29, like Studies, Vol. VII, on Rev. 8:1-3, it says that "the altar represents the place of sacrifice." The golden altar represents the Christ as New Creatures, and the brazen altar represents the Christ as human beings. Pars. 28, 30 falsely define the word present as standing ready, as used in Rom. 12:1, where it means yield or surrender—make a present of yourself. The writer says (par. 30) that it is manifest from the Scriptures that the New Creatures do not do any sacrificing. Heb. 7:27; 9:14; 1 Pet. 2:5 and numerous other Scriptures, some of which have already been quoted, or cited, show that they do; and in the very nature of the case New Creatures are the only ones that can; for the New Creature is the priest who does the sacrificing. In par. 31 he denies that the New Creature sacrifices, affirming that instead he fulfils his covenant. There is no real contrast here, because the New Creature fulfils a covenant of sacrifice, i.e., a covenant which requires him to sacrifice (Ps. 50:5). The very terms of this passage prove that to fulfill his covenant he must sacrifice, and thus the attempted contrast disproves his position. In pars. 32-34, he alludes to, quotes and perverts T 45, par. 2, which tells of the under-priests' also waving the offering, to prove his position. The reverse is proved by the paragraph. It shows that the under-priests share in sacrificial acts, and that continually until death. Hence this section proves that we as new creatures of Christ's Body in this present life "may not lay down or cease to offer all our powers [our human all] in God's service." To quote such a paragraph to prove that we do not share in sacrificial acts proves his increasing right-eye darkening, if it does not prove his dishonesty; for, lawyer-like, he may be quoting it with perverting remarks to explain away its damaging effects on his error. If his remarks in par. 38 on children caring for their parents mean that

Merariism. 

368 

consecrated children are not duty-bound to care for parents in need, especially in the needs of old age, his remarks are unscriptural (1 Tim. 5:4, 8). However, he may be writing against the spirit of overdoing for parents beyond their needs, exemplified in the man who wanted to wait until his father died before becoming a disciple (Matt. 8:21, 22). If the latter is his thought, it is correct; but if it is, he has not clearly expressed himself. The twists and perversions in pars. 43 and 44, whereby he seeks to explain away our sacrificial acts as explained in Heb. 13:15, 16, are only more proofs of further right-eye darkening, as the entire article also proves this fact. 

In Z '26, 179-184, is published an article on "Sacrifice And Obedience," which requires some attention. Par. 19 states that Esau types Satan. God himself tells us that he types those rejected from attaining the election, from attaining the Little Flock: (1) Nominal Fleshly Israel (Rom. 9:1-13); consequently by the parallel dispensation (2) Nominal Spiritual Israel (Is. 63:1-6); and (3) the Great Company (Heb. 12:16, 17). This article sets forth Saul as the type of all the [supposed] anointed in 1918, in and out of the Truth, and finally winds up with his typing those [supposed] anointed ones who fail to smite clericalism so thoroughly as "that evil servant" has been exhorting them to do. This, of course, is another feature of his pet theory of the special favors for his followers, the supposed temple since 1918. Saul types a variety of characters. For the Gospel Age he types the crown-losing leaders of the various denominations, who in each denomination took the place of leadership held by the faithful leaders [antitypical Samuel] who announced the stewardship truths, i.e., Saul types the Gospel-Age princes. These, like Saul, were at first humble, loyal and serviceable to the Truth. But, like their type, Saul, they shortly failed to put obedience above service. The faithful Little Flock leaders rebuked

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

369 

them, even as Samuel rebuked Saul. They have run ahead of the Lord ["my Lord delayeth"], even as Saul failed to wait for the sacrifice until Samuel came to make it. They failed to make a complete job of killing their love of sin as the Little Flock does, even as Saul failed to extirpate all Amalekites, while Samuel saw to it that they were extirpated. They smote their fellow servants - the Little Flock leaders—even as Saul persecuted David. They became teachers of error ["eating and drinking with the drunken"—symbolic sorcery], even as Saul took to witchcraft. Thus the facts show that Saul typed the crown-losing leaders of Christendom throughout a large part of the Age. This is the large type—that of the Gospel Age. But there has been a smaller type, which is confined to the Epiphany, and which has been fulfilling and has yet some time to run. This we hope later to give in detail. The remark of par. 24, that shortly after 1918 the Lord completely rejected the ecclesiastical systems, is totally out of harmony with the Bible, reason and facts. The Bible and facts prove that He did this in 1878, and reason re-enforces this view. 

In Z '26, 227-235, under the title "The Temple Of God," is another article that requires attention. In par. 2 J.F.R. confounds the two messengers of Mal. 3:1. The first of these messengers is (1) John the Baptist, the preparer of Jesus' First Advent, and (2) the Church in the flesh, the preparer of Jesus' Second Advent; and the second of these messengers is Jesus in His First Advent and in the Second Advent (Mark 1:1-4; Is. 40:3). Our Pastor on the basis of the Bible and the parallel dispensations very properly applied Mal. 3:1 to both Harvests, and the time of them to 29 A.D. and onward and 1874 and onward. In par. 6 the parable of the virgins, and in par. 7 that of the talents, are used to prove the fact of our Lord's coming to His temple. They teach it. But the Scriptures, reason and facts teach that this was in 1874, not 

Merariism. 

370 

in 1918 as he claims. To prove that the Lord came to His temple lately, the Society's president quotes Ezek. 21:27—"I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, … until He come whose right it is, and I will give it to Him." The sophistry in the use of this passage lies in the use of the word come. In the Bible, in connection with the Second Advent, the word to come sometimes means the act of His arrival in 1874 (Acts 1:11), sometimes applies to the entire Parousia (Matt. 24:42-44; Luke 18:8; Rev. 1:7), sometimes applies to the entire Epiphany (Matt. 23:39; 24:30; 26:64; Luke 18:8; 1 Cor. 4:5; 11:26; Col. 3:4; Rev. 1:7; Jude 14), sometimes applies to both the Parousia and the Epiphany, as several of the foregoing passages prove, and sometimes applies to the whole Millennium (Matt. 25:31; Luke 9:26; 2 Thes. 1:10). This word that can cover so many periods cannot be used from Ezek. 21:27 to prove that the Lord came to His temple in 1918. This passage does not refer to the temple at all, but has reference to the end of the Times of the Gentiles in 1914. Therefore it cannot be used to prove Christ's coming to His temple at all, let alone in 1918. In this passage it refers to the fact that in 1914 He would arise to a work that would result in Israel's deliverance from the Gentile's dominion. This was His starting ouster proceedings against the Gentile nations in 1914. Hence the passage has no reference to our Lord's coming to His temple, to which He came in 1874. He began in 1874 to assail Satan's kingdom by a wordy conflict, and continued it until 1914, when from a wordy war He proceeded to a dispossession of the nations, and additionally to the physical overthrow of Satan's empire. 

We have in the first part of this chapter shown that the troubles on the Society in 1918 were fit-man experiences, and as such were intended to burn out some of the dross of the Levites—the symbolic silver—and to burn their wood, hay and stubble (Mal. 3:2, 3; 1 Cor. 3:13-15). 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

371 

But those troubles, being such experiences, could not be special evidences of God's special favor to the Society partisans as the [supposed] Little Flock, as J.F.R. repeatedly affirms. Hence the whole setting that is given to matters in pars. 24-27 is a delusion quite in harmony with his hallucinations. To claim that the clean offering of Mal. 3:4 began after 1918, and that in the work of the Society partisans, is to discredit the pure work of the reaping and gleaning time, 1874-1916. Imagine, beloved brethren, the erroneous drives on Millions now living will never die after 1925 being the pure offering, and the true harvest work from 1874 to 1916 being in comparison unclean! No wonder the Bible for such effusions calls the Society's president evil, drunk, foolish and unprofitable! His applying Matt. 24:10 to the 1918 troubles, as a proof that the so-called "opposition" betrayed the Society's leaders, is not only a perversion of a passage that applies to the persecutions of the faithful, usually by the crown-losers, and mainly during Papacy's reign, but is a gross and untruthful slander. The reason the government prosecuted the Society leaders was partly because they witnessed against the war spirit, which was a proper thing to do, though they were wrong in decrying patriotism in the natural man; and partly because they interfered with the draft, which was partly proven against them by intercepted letters that they wrote into camps, advising brethren not even to wash dishes, pare potatoes, clean barracks, wait on tables, etc. They, by such letters and witnessing, betrayed themselves. The so-called opposition knew nothing of what was brewing until the Society leaders were arrested on evidence that their own speeches, letters and articles gave the government. Hence we see the double error of applying Matt. 24:10 to their 1918 troubles with the government. 

Par. 34-51 claims that King Uzziah types Nominal Spiritual Israel, especially just before 1918. This

Merariism. 

372 

is a groundless claim. The parallel dispensation proves that he in the large picture types a phase of things in Christendom considerably before the French Revolution, while in the smaller picture he types a certain person who arrogantly busy-bodied in a certain Epiphany priestly work, and for that reason was stricken by the Lord with symbolic leprosy. A proof of the delusion under which the Society's president labors is his making Little Flock types of what are actually Great Company types on various matters since 1918 of almost everything in the Scriptures. Does he think that on the mere say-so of "that wicked servant" and "foolish, unprofitable shepherd" properly informed Truth people will accept such baseless claims? Increasingly they are driving from him thousands of New Creatures and good Youthful Worthies; and this is a factual proof of the error of such claims. In par. 42 it is said that in the autumn season of 1919 the Cedar Point Convention was held. This dating is wrong; for it was held Aug. 24-Sept. 1. This wrong date is probably, like many others of the Society's president, to lay, lawyer-like, the foundation for some time delusion that he may be wishing to palm off. In par. 45 the purging of Isaiah's lips (Is. 6) is explained as typing the Society adherents awakening to the fact that as the Lord's representatives they were to be more active. This is in utter disharmony with the pertinent Scriptural symbols, in which lips represent teaching, unclean lips represent unclean teaching, the altar represents the sacrificed humanity of the Christ, a coal therefrom represents a truth - in this case the ransom, and the purging of the lips represents the cleansing of the teachings from error. Isaiah here types God's people who, while dwelling in Babylon were proclaimers of unclean teachings, but who coming into the Truth from 1874 on were cleansed from their errors, especially by the ransom truth, and 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

373 

given the work of proclaiming the Word until the Time of Trouble would bring destruction. 

Let us note some of his supposed clarifications, all of them in striking contradiction to the light received through "that Servant": (1) no tentative justification; (2) consecration at the Gate; (3) Christ's merit not deposited at Calvary, but after the ascension; (4) Christ's death on a tree not necessary to satisfy Justice; (5) the Church a part of the High Priest only after her glorification; (6) a Biblical mediator a reconciler (which is a priest), not a guarantor of a covenant (which is a Biblical mediator); (7) the Christ becomes Mediator only at the sealing of the Covenant; (8) the Egyptian firstborn type of clergy as such; (9) Christ's merit is the value He gained; (10) no Youthful Worthies; (11) antitypical Elijah transubstantiated into antitypical Elisha; (12) Jeremiah types the Society adherents; (13) misapplication of the Joseph type and its seven years of plenty and famine; (14) misapplication of the John the Baptist type; (15) on the slaughter weapons; (16) on the parable of the penny; (17) on smiting Jordan; (18) on the Seventy jubilee cycles; (19) on antitypical Judas; (20) on the Great Jubilee in 1925; (21) the deliverance of the Church and the Great Company by 1925; (22) the end of the trouble by 1925; (23) the return of the Ancient Worthies in 1925; (24) the establishment of the Kingdom in 1925; (25) the end of the infliction of the Adamic death in 1925; (26) confusion on the wise and foolish virgins; (27) confusion on the pounds and talents; (28) confusion on the sheep and goats; (29) confusion on the wedding garment; (30) confusion on the separation of tares from wheat; (31) confusion on the robe of righteousness; (32) confusion on Rev. 12; (33) Satan's usurpation and being given the right to rule over the human family; (34) confusion on the slayer and the avenger of blood; (35) errors on Matt. 24:1-14; 

Merariism. 

374 

(36) the star of Bethlehem and the three wise men as Satan's servants; (37) the point of the sword; (38) the three parts and the refining fires of Zech. 13:8, 9; (39) the bound ones and prisoners of Is. 61:1; (40) the gospel of the Kingdom; (41) the end of the Age; (42) the time and character of the message of Is. 52:7; (43) confounding the slaughter weapons with the sword of Elisha; (44) all faithful new creatures die; (45) the Society is "that Servant"; (46) the evil servant is a class; (47) the incense offered in the most holy; (48) the court not typing tentative justification; (49) confusion on repentance; (50) on faith; (51) on conversion; (52) on consecration; (53) on the Sarah Covenant and Covenant of Sacrifice; (54) the thing given in consecration; (55) time and nature of the world-wide witness; (56) our Pastor still directs the Society's work; (57) on the essentials for a trial for life; (58) 50 years' Harvest; (59) Enoch experienced death; (60) the clergy as such doomed to the Second Death; (61) The Ancient Worthies can be resurrected before the Church and the Great Company leave the earth; (62) misinterpreting thousands of verses properly interpreted by "that Servant"; (63) antitypical Elijah began his ministry in 1874; (64) errors on the Channel; (65) errors as to the nature of the beast, image of the beast, etc.; (66) Elijah restored all things from 1874 to 1918; (67) Satan not cast out from heaven until 1914; (68) those not Spirit-begotten can be now on trial for life or death without the merit of Christ's blood imputed to them or applied on their behalf, and can go into the Second Death; (69) Jesus' New Creature died on Calvary's cross; (70) there are 19 instead of 12 Apostles; (71) time features are no longer to be given much attention; (72) Jesus was inactive toward Satan until 1914; (73) the heavens of 2 Pet. 3:12 are not the ecclesiastical powers of control; (74) applies Is. 62:10 since 1918; (75) Is. 30:26 is not Millennial;

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

375 

(76) Joel 2:28 applies to the Gospel Age, perverting the sons, daughters, old men and young men; (77) the times of refreshing are the Harvest; (78) a new dispensational work began for the Little Flock in 1919; (79) Satan was empowered to put Adam to death, if he disobeyed; (80) the tree of knowledge yielded fruit giving knowledge; (81) there was but one tree of life; (82) Adam knew not nor ate of the trees of life; (83) the tree[s] of life made one death-proof, i.e., immortal; (84) joy began in heaven in 1914; (85) mistakes—misunderstandings, misapplications—in the Bible; (86) Sennacherib types Satan; (87) his overthrow types the overthrow of Satan's empire; (88) the overthrow of Pharaoh's army types the overthrow of Satan's empire; (89) denies that Christ developed character; (90) denies that the Church develops character; (91) opposes character development to covenant keeping; (92) applies Rom. 12:1 to new creatures only; (93) incompletely defines holiness; and (94) faith; (95) teaches confusion on separation of the good and bad fish; (96) claims one sacrifices only his imputed rights; (97) claims all actually sacrifice the same quantity and quality; (98) claims that Jesus does all the sacrificing; (99) denies that the under-priesthood coöperates under the Head in sacrificial acts; (100) teaches that the under-priests are not part of the High Priest until their glorification; (101) teaches that only then will they share in the sin-offering; (102) wrongly defines the antitype of the altar; (103) opposes sacrificing to covenant keeping in the new creature; (104) errs as to the Amalekites' ancestor; and (105) on their typical significance; (106) teaches that Esau types Satan; (107) that saints first began in 1874 to journey to the Kingdom; (108) teaches that Saul types all anointed ones in and out of the Truth in 1918 and later; (109) that Saul later types those who cease thoroughly to smite the ecclesiastics; (110) that the Nominal Church was completely

Merariism. 

376 

rejected after 1918; (111) misapplies Mal. 3:1-4 to 1918 onward; (112) misapplies Ezek. 21:27 as pointing indirectly to Jesus' coming to the temple in 1918; (113) makes the 3½ years—29-33 A.D.—parallel to the 3½ years—1914-1918; (114) perverts fit-man experiences into Little Flock experiences; (115) claims that the offerings of Mal. 3:4 began in 1918; (116) applies the persecutions and betrayals of Matt. 24:10 to 1918; (117) teaches that Elijah and Elisha type two works; (118) their separation, the separation of two works; (119) Uzziah types Nominal Spiritual Israel, especially just before and immediately after 1918; (120) perversion of numerous typical Scriptures for his 1918 delusion; (121) perverts the symbolic teachings of Is. 6:1-10 in the interests of the 1919 and subsequent drives; (122) teaches that the earth was not redeemed; (123) on at least nine points impinges against the ransom; (124) hypocrisy first began in Enos' days; (125) Enoch's not seeing death means that he observed no one die; (126) Enoch's not seeing death means he died without feeling its pains; (127) Enoch prophesied deliverance; (128) was the first so to do; (129) teaches a counterfeit dragon, beast and false prophet; (130) counterfeit frogs coming out of their mouths; (131) the nature of the advancing light; (132) paralleling 33 A D. and 1918; (133) the fiery trials on the Church; (134) the Society's work since 1919 (the 1925 Millions propaganda) greater and more honorable and purer and better done than antitypical Elijah ever did; (135) Society adherents since 1918 more favored than God's Faithful ever were before; (136) his light will be sevenfold (perfect) before the earthly phase of the Kingdom comes; (137) perverts the meaning of character; (138) perverts the meaning of image in Rom. 8:29; (139) teaches that God, Jesus and the saints have no character; (140) wrests and tortures numerous Scriptures in the interests of his errors on character.

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

377 

If we would point out the details of errors coming under point (62) above—"misinterpreting thousands of verses properly interpreted by 'that Servant'"—our list would swell into thousands of details; for almost never does he allude to or quote a passage in an article on his pet views but he corrupts its sense. Yet he says he has not changed our Pastor's teachings, has only clarified them! 

J.F.R. has in the October 15 and November 1, 1928 Towers repudiated a former view that he received from our Pastor, and that he widely circulated in The Finished Mystery, namely, that the Philadelphia Church was the Reformation Church and that the Laodicean Church is the Harvest Church, claiming that the Philadelphia Church was from 1874 to 1918 and that since 1918 or 1919 we have been in the Laodicean period. We will not in this chapter examine his hallucinations on the subject; rather we will present some positive evidence proving that The Philadelphia period was the Reformation Period and that the Laodicean period was the harvest period from 1874-1954—the first 40 years of which—the Parousia—being for the reaping and the second 40 years of which—the Epiphany—being for the rest of the other harvest processes. As will be shown later in this chapter, and as is required by the logic of his position, J.F.R. holds that the reaping did not begin until his Laodicea began 1918-1919, though in his Oct. 15 and Nov. 1 articles, which we are herewith refuting, he claims to believe that the reaping began in 1874. He is holding back his real thought until his pilgrims have sufficiently inculcated his adherents with it to make it "safe" for him to come out in the Tower with it. For the proof of this as his course we refer to the facts given a little later. That the Bible teaches that the reaping is an exclusively Laodicean matter is evident from the following consideration: The seven angels of the seven churches are identical with the 

Merariism. 

378 

seven angels that stand before God with the seven trumpets; and it is under the sounding of the seventh angel—the Laodicean angel—that the reaping of both the wheat and tares takes place (Rev. 11:15; 14:14-20). Hence Philadelphia precedes the reaping time. With this introductory paragraph we are ready to present three general lines of proof showing that Philadelphia ended and Laodicea began in 1874. The conclusive proof of this proposition will, without examining the detailed vagaries of the two articles that are mentioned above, abundantly refute them. 

I. We offer first a set of comparative and contrasting proofs for our Pastor's view of the two churches as true, based on a comparison of, and contrast between Rev. 3:7-13 and 14-21: (1) The names fit the characters of the two periods as he gives them (vs. 7, 14), and are contrary to J.F.R.'s perversions. The Reformation period was pre-eminently the period of brotherly love, e.g., as can be seen from the Protestant brethren accepting and supporting until the need was passed, the over 1,000,000 Huguenots exiled for their faith from France, the 30,000 Saltzburgers driven out of Austria and other very numerous brethren driven in masses out of various other Catholic countries, their serving and defending, frequently at great risk, much self-denial, suffering, loss of life and in other ways, their persecuted brethren, their great self denials in spreading reformation truths, translating, publishing and circulating the Bible to help their brethren to the Truth, the foreign missionary work as a witness of the kingdom in all nations and to win brethren for the Lord, the Methodist brethren giving all to the poor brethren, except what their bare needs required them to keep, the brethren in the Miller movement piling up their money on the church altars or tables for any of the brethren to take for the supply of their need, etc. Of all periods of Church history the Reformation period was pre-eminently the time of 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

379 

brotherly love. But from 1874 and particularly from 1878 onward except among the Truth people the love of many—those of the nominal church—waxed cold. On the other hand from 1874 and especially from 1878 till 1914 began the Parousia features of Laodicea—the agitations for justice for the people—Laodicea means justice, vindication for the people—in the cries of relief from wrong and exposure of wrong-doers in church, state, aristocracy and capital, the rendering of recompense to the errorists for teaching error in the exposures of their errors, the taking of mouthpieceship from the nominal church, the giving over of the nominal church to loss of all her Divine privileges, possessions, uses, etc., with the consequent giving her over wholly to Satanic influences; then with 1914 began the Epiphaniac features of Laodicea—physical punishments for the wrong-doers with the World War as the first great physical punishment of Christendom for vindication of the people, to be followed by the other features of wrath, which will not end until the Epiphaniac part of Laodicea is ended. Thus the facts prove the names apply as our Pastor taught them. 

Our Lord's office works as implied in the descriptions of Him from the standpoint of His pertinent works (vs. 7, 14) for these two periods fit our Pastor's setting of things and contradict that of J.F.R. V. 7 calls him holy and true, because in the Reformation time He severely reproved Rome for its unholy practices and errors and warmly advocated Protestants' holy living and true teaching. Then did He use His power (key of David) as the Church's Beloved—David—to unlock the Bible that Rome held under lock and key (symbolized by Luther finding the Bible in the monastery locked and secured by a chain) and "opened"—explained it as true (Luke 24:32, 27)—as then He so "shut"—refuted Papacy's teachings—as none could open—vindicatingly explain—them. 

On the other hand, the description (v. 14) of His 

Merariism. 

380 

Laodicean works tallies well with His office occupations from 1874 to the present and will continue so until the Epiphany's end. He is the Amen who in His Second Advent came forth to amen—realize—the hopes of the Church and the world and thus fulfill God's eternal purpose. He has from 1874 onward most faithfully witnessed for the Truth—the faithful and true Witness—and against all error among His nominal and real people, a thing that was in the Philadelphia period done only on a small scale, i.e., for certain truths and against certain errors. One of the truths specially emphasized during this period is His being not coeternal, coequal and consubstantial with the Father, but, "the beginning of the creation of God." See e.g., Studies, Vol. V and numerous Tower articles, also Studies, Vol. I, Chap. VII. Thus we find that the office descriptions of Christ fit the two periods as our Pastor taught them and contradict the setting under review. 

Again, the commendation given the Philadelphia Church (vs. 8, 10) and severe reproofs administered to the Laodicean Church (vs. 15, 17) prove our Pastor's setting and disproves the one under review. During the Reformation period the Protestant denominations were honorable women (Ps. 45:9). Of their works of teaching truth and refuting error on doctrine and life, of their stand for righteousness, of their Bible translation and spread, of their missionary and evangelistic work and of their labors of mercy, our Lord could say, "I know thy works," "thou hast kept My Word," "thou hast not denied My name." And of their devotion and the horrible persecutions and other unexampled sufferings that they underwent—greater even than those of the Smyrna Church—our Lord could well say, "thou hast kept the words of My patience." But none of such praise could be given them since 1874 and more particularly since 1878 when they were "spewed—vomited—out." Hence Philadelphia could not have begun in 1874 and continued to

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

381 

1918. On the other hand, the rebukes for their luke-warmness (v. 15), for their boastfulness (v. 17), for their ignorance of their real condition (v. 17) and for their wretchedness, misery, poverty, blindness and nakedness (v. 17) most thoroughly fit them ever since 1874 and 1878. Let us remember that the Lord sometimes addresses His real, sometimes His nominal, and sometimes both of these peoples in the Churches. 

Again, the Roman hierarchy and its partisans—the professed symbolic Jews, but actually a synagogue of Satan, an assembly that Satan gathered—that began in the Smyrna period (Rev. 2:9) were the special enemies of the Philadelphia Church (v. 9), which is true of the Reformation Protestant Churches; but is not true of them since 1874, since when they and Rome have begun to "roll together as a scroll" in more or less friendship. Hence Philadelphia was over by 1874. Again, the Philadelphia Church was kept from, not in the hour of temptation as the articles under review claim and its setting requires. The hour of temptation (v. 10) begun in 1878, in the first of the six harvest siftings, while Laodicea was not (v. 18) kept from it, but went into it. Hence the Philadelphia Church was not in existence from 1878 onward, and Laodicea was, to go into it, in existence before 1878, hence did not begin in 1918 or 1919. Furthermore, the Lord's Second Advent which set in in 1874 (not a fictitious coming to the temple in 1918, which none ever forecast before 1918 as then due to come, that idea never even being thought of until years after 1918, while the forecasting of our Lord's Second Advent did occur in Philadelphia, before 1874, as v. 11 teaches it would be) was declared during the Philadelphia period to be in the near future (v. 11), but was declared as present in the Laodicean period (v. 20). Hence Philadelphia was over and Laodicea began in 1874. No special Truth feast was promised the faithful in Philadelphia; but great feasts were promised

Merariism. 

382 

the Laodicean faithful (v. 20), which Jesus said would set in at His return (Luke 12:37) in 1874. There was no knock by the prophetic word in Philadelphia indicating our Lord's presence to have set in; but there was one from 1875 on, as the Laodicean period progressed (v. 20). There was no special cry to the Philadelphia Church to repent, as the Reformation Church was faithful to her commission to the end, but the fallen condition of Laodicea since 1878 drew forth in the six siftings many cries to repent (v. 9). 

The door opened to the Reformation Church was to all in it (vs. 7, 8); but the one to Laodicea was to individuals only (v. 20), which again places Philadelphia and Laodicea where our Pastor placed them, and therefore, disproves the new view, because the general call ceased early in the true Laodicea, 1878-1881. No special eye-salve was needed for Philadelphia to gain the Reformation truths, which were embraced by millions who were not consecrated, but there was for Laodicea from 1874 onward, to gain the harvest Truth, which was gotten by but a comparatively few (v. 18). Philadelphia was not wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked like Laodicea, the condition since 1878, but had the riches of the crown (v. 11). Philadelphia was the mouthpiece of the Lord to the end of her career, while in 1878 the nominal church was spewed—vomited—out, hence in 1878 Philadelphia did not exist and Laodicea was then cast off as mouthpiece (v. 16). Philadelphia's overcomers had offered to them the hope of going to heaven and there becoming part of the glorified temple, and as part of the Bride of Christ and of the Daughter of Jehovah, had the privilege of receiving the family name, the crown (v. 12), being the special reward conditionally offered to all in it (v. 11) throughout the Reformation period for overcoming. This was certainly the hope offered to the whole Reformation Church, while to the consecrated of Laodicea, not to all in it (note

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

383 

the distinction between the general and special calls here implied in this contrast), the kingdom and joint-heirship with Christ (v. 21) and the Divine nature (gold tried in the fire; v. 18) were the special promises. Hence we conclude that the comparisons and contrasts between Philadelphia and Laodicea as given in Rev. 3:7-13 and 14-21 prove that Philadelphia was the Reformation Church ending its career in 1874, while Laodicea was the harvest Church beginning in 1874 and not ending for many years yet—in 1954, we believe, the Bible to teach. 

II. The prophetic chronology proves that Laodicea began in 1874; hence not in 1918 or 1919, and hence Philadelphia was over by 1874. We will give our chronological points briefly; and believe they are conclusive on the time of those two churches. 

(1) If Philadelphia lasted only from 1874 to 1918 its duration was 43½ years. But since each of the trumpets of Revelation corresponds in time with the time of its pertinent church, the messenger of each church being the messenger with the pertinent trumpet, the Philadelphia messenger must have blown for at least 391 years and 15 days (Rev. 9:13-15); hence he started to blow hundreds of years before 1874. Therefore Philadelphia must have begun hundreds of years before 1874. When after the symbolic earthquake we write our promised exposition of the Revelation, we will submit conclusive proof that the Philadelphia Church began about twenty-five years before Luther's 95 theses were published October 31, 1517. Our proof will show that the second woe, the one under the sixth trumpet, lasted to within a few years of 1874. However, for the purpose of the matters at hand the above is conclusive, that the Philadelphia Church began hundreds of years before 1874, and that by 1874 Laodicea was due. 

(2) The 390 days of bearing Israel's sin (Catholicism's sins borne 390 years by the faithful, as distinct 

Merariism. 

384 

from the contextual Jerusalem's, Protestantism's sins borne 40 years—1874-1914—by the faithful; Ezek. 4:4-6) represents the full period of the second woe of Rev. 10:12, etc., except its last year and 15 days, and was therefore wholly within the period of Philadelphia and was over before the 40 years' siege of Protestantism began in 1874. Hence Philadelphia was over by 1874 and Laodicea began then. 

(3) The 6,000 years from the fall, ending in 1874 and introducing the Millennium as the end or Harvest of the Gospel Age, must then have set in as that which brought in the lapping of the Millennium and the Gospel Age (Matt. 13:40), since the Harvest is confined to Laodicea (Rev. 11:15; 14:14-20). Hence Laodicea must have begun in 1874 and therefore, by that time Philadelphia was over. 

(4) The 1335 days of Daniel (12:12) ended in 1874, and prove the Lord's Second Advent set in then, while Jesus declares that at that time He would come forth with the harvest message and work, which are Laodicean as shown above (Luke 12:37; Matt. 13:40-43; 24:30, 31; Rev. 14:14-20; Ps. 50:3-5). 

(5) The Parallel Dispensations show that as the reaping of the Jewish Age was in the end of the Jewish Age, i.e., the first period of the Church—Ephesus—so the reaping of the Gospel Age must be in the parallel time and stage of the Gospel Age—1874-1914 and is thus in the end (Matt. 13:40), the last or Laodicean period of the Church. 

(6) The antitypical Jubilee cycle fixing 1874 as the introduction of the Millennial Age in its beginning of the lapping of the Gospel and Millennial Ages, must have introduced Laodicea, the last stage of the Church; for in such a lapping as the end of the Age, there could not be two stages of the Church, which would make two stages of the Church for the Harvest, a thing contrary to the type of the Jewish Harvest. Hence Philadelphia was over by 1874, when Laodicea 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

385 

began, the great cycle from the last Jubilee before the desolation of the land leading up to and introducing 1874 as the beginning of the Millennium. 

(7) The 51 jubileeless cycles (hence cycles of 49 years), because all 70 Jubilees, being held during the desolation, none of them was repeated at the end of each 49 years of the remaining 51 cycles (2 Chro. 36:21) ended in 1874 and their end implies the presence of the great Restorer, whose first work after His Return was the reaping as shown under (4); hence then Laodicea began and Philadelphia ended. 

III. Briefly will we set forth some of the sign prophecies—signs of the times—as proofs that, the reaping being the Laodicean period, Laodicea must have begun before 1914, and hence Philadelphia could not have stretched into 1918. That Laodicea is the reaping period is, we repeat, evident from the fact that, its angel, the seventh, being the angel with the seventh trumpet, it was under his trumpet that the reaping came (Rev. 11:15; 14:14-20). 

(1) Since the tares began to be burned in 1914, the reaping must have preceded their burning and must have been doing so for 40 years according to the parallel dispensations (Matt. 13:40-43; Rev. 14:14-20). Hence Laodicea began in 1874. 

(2) The Time of Trouble which began with the World War in 1914 was to overtake the reaper, and thus to end his activity (Amos 9:13); but this reaper began before he was overtaken, hence years before 1914; and new ones being won for Christ during Laodicea (Rev. 3:18, 20, 21), Laodicea must have been during the reaping; hence it began years before 1914. 

(3) The Elect were all to be consecrated—"killed"—(Rev. 6:11) before the time of exacting wrath—the Time of Trouble—and the wrath beginning in 1914, the reaping was all over by then, and hence the reaping stage of Laodicea began years before. 

(4) The Elect were all to be sealed on their foreheads

Merariism. 

386 

in each country in which they were before the wrath would strike that country. Hence the last of the reaping was ended in Europe by 1914 and the last one gleaned in America by 1916 when America began to drift into war with Germany. Hence Laodicea began years—40 years—before 1914 (Rev. 7:1-3). 

(5) The twelve daylight hours of the Penny Parable corresponding to the 40 years reaping time—the Parousia—and its twelve night hours corresponding to the rest of the harvest period—the 40 years of the Epiphany - the five harvest call periods were finished by June, 1911, the first beginning in 1874; hence Laodicea began in 1874, and therefore Philadelphia was then over; for the reaping comes under the seventh trumpet, which the Laodicean messenger sounds (Rev. 11:15; 14:14-16). 

(6) The midnight of the Ten Virgins' parable, being April, 1877, when the general proclamation of Christ's second presence began, and its night beginning October, 1799, not only must it end in 1954 with the end of the Epiphany; but this also proves that when the call, "Behold the bridegroom," began in April, 1877, the reaping was already under way; hence Laodicea was then present, and Philadelphia had already ended; for the reaping comes under the seventh trumpet, which the Laodicean messenger sounds (Rev. 11:15; 14:14-20). 

(7) In 1 Cor. 10:5-14 the five siftings, as represented by five of Israel's evil experiences in the wilderness, are shown to have taken place in the Jewish and Christian reaping periods, which by the following considerations are proven to be the first and last stages of the Church—Ephesus and Laodicea; Heb. 3:7–4:11 additionally shows that these evil wilderness experiences of Israel type Gospel-Age experiences. Facts show that these five siftings were during the Gospel Age enacted on a larger scale than the siftings of the two Harvests, one of them occurring in each of the five 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

387 

Church epochs between the Ephesian and Laodicean Churches. (1) During the Smyrna Church through the sifting work incidental to the introduction of the doctrines of trinity, immortality and eternal torment, the larger no-ransomism sifting was enacted, since these doctrines denied the ransom. This corresponds to the first harvest sifting, 1878-1881. (2) Through the giving up of the real object of the Gospel Age—the selecting of the Church for the Millennial conversion of the world—for a false one—the Church's conversion of the world and reigning over it 1,000 years before Christ's return, an unbelieving plan was set forth as God's plan—the larger infidelism sifting was consequently set into activity during the Pergamos period, since such a teaching is unbelief in God's plan for the Church and the world. This corresponds to the second harvest sifting, 1881-1884. (3) In the Thyatira Church the chief stumbling block—sifting feature—was antitypical Jezebel's unholy fornication with the kings of Christendom (Rev. 2:20-23). This was the larger combinationism sifting, antitypical of the illicit union of Israel with the Moabitish and Midianitish women at Baal-Peor. This corresponds with the third harvest sifting, 1891-1894. (4) Reformism of the Catholic Church in head and members was the chief sifting evil of the Sardis period as evidenced by the strenuous and evil efforts of individuals, rulers, universities and three general councils to reform Christendom at that time—centuries 14 and 15 (P '24, 24). Hence it is the fourth Gospel-Age sifting, and corresponds to the fourth harvest sifting, 1901-1904. (5) The gross contradiction of the Protestant Reformers by Catholic and other enemies with the consequent sifting running throughout the next period until after the Miller movement, as the Gospel-Age antitype of the Korah, Dathan, Abiram and 250 Levites contradicting Moses and Aaron, and as the correspondence of the fifth harvest sifting 1908-1911, proves that during that antitype the

Merariism. 

388 

only other than the first and last church stages—the Philadelphia Church—must have been present; hence Philadelphia must have ended before the first of the Gospel harvest siftings began in 1878. Hence Laodicea had begun to operate before 1878. All of us recall how the giving of the vow (Num. 16:37-41) with its four pledges, antitypical of the fringes—tassels—in the corners of the Israelites' garments, occasioned the contradictionism sifting in 1908. The Gospel-Age correspondence thereto is the Lord's giving through John Wessel, the principal man in the Philadelphia star (Mic. 5:5), the four cardinal principles of the Reformation by which the Protestants were enabled to stand and the Papists aroused to contradictionism: (1) The Bible is the sole source and rule of faith and practice; (2) Jesus is the sole Head of the Church; (3) Justification is by faith alone; and (4) only the consecrated are priests. When Luther, years after Wessel's death and early in his reformation work, first read Wessel's writings, he remarked, "had I read Wessel before I began the reformation work, my enemies would certainly say that I got my doctrines from Wessel, so well do we agree." The above seven proofs from the sign prophecies, to which many more could be added, if necessary, prove that Philadelphia preceded 1874 and that Laodicea began in 1874. J.F.R.'s articles on these periods in the Oct. 15 and Nov. 1 Towers are so unutterably weak that we decided to answer them only indirectly, i.e., by proving Philadelphia to have ended and Laodicea to have begun in 1874, without wasting time, space and printer's ink in going over their puerilities. 

When we first heard of J.F.R.'s changes on the Philadelphia and Laodicean periods, we made the remark that he will shortly be teaching that the reaping did not begin in 1874 but in 1918 or 1919. But there stands in the way of such a thought not only the Bible chronology and prophecy with their fulfillments, but 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

389 

also the corroboration of these—the Pyramid. He recognizes this; and therefore he must needs deny the Pyramid as of Divine origin, claiming that Satan is its builder. He has not given one pertinent proof for his assumption that the Lord came to His temple in 1918. He came to it at His Second Advent, in 1874; and in 1875, parallel to the first cleansing of the typical temple (John 2:13-17), He began the cleansing of the antitypical temple by driving away certain of the disgruntled, disappointed Adventists from among the Faithful; and, as the parallel of the second cleansing of the typical temple, He began in 1878 the more thorough cleansing of the antitypical temple (Mal. 3:1-3) by the first of the six harvest siftings, the sixth being the one now especially active. Hence the Lord did not come to His temple in 1918, for which the propounder of such a thought has offered no real proofs, though he has presented some of his eisegetical imaginations as [alleged] proofs of it. So now, according to him, we have most of the Philadelphia time as the period of that Servant's activity, and the Pyramid as a Satan-built "pile of stones." To mark the grave of that Servant and the graves of other members of the Bethel family J.F.R. caused a Pyramid to be erected, on which are inscribed the names of Bro. Russell and others, with a vacant space opposite that of that Servant's name for his own name when he will have been buried. Furthermore, on our Pastor's headstone he caused the inscription to be put: "The Laodicean Messenger." Thus he has furnished monumental evidence of his apostacy. Query: Will he now have the said Pyramid and headstone removed? 

There is a kind of logic to error as there is a true logic to truth. It is because error holds together with something like consistency, and requires the denial of opposing truths, that we made the above-given remark, viz., that J.F.R. will be denying that the harvest work was done during and under Bro. Russell's ministry,

Merariism. 

390 

when, last May [1928], we heard that he taught that the Philadelphia period was from 1874 to 1918 and that since then the Laodicean period obtains. This we also thought was the logic of the later Pyramid repudiation, when we heard of it, and later we also got corroborative evidence that "that evil servant" is "working up" by "methods of deceit" the Society's adherents to a preparedness to receive the announcement that the Harvest did not begin in 1874, but in 1918 or 1919. One of the "methods of deceit" that he uses "privily" to "bring in damnable heresies" (2 Pet. 2:1) before he publicly states them in the Tower, is to spread them among his adherents through his pilgrims. This he is doing as to the time of the Harvest not beginning until after 1918. Bro. Wise, the Society's Vice-President, on a pilgrim visit with "a mission," at Indianapolis, Nov. 29, 1928, preached there this new error. 

According to Bro. Wise's statement, we can see that the alleged harvest work, as beginning about 1918, is now being privately introduced among Societyites. But the admission that their work on the Millions proposition—a work that engrossed all their public efforts from 1919 to 1925—was a delusion, implies that it must have been of Satanic origin, and hence they admittedly have spent almost the entire first six years of their Harvest in Satan's service, which would mean only this: that they gathered a Harvest for Satan. We submit the proposition that the leaders who directed them into such a service must have a Satanic, not a Divine channel in such work, hence that work—their work toward the public—was not reaping work, nor was any other reaping then done, which disproves their new harvest theory. Is it reasonable to suppose that such leaders would be used as the Lord's channel for the Lord's work subsequent to such a "big" Satanic "drive"? The Bible teaches that the crown-lost Societyites are in Azazel's (Satan's) hands for the 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

391 

destruction of their fleshly minds, and this proves their gross errors and their "big drives" to be "frenzies of delusion" (2 Thes. 2:9-12). Did the real harvest work proceed along lines of delusion? Verily not! They now admit that their millions proposition was without Scriptural warrant and resulted from their misunderstanding the jubilee type. As early as 1920, as soon as we heard of this millions proposition for 1925, we warned them that they were misinterpreting the jubilee cycles since the desolation of the land, reminding them that these were of 49, not 50 years, since the jubilee years were all kept during the 70 years' desolation, and hence were not repeated at the end of the subsequent cycles. The proper understanding of the jubilee, as our Pastor gave it, proves that the reaping began in 1874. Why should we think then that those who fearfully misunderstood it and worked up such a frenzy of delusion are likely to be right on claiming 1918 or 1919 as the beginning of the Harvest? Our warning that J.F.R. would after 1925 offer some other delusion to keep disciples following after him is now fulfilling. This delusion is that the Harvest began in 1918 or 1919! And this error will lead to other right-eye darkenings for him, as time goes on, and fruitless "drives." 

Let us pause before discussing his Pyramid delusions and see what he has done with our Pastor's literature, the stewardship of which he and the rest of the Board and Tower editors received on condition of faithfully administering it, through which he and they received the special powers, prerogatives and privileges of leadership in the Society, in which he and they have been most unfaithful, and from which they should resign as unfaithful stewards, unworthy of the further benefits coming from a grossly misused stewardship. They have ceased reprinting (1) Bro. Russell's Book of Sermons, (2) Scenario, (3) Poems of Dawn, (4) B. S. Ms., (5) Manna, (6) Hymnal, (7) Comments as he

Merariism. 

392 

left them, (8) Six Volumes (the decision no longer to reprint these was made after the Detroit Convention, 1928, allegedly due to their not then getting enough contributions to publish them and the books of the Society's president at the same time. The hypocrisy of this claim is apparent when we keep in mind that the reprinting of the volumes from plates already on hand is much more economical than printing new books, which require new type and new plates. The local brethren in the ecclesias are, on orders from headquarters, seeking "to dump," at 5 cents each (!), all the Volumes on hand, especially on "the opposition," so that they may be kept from spreading "error" among the public and thus can handle the new books alone!), (9) the booklets on the Tabernacle ("an old man's fancy"), Spiritism, Hell and Our Lord's Return, and (10) the Tower Reprints (which they decided not to print any more, because of their also being allegedly so full of errors and also out of date). Accordingly, they have ceased reprinting all of Bro. Russell's literature, retaining only a name - The Tower, which is continually repudiating one after another of his teachings. For several years did one of the elders of the New York Temple in vain seek to get J.F.R. to allow a Tabernacle study to be conducted in that Church. Another of these elders showed by act exactly what J.F.R. has for years been working for, according to the following: The elder first mentioned above visited the one later mentioned. Pointing to the bottom drawer of his chiffonier, the latter spoke to the former words to the following effect: "In that drawer I keep Bro. Russell's writings locked up as out of date and full of error, while I keep the recent Towers and Society's recent books in the open as meat in due season. I keep Tabernacle Shadows, the Six Volumes and the Berean Bible in the back part of the drawer as the most out of date and erroneous, and the Tower reprints in front of them as not quite 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

393 

so out of date and erroneous, but all of them so out of date and erroneous as to be unfit for use any longer, while I feed on the truth now due and coming through the channel." No comment necessary! 

For years we have warned the brethren that J.F.R. has purposed to supersede our Pastor in everything and to substitute for the latter's literature writings of his own. He denied this so long as he feared the consequences of such knowledge becoming a means of opening the eyes of any considerable number of his followers. But he thinks he no longer needs to be so careful; for he believes that the bulk of his followers believe him to be that Servant's successor and even the angel of the Laodicean Church (in the Oct. 15 and Nov. 1, 1928, Towers he claimed that the so-called "faithful remnant," he and his co-laborers, are that angel) and consequently the former's superior. His contradictions of our Pastor's views are now so glaring that he can no longer pretend to be in harmony with him. Hence the mask so long worn is thrown off. Over a half of the people who were in the Truth in our Pastor's day have come to recognize our nearly twelve years' [written in 1928] Scriptural descriptions of him, based on Matt. 24:48-51 and Zech. 11:15-17, as correct. 

Matt. 24:49 speaks of his being symbolically drunk. According to his own admissions he must have been symbolically drunk from 1919 to 1925 on the millions proposition - his one and all engrossing public activity during those years. Symbolic drunkards, like literal drunkards, vomit more or less (Is. 28:1, 7, 8), and in the Nov. 15 and Dec. 1 Towers he had another spell of nausea, emptying his symbolic stomach of some good food formerly eaten, but not digested, by throwing up the entire Pyramid; for there he repudiated his former belief that the Great Pyramid at Gizeh is God's stone witness and altar, as set forth in Is. 19:19, 20. The real reason for his repudiation is that the

Merariism. 

394 

Pyramid contradicts his as yet not published new views on the Harvest beginning in 1918 or 1919; for it shows that its reaping ended in 1914, and that the reaped brethren had begun to be separated into two classes in 1917. We will first prove that the Great Pyramid is God's stone witness and altar and then refute the considerations that he gives in a specious attempt to prove it to be a work of Satan and not referred to in Is. 19:19, 20. 

The arguments which prove the Great Pyramid to be God's stone witness and altar are these: (1) The Pyramid sets forth by its arrangements and construction every salient feature of God's plan, especially the Christ and His course as the center of that plan; (2) by its measurements the Pyramid gives the time features of God's plan; and (3) it was built centuries before any part of the Bible was written, and that at a time when nobody in heaven or earth, except Jehovah Himself, understood this plan and its time features. Hence it must have been built under God's direction. 

Our Pastor in the Pyramid Chapter of Vol. III pointed out the main symbols of the Pyramid as illustrative of God's plan, particularly of the Christ, and its leading measurements as illustrative of its time features. The Edgar brothers did both of these things in much greater detail in their two-volumed work entitled, The Great Pyramid Passages, which our Pastor endorsed. We will now refer to the things proving these three points: 

I. The Pyramid by its construction and arrangements sets forth God's plan, especially the Christ, as the center of that plan. God's plan is His arrangement made to meet and overcome sin and evil in their nature and effects among His free moral agents. Man's fallen condition, increasing depravity, experience with evil, especially in the second—the present evil—world, and the end of this second world in destruction, are symbolized in the Descending Passage between the old

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

395 

entrance and the Pit, the latter showing its destruction. The period before the flood is represented by the part of this passage's floor above its intersection with the vertical of its roof-commencement to the old opening and then down the old side to the base of the Pyramid. The First Ascending Passage represents the Law period and the Grand Gallery represents the period of Spirit-begetting—the Gospel Age. The entrance into the Ante-Chamber in its first part, represents the death of the human will and in its second part, under the Granite Leaf, represents the taking of the Lord's will as our own. The Ante-Chamber represents our course as New Creatures in Christ's school. The passage between the Ante-Chamber and the King's Chamber represents the death of the sacrificed body, while the King's Chamber represents the Spirit-born condition in the Divine nature. The granite in the Pyramid represents the Divine and the limestone the human. The passage to the Queen's Chamber, which symbolizes the restitution condition, represents the highway of holiness leading to restitution. The Well represents the ransom, the Grotto, hades and the Pit, the lake of fire. The four sockets, one at each of the four ground corners, as the foundation of the Pyramid, represent Jehovah's four great attributes as sustaining the great lines of the plan and squaring with one another. His name, Jehovah, as its builder is worked into its symbols in several ways, with Tabernacle corroborations, as shown in P '26, 75, 76. The Pyramid as a whole represents the Christ, the head stone of the corner (Ps. 118:22; Zech. 4:7; Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7) representing Jesus, and the other outer—casing—stones representing the Church. All ancient Egyptian, Greek, Syriac and Arabic writers on the subject agree that from the top stone to the base the Pyramid had as its surface smooth lime stones, white like marble. These have either all fallen away or have been taken away, except the lowest layer at

Merariism. 

396 

certain places, from which we get the inclination angle of the original surface. It is because the Pyramid as a whole represents the Christ, who is the embodiment of God's plan and who is God's altar and witness in the world, that the Scriptures refer to it as the symbolic altar and witness of God (Is. 19:19, 20). The Granite Plug stopping the entrance to the First Ascending Passage symbolizes that the Law shuts off from life all who are fallen—all going down the Descending Passage. The Well being the only way left by the builders of gaining access to the Ascending Passages, symbolizes that the way of life comes to fallen man through the ransom only. The above indicated matters are undoubtedly the salient features of God's plan and they are thus shown to be symbolized in the Pyramid. Many others could be set forth here, but these are sufficient to prove our first proposition. Those desiring the others can get them in Vol. III, in Vols. I and II of The Great Pyramid Passages, and in the three Vols. of The Great Pyramid. 

II. By its measurements the Pyramid gives the time features of God's plan. The time features are given as a rule in a way to show the time or duration of the various features of God's plan. On this point we will give a very brief summary of the various time features brought out in Vol. II of The Great Pyramid Passages, supplemented by several others that the Epiphany has brought to light. The time of the birth and death and the age of our Lord Jesus at death are symbolized by the hypotenuse of the right-angle triangle formed by the intersected space between the south [Correction: PT '70, p. 64] end of the First Ascending Passage and the point of intersection of the projected floor line of the Queen's Chamber and the First Ascending Passage, which is found to be 33½ Pyramid inches from the south end of the First Ascending Passage. This is the exact period of our Lord's life, while His age at consecration is shown by the intersection point of the projected north Grand

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

397 

Gallery wall line with the projected floor line of the Queen's Chamber, 30 inches from the latter's intersection with the First Ascending Passage (62 [this number and all the following similarly parenthesized numbers are the page references to the first edition of Vol. II of The Great Pyramid Passages]). The length of the First Ascending Passage and of the Granite Plug gives in Pyramid inches the exact number of years from the giving of the Law until our Lord's death—1647 years (66, 67). The duration in years of the call to Spirit-begetting as the general period of the Gospel Age is symbolized by the floor line of the Grand Gallery from its north to its south wall—1881½ years—April 33 A.D. to October, 1914 (70). Measuring from the north wall of the Grand Gallery along the floor line to the bottom of the large step near the south wall, we find the Pyramid inches to be 1813½, which is exactly to a day the years from Calvary to September, 24, 1846, the date when antitypical Elijah and Elisha became the two parts of the cleansed sanctuary. Measuring thence to the intersection of the projected south wall of the Grand Gallery and the top of this large Step gives in Pyramid inches the exact time of the appearance of antitypical Elisha as separate and distinct from antitypical Elijah—June 27, 1917—the day that J.F.R. and the writer came to a final official break, as respective representatives of the two classes in the order last mentioned. (Chap. VII of Vol. III.) Measuring along the floor line from the bottom of the Step to the point of its intersection with the vertical line of the south wall and then up that line to its intersection with the top of the Step gives as many Pyramid inches and a fraction as there are years and a fraction from September 24, 1846, to July 18, 1920—the date that antitypical Elijah appeared openly separate from antitypical Elisha. (Chap. VII of Vol. III.) 

The time from Jacob's death, April, 1813 B.C., to our Lord's Second Advent, October, 1874 A.D., is 

Merariism. 

398 

symbolized by the measurement from the point of intersection of the Descending and Ascending Passages to the north wall of the King's Chamber, omitting the front of the large Step as not a part of the floor of the Grand Gallery (91). The double as the parallel dispensations' duration—2 x 1,845 = 3,690—is symbolized by the length of the Granite Plug, the two Ascending Passages to the front of the large Step and the distance from the north end of the Step to the south wall of the Ante-Chamber (97). The length of the Times of the Gentiles is indicated by the sum of the horizontal length and vertical height of the Grand Gallery (113). The time from the flood—Oct., 2473 B.C.—to our Lord's manhood—30 years of age, when occurred His baptism, Spirit-begetting and the beginning of His ministry—is symbolized by the distance—2,501 inches—from the intersection of the roof-commencement's vertical line and the Descending Passage (which marked the flood) down the Descending Passage to its point of intersection with the First Ascending Passage, then thereup to the level of the Queen's Chamber and then along that level until its intersection with the vertical line of the Grand Gallery's north wall—Oct., 29 A.D.—while the intersection of the First Ascending Passage and the level of the Queen's Chamber, reached 30 inches before, symbolizes the date of His birth (163). 

Adam's day of 1,000 years, in contrast with our Lord's day of 1,000 years, the larger double, 2 x 2,520 = 5,040 years, being the period bounded by these two days, is symbolized by the 1,000 inches in the distance from the leveled rock base of the Pyramid up the face of the casing to the ancient entrance and down to the north edge of the basement sheet (166). The time from the end of Adam's day, Oct., 3127 B.C., to the beginning of the first resurrection, April, 1878, is symbolized by the distance from the north end of the basement sheet vertically down to the level of the Well

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

399 

opening, then horizontally to the center of the Well opening—5,003½ Pyramid inches (173). The date that the last one of the Little Flock would be put on the altar and would begin in the Truth to be sacrificed as covered by Christ's merit, as being 1883 years after April, 33 A.D., i.e., April, 1916, is shown from the distance from the floor of the Descending Passage at the north edge of the Well opening to the level of the Queen's Chamber (176). The duration of the "world that was" as, 1,654 years, is represented by the 1,654 Pyramid inches gotten by the following measurements: the horizontal distance of the platform level from the front edge of the casing stones to its intersection with the vertical line of the roof—beginning in the Descending Passage, up this vertical to the Descending Passage, then northward along the latter's floor line until the old entrance point is reached and then down to the platform level at the bottom of the casing stone—1,654 inches (178). 

The time of our Lord's Second Advent is symbolized by the distance from the point of intersection between the Ascending and Descending Passages, which marks 1512 B.C., to the Pit along the built floor line—3,385 Pyramid inches, representing the years from Oct., 1512 B.C., to Oct., 1874 A.D., while if the line of the Descending Passage is prolonged at the same angle until it reaches the Pit, 40 Pyramid inches are added to this distance, symbolizing 1914, when the trouble—destruction of this world—was to begin (190, 191). The end of the second world—1914—in addition to the end of Spirit-begetting is also represented by the vertical line of the south wall of the Grand Gallery being practically in line with the north wall of the Pit, showing that the end of the begettal and the beginning of the trouble were to be about synchronous (193). From the two preceding considerations the Epiphany is shown to be a period of 40 years—1914 to 1954—as follows: Since the north wall of the Pit at the entrance

Merariism. 

400 

of the Descending Passage's floor line by different measurements represents both 1874 and 1914, with the latter date as the starting point measuring back to where the slanting and horizontal floors of the Descending Passage meet, then projecting at the same angle as the Descending Passage its floor line until it reaches the north wall of the Pit, the length of the latter line will be found to be 40 Pyramid inches longer than that of the former, i.e., this symbolizes that it represents a reaching of the pit 40 years later than 1914, from which we infer that Anarchy will reach a crisis in 1954, whether in its beginning, progress or end we are as yet unable to say, as marking the end of the Epiphany. The end of the Little Season as 1,000 years later than 1914 is symbolized by the 1,000 Pyramid inches from the bottom of the north wall of the Bottomless Pit to the end of the Blind Passage (198). 

The dates of 1295 as the ascension to the papal throne of Boniface VIII, the pope under whose reign papacy reached its climax and began to wane, of 1309 as marking the beginning of Marsiglio's reformation work and of 1324 as marking its climax, are gotten by measuring variously back from the north wall of the Pit along the roof and floor of the Descending Passage to various parts of the Well (210, 211). Oct., 1378, as marking the beginning of Wyclif's reformation work, is gotten by measuring back from the north wall of the Queen's Chamber (perfection coming under the first test at the end of the Millennium, April, 2878) to the north edge of the Well's mouth—a distance of 1,499½ inches; for in Oct., 1378, Wyclif attacked papacy's practices, especially transubstantiation, as contrary to the ransom, symbolized by the Well (216). The date of the division of Christendom during Luther's trial at Worms (1521) is given by the distance from the point of intersection in the Descending Passage (1512 B.C.) to the beginning of the floor 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

401 

line of the Horizontal Passage—3,031½ Pyramid inches (222). The distance from the north wall of the Pit to the north wall of the Recess—126 inches—represents the time back from 1914 to 1788, when the French king signed a decree to assemble the States General, which from certain standpoints was the beginning of the French Revolution (225). The time from the begettal of Isaac (July, 2021 B.C.) to our Lord's resurrection—2052¾ years—is given by the sum of the following measurements: from the intersection of the Descending and Ascending Passages vertically to the projected floor line of the Queen's Chamber—669¼ inches—then along this line to its intersection with the north wall of the Grand Gallery—1,383½ inches (252). The time from the Exodus (April, 1615 B.C.) to the end of the Jewish Harvest (Oct., 69 A.D.)—1,683½ years—is symbolized by the length of the First Ascending Passage from the point of intersection—1,545 inches—and the distance from the north wall of the Grand Gallery to the edge of the Well's shaft—140¼—whose sum equals 1,683½ Pyramid inches. 

We will now briefly mention some other time features symbolized in the Great Pyramid: The birth and Spirit-begettal of Jesus (244, 245), the date of the Abrahamic Covenant (249), the time from the entrance into the land until the Babylonian captivity (256), the Times of the Gentiles and the preceding seven times, i.e., from the end of Adam's day (263, 264), the time from the completion of Solomon's temple to the finding of the last of the living stones of the antitypical Temple (268), the time from the last typical jubilee until the antitypical jubilee (271), the seventy weeks (274), the 2,300 days (276), the 1,335 days (279), the 1,260 days (283), the 1,290 days (288) and the period from the fall to the complete restoration of the faithful restitutionists (314). In other words, every prophetical period, time and important 

Merariism. 

402 

event of the Lord's plan and that in harmony with the Bible chronology as a whole and in detail are symbolized in the Pyramid. Thus we have proved that the Pyramid symbolizes every important feature of God's plan and its chronology, the first two propositions of the three proving that God built the Pyramid. 

III. The third proposition necessary to prove that God is the Builder of the Great Pyramid is this: It was built centuries before any part of the Bible was written, and when nobody in heaven or on earth, except Jehovah, knew His plan and its chronology. If this proposition can be proven, it follows that Jehovah was the Pyramid's Builder. J.F.R. concedes that the Great Pyramid was built before the Exodus. The ancient Egyptian historians place its building hundreds of years before the Exodus, some of these writers having themselves lived before the Exodus. No one who has ever investigated the subject questions its pre-Exodus building. The Pentateuch is the first part of the Bible to have been written and its first part put into writing was written after the Exodus. 

But when the Pyramid was built nobody in heaven or on earth, except Jehovah, knew His plan and its time features. Rom. 16:25, 26 teaches that the mystery, the center of God's plan, which is symbolized, as well as fixed chronologically in the Pyramid, was a complete secret from the beginning of creation and began to be made manifest only from Jordan on. But the Planner of the Pyramid knew the mystery and its time features; for these are symbolized exactly in the Pyramid. Hence no creature of God originated the Pyramid. None of the earthly or heavenly princes of this world, which includes Satan (John 12:31; 16:11; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2; 6:12), knew the mystery before Calvary (1 Cor. 2:7, 8). Hence neither the fallen angels nor fallen men understood it before Calvary. Eph. 3:9 proves that from the beginning of the universe until the Gospel Age God had kept secret this 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

403 

mystery. Hence not even the Logos knew it before becoming flesh, though very likely (the Bible is silent on this subject) just before He became flesh God told Him enough of the purpose of His carnation to secure His consent thereto; but it was only at His begettal that heavenly things—the things of the high calling—were begun to be made clear to Him (Matt. 3:16). This mystery was hidden from all in the Ages and generations preceding the Gospel Age (Col. 1:26, 27). Hence, none but Jehovah understood it at the time the Pyramid was built. None of the angels—either good or bad—and no human could see the high calling before Jordan (1 Pet. 1:10-12). The Divine Plan was first made known to the fallen angels by the preaching of the Christ, i.e., after Jordan (Eph. 3:10). Jesus expressly tells us that Satan did not know the time of our Lord's return (Matt. 24:43; Luke 12:39), the date of which, with that of its accompanying trouble, the Pyramid repeatedly symbolizes, as shown above. Not even Jesus understood these dates before His ascension (Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7). Hence the absurdity of saying that to Lucifer at creation God revealed the plan and its times and seasons. These time features Jesus learned only after His ascension (Rev. 1:1). Before the ascension God kept the times and seasons in his power solely (Acts 1:7). These considerations prove our third proposition, that nobody in heaven or on earth, except Jehovah, knew His Plan, let alone its chronological features, when the Pyramid was built. But since the Pyramid gives the Divine Plan and its chronological features at a time when only Jehovah understood these (Acts 1:7), He must have built it. 

J.F.R. claims that Satan built the Pyramid, and claims that Job 38:7—"When the morning stars sang together, and [even] all the sons of God shouted for joy"—teaches that God revealed all the details of His plan with its time features to the Logos and 

Merariism. 

404 

Lucifer, and that as a result they sang together an anthem of praise to God, which, he alleges, is meant by the morning stars singing together, and that with the knowledge allegedly so gotten Satan built the Pyramid. Against this view we offer the following objections: (1) Such an interpretation contradicts the Scriptures above given, proving that nobody before Jordan in heaven or on earth, except Jehovah, knew the mystery and that none before Jesus' ascension knew the plan's future time features, which God up to that time had "put [securely kept] in His own power" (Acts 1:7). (2) Such an interpretation contradicts the poetic parallelism of Job 38:7, where the parallel identifies the morning stars with all the sons of God—all the angels—who are expressly mentioned in some of the above-cited passages as not understanding the plan and its time features before Pentecost. (3) Such an interpretation reads into the passages thoughts of which neither it nor any other Scripture gives any intimation whatever—eisegesis. (4) Such an interpretation is contrary to God's character for it implies that God committed the folly of giving one who He knew would become His worst enemy information that God wanted withheld from him so that He could properly limit his power for mischief (Matt. 24:43; Luke 12:39). (5) Such an interpretation is contrary to facts; for (a) all of Satan's pre-Gospel-Age religions were counterfeits of his misunderstandings of some of the Old Testament's dark sayings on the plan so far revealed, and (b) only after he heard Christ and the Church explain the real mystery was he able to invent a real counterfeit of it—Antichrist, the papacy, which judging from his usual course he would have invented in Old Testament times, had he had the necessary knowledge. (6) Such an interpretation undermines appreciation of God for allegedly giving such unwise information, and hence is against our cultivating godliness and is therefore wrong. 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

405 

(7) Such an interpretation is blasphemy, for it is the foundation of the theory under review that ascribes an exclusive work of God to the Devil. (8) Such an interpretation ascribes an equality of confidence on God's part in the Logos and Lucifer nowhere taught in the Scriptures. (9) Such an interpretation is degrading to the Logos and implies a course unworthy of God. (10) Such an interpretation is based upon an exaltation of the cherub—Lucifer—above his fellow cherubim, nowhere hinted at in the Bible. (11) This interpretation is self-contradictory; for it would make God's arch-enemy, who tries in every way to falsify God's plan and its time features, truthfully set forth that plan and its time features in symbols, whereas he would have misrepresented it symbolically, if he built the Pyramid, even as he has always misrepresented it symbolically and literally (2 Cor. 4:4; 11:14). (12) Finally, this interpretation is contrary to Satan's character, who has no truth in him, whereas the Pyramid is, next to the Bible, the greatest exhibition of truth in existence (John 8:44). These twelve reasons abundantly refute the thought that Satan built the Pyramid and that he got the knowledge for it before the events described in Job 38:7. 

We will now discuss the two articles on The Altar In Egypt, in the Nov. 15 and Dec. 1, 1928 Towers, giving briefly their main points with terse refutations. To J.F.R.'s charge that the Pyramid is cherished by those that do not accept his alleged new light, we answer that their not accepting such so-called light is to their credit; for the Bible disproves it, as our replies show, and describes it as coming from one whose spiritual understanding is increasingly darkening and who is symbolically drunk (Zech. 11:15-17; Matt. 24:49). To his statement that those who appreciate the Pyramid think that Truth has not advanced since 1917, and that since that time the Church has nothing to do, we reply that this statement is false in

Merariism. 

406 

both of its parts, so far as the Epiphany brethren are concerned; for they are engaged in the service of leading the Truth, the Protestant and the Catholic parts of Azazel's Goat to the Gate and fit man, and have been feasting on the advancing Epiphany Truth, which is grounded on, grows out of, and is in harmony with the Truth given before 1917; while J.F.R.'s alleged advancing light is so much out of harmony with it that he is setting aside all its literature as "full of error"—a proof that what he is giving as Truth is error. Instead of holding to the light he had and advancing in harmony with it; he has precipitated himself and others into a disorderly retreat from it into increasing darkness. 

To his claim that to look for corroborations for the Lord's Word and its time features in the Pyramid implies rejection of the Bible as sufficient for the sole source and rule of faith, we reply: (1) We do not use the Pyramid, but the Bible alone, as the source and rule of faith. (2) Accordingly, we do not use the Pyramid as a source and rule of our faith, but simply as a symbolic corroboration of that Truth previously derived solely from the Bible. (3) If to use it for a symbolic corroboration of the Truth derived solely from the Bible were repudiating the Bible as the sufficient and only source and rule of faith, then God repudiated it as the sufficient and only source and rule of faith for us, when He appealed in Rom. 1:19, 20 and Job 38-41 to the universe, to its creatures and to its laws as proving His existence and great attributes, in contrast with man's insignificant attributes, when He declares that the order of nature, both in heaven and earth, bear witness to Him (Ps. 19:1-6), when He uses them as symbols of the heavens, earth and other features of His plan (Dan. 12:3; Gen. 1:14; Rev. 12:1; Matt. 13:43; Rev. 21:1, etc.), when He had the tabernacle and the temple with their furnishings, etc., used as symbols of various features 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

407 

of His plan, when by Paul He appeals to man's nature and conscience as proofs of God's existence and of their moral responsibility to Him and of the existence of His moral law (Rom. 2:14, 15), when He had the Jews practice circumcision and Christians immersion, as signs of consecration, when He had the Hebrews have the annual lamb as a symbol of the lamb slain in Egypt, and Christians have the Lord's Supper as a symbol of the Lamb of God, when He uses the terrain and cities of Palestine to symbolize various parts of His plan, when He used the twelve stones taken out of the Jordan and many other physical objects as memorials, and when He stored up in hiding various historical and archaeological objects in Palestine, Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Persia, Asia Minor, Greece and Rome, and has of late been bringing them to light as a refutation of higher criticism by corroborating the Bible's historical and archaeological claims. 

None of the foregoing things are a part of the Bible, but exist as material things separate from the Bible; but they lend corroboration to its teachings; and what clear thinker would say that to use their corroboration of the Bible is contrary to holding to the Bible as our sufficient sole source and rule of faith? The sophistry that we are exposing is worthy of a lawyer who seeks, not to enlighten, but to befuddle a jury, to whose intelligence he offers insults by presenting for their persuasion such sophisms. God never intended corroborative things to supply supposed lacks in the Bible as a sufficient source and rule of faith, as the article under review contends they would imply, but as crutches for weak believers and as weapons for strong believers useful for refuting enemies of the Bible by extra-Biblical things. And this is just what the Pyramid's, nature's, archaeology's and history's witness has triumphantly done. The dilemma, therefore, that he presents, either to accept the Bible as the sole source

Merariism. 

408 

of faith and reject the Pyramid, or vice versa, saying that he who proves that the Pyramid corroborates the Bible thereby proves that the Bible is not the sufficient and sole source and rule of faith, or that they who prove the Bible to be such disprove the Pyramid to corroborate it, is thus proven to be a sophism. 

To the article's claim that the Pyramid, as an image of something in heaven and earth, could not have been built by God and could not be accepted as such by us without His and our violating the second commandment, we reply that the second commandment does not forbid images, i.e., representations, but the worship of them, as can be seen from God's commanding various ones to make the images and representations of the tabernacle and the temple, in themselves and in their cherubim, furniture, vessels, etc., the picture of the cherubim in Ezekiel's temple and the recorded visions of the Bible as representations, e.g., the vision of the sheet with its clean and unclean beasts shown to Peter at Joppa, the transfiguration representations, the vision of the new heaven and new earth shown to St. Paul, the entire series of images shown to St. John on Patmos, the bodies that Jesus after His resurrection made as representations of Himself, etc., etc. 

When J.F.R. says that the Apostles' having a clearer teaching word (2 Pet. 1:19) than the vision of the transfiguration implies that they did not rely on that vision, it contradicts St. Peter's use of that vision; for in the connection (vs. 16-18) he uses the vision as a proof that they had not been following cunningly devised fables, but reliable Truth. V. 19 does not show that the vision was not trusted by the Apostles, but shows that some parts of the Word are clearer than visions as guides and proofs as to Truth. All teachers will endorse the pedagogical principle here inculcated, that the clearer is to be preferred to the less clear exposition and proof. So the bringing in of 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

409 

this vision on the mountain, which St. Peter presents as less clear than some other teachings, does not prove that the Pyramid testimony has not probative force, though, of course, it is very much inferior in its Truth uses than the Bible. 

The article's effort to prove that the Pyramid is not in the midst and at the same time on the border of the land of Egypt, by calling attention to the fact that Egypt is 600 miles long and 250 miles wide and that the Pyramid is not 300 miles from the northern and southern borders and 125 miles from its eastern and western borders, and that, if it were, it could not be on the border of the land, is sophistical for several reasons: (1) There are two Egypts, Lower and Upper Egypt. When only one of these is meant, in Hebrew the word Mazor is used (Is. 19:6; 37:25; 2 Kings 10:24; Mic. 7:12); and when both are meant, in Hebrew the word Mizraim (whose dual form aim expressly makes the word mean two Egypts) is used. See Gesenius' Thesaurus, 815, bottom of first, and whole of second column. In Is. 19:19 the dual form, mizraim, two Egypts, is used. The Great Pyramid is on the boundary between these two Egypts and thus is on the border of the two Egypts and is also in their midst, i.e., between them, the word betoch being very frequently translated by the words between, in and within (Gen. 9:21; 18:24, 26; 37:7; Ex. 23:33; 39:3; Lev. 11:33; Num. 13:32; 35:34; Jos. 19:1, 9; Judges 7:16; 1 Sam. 9:18; 1 Kings 6:19, 27; 1 Chro. 11:22; Job 20:13; Ps. 143:4; Ezek. 3:24; 14:16, 18, 20; 24:5; Zech. 2:4). Thus it is in, within, both of the Egypts and on their border. The method of showing that it is in the center of lower Egypt, which the article under review calls "ingenious," is also correct. And the invidious reference to swallowing bait, hook, sinker, line and pole, made to those who accept it as being credulous only proves the ignorance of J.F.R. as to geometry and trigonometry. Geometricians and 

Merariism. 

410 

trigonometricians from mathematical demonstration know that the center of a triangular arc sector is at the angle formed by its two straight lines, the sneers of J.F.R. against those who accept this thought to the contrary notwithstanding, since they avail merely to reveal his ignorance on the subject. 

To the article's claim that the Pyramid never was, nor will be, a place of sacrifice and therefore cannot be called an altar, we reply that it is not Scripturally referred to as a literal altar, but a symbolic altar; hence only symbolic, not literal sacrifices, belong to it, which were performed by its earthly builders in their acts of building it. The Christ are the literal altar of God, typed by the Aaronic brazen and golden altars and symbolized by the Pyramid. It, therefore, is very properly called an altar in Is. 19:19; and it is referred to as such in Rev. 16:7; for out of the symbols of the Pyramid—especially those related to the Pit—as treated in Vol. III, the third vial, came the message announced in Rev. 16:7: "I heard the altar say, 'Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Thy judgments.'" To its statement that as a pillar it never gave, nor is it giving, testimony to the name of Jehovah, we reply that we have proven that it did so in the Parousia and is doing so, as shown above, in the Epiphany. Even God's name, Jehovah, is by its structural lines, base and angles, inscribed therein, as that of its Builder (P '26, 75). It once gave that witness to J.F.R., which proves that now he does not see what he once saw in it, i.e., that his right eye is darkening increasingly. Of course, we do not expect such an eye to see what it formerly saw; but that does not justify his dogmatism which declares that it never did, nor will witness to Jehovah's name. If the blind now deny the sun's light, once, but now no more seen by them, that does not prove their dogmatic denial of its existence to be true. 

To his denial that the Scriptures allude to the Pyramid,

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

411 

we reply that in every passage where the expression, head stone of the corner, head of the corner, or head stone, occurs with reference to our Lord, the allusion is to the Pyramid and not to the temple; for only in such a building is there a head stone of the corner. The word translated chief corner stone is totally different from the one translated "head," etc., in the following citations (Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Zech. 4:7). While we concede that in Eph. 2:19, 20 the antitypical stones of the temple are referred to, yet properly they may be referred to as indirect proof, i.e., of stones being used symbolically, as in the Pyramid, which is the way our Pastor used this passage in this connection. To his statement that our Lord was laid as a head corner stone of the temple "in miniature" when He presented Himself as King to Israel and in completion when He came to His temple (allegedly in 1918); we reply: nothing in the Bible gives such thoughts. Rather He was in process of shaping as the head stone of the corner from Jordan to Calvary; and at His resurrection and ascension He was by God (1 Pet. 2:4-8) laid in the full and only sense of that word; for when St. Peter spoke to the Sanhedrin, Jesus had already been made the head stone of the corner (Acts 4:11; see also 1 Pet. 2:7; Eph. 2:20 as showing this as done already in the past from the standpoint of the temple). Bro. Russell did not use Job 38:4-6 as more than an illustration of the Pyramid and did not use it as a direct reference to it, as the article under review charges. To his statement that God charged Job with talking foolishness, we reply that such is tantamount to saying that God was foolish, who inspired his speeches (Jas. 5:10, 11) and who expressly said twice that Job spoke aright of His matters (Job 42:7, 8). To his statement that the use of impressed Egyptian labor in building the Pyramid is proof conclusive that God had nothing to do with its building, since, he 

Merariism. 

412 

alleges, God would not cruelly use slaves to work so hard as its stones required them to work (though he offers, and can offer no proof that slaves were therein used or cruelly treated), we reply that God did undoubtedly arrange for building Solomon's temple, and it was built by impressed labor, provided by Hiram and Solomon (1 Kings 5:6, 13-18), and some of its stones were larger than any of those put into the Pyramid, as they can to this day be seen. 

J.F.R. alleges as a further proof that Satan built the Pyramid the facts that the Descending Passage in corresponding to an astronomer's pointer and that the Ascending Passage in corresponding to his telescope, at midnight of the autumnal equinox of 2170 B.C., with the Dragon star (Satan) looking directly down this pointer and the Pleiades directly in angular line with the Ascending Passages, which, it stresses ended in a stone, and which made the Pleiades invisible through them, symbolize the fact that Satan has always sought to shut God out of sight. To this we reply that since there then was no opening for the Ascending Passage, it being closed by the stones that in the Descending Passage covered the lower end of the Granite Plug, the true symbolism would prove that all that Satan could see of God's plan at that midnight was that the race was descending more and more in degradation, without knowing the end of the way, since the horizontal floor of the Descending Passage's southern end shut out the view of the Pit from the top of that Passage. This symbolism would, therefore, prove that Satan lacked the knowledge necessary to construct the main symbolic features of the interior of the Pyramid—its horizontal passages, its ascending passages, its chambers, well, etc., as well as their dimensions, and therefore proves that he did not build the Pyramid. 

To his charge that the study of the Pyramid tends to turn its students away from God's Word and Work, 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

413 

we answer that facts prove that its study properly conducted has made them abler students and servants of God's Word, while it is the sifters who have rejected its testimony, e.g., the sin-offerings' deniers of 1908-1911 and the main revolutionists—the Society and P.B.I. leaders—in the present sifting, respectively members of antitypical Jannes and Jambres, and who have been turned away from God's Word and Work unto the character, word and service of Satan (2 Tim. 3:1-9). To his charge that students of the Pyramid use it mainly to fix dates for the Church's leaving the earth we reply that this never was the main use that our Pastor, the Edgar Bros. or ourself have made of it, and that in 1908 our Pastor announced that the Pyramid did not give such data and advised against such a use of the Pyramid. 

His claim that the passage (Is. 31:1), "Woe unto them that go down to Egypt for help," forbids the use of the Pyramid for corroborative purposes, is silly; for New Creatures are here warned, as the connection shows, against seeking help from the errors, organizations and methods of Satan's empire, as fleshly Israelites were thereby prohibited from seeking deliverance from the resources of literal Egypt. It has no reference to a prohibition of spiritual Israel as to things in literal Egypt. To his claim that the expression, "in that day," in Is. 19:19, the time from 1914 onward is meant, and that the prophecy could not be understood before 1918, we reply, Not so; for the connection shows that the expression, "that day," includes the time of Jehovah's sending our Lord in His Second Advent—1874 (v. 20); moreover, the cries of the oppressed have been especially going up since 1874, "the cries of the reapers," etc. Hence this day goes back to 1874, the beginning of the seventh one-thousand-year day from Adam's fall—thereby the Millennial day is meant, it being usually meant by the expression, "that day" in the Bible (vs. 20-25). Hence 

Merariism. 

414 

the point of the article, that Is. 19:19, 20 could not be understood before 1918, falls to the ground. It was understood before 1891, when Vol. III was published. To his claim that, not the Pyramid's top stone, but Christ, is meant by the stone of stumbling, and that, not the stubbing of a literal toe on the Pyramid, but stumbling over Christ, is mean in the reference to the stone of stumbling, we reply: Whoever denied this? Such a point could only be urged, if one would confuse the symbol with the reality, as by implication he charges against those who believe that the Pyramid symbolizes Christ. 

To the article's claim that Is. 19 refers only to symbolic Egypt because, it alleges, the chapter treats of the relation of the anointed ones to the Egypt under discussion, of whom, it says, none were in Egypt when the Pyramid was built, we reply that there is no reference whatever to any of God's anointed in the entire chapter, except to our Lord in His Return. Hence the attempt to limit its Egypt to symbolic Egypt falls to the ground. The "swift cloud" of v. 1, even as the same thing is symbolized by the cloud of Ezek. 1:4, 5, etc., does not refer to God's organization—supposedly the Society and the glorified Christ—in any sense, as he claims, but to the swiftly coming great tribulation, which proves that the chapter treats also of matters prior to 1914. This chapter, like other chapters treating prophetically of various nations, has a double application, first to literal Egypt and, second, to symbolic Egypt. And, like some of such chapters, e.g., Jer. 50 and 51, sometimes it stresses the literal more than the symbolic and sometimes the symbolic more than the literal. The reference to the Pyramid we take both literally and symbolically, the symbolic Pyramid being the Christ, and each being as such an Altar and Pillar in its respective Egypt. The five symbolic cities (a city symbolizes a religious government, e.g., Babylon, New Jerusalem, etc.) we understand 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

415 

to be the five religious governments that are united with the state in Europe—the Greek Catholic, the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, the Calvinistic and the Episcopal churches, which are the only churches of Christendom united with the state. They speak the language of Canaan in the sense of professing to teach the Bible, which they quote for their creeds, and every one of them has consecrated (sworn to the name of) the Lord; one of these—the Roman Catholic—shall by way of pre-eminence be called, the city of destruction. The Septuagint translation, Azedek, for destruction, does not, as he says, mean Melchizedek (king of righteousness), but means unrighteousness, being compounded by the Greek negative, a, and the Hebrew noun, zedek, righteousness. Five is not, as he claims, a specially sacred number; for seven is the sacred number. Five, as a half of ten, the number of human [among others] completeness, would seem here to be the number of human incompleteness, and as such properly designates the five religious governments above mentioned. Many of J.F.R.'s numerous errors of interpretation on various features of Is. 19 we will pass by as not germane to our purpose. He closes his article with the remark: "We now wonder why we ever believed in, or devoted any time to the study of the Pyramid of Gezeh. Not only will we abandon such a study now, but we will ask God to forgive us for wasting the time that we put in on it and redeem the time by hurrying on to obey His commandments." The sentiments just quoted are very similar to those used by another sifting leader—Mr. Henninges—when he renounced his belief in the Church's and his share in the Sin-offering in 1908. 

We are not so sure that J.F.R. deeply studied the Parousia Truth in its deeper features. He was certainly able in the surface things—such as were required for public meetings; but our dealings with him convince us that he did not study deeply into its 

Merariism. 

416 

deeper truths. He told the New York Church, when he repudiated the Pyramid before it, that he had not studied the Pyramid much, rather that he had taken it for granted. It would seem that he did this with other deeper things of the Truth. We will now relate an incident that is a partial key to the unlocking of his strange course since 1916: While he and we in 1915 were walking to our hotel after the last session of the Oakland, Calif., Convention, he, holding our arm, began to weep. We asked him the reason, which he declared was his dearth of spirituality, telling us that his spirituality was dried up. He then asked what we would recommend as a cure for his condition. Knowing that the Truth is the power of God, working in us to will and to do, we asked him whether he was daily studying the Volumes, as our Pastor recommended. He answered that there were so many diverting things at Bethel that he seldom got opportunity to study them. We replied that though we had gone over them carefully about fifteen times, we still kept up the practice recommended by our Pastor of reading ten pages daily, and found that this helped us to grow stronger in grace, knowledge and fruitfulness in service. Then we suggested that he "redeem the time" so as to study his ten pages daily, assuring him that, like ourself, he would find it very stimulating for growth in spirituality, if it were done in a meek and appreciative spirit. He said that he would do it. We never heard whether he did it or not, but in thinking over his course toward the Truth since 1916, we fear that he did not "build up the waste places of former years." 

Speaking of the Pyramid (Vol. III, 319, par. 1) our Pastor remarked: "The inspiration of its testimony will doubtless be as much disputed as that of the Scriptures by the prince of darkness, the god of this world, and those whom he blinds to the Truth" [italics ours]. Doubtless the Lord, foreseeing the course of the sifters of the Parousia and the Epiphany in denying 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

417 

the Pyramid as God's stone witness worked on our Pastor's mind, moving him to make the above remark. Doubtless of all such deniers J.F.R. will have the unenviable pre-eminence of working the greatest amount of mischief through his repudiation of the Pyramid. He claims to be our Pastor's successor. Actually he is his detractor, as his repudiations of his teachings prove; and our Pastor is his true portrayer when he describes this Pyramid-denier as of "those whom Satan blinds to the Truth." How may we rightly view all repudiations of our Pastor's findings on the Little Flock matters as he left them with the Church? We answer, the Lord has furnished us with a stamp of his approval on such teachings of our Pastor. We refer to Lev. 12, which we explained in detail in Chapter II of Vol. IV. Hence we know that when 1914 was here, our Pastor in his mature views had given us the full and pure Truth for the development of the Little Flock. Hence we know that repudiations of Little Flock matters as he left them with us are repudiations of Truth. This teaching, from Lev. 12, was doubtless given by the Lord to His people to safeguard and give them an invincible weapon against the fearful repudiations of Little Flock matters by the teachers of the various Levite groups, and that from the wrong premises held by J.F.R. will follow in yet more vital matters. "From such turn away," as you value your own spiritual interests (2 Tim. 3:5); for their repudiations are errors, the more of which you will accept, the longer and harder will it be to retrace your steps, as the Lord will require of each who accepts them to do. 

By three successive major delusions, not to mention minor ones, has J.F.R. sought to draw away disciples after him (Acts 20:29, 30). The first was the following: In 1917 he promised the brethren that if they would "get into the chariot," endorse and support his policies, they would by March 27, 1918—the 

Merariism. 

418 

Passover—"mount to the skies." When this failed, he asserted that at that date the door of entrance into the high calling closed; but alas for him, later newcomers into the Truth wanted to be in the high calling; so he managed to make that door become "a swinging door," which supposedly admitted as many newcomers as clamored for entrance. (2) The second major delusion—begun in 1918—by which he sought to draw disciples after him was his slogan, "Millions now living will never die" after 1925—when the deliverance of the Church and the Great Company was to take place, and the forecast return of the Ancient Worthies was expected to seal the millions proposition. But again, alas for him, after 1920 the millions kept on dying, the Church and Great Company still remained in the flesh, and the Ancient Worthies did not return, despite his challenge to objectors to prove that they had not returned and were not in hiding in some secret Palestinian place! 

Years before 1925 we wrote that, when 1925 would prove his millions proposition a frenzy of delusion, he would present another delusion to divert attention from his second great fiasco and to keep his disciples. This delusion—the third major one—as we forecast, has come in the proposition that the Harvest began in 1918 and is now on, and is the most gigantic and evil of the three. If this delusion were true, our Pastor was the greatest individual deceiver on religious subjects that ever arose during the Gospel Age; for it implies the rejection of almost all of Pastor Russell's prophetic writings, of many of his doctrines and of almost all of his works, as delusions. We call special attention to a principle that J.F.R. announces in his Dec. [1928] articles on the Time of the End and the days of Daniel, and that opens the flood gates of error, giving Satan, through him, the vantage ground to reject anything he wishes in Pastor Russell's writings: his claim that the Time of the End is the same as the end of the Gentile

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

419 

Times and that, therefore, before 1914 the Lord's special truths for His people in His Second Advent could not be clearly seen! This principle accounts for the flood of error in the more recent Towers, each succeeding one becoming more erroneous than the former, as it also promises worse yet to come. 

In 2 Tim. 3:1-9 St. Paul speaks of Jannes and Jambres as typing the apostate teachers of the last days—the Parousia day and the Epiphany day. The facts prove that Jannes—oppressor—types the sifters who in the Parousia day misled the second death class by antitypical sorceries—delusions; and that—Jambres—rebellious—types the sifters who in the Epiphany are misleading the Great Company by antitypical sorceries—delusions (2 Thes. 2:9-11). After describing their unholy characters and works St. Paul says (v. 9) that their "folly" will in due time be made known to all consecrated brethren. J.F.R. is the chief member of the Truth section of antitypical Jambres, there being also a nominal-church section of antitypical Jambres, even as there were in the Parousia these two sections of antitypical Jannes. In this review of some of his more recent delusions we will not only prove them to be erroneous, but will also stress their "folly." Hence we have made part of the title of this and the next chapter read "Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening," the allusion being both to 2 Tim. 3:9 and to Zech. 11:15-17, both passages referring to him, the former pointing out the class whose chief he is among Truth people, and the latter pointing him out as an individual. The errors to be reviewed are so numerous that our refutations and exposures of them must necessarily be more or less brief, with the omission of the minor ones. His present view is that a new dispensational line of dealing began in 1918. He now calls it the Elisha work, Elijah supposedly typing, not a class, but a work up to 1918, and Elisha supposedly typing, not a class, but a work since then. For 

Merariism. 

420 

details please see Vol. III, Chap. III. It will be recalled that after we proved that, since the faithful and wise servant was an individual (our Pastor), that wicked servant must be another individual (J.F.R.), he changed his view so as to claim that the faithful and wise servant was a class, his "remnant," and that the wicked servant is, therefore, a class—those of the Lord's consecrated people whom he calls "the opposition." Again, when we proved that since 1914 we are in the Epiphany and that, therefore, the priestly work was with Azazel's Goat, to evade the proofs that demonstrated that his partisans are a part of that Goat, he found it necessary to teach that a new dispensational work began in 1918 and that this work is the reaping of the Gospel Age. The above proves how each demonstration of his association and identification with evil things has driven him into giving up a formerly held truth and to bring out an error instead, in order to evade the proof of his real position and work among the Lord's people. 

His present view is that since 1918 especially, and more especially since 1922, and most especially since 1926, great advancement in the Truth's unfolding has been going on, through the Society as God's alleged organization. He claims that this is due to our Lord's alleged coming to His temple in 1918 to test His people. He alleges for this thought Mal. 3:1-3. This passage does indeed teach that our Lord in His Second Advent would come to His temple (the true Church) and test it. But the passage shows that this testing began early in the Parousia (Who shall abide the day of His coming?—the Parousia was the day of His coming) and that it reaches far into the Epiphany (And who shall stand when He shall appear—literally, make manifest, epiphanize, i.e., who will maintain his standing in the high calling during the Epiphany?). The tests of the Parousia were to separate the second death class from those that retained the Holy Spirit,

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

421 

as the question implies: Who shall abide [continue to endure and thus to persevere as New Creatures]? This testing was done mainly through the five harvest siftings, the first beginning in 1878 (1 Cor. 10:1-14). The tests of the Epiphany decide who shall maintain his stand (Rom. 5:2) in the high calling and who shall fall therefrom into the Great Company, as is implied in the question, Who shall stand? This testing is being done through the sixth sifting, that of the Epiphany (2 Tim. 4:1). Mal. 3:2 proves that the Lord's coming to His temple to test it occurred in 1874, the beginning of the day of His coming, and therefore pointedly disproves the view that this occurred in 1918. It was, therefore, from 1874 onward that the glorious Truth would especially unfold, not since 1918, 1922 and 1926. And the things that J.F.R. is bringing out, contradicting more and more the real truths of the Parousia and the Epiphany, must be error, not Truth—mud splashes, not lightning flashes. They are even worse than symbolic muddy water; for in the latter Truth predominates above error, while in his new views error greatly predominates over Truth. Hence he offers symbolic mud with which he splashes the transparently clear and heart-satisfying Truth. 

He speaks very much of lightning flashes coming from the temple—his teachings as alleged enlightenments from the Lord. The Bible nowhere says that lightning flashes come out of the temple. Such a figure would be untrue to the basis of the figure; for lightning comes out of the sky, not out of a building. Nor does the Bible ever use symbolic lightning as that which gives light to the Church. Lightning flashes are spoken of as coming from God's throne and attributes—heavenly things—(Rev. 4:5; Ezek. 1:13, 14), but never from the temple; and their mission is in the Bible given as bringing to light matters of the symbolic heavens and earth—false religions and society (Ps. 77:18; 99:4)—and never matters of the 

Merariism. 

422 

true Church. The following are all the Scriptures that use the word lightning symbolically or typically, and they are in harmony with our assertions on their source and mission, and in no case refer to J.F.R.'s views of their source and mission: Ex. 19:16; 20:18; 2 Sam. 22:15; Job 28:26; 37:3; 38:25, 35; Ps. 18:14; 77:18; 97:4; 135:7; 144:6; Jer. 10:13; 51:16; Ezek. 1:13, 14; Zech. 9:14; Rev. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18. The only other occurrences of this word are Dan. 10:6; Nah. 2:4; Matt. 24:27; 28:3; Luke 10:18; 17:24, where it is doubtless literal. We ask our readers to look up these passages and in them they will find a complete absence of the thought that lightning flashes come out of the true Church and enlighten it. Literal lightning in a house would set it on fire and blind and kill its occupants. Folly is thus implied in the thought under review. Hence J.F.R.'s alleged lightning flashes are nothing more or less than plainly discerned mud splashes. 

Another of his errors is the thought that our Lord in His Second Advent did not come back to earth, but remains in heaven. According to him the Second Advent is no advent, but a work, which our Lord allegedly does while remaining where He ascended 40 days after His resurrection. With our Pastor we admit that He could do His Second Advent work without leaving heaven; but with him we also hold that this is not the way that the Scriptures say He would do it. The contrast of His going away and coming again, of John 14:2, 3, proves His Second Advent to be a real and personal one. His coming again in like manner as He went away proves the same thought (Acts 1:11). Our meeting Him in the air proves His personal return to the earth in His Second Advent (1 Thes. 4:17). His being kept in heaven until the times of restitution of all things implies His leaving heaven for earth at that time (Acts 3:19-21). The parable of the nobleman, by its 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

423 

contrasting his going to a far country to receive a kingdom and his returning thereafter, demonstrates that our Lord's return is as personal and real as His leaving the earth for heaven. His descending from heaven (1 Thes. 4:16) proves the same thing. And the saints looking for Him to come from heaven for their deliverance implies His personal return (Phil. 3:20, 21). The clear-cut contrasts of these seven passages, to which others might be added, plainly prove our Pastor to be right in teaching a personal and real return of our Lord in His Second Advent; and the folly of the "new" view is thereby manifested, as well as by its giving nominal-church men a club with which to strike hard blows at his error, as being the alleged teaching of Bro. Russell. No number of passages that speak of the Father's coming, cited by J.F.R. to prove his point, can rule out these clear contrasts, inasmuch as such passages use the word coming, not in its regular sense, but in the sense of proceeding to do the thing at hand, which is not, as proved by the above contrasts, the sense of the word coming connected with Christ's Second Advent. 

Again, he offers folly on Satan's alleged organization and on all who vote as supporting it. In question meetings, in answer to pertinent questions, and in our Sept., 1928, Herald, we advised the brethren to vote in the 1928 campaign; and we ourself for the first time in 26 years voted, because the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat was through Mr. Smith's candidacy seeking to increase its revolutionism, and we considered it proper to resist this revolutionism, which antitypical Aaron's present work requires him to do. Again, we felt reasonably sure that if Mr. Smith would be elected the hierarchy would still more effectively curtail our public ministry, against which contingency we surely should use a pertinent human right—the ballot—after the example of St. Paul, who, when 

Merariism. 

424 

Festus to please the Jews made a proposal that would have resulted in St. Paul's death and thus in the stopping of his ministry, made use of one of his earthly rights—his Roman citizenship—in an appeal to Caesar, to prevent the suppression of his ministry (Acts 25:9-12), as on other occasions he also made use of his rights of Roman citizenship to prevent injury to his further ministering to the Lord's cause (Acts 16:22, 35-39; 22:24-29). 

We do not advocate a regular use of the ballot by the brethren; but that election involved such questions for us in our public ministry as justified us in using our earthly right to vote, to prevent by lawful means the effort to estop us in our public ministry, as the hierarchy would do, had they elected "their man." The last service for the brethren conducted by our Pastor that we were privileged to attend was a question meeting Sunday morning at the Dallas Convention, Oct. 22, 1916. In that question meeting he was asked whether the brethren should ever take part in elections. He answered after the following import: The privilege of citizenship and of the ballot is one of our human privileges which, like all our other earthly privileges, we at consecration laid on the altar. Hence we should use it or leave it unused in harmony with the Lord's will, as the interests of His cause or duty require. If ever the interests of God's cause or a consecrated person's duty to his family or to others call upon him to exercise his earthly privilege of voting, he should vote, otherwise he should refrain from voting. It is a matter for each one to decide for himself before the Lord. That a consecrated Christian could properly use his citizenship rights to protect his stewardship in the Lord's service, the case of St. Paul using his to prevent damage to his ministry from the Philippian magistrates, Lysias and Festus, proves. So far our summary of our Pastor's answer to the above question. We know of cases

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

425 

where he advised consecrated parents in the interests of their children to vote in school elections, and post office clerks to vote when the retention of their positions, needed for the support of their families, required it. In advising the brethren to vote in the 1928 election, we followed our Pastor's thought, as to the circumstances of that election in their relation to our work toward the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat. 

J.F.R., in an article in the April, 1929, Tower, "tactfully" disapproving our thought, sought to show that all voting in civil elections is wrong, because it allegedly implies supporting Satan's organization. If his view of the kingdoms of this world as to Satan's organization were correct, the Lord would not have charged the entire Church throughout its earthly career to pray for the civil rulers, obey, honor and support them, pay taxes to support the governments, and otherwise seek their prosperity. Nor would He have declared that all governments were His arrangement for their subjects and that the civil rulers were His servants in secular matters. Nor would Paul have appealed for protection to them (Rom. 13:1-6; Acts 25:10-12; 1 Pet. 2:13-15). The facts that Satan has succeeded by usurpation and deception in misusing the kingdoms of this world for his ends, and that these frequently do wrong, do not negate the fact that God is the Maker of the present symbolic world with its symbolic heavens and earth (Heb. 1:10-12). Therefore, to call them in J.F.R.'s sense a part of Satan's organization is blasphemy. While calling them kingdoms of this world, the Bible neither teaches nor implies his sense of Satan's organization. Such a view of them is a perversion of facts and a too extreme emphasis on the facts that they as kingdoms of this world, God's order for the second dispensation, frequently do wrong: and that Satan is (by usurpation and deception without their realizing it) limitedly the god, ruler, of this world or order of affairs.

Merariism. 

426 

Extreme emphasis always leads to error, as the case under consideration shows. J.F.R.'s pertinent hypocrisy is manifest when we remember that every time he goes to Europe he by oath claims to be a citizen of the U. S., swears allegiance to the U. S. and swears to support, to defend, to preserve, etc., the Constitution, a thing that he must do to get passports. If his view were correct, he is a sworn citizen and upholder of Satan's organization! The expression, Satan's organization, is an unbiblical one, and is used by him to teach an unscriptural thought, even as his contrasted thought that God has as His visible organization—the Society—is unbiblical and foolish. 

He, likewise, has been teaching folly on Rev. 22:17 (similar to that on Joel 2:28, i.e., that the Spirit since Sept., 1922, has been poured out on all flesh!), namely, that now the Spirit and the Bride are saying, Come, etc. But this is contrary to the Bible: for (1) as long as the Church is in the flesh the Truth, as symbolic water or wine or eyesalve, is not free. It is true that money does not buy it; but, nevertheless, it must be bought, and the price that must now be paid for it is repentance, faith, consecration, hunger for righteousness, humility, meekness, honesty and holiness of heart and mind (Prov. 23:23; Is. 55:1-3; Ps. 25:8, 9; Matt. 5:6; Luke 8:15; Rev. 3:18). Hence now none get the Truth freely. Therefore Rev. 22:17 cannot apply now. But in the Millennium none of these things, nor any other things will be the purchase price of the Truth. It will then be taken "freely"; for God is determined that all will then come to an exact knowledge of the Truth, regardless of their heart's condition or desires. (Is. 11:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; John 1:9). Moreover, (2) the expression, "water of life," is used exclusively as a designation of the Millennial Truth (Rev. 7:17; 21:6; 22:1; 22:17). These are the only uses of that expression. The expression, "living waters," on the other hand, applies to Truth of 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

427 

both the Gospel and Millennial Ages. [(1) Gospel Age: Cant. 4:15; Jer. 2:13; 17:13; John 4:10, 11; (2) Millennial Age: Zech. 14:18.] Furthermore, (3) the word Bride favors the Millennial application of Rev. 22:17; for a bride is a woman immediately before, during and for a while after her marriage. On her wedding day immediately before her marriage a woman may be called a bride; but normally this term is used of her during and for a short time after her marriage. The normal use of the word Bride is to be understood in Rev. 22:17 and therefore it refers to the Millennium, as the connection also suggests. 

In Rev. 18:23 the word Bride is applied to the entire Church in the flesh and in the spirit in an activity begun Sept. 20, 1914. The following will clarify this so far as the Church in the flesh is concerned: Elijah's coming to Mt. Horeb at the end of the 40 days types the Church coming 40 years after 1874, i.e., in 1914, to the kingdom, in the sense that the last begettal then occurring, all the faithful under the call up to that time will obtain the kingdom, and therefore in God's sight (Rom. 4:17) they are from then on as in the kingdom. At that time a joint work was begun by the Christ beyond and this side the vail, i.e., the World's High Priest beginning the work toward Azazel's Goat. In the pursuance of this work the entire High Priest has been making His voice heard in Babylon and among the Truth Levites. *It is to this work and to this work exclusively that the expression, "the voice of the Bridegroom and of the Bride shall be heard no more at all in thee," applies. Please note in vs. 23 how this is the last thing of good that the Christ will do in Babylon. [See PT '50, 63 for clarification.] The same work as is represented under the World's High Priesthood figure with Azazel's Goat is referred to in the above-quoted words under the Bridegroom and Bride figure. But please note: this work belongs exclusively after the entire Christ is won, i.e., in the Epiphany, hence on the 

Merariism. 

428 

Church's wedding day (Col. 3:4; Rev. 19:7, 8) AFTER THE ENTIRE CHURCH HAS BEEN WON, when, from God's standpoint, every part of the Church in the flesh is in the kingdom. This use is similar to God's viewing Aaron in beauty and glory at the time of consecration as typing how He looks upon the faithful as a class at their consecration, i.e., as though they were in glory, in view of what they will become. J.F.R., believing that the Church is not yet completely won, is thereby estopped from applying this passage as having yet entered into fulfilment, as he is also by its setting above given estopped from using it as applying before 1914. Since this passage calls Christ and the Church, Bridegroom and Bride; after the work toward Azazel's Goat began in 1914, and therefore views them from God's standpoint as in part actually married and for the rest as good as married, it does not in any sense favor applying Rev. 22:17 at any time before the Church is completely won; and the contents of Rev. 22:17 prove that it refers to a time after the marriage is completed. It is folly to apply Rev. 22:17 to a time when the Truth is bought. 

So, too, has he been giving out "folly" on Rom. 13:1-7, as describing the brethren's alleged duties toward, and subjection to the leaders in the Society, and (inferentially) to him as their chief. He follows the folly offered by the A. V. in its mistranslation of Heb. 13:7, 17—"them which have the rule over you," and "obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves." He forgot that the A. V. translators were all Episcopalians, who tried to make the Bible favor clericalism and, hence, mistranslated for that purpose. The expression, "them that have the rule over you," should in both cases have been rendered, your leaders, as the margin shows. The word translated obey, should have been rendered, be persuadable, as it indicates teachableness. The words rendered, "submit yourselves," should have been rendered, be submissive, or

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

429 

leadable, i.e., we are exhorted in Heb. 13:17 to exercise the two parts of meekness, teachableness and leadableness, toward our leaders. But these parts of meekness, properly balanced by the duty of proving all things and adhering to that only which is proved by such testing to be good, and by the duty of not giving way by subjection for an hour to false teachers (1 Thes. 5:21; Gal. 2:4, 5), even if they should pose as "the channel," are as far from counseling the subjection of God's people to their leaders as the east is from the west. The folly of using Rom. 13:1-7 as a proof that the Lord's people are to be obedient to the leaders in the Church or Great Company, is manifest when we consider that the passage so interpreted commands Nicolaitanism—clericalism—a thing that Jesus hates and commends His people for hating (Rev. 2:6). 

Moreover, the terms of Rom. 13:1-7 clearly prove that earthly civil rulers are meant. Nowhere in the Bible does the term hoi archontes—the rulers—(v. 3) apply to officials unless they have at least some feature of a political office. Its use designates that peculiarity of their office; and never is that word Biblically used of the servants of the Church. The same remark applies to the word exousia in the sense of a ruler (vs. 1, 2, 3). Furthermore, the fact that the rulers here referred to execute wrath as vengeance (v. 4) proves that secular rulers are meant; for the Lord's people are forbidden to take vengeance as long as they are in the flesh (Rom. 12:19-22). Their taking up taxes, tribute, custom, proves them to be civil rulers (vs. 6, 7). Thus the terms of Rom. 13:1-7 clearly refer to secular rulers, and are opposed to the condition, duties and powers of servants of the Church. It does not surprise us at all that one who for his usurpation, lording it over God's heritage and all around dictatorialness has been widely and properly criticized by the brethren, should seek to twist God's Word into a sanction of his un-servant-like attitude and practice;

Merariism. 

430 

but such twists serve all the more to convince sober minded brethren of his true character as the little pope of little Babylon. His false teaching on Rom. 13:1-7, ascribing to himself and fellow clericalists such authority over the Lord's flock as that passage ascribes to rulers over their subjects, is the parallel of the great pope in great Babylon in ascribing to himself supreme authority and to his hierarchy a subordinate authority with the requirement of obedience to him and them as a consequence. More and more the parallel between the great pope and the little pope is fulfilling. 

In the Jan. 1, 1930, Tower he writes some more folly: denying that Bro. Russell was that Servant of Luke 12:42-44 and Matt. 24:45-47, and claiming that the servant there treated of is the same as the one of Is. 42—the Christ, Head and Body. This view is evidently false because "that Servant" functions only after our Lord's return (Luke 12:43; Matt. 24:46), while the servant of Is. 42, being identical with the servant of Is. 49, as can be seen from a comparison of Is. 42:6, 7 and 49:8, 9, refers to the Christ as functioning throughout the Gospel (2 Cor. 6:1, 2) and Millennial Ages. Moreover, that Servant, the man and maid servants and the household of Luke 12:42-44 and Matt. 24:45-47 constitute only the feet members of the servant of Is. 42. This, then, proves that the that Servant of these passages is only an individual member of the feet of the servant of Is. 42; because he is distinguished from the men and maid servants and the household and is put over them. Hence the claims of the Jan. 1, 1930 Tower on this head, are proved to be false and foolish—exactly what we should expect of a "foolish shepherd." He even dares to charge those who hold Bro. Russell for that Servant as exalting man instead of God, thus seeking to belittle him! 

He claims that the prisoners of Is. 42:7; 49:9; 61:1 and Ps. 79:11 are the Great Company. This we deny in each case, agreeing with our Pastor that the

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

431 

prisoners in the three passages from Isaiah are those who are in the prison of the tomb. As for Is. 61:1, 2, we recall that our Lord in Luke 4:18, 19 quoted as much of it as was due to be preached while He was in the flesh. He designedly omitted quoting the part of v. 2 that referred to the proclamation of the Day of Vengeance, because it was not then due to be preached. If the prisoners of v. 1 were the Great Company, He would have omitted quoting that part of v. 1, because it was not due then to preach their deliverance; for as a class they did not come into existence before 1917. While all through the Gospel Age there have been crown-losers, there was no Great Company as such until the Time of Trouble came (Rev. 7:14). This is also evident from the tabernacle picture: for there is no place in the Gospel Age tabernacle picture for them before the Epiphany; because the camp for the Gospel Age represented the nominal people of God, the court the justified and the holy the priests (who throughout the Gospel Age have consisted of crown-retainers and crown-losers). Hence, there being no Great Company to serve in Jesus' time with a suitable proclamation, if the prisoners of v. 1 referred to them, Jesus would have omitted that part of Is. 61:1 as not due to be preached, just as He omitted the part of v. 2 treating of the proclamation of the Day of Vengeance and the whole of v. 3, because these certain things were not due to be preached that day. Accordingly, v. 1 does not refer to the Great Company. Jesus did preach the awakening of the dead—a proclamation then due to be made, as His quotation of the pertinent part of the passage proves. 

Again, the connection of Is. 42:7 and 49:9 with the respective preceding verse of each one proves that the Great Company is not meant by the there-mentioned prisoners, for the preceding verse in each case shows that the New Covenant will be operating and restitution will be working, the nations will be enlightened, 

Merariism. 

432 

etc., when the prisoners will be freed; hence they are those in the tomb. As for the prisoner of Ps. 79:11, the connection implies that there a prayer is offered by the brethren for the deliverance of their persecuted brethren from natural prisons and other forms of persecution, including tortures and deaths. But we think it well to speak of the Great Company brethren as prisoners in both Great and Little Babylon, for this is implied of them in Ps. 107:10. 

In the Dec. 15, 1929, Tower, J.F.R. repeats his old error that Matt. 24:6-12 refers to the World War and certain accompanying experiences—the Society's persecution and their alleged betrayal by "the opposition," and the witness of v. 14 as his millions fiasco of 1918-1925. Our Pastor in Vol. IV applied Matt. 24:5-14 as a brief summary of the Gospel Age's history, which is doubtless right. If the former's view were right, vs. 29, 30, referring to the tribulation of vs. 6-10, would prove that our Lord's return did not set in until after the World War was over. It was due to Bro. Chomiak's accepting this view of vs. 6-10 as correct that moved him, logically reasoning from these premises, to conclude that our Lord's return did not occur in 1874 and could not have occurred before the end of the World War. Thus, as a logical consequence, J.F.R. must give up his view of vs. 6-10 and return to that of our Pastor or surrender 1874 as the date of our Lord's return and fix it after the end of the World War. Perhaps he intends to spring this on the Society friends yet; for his chronological views, so far as made known, are squinting in that direction; but this will force him to give up his view of our Lord standing up in 1914. He is in dire confusion on this matter; and some sort of an explosion may be expected of him. We suggest that he be pressed to reconcile his view of Matt. 24:6-10 with vs. 29, 30 and our Lord's return in 1874. He also stresses another error—claiming that the remnant of Isaiah is his own

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

433 

persevering followers. The erroneousness of his view is very evident from St. Paul's (Septuagint) quotation of Is. 1:9 ("remnant") and application in Rom. 9:29 to the Little Flock, as the few left and delivered from nominal fleshly and spiritual Israel throughout the Age, not exclusively at its extreme end. 

In the Nov. 15, 1929, Tower, he renounces our Pastor's teaching on the permission of evil, going so far as to say that our Pastor's thought thereon makes the Lord approve of sin! The Scriptures teach our Pastor's thought. St. Paul tells us (Rom. 11:31, 32) that God has shut up Israel to their own unbelief with their Gospel-Age afflictions in order thereby to prepare them to be blessed by the mercy of deliverance under the Elect's ministry! In Rom. 8:20-22, St. Paul tells us that God put the race under the curse, wherein they have suffered all kinds of misery, to the end that they might attain not only a deliverance from the curse, but also the liberty of God's children. Ps. 76:10 shows that man's sin will be used in a way that shall show forth the wisdom, power, justice and love of God; but the only way sin can do such a thing is so to afflict man as to turn him into hatred of sin, on the principle that the burnt child dreads the fire, even as the chastised child learns to give up the things that bring chastisement to him, and some drunkards are by their suffering and degradation led to reformation. This passage also shows that those who do not permit such sufferings to effect their reformation will be cut off, whereby alone the sins of such persons can be restrained. 

The clearest Scripture that teaches our Pastor's thought on why evil has been permitted is Ps. 90, the Psalm—Song—of Moses. The Song of Moses (Rev. 15:3) is the main theme of the Old Testament, as the Song of the Lamb is the main theme of the New Testament. The Song of Moses is the teaching of man's original perfection, his fall, the curse, the permission 

Merariism. 

434 

of evil and restitution. According to its subscription, Ps. 90 as the Song of Moses should teach these thoughts, and it does. In vs. 1 and 2 the author of the Divine Plan is presented. V. 1 should be translated: O Lord, Thou wast our dwelling place in a generation, even the generation. Here the original perfection is set forth enjoyed by the race in Adam and Eve in their sinless condition; for evidently God was not the dwelling place of any of the race under the curse before, by the begettal and possession of the Spirit, the Gospel Church came to dwell in God (Col. 3:3; John 17:21; 1 John 4:13, 16). V. 2 shows God's eternity. The curse and restitution as the theme of this Psalm are set forth in v. 3; while v. 4 alludes to a thousand years' period when the return, restitution of v. 3, is to come. Then in vs. 5-10, 15 of the evils—the main ones—of the curse are set forth. Then Moses, in vs. 11 and 12, asks and answers the question, Why was evil permitted? "Who knoweth the power [meaning; for one of the senses of the word power is meaning; as, e.g., in older English one would say, this is the power—sense—of this word] of Thy anger [expressed in the curse]? Even according to Thy fear is Thy wrath [Thy curse on the race is to work in it reverence for Thee. Here is our Pastor's thought taught as to why the curse has been resting on man]." 

Vs. 12-17 are Millennial; for as the turning into destruction was described in vs. 5-10, so in vs. 12-17 is described the return therefrom. V. 12 represents the race as praying that it may so review the "all" days of the curse (vs. 9, 10) and the "all" days of the restitution process (vs. 14, 15) as to derive wisdom therefrom, i.e., learn from the former to hate sin and from the latter to love righteousness; for these are the two main ingredients of wisdom for the race. How evidently vs. 11 and 12 teach that sin and evil have been permitted to educate the race to reverence God, which among other things implies hatred of sin! 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

435 

V. 13 represents the race praying for the return, restitution, and asks God to work it as a change ("repent") of procedure from that of the curse. In v. 14 mercy, joy and gladness mark "all" the days of the race. These "all" days must be an altogether different set of all days from the "all" days of vs. 9 and 10, wherein the woes of the curse were experienced. The difference is this: the latter were the all days in which evil reigned—the curse time; and the former will be the all days in which righteousness will reign—the restitution time. As in the one set of all days God's wrath (the curse) wrought misery (vs. 9, 10), so in the other set God's mercy (v. 14) will work joy and gladness. Note how v. 15 shows that the joys of salvation will be made available to the race undergoing restitution through the Divine purpose with the days of affliction and the years in which the race saw (experienced) evil. Here again we are taught that God sentenced the race to the curse that it by contrast in the experience with righteousness might the more readily attain the joys of restitution. In v. 16 the race prays for a knowledge of, and participation in God's restitution work and character (Thy glory). It repeats this prayer in an explanatory way in v. 17, with the added thought that they may be unchangeably made participators in the future Divinely-arranged work of the Ages to come after the Millennium. This Psalm, therefore, teaches our Pastor's thought on why evil was permitted to the race in general; and thus it refutes J.F.R.'s repudiation of that thought. 

As a final passage teaching that evil was permitted in order to teach man to hate and forsake sin, we introduce Rom. 7:13. This passage limits its application of the experience of evil to Israel, and shows that the special evils that the Law brought upon Israel for Israel's violation of the Law were designed to make sin appear as all the more terrible evil to Israel. Accordingly, while the passage is discussing Israel alone

Merariism. 

436 

in its relation to the special penalties suffered by it for violating the Law, the principle is the same as that which we found in the other passages above described. Hence, contrary to J.F.R.'s claims, whereby he seeks to rule this passage out of court on the question at issue, this passage contains an application to Israel of the principle according to which evil is permitted and proves our Pastor's teaching on the subject. The former treats this passage as though it were the only Biblical verse used by our Pastor for his pertinent doctrine and then curtly dismisses it as insufficient as a basis for that doctrine. 

Against our Pastor's thought he alleges that those dying in infancy and those born and living in idiocy could get no benefit from the experience with evil. We reply that while undergoing the restitution opportunities of the next Age their sinful proclivities will many a time lead them to attempt wrong, which will result in stripes. This will give them by experience of the woes of sin lessons sufficient to enable them to hate and forsake it (Is. 26:9). His thought that there is no Scripture that shows that the fallen angels will get any good from their experience with evil is disproved by the facts that God is again going to become the Head of those of them that come into Christ (Eph. 1:10), that Jesus will become their Lord (Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:9-10) and that they will get a trial for life in connection with righteousness (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), which God is too practical to give them, as also He is too practical to have imprisoned them as a preparation for such a trial, if none of them would be profited thereby. To his objection that those who do their best nevertheless suffer and die, we reply: some of these die the sacrificial death as priests, the others of these die the ministerial death of Levites, whose sufferings do not, therefore, come under the sufferings of the world, but under those of God's people, whose sufferings are for a different purpose from those of the world, i.e.,

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

437 

to fit them in qualities of character for their present and future ministries. No others than these do their best! All the rest are under the world's experience with evil. He has, by denying the doctrine of character development, actually, if not verbally, repudiated our Pastor's thought as to why evil has been permitted to the four classes of the Elect, i.e., to work in them characters fitting them for their present and future ministries (Heb. 2:10, 17, 18; 5:8, 9; Rom. 8:28, 29; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; 1 Pet. 1:6, 7; Mal. 3:2, 3). 

In his discussion of the permission of evil, after denying our Pastor's thought, he says that the Bible teaches another and a fuller thought as to why God has permitted evil, i.e., to manifest and vindicate His attributes and to demonstrate that He could foil Satan in His controversy with him, by creating a perfect race endowed with everlasting life conditioned on obedience, in spite of Satan's opposition. This same explanation the creeds offer, and, like J.F.R., do not explain how this can be done in permitting sin. On former occasions we have pointed out his sophistical course in putting forth things as contradictory to one another when in fact no contradiction is present, e.g., the title of the most mischievous thing that he has ever written—the most mischievous because, according to the Society's vice-president, Bro. Wise, and many others, it has undermined godliness in many Society adherents—"Character or Covenant—Which?" As we pointed out above, there is no contrast between the two, our covenant requiring, with six other things, character development. So in saying that evil was not permitted in order to teach the race to hate and forsake sin, but in order to manifest and vindicate God's attributes to His creatures and to prove that He could foil Satan in His controversy with him by creating a perfect race endowed with everlasting life conditioned on obedience, in spite of Satan's opposition, he sets up alleged contradictions that are in perfect harmony. 

Merariism. 

438 

It is, of course, true that Jehovah has permitted sin and evil in order to manifest and vindicate His character, and quite subordinately to demonstrate that He can foil Satan in His controversy with him by creating a perfect race endowed with everlasting life conditioned on obedience, in spite of Satan's opposition. But that there is no contradiction between these thoughts and the thought of God's overruling as to sin through the afflictions it works to teach the race to hate and forsake it is evident because this is a part of the means whereby His glorious character will be manifested and demonstrated, and whereby He will bring to perfection and everlasting life obedient men, despite Satan's opposition. J.F.R.'s explanation, denying God's educative use of sin to stir up hatred against itself, as the reason of its permission, just like the creeds, leaves the problem unsolved as to how evil in mankind will reflect credit on God and contribute to His foiling Satan with his own weapon. Hence he has offered a superficial explanation that leaves one of the main factors of the problem out of consideration, while our Pastor goes to the rock-bottom of the question and solves it most harmoniously with the Bible and God's attributes and most effectively with their manifestation and demonstration and His foiling Satan with the latter's own weapon—sin. Whatever is true in his explanation he has gotten from our Pastor or the creeds; and what is lacking in it is due to his rejecting the lacking thing offered by our Pastor. The latter is in this matter shown to be the deep and clear thinker and the former the shallow and erratic thinker. 

In the Jan. 15-Mar. 15, 1930, Towers, he has a long article entitled, Jehovah's Royal House, that literally swarms with errors, some of them of fundamental importance; and they furnish another convincing proof of his symbolic drunkenness and his right-eye darkening. One of these is that there is no difference between the begettal and the birth of the 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

439 

Spirit, and that both of these words apply to what occurred to our Lord at Jordan and when He was raised from the dead. Hence, he teaches that in this life we are born of the Spirit and are "spirit creatures." Thus he has gone back to the nominal-church confusion on the subject and to worse yet. Of course, as our Pastor pointed out, the Greek word gennao is used for both of these acts, because the Greek word gennao has three meanings: (1) beget (used of the male only), (2) bring to birth (used of both male and female) and (3) bear (used of the female only). Denying the first meaning as Biblically not used of the human male or of God, he alleges the second and the third as the only Scriptural meanings the word has, designating the joint parental work of bringing to birth human children, and to God in the birth of the New Creation, which he places at what Truth people have all along considered the begettal of the Spirit. In refutation of his pertinent denial the following passages, among others, prove that the word gennao is used in the Bible in connection with human beings and God's begetting in the sense of the male depositing the germinating seed "that which was [past tense] begotten [gennao] in her" (Matt. 1:20); "that holy thing which is begotten [literally, that holy thing being begotten—present passive participle] shall be called, the Son of God" (A. R. V., Luke 1:35); "To this end was I begotten and for this cause came I into the world" [Here evidently gennao, used in the first clause, means Jesus' begettal; for His birth is described in the second statement: and came into the world] (John 18:35). 

Undoubtedly in the chronological genealogies of Genesis the Hebrew word yalad means to bring to birth and not to beget. Nor would there be any serious objection to giving that sense to the Greek word gennao in the genealogy given in Matt. 1, though one could with equal propriety render it there by beget, as practically all versions do, there being nothing in that 

Merariism. 

440 

section to enable us to limit its use there to but one or the other of these senses. There is, therefore, no need to dispute on the word meaning to bring to birth; but when it is so used, it does not mean to deposit the seed, which is the only meaning of the word beget. Hence these two meanings refer to two different things which in human generation occur nine months apart. That J.F.R. is entirely wrong in teaching that God's act of depositing the germinating spiritual seed, i.e., the begettal, is the same as the birth of the Spirit, is manifest from John 3:6-8, where he that is born of the Spirit is said to be a [so the Greek] spirit, and invisible like the wind. Therefore we who in this life are new creatures cannot be yet born of the Spirit; for we are neither spirits nor invisible. Therefore our Pastor was right when he taught that the begettal of the Spirit occurred in and as the implantation of the new life in the heart and mind of the consecrated. 

To J.F.R.'s denial that there are acts in the begetting (depositing of the germinating seed), quickening, growing, strengthening, balancing, completing and birth of a human being, corresponding to those accompanying the generation of a spirit being or vice versa, we reply that nature proves all of these processes as parts of the generation of a human being, and the Bible teaches every one of them in the complete generation of the New Creation, as has been often proven. 

The following will prove this: (1) The begettal occurs through depositing the Word as the germinating seed (Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3, 23; John 1:12, 13; 3:3; 1 Cor. 4:15; Phile. 10; 1 John 5:1). This begettal made God's people embryo new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). (2) Later, each one of them was quickened as an embryo (John 6:63; Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13; 1 Tim. 6:13). Still later (3) they began to grow in grace, knowledge and service in their embryo condition (2 Pet. 3:18; Eph. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:2). (4) Thereafter a strengthening of these embryos in every 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

441 

good word and work set in (Eph. 3:16; 6:10-17; Col. 1:11; 2 Tim. 2:1; 1 Pet. 5:10). (5) Then the new creatures develop more as embryos by balancing the various parts of a Christlike character with one another (2 Thes. 2:17; 3:3; 1 Thes. 3:12, 13; Jas. 5:8; 1 Pet. 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:12). (6) Their full development as embryos is completed by perfecting their character, which completely conforms them unto Christ's image (Rom. 8:29; Luke 6:40; Eph. 4:12; Heb. 13:20, 21; 1 Pet. 5:10). This makes them as embryos ready for the Spirit birth, (7) which they experience by participating in the First Resurrection, and by which they obtain the Divine nature, through obtaining immortality (John 3:5-8; Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5; 1 Cor. 15:20, 23; Jas. 1:18; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:50, 52-54). These seven processes, beginning with the begettal of the Spirit and ending in the birth of the Spirit, constitute the acts whereby God creates a new order of beings, and that on the Divine, the highest plane of existence, and correspond to the seven steps in the generation of a human being. This disproves J.F.R.'s claim that there is no parallel between the successive stages in the generation of a human and spirit being. 

He also claims that the language: "Thou art My Son; this day have I brought Thee to birth [Rotherham] is applied to Jesus at three different times (1) at Jordan, (2) at His resurrection and (3) at His Second Advent. We reply that St. Paul explains this passage, and that three times. Two of these explanations directly apply it to our Lord's resurrection (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:3-5; note carefully the tenses used in the second passage, as the proof that it applies, like Acts 13:33, to our Lord's resurrection). The other passage is Heb. 5:5. It likewise refers to our Lord in the glory of the Divine nature; for it is used to prove Him as having been made a High Priest of Melchizedek's order by paralleling it with the statement of His being a priest after the order of 

Merariism. 

442 

Melchizedek, which proves that it does not refer to Him while in the flesh. Hence our Lord was by God glorified to be made a High Priest in His resurrection, when He became the Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore we deny, on the basis of the threefold use that St. Paul makes of this passage, that it applies to our Lord at Jordan and at His Second Advent; and with St. Paul we limit its application to our Lord's birth of the Spirit in the resurrection. It, therefore, proves that He was not born of the Spirit at Jordan, where He was begotten of the Spirit, but was born of the Spirit in His resurrection; and this proves that our birth of the Spirit did not occur at the time God made us [embryo] new creatures, but will occur in the resurrection when we will be spirits and, as such, invisible (John 3:6-8). 

He thinks that the fact that we are called sons of God now proves that we are now born of the Spirit and are, therefore, what he calls spirit creatures. In the same connection he calls Satan a spirit creature; but he seemingly avoids calling us now spirit beings; though in another connection he calls Satan a spirit being. This is jugglery with words. When he contends that the New Creature is a reality, not a subterfuge, he tells the truth; but when he thereby insinuates that embryo new creatures are not realities, but subterfuges, he errs. The holy powers that God implants in our brain organs in the begettal and the holy qualities and consequent holy character that by exercise are developed out of these holy powers certainly are realities (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). In answer to his claim that we are not embryo new creatures or sons, but born new creatures or sons, because we are called sons of God, we say the following: While we are actually embryo, not born new creatures or sons, we are reckonedly the latter and therefore called such in the Bible. This is proved by both literal and typical passages. A comparison of two literal passages will

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

443 

show this: "Now are we [reckonedly] the sons of God" (1 John 3:2). "We ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting [hoping for actual] sonship; for we are saved by hope (Rom. 8:23, 24, Diaglott). 

The types also show this: Our present actual condition as embryos is represented by Isaac being in the womb of Sarah, his birth representing our resurrection—full sonship (Heb. 11:11; Rom. 9:9); and our present reckoned condition of being born sons of God is represented by Isaac after his birth, e.g., in his circumcision, weaning, persecution by Hagar and Ishmael and offering up by Abraham (Gal. 4:28-31; Heb. 11:17-19). Again, the struggling of the embryos, Esau and Jacob, in Rebekah's womb God expressly explains to represent two nations (Gen. 25:22, 23) which as to the embryo Jacob St. Paul tells us represents the present actual condition of spiritual Israel (Rom. 9:10-13), ourselves as actual embryos, but reckoned born sons of God as represented by Jacob in his acts after his birth. This is likewise shown in the case of Benjamin, his being an embryo until his birth representing the actual condition of the Great Company as embryo sons of God, this being proved at his birth, by the death of Rachel, his mother, who, typical of the spiritual elective truths that bring to birth antitypical Joseph (the Little Flock) and antitypical Benjamin (the Great Company) by her death types these truths ceasing to operate with the birth (resurrection) of the Great Company. On the other hand, the Great Company's reckoned condition as sons of God while in the flesh is typed by Benjamin's activities after his birth, e.g., his coddling by his father after Joseph's exile, his being sent to Egypt, his being treated more kindly there than his brethren, his being captured, his being shown his true relation to Egypt's Prime-minister, his going to Palestine and his returning to Egypt. Thus these literal and typical passages prove that we are now actual embryos and reckonedly born sons and 

Merariism. 

444 

that in the resurrection we will be actually born sons. The above considerations completely refute J.F.R.'s nominal-church view of our now being actually born of the Spirit. 

In the same article, Jehovah's Royal House, he sets forth a veritable mass of confusion on the called, chosen, anointed and faithful. He makes the foundation of these errors the error just disproved, viz., that we are now God's actually born sons. He teaches that the call extends only after one becomes what he calls a born son, that this call is to sacrificial service, that the Great Company consists of those who do not at all accept this call (to service) and never begin to serve in the high calling, that those who accept this call do so by entering the service of sacrifice as probationary Little Flock members, which makes them the chosen, that these get their full anointing before they begin to serve and that they then must either prove faithful in sacrifice unto death or go into the second death; for they cannot be remanded to the Great Company; for these allegedly consist of those who never accepted "the call" (to service). In elaborating his thoughts above summarized he teaches a multitude of very mischievous errors. The entire article runs through five Tower issues and we could not give details. But we will refute the main positions and with these his details will fall. 

In the first place, he gives the words called and chosen, in Rev. 17:14 and elsewhere, meanings that they do not have: called—invited to serve after one is made a new creature, and chosen—approved for such service because one's zeal is accepted and his anointing is completed. These words are never used in the Bible in the senses that he attaches to them. As our Pastor shows in Vol. VI, in the chapter treating of the call of the New Creation, the word, call, is used in a variety of senses, the widest of which includes everything that God does in inviting people out of sin, until He invites 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

445 

them into the kingdom by the resurrection, i.e., the invitation to wisdom, to justification, to sanctification and to deliverance. Hence it is used to designate each one of these four steps individually, or two or three or all of them collectively, as the following Scriptures prove: In Matt. 9:13 and 1 Pet. 2:9 it is used to signify the invitation to repentance and enlightenment—wisdom. In 2 Pet. 1:10 the call refers to justification, which is made sure by our living in faith such a righteous life as retains the robe of righteousness now and as guarantees it to us as our own forever. This—justified—is the sense of the word called in Rev. 17:14. Then this word is used to mean the invitation by consecration to the high calling - sanctification (Rom. 8:30; Matt. 20:16; Eph. 4:4; Phil. 3:14; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 3:1). Further, this word is used to designate our invitation to share in overcoming all our spiritual enemies and to share in the first resurrection—deliverance (1 Pet. 5:10; 2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Thes. 2:14; Heb. 5:10). In other passages it is used in two or three or all four of these senses (Rom. 1:6, 7; 8:28; 1 Cor. 1:9, 26-29; Eph. 4:1; 1 Thes. 2:12). 

The word chosen—elect, or election—is used in two senses to designate: (1) those who by consecration and Spirit-begettal were selected to run for the high calling and (2) those who remain faithful in that high calling. Under the first definition the following, among other passages, belong: Rev. 17:14; 2 Pet. 1:10; Matt. 24:22, 31; Col. 3:12; Rom. 11:7; 1 Thes. 1:4; Mark 13:20; John 15:16; 2 Thes. 2:13; Jas. 2:5. The following are some that belong under the second definition: Is. 65:9, 22; Matt. 20:16; 22:14; 24:24; 1 Pet. 2:6; 2 Tim. 2:10. That the election—being chosen—does not mean the act of approving and anointing one already a new creature for his zealous response to an invitation to service, but is the Lord's part performed in the act of Spirit-begetting, is evident 

Merariism. 

446 

from the fact that Aaron and his sons as such were chosen to become priests and then afterward underwent the service of Moses' consecrating of them to be such, typing that Jesus and the Church were first in their consecration and Spirit-begettal chosen to become priests and then to be such underwent consecration at God's hands; for the New Creature is the thing that becomes the Priest through the anointing (Heb. 9:15). It is also evident from St. Paul's statement: "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through the sanctification [begettal] of the Spirit, and belief of the Truth [whose acceptance unto consecration as the germinating seed was on our part the condition for its begetting us]." St. Peter gives the same testimony (1 Pet. 1:2): "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God through the sanctification [begettal] of the Spirit." See also Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:12, 13; Gal. 3:27-29; Col. 2:11, 12. The theory under review confuses the response to the call with the quickening, i.e., energizing to service, which occurs in the Under-priesthood after the anointing begins; for it is the anointing that quickens one to service, while the response to the invitation to the high calling is our act of consecration (Rom. 12:1; Prov. 23:26; Ps. 45:10). 

His view that those who do not become zealous to serve are the Great Company, is nonsense; for whoever is not zealous to serve, i.e., quickened, is never born at all; just as in the human family, without quickening there can be no birth; for those who would not be quickened would take back their consecration entirely, which would mean totally wilful sin. Moreover, his view that the Great Company consists of those never energized to service is contrary to Sts. Paul's and John's statements on some running well for a while, becoming castaways, as to the prize, but not as to life, but losing a full reward (Gal. 5:7; 1 Cor. 11:24-27; 2 John 8); and on those running looking carefully lest, like Esau (Heb. 12:15-17; 2 John 8, here a 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

447 

type of the Great Company), they lose their birthright, their full reward, the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ and, like Esau, get the lower blessing, Great Companyship. Moreover, lack of love and wrongdoing also put one into the Great Company in spite of great services (1 Cor. 13:2, 3; Jude 23; Rev. 7:14; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20, where the word faith means faithfulness, which for a while, therefore, Hymenaeus and Alexander had; for their faithfulness is here spoken of as wrecked, leading to their falling into the crown-losing class, and Azazel's hands). Furthermore, if his view were correct, there would have been a Great Company throughout the Age (and not simply crown-losers who still retained the priesthood)—a thing that is untrue, because there was no place in the tabernacle picture to represent the Great Company during the Gospel Age. These crown-losers until 1917 were Priests in the Holy, which disproves the thought under review with unanswerable power. 

When he says that since Christ's anointing was completed before He began to preach, the same must be true as respects all the Under-priests, we reply, Not so. In the first place, Christ as a perfect human being had all the graces of the Spirit of a natural man perfectly. That part of the anointing that confers the spiritual qualities on the heart was accomplished unto completion in Him the moment of His begettal and not in the wilderness, where doubtless that part of the anointing that confers the necessary spiritual knowledge for service was completed in Him, though it began immediately at His begettal (Matt. 3:16). Hence, contrary to J.F.R.'s claim, Acts 10:38 does refer to the acts described in Matt. 3:16 belonging to the anointing. Unlike our Lord, we do not receive the Spirit without measure. Hence our anointing, though begun both in head and heart before we begin to serve, goes on a long while after we have started to serve. Another reason for the difference is this: 

Merariism. 

448 

Jesus' anointing had to be complete before He began to serve, otherwise His ministry would have had imperfections in it, which would have vitiated it; while in our ministry our inevitable weaknesses are covered by His merit. Since the completed anointing confers all the graces of the heart and all capabilities of the head for service; self-evidently our anointing, though begun before, goes on long after we have entered the service of the Lord's Plan as Priests. His confusing the gifts of the Spirit with the anointing is too transparent to call for comment. The Scriptures given above prove that crown-losers have lost their part in the anointing. These considerations completely overthrow his pertinent point. 

Especially two Scriptures does he use in an attempt to prove his idea of chosen as meaning the approval and anointing of those who respond to his so-called "call" (to sacrifice) as given them after their Spirit-begettal: Rom. 8:30 and 1 Cor. 6:11. He interprets the call of Rom. 8:30 to mean an invitation given to new creatures AS SUCH by enzealment for service to enter the high calling, which they actually entered at consecration, and Spirit-begetting (Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 12:12, 13; Gal. 3:27-29; Col. 2:11, 12). He interprets the justifying of Rom. 8:30, not of God's acts, whereby He forgives our sins and imputes to us Christ's righteousness, but as God's approving the new creature that zealously accepts the invitation to go on and sacrifice and God's proceeding to anoint him, i.e., to make him chosen. But St. Paul used the word justify here in its usual Biblical sense, as the connection proves; for in Rom. 8:28-30 the four steps of the salvation process are described, as St. Paul implies them in Jesus' office functions as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and deliverance (1 Cor. 1:30), but in inverse time order. Moreover, the passage teaches that all the called are justified, which contradicts his statement that all his called do not respond 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

449 

and hence they are not all justified in his sense. Further, the passage teaches that all who were called, as it uses the word, had previously to their call been justified, which contradicts his view; for it puts his justification after his call. He does not attempt to explain the glorifying of v. 30. Making his call precede his justifying—his choosing—he must make his choosing precede his glorifying, however he may understand the latter; and, therefore, the passage would force him to teach that all his called are afterwards chosen, and all his chosen are afterward glorified. His principle of interpreting the passage, as giving the acts of v. 30 in their time order, makes necessary the Calvinists' teaching from this passage, contrary to facts and clear Scripture, the doctrine of once in grace, always in grace. His method of interpretation logically requiring all his called to be afterward justified, i.e., chosen, contradicting his thought that only a minority of his called are his justified, chosen, proves that this passage contradicts instead of proving his new setting. 

So, too, does he fare illy with 1 Cor. 6:11. He quotes and in brackets interprets this passage as follows: "But [now] are ye washed [from sin by the blood of Jesus, and therefore at peace with God and justified from sin (Rev. 1:5; Rom. 5:1)]; but ye are sanctified; but ye are justified [approved because of your devotion to God and because you are chosen by him] in the name of our Lord Jesus [Christ] and by the spirit of our God." Properly the A. R. V. (compare its margin) translates as follows: "but ye washed [past tense] yourselves, ye were sanctified [past tense], ye were justified [past tense]." We therefore understand the passage in harmony with the Scriptural time order of the salvation processes to teach the following: by the words, ye washed yourselves, is meant, not justification by Christ's blood, but our cleansing ourselves by the Word—the antitypical 

Merariism. 

450 

laver—from filthiness of the flesh and spirit, as also the connection, treating of abandoning sins, shows (Heb. 10:22; Eph. 5:26). By the word sanctified we understand our consecration, proved by the past tense of the Greek verb, to be meant; and by the word justified we understand God's vitalizing of our justification to be meant. Thus in this passage in their time order cleansing at the laver, consecration at the first vail and vitalizing justification immediately thereafter, which were of course followed by the Spirit-begettal, are set forth. And these three things all imply the necessity of our giving up sin, which the connection shows is the Apostle's thought, while the "justifying" under review is not related to sin, but to sacrifice. If the word "washed" meant justification as ordinarily used, the Greek would prove that we justify ourselves! Hence his thought does not fit the connection; moreover the interpretation under review leaves out of consideration an essential factor in putting aside sins—cleansing ourselves by the Word—which the connection and proper translation require. So, too, the interpretation under review sets aside the usual Scriptural meaning of the word justify and gives it a meaning that the Bible nowhere gives it. 

In the March 15 installment of the article under review (which came to hand after we had written our remarks above on the article, Character or Covenant—Which?) the writer urges character development, saying that he never taught that we are not to develop character. He said that he meant that our character development would not bring us into the kingdom, as this would imply our meriting it. Would not his claims as to service make it equally merit the kingdom? St. Peter says that under the terms of our call character development—adding the graces, making them active and causing them to abound in us—will bring us into the kingdom (2 Pet. 1:5-10); while St. Paul tells us that service, and that even to martyrdom, 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

451 

unaccompanied by love—the chief part of character development—avails nothing (1 Cor. 13:3). We are glad to see the remark in the article under review, that we must develop character, and that selling books will not bring into the kingdom. But these remarks should have been accompanied, not with the falsehood with which they are accompanied, that its writer did not teach that we are not to develop character; for that is stated and argued for in detail in the Tower article entitled, Character or Covenant—Which? Rather they should have been accompanied with a humble acknowledgment that he had not only taught that most grievous error, but that it has resulted in much sin among his responding adherents. He did in that article teach that the kingdom is won by keeping our covenant, whose keeping he limited to service, and he has continually emphasized book selling, and still does so, as the best form of sacrificial service now. He is responsible for the extreme emphasis placed on service in Society quarters and for the neglect there of the other six features of our covenant keeping. The hypocrisy of his acknowledgment has, therefore, influenced us to let remain above our strictures as a witness against his Satanic teachings on not developing character in Z '26, 131-136. He must have been finally convinced, by the loud outcries against this error and its terrible results in wicked living in Society circles, that he must withdraw that teaching. [In subsequent articles, as will later appear, he ridicules character development, which proves that he recanted his recantation.] 

In the Dec. 1 and 15, 1929, Towers, he makes an attack on our Pastor's view of the Time of the End and the times and the days of Daniel 12, and sets forth foolishness thereon, introducing the attack with the hypocritical statement that he is not intending to attack previously held views. Briefly his view is this: that the Time of the End and the end of the Gentile Times

Merariism. 

452 

are identical, and that it came "approximately Oct. 1, 1914" (pars. 8-10, 12, 13, 29 and 36 in the Dec. 1 Tower and par. 1 in the Dec. 15, 1929, Tower); that "just exactly three and one-half literal years, or 1,260 days, by Biblical method of calculation, after the Time of the End [italics ours] there began, to wit, 1918, a great persecution of these holy people of God," i.e., that immediately after the Time of the End the 1,260 days of Daniel began, ending 1,260 literal days later; that in the latter part of Jan., 1919, the 1,290 days began (by the claim allegedly then made by an official of the Federation of Churches that the League of Nations was "the political expression of God's kingdom," which claim supposedly put the League into the holy, which he explains as putting it in the place of the kingdom, a counterfeit of it, and thus supposedly made it the desolating abomination); that these 1,290 days ended in the beginning of Sept., 1922, at the Cedar Point Convention, when the announcement was made, "Advertise the King and the Kingdom"; that the 1,335 days began Sept. 1, 1922, and ended in the middle of May, 1926, during the London Convention, at which so much joy was experienced that Society adherents went out and sold 120,900 volumes during the convention, which greatly increased their joy! He further claims that Daniel does not refer in his book to the papacy though he concedes that there may have been a miniature (!) fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy in connection with the papacy in 1799; but he claims that the real fulfilment identifies the Time of the End with the end of the Gentile Times; and that it did not set in before the Lord began dispossession proceedings against Satan's empire. By his oft teaching that the "end of the Gentile Times," is "exactly identical with the Time of the End" and by his claiming that the 1,260 days immediately followed his Time of the End, he shows that he does not carry the Time of the End beyond "approximately Oct. 1, 1914." Of course, his 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

453 

view necessitates his rejection of practically everything in Vol. III. And we are not to forget that he is by this perversion preparing his adherents to receive his denial that the Harvest began in 1874 and his claim that it began in 1918. Note the cunning of his procedure. 

Against his view we have many objections: (1) Daniel tells us that at an appointed time a very arbitrary king would invade and conquer Egypt, then would invade Palestine, then through a naval defeat would return to Egypt and then, because the kings of the north and the south would combine against him, he would return to his own land exactly at the beginning of the Time of the End (Dan. 11:29, 30, 40-45). No such things occurred just before and at "approximately Oct. 1, 1914"; nor did they occur during any part of the World War; nor did they occur nearer than over 100 years before 1914; but they did occur just before and at Oct., 1799, and not after then; hence the Time of the End did not begin and end in 1914; but it began 115 years before, i.e., Oct., 1799. 

(2) The Time of the End is a long-drawn-out period, because it began, as just proved, Oct., 1799, and will end just before Daniel's resurrection and reward as an Ancient Worthy (Dan. 12:13). This has not yet occurred, nor will it occur for years yet. Hence this disproves "approximately Oct. 1, 1914," as the Time of the End. When our Pastor wrote Vol. III, he believed that the trouble would all be over by Oct., 1914, and that the earthly phase of the kingdom would then be established, and therefore in that volume he taught that the Time of the End, while beginning Oct., 1799, would end Oct., 1914. But when in 1904 he came to the conclusion that the trouble would begin in 1914 and refused thereafter to set a date for its end, he implied that the end of the Time of the End would come later than 1914, at a date he refused to set. 

Merariism. 

454 

(3) The midnight of the parable (Matt. 25:1-12) was April, 1877, when the cry, "Behold the Bridegroom," arose; but that night set in Oct. 1, 1799, as we have shown (P '27, 13, on Mark 13:35; Luke 17:34), hence that night comes to its first end in 1954, in the beginning of its lapping into the kingdom time. This night is the period of the Time of the End, whose lapping end reaches into the kingdom for 25 months more, i.e., Nov., 1956, after which Daniel returns. Hence this overthrows the view that the Time of the End and the end of the Times of the Gentiles are identical, at about Oct., 1914. 

(4) In (Hebrew, be, in, not le, at) the Time of the End Michael stands up (Dan 12:1). This set in at Nisan 10, 1878 (paralleling His riding into Jerusalem 1845 years before and casting off Israel and cleansing the temple) when He began to exercise executive authority in casting off Babylon, and when by the first harvest sifting He began by the Truth to drive out from His temple class the unworthy. It continued by His awakening the sleeping saints Nisan 16, 1878, and associating them with Him in the kingdom. It—His standing up—then proceeded in a Truth attack upon Satan's empire (Satan, the individual, having been bound from 1874-1878 preparatory to the spoiling of his house, Matt. 12:29), in its religious, aristocratic, political and industrial features, which attack made such a division in Satan's empire between the conservative classes and the radical masses as to threaten it with an overthrow by a revolution of the dissatisfied masses. To avert this threatening revolution and preserve his empire, Satan mustered the nations in two rival alliances for a war in which he hoped to wipe out the division between the conservatives and radicals by making them believe, in each set of nations, that the other set sought their national destruction. Hence the World War. Thus Christ's Truth attacks on Satan's empire from 1878 to 1914 were a 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

455 

part of Michael's standing up. This beginning in 1878, "in the Time of the End," the Time of the End must have begun long before "approximately" Oct. 1, 1914. The parallel dispensations prove this date 1878, and the signs of the times corroborate it, e.g., Christ's Truth attacks had so far divided Christendom, as above stated, that by 1882 and 1905 the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente respectively were completed, as rival and increasingly angry groups of nations and as Satan's counteractive measures; and in 1914 the war set in, which was on Satan's part intended to do away with the danger of a revolution that would destroy his empire. Michael did not, as the article under review claims, begin to stand up "about Oct. 1, 1914"; though about that time an important phase of His standing up did set in. His standing up began in 1878 and will continue as against Satan's empire until the end of anarchy and Jacob's trouble. 

We might remark that by the expression, "in [not at] that time," of Dan. 12:1, not the point of the time of the acts described in the preceding verses, but the period of time to which they belong is meant. We have a similar case in Matt. 25:1, "then." This does not refer to the time of the few preceding verses, which treat of J.F.R.'s activities as that evil servant, but to the period of the Time of the End described in Matt. 24:14-51 (the last stage of the work of witnessing, v. 14, being performed through the missionary crusade and the Bible societies, which started their work about the beginning of the Time of the End, as the facts of history prove). 

(5) During the Time of the End the whole trouble is to occur. Dan. 12:1 does not say that, just the early stage of the war part of it, as J.F.R. implies, but the entire Time of Trouble, occurs in the Time of the End, including all its stages: war, revolution, anarchy and Jacob's trouble, with famines and pestilences

Merariism. 

456 

interspersed; for the reason of the trouble is Michael's standing up in an attack on Satan's empire from 1878 onward, in order utterly to destroy it through the troubles above-mentioned. J.F.R.'s claim that the designation, time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, means the World War and that Jesus means another trouble—Armageddon—still worse, by the expression, "nor ever shall be," is a pure importation into the text; for Jesus says that the great tribulation would be greater than anything that had yet occurred up to His time or anything that would come after His time. Nothing in that text makes such a contrast as J.F.R. suggests, even as the verse shows: "Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world unto this time [the time of his speaking], no, nor ever shall be" (Matt. 24:21). Mark's wording in 13:19 is similar. The Scriptures do not in any one passage use the following language: "a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation to that time, no, nor ever shall be afterward." Note the difference in Daniel's expression, "to that time," and our Lord's, "unto this [His] time." Since Dan. 12:1 teaches that in the Time of the End the entire trouble will occur, evidently the Time of the End is not identical with the end of the Gentile Times. It began before and ends later. 

(6) Dan. 12:1 further teaches that during the Time of the End the entire elect Church, "every one that shall be found written in the book," will be delivered, i.e., from the tomb and this earth by the first resurrection. Hence the Time of the End cannot be identical with the end of the Gentile Times. The parallel Harvests prove that the sleeping saints were awakened in 1878, while some of the saints are not yet delivered from this earth; hence the Time of the End began before 1878 and will last many years yet, which disproves this "new view." 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

457 

(7) In the Time of the End there was to be much travel and increase of knowledge on all lines of thought, religious and secular (Dan. 12:4). Such travel began with the invention of the steamship very shortly after 1799, continued with railroads and has increased with trolleys, automobiles, buses, airplanes and airships. And a marvelous increase of secular and religious knowledge marks the period from 1799 onward. If the Time of the End were identical with the end of the Gentile Times, at most a period of fifty days or at least one of one day [10th of the fifth (Aug. 1, 1914) to the 1st of the seventh month (Sept. 21, 1914), or Sept. 21, 1914, "approximately Oct. 1, 1914"] would not be sufficient for the predicted travel, and utterly insufficient for the increase of knowledge, which requires more than fifty days or one day to attain. Hence this disproves Aug. 1-Sept. 21, 1914 or Sept. 21, 1914, "approximately" Oct. 1, as the Time of the End. 

J.F.R. tries to evade the thought of much travel and increase of all kinds of knowledge, claiming that spiritual knowledge only is meant by the terms of Dan. 12:4, i.e., what since 1918, 1922 and 1926 he has been giving his adherents. To this we reply: If his thought were true, it would contradict his view, for the passage says that the knowledge would come in the Time of the End, which he claims as identical with the end of the Gentile Times; hence his increase of knowledge comes years after his Time of the End. He disputes that the expression, run to and fro, means to travel, but claims that it means to study, i.e., here the Truth. We deny his claim. He quotes 2 Chro. 16:9; Jer. 5:1; Zech. 4:9, 10 and Amos 8:11, 12, where the expression, run to and fro, occurs, claiming that it does not in them mean, to travel, but to study. We reply that in every case the idea of traveling is given and that in other verbs of the sentences the idea of study or other things are added. Thus when 

Merariism. 

458 

2 Chro. 16:9 says that the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the earth to show Himself strong on behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him, the thought is that God's powers of observing, travel from one place to another unto every part of the earth to protect and strengthen His faithful people. Here a figurative traveling is described, because the eyes are figurative; a mental traveling, therefore, from place to place is indicated. Jer. 5:1 exhorts some to travel by their literal feet throughout all the streets of Jerusalem, and while in such travel to seek to find and observe a righteous man. The running to and fro here is literal, a physical, traveling. What they are told to do amid their travels partakes of the character of study. Figurative travel, a mental movement from place to place, is also described in Zech. 4:9, 10. Amos 8:11, 12 describes by the running to and fro the literal travel in search of truth, which marks our day, e.g., by scientists, archeologists, discoverers, explorers, etc. These do not find the Divine Truth by their travels and researches. All of these passages use the words, run to and fro, to mean travel, two of them describing physical, and two of them mental traveling. Whether it is a literal or a figurative traveling, it is nevertheless a traveling that they describe and they prove that the word, therefore, means to travel, not to study. Hence Dan. 12:4 is rightly translated in the A. V., E. R. V., A. R. V., Young, Rotherham, the Baptist Version, the I. V., the Margolis V., Leeser, Fenton, etc., etc., etc. In fact it is the higher critics who, wishing by their translations to discount prophecies of patent signs of the times, give the idea under discussion. 

The above seven reasons prove that our Pastor was right on beginning the Time of the End with 1799 and ending it just before Daniel's resurrection, a date which he refused after 1904 to fix and which, in the light of the Epiphany, was not due to be fixed in his time, which date 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

459 

we now see will come in Nov., 1956, in its remotest end, the Time of the End coming to a lapping end from Oct., 1954, to Nov., 1956. 

Briefly we will refute some of the subordinate errors of the article on the Time of the End. To its claim that Daniel in Dan. 8-12 represents the faithful people of God in and after the Time of the End, we reply that this cannot be true, for he did not understand those parts of the vision which they have been understanding. If he had typed them, e.g., in Chapter 12, they would not now understand the vision; for in the type Daniel did not understand it. Jehovah sent the Rod of His Strength out of Zion with the commission to rule in the midst of His enemies, not in 1914, as he claims, but in 1874, at Christ's Second Advent. To his claim that the statement of the nations being angry (which he says began in 1914) following the statement made to God, "Thou hast taken to Thee Thy great power and reigned," proves that immediately before the trouble began (1914) God took unto Him His great power, i.e., in 1914, we reply: this same argument would prove that immediately thereafter the judgment of Adam's dead race began, the reward of the Ancient Worthies, as well as of all the Little Flock, and the destruction of the Millennially incorrigible, would set in—absurdities! God took His power and reigned from 1878 on; the nations through Christ's Truth attacks on Satan's empire began to become angry shortly afterwards, so angry that by 1882 alliancing against one another had made much headway and worked much friction; and God's wrath began in 1914. It will be many years until the trial of the dead world begins. The reward of the sleeping saints began in 1878; but with some saints it will not be for years and that of the Ancient Worthies will begin after approximately Nov., 1956. The destruction of the first of the earth's corrupters will come a hundred years later, and that of the last nearly

Merariism. 

460 

1,000 years later. Thus Rev. 11:17, and the other passages that he quotes, do not prove his point as to the Time of the End being "approximately" Oct. 1, 1914. 

To his insinuation that our Pastor claimed that the formation of the Evangelical Alliance in 1846 completed the cleansing of God's people, we would say that the insinuation reveals the very imperfect understanding he has of our Pastor's remarks on that Alliance. It did not cleanse, but cut off from any association with it by its creed, the Sanctuary class, that by getting rid in 1846 of the errors, immortality and eternal torment additional to other errors previously given up, became cleansed from the main defilements of papacy. This was not a complete cleansing of God's people, but a cleansing from the defiling errors of the papacy connected with the mass. The cleansing of the 2,300 days is something totally different from that which began in 1878, when Jesus began to cleanse the temple class. Mal. 3:2, 3 proves that this began early in the Parousia and continues in the Epiphany, among other things, six siftings being used to accomplish it. See Vol. V, Chap. II. 

He says that those who talk against the Watch Tower's teaching are really talking against God, and that it proves them to have a bad condition of heart. This implies that God is responsible for the Watch Tower's teachings, including its errors. The Watch Tower publications taught that the Church would leave the world in 1918. Did those who witnessed against this error speak against God? The Watch Tower taught later that the door was closed in 1918 and that the Church would leave the world before 1925, that then the Ancient Worthies would come back and that none would thereafter have to die. Did those who years before 1925 proved these things to be erroneous thereby speak against God? In making God responsible for his errors J.F.R., the little pope of little

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

461 

Babylon, is counter parting the great pope of great Babylon, who makes the same charges against the criticizers of his teachings. His calling opposers of his errors and wrong official practices, supporters of Satan's organization, is exactly what his great counterpart does as to his opponents. J.F.R. has long ceased being a mouthpiece of God and is Satan's chief servant and mouthpiece among Truth people. 

We do not, as he falsely charges, give credit to Bro. Russell for our being led out of symbolic Egypt. So far as we know, C. J. Woodworth invented that thought with the addition that J.F.R. was the Joshua leading God's people into antitypical Canaan's possession. Jesus is the antitype of Moses and Joshua. He led us out of symbolic Egypt and used Pastor Russell as a servant of His in connection therewith, as He also subordinately used other servants therein. But Satan, acting as the little Pharaoh, is and has been using J.F.R. to enslave many of God's people in little Egypt, as our answers prove. 

We now come to his folly on the 1,260, 1,290 and 1,335 days of Daniel. Against his 1,260 days as beginning at the end of the Gentile Times (Sept. 21, 1914) we present the following: (1) What we demonstrated above as to what is the real Time of the End—1799 to 1954—proves that the days of Daniel in each case began before his Time of the End. 

(2) The breaking of the power of the little horn to devastate—"scatter"—by persecution the holy people's power, which is the Truth, was completed at the beginning of the real Time of the End, 1799. Who would claim that since 1799 the Truth has been devastated and thus lost to God's faithful people, as it was in papacy's heyday? Notice that this passage (Dan. 12:7) does not say, as J.F.R. so gratuitously assumes, and then argues on it as an admitted truth, that God's people would after the 1,260 days no more be persecuted, nor be scattered by persecution. But what it 

Merariism. 

462 

says is this: that no more after those days would their power (which is the Truth) be scattered—devastated—as it once was by the persecutions of the papacy. Punishment indeed in part came to certain false teachers—the Society leaders—for some of their false teachings and wrong acts, but not one item of Truth—the power of God's people—was crushed at that time or since or for 119 years before. Hence the 1,260 days could not have ended then. 

(3) The facts unanswerably prove that since 1799 not only has the power of the holy people—the Truth—not gone down to defeat, but since 1829, when the Miller movement began, the vision began to open little by little and more and more, first through the Advent Movement, 1829-1844, especially on the chronology; second, in the cleansed Sanctuary on various matters, especially on the unconsciousness of the dead and death as sin's penalty and on further chronological unfoldings, 1846-1874; third, in the Parousia movement, 1874-1914; and since then in the Epiphany movement. Out of every controversy against its peculiar truths and those previously due, each of these movements emerged triumphant, unanswerably refuting attacks and most gloriously elaborating the Truth as due with ever increasing brilliancy. These are the "physical facts," absolutely indisputable, of the conditions since 1799; therefore since the scattering—devastating—of the Truth, the power of the holy people, ceased since then, the 1,260 days ended then. 

(4) The 1,260 days must have ended before the 2,300 days, because by the end of the 2,300 days the Church was cleansed (Hebrew, justified, i.e., vindicated) in the sense of being ridded of the defilements in, and by her controversies coming to see and then overthrowing the errors directly or indirectly connected with the mass. This does not mean that by then the Church was cleansed from all error, but from those that were related in any logical way to the specially

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

463 

desolating teaching of the abomination of desolation, i.e., the mass. Such vindication unto cleansing from everything connected with that defiling doctrine implied the complete victory over every papal argument closely or remotely connected with it—a thing that proves that previously to 1846 the Truth as the power of this holy people had been freed from desolation sufficiently to accomplish this, because without such previous freedom it could not have cast off every argument for the mass coming from it or any of its associated doctrines (Dan. 8:13, 14). 

(5) The beginning of the 2,300 days being definitely fixed at 455 B.C. by 490 of them being cut off from their beginning to lead to the events of Dan. 9:24, which ended in 36 A.D., and the angel's explanations in Dan. 11 and 12 being given to clarify the vision of Dan. 8:9-12 and certain brief explanations of vs. 13-25, the word days in the expression, 2300 days, used in the explanation, standing for years, the word days used in the other explanations of the vision, i.e., 1,260, 1,290 and 1,335 (Dan. 12:7-12) must stand for years. This destroys the view of the article under review on these three periods; for it claims that they are literal days. 

(6) The fact that the vision was to speak in the Time of the End, 1799 to 1954 (Dan. 12:9; Hab. 2:3), and that through the Miller movement (1829-1844) it began to speak and has been increasingly doing so, proves that not only the Time of the End came before 1829, but that then the 1,290 days ended; for Dan. 12:10, 11 shows that the wise would begin to understand at the end of the 1,290 days. This also proves the days to be symbolic and disproves Jan., 1919, to Sept., 1922, to be the 1,290 days. 

(7) The fact that from the end of the 1,335 days great blessedness would come to the faithful through the very special opening of the Truth from then onward, when "in the end"—the Harvest (the reaping,

Merariism. 

464 

1874 to 1914, and the rest of the harvest processes, 1914 to 1954) the vision would speak and not lie (Hab. 1:1-3), and the fact that the glorious Parousia and Epiphany messages have given this joy—O, "joy unspeakable and full of glory!" "Blessed be the Lord!"—prove that the 1,335 days were that many years and that they ended in 1874. This also proves that they—the 1,260, 1,290, 1,355 days—began to count from 539 A.D. and that the papacy is the abomination that maketh desolate, which vindicates our Pastor's view and destroys the view under consideration, that the 1,335 days were literal and began Sept., 1922, and ended May, 1926. 

We will now refute some of the details of J.F.R.'s "new view" on these points—mud splashes—that in his blindness, drunkenness and folly he mistakes for lightning flashes. His claim that the wonders (whose duration is asked for in Dan. 12:6) are God's organization and Satan's organization, is arbitrary and without any justification, is read into the text and is contrary to the answer of v. 7, that they are associated with the crushing of the Truth, and as such are mentioned in Dan. 8:24. These wonders, therefore, were papacy's wicked and triumphant course and its treatment of others, especially the saints, and of the Truth. His reading into v. 7 the word days instead of things, i.e., the wonders asked about in v. 6 and answered in v. 7, is refuted by the fact that duration of the wonders is asked about in v. 6 and answered in v. 7. Hence the wonders are undoubtedly the things meant by the expression, "these things." To his claim that the "he" that scatters the power of God's people (v. 7) is Satan, we reply: Dan. 8:9-25 being here explained proves the "he" to be the little horn—the papacy. None of the persecutions previous to papacy's desolated the Truth. Since no more crushing of the power of the holy people takes place after the 1,260 days, and since his persecution, that of himself and his followers, in 1918 (notice: not crushing 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

465 

the Truth) began after his 1,260 days ended, his persecution cannot be meant by the persecution that crushed the power of the holy people; for the latter was to occur during the 1,260 days and end with their end, whereas the persecution of his view began after his 1,260 days had to end. Thus from Sept. 21, 1914 (the first day of the seventh month and the full end of the Gentile Times), to Dec. 31 were 102 days; 1915, 365; 1916, 366, and 1917, 365. These total 1,199; and 61 days more bring us to March 2, 1918, after which, if these were the real 1,260 days and if persecution of the Lord's people as distinct from crushing the Truth were meant, as he claims, no persecution of them was to come. But it was March 14, 1918, nearly two weeks later, when the U. S. Government forbade the distribution of the Finished Mystery and ordered the arrest of all who would thereafter distribute it (Z '18, 133, par. 5). The Society leaders were arrested May 8, 1918 (Z '18, 171, par. 4), a few days before which the Society's books, private papers, etc., at the Brooklyn headquarters were seized (Z '29, 372, par. numbered 8. Note how in this last citation Lawyer Rutherford falsifies the time of the seizing of the Society's papers and the arrest of its officers, putting these in February, 1918, in order to get them into his 1,260 days!—falsehoods that are manifest by the dates in the citations above given from the 1918 Towers). The scattering (not of the Truth, but) of his followers occurring after his 1,260 days had to end, March 2, 1918, proves the disharmony of his view with the pertinent Scriptures, even if the days were literal. Hence his 1,260 days are not only wrong, but contradict the Scripture requirements which call for the end of the scattering of the holy people's power, the Truth, at the end of the 1,260 days; whereas the American persecution, which he claims is the scattering of the power of the holy people, began after 

Merariism. 

466 

his 1,260 days had ended; and it only partially ended over a year later! 

We should say something on his abomination that maketh desolate—the League of Nations. The papacy is the real abomination that maketh desolate because: (1) it desolated every doctrine, every organizational arrangement and every practice of the true Church; (2) its hierarchy for the most part have been crown-losing new creatures and thus they have really been in the temple (2 Thes. 2:3-5)—the Church; (3) as Antichrist it counterfeited everything of the Plan; (4) especially it took away the continual efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ by substituting the mass; and (5) its character and history are abominable. These things prove it to be in a real sense the greatest possible desolating abomination. Protestant denials of the ransom did not take away that doctrine from the true Church, nor did they put in the true Church a doctrine that set aside the continuing sacrifice of Christ, as the papacy did, therefore their ransom denials are not related to the real abomination, as he claims. But what doctrine, organizational arrangement and practice of the true Church has the League of Nations destroyed? When was it, in its members (which are nations), in the true Church ("standing in the holy," "in the temple of God"), as a part of it? When did it counterfeit everything of God's Plan? When did it take away the continual sacrifice, by putting in its place a substitute? When did it have toward God's people and the world one thousandth so desolating a character and history as the papacy? When did it ever do anything against the true Church, her teachings, organization and practices that took these away from her? Never! What if some foolish official of the Federation of Churches said it was the political expression of God's kingdom? The papacy said that of mightier institutions, e.g., the Christian Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, than the imbecile League of Nations, the football of 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

467 

the larger powers! Notice the sophistry of the article under review in that it says that the federation's alleged and resultless declaration above stated put the League in the place of the real kingdom, i.e., made it a counterfeit kingdom. But that did not put one member of it into the Holy—the Spirit-begotten condition—a condition in which the papacy, whose members as a rule have been new creatures, has been, and thus has been in the Church and then seated itself there, i.e., made itself a god, ruler, there. What transparent folly is J.F.R.'s thought as to the desolating abomination! 

He makes his periods longer than 1,260, 1,290 and 1,335 days, for he treats them as consisting of three years and six months, three years and seven months and three years and eight months and fifteen days, solar time, which makes his period in each case longer than it should be, i.e., it makes his 1,260 days 1,278, his 1,290 days 1,309, and his 1,335 days 1,356. As a result the second and third overlap one another. These facts spoil his periods and prevent his applications from being cogent, even if everything else were unobjectionable. And to end the 1,290 (1,309) days at and by a meeting where "advertise the King and Kingdom," with millions now living will never die after 1925 (!) was adopted as a slogan, shows the folly of its propounder. And to say that the blessedness of Dan. 12:12 came in the joy that was experienced just before and at the sale of 120,900 books (printed, for the most part, contrary to God's will expressed through that Servant, that the Tower editors should publish nothing but Tower articles) during the London Convention in May, 1926, is an expression of lack of proportion as well as of folly in the propounder of the thought. 

We believe it is now due time to inform our readers what the sacrifices of the Society partisans, especially in their book-selling phases, are. They are in the little 

Merariism. 

468 

Catholic Church of little Babylon the counterpart of the mass in the large Catholic Church of Great Babylon! A few explanations will make this clear. In the papal counterfeit, the mass offered by a counterfeit priesthood is the counterfeit of the Sin-offering of the Church, the true priesthood. The partisan Spirit-begotten Societyites are Great Company members and its other consecrated partisans are Youthful Worthies, all of whom claim to be the true, but are a counterfeit priesthood; their sacrifice is, therefore, a counterfeit of the Church's sin-offering, and hence is in little Babylon the counterpart of the mass. The little Catholic Church's hierarchy—the Society's president, the little pope, its pilgrims, the little cardinals, its office managers at headquarters and branch offices, the little archbishops, and its service directors, the little bishops—constitute the little Antichrist of little Babylon, counterfeiting the true Church in the flesh, under Christ, its Head. And the above little mass with their many other errors in doctrine, organization and practice, ever increasing, are evidences that these leaders under and with the little pope in the small Gospel Age are the little abomination that maketh desolate. This little Antichrist has set aside the Sin-offering of the true Church and put in its place the little mass. Thus we see the rock-bottom reason for the great falling away from the Truth that, with ever increasing momentum, is going on in the Society. 

In part of the above, as published in the April, 1930, Present Truth, we reviewed some follies of right-eye darkening as they had been manifested during about fourteen months previous to that time in J.F.R.'s Tower writings. Since then [up to March, 1931] he has continued to run true to form by publishing as alleged advancing light more of his nocturnal hallucinations. Almost everything that he writes gives to the Lord's people increasing evidence that he is fulfilling the role of the foolish and unprofitable shepherd, 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

469 

the Jambresite leader among Truth sifters and that wicked servant. We will now review the Towers from April 1, 1930, to Feb. 15, 1931. In practically every one of them J.F.R. reiterates his thought that in 1918 our Lord came to the temple and since 1919 has been gathering the Faithful into, and casting the unfaithful out of it. Not one pertinent proof has he ever offered that connects the Lord's coming to His temple with the year 1918. The parallel dispensations, the chronology, the Jubilees, the 1335 days of Daniel, the Sabbath, the signs of the times and the Pyramid prove that He came there in 1874. If He has been gathering His faithful into the temple since 1919, and that as a special reward, they could not have been there before; but the Bible proves that they have been there ever since Pentecost (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; 2 Thes. 2:4; Rev. 8:4; 11:1; 15:6). Furthermore, if they were not gathered there before 1919, no one was there before 1919. How, then, could the Lord's people as the seven angels have come out of it with the seven vials since 1886? His false "new views" of Revelation, that make it from chapter 4 onward apply from 1919 onward, were forced upon him by his temple errors, while the demonstrated fulfilment of the bulk of the Revelation before 1914 proves these new views, as well as his temple views, to be erroneous. 

In almost every one of the articles under review he reiterates his thought that Satan challenged God to create a man that would keep his integrity. Nowhere does the Bible give such a thought. He seeks to draw this thought from Job as an alleged type of man unfallen, fallen and restored. To this we reply: (1) Satan did not challenge God to find in Job a man who would maintain his integrity; but God permitted Satan, in an answer to his charge that Job's piety was selfish and could be undermined, to seek to prove his charge (Job. 1:6-12; 2-16). (2) Job is not a type of unfallen, fallen and restored mankind, though he might, 

Merariism. 

470 

as our Pastor said, be used in certain limited respects to illustrate mankind as such. But there is a vast difference between a limited illustration and a type; for the latter requires a correspondence in every detail between the type and antitype, while it is impossible to find detailed correspondence between unfallen, fallen and restored mankind and the pious, persecuted, suffering Job and fallen man, e.g., Satan failed to corrupt Job, while he did corrupt all humans who will get restitution; Job suffered faithfully as a test of his righteousness; not so Adam and that part of his fallen race that will get restitution; Job got twice as much as he lost, not so will Adam and his race fare; Job's prayers make the sacrifices of his three detractors acceptable; not so will Adam and his race work, for the sacrifices of the worst of mankind as well as of the best of them will be made acceptable by the Christ's sacrifice. Many other reasons could be given in disproof of the thought under review, not to mention the boundless arbitrariness, dogmatism and foolishness in many details of the view under examination. Some day we hope to present to our readers the true typical teachings of the book of Job, with Job's antitype as being priestly (Jas. 5:10, 11). The idea that J.F.R. sets forth, that God is proving, as an answer to an alleged Satanic challenge, that He can place a race on earth that will maintain its integrity and has been occupying Himself with such a challenged task for more than 6,000 years and will continue with it for 1,000 years more, belittles God and degrades His character and plan. Not as an answer to an imaginary challenge, which God has too much self-respect to accept, but as a demonstration and revelation of His glorious wisdom, power, justice and love in the interests of all free moral agents, is God working out His glorious plans—purposes—with mankind and angels, and will bring them to pass. 

Throughout these articles teachings are set forth and 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

471 

appeals are made that make fear of, and opposition to Satan one of the chief motives of the Christian. As a matter of fact, our trust in God is to be so great that we are not to fear Satan at all, though we are to be on our guard against him. Moreover, opposition to Satan can never be more than a negative side of the Christian life, while constructive work in the study, spread and practice of the Word and the faithful endurance of the incidental experiences belong to the positive and overshadowing side of the Christian life. Moreover, in these articles there is expressed a blatant dogmatism that should put the careful Christian on his guard against their writer. Unproven, foolish and false assertions are time and time again pounded in dogmatically by such terms as: "it follows conclusively," "beyond a peradventure," "beyond contradiction," "beyond the shadow of a doubt," "without the fear of successful contradiction," "unquestionably," etc., etc., etc. As our Pastor said, let us beware of those who try with such dogmatism to pound in their theories. A humble servant of God never would so do; for such are the earmarks of popes—great and little—and heady, arrogant, power-grasping and puffed-up, dogmatists. 

The last Tower reviewed before them was that of March 15, 1930. The very next issue of the Tower came out with the denial that God has a plan. Thus J.F.R. would cast out of court Vol. I. While he concedes that God has a purpose, he avers that to say that He has a plan would imply imperfection in God and would consequently be blasphemy, the reason for which he alleges is that imperfect men make plans. If they are good ones, they are expressions of man's vestiges of perfection; hence good plans would not imply imperfection in a perfect being. He says that God just wills a thing without planning about it; and it comes to pass. In reply we say that both the Bible and facts prove that God has made a plan and is working 

Merariism. 

472 

it out. No sophistries on a purpose as opposed to a plan can stand in the presence of the proof. His sophistry on this matter becomes apparent when we remember that while some purposes are without a plan, others are planned. A plan is an arrangement of various co-operating and interrelated features whereby some object is worked out. If a purpose is such an arrangement it is a plan. If not, it is not a plan. God's purpose with creation is to glorify Himself by bringing into existence a perfect animate and inanimate creation, the former on various planes of being and developed through various more or less interdependent processes. Thus God's purpose of bringing such beings into perfect existence worked itself out along the lines of an intricate interlocking and interdependent arrangement, or plan. Not only so, but it did so in constant use of definite periods and precise years, often days, for the accomplishment of its various features, and a precise period of years for the accomplishment of the whole. These facts prove that God's purpose was a plan and they prove the futility of J.F.R.'s claim that a purpose and a plan are mutually contradictory and exclusive. 

Having just proven by the facts of the case that God has a plan, we now will prove it from Bible passages. In Rom. 8:28 the word purpose evidently means plan; for in this and in the following verses the steps of the plan's development as respects the Church are set forth in reverse chronological order—deliverance, sanctification, justification, instruction. See also 1 Cor. 1:30. That the word purpose in Rom. 9:11 involves the idea of plan is evident from its reference to election as a feature of it. In Eph. 1:4 God's predestinating a class before the foundation of the world proves a plan in which predestination of classes prevails. V. 5 proves this thought further by showing that the predestination was to sonship in Christ. That this was done according to the good pleasure of His will, as v. 6 shows, so 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

473 

as to reflect credit upon Him, further proves a reasoned-out plan made many thousands of years before these predestinated ones came into existence. The fact that it is called in v. 9 the revealed mystery, the secret, of His will, purposed in Christ, further proves it a part of a plan. And the fact that the chosen ones were predestinated according to the purpose of God, who works out all things [of that purpose] according to the counsel [plan] of His will, proves that God's purpose is a plan and that He, therefore, has a plan. So completely equivalent in meaning to the word plan is the word purpose in Eph. 3:11 that the Diaglott renders it by the word plan; and the fact that its various features must run through a number of ages - the plan of the Ages—each one accomplishing a different feature of God's purpose, demonstrates that the word purpose here means plan. The additional fact that it expresses the manifold wisdom, reasoned Truth, of God proves that it is a plan. His having prearranged this purpose proves it to be a plan. Furthermore, 2 Tim. 1:9 proves that this purpose was prearranged before ages-lasting times began, which also proves it to be a plan, as well as a purpose. 

That God's disposition is one that plans is apparent from the terms of the anointing in Is. 11:2, e.g., "counsel." God's eternal plan is expressly referred to in Ps. 33:11 and Is. 46:10, 11. Other passages prove under the word counsel that God has a plan. We submit a few of these: Speaking of the Great Company the Lord says in Ps. 107:11: "They contemned the counsel of the Most High." Jesus as Ransomer is set forth as the center of God's plan, and that as a matter of foreknowledge, in Acts 2:23: "Who was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." With this agrees Acts 4:28: "To do whatever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done." When St. Paul said that he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God he referred to his 

Merariism. 

474 

explaining every general feature of God's plan (Acts 20:27). The immutability of that plan is set forth in Heb. 6:17. Accordingly, both facts and the Bible teach that God plans matters and has a plan. Hence that is error and blasphemy that denies that it is in harmony with His perfection for Him to make plans. Hence the drunken folly in right-eye darkening just considered. 

Another form of drunken folly in right-eye darkening is found in Z '30, 102, pars. 21-25, where J.F.R. denies that Ps. 8:4-6 applies to Adam, and to the race in Adam. He denies that all things were subject to Adam, despite God's statement in Gen. 1:26, 28 to the contrary, and that he was crowned with glory and honor, though with one hand he restrictively offers such a thought, but withdraws it with the other. He applies the passage exclusively to our Lord in His glorified condition. But the Apostle Paul in Heb. 2:6-8 does apply that passage to Adam, and the race in him. At the time that St. Paul quoted these words Jesus was crowned with the kind of glory and honor that J.F.R. says the Bible ascribes to Christ in His exaltation; for such had been His ever since His resurrection and more particularly since His ascension (Matt. 28:18; Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:9-11). But the last part of Heb. 2:8 says that the one of whom it treats was not at that time over all things, though vs. 6-8 show that he had been over all things, i.e., on earth. Furthermore, that kind of a glory and honor that J.F.R. denies to Adam v. 9 says Christ had while "a little lower than angels" in order to die as man's ransom. Hence it was the glory and honor of perfect humanity—the image (glory) and likeness (rulership, i.e., honor) of God in the human Jesus and in the unfallen Adam. The ransom argument in v. 9 proves unfallen Adam, and the race in him to be meant in vs. 6-8. The connection between vs. 6-8 and v. 9 also proves this thought. That the expression, "son of man" (which he insists proves Jesus to be

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

475 

meant in Ps. 8:4-6), in addition to being a title of Jesus (usually occurring in the Greek as the son of the man) is also in the Bible applied to others, and when so used means man generally or also a human being, is evident from Num. 23:19; Job 25:6; Ps. 144:3, 4; 146:3; Is. 51:12; Jer. 49:18, 33; 51:43; Dan. 8:17. Perhaps a hundred times is this expression addressed to Ezekiel, who was neither our Lord nor a type of our Lord. Neither was Daniel (8:17) either of such. Hence the thought under review is drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In Z '30, 134, par. 22, another illustration of the same quality is found: for he there says that the Amalekites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were not sentenced to death, and disconnects their punishments in every sense from such a sentence. That they were under sentence to death through Adam is directly taught in Rom. 5:12, 16-19; Eph. 2:3 and indirectly taught in Rom. 5:13-15; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22. It is true that special sins brought an accelerated and emphatic death upon them; but even if they had not been guilty of such special sins, they all as individuals would shortly afterwards have died as a result of inheriting the death sentence from Adam. The drunken folly in right-eye darkening just pointed out is in violent contradiction of two of the seven main features of God's plan: man's fall and sentence in Adam and the Ransom. 

In Z '30, 147-153, is an article that denies that the permission of evil is educational or beneficial for either the world or the Church. In this article he is attacking the Scriptural doctrine as to why God has permitted evil for the world and the Church. With the sophistry of the proverbial lawyer misrepresenting matters to a jury, he misrepresents the Biblical view of when the experience with evil works good for the world and then proceeds to refute this misrepresentation,

Merariism. 

476 

i.e., he sets up a man of straw and then kicks it over. He puts it like this: Evil has never done the world any good; for the world in spite of its sufferings is going on from bad to worse and is now worse than it ever was. We agree that evil men wax worse and worse. But our Pastor in giving the Bible teaching on the educational effect of evil on mankind never said that the effect is experienced while the race is undergoing the experience with evil, but that this effect will be produced during the experience with righteousness, when the race after the experience with evil is over will amid the blessedness of the experience with righteousness, by the contrasted comparison between the two experiences, learn to hate and avoid sin and to love and practice righteousness. 

All students of the chapter on the Permission of Evil in Vol. I know that this was our Pastor's thought. And this thought he illustrated by the proverb, "The burnt child dreads the fire." It is during the healing process, after a number of burnings are over, that the child learns to dread the fire, as he considers the pains and injuries that were caused by it. So, too, this is the way the Bible sets forth the subject, as shown above, among other things, by our comments on Ps. 90:11-17, as the clearest Scripture that teaches our Pastor's thought given above as to why God permits evil for the world. We refer our readers to that discussion, and more especially to the Studies, Vol. I, Chapter 7, where the thought is given and proven as above set forth. But he makes matters worse by denying that the permission of evil has done the Church any good. On this point every faithful child of God will from his own experience contradict him; for he has had experiences with troubles and sufferings from which through a faithful use of the Spirit and Word of God he has been enabled to put aside faults and develop good traits. 

The Bible emphatically teaches this thought. Jesus, 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

477 

the sinless One, was by suffering perfected in obedience (Heb. 5:8, 9), in mercy and faithfulness (Heb. 2:17, 18) and in every other point of character (Heb. 2:10). The Bible expressly says that tribulation works (develops in the saints) patience, the final overcoming quality (Rom. 5:3). Referring more especially to the afflictions of the saints, though other experiences are also included, St. Paul says that all things work together for good to those that love God, which good he particularizes as Christ-likeness (Rom. 8:28, 29), at which J.F.R. repeatedly casts slurs in some of the articles that will be reviewed in this chapter. St. Paul expressly says that by the perishing of our outward man through afflictions the inner man is renewed daily, and that these afflictions work out a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory [crystallized character] while we look at things spiritual (2 Cor. 4:16-18). In a wonderful discussion of the disciplines that God gives His new-creaturely sons, St. Paul shows that they enable us to develop holiness and the fruit of righteousness and help to correct faults (Heb. 12:10-13). St. James tells us that our trials of faith, including, among other things, afflictions, sufferings, troubles, work such a patience as will effect our perfection of character (Jas. 1:2-4). St. Peter tells us that these fiery trials, like the goldsmith's fire, which burns the dross out of the ore, refine our character into the glory of the Divine image, as they also result in praise given to God and the honor of rulership coming to us (1 Pet. 1:7). He also says that afflictions for Christ make the Spirit of glory [the Divine image] and of God abound in us (1 Pet. 4:14). That afflictions lead the consecrated to reformation, and are therefore sent by God in His faithfulness to them, is also taught in Ps. 119:67, 71, 75; Is. 26:16; Rev. 3:17. The examples of Jacob, Joseph, his ten brothers, Job, David, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Peter, etc., etc., prove their cleansing and upbuilding effect on the 

Merariism. 

478 

righteous. The history of Manasseh and the story of the prodigal son are illustrations of how in this life some of God's wayward people are by affliction helped to reformation. No amount of drunken and right-eye darkened folly can sophistrize out of these passages and facts the thought of the beneficial ministry of affliction to saints and reformable backsliders. These Scriptures on the design of the experience with evil for the world and the Church prove this, another teaching of J.F.R., to be drunken folly of right-eye darkening. 

Another piece of drunken folly in right-eye darkening is found in Z '30, 163, par. 7 to 165, par. 21. Here he sets forth the thought that the angels were not the symbolic stars—teachers—in the dispensation before the flood; but were such during the Jewish Age. We will first show the sophistry of his argument on this point, then will refute his position. The sophistry is this: he confounds the ministries of the angels, who transmitted revelations of God's plan, with interpretative teachings on that plan. It is one thing to minister an original Divinely-inspired revelation of one or more features of God's plan. It is entirely a different thing as the symbolic heavens to interpret, or affect to interpret to the people of a symbolic earth various features of that plan. The passages that he quotes on the activities of the angels during the Jewish Age in being messengers from God with respect to Truth matters refer only to their ministering Divinely-inspired revelations as parts of God's plan and embodied as such in the Bible. They do not refer to their interpreting as symbolic stars those revelations to the people in the symbolic earth; for not understanding them as a rule (1 Pet. 1:12), they could not interpret them. Apart from announcing the Ten Commandments to the whole people of Israel, such angelic ministries were limited to individuals like Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Manoah and his wife, Gideon, Joshua, David and the prophets, who, 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

479 

then, as stars enlightened the people (Heb. 1:1). These angels, apart from audibly speaking the Ten Commandments to all Israel, never taught God's people as a whole, which they would have done, had they been the symbolic heavens of the second earth during the Jewish Age. The teachers of Israel were the prophets, priests and Levites, as symbolic stars. This consideration refutes his claim as to the angels being the teachers of God's people during the Jewish Age. 

Again, he teaches drunken folly of right-eye darkening when he by way of contrast says that for the Gospel Age the angels ceased ministering to the people as symbolic stars and others took their place as such stars. The New Testament proves that from 3 B.C. to about 100 A.D. angels were used in ministering parts of the New Testament revelation, as the experiences of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, of Mary, the mother of Jesus, of Joseph, Jesus' foster father, of the shepherds of Bethlehem, of Cornelius, of Peter, of Paul, etc., show. Rev. 1:1 (see also Rev. 22:8, 16) proves that all the visions of Revelation were by Jesus given to John through the inspired revelatory ministry of an angel, whom the literal John twice attempted to worship and was by him rebuked for it (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9). We know that an angel ministered St. Peter's vision in Acts 10 and St. Paul's visions mentioned in 2 Cor. 12, because Jesus from His ascension on to 1874 remained in heaven (Acts 3:21) and used angels as agents to represent Him (Rev. 1:1). For this reason, while the Spirit enabled the Apostles to see into the new Divine revelations communicated to them after Pentecost, the communication of them to their minds was usually by the ministry of angels, just as in the case of the prophets, who not having the Spirit of begettal, as the Apostles had, could not understand them (1 Pet. 1:10-12), as could the Apostles. Without angelic ministrations the Spirit enabled the Apostles to understand the

Merariism. 

480 

Old Testament revelations as due. Thus the ministry of angels, so far as ministering knowledge instructionally is concerned, was identical in both Ages. They did it, except in the one case mentioned (giving the Ten Commandments), only to the human agents who were to transmit it to the people, but apart from that one case they did not do it to the people directly. Not only so, but the same thing was done in a revelatory way in the Patriarchal Age, as appears from the case of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph (Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1; 17:1; 18; 19; 28:12-22; compare with 48:4, 15, 16; 32:24-30). Hence the ministry of angels throughout the second dispensation until 100 A.D., so far as the Word is concerned, was not that of interpretative teachers of it—symbolic stars—but was that of agents ministering it inspirationally as a revelation to a few individuals, who in turn became the symbolic stars of it to the people. And this they were throughout the time that the revelation was given by Divine inspiration, i.e., with the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets and the writers of the New Testament. Apart from this they did no teaching, e.g., the angel told Cornelius where he could get an expounder of the Word, but did not venture to teach it to him (Acts 11:13, 14). 

Briefly we will now refute J.F.R.'s denial that the angels were the first symbolic heavens and had charge of the world before the flood. That angels have been the symbolic heavens—symbolic stars that enlightened the symbolic earth—in some dispensation is evident from the fact that they are Biblically called stars (Job 38:7, Is. 14:13). Above we proved that they have not been the teachers of the people—the stars—of the second symbolic earth. Heb. 2:5 ("Unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come") proves that they will not be the heavens of the third dispensation, which will be the Christ (Dan. 12:3; Mal. 4:2; Matt. 13:43; Rev. 21:1). Hence, having been symbolic stars, the angels must have been the 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

481 

stars of the first symbolic heaven, that before the flood (Gen. 6:2-4). While on this point we desire to say that the reason is false that J.F.R. has given for limiting the morning stars of Job 38:7 to the Logos and Lucifer, i.e., that these two only are meant, and not, as the parallelism shows, all angels are meant. He alleges that there are only two stars that can be morning stars. That this is untrue is apparent from the fact that this year [1931] there have been or will be five different morning stars: "Mercury, January 21-26 and September 22-28; Venus until September 8; Mars until May 27; Jupiter until November 15; Saturn, January 5 to April 13." Hence our discussion on the angels exposes some more drunken folly of right-eye darkening in J.F.R. 

The next item of drunken folly in right-eye darkening he sets forth in Z '30, 179-184, which teaches that the Little Flock in glory are not the angels who come with Christ in His Second Advent, according to Matt. 25:31, but that these angels are the spirit-servant angels, and that, furthermore, such angels, and not the saints in the flesh, are the reapers of Matt. 13:39 and Matt. 24:31, and that their reaping consists of gathering the saints into the temple since 1919 and driving the unsaintly out of the temple. In refutation of his view of the angels of Matt. 25:31, we would reply: (1) the phase of our Lord's Second Advent referred to in this passage is that which comes after the Time of Trouble; for it is only then that He comes and sits on His Mediatorial throne and gathers all nations before Him for restitutional opportunities. (2) Only at that time does He come in His glory, which includes, from the standpoint of the priestly figure, the garments of glory and beauty. These are not put on until after the entire Christ is beyond the vail and the Great Company has left this earth; for these garments are donned only after the blood of the antitypical Goat is applied, since the Christ does not get the prerogatives and 

Merariism. 

482 

powers typed by these garments until after the purchase of the world, when God gives the Christ class the powers of blessing the world typed by those garments. (3) Not those spirit servants of God who are, among others, called angels as distinct from God's spirit sons—saints—are to be with Christ at the phase of the coming set forth in Matt. 25:31 ("all His holy angels with Him"), i.e., associates, joint-heirs, partners, but God's spirit sons are to be such (Rom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:10-12). (4) Long before that phase of Christ's coming referred to in Matt. 25:31 all the saints will (and that before the Epiphany's end) be with Him in glory (Col. 3:4), though His glory will not be received until some time after the last one of these will be joined to Him. (5) Such a coming must be long after Christ came to His temple (Mal. 3:1-3), because Mal. 3:1-3 implies subsequent events that precede the coming of Matt. 25:31. (6) At such a coming there could be no use of the servant angels, since the kingdom work will then be on, in which the spirit servants, so far as we know, have no part. (7) Hence the angels of Matt. 25:31 cannot be the servant angels; but must be the son angels, the glorified saints. Hence the drunken folly of J.F.R.'s right-eye darkening on Matt. 25:31 is manifest. 

To his claims on the servant angels' gathering the saints into the temple as the harvest work, we make the following replies: (1) The saints as such, being God's temple from the beginning of the Age, could not since 1919 as such be gathered into it as parts of it. (2) Being parts of the World's High Priest from the outstart of their sainthood, they at once entered, and throughout the Age under their Head have ministered in the temple (Rev. 8:4). (3) They could not have been gathered into it by the reaping process, seeing that before the reaping they were already parts of the temple and of the World's High Priest and thus were already in the temple. (4) The gathering into the 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

483 

temple has been by consecration and Spirit-begetting, which is not in any sense ministered by the servant angels, but by human servants of the Truth through the Word of God (Acts 11:13, 14; 1 Cor. 4:15; Philemon 10; Jas. 1:18). (5) Not only does no Scripture state that spirit-servant angels led by the Word any one into consecration and Spirit-begettal—the only way of getting into the temple; but the Bible shows this is done by human agents (Acts 11:13-15); nor does any Scripture teach that they ever have brought or will bring anyone into the temple, either as a part of it or as a part of the World's High Priest. (6) Throughout the entire sacrificing time only the Christ is in the temple-tabernacle (Lev. 16:17; Rev. 15:8); in the Greek it reads, no one, not, no man. (7) Since the means of gathering God's people is the Truth, which was the means whereby Jesus, the Apostles, etc., gathered the Jewish Harvest, and which is the great sound (Ps. 89:15; 150:3) of the trumpet (Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thes. 4:16) whereby the elect were gathered out of the nominal church (Matt 24:31), the sickle (Rev. 14:14), must be the Truth (Acts 11:14), which not the spirit-servant angels, but the brethren wield, who, therefore, under Christ, the Chief Reaper, are the reapers, i.e., the angels of Matt. 13:39, 41; 24:31, as fulfilled facts abundantly prove. (8) The only ministry that the Bible asserts of the spirit-servant angels as respects the Church, apart from having acted as means of revelation to certain individuals, is a providential one, not one by means of proclaiming the Word (Matt. 18:10; 28:2; Acts 12:7; Heb. 1:14; Acts 11:13-15). 

(9) In Ps. 90:11, 12, both kinds of angels are meant: the spirit angels help the Faithful by providential services, lest coming into denying the ransom and the Church's share in the sin-offering the feet members dash against the Rock, stumble over the Christ in these two ways; while the human angels— 

Merariism. 

484 

messengers of the Truth—do this through ministering the Word to the Faithful. (10) If it is true that the spirit angels gathered the Church since 1919 into the temple, why is there no Scripture that contains that thought? We repeat it: J.F.R. has never quoted a passage nor a combination of passages that connects Christ's coming to the temple with 1918, let alone a passage or a combination of passages that prove that spirit angels gather those who have already been saints into the temple as the harvest work, much less from 1919 onward. Therefore his thoughts on these heads are gratuitous assumptions, eisegesis, contrary to Scriptures and fulfilled facts, and thus are proven to be more drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In Z '30, 195-201 is an article that explains the fruits of the kingdom to be the kingdom message and denies it to be the fruit of the Spirit. Matt. 21:43 is used as the text allegedly teaching this drunken folly of right-eye darkening. We note that the remark in this text is made by Jesus with reference to the Jewish clergy, who throughout the Jewish Age were required by God through His servants to yield Him fruit, and were blamed for not rendering it even from the days of the prophets to those of Jesus. Against J.F.R.'s folly on this subject we present a number of thoughts: (1) The fruit that God sought from the vineyard keepers during their entire period of tenure, the Jewish Age, could not have been the kingdom message, because such a message did not begin to be due to be given until the days of Jesus (Luke 16:16; Heb. 2:3, 4). (2) Such a fruit did not grow on the vines put in their charge by God; for the kingdom message is not a human but a Divine product; hence it could not have been by God required of them. (3) Such fruit could not grow on the fleshly Israelites, the figurative vines; hence God would not have required them to bear it, nor would He have required it as a product of them from the vineyard keepers. (4) If the 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

485 

kingdom message could be called a fruit, then since God produced it out of His own heart and mind, He must therefore have been the figurative vine that bore it as fruit; hence He would not have required it as the growth of the Israelitish vineyard and at the hands of the vineyard keepers, knowing they bore it not. 

(5) The effort to evade this conclusion by saying that there is a difference between producing and bearing fruit is arrant nonsense, because these words, so far as a vine's activity in fruit development is concerned mean one and the same thing. 

(6) The distinction between the work of the vine, which under favorable care and climatic conditions produces fruit out of itself, and the work that the husbandman does on the vine to stimulate the vine's productiveness, overthrows his confusion on God's producing the alleged fruit of the kingdom and our (the branches) bearing (which he uses in the sense of carrying) this alleged fruit, i.e., carrying the message to others; and it reveals how utterly at sea he is in attempting an explanation of the figure of the vine's branches bearing grapes as illustrative of people carrying another's product—the kingdom's message—to others; for there is no analogy between the illustration and the thing that he gives as the thing to be illustrated. (7) The fruit of the kingdom must be that which Christ and the Church, the Kingdom, produce out of themselves as new creatures, as their productiveness is stimulated by the work on them of God, the true Husbandman of the Vine of John 15:1-8. In the picture the sap corresponds to the Word and Spirit, which cause the grapes of the graces to grow (Gal. 5:22, 23). Hence the fruit of the Spirit is what is meant by the kingdom's fruit and the fruit of the Vine of John 15:1-9, while the fruit of the vineyard of Matt. 21:46 should have been the human graces with their products, good works in Israelites stimulated by the Jewish clergy. Such fruit of the Spirit

Merariism. 

486 

through its figurative grapes, graces, prompts authorized ones to bear the kingdom message to others. 

Unmitigated folly is his teaching that the reapers could not be the faithful brethren, alleging as his reason that this would imply that the Church reaped itself! Of course the Church reaped itself in the sense that some of its members—those figured forth as reapers—reaped others of them—those figured forth by the wheat, as the facts of both Harvests prove ("I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labor," John 4:35-38); just as the Church enlightens itself, i.e., the faithful brethren enlighten one another; just as it builds up itself in every good word and work, i.e., the faithful brethren by the Word help one another to grow in grace; and just as the Church comforts the Church in its fiery trials experienced amid its sacrificing as priests, i.e., the faithful brethren comfort one another in trials amid their priestly sacrifices. 

In Z '30, 213, pars. 19-21 he says that we cannot glorify God by character development, i.e., by cultivating and exercising the graces. To clarify his thought he gives the illustration of a worldly man of noble character as unable to glorify God. What Truth person who understands the matter ever taught that such a person glorifies God? Having above proven that the fruit of the branches in Christ, the Vine, is the fruit of the Spirit, we quote in refutation of his thought Christ's words, "Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit" (John 15:8). Peter glorified the Father by faithfulness, a grace, in the crucifixion death (John 21:19). Unanimity among the brethren, a grace, glorifies God (Rom. 15:5, 6). The brethren glorify God in their spirit—character (1 Cor. 6:20). Gratitude, a grace, glorifies God (2 Cor. 9:12, 13; Acts 4:21; 11:18; Gal. 1:24). God's fulfilling His good pleasure in us—perfecting us in every good work (character development and service, Heb. 13:21), glorifies Jesus (2 Thes. 1:11, 12). We glorify God in

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

487 

all seven things of the Christian life, hence in character development, which is one of these seven things (1 Pet. 4:11, 14), just as sin dishonors God (Rom. 1:21-31). Of course, service rendered out of a good Christian spirit (character), especially out of love (Col. 3:14), glorifies God; for it is one of the seven forms of the Christian life, just as service offered in an unchristian spirit (character) dishonors God (1 Cor. 13:3). The foregoing sufficiently refutes the pertinent drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In this connection we might well answer his slurs at character development, he sarcastically calling it "developing a sweet character" and slandering those who seek to develop character as claiming to be better than others and as doing it from selfish motives, i.e., the attainment of the kingdom, as found in an article in Z '31, 19-25. Bro. Russell and those among the Truth servants who, like him, properly interpreted the Bible on the development of the graces, character development, did not speak of it as "developing a sweet character," as J.F.R. scoffingly calls it a number of times. Perhaps by the word sweet he means amiable. If so, we would say: Amiability is an ingredient of a Christian character, and it is to be exercised, not always, but on all suitable occasions. Under ordinary circumstances and usually God's people are to be amiable, but in dealing with wicked and hypocritical misleaders of God's guileless children, like J.F.R., not amiability, but severity, similar to that which Jesus exercised in Matt. 23 toward the scribes and Pharisees, should mark their feeling, looks and words. We charge him, because of his disparaging and renouncing character development in Christ-likeness, with being largely responsible for the loose and wrong characteristics exercised quite generally by his partisan followers. The degradation of character that he has by his pertinent writings wrought in his partisans, resulting in widespread and numerous disgraceful and immoral 

Merariism. 

488 

acts and scandals in Society circles, is to be laid in part at his door. Any man who writes against character development in Christ-likeness, as he has done, is a self-proven servant of Satan, whom, as such, God's true people should avoid (Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 3:6). Again, any one who disparages and slurs at the study of Tabernacle Shadows, as he has done in several of the articles under review, is a servant and representative of Satan among God's people. What he, therefore, says against character development and Tabernacle Shadows study is only some more drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In Z '30, 227-233; 243-249, he has written an article in which he renounces our Pastor's view of Nebuchadnezzar's dream-image (Dan. 2) and claims that the image represents Satan's organization, that the head of gold represents Satan as head of his organization and that the gold, silver and copper represent the three parts of Satan's invisible organization (supposedly shared in respectively by alleged three orders among the fallen angels) and that the iron legs represent the past great heathen world powers, while the mixture of clay and iron represents Christendom. Against this interpretation we offer the following: (1) It is self-contradictory; for he claims first that the golden head represents Satan in his unfallen and fallen condition, then later he says that the principalities (plural) are the head and are the chief class of Satan's subordinates. Here, then, is a contradiction. (2) Again, he uses Eph. 6:12 (principalities, powers, world-rulers) as proof that there are three orders of fallen spirits, who respectively, as part of Satan's organization, are represented by the gold, silver and copper. But the passage refers to four classes, the fourth being "wicked spirits" (see margin), who evidently correspond to the "lordship" of Eph. 1:21 (see Diaglott). The angels of Rom. 8:38 are a fifth class among the fallen angels and Satan is a sixth (the number of evil and of 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

489 

imperfection) order among the fallen angels; for he is a cherub (Ezek. 28:14). Accordingly, there are not three, but six orders among the fallen angels, and this spoils his application conditioned upon there being only three such classes. (3) Even if we were to admit that there are only three classes in Eph. 6:12, with Satan as the head of gold, there would be three classes for the silver and copper—a contradiction of the theory. (4) The Bible expressly defines the first as Babylon in the words of Daniel addressed to Nebuchadnezzar: "Thou art the head of gold"; for Babylon could be properly addressed in Nebuchadnezzar, because Nebuchadnezzar was Babylon in the sense that Louis XIV called himself France when he said, "I am the State," and in a sense somewhat like that of Bro. Russell's language as the controller of the Society, "I am the Society." (5) The parallel vision of the four beasts in Daniel, the fourth with ten horns, on the basis of fulfilled facts, proves that the metallic man of Dan. 2 contradicts the setting under review; for they are four kingdoms that come out of this earth (Dan. 7:17). 

(6) In Dan. 8 God expressly names the second and third of these beasts, calling them, Medio-Persia and Greece, and speaks of the fourth connectedly with the third, because once it was a part of the third. Hence it was Rome. Unutterably futile is the subterfuge of the article under review, that Medio-Persia (v. 20) was not Cyrus' empire, but a part of Satan's invisible empire of fallen spirits, alleging that the earthly Medio-Persian empire could not be meant, because its king is spoken of as being strong enough to resist Gabriel 21 days (Dan. 10:13). In reply, we point out the fact that the European kings resisted our present Lord in His verbal assaults on them for 40 years before the World War, and for years since they have been resisting His verbal assaults on them preparatory to Armageddon (Rev. 16:14, 16). Certainly if weaker earthly kings could do that for many years to Christ, 

Merariism. 

490 

the more powerful king of Persia could have resisted 21 days the less powerful Gabriel. (7) The claim that Nebuchadnezzar types Satan and Daniel the Societyites since 1919 in Dan. 2 is false, for the reason just given. The literal Daniel interpreted literally to a literal person the figurative dream, showing that the symbolic head represented the literal Nebuchadnezzar as the Babylonian Empire, because he was "the State." So is the rest of the interpretation of the symbols literal, even as the nature of a clear and proper interpretation of a symbolic thing should be and also will be literal. 

(8) The claim that Daniel's remark (Dan. 2:28) on God's making known to the king "what shall be in the latter days" means that the whole dream applies to the extreme end of this Age, is too sweeping; for if but a part of the vision refers to things that belonged to the end of the Age, the language of v. 28 is perfectly applicable to such a thought. And since the parallel visions prove that only part of his vision applies to the end of the Age, his claim falls to the ground. (9) The expression, "after thee shall arise another kingdom" (v. 39), proves that at the time of Daniel's speaking, the other kingdom had not yet arisen, but was to arise in the future (shall), hence could not have been a part of Satan's invisible empire, which had long been in existence. Hence, too, the expression, "after thee," refers to time, and not, as the article claims, to rank. (10) The fact that the image was destroyed at once does not imply that all its parts were then to be universal world powers. All that was necessary to fulfill the symbols is that as kingdoms, regardless of the extent of their power, they would exist at the time of the stone's smiting. The parallel visions show that all would not continue to the end as universal powers, e.g., Persia (8:7). In fact such a thing would involve a contradiction in terms—four universal empires existing at the same time! (11) Dan. 2:38 does not, 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

491 

as the article under review claims, teach that Nebuchadnezzar was given rulership over all beasts and fowls, but over those of them that dwell among the children of men, domestic animals, and this certainly was true, since they were at his order. 

(12) The usual Bible symbolic meaning of gold, silver and copper cannot, as he claims, prevail in either interpretation; for neither Satan nor Babylon was Divine (gold); neither an alleged principality nor power part of Satan's invisible empire, nor the Persian empire, could be truth or faithfulness (silver), nor an alleged world rulership in darkness, nor Greece, could be justified (copper). The progressive degradation in the image's metals represent the progressive degradation in character in the successive world empires, a thing that the Bible teaches and the Pyramid symbolizes in its descending passage. (13) No responsible Truth teacher, much less our Pastor, would teach what the article insinuates, that "Rome was the first world power to employ the iron military rule that bruises the people of the earth," unless the word first were used to mean, not time, but degree. (14) Egypt and Assyria are not in the vision, because they never were the rulers of the whole Biblical world, and because during the time of the vision they were more or less subject successively to the four world powers. The above reasons sufficiently prove his pertinent drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In that same article he sets forth the thought that in Ezek. 1, by contrast, God gives a vision of His organization, the visible part of which he alleges the Society to be! We will say nothing more on this chapter than to state that it elaborates, by a number of details, some generalities of Rev. 4. But the interpretation that he offers is almost the limit of drunken folly in right-eye darkening. We also pass by without further comment his contemptuous patronizing of Bro. Russell as a good, but much mistaken 

Merariism. 

492 

man, than to say that Bro. Russell was one of the wisest and best of saints. The drunken folly in right-eye darkening that holds that our Lord underwent two trials, the one from Jordan to Calvary, and the other from 1914 to 1918 in His supposed war in heaven with Satan requires no comment for its proof. 

In Z '30, 259-264 is an article that reeks with "confusion worse confounded" on the Holy Spirit. He denies that the Holy Spirit is an influence, on the alleged ground that God exercises power, not influence (259, par. 2)! These two terms, as used of the Spirit, are synonyms. His definition of the Holy Spirit as being, "the power of God in operation to accomplish His will," is insufficient in several respects, as will appear from the facts that: (1) the Holy Spirit as power is God's power, regardless of whether it is quiescent or active, and (2) in addition the Holy Spirit is also God's disposition in Himself and in all of His free mortal agents who are in heart harmony with Him. Throughout the article under review he never once refers to this second sense of the word; he always in it uses it in a part of the first sense above set forth. And this fact is the clew to the gross darkness in that article. In par. 9 he makes the statement that it is not revealed, "in just what manner the comforter, helper, Holy Spirit or Spirit of the Truth operates." In the first place, in contradiction of him, the statement must be made that the Holy Spirit as power is not what Jesus means by the Comforter, Helper, Advocate (paracletos). The reason is very manifest: the Spirit as God's power had been operating on the Prophets and others in the Old Testament, and on the Apostles and the Seventy in the pre-anointing (Matt. 10:1; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1; 10:1, 17-20) before Jesus promised the latter the Paraclete as a future gift (John 14:16-18 [their receiving the Paraclete ended their orphanship, which

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

493 

the article says was with the Church until 1918; for Jesus through the Paraclete came to the Apostles and the rest of the Church], 26; 15:26; 16:7). The Holy Spirit as Comforter, Helper or Advocate, means the new-creaturely capacities and disposition of God in us. It was this that Jesus promised in the passages just cited, as the new thing that He would send them—a thing which, apart from Himself, had never before been given to any of God's creatures, though some of them—the good angels—had His Spirit in the sense of His disposition; but in them it was minus the Spirit of begettal to the Divine nature, in which it then was in Jesus and in which He promised, as the Paraclete, it would be in the Church, beginning with the Apostles. 

To say, therefore, that it is not revealed how the Paraclete operates, betrays gross ignorance on the Holy Spirit; for it operates as our new-creaturely mind enlighteningly and as our new-creaturely heart sympathetically in quickening, growth, strengthening, balancing and crystallizing in Christ-likeness, as well as cleansing from all filthiness of flesh and spirit. It does these things by a conscious application to itself of the pertinent parts of God's Word, by a following out of the leadings of its own previously-developed graces and by a sympathetic use of the co-operating providences of God. This is the Spirit of the Truth—the capacities that the Truth begets and the disposition that it develops unto completion in the Faithful, which, when completed, becomes their eternal character (Ps. 22:26). Even the operation of the Spirit in the sense of power, as that acts on our new creatures, we understand; for it is the energy that God put in His Word that empowers our new-creaturely responsive minds to understand the deep things, and that empowers our new-creaturely responsive hearts to exercise themselves in every good word and work. Its method of operation on our new-creaturely

Merariism. 

494 

responsive minds and hearts is illustrated by the electric lamp. The wire corresponds to the Word, the electricity to the Spirit as power, the filament to our new-creaturely minds and hearts, the turning on of the button, or switch, to the will's responsiveness and the resultant light and warmth to enlightenment of the new creatures' minds and the ardor of their hearts in the graces. The same illustration also clarifies the begettal of the Spirit. For J.F.R. to say that it is not revealed how the Spirit as Comforter, Advocate, Helper, operates, is, therefore, another proof of his drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

The next point of drunken folly in right-eye darkening is his claim that Jesus' presence in His temple makes the intercession of the Spirit unnecessary, and makes an end of it. This confusion is due, in part, to his confounding the work of Jesus as our Advocate and the intercession of the Holy Spirit as our Paraclete. This folly will become manifest by several considerations: (1) It is not, as he claims, the Holy Spirit as God's power, but as the new-creaturely disposition, that intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26, 27). (2) It intercedes, not by language, but by its graces, yearnings, sufferings and lacks. These appeal to the ever-watchful Father with mighty influence to give us what we need as new creatures, and He thus supplies it. These graces, yearnings, sufferings and needs, will be with us as long as we are in the flesh, and thus until death will intercede for us with the Father. Hence Jesus' coming into His temple, which He did in 1874, did not stop this intercession of the Spirit. (3) Jesus as our Advocate does a work as to our humanity and as to Divine justice, and that as our Justifier and as the Maintainer of our justification (1 John 2:1, 2); but additionally He also does intercede for our new creatures, but does this in the High-Priestly, not in the Advocate office (Heb. 7:25; 4:14-16; 2:17, 18). Hence Jesus' presence in the

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

495 

temple could not put an end to the Spirit's intercession. These considerations prove J.F.R.'s pertinent teachings to be drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

Pars. 22, 23, 24 teach that the Holy Spirit since Jesus came to the temple is no more the Church's Helper, Advocate and Comforter. We have the following to say in reply: (1) If this were true, then the whole of the Church on earth since 1874 would go into the Second Death, because the Holy Spirit as Advocate, Helper, Comforter, is the new-creaturely disposition and the only way as long as we are in the flesh that it could cease to operate as Advocate, Helper, Comforter, is for it to die—which means that all new creatures on earth subsequent to 1874 would pass into the Second Death. But if the Spirit as Advocate, etc., were God's power, even then it would be a blunder to say that it was removed from the Church, because that would mean that the Church could not since 1874 be perfected; for without the Spirit in this sense, we could neither have it nor the Word as our Sanctifier; for these are among the main instruments of our new-creaturely development (John 17:17; Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; Eph. 1:13, 14; John 14:16). Some of these passages show that the Spirit in both senses remains with us to the end. 

Having already refuted his thought that the spirit-servant angels gather the Harvest and cast out reprobates, it follows that they cannot, as he claims, take the place and office of the Spirit as Advocate, Helper and Comforter in such work. The reason that they cannot minister with the Word to the saints sufficiently to supply their needs is that, as a lower order of beings than the Church as new creatures are now and will be, they cannot sufficiently develop them as new creatures, which they would have to do, if they took the work of the Spirit as theirs, as e.g., a dog could not sufficiently supply the needs of a human. 

Merariism. 

496 

The proof previously given refutes the idea that they, and not the Holy Spirit, are the ones who make clear to the Church the message due since Christ came to the temple. Not one iota of proof has been given for such an unheard-of teaching. The statement in par. 28, that the Holy Spirit has not been the helper of all new creatures, but only of those who, according to its view, have been allegedly called by God out of the mass of new creatures to enter the high calling, is an error; for such an arrangement as he claims—calling some from among the new creatures to become of the high calling—a thought that we refuted above does not exist and he is in ignorance of what the Holy Spirit as Advocate, Helper and Comforter, is; for even the Great Company must have it as such or go into the Second Death. His view therein is, therefore, drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

But why does he so strenuously advocate such a monstrous, preposterous and transparent absurdity as the taking of the Holy Spirit away from the Church? Before answering this question, let us remark that he has merely asserted that the Holy Spirit has been removed from the Church, and has not offered one verse to prove that such an extraordinary, unheard of, unexpectable and deadly thing would ever be done by God or Christ. The reason is this: His new theory on the man of sin requires him to have something else than the Roman emperors' supremacy as civil and religious rulers to remove as the thing hindering the Antichrist from grasping for their supremacy. And this something else that he hit upon to remove out of the way as the hindering thing is the Holy Spirit!!! 

We will now briefly set forth his new view of the man of sin and then by the help of the Holy Spirit, still our Helper, thanks be to God, thoroughly refute it. Our proving some Biblical thing to be disparaging of him usually results in his repudiating in self-defense

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

497 

formerly-held pertinent truths, and in his inventing new views thereon as an evasion of our proofs. This has been his continued practice since 1918, as many facts prove. It will be recalled that in our last review of his drunken right-eye darkening folly we gave several proofs that he is the little pope in Little Babylon and the head of the little Antichrist is the Little Gospel Age. And he met this proof by his usual trick—by repudiation of the formerly held truth, that the papacy is the great Antichrist, and by the assertion of a new error, i.e., that Antichrist could not come before 1918 and that those who left the Society in 1917 and onward have become the Antichrist since 1919 and onward! Thus each sword-thrust into his right eye makes him all the blinder. This "new view" we will now proceed to refute. 

(1) He misstates the matter when he says that certain ones in 1917 (those who faithfully resisted his lawlessness, unholy power-grasping and lording it over God's people) left the Society. They did not leave it. They were driven out of the Society by a series of unrighteous and oppressive acts, world-wide and dishonorable propaganda, mendacious and cruel accusations and persecuting and assassinating tactics, that were just like those by which the papacy drove the saints out of the Catholic Church. (2) The faithful among these have not fallen away from the Truth, while J.F.R. and his hierarchy have from 1917 onward fallen away from the Truth that they learned from Bro. Russell, and that they once believed and preached, just as the real great Antichrist fell away from the Truth that it had learned from the Apostles and had believed and preached. (3) Those who have since been driven out of the Society through the errors and wrongs practiced there and through their disfellowshipment by the Societyites, and who have since ridded themselves of the accumulated errors taught them there, and have come into the 

Merariism. 

498 

Epiphany movement, hold again the Truth that they learned from Bro. Russell and therefore are not such as are fallen away from the Truth, any more than the saints who were driven out of the Catholic Church by the papacy because of their opposition to its errors and wrongs and were therefore excommunicated by the papacy and recovered the Truth as due, are to be counted among those who fell away from the Apostolic Truth. These considerations prove the Epiphany saints not to be of any of the little antichrists of the little Gospel Age, and of course not of the largest of these little antichrists. (4) The Epiphany movement has no organization, is connected with no organization and co-operates with no organization or other movement, therefore cannot be a part of any Antichrist, which, whether in Great or Little Babylon, in each of its forms must be an organization. These considerations prove that the Epiphany saints are in no sense a part of the man of sin, either in Great or Little Babylon, but they do suggest that the faithful of the Epiphany by the persecuting acts of J.F.R. and his subordinate leaders are, on a small scale, having the same kind of experiences as the faithful saints on a large scale had at the hands of the papacy, which would suggest that there is now a Little Gospel Age, in which there is a little Catholic Church, the largest quarter of Little Babylon and controlled by the little papacy, the little man of sin, whose head is J.F.R., and whose spirit is one that persecutes saints. These considerations also clearly indicate what is the little man of sin. 

(5) Against the view that the man of sin, described in 2 Thes. 2:1-8, did not begin to develop until 1917 to 1919, he set forth the thought that the Bible teaches that the man of sin, the great Antichrist, was in process of development in the days of St. Paul and St. John. The alleged fallers-away from the Truth since 1917 must, therefore, be nearly 1900 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

499 

years old, if J.F.R.'s view were true! St. Paul in 2 Thes. 2:7 says, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." As the expressions, "mystery of godliness" and "mystery of God" (1 Tim. 3:16; Col. 1:26, 27; Rev. 10:7), mean primarily Jesus, the Head, and secondly, the Church, His Body; so, as the counterfeit of this Head and Body as the mystery of godliness or of God (anti-Christ = counterfeit Christ), there was in St. Paul's day an embryo mystery of iniquity, a mystery of Satan, as yet without a developed head and body, but which when developed to the birth stage (Rev. 12:4, 5) appeared as a head and body—the pope and his hierarchy. Hence this mystery of iniquity could not be those that were by Little Babylon's pope and hierarchy driven away from their brethren in the Society in 1917 and onward; for evidently these have not lived nearly 1900 years. Moreover, St. John assures us that Antichrist was present as a developing thing in his days (1 John 2:18). "The Antichrist is coming" [Greek present tense; see Diaglott], i.e., Antichrist is on the way. Hence he existed in a developing manner in St. John's days. He further says (1 John 4:3; Diaglott), "This is the [spirit, teaching, doctrine, as vs. 1-3 prove] of the Antichrist, which you heard that it is coming [present tense; is on the way] and now it is in the world already." Certainly, if the teaching of Antichrist was then in the world its teacher, Antichrist, must then have been in the world; for a teaching implies the existence of its teacher. 2 John 7 (Diaglott) proves the same thing: "For many deceivers [false teachers even of St. Paul's day, 'the mystery of iniquity doth already work,' and before] went forth into the world—those who do not confess that Jesus Christ did come in the flesh. This is the Deceiver and the Antichrist." Here St. John teaches that Antichrist existed in his days and also at an earlier time than when he wrote the above 

Merariism. 

500 

words (in embryo, of course). These facts destroy the view here examined. 

(6) With gross deceitfulness J.F.R. holds (Z '30, 275, par. 5, and onward) that 2 Thes. 2:1-12 teaches that Antichrist does not come until after the alleged coming of the Lord to the temple in 1918 and the alleged beginning of the gathering of the saints into the temple, which it claims was in 1919 and onward. St. Paul does not in vs. 1-4 say that Antichrist comes at Christ's Parousia and the gathering of the brethren beyond the vail, which two things are what he means in verse 1 by the pertinent expressions, and not Christ's alleged coming to the temple (Church) in 1918 and from 1919 onward gathering the saints into the temple; for they (1 Pet. 2:5; Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17) were parts of that temple from Pentecost onward and as the Body of the World's High Priest were in that temple from Pentecost on (Rev. 8:4; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Heb. 7:26, 27). The following is the run of thought in 2 Thes. 2:1-4: The Thessalonians had imbibed the error that the time of the Parousia and of the first resurrection had already set in. St. Paul beseeches them not to believe that he taught, discoursed on or wrote any such things. On the contrary, he had taught and still taught that before these two things would set in, two great signs must first be enacted: (1) there must be a falling away from the faith that the Apostles taught and (2) Antichrist must be revealed, come into open public activity, seat himself in God's temple, oppose every contemporaneous civil ruler of the Roman Empire and of the Holy Roman Empire and publicly exercise great power. He argues that since these things must precede the Parousia and the deliverance of the Church, but had not yet set in, the Parousia and the first resurrection could not have set in. But time prophecies, etc., etc., proving that Jesus' Parousia (mistranslated in v. 1 as coming in the A. V.) set 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

501 

in in 1874 and that the sleeping saints arose in 1878, Antichrist must before 1874 not only have appeared, but must have seated himself in God's temple, opposed every civil ruler of the two Roman Empires and openly shown that he was a powerful one, a god, as the Greek of v. 4 shows. Never has J.F.R. cited one passage that connects with 1918 Christ's coming to His temple, which Mal. 3:1, 2 and the parallel dispensations, etc., connect with his Parousia, a thing that set in in 1874. These considerations prove the utter erroneousness of the view that connects the falling away from Apostolic Truth, Antichrist's revelation, his seating himself in God's temple, his opposing (what actually is stated to be) every contemporaneous civil ruler in the Roman Empire and its successor and his exercise of very great power, with 1917 and onward. 

(7) Again, in order to give itself a semblance of plausibility, this view claims that the day of Christ began in 1918. The Scriptures show that the following things occur in the day of Christ, which is synonymous with the expressions, day of God, day of the Lord (but only partially so with the expression, day of Jehovah, which is from 1874 to 1954); the day of judgment, that day, etc. The people of Christendom would cry in the day of the Lord, "peace and safety," which they did from 1874 onward, amid which cries sudden destruction would overtake them, which began in 1914 (1 Thes. 5:2, 3). Christ's Parousia and the first resurrection, which respectively began in 1874 and 1878, set in in the day of Christ (2 Thes. 2:1, 2). Scoffers would scoff at Christ's presence as having set in before the Time of Trouble would come and both the scoffing and the trouble would be in the day of the Lord, which scoffing began approximately in 1876 and continues even yet, and which trouble came in 1914, and both the scoffing and the trouble would be during the thief-like presence of the day of the Lord (2 Pet. 3:4-12;

Merariism. 

502 

1 Thes. 5:2, 3), due to the thief-like presence of the Lord (Rev. 16:15; Luke 12:39). St. Paul and the brethren whom he won for the Lord would be together and rejoice over one another in the day of the Lord, which being together and rejoicing set in in 1878 (2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 2:16; 1 Thes. 2:19). [The word parousia is mistranslated in the last verse as coming and shows that the day of the Christ, when this rejoicing would be, began in 1874.] St. Paul and all others who love Christ's appearing get their crowns in the day of Christ, which proves that it was already here in 1878 (2 Tim. 4:8). The jewels are made up in that day, which making up began with the Harvest in 1874 and with the first resurrection in 1878 (Mal. 3:17). In that day many would boast of great works, which boasting was throughout the Parousia, therefore from 1874 onward (Matt. 7:22). The drinking of the new wine during the day of the kingdom began in 1878 (Matt. 26:29). The brethren were to watch lest that day, which came in 1874, come to them unawares (Luke 21:36). All these things taking place before 1914, and thus before 1918, prove that the day of Christ, the day of the Lord, began quite a long time before 1918. Hence the falling away and the main acts of Antichrist were long before 1917 and onward. 

(8) The Antichrist would work oppositionally to every contemporaneous civil ruler of the Roman Empire and its successor Empire, which, if true, demolishes the view under examination. This is taught in 2 Thes. 2:4: "The opponent and self-exalter above everyone called a god [ruler] or Augustused one."—I. V. The Greek word sebasma, translated worshiped in the A. V., is from the same root as the Greek word sebastos (Acts 25:21, 25), which is the Greek equivalent of the Roman name Augustus, the highest title of the Roman Emperors and later the highest title of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. The expression, "or Augustused," as explanatory of the 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

503 

one "everyone called a god," shows who every ruler would be as to whom the man of sin would work oppositionally and self-exaltingly, i.e., it would be the Emperors of the Roman and the Holy Roman Empires, all of whom bore the title Augustus, at least from the time onward from when the beginning of this oppositional and self-exalting activity set in. But the Holy Roman Empire, the occidental successor of the Roman Empire, went out of existence in 1806, having lasted 1006 years. Shortly before its rise the pope finally oppositionally and self-exaltingly freed himself from every vestige of the authority of the Roman Empire's Emperors. Church and World history proves that the pope waged ever-increasing opposition and self-exaltation (at first secretly) against both sets of Augustuses until he prevailed over them. These rulers having long before 1917 ceased to exist, the particular opposition and self-exaltation referred to in v. 4 could not have been exercised after more than a hundred years before 1917. Hence those who were forced out of Society fellowship from 1917 onward could not be the man of sin; for he must have existed while the Roman Empire and while its occidental successor, the Holy Roman Empire, were in existence, to have opposed them. 

(9) 2 Thes. 2:2, 3 not only teaches that the falling away would precede that part of the day of Christ in which the Parousia and the first resurrection would set in, but also that the revelation of the man of sin, his oppositional and self-exalting course against civil rulers of the Roman Empires, his seating himself in God's temple and his openly demonstrating himself to be a mighty ruler, would all precede that—the first part of the day of Christ; while the article under review puts these four acts of the man of sin after its day of Christ set in—1918. (10) The view of J.F.R. on the hindering thing (the presence and activity of the Spirit as Advocate, Helper and Comforter) that prevented the four activities of the man of sin, set

Merariism. 

504 

forth in 2 Thes. 2:3, 4, and that had to be taken out of the way before these four things could be acted out, is not only a most foolish thing, but it also is an impossible thing—if the new creatures living at the time were as such not to die the Second Death. Such an obvious result of his preposterous, monstrous and impossible thought, his right-eye darkening prevented his seeing at all. We have above sufficiently shown it to be Satanic in origin and character, and will say no more on it. 

(11) As, according to 2 Thes. 2:8, the revelation of the man of sin had to await the removal of the hindering thing, as that hindering thing could not be the Holy Spirit as long as new creatures are on earth, and as the hindering thing was something active ("he that hinders"—present tense) in St. Paul's days that then prevented Antichrist from gaining his coveted prize of supremacy, it must have been something connected with an Augustused person, i.e., the Roman Emperor, which, of course, immediately suggests what the hindering thing was: the Roman Emperor's possession of supremacy, supremacy as civil ruler, Augustus, and supremacy as religious ruler, Pontifex Maximus, which, as long as he could maintain it, would hinder Antichrist from gaining it; and to gain which his opposing and exalting himself against the Augustused ones continued until it, the supremacy of the Augustused ones, was taken out of the way. This destroys the view under consideration. 

(12) 2 Thes. 2:8 shows two processes in the overthrow of the man of sin: (1) his consuming; (2) his annihilation. The first was completed before the second started to operate. The second started to operate with the Parousia, when the bright shining, which will destroy him, began to go forth. Hence the consuming process was at an end by 1874. This consuming process was produced by the influence of the secular and religious Truth ("the spirit of His Mouth"—the teaching of His mouthpieces) that our Lord gave out by 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

505 

secular and religious mouthpieces. It began in its secular aspects in 1295 by truths on earthly matters set forth on the relation of state and church in the controversies between Philip, the Fair, of France, and Pope Boniface VIII. Forward from that time the theories of the papacy on secular powers began to be refuted so thoroughly that its presentations thereon gradually lost power to influence the peoples into secular subjection to the pope, making it possible to strip him bit by bit of such powers. Then starting with Marsiglio's activities, first in 1309 and more particularly in 1324, the Lord by religious reformation-truths set forth by individuals until 1521, and thereafter by religious sects began to consume the religious pretentions of the man of sin, which, receiving its last attack from sects in 1870 by the Old Catholic Church, brought into being by the Vatican Council's papal infallibility decree, was in its doctrines consumed—refuted—this part of the consuming process weakening greatly its religious hold on the world. By 1874 the consuming process had so well advanced that it was ready to be reinforced by the annihilative process. The consuming process having, according to the last clause of v. 8, preceded the Parousia, the view under examination cannot be true. 

(13) The annihilative process set in with the Parousia by a bright shining that is arousing such opposition in the masses as will result in Antichrist's complete destruction in the fast-approaching Armageddon. But this bright shining having begun in 1874, the theory under review cannot be true. We (Chap. I of Vol. IV) proved that the word parousia—presence—applies to three periods: (1) the reaping time of the Harvest—1874 to 1914 (Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39); (2) the entire Harvest—1874 to 1954 (1 Cor. 11:26; 1 Thes. 4:15; 2 Pet. 2:4); and (3) the entire 1,000 years of the Second Advent (1 Cor. 15:23); and since we are past the reaping period, and the man of sin is not yet destroyed, the word parousia— 

Merariism. 

506 

presence—in vs. 8 and 9 evidently is used in the second sense of the word. 

(14) J.F.R. perverts the meaning of the expression, "whose coming [parousia—presence]," with which 2 Thes. 2:9 begins, by applying it to Antichrist's presence, while it is a direct reference to the expression, "His parousia," at the end of v. 8, with which it directly connects itself by the relative pronoun, "whose," as the order of the Greek words shows: "by the bright shining of the presence of Him whose presence is during an energy of Satan." The claim of the article on this point is that its Antichrist's presence—from 1919 onward—is by v. 9 shown to be characterized by special Satanic activities along deceitful lines, while the passage teaches that our Lord's Parousia in the second sense of the word (1874-1954) would be accompanied by Satanic deceptions of the most delusive kind. While there were doubtless Satanic deceptions accompanying the heyday of the real man of sin—the dark ages—these were as child's play in comparison with the deceptions that Satan has been working from 1835, when modern higher criticism started, until the present and will continue to work until he is put into the bottomless pit after Jacob's trouble, 1956. It is wholly within this period, 1835-1956, that the Harvest—the presence of 2 Thes. 2:8, 9—in its wide sense, 1874-1954, finds itself. It is throughout this period of 121 years that the darkening of the symbolic sun and moon occurs (Matt. 24:29). Acts 2:20 and Matt. 24:29 show that this darkening would set in before the Parousia—1874. It began through the publishing of three of the most influential of all earlier higher critical books, all in 1835: (1) Vatke's Old Testament Theology; (2) Bauer's Pastoral Epistles; and (3) Strauss' Life of Jesus. The period of our Lord's Parousia in the second sense of the word, according to 2 Thes. 2:9, was to be during this period of Satan's grossest deceptive activity. The period from 1874 to 1954 would 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

507 

be characterized by the climax of this deceptive period. This is evident when we note the gross deceptions of the six harvest siftings toward the consecrated, the justified and the world, as set forth in Ezek. 9 by the six men with the slaughter weapons slaying in the temple, courts and city. The following is the proper translation of 2 Thes. 2:9, 10: "whose [Christ's] presence is during [see Thayer's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament on the word kata with the accusative case, page 327, col. 2, under subdivision 2, line 10 from the bottom] an energy of Satan by all power and signs and wonders of falsehood and every deception of iniquity for those perishing, because they received not the love of the Truth unto their being saved." Our Pastor's thought, expressed as follows: "whose [Christ's] presence is [accompanied] with an energy of Satan, etc.," is therefore correct, even if it is not a literal translation. 

(15) The connection between v. 8 and vs. 9-12 proves that here is a description of the Satanic delusions operating during the Harvest through the six harvest siftings, and resulting in the manifestation of each consecrated one in his true colors. Thus seen, vs. 9-12 do not refer at all to the man of sin as such nor to the conditions prevailing during his heyday. This again proves J.F.R.'s use of vs. 9-12 as descriptive of the man of sin, as being those who were driven away from the Society from 1917 onward, to be error; and our 15 points against his man of sin prove it to be drunken folly in right-eye darkening. Brother Russell's view of the Great Antichrist of the Gospel Age is, by these 15 points against J.F.R.'s effort to set it aside in the interests of his new view, thus proven to be proof against this foolish assault. We have not especially offered constructive arguments in its support, since his exposition of it is thoroughly satisfactory to those whose faith is incorrupt. We have contented ourselves with disproving the new view. And what shall we say of J.F.R.'s charges

Merariism. 

508 

against the Faithful, wherein he calls them, the man of sin, the Judas class, that evil servant, the foolish, unprofitable shepherd, the slanderer of his own mother's son, etc., with many reviling terms accompanying his falsely calling them these names? Remembering that the article under review appeared in the Sept. 15, 1930 Tower—a month and a half after the beginning of the third hour of the Friday of the Large Eight Wonderful Days—the time when the large Jesus and the large two thieves were nailed to the cross, and that J.F.R. is the leader of those represented by the impenitent thief, we recognize in these revilings the antitype of the impenitent thief's reviling our Lord. We have given many proofs of his being, as the little pope in Little Babylon, the head of the little man of sin in Little Babylon's Roman Catholic Church and of his being the chief leader of the Judas class among the Truth people, who in 1917 for the antitypical 30 pieces of silver—power and authority in the Church—sold his brethren into tribulation, even as we have already clearly proven him to be that evil servant, the foolish, unprofitable shepherd and the chief Jambresite among Truth apostates. 

We know nothing of, nor, apart from his charges, have we ever heard of the Society dissidents getting together to destroy the Society's work. We believe that this is a false charge, a stop-thief cry, due (1) to his trying to frighten his followers to remain loyal to him and turn a deaf ear to the cogent proofs against his revolutionary teachings and methods and (2) to his trying to explain on other than the real grounds why (actually as a part of the large impenitent thief) he and certain of his partisans are undergoing symbolic crucifixion—being widely and publicly set forth as evil-doers by civil officers. In the case of the larger thieves this crucifixion is thoroughly deserved, whereas the Faithful undeservedly undergo it, as the large penitent thief will [written in Feb., 1931] ere long acknowledge. We and the movement with which 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

509 

we are connected never have opposed the Societyites' real mission—its privilege to reprove the world for sin, for righteousness and for judgment to come, the kingdom testimony. We believe that they got this as their special service in 1917 at the time the mantle went over from antitypical Elijah to antitypical Elisha. In so far as they do this work we pray for them in that work. 

We have never before the public criticized the many false teachings with which J.F.R. has more or less vitiated that work, our purpose for such a course being our desire not in the least to injure with the public the influence of the Society friends in their ministry to the public. Our criticisms of the errors and wrong methods of the Society, especially of its leader, have been confined to Truth people, and that, apart from our subscribers, almost entirely to the Society adherents themselves. Our policy is to restrict, apart from our subscribers, to Society adherents as far as we can our views that treat of Society matters, just as we do not send our criticisms of P.B.I. conditions among the Society friends, the only exceptions to this course being when the same views criticize matters among both of these groups, e.g., this book will not be sent to our list of P.B.I. addresses, nor did we send, e.g., our refutations of the P.B.I. chronological errors to the Society friends. We criticize the wrongs of each group to its face, not behind its back. The above is, and will remain our practice. Hence the falsity of the charge, under review, so far as we are concerned. In no sense have we ever betrayed any brethren. Our defense of the Truth and Truth arrangements against Levitical revolutionism instead of being a Judas act, is an act of real brotherly service to the Lord's real people, and in due time it will be recognized as such by all of them. Such defense of the Truth and its arrangements against their attackers is a real witness for Jehovah's Name, while J.F.R.'s errors are aspersions on that Name. In due time all real members of

Merariism. 

510 

antitypical Elisha will recognize both of these facts. J.F.R.'s ranting in so many issues, following that on the man of sin, against his fictitious Judas, man of sin, evil servant, etc., as trying to destroy the Society and its work, is setting up a scarecrow to frighten his followers away from those who can help them see into his selfish and erroneous designs hid by the mask of pretended zeal for God. 

In Z '30, 307-313, he treats of the vineyard of Is. 27:2, applying it to the Society. The connection (vs. 1, 3-6) shows that it refers to the Millennium and afterwards, when according to v. 1 Satan is to be destroyed, who, by the way, he says will be dead during the 1,000 years, thus interpreting the bottomless pit as hades, a thought that Bro. Russell once held, but later gave up, coming to see that it represented error, which, having no foundation, is a symbolic bottomless pit. The uses of this expression in Rev. 9:1, 2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1, 3, prove that it means error, just as the key to it is Truth as its opener, exposer. The symbolism of Satan's being there during the thousand years means that he will be mentally confined within the realm of error, unenlightened by the Truth during that time. This fact implies that physically he will be far absent from the earth, ignorant of what will go on here. The erroneousness of the interpretation of the vineyard, etc. (Is. 5:1-7), in Z '30, 308-310, applying it to the period from 1878 onward, is certainly disproved by the definition given it in v. 7, as well as by Jesus' allusion to it in Matt. 21:33-46, as applying primarily to natural Israel. The following will enable one to see through the erroneousness of his applying almost everything good (especially things pertinent to Israel) in type, parable and prophecy, to the time of his movement after 1918, and almost everything therein degenerating from good to bad, from 1878 to 1918: Keeping in mind the parallel dispensations and their Harvests, these symbolic Scriptures have a first application to fleshly Israel, real and

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

511 

nominal, then to spiritual Israel, real and nominal, as the discourse would suggest, with the climaxes coming to each of these Israels in its pertinent Harvest. How do we know that usually this is the key to such Scriptures? (1) Facts, (2) chronology, (3) the focusing of God's plan about these two Israels, (4) the fulfillments, and (5) the parallels throughout, prove it. It was by this key that that Servant so harmoniously, reasonably, factually and Scripturally opened these types, parables and prophecies. Then because the Gospel Age is being enacted on a small scale these passages have a pertinent tertiary application to the pertinent classes of this small Gospel Age. These considerations destroy his view of Is. 5:1-7, showing it to be drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In Z '30, 323-329, he discusses the prize and denies that the Scriptures teach that perfect [untested] love is the mark, but says that the mark is the line or course of giving the kingdom witness. The Greek word skopos translated mark in Phil. 3:14 in the A. V. and the Diaglott (see word for word translation), but incorrectly rendered line in the latter's emphasized translation, has two meanings: (1) a watchman, and (2) "a distant mark looked at, the goal or end one runs to or shoots at," it being derived from a root meaning, to spy, to peer, to look into the distance. See Thayer, 579, col. 2, par. 3; Young, 646, top line of col. 1; Strong's Greek Dictionary, 4649. It never means line or course, as the article under review claims. Hence running for the mark does not mean pressing on in the course of kingdom witnessing, as the article claims, while rejecting the thought that it is perfect [untested] love. The word occurs only once in the New Testament (Phil. 3:14). The Septuagint uses the Greek word twice (Job 16:12, compare v. 13; Lam. 3:12, compare v. 13). In both cases it means a mark to shoot at. It, therefore, means mark in the sense of a goal run to, or a target shot at. The former evidently is its meaning in Phil. 3:14, since it 

Merariism. 

512 

there cannot mean a watchman or target. It is true that the Scriptures nowhere say that it means perfect [untested] love, just as they seldom define any word, much less a word occurring in the original only once. What it means must, therefore, be gathered from what the Bible teaches to be the attainment for which the saints run. Of such an attainment the Bible certainly teaches love to be the crowning or chief thing, which of course is supported by other things. Love being the law of the New Creature proves it to be the supreme thing for their attainment. The following passages prove this: 1 Cor. 13:1-3, 13; Col. 3:14; 1 Tim. 1:5; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2 Pet. 1:5-8, 10, 11; Matt. 6:33 (God's righteousness being His love working in harmony with His wisdom, justice and power). These passages show that the two main objects of the Christian life are the attainment of love and the kingdom, the latter through attaining the former. Hence the mark of Phil. 3:14 is love, its prize being the kingdom. Certainly God's people are to spread His Word in harmony with the mission that their class standing before the Lord shows them to have, the Little Flock spreading and defending truths pertinent to the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies especially, the Great Company and Youthful Worthies spreading and defending truths for the world, pertinent to sin, righteousness and the coming Kingdom. But such witnessing, though highly important and necessary, is subordinate to character development, which reaches its climax in love. It is while speaking against the mark as perfect [untested] love that J.F.R. continues his railing, begun in previous articles, at character development, in ridicule designating it as, "developing a sweet character." His disparaging it in the interests of "witnessing" is contrary to 1 Cor. 13:1-3. Of course his view is drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In Z '30, 339-345 is an article which uses Is. 66:5 as a text. This text addresses the Faithful throughout 

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

513 

the Age and especially since 1874 onward, as those whose brethren hated and cast them out, thinking that they thereby did God a service (John 16:2), and as those who would be exalted in due time, and their excommunicators and prosecutors as those who would be put to shame. With the grossest disregard of his world-wide driving out of Society circles those who have since 1917 disapproved his revolutionisms and those of his partisan supporters against the Truth and its arrangements, and of his world-wide campaign whose slogan was "avoid them," whom he grossly misrepresented in a stop-thief campaign world-wide in extent, just as the pope did with the saints as alleged heretics, he claims for him and his the gracious assurances of the text and for his excommunicates its disapproval! Is. 66:5 is an accurate description of the faithful brethren who were disfellowshipped, "cast out," by all whom J.F.R. could influence so to do, because they protested against his unholy power-grasping, lording it over God's heritage, corrupting God's Truth and introducing revolutionary arrangements for God's work among God's people in a series of lawless and arbitrary acts that were never in the domain of nominal churchianity outdone, except by the papacy. He whose years-long course of casting out the brethren is so greatly condemned by Is. 66:5 has the unblushing effrontery to quote this passage as approving him and condemning the faithful brethren who opposed his errors and wrong official practices. In all this he imitates his prototype, the pope of Great Babylon. This turning of things upside down must have made Satan himself, figuratively speaking, hold his sides to keep them from bursting from uncontrollable laughter at this daring stroke of his chief representative among the Truth people, and made him, as soon as under self-control, pat him on the back with a fiendish "attaboy!" Of course, after such a beginning, as may be expected, the article literally reeks with railings at, false

Merariism. 

514 

accusations of, and warnings against the alleged diabolical machinations of those whom he designates as plotting against "God's visible organization," whom he alleges to be the man of sin, that evil servant, etc. The mere statement of the above facts is enough to refute his claim on this point for those who know the events among God's people since 1917. They, of course, will recognize his pertinent claims as the stop-thief cry of drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In Z '30, 373, par. 19, he states that Armageddon will be immediately followed by the establishment of God's kingdom. According to Rev. 16:14, 16, Armageddon is the battle between the defenders of Satan's empire as now organized on earth and the Lord's great army, more fully described in Joel 2:1-11; Rev. 19:11-21. Accordingly, this battle is the symbolic earthquake of 1 Kings 19:11, 12 and Rev. 16:18-20, which will destroy Satan's empire as now constituted. After this earthquake, Armageddon, comes the fire of 1 Kings 19:12, which in turn will be followed by Jacob's trouble. There will be a hectic cessation of pangs between the earthquake and the fire, just as there has been such between the wind and the earthquake. So, too, will there be a short pause, long enough for the last of the anarchists to assemble and go to Palestine, between the fire and Jacob's trouble. All of which proves that the thought under consideration is another piece of drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

In Z '31, 35-41 is an article on the temple with Hag. 1:14 as text. As usual the good features set forth in the text are applied to J.F.R's. movement with the customary exhortation to service and slurs at character development. The principle that we set forth while discussing his perversions on the vineyards of Is. 26:2; 5:1-7 will enable us to see through the misuse of the history of the building of the second temple as a type of an alleged temple building intermitted in construction from 1914 to 1919 by lack

Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening. 

515 

of zeal and renewed from 1919 onward. Hag. 1:14 in harmony with the above-mentioned principle applies primarily to the Israelites mentioned in that verse. Then it has a typical application to Spiritual Israelites' rebuilding the real temple desolated by symbolic Babylonians in the great apostacy and reign of Antichrist. The parallel dispensation and the Pyramid locate the exact time of the stages of this building as well as the antitypes of Zerubbabel, Joshua and the Israelites. The second temple was begun 537 B.C. Then the work thereon stopped for 15 years. Its building was renewed in 522 B.C. and it was completed in 518 B.C. 1845 years after Oct., 537 B.C., bring us to Oct., 1309, when antitypical Zerubbabel (Marsiglio), Joshua (William Occam) and Israel (the faithful co-operating Spiritual Israelites) began the foundation work of raising God's real temple from the ruins into which it was plunged by symbolic Babylon. As in the type, the work was interrupted for 15 years. It was renewed in 1324 by the writing and spread of Marsiglio's famous book, The Defender of the Peace, which to this day is the standard work against the papacy's claims to power in church and state. Marsiglio, assisted by Occam, John of Jandun, etc., and supported by Emperor Louis, the Bavarian, succeeded by 1328 in making the temple class a continuing active agency for the Lord thenceforth to the present. This is the antitype as proven by the parallel dispensations, the facts and the Pyramid. We have had the small antitype during the Miniature Gospel Age. It is of course proper to make practical applications of the typical history just considered to any time of building on the antitypical temple; but they are to be viewed as practical applications and illustrations, not as the antitypes, as all sorts of twists in the attempt, made to set forth such as antitypes and not as lessons and illustrations in the article, prove that it is drunken folly in right-eye darkening. 

‍