SOME OTHER P. B. I. TEACHINGS EXAMINED. THE DAWN'S CALLED, CHOSEN AND FAITHFUL EXAMINED. "ANCIENT ISRAEL'S JUBILEE YEAR" EXAMINED. 

‍

SOME of our readers, especially the more recent ones, have asked us what we mean by the letters P.B.I. We answer: they are the title initials of a religio-business corporation called the Pastoral Bible Institute of Brooklyn, N.Y., formed by some of those whom "the Present Management" has been pleased to call "the opposition," i.e., that part of "the opposition" that has ceased opposing the revolutionism of the Present Management. Doubtless one reason why the P.B.I. has ceased opposing the revolutionism of the Present Management is because by its making its charter differ from the Divine sample for such charters, it became more revolutionistic, so far as rebelling against the charter of the W.T.B. & T.S. is concerned, than the Present Management. 

We have in six publications, i.e., "Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed" and in the first five numbers of The Present Truth (see Chap. III), given a rather thorough examination of the History, Purposes and Charter of the P.B.I., as well as reviewed some of its teachings. At first, especially through F.H. Magee, the P.B.I. gave to some of our views published answers, which we refuted. Later, when starting the Herald, they announced as their policy the keeping of the controversy out of the Herald, which they did in the following way: they avoided mentioning our name; but from time to time put into the Herald, as well as into discourses at conventions and in local ecclesias misleading remarks of their own, and misapplied quotations 

Gershonism. 

270 

from our Pastor as if they were against our views, and slurs against "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations" and against "self-appointed leaders" seeking to control the Church; and then in conversations and letters pointed us out as the main "self appointed leader" and purveyor of their misrepresentations of our views, and of "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations" whom they meant! Hence, their readers knew that they meant us by their misleading remarks, misapplied quotations and slurs. Some of these letters written by I.F. Hoskins and H.C. Rockwell are now in our possession and will be published, if needs be. So while ostensibly posing as peace lovers and keepers, and publishing in their supporters' letters praise of themselves for their meekness in not replying to our criticisms, which they cannot refute, they keep right on with the same remarks and misrepresentations, and the same slurs and underhanded methods which I.F. Hoskins and I.L. Margeson, through a "whispering campaign," used against us in 1918, while we were yet a member of the Fort Pitt Committee. Our Pastor treated religious differences otherwise. He would not only mention and refute teachings which he thought required his doing it; but also, if necessity required, he mentioned the names of the guilty ones, specifying their wrong official acts and teachings; but never mentioned the wrongs of their private lives; for to personalities he would not stoop. In this we have imitated his course; for we have not publicly criticized the private wrongs of our brethren, and that, not because we are ignorant of such acts, for we are not, but because such a course would be out of, harmony with Justice and Love, unless such wrongs would have to be told to prevent injury to others (Manna, July 14). Our criticisms have been aimed at official wrong-doings and teachings which have been injurious to the Lord's dear Flock. In this we have imitated our Faithful Chief Shepherd and His Faithful Apostles and 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

271 

Prophets, including our beloved Pastor. We are satisfied that our course, whose unavoidable imperfections are under the Robe, is Divinely approved, as responding to the Epiphany purposes of our Lord. Hence we have followed, and, please God, will follow it. 

Our April, 1919, issue was the last one in which we especially gave attention to P.B.I. affairs [written Mar., 1920]. Since that time we have in our magazine, apart from a few brief references, been silent on their teachings and practices; but during that time we have been an interested, though quiet, observer of these; and, of course, knew when and how they were "tactfully" attacking us. Very recently, some of their letters came into our hands, in one of which, written by H.C. Rockwell, we are mentioned by name and condemned as a false teacher, etc., our understanding of the non-apostolic General Elders, i.e., the "Secondarily Prophets," and our course of announcing as members of the Great Company those whom the Lord manifests as such, and of explaining the sets and groups of the Levites coming in for special condemnation. Furthermore, the Herald of late is making special efforts to justify the use of corporations as proper instruments for a general ministry for and toward the Church, which is Christ's body. Moreover, in its series of articles, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," its course of giving many wrong interpretations, not a few of which it accepts from "foolish Virgins," as true explanations makes further silence on our part impossible, if we would be true to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren. Hence we have decided to examine some of their main erroneous teachings, coming out since Mar., 1919 [up to Mar., 1920]. Like the bulk of the rest of the Levite movements, the P.B.I. attacks us on our announcing manifested Levites as such, as if we were engaged in forbidden judging. We have refuted this objection in Vol. V, Chap. II, to which we refer our readers. 

Gershonism. 

272 

The P.B.I. editors answered our objection that an external organization, corporation, managing her general work inserted into the Church is a Little Antichrist in the temple of God (2 Thes. 2:4) as follows: For the sake of good order (1 Cor. 14:40), and to prevent a "self-appointed individual" (especially ourself!) from lording it over the Church, it is necessary to have a corporation in the Church to manage a general service to and for the Church through a periodical, pilgrim and convention service, and to select and publish literature for the edification of, and for distribution by the Church. Similar claims are made for and by the two Great Antichrists, the Papacy and the Federation! We quote the following passage (H '20, 348, near bottom of col. 1), which in its connection sets forth the thought that all the Lord's people, or part of them collectively, may make use of a business corporation such as theirs is to conduct a general ministry in their name, just as the Lord's people may use the corporational inventions, like railroads, etc., of our day for their convenience. "The matter of a corporation is one of those which the Lord's people may make use of just the same [italics ours] as they may make use of a railroad train, although St. Paul journeyed hundreds of miles by foot" and, we may add, he also used horses and ships, when convenient, and advised others to do so; but never himself used, nor advised others to use business corporations, which as such existed in his day, to manage the general work of the Church! Do these editors actually mean to insult the intelligence of the Church by telling them that there is the same principle involved in using corporationally controlled conveniences and in a few or many brethren appointing a Board to manage a general ministry to and for the Church which is Christ's Body, involving appointments for the general teaching office in pilgrim, periodical and convention work, and in managing the literature for the edification of, and for distribution 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

273 

by the Church? One must be sadly deficient in reasoning power who thinks the same principle operates in these two kinds of acts. Where is there Scriptural warrant that a collection of individuals, or of churches, or of all of them has a right to make such arrangements in "the Church which is His Body"? God and Jesus never gave them such authority. Our Pastor never formed a corporation that exercised such powers during his life, nor was it the Divine intention that he should, nor did he intend it. In Vol. VI, Chap. II, we gave over a dozen facts, as well as many Scriptures that prove that in our Pastor's day, never did a Society control such a general ministry toward and for "the Church which is Christ's body"; for God did that through that Servant alone; and the reason that He never did, nor now does it through a corporation is that the Church's work is now of such a kind as does not require such agencies to manage its general work. The Lord is now doing the general work of the Church, just as He did before the office of "that Servant" was created—through the non—apostolic General Elders of the Church, who hold the second and last office in the general Church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11-13; 2:20, 21; 3:5; F 244, 251, 253, 273, 274). 

These Editors have had much to say for over a year about "self-constituted leaders" and "a self-appointed individual" getting control of the Church, meaning especially us. We have publicly asked them to point out one act of ours that lorded it over the Church. They failed to show this, because there was no such act committed by us, while we pointed out many such acts on the part of certain members of their Board and Editorial Committee. Their "political campaign" and "wire—pulling," whereby they disrupted the Fort Pitt Committee, and got some of themselves elected on another Committee with enlarged powers, was a work of self-appointment on their part for lording it over God's heritage. Their asking, through I.F. Hoskins 

Gershonism. 

274 

at the Asbury Park Convention, for their prospective Board powers like those of the W.T.B. & T.S. Board—powers much greater than those of the Fort Pitt Committee—was an act of self-seeking lordship over the Church. Their refusing to hold a convention at Philadelphia, and holding one at Providence, in a section of the country where they knew that they could get what they feared they could not get at Philadelphia, was an act of self-seeking lordship over the Church. The self-constituting and self-appointing are all on one side—on their side! Let them sweep the accumulated dirt from before their own doors; but not throw it in front of their neighbors' doors where it is clean. 

A number of times (H '19, 101, 348, etc.) the Herald editors have referred to Z '15, 359 as a warrant from our Pastor for a corporation managing a general ministry toward and for the Church which is His Body. We want to say that in our dear Pastor's answers to the questions on that page by the Society he usually means himself, even as in Z '09, 292-294 he speaks of the Society, the Volumes and the Tower as "that Servant" and "the channel," thereby modestly hiding himself behind these names. Asked why we say that in Z '15, 359 especially, he, by the W.T.B. & T.S., modestly means himself, we reply that not only the facts of his controllership prove this, but connected with our British trip we learned certain things that go to prove that that article was written for the benefit of a number of British brethren, especially the three British managers. So greatly had these three disregarded his arrangements for the work in Britain that he was planning to sever himself from all responsibility for the British Branch; and told two prominent American brethren of his plans to this effect—a fact that we learned from their lips after our return from Britain. While we were in Britain, W.C. showed us a letter that our Pastor wrote to him, and that we feel morally sure was intended in harmony with our Pastor's tactfulness

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

275 

to pave the way to that end. With some feeling that Servant told us at Dallas, Oct. 21, 1916, that the three British managers would not do what he wanted them to do; and said that at Brooklyn after Nov. 5 he would talk over details with us before our departure for Britain. While in Britain certain papers came into our possession that show some things that the managers had been doing, and that made it necessary for "that Servant" to remind them more than once that the Society, i.e., himself, controlled the I.B.S.A., which is a British corporation. Because a number of the British brethren wanted the I.B.S.A. to be British—controlled, it became necessary for him to remind them that the Society—himself—controlled the I.B.S.A. and the P.P.A. Hence the article Z '15, 358-360 was written, and was among his final efforts to change the conduct of certain British brethren. How appropriate to the circumstances the statements there: "Thus the whole management is by the W.T.B. & T.S. [himself], and these auxiliary organizations merely help in carrying on its [his] work." … "In other words the P.P.A. cannot transact business except through the W.T.B. & T.S. [himself]. The W.T.B. & T.S. [himself] has the management and the P.P.A. does the work—absolutely." While the Herald has repeatedly referred to that article as proving that the Society controlled the general work toward and for the Church as an evidence that it is in harmony with that Servant's teachings for a corporation to do such work, every person who knows the facts knows that the Society neither by its Board nor by its Shareholders, nor by both combined controlled that work; but that that Servant alone controlled it. Hence in that article through the term, The W.T.B. & T.S., when connected with the idea of management, he meant no one else than himself; and the Herald's contention on this point falls to the ground. Moreover, there are certain persons among them that know that their use of Z '15, 359 

Gershonism. 

276 

misrepresents the facts of the case, as to who controlled the work nominally carried on in the name of the W.T.B. & T.S. 

Hence, as we pointed out in the above-mentioned chapter, while our Pastor arranged for the Society after his death to publish the Tower, in part to contain his reprinted and posthumous articles (the Charter and Will make no arrangements for pilgrims and conventions), and supply especially his writings for the edification of, and for distribution by the Truth people, and more especially for work toward the Virgins in Babylon and toward the world, the Divine intention therein was that such an arrangement be for the use of the Great Company. This is proved by the fact that immediately after that Servant's death, some who are now manifested as Great Company members, onesidedly took the direction of the work into their hands, and with and for their leader by craft against guileless ones gained chief authority, and shortly afterward by usurpation got the Society entirely in the control of the Great Company (in them as its representatives) where it will remain. By His arranging through that Servant for the Society first to operate, as a self-acting body after his death, the Lord furnished us a sample of what every controlling organization among the Truth people should be as a vehicle for Great Company work. And the P.B.I., having prepared and adopted—and that, against repeated expostulations to the contrary—a largely changed corporational charter, have in this respect violated the Divine will, which in print they recognized as binding on controlling corporations among the Lord's people. Therefore we know that, as a part of the washing of their robes (Rev. 7:14; Num. 8:7), they will have to undo this wrong, and in its undoing give up the Charter that they caused to be drawn up and adopted. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this in due time!

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

277 

One may ask why is it that in matters of the Little Flock, without any organization external to itself, yea, without even an unorganized committee, but, since the Apostles fell asleep, solely by the non-apostolic General Elders, the "Secondarily Prophets," the Lord has performed the whole general ministry toward and for the Church which is Christ's body; and yet has arranged for corporations limitedly controlled by seven Directors to do certain work for those parts of the Great Company who are Transitional Merarites and Gershonites? The answer is simple: the faithful Apostles and past faithful "Secondarily Prophets," having been fully dead to self and the world and fully alive to God, ministered the meat in due season, and guided the General Flock in the paths of Truth and Righteousness; and could not by any consideration be swerved therefrom. Therefore God has trusted each to do His work independently, except during the two reaping times, when He put the work into the charge of the Apostles and that Servant. Hence, apart from brotherly counsel and co—operation with one another, they needed no external body to enable them to fulfill the general ministry for and toward the Body of Christ. So, too, He does the same thing by the present faithful "Secondarily Prophets." But with the organizational leaders of the Great Company deadness to self and the world and aliveness to God are not complete (Jas. 1:8). Their selfish propensities, especially exercised in self—will, grasping for power, lording it over God's heritage, dividing the Flock and desiring to shine before others as able teachers and executives are so uncurbed by themselves, that not one of them alone can be trusted by the Lord with an unrestricted General Ministry. Through lodging controllership in seven Directors, the Lord, as it were, plays them off against one another to check, restrain, encourage and balance one another, so that they can as seven equally empowered brothers, at least in a manner, carry out the 

Gershonism. 

278 

organizational work of the Great Company, whenever they do not allow any one of their number—e.g., as "the Steward"—to gain control. As concerns the unorganized Levites, the Kohathites, their leaders, being also more or less rivalrously ambitious, fall out with one another, and form various unorganized groups, so far without much of a general ministry. As a proof of this note how A.I. Ritchie and M. Sturgeon, and later M. Sturgeon and Carl Olson, fell out with one another. The fourth group of the Transitional Kohathites, the antitypical Amramites, typed by the descendants of Moses, but not of Aaron (Num. 3:16; 1 Chro. 23:13-15), are not yet manifest, nor are their two leaders yet [Mar., 1920] manifest. We rather opine that they are among the Priests, and will fall out with them, and separate from the latter, and likely from others, too, those who with them are antitypical Amramite Kohathites. Of course, all of the Great Company leaders fall out with the Priests, otherwise there could be no separation of the Little Flock and Great Company. 

Such falling out began in Britain, and has continued ever since. We notice that the Herald is assuming a very liberal tone; for after claiming to be a doctrinal clearing house, the P.B.I. now grants the right to its readers to judge its utterances and accept or reject them as seems to them proper in the Lord. In contrast with their former Papistical claims, their general tone, at least on paper, is now quite subdued. It is quite different from that of the doctrinal clearing house that they proposed to establish for the Lord's people in the last meeting of the Fort Pitt Committee, and that later they gave as the first specific reason for the formation of the P.B.I., the later expression being in the following language: "To act as a kind of a clearing house of whatever doctrinal matters that may be in circulation, or may be proposed for circulation among the Lord's People." (Committee Bulletin—6.) Since our review of their article, "The Object of an

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

279 

Organization," they have been singularly silent in advocating the main purposes of their organization as set forth in that article. They have, on the contrary, been claiming that they do not stand for certain things—things which that article undoubtedly clearly advocated. Not that they have disclaimed that article, but being thrown very badly on the defensive by our exposures of its Papistical claims, they have been trying to paint their organization with more attractive colors than with what that Papistical article daubed and smeared it. They seem to want us to think that, like the Lion whose teeth and claws were pulled out, they are a very docile and harmless body. This is well and good, so far as it goes; but until they publicly confess their errors of teaching with reference to their purposes, which are clearly set forth in "The Object of an Organization," and which they have as such not yet clearly repudiated, and until they set aside the revolutionism of their Charter, the Lord's people should withhold from them even that support which they should give to cleansed Levites. What will they do about that article and their Charter? Will they publicly confess their errors and wrongs along these lines, promising betterment? Or will they continue to "cover their iniquity"? Whether they will obtain mercy from the Lord, or keep on without His special blessing, will, among other things, depend on what their course on these matters will be (Prov. 28:13). 

In connection with their doctrinal clearing house proposition, they advocated their inaugurating pilgrim work, their appointing pilgrims, and their arranging for General Conventions; and have since arranged a pilgrim service, appointed pilgrims, additional to those who were pilgrims at the time of that Servant's passing beyond the veil, and called a number of conventions. Since the pilgrim office is that of the non-apostolic General Elders, the only servants of the Truth now living that have the right to address the

Gershonism. 

280 

General Church on matters of faith and practice, and since God alone has the power to appoint such teachers in the General Church, which during the Harvest of the Jewish Age He did by Jesus, especially while the Latter was in the flesh, which during the Harvest of the Gospel Age He did by that Servant, and which during the intervening time He did entirely apart from human agents; unless others can show, as an authorization for their claim, a specific command from God, we will emphatically deny their right to appoint pilgrims to minister to the General Church, that Church which is His Body. They claim that they are appointing pilgrims to minister to the Little Flock as its General Elders. We ask them before God and the Church to show us their authority from the Word of God, or from the Will or Charter for such an exercise of power? Furthermore, they have exercised this, their claimed power, to exclude three Divinely-set pilgrims from serving as pilgrims in what they claim is at least a part of the Church which is His Body. We ask them for Biblical proof for such exercise of authority on their part. Such acts are emphatically lording it over the brethren. Will they pass these vital points by in silence as they have others of their unscriptural assumptions of power? Where in the Scriptures are they as a Board authorized to call General Conventions? While anyone who is a "Secondarily Prophet" in "the Church which is His Body" has, as long as there is no special eye, mouth and hand of the Lord officiating, by the powers of his office as a teacher in the General Church, the power to call a General Convention, no other servants of the Truth have such power. Those who were once "Secondarily Prophets," and who are now in the Great Company have neither part nor parcel in "the Church which is His Body"; hence cannot do anything implying membership therein, let alone do pilgrim work, and appoint pilgrims and General Conventions for "the Church which is His Body." Nor

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

281 

as corporational members of the Great Company have they the right to appoint pilgrims and arrange for General Conventions for the Great Company. 

But we imagine we hear some one ask: Did not that Servant arrange for the Society to appoint pilgrims and General Conventions? We answer, no; for both the Will and Charter, which are the source and rule of corporational faith and practice for controlling corporations among Truth people, are silent on such subjects, nor do they imply these rights. The Charter by Divine intention empowers the Levites to "disseminate [sow broadcast] Bible truths in various languages by means of the publication of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents, and by the use of all other lawful means (not "agents," animate beings, but "means," inanimate things, like the Photo-Drama, the Angelophone, etc.), which its Board of Directors, duly constituted, shall deem expedient for the furtherance of the purposes stated." Of course, this implies the use of "agents" to operate these means, but no others than such. Additionally, the Will authorizes a self-perpetuating Editorial Committee and a Sisters' Committee, in which vacancies were to be filled by it, the Directors and the Editors acting jointly. It authorizes no other class of mouthpieces. Therefore it is not a religious body; it is a body to publish and distribute Bible truths by inanimate means alone, through corresponding agents only. Let not the Levites act on the principle of the Papacy; and thus add to, or subtract from the source and rule of corporational faith and practice for the controlling corporations among Truth people! Such a course is dangerous and usurpatory! 

We, like the rest of the brethren, took this for granted from what existed in our Pastor's day; but now recognize such arrangements to be the Lord's for the Little Flock alone; and we trust that, like ourself, all the dear ones will come to see the matter aright.

Gershonism. 

282 

We do not want, by the remarks foregoing, to be understood as teaching that the Lord will not give the Great Company pilgrim privileges; for we believe the Word of God will yet unfold a way in which this will be done; but when it will be unfolded, we rather opine that such pilgrim service will not be authorized by nor be under the auspices of Great Company Corporations and Associations. We may here remark that some of the Kohathites are giving Pilgrim services apart from such bodies. However, we can safely wait on the Lord for the clear manifestation of His will on this point. In the meantime, let us have done with doctrinal clearing houses, especially those claiming more than proper powers. Another point on which the P.B.I. teaches error is their insistence on following the modern Jewish calendar on the Memorial date. As we have covered this point in Note IV in Studies, Vol. VI, 733-736, we will pass it by here without further comment. 

The high tide of confusion on Biblical topics and of misstating the writer's Scriptural interpretations is reached in the August Bulletin and F.H. Magee's "Brief Review" and "Letter of Importance," published as supplements of the August and September "Bulletins," respectively, in what the Committee has to say on the former's views on "prophets" in the Church. A brief discussion of the matter Scripturally will, therefore, be in place here. The word prophet, from the Greek prophetes, according to its Greek etymology, signifies one who gives discourses in writing or speech before others. These prophets are of two classes: (1) inspired (2 Pet. 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:15-17); and (2) uninspired (Tit. 1:12; Acts 15:22, 32). There were inspired prophets in both Old and New Testament times (Jas. 4:10, 11; 1 Cor. 14:30). Their messages could be on abstract principles, or on events, persons and things past, present or future. The inspired New Testament prophets passed out of existence with the passing away of the gifts of the Spirit, early in the

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

283 

Gospel Age (1 Cor. 13:9), never again to be revived during this Age. The word prophet is used for Gospel-Age purposes (1) in a general sense, including all, whether inspired or uninspired, who give discourses in the Church (Acts 13:1), whether they be (a) Apostles, like St. Paul; or (b) "prophets," like Barnabas, orators for the general Church and not restricted to a local church, but not plenipotentiaries with the power to bind and loose and to bestow the gifts of the Spirit, as the Apostles had; or (c) pastors or teachers like Simeon, Lucius, and Manean, orators, whose office powers were limited to a local church, of whom 1 Cor. 14:29-32 also treats, where the subjection of the uninspired "preaching" local elders, called prophets, is required to be rendered to the inspired "preaching" local elders, called prophets, and therefore were required to give way, even in the midst of an address, to the latter, when these received a Revelation from God. And the word prophet is used for Gospel-Age purposes (2) in a special sense, including only the teachers of the general Church throughout the Age, who (apart from those of them who lived when the gift of prophesy prevailed, like Mark, Luke, Timothy, etc.) without inspiration, but by extraordinary illumination are qualified and authorized by the Lord's appointment alone, to give discourses in speech or in writing before the general Church, or on request of the body before any church or collection of churches, or representatives of any number of churches, as the peculiar function of their office (1 Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11-13; 2:20; 3:5). 1 Cor. 12:28, 29 and Eph. 4:11 certainly cannot use the word "prophets" in the sense of a local elder who delivers discourses, for these are included in the terms, "pastors and teachers." The run of thought in these passages is clearly the following: The first order of Church servants is the Apostles, the Lord's (not a church's nor the Church's nor the churches') representatives and plenipotentiaries, whose 

Gershonism. 

284 

essential function in the teaching office is inspirationally and infallibly to instruct the general Church, throughout the Age. The second order of Church servants is the "Prophets," the Lord's (not a church's, nor the Church's, nor the churches') representatives (but not plenipotentiaries) whose essential function in the teaching office is (not by inspiration nor by infallibility, but) by special illumination to instruct the general Church (not restricted to a ministry in a local church) in their times. The third order of Church servants is the evangelists, sometimes the Lord's representatives (not plenipotentiaries) alone, at other times His and a church's or churches' representatives, whose essential function in the teaching office is to instruct (not the general nor a local Church), but outsiders and beginners in their times. The fourth order of Church servants is pastors and teachers, both the Lord's and the churches' representatives (not plenipotentiaries), whose essential function in the teaching office is to instruct (not the general, but) a local Church. 

The facts of the New Testament, and of Church History from the beginning to the present, prove that there have been servants of the Church who filled an office in the general Church inferior to that of the Apostles, who were not elected to their office by a local church, nor by a collection of churches; and whose office, if not covered by the term, "Secondarily Prophets," would not be mentioned as a particular office in the Church at all; and, consequently, since Eph. 4:11-14 says the teaching officers of the Church were for the complete qualification of the saints, and complete the teaching organization of the Church, these brethren would not in their work have filled an office in the Church at all; nor would their work have been necessary for the complete qualification of the Church for the work of the ministry. What would this mean? It would mean, for example, that in the times just before 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

285 

the Reformation, Marsiglio, Jandun, Occam, Wyclif, Huss, etc., did not as pre-Reformers sustain an official relation to the general Church at all, separate and distinct from that of evangelists and local elders, and were thus usurpatory busybodies and graspers for power, instead of being raised up, as general teachers, "Secondarily Prophets," and deliverers of Zion from Babylonian captivity. It would mean that Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, Servetus, Wesley, Stone, Miller, Russell, etc., did not as Reformers sustain an official relation to the general Church at all, separate and distinct from the office of evangelists and local elders, and were thus usurpatory busybodies and graspers for power, instead of being raised up as general teachers—"Secondarily Prophets"—and deliverers of Zion from Babylonian captivity. If the "prophets" of Eph. 3:5 include local elders who deliver discourses, St. Paul would not have singled them out, and placed them in association with the Apostles as having special light on the "mystery," since, among other reasons, frequently those local elders who do not "preach" know more about the mystery than not a few other local elders who do "preach," and if the term "prophets" in. 1 Cor. 12:28, 29 and Eph. 4:11 means local elders that "preach," they would not be mentioned at all; for all local elders, whether they "preach" or not, are included in the terms "pastors and teachers.'' Moreover, it would be putting them too close, not only to the Apostles, but to the class of Church servants above—named in usefulness to include them in the term "prophets" in Eph. 2:20, where we are told that Church is "built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being Chief Cornerstone." 

Up to the time of the Eagle trial, Bro. Russell thought the terms, "Apostles and Prophets," of Eph. 2:20, meant the Apostles and Prophets in their Biblical writings as the foundation of our faith. At that time 

Gershonism. 

286 

we asked him the question, Who are the "prophets" in Eph. 2:20? He replied, the writers of the Old Testament. We then asked whether the foundation stones of God's temple were not a part of the temple; and as such whether they do not refer to certain of the saints; and as such whether they do not represent the non-apostolic teachers of the general Church like Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Silas, Luke, Mark, Arius, Marsiglio, Luther, Wyclif, Wesley, Miller, "that Servant," the pilgrims, etc.? He thought a while and then answered: "Yes, you are right." Both the Scriptures and the History of the Church, therefore, from the beginning prove that there has been an order of teachers in the Church, selected by the Lord—not by the churches, nor by a church, nor by the Church—and dismissible by the Lord alone, and not by the Church, nor a church, nor the churches, whose ministry is not a local, but a general one. This office is referred to in 1 Cor. 12:28, 29, and Eph. 4:11, under the term, "Secondarily Prophets." Expressly using the term, "Secondarily Prophets," of them, our Pastor described them, etc., under the terms General Overseers, Channels and Elders, and "Prophets" in F 244, par. 2, 245, par. 1, 2, 251, 253, 273 and 274, especially 253 on Barnabas; Tower Reprints 732, pars. 13-15. There is a distinction among the secondarily prophets. Some of them, like Arius, Claudius of Turin, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley, Miller, Russell, the Epiphany Messenger, etc., as the Lord's special eye, mouth and hand have had a special charge toward the general Church and toward those secondarily prophets who have not been the Lord's special eye, mouth and hand, i.e., the ordinary pilgrims. The former, as star-members, have been higher secondarily prophets than the latter, whom God has put in the charge of the star-membered secondarily prophets. 

In their ministry, however, these prophets have no "rights" to control any church, churches or the Church. Nor have they a right to speak in any church, except 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

287 

by request of that church. Their office by God's appointment authorizes and qualifies them for a ministry in any church; no church, churches nor the Church should permit them to force their ministry on them. Nor are they to force their ministry on a church; rather they are to wait until they are invited to serve, even as the Apostles had no right to minister in a local ecclesia, unless invited by it so to do. Since the death of the Apostles there is no other set of Church servants whose office authorizes and qualifies them to minister to the general Church than this set of Church servants. No church or collection of churches can, or ever did elect one of these servants to the office designated by the term "Secondarily Prophets," for the simple reason that no local Church nor collection of churches can give powers that they do not possess, the office of teachers in the general Church; and for the same reason no church nor collection of churches can dismiss him from his office, though they can vote to have or not have him serve them, just as they think best; and their decision is to rule in the matter; nor has a "Secondarily Prophet" a just ground for a grievance, if any church chooses not to have him speak in its midst. Thus the offices of Apostles and Prophets are not under the control of a local church, nor of the Church at large, so far as electing persons to, and authorizing and qualifying them for, or dismissing them from such offices, though each church has the power and right to permit or refuse their service in its midst. Thus the independence of the churches with respect to the service of the "Secondarily Prophets," and the independence of the "Secondarily Prophets" with respect to the control of their office are both vindicated. Such a prophet, while serving at the invitation of a church, is certainly subject to the decision of that church as to time, place and order of his service, as well as of his entertainment. He is not a lord over God's heritage, but a helper of their faith, hope, love and obedience; nor is the Church a lord over him. 

Gershonism. 

288 

As a representative of God, and not of them, he ministers to them unselfishly, to the Lord's glory and their profit. Nor should a local church dictate on what he is to speak, since he is God's representative to them. Of course, if such an one, in addition to his general ministry, becomes a local elder, he becomes as such, but not as one of the "Secondarily Prophets," subject to the local church with respect to the office that the ecclesia gave him; and he would be obliged to confine himself as a local elder to the ecclesia's regulations even on what he should teach or preach in the ecclesia. 

During the end of the Age, as throughout the Age, God selected the "Secondarily Prophets" for the general Church. As in the Harvest of the Jewish Age God selected them by Jesus, so here He selected them (the pilgrims) by "that Servant." Between the Harvests, without a human agent, God directly put these members in the Body as "Secondarily Prophets," as it pleased Him so to do. No Committees of bishops, nor other Committees, nor Boards of Directors have ever appointed a "Secondarily Prophet" in "the Church which is His Body," though without the Divine authorization the Directors of the W. T. B. & T. Society have appointed "pilgrims" for antitypical Merarite Levites; and without the Divine authorization the P.B.I. Board has appointed "pilgrims" for antitypical Gershonite Levites. That God selected the pilgrims by "that Servant" is not to be doubted, because some did not turn out well, any more than we should doubt His selecting Judas by Jesus, though the former did not turn out well; nor should the issue of the fallibility or infallibility of the Lord's procedure through Brother Russell be raised, as F.H. Magee does, since the basis of his reasoning would necessarily lead to the conclusion that God by Jesus was fallible in selecting Judas. And just as another was chosen to fill Judas' place, so if any of the pilgrims proved unfaithful, another got his place; and thus there were full seventy by the end of the reaping, 1914, the reports, of 1913 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

289 

and 1914 showing more than seventy being due to some auxiliary pilgrims being counted among them. 

Among the offices in the Church, therefore, held since the Apostles fell asleep, the only one whose exclusive function it is to address the whole Church is that of the "Secondarily Prophets." Calling a General Convention is inviting, exhorting, encouraging the brethren generally to assemble for worship, study and fellowship in the Lord's Word and Spirit. But such inviting, encouraging, exhorting, pertaining as they do to matters of faith and practice, are a part of the functions of the "Secondarily Prophets" office, which alone since the Apostles' death can Scripturally address the entire Church on matters of faith and practice. Because of his special power as "ruler over His household" "that Servant" called General Conventions; just as in the Apostles' times they would have been the proper ones so to do, though there is no record of General Conventions held in those times. But as before "that Servant's" time, any star—member, like Luther, Wesley, Miller, etc., with propriety called General Conventions, so now a star—member can call them. When no star-member officiates the other kind of secondarily prophets, pilgrims, if necessity makes it advisable, may call a General Convention. Their calling it obligates no one to come, even as Bro. Russell's calling Conventions did not so do. No General Convention can give anybody a right to call a General Convention; for it has not the authorization to address the General Church on matters of faith and practice, and, therefore, cannot give what it does not possess. 

When did the Lord give any church or collection of churches the right to address the entire Church on a matter of faith and practice? Whoever so does busybodies in the office of the "Secondarily Prophets." Even Bro. Russell was doubtful as to the propriety of local conventions, and only reluctantly after several years of refusal would send pilgrims to "local" conventions not under his supervision, and even then 

Gershonism. 

290 

expressed to us his doubts as to the Lord's will on the propriety of such conventions. We, therefore, find that the only office now filled by living persons in the Little Flock, having the Divine authorization necessary to address the whole Church on faith and practice, is that of the "Secondarily Prophets." Therefore, we conclude that only prophets of this kind can properly so do; and therefore the star-members among them, and whenever such do not officiate, any others of these prophets, may call a General Convention, whose calling necessarily in its exhortations, encouragements, etc., implies the exercise of the office that alone can bring matters of faith and practice before the general Church. It is for this reason that the writer feels himself authorized by the Lord, because of the conditions in the Church, to call General Conventions. The friends assembled, e.g., at Asbury Park had not even been authorized by their home churches to empower a Committee to call these churches, let alone all others, to a convention; therefore, in addition to the above reasons, they could not give a Committee that power. According to the writer's understanding, therefore, a Committee as such cannot properly call such Conventions. 

We never claimed, nor believed ourself to be a prophet who can by inspiration declare the future, etc., as F.H. Magee repeatedly intimates. At most, we claim to be but a fallible, uninspired prophetic student. If we have missed the mark in forecasting from certain Scriptures a few events, by the Lord's grace we have struck the mark in forecasting properly fifty times as many events based on separate passages and the parallel dispensations, as many brethren know; and like "that Servant" we humbly acknowledge our fallibility in forecasting certain things. 

F.H. Magee claims in "A Brief Review," page 2, par. 1, that the "Secondarily Prophets" of 1 Cor. 12:28 ceased with the gifts of the Spirit. Paul thinks otherwise. He says (Eph. 2:11—13), "until we all

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

291 

come," etc. So did "that Servant" (see Berean Comment on 1 Cor. 12:28). The former's treatment of this passage, we are sorry to note, is somewhat similar in spirit to his casting, e.g., Elijah out of 2 Chro. 21:12, and that for no other reason seemingly than that his theory is upset by the verse; and, therefore, seemingly the passage must be "wrested," so as not to stand against his view. May we not in all love suggest to him that it may be well not to wrest the Scriptures and Scriptural thoughts as the average lawyer does an opposing counsel's brief? It is a more dangerous procedure so to treat God's Word! For such procedures are more than genuine "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations." They offer strange fire! 

We add to the above some questions and answers on the "Secondarily Prophets." 

Question:—If the Apostles are now teaching the Church through their writings, are we not to understand the "Secondarily Prophets" to be the Old Testament writers who teach the Church by their writings? 

Answer:—The Old Testament writers are not teachers of the Church as members of it; because to be such teachers of the Church, they would have had to understand their message to the Church, and how to make it understood by the Church, and they would have had to share in membership in the Church—things that they did not do (1 Pet. 1:10, 11; Matt. 11:13; Col. 1:26; Heb. 11:39, 40); while to be Apostles and Prophets to the Church necessitates an understanding of the message and the ability to explain it (Eph. 3:5; 1 Cor. 14:6, 19, 22). Furthermore, to be one of these Prophets one would have to be a member of the Church, which is God's Temple and Christ's Body (Eph. 2:20, 21; 4:7, 11; 1 Cor. 12:27, 28; Rom. 12:5, 6); for since the foundation is a part of the building, antitypical foundation stones are parts of the antitypical Temple, which is not true of the Old Testament Prophets. Hence Eph. 2:20 cannot refer to them. Above we showed how during the Eagle trial

Gershonism. 

292 

our Pastor recognized that the "prophets" of this passage, being foundation stones, must refer to the non-apostolic general teachers of the Church as parts of the antitypical Temple; because the Old Testament Prophets were not members of the Church. By the expression, "Secondarily Prophets," persons, not writings and teachings, are meant, just as, by the expression Apostles not writings and teachings, but persons are meant, even if they do teach us now by their writings, as also do some of the Secondarily Prophets, e.g., Mark, Luke, etc. 

Question:—If Eph. 4:11-13 proves that the Prophets were to continue in the Church, would it not also prove that the Apostles would be with us to this time, since the same thing is said of them as is said of the Prophets? If it applies to the Apostolic writings, might it not also apply to their prophetic writings, they being prophets as well as Apostles? 

Answer:—If the basis of the questioner's reasoning were correct, it would prove that the Apostles are also meant by the expression "evangelists," "pastors and teachers," since the Apostles were also (using these words in their general senses) evangelists, pastors and teachers; and consequently the only ones referred to in this passage as edifying servants of the Church would be the twelve Apostles. The questioner's mistake is due to his not rightly dividing the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15), as is done in the above discussion on the distinction as to the general and particular senses of the word prophet. In the general sense all the Apostles were prophets. But Eph. 4:11 uses the word prophets with particular reference to those whom 1 Cor. 12:28 calls "Secondarily Prophets." That the "prophets" of Eph. 4:11 are not the same persons as the "Apostles," referred to in the same verse, is evident from the Greek. The A.V. makes this sufficiently clear; the R.V. and the A.R.V. make it clearer: "And He gave some to be Apostles; and some, prophets," etc. The Improved Version 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

293 

is the clearest of all: "And He gave some as Apostles, some as prophets," etc. The Greek expression, "tous men" and "tous de," prove that different persons are meant; for they are used to contrast the persons mentioned as separate and distinct. The Apostles, as the teachers of every member of the Body of Christ (John 17:20), could not exercise their office in person after they were dead; they had to do this through their writings. Nor are these writings prophetic as contrasted with apostolic; for it was an essential function of the Apostolic office to teach inspirationally, not only of abstract principles, but also of persons, events and things, it making no difference whether these were past, present or future. It is not an essential function of the "Secondarily Prophets" to teach every member of the Body of Christ; nor even every member of the Body of Christ living, while they exercise their office as "Secondarily Prophets"; rather, generally speaking, their office authorizes and qualifies them to be teachers in the general Church in their own times, though exceptionally through their writings some of them have instructed brethren living after their own times; e.g., Mark, Luke, Marsiglio, Wyclif, Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Hubmeier, Wesley, Stone, Miller, Russell, etc. "That Servant" corroborates our understanding of this in F 244, par. 2, 245, par. 1, 2, 251, 253, 273, 274; Reprints, 732, pars. 13-15. 

Question:—Why does The Present Truth omit the comma after the word "secondarily" in the expression, "Secondarily Prophets"? 

Answer:—In the Scripture (1 Cor. 12:28) the comma is not placed between the words secondarily and prophets. And the fact that The Present Truth omits the comma is intended to imply that a comma does not belong there. As shown above, the word prophet for New Testament purposes is used both in a general and in a particular sense. In the general sense it includes all servants of the Church who have given inspired or uninspired discourses before others, 

Gershonism. 

294 

whether these be by the spoken word or the printed page. In the special sense it includes only the non-apostolic teachers of the general Church. Such teachers alone are meant by St. Paul when he writes, "Secondarily Prophets." And when The Present Truth is treating of such Prophets only, the Prophets in the Church in the particular sense of that word, it uses the expression, "Secondarily Prophets," to emphasize for the purpose of clearness that it means such Prophets only. The word "Secondarily" in this expression is a numerical adverb, not an attributive adjective, nor do we mean by the expression "Secondarily Prophets" to contrast such with (supposedly) primarily prophets. We simply use this Bible term "Secondarily Prophets" to indicate that we mean, not local prophets (orators in a local ecclesia), nor inspired men like the Old Testament prophets; but only the non—apostolic general teachers, the general elders, of the general Church. In other words, we use this term to prevent our being understood as meaning local elders who preach as local prophets. It is because the word prophet for New Testament purposes is used in the two above—mentioned senses, general and special, that we use the word "Secondarily" in connection with the expression "Prophets" to indicate that we are using the word prophet in its special sense exclusively, which exclusive meaning is conveyed in the expression "Secondarily Prophets" in 1 Cor. 12:28; for St. Paul by that expression means the non-apostolic general elders, overseers, teachers, of the general Church, and not the elders of local ecclesias who preach. We, of course, do not use in the quotation the word "secondarily" as an adjective to modify the word prophets. It is an adverb in 1 Cor. 12:28. 

Question:—Are not the "Secondarily Prophets" (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11) the seven angels of the Seven Churches of Rev. 1:20, etc.—i.e., Paul, John, Arius, Waldo, Wyclif, Luther and Russell? 

Answer:—In answering the question we will first

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

295 

have to remove a misunderstanding in which the questioner is involved; that the seven angels represent seven individuals. While Vol. VII teaches this, evidently neither Scripture, Reason nor History so teaches (Z '16, 345, par. 5). It is evident from a little reflection on generally known facts, that two of these angels did not represent individuals. Therefore it would seem that the other five did not—e.g., the angel of the Church in Ephesus. It is true that St. Paul was the most able, zealous, fruitful and favored servant of the Truth in the first epoch of the Church (2 Cor. 11:23-28); yea, he even had more especially "the care of all the [Gentile Christian] Churches," as St. Peter had more especially "the care of all the [Jewish Christian] Churches" (Gal. 2:7, 8). Yet these facts did not make him the only one constituting the angel of the Church in Ephesus. We are to recall that all twelve Apostles had and exercised the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 18:18; Acts 15:7-29). Therefore, at least twelve persons were included in the angel of the Church in Ephesus (Z '16, 346, par. 5). Turning to the angel of the Church in Philadelphia, we can also readily and clearly see that Luther alone was not that angel; for other Reformers, some of them contemporaries of Luther, were used by the Lord to bring forth Truth, as it was due, Truth which Luther in some cases opposed violently, e.g., Zwingli brought forth some Truth on the Lord's Supper and Christ's Person for which Luther bitterly opposed him, even refusing him fellowship, because he believed, against his teaching, that Jesus' actual flesh and blood are received in the Lord's Supper and that His humanity is now omnipresent. Luther opposed the doctrine of the Millennium and of exclusive adult baptism, which Hubmeier taught against Luther's view. Servetus brought forth Truth on the unity of God against the trinity, as against Luther's doctrine; Wesley taught Truth on Sanctification vs. some of

Gershonism. 

296 

Luther's errors thereon. Stone taught the separation of the Church and State, abolition of the creeds and the clergy class, etc., as against Luther's doctrines. Thus we see that Luther, though doubtless one of the leading ones in the angel of the Church in Philadelphia, did not alone constitute its angel. Our understanding of each of these angels, therefore, is that he represents the Apostles and all "Secondarily Prophets" who were the Lord's special eye, mouth and hand. Consequently, we would have to say that it would not be proper to say that the seven brothers mentioned in the question alone constitute the seven angels, though each one (John 17:20; Rev. 12:1) is a part of one of the seven angels. No one else than the Apostles and the special mouthpiece "Secondarily Prophets" seems to be included in these seven angels. These seven angels, therefore, include more than the seven mentioned in the question, thus a great deal more than the questioner thinks they include. 

Question:—Why does The Present Truth so markedly emphasize the doctrine of the "Secondarily Prophets"? 

Answer:—Because of the necessity of defending the Truth on the subject against the papistical claims (1) of the Society and (2) of the P.B.I. (1) The claims of the Society to be the exclusive channel for giving the seasonal meat, and for ruling the general work of the Church teach and imply that, except through its sanction and under its auspices, no one has a right to be a channel of communicating the Lord's message to "the Church which is His Body." Hence they claim that those of the pilgrims who were appointed through that Servant, and who are not laboring under its auspices have no right to be General Elders, i.e., teachers of the general Church, "Secondarily Prophets." Therefore at the Asbury Park Convention we set forth the thought that, since the vacancy of the office of that Servant, pilgrims in office at the time of his death until a special eye, hand and 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

297 

mouth of the Lord is appointed, have the right apart from the auspices of the Society to publish a Truth paper, engage in pilgrim work and call General Conventions for the General Church, because of their office as General teachers of the Church, "Secondarily Prophets" (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). We explained the doctrine exactly as our Pastor explains the doctrine of General Elders in the references above given. Accordingly, we concluded that the Society had no power to unpilgrim these pilgrims, since they received their office from God through that Servant and not through the Society. (2) We also drew from the doctrine the conclusion that no one now living other than such pilgrims has the right to do these three things, and that even these could not do them, if a special eye, mouth and hand were appointed in the Church. The latter conclusion greatly displeased certain members of the P.B.I. Committee, who had not been such pilgrims, i.e., F.H. Magee and I.L. Margeson. Aug. 26, 1918, four of the P.B.I. Committee members, F.H. McGee, I.F. Hoskins, I.L. Margeson and H.C. Rockwell on the one hand, and on the other hand three former members of the Fort Pitt Committee, R. H. Hirsh, R. G. Jolly and ourself, engaged in a general debate on the activities and inactivities of the Fort Pitt Committee before the Philadelphia Church. On that occasion F.H. Magee, agreed with by his three colleagues, set forth the claim that no one had a right to do pilgrim work, unless he was authorized either by the Society or by the P.B.I., and that we, being authorized by neither organization, had no right to the pilgrim office. Thereupon we again defended our right to that office, as Divinely appointed thereto through our dear Pastor, and therefore were not in this office subject to appointment or dismissal by any human organization. These expressions of ours at those two assemblies were most violently misrepresented by the P.B.I., especially through its mouthpiece, F.H. Magee, in his "Brief Review" and 

Gershonism. 

298 

"Letter of Importance." These misrepresentations led us to write the above on Prophets and "Prophets," and to touch on other phases of the discussion raised by the P.B.I., by publishing the above questions and answers as replies to their further objections. We are satisfied that our understanding of the subject is that of the Scriptures and of that Servant. 

On the subject of the advancing light the attitude of the P.B.I., as on other subjects, has been "unstable as water" (Gen. 49:4). At first they claimed that our Pastor gave all the light that was to be expected, and that the Epiphany light means nothing more than that his writings will become clearer to the brethren in those parts that they did not previously understand. Latterly they have been admitting that on some of the prophecies, especially in the Revelation, more light may be expected. We congratulate them on this change of opinion, even though we cannot agree with much of what they think is advancing Truth, and believe much of what they reject as error to be advancing Truth. We are in heartiest accord with what they quote from an address of our Pastor to the pilgrims at the Celeron Convention (H '19, 117) against "manufacturing" "new light." Nor is there any other editor among the Truth people who adheres to our Pastor's charge on this subject more closely than ourself; for we wage uncompromising war against such "manufactured" "new light," as our readers know; and avoid accepting it and incorporating it into our teachings and writings. And contrary to the misrepresentations of the P.B.I., in our use of types we confine ourself almost exclusively to those to which the Scriptures and our dear Pastor give us the clue. They have been railing against us as indulging in "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations." Let them prove their charge, if they can! We have defended our dear Pastor's interpretations against "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations," as all our readers know, against those whose presentations seem to be used by 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

299 

the Adversary to the bewildering of the Lord's Flock, whether they have been doing this against the Parousia or Epiphany Truth, or whether they have been doing this against the Lord's Arrangements, Charter and Will given through that Servant. Nor have we had the least hesitation to do this against the opposition of almost all leaders singly or combinedly among the Lord's people; and, please God, we will continue so to do, until they cease from their false doctrines and their revolutionism! 

Of course we have been the particular target at which the P.B.I. has been shooting its "arrows" on "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations." To date none of their arrows have struck the mark, we only hear them whiz by! The particular charge that they file against us is our claim that now in the Epiphany there is much Truth becoming due, and that the Lord is pleased to use The Present Truth in giving much of it to the household. We pity the chargers, (1) because they saw some of it, and now have lost it; and (2) because they are now accepting many old "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations" of "foolish virgins" as advancing light, "manufactured" "new light." Such has always been the course of Truth repudiators. There must be something spiritually wrong with such repudiators. Why should there not in the Epiphany be such advancing light given as will enable the saints to do their Epiphany work, just as in the Parousia there was such advancing light given as enabled the saints to do their Parousia work? In the Epiphany the main works of the Priesthood are to lead Azazel's Goat in its two parts, i.e., both (1) among the Truth people and (2) among the nominal people of God from the door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court; and to do much toward the Levites, the New Creatures of those whose humanity is represented by Azazel's Goat (Lev. 16:20, 21; Num. 8:9, 13; 4:5-15, 27, 28, 33; 7:1-8). Then the Priesthood has a work to do toward the Youthful Worthies, also shown in 

Gershonism. 

300 

some of the above references; toward the antitypical Jehoram of Judah (2 Chro. 21:12-15); toward the antitypical Herod, Herodias and Salome (Ps. 91:13; Rev. 15:2; 20:4); as well as the work of avoiding doing anything toward antitypical Jehoram of Israel, Jehu, Ben-hadad and Haziel. Hence they must learn things about these different classes that they did not know during the Parousia, in order to act toward them as Epiphany conditions require of the Priesthood. The fact that the P.B.I. Board and Editors are blind to these Truths does not make them non—existent; rather it is a proof that they are not in priestly harmony with Epiphany conditions, and hence cannot co—operate with the Priests in doing the latters' Epiphany work. Our well—meant and arduous efforts to help them to remain in priestly harmony with Epiphany conditions, while we were yet with them, were fruitless; because, unknown to us, their time to be manifested as Levites had come. We comfort ourselves with the reflection that after they have properly undergone the experiences of Num. 8:7, and in part those of Rev. 7:14, they will recognize and appreciate our efforts that now seem to them to be unkind. That the Priests recognize them as Levites is due to the fact that the latter as Levites stand before the former as Priests, being set as Levites before the Priests by the antitypical Moses (Num. 8:14). Presently recognizing themselves as antitypical Levites they will see the Priests as such. Then all will rejoice at God's special grace and mercy to the Priests, and His less special grace and mercy to the Levites (Rev. 19:7, 8). Just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of Saints (Rev. 15:3)! 

We have been an interested reader of the Herald's series on "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." We are glad to note in it the absence of the pronouncedly papal spirit that characterized the article on The Object of An Organization, that was reviewed in Chap. III, and that characterized the P.B.I.'s course for some time. We also are glad to note that the "threatening" 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

301 

and "channel" spirit of Vol. VII is likewise wanting in the Herald's series. Taken all in all we think that so far as this series has progressed, i.e., into Rev. 14—the Herald's treatment of the book is somewhat better in contents, and is much better in spirit than is that of Vol. VII, covering the same chapters. Further, we should say that this series and Vol. VII are very much better in our judgment than Carl Olson's Treatise covering the same chapters. We are indeed glad to make these acknowledgments, because we find it necessary to offer some necessary criticisms, which we present to the brethren for consideration. 

(1) We note that the writers of this series do not have the key to the book. Nowhere do they mention it, and they give not a few interpretations that they would not give, if they had the key. This lack makes the series as a whole unconnected in its contents and makes its interpretations fail to be self—demonstrative. Hence it leaves a student of the book in uncertainty and unclearness on many points. 

(2) Not infrequently finer features of the Revelation are not expounded at all. This is probably due to the writers' not understanding these features, which they accordingly pass by without mention. Why did they not follow our Pastor's example: not publish at all until all is clearly understood? 

(3) An indecisiveness of treatment characterizes not a few of their statements, which is doubtless due to their uncertainty. Had they the key, and were it due time to expound the book, this and the preceding criticism would have been unnecessary; for these blemishes would not then have occurred in the series. 

(4) We feel satisfied that the presentation of many unprofitable interpretations of various conflicting, and, to most Truth people, unknown views of writers not in the Truth, after the manner of many nominal-church commentators, is quite confusing to most of the Herald's readers among Truth people. We instance 

Gershonism. 

302 

the confusion on the treatment of the seven-headed and ten-horned beast. 

(5) Of not a few details and of large sections—e.g., the first and second woes—they certainly give misinterpretations. The mixing of the literal and symbolic in the interpretations of these woes is sure proof of their erroneousness. If they had the key, they would not have interpreted Rev. 9:1-21 of the Saracens and Ottoman Turks. Nor would they have seen Mohammed as the star having the key to the bottomless pit. Their interpretations of these two woes are those accepted by Adventists of various Schools, and by others, "Foolish Virgins"! 

(6) They sometimes, though not usually, we are glad to say, favor the interpretations of others above those of that Servant, yet after the manner of fence straddlers they shift from one side to the other. This is particularly manifest in their treatment of the two witnesses, where they try to make it appear that our Pastor favors the view that they accept from "Foolish Virgins," while our Pastor taught, as also Rev. 11:13 shows, that the three and a half days in which the witnesses were dead were during the French Revolution, which, however, the Finished Mystery does not correctly explain. Dr. Gordon's comment on Solomon (H '20, 74) is another example to the point. 

(7) The greatest blemish in the Herald's exposition of Revelation is its adopting many wrong interpretations of "Foolish Virgins." Interpreters like Elliott, Barnes, Guinness, Gordon, etc., were not Wise Virgins. The first two God did not favor with a place in the cleansed sanctuary, and the last two, living in the Harvest, God did not favor with the Parousia Truth The Herald speaks much of their godliness. Of whatever character it was it was judged by the Lord as unworthy of recognition for reward with the special favor of the meat in due season from 1829 onward; hence they were not Wise Virgins; and therefore Priests should not look to them for Scriptural 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

303 

interpretations, however much these "Foolish Virgins" may strike Levites as being specially enlightened and godly. In the Herald Editors' offering with their endorsement some of the vagaries of these "Foolish Virgins" as a true interpretation, they prove both their spiritual kinship with these "Foolish Virgins," and their Levitical standing before the Lord, in that thereby they offer strange fire before the Lord. While of course we are to use the facts of history, etc., that such and other scholarly men furnish us, we are not to accept their interpretations of these facts as taught by the hidden things of the Scriptures; unless they are true; and their few true ones they were not the first to see; for not seeing the deep things clearly they could not correctly explain them. 

The Herald speaks much of the Historical School of Interpreters of Revelation, and claims that our Pastor was a member of that School. This we deny, though, of course, he held that its fulfillment was largely in the past. It is true that here and there glimpses of Revelation as some aspects of its features were due to be understood before 1874 were seen by the Faithful before 1874, and that detached parts of these glimpses were seen by others from the presentations of the Faithful; yet these views were very imperfect before 1874, even as the structure of the book shows that they would be. We might compare the increasing light on Revelation shining on the Faithful before 1874 to the increasing visibility of a high mountain to persons traveling toward it, from the time of their first catching a glimpse of it, as a speck on the horizon, until they can indistinctly make out its general outlines, however, without their perceiving and distinguishing clearly its varying parts, and their relations to one another. The "Foolish Virgins" at best could, with much intermingling error, perceive but parts of what the Wise Virgins saw. From 1874 onward the details of the Revelation come out more and more to the view of the Wise Virgins, while during

Gershonism. 

304 

that time the Foolish Virgins, including Drs. Guinness, Gordon, etc., have wandered in "nocturnal hallucinations" on the Revelation, as well as on many other Biblical subjects. Whatever light any of those brothers had our Pastor had, minus the vagaries that they cherished, and plus all the rest of the seasonal light that they did not have. Hence it is wholly unnecessary and unprofitable, yea injurious for edification for the Priesthood to study what they offer; but it is necessary and profitable for their edification to study what he offers. Nor did he get his information from the Historical School of Interpreters of Revelation. He received it from the Lord by special illumination. Great indeed is the guilt of the Herald Editors for their offering their readers the "delusive phosphorus" flashed forth by these "Foolish Virgins" as genuine light. 

As that Servant (A, 12) passed by the "embalmed" and unclean doctrinal meat of the theologians and creeds, and brought forth the doctrinal meat in due season out of the Divine storehouse, so did he also do with respect to the book of Revelation. And as he declared that, apart from brief explanations and the Sunday School Lessons, he stopped during the eighties writing on the book, because in attempting to open various of its parts he found himself making mistakes, from which he learned that much in the book was not yet due; so we could not expect Drs. Guinness, Gordon, etc., at that and a later time to get the meat, not yet due, from the storehouse, which in 1879 was put into "that Servant's" charge. Therefore the Herald's suggestions to use its articles for Berean Studies on the Revelation, we fear, will lead to further darkening of its readers' minds on that book; for the series on "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" contains many "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations," and thus offers strange fire before the Lord. Strange as at first thought it might seem, it is to be expected that brethren who have represented a true teacher of

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

305 

God's people to be a self-exalted and self-appointed teacher of subtle error, and of "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations" should go so far astray in these very particulars (Rom. 2:1). Our Pastor suspended Bro. Toole from the pilgrim staff for 20 months from Jan., 1915, to Sept., 1916 (while Jordan was receiving its first smiting) because he, though on a comparatively small scale, was spreading some published views of "Foolish Virgins" among the brethren. Should we be surprised that for and by a worse form of the same offense the Herald Editors now are by God being publicly manifested as cut off from the Priesthood (Lev. 10:1, 2)? 

We imagine that some will say, Why do you criticize the Herald's articles on the Revelation; and at the same time offer nothing in their stead? This is a reasonable question; and to it we give three answers: 

(1) We believe that it is the Lord's will that the Levites be given a rather free hand first to present, among other things, their views on Revelation; and that only afterward will He furnish through some Priest the proper interpretation of the book, and thus will give another manifestation of who are Levites and who are Priests. 

(2) We believe that the Lord wants the true interpretation of the book to be deferred until all of His people will have such experiences as will make the true interpretation of that book a refreshment and blessing to all of them, and not a matter of controversy and heartaches to nearly all of them. Hence apart from a few detached references we are silent on features of that book not previously understood. 

(3) Our beloved Pastor said that, until Rev. 17:9-11 would be fulfilled, he would not write Vol. VII, i.e., write his long promised exposition of the book of Revelation for the Church. This answer implies that he considered it to be the Lord's will that he should not write that exposition before the symbolic earthquake. In answer to a question as to why he 

Gershonism. 

306 

had not yet written Vol. VII, he, in 1916 in the Bethel dining room, told the family that there were a number of things in the Revelation that were not yet clear to him, and that until they did become clear to him, he would not write that book. He then instanced the following four things especially that he did not understand: (1) The key of the book, (2) the 1600 furlongs, (3) the number of the Beast's name (though he had previously expressed himself as favorable to the interpretation offered nearly 100 years ago on the name on the Pope's crown), and (4) the seven-headed and ten-horned beast of Revelation 17, particularly verses 9-11. He further declared that he did not believe that the last point would be certainly understood until verses 9-11 had been fulfilled. Then, he added, he would write the book as an explanation of past events, which would demonstrate the correctness of his understanding. If the writers of the three explanations that since his death are being set forth before God's people—according to our understanding, Merarite, Kohathite and Gershonite explanations of the Revelation—had followed our dear Pastor's announced intention on this point, they would not have offered so much strange fire before the Lord; nor deceived so many of God's people; nor brought so much needless reproach and injury upon His Truth, so much sufferings upon His people, and so much properly avoidable disapproval of our Pastor's memory. What a fearful thing it is to run ahead of the Lord. Let us learn to "wait on the Lord!" 

If in the providence of God it ever becomes our privilege to write an exposition of the Revelation for the Church, it will be in keeping with the spirit of the above-announced intention of that faithful and wise Servant. 

In the April, 1937, issue of the Dawn, pages 9-14, is an article that, without mentioning us by name, attempts to refute our teaching on the reaping 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

307 

as ending by Oct., 1914, and the gleaning in 1916, and to prove that the reaping is still going on and will continue up to very shortly—probably less than a year—before the last member of Christ's body goes beyond the vail. The question of the end of the reaping is one of such vast practical importance, that we may be sure that the God of wisdom, justice, love and power would not let it remain in uncertainty for His faithful children; for if the reaping is still going on, the priesthood should and would be engaged in it, and their ceasing from it and their working toward Azazel's Goat would be detrimental to the Truth, very reprehensible in the Lord's sight and a gross wrong against those consecrating since Oct., 1914; and on the other hand, if the reaping is finished, the attempt to continue to engage in an alleged reaping work would be detrimental to the Truth, reprehensible in the Lord's sight and a gross wrong, whose fatal consequences we will show later on, against those consecrating since Oct., 1914. The issues being so very important, we may be certain that our loving Father has spoken on this subject in no uncertain terms, that those who are walking in the light may see in this respect just what is "that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." We have often written on this subject and each time, besides the former arguments in defense of our position, we have given new ones, even as should be expected to be the case in view of the fact that "the path of the just is as a shining light that shineth more and more unto the full [not perfect] day" (Prov. 4:18). But in this chapter we will not repeat our former arguments, which number 56, and which the reader will find in Studies, Vol. III, 387-404. Rather we will give seven new ones and then answer the Dawn's contentions on the reaping still continuing. Let it not be forgotten that the Dawn is largely the P.B.I. masking under another name. Their and the P.B.I.'s pertinent view is the same. Our new reasons follow:

Gershonism. 

308 

(57) The unfolding of the Epiphany Truth beginning in 1916 proves that previously the Parousia Truth had been completed, and hence had done its work of reaping the Church. (58) Is. 52:8 tells us that while the Lord would be gathering His Little Flock out of Babylonian captivity, which was accomplished by the reaping and gleaning work, the watchmen (pilgrims, auxiliary pilgrims, evangelists and elders) would see eye to eye, which was the case up to Passover, 1916. But since 1916 in England, since 1917 in America, and then thereafter, throughout the world, these watchmen have more and more come into disagreement. And since their agreement was to last until the reaping and gleaning were to be finished ("when the Lord shall bring again Zion"), and since now they greatly disagree, and that beginning in 1916, the reaping and gleaning must have been finished early in 1916, when their seeing eye to eye began to end. (59) Our Lord's prophecy (Luke 13:24-27) has for twenty years been fulfilling; in that many unbegotten consecrated ones (v. 24) have been seeking for admission to the high calling in vain, and that because the door is shut (v. 25); and in spite of their claims of being students of Jesus' words and that His teachings are in harmony with their ways [streets] (vs. 26, 27), He tells them that He has never recognized them as Body members (vs. 25, 27), which He is telling them through the above—given and other proofs that the reaping ended by Oct., 1914, and the gleaning by Passover, 1916. (60) The teaching that the high calling is still open to new aspirants after the destruction of antitypical Sodom began (Sept. 21, 1914) is the false doctrine (wine) with which antitypical Lot's two daughters (certain Youthful Worthies and tentatively justified ones) made antitypical Lot (uncleansed Great Company members) symbolically drunk (reeling with error, Gen. 19:30-38), which consideration 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

309 

is another proof that the reaping ended by Oct., 1914, and the gleaning by Passover, 1916. (61) The incestuous union between Lot and his two daughters types the symbolically incestuous cooperation of pertinent error—blinded Great Company members and high-calling—claiming Youthful Worthies and high-calling—aspiring tentatively justified ones in efforts to produce others of ambitions like those of the two antitypical daughters, which symbolic incest would not be committed, if the high calling were still open to new aspirants. (62) The consequent invariable production of antitypical Moabites and Ammonites, and not antitypical Hebrews from all such cases of antitypical incest, proves that the reaping ended by Oct., 1914 [just before antitypical Sodom began to go into destruction] and the gleaning by Passover, 1916. (63) The fact that such antitypical incest—participating Youthful Worthies and tentatively justified ones and their incestuous offspring lose all standing with the Lord and can get no higher than restitution (Deut. 23:2-6), proves their theory of the high calling as still open, and as having been so even after antitypical Sodom began to go into destruction, Sept. 21, 1914, is wrong and proves that the reaping ended by Oct., 1914, and the gleaning by Passover, 1916. Please note that we hold that the Harvest in its wide sense, i.e., as including the drying, threshing, winnowing, sifting and garnering processes, is still going on. It is the Harvest in the narrow sense of reaping and gleaning and sheaving that we claim was ended, the first by Oct., 1914, and the second and third by Passover, 1916. 

To justify the view of some on the reaping beginning in 1878 and ending in 1918, certain ones continually cite our Pastor's article in the Sept. 1, 1916 Tower, entitled, "The Harvest [Reaping] Is Not Ended." But that article neither gives the date 1878 for the reaping's beginning, nor 1918 for its ending, nor does it hold to the 40 years' length of the reaping: In

Gershonism. 

310 

two places in that article our Pastor mentions 1918 but he does it to point out wrath parallels as to the nominal Jewish Church and as to the nominal Christian Church, and rightly denies that these Dispensation Parallels (not the harvest Parallels) affected real Fleshly and Spiritual Israels, and therefore denies that they point out the reaping's end in 40 years from its start. The point that he is discussing is not the reaping of saints, but the punishments of the two nominal houses. These references are found in Z '16, 264, col. 2, pars. 2 and 6. Nowhere else in the article does he mention 1918, and anyone who will confuse a wrath feature in the Parallels with a grace feature, such as reaping is, is either ignorant, or confused, or dishonest on the subject. Our Pastor expressly states in the article that he did not know when the Gospel Harvest, reaping, would end—"We know no time limit here." On page 263, in par. 2 of the article, he gives two reasons why he changed his mind on the Harvest ending in 1914. The first of these is that too many new creatures were coming into the Truth to constitute a gleaning. The Lord for very wise reasons, withheld from him the understanding that the bulk of these new creatures were antitypical Lot, crown—losers, escaping from antitypical Sodom in America before it here would begin to go into destruction. 

The second of these reasons, also given in that paragraph, is that he thought that during the smiting of Jordan, which he expressly said in the next paragraph would take at least three years, grains of wheat would be won. Hence he thought that the reaping might go on at least until the Fall of 1919, if not longer. But in the last paragraph referred to he cautions the brethren to keep in mind that he expressly refrains from giving a date for the end of Jordan's smiting and of what he expected to be its reaping work, saying that he knew of no time features for the Church beyond the date of his writing, giving Elijah's 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

311 

and Elisha's going to no definite place as the proof thereof. Hence he does not in this article fix April, 1918, nor any other date, as the end of the reaping. April, 1918, as the reaping's end, is a pure guess, contrary to his express teaching. When our Pastor says (Z '16, 264, col. 2, par. 2) that "the 3½ years of Jesus' ministry were more [italics ours] a time of preparation of the Apostles to be instruments for the harvesting and a sharpening preparation of the sickle of Truth for the later work which began at Pentecost," he certainly tells the truth; but the very terms that he uses prove that while the pre-Pentecostal work was such mainly—"more"—it was not such exclusively, but was on a smaller scale another work, i.e., a reaping work, as his cited Scriptures and facts prove. 

Bro. Russell in the article under discussion (Z '16, 264, par. 5) expressly states that 1874 was the beginning of the harvest time and work: "ever since then [1874] a new song [the harvest message] has been in the mouths of the Lord's people, as they have learned of His goodness through the Divine plan of the Ages." This passage shows that the Lord's people had been doing harvest work ever since 1874. But note the sophistry that is used to evade our Pastor's plain teaching here, that the harvest message began to be proclaimed ever since the end of the 1335 days—1874! It is that 1874 was the date for the beginning of the harvest time, but not of the harvest work. The fact that "ever since then [1874], a new song was in the mouths of the Lord's people," i.e., ever since 1874 they were preaching the harvest message, proves that ever since 1874 they have been doing harvest work; for what was harvest work but singing the new song (Rev. 15:2-4), preaching the harvest message? Hence that distinction applied here is sophistry, contradicting our Pastor's given date and what had also been done since that date. When the time comes for God to do a thing, God does it 

Gershonism. 

312 

promptly, as in this case it is expressly shown in Rev. 14:15: "Thrust in Thy sickle and reap; for the time TO REAP [to do harvest work] is come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." If one stresses our Pastor's statement on Jesus' resurrection "before the Church harvesting began" as a proof that reaping began at Pentecost, 33 A.D., and hence that our harvesting began in 1878, we reply two things: (1) Since the article under review denies any Dispensation parallels between the work toward Israelites indeed in the Jewish Harvest and Spiritual Israelites in the Gospel Harvest after Nisan, 16, 33 and 1878, our Pastor could not have meant this remark to be taken to prove the Gospel Harvest to have begun at Pentecost, 1878. (2) Of course, Church harvesting could not have begun before Pentecost, for that very term implies the gathering of new creatures as the Church, of whom, except Jesus, there were none until Pentecost. But the reaping of Israelites indeed, beginning with our Lord, the first grain of wheat (John 12:24) and proceeding with the apostles, the 70 and others, until at least 500 disciples were gathered (1 Cor. 15:6), continued from Oct., 29 A.D., to Pentecost without new-creatureship, except in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Pastor rightly denied that the Dispensations' Parallels acted toward real fleshly Israel after 33 and toward real Spiritual Israel after 1878. While these did not then work, the harvest Parallels operated from 29 to 69 and from 1874 to 1914. The failure to note the difference between these two kinds of Parallels is the occasion of the above-refuted confusion on this matter. 

Bro. Russell's article under discussion does not give up 1874 as the date of the reaping's beginning. It asserts it as the date of such. Nor does it deny Oct., 29 A. D., as the date for the beginning of reaping the Jewish Harvest. What the article denies is that the Jewish Harvest ended in 69 A.D., and the Gospel Harvest in 1914. It claims that in each case the reaping

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

313 

went on indefinitely beyond these respective dates. In other words, the article repudiates the 40 years as the reaping's duration. In this repudiation our Pastor, when a sick, weakened and dying man, gave up a truth that when in better health and consequently in better intellectual strength he Scripturally and factually proved to be true, as did also the Edgar Brothers. The fact that this repudiation occurred after 1914, at which time the Little Flock developing Truth was completely free of error, proves it to be a mistake, since the two involved truths are Little Flock developing truths. Hence we hold to the pertinent presentations of our Pastor taught by him faithfully years before and for nearly two years after Oct., 1914. 

Having pointed out and refuted the two main ways that our opponents seek to evade some of our 63 proofs (most of them they ignore; and of some of them they are ignorant), we will now take up the points that the April, 1937, Dawn offers in answer to some of our proofs and in alleged proof of its view. To the argument that new [post—1914] consecrators who have learned the Parousia Truth and its offers of the high calling [which it made to certain only of the consecrators] and who have applied these to themselves without having investigated the question as to whether such promises apply now to any or all consecrators or not, but who have actually assumed against the Divine Word (of whose pertinent teachings they are doubtless ignorant) that they apply to them, consider that God led them up to such views and would be slamming the door in their face, if He were to deny them the high calling, we reply: We rejoice that God opened their eyes to see the Parousia Truth and to consecrate; but even if this had taken place during the last 33 years of the Parousia time,: i.e., from Oct., 1881, up to Oct., 1914, it would not necessarily imply that they were offered the high calling; for, as our Pastor shows (F 156, 157), and as the 

Gershonism. 

314 

Bible proves, after the general call ceased only certain ones of the consecrators were Spirit-begotten, and the rest became Youthful Worthies, to be associated with the Ancient Worthies as princes during the Millennium (Vol. IV, Chap. V). But since the reaping ended, i.e., since the Epiphany began, nobody is any more favored with the Spirit-begettal. It is the misfortune of such consecrators that, ignorantly indeed, they, against God's Word as now due, applied to themselves the Parousia promises that then applied to a limited number of the consecrators only, and that no longer, during the Epiphany, apply to anybody; but if their hearts are right, the Lord will show them that the Youthful Worthies' hope is theirs, and that He did not "slam the door close in their face" but closed it when due, which left many outside who wanted to come in, but could not (Luke 13:24-27). 

Later in the article under review, reverting to this point, it implies that God authorized such hopes in these new consecrators' hearts, quoting as proof our Pastor's words, "The Lord is too loving and too just to authorize [italics ours] in the hearts of any hopes that could never be realized." To this we say heartily, Amen! and add that God never authorizes in the hearts of any hopes that are contrary to His Word. And since His Word in the 63 proofs above given shows that no new invitations to joint-heirship with Christ are given since Oct., 1914, He did not authorize such hopes in the hearts of consecrators since then. These have imagined or have been mistaught such an authorization without waiting to get light, proving that God did not authorize in them such a hope. To the claim that a proper understanding of the door shows that Luke 13:24, 25 does not apply now and to such consecrators, we reply that the 63 proofs given above prove that it does apply since Oct., 1914. 

As to their thought that according to our Pastor the 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

315 

door means opportunities to enter into suffering with our Lord in proclaiming the Gospel, which they claim is still being done, and for which they claim the high calling is still open to new consecrators, we make several replies: (1) Our Pastor taught that the door means three things: (a) the entrance into consecration and Spirit—begettal for high calling purposes; (b) the entrance into suffering with Christ for preaching the harvest message as due; and (c) the entrance into the Kingdom. The door in the first two senses is closed; but the door in the third sense is still open. It is especially to the sophistry of the article on point (b) that we desire to call attention. Rightly did our Pastor, in speaking in Studies, Vol. III of the door in sense (b), which he calls the door of opportunity, say that as long as there will be opportunities of entering into the privilege of suffering with Christ for doing harvest work the opportunity to enter the high calling [sense (a)] will be open. By doing such work he meant reaping the saints exclusively. How do we know this? Because when he wrote this thought in Studies, Vol. III, i.e., between 1889 and 1891, he held that reaping was the final work ahead of the Church on earth and would be finished just before the Time of Trouble would begin. Hence he meant that when the reaping would be completed it would be impossible for new ones to enter into suffering with Christ. 

We repeat it: When he spoke of closing the door of opportunity making it impossible for new ones to enter opportunities of suffering with Christ in preaching the Gospel, he meant the end of opportunities for new ones to do reaping work; for when he discussed that question in Studies, Vol. III (the witness work to the world being then only incidental to harvesting), reaping was the only way of preaching the Gospel to others not in the Truth of which he then was aware as an unfinished work for the priesthood in the flesh. Hence, according to his view, after the reaping was finished

Gershonism. 

316 

there would be no more opportunity for new ones to enter into suffering with Christ, which implies that the door in sense (a) and means that the door in sense (b) would then be closed. But the reaping being ended in 1914 and the gleaning in 1916, no new aspirants could enter the high calling, since it was thereafter impossible for new consecrators to enter into opportunities to suffer with Christ, since this could be done only in connection with a work forever ended in 1914. By the above we, of course, do not mean that there would be no more proclaiming of the Truth after the reaping was over, nor opportunity for the Church, fully gathered, to suffer with Christ (though it could no longer be done in reaping); for certainly other than reaping work is needed in the priesthood, e.g., for up-building one another and for dealing with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, and in the Great Company and Youthful Worthies for service to the Church, to one another and to the world. But the sufferings associated with such work are not associated with reaping work, though, thank God, they are often instrumental in inducing consecration, i.e., unto Youthful Worthiship. Hence the opportunity of new consecrators entering into suffering with Christ being forever ended with the end of reaping work, new aspirants since Oct., 1914, have had no chance of entering into suffering with Christ. Thus the sections of Studies, Vol. III that they cite in favor of a present reaping work refutes their thought and corroborates our view. 

The Dawn's claim, necessary for its theory, that as we get closer to the end of the Church's career new consecrators become fewer, is not in harmony with facts, for tens of thousands (Youthful Worthies) have consecrated in the last few years and are increasingly so doing, e.g., in the last nine years in the Epiphany movement about 5,000 Youthful Worthies consecrated in Poland alone, and their number is 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

317 

constantly increasing with greater rapidity than formerly. Hundreds of such in our Polish classes are symbolizing their consecration every year. We agree that it is through the Truth that God calls to consecration, yea, that everyone who up to 1878, when the fullness of the Gentiles came in, made a full consecration was by that Truth begotten of the Spirit, as called to the high calling. But since 1881 only certain ones were through the Truth by God, usually quite some time after the Truth induced them to consecrate, begotten unto the high calling; and the other consecrators, though induced by the Truth to consecrate, were not Spirit—begotten, and hence not initiated into the high calling; and since Oct., 1914, the Truth induces many to consecrate but begets none to the high calling. Hence the sophistry in the argument underlying the Dawn's position that since the Truth is the means of calling to consecration, all brought by the Truth to consecration enter the high calling. Yea, surely, God still controls His Truth, as the Dawn contends, and for that reason makes it work out His will in calling to consecration; and His will, according to our 63 proofs, is to beget no more of the Spirit for high calling purposes since Oct., 1914. These 63 proofs are no speculation, as the Dawn alleges of the view that it opposes, but are Bible teachings; and the facts since Oct., 1914, and Passover, 1916, are all in harmony with their teaching and against the Dawn's teaching on this subject. As a further refutation of the theory that the Truth must beget now as during the General Call it begot all consecrators, we would say: The Ancient Worthies had all the Truth due in their day and were consecrated, yet were not called to the high calling, the Truth not begetting them. Furthermore, in the Millennium the world will have all the Truth then due, even more than we now have and will be consecrated, yet they will not be called to the high calling, the Truth not begetting them. Why not? The 

Gershonism. 

318 

Truth of itself did not beget of the Spirit; it did so only when God by a direct act of His will (Jas. 1:18) empowered it so to do in each individual case. Hence, God willing it from Pentecost until 1878 in the case of all true consecrators, all such were Spirit-begotten. God not willing it for some from 1881 to 1914, the Truth did not beget such of the Spirit; and since God wills it for none since Oct., 1914, the Truth begets none of the Spirit since then. This completely refutes the Dawn's pertinent sophistry. 

"There is a reason" why the Dawn, by contrast, overemphasizes the agency of the Truth in the work of calling and under-emphasizes by contrast the agents whom God used to bring the Truth to high calling prospects—it desires to disassociate the oversight of the complete reaping work from our Pastor's supervision, so that it can now have reaping apart therefrom. But the ink-horn man is in its way. Recognizing that he was dying, in the toga scene our Pastor, in his part pictured in that man, saw that the ink had been placed on the foreheads of all that sighed and cried in the city, that the elect were all sealed in their foreheads, and with this symbol made his part of the report, "I have done as Thou hast commanded me" (Ezek. 9:11). As the steward throughout the day of the Penny parable—the reaping time—he at the end of that day gave the penny to the Little Flock and the Great Company. Hence he had oversight of the reaping until it was completed. Hence there has been no reaping apart from his supervision. The Dawn stands for reaping unsupervised to an end by a supervisor. 

The Dawn is forced by the facts to admit that there was an alleged curtailment of its alleged reaping after our Pastor's death until, as it thinks, recently. We may be sure that the Lord Jesus would not have allowed a curtailment of many years in the reaping work, but as from 1874 to 1914 He continually increased it, so He would have continued to increase it to the end,

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

319 

if 1914 had not been the end. The alleged reaping that the Dawn stands for is in reality the symbolic incest between antitypical Lot and his two daughters. It is not reaping at all; it is an abomination to the Lord; for it makes symbolic bastards of those of them who claim to be of the Little Flock. To its question, "What arguments are there, then, if any, that God … is not still accepting new members into the body of Christ?" we answer: At least 63 cogent arguments (more will doubtless come later) that none of the Levites, including the Dawn editors, have been able to answer, sophistrize against them as much as they will. Then the Dawn sets up a man of straw—the claim that the end of the Gentile Times proves the end of reaping in 1914—and then proceeds to kick it over. Bro. Russell repudiated such a thought in 1912, though he had previously held it. Who that now understands the subject would make such a claim? We base the true claim, not on the Gentile Times' ending the reaping, but, among other things, on the many Scriptures that limit the Parousia, the reaping period, to 40 symbolic days, and thus end it in 1914; but we do not base it on the end of the Gentile Times. 

Then the Dawn sets up what is actually another man of straw, to the effect that the parallel Dispensations are claimed to teach the end of reaping in 1914, and then proceeds to kick it over. We answer this point as follows: While the Dispensation Parallels after April, 33, and April, 1878, affected only the nominal peoples of God, as our Pastor correctly taught, the harvest Parallels affected the real peoples of God from 29 to 69 and from 1874 to 1914, as our Pastor also correctly taught. We have given some details on the distinction between the Dispensation and the harvest Parallels and showed from many facts the operation of the latter to be from 29 to 69 and from 1874 to 1914 (Studies, Vol. III, 404-410). As the true view on the subject, this exposes the Dawn's claim

Gershonism. 

320 

as actually a man of straw, though it is not such in the case of those who misuse the Dispensation Parallels as showing the end of the Harvests. The Dawn's sophistry on Rev. 7:1-3 is very manifest to one who holds our Pastor's view of that passage in mind. Against its straw-man claim, that its opponents hold the four winds to be the World War, we reply, Not so. As our Pastor from 1908 onward showed, the four winds represent the fallen angels and to their loosing he referred time and again as the loosing of the winds (not wind) of strife, because these fallen angels, loosed, stirred up strife. Furthermore, our Pastor rightly taught, in harmony with many Scripture uses of the word wind as symbolic of war, that the wind (not winds) of v. 1 symbolized the World War. The passage, therefore, teaches that the sealing of all the elect in each country would be completed before the World War would involve that country. This is the plain teaching of the passage. Against the Dawn's thought that the blowing of the four winds clearly indicates "something which would effectively block any further sealing of God's servants" and that Germany's and Russia's making it practically impossible there to preach the Gospel are examples of the effect of such blowing of the four winds, we would say that the thought is an example of reading into the text what is not there. The text teaches the reverse, i.e., that conditions would to the end of the sealing of the elect be favorable to such work, not, as the Dawn teaches, that the loosing of the four winds would be "something which would effectively block any further sealing of God's servants"; for how could the loosing of the four winds "effectively block any further sealing of God's servants" if all of the sealing in each country was completed before the loosed four winds made the symbolic wind, the World War, hurt the earth, etc., in each pertinent country? Thus is exposed the folly (2 Tim. 3:9) that the Dawn offers to evade

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

321 

the clear force of Rev. 7:1-3, which proves that before the World War would involve a country its elect would already have been sealed, which proves our view of the question at issue. The Dawn's pertinent handling of Rev. 7:1-3 betrays the fact that it has a piece of food in its mouth, too hot to retain, too tough to chew and too large to eject or swallow. 

The Dawn's confusion on the seven angels of the seven churches as being seven individuals, we will here pass by, having treated of that above, merely remarking on its use of gaps between messengers in the period between the two Harvests, that even if the seven angels were individuals the gaps could not apply to Bro. Russell, the Harvest's Eleazar, for directing and teaching purposes; for as it was necessary that Apostles, the Jewish Harvest's Eleazar, for binding and loosing purposes (Matt. 18:18), supervise the work of the entire Jewish Harvest after Pentecost, so it was necessary for their parallel, Bro. Russell, as the Gospel Harvest's Eleazar, for directing and teaching purposes, to supervise the Gospel Harvest work to a completion (Num. 4:16; Matt. 20:8; 24:45-47). Therefore, gaps between the star—members living between the two Harvests would not imply that the reaping work could go on without Bro. Russell, as the Dawn alleges. To the Dawn's claim that the apostasies among Truth people since our Pastor's death imply that the apostates have since his death forfeited their crowns, we reply, Not so; for every crown that was lost was lost by Oct., 1914, when most of our 63 proofs demonstrate the last crown was finally assigned, and hence, before the last crown was finally assigned, the last crown must have been lost. In truth, such apostasies for the most part are the Lord's Epiphany manifestations of the pertinent Parousia crown—losers as such. And as a supposed clincher to the sophism just manifested, the Dawn says, "The logic of events tells us it could not be otherwise." If

Gershonism. 

322 

the Dawn editors were Epiphany-enlightened priests they would see that the logic of events proves what we have just said on the subject. To the Dawn's statement that "to conclude that the door to the high calling was definitely closed in 1914 or 1916, or at any other time in the past, would be equal to saying that those already accepted could not possibly fall away from their steadfastness," we reply that the two statements are not at all equal, nor does the first proposition imply the second. Anyone under the call could now fall, but they will not, not because they cannot fall, but because they are so faithful that they will not fall. God's foreknowledge, assuring Him that all faithful to Oct., 1914, Would continue so, prophesied that they would be faithful to the end, e.g., by Elijah's coming to the mount at the end of the 40 days, by the sealing of all before the World War involved their countries, etc. 

The testings that the Dawn instances in the last 20 years as implying the fall of many during these years from the high calling, are, according to the Bible, to manifest, not the loss of the high calling during those years, but the separation of the Great Company from the Little Flock (2 Tim. 4:1; Mal. 3:3 [second clause; the first clause refers to the Parousia testing]) and the manifestation of the latter as having lost their crowns before Oct., 1914. Hence the testings have been no farce to either class, as the Dawn claims it would be if no Little Flock member lost his crown since Oct., 1914. Were Jesus', Paul's, Bro. Russell's and all other faithful saints' testings a farce because they did not fall? The claim of the Dawn that it does not for not a few require much time to make one's calling and election sure, proved, it claims, by St. Stephen doing so quickly, and hence that there will be no appreciable length of time between the Spirit-begettal of the last called ones and their Spirit birth, is certainly a speculation. While it is true that St. Stephen 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

323 

did make his calling and election sure in a short time, it must be remembered that he had been, as a pious Jew, consecrated from childhood. The vast majority of the most eminent and faithful saints were many years in making their calling and election sure. We instance all the Apostles except James, who was eleven years in so doing, practically every one of the other 37 star-members, including our Pastor, and hosts of lesser brethren in the Little Flock. The fact that since 1874 more and subtler trials than have faced any other generation of saints have confronted the Faithful, is proof that the Parousia and Epiphany trials for the individual Faithful are, generally speaking, longer drawn out than those of former generations. On this point we will say of the Dawn's statement, which it accompanies by the expression as to the nature of its pertinent teaching, "It is reasonable to suppose," that this point is an unprovable guess, or speculation, for whose proof it lacks the required knowledge, whereas the known facts given above point toward the truth of the opposing view in almost all cases. A view based on so exceptional a case as St. Stephen's, perhaps the record case of the entire Age, and that has against its frequent probability the cases mentioned above, certainly is in desperate need of support and is nothing less than a most improbable speculation. It seems to flow from the mental attitude, "My people would have it so." To its claim that our view of no Little Flock members falling since 1914, is "exceedingly detrimental to healthy Christian growth and progress in the narrow way," we reply: It is not so to the Faithful, but it would be so to unfaithful Great Company members and unfaithful Youthful Worthies; for their selfishness and willfulness move them to presume on the Lord's goodness and to avoid the cross as much as they can. God foretold to Jesus, to the twelve Apostles, except Judas, Paul taking his place in the promise (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 21:14 [to John]; Mark 10:39 [to John and James]), and to Bro. Russell (Luke 12:42—"faithful") 

Gershonism. 

324 

and they would prove faithful, and it made none of them careless, nor will any of the Faithful now be made so, should it be revealed that he was faithful up to Oct., 1914. 

The Dawn states that it has "examined the various reasons offered" for the door to Spirit—begettal being closed "and found that these reasons are based entirely on human philosophy rather than upon sound Scriptural proof." In the first place, its remark that it has "examined the various reasons," etc., is unfactual. For over five years we have had in print 57 of our 63 proofs; and it has not attempted to examine the large majority of them and has utterly failed to refute any of them, as our replies to their alleged refutations prove, much less has it found any of them based "on human philosophy rather than upon sound Scriptural proof." Such assertions as the one under review are easy to make, but to prove them—"Ah, that's the rub!" Then it offers Rom. 11:25 as an alleged conclusive proof that the door to the begettal is open. "Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." It reasons on this alleged proof as follows: Israel is still blind; hence the fullness of the Gentiles has not yet come in; hence the high calling is still open to new aspirants. What is wrong with this reasoning? It overlooks the fact that, when in prophecy the time of an event implying a long duration for its enactment is indicated, usually the beginning and not the end of the event is pointed out. Such is the case here. How do we know this? By the fact that this passage, compared with Is. 40:2; Jer. 16:18 and Zech. 9:12, points out the parallel Dispensations and thereby marks the exact date of the return of favor to Israel as occurring in the Spring of 1878. Two features are implied in God's intended favor on Israel: (1) Israel's return to Palestine, and (2) Israel's recovery from its partial blindness. Both of these events are long-drawn-out enactments; but both of them began 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

325 

on June 11, 1878, which was God's date for Pentecost that year, though not that of the Nominal Church. These events began (1) in the decree of the Berlin Congress of Nations exacting from the Turk for the Jews greater privileges in Palestine, among others, permission of their easier access thereto than formerly, and (2) in the circulation among the Jews of Delitzsch's Revised Hebrew New Testament, which he declares began June 11, 1878 (see Delitzsch's booklet on the Hebrew New Testament, page 37). The first of these events began to restore favor to Israel as to the land, and the second of these events began to restore favor to Israel as to Truth. 

St. Paul, in Rom. 11:25, as the parallel Dispensations prove, refers to the beginning of favor to Israel for its recovery from its partial blindness, even as Jer. 16:14-18 refers to the beginning of favor to Israel for its recovery of its land; for just as the withdrawal of favor from Israel was gradual in the Jewish Harvest, so is its return to them gradual here; and both of these forms of God's returning favor have been manifesting an ever—increasing fulfillment, e.g., as to the second form, a very great change in Israel's view of Jesus has been going on. In 1878 the Jews almost universally would expectorate and curse at the mention of Jesus' name, as of that of the greatest sinner. Now, almost universally, the Jews regard Him as one of their greatest prophets, and some of the eulogies on Him in Jewish pulpits are hard to be surpassed by those in Christian pulpits, so far as the human side of Jesus is concerned. Had there not been this change of Jewish attitude since 1878, our Pastor, as a Christian minister, from 1910 to 1916, would never have gotten the sympathetic hearing from the Jews that he did get; for a Christian minister to have preached Zionism to Jews in 1878 would have been regarded by Jews as a defilement to themselves and as an abomination to God. As an illustration of the gradual recovery of Israel from its partial blindness, we might say that in 

Gershonism. 

326 

our library we have several eulogistic biographies of Jesus by Jews in good standing with their coreligionists, e.g., one written by Dr. J. Klausner, who is, or until lately was, the president of the Jerusalem [Hebrew] University, who is probably the most intellectually influential Jew in the world, and who, in his biography of Jesus, lauds Him to the skies as the greatest of Jews and the greatest of the Hebrew prophets, though, of course, not believing Him to be the Messiah. His book is hailed by Jews everywhere as expressing their present attitude toward Jesus, who, in their former blindness, was to them the most wicked of the wicked, and hence the object of deep hatred and misunderstanding (blindness). The above sufficiently overthrows the Dawn's superficial, allegedly "conclusive" proof on the high calling being still open to new consecrators. Here we may say that, like the P.B.I., the Dawn denies our Pastor's view of the parallels. 

To its claim that new consecrators are working side by side with consecrators of 40 years' standing, as implying that the door is still open, we reply that this conclusion is neither Scriptural nor reasonable; for even from 1881 to 1914 many consecrated ones not begotten of the Spirit worked side by side with new creatures, and since the door is closed all faithful new consecrators so do. We fear that most of the Dawn's new consecrators (those of them who insist that they are Little Flock members) working side by side with its consecrators of 40 years' standing and those of this latter class who, while so working, believe they are winning new ones for the high calling, are engaged in the symbolic incest of antitypical Lot and his elder daughter. Its looking for a future loosing of the four winds is not only a misunderstanding of what those winds are and a contradiction of the facts that demonstrate that the fallen angels as the winds of strife were loosed before the World War, but ought also by it to be known to be a contradiction of our Pastor's teaching

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

327 

on the subject. To the implications of its exhortation to the brethren not to feel sure of their standing in the kingdom class as assured, we reply that our teachings are not to the effect that such assurance should be had; for we are not yet given any certain sign as to who are crown-retainers. All we know is that those that were faithful until Oct., 1914, will continue so. But as yet, none of those who have not revolutionized knows whether he is among such. Hence to all of the new creatures not yet manifest as crown-losers the exhortation applies now as forcibly as before Oct., 1914: Give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for just as before Oct., 1914, so now, the conditions of overcoming imply faithfulness in studying, spreading and practicing the Truth and faithfulness in enduring the incidental experiences. Since, as before, Oct., 1914, the faithful are not careless as to these points, nor will they be. 

In concluding this part of our review, we feel it to be the Lord's will to point out that by its false doctrines under review the Dawn is not only guilty of holding out hopes that will never be realized by its new consecrators, and therefore will occasion them great disappointment, which will act as a boomerang on the Dawn, but is also by that false teaching guilty of a much worse evil. Its Great Company editors (proven to be such by their repeated revolutionisms against our Pastor's teachings, e.g., on the chronology, on the Epiphany and Apocalypses, etc.) as parts of drunken antitypical Lot, are, in the matter reviewed in this chapter and in their other pertinent work, guilty of symbolic incest, and are thereby producing antitypical Moabites and Ammonites, symbolical bastards (Gen. 19:30-38; Deut. 23:2-6; D 576, 1), who, instead of being in the high calling, will find themselves in the restitution class, whereas had they been given the only hope now open to new consecrators, they could win out as Youthful Worthies, sharing with the Ancient Worthies in Millennial princeship. This is the

Gershonism. 

328 

terrible guilt with which the Dawn editors and all other Great Company members drunken with the same error and guilty of the same symbolic incest, are loading themselves. We warn them in the Lord's name that it will be at their great peril, if they continue in this course of false teaching and practice. Thus it is manifest that the question of whether the high calling is open or not to new consecrators is one of commanding importance now. We have given enough evidence, both in the Biblical proof of our position and in the refutation of attacks on it and of the erroneousness of the Dawn's position. 

Thus we have given 63 reasons proving that the reaping and gleaning have ended. Yet the P.B.I. Herald Editors to whom most of these proofs have been given say, "Looking for evidence that the Harvest ended six years ago, we look in vain!" [Written early in 1921.] If the reaping has not yet ended, how do they account for the great change that has taken place in the character of the work, especially since our Pastor died? What reaping or gleaning did they do, when for over two years they did no work at all toward the Lord's people in the Nominal Church, and since the end of those two years have done next to nothing toward them? Surely, if reaping or gleaning has since his death been in order, they proved themselves unfaithful servants during those two years, and quite slothful servants since those two years. Will these Editors kindly give us a Scriptural, reasonable and factual explanation of the events among the Lord's people, particularly their part in them, following our Pastor's death to the present, if there has been a reaping work going on since then? Again we ask, Will they kindly favor us with such an explanation, not failing to justify their doing no public work for two years of the time and very little since the two years ended? In view of the fact that our 63 strong proofs of the end of the reaping and of the beginning of the 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

329 

work toward the Great Company have in most part been set before the P.B.I. Editors—proofs that are far more numerous than are those that show the Harvest began in 1874, and that are at least as strong—the course of the P.B.I. Editors in denying the existence of such proof reminds us of a fable, according to which five very solemn and wise looking owls are represented as perched in a row on the branch of a tree one bright Spring day listening to a lark singing its joyous lays to the golden sun. Said the five very solemn and wise looking owls to the happy lark, "Why are you singing so merrily?" The happy lark answered, "Because the Sun is so beautiful, and its clear rays are enlightening, brightening and gladdening all the world." Answered the five very solemn and wise looking owls, "We fail to see any evidence that proves the existence of the Sun and its rays!" 

In the May 15, 1921, Herald the P.B.I. Editors and Directors give their promised (supposed) refutation of our dear Pastor's Jubilee views. It will be remembered that they subtracted nineteen years from the chronology of the period of the kings, and, accordingly, dated the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles nineteen years earlier than does the Scriptural chronology. This cutting off of nineteen years from the chronology, of course, makes their nominal-church chronology contradict that of our Pastor for every Jewish- and Gospel-Age prophetic period beginning at or before 607 B. C.; hence it contradicts his view of the Jubilee. They must, by hook or crook, cut off nineteen years from the typical Jubilee cycles so as to bring them to 1874, the time-beginning of the antitypical Jubilee. Seizing on the fact that there were nineteen Jubilees before the Babylonian captivity, they set up the claim that each Jubilee occurred in the same year as the seventh of the Sabbath years, i.e., each Jubilee began 49 years instead of 50 years after its predecessor began. This would, of course, enable them

Gershonism. 

330 

to cut off nineteen years from the chronology of the first nineteen Jubilees, and thus begin the last Jubilee with their nominal-church-chronology 626 B. C., which is nineteen years earlier than the true 626 B. C. We have not as yet heard how they add nineteen years for the nineteen years cut off from the Jewish Age in seeking to keep a semblance of harmony in the Parallel Dispensations; but our guess is that they do it as follows: by beginning the Jewish Age, not at the death of Jacob, but nineteen years earlier, when Jacob first sent his sons to Egypt to buy corn in the first year of the famine. If this is their view, we are ready to meet it, but will wait until they first publish their view. In this chapter we will refute their Jubilee chronology claims. 

Our readers, without dissent, so far as we have heard, and many who have hitherto supported the P.B.I., believe that our answer to their changed chronology for the Times of the Gentiles, to be found in the next chapter, completely overthrows their attempt to overthrow the Bible's and our Pastor's correct chronology. This being true, that answer carries with it the refutation of their Jubilee claims; for it shows that they were mistaken in their efforts to make the Times of the Gentiles begin nineteen years earlier than they did; and hence they are for the same reason mistaken in trying to cut off nineteen years from the first nineteen Jubilee cycles. Thus we might leave their whole position as overthrown by our proof that the Times of the Gentiles began in Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year. However, we will additionally present some cogent reasons proving that the arguments are wrong by which they try to prove their Jubilee views, which, like their views on the Times of the Gentiles and the land's desolation, are plagiarized from nominal-church writers. We will for clearness' sake number our points. 

(1) Their claim that the typical Jubilee cycles were 49 years each instead of 50 years each, if consistently applied, would make the antitypical cycle 2401 years 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

331 

instead of 2500 years. Hence, instead of the great Cycle bringing us to Oct., 1874, as the beginning of the antitypical Jubilee, their view would require us to take the square of 49 years, which being 2401, would bring us to Oct., 1775, six months after the American Revolution started, as the beginning of the antitypical Jubilee! Let us remember that by squaring the lower period the next higher period is reached (see Studies, Vol. II, 401, 402, the added two pages). Thus Israel did with the first and lowest perfect time-period, that of the week, which consists, of course, of seven (perfect number) days. Beginning the week with Nisan 16, the day after the Passover Sabbath, Nisan 15 (Lev. 23:15), they squared the number of days in a week, and this gave them seven Sabbaths (weeks) complete. This cycle pointed out and led up to the next day, the Jubilee of weeks, Pentecost, a word which means fiftieth (Lev. 23:16). Thus we see that the square of the lowest period, i.e., the seven days, the week, led up to and pointed out the lowest Jubilee, which was a higher festival than the seventh Sabbath of the cycle. This is one proof that the square of the lower period led up to and pointed out the next higher festival. The next higher perfect period than the cycle of weeks, in the type, is a cycle of years—of year-weeks. By squaring this period of seven years (Lev. 25:8), they had seven Sabbaths of years complete, and its last Sabbath of years led up to and pointed out the following year, the Jubilee of years (Lev. 25:9, 10). Thus, here we again see that they had to square the lower to reach the next higher period, which, in turn, led up to and pointed out the still higher festival, i.e., the seventh Sabbath of years led up to and pointed out the Jubilee, which was a higher festival than the seventh Sabbath of the cycle. But the Jubilee being the highest of all the typical festivals reached by the squaring method, after the last Jubilee the lower period to be squared to get to the next higher period, which is the antitypical Cycle,

Gershonism. 

332 

must be the typical Jubilee cycle itself; for it is always the square of the next lower that leads up to and points out the next higher period; and the longest typical period, being the one next lower than the antitypical Cycle, was that from one Jubilee to another—fifty years. Hence the antitypical Cycle would be the square of the typical Jubilee cycle, 50 x 50, which equals 2500 years. And just as in every other institutional type, fixed to a date, the antitype had to set in on the date that the type would have occurred, had it persisted, so the last year of the 2500 years was the first year of the antitypical Jubilee. 

The Herald, indeed, uses the 2500 years, i.e., 50 x 50 years, to reach the antitypical Jubilee in 1874; but since they contend that there were but 49 years from the beginning of one Jubilee to that of another, by what right, we ask, do they square fifty? If their view of the length of time from the beginning of one typical Jubilee to the next were correct, they would have to square 49, not 50. Hence their great Cycle would be 2401 years; and their antitypical Jubilee would have had to begin Oct., 1775, if they were right. Thus their view of the time from the beginning of one Jubilee to another—plagiarized (not "discovered" by them, as they claim) from the nominal church—would have made the antitypical Jubilee begin 163 years ago! Surely, this is a great blunder, because Restitution would by now be greatly advanced, if it began 163 years ago! Thus their method makes it impossible to reach Oct., 1874, as the beginning of the antitypical Jubilee by use of the antitypical Cycle. Why do these Editors and Directors seek to rob the Lord's people of the chronological Truth? How could they have been so careless as not to see that their fixing 49 years as the Jubilee period forces them to square 49 years, not 50 years, to get the antitypical Cycle pointing out the antitypical Jubilee? For our part we cannot explain why persons as intelligent as the P.B.I. Editors and

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

333 

Directors could be guilty of such blunders, except that they are in the hands of Azazel and are by him blinded. And if the brethren would remember that Satan is using these Editors and Directors to palm off errors in order to inveigle the unwary into some trap—probably a big counterfeit drive to finish the Harvest or to smite Jordan the first time—they would refuse to look to such blinded brethren for further spiritual guidance. 

(2) Against their thought that the Jubilee cycles were 49 years we place the Bible statement that the seven Sabbath cycles were 49 full years (Lev. 25:8), and that the next year, the fiftieth, was the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:9, 10). This was undeniably true of the first Jubilee cycle; and hence all other cycles had to be made on the same pattern, or the Bible would have specifically stated that the subsequent Jubilee cycles were to be counted differently from the first. Those—and among them are the P.B.I. Editors and Directors—who claim that the subsequent Jubilee cycles were reckoned differently from that first and only one which God described will never from the Scriptures be able to prove that subsequent Jubilee cycles were of a different length from the first. They may twist and squirm all they please about "600 lunations" and "606 lunations" (and thereby mark themselves with 666 on the forehead), and quote "The Approaching End of the Age" to all eternity to prove that the Jubilee came in the 49th year, saying, "The [first] Jubilee year began in the seventh month of the forty—ninth year"; but reverent Bible Students will still insist on accepting God's statement that it came in the fiftieth year (Lev. 25:10). On this point we bring two grave charges against the P.B.I. view: (1) that it contradicts God's statement that the Jubilee came after the full end of the forty—nine years, therefore in the fiftieth year; and (2) that their view implies that subsequent Jubilees were reached by a different method of counting from that used for reaching the first Jubilee. Why did they overlook these patent facts? Azazel can

Gershonism. 

334 

tell the reason; so can the Lord and His Epiphany-enlightened saints. 

(3) Their view that the Jubilee cycles were forty-nine years in length is contradicted by the parallel method of reckoning by which the Jubilee of weeks, Pentecost, was reached. In Lev. 23:15, 16 we are expressly told that after they had counted forty-nine full days, not forty-eight or forty-eight and a half days, they should count another day, the fiftieth day, and celebrate it as a festival, i.e., the feast of first fruits. Pentecost, we repeat, means the fiftieth, the day Jubilee, as distinct from the year Jubilee. This festival is described in vs. 15-21. This fact conclusively proves that the year Jubilee came every fifty years, not every forty-nine years. In this connection let us remember that the Day-Jubilee and the Year-Jubilee were reached by the same general method—that of squaring, and then adding a day or a year as the case required. How could the P.B.I. Editors and Directors have overlooked so obvious a fact? Azazel knows; so do the Lord and His Epiphany—enlightened saints. 

(4) The Scriptures prove that the eighth year from the beginning of the seventh Sabbath cycle was the Jubilee year, which disproves the P.B.I. view that the Jubilee always came in the seventh year from the beginning of the seventh Sabbath cycle. This is evident from the following considerations: In Lev. 25:21, 22 God, to encourage Israelites not to sow for two years, and to quiet their doubts expressed in v. 20, promised that He would, in the sixth year of the seventh Sabbath cycle, give the Israelites enough increase to tide them over until they began to reap in the ninth year what they sowed in the end of the eighth year, when as the earliest crops sown they sowed pulse and barley for the ninth year's reaping. Why so? Because the seventh year was always to be a Sabbath—a rest year—for the land (Lev. 25:2-7). Hence it was also to be a rest year in the seventh Sabbath cycle. The next year—the eighth year—being the Jubilee, the land was to 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

335 

rest from the sowing that would otherwise begin late in the seventh year, and continue during the sowing time of the (ordinary) eighth year (Lev. 25:21, 22). Hence we see that these facts imply that the Jubilee came always in the eighth year from the beginning of the seventh Sabbath cycle. If, as the P.B.I. Editors and Directors hold, all Jubilees came in the seventh year of the seventh Sabbath cycle, i.e., in the forty-ninth year, instead of promising increase for three years, God would have told Israel that in the sixth year He would cause the earth to bring forth for two years, and that they would have enough to last them until in the eighth year they would reap what they began to sow (late) in the seventh year for the eighth's year's reaping. This fact proves that the Jubilee always came in the eighth year. Therefore, from the beginning of any Jubilee to that of its successor there were always 50 years, not 49. 

(5) The Israelites first entered and began to possess the land in late Summer of the year 1576 B. C., not in early Spring, 1575 B. C., as the Herald claims. This fact overthrows the Herald's view of the Jubilees. While our Pastor, when treating on this point ignored the fraction of the year involved in this matter in reckoning the chronology, as he expressly stated (B 48, text and note), it is necessary, in order to meet the P.B.I. sophistry under consideration, that we take into account this fraction of a year, in proof of the truthfulness of the Bible statement that the Jubilee trumpet sounded in the fiftieth year on the Day of Atonement, and not on that day in the 49th year. The Herald counts the entrance into the land from the date of Joshua's crossing the Jordan, Nisan 10, 1575 B. C. This would be correct, if the land which God gave Israel consisted exclusively of the land west of the Jordan. But the land that God gave Israel included a large section east of the Jordan and north of the Arnon; and this section was entered in the late Summer of 1576 B. C. This is manifest from the Scriptures,

Gershonism. 

336 

which give us precise chronological data for locating this event. It was exactly thirty-eight years to a day from the time that Israel, for their murmuring at Kadesh-barnea after the spies returned with their reports, were turned back to wander in the wilderness until the day they crossed the Zered and a few days later that they crossed (see Studies, Vol. II, 401, 402) the Arnon into, and began to possess, the land which God gave them. (Deut. 2:14, 18, 24, 25; vs. 20-23, as indicated, are to be read as a parenthesis.) Thus, according to these verses it was exactly thirty—eight years and a few days from leaving Kadesh—barnea until Israel entered and began to possess the land which God gave them (Lev. 25:2; Deut. 2:24). Comparing these verses with Num. 21:12-15 we see that it was a few days' journey, and a journey that Israel made in a few days, from the brook or valley Zered, or Zared, to Arnon, Israel's southern boundary east of the Jordan (Judg. 11:18-23). 

If we can locate the time of the year when Israel turned back toward the wilderness from Kadesh-barnea, exactly thirty-eight years before crossing the Zered, we can tell exactly from what time of the year we are to begin to count the entrance of Israel into the land. The spies started to search out the land at the time of the first ripe grapes (Num. 13:20), and returned with late Summer fruits from searching the land in forty days (Num. 13:25). Palestinian grapes now first ripen in late July, and late Summer fruits now ripen about the middle of September. Probably in ancient times grapes first ripened about the middle of July and late Summer fruits about Sept. 1. The season of the first ripe grapes lasts about two or three weeks. The spies therefore returned some time from about Aug. 25 to about Sept. 15. Two days later (Num. 14:1, 25), Israel turned back to the wilderness. Hence thirty-eight years and a few days later to the day brought them to the late Summer of 1576; 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

337 

and hence at that time Israel entered the land. Accordingly, exactly fifty years later, thus in the late Summer of 1526 B. C., toward the end of the Jubilee year, it was in order to sow the land for the next year's reaping (Lev. 25:22). The Scriptures explicitly state that the system of year Sabbaths was to start with Israel's entrance "into the land which" God would "give" them (Lev. 25:2), and He gave them the land east of Jordan and north of Arnon as well as that west of Jordan. Hence the entrance into the land is to be reckoned from the late Summer of 1576 B. C., which also marked the time to begin sowing toward the end of the six Sabbatical years and toward the end of the Jubilee years for the following years' reaping (Lev. 25:22). 

It is for this reason that they were commanded to sound the Jubilee trumpet on the Day of Atonement of the fiftieth year (Lev. 25:9). The reason Israel began the Sabbath system in the Fall is because immediately after they entered the land in 1576 B. C., the civil year began, according to which the Sabbath system was reckoned, i.e., in the seventh month of the ecclesiastical year. Thus the Scriptures are thoroughly consistent in starting the Jubilee with the beginning of the fiftieth year from entering the land, while the P.B.I., following nominal—church writers, especially Dr. Guiness, the writer of "The Approaching End of the Age," with his nonsense on "600 lunations" and "606 lunations," are inconsistent with the Scriptures and with themselves; for they make the first Jubilee begin in the middle of the 49th year instead of in the beginning of the 50th year. The confusion of the writer of "The Approaching End of the Age," whom they endorse, is very manifest when he speaks of 600 lunations as making fifty lunar years: Israel never had such a year in the long run; rather they added a month as required by the condition of the barley for first-fruit purposes; and thus their year in the long run averaged a solar year. Beloved brethren, is it not deplorable that 

Gershonism. 

338 

Bible Students should reject "that Servant's" true presentations, and accept the false ones of nominal-church writers—foolish Virgins? Does not this fact show that as Great Company members the P.B.I. Editors and Directors are more in harmony with the Great Company leaders in the nominal church—who with them and with the other Truth Levite leaders constitute antitypical Jambres—than they are in harmony with the Priests, especially with our Pastor. 

(6) Their view of the Jubilee cycles as consisting of 49 years each and of the Times of the Gentiles as beginning in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, contradicts the time symmetry of God's Plan. In constructing His Plan God used the principle of symmetry from many standpoints. Among other symmetries He wove into His Plan harmonious time features. Some of these were brought to our attention by our dear Pastor, and some by Bros. John and Morton Edgar in their time charts, approved and published by our Pastor in the Berean Bible Helps. One of these is the parallel of the 2520 years, the first part of which parallel began at the end of the First Adam's day and ended at Zedekiah's uncrowning, 607 B. C., when its second part began, ending in 1914. Many of the parallels of this time feature were fulfilled, as can be seen on the last page of the Berean Helps, just before the concordance, from the standpoint of the first member of the parallel ending at Zedekiah's uncrowning, 607 B. C.; but the entire parallel would fall to the ground, if the P.B.I.'s nineteen years' change were made. Again, their Jubilee change would destroy the time symmetry of the double 2500 years' period, from the First to the Second Adam's day, the meeting-ground of these two periods of 2500 years being the last Jubilee celebrated before the Babylonian captivity. The same disharmony would occur from the P.B.I.'s nominal-church chronology in the double 3500 years' periods from the beginning of the First Adam's day until the end of the Second Adam's day, the meeting-ground of these two periods 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

339 

of 3500 years being the last Jubilee celebrated before the Babylonian captivity. So, too, would their chronological changes destroy the time symmetry of the double 2080½ years' periods from the Fall until the Gospel went to the Gentiles, 36 A. D., the meeting-ground of these two periods of 2080½ years being the date of the Covenant with Abraham, 2045 B. C. From their changes the same destruction of the chronological harmony results in the Parallel Dispensations. If, as we guess, they make its first member begin nineteen years earlier than the death of Jacob, i.e., in the first year of the famine, they will spoil the parallel event; for the death of Jacob must be paralleled with the death of Jesus, as both were the parallel Heads of the parallel Houses of Israel, each founding his nation in twelve tribes presided over by twelve leaders. So, too, will their nominal-church chronological changes spoil the double 654+1846 years' periods from the First to the Second Adam's day, the 654 years in the periods ending respectively at the typical baptism (the flood), and the antitypical baptism (that of Jesus), these periods having their meeting-ground in the last Jubilee celebrated before the Babylonian captivity. They have stated that on the basis of a year of 360 days they endorse the nominal-church date 445 B. C. as the beginning of the seventy symbolic weeks and the 2300 symbolic days of Daniel. In this case they must, of necessity, destroy the symmetry between the counterfeit days of waiting and counterfeit (papal) Millennium on the one hand, and of the true days of waiting and of the true Millennium, on the other hand. Moreover, this last change contradicts many of the fulfilled parallels of the Parallel Dispensations occurring in the periods of the days of waiting. Finally, their changes destroy, as a seventh harmonious time feature, the symmetry of 6000 years of evil—typed by the six week-days—followed by the 1,000 years of Restitution—typed by the Sabbath—beginning in 1874. What consummate folly against the time symmetry of God's 

Gershonism. 

340 

Plan have these Editors and Directors committed! And the fact of which they boast—that they have led many to believe their errors—increases their guilt. 

(7) As a final argument against their Jubilee as well as against all of their other chronological vagaries we present the Pyramid's testimony. Their subtraction of nineteen years from the chronology is not only refuted by the Bible, but also by its and God's Stone Witness, the Great Pyramid (Is. 19:19, 20). Here is a splendid touchstone. Will its size in its pertinent Old Testament parts shrink by nineteen pyramid inches to oblige these nominal-churchizing Editors and Directors? No; not even by one thousandth of an inch! Will it change its angles, by which many of the pertinent Old Testament dates are fixed? No, not by one second! Will it to oblige them destroy all its scientific lessons by these changes? No, not by one whit! Every one of the time harmonies referred to under the preceding point is given by the Pyramid's floor lines and by its angles in its solid masonry, as can be seen in detail in Bros. Edgar's Pyramid Passages, Vol. II; and the measurements have not shrunk even by one-thousandth of an inch, much less nineteen inches, since the P.B.I. Editors and Directors started out to "discover" (in the writings of foolish Virgins!) supposed mistakes in the Biblical chronology! Nay, that Pyramid by its measurements is an unanswerable refutation of the follies that these members of antitypical Jambres are trying to spread with sleight of hand and feigned words whereby they lie in wait to deceive the unwary. In this effort of theirs they have shown a more buttered (Ps. 55:21) method than their kindred-spirited sifter, J. F. R. Alas, for the guileless and confiding sheep of God's flock who have fallen into their clutches! 

Six times in their Jubilee article they use the expression, "we discovered," "we discover," with reference to the chronological changes that they suggest. Thereby they betray the fact of their posing as the inventors 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

341 

of "new light," against which they formerly raised great outcries. These outcries we must now consider hypocritical. How valuable their chronological "new light" is can be seen from our replies in this and the following chapter. And how "new" ("we discover," "we discovered") it is can be seen from the fact that these thoughts had grown old and had been thoroughly refuted before any one of the P.B.I. Editors (including their senior, R. E. Streeter, who, at the P.B.I. Brooklyn Convention, announced himself as the originator of their chronological changes) and Directors was born. And how much of "light" they have can be seen from the darkness they introduce into all chronological subjects. They "discovered" these chronological vagaries! Yes, indeed, in the rubbish heap of Foolish Virgins' books! Alas, for such "new light," such originality! We agree that their statement is true when they say: "Commentators in general [i.e., almost all the nominal-church writers who have commented on the chronology] who have written on the subject have adopted this (the P.B.I.'s) method of counting the fiftieth year as one of the cycles of seven"; i.e., they have counted the fiftieth year as the forty-ninth year! Yes, "almost all the Commentators," nominal-church writers, are kindred in the spirit of confusion with them on this point! And thereby have they shown their Babylonianism. 

Perhaps the most astounding of all things that have happened of late years among Truth people is the course of the P.B.I. Editors and Directors—who know that they have plagiarized these views from nominal-church writers—in palming off such stale garbage as nourishing and pure food of their invention ("we discover"), for God's Israel to eat! Knowing as we do that they are in Azazel's hands, and are as such acting as his mouthpieces to foist upon the unsuspecting brethren with these errors some counterfeit Truth work—like finishing the reaping, the 

Gershonism. 

342 

smiting of Jordan the first time, etc.—we solemnly in God's name warn the brethren everywhere to beware of these deceivers as (unwitting, of course) mouthpieces of Satan, lest they receive great spiritual injury for themselves! The only safe course for the Faithful is to repudiate these leaders, to come out of their section of little Babylon, and to stand fast in the Truth as they have received it from that Servant. So doing they may confidently expect to be abundantly fed by the Lord with seasonal Truth. As for the others—with deep sorrow we say it—they need just such smooth ("smoother than butter") deceivers as the P.B.I. Editors and Directors to mislead them, that at Azazel's hands they may receive the experiences that will destroy their flesh unto the saving of their spirits, which may the God of all grace and mercy grant! 

P.S. The above discussion on the Jubilee was ready for the press when the P.B.I. Herald of June 15, 1921, came to hand. It contains an article defending its plagiarized view on the Jubilee against an attack of some brother who wrote to them. We are glad to note the loyalty of this brother to the Lord's Truth. The article hedges on the forty-ninth and fiftieth year, changing somewhat its former chart presentation to evade one of the brother's telling objections to their view as first charted. On two of its points only will we answer, because its other points have been sufficiently answered above. The Editors make a sickly attempt to evade the brother's objection that they should square 49 years to get the antitypical cycle, instead of 50, if their theory of 49 years' Jubilee cycles were correct, in the following way: they quote B 180, par. 1, where our Pastor says that the seventh day and the seventh year are to be multiplied by seven, and the fiftieth year is to be multiplied by fifty to get the weeks of days and the weeks of years and the great cycle of years respectively leading up to, and pointing out, the day Jubilee, the year Jubilee and the antitypical Jubilee; and then they stress the thought that the 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

343 

seventh day and the seventh year are to be multiplied by seven and the fiftieth year is to be multiplied by fifty to get the various cycles. They deny that seven days and seven years are to be multiplied by seven and that fifty years are to be multiplied by fifty to get the necessary cycles. By this subterfuge they seek to justify their using 50 x 50 for the great cycle instead of 49 x 49 as their cycles require, barring their first which is 49½ years. Let us see to what their view will lead. The seventh day is, of course, only one day, the last one of seven days. If one day, whether the seventh or the millionth, is multiplied by 7 we have as a result 7 days, not 49 days; and this example in multiplication would have to be stated as follows: 1 x 7 = 7 while our dear Pastor stated what he actually meant as follows: 7 x 7 = 49. Again, the seventh year is only one year, the last one of seven years; and if we multiply one year, whether the seventh or the billionth year, by 7 we have as a result 7 years, not 49 years, and the example in multiplication would have to be stated as follows: 1 x 7 = 7, while our Pastor stated what he actually meant as follows: 7 x 7 = 49. Again, the fiftieth year is only one year, the last year of fifty years; and if we multiply one year, whether the fiftieth or the trillionth year, by fifty we have as a result 50 years, while our dear Pastor stated what he actually meant as follows, 50 x 50 = 2500. That our Pastor meant 7 days and 7 years by the expression "seventh day" and "seventh year" and meant 50 years by the expression "the fiftieth year" is evident not only by his statement that we must square the time indicated in the figures, and by his actually squaring the time indicated in the figures that he uses in B 180, par. 1, but also by the express statement in the following paragraph: "Fifty times fifty years [not the fiftieth, i.e., one year] gives the long period of 2500 years (50 x 50 = 2500) as the length of the great cycle." His entire argument is based on a 50 years' Jubilee Cycle as the whole chapter shows. Even ordinary 

Gershonism. 

344 

school children of one year's training would not be guilty of the "folly" of making such an evasion as these Editors have made. Surely their "folly shall be made known to all men." How long will the Herald readers permit their intelligence to be insulted by such self-evident "folly"? How dare these Editors insult our Pastor's memory and reputation for intelligence by drawing him in as a witness to justify their using his figures for reaching the antitypical Jubilee based upon 50 years' Jubilee cycles in the type, when they reject his view of the 50 years' cycles and accept the view of 49 years' Jubilee cycles—a view that by his squaring method certainly would force them, in consistency, to square 49 years to get their great Cycle. They are clearly bound hand and foot on this matter and their evasion is like the fruitless efforts of a prisoner trying to break off his shackles whose strength is a thousandfold greater than any pressure that he can bring to bear on them. 

The other point in their article on which we will comment concerns what they have to say about a [supposed] Sabbath year, coming in a way as proves the seventh Sabbatic year and the Jubilee year to be synchronous, and held, according to their view, 590 B. C., a date that is based on three errors: (1) that Zedekiah instead of being uncrowned 607 B. C., was not uncrowned until 587 B. C.; (2) that there was a freeing of slaves before the tenth day of the tenth month in Zedekiah's ninth year; (3) that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Zedekiah before the tenth day of the tenth month of his ninth year. The siege that began at this date (Jer. 52:4) was the third unsheathing of Nebuchadnezzar's sword against Jerusalem, the other two occurring, one in the days of Jehoiakim, and the other in the days of Jehoiakin, and hence none occurring in Zedekiah's time previously to the tenth day of the tenth month in his ninth year. This third siege begun at this last date, was raised for a short time through an attack threatened by the Egyptians on the Babylonians. But as soon as the latter disposed of the 

Other Earlier Errors of Shimite Gershonites. 

345 

former, they resumed the siege that was begun at the above-mentioned date. There was no Sabbath year kept during this siege, whether we date the siege according to the true date, 609-607 B. C., or according to the false date, 589-587 B. C. But there was, not before, but during the first part of the siege (Jer. 34:1-10), a temporary freeing of slaves in the hope that this act of mercy would win them the Lord's favor in delivering them from the siege. Then, during the short interval between the two parts of the siege (Jer. 37:5-11), the slaves were taken back again (Jer. 34:11, 21, 22). Therefore God said that the siege would be resumed (Jer. 34:22; 37:8-11); and it was done. Since the freeing of the slaves occurred during the siege, and not before, and hence from the standpoint of neither the true nor false date of the siege could it have been during a Sabbath year, it must have been that they let the Sabbath year which came before the siege pass without freeing the slaves; and then as a belated act of repentance released them in hope of inducing the Lord to free them from the siege; and then when they were freed therefrom, they immediately took back their slaves. That the freeing of the slaves was not an ordinary Sabbatic year liberation is also manifest from the fact that it was arranged for by a special, unusual and solemn covenant, on the part of the slave owners, implying a previous sin in the matter—an arrangement that the Sabbatic liberations did not require (Jer. 34:8-11, 18, 19). Nor do the passages intimate at what time the Sabbath year in question came. Hence the Editors cannot show its time relation to the last Jubilee, which must be done to prove their point. Hence this incident does not prove what The Herald claims for it, that the Jubilee year came in the seventh Sabbatical year. Such an unprovable claim, with its involved erroneous assumptions, proves anew that these Editors are in Azazel's hands. Above we refuted some earlier P.B.I. errors. They did not accept these refutations, but went on to other errors, as will be shown hereinafter.

‍