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