Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
THY thoughts are here, my God,
Expressed in words Divine,
The utterance of heavenly lips
In ev'ry sacred line.
More durable they stand
Than the eternal hills;
Far sweeter and more musical
Than music of earth's rills.
Fairer in their fair hues
Than the fresh flowers of earth,
More fragrant than the fragrant climes
Where odors have their birth
Each word of thine a gem
From the celestial mines,
A sunbeam from that holy heaven
Where holy sunlight shines.
Thine, thine, this book,
though given In man's poor human speech,
Telling of things unseen, unheard,
Beyond all human reach.
No strength it craves or needs
From this world's wisdom vain;
No filling up from human wells,
Or sublunary rain.
No light from sons of time,
Nor brilliance from its gold;
It sparkles with its own glad light,
As in the ages old.
A thousand hammers keen,
With fiery force and strain,
Brought down on it in rage and hate,
Have struck this gem in vain.
Against this sea—swept rock
Ten thousand storms their will
Of foam and rage have wildly spent;
It lifts its calm face still.
It standeth and will stand,
Without or change or age,
The word of majesty and light,
The church's heritage.