Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
in the lunar or in the solar months and years, the varying number of days in their months and years and the fractional parts of days in their years would have made the statement of the prophecy bunglesome, yea, almost impossible and confusing, and the work of tracing the foretold periods practically impossible. E.g., had He used lunar months, how could we be sure when to count 29 or 30 symbolic days to a symbolic month, since these do not for several reasons always alternate in the literal months, e.g., on account of the added month? Or how could we be sure when to use the symbolic added month and the year of 13 months? Or how could we be sure whether to begin to count with a month of 29 or of 30 days? All of these things would have to be considered in using the lunar months and years for symbolic time prophecy. Or if the solar months were used, how would one know whether or when to use a month of 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 days? One would be at an utter loss how to manage the fraction of a day in the 354.367 days in a lunar year, and the fraction of a day in the 365.242 days in a solar year in tracing the symbolic times of prophetic years. Hence God foretold these time periods in terms of months of 30 symbolic days and of years of 360 symbolic days. However, the years so foretold were not years consisting of 360 days, but years as we now have them. The fulfillments prove this to be the case. None of the examples that the Herald gives proves that the Bible gives us in its chronology years of 360 days. The fact that the water prevailed for 150 days, and the other fact that the ark rested on Mt. Ararat exactly five months after the flood began (Gen. 8: 3, 4), do not prove that these 150 days were equal to five exact months; for the ark could have drifted to a place on Mt. Ararat and then rested there in exactly five months without the date being 150 days from the beginning of the flood. Two considerations prove this:  These two verses do
not identify these periods. Hence this unproven, but assumed, identity cannot be treated as a proof of five months of thirty days each as being Biblical;  the ark drawing over fifteen cubits of water would have rested on a place fifteen cubits under the water before the water began to abate (Gen. 6: 15; 7: 20). Again, without any proof they assume that the 180 days of Esth. 1: 4 were six months. The desperate straits to which the Herald Editors are driven in assuming a year of 360 days as Biblical, when not only is there no Biblical proof for such a year in Bible chronology, but on the contrary the Bible clearly and unanswerably proves that it used a year that in the long run averaged a year of 365.242 days, are proofs sufficient of the utter erroneousness of their position.
(5) What if the Jews did observe the tenth day of the tenth month (Jer. 52: 4) as a fast allegedly for Nebuchadnezzar's invasion, which the Herald claims, and then gives its pertinent claim that this fast was in memory of the seventy years' desolation beginning with that event? This fast does not prove their point; for, during the seventy years of captivity, they additionally observed as fast days the day of the city's capture in the fourth month and its and the temple's burning in the fifth month (Jer. 52: 6, 12), and in the seventh month the day of Zedekiah's dethroning at Riblah (2 Kings 25: 6) and the desolation of the land, both occurring in the seventh month (Zech. 7: 5; 8: 19). That the P.B.I. claim that the fast of the tenth month was for the desolation of the land is untrue, is proven by the facts: (1) that not the desolation of the land, but the siege of Jerusalem set in then; (2) that the desolation of the land occurred in the seventh month, for which the fast of the seventh month was kept during the 70 years' desolation of the land (Zech. 7: 5; 8: 19); (3) that the date of the Babylonians' entering the land, which the P.B.I. claim as occurring in the tenth month, is nowhere given, much less given
as in the tenth month; it must have occurred before the tenth month, for it is far more than a ten days' journey from Palestine's northern boundary where the entrance was made, to Jerusalem; and (4) that the Jews considered Jerusalem's siege a great calamity, which justified a fast to mark its beginning.
(6) The land did not rest from sowing (as it would have had to do, if the seventy Jubilee years continued until 520, the Herald's date for their end) from the time of the return from Babylon until many years later—over sixteen years, according to the Herald—when they began again to rebuild the temple. This is evident from several considerations: (1) The Jews would have starved unless they had sown and raised at least some crops during those many years. (2) Hag. 1: 6, 4-12 directly says that the people from the time they left off rebuilding the temple until they began again to rebuild it had been sowing the land, though reaping little. Yea, they had been sowing ever since their return; but after they ceased from the work of rebuilding the temple (Ezra 4: 24), the Lord punished them for their lack of zeal for His House with crop failures (Hag. 1: 6, 9-11), which, of course, proves that they sowed and sought to raise crops. This unanswerably proves that the land was sown, and therefore was not up to 520 B.C., keeping its Sabbaths to fulfill seventy years. On the contrary, this proves that these seventy Sabbaths ended with Israel's return to the land; for from that time onward they sowed it; and hence none of the seventy Sabbaths were enjoyed by the land during the sixteen years from the return until, according to the Herald, the rebuilding of the temple began anew. To our astonishment the Herald uses Hag. 1: 1-11 as its second most important proof that the seventy Sabbaths did not end until 520 B.C.! Do these Editors have to be taught that famine years (mentioned in these verses as being sent in punishment for the Jews' neglecting to work on the Lord's House,
and then as being ended on their beginning again to rebuild the temple) are not what the Bible means by the land resting in its Jubilee years? Must these Editors be taught that the Jubilee years for the land, as well as the seven Sabbatic years intervening, were kept by the people's not sowing their crops, and thus letting the land rest (Lev. 25: 2-4, 11)? How could they have been so careless as to overlook this point and Hag. 1: 6, which they quote to prove the land's resting, but which shows the exact opposite, that sowing was done, and that therefore the land was not resting those sixteen years; and thus that sixteen of the seventy Sabbaths of the land were not kept throughout the sixteen years that they claim were parts of the seventy Sabbath years? Again, we ask, Why do they so often quote passages, e.g., Hag. 1: 6, to prove points positively disproven by those very passages? Is it not because they are in Azazel's hands, and are thus blinded by him, and at his direction palm off his errors on the dear unsuspecting sheep of God's flock?
(7) Their most important argument to prove their contention that the seventy Jubilee years ended in 520 B.C. and not on Israel's return from Babylon is by them declared to be Zech. 1: 7, 12, 16, particularly v. 12, which speaks of the Lord's indignation lasting seventy years, and which they say refers to the period of seventy years ending in 520 B.C. To this we answer that Editors who claim to have given a proper interpretation of Rev. 6 and its symbolic horses, as referring to the Gospel Age, should have known better than to have applied to the Jewish Age a vision (Zech. 1: 8-17) that refers to some of the same things as Rev. 6, and that refers exclusively to the Gospel Age. The seventy years of Zech. 1: 12 refer to the period of Spiritual Israel's captivity in Symbolic Babylon, and not to the period from Dec. 25, 589 B.C., to Nov., 520 B.C. Their use of this passage, as well as that of Hag. 1: 4-11 to prove their delusion, is only another evidence
of their drunken adherence to wrong theories of nominal-church teachers, and of their manifest unreliability as expounders of the Word of Truth.
When we wrote against some of their Revelation explanations we raised the warning that they were giving many interpretations of nominal-church teachers, some of which were contrary to those of our Pastor, and almost all of which pertaining to passages that he had not expounded were wrong. We are reliably informed that R. E. Streeter is the one mainly responsible for introducing such nominal-church views among the P.B.I.; but all of the Editors and Directors are responsible for giving way to these. Alas, that for such "foolish Virgins"' views they are willing to repudiate our Pastor's well-proven interpretations! When we consider that these Editors promise to show in future numbers how wrong our Pastor was on the 6000 years as ending in 1872, on the Jubilees, on the Parallel Dispensations, the 2300 days, etc., suggesting to the dear unsuspecting sheep not to be alarmed at this, and that they intimate that they will do this by the use of the theory of a Scriptural (?) year of 360 days—a theory that is utterly unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactual, we are in a position to recognize the depth of delusion into which they have fallen, the proven certainty of their being in Azazel's hands, and of their being mouthpieces of him, and the dire danger to the Lord's people of permitting such persons to continue any longer as teachers in their midst. We call upon the faithful to repudiate such unreliable, erroneous and unfaithful stewards of the Truth which was committed to the custodianship of the Church by the Lord through that Servant!
They announce May 1, 1922, that they are publishing an extra edition of their April 15 issue to circulate through their supporters their views on the Times of the Gentiles broadly among Truth people. Well, be it so! Let their partisan supporters, then, do
this, if they desire so to do; but in so doing will they not hasten the making known to all men of the folly of the P.B.I. Editors and Directors as parts of antitypical Jambres (2 Tim. 3: 8, 9)?
Since, according to their view, Zedekiah's overthrow was nineteen years later than the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles, they likewise state that they are convinced that the full collapse of Christendom will be over in 1933 or 1934. This was the view of some of the 1909 sifters. To make this view seem plausible they define the "Times of the Gentiles" to be, not the period of the Divine lease of power to the Gentiles, as our Pastor defined it (B 76, par. 2), but the period during which they would exercise universal power (H '21, 84, par. 3). While in Studies, Vol. II some expressions give also this latter thought, this was due to the fact that at that time he thought that the two terms were synonymous. Later, he came to see that they were not synonymous, from which time on he always defined the term to mean the period of the Divine lease of power (Z '04, 198, par. 1). For this reason he said, repeatedly, that sometime before Oct., 1914, the Lord would send the nations notice that their lease, the Times of the Gentiles, was expiring, and that they should vacate at that date, and that when they would refuse he would by the trouble evict them. All of us recall how he spoke of the war after it came as "eviction proceedings." Hence the time since Oct., 1914, is not a part of the Times of the Gentiles; it is the eviction time of those who are seeking to keep possession after their lease, the Times of the Gentiles, has expired. "There is a reason" for the P.B.I. Directors and Editors "teaching perverse things" (Acts 20: 30) on the Times of the Gentiles. In their April 1 issue, they state that the reaping is not yet over. Their general position seems to indicate that shortly they are going to advocate some drive to finish the reaping. On this we shall see what we shall see. Let us, for our
part, praise our God for the certainty of the Parousia and the Epiphany Truth, and for the privileges that as Epiphany-enlightened saints we have in the Parousia and the Epiphany Truth and its service (Ps. 91: 1-16).
The article that we have examined is entitled, "Watchman, What of the Night?" It is thus a question that the Editors of the Herald have asked. Having seen that their answer proves that the night is darkening about them, we would say in answer to their question, It is now night, and this night will darken more and more for them, until they have cleansed themselves. Then thanks be to God, it will become a day again for them!
In the P.B.I. Herald of July 15, 1921, is an article in answer to some questions that are against its Editors' views and that they say were sent to them by some of their readers respecting Jehoiakim's third and fourth years and the three years' schooling of Daniel. We are satisfied that the article is another of their veiled attempts to answer some of our points against their nominal-church view of the Times of the Gentiles beginning in the third year of Jehoiakim and in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Anyone reading their article can see that they are staggering as from a hard blow, but are trying to put on a brave front. Their tone, like that of the usual errorist, is very patronizing, for they speak of those who offer irrefutable Scriptural arguments against their position as being confused, and of their willingness to help these supposedly confused brethren. The fact that they themselves are the confused ones, and yet offer to enlighten those who are clear in the matter, brings to mind the offer that slaves to corruption make to free others by enslaving them (2 Pet. 2: 18, 19)! In their article on "Watchman, What of the Night?" they promised that they would prove their proposition on the Times of the Gentiles by the Scriptures alone; but in the article under review they admit that from secular history only
can they answer the objections based on the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the three years of Daniel's schooling. In other words, secular history (so they claim, but we will prove later on that Ptolemy's canon disproves their claim) and not the Scriptures are to control in this matter of chronology, according to the P.B.I. Editors!
They also claim now that the expression, "the first year of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon" (Jer. 25: 1) means the first year that Nebuchadnezzar gained controllership of Judah. This is a twist worthy of uncleansed Levites and members of antitypical Jambres. We must also correct a statement that they make, to the effect that, if a Jewish king began to reign one month before Nisan, with Nisan he would enter his second year's reign. This we emphatically deny. The time of his reign before Nisan would not be counted as belonging to his own reign, but as filling up the incomplete year of his predecessor. Unless this were the case, we could not construct a chronology at all from the years of Judah's kings. And the time symmetries of God's Plan prove them to have been so treated, and this proves the P.B.I. Editors to be in error on this point. Their view would compel one to assume that each king died the day before Nisan, if one were to construct a chronology from these kings' datings— an assumption which is most unreasonable, and which, in turn, would contradict their theory on this point; for it would leave no occasion for such a theory. Our Pastor was right in ignoring the three months and ten days of Jehoiakin's reign, because they filled up the eleven years of Jehoiakim's reign, as the Scriptures show (2 Chron. 36: 9, 10). The same is true in the case of Josiah and Jehoahaz, whose reign of three months ended just as the year ended (2 Chron. 36: 1-4). This we know because the combined reigns of Jehoiakim and Jehoiakin ended eleven full years later, "at the year's end" (2 Chron. 36: 10). Thus this point is
against them, and, of course, binds them all the tighter.
We deny their statement that secular history proves that Daniel was taken captive in the summer of 606. While a few secular historians may say some things to this effect respecting Daniel, they say it from their misunderstanding of the Scriptures. None of them claims to know anything at all of him from purely secular—heathen—sources, which make no mention of him. Some secular historians, like some nominal-church teachers, have tried to connect Biblical events in Jehoiakim's third or fourth year with Ptolemy's canon and with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and may, contrary to the Scriptures that we cited above, have put Daniel's captivity in Jehoiakim's third or fourth year; but as we will show most secular writers put the first and third dates later than their 606 B.C.
Again, we deny that Nebuchadnezzar was a coregent of his father. This theory is assumed by a comparatively few nominal-church writers, who, contrary to Ptolemy's canon, date Nebuchadnezzar's making Jehoiakim subservient to him at 606 B.C.; while most nominal-church writers and nearly all secular and religious encyclopedias and Bible dictionaries, following Ptolemy, but not the Bible, date this event at Jan. 604 B.C. We do not agree with this date, believing that the inspired chronological testimony of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, who were also eye witnesses, is infinitely more to be accepted as to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar than the testimony of the heathen Berosus who lived 350 years after the events, and than that of the heathen Ptolemy who lived 750 years after the events. If the P.B.I. want to follow the heathen Ptolemy rather than the Bible let them do it, but let them not, as they do, pervert his date. His canon makes Jehoiakim's subserviency begin at the time of the death of Nebuchadnezzar's father, i.e., allegedly Jan. 604, not in the summer of 606 B.C. The error that these Editors offer ("the Scripture antedates, etc.") in
the attempt shows they cannot harmonize their views of the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim with Ptolemy's canon.
So far as we know, all secular historians and nominal-church writers accept Ptolemy's canon as placing the death of Nebuchadnezzar's father at 604 B.C.; and all of these, except a very few who do otherwise to defend an erroneous theory, make 604 Nebuchadnezzar's first year. A few of these, as stated above, holding to Israel's return from exile as taking place in 536, to keep harmony with their thought of a 70 years' captivity (the Bible nowhere teaches a 70 years' captivity; it teaches a 70 years' desolation of the land and a 70 year's supremacy of Babylon, e.g., Jer. 25: 11, 12; 29: 10; 2 Chron. 36: 21. The supposed 70 years' captivity is based upon a mistranslation of Jer. 29: 10, where what should be rendered "for Bablyon" is rendered "at Babylon" in the A. V. See other versions for the correct translation), and to maintain a semblance of harmony between their date 606 for the beginning of the captivity, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, and Ptolemy's canon, have invented the idea of a coregency of Nebuchadnezzar with his father for two years before he became king in their year 604. Not only is there no evidence of such a coregency, but it also cannot fit in with the date of the events that are given by Ptolemy's canon and that precede Jehoiakim's becoming subservient to Nebuchadnezzar. We ask our readers to consult the article on Nebuchadnezzar in the Britannica, the International, the Americana, Schaff-Herzog, Jewish and other Encyclopedias, and in Smith's (4 vols. edition), Hasting's (5 vols. edition), Bible Dictionaries, the Century Encyclopedia Dictionary, etc., and they will find the following dates for the following events, based on Ptolemy's canon and accepted by practically all secular historians. In fact, the only authorities that we could find who do not give all these dates are the Catholic Encyclopedia, which gives
604 as the date of the battle of Carchemish, and McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia, which copying in the main the article in Smith's Dictionary, alters its 605 date for the battle of Carchemish to 606 to fit the theory above described, and for no other reason.
According to these authorities, which are based on Ptolemy's canon, Nebuchadnezzar, in harmony with a frequent practice of members of reigning families, commanded his father's Babylonian armies, which, in alliance with the Medes, overthrew the Assyrian Empire, by capturing Nineveh in 606 B.C. In the Fall of 605 B.C., while acting as his father's general, not co-regent, he in one of the decisive battles of history defeated, at Carchemish on the Euphrates, Pharoah-necho, who had previously, 608 B.C., wrested Syria from the Assyrians, and pursuing him nearly to Egypt, took from his subserviency all Syria and Palestine (2 Kings 23: 29-35; 24: 1; Jer. 25: 1; 46: 1-26) on the occasion of his first invasion of these countries. The battle of Carchemish occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 46: 2). Early in 605, hence in the third year of Jehoiakim (April, 606 to April, 605) Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon (Dan. 1: 1) to begin his campaign against Pharaoh-necho, Syria and Palestine. It was in the Fall of 605, hence in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (April, 605, to April, 604), that Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh-necho engaged in the battle of Carchemish; and it was during the former's pursuit of the latter after this battle that Nebuchadnezzar came the first time to Jerusalem, in Jehoiakim's fourth year (Jer. 25: 1), in Jan., 604. The death of his father occurring at this time, he became his successor while in Palestine; hence he came to Jerusalem in the first year of his reign, 604. On hearing of his father's death, desisting from further pursuit of Pharaoh-necho, he returned at once to Babylon with a few of his troops. The fiction of a coregency contradicts the whole setting of Ptolemy's canon and its associated events. Of course, we do not accept the dates given in
this paragraph—based on Ptolemy's canon—but we give them as these authorities give them. For our part, Scripturally, we believe these events occurred in each case about 19 years earlier. But we cite them to prove that Ptolemy's canon, on which the P.B.I. Editors profess to base their faith on Nebuchadnezzar's coming to Jerusalem in the summer of 606 in the third year of Jehoiakim, contradicts their view—yea, both Ptolemy's canon, which fixes the date at 604, and the Bible, which fixes the date 19 years earlier, contradict their view. Therefore their attempt (by aid of the coregency fiction, and of the unscriptural date of Daniel's captivity, which could not have occurred before the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 52: 28; 2 Chron. 36: 5-7), together with the unreasonable and unprovable assumptions that they make as to the time of the beginning of Daniel's schooling and of Nebuchadnezzar's dream) to harmonize the three years' schooling with Nebuchadnezzar's second year (Dan. 2: 1), which according to them was 603 B.C., falls utterly to the ground. The five proofs that we gave above with reference to these three years of schooling they cannot answer.
We have faithfully followed the Scriptures in this chronological controversy. They have neither followed the Scriptures nor secular history in harmony with Ptolemy's canon. In other words, there are three general views on this subject: (1) the Scriptural view; (2) the view of Ptolemy, favored by nearly all secular and nominal-church scholars; (3) the view of a few nominal-church scholars, who attempt to hold in part to a perverted view of the beginning of the captivity and to a view of events perverted from the standpoint of Ptolemy's canon. This third view, which is more erroneous than the second, the P.B.I. Editors champion to their confusion. It is nothing but a windy hypothesis, without one fact to substantiate it, and with the crudest distortion of plain Scriptures
and facts as the only things urged in its defense. It is revelatory of these Editors' confusion, that they show themselves so lacking in correct judgment of both Scriptural and secular historical questions. In spite of their giving various authors' names as their authorities they seem to have confined themselves to the writings of but one school, and that the least exact of nominal-church writers on the subject under consideration, and in this whole matter have shown so transparent an inability to reason logically on the data that these set before them, that they would do well to resign their editorship; for they are evidently unqualified for such an office. Had they the spirit of a sound mind they would resign, but we do not expect them to resign.
These Editors by their erroneous chronological claims have stirred up a veritable hornets' nest among their supporters. They did not think that there were among their readers so many thinking Christians faithful to our Pastor's correct chronological views. A large number of these refuse to follow these error-spreading Editors in their nominal-church views. This has led the Editors to abate somewhat from their confidence in their chronological errors; and the evident fear of a division with its consequent loss of members seems to prompt them to move heaven and earth to make their readers think that the time features are not a part of "present Truth," and as such are not a matter of vital importance. Such propositions they even attempt (H '21, 227-231) to prove from our Pastor's writings, by quoting from places where he mentions the main doctrinal features of present Truth; but on the other hand, as in other cases, they fail to quote from well-known writings of his where he calls the time features "present Truth," and urges their vital importance for the end of the Age. Throughout the first chapter of Studies, Vol. II, especially pages 30-32, repeatedly our Pastor speaks of the time features as
"present Truth," which means, "meat in due season," and speaks earnestly of their great importance. As a refutation of the P.B.I. claims on this line we suggest that all re-read this chapter. This is also the Bible teaching on the matter (Luke 12: 37, 42; Dan. 12: 4, 9-12; Hab. 2: 2, 3; 1 Thes. 5: 1-5). If we remember that the expressions "present Truth" and "meat in due season" are equivalent terms, at once we will see the "folly" of their claims that the time features are not present Truth, nor of vital importance for the end of the Age. How manifest is their Jambresian "folly"—that in the harvest time harvest time features are not present Truth, and are not vitally important! How otherwise than by harvest time features could the time of beginning and ending the reaping work be recognized? How otherwise could one have known when to begin and when to stop reaping? The sign prophecies are not sufficiently clear-cut to mark them. It was the time features, not the sign features, that prompted our Pastor consciously to enter into the harvest work (Z '16, 171, pars. 10-12). It was also the time features that enabled him to see in 1914 that the reaping ended Oct., 1914, and, as he for nearly two years thereafter taught, that the gleaning, and not the reaping, from Oct., 1914, onward was in order. Evidently the P.B.I. Editors in opening the discussion on the chronology thought that it was meat in due season (H '21, 83-85; 115, 116). They were evidently using their chronological changes to pave the way for some (counterfeit) reaping work. In the same references they speak of the chronology as among the "vital questions of the hour." If the time features are no longer a vital question in the end of the Age, why did they, as in inquisitorial body, and as "a doctrinal clearing house," cite Bro. Cox, one of the P.B.I. pilgrims, from Boston to Brooklyn to appear before them to answer for speaking against their chronology, and for seven hours submit him to an
inquisitorial and a doctrinal-clearing-house process in an effort, which proved futile, to make him recant the Biblical chronology given through our Pastor in favor of their unbiblical and unhistorical chronology, plagiarized from the most inexact school of nominal-church writers on the subject. Their latest change of front, to the effect that the chronology is not a part of present Truth and is not a vital question, is due, we believe, not to conviction, but to "business," i.e., to their desire as members of antitypical Jambres "to draw away disciples after them," because they now recognize that their chronological teachings have alienated a large number of their ablest and best followers, whom they want still to lead. Their efforts to "draw away disciples" in this respect are transparent to any one who has studied the way of those who "of your own selves shall" "arise, teaching perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20: 30). Their contention on the chronology as not being a part of present Truth, by which they confuse the issue, as though any of us claim that chronology is one of the essential doctrines for salvation, is another error that Azazel has given them, and is another proof that they are (unwittingly, of course) among his mouthpieces. For this reason they are utterly unfit to teach any Little Flock members, but are just the kind of teachers ("smoother than butter") that Gershonite Levites need to mislead them in their wilderness experiences, while their fleshly minds are being destroyed as a result of Azazel's machinations and their afflicting results. We pity them indeed, and pray for their recovery in due time. But our love for the Little Flock impels us to suggest to all the Little Flock members among the P.B.I. to refuse further offers of service coming from the P.B.I. Editors and Directors, whose untrustworthiness as teachers and leaders ought to be as transparent as the noonday sun to all Truth people thoroughly instructed in, and loyal to, the Lord's teachings as given through that faithful and wise servant. "Wherefore, come out
from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you" (2 Cor. 6: 17). By such coming out priestly fellowship will be withdrawn from them, though they may be given brotherly fellowship, as it will seem to be helpful and due for their cleansing. Separate yourselves, beloved brethren, from these Levites who have in their drunkenness dared approach God's holy vessels and altar for sacrificial purposes (Lev. 10: 1-11; Num. 17: 10—18: 3).
As connected with our subject we would here introduce an examination of several of Carl Olson's chronological errors. In presenting these he gives them as corrections of some alleged mistakes of our Pastor on the chronology. The first alleged mistake that he claims our Pastor made was his counting the period from the death of Terah and of Abraham's entrance into the land of Canaan (as synchronous with Abraham's receiving the Covenant) to the giving of the Law as 430 years, whereas Carl Olson claims on the basis of his interpretation of Gen. 15: 13 and Acts 7: 6 that it was 400 years from the death of Terah and Abraham's entering the land to the giving of the Law, and that consequently the Covenant must have been given to Abraham thirty years before, i.e., while he was in Ur of the Chaldees. We offer some arguments in refutation of this point: (1) It is true that while Abraham was yet in Ur of the Chaldees God offered to make a Covenant with him (Acts 7: 2, 3); but He attached certain conditions that had to be fulfilled by Abraham before He would make the Covenant with him. These conditions were that (1) he leave his own country, (2) his kindred, (3) his father's house, and (4) go to the land to be shown him, which proved to be Canaan (Gen. 12: 1). It was only after Abraham fulfilled these, conditions that the Covenant became his. He had to prove by submitting to the four above indicated tests that he was worthy of
the Covenant, before God would give—confirm—it to him. Hence, while the Covenant was conditionally offered to him in Ur of the Chaldees, it was not given— "confirmed"—to him until he had fulfilled the conditions on which it was offered, and for, and upon the fulfilment of which it was "confirmed" (Gal. 3: 17). Hence the Covenant was not given—confirmed—to him in Ur of the Chaldees, but on his entrance into Canaan. St. Stephen tells us that these conditions were by God in Ur of the Chaldees offered to Abraham for fulfilment, but he does not say one word about the Covenant being made—"confirmed"—with Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees. And the connection between Gen. 12: 1 and Gen. 12: 2, 3 proves that the conditions mentioned in v. I had to be fulfilled before the promises of vs. 2 and 3 belonged to Abraham. The conditions being fulfilled God "confirmed" the Covenant to him, and St. Paul said it was 430, not 400, years after it was "confirmed" that the Law was given (Gal. 3: 17). This, then, is our first answer to Carl Olson's "wonderful unfolding" of new light (new darkness, in very truth, it should be called) as to the place where the Covenant became Abraham's.
(2) The "wonderful unfolding" of new light (new darkness) becomes more apparent as of Azazelian origin when we examine his claim that Gen. 15: 13 and Acts 7: 6 prove that it was 400 years from Abraham's entrance into the land of Canaan until the Law, and that as a result it must have been thirty years before the entrance into the land that the Covenant was made with Abraham by God. As we compare these two passages we note that Acts 7: 6 is not a quotation, but a paraphrase, a brief explanation, of Gen. 15: 13. The following remarks will help clarify the situation: (1) Neither of the passages gives the name of the land that Gen. 15: 13 describes as not belonging to Abraham's seed, and that Acts 7: 6 calls "a strange land." Carl Olson's claim is that the land is the one that Abraham entered just after Terah's death; but
both verses show that the inhabitants of the land referred to would enslave Abraham's seed, which did not in any sense occur in Canaan before the giving of the Law; therefore that land cannot be Canaan. (2) The connections of both verses show that that land was a different land from Canaan (Gen. 15: 14-16; Acts 7: 7). (3) Gen. 15: 16 and Acts 7: 7 prove that Canaan is the land to which Abraham's seed would go after God should deliver them from the "strange land" of Acts 7: 6 and from the "land that is not theirs" of Gen. 15: 13. These three facts prove, therefore, that the land treated of in Gen. 15: 13 and Acts 7: 6 is not Canaan, and therefore Abraham's entrance into Canaan cannot be referred to in these two verses, and therefore the 400 years of those verses cannot be connected with his entering Canaan. The whole connection, compared with the facts of the latter part of Genesis and the first part of Exodus, shows that the land referred to in Gen. 15: 13 and Acts 7: 6 is Egypt.
Another line of reasoning overthrows Carl Olson's view on Gen. 15: 13 and Acts 7: 6. As it was not Abraham, but his seed, that was to be afflicted 400 years (Gen. 15: 13; Acts 7: 6), and as in Isaac was Abraham's seed called (Rom. 9: 7), and as Isaac was not born until 25 years after Abraham entered Canaan (Gen. 12: 4; 17: 17), Abraham's seed could not have begun to be afflicted until some time after coming into existence, which coming into existence began 25 years after Abraham entered Canaan; but Gen. 15: 13-16 and Acts 7: 6, 7 speak of this seed's being afflicted 400 years up to the time of its deliverance, which occurred at the giving of the first feature of the Law—the Paschal Lamb; hence it was more than 425 years from Abraham's entrance into Canaan until the Law. Accordingly, the 400 years (Gen. 15: 13; Acts 7: 6) have no reference to the time of Abraham's entering Canaan.
A third consideration proves the faultiness of Carl Olson's reasoning on Gen. 15: 13 and Acts 7: 6. It
will be noticed that both of the passages contain three statements respecting the seed: (1) its dwelling in an alien land; (2) its being enslaved by the people of that alien land; (3) and its affliction for 400 years by people belonging to that alien land. Carl Olson draws the expression "400 years," which occurs in the last clause only of these verses, into their first clause, treating it as though it stated that the dwelling in the alien land would be 400 years. If this were permissible, then the expression 400 years would have to be drawn into the second clause, and this would prove that the slavery of Abraham's seed would be 400 years, i.e., that from some time after Joseph's death (Ex. 1: 6-11) until the Exodus were 400 years; hence there would be as many more years than 400 years from Abraham's entrance into Canaan until the giving of the Law as there were years from Abraham's entering Canaan until some time after Joseph's death! Thus his method of interpreting this verse, logically applied, destroys his own contention. And since we have proven the "land" of the first clause to be Egypt, his method of interpretation would make the verse self-contradictory from the standpoint of the length of the stay in Egypt and the length of the slavery; for the latter was shorter than the former; but his method of interpretation makes both the same length by forcing the insertion of the term "400 years" into both clauses. Surely the result of his method applied to the facts of the case is confusion. Manifestly the expression 400 years is limited to the third clause. How reasonable is our Pastor's explanation, that these 400 years' affliction of Abraham's seed began with the mistreatment that Isaac received at his weaning (Gen. 21: 8, 9), at the hands of Hagar, an Egyptian, and her son Ishmael, who, though actually a son and thus a seed of Abraham, is not Scripturally counted as of Abraham's seed, but as of the Egyptian nation after his mother's nationality (Gen. 21: 9, 21; Gal. 4: 29, 30). In ancient as well as
in modern times, in oriental countries, frequently children are not weaned until from four to six years of age. As we understand matters, Isaac was five years old at his weaning; hence this episode, occurring 400 years before Israel left Egypt, and thirty years after Abraham entered Canaan marks the beginning of the affliction of Abraham's seed at the hands of the Egyptians, and is thoroughly in line with Abraham's entering the land 430 years before the Law; and this proves that the Covenant was made with Abraham when he fulfilled the conditions necessary to obtain it. His use of this passage is like a drowning man clutching at a straw! How much better it would have been, had he humbly drawn the only proper lesson that he should have drawn from the experience of teaching the terrible errors of which he has become guilty, and of which he recognizes his guilt—that he is not qualified for the office of a teacher of the General Church, and that he, therefore, should desist from further usurpation of that office.
Like the P.B.I., and from the same standpoint, he thinks that he has found another mistake in our Pastor's chronology as to the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles. His arguments are borrowed from nominal-church writers on this point, as is the case with the P.B.I. Editors, and as our answers above to the latter's views also overthrow his views on this matter, we will not repeat them here. However, two of his thoughts in this connection should receive attention. On page 2 of his June issue he states that the seventh year of Ezekiel's captivity was the last year of Jehoiakim's reign. This is a mistake. The first Babylonian captivity of Israelites occurred at the end of Jehoiakim's and in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (Jer. 52: 28; 2 Chro. 36: 5-7). Ezekiel entered into captivity with Jehoiakin, and the chronology that he gives for his different visions is dated according to the years of Jehoiakin's captivity