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


and Zedekiah's reign, which two events began at the same time, as the following references will prove: Ezek. 1: 1, 2; Jer. 29: 1; Ezek. 40: 1; 33: 21; 24: 1, 2, etc. Hence the overturning that Carl Olson tries to put into the third or fourth year of Jehoiakim was, even in the seventh year (Ezek. 20: 1; 21: 25-27) of Zedekiah, yet a future thing. It occurred in the latter's eleventh year; for the prophecies of chapters 20 and 21 were given to Ezekiel on the same occasion, i.e., in the seventh year, fifth month and the tenth day of his captivity and of Zedekiah's reign (Ezek. 20: 1). But even if it were, as Carl Olson claims, in the last year of Jehoiakim's reign, the entire overturning is stated as a future thing, which proves that the overturning could not in any sense refer to a past event such as he supposes to have occurred in the third or fourth year of Jehoiakim, but must have been future to Jehoiakim's last year.


As Jehoiakin's three months' reign simply filled out his father's eleventh year, he was not counted as reigning in his own right and time; hence God said to Jehoiakim that none of his seed should sit on David's throne, Zedekiah, the last of the kings, being his brother. God's statement on this point does not mean, as Carl Olson implies, that with Jehoiakim's third year his right to reign ceased and the Times of the Gentiles commenced. However, his view of three over turnings is contradictory to Ezek. 21: 25-27, and certainly is a marked example of how Azazel gives foolish thoughts to his mouthpieces. Our Pastor's explanation of the threefold repetition of the word "overturn" as being for a solemn emphasis is certainly reasonable and Scriptural. The overturning was that of Israel's royalty only; this was fulfilled in Zedekiah.


The next point in this connection respects his claim that Daniel's age was too great for his activities, toward the end of his career, which age by errors and guesses he gives as 112 years, if the 70 years began at



the end of Zedekiah's reign. This he claims favors his understanding of the Times of the Gentiles as beginning in the third or fourth year of Jehoiakim, when he claims Daniel was taken a captive. We answer as follows: The Bible shows that the first captives and the first set of sacred vessels were taken to Babylon in the end of the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (Jer. 52: 28; 2 Chron. 36: 6, 7), a little over 10½ years before Zedekiah's overthrow. This would cut seven years off of Carl Olson's figures for Daniel's age. Again, Cyrus became king of Babylon in Nov., 538, and his third year would have been from Nov., 536, to Nov., 535, hence a little over 70 years after Zedekiah's overthrow. This would make Daniel's stay in Babylon until Cyrus' third year about 81 years. Carl Olson guesses that Daniel was 20 years old at his taking to Babylon. Even if this were true, his age would then have been, not 112, but 101 years, in the third year of Cyrus. For a person of Daniel's temperate habits, and with the Law's promise of many years for the obedient, Daniel at that age would have been able to do the work described as his in his book. Anna, the prophetess, was at least 105 years old, and was quite active (Luke 2: 36, 37). In all likelihood Daniel was between 90 and 95 years old in Cyrus' third year. This point, therefore, does not favor the fourth year of Jehoiakim as the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles.


As an illustration of Carl Olson's "wild speculations and fanciful interpretations," we cite his claim that Adam was thirty years old at the time of his fall. He reasons that this must be so, because the Priests and Levites had to be thirty years old before they could serve, and because John and Jesus were thirty years old when they began their ministries! We answer as follows: These all having been born as undeveloped babes had to develop into manhood, which was attained at thirty years, according to the Law. But Adam was created in perfect manhood and not under the Law.



Hence what applied to them did not apply to him. No reason but Carl Olson's desire to have thirty years added to his chronology to give him a period for the operation of another set of foolish predictions and campaigns can be advanced for his theory that Adam was thirty years old at the time of his fall! The Bible nowhere intimates such a thought. It was born in Azazel's mind, and thence transplanted into the responsive mind of C. Olson. He claims that the 6,000 years since Adam's creation will end Oct., 1921, and that the 6,000 years from his fall will end 1951. He denies the truthfulness of the Parallel Dispensations. Like the Society leaders his views imply 51 Jubilee cycles of 50 years each since the last one before the captivity, despite God's saying (2 Chro. 36: 21) that all the Jubilee years were fully kept—fulfilled—during the 70 years of desolation; therefore he gives 1944 as the beginning of the antitypical Jubilee. He seems to have cast off both of its arguments in Studies, Vol. II. He thus has no antitypical great Cycle pointing out the antitypical Jubilee. In his chronology it would end before the end of his 6,000 years! This may account for its absence from his scheme of things. We understand that he denies that our Lord's Second Advent and the First Resurrection have set in and that the Great Company is a spiritual class. In fact, he claims that he must cut loose entirely from our Pastor's teachings on prophecy, and work on entirely "original" lines. Of course, with such a standpoint, Azazel will soon take away front him every vestige of prophetic truth! What we said above about the time symmetries of God's Plan and of the Pyramid measurements applies against all his chronological vagaries, as well as against the P.B.I. errors on Chronology.


The P.B.I. Editors are going astray on a number of subjects. Their chief errors concern the organization of the Church—a doctrinal error—and the chronology—a prophetic error. Above we have



pointed out their chief errors in these respects, as well as called attention to some of their revolutionism in practice, particularly in reference to their drawing up a Charter contradictory of the sample Charter—that of the W. T. B. & T. S.—for controlling corporations among Truth Levites. In their case the proverb is surely fulfilling—"He that says A must also say B." Surely Azazel is leading them on from one error to another, putting them under the delusion that their contradictions of our Pastor's teachings are advancing light! This has been his course with all sifters among Truth people, as the history of all six siftings shows.


Now they are losing the Truth on the subject of our Pastor being that Servant. However, they are spreading this error with Satanic cunning and Judas-like treachery. In an article in their April 1, 1922, Herald, entitled, Whom and What Shall We Preach? amid protestations of affection and appreciation for our Pastor—of the same kind that Judas showed our Master while betraying Him—they deny that there is any prophetical, symbolic or typical Scripture that specifically refers to him (H '22, 101, par. 2), claiming that such personal and individual references are made to Jesus and the Apostles alone. They claim that it would be speculation to refer any such Scripture to Bro. Russell, and that they, for their part, would refrain from such speculation. They have in this seemingly come to agree with their ally, ex-pilgrim Melinder, in Sweden, whose reasons for denying that our Pastor alone was that Servant were reviewed in P '21, 148, 149. They tell us that they have not changed in their attitude toward, and opinion of, our Pastor (H '22, 101, col. 2, par. 1). This would mean either that they did not formerly believe that he alone was that Servant, when they called him such, or that they are now falsifying as to their former view of him. In the same connection they say that they believe he was "a [italics ours] very wise and



faithful servant." Why did they not say that they believe that he was that wise and faithful servant? Their view that there is no Scripture that refers specifically to him implies that they deny that Matt. 24: 45-47 and Luke 12: 42-46 specifically refer to him. In gross hypocrisy they quote passages from his writings that rebuke the course of some brethren who applied too many Scriptures to him, as though he deprecated all Scriptural applications to him by the brethren. He himself—modestly, of course—applied Matt.

24: 45-47 and Luke 12: 42-44 to himself (D 613, 614; Z '96, 47, note particularly the second paragraph on page 47); and he never deprecated any one's doing the same. It was only when the brethren degenerated into angel-worship of him in their efforts to apply to him multitudes of inapplicable Scriptures that he deprecated and rebuked their course (Rev. 22: 8, 9).


The claim of the P.B.I. leaders that no other individuals than our Lord and the Apostles are referred to individually in the prophecies, symbols and types of the Bible not only contradicts what Bro. Russell says (C 25-59) on Dan. XI, but is also in direct contradiction of other Scriptures, e.g. Zech. 11: 8, 15-17. See Vol. VI, Chap. III. If one studies the deep cunning and mock affection with which the article under review is written, he can at once see its Satanic and Iscariot-like character. It is true that they do not in express words flatly deny that our Pastor is alone meant by the expression, that Servant. This would be too dangerous to say; for this would be against their policy of drawing away disciples after themselves, since it would turn many more away from them. But what they do say certainly means this. Their fighting his chronology is in line with their denial of his being that Servant. Their fellowshipping on most intimate terms with ex-pilgrim Melinder, who they know denies that our Pastor was that Servant is in harmony with the same thing; and Bro. Frew, a pilgrim of their



own making, at Richmond, Va., some time ago, before a Class there, denied that Bro. Russell alone was that Servant. Before long we may expect them to come out openly and deny him the exclusive honor of being that Servant. Their confounding the proper application to him of certain passages with the worshiping of angels, which he condemned, will deceive only such as have not received the Truth in the love of it; and their article on the subject is a Judas betrayal of him; and this Judas-like spirit may later express itself in a final betrayal of the representatives of the entire Christ class now living in the flesh.


The Herald Editors (H '22, 27, 28) are lukewarm and unsettled on whether the various items of Elijah's experiences and related acts from the time he saw the vision on Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19: 11, 12) until Elisha's death (2 Kings 13: 20) are types. They admit that our dear Pastor looked upon them as types; but they are in doubt on their being such, and confess that at least up to the present they have seen no fulfilment of Elijah's and Elisha's experiences as given in 2 Kings 2: 1-19. Once some of them did see the antitypes of these things as occurring from 1874 to 1917; but through their Levitical uncleanness coming into the ascendency in their lives and works in 1918, they have lost the Truth on the subject; and, of course, denying the only factual explanation that can fit the case—see Chapter II of Vol. III—they can find no other set of facts to fit the typical events as their antitypes. This growing unsettlement of their confidence in this phase of the Truth that they once saw, like their rejection of the thought of our Pastor as being individually referred to in any prophetic, typical and symbolic Scripture (hence according to their view he is not referred to individually in Matt. 24: 45-47; Luke 12: 42-44), is proof positive that they are out of the Holy and are going into outer darkness. The Lord's way of proving their gross iniquity connected



with the Fort Pitt Committee in 1918 is thus being manifested more and more as the days go by! "If the light that is in thee become darkness, how great is that darkness!" This is the reason why they do not now see any antitype to 2 Kings 2: 1-19.


The P. B. I. has republished Studies, Vol. I and is advocating, among other ways, its use for the Pastoral work. This in itself is a good work and is appropriate for Gershonite Levites; for by such work they will lead people to repentance and faith and thus to justification, and then later on to consecration; and this is the proper work of the Gershonites (Vol. VIII, Chap. II); but their Jambresianism will teach such persons that they are candidates for jointheirship with Christ and the Divine nature, and in this way will work genuine mischief. Thus their chronological errors will pave the way for great disappointment to their converts.


Above we refuted their nominal-churchizing and heathenizing chronology on their year 606 B.C. The brethren will be glad to learn that a goodly number of their former adherents have withdrawn their support from them, since they gave out their errors on the Times of the Gentiles beginning in the third year of Jehoiakim. In fact, the New York P.B.I. church had so many members faithful to our Pastor's chronological teachings that at the following election of its officers they voted down as Elders I. F. Hoskins and H. C. Rockwell, the only two Herald Editors who were among their Elders. From the fact that that church at the same time elected Bro. Cooke, one of the P.B.I. Directors, as one of its Elders, we infer that the Herald Editors very likely falsified when they said that the P.B.I. Editors and Directors were unanimous in believing that the third year of Jehoiakim was in 606 B.C., and that it was the beginning of the Times of the Gentiles. If these P.B.I. Editors were not in Azazel's hands, and if they were not



blinded by him, surely our answers above would have rescued them from their delusion.


Despite the fact that we have proven that both the Scriptural and the secular chronologies disagree with their dating the third year of Jehoiakim as 606 B.C., they continue to reiterate this thought. In their Nov. 1, 1921, issue these Editors, in the main approvingly, print an article written by a Washington, D. C., brother who wishes his name withheld, but whose initials, J.A.D. (these are the initials of J. A. Devault, of Washington, D. C.) are given at the end of the article. Only on one point do these Editors express dissent, i.e., on the seventy years of desolation. J. A.D., knowing that their arguments on that point cannot be sustained, resorts to another artifice to gain the same end, i.e., of cutting off 19 years from the Bible chronology. It is indeed remarkable how errorists arrive at the same results by mutually contradictory processes of reasoning. They agree in their denial of the Truth, but reach that agreement by mutually contradictory reasoning. Thus they remind us of Samson's foxes: their burning tails are tied together, while their heads are in opposite directions!


It will be recalled that our Pastor said that prior to 536 B.C. secular chronology is uncertain, and that therefore God to give us full assurance provided us with His chronology, covering the period in which secular chronology is uncertain, and ceased to give us His chronology only when secular chronology became certain, i.e., from 536 B.C. onward. This is, therefore, certainly a reasonable proposition. But J.A.D. claims with much positiveness that it is reasonable that we accept secular dates prior to 536 B.C., if we do so from 536 onward. However, as he proceeds he guilelessly proves that his proposition is the unreasonable one; for he gives several secular chronological tables which differ as much as three years in what he claims are the 24 years immediately preceding 536.



It is just because of these contradictions in the secular chronologies immediately preceding 536 B.C. that our Pastor claimed that they were undependable, and therefore rejected them as correct before 536 B.C. Certainly his course was the reasonable one, and J.A.D.'s is the unreasonable one, as his own tables prove. We could not have asked him to give us better proofs for the unreasonableness of his position on this point than he has furnished us by giving us the proof from the secular chronologies that by their discrepancies and disagreements they are unreliable prior to 536 B.C. On this point we are by him reminded of the homely proverb: "Give a calf enough rope and he will hang himself." David's language certainly applies to this brother: "Tarry in Jericho until your beard be grown." "A little learning is a dangerous thing."


In the Herald (H '21, 311, col. 2, top) the claim is made that if Bro. Russell had had the arguments presented to him which the P.B.I. Editors use for their cutting off 19 years from the chronology, he would have agreed with the P.B.I.'s position on the point. But not only does our Pastor's refuting their main points in Studies, Vol. II and in later articles prove that he had studied and rejected them, but J.A.D. also proves that they were studied by our Pastor; for he claims (H '21, 325, par. 1) that he presented these very views to our Pastor, who later rejected his findings. Thus the P.B.I.'s position on this point is doubly disproven.


J.A.D. gives more folly (2 Tim. 3: 9) by what he says about Mordecai's age as a proof that the Times of the Gentiles must have begun in the third year of Jehoiakim; otherwise, he alleges, Mordecai would have been too old— about 150 years old—at the time of his Scripturally described activity. He cites in proof of this point Esther 2: 5-7 (H '21, 332), claiming from it that Mordecai went into captivity with Jehoiakim in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year; whereas the passage



says that it was his great grandfather that then went into that captivity! Oh yes, his arguments are "remarkable corroborative testimony" in proof of the P.B.I. chronology! They are Jambresian folly (2 Tim. 3: 9)!


His main arguments for the cutting off of 19 years from the chronology are practically the same that we have already refuted above; hence to avoid repetition we pass them by. Later on we will refer to his efforts to make another "double" than the Biblical one taught by our Pastor. This we will do when reviewing similar features of an article in the Herald of May 1, 1922, in which the Herald endorses his view in an article entitled, More Study in the Chronology. This article was occasioned by a letter that they published which attacked their chronology, especially on the 70 years' desolation—the 70 Jubilee years—and on the Parallels. They still continue to maintain their "folly" on the 70 Sabbath-keeping years—the desolation of the land— as ending about 16 years after Israel's return from Babylon and 16 years after they began to sow seed and reap what the land yielded! Persons who, in the teeth of the clear Scriptural refutation of such a view of Sabbath-keeping on the part of the land as we gave above, will still maintain such a view are just what St. Paul says of antitypical Jambre—ever seeking and never attaining the Truth.


The writer of the letter cites against their view Moses' statement (Lev. 26: 31-35) that God would drive them out of their land and keep them out of their land, so that the land could enjoy the Sabbaths that they did not permit it to enjoy while they inhabited it. This passage expressly states that as long as they would be out of their land it would enjoy the Sabbaths that it did not enjoy while they were in it. The P.B.I. Editors try in a number of ways to evade this thought, among others, by half clearly, half obscurely conveying the idea that these Sabbaths were the Sabbaths that came every seven years, and not the



Jubilee Sabbaths; and then they intimate that these have been kept during the dispersion since 70 A.D. This cannot be true, because the present dispersion has lasted many more years than the number of all their Sabbatic years. The Prophet Zechariah (Zech. 7: 5, 12) conclusively proves that there were no Israelites in Palestine during the 70 years of Babylon's supremacy, thus corroborating 2 Chro. 36: 20, 21; Lev. 26: 31-35. Nay, Lev. 26: 31-35 refers to the Babylonian captivity, and its Sabbaths are the Jubilees, not the seventh year Sabbaths.


These Editors seek to evade the brother's objection by another method: they claim, despite our Pastor's rejection of that thought, that none of the captives of Israel were to be more than 70 years in Babylon; hence, they claim, this would include those who went into captivity 11 years before Zedekiah, which would make the time from his captivity until the return less than 70 years. In proof they quote Jer. 29: 1-10, particularly v. 10. They stress the fact that the captives here referred to went into captivity about 10 years before Zedekiah's overthrow; yet according to their contention none was to remain there more than 70 years in all. But they base their argument on a false translation. In v. 10 the phrase "at Babylon" should read "for Babylon," (see, among others, both Revised Versions) the thought being that after the first Gentile power had exercised its full period of 70 years of exclusive Gentile royalty, and hence 70 years after the crown was taken away from Israel at Zedekiah's dethroning, that Empire would cease to keep Israel any longer out of their land. This passage does not say how long those Israelites would be in captivity. It teaches that the first 70 years of the Times of the Gentiles would be Babylon's period of universal dominion. Hence during this period Israel would have no crown. But at the end of the first period of exclusive Gentile royalty over the earth



Israel would return. Therefore this passage proves the length of time from the dethroning of Zedekiah until Israel's return to be 70 years; thus instead of proving, it disproves the P.B.I. position. To base arguments on false translations, as these Editors here do, is poor reasoning and worse policy.


Next they refer to Jer. 25: 11, 12 to prove that all Israel was not out of the land 70 years. They claim that the expression "70 years" in the last clause of v. 11 applies only to the last clause of the verse, and not to the clause that says that the land would be a desolation and an astonishment. So far as this verse alone is concerned, it is impossible positively to assert what the P.B.I. Editors assert; for frequently for brevity's sake we omit the repetition of a phrase in a double sentence, when the phrase applies to both clauses, e.g., in the sentence, "He devastated the entire land and drove out its inhabitants by his army," everybody would understand that the expression, "by his army," belongs to both clauses. So in Jer. 25: 11 the expression, "70 years," belongs to both of its clauses. That this is true we assert on the authority of God Himself; for He Himself says in 2 Chron. 36: 20, 21 that Jeremiah's prophecy that the land would be desolate 70 years was fulfilled by God's driving them out of their land and keeping them in other lands, thus desolating it—until it was so bereaved of its inhabitants 70 years. If the P.B.I. view of the desolation were true, there would have been no need of driving them out of their land at all. All that would have been necessary for the P.B.I.'s kind of desolation would be to make the land unfruitful. In other words, sending them lean years for 70 years would have been the P.B.I. desolation, as 16 of their 70 years were lean years spent by them in their own land. But God said that the land's desolation—bereavement of the land of its inhabitants—not leanness, would last 70 years. In no other passage than Jer. 25: 11 does Jeremiah



foretell 70 years of desolation. Hence God's own explanation of Jer. 25: 11 shows that the expression "70 years" in that verse belongs to the desolation of the land as well as to the universal royalty of Gentile power represented in Babylon. Therefore the expression "70 years" in the verse under consideration belongs to both of its clauses; and it proves that the desolation of the land and Babylon's supremacy were contemporaneous; therefore they began at Zedekiah's dethronement. Moreover, God's own explanation of how the land would enjoy its Sabbaths is conclusive on this point: He said that as long as Israel would be in their enemies' land—therefore out of their own land—would the land enjoy its Sabbaths (Lev. 26: 31-34). Hence none of its 70 Sabbaths were kept while they were in it; and therefore the 16 years after Israel's return, claimed by these Editors as Sabbaths, were not such.


We, accordingly, conclude that the Editors' efforts to interpret Jer. 29: 10; 25: 11 in a way that makes them conflict with the clear teachings of Lev. 26: 31-36; 2 Chron. 36: 20, 21—and we might add Zech. 7: 5, 12, to which the P.B.I. Editors do not refer—in order to put upon these passages an interpretation contrary to their clear teachings, has completely failed. God's statements on this subject still stand, the P.B.I. Editors and their master, Azazel, to the contrary notwithstanding.


We desire to emphasize the fact that we mentioned when we first answered their errors on the Times of the Gentiles—their lines of reasoning are not original with them; they have plagiarized these things from one of the most inexact schools of nominal-church chronologians! Not only so, but worse yet, their lines of reasoning are exactly the same as the Second Death sifters used in 1908-11, when after rejecting the Biblical chronology which our Pastor taught they sought to introduce error on that subject. This was a part of



their contradictionism—the fifth slaughter weapon. After all, it should not surprise us that the P.B.I. Editors, as parts of antitypical Jambres, should agree with the 1908-11 Second Death sifters as parts of antitypical Jannes (2 Tim. 3: 1-9); for they are their soul mates and co-workers. As Jannes and Jambores before and in the interests of Pharaoh sought to overthrow the influence and works of Moses, speaking and acting through Aaron, so antitypical Jannes during the Parousia sought, before and in the interests of antitypical Pharaoh, Satan, to overthrow the influence and work of the antitypical Moses, the Christ class beyond the veil, speaking and acting through antitypical Aaron, the Christ class this side of the veil. And likewise antitypical Jambres now, during the Epiphany, is seeking before and in the interests of antitypical Pharaoh, Satan, to overthrow the influence and work of antitypical Moses, the Christ class beyond the veil, speaking and acting through the antitypical Aaron, the Christ class this side of the veil! This, dear brethren, is the rock-bottom solution of the cause of all these sifters' errors—the sixth slaughter weapon— revolutionism.


The P.B.I. Editors have finally come out with their new "double," which they seem to have borrowed from J. A.D. In his article, on which he gave a few comments above, he sets forth a double of 1864 years, whose first part, by subtracting 19 years from the Bible chronology, he makes end in 70 A.D. Beginning its second part in 70 A.D., he makes it reach 1934. In H '22, 138, col. 2, par. 2, the P.B.I. Editors endorse this view of the "double." Not only so, but they deny that our Pastor used the Parallel Dispensation to prove the time of our Lord's Second Advent (H '22, 139, col. 2, par. 4), which they say occurred about 1874. (How near 1874 in their opinion was it? we would fain ask.) In contradiction of this false statement that our Pastor did not use the



Parallels to prove the time of the Second Advent we refer our readers to B 247, also 234, 235. This statement of the Editors seems to prove that they are more familiar with the writings of Foolish Virgins than with those of our Pastor, whose findings they are rejecting for those of Foolish Virgins. Of course, the new parallel and other chronological errors cause them to reject the bulk of our Pastor's findings in Studies, Vols. II and III, despite their denial of this fact. In their June 1, 1922, issue they have finally "let the cat out of the bag": they show that they have gotten their chronological errors from H. Grattan Guinness (a foolish virgin, whose findings our Pastor both verbally and in the Tower rejected). Let the brethren realize this: that R. E. Streeter, who foisted these errors on the P.B.I., is more sympathetic with H. Grattan Guinness' errors than he is with our Pastor's truths. Even before our Pastor's death R. E. Streeter preached more or less of Guinness' views. It seems that he never quite gave up many views of the Second Adventists, whom he left when he came into the Truth. He has failed to heed the injunction of Is. 52: 11; he has touched the unclean thing; and as a result, he is unclean. In the letter occasioning the article in their May number, which we are now reviewing, the protesting brother—Bro. Cox of Boston, who gave up their pilgrim service because of their chronological errors—calls their attention to a number of the parallels already fulfilled as proving our understanding of the Parallel to be correct. But these Editors waive these parallels aside, claiming that they do not disprove their cutting off 19 years from the chronology. These Editors have many difficulties, and they are by their teachings proving that their false chronology contradicts practically everything as far as chronological harmony is concerned. They will have to surrender the harvest Parallels or change the harvest times. They will have to surrender 1878 as the time of Babylon's rejection



and the resurrection of the saints; for only by the Parallels are these dates proven for these events. In fact, they have made a sorry mess of almost everything chronological.


First let us look at the three Old Testament passages that treat of the "double," and see how each one of them contradicts their new "double." As the first of these we will briefly consider Is. 40: 1, 2. Their claim is that the "double" of these verses and "the appointed time" of the margin end in 1934. Do these verses and the facts of the case agree with such a thought? It will be noticed that these verses show that the "comfort" of which they treat was to be proclaimed to Israel after her double was finished, and after her appointed time was completed. But the facts prove that ever since 1878 this comfort has been preached to Israel. The decree of the Berlin Conference of nations and the circulation of Delitsch's Hebrew New Testament, were the first proclamations of this comfort. Shortly thereafter, our Pastor began to proclaim this comfort to them; and for years he and the Harvest people proclaimed it to the Jews. Yea, we know that from 1910 to 1915 he and they devoted much time to that message. In 1882 Leo Pinsker, the forerunner of Herzl, began among the Jews to preach this comfort. He was joined in this by many very prominent Israelites, such as Lilienblum, Levanda, Ruelf, etc., in a world-wide proclamation of this comfort. In 1895 Herzl wrote his Jewish State, which aroused that form of agitation that is called Zionism, in the narrow sense of that term. All Jewry is now receiving this comfort. Thus we see that the predicted comfort has been proclaimed ever since 1878; and the passage says that it would not be preached until after the "double"—the "appointed time"—was completed. Therefore the "double," the "appointed time" was completed before June 11, 1878, when the Berlin Conference began the proclamation of the comfort,



and before June 11, 1878, when Britain assumed the protectorate of Palestine for Turkey. Hence the P.B.I. view of the "double" contradicts this passage and its fulfilment. Thus their view is seen to be erroneous.


Again, their view is in violent contradiction of the second passage that treats of the "double"—Jer. 16: 15-18. Jehovah says in v. 18 that He would first punish their sins and iniquities double, before He would fulfill to them the promises of vs. 15, 16. But we know that ever since 1881 He has been bringing to Palestine ever increasing numbers of the Jews, from Russia and other countries (v. 15). We know that ever since 1878 Jehovah has been sending the "fishers" (v. 16) to draw the Israelites to Palestine with the bait of Zionism. These fishers, in part, have been those statesmen who have politically assisted Israel to return; in part those Israelitish agitators, e.g., those mentioned in the preceding paragraph, who, especially since 1881, have been arousing their persecuted brethren to go to Palestine, in hope of a home and a national government; and in part those spiritual Israelites who have been proclaiming the Biblical Zionism. Of these the harvest people and many "foolish virgins" in Babylon are examples. Thus we see that the "fishers" have been fishing them ever since 1878. But v. 18 shows that they would begin this fishing only after the "double" was over; hence the "double" was over when in the nights of June 6 and 11, 1878, the statesmen fishers as the pioneers began this figurative fishing. This consideration completely refutes the P.B.I. double ending in 1934.


Moreover, the hunting which was to follow the completion of the "double" began in 1881 with the Russian May laws, in consequence of which Jews were fiendishly rooted up from their homes in Russia, Poland, Romania and Galicia. A hunter offers no bait to his



game. He drives and kills them without offering them even a bait. Thus the persecutors and ravishers of Israel are meant by the hunters. The series of persecutions which began in the above countries in 1881 have been continued. The Kishenev massacre of 1903, in which over 500 of the Jews were slaughtered in cold blood, was one among many of the dark deeds of the ruthless hunters driving Israel to seek refuge in other countries, among other places, in Palestine. The terrible mistreatment of the Jews by the Russian, Polish and Romanian armies in the World War are only other examples of the havoc and ruin wrought among hunted Israel by these remorseless hunters, driving large numbers of them to Palestine. But v. 18 proves that the hunting would begin only after the "double" was over. Hence the "double" was over before the Russian May laws were enacted in May, 1881, whereby the hunters began their systematic work of scouring the countries for Israelitish game. Therefore the P.B.I. double, ending in 1934, contradicts this passage and is an error. Thus we see that the second Old Testament passage treating of the "double"—Jer. 16: 15-18—with its fulfilled facts completely refutes the P.B.I. double.


So, too, does the third Old Testament passage treating of the "double" refute the P.B.I. double as being 1864 years and ending in 1934. The P.B.I. Editors make some desperate efforts to twist this passage (Zech. 9: 12) into being a prophecy that makes the first part of the "double" end at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They claim that the word "today" refers only to the time when Jesus spoke; but that Jesus was prophesying of what would be done in the year 70. Let us see if the facts of the case will permit of this twist; for it is nothing else than a twist. All are agreed that from Zech. 9: 9 to and including the words of v. 12, "Even today do I declare," refer to our Lord's experiences and words on the day



when He made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem—Nisan 10, 33 A.D. Several days later (Matt. 23: 38, 39) Jesus assures us of two things: (1) that their house—the house of Israel was Israel (Ezek. 37: 11-14; Acts 2: 36), not Jerusalem, as the P.B.I. Editors teach—had already entered into its desolation process (your house is [has been, not shall be] left unto you desolate, v. 38); and (2) that they nationally were blinded and would remain blinded until some time during His Second Advent ("Ye shall see Me no more until," etc., v. 39). Let us briefly consider these two things and we shall see that the "double"—the second part of the "double," the disfavor part—was already operating on Nisan 12, 33 A.D., when Jesus used the language of Matt. 23: 38, 39. That during the second part of the "double" Israel would experience God's disfavor the other two passages treating of the "double" prove (Is. 40: 2; Jer. 16: 13, 17, 18). But Matt. 23: 38, 39 prove that they were already, on Nisan 12, 33 A.D.—two days after Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem (Zech. 9: 9-12; Matt. 21: 4, 5)— suffering certain very important features of Jehovah's disfavor. Therefore this disfavor—the second part of the "double"—began before Nisan 12, 33 A.D., and accordingly 37½ years before the P.B.I.'s second part of their new double began. Hence they are proven by these passages to be in error as to when the second half of the "double" began; and these facts prove that the day the Lord declared the "double" unto them it began to operate. Thus His declaration was the pronunciation of the beginning of the double's operation, and not a prophecy of its coming years later.


Let us notice how Israel was made desolate that day. In the following particulars their house—the house of Israel, we repeat it, was Israel, not Jerusalem, as the P.B.I. claims—was made desolate that day in the following particulars: (1) as a nation they lost God's favor that day (Zech. 9: 12; Jer. 16: 13, 17, 18;



Gal. 4: 30); (2) mouthpieceship was taken away from them nationally on that day; (3) their priesthood and sacrifices were that day made inefficacious (Dan. 9: 27); (4) the promises of the Law were no more theirs nationally, only its wrath was thenceforth theirs nationally (1 Thes. 2: 15, 16, "is come," has come, not shall come); (5) on that day punishments began to be meted out to them: the cleansing of the temple, the public denunciation of their leaders, etc.; (6) on that day national insight into advancing Truth was taken from them (Luke 19: 42, 44; Matt. 23: 39); and (7) thenceforth nationally the Lord had only rebukes, rebuffs and punishments for them, and no more shielded them from wrong and evil, because of their increasing waywardness after they were bereft of His favor. These seven particulars prove that their house—Israel—not Jerusalem simply—was from Nisan 10, 33 A.D. desolate. That its desolation had other sad consequences is only in harmony with the fact that wrath was not completed at once, but was to continue throughout the Age. In view of these facts we can readily see how ineffectual are the P.B.I.'s efforts to twist Matt. 23: 38 (your house is left unto you desolate), which is a statement of a then existing fact, into a prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D.! On the "double" they are as unfortunate as they have been on their other chronological repudiations. Satan, their leader, has in this also led them into the ditch!


After saying that many have been guilty of fanciful speculations on the parallel of the 1845 years, J.A.D. tries his hand on finding from the standpoint of an 1864 years' double a parallel for Israel's rejection in 33 A.D.; and he thinks that he has found it in 1897, in which year he claims as the parallel event that Zionism was born (H '21, 335, col. 2, par. 1)! How muddled he is on the subject is manifest from several things: (1) he attempts to parallel Israel's rejection—