Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
A REJECTED SERVANT AND SHEPHERD.
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness. That Evil Servant Of Matt. 24: 48-51. The Foolish, Unprofitable Shepherd Of Zech. 11: 15-17.
MORE than once have we noted the fact that, when J.F.R. wants to introduce a "new view," he either intimates that our Pastor had doubts on the subject, when he had none; or that he changed his opinion, or that he taught thus and so, when he did neither. According to this wrong practice, he is claiming that our Pastor changed his opinion on Tentative Justification, so that his final thought, according to J.F.R., was that there is no Tentative Justification. J.F.R. told us this same thing at Bethel in the summer of 1917. Moreover, in the March 23, 1920, issue of The New Era Enterprise, formerly the St. Paul Enterprise, he is reported, among other things, as preaching at St. Louis, Mo., the following: "Tentative Justification impossible. Tentative means probation [rather it means, temporarily to be treated as a fact for purposes of an experiment]. Pastor Russell at first thought there was a tentative Justification; but after studying into the matter more closely changed his mind." We have waited three months for The Tower to disavow this reported statement, but find instead that The Tower boldly repudiates Tentative Justification in the June 1 number, and handles our Pastor's writings on the subject deceitfully, i.e., to convey the impression, which their connections contradicts, that he did not teach tentative Justification. We are satisfied from the above facts that the Enterprise statement of his St. Louis address is on this point correct. We know positively that our Pastor did not give up tentative Justification. This claim of J.F.R. that he
did give it up prompts us to publish an apposite letter, which we have received.
"In the March 23, 1920, issue of the New Era Enterprise is a report of J.F.R.'s discourse delivered March 1, at the St. Louis Convention, in which occurs the following statement: 'The moment Jehovah accepts you under these conditions you are justified, begotten. Justification is not a progressive work. It is an instantaneous matter. You are accepted instantaneously, accepted as a sacrifice. Tentative justification impossible. Tentative means probation. Pastor Russell at first thought there was a tentative justification; but after studying into the matter more closely, changed his mind.'
"In view of J.F.R.'s denying clearly established doctrines given us by the Lord through that Servant, it is not surprising to me to see him also going blind on Tentative Justification. Nor is it unusual to see him endeavoring to support his position by belying dear Bro. Russell, and trying to drag him in as a party to the same error. Alas, for many unwary sheep who are being so easily blown around by every wind of doctrine! In the interests of these, permit me to call your attention to the following statements from the pen [and mouth] of that Servant just before he left us, with the hope that they may be of use to you in arousing those of the Lord's dear sheep who are sleeping under the spell of that newly invented 'Channel' which in so many ways contradicts and repudiates the teachings of the true Channel (Luke 12: 42).
"In the Sep. 15, Tower, 1916, page 281, Bro. Russell gives his last Tower article on Justification, in which he says (col. 1, par. 5), 'We describe the person who has taken this course [represented by progress from the gate of the court to the door of the tabernacle] as being tentatively justified; that is to say, he is in the right course, doing what he is able to do to
attain [vitalized] Justification.' [This is clear and to the point.]
"'Does J.F.R. refer to September 15, 1916, as the time when Pastor Russell [was still in the mental condition in which he] first thought there was a tentative justification?' If so, then at what date would he say that Bro. Russell, 'after studying into the matter more closely, changed his mind,' seeing that Sep. 15, 1916, was only a few weeks before his death? How grossly he misrepresents Bro. Russell is further evidenced by the latter's comment on this very Tower article, just a few days before he was taken from our midst, as recorded in the Question Book, What Pastor Russell Said, p. 418, in answer to the following question:
"'Comparing articles on Justification in Vol. VI, Tabernacle Shadows and Sep. 15, 1916 Tower: Do these harmonize? Has Bro. Russell changed his views on Justification?' Answer: Bro. Russell has not changed his views on Justification. Justification is justification, has always been justification, and will always be justification, and Bro. Russell could not change justification for himself or for anybody else. [In part of the rest of the answer he shows how one must be in the Court, walk up to the door of the Tabernacle and consecrate himself before his Justification is vitalized through Christ's imputed merit.]
"Whom shall we believe, Bro. Russell, who just before his death claimed that he had not changed his views on Justification, or J.F.R., who now claims that he did? Doubtless some would prefer to believe J.F.R. While Bro. Russell walked in the light and consequently saw more and more clearly the details pertaining to Tentative and Vitalized Justification, he never ceased to believe in Tentative Justification, as J.F.R. claims.
"In Bro. Russell's last question meeting at Los Angeles, as recorded in 1916 Convention Report, p. 306,
ques. 9, he says, 'In the court is shown what we term a Tentative Justification.' On the next page, col. 1, par. 1, he says, 'The process of tentative justification may in some be very slow * * * All the various steps in connection with Tentative Justification are getting quite clear; for God's time has come for making things plain.' Then in par. 4, in answer to question 11, he says, 'They are approaching [vitalized] justification. These steps of Tentative Justification in the court are simply leading him to the point of vitalizing his justification.'
"These and other similar statements made during his last few days with us, should convince any open-minded Truth seeker beyond any doubt that Brother Russell never denied the doctrine of Tentative Justification, but held it steadfast unto the end. To deny this doctrine would be to deny and to become confused on many Scriptures and to repudiate important features of Tabernacle Shadows. How could anyone appreciate the Brazen Altar, wash himself at the Laver and be tied at the door of the Tabernacle in consecration, and have his Justification vitalized, without first being in the Court, the place of Tentative Justification (T 19, 20)? Surely the Brazen Altar and the Laver were not taken into the Camp in order that those not tentatively justified might use them preparatory to making a consecration! What confusion J.F.R.'s denial of the doctrine of Tentative Justification brings to those who are gullible enough to accept it! 'To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.' 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' But what consolation that the Very Elect shall be manifested as not being deceived! May the Lord continue to use you in His blessed work of delivering His Little Flock 'from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.'
Your brother in Him,
R. G. Jolly."
To the above quotations from our Pastor's teachings on Tentative Justification we add one from the Foreword of Vol. VI, written Oct. 1, 1916, and finally approved by him for the press, Oct. 16, 1916, the day he left Bethel the last time, two weeks before his death, among other things, to clarify the subject of Tentative and Vitalized Justification. Before 1909 he did not clearly see Tentative in contrast with Vitalized Justification as operative during the Gospel Age. Hence when he published Vol. VI, 1903, he did not clearly see the distinction between the two forms of Gospel Age Justification. As he said, he wrote the Forewords of the Volumes, except that of Vol. I, to clarify things not clearly presented therein. It was with this purpose in mind in re Vol. VI that he wrote (Foreword, iii, pars. 1-3) the following as a clarification of the subject of Justification. "The subject of Justification has not changed, but it has expanded and clarified. If writing this Volume today, the author would make some slight variations of language, but without any real change as respects the meaning and application of Justification.
"We now see that a justification to life is one thing, and a justification to more or less of friendship with God is another. Abraham, for instance, and the faithful before Pentecost, were justified to friendship with God, and to have more or less communication with Him by prayer, etc.; but they could not have full justification until the Blood of Atonement had been shed, and until it had been presented to and accepted by Divine Justice—the Father. Just so the sinner today approaching God might be said to be in the way of justification, having more of God's favor than if he faced toward sin.
"We once spoke of a sinner in this condition as being justified, because he believed in Jesus as his Redeemer and was reaching forward to a full consecration of himself. Now we see that while the sinner's
attitude, like that of the Ancient Worthies, might be styled 'Tentative' justification, it would not reach the condition of a full, complete [vitalized] justification from sin until the sinner had fully presented himself in consecration to our great High Priest, Jesus, and had been accepted of Him in the name of the Father. Then, under the covering of the imputed merit of Christ's sacrifice, the sinner would be acceptable to the Father under Christ's Robe and begotten of the Holy Spirit." So far the quotation.
The charge of false witnessing brought against J.F.R. as given above is unanswerably proven. May we be permitted a few remarks and then a suggestion in re the official acts above described. To give untrue testimony is under any circumstance an evil thing; but against better knowledge to misrepresent Jesus speaking to His Church through His special eye, mouth and hand for Her, which that Servant was, in order the more readily to introduce a false doctrine contrary to the express teaching of Jesus given through His special eye, mouth and hand for His Church, is a gross sin against the Holy Spirit that spoke and acted through "that Servant." Such a course cannot but merit the abhorrence of God's faithful people, and the special disapproval of God and Jesus. Such a course on J.F.R.'s part—persisted in against information to the contrary, given him, e.g., by us as well as by others at Bethel in 1917, and certainly known to him from his reading the Foreword of Vol. VI, etc.— implies a very large degree of wilfulness on his part, and manifests a deplorable degree of depravity in his character. Therefore in view of his "moral laches" in false witnessing and in view of his false teaching—both being against the ministry of Jesus at the hand of that Servant on Tentative Justification—we as a Servant of the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren, protest before God, Jesus and that "Church, which is His Body," against J.F.R.'s having anything
further to do in a controlling, executive, managerial, teaching or any other official capacity in the Society; and in God's and Christ's name we ask the Society's Board to deprive him of all controlling, executive and managerial authority, pilgrim service or any other form of service in the Society; the shareholders to vote his position as a director of the Society vacant; any three members of the board to bring impeachment charges against him as an editor before the Society's board of judgment; and said board of judgment to dismiss him from the editorial committee of the Tower as provided for in that Servant's Will, assuring them that such actions are necessary in the interests of the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren; and cautioning them that neglect of zeal in carrying into effect the above suggestion, will make them, to the degree of such neglect of zeal, partakers of J.F.R.'s gross sins in the particulars above stated and proved, and will force us to take an important step to realize our suggestion. If by the time our next issue is ready for the press, about July 20, 1920, we do not hear that the board of directors and the board of judgment have done as we request above, we will start a course that in due time will realize our suggestion. J.F.R., as an evil-doer and false teacher, has gone as far as he should be permitted to go.
Having published our discussion of That Evil Servant in the Appendix of the Studies, Vol. IV, we refer our readers to it as belonging here as a part of this chapter and request them to read it before proceeding further. We omit it here to save much-needed space. The Bible in its types and prophecies frequently points out individuals who would do certain things in remote future times. We recognize this, of course, in the case of Jesus; and all of us recall how He and the Apostles applied Scriptures to Judas. So, too, Cyrus was pointed out, and that by name, 200 years before he did the things prophesied of him (Is. 44: 28; 45: 1-5).
The twelve Apostles, and the seventy secondarily prophets of both Harvests were typed respectively by the twelve wells and seventy palm trees at Elim (Ex. 15: 27); and these secondarily prophets were also typed by the seventy judges (Num. 11: 24-30). The twelve Apostles are, among others, typed by Jacob's twelve sons; and they, and St. Paul in particular, were typed by Eleazar (Num. 4: 16; 19: 4); and the Parallel shows that Num. 4: 16 and 16: 35-39 type our Pastor also. Dan. 11 refers prophetically to the following individuals: Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes (v. 2), Alexander the Great (v. 4), (his four successors, Cassander, Seleucus, Ptolemy and Lysimachus are pointed out prophetically in Dan. 8: 8), Ptolemy Philadelphos (v. 5), Antiochus Theos, Bernice and Ptolemy Philadelphos (v. 6), Ptolemy Euergetes and Seleucus Callinicus (v. 7), the latter's sons and Antiochus Magnus (v. 10), the latter and Ptolemy Philopater (v. 11), Antiochus Epiphanes (v. 12), Scopas (v. 15), Mark Anthony and Cleopatra (vs. 17-19), Augustus (v. 20), Tiberius (vs. 2124), Aurelian and Zenobia (vs. 25, 26, 28), and Napoleon (vs. 29, 30, 36-45). John the Baptist is referred to in Is. 40: 3-5 and Mal. 3: 1. There are four individuals indicated in Zech. 11: 8, 15-17; and Bro. Russell and J.F.R. are referred to in Matt. 24: 45-47 and in Matt. 24: 48-51, respectively. Another brother is pointed out in Rev. 19: 9, 10. Accordingly, we see that the Bible frequently points out by its prophecies and types not only classes but individuals of future times.
All Truth people seem to agree to the thought that Zech. 11: 15-17 refers to an individual. While our Pastor never taught it, many Truth people have believed that Mr. Barbour, who renounced the Ransom in 1878, was that individual. Some of them have additionally used their imaginations on the subject, claiming that his literal right eye was blinded and that his literal right arm was paralyzed! In consistency they
should have gone on further in literalizing this passage and held that the sword of v. 17 was a literal one. In 1905 we visited Rochester, N.Y., Mr. Barbour's home town, and there from some of his followers learned that neither his literal right eye was blinded, nor his literal right arm was paralyzed. Vol. VII, as we know, also applies this passage to Mr. Barbour. Zech. 11: 1-7 doubtless treats of the activities and recompenses of various shepherds among God's sheep in the end of the Gospel Age; but for a number of reasons we believe that Mr. Barbour cannot be the individual to whom Zech. 11: 15-17 refers. (1) Mr. Barbour, we understand, was the first of the three shepherds of whom v. 8 treats, and therefore would not be described in vs. 15-17 as still another shepherd. The month of v. 8 is not a month of days, but of years, hence represents thirty years (Rev. 9: 5, 15; 13: 5). These thirty years, we believe, began in 1878 and ended in 1908. Mr. Barbour as the first of these three shepherds in its beginning renounced the Ransom. In 1908, at its end, Mr. Henninges entered a course of conduct that made him the leader of the 1908-1911 sifting, whose main doctrinal error was the denial of the Church's share in the Sin-offering. He was, we understand, the third shepherd of v. 8. Seemingly Mr. Paton, the leader of the 1881-1884 sifting, was the second of these three shepherds. Hence Mr. Barbour's case is disposed of in v. 8; and there is no good reason for applying to him vs. 15-17, which expressly refer to another's activity ("take thee yet, etc."). (2) The activities of the foolish shepherd (vs. 15-17), according to this chapter, were to take place long after Mr. Barbour left the stage of activity among God's sheep. This is evident from a number of things set forth in this chapter:  The foolish shepherd's activities begin long after the servants of the Truth, Jesus' representatives, as a class, typed by Zechariah, would withdraw their ministry from the Second Deathers: "I will
not feed you; that that dieth, let it die." (V. 9.) The withdrawal of such a ministry from the Second Deathers had its beginning during the first sifting, 1878-1881, after Mr. Barbour renounced the Ransom, and continued to the end of the fifth sifting, 1908-1911.  The foolish shepherd's activities commence long after the Truth servants as a class ceased to feed Babylon; "that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off." This feeding ceased in 1881, when as the Parallels show the special favor of the special calls was thrown open to anybody whether in or out of Babylon, and Babylon herself was in her cut-off condition allowed by God to starve (Amos 8: 11-13).  The foolish shepherd's special activities were to follow the bargaining for selling the Truth servants, the representatives of Jesus, as a class, and such bargaining for the price of power began in the first and ended in the fifth harvest sifting.  The foolish shepherd's special activities were to begin after the staff Beauty was completely cut asunder, but just after the cutting asunder of the staff Bands began. A shepherd's staff represents his teachings, and his rod, his acts and practices (Ps. 23: 4). The staff Beauty (vs. 7, 10) represents the Parousia Truth, and its cutting asunder represents the right division of the Parousia Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2: 15). The staff Bands (vs. 7, 14) represents the Epiphany Truth, and its cutting asunder represents the right division of the Epiphany Word of Truth. The Parousia Truth had all been given before our Pastor's death, Oct. 31, 1916; and the Epiphany Truth began to open up between Oct. 31, and Nov. 9, 1916. These five things, according to Zech. 11, were to precede the foolish shepherd's activities, and since all of them followed Mr. Barbour's activities among God's sheep, he evidently was not the foolish shepherd of Zech. 11: 15-17.
At the St. Joseph Convention in 1909 one of the pilgrims, Bro. Raymond, told us that Bro. Russell held
that A. E. Williamson was the foolish shepherd of Zech. 11: 15-17. Accepting his word, for a number of years we were of the impression that A. E. Williamson was the individual of whom Zech. 11: 15-17 treats. At that time1909Bro. Raymond said that J.F.R. had also heard our Pastor give this thought; but when during May, 1917, we brought this thought up at the Bethel table, and defended it as our Pastor's thought, J.F.R. said he had never heard our Pastor so teach; neither did any one else at the table on that occasion recall such a thing. Shortly afterward we gave up that thought, as we came to see that it was more reasonable to apply the passage to another individual whose acts conform to the passage much more closely than those of A. E. Williamson.
While refuting above the thought that Mr. Barbour was the foolish shepherd of Zech. 11: 15-17, we gave two proofs,  and , that the special activities of the foolish shepherd belong to the Epiphany. The fact that the activities of the foolish, unprofitable shepherd belong to the Epiphany and have been very trialsome to the Lord's people proves that Zech. 11: 15-17 in its pertinent parts could not have been understood until in its pertinent parts it was fulfilled; and this fact accounts for the incorrectness of the interpretations offered on the passage before the trials connected with its fulfilment, which occurred in the Epiphany, were successfully met by the faithful. Its fulfilment taking place in the Epiphany, we are to look for some prominent leader among the Truth people at this time who will answer to the description of the foolish, unprofitable shepherd, given in Zech. 11: 15-17. There are various prominent brethren now active among the Truth people, and among them one is to be sought who answers to the Scriptural delineation of the foolish, unprofitable shepherd. Who is he? Better to answer this question let us first study the Biblical description of his sins of omission. But some might object, Would
it not be judging, and thinking and speaking evil so to do? We answer that it certainly is not the forbidden judging and thinking and speaking of evil so to do; for God in this text exhorts the servants of the Truth as one company, represented by Zechariah, to do this: "Take [lay hold on for discussion] unto thee yet [in addition to teaching the Parousia and the Epiphany Truth—also a proof that the foolish shepherd's activity would be in the Epiphany] the instruments [the staff, his teachings, and the rod, his official acts and practices] of a foolish shepherd [a shepherd who had left undone some very wise and profitable things, and who has done some very unwise and unprofitable things, both to the sheep and to their owner, is a foolish shepherd]." That he was to occupy a very prominent place—a position that would draw to him world-wide attention, and give him world-wide activity and influence— is evident from the opening statement of v. 16, "For lo, I will raise up [by setting other eligible ones aside, and by opening the way for the foolish shepherd to come to the fore—as God did in the case of Pharaoh] a shepherd in the land [literally in the earth, i.e., in human society. This expression shows the worldwide prominence, activity and influence of the foolish shepherd]." Accordingly, we see that this foolish shepherd would be one of the most prominent persons among the Truth people. No one of second class prominence among them will answer to this description. Additionally, the verse implies that he must be a Truth person who is attracting very much attention among the worldly throughout the symbolic earth.
How can we tell who he is? A consideration of what the text says that he should have done, but has left undone, will help us, no doubt, to answer this question. What has he left undone that as a shepherd he should have done? V. 16 enumerates four things that a true shepherd should do, every one of which it accuses him of leaving undone: (1) "Who will not visit those
that be cut off; (2) neither will seek the young one; (3) nor heal that which is broken; (4) nor feed that which standeth still." It will be noticed from this text that toward four classes of God's sheep he fails to do what a true shepherd should do. The sheep represent, of course, God's people, who now consist of just four classes, as this verse groups themno more and no less. In the order in which the text enumerates them these are the Little Flock, the Youthful Worthies, the Great Company and the Tentatively Justified. And the text says that he has failed to do toward each of these classes what a true shepherd should do. The Little Flock in certain of its members is described in this verse as "cut off." What does this mean? As represented by Elijah and his mantle, the Little Flock in its representatives once had under the Lord the charge of the Truth work toward the world. It was cut off from this office in the summer of 1917. And those of its representatives who resisted the usurpations whereby it was cut off from this office, together with their faithful supporters, were cut off from the fellowship of the majority of God's people, while the more passive of the Little Flock were bewildered and remained among that majority. And as the former continued to resist similar revolutionism, they continued to be cut off from other groups of brethren that as such became Levitical groups. Thus antitypical Elijah, the Little Flock, in its more active members is meant by those who were cut off. What is meant by the foolish shepherd not visiting them? Scripturally, in such a connection this would mean not to minister to them, not to comfort them, and not to seek to reestablish them in their position (Jas. 1: 27). Did anybody above all other Truth people so act? Yes, sad to say; J.F.R. was the leader in failing to do these things. As typed in 2 Kings 2: 16-18, and explained in Vol. III, Chap. III, as the leader of antitypical Elisha he even discouraged efforts on the part of others to
bring about a reconciliation; and when finally out of sheer shame he had to give way he used such tactics as would tend to keep away the faithful, and especially keep them from getting the mantle. His publication of Harvest Siftings, Part 2, his "straw vote" campaign, his other electioneering efforts, and his misrepresentations in public and private abundantly prove this. Yea, he failed to visit that part of the Little Flock in its cut-off condition—a thing that he should have done.
He likewise has failed to seek the young one, the Youthful Worthies. Denying that there can be such a class before the New Covenant is introduced, if then, he, of course, does not seek to win people for Youthful Worthiship. On the contrary, deluding individuals who might be of them into believing that they are in the Little Flock, he does them a most disastrous disservice, which later on will become apparent on all hands. Nor does he heal that which is broken. The Great Company are the broken one. They have broken their symbolic feet and legs—conduct and character—and cannot as a result walk uprightly; and he should bind up their broken feet and legs, and heal them with soothing medicines from the Word. But he does not so do. Denying that there is such a Great Company now, of course he does nothing to supply their needs. Deluding many of that class also into believing that they are in the Little Flock, he thereby does them a great disservice, which later on will become apparent to all. If he would serve them aright, he would lead them to the gate and the fit man for such experience as will inure to their healing. But these thingsrequired for their healing—he does not do. Nor does he feed—strengthen—that that standeth still—the Tentatively Justified. These evidently constitute the company "that standeth still," for they do not progress to consecration. He denies that there is such a class, and of course, as a result, could not feed and strengthen them. Thus he leaves undone the work that the
conditions of the four classes of God's people require should be done. In other words, the special services that the conditions of the four classes of God's sheep require at the hands of a shepherd, and that a real shepherd will render them, he refuses to give them. In acts of omission he is a most unshepherdly person. To no other very prominent leader of any group of God's people except the leader of the Society group can this passage apply. Why? Because none of these leaders except him holds views that put him out of harmony with serving at least one of these four classes of God's sheep. True, of these some are not now visiting the Little Flock, some are not now healing the Great Company, some are not now seeking the Youthful Worthies; but all among these most prominent leaders except J.F.R. are at least feeding the tentatively justified. Therefore he is the only one of the most prominent leaders of groups to whom all of these sins of omission are chargeable. He is the Shepherd of Zech. 11: 15-17.
We desire to call the attention of our dear readers to a variation in the grammatical number of the pronouns in the expression, "those that be cut off," and in the expressions "the young one,""that that is broken," and "that that standeth still." The first pronoun—"those"—is plural in number, and the other three are singular in number. Why this variation of number? We believe it is for the following reasons: the last three refer to three entire classes considered in each case collectively as such, and therefore each class is spoken of as one, even as J.F.R. denies totally the present existence of any of these three classes as such. But in the case of the Little Flock, it is in its majority scattered among all the Levitical groups, and also is, in some of its representatives—a minority of them—in the Epiphany Movement, which is the official Little Flock Movement; and these—not the one whole class, but only certain individuals of the
one whole class—are especially those that be cut off." It is more particularly these that J.F.R. does not visit. When in 1917 the division began all of those whom he called "the opposition" were in the Epiphany movement—the movement that resists openly the revolutionism of the Great Company. But as later individuals among these themselves revolutionized, they in turn dropped out of the Epiphany movement. All crown-losers will eventually drop out of the Epiphany movement. This difference in the grammatical number just noted is an illustration of Jehovah's exactness in the use of language to describe His thoughts, and is used to mark accurately J.F.R.'s course, first toward the Epiphany saints, who are parts and not the whole of the Little Flock, and hence are spoken of distributively and not collectively, and then toward the whole of the other three classes, each one of which is spoken of collectively as such, and not distributively in its individual members.
V. 16 notes two sins of commission of which J.F.R. has been and is yet guilty: (1) eating the flesh of the fat, (2) and tearing their hoofs. Let us look at these two particulars in their order. All of us are aware that in Scriptural symbology fat represents love and loving zeal. Those who are fat, therefore, represent those brethren who are filled with love and loving zeal. Hence in this text the fat ones refer to the more loving and zealous of the Little Flock members. In Scriptural symbology flesh represents possessions, privileges and powers. This is very manifest from the statement, "They [the ten kings] … shall eat her flesh" (Rev. 17: 16), an expression that our Pastor properly explained as representing the ten kingdoms taking away certain claimed official possessions, privileges and powers of the Catholic Church, especially her temporal power and her powers derived from the union of church and state. Hence the expression, "He shall eat the flesh of the fat," means that J.F.R. would appropriate to and for himself the official powers, privileges
and possessions of the antitypical Elijah. How did he do this? We answer, in a variety of ways: (1) by getting for himself exclusively the Executive Committee's powers through wire-pulling of a most reprehensible and self-exalting sort; (2) by usurping power over the board; (3) by unauthorizedly and usurpingly ousting us from our position as the Society's special representative with powers of attorney in every country that we should visit outside of the United Statesan act that he did as one of the series of his acts of usurping the board's powers; (4) by ousting the four board directors for seeking to stop his usurpations; (5) by dismissing from their positions of service those at Bethel who opposed his usurpations; (6) by dismissing from the pilgrim service those who opposed his usurpations; and (7) by influencing the ecclesias to cause those elders and deacons who would not approve of "The Present Management" and "the Society's policies"—J.F.R.'s usurpations—to lose their offices before time, or to become ineligible for re-election to the offices that they held. In these seven ways—carried out with deeds of grossest injustice and of unparalleled hypocrisy—he stole the mantle away from the representative members of, and thus from antitypical Elijah. Thus he surely ate the flesh of the fat!
The second sin of commission with which v. 16 charges him is stated in the words, "shall tear their claws in pieces," or as practically all other versions render the clause, "shall tear their hoofs in pieces." As the reference here is to how the foolish shepherd would abuse the sheep, and as sheep have no claws, but do have hoofs, and as the Hebrew word here used ordinarily means hoofs, doubtless the translation hoofs is the correct one here. The sheep's hoofs are their feet; and the feet in the symbols of the Bible usually represent one's conduct, acts (Prov. 5: 5; Ps. 119: 101, 105; Luke 1: 79; Heb. 12: 13). To tear the hoofs would be doing them great violence—distorting them; and certainly J.F.R. did distort the conduct and
acts of representative members of antitypical Elijah with great violence. The right things that they did against his and others' usurpations he most fearfully misrepresented— distorted. He tore their acts in their character, purpose, setting and spirit, even claiming that they were the acts of madmen, demoniacs and wreckers of the Lord's work, whom he, the preserver (?) of that work, with sad and loving (?) heart had to oppose! As evidences of his misrepresentations—his tearing of their conduct and acts— note the falsehoods and total perversion of the facts of the controversy in both of his Harvest Siftings, in his electioneering campaign, in the misrepresentations of their official and personal acts that he has had his pilgrims circulate from church to church. And as a consequence before the guileless brethren especially, altogether unsuspicious of the deep guile and hypocrisy of the foolish shepherd, the symbolic hoofs—conduct and acts—of the representative members of antitypical Elijah were all torn—distorted; and broken-hearted over it these guileless ones mourn for the supposedly straying brethren as lost! Those of the Little Flock who, seeing the real character of his acts, opposed them, he terribly misused by dishonestly taking from them their official possessions, privileges and powers, and by greatly misrepresenting their conduct and acts; and those of the Little Flock who, not seeing the real character of his acts, did not oppose him, he terribly grieved by making them think that the former have gone into the Second Death.
The unhappy results that his course would bring upon him are described in v. 17. Three woes would be his, according to this verse: "Woe to the idol [unprofitable; the word here translated idol is an adjective. It is a noun and means an idol only when in the plural; in the singular it means empty, unfruitful, vain, unprofitable, worthless. Unprofitable, or unfruitful, we believe, in harmony with most versions, to be the best translation here, and he is such because all his
efforts result in fruitlessness] shepherd that leaveth the [Little] Flock." He left the Little Flock by following his unholy ambition in grasping for power and lording it over God's heritage by revolutionism. Sorrows indeed fill the cup that the Lord has ordained for him to drink (Matt. 24: 51)—not the sorrows that come to the faithful for their loyalty to Truth and Righteousness, but the sorrows that make the way of transgressors hard (Prov. 13: 15)— punishments for wrong-doing. Three special woes of his are mentioned in v. 17: (1) the Truth would be used against him ("the sword will be upon his arm and upon his right eye"); (2) the total loss of his power and influence ("his arm shall be clean dried up"), and (3) utter error respecting his pet theories, legal, factual and religious, especially on the high calling ("his right eye shall be utterly darkened"). The instrument whereby the last two woes are being wrought upon him is the Truth based on Scripture, Reason and Facts relating to him, his pet theories and his course. "The sword [Truth] shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye." It is a woe to have the Truth in these three forms against one, as it is against him. The first blow that he received from this Sword was what came to him from the revised protest and its two accompanying petitions that on Mar. 7, 1917, we drew up against his busybodying in our English work and mailed to Bros. Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Pierson to present for us to the board. Because he refused to let them come before the board, after our return from Britain we gave copies of them to the remainder of the directors. And the substance of that protest and of those two petitions, among other things, doubtless was used by the Lord to arouse the four directors to oppose J.F.R.'s usurpation of power over the board. The resultant explosion was heard everywhere among Truth people. What was the result? It was this: the second of his woes began to operate. His arm—influence—was utterly destroyed among at least 7,000 brethren
and greatly weakened among thousands of others within six months after that explosion. While in the trouble at Bethel we did not do the things that he charged us with doing— seeking to wreck the Society, etc.—we undoubtedly did do what aroused him—the power-grasper who wanted to keep the fruits of his usurpations—to decide on taking the course that made the division in the Church: setting aside those who opposed his usurpations, which eventually resulted in such a great curtailment of his influence.
The Truth attacking his course on the military question destroyed totally his influence over about 2,200 other brethren, who formed themselves into the Standfast Movement, and greatly weakened it over thousands of others, who began to recognize his unscrupulous character, as it manifested itself on the military question. As a result of the attacks that The Present Truth made during 1919 and 1920 on his errors of teaching and practice at least 1,000 brethren forsook his leadership and thousands of others became more or less skeptical of his trustworthiness, thus becoming less and less amenable to his influence. Thus his arm continued to dry up. This year  very many brethren have left the Society, both in foreign countries and in America. E.g., among others over 100 brethren left the London Tabernacle on account of the Golden Age work, which is now practically dead in Britain. At Jacksonville, Fla., nearly fifty brethren left the Society on account of J.F.R.'s errors on Tentative Justification, the Youthful Worthies and his Tabernacle vitiations—they are vitiations, not revisions. These errors caused Bro. Page to resign from the Tower Editorial Committee. In many other churches for the same and other reasons matters are boiling and thus his influence is continually decreasing among new creatures— his arm is surely drying up. [Since the fall of 1923, from 20,000 to 30,000 Truth people the world over have left him.] When the exposures typed in Judg. 8: 13-16 shall be made, we would not be surprised,
if his influence among God's people will be utterly destroyed. If not then, it surely will be later: for this woe will surely be fulfilled in him. Who will follow him after learning of a certainty that he is "that evil servant" of Matt. 25: 48-56, and the "foolish," "unprofitable shepherd" of Zech. 11: 15-17? Gradually the whole Church will learn this, as tens of thousands have already learned it. It is only those who are asleep or partly asleep who fail to see this. To him applies the principle contained in the passage, "He that saveth his soul shall lose it." He selfishly sought to gain power and influence over God's people, and God says that as a result he will lose every vestige of it!
The third woe of which v. 17 treats is the utter blinding of J.F.R.'s right eye—choicest knowledge. One's choicest knowledge—right eye—is the theories that he emphasizes as most important, while his other knowledge—his left eye—would represent the theories that he does not so much stress. He is, accordingly, to go into utter error in his pet legal, factual and religious theories, especially those on the high calling. What will become of his other theories we cannot be sure, for the passage is silent on what will or will not happen to his left eye; but he will become utterly confused on the matters of fact, religion and of human law that he most stresses, as he has increasingly become so ever since 1917. "The sword shall be … upon his right eye," i.e., Scriptural, reasonable and factual Truth will smite his understanding of his pet theories of God's Plan and of legal and factual matters, and will make him blind thereon. In our discussion of "That Evil Servant" (Appendix of Studies, Vol. IV) we expressly mentioned at least 60 points of error in his religious teachings, and indicated many others of a factual and legal kind. [By now his errors of doctrine and interpretation mount into the thousands.] All of these show that his right eye is darkening. The Sword of Truth refuting his errors is the
accompanying cause of the darkening of his right eye. We might take as an illustrative example his error on Tentative Justification: Because the doctrine that the Youthful Worthies are now developing is based on that doctrine, and has been urged (the Sword was thrust at his right eye on this subject) against his view of Tentative Justification, he denies that there can be Youthful Worthies before the New Covenant shall operate, if then. Because as against his error on Justification the Tabernacle Shadows has been cited as proving that the Court types the condition of both the tentatively and vitalizedly justified, and that the Gospel-Age Levites are the tentatively justified, he repudiates these features of the Tabernacle that oppose his error and introduces new errors to take the place of the opposing truths—"the Sword" opposing his right eye darkens it in this respect in a sense similar to God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Instead of the Truth that opposes his errors being permitted by him to affect his setting aside his errors, he clings to his errors unto the repudiation of one truth after another contradictory of his errors. The same thing can be seen in his treatment of Elijah and Elisha, and in his giving wrong meanings to large sections of Scripture to bolster up his newly invented gospel of the kingdom, i.e., that millions now living will never die. The faithful will ply the Sword of Truth against his right eye every time he offers some new error or new misinterpretation on his pet theories. But his headiness will be in the way of his receiving the Truth, and, bent on maintaining his error, he will, as he has done in the past, offer false teachings and interpretations to evade the Truth used against his pet theories, and thus his right eye will become darker and darker. At each darkening of his right eye the eyes of understanding of some brethren hitherto closed to his errors will become open, and they will refuse, further to follow him; and this will continue until he will be forsaken by all who remain New Creatures and Youthful Worthies.
As the most prominent leader of the Truth section of antitypical Jambres his errors will be the darkest. What a terrible woe is the third woe of v. 17! What could be much more calamitous than losing the Truth? Do we pity him? Yes, deeply. Can we help him? Not from the attacks of the Sword of Truth, from the withering of his influence among the Truth people, and from the darkening of his right eye. In these three particulars God tells us (Zech. 11: 17) that he can not be helped, because he will not permit himself to be helped.
Both Matt. 24: 48-51 and Zech. 11: 15-17 treat of J.F.R. Both of the passages cover some of the same and some of the different points of his activities. They both show that he is an evil man, an errorist, a cruel injurer and unscrupulous misrepresenter of the leaders of the Lord's people, especially of the leaders of the Little Flock, a loser of the High Calling and a sufferer of woes. The Matthew, as distinct from the Zechariah, passage shows that his root evil was a refusal to wait upon the Lord, and an insistence upon running ahead of the Lord, in self-will carrying out his own plans, and that his course would be that of a hypocrite, while indifference to the needs of the Flock and spoliation of the rights of the best of the Flock are especially emphasized in the Zechariah, as distinct from the Matthew, passage. Thus these passages have much in common—a fact that is in harmony with the thought that they treat of the same person—additionally each supplies certain features wanting in the other, and thus are complementary of one another, showing inspiration.
Sometimes brethren blame us for our opposition to J.F.R. Some even think it is due to envy and ambition on our part. Nay, brethren, we envy no man, and aspire to nothing except what the Lord has given to us as an object of aspiration. It is we who have been envied by certain ambitious leaders among the Lord's people, and this accounts in part for their
attacking us as being in the way of the attainment of their ambitions. In due time this will become as clear as the noon-day sun to the Lord's people. And until then we can and will patiently wait. If the brethren desire to know why we have been resisting J.F.R.'s course in particular, the answer is found in Zech. 11: 15, which commands the faithful shepherds as one body to lay hold on his instruments, take them up, discuss them before the Lord's people in the light of Scriptures, Reason and Facts. And, please God, we will on all proper occasions be zealous to use the Sword of Truth against the arm of this usurper and against the right eye of this errorist, until he ceases to be a shepherd in the Flock, against which he has, according to the Scriptures and Facts, so greatly sinned before God and man.
In P'20, 129, par. 1, we promised to publish three pen products on J.F.R., which, with supporting articles, would eventually result in his being bereft of all official relations with New Creatures and loyal Youthful Worthies in every group of Truth people. The discussion on that evil servant in the Appendix of Studies, Vol. IV, written in 1920 and the present discussion, written in 1921, on the foolish, unprofitable shepherd are two of the three. The third will be parts of Vol. X of this work. We are sure that the first has already convinced many, aroused fears in others, and will yet convince still many others, of the unfitness of J.F.R. to hold any office in God's Flock. We are also convinced that in the Lord's hand this discussion has contributed and will contribute its quota to the same end—an end that is necessary for the well-being of God's Flock, for which reason we pray the Lord to speed it on its mission. [By now over 40,000 Truth people believe him to be that evil servant and foolish, unprofitable shepherd. This accounts for his recent "stop thief" articles on that Servant and that evil servant, his man of sin, etc., etc.]