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

CHAPTER IV.

RIGHT-EYE DARKENING.

 

COURT-TYPE AND ANTITYPE. VIEWS AND REVIEWS. POUNDS AND TALENTS. SOME RIGHT-EYE DARKENING. MORE RIGHT-EYE DARKENING. STILL MORE RIGHT-EYE DARKENING.

 

TRUTH is progressive; error is digressive. Our Pastor's writings are an illustration of the former, and J.F.R.'s of the latter thought. Step by step the former advanced into more light as the Day was approaching; step by step the latter turns aside as the night of his darkness deepens. Little by little and more and more the latter sees darkness for light; and alas! his adherents, forgetting the Scriptural, logical and factual presentations of our dear Pastor, in their "worship of angels," in the person of J.F.R., bow down to him in accepting without proper study that which he gives them as alleged advancing light. In Z '20, 99-104, J.F.R. made a plea for "Peace." In answering him we told the conditions on which we could have peace again. We also reminded him, in reply to his saying in that article that there was no cause for controversy, that so long as he continued writing against our Pastor's presentations there could be no peace. We will not be silent, while he is seeking to corrupt the faith once delivered to the saints. In his plea for "peace" he reminds us of a certain recent Emperor who addressed an exhortation on peace to a neighboring king, while invading the territories and killing the subjects of the latter! If he wants peace, let him make it possible for us to "dwell in peace."

 

His methods with the subject matter of the article entitled, The CourtType and Antitype, in the June 1, 1920, Tower, which we will here review, are characteristically Rutherfordian. As he did with his "New View" on antitypical Elijah becoming Elisha so

 

190

we are reliably informed he did with his "New View" on the Court and its Gate: first in a private way (2 Pet. 2: 1) he circulated it by word of mouth and by correspondence; then he used the pilgrims further to inoculate with it the churches, himself claiming that our Pastor gave up Tentative Justification. Then finally he came out with it in the Tower. For months our correspondence has shown us what he was teaching on this subject; but we decided to wait until he would state his view in print before we would discuss this, another "New View" of his. And there will be more of his "New Views" coming out as he goes into deeper darkness. Knowing from Scripture that he would repudiate one truth after another until his understanding of his pet theories of God's Word would be utterly darkened, we knew that we would not wait in vain for him to give his "darkness" on the Tabernacle for "light"; and true enough, the June 1, 1920, Tower contains his confusion on the Tabernacle. He actually offers that which flatly contradicts our Pastor's view on the subject as a progressive development of that Servant's thought! From such progress may the dear Lord deliver us!

 

Another matter should be brought to our readers' attention: the narrow, shallow and contracted use of the Scriptures that he makes on this subject. He quotes some Scriptures, it is true, but not one that proves or even treats of his main point of contention: that the gate of the Court represents Consecration, and the Court, Vitalized justification only; while the Scriptures that disprove this point he ignores. He claims that the Scriptures do not teach these doctrines taught by our Pastor, against which he writes. We rejoice that as yet he has not lost the Truth on the Holy and Most Holy, though he has lost a part of the Truth on the court, and though we know Scripturally that he will become confused on the entire tabernacle. Nor do we entirely disagree with him on the court;

 

191

he is half right on the court, but only half right. What he says on the court as representing the justified condition is true enough as far as it goes. But he sees only one phase of its justification picture, i.e., its vitalized phase. He is blind on its tentative aspect; hence he gives a one-sided and therefore a misleading setting to the entire subject. His claim that the Scriptures do not teach Tentative justification is an untrue and brazen assertion contrary to many Scriptures. Let him as inapplicable to the Gospel Age try to read Tentative Justification out of Rom. 4, especially verses 3-12, if he can! If he attempts it, he will find his teeth biting on granite! The fundamental error of the article under review, as in the case of his article on "Worthies—Ancient and Modern," is his denial of Tentative Justification as operative during the Gospel Age. Indeed, the only reason for his article appearing seems to be to undermine confidence in our Pastor's teaching on Tentative Justification. And to maintain his evident error, the tabernacle teachings must be twisted and distorted. It is unnecessary for us to treat further of Tentative Justification. We refer our readers to our brief discussion of that subject in Vol. IV, Chap. V. We refer to the matter here in order to emphasize the fact that J.F.R.'s error on Tentative Justification is causing him to be confused on many Scriptural subjects, among others, on some of the symbolisms of the court and its gate. If we remember the foundation error of the article under review, we will have no difficulty in seeing that his superstructure must also be false.

 

We call attention to the opening sentence of his article: "Question: On the typical day of atonement [italics ours] what did the court of the tabernacle and its furnishings represent, or picture?" Then he assumes that the day of atonement types the Gospel Age only—despite our Pastor's later and more logical thought that it types both the Gospel Age and the

 

192

Millennial Age—the Gospel Age, in the acts up to and including Aaron's taking off his sacrificial garments; the Millennial Age from then on. (What Pastor Russell Said, 26, 27.) His later thought is doubtless correct, since the Atone-ment work includes the work of both Ages. J.F.R. then treats of the services of Lev. 8 and 9, as if they were performed on the Day of Atonement. Then he ignores other types that occur at other times than on the Day of Atonement, and that give us views of the things antitypical of the atonement sacrificings and other servings of the Gospel Age. He seems to think that only those tabernacle services that occurred on the Day of Atonement type Gospel-Age matters, ignoring the fact that the transactions connected with the tabernacle in the book of Numbers, and not a few in Leviticus that did not occur on the Day of Atonement, type Gospel-Age matters, as can readily be seen from 1 Cor. 10: 1-14; Heb. 3: 2—4: 3, and from Lev. 8; 9; 10; 4: 3-12, etc. Despite his question, to prove his claim that under-priests were in the Court on the Day of Atonement he is forced to leave the chapter that gives the service of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), and betake himself to two that treat of the service occurring in the Spring of the year (Lev. 8 and 9) at the consecration of the priests (Lev. 8) and at the installation (Lev. 9) of the high priest. On the Day of Atonement in the type, not only was Aaron the only person in the Holy, but he was the only person in the Court. The reason for this is very apparent: On that day he represented the World's High Priest—(1) in sacrificing the bullock, he represented the Head of the World's High Priest, and (2) in sacrificing the Lord's goat and in the rest of the service of that day, he represented the World's High Priest, Head and Body, as the Apostle Paul clearly teaches (Heb. 7: 26, 27; 13: 11-14; 10: 4-10, 19). Hence it would have contradicted the viewpoint of the antitype, the oneness

 

193

of this High Priest, for Aaron's sons to have been in the court on the Atonement Day. The purpose of that picture is to type exclusively the work of the World's High Priest. Hence no one else than Aaron could have been in any part of the sacred enclosure on that day. How out of all reason it is for J.F.R. to conclude that, since no Levites were mentioned as being in the court that day, nobody but priests could be in the antitypical Court during the Gospel Age! Unless he views the purpose of Lev. 16 as just given, his way of reasoning logically excludes the Church from the antitypical Court during the Gospel Age. What is the difficulty with his teaching on this point? It takes only one type figuring forth limited Gospel and Millennial-Age conditions, and treats that one type as though it were all there is to the subject; yet he is forced to put the types of Lev. 8 and 9 in the typical Atonement Day picture to make his theory seem plausible, utterly ignoring other Scriptures that type antitypical Levites as being in the antitypical Court during the Gospel Age (Num. 8: 22; 4: 15, 25-28, 3133; 1: 51; 10: 17, 21; Lev. 10: 4, 5; Heb. 3: 7–4: 3).

 

While professedly answering a question that pertains to the Atonement Day alone, as his opening sentence implies, to prove that Aaron's sons were in the court on the Day of Atonement he has recourse to the service of Lev. 8 and 9, which occurred in the Spring, and not on the Day of Atonement, which was in the Fall. While it is true that these chapters type certain phases of the Gospel, as well as certain phases of the Millennial-Age work, they do not refer to the typical atonement day service. He uses them, however, as though they did. Why? Because, impliedly, he wishes to seem to prove the point necessary to his proposition, that all the priests, but no Levites, were in the court on the atonement day; and that hence none but priests could be in the Antitypical Court during the Gospel Age! The very fact that he is

 

194

forced to leave the day of atonement chapter to find a supposed argument for his point shows that he cannot prove it from the atonement day service. Had he in addition to his first step taken a second step away from the day of atonement service, and entered Lev. 10: 4, 5, he would have been faced with a type that disproves his implied contention and claim that in the Gospel Age Priests only are in the Court.

 

Having pointed out the two main defects of the article under review, i.e., its basal error—the denial of Tentative Justification and its one-sided and universal emphasis on one limited picture, while ignoring other pertinent pictures which contradict his proposition, we will now discuss other features of the subject which will help us to see through others of his sophistries. He is fairly clear on the meaning of the term "outside the camp," and "the camp." We will, however, give on these a few explanations that he fails to give, and that will help us better to see the subjects, from which vantage point we will then be able better to see through his fallacies on the court and its gate. Hebrews 13: 11-14 is very illuminating on what is meant by the expression "without the camp." It shows that the expression means a condition in which one is as an outcast from among, and in disfavor with God's rebellious nominal people. There are two figures in this text: the camp of the wilderness and the city of Jerusalem. These pictures correspond as follows: The temple and the tabernacle correspond; the camp about the tabernacle and the houses of the city about the temple correspond; the wall of the city and the last circuit of the camp's tents correspond; and the expressions "without the gate" and "without the camp" correspond. V. 13 shows that for the faithful to be, "without the camp" implies that they to a completion undergo from the rebellious nominal people of God the reproaches that the Christ class receives. Just as Jesus' death outside the gate

 

195

symbolized that He was in disfavor with, and an outcast from the rebellious nominal Jewish commonwealth, so St. Paul exhorted the Lord's saints to such faithfulness as would give them the same experience at the hands of the same class of people, explaining that we have here no religious commonwealth (city) with which we are in harmony. (V. 14.) Jesus shows the same thought in John 15: 18–19: 42. Hence we conclude that as "outside the Camp" means a condition of disfavor with, and rejection from among the rebellious nominal people of God, the camp means, as the above passages imply, the rebellious nominal people of God who, while desiring some relation to God, do not desire it sufficiently to be approved by Him, even for fellowship with Him. In the Harvest of the Jewish Age they were the about-to-be-rejected or the rejected house of Israel. During the Gospel Age they have been those professed Christians that have not heartily repented toward God and heartily exercised faith toward Jesus, or those who have not remained in these conditions of heart and mind, though desiring some fellowship with God, i.e.; those who have not even been tentatively justified, or those who did not retain Tentative Justification, though loud in their professions. The fact that all Israelites of the camp who left Egypt at the age of 20 years and upwards, except Joshua and Caleb, died in the wilderness under God's disapproval (Heb. 3: 7–4: 2) demonstrates that the camp represents, for the Gospel Age, those rebellious nominal people of God who, though desiring some harmony with God, either never attain or else cease to retain even Tentative Justification, i.e., in the finished picture, those who are less than tentatively justified. In the Millennium the antitypical Camp will be the world of mankind, more or less desiring harmony with God, but not yet by works justified. We suggest that the brethren read our Pastor's article on the subject in Z '10, 150. We likewise suggest that the dear ones read "that Servant's"

 

196

articles treating of Tentative and Vitalized Justification, as follows: Z '10, 93, col. 2, pars. 3-6; 246, col. 2, pars. 1-4; Z '11, 394; Z '12, 152, col. 2, par. 4; Z '13, 92-94; Z '14, 67; Z '15, 103, 104; 292, 293; Z.'16, 281; Foreword of Vol. VI, iii, iv. In these we will see his continued progress in the light, and a complete refutation of another "new view" of J.F.R.

 

Having seen what is represented by the conditions implied in the expression, "without the camp" and "the camp," we are better prepared to see what the court represents In seeking a definition of its antitype during the Gospel Age, we must have one that embraces every class that according to the Bible is in the antitypical Court during the Gospel Age. To define and explain what the court types in such a way as to exclude therefrom a class which the Bible teaches has been during the Gospel Age in the antitypical Court is manifestly incorrect. In harmony with our Pastor's definition, to define the court as representing the justified condition, in contrast with the unjustified condition of the Camp, and the sanctified condition of the Holy, is correct. But if we then proceed to explain, as J.F.R does, that the justified condition means exclusively what our Pastor called the vitalizedly justified condition, and exclude what he meant by the tentatively justified condition, we err; for the Bible teaches that the tentatively justified condition as well as the vitalizedly justified condition is represented in the antitypical Court during the Gospel Age. We will give three proofs for this: (1) Rev. 11: 2 is a passage to the point: "The Court which is without the Sanctuary … is given to the [emphatic in the Greek, i.e., the special class among the Symbolic] Gentiles" (I. V.). According to the Bible a symbolic Jew is a consecrated person (Rom. 2: 28, 29; John 1: 47); and a symbolic Gentile, a symbolic non-Jew, therefore, is one that is unconsecrated (Rev. 2: 9; 3: 9). Hence by the Gentiles of Rev. 11: 2 certain, but not all,

 

197

unconsecrated persons are meant. Therefore they must be meant who are the tentatively justified; for they, though unconsecrated, have been in the antitypical Court during the Gospel Age, according to this verse as certainly unbelieving Gentiles cannot here be meant to be in the Court. This is very manifest, too when we realize that circumcision types consecration, and uncircumcision types the unconsecrated condition, whether tentatively justified, or not even tentatively justified (Col. 2: 11, 12; Gen. 17: 10, 11, 14; Rom. 4: 11, 12). Rev. 11: 2 assures us that the symbolic Gentiles would be in the antitypical Court. The verse therefore means that while no unconsecrated person would come into the antitypical sanctuary, the antitypical Holy, the place of sanctified ones—the special class among the unconsecrated, the Justified, would be in the enclosure outside of the antitypical Holy, i.e., in the antitypical Court. J.F.R.'s theory denying this fact must be wrong. His view is too narrow, contracted and shallow to take in all the pertinent facts and verses of the Bible; therefore he is in error on the point. (2) In Ezek. 9: 7 we are shown that those who are in the Court are wholly different persons from those in the Holy; hence the tentatively justified are meant by them. For details on this point, please see Vol. V, Chap. II, in those parts that treat of the slaughter weapons. (3) The thought that our Pastor repeatedly proved, and that we proved in very many articles, is also to the point, i.e., that as there was no Great Company as such until the end of the Age, the Levites in the Court before the end of the Age must be the Tentatively Justified (Num. 8: 22; 4: 15, 25-28, 31-33; 1: 51; 10: 17, 21; Lev. 10: 4, 5; comp. Heb. 3: 7–4: 3). These three considerations prove our Pastor's view that the court represents the justified condition, either tentative or vitalized. Hence J.F.R.'s view of the antitype of the court is only half true; and because of his one-sided denial that it types a tentatively

 

198

justified condition, his article is defending an error by a one-sided and antithetical emphasis placed upon a half-truth, a most sophistical procedure.

 

Something ought to be said of his oft repeated remark that one is either justified or he is not justified. This statement as it stands is true enough; yet he uses it to teach an error; for he uses it to deny Tentative Justification. To make his statement teach the full Truth we correct it as follows. One is either vitalizedly justified or he is not vitalizedly justified. One is either tentatively justified or he is not tentatively justified. It would be wrong, however, to say, as he implies by his use of the statement, that if one is not vitalizedly justified, he is in no sense justified; for many people have been tentatively justified that have not had their tentative justification vitalized (2 Cor. 6: 1). Of course we do not claim that the tentatively justified are fully, i.e., vitalizedly, justified; for the very term tentative implies that they are not. Nevertheless for the purpose of a temporary experiment for the advancement and help of the persons concerned to consecration, God temporarily reckons the faith of truly repentant and believing sinners as righteousness (Rom. 4: 3-8, etc.), and treats them temporarily as though Christ's righteousness were imputed to them (Rom. 10: 4). The same thing applies to the symbolisms of the court-posts, hooks and curtains. On the one hand, temporarily, the posts truly represent the tentatively justified, who are truly (silver hooks) holding tentatively to the righteousness of Christ; on the other hand, they truly represent the vitalizedly justified, who truly (silver hooks) are holding vitalizedly to the righteousness of Christ. "It is not a camouflage, not a subterfuge," in either case; but in each case the exact thought symbolized must be kept in mind. It is because J.F.R. fails to see both facts that he can see only "a camouflage;" "a subterfuge," in what the Lord tells us as a verity (Rom. 4: 3-8 and Rom. 10: 4) of

 

199

the tentatively justified by faith, truly, though tentatively, holding to Christ's righteousness. We appeal to the experience of all the brethren, before their consecration and after acceptance of Christ as their Savior, as a proof that they truly held to Christ as their Righteousness, even though they did not understand it thoroughly. It is a fact of experience of which we can all testify, except those who like our Pastor consecrated at a time immemorial.

 

This, another "New View" of J.F.R., is defective in a further respect: It does not allow for any symbolization of that condition in which unconsecrated believers are—a condition by far more important than that typed by the Camp. His view of the Camp gives the condition of those who are not even tentatively justified—among the tents, that of the impenitent; between the tents and the gate, that of the penitent; both conditions being outside the Court; his Court, the vitalizedly justified condition; his Holy, the spirit-begotten condition; and his Most Holy, the spirit-born condition. But he has no place for the tentatively justified condition. One's journey from the Camp to the Gate cannot at any stage represent a real faith in Christ as Savior, inasmuch as the Court curtain represents things connected with faith—the outside of it a "wall as unbelief" in Christ's righteousness to those outside, the inside of it a "wall of faith" in Christ's righteousness to those inside. Where is the faith that is both counted for righteousness, and that is tentatively holding to Christ's righteousness referred to in Rom. 4: 3-25 and Rom. 10: 4, represented in the tabernacle, if not in the act of the Levites' passing through the gate? At the antitypical Gate there is a consecration to righteousness on the part of the repentant and believing sinner (Num. 8: 13-15): but not to sacrifice, which is symbolized at the first veil (Matt. 7: 14; 2 Cor. 3: 13-18). The twofold application of Num. 8: 6-22 is very manifest. The tentatively justified

 

200

are tentatively the firstborn, though of course they are not the firstborn in the finished picture in the end of the Age. Throughout the Gospel Age, in the tentatively justified, this passage has been antityping in a tentative manner; and now in the Great Company it is also antityping in a vitalized manner, even as in various descriptions from Num. 1: 47 onward we find the twofold picture. Of course the service of Num. 8: 6-22 cannot represent the consecration unto death that every individual who will find himself in the Great Company made when he came into Christ; for such a consecration is pictured in Lev. 8. As in the case of the tentatively justified, so it represents for the Great Company their consecration to the righteous service of the Sanctuary. Hence everything is clear, if we view matters as did our dear Pastor, but not so, if we view matters as J.F.R. does. The fact that his "new view" allows for no symbolization for the tentatively justified condition is one of its fatal defects.

 

Another consideration that refutes J.F.R.'s "New View" on the court and the gate: his view leaves out of consideration the fact that one must progress from the Gate of the Court to the Door of the Tabernacle. He concedes that antitypically there is progress necessary in going from the Camp to the Gate of the Court. He will doubtless admit that antitypically there is progress necessary in going from the First Veil to the Second Veil. He will also doubtless admit that antitypically there is progress in honor and service necessary in arising from under the Second Veil, advancing to the Mercy Seat and sprinkling the blood; for these steps imply the first resurrection, ascension, glorification and ministration. Hence we should expect that there is, as our Pastor repeatedly showed, progress in going from the Gate of the antitypical Court to the antitypical First Veil. But J.F.R.'s "new view" makes one arrive at both stations at one step! This is even a more wonderful feat than that supposedly performed by the

 

201

fabled man who is said to have worn boots enabling him to take steps of seven leagues each! Since his proposition involves the denial of progress from the antitypical Gate to the antitypical First Veil, we ask him why this should be, since it contradicts the idea of progress implied in every other stage of Tabernacle symbolisms? Let him give us Scriptural, reasonable and factual proof, for so extraordinary a claim. Surely we could not accept his error, i.e., the denial of Tentative Justification, as a proof for his more than seven-league-boots proposition! Yet he offers nothing else than this.

 

This leads us to criticize his partially blundering explanation of the steps from the Camp to the Most Holy. He gives them as follows: "(1) Seeking harmony with God; (2) being drawn to Christ; (3) consecration; (4) imputation of the merit of Christ and the presentation by the High Priest to Jehovah pictured at the door of the Tabernacle; (5) acceptance and Justification by Jehovah (6) Spirit-begetting to Sonship; [italics ours] (7) Spirit-birth." We have italicized the main words that are in confusion and disorder. By the words, being drawn to Christ, he uses an ambiguous expression. Did he mean by it "faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ"? Then why not state it clearly? Would it not suggest the real Gate scene? Justification by Jehovah follows immediately on the imputation of Jesus' merit, before Jesus presents us to the Father, otherwise we would be unacceptable as gifts and sacrifices (Heb. 5: 1). Again, Jehovah's acceptance and the Spirit-begettal are one and the same thing: He accepts us by the begettal of the Spirit. In contrast with the above faulty, and in part ambiguous, enumeration of the steps taken in starting from the Camp until one's ministry in the Most Holy we offer the following: (1) "Repentance toward God," i.e., progress from one's place in the antitypical Camp to a place just outside the antitypical Gate; (2) "Faith

 

202.

toward our Lord Jesus Christ," i.e., passing through the antitypical Gate, which puts one into Tentative Justification; (3) knowledge and appreciation of, and growth in harmony with the righteousness of Christ—the antitypical Brazen Altar; (4) cleansing from filthiness of flesh and spirit, represented at the antitypical Layer; (5) consecration by the individual and presentation by the High Priest at the antitypical First Veil; (imputation by Christ and full (vitalized) Justification by the Father occur in the Most Holy; and in time occur between one's consecration and Jesus' presentation of him to the Father as a gift). (6) Spirit-begotten condition, beginning with the begettal, progressing through enlightenment at the antitypical Candlestick, through strengthening in every good word and work at the antitypical Table, through sacrificing at the antitypical Golden Altar, and through perfecting by suffering, unto the antitypical Second Veil; (7) Spirit-born condition, progressing in the First Resurrection, Ascension, Glorification and Ministration.

 

J.F.R. (Z '20, 167, par. 7) makes some quotations from T and A that he well knows our Pastor did not mean as he seeks to wrest them. Worse still, at the end of his article he quotes Z '16, 281, par. 2, which treats of Vitalized Justification, as a corroboration of his "new view" stated in a way to contain a denial of Tentative Justification, ignoring the fact that the preceding paragraph approves of Tentative—incomplete—Justification, as well as Vitalized—complete—Justification, and further, ignoring the fact that the following four paragraphs discuss and approve of Tentative Justification. What does this Lawyer mean by such brazen jugglery? We think that the Society adherents must face their individual responsibility toward God as to him. If they continue to allow him to misteach and mismanage as they have done, the Lord will hold them answerable to the extent that they might have changed, but did not change these conditions. We trust, however,

 

203

that they will see their privilege and duty to handle him as an unruly person should be handled

(1 Thes. 5: 14). The Lord will withhold marked blessing from the Society, until he is removed from his position as teacher and executive. Our dear Pastor wrote (Z '16, 174, par. 1), just four years before J.F.R.'s, attempted refutation, that nobody has been able to refute the setting that he has given to "the Plan" as set forth in Tabernacle Shadows (Is. 54: 17). J.F.R. and his co-editors may think they have, but they have not; for among the conspicuous failures that they have made in attempting to refute various of our dear Pastor's teachings, we have above proven that a position in the forefront of such failures belongs to his article in the June 1, 1920, Tower, entitled, "The Court—Type and Antitype," just reviewed.

 

It is now some months [written Sep., 1923] since we have written anything on Society conditions. During this time a number of things have marked Society activities and teachings that call for attention. Some of these things are quite praiseworthy, and for them we rejoice and offer our praise—we wish that in every particular matters were praiseworthy. It is surely a praiseworthy matter that the Society has issued all of our Pastor's Towers, in the Tower Reprints. All true lovers and admirers of his must appreciate and feel thankful for having all his Towers brought within their reach; and certainly they have been provided at a very reasonable rate. We, of course, cannot bestow such unstinted praise upon a part of the Reprints— about 2½ years' numbers—that have been written since our Pastor's death. It would be expecting too much of a work published under J.F.R.'s control to think that he would not see to it that the Index of Topics was juggled to favor his errors. This can be seen from the way the Topical Index treats Tentative justification, the Levites, and the Modern (Youthful) Worthies. Under Justification, Tentative,

 

204

references are given to it as treated by our Pastor up to 1913, and from then on no references to it are given. This, of course, would be in line with J.F.R.'s false statement that our Pastor gave up belief in that doctrine some time before his death. We wrote into the index the Tower references to it up to and including that in the September 15, 1916, Tower as these are given above. Under the topic Levites, in the interests of J.F.R.'s pertinent error, no references at all are given to the Gospel-Age Levites—the tentatively justified! Under Modern Worthies, only one reference is given, and that to a 1918 Tower, published two years after our Pastor's death, and quoting from him on the subject without the Index indicating that fact. We added two references as follows: 4836: 2-5 [Z '11, 181, pars. 2-10]; 5761: 7, 8 [Z '15, 269, pars. 11, 12]. These examples, among others, are given to caution the brethren that the Topical Index is juggled in the interests of J.F.R.'s errors. Of course, the Index is given a Society bias on events, persons, works, etc., since 1917. We desire to express pleasure, also, that the Tower is defending our Pastor's chronology on the Times of the Gentiles (though deviating from it on the dates of the beginning and end of the Harvest and on 1925), as against the Pastoral Bible Institute, which is teaching error on almost every line of our Pastor's chronology. The case of F. H. Robison, one of The Tower editors, calls here for a brief remark. From his published letter and type-written articles, we learned that his errors were on the Parables of the Kingdom and on Revelation, on which things he is accepting and spreading errors that he learned from a Nominal Church theologian, a Foolish Virgin, named Dr. Bullinger. The far-fetched points that F.

H. Robison adduces to prove that the Revelation refers to Fleshly and not to a Spiritual Israel and applies exclusively to the end of the Age—the Apocalypse or Epiphany—and not to the entire Age, are characteristic

 

205

of the confusion of Nominal-Church views, into which unfortunately he has allowed himself to fall His course as one of the chief Tower editors (the three who live at Bethel are doubtless the most influential editors) is, however, one of the best refutations of the newly developed doctrine of the Society as "the channel"; for he shows that for years he neither believed Brother Russell nor the Society to be "that Servant"—the channel. Query: How could he agree to articles claiming those thoughts and appearing in the Tower? His letter proves him to have been acting the hypocrite for years as to the Society's views on the subject. If a part of the so-called "channel" thought and acted hypocritically, this is likely true of the rest (Matt. 24: 51), and how could such a so-called "channel" be the real "channel," i.e., "that Servant"?

 

In F. H. Robison's published letter he makes the extraordinary statement, as a matter of general acceptance and self-evidence in Society quarters, that the Bethel Home is J.F.R.'s private property, as president of the People's Pulpit Association, basing the thought on the clause which says that the President of the Association who shall be elected at its first meeting would hold office for life and control all the business and affairs of that Society. J. F. R told us that the charter of the People's Pulpit Association was made so to read for the express purpose of preventing the control of the work from being gotten and exercised by some one else than Brother Russell. This fact as well as the wording of the clause itself proves that the controllership was intended for but one person, and not for his successor in that office after his death; for it; expressly stipulates that the President of whom it treated must be elected at the first meeting of the Board. Hence that clause on the President refers and was intended to refer to but one person—Brother Russell, who was elected President at the first meeting of the Board. Only one person could be and was

 

206

elected President at the first meeting of the Board; hence the clause referring to the powers of the President as controller applies and was intended to apply to the first President only. This matter is so clear as to be self-evident to those who know of Brother Russell's unique place in the Lord's work at the end of the Age. But it was in harmony with J.F.R.'s course of usurpation to take to himself the powers intended for the People's Pulpit Association's first President alone. However, conceding merely for argument's sake that subsequent presidents should according to the charter have such controllership, it by no means would follow that the properties held under the name of that Association were its President's private property, as is held at Bethel; for in such a case he could sell it at pleasure without the consent of the Board, or could by Will bequeath it to others without the consent of the Board. Hence the sophistry of the whole position. For our part we have good reason for believing that it is illegal in New York for a Corporation's president to hold office for life, and just because he is president to control all the business affairs and property of a New York Corporation. Such controllership the laws of New York do not permit to be vested in a corporation's president as such. The People's Pulpit Association's charter is in this clause illegal.

 

This fact suggests another matter on which we offer some interesting information to the brethren: the law of Pennsylvania to which J.F.R. appealed as requiring the annual election of Directors (which construction of that law he threw to the winds in 1920, as to both Society Directors and Officers) expressly states that it is not retroactive, and hence does not apply to such corporations as were previously chartered with the privileges of electing Directors for longer terms. Therefore the Charter of the Society, having been granted before that law was enacted, did not in the point just referred to become illegal by the passage of

 

207

that law. Hence the ousted Directors were legal directors and were ousted in gross violation of the law of Pennsylvania. Both Divine and human law forbade J.F.R.'s course toward the four Directors.

 

In Z '21, 286, in answer to a question as to what merit atones for our wilful and partially wilful sins committed before our consecration, the Tower teaches that Jesus' merit atones for such sins. Such an answer is a gross doctrinal error. Jesus' merit atones for Adam's sin, which was totally wilful, and all sins that result from Adam's sin, i.e., all sins of weakness and ignorance. It does not atone for any wilful or partially wilful sins whatsoever in Adam's descendants. None of us before consecration can commit a totally wilful sin as distinct from a partially wilful sin; for a totally wilful sin can be committed by those only who are on trial for life. Each individual of the Church must by stripes expiate the partial wilfulness of his sins committed before consecration. In the very nature of the case he must rid his character of the partial wilfulness in the sin before he can consecrate; for consecration implies the surrender of every measure of wilfulness and the acceptance of the Lord's will. We would therefore say that expiation for the part that is wilful in any sin is made by stripes before the person consecrates, and thus he has a clean slate when he receives the imputation of Jesus' merit for his Adamic sins.

 

Considerable excitement was raised among the Society brethren by the statement in the Tower that there were more Apostles than The Twelve, and that St. Paul did not take Judas' place as one of The Twelve. The root of the difficulty is due to the Tower Editors failing to recognize that the Greek word apostolos has different meanings, i.e., a general meaning and a special, or technical, meaning. Its general meaning is messenger, and as such it can apply to any one and every one who is used as a messenger—one sent forth

 

208

with any order or on any mission. The New Testament uses this word in both the above senses. Clear examples of the general sense can be seen—among other passages, in 2 Cor. 8: 23; Phil. 2: 25. In these passages the persons mentioned were messengers—apostles—of certain churches—not of God or of Christ; for they were sent forth by the vote of these churches on certain missions. Sts. Paul and Barnabas are in Acts 14: 4, 14 called apostles in this same general sense, because they were sent out on their missionary journey by the church at Antioch as its missionaries—messengers. The word apostles is not used in 2 Cor. 8: 23; Phil. 2: 25; Acts 14: 4, 14 in its special, or technical, but in its general sense—that of a messenger— one sent out on a mission. In the special, or technical sense, the Greek word apostolos is applicable to a special class of twelve, and only twelve, distinct men, who as messengers of God and Christ acted as their plenipotentiaries in the founding, teaching and upbuilding of the entire Church. As such they had to be eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection, and had to be endowed with inspiration and infallibility in all their teachings, and with the power of working miracles and bestowing the gifts of the Spirit. None others than these Twelve were given all these powers. Therefore, since St. Paul had all these powers, and that in a higher measure than any others of "The Twelve," he must have been one of them, as repeatedly he compares himself with the remainder of "The Twelve," showing that in no way was he inferior to any of them.

 

That Matthias was counted one of "The Twelve" was due to the fact that fallible and mistaken men regarded him as such. Christ alone had the right to choose "The Twelve" (John 15: 16), even as only Jacob, as His type, had the right to beget his children, as their types. Hence the Apostles and the Church, even after Pentecost, would have had no more right to choose an Apostle, as one of "The Twelve," than certain