Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
mind for a variety of reasons: (1) it is a fact, and (2) it enables us to see how the parable can say that the pound of the unfaithful servant was given to the most faithful servant. Remembering that the entrusted ten pounds—not the gained pounds—represent each servant's human all reckoned perfect and made acceptable for sacrifice, and that this human all consists first of the human capacities, attainments, possessions, etc., of each servant, and second of the providential situation of each servant, and remembering that the slothful and wicked servant represents the Great Company, we can see how, from the standpoint of speaking of a part of a thing for its whole, the pound can be taken from the one and given to the other. In the first place, that part of the pound that consists of acceptableness of the human all for sacrificial purposes is taken entirely away from the Great Company; for its humanity ceases to be a part of the Lord's antitypical Goat. In the second place, God changes their providential situations so that they are not in a sacrificial environment. In the third place, through chastisements He takes away more or less of their human all. Henceforth lacking essential features of the pound, they may properly be spoken of as having had their pound taken from them! The activities and environments of such persons since 1878, both in the nominal church and in the harvest siftings among the Truth People, prove that they have from the above-mentioned standpoints lost their pound—that the Lord has taken it away from them. However as long as they retain their place in the Great Company, they still retain the robe of Christ's righteousness; but they have spotted it badly. The Lord gives the pound taken from the slothful, to the faithful servants, by giving them the others' human capacities, attainments, providential situations made acceptable for sacrifice.
For example, doubtless Mr. Barbour lost his crown sometime before April 16, 1878, when, as the parallel of
Judas, he betrayed the Lord. One of his attainments was proficiency in editing, and one of his providential situations was freedom from pre-occupation for controlling, a Truth paper. As the Lord was taking these away from him, by giving him several associate editors and by giving our Pastor executive charge of the paper, He was giving our Pastor the attainments and providential situation not previously had by him whereby he could edit and control such a paper. In this way, as well as in others, He took away Mr. Barbour's pound and gave it to our Pastor. It is easy to point out in various ways as touching the talents as distinct from the pounds, how when certain persons forfeited their opportunities of service, these fell to his lot to have. More than once certain ones at the Bible House being displaced during siftings, their work temporarily at least fell to his lot to perform; and this is also true respecting the larger opportunities of service that other persons forfeited, e.g., when certain associated editors, notably his helpmeet, forfeited their editorial work, it fell to his lot to perform it all; also some of their pertinent human capacities—the pound—he was enabled by the Lord to cultivate, thus gaining their pound. A notable and overshadowing instance in which the Lord took away both the pounds and the talents from the Great Company in the Truth as a class, and gave them to the Little Flock as a class, occurred in connection with His removing from the former certain human attainments, possessions, providential situations and opportunities for service—thus both pounds and talents—and giving these to the Little Flock for Jordan's first smiting from 1914 to 1916.
From the above considerations we can readily see how our Pastor's interpretations of the pounds and the talents stand all the tests of Scripture Truth: they are in harmony with (1) themselves, (2) all Scripture passages, (3) all Scripture doctrines, (4) God's character, (5) the Ransom, (6) the purposes of the
Bible and (7) facts; while the contrary interpretations of the Society's president were occasioned either by a deplorable misunderstanding or a wilful perversion of our Pastor's thought on the pounds, are based on incomplete and insufficient definitions, are presented in hypocrisy as not antagonistic to another's interpretation, are set forth in revolutionism, were engendered by a lack of meekness and humility toward that Servant, are given as a part of a program for the spread of errors in teaching and practice invented by Azazel.
In the May 15, 1923, Tower appears an article entitled The New Creature, which we will here briefly review. Any use that its writer may make of a truth that he has not yet lost may properly be looked upon as used in the same general way as Papists use Scriptural teachingsdirectly or indirectly to palm off, wittingly or unwittingly, Satanic perversions of the Truth. Those who do not recognize this as the use that Satan is making of "that evil servant" and "foolish, unprofitable shepherd," are either babes in the Truth or are under the influence of spiritual opiates. The inability to see the erroneousness of the article in question is first-class evidence of the possession of undeveloped, or of stunted and blunted spiritual perceptive powers on the part of a New Creature.
The fundamental error of the article is the pet error of "that evil servant" his denial of Tentative Justification. It is because the Truth on Tentative Justification implies the truthfulness of our Pastor's teachings on the nature, office and place of repentance, conversion and faith in relation to justification, and on the nature of the things sacrificed in consecration, and because "that evil servant" denies the Truth on Tentative Justification, that he must perforce advance false or insufficient definitions on the office, relation and working of repentance, conversion, faith and the things sacrificed in consecration. Whoever logically holds the Scripture Truth on Tentative and Vitalized Justification
will, generally speaking, be free from the spiritual contagion that holds "that evil servant" in its grasp as a fevered victim (Ps. 91: 6). We have from various standpoints in Vol. IV, Chapter V, refuted his views on that subject, and will not here repeat these refutations.
We should always watch the definitions that are offered us on Scriptural subjects; for therein lurk the seeds of error in the teachings of a false prophet. The article under review offers some one-sided, and therefore misleading definitions of mind and heart. According to this article, the mind means only the knowing "faculty" and its contents— knowledge, and the heart means only the feeling "faculty" and its contents—the affections. Accordingly, the article uses the word repentance to mean a change of mind in the sense of a change of one's knowledge! Mere novices in Biblical knowledge are aware of the fact that, in addition to meaning the knowing faculty and its contents, the word mind frequently in the Bible means the disposition (Rom. 7: 25; 12: 2; Col. 2: 18; Phil. 2: 5, etc.). No wonder such an incomplete definition of the word mind moves J.F.R. to define repentance, as he does in the example that he gives, as a change of mind in the sense of a change from the wrong knowledge endorsing evolution to the true knowledge that one is a sinner and needs a Savior. The word repentance means much more than a change from wrong to right knowledge as to one's moral state. It means not only a change from a wrong to a correct knowledge as to sin and righteousness, but also a change of disposition from a love of, and pleasure in sin to a sorrow for, and a hatred and abandonment of sin, and also from a hatred and avoidance of righteousness to a love and practice of righteousness. Anything short of this is not a Biblical repentance. It implies a "godly sorrow" that "worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of" (Matt. 3: 8; Luke 10: 13; Luke 15: 7; Acts 8: 22; Rev. 3: 2, 3, 19; 2 Cor. 7: 9-11). Every case of a
genuine repentance mentioned in the Bible implies a change of disposition, as can be seen in the case of Joseph's brethren, various national repentances of Israel, David, Manasseh, Nineveh, the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears, the prodigal son, Peter, etc. Our experiences corroborate this.
Again, he defines conversion as changing one's course from a life of self-righteousness. He does not say to what the change is made, except that it is to a different course; but he assures us that even after one's conversion he does not yet know what he must do [presumably, to come into harmony with the Lord]; that it is only later on that he learns that he is alienated from God, and what are the terms of his coming into harmony with God. According to this thought, the conversion that this article teaches is that part of the Biblical repentance that decides to give up sin and to do right, before one has learned to believe that God will forgive him his sins [tentatively], if he accepts Jesus as his Savior. Such a conversion is poorer in contents than even the conversion of revivalists who make it consist of "repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus." Conversion, as the Bible teaches it, is the entire process of turning from depravity into the image of God, and is a lifelong work. J.F.R. has not only forsaken the Truth definition of conversion (Berean Comments, Acts 3: 19), but has fallen into deeper error on the subject than has the Nominal Church. To supplement the one-sided and incomplete definition of the heart offered by the article— the faculty of the feelings and its contents—the affections and motives [presumably, not the motives that come from the intellect]we add that the word heart is also frequently used in the Bible to mean the will, as the following passages prove: Matt. 15: 18, 19; Mark 3: 5; Luke 8: 15; 21: 14; Acts 7: 51; 11: 23; Rom. 2: 29; 10: 9, 10; 1 Cor. 4: 5; 7: 37; 2 Cor. 9: 7; 1 Thes. 2: 4; Heb. 4: 12; Rev. 2: 14.
Again the article under review teaches that one at consecration comes to exercise faith in Jesus' blood as the merit which works forgiveness of his sins. This is a palpable error contradictory of the Bible, which sets forth faith in Christ's blood for [tentative] forgiveness as the immediate antecedent of Tentative Justification (Rom. 3: 25, 26; 4: 1-10, 22, 23; 10: 4; Acts 16: 30, 31; Gal. 2: 16); contradictory of the experience of at least a billion of believers throughout the Gospel Age, who believed on Jesus' death for the forgiveness of their sins, and who were thereby introduced into a measure of peace with God, though they never consecrated; and also contradictory of the experience of all consecrated persons, except those few who like our Pastor cannot remember a time when they were not consecrated. This error, that one at consecration comes to believe that he is forgiven for Jesus' sake, J.F.R. has been driven to accept, because of his false doctrine that it is at the gate of the antitypical Court that one consecrates. The sword-thrust on this line has blinded his right eye on this subject as well as on other subjects. How true that his defense of his errors against attacks from the standpoint of various truths drives him to give up those opposing truths! It is in this way that each sword-thrust increasingly blinds him.
Most palpable is his confusion on the Sarah covenant and on the covenant of sacrifice. He makes them the two parts of one covenant and that in the sense of a contract! He, therefore, says that Jehovah and we enter into the contract relations of this covenant. In refutation of this error, we would say: Biblical covenants are of two kinds: (1) promises binding but one party to another, and that unconditionally, and (2) contracts binding both parties to them to certain conditions. The covenant with Noah (Gen. 9: 15; Is. 54: 9) is an example of the former, the Mosaic covenant of the latter kind (Gal. 3: 18-21). Our covenant of
sacrifice is not a part of a contract. It is an unconditional promise on our part, binding us alone, and is produced by such appreciation of God's past, not future, favors as worked in us a consecrating faith in, and love for God, obligating us unconditionally to do anything that God desires of us, even unto death (Ps. 50: 5; Rom. 12: 1). The covenant of sacrifice was made by us to God as an unconditional promise, and not by God to us. On the other hand, as a totally different covenant, God made the Sarah covenant (Gen. 22: 17, 18) as an unconditional promise— not a contract—to the Seed—those who are of the Christ (Gal. 3: 16, 28), as they before becoming the Seed—parts of the Christ—made the covenant, or promise of sacrifice to God, i.e., their consecration vows.
To claim that the covenants operating between God and us are the two parts of one contract binding each side to certain conditions, on the fulfillment of which certain advantages flow to God and to us, shows an utter misunderstanding of the covenant of sacrifice—our consecration vows—and of the Sarah covenant, which are two separate covenants,—both of them being unilateral and unconditional promises (Gal. 3: 20). Such a view as the article under review presents destroys the unilateral character of each of these covenants and necessitates a mediator to make the contract operative; because God would not enter into a contractual covenant with imperfect beings without a mediator (Gal. 3: 20). As we unconditionally promised God out of appreciation of His past favors—(Rom. 12: 1)—and not as a condition of obtaining the High Calling—to do anything that He may desire, so God greatly appreciated this spirit of devotion to Him, and out of this appreciation begat of His own Spirit us who had this spirit of devotion to Him, and gave us who have and keep that spirit of devotion to Him (Heb. 3: 14) certain features of the unconditional promises of Gen. 22: 17, 18. These promises insofar
as they apply to the Christ class are the Sarah covenant, which is made only to those who have and keep the spirit that prompted their consecration, and it is absolutely unconditional to them. And it belongs to no others; for it belongs to those only who are in Christ. Consequently there are now two covenants operating: one of sacrifice—our consecration vows—that we made to God unconditionally (Ps. 50: 5; Rom. 12: 1), and one—the Sarah covenant or promise—that God made to the Faithful; for the Faithful alone are the Seed, the Christ (Gal. 3: 15-18, 29). Thus there are unconditional promises binding God to the Seed, and unconditional promises binding the Seed to God; but these two sets of promises are not two parts of a contract; for each is bound to the other by an unconditional promissory covenant—not by a contractual covenant.
Finally, the article offers some confusion as to what we give to the Lord in consecration. It denies that we give Him our will, our mind, our heart or anything else except our imputed human right to life. If this were true, we would give Him no actual present possession, only a prospective possession. Biblically, we presented to Him our heart in the sense of our will (Prov. 23: 26); we presented to Him our human all—all that we are and have and all that we hope to be and have as human beings, implied in the term "bodies" (Rom. 12: 1); and we presented to Him ourselves, and renew the presentation every day (2 Cor. 8: 5). Thus we not only presented to Him our tentatively] imputed right to life with the [tentatively] imputed life rights that go with that right to life—things that we did not actually have—but we also presented to Him what we actually had and were, not simply what we were [tentatively] imputed to be and have and are actually now imputed to be and have. It is self-evident from experience, as well as from Scripture, that we offered to give Him what we were and had, and
not simply what we might hope as human beings actually to be and have, but which we will never get; for let it be remembered that the right to life and the life-rights are not actually given to us, but only imputed to us; for if they had been given to us, we would actually have become perfect. Experience teaches us that we presented for sacrifice actualities, as well as [tentatively] imputed things and hopes, which under the terms of our consecration will never be ours except as we now have them imputatively. What we were and had, having been presented to God and then made acceptable by the imputation of Christ's merit, God after accepting our sacrifice at Christ's hand by the Spirit begettal, contrary to the teaching of the article under review, gave us back our human all, in the sense of a stewardship, for use according to His will for His cause. This is shown in the parable of the pounds. Each one has committed to him as a stewardship that which in consecration he offered to give to God, plus that which Jesus' imputation made it in God's sight—a reckonedly perfect humanity acceptable for sacrifice—the pound. J.F.R. denies this in the article under review. His denial explains the reason for his rejecting our Pastor's definition of the pound and his substituting "kingdom interests" as the definition of the pound—all of which is due to his denial of Tentative Justification. In the Tower for Sept. 1, 1923, he published an article entitled "Methods of Deceit." Generally speaking, up to its last page he described the studied deceitfulness of perverters of the Truth so accurately that he, as the guiltiest of them, must have made an exhaustive study of his own "methods of deceit," and then described them as though they were those that he desires his readers to believe are practiced not by himself, but by those who teach contrary to him, the special mouthpiece and controller of the Society, God's supposed channel for the Priests' faith and work; for who among Truth people have
been tossed to and fro by various winds of doctrine more than those who have accepted his increasingly perverse teachings? Who has more deceitfully contradicted our Pastor's teachings than he? Who has sought to make our Pastor appear as an advocate of perversions of his own teachings more than "that evil Servant"? Who has attempted to palm off "original" teachings (original with Satan) as meat in due season, in an attempt to set aside the real meat prepared by our Lord through our Pastor, than he? Who among Truth people has presented "darkness in advance" more than he? Who, making capital of our Pastor, has given him the Judas kiss while betraying, him in many of his teachings, in his charter, will and in many of his arrangements, more than the foolish, unprofitable shepherd? What teacher among Truth people has been more guilty than he of the charge implied in the following sentence of his, "The logical deduction they draw from their findings is that the Lord deluded Bro. Russell in permitting him to believe a lie"? Who "instead of dispelling doubt by a re-examination of Bro. Russell's writings" has made an endeavor "to prove the new [italics his] views and ideas to be Scripturally correct" more than he? Who has shown more of "a growing disregard or neglect of what that Servant has written" than he? If "a denial or reversal of formerly held truths is naturally suggested to those having a morbid desire for novelty," what teacher among the Lord's people on the basis of such a principle has a larger "morbid desire for novelty" than he? Who by "reputation of channel" has "rushed off their feet" more brethren than he? Whose official conduct, onward from the time he drew up by-laws intended to give him all our Pastor's powers in the Society, betrayed "desire, ambition, grudge or other item of selfishness" greater than his? If "disruptive doctrines smack of slight of men" and devils, whose disruptive doctrines have smacked thereof more than his? We
know of no one among the teachers of the Lord's people, appointed through our Pastor, who has done worse in anyone of these particulars than "that evil Servant." The items and passages with respect to which he has rejected our Pastor's teachings and interpretations and on which he has substituted "new views" mount into the thousands, and according to the Bible will continue to increase unto complete darkness.
In this article we will point out with pertinent refutations the increasing darkening of his right eye on the New Creature and death, and on the parables of the ten virgins and the sheep and goats. On the matter of the New Creature and death he raises the question (Z '23, 247, 248) as to a faithful Christian who dies "Does the New Creature die?" He answers, Yes. The question itself should have been stated otherwise to bring out the two answers rightly belonging to it. The answer given is misleading, because it conveys a partly mistaken and a largely misleading thought. The "method of deceit" in the treatment of the question lies in the fact that the writer uses the term, New Creature, as though it had only one meaning—the person who is Spirit-begotten; whereas the Bible uses the term to mean two things: (1) the person who is begotten of the Spirit (2 Cor. 5: 17), and (2) the holy powers begotten and the holy qualities produced in the person who is begotten of the Spirit (Gal. 6: 15; compare with Gal. 5: 6, which proves that the term New Creature in Gal. 6: 15 means the holy powers begotten, and the holy qualities developed in the person who is begotten of the Spirit). Of course the New Creature in the first sense, i.e., the person who has been begotten of the Spirit, dies when a faithful Christian dies. Every passage that is quoted in the article under review, and that proves that the New Creature dies, refers to the New Creature in the sense of the first definition above given to the word But not one of those passages refer
to the New Creature in the second sense of the word as given above.
What answer should be given to the question as to whether the New Creature dies, if the word New Creature is used in the second sense of the word? In harmony with our Pastor's constant teaching, we reply: Yes and No. If the person falls into the second death class, his New Creature dies before his natural man dies; but a person's New Creature never dies, if he is faithful unto death. The person who sins the sin unto death by that very sin annihilates the New Creature in the second sense of the word, both as to the holy qualities developed, and as to the holy powers begotten in him. But when a faithful Christian dies, the New Creature in the second sense of the word does not die—these holy powers and qualities do not pass out of existence. They exist; but are not active or conscious, since their activity would require an organism, which the New Creature, in the second sense of the word does not have between death and the resurrection. Just as our new-creaturely powers and qualities continue to exist, but are inactive and unconscious while we are asleep, so have they continued to exist, though inactive and unconscious, while the faithful were in death throughout the Age. These new-creaturely powers and qualities of the faithful continue to exist in death for two reasons: (1) they are realities, actually created things—real "New Creatures"—not mere abstractions; and (2) these powers and qualities, which constitute the character of the faithful, have maintained the right to live on the Divine plane with the life-rights that go with that right to live. But that which has the right to live never in Jehovah's order of affairs dies except sacrificially, like our Lord's and the Church's humanity, or constrainedly, as in the case of the Great Company's humanity, or ministerially, as in the case of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies after the next Age. But the new-creaturely right to life and
its life-rights are not sacrificially given up unto death; only the human right to life and its life-rights are. Consequently the New Creature, in the second sense of the word, from and on account of the two viewpoints just given, does not die, either when the faithful Christian dies, or when a Great Company member dies, or when during the Little Season the Ancient and Youthful Worthies die. Such a thought really militates against the Ransom; for if Jesus' New Creature, His holy powers and qualities, died, one might ask whether His New Creature died the Adamic, the Sacrificial, the Constrained, the Ministerial or the Second death—all the deaths we know of. Not the Adamic, for the New Creature was begotten of God; not the Second Death; for that would make Jesus a sinner. Would the Tower teach that Jesus as a New Creature died sacrificially? This would be to deny the Ransom, and would be similar to the Nominal Church view that Jesus died as, a "God-man" and that He gave more than just a human life as the ransom-price and if it should teach that He died the constrained death of the Great Company, or the post-Millennial ministerial death of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies, it would also deny the Ransom, which requires the sacrificial death of a perfect human being as the corresponding price for Adam.
In Studies, Vol. III (190-197), etc., our Pastor presents a Scriptural, reasonable and factual interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins. Being familiar to our readers, it needs no repetition here. Professing, as in his treatment of the pounds and talents, not to be antagonistic to our Pastor's interpretation, J.F.R. sets forth in Z '23, 291-297 an interpretation of the parable of the ten virgins that, for the reasons that he claims require it, is utterly subversive of our Pastor's interpretation and cannot for the chronological reason given as requiring it, be held in common with our Pastor's. He sets forth the following claims: That the parable
could not begin to have a fulfillment until between 1914 and 1918; that all the consecrated slumbered and slept when Christ delayed to deliver the Church in 1914; that the cry, "Behold the Bridegroom," was fulfilled at the Cedar Point Convention in 1919; that the wise virgins went forth with joy [oil in their vessels] to meet the Bridegroom from then on in the various drives of the Society; that the foolish virgins do not go into these services with joy [oil in their vessels] hence do not go into the marriage with Him; that those faithfully doing "the Channel's" work will as wise virgins go in with the Bridegroom; that then the Kingdom door is closed; that the others repent, but too late—all because they did not joyfully enter into the Society's drives! The chief thought that, as a characterization of this interpretation, wells up in the mind of one familiar with our Pastor's interpretation, is that such an explanation is childish, flat and vagarious.
To make this "new view" seem plausible, the following are some of the perversions that the article presents: that the disciples asked the questions, "When shall these things be?" and "What is the sign of thy presence, and of the end of the world?" (Matt. 24: 3), because they desired to know when Jesus would deliver them and the rest of the Church as His bride—a phase of the mystery of which they then understood nothing, it being first revealed to St. Paul; that the goods committed to that wise and faithful servant were kingdom interests, whereas it was the storehouse of Truth; that the word "then" in Matt. 25: 1 means after 1914 instead of the Time of the End; that the evil servant is a class instead of an individual (a view that logically makes the wise and faithful servant a class as the Society now teaches to be the case); that all the virgins were anointed (a thing true of the wise only; for the Great Company, though receiving the begetting, does not have the anointing); that oil symbolizes joy, whereas it symbolizes (1) the Holy Spirit
as a whole (Ps. 23: 5; compare with Acts 10: 38; Ex. 29: 2), and then severally in its various powers and qualities, and therefore joy only as one of these (Lev. 8: 12; Is. 11: 2, 3; Ps. 45: 7; Is. 61: 3; Ps. 133: 1, 2); and (2) the Word of God (Jas. 5: 14; Ex. 25: 6; Zech. 4: 12); that virgins are wise because of joyfully doing the Lord's will (which means the Society's work), instead of having the Truth and the ability tactfully to apply it; that virgins are foolish because of not joyfully doing the Lord's will (which means the Society's work), instead of having error and acting in harmony with it; that the lamps "represent the will of God as expressed toward His children," whereas they represent the Bible; that all of the virgins have as their lamps "a knowledge of the expressed will of God concerning them, as set forth in the details of the Divine plan," whereas this is true of the wise only; that the Bridegroom tarried in respect to delivering the Church, whereas the tarrying was with respect to His second coming; that an especial trial on the Church began Oct., 1917—"the beginning of 1918"—instead of June, 1917, which is not referred to in the parable; that the expression, all slumbered and slept, means that some slumbered and the others slept; and that the virgins trimming their lamps means the Society's adherents studying the Scriptures to find out that Elijah was transubstantiated into Elisha in 1918 and 1919!
The reason why he is forced to abandon our Pastor's interpretation is that in the interests of his own original patented gospel of the kingdom—"Millions now living, etc."—he abandoned our Pastor's interpretation of Matt. 24: 4-14 as giving a summary of the events of the Gospel Age, and applies these verses to the present period. Keeping this thought in mind, we see that as a matter of course he cannot, as our Pastor did, apply the parable to the Second Advent movement beginning in 1829 and culminating with the sending away of the Great Company from the closed door.
He has failed to see that a comparison of Matt. 24: 3; Mark 13: 4 and Luke 21: 7 proves that the disciples asked four, not three questions: (1) when would the temple be destroyed—"When shall these things be?" (2) what special sign-prophesied event—would follow the destruction of the temple and precede the sign of the parousia—"What sign [prophetically fulfilled event, is one of the meanings of this word] will there be when these things [the events connected with the destruction of the temple] shall [have] come to pass?" (3) what would prove His second presence—"What shall be the sign of Thy presence?" and (4) what would prove the harvest time of the Age—"and of the end [synteleia, summing up, consummation] of the world [age]?"
In Luke 21: 8-24, Jesus gives the answer to the first question; in Matt. 24: 4-14; Mark 13: 5-14 with its special feature in Matt. 24: 14 and in Mark 13: 10, Jesus gives the answer to the second question; and in the rest of the discourse of Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, Jesus answers the third and fourth questions, Matt. 25, as well as portions of Matt. 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, being added as a generous feast not asked for by the disciples but required to clarify the subject matter. In the Greek by the word telos, end (Matt. 24: 14; Mark 13: 7, 10; Luke 21: 9), Jesus points out the period Biblically called the Parousia from 1874 until what we recognize to be 1914; and in the Greek by the word synteleia, consummation, summing up (see A.R.V.), mistranslated end in Matt. 13: 39 and 24: 3, He points out the Harvest in its widest sense as including the Parousia and the Epiphany, 1874-1954, a part of which is the telos, end, or time or reaping, in the widest sense of that word. Repeatedly in this discourse Jesus refers to the telos— end—in distinction from the synteleia—Harvest as the summing up or consummation of the Age—thereby indicating in answer to the disciples' second question its connection with the special
sign asked for in the second question. The telos in its widest sense is a shorter period of time than the synteleia, because it is included in the synteleia, as its earlier part; but as distinct from the synteleia, the telos was the first part of the synteleia. In Mark 13: 10 (compare with Matt. 24: 14), Jesus shows that before the synteleia the Gospel would be preached among all nations; and in Matt. 24: 14 He shows us that the telos would be the time after the Gospel would be preached among all nations. Consequently our Pastor was right when he said that in the Bible, translated into all national languages, and sent to all the nations, was this testimony given to all nations. This was fulfilled by 1861 (A 91, par. 2) which was before the synteleia—the Harvest. The Modern Foreign Missionary Movement, which dates from Carey's organizing the first Foreign Missionary Society in 1792, and the Bible Societies, which date from 1804, were the agencies that did the main work of such Bible translation and spreading. Thus before the telos as the first part of the synteleia was this final proclamation made, just as Matt. 24: 14 says: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world [when the testimony would go forth for and unto a world-wide proclamation] … then [after the time of such activities, which began in 1792 and culminated in 1861] shall the end come," which we know came in 1874.
Thus these passages give the sign—the world-wide Gospel proclamation made by the Bible, translated into the languages of all nations and sent to them—that was according to the second question to follow the temple's destruction; and according to Jesus' explanation many other events were to precede this sign, as well as the sign of His Parousia and the sign of the Synteleia. Doubtless the Lord told of the many events following those connected with the destruction of the temple and preceding this sign itself, in order to impress upon the disciples the thought that this sign would be in the
distant future, and in order to encourage amid those many events the brethren who would live after the temple's destruction and before this sign itself. This sign preceding the Harvest, that evil servant's whole setting of Matt. 24 and 25, which is to the effect that they refer to things after 1914, is upset thereby and does not have one leg upon which it and his own original patented gospel of the kingdom—"Millions, etc."—built upon it can stand.
But this time setting of this sign proves more. It proves that the "then" of Matt. 25: 1 may refer to the telos as distinct from the synteleia, i.e., 1874-1914; or to the synteleia, 1874-1954, as distinct from the telos of 18741914; or to the Time of the End, i.e., from 1799 to 1954. To determine which of these three time periods is covered by the "then" of Matt. 25: 1, we need the light of fulfilled prophecy as a reliable helper. And what do these fulfilled facts prove? They prove that the world-wide Second Advent movement, begun in 1829, reached the climax of its first stage by 1844 in the Bridegroom's beginning what seemed to the watchers to be a delay. Thereafter came the slumbering and sleeping until 1874; then the cry, "Behold [see] the Bridegroom!"—He is here; then the study of the Scriptures on the subject of the Second Advent—trimming the lamps; then the possession of the Truth—the lighted lamps—by some, and of error—the darkness of unlighted lamps—by others; then the wise virgins entered the open door of Harvesting opportunities with the Bridegroom, and continued so to do until the last ones entered it, 1914-1916; in the meantime the others have been and still are seeking the light, but obtain it too late to find an open door to entering into harvesting, because the reaping is ended. Evidently, therefore, the foolish virgins represent Great Company members who will get the Truth, obtaining it as they will after the Little Flock in its entirety had entered the open door. What do these
fulfilled facts prove with respect to the "then" of Matt. 25: 1? That it refers to the day of Jehovah's preparation; for it refers to events that began 45 years before the telos and synteleia began. These are the actual "physical facts" of the case, while the events that the article under review calls the "physical facts" of the case are not only not referred to in the parable, but even for them to be given that plausibility which Satan always gives his errors, the symbols and statements of the parable must be wildly perverted in the manner that we have shown above. What a glaring and transparent illustration of such perversions is the teaching of the article in review, that the Bridegroom's coming occurred at the 1919 Cedar Point Convention in the revival of the Society's adherents' courage and in the inauguration of the Golden Age, i.e., agitation and securing of subscriptions to start it, which were the things done there.
The refutation of his "new view" on the parable of the ten virgins is given in Matt. 25: 13, where Jesus interprets the scope and purpose of the parable immediately after giving it, in the following language: "Watch therefore, for ye know [beforehand] neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." This verse undeniably proves, by its connection, that it refers to our Lord's Second Coming, which occurred in 1874, i.e., by the word "therefore" immediately following the parable and drawing the lesson that the parable was given to inculcate, it proves that the lesson that the parable was intended to convey is that Christ's followers were throughout the Gospel Age to be on the alert to expect Christ's Second Coming, whereas the "new view" makes the exhortation, which shows the parable's scope as teaching the necessity of expecting Christ's Second Advent, apply entirely after His Coming! The parable illustrates such watching and waiting for the setting in of His Second Coming by the oriental custom of virgins watching and waiting
for the coming of a bridegroom for and with his bride whom he had gotten from some distant place. See in the Diaglott a note on Matt. 25: 1 which illustrates this custom. This demonstrates that at least a part of this parable refers to events preceding the setting in of our Lord's Second Coming in 1874; while the "new view" allows no application of the exhortation to "Watch, therefore, etc." to anyone living before 1874 or even before 1914.
We will now discuss briefly his "new view" on the parable of the sheep and goatsgotten from Azazel, from whom he has gotten his thousands of other "new views." This new view is given in Z '23, 307-314, and Z '24, 381, 382. He claims that the parable refers to a passing of a decision on persons of Christendom in the end of the Age, hence before the Millennial reign of restitution is inaugurated; that the goats are the clergy—the shepherds— and their chief supporters—the politicians and commercial men as the principal of the flock; that the sheep are the unconsecrated of Christendom who are inclined to humility and righteousness; that the brethren of the parable are the Church. The decision, according to the parable, should be to life or to annihilation, as the characters of the persons concerned would require; but on this he wobbles and hedges, because he knows that such as he says are the sheep and the goats have not, in the vast majority of cases, progressed in character development or undoing far enough to fit them for everlasting life or everlasting destruction as the case would require, having never yet been on trial for life, which must precede a decision like that of the parable. This very fact should have unanswerably demonstrated to him that his "new view" of the parable is wrong; for it does not permit all his sheep to get the reward or all his goats to get the punishment from the Lord set forth in the parable.
We will now point out the crooked road of perversions