Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
over which he had to travel, even to give such plausibility to his "new view" as to embolden him to believe that he could fool his readers into believing it He pervertingly assumes as one of the things making necessary a "new view" that, as should be expected, the clergy and the principal of the flock have not been dealt with in either of the preceding parables; whereas these, as well as their partisan supporters and such others of the Second Death class as were not of the clergy, of the principal of the flock, or of their partisan supporters, were sufficiently dealt with a few days before when Jesus, in the pounds parable largely like that one which immediately precedes that of the Sheep and Goats, told of the slaying—some with the first, others with the second death—of his enemies who would not have Him reign over them (Luke 19: 27). He also pervertingly assumes, in the first and the second reasons that he gives for making a "new view" necessary, that the judging of the parable is the pronouncing of a decision only; whereas according to many Scriptures, including this parable, judging implies four processes connected with a trial for life: (1) instruction; (2) testing after opportunities for character-growth are given; (3) reformatory chastisement for measurably wilful failures under the trial; and (4) decision, favorable or unfavorable, as the case may require. He pervertingly assumes as his third reason for making a "new view" necessary that, the Church is meant by the brethren of this parable; whereas they are His greatest brethren being the greatest children of His Father, while the brethren of the parable are His least brethren. He pervertingly assumes as the fourth reason for making a "new view" necessary that, since the restitution class will derive life from Christ, they are not His brethren, despite the fact that God, as in Adam's case (Luke 3: 38), and as in the case of Adam's children, had he and they remained sinless, being the Source and Giver of perfect
life to all perfect creatures, is thereby their Father, regardless of His using agents to confer that life, and also despite the fact that the brethren of this parable are called His least brethren, which the faithful of the next Age will be. See Rotherham and both Revised Versions on this corrected translation. He pervertingly assumes as the fifth reason for making a "new view" necessary, that the perfection of the restitution class implies that they could not think that Jesus meant Himself personally when He spoke of their benefiting Him or not; whereas the fact of their trial at the end of that Age implies that they will be liable to mis-impressions or incomplete impressions. He pervertingly assumes as the basis of his sixth reason that all of the teachings and facts connected with a prophesied event are entirely given in one passage referring to such an event; whereas the Scripture states such things "here a little, there a little," and therefore the parable shows, not everything connected with the next Age and the Little Season following it, but as its main thought various kinds of conduct which, practiced during the Millennium, will determine the class in which one will find himself in the Little Season, while Rev. 20: 7-9 shows how the bad characters formed by the loveless ones during the Millennium, but not mentioned in this passage as having then been formed, will lead them to rebellion after the Millennium. He pervertingly assumes as the basis for his un-numbered seventh reason for making a "new view" necessary, that one cannot be spoken of from the standpoint of a former condition out of which he has forever passed, and therefore claims that those who become brethren in the Millennium cannot be meant, for the reason that these after becoming brethren will not be in prison; whereas the Scriptures do call persons what they no longer are on account of their once having been such, as, for instance, Jesus is called Michael (Dan. 12: 1) in an act entered into nearly 2,000 years after He had ceased
to be Michael, and Satan is called Lucifer (Is. 14: 12-14) over 3,000 years after he ceased to be Lucifer. He pervertingly assumes that time considerations require his "new view"; whereas there is between this parable and the two preceding ones, or in this one nothing suggesting a time connection or suggesting that the decision of this parable is before the Millennial reign. He pervertingly assumes that the coming of our Lord with the Church to reign (Matt. 25: 31; compare with Matt. 19: 28) means the same as His coming with the Church to punish the wicked (Jude 14), the same as His being in His temple and giving the charge to declare troublous times (Is. 6: 1-11), which St. John's comment shows began early in both Harvests (John 12: 39-41), the same as His being seen with the saints on this and the other side of the vail warring (not coming, as he pervertingly assumes) with the Truth as a weapon against error (Rev. 19: 11-16), and the same as the saints executing vengeance, as described in Ps. 149: 5-9 (which they actually did while he in a long and unjustifiable absence from the service abstained from the work of smiting Jordan the first time, from 1914 to 1916). He pervertingly assumes definitions for the sheep and the goats that will not hold true of all of either of his classes when used in connection with the rewards and punishments given, e.g., the majority of his goats—the clergy and the principal of the flock, not being begotten of the Spirit„ cannot go into the second death. He pervertingly assumes that the thoughts given in the three parables of this chapter are given by our Lord as the sign of His presence and the synteleia, Harvest (Matt. 13: 39; 24: 3), in answer to the questions asked by the disciples; whereas the sign of His presence is the Truth (Matt. 24: 27, 30) and the sign of the synteleia is the Harvest work; and whereas these two things come out only incidentally and subordinately to other lines of thought in the first two parables, and are not
referred to at all in the third parable. He pervertingly assumes as a basis for one of his arguments that a teacher's answer to a number of questions can contain only such thoughts as are asked for; whereas, like other good teachers when circumstances and necessity call for it, our Lord as a generous giver and painstaking helper gave His disciples more than they asked for, because circumstances and necessity called for it as helpful in a general way. He pervertingly assumes that the final decision is given at the end of this Age, yet hedges in such a way that he leaves as a final impression with his readers that it is not given until the end of the next Age, which wobbling overthrows his view. An interpretation based upon such and so many perversions as its necessary foundation must be false.
Briefly we will give seven lines of thought that demonstrate our Pastor's interpretation to be correct: (1) His interpretation makes this passage harmonious with itself, with all other Scriptures and Scriptural teachings, with God's character, Christ's ransom, and with facts and the Bible's designs, while the one we are refuting more or less contradicts every one of these seven axioms of Biblical interpretation. (2) The opening verse shows that Christ will not be seated on the throne therein referred to until the entire Little Flock is with Him"all His holy angels with Him" (Col. 3: 4; Rom. 8: 17; 2 Tim. 2: 11, 12). (3) The gathering of all nations before Him is an individual and not a class affair; while class gatherings are assumed by the interpretation under view. (4) Their separation is also an individual and not a class affair, though this individual separation results in the individuals forming two classes; whereas the interpretation under review makes the separation begin with already formed classes, but makes it produce no other classes. (5) Christ's "least brethren" (the literal translation; see Rotherham, and the two Revised Versions, Young, etc.) are the restitution brethren, as His greater brethren in
an ascending scale are the angels, Spirit-born Youthful Worthies, Great Company, Ancient Worthies and Little Flock; while the interpretation under review cannot be made plausible without having as its basis the false translation of the A.V., "one of the least of these, my brethren." (6) All the faithful restitution class will, as the real sheep, inherit the earth at the end of the next Age; while not all of the sheep of the article under review are real sheep, and thus all of such sheep will not get the everlasting life on earth. (7) All of the goats are the incorrigible of the next Age and go with Satan and his angels into annihilation; whereas not all of the goats of the interpretation under review prove to be real goats, and thus all of its goats do not go into the same fate as the devil.
The first article of the Feb. 15 Tower, entitled "The Destiny Of The Goats," attempts to defend the "new view" of the Sheep and Goats, and, like every other new view that its writer presents, manifests the increasing darkening of his right eye, even as the Lord has foretold of him (Zech. 11: 15-17). By some half-truths he seeks to hide the real issues, and by multiplicity of sophistical words he succeeds in darkening counsel. He tries to evade the logical conclusion of his claim, i.e., that his parabolic goats, being the clergy and the principal of the flock, must all go into the second death, by saying that the class as "goats," not the individuals constituting the goat class, will be destroyed. But how does this agree with the Lord's statements in the parable, "Then shall He say unto them [individuals of a class, not simply a class as such, distinct from the individuals constituting it]," "ye gave Me no meat," "ye gave Me no drink," "ye took Me not in," "ye clothed Me not," "ye visited Me not," "then shall they also [individuals, just like the righteous, a similarity to whose words is by the word 'also' expressly indicated] answer Him, when saw we Thee?" "Then shall He answer them, Verily I say to
you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these, My least brethren, ye did it not unto Me." "These shall go away into an everlasting cutting off; but the righteous into life eternal." The contrast in this last verse is annihilative of his sophistry. Here the righteous [all the individuals of the special class referred to] are contrasted with the wicked [all the individuals of the special class referred to]. The exact opposite classes [in all their individual members] are not only contrasted, but their eternal states are shown to be the exact opposites—all the individuals of the one class enter eternal life; therefore its opposite, eternal death, is entered by all the individuals of the opposite class. The distinction that he makes utterly breaks down in the presence of the personal and demonstrative pronouns that Jesus uses in describing the acts and words of those persons symbolized by the goats in contrast with the acts and words of those pictured by the sheep in view of their contrasted eternal states.
If he were consistent in the application of his distinction, he could not at all use the parable to teach the second death of the wicked and persecuting clergy and the principal of the flock; for there could be no reference at all to the second death in the parable from the standpoint of his distinction, i.e., that they are destroyed as goats, but not as individuals, just as from the standpoint of a similar distinction the casting of the tares into the furnace of fire for their destruction as tares does not refer to the second death at all. Thus his attempted distinction applied to the goats destroys the use of the parable to prove his contention, i.e., that the wicked and persecuting clergy and the principal of the flock go into the second death; for he makes the distinction to evade the conclusion that all his goats must go into the second death.
Again, in this article and in Z '24, 382 he tries to evade the force of the ransom argument 'as used against his position by his correspondents to the effect
that the ransom guarantees an individual trial for life for every human being, after releasing him from the Adamic sentence, his claim being that very many go into the second death without having the ransom merit imputed or applied for them, if they know of the ransom and persecute the Christ. One of the passages quoted against this new view by his correspondents is Rom. 5: 18. To evade the force of the objection, he confounds "the free gift" of this passage with the process of bringing people unto the Millennial justification of life and then at great length proceeds to argue that "a gift is a contract" and that receiving the free gift always requires a consenting acceptance from the receiver, and therefore he argues that the free gift is not given to everybody, despite the fact that the verse says "it shall come to all men." Even a superficial reading of the verse should manifest his sophistry in identifying the "free gift" with the process of being brought up to "justification of life." "The free gift [the forgiveness of sins; Rom. 5: 16: 'the free gift is from many offences'Diaglott] came [shall come, as is evident from the words, 'shall be made righteous' in the next verse] to all men unto [for the purpose of enabling them to use the opportunities its reception gives them to gain] justification of life." The next verse proves that the free gift means the cancellation of the Adamic sin and condemnation, for it gives the reason why this free gift shall come to all men: "for as by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners [partake of the Adamic sin], even so by the obedience of one the many shall be made righteous [of that sin, be forgiven the Adamic sin]." While many gifts do require a consenting recipient before their giving is consummated, his underlying assumption that every gift presupposes not only a giver, but a consenting recipient before the giving is consummated, is a superficial fallacy, as the following examples prove: God gave Adam, his race and every
other created thing the gift of existence without their consent. Sunshine, rain, cold, heat, day, night, seasons, etc., are also gifts not requiring the recipients' consent. So, too, in the case of the free gift referred to in Rom. 5: 18. It is the cancellation of the Adamic sin and condemnation which Jehovah will give the world when Christ applies the ransom merit for the world, and all in Adam will receive that gift without knowing it, and therefore without consenting to its reception at the time. It will be impossible for the majority to know of its bestowal until years afterward; for they will be dead long after the gift's bestowal.
He is similarly confused on 1 Tim. 2: 4-6. To defend his view that justification to life is not essential to a trial for life now and that the ransom doctrine does not guarantee its use for a Millennial trial of life with an accurate knowledge of the Truth for all not having had it in this life, he gives the expression, "God will [literally, willeth to] have all men to be saved," the same meaning that we as a Lutheran gave it before we came into the Truth, and when we thought that all men were on trial for life now, i.e., that God desires the eternal salvation of all! These words have no reference whatever to eternal salvation; they refer, like Rom. 5: 18, 19, to universal salvation from the Adamic sentence, which, together with universal enlightenment, the passage says God is determined shall take place. Why do we say this? Because the passage says so, and then gives three guarantees as proving it: (1) the perfect character of God implied in His unity, "there is one God"; (2) the ransom, "the man Christ Jesus … a ransom for all"; (3) the Gospel Age and the Millennial Age for its testimony to the Church and the world respectively, "the testimony in its own seasons."—Diaglott. The writer of the article under review in order to justify his error that people now go into the second death without having been justified to life (the antecedent to a trial for life now),
is detracting from the ransom. And to call, as he does, the mixture (supplemented by faintly understood and mostly misunderstood Truth witnesses from Truth people) that the Nominal Church gives sufficient knowledge to put unbegotten people into a position of responsibility for life or death eternal, so that many of them will have no trial after this life, is another proof of the darkening of his right eye. Not only Rom. 5: 18, 19 and 1 Tim. 2: 4-6, but numerous other Scriptures and the entire plan of God contradict, from the standpoint of the ransom and the exclusive trial of the Church now (the firstborns alone being now, in the night of antitypical Nisan 14, in danger of the second death), his new doctrine that many people before and since Pentecost without justification to life go into the second death.
He offers two examples as proofs that wilful sinners go into the second death without justification to life—Judas and the scribes and Pharisees. He thinks that Matt. 23: 33 proves it of the scribes and Pharisees. This passage, as our Pastor held (as can be seen from both quotations from him, given in the article under review but quoted as though they taught the "new view"), teaches no more than that they had so greatly undermined their characters that Jesus almost despaired of their recovery when brought to a trial for life in the Millennium. The passage does not say that they would not escape a sentence to Gehenna. It goes no further than to intimate that the Lord warns that they were in grave danger of not finding an escape from it. On the contrary these very Pharisees were foretold by the Lord as seeing (hence they will be alive again in the Millennium, and are therefore not now in the second death) Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc., as of the earthly phase of the kingdom and themselves debarred from such princeship, despite their delusion that they would be the foremost ones among
those princes (Luke 13: 28). Hence they are not now in the second death.
With Judas the case is different; for he had what God for the time being considered and treated as exactly equal to justification to life and the Spirit-begettal, i.e., God in accepting the twelve and the seventy as Apostles and Prophets in the Church by the pre-anointing which He gave them (Matt. 10: 1; Luke 10: 19), shows that He had anticipatorily granted them justification to life; and by giving them these highest offices in the Church had set them in the Body. Thus He shows that He had put them on trial for life. He therefore, before Pentecost, caused their names to be written in the Lamb's Book of Life (Luke 10: 20; Heb. 12: 23). As a part of the Lord's Goat they were before Pentecost tied to the door of the Tabernacle. Therefore they could pray, "Our Father," and therefore on numerous occasions Jesus called God their Father. The ransom having already been put on the Altar (see comment in Berean Bible on Matt. 9: 2, etc.), and they being participants with the Lord in His office and sufferings, God must, under the conditions above mentioned, have anticipatorily given them justification to life. Hence any one of them by fully wilful sin before Spirit-begetting could have gone into the second death. But this danger of going into the second death before Spirit-begettal, was limited to these special 82 persons, a prerequisite for which was justification to life, the pre-anointing, the sharing in the two highest offices in the Church, as Jesus' special helpers and the writing of their names in the Lamb's Book of Life. Since no others had these privileges, they could not have had the dangers attending these privileges—the Gospel-Age dangers involved in being on final trial for life without Spirit-begetting. Hence Judas, believing and knowing that he was betraying the Messiah, made utter shipwreck of his privileges and went into the second death. But with the scribes
and Pharisees it was entirely different, even as our Pastor indicates in one of the article's quotations from his writings, when he says that not they, but Judas was the real crucifier and was more guilty than Pilate, the Roman soldiers, the Jewish rabble and the Sanhedrin; for they did not believe and hence did not know that Jesus was the Messiah (Acts 3: 17; 1 Cor. 2: 8); nor were they given the anticipatory justification to life; the pre-anointing, the offices of Apostles and secondarily prophets in the Body and enrollment in the Lamb's Book of Life. Hence their course toward the Lord, Truth and Righteousness, was not a final one. They yet have awaiting them through the ransom merit an opportunity for life, which will be undergone by them amid expiatory stripes and with little hope of reformation on the part of the more wicked among them. Exactly so will it be with those of the clergy and the principal of the flock who have not been justified to life and consequently have not been Spirit-begotten and hence are not now on trial for life, but who against more or less light have sinned against the Christ class. The scribes, Pharisees, clergy, principal of the flock and all other persecutors and mistreaters of the Christ class, who did not believe, and hence did not know the Messiahship of the Christ class, are all represented as salvable. This is evidenced by the man who carried out the bodies of the bullock and goat without the camp washing himself and becoming clean at the end of the atonement day (Lev. 16: 27, 28). Nor will the unbegotten wicked clergy, principal of the flock and others, who as the fit man persecuted the Great Company in 1918, for this persecution go into the second death (Lev. 16: 26), as the writer of the article under review claims, alleging such Great Company members to be the Little Flock, though doubtless some Little Flock members, mingling with the Great Company, did suffer persecution from the same persecuting persons. By the foregoing we are not to be understood
to mean that none of the clergy and the principal of the flock will during the Gospel Age go into the second death. On the contrary, those of them who have been Spirit-begotten and have for example become sifting leaders in any of the six siftings, will go into the second death, as is evident from the type (250 Levites) of those engaged in the fifth—the contradictionism—sifting (Num. 16: 35, 38; 1 Cor. 10: 10). Doubtless these as of antitypical Judas have persecuted and will persecute the true Church. For such Spirit-begotten ones we have no hope whatever. They will surely go into the second death; but they are not pictured forth by the parabolic goats, which represent those of the second death class who die at the end of the Millennium, but not those of that class who at 100 years are Millennial second deathers.
As his final and supposedly conclusive proof, the writer of the article under review cites 2 Thes. 1: 6-10, which he thinks applies only to the Time of Trouble; and which he claims teaches the punishment of the non-Spirit-begotten persecuting clergy, etc., with the second death in the Time of Trouble. But this text forbids such an application, which presupposes that the expression, "shall come" (v. 10), when applied to the Lord's Second Advent, and the expression, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus" (literal translation, v. 7) as used in these verses, are limited to our pre-Millennial time. As our Pastor frequently pointed out, the entire Millennium is frequently referred to as the period when He comes and of His revelation. The words "shall come" may also apply to the setting in of the Parousia, and the words, "shall come" and His "revelation" may also apply to the entire Parousia and Epiphany. Passages showing that the words "shall come," used of our Lord's Second Advent, apply to the entire Parousia, or Epiphany, or both, are, among others, the following: 1 Cor. 11: 26; Luke 12: 37; 21: 34; 1 Thes. 5: 2; 2 Pet. 3: 10; Jude 14. Passages
showing that the words, "shall come," used of our Lord's Second Advent, apply to the entire Millennium, are, among others, the following: Matt. 16: 27; 23: 39; 25: 31; Mark 8: 38-9: 10; Luke 17: 20. Passages which teach that the revelation of our Lord will be pre-Millennial, among others, are the following: Luke 17: 30; Col. 3: 4. Passages that refer to our Lord's revelation as both pre-Millennial and Millennial, are, among others, the following, the italics indicating those purely Millennial: Rom. 2: 5; 8: 18, 19; 1 Cor. 1: 7; 1 Pet. 1: 7, 13; 4: 13.
In view of these facts we must investigate the meaning of the words, "shall come" and "revelation," as used in 2 Thes. 1: 6-10, and from the passage itself find out whether they apply to pre-Millennial or to Millennial things, in so far as its teachings on punishing all of the Church's persecutors are concerned. Vs. 6, 7 and 10 contain such statements as prose that the passage covers the entire Millennium, and not simply the Parousia and the Epiphany. Notice first of all the time statement in v. 7, "at the revelation of the Lord Jesus." What do the foregoing words say will take place "at the revelation of our Lord Jesus"? (1) Not only that the entire Church will have rest from all persecutions as a reward from the Lord; but (2) that all unconsecrated persecutors of the Church from St. Paul's day on will be punished retributively by the Lord. What does this imply? That all such persecutors will be alive again. When will this be? After the day of vengeance is over, during the times of restitution. Hence the expression, "at the revelation of the Lord Jesus," used in v. 7 does not apply, in so far as punishment on such persecutors is concerned, to the Parousia or to the Epiphany, but to the Basileia or restitution time alone; for not until then will such dead persecutors of the Church return from the tomb: Therefore the writer of the article under review has totally misapplied this passage when he uses it to
prove the second death of the non-Spirit-begotten persecuting clergy, etc., at the end of this Age. Secondly, let us look at v. 10, where another time indication is given, explaining the meaning of the words, "shall come." That time indication is the expression, "in that day." What day is this? The Millennial day, the restitution day. How do we know this? (1) Not merely because this is the usual meaning of that expression; but (2) especially because the expression, "all that believe in that day," is in contrast with the Church, thus proving that the day is the Millennium, in contrast with the Gospel Agethe day of the great salvation. Therefore the expression, "He shall come," in v. 10, is not limited to our Lord's arrival, nor to the Parousia, nor to the Epiphany, but to the entire thousand yearsthe restitution times, when indeed He will be glorified in His saints and admired by all other believers. Accordingly, the classes referred to as (1) not knowing God and (2) not obeying the Gospel are (A) not only those (a) who will die at 100 years (those who know not God) and (b) those who will die at the end of the Millennium as symbolic goats (those who do not obey the Gospel); but (B) also (a) those Parousiac and Epiphaniac Spirit-begotten ones in the nominal church who sinning the sin unto death never came into the Truth, and thus never really came to know God (those that know not God); and (b) those Spirit-begotten ones in the Truth who sin the sin unto death (those that obey not the Gospel—the Truth, which enabled them really to know God). What does our investigation prove with reference to this passage? We answer, The passage as such cannot be applied exclusively to a period previous to the kingdom, but applies to the whole Millennium, especially to the second and third phases of our Lord's Second Advent—the Epiphany and the Basileia. What follows from this? The complete disproof of the claim of the article under review that it
applies to the second death of the supposed goats of that article, supposedly including the non-Spirit-begotten persecutors (clerical and lay) of the Christ class.
At times J.F.R. slurringly alleges that some brethren use their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to pervert the Truth. His readers understand him to mean especially us. Our readers know that we make use of our knowledge of these languages, but they know that we do so in order to defend and explain the Truth, and frequently to refute his and others' errors. But we would on this point remark that if he thoroughly knew English, Greek and Hebrew grammar, and were not drunken in his use of such knowledge, he would be saved from many a mistake, e.g., his interpreting (Z '24, 58, par. 2) the noun "rest" in 2 Thes. 1: 7, which he explains as though it were an imperative verb, but which the Greek most clearly, and the English less clearly, show is a noun and the object of the verb "recompense." This mistake is the means of his completely misunderstanding the Apostle's thought in vs. 6 and 7, and makes him think the Lord's people are exhorted to "rest" during the Gospel Age, whereas the Apostle shows that the Lord will "at the revelation of the Lord Jesus" (Diaglott) recompense (1) tribulation to the Church's unconsecrated persecutors of the entire Age, and (2) rest to the Church of the entire Age, which proves that the recompense for the persecutors is after restitution sets in and the dead return.
A by far much more drastic evidence of this right eye darkening than the last-mentioned item is seen in his new thought (Z '24, 4, 5) that the reaping period of the Harvest is one of 50 years. Without humbly confessing that he was in error when contrary to our Pastor he for years taught that the reaping began in 1878 and ended in 1918, he tells his readers that the reaping period is from 1874 to 1924. He alleges as proof that the Jews reaped their harvest fifty days, by beginning their reaping on Nisan 16 (as the Bible
teaches they did, Deut. 19: 9), and ending it on Pentecost (which the Bible nowhere teaches). He claims that as Pentecost was the feast of the firstfruits, the reaping was finished on that day; and he argues that this types a 50 years' reaping at the end of the Jewish and Gospel Ages. There is absolutely no connection between his reasons in what he gives as type and antitype, and his conclusions. Pentecost, as set forth in the Old Testament, in so far as it is the feast of firstfruits, types the whole Gospel Age, and from the standpoint of the after-fruits, types the Millennial Age (Joel 2: 28, 29), as our Pastor taught and wrote, and not the end of the reaping. (Note the practical identity of the expressions in Lev. 23: 17 and Rev. 14: 4, "they [these] are the firstfruits unto the Lord [God]," as expressing the fruitage—the 144,000—of the entire Gospel Age; additionally see Ex. 23: 16; 34: 22; Num. 28: 26). What are typed in the New Testament by the fifty days from Jesus' resurrection and Pentecost, we have shown in Vol. V, Chap. I, which please see.
We now will refute this view of a 50 years' reaping.
(1) The Bible teaches that the Gospel-Age reaping lasted 40 years. Please see the fifty-six proofs on this point in Note 3 of the Appendix of Studies, Vol. III. Among these proofs we note the following: The first 40 days that Moses stayed in the mount, the 40 days that Goliath defied Israel, the 40 days of Ezekiel's siege of Jerusalem, Jonah's 40 days of denunciation against Nineveh, the 40 days of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness and the 40 days of His resurrection experiences before His ascension. Therefore the reaping was not 50, but 40 years.
(2) The literal reaping was finished before Pentecost each year in Israel: because the gleaning was finished at least a day after the reaping, and because the male gleaners as well as the male reapers had to appear at the tabernacle, and later at the temple at
Jerusalem, on Pentecost with all other male Israelites (Ex. 23: 14-17; 34: 18-23). Therefore the reaping was over at least two days before Pentecost in Israel.
(3) The reaping was finished considerably earlier before Pentecost than these two days, because the reaping and gleaning had to be finished long enough before Pentecost to permit all male Israelites to arrive at the latest a day before Pentecost in Jerusalem for the temple service on Pentecost—"before the Lord"—traveling being unlawful on a holy convocation day, such as was Pentecost. But some parts of Palestine were an eight days' journey from Jerusalem, e.g., those places in north and north-eastern Palestine. Hence this and the former reason prove that the reaping ended before ten days preceding Pentecost.
(4) The reaping was finished before such journeys ten days prior to Pentecost were begun; because from each habitation (Lev. 23: 17) two loaves baked from the firstfruits' flour, ground from the reaped grain and made into leavened dough, had to be brought by each head of a family to the temple. But, as a rule, such dough was kneaded the day before baking so that the dough would have time to rise; and the bread would be baked the day before the journey, which was usually begun at dawn. This consideration makes the reaping end two days earlier than the preceding reason, hence earlier than 12 days before Pentecost.
(5) The reaping was finished long before this grinding, kneading and baking occurred; because there preceded such acts, and there followed the reaping process six other harvest processes, which required at least ten days' time to complete: (1) sheaving, (2) drying, (3) treading by the oxen, (4) winnowing, (5) sifting and (6) garnering. This consideration combined with the preceding ones requires the reaping to be completed at least 22 days before Pentecost. In all of these points as we have given them we made no allowance for any delays whatever between the ending
of one of these processes and the beginning of the next one, while in practice there were, doubtless, often days intervening between the end of the one and the beginning of the next.
(6) Since only reaping the firstfruit grain (typical of the consecrated) could be used to type the reaping of the Jewish and Gospel Harvests, if the standpoint of the article under review were correct, i.e., that a day of the literal reaping types a year of the antitypical reaping and that the Jewish reaping was from Nisan 16 to Pentecost, then the reaping of the firstfruits would precede the reaping of the after-fruits, and therefore would have been completed much earlier than 22 days before Pentecost.
(7) Since the Bible nowhere states the number of days that any Jewish reaping, much less any Jewish reaping of firstfruits, lasted, it cannot have intended the number of days of any Jewish reaping period to type the number of years in the Jewish-and Gospel-Age reaping times; for there being no Biblical statement giving the numbers of days in any Biblical Jewish reaping period, there can be no type on which to base an antitype in this matter of days typing years. These reasons overthrow J.F.R.'s pertinent "new view."
Further, he claims that the fulfilled factshis definition of his oft used expression, "physical facts"prove a fifty-year reaping period. This we emphatically deny on the basis of the above-mentioned fifty-six reasons and the following fulfilled facts:
(1) The reaping began in 1874 and ended in 1914.
(2) From the Fall of 1914 to that of 1916, the Faithful, following "that Servant's example" (which "that evil servant" did not follow), ceased the reaping work as such and antitypically confessed the sins over Azazel's Goat, smote Jordan, fought Gideon's first battle, bound the kings and princes and pronounced the judgments written, which things were not a part of the reaping work.
(3) During most of the time of such activity on the part of the Faithful, the antitypical poor—the Great Company— and the antitypical stranger—the Youthful Worthies—(Lev.
23: 22) did the gleaning world completing it by April 18, 1916.
(4) The Faithful, being thus reaped and gleaned, have since Sept. 16, 1914, and April 18, 1916, as a class (varyingly in its individual members according to each one's case), been undergoing, and will continue to undergo, to a completion the six harvest processed that follow the reaping or gleaning: sheaving; drying, treading, winnowing, sifting and garnering.
(5) As parts of the World's High Priest these under their Head, have since Nov. 25, 1916, been leading Azazel's Goat to the gate, delivering it to the fit man and letting it fall into Azazel's hands.
(6) The Great Company has since Sept. 20, 1914, been undergoing the seven parts of its experiences as Azazel's Goat: (1) hearing the High Priest confess the sins over it, (2) being loosed from the door of the tabernacle, (3) led to the gate, (4) delivered to the fit man, (5) led to the wilderness, (6) let go in the wilderness, and (7) falling into Azazel's hands through abandonment by the priests.
(7) The Lord since April 18, 1916, has continued the work previously begun of calling some Great Company members into the Truth from the Nominal Church and other persons from the Nominal Church and the world into the Truth as Youthful Worthies—partly by the Great Company in the Truth, which work they mistake for reaping the Little Flock,
These fulfilled facts, therefore, prove the forty years' reaping period and disprove the "new view" of a fifty years' reaping period.
Shortly after finishing the preceding part of this chapter, our attention was called to the first article of the March 1 Tower entitled, "A Ransom For All." It makes in six pages a most confused attempt to defend
his "new view" to the effect that the scribes, Pharisees, the unbegotten clergy and principal of the flock are amenable to the second death. E.g., when he says that the Jews had their responsibility increased by increased light; we agree; but we deny that this responsibility was increased to the ultimate degree; because when the Lord meted out by the law death or other punishments for special wrongs, as in the cases that he cites (Nadab, Abihu, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, Miriam, Uzzah, Moses and David), St. Paul expressly states of the worst of these punishmentsdeaththat it was not the "sorer punishment" the Second Death (Heb. 10: 28, 29). Heb. 10: 26-30 expressly teaches that only members of Christ's body can during the Gospel Age by wilful sin go into the Second Death: "If we sin wilfully after receiving the knowledge of the Truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin"; but "the sorer punishment" remains. If the "new view" were correct, St. Paul would have said, "If any one sins wilfully after receiving some knowledge of the ransom, etc."
Then (P. 70, par. 2) he quotes John 15: 22-24 to prove that the Jewish leaders sinned unto death. He inserts brackets into the last verse as follows: "They had not had [the] sin [the Greek is emphatic here]." It is often painful to one who knows Greek to see one, like J.F.R. who does not know it, tell what is emphatic in Greek! But when he tells us that a thing that is not at all used in the Greek of this passage "is emphatic here," he gives proof of his ignorance and recklessness. The Greek article for "the" is not in the original at all. To make the verse teach that the Jewish leaders went into the second death, he inserts the article "the" before the word "sin," remarking "the Greek is emphatic here," the design being to make the expression "[the] sin", mean the sin unto death. Emphatic indeed?! The pressure of the emphasis of the Greek here must have been so heavy that it forced