Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
of the Speaker. We further note that since the robe of righteousness belongs to the Bride, or Body, the garments of salvation must belong to the Head, or Bridegroom. We, therefore, understand that in this verse the garments of salvation represent our Lord's official powers whereby He is able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by Him, and that the robe represents the righteousness that now covers the Church—Christ's righteousness. What is there in this text to justify the definition of the article under review for the garments of salvation, as being "joyful obedience, etc."? Their wearer is Jesus beyond the vail now; and, of course, not joyful obedience, but His official powers as the deliverer of the Church are meant. So viewed, the passage teaches us certain Gospel-Age privileges and powers of Christ and the Church. The definition that the article under review gives the robe of Christ's righteousness—the Lord's approval upon those who since 1918 do joyfully and obediently the Society's work, and the Lord's protection and blessing and joy—is neither Christ's righteousness nor righteousness of any kind. Therefore it is a misnomer to call it righteousness of any kind. Hence it is evidently neither a correct definition nor explanation, of the term. It is an eisegesis.
We will now answer individual points in the article: It says that the robe of righteousness cannot be justification because both justification and consecration precede Spirit-begetting, and the robe is worn by the New Creature. We reply: The robe is justification and is ours by imputation of Christ's merit at the vitalization of our justification just prior to Spirit-begettal. The flesh, which is sinful, not the New Creature, which is sinless, is covered by it, and it protects the New Creature from the faults of the flesh until the flesh is completely laid down in death by the New Creature; hence it is justification, and is received before Spirit-begettal. It is tentatively worn
in many cases years before consecration, and for an instant by the humanity before Spirit-begettal, after vitalizing of justification.
The writer of the article under review has finally given us a definition of what he means by Christ coming to His temple—our Lord's entering into the work of testing or reckoning with the Church from 1918 onward. He quotes in corroboration, "Judgment must begin at the house of God." We agree with the teaching of this Scripture, and assert that it began to apply at Passover, 1878, when the first great Harvest sifting—that on no-ransomism—began to test the Church. Furthermore, it applied in the other four harvest siftings of the Reaping period, and also applies to the sixth sifting from 1917 onward, in which sixth sifting the writer of the article under the review is the chief sifter. The troubles that involved the Society leaders and their partisan supporters in 1918 were fit-man experiences given them for the purpose of cleansing them. His definition of the Lord's coming to the temple ignores the five great Harvest siftings of the Parousia; and the Scriptures are vocal with the fact that our Lord came to the temple in 1874, parallel to His coming to the typical people in 29 A.D., and that He began the testing work in 1878, as our Pastor clearly taught, and as facts cited in Vol. V, Chap. II, demonstrably show, which prove him wrong.
His claim that the robe of righteousness was given since 1918 is a baseless and unfactual supposition in defense of which, therefore, no Scripture or fact has been, nor can be given. Let him give us but one time or sign prophecy to that effect, if he can! His statement that the work of the Parousia through "that Servant" was a preparation for, and, therefore, subordinate in importance to, what the Society has been doing and suffering since 1918, is an illustration of his utter lack of perspective and sense of the fitness of things. The Little Flock gatherings, preparatory for,
and subordinate to, what has been proven to be the Azazelian work of the Great Company!
The wedding garment is not Christ's righteousness, according to this article, but a joyful conformity to the Lord's arrangement in preparing for the wedding—doing the Society's work! In conformity with this definition the parable of the wedding garment is tortured into a flatness that is characteristic of the writer's vagaries; while the sublimely beautiful, true and factual interpretation of that parable given through "that Servant" goes by the board! This parable now applies since 1918, and that to brethren in relation to the Society's work! He who casts off the garment is he who since 1918 refuses joyfully to do the Society's work! How do we know such a setting of the parable to be false? It implies that crowns are lost and reassigned in every country since the tribulation began to involve it, while the Bible shows that the wind did not blow in any country until all the elect in that country were sealed. We have given 63 proofs to the effect that Spirit-begetting ceased by Oct., 1914, and that the sealing of the Elect in their foreheads ended Passover, 1916. See 56 of these in Note III of the Appendix of Studies, Vol. III. Hence such a setting as the article gives to this parable is false.
And what is the sum-total—the meat in the kernel—of the whole article? O! joyfully and obediently (to "the present management") enter into the Society's various drives, and you will be ushered into glory, otherwise you will be put into the Great Company or the Second Death class! Do we not see the cloven hoof? What is the purpose of the article? Ah, its writer knows that, as to 1925 expectations, he is increasingly looked upon as a misleader of the brethren by thousands of brethren in the Society; and to keep them from doing what their sad experience through his deception should lead them to do—repudiate him as a teacher and executive—he is trying alternately to
draw them on by new erroneous hopes and to hold them back from leaving him and his erroneous doctrines and practices by implied threats of loss of crowns, Judas class and the rest of the stock-in-trade terrors that Little Babylon uses to bully the weak, unsuspecting sheep, as her counterpart to Great Babylon's threats of purgatory and eternal torture to the supposed heretics and disobedient.
Boastingly he claims that the Society is the only agency that is doing anything for the Lord's Truth. We, of course, recognize that they are doing "great works." But we humbly say that the Epiphany-enlightened saints are doing a more effective and important, if not so large, noisy and sensational a work. Our annual report for the last ten years show that on an average over $15,000.00 a year have been expended in this work through the Epiphany Bible House alone. About 10,000,000 Herald Extras—four-page tracts, 9 x 12 in., and tens of thousands of books and booklets have been circulated in this time. Public lectures and pilgrim visits have been and are being given. The Present Truth is being published in five languages. Our tracts of Bro. Russell's authorship are being printed in seven different languages. A yearly average of about 50,000 Present Truths and 20,000 Heralds of the Epiphany are being circulated. 1297 newspapers carried our eight weeks' service against the Eternal Torment and Consciousness of the Dead theories, and 65 others carried John's Rebuke, to millions of readers. Our interview against Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Spiritism propaganda was brought before 20,000,000 readers. In view of these facts, let the Tower cease boasting that the Society alone among Truth people is doing anything for the Lord, and thus claiming that it is the only agency that the Lord is using—another of its "methods of deceit" whereby uninformed brethren are kept in line by
the implied threat, to leave the Society is to be cut off from service, which the brethren dread.
In Z '25, 51-59, there is an article by the Society's president on The Year of Jubilee. He still persisted in setting forth the proven error that the antitypical jubilee begins in Oct. of 1925, instead of having begun in Oct., 1874, as was clearly proven by "that Servant." Above we summarized the evidence that disproves such an idea, hence will not repeat it here. Rather in this review we will take up certain other errors of the article in question. It cites Jer. 25: 11, 12; 29: 10 and Dan. 9: 2, which speak of the desolation of the land as lasting 70 years, as proofs that there were to be 70 jubilees, These passages do not mention the word jubilee at all, let alone say that there would be 70 of them; and only by indirect inference, and that by light gotten from other passages, notably Lev. 26: 33-35 and 2 Chro. 36: 20, 21, can they be brought into connection with the thought of 70 jubilees. Why did not the writer while attempting to demonstrate 70 jubilees, cite in this their most appropriate connection 2 Chro. 36: 20, 21, and Lev. 26: 3335; which former passage is the only one in the Bible to mention the exact number of jubilees as 70? Was it because this passage teaches exactly when the 70 jubilee were fulfilled—fully kept—during the 70 years' desolation of the land? Was it because he desired to keep from his readers' minds the thought that if the 70 jubilees were fully kept at that time, they would not be kept again—repeated—in the cycles following the last jubilee before that desolation set in, and that, hence, his counting 51 of them twice to get to 1925 is a gross violation of the teaching of this passage? Why else would he cite on this point indefinite passages to prove what 2 Chro. 36: 20, 21 clearly proves, if not to hide from his readers' eyes its refuting his view. Nor can he plead ignorance of Lev. 26: 33-35 and 2 Chro. 36: 20, 21; for in other connections he
refers to them. "Methods of deceit" are these indeed.
Again, he sets forth the thought that Israel's entrance into "the land which I [Jehovah] give you" (Lev. 25: 2), was in April, 1575 B.C. Of course, Israel then crossed the Jordan and first entered the part of the land given them by God west of the Jordan; but six months before they had entered the part of the land which God gave them east of the Jordan; and since God gave them the land on both sides of Jordan and the passage (Lev. 25: 2) states that they were to begin to count the year for the jubilee from the entrance into "the land which I [Jehovah give you"; the counting must begin in the Fall of 1576 B.C. See Appendix of Studies, Vol. II, page 401, 402. Here we will but briefly summarize the proof; it was exactly 38 years to a day from the time that Israel, for their murmuring at Kadesh-barnea after the spies returned, were turned back to wander in the wilderness, until the day that they crossed the river Arnon into, about 12 days before they began to possess, "the land which I [Jehovah] give you" (Deut. 2: 14, 18, 24, 25, vs. 20-23 being parenthetical, as indicated). A comparison of Lev. 25: 2; Deut. 2: 24 and Num. 21: 12-15, proves that it was a four-or five-day journey from the brook or valley of Zered, or Zared, to the river Arnon, Israel's southern boundary east of the Jordan (Judg. 11: 18-23). The time the messenger spent going to, remaining with, and returning from Sihon, king of the Amorites, was about six to seven days, The spies started out at the time of the ripening of the first grapes (Num. 13: 20) and returned after 40 days with late summer fruits (Num. 13: 25). Palestinian grapes now first ripen in late July, and late summer fruits about the middle of September. Probably in ancient times grapes first ripened about the middle of July and late summer fruits about Sept. 1. The season of the first ripe grapes lasts from two to three weeks. The spies, therefore, returned sometime from
about Aug. 25 to Sept. 15. Two days later (Num. 14: 1, 25) Israel turned back to the wilderness. Hence, 38 years later to a day brought them to the late summer of 1576 to the Zered; and about 12 days later, the day after the day of atonement, Israel first entered "the land which I give unto you."
The article under review makes the Times of the Gentiles begin about Aug. 1, 607 B.C., when Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and the return of the Israelites seventy years later, supposedly about Aug. 1, 536 B.C. But God, Himself, says that the seven times, as well as the seventy jubilees, would begin with the desolation of the land and Israel's first absence from the land, which occurred the first day of the seventh month, about Oct. 1 (Lev. 26: 28, 32-35, 43; Jer. 41: 1, 4, 16-18). The official uncrowning of Zedekiah (Ezek. 21: 25, 27) occurred at Riblah about the first day of the seventh month; for Riblah was a five weeks' journey from Jerusalem, which was left by the Babylonians on the 23rd of the fifth month, 607 B.C. (Jer. 52: 9-11, 30, corrected reading). With this uncrowning the Times of the Gentiles began. Jer. 25: 11, 12 identifies the period of the desolation with the seventy years of Babylon's supremacy, the translation "at Babylon" being properly set aside for the translation, "for Babylon" in almost all versions of Jer. 29: 10. For details on these points please see Vol. VII. These facts prove that the Times of the Gentiles and the desolation of the land began at the same time, i.e., about the first day of the seventh month. The data given in Ezra 2: 70; 3: 1 are as to the first passage indefinite as to date. Therefore it cannot be used to prove that Israel reached Palestine from Babylon about Aug. 1, 536 B.C. The statement that they dwelt in their cities evidently meant that they pitched their tents in the places where they desired to live; for a camp of tents is also Scripturally called a city (Num. 13: 19). The thought of Ezra 2: 70; 3: 1 is that they
made tent cities for their temporary abodes that they might at once repair to Jerusalem and begin to build the temple as Cyrus decreed. This they did the first day of the seventh month; consequently they erected their tents the day before and dwelt that day and night in them, hastening the next day to Jerusalem. Thus viewed these passages perfectly agree with the right thought on the period of the desolation of the land—seventy years, its desolation beginning the first day of the seventh month, the date of Zedekiah's official uncrowning. Therefore, in making the Times of the Gentiles end about Aug. 1, the Society's president is in error. Our Pastor was right in starting this period about Oct. 1. Pages 394-401 of Studies, Vol. II, we give a number of striking parallels with which the reign of David's house gradually came to an end; and they prove the above claim of our Pastor.
The article says that July 17, 1917 (the day of the Divinely and humanly illegal ousting of the four directors by the Society's president) was a marked date. In a sense totally different from its writer's claim, it was indeed a marked date—a date that marked his beginning the counterfeit small miniature Millennium as the little pope in the little Catholic Church in Little Babylon, corresponding to 799 A.D., when Great Papacy began its counterfeit Millennial reign in Great Babylon. Some day we will present to the Church detailed proofs that the period of the manifestation of the Levites under the bad leaders was exactly as many days long as the Gospel Age up to 1920 was years long, and that on the corresponding days and years of these respective periods exactly the same things in principle were done by the faithful and by the measurably unfaithful. And in what we will call the small miniature Gospel Age—a period, the days of which correspond to respective years in the Gospel Age—the Society's president in principle did the many evils that the popes during the Gospel Age did in the corresponding
years. This fact will help to make clear why we have in these columns frequently referred to him as the little pope, and his organization as the little Catholic Church in Little Babylon. By these terms we were not hurling opprobrious epithets at him and his organization, but were declaring a sober and demonstrable truth, arranged for and given by the Lord. From this fact it need not surprise us that when Satan learned of the real small miniature Gospel Age, he set about to create counterfeitly dated events, in which the Society, its leaders, conventions, etc., figured, and used these counterfeitedly in counterfeit periods to bolster up the 1925 delusion of the Society mouthpieces, as we note in his article on the birth of a nation as to the 1260 days, now to be reviewed.
So blind is the article's writer becoming, that he thinks that the rain of Zech. 14: 17-19 may be literal rain. It refers to restitution blessings, which will be obtained only by coming into harmony with the kingdomJerusalem, as shown by our Pastor in Z '11, 152. While, as he says, no Scripture teaches that dying will cease everywhere in the earth as soon as the earthly phase of the Kingdom is setup at Jerusalem, he has in his "Millions" booklet, etc., publicly taught that the earthly phase of the Kingdom will be set up at the hands of the Ancient Worthies in 1925, and that thereafter no one need any more die! As to whether 1925 is a prophetic date or not, it is certain that it is not such from the standpoint of the jubilee, which he claims it is. His warnings against special trials that year are intended to intimidate his followers, lest they repudiate him because of his false teachings as to that year's jubilee expectations— the return of the Ancient Worthies, the establishment of the Kingdom and the cessation of the Adamic death.
In Z '25, 67-74, the same writer borrows from the theatrical world a title—The Birth Of A Nation—for an article that repudiates as much of our Pastor's
teachings as any single article of his with which we were at that time acquainted. Knowing that it would so strike his readers, he began the article with the plea—a lawyer's trick—for tolerance of the "new view." His next statement, that prophecy is not understood until fulfilled, is only half true. Some of it is, and some of it is not. It never is when connected with a trial on the Church. His statement that the devil's privilege to rule the world without interference ceased in 1914 is an error. God always interfered with Satan's rulership when it sought to transgress the Divinely fixed hindrances to its free course beyond certain limits. The history of the wane of the papacy since the days of Boniface VIII, 1294-1303, is full of marked illustrations of God's hindering Satan's world-rule ambitions. The Lord, according to the parallel dispensations, took unto Himself His great power and reigned in 1878, not in 1914; though in this latter year His wrath more markedly came upon the angry nations. He claims to have offered Scriptural proof that the Lord came to His temple—which he defines as beginning to give it its crucial tests—in 1918. He has not offered even one verse that proves this. The parallel dispensations, the antitypical jubilee cycle and Daniel's 1335 days, with their Pyramid corroborations, prove that He came to His temple in 1874, and the parallel dispensations, and the Pyramid as well as the siftings prove that He began the testing work in 1878. The flashes of Truth that he says were to have been expected since 1918— at the Lord's supposed coming to His temple—have been shining with increasing brightness since 1874; while what he claims is the advancing Truth since 1918 is proven error.
He says that Rev. 11: 17-19 belongs to chapter 12—a gross mistake—and applies to events from 1914 onward. Had he not lost the Truth on the seventh trumpet as sounding from 1874 onward, he would never have thought of teaching that the verses apply
only from 1914 onward. It is, however, on chapter, 12 that his "folly" reaches its height of absurdity and stupidity. He repudiates our Pastor's marvelous and fulfilled explanation of Rev. 12 (see notes in the Berean Bible) and applies the woman in part to glorified fled saints in heaven and in part to the Society's officers as representatives of the Church on earth. This organization, he claims, gives birth to the new nation the Millennial government of the earth—the birth of a nation. If the article is studied carefully, it will be seen that he uses the term nation—the one that he says is born— in the sense of the Christ's governmental machinery whereby Satan's empire is to be overthrown and the world is to be ruled Millennially. His use of the term shows, therefore, that the idea of a nation in the sense of God's Kingdom—the Christ, Head and Body—is not meant, but that the machinery that they use and will use to accomplish their purposes is meant. This definition is utterly false. The man-child that Is. 66: 7 says is to be born is the Christ class, not their governmental machinery. Moreover, the birth referred to in this and the following verse is a figurative one. It is the Little Flock and Great Company being delivered from Babylon—Nominal Zion—the former class before "the wind," etc.—the part of the tribulation which began Nominal Zion's travail would strike the countries where they were, and the latter class after such tribulation, even as our Pastor has explained. The real birth of the Christ class in the Body—the Kingdom—began by the resurrection in 1878, is yet progressing, and will be completed when the last member of the Christ goes beyond the vail.
His claim that stars cannot symbolize nominal leaders contradicts Jude 13, Matt. 24: 29, etc. His claim that Satan was not before 1914 debarred from, but appeared in, heaven, God's abode as distinct from the symbolic heavens, which he seeks to prove from Satan presenting him self before God in Job 1 and 2,
shows the superficiality of his views. Jesus contradicts this, speaking of a pre-human experience of His, "I saw Satan like lightning fall from heaven." To be, or to present oneself, before the Lord, means to enter into some religious activity relating to God in some way, like Israel, the Levites and the Priests presenting themselves before the Lord—it does not mean their having gone to heaven in the sense of God's abode, as the article under review would make that expression mean. He does this in order to set aside the Biblical teachings that Satan and the other fallen angels are confined within the atmosphere about this earth, and to make room for his vagary that Satan and his angels were battled with in God's abode from 1914 onward, and were then cast out of heaven. Such is his war in heaven in Rev. 12! His claim that Satan had the right to rule until 1914 is a double error. Satan never had the right to rule; he usurped the power to rule, which fact proves that he had no right to rule. The Gentile nations had a lease to rule until 1914; but Satan never! His further claim that Jesus did not have the right to rule until 1914 is also a double error. He had the right to rule throughout the universe on His resurrection (Matt. 28: 18), and began in 1878 to exercise His Millennial right to rule, and in 1914 in the further exercise of it began to overthrow Satan's empire.
His claim that March 27, 1919, to Sept. 8, 1922, are the 1260 days of Rev. 12 needs only to be stated to show its folly, and betrays an utter lack of an insight into the fitness of things. Bail was made admissible for the imprisoned brethren March 21, 1919. On March 25 they were released from prison, not on March 26, as he says (Z '19; 118). They gave the bail March 26, during the day, the court not being in Session at night. This fact disproves the 1260 days' proposition, making it 1261. But conceding him right in starting with March 27, 1919, the following answers are conclusive: Our remark above on Satan's
making counterfeit periods is the key to the refutation of his 1260 days' claim. Things do not fit a wilderness condition in his 1260 days; for some of the greatest and most widespread Society drives occurred during those times. Against his taking the days as literal, we would say that while all the numerals of Revelation are literal, the nouns that they modify are symbolic; Hence the 1260 days are symbolic—1260 years being meant, as taught by our Pastor. The flat interpretation that they left the wilderness condition September 8, 1922, when another of the Society's numerous drives was started, needs only to be stated to show its absurdity. If the earth, as he says, swallowed false teaching—the supposed water out of the serpent's mouth— persecution, not freedom therefrom, would have resulted; because the people would have acted out the errors thus swallowed. And the banner incident at the Convention is presented as a starter out from the wilderness experience! Nay, it was only part of their Azazelian wilderness experiences.
But what does the 1914 birth of the nation—the inauguration of the governmental machinery to overthrow Satan's empire and to administer the Millennial Kingdom, as he defines it, afford, that was not had by the Christ class beyond the vail before 1914, i.e., from 1878 onward? Absolutely nothing. Therefore, it is merely a later start of what had existed nearly forty years before; and is their presentation as some new wonderful thing! But what is back of this application of a many years' long existing set of machinery to a date nearly forty years later? This is one of the gestures to hold wavering Society adherents in line, as though they were endowed under the Society's rulership with special powers which were not theirs during "that Servant's" day! In other words, it is one of the things now being used to bewitch and enchant, in order to divert attention from the dismal failure of all the Society's 1925 claims. This and
nothing less is its meaning and purpose. Therefore, it should be acted toward accordingly. Let us watch and see what other diversions will be brought forth. We may expect more; for the condition is desperate for the Society's president, since thousands of his followers are beginning to see through his religious frauds.
In Z '25, 91, the following question is asked: "If the offer of life to Israel was bona fide, and any one who measured up to God's requirements would have been given life, would it not be true to say that God is at liberty to grant life on compliance with any conditions He chooses to impose?" The answer states that any one who would have kept the Law would have gotten everlasting life without a ransom, because nobody but Adam was under sentence, though all were under condemnation. In the first place, to be under the condemnation of God is to be under sentence; and in the second place the statement that Adam alone was under sentence is false (Rom. 5: 12-19). We give our answer by a question and answer:
Question: Was Israel under a death sentence inherited from Adam before coming under the Law Covenant, and did their failure to fulfill the Law Covenant also bring upon them a sentence of death?
Answer: Yes, we give as our answer to both questions. They were of the race of whom it is written, We "were by nature [heredity] the children of wrath [the death sentence, Rom. 1: 18, 32], even as others" (Eph. 2: 3). The Apostle most clearly shows (Rom. 5: 12-19) that the whole race not only shares death, but also shares the death sentence with Adam. This becomes clear from the whole section, especially as we notice the run of thought between vs. 16 and 18. V. 16 shows that the Adamic judgment was a condemnatory sentence; and v. 18 elaborates this by showing that this condemnatory sentence came upon all men through Adam: the result of the one man's offense was a
condemnation upon all men. Hence the whole race inherited not only death, but the death sentence, from Adam. This is also apparent from 1 Cor. 15: 22: "As all in Adam die." This passage does not mean that all in Adam will actually enter the death state, but that all in Adam actually come under the death sentence. The whole Plan of God, more particularly its central feature, the Ransom, is pivoted upon the thought that the whole race is under the sentence of death in Adam, and that it is dying, not only because of having inherited an imperfect life from him, and must spend its existence amid imperfect surroundings conducive to death, but also because there is resting upon it the sentence of Divine justice unto death (John 3: 36), which it has inherited from Adam. While this sentence came upon all in Adam, indirectly, i.e., through him, its involving them, even if indirectly, is nevertheless an actual involving of them in that sentence. To deny this proposition is logically to deny the Ransom. We therefore consider the denial of the actual condemnation of the race in Adam in the Aug., 1920, Tower to be a clear denial of the Ransom, and as such to be in most violent opposition to the Holy Scriptures and to our Pastor's masterly expositions on this subject. There was no injustice, which that article claims there would have been, in God's conditionally offering Israel life when He knew it was impossible for Him to give them life on the proffered condition. This is apparent from several reasons: (1) because He knew they could not fulfill the condition, and therefore knew that He would never be called upon by the eventuality of such fulfillment to give them what His justice forbade; (2) because He knew that their efforts to gain life by the Law would benefit them by uplifting them above the rest of mankind—symbolized by the Pyramid's First Ascending Passage—and thus He knew His offer would benefit, not injure them; (3) because no injustice ever befell any of them by reason
of being under that Covenant; (4) because He knew that their failure to keep the Law would make them feel the need of a Savior; (5) because He knew that their failure, with conjoined teachings and experiences, would prepare the faithful to receive the Savior when He should come, and would benefit the rest in the Millennium; (6) because He knew that their experiences would be helpful in influencing Gentiles toward the Savior; and (7) because He knew that the Law Covenant would become the means of Jesus' maintaining His life-rights under the Law, and that this would sanction these life-rights becoming available for delivering them from the Law's condemnation, and that this would gut Him into a position to give them life under conditions that He would enable them to fulfill. Most fallacious, therefore, in the reasoning of the above-mentioned article in ascribing injustice to God, if He had offered to give the Jews life on condition of keeping the Law, though He could not in justice have given it because of their being under the Adamic sentence. The condition in which Israel was, and the purposes that the Lord had in mind did justify Him in making them an offer that was impossible for Him to realize for them, if they could have fulfilled the conditions, which He knew they could not do. In Z '25, 131-137 is an article from his pen on the subject, For The Elect's Sake. This article repudiates our Pastor's explanation of Matt. 24: 21, 22, which teaches that the shortening of the period of tribulation is at its end, and that the expression translated, "for the Elect's sake," should be rendered, on account of the Elect," i.e., that the Elect beyond the vail will interfere and prevent anarchy and Jacob's trouble—the last parts of the tribulation—from running their full and natural course, and thus prevent the annihilation of the human family. Certainly the Bible teaches this with respect to Israel, whose deliverance from destruction at the hands of the anarchistic remnants is
expressly credited to miraculous Divine interposition (Ezek. 39). Matt. 24: 21, 22 teaches the shortening of the length of the trouble, not as the article under review teaches, the shortening of the war feature of the trouble. The article under review claims that in all the countries involved in the World War there were, long after the war began, people who were of the Elect, or who could be made of the Elect, but who were not yet reaped—sealed in their foreheads; that the war conditions prevented their being reaped; and that the Lord brought the war to an abrupt end for the sake of reaping these elect or electable ones. Thus the war was, according to this new view, shortened in order to win these brethren. This, the article teaches, is meant by our Lord's statement that on account of the Elect the Time of Trouble would be shortened. Against this new view, which we all recognize repudiates our Pastor's view, we offer the following objections:
(1) The text says that the duration of the trouble—"those days," the Time of Trouble—and not the first features of the trouble (as was the war), is the thing that is to be shortened. The shortening of the war would not necessarily shorten the duration of the trouble; nor has it actually shortened it, else it would now be over; for the Time of Trouble has been going right on since the war ended, though up to the present time with less intensity than during the war. Had the war been the last feature of the trouble, then to have shortened it would have shortened the duration of the trouble. Therefore the explanation that the article under review gives does not show a shortening of the Time of Trouble.
(2) According to the Bible (Rev. 7: 1-3), the Elect of each country must all be sealed before the war would strike that country. Therefore there could be no unsealed Elect in any war-involved country after the war involved that country. This refutes the assumed, but unfactual, view that the Lord abruptly
ended the war, and that in order to seal the war-involved countries' supposedly unsealed Elect whose sealing could ostensibly not be done during the war; and thus it refutes the new view that the shortening of those days means shortening the war in order to seal the remainder of the Elect in the war-involved countries. To escape this conclusion the article under review, contradicting our Pastor's known definitions of the winds and the wind of verse 1 (see Berean Comments), confuses a number of things: (a) the winds of v. 1, which are the fallen angels, with its wind, which is the World War (1 Kings 19: 11; Ps. 48: 7; 107: 25); (b) the winds, which are the fallen angels, but which are in the article falsely defined as destructive power, with the whirlwind, which is the revolution and anarchy of the Time of Trouble (Jer. 25: 30-38); and (c) the four winds of Jer. 49: 32-36; Ezek. 5: 10-12; 17: 21; Dan. 11: 4, which stand for the four points of the compass with its falsely defined symbolic winds, wind and whirlwind.
(3) The Bible also teaches that the reaping would end shortly before the war would reach the reaper (Studies, Vol. III, 387-404).
(4) The war did not come to an abrupt end as claimed in the article under review; for every informed person knows that it tapered off gradually. It certainly began suddenly: Austria's 48 hours' ultimatum and Germany's 12 hours' ultimatum made it begin suddenly, as the Scriptures teach it would (1 Thes. 5: 3); but the Bible and the parallels nowhere teach that it would end suddenly. The figure here used disproves it; for birth pangs during the delivery taper off gradually. That the war tapered off gradually is evident from the following facts: (1) Bulgaria on Sept. 27, 1918, appealed for terms and, receiving them, surrendered Sept. 30, 1918; (2) Turkey on Oct. 14, 1918, asked for terms of surrender and accepted those granted by the Allies Oct. 30, 1918; (3) Austria asked for terms of surrender on Oct. 31, 1918, and accepted
the Allied terms Nov. 1, 1918; and (4) Germany on Nov. 7, 1918, sued for an armistice, which was granted Nov. 11, 1918. (See the Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 28, 459-452.) Thus the war was about a month and a half in closing— from the first appeal for terms of surrender until the last terms were accepted, which proves clearly that it did not end abruptly. For several months the defeats and famines of the Central Powers presaged their collapse. The article under review stresses its fictitious claim of an abrupt ending to the war in order to inculcate the thought that God supernaturally interfered Nov. 11, 1918, in order to free the Society people from restraints so that they might allegedly finish the sealing of the Elect. Again, the article under review, with very ambiguous language, juggles the dates for the Jewish-Roman war so as to make them parallel with 1914-1918, in order to instill its thought of a Divine interposition ending the war Nov. 11, 1918, in order to reap and glean the rest of the Elect. Of course any informed person will at once recognize this jugglery. Cestius Gallus came up against Jerusalem in 66 A.D. (paralleling 1912, not 1914), by which the Jewish-Roman war began. April 18, 70 A.D., the siege of Jerusalem under Titus began. The last part of the city was taken Sept. 11, 70 A.D. Only three fortresses in all Palestine remained untaken after the capture of Jerusalem. Of these Masada fell as the last after a siege of ten days, April 1, 73 A.D. Moreover there is no parallel between April 1, 73 A.D. and Nov. 11, 1918; for this period is more than 7 months longer than the parallel time—1845 years. J.F.R., again, parallels wrath with grace acts! Nor was there any conversion work done in Palestine after the war, for the Jews were driven out. Thus the parallel in its dates and events does not fit the setting that the new view requires for its proof from the parallel. Accordingly, this new view, like his other new views, collapses.
The article introduces many false assertions germane and not germane to its central thought—the stopping of the war in order to reap and glean the rest of the Elect. Contrary to our Pastor's thought, J.F.R. understands the dragon of Rev. 16: 13 to be Satan, and the beast to be the civil, ecclesiastical and business powers. He fails to state his thought on the false prophet of this verse. He is expecting a war greater than the World War, in proof of which he quotes approvingly from various secular writers. The Scripture, under the symbol of the wind, refers to the World War as the greatest of all wars (1 Kings 19: 11). Doubtless the great earthquake will be greater than the World War, but it will be a revolution and not a war. While doubtless small wars will continue to occur, no great war like the World War will come. He applies Is. 24: 22, which refers to the prisoners of the tomb, who will in the great day be recovered therefrom, to the imprisonment of Satan (Rev. 20: 3).
In Z '25, 163-168, J.F.R. has an article entitled, Light in Darkness. It contains considerable darkness amid some light. It correctly designates a number of things that will lead one out of the Truth into darkness. But the main thing that has caused him and other leaders in the Truth to go into darkness he fails to mention, i.e., grasping for power and lording it over their brethren. The Lord charges him in Matt. 24: 48-51 with three great offenses: (1) sinning against the Lord—"my Lord delayeth"; "therefore I will run ahead of Him in self-will"; (2) sinning against the brethren—"smite his fellowservants"; and (3) sinning against the Truth—"eat and drink with the drunken." In Zech. 11: 16 the Lord charges him with gross sins of omission and commission, and for these sins pronounces upon him as punishments the utter loss of influence among New Creatures and Youthful Worthies and complete blindness in his theories. It is for this reason that every new view