Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
that he brings forth is erroneous and every attempt to extend his power makes him lose it as respects New Creatures and Youthful Worthies. He is right when he says, "Only saints will continue to walk in the light until the perfect day." And by this token he is proven to be no saint; for he has for years increasingly been going further and further away from the light that he once enjoyed into contrasted darkness, unto which he is Divinely sentenced. When he who is walking in darkness writes on the conditions necessary to walking in the light, we are forcibly reminded of the words of the Lord (Ps. 50: 16-21): "But to the wicked [Matt. 24: 48] God saith, What has thou to do to declare My statutes, or that thou shouldst take My covenant in thy mouth? seeing thou hatest instruction [richly given him by "that Servant"] and castest My words behind thee [by inventing new views whereby he casts away formerly held truths]. When thou sawest a thief [the not unusual corporation plutocrat of our day who through tricky lawyers defrauds fellow directors] then thou consentedst with him [by stealing the controllership in the Society from its directors and ousting the majority for opposing his power-grasping] and hast been partaker with adulterers [practicing in Little Babylon the principle of the union of church and state in the union of a corporation and the Church]. Thou, givest thy mouth to evil [teachings], and thy tongue frameth deceit [against the Truth]. Thou sittest [in the office of president] and speakest against thy brother [who protested against your wrong teachings and practices]; thou [falsely] slanderest [in Harvest Siftings] thy own mother's [Rachel's] son! These things thou hast done, and I kept silence [so far as putting you out of power is concerned]; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself (that I was using you for my special representative as the head of the "channel"];
but I will reprove thee, and set him in order before thine eyes [vindicate him in your presence]."
In this same article he refers to the wedding garment as the preparation for the Kingdom, instead of Christ's righteousness, a thing that we have refuted above. In this article, as well as in numerous others, he sets forth a doctrine as to God's organization that makes it consist of the working machinery of the Church beyond the vail and the Society this side of the vail, while God's organization is the Church—provisional while in the flesh, permanent when in the spirit. See Chap. II.
In Z '25, 179-185 is an article on, The Way To Life. In par. 7 J.F.R. falsely defines as meaning morning star the word, Lucifer, which means light bearer. In pars. 14 and 15 he denies that Lucifer usurped authority over man, because, he alleges, God gave him authority over man. We deny both his claim and the reason he gives for it. Satan never was given authority over man by God—never was by God made man's ruler. He was as the covering cherub commissioned by God to protect man in Eden (Ezek. 28: 14); but this did not make him man's ruler, any more than the commission of the good angels to protect the saints makes them the rulers of the latter (Matt. 18: 10; Heb. 1: 14). While functioning as man's protector and not as his ruler, Lucifer "meditated a usurpation," a fact that is not only impliedly stated in Phil. 2: 6 in contrast with our Lord's course, but is directly stated in Is. 14: 15, 16: "I will sit upon the mount of the congregation [the kingdom of the people] … I will be like the Most High [found a kingdom like God's]." Accordingly, Lucifer was not only untrue to his trust in Eden, but as the two passages just quoted prove, he became untrue to his trust by attempting a usurpation of authority over man. He was not content to act merely as man's protector—"covering cherub"—but as others since have done,
a notable example of them being J.F.R., he usurpatorily grasped for power and lordship over man, even to the extent of sinning and plunging man into sin and death in order to accomplish it. Satan never had the right to rule over man. Every whit of power that he has exercised and still exercises over man is usurped. When Satan told our Lord that the kingdoms of this world were given to him he falsified. He usurped them; and as his usurped kingdom he was permitted, not authorized, by the Lord under certain restraints to rule. The article under review errs when it limits the expression "morning stars" in Job 38: 7 to the Logos and Lucifer; for the parallelism of this verse shows that by that expression all the angels are meant; for the expression, "the morning stars sang together," is paralleled by the expression, "all the sons of God shouted for joy."
In paragraphs 23 and 24 the writer contrasts iniquity with error. What is said of iniquity is good enough; but error is defined in such a way as to include departure from both truth and duty. This is too wide. Error contrasted with wickedness is false belief and teaching. Wrongs against duty are matters of wickedness, not of error. This false definition of error is given, because the writer desires to make the expression, "the error of the wicked," cover the refusal to do the work of the Society, or to do a work not done, but disapproved by the Society, calling it selfishness in paragraph 61. In following parts of the article this false definition of error is made to serve just this office. On the contrary, the expression, "the error of the wicked," is the false teaching of apostates from the Truth, like J.F.R. Against his error, as well as against that of other sifters— antitypical Jannes and Jambres—the Lord warns us in 2 Pet. 3: 17.
The article under review quotes Is. 14: 12 as a proof that Satan's casting out of heaven means his supposed final defeat, i.e., from 1914 on. It denies
that it refers to him from the time of his introducing sin in Eden onward, on the ground that there were no nations then. This reason is shallow; for it overlooks the way in which Satan then weakened the unborn nations. A mere beginner in the Truth knows that by bringing sin and through it death upon man in Eden, Satan weakened the unborn nations. How do, we know that in v. 12 Satan's casting out from heaven is meant by the words, "How art thou fallen from heaven [Luke 10: 18], O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground [confined to the earth as his sphere of existence], which didst weaken the nations!" We answer, the following verses give as the reason for his being cast out of heaven and being confined to this earth the unholy ambition that prompted him to grasp for power over men and angels, which had its beginning in Eden: "for thou hast said in thy heart." Here Satan's unholy ambition in grasping for power, which he began in Eden, is given as the reason for his being cast out of heaven into the eartha thing that Jesus said He saw occurring in His prehuman condition (Luke 10: 18). Thus Is. 14: 12-14 undoubtedly proves that Satan was cast out of heaven just after his sinning in Eden.
In the article under review (pars. 50-57) a new view of the antitype of the murderer fleeing to the city of refuge and of the avenger of blood is given. Our Pastor taught (see Berean Comments) that the murderer is the Adamic sinner, the one murdered is the principle of righteousness set aside by this sin, the avenger of blood is justice and the city of refuge is Christ. The lesson is that the sinner's only escape from death at the hands of justice in his flight by faith and consecration to Christ, and his remaining in Him until His high-priestly work on his behalf has come to an end, when he will be forever safe. This beautiful, fitting and true antitype is set aside by the preposterous interpretation that the murderer is the New Creature,
that Satan is the avenger of blood and that the humanity of the New Creature is the one murderedmurdered forsooth at consecration! In elaborating this preposterous view the article says that Jehovah has appointed Satan to the office of ruling over the race, and that this makes him the nearest kinsman of all men! While permitting the usurper to execute the race, God would appoint him to nothing except destruction. If Satan were God's appointed ruler of the race, God would be responsible for Satan's sinful rule. Jesus says that Satan is the murderer of the race, its worst enemy, not its next kinsmanvindicator against injury (John 8: 44).
He warns (par. 61); on the basis of 2 Tim. 3: 1, of our perilous times. He (2 Tim. 3: 1-9) more than any other living person has made them perilous. When he says that some brethren having selfishly sought to shine above others is the cause of the strife that makes our times perilous, he tells the truth; but truth forces us to say that he is the most guilty of all such; for more than all others has he grasped for power and lordship over the brethren and ruthlessly trampled upon all other prominent brethren who stood in the way of his gaining and retaining such usurped power. Moreover, his desire to shine as the inventor of "new views" continually leads him to propound errors against which the faithful are duty bound to contend in the interests of the Lord, the Truth and the brethren (Jude 3); and thus he is the cause of the most strife among God's people. Blessed are they who contend against him earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints and now being corrupted by him.
In an article entitled, The Remnant, in Z '25, 211-218, there are several further repudiations of our Pastor's teachings on the part of J.F.R. and the substitution of "new views" in their stead. We will note several of these: One is found in pars. 31-33. There he sets forth the thought that the separation of the
tares from the wheat, and the bad fish from the good, as set forth in Matt. 13: 41, 49, is something that occurs now as distinct from the time before the war, and means the separation of some of the Truth people from what he and his supporters consider the Lord's true people—the Society supporters. That his application cannot be true is evident from the fact that the wheat and the tares are first separated, then the tares are bundled and thereafter cast into the fiery furnace. The casting into the fiery furnace, which is the tribulation, began with the World War in 1914. Therefore the bundling of the tares must have preceded that time. As a matter of fact the bundling of the tares nationally began in the formation of the Triple Alliance, from 1879 to 1881, and received its completion in the formation of the Triple Entente, brought into being from 1891 to 1904. That this explanation is true is evident from the fact that Jesus uses verses 41 to 43 to explain verse 30. With his usual superficial, slipshod and Greek-ignorant thinking, J.F.R. seizes on the expression, "They [the tare gatherers who began this gathering before 1879 when the bundling began] shall gather [together] out of [away from] His kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity," as a proof of his new view. The proper translation is "they shall gather together away from [for the Greek ex in the sense of away from please see Rev. 14: 13; 2 Tim. 2: 26; 2 Pet. 2: 21; John 8: 42; 12: 32; 17: 15; Acts 12: 7; 15: 29] His kingdom, etc." As our Pastor explained, there is a twofold viewpoint of the separation of the wheat and the tares, dependent on whether the tare gatherers or the wheat gatherers are regarded as the actors. If the wheat gatherers are regarded as the actors, then the wheat was regarded as being separated from the tares "Come out of her My people"; but if the tare gatherers are regarded as active, and this is the viewpoint of verse 41, then the tares are regarded as being separated from the wheatthe
"kingdom." This explanation makes all clear on this part of the parable and of Jesus' explanation of it, while the interpretation under review confuses everything, making the separation follow the bundling and burning of the tares.
We desire to say something on his perversion of Zech. 14: 1-3, set forth in known opposition to the proper interpretation of our Pastor. The article explains the Jerusalem there treated as "God's organization"—the Society, of course; and the battle there referred to is explained as their conflict with the civil powers, especially during the war. It will be recalled that our Pastor treats this section as referring to Jacob's Trouble. The article denies our Pastor's views on the flimsy and alleged reason that it is not reasonable to apply it to regathered Israel, whose unbelief and whose small numbers are alleged as making the application to them unreasonable. Why should it be unreasonable that the remnants of anarchists left in all nations after anarchy, will go up to plunder Israel in Palestine? Why should Israel's final punishment be considered as unreasonable in coming to them in their unbelief? It is their very unbelief that makes such an experience reasonable, yea necessary, to humble them out of their unbelief. And it is their comparatively small numbers combined with their great wealth that will lure the anarchistic remnants from all nations to their own final punishment in devastating regathered Israel, even as Ezekiel 38 and 39 teach.
In Z '25, 243-248 is an article entitled, Protection And Deliverance. Like other articles of J.F.R., it contains erroneous "new views." One of these (pars. 16-20) is given to bolster up his false view of the robe of righteousness refuted above. It gives a false application to Zech. 3: 1-3, where Joshua, in type of the Christ, Head and Body, is presented as clothed in body, not in head, in filthy garments, and is given a change of garments. Our Pastor explains this vision properly
in Z '93, 13. As Aaron was robed in beauty and glory at consecration prospectively to show the future glory of the Christ, so this vision represents the Christ in its Body, not in the Head, but retrospectively before the imputation of Christ's merit, when all our righteousness was as filthy rags, and then, dropping the retrospective view, it shows the same class after that imputation, represented as the change of garments in the picture. That these filthy garments cannot refer to this class after the imputation of Christ's merit, as the article under review claims, is evident: (1) because then they are in clean garmentsthe robe of righteousness, represented by the white, clean garments of Aaron's sons at the consecration service; and (2) because filthy or spotted garments cause one to forfeit his place in the Christ class (Jude 23; Rev. 7: 14; Num. 8: 21). We agree with his application of Ps. 32: 9, 10 as referring to stubborn, heady brethren who misuse the Truth (par. 23), and would add that he is the foremost of such stubborn, heady ones who misuse the Truth, as practically every article that he writes shows; and the many sorrows that this passage pronounces against such misusers of the Truth, the Lord says will come upon him individually (Matt. 24: 51).
In par. 33, and frequently in later articles, he uses the words, "time is no more," in false paraphrase of Rev. 10: 6, "that there should be time [delay] no longer," to mean that "no longer are we to deeply concern ourselves about time." The connection of Rev. 10: 6 shows that the expression applies before 1874; for it shows that the beginning of sounding the seventh trumpet was still future. Hence the words cannot mean what he uses them to mean; for God's people are commended for earnestly studying (Rev. 1: 3), among other things, certain time features subsequent to the angel's oath, of which these words are a part. But why this anxiety to discourage the diligent study
of time features? "Ah, there is the rub!" In his delusion on the Seventy Jubilee Cycles, against which we gave him very early warning, he insisted on five things that were to occur by Oct., 1925, and that have failed to occur: (1) the deliverance of the Church and Great Company; (2) the end of the tribulation; (3) the return of the Ancient Worthies;
(4) the establishment of the earthly phase of the kingdom; and (5) people no more needing to die—"Millions, etc." His positiveness on this date ought to have aroused distrust of his views, and did in many sober minds. Of course he now agitates that they are not to be deeply concerned about time features! Indeed, he would like them to forget all about his having deceived them on the subject! But they should not forget his deception of them. They should hold it against him as a sure proof that he is an unreliable teacher. Now he, pope like, decries criticism of his proven errors as quarrelsomeness! And, true to Little Babylon's counterpart to hell-fear, he threatens such alleged quarrelsomeness with loss of the crown! And he bids his misled followers to busy themselves in the "great works" of he Society as help against falling from steadfastness!
Some other repudiations of "that Servant's" teachings and substitution of erroneous views in their stead are made in an article entitled, Diligence and Fervency, in Z '25, 259-263. In this article (par. 5), he faults those who were misled by the false expectations that he himself gave them on 1925. He charges their expectation as originating in their selfishness and rebukes them for it. But undeniably he was himself the one that raised such expectations; still he utters not one word of sorrow or confession as to his sin in this respect. In par. 6 he reiterates the claim, for which he has not offered one scintilla of pertinent proof, that in 1918 the Lord first came to His temple, which He has explained as meaning His entering into the testing of His people. Our Pastor clearly proved by
the parallel dispensations, etc., that the Lord came to His temple in 1874, and began to test His people in 1878, in the first harvest sifting; and the Lord has been continuing it in the five subsequent siftings, the last beginning in 1917 and still continuing.
Just as the papacy, while pretending great reverence for the Apostles, has gradually set aside their teachings and arrangements, so he, while pretending great reverence for "that Servant," has been setting aside his Divinely sanctioned teachings and arrangements. Beloved brethren of the Society, for you longer to follow this great errorist, whom God Himself calls "that evil servant" and "the foolish and unprofitable shepherd," is at the great peril of your New Creatures! He can only lead you into further darkness, disappointment and loss. And his berating you as manifesting unfaithfulness with consequent loss of your crowns, if you do not do what he calls in par. 10 "the work that is yet to be done," is a Satanic effort to keep you in line as victims of further delusions and as frantic workers in his further drives. Your overcoming depends indeed upon your faithfulness to the Lord unto the end in harmony with the Truth, which will lead you to repudiate himthe most dangerous and deceitful enemy of the Truth on earth. And his plea in par. 26, coupled with "time is no more," that this requires you to persevere in what he desires you to do as God's work finds its parallel in similar pleas of the papacy to deceived Catholics, and will lead to the same general consequences, if followed as many Catholics follow the papacy's pleas—to disappointment and chagrin, in comparison with which the disappointment and chagrin as to the 1925 error are small.
The King In Action, is the subject of an article in Z '25, 275-278, which calls for some comment. In par. 8, J.F.R. quotes Heb. 10: 12, 13, "sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool," as a proof that
"Jesus must remain inactive as against the devil up to a time certain, which time was fixed by His Father." Elsewhere he tells us that this time was not before 1914, when He supposedly battled with Satan and drove him out of heaven—God's Court. In harmony with St. Paul (1 Cor. 15: 24-26), we understand the expression, to make His enemies His footstool, i.e., to put them under His feet, to mean to destroy them; and since the Adamic death is the last of His enemies to be destroyed (1 Cor. 15: 25), and since Satan and the post-Millennial wicked will be destroyed after the Adamic death is destroyed, he, the fallen angels and wicked men, are not included in the expression, to make His enemies His footstool. Therefore this passage cannot mean that "Jesus is to remain inactive as against the devil up to a time certain"; for it does not refer to the devil at all. The passage, as that Servant interpreted it, means that while exercising [sitting] Jehovah's power and enjoying His chief favor [right hand], Christ, during the Gospel Age, must wait until the Millennium, when gradually He will destroy His enemies— "all rule and all authority and power," i.e., every effect of Satan on mankind (1 John 3: 8).
This passage does not teach that Christ during the Gospel Age must remain inactive as against Satan. Compatibly with God's purpose in permitting evil to the Church and the world, Jesus often during the Gospel Age hindered and thwarted Satan, e.g., the Reformation was a mighty hindrance put upon Satan by Christ—"whom [papacy is Satan's special representative] the Lord [Jesus] will consume by the spirit of His mouth [in the Reformation]" (2 Thes. 2: 8). It is true that before 1874 Jesus did not begin to bind Satan preparatory to overthrowing his empire; but ever since that time He has been binding him and in 1914 had so far bound him in national respects as to begin to overthrow his empire by the World War; and the pre-revolution phase of the binding is now
going on. The new view that Satan was not cast out of God's heaven until 1914, and was not acted against by our Lord until 1914, has no foundation in Heb. 10: 12, 13, nor in any other Scripture.
To his question in par. 14, "Did the world end in 1914?" we answer, No, not specially. In a sense it ended in 1874, in another in 1878, in a third in 1881, in a fourth sense in 1914, in a fifth it will end in 1954, and in a sixth in 1956; for this world ends and the next begins lappingly into one another, as that Servant taught. It is true that 1914 ended the Times of the Gentiles; but the present evil world is not yet finally ended. The fight between Christ and Satan for the overthrow of Satan's empire began very soon after our Lord's return, and not in 1914, though at that date a very important stage in the fight for the overthrow of that empire was entered. None of these facts are in the remotest degree related to Satan's being cast out of heaven, which the Scriptures teach occurred just after the sin in Eden.
In par. 15 he states that the first work of Christ [in 1914] was to cast the devil out of heaven, which in the March 1 Tower he defined as God's Court. Then he attempts a proof of this from 2 Pet. 3: 12, where the symbolic heavens—the powers of spiritual control—are referred to as being dissolved. According to his application, God's abode in the Pleiades will burn up! He evidently does not understand the heavens of 2 Pet. 3: 12 to mean the powers of spiritual control; for he includes the latter as the "ecclesiastical elements" "in the earthly part," in contrast with the heavens from which, according to him, Satan was cast out in 1914. Here is a proof that he considers the heavens of 2 Pet. 3: 12 not to be the symbolic heavens, but God's own abode, and according to this worse than the nominal church view, God's abode is to be dissolved.
In Z '25, 323-327 is an article on, A Call To Action,
that in parts calls for a reply. Its writer, J.F.R., in pars. 6-9, perverts Is. 62: 10, which we will quote and briefly explain: "Go through [the gate of consecration; Matt. 7: 13]; go through [the gate of death, by carrying out consecration] the gates; prepare ye the way of the people [by sacrificing, that there may be a highway of holiness]; cast up, cast up the highway [by teaching restitution truths]; gather out the stones [of error]; lift up a standard (of truth and righteousness) for the people." The bracketed comments give that Servant's thought on this text. Thus understood, it is an exhortation especially applicable to the Lord's people during the Harvest, even as he so applied it; and without any doubt the Lord's people then fulfilled it. But the pars. under review seek to apply it to the time since 1918 to "the nation," whose "birth" we examined above. Par. 26, considered in connection with his hundreds of repudiations, casts reflection on "that Servant" by saying: "Some would now dishonor the Lord by saying that He committed every detail [This is a cunning and mischievous misrepresentation of the teaching that the entire storehouse was placed in "that Servant's" charge] of His Truth to [a] man ["that Servant"] and that the light of Truth, instead of shining more and more according to promise; ceased to shine in 1916 [the year of "that Servant's" death]; and that since then there is nothing more to do." This quotation sets up a man of straw and kicks it over. Its purpose is to convey the thought that the light has been shining right on through J.F.R. It is only the shallow and the ill informed who would teach that "that Servant" gave the full light unto the perfect day. The light has been shining on since his death; and because what he gave was light and not darkness, the succeeding light has been in harmony with and has flowed out of that which he gave us. It has not, like J.F.R.'s teaching, given darkness on hundreds of subjects made bright and clear by "that Servant's"
writings. He has presented instead of the formerly given light ever increasing darkness, claiming it to be advancing light. This has been the claim every sifter from Mr. Barbour, the first harvest sifter, to J.F.R., the leading sifter of the last harvest sifting. Let none of God's people be deceived: The Society's president as Satan's chief servant among Truth people is, like his master, putting light for darkness and darkness for light. If what he is teaching is light, then what "that Servant" gave was very largely darkness. To accept his "new views" as light inevitably implies the rejection as darkness of an ever increasing amount of light given by "that Servant." But which of the two—for they are in direct contradiction on hundreds of subjects—has given the light? God says that "that Servant" gave it (Luke 12: 42-44; Matt. 24: 45-47; Num. 4: 16). And God says that J.F.R. is drunk with error and increasingly blinded with darkness (Matt. 24: 48-51; Zech. 11: 15-17).
In par. 38 the article grossly misinterprets Is. 30: 26, which we will quote with bracketed comments: "Moreover the light [teachings] of the moon [the Old Testament] shall be [as clear] as the light [teachings] of the sun [New Testament], and the light [teachings] of the sun [New Testament] shall be sevenfold [perfectly clear] in the [finished Harvest] day that the Lord bindeth up [heals] the breach [made by error] of His people, and healeth the stroke of their wound [made by Great and Little Babylon)." The article under review pervertingly defines the moon as representing the expressed will of God and claims that the passage teaches that God's expressed will is as clear as the sun to His people now. It is not true that the Lord's will is now as clear as the sun. On the contrary, the Word is now "a lamp to our feet and a light to our path" amid much uncertainty and darkness—"a light shining in a dark place," until by the end of the Epiphany everything in the Bible will be clear.
The article under review defines the sun as the light of the kingdom of the Lord.
One of J.F.R.'s champion articles for putting darkness for light, and for rejecting that Servant's teaching in the interests of his own "new views," is the article on, The Holy Spirit Poured Out, in Z '25, 339-344. In this article he grossly perverts the clear interpretation of Joel 2: 28, 29 given us by that faithful and wise Servant. Beautifully clear is the latter's setting given to this passage, i.e., that verse 29 describes the outpouring of the Spirit for the Church in the Gospel Age, and that verse 28 describes the pouring out of the Spirit for the world in the Millennial Age. But the article under review denies this twofold application, and applies both verses to the Gospel Age. According to it the servants and handmaids are such literally of the Jewish brethren in the beginning of this Age, and the all flesh are the rest of the Jewish brethren; additionally also they are the Gentile brethren gathered out of all nations during the Gospel Age, especially since 1918! His main argument is that St. Peter quotes this passage in Acts 2 and applies it to the Gospel Age. To this argument we reply that St. Peter's quotation of the passage was not for the purpose of interpreting it, nor to show to what Age or Ages it applied, but to refute the accusation of drunkenness made by the Jews against him and his fellow Apostles (Acts 2: 13). St. Peter denies that the phenomenon that the Jews witnessed was drunkenness (v. 15), and asserts that the phenomenon was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, not a sinful but a Divinely approved thing, prophesied by Joel (v. 16). He then proceeds to quote the entire section of Joel treating of the outpouring of the Spirit; but makes no interpretation or application of the passage further than to use it to prove that the Jews were not witnesses of drunkenness, but of the outpouring of the Spirit. If St. Peter's purpose in making the quotation and his
use of it are kept in mind, we will at once recognize that there is nothing in St. Peter's use of the passage to limit its application to the Gospel Age, as the article under review contends, and that after the manner of certain nominal church interpreters—post-Millennialists. Similarly, if in the next Age the outpouring of the Spirit would be represented as drunkenness, the passage could with equal propriety be quoted to disprove the charge; but such a use of the passage would not limit its application to the Millennium. St. Peter did with this passage what in perfect propriety has been done with other passages—use them to refute an error or to prove a truth, without giving the full application of the passage. E.g., St. Paul in Heb. 10: 15-17, to prove the forgiveness of our sins, quotes from Jer. 31: 33, 34, which gives many details on the New Covenant, among which details is one with reference to the forgiveness of sins— which is the thing to be proven. St. Paul's argument was that our faith justification reckoning us as living after the Millennium, and therefore as having all the New Covenant blessings reckoned to us, we must have forgiveness of sins, for it is one of the New Covenant blessings. But the section on the New Covenant establishment is quoted, not to prove that the New Covenant applies now or later, but to show that we enjoy forgiveness of sins, which is only one of the New Covenant blessings mentioned in Jer. 31: 33, 34. But how foolish it would be for us to use this quotation as proving that the New Covenant applies to the Gospel Age! In a similar manner St. Peter quotes Joel 2: 28-32, not to apply the whole passage to the present time or to any other time, but to prove that the phenomenon that the Jews witnessed was not drunkenness, but the outpouring of the Spirit. Hence he does not limit it to the Gospel Age. Having thus disposed of his main argument, we next take up his second chief argument, that the expression all flesh cannot apply to the Millennium.
It does apply to the whole race, but its work of blessing must be limited to certain ones, because the whole human family will not receive the Holy Spirit in the Millennium; for then as now only those who obey will receive it (Acts 5: 32). We agree that all flesh will not receive the Holy Spirit in the next Age. Then as now, only the obedient will receive it, Those who then refuse obedience, e, g., those who die at 100 years, will not receive the Holy Spirit. But this does not prove his claim that the passage applies only to the Gospel Age; for the reasoning used by him in making it inapplicable to the Millennial Age makes it inapplicable to either Age; for it is true that in neither Age will all receive the Holy Spirit. The purpose of his point is shattered completely when the passage is properly translated. It should be rendered: "After this I will pour out My Spirit for all flesh,"—not on all flesh. The Hebrew word al, among other things, means for in the sense of on behalf of (Gen. 19: 17; Judges 9: 17; 2 Kings 10: 3; 1 Kings 2: 18; Esth. 4: 8, 16; 7: 7; 8: 11; 9: 16; Dan. 12: 1; Job 42: 8; Neh. 1: 16; 2 Chro. 30: 18; 29: 21; Ezra 8: 35, etc.). It is very frequently used in connection with the Hebrew word kepher, to make atonement, to point out in whose interest the atonement is made. With this translation we see that no limitation is required to be put on the expression, all flesh. On the contrary, it should be taken unlimitedly, unless the passage or some other Scripture should limit it; but the passage itself does not limit it; and the Scriptures are vocal with the teaching that an opportunity to get Millennial blessings, one of which is the gift of the Spirit, will be available for everybody, in contrast with the limited number for whom the elective salvation is available. Therefore, we conclude that, like his chief argument, his second argument collapses; and with the collapse of his foundation arguments, his whole superstructure
falls down. We call attention to J.F.R.'s superficial thinking as exposed in the above refutation.
But let us look at the verses preceding Joel 2: 28, 29 and from them we will see the time setting enabling us to construe properly the time indicated by the word "afterwards" in v. 28. V. 23 points out a twofold time of the coming of the former rain—the high calling truth. Its coming the first time "moderately" was in the Harvest of the Jewish Age. This refers to a giving that occurred before Zion was bidden to rejoice: "for He hath given, etc." Zion's rejoicing time was from 1874 onward. The next sentence of v. 23 tells of a giving of the former rain future to its first giving, which future rain (note the strange expression, if it applied to the natural rain, which it of course does not) would occur at the same time as the giving of the latter rain—restitution truth: "He will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain and the latter rain in the first month." When were both of these rains due to come at the same time? and when did they actually come together? We reply, In the reaping time, 1874-1914. V. 24 then shows the harvest gathering following the former and the latter rain coming together: "the floors shall be full of wheat," as it also shows the accompanying presence of much refreshing Truth (wine) and the Holy Spirit (oil). V. 25 shows that, then the havoc wrought by the symbolic locust, cankerworm, caterpillar and palmerworm, will be undone, set aside, and compensating blessings of grace and Truth will take their place. ("I will restore to you the years, etc.") What is pictured by these four devastators? Turning back to Joel 1: 4, we see that in the order named they would do a devastating work. Undoubtedly Joel 1 refers to the Gospel Age between the two Harvests. The things represented by these four devastators have in succession as named destroyed the growing products of the Gospel Age. What four things have done this to the growing Truth,
Spirit of the Truth and the Lord's people? We reply: (1) episcopism (the palmerworm), (2) papalism (the locust), (3) Antichristism (the cankerworm) and (4) Protestant sectarianism (the caterpillar). Truth people will not dispute that these four institutions have devastated the Truth, the Spirit of the Truth and the Lord's people, and have brought about the havoc wrought in the Gospel Age between the Harvests, as described in Joel 1. Accordingly, v. 25 proves that during the reaping time, 1874-1914, the undoing of the pertinent evils and the bestowment of their opposite goods would take place so far as God's faithful people are concerned. This we know did take place in the reaping period. Vs. 26 and 27 continue to describe the blessings, the condition, the activities of the Faithful, and their consciousness of the Lord's favor during the Harvest. This we also know to have been true of the period of 1874-1914. Therefore vs. 23-27 refer to the reaping time, 1874-1914, as also do verses 21 and 22. Consequently the word "afterward" of v. 28 refers to a period after the Harvest is over, i.e., to the Millennium. The connection, therefore, demonstrates that v. 28 refers to the Millennium, and therefore proves that Servant's view of v. 28 to be correct, and therefore proves J.F.R.'s view to be false.
One of the straw men that the article under review sets up and kicks over ostensibly in refutation of the Truth on this subject may now engage our attention. It gives as a reason (par. 11) that v. 28 cannot apply to the Millennium the fact that then none will be begotten of the Spirit. This straw man we set aside as follows: No qualified teacher among us has ever claimed it would; for the pouring out of God's Spirit and the begetting of God's Spirit are not coequal terms. The Spirit poured out for us (Is. 11: 2-5) is one of begettal and anointing, but the Spirit poured out for the world is one of sanctification and righteousness (Ezek. 35: 25-27). The former gives
the image of God on the Divine plane, the latter on the human plane; but in both cases it is God's Holy Spirit given or poured out. The next argument of the article (par. 14) is the statement that "the text plainly says that it is before the great and terrible day of the Lord that the Spirit will be poured out on all flesh." This argument is a misstatement of facts. V. 31 says that the sun [New Testament] will be turned into darkness [will give the Nominal people no light], and the moon [Old Testament] into blood [its sacrifices and history will appear bloody to the Nominal people] before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. Through infidelity from 1835 up to 1874 and through the five slaughter-weapon men this did occur before 1914. But v. 31 is a sentence by itself, and several sentences intervene between it and v. 28. Therefore, the passage does not plainly nor in any sense whatever say that the pouring out of the Spirit for all flesh precedes the great and terrible day of the Lord. His third and fourth arguments—that St. Peter interprets Joel 2: 28, 29 as the article under review does— are his main arguments, and are refuted above.
His fifth argument is that the facts require that vs. 28 and 29 be not reversed chronologically. Not actual facts, but some butcheries that he has committed against various parts of the text are alleged as facts requiring his view: (1) that "all flesh" does not mean all flesh, but means certain saints, first from Israel and later from Gentile nations, i.e., all flesh means some flesh; (2) that brethren long in the Truth and not engaged in his drives are indulging in day dreams and air castles (!)—the old men that dream dreams; and (3) his claim that St. Peter interpreted the passage when he only quoted it (without further explanation) to refute a false charge—to show that the phenomenon that was misunderstood as drunkenness was not such at all, but was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. These three things are not facts at all; they are gross
untruths—misinterpretations of facts—given as facts. There is every reason in fact and in God's plan to make v. 28 follow v. 29 chronologically; for above we have shown that the harvest period is described in vs. 21-27. Nor is the Spirit poured out for all flesh until the Millennium. Hence the "afterward" of v. 28, which is correctly translated by the A.V., must apply to a period subsequent to the period described in vs. 29-31, or there would be no reference to the Gospel Age in the entire section, vs. 28-32, in which case St. Peter could not have truthfully said that the phenomenon that the Jews misunderstood as drunkenness was the outpouring of the Spirit, an outpouring that Joel prophesied would take place. (Incidentally we mention that the article interprets the "times of refreshing" (Acts 3: 19) as applying to the Harvests, not to the Millennium— another repudiation of "that Servant's" teachings, and in plain contradiction of Acts 3: 19-21!) The silly applications that he makes in paragraphs 30-34 of the sons, whom we understand to be the Millennial believing Jews, the daughters, whom we understand to be the Millennial believing Gentiles, the old men, whom we understand to be the Ancient Worthies, and the young men, whom we understand to be the Millennial Youthful Worthies, we will pass by without further comment than that complimentary things are said of all four of these classes as operations of the Holy Spirit in them; but the article interprets so as to make the Spirit cause one of them to indulge in evil things—"day dreams" and "air castles"! In paragraph 40, smoke is defined as confusion, whereas it means teachings—memories (Rev. 15: 11; 15: 8).
We caution the Society adherents against believing the glowing reports that J.F.R. issues from time to time. E.g., in the Annual Report, Z '25, 366, the following statement is made about the work in Poland: "It is the pleasure of the Society to report that the Polish work is now in better shape than at any other time in Poland. There are now 9 pilgrims on the list rendering service."
This statement is a most glaring misrepresentation of facts. The Present Truth is published in Polish; and we have a large correspondence with leading Polish brethren. They assure us that fully 85 per cent of the Society adherents have left the Society in the last year. In the Warsaw class 287 left the Society and considerably less than 50 remained. The country over like proportions have left the Society. That the Society has 9 pilgrims on its list in Poland may be true, but full truth requires it to be said that the ablest Polish pilgrims have left the Society, and that it is rushing elders into the pilgrim service in a frantic effort to save the storm-tossed, battered and foundering ship from sinking! Nor from the wording of the report on Sweden are the Tower readers given the slightest hint that over half of the Swedish brethren have left the Society this last year. The revolt against the Society's president is rapidly increasing (his arm in drying up) and will be world-wide in due time; for, not only is he to go utterly blind in his right eye, but his influence is to dry up entirely among all New Creatures and good Youthful Worthies, those perseveringly remaining with him either losing their New Creatureship or their Youthful Worthiship, as their standing is.
The "new view" on Satan's remaining in heaven as a member of Jehovah's Court until 1914 has provoked much resentment in Society circles. Among other arguments that J.F.R. has had brought to his attention is the following: the complete disharmony of such a view with the third petition of the Lord's prayer—Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven [God's abode]. This argument proved a staggering blow that made J.F.R. groggy as a figurative boxer, as can be seen from Z '26, 25, pars. 45 and 46. These two paragraphs are like the wild and ineffectual pawings that a groggy and staggering pugilist feebly opposes to a winning fighter who has given him a blow that prepares for the next, the knock-out blow.