Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
we reply that in every passage where the expression, head stone of the corner, head of the corner, or head stone, occurs with reference to our Lord, the allusion is to the Pyramid and not to the temple; for only in such a building is there a head stone of the corner. The word translated chief corner stone is totally different from the one translated "head," etc., in the following citations (Ps. 118: 22; Matt. 21: 42; Luke 20: 17; Acts 4: 11; Zech. 4: 7). While we concede that in Eph. 2: 19, 20 the antitypical stones of the temple are referred to, yet properly they may be referred to as indirect proof, i.e., of stones being used symbolically, as in the Pyramid, which is the way our Pastor used this passage in this connection. To his statement that our Lord was laid as a head corner stone of the temple "in miniature" when He presented Himself as King to Israel and in completion when He came to His temple (allegedly in 1918); we reply: nothing in the Bible gives such thoughts. Rather He was in process of shaping as the head stone of the corner from Jordan to Calvary; and at His resurrection and ascension He was by God (1 Pet. 2: 4-8) laid in the full and only sense of that word; for when St. Peter spoke to the Sanhedrin, Jesus had already been made the head stone of the corner (Acts 4: 11; see also 1 Pet. 2: 7; Eph. 2: 20 as showing this as done already in the past from the standpoint of the temple). Bro. Russell did not use Job 38: 4-6 as more than an illustration of the Pyramid and did not use it as a direct reference to it, as the article under review charges. To his statement that God charged Job with talking foolishness, we reply that such is tantamount to saying that God was foolish, who inspired his speeches (Jas. 5: 10, 11) and who expressly said twice that Job spoke aright of His matters (Job 42: 7, 8). To his statement that the use of impressed Egyptian labor in building the Pyramid is proof conclusive that God had nothing to do with its building, since, he
alleges, God would not cruelly use slaves to work so hard as its stones required them to work (though he offers, and can offer no proof that slaves were therein used or cruelly treated), we reply that God did undoubtedly arrange for building Solomon's temple, and it was built by impressed labor, provided by Hiram and Solomon (1 Kings 5: 6, 1318), and some of its stones were larger than any of those put into the Pyramid, as they can to this day be seen.
J.F.R. alleges as a further proof that Satan built the Pyramid the facts that the Descending Passage in corresponding to an astronomer's pointer and that the Ascending Passage in corresponding to his telescope, at midnight of the autumnal equinox of 2170 B.C., with the Dragon star (Satan) looking directly down this pointer and the Pleiades directly in angular line with the Ascending Passages, which, it stresses ended in a stone, and which made the Pleiades invisible through them, symbolize the fact that Satan has always sought to shut God out of sight. To this we reply that since there then was no opening for the Ascending Passage, it being closed by the stones that in the Descending Passage covered the lower end of the Granite Plug, the true symbolism would prove that all that Satan could see of God's plan at that midnight was that the race was descending more and more in degradation, without knowing the end of the way, since the horizontal floor of the Descending Passage's southern end shut out the view of the Pit from the top of that Passage. This symbolism would, therefore, prove that Satan lacked the knowledge necessary to construct the main symbolic features of the interior of the Pyramid—its horizontal passages, its ascending passages, its chambers, well, etc., as well as their dimensions, and therefore proves that he did not build the Pyramid.
To his charge that the study of the Pyramid tends to turn its students away from God's Word and Work,
we answer that facts prove that its study properly conducted has made them abler students and servants of God's Word, while it is the sifters who have rejected its testimony, e.g., the sin-offerings' deniers of 1908-1911 and the main revolutionists—the Society and P.B.I. leaders—in the present sifting, respectively members of antitypical Jannes and Jambres, and who have been turned away from God's Word and Work unto the character, word and service of Satan (2 Tim. 3: 1-9). To his charge that students of the Pyramid use it mainly to fix dates for the Church's leaving the earth we reply that this never was the main use that our Pastor, the Edgar Bros. or ourself have made of it, and that in 1908 our Pastor announced that the Pyramid did not give such data and advised against such a use of the Pyramid.
His claim that the passage (Is. 31: 1), "Woe unto them that go down to Egypt for help," forbids the use of the Pyramid for corroborative purposes, is silly; for New Creatures are here warned, as the connection shows, against seeking help from the errors, organizations and methods of Satan's empire, as fleshly Israelites were thereby prohibited from seeking deliverance from the resources of literal Egypt. It has no reference to a prohibition of spiritual Israel as to things in literal Egypt. To his claim that the expression, "in that day," in Is. 19: 19, the time from 1914 onward is meant, and that the prophecy could not be understood before 1918, we reply, Not so; for the connection shows that the expression, "that day," includes the time of Jehovah's sending our Lord in His Second Advent—1874 (v. 20); moreover, the cries of the oppressed have been especially going up since 1874, "the cries of the reapers," etc. Hence this day goes back to 1874, the beginning of the seventh one-thousand-year day from Adam's fall—thereby the Millennial day is meant, it being usually meant by the expression, "that day" in the Bible (vs. 20-25). Hence
the point of the article, that Is. 19: 19, 20 could not be understood before 1918, falls to the ground. It was understood before 1891, when Vol. III was published. To his claim that, not the Pyramid's top stone, but Christ, is meant by the stone of stumbling, and that, not the stubbing of a literal toe on the Pyramid, but stumbling over Christ, is mean in the reference to the stone of stumbling, we reply: Whoever denied this? Such a point could only be urged, if one would confuse the symbol with the reality, as by implication he charges against those who believe that the Pyramid symbolizes Christ.
To the article's claim that Is. 19 refers only to symbolic Egypt because, it alleges, the chapter treats of the relation of the anointed ones to the Egypt under discussion, of whom, it says, none were in Egypt when the Pyramid was built, we reply that there is no reference whatever to any of God's anointed in the entire chapter, except to our Lord in His Return. Hence the attempt to limit its Egypt to symbolic Egypt falls to the ground. The "swift cloud" of v. 1, even as the same thing is symbolized by the cloud of Ezek. 1: 4, 5, etc., does not refer to God's organization— supposedly the Society and the glorified Christ—in any sense, as he claims, but to the swiftly coming great tribulation, which proves that the chapter treats also of matters prior to 1914. This chapter, like other chapters treating prophetically of various nations, has a double application, first to literal Egypt and, second, to symbolic Egypt. And, like some of such chapters, e.g., Jer. 50 and 51, sometimes it stresses the literal more than the symbolic and sometimes the symbolic more than the literal. The reference to the Pyramid we take both literally and symbolically, the symbolic Pyramid being the Christ, and each being as such an Altar and Pillar in its respective Egypt. The five symbolic cities (a city symbolizes a religious government, e.g., Babylon, New Jerusalem, etc.) we understand
to be the five religious governments that are united with the state in Europe—the Greek Catholic, the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, the Calvinistic and the Episcopal churches, which are the only churches of Christendom united with the state. They speak the language of Canaan in the sense of professing to teach the Bible, which they quote for their creeds, and every one of them has consecrated (sworn to the name of) the Lord; one of these—the Roman Catholic—shall by way of pre-eminence be called, the city of destruction. The Septuagint translation, Azedek, for destruction, does not, as he says, mean Melchizedek (king of righteousness), but means unrighteousness, being compounded by the Greek negative, a, and the Hebrew noun, zedek, righteousness. Five is not, as he claims, a specially sacred number; for seven is the sacred number. Five, as a half of ten, the number of human [among others] completeness, would seem here to be the number of human incompleteness, and as such properly designates the five religious governments above mentioned. Many of J.F.R.'s numerous errors of interpretation on various features of Is. 19 we will pass by as not germane to our purpose. He closes his article with the remark: "We now wonder why we ever believed in, or devoted any time to the study of the Pyramid of Gezeh. Not only will we abandon such a study now, but we will ask God to forgive us for wasting the time that we put in on it and redeem the time by hurrying on to obey His commandments." The sentiments just quoted are very similar to those used by another sifting leader—Mr. Henninges—when he renounced his belief in the Church's and his share in the Sin-offering in 1908.
We are not so sure that J.F.R. deeply studied the Parousia Truth in its deeper features. He was certainly able in the surface things—such as were required for public meetings; but our dealings with him convince us that he did not study deeply into its
deeper truths. He told the New York Church, when he repudiated the Pyramid before it, that he had not studied the Pyramid much, rather that he had taken it for granted. It would seem that he did this with other deeper things of the Truth. We will now relate an incident that is a partial key to the unlocking of his strange course since 1916: While he and we in 1915 were walking to our hotel after the last session of the Oakland, Calif., Convention, he, holding our arm, began to weep. We asked him the reason, which he declared was his dearth of spirituality, telling us that his spirituality was dried up. He then asked what we would recommend as a cure for his condition. Knowing that the Truth is the power of God, working in us to will and to do, we asked him whether he was daily studying the Volumes, as our Pastor recommended. He answered that there were so many diverting things at Bethel that he seldom got opportunity to study them. We replied that though we had gone over them carefully about fifteen times, we still kept up the practice recommended by our Pastor of reading ten pages daily, and found that this helped us to grow stronger in grace, knowledge and fruitfulness in service. Then we suggested that he "redeem the time" so as to study his ten pages daily, assuring him that, like ourself, he would find it very stimulating for growth in spirituality, if it were done in a meek and appreciative spirit. He said that he would do it. We never heard whether he did it or not, but in thinking over his course toward the Truth since 1916, we fear that he did not "build up the waste places of former years."
Speaking of the Pyramid (Vol. III, 319, par. 1) our Pastor remarked: "The inspiration of its testimony will doubtless be as much disputed as that of the Scriptures by the prince of darkness, the god of this world, and those whom he blinds to the Truth" [italics ours]. Doubtless the Lord, foreseeing the course of the sifters of the Parousia and the Epiphany in denying
the Pyramid as God's stone witness worked on our Pastor's mind, moving him to make the above remark. Doubtless of all such deniers J.F.R. will have the unenviable preeminence of working the greatest amount of mischief through his repudiation of the Pyramid. He claims to be our Pastor's successor. Actually he is his detractor, as his repudiations of his teachings prove; and our Pastor is his true portrayer when he describes this Pyramid-denier as of "those whom Satan blinds to the Truth." How may we rightly view all repudiations of our Pastor's findings on the Little Flock matters as he left them with the Church? We answer, the Lord has furnished us with a stamp of his approval on such teachings of our Pastor. We refer to Lev. 12, which we explained in detail in Chapter II of Vol. IV. Hence we know that when 1914 was here, our Pastor in his mature views had given us the full and pure Truth for the development of the Little Flock. Hence we know that repudiations of Little Flock matters as he left them with us are repudiations of Truth. This teaching, from Lev. 12, was doubtless given by the Lord to His people to safeguard and give them an invincible weapon against the fearful repudiations of Little Flock matters by the teachers of the various Levite groups, and that from the wrong premises held by J.F.R. will follow in yet more vital matters. "From such turn away," as you value your own spiritual interests (2 Tim. 3: 5); for their repudiations are errors, the more of which you will accept, the longer and harder will it be to retrace your steps, as the Lord will require of each who accepts them to do.
By three successive major delusions, not to mention minor ones, has J.F.R. sought to draw away disciples after him (Acts 20: 29, 30). The first was the following: In 1917 he promised the brethren that if they would "get into the chariot," endorse and support his policies, they would by March 27, 1918—the
Passover—"mount to the skies." When this failed, he asserted that at that date the door of entrance into the high calling closed; but alas for him, later newcomers into the Truth wanted to be in the high calling; so he managed to make that door become "a swinging door," which supposedly admitted as many newcomers as clamored for entrance. (2) The second major delusion—begun in 1918— by which he sought to draw disciples after him was his slogan, "Millions now living will never die" after 1925— when the deliverance of the Church and the Great Company was to take place, and the forecast return of the Ancient Worthies was expected to seal the millions proposition. But again, alas for him, after 1920 the millions kept on dying, the Church and Great Company still remained in the flesh, and the Ancient Worthies did not return, despite his challenge to objectors to prove that they had not returned and were not in hiding in some secret Palestinian place!
Years before 1925 we wrote that, when 1925 would prove his millions proposition a frenzy of delusion, he would present another delusion to divert attention from his second great fiasco and to keep his disciples. This delusion—the third major one—as we forecast, has come in the proposition that the Harvest began in 1918 and is now on, and is the most gigantic and evil of the three. If this delusion were true, our Pastor was the greatest individual deceiver on religious subjects that ever arose during the Gospel Age; for it implies the rejection of almost all of Pastor Russell's prophetic writings, of many of his doctrines and of almost all of his works, as delusions. We call special attention to a principle that J.F.R. announces in his Dec.  articles on the Time of the End and the days of Daniel, and that opens the flood gates of error, giving Satan, through him, the vantage ground to reject anything he wishes in Pastor Russell's writings: his claim that the Time of the End is the same as the end of the Gentile
Times and that, therefore, before 1914 the Lord's special truths for His people in His Second Advent could not be clearly seen! This principle accounts for the flood of error in the more recent Towers, each succeeding one becoming more erroneous than the former, as it also promises worse yet to come.
In 2 Tim. 3: 1-9 St. Paul speaks of Jannes and Jambres as typing the apostate teachers of the last days—the Parousia day and the Epiphany day. The facts prove that Jannes—oppressor—types the sifters who in the Parousia day misled the second death class by antitypical sorceries— delusions; and that—Jambres—rebellious—types the sifters who in the Epiphany are misleading the Great Company by antitypical sorceries—delusions (2 Thes. 2: 9-11). After describing their unholy characters and works St. Paul says (v. 9) that their "folly" will in due time be made known to all consecrated brethren. J.F.R. is the chief member of the Truth section of antitypical Jambres, there being also a nominal-church section of antitypical Jambres, even as there were in the Parousia these two sections of antitypical Jannes. In this review of some of his more recent delusions we will not only prove them to be erroneous, but will also stress their "folly." Hence we have made part of the title of this and the next chapter read "Drunken Follies of Right-Eye Darkening," the allusion being both to 2 Tim. 3: 9 and to Zech. 11: 15-17, both passages referring to him, the former pointing out the class whose chief he is among Truth people, and the latter pointing him out as an individual. The errors to be reviewed are so numerous that our refutations and exposures of them must necessarily be more or less brief, with the omission of the minor ones. His present view is that a new dispensational line of dealing began in 1918. He now calls it the Elisha work, Elijah supposedly typing, not a class, but a work up to 1918, and Elisha supposedly typing, not a class, but a work since then. For
details please see Vol. III, Chap. III. It will be recalled that after we proved that, since the faithful and wise servant was an individual (our Pastor), that wicked servant must be another individual (J.F.R.), he changed his view so as to claim that the faithful and wise servant was a class, his "remnant," and that the wicked servant is, therefore, a class—those of the Lord's consecrated people whom he calls "the opposition." Again, when we proved that since 1914 we are in the Epiphany and that, therefore, the priestly work was with Azazel's Goat, to evade the proofs that demonstrated that his partisans are a part of that Goat, he found it necessary to teach that a new dispensational work began in 1918 and that this work is the reaping of the Gospel Age. The above proves how each demonstration of his association and identification with evil things has driven him into giving up a formerly held truth and to bring out an error instead, in order to evade the proof of his real position and work among the Lord's people.
His present view is that since 1918 especially, and more especially since 1922, and most especially since 1926, great advancement in the Truth's unfolding has been going on, through the Society as God's alleged organization. He claims that this is due to our Lord's alleged coming to His temple in 1918 to test His people. He alleges for this thought Mal. 3: 1-3. This passage does indeed teach that our Lord in His Second Advent would come to His temple (the true Church) and test it. But the passage shows that this testing began early in the Parousia (Who shall abide the day of His coming?—the Parousia was the day of His coming) and that it reaches far into the Epiphany (And who shall stand when He shall appear—literally, make manifest, epiphanize, i.e., who will maintain his standing in the high calling during the Epiphany?). The tests of the Parousia were to separate the second death class from those that retained the Holy Spirit,
as the question implies: Who shall abide [continue to endure and thus to persevere as New Creatures]? This testing was done mainly through the five harvest siftings, the first beginning in 1878 (1 Cor. 10: 1-14). The tests of the Epiphany decide who shall maintain his stand (Rom. 5: 2) in the high calling and who shall fall therefrom into the Great Company, as is implied in the question, Who shall stand? This testing is being done through the sixth sifting, that of the Epiphany (2 Tim. 4: 1). Mal. 3: 2 proves that the Lord's coming to His temple to test it occurred in 1874, the beginning of the day of His coming, and therefore pointedly disproves the view that this occurred in 1918. It was, therefore, from 1874 onward that the glorious Truth would especially unfold, not since 1918, 1922 and 1926. And the things that J.F.R. is bringing out, contradicting more and more the real truths of the Parousia and the Epiphany, must be error, not Truth—mud splashes, not lightning flashes. They are even worse than symbolic muddy water; for in the latter Truth predominates above error, while in his new views error greatly predominates over Truth. Hence he offers symbolic mud with which he splashes the transparently clear and heart-satisfying Truth.
He speaks very much of lightning flashes coming from the temple—his teachings as alleged enlightenments from the Lord. The Bible nowhere says that lightning flashes come out of the temple. Such a figure would be untrue to the basis of the figure; for lightning comes out of the sky, not out of a building. Nor does the Bible ever use symbolic lightning as that which gives light to the Church. Lightning flashes are spoken of as coming from God's throne and attributes—heavenly things—(Rev. 4: 5; Ezek. 1: 13, 14), but never from the temple; and their mission is in the Bible given as bringing to light matters of the symbolic heavens and earth—false religions and society (Ps. 77: 18; 99: 4)— and never matters of the
true Church. The following are all the Scriptures that use the word lightning symbolically or typically, and they are in harmony with our assertions on their source and mission, and in no case refer to J.F.R.'s views of their source and mission: Ex. 19: 16; 20: 18; 2 Sam. 22: 15; Job 28: 26; 37: 3; 38: 25, 35; Ps. 18: 14; 77: 18; 97: 4; 135: 7; 144: 6; Jer. 10: 13; 51: 16; Ezek. 1: 13, 14; Zech. 9: 14; Rev. 4: 5; 8: 5;11: 19; 16: 18. The only other occurrences of this word are Dan. 10: 6; Nah. 2: 4; Matt. 24: 27; 28: 3; Luke 10: 18; 17: 24, where it is doubtless literal. We ask our readers to look up these passages and in them they will find a complete absence of the thought that lightning flashes come out of the true Church and enlighten it. Literal lightning in a house would set it on fire and blind and kill its occupants. Folly is thus implied in the thought under review. Hence J.F.R.'s alleged lightning flashes are nothing more or less than plainly discerned mud splashes.
Another of his errors is the thought that our Lord in His Second Advent did not come back to earth, but remains in heaven. According to him the Second Advent is no advent, but a work, which our Lord allegedly does while remaining where He ascended 40 days after His resurrection. With our Pastor we admit that He could do His Second Advent work without leaving heaven; but with him we also hold that this is not the way that the Scriptures say He would do it. The contrast of His going away and coming again, of John 14: 2, 3, proves His Second Advent to be a real and personal one. His coming again in like manner as He went away proves the same thought (Acts 1: 11). Our meeting Him in the air proves His personal return to the earth in His Second Advent (1 Thes. 4: 17). His being kept in heaven until the times of restitution of all things implies His leaving heaven for earth at that time (Acts 3: 19-21). The parable of the nobleman, by its
contrasting his going to a far country to receive a kingdom and his returning thereafter, demonstrates that our Lord's return is as personal and real as His leaving the earth for heaven. His descending from heaven (1 Thes. 4: 16) proves the same thing. And the saints looking for Him to come from heaven for their deliverance implies His personal return (Phil. 3: 20, 21). The clear-cut contrasts of these seven passages, to which others might be added, plainly prove our Pastor to be right in teaching a personal and real return of our Lord in His Second Advent; and the folly of the "new" view is thereby manifested, as well as by its giving nominal-church men a club with which to strike hard blows at his error, as being the alleged teaching of Bro. Russell. No number of passages that speak of the Father's coming, cited by J.F.R. to prove his point, can rule out these clear contrasts, inasmuch as such passages use the word coming, not in its regular sense, but in the sense of proceeding to do the thing at hand, which is not, as proved by the above contrasts, the sense of the word coming connected with Christ's Second Advent.
Again, he offers folly on Satan's alleged organization and on all who vote as supporting it. In question meetings, in answer to pertinent questions, and in our Sept., 1928, Herald, we advised the brethren to vote in the 1928 campaign; and we ourself for the first time in 26 years voted, because the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat was through Mr. Smith's candidacy seeking to increase its revolutionism, and we considered it proper to resist this revolutionism, which antitypical Aaron's present work requires him to do. Again, we felt reasonably sure that if Mr. Smith would be elected the hierarchy would still more effectively curtail our public ministry, against which contingency we surely should use a pertinent human right—the ballot—after the example of St. Paul, who, when
Festus to please the Jews made a proposal that would have resulted in St. Paul's death and thus in the stopping of his ministry, made use of one of his earthly rights—his Roman citizenship—in an appeal to Caesar, to prevent the suppression of his ministry (Acts 25: 9-12), as on other occasions he also made use of his rights of Roman citizenship to prevent injury to his further ministering to the Lord's cause (Acts 16: 22, 35-39; 22: 24-29).
We do not advocate a regular use of the ballot by the brethren; but that election involved such questions for us in our public ministry as justified us in using our earthly right to vote, to prevent by lawful means the effort to estop us in our public ministry, as the hierarchy would do, had they elected "their man." The last service for the brethren conducted by our Pastor that we were privileged to attend was a question meeting Sunday morning at the Dallas Convention, Oct. 22, 1916. In that question meeting he was asked whether the brethren should ever take part in elections. He answered after the following import: The privilege of citizenship and of the ballot is one of our human privileges which, like all our other earthly privileges, we at consecration laid on the altar. Hence we should use it or leave it unused in harmony with the Lord's will, as the interests of His cause or duty require. If ever the interests of God's cause or a consecrated person's duty to his family or to others call upon him to exercise his earthly privilege of voting, he should vote, otherwise he should refrain from voting. It is a matter for each one to decide for himself before the Lord. That a consecrated Christian could properly use his citizenship rights to protect his stewardship in the Lord's service, the case of St. Paul using his to prevent damage to his ministry from the Philippian magistrates, Lysias and Festus, proves. So far our summary of our Pastor's answer to the above question. We know of cases
where he advised consecrated parents in the interests of their children to vote in school elections, and post office clerks to vote when the retention of their positions, needed for the support of their families, required it. In advising the brethren to vote in the 1928 election, we followed our Pastor's thought, as to the circumstances of that election in their relation to our work toward the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat.
J.F.R., in an article in the April, 1929, Tower, "tactfully" disapproving our thought, sought to show that all voting in civil elections is wrong, because it allegedly implies supporting Satan's organization. If his view of the kingdoms of this world as to Satan's organization were correct, the Lord would not have charged the entire Church throughout its earthly career to pray for the civil rulers, obey, honor and support them, pay taxes to support the governments, and otherwise seek their prosperity. Nor would He have declared that all governments were His arrangement for their subjects and that the civil rulers were His servants in secular matters. Nor would Paul have appealed for protection to them (Rom. 13: 1-6; Acts 25: 1012; 1 Pet. 2: 13-15). The facts that Satan has succeeded by usurpation and deception in misusing the kingdoms of this world for his ends, and that these frequently do wrong, do not negate the fact that God is the Maker of the present symbolic world with its symbolic heavens and earth (Heb. 1: 10-12). Therefore, to call them in J.F.R.'s sense a part of Satan's organization is blasphemy. While calling them kingdoms of this world, the Bible neither teaches nor implies his sense of Satan's organization. Such a view of them is a perversion of facts and a too extreme emphasis on the facts that they as kingdoms of this world, God's order for the second dispensation, frequently do wrong: and that Satan is (by usurpation and deception without their realizing it) limitedly the god, ruler, of this world or order of affairs.
Extreme emphasis always leads to error, as the case under consideration shows. J.F.R.'s pertinent hypocrisy is manifest when we remember that every time he goes to Europe he by oath claims to be a citizen of the U. S., swears allegiance to the U. S. and swears to support, to defend, to preserve, etc., the Constitution, a thing that he must do to get passports. If his view were correct, he is a sworn citizen and upholder of Satan's organization! The expression, Satan's organization, is an unbiblical one, and is used by him to teach an unscriptural thought, even as his contrasted thought that God has as His visible organization—the Society—is unbiblical and foolish.
He, likewise, has been teaching folly on Rev. 22: 17 (similar to that on Joel 2: 28, i.e., that the Spirit since Sept., 1922, has been poured out on all flesh!), namely, that now the Spirit and the Bride are saying, Come, etc. But this is contrary to the Bible: for (1) as long as the Church is in the flesh the Truth, as symbolic water or wine or eyesalve, is not free. It is true that money does not buy it; but, nevertheless, it must be bought, and the price that must now be paid for it is repentance, faith, consecration, hunger for righteousness, humility, meekness, honesty and holiness of heart and mind (Prov. 23: 23; Is. 55: 1-3; Ps. 25: 8, 9; Matt. 5: 6; Luke 8: 15; Rev. 3: 18). Hence now none get the Truth freely. Therefore Rev. 22: 17 cannot apply now. But in the Millennium none of these things, nor any other things will be the purchase price of the Truth. It will then be taken "freely"; for God is determined that all will then come to an exact knowledge of the Truth, regardless of their heart's condition or desires. (Is. 11: 9; 1 Tim. 2: 4; John 1: 9). Moreover, (2) the expression, "water of life," is used exclusively as a designation of the Millennial Truth (Rev. 7: 17; 21: 6; 22: 1; 22: 17). These are the only uses of that expression. The expression, "living waters," on the other hand, applies to Truth of
both the Gospel and Millennial Ages. [(1) Gospel Age: Cant. 4: 15; Jer. 2: 13; 17: 13; John 4: 10, 11; (2) Millennial Age: Zech. 14: 18.] Furthermore, (3) the word Bride favors the Millennial application of Rev. 22: 17; for a bride is a woman immediately before, during and for a while after her marriage. On her wedding day immediately before her marriage a woman may be called a bride; but normally this term is used of her during and for a short time after her marriage. The normal use of the word Bride is to be understood in Rev. 22: 17 and therefore it refers to the Millennium, as the connection also suggests.
In Rev. 18: 23 the word Bride is applied to the entire Church in the flesh and in the spirit in an activity begun Sept. 20, 1914. The following will clarify this so far as the Church in the flesh is concerned: Elijah's coming to Mt. Horeb at the end of the 40 days types the Church coming 40 years after 1874, i.e., in 1914, to the kingdom, in the sense that the last begettal then occurring, all the faithful under the call up to that time will obtain the kingdom, and therefore in God's sight (Rom. 4: 17) they are from then on as in the kingdom. At that time a joint work was begun by the Christ beyond and this side the vail, i.e., the World's High Priest beginning the work toward Azazel's Goat. In the pursuance of this work the entire High Priest has been making His voice heard in Babylon and among the Truth Levites. It is to this work and to this work exclusively that the expression, "the voice of the Bridegroom and of the Bride shall be heard no more at all in thee," applies. Please note in vs. 23 how this is the last thing of good that the Christ will do in Babylon. The same work as is represented under the World's High Priesthood figure with Azazel's Goat is referred to in the above-quoted words under the Bridegroom and Bride figure. But please note: this work belongs exclusively after the entire Christ is won, i.e., in the Epiphany, hence on the
Church's wedding day (Col. 3: 4; Rev. 19: 7, 8) AFTER THE ENTIRE CHURCH HAS BEEN WON, when, from God's standpoint, every part of the Church in the flesh is in the kingdom. This use is similar to God's viewing Aaron in beauty and glory at the time of consecration as typing how He looks upon the faithful as a class at their consecration, i.e., as though they were in glory, in view of what they will become. J.F.R., believing that the Church is not yet completely won, is thereby estopped from applying this passage as having yet entered into fulfilment, as he is also by its setting above given estopped from using it as applying before 1914. Since this passage calls Christ and the Church, Bridegroom and Bride; after the work toward Azazel's Goat began in 1914, and therefore views them from God's standpoint as in part actually married and for the rest as good as married, it does not in any sense favor applying Rev. 22: 17 at any time before the Church is completely won; and the contents of Rev. 22: 17 prove that it refers to a time after the marriage is completed. It is folly to apply Rev. 22: 17 to a time when the Truth is bought.
So, too, has he been giving out "folly" on Rom. 13: 1-7, as describing the brethren's alleged duties toward, and subjection to the leaders in the Society, and (inferentially) to him as their chief. He follows the folly offered by the A. V. in its mistranslation of Heb. 13: 7, 17—"them which have the rule over you," and "obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves." He forgot that the A. V. translators were all Episcopalians, who tried to make the Bible favor clericalism and, hence, mistranslated for that purpose. The expression, "them that have the rule over you," should in both cases have been rendered, your leaders, as the margin shows. The word translated obey, should have been rendered, be persuadable, as it indicates teachableness. The words rendered, "submit yourselves," should have been rendered, be submissive, or
leadable, i.e., we are exhorted in Heb. 13: 17 to exercise the two parts of meekness, teachableness and leadableness, toward our leaders. But these parts of meekness, properly balanced by the duty of proving all things and adhering to that only which is proved by such testing to be good, and by the duty of not giving way by subjection for an hour to false teachers (1 Thes. 5: 21; Gal. 2: 4, 5), even if they should pose as "the channel," are as far from counseling the subjection of God's people to their leaders as the east is from the west. The folly of using Rom. 13: 1-7 as a proof that the Lord's people are to be obedient to the leaders in the Church or Great Company, is manifest when we consider that the passage so interpreted commands Nicolaitanism—clericalism—a thing that Jesus hates and commends His people for hating (Rev. 2: 6).
Moreover, the terms of Rom. 13: 1-7 clearly prove that earthly civil rulers are meant. Nowhere in the Bible does the term hoi archontes—the rulers—(v. 3) apply to officials unless they have at least some feature of a political office. Its use designates that peculiarity of their office; and never is that word Biblically used of the servants of the Church. The same remark applies to the word exousia in the sense of a ruler (vs. 1, 2, 3). Furthermore, the fact that the rulers here referred to execute wrath as vengeance (v. 4) proves that secular rulers are meant; for the Lord's people are forbidden to take vengeance as long as they are in the flesh (Rom. 12: 19-22). Their taking up taxes, tribute, custom, proves them to be civil rulers (vs. 6, 7). Thus the terms of Rom. 13: 1-7 clearly refer to secular rulers, and are opposed to the condition, duties and powers of servants of the Church. It does not surprise us at all that one who for his usurpation, lording it over God's heritage and all around dictatorialness has been widely and properly criticized by the brethren, should seek to twist God's Word into a sanction of his un-servant-like attitude and practice;
but such twists serve all the more to convince sober minded brethren of his true character as the little pope of little Babylon. His false teaching on Rom. 13: 1-7, ascribing to himself and fellow clericalists such authority over the Lord's flock as that passage ascribes to rulers over their subjects, is the parallel of the great pope in great Babylon in ascribing to himself supreme authority and to his hierarchy a subordinate authority with the requirement of obedience to him and them as a consequence. More and more the parallel between the great pope and the little pope is fulfilling.
In the Jan. 1, 1930, Tower he writes some more folly: denying that Bro. Russell was that Servant of Luke 12: 4244 and Matt. 24: 45-47, and claiming that the servant there treated of is the same as the one of Is. 42—the Christ, Head and Body. This view is evidently false because "that Servant" functions only after our Lord's return (Luke 12: 43; Matt. 24: 46), while the servant of Is. 42, being identical with the servant of Is. 49, as can be seen from a comparison of Is. 42: 6, 7 and 49: 8, 9, refers to the Christ as functioning throughout the Gospel (2 Cor. 6: 1, 2) and Millennial Ages. Moreover, that Servant, the man and maid servants and the household of Luke 12: 42-44 and Matt. 24: 45-47 constitute only the feet members of the servant of Is. 42. This, then, proves that the that Servant of these passages is only an individual member of the feet of the servant of Is. 42; because he is distinguished from the men and maid servants and the household and is put over them. Hence the claims of the Jan. 1, 1930 Tower on this head, are proved to be false and foolish—exactly what we should expect of a "foolish shepherd." He even dares to charge those who hold Bro. Russell for that Servant as exalting man instead of God, thus seeking to belittle him!
He claims that the prisoners of Is. 42: 7; 49: 9; 61: 1 and Ps. 79: 11 are the Great Company. This we deny in each case, agreeing with our Pastor that the