Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
appeals are made that make fear of, and opposition to Satan one of the chief motives of the Christian. As a matter of fact, our trust in God is to be so great that we are not to fear Satan at all, though we are to be on our guard against him. Moreover, opposition to Satan can never be more than a negative side of the Christian life, while constructive work in the study, spread and practice of the Word and the faithful endurance of the incidental experiences belong to the positive and overshadowing side of the Christian life. Moreover, in these articles there is expressed a blatant dogmatism that should put the careful Christian on his guard against their writer. Unproven, foolish and false assertions are time and time again pounded in dogmatically by such terms as: "it follows conclusively," "beyond a peradventure," "beyond contradiction," "beyond the shadow of a doubt," "without the fear of successful contradiction," "unquestionably," etc., etc., etc. As our Pastor said, let us beware of those who try with such dogmatism to pound in their theories. A humble servant of God never would so do; for such are the earmarks of popes—great and little—and heady, arrogant, power-grasping and puffed-up, dogmatists.
The last Tower reviewed before them was that of March 15, 1930. The very next issue of the Tower came out with the denial that God has a plan. Thus J.F.R. would cast out of court Vol. I. While he concedes that God has a purpose, he avers that to say that He has a plan would imply imperfection in God and would consequently be blasphemy, the reason for which he alleges is that imperfect men make plans. If they are good ones, they are expressions of man's vestiges of perfection; hence good plans would not imply imperfection in a perfect being. He says that God just wills a thing without planning about it; and it comes to pass. In reply we say that both the Bible and facts prove that God has made a plan and is working
it out. No sophistries on a purpose as opposed to a plan can stand in the presence of the proof. His sophistry on this matter becomes apparent when we remember that while some purposes are without a plan, others are planned. A plan is an arrangement of various co-operating and interrelated features whereby some object is worked out. If a purpose is such an arrangement it is a plan. If not, it is not a plan. God's purpose with creation is to glorify Himself by bringing into existence a perfect animate and inanimate creation, the former on various planes of being and developed through various more or less interdependent processes. Thus God's purpose of bringing such beings into perfect existence worked itself out along the lines of an intricate interlocking and interdependent arrangement, or plan. Not only so, but it did so in constant use of definite periods and precise years, often days, for the accomplishment of its various features, and a precise period of years for the accomplishment of the whole. These facts prove that God's purpose was a plan and they prove the futility of J.F.R.'s claim that a purpose and a plan are mutually contradictory and exclusive.
Having just proven by the facts of the case that God has a plan, we now will prove it from Bible passages. In Rom. 8: 28 the word purpose evidently means plan; for in this and in the following verses the steps of the plan's development as respects the Church are set forth in reverse chronological order—deliverance, sanctification, justification, instruction. See also 1 Cor. 1: 30. That the word purpose in Rom. 9: 11 involves the idea of plan is evident from its reference to election as a feature of it. In Eph. 1: 4 God's predestinating a class before the foundation of the world proves a plan in which predestination of classes prevails. V. 5 proves this thought further by showing that the predestination was to sonship in Christ. That this was done according to the good pleasure of His will, as v. 6 shows, so
as to reflect credit upon Him, further proves a reasoned-out plan made many thousands of years before these predestinated ones came into existence. The fact that it is called in v. 9 the revealed mystery, the secret, of His will, purposed in Christ, further proves it a part of a plan. And the fact that the chosen ones were predestinated according to the purpose of God, who works out all things [of that purpose] according to the counsel [plan] of His will, proves that God's purpose is a plan and that He, therefore, has a plan. So completely equivalent in meaning to the word plan is the word purpose in Eph. 3: 11 that the Diaglott renders it by the word plan; and the fact that its various features must run through a number of agesthe plan of the Ages—each one accomplishing a different feature of God's purpose, demonstrates that the word purpose here means plan. The additional fact that it expresses the manifold wisdom, reasoned Truth, of God proves that it is a plan. His having prearranged this purpose proves it to be a plan. Furthermore, 2 Tim. 1: 9 proves that this purpose was prearranged before ages-lasting times began, which also proves it to be a plan, as well as a purpose.
That God's disposition is one that plans is apparent from the terms of the anointing in Is. 11: 2, e.g., "counsel." God's eternal plan is expressly referred to in Ps. 33: 11 and Is. 46: 10, 11. Other passages prove under the word counsel that God has a plan. We submit a few of these: Speaking of the Great Company the Lord says in Ps. 107: 11: "They contemned the counsel of the Most High." Jesus as Ransomer is set forth as the center of God's plan, and that as a matter of foreknowledge, in Acts 2: 23: "Who was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." With this agrees Acts 4: 28: "To do whatever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done." When St. Paul said that he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God he referred to his
explaining every general feature of God's plan (Acts 20: 27). The immutability of that plan is set forth in Heb. 6: 17. Accordingly, both facts and the Bible teach that God plans matters and has a plan. Hence that is error and blasphemy that denies that it is in harmony with His perfection for Him to make plans. Hence the drunken folly in right-eye darkening just considered.
Another form of drunken folly in right-eye darkening is found in Z '30, 102, pars. 21-25, where J.F.R. denies that Ps. 8: 4-6 applies to Adam, and to the race in Adam. He denies that all things were subject to Adam, despite God's statement in Gen. 1: 26, 28 to the contrary, and that he was crowned with glory and honor, though with one hand he restrictively offers such a thought, but withdraws it with the other. He applies the passage exclusively to our Lord in His glorified condition. But the Apostle Paul in Heb. 2: 6-8 does apply that passage to Adam, and the race in him. At the time that St. Paul quoted these words Jesus was crowned with the kind of glory and honor that J.F.R. says the Bible ascribes to Christ in His exaltation; for such had been His ever since His resurrection and more particularly since His ascension (Matt. 28: 18; Rom. 14: 9; Phil. 2: 911). But the last part of Heb. 2: 8 says that the one of whom it treats was not at that time over all things, though vs. 6-8 show that he had been over all things, i.e., on earth. Furthermore, that kind of a glory and honor that J.F.R. denies to Adam v. 9 says Christ had while "a little lower than angels" in order to die as man's ransom. Hence it was the glory and honor of perfect humanity—the image (glory) and likeness (rulership, i.e., honor) of God in the human Jesus and in the unfallen Adam. The ransom argument in v. 9 proves unfallen Adam, and the race in him to be meant in vs. 6-8. The connection between vs. 6-8 and v. 9 also proves this thought. That the expression, "son of man" (which he insists proves Jesus to be
meant in Ps. 8: 4-6), in addition to being a title of Jesus (usually occurring in the Greek as the son of the man) is also in the Bible applied to others, and when so used means man generally or also a human being, is evident from Num. 23: 19; Job 25: 6; Ps. 144: 3, 4; 146: 3; Is. 51: 12; Jer. 49: 18, 33; 51: 43; Dan. 8: 17. Perhaps a hundred times is this expression addressed to Ezekiel, who was neither our Lord nor a type of our Lord. Neither was Daniel (8: 17) either of such. Hence the thought under review is drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In Z '30, 134, par. 22, another illustration of the same quality is found: for he there says that the Amalekites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were not sentenced to death, and disconnects their punishments in every sense from such a sentence. That they were under sentence to death through Adam is directly taught in Rom. 5: 12, 16-19; Eph. 2: 3 and indirectly taught in Rom. 5: 13-15; 1 Cor. 15: 21, 22. It is true that special sins brought an accelerated and emphatic death upon them; but even if they had not been guilty of such special sins, they all as individuals would shortly afterwards have died as a result of inheriting the death sentence from Adam. The drunken folly in right-eye darkening just pointed out is in violent contradiction of two of the seven main features of God's plan: man's fall and sentence in Adam and the Ransom.
In Z '30, 147-153, is an article that denies that the permission of evil is educational or beneficial for either the world or the Church. In this article he is attacking the Scriptural doctrine as to why God has permitted evil for the world and the Church. With the sophistry of the proverbial lawyer misrepresenting matters to a jury, he misrepresents the Biblical view of when the experience with evil works good for the world and then proceeds to refute this misrepresentation,
i.e., he sets up a man of straw and then kicks it over. He puts it like this: Evil has never done the world any good; for the world in spite of its sufferings is going on from bad to worse and is now worse than it ever was. We agree that evil men wax worse and worse. But our Pastor in giving the Bible teaching on the educational effect of evil on mankind never said that the effect is experienced while the race is undergoing the experience with evil, but that this effect will be produced during the experience with righteousness, when the race after the experience with evil is over will amid the blessedness of the experience with righteousness, by the contrasted comparison between the two experiences, learn to hate and avoid sin and to love and practice righteousness.
All students of the chapter on the Permission of Evil in Vol. I know that this was our Pastor's thought. And this thought he illustrated by the proverb, "The burnt child dreads the fire." It is during the healing process, after a number of burnings are over, that the child learns to dread the fire, as he considers the pains and injuries that were caused by it. So, too, this is the way the Bible sets forth the subject, as shown above, among other things, by our comments on Ps. 90: 11-17, as the clearest Scripture that teaches our Pastor's thought given above as to why God permits evil for the world. We refer our readers to that discussion, and more especially to the Studies, Vol. I, Chapter 7, where the thought is given and proven as above set forth. But he makes matters worse by denying that the permission of evil has done the Church any good. On this point every faithful child of God will from his own experience contradict him; for he has had experiences with troubles and sufferings from which through a faithful use of the Spirit and Word of God he has been enabled to put aside faults and develop good traits.
The Bible emphatically teaches this thought. Jesus,
the sinless One, was by suffering perfected in obedience (Heb. 5: 8, 9), in mercy and faithfulness (Heb. 2: 17, 18) and in every other point of character (Heb. 2: 10). The Bible expressly says that tribulation works (develops in the saints) patience, the final overcoming quality (Rom. 5: 3). Referring more especially to the afflictions of the saints, though other experiences are also included, St. Paul says that all things work together for good to those that love God, which good he particularizes as Christ-likeness (Rom. 8: 28, 29), at which J.F.R. repeatedly casts slurs in some of the articles that will be reviewed in this chapter. St. Paul expressly says that by the perishing of our outward man through afflictions the inner man is renewed daily, and that these afflictions work out a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory [crystallized character] while we look at things spiritual (2 Cor. 4: 16-18). In a wonderful discussion of the disciplines that God gives His new-creaturely sons, St. Paul shows that they enable us to develop holiness and the fruit of righteousness and help to correct faults (Heb. 12: 10-13). St. James tells us that our trials of faith, including, among other things, afflictions, sufferings, troubles, work such a patience as will effect our perfection of character (Jas. 1: 2-4). St. Peter tells us that these fiery trials, like the goldsmith's fire, which burns the dross out of the ore, refine our character into the glory of the Divine image, as they also result in praise given to God and the honor of rulership coming to us (1 Pet. 1: 7). He also says that afflictions for Christ make the Spirit of glory [the Divine image] and of God abound in us (1 Pet. 4: 14). That afflictions lead the consecrated to reformation, and are therefore sent by God in His faithfulness to them, is also taught in Ps. 119: 67, 71, 75; Is. 26: 16; Rev. 3: 17. The examples of Jacob, Joseph, his ten brothers, Job, David, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Peter, etc., etc., prove their cleansing and upbuilding effect on the
righteous. The history of Manasseh and the story of the prodigal son are illustrations of how in this life some of God's wayward people are by affliction helped to reformation. No amount of drunken and right-eye darkened folly can sophistrize out of these passages and facts the thought of the beneficial ministry of affliction to saints and reformable backsliders. These Scriptures on the design of the experience with evil for the world and the Church prove this, another teaching of J.F.R., to be drunken folly of right-eye darkening.
Another piece of drunken folly in right-eye darkening is found in Z '30, 163, par. 7 to 165, par. 21. Here he sets forth the thought that the angels were not the symbolic stars—teachers—in the dispensation before the flood; but were such during the Jewish Age. We will first show the sophistry of his argument on this point, then will refute his position. The sophistry is this: he confounds the ministries of the angels, who transmitted revelations of God's plan, with interpretative teachings on that plan. It is one thing to minister an original Divinely-inspired revelation of one or more features of God's plan. It is entirely a different thing as the symbolic heavens to interpret, or affect to interpret to the people of a symbolic earth various features of that plan. The passages that he quotes on the activities of the angels during the Jewish Age in being messengers from God with respect to Truth matters refer only to their ministering Divinely-inspired revelations as parts of God's plan and embodied as such in the Bible. They do not refer to their interpreting as symbolic stars those revelations to the people in the symbolic earth; for not understanding them as a rule (1 Pet. 1: 12), they could not interpret them. Apart from announcing the Ten Commandments to the whole people of Israel, such angelic ministries were limited to individuals like Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Manoah and his wife, Gideon, Joshua, David and the prophets, who,
then, as stars enlightened the people (Heb. 1: 1). These angels, apart from audibly speaking the Ten Commandments to all Israel, never taught God's people as a whole, which they would have done, had they been the symbolic heavens of the second earth during the Jewish Age. The teachers of Israel were the prophets, priests and Levites, as symbolic stars. This consideration refutes his claim as to the angels being the teachers of God's people during the Jewish Age.
Again, he teaches drunken folly of right-eye darkening when he by way of contrast says that for the Gospel Age the angels ceased ministering to the people as symbolic stars and others took their place as such stars. The New Testament proves that from 3 B.C. to about 100 A.D. angels were used in ministering parts of the New Testament revelation, as the experiences of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, of Mary, the mother of Jesus, of Joseph, Jesus' foster father, of the shepherds of Bethlehem, of Cornelius, of Peter, of Paul, etc., show. Rev. 1: 1 (see also Rev. 22: 8, 16) proves that all the visions of Revelation were by Jesus given to John through the inspired revelatory ministry of an angel, whom the literal John twice attempted to worship and was by him rebuked for it (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9). We know that an angel ministered St. Peter's vision in Acts 10 and St. Paul's visions mentioned in 2 Cor. 12, because Jesus from His ascension on to 1874 remained in heaven (Acts 3: 21) and used angels as agents to represent Him (Rev. 1: 1). For this reason, while the Spirit enabled the Apostles to see into the new Divine revelations communicated to them after Pentecost, the communication of them to their minds was usually by the ministry of angels, just as in the case of the prophets, who not having the Spirit of begettal, as the Apostles had, could not understand them (1 Pet. 1: 10-12), as could the Apostles. Without angelic ministrations the Spirit enabled the Apostles to understand the
Old Testament revelations as due. Thus the ministry of angels, so far as ministering knowledge instructionally is concerned, was identical in both Ages. They did it, except in the one case mentioned (giving the Ten Commandments), only to the human agents who were to transmit it to the people, but apart from that one case they did not do it to the people directly. Not only so, but the same thing was done in a revelatory way in the Patriarchal Age, as appears from the case of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph (Acts 7: 2; Gen. 12: 1; 17: 1; 18; 19; 28: 12-22; compare with 48: 4, 15, 16; 32: 24-30). Hence the ministry of angels throughout the second dispensation until 100 A.D., so far as the Word is concerned, was not that of interpretative teachers of it—symbolic stars—but was that of agents ministering it inspirationally as a revelation to a few individuals, who in turn became the symbolic stars of it to the people. And this they were throughout the time that the revelation was given by Divine inspiration, i.e., with the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets and the writers of the New Testament. Apart from this they did no teaching, e.g., the angel told Cornelius where he could get an expounder of the Word, but did not venture to teach it to him (Acts 11: 13, 14).
Briefly we will now refute J.F.R.'s denial that the angels were the first symbolic heavens and had charge of the world before the flood. That angels have been the symbolic heavens—symbolic stars that enlightened the symbolic earth—in some dispensation is evident from the fact that they are Biblically called stars (Job 38: 7, Is. 14: 13). Above we proved that they have not been the teachers of the people—the stars—of the second symbolic earth. Heb. 2: 5 ("Unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come") proves that they will not be the heavens of the third dispensation, which will be the Christ (Dan. 12: 3; Mal. 4: 2; Matt. 13: 43; Rev. 21: 1). Hence, having been symbolic stars, the angels must have been the
stars of the first symbolic heaven, that before the flood (Gen. 6: 2-4). While on this point we desire to say that the reason is false that J.F.R. has given for limiting the morning stars of Job 38: 7 to the Logos and Lucifer, i.e., that these two only are meant, and not, as the parallelism shows, all angels are meant. He alleges that there are only two stars that can be morning stars. That this is untrue is apparent from the fact that this year  there have been or will be five different morning stars: "Mercury, January 21-26 and September 22-28; Venus until September 8; Mars until May 27; Jupiter until November 15; Saturn, January 5 to April 13." Hence our discussion on the angels exposes some more drunken folly of right-eye darkening in J.F.R.
The next item of drunken folly in right-eye darkening he sets forth in Z '30, 179-184, which teaches that the Little Flock in glory are not the angels who come with Christ in His Second Advent, according to Matt. 25: 31, but that these angels are the spirit-servant angels, and that, furthermore, such angels, and not the saints in the flesh, are the reapers of Matt. 13: 39 and Matt. 24: 31, and that their reaping consists of gathering the saints into the temple since 1919 and driving the unsaintly out of the temple. In refutation of his view of the angels of Matt. 25: 31, we would reply: (1) the phase of our Lord's Second Advent referred to in this passage is that which comes after the Time of Trouble; for it is only then that He comes and sits on His Mediatorial throne and gathers all nations before Him for restitutional opportunities. (2) Only at that time does He come in His glory, which includes, from the standpoint of the priestly figure, the garments of glory and beauty. These are not put on until after the entire Christ is beyond the vail and the Great Company has left this earth; for these garments are donned only after the blood of the antitypical Goat is applied, since the Christ does not get the prerogatives and
powers typed by these garments until after the purchase of the world, when God gives the Christ class the powers of blessing the world typed by those garments. (3) Not those spirit servants of God who are, among others, called angels as distinct from God's spirit sons—saints—are to be with Christ at the phase of the coming set forth in Matt. 25: 31 ("all His holy angels with Him"), i.e., associates, joint-heirs, partners, but God's spirit sons are to be such (Rom. 8: 17; 2 Tim. 2: 10-12). (4) Long before that phase of Christ's coming referred to in Matt. 25: 31 all the saints will (and that before the Epiphany's end) be with Him in glory (Col. 3: 4), though His glory will not be received until some time after the last one of these will be joined to Him. (5) Such a coming must be long after Christ came to His temple (Mal. 3: 1-3), because Mal. 3: 1-3 implies subsequent events that precede the coming of Matt. 25: 31. (6) At such a coming there could be no use of the servant angels, since the kingdom work will then be on, in which the spirit servants, so far as we know, have no part. (7) Hence the angels of Matt. 25: 31 cannot be the servant angels; but must be the son angels, the glorified saints. Hence the drunken folly of J.F.R.'s right-eye darkening on Matt. 25: 31 is manifest.
To his claims on the servant angels' gathering the saints into the temple as the harvest work, we make the following replies: (1) The saints as such, being God's temple from the beginning of the Age, could not since 1919 as such be gathered into it as parts of it. (2) Being parts of the World's High Priest from the outstart of their sainthood, they at once entered, and throughout the Age under their Head have ministered in the temple (Rev. 8: 4). (3) They could not have been gathered into it by the reaping process, seeing that before the reaping they were already parts of the temple and of the World's High Priest and thus were already in the temple. (4) The gathering into the
temple has been by consecration and Spirit-begetting, which is not in any sense ministered by the servant angels, but by human servants of the Truth through the Word of God (Acts 11: 13, 14; 1 Cor. 4: 15; Philemon 10; Jas. 1: 18). (5) Not only does no Scripture state that spirit-servant angels led by the Word any one into consecration and Spirit-begettal—the only way of getting into the temple; but the Bible shows this is done by human agents (Acts 11: 13-15); nor does any Scripture teach that they ever have brought or will bring anyone into the temple, either as a part of it or as a part of the World's High Priest. (6) Throughout the entire sacrificing time only the Christ is in the temple-tabernacle (Lev. 16: 17; Rev. 15: 8); in the Greek it reads, no one, not, no man. (7) Since the means of gathering God's people is the Truth, which was the means whereby Jesus, the Apostles, etc., gathered the Jewish Harvest, and which is the great sound (Ps. 89: 15; 150: 3) of the trumpet (Matt. 24: 31; 1 Cor. 15: 52; 1 Thes. 4: 16) whereby the elect were gathered out of the nominal church (Matt 24: 31), the sickle (Rev. 14: 14), must be the Truth (Acts 11: 14), which not the spirit-servant angels, but the brethren wield, who, therefore, under Christ, the Chief Reaper, are the reapers, i.e., the angels of Matt. 13: 39, 41; 24: 31, as fulfilled facts abundantly prove. (8) The only ministry that the Bible asserts of the spirit-servant angels as respects the Church, apart from having acted as means of revelation to certain individuals, is a providential one, not one by means of proclaiming the Word (Matt. 18: 10; 28: 2; Acts 12: 7; Heb. 1: 14; Acts 11: 13-15). (9) In Ps. 90: 11, 12, both kinds of angels are meant: the spirit angels help the Faithful by providential services, lest coming into denying the ransom and the Church's share in the sin-offering the feet members dash against the Rock, stumble over the Christ in these two ways; while the human angels—
messengers of the Truth—do this through ministering the Word to the Faithful. (10) If it is true that the spirit angels gathered the Church since 1919 into the temple, why is there no Scripture that contains that thought? We repeat it: J.F.R. has never quoted a passage nor a combination of passages that connects Christ's coming to the temple with 1918, let alone a passage or a combination of passages that prove that spirit angels gather those who have already been saints into the temple as the harvest work, much less from 1919 onward. Therefore his thoughts on these heads are gratuitous assumptions, eisegesis, contrary to Scriptures and fulfilled facts, and thus are proven to be more drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In Z '30, 195-201 is an article that explains the fruits of the kingdom to be the kingdom message and denies it to be the fruit of the Spirit. Matt. 21: 43 is used as the text allegedly teaching this drunken folly of right-eye darkening. We note that the remark in this text is made by Jesus with reference to the Jewish clergy, who throughout the Jewish Age were required by God through His servants to yield Him fruit, and were blamed for not rendering it even from the days of the prophets to those of Jesus. Against J.F.R.'s folly on this subject we present a number of thoughts: (1) The fruit that God sought from the vineyard keepers during their entire period of tenure, the Jewish Age, could not have been the kingdom message, because such a message did not begin to be due to be given until the days of Jesus (Luke 16: 16; Heb. 2: 3, 4). (2) Such a fruit did not grow on the vines put in their charge by God; for the kingdom message is not a human but a Divine product; hence it could not have been by God required of them. (3) Such fruit could not grow on the fleshly Israelites, the figurative vines; hence God would not have required them to bear it, nor would He have required it as a product of them from the vineyard keepers. (4) If the
kingdom message could be called a fruit, then since God produced it out of His own heart and mind, He must therefore have been the figurative vine that bore it as fruit; hence He would not have required it as the growth of the Israelitish vineyard and at the hands of the vineyard keepers, knowing they bore it not. (5) The effort to evade this conclusion by saying that there is a difference between producing and bearing fruit is arrant nonsense, because these words, so far as a vine's activity in fruit development is concerned mean one and the same thing. (6) The distinction between the work of the vine, which under favorable care and climatic conditions produces fruit out of itself, and the work that the husbandman does on the vine to stimulate the vine's productiveness, overthrows his confusion on God's producing the alleged fruit of the kingdom and our (the branches) bearing (which he uses in the sense of carrying) this alleged fruit, i.e., carrying the message to others; and it reveals how utterly at sea he is in attempting an explanation of the figure of the vine's branches bearing grapes as illustrative of people carrying another's product—the kingdom's message—to others; for there is no analogy between the illustration and the thing that he gives as the thing to be illustrated. (7) The fruit of the kingdom must be that which Christ and the Church, the Kingdom, produce out of themselves as new creatures, as their productiveness is stimulated by the work on them of God, the true Husbandman of the Vine of John 15: 1-8. In the picture the sap corresponds to the Word and Spirit, which cause the grapes of the graces to grow (Gal. 5: 22, 23). Hence the fruit of the Spirit is what is meant by the kingdom's fruit and the fruit of the Vine of John 15: 1-9, while the fruit of the vineyard of Matt. 21: 46 should have been the human graces with their products, good works in Israelites stimulated by the Jewish clergy. Such fruit of the Spirit
through its figurative grapes, graces, prompts authorized ones to bear the kingdom message to others.
Unmitigated folly is his teaching that the reapers could not be the faithful brethren, alleging as his reason that this would imply that the Church reaped itself! Of course the Church reaped itself in the sense that some of its members—those figured forth as reapers—reaped others of them—those figured forth by the wheat, as the facts of both Harvests prove ("I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labor," John 4: 35-38); just as the Church enlightens itself, i.e., the faithful brethren enlighten one another; just as it builds up itself in every good word and work, i.e., the faithful brethren by the Word help one another to grow in grace; and just as the Church comforts the Church in its fiery trials experienced amid its sacrificing as priests, i.e., the faithful brethren comfort one another in trials amid their priestly sacrifices.
In Z '30, 213, pars. 19-21 he says that we cannot glorify God by character development, i.e., by cultivating and exercising the graces. To clarify his thought he gives the illustration of a worldly man of noble character as unable to glorify God. What Truth person who understands the matter ever taught that such a person glorifies God? Having above proven that the fruit of the branches in Christ, the Vine, is the fruit of the Spirit, we quote in refutation of his thought Christ's words, "Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit" (John 15: 8). Peter glorified the Father by faithfulness, a grace, in the crucifixion death (John 21: 19). Unanimity among the brethren, a grace, glorifies God (Rom. 15: 5, 6). The brethren glorify God in their spirit— character (1 Cor. 6: 20). Gratitude, a grace, glorifies God (2 Cor. 9: 12, 13; Acts 4: 21; 11: 18; Gal. 1: 24). God's fulfilling His good pleasure in us—perfecting us in every good work (character development and service, Heb. 13: 21), glorifies Jesus (2 Thes. 1: 11, 12). We glorify God in
all seven things of the Christian life, hence in character development, which is one of these seven things (1 Pet. 4: 11, 14), just as sin dishonors God (Rom. 1: 21-31). Of course, service rendered out of a good Christian spirit (character), especially out of love (Col. 3: 14), glorifies God; for it is one of the seven forms of the Christian life, just as service offered in an unchristian spirit (character) dishonors God (1 Cor. 13: 3). The foregoing sufficiently refutes the pertinent drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In this connection we might well answer his slurs at character development, he sarcastically calling it "developing a sweet character" and slandering those who seek to develop character as claiming to be better than others and as doing it from selfish motives, i.e., the attainment of the kingdom, as found in an article in Z '31, 19-25. Bro. Russell and those among the Truth servants who, like him, properly interpreted the Bible on the development of the graces, character development, did not speak of it as "developing a sweet character," as J.F.R. scoffingly calls it a number of times. Perhaps by the word sweet he means amiable. If so, we would say: Amiability is an ingredient of a Christian character, and it is to be exercised, not always, but on all suitable occasions. Under ordinary circumstances and usually God's people are to be amiable, but in dealing with wicked and hypocritical misleaders of God's guileless children, like J.F.R., not amiability, but severity, similar to that which Jesus exercised in Matt. 23 toward the scribes and Pharisees, should mark their feeling, looks and words. We charge him, because of his disparaging and renouncing character development in Christ-likeness, with being largely responsible for the loose and wrong characteristics exercised quite generally by his partisan followers. The degradation of character that he has by his pertinent writings wrought in his partisans, resulting in widespread and numerous disgraceful and immoral
acts and scandals in Society circles, is to be laid in part at his door. Any man who writes against character development in Christ-likeness, as he has done, is a self-proven servant of Satan, whom, as such, God's true people should avoid (Rom. 16: 17; 2 Tim. 3: 6). Again, any one who disparages and slurs at the study of Tabernacle Shadows, as he has done in several of the articles under review, is a servant and representative of Satan among God's people. What he, therefore, says against character development and Tabernacle Shadows study is only some more drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In Z '30, 227-233; 243-249, he has written an article in which he renounces our Pastor's view of Nebuchadnezzar's dream-image (Dan. 2) and claims that the image represents Satan's organization, that the head of gold represents Satan as head of his organization and that the gold, silver and copper represent the three parts of Satan's invisible organization (supposedly shared in respectively by alleged three orders among the fallen angels) and that the iron legs represent the past great heathen world powers, while the mixture of clay and iron represents Christendom. Against this interpretation we offer the following: (1) It is self-contradictory; for he claims first that the golden head represents Satan in his unfallen and fallen condition, then later he says that the principalities (plural) are the head and are the chief class of Satan's subordinates. Here, then, is a contradiction. (2) Again, he uses Eph. 6: 12 (principalities, powers, world-rulers) as proof that there are three orders of fallen spirits, who respectively, as part of Satan's organization, are represented by the gold, silver and copper. But the passage refers to four classes, the fourth being "wicked spirits" (see margin), who evidently correspond to the "lordship" of Eph. 1: 21 (see Diaglott). The angels of Rom. 8: 38 are a fifth class among the fallen angels and Satan is a sixth (the number of evil and of
imperfection) order among the fallen angels; for he is a cherub (Ezek. 28: 14). Accordingly, there are not three, but six orders among the fallen angels, and this spoils his application conditioned upon there being only three such classes. (3) Even if we were to admit that there are only three classes in Eph. 6: 12, with Satan as the head of gold, there would be three classes for the silver and copper—a contradiction of the theory. (4) The Bible expressly defines the first as Babylon in the words of Daniel addressed to Nebuchadnezzar: "Thou art the head of gold"; for Babylon could be properly addressed in Nebuchadnezzar, because Nebuchadnezzar was Babylon in the sense that Louis XIV called himself France when he said, "I am the State," and in a sense somewhat like that of Bro. Russell's language as the controller of the Society, "I am the Society." (5) The parallel vision of the four beasts in Daniel, the fourth with ten horns, on the basis of fulfilled facts, proves that the metallic man of Dan. 2 contradicts the setting under review; for they are four kingdoms that come out of this earth (Dan. 7: 17). (6) In Dan. 8 God expressly names the second and third of these beasts, calling them, Medio-Persia and Greece, and speaks of the fourth connectedly with the third, because once it was a part of the third. Hence it was Rome. Unutterably futile is the subterfuge of the article under review, that Medio-Persia (v. 20) was not Cyrus' empire, but a part of Satan's invisible empire of fallen spirits, alleging that the earthly Medio-Persian empire could not be meant, because its king is spoken of as being strong enough to resist Gabriel 21 days (Dan. 10: 13). In reply, we point out the fact that the European kings resisted our present Lord in His verbal assaults on them for 40 years before the World War, and for years since they have been resisting His verbal assaults on them preparatory to Armageddon (Rev. 16: 14, 16). Certainly if weaker earthly kings could do that for many years to Christ,
the more powerful king of Persia could have resisted 21 days the less powerful Gabriel. (7) The claim that Nebuchadnezzar types Satan and Daniel the Societyites since 1919 in Dan. 2 is false, for the reason just given. The literal Daniel interpreted literally to a literal person the figurative dream, showing that the symbolic head represented the literal Nebuchadnezzar as the Babylonian Empire, because he was "the State." So is the rest of the interpretation of the symbols literal, even as the nature of a clear and proper interpretation of a symbolic thing should be and also will be literal. (8) The claim that Daniel's remark (Dan. 2: 28) on God's making known to the king "what shall be in the latter days" means that the whole dream applies to the extreme end of this Age, is too sweeping; for if but a part of the vision refers to things that belonged to the end of the Age, the language of v. 28 is perfectly applicable to such a thought. And since the parallel visions prove that only part of his vision applies to the end of the Age, his claim falls to the ground. (9) The expression, "after thee shall arise another kingdom" (v. 39), proves that at the time of Daniel's speaking, the other kingdom had not yet arisen, but was to arise in the future (shall), hence could not have been a part of Satan's invisible empire, which had long been in existence. Hence, too, the expression, "after thee," refers to time, and not, as the article claims, to rank. (10) The fact that the image was destroyed at once does not imply that all its parts were then to be universal world powers. All that was necessary to fulfill the symbols is that as kingdoms, regardless of the extent of their power, they would exist at the time of the stone's smiting. The parallel visions show that all would not continue to the end as universal powers, e.g., Persia (8: 7). In fact such a thing would involve a contradiction in terms—four universal empires existing at the same time! (11) Dan. 2: 38 does not,