Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
as the article under review claims, teach that Nebuchadnezzar was given rulership over all beasts and fowls, but over those of them that dwell among the children of men, domestic animals, and this certainly was true, since they were at his order. (12) The usual Bible symbolic meaning of gold, silver and copper cannot, as he claims, prevail in either interpretation; for neither Satan nor Babylon was Divine (gold); neither an alleged principality nor power part of Satan's invisible empire, nor the Persian empire, could be truth or faithfulness (silver), nor an alleged world rulership in darkness, nor Greece, could be justified (copper). The progressive degradation in the image's metals represent the progressive degradation in character in the successive world empires, a thing that the Bible teaches and the Pyramid symbolizes in its descending passage. (13) No responsible Truth teacher, much less our Pastor, would teach what the article insinuates, that "Rome was the first world power to employ the iron military rule that bruises the people of the earth," unless the word first were used to mean, not time, but degree. (14) Egypt and Assyria are not in the vision, because they never were the rulers of the whole Biblical world, and because during the time of the vision they were more or less subject successively to the four world powers. The above reasons sufficiently prove his pertinent drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In that same article he sets forth the thought that in Ezek. 1, by contrast, God gives a vision of His organization, the visible part of which he alleges the Society to be! We will say nothing more on this chapter than to state that it elaborates, by a number of details, some generalities of Rev. 4. But the interpretation that he offers is almost the limit of drunken folly in right-eye darkening. We also pass by without further comment his contemptuous patronizing of Bro. Russell as a good, but much mistaken
man, than to say that Bro. Russell was one of the wisest and best of saints. The drunken folly in right-eye darkening that holds that our Lord underwent two trials, the one from Jordan to Calvary, and the other from 1914 to 1918 in His supposed war in heaven with Satan requires no comment for its proof.
In Z '30, 259-264 is an article that reeks with "confusion worse confounded" on the Holy Spirit. He denies that the Holy Spirit is an influence, on the alleged ground that God exercises power, not influence (259, par. 2)! These two terms, as used of the Spirit, are synonyms. His definition of the Holy Spirit as being, "the power of God in operation to accomplish His will," is insufficient in several respects, as will appear from the facts that: (1) the Holy Spirit as power is God's power, regardless of whether it is quiescent or active, and (2) in addition the Holy Spirit is also God's disposition in Himself and in all of His free mortal agents who are in heart harmony with Him. Throughout the article under review he never once refers to this second sense of the word; he always in it uses it in a part of the first sense above set forth. And this fact is the clew to the gross darkness in that article. In par. 9 he makes the statement that it is not revealed, "in just what manner the comforter, helper, Holy Spirit or Spirit of the Truth operates." In the first place, in contradiction of him, the statement must be made that the Holy Spirit as power is not what Jesus means by the Comforter, Helper, Advocate (paracletos). The reason is very manifest: the Spirit as God's power had been operating on the Prophets and others in the Old Testament, and on the Apostles and the Seventy in the pre-anointing (Matt. 10: 1; Mark 6: 7; Luke 9: 1; 10: 1, 17-20) before Jesus promised the latter the Paraclete as a future gift (John 14: 16-18 [their receiving the Paraclete ended their orphanship, which
the article says was with the Church until 1918; for Jesus through the Paraclete came to the Apostles and the rest of the Church], 26; 15: 26; 16: 7). The Holy Spirit as Comforter, Helper or Advocate, means the new-creaturely capacities and disposition of God in us. It was this that Jesus promised in the passages just cited, as the new thing that He would send them—a thing which, apart from Himself, had never before been given to any of God's creatures, though some of them—the good angels—had His Spirit in the sense of His disposition; but in them it was minus the Spirit of begettal to the Divine nature, in which it then was in Jesus and in which He promised, as the Paraclete, it would be in the Church, beginning with the Apostles.
To say, therefore, that it is not revealed how the Paraclete operates, betrays gross ignorance on the Holy Spirit; for it operates as our new-creaturely mind enlighteningly and as our new-creaturely heart sympathetically in quickening, growth, strengthening, balancing and crystallizing in Christ-likeness, as well as cleansing from all filthiness of flesh and spirit. It does these things by a conscious application to itself of the pertinent parts of God's Word, by a following out of the leadings of its own previously-developed graces and by a sympathetic use of the co-operating providences of God. This is the Spirit of the Truth—the capacities that the Truth begets and the disposition that it develops unto completion in the Faithful, which, when completed, becomes their eternal character (Ps. 22: 26). Even the operation of the Spirit in the sense of power, as that acts on our new creatures, we understand; for it is the energy that God put in His Word that empowers our new-creaturely responsive minds to understand the deep things, and that empowers our new-creaturely responsive hearts to exercise themselves in every good word and work. Its method of operation on our new-creaturely
responsive minds and hearts is illustrated by the electric lamp. The wire corresponds to the Word, the electricity to the Spirit as power, the filament to our new-creaturely minds and hearts, the turning on of the button, or switch, to the will's responsiveness and the resultant light and warmth to enlightenment of the new creatures' minds and the ardor of their hearts in the graces. The same illustration also clarifies the begettal of the Spirit. For J.F.R. to say that it is not revealed how the Spirit as Comforter, Advocate, Helper, operates, is, therefore, another proof of his drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
The next point of drunken folly in right-eye darkening is his claim that Jesus' presence in His temple makes the intercession of the Spirit unnecessary, and makes an end of it. This confusion is due, in part, to his confounding the work of Jesus as our Advocate and the intercession of the Holy Spirit as our Paraclete. This folly will become manifest by several considerations: (1) It is not, as he claims, the Holy Spirit as God's power, but as the new-creaturely disposition, that intercedes for us (Rom. 8: 26, 27). (2) It intercedes, not by language, but by its graces, yearnings, sufferings and lacks. These appeal to the ever-watchful Father with mighty influence to give us what we need as new creatures, and He thus supplies it. These graces, yearnings, sufferings and needs, will be with us as long as we are in the flesh, and thus until death will intercede for us with the Father. Hence Jesus' coming into His temple, which He did in 1874, did not stop this intercession of the Spirit. (3) Jesus as our Advocate does a work as to our humanity and as to Divine justice, and that as our Justifier and as the Maintainer of our justification (1 John 2: 1, 2); but additionally He also does intercede for our new creatures, but does this in the High-Priestly, not in the Advocate office (Heb. 7: 25; 4: 14-16; 2: 17, 18). Hence Jesus' presence in the
temple could not put an end to the Spirit's intercession. These considerations prove J.F.R.'s pertinent teachings to be drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
Pars. 22, 23, 24 teach that the Holy Spirit since Jesus came to the temple is no more the Church's Helper, Advocate and Comforter. We have the following to say in reply: (1) If this were true, then the whole of the Church on earth since 1874 would go into the Second Death, because the Holy Spirit as Advocate, Helper, Comforter, is the new-creaturely disposition and the only way as long as we are in the flesh that it could cease to operate as Advocate, Helper, Comforter, is for it to die—which means that all new creatures on earth subsequent to 1874 would pass into the Second Death. But if the Spirit as Advocate, etc., were God's power, even then it would be a blunder to say that it was removed from the Church, because that would mean that the Church could not since 1874 be perfected; for without the Spirit in this sense, we could neither have it nor the Word as our Sanctifier; for these are among the main instruments of our new-creaturely development (John 17: 17; Rom. 15: 16; 1 Cor. 6: 11; 2 Cor. 1: 21, 22; Eph. 1: 13, 14; John 14: 16). Some of these passages show that the Spirit in both senses remains with us to the end.
Having already refuted his thought that the spirit-servant angels gather the Harvest and cast out reprobates, it follows that they cannot, as he claims, take the place and office of the Spirit as Advocate, Helper and Comforter in such work. The reason that they cannot minister with the Word to the saints sufficiently to supply their needs is that, as a lower order of beings than the Church as new creatures are now and will be, they cannot sufficiently develop them as new creatures, which they would have to do, if they took the work of the Spirit as theirs, as e.g., a dog could not sufficiently supply the needs of a human.
The proof previously given refutes the idea that they, and not the Holy Spirit, are the ones who make clear to the Church the message due since Christ came to the temple. Not one iota of proof has been given for such an unheard-of teaching. The statement in par. 28, that the Holy Spirit has not been the helper of all new creatures, but only of those who, according to its view, have been allegedly called by God out of the mass of new creatures to enter the high calling, is an error; for such an arrangement as he claims— calling some from among the new creatures to become of the high calling—a thought that we refuted above does not exist and he is in ignorance of what the Holy Spirit as Advocate, Helper and Comforter, is; for even the Great Company must have it as such or go into the Second Death. His view therein is, therefore, drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
But why does he so strenuously advocate such a monstrous, preposterous and transparent absurdity as the taking of the Holy Spirit away from the Church? Before answering this question, let us remark that he has merely asserted that the Holy Spirit has been removed from the Church, and has not offered one verse to prove that such an extraordinary, unheard of, unexpectable and deadly thing would ever be done by God or Christ. The reason is this: His new theory on the man of sin requires him to have something else than the Roman emperors' supremacy as civil and religious rulers to remove as the thing hindering the Antichrist from grasping for their supremacy. And this something else that he hit upon to remove out of the way as the hindering thing is the Holy Spirit!!!
We will now briefly set forth his new view of the man of sin and then by the help of the Holy Spirit, still our Helper, thanks be to God, thoroughly refute it. Our proving some Biblical thing to be disparaging of him usually results in his repudiating in self-defense
formerly-held pertinent truths, and in his inventing new views thereon as an evasion of our proofs. This has been his continued practice since 1918, as many facts prove. It will be recalled that in our last review of his drunken right-eye darkening folly we gave several proofs that he is the little pope in Little Babylon and the head of the little Antichrist is the Little Gospel Age. And he met this proof by his usual trick—by repudiation of the formerly held truth, that the papacy is the great Antichrist, and by the assertion of a new error, i.e., that Antichrist could not come before 1918 and that those who left the Society in 1917 and onward have become the Antichrist since 1919 and onward! Thus each sword-thrust into his right eye makes him all the blinder. This "new view" we will now proceed to refute.
(1) He misstates the matter when he says that certain ones in 1917 (those who faithfully resisted his lawlessness, unholy power-grasping and lording it over God's people) left the Society. They did not leave it. They were driven out of the Society by a series of unrighteous and oppressive acts, world-wide and dishonorable propaganda, mendacious and cruel accusations and persecuting and assassinating tactics, that were just like those by which the papacy drove the saints out of the Catholic Church. (2) The faithful among these have not fallen away from the Truth, while J.F.R. and his hierarchy have from 1917 onward fallen away from the Truth that they learned from Bro. Russell, and that they once believed and preached, just as the real great Antichrist fell away from the Truth that it had learned from the Apostles and had believed and preached. (3) Those who have since been driven out of the Society through the errors and wrongs practiced there and through their disfellowshipment by the Societyites, and who have since ridded themselves of the accumulated errors taught them there, and have come into the
Epiphany movement, hold again the Truth that they learned from Bro. Russell and therefore are not such as are fallen away from the Truth, any more than the saints who were driven out of the Catholic Church by the papacy because of their opposition to its errors and wrongs and were therefore excommunicated by the papacy and recovered the Truth as due, are to be counted among those who fell away from the Apostolic Truth. These considerations prove the Epiphany saints not to be of any of the little antichrists of the little Gospel Age, and of course not of the largest of these little antichrists. (4) The Epiphany movement has no organization, is connected with no organization and cooperates with no organization or other movement, therefore cannot be a part of any Antichrist, which, whether in Great or Little Babylon, in each of its forms must be an organization. These considerations prove that the Epiphany saints are in no sense a part of the man of sin, either in Great or Little Babylon, but they do suggest that the faithful of the Epiphany by the persecuting acts of J.F.R. and his subordinate leaders are, on a small scale, having the same kind of experiences as the faithful saints on a large scale had at the hands of the papacy, which would suggest that there is now a Little Gospel Age, in which there is a little Catholic Church, the largest quarter of Little Babylon and controlled by the little papacy, the little man of sin, whose head is J.F.R., and whose spirit is one that persecutes saints. These considerations also clearly indicate what is the little man of sin. (5) Against the view that the man of sin, described in 2 Thes. 2: 1-8, did not begin to develop until 1917 to 1919, he set forth the thought that the Bible teaches that the man of sin, the great Antichrist, was in process of development in the days of St. Paul and St. John. The alleged fallers-away from the Truth since 1917 must, therefore, be nearly 1900
years old, if J.F.R.'s view were true! St. Paul in 2 Thes. 2: 7 says, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." As the expressions, "mystery of godliness" and "mystery of God" (1 Tim. 3: 16; Col. 1: 26, 27; Rev. 10: 7), mean primarily Jesus, the Head, and secondly, the Church, His Body; so, as the counterfeit of this Head and Body as the mystery of godliness or of God (anti-Christ = counterfeit Christ), there was in St. Paul's day an embryo mystery of iniquity, a mystery of Satan, as yet without a developed head and body, but which when developed to the birth stage (Rev. 12: 4, 5) appeared as a head and body—the pope and his hierarchy. Hence this mystery of iniquity could not be those that were by Little Babylon's pope and hierarchy driven away from their brethren in the Society in 1917 and onward; for evidently these have not lived nearly 1900 years. Moreover, St. John assures us that Antichrist was present as a developing thing in his days (1 John 2: 18). "The Antichrist is coming" [Greek present tense; see Diaglott], i.e., Antichrist is on the way. Hence he existed in a developing manner in St. John's days. He further says (1 John 4: 3; Diaglott), "This is the [spirit, teaching, doctrine, as vs. 1-3 prove] of the Antichrist, which you heard that it is coming [present tense; is on the way] and now it is in the world already." Certainly, if the teaching of Antichrist was then in the world its teacher, Antichrist, must then have been in the world; for a teaching implies the existence of its teacher. 2 John 7 (Diaglott) proves the same thing: "For many deceivers [false teachers even of St. Paul's day, 'the mystery of iniquity doth already work,' and before] went forth into the world—those who do not confess that Jesus Christ did come in the flesh. This is the Deceiver and the Antichrist." Here St. John teaches that Antichrist existed in his days and also at an earlier time than when he wrote the above
words (in embryo, of course). These facts destroy the view here examined. (6) With gross deceitfulness J.F.R. holds (Z '30, 275, par. 5, and onward) that 2 Thes. 2: 1-12 teaches that Antichrist does not come until after the alleged coming of the Lord to the temple in 1918 and the alleged beginning of the gathering of the saints into the temple, which it claims was in 1919 and onward. St. Paul does not in vs. 1-4 say that Antichrist comes at Christ's Parousia and the gathering of the brethren beyond the vail, which two things are what he means in verse 1 by the pertinent expressions, and not Christ's alleged coming to the temple (Church) in 1918 and from 1919 onward gathering the saints into the temple; for they (1 Pet. 2: 5; Eph. 2: 20-22; 1 Cor. 3: 16, 17) were parts of that temple from Pentecost onward and as the Body of the World's High Priest were in that temple from Pentecost on (Rev. 8: 4; 1 Pet. 2: 5, 9; Heb. 7: 26, 27). The following is the run of thought in 2 Thes. 2: 1-4: The Thessalonians had imbibed the error that the time of the Parousia and of the first resurrection had already set in. St. Paul beseeches them not to believe that he taught, discoursed on or wrote any such things. On the contrary, he had taught and still taught that before these two things would set in, two great signs must first be enacted: (1) there must be a falling away from the faith that the Apostles taught and (2) Antichrist must be revealed, come into open public activity, seat himself in God's temple, oppose every contemporaneous civil ruler of the Roman Empire and of the Holy Roman Empire and publicly exercise great power. He argues that since these things must precede the Parousia and the deliverance of the Church, but had not yet set in, the Parousia and the first resurrection could not have set in. But time prophecies, etc., etc., proving that Jesus' Parousia (mistranslated in v. 1 as coming in the A. V.) set
in in 1874 and that the sleeping saints arose in 1878, Antichrist must before 1874 not only have appeared, but must have seated himself in God's temple, opposed every civil ruler of the two Roman Empires and openly shown that he was a powerful one, a god, as the Greek of v. 4 shows. Never has J.F.R. cited one passage that connects with 1918 Christ's coming to His temple, which Mal. 3: 1, 2 and the parallel dispensations, etc., connect with his Parousia, a thing that set in in 1874. These considerations prove the utter erroneousness of the view that connects the falling away from Apostolic Truth, Antichrist's revelation, his seating himself in God's temple, his opposing (what actually is stated to be) every contemporaneous civil ruler in the Roman Empire and its successor and his exercise of very great power, with 1917 and onward. (7) Again, in order to give itself a semblance of plausibility, this view claims that the day of Christ began in 1918. The Scriptures show that the following things occur in the day of Christ, which is synonymous with the expressions, day of God, day of the Lord (but only partially so with the expression, day of Jehovah, which is from 1874 to 1954); the day of judgment, that day, etc. The people of Christendom would cry in the day of the Lord, "peace and safety," which they did from 1874 onward, amid which cries sudden destruction would overtake them, which began in 1914 (1 Thes. 5: 2, 3). Christ's Parousia and the first resurrection, which respectively began in 1874 and 1878, set in in the day of Christ (2 Thes. 2: 1, 2). Scoffers would scoff at Christ's presence as having set in before the Time of Trouble would come and both the scoffing and the trouble would be in the day of the Lord, which scoffing began approximately in 1876 and continues even yet, and which trouble came in 1914, and both the scoffing and the trouble would be during the thief-like presence of the day of the Lord (2 Pet. 3: 4-12;
1 Thes. 5: 2, 3), due to the thief-like presence of the Lord (Rev. 16: 15; Luke 12: 39). St. Paul and the brethren whom he won for the Lord would be together and rejoice over one another in the day of the Lord, which being together and rejoicing set in in 1878 (2 Cor. 1: 14; Phil. 2: 16; 1 Thes. 2: 19). [The word parousia is mistranslated in the last verse as coming and shows that the day of the Christ, when this rejoicing would be, began in 1874.] St. Paul and all others who love Christ's appearing get their crowns in the day of Christ, which proves that it was already here in 1878 (2 Tim. 4: 8). The jewels are made up in that day, which making up began with the Harvest in 1874 and with the first resurrection in 1878 (Mal. 3: 17). In that day many would boast of great works, which boasting was throughout the Parousia, therefore from 1874 onward (Matt. 7: 22). The drinking of the new wine during the day of the kingdom began in 1878 (Matt. 26: 29). The brethren were to watch lest that day, which came in 1874, come to them unawares (Luke 21: 36). All these things taking place before 1914, and thus before 1918, prove that the day of Christ, the day of the Lord, began quite a long time before 1918. Hence the falling away and the main acts of Antichrist were long before 1917 and onward. (8) The Antichrist would work oppositionally to every contemporaneous civil ruler of the Roman Empire and its successor Empire, which, if true, demolishes the view under examination. This is taught in 2 Thes. 2: 4: "The opponent and self-exalter above everyone called a god [ruler] or Augustused one."—I. V. The Greek word sebasma, translated worshiped in the A. V., is from the same root as the Greek word sebastos (Acts 25: 21, 25), which is the Greek equivalent of the Roman name Augustus, the highest title of the Roman Emperors and later the highest title of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire. The expression, "or Augustused," as explanatory of the
one "everyone called a god," shows who every ruler would be as to whom the man of sin would work oppositionally and self-exaltingly, i.e., it would be the Emperors of the Roman and the Holy Roman Empires, all of whom bore the title Augustus, at least from the time onward from when the beginning of this oppositional and self-exalting activity set in. But the Holy Roman Empire, the occidental successor of the Roman Empire, went out of existence in 1806, having lasted 1006 years. Shortly before its rise the pope finally oppositionally and self-exaltingly freed himself from every vestige of the authority of the Roman Empire's Emperors. Church and World history proves that the pope waged ever-increasing opposition and self-exaltation (at first secretly) against both sets of Augustuses until he prevailed over them. These rulers having long before 1917 ceased to exist, the particular opposition and self-exaltation referred to in v. 4 could not have been exercised after more than a hundred years before 1917. Hence those who were forced out of Society fellowship from 1917 onward could not be the man of sin; for he must have existed while the Roman Empire and while its occidental successor, the Holy Roman Empire, were in existence, to have opposed them. (9) 2 Thes. 2: 2, 3 not only teaches that the falling away would precede that part of the day of Christ in which the Parousia and the first resurrection would set in, but also that the revelation of the man of sin, his oppositional and self-exalting course against civil rulers of the Roman Empires, his seating himself in God's temple and his openly demonstrating himself to be a mighty ruler, would all precede that—the first part of the day of Christ; while the article under review puts these four acts of the man of sin after its day of Christ set in—1918. (10) The view of J.F.R. on the hindering thing (the presence and activity of the Spirit as Advocate, Helper and Comforter) that prevented the four activities of the man of sin, set
forth in 2 Thes. 2: 3, 4, and that had to be taken out of the way before these four things could be acted out, is not only a most foolish thing, but it also is an impossible thing—if the new creatures living at the time were as such not to die the Second Death. Such an obvious result of his preposterous, monstrous and impossible thought, his right-eye darkening prevented his seeing at all. We have above sufficiently shown it to be Satanic in origin and character, and will say no more on it. (11) As, according to 2 Thes. 2: 8, the revelation of the man of sin had to await the removal of the hindering thing, as that hindering thing could not be the Holy Spirit as long as new creatures are on earth, and as the hindering thing was something active ("he that hinders"—present tense) in St. Paul's days that then prevented Antichrist from gaining his coveted prize of supremacy, it must have been something connected with an Augustused person, i.e., the Roman Emperor, which, of course, immediately suggests what the hindering thing was: the Roman Emperor's possession of supremacy, supremacy as civil ruler, Augustus, and supremacy as religious ruler, Pontifex Maximus, which, as long as he could maintain it, would hinder Antichrist from gaining it; and to gain which his opposing and exalting himself against the Augustused ones continued until it, the supremacy of the Augustused ones, was taken out of the way. This destroys the view under consideration. (12) 2 Thes. 2: 8 shows two processes in the overthrow of the man of sin: (1) his consuming; (2) his annihilation. The first was completed before the second started to operate. The second started to operate with the Parousia, when the bright shining, which will destroy him, began to go forth. Hence the consuming process was at an end by 1874. This consuming process was produced by the influence of the secular and religious Truth ("the spirit of His Mouth"—the teaching of His mouthpieces) that our Lord gave out by
secular and religious mouthpieces. It began in its secular aspects in 1295 by truths on earthly matters set forth on the relation of state and church in the controversies between Philip, the Fair, of France, and Pope Boniface VIII. Forward from that time the theories of the papacy on secular powers began to be refuted so thoroughly that its presentations thereon gradually lost power to influence the peoples into secular subjection to the pope, making it possible to strip him bit by bit of such powers. Then starting with Marsiglio's activities, first in 1309 and more particularly in 1324, the Lord by religious reformation-truths set forth by individuals until 1521, and thereafter by religious sects began to consume the religious pretentions of the man of sin, which, receiving its last attack from sects in 1870 by the Old Catholic Church, brought into being by the Vatican Council's papal infallibility decree, was in its doctrines consumed—refuted—this part of the consuming process weakening greatly its religious hold on the world. By 1874 the consuming process had so well advanced that it was ready to be reinforced by the annihilative process. The consuming process having, according to the last clause of v. 8, preceded the Parousia, the view under examination cannot be true. (13) The annihilative process set in with the Parousia by a bright shining that is arousing such opposition in the masses as will result in Antichrist's complete destruction in the fast-approaching Armageddon. But this bright shining having begun in 1874, the theory under review cannot be true. We (Chap. I of Vol. IV) proved that the word parousia—presence—applies to three periods: (1) the reaping time of the Harvest—1874 to 1914 (Matt. 24: 3, 27, 37, 39); (2) the entire Harvest—1874 to 1954 (1 Cor. 11: 26; 1 Thes. 4: 15; 2 Pet. 2: 4); and (3) the entire 1,000 years of the Second Advent (1 Cor. 15: 23); and since we are past the reaping period, and the man of sin is not yet destroyed, the word parousia—
presence—in vs. 8 and 9 evidently is used in the second sense of the word. (14) J.F.R. perverts the meaning of the expression, "whose coming [parousia—presence]," with which 2 Thes. 2: 9 begins, by applying it to Antichrist's presence, while it is a direct reference to the expression, "His parousia," at the end of v. 8, with which it directly connects itself by the relative pronoun, "whose," as the order of the Greek words shows: "by the bright shining of the presence of Him whose presence is during an energy of Satan." The claim of the article on this point is that its Antichrist's presence—from 1919 onward—is by v. 9 shown to be characterized by special Satanic activities along deceitful lines, while the passage teaches that our Lord's Parousia in the second sense of the word (1874-1954) would be accompanied by Satanic deceptions of the most delusive kind. While there were doubtless Satanic deceptions accompanying the heyday of the real man of sin—the dark ages—these were as child's play in comparison with the deceptions that Satan has been working from 1835, when modern higher criticism started, until the present and will continue to work until he is put into the bottomless pit after Jacob's trouble, 1956. It is wholly within this period, 1835-1956, that the Harvest—the presence of 2 Thes. 2: 8, 9—in its wide sense, 1874-1954, finds itself. It is throughout this period of 121 years that the darkening of the symbolic sun and moon occurs (Matt. 24: 29). Acts 2: 20 and Matt. 24: 29 show that this darkening would set in before the Parousia—1874. It began through the publishing of three of the most influential of all earlier higher critical books, all in 1835: (1) Vatke's Old Testament Theology; (2) Bauer's Pastoral Epistles; and (3) Strauss' Life of Jesus. The period of our Lord's Parousia in the second sense of the word, according to 2 Thes. 2: 9, was to be during this period of Satan's grossest deceptive activity. The period from 1874 to 1954 would
be characterized by the climax of this deceptive period. This is evident when we note the gross deceptions of the six harvest siftings toward the consecrated, the justified and the world, as set forth in Ezek. 9 by the six men with the slaughter weapons slaying in the temple, courts and city. The following is the proper translation of 2 Thes. 2: 9, 10: "whose [Christ's] presence is during [see Thayer's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament on the word kata with the accusative case, page 327, col. 2, under subdivision 2, line 10 from the bottom] an energy of Satan by all power and signs and wonders of falsehood and every deception of iniquity for those perishing, because they received not the love of the Truth unto their being saved." Our Pastor's thought, expressed as follows: "whose [Christ's] presence is [accompanied] with an energy of Satan, etc.," is therefore correct, even if it is not a literal translation. (15) The connection between v. 8 and vs. 9-12 proves that here is a description of the Satanic delusions operating during the Harvest through the six harvest siftings, and resulting in the manifestation of each consecrated one in his true colors. Thus seen, vs. 9-12 do not refer at all to the man of sin as such nor to the conditions prevailing during his heyday. This again proves J.F.R.'s use of vs. 9-12 as descriptive of the man of sin, as being those who were driven away from the Society from 1917 onward, to be error; and our 15 points against his man of sin prove it to be drunken folly in right-eye darkening. Brother Russell's view of the Great Antichrist of the Gospel Age is, by these 15 points against J.F.R.'s effort to set it aside in the interests of his new view, thus proven to be proof against this foolish assault. We have not especially offered constructive arguments in its support, since his exposition of it is thoroughly satisfactory to those whose faith is incorrupt. We have contented ourselves with disproving the new view. And what shall we say of J.F.R.'s charges
against the Faithful, wherein he calls them, the man of sin, the Judas class, that evil servant, the foolish, unprofitable shepherd, the slanderer of his own mother's son, etc., with many reviling terms accompanying his falsely calling them these names? Remembering that the article under review appeared in the Sept. 15, 1930 Tower—a month and a half after the beginning of the third hour of the Friday of the Large Eight Wonderful Days—the time when the large Jesus and the large two thieves were nailed to the cross, and that J.F.R. is the leader of those represented by the impenitent thief, we recognize in these revilings the antitype of the impenitent thief's reviling our Lord. We have given many proofs of his being, as the little pope in Little Babylon, the head of the little man of sin in Little Babylon's Roman Catholic Church and of his being the chief leader of the Judas class among the Truth people, who in 1917 for the antitypical 30 pieces of silver—power and authority in the Church—sold his brethren into tribulation, even as we have already clearly proven him to be that evil servant, the foolish, unprofitable shepherd and the chief Jambresite among Truth apostates.
We know nothing of, nor, apart from his charges, have we ever heard of the Society dissidents getting together to destroy the Society's work. We believe that this is a false charge, a stop-thief cry, due (1) to his trying to frighten his followers to remain loyal to him and turn a deaf ear to the cogent proofs against his revolutionary teachings and methods and (2) to his trying to explain on other than the real grounds why (actually as a part of the large impenitent thief) he and certain of his partisans are undergoing symbolic crucifixion—being widely and publicly set forth as evil-doers by civil officers. In the case of the larger thieves this crucifixion is thoroughly deserved, whereas the Faithful undeservedly undergo it, as the large penitent thief will [written in Feb., 1931] ere long acknowledge. We and the movement with which
we are connected never have opposed the Societyites' real mission—its privilege to reprove the world for sin, for righteousness and for judgment to come, the kingdom testimony. We believe that they got this as their special service in 1917 at the time the mantle went over from antitypical Elijah to antitypical Elisha. In so far as they do this work we pray for them in that work.
We have never before the public criticized the many false teachings with which J.F.R. has more or less vitiated that work, our purpose for such a course being our desire not in the least to injure with the public the influence of the Society friends in their ministry to the public. Our criticisms of the errors and wrong methods of the Society, especially of its leader, have been confined to Truth people, and that, apart from our subscribers, almost entirely to the Society adherents themselves. Our policy is to restrict, apart from our subscribers, to Society adherents as far as we can our views that treat of Society matters, just as we do not send our criticisms of P.B.I. conditions among the Society friends, the only exceptions to this course being when the same views criticize matters among both of these groups, e.g., this book will not be sent to our list of P.B.I. addresses, nor did we send, e.g., our refutations of the P.B.I. chronological errors to the Society friends. We criticize the wrongs of each group to its face, not behind its back. The above is, and will remain our practice. Hence the falsity of the charge, under review, so far as we are concerned. In no sense have we ever betrayed any brethren. Our defense of the Truth and Truth arrangements against Levitical revolutionism instead of being a Judas act, is an act of real brotherly service to the Lord's real people, and in due time it will be recognized as such by all of them. Such defense of the Truth and its arrangements against their attackers is a real witness for Jehovah's Name, while J.F.R.'s errors are aspersions on that Name. In due time all real members of
antitypical Elisha will recognize both of these facts. J.F.R.'s ranting in so many issues, following that on the man of sin, against his fictitious Judas, man of sin, evil servant, etc., as trying to destroy the Society and its work, is setting up a scarecrow to frighten his followers away from those who can help them see into his selfish and erroneous designs hid by the mask of pretended zeal for God.
In Z '30, 307-313, he treats of the vineyard of Is. 27: 2, applying it to the Society. The connection (vs. 1, 3-6) shows that it refers to the Millennium and afterwards, when according to v. 1 Satan is to be destroyed, who, by the way, he says will be dead during the 1,000 years, thus interpreting the bottomless pit as hades, a thought that Bro. Russell once held, but later gave up, coming to see that it represented error, which, having no foundation, is a symbolic bottomless pit. The uses of this expression in Rev. 9: 1, 2, 11; 11: 7; 17: 8; 20: 1, 3, prove that it means error, just as the key to it is Truth as its opener, exposer. The symbolism of Satan's being there during the thousand years means that he will be mentally confined within the realm of error, unenlightened by the Truth during that time. This fact implies that physically he will be far absent from the earth, ignorant of what will go on here. The erroneousness of the interpretation of the vineyard, etc. (Is. 5: 1-7), in Z '30, 308-310, applying it to the period from 1878 onward, is certainly disproved by the definition given it in v. 7, as well as by Jesus' allusion to it in Matt. 21: 3346, as applying primarily to natural Israel. The following will enable one to see through the erroneousness of his applying almost everything good (especially things pertinent to Israel) in type, parable and prophecy, to the time of his movement after 1918, and almost everything therein degenerating from good to bad, from 1878 to 1918: Keeping in mind the parallel dispensations and their Harvests, these symbolic Scriptures have a first application to fleshly Israel, real and
nominal, then to spiritual Israel, real and nominal, as the discourse would suggest, with the climaxes coming to each of these Israels in its pertinent Harvest. How do we know that usually this is the key to such Scriptures? (1) Facts, (2) chronology, (3) the focusing of God's plan about these two Israels, (4) the fulfillments, and (5) the parallels throughout, prove it. It was by this key that that Servant so harmoniously, reasonably, factually and Scripturally opened these types, parables and prophecies. Then because the Gospel Age is being enacted on a small scale these passages have a pertinent tertiary application to the pertinent classes of this small Gospel Age. These considerations destroy his view of Is. 5: 1-7, showing it to be drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In Z '30, 323-329, he discusses the prize and denies that the Scriptures teach that perfect [untested] love is the mark, but says that the mark is the line or course of giving the kingdom witness. The Greek word skopos translated mark in Phil. 3: 14 in the A. V. and the Diaglott (see word for word translation), but incorrectly rendered line in the latter's emphasized translation, has two meanings: (1) a watchman, and (2) "a distant mark looked at, the goal or end one runs to or shoots at," it being derived from a root meaning, to spy, to peer, to look into the distance. See Thayer, 579, col. 2, par. 3; Young, 646, top line of col. 1; Strong's Greek Dictionary, 4649. It never means line or course, as the article under review claims. Hence running for the mark does not mean pressing on in the course of kingdom witnessing, as the article claims, while rejecting the thought that it is perfect [untested] love. The word occurs only once in the New Testament (Phil. 3: 14). The Septuagint uses the Greek word twice (Job 16: 12, compare
v. 13; Lam. 3: 12, compare v. 13). In both cases it means a mark to shoot at. It, therefore, means mark in the sense of a goal run to, or a target shot at. The former evidently is its meaning in Phil. 3: 14, since it
there cannot mean a watchman or target. It is true that the Scriptures nowhere say that it means perfect [untested] love, just as they seldom define any word, much less a word occurring in the original only once. What it means must, therefore, be gathered from what the Bible teaches to be the attainment for which the saints run. Of such an attainment the Bible certainly teaches love to be the crowning or chief thing, which of course is supported by other things. Love being the law of the New Creature proves it to be the supreme thing for their attainment. The following passages prove this: 1 Cor. 13: 1-3, 13; Col. 3: 14; 1 Tim. 1: 5; 1 Pet. 1: 22; 2 Pet. 1: 5-8, 10, 11; Matt. 6: 33 (God's righteousness being His love working in harmony with His wisdom, justice and power). These passages show that the two main objects of the Christian life are the attainment of love and the kingdom, the latter through attaining the former. Hence the mark of Phil. 3: 14 is love, its prize being the kingdom. Certainly God's people are to spread His Word in harmony with the mission that their class standing before the Lord shows them to have, the Little Flock spreading and defending truths pertinent to the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies especially, the Great Company and Youthful Worthies spreading and defending truths for the world, pertinent to sin, righteousness and the coming Kingdom. But such witnessing, though highly important and necessary, is subordinate to character development, which reaches its climax in love. It is while speaking against the mark as perfect [untested] love that J.F.R. continues his railing, begun in previous articles, at character development, in ridicule designating it as, "developing a sweet character." His disparaging it in the interests of "witnessing" is contrary to 1 Cor. 13: 1-3. Of course his view is drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In Z '30, 339-345 is an article which uses Is. 66: 5 as a text. This text addresses the Faithful throughout
the Age and especially since 1874 onward, as those whose brethren hated and cast them out, thinking that they thereby did God a service (John 16: 2), and as those who would be exalted in due time, and their excommunicators and prosecutors as those who would be put to shame. With the grossest disregard of his world-wide driving out of Society circles those who have since 1917 disapproved his revolutionisms and those of his partisan supporters against the Truth and its arrangements, and of his world-wide campaign whose slogan was "avoid them," whom he grossly misrepresented in a stop-thief campaign world-wide in extent, just as the pope did with the saints as alleged heretics, he claims for him and his the gracious assurances of the text and for his excommunicates its disapproval! Is. 66: 5 is an accurate description of the faithful brethren who were disfellowshipped, "cast out," by all whom J.F.R. could influence so to do, because they protested against his unholy power-grasping, lording it over God's heritage, corrupting God's Truth and introducing revolutionary arrangements for God's work among God's people in a series of lawless and arbitrary acts that were never in the domain of nominal churchianity outdone, except by the papacy. He whose years-long course of casting out the brethren is so greatly condemned by Is. 66: 5 has the unblushing effrontery to quote this passage as approving him and condemning the faithful brethren who opposed his errors and wrong official practices. In all this he imitates his prototype, the pope of Great Babylon. This turning of things upside down must have made Satan himself, figuratively speaking, hold his sides to keep them from bursting from uncontrollable laughter at this daring stroke of his chief representative among the Truth people, and made him, as soon as under self-control, pat him on the back with a fiendish "attaboy!" Of course, after such a beginning, as may be expected, the article literally reeks with railings at, false
accusations of, and warnings against the alleged diabolical machinations of those whom he designates as plotting against "God's visible organization," whom he alleges to be the man of sin, that evil servant, etc. The mere statement of the above facts is enough to refute his claim on this point for those who know the events among God's people since 1917. They, of course, will recognize his pertinent claims as the stop-thief cry of drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In Z '30, 373, par. 19, he states that Armageddon will be immediately followed by the establishment of God's kingdom. According to Rev. 16: 14, 16, Armageddon is the battle between the defenders of Satan's empire as now organized on earth and the Lord's great army, more fully described in Joel 2: 1-11; Rev. 19: 11-21. Accordingly, this battle is the symbolic earthquake of 1 Kings 19: 11, 12 and Rev. 16: 18-20, which will destroy Satan's empire as now constituted. After this earthquake, Armageddon, comes the fire of 1 Kings 19: 12, which in turn will be followed by Jacob's trouble. There will be a hectic cessation of pangs between the earthquake and the fire, just as there has been such between the wind and the earthquake. So, too, will there be a short pause, long enough for the last of the anarchists to assemble and go to Palestine, between the fire and Jacob's trouble. All of which proves that the thought under consideration is another piece of drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
In Z '31, 35-41 is an article on the temple with Hag. 1: 14 as text. As usual the good features set forth in the text are applied to J.F.R's. movement with the customary exhortation to service and slurs at character development. The principle that we set forth while discussing his perversions on the vineyards of Is. 26: 2; 5: 1-7 will enable us to see through the misuse of the history of the building of the second temple as a type of an alleged temple building intermitted in construction from 1914 to 1919 by lack
of zeal and renewed from 1919 onward. Hag. 1: 14 in harmony with the above-mentioned principle applies primarily to the Israelites mentioned in that verse. Then it has a typical application to Spiritual Israelites' rebuilding the real temple desolated by symbolic Babylonians in the great apostacy and reign of Antichrist. The parallel dispensation and the Pyramid locate the exact time of the stages of this building as well as the antitypes of Zerubbabel, Joshua and the Israelites. The second temple was begun 537 B.C. Then the work thereon stopped for 15 years. Its building was renewed in 522 B.C. and it was completed in 518 B.C. 1845 years after Oct., 537 B.C., bring us to Oct., 1309, when antitypical Zerubbabel (Marsiglio), Joshua (William Occam) and Israel (the faithful co-operating Spiritual Israelites) began the foundation work of raising God's real temple from the ruins into which it was plunged by symbolic Babylon. As in the type, the work was interrupted for 15 years. It was renewed in 1324 by the writing and spread of Marsiglio's famous book, The Defender of the Peace, which to this day is the standard work against the papacy's claims to power in church and state. Marsiglio, assisted by Occam, John of Jandun, etc., and supported by Emperor Louis, the Bavarian, succeeded by 1328 in making the temple class a continuing active agency for the Lord thenceforth to the present. This is the antitype as proven by the parallel dispensations, the facts and the Pyramid. We have had the small antitype during the Miniature Gospel Age. It is of course proper to make practical applications of the typical history just considered to any time of building on the antitypical temple; but they are to be viewed as practical applications and illustrations, not as the antitypes, as all sorts of twists in the attempt, made to set forth such as antitypes and not as lessons and illustrations in the article, prove that it is drunken folly in right-eye darkening.
Nineteen hundred years agone
Was that deed of darkness done,
Was that sacred thorn-crowned head
To a shameful death betrayed,
And Iscariot's traitor name
Blazoned in eternal shame.
Thou, disciple of our time,
Follower of the faith sublime,
Who with high and holy scorn
Of that traitorous deed dost burn,
Though the years will nevermore
To our earth that form restore,
The Christ-spirit ever lives,
Ever in thy heart He strives.
When pale misery mutely calls,
When thy brother tempted falls.
When thy gentle words may chain
Hate and anger and disdain,
Or thy loving smile impart
Courage to some sinking heart:
When within thy troubled breast
Good and evil thoughts contest,
Though unconscious thou mayst be,
The Christ-spirit strives with thee.
If to-day thou turn'st aside,
In thy luxury and pride,
Wrapped within thyself, and blind
To the sorrows of thy kind,
Thou a faithless watch dost keep,
Thou art one of those who sleep:
Or, if waking, thou dost see
Nothing of divinity
In our fallen struggling race,
If in them thou see'st no trace
Of a glory dimmed and wan,
Of a future to be won,
Of a future, hopeful, high,
Thou, like Peter, dost deny:
But, if seeing, thou believest,
If the Evangel thou receivest,
Yet, if thou art bound to sin,
False to the ideal within,
Slave of ease, or slave of gold,
Thou the Son of God hast sold.