Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
SECOND MISCELLANY ON DRUNKEN
FOLLIES OF RIGHT-EYE DARKENING.
MORE DRUNKEN FOLLIES OF RIGHT-EYE DARKENING. STILL MORE DRUNKEN FOLLIES OF RIGHT-EYE DARKENING. FURTHER DRUNKEN FOLLIES OF RIGHT-EYE DARKENING. MORE FURTHER DRUNKEN FOLLIES OF RIGHT-EYE DARKENING.
J.F.R. sets up the following claim: "the Scriptures were written for the special aid and benefit of the [his] remnant [his remnant are his followers since 1918; God's remnant, according to Rom. 9: 27-29; Is. 1: 9, are the entire Church especially its parts in the Jewish and Gospel Harvests] now [i.e., since 1918] on the earth" (Z '32, 3, par. 1). To further this thought he (Z '31, 147, par. 7) quotes 1 Cor. 10: 11: "Now these things happened unto them for ensamples [types] and are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come" to insinuate, among other things, that the book of Esther describes his movement, whereas the expression, "these things," in 1 Cor. 10: 11 refers to the incidents in Israel's wilderness journey alluded to in 1 Cor. 10: 1-10. In ascribing practically everything good in the Scriptures to his movement, as the acme of God's work of the whole Age, he betrays the selfcenterment usual in conceited errorist leaders who in their hallucinations labor under an exaggerated estimate of themselves and their own work. He repeatedly fulminates against the proper esteem in which the faithful hold our Pastor as that Servant as "worshiping a man," "following a man" and "taking a man as teacher," while to keep them in subjection to him, a man, as teacher he frightens his followers by many threats and insinuations of their falling out of the [his] remnant or out of "line for the kingdom,"
if they should reject his lightning flashes [mud splashes] from his temple. The Bible does have quite a deal to say of him and his work; but what it says of him and his work from Dec. 29, 1916 onward, is almost without exception uncomplimentary. For such a person to regard the movement that he controls and teaches as the acme of all God's works connected with His Church on earth, is prima facie evidence of pride, though he in words seeks to convey the impression of great humility. As an illustration of some of his pretended humility we might instance his recent refusal to shake hands with the relatively few brethren in the Canal Zone (they are all, or nearly all, colored), alleging that if he did shake hands with them he would thereby betray pride, since he would thereby give them the impression of his being some great one, or he thereby would be tempted to think he was a great one!
In Z '31, 323–330 he has an article entitled, "Taught Of God," that should be entitled, "God's Organization," as that is the line of thought from his viewpoint therein elaborated. In vain throughout this article do we look for a clear definition as to what he means by this ambiguous and non-scriptural term. It is true that he calls it Zion, the woman of Gen. 3: 15, and God's woman; but what he understands by these three terms is not defined. In Z '31, 323 (3) he says that God's heavenly organization must have been in existence from the beginning, because God is a God of order. In his mind it predates the creation of the human family, for he said that from Eden on God apparently abandoned His woman [Z '31, 325 (9)]; hence it is not a thing limited to producing the elect Church, Head and Body, which is the limitation of the Jerusalem above, of the heavenly Zion, of the woman of Gen. 3: 15 and of Sarah (Is. 54 and Gal. 4). By God's universal organization he may mean God's universal order of affairs from the beginning, according to the first, second and last sentences of
(3). This par. also alleges that God's organization has all along had a heavenly part; and that it has a part that has appeared among men. Both of these parts make up His universal organization, allegedly typed by the earthly Jerusalem.
As an example of confusion we will now quote this entire third par. and we believe that any candid child of God will agree with us that it is very confused. "Everything with Jehovah is orderly, and for no other reason we must conclude that He had an organization from the beginning. That organization is pictured or symbolized by God's woman whom He names Zion. Jehovah set up the city of Jerusalem and put His name there, and that city pictured or represented His universal organization. Both names 'Zion' and 'Jerusalem' represent His organization. The earthly organization of Jehovah, which was Jerusalem [the literal city, as shown in the second preceding sentence], was God's typical organization and therefore foreshadowed His organization that would appear amongst men on the earth and represent His heavenly organization. It is written: 'Jerusalem which is above (the heavenly organization) … is the mother of us all' (Gal. 4: 26). That means that all who are of the offspring of God's woman are of His organization. The name 'Zion' was also applied to Jerusalem, because the latter was typical of God's universal organization: 'The city of David, which is Zion' (1 Kings 8: 1)."
In this par. he confuses the typical city Jerusalem and Zion with "the Jerusalem that now is," of Gal. 4: 25, which is the Law Covenant and the servants that applied it to Israel's development. He likewise here confuses his own invented "heavenly organization," which he fails to define, with the "Jerusalem which is above," which is the oath-bound promises that develop the Christ and the servants who apply those promises to the Christ's development. In this
par. he makes a literal city God's Old Testament earthly organization! His heavenly organization from the standpoint of its bearing a nation—"the birth of a nation," which he defines as God's placing Jesus upon His throne and sending Him forth in 1914 empowered to reign (Z '31, 324, par. 8), logically must be God, because only God placed Jesus on His throne and sent Him forth empowered to reign. Hence God must be both the Father and the Mother of this nation! This raises the question, how could one person be a nation? If the birth of the nation occurred in 1914 in Jesus' being set on God's throne empowered to reign and in His being sent forth in 1914 in His alleged Second Advent to fight with, and cast Satan and his angels out of heaven to earth, He must be the nation born in a day, according to the consequences of J.F.R.'s pertinent position. If, as he says, this exaltation of our Lord to enthronement, power and commission against Satan's organization was the birth of a nation, in the sense of the beginning of its birth, he says, (!), then the birth of the rest of the nation must mean the seating of the rest of the Little Flock on God's throne, empowered and commissioned to overthrow Satan's organization, which implies their first resurrection as a preceding thing, while he claims that additional to these the children born after Zion's travail (his battle in heaven in 1914 and onward) are also those who since 1918 have been brought into his alleged temple and have been approved as children and parts of his alleged Jehovah's earthly organization. Unmitigated confusion it is to make a birth of Christ's enthronement, empowerment and commission, and that allegedly to have taken place in 1914! He claims that the rejoicing of Is. 54: 1 refers to joy in heaven at the birth of a nation—an individual, Jesus, enthroned, empowered and commissioned (Z '31, 324, par. 8)! In spite of the parallelism of Is. 54: 1, showing that the expressions, "thou that didst not bear,"
and "thou that didst not travail with child," are equivalent, he claims that the expression, "thou that didst not travail with child," means that his heavenly Zion bore a child without travail, i.e., without the fight to expel Satan, etc., from heaven! Accordingly, she—antitypical Sarah—must have others than the one child! Surely the woman of Gen.3: 15; Is. 54: 1, did not empower Christ to reign, let alone do it in 1914; for this woman is on earth. Much of the above-shown confusion arises from his setting aside our Pastor's clear and factual interpretation of Is. 66: 7-9 as applying to the Little Flock being delivered from nominal spiritual Zion before the trouble would afflict the latter, and to the Great Company being delivered from her after she would enter the trouble, and applying this passage to an imaginary Zion as an alleged heavenly organization of God, which turns out in the first birth to be God!
Such confusions, contradictions and ambiguities just pointed out are the surest proof of the erroneousness of J.F.R.'s alleged and vaunted new light—old darkness in very truth, as the papacy has taught similar things in palming off its counterfeit. One of the mind and heart satisfying characteristics of the Truth is its simplicity; another is its harmony, and a third is its convincing power to the sanctified heart and mind. None of these characteristics are found in J.F.R.'s vagaries launched upon the Church and the world since 1917, beginning toward the world with his counterfeit first smiting of Jordan, and in 1918 with his millions now living never dying after 1925. The simplicity, harmony and convincing power of the Truth on Jehovah's symbolic wife in Gen. 3: 15; Is. 54 and Gal. 4, are an evidence of its verity. A comparison of Is. 54 and Gal. 4 proves that antitypical Sarah is addressed in Is. 54. Who antitypical Sarah is the Scriptures clearly teach: She is (1) the Oath-bound Covenant and (2) its appliers for the development
of the Christ class, and thus is their symbolic mother. That Sarah types (1) these promises is manifest from Rom. 9: 79; Gal. 3: 14-18, 29; Heb. 6: 13-20; and (2) the servants who in applying these promises mother the Seed is apparent from Is. 54: 17; Gal. 4: 19, 26-31.
Does one say that such a view makes part of the mother the child? We reply, Not so: God's faithful Little Flock in their capacity of developing one another through the oath-bound promises, which are a summary of the Little Flock developing Truth, are a part of the mother; and in their capacity of being developed by these they are the children. These two capacities are an experimental fact, which all who experience them know to be such. The distinction that holds here is very similar to the antitypical distinction between the priest and the lampstand, the priest and the table, the priest and the altar. In each case the Christ is typed: The lampstand, in His capacity of enlightening the brethren, the priest, in His capacity of being enlightened by the brethren; the table, in His capacity of strengthening the brethren in every good word and work by the bread of life for their heavenly journey, the priest, in His capacity of being so strengthened by the brethren; the altar, in His capacity of comforting, encouraging, etc., the sorely tried brethren while sacrificing, the priest, in His capacity of sacrificing amid sore trials. Unlike J.F.R.'s confusion in attempting to explain what he vagariously holds on the woman of Gen. 3: 15, Jehovah's symbolic wife of Is. 54 and antitypical Sarah of Gal. 4, our pertinent definition, explanation and proof are clear, simple, harmonious with the seven axioms of Biblical interpretation, convincing sanctified minds and hearts.
He says that the woman of Gen. 3: 15; Is. 54 and Gal. 4 was barren until 1914. St. Paul says she was bearing in his days (Gal. 4: 19, 26-31). He says that
the words of Is. 54: 13 first entered into fulfillment since his mythical temple-entering allegedly occurred in 1918; Jesus says (John 6: 45) that they began to be fulfilled in His day and would continue throughout the Age, because whoever would come to Him—God's children—would be taught of God; and God's children have been drawn to Jesus by the Father throughout the Age. The raising up of such on the last day—the promise of a resurrection (John 6: 44, 45) to such on the last day—does not mean what he seeks to palm off as its meaning—an exalting of one to the alleged privileges of his temple and his drives, in this his last day! It is true, as he says, that St. Paul's quoting Is. 54: 1 in Gal. 4: 27 (when compared with the above-quoted pertinent passages) definitely settles the matter as to who Sarah and the Seed picture, but St. Paul settles it as teaching the view that we have presented and against the view that J.F.R. presents.
His charge (Z '31, 326, par. 16) that those who oppose his view of the Lord's coming to his temple, of Zion, of God's organization, in 1918, and of his then alleged new truths, prove by that opposition as a matter of self-evidence that they are not in the temple, nor of Zion, cannot be true, unless his view of these things has first been proven to be true—a thing that he has completely failed to prove, and a thing that we have proven to be unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactual. His claim that the opposers of his teachings were cast out of the temple (Z '31, 376, par. 25) is thus proven false, though he did drive them away from the Society even from 1917 onward. His claim that Zion's being built up as stated in Ps. 102: 16, means that God's [mythical] organization since 1918 as Jehovah's woman has been going to house-keeping and children-bearing [his partisan followers since 1918], is another example of his very numerous instances of applying a very rare and figurative use of words where a frequent and literal one fits better. To build up Zion
in this life means to develop the Church in grace, knowledge, fruitfulness in service, in endurance of persecution and suffering for righteousness and tests along these five lines. To build up Zion beyond the vail means to establish her as the kingdom in power. His saying that antitypical Sarah's travail (Z '31, 325, par. 13) means that God's heavenly organization fought in 1914 with Satan and his angels in the alleged battle that resulted in Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven to the earth, makes him contradict St. Paul's and Isaiah's statement (Gal. 4: 19, 2231; Is. 54: 1) to the effect that such travail was the process and accompaniment of bearing her child and did not, as his theory demands, follow her child-bearing.
That he makes the Society as a corporation a part of God's alleged earthly organization is evident from the fact that he teaches that its officers by their election are made the officers of God's alleged earthly organization (Z '31, 355, par. 2), and that his alleged children of Sarah must make use of its equipment, literary and other products, and leadership, or they will be cast out of Zion, [he does, indeed, cast them out of his church (3 John 9-11); but thanks be to God he cannot cast them out of the Church]. Thus a corporation authorized and continued by Satan's alleged organization is a part of God's alleged organization—pure Romanism! His lengthy denial that the Society as a corporation was created and authorized by his alleged Satan's organization avails nothing as against the logic of his position; for if, as he claims, the state is a part of Satan's organization (God says that it is an ordinance of God; Rom. 13: 1-6, Heb. 1: 10), and if the state authorized the creation of the Society as a corporation, as it certainly did, then this corporation, an alleged part and controller of his alleged earthly organization of God, is an authorized creature of Satan's organization. His use of the word organization is not only non-Biblical, but is employed
to convey an unscriptural thought; for in the first place the real symbolic wife of Jehovah is not an organization at all; for she is (1) the Christ-developing Truth and (2) the servants who develop the Christ through such Truth. Hence neither of these is, nor both of them combined are an organization. In the second place, its thought is a counterpart in the little papacy of the counterfeit organization in the great papacy. Jehovah's symbolic wife is not even the Body of Christ on this or the other side of the vail; for the Christ-developing Truth of course is not the whole nor a part of these two bodies; nor were nor are the Old Testament Worthies who were the personal part of the Covenant during its barren time a part of either of these two bodies, though the faithful of the New Testament servants who have ministered the Christ-developing Truth to the Christ are of these two bodies. It is for these reasons that we deny the propriety of the use of the expression, God's organization, in the Rutherfordian ambiguous senses and caution all to beware of it as Satanic in origin, purpose and use.
There is scarcely an issue in the 22 "Towers" reviewed in this chapter in which he does not rail at those who oppose his errors of teaching and arrangement Without proof they are continually set forth by him as that evil servant, the antichrist, the son of perdition, the lawless one, the man of sin, antitypical Judas, workers of iniquity, etc. To one who understands the Scriptures and facts that prove that we are now in the Epiphany, living over on a small scale the Gospel Age, in which movements, characters, events and proportionate but shorter time similar to those of the Gospel Age appear, and in which his organization appears as the little Catholic Church, his leading supporters as the little Romanist hierarchy and himself as the little pope, the real meaning of his denunciations of the opposers ["Protestants"] of his doctrinal, practical
and organizational errors becomes at once apparent; for just as the great pope in the large Gospel Age denounced his opponents, among whom were God's faithful people, as Korah, Dathan, Abiram, antichrist, man of sin, son of perdition, lawless one, Judas and workers of iniquity, etc., so he, the little pope, and head of the little man of sin, little antichrist, little son of perdition, little lawless one and little Judas does toward his opponents among whom God's faithful priesthood are. We by no means say the above in railing, but as a matter of true interpretation of the Lord's Word.
He says (Z '31, 132, par. 11, and 134, par. 23) that his opponents, the clergy and his man of sin, will be destroyed before Armageddon, which he claims is taught in Ps. 91: 8. We will answer this when answering his view of the book of Esther. To prove the same thought he teaches that Ps. 37 applies now, which is transparent error, when we consider that this Psalm relates to the Millennium and especially to its Little Season, as is manifest from the repeated contrasts between the preserved righteous inheriting the earth, abiding there forever, exalted there, etc., and the rooting out of, and cutting off, etc., of the wicked from the earth in the same period as the above rewards are given to the righteous there described (Ps. 37: 9-11, 18, 22, 27-29, the saints of v. 28 are the Ancient and Youthful Worthies in the Little Season, 34). The inheritance of the earth taught in this Psalm is different from that taught in Ps. 2: 8 and Matt. 5: 5 in this: Whereas the latter inheritance is, as that of the Christ, an ownership of the earth without inhabiting it, the former is, as that of the restitution class, an ownership and inhabiting of it. Notice how he (par. 40) in silence slides over verse 29, which speaks of the righteous referred to in this Psalm as inhabiting and dwelling in the earth forever! He claims (Z '31, 292, par. 6) that he has no fight with anyone. Why
then does he in almost every one of his Tower articles rail at, slander, misrepresent, backbite and warn against those who oppose his revolutionisms against God's Truth and arrangements? In the same paragraph, like the big pope, he applies Is. 66: 5 as against them, whereas he is the one that cast off his brethren, alleging that he thereby glorified the Lord, but thereby he acted out the holier-than-thou attitude of Is. 65: 5, which, just like the big pope, he also applies to the defenders of the Truth and its arrangements for their efforts at character development. In fact he has, also just like the big pope, so far applied, in his continued railing, almost every Bible passage referring to the wicked to his alleged man of sin, many of whom are saints of God. He likewise, as in 1918, again like the big pope, falsely accuses these (Z '31, 329, par. 28) of now betraying him and his partisans to the civil power. Of course, as in 1918, he hopes thereby to keep his disciples in line by a double appeal—the involved suggestion that they are thereby proven to be of the Lord's remnant and that they must move heaven and earth to sell his books in order to remain such, and that his opponents are of the Judas class, and hence must be given no audience of any kind. In this he also acts just like his counterpart, the big pope, in Great Babylon.
He says that in 1918 there were among the Spirit-begotten at least three classes: (1) the selfish, who said that the Lord delays His coming, (2) the discouraged and (3) the faithful. His first two alleged classes are no classes at all. Among the Spirit-begotten in 1918 there were no more than two classes: the Little Flock and the Great Company. An extensive observation of the Truth movements in 1918 qualifies us to say that there were no new creatures in the Truth who in that year denied that the Lord's presence had set in. There is one individual who, from Dec. 29, 1916, onward, while not denying that the Lord's presence had set in
(and the right Greek text of Matt. 24: 48 does not say, My Lord delays to come; but My Lord delays [does not do things fast enough to suit me; therefore I will run ahead of Him, instead of waiting on Him, and will do to suit myself]), and that individual is demonstrably J.F.R. Despite repeated correction and better knowledge he continues to quote Matt. 24: 48 in part as, My Lord delays to come, and then, with no justification in fact, applies this false reading of the passage to those whom he alleges became the man of sin in 1918 or 1919. All of the facts of the case prove that he is the one referred to in Matt. 24: 48-51.
His charge (Z '31, 117, par. 15) that his opponents hide their hatred with lying lips and utter slander as fact, which certainly characterized his Harvest Siftings, with its about 325 falsehoods mainly his own, so far as we are concerned is not true. We have utterly avoided discussing his personal conduct, criticizing only his official errors of doctrine, organization and arrangement. Our opposition to him is solely made for what the Bible, reason and facts prove of him as an official, not as an individual. And it flows not from hatred of him, nor from lying lips, as he charges, but from a zealous love for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren and a zealous hatred for sin, selfishness, worldliness and error, especially when we see these injure God's consecrated people, as his sinfulness, selfishness, worldliness and error have injured them more than that inflicted on them by any other human being. His saying (Z '31, 118, par. 25) that God's people had not been pleasing unto Him until 1918, or preferably 1922, is a direct contradiction of the Bible, which teaches the opposite of all God's Little Flock, (Ps. 147: 11; 149: 4; Heb. 10: 38; 1 Cor. 10: 5, 11; Heb. 11: 5; 13: 16; Col. 1: 10; 3: 20; 1 John 3: 22).
He uses very frequently in every one of his leading articles the expression, Jehovah's name, which, he says, to vindicate is the chief object of God and his
remnant. Untruthfully and slanderously he says that up to 1918 the faithful saw only the ransom and deliverance, but not the vindication of God's name (Z '31, 116, par. 11). He claims that his book and booklet selling campaign, which must include, of course, the millions not dying after 1925 propaganda, is the greatest vindication of Jehovah's name ever made (Z '31, 116, par. 11). When we consider the facts that his books reek through and through with error, that they almost always abound with abuse of the clergy and of those who contend for the Truth, instead of being filled with calm, well reasoned arguments from truth, reason and fact, and that the Elisha type, picturing the generally good aspects of the Societyites' public work, apart from the anointing of Hazael and Jehu, is silent on any of their works from 1921 onward until Elisha's death scene, which is post-Armageddon, we are enabled to get the Divine view of his work since 1920. It is unworthy of mention in the same breath with the reaping movement, because it is defiled by so much transparent error, intemperate speech, unreasoned zeal and unwise propaganda. Think of giving the public even a true exposition of Revelation and Ezekiel, which books are for the Church alone; and then think of the totally erroneous viewpoint of almost everything in these books, to say nothing of the millions propaganda and other errors of his movement, and then a fair estimate of the sort of vindication of Jehovah's name the Societyites have been giving the public since 1920 can be made! No doubt those Society friends who, mainly by word of mouth, since the literature furnished them is largely erroneous, by the Truth and by the Spirit truly reprove the world for sin, righteousness and judgment to come (John 16: 8-11) (and with genuine pleasure we recognize that there are many of them who do so), are vindicating God's name; but by the nature of the situation they fall short of vindicating it so well as was
done through the Little Flock during the reaping time.
J.F.R. claims that God's name means His purpose—a thing that he claims was never known before 1922. Then he says that God's purpose is to vindicate His name. This is, of course, reasoning in a circle and gets one nowhere so far as clearness of thought is concerned on God's name. While one feature of God's name is His plan, it has six other features; and when we speak of God's plan vindicating His name, we mean in such a connection by the word plan something different from what we mean there by the word name, while he makes God's name and what he thinks is His purpose synonymous. This vindication, he claims, is made in defiance and defeat of a challenge that Satan is supposed to have made to God to place on earth a man and race who would keep their integrity as against Satan's attempts at their seduction. In discussing his errors on Job we have overthrown this theory of God's plan. He claims that the purpose of the Christ is to vindicate God's name, purpose, against this imaginary challenge amid Satan's efforts to prevent God's putting such a man and race on earth. This setting is, of course, a mixture of truth and error. Its elaboration in J.F.R.'s writings makes power and combativeness God's main operating attributes and degrades His character and dignity as being wholly occupied in a fight of self-vindication against the imaginary challenge of an unscrupulous foe.
God's true plan is a revelation and expression of His perfect character of blended and controlling wisdom, justice, love and power, all working in perfect coordination with one another through Christ's office work in overcoming the effects of sin (introduced by Satan through Adam and fostered by him in Adam's descendants). In such work Christ delivers from sin first the faith class as the elect, and secondly, blessing through these, the unbelief class as the non-elect with opportunities of deliverance from sin, He actually
delivers the obedient of these; and all this is done that God might have the joy (Rev. 4: 11) of fitting the elect classes for, and giving them eternal life on various spirit planes, and of fitting the obedient of the non-elect class for, and giving them eternal life on the human plane, God's conflict with Satan being not the main, but an incidental part of this program, and not being at all a vindication of His ability to meet an imaginary challenge of Satan, though certainly vindicating His character against any and every aspersion cast upon it, but being altogether a revelation of His character to His rational creatures for their uplift and appreciation, that for their good they may forever celebrate by their thoughts, motives, words and acts, and image forth by their perfection God's glorious character. The reaping movement in a world-wide work most faithfully, holily and truthfully set forth this and therefore showed forth Jehovah's praises a hundredfold more and better than the for a large part unfaithful, defiled and erroneous movement led by J.F.R. has been doing from 1917 onward.
That J.F.R.'s understanding of the expression, Jehovah's name, as meaning God's alleged purpose, is very incomplete, is evident when we recognize that this expression means seven different things. These were understood during the reaping time, yea, most of them by the nominal church, as we will quote in proof from the Lutheran catechism of Dr. Conrad Dietrich, written over three centuries ago; in the face of which he says that the significance of this term has just since 1922 come to be understood. We will first quote from the above-mentioned catechism to prove that several hundred years ago they understood more on the meaning of that term than J.F.R.'s definition of it as purpose, if the purpose were truly defined, as it is not by him, shows him to understand of it. Dr. Conrad Dietrich, who died in 1639, in his catechism, which was in circulation before 1625, page
52, of the St. Louis' edition, asks the question: "What does the name of God mean?" and answers as follows: "(1) God Himself (Ex. 3: 13-15;15: 3); (2) God's attributes (Ex. 34: 5-7); (3) God's will or command (Deut. 18: 19); (4) all that is revealed of God in the Bible, and that serves for the knowledge (Ps. 48: 11), worship (Micah 4: 5), honor, praise and confession of Him (Acts 21: 13)." This answer from a nominal-church source of over three centuries ago is far more comprehensive and complete than the very incomplete and wrongly defined definition—"Jehovah's purpose"—of J.F.R., who says that his understanding of it has only lately become due! It is, when rightly defined, included in what Dr. Dietrich gives under (4).
We understand that this term name, and hence the term Jehovah's name, has at least seven meanings in the Bible, namely: (1) appellation, like Jehovah, Jesus, John, James, Mary, Martha, etc.; (2) nature (Ex. 3: 14, where the expression, "I AM" [the translation here of the Hebrew imperfect tense, first person, instead of the usual third person, Yahveh, wrongly transliterated Jehovah, referring to God in His attributes of being], means His nature; Ps. 83: 18; 99: 3; Is. 42: 8; 62: 2; 63: 16; Rev. 2: 12); (3) character (Ex. 3: 14, where occurs the expression, "I AM THAT I AM," i.e., I Am That I Am Pleased To Be—perfect in wisdom, justice, love and power; Ex. 33: 18, 19; 34: 5-7; Ps. 34: 3; 91: 14; 111: 9) [In Ex. 6: 3 the expression, "My name Jehovah" cannot mean God's appellation, since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew that and frequently used it, as the book of Genesis shows. Evidently Ex. 6: 3 uses it to signify God's nature as the Eternal, Immortal, Unchangeable, Absolute, Self-sufficient, etc., One, and His character as the Wise, Just, Loving and Powerful One. For details please see P '31, 183, 184]; (4) reputation (Ex. 9: 16; Is. 52: 5; Mal. 1: 11; Prov. 22: 1); (5) word, plan, purpose (Ex. 34: 6—"truth"; Ps. 48: 8-13;
Micah 4: 5; Acts 21: 13); (6) official authority (Deut. 18: 19, 20; Ps. 118: 10, 26; 129: 8; Matt. 26: 9); (7) honor (Is. 42: 8; Mal. 1: 14; Phil. 2: 9-11). Against his statement that the expression, the name of Jehovah, was not understood until after 1922, from when on he claims it became clear as meaning what he alleges to be God's purpose, we say that from 1904 onward we knew the above seven meanings of the expression, one of which is that of Jehovah's plan or true purpose, and our Pastor knew them years before we did. It is true that J.F.R.'s perversion and counterfeits of God's purpose since 1917 and especially since 1922 were not previously known, but they are in the little papacy the counterfeits and perversions that correspond with similar ones in great papacy. Hence his definition of Jehovah's name is verbally only a very partial truth, and in content is an error with very little Truth intermixed, just as his definition (Z '31, 116, par. 10) of what constitutes overcoming—faithfulness in witnessing (which in his sense means selling his books and booklets, giving oral witness of their contents and recommending their alleged verity)— is a partial truth; whereas overcoming mean faithfulness in study, spread and practice of the Truth and in endurance of the resultant persecutions, sufferings and trials. One of his standard methods of deceit is his definitions, which often are half-truths and more often entire errors.
He has in six consecutive issues of the Tower given a hodge-podge full of inconsistencies, self-contradictions, ambiguities, vagaries and blasphemies, as alleged new lightning flashes from his temple, on the supposed antitype of Esther. He sets forth the book as a picture of events connected with his movement. Mordecai is variously defined: sometimes as his faithful up to 1918 and onward (Z '31, 148, par. 15; 227, par. 4); sometimes as those giving the new light since 1918, and especially since 1922, which must mean
himself, since he is the one alleged to be giving it (Z '31, 198, par. 26). Esther represents that part of his remnant who have come in since 1918 and are designated and anointed the queen, Christ's Bride (Z '31, 148, par. 14; 227, par. 4). Ahasuerus represents royal power in the abstract. This definition, a splendid example of his methods of deceit, is used to pave the way to making him represent, according to the kaleidoscopic needs of his theory, sometimes Satan, sometimes the civil rulers, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Jehovah, and that at times in the same episode (Z '31, 148, par. 16). Vashti represent the false religious class: the Pharisees of old and those once in line for the kingdom, but proven lawless in 1917 and 1918 (Z '31, 148, par. 17). Haman types the clergy and his man of sin (Z '31, 148, par. 18). The Jews type God's faithful people, of whom Mordecai and Esther were mere representative members (Z '31, 149, par. 19; 153, par. 48). Much more logical is the thought that Vashti, while queen, represents the nominal church as the Lord's mouthpiece up to 1878, and hence reckoned Christ's queen; that Esther represents the Little Flock, which since 1878 displaced the nominal church as the Lord's mouthpiece and hence as Christ's reckoned queen; that Ahasuerus represents our Lord, and that Mordecai types the Laodicean Messenger. We hope to give details on this book of Esther in Vol. X. C. J. Woodworth's general setting of the book, as given in a letter in The Watch Tower, and in Comments based thereon is not in our judgment at all correct.
We now will point out the erroneousness of J.F.R.'s view of the book of Esther as typing matters connected with his movement since 1917. He gives a wrong definition of Esther, saying the word means fresh myrtle, whereas, while Hadassah, her Hebrew name, means myrtle, her Persian name, Esther, means star, and not the star Venus, as C. J. Woodworth in his letter in Z '07, 198, suggests. Nor does the myrtle
tree represent J.F.R.'s remnant in his Harvest with his alleged Truth restorations and the alleged joy of his drives. It stands for the tentatively justified. In Neh. 8: 14-17 the Israelites dwelling in booths of different kinds of branches type the various Truth professors occupying their different standings—dwelling places—before God as Little Flock members (olive branches), Youthful Worthies (myrtle branches), Second Death members (branches of thick trees), Great Company (palm branches) and the Justified (pine branches). In Is. 41: 19, 20, except for the Second Death class, the same four classes are represented by the four kinds of trees in the first clause, as applying to the Parousia; and the three groups of the Epiphany Levites are represented by the three kinds of trees mentioned in the second clause. Also in Zech. 1: 8-11 the myrtle trees represent the tentatively justified.
J.F.R.'s statement (Z '31, 150, par. 30) that Esther was certainly of Benjamin, because of being a cousin of Mordecai, is saying too much. Mordecai was of Benjamin (Es. 2: 5, 6). This would not necessarily imply that Esther was of that tribe, any more than that Elizabeth and Mary being cousins would make them of the same tribe, the former being of Levi and the latter of Judah (Luke 1: 36), because the tribal relation being fixed by the father's and not by the mother's tribe, Esther's father, though being Mordecai's uncle (Es. 2: 7) may or may not have been of Benjamin. Nor can we, as he does (Z '31, 151, par. 35), infer, from the fact that Benjamin adhered to Judah at the separation of the two and the ten tribes over 500 years before, that Esther, because of that adherence, types the faithful remnant steadfastly opposing his man of sin. Hereon several remarks: The descendants of certain ones used to type a certain class do not usually type members of the same class. Jacob and his children and other descendants, Isaac and his children and other descendants, Abraham and his children and other
descendants, Joseph and his children and other descendants, Moses and his children and other descendants, etc., etc., are a few among many examples to this effect. Again, where are the Benjaminites set forth at the separation as typing those who opposed the man of sin? Further, he defines the word (Z '31, 150, par. 35) Mordecai as meaning myrrh, whereas the word means warrior or warlike, which certainly fits the true antitype—the Laodicean angel! He unwarrantedly says (Z '31, 151, par. 41) that the Bible and history prove that Ahasuerus was Xerxes. This has been assumed without proof from either the Bible or History as likely by some non-truth writers, whose assumption our Pastor considered probable enough to accept tentatively as such. Non-truth writers with seemingly better probabilities on their side, have assumed that he was Artaxerxes, who sent both Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem for Israel's good, and whose friendliness to the Jews they claim to be a tribute of his regard for Esther. This latter view we consider correct from Biblical and historical sources; for Xerxes reigned only eleven years, whereas Ahasuerus reigned many more than twelve years (compare Esther 3: 7, 13 with 9: 20–10: 3). For the proof of Xerxes' reign being of but eleven years' duration please see the pertinent facts as they are given in the Edgar Brothers' Great Pyramid Passages, Vol. 2, 305–327. Hence J.F.R.'s pertinent assertions are an illustration of the unreliability of his statements on matters of fact in general, and on this subject in particular. His statement (Z '31, 152, par. 43) that Ahasuerus types both Christ and Satan and that his seven chamberlains type the seven heads of the Dragon and the seven stars of the seven churches, is prima facie evidence of the error of his view of the entire antitype. This is all the more manifest when he, as shown above, asserts that Ahasuerus types Jehovah also. Sober minds must reject a setting which requires such twists, absurdities and