Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13


contrarieties in the antitypical significance. Such incongruities find no place in the true antitype, where Ahasuerus throughout represents our Lord. These incongruities are only a few samples of the stretching, twisting, whittling, ignoring and contradicting necessary to torture the book of Esther into a type of his movement since 1917.


Vashti does not mean beautiful woman; it means beautiful, regardless of whether a woman or something else is spoken of. Of course, it is in his interests, if he would keep disciples following after him and frighten them away from those whose arguments he cannot meet, and whose communion he forbids his followers to hold, to represent them as antitypical Haman, his evil servant, man of sin, son of perdition, Antichrist, lawless one, Judas, workers of iniquity and anything else he can find unfavorable in the Bible to pin on them, no matter how much wresting and twisting of the Scriptures it requires. Nor does Haman mean noise, tumult, he that prepares the way, nor does Hammedatha mean he that troubles the law, as he asserts (Z '31, 152, par. 46), but Haman means Mercury as famed and Hammedatha means doubly given. Claiming that Christ's reign began Oct., 1914, that His war with Satan followed immediately and that Christ's victory was followed by the antitype of Ahasuerus' 180 days' feast, whose type occurred in the third year of Ahasuerus' reign, and applying the typical years for so many years in the antitype, he involves himself into a chronological blunder that disproves his setting of things; for the third year (Es. 1: 3, 4) of a reign alleged to have begun in the "autumn of 1914" would be Oct., 1916, to Oct., 1917. But, alas for his theory, the seventh day of a feast of 180 days, when Vashti's rebellion set in, within that third year, even if it were put at its latest possible date, would be in the second half of that period which makes the seventh day of that period about April 7, 1917, while his setting of



things, as he puts it (Z '31, 163, par. 3), requires him to begin the feast in the end of 1917, or the beginning of 1918 (Z '31, 163, par. 4). But it is true that he was feasting at the table of power-grasping and lording it over God's heritage and gormandized himself to the full during the third year, 1916-1917, and thereby made a division in the Church, which began June 27, 1917, a half year too early for the rebellion of his antitypical Vashti! He then calls his alleged feast the beginning of the marriage supper of the Lamb (the end of 1917 or beginning of 1918!), whereas the Bible shows that supper to take place after the Great Company is not only invited thereto, which has not yet taken place, but after they leave the world, which will not be for perhaps 20 years yet (Rev. 19: 8, 9). He is further inconsistent in identifying this feast and the one of Luke 14: 17-21, and connecting them with his alleged coming of Christ to the temple (Z '31, 164, pars. 8, 9), which he has all along been claiming for the Spring of 1918, a further proof of his stretching the third year until its end reaches the Fall of 1918, the beginning of the fifth year after Oct., 1914!


He defines his seven wise men in a good sense (in the bad sense they are the dragon's seven heads!) as being allegedly spirit beings, as the seven alleged angels of the seven churches (Z '31, 164, par. 12). It will be recalled that years ago we charged that a logical deduction from his new setting of things would force him to make Christ's Second Advent occur Oct., 1914. This he denied, and for years kept saying that he was not changing it from 1874. We charged that this was hypocritical in him and was done because he did not then dare take the mask off the face of his theory. Now he comes out and plainly gives 1914 as the date of Christ's Second Advent (Z '31, 166, par. 23)! Hegai, which means exile, he defines (Z '31, 167, par. 31) as taking away, meditation. He claims (Z '31, 167, par. 32) that Hegai types some [note the indefiniteness]



provision [persons never type provisions] from and after 1918 to prepare God's people for the kingdom, which seems to be his antitype for his meaning of taking away; and as an alleged antitype of the alleged meaning meditation he claims there has been more study of the Word since 1918 than before. The reverse, of course, is the case among his followers. One of the worst effects of his administration is his prevention of Bible study, necessitated by keeping his partisans busy selling his erroneous books, and devoting so much of the meetings' time to coaching on book selling. Everybody knows that in Society circles study is in part given up; and for the rest the lessons of the Tower must be gone over so rapidly (about 3½ pages at a lesson) that class members cannot be said to study in such meetings. They merely kiss the great toe of the little pope by submitting unquestioningly to his supposed channelship, swallowing without chewing the unhealthful food he gives them. Like the seven counselors of Ahasuerus in a good sense, Esther's seven maids are supposed to be the seven alleged spirit angels of the seven churches (Z '31, 167, par. 35)! The spirit angels cannot minister the Spirit or the Word to the Faithful, to whom they minister only providentially (Acts 11: 13, 14). He claims (Z '31, 168, par. 42) that Is. 65: 5, in referring to those who say, "holier than thou," means those who develop character for kingdom fitness. But really for the Gospel Age it means those nominal people of God, especially the clergy, who excommunicated the saints as defiled heretics; and in the little Gospel Age, the little papists and protestants (other Levites) who have disfellowshipped the priesthood as defiled heretics. He also in the same paragraph claims that Esther's year's preparation types the preparation for the anointing for the kingdom, which his new view claims in all cases is offered to only the very zealous among new creatures, whereas the preparation types the anointing



of the Church class as Christ's prospective reckoned queen for taking the mouthpieceship that antitypical Vashti in 1878 lost.


He comes again into chronological difficulties. Actually the seventh year from Oct., 1914 (when he claims that Christ's reign began, typed, he claims, by Ahasuerus' reign beginning), is Oct., 1920, to Oct., 1921. But according to his setting what he falsely claims (Z '31, 169, par. 47) is typed by Esther's being brought to the king in the seventh year of his reign actually began to take place in Sept. of 1922, just about a year after the end of his seventh year, not after the end of seven years, as he tries to gloss it over. Ahasuerus in supremely loving Esther now begins (Z '31, 170, par. 50), but only for a little while, to type Jehovah, an [alleged] fact that Jesus likely had in mind when He said, "The Father Himself loveth you"! But the connection shows that he now is taking Esther to wife, hence cannot therein represent Jehovah; but could therein fittingly represent Jesus. And Esther's feast (Z '31, 170, par. 53) in celebration of the marriage "probably foreshadowed 'the marriage supper of the Lamb' to which God's remnant [hence not the Great Company!] are invited, and to which they have responded, and that this dates from approximately Sept. [in the banner unfurling at the Columbus Convention], 1922." (1) His remark (Z '31, 182, par. 22) that Satan's messengers hide behind the letter of the law in their efforts to injure the faithful, reminds us of his attempting to hide his unholy ambition in power-grasping and resisting of all opposers thereof in 1917 behind an inapplicable law, requiring allegedly the ousting of the four directors. Then he claims (Z '31, 182, par. 24) that God allows Satan, particularly since 1918, and more so since 1922, to seek to destroy the Church! Greater efforts by far were made by Satan in the Dark Ages by great papacy. Rather, since 1917 God has been letting Satan seek to destroy the flesh



of the Great Company, and this, with chronological twists to suit his theory, he misinterprets as Satan's greater efforts to destroy the Church. Esther's being told (Z '31, 196, pars. 9, 11) to declare her nationality, he alleges, types the Societyites' being told to stand forth against Satan's organization by giving the Society's messages, which are his own. This is untrue; for her being urged to declare her nationality was to preserve her and the other Israelites' lives, based upon her influence with the king. Again, it is untrue, for Esther did not stand up against Ahasuerus' empire, which, according to the theory, was the type of Satan's alleged organization. Again, it is untrue because those stood up against were at most servants of Satan, who therefore, would type certain servants of Satan at the time of the antitype. And, finally, the declaration of her nationality was only incidental to, and influential for the Jews' delivery. Hence the alleged antitype falls to the ground. Her declaration of her nationality was only one act of her maintaining her integrity, which to retain God's favor she had hitherto faithfully kept. Hence her telling her nationality could not type the Church's full keeping of its integrity (Z '31, 196, par. 13).


To assert, as he does (Z '31, 196, par. 10), that until only lately have the present Truth people been considered "as like other 'Christians' so-called, merely religionists in the land," is a false and base slander of the Reaping People of God, who were certainly in many ways by "'Christians' so called" persecuted for their stand for Truth and righteousness while reaping the Gospel-Age Harvest. He dares charge God's Little Flock in its reaping members from 1874 to 1914 with being "like other 'Christians' so called." In so doing he reveals himself as acting as the mouth of the little beast in little Babylon, opened "in blasphemy against God to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle and them that dwell in heaven" (Rev. 13: 6). Contrast his



fierce denunciation of the clergy, politicians and capitalists with Bro. Russell's sober, truthful, clear, but tactful descriptions of these, e.g., as in Vol. IV, and at once the spirit of the latter is shown to be that of that wise and faithful servant and that of the former is shown to be that of the Jambresite leader among Truth sifters, that wicked servant and foolish and unprofitable shepherd.


If his pertinent setting of things is right (Z '31, 197, pars. 14, 15), Esther's going to the king for relief could only type the Lord's people going down to Egypt for help—a thing that he denounces; hence he jumps away from his setting of things—Satan's alleged organization typed by the Persian Empire—and makes Jehovah the antitype of Ahasuerus—a procedure that to the discerning is proof positive of the erroneousness of his entire theory of the antitype of the book of Esther. Never once does he apply his definition of Ahasuerus' antitype, royalty in the abstract, to such, but always applies it to persons, which proves the definition to be a studied subterfuge. He claims that those who hold to Rom. 13: 1-6 as referring to the civil powers, which its various expressions prove it does, have "gone into the dark," i.e., have left the Truth. But he has almost entirely left the Truth that held up to 1916, which proves that he is one of those who have "gone into the dark." Par. 35 says that God and His organization are the higher powers, which, of course, from his standpoint, includes the Society leaders, especially himself, as the little papal autocrat of them all. Esther's sending word to Mordecai that she would go to the king for the release of the Jews, with preceding fasting, he claims (Z '31, 198, par. 27), types the alleged remnant announcing their determination to prepare to get into line and partake in the Society's drives. This cannot be true, even from the standpoint of his own position, because his view requires this alleged antitype to have set in after 1926—



the 12th year—whereas his supposed Esther had for years entered into and continued in such conformity and drives. Esther's purifying, in his setting, typing preparation for the remnant's anointing, the king's choosing her as bride typing his remnant's choice for the anointing by Christ, her marriage typing the remnant's being made a sharer of Christ's kingdom with Him, by becoming an active part of Jehovah's organization, are examples of three contradictions to his chronological claim on the 12th year now being examined. Our understanding of the typical significance of the 3rd, 7th and 12th years is as follows: The 3rd year, as marking the feast and Vashti's rejection, the 7th as marking Esther's choice by the king, and the 12th year as affecting Persians and Jews type not years but trial times of different classes. The 3rd year types the trial period of the nominal church as mouthpiece; the 7th year the trial period of the true Church for mouthpiece, and the 12th year, the trial period of the real and nominal Little Flock as to their standing.


Again, His claim that such getting into line and partaking in such drives occasioned Satan to make the original decree to put his remnant, among other things, to physical death; hence the alleged remnant's subsequent act of going to the king for release from the decree could not have caused the decree, for the cause must precede the effect. The same chronological and logical contradictions are manifest in his claim (Z '31, 199, par. 34) that Esther's appearing before the king types the faithful appearing before Christ's judgment seat in his temple, which everywhere he alleges was in 1918 and 1919, which is before the alleged decree was issued. Her thus appearing, he alleges, is in her going from house to house to sell his books and booklets since 1926! Note the change from Jehovah to Christ (par. 34) in his pertinent interpretation of the type, while the actual demands of his setting make, not



Christ, but Satan, the threatener of the danger, and hence the king's antitype here.


Note the folly of Z '31, 212, par. 5: Devils tried to make Ahasuerus cranky at the time of Esther's appearance, but good angels shoved them away and made him good humored! This is when Ahasuerus is supposed to type our Lord sitting in His temple in judgment! This, he says, was just before the remnant appeared before Christ in the temple and received the robe of righteousness, garments of salvation (Z '31, 212, pars. 5, 6), which he everywhere else assigns to 1918 and 1919, but here to 1926! It is also contradictory to his setting that the antitype of her going to the king on behalf of her people occurred in the remnant's selling his books from 1922 onward, while the decree was made in the twelfth year of Christ's supposed reign, 1926.


Note the glaring inconsistency of Haman's being in the scene of the banquet Ahasuerus' prime minister and in that scene typing the cast-off clergy and the alleged man of sin, and in the same scene Ahasuerus typing Jehovah or Christ (Z '31, 213, par. 13). Of course, his charge (Z '31, 216, pars. 35, 36) that the clergy and his man of sin seek the physical death of his remnant is false; but it serves splendidly to make his remnant oppose his man of sin and partisanly support him; but, as the Irishman said, "Thot's the intintion." His view (Z '31, 216, pars. 39–47) that the Bible teaches that civil rulers will destroy the clergy and his man of sin, and that before Armageddon, is false. The civil rulers will mourn over the clergy's destruction, standing helpless afar off therefrom (Rev. 18: 9, 10). It will be antitypical Jehu, conservative labor, the revolutionists, who will kill the clergy in so far as they are Baal worshipers and kissers (2 Kings 11: 11, 18-28). He is led to make this error by claiming (Z '31, 216, pars. 39, 40) that Ahasuerus in executing Haman types the civil rulers destroying the clergy and his



man of sin. He thus makes Ahasuerus type five things in this book: royalty in the abstract, Satan, Christ, Jehovah and the civil rulers. Yea, in the banquet scene he first makes Ahasuerus type Christ, then changes him from Christ to the civil rulers at Haman's exposure; and at Ahasuerus' returning and finding Haman pleading with Esther for his life, he changes him to Jehovah; and in his ordering Haman's death he changes him again to the civil rulers! And all this in one scene!


He misapplies Joel 3: 9, 12, which refers to the World War, to Armageddon (Z '31, 229, par. 13), and then makes Armageddon mean all the trouble, whereas (he is silent on the World War as part of the trouble, since it no longer fits his views) it does not refer to anarchy, nor Jacob's trouble, but solely to the revolution (Rev. 16: 14-18), immediately after which, he says (Z '31, 233, par. 48), the kingdom will bless all as its subjects. This cannot be until, not only after anarchy and Jacob's trouble, but after the return of the Ancient Worthies.


Of course, such twists are necessary to his claim (Z '31, 229, par. 20) that the messengers, sent to the Jews, giving them the right to defend themselves from their attackers, type his remnant selling his literature containing the message to the antitypical Jews to fight in Armageddon! The Lord's faithful, allegedly his Jews, are to stand entirely aside and let antitypical Jehu, conservative labor, fight with the financial, clerical and political rulers (Rev. 16: 14). This, from the standpoint of his setting that the Jews type God's remnant, proves, contrary to his view, that the battle of the 13th of the 12th month cannot type Armageddon. His saying (Z '31, 229, pars. 21, 22) that in type and antitype "the Jews" will be aggressors, not simply defenders, contradicts the Bible account that present the Jews as defenders ("stood for their lives") and, of course, would represent defending, not



attacking antitypes. This error is to incite to aggressive book and booklet selling! His claim (Z '31, 243, par. 3) that the fact that those who were in 1918 restrained by the government have since been given opportunities to serve proves them to be the faithful, is illogical. The faithful Epiphany friends were not so restrained, and were before, during and after that restraint given the privilege of leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate, etc.; while that restraint, preceded and followed by its participants having opportunities for service (of Azazel), is in line with the thought that it was a fit-man experience. Mordecai's and Esther's being of one family being used by him (Z '31, 227, par. 4) as a proof that they thereby type the espoused of Christ, is transparent folly, as it would prove Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Benjamin, Cain and Abel, etc., to type the espoused of Christ.


What of his claim that his antitypical Haman, the clergy and his man of sin, are to be put to death physically by the civil powers before Armageddon? J.F.R. has repeatedly been proven to have made false forecasts. Hence he is proven to be a false prophet and the Lord's people should regard and disregard him as a proven false prophet, according to Deut. 18: 22. Having, since shortly after his presumptuous and busybodying "absolutely-withoutauthority" cablegram reached England, Feb. 26, 1917, been regarded by him as his leading opponent, of course, from his standpoint we are the leader of his Antichrist, his man of sin, his son of perdition, his lawless one, his Judas, his evil servant and his workers of iniquity. Therefore, according to his theory we are going to be executed physically by the civil rulers before Armageddon. If we are not executed physically by the civil rulers before Armageddon, he will for the "steenth" time be proven a false prophet.


But the situation is not one so easily disposed of. We will press it home as we did the 1925 fiasco, which,



from our knowledge of the Biblical Parousia and Epiphany teachings, we forecast as such at least five years before 1925. The Biblical Epiphany teachings prompt us here to declare now in advance of his time for our alleged physical execution by the civil powers, that he in this forecast will again be proven to be a false prophet. Knowing the work the Lord has given us to do after Armageddon, we now call to witness our heavenly Father, the Lord Jesus, the Church Triumphant and Militant, the partisan Society adherents and any other of the Truth people to whose attention this statement may come, that we solemnly declare in their presence that J.F.R. has made a false forecast with reference to the clergy and his man of sin, etc., particularly as impliedly involving ourself, when he forecasts that they will be physically executed by the civil rulers before Armageddon; and we also call them to witness to the fact that we assert that the factual disproof of his forecast will not only prove him a false prophet, to be regarded and disregarded as such, but to have given a totally false setting to the typical teachings of the book of Esther, and to be a completely unreliable and thoroughly false teacher; while the fulfillment of his forecasts would prove us a false prophet and an unreliable teacher. Into such a revelatory testing position has his pertinent forecast put him, and our above use of it put us! As Elijah put himself and the priests of Baal to test, so now we put ourself and him before the heavenly Father, our Lord Jesus, the Church Triumphant and Militant, the partisan Society adherents and any of the rest of the Truth people who shall read this, to a test that will determine which of us is a teacher Divinely enlightened, and which of us is a Satanically deluded and deluding teacher among God's people. We are penning these words Sunday A. M., Jan. 24, 1932.


In Z '31, 243–249 and 259–265, he writes on Ezek. 8



and 9, forcing these chapters into setting forth things from 1919 onward, whereas they portray matters from 1874 onward. Neither our Pastor nor ourself have written on Ezek. 8, though we have detailedly written on Ezek. 9 in Vol. IV, Chap. II, and successfully defended our position therein from an attack from J.F.R. from a standpoint that he now repudiates! Of course, it is quite significant that under our attacks or defenses he is continually compelled to alter his views. We will here give a very brief view of our understanding of the general features of Ezek. 8: Ezekiel in this chapter represents the Little Flock in the reaping time. The presence of Judah's elders represents the thought that the vision concerns the leaders of Churchianity during the reaping time, particularly, though not exclusively, in Protestantism. The likeness (v. 2) represents the Parousia Truth, which enabled the Church to have proper insight (vision) into Churchianity. The temple represents the Church. The image of jealousy symbolizes the eternal torment theory, a counterfeit of the real curse, which the sacrifice on the antitypical Altar cancels. Its being placed beside the altar symbolizes the profanation of the real sacrifice and altar—Christ's death and his humanity for sin's cancellation—through vitiating them, i.e., the eternal torment theory sets these aside, and thus profanes them. The worship of the creeds, organizations and arrangements of Churchianity, fostered by the clergy—the counterfeit 70, Jaazaniah representing the defiled crown-lost leaders—in its profanation of God's Church, is symbolized in vs. 10-12, while the Church studying into this situation and helped thereto is set forth in vs. 7-9. The sorrow of the pertinent churches over the decay of the union of church and state is symbolized by the weeping of the women over Tammuz (vs. 13, 14). Baal worship—power-grasping and lording it over God's people, as exercised by the clergy, especially the



Roman clergy—is symbolized in vs. 15, 16, while vs. 17, 18 contain God's statement on the conditions and the resultant wrath. All of this, without understanding its relation to this chapter, was seen by the Church in the Parousia.


J.F.R.'s remarks on this and the following chapter are characterized by his habitual dullness, vagariousness, arbitrariness and folly, because he forces a meaning on them that does not fit them; since he applies them onward from 1919. He says (Z '31, 244, par. 5) that Jehovah began in 1919 to forewarn the workers of iniquity of their future punishment and to reveal Satan's evil order of affairs, whereas, as a matter of fact, the pertinent warnings and revelations (vs. 17, 18) were given throughout the reaping time, and that on evils in the nominal church, those of the statesmen and aristocrats as such being excluded from this picture. See the chapters on the Day of Jehovah and Kingdoms of This World of Studies, Vol. I, the Times of the Gentiles, the Jubilee, the Parallel Dispensations and the Antichrist of Studies, Vol. II, the Reaping and Pyramid of Studies, Vol. III, Studies, Vol. IV, etc. The punishment began in the World War, five years before his fictitious first warnings are supposed to have begun. We do not doubt that, as the partisan Society adherents have received since 1917 the public ministry of reproving for sin, etc., they have given warning of punishments coming since then. But this was after the Little Flock's warning had been completed and its threatened punishment had begun, and only the latter's warning is symbolized by the one offered Ezekiel to give and the one that he gave. J.F.R.'s image of jealousy is the Devil (Z '31, 245, par. 9)! The abomination of desolation is no more the papacy; but is the Devil's organization, particularly his image of the beast—the League of Nations (Z '31, 245, 10)! It will be noticed that while chapters 8 and 9 speak of abominations profaning the temple,



it does not mention the abomination of desolation. Hence, here we have another piece of Rutherfordian eisegesis. The women weeping for Tammuz represent, he says, Epworth Leaguers and Fundamentalists (Z '31, 246, par. 15), whereas symbolically women represent churches. Tammuz, he says (par. 15), represents Churchianity, whereas Tammuz is a Phoenician variation of Osiris [Nimrod] corresponding to the Roman Adonis, whom Venus [Nimrod's wife and mother, Semiramis] mothered and then committed incest with, their unholy union being a type of the union of church and state, especially, but not exclusively, of the Romanist church and the papal state.


His slaughter-weapon men now (Z '31, 259, par. 2) are Jesus and the spirit angels; they used to be the Church after Bro. Russell died! They may, though, now include the risen saints (par. 2)! Their number, six, he says, represents their incompleteness, because they must be completed by his inkhorn man, whom he formerly and erroneously claimed was Bro. Russell alone, but now claims is his remnant, as the seventh, whereby the complete number is had (Z '31, 260, par. 4), whereas six, being the number of imperfection and evil, the six cannot represent Jesus, the spirit angels and possibly the risen saints. He says that the slaughter-weapon men cannot be servants of Satan, because God gives them a command (Z '31, 261, par. 7). The fallacy of this is evident from the fact that God in a similar sense gave a command to a wicked spirit to deceive Ahab (1 Kings 22: 19-23), and by His providences sends commands to sifters to work strong delusions (2 Thes. 2: 9-11). In this way the command of Ezek. 9: 5-7 was given. His slaughter-weapon men—spirit beings—he claims physically kill the wicked (Z '31, 261, pars. 10, 11), but the Bible teaches that human beings will kill some (2 Kings 9-11), and famines and pestilences will kill others of them. The whole section being symbolic, of course



the killing must be symbolic. Those who are ink-marked on their foreheads are the millions now living who will never die (Z '31, 262, par. 14)! Despite terrible jolts he seems unable to shake himself loose from the "millions" idea! At least the following is true of many of those who were led to believe that they were among those alleged millions: By the millions propaganda before 1925, symbolic ink, both corrupt and ill-smelling, as such even yet noticeable in the figurative atmosphere, was splattered with bad effect into their eyes, but was inherently too effervescent to mark their foreheads. Nowhere in the Bible are others than the Little Flock spoken of as being by God commanded to be marked in the forehead (Rev. 7: 1-3; 14: 1). Hence the inked ones of Ezek. 9 are the faithful Church during the Parousia, when all of them were so marked. One little consideration overthrows his view and proves the slaughter-weapon men to be evil-doers: They defiled God's temple—the Church— (Ezek. 9: 7); and the Bible teaches: "If anyone defile the temple of God, him will God destroy" (1 Cor. 3: 17). Hence these slaughter-weapon men were not Jesus, the good angels and the risen saints, but have been the six sets of reprobates who have led the six siftings of the Harvest.


With Judas-like kisses as professions of love and esteem for Bro. Russell (Z '31, 279, pars. 1–7), he stabs him in the back by repudiating both relationship to his work, main teachings and sympathizers and the name, "Bible Students," that Bro. Russell usually employed for the Lord's people, when addressing the public, in response to their demand for a name as a means of identification. Under the present circumstances we think this fortunate, because his gross errors, unfulfilled forecasts and rowdy mannerisms have altogether too much reflected discreditably upon our Pastor, in his teachings, arrangements, spirit, sympathizers. He then proceeds to give his followers the



name Jehovah's witnesses. He claims that God commands this name to be given them. He reaches this conclusion with characteristic mud clearness. He says that to be Jehovah's witnesses (his devoted sectarians, the little pope's symbolic toe-kissers) means that his remnant has received the stone with the new name of Rev. 2: 17 written therein. The fact that the term, Jehovah's witnesses, as the sectarian name of his followers, is known by many of the public, proves that it cannot be the new name of Rev. 2: 17, which only its recipients know. Does the fact that his followers went wild with enthusiasm when given this name at their Columbus Convention prove it Divinely given? A balanced Christian never goes wild over anything, though he does have a sober enthusiasm for the Lord, His Truth and His people. Such wild enthusiasts are just the ones bigotedly, in cock-sureness of having a monopoly of the Truth and its service, to accept his advice not to discuss religion with those Truth people not agreeing with his teachings (Z '31, 280, par. 1).


The new name of Is. 62: 2; 65: 15, has no reference to his claim that it points out the (sectarian) appellation that he has given his followers; for it refers to the new nature and office that Jehovah gives the faithful beyond the vail. From Is. 65: 15 he claims (Z '31, 292, par. 7) that God wants the Societyites to be called by a new name to distinguish them in the eyes of the public from the so-called opposition! He says (Z '31, 293, par. 10; 295, par. 23) that Is. 62: 1, 2, etc., cannot apply to the Church beyond the vail, because allegedly the nations could not see that God then would have an approved people! But God's saying that the Church while in the flesh ("now") will not be recognized by the world as the faithful (1 John 3: 2) proves that Is. 62: 1, 2, must apply to the Church beyond the vail, which proves that the new name of Is. 62: 2; 65: 15; Rev. 2: 17; 3: 12, must refer to the



Church beyond the vail and cannot refer to the Church this side the vail, and therefore cannot sanction the taking as a distinctive (and we should in truth add, sectarian) name, the term, "Jehovah's witnesses," which is not, unless sectarianly used, a name at all, but a description of the Church in her mission to the world during the Gospel Age. The name of Rev. 3: 12 cannot refer (as he claims in Z '31, 294, par. 15) to the name of his sect, because it is common to the overcomers, to the new Jerusalem (which is undoubtedly beyond the vail), to Christ and to God, who certainly will not give His appellation, Jehovah (Is. 42: 8), to anyone, which proves the word name here does not mean appellation. This passage also proves it, because Jehovah is not one of Jehovah's witnesses, for God says to others than Himself, "Ye are My witnesses." Moreover, the express term, "Jehovah's witnesses," does not occur in the Bible, but the term is "My witnesses." All this proves that this newly invented appellation is not referred to by the above considered four passages alleged for it.


He seeks (Z '31, 295, pars. 25, 26) to evade the force of the expression, that the new name is to him that overcomes, as applying to final overcoming, by saying that the word does not refer in these verses to final overcoming, but to incidental overcoming during this life. We reply, whenever this word carries a restricted meaning, such as he seeks to apply to it in Rev. 3: 12, etc., the Scriptures use a qualifying term so limiting it, as in the expressions, "gotten the victory over the beast and over his image" (Rev. 15: 12), and "in all these things, we are more than conquerors" (Rom. 8: 37). But in Rev. 2 and 3 the overcomers who are promised special rewards are final overcomers and their reward in every case is beyond the vail. In Rev. 3: 12, as said above, the word name cannot mean appellation, for the Church never receives Jehovah's appellation (Is. 42: 8), while this verse says



she will get Jehovah's name. It evidently means name in the sense of the Divine nature here. His connecting (Z '31, 294, par. 16) the white stone with the Urim and Thummim is a wild guess without the slightest vestige of Scriptural proof and contrary to the Scriptural teachings, just as his placing the Urim and Thummim within the fold of the breastplate is a baseless and untrue assumption. The Bible connects them with the twelve stones in the front of the breastplate. It is untrue that only faithful Societyites understand what he claims to be Jehovah's purpose. Our understanding of his pertinent theory has helped us by the Lord's grace to prove it erroneous. His claim (Z '31, 295, par. 20) that the name, Jehovah's witnesses, can apply only to the Societyites is silly. It is not an appellation, hence can be nobody's name, unless it is assumed, as in this case, by a sect as its name. Since the Bible does not use it as a name, we do not desire it as such.


J.F.R., in Z '31, 307-313, gives a new view of the highway of holiness of Is. 35: 8, claiming that it has been opened since 1918 and that his faithful followers—his remnant—are the vanguard of Jehovah's army, marching thereon (Z '31, 307, par. 1-3), to be followed later thereon by the Great Company and in the next Age by the Restitution class. This, of course, results from his error of applying almost everything good in the Bible to his movement since 1917, which is supposed to be proven as right by 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17 and Rom. 15: 4. Heb. 12: 12, 13, an allusion to Is. 35: 3, 4, is also supposed to make the highway apply since 1918, despite the fact that St. Paul makes the allusion to the brethren throughout the entire Gospel Age, without blunderingly connecting the passage dispensationally with Is. 35: 8, as par. 4 does. Instead of such a connection being a matter "without question of a doubt," as J.F.R. dogmatically says, the true run of thought is the following: God holds out the world's



Millennial paradisaic hope (Is. 25: 1, 2) and the hope of our Lord's Second Advent, as accomplishing the overthrow of Satan's empire and the deliverance of His Church (Is. 35: 4), as an encouragement to His Own throughout the Age to press on in the narrow way, despite weakness of their symbolic hands and feet and timidity of their symbolic heart. He continues (Is. 35: 5-10) to encourage such brethren with a glowing description of the Millennial hopes and prospects. Hence the reference to the weak hands, feeble knees and timid hearts of vs. 3, 4, proves that they are not the ones on the highway, but are the ones to comfort themselves with the hopes that are theirs for the world, centering in that highway. This Biblical answer effectually disposes of the central position of the article under review. Of course Satan seeks to make the new view, that he is through the Society's mouthpiece palming off, seem plausible by certain details, which we will now briefly examine.


In Z '31, 308, pars. 7, 8, he quotes a translation of Is. 35: 8 in his favor from Rotherham, who usually is one of the best of all translators. But in this instance Rotherham is far less correct than either the A. V., E. R. V., A. R. V. or Young. We first give Rotherham's translation of the second half of the verse, asking our readers to note the interpolation that he inserts at the end of the verse and to remember that one of the two main errors under review on this verse rests on this interpolation, and the other upon Rotherham's mistranslation in the first-quoted sentence: "But He Himself shall be one of them traveling the road. And the perverse shall not stray [thereinto]." The interpolation thereinto introduces a thought entirely foreign to the text and context. And the first sentence certainly is a mistranslation. The interpolation and false translation are due to Rotherham's reading his nominal-church view of the non-Millennial application of the highway into this passage.



The A.V., E.R.V. and A.R.V. are correct here, barring their interpolations. The unclean who do not pass over the highway are those who in the next Age will not reform (Is.65: 20). These will not be allowed to pass over its full length. Young renders the second half of the verse as follows: "He Himself is by [for] them: whoso is going in [there is no word in the Hebrew corresponding to the word in here] the way—even fools—err not." The Hebrew masculine pronoun hoo has in v. 8 as its antecedent the Hebrew masculine noun derech, way. To show its emphasis the word itself might well be added. The translation He Himself, in itself grammatically correct enough, implies an antecedent 4½ verses above, hence is farfetched and interferes strangely with the verse's run of thought. A good Hebrew scholar untrammeled by the creeds in his translation will certainly acknowledge Young's translation here as far better than Rotherham's, despite the latter's usual excellence. The A.V., E.R.V., A.R.V., and Young prove the passage to be exclusively Millennial, since now only the wise (Dan. 12: 10) understand and do not go astray in error. Nor is Rotherham's thought supported by Is. 52: 11, 12, as J.F.R. contends. To his remark (Z '31, 308, pars. 10, 11) that prior to 1917–1919 Jesus' followers were compelled to mingle with Babylonians, but since that time they have been on the highway, we reply that this remark is another proof that he disbelieves that the Harvest began in 1874, but believes that it began "approximately" 1917, 1918 or 1919! He claims that since 1919 the remnant no more are compelled to mingle with Babylonians, who with all others are being kept out of Zion (par. 13). For proof he quotes three undoubtedly Millennial passages: Rev. 21: 27; 22: 15; Is. 65: 15, which, therefore, prove nothing of the kind. In Z '31, 309, pars. 16, 17, he labors to prove that fools are the perverse exclusively, in order to give