Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
such a meaning, with Rotherham, to the word fools in Is. 35: 8, applying these, of course, then to his man of sin. We reply that the Bible uses the word fools in two senses: those of weak understanding (Luke 24: 25; 1 Cor. 15: 36; Gal. 3: 1, 3), and those of perverse heads and hearts. This fact proves that he has failed to prove that the fools of Is. 35: 8 are the perverse—his man of sin. That they are not the perverse this very verse shows, when it proves that such will not be allowed to pass over its full length. Again, he (Z '31, 310, par. 22) quotes Rotherham's misrendering in v. 10 of the word bo by enter, whereas the word bo must have an associated preposition to have this rendering, and without it is translated come or go. In Is. 51: 11 Rotherham properly renders the same word, and that in this very same sentence quoted from Is. 35: 10 by the word "come," which he should have done in Is. 35: 10. This overthrows another argument that Is. 35 applies since 1919. In this connection he says that the imprisoning of the eight brethren in 1917 was carrying them away captive to Babylon. Not so; for that would have made them go back to membership in the nominal church. Again, he says (Z '31, 310, par. 23) that Jehovah (Is. 11: 11, 16) fixed the time of the highway by the term "in that day." Yes, we reply, He did; and the remnant of his people here referred to are not His spiritual, but His fleshly Israel, as vs. 11-14 clearly prove. Fleshly, but not spiritual Israel, experiences a second deliverance (v. 11) from Assyria, etc. Moreover, the allusion to the coming out of the land of Egypt (v. 16) proves the same thing: for the coming out from the land of Egypt was after Israel left Etham and entered the wilderness, a Millennial type (Ex. 13: 20).
Since he claims (Z '31, 310, par. 26) that God's earthly organization, his earthly Zion, was not formed until 1919, there could have been no return to it in 1919, as it had never before, according to his
supposition, been formed. This takes away from him the first part of Is. 35: 10 as applying to his remnant: "The ransomed of the Lord [the restitution class] shall return [mostly from the grave; all from the curse] and come to Zion [the Millennial Christ, as God's religious government] etc." Is. 62: 10, in its last clauses [where the Hebrew word for people is plural—peoples] proves that ever since 1874 the Church is preparing the highway for the people to travel in the next Age, not since 1919 only; and in its first clauses it exhorts to pass through the gates, (1) the gate of consecration and (2) the gate of death and to prepare the narrow way for God's elect people [singular in the Hebrew]. It therefore offers no prop for this new view under examination. Nor do vs. 11 and 12 refer to the highway; but v. 11 refers to Christ's Second Advent as yet future and to the Second Advent message from 1829 to 1874, while v. 12 refers to the elect Church in the Millennium. His attempt (Z '31, 311, par. 31) to refer Is. 49: 10, 11 to the Great Company, because some of its expressions are similar to some in Rev. 7: 14-16, is a failure; for by the expression, "I will make all My mountains a way," the four elect classes (Ps. 72: 3) in the kingdom time are referred to. His use of Is. 19: 23-25 (Z. '31, 312, par. 32) is just as futile; for it too is Millennial, Egypt here standing for heathen, Assyria for nominal Christians and Israel for Jews in the Millennium, when only these three classes will become God's people. His claim (Z '31, 312, par. 33) that his Second Deathers (the clergy and his man of sin) will be judged with the rest of the world in the end of the Millennium is just like the Seventh Day Adventists' pertinent error.
When he claims (Z '31, 327, par. 19) that The Tower and the Society, (himself) do not seek to discredit Bro. Russell, he tells a falsehood. His course in earlier years was to put himself on an equality with
Bro. Russell, as his alleged successor, and second, in later years to set Bro. Russell and his pen products entirely aside, with himself occupying the center of the stage, with the suppression of all possible rivals, alleged and real, the recent disbanding of the Tower editorial committee, with himself as the real sole editor, being one of the last and many flagrant examples of such a course. His errors cast aspersions on God's name (plan), despite his protestations to vindicate it. Our and similar defenses of the Truth against his errors are real witnessing for Jehovah and vindication of His name. His claim (Z '31, 327, par. 22) that to hold and confess the teachings given them through Bro. Russell (which according to Lev. 12 are Divinely warranted as the church-developing Truth) is to honor him, not God, is a demonstrable error, and comes with poor grace from one who holds out remnantship for those who blindly and slavishly accept them. Inconsistently he (Z '31, 328, par. 25) applies John 14: 20, 23, which refers to the entire Gospel Age, to 1918 and onward, since when he (elsewhere) claims the Spirit ceased to help and minister to the saints, angels being given them as helpers. Indiscriminately he (Z '31, 328, pars. 22, 28) accuses his dissidents with holding that the Truth stopped advancing at Bro. Russell's death, for this is a false charge in so far as it includes us. He alleges (Z '31, 341, pars. 12, 14) that Ps. 145: 4 teaches that the Ancient Worthies will return and be taught by the Little Flock before the latter leaves the earth. Rather, the similarity of the thought and expression to that of Ps. 22: 30, 31, suggests that the teaching generation of Ps. 145: 4 is the Little Flock and the taught generation will be the restitution class in the Millennium. His thought cannot be true, since the Little Flock must be beyond the vail before the second blood-sprinkling occurs, which guarantees the return of the Ancient Worthies and the world.
In Z '31, 344, par. 37, he teaches that the cleansing
of the branches by pruning is not an individual work, but was a work of cutting off, from 1918 on, from the temple, "God's organization," those not worthy of belonging to it, i.e., his unfaithful and his man of sin. Against such an interpretation we suggest the following: (1) While the vine is one, there are many individual branches on a vine. Hence they symbolize individuals, as Jesus says, "Ye are the branches." See the parallels of the many members individually dealt with (Rom. 12: 5; 1 Cor. 12: 12-14, 27; Eph. 5: 30); (2) The taking away of the unfruitful branches would correspond to driving away unfaithful priests out of the temple—a thing that must be an individual work, for it is by the individual separation of all the unfaithful that such are driven out of the temple; (3) Such an individual work has been going on throughout the Gospel Age: "Every branch that beareth not fruit He taketh away" (v. 2), not simply a mythical casting out of the temple of unfaithful priests since 1918; (4) Such taking away of individual nonfruit-bearing branches (suckers, etc.) is a totally different work from the cleansing work by the Word and Spirit and by pruning providences. (5) This cleansing work is also an individual work, taking place throughout the Age, hence not beginning in 1918: "Every branch that beareth fruit He purgeth, that it may bring forth more fruit." (6) Of necessity this must be an individual work; for it is through cleansing the individual branches that each becomes clean, which is also true throughout the Age, beginning with the Apostles: "Now are ye clean through the word that I have spoken unto you." (7) His using the parable of the vine and branches as synonymous with his own invented unbiblical expression, "God's organization," disproves his view of a so-called God's organization on earth, parts of which are the Society as a corporation and its officers. Jesus tells us that
He is the vine and His faithful alone are the true branches.
In contradiction to his statement (Z '31, 359, pars. 20– 22) that the Society as a corporation (a part of God's alleged organization) was formed by God's people as a whole (if a part of God's organization it would necessarily be formed by Him alone), it should be said that, apart from a corporation, the Society at first was formed as an association of seven individuals in 1881. Then in 1884 these seven individuals adopted a charter and, with it as their constitution, had their association incorporated, i.e., authorized by the state. He seeks (pars. 20–22) to answer our charge that the Society as a creature of the state and as preserved in its existence as a corporation by the state, must have been authorized and is continued in existence by Satan's organization, if the state is a part of Satan's organization, as he contends. We say that he seeks to answer this objection; but so far as argument is concerned he gives nothing. He is held captive in the net of his own weaving, twist and squirm, pull and jerk as much as he will: The Society is a part of God's organization, and the state is a part of Satan's organization!
Then he announces the annulling of the "Tower" Editorial Committee (Z '31, 360, par. 26). This is the logical outcome of his unparalleled power-grasping course against our Pastor's will, which he falsely denies (Z '31, 376, par. 24) is a will, calling it "a paper," and which, with his habitual course of telling deliberate falsehoods when serviceable to his self-seekings, he says our Pastor repudiated before his death, thus seeking to reduce it to a scrap of paper. This invention of serviceable falsehoods is a way in which the little pope imitates his step-brother, the big pope, in inventing stories necessary to attain his purposes. The accounts of historical events of both the big and little popes are in large part made up of such
falsehoods. The Reformation, the Parousia and the Epiphany periods have revealed the former's self-interested falsehoods. The Epiphany—this apocalyptic day—is revealing those of the latter. He gives as his reason for discarding entirely that will the statement that the Lord's work cannot be done under it. We reply, the devil's work cannot be done by those of God's people whose work the will and charter were Divinely intended to direct, so long as their work is directed by the will and the charter. And because Azazel wants not God's, but his own work done among and by the Lord's people, he uses J.F.R. to set aside God's arrangements for His work and introduce Azazelian ones in their stead. Many of us remember how in the first Tower after the Pastor Russell Memorial number he promised faithfully to do the work in harmony with his teachings and arrangements, which promise he has broken completely.
In giving (Z '31, 361, pars. 27, 28) the qualifications of his "Jehovah's witnesses," he, among other things, alleges that they must have and use his three corporations, printing presses, bookmaking machines, radio, books, booklets, proclamations, etc., and other associated means of making known to the peoples the Society's [his] messages! He further asserts (Z '31, 372, par. 10) that Rom. 14: 10 proves that judgment was begun in 1918 at Jesus' alleged coming to the temple. Nothing in that Scripture, nor in any other, connects chronologically the Lord's beginning to judge His own with 1918. This verse's kind of judging began in 1878 and is still proceeding. Moreover, not only is there no Scripture that says or implies that Christ must wait 3½ years after His return before beginning to judge His own who are in the flesh (1 Pet. 4: 17), let alone in the temple, as he asserts (Z '31, 357, par. 9), but the Bible and facts disprove such a thought. Judging His own in the flesh, after His return, began immediately after His return in 1874.
But such a judging has been in principle going on throughout the Age and is a different one from that of Rom. 14: 10, which the parallel dispensations prove started 3½ years after our Lord's Return, when the awakened saints stood before His judgment seat to hear His decision as to their rewards; for the judging of Rom. 14: 10 is identical with that of 2 Cor. 5: 10; hence does not refer to judging His own who are in the flesh.
In Z '31, 375, pars. 21, 22, he denies Matt. 8: 11, 12 and Luke 13: 28, 29, as applying to the Millennium, applying them to his judging period from 1918 onward. In reply, we say: Matt. 8: 10, as well as the whole episode, proves that the ones cast out, the children of the [typical] kingdom, are Jews; hence Matt. 8: 11, 12, certainly refers to the Millennial Jews, disappointed on finding themselves not members of either phase of the kingdom, and their weeping and gnashing of teeth is their chagrin thereover. Luke 13: 28, 29, being the parallel passage, though put into another connection, of necessity teaches the same thought. Moreover, our Lord's statement in v. 30 confirms this thought; for here He shows that fleshly Israel, which was first in point of time, will be the last of God's elect peoples; while the Church, which is the last in point of time, will be the first among God's elect peoples. It is true that Luke 13: 24-27 applies to the end of the Age, but the shut door (v. 25) proves that Jesus refers in vs. 24-27 to the foolish virgins (Matt. 25: 11, 12) and certain unbegotten consecrators after the last member of the Little Flock was Spirit-begotten. The reason that Luke 13: 28, 29, is put in connection with vs. 24-27 is, not that they refer to the same individuals or classes, but because the foolish virgins and certain unbegotten consecrators in their disappointment at finding they failed of the kingdom will experience a chagrin similar to that which certain Jews of Jesus' time will feel in the Millennium
at their recognition of their failure to attain either phase of the kingdom. The above not only disposes of this new view, but also of the "new view" that the weeping and gnashing of teeth does not mean the above-described disappointment and chagrin, but the writings and speeches of his man of sin against his teachings!
His attempted distinction (Z '31, 67, par. 1) between the expression, the Lord of Sabaoth, as meaning the Almighty God of Battles, and the Lord of Hosts, as meaning the Almighty One over and above His army, is false, since the word Sabaoth in the first expression is the same Hebrew word as is translated hosts in the second; hence the expressions in Hebrew being identical, their meaning is identical. False is the statement (Z '31, 68, par. 8) that Ezekiel prophesied at approximately the same time as Haggai. There was a difference of nearly 100 years between the beginnings of their respective ministries. He covertly describes himself (Z '31, 68, par. 11) as making his teachings and works clean, because of channelship, a claim similar to that of the pope's teachings and works. If he were the Lord's channel for the priestly work, then he and his teachings and works would have to become clean, if channelship were to remain his. But the Society (now in reality himself) never was or will be the channel for the priestly teachings and works. His are unclean, as Azazelian, and the channel, when ridded of him and cleansed from Azazel's works, will be a clean channel for Mahlite Levite work. He misapplies (Z '31, 69, pars. 13, 16) the type of touching the dead to mean that there is nothing in the character development and ministry of the saints pleasing to the Lord, and to think and say there is, is "touching the dead"—contamination. Contamination by touching of the dead types contamination by heredity from Adam and by Adamically sinful works. It cannot apply to more
than the humanity of the saints, and refers not to their new-creaturely graces and works.
Yes, indeed, let the Lord's people look back and contrast the Little Flock's Parousia work and the Society's work in the Epiphany (Z '31, 70, par. 20), and the difference is found to be strikingly marked in kind and quality of the work, its spirit and its participators; but all of these differences are in favor of the Parousia work. Without any Scripture proof he affirms (Z '31, 70, pars. 22, 23) that the 24th day of the 9th month of Hag. 2: 18 typed Sept. 8, 1922, on which he asserts the tried stone for a sure foundation was laid in Zion. The Bible shows that that stone was laid before Pentecost and that the brethren in the Apostolic days had already come to it as such (Acts 4: 11; 1 Pet. 2: 6). In this citation he says that at that date his remnant was chosen and was approved by being brought under the robe of righteousness, things that he formerly asserted took place in 1918, 1919, and that from Sept. 8, 1922, onward his remnant began to count their blessings. This may be the case for his remnant, but not for the Lord's, which has been rejoicing ever since Pentecost (Acts 2: 46), though more or less interrupted therein by the big pope, between the two Harvests, and after the Parousia by the little pope. The shaking of Hag. 1: 20, 21, he claims (Z '31, 71, par. 29) to be the Battle of the Great Day of God. The Apostle shows (Heb. 12: 26-28) that it covers all the sifting movements, other disruptive movements in Christendom, including, of course, the World War, Armageddon, Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble, untoward experiences and trying conditions of all kinds, including calamities, which are testing persons, principles and things, overthrowing the evil and preserving the good. He misapplies Luke 12: 53, which mainly shows the troubles in natural families incidental to the acceptance of the Truth by members of these, to God as the father, Satan as the
son, God's (?) organization as the mother, and the disloyal child (his man of sin) as the daughter (Z '31, 71, par. 32)!
His application of Ps. 116 (Z '31, 83, par. 3) to his remnant contradicts St. Paul's application of it to the Church (including himself) throughout the Age, in 2 Cor. 4: 13. In Z '31, 84, pars. 8, 9, he denies our Pastor's thought, based on Heb. 5: 7, that Jesus in Gethsemane feared that He might have failed in some particular or might the next day fail in some particular, and as a consequence could have no resurrection ("offered prayers … to Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard"), and alleges, with no Scripture suggesting such a thought, that His grief was over the thought that His death would appear to prove successful Satan's challenge to God to put a man on earth who would maintain his integrity, a thought utterly without any Biblical basis. If such were the case, He was not heard; for that appearance persisted. Z '31, 85, par. 12 has it that the simple of Ps. 116: 6 are the foolish, whereas they are the guileless in God's sight. He does not even refrain from the blasphemy against our Lord's perfection in speech when he asserts (Z '31, 86, par. 23) that it was our Lord's experience that was expressed in the language, "In my haste I said, all men are liars." He misapplies (Z '31, 103, par. 28) the word father when used of some Christians in relation to others, as meaning that they are the more developed, whereas the Bible uses this term of some Christians in their relation to others to indicate that they were the ones who ministerially (through the Gospel, as God's representatives) begat the others of the Spirit (1 Cor. 4: 14-16; Phile. 10), as also Paul's relation to Timothy, Peter's to Mark and John's to those to whom he wrote his first epistle additionally show, in speaking of them as their sons and children. Despite the very wording of the texts of Luke 22: 18 and Matt. 26: 29,
that Jesus with the disciples would drink the new wine in the kingdom, he asserts (Z '31, 115, par. 3) that his faithful ones are now on earth drinking it with the Lord. Then he asserts (Z '31, 118, par. 22, 23) two anointings, allegedly one of qualification, allegedly another of refreshment, oblivious of the fact that the one anointing embraces every qualification of heart and mind for Christship, all of which give refreshment. His contention is further refuted by the fact that the Bible never uses the plural, chrismata, but only the singular, chrisma, to represent the whole of the Spirit's anointing (1 John 2: 20, 27). The times of refreshment of Acts 3: 19-21 have by his mudsplashes (Z '31, 118, par. 27) ceased to be the Millennium, but are the seasons of rejoicing that his remnant is alleged to be having as sellers of his books and booklets. Under his eisegetical manipulations, "a good man," in the passage, "the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord," becomes the good man—his remnant (Z '31, 135, pars. 30-33).
One of the peculiarities of the large Antichrist, particularly of its head, the pope, is that of thinking "to change times and laws" (Dan. 7: 25). This refers to the papacy's presuming to change the time features of God's plan so as to have, e.g., the Gospel Harvest from 799–839, the Millennium from 799 to 1799 and the Little Season from 1799 onward, and to change God's laws—the true doctrines and practices—into counterfeit ones. The fact that the Society leaders are the little Antichrist of Little Babylon's Catholic Church, explains much in the course and trend of Society conditions, teachings, arrangements and claims since late in 1916. Among other things, the little pope imitates the big pope in thinking "to change times and laws." That he has changed the laws—the Lord's teachings and arrangements—is manifest from his repudiating one after another those given us by the Lord through that Servant. Likewise he has thought
to change God's times, e.g., antitypical Elijah's period of ministry to the period from about 1875 to 1918, the Lord's return in Oct., 1874, to 1914 or 1918, the Harvest from 1874–1914 to 1918 or 1919 and onward, the Parousia's beginning in 1874 to 1914 or 1918, the antitypical jubilee's beginning in 1874 to 1925, etc., etc. Just as the big pope put counterfeit Harvest teachings and practices into his counterfeit Harvest, 799–839, and counterfeit Millennial teachings and practices into his counterfeit Millennium, from 799 to 1799, and counterfeit Little Season's teachings and practices into his Little Season from 1799 onward, so the little pope has put counterfeit Harvest teachings and practices into his counterfeit Harvest, from 1918 or 1919 onward. Here we emphasize the fact that the key to the teachings and practices of J.F.R. is found in the fact that, as on a large scale the big pope in Great Babylon fulfilled the prophecy of Dan. 7: 25: "He shall think to change times and laws," so on a small scale the little pope has been fulfilling this prophecy in Little Babylon, and therefore has perverted the Biblical times and laws. This explains his past, present and future aberrations. The gnashing of teeth will be felt to their depth.
We will now proceed to review his main new errors that have appeared in the Tower since our last review, which ended with the Jan. 15, 1932 Tower. He almost endlessly repeats, and that without proof, the errors that we have already refuted. These we will not again refute, our answers having received no reply. Nor will we attempt to refute all his new errors and twists, since they are too numerous; but we will review the more important of them. These in practically every instance arise from his attempt to apply about everything complimentary in the Bible to his movement since 1917, 1918 and 1919, particularly about everything of the real Harvest to his counterfeit Harvest and everything uncomplimentary in the
Bible to those who oppose his errors of teaching and arrangement.
First, he gives a number of errors on the idea of rocks in the symbols of the Bible. According to him (Z '32, 35, 2), when God is called a rock, a rock in the sense of a mountain of rock is meant. None of the Scriptures that he quotes, nor any that he leaves unquoted, gives the least hint of such a thought. Scripture symbols convey entirely different thoughts by the word rock and mountain; for they use the word rock to represent strength and protection (Deut. 32: 4, 18, 30, etc.), while they always use the word mountain to represent a kingdom, regardless of whether it is strong or weak. (Is. 25: 6, 7; Dan. 2: 35, 44; v. 43 show the weakness of the kingdoms that are in many other places called mountains, e.g., Rev. 16: 20). His implied claim (Z '32, 36, 8) that Jehovah has lately made known that He is their Rock—protector and strengthener—is untrue, since God's people, even in the Jewish Age, knew this, as well as have known it throughout this Age. His direct statement, that the fact that He has brought this to their recent attention is proof that we are in the last days, is untrue, since the knowledge of such a thought would prove the last days to have come in the Jewish Age! Yea, Abraham knew this of God (Gen. 15: 2; 17: 1, 2). Nowhere in the Bible, as he claims (Z '32, 36, 10) is the kingdom symbolized by a mountain chain, though when reference is made to it in two or more of its four ruling powers the plural, mountains, is used; but the idea then is that of one mountain with several peaks (e.g., the peaks of the mountain on which Jerusalem is built symbolize it from this standpoint), which are there meant by the expressions, mountains and hills (Ps. 72: 8; 87: 1; Matt. 24: 16). His claim that God's telling Israel to worship Him at Sinai proves that Sinai represents God's organization, which he defines in a way to include also angels and
the Society, is untrue, since it proves no more than the thought that in the Millennial Kingdom the world— antitypical Israel—will be charged to consecrate and live out their consecration under subjection to the Kingdom in its various parts: the Little Flock, the Ancient Worthies, the Youthful Worthies and the Great Company. To palm off his thought he misapplies Heb. 12: 18-24, which refers to the Kingdom, not in the sense of reigning over the world, but in the sense of its establishment beyond the vail since 1874 in Jesus and since 1878 in the Church until before the Ancient Worthies will return.
In Z '32, 37, 11–13, it is alleged that God brought out of His (alleged) organization from 2 B. C. to 33 A. D. a seed—Jesus—and exalted Him above His organization, and that this is meant by God's taking a stone out of the mountain without hands (Dan. 2: 34, 35). The Bible does not teach that God had an organization at that time. The Sarah Covenant existed at that time, but she is nowhere Scripturally called an organization, but a woman. While the Sarah Covenant has during the Gospel Age been bearing antitypical Isaac, this is never in the Bible represented as the taking of a stone out of the mountain. Under an altogether different figure and representing a wholly different thought, a stone is spoken of as taken out of the mountain. But this mountain is Satan's empire ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") and the stone cut out of this mountain is not Jesus alone, but the whole Christ class (Dan. 2: 44, 45). This passage shows that it is the Kingdom, as the stone beyond the vail, cooperated in by the Kingdom this side the vail, that smites the image. Against his claim (Z '32, 37, 15) that God did not at Christ's exaltation (33 A. D.) seat Christ on the throne of authority, which he alleges is not until Christ's alleged Second Advent in 1914, we reply that Jesus' statement in Matt. 28: 18, "All authority is given unto Me in
heaven and in earth," and the Bible statements that at His ascension He sat at God's right hand—place of chief power and favor (Heb. 2: 3; Eph. 1: 20; Phil. 2: 9-11, etc., etc.)— disprove this claim. At His Second Advent the commission was given Him to use His Age-old authority to overthrow Satan's empire, establish His Kingdom and reign for the annihilation of every vestige of the curse (Ps. 45: 3-6; 1 Cor. 15: 23-26). In this connection we might remark that repeatedly, as in par. 15, he gives the explanation to Ps. 110: 1, that Christ was to be seated at God's right hand until the Second Advent begins, when he vacates that place. This shows that he does not understand the meaning of the expression, "Sit Thou at My right hand." To sit at God's right hand means to enjoy God's chief favor and to exercise as His vicegerent His power. Jesus never will leave that right hand. He always will be God's chief Favorite and Vicegerent. Nor does the expression, "until I make Thy enemies Thy foot stool," in time mean the beginning of the Millennium, but the end of the Millennium; for to make His enemies His footstool means to annihilate them, and these enemies are thus shown to be the effects of Satan's reign, not persons (1 Cor. 15: 24-26). The force of the word "until" in this sentence is not to mark the end of Christ's being God's chief Favorite and Vicegerent (1 Cor. 15: 2326). In Hebraistic modes of thought the word until is frequently used to mean not an absolute termination of the thing spoken of, but of certain uses, acts, relations, purposes, accomplishments, etc., of that thing, it continuing on after those uses, etc., end (Matt. 5: 18; 1 Cor. 11: 26; Jas. 5: 7).
His clumsy expression (Z '32, 38, 15) on Christ's becoming the stone of stumbling to both Israels leaves the impression that Is. 8: 14 was fulfilled in 1918, though he probably means that it received one fulfillment then and its other in 33 A.D. But even so
amended, his first time statement is false, and his second is only partially true. As to the second we should say that Israel began to stumble in 33 A.D. and that stumbling continued until 69 A.D. when it was complete. As to his first statement it is throughout false; for Christendom began to stumble over the Ransom in 1878 in the great noransomism sifting in its threefold sphere of operation among the unfaithful consecrated (sanctuary), justified (courts) and merely nominally professing Christians (city;—Ezek. 9). Ever since the Spring of 1878 noransomism assumed all sorts of forms in these three spheres and this persisted until 1914, when the wrath time set in. No-ransomism, which is the form that stumbling over the Rock took (Num. 20: 7-13), began therefore in 1878 and not in 1918; nor did any new forms of no-ransomism set in after 1914. Hence the stumbling was complete in 1914, whereupon the destruction of the tares set in, which includes the no-ransomistic tares. Hence the facts disprove his application of stumbling over the Rock in 1918, and prove that it began in 1878 and ended in 1914. This also disproves his thought of the Harvest beginning in 1918 or 1919—he is not certain which.
Mixing figures and viewpoints he denies Z '32, 39, 21, 22) that the Rock on which Christ builds His Church is the truth that Peter confessed, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16: 16-19). It is true that Christ is called a Rock and a stone in the Bible (Num. 17: 6; Is. 8: 14; Eph. 2: 19-21), and that the Church is built upon Him as such, even as it is also built upon lesser stones, as the just cited Eph. passage shows. But the Truth is also called a rock and its various parts are called stones in the Bible (Num. 15: 35, 36; 1 Sam. 17: 40; 2 Sam. 22: 47; 1 Chro. 11: 15; Ps. 40: 2; 102: 14). Our Lord mentions this truth so confessed ("Flesh and blood hath not revealed it [not Himself, but the truth that
Peter had just confessed] unto thee, but My Father … and upon this rock I will build, etc.") The use of the demonstrative, "this," proves that Jesus by the words "this rock" refers to the truth that Peter had just confessed as the thing that not man, but God revealed to Peter. J.F.R. says his interpretation makes the pertinent Romanist position impossible. God thinks otherwise, for, on the contrary, when in the Reformation the Truth became due against the papal interpretation, the Lord gave the Reformers the interpretation that J.F.R. rejects. Moreover, the papists could very nicely accept his interpretation as the primary one and insist theirs is the secondary one, because, they claim, Peter as Christ's vicegerent is the rock too!
Then (par. 21) he rejects the interpretation of the keys as being the twofold power given to Peter to open the closed door for an entrance into the embryo kingdom (1) to Jews and (2) to Gentiles, and says that they are the power to unlock the mysteries of the kingdom to Jew and Gentile. This is untrue for several reasons: (1) Jesus here gave Peter two unique powers; (2) Jesus did not say to Peter that he would give him the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom, but the keys of the kingdom, powers to open the door of entrance into the Church; and (3) the power to bind and loose (which were the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom) were given to the other apostles (Matt. 18: 18) as well as to Peter (Matt. 16: 19). Thus his error is a confounding of the keys with the power to bind and loose. But why offer different interpretations for the two well established and satisfactory ones? "Variance," a work of the flesh, is the question's answer.
In Z '32, 56, 23, he says that Jesus did not enter the joy set before Him (Heb. 12: 2) until 1914. To this we reply that this joy was one of several forms: (1) pleasing the Father; (2) obtaining the high reward
of the Divine nature and heirship of God, including vicegerency; (3) winning and exalting the Church; (4) blessing the world; (5) extirpating evil; (6) giving everlasting life to the obedient and working eternal destruction to the incorrigible; and (7) amid all this and all subsequent activities glorifying God. Some of these joys He experienced in part before Calvary; others of them in part from His resurrection onward. He entered one phase of these joys in 1914, beginning to annihilate Satan's empire as a part of annihilating evil. Some of them He will enter in the Millennium; others at the end of the Millennium. All of them are progressive; and in some of them, like the last one, He will be progressing eternally. He claims (Z '32, 57, 25, 26) that while up to 1914 the celebration of the Memorial Supper was properly a sorrowful thing, since 1914 it no more is to be sorrowful, but joyful. Both of his thoughts are pure inventions with no foundation in Scripture, reason or fact. The spirit in which the Lord's Supper should be celebrated should as long as the Church celebrates it be the same as from the beginning: Sorrow that our sins brought our Lord to death, sympathy with Him and our fellow body members in their suffering, gratitude for our Lord in dying for us and appreciation for His and the Body's faithfulness in suffering; gratitude and appreciation of our privileges symbolized in the Lord's Supper, rejoicing in the victory of Jesus and those already faithful unto death, prayer for those who have not yet finished their course, hope for their and our victory, faith in everything symbolized by the Lord's Supper, determination to go forward to a successful conclusion and to help our brethren to do the same. These sentiments have not changed and will not change so long as the Church's memorializing will be in order. Our Lord's second presence since 1874 has made no other change in the celebration than to energize us in
the above-mentioned respects, since His presence assures us of more favoring providences and a nearer realization of our hopes and rejoicing on behalf of resurrected saints.
J.F.R. frequently writes articles on the Psalms and seeks to force their application to his movement. We will not go into his details, as we have already refuted his entire viewpoint on this matter. Ps. 68 is one of these that he so treats. We will comment on some only of his points thereon. Commenting on v. 11 (Z '31, 101, 15), which is properly rendered by the R. Vs.—"The women that publish the tidings are a great [large] host," he denies that the word, women, should be used in this text, saying that the feminine form is used because it refers to Zion, a feminine noun. Against his thought especially two things should be said: (1) The word Zion does not occur in the entire Psalm, hence cannot be here referred to. (2) The Hebrew participle, mevasheroth, translated in the R.Vs. by the words, "the women that published the tidings," is plural and therefore does not refer to Zion, which is singular. The plural feminine properly requires the R. Vs'. rendering. We understand the thought as follows: The women here are symbolic. They refer to the consecrated, who consist or will ultimately consist of the Little Flock as one symbolic woman, the Great Company as 60 symbolic women, and the Youthful Worthies as 80 symbolic women. All of these symbolic women are referred to in Cant. 6: 8, 9, while individually they are the virgins without number of v. 8. These are the women of Ps. 68: 11—a large host who publish the tidings. J.F.R.'s followers contain some of the first woman (the Little Flock), among others, all of one of the 60 Great Company groups and at least one of the Youthful Worthy groups. Thus this passage does not apply to his remnant exclusively. His giving (Z '32, 102, 16) the word rab in Ps. 68: 11 the meaning of great as
distinct from large is a mistake. The meaning is that the number of the women will constitute a very large host, not that his woman [his organization] is great, as he claims.
In Z '32, 117, 14, he defines the symbolic meaning of the word chariot in Ps. 68: 17, as war, preparation for war and war equipment. None of the verses quoted in the paragraph prove these to be its specific meanings. It is true that chariots were a part of war equipment and war preparation, but so were also swords, spears, slings, bows and arrows. Never are they used to symbolize war. The word chariot specifically symbolizes an organization, which may, however, be a part of the equipment of a literal or symbolic war. Every passage of the Bible that uses the word chariots symbolically or typically, uses it to mean organizations (Ex. 14: 7; Is. 31: 1; 66: 15, 16; etc.). In Z '32, 119, 21, he denies that the words of Ps. 68: 18 ("Thou hast ascended on high, etc.") apply to and at Christ's ascension, and he applies them at Armageddon. St. Paul does not agree with him; for he quotes this verse in Eph. 4: 8, applying it at and to Christ's ascension, when as the Ransomer of the race He made the race His own captive, which formerly was in the captivity of death. Moreover, St. Paul's translation here is inspired and corrects the Septuagint, which Rotherham follows in part; but J.F.R. rejects it in favor of Rotherham's, which renders, "Thou hast accepted gifts consisting of men." St. Paul's application (Eph. 4: 8-12) shows that the gifts here spoken of are not given to, and thus accepted by Christ, but are gifts that He gives to men, some of which, as St. Paul says, are the teachers placed in the Church. The Hebrew word lakach, translated here by Rotherham "to accept," usually means "to take"; but quite frequently it means "to bring" (1 Kings 17: 10, 11; 2 Kings 2: 20; 3: 15; 4: 41; 6: 13; Gen. 27: 9, 13; 1 Sam. 21: 9; Lev. 12: 8, 6; Num. 23: 11; Judges 11: 5;