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


1 Sam. 16: 11; 20: 31; Deut. 30: 4). The meaning to bring in the sense of giving is the significance of lakach here, as St. Paul translates and interprets, and does not here mean accept, as Rotherham translates and J.F.R. interprets. Why does he reject an inspired translation and interpretation? It is because they contradict his new view. This, of course, refutes his view elaborated in pars. 25-30, by which he contradicts his view expressed above based on Rotherham's mistranslation, and in which he claims that the gifts referred to in Ps. 68: 18 mean the gifts of blessings that Christ is alleged to bestow upon J.F.R.'s unconsecrated sympathizers and the gifts (!) of woe that Christ is alleged to bestow upon his opposers! He applies this passage to mean that at Armageddon Christ will take his enemies captive, i.e., Satan and his cohorts!


In favor of his Seventh Day Adventist view, that Satan, the impenitent angels and the Second Death class will be put to death in Armageddon and remain dead during the Millennium and be awakened thereafter, he quotes Is. 14: 15-17. This passage does not describe Satan's Millennial condition, but his post-Little-Season condition; for it gives the same thought ("narrowly look upon thee") as the examining, mistranslated torment, of Rev. 20: 10, which is, of course, post-Millennial. Moreover, as Is. 14: 4-23 shows, the passage applies secondarily to Mystic Babylon in its beast and image features, and these go to the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev. 19: 20; 20: 10), which proves that the hell and pit of Is. 14: 15 are Gehenna, the lake of fire, not hades. Therefore, so far as Satan is concerned, Is. 14: 15-17 does not refer to his condition during the Millennium, but to his condition after the Little Season. J.F.R. thinks (par. 22) that Is. 20: 4 teaches his thought, that Christ will lead Satan and his cohorts in a procession as captives, in great shame to them, whereas the king of Assyria is not



Christ, but the papacy, and the verse teaches that the papacy would overpower the worldly powers and sinners and lead them into shameful captivity, which it certainly did in the Dark Ages and in a small way is now doing. He quotes (par. 23) Is. 24: 21, 22, as a proof that Satan and his cohorts will be dead during the Millennium and thereafter will be awakened. This is a false application, for the passage shows that the clergy (the high ones that are on high, the symbolic heavens), the aristocrats and the rulers will be killed in the trouble and after many days, years, but during the Millennium, will be brought out of the tomb (Ps. 22: 29). All who go into hades will come out therefrom during the Millennium and none of them after the Millennium (Rev. 20: 13, 14). None of those who go into the lake of fire whether before or after the Millennium, will come out of it, which refutes J.F.R.'s idea under review. His treatment of Ps. 68 is an illustration of his forcing Scriptures that apply largely to other times and movements to his times and movement—"he shall think to change times and laws."


In Z '32, 163–170 he has an article on Pharaoh and Satan, in which there are some points calling for review. In par. 8 he gives a false definition of the word Egypt, viz., encloser of the sea, whereas it means, enclosure, fortress. Certainly, Egypt does not enclose the sea. Again, he claims (par. 12, and often elsewhere) that the commercial department of Satan's empire is its most powerful part, whereas all along the religious and political departments of that empire have been and are yet more powerful than its commercial department.


In pars. 23 and 24 he gives various translations of Ex. 9: 16: "For this cause have I raised thee up, etc." He rejects that of the A. V., and finally favors that of the Septuagint: "But thou hast been preserved for this purpose, that by thee I might display My power and that My name may be celebrated throughout all



the earth." His main objection is to the rendering, "I raised thee up." He denies that God ever raised up Pharaoh and Satan, because, he alleges, this would have made God responsible for, and cooperative in their sins. This sophistry is easily answered when we remember that there are two ways of raising one up: (1) causally and (2) permissively. God did not causally raise these up to their exercise of tyranny and other wrongs; but He did permissively raise them up in the sense that He allowed no hindrance to prevent their assuming their respective empires. But what is noteworthy in J.F.R.'s rejecting the translation of the A. V. and accepting that of the Septuagint is this, that, as in the case of Ps. 68: 18, he rejects a Divinely inspired translation which contradicts his view, in favor of one that does not contradict his view on the permission of evil. God, Himself, has translated by St. Paul the clause of Ex. 9: 16 in dispute, and He has translated it as the A. V. text gives it. God's translation is given in Rom. 9: 17. Often St. Paul quoted from the Septuagint, but when he desired to give a thought that the Septuagint does not give he corrected it, as we have seen twice above. Further, while the Hebrew word amad usually means to stand, it often means to arise, and the hiphil form of the verb used in Ex. 9: 16 therefore often means to cause to arise, i.e., to raise up. The following passages prove this: Ezra 2: 63; Neh. 7: 65; Ps. 106: 30; Dan, 8: 22, 23; 12: 1 (compare with 11: 7, 20, 21; Eccl. 4: 15); 1 Chro. 20: 4; Esther 4: 14; Is. 48: 13; Ps. 33: 9; 119: 90; Amos 7: 9; Gen. 4: 8; 1 Chro. 21: 1; 2 Chro. 20: 23; Dan. 8: 25; 11: 14; 10: 13. God, knowing that the word amad has a number of meanings, inspired St. Paul in Rom. 9: 17 to give us the one He intended in Ex. 9: 16, and thus He corroborates by this passage the Bible view of the permission of evil, which J.F.R. rejects. Thus the Divinely



inspired translation overthrows the entire thesis underlying the article under review.


In Z '32, 179–186 is an article on Gog and Magog, in which J.F.R. applies Ezek. 38 and 39 to Armageddon and to the alleged preceding verbal fight into which he is leading his followers with their various drives. According to him, Gog is Satan's chief underling, a fallen angel, the leader of his host in the battle of Armageddon, in which also J.F.R.'s man of sin will allegedly fight against him and his followers. We recall that our Pastor, in Studies, Vol. IV, applies this passage to Jacob's trouble in Palestine, which is to be not only after Armageddon, but also after Anarchy. The latter view is evidently right, for the conflict in Ezek. 38 and 39 will occur within one year, and that the last year of the trouble period, while Armageddon will last several years, a hectic peace for several years will follow it, then will follow Anarchy for several years, and thereafter Jacob's trouble will come. J.F.R. makes Armageddon the last phase of the trouble, and therefore has no room for the symbolic fire to follow the symbolic earthquake, which alone is Armageddon. Jacob's trouble he holds to be the trouble of his followers just before and in Armageddon. In the Hebrew of Ezek. 38: 8 the expression rendered, "in the latter years," is to be translated, "in the last one of the years;" and in v. 16 the expression rendered, "in the latter days," is to be translated, "in the last one of the days"—a day here standing for a year. This proves that Ezek. 38 and 39 refer to a period subsequent to Armageddon and Anarchy. Moreover Gog is not Satan's fallen angelic generalissimo, for which J.F.R. offers not the slightest Scriptural proof. Gog represents the leaders of nations, as the enemies of God's people, and Magog represents the led of nations as enemies of God's people. Rev. 20: 8 ("the nations … Gog and Magog") expressly shows this to be the case in the end of the



Millennium; and therefore, by parity of reasoning, this is true of enemies of God's spiritual and fleshy Israel in the windup of this Age. The anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, as indicated by Elijah's whirlwind ascent, and by the last ones' being "violently seized by clouds," the literal translation of the Greek rendered in the A. V. of 1 Thes. 4: 17, "caught up … in the clouds"; and those of them who go up to Palestine in the last year of the trouble will do the same with fleshly Israel in Jacob's trouble. These few points overthrow the whole line of thought of the article under review. J.F.R.'s error on Ezek. 38 and 39 is another case of his thinking "to change times and laws," and applying almost everything evil in the Scriptures to his opponents and about every good thing in the Bible to his followers.


In an article entitled, Jehovah's Executioner, in the July 1, 15 and Aug. 1, 1932, Tower, he gives us a new view on Ahab, Jezebel, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Hazael and Jehu. According to his view, Jehu types Jesus and the Church militant and triumphant, with the angels thrown in to boot, for good measure (Z '32, 196, 4; 198, 18); Ahab represents Satan; Jezebel, Satan's organization, their offspring, the seed of the serpent and Jehu's work represents Jehovah's procedure through Jesus and the Church in destroying what has wrought depravity to man and dishonor to His name (par. 7). This view is, of course, contrary to our Pastor's views, in so far as he expressed them, for on several features of this picture our Pastor did not express himself. Since his death Truth has advanced on this subject, and that in harmony with the foundations that he laid. We have given those details on Ahab, Jezebel, etc., not given by our Pastor, and all of these corroborate his general setting. For these details please see Vol. III, Chapters I, IV and VI. These types, so far as due, having in the minutest details, as given in Vol. III, already been fulfilled, we



have the assurance of faith that our factual and reasonable interpretation of the type is correct, and that the one under review is wrong.


In an effort to stave off an unanswerable objection to his setting, he claims that Jehu, after extirpating the house of Ahab and Baalism, ceases to type the Christ and ministering angels as Executioner of God's wrath in Armageddon. But this claim cannot be allowed, if he types them before; for God makes Jehu's having executed his commission the ground of rewarding him with a dynasty lasting for four generations, himself being its first king (2 Kings 10: 30). Hence a part of the reward of antitypical Jehu will be that he will head a four-formed rulership. Hence the picture goes right on through the Jehu dynasty. This consideration destroys entirely the setting that J.F.R. gives; for it would make the Christ displease God. We will briefly answer the reasons that he gives to support his view:  (1) Jehu was born in God's Covenant. Answer: So was every other Jew, good or bad; hence this cannot prove that especially the Christ as Executioner of wrath in Armageddon is typed by Jehu.  (2) He claims that the meanings of Jehu's, his grandfather's and of his father's names prove it. Answer: An argument from the meaning of names, to be true, must be based on facts, otherwise it is not true. E.g., Eli means high, but if we should therefrom conclude that he types the Christ as exalted, we would be greatly mistaken; for he types the crown-lost leaders during and at the end of this Age. Again, the meaning of Nimshi (Jehu's grandfather) is very uncertain, because lexicographers are not at all certain from what word it is derived. Some define it as discoverer, others as hiddenness, some as rescued, some as drawn out. At any rate it could not contribute anything to prove that the Christ is Executioner for Jehovah. Jehoshaphat (Jehu's father) does not mean Jehovah is vindicated, as J.F.R. claims; it



means Jehovah judges. These names' meanings are in harmony with the idea that conservative labor standing for certain proper principles against the wrongs of the clergy, rulers and aristocrats, stands for Jehovah as the source of these principles and therefore through them proclaims Jehovah—"He is Jehovah." Then any one of the above meanings of Nimshi could fit conservative labor, as uncovering (discoverer) certain evils of the present order, or dealing secretly (hiddenness) in its anointing and conspiracy, or being rescued from supporting an evil order, or being drawn out from others to execute God's vengeance on Satan's empire. So the meaning Jehovah judges well expresses the thought that conservative labor, overthrowing Satan's empire at Armageddon, realizes God's judgment thereon. So J.F.R.'s second argument, like his first, proves nothing for his view. (3) His third argument is also of no validity—God commanded Jehu's anointing. So did God command Elisha's anointing, who does not type the Christ; so did He command Hazael's anointing, and yet at the anointing God through Elisha prophesied much evil of him against God's people (2 Kings 8: 10-13). And certainly Haziel's anointing at God's command did not make him type the Christ; for he was an evildoer. Hence the third argument under review falls to the ground.  (4) God gave Jehu his commission. Answer: So did He give Nebuchadnezzar a commission (calling him His servant, Jer. 25: 9) to execute punishment, to deprive the wicked kings of Judah of their royalty and to desolate Palestine, typing Christendom's overthrow and desolation, as he commissioned Titus similarly, but that did not make them type the Christ.  (5) Jehu fulfilled his commission well. Answer: So did Nebuchadnezzar and Titus.  (6) Jehu invited Jehonadab to view his zeal for Jehovah in standing for certain right principles for which



God stood. But this would no more prove that Jehu types the Christ than that the fact that Jehonadab's ancestors fled and took refuge in condemned Jerusalem from Nebuchadnezzar while he was engaged by Divine commission to execute judgment, is, as J.F.R. alleges, a proof of Jehonadab typing a good class; for this fact of their flight to a condemned place from God's agent executing judgment against it would prove the reverse of what the article claims, i.e., Jehonadab's relation to them proves him to represent a good class whose company would prove Jehu to type the Christ as Executioner of God's wrath in Armageddon.  (7) Jehu vindicated God's Word in executing a fulfilment of one of its prophecies of wrath. Answer: So did Nebuchadnezzar and Titus, who certainly did not type the Christ executing the prophesied wrath on Christendom. Thus none of his arguments singly, nor all of them combinedly, prove his point.


Against his view we offer the following objections: (1) The involved types so far fulfilled prove another and different view to be the correct one. (2) God's expressly rewarding Jehu with a four-monarched dynasty for executing His judgment, which dynasty beginning with Jehu himself did many things displeasing to God, proves that the executioner of the antitypical judgment will for his work be rewarded with a four-formed government, which is therefore also a part of the antitype, and that the said government will often displease God, and therefore cannot be the Christ's. (3) Ahab cannot type Satan for the following reasons: He repented at Elijah's rebuke (1 Kings 21: 29), which Satan has not done, nor will do. Elijah, at God's command, honored and served Ahab (1 Kings 18: 46), which God will not ask the true Church to do to Satan. Ahab for his repentance was promised immunity from the punishment that would come at the type of Armageddon (1 Kings 21: 29), which antitypically is not promised to Satan. Ahab died



before the type of Armageddon (1 Kings 21: 29), while Satan will not die even in a symbolic way before Armageddon. (4) The Christ class does not as a company serve in Satan's army, as Jehu did in Ahab's army (2 Kings 9: 25). The twist that J.F.R. gives to this will not help him; for Jehu, while executing the vengeance of the Lord, said that he, the alleged type of the Christ, followed after Ahab, the alleged type of Satan! Thus Jehu's remark proves that he represents at the wrath time the same class he represents at the wrath's forecasting. (5) Jehu was anointed by a son of the prophet, whom J.F.R. rightly says types an unconsecrated class interested in the Truth; hence the Christ must have been anointed by an unconsecrated class! (6) Usually, so J.F.R. says, Jehu represents Jesus as Jehovah's wrath Executioner; but there are connections in which this is so manifestly absurd that he refers them to the Body members, and in the case mentioned above is forced to make him stand for some of them before they become of the Christ class. But this twist cannot be made in the anointing scene; for as the oil was first poured on the head, this type would prove that Jesus has lately, with the rest of the Body members, been anointed by an unconsecrated class! (7) The charge given to Elijah to anoint Jehu would never have been given him, if Jehu represents the Christ. (8) Nor would Elisha have inherited from Elijah such a power, if Jehu typed the Christ. (9) Nor would Elisha have commissioned a son of the prophets to minister the anointing. These last three reasons are self-evident, since the Little Flock does not anoint Jesus and itself (2 Cor. 1: 21); much less does the Great Company or an unconsecrated class anoint the Christ in any sense of the word. (10) The anointing of Jehu cannot represent the anointing of the Christ class, since all of the Christ received of the anointing before it was offered antitypical Jehu.



(11) There is only one anointing of the Christ class (Ps. 133: 2) and it was made at Jordan. And that one anointing has ever since Pentecost been flowing down on the members of the Body as they entered the Body. (12) Jehu's riding with madness (mistranslated furiously in the A. V.) could not type anything in the Christ's course, which has the spirit of a sound mind and not madness. (13) Jehu's brutality finds no antitype in anything the Christ class will ever do. (14) Nor does his deceitfulness with the Baal worshipers. (15) Nor his hypocrisy in aspersing those as worse than himself for killing Ahab's sons, which they knew that he wanted them to do. (16) Nor his subsequent sinful course while enjoying the fruits of his executing of God's judgment, which proves that as they were given him as a reward for his work, he must type the same class as he did when he did that work.


Of course, the reasons proving that Ahab did not type Satan also prove that Jezebel could not type Satan's organization. The facts given in Studies, Vol. II and those other facts given in Vol. III of the Epiphany Studies, as well as Rev. 2: 20-23 and the additional fact that women in Biblical types either represent real consecrated or nominally consecrated classes (churches) or covenants, prove that she represents a church—the Roman Catholic Church. Vagueness or silence characterizes J.F.R.'s treatment of Ahaziah and Jehoram of Israel and Jehoram and Ahaziah of Judah in their antitypes. His whole view of Jehu is so inharmonious that he must use him in quite inharmonious relations, generally making him stand for Jesus alone and, when this is impossible, for the Church and, when this is impossible, for some people before becoming the Church, as at the time of Jehu's following Ahab—Satan! But when even that does not suffice, he must stand for the angels! He jumps back and forth repeatedly from 1919, 1922,



1926 and 1931, for a set of incongruous and twisted applications, which gives prima facie evidence that his setting of things is incorrect. Then, his applications are usually so vague that he thereby again gives prima facie evidence of their unfitness. Real antitypes are transparently clear when due. E.g., Jehu's captains' choosing him as king is supposed to represent the Societyites at the Cedar Point Convention in 1922 voting to advertise the King and Kingdom! How could such an act make the Christ King?! Especially incongruous does this application become when we remember that the cries of advertising the King and Kingdom at that convention were meant to give (and for three years did give) a new impulse to proclaiming that millions living until after 1925 would never die, etc.— proven errors. When we remember that from 1919 to 1925, the Societyites, who were in those years supposed by J.F.R.'s setting to be doing the best of the Truth work, the remnant's work par excellence, were giving almost all their public efforts to the service of error, the millions proposition, we may be certain that the pertinent movement was a Satanic, not a Christly one. Mark the absurdity of the application that secrecy's being observed on Jehu's conspiracy at Ramoth-gilead types the Societyites' not talking about themselves while making their public drives! If the setting were true it would type their withholding from their proclamation the announcement that the Christ was secretly working for the defeat of Satan's host at Armageddon—a thing that they proclaimed throughout Christendom from the house-tops!


In Z '32, 243–250, 259–269, he repudiates the Bible doctrine that elders are officers of the Church, asserting that they are unofficial and non-elected mature brethren in the ecclesias. He admits that bishops were elected officers in the Church and that they were selected from among the mature brethren (his sole sense



for the idea of eldership);but are no more since 1918 to be elected. Of course he tries to make this seem plausible by quoting passages where the word elders is used of nonofficial well-developed brethren. His citing the following passages (Z '32, 244, 6–8): Num. 11: 16; Deut. 29: 10; Josh. 8: 33; Is. 37: 2, to prove that elders are not officers, is transparent error, for Num. 11: 16 charges that only such elders as were officers (literally, "elders of the people, even officers over them") should be chosen for the 70. The passage forbids selecting elders who were not officers; and then God calls them elders after they were selected for their new office (v. 25), proving conclusively that they were called elders in v. 25, because they held the office of the

70. This remark applies to Deut. 29: 10, the proper translation being, "your captains of your tribes, your elders, even your officers, with all the men of Israel"; for if the elders here mentioned were not here defined as officers they would be included in the non-official Israelitish men indicated by the words, "with all the men of Israel." This remark applies to Joshua 8: 33, where, after elders, it should read, even officers; for the 70 were emphatically the ones meant by the elders, even officers, while the judges referred to cover those described in Ex. 18: 21, 22, 25, 26; for if the elders here referred to were not officers they would have been included in the nonofficial Israelites under the expression, "all Israel." Again, he quotes Is. 37: 2 to prove that elders were not officials; but the very expression, "elders of the priests" (not the elder priests, please note) were such of the Sanhedrists, the 70, as were priests. Accordingly, all four of these passages that he quotes to prove that the term elders does not refer to office incumbents prove that it emphatically does.


His claim (Z '32, 246, 17) that the non-occurrence of the name elders in Eph. 4: 11-16 and 1 Cor. 12: 27, 29 proves that elders are not officers of the Church,



is more sophistry, since the Bible uses a multiplicity of names for what we call elders of an ecclesia, e.g., elders, bishops (overseers), pastors (shepherds), teachers, and prophets (if they are discoursing elders). And since the Bible uses the term elder for even higher offices than that of local elder (1 Pet. 5: 1; 2 John 1;3 John 1), clearness as to the ones meant by the expression, "pastors, even teachers," justifies the absence of the word elders from these passages. His claim that no text teaches that elders are elected by Divine authority is false, since what the Apostles bound on the Church was of Divine authority (Matt. 18: 18), and the Apostles bound elders as elected officers on the ecclesias (Acts 14: 23; Titus 1: 5); for Acts 14: 23 shows that the brethren elected (cheirotoneo, to elect by raising the hand) elders in every church, for them, Paul and Barnabas, i.e., as representing these in a certain sense, even as the pilgrims in a certain sense represented our Pastor; and Titus 1: 5 shows that as St. Paul arranged for it (and Acts 14: 23 proves that he arranged for it by election through the Church), Titus was to see to it that elders were appointed in every church in Crete. Hence local elders were by Divine authority elected. His claim that the terms, bishops and elders, do not refer to the same persons— teachers in the Church, is likewise false; for St. Paul directly identifies them in two passages (Acts 20: 17, 28; episcopos—bishops, overseers; Titus 1: 5-7) and St. Peter does it in one passage (1 Pet. 5: 1-4). In Acts 20: 17 St. Paul is said to send for the elders (presbyteroi) of the Ephesian ecclesia and then in vs. 18-35 he addresses these very persons and calls those he addresses episcopoi (bishops).


No amount of sophistry, such as J.F.R. indulges in (pars. 19-23), can set aside the plain facts of these Scriptures, that the very ones—"elders"—for whom he sent he calls "overseers"—bishops. Again, in



Titus 1: 5-7 he identifies the elders with the bishops, for whose election he charges Titus to arrange; for after mentioning certain qualities that Titus should see that those who were to be elected elders should have, St. Paul gives the reason for their having to have such qualities, viz., that such qualities bishops must have. Hence he uses the words, elders and bishops synonymously, to designate the same servants of the ecclesias. St. Peter identifies them in

1 Pet. 5: 1-4. He uses the same figure of the elders feeding the flock, as St. Paul uses in Acts 20: 28 of bishops. Moreover, the word translated "oversight" in v. 2 is another form of the root of the word translated overseer (bishop) in Acts 20: 28, where elders are overseers; and in 1 Pet. 5: 1, 2, elders are those who take the oversight, bishopric (Acts 1: 20). These elders of 1 Pet. 5: 1-4 are in v. 4, in contrast with the Chief Shepherd, shown to be shepherds, pastors, the term used to designate them in Eph. 4: 11. J.F.R.'s sophistry (Z '32, 248, 23), that if the Holy Spirit has placed elders in the Church, the Holy Spirit must have made mistakes, we answer as follows: Never has a mistake been made in electing any one to the eldership when the Holy Spirit in the brethren dictated the choice; for that Spirit dictates the election of those only whom God wants as elders; for it makes its choice of those only whom the Lord by the proper spirit, talents and providential situations of the candidates, points out to be the Lord's choice. When these three things are not made by brethren the determining factors in influencing them to vote for elders, it is not the Holy Spirit that animates their vote, and hence the Holy Spirit does not appoint those so selected. The Ephesian Church was in its electing of elders—bishops (Acts 20: 17, 28)—guided by those three things, hence the Holy Spirit made such elected ones their elders—bishops. That elders are the chosen servants of the Church is evident from other passages. Jas. 5: 14, by designating



the ones to be called to pray for the sin-sick as, the elders of the Church, shows by the emphasis of the twice used article that, not mature Christians in general are meant, but such special ones as are designated as the Church's special servants.


The part that the elders played with the Apostles in the conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15: 2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16: 4), and that those took with James in advising St. Paul (Acts 21: 18), certainly prove that, not mature Christians in general at Jerusalem were meant, but those who as elected representatives of the Jerusalem Church acted as its representatives in giving the desired opinion and the proffered advice. Furthermore, the language of the Greek in 1 Tim. 5: 17 proves this same point: "Let those elders that preside [act as the official representatives, hence elected officers] well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor [not simply work, but toil in such sacrifice as exhausts one unto bending down] in the word and doctrine." When to parry off the thought that an election to office is required to put one into a position to fulfill the office works indicated in 1 Tim. 5: 17; Jas. 5: 14, 15; Acts 20: 28, 35; 1 Pet. 5: 1-4; 1 Tim. 3: 2; Titus 1: 9, he says (Z '32, 249, 29) that they do not do these things because of being elected, but because of being sons of God, he again becomes guilty of sophistry; for those not elected to the eldership do not have such duties; and as faithful sons of God would not attempt to arrogate the office of doing them, while those who are elected to do them, do them, because by their election thereto it has become their duty as stewards of God to do them, as St. Paul says in

1 Cor. 9: 15, 16, of himself. When J.F.R. says (Z '32, 260, 6) that the mature could not be made mature by vote, and hence reasons that elders should not be elected, he again reasons sophistically, using the word elder as though it meant only an old person or one mature in grace. The fact of the matter is



this, that exercising an official function as a representative of an ecclesia requires an election for the sake of decency, order and edification, as it is also required to prevent usurpers and would-be leaders from inflicting their conceited, power-grasping, unsought ministry upon a church.


In Z '32, 260, 7; 261, 9, J.F.R. claims that the unity of Eph. 4: 13 could not be reached in the Apostle's days; therefore local churches had to have pastors, i.e., bishops (but no elders, except unofficial mature ones, since he claims elders never were elected servants of the Church). He claims that that unity was reached in 1918, hence no more pastors, teachers, bishops, are Divinely electable since 1918. Against this many things may be said. His reason would dispense with the use of apostolic, prophetic and evangelistic ministers also. Again, he makes the unity consist of perfection of faith, which word he uses in the sense of the Truth. That cannot be its sense in Eph. 4: 14, because that is implied in its conjoined word, knowledge. But since he claims that it is just since 1918 that special Truth has been advancing, his kind of perfection of faith has not yet come; therefore the servants of the Church mentioned in Eph. 4: 11 would still be needed. Furthermore, his saying that the unity of Eph. 4: 13 could not have been reached before 1918 proves that he does not understand the Apostle's statement. The unity for which the Apostle stood has existed ever since Pentecost; for as St. Paul defines it in Eph. 4: 3-6, it is the unity of the one spirit, body, hope, Lord, faith, baptism and God; for this is the unity of God's faithful people, the Christ, Head and Body, and that has been ever since Pentecost. This unity does not mean the perfection of [Truth] knowledge, which comes only with the very end of the stay of the Church on earth, since the Truth for the Church will continue to advance until then. The faithful in all stages of the Church had the privilege of



knowing all the Truth then due; and this was sufficient to give them the unity of knowledge that was the basis of faith as the word is used in vs. 6 and 13—(1) mental appreciation and heart's reliance and (2) faithfulness. But all along the true Church had the seven features of unity mentioned in Eph. 4: 3-6. It would have been impossible for her to have been the Church and not to have had them. Jesus' prayer, which was assuredly answered (John 17: 11, 21-23), proves that the Church from Pentecost onward would have the unity of Eph. 4: 3-6, 13; and each one would share in it as he entered and progressed in it. According to the Ephesians passage, in disproof of J.F.R.'s proposition, the Church would always have her general and local Divinely appointed teachers until the Church would be complete and leave the world—until we all come to a perfect man—while he claims new ones have been added to the Church ever since 1918. And this disproves his proposition (Z '32, 261, 9; 262, 15, 16) that since 1918 the churches were not to have pastors, teachers, elders, bishops, prophets.


Then he proceeds to change God's organization of the local ecclesias, casting out elders and requiring the local ecclesias to form a totally unscriptural organization. Instead, a service director should be had and should be appointed as follows: A number of candidates should be selected by the local ecclesia and their names be sent to him; and from among these he selects the service director. In this he has added another to the very numerous proofs that as the little pope he imitates his step-brother, the big pope, who from a number of suggested candidates appoints the one whom he wants to make a bishop. And his procedure in disrupting the organization of the local churches and organizing them on an unscriptural basis is an exact counterpart of his step-brother's course, who, as the big pope, did that very thing for all local [Romanist] churches. Furthermore, his little Catholic



churches are (Z '32, 264, par. 23) by this new organization to elect a service committee to work with and under the service director—another counterpart of the organization of the large Catholic churches, seen in the special helpers of the bishops. Only such as will be J.F.R.'s parrots, repeating and enacting senselessly what he has taught them (and in requiring this he again imitates his big step-brother, the Roman pope) can be service directors and members of the service committees. His requiring a pledge of his partisan followers (the little pope's counterfeit priests) to go wherever he sends them, and to do there whatever he charges them is another counterpart of the papal counterfeit. No more teachers can be had in these churches (Z '32, 264, 26, 28). Why should there be, since forsooth they are all taught of Jehovah?! But they may have chairmen, who will not teach, but read off the questions on his articles in the Tower, and thus all of the class attendants will teach one another! Of course James' earnest and much needed exhortation (Jas. 3: 1—"Be not many teachers") is no more applicable. It is out of date, since the Holy Spirit has been withdrawn from his church and angels (indeed and in truth, fallen angels) are the teachers and helpers of his church, since 1918. There should be no more deacons (Z '32, 265, 30) elected, since, he claims, there were allegedly none in the Apostles' days (1 Tim. 3: 8-10; Acts 6: 1-6; Phil. 1: 1). But why bother about how things were in the Apostle's day; for has not the Holy Spirit been since 1918 withdrawn and angels taken its place (for his church)?! Fallen ones evidently. Another example of his thinking to change times and laws.


In Z '32, 371–376 he has an article in which he denies that the expression, "In the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in the [so the Greek] Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth" (Eph. 1: 9),



refers to the Millennium, but claims that it refers to the period of his special movement since 1918. A proper translation of the passage will immediately prove that it does refer to the third dispensation: "That … He [God] might again make Himself Head as to all things in the Christ." In Greek, unlike English, verbs have, in addition to the active and passive voices, the middle voice, which is used instead of the active voice when the latter controls reflexive pronouns; e.g., John loves himself. The word above translated, "again make Himself Head," is in the middle voice of the verb anakephalaioo. This translation Rotherham, who denies the Millennial work, and whose translation J.F.R. quotes as giving a pre-Millennial thought, of course could not use, and hence twists the passage into something like harmony with his view, making it pre-Millennial. No real scholar will from grammatical reasons alone deny the grammatically exact translation above. Only then would one deny it, if he forces the language into conformity with his preconceived opinions, as Rotherham does in this instance. It is because of denying the Millennial opportunities for fallen angels and dead humans that so-called orthodox translators always darken this passage by incorrect translation.


The above translation being true, the passage is self-demonstrative as being Millennial and post-Millennial. God was once Head of all angels [things in heaven] and of the entire human family [things on earth], but when sin came some angels and all humans cast off His Headship. It is God's purpose through the Elect to establish this Headship again, but only as to all who will be in the Christ [Head and Body]. Through the Millennial and Little Season's work of the Christ God will again make Himself Head, not of all angels and men, but of all of these who will come into and perseveringly remain in the Christ. This translation and our comments on it completely



overthrow the new view under consideration. We will briefly answer the main points that J.F.R. presents for his view. He says that the expression, "in the dispensation of the fulness of times," cannot refer to the Millennial and post-Millennial times, because never will anybody, except the Church, be in Christ, hence, he alleges, the expression, "in Christ," makes the passage pre-Millennial. But St. Paul does not agree with him, for he shows that the faithful restitutionists will also be in the Christ; for consecration and Spirit-begetting in our Age put one into the Christ as a body member; and in the next Age consecration will put one into Christ as a son, as 1 Cor. 15: 21-23 proves. While it is true that the word oikonomia means dispensation in the sense of administration, yet the expression, "the fulness of times," connected with the work of God's again making Himself Head as to all things in the Christ, proves the administration to be in the third administration, the third dispensation. His putting this self-evidently post-Gospel-Age passage into his Harvest is therefore only another of the numerous examples of his imitating his big step-brother in thinking to change times and laws.


In Z '33, 68, 6, he wrongly explains the distinction between synteleia and telos in Matt. 24: 3, 14. He claims that synteleia means the completion of the time that Satan rules by sufferance and without hindrance, and that telos means the time of the complete passing away of Satan's world. Hence he claims that the synteleia ended in 1914 and that the telos will end at the end of Armageddon. According to the Bible the synteleia is the Harvest in its fullest sense, in its full work toward the symbolic wheat and tares (Matt. 13: 39-43) and therefore is from 1874 to 1954 and 1956, while the telos is only the reaping and gleaning period, 1874 to 1914 and 1916 (Matt. 24: 14; 1 Cor. 10: 11). According to 1 Cor. 10: 11, compared with vs. 6-10, the telos ends before the sixth sifting, which