Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
began in 1917; for St. Paul enumerates only 5 siftings as occurring in the telos of each of the two (Jewish and Gospel) Ages. Hence it stopped before 1917, when the sixth sifting began. His pertinent change is another example of his Thinking to change times and laws.
In Z '33, 99–105, 115–122, he thinks to change times and laws as to the type of Israel's deliverance. Thus he says that in the commissioning of Moses to deliver, and in the deliverance of Israel, Moses does not always type Christ, but sometimes represents the Church (Z '32, 100, 6; 101, 13). But it was Jesus, not the Church, who was commissioned to deliver antitypical Israel; and no passage indicates that Moses types the Church alone, apart from Jesus Christ. Nor does the type show it. The serpent, according to J.F.R., does not type sin and evil (but see Num. 21: 4-9; John 3: 15; 1 Cor. 10: 9; 15: 56), but what is evil to Satan and his organization (Z '33, 101, 11); while Moses' fleeing from the serpent types the Church fearing the persecution of 1918! But that persecution was not an evil to Satan, hence the application is a misfit. Then he claims (Z '33, 102, 14, 15) that God's saying to Moses, "Put forth thy hand and take the serpent by the tail," was addressed to the Church and types that the Church is charged to spread the message of the Day of Vengeance— which he says is an evil to Satan! But he has repeatedly taught that the command to the Church to proclaim the Day of Wrath was long after 1922, up to when, and for several years afterward, their message stressed, not vengeance, but the millions fable; while the scene (Ex. 3: 4) in Sinai from his viewpoint preceded 1914 or 1918, when Christ is alleged to have come in His Second Advent, typed by Moses' coming to Egypt. Hence this is another misfit. Again, he claims that the act of Moses' putting forth his hand types Jesus destroying Satan's organization. This contradicts the preceding thought, for
the one commanded to put forth his hand must be the one to obey the command, while his view would mean that the Church did not obey the command! Of course such jumping back and forth with explanations contradicting the definitions—somersaults—which his setting of things compels him to do in about every attempt he makes to explain a type to fit his views, is self-evidence of the erroneousness of his views. His mixing up the type of the three signs as given to Moses in the mount and the three signs as wrought by Aaron in Egypt, and thus mixing up their antitypes, is due to his failure to distinguish between what was taught by God to Jesus alone before His Second Advent as to what He should do after it would set in typed by what God taught Moses in the mount, and what the Church wrought after the Second Advent set in, typed by Aaron's working the signs in Egypt. The failure to mark this distinction is responsible for his confusion in introducing the Church into the antitype of the serpent picture and the hand picture as enacted in the mountain. It will be noted that he offers no antitype for the hand and the water picture at all in so far as they enter the account of the proceedings in the mountain. The reason for this omission is this: that they, as related in the mountain experience of Moses, are fatal to his view.
Again, he claims (Z '32, 102, 17) that Moses' reluctance to undertake the mission types excuses that his followers made to undertake their mission. But neither his followers, nor the Church, were commissioned to deliver the world from Satan's empire. This is exclusively Jesus' work, even as in the type Aaron was not commissioned to deliver Israel, but only to act as the mouthpiece and agent of Moses, the deliverer. Moreover, if such excuses on the part of the Church had been made, Aaron, its pertinent type, would have had to make them, which he did not do. Again, he teaches that Aaron's starting out to meet
Moses types the Societyites starting out to meet Christ in 1919. But as Aaron's starting out to meet Moses was before the latter reached Egypt, whose arrival in Egypt types the setting in of the Second Advent, which he variously fixes as during 1914 or 1918, the Church must have started out to meet Christ (which it did in the Miller Movement of 1829– 1844) before His Second Advent, which J.F.R. claims occurred in 1914 or 1918. Hence his antitypical starting out to meet Christ is from a year to five years after His Second Advent set in! Their (Christ's and the Church's) meeting, as he says, being in 1922, is again after the Second Advent set in, according to his view, while antitypical Moses and Aaron met one another before the Second Advent set in, i.e., in the Second Advent movement that immediately preceded 1874, wherein they had the Truth on the time of His arrival and looked for it to come in 1874. All of this, of course, upsets his viewpoint; and thus his thinking to change times and laws on this subject ends in confusion, as that of his big step-brother has ended. His claim that God's saying in Ezek. 38 that He will bring upon Israel the worst of the heathen means God will bring upon Satan's organization the worst of the heathen, i.e., that God would bring his nation (Spiritual Israel) against that organization, as its worst enemy, is, in the first place, giving his followers a bad name! Again, this contradicts his symbolic setting for Israel in Ezek. 38, 39, for it is against his alleged Israel (his followers) of these chapters, that the worst of the heathen are to come, which we understand to be the worst of the anarchistic remnant that will plunder fleshly Israel in the last year of the trouble.
He claims that the Egyptian magicians' casting down their rods types Satan's agents afflicting the antitypical Egyptians. Such an antitype would require Egyptians to have been injured in the type, which did not take place. The fact that neither
Aaron's cast-down rod, nor that of the Egyptians, afflicted anyone in the type proves that they do not type the infliction of evil, but have to do with teachings with reference to evil, which, of course, refutes the setting of the view under review. Would Aaron's serpent swallowing those of the magicians type the Church afflicting the people more than Satan's servants do? His setting would imply it. His claim (Z '33, 115, 2) that the miracle of the leprous hand was not performed before Pharaoh, cannot be allowed; for it would mean that Moses disobeyed, hence Christ would disobey, God's command so to do (Ex. 3: 21), the silence of the Scriptures as to the fulfilment being not admissible as a proof that Moses and Jesus would disobey a positive command of God.
Again, he teaches that the hand of Moses does not represent God's power, but must represent a creature's activities and services (Z '33, 116, par. 6). Hence he claims that the inactivity of Moses' hand (i.e., while in his bosom) represents the inactivities of the Societyites in 1918–1922 (Z '33, 117, 9, 10). Apart from the refutation that we gave above to such a setting, since in those mountain scenes Moses types certain of Jesus' preparatory Second Advent activities, his view is unfactual; for Societyites were very active from Sept., 1919, to Sept., 1922. They then, engaged in many very large drives, were exceedingly active. He claims that the Nile represents commerce, that the dry land represents the Great Company and other rightly disposed people, and that the pouring of the waters of the Nile upon the dry land types pouring the Truth on the Great Company and others rightly disposed to his work (Z '33, 118, 15). But this contradicts his definition, which makes the waters that constitute the Nile mean commerce, which therefore would make pouring water from it upon the dry land mean pouring commerce upon these two classes! The waters becoming blood, he
claims, type that commerce originated with the devil and is used by him. But that would prove that Christ and the Church who made the antitypical water blood must be the devil! Moreover, it is untrue to say that commerce originated with the devil, though its abuse doubtless originated with, and is fostered by him; for the three foundations of society—the symbolic earth—which God made (Heb. 1: 10), are the right of private ownership of property, government control in human affairs and competitive business. God, in organizing society for the present dispensation, gave these three things and commended their use and protected, e.g., Israel, in their use. It is the fearful abuse of these three good things, fostered by Satan, that has, among other things, made the present symbolic earth evil. Thus we have pointed out various of the errors of the details of his new view on the voice of the three signs. The foundation error of his view is, of course, his thinking, as the little pope, to change times and laws, ascribing what refers to the Parousia to his counterfeit of it. We have by an article that passed through sixteen issues of The Present Truth, vindicated the details of our Pastor's setting of Israel's Enslavement and Deliverance as true, and need not repeat these here.
We will now review the follies of right-eye darkening that J.F.R. sets forth on the book of Ruth in six installments of the Tower (Sept. 15–Dec. 1, 1932). In Chap. VI of Vol. IV we have given what undoubted facts and harmony of the facts with the type prove to be the antitype of this book. He applies the story of Ruth from Ruth 1: 2 onward to his movement and thus in this thinks, like his big step-brother, the pope, to change times and laws. The fact that the special period of the pertinent ruling judge is not in Ruth 1: 1 mentioned, is proof that it cannot be a part of the type and therefore cannot point out a corresponding part in the antitype. Hence it proves that
J.F.R.'s claim (Z '32, 278, 22) that the time of the famine that occasioned the emigration of Elimelech and his family from Canaan to Moab is to be placed in the time of Israel's oppression by Eglon, king of Moab, is not only proofless, but also fictioned to enable him to evade the fact that said emigration was disloyal to God's Covenant arrangement for Israel and types a bad thing; for this fact contradicts the whole setting of his antitype, in which he claims (Z '32, 291, 3, 4) that Elimelech types the Holy Spirit and that his emigration from the Covenant land types that the Holy Spirit sometime after 1914 went with J.F.R.'s followers among the great ones of Christendom (whatever that ambiguous thing can mean), while his death (Z '32, 294, 18) types its being taken away from the Church in 1918, which is a gross error, as the Holy Spirit never was, never will be, nor ever can be taken from the faithful (John 14: 16; 1 John 2: 27). This thought is, next to his denouncing character development, the most iniquitous thing he has taught. If the oppression by Eglon had then prevailed, it would have been a compelling reason for Elimelech and his family to remain away from Moab, for people seeking refuge from famine and oppression would certainly not immigrate into the oppressor's domain. Moreover, Eglon's oppression began not longer than 80 years after Israel entered the land (Ex. 17: 9-14, Joshua was scarcely younger than 40 when commanding Israel in this battle; Josh. 24: 29; Judg. 3: 8, 11). This would have made Obed about 190 years old at the begettal of Jesse and Jesse about 190 years old at the begettal of David (Ruth 4: 22; Acts 13: 20, 21)! He gives (Z '32, 277, 15, 16) false definitions for some of the names, in the interest of his pertinent errors. Boaz does not mean fleetness, but strength. Orpah does not mean nape (of the neck), but stiff-necked, stubborn. Ruth does not mean female friend,
companion, but friendship. Judah does not mean praises of Jehovah, but praised.
His thought (Z '32, 278, 23) that the famine of Ruth 1: 1, 2 typed a supposed famine for the faithful from 1914 to 1918 is untrue; for in that time the faithful feasted on Parousia, and the beginning of Epiphany Truth. But it is a fact that from 1917 to the present time his followers have been in a famine of Truth; but this is not typed by the famine of Ruth 1: 1, 2. His statement (Z '32, 279, 25) that it made no difference whether Elimelech lived in Canaan or Moab during a famine, is certainly untrue; for (Heb. 11: 25) we are to choose suffering affliction with the people of God rather than enjoy abundance with the enemies of God. Elimelech's and Naomi's leaving God's people for Moab, contrary to J.F.R.'s thought (Z '32, 279, 29), was a violation of their covenant obligations and blessings, and types something bad. This destroys his view (Z '32, 291, 3, 4) that Elimelech types the Holy Spirit and that his doings type those of the Holy Spirit. Corroborative of the correct thought is Naomi's lamentation over her real losses as chastisements for her and his wrong-doings in leaving the land of Israel (Ruth 1: 3, 5, 13, 20, 21). Thus J.F.R.'s blaming Bro. Russell for disapproving Elimelech's and Naomi's course in leaving Canaan for Moab is blameworthy. The only reason he has for saying (Z '32, 279, 27) that the Moabites represent the great ones of Christendom hating God's people during the World War, is the wish to make it so, there being nothing in the text or in other Scriptures to suggest such a thought. When he applies 1 Cor. 10: 6, 11, as a proof that the book of Ruth is typical, he makes a false application, since St. Paul there limits his references to types, to those things which he there mentions. Other Biblical considerations, however, prove that the book is typical. Nothing, except his wish, as father to his thought (Z '32, 280, 3, 4), suggests that
Naomi and Ruth type those who allegedly since 1918 vindicated God's name, Naomi supposedly typing those faithful to him in 1917–1919 (Z '32, 292, 7), Ruth those called into his movement since 1922. His claim (Z '32, 292, 9; 293, 10), that Mahlon and Chilion represent those who have striven to develop character for kingdom fitness, cannot be true, since the Bible everywhere commends such a course as spiritually profitable. He rejects the harvest work done from 1874 to 1916 as amounting to nothing, because it involved character development (Z '32, 293, 11)! He thinks (Z '32, 295, 20) that Ruth after deciding to stay with Naomi pictures those who become faithful after 1918, yet elsewhere he dates their decision from 1922 on, while to him Orpah types those who rebelled against his leadership of his movement after 1918. But his partisan followers are Biblically disapproved and some that rejected his leadership are of the Little Flock. Mahlon's and Chilion's death cannot, as he says (Z '32, 298, 26), type those cut off by the beginning of his judgment in 1918, for the Bible teaches that judgment began with the house of God shortly after our Lord's return in 1874 (1 Cor. 10: 614). Again, this view is unchronological, because those whom he regards as the ones cut off are those whom the Bible and facts show were cut off by him in 1917 (Zech. 11: 16). According to his setting, Naomi's leaving Moab cannot type God's people leaving Satan's organization in 1918 (Z '32, 296, 28); for his antitypical Naomi left the Nominal Church earlier than 1918 and never went back. Nor can her reaching Bethlehem (allegedly reached in antitype in 1922, Z '32, 297, 33) type his followers' realizing that Christ had come to His temple in 1918; for he teaches that her activities in Bethlehem type his followers vindicating Jehovah's name from 1919 on, as a work of theirs in his alleged Bethlehem, while they never heard of an alleged coming to Christ's temple in 1918
until years after 1922. Various of his claims as to Ruth and Naomi require them to have come to his Bethlehem in 1918, which is only another of his chronological inconsistencies. His claim (Z '32, 296, 29) of Naomi's calling Ruth (which in the type she certainly did not do, rather the reverse, as Ruth 1: 8-18 proves) types God's again visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name, is unbiblical. God's real activity therein is but one uninterrupted activity, lasting from 36 A. D. to 1916 (Matt. 28: 18-20). His thought (Z '32, 297, 31) that Naomi's (alleged) calling Orpah and Ruth to follow her types the efforts of God's Parousia people, 1874 to 1914, in seeking to bring people to consecration, cannot be a true antitype, for Naomi never tried to induce them to follow her; rather when they attempted to do so she sought to dissuade them. Orpah, he says (Z '32, 311, 20; 312, par. 26), types those consecrated ones who were his followers in line for the kingdom, but in unfaithfulness turned back to the study of Tabernacle Shadows and developing character! If the antitypical famine was from 1914–1918, and the antitypical emigration was between 1914 and 1918 and antitypical Elimelech's death was in 1918, how could Orpah and Ruth type antitypes acting from 1874 to 1914?
He claims (Z '32, 312, 31) that Naomi became God's organization, which is supposed to be the woman of Is. 54, at the time of Ruth's decision, which was, he elsewhere claims, in 1922; but supposedly, as he elsewhere claims, in 1918, 1919, as God's organization, this woman began to bear children and rejoice (though St. Paul in Gal. 4: 27 shows that from Jordan and Pentecost on she did these things); but after in 1922 at her supposed arrival at supposed Bethlehem Naomi should have grieved, which elsewhere he teaches was in 1918! His Harvest he now claims began in 1918 (Z '32, 325, 16, 18). For several years we charged that his setting of things denied the Harvest
as beginning in 1874 and fixed it as beginning in 1918, which charge of ours he for as many years denied. This proves that he acted the hypocrite during those years, doubtless fearing that his followers were not yet prepared to accept such a patent departure from the Truth, which he was then hypocritically claiming he had not changed. Ruth's gleaning, he teaches (Z '32, 340, 6), types not only gathering saints, but spiritual food, which she ate, a splendid example of failing to keep separate the harvest figure from a feast figure! He claims (Z '32, 342, 38) that Naomi wanted Ruth to become Boaz' wife so that King David might be produced—a thing that was entirely unknown to her; for while it was then known that the Messiah was to come from Judah, it was not then known from which family of Judah this would be, nor was it known that it would be through David, for the good reason that David was not foretold as a coming one through whom the Messiah would come. This fiction is invented to make his antitype plausible. The near kinsman, he says (Z '32, 356, 7) represents those who refuse to leave off Elijah work to do Elisha work!
Then, because, his setting for the antitype being false, he cannot consistently make Boaz everywhere type our Lord, he must (Z '32, 357, 14) twist him into applying to the Church—his Naomi and Ruth! Then (Z '32, 357, 19) he sets forth the proposition that to become the wife of Boaz Ruth takes the place of Naomi, the latter being in reality the one whom Boaz should have married as the near relation! This, of course, is a blunder, because Elimelech had had children by Naomi, and levirate marriage in Israel was arranged for on behalf of a man who died childless, whereupon his brother or other nearest relative residing in the same estate was to take his widow and raise up seed for the dead (Luke 20: 27-32; Deut. 25: 5-10). The reason that Naomi, as well as Ruth, had a claim to the field is that while Ruth's husband
was the firstborn and thus was heir to the main body of his father's estate, Chilion also had a share in it, which had become his widow's, but his widow by forsaking Israel's hopes and becoming a heathen again (Ruth 1: 15) forfeited her share therein, which then reverted to Naomi. It was Ruth's sharing in that field as the widow of the childless Mahlon that required her to be taken by the one who redeemed it, to raise up seed for Mahlon (Ruth 4: 5). These facts completely spoil J.F.R.'s fictitious antitype, based on his fiction that Naomi was the one that Boaz should have married. Thus his antitype for the book of Ruth is proven unfactual—by its disharmonies, fictions, twistings and all-around unfitness; while the view of the antitype that we have set forth in Chap. VI of Vol. IV, fits the involved facts and chronology and is in harmony with itself, every Scripture passage and doctrine and the true Harvest as J.F.R. once saw it.
We will continue our review with the May 1, 1933 Tower. In Z '33, 131–137 is an article on, Who is for Jehovah? In par. 3 he sets forth the thought that Joshua (Josh. 24: 14, 15) calling upon Israel to choose that day whom they would serve, the Lord or the idols of the heathen, types our Lord calling upon the people of Christendom to choose between Jehovah and the present gods of Christendom from 1918 onward, Joshua's house allegedly typing J.F.R.'s remnant. Our Pastor's thought is better; for he on the basis of St. Paul's allusion (Heb. 4: 8) gave the passage a double application: (1) to the Gospel Age, particularly to the Jewish and Gospel Age Harvests, though not excluding the time between these, and (2) to the Millennial Age, more particularly to its Little Season. In the Gospel-Age application Joshua types our Lord and His house types the Church (Heb. 3: 6), while the Israelites in general represent the nominal people of God. Through the various calls and
siftings the antitypical Joshua has called upon the latter to choose Jehovah by consecration and by loyalty in consecration, assuring them that He and the Church would serve the Lord. In the Millennial-Age application Joshua types the Christ, Head and Body. His house types the Millennial Levites—the Ancient and Youthful Worthies and Great Company, while the Israelites type the Restitution class. While in a general way the call of the Restitutionists to choose whom they will serve will be given during the Millennium, more particularly and specially will this exhortation be given during the Little Season. On no Scriptural, reasonable or factual ground can this type be limited in its application to the period from 1918 to Armageddon, as J.F.R. claims, though doubtless one of its special Gospel-Age applications is to the Parousia and Epiphany combinedly. In par. 5 he says, the Kingdom shall be preached, etc., applies to a command issued by Jesus after 1918, i.e., after His alleged coming then to the temple, and thereafter to be fulfilled by J.F.R.'s remnant. Even from his own standpoint this cannot be true, for he claims that the end was in 1914; hence from his viewpoint this preaching must have preceded 1914. But the end of the Gospel Age is the Harvest (1 Cor. 10: 11), which began in 1874. Hence Matt. 24: 14 was fulfilled before 1874, i.e., in the distribution of the Bible in every nation, which facts prove occurred by 1861.
In pars. 7-12 he misconstrues the cautions against railing at the present order in Studies, Vol. VI, (607, 608), claiming that in the second reference Bro. Russell said that the Lord's people would be authorized to do such railing later; and then he claims that Bro. Russell thereby forecast J.F.R.'s movement as the one that would do the alleged forecast Divinely pleasing railing at the present order. Neither reference warrants such a thought. The second reference tells the brethren to wait on the Kingdom to rebuke present
evils and to abstain entirely therefrom until the Kingdom comes, when all these difficulties will be rectified. In the meantime the Lord will rebuke them in an agitational way, not by the Little Flock, but by those—the Lord's great army of the unconsecrated—who would agitate in advance to their own and other's injury, as the paragraph implies. The charge to the Lord's people not to rail applies to them eternally in this and in the next life. J.F.R.'s fierce denunciation of the clergy, politicians and capitalists is forbidden railing; and in so far as part of his railing has been directed against some faithful members of the priesthood, between Aug., 1930, and July, 1933, it was his part in the large impenitent thief's railing at the large Jesus undergoing crucifixion.
His statement in par. 16 that the proclamation of the day of vengeance must be made between the time of Christ's coming to His temple and Armageddon requires some correction. This proclamation was partly to precede and partly to follow Christ's coming to His temple. Accordingly, it was done from 1829 onward in the Miller and Cleansed Sanctuary movements and from 1874 (when He came to His temple) onward; and so far as the priesthood is concerned it was to be completed in each country where they were before that vengeance struck that country. Hence it was by them completed world-wide by the end of 1916. The fact that they were to proclaim the day of vengeance as a forecast proves that it would be completed in each country before the vengeance set in there. The war began the Lord's vengeance. It began in various European countries variously from 1914 to 1916. America was the last country to enter the World War; hence that vengeance had set in world-wide by April, 1917. Hence before that time the proclamation of the day of vengeance prophesied in Is. 6 and 61, had been made. This proves that J.F.R.'s "proclamations" since 1919, when the first
phase of the vengeance had already ended, are not the predicted proclamation of the day of vengeance of Is. 6 and 61. It also proves that the one which occurred from 1829 to 1874 and from 1874 to 1916 was the Divinely predicted one, and that that of J.F.R. is a counterfeit; for to wait until the vengeance of the day of vengeance had already set in before proclaiming it as coming is prima facie evidence of a false movement; and to claim it to be the true movement is prima facie evidence of fraud. While the Scriptures teach that the Great Company would make a twofold denunciation of the Nominal Church (Rev. 19: 2, 3), the first corresponding to the second smiting of Jordan and the second to their work from 1919–1920, it nowhere associates these with Is. 6 and 61, both of which forecast Little Flock work.
In par. 29 he says that even if 1 Tim. 2: 1, 2, referred to prayer for civil rulers, on which he later on more than casts doubts, it does not apply since Jesus came to His temple, allegedly in 1918. He gives no pertinent Scripture that proves his point. The charge that St. Paul there gives is not limited to a certain period of the Faithfuls' stay on earth, just as his contrasted charge as to the sisters' not teaching in the Church is not limited as to time, but applies throughout the Church's earthly stay; and since always God's people are to seek to lead a quiet and peaceable life, they are to pray for such blessings on rulers as would conduce thereto. Of course, we are not to pray anything for them that would be out of harmony with God's plan. But we may ask that God would so bless their efforts as would be to His glory and the good of His people. As long as they hold office we are to obey and pray for our rulers as such. When at the end of the paragraph he suggests, slyly of course, that 1 Tim. 2: 1, 2, refers in part to the officers of the Society, he teaches a transparent sophism. In his repetitions he acts apparently on the same
principle on which the Jesuits act—"do not attempt to prove your statements; for the effort to prove arouses suspicion in the minds of the hearers. Repeat, repeat, repeat, and the repetition will gradually be accepted as proof by most people."
In Z '33, 147–153 is an article on Jehovah's Prophet, allegedly based on Acts 3: 22. In this article in par. 1 he misrepresents our Pastor as applying that prophecy particularly to the Little Season at the end of the Millennium, whereas our Pastor applies the verse in the part that speaks of the raising up of the Prophet, even as Peter does, to the Gospel Age, and the rest of the verse to the Millennial Age and its Little Season, which is also the application that he makes of v. 23. Again, he denies that the Prophet here referred to is the Christ, Head and Body, asserting that it applies only to Jesus. But if we closely study Deut. 18: 15-18, we find that St. Peter has quoted it in Acts 3: 22 and 23 from the Septuagint, which gives a composite paraphrase rather than a literal translation. But as v. 15 reads, both in the Hebrew and the English, it proves that the Prophet is a multitudinous one: "The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren [a Prophet consisting of brethren; hence a multitudinous one]." This Prophet is here spoken of, not only as gathered out of Israel [both typical and antitypical]—"out of the midst of thee," but as consisting of brethren of such—"of thy brethren." It will be noted that the expressions, "out of the midst of thee," and, "of thy brethren," are not synonymous. The former tells from among whom the Prophet would be raised up; and the latter tells of whom he would consist. The fact that he would consist of brethren overthrows the central thought of the entire article under review, destroying its claim that this Prophet is Jesus alone, and that His pertinent ministry is from 1918 to the end of Armageddon.
The ministry of Jesus while in the flesh is not, as the article under review claims (par. 5), the teaching referred to in Deut. 18: 15-18. It was during that time that He was being raised up as the Head of the Prophet. Moreover, if Jesus alone were referred to in that passage, fleshly Israel alone would be referred to in the passage as the ones taught; for it was from their midst alone that Jesus was raised up. This fact proves that from both Israels (Is. 8: 14) this Prophet has been raised up, which fact also proves that Jesus alone is not that Prophet. Nor does the passage give any hint on giving such a testimony on Jehovah as J.F.R. claims it teaches (par. 8) and as his movement allegedly has been giving since 1919 (including his 1925 fiasco!). Hence his "irresistible [!] conclusion" (par. 8) is a humbug conclusion. The connection of Acts 3: 19-21 proves that the ministry of that Prophet is during the Millennium and at its end. Further, if his view (par. 11) as to those referred to as taught in this passage—his remnant at the Age's end—were true, Jesus would have to have sprung from them, and that since 1918, when the remnant allegedly first came into existence. His claim that Peter's expression (Acts 3: 22), "unto you," clearly refers to J.F.R.'s remnant, is as clear as the black mud of Texas after a heavy rain; for Peter applies the words, "unto you," of vs. 22, 23, in vs. 25, 26, as primarily addressed to fleshly Israelites. Neither this text nor any other text teaches what he teaches on Jesus' coming to the temple in 1918 and thenceforth beginning to fudge His own. This theory is read into this and all other Scriptures that J.F.R. alleges teaches it. His statement (par. 21) for the steenth time that the division set in among God's people after Passover, 1918 is a demonstrable untruth, as all Truth people know that it started and had its largest single manifestation during 1917; and this fact destroys his whole setting as to the facts of the
Harvest. This untruth is necessary to build up the entire theory that claims the Harvest to begin in 1918, which year's division was much smaller than that of 1917, but it is illogical in that it teaches a harvest sifting before any of his harvest reaping is done. It is in line with the thought that he has been a leader in what is the sixth sifting—large division—since Jesus came to the temple in 1874.
In Z '33, 163–169 is an article on, His Covenant People. He says Deut. 29: 1 refers to his covenant of the Kingdom. But Deut. 29: 1-13 expressly refers to the Israelites' consecration and to the Oath-bound Covenant, as vs. 12-15 show. It was to the earthly features ["as the sands by the sea"] of the Oath-bound Covenant (Gen. 22: 16-18) and to Israel's covenant of consecration that the words of Deut. 29: 1-15 primarily refer, and they were given to Israel according to the flesh, the faithful ones among them alone proving themselves to be Ancient Worthies, who realized the earthly promise as theirs. St. Peter shows the same thing in Acts 3: 25, 26; and according to Gal. 4: 27-31, the spiritual features ["as the stars of the heavens"] apply throughout the Gospel Age to the Seed. He charges (par. 13) that elders, whom he characterizes continually as "elective elders," and who deny his proofless claims that none are Scripturally elected as elders, that their rejection of his views is due to their selfish desire to want to be somebodies, to appear before audiences to show off, to make discourses, etc., etc., etc. Look at his record and you will find none among the Lord's people to equal it in grasping for power, and in hunger for luxury, influence, popularity, prominence, wealth and rulership. We pass by his 1917 record on these points as too well known to need recital. He accepted his position under the charter and will, promising publicly by word and writing to be faithful to our Pastor's teachings, arrangements, charter and will; but, like the great popes
in their relation to the Apostles, he used that position to undermine and overthrow his charter, will and arrangements, to repudiate most of the teachings, to suppress all his publications, to belittle him before the brethren, and to belie and drive away those who advocated our Pastor's ways. He has used his position to set forth a set of drunken follies as truths, and right-eye darkenings as light. He has tyrannized over the Board, the other Tower editors, the Bethel family, the branch offices, the elders and ecclesias of the Society. He has branded some faithful brethren as parts of the man of sin. He has railed at them, the clergy, politicians and capitalists, which is neither the spirit of power, nor of love, nor of a sound mind. He has almost entirely destroyed study meetings, disorganized ecclesias, turned most study meetings into salesmen— coaching assemblies ("pep-meetings"), commercialized the Truth and luxuriated in his wantonness. Such has been the course of the one who rails at elders who disapprove of his teaching, as selfish, power, influence, popularity, prominence, etc., seekers. This glass-house dweller dares throw stones!
The following incident among many others the Church ought to know as revelatory of his attitude toward power and office: The third day after our Pastor's death, i.e., on Nov. 2, 1916, both he and we reached Bethel, he from a business, we from a pilgrim trip. He called us aside, asking us whether Pastor Russell was to have a successor. We answered that we did not know. Knowing that we understood a number of types that pointed out individual acts of leading brethren, he then asked: "Do you not know some Scripture on the subject?" We replied that we did not, having never thought of the subject, but told him, who was betraying a marked interest in the question, that we would think it over, and that if anything came to mind, we would tell him of it. Many brethren will remember that the thought prevailed
among the brethren (a thought that many others and the writer know Bro. Russell held, as more than once he and we spoke on that subject together) that, as the steward of the penny parable, our Pastor was to give the penny—the opportunity of service in smiting Jordan, which many brethren were expecting him to give. The morning of Nov. 3, the day after the above-mentioned conversation with J.F.R., we awoke early, our mind being much weighed down by our beloved Pastor's death. Among others, the thought came to our mind, "Bro. Russell died without giving the penny. He, therefore, while having been that Servant, had not been the steward of the parable who gave the penny." As a matter of fact, he had, unknown to himself and us, given it in its twofold distribution, even as many of us later came to see. Then the thought came to mind, "Here is the answer to J.F.R.'s question: Bro. Russell is to have a successor." Immediately after breakfast, in harmony with our promise, we called J.F.R. aside, telling him we had the answer to his question of the day before. Great interest and eagerness overspread his face; and eagerly beckoning us to follow, he led the way to his room. As soon as we were inside, he locked the door, then asked us what our thought was. We explained it, and he promptly answered, "That is so." Then he asked us whom we thought the successor to be. We replied that we did not know, but he would undoubtedly be a brother of deep humility, loving zeal, deep knowledge of the Scriptures and trusted by the brethren for these three things. Then, enlarging, we added, "We do not need to worry over who he is. In due time the Lord will bring him forward; but let no one seek that place; for woe to him who seeks to 'set' himself in the Body of Christ." As we think over subsequent events, we feel persuaded that the Lord, knowing of his power-grasping and leading spirit, gave him through these words a warning.
J.F.R. convinced himself without Biblical warrant that he was the steward. He gave as the penny, Studies, Vol. VII. All will recall how he taught that it was the penny. He even had a cut of a penny made and printed on the dedicatorial page of that book. One reason why he, without the Board's authorization, had Studies, Vol. VII prepared, printed and distributed was his belief that he was the steward. It will be noted that it was on Nov. 3, 1916, that we gave him the thought that the penny parable taught that Bro. Russell would have a successor. The Bible teaches that it was on Nov. 3, 1916, that he began to displace A. H. MacMillan, A. I. Ritchie and W. E. Van Amburgh in the exercise of executive and managerial powers, as the Bible also shows that he drew up his power-seeking by-laws on Dec. 29, 1916. We would here remark that there is a very detailed record of his doings from Nov. 3, 1916, to Aug. 8, 1917, given in several books of the Bible. We came to see this in March, 1917, while yet in Britain, and after our return, April 9, 1917, we watched him closely and saw him fulfilling the details of these types. It was with this thought in mind that on June 23, 1917, we said to him: "I know you like a book, I not only know what you have been doing [since Nov. 3, 1916], but what you are going to do [until Aug. 8, 1917]. The Bible gives a very detailed account of past and future doings of yours." We refused his request to tell him where. We have stated that he luxuriates in wantonness. For one of the proofs on this point we refer our readers to P '34, 68, par. 2–69, par. 2.
In Z '33, 179–186 is an article on His Sanctuary. In it he says (pars. 3, 4) that an epitome of the vision of Dan. 7 shows that Satan's organization has seven heads: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and Great Britain. To this we reply that that chapter does not refer at all to Egypt and Assyria,