Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
nor to seven heads, and that Britain is not referred to at all there, not even as one of the horns of the Roman beast. Moreover, without any reference to an alleged Satan's organization whatever, the four universal Gentile empires of the Times of the Gentiles are referred to, which fact excludes reference to Egypt, Assyria and Britain among the empires referred to as such in the vision and explanation of Dan. 7. Again Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece are not of the seven-headed Scriptural beast, since the harlot was never supported by them, actually did not exist during their domination (Rev. 17: 9). He claims that the three horns plucked up to make way for the little horn are Spain, France and Holland, and that the little horn is Britain, which he asserts is the seventh head of the beast of Rev. 13 and 17. Then he sets up the thought that Anglo-American imperialism is the two-horned beast of Rev. 13. This view cannot be correct, because: (1) Spain, France and Holland have not been plucked up, for they still exist. (2) They have existed as governments more or less contemporaneously with Britain for many centuries, while Daniel shows that the little horn coming up out of the beast's head rooted out three governments that existed before it to make way for itself. (3) Holland as a government never was a horn on Daniel's fourth beast, though it is a part of the Germanic horn of the Rev. 13 and 17 beast. (4) Britain, never having ruled in Italy, can not be one of the horns of the fourth beast of Dan. 7. (5) If this view were correct, that Britain sprouted as the little horn, 286 A. D., it came into existence as the little horn before Spain, France and Holland as governments came into existence, and her defeats of Spain, France and Holland began from 13 to 15 centuries after her sprouting as the alleged little horn. (6) A so-called Anglo-American imperialism is not a government, hence cannot be the two-horned beast. (7) There is no such a thing as Anglo-American
imperialism as governments, though Britain and America have more or less imperialistic policies, but these policies are entirely separate and distinct from one another. A policy is not a horn, which is a government, nor is a policy a beast, which must be a government. (8) If Britain were the seventh head of the ten-horned beast, it can not be the two-horned beast, which is defined as quite different from that. These facts effectually dispose of the new view of the little horn of the seventh head of the Rev. 13 and 17 beast and of the two horns of the two-horned beast of Rev. 13. Of course, it therefore disposes of his new view of the war on the saints (par. 24) as being the persecution of himself and his followers during the World War. Certainly, even his followers were not in that year worn out, thought doubtless more or less for a few months restricted in their Vol. VII, etc., activities, but were then allowed to distribute Bro. Russell's volumes.
His thought (par. 25) on his little horn (Britain) changing times and laws is both nonsensical and unfactual: (1) It was an officer of the Federation of Churches, not Britain, who stated that the League of Nations was the political expression of God's Kingdom. (2) This Federation officer by that declaration made no change in times and laws, as J.F.R. holds, though he stated a thing that, if put into effective operation as a teaching and practice would have thought to make such a change. (3) Britain never put such a teaching into practice. (4) Not Britain, but France has been the most influential force in engineering the policies of the League. (5) The League has never changed a single time or law of the Divine Plan, hence no such changes were made so far as it is concerned. (6) We have above sufficiently refuted the whole setting that he gives to that impotent misfit called, The League of Nations. (7) So far from America issuing a decree that all should worship his
image—the League—America has steadfastly refused to sanction it or join it. Thus we see that while with his little horn no times and laws were changed, he even admitting that God is not allowing it (end of par. 26), there was a real changing, in counterfeiting Gospel-Age times for Millennial times and the Truth as God's eternal laws for error, by the papacy, the real little horn. His claim (pars. 27, 28) that Daniel fixes the time of setting up the abomination of desolation, of the change of times and laws, as occurring after our Lord's Second Advent (Dan. 7: 9, 10, 13, 14), is transparent sophistry. These references show the time of the destruction of the beast and the little horn, and not the time when the little horn would do its devastating work against the saints. Moreover, God began in 1914 to destroy the beast of Dan. 7, hence before, according to the view under examination, the beast made war on the saints, while Dan. 7: 21 shows that it was after that war was over that God began to destroy the fourth beast of Dan. 7. Moreover, in an entirely unwarranted way does J.F.R. mix the visions and interpretations of Dan. 7 and 8.
The article on, His Sanctuary, is continued in Z '88, 195–202. He claims (par. 3) that the fulfilment and the understanding of the vision of Dan. 8: 9-14 are by Dan. 8: 17 proven to belong to the Time of the End. Against this view we offer the following: (1) The word vision in Dan. 8: 17 does not simply cover the part of the vision given in Dan. 8: 9-12, as J.F.R. contrary to facts assumes, but refers to the entire vision—vs. 3-14. (2) Manifestly this vision was not in its entirety limited to the Time of the End, for Gabriel's interpretation shows that it begins with Medo-Persia. (3) Rightly translated, the pertinent clause of Dan. 8: 17 reads as follows: "because for (not at) the Time of the End is the vision," i.e., it is for the understanding and advantage of God's people
living in the Time of the End (Dan. 12: 10). (4) The Time of the End did not begin in 1914, as J.F.R. claims (par. 3), but in 1799, as shown in Chap. V. (5) The date 1914 is assumed without any proof as the date of the Time of the End. (6) God's people got their understanding of the vision of Dan. 8: 3-14 before 1914, which proves that the Time of the End began before that date. (7) J.F.R., as the little pope, being the head of the little Antichrist, of necessity must, like the big pope, furnish counterfeit interpretations on every salient feature of God's Plan; hence his Time of the End as coming after 1914 is a counterfeit Time of the End. His claim (par. 6) that Ireland could not be one of the two horns of the second beast (Rev. 13), because it never was a world power, is false, for it assumes that only world powers could be horns. The Heruli, Ostrogoth and Lombard horns were not world powers, neither was the Norman power (in southern Italy), yet they were symbolic horns. He claims that Holland was a horn, yet it was not a world power. His claim that America is one of the horns of the two-horned beast is half-brother to the Seventh Day Adventist thought on this subject. Moreover, the prophecy's saying nothing about the little horn pushing west excludes the U. S. from the picture. Only the needs of J.F.R.'s counterfeit requires this piece of eisegesis. Actually what is papacy's exalting itself to be the symbolic heavens (Dan. 8: 10) he claims means Anglo-American imperialism opposing his remnant! Then, he adds, papacy's setting itself in counterfeit of the Christ as the prince of the host is not the meaning of Dan. 8: 11, but it means Anglo-American imperialism setting itself against our returned Lord as leader of J.F.R.'s remnant!
The taking away of the daily sacrifice, he claims, means preventing the Societyites' doing their work in 1918. That work was the distribution of Studies, Vol. VII
and kindred literature, which the Society now brands as false teaching, while the U. S. allowed the six volumes to be continued in distribution. Their present position as to Studies, Vol. VII and its related literature proves from their own standpoint that that suppression was not one of a Divinely well-pleasing book. Hence its suppression could not have been the taking away of the daily sacrifice, as he contends in pars. 15–24. As a matter of fact, the service of sacrifice of the Lord's people did not cease in 1918, though an Azazelian work at that time was much curtailed. Of course, this new twist is the little papacy's counterfeit interpretation for the true one given by the Lord through that wise and faithful Servant. His claim against the true view (par. 23), that the papacy could not set aside the continual imputation of Christ's merit is only a straw man. No Truth teacher who has understood the subject ever set forth such a claim: Our Pastor's thought was that the papacy set aside the teaching of the continued efficacy of Jesus' merit for all Adamic sin, whether committed before or after justification, by teaching that Jesus' merit avails for the cancellation of the Adamic sin and sins before baptism, later Adamic sins needing the sacrifice of, masses for their cancellation. Whoever accepted that teaching did for himself set aside the continual sacrifice of Christ. One of J.F.R.'s characteristic "methods of deceit" when he wants to set aside our Pastor's teachings, is to give a foolish misrepresentation of them (the straw-man trick) and then refute his misrepresentation; and thereafter set forth his little papal counterfeit as the Simon pure thing. The base of the sanctuary, he claims, (Dan. 8: 11) is his followers, as the alleged last members of the Church: The base of a natural building certainly is not the last things built up into the structure! The Bible pictures are quite different on this subject. When it sets forth the thought that the Truth supports the Church, it speaks
of the Truth as the base, the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16: 18). When it sets forth the chief servants of the Church as the support of the Church, it speaks of them as the foundation, with Jesus as the chief corner stone (Eph. 2: 19-22). It never uses, and that from self-evident reasons, the last ones to become parts of the Church as the foundation of the Church! In Dan. 8: 11 the great ransom teaching and Christ as its Giver are set forth as the base, foundation of the sanctuary.
J.F.R. teaches that the alleged opposition of Anglo-American imperialism to his work is prophesied in Dan. 8: 12. But he has greater liberties for his propaganda in America and Britain than in any other country. His work in Poland is nearly entirely suppressed. It is entirely suppressed in Germany and Italy. If he would fulminate against the other continental European governments as he does against Britain and America, every one of them would suppress his work. The degree of tolerance which the British and American governmental officials show his work in the teeth of the vituperation that he pours out upon them is remarkable—in striking contrast with his intolerance toward them. We might here remark that the governmental opposition that his partisans have undergone since early in 1933 is a part of the breaking of the legs of the two symbolic large thieves, the better ones among them being parts of the large penitent thief, and the bad ones among them, with him as their leader, being parts of the large impenitent thief.
His article on, His Sanctuary, is concluded in Z '33, 211–219. He says (par. 6) that the attempt to explain the cleansing of the Sanctuary prior to 1918, the alleged time of Christ's coming to His temple, was merely a guess bound to be mistaken, since he claims that Christ would first have to be in His sanctuary before He could cleanse it and thus explain its meaning.
Such a view is an unprovable assumption, but also is contrary to facts as to his own position, since its cleansing was properly explained before 1918. He contends (par. 8) that the days of Daniel are literal days. He sets up the proposition (par. 8) that God holds people responsible for
their wrongs "only after they have received knowledge" of their wrong. This proposition sweeps away responsibility for sins of ignorance—a thing that is contrary to God's character, whose perfection must condemn all wrong and wrongdoers, though He does so less severely in cases of sins of ignorance than in cases of sins against knowledge. The fact that He exacts the penalty of sin on infants disproves J.F.R.'s proposition. The fact that by nature's laws He inflicts painful penalties on sins done in ignorance also disproves the proposition. Why do we pray for
forgiveness of sins of ignorance, if God does not hold us responsible for them? That servant "that knew not [his Lord's will] and did commit things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes" (Luke 12: 47, 48), is God's sentence of condemnation on J.F.R.'s proposition. While
admitting that in 1929 he misinterpreted the 2300 days, he now claims (par. 13) that Daniel's 2300 days began on May 25, 1926, and ended Oct. 15, 1932, but just as in the case of his 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, he has again figured wrongly on the 2300 days; for from May 25, 1926, to Oct. 15, 1932, is a period of 2340 days. Thus:
May 25, 1926 to May 25, 1927=365 days
May 25, 1927 to May 25, 1928=366 " (leap year)
May 25, 1928 to May 25, 1929=365 "
May 25, 1929 to May 25, 1930=365 "
May 25, 1930 to May 25, 1931=365 "
May 25, 1931 to May 25, 1932=366 " (leap year)
May 25, 1932 to Oct. 20, 1932=148 "
Total 2340 "
Thus his period is forty days too long, and that spoils his claim. He claims (par. 13) that according to the Bible way of counting time, 2300 days equal 6 years, 4 months and 20 days. We answer that if he thereby means that the Bible way of counting 2300 is to make them equal to 2340 days, he misrepresents the Bible way of reckoning in a manner similar to that of his step-brother, the big pope, who claims that according to the Bible way of counting, 3 × 1 = 1. We have serious doubts that the Bible way of counting makes 2300 = 2340 and 3 × 1 = 1!
Having shown that his period for the 2300 days is a transparent error, let us see of what he makes the cleansing of the sanctuary consist. Instead of making it consist of freeing the sanctuary from the errors fostered by the mass error, he makes it consist of driving out of the temple those whom he calls castaways from his remnant. But Dan. 8: 13, 14, shows that it consists of ridding the sanctuary of those things centering in that which set aside the continued efficacy of Christ's sacrifice and which trampled down the Truth, the Church and the nominal people. This was the mass, from whose every defiling effect the true Church was freed at the end of 2300 years, in 1846, and was not a casting out of such new creatures as failed to remain of the true Church, let alone of his remnant. Moreover, even the actual 2300 days from May 25, 1926 to Sept. 5, 1932, have not seen the complete separation from his remnant of all those who have left his movement. Literally hundreds in the year and 8½ months since then have left him and his movement, and we venture on the basis of Zech 11: 17 to say that thousands will yet leave his movement, until not one new creature nor good Youthful Worthy will remain with him—his remnant will finally be reduced to lapsed Youthful Worthies, lapsed tentatively justified ones, complete worldlings and "second deathers." But apart from what will yet befall him,
the hundreds who are continually leaving him even now, 1 year and 8½ months after the end of 2300 actual days since May 25, 1926, prove that his kind of sanctuary cleansing has not yet been completed, nor has it even entered the beginning of its end. Nonsensical is what he gives as that which will set aside a thing not even remotely connected with the separation of his kind of rejected ones; for he goes on to say that these 2300 days are connected in the beginning with the warning against the Rulers in the proclamation of the London Convention, May 25, 1926, and in the end with the resolution against elders in the ecclesias and in favor of the right (?) way of organizing the ecclesias without elders and deacons, appearing in the Oct. 15, 1932 Tower. How could that warning to Rulers drive out his alleged unworthy ones from his alleged temple? Moreover, very many were before it separated from his remnant.
Against this view we state a number of things: (1) As we showed several years ago when answering his then new view of Daniel's 2300 days, the angel tells Daniel that the vision (Dan. 8: 13, 14) that he had seen in chapter 8, i.e., the one of the 2300 days, had as to its time features 70 weeks cut off of it (Dan. 9: 24), which 70 weeks, 490 days, i.e., 490 years, we know reached from 455 B. C. to 36 A. D. Since these 490 years were only a part of the 2300 days, the 2300 days cannot be literal days of 24 hours, but are literal years. This consideration alone completely destroys the view under study. (2) His view that Anglo-American imperialism could not have been guilty of the sins that they had, according to his view, before committed and that he charges against them, until his proclamation of May 25, 1926, rebuking the rulers of the world for said sins made them guilty of them, cannot be true for the reasons given above. (3) Hence, as Dan. 8: 13, 14, proves, the evils there mentioned as committed were committed during those
2300 days, as v. 14 shows, while his view of the evils as having been committed in the persecution of 1918 makes the evils committed about eight years before his 2300 days began, which again destroys his view. (4) Again, not one hint is given in Dan. 8: 13, 14, nor elsewhere in Scripture, that informing the wrongdoers of their pertinent former sin would begin the 2300 days, which thought is not only based on a demonstrable error, as shown above, and contradicts the statements of vs. 13, 14, but is an invention created to bolster up his demonstrably erroneous view. (5) That which he gives as the ender of the 2300 (actually 2340) days, the Oct. 15, 1932 Tower resolution, disorganizing the Divine organization of ecclesias and organizing in their stead "companies" without elders and deacons, could not be a thing connected with cleansing the sanctuary, since in the little Gospel Age it is a part of the work of the little abomination of desolation defiling the little temple. (6) Having refuted in Chapter V what he says in pars. 20–22 on the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, we will here simply refer our readers to that refutation without repeating it.
In par. 26 he reiterates his oft-given advice not to discuss their teachings with objectors. This reminds us of a cartoon published in 1903. During the very hot summer of that year many who drove horses sought to shield them from sunstroke by putting caps on their heads. It will be recalled that Mr. Bryan that summer sought to prevent the gold wing of his—the Democratic—party through Mr. Parker, at that time an aspirant for the Democratic presidential nomination, from propagandizing the entire party away from his silver views. A cartoonist touched off the situation as follows: He represented Mr. Parker's face on a $20.00 gold piece as the sun smiling with golden rays upon the donkey, as the symbol of the Democratic party, and Mr. Bryan as the donkey driver,
putting a cap on the donkey's head to shield it from a stroke from the rays of the golden sun. J.F.R.'s course under consideration is well symbolized in Mr. Bryan's act toward the Democratic donkey! Then he applies (par. 30) the prophecy of the righteous shining forth in the kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13: 43) to his followers since 1918 giving forth his messages, and that in the face of the fact that the passage shows that the pertinent shining forth comes after the tares have all been burned in the fiery furnace, while his shining forth precedes it!
Then in six issues of the Tower, i.e., from that of Aug. 1, 1933, to that of Oct. 15, 1933, he discusses Zech. 1-11. Apart from what he writes on Zech. 11, we necessarily will give only some short refutations of some of his main hallucinations. In changing times and laws (Z '33, 229, par. 14), he entirely separates the time of preparing the way of the Lord and the day of Jehovah's preparation, claiming the former as from 1874 to 1918 and the latter as since 1918. But the Bible shows (Mal. 4: 5, 6) that in a general way, the whole Gospel Age was the time of preparing the way of the Lord, and that in a particular way from 1829 (the Miller Movement) onward, as pictured in the John type, was the time of preparing the way of the Lord (Is. 40: 3-8, compared with vs. 1, 2, 9-11; Matt. 3: 1-4); while the day of preparation is the period from 1799 until the end of the trouble, as Dan. 12: 9-12 and Nah. 2: 3 teach. Without the slightest Biblical hint of such a view and activity, he claims (pars. 20–25) that the rider on the red horse (Zech. 1: 8) was inspecting Jerusalem and pictures Jesus inspecting those in the temple, and that the riders on the other horses picture inspecting angels assisting Jesus in His inspecting work. Rev. 6, treating of similar things, disproves such a thought. The young man of Zech. 2: 1-4 with his measuring line is allegedly (page 243, par. 2) his remnant since 1918, while actually he
represents, generally, the Lord's people, especially Bro. Russell, describing the kingdom message by and from Studies, Vol. VI. It is like the description of Rev. 21: 15-17. The day of the Lord, he claims (246, par. 12), is from 1918 onward, but this cannot be true, since it includes, among other preceding things, the World War. The golden candlestick of Zech 4: 2, 3, he claims (248, par. 18), represents enlightenment and joy, also the organization and witness work of his movement, while Jesus in Rev. 1: 20 defines it as the whole Church, which it is as the enlightener of the brethren. The two olive trees of Zech. 4, he says (248, par. 19), are his two kinds of "Jehovah's witnesses"—those who became his adherents from 1918 to 1922, and those who became such since 1922. But the Bible teaches that they are the Old and New Testaments (Rev. 11: 3, 4, compare with 5-13). Later on he defines them (250, par. 29) as Jesus as Priest and as Executive. The two thoughts are not harmonious. The mountain of Zech. 4: 7, he says (249, par. 22) is the opposition. But they are not a kingdom. It doubtless refers to the nominal kingdom of God (Dan. 2: 45). He says (249, par. 23) that Jesus, the corner stone was finally laid in 1918. The Bible knows of only one laying of that corner stone, and that occurred before Pentecost (Acts 4: 11). J.F.R. endorses the papistically advised and conceived N. R. A. (271), several of whose principles, because of their source, are features of the beast's mark.
Z '33, 259–266 treats of Zech. 5. Its ephah, he claims (par. 8), is a huge judgment measured out; while it being a vessel—teaching—and from the expression, their likeness in all the earth, we understand is to represent the three great errors common to the nominal church: trinity, inherent immortality and eternal torment. He defines its lead as hypocrisy (par. 9); but lead, as a counterfeit of silver, is used to represent error counterfeiting Truth. The woman he defines
(par. 9) as his man (!) of sin and the clergy; while as an evil woman she evidently represents the nominal church. The two women who transport the ephah and its woman, he claims (par. 10) are good angels; while they evidently represent the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church, who minister (carry) the three great above-mentioned errors that hold in their power the nominal church. The fact that the two women had wings like a stork, a bird that was unclean (Lev. 11: 19), proves these women to be unclean, hence not good angels. Shinar, he teaches (par. 11), is the state of destruction; while it represents through the confusion of tongues there (Gen. 11: 2, compare vs. 3-9) the sphere of the confused creeds of the nominal church. In pars. 13–26 he attempts to explain Zech. 6, applying it to his movement, and mixes up matters with his usual hallucinations, and to make his applications he ascribes things to the four chariots and the four men of v. 10 that are nowhere Scripturally ascribed to such symbols. In Z '33, 275–283, he publishes an article entitled, Obedience, which, of course, papistically means submission to his movement! The article is supposed to explain Zech. 7 and 8. To him (pars. 2–5) those who asked whether they should continue the fasts held for the evils Babylon inflicted on Israel represent those who hold memorial services for our Pastor! What else, in addition to being transparent folly, is this than charging the Parousia Movement with being Babylonian? Had he not lost the pertinent Truth he might have seen that the inquirers represent some people who came into the Truth during the Parousia and who were wont to ask, if they should not keep up the sad practices that were derived through the evil experiences of spiritual Israel from symbolic Babylon's attacks on them as they went into captivity to antitypical Babylon, i.e., worrying over the dead, the impenitent, the heathen, the saving of souls, penance, etc. He twists (par. 20) the old men
and women of Zech 8: 4 into representing those in his movement from 1918 to 1922 and the boys and girls of v. 5 into representing those of his supporters who came into his movement since 1922. A babe in the Truth should recognize the description as Millennial.
The "no hire" for man and beast, of Zech. 8: 10, he says (par. 24) means that no one could serve during the 1918 persecution, which is untrue; for many of the brethren continued then to sell our Pastor's literature furnished by the Society. The connection shows that this is to occur after the foundation of the Church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon. In many places he casts belittling aspersions on our Pastor, e.g., (par. 27) he disparagingly charges that in Bro. Russell's day about half of the Tower's space was devoted to views from the Watch Tower, but in his own days he has so much of advancing Truth to give that no space remains for views from the Watch Tower! His charge against Bro. Russell on this point is false. We do not remember one issue (and we have read all the Towers from the beginning) that had half of its space devoted to the signs of the times, though God has put His seal of approval on our Pastor's pertinent activity (Is. 21: 5-9; Hab. 2: 1, 2). No, J.F.R. does not publish such signs as Views from the Watch Tower. He fills The Tower with mud splashes, in which he tries to bend almost everything into a prophecy of his movement— thus The Tower is now about entirely devoted to counterfeit signs of the times! In par. 28 he makes the blasphemous statement that prior to 1922 real spiritual Israel was cursed by God. No comment is needed on this statement. The ten men of all the languages of the earth (Zech. 8: 23), according to him (par. 35), are the people who favor his movement, but are not of the remnant. The connection shows that European society (the symbolic earth) is
the whole earth here spoken of, where there are exactly ten language nationalities. Hence the ten men are the ten language groups in national respects. He claims that the Jew here is Jesus. Fulfilled prophecy shows that it is Israel, beginning at the Berlin Congress, 1878.
In Z '33, 291–299, is an article on Melchizedek. J.F.R. says (pars. 4–6) that Zech. 9: 9 is a prophecy of our Lord as Melchizedek, hence applies, he claims, since 1918. This claim in both parts is false, because the Evangelists (Matt. 21: 5; John 12: 15) apply the passage to our Lord's period of humiliation, while Melchizedek refers to him as Priest and King in Glory (Zech. 6: 13). No amount of sophistry on certain omissions can change the application of the passage from our Lord's entrance into Jerusalem to an alleged coming to the temple in 1918, but the passage says nothing of His coming to the temple, as J.F.R. tries to twist it, but speaks of His entrance into Jerusalem. To say that the words, "just and having salvation," were omitted by Matthew because applicable only to the alleged coming to the temple in 1918, is untrue, for our Lord certainly was just and brought salvation when he entered Jerusalem; nor did He enter the temple on an ass, as that would have defiled it, which disproves J.F.R.'s second application. Jesus' approving the people's crying "Hosannah"(save now) proves that He then brought salvation to Jerusalem; and He lamented over their rejecting it (Luke 19: 41-44). Furthermore, a comparison of the quotation as found in Matthew with it as found in John shows that John omitted even more than Matthew, which on J.F.R.'s principle would mean that it applied to something else than that to which Matthew's quotation applied! Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem on the ass and its foal types, parallels, Jesus' presenting Himself to Christendom in 1878 through the Ransom and the Second Advent teaching, and in the eight large wonderful days typed
the Large Jesus' entrance into the Nominal Church by the same two teachings given by word of mouth and the printed page. The language of Zech. 9: 9 is not a temple prophecy, but of His presenting Himself to Jerusalem as representative of fleshly Israel. J.F.R. explains (pars. 12, 13) the mishneh, the double, of Zech. 9: 12, as he falsely explains the pe shenaim of 2 Kings 2: 9, i.e., to mean twice as much of the Holy Spirit to be given antitypical Elisha as antitypical Elijah had. Against such a false interpretation the following points hold: (1) Pe shenaim, as we have shown, means two classes, while Mishneh means double, here in the sense of a repetition, though a few times it means twice as much. (2) His interpretation contradicts his interpretation of the prisoners of hope, whom he falsely defines (par. 11) as the Great Company. But it is to the prisoners of hope spoken of collectively that the prophet declares the double; and, of course, these as allegedly the Great Company do not get twice as much of the Holy Spirit as the Little Flock, regardless of whether we call both antitypical Elijah and antitypical Elisha the Little Flock, as J.F.R. does. Actually the prisoners of hope here are Fleshly Israel. Leeser, as a Jew translating the passage so as to take out of it its application to our Lord, interpolates the words, good and happy message, after the word double. (4) J.F.R.'s claim that the word here rendered today should be rendered, "that day," in the sense of the day of the Lord's alleged coming to His temple, is a false lexical remark made to bolster up his false theory. Matthew's and John's use of Zech. 9: 9 and its connection, as well as the fulfilled prophecy's showing that the double ended for Israel in 1878, prove that Bro. Russell's thought on the passage is correct.
In Z '33, 307–314, J.F.R. has an article on, Shepherds and Staves, in which, of course, he makes a special effort to ward off our interpretation of Zech. 11: 15-17
as applying to him. But his effort is a flat failure, as our examination of it will show. In par. 2 he claims that the oaks of Bashan are the capitalists ("big business"). A comparison of Is. 2: 13 and Ezek. 27: 6 proves that the mightiest of the clergy are thereby meant; for in both passages, as the connections show, the clergy are spoken of. This is also shown in Ps. 22: 12, where the inserted word should be oaks; for the expression, bulls of Bashan, never occurs in the original of the Bible; but that of, oaks of Bashan, occurs several times. With the right word inserted, the connection proves that in Ps. 22: 12 the chief priests (the leading clergy) concerned in our Lord's death are meant. Hence in Zech. 11: 2 the leaders among the clergy are meant by the oaks of Bashan. The young lions of Zech. 11: 3 are not the politicians (par. 3), but are the Protestant denominations, which, in comparison with Papacy, the lion, are young lions, even as united Protestantism is the young lion (Ps. 91: 13), To his thought (par. 4) that in v. 5, by the sellers and shepherds of the flock the clergy, his man of sin and the elders are meant, we reply that such is not the case. It is the Judas class, both in and out of the Truth, whose chief leader among the Truth People is J.F.R., who sell the Lord's flock in the strict sense of the word. And it is the clergy—the leaders—in both large and little Babylon who pity not the sheep, but for their own gain ruthlessly mistreat them. The most conspicuous example of such shepherds among Truth people (vs. 15-17) is J.F.R., whose oppression of God's sheep has for years been crying out to God for vengeance. This vengeance is manifest in God's depriving him gradually of the Truth he once saw, in letting him wander in ever-increasing darkness, as his writings prove, and in gradually depriving him of his influence over new creatures and good Youthful Worthies. He misapplies the expression (v. 6), "I will deliver the men every
one into the hand of his king," to mean that the Lord will have mercy on those not of J.F.R.'s remnant, but sympathetic with his propaganda, by putting them into Christ's hand for safety. The entire verse treats of those in sympathy with present society ("earth") and the punishment coming upon them. They are delivered every one into the hands of his king by coming into the power and control of his own class in organizational respects; thus capitalists have fallen into the control of their capitalistic organizations, laborers into the control of their labor organizations, politicians into the control of their political organizations, clergymen into the control of their religious organizations. Thus, the organization of each group is the king of that group. In this organized condition society ("the land," literally, the earth) will be smitten without deliverance.
His claim (par. 6) that v. 6 applies after the Holy Spirit allegedly ceases to function as Advocate, Comforter and Helper, is an impossible thought, because as long as the Church and the Great Company are in the world the Holy Spirit will function in them in these three capacities (John
14: 16). Above we have refuted this thought. The time of v. 7 is from 1874 to 1954, the Parousia and Epiphany. Against his claim (par. 6) that the flock of the slaughter (v. 7) is his remnant, the Great Company and his unconsecrated sympathizers, we give first his own interpretation of the same expression in v. 4, that it is the Little Flock. Notice how this is further proven by the identifying of the flock of the slaughter with the poor [humble] of the flock, in v. 7. Hence those spoken of as fed in v. 7 are the Little Flack, which would, of course, include crown-losers also, as long as they are not yet manifested as Great Company members. Then (par. 7) he claims that the staff Beauty represents what he calls, the everlasting covenant, and that the staff Bands represents what he calls the covenant for the kingdom. The everlasting covenant he says is an agreement between
God and the race, and was made after the flood, in which God promised no more to destroy the earth with a flood, if man would not shed blood. Against such a thought we premise that God made an unconditional promise to the race, regardless of what man would do or leave undone, never again to destroy the earth with a flood. This was a unilateral covenant, an unconditional promise, just like the Abrahamic and Sarah Covenant, or promise, even as God Himself says (Is. 54: 9; Gal. 3: 20) and therefore bound God alone. Its unconditionalness was guaranteed by the rainbow, which disproved, by evidencing that the watery canopy ("waters above the heavens") no longer existed, the possibility of another world-wide flood. While God gave certain prohibitions to the race (Gen. 9: 4-6) after He had given the Noachian Covenant, these did not condition that covenant. J.F.R.'s thought is (par. 14) that man, having murdered right and left, violated his agreement in the alleged eternal covenant, therefore God is no longer bound to His part of that alleged conditional covenant and therefore will break it by bringing on Armageddon, notice of which He is alleged to have given through J.F.R.'s book, Government! But the covenant bound God unconditionally never again to flood the whole earth. It made no promise, conditionally or unconditionally, not to bring on the Time of Trouble. Hence the trouble will not come by God's breaking the alleged eternal covenant, which J.F.R. claims is meant in v. 10. Moreover, an eternal covenant is unchangeable. Accordingly, J.F.R.'s eternal covenant is an error, without the slightest foundation in Scripture, reason or fact. Hence it cannot be the staff Beauty, whose cutting asunder cannot mean, as J.F.R. claims (pars. 12, 13), Jehovah's voiding of the unchangeable Noachian Covenant.
If by the covenant for the kingdom, which he claims is the staff Bands (par. 7); he means anything else
than the covenant of sacrifice, which is an unconditional covenant binding us alone to God (Ps. 50: 5); and the Sarah Covenant, which is an unconditional covenant binding God alone to the Seed, he again means something that is without any foundation in Scripture, reason or fact. That a staff is not a feature of a covenant figure, but is a feature of the shepherd figure, is self evident. Hence it cannot represent a covenant, but something connected with a shepherd. A shepherd's staff in the Bible always represents his counterpart's teachings, while a shepherd's rod in the Bible always represents his counterpart's official arrangements (Ps. 23: 4; Is. 9: 4; 10: 15, 24; 14: 5; 30: 31, 32; Jer. 48: 17; Hos. 4: 12). Even where the shepherd picture is not used the staff frequently represents teachings (Zech. 8: 4; Heb. 11: 21). The Bible nowhere uses the staff of a shepherd to represent a covenant. Hence neither Beauty nor Bands represents a covenant. J.F.R. prooflessly assumes this to evade our interpretation of Beauty as representing the Parousia Truth pertinent to the development of the Little Flock, and Bands as representing the Epiphany Truth pertinent to the development of the Great Company. And, like all his evasions, he presents folly for the beauty and wisdom of the Truth interpretations. The pertinency of the figures, their Scripturalness, reasonableness and factualness prove our thought of these two staves to be true, while the impertinency, unscripturalness, unreasonableness and unfactualness of J.F.R.'s interpretations prove his view to be erroneous. What we said above on his everlasting covenant shows these to be the qualities of his Beauty's interpretation; and what we will now say of his teaching on Bands will show the same qualities as applying to it. (1) If Bands is the kingdom covenant, it will never be broken in the sense that he speaks of breaking a covenant, setting it aside; for that covenant abides firm toward the faithful; and it never applied