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


to the unfaithful. (2) He makes a sorry attempt to explain his views of the breaking of Bands, which, if he really explained, he would find would yield demonstrable error; for if his definition of its breaking, as he used it in reference to the breaking of his everlasting covenant (a repudiation of it) were true, there was no breaking of Bands. (3) The Bible does not speak of breaking, but cutting asunder of both Beauty and Bands, i.e., rightly dividing the Word of Truth. (4) His first suggestion, that breaking of Bands means the breaking of the kingdom covenant with organized Christianity (par. 21), is an impossibility, for the covenant of sacrifice and that of Sarah never were made with organized Christianity; for only the consecrated make the former to God: and God alone makes the latter to the Seed, the faithful new creatures only. (5) His second thought, that such breaking of the covenant for the kingdom as against unfaithful consecrated ones occurred through the separation (breaking of the brotherhood) between his followers (Judah) and those whom he calls unfaithful (Israel), occasioned by his giving his followers the name of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931, is a false explanation; for long years before that his followers were separated from those whom he calls the unfaithful. (6) He confuses the breaking of Bands with the disrupting of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel, while the Scripture shows that the latter is a consequence of the former.


The true explanation of cutting asunder of Beauty appears from the fact that it resulted in the feeding of the flock (v. 11) which recognized it (Beauty) to be the Word of God. Beloved, did not the right dividing of the Parousia enable us to recognize it to be the Truth—the Word of God? Yea, verily. So did J.F.R. once recognize it to be. And did not its right dividing also result in God's breaking His covenant with all the [nominal] people of God? For by



His making His Parousia people the ones through whom He rightly divided the Word of Truth did He not break His Age-long arrangement—covenant—to use the nominal church to be His mouthpiece? He broke that agreement in 1878 when He cast off the nominal church, and this was the purpose and result ("that I might break") of His taking His real people as His exclusive mouthpiece at the beginning of the Parousia for the work of rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Thus Scripture, reason and facts are against J.F.R.'s view of Beauty and are in favor of our view. The same is the condition with reference to Bands. It is the Epiphany Truth pertinent to the development of the Great Company and Youthful, Worthies In what did its right division result? In separating the Truth-loyal and Truth-retaining Little Flock (Judah) and the Truth-disloyal and Truth-rejecting Great Company (Israel), or as v. 14 puts it, "that I might break the brotherhood [union] between Judah and Israel." Ever since Nov., 1916, when there became clear to the writer the first specifically Epiphany truth, a truth that J.F.R. knows we told him, W. E. Van Amburgh and A. I. Ritchie, in their official capacity as the executive committee, on Nov. 10, 1916, the evening before we sailed for Europe, i.e., that the sixth—the Great Company— sifting was coming and that we were going to run into it in Europe, one Epiphany truth after another coming out, the division between the Little Flock and the Great Company has become increasingly in evidence. It was the knowledge of this coming sifting that so depressed us the morning of Nov. 11, 1916, that we were unable to give the Bethel Family a comforting farewell address at the table just before we left for our steamer bound for Britain. Against our view, nothing on the basis of Scripture, reason and fact can be logically urged. And the contrast between J.F.R's. understanding and ours on these staves will leave no



one who has spiritual discernment well developed in a moment's doubt after a study of them, that the former is drunken folly of right-eye darkening and the latter Truth on the subject.


He teaches (par. 9), as an explanation of v. 8, that its three shepherds are his man of sin, the clergy and class elders and that the one month of v. 8 is the month of Nisan, 1918, when Jesus supposedly came to the temple and cut off from it the three above alleged classes. Against such thoughts many things can be urged: (I) The passage, its connections and the book in which it is found, being clothed in figurative language, the month is to be taken figuratively and therefore stands for a month of years, 30 years, i.e., from Passover, 1878, when Mr. Barbour was cut off from the Little Flock, manifested as such in the No-Ransomism sifting, to Passover, 1908, when Mr. Henninges was cut off from the Little Flock, manifested as such in the Sin-offerings, Covenants and Mediator sifting, the third shepherd being Mr. Paton, who was cut off from the Little Flock in 1881, manifested as such in the Infidelism sifting. (2) According to his own view (par. 21), that the foolish, unprofitable shepherd is his man of sin, he cannot be one of the three shepherds of v. 8, as he claims (par. 9), because v. 15 shows that the foolish, unprofitable shepherd is one still later dealt with than any other treated of before in this chapter—"take thee yet"—later on, after the things previously described had at least begun to be dealt with. (3) According to the use of language in vs. 3, 5, and the Bible elsewhere, the clergy as such, whom he calls one of the three shepherds, are called shepherds (plural), not a shepherd (singular), while his interpretation makes them called in v. 8 one shepherd (singular). Hence the use of language in this chapter and everywhere else in the Bible proves that these three shepherds are three individuals. (4) Everything in the preceding and in the immediately



following part of the chapter refers to Parousia matters, except the brief reference to Bands in v. 7; hence the connection proves that the three shepherds were Parousia characters. (5) It is untrue that the class elders, his third shepherd, were cut off from his remnant in Nisan, 1918; for they continued in his remnant as among its chief proponents until recently, even as he elsewhere admits, and some of them as individuals are still with him. (6) Those of the clergy who were cut off from the Little Flock experienced this before Sept. 16, 1914, while most of the clergy never were a part of the Little Flock, and thus never were cut off from it. (7) The same is true of many, whom he considers of the man of sin and of many who have been class elders. (8) Moreover, a clear-cut distinction cannot be drawn by him between his man of sin and some elders. (9) His man of sin, which we have by 15 reasons (Chap. V) refuted, and thereby have proven our Pastor's view to be correct, is a fictitious thing, and therefore is unavailable for application as one of these three shepherds. (10) Class elders, being in part Little Flock members, in part Great Company members, in part Youthful Worthies and perhaps in part Second Deathers, evidently could not be one of the three shepherds. (11) The same being the composition of his man of sin, he cannot be one of the three shepherds. (12) That part of the clergy who never were Spirit-begotten could not be Second Deathers, hence could not be one of the three shepherds. These 12 reasons, besides others, refute his view of v. 8.


His thought (par. 11), that the three classes referred to in v. 9 (actually the Second Deathers ["that dieth"], the uncleansed Great Company ["that is to be cut off," i.e., from the Little Flock, and that is not fed by the Lord while in Azazel's hand] and God's nominal people ["the rest"], all left foodless by the Lord), are the ledlings of his three shepherds,



is not correct, because they are not three mutually exclusive classes, for at least two of them more or less overlap one another. His claim (par. 15), that Jesus by using the language of Matt. 23: 37-39 gave up service to Israel and therefore, according to v. 12, demanded the price [wage] for His service (30 pieces of silver) from the clergy through Judas, who stole the money, is not true to fact, because it would have made Judas' sale of our Lord not a betrayal—it would have made Jesus command the sale and sanction it, and Judas' sin consist of stealing the money, not in betraying our Lord. The true thought of v. 12 is Christ's ministry, dangerous to the Jewish hierarchy, was to them in their curious state of mind a demand that they possess themselves of him as a slave (30 pieces of silver was then the price of a slave), so that as their slave property, they might do whatever they wished with Him—slay Him. Erroneous is the thought that he derives from Jesus' alleged refusing longer to serve Israel, viz., that his remnant by a proclamation made in August, 1931, "A Warning from Jehovah," and by taking the name, "Jehovah's Witnesses," was separated from further connection with Christendom. If that connection be membership therein, it was broken years before. If it be one of service, as he claims, it has not occurred yet; for his remnant is still serving Christendom by proclamations, literature, radio talks, etc. Hence both applications are hallucinations. According to his habit when unable to give even an erroneous explanation of an antitype, he glides over the antitypical 30 pieces of silver in indefiniteness. From his viewpoint of antitypical Judas he, of course, cannot, as he admits, explain the thing symbolized by Zechariah casting the 30 pieces of silver down (par. 20). The connection shows that the Second Advent time is referred to throughout this chapter. Vs. 12, 13, are applicable to Jesus for no other reason than that He is a type of the Church in



the end of the Age. These verses apply to the betrayal of the Church at the end of the Age. It was the ministry of the feet members from 1874 onward, as dangerous to the clergy, that became to them a demand on them that they possess themselves of the Church for the antitypical 30 pieces of silver.


Those who have become antitypical Judas, crown-losers in every case, have sold the feet members for the price of power, influence, advantage, etc., as teachers and leaders. They thus at the time of the purchase were crown-losers, though shortly thereafter became Second Deathers. What they bought was Levitical (Great Company) service. The price of a Levite was 5 pieces of silver (Num. 3: 46, 47). Levite leadership is had separately over the three Levite groups: Gershonite, Kohathite and Merarite, both among Truth people and in the Nominal Church. These threefold leaders, one for each group, would, make the total cost of such leadership among the Truth Levites amount to 15 (3×5) of the antitypical silver pieces, and that among the Nominal Church Levites the same. Thus the total price— power, influence, advantage of Levite leaders and teachers—is 30 antitypical pieces of silver. Among Truth people all sifting leaders have been paid this price of Levite leadership, but have had to betray the feet members whose office stood in their way to get this price. Thus Messrs. Barbour, Paton, etc., by no-ransomism betrayed the feet members to get such power. Messrs. Henninges, Williamson, McPhail, etc., by no-Church-sin-offeringism betrayed the feet members to get such power. Thus, e.g., J.F.R., etc., by revolutionism betrayed the feet members to get such power. And, of course, the Judas section in the Nominal Church did these same things. A secondary application is the following: As 30 pieces of silver are the price of a slave, to whom the owner could do as he pleased, so the "Truth clergy" and nominal church



clergy gave the sifting leaders power, etc., as the price of betraying the feet members to the clergy who use their "slave" unto a cutting off of him from mouthpieceship to the public. The siftlings are the potter, whose possession (sphere of service) is turned into a burial place for strangers (those dying from their standing before the Lord) to the Little Flock through the antitypical 30 pieces of silver; as to them is given the alleged advantage furnished by the use of the antitypical 30 pieces of silver. In contrast with J.F.R.'s inability to explain this matter, we submit the following: The betrayed Church yielded up its control over the power of Levite leadership by letting go of it in the Church and by permitting it to fall into the sifters' hands, who in turn used it as a means of buying a place of burial from siftlings for strangers to the Little Flock, as above described. This it did in the case of Truth and Nominal Church sifters. This, among other things, it is very manifest, was the way antitypical Elijah allowed the mantle to fall into antitypical Elisha's hands, the latter's leaders seizing the control over it and antitypical Elisha in so far as he consisted of siftlings, who received the alleged advantage of the antitypical price for their field of service which became a burial place for strangers to the Little Flock. From the above we can see that J.F.R. is the chief member of antitypical Judas among Truth people, even outranking in this bad eminence Messrs. Barbour, Paton and Henninges, the three shepherds of v. 8. In our Lord's case, he through Judas dropped the 30 pieces of silver in the temple to the potter, by His teachings having stirred up Judas to repentance, the latter therefore surrendering the use of his money for the potter's benefit.


Then J.F.R. (par. 21) comes to the discussion of the foolish and unprofitable shepherd, and by what he offers on the subject furnishes good corroborative factual evidence that he is that shepherd. His evil servant



[a class], he claims, is that shepherd (par. 21); but that class is his man of sin, who, he claims, is one of the three shepherds of v. 8, while v. 15 ("take thee yet") proves that another than any of the three shepherds is meant. Our interpretation (v. 16) of the "cut off" as being the separated Little Flock, the "young" as being the Youthful Worthies, the "broken" as being the Great Company and the still-standers as being the non-progressing tentatively justified, none of whom does J.F.R. serve, as v. 16 shows. The other details of the entire section (vs. 15-17), our readers will find in Chap. III. He interprets (par. 23) the cut off as the Great Company, the young as the hungry ones scattered in the Nominal Church, the broken as those injured by Satan's organization and the still-standers as those not progressing in knowledge. This view cannot be true, for these four lap over into one another. Moreover all of these four things which he gives are marks of the Great Company. So, too, those scattered in the Nominal Church and those not advancing in knowledge are injured by what he calls Satan's organization. Thus, his alleged four classes are not such at all; for there is no clear-cut distinction between them. How different are the clear-cut distinctions indicated in the four classes as we interpret them. Again, as a matter of fact, many of those whom he calls that evil servant do the four things that this passage says the foolish, unprofitable shepherd does not do. Hence his interpretation is false. He says that to take the instruments of this shepherd means to take up the service that they have cast off and to perform it. This cannot be true; for the services of such a shepherd are evil, which the Lord would not have us take up and do; for be it noted that long before a shepherd could become an unprofitable and foolish one the Lord takes away his field of service. Hence his instruments could not mean the Lord's service, even if instruments



should mean the privilege of service, which they do not mean. A shepherd's instruments are two staff and rod, the former representing a teacher's doctrines and the latter his arrangements. The taking up of these means laying hold on his teachings and arrangements for refutative discussion.


This shepherd cannot be a class, as he claims, because when, apart from the Christ as shepherd, more than one shepherd is referred to, even though they be of one general character, the plural is always used of them (Is. 56: 11; Jer. 23: 4; 25: 34-36; Ezek. 34: 2, 7-10; Zech. 10: 3; 11: 3, 5); and whenever the singular number of the word is used, an individual shepherd is referred to (Ps. 23: 4; 80: 1; Is. 40: 11; 44: 28; Ezek. 34: 23; 37: 24; Zech. 13: 7; John 10: 2; Heb. 13: 20). Even as three individuals are the three shepherds of v. 8; so the shepherd of vs. 15-17 is an individual. That he is an individual is further evidenced by his being spoken of as leaving the Little Flock, a thing that is always entered or left individually. The great prominence to which he attains ("in the land"—earth, i.e., throughout society) after leaving the Little Flock also implies his being an individual; for no class leaving the Little Flock has attained, or can attain such great prominence as this shepherd does.


Hence his interpretation of the chapter, especially of vs. 15-17, greatly lends corroboration to our view. God has by undeniable facts so unbreakably fixed this passage upon him as its fulfiller that he will never evade it by the twists that he makes, in his effort to make it apply to his demonstrably non-existent man of sin, evil servant, etc., etc. The arguments that we have given in Chap. III on The Foolish, Unprofitable Shepherd, supplemented by many others, hold him a prisoner as within a cage which will, despite his ineffectual attempts to break out of it, finally crush out his executive and teaching life, even as Bajacet,



the Turkish Sultan, captured by Tamerlane, the Mogul Emperor, was by the latter put into a portable cage and borne about until, in his frenzied efforts to be free, he killed himself.


Then, ignoring the fact that Bro. Russell used Matt. 10: 26 ("there is nothing hidden, etc.") as teaching a general principle applicable during the Gospel and Millennial Ages, he quotes (327, par. 27) one of his applications of it to the Millennial Age, then proceeds to treat that use of it as Bro. Russell's only application of it, then proceeds to refute such a thought—all he does is to kick over a straw man of his own making. That the principle of Matt. 10: 26 is susceptible of general applications to any thing or time covered by its principle, is manifest from St. Paul's statement (1 Tim. 5: 24): "Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some they follow after [unto judgment]." Then J.F.R. applies it as operating only after 1918 in his temple, despite the fact that Matt. 10: 26, like the rest of the chapter's instructions, applies to the Twelve, to govern their conduct before Pentecost (Luke 22: 35, 36; Matt. 10: 14, 9, 10), hence before they were in the temple! He also says that Jesus' speaking of His telling a thing in darkness means telling something in secret in the temple since 1918 (par. 27), and that despite the fact that it was told by Jesus to the disciples as to a way they had already got and were to give out information, before they came into the temple.


Then he offers a most foolish new view on the penny parable. The new view makes God the householder; Jesus the steward; the laborers those who are in his temple for judgment and do his kingdom service; the penny the name, Jehovah's Witnesses; the day the time after Jesus in 1918 came to the temple for judgment (Z '33, 339, par. 2). His hours are a year long. His day begins Sept. 1–7, 1919 (par. 9), during the Cedar Point Convention. His call-hours are:



the first: Sept., 1919, to Sept., 1920; the third: Sept., 1922, to Sept., 1923 (par. 10); the sixth: Sept., 1925, to Sept., 1926 (par. 11); the ninth: Sept., 1928, to Sept., 1929 (par. 12); the eleventh: Sept., 1930, to Sept., 1931 (par. 13); the twelfth: Sept., 1931, to Sept., 1932. The first trouble with his interpretation is that it makes the day thirteen hours long, i.e., a year too long for his view, for from Sept., 1919, to Sept., 1932, are thirteen, not twelve years. The second difficulty is that the third, sixth, ninth, eleventh and twelfth hours begin a year too late in each case; for the beginning of the third hour is not three (as he makes it), but two hours after the beginning of his first hour. A third weakness: Since he has been having siftings every year from 1917 onward to the present there cannot be the 5 siftings of 1 Cor. 10: 1-14 dovetailed into his five call periods, which is another fatal defect in his new view. Then he makes his penny, the giving of the alleged new name, to have occurred at the Columbus, Ohio, Convention, July 26, 1930, which was over a year and a month before his eleventh hour ended, while the parable requires it to be given after the twelfth hour was over, which his setting would make after Sept., 1932. What if Moffatt does say that the third hour began at 9 A. M., the sixth at 12 noon, etc.? This higher critic is wrong on the subject; even a child should know better; for if the first hour of a symbolic day of twelve years begins at 6 A. M., the second would begin at 7 A. M. and the third would begin at 8 A. M., and the fourth, not the third, at 9 A. M. But J.F.R. uses the 9 A. M. as the beginning of the third hour because he has nothing from Sept., 1921, to Sept., 1922, that can be stretched into the remotest resemblance of a call. But this mistake throws his third and following call-hours out of joint by a whole year or symbolic hour of his kind. He tries to hide the deficiency by making Sept., 1930, to Sept., 1931, the twelfth hour, and that contrary



to the rest of his setting; but in spite of this trick, the giving of his penny occurs over a month before this trick twelfth hour, whereas it should occur after the real twelfth hour.


But there are other wrong features to his new day. While there were special efforts initiated Sept., 1919, and Sept., 1922 (the latter coming a year too late to be during the third hour), there was no special service launched from Sept., 1925, to Sept., 1926; for during that period, though a year too late for what should have been his sixth hour, his 1925 fiasco paralyzed his public work for over a year and he was mending his fences too industriously in covering up his 1925 fiasco to allow the initiating of a special new form of service. The articles that he mentions in the first part of par. 11 and the Indianapolis Convention could not have been a part of his sixth-hour call, coming as they did before its beginning. Giving new teachings is not a call; a call is an arousement to coming into the Truth and to service therein, each one employing at least one new form of service to issue the call. In spite of the article, A Call to Action, Nov. 1, 1925, there was almost no response, while there was a very marvelous response to service from Sept., 1919, to Sept., 1920, and from Sept., 1922, to Sept., 1923, though the latter was a year late for the requirements of his day and hour setting. Notice how very vague are his thoughts on the sixth-hour call in par. 11. Again, the declaration against Satan for Jehovah was made at the Detroit Convention, July 30–August 6, 1928, and circulated before Sept., 1928; hence this call came a month before his ninth hour began, though his ninth hour is an hour late. Then consider for awhile his penny. It is a sectarian name and nothing else. Above we refuted J.F.R.'s claim that the sectarian title, "Jehovah's Witnesses," is a Scriptural expression, that it is the promised new name, and that God commanded it to be given as an honorable and distinctive appellation



to J.F.R.'s remnant. Now he tells us that this sectarian name is the penny. We have already shown that it was prematurely given. It lacks other marks of the real penny. It was not given a twofold distribution, whereas the real penny was. His first called were not given it last; those called in his eleventh hour were not given it first. Those who rejected it (his murmurers) did not take it and go to work with it as the real murmurers did with the real penny. The Lord would never rebuke those who in the right spirit rejected or objected to receiving a sectarian name. His Mordecai and Naomi did not receive it after his Esther and Ruth. Moreover, the latter could not be those called in the eleventh hour, since he claims that they are those called from 1922 to the present, his false third hour lasting only to Sept., 1923, while his Mordecai and Naomi were for the most part called before his first hour. Again, his murmurers, the class elders (Z '33, 355, par. 2; 357, par. 8), received his sectarian name gladly and were its chief supporters, and their dissatisfaction was not that the name did not give them enough, as he falsely charges (par. 11), but that his new teachings regarding elders were unscriptural, and on this they were right, hence could not be the parable's murmurers. His claim (par. 16) that his new name was actually given in the first hour, 1919–1920, but not made known until 1931, proves that it was not the penny; for the penny was not actually given in the first hour, but after the twelfth hour, and was known from the first hour on, while his penny was unknown as such until after the 14th hour began. His giving dates in his interpretation is in violation of his teaching on "time is no more," i.e., that the Lord's people should no more pay attention to time features! At any rate, he showed an utter abandonment of exactness on the time features of the parable in his interpretation of it. For stupidity, flatness, unworkableness, this new view of the



penny takes a place in the front ranks of J.F.R.'s follies of right-eye darkening.


Then he sets forth some real Rutherfordian mud splashes, e.g., (1) The expression, supreme love to God, is unscriptural, because it [allegedly] limits love for God (Z '33, 371, par. 4). (2) Love for the brethren means to love them as self (par. 4). [Against this we would say, Such is the love that the natural man should have. Love for brethren is the new commandment of Christ, i.e., to love them sacrificially unto death, as He loved us, while loving as self is only duty love, which does not love as Christ loved us.] (3) The Parousia teaching and work magnified Jesus, not the Father (par. 19); [this he says despite what Studies, Vol. V teaches to the contrary]. (4) The Parousia teaching and work was selfish, because it taught character development and the hope of the kingdom (par. 21)—[a charge against God's elect (Rom. 8: 33)]. (5) Self-seekers among the consecrated will not be awakened until after the Millennium—Seventh Day Adventist doctrine—for which thought he quotes Rev. 20: 13 (par. 27). (6) Jesus' being made perfect through suffering does not mean His being made through suffering complete in nature, organism or character, but that He suffered to disprove Satan's (alleged) challenge of God to place a man on earth who would maintain his integrity (Z '34, pars. 4, 6–10). [The connections of Heb. 2: 10; 5: 7, 8, prove that Jesus' endurance perfected (crystallized) Him in character and won for Him a crystallized, unchangeable, nature and organism—Divine nature.] (7) He claims that Rom. 15: 4 proves that all Scripture has some fulfillment while his remnant is on earth (Z '34, 19, par. 1). How about Daniel's 70, 69, 62 and 1 weeks, the prophecy of the virgin birth, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and numerous other Scriptures devoted exclusively to the First Advent? There are, of course, numerous other ones that refer to the



period between the Harvests, but he perverts them to his movement; so, too, are there numerous prophecies exclusively Millennial and post-Millennial.


In Z '34, 19–27, he sets aside our Pastor's teachings on Ps. 17: 15, as referring to the resurrection of the Christ, claiming (par. 5) that it is falsely explained in our hymn, No. 105. He sets forth the thought that the Old Testament does not say of its faithful that they hoped for a resurrection (par. 7). Against this please see Job 14: 13; 19: 25, 26 A. R. V.; Ps. 49: 14 (the upright); Hos. 13: 14; Dan. 12: 13; compare with Gen. 12: 1-3; 22: 16-18; compared with Heb. 11: 9, 10, 13, 35, 39; Is. 2: 3 [Jerusalem, and similar contrasts between Zion and Jerusalem, like Is. 62: 1, etc.]; 32: 1 [princes]; 24: 23; Ps. 107: 32 [assembly of the elders]; Joel 2: 28 [old men]. In par. 10 he says that in the Parousia very little was said on the joys of the Lord's return. In contradiction we appeal to the experience and knowledge of all tried Parousia brethren. Studies, Vols. II, III and IV have very much to say thereon, as have the other volumes, particularly Studies, Vols. I and VI. Then he ridicules the brethren as selfish who cherished the hope set before them during the Parousia, claiming that such a hope proves them not to have loved the Lord (par. 11). And this he does in spite of such Scriptures as the following: Acts 23: 6; 24: 14, 15; 26: 6, 7; 28: 20; Rom. 5: 2, 4, 5; 8: 24, 25; 12: 12; 15: 4, 13; 1 Cor. 13: 13; Eph. 1: 18; 4: 4; Col. 1: 5, 23, 27; 1 Thes. 1: 3; 5: 8; 2 Thes. 2: 16; Titus 1: 2; 2: 13; 3: 7; Heb. 3: 6; 6: 11, 18, 19; 1 Pet. 1: 3, 13, 21; 1 Pet. 3: 15; 1 John 3: 3. Then he says that the Parousia brethren who cherished such a hope developed into the evil servant class (par. 13). There is no such a class, but he is the individual who by indulging in self during the Parousia, rather than in the hope set before him, did develop into that evil servant and foolish unprofitable shepherd.



After the foregoing, in an attempt to take out the resurrection hope from Ps. 17: 15 and to construe the passage as applying to his remnant's allegedly being with our Lord in the temple since 1918 for judgment, he offers (par. 17) the following false translation of the Septuagint on Ps. 17: 15: "Let me appear righteous before Thee; let me be satisfied with the display of Thy glory." The following is the proper translation of the Septuagint on this verse, though its translation is not correct, while that of the A. V. is: "I will be seen in righteousness in Thy presence; I will be satisfied when I shall be seen with Thy glory." But, as said before, the A. V. is here correct: "As for me, I will behold Thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness." See Young, also the A. R. V., whose italicized (interpolated) word beholding should be omitted. His statement, made to rid the passage of the idea of the resurrection, that Rotherham omits the word awake, is false, for Rotherham has it in his translation, for he renders the second clause as follows: "[I] shall be satisfied when awakened by a vision [sight] of Thee." He offers as an alternate for the last phrase, "by Thy appearing." But the A. V., we believe, is a decidedly better rendering here. The connection, which contrasts the sufferings of the faithful in the present with their glories in the future, proves that this passage refers to the resurrection and has no reference to the Lord's people seeing the Lord's presence in the temple, which presence there is since 1874.


Then J.F.R. tells us (pars. 28, 29) that our meeting the Lord in the air (1 Thes. 4: 17) does not refer to the resurrection, but to his remnant's being, while in the flesh, in J.F.R.'s temple since 1918. 1 Thes. 4: 16, 17 describes the first resurrection in its two parts; in v. 16 that part of it experienced by the sleeping saints, and in v. 17 that part of it applicable to the living saints. A theory is hard pressed for proof



that to find it tries to tear out of Ps. 17: 15 and 1 Thes. 4: 17 the saints' resurrection. He claims (par. 32) that a symbolic trumpet means executing [we suppose he means exercising] Divine authority. On the contrary, a trumpet represents a message and blowing it represents proclaiming a message (Lev. 25: 9, 10; Num. 10: 1-10; Joshua 6: 4-20; Rev. 8: 2, 6, etc.). The last trumpet, the trump of God, he claims (par. 33) began to sound in 1914 and ends with Armageddon. He offers no proof for this claim. Then he prooflessly asserts that the last trumpet is not the seventh trumpet. The same events occurring under the last and the seventh trumpet, it evidently is the same (1 Cor. 15: 52; 1 Thes. 4: 15; Rev. 11: 15-18). This last passage proves that it began to blow in 1874 and will end after perfection is restored in man and the earth, which overthrows his thought on the last, the seventh trumpet. His false interpretation of Revelation from chapter 6 onward compels him to deny the identity of the last and the seventh trumpets. Then he asserts (par. 37) that our gathering to the Lord (2 Thes. 2: 1) does not mean our being taken to meet Him in the air in the resurrection, but means J.F.R.'s remnants coming into his teachings as meeting Jesus for judgment in His temple since 1918. Here he confuses the harvest gathering into the Truth, which he perverts to mean to come into his teachings, with our gathering with all the brethren of the Age to the Lord beyond the vail. He reasserts for the steenth time (par. 29) the to him known falsehood that the so-called opposition betrayed him and others to the civil authorities in 1918; whereas it was his seditious Tower articles, lectures (e.g., at Tacoma, Wash., advising the public not to buy bonds and take part in the war), mutiny-inciting letters to soldiers in army camps, etc.


In Z '34, 35–42, is the first installment of an article entitled, Hope of a Tree. The tree that he discusses



is the one of Dan. 4, seen in a dream by Nebuchadnezzar. Our Pastor's view is: The tree before it was cut down represents the perfect, sinless race, and after it was cut down represents the race under the curse, until 607 B. C., when the dream, changing to an insane man living as a beast for seven times, represents the race under the curse during the Times of the Gentiles, while the restoration of the beastly man to normality represents the race restored to perfection. This beautiful, factual and evidently true interpretation of our Pastor J.F.R. rejects and offers in its stead one in which Nebuchadnezzar is made in the tree to represent Jesus, Satan, "regal power in the abstract," Satan's alleged organization, or anything else that the needs of J.F.R.'s vagaries require. There is no such reality as "regal power in the abstract"; regal power as a reality must be in the concrete. Philosophers for theoretical purposes make a distinction between a thing in the abstract and in the concrete; but actually the distinction is one only of words so far as the abstract is meant; for by that they mean, not a human being that ever existed, but one's idea of human qualities that they mentally build into an imaginary man. The expression, "regal power in the abstract," is a non-existing thing; it is an imagination; for regal power, actually to exist, must always lodge in a royal person. We recall how this non-existent thing was used by J.F.R. to make Ahasuerus in one scene represent Jehovah, Jesus, Satan and civil officers—four things! Such a thing is a wizard wand to transubstantiate a thing into anything the wizard wishes! The Bible never deals with a thing in the abstract. Its things are always concrete. His use of "regal power in the abstract" is a Satanic trick intended to deceive. It was invented by him to cover up the types' manifest contradictions of his theories, should his definitions be consistently applied to the type.


Nebuchadnezzar, in view of his restoration, makes



the proclamation of Dan. 4: 1, which J.F.R. interprets (Z '34, 36, par. 7) to type Jesus' making proclamations from the alleged temple from 1918 on. This would logically imply that Jesus was represented by the hewn-down tree and the insane man, and was also a sinner (v. 27), who should repent! How evade this conclusion? By the magic wizard wand, "regal power in the abstract!" In the same par. he says that the word Nebo in the word Nebuchadnezzar points out the latter as the type of our Lord as prophet in the temple since 1918. The Chaldean word Nebo, a proper noun, is the name of the god who was the messenger and scribe of the other gods, the Mercury of the Romans. Hence Nebuchadnezzar means, whom Mercury protects. Our Lord certainly was not alluded to by that heathen god! In par. 8 he says that the Gospel of the Kingdom could not be preached until after Jesus in 1918 allegedly came to the temple, while he repeatedly tells us that the end came in 1914; and Matt. 24: 14 shows that the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached to all nations before the end would come. "All the peoples, etc." to whom Nebuchadnezzar made his proclamation in Dan. 4: 1, J.F.R. says (par. 9), are only those who have ears attuned to J.F.R.'s message. He claims (par. 13) that Nebuchadnezzar's declaring in vs. 2, 3, what God had done to him types what Jesus since in the temple after 1918 has been allegedly saying what God has done to Him. This again implies that the tree and the insane man type Jesus. Oh, no! "Regal power in the abstract" makes it apply to Jesus, or not to Jesus, as the wish of the wizard lists.


Then Daniel interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar (par. 19) types Jesus explaining the Truth to the remnant from 1919 on. Here "regal power in the abstract" makes Nebuchadnezzar, the dreamer getting his dream explained, represent the remnant. This implies that the tree and insane man represent J.F.R.'s remnant.



Oh, what a fine hobby horse is "regal power in the abstract"! It hocus-pocuses anything the wizard wants. Actually he always makes the antitype concrete, for always it is some person or thing. He claims (par. 20), without the slightest ground for the thought, that Nebuchadnezzar's calling Daniel (v. 9) the master of the magi (chief of the learned men) implies that the other magi were there present. This is imagining power "in the abstract." In par. 22 he tells us that the tree represents "overlordship over the earth in the abstract," and that this includes Satan and his organization. But these two are concrete; hence there is no "overlordship in the abstract" here. He interprets (par. 23) the tree reaching to heaven to represent that Satan's office of overlordship over the race and the earth is heavenly in origin. "The tree towering above the earth pictures" in the abstract "the overlordship [Satan's, as he in this par. says, which, to be real, cannot be in the abstract, but must be in the concrete] of the earth together with the organization of the earth." He then says (par. 23) that the tree above the ground represents Satan's organization; but since in par. 22 he teaches that the tree towering above the earth is God's creation, he makes God the Creator of Satan's organization. This must have been "in the abstract." Then he declares (par. 24) that the root stock below the trunk, the devil's organization, is man as created in God's image. Then we are told (par. 25) that Satan's organization provides for the needs of all on earth, allegedly typed by all beasts and fowls feeding and shaded under the tree. But this contradicts his picture that the part of the tree under the earth represents man. Again, Satan and the fallen angels, instead of providing for all mankind, have in most cases done the very reverse. How much more reasonable our Pastor's interpretation that unfallen man was the ruler and protector of the beasts.


Then (par. 27) he tells us that the decree (v. 14)