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


was simply a declaration that the legal right of Satan's organization to rule man and earth was taken away from it when Satan and man sinned. This must be a case of legal authority "in the abstract," for in the same par. he says that the decree was not enforced until 1914. But his view contradicts his oft-repeated statement that Satan up to 1914 ruled by God's authorization, which was given to him in Eden and never taken away until 1914, a thought that we formerly refuted. But there is another absurdity in his thought; for it was some time after the tree was cut down, held in the earth with bands of iron and brass and wet by the dews of heaven, that, the figure changing, the seven times began on the insane man, similarly wet by the dews as the tree was. This would make the seven times begin after 1914. Then he makes (par. 30) the mud-clear statement: The visible part of the tree stands for the invisible part of Satan's organization and the invisible part of the tree for Satan's visible organization! Then (Z '34, 51, par. 2), after quoting Eph. 1: 10; Dan. 4: 26, he declares: These Scriptural texts prove beyond all doubt [italics ours; note J.F.R.'s characteristic dogmatism] that the "tree … pictures Satan's organization." If it does, its growing up again proves that Satan's organization will not only be restored, but that it will forever glorify God; for the antitypical thing cut down will be restored and forever glorify God. He interprets the expression (par. 8), "the basest of men," in the sentence (v. 17), "He setteth over it the basest of men," to mean Jesus, giving the word basest the meaning of lowliest. The word does not mean lowliest. The word basest is an adjective of the superlative, whereas shephal is one of the positive degree. In the first place, its meaning must be made to fit Nebuchadnezzar, in whom the first fulfilment came. He cannot type our Lord in this transaction. The Aramaic word shephal here used means low, abased, humbled.



The last meaning seems best fitted for Nebuchadnezzar and mankind. It is those who will have been humbled by their experience with evil who will gain and retain restitution, as Nebuchadnezzar, humbled by his experience, was restored to the kingdom.


In par. 11 the statement is made that Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4: 19 types regal power in Christ's hands. In this verse and chapter there is no suggestion that Nebuchadnezzar so does; for he throughout the chapter acts as the same person in a connected set of events, given a prophetic dream, seeking its interpretation, receiving it, refusing to amend his ways as exhorted (v. 27), sinning, crazed, abased, lives as a beast for seven times, afterward repents, is restored and glorifies God for deliverance. At no stage does he type our Lord. Our Pastor's interpretation fits every detail of the story; the one under study as a thorough misfit is a piece of drunken folly. The claim (par. 11) that he must be Christ, because of Daniel's alleged prayer (v. 19) and the claim that punishment will come, not upon Christ, but upon His enemies, allegedly while He is in the temple since 1918, is false from several standpoints. In the first place, Daniel did not offer a prayer wishing the dream to be fulfilled on the king's enemies; for knowing God's will, that Nebuchadnezzar suffer as forecast in the dream, he would not have tried to interfere with the Divine program by praying against it. The thought that a prayer or wish was expressed by Daniel at the end of v. 19 is based on the interpolated word be. The word is should be the interpolated word. Daniel's thought is as follows: "O, king, the dream is one in the interest and according to the desires of your enemies and haters," which evidently was the case. In par. 12 he makes the extraordinary statement that Satan became the god of this world in 606 B. C. If that were the case, then this world, the evil order of affairs since the flood, had no ruler until it was nearly



half over. How then could Satan have dominated all heathen nations and more or less dominated most Israelites, the former from the flood, until 606 B. C., if he were not the god of this world? What happened in 606 [more precisely 607] B. C. is that Gentile rulership under a Divine lease became universal, Satan as a god having ruled since shortly after the flood. Certainly the illogical view just examined could not be the product of a sober mind, but must be the view of drunken folly, a sure proof of which lies in the fact that its proponent could have offered it in the face of the wondrously beautiful, clear, harmonious, factual, reasonable and Scriptural view of our Pastor in Studies, Vols. I and II.


In the March 1 and 15 Towers, 67–75, 83–94, is an article entitled, His Name, which should rather have been entitled, The Ten Plagues, as they are the preponderate part of the article. In that article he claims that the ten plagues were poured out through his movement. Here, as in his usual claims, there are no clear-cut distinctions severing as distinct his ten plagues from one another. In this article he makes (pars. 4, 7, 10, 14) the statement that the New Covenant was made at the death of Christ. We defer the discussion of this point until later in this chapter.


Next (par 13) he repudiates another truth that he admits he once accepted—that the Ancient Worthies will become spiritual after the next Age, claiming that Jesus and the Church, being heirs of the earth, will always be its kings and that the Ancient Worthies will always represent them as princes. The sophistry involved in this reason becomes apparent when we recognize that there is no more incompatibility between the restitutionists becoming kings over the earth (Heb. 2: 8; Rev. 21: 24; Matt. 25: 34; Dan. 4: 36) in subordination to the kingship and heirship of the Christ than there was in Adam's being the king of the earth and its animal and vegetable life under God's kingship.



That the Ancient Worthies will become spiritual is manifest from the following: (1) Job, one of them (Jas. 5: 11), by inspiration tells us that apart from his flesh, and after it will have been dissolved into dust, he would personally see God, which can be done by spirits alone (Job 19: 25, 26, A. R. V.). (2) If the Ancient Worthies were to be princes forever on earth, seeing that the restitution class will be kings here eternally after the Little Season, the former would eternally be the latter's inferiors. (3) If they were to remain on earth even as kings, they would have to be degraded from their Millennial superiority to the restitutionists to equality with them eternally, which the Divine attributes would not effect nor permit. (4) The Divine attributes can be depended on to reward them for their Millennial and Little Season faithfulness, which to do will require their receiving more than kingship over the earth, for this will be the reward of the restitutionists for their Millennial and Little Season faithfulness. (5) As Millennial and post-Millennial Kohathites they will have no inheritance in the earth—their inheritance will be heavenly; even as the Priests and other Levites will not have an earthly inheritance, this being typed by Israel's priests and Levites having no inheritance in the land (Num. 18: 20, 23, 24). (6) As antitypical Levites they will be of the Millennial firstborn. All firstborn having their names written in heaven, made heavenly, they will become spirit beings (Heb. 12: 23; compared with Ex. 12: 11-13, 21-23, 37; 13: 1, 2, 11-15, etc.). (7) All of the Levites, hence also the Kohathites, being, with the priests, located about the tabernacle at the same relative distance therefrom, and nearer to the tabernacle than the other Israelites, separate and distinct from the latter, thereby type the eternal spirituality of the entire tribe of antitypical Levi. (8) Israel's giving tithes to both priests and Levites types the eternal inferiority and subjection of the restitution



class to all of antitypical Levi; hence all the antitypical Levites will be spiritual eventually. (9) The Ancient Worthies, having been more faithful than the Great Company, will eventually have a higher reward than eternal human nature, since the Great Company will have such higher reward. (10) The fact that the Little Flock as antitypical Priests and the Great Company as antitypical Levites will be spiritual, implies that all the rest of antitypical Levi will be spiritual. These reasons vindicate our Pastor's thought and refute J.F.R.'s repudiation of it.


Then he tells us (par. 18) that the man of sin is referred to in 2 Tim. 3: 1-9 by antitypical Jannes and Jambres. As already stated, we have by 15 reasons that he cannot answer disproved his view of the man of sin; and by the same 15 reasons have proven that in the little Gospel Age he is the head—little pope—of the little man of sin. But apart from this we can from 2 Tim. 3: 1-9 disprove that antitypical Jannes and Jambres are the man of sin: (1) The man of sin has been in progressive existence ever since the days of St. Paul (2 Thes. 2: 7), while Jannes and Jambres type errorists at the end of the Age exclusively (2 Tim. 3: 1). (2) The man of sin is always presented in the Bible as one symbolic thing, while Jannes and Jambres represent two different classes. (3) These two classes are presented as consisting of many individuals working more or less individually, and not each set as one body, as is the case of Antichrist. Thus for the Parousia all of the false teachers in the nominal churches and among Truth people, as opponents of the Truth, are antitypical Jannes (he deceives by oppression); and thus for the Epiphany all of the false teachers in the nominal church and among Truth people, as opponents of the Truth, are antitypical Jambres (he revolutionizes). Thus antitypical Jannes and Jambres are members of many bodies and companies, while Antichrist being but one body, his members



are members of but one body. (4) The nominal church and the Truth parts of antitypical Jannes and Jambres have been and yet are of much doctrinal contradiction against one another, while this is not so of the members of the man of sin. (5) The man of sin is only one, and that a separate and cohesive part of antitypical Jannes and Jambres. (6) Antitypical Jannes and Jambres as such are not a counterfeit of the Christ—Antichrist.


The rest of his article, including its second installment, sets forth a view of the ten plagues that makes them allegedly fulfill in activities of his movement. His first plague, turning the waters of Egypt into blood, he claims, is commercialism becoming deadly in its effects. This cannot be true, because water in Bible symbols represents teachings, not commercialism—if it is clear, the Truth; if it is defiled, error. Not only the Nile, which sometimes represents the worldly peoples, but all other Egyptian waters were involved; hence here, not the peoples, but teachings are meant. He claims that this plague began to be poured out at the Columbus Convention, in the resolution entitled, An Indictment, which was widely circulated. But this could not have been the thing turning the world's teachings into blood; for it had almost nothing to do with teachings, and it certainly did not make commercialism, which largely produced the World War, so deadly as it was before that indictment. Next, he tells us (par. 29) that the second plague corresponds to the second woe of Revelation. This is not true, for the second plague was that of frogs, which corresponds to the sixth plague of Revelation (Rev. 16: 13). This fact proves that his explanation of the nature and means of the second plague cannot be true. The other eight plagues he treats of in Z '34, 83–94. In discussing the third plague, that of lice, he tells us (par. 3) that Herod Agrippa was eaten by lice, but the Bible says that it was by worms



(Acts 12: 23). Then he says (pars. 6, 8) that the symbolic lice of the third plague are Satan and Satan's agents, which evidently is erroneous, since the antitypical Egyptian sorcerers made them, and so did antitypical Moses. The former could not create Satan and Satan's agents, and the latter would not. He says that his remnant's Truth messages (which ones he does not say, and thus makes no clear-cut distinction in his plagues) made the lice. Hence his message must make Satan and his agents! He claims (pars. 10, 11) that the Society's message on the higher powers made the fourth plague, that of the antitypical flies, and that Satan and his agents are these flies. This makes them the same as the lice, which proves that he does not understand either plague. His fifth plague—antitypical of the murrain on the beasts, he says (par. 14) is a plague upon the world's commercial instruments, agents, schemes, organizations, etc. But this is commercialism and its torment is his first plague. Hence there is no clear-cut distinction between his first and fifth plagues. For in each plague the nature of the plague and the means of the plague differed from these two things in all the other plagues. The message of vengeance is supposed to be the plaguing instrument. But this applies to all his plagues; hence again there is no clear-cut distinction between the plaguing instruments of the plagues. He makes (par. 17) his sixth plague, the antitype of Egypt's sixth plague, the same as the first plague of Rev. 16: 2. This cannot be true, because that would make the antitype of the sixth Egyptian plague come in a time order contrary to that of the first of Rev. 16, which is the first of the last seven. He later suggests his sixth for the fifth of Rev. 16, which only increases the confusion of his setting. He says (Light, 21, to which he refers [par. 17] for more information on the sixth plague) that this plague was the proclamation at the Cedar Point Convention, Sept., 1922,



and that its pertinent work was the pouring out of the first plague of Rev. 16, and the antitype of the sixth on Egypt. But that proclamation, emphasized as the message of the Kingdom then and for three years more, preached the millions-never-dying-after-1925 proposition. Moreover, that message was preached for about three years before Sept., 1922. Hence this plague was a counterfeit and misdated plague, as its supposed message has been factually proven false.


His seventh plague, he claims as (par. 21) that of hail, which was the seventh and last of Rev. 16, is the declaration against Satan and for Jehovah, initiated at the Detroit Convention early in Aug., 1928. Please note that, except for part of the tenth plague, the seventh plague of Rev. 16 was the last chronologically to be poured out. But he gives several others as having been poured out after the plague of hail. Hence he misunderstands the antitype of the seventh Egyptian plague. Our readers are aware that we do not understand the time order of the Egyptian plagues to be the same as those of Revelation. But the seventh of Rev. 16 and the tenth of Egypt are evidently the last two chronologically poured out in the fulfillment. His eighth plague, that of antitypical locusts, he says (par. 25) began in the mass attack May 25, 1932, at Bergenfield, N. J., four years after his seventh plague of Rev. 16 and of Egypt. This, for the reason given above, is wrong, for it should have come chronologically before his seventh. Moreover, as he correctly says, the eighth Egyptian plague corresponds to the first woe of Revelation, which proves that in time it must precede the seventh plague of Rev. 16. This proves that he misunderstands the antitype of the eighth Egyptian plague and the first woe of Revelation. His ninth plague, that of darkness (the fifth of Rev. 16), he says (par. 27) was initiated by the warning addressed to the rulers of the world, issued at the



London Convention May, 1926. But his beast is what he calls Satan's visible organization, which he says consists of Capital, State and Church in all their organizations, as these exist in Christendom. But his 1926 warning was not addressed to any but the civil rulers, who are not even his beast, though they are officers of one of its departments. Hence this is another misfit plague. He says that the three days' darkness represents the time from May, 1926, until Armageddon. But he elsewhere insists that the days of Revelation all symbolize literal days, while already eight years have passed since his three days of darkness began. This shows that he is in darkness on the subject. He says that Pharaoh's threat of death on Moses represented threats by the Romanists and the press against his remnant, and by the police of Plainfield, N. J., coming to his lecture armed to the teeth!


His tenth plague—death of the firstborn (par. 30)—is the eternal annihilation of "the leaders and chief ones in the religious, commercial and political branches of his (Satan's) organization … which … includes the [his] man of sin … the strong-arm squad [police, etc.] and those who put forth their strength to carry forward Satan's schemes, and also the counterfeit of God's kingdom, namely, the League of Nations." That much of this is false is evident from the fact that most of the above-indicated persons never were Spirit-begotten (one of them is even an impersonal thing, the League of Nations), hence cannot go into the second death, and thus are not of antitypical Egypt's firstborn. He says (par. 38) that the typical lamb taken on Nisan 10 into the house types God's receiving Jesus in the temple since 1918. In the first place, in the type the lambs were set aside, but not taken into the houses. In the second place, the setting aside of the lamb was four days before its death, typing Jesus being by the Jewish leaders set aside for death four days before His death.



Then he says (par. 40) that the sprinkling of the lamb's blood on the lintels and door posts types public confession of the blood of Christ, also of Christendom's destruction, and that the New Covenant has been inaugurated toward the remnant. No comment needed. To celebrate the Memorial properly, he says (par. 41), one must take part in his drives. How like his big stepbrother—the big pope—in his demands of service to him as conditional of partaking in the communion.


It will be recalled that we showed that Ruth 4: 9 proves that our Lord by undertaking the pertinent ministry, took over all the power rights of antitypical Ruth (Youthful Worthies) and Naomi (the Great Company, especially in its Society adherents' aspects), derived from their kinship to the lapsed Great Company leaders (antitypical Elimelech) and the lapsed tentatively justified leaders (antitypical Mahlon and Chilion) i.e., Jesus acquired all the rights of management and teaching in such leadership powers from the Society editors and directors. This means that the Lord Jesus from 1920 onward has taken away from these editors and directors the office of being the mouthpiece and managers of antitypical Elisha (antitypical Ruth and Naomi). The latter therefore do not do their work under the teaching and managerial auspices of these editors and directors, and have not been doing so since early in 1920. Their work, in so far as it has been Divinely approved as that of antitypical Elisha, has therefore been a more or less individual work of proclaiming the Truth, mainly by word of mouth, under Jesus' teaching and management. It further follows that whatever they have done under the direction and writings of these editors and directors, particularly those of J.F.R., has unqualifiedly been the work of Azazel; and is not a witness work of and for God; but of and for Satan, in a sense similar to Antichrist's.


The next article that we will review is entitled, His



Covenants, which runs through eight issues of The Tower, April 1 to July 15, 1934. Its main error is that the New Covenant was made at Calvary with Christ for the Church, and that it was inaugurated with J.F.R.'s remnant in 1918. It is, according to this view, a covenant under which the Church has been since Calvary, and which belongs exclusively to the Gospel Age. On this matter J.F.R. has gone into deeper darkness than the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants sifters of 1908–1911; for they properly taught that the New Covenant would operate toward the world in the Millennium, their error being in making it operate during the Gospel Age also. He says that what was actually a threat and a part of the curse (Gen. 3: 15) with which God menaced Satan "was in fact a covenant of Jehovah, because it was an expression of His purpose" (Z '34, 198, 22). This is a clear disproof of J.F.R.'s definition of a purpose being a covenant.


He ignores entirely in his list of covenants the all-embracing Abrahamic Covenant of Gen. 12: 2, 3 in its typical and antitypical features, and gives its name to the Oath-bound Covenant. He limits to but part of one of its antitypical features that of Gen. 22: 16-18 (Z '34, 199, 24, 25; 201, 38), thus confounding it and the Oath-bound Covenant. The typical and antitypical Abrahamic Covenant of Gen. 12: 2, 3 is an epitome of the entire plan of God, the entire Bible being its elaboration, while the Oath-bound Covenant is given to the typical and antitypical Abraham and the typical and antitypical seed in their varied relations. He claims that Jesus alone is the Seed of the Oath-bound Covenant (Z '34, 168, 23; 169, 30). He makes the Covenant that God confirmed to Israel in Moab as their part in the Oath-bound Covenant an entirely different covenant from the Oath-bound Covenant of Gen. 22: 16-18 (Z '34, 200, 28, 29), which from his principles it has to be, if as he holds, the Oath-bound Covenant



has Jesus as its exclusive Seed. But the Bible shows that it was Israel's share in the Oath-bound Covenant (Deut. 7: 7, 8; 29: 12-14; Ps. 105: 8-10; Rom. 11: 28, 29), which God confirmed to Israel in Moab. This so-called Moab Covenant he makes typical of his so-called kingdom covenant, which he thinks is taught in Luke 22: 29 as a covenant different from the Oath-bound Covenant. Luke 22: 29 explains a matter that belongs to the Sarah Covenant; and because that Covenant is a promise, the word in it translated by J.F.R. to covenant should be translated to promise. Again, and for the same reason, he makes the Davidic Oath-bound Covenant (Ps. 89: 3, 4, 28, 29, 34) one entirely separate from the Oath-bound Covenant of Gen. 22: 16-18, whereas it is a matter that belongs to that Covenant, the one that promises by an oath that the Head of the chief seed of Abraham would be an eternally royal Descendant of David, a promise that God graciously made to David for the latter's faithfulness. Finally, under our refutations, J.F.R. has abandoned his claim of years' standing, that the Covenant of sacrifice is the Sarah Covenant, and now rightly recognizes it to be our consecration vow. The above are some of his chief pertinent errors. The main purpose and contents of this review will be a proof that the New Covenant operates exclusively Millennially and post-Millennially.


We begin with some pertinent definitions and explanations. The word, covenant, as related to God, is used in three senses in the Bible: (1) in the sense of promises either binding one party—a unilateral or unconditional covenant, or binding two parties to one another conditionally—a bilateral or conditional covenant; (2) such promises with all their pertinent teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc., and (3) such promises with all their pertinent teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc., and the servants who minister to the covenant's subjects these promises with all their pertinent teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc.



It will be noted that in each succeeding sense of the word, as above given, all that was in the preceding sense is contained, plus something else. This something else we have indicated by our italics in the second and third senses of the word. Therefore we may speak of the first of these senses as a covenant in the narrow sense of the word, of the second as a covenant in the wider sense of the word, and of the third as a covenant in the widest sense of the word.


Attached to some of God's Covenants were various provisions that do not put obligations on the subjects of the covenants; but are arrangements that they are privileged to use to insure their being kept in the covenants' blessings, e.g., to the Sarah Covenant an Advocate, a Priest, a Prophet, a King are attached, whose work it is to bring the Body of the Seed into a condition to receive and then to continue to receive the blessings of that Covenant; but the pertinent duties of that Advocate, Priest, Prophet, King toward the Body of the Seed are not the duties of that Body, but they have the privilege of availing themselves of the blessings He can work for them. Again, to the Old Law Covenant were attached a mediator, a priesthood, a prophetship, a kingship with pertinent functions that were not parts of the covenant obligating the people to perform the duties of these officials, since they were not actually parts of the contract between God and Israel; but were arrangements conducive to make that covenant work favorably for God and the people. Nor are the obligations of the subjects of such covenants the obligations of those so attached to the pertinent covenants, since they are not under such covenants, i.e., are not their subjects. It is for this reason that many of the antitypes connected with these Law Covenant-attached-features belong to the Gospel Age, i.e., to Christ and the Church, though those of the Law Covenant features that obligate the people type the New Covenant features belonging to the Millennial Age. The same



phenomena appear in certain features attached to the New Covenant, i.e., there are a Mediator, High Priest, Prophet, King, Judge attached to the New Covenant, not as obligating the people to the Former's duties, but to make it operate favorably for God and them. This principle of covenant-attached features that do not obligate the people under the pertinent covenants, but that through other covenants do obligate their officials, and that are the privilege of the covenants' subjects to use in order to insure to them the covenants' blessings, and the non-obligation of the said covenant-attached persons to obey the said covenants' demands on their subjects, because they are not subjects of the said covenants, must be kept in mind or confusion will certainly ensue on the pertinent covenants, e.g., if the Christ class as the Mediator attached to the New Covenant are regarded as its subjects instead of administrators of its provisions for the people's blessing, due to the Christ's relations to the Oath-bound Covenant and their consecration, confusion will arise as to the time of the New Covenant's operation. It is J.F.R.'s disregard for this principle that is responsible for many of his false applications on the subject of the covenants.


As some examples of a unilateral covenant—a covenant binding only one party, i.e., an unconditional promise or promises, we may cite God's Covenant with Noah never again with a flood to destroy society, the symbolic earth (we say the symbolic earth, since the literal earth never was, nor ever will be, destroyed by any thing, Gen. 9: 817); our consecration, which is the sacrificial Covenant (Ps. 50: 5); the overshadowing Covenant, which we call the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12: 2, 3), and which is a summary of God's entire plan; and the Oath-bound Covenant, of which the Sarah Covenant is a part (Gen. 22: 16-18). These covenants bind only one party—they are unilateral, one-sided; hence they are unconditional promises. It is for



this reason that the Abrahamic and Sarah Covenants are repeatedly called the promises, binding God only (Rom. 9: 8, 9; Gal. 3: 8-22, 29; 4: 23-31; Heb. 6: 12-19). As examples of covenants which as promises are conditional on the fulfillments of certain obligations assumed by the parties to the covenants or promises—bilateral covenants— we may cite the Mosaic and the New Covenants (Eph. 2: 12; certain features of the Abrahamic promises are here also included). In the former, God and Israel entered into a covenant—contract—with one another, God promising as His part of the Covenant or contract to give Israel life, the right to life and its life rights, if Israel kept the Divinely-given teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc. (Gal. 3: 12, 10), and Israel as its part of the Covenant promising to keep these, if God would reward such obedience with everlasting life (Ex. 24: 3; Gal. 3: 12; Deut. 30: 15-20). These conditional promises constituted the Law Covenant in its narrow sense. That the New Covenant consists of the promises that God and man will Millennially and post-Millennially make to one another on certain conditions is evident from Ezek. 18: 1-24; and these conditional promises will constitute the New Covenant in its narrow sense. God's two conditional Covenants are contracts whose terms bind God and Israel to one another.


As an example of the word, covenant, used in the second or wider sense of the word, we may cite the Law Covenant as consisting not only of the above-mentioned conditional promises, but also of the teachings, arrangements, institutions, etc., that were made the basis of the Covenant in its narrow sense, and that as such were obligations of the parties to the Covenant (Ex. 24: 3, 7; 34: 27, 28; Deut. 4: 13; John 1: 17; Heb. 9: 1-10; 10: 1-4). In this sense the Covenant was forty years in its making (Heb. 8: 9; 3: 7, 9), its first parts being certain (not all) features of the Passover, given before they left Egypt, the Sabbath, given before



they came to Sinai, the features given at Sinai, where the contract, the covenant in the narrow sense, was made, and those given after they left Sinai until they were ready to enter Canaan (Ex. 12: 8-50; 16: 22-30, 20-23; and numerous ones in Lev., Num. and Deut). The teachings, arrangements, institutions, etc. (contained especially in the New Testament), whereby God is realizing the oath-bound promises in its Sarah Covenant features to the Christ, are likewise seen to be, with those promises, the Oath-bound Covenant to the Christ in the second sense of the word. Also all of the arrangements, institutions, teachings, etc., of the Millennium will, with the New Covenant promises, be the New Covenant in the wider sense of the word.


As examples of the word, covenant, in the widest, the third sense of the term, we cite the Mosaic, the Sarah and the New Covenants, whenever they are presented as wives of God (Gal. 4: 21-31; Is. 54; 60: 6; Gen. 25: 1-5). This requires explanation and proof. In addition to the conditional promises of the Law Covenant and their pertinent teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc., the covenant in this sense of the word includes the servants who ministered the covenant teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc., i.e., the covenant provisions, to his fellow Israelites. The latter as ministered unto, were the children of the Law Covenant. Let us note well this distinction: It is not so much one of the persons as much as of relations of the pertinent persons. When the Israelites ministered the covenant provisions to one another, they acted as the mother, antitypical Hagar (Gal. 4: 24, 25); and when ministered unto with the covenant provisions by their brethren, they acted as the children, antitypical Ishmael (Gal. 4: 25, 29, 30).


From this standpoint, in the first place Moses was this mother, not in his capacity of giving the covenant provisions, for in that capacity he was the mediator of the Covenant, but after they were given, in his capacity



of ministering them to the Israelites; secondly, in their capacity of so ministering, the elders of the people, especially the twelve princes, the seventy judges, the seventy elders, the priesthood, the Levites, the parents, the prophets, and finally everyone else who would do any teaching of the Covenant's provisions to his fellow Israelites, were added to Moses as parts of the mother. It thus eventuated that all Israelites, in their capacity of ministering to their fellows with the words, etc., of the Covenant, were the mother. In their so functioning they were Jehovah's wife, antitypical Hagar nourishing Israelites as her children. This wife was in existence as such before they reached Sinai; she was in Moses, Aaron and the elders of Israel, who taught Israel in general, and in the heads of the families, who taught their families in particular, certain of the Passover arrangements, already functioning in Egypt, out of which we are assured God called Israel, His Son (Hos. 11: 1). Moses was not the friend of the Bridegroom in this case, as J.F.R. claims, because no friend of the Bridegroom was used for any of the Father's symbolic wives, even as typed in Abraham, who, without any friend of the Bridegroom, took Hagar, as his owned slave as a concubine, and not as a full wife, even as he also did with Keturah (Gen. 25: 5, 6). Being a concubine and Sarah a full wife, Keturah could not be since 1918 a successor of Sarah, typing the same thing as she, as J.F.R. contends, claiming (Z '34, 168, 26) that both were the types of his alleged Jehovah's organization, Sarah up to 1918, Keturah since then. Nor could Keturah be such for another reason; her sons were not joint-heirs with Isaac, but were exiles from Abraham's home, so as not to partake with Isaac in his inheritance (Gen. 25: 5, 6).


Turning to the Church's Covenant now operating, in the third sense of the word: It consists of the Oath bound promises (only, however, in their application to the Christ), of all their elaborations, as found in many



Old Testament passages and in practically all New Testament passages, and of the brethren in their capacity of ministering these things to one another. These ministering brethren consist, first, of our Lord, then the Apostles, then the prophets (both those of the Old Testament and the non-apostolic Gospel Age teachers of the general Church), then evangelists, then pastors or teachers, then the non-official brethren of the Church, in their capacity of ministering to their brethren with the Covenant provisions. Thus, in ultimate analysis, antitypical Sarah in the last feature of the Covenant in the widest sense of the word, beside the writers of the Old Testament, is all of the Little Flock's members in their capacity of ministering to one another, while Isaac types these same persons, except the writers of the Old Testament, in their capacity of being ministered unto by one another. The only exception to this is our Lord. He was not nourished by His Little Flock brethren; but He was nourished by the Old Testament writers, who are a part of antitypical Sarah, as we will later show. In the next Age the New Covenant as Jehovah's wife, in the third sense of the word, will include the pertinent promises, etc., and those who apply these to the restitution class: (1) the Christ, (2) the Great Company, (3) the Ancient and (4) the Youthful Worthies, (5) believing Israel and finally (6) all the faithful of the restitution class (Matt. 25: 34-40).


Now to the Biblical proof of this third sense of the word covenant, when one is spoken of as Jehovah's wife. In treating of the Law Covenant and of the part of the Oath-bound Covenant relating to the Christ, in Gal. 4: 21-31, under the figure of Jehovah's—God's, not Christ's—wives, St. Paul mentions Sarah as the type of the latter and Hagar as the type of the former. To prove that Sarah is the mother of us all as members of the Christ class in our capacity of being nourished by her, St. Paul cites Is. 54: 1. Like Sarah, who as the



wife of youth and long into old age was barren, though the married wife, so the one there addressed was barren as the wife of youth and into old age, though the married wife (v. 6). As Sarah, as it were, was forsaken and thus practically a widow in shame of barrenness and in grief, while another, Hagar, was taken in her place; so the one here addressed was in the shame of barrenness in grief, as it were, forsaken and in practical widowhood (vs. 4, 6, 7), when another (the Law Covenant as antitypical Hagar) was taken in her place. And as Sarah was, so to speak, taken again as wife and bore Isaac, so the one here spoken of is reinstated as wife and becomes the mother of her husband's—God's—children (vs. 5, 18). She is given an oath (v. 9) as pledge of her Husband's loyalty to her and to the welfare of her children, as an unconditional Covenant, promise, like that made to Noah after the flood; and this oath given to her proves that she is not simply the Oath-bound promise. V. 17, compared with vs. 9, 10, demonstrates that she consists of the Lord's servants connected by an oath with His Oath-clad Covenant. This truly demonstrates that antitypical Sarah is the Oath-bound Covenant to the Christ with all its Biblical elaborations and the servants who apply these to the children of God, the Christ, in the Oath-bound Covenant. Thus our first proof from Gal. 4: 22-32 and Is. 54: 1-17, demonstrates our third definition of a Biblical Covenant to be correct. During her time of barrenness and practical forsakenment the faithful of the Old Testament were the personal, ministering part of the Sarah Covenant, whose sorrows, ministries and sufferings are described in Is. 54; Heb. 11; Pet. 1: 10-12.


Another proof of this third definition is found in Acts 3: 25. In the preceding verses St. Peter had, by general and particular statements and quotation, said that all the prophets—hence this began with Enoch (acting as Melchizedek), Noah and Abraham (Jude 14, 15;



Gen. 9: 26, 27; 20: 7)—had foretold the times when the Christ would in the Millennium return and introduce the refreshing, literally, the springing up again, with growth and greenness of cut-down and sunburned grass after copious showers that came upon it, i.e., restitution, of all things lost in Adam's fall—every feature of God's image and likeness. He then proceeds to mention two parts of the mother of God's children, which, from his quotation of the third promise of the Oath-bound Covenant, we at once recognize to be antitypical Sarah. These two parts of the mother are (1) the Oath-bound promises (Gen. 22: 16-18), as is evident from St. Peter's quotation of one of them—"in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22: 18)—and (2) the prophets who through their Old Testament writings ministered various elaborations of all three features of this Covenant to the Christ (1 Pet. 1: 1012). "Ye are the children (1) of the prophets and (2) of the Covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, 'And in thy seed shall all the kindreds [families, nations] of the earth be blessed.'" St. Peter addresses them as the children of antitypical Sarah, because the preceding part of his sermon with its Old Testament quotations had already brought them as consecrated Israelites in Moses (1 Cor. 10: 1, 2) into Christ by faith; and in v. 26, St. Peter tells them that this blessing from God in Christ was intended for their cleansing from all human filthiness (2 Cor. 7: 13).


Still another proof of this third definition is St. Paul's expression in Gal. 4: 19, uttered immediately preceding and introductory to his explanation of the Sarah and Hagar types. In this passage St. Paul directly sets himself forth as a part of the mother (antitypical Sarah is such) of God's Little Flock children, and states that as such he was travailing in pain again to bring them to birth, which, of course, is a mother-function: "My little children, of whom I travail in