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


Epiphany Truth (the Little Flock's part having been duly clarified) needed for the development of the Great Company. It has not all been made clear at once to and by the Epiphany messenger, nor have all his misunderstandings as to its details been removed at once. Both of these features of this work have been progressing and may be expected to progress as the Epiphany advances—as the antitypical mother of the Great Company advances toward 1954. This principle will account for a number of clarifications of immature, and the corrections of wrong understandings of some of its presentations and will doubtless account for future ones. But this should not shake our confidence in the Epiphany messages and its messenger. It should rather, while not making us lose confidence in it and him, move us to recognize the faithfulness of our Lord to Epiphany interests in His ministry of gradually burning the dross of error from the silver ore of Truth (Mal 3: 3). Such a view of the matter will keep us back from either worshiping or depreciating messengers and will enable us, while using them for our help, always to look to and praise the Lord for the Truth; for, after all, He is the real source of the cleansed Truth (Mal. 3: 3), and as such He deigns to use mouthpieces, not as lords over God's heritage, but as helpers of their faith, partners of their hope, inspirers of their love and patterns of their obedience.


(22) In the August, 1932, Berean Bible Student, pp. 6, 7, is a letter from a "Faithful Berean," who signs himself J.T.G. (initials of Julian T. Gray) and who offers an exposition of Lev. 12. His thought is that the mother of the son is "Nominal Fleshly Zion," "the Jewish ecclesiastical system," the son is Jesus, the son's birth is Jesus' resurrection in 33 A.D., the 40 days of purifying are the 40 years from 33 to 73 A.D., the purifying of the mother of the son is Israel's expiation of her sins from 33 to 73 A.D.! He further claims that the mother of the daughter is the Nominal Church



—"Nominal Spiritual Zion," the daughter is the true Church, Christ's body, its birth was the resurrection in 1878, the 80 days are the 80 years from 1878 to 1958, the purifying of the mother of the daughter is the Nominal Church's expiation of her sins for 80 years. This interpretation is a piece of error, for which the Lord holds the editor of the Berean Bible Student in part responsible, for giving it publicity. If he were a conscientious man, and disbelieved it, he would not have published it, or would have published it with refutative comments, which he did not do. In this his course is in marked contrast with that of our Pastor, who in every issue of the Tower gave the brethren to understand that his stewardship implied his preventing what he considered error from getting a hearing through the Tower. Of course, this article is published (see its third paragraph) as an attempted refutation of our interpretation, which, if correct, overthrows The Berean Bible Student's Harvest errors, allegedly based on our Pastor's article, The Harvest Is Not Ended. Let us look at the interpretation that The Berean Bible Student publishes as a letter of J.T.G., without correctional comment.


(23) J.T.G.'s interpretation is all right with but one exception—and that is that in every detail it is wrong! This we will now proceed to show. In the type the mother of a son was gradually purified during 40 days and was entirely clean at the end of the 40 days, and on that 40th day offered through the priest an acceptable burnt-offering and sin-offering. In the antitype the sin-offering would represent Jesus' sacrifice and the burnt-offering God's manifested acceptance of it. The woman's bringing these sacrifices would represent the faith of the bringer in the antitypical burnt offering and sin-offering. Did Nominal Fleshly Zion in 73 A.D. accept Jesus in His sin and burnt offering; and did Jesus, the only Priest who could then make atonement, in 73 A.D. bring Nominal Fleshly Zion—



Israel—into at-one-ment with God? None of these things has even yet happened. This one consideration would be sufficient to manifest the error of J.T.G.'s thought. But we will consider this interpretation further. Did Jesus, the new creature, at and by His resurrection come out of Nominal Fleshly Zion? Certainly not; for by His resurrection He, from one standpoint, came out of hades (Acts 2: 27, 31), and from another came out of antitypical Sarah's womb. It was during His 3½ years' ministry while in the flesh that Jesus came out of Nominal Fleshly Zion, just as the man child by coming out of the Nominal Christian Church was born out of Nominal Spiritual Zion into the Truth as due. Certainly Jesus was no longer a part of Nominal Fleshly Zion when its leaders excommunicated Him as a blasphemer. When He arrived beyond the camp He was out of Nominal Fleshly Israel, as He started on His journey to leave it the moment His ministry began to make Him unpopular with those who sat in Moses' seat (Heb. 13: 12-14). Thus Jesus' resurrection could not be the birth here typed. The mother of Jesus' new creature could not have been Nominal Fleshly Israel, for what is born of flesh is flesh. Again, in no sense was the mother of Jesus' new creature unclean, for it was the pure Truth that as a mother—antitypical Sarah—developed Jesus as a new creature. Hence the mother here typed cannot be Nominal Fleshly Israel. Israel's expiation cannot be the purifying here typed; for expiation is suffering to the limit deserved as punishment for sin, regardless of whether reformation sets in or not; while purifying is a cleansing work; moreover Israel was not purified by A.D. 73; nor was she gradually undergoing purification from 33 to 73 A.D.; rather Nominal Fleshly Zion was becoming more and more unclean ("the overspreading of abomination") each year from 33 to 73 A.D., and has continued unclean ever since, expiation being by it completed in 1878 (Is. 40: 2) for rejecting



Christ; and in 1914 for sins against the Law (Lev. 26: 24). Thus in every detail is the mother and the son in Lev. 12 misinterpreted by J.T.G.


(24) Equally erroneous and foolish is his interpretation of the mother and the daughter with its accompanying details. Nominal Spiritual Zion will not be cleansed at the end of 80 years from 1878, but long before that—in the earthquake—will be annihilated. She will not bring the antitypical burnt-offering and sin-offering to Christ by that time; because she was eternally cast off from God's favor in 1878; and certainly if the voice of the Bridegroom and Bride will never again be heard in her, Jesus will never make an atonement for her. Nay, she remains eternally in the lake of fire from the earthquake onward (Rev. 20: 10). Hence she will not bring the antitypical burnt and sin-offering in 1958, nor at any other time, nor will Jesus offer this on her behalf. Again, the sleeping saints by their resurrection in 1878 did not come out of the Nominal Christian Church, but came out of hades and out of antitypical Sarah's womb. Their spiritual birth, if it were from Nominal Spiritual Zion, would require her to be not nominally spiritual, but actually spiritual. Just as our Lord throughout His ministry in the flesh was coming out of Nominal Fleshly Zion and was completely out of it when utterly rejected by Nominal Fleshly Zion, so all through the Gospel Age since the Nominal Spiritual Zion came into existence, have the faithful while in the flesh come out of her and completed this coming out in every place just before Nominal Spiritual Zion began there to travail (Is. 66: 7), this coming out being completed everywhere by Passover, 1916, which likewise overthrows the thought under review. The Nominal Church's expiation, which will be by eternal annihilation, cannot be the purifying here typed; because it has been becoming viler and viler ever since its rejection in 1878 and will be at its vilest at its annihilation, and thus will never be purified.



(25) Thus in every detail the interpretation of J.T.G. on the mother and daughter and the connected events is proven erroneous (2 Tim. 3: 9). And, dear brethren, in his third paragraph he says our interpretation is "mainly nonsense." He does not attempt to show its alleged nonsense. He who writes such folly on types inveighs a number of times against our dealing much in types! In the Foreword of Vol. II, we Scripturally justify our course on types, and that overthrows another Levitical and Jambresian outcry against the Epiphany Truth.


(26) There has come to us for answer the following question: What do you think of Bro. Hugo Karlen's thought on the purification of the mother of a son and of a daughter (Lev. 12) as he gives it in his May, 1935, paper, The Stone Witness in Egypt? We answer: Bro. Karlen's view stated in his own words is as follows: "According to the Jewish Law, a woman giving birth to a man child, should go through a period of purification of 40 days. If she gave birth to a maid child, the period of purification should be 80 days. See Lev. 12: 2-5. The woman here represented the whole Church of God on the earth; the Jewish Church during the time of the Old Covenant, which gave birth to the man child, Christ Jesus, and the general Christian Church, which brought forth the maid child, the Little Flock, Christ's coming bride. These 40 and 80 days in the type seem to picture forth the 40-year harvest of the Jewish Age, 29-69, and the Gospel Age 'harvest' of 80 years, 1874-1954."


(27) The first thing that strikes our mind in Bro. H.K.'s view is its ambiguity and incompleteness. In the first place he speaks of the Jewish Church and "General" Christian Church as the whole Church of God on earth. While such a view is necessary for his theory, the Bible never by direct terms nor by inference intimates that the Jewish Church and the "general" Christian Church (whatever he means by the term



"general" in the last expression) are "the whole Church of God." Though the Bible does call Fleshly Israel (those called out of Egypt, since the word Church means those called out) the church in the wilderness (Acts 7: 38), it never expressly nor by inference calls Fleshly Israel the Church of God nor a part of the Church of God. This term belongs exclusively to the true Christian Church, the Body of Christ, either as a whole (1 Cor. 10: 32; 15: 9; Gal. 1: 13) or in ecclesias as local parts of it, in which case it uses actually or inferentially a qualifying term like the Church of God at Corinth, etc. (Acts 20: 28; 1 Tim. 3: 5; 1 Cor. 1: 2; 2 Cor. 1: 1). In no sense is the Jewish and "general" Christian Church one church ("whole Church of God"). But what does he mean by the term, Jewish Church as the mother of Jesus? If he thereby means the Nominal Jewish Church, everything said above against J.T.G.'s same view applies against his view. In addition to what was said above against the pertinent part of J.T.G.'s view, the following must be said against this feature of H.K.'s view, if by the expression, the Jewish Church, he means Nominal Fleshly Israel: Since H.K. rightly holds that the 40 years of the Jewish Harvest were from 29 to 69, and since Jesus did not come out of Nominal Fleshly Israel in the sense of being no more a part of it, which was not a birth until April, 33, the 40 days could not type the 40 years from 29-69; hence could not type the 40 years from April, 33, to April, 73, which is J.T.G.'s false view of the time of the Jewish Harvest. Moreover, the term, man child, when referring to God's Anointed never in the Bible means Jesus alone; but means either Jesus and the Church as the Christ, the one new man (Is. 66: 7; Eph. 2: 15), or their counterfeit as the Anointed, Antichrist (Rev. 12: 5, 13). Again, if by the term, "the Jewish Church," H.K. means real Fleshly Israel as distinct from real Spiritual Israel, he must thereby mean the faithful of the Old



Testament up to and including John the Baptist, as distinct from those Israelites indeed of the Jewish Harvests who, of course, then became Spiritual Israelites. Jesus in no sense, either as a human being or as a new creature, can be spoken of as being born, i.e., begun or developed by these Israelites indeed, in A.D. 29, because as to their sacrificed humanity and as to their new creatures they came after Him and never mothered Him in the Covenant, but came after Him in the same fellowships as He, in sacrifice of the humanity and in development of the new creature. Nor could He be spoken of as having come out of them in A.D. 29, for they continued with Him in fellowship (Luke 22: 28). Hence He did not undergo even a figurative birth from them. He was not as a new creature begun by these or any other human; for it was God, after begetting Him, who directly applied without any human agent the Covenant promises to Him, i.e., acted in the place of the servants of the Truth as part of the mother in applying the Covenant promises. And for God there could be no atonement made after the 40 years or at any other time. Consequently, the term, "real Fleshly Israel," could in this connection be applied to the Ancient Worthies only. But these neither underwent a purification for 40 years, 29-69, nor at the end of that time did they bring the antitypical sin and burnt offering, since their last member, John the Baptist, had died about 38 years before. Neither did Jesus, the only atoning Priest officiating in the year 69, offer to Divine justice the merit of His sin offering for them, nor did He work on their behalf resuscitation from the dead, justification and restitution in the year 69, typed by offering the burnt offering for the mother of a son, since He as Head and the Church as Body will do these three things for the Ancient Worthies in the Millennium. While it is true that the Oath-bound promises in their highest features as antitypical Sarah did conceive Jesus in A.D. 29, which may be Scripturally regarded



as a reckoned birth, yet that Truth in so far as it conceived Him was then perfect, hence needed no purification for 40 years. Nor was any Ancient Worthy nor any other human the agent that brought Him to this spiritual conceiving; for John the Baptist did not minister the Sarah promises to Jesus. Hence we see that neither nominal nor real Fleshly Israel brought Jesus to a reckoned birth in A.D. 29, as H.K.'s theory requires. Hence, and additionally, since God took the place, in the mother, of the servants applying the Truth to Jesus, there was no one for whom the sin offering and burnt offering were presented for the mother in A.D. 69. These considerations overthrow H.K.'s view on the mother of the son. It will be noted that he did not attempt to explain the purification of the mother during the 40 years, its completion at their end, and how the antitypical sin and burnt offerings were made for her in A.D. 69. As shown above, none of these points can be explained according to his view.


(28) Now as to his view on the mother of the daughter. What does he mean by the term, general Christian Church? If by that term he means the Nominal Church, the birth of the true Church from her was completed from 1914 to 1916, when the last members came out of her in each country just before it became involved in the World War, i.e., from 1914 to 1916 (Is. 66: 7, Rev. 7: 1-3). And such a birth began for the Church in the Time of the End, in 1846, when the cleansed Sanctuary first became separate and distinct from the nominal Church. Thus the true Church's birth from the nominal Church in the Time of the End does not agree with his date 1874. Moreover, before 1846 many companies of God's people left Babylon during the reformation and before, which again does not agree with his thought. Moreover, every argument that we used against J.T.G.'s thought as to the mother of the daughter being the nominal Church applies against H.K.'s thought on the same subject, if by the



term, the general Christian Church, he means the nominal Christian Church. But if by that term he means the real Christian Church, we answer that the real Christian Church is not the mother of the Little Flock; for that would make the Little Flock its own mother; while the Bible teaches that its mother is the Sarah Covenant, which consists of the highest features of the Oath-bound promises and the servants in their capacity of applying those features to the development of the Little Flock (Is. 54: 1-17; Gal. 4: 21-32). Again, since he defines the daughter as the Little Flock, its reckoned birth set in at Pentecost, while his setting makes it 1874, which, as our view shows, was the date of the beginning (a figurative birth) of the Parousia Little Flock—then the Parousia section of the Little Flock was given a figurative birth—its Parousial start typed by Joseph's birth. Thus in either way of understanding the term, the general Christian Church, his understanding of the mother and daughter is proven wrong. Accordingly, his view of both the mother and son and the mother and daughter is thoroughly wrong. Our understanding of it as given above is the proper view of it, as it is in harmony with the seven axioms of Scriptural interpretation.


We will now study some pertinent questions.


Question: Is not the Great Multitude of Rev. 7: 9-17 and 19: 1-9 the Restitution class, and therefore not a Spiritual class?


Answer: We think that they do not represent the Restitution, but a Spiritual class. This is clearly implied in v. 6, where their voice is distinguished from the voice of many waters, peoples, i.e., among others, some of those who will be of the Restitution class. More clearly yet is it implied in the family figure in vs. 7-9 by the fact that they are described as those who are invited to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. In this picture the Bridegroom is Jesus, the Bride is the Little Flock, the Guests at the Marriage Supper are the Great Multitude. The following order of events



connected with the family figure proves that these Guests could not be the Restitution class: First, there is the marriage; second and afterward, the marriage supper; third and still later, the begetting of children; and fourth and finally, their birth. The Great Multitude, the theme of Rev. 19: 1-9, being the Guests at the Marriage Supper, cannot be the Restitution class, which will be the children of this Marriage, begotten and born after the Marriage Supper. The figure of Levites and Noblemen used in Rev. 7: 15 likewise proves them not to be of the Restitution class. The expression, "serve Him day and night in His temple," proves them to be antitypical Levites. Here the figure is that of Priests, Levites and Israelites. The Priests are Jesus and the Church; the Israelites are the Restitution class; part of the Levites are the Great Company (Mal. 3: 2, 3). The fact that the Levites had no inheritance in the land proves that the Millennial Levites will all either be or become spiritual; hence, none of them will ultimately be of the Restitution class. To be before God's kingly throne (Rev. 7: 15), but not to stand before His judicial throne (Rev. 20: 12), means to be a nobleman and officer of the Kingdom. Here in the Kingdom figure (not in the Court figure where He functions as judge) The Christ in the throne is the King; the Great Company are the officers, nobles, before the throne; and the Restitution class are the subjects of the King and the subordinates of His officers, the nobles; therefore, they are not represented in this scene, which implies a palace scene; for their place is outside of the palace. Ps. 45 introduces the same and additional distinctions. V. 1 introduces Jehovah; vs. 2-9 introduce Jesus; vs. 9-13 introduce the Church as Jesus' Bride; vs. 14 and 15 introduce the Great Company as the Bridesmaids; v. 16 introduces the Ancient Worthies as Christ's children and the Restitution class' princes; while v. 17 introduces the Restitution class separate and distinct from all other



classes. Ps. 107 also introduces the same and other distinctions; vs. 2-9 treat of the Little Flock; vs. 10-17 treat of the Great Company; vs. 17-22 treat of Fleshly Israel cast off from and restored to God's favor; vs. 23-32 treat of mankind during and just after the great tribulation; vs. 33-38 treat of the Restitution class during the Millennium; vs. 39 and 40 treat of the wicked, and vs. 41 and 42 of the righteous during the Little Season after the Millennium. What Paul says of the man that committed fornication with his father's wife (1 Cor. 5: 5) proves that the Great Company will be spiritual; and hence will not be the Restitution class: "Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh [for the overcoming of his evil disposition, that he might learn not to fornicate any more, even as Hymenaeus and Alexander were delivered unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme any more, 1 Tim. 1: 20] that the spirit [the new creature] may be saved [by being awakened from the dead as a spirit] in the day of the Lord Jesus." These considerations, among others, prove that the Great Multitude is not the Restitution, but a Spiritual class.


(1) Question: Does not the fact that one is cut off from the World's High Priest disrobe him of Christ's righteousness, represented by the High Priest's linen robe?


Answer: As we understand the matter it does not. If Aaron's robe alone would represent Christ's righteousness, then the robes of Aaron's sons would not represent that righteousness, which, of course, they do; nor would it be represented by the garments of Nadab and Abihu who, while being carried out in their priestly garments (Lev. 10: 5), represent both of their antitypes as cut off from the Priesthood, however, at a stage in which they were not yet unto a completion in the condition representing the Second Death class, even as every one who is cut off from the antitypical Priesthood falls first into the Great Company, and



only later some of them fall into the Second Death, represented here as in the finished picture. Moreover, the Levites wore white robes, tentatively representing Christ's righteousness, and in this picture, which is one figuring forth the Gospel-Age Levites, type a class that never was in Christ, the World's High Priest (1 Chro. 15: 27). If the questioner's thought were correct, there would be no Great Company at all; for all cut off from The Christ would under these conditions have to go into the Second Death. Accordingly, we answer that the robe of Christ's righteousness, being worn by those in Christ, by the Great Company, and tentatively by the Youthful Worthies and the justified, is not for the World's High Priest alone. Hence one cut off from that class does not necessarily lose it.


(2) Question: Are the errors of doctrine and practice of which the Great Company are guilty an evidence of the Lord's disapproval of them?


Answer: We believe they are, so far as Little Flock membership is concerned. Had they been faithful, the Lord would not have permitted them to become thus deceived (Ps. 91: 3-7). It is because they have been so willful as not to be submissive to His teachings, given by precept, that He has arranged for them to fall into Azazel's hands that they might be punished in the destruction of their flesh, and that by a sad experience, contaminated with Azazelian errors and practices, they might learn that their only safety is in the way of obedience to the Lord's teachings and arrangements. He also permits them to fall into these errors of doctrine and practice that they may learn the lesson that the Lord will not use them, but the Priesthood, as His primary mouthpiece; that it is not for them to approach His altar to offer incense—a privilege reserved for the Priests alone. Thus viewed, their going into errors of doctrine and practice is of a threefold character: (1) it is punitive, i.e., a punishment for sin; (2) it is educational, i.e., for reformation, in that it is



to teach them by sad experiences the unprofitableness of disobedience and the profitableness of obedience; (3) those of them who are rightly exercised by their experiences and learn to suffer joyfully for Truth and Righteousness will have these sufferings counted for the expiation of the world's willful sins.


(3) Question: Should we not in Christian love and longsuffering continue to give priestly fellowship to manifested crown-losers?


Answer: We should not in Christian love and longsuffering continue to give priestly fellowship to manifested crown-losers. To give them priestly fellowship is neither Christian love nor Christian longsuffering. The very God of love forbids it; and therefore to give it must be a violation of Christian love and longsuffering. A little consideration will show that it is neither Christian love nor Christian longsuffering to give them priestly fellowship. In the first place, it is a direct act of disobedience to God, who commands us to withdraw priestly fellowship from such (1 Cor. 5: 5; 1 Tim. 1: 18, 19; Lev. 13: 3, 8, etc., 44-46). Again, God expressly charged the Israelites to be exceedingly careful to do what the manifesting and sentence-announcing priest charges to be done with their types, the spotted lepers, citing the case of Miriam, the classic type of crown-losers, as the typical example therefore (Deut. 24: 8, 9). If it were not important to refuse such priestly fellowship, God would not have commanded such carefulness in doing it. Further, not only obedience to God requires it, but the protection of the other brethren from contamination requires it, as St. Paul suggests in 1 Cor. 5: 5-7, and as the type of driving the contaminating leper outside the camp (Lev. 13: 44-46; Num. 12: 14, 15) suggests. Note how great has become the contamination of the various Truth groups, because they at the start failed to sever themselves from their manifested crown-lost leaders. Surely here a little leaven leavened the whole lump.



Thirdly, the peace and prosperity of the faithful will be retarded by the failure to withdraw priestly fellowship from such. Then, the crown-losers would be hindered from their cleansing, if such fellowship were not withdrawn. Not only so, but it would result in the second death of such if, due to the failure to withdraw priestly fellowship from them, they do not cleanse themselves. Certainly only mischief alone could result to them and others from such failure, while the withdrawal of such fellowship is one of the indispensables for their cleansing. We are satisfied that the failure so to do will result in those failing so to do themselves becoming manifested as crown-losers; for such failure is revolutionism against one of God's arrangements. It is, therefore, not true Christian love and longsuffering which refuses to withdraw priestly fellowship from manifested crown-losers. On the contrary, the above-mentioned considerations prove that true Christian love and longsuffering dictate such withdrawal of fellowship from manifested Levites.


(4) Question: How can we think of Satan as bound now, if he is instrumental in the destruction of the Great Company's flesh?


Answer: To see daylight through this question we must realize that the binding of Satan, the individual, and the Satan system does not mean their inactivity, and that it is not an instantaneous act, but that it is a progressive matter, going through several stages. The binding of the individual Satan respects the fallen angels and means that our Lord gave the fallen angels so much Truth between 1874 and 1878 that Satan from then (1878) onward could no more control them as he had been doing before; yet he has otherwise continued very active among them. Again, the binding of the Satan system as respects the world is a progressive one, going through four stages, amid each one of which he displays great activities, as the following will show: The first stage was from 1874 to 1914 and



thus preceded the World War. It gave the world so much Truth against the foundation errors of Satan's empire, the Divine right of kings, clergy and aristocracy, and against its supporting errors, eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead, as made it impossible for Satan longer to control mankind with those errors; yet he was very active while thus being bound. The second stage is now going on. It began at the end of the War and will be completed by Armageddon. It will give the world so much Truth as against dictatorships as will make it impossible for Satan to rule mankind by dictators, proven by the outbreak of Armageddon; yet during this stage of his binding Satan has been very active. The third stage of his binding will be between Armageddon and Anarchy, beginning at the end of the former and ending at the beginning of the latter. It will give the world so much Truth as will make it impossible for Satan to rule mankind by the Socialistic government that he will establish after Armageddon, which third stage of his binding as complete will be evident by the outbreak of Anarchy; yet Satan will be very active during that period. The fourth stage of Satan's binding will be during the reign of Anarchy, and will be active into its last phase, i.e., during the plundering expedition against the Jews of Palestine, which reign of Anarchy the Lord will destroy by overwhelming the plundering hosts of anarchists in Palestine through a mighty display of retributive justice. This stage of his binding will complete it from every standpoint, but amid each part of it Satan will be very active. When Anarchy will have been overthrown, Satan will not only have been completely bound, but he will then be spirited away from this earth and imprisoned, unable for the rest of the 1,000 years to tempt the people or to learn what is going on among them. The above five features of Satan's binding, one as to the fallen angels, the other four as to mankind, prove that his binding is a progressive



one, stretching through five stages over a period of more than 80 years, and that his binding process does not mean that he is rendered therein inactive, but it does mean that as each stage is completed he will no longer be able to control through the errors whereby he controlled before such stage of his binding set in. Hence during each stage he has activity and power enough to destroy the fleshly minds of Levites.


(5) Question: If God arranged for 60 groups of Epiphany Levites as antitypical posts for the Epiphany Tabernacle's Court, why do you blame the Levite leaders for making these various groups or antitypical posts of the Epiphany? Are they not thereby performing God's good pleasure?


Answer: That the questioner is laboring under a misunderstanding is evident from a number of Scriptural passages and facts. Every one of such groups arises amid a sifting, as a sifting movement; and no sifting movement is Divinely approved (2 Thes. 2: 9-11). All new-creaturely sifters defile God's Temple; hence they will end in destruction (1 Cor. 3: 17; please note that this passage occurs amid a discussion, among other things, of new-creaturely leaders who are sifters, one of the things here discussed being the experiences of the saved Great Company members; Ezek. 9:7). Again, the pertinent types prove this of all new-creaturely sifters who defile God's Temple; e.g., Jannes and Jambres (Ex. 7: 11, 12; 2 Tim. 3: 1-9); Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10: 1-5, 8-11; see footnote in T-119, in editions from 1909 onward); Moses and Aaron smiting the rock (Num. 20: 10-13; compare 1 Cor. 10: 4; Heb. 6: 6; 10: 29) and the firstborn [leaders] of the captive that was in the dungeon [Great Company] (Ex. 12: 29; compare with Heb. 2: 15; Ps. 107: 10, 14, 16; 69: 33). Hence if in any of these sifting movements a new-creaturely leader defiles God's Temple, which occurs by his deceiving new creatures into his



sifting movement by his errors, he is not only not doing a Divinely approved, but is doing a Divinely disapproved work. How, then, are we to harmonize this teaching with the thought that God desires the 60 Epiphany posts about the Epiphany Tabernacle's Court? We answer, by keeping the following things separate and distinct in our minds: God does not have the Great Company groups in their uncleansed condition placed as antitypical posts about the Epiphany Court; because as such they are not doing God, but Azazel service. It is only as these groups are cleansed (for a parallel thought please see Lev. 14: 49-53; and for the synonymous thought please see Num. 8: 1-26) that they will be set up as antitypical posts about the Epiphany Court. Considering the typical posts, we can see that this is true of the direct type. When the trees from which the posts were made were developed as trees they corresponded to the groups formed by new-creaturely sifters. When they were cut down they were not yet posts in the court. At this stage of the type, cutting-down the trees, which are not yet made into posts, corresponds to the sifted groups under new creaturely sifting leaders getting the first impulses toward their being destined for antitypical posts. God's real servants cut down the antitypical trees by applying the first pertinent truths to these siftlings as individuals and groups. Next these cut-down trees were brought (Ex. 31: 1-6) to Bezaleel (our Lord), Aholiab (the star-members) and their companions (especially, but not exclusively, the non-star-membered general elders), who sawed off this part, trimmed off that part, fixed the other parts of these cut-down trees, until they were actually no more trees, but posts fit to be set up in the Court of the Epiphany Tabernacle. The turning of these cut-down trees into posts types the work that our Lord, the Parousia and Epiphany messengers and their helpers have in the end of the Age put on the Great Company as individuals and as groups, fitting them as



groups and individuals of such groups to take their place as cleansed individuals in such cleansed groups about the Epiphany Tabernacle. The erecting of the antitypical posts is a future work. The work that is now going on consists in part of the growing and cutting down of such symbolic trees (gathering the siftlings into their pertinent groups and giving them their first impulses toward their future mission), and in part of the sawing and trimming off of excess parts of the symbolic trees (driving out of the groups unfit leaders and led ones, cutting off their wrong teachings, works, arrangements and organizational features). The work that yet remains to be done on these symbolic trees and posts is the completion of the above mentioned things, the giving of right teachings, works, arrangements and organizations to these groups, as well as to superintend their cleansing, as typed in Num. 8 and Lev. 14. And, finally, these things having been done, the posts will be put around the Epiphany Tabernacle, i.e., put into their right spheres of service. We believe that we will shortly see this work enter its final stages of tree-growing and cutting-down, and, to speak literally of the other features, of ridding the groups of their evils and of giving them the positive equipments and positions for their true Levitical service. This explanation will enable us to see the erroneousness of the implications in the question under consideration. Hence we answer the question: While God has arranged for the 60 Epiphany posts to be placed around the Epiphany Court, He disapproves as evil the work of the Levite leaders in forming the groups of uncleansed Levites, as a forbidden sifting work.


(6) Question: Is it proper to say that the Great Company is doing Azazel's work, or should we say that they are in Azazel's hand for such experiences as are Divinely intended to result in their cleansing, or is their work partly a work for the Lord?



Answer: To us it seems that all three queries in our question require an affirmative answer. Certainly their revolutionizing against the Lord's teachings and arrangements, and introducing false teachings and arrangements, prove them to be doing Azazel's work. The fact that they are called Azazel's Goat proves that they do his work, just as the contrasted name, the Lord's Goat, proves that the Little Flock is doing Jehovah's work. It is also true that they are in Azazel's hand for such experiences as are Divinely intended to result in their cleansing, even as St. Paul says of some of this class, as illustrations of the entire class: "Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit [new creature] may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5: 5). "Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1 Tim. 1: 20). Their work, especially toward the public, is in part a work for the Lord. The good part of their mind enables them to do some things that are a service for the Lord, while the bad part of their mind prompts them to do a service that is for Azazel. Double-minded and double-serving, they are in a pitiable condition. But in due time the reformable among them will gain by the blood and ministry of the Lamb deliverance from their bondage unto the liberty that the single-minded new creature enjoys. We fervently pray for this on their behalf.


(7) Question: What is meant by the expression, "A Good Levite"?


Answer: For the Epiphany a good Levite is a new creature who, as it were, just failed of winning the crown, who disapproves of revolutionisms against the Parousia truths and arrangements, who either has accepted and served the Epiphany Truth, or will shortly accept and serve it, and who before his manifestation as a Levite will revolutionize against the Epiphany arrangements.



(8) Question: What are some of our Pastor's testimonies on the Great Company as Levites, separated from the Little Flock of Priests, and manifested as such in the extreme end of the Gospel Age—during the Epiphany?


Answer: We will give a few from among a number. The first of these is in Z '11, p. 22, pars. 5, 6; par. 5, beginning at the 8th line, as follows: "Similarly, those who have made a full consecration are subjected to severe tests, and, if they prove unfaithful, they will not remain members of the Royal Priesthood. But this does not prove that these will be unworthy of some opportunity for serving the Lord. These will be represented in the Levite class. [The antitype of which will be the Great Company.] All the Levites are consecrated to God. But the 'more than conquerors' are the selected ones, the ones who stand the tests and prove faithful. Such as fail to stand these tests then will be rejected from the condition represented in the Holy, which is the 'gold' condition and represents the Divine nature. Being denied the liberty accorded to the Priests, these will go out from this condition and will have merely the standing of justification, which, if they maintain, will constitute them worthy of eternal life. But that life will not be human, because they gave that up in order to become Priests. Their failure puts them out of the Holy condition back into the Court condition. Only the Priests will be in the HOLY. Only the Levites will be in the Court. But even the chosen ones, while separated in their minds, will be commingling with the others so far as their persons are concerned. The Court, therefore, in its last analysis, represents the Spirit-begotten ones as separated from the world. The Great Company class are, therefore, not represented as in the Camp, but are attached to the Priests."


We will proceed to the next reference, which is in Z '11, p. 234, col. 2, pars. 4, 5, beginning at par. 4, line 4: "The Lord's arrangement is that the Great Company