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


class shall have a special trial and testing and shall be forced forward in the time of trouble [italics ours], inasmuch as they did not carry out their covenant of sacrifice willingly. We must remember that the types of the Law-Covenant were arranged to represent matters as they would be seen by us in the Conclusion of the antitypical Day of Atonement, and not to represent the things as they would be seen while they were in progress" [i.e., as they progressed at the time he wrote]; "some one might take our Crown; and we might be thus relegated to the 'Great Company.' So these things represent the results as they will be in the end of this Age. There will be a 'Great Company' class which will bear certain iniquities." The next reference is Z '11, p. 349, col. 2, last par.: "While the Court condition seems to represent at the present time all those who are approaching God and loving righteousness and desiring harmony with Him, it appears as though, with the closing of this Age, there will be an adjustment of matters by which all those who have not come to the point of full consecration and to the point of Spirit-begetting, who would not belong to the household of faith and to the 'Church of the Firstborn,' in the absolute sense, will go out and cease to be recognized as in the Court. Meantime, the class who have already made consecration, 'presented their bodies living sacrifices,' received the begetting of the Spirit and enjoyed for a time the privileges of being members of the Body of Christ—these, failing to maintain their standing, are represented as separated from the 'Little Flock' class at the end of this Age [italics ours]. Their condition apparently is represented by the Court Condition thereafter." Our next reference is Z '16, p. 39, par. 1: "They [Elijah and Elisha] simply walked on. Suddenly the chariot of fire appeared and separated them. … What does this signify in antitype? We think that it signifies a division between the Little Flock and the Great Company." Z '16, p. 264, par. 1: "It will be after



the smiting of the Jordan—after the division of the people by the message of the Truth and the mantle of Elijah's power—that the separation of the Church into two classes will take place. Thereafter, the Elijah class, the Little Flock class, will be clearly manifested, separate and distinct from the Great Company class. The division, be it remembered, will be caused by the fiery chariot." Next we quote from the Reprints, Vol. 7, 5846, col. 1, par. 2: "Are you expecting the fiery chariot any minute now, or do you think it some little distance off—perhaps some months yet, or perhaps a year, or probably more, is my thought." Finally we quote from the 1916 Convention Report, p. 198, col. 2, par. 2, under Q. 10, beginning in the 4th line, "the Great Company class will first be manifested when the Elijah class will be separated by the fiery chariot, that from that time and onward it would be proper to speak of some as being of the Little Flock and others of the Great Company, but that division not having yet been made of the Lord, you and I would not be authorized to recognize any such division which God has not recognized. It will be for Him to determine who are of the Little Flock and who of the Great Company. … We do not understand, therefore, that they are to be viewed as being in the Court at the present time, but after the Lord has manifested the distinction between the Elijah class, the Royal Priesthood class, and the Great Company class, the Elisha class, then thereafter those will be represented as being in the Court. But not yet. The division has not yet taken place." (This was said in 1916.)


(9) Question: Since the Great Company Levites no longer have access to the antitypical lampstand and table, on what do they feed to sustain their spiritual lives?


Answer: They would, of course, be able to feed on what they once had while in the Holy; but for the most part they neglect this and see only counterfeit light,



i.e., such as never was on the antitypical lampstand, and thus partake of unclean bread, i.e., such as never was on the antitypical table. So far as the meat in due season—the advancing Truth—is concerned, they do not partake of, but reject it, while in the fit man's and Azazel's hands. And as a result their new creatures are famished, weak, sickly and asleep, out of which sleep some of them will never awaken. After the Levites' cleansing, they will doubtless partake of the Epiphany truths that are for them; for then they will be somewhat like the good Youthful Worthies, who are privileged to see and appreciate every truth except such truths as the Lord may desire to be limited to the priests. Let us remember that in the transitional period everything is to be open to the cleansed Levites except such things reserved to the priests alone; and in the Millennium everything in the Bible will be seen by the Ancient and Youthful Worthies and by the faithful restitutionists. The only thing that the consecrated faithful natural man will then not appreciatively see is the operation of the Spirit of begettal. So is it now with the good Youthful Worthies. So will cleansed Levites appreciate everything in spiritual matters except such as pertain to the operation of the completed anointing. Whatever, however, the Lord may give during the Epiphany for the priests alone will be for them alone, until it has served its secret purpose; then it will be understood by the properly disposed Levites. E.g., now the understanding of the priestly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate, delivering him to the fit man and abandoning him to Azazel, is withheld from them. After they are cleansed they will understand these things. So there will doubtless be things connected with the priests' activities toward them after they are cleansed which will be concealed from them until the secrecy has served its purposes, when they will be clarified to them. We are in the transitional period as respects the Gospel and



Millennial Ages. During the Gospel Age very many Biblical things—the things of the Spirit—were concealed from all but new creatures. During the Millennium, when the secret features of God's Plan will have been carried out, they, except the operation of the Spirit of begettal, will be understood by all the faithful consecrated. Now God is treating the faithful non-priests in the same way. Hence this transitional period partakes more of the Millennial than the Gospel-Age privileges in this respect. This change of operation began in 1881 with the ending of the general call; for from that time on the Lord gave all the faithful consecrators for whom no crowns were available an understanding of all deep things, except an appreciative understanding of the operation of the Spirit of begettal in the heart.


(10) Question: Do you expect the cleansing of the Levites to be completed before the revolution?


Answer: So far as the Nominal Church Levites are concerned, we do not expect their cleansing before the revolution; for the great bulk of them will in the revolution be finally put into the fit man's hands. Nor are we to expect that all of the Truth Levites will have their cleansing completed by that time. We believe that the cleansing of the good Levites and the better of the other Levites began in the fall of 1923, and their cleansing is progressing. If the two thieves type the two classes of the last uncleansed Truth Levites, i.e., the worse and the worst of the bad Levites, the cleansing of the less bad of these would begin just before the revolution, while the worst of the bad Levites would apparently not begin to get their cleansing before the revolution, if indeed they are to get it at all. Our present data are rather meager on this subject, and therefore our answer must be more or less incomplete. Doubtless later we will have more light on the subject.


(11) Question: Should one co-operate in the work



toward Azazel's Goat, if not certain that he is in the Body of Christ?


Answer: It is proper to help in the work toward Azazel's Goat, if one is consecrated and knows that such a work is in the Divine order. For such should always resist revolutionism and withdraw fellowship from revolutionists, and brotherly help and favor from willful revolutionists. For this reason we encourage Youthful Worthies to assist the priests against Azazel's Goat. And they do this, e.g., giving us names and addresses of Truth people for volunteer literature, testifying against revolutionism by word of mouth and participating in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, and in the distribution of Elijah's Letter and John's Rebuke. Of course, even a cleansed Levite should properly resist the revolutionism of Azazel's Goat and they have in not a few cases done so. While God does not count such activity as a part of the activity of the World's High Priest, He nevertheless approves of it as a work of righteousness. If one is a new creature and is not manifested as a Levite, even if he fears that he is not in the Priesthood, he should believe he is of it and cast out his fears, which doubtless come from Satan; for God counts all new creatures as priests who have not been manifested as Levites.


(12) Question: Shall we regard as Levites those brethren who reject the Epiphany Truth?


Answer: If they have not been in the Epiphany Truth, we should not now regard them as Levites for such rejection; for God is keeping the Epiphany Truth hidden from those priests, in the various groups, whom He desires less markedly than the Epiphany saints to resist the revolutionism of the groups where they are. There are two classes among the priests: the more and the less courageous. The former He gives the Epiphany Truth for a more pointed resistance of Azazel's Goat. One could not remain among the Levite groups and offer such marked resistance. Therefore, the Lord



lets the less courageous priests remain among these groups for a milder resistance not incompatible with their remaining among them, but withholds from them the Epiphany Truth, so that they might remain with a good conscience where they are. Those new creatures who have had the Epiphany Truth and then rejected it, are to be regarded as Levites; for they have revolutionized against the Lord in His Epiphany purposes.


(13) Question: How may we be sure whether a person is a priest or a Levite?


Answer: We should accept all brethren as priests who consecrated before Oct., 1914, and came into the Truth by Passover, 1916, if they are not revolutionists or partisan supporters of such. While some who consecrated before Oct., 1914, and came into the Truth before Passover, 1916, are Youthful Worthies, we do not know who these are. Therefore, we are to accept all brethren, having consecrated before Oct., 1914, and having received the Truth before Passover, 1916, as priests, unless they revolutionize or partisanly support revolutionists. It is revolutionism or its partisan support against the Truth and its arrangements, and only revolutionism or its partisan support against the Truth and its arrangements, that manifests crown-losers as such. The great touchstone of manifesting Leviteship is revolutionism or its partisan support, and nothing else. The reason that misconduct cannot be the touchstone for us is that we do not know how to decide what varying degrees of misconduct in various brethren forfeit their crowns. Therefore such judging is forbidden. The Lord alone—the heart searcher—is competent to give such a decision. We have no right to judge anyone to Leviteship. But, after God, by the individual's revolutionism or its partisan support, has manifested him to us as a Levite, then, of course, we as parts of the Priesthood are privileged to declare the Lord's manifested judgment as such. We earnestly exhort the brethren to take heed to the thing that manifests



Leviteship, and we earnestly caution them against making character blemishes on the grounds of declaring brethren to be Levites.


(14) Question: If no Levites were in the court on the day of atonement, how could antitypical Levites—the Great Company and Youthful Worthies—assist the World's High Priest in leading out the antitypical Goat of Azazel?


Answer: Not everyone that acts toward Azazel's antitypical Goat is pictured in the type. This is so in this instance, because, had the type recorded such a thing it would have taught an untruth. E.g., if the Levites in the type had assisted Aaron in leading out Azazel's goat, it would mean in the antitype that the new creatures of the Great Company in every case would assist the World's High Priest in leading out his own humanity from the antitypical Court; even as the activity of Aaron's body in the sacrifice of the Lord's goat types each Body member of the World's High Priest co-operating with the Head in sacrificing that Body member's humanity. Of course the antitypical Levites do not assist in leading forth their own humanity. Any assistance that a Great Company new creature or a Youthful Worthy, as a Levite, gives the World's High Priest in leading Azazel's antitypical Goat forth, is rendered in relation to others than himself. This they often do, e.g., many antitypical Kohathite and Gershonite Levites resist the revolutionism of the antitypical Merarites. Among others, the P.B.I. and Hirshite adherents have fought the Society on the 1925 error, even as many of the Society adherents, as antitypical Merarites, have fought the P.B.I. adherents, antitypical Gershonites, on their false chronology, etc. The Youthful Worthies in the Epiphany Truth have also rendered assistance in this work to the World's High Priest. They could not have been represented in this work by typical Levites assisting Aaron with Azazel's goat, because that would mean that their



humanity is represented in Azazel's goat, which represents the humanity of the Great Company alone.


(15) Question: Are there any members of the Azazel Goat class in the Nominal Church who are to be led to the gate and to the fit man?


Answer: The bulk of Azazel's Goat is now in the Nominal Church; and through antitypical Gideon's Second Battle we are leading its Protestant section to the gate and to the fit man; and through Elijah's Letter and John's Rebuke we are leading its Catholic section to the gate and to the fit man. Our Lord indicates that such are now in the Nominal Church when He exhorted that the flight from Babylon be not delayed until the Time of Trouble—the Epiphany: "Pray that your flight be not in the winter." Jeremiah indicates the same thing when he expresses the disappointment of this class in the words: "The summer is past, the winter is here, and we are not saved," i.e., from Babylon. The foolish virgins not getting the oil and its consequent light until the wise have all entered the door of the high calling and it is closed, proves the same thing; for we are now over many years beyond the ending of Spirit-begetting. Since Spirit-begetting has long since ceased and those in the Truth are by no means enough to constitute a company much larger than the Little Flock, and since the Great Company is saved during the tribulation, the bulk of its members must be now in Babylon (Rev. 7:14) Some will only then be delivered after Babylon is destroyed (Ps. 107: 14-16). But Babylon is not yet destroyed. It would not at all surprise us, if from 500,000 to 1,000,000 Great Company members should be now in Babylon.


(16) Question: Are the Great Company brethren branches in the Vine, or are they pruned off?


Answer: The Great Company as such are not particularized in the figure of the Vine and Branches. We know that crown-losers all through the Age have been by God counted as parts of the Embryo Christ, until



in the Fall of 1916 the Lord began to lead them forth out of the Holy into the Court. It is from this same standpoint that they were in the Vine as branches during the Gospel Age. Hence they are not the branches that were cut off from the Vine and burned. Those so treated are the Second Death class, whose second death is symbolized by the fire and the destruction of the cast-off branches.


(17) Question: Is the Great Company being now manifested to us as such—a thing denied by Bro. Oleczynski?


Answer: Bro. Oleczynski's criticism of us (without mentioning our name) is quite sharp, because of our teaching that the Great Company is now being manifested to the Faithful, he claiming that this makes us a judge contrary to the Lord's Word. Here again his error is a revolutionism against our Pastor's teaching, who said that (not before, but) after the separation of Elijah and Elisha it would be proper for us to point out this and that one as being in the Little Flock, or as being of the Great Company, when the Lord shall have revealed them as such to us. We will quote our Pastor's words, in one instance, on this subject. In the 1916 Convention Report, page 198, 2nd col., Question 10, speaking of the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, our Pastor says, "From that time and onward it would be proper to speak of some as being of the Little Flock and others of the Great Company." But Bro. Oleczynski boldly contradicts our Pastor, saying that it is forbidden judging to do this. There was a time that he believed that the separation in the Church in 1917 was the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, and that it was right to consider the Society's president, etc., as of the Great Company; for which reason he accepted our article on the subject published in the English Truth No. 60, and in the Polish Truth No. 1, and translated it into Polish for publication. As a P.B.I. sympathizer he very



likely now rejects it. If so, he has probably accepted the P.B.I. position which, unable to answer our interpretation of the events of 1917 as the fulfillment of our Pastor's forecast of the separation between antitypical Elijah and Elisha, denies that the smiting of Jordan and Elijah's and Elisha's separation are typical! Our arguments on this subject have never been met, either by the Society or the P.B.I. in their repeated efforts to do so. The reason is plain: Our view of the matter is the Truth, the great foundation Epiphany Truth, and as such it is unshakable. If that separation has taken place, of course those who understand it Scripturally can see who is of antitypical Elijah and who is of antitypical Elisha; for if they could not see this, they could not see the separation which implies the classes becoming distinct from one another.


There are other considerations that prove this. Our Pastor taught that in the very end of the Age, i.e., during the Epiphany, the crown-losers would be driven out of the Holy into the Court as Levites distinct from the Priests. After such manifestation they were to be cleansed and consecrated to the Levite office (Num. 8: 5-19). It will be noticed (Num. 8: 13) that the typical Levites were set before Aaron and his sons, who cleansed and consecrated them to their Levite service. This types that Jesus and the Church would cleanse and set them aside for their Divinely pleasing work, not for the Azazelian work that they are now doing. Aaron and his sons had to see them as Levites in order to consecrate them. This types that not only Jesus, but that also the Church on this side the vail would see just who are Levites, otherwise the Church could not co-operate with Jesus in their cleansing and consecration. Had Aaron's sons not seen them, they would have been blind, which would have debarred them from priestly functions, and therefore from the work of cleansing and consecrating the Levites (Lev. 21: 17, 18). Their seeing the Levites types the antitypical Priests



seeing the antitypical Levites as distinct from themselves— the Little Flock now seeing the Great Company as distinct from itself. We would be spiritually blind in this respect, if we did not see them and thus of course could not co-operate in cleansing and consecrating them. This proves that the Little Flock at the pertinent time—now in the Epiphany, the very end of the Age—would know the Great Company, i.e., that the latter would be manifest to the former.


Such recognition of the Great Company as such has been grossly misrepresented as "judging." This we emphatically deny to be the case. God by Jesus had done all of this judging when He, by October, 1914, took away the crown from the last of the crown-losers. It was at least several years later that He began to manifest them to the faithful Priests. And how did He manifest them? Certainly not by the latter judging them. They are incapable of judging them; for to judge implies the ability to discern exactly the kind and degree of conduct that forfeits the crown. This requires an ability among other things to read the heart and to know exactly what varying degree of willfulness in each case causes the crown to be forfeited. These things we, of course, cannot do. But God can and did do this. Then later on He manipulated circumstances so that the Great Company's double-mindedness would lead them to revolutionize against God's teachings and arrangements. After they did that, He then revealed to us what we did not know before the Epiphany, i.e., that by their revolutionism God manifests the Great Company brethren as such to the Little Flock (Ps. 107: 10, 11). When we found out that their revolutionism was the means that God was using to inform us, i.e., manifest to us, that they were Levites, we of course saw them as such. But our seeing them as such was no more judging them as such than if as spectators at a trial when we see a judge sentence a criminal we recognize the latter as sentenced. What sane person



would say that our recognizing him as sentenced makes us judge him? Thus we can readily see that our recognizing God's manifestations of Levites as such is not our judging them. But we do accept, endorse and act in harmony with God's judgment of them, when we recognize and announce them to be Levites. We cannot do this in any case, however, unless persistent revolutionism, e.g., like Bro. Oleczynski's, is exercised. Then, when it is exercised, we know that the Lord has manipulated circumstances in their lives in such a way as reveals to us their double-mindedness in revolutionism; and thereby He tells us that He has judged them as having forfeited their crowns, i.e., as having been cast out of the Little Flock into the Great Company. Thereupon, knowing that they are no longer in the Holy, we withdraw priestly fellowship from them. Knowing that they, as Levites in the Court, are our brethren, we give them as much brotherly fellowship as their revolutionism permits. If this greatly displeases them, we cannot help it. We must act toward them as the Lord desires us to do, and cannot accept and act out their revolutionistic desires for us to continue to recognize them as Priests, nor can we feel and act toward them exactly as we did before they were manifested as Levites. By and by, however, when they are cleansed, they will recognize that our course toward them was the right one for us to take— typed by Aaron's leading the goat to the Gate, delivering it to the fit man and later abandoning it in the wilderness to Azazel. And until they will so recognize it, we are content to bear their mistreatment of us as incidental to our faithfulness, as parts of the World's High Priest, to our mission toward Azazel's Goat.


(18) Question: In dealing with the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat, why do we not limit our Double Herald work to the Civil rulers and to Catholics, even



as John did not deliver the rebuke to Salome, but rebuked Herod and Herodias?


Answer: In answer to this question a number of things should be said: (1) We do not deliver the rebuke of antitypical Herod and Herodias to antitypical Salome—the Federation of Churches, an organization—though we do deliver it to individual Protestants, but do so regardless of their relation to the Federation of Churches. (2) There is no evidence that John delivered his rebuke to Herod or Herodias to their face, though when it was reported to Herod, it appeared and appealed to him as a direct personal rebuke, for which reason it is Scripturally stated in the second person (Matt. 14: 4; Mark 6: 18). John's rebuke of Herod was addressed to the people. Perhaps if the rebuke had been given privately to Herod, he would not have so greatly resented it, since it would not have struck him as injuring his prestige and influence among the people. (3) In leading the Truth section of Azazel's Goat to the Gate, we do not send our rebuking literature to those of them who are of a certainty known to us as such, but to other Truth people. Nor do we give the Truth literature that rebukes the Protestant section of Azazel's Goat to the members of that class known to us as such, for which reason we avoid giving such literature, among others, to the Protestant Clergy among whom are many members of Azazel's Goat. By distributing the pertinent literature to those open to its message, we resist before them the revolutionism of these two sections of Azazel's Goat. (4) To hand the Double Herald to the Catholic Clergy and to their known partisan and bigoted supporters, would mean to lead the Catholic part of Azazel's Goat to the Gate by a totally different method from that employed in connection with the Truth and the Protestant sections of Azazel's Goat, and we see no reason for a departure from the method so far used and blessed. We do, however, see reasons against using the



method of directly giving the rebuking literature to known members of the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat, e.g., the stirring up of unnecessary strife and perhaps riots. (5) It is more effective to resist the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat in its revolutionism by arousing Protestants to oppose its revolutionism than by appealing to its supporters to do this. (6) To give the rebuke directly to the Catholic Church would interfere with our purpose and make our work ineffective, since it would lead to the almost immediate suppression of the work. (7) If the Double Herald work is in part antitypical John's rebuke, the most sober methods of presenting it should be used, and these we believe to be the ones that we are using, and which have been so abundantly blessed of the Lord.


(19) Question: What is priestly as distinct from brotherly fellowship?


Answer: Priestly fellowship consists of new creatures' jointly seeing in the light of the antitypical candlestick the Truth as due for the Priests to enjoy, partaking jointly of the antitypical loaves of presence, the truths that strengthen us in every good thought, quality, word and work for our Heavenward journey, and sacrificing and suffering jointly at the antitypical Altar in priestly work. Priestly fellowship, therefore, is a joint participation in the enlightening and strengthening truths and in sacrificing and suffering in the High Calling. In these respects we do not fellowship with the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and the Tentatively Justified, all of whom are our brethren from various standpoints. There are some truths and some works that they and the Priests have in common, i.e., more or less of the Truths in the Volumes and the work of testifying to the coming Kingdom and against certain errors, etc. In these we have more or less fellowship; but it is not to be so intimate as that which we have with the Priests. Where any of them mix errors and wrongs with any of these things we of



course are not to fellowship therein with them. With Great Company members very little brotherly fellowship can be enjoyed by the Priests until the former are cleansed. Indeed, after they fall into Azazel's hands the Priests must withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them until they are cleansed.


(20) Question: When the former is withheld, is it to be understood that the latter is also?


Answer: No, except as the modifications just given apply.


(21) Question: Have we Scriptural examples of this?


Answer: In Bible times the Great Company as such did not exist. Hence in those times it required a Divine revelation to manifest any individual who had lost his crown. We have mention in the Bible of three individuals of this kind, all of whom had gone so far wrong as to be in Azazel's hand, cut off from all brotherly help and favor (1 Cor. 5: 1-13; 1 Tim. 1: 20). Nothing is said on the subject of fellowship with respect to Hymenaeus and Alexander; but in the case of the Corinthian brother the brethren were told not to fellowship with him (1 Cor. 5: 9-13); nor did they fellowship with him until he was cleansed (2 Cor. 2: 6-10). Perhaps in this case, his sin being reprehensible even to the heathen (1 Cor. 5: 1), the cause of Truth required severer treatment than should be given the average Great Company member.


(22) Question: Are you not arrogating Apostolic powers when you point out individuals as members of the Great Company?


Answer: When our Pastor said that only an Apostle could know who was in the Great Company, he referred to conditions prior to the Epiphany; for at that time there was no Great Company as such. Hence it was wrong for any of us before the Epiphany to say of this or that one that he was of the Great Company; for Divine inspiration was necessary to know it then;



hence it was then a purely Apostolic power. But since the Epiphany began (Mal. 3: 2, 3; 1 Cor. 3: 12-15; 2 Tim 4: 1), the Great Company as such has been coming into existence. Hence now Divine illumination—not Divine inspiration— on Epiphany matters is all that is needed to recognize members of the Great Company as such, even as our Pastor taught would be the case after the Little Flock and Great Company as such were separated. (Z '16, p. 264, col. 1, par. 1; Convention Report 1916, p. 198, col. 2, ques. 10.) As in the type Aaron and his sons would have been physically blind or nearly so, if they could not have seen the Levites as such, when they were set before them as such at the time of their cleansing and consecration (Num. 8: 13), so would we in the antitype be spiritually blind or nearly so, if we could not now see the Levites as such as the Lord is setting them before us as such at this the time of their cleansing and consecration.


Question: How can we of a certainty know that a new creature is of the Great Company?


Answer: By his clear, persistent revolutionism against the Lord's teachings and arrangements (Ps. 107: 11).


(23) Question: Will the Great Company realize and acknowledge that they constitute that class, while yet in the flesh? Or will they continue to the end to believe and claim that they are in the High Calling?


Answer: Our understanding is that while yet in the flesh the Great Company class will recognize themselves as such. This is clearly shown by their message given while they will yet be among men: "Let us be glad and rejoice and give honor to Him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His Wife hath made Herself ready" (Rev. 19: 7). The marriage is the First Resurrection. It will not be announced by the Great Company in Heaven; for it will be completed before they reach Heaven, and thus will be known there before their arrival. Hence they make the announcement



of it as a completed thing while here in the flesh, and thus show that they recognize themselves as not of the Bride. This is also implied in the account of the cleansing, consecration and service of the Levites in the Tabernacle as set forth in Num. 8: 5-22; for here the Levites are represented as recognizing themselves as set apart for Levitical service as the servants of Aaron and his son, typing how the Great Company will recognize their setting apart while in the flesh to be the servants of Jesus and the Church. The same thought is typed in Joseph's brethren recognizing him as separate and distinct from themselves, Joseph here typing Jesus and the Church. The cry, "The harvest is passed, the summer is ended, and we are not saved" (Jer. 8: 20), is another proof that the Great Company will, while in the flesh, recognize themselves as such. The following passages imply the same thing: Cant. 5: 6; Ps. 107: 13-15; Matt. 25: 10-12, 30. Therefore we understand that the Great Company while yet in the flesh will recognize themselves as constituting this Company.


(24) Question: Do you understand that the only sins which the sufferings of the Great Company will expiate on behalf of the world will be deliberate sins against the Lord's Law and people?


Answer: Yes.


(25) Question: Do not the bullock, the Lord's goat and Azazel's goat represent three different phases of our Lord Jesus' one sacrifice, alone?


Answer: We do not so understand matters. The 1908 to 1911 sifters, as antitypical Korah (1 Cor. 10: 10, 11; Num. 16: 1-50; P '19, p. 144, col. 2, par. 1), taught that they did; but the fact that antitypical Korah so taught should prompt the Faithful to conclude that such teaching is erroneous. To date they have failed to show any reason why the death of two of the beasts and the sending away alive of the third into the wilderness should type three aspects of Jesus'



one sacrifice. Without any Scriptural warrant they—rather, Satan—invented this theory in order to evade the plain Scriptural teachings that there are two antitypical sin-offerings, or to put it another way, one sin-offering in two parts, and that there is one antitypical expiation for willful sins. As repeatedly shown, Hebrews 7: 26, 27 teaches the World's High Priest and two sin-offerings—that of Jesus, offered first, and that for the sins of those who during the Gospel-Age have become members of His body, and then afterwards that of the Church, offered for the people's sins. Heb. 13: 11, 12 identifies Jesus' sacrifice with that of the bullock, which was the first beast burned without the camp, as Jesus' sacrifice preceded that of the Church; and then verses 13 and 14 identify the sacrifice of the Church, which follows that of Jesus, with that of the Lord's goat, which, after the bullock's burning without the camp, was likewise burned there, i.e., it was treated just like the bullock, the type of Jesus. In Heb. 9: 16, 17 (see Diaglott), the Apostle by the doctrinal statement of the fact assures us that the blood-sealed Covenants of God's Plan are sealed by plurality of sacrifices. This proposition he then proceeds to prove by a reference to the only two blood-sealed Covenants of God's Plan—the Law Covenant and the New Covenant. The proof that the Law Covenant as a blood-sealed Covenant was sealed by a plurality of sacrifices— bulls and goats—St. Paul gives in Heb. 9: 18, 19; and the proof that the New Covenant will be sealed by a plurality of sacrifices—"better sacrifices" than those of the Law Covenant—St. Paul gives in Heb. 9: 23. It is because the Lord's antitypical Goat is not yet completely sacrificed unto death that we know that the New Covenant is not yet sealed and in operation (Heb. 9: 16, 17). Thus the Apostle teaches that the bullock and the goat type Jesus and the Church. Furthermore, Azazel's (Satan's) goat is identified by St. Paul with the Great Company (1 Cor. 5: 5; 1 Tim. 1: 19, 20); for just as Azazel's goat was



sent away to him in the wilderness, so the Corinthian brother and Hymenaeus and Alexander, as representative members of the Great Company, were delivered over to Satan—Azazel. Thus we find the Scriptures to teach that the bullock, the Lord's goat and Azazel's goat do not type three aspects of Jesus' one sacrifice, but type respectively Jesus, the Church, and the Great Company, in their consecrated humanity, and that the sacrifice of the bullock and the goat as sin-offerings type the sacrifice of Jesus and the Church, His Body, as sin-offerings. There are many other Scriptures that teach the Church's participation with Jesus in the sin-offering. Those consecrated Spirit-begotten persons who (apart from such as through misrepresentations were led to believe that the Truth teachings were to the effect that the Ransom and the sin-offering are one and the same thing) deny that the Church is a part of the sin-offering count "the blood of the [sacrificial] Covenant, wherewith they were sanctified [not justified] an unholy thing [not as of the sin-offering, hence a thing not pertaining to the holy things of the Altar and the Mercy Seat]" and fall away into the Second Death (Heb. 10: 29). Such we understand to be the Lord's sentence upon antitypical Korah, from whom we exhort the Lord's people to withdraw both priestly and brotherly fellowship. (2 John 10, 11.) With such we are not to eat—partake of the teachings that they set forth (1 Cor. 5: 11).


(26) Question: When does the cleansing of the crown-losers begin?


Answer: It has been going on in individuals all through the Gospel Age, and that often in the pertinent spots shortly after the spotting of their robes set in its various forms of evil. E.g., the incestuous brother at Corinth (1 Cor. 5) was by his experience at Azazel's hands soon cleansed of that gross sin (2 Cor. 2: 4-11). From this example we conclude that all crown-losers who during the Gospel Age have been accounted worthy to attain life experienced their cleansing from



sin, selfishness and worldliness during this life. So, also, during the Epiphany there has been a cleansing going on in individuals from almost the outstart of their spotting of their garments. But there has been no class cleansing of the Great Company yet. This will set in, we believe, before very long, very shortly after the 60th post has been set up, which seems to be in the not distant future.


(27) Question: Wherein does the cleansing of the crown-losers consist?


Answer: Properly and clearly to answer this question we must distinguish between several things: (1) between the things in them that must be cleansed; and (2) between individual cleansings up to the time of their class cleansings and their class cleansings as such. There are two distinct classes of things from which crown-losers must be cleansed: (1) sin, selfishness and worldliness, and (2) error. Crown-losers as individuals up to the time that crown-losers as a class obtain their cleansing, have had to be purified from the first set of things, i.e., sin, selfishness and worldliness; for if they would not in this life have been cleansed from these in the sense of overcoming them, they would have to die the second death. But this class of crown-losers do not necessarily in this life have to cleanse themselves from the second set of things, i.e., errors; for if this had been the requirement, the vast bulk of the crown-losers would have died the second death, e.g., the various crown-losers who all through the Age died in Babylonian errors, the spy-members of both Harvests, and the bulk of the crown-losers in the Epiphany Levite groups, who have died without getting the Epiphany Truth. Almost all of the just-mentioned kinds of crown-losers died without getting the meat in due season, and would thus have gone into the second death, if as a part of their cleansing God had required them to get rid in this life of their errors and accept the Truth due in their times. Hence for the saving of their lives God has required of them merely



to cleanse themselves in this life from the spots on their garments consisting of sin, selfishness and worldliness. The time of the cleansing of such from error and of their getting the Truth as due will be after their resurrection as spirits (Rev. 7: 17). This view of the twofold cleansing of such crown-losers is necessary, or we would have to conclude that all crown-losers who did not in this life get the cleansing of both sets of evils above-mentioned died the second death, which would put the vast bulk of these into the second death. But the case will be different with the class cleansing of the crown-losers, which is to set in shortly after the 60th Epiphany post is erected. They will have to cleanse themselves from their errors and accept the Parousia and Epiphany Truth, as well as overcome their sins, selfishness and worldliness. That they will have to overcome their errors in this life is evident from the fact that, until their cleansing from both sets of evils shall have made at least a large beginning, they will not be able to minister to the Priests (Num. 8: 7, 21, first and second clauses, 22, 13-19). And as a part of their cleansing, i.e., that which must be made Godward, "before God," as distinct from their personally effecting their own part in the cleansing process pointed out in Num. 8: 7, 21 (first and second clauses), they will have to undergo the washing in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7: 14), which is typed in Num. 8: 8, 12, 21, last clause. If thus we keep in mind the distinctions between (1) the two sets of evils from which the Levites must be cleansed, and (2) the individual cleansings before the class cleansings begin, and the class cleansings as such, we will as above outlined have proper and clear answers to the several phases in the question just answered.


(1) What is the first elect class of the Epiphany? How will it be discussed? What is it called in Joel 2: 29? In Rev. 7: 9; 19: 6; 19: 1? To what were its individuals originally invited? How do the cited passages prove this? What happened to them because of unfaithfulness? What



does Ps. 107: 10, 11 teach of them? 1 Cor. 5; Jude 23; Rev. 7: 14? Heb. 2: 15; Jude 22? 2 Tim. 4: 10; Jas. 1: 8? 1 Cor. 3: 12, 15; Matt. 25: 3, 8? 1 Cor. 3: 3, 4; Matt. 7: 26; 1 Tim. 1: 19, 20? Is. 66: 5? Heb. 2: 14, 15? 1 Cor. 5: 5; 1 Tim. 1: 20; Matt. 7: 27; 1 Cor. 3: 15? 1 Cor. 3: 15; Heb. 2: 15; Jude 22, 23; Phil. 3: 14? Cant. 5: 6, 7; Matt. 25: 11, 12, 30? Rev. 7: 14? Cant. 5: 9—6: 1; Rev. 19: 6? Ps. 45: 14, 15; 1 Cor. 5: 5; Rev. 19: 9? Heb. 12: 23; Rev. 7:15; Ezek. 44: 10-14? When in the Gospel Age do they come into special prominence? When is the time of their and the Little Flock's development? During which two of its periods?

(2) In general, of how many classes does God's plan treat? What are some of the contrasting designations of these two classes? To what is an understanding of these necessary? What kind of a lesson may the distinction between them be called? How are they distinguished as to numbers? As to ways of travel? As to conditions? As to promises? As to final homes? As to resurrection? As to final nature?

(3) Why is salvation not limited to these two classes? What is the first of these other classes? In how many of this book's chapters will these be treated? In this matter what are we not to understand? How is this proven and taught in Eph. 4: 4? How many salvations have been offered during this Age to those who turn to God? What has God offered these? On what condition? How does Rev. 2: 10 prove this? What makes some lose the high calling salvation? What is their attitude toward God and righteousness? What do they later do? How do the cited Scriptures prove these three lines of thought? Of what do they fail? In their extremity what does God do for them? What does He propose to make them? By what does He do this? What is the pertinent record?

(4) Wherein lies the possibility of there being a Great Company? What four lines of thought prove the possibility of there being a Great Company? How in each line of thought do the cited passages prove it? What two conclusions flow from the fourth of these lines of thought? What would follow as to the Great Company, if all who have lost their crowns were to become Second Deathers? What proves another than the high calling salvation to be operating? What follows from the fact that there is



a Great Company? Of whom does the Great Company consist? For what are they not good enough? For what are they good enough? For what are they too good?

(5) How did the individuals start out who later became of this class? What two facts prove this? How do the cited passages prove these two facts? What was not the cause of their failing to gain the prize? Why not? Why was it? How do the cited passages prove these two reasons? What did they receive when complying with the terms of justification and consecration? How do the cited passages prove this? What did the Lord send them? How do the cited passages prove this? When have such brethren existed? How do the cited passages prove this?

(6) What has not been the character of their course toward the Lord, the Truth and the brethren? What have been the variations of their unfaithfulness? What have existed between these two extremes? What has been the trouble with some of these bound brethren? Whom did they not imitate? To what have others of them given themselves up? What characterizes all of them as a class? In what respects do they fail?

(7) For what does this condition unfit them? What nine reasons prove this? What different procedures mark God's dealings with the Little Flock and the Great Company? How does the stumbling-block of their iniquity affect them? As to worldliness? Selfishness? Sin? Error? How do life's experiences affect them? What do they lose? What does this mean? How do the cited passages prove this? What is the contrasted experience of the Faithful? How do the cited passages prove this?

(8) What kind of individuals has there been throughout the Gospel Age? What proves this? When are these first treated as a class? How does the tabernacle picture show this? At what time are there more individuals of this kind than at other times? Among other passages, where is this class described? What response, according to Cant. 5, do they first make to the Bridegroom's call? At long last on responding what do they meet? Why? How does Matt. 25: 8-12 show this? When enlightened and witnessing, what do they experience? Becoming zealous after enlightenment, to whom especially will they preach? With what result? How does Cant. 5: 8—6: 3 show this? Through what must they pass? What will



they accomplish therein? What message will they then proclaim? Despite their sorrows and sufferings, what will they do? Why? How does Rev. 19: 6-8 show this? What will their spirits experience? How do 1 Cor. 5: 5; 2 Cor. 5: 17 prove this? Of what in heaven will they partake? How do the cited passages prove this? What will they then be privileged to do? As what, from the temple picture? From the kingdom picture? How do the cited passages prove this? What will then be their experiences in contrast with those of the present? How does Rev. 7: 15-17 prove this? What will they have lost in their saved condition?

(9) What will be here presented? In how many groups? Of what does the first group of Scriptures consist? The second? What does each one of the first group of passages mean? The second?

(10) What, in the first place, should be done after a careful study of these passages? If one find himself to be a new creature, what, in the second place, should he seek to learn? What is required properly to answer these questions aright? Who will supply it? What may those desiring information on these and other Biblical subjects do to obtain it?

(11) What have the brethren in past years done as to Lev. 12? What has until lately been the answer received by them? Why was this so? Why has it lately become understood? What does a right understanding of Lev. 12 prove?

(12) What furnished the key to the understanding of Lev. 12? What does Rachel type? How may this be otherwise stated? What should be said of the definition of the Rachel type as given in P '23, 117, par. 5? What is the specific definition as to the antitype of the birth of Joseph and Benjamin? How can this definition be harmonized with the antitype of Jacob in these transactions? What does the mother in Lev. 12 type? How can we prove that the servants of the pertinent truths are a part of the antitypical mother?

(13) How are the Little Flock and the Great Company sometimes, in contrast, typed? In harmony with what Biblical usage is this? Cite an example of such a type. What do the male child and the female child of Lev. 12 type? What is a type almost parallel with this one?



What were the periods of purification for the mother of a son and the mother of a daughter? What is typed by these periods? What is typed by the purifying of the mother of a son? By her purification in the birth of a daughter?

(14) In what activities have the faithful and the measurably faithful servants of the Truth shared? How are they to be considered in the type as differentiated in respect to the double cleansing? What necessitates this distinction? What is typed in the first sense of the antitype in both cases by the full purification of the mother? What is typed by the progressiveness of the purification? Whose is the antitypical purifying work? Explain the Scriptures proving this. Explain how Prov. 4: 18 shows the gradualness of the cleansing of the Truth.

(15) What is yet unknown as to the work typed by the mother bringing the sacrifices 80 days after a daughter's birth? What is typed as to work by the sacrifice of the mother 40 days after a son's birth? What did that work attest? How so? What did their service therein not merit? What proves this? What was typed by the mother's burnt offering and sin offering? How is the antitypical mother's faith typed? What is typed by the priest's offering the typical sacrifices? What is typed by the fact that, not a bullock, but a pigeon or turtle dove was offered as the sin offering? What is typed in the varying value of the burnt offering? What set of antitypical sacrificers did Mary's burnt offering prove her to type? Give several examples of the other set.

(16) How long was the mother unclean in her separation after the birth of a son? After the birth of a daughter? What gives us the clue to the antitype? What is the antitype of the seven days' uncleanness? Of the fourteen days' uncleanness? When did these respective imputations take place? Why is the pertinent set of class servants excluded from the picture of the other? What is probably suggested by the numbers 33 and 66 for the days following the end of the uncleanness in the pertinent cases? Why?

(17) What is suggested by the above study? What is the first of these? Please give the first proof for this. The second. The third. The fourth. The fifth. The sixth. The seventh.



(18) What is the second lesson suggested by the chronology shown in Lev. 12 connected with the antitypical sacrifice of the mother after her purification? Describe the period of about two years and one month following October, 1914, as to its Little Flock work. In what kind of time is this period given? How so? What does this period suggest as to an antitype of the mother's sacrifice after the 80 days? What parallel things are thereby suggested? What interlappings are thus indicated?

(19) What is the third lesson suggested by the purification completed in 40 days? What does this imply as to the Little Flock Truth as left by our Pastor? What does this imply as to the Levitical teachers' repudiating his teachings and substituting contradictory ones in their stead? What other Scripture suggests the full purification of the Little Flock by October, 1914? Explain how it does so. What does this prove as to that evil servant's pertinent claims? What is the character of Levitical teachings on Little Flock matters contrary to such teachings as left with the Church by our Pastor? Why so? Who is the author and who are his agents as to such contrary teachings? What should we say to their teachers? Why should we so speak?

(20) What fourth lesson is implied in Lev. 12: 2, 4, 5 and Mal. 3: 3, first clause? In what fact is this lesson implied? What did not happen with the Truth as our Pastor gave it during the 40 years? How was the pertinent work done? Give some examples of his purging the Truth from errors during these years and his setting it forth without errors. What should his mistakes not arouse in us? Why not? What teachings are we not to expect him to have purged from all errors? Why not? What illustrative examples apply in this connection?

(21) How does this apply to the teachings as to the Great Company in so far as they are Epiphaniac? What two features do we see herein operating? How have they been unfolding? How may they be expected to continue to unfold? How long will it last? For what does this principle account? What should it not arouse in us? To what should it arouse us Christward and toward the Parousia and Epiphany messengers? From what should it deter us as to these latter? How should it move us to regard the Lord in His relations to His servants and them in theirs to us?