Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
do we not with them share in the merit of the antitypical Bullock's blood shed on the antitypical Brazen Altar? Most assuredly! Therefore, while withdrawing priestly fellowship from them, we have retained brotherly fellowship with them under the above mentioned limitation, and thereby not only did no forbidden judging, but did a Divinely ordained and pleasing act; for God does not desire the Priests to fellowship the Levites as Priests, but simply as Levites.
(74) In the increasing light of the Epiphany period, we have been privileged to see that, since the Levites represent for the Epiphany the Great Company, their three division— the Gershonites, the Merarites and the Kohathites (Num. 3: 17, etc.)—represent the three divisions of the Great Comp-any. We understand that those new creatures who ardently support "Rutherfordism" and Standfastism are antitypical Merarite Levites. Since the P.B.I. and its ardent supporters in many particulars acted like J.F.R. and his ardent supporters, even to doing many similar things exactly a year to the day afterward; and since it and its ardent supporters advocate for the Charter of their Society certain changes from the W.T.B.&T. Society's Charter (in spite of the writer's warnings, oral and in print, to the contrary, they still persist in supporting changes from that Charter which they once considered a part of the Divine arrangements for the Lord's work), it and its partisan supporters are antitypical Gershonite Levites.
(75) All must admit that some day, by Divine direction, the Priests will withdraw priestly, not brotherly, fellowship from those who, ceasing to remain Priests in the Holy, become, as the Great Company, Levites in the Court. The only question now remaining to be answered is: Has the time come for such a withdrawal of priestly fellowship? All of us have by our conduct answered this question affirmatively, so far as the upholders of "Rutherfordism in the Society"
and Standfastism are concerned; and all of us have been forced to do this with the P.B.I. revolutionists who have mistaught doctrinally and have revolutionized against the Lord's arrangements. Accordingly, the time for such a course on our part has come—now in the Epiphany, when their manifestation as Levites has come (2 Tim. 4: 1; Rev. 7: 9).
(76) Levites strenuously condemn an activity of the Epiphany priesthood as a forbidden judging when we announce God's judgment as to new creatures that repudiate various features of the Truth and its arrangements, and teach errors and set up wrong arrangements in their stead that they are of the Great Company. They dogmatically announce that no one has authorized any such judging. God in Lev. 13 and 14 about 20 times commanded the typical priest to pronounce the spotted leper unclean; and the spotted leper types the unclean Great Company, while Aaron and his sons, so announcing, represent Jesus and His body members announcing Great Company errorists as such. They misapply the forbidden judging of Matt. 7: 1, 2 to such announcing, whereas it is a sanctioned judging of John 7: 24 and the commanded judging of 1 Cor. 4: 5. In 1 Cor. 5: 5; 1 Tim. 1: 18, 19 God authorized certain of His priests to make such announcements. Especially in 1 Cor. 4: 5 the Word, among other things, commands such judging. Frequently opponents of such announcements quote 1 Cor. 4: 5 as though it taught that we are not to judge until we are on the throne. This passage does not forbid judging before we are on the Throne, but before our Lord's Second Advent. In misusing this passage to teach that it forbids our judging until we are on the Throne Levites charge that we are usurping God's exclusive function of judging and that we are judging before the time. We never have, in our pertinent work, attempted to exercise God's exclusive prerogative. It is His prerogative to retain one in, or dismiss one
from, the high calling; we have never attempted the latter. We have always waited until He had by the revolutionism of crown-losers (Ps. 107: 10, 11) manifested His judgment of them to Leviteship; then, as His providences indicated it to be necessary, we have simply announced His manifested judgment, and never have made nor could make such a sentence. No one can point out a single case in which we attempted to sentence an individual to the Great Company, though after God manifested them as such, we have so announced them. With reference to such we have always waited until God manifested His sentence through the revolutionism of the pertinent individual before we announced his Leviteship.
(77) Neither have we announced the Lord's judgment of them before the time. 1 Cor. 4: 5 as fully commands such announcement after the time, as it forbids its announcement before the time. The following will, we trust, clarify the subject: There are three periods in our Lord's Second Advent, in each of which He brings to light the hidden things of darkness and makes manifest the counsels of hearts; but in each He does so with regard to different classes: (1) In the Parousia He did such a work with respect to the tares and the Second-Deathers. Before He manifested such it was wrong to announce this one as a tare, or that one as a Second-Deather; but after He had manifested them as such, it was no longer a prohibited activity to announce the pertinent ones as such, as need called for it, even as our Pastor spoke of Messrs. Barbour, Paton, Williamson, McPhail and Henninges, as Second-Deathers, and often mentioned by name prominent worldly nominal-church members as tares, as his article in Z '11, 120-122, quoted in P. '34, 27, entitled, Judging Nothing Before the Time, shows. During the Parousia it was wrong to announce anyone as of the Great Company, because the Lord at that stage of His Second Advent had not yet proceeded to manifest
the Great Company as such. All of the passages from our Pastor that Levites cite in disapproval of such an announcement properly apply to the Parousia and previously. For use of them at that time we say to them a hearty, Amen! But to apply them to the Epiphany is a violation of the right division of the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2: 15). While quoting from our Pastor so many passages that forbid in the Parousia the announcing of anyone as being of the Great Company, why do not Levites quote Z '16, 264, par. 1 and Convention Report 1916, 198, col. 2, par. 2, Question 10, in which passages our Pastor said that after the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha and before the former would leave the world these classes would be separate and distinct; and that after their separation it would be in order to point out manifested members of antitypical Elisha as such? Many of them know of these quotations. Why do they not refer to them instead of applying Parousia things to the Epiphany?
(78) The separation of the Great Company and the Little Flock occurs in the second stage of our Lord's Second Advent—the Epiphany (2 Tim. 4: 1), which is the same as the Time of Trouble, when the Great Company is developed (Rev. 7: 14). Accordingly, our Lord Jesus has since 1914 begun to deal with the Great Company and is (2 Tim. 4: 1) now judging them, bringing to light their hidden things of darkness and manifesting their hearts' counsels. These, by their revolutionism (Ps. 107: 10, 11), He is now manifesting to us as crown-losers. Hence, when to protect the Flock it becomes necessary to announce them as Levites, it is no more a forbidden work to make such announcement. Why not? Because it is after the time; for we have waited until the Lord manifested their hidden things of darkness and their hearts' counsels. Not only are we not now forbidden, but are commanded by 1 Cor. 4: 5 to announce them as such when need so requires. Thus it is proper now, in the Epiphany
to announce the Lord's manifested judgment (2 Tim. 4: 1) as to Great Company members. And this is our Pastor's thought too; for he taught that the Epiphany began in 1914. He further taught that the Great Company would be developed in the Time of Trouble, i.e., the Epiphany. Moreover, in the Epiphany, in 1916, as the two above references prove, he taught, that it would after the separation be proper to point out Great Company brethren as such, this to be done by the Little Flock before its leaving the world, which (on the basis of Col. 3: 4) he taught would be during the Epiphany. Hence he did not condemn, but approved Epiphany announcements of Great Company members. But in the Epiphany it would be wrong, as being before the time, to announce some as sheep and others as goats, which judging is Millennial.
(79) In the Millennium, Basileia, the third stage of our Lord's Second Advent, the Lord will bring to light individually the world's hidden things of darkness and manifest their hearts' counsels, and thereby will manifest the sheep and the goats as separate and distinct (Matt. 25: 31-33). Before He does this it will be wrong to point out any as goats; but after He does it, it will no longer be wrong so to do. To sum up: Before the Parousia it was wrong to point out any as tares or as Second-Deathers; but after the Lord's Parousia manifestations of them as such it was no longer wrong so to do; before the Epiphany it was wrong to point out any as Great Company members; but after their Epiphany manifestations by the Lord it is no longer wrong so to do; before the Basileia it is wrong to point out any as of the goat class; but after the Basileia manifestations by the Lord it will be no longer wrong. Hence 1 Cor. 4: 5 no longer forbids, but commands, as necessity demands, pointing out Great Company brethren as such. This, then, overthrows the pertinent Levite contention on "judging."
(80) Our readers will recall that in the letter that
he wrote the night before he was taken to Atlanta, and that has been published in "The Tower," "St. Paul Enterprise" and the "Labor Tribune," the latter being distributed widely as volunteer matter, J.F.R. intimates that the seven leaders of those who disapproved of his efforts to control the Society as "that Servant" did, were present at the trial, and aided the prosecution against the eight accused brothers. This letter, backed by corresponding teaching, makes many of the supporters of the Society believe these seven brothers to be of the antitypical Judas. Recently we received a letter in which the following occurs: "Sunday evening Brother G.H. Fisher addressed our class, and among other things openly accused the [seven] brethren who had been active in the Society of betraying the eight convicted brethren … and of scheming later to keep them in prison."
(81) These charges move us to make the following statement: The news of their arrest greatly grieved us. Before the arrest we had never spoken or written to any one directly or indirectly connected with the prosecution of the accused brothers. Afterward in and out of meetings we counseled the brethren to take the side of, and pray for the accused; because the issue was a battle between Israelites and Egyptians; and in such an event all of us should take the side of the former, however much evil they may have done us. All agreed with this view. Before the trial the prosecutor subpoenaed us, among others, to gain information from ourself against the brothers. In every way we could we defended them, giving no information that could be used against them, telling everything that we reasonably could in their favor, and refuting everything that he brought up against them, except four irrefutable lines of acts to which we will refer later, but for which we made excuse pleading their inexperience. So strongly did we defend them that the prosecutor, knowing that we would be a witness unfavorable
to him, did not subpoena us to be present at the trial; while he did subpoena the ousted Directors, several of the Society supporters and others. Through Pilgrim Brother Herr we sent J.F.R. word revealing to him the prosecution's lines of attack, and did this expressly to help him forearm himself. Despite his knowing of our efforts to help him, he accused us of betraying him to the prosecution. We designedly remained away from the trial, so as to secure ourself from being placed on the stand. Our stand, so favorable to them, was reported by Brother Herr and others to many of the Society brethren, some of whom then wrote to us expressing their appreciation. Between the arrest and trial, and before we were subpoenaed to appear before the prosecutor, we met Brothers Cole and Van Amburgh on a Brooklyn street, and extended our hand to, and were about to express our sympathy with the latter, but he disdainfully refused our hand, and turned his face away. However, we did not allow such and worse treatment to interfere with our love and well doing toward the accused brothers.
(82) It was not, humanly speaking, in any sense the disagreement in the Society that brought these brothers into trouble, as some mistakenly believe. We are reliably informed that, among others, the following acts, proven against them, effected their conviction, the judge doubtless arousing additional feeling against them: (1) Their denunciation of patriotism in Vol. VII [had C.J. Woodworth followed "that Servant's" known interpretation of the frog coming out of the mouth of the dragon, given, e.g., in the Armageddon Tract, as the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, and then properly applied it against the Kaiser, and omitted his denunciation of patriotism, which, though often abused, is a good quality, instead of Vol. VII bringing them into, it would have helped them out of their trouble. It would not surprise us, if the Lord, in disapproval, allowed this trouble to come upon them as
a direct consequence of their deviating from "that Servant's" known interpretation of the frog coming out of the dragon's mouth, etc.]; (2) their writing letters into the camps, which letters fell into the censor's hands, advising the drafted brothers not to put on the uniform, nor to drill, nor to wash dishes, pare potatoes, clean the barracks, etc.; (3) their furnishing affidavits and other instruction to Truth people and others whereby to claim exemption on the ground of conscientious objection; (4) writing the brethren unpatriotic letters, which were intercepted by the censors, and delivering unpatriotic speeches. These were the main things that effected their sentences, we are reliably informed. We surely rejoice in their release; but their unbrotherly course in accusing us so falsely is regrettable. Of course, these accusations fit into their scheme that they are of the Little Flock, and that the seven brothers are of the antitypical Judas; but they do not fit into the facts of the case, nor into the Bible teaching with reference to the convicted brothers as undergoing Great Company experiences. To ourself it seems that their imprisonment was due to two things, one commendable, the other not: (1) the second smiting of Jordan and (2) wrong-doing against the Lord's Saints and arrangements. In other words, as the Great Company suffers in part for righteousness and in part for unrighteousness, so these, as of such, do.
(83) So far we have answered for ourself. As for the other six brothers we can say this much: We do not believe that they aided the prosecution, though one of them (Brother Ritchie) under subpoena was forced to go on the witness stand; but while there, we are reliably informed, did nothing else than identify A.H. MacMillan's handwriting, which the latter himself also recognized and acknowledged. We do know of all of them that they endorsed our view as expressed above—i.e., standing by Israelites as against Egyptians; and we are reliably informed that Brother Hirsh not only
told Pilgrim Brother Cole, who was present at the trial, that he both deeply sympathized with the accused brothers, and had taken advantage of the opportunity that his own arrest had afforded to defend the accused brothers, but also expressed himself similarly to Brother DeCecca, one of the accused brothers, the day the trial began, the unapproachableness of the other accused brothers preventing a similar course on his part toward them. Furthermore, we did nothing by motive, word or act that in any way was calculated to hinder their release, nor do we know or believe it of the others. How inconsistent such charges coming from the Society leaders are appears from the following: At the trial they sought through their counsel, after failing to get their own indictment quashed, to prevent the indictment against Brother Hirsh from being quashed, who (charged as a co-defendant, because his name appeared in "The Tower" as an Editor, contemporaneously with some of their alleged offenses against the espionage act) was recognized by the prosecution as not guilty; because it was found that he ceased to act as an Editor before the alleged offending "Tower" article appeared. The prosecution therefore moved that the indictment against him be set aside, a thing which was stoutly resisted by the counsel of the convicted brothers. By seeking to prevent the quashing of his indictment the accused brothers sought through their counsel to have Brother Hirsh tried with them, and, if convicted, sent to prison with them, while he did everything he could to shield them and to discourage the prosecution in the things with which they charged the brothers. This shows who really have the spirit of delivering up their brethren, as they have also shown in many other ways. [The foregoing four paragraphs were written in May, 1920.]
(84) Satan is the most cunning being in the Universe. Hence, among others, he seeks to enlist on his side those who like him are more or less cunning. In
working against the Truth servants he always studies how best to overthrow their influence. He therefore uses against them their religious, moral, mental, or social weaknesses, if he can find any of these; or failing to find them, he invents fictitious weaknesses along these lines. If, therefore, he can represent a servant of the Truth as an errorist or a madman, or a sinner, or an offender against society, he will do so, whether the charges are true or false. This accounts for his charging through his dupes our Lord as being illegitimately born, as a madman, as a demoniac, as a blasphemer and as a rebel. It is for this reason that he caused St. Paul to be accused of sedition, insanity and heresy. In the same way he caused "that Servant" to be falsely slandered as a heretic, as an immoral man, as a swindler, and as an unkind and unfaithful husband. Whenever religious errorists and frauds cannot meet the exposures of their false doctrines or evil practices by argument, Satan fills their mouths with false and malicious slanders against their exposers. For this reason Satan, knowing that both in Britain and in America we were exposing and thwarting the evils that he desired to introduce among the Lord's people, misrepresented our British and American work through those who have since been manifested as bad Levite leaders. Then to destroy our influence he caused his main mouthpiece among Truth people to publish abroad these misrepresentations, with the false addition that we were insane. When our reply proved the falsity of both sets of charges, the same chief mouthpiece of Satan among Truth people, and others of his kind, began to misrepresent us as having devoured our companion's patrimony, as having deserted her, and as not having provided for our own. When these false charges no longer deceived others, and we began to show Scripturally the evil character, teachings and practices of "that evil servant," and "foolish, unprofitable shepherd," Satan gave his partisans another list
of falsehoods to spread—falsehoods which are calculated to give the impression that we are a blasphemer, a demoniac and a madman, this propaganda being united with oral warnings not to read our writings. Among other things that such scandal-mongers, whose literary mouthpiece Clayton Woodworth became in a communication to the New Era Enterprise of St. Paul, Minn., are peddling about are the stories that we permit no one to testify in prayer meetings whom we do not desire to have testify, and therefore, when leading a prayer meeting, call by name on those only whom we desire to testify, and thus suppress others; that in a prayer meeting we made the claim that we had power to call down fire from heaven and destroy our enemies, as Elijah did with the two companies of fifty; that we stated in a meeting that we were the "World's Great High Priest"; and that we commanded a rebellious brother to drop dead, which to our confusion the brother failed to do! Those who know us and our writings know, of course, that these stories are falsehoods. But Satan's and his agents' purpose in circulating them is apparent; for such claims as these misrepresentations put into our mouth could emanate from an insane person only; and Satan and they doubtless seek to give the impression that we are insane, in order to hinder the spread of the Epiphany message. Of course, he finds the bad Levite leaders just the persons to be his ready mouthpieces in this work. So far as we are concerned we rejoice in these experiences. They are so much like those which the Lord, the Apostles, "that Servant" and all other faithful servants of the Lord have undergone because of their faithfulness (Matt. 5: 10-12), that we feel ourself to be very highly favored indeed to have fellowship with them in such misrepresentations. Let us, dear brethren, rejoice that thus we may together drink this cup with the Lord and with others of His Priesthood. It is necessary that such experiences come, that
the approved may be manifested, that the partially approved may be manifested, and that the totally disapproved may be manifested. And such will indeed be the result of such experiences; for we are living in the Epiphany! "And who shall stand when He maketh manifest?"
(85) In the foregoing we have discussed Azazel's Goat, in so far as the subject concerns its Truth people members. But there are members of it—by far the larger section of it—in the nominal church. Some of these are in the Protestant denominations; and some of them are in the Catholic denominations. The one and same confession of antitypical Israel's sins and loosing of the Goat served for the Truth and nominal church sections of Azazel's Goat. But after those parts of the work were completed, shortly after our Pastor's death, the next step, leading to the Gate, was taken with its Truth section for two years and eight months before it was taken with its Protestant and Catholic sections. On Nov. 8, 9, 1916, in the reading of the correspondence on the London Tabernacle trouble sent to the Brooklyn office by the two opposing groups of its elders, we took an inner stand against the Libni Gershonite (British) section of that Goat, and on Nov. 25, 1916, at the London Bethel, we took an external stand against it, while at the public meeting in Philadelphia, Pa., held July 18, 1920, the first open resistance was made to the Protestant and Catholic sections of that Goat, and in the Double Herald of September 15, 1922, which, among other articles, contained one that is antitypical John's Rebuke, it, for the first time, worked on the Catholic section alone. The two king errors of the entire nominal church, the consciousness of the dead and eternal torment, were the main subjects on which especially the common revolutionisms of the Protestant and Catholic sections of Azazel's Goat were resisted—leading them to the Gate. This activity, as the antitype of Gideon's second
battle with the Midianites, the Amalekites and the Children of the East, we call, antitypical Gideon's Second Battle. This battle was waged by public lectures on the part of pilgrims, auxiliary pilgrims, evangelists, extension lecturers and local elders, by colporteur and sharpshooter work, by volunteer work and, of course, by conversations.
(86) The literature used by the colporteurs and sharpshooters consisted of a book called, Life-Death-Hereafter, and of its various chapters published separately as five Herald Extras (tracts), Herald No. 19 and the Hell and Spiritism booklets, sold as a combination or separately from house to house. The volunteers used the five Extras, distributing them Sundays to the worshipers at Protestant churches, as these left after the morning service. In some cases they were distributed from house to house, sent through the mails to the bereaved, given out in trains, buses, trolleys, etc., and handed to interestable persons as these were met. In the chapter on Gideon, Type and Antitype, in Vol. V, this matter is explained. True to the type, almost no effort was made to defend the two involved errors by the nominal-church exponents under the attacks of antitypical Gideon's Second Battle; for these fled from the attacks in mortal fear. However, in not a few cases they saw to it that volunteers were jailed and fined; and they succeeded in securing the taking away of second-class P. O. rates from our Extras. In this work tens of thousands of the above-mentioned book and booklets and millions of the above-mentioned Extras were distributed. There is scarcely a town in America, Canada, Jamaica, Canal Zone, Trinidad, British Guiana, certain countries of Europe, India and Burma, where we have ecclesias, where pertinent lectures were not delivered; in all of them (and in many others) the Extras were circulated; and in those where English, Polish and French are the languages used the colporteurs and sharpshooters distributed our
pertinent book and booklets. However, as shown by the fear of Gideon's firstborn to kill Zeba and Zalmunna, the Epiphany-enlightened brethren failed to wage this warfare sufficiently zealously and courageously to destroy faith entirely in the doctrines of the consciousness of the dead and eternal torment, which will be accomplished later by our Lord, perhaps with the co-operation of all Truth people.
(87) While toward the Protestant section of Azazel's Goat there has been no exclusive work done without involving its Catholic section, i.e., nothing has been done in resisting its revolutionism, which is the antitype of leading the Goat to the Gate, without involving its Catholic section, there has been exclusive work done toward the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat. This is due to the latter's greater and more embracing revolutionism. Both sections of Azazel's Goat in the nominal church have been guilty of the revolutionism of teaching the consciousness of the dead and eternal torment; at least in America the Protestant denominations have not been guilty of a practical union of state and church, though the Lutheran Church in Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltic provinces, the Episcopal Church in England and the Presbyterian, or Reformed, Church in Scotland, Germany, Holland and Switzerland, have been guilty thereof, while the Romanist Church has been guilty of an actual union of church and state in many European and Latin American states and of a practical union with the state in America. Hence an exclusive attack has been made on her in America for her pertinent almost worldwide wrongs, especially in America. This attack has been by lectures, booklets, Herald Extras and the regular editions of the Herald since September 15, 1922, and that by the same kind of agents as were used in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle.
(88) The literature used by colporteurs and sharpshooters has been the Double Herald—Herald No.
14—which, if published in the same form as the Hell and Spiritism booklets, and in the same sized type as that of this book, would make a booklet of about 140 pages. Drawn up in the form of questions beginning with the words, "Do you know," in three articles it gives a general view of the papal Antichrist, and in another it gives a general view, under 14 heads, of the American hierarchy's political working understanding with the state. There have been 100,000 of these circulated. The pertinent literature used by the volunteers has been Elijah's Letter, which we reproduced in Vol. III, Chapter IV, and John's Rebuke, which we reproduced in its Chapter VII. Just short of 2,000,000 of each of these have been circulated, and that mainly from house to house in the form of Herald Extras. Some of these have been distributed at Protestant church doors and, of course, many from hand to hand and by "wholesale" use of Rural Route delivery. Then, ever since Nov. 15, 1922, The Herald of The Epiphany has been published, each issue of which has carried under the caption, Signs Of The Times, drawn up as "Do you know" questions, an article exposing the worldwide political meddling of, and its consequences to, the papacy, particularly in America. Thus there has been a years-long and widespread protest against Rome's symbolic harlotry. And Rome's reaction to this protest has been characteristically Romanist: among others, denunciations, arrests, jailings, magisterial and juridical trials, finings, mob violence, threats even of death to the author and the bombing of the Bible House, police intimidation, vile, threatening and anonymous letters and telephone calls, spyings, securing the removal of second-class privileges from Elijah's Letter and John's Rebuke and threats of the same against the regular issues of The Herald Of The Epiphany, etc. Despite these the protests go right on. The civil power's part in the above forms of restraints we recognize as the antitype of John's imprisonment.
(89) Immediately after starting the above-described resistance to the nominal-church section of Azazel's Goat, priestly fellowship was withdrawn from it—putting it through the Gate, since we then knew that all new creatures who remained in Babylon after Passover, 1916, were crown-losers; and thereupon it was delivered to the fit man in the sense of unfavorable circumstances. We can see that the Romanist Church is in the hands of the fit man in both senses of the term: in the worldwide criticism and disadvantageous position that she must endure, in making her desolate, naked and eating of her flesh, in Mexico, Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, Jugo-Slavia, etc., and shortly in the rest of the European ten-languaged nations' forecast doing of these things (Rev. 17: 16). We can see this in the Protestant section of Azazel's Goat undergoing similar treatment in Germany, in the movement to disestablish the Episcopal Church in England, in the drying up of the support of antitypical Euphrates (Rev. 16: 12), etc. That both sections are in Azazel's hands we can recognize in the overspreading of abominations in doctrine and practice everywhere in Babylon, in the losing fight of the Fundamentalists with the Modernists, in their continued efforts to gain influence, support, etc., from the world, particularly from the state, which in due course brings them into increased trouble. These are only primary ills that the Protestant and Catholic sections of Azazel's Goat are receiving from the fit man and Azazel. The climax of their trouble at the hands of both will come in Armageddon, when their denominations, together with the beast and its image, will be destroyed (Rev. 18: 19), combined with much mental and physical sufferings for them (Rev. 14: 9-11). The shock and other ills that these experiences will bring to them will finally destroy their fleshly minds, primarily paving the way to their rescue from Babylonian doctrines and arrangements, and preparing them to receive the Truth, which,
secondarily, will thereafter cleanse them (Num. 8: 7, 21), and furnish them opportunities to serve God in spirit and Truth, and finally fit them to stand before the Throne and serve God in His Temple (Rev. 7: 9, 15).
(1) What is purposed in this article?
(2) What wrong view, derived from the expression, Scapegoat, is associated with this Goat? What Hebrew names are given the two Atonement Day goats? What do these names imply as to the uses of these goats? Cite and explain some Scriptures proving these uses.
(3) Explain the meaning and appropriateness of the name Azazel as associated with the antitypical second Goat. How has its course resulted for it?
(4) Explain the following Great Company acts and attainments with their pertinent Scriptures: (1) revolutionizing and supporting revolutionists, (2) spotting their garments, (3) failing to sacrifice thoroughly, (4) fellowshipping with the worldly, (5) accepting and teaching errors, (6) developing Babylonish systems, (7) usurping the Faithful's office, (8) persecuting the Faithful, (9) serving Satan, (10) having their flesh and works destroyed, (11) delivering their lives only, (12) meeting great disappointments, (13) cleansing themselves, (14) succeeding in their work, (15) gaining a subordinate spiritual nature and (16) becoming Levites and Noblemen.
(5) In what five books and five acts is the manifestation of the sins of God's nominal people especially described and typed?
(6) Whose High Priest confesses the sins over Azazel's Goat? What two facts prove this? Read corroborations of this from T. 49, par. 2; 51, par. 1; Z '10, 136, col. 2, par. 2; P '19, 89, col. 2, par. 4.
(7) What was "that Servant's" mental attitude on the time relation between the sprinkling of the blood of the antitypical Lord's Goat and the dealing with Azazel's Goat? Read two quotations in proof of this.
(8) What do the fulfilled facts on the subject prove? Why was "that Servant" uncertain on this subject? What three lines of his thought prove the truth on the subject? Read his expressions on these lines of thought.
(9) Why was he not permitted to see clearly on this point? What two parallel cases were veiled to conceal the chronology of the antitype? Why were they veiled? How do they prove the rule that types and prophecies connected with a trial cannot be clearly understood until the trial is met?
(10) What event occurred before the World's High Priest began to confess the sins over Azazel's Goat? Why should we expect this event to occur first? What six facts in this paragraph corroborate this thought?
(11) Additionally, what other fact corroborates this thought? What is typed in Lev. 16: 16, 18, 19 by making atonement for the Holy, the Tabernacle and the Altar?
(12) Explain the antitype of the three things done to the altar? How does this passage prove that the confession of the sins over Azazel's Goat began in the Fall of 1914?
(13) When did our Pastor say certainty would be had on this question of related chronology? How may we now answer the question? What is the last work of the World's High Priest while yet in the flesh? And what does this imply as to His last member?
(14) What three types in Lev. 16 show a different time order from that of their antitypes?
(15) What conclusion respecting all Great Company members may we draw from the fact that by the Fall of 1914 all the members of Christ were in existence? Why is this conclusion valid? What work could then be undertaken?
(16) What conditions existed making the Fall of 1914 the appropriate time to begin to confess the sins over Azazel's Goat?
(17) What is meant typically and antitypically by the expression, Aaron "shall bring the live goat"?
(18) In what seven ways did the World's High Priest bring Azazel's Goat near before the Lord?
(19) What was typed by Aaron's laying his hands on the head of the live goat? What parallel acts prove this? How may we answer the objection that the goat typed the Great Company's humanity? What teaching is corroborated by this type? What class did not exist as such when the World's High Priest laid His hands on the head of
Azazel's Goat? What had they lost by that time? How do these considerations refute the claims that Azazel's goat represents our Lord's humanity?
(20) How did the World's High Priest antitypically lay His hands upon the head of the live Goat?
(21) What kinds of sins were not, and what kind of sins were confessed over Azazel's Goat? How is this proven in Lev. 16: 21? How does Ps. 107: 17 corroborate this? What is the purpose of the atoning work of Azazel's Goat?
(22) In what condition was Israel in the Camp? and what does this type? What peculiar doctrines have the four organized groups of Christendom claimed? Define and explain the right claimed by each of these four groups.
(23) What are the inherent character and practical results of these four doctrines? What are the leading wrongs flowing from the doctrine of the Divine right of kings? What must we conclude with reference to each of these wrongs?
(24) What are the leading wrongs flowing from the doctrine of the Divine right of the aristocracy? What must we conclude with reference to each of these wrongs?
(25) What are the leading wrongs flowing from the doctrine of the Divine right of the clergy? What must we conclude as to each of these wrongs?
(26) What are the leading wrongs flowing from the doctrine of the Divine right of labor? What must we conclude with reference to each of them? Which of these four classes is the least guilty?
(27) What did the World's High Priest from 1914 to 1916 do with these wrongs? By what means was this done? How did His work of that time on this line compare with it at other times? Why was this so? What do the fulfilled facts of that time prove?
(28) What effect did this confession have on the prospective Great Company? What re-enforced this effect? What was the final impression made upon the prospective Great Company by our Pastor's later teaching on the smiting of Jordan? As a result, how did they act? How can we prove that theirs was the second smiting of Jordan?
(29) What is meant, type and antitype, by putting the
sins upon the head of Azazel's Goat? Cite and explain corroborative passages. How was this done in the antitype?
(30) How many of the Great Company are represented by Azazel's Goat? In what two religious spheres do we find these? Point out from the standpoint of the time of their coming into the Truth the antitypes of Elisha, Miriam, Lot, Abihu, Jambres, the Virgin of Cant. 5, Rahab, Eli and the Foolish Virgins. Why is it necessary to understand these time distinctions?
(31) What is the time difference in dealing with these two sections of Azazel's Goat: (1) from the standpoint of confessing over it the sins of the people and (2) from the standpoint of all the subsequent steps? With what section only until July 18, 1920, have these subsequent steps been taken? When and with what did the work toward the other section begin? Who would seek to fulfill the type? Who only would fulfill it?
(32) Why should we avoid speculating on these subsequent steps in the case of Azazel's Goat in the nominal church? To which section of Azazel's Goat will we in the rest of this article limit our study? Why? From what six standpoints will we view it?
(33) What thought is neither stated nor implied in the A. V. respecting the live goat? In what is that thought implied? Give some definitions of the word translated "present," "presented." (Lev. 16:7, 10.) What typical and antitypical facts prove these definitions? To whom does and to whom does not the antitype apply? Why?
(34) How did the typical and antitypical Goat act while tied at the door of the Tabernacle? How and by whom was this Goat class hindered from obtaining its liberty?
(35) When was the loosening of the Goat class due to begin and end? By what acts was it loosed? What prevented its loosing previously? What groups showed restiveness before being loosed, in America and in Britain? What antitypical jerkings in Britain and America accompanied the loosing of the Goat? What antityped the first jerkings of the Goat just before the High Priest began to lead it to the Gate?
(36) Why do we assume that the live goat was tied by two knots? What were the antitypical rope and knots?