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


there is no authority for the Church to preach the doctrine of the Youthful Worthies. And to prove this claim Is. 60: 1-3 is quoted. Some bracketed comments that the article makes on these verses contradict our Lord's use of them, e.g., the expression, "to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound," is explained to mean to preach deliverance to the Great Company now captive and bound in Babylon! This gloss is given to prove that the Church is commissioned to preach to the Great Company! Our dear Pastor explained the captives to mean the slaves of sin, and the prisoners to mean those in the cells of the tomb. This we believe to be correct. But higher Authority than our dear Pastor, even our beloved Lord, has clarified this passage (Luke 4: 16-21) up to and including the first clause of the second verse, i.e., "to preach the acceptable year of the Lord," where he stopped, because the rest of the message was not "fulfilled," i.e., was not then due, and would not be due to be preached until the end of the Gospel Age. He tells us that the day He was speaking all that He quoted was due to be preached as seasonal meat; and since the Great Company class comes into existence at the end of the Age, that part of the quotation that the Tower applies to them evidently does not so apply. It was then due to preach deliverance from sin and death; but not deliverance of a non-existent class from a non-existent Babylon! On the contrary, the expression, "to preach good tidings [the gospel, Gal. 3: 6-9] to the meek," is applicable from Jesus' time until Restitution, as in Jesus' day it was due to be preached to the then living Ancient Worthies; therefore it includes, among others, the persons who will become Youthful Worthies. The expression, "to comfort all that mourn," we believe will include, among others, the individuals who are of the Great Company, when they come to mourn. And the other expression, "to preach good tidings to the meek,"



will apply to them individually when they become meek. So this passage is broad enough in its terms to warrant preaching to the individuals of both classes. But there is no specific reference to either class as such in these verses. Hence they do not prove the contention of the editors. So, too, the Great Commission, Matt. 28: 18-20, to which however they do not refer, is stated in such broad language—"makes disciples," a thing that can be done with unbegotten consecrators, as is evident from what was done for 3½ years before Pentecost—that it includes Youthful Worthies and Great Company members, as individuals, but not as classes; for the primary application of the passage is to making disciples among Gentiles for the Little Flock. Since the Oath-bound Covenant (Rom. 4: 16; Gal. 3: 6-9) is the heart of the gospel, we are commissioned to preach it to all "that be of the faith of Abraham"; (those who walk "by faith, not by sight"); therefore to the Youthful Worthies. Hence the Tower's argument on the Church's commission is only some more fog that vanishes before the sunrays of Truth.


(60) Our conclusion, therefore, is that there is no argument in Scripture, Reason or Fact contradictory of the doctrine of there being a class of Youthful Worthies now being qualified for Millennial association with the Ancient Worthies in reward and service; rather that there is in Scripture, Reason and Facts much that teaches it. Hence since no more consecrators can enter the High Calling, let us preach the opportunity of Youthful Worthiship to the meek, assuring them that "they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham" with the privilege of blessing all nations, even as the Bible teaches (Rom. 4: 16; Gal. 3: 6-9).

(1) What kind of terms should we use to designate Scriptural ideas? What are some examples and exceptions to this rule? What is the Scriptural usage with respect to the terms, Ancient and Youthful Worthies?

(2) Since what date have the Youthful Worthies been



developing? Why? Since what event have all consecrators become of the Youthful Worthies? Why? Where does "that Servant" treat of them? Read the reference that he makes to them.

(3) When is special light on them due to shine? Why?

(4) Whence does this light shine for and upon us?

(5) Show how Joel 2: 28 treats of all classes of the saved from among mankind, including the Youthful Worthies. How many classes of beings will be saved from sin? What are these?

(6) Explain 2 Tim. 2: 20, and show how it treats of four classes, including the Youthful Worthies.

(7) Explain Ps. 72: 3, and show how it treats of four classes, including the Youthful Worthies. How does the chronology of the building of Jerusalem on its four heights type the chronology of the building of antitypical Jerusalem in its four classes? Summarize the thought of this passage.

(8) What are the three sets of antitypical Levites? Where does our Pastor severally set them forth? How are they to be harmonized? How are they separated from one another in time? What should we avoid as to these? What corresponding facts will help in understanding that the Levitical type has three sets of antitypes?

(9) How many and what groups does each set of Levites have? Who are and who are not the tentative Epiphany Levites? What happens with the latter? Who are the other Epiphany Levites? In what groups? How are these two sets of Levites associated?

(10) Read and expound the cited Scriptures as proving that these four classes constitute the Church of the firstborns. Explain these classes as typed in the Tabernacle service. Why could not the antitypical Gershonites be clearly seen before the Epiphany? What facts prove that the Gershonites represent not the saved world, but the Youthful Worthies?

(11) Explain Is. 60: 13, and show how it refers to the Ancient Worthies, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies as antitypical Millennial Levites. What fact proves this thought?

(12) Briefly expound Dan. 4, type and antitype. What is there in the number of the Hebrew youths typing the



three classes of the consecrated now? What is there in their names typing these classes?

(13)What does the expression "double portion" not mean? Why not? What are the Hebrew words from which it is translated? Explain the meaning of these words in Zech. 13: 8; also in Deut. 21: 17; also in 2 Kings 2: 9.

(14) According to "that Servant" how many and what classes does Elisha type? Harmonize his thought with the fulfilled facts that prove that Elisha types the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. In what power do the Youthful Worthies share?

(15) What conclusion is to be drawn from the foregoing Scriptures on the Youthful Worthies' associations and work?

(16) From the standpoint of the Tabernacle picture what is the present and future ministry of the Youthful Worthies? From the standpoint of the Kingdom picture what is it?

(17) By what two methods of proof do we demonstrate the Millennial rewards of the Youthful Worthies? Whose associates will they be in their Millennial rewards?

(18) How by reasoning on the Divine attributes do we arrive at the conclusion that the Millennial reward of the Youthful, will be similar to that of the Ancient Worthies?

(19) What does Joel 2: 28 teach on their Millennial reward?

(20) What does 2 Tim. 2: 20 teach on their Millennial reward?

(21) What does Ps. 72: 3 teach on their Millennial reward?

(22) What does Is. 60: 13 teach on their Millennial reward?

(23) What do Num. 3 and 4; Heb. 12: 23 teach on their Millennial reward?

(24) What do 2 Kings 2: 9, 10 and later acts of Elisha imply on their Millennial reward?

(25) What will be their post-Millennial reward? Where did "that Servant" give proofs that the Ancient Worthies would become spiritual? To whom are some of these proofs also applicable? What is a brief history of the development of the light on the Ancient Worthies' becoming spiritual?



(26) Reasoning from certain Scriptural data and the Divine attributes, how do we arrive at the conclusion that the Youthful Worthies will not remain on the earth after the Millennium?

(27) How should we expect that the Divine attributes will reward them post-Millennially?

(28) From Heb. 12: 23; Ex. 12: 11-13, 21-23, 27; 13: 1, 2, 11-15; Num. 2: 40-51, show that the Youthful Worthies will have a heavenly disposition and nature.

(29) How does Num. 18: 20, 23, 24 prove that they will attain unto a heavenly inheritance?

(30) How does Num. 3: 23, 29, 35, 38 prove that they will attain unto a heavenly inheritance?

(31) How do Heb. 7: 1-10; Num. 18: 21, 24, 25-32, compared with Matt. 25: 34; Rev. 21: 24, prove that they will attain unto a heavenly inheritance?

(32) Who seem to be meant by the expressions, "Camp of the Saints" and "Beloved City"? What principle of Z 1913, 53, seems to prove this?

(33) Give a brief summary of Rev. 20: 7-10.

(34) What cannot by human beings be done to an unseen force of spirit beings? What does this prove with respect to both the "Camp of the Saints" and "The Beloved City"?

(35) What does the term "camp" imply as to a condition?

(36) What does the expression, "encompassed the Camp of the Saints and the Beloved City," imply with respect to the camp and city? Why? Why could not the fullness of the passage be seen in our dear Pastor's day?

(37) What may we expect further on the Youthful Worthies? What is sufficient for present needs? How should we use it?

(38) On what article has the author been asked his opinion? To what did this request move him? With what question does the article begin? What statement follows the question immediately? What impression does this statement make? How had the subject been previously treated in the Tower? How do these two articles stand toward one another as to their answers to the question at



issue? How do the citations from our Pastor's writings prove the Truth on the subject? What is the effect of the pertinent contradictions on Tower readers?

(39) What is not, and what is the character of the question before us? Why is this so? Analyzed, what is the first main thought of the article under review? Its second? Its third? Its fourth? Its fifth? What can be done with some of the positions of this article? What with others? Why? What may be said as to the authorship of the article? Why was J.F.R. very likely its writer? Of what is there certainty?

(40) With what task is the review begun? Why so? Why is this reason true? Regardless of their relation to the Truth people, what three things will be required of the Millennial associates of the Ancient Worthies? Who was in harmony with this thought? What do his pertinent expressions show? Who else never taught the error here examined? What must, therefore, be our judgment on the use of this point by the article under review? Under what circumstance may this erroneous point be refuted? How should it be done? Why?

(41) What might have been The Tower's purpose in refuting this error? If so, how should we estimate it? How did the pertinent letter come to be inserted into The Tower? How did our Pastor view the thought of that letter and its appearance in The Tower?

(42) With what other teaching of the pertinent article may we well agree? How does The Tower quote the cited passages? What should be said of such an application of them? Who have not so applied them? Why is it unnecessary here to discuss the cited passages? What remark is pertinent as to Zeph. 2: 3 and Zech. 13: 9? How are they to be understood? Which is preferable, the 1904 or the 1914 application of Matt. 8: 11 and Luke 13: 29? Why so? What light thereon is shed by Ps. 107: 3; Acts 15: 14? Why do we pass these points by?

(43) What is helpful in discussing another's teaching? Why? What do some writers often do with their basic principle or principles? Why? What is the pertinent course of the article under review? What is the first consideration worthy of noting here? How do the pertinent Tower citations prove our Pastor's thought on Tentative



Justification? What was his last written expression on the subject? When was it finally approved by him? What is the second consideration worthy of noting here? In harmony with what is this teaching? What is the third consideration worthy of noting here? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? The seventh? If such denial is kept in mind, what will the reader be able to do? Through what kind of thinking? Why so?

(44) What is the main difference between Tentative and Vitalized Justification? To what proof thereon should we resort? In what Scripture is this especially taught? What had St. Paul previously to Rom. 4 demonstrated? What does he proceed to prove by Rom. 4: 1-12? How does he first prove it? Secondly? Why must Rom. 4: 1-8 refer to Tentative Justification? After such proofs to what does St. Paul proceed to prove? How do vs. 11, 12 particularly prove it? In what two ways? What undoubtedly do vs. 112 prove? Vs. 21-24? How, among other ways, is the distinction between the faith of a tentatively and of a vitalizedly justified believer brought out in the Greek? How do these two kinds of faith act? How do the cited passages prove Tentative Justification? How do the cited passages prove Vitalized Justification? Had the writer of the article under review believed in Tentative Justification as operating during the Gospel Age and reasoned logically, what would he not have done? Why not? What two reasons prove this reason?

(45) Wherein is every important feature of God's plan symbolized? Illustrative from what standpoint? Accordingly, what in this connection has God symbolized? Whereby? How does this curtain symbolize Tentative Justification? Vitalized Justification? What four considerations will help clarify this? When was the antitypical curtain as doubled (apart from reference to the involved typical double curtain) first brought to our attention? In what? By whom? What did he do with reference to it repeatedly later? As what? What about that antitypical curtain was denied by the counterfeit channel? What kind of a channel was the Society as a corporation up to 1920?

(46) What are the main differences between Tentative and Vitalized Justification: As to God's Justice? As to Christ's merit? As to the recipient's activities? As to the



things imputed? How do the cited passages prove this? As to the Adamic sentence? As to fellowship with God? As to opportunities of entering into covenant relations with God? What kind of a doctrine is Tentative Justification as operative from Abel's, Enoch's and Noah's times to the times of Restitution?

(47) How does Heb. 11: 4-7 prove this of the first mentioned times? Despite what denials will it remain so? Who was the true channel for the meat in due season during the Parousia? How long will this doctrine stand? Despite what?

(48) In what three ways does the article under review deny Tentative Justification? What corroborative facts prove it? How did The Tower editors, and how did they not deny Tentative Justification? What quotation from Z '20, 26 proves it? Of what justification is, and of what justification is not this quotation true? Why is the article grossly misleading on Justification? What character does the omission of both terms likely have? Than what are half-truths more deceitful? What will the half-truth of this article on its subject prove? Under what condition? What is necessary to keep in view to see the full truth on justification? Why does fog exist in the article?

(49) On what other subjects is the article foggy? Why? In so far as it treats of the justification of the Ancient Worthies, how is its language? How does it befog that subject? Why do the pertinent thoughts need consideration? In what similar relation? What five facts should it have brought out on the Ancient Worthies' justification? Why should it have mentioned these? Of what are these five points not true? As a result of these omissions identifying both justifications before the Millennium, under what impression does the article leave one? What do these omissions effect? If stated clearly, how does it put the Youthful Worthies before God's Justice and the Ransom merit? What do many of us recall of that Servant's procedure on this subject? What distinction did he make between the two kinds of justification? Why do they differ?

(50) To what were the Ancient Worthies not justified? Why not? In conformity with what did God grant them covenant favors? What results from this as to a trial for



life for them? For what was their trial? In connection with what from Abraham onward? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What did this Covenant not ignore nor set aside? How did it treat it? How did it operate toward them? How was this possible? How does Rom. 4: 13-16 show this? What will illustrate God's pertinent dealings with them? How could He do this in harmony with Justice and the Ransom? What three Millennial things did He, accordingly, arrange for them? How do the cited passages prove this? What made it possible for God to give them such promises? How do the cited passages prove this? Without such a Tentative Justification what could not have taken place? What glorious favor has God thus been ready to exercise always?

(51) What in order in this set of things does the article fail to mention? What results from this omission? What are these two sets of things? What do they do with the situation as to the Youthful Worthies? Why so? In what fourteen respects are the relations of the Youthful Worthies to God precisely the same as were those of the Ancient Worthies? When did the Ancient Worthies live as to the time of the use of the imputed merit? The Youthful Worthies? Wherein do these differences equalize themselves? What has been indispensable for fallen humans for an entrance into the high calling? What conclusion from these facts should be drawn as to the Youthful Worthies, Divine Justice and the Ransom? What kind of reasoners on the Ransom were St. Paul and that Servant? How so in comparison with The Tower editors? What in this respect did they neither see nor make? How do the cited passages show this? In what two teachings?

(52) What does not determine the principles of exact Divine Justice and the Ransom in relation to the Youthful Worthies? Why not? What does dealing with the Youthful Worthies no more violate than dealing with the Ancient Worthies did? What alone propitiates Divine Justice? What does not do it? What would any time argument against the Youthful Worthies' having a trial for Millennial perfection and princeship truly based on Divine Justice and the Ransom equally do with the Ancient Worthies' trial for the same? Why? What does not, and



what does determine this matter? What follows as to the argument under review?

(53) As summaries: What made the Ancient Worthies available as such? What makes the Youthful Worthies available as such? How may these summaries be otherwise worded?

(54) What misrepresentation of our Pastor's pertinent view does the article under review teach? What does it then proceed to do with this half-truth? How does the article deal with his writing on this head? Where, among other places, does he expound both of these thoughts? What in this citation proves this? Of what is The Tower editors' course on this point another example? Then what do they begrudge us?

(55) Where will their claim that the Harvest began in 1878 and ended in 1918 be refuted? Where with Pyramid corroborations? When was the last member of the Little Flock begotten? Sealed in the forehead? What results as to all consecrating since the Fall of 1914? What is their hope? What will arousing them to false hope occasion?

(56) What further claim does the article make? What conclusion do they therefrom draw? On what alleged reason? Why is the pertinent quotation made? What correction in the statement must be made to fit it truthfully to the case of sinless Adam, Eve and Jesus? Who would grant this? How must the sentence be corrected to fit it truthfully to the case of the Ancient Worthies? So corrected, what does the sentence tell? So corrected, what does it do with The Tower editors' pertinent argument? What considerations prove this, as to the Ancient Worthies? How does Heb. 11: 39, 40 prove this? What follows from this as to the Youthful Worthies? What follows as to The Tower editors' argument? What is a proper judgment on their pertinent dogmatic assertion quoted in the text?

(57) What remark is applicable to their claim that there are no Youthful Worthies, allegedly based on the three great Covenants? By whose three wives are these covenants typed? How do these editors, in the first place, reason on the matters? What is conceded on their first point? In objection to their view, what should be said as to the Great Company and the pre-Mosaic Ancient Worthies?



Why so of the latter? For their argument to be binding what must be proven? What would be the character of such an alleged proof? Why? How did earthly features of the Oath-bound Covenant operate toward the pre-Abrahamic Ancient Worthies? How do the cited passages prove this? What does this prove as to the possibility of its operating toward the Youthful Worthies? What three lines of evidence favor this? How do Gal. 3: 6-9 and Rom. 4: 16 demonstrate this? What is the promise of these passages? Why does it operate toward the Youthful Worthies? While the earthly features of the Oath-bound Covenant do not give life, what do they give? By what is the Covenant operative toward the Ancient Worthies not typed? Also those of its features operative toward the Great Company and fleshly Israel? What does this fact not unmake? What does parity of reasoning therefrom prove? Why so? What similar Covenant covers the Youthful Worthies?

(58) What do the pertinent reasonings of The Tower editors on the covenants typed by Sarah, Hagar and Keturah presuppose? What is the character of this presupposition? What follows as to their argument? What, kept in mind, will dissipate the figurative fog raised by The Tower editors' pertinent argument based on the three covenants typed by Sarah, Hagar and Keturah?

(59) What is the final pertinent argument of The Tower editors? How is Is. 61: 1-3, as giving the Church's commission, used by them as an alleged proof thereon? What do some of their bracketed comments thereon do with our Lord's interpretation of Is. 61: 1, 2? Which is the first of these examined here? Why is it given? How did our Pastor explain the pertinent statement? What is the character of his interpretation? What even higher Authority has clarified this passage? How is this shown in Luke 4: 16-21? Up to and including what? What did our Lord stop quoting after the first clause of v. 2? What did He tell us as to all that He quoted? What fact proves, therefore, that the Great Company is not referred to in the clauses applied to them by The Tower editors? What was then due to be preached by our Lord? What was not then due to be preached? On the contrary, how long and to whom is the statement, "to preach good tidings to the



meek," due to be preached? Among others, whom did they include in Jesus' day? Hence, among others, whom do the meek include? Among others, who are those who will mourn, as implied in the expression, "to comfort all that mourn"? When will the word "meek" in the expression, "preach good tidings to the meek," apply to them? What conclusion flows from these considerations as to both classes? What is there lacking to either class in these expressions? What results from this discussion as to The Tower editors' contention? What may be said of the Great Commission of Matt. 28: 18-20, not referred to by the editors? What proves that the Youthful Worthies can be made disciples? How may, and how may not the passage be applied to the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies? To whom does it primarily apply? What follows from the fact that the Oath-bound Covenant is the heart of the Gospel? How do the cited passages prove this? To whom may it, therefore, be preached as such? What does this do with The Tower editors' argument as to the Great Commission and the Youthful Worthies?

(60) What is the negative conclusion from the whole argument? The positive conclusion therefrom? What should, accordingly, the fact that no more consecrators can enter the high calling move us to do? What assurance should we give them?




HE lived true, long years a witness

To the pure high-thoughted Oath,

That in the ripeness of the Ages

Will bless Jew and non-Jew both.

Not a priest, and not a churchman,

From all proud presumption free,

Shepherd-chief and shepherd-warrior,

Human-faced like you and me;

Human-faced and human-hearted,

To the pure religion true;

Purer than the gay and sensuous

Grecian, wider than the Jew.

Common sire, whom Jew and Christian,

Turk and Arab, name with praise;

Common as the sun that shines

On East and West with brothered rays.