Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
Latin word speculare, from which our word speculate is derived, means to gaze with one's mental eyes; and to speculate in a religious sense means to gaze into the unknown and forbidden with the mental eyes. The antitype of this charge is easily recognized in the warnings given the Lord's people, both in the Parousia and in the Epiphany, not to speculate. God, Himself, has been giving this charge to Jesus, who has especially announced it through the Parousia and Epiphany messengers, others taking up the cry from them, and also sounding it.
(37) V. 21 also shows the penalty of such gazing— "many of them perish." In the antitype this does not mean literal death, but a ceasing to exist in their former standing. E.g., Mr. Darwin, who was in the antitypical Camp, tried to gaze into the Most Holy and learn what method God used in creation. This caused him and "many" others to go into serious error and resultantly to perish as antitypical Camp members, by becoming infidels, whose place is outside the antitypical Camp. Many justified ones have speculated on matters pertinent to the Spirit-begotten and Spirit-born conditions (the antitypical Holy and Most Holy), which resulted in their and many others going into serious error, and which made them "perish," lose their justified condition and go back into the antitypical Camp. Many a Priest, speculating on matters not yet due in the Holy and on things in the Most Holy, and by such speculation seeking to set aside things due in the Holy, have lost their crowns and occasioned "many" others to do the same, and thus they perished as Priests and thus became of the Great Company. This we see exemplified on all sides in the Epiphany. Some of these have continued their speculations to such a degree as to cause themselves and others to perish as Great Company members, and thus became Second Deathers. Youthful Worthies have speculated themselves into perishing as such, have fallen back into the antitypical
Camp, died as Youthful Worthies. Vs. 21, 22, 24 show that all these classes can do this evil thing—speculate—and reap its consequences—perish. V. 22 urges that especially the priests sanctify themselves, separate themselves from this evil of gazing. This corresponds to the many warnings given the antitypical Priests in the Parousia and the Epiphany not to speculate lest the Lord unpriest them.
(38) Moses' saying (v. 23) to the Lord that the set bounds would prevent the people from dishallowing the mountain by coming up to it, types the fact that our Lord Jesus assured the Father that those in the antitypical Camp cannot see into the antitypical Court, that those in the antitypical Court cannot see into the antitypical Holy and that those in the antitypical Holy cannot see its matters before due, nor see into the antitypical Most Holy, all of which we recognize as true. But while this is true, Jehovah, nevertheless, knows that the attempt so to do would be made and that that attempt would bring the threatened punishment. Hence, He charged our Lord (v. 24) to go down and prevent the attempt (by moral suasion, of course). Then, in v. 24, God shows who might approach Him and who might not approach Him. Those who might approach Him were Moses and Aaron. Here Moses represents our Lord. Whom does Aaron type? Because the setting is both Parousiac and Epiphaniac, and because in these two periods two different star-members have officiated, the Parousia messenger and the Epiphany messenger, Aaron types both of these. What is typed by Moses' coming up to God? Our Lord's approaching the Father for the messages due in the Parousia and the Epiphany preparatory to His giving them to the people. Please note the different way Moses is represented as coming to God from that of Aaron's approach: "Thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee." This shows the subordinate position of Aaron relatively to that of Moses; and it types the subordination
of the Parousia and Epiphany messengers to Jesus in their approaching God.
(39) But how have they done this? The contrast between Aaron and all the others, priests and people, what is forbidden the antitypes of the priests and people, and the office powers of these two messengers, suggest the answer. The antitypical Priests and people do their forbidden speculation mainly by a text-bookistic study of the Bible, while God, speaking mouth to mouth with Jesus as the latter speaks in the star-members, suggests that these two messengers (and all other star-members in their days had the same privilege, as their stewardship truths were due) could, in their direct Bible study, come to God as Jesus' subordinates to study in the Bible the features of Bible Truth about to become due. Thus, we see that these two and all other star-members have had privileges as to Bible study, denied all other brethren. We may be sure that this was not for their sakes. Rather, it was for the sake of the others, in whose interests they have gladly done the labor and endured the toil of their office. All through the Age the star-members have been the special targets of the devil, the world and the flesh. As their privilege of being Jesus' mouth, hand and eye has been great, so have their labors, suffering and dangers been great. They should not be envied for their office; for it is a most difficult and exacting one; but they should be all the more loved, prayed for and cooperated with, therefore; for they have delighted to bless the brethren and have used their office for that purpose, regardless of their resultant sufferings. None of them have felt proud of their position, nor disdainful of their less prominent brethren. All of them have felt that they were elder brothers who gladly exercised a loving watchcare over their younger brethren. And the faithful have always recognized this, have held them highly in love for their works' sake, and have supported them amid their toils and battles for the
Lord, the Truth and the brethren. Some will say that the Epiphany messenger is conceited for writing as he has just done. Nay, beloved, we so write, not for our, but for your sakes; for, as in the Parousia, the many attacks on our Pastor made the knowledge that he was that Servant, the Parousia messenger, helpful for the brethren to stand, so now in the Epiphany the many attacks on the Epiphany messenger make the knowledge that he is such helpful for the brethren to stand. We truthfully can say of ourself what a greater than we said of himself, "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15: 10). We feel deeply our own personal unworthiness. Our trust is in the grace of God, the High-Priestly ministry of Jesus and the participation of the Holy Spirit for fitness for our work. It is all of grace, for which God be praised!
(40) The fact that these star-members have been our Lord's eye, mouth and hand makes them sustain a closer official and personal relation to Him than any other contemporary members of the Little Flock; and this is due both to their office under the Lord and to their greater faithfulness than the rest of the members of the Little Flock living in their individual times; for these have been preeminently the brethren who have increased their one pound to ten pounds and their five talents to ten talents. And it is because they are the eye, hand and mouth of the Lord Jesus that to them in the most particular sense the thought of Luke 10: 16 applies: "He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me." This office; however, does not make them lords over God's heritage, even as St. Paul, the next most eminent of these 49 brothers, whose most eminent one was that Servant, says (2 Cor. 1: 24): "Not that we lord it [the literal translation] over your faith, but we are co-workers of your joy." It is, among other reasons, because they lack the lording spirit and are as tender nurses to the babes,
and elder brothers to the adolescent and full-grown in the Little Flock, and are willing lovingly to serve all, that the Lord has promoted them to this office. Their faithfulness to Truth and righteousness has made them uncompromising in opposition to those who would injure the Church; but to the faithful they have been most loving and self-sacrificing; and thus, despite their natural infirmities, have under the Head given the Body members an example for imitation. And amid all their privileges they have recognized that they have not been lords, but that at most they have been His hand, eye and mouth. God and Him it has been their highest ambition to honor, serve and obey in the service of His body, for which they have taken pleasure in laying down life. Hence, the Lord has been able, for the interests of all concerned, to use them as His hand, eye and mouth.
(41) In v. 8 the second unique privilege of Jesus acting in the star-members is also set forth, "I will speak … even plainly, and not enigmatically [literal translation]." Such was not the way (v. 6) that God says that He would speak to the typical prophets, but the reverse. But to Moses He did speak "even plainly, and not enigmatically." What does this mean antitypically? We reply: God would reveal to our Lord acting in the star-members the truths as due in understandable and reasonable ways, and not in ways that would baffle their reason or their understanding, i.e., not in incomprehensible ways. This means that these would so get the Truth by personal Bible study and that none others would so get it by personal Bible study. The nominal-church teachers claim that the Bible teaches many "mysteries" as incomprehensible things, e.g., the trinity, human immortality, eternal torment, absolute predestination and reprobation of individuals, the God-man theory, the real presence of Jesus' body and blood in 'the Lord's Supper, in which they are received by the communicants' literal mouths,
the omnipresence of Christ's humanity, the visibility of Christ's second advent during a 24-hour day to all of earth inhabitants, a 24-hour judgment day, the resuscitation of the body that goes into the grave, etc. They use the word mystery to mean an incomprehensible, self-contradictory thing, which is not a Bible mystery, but is a Satanic mixuptery, Babylon, confusion, while the Bible uses the word to mean a secret not understood until revealed, and then comprehended. Hence, St. Paul speaks of one's understanding all mysteries (1 Cor. 13: 2) and of the Ephesians' perceiving his understanding in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3: 3, 4, A. R. V.). Jesus tells the disciples that it was given to them to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13: 11; Luke 8: 10); and His explanations (Matt. 13: 18-23, 37-43) of the parables of the four kinds of soil and of the wheat and tares as among such mysteries proves them to be comprehensible after they were explained. The mysteries of Israel's blindness (Rom. 11: 25-32), of the Parousia saints as dying, but not sleeping (1 Cor. 15: 51), of the oneness of Adam and Eve (Eph. 5: 32), of the Christ as a company (Col. 1: 26, 27), of God and Christ (2: 2, 3), of the Christ (made manifest—4: 3, 4), of iniquity (2 Thes. 2: 7), of godliness (1 Tim. 3: 16), of the seven stars and the seven candlesticks (Rev. 1: 20) and of the woman (Rev. 17: 5, 7), when explained, are all comprehensible. Hence, the nominal church definition of a Bible mystery is wrong. The Bible view of its mysteries is that they are secrets that, when explained, are reasonable.
(42) From this we can see what is meant by the expression, "With him I will speak … even plainly, and not enigmatically." It means that Jehovah, when speaking to Jesus in the star-members, will not tell Him in them incomprehensible things, nor things of which He in them will have vague, indefinite notions, but will make them plain and comprehensible to Him in them.
How finely this is illustrated in the teachings of our Lord in these star-members. This we can see in Arius' teachings on the person of Christ, before, during and after His carnation, in opposition to the God-man theory; in Zwingli's teaching on the Lord's Supper, as against transubstantiationism; in Marsiglio's teaching on the headship of Jesus, as against that of the pope; in Servetus' doctrine of the unity of God, as against the trinity; in Hubmaier's teaching on exclusive believers' baptism, as against infant baptism; and, above all, in that Servant's whole setting of the doctrines of God's Plan. How beautifully plain they are! How free from the enigmas of "subtle theologians," whose "mix-upteries" are supposed to be so deep! Yes, deep with the depths of Satan (Rev. 2: 24)! And the Epiphany doctrines and its explanations of the pertinent Bible mysteries are also plain, clear and free from enigmas. If one comes to us teaching incomprehensible doctrines we may forthwith reject him as a messenger of Satan, presenting darkness for light. The Truth commends itself as such by its clarity and comprehensibility, while error, like the mole, always dodges into the hole of "mystery" at the approach of the Truth, which always commends itself to sound reason (Is.
1: 18). Thus God speaks to Jesus in the star-members plainly, not enigmatically, i.e., whenever due the Truth is given plainly, comprehensibly, not enigmatically, incomprehensibly.
(43) The third unique privilege of Jesus acting in the star-members is set forth in these words: "And the image of Jehovah shall he attentively behold [literal translation]." In the type this would mean that God would manifest Himself to Moses by a representation of Himself, a privilege that neither Aaron, as a prophet, nor any other prophet, could have, but that as high priest Aaron could have. This seems to refer to the Shekinah in the Most Holy as the medium of information. This privilege Aaron could have only when acting
as the type of the Church's and the World's High Priest. What is meant by Jesus acting in the star-members as attentively beholding the image of Jehovah? Certainly, this does not mean that they would see an image of God's body (John 5: 37). Rather, by the antitypical image of Jehovah we are to understand His character to be meant, even as Christ's character is called Christ's image (Rom. 8: 29; 2 Cor. 3: 18; 4: 4; Col. 3: 10). How does He do this? By making in them direct Bible study, through which the Bible doctrines, which manifest God's character as perfect in wisdom, power, justice and love, become clear to them as due. It will be noted that while God has given the non-starmembered teachers of the General Church and the more prominent local elders visions and dreams, He has never given them to see as a thing new a doctrine. This privilege is limited exclusively to our Lord acting in the star-members. Any attempt on the part of a non-star-membered teacher or of a non-teacher as the first one to work out a doctrine would be speculation, and would, therefore, not result in uncovering a new truth, but would result in error. But the star-members from the first to the last have been given this privilege, and by attentively studying the Bible on new doctrines as these became due, they have gotten to see them, and from them are given an ever increasing insight, and that, first of all God's people, into the Divine character, Jehovah's image, as revealed in those doctrines. That this is a privilege of our Lord acting in the star-members can be seen especially in St. Paul and in our Pastor. The former's study of the Old Testament types resulted in his working out, e.g., practically all the doctrines presented in the epistle to the Hebrews; and the latter's study of both the Old and the New Testaments has resulted in his working out almost all Truth doctrines, except some pertinent to the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies, the Epiphany world and to the Priesthood in their relations
to these three classes. The working out of these excepted doctrines is the privilege of the Epiphany messenger.
(44) Having shown (vs. 6-8) Moses' incomparable superiority as a mouthpiece of His, in contrast with the subordinate mouthpieceship that Aaron and Miriam had as prophets for God, Jehovah pointedly asks the latter, "Why did ye not fear to speak against My [special] servant, against Moses" (v. 8)? Antitypically this means that God caused the question, through various pertinent rebukes, remonstrances and contradictions, given antitypical Aaron and Miriam by faithful brethren, to be brought to their attention: Why did they not have more reverence for our Lord speaking in the star-members than to have contradicted Him speaking in them, and thus by act claiming equality with Him in mouthpieceship for God? This question implies that both in the type and the antitype there was a lack of reverence toward the Lord Jesus in the star-members. Had there been proper reverence present, neither the typical nor the antitypical gainsayers would have factually claimed equality with Jesus in the star-members in mouthpieceship for God. Their lack of reverence in both type and antitype made them too bold, yea, more or less arrogant and impudent. This is true more emphatically of typical and antitypical Miriam than of typical and antitypical Aaron. And certainly their course and God's rebuke of them should also be an earnest warning to us to refrain from murmuring against any of God's choice for membership in Christ's Bride and from contradicting Jesus speaking in the star-members.
(45) Jehovah's disapproval of typical and antitypical Miriam and Aaron is sufficiently shown in vs. 2-8, but v. 9 advances beyond a description of His disapproval and expresses His displeasure. Surely, in type and antitype it is a terrible thing to have fallen into Jehovah's displeasure; for as it is of the greatest blessing
to have God's pleasure, so is it of the greatest evil to have His displeasure. Particularly is this true of the antitype. The expression, "And He departed" (v. 9), types the thought that God had finished His dealing with that phase of the matters hitherto discussed. This is further emphasized in v. 10, by the expression, "And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle," which antitypically signifies that all the pertinent Truth due on the matter at hand having been given, any further Truth on that subject, of course, could not be due and was, therefore, not forthcoming. Now comes an emphasized thing in the type, as the literal translation shows, "Behold, Miriam leprous, as snow [is white]." There is nothing in the type to indicate that she was leprous all over her body. In fact, the only parts of her body that would normally be visible would be her head, neck, hands and feet. The Hebrew reading, "behold," like the English, implies that not more than part or all of her visible members were affected, for the attention of sight is called upon, in the expression, behold, to act. The fact that she is used as a type of the Great Company proves that her leprosy did not cover her entire body, which would type the Adamic depravity (Lev. 13: 12, 13), but was only found in spots, here and there (Lev. 13: 1-11, 14-46; Vol. IV, Chap. IV). The expression, "Aaron turned to Miriam, and, behold, leprous!" (literal translation), implies that previously he had not been watching her, that his mind was so intent on his part in the murmuring and factual claiming of equality to Moses as mouthpiece for God as not to have paid much attention to her, which had he done diligently, he might have seen the impropriety of the whole action. But now turning his attention to her, he sees in her condition a sure evidence of the sin and folly of their procedure.
(46) Antitypically, while the scene of the second, third and fourth clauses of v. 10 had a minor fulfillment in the Jewish Harvest, as the cases of Alexander,
Hymenaeus, Philetus and Diotrephes prove; for Apostles by inspiration gave the knowledge to the brethren that these four, and perhaps others, were afflicted with Great Company uncleanness (1 Tim. 1: 19, 20; 2 Tim. 2: 16-18; 3 John 9, 10), yet during the time between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany God and Jesus alone knew the Great Company members as such in their uncleanness; for God during that time concealed from the brethren the knowledge as to who was afflicted with Great Company uncleanness. This moves us to conclude that the special and major time for the antitype of vs. 10-16 is the Epiphany; for this is the special period during which the Lord reveals to the priesthood the Great Company as such in their uncleanness. Now no longer, as was the case in the Apostle's days, is inspiration necessary to a Priest in order to his seeing and pointing out an antitypical spotted leper. During the Epiphany the Lord has made known to us the sure symptoms of antitypical leprosy—revolutionism against the Lord's teachings and arrangements and persistency therein on the part of a new creature (hair turned white or yellow and the sore deeper than the skin; Lev. 13). Hence all a Priest now needs in order to see and point out a Great Company member is the pertinent illumination. As between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany such illumination was not given any Priest, apart from the minor fulfillment of vs. 10-16 in the Jewish Harvest, these verses had no full antitype until the Epiphany, though there was an antityping of vs. 1-9 and the first clause of v. 10 throughout the Age, particularly in the Jewish Harvest, the Parousia and the Epiphany. Hence the special application of Aaron's turning to Miriam belongs to the Epiphany. His turning to her represents the more prominent non-star-membered contradicting Priests, both in and out of the Epiphany Truth, giving their special attention to the uncleansed Great Company. Those in the Epiphany Truth give this
attention understandingly; those not in the Epiphany Truth without real understanding of the situation, which when they come into the Epiphany Truth they will comprehend. Of course, after the Jewish Harvest and before the Epiphany antitypical Aaron saw the actual Great Company uncleanness without recognizing it as such; for these have done much evil.
(47) And what a horrifying sight! It was horrifying to Aaron to see his own beloved sister in such a terrible plight! But it has been even more horrifying to antitypical Aaron to see the uncleanness of the Great Company, and that from two standpoints: (1) Between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany, as he saw the evils that antitypical Miriam did as expressions of crown-losers' uncleanness, though not recognized by him as such; and (2) in the Jewish Harvest and in the Epiphany. While it is not sure that they were pictured in Aaron, Timothy and Gaius, to whom Paul and John revealed the Great Company uncleanness of Alexander, Hymenaeus, Philetus and Diotrephes, must have felt horror thereat. Certainly, without understanding that they were actually beholding Great Company uncleanness, antitypical Aaron was horror-struck at the evils and errors of certain popes and Greek hierarchs, error-inventing Greek and Romanist theologians, Calvin's errors and persecuting and securing the burning of Servetus, as well as the errors, etc., of other crown-lost leaders. Some of us recall the horror that we felt at certain brethren in the Parousia manifesting what we later learned was Great Company uncleanness. The cases of Pilgrim Bros. MacMillan, (Clayton) Woodworth, Hemery, Hoskins (the father) and other less prominent leaders who temporarily went wrong in the Covenants controversy, were Parousia examples of brethren who actually had Great Company uncleanness. Though we did not then understand it as such, yet we were horrified at their course. But the special time of horror experienced by antitypical
Aaron came during the Epiphany. All members of antitypical Aaron, despite their being partly guilty, have greatly bewailed and have been horrified by the uncleanness of Great Company brethren in the Epiphany. This is true even of those members of antitypical Aaron who are not yet Epiphany-enlightened, who do not see the real condition of antitypical Miriam, and who yet recognize errors of doctrine and wrongs of conduct in her, so manifest on all sides.
(48) But this is emphatically true of such of antitypical Aaron who are Epiphany-enlightened. How horrified have they been at the persistent revolutionisms in doctrine and practice seen in the Society section of antitypical Miriam. The same is true of them as to antitypical Miriam in the P.B.I., B.S.C. and the leaders in the rest of the nearly 60 groups of Levites. Their Truth repudiations and error advocacies and their repudiations of the Lord's arrangements and their institution of others in their stead, have certainly horrified antitypical Aaron, even though he has not been entirely blameless throughout the Parousia and Epiphany in these respects. This part of antitypical Aaron recognizes the actual situation. Though during the Epiphany the writer and some other Priests are not involved in antitypical Aaron, all of such have been horrified at the course of antitypical Miriam. The revolutionisms of the British managers, the Society leaders, the P.B.I., B.S.C. and numerous other Levite leaders, certainly filled us with horror. We were dumb-struck at some of their evils; for, esteeming these leading brothers above ourself, we were astounded that such brethren could be guilty of such perfidy as we discovered in them; and this horror contributed much to our severe handling of some of them, e.g., H.J. Shearn, Wm. Crawford, J. Hemery, J.F. Rutherford, I. Hoskins, I.L. Margeson, C. Kasprzykowski, M. Kostyn, etc. Our thinking of and loving them as "Christ in you," as part of Jehovah's anointed,
certainly made us feel severe shocks when their gross and persistent revolutionism stood stark-naked before our eyes. E.g., how could we have felt otherwise at H.J. Shearn's and Wm. Crawford's gross disregard of the Lord's arrangements given through our Pastor; when we became well aware of their course shortly after his death, with our hearts filled with appreciation for his faithfulness and wisdom, with deep mourning at our loss of him, with the knowledge that their course had greatly troubled him, especially during his last six weeks, and with the determination to preserve him in loving remembrance as faithful while in the flesh and since leaving the flesh among the greatest of overcomers in glory? Naturally we were horrified.
(49) And what a horrible condition was that in which antitypical Miriam found herself! While all through the Age the uncleanness of the crown-losers could be seen, apart from those specially pointed out as such by inspiration during the Jewish Harvest, this uncleanness was not recognized as that of crown-losers until the Epiphany; but in the Epiphany this uncleanness has not only been seen, but it has also been seen as Great Company uncleanness. In all cases it has manifested itself in persistent revolutionism against either the Lord's teachings or arrangements, or against both, with power-grasping, lording and sectarianism, in very arbitrary usurpations, as the case of J.F.R. shows the most plainly of all. The list of unholy characteristics set forth in 2 Tim. 3: 1-9 is seen more or less in all of the leaders of the Levite groups—selflovers, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers (lying slanderers), disobedient to (spiritual) parents, unthankful, inhuman, implacable, false accusers, without self-control, fierce, haters of good men, traitors, heady, highminded, pleasure-lovers rather than God-lovers, formalistic, without religion's power, deceivers of weak-minded, corrupt-hearted and fickle-willed women, unfruitfully studious, corrupted in opinions, apostates from the Truth,
liars, hypocrites. What horrible characters! Yet whoever knows thoroughly men like Wm. Crawford, J. Hemery, J.F. Rutherford, A.H. MacMillan, C. Kasprzykowski, M. Kostyn, etc., cannot doubt that this description fits them, some more, some less, yet more or less fitting all of them. Yes, and some of them have been proven to be thieves! Leprous, indeed! And what shall be said of their partisan followers? Not a few of them are spotted with similar leprous sores, though, of course, not so badly. Yea, antitypical Miriam can now be seen as such—leprous. Truly, antitypical Miriam is a sight to grieve angels and distress saints! And she does it!
(50) Typical Aaron recognized from Miriam's sad plight the actual state of affairs—that both of them were guilty and that the Lord was expressing His disapproval of the course of both of them, at Miriam's course more than at his, yet at the course of both. So in the antitype, the more conscientious and less sinning non-star-membered teachers as Little Flock members quickly from the evil characteristics of the unclean crown-losing leaders recognized that the leaders in both classes had sinned and committed folly (v. 11). We will give several examples of these. It will be noted that our dear Bro. Barton once had a share in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in this chapter. He went wrong on the matter of accepting and teaching that in addition to the papacy's being Antichrist, there would be an individual personal Antichrist at the end of the Age (Z '16, 76-78). He made the mistake of teaching this thought to the brethren before submitting it to Bro. Russell, which act made him share in antitypical Aaron's claiming by act equality with our Lord in the officiating star-member (that Servant) as a mouthpiece for God. The public, though gentle, rebuke that he got by God's reply through our Pastor moved him to recognize and acknowledge the wrong and folly of his course, which was his share in the
antitype of Aaron's acknowledging his sin and folly (v. 11). Bro. John Edgar, in the opening part of the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants controversy (1908-1911), offered a mild dissent from the view of the New Covenant that Jesus was giving through the officiating star-member, and thereby became involved in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in Num. 12, claiming by the act equality with our Lord in the officiating star-member as a mouthpiece for God. But he soon saw the unholy spirit manifested by the Truth's opponents in that sifting, and, recognizing the wrong, acknowledged and confessed it, and then took the side of the Truth thereon, which course was his share in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in v. 11. In contrast, Jesse Hemery sharply attacked that Servant's pertinent view, preaching against it, not only at Glasgow, but elsewhere, and thereby involved himself in antitypical Miriam, proven by his later course.
(51) We had an experience that should be set forth here as partaking in the antitype of Aaron as given in this chapter, since it helps to clarify the subject. It was as follows: While in 1912 our Pastor began to doubt that the Church would leave the world by Oct., 1914, apart from several guarded expressions before the Bethel family, he kept silent on the subject until late in 1913, when he faintly, in a Tower article, indicated his doubts on the subject, i.e., to the effect that while it was possible that the Church leave by Oct., 1914, it hardly seemed probable. Our mental comment on the subject, on reading the article, was: Faith can trust the Lord to fulfill this matter despite its seeming not very probable. In March, 1914, in a question meeting in the Washington, D.C. ecclesia, a question was asked on whether we were to expect the Church to leave by the coming October. We answered, Yes, and then gave somewhat oppositionally and dogmatically the arguments in favor thereof, as presented in the Studies and in Bros. John and Morton Edgar's writings,
whose findings were given in the Berean Manual, and had been approved by our Pastor. A stenographer present took notes on our answers, and, without submitting the notes to us for our approval, circulated them widely. In the May, 1914, Tower our Pastor came out plainly, denying that the Church would leave the world the following October. This plain statement of his caused us to decide to refrain from advocating the former thought any more, since we felt that it was not for us to contradict him when speaking plainly; for we would not have answered the question asked us at Washington as we did, had he in the Dec., 1913, Tower come out plainly on the subject, as he did in May, 1914. However, the notes on our answer were arousing not a few to reject our Pastor's clear statement of his changed view. We were troubled exceedingly to find ourself not in sympathy with this changed view, but kept our doubts out of our pilgrim teaching. It was very torturesome to us to find ourself out of harmony with our Pastor; for we knew that he was that Servant, and was, therefore, more probably right than ourself, though so far we could not see his view to be Biblical.
(52) Earnestly did we seek the throne of grace for help in the matter, asking the Lord, if the changed view were true, graciously to open our eyes thereto, but if it were untrue, to show it to us as such. A number of circumstances came wherein we were tested by questions, etc., as to whether we would oppose our Pastor's plainly expressed changed view, from which we still dissented. We answered the questions to the following effect: Our Pastor has set forth his reason for changing his view; and the brethren should study his reasons. Then we gave them. We were much troubled for nearly two months. This came to a crisis at the Columbus, Ohio, Convention, during the latter part of June, 1914. At this convention there was considerable dissent from the changed view. A number of
brethren who had read the notes on our answer to the question mentioned above came to us at that convention and expressed themselves to the following effect: Bro. Johnson, we are glad to see your stand in favor of the Church leaving by next October. Keep up that stand firmly, and we will back you; for we are on your side against the changed view. The effect of this remark was the opposite to the intended one; for we saw Satan back of that remark. Knowing that the brethren who made it were evidently in an unclean condition, we immediately rebuked the spirit that prompted a remark calculated to arouse us into opposing the Lord's eye, hand and mouth, and became very fearful that perhaps after all Satan was seeking to use us to sift the brethren. Of course, we would not lend ourself knowingly to such a thing. We went to the Lord, telling Him that none of the reasons that our Pastor gave for the changed views seemed conclusive to us, while the arguments for the old view seemed to be cogent, especially the one on Elijah coming to the mount of God after 40 days. But we also told the Lord that we would in nowise oppose Jesus' eye, mouth and hand, and pled with Him to open our eyes to see the new view, if it were true. Quickly that prayer was answered, by the Lord's calling to our mind that the penny was not given until the evening, i.e., after Oct. 1914—a view not previously seen by anyone. But we did not wish to trust the thought before submitting it to our Pastor, whom we met by appointment the next day to discuss the subject. We then told him of our trouble over the question, and of our deep regret that after he had expressed his doubts on the subject we had somewhat dogmatically and oppositionally set forth the old view in the Washington question meeting, assuring him, however, that we had used only such arguments as we knew he had sanctioned. Then we stressed our doubts and emphasized especially Elijah's 40 days' journey to the mount of God. We told
him how the remarks of the brethren, mentioned above and made the day before, had affected us. Then we told him what seemed to be the first ray of light to come to us in favor of his changed view—the distribution of the penny after the end of the twelfth hour. Several days later, at the Clinton Convention, he told us that he approved this view. This settled our mind on the subject; and our heart was glad.
(53) In contrast with the way we acted on the subject, when sharing in antitypical Aaron's part, we should show A.H. MacMillan's pertinent course, when sharing in antitypical Miriam's part. Instead of our Pastor's plain statement in the May, 1914, Tower on the subject, from which he sharply dissented, moving him to silence and to waiting on the Lord, he waged a regular campaign on the subject, arguing against the changed view on various occasions during that spring, summer and early autumn up to about Oct. 1. As three-and-a-half years later, i.e., March 27, 1918, he solemnly told an audience at the Society's Brooklyn Convention that the door to the high calling was closing that day, so at the Saratoga Springs Convention (Sept. 27-Oct. 4, 1914), a day or so before Oct. 1, 1914, he preached quite sharply against our Pastor's changed view and in favor of the Church leaving by about Oct. 1. We were informed that he declared that it was as true that it was to occur about that date as anything else in the Bible was true. We were further informed that against the objection that there were evidently thousands of members in Christ's Body then in the earth, he insisted that to fulfill His Word on the subject God would cause a great calamity to occur about that day, by which He would deliver the Church by the fixed time. He even said he was buying a ticket to the Pleiades—and that it was no return ticket, when he left Bethel after said Convention, and he was later located at his birthplace in W. Va., quite despondent. But Oct. 1, 1914, came and went, and parts of the
Church are still here 24 years later, and a part of it will perhaps remain here nearly 20 years morel After the separation occurred in the Society, A.H. MacMillan, to disparage us before the Church, referred to a letter on which we will comment in the next paragraph, and which we on our own initiative offered to write and then did write to steady the brethren on the subject, as a thing that proved how our Pastor so greatly disapproved of our pertinent course as to require it of us as a public retraction, whereas so far as we know our Pastor never heard of the matter until we spoke of it to him toward the end of June, 1914, at the Columbus Convention, and never uttered one word of rebuke to us on it, since he knew that our reasons were identical with those that he had used, and that he at the time had given no Scriptural reason for the changed view, merely basing it on the seeming improbability that so many brethren would leave the world in the next ten months. While slurring us on the subject, A.H. MacMillan, who, so far as we know, never expressed repentance over his long-drawn-out oppositional course, was silent on his long-continued opposition to clearly demonstrated Biblical reasons given to justify the changed view. J.F.R.'s fighting our Pastor for years on tentative justification, etc., to his face at Bethel and elsewhere is another illustration of one involving himself in antitypical Miriam.
(54) At Columbus, during the above-described interview, we told our Pastor that we wanted to counteract the effect of those notes on our answer given to the question, and on our own initiative suggested to him that we write a letter for him to publish in The Tower, with this end in view, which letter, though written immediately thereafter, appeared two months later in Z '14, 271. It will be remembered that above we showed that as a thing new the Lord in 1909 gave us the understanding of the penny parable up to the end of the twelfth hour, and also of who the steward was. It was