Epiphany Truth Examiner


View All ChaptersBooks Page



J.F.R. sets up the following claim: "the Scriptures were written for the special aid and benefit of the [his] remnant [his remnant are his followers since 1918; God's remnant, according to Rom. 9:27-29; Is. 1:9, are the entire Church especially its parts in the Jewish and Gospel Harvests] now [i.e., since 1918] on the earth" (Z '32, 3, par. 1). To further this thought he (Z '31, 147, par. 7) quotes 1 Cor. 10:11: "Now these things happened unto them for ensamples [types] and are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come" to insinuate, among other things, that the book of Esther describes his movement, whereas the expression, "these things," in 1 Cor. 10:11 refers to the incidents in Israel's wilderness journey alluded to in 1 Cor. 10:1-10. In ascribing practically everything good in the Scriptures to his movement, as the acme of God's work of the whole Age, he betrays the self-centerment usual in conceited errorist leaders who in their hallucinations labor under an exaggerated estimate of themselves and their own work. He repeatedly fulminates against the proper esteem in which the faithful hold our Pastor as that Servant as "worshiping a man," "following a man" and "taking a man as teacher," while to keep them in subjection to him, a man, as teacher he frightens his followers by many threats and insinuations of their falling out of the [his] remnant or out of "line for the kingdom," 



if they should reject his lightning flashes [mud splashes] from his temple. The Bible does have quite a deal to say of him and his work; but what it says of him and his work from Dec. 29, 1916 onward, is almost without exception uncomplimentary. For such a person to regard the movement that he controls and teaches as the acme of all God's works connected with His Church on earth, is prima facie evidence of pride, though he in words seeks to convey the impression of great humility. As an illustration of some of his pretended humility we might instance his recent refusal to shake hands with the relatively few brethren in the Canal Zone (they are all, or nearly all, colored), alleging that if he did shake hands with them he would thereby betray pride, since he would thereby give them the impression of his being some great one, or he thereby would be tempted to think he was a great one! 

In Z '31, 323–330 he has an article entitled, "Taught Of God," that should be entitled, "God's Organization," as that is the line of thought from his viewpoint therein elaborated. In vain throughout this article do we look for a clear definition as to what he means by this ambiguous and non-scriptural term. It is true that he calls it Zion, the woman of Gen. 3:15, and God's woman; but what he understands by these three terms is not defined. In Z '31, 323 (3) he says that God's heavenly organization must have been in existence from the beginning, because God is a God of order. In his mind it predates the creation of the human family, for he said that from Eden on God apparently abandoned His woman [Z '31, 325 (9)]; hence it is not a thing limited to producing the elect Church, Head and Body, which is the limitation of the Jerusalem above, of the heavenly Zion, of the woman of Gen. 3:15 and of Sarah (Is. 54 and Gal. 4). By God's universal organization he may mean God's universal order of affairs from the beginning, according to the first, second and last sentences of 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


(3). This par. also alleges that God's organization has all along had a heavenly part; and that it has a part that has appeared among men. Both of these parts make up His universal organization, allegedly typed by the earthly Jerusalem. 

As an example of confusion we will now quote this entire third par. and we believe that any candid child of God will agree with us that it is very confused. "Everything with Jehovah is orderly, and for no other reason we must conclude that He had an organization from the beginning. That organization is pictured or symbolized by God's woman whom He names Zion. Jehovah set up the city of Jerusalem and put His name there, and that city pictured or represented His universal organization. Both names 'Zion' and 'Jerusalem' represent His organization. The earthly organization of Jehovah, which was Jerusalem [the literal city, as shown in the second preceding sentence], was God's typical organization and therefore foreshadowed His organization that would appear amongst men on the earth and represent His heavenly organization. It is written: 'Jerusalem which is above (the heavenly organization) … is the mother of us all' (Gal. 4:26). That means that all who are of the offspring of God's woman are of His organization. The name 'Zion' was also applied to Jerusalem, because the latter was typical of God's universal organization: 'The city of David, which is Zion' (1 Kings 8:1)." 

In this par. he confuses the typical city Jerusalem and Zion with "the Jerusalem that now is," of Gal. 4:25, which is the Law Covenant and the servants that applied it to Israel's development. He likewise here confuses his own invented "heavenly organization," which he fails to define, with the "Jerusalem which is above," which is the oath-bound promises that develop the Christ and the servants who apply those promises to the Christ's development. In this



par. he makes a literal city God's Old Testament earthly organization! His heavenly organization from the standpoint of its bearing a nation—"the birth of a nation," which he defines as God's placing Jesus upon His throne and sending Him forth in 1914 empowered to reign (Z '31, 324, par. 8), logically must be God, because only God placed Jesus on His throne and sent Him forth empowered to reign. Hence God must be both the Father and the Mother of this nation! This raises the question, how could one person be a nation? If the birth of the nation occurred in 1914 in Jesus' being set on God's throne empowered to reign and in His being sent forth in 1914 in His alleged Second Advent to fight with, and cast Satan and his angels out of heaven to earth, He must be the nation born in a day, according to the consequences of J.F.R.'s pertinent position. If, as he says, this exaltation of our Lord to enthronement, power and commission against Satan's organization was the birth of a nation, in the sense of the beginning of its birth, he says, (!), then the birth of the rest of the nation must mean the seating of the rest of the Little Flock on God's throne, empowered and commissioned to overthrow Satan's organization, which implies their first resurrection as a preceding thing, while he claims that additional to these the children born after Zion's travail (his battle in heaven in 1914 and onward) are also those who since 1918 have been brought into his alleged temple and have been approved as children and parts of his alleged Jehovah's earthly organization. Unmitigated confusion it is to make a birth of Christ's enthronement, empowerment and commission, and that allegedly to have taken place in 1914! He claims that the rejoicing of Is. 54:1 refers to joy in heaven at the birth of a nation—an individual, Jesus, enthroned, empowered and commissioned (Z '31, 324, par. 8)! In spite of the parallelism of Is. 54:1, showing that the expressions, "thou that didst not bear," 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


and "thou that didst not travail with child," are equivalent, he claims that the expression, "thou that didst not travail with child," means that his heavenly Zion bore a child without travail, i.e., without the fight to expel Satan, etc., from heaven! Accordingly, she—antitypical Sarah—must have others than the one child! Surely the woman of Gen. 3:15; Is. 54:1, did not empower Christ to reign, let alone do it in 1914; for this woman is on earth. Much of the above-shown confusion arises from his setting aside our Pastor's clear and factual interpretation of Is. 66:7-9 as applying to the Little Flock being delivered from nominal spiritual Zion before the trouble would afflict the latter, and to the Great Company being delivered from her after she would enter the trouble, and applying this passage to an imaginary Zion as an alleged heavenly organization of God, which turns out in the first birth to be God! 

Such confusions, contradictions and ambiguities just pointed out are the surest proof of the erroneousness of J.F.R.'s alleged and vaunted new light—old darkness in very truth, as the papacy has taught similar things in palming off its counterfeit. One of the mind and heart satisfying characteristics of the Truth is its simplicity; another is its harmony, and a third is its convincing power to the sanctified heart and mind. None of these characteristics are found in J.F.R.'s vagaries launched upon the Church and the world since 1917, beginning toward the world with his counterfeit first smiting of Jordan, and in 1918 with his millions now living never dying after 1925. The simplicity, harmony and convincing power of the Truth on Jehovah's symbolic wife in Gen. 3:15; Is. 54 and Gal. 4, are an evidence of its verity. A comparison of Is. 54 and Gal. 4 proves that antitypical Sarah is addressed in Is. 54. Who antitypical Sarah is the Scriptures clearly teach: She is (1) the Oath-bound Covenant and (2) its appliers for the development 



of the Christ class, and thus is their symbolic mother. That Sarah types (1) these promises is manifest from Rom. 9:7-9; Gal. 3:14-18, 29; Heb. 6:13-20; and (2) the servants who in applying these promises mother the Seed is apparent from Is. 54:17; Gal. 4:19, 26-31. 

Does one say that such a view makes part of the mother the child? We reply, Not so: God's faithful Little Flock in their capacity of developing one another through the oath-bound promises, which are a summary of the Little Flock developing Truth, are a part of the mother; and in their capacity of being developed by these they are the children. These two capacities are an experimental fact, which all who experience them know to be such. The distinction that holds here is very similar to the antitypical distinction between the priest and the lampstand, the priest and the table, the priest and the altar. In each case the Christ is typed: The lampstand, in His capacity of enlightening the brethren, the priest, in His capacity of being enlightened by the brethren; the table, in His capacity of strengthening the brethren in every good word and work by the bread of life for their heavenly journey, the priest, in His capacity of being so strengthened by the brethren; the altar, in His capacity of comforting, encouraging, etc., the sorely tried brethren while sacrificing, the priest, in His capacity of sacrificing amid sore trials. Unlike J.F.R.'s confusion in attempting to explain what he vagariously holds on the woman of Gen. 3:15, Jehovah's symbolic wife of Is. 54 and antitypical Sarah of Gal. 4, our pertinent definition, explanation and proof are clear, simple, harmonious with the seven axioms of Biblical interpretation, convincing sanctified minds and hearts. 

He says that the woman of Gen. 3:15; Is. 54 and Gal. 4 was barren until 1914. St. Paul says she was bearing in his days (Gal. 4:19, 26-31). He says that 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the words of Is. 54:13 first entered into fulfillment since his mythical temple-entering allegedly occurred in 1918; Jesus says (John 6:45) that they began to be fulfilled in His day and would continue throughout the Age, because whoever would come to Him—God's children—would be taught of God; and God's children have been drawn to Jesus by the Father throughout the Age. The raising up of such on the last day—the promise of a resurrection (John 6:44, 45) to such on the last day—does not mean what he seeks to palm off as its meaning—an exalting of one to the alleged privileges of his temple and his drives, in this his last day! It is true, as he says, that St. Paul's quoting Is. 54:1 in Gal. 4:27 (when compared with the above-quoted pertinent passages) definitely settles the matter as to who Sarah and the Seed picture, but St. Paul settles it as teaching the view that we have presented and against the view that J.F.R. presents. 

His charge (Z '31, 326, par. 16) that those who oppose his view of the Lord's coming to his temple, of Zion, of God's organization, in 1918, and of his then alleged new truths, prove by that opposition as a matter of self-evidence that they are not in the temple, nor of Zion, cannot be true, unless his view of these things has first been proven to be true—a thing that he has completely failed to prove, and a thing that we have proven to be unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactual. His claim that the opposers of his teachings were cast out of the temple (Z '31, 376, par. 25) is thus proven false, though he did drive them away from the Society even from 1917 onward. His claim that Zion's being built up as stated in Ps. 102:16, means that God's [mythical] organization since 1918 as Jehovah's woman has been going to house-keeping and children-bearing [his partisan followers since 1918], is another example of his very numerous instances of applying a very rare and figurative use of words where a frequent and literal one fits better. To build up Zion 



in this life means to develop the Church in grace, knowledge, fruitfulness in service, in endurance of persecution and suffering for righteousness and tests along these five lines. To build up Zion beyond the vail means to establish her as the kingdom in power. His saying that antitypical Sarah's travail (Z '31, 325, par. 13) means that God's heavenly organization fought in 1914 with Satan and his angels in the alleged battle that resulted in Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven to the earth, makes him contradict St. Paul's and Isaiah's statement (Gal. 4:19, 22-31; Is. 54:1) to the effect that such travail was the process and accompaniment of bearing her child and did not, as his theory demands, follow her child-bearing. 

That he makes the Society as a corporation a part of God's alleged earthly organization is evident from the fact that he teaches that its officers by their election are made the officers of God's alleged earthly organization (Z '31, 355, par. 2), and that his alleged children of Sarah must make use of its equipment, literary and other products, and leadership, or they will be cast out of Zion, [he does, indeed, cast them out of his church (3 John 9-11); but thanks be to God he cannot cast them out of the Church]. Thus a corporation authorized and continued by Satan's alleged organization is a part of God's alleged organization—pure Romanism! His lengthy denial that the Society as a corporation was created and authorized by his alleged Satan's organization avails nothing as against the logic of his position; for if, as he claims, the state is a part of Satan's organization (God says that it is an ordinance of God; Rom. 13:1-6, Heb. 1:10), and if the state authorized the creation of the Society as a corporation, as it certainly did, then this corporation, an alleged part and controller of his alleged earthly organization of God, is an authorized creature of Satan's organization. His use of the word organization is not only non-Biblical, but is employed 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


to convey an unscriptural thought; for in the first place the real symbolic wife of Jehovah is not an organization at all; for she is (1) the Christ-developing Truth and (2) the servants who develop the Christ through such Truth. Hence neither of these is, nor both of them combined are an organization. In the second place, its thought is a counterpart in the little papacy of the counterfeit organization in the great papacy. Jehovah's symbolic wife is not even the Body of Christ on this or the other side of the vail; for the Christ-developing Truth of course is not the whole nor a part of these two bodies; nor were nor are the Old Testament Worthies who were the personal part of the Covenant during its barren time a part of either of these two bodies, though the faithful of the New Testament servants who have ministered the Christ-developing Truth to the Christ are of these two bodies. It is for these reasons that we deny the propriety of the use of the expression, God's organization, in the Rutherfordian ambiguous senses and caution all to beware of it as Satanic in origin, purpose and use.

There is scarcely an issue in the 22 "Towers" reviewed in this chapter in which he does not rail at those who oppose his errors of teaching and arrangement Without proof they are continually set forth by him as that evil servant, the antichrist, the son of perdition, the lawless one, the man of sin, antitypical Judas, workers of iniquity, etc. To one who understands the Scriptures and facts that prove that we are now in the Epiphany, living over on a small scale the Gospel Age, in which movements, characters, events and proportionate but shorter time similar to those of the Gospel Age appear, and in which his organization appears as the little Catholic Church, his leading supporters as the little Romanist hierarchy and himself as the little pope, the real meaning of his denunciations of the opposers ["Protestants"] of his doctrinal, practical



and organizational errors becomes at once apparent; for just as the great pope in the large Gospel Age denounced his opponents, among whom were God's faithful people, as Korah, Dathan, Abiram, antichrist, man of sin, son of perdition, lawless one, Judas and workers of iniquity, etc., so he, the little pope, and head of the little man of sin, little antichrist, little son of perdition, little lawless one and little Judas does toward his opponents among whom God's faithful priesthood are. We by no means say the above in railing, but as a matter of true interpretation of the Lord's Word. 

He says (Z '31, 132, par. 11, and 134, par. 23) that his opponents, the clergy and his man of sin, will be destroyed before Armageddon, which he claims is taught in Ps. 91:8. We will answer this when answering his view of the book of Esther. To prove the same thought he teaches that Ps. 37 applies now, which is transparent error, when we consider that this Psalm relates to the Millennium and especially to its Little Season, as is manifest from the repeated contrasts between the preserved righteous inheriting the earth, abiding there forever, exalted there, etc., and the rooting out of, and cutting off, etc., of the wicked from the earth in the same period as the above rewards are given to the righteous there described (Ps. 37:9-11, 18, 22, 27-29, the saints of v. 28 are the Ancient and Youthful Worthies in the Little Season, 34). The inheritance of the earth taught in this Psalm is different from that taught in Ps. 2:8 and Matt. 5:5 in this: Whereas the latter inheritance is, as that of the Christ, an ownership of the earth without inhabiting it, the former is, as that of the restitution class, an ownership and inhabiting of it. Notice how he (par. 40) in silence slides over verse 29, which speaks of the righteous referred to in this Psalm as inhabiting and dwelling in the earth forever! He claims (Z '31, 292, par. 6) that he has no fight with anyone. Why 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


then does he in almost every one of his Tower articles rail at, slander, misrepresent, backbite and warn against those who oppose his revolutionisms against God's Truth and arrangements? In the same paragraph, like the big pope, he applies Is. 66:5 as against them, whereas he is the one that cast off his brethren, alleging that he thereby glorified the Lord, but thereby he acted out the holier-than-thou attitude of Is. 65:5, which, just like the big pope, he also applies to the defenders of the Truth and its arrangements for their efforts at character development. In fact he has, also just like the big pope, so far applied, in his continued railing, almost every Bible passage referring to the wicked to his alleged man of sin, many of whom are saints of God. He likewise, as in 1918, again like the big pope, falsely accuses these (Z '31, 329, par. 28) of now betraying him and his partisans to the civil power. Of course, as in 1918, he hopes thereby to keep his disciples in line by a double appeal—the involved suggestion that they are thereby proven to be of the Lord's remnant and that they must move heaven and earth to sell his books in order to remain such, and that his opponents are of the Judas class, and hence must be given no audience of any kind. In this he also acts just like his counterpart, the big pope, in Great Babylon. 

He says that in 1918 there were among the Spirit-begotten at least three classes: (1) the selfish, who said that the Lord delays His coming, (2) the discouraged and (3) the faithful. His first two alleged classes are no classes at all. Among the Spirit-begotten in 1918 there were no more than two classes: the Little Flock and the Great Company. An extensive observation of the Truth movements in 1918 qualifies us to say that there were no new creatures in the Truth who in that year denied that the Lord's presence had set in. There is one individual who, from Dec. 29, 1916, onward, while not denying that the Lord's presence had set in



(and the right Greek text of Matt. 24:48 does not say, My Lord delays to come; but My Lord delays [does not do things fast enough to suit me; therefore I will run ahead of Him, instead of waiting on Him, and will do to suit myself]), and that individual is demonstrably J.F.R. Despite repeated correction and better knowledge he continues to quote Matt. 24:48 in part as, My Lord delays to come, and then, with no justification in fact, applies this false reading of the passage to those whom he alleges became the man of sin in 1918 or 1919. All of the facts of the case prove that he is the one referred to in Matt. 24:48-51. 

His charge (Z '31, 117, par. 15) that his opponents hide their hatred with lying lips and utter slander as fact, which certainly characterized his Harvest Siftings, with its about 325 falsehoods mainly his own, so far as we are concerned is not true. We have utterly avoided discussing his personal conduct, criticizing only his official errors of doctrine, organization and arrangement. Our opposition to him is solely made for what the Bible, reason and facts prove of him as an official, not as an individual. And it flows not from hatred of him, nor from lying lips, as he charges, but from a zealous love for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren and a zealous hatred for sin, selfishness, worldliness and error, especially when we see these injure God's consecrated people, as his sinfulness, selfishness, worldliness and error have injured them more than that inflicted on them by any other human being. His saying (Z '31, 118, par. 25) that God's people had not been pleasing unto Him until 1918, or preferably 1922, is a direct contradiction of the Bible, which teaches the opposite of all God's Little Flock, (Ps. 147:11; 149:4; Heb. 10:38; 1 Cor. 10:5, 11; Heb. 11:5; 13:16; Col. 1:10; 3:20; 1 John 3:22). 

He uses very frequently in every one of his leading articles the expression, Jehovah's name, which, he says, to vindicate is the chief object of God and his

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


remnant. Untruthfully and slanderously he says that up to 1918 the faithful saw only the ransom and deliverance, but not the vindication of God's name (Z '31, 116, par. 11). He claims that his book and booklet selling campaign, which must include, of course, the millions not dying after 1925 propaganda, is the greatest vindication of Jehovah's name ever made (Z '31, 116, par. 11). When we consider the facts that his books reek through and through with error, that they almost always abound with abuse of the clergy and of those who contend for the Truth, instead of being filled with calm, well reasoned arguments from truth, reason and fact, and that the Elisha type, picturing the generally good aspects of the Societyites' public work, apart from the anointing of Hazael and Jehu, is silent on any of their works from 1921 onward until Elisha's death scene, which is post-Armageddon, we are enabled to get the Divine view of his work since 1920. It is unworthy of mention in the same breath with the reaping movement, because it is defiled by so much transparent error, intemperate speech, unreasoned zeal and unwise propaganda. Think of giving the public even a true exposition of Revelation and Ezekiel, which books are for the Church alone; and then think of the totally erroneous viewpoint of almost everything in these books, to say nothing of the millions propaganda and other errors of his movement, and then a fair estimate of the sort of vindication of Jehovah's name the Societyites have been giving the public since 1920 can be made! No doubt those Society friends who, mainly by word of mouth, since the literature furnished them is largely erroneous, by the Truth and by the Spirit truly reprove the world for sin, righteousness and judgment to come (John 16:8-11) (and with genuine pleasure we recognize that there are many of them who do so), are vindicating God's name; but by the nature of the situation they fall short of vindicating it so well as was



done through the Little Flock during the reaping time. 

J.F.R. claims that God's name means His purpose—a thing that he claims was never known before 1922. Then he says that God's purpose is to vindicate His name. This is, of course, reasoning in a circle and gets one nowhere so far as clearness of thought is concerned on God's name. While one feature of God's name is His plan, it has six other features; and when we speak of God's plan vindicating His name, we mean in such a connection by the word plan something different from what we mean there by the word name, while he makes God's name and what he thinks is His purpose synonymous. This vindication, he claims, is made in defiance and defeat of a challenge that Satan is supposed to have made to God to place on earth a man and race who would keep their integrity as against Satan's attempts at their seduction. In discussing his errors on Job we have overthrown this theory of God's plan. He claims that the purpose of the Christ is to vindicate God's name, purpose, against this imaginary challenge amid Satan's efforts to prevent God's putting such a man and race on earth. This setting is, of course, a mixture of truth and error. Its elaboration in J.F.R.'s writings makes power and combativeness God's main operating attributes and degrades His character and dignity as being wholly occupied in a fight of self-vindication against the imaginary challenge of an unscrupulous foe. 

God's true plan is a revelation and expression of His perfect character of blended and controlling wisdom, justice, love and power, all working in perfect coordination with one another through Christ's office work in overcoming the effects of sin (introduced by Satan through Adam and fostered by him in Adam's descendants). In such work Christ delivers from sin first the faith class as the elect, and secondly, blessing through these, the unbelief class as the non-elect with opportunities of deliverance from sin, He actually 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


delivers the obedient of these; and all this is done that God might have the joy (Rev. 4:11) of fitting the elect classes for, and giving them eternal life on various spirit planes, and of fitting the obedient of the non-elect class for, and giving them eternal life on the human plane, God's conflict with Satan being not the main, but an incidental part of this program, and not being at all a vindication of His ability to meet an imaginary challenge of Satan, though certainly vindicating His character against any and every aspersion cast upon it, but being altogether a revelation of His character to His rational creatures for their uplift and appreciation, that for their good they may forever celebrate by their thoughts, motives, words and acts, and image forth by their perfection God's glorious character. The reaping movement in a world-wide work most faithfully, holily and truthfully set forth this and therefore showed forth Jehovah's praises a hundredfold more and better than the for a large part unfaithful, defiled and erroneous movement led by J.F.R. has been doing from 1917 onward. 

That J.F.R.'s understanding of the expression, Jehovah's name, as meaning God's alleged purpose, is very incomplete, is evident when we recognize that this expression means seven different things. These were understood during the reaping time, yea, most of them by the nominal church, as we will quote in proof from the Lutheran catechism of Dr. Conrad Dietrich, written over three centuries ago; in the face of which he says that the significance of this term has just since 1922 come to be understood. We will first quote from the above-mentioned catechism to prove that several hundred years ago they understood more on the meaning of that term than J.F.R.'s definition of it as purpose, if the purpose were truly defined, as it is not by him, shows him to understand of it. Dr. Conrad Dietrich, who died in 1639, in his catechism, which was in circulation before 1625, page 



52, of the St. Louis' edition, asks the question: "What does the name of God mean?" and answers as follows: "(1) God Himself (Ex. 3:13-15;15:3); (2) God's attributes (Ex. 34:5-7); (3) God's will or command (Deut. 18:19); (4) all that is revealed of God in the Bible, and that serves for the knowledge (Ps. 48:11), worship (Micah 4:5), honor, praise and confession of Him (Acts 21:13)." This answer from a nominal-church source of over three centuries ago is far more comprehensive and complete than the very incomplete and wrongly defined definition—"Jehovah's purpose"—of J.F.R., who says that his understanding of it has only lately become due! It is, when rightly defined, included in what Dr. Dietrich gives under (4). 

We understand that this term name, and hence the term Jehovah's name, has at least seven meanings in the Bible, namely: (1) appellation, like Jehovah, Jesus, John, James, Mary, Martha, etc.; (2) nature (Ex. 3:14, where the expression, "I AM" [the translation here of the Hebrew imperfect tense, first person, instead of the usual third person, Yahveh, wrongly transliterated Jehovah, referring to God in His attributes of being], means His nature; Ps. 83:18; 99:3; Is. 42:8; 62:2; 63:16; Rev. 2:12); (3) character (Ex. 3:14, where occurs the expression, "I AM THAT I AM," i.e., I Am That I Am Pleased To Be—perfect in wisdom, justice, love and power; Ex. 33:18, 19; 34:5-7; Ps. 34:3; 91:14; 111:9) [In Ex. 6:3 the expression, "My name Jehovah" cannot mean God's appellation, since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew that and frequently used it, as the book of Genesis shows. Evidently Ex. 6:3 uses it to signify God's nature as the Eternal, Immortal, Unchangeable, Absolute, Self-sufficient, etc., One, and His character as the Wise, Just, Loving and Powerful One. For details please see P '31, 183, 184]; (4) reputation (Ex. 9:16; Is. 52:5; Mal. 1:11; Prov. 22:1); (5) word, plan, purpose (Ex. 34:6—"truth"; Ps. 48:8-13; 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Micah 4:5; Acts 21:13); (6) official authority (Deut. 18:19, 20; Ps. 118:10, 26; 129:8; Matt. 26:9); (7) honor (Is. 42:8; Mal. 1:14; Phil. 2:9-11). Against his statement that the expression, the name of Jehovah, was not understood until after 1922, from when on he claims it became clear as meaning what he alleges to be God's purpose, we say that from 1904 onward we knew the above seven meanings of the expression, one of which is that of Jehovah's plan or true purpose, and our Pastor knew them years before we did. It is true that J.F.R.'s perversion and counterfeits of God's purpose since 1917 and especially since 1922 were not previously known, but they are in the little papacy the counterfeits and perversions that correspond with similar ones in great papacy. Hence his definition of Jehovah's name is verbally only a very partial truth, and in content is an error with very little Truth intermixed, just as his definition (Z '31, 116, par. 10) of what constitutes overcoming—faithfulness in witnessing (which in his sense means selling his books and booklets, giving oral witness of their contents and recommending their alleged verity)—is a partial truth; whereas overcoming mean faithfulness in study, spread and practice of the Truth and in endurance of the resultant persecutions, sufferings and trials. One of his standard methods of deceit is his definitions, which often are half-truths and more often entire errors. 

He has in six consecutive issues of the Tower given a hodge-podge full of inconsistencies, self-contradictions, ambiguities, vagaries and blasphemies, as alleged new lightning flashes from his temple, on the supposed antitype of Esther. He sets forth the book as a picture of events connected with his movement. Mordecai is variously defined: sometimes as his faithful up to 1918 and onward (Z '31, 148, par. 15; 227, par. 4); sometimes as those giving the new light since 1918, and especially since 1922, which must mean



himself, since he is the one alleged to be giving it (Z '31, 198, par. 26). Esther represents that part of his remnant who have come in since 1918 and are designated and anointed the queen, Christ's Bride (Z '31, 148, par. 14; 227, par. 4). Ahasuerus represents royal power in the abstract. This definition, a splendid example of his methods of deceit, is used to pave the way to making him represent, according to the kaleidoscopic needs of his theory, sometimes Satan, sometimes the civil rulers, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Jehovah, and that at times in the same episode (Z '31, 148, par. 16). Vashti represent the false religious class: the Pharisees of old and those once in line for the kingdom, but proven lawless in 1917 and 1918 (Z '31, 148, par. 17). Haman types the clergy and his man of sin (Z '31, 148, par. 18). The Jews type God's faithful people, of whom Mordecai and Esther were mere representative members (Z '31, 149, par. 19; 153, par. 48). Much more logical is the thought that Vashti, while queen, represents the nominal church as the Lord's mouthpiece up to 1878, and hence reckoned Christ's queen; that Esther represents the Little Flock, which since 1878 displaced the nominal church as the Lord's mouthpiece and hence as Christ's reckoned queen; that Ahasuerus represents our Lord, and that Mordecai types the Laodicean Messenger. We hope to give details on this book of Esther in Vol. X. C. J. Woodworth's general setting of the book, as given in a letter in The Watch Tower, and in Comments based thereon is not in our judgment at all correct. 

We now will point out the erroneousness of J.F.R.'s view of the book of Esther as typing matters connected with his movement since 1917. He gives a wrong definition of Esther, saying the word means fresh myrtle, whereas, while Hadassah, her Hebrew name, means myrtle, her Persian name, Esther, means star, and not the star Venus, as C. J. Woodworth in his letter in Z '07, 198, suggests. Nor does the myrtle 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


tree represent J.F.R.'s remnant in his Harvest with his alleged Truth restorations and the alleged joy of his drives. It stands for the tentatively justified. In Neh. 8:14-17 the Israelites dwelling in booths of different kinds of branches type the various Truth professors occupying their different standings—dwelling places—before God as Little Flock members (olive branches), Youthful Worthies (myrtle branches), Second Death members (branches of thick trees), Great Company (palm branches) and the Justified (pine branches). In Is. 41:19, 20, except for the Second Death class, the same four classes are represented by the four kinds of trees in the first clause, as applying to the Parousia; and the three groups of the Epiphany Levites are represented by the three kinds of trees mentioned in the second clause. Also in Zech. 1:8-11 the myrtle trees represent the tentatively justified. 

J.F.R.'s statement (Z '31, 150, par. 30) that Esther was certainly of Benjamin, because of being a cousin of Mordecai, is saying too much. Mordecai was of Benjamin (Es. 2:5, 6). This would not necessarily imply that Esther was of that tribe, any more than that Elizabeth and Mary being cousins would make them of the same tribe, the former being of Levi and the latter of Judah (Luke 1:36), because the tribal relation being fixed by the father's and not by the mother's tribe, Esther's father, though being Mordecai's uncle (Es. 2:7) may or may not have been of Benjamin. Nor can we, as he does (Z '31, 151, par. 35), infer, from the fact that Benjamin adhered to Judah at the separation of the two and the ten tribes over 500 years before, that Esther, because of that adherence, types the faithful remnant steadfastly opposing his man of sin. Hereon several remarks: The descendants of certain ones used to type a certain class do not usually type members of the same class. Jacob and his children and other descendants, Isaac and his children and other descendants, Abraham and his children and other 



descendants, Joseph and his children and other descendants, Moses and his children and other descendants, etc., etc., are a few among many examples to this effect. Again, where are the Benjaminites set forth at the separation as typing those who opposed the man of sin? Further, he defines the word (Z '31, 150, par. 35) Mordecai as meaning myrrh, whereas the word means warrior or warlike, which certainly fits the true antitype—the Laodicean angel! He unwarrantedly says (Z '31, 151, par. 41) that the Bible and history prove that Ahasuerus was Xerxes. This has been assumed without proof from either the Bible or History as likely by some non-truth writers, whose assumption our Pastor considered probable enough to accept tentatively as such. Non-truth writers with seemingly better probabilities on their side, have assumed that he was Artaxerxes, who sent both Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem for Israel's good, and whose friendliness to the Jews they claim to be a tribute of his regard for Esther. This latter view we consider correct from Biblical and historical sources; for Xerxes reigned only eleven years, whereas Ahasuerus reigned many more than twelve years (compare Esther 3:7, 13 with 9:20–10:3). For the proof of Xerxes' reign being of but eleven years' duration please see the pertinent facts as they are given in the Edgar Brothers' Great Pyramid Passages, Vol. 2, 305–327. Hence J.F.R.'s pertinent assertions are an illustration of the unreliability of his statements on matters of fact in general, and on this subject in particular. His statement (Z '31, 152, par. 43) that Ahasuerus types both Christ and Satan and that his seven chamberlains type the seven heads of the Dragon and the seven stars of the seven churches, is prima facie evidence of the error of his view of the entire antitype. This is all the more manifest when he, as shown above, asserts that Ahasuerus types Jehovah also. Sober minds must reject a setting which requires such twists, absurdities and 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


contrarieties in the antitypical significance. Such incongruities find no place in the true antitype, where Ahasuerus throughout represents our Lord. These incongruities are only a few samples of the stretching, twisting, whittling, ignoring and contradicting necessary to torture the book of Esther into a type of his movement since 1917. 

Vashti does not mean beautiful woman; it means beautiful, regardless of whether a woman or something else is spoken of. Of course, it is in his interests, if he would keep disciples following after him and frighten them away from those whose arguments he cannot meet, and whose communion he forbids his followers to hold, to represent them as antitypical Haman, his evil servant, man of sin, son of perdition, Antichrist, lawless one, Judas, workers of iniquity and anything else he can find unfavorable in the Bible to pin on them, no matter how much wresting and twisting of the Scriptures it requires. Nor does Haman mean noise, tumult, he that prepares the way, nor does Hammedatha mean he that troubles the law, as he asserts (Z '31, 152, par. 46), but Haman means Mercury as famed and Hammedatha means doubly given. Claiming that Christ's reign began Oct., 1914, that His war with Satan followed immediately and that Christ's victory was followed by the antitype of Ahasuerus' 180 days' feast, whose type occurred in the third year of Ahasuerus' reign, and applying the typical years for so many years in the antitype, he involves himself into a chronological blunder that disproves his setting of things; for the third year (Es. 1:3, 4) of a reign alleged to have begun in the "autumn of 1914" would be Oct., 1916, to Oct., 1917. But, alas for his theory, the seventh day of a feast of 180 days, when Vashti's rebellion set in, within that third year, even if it were put at its latest possible date, would be in the second half of that period which makes the seventh day of that period about April 7, 1917, while his setting of 



things, as he puts it (Z '31, 163, par. 3), requires him to begin the feast in the end of 1917, or the beginning of 1918 (Z '31, 163, par. 4). But it is true that he was feasting at the table of power-grasping and lording it over God's heritage and gormandized himself to the full during the third year, 1916-1917, and thereby made a division in the Church, which began June 27, 1917, a half year too early for the rebellion of his antitypical Vashti! He then calls his alleged feast the beginning of the marriage supper of the Lamb (the end of 1917 or beginning of 1918!), whereas the Bible shows that supper to take place after the Great Company is not only invited thereto, which has not yet taken place, but after they leave the world, which will not be for perhaps 20 years yet (Rev. 19:8, 9). He is further inconsistent in identifying this feast and the one of Luke 14:17-21, and connecting them with his alleged coming of Christ to the temple (Z '31, 164, pars. 8, 9), which he has all along been claiming for the Spring of 1918, a further proof of his stretching the third year until its end reaches the Fall of 1918, the beginning of the fifth year after Oct., 1914! 

He defines his seven wise men in a good sense (in the bad sense they are the dragon's seven heads!) as being allegedly spirit beings, as the seven alleged angels of the seven churches (Z '31, 164, par. 12). It will be recalled that years ago we charged that a logical deduction from his new setting of things would force him to make Christ's Second Advent occur Oct., 1914. This he denied, and for years kept saying that he was not changing it from 1874. We charged that this was hypocritical in him and was done because he did not then dare take the mask off the face of his theory. Now he comes out and plainly gives 1914 as the date of Christ's Second Advent (Z '31, 166, par. 23)! Hegai, which means exile, he defines (Z '31, 167, par. 31) as taking away, meditation. He claims (Z '31, 167, par. 32) that Hegai types some [note the indefiniteness] 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


provision [persons never type provisions] from and after 1918 to prepare God's people for the kingdom, which seems to be his antitype for his meaning of taking away; and as an alleged antitype of the alleged meaning meditation he claims there has been more study of the Word since 1918 than before. The reverse, of course, is the case among his followers. One of the worst effects of his administration is his prevention of Bible study, necessitated by keeping his partisans busy selling his erroneous books, and devoting so much of the meetings' time to coaching on book selling. Everybody knows that in Society circles study is in part given up; and for the rest the lessons of the Tower must be gone over so rapidly (about 3½ pages at a lesson) that class members cannot be said to study in such meetings. They merely kiss the great toe of the little pope by submitting unquestioningly to his supposed channelship, swallowing without chewing the unhealthful food he gives them. Like the seven counselors of Ahasuerus in a good sense, Esther's seven maids are supposed to be the seven alleged spirit angels of the seven churches (Z '31, 167, par. 35)! The spirit angels cannot minister the Spirit or the Word to the Faithful, to whom they minister only providentially (Acts 11:13, 14). He claims (Z '31, 168, par. 42) that Is. 65:5, in referring to those who say, "holier than thou," means those who develop character for kingdom fitness. But really for the Gospel Age it means those nominal people of God, especially the clergy, who excommunicated the saints as defiled heretics; and in the little Gospel Age, the little papists and protestants (other Levites) who have disfellowshipped the priesthood as defiled heretics. He also in the same paragraph claims that Esther's year's preparation types the preparation for the anointing for the kingdom, which his new view claims in all cases is offered to only the very zealous among new creatures, whereas the preparation types the anointing



of the Church class as Christ's prospective reckoned queen for taking the mouthpieceship that antitypical Vashti in 1878 lost. 

He comes again into chronological difficulties. Actually the seventh year from Oct., 1914 (when he claims that Christ's reign began, typed, he claims, by Ahasuerus' reign beginning), is Oct., 1920, to Oct., 1921. But according to his setting what he falsely claims (Z '31, 169, par. 47) is typed by Esther's being brought to the king in the seventh year of his reign actually began to take place in Sept. of 1922, just about a year after the end of his seventh year, not after the end of seven years, as he tries to gloss it over. Ahasuerus in supremely loving Esther now begins (Z '31, 170, par. 50), but only for a little while, to type Jehovah, an [alleged] fact that Jesus likely had in mind when He said, "The Father Himself loveth you"! But the connection shows that he now is taking Esther to wife, hence cannot therein represent Jehovah; but could therein fittingly represent Jesus. And Esther's feast (Z '31, 170, par. 53) in celebration of the marriage "probably foreshadowed 'the marriage supper of the Lamb' to which God's remnant [hence not the Great Company!] are invited, and to which they have responded, and that this dates from approximately Sept. [in the banner unfurling at the Columbus Convention], 1922." (1) His remark (Z '31, 182, par. 22) that Satan's messengers hide behind the letter of the law in their efforts to injure the faithful, reminds us of his attempting to hide his unholy ambition in power-grasping and resisting of all opposers thereof in 1917 behind an inapplicable law, requiring allegedly the ousting of the four directors. Then he claims (Z '31, 182, par. 24) that God allows Satan, particularly since 1918, and more so since 1922, to seek to destroy the Church! Greater efforts by far were made by Satan in the Dark Ages by great papacy. Rather, since 1917 God has been letting Satan seek to destroy the flesh 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


of the Great Company, and this, with chronological twists to suit his theory, he misinterprets as Satan's greater efforts to destroy the Church. Esther's being told (Z '31, 196, pars. 9, 11) to declare her nationality, he alleges, types the Societyites' being told to stand forth against Satan's organization by giving the Society's messages, which are his own. This is untrue; for her being urged to declare her nationality was to preserve her and the other Israelites' lives, based upon her influence with the king. Again, it is untrue, for Esther did not stand up against Ahasuerus' empire, which, according to the theory, was the type of Satan's alleged organization. Again, it is untrue because those stood up against were at most servants of Satan, who therefore, would type certain servants of Satan at the time of the antitype. And, finally, the declaration of her nationality was only incidental to, and influential for the Jews' delivery. Hence the alleged antitype falls to the ground. Her declaration of her nationality was only one act of her maintaining her integrity, which to retain God's favor she had hitherto faithfully kept. Hence her telling her nationality could not type the Church's full keeping of its integrity (Z '31, 196, par. 13). 

To assert, as he does (Z '31, 196, par. 10), that until only lately have the present Truth people been considered "as like other 'Christians' so-called, merely religionists in the land," is a false and base slander of the Reaping People of God, who were certainly in many ways by "'Christians' so called" persecuted for their stand for Truth and righteousness while reaping the Gospel-Age Harvest. He dares charge God's Little Flock in its reaping members from 1874 to 1914 with being "like other 'Christians' so called." In so doing he reveals himself as acting as the mouth of the little beast in little Babylon, opened "in blasphemy against God to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle and them that dwell in heaven" (Rev. 13:6). Contrast his



fierce denunciation of the clergy, politicians and capitalists with Bro. Russell's sober, truthful, clear, but tactful descriptions of these, e.g., as in Vol. IV, and at once the spirit of the latter is shown to be that of that wise and faithful servant and that of the former is shown to be that of the Jambresite leader among Truth sifters, that wicked servant and foolish and unprofitable shepherd. 

If his pertinent setting of things is right (Z '31, 197, pars. 14, 15), Esther's going to the king for relief could only type the Lord's people going down to Egypt for help—a thing that he denounces; hence he jumps away from his setting of things—Satan's alleged organization typed by the Persian Empire—and makes Jehovah the antitype of Ahasuerus—a procedure that to the discerning is proof positive of the erroneousness of his entire theory of the antitype of the book of Esther. Never once does he apply his definition of Ahasuerus' antitype, royalty in the abstract, to such, but always applies it to persons, which proves the definition to be a studied subterfuge. He claims that those who hold to Rom. 13:1-6 as referring to the civil powers, which its various expressions prove it does, have "gone into the dark," i.e., have left the Truth. But he has almost entirely left the Truth that held up to 1916, which proves that he is one of those who have "gone into the dark." Par. 35 says that God and His organization are the higher powers, which, of course, from his standpoint, includes the Society leaders, especially himself, as the little papal autocrat of them all. Esther's sending word to Mordecai that she would go to the king for the release of the Jews, with preceding fasting, he claims (Z '31, 198, par. 27), types the alleged remnant announcing their determination to prepare to get into line and partake in the Society's drives. This cannot be true, even from the standpoint of his own position, because his view requires this alleged antitype to have set in after 1926— 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the 12th year—whereas his supposed Esther had for years entered into and continued in such conformity and drives. Esther's purifying, in his setting, typing preparation for the remnant's anointing, the king's choosing her as bride typing his remnant's choice for the anointing by Christ, her marriage typing the remnant's being made a sharer of Christ's kingdom with Him, by becoming an active part of Jehovah's organization, are examples of three contradictions to his chronological claim on the 12th year now being examined. Our understanding of the typical significance of the 3rd, 7th and 12th years is as follows: The 3rd year, as marking the feast and Vashti's rejection, the 7th as marking Esther's choice by the king, and the 12th year as affecting Persians and Jews type not years but trial times of different classes. The 3rd year types the trial period of the nominal church as mouthpiece; the 7th year the trial period of the true Church for mouthpiece, and the 12th year, the trial period of the real and nominal Little Flock as to their standing. 

Again, His claim that such getting into line and partaking in such drives occasioned Satan to make the original decree to put his remnant, among other things, to physical death; hence the alleged remnant's subsequent act of going to the king for release from the decree could not have caused the decree, for the cause must precede the effect. The same chronological and logical contradictions are manifest in his claim (Z '31, 199, par. 34) that Esther's appearing before the king types the faithful appearing before Christ's judgment seat in his temple, which everywhere he alleges was in 1918 and 1919, which is before the alleged decree was issued. Her thus appearing, he alleges, is in her going from house to house to sell his books and booklets since 1926! Note the change from Jehovah to Christ (par. 34) in his pertinent interpretation of the type, while the actual demands of his setting make, not 



Christ, but Satan, the threatener of the danger, and hence the king's antitype here. 

Note the folly of Z '31, 212, par. 5: Devils tried to make Ahasuerus cranky at the time of Esther's appearance, but good angels shoved them away and made him good humored! This is when Ahasuerus is supposed to type our Lord sitting in His temple in judgment! This, he says, was just before the remnant appeared before Christ in the temple and received the robe of righteousness, garments of salvation (Z '31, 212, pars. 5, 6), which he everywhere else assigns to 1918 and 1919, but here to 1926! It is also contradictory to his setting that the antitype of her going to the king on behalf of her people occurred in the remnant's selling his books from 1922 onward, while the decree was made in the twelfth year of Christ's supposed reign, 1926. 

Note the glaring inconsistency of Haman's being in the scene of the banquet Ahasuerus' prime minister and in that scene typing the cast-off clergy and the alleged man of sin, and in the same scene Ahasuerus typing Jehovah or Christ (Z '31, 213, par. 13). Of course, his charge (Z '31, 216, pars. 35, 36) that the clergy and his man of sin seek the physical death of his remnant is false; but it serves splendidly to make his remnant oppose his man of sin and partisanly support him; but, as the Irishman said, "Thot's the intintion." His view (Z '31, 216, pars. 39–47) that the Bible teaches that civil rulers will destroy the clergy and his man of sin, and that before Armageddon, is false. The civil rulers will mourn over the clergy's destruction, standing helpless afar off therefrom (Rev. 18:9, 10). It will be antitypical Jehu, conservative labor, the revolutionists, who will kill the clergy in so far as they are Baal worshipers and kissers (2 Kings 11:11, 18-28). He is led to make this error by claiming (Z '31, 216, pars. 39, 40) that Ahasuerus in executing Haman types the civil rulers destroying the clergy and his

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


man of sin. He thus makes Ahasuerus type five things in this book: royalty in the abstract, Satan, Christ, Jehovah and the civil rulers. Yea, in the banquet scene he first makes Ahasuerus type Christ, then changes him from Christ to the civil rulers at Haman's exposure; and at Ahasuerus' returning and finding Haman pleading with Esther for his life, he changes him to Jehovah; and in his ordering Haman's death he changes him again to the civil rulers! And all this in one scene! 

He misapplies Joel 3:9, 12, which refers to the World War, to Armageddon (Z '31, 229, par. 13), and then makes Armageddon mean all the trouble, whereas (he is silent on the World War as part of the trouble, since it no longer fits his views) it does not refer to anarchy, nor Jacob's trouble, but solely to the revolution (Rev. 16:14-18), immediately after which, he says (Z '31, 233, par. 48), the kingdom will bless all as its subjects. This cannot be until, not only after anarchy and Jacob's trouble, but after the return of the Ancient Worthies. 

Of course, such twists are necessary to his claim (Z '31, 229, par. 20) that the messengers, sent to the Jews, giving them the right to defend themselves from their attackers, type his remnant selling his literature containing the message to the antitypical Jews to fight in Armageddon! The Lord's faithful, allegedly his Jews, are to stand entirely aside and let antitypical Jehu, conservative labor, fight with the financial, clerical and political rulers (Rev. 16:14). This, from the standpoint of his setting that the Jews type God's remnant, proves, contrary to his view, that the battle of the 13th of the 12th month cannot type Armageddon. His saying (Z '31, 229, pars. 21, 22) that in type and antitype "the Jews" will be aggressors, not simply defenders, contradicts the Bible account that present the Jews as defenders ("stood for their lives") and, of course, would represent defending, not 



attacking antitypes. This error is to incite to aggressive book and booklet selling! His claim (Z '31, 243, par. 3) that the fact that those who were in 1918 restrained by the government have since been given opportunities to serve proves them to be the faithful, is illogical. The faithful Epiphany friends were not so restrained, and were before, during and after that restraint given the privilege of leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate, etc.; while that restraint, preceded and followed by its participants having opportunities for service (of Azazel), is in line with the thought that it was a fit-man experience. Mordecai's and Esther's being of one family being used by him (Z '31, 227, par. 4) as a proof that they thereby type the espoused of Christ, is transparent folly, as it would prove Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Benjamin, Cain and Abel, etc., to type the espoused of Christ. 

What of his claim that his antitypical Haman, the clergy and his man of sin, are to be put to death physically by the civil powers before Armageddon? J.F.R. has repeatedly been proven to have made false forecasts. Hence he is proven to be a false prophet and the Lord's people should regard and disregard him as a proven false prophet, according to Deut. 18:22. Having, since shortly after his presumptuous and busybodying "absolutely-without-authority" cablegram reached England, Feb. 26, 1917, been regarded by him as his leading opponent, of course, from his standpoint we are the leader of his Antichrist, his man of sin, his son of perdition, his lawless one, his Judas, his evil servant and his workers of iniquity. Therefore, according to his theory we are going to be executed physically by the civil rulers before Armageddon. If we are not executed physically by the civil rulers before Armageddon, he will for the "steenth" time be proven a false prophet. 

But the situation is not one so easily disposed of. We will press it home as we did the 1925 fiasco, which, 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


from our knowledge of the Biblical Parousia and Epiphany teachings, we forecast as such at least five years before 1925. The Biblical Epiphany teachings prompt us here to declare now in advance of his time for our alleged physical execution by the civil powers, that he in this forecast will again be proven to be a false prophet. Knowing the work the Lord has given us to do after Armageddon, we now call to witness our heavenly Father, the Lord Jesus, the Church Triumphant and Militant, the partisan Society adherents and any other of the Truth people to whose attention this statement may come, that we solemnly declare in their presence that J.F.R. has made a false forecast with reference to the clergy and his man of sin, etc., particularly as impliedly involving ourself, when he forecasts that they will be physically executed by the civil rulers before Armageddon; and we also call them to witness to the fact that we assert that the factual disproof of his forecast will not only prove him a false prophet, to be regarded and disregarded as such, but to have given a totally false setting to the typical teachings of the book of Esther, and to be a completely unreliable and thoroughly false teacher; while the fulfillment of his forecasts would prove us a false prophet and an unreliable teacher. Into such a revelatory testing position has his pertinent forecast put him, and our above use of it put us! As Elijah put himself and the priests of Baal to test, so now we put ourself and him before the heavenly Father, our Lord Jesus, the Church Triumphant and Militant, the partisan Society adherents and any of the rest of the Truth people who shall read this, to a test that will determine which of us is a teacher Divinely enlightened, and which of us is a Satanically deluded and deluding teacher among God's people. We are penning these words Sunday A. M., Jan. 24, 1932. 

In Z '31, 243–249 and 259–265, he writes on Ezek. 8 



and 9, forcing these chapters into setting forth things from 1919 onward, whereas they portray matters from 1874 onward. Neither our Pastor nor ourself have written on Ezek. 8, though we have detailedly written on Ezek. 9 in Vol. IV, Chap. II, and successfully defended our position therein from an attack from J.F.R. from a standpoint that he now repudiates! Of course, it is quite significant that under our attacks or defenses he is continually compelled to alter his views. We will here give a very brief view of our understanding of the general features of Ezek. 8: Ezekiel in this chapter represents the Little Flock in the reaping time. The presence of Judah's elders represents the thought that the vision concerns the leaders of Churchianity during the reaping time, particularly, though not exclusively, in Protestantism. The likeness (v. 2) represents the Parousia Truth, which enabled the Church to have proper insight (vision) into Churchianity. The temple represents the Church. The image of jealousy symbolizes the eternal torment theory, a counterfeit of the real curse, which the sacrifice on the antitypical Altar cancels. Its being placed beside the altar symbolizes the profanation of the real sacrifice and altar—Christ's death and his humanity for sin's cancellation—through vitiating them, i.e., the eternal torment theory sets these aside, and thus profanes them. The worship of the creeds, organizations and arrangements of Churchianity, fostered by the clergy—the counterfeit 70, Jaazaniah representing the defiled crown-lost leaders—in its profanation of God's Church, is symbolized in vs. 10-12, while the Church studying into this situation and helped thereto is set forth in vs. 7-9. The sorrow of the pertinent churches over the decay of the union of church and state is symbolized by the weeping of the women over Tammuz (vs. 13, 14). Baal worship—power-grasping and lording it over God's people, as exercised by the clergy, especially the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Roman clergy—is symbolized in vs. 15, 16, while vs. 17, 18 contain God's statement on the conditions and the resultant wrath. All of this, without understanding its relation to this chapter, was seen by the Church in the Parousia. 

J.F.R.'s remarks on this and the following chapter are characterized by his habitual dullness, vagariousness, arbitrariness and folly, because he forces a meaning on them that does not fit them; since he applies them onward from 1919. He says (Z '31, 244, par. 5) that Jehovah began in 1919 to forewarn the workers of iniquity of their future punishment and to reveal Satan's evil order of affairs, whereas, as a matter of fact, the pertinent warnings and revelations (vs. 17, 18) were given throughout the reaping time, and that on evils in the nominal church, those of the statesmen and aristocrats as such being excluded from this picture. See the chapters on the Day of Jehovah and Kingdoms of This World of Studies, Vol. I, the Times of the Gentiles, the Jubilee, the Parallel Dispensations and the Antichrist of Studies, Vol. II, the Reaping and Pyramid of Studies, Vol. III, Studies, Vol. IV, etc. The punishment began in the World War, five years before his fictitious first warnings are supposed to have begun. We do not doubt that, as the partisan Society adherents have received since 1917 the public ministry of reproving for sin, etc., they have given warning of punishments coming since then. But this was after the Little Flock's warning had been completed and its threatened punishment had begun, and only the latter's warning is symbolized by the one offered Ezekiel to give and the one that he gave. J.F.R.'s image of jealousy is the Devil (Z '31, 245, par. 9)! The abomination of desolation is no more the papacy; but is the Devil's organization, particularly his image of the beast—the League of Nations (Z '31, 245, 10)! It will be noticed that while chapters 8 and 9 speak of abominations profaning the temple,



it does not mention the abomination of desolation. Hence, here we have another piece of Rutherfordian eisegesis. The women weeping for Tammuz represent, he says, Epworth Leaguers and Fundamentalists (Z '31, 246, par. 15), whereas symbolically women represent churches. Tammuz, he says (par. 15), represents Churchianity, whereas Tammuz is a Phoenician variation of Osiris [Nimrod] corresponding to the Roman Adonis, whom Venus [Nimrod's wife and mother, Semiramis] mothered and then committed incest with, their unholy union being a type of the union of church and state, especially, but not exclusively, of the Romanist church and the papal state. 

His slaughter-weapon men now (Z '31, 259, par. 2) are Jesus and the spirit angels; they used to be the Church after Bro. Russell died! They may, though, now include the risen saints (par. 2)! Their number, six, he says, represents their incompleteness, because they must be completed by his inkhorn man, whom he formerly and erroneously claimed was Bro. Russell alone, but now claims is his remnant, as the seventh, whereby the complete number is had (Z '31, 260, par. 4), whereas six, being the number of imperfection and evil, the six cannot represent Jesus, the spirit angels and possibly the risen saints. He says that the slaughter-weapon men cannot be servants of Satan, because God gives them a command (Z '31, 261, par. 7). The fallacy of this is evident from the fact that God in a similar sense gave a command to a wicked spirit to deceive Ahab (1 Kings 22:19-23), and by His providences sends commands to sifters to work strong delusions (2 Thes. 2:9-11). In this way the command of Ezek. 9:5-7 was given. His slaughter-weapon men—spirit beings—he claims physically kill the wicked (Z '31, 261, pars. 10, 11), but the Bible teaches that human beings will kill some (2 Kings 9-11), and famines and pestilences will kill others of them. The whole section being symbolic, of course 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the killing must be symbolic. Those who are ink-marked on their foreheads are the millions now living who will never die (Z '31, 262, par. 14)! Despite terrible jolts he seems unable to shake himself loose from the "millions" idea! At least the following is true of many of those who were led to believe that they were among those alleged millions: By the millions propaganda before 1925, symbolic ink, both corrupt and ill-smelling, as such even yet noticeable in the figurative atmosphere, was splattered with bad effect into their eyes, but was inherently too effervescent to mark their foreheads. Nowhere in the Bible are others than the Little Flock spoken of as being by God commanded to be marked in the forehead (Rev. 7:1-3; 14:1). Hence the inked ones of Ezek. 9 are the faithful Church during the Parousia, when all of them were so marked. One little consideration overthrows his view and proves the slaughter-weapon men to be evil-doers: They defiled God's temple—the Church—(Ezek. 9:7); and the Bible teaches: "If anyone defile the temple of God, him will God destroy" (1 Cor. 3:17). Hence these slaughter-weapon men were not Jesus, the good angels and the risen saints, but have been the six sets of reprobates who have led the six siftings of the Harvest. 

With Judas-like kisses as professions of love and esteem for Bro. Russell (Z '31, 279, pars. 1–7), he stabs him in the back by repudiating both relationship to his work, main teachings and sympathizers and the name, "Bible Students," that Bro. Russell usually employed for the Lord's people, when addressing the public, in response to their demand for a name as a means of identification. Under the present circumstances we think this fortunate, because his gross errors, unfulfilled forecasts and rowdy mannerisms have altogether too much reflected discreditably upon our Pastor, in his teachings, arrangements, spirit, sympathizers. He then proceeds to give his followers the 



name Jehovah's witnesses. He claims that God commands this name to be given them. He reaches this conclusion with characteristic mud clearness. He says that to be Jehovah's witnesses (his devoted sectarians, the little pope's symbolic toe-kissers) means that his remnant has received the stone with the new name of Rev. 2:17 written therein. The fact that the term, Jehovah's witnesses, as the sectarian name of his followers, is known by many of the public, proves that it cannot be the new name of Rev. 2:17, which only its recipients know. Does the fact that his followers went wild with enthusiasm when given this name at their Columbus Convention prove it Divinely given? A balanced Christian never goes wild over anything, though he does have a sober enthusiasm for the Lord, His Truth and His people. Such wild enthusiasts are just the ones bigotedly, in cock-sureness of having a monopoly of the Truth and its service, to accept his advice not to discuss religion with those Truth people not agreeing with his teachings (Z '31, 280, par. 1). 

The new name of Is. 62:2; 65:15, has no reference to his claim that it points out the (sectarian) appellation that he has given his followers; for it refers to the new nature and office that Jehovah gives the faithful beyond the vail. From Is. 65:15 he claims (Z '31, 292, par. 7) that God wants the Societyites to be called by a new name to distinguish them in the eyes of the public from the so-called opposition! He says (Z '31, 293, par. 10; 295, par. 23) that Is. 62:1, 2, etc., cannot apply to the Church beyond the vail, because allegedly the nations could not see that God then would have an approved people! But God's saying that the Church while in the flesh ("now") will not be recognized by the world as the faithful (1 John 3:2) proves that Is. 62:1, 2, must apply to the Church beyond the vail, which proves that the new name of Is. 62:2; 65:15; Rev. 2:17; 3:12, must refer to the

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Church beyond the vail and cannot refer to the Church this side the vail, and therefore cannot sanction the taking as a distinctive (and we should in truth add, sectarian) name, the term, "Jehovah's witnesses," which is not, unless sectarianly used, a name at all, but a description of the Church in her mission to the world during the Gospel Age. The name of Rev. 3:12 cannot refer (as he claims in Z '31, 294, par. 15) to the name of his sect, because it is common to the overcomers, to the new Jerusalem (which is undoubtedly beyond the vail), to Christ and to God, who certainly will not give His appellation, Jehovah (Is. 42:8), to anyone, which proves the word name here does not mean appellation. This passage also proves it, because Jehovah is not one of Jehovah's witnesses, for God says to others than Himself, "Ye are My witnesses." Moreover, the express term, "Jehovah's witnesses," does not occur in the Bible, but the term is "My witnesses." All this proves that this newly invented appellation is not referred to by the above considered four passages alleged for it. 

He seeks (Z '31, 295, pars. 25, 26) to evade the force of the expression, that the new name is to him that overcomes, as applying to final overcoming, by saying that the word does not refer in these verses to final overcoming, but to incidental overcoming during this life. We reply, whenever this word carries a restricted meaning, such as he seeks to apply to it in Rev. 3:12, etc., the Scriptures use a qualifying term so limiting it, as in the expressions, "gotten the victory over the beast and over his image" (Rev. 15:12), and "in all these things, we are more than conquerors" (Rom. 8:37). But in Rev. 2 and 3 the overcomers who are promised special rewards are final overcomers and their reward in every case is beyond the vail. In Rev. 3:12, as said above, the word name cannot mean appellation, for the Church never receives Jehovah's appellation (Is. 42:8), while this verse says 



she will get Jehovah's name. It evidently means name in the sense of the Divine nature here. His connecting (Z '31, 294, par. 16) the white stone with the Urim and Thummim is a wild guess without the slightest vestige of Scriptural proof and contrary to the Scriptural teachings, just as his placing the Urim and Thummim within the fold of the breastplate is a baseless and untrue assumption. The Bible connects them with the twelve stones in the front of the breastplate. It is untrue that only faithful Societyites understand what he claims to be Jehovah's purpose. Our understanding of his pertinent theory has helped us by the Lord's grace to prove it erroneous. His claim (Z '31, 295, par. 20) that the name, Jehovah's witnesses, can apply only to the Societyites is silly. It is not an appellation, hence can be nobody's name, unless it is assumed, as in this case, by a sect as its name. Since the Bible does not use it as a name, we do not desire it as such. 

J.F.R., in Z '31, 307-313, gives a new view of the highway of holiness of Is. 35:8, claiming that it has been opened since 1918 and that his faithful followers—his remnant—are the vanguard of Jehovah's army, marching thereon (Z '31, 307, par. 1-3), to be followed later thereon by the Great Company and in the next Age by the Restitution class. This, of course, results from his error of applying almost everything good in the Bible to his movement since 1917, which is supposed to be proven as right by 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 and Rom. 15:4. Heb. 12:12, 13, an allusion to Is. 35:3, 4, is also supposed to make the highway apply since 1918, despite the fact that St. Paul makes the allusion to the brethren throughout the entire Gospel Age, without blunderingly connecting the passage dispensationally with Is. 35:8, as par. 4 does. Instead of such a connection being a matter "without question of a doubt," as J.F.R. dogmatically says, the true run of thought is the following: God holds out the world's 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Millennial paradisaic hope (Is. 25:1, 2) and the hope of our Lord's Second Advent, as accomplishing the overthrow of Satan's empire and the deliverance of His Church (Is. 35:4), as an encouragement to His Own throughout the Age to press on in the narrow way, despite weakness of their symbolic hands and feet and timidity of their symbolic heart. He continues (Is. 35:5-10) to encourage such brethren with a glowing description of the Millennial hopes and prospects. Hence the reference to the weak hands, feeble knees and timid hearts of vs. 3, 4, proves that they are not the ones on the highway, but are the ones to comfort themselves with the hopes that are theirs for the world, centering in that highway. This Biblical answer effectually disposes of the central position of the article under review. Of course Satan seeks to make the new view, that he is through the Society's mouthpiece palming off, seem plausible by certain details, which we will now briefly examine. 

In Z '31, 308, pars. 7, 8, he quotes a translation of Is. 35:8 in his favor from Rotherham, who usually is one of the best of all translators. But in this instance Rotherham is far less correct than either the A. V., E. R. V., A. R. V. or Young. We first give Rotherham's translation of the second half of the verse, asking our readers to note the interpolation that he inserts at the end of the verse and to remember that one of the two main errors under review on this verse rests on this interpolation, and the other upon Rotherham's mistranslation in the first-quoted sentence: "But He Himself shall be one of them traveling the road. And the perverse shall not stray [thereinto]." The interpolation thereinto introduces a thought entirely foreign to the text and context. And the first sentence certainly is a mistranslation. The interpolation and false translation are due to Rotherham's reading his nominal-church view of the non-Millennial application of the highway into this passage.



The A.V., E.R.V. and A.R.V. are correct here, barring their interpolations. The unclean who do not pass over the highway are those who in the next Age will not reform (Is. 65:20). These will not be allowed to pass over its full length. Young renders the second half of the verse as follows: "He Himself is by [for] them: whoso is going in [there is no word in the Hebrew corresponding to the word in here] the way—even fools—err not." The Hebrew masculine pronoun hoo has in v. 8 as its antecedent the Hebrew masculine noun derech, way. To show its emphasis the word itself might well be added. The translation He Himself, in itself grammatically correct enough, implies an antecedent 4½ verses above, hence is farfetched and interferes strangely with the verse's run of thought. A good Hebrew scholar untrammeled by the creeds in his translation will certainly acknowledge Young's translation here as far better than Rotherham's, despite the latter's usual excellence. The A.V., E.R.V., A.R.V., and Young prove the passage to be exclusively Millennial, since now only the wise (Dan. 12:10) understand and do not go astray in error. Nor is Rotherham's thought supported by Is. 52:11, 12, as J.F.R. contends. To his remark (Z '31, 308, pars. 10, 11) that prior to 1917–1919 Jesus' followers were compelled to mingle with Babylonians, but since that time they have been on the highway, we reply that this remark is another proof that he disbelieves that the Harvest began in 1874, but believes that it began "approximately" 1917, 1918 or 1919! He claims that since 1919 the remnant no more are compelled to mingle with Babylonians, who with all others are being kept out of Zion (par. 13). For proof he quotes three undoubtedly Millennial passages: Rev. 21:27; 22:15; Is. 65:15, which, therefore, prove nothing of the kind. 

In Z '31, 309, pars. 16, 17, he labors to prove that fools are the perverse exclusively, in order to give

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


such a meaning, with Rotherham, to the word fools in Is. 35:8, applying these, of course, then to his man of sin. We reply that the Bible uses the word fools in two senses: those of weak understanding (Luke 24:25; 1 Cor. 15:36; Gal. 3:1, 3), and those of perverse heads and hearts. This fact proves that he has failed to prove that the fools of Is. 35:8 are the perverse—his man of sin. That they are not the perverse this very verse shows, when it proves that such will not be allowed to pass over its full length. Again, he (Z '31, 310, par. 22) quotes Rotherham's misrendering in v. 10 of the word bo by enter, whereas the word bo must have an associated preposition to have this rendering, and without it is translated come or go. In Is. 51:11 Rotherham properly renders the same word, and that in this very same sentence quoted from Is. 35:10 by the word "come," which he should have done in Is. 35:10. This overthrows another argument that Is. 35 applies since 1919. In this connection he says that the imprisoning of the eight brethren in 1917 was carrying them away captive to Babylon. Not so; for that would have made them go back to membership in the nominal church. Again, he says (Z '31, 310, par. 23) that Jehovah (Is. 11:11, 16) fixed the time of the highway by the term "in that day." Yes, we reply, He did; and the remnant of his people here referred to are not His spiritual, but His fleshly Israel, as vs. 11-14 clearly prove. Fleshly, but not spiritual Israel, experiences a second deliverance (v. 11) from Assyria, etc. Moreover, the allusion to the coming out of the land of Egypt (v. 16) proves the same thing: for the coming out from the land of Egypt was after Israel left Etham and entered the wilderness, a Millennial type (Ex. 13:20). 

Since he claims (Z '31, 310, par. 26) that God's earthly organization, his earthly Zion, was not formed until 1919, there could have been no return to it in 1919, as it had never before, according to his 



supposition, been formed. This takes away from him the first part of Is. 35:10 as applying to his remnant: "The ransomed of the Lord [the restitution class] shall return [mostly from the grave; all from the curse] and come to Zion [the Millennial Christ, as God's religious government] etc." Is. 62:10, in its last clauses [where the Hebrew word for people is plural—peoples] proves that ever since 1874 the Church is preparing the highway for the people to travel in the next Age, not since 1919 only; and in its first clauses it exhorts to pass through the gates, (1) the gate of consecration and (2) the gate of death and to prepare the narrow way for God's elect people [singular in the Hebrew]. It therefore offers no prop for this new view under examination. Nor do vs. 11 and 12 refer to the highway; but v. 11 refers to Christ's Second Advent as yet future and to the Second Advent message from 1829 to 1874, while v. 12 refers to the elect Church in the Millennium. His attempt (Z '31, 311, par. 31) to refer Is. 49:10, 11 to the Great Company, because some of its expressions are similar to some in Rev. 7:14-16, is a failure; for by the expression, "I will make all My mountains a way," the four elect classes (Ps. 72:3) in the kingdom time are referred to. His use of Is. 19:23-25 (Z. '31, 312, par. 32) is just as futile; for it too is Millennial, Egypt here standing for heathen, Assyria for nominal Christians and Israel for Jews in the Millennium, when only these three classes will become God's people. His claim (Z '31, 312, par. 33) that his Second Deathers (the clergy and his man of sin) will be judged with the rest of the world in the end of the Millennium is just like the Seventh Day Adventists' pertinent error. 

When he claims (Z '31, 327, par. 19) that The Tower and the Society, (himself) do not seek to discredit Bro. Russell, he tells a falsehood. His course in earlier years was to put himself on an equality with 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Bro. Russell, as his alleged successor, and second, in later years to set Bro. Russell and his pen products entirely aside, with himself occupying the center of the stage, with the suppression of all possible rivals, alleged and real, the recent disbanding of the Tower editorial committee, with himself as the real sole editor, being one of the last and many flagrant examples of such a course. His errors cast aspersions on God's name (plan), despite his protestations to vindicate it. Our and similar defenses of the Truth against his errors are real witnessing for Jehovah and vindication of His name. His claim (Z '31, 327, par. 22) that to hold and confess the teachings given them through Bro. Russell (which according to Lev. 12 are Divinely warranted as the church-developing Truth) is to honor him, not God, is a demonstrable error, and comes with poor grace from one who holds out remnantship for those who blindly and slavishly accept them. Inconsistently he (Z '31, 328, par. 25) applies John 14:20, 23, which refers to the entire Gospel Age, to 1918 and onward, since when he (elsewhere) claims the Spirit ceased to help and minister to the saints, angels being given them as helpers. Indiscriminately he (Z '31, 328, pars. 22, 28) accuses his dissidents with holding that the Truth stopped advancing at Bro. Russell's death, for this is a false charge in so far as it includes us. He alleges (Z '31, 341, pars. 12, 14) that Ps. 145:4 teaches that the Ancient Worthies will return and be taught by the Little Flock before the latter leaves the earth. Rather, the similarity of the thought and expression to that of Ps. 22:30, 31, suggests that the teaching generation of Ps. 145:4 is the Little Flock and the taught generation will be the restitution class in the Millennium. His thought cannot be true, since the Little Flock must be beyond the vail before the second blood-sprinkling occurs, which guarantees the return of the Ancient Worthies and the world. 

In Z '31, 344, par. 37, he teaches that the cleansing 



of the branches by pruning is not an individual work, but was a work of cutting off, from 1918 on, from the temple, "God's organization," those not worthy of belonging to it, i.e., his unfaithful and his man of sin. Against such an interpretation we suggest the following: (1) While the vine is one, there are many individual branches on a vine. Hence they symbolize individuals, as Jesus says, "Ye are the branches." See the parallels of the many members individually dealt with (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12-14, 27; Eph. 5:30); (2) The taking away of the unfruitful branches would correspond to driving away unfaithful priests out of the temple—a thing that must be an individual work, for it is by the individual separation of all the unfaithful that such are driven out of the temple; (3) Such an individual work has been going on throughout the Gospel Age: "Every branch that beareth not fruit He taketh away" (v. 2), not simply a mythical casting out of the temple of unfaithful priests since 1918; (4) Such taking away of individual non-fruit-bearing branches (suckers, etc.) is a totally different work from the cleansing work by the Word and Spirit and by pruning providences. (5) This cleansing work is also an individual work, taking place throughout the Age, hence not beginning in 1918: "Every branch that beareth fruit He purgeth, that it may bring forth more fruit." (6) Of necessity this must be an individual work; for it is through cleansing the individual branches that each becomes clean, which is also true throughout the Age, beginning with the Apostles: "Now are ye clean through the word that I have spoken unto you." (7) His using the parable of the vine and branches as synonymous with his own invented unbiblical expression, "God's organization," disproves his view of a so-called God's organization on earth, parts of which are the Society as a corporation and its officers. Jesus tells us that

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


He is the vine and His faithful alone are the true branches. 

In contradiction to his statement (Z '31, 359, pars. 20–22) that the Society as a corporation (a part of God's alleged organization) was formed by God's people as a whole (if a part of God's organization it would necessarily be formed by Him alone), it should be said that, apart from a corporation, the Society at first was formed as an association of seven individuals in 1881. Then in 1884 these seven individuals adopted a charter and, with it as their constitution, had their association incorporated, i.e., authorized by the state. He seeks (pars. 20–22) to answer our charge that the Society as a creature of the state and as preserved in its existence as a corporation by the state, must have been authorized and is continued in existence by Satan's organization, if the state is a part of Satan's organization, as he contends. We say that he seeks to answer this objection; but so far as argument is concerned he gives nothing. He is held captive in the net of his own weaving, twist and squirm, pull and jerk as much as he will: The Society is a part of God's organization, and the state is a part of Satan's organization! 

Then he announces the annulling of the "Tower" Editorial Committee (Z '31, 360, par. 26). This is the logical outcome of his unparalleled power-grasping course against our Pastor's will, which he falsely denies (Z '31, 376, par. 24) is a will, calling it "a paper," and which, with his habitual course of telling deliberate falsehoods when serviceable to his self-seekings, he says our Pastor repudiated before his death, thus seeking to reduce it to a scrap of paper. This invention of serviceable falsehoods is a way in which the little pope imitates his step-brother, the big pope, in inventing stories necessary to attain his purposes. The accounts of historical events of both the big and little popes are in large part made up of such



falsehoods. The Reformation, the Parousia and the Epiphany periods have revealed the former's self-interested falsehoods. The Epiphany—this apocalyptic day—is revealing those of the latter. He gives as his reason for discarding entirely that will the statement that the Lord's work cannot be done under it. We reply, the devil's work cannot be done by those of God's people whose work the will and charter were Divinely intended to direct, so long as their work is directed by the will and the charter. And because Azazel wants not God's, but his own work done among and by the Lord's people, he uses J.F.R. to set aside God's arrangements for His work and introduce Azazelian ones in their stead. Many of us remember how in the first Tower after the Pastor Russell Memorial number he promised faithfully to do the work in harmony with his teachings and arrangements, which promise he has broken completely. 

In giving (Z '31, 361, pars. 27, 28) the qualifications of his "Jehovah's witnesses," he, among other things, alleges that they must have and use his three corporations, printing presses, bookmaking machines, radio, books, booklets, proclamations, etc., and other associated means of making known to the peoples the Society's [his] messages! He further asserts (Z '31, 372, par. 10) that Rom. 14:10 proves that judgment was begun in 1918 at Jesus' alleged coming to the temple. Nothing in that Scripture, nor in any other, connects chronologically the Lord's beginning to judge His own with 1918. This verse's kind of judging began in 1878 and is still proceeding. Moreover, not only is there no Scripture that says or implies that Christ must wait 3½ years after His return before beginning to judge His own who are in the flesh (1 Pet. 4:17), let alone in the temple, as he asserts (Z '31, 357, par. 9), but the Bible and facts disprove such a thought. Judging His own in the flesh, after His return, began immediately after His return in 1874. 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


But such a judging has been in principle going on throughout the Age and is a different one from that of Rom. 14:10, which the parallel dispensations prove started 3½ years after our Lord's Return, when the awakened saints stood before His judgment seat to hear His decision as to their rewards; for the judging of Rom. 14:10 is identical with that of 2 Cor. 5:10; hence does not refer to judging His own who are in the flesh. 

In Z '31, 375, pars. 21, 22, he denies Matt. 8:11, 12 and Luke 13:28, 29, as applying to the Millennium, applying them to his judging period from 1918 onward. In reply, we say: Matt. 8:10, as well as the whole episode, proves that the ones cast out, the children of the [typical] kingdom, are Jews; hence Matt. 8:11, 12, certainly refers to the Millennial Jews, disappointed on finding themselves not members of either phase of the kingdom, and their weeping and gnashing of teeth is their chagrin thereover. Luke 13:28, 29, being the parallel passage, though put into another connection, of necessity teaches the same thought. Moreover, our Lord's statement in v. 30 confirms this thought; for here He shows that fleshly Israel, which was first in point of time, will be the last of God's elect peoples; while the Church, which is the last in point of time, will be the first among God's elect peoples. It is true that Luke 13:24-27 applies to the end of the Age, but the shut door (v. 25) proves that Jesus refers in vs. 24-27 to the foolish virgins (Matt. 25:11, 12) and certain unbegotten consecrators after the last member of the Little Flock was Spirit-begotten. The reason that Luke 13:28, 29, is put in connection with vs. 24-27 is, not that they refer to the same individuals or classes, but because the foolish virgins and certain unbegotten consecrators in their disappointment at finding they failed of the kingdom will experience a chagrin similar to that which certain Jews of Jesus' time will feel in the Millennium



at their recognition of their failure to attain either phase of the kingdom. The above not only disposes of this new view, but also of the "new view" that the weeping and gnashing of teeth does not mean the above-described disappointment and chagrin, but the writings and speeches of his man of sin against his teachings! 

His attempted distinction (Z '31, 67, par. 1) between the expression, the Lord of Sabaoth, as meaning the Almighty God of Battles, and the Lord of Hosts, as meaning the Almighty One over and above His army, is false, since the word Sabaoth in the first expression is the same Hebrew word as is translated hosts in the second; hence the expressions in Hebrew being identical, their meaning is identical. False is the statement (Z '31, 68, par. 8) that Ezekiel prophesied at approximately the same time as Haggai. There was a difference of nearly 100 years between the beginnings of their respective ministries. He covertly describes himself (Z '31, 68, par. 11) as making his teachings and works clean, because of channelship, a claim similar to that of the pope's teachings and works. If he were the Lord's channel for the priestly work, then he and his teachings and works would have to become clean, if channelship were to remain his. But the Society (now in reality himself) never was or will be the channel for the priestly teachings and works. His are unclean, as Azazelian, and the channel, when ridded of him and cleansed from Azazel's works, will be a clean channel for Mahlite Levite work. He misapplies (Z '31, 69, pars. 13, 16) the type of touching the dead to mean that there is nothing in the character development and ministry of the saints pleasing to the Lord, and to think and say there is, is "touching the dead"—contamination. Contamination by touching of the dead types contamination by heredity from Adam and by Adamically sinful works. It cannot apply to more 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


than the humanity of the saints, and refers not to their new-creaturely graces and works. 

Yes, indeed, let the Lord's people look back and contrast the Little Flock's Parousia work and the Society's work in the Epiphany (Z '31, 70, par. 20), and the difference is found to be strikingly marked in kind and quality of the work, its spirit and its participators; but all of these differences are in favor of the Parousia work. Without any Scripture proof he affirms (Z '31, 70, pars. 22, 23) that the 24th day of the 9th month of Hag. 2:18 typed Sept. 8, 1922, on which he asserts the tried stone for a sure foundation was laid in Zion. The Bible shows that that stone was laid before Pentecost and that the brethren in the Apostolic days had already come to it as such (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:6). In this citation he says that at that date his remnant was chosen and was approved by being brought under the robe of righteousness, things that he formerly asserted took place in 1918, 1919, and that from Sept. 8, 1922, onward his remnant began to count their blessings. This may be the case for his remnant, but not for the Lord's, which has been rejoicing ever since Pentecost (Acts 2:46), though more or less interrupted therein by the big pope, between the two Harvests, and after the Parousia by the little pope. The shaking of Hag. 1:20, 21, he claims (Z '31, 71, par. 29) to be the Battle of the Great Day of God. The Apostle shows (Heb. 12:26-28) that it covers all the sifting movements, other disruptive movements in Christendom, including, of course, the World War, Armageddon, Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble, untoward experiences and trying conditions of all kinds, including calamities, which are testing persons, principles and things, overthrowing the evil and preserving the good. He misapplies Luke 12:53, which mainly shows the troubles in natural families incidental to the acceptance of the Truth by members of these, to God as the father, Satan as the 



son, God's (?) organization as the mother, and the disloyal child (his man of sin) as the daughter (Z '31, 71, par. 32)! 

His application of Ps. 116 (Z '31, 83, par. 3) to his remnant contradicts St. Paul's application of it to the Church (including himself) throughout the Age, in 2 Cor. 4:13. In Z '31, 84, pars. 8, 9, he denies our Pastor's thought, based on Heb. 5:7, that Jesus in Gethsemane feared that He might have failed in some particular or might the next day fail in some particular, and as a consequence could have no resurrection ("offered prayers … to Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard"), and alleges, with no Scripture suggesting such a thought, that His grief was over the thought that His death would appear to prove successful Satan's challenge to God to put a man on earth who would maintain his integrity, a thought utterly without any Biblical basis. If such were the case, He was not heard; for that appearance persisted. Z '31, 85, par. 12 has it that the simple of Ps. 116:6 are the foolish, whereas they are the guileless in God's sight. He does not even refrain from the blasphemy against our Lord's perfection in speech when he asserts (Z '31, 86, par. 23) that it was our Lord's experience that was expressed in the language, "In my haste I said, all men are liars." He misapplies (Z '31, 103, par. 28) the word father when used of some Christians in relation to others, as meaning that they are the more developed, whereas the Bible uses this term of some Christians in their relation to others to indicate that they were the ones who ministerially (through the Gospel, as God's representatives) begat the others of the Spirit (1 Cor. 4:14-16; Phile. 10), as also Paul's relation to Timothy, Peter's to Mark and John's to those to whom he wrote his first epistle additionally show, in speaking of them as their sons and children. Despite the very wording of the texts of Luke 22:18 and Matt. 26:29, 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


that Jesus with the disciples would drink the new wine in the kingdom, he asserts (Z '31, 115, par. 3) that his faithful ones are now on earth drinking it with the Lord. Then he asserts (Z '31, 118, par. 22, 23) two anointings, allegedly one of qualification, allegedly another of refreshment, oblivious of the fact that the one anointing embraces every qualification of heart and mind for Christship, all of which give refreshment. His contention is further refuted by the fact that the Bible never uses the plural, chrismata, but only the singular, chrisma, to represent the whole of the Spirit's anointing (1 John 2:20, 27). The times of refreshment of Acts 3:19-21 have by his mudsplashes (Z '31, 118, par. 27) ceased to be the Millennium, but are the seasons of rejoicing that his remnant is alleged to be having as sellers of his books and booklets. Under his eisegetical manipulations, "a good man," in the passage, "the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord," becomes the good man—his remnant (Z '31, 135, pars. 30-33). 

One of the peculiarities of the large Antichrist, particularly of its head, the pope, is that of thinking "to change times and laws" (Dan. 7:25). This refers to the papacy's presuming to change the time features of God's plan so as to have, e.g., the Gospel Harvest from 799–839, the Millennium from 799 to 1799 and the Little Season from 1799 onward, and to change God's laws—the true doctrines and practices—into counterfeit ones. The fact that the Society leaders are the little Antichrist of Little Babylon's Catholic Church, explains much in the course and trend of Society conditions, teachings, arrangements and claims since late in 1916. Among other things, the little pope imitates the big pope in thinking "to change times and laws." That he has changed the laws—the Lord's teachings and arrangements—is manifest from his repudiating one after another those given us by the Lord through that Servant. Likewise he has thought 



to change God's times, e.g., antitypical Elijah's period of ministry to the period from about 1875 to 1918, the Lord's return in Oct., 1874, to 1914 or 1918, the Harvest from 1874–1914 to 1918 or 1919 and onward, the Parousia's beginning in 1874 to 1914 or 1918, the antitypical jubilee's beginning in 1874 to 1925, etc., etc. Just as the big pope put counterfeit Harvest teachings and practices into his counterfeit Harvest, 799–839, and counterfeit Millennial teachings and practices into his counterfeit Millennium, from 799 to 1799, and counterfeit Little Season's teachings and practices into his Little Season from 1799 onward, so the little pope has put counterfeit Harvest teachings and practices into his counterfeit Harvest, from 1918 or 1919 onward. Here we emphasize the fact that the key to the teachings and practices of J.F.R. is found in the fact that, as on a large scale the big pope in Great Babylon fulfilled the prophecy of Dan. 7:25: "He shall think to change times and laws," so on a small scale the little pope has been fulfilling this prophecy in Little Babylon, and therefore has perverted the Biblical times and laws. This explains his past, present and future aberrations. The gnashing of teeth will be felt to their depth. 

We will now proceed to review his main new errors that have appeared in the Tower since our last review, which ended with the Jan. 15, 1932 Tower. He almost endlessly repeats, and that without proof, the errors that we have already refuted. These we will not again refute, our answers having received no reply. Nor will we attempt to refute all his new errors and twists, since they are too numerous; but we will review the more important of them. These in practically every instance arise from his attempt to apply about everything complimentary in the Bible to his movement since 1917, 1918 and 1919, particularly about everything of the real Harvest to his counterfeit Harvest and everything uncomplimentary in the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Bible to those who oppose his errors of teaching and arrangement. 

First, he gives a number of errors on the idea of rocks in the symbols of the Bible. According to him (Z '32, 35, 2), when God is called a rock, a rock in the sense of a mountain of rock is meant. None of the Scriptures that he quotes, nor any that he leaves unquoted, gives the least hint of such a thought. Scripture symbols convey entirely different thoughts by the word rock and mountain; for they use the word rock to represent strength and protection (Deut. 32:4, 18, 30, etc.), while they always use the word mountain to represent a kingdom, regardless of whether it is strong or weak. (Is. 25:6, 7; Dan. 2:35, 44; v. 43 show the weakness of the kingdoms that are in many other places called mountains, e.g., Rev. 16:20). His implied claim (Z '32, 36, 8) that Jehovah has lately made known that He is their Rock—protector and strengthener—is untrue, since God's people, even in the Jewish Age, knew this, as well as have known it throughout this Age. His direct statement, that the fact that He has brought this to their recent attention is proof that we are in the last days, is untrue, since the knowledge of such a thought would prove the last days to have come in the Jewish Age! Yea, Abraham knew this of God (Gen. 15:2; 17:1, 2). Nowhere in the Bible, as he claims (Z '32, 36, 10) is the kingdom symbolized by a mountain chain, though when reference is made to it in two or more of its four ruling powers the plural, mountains, is used; but the idea then is that of one mountain with several peaks (e.g., the peaks of the mountain on which Jerusalem is built symbolize it from this standpoint), which are there meant by the expressions, mountains and hills (Ps. 72:8; 87:1; Matt. 24:16). His claim that God's telling Israel to worship Him at Sinai proves that Sinai represents God's organization, which he defines in a way to include also angels and



the Society, is untrue, since it proves no more than the thought that in the Millennial Kingdom the world—antitypical Israel—will be charged to consecrate and live out their consecration under subjection to the Kingdom in its various parts: the Little Flock, the Ancient Worthies, the Youthful Worthies and the Great Company. To palm off his thought he misapplies Heb. 12:18-24, which refers to the Kingdom, not in the sense of reigning over the world, but in the sense of its establishment beyond the vail since 1874 in Jesus and since 1878 in the Church until before the Ancient Worthies will return. 

In Z '32, 37, 11–13, it is alleged that God brought out of His (alleged) organization from 2 B. C. to 33 A. D. a seed—Jesus—and exalted Him above His organization, and that this is meant by God's taking a stone out of the mountain without hands (Dan. 2:34, 35). The Bible does not teach that God had an organization at that time. The Sarah Covenant existed at that time, but she is nowhere Scripturally called an organization, but a woman. While the Sarah Covenant has during the Gospel Age been bearing antitypical Isaac, this is never in the Bible represented as the taking of a stone out of the mountain. Under an altogether different figure and representing a wholly different thought, a stone is spoken of as taken out of the mountain. But this mountain is Satan's empire ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") and the stone cut out of this mountain is not Jesus alone, but the whole Christ class (Dan. 2:44, 45). This passage shows that it is the Kingdom, as the stone beyond the vail, cooperated in by the Kingdom this side the vail, that smites the image. Against his claim (Z '32, 37, 15) that God did not at Christ's exaltation (33 A. D.) seat Christ on the throne of authority, which he alleges is not until Christ's alleged Second Advent in 1914, we reply that Jesus' statement in Matt. 28:18, "All authority is given unto Me in 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


heaven and in earth," and the Bible statements that at His ascension He sat at God's right hand—place of chief power and favor (Heb. 2:3; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 2:9-11, etc., etc.)—disprove this claim. At His Second Advent the commission was given Him to use His Age-old authority to overthrow Satan's empire, establish His Kingdom and reign for the annihilation of every vestige of the curse (Ps. 45:3-6; 1 Cor. 15:23-26). In this connection we might remark that repeatedly, as in par. 15, he gives the explanation to Ps. 110:1, that Christ was to be seated at God's right hand until the Second Advent begins, when he vacates that place. This shows that he does not understand the meaning of the expression, "Sit Thou at My right hand." To sit at God's right hand means to enjoy God's chief favor and to exercise as His vicegerent His power. Jesus never will leave that right hand. He always will be God's chief Favorite and Vicegerent. Nor does the expression, "until I make Thy enemies Thy foot stool," in time mean the beginning of the Millennium, but the end of the Millennium; for to make His enemies His footstool means to annihilate them, and these enemies are thus shown to be the effects of Satan's reign, not persons (1 Cor. 15:24-26). The force of the word "until" in this sentence is not to mark the end of Christ's being God's chief Favorite and Vicegerent (1 Cor. 15:23-26). In Hebraistic modes of thought the word until is frequently used to mean not an absolute termination of the thing spoken of, but of certain uses, acts, relations, purposes, accomplishments, etc., of that thing, it continuing on after those uses, etc., end (Matt. 5:18; 1 Cor. 11:26; Jas. 5:7). 

His clumsy expression (Z '32, 38, 15) on Christ's becoming the stone of stumbling to both Israels leaves the impression that Is. 8:14 was fulfilled in 1918, though he probably means that it received one fulfillment then and its other in 33 A.D. But even so 



amended, his first time statement is false, and his second is only partially true. As to the second we should say that Israel began to stumble in 33 A.D. and that stumbling continued until 69 A.D. when it was complete. As to his first statement it is throughout false; for Christendom began to stumble over the Ransom in 1878 in the great no-ransomism sifting in its threefold sphere of operation among the unfaithful consecrated (sanctuary), justified (courts) and merely nominally professing Christians (city;—Ezek. 9). Ever since the Spring of 1878 no-ransomism assumed all sorts of forms in these three spheres and this persisted until 1914, when the wrath time set in. No-ransomism, which is the form that stumbling over the Rock took (Num. 20:7-13), began therefore in 1878 and not in 1918; nor did any new forms of no-ransomism set in after 1914. Hence the stumbling was complete in 1914, whereupon the destruction of the tares set in, which includes the no-ransomistic tares. Hence the facts disprove his application of stumbling over the Rock in 1918, and prove that it began in 1878 and ended in 1914. This also disproves his thought of the Harvest beginning in 1918 or 1919—he is not certain which. 

Mixing figures and viewpoints he denies Z '32, 39, 21, 22) that the Rock on which Christ builds His Church is the truth that Peter confessed, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16-19). It is true that Christ is called a Rock and a stone in the Bible (Num. 17:6; Is. 8:14; Eph. 2:19-21), and that the Church is built upon Him as such, even as it is also built upon lesser stones, as the just cited Eph. passage shows. But the Truth is also called a rock and its various parts are called stones in the Bible (Num. 15:35, 36; 1 Sam. 17:40; 2 Sam. 22:47; 1 Chro. 11:15; Ps. 40:2; 102:14). Our Lord mentions this truth so confessed ("Flesh and blood hath not revealed it [not Himself, but the truth that 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Peter had just confessed] unto thee, but My Father … and upon this rock I will build, etc.") The use of the demonstrative, "this," proves that Jesus by the words "this rock" refers to the truth that Peter had just confessed as the thing that not man, but God revealed to Peter. J.F.R. says his interpretation makes the pertinent Romanist position impossible. God thinks otherwise, for, on the contrary, when in the Reformation the Truth became due against the papal interpretation, the Lord gave the Reformers the interpretation that J.F.R. rejects. Moreover, the papists could very nicely accept his interpretation as the primary one and insist theirs is the secondary one, because, they claim, Peter as Christ's vicegerent is the rock too! 

Then (par. 21) he rejects the interpretation of the keys as being the twofold power given to Peter to open the closed door for an entrance into the embryo kingdom (1) to Jews and (2) to Gentiles, and says that they are the power to unlock the mysteries of the kingdom to Jew and Gentile. This is untrue for several reasons: (1) Jesus here gave Peter two unique powers; (2) Jesus did not say to Peter that he would give him the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom, but the keys of the kingdom, powers to open the door of entrance into the Church; and (3) the power to bind and loose (which were the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom) were given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18) as well as to Peter (Matt. 16:19). Thus his error is a confounding of the keys with the power to bind and loose. But why offer different interpretations for the two well established and satisfactory ones? "Variance," a work of the flesh, is the question's answer. 

In Z '32, 56, 23, he says that Jesus did not enter the joy set before Him (Heb. 12:2) until 1914. To this we reply that this joy was one of several forms: (1) pleasing the Father; (2) obtaining the high reward 



of the Divine nature and heirship of God, including vicegerency; (3) winning and exalting the Church; (4) blessing the world; (5) extirpating evil; (6) giving everlasting life to the obedient and working eternal destruction to the incorrigible; and (7) amid all this and all subsequent activities glorifying God. Some of these joys He experienced in part before Calvary; others of them in part from His resurrection onward. He entered one phase of these joys in 1914, beginning to annihilate Satan's empire as a part of annihilating evil. Some of them He will enter in the Millennium; others at the end of the Millennium. All of them are progressive; and in some of them, like the last one, He will be progressing eternally. He claims (Z '32, 57, 25, 26) that while up to 1914 the celebration of the Memorial Supper was properly a sorrowful thing, since 1914 it no more is to be sorrowful, but joyful. Both of his thoughts are pure inventions with no foundation in Scripture, reason or fact. The spirit in which the Lord's Supper should be celebrated should as long as the Church celebrates it be the same as from the beginning: Sorrow that our sins brought our Lord to death, sympathy with Him and our fellow body members in their suffering, gratitude for our Lord in dying for us and appreciation for His and the Body's faithfulness in suffering; gratitude and appreciation of our privileges symbolized in the Lord's Supper, rejoicing in the victory of Jesus and those already faithful unto death, prayer for those who have not yet finished their course, hope for their and our victory, faith in everything symbolized by the Lord's Supper, determination to go forward to a successful conclusion and to help our brethren to do the same. These sentiments have not changed and will not change so long as the Church's memorializing will be in order. Our Lord's second presence since 1874 has made no other change in the celebration than to energize us in 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the above-mentioned respects, since His presence assures us of more favoring providences and a nearer realization of our hopes and rejoicing on behalf of resurrected saints. 

J.F.R. frequently writes articles on the Psalms and seeks to force their application to his movement. We will not go into his details, as we have already refuted his entire viewpoint on this matter. Ps. 68 is one of these that he so treats. We will comment on some only of his points thereon. Commenting on v. 11 (Z '31, 101, 15), which is properly rendered by the R. Vs.—"The women that publish the tidings are a great [large] host," he denies that the word, women, should be used in this text, saying that the feminine form is used because it refers to Zion, a feminine noun. Against his thought especially two things should be said: (1) The word Zion does not occur in the entire Psalm, hence cannot be here referred to. (2) The Hebrew participle, mevasheroth, translated in the R.Vs. by the words, "the women that published the tidings," is plural and therefore does not refer to Zion, which is singular. The plural feminine properly requires the R. Vs'. rendering. We understand the thought as follows: The women here are symbolic. They refer to the consecrated, who consist or will ultimately consist of the Little Flock as one symbolic woman, the Great Company as 60 symbolic women, and the Youthful Worthies as 80 symbolic women. All of these symbolic women are referred to in Cant. 6:8, 9, while individually they are the virgins without number of v. 8. These are the women of Ps. 68:11—a large host who publish the tidings. J.F.R.'s followers contain some of the first woman (the Little Flock), among others, all of one of the 60 Great Company groups and at least one of the Youthful Worthy groups. Thus this passage does not apply to his remnant exclusively. His giving (Z '32, 102, 16) the word rab in Ps. 68:11 the meaning of great as



distinct from large is a mistake. The meaning is that the number of the women will constitute a very large host, not that his woman [his organization] is great, as he claims. 

In Z '32, 117, 14, he defines the symbolic meaning of the word chariot in Ps. 68:17, as war, preparation for war and war equipment. None of the verses quoted in the paragraph prove these to be its specific meanings. It is true that chariots were a part of war equipment and war preparation, but so were also swords, spears, slings, bows and arrows. Never are they used to symbolize war. The word chariot specifically symbolizes an organization, which may, however, be a part of the equipment of a literal or symbolic war. Every passage of the Bible that uses the word chariots symbolically or typically, uses it to mean organizations (Ex. 14:7; Is. 31:1; 66:15, 16; etc.). In Z '32, 119, 21, he denies that the words of Ps. 68:18 ("Thou hast ascended on high, etc.") apply to and at Christ's ascension, and he applies them at Armageddon. St. Paul does not agree with him; for he quotes this verse in Eph. 4:8, applying it at and to Christ's ascension, when as the Ransomer of the race He made the race His own captive, which formerly was in the captivity of death. Moreover, St. Paul's translation here is inspired and corrects the Septuagint, which Rotherham follows in part; but J.F.R. rejects it in favor of Rotherham's, which renders, "Thou hast accepted gifts consisting of men." St. Paul's application (Eph. 4:8-12) shows that the gifts here spoken of are not given to, and thus accepted by Christ, but are gifts that He gives to men, some of which, as St. Paul says, are the teachers placed in the Church. The Hebrew word lakach, translated here by Rotherham "to accept," usually means "to take"; but quite frequently it means "to bring" (1 Kings 17:10, 11; 2 Kings 2:20; 3:15; 4:41; 6:13; Gen. 27:9, 13; 1 Sam. 21:9; Lev. 12:8, 6; Num. 23:11; Judges 11:5; 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


1 Sam. 16:11; 20:31; Deut. 30:4). The meaning to bring in the sense of giving is the significance of lakach here, as St. Paul translates and interprets, and does not here mean accept, as Rotherham translates and J.F.R. interprets. Why does he reject an inspired translation and interpretation? It is because they contradict his new view. This, of course, refutes his view elaborated in pars. 25-30, by which he contradicts his view expressed above based on Rotherham's mistranslation, and in which he claims that the gifts referred to in Ps. 68:18 mean the gifts of blessings that Christ is alleged to bestow upon J.F.R.'s unconsecrated sympathizers and the gifts (!) of woe that Christ is alleged to bestow upon his opposers! He applies this passage to mean that at Armageddon Christ will take his enemies captive, i.e., Satan and his cohorts! 

In favor of his Seventh Day Adventist view, that Satan, the impenitent angels and the Second Death class will be put to death in Armageddon and remain dead during the Millennium and be awakened thereafter, he quotes Is. 14:15-17. This passage does not describe Satan's Millennial condition, but his post-Little-Season condition; for it gives the same thought ("narrowly look upon thee") as the examining, mistranslated torment, of Rev. 20:10, which is, of course, post-Millennial. Moreover, as Is. 14:4-23 shows, the passage applies secondarily to Mystic Babylon in its beast and image features, and these go to the lake of fire and brimstone (Rev. 19:20; 20:10), which proves that the hell and pit of Is. 14:15 are Gehenna, the lake of fire, not hades. Therefore, so far as Satan is concerned, Is. 14:15-17 does not refer to his condition during the Millennium, but to his condition after the Little Season. J.F.R. thinks (par. 22) that Is. 20:4 teaches his thought, that Christ will lead Satan and his cohorts in a procession as captives, in great shame to them, whereas the king of Assyria is not 



Christ, but the papacy, and the verse teaches that the papacy would overpower the worldly powers and sinners and lead them into shameful captivity, which it certainly did in the Dark Ages and in a small way is now doing. He quotes (par. 23) Is. 24:21, 22, as a proof that Satan and his cohorts will be dead during the Millennium and thereafter will be awakened. This is a false application, for the passage shows that the clergy (the high ones that are on high, the symbolic heavens), the aristocrats and the rulers will be killed in the trouble and after many days, years, but during the Millennium, will be brought out of the tomb (Ps. 22:29). All who go into hades will come out therefrom during the Millennium and none of them after the Millennium (Rev. 20:13, 14). None of those who go into the lake of fire whether before or after the Millennium, will come out of it, which refutes J.F.R.'s idea under review. His treatment of Ps. 68 is an illustration of his forcing Scriptures that apply largely to other times and movements to his times and movement—"he shall think to change times and laws." 

In Z '32, 163–170 he has an article on Pharaoh and Satan, in which there are some points calling for review. In par. 8 he gives a false definition of the word Egypt, viz., encloser of the sea, whereas it means, enclosure, fortress. Certainly, Egypt does not enclose the sea. Again, he claims (par. 12, and often elsewhere) that the commercial department of Satan's empire is its most powerful part, whereas all along the religious and political departments of that empire have been and are yet more powerful than its commercial department. 

In pars. 23 and 24 he gives various translations of Ex. 9:16: "For this cause have I raised thee up, etc." He rejects that of the A. V., and finally favors that of the Septuagint: "But thou hast been preserved for this purpose, that by thee I might display My power and that My name may be celebrated throughout all

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the earth." His main objection is to the rendering, "I raised thee up." He denies that God ever raised up Pharaoh and Satan, because, he alleges, this would have made God responsible for, and cooperative in their sins. This sophistry is easily answered when we remember that there are two ways of raising one up: (1) causally and (2) permissively. God did not causally raise these up to their exercise of tyranny and other wrongs; but He did permissively raise them up in the sense that He allowed no hindrance to prevent their assuming their respective empires. But what is noteworthy in J.F.R.'s rejecting the translation of the A. V. and accepting that of the Septuagint is this, that, as in the case of Ps. 68:18, he rejects a Divinely inspired translation which contradicts his view, in favor of one that does not contradict his view on the permission of evil. God, Himself, has translated by St. Paul the clause of Ex. 9:16 in dispute, and He has translated it as the A. V. text gives it. God's translation is given in Rom. 9:17. Often St. Paul quoted from the Septuagint, but when he desired to give a thought that the Septuagint does not give he corrected it, as we have seen twice above. Further, while the Hebrew word amad usually means to stand, it often means to arise, and the hiphil form of the verb used in Ex. 9:16 therefore often means to cause to arise, i.e., to raise up. The following passages prove this: Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65; Ps. 106:30; Dan, 8:22, 23; 12:1 (compare with 11:7, 20, 21; Eccl. 4:15); 1 Chron. 20:4; Esther 4:14; Is. 48:13; Ps. 33:9; 119:90; Amos 7:9; Gen. 4:8; 1 Chron. 21:1; 2 Chron. 20:23; Dan. 8:25; 11:14; 10:13. God, knowing that the word amad has a number of meanings, inspired St. Paul in Rom. 9:17 to give us the one He intended in Ex. 9:16, and thus He corroborates by this passage the Bible view of the permission of evil, which J.F.R. rejects. Thus the Divinely



inspired translation overthrows the entire thesis underlying the article under review. 

In Z '32, 179–186 is an article on Gog and Magog, in which J.F.R. applies Ezek. 38 and 39 to Armageddon and to the alleged preceding verbal fight into which he is leading his followers with their various drives. According to him, Gog is Satan's chief underling, a fallen angel, the leader of his host in the battle of Armageddon, in which also J.F.R.'s man of sin will allegedly fight against him and his followers. We recall that our Pastor, in Studies, Vol. IV, applies this passage to Jacob's trouble in Palestine, which is to be not only after Armageddon, but also after Anarchy. The latter view is evidently right, for the conflict in Ezek. 38 and 39 will occur within one year, and that the last year of the trouble period, while Armageddon will last several years, a hectic peace for several years will follow it, then will follow Anarchy for several years, and thereafter Jacob's trouble will come. J.F.R. makes Armageddon the last phase of the trouble, and therefore has no room for the symbolic fire to follow the symbolic earthquake, which alone is Armageddon. Jacob's trouble he holds to be the trouble of his followers just before and in Armageddon. In the Hebrew of Ezek. 38:8 the expression rendered, "in the latter years," is to be translated, "in the last one of the years;" and in v. 16 the expression rendered, "in the latter days," is to be translated, "in the last one of the days"—a day here standing for a year. This proves that Ezek. 38 and 39 refer to a period subsequent to Armageddon and Anarchy. Moreover Gog is not Satan's fallen angelic generalissimo, for which J.F.R. offers not the slightest Scriptural proof. Gog represents the leaders of nations, as the enemies of God's people, and Magog represents the led of nations as enemies of God's people. Rev. 20:8 ("the nations … Gog and Magog") expressly shows this to be the case in the end of the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Millennium; and therefore, by parity of reasoning, this is true of enemies of God's spiritual and fleshy Israel in the windup of this Age. The anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, as indicated by Elijah's whirlwind ascent, and by the last ones' being "violently seized by clouds," the literal translation of the Greek rendered in the A. V. of 1 Thes. 4:17, "caught up … in the clouds"; and those of them who go up to Palestine in the last year of the trouble will do the same with fleshly Israel in Jacob's trouble. These few points overthrow the whole line of thought of the article under review. J.F.R.'s error on Ezek. 38 and 39 is another case of his thinking "to change times and laws," and applying almost everything evil in the Scriptures to his opponents and about every good thing in the Bible to his followers. 

In an article entitled, Jehovah's Executioner, in the July 1, 15 and Aug. 1, 1932, Tower, he gives us a new view on Ahab, Jezebel, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Hazael and Jehu. According to his view, Jehu types Jesus and the Church militant and triumphant, with the angels thrown in to boot, for good measure (Z '32, 196, 4; 198, 18); Ahab represents Satan; Jezebel, Satan's organization, their offspring, the seed of the serpent and Jehu's work represents Jehovah's procedure through Jesus and the Church in destroying what has wrought depravity to man and dishonor to His name (par. 7). This view is, of course, contrary to our Pastor's views, in so far as he expressed them, for on several features of this picture our Pastor did not express himself. Since his death Truth has advanced on this subject, and that in harmony with the foundations that he laid. We have given those details on Ahab, Jezebel, etc., not given by our Pastor, and all of these corroborate his general setting. For these details please see Vol. III, Chapters I, IV and VI. These types, so far as due, having in the minutest details, as given in Vol. III, already been fulfilled, we 



have the assurance of faith that our factual and reasonable interpretation of the type is correct, and that the one under review is wrong. 

In an effort to stave off an unanswerable objection to his setting, he claims that Jehu, after extirpating the house of Ahab and Baalism, ceases to type the Christ and ministering angels as Executioner of God's wrath in Armageddon. But this claim cannot be allowed, if he types them before; for God makes Jehu's having executed his commission the ground of rewarding him with a dynasty lasting for four generations, himself being its first king (2 Kings 10:30). Hence a part of the reward of antitypical Jehu will be that he will head a four-formed rulership. Hence the picture goes right on through the Jehu dynasty. This consideration destroys entirely the setting that J.F.R. gives; for it would make the Christ displease God. We will briefly answer the reasons that he gives to support his view: (1) Jehu was born in God's Covenant. Answer: So was every other Jew, good or bad; hence this cannot prove that especially the Christ as Executioner of wrath in Armageddon is typed by Jehu. (2) He claims that the meanings of Jehu's, his grandfather's and of his father's names prove it. Answer: An argument from the meaning of names, to be true, must be based on facts, otherwise it is not true. E.g., Eli means high, but if we should therefrom conclude that he types the Christ as exalted, we would be greatly mistaken; for he types the crown-lost leaders during and at the end of this Age. Again, the meaning of Nimshi (Jehu's grandfather) is very uncertain, because lexicographers are not at all certain from what word it is derived. Some define it as discoverer, others as hiddenness, some as rescued, some as drawn out. At any rate it could not contribute anything to prove that the Christ is Executioner for Jehovah. Jehoshaphat (Jehu's father) does not mean Jehovah is vindicated, as J.F.R. claims; it 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


means Jehovah judges. These names' meanings are in harmony with the idea that conservative labor standing for certain proper principles against the wrongs of the clergy, rulers and aristocrats, stands for Jehovah as the source of these principles and therefore through them proclaims Jehovah—"He is Jehovah." Then any one of the above meanings of Nimshi could fit conservative labor, as uncovering (discoverer) certain evils of the present order, or dealing secretly (hiddenness) in its anointing and conspiracy, or being rescued from supporting an evil order, or being drawn out from others to execute God's vengeance on Satan's empire. So the meaning Jehovah judges well expresses the thought that conservative labor, overthrowing Satan's empire at Armageddon, realizes God's judgment thereon. So J.F.R.'s second argument, like his first, proves nothing for his view. 

(3) His third argument is also of no validity—God commanded Jehu's anointing. So did God command Elisha's anointing, who does not type the Christ; so did He command Hazael's anointing, and yet at the anointing God through Elisha prophesied much evil of him against God's people (2 Kings 8:10-13). And certainly Haziel's anointing at God's command did not make him type the Christ; for he was an evildoer. Hence the third argument under review falls to the ground. (4) God gave Jehu his commission. Answer: So did He give Nebuchadnezzar a commission (calling him His servant, Jer. 25:9) to execute punishment, to deprive the wicked kings of Judah of their royalty and to desolate Palestine, typing Christendom's overthrow and desolation, as he commissioned Titus similarly, but that did not make them type the Christ. (5) Jehu fulfilled his commission well. Answer: So did Nebuchadnezzar and Titus. (6) Jehu invited Jehonadab to view his zeal for Jehovah in standing for certain right principles for which 



God stood. But this would no more prove that Jehu types the Christ than that the fact that Jehonadab's ancestors fled and took refuge in condemned Jerusalem from Nebuchadnezzar while he was engaged by Divine commission to execute judgment, is, as J.F.R. alleges, a proof of Jehonadab typing a good class; for this fact of their flight to a condemned place from God's agent executing judgment against it would prove the reverse of what the article claims, i.e., Jehonadab's relation to them proves him to represent a good class whose company would prove Jehu to type the Christ as Executioner of God's wrath in Armageddon. (7) Jehu vindicated God's Word in executing a fulfilment of one of its prophecies of wrath. Answer: So did Nebuchadnezzar and Titus, who certainly did not type the Christ executing the prophesied wrath on Christendom. Thus none of his arguments singly, nor all of them combinedly, prove his point. 

Against his view we offer the following objections: (1) The involved types so far fulfilled prove another and different view to be the correct one. (2) God's expressly rewarding Jehu with a four-monarched dynasty for executing His judgment, which dynasty beginning with Jehu himself did many things displeasing to God, proves that the executioner of the antitypical judgment will for his work be rewarded with a four-formed government, which is therefore also a part of the antitype, and that the said government will often displease God, and therefore cannot be the Christ's. (3) Ahab cannot type Satan for the following reasons: He repented at Elijah's rebuke (1 Kings 21:29), which Satan has not done, nor will do. Elijah, at God's command, honored and served Ahab (1 Kings 18:46), which God will not ask the true Church to do to Satan. Ahab for his repentance was promised immunity from the punishment that would come at the type of Armageddon (1 Kings 21:29), which antitypically is not promised to Satan. Ahab died 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


before the type of Armageddon (1 Kings 21:29), while Satan will not die even in a symbolic way before Armageddon. (4) The Christ class does not as a company serve in Satan's army, as Jehu did in Ahab's army (2 Kings 9:25). The twist that J.F.R. gives to this will not help him; for Jehu, while executing the vengeance of the Lord, said that he, the alleged type of the Christ, followed after Ahab, the alleged type of Satan! Thus Jehu's remark proves that he represents at the wrath time the same class he represents at the wrath's forecasting. 

(5) Jehu was anointed by a son of the prophet, whom J.F.R. rightly says types an unconsecrated class interested in the Truth; hence the Christ must have been anointed by an unconsecrated class! (6) Usually, so J.F.R. says, Jehu represents Jesus as Jehovah's wrath Executioner; but there are connections in which this is so manifestly absurd that he refers them to the Body members, and in the case mentioned above is forced to make him stand for some of them before they become of the Christ class. But this twist cannot be made in the anointing scene; for as the oil was first poured on the head, this type would prove that Jesus has lately, with the rest of the Body members, been anointed by an unconsecrated class! (7) The charge given to Elijah to anoint Jehu would never have been given him, if Jehu represents the Christ. (8) Nor would Elisha have inherited from Elijah such a power, if Jehu typed the Christ. (9) Nor would Elisha have commissioned a son of the prophets to minister the anointing. These last three reasons are self-evident, since the Little Flock does not anoint Jesus and itself (2 Cor. 1:21); much less does the Great Company or an unconsecrated class anoint the Christ in any sense of the word. (10) The anointing of Jehu cannot represent the anointing of the Christ class, since all of the Christ received of the anointing before it was offered antitypical Jehu. 



(11) There is only one anointing of the Christ class (Ps. 133:2) and it was made at Jordan. And that one anointing has ever since Pentecost been flowing down on the members of the Body as they entered the Body. (12) Jehu's riding with madness (mistranslated furiously in the A. V.) could not type anything in the Christ's course, which has the spirit of a sound mind and not madness. (13) Jehu's brutality finds no antitype in anything the Christ class will ever do. (14) Nor does his deceitfulness with the Baal worshipers. (15) Nor his hypocrisy in aspersing those as worse than himself for killing Ahab's sons, which they knew that he wanted them to do. (16) Nor his subsequent sinful course while enjoying the fruits of his executing of God's judgment, which proves that as they were given him as a reward for his work, he must type the same class as he did when he did that work. 

Of course, the reasons proving that Ahab did not type Satan also prove that Jezebel could not type Satan's organization. The facts given in Studies, Vol. II and those other facts given in Vol. III of the Epiphany Studies, as well as Rev. 2:20-23 and the additional fact that women in Biblical types either represent real consecrated or nominally consecrated classes (churches) or covenants, prove that she represents a church—the Roman Catholic Church. Vagueness or silence characterizes J.F.R.'s treatment of Ahaziah and Jehoram of Israel and Jehoram and Ahaziah of Judah in their antitypes. His whole view of Jehu is so inharmonious that he must use him in quite inharmonious relations, generally making him stand for Jesus alone and, when this is impossible, for the Church and, when this is impossible, for some people before becoming the Church, as at the time of Jehu's following Ahab—Satan! But when even that does not suffice, he must stand for the angels! He jumps back and forth repeatedly from 1919, 1922, 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


1926 and 1931, for a set of incongruous and twisted applications, which gives prima facie evidence that his setting of things is incorrect. Then, his applications are usually so vague that he thereby again gives prima facie evidence of their unfitness. Real antitypes are transparently clear when due. E.g., Jehu's captains' choosing him as king is supposed to represent the Societyites at the Cedar Point Convention in 1922 voting to advertise the King and Kingdom! How could such an act make the Christ King?! Especially incongruous does this application become when we remember that the cries of advertising the King and Kingdom at that convention were meant to give (and for three years did give) a new impulse to proclaiming that millions living until after 1925 would never die, etc.—proven errors. When we remember that from 1919 to 1925, the Societyites, who were in those years supposed by J.F.R.'s setting to be doing the best of the Truth work, the remnant's work par excellence, were giving almost all their public efforts to the service of error, the millions proposition, we may be certain that the pertinent movement was a Satanic, not a Christly one. Mark the absurdity of the application that secrecy's being observed on Jehu's conspiracy at Ramoth-gilead types the Societyites' not talking about themselves while making their public drives! If the setting were true it would type their withholding from their proclamation the announcement that the Christ was secretly working for the defeat of Satan's host at Armageddon—a thing that they proclaimed throughout Christendom from the house-tops! 

In Z '32, 243–250, 259–269, he repudiates the Bible doctrine that elders are officers of the Church, asserting that they are unofficial and non-elected mature brethren in the ecclesias. He admits that bishops were elected officers in the Church and that they were selected from among the mature brethren (his sole sense



for the idea of eldership);but are no more since 1918 to be elected. Of course he tries to make this seem plausible by quoting passages where the word elders is used of non-official well-developed brethren. His citing the following passages (Z '32, 244, 6–8): Num. 11:16; Deut. 29:10; Josh. 8:33; Is. 37:2, to prove that elders are not officers, is transparent error, for Num. 11:16 charges that only such elders as were officers (literally, "elders of the people, even officers over them") should be chosen for the 70. The passage forbids selecting elders who were not officers; and then God calls them elders after they were selected for their new office (v. 25), proving conclusively that they were called elders in v. 25, because they held the office of the 70. This remark applies to Deut. 29:10, the proper translation being, "your captains of your tribes, your elders, even your officers, with all the men of Israel"; for if the elders here mentioned were not here defined as officers they would be included in the non-official Israelitish men indicated by the words, "with all the men of Israel." This remark applies to Joshua 8:33, where, after elders, it should read, even officers; for the 70 were emphatically the ones meant by the elders, even officers, while the judges referred to cover those described in Ex. 18:21, 22, 25, 26; for if the elders here referred to were not officers they would have been included in the nonofficial Israelites under the expression, "all Israel." Again, he quotes Is. 37:2 to prove that elders were not officials; but the very expression, "elders of the priests" (not the elder priests, please note) were such of the Sanhedrists, the 70, as were priests. Accordingly, all four of these passages that he quotes to prove that the term elders does not refer to office incumbents prove that it emphatically does. 

His claim (Z '32, 246, 17) that the non-occurrence of the name elders in Eph. 4:11-16 and 1 Cor. 12:27, 29 proves that elders are not officers of the Church, 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


is more sophistry, since the Bible uses a multiplicity of names for what we call elders of an ecclesia, e.g., elders, bishops (overseers), pastors (shepherds), teachers, and prophets (if they are discoursing elders). And since the Bible uses the term elder for even higher offices than that of local elder (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1;3 John 1), clearness as to the ones meant by the expression, "pastors, even teachers," justifies the absence of the word elders from these passages. His claim that no text teaches that elders are elected by Divine authority is false, since what the Apostles bound on the Church was of Divine authority (Matt. 18:18), and the Apostles bound elders as elected officers on the ecclesias (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5); for Acts 14:23 shows that the brethren elected (cheirotoneo, to elect by raising the hand) elders in every church, for them, Paul and Barnabas, i.e., as representing these in a certain sense, even as the pilgrims in a certain sense represented our Pastor; and Titus 1:5 shows that as St. Paul arranged for it (and Acts 14:23 proves that he arranged for it by election through the Church), Titus was to see to it that elders were appointed in every church in Crete. Hence local elders were by Divine authority elected. His claim that the terms, bishops and elders, do not refer to the same persons—teachers in the Church, is likewise false; for St. Paul directly identifies them in two passages (Acts 20:17, 28; episcopos—bishops, overseers; Titus 1:5-7) and St. Peter does it in one passage (1 Pet. 5:1-4). In Acts 20:17 St. Paul is said to send for the elders (presbyteroi) of the Ephesian ecclesia and then in vs. 18-35 he addresses these very persons and calls those he addresses episcopoi (bishops). 

No amount of sophistry, such as J.F.R. indulges in (pars. 19-23), can set aside the plain facts of these Scriptures, that the very ones—"elders"—for whom he sent he calls "overseers"—bishops. Again, in



Titus 1:5-7 he identifies the elders with the bishops, for whose election he charges Titus to arrange; for after mentioning certain qualities that Titus should see that those who were to be elected elders should have, St. Paul gives the reason for their having to have such qualities, viz., that such qualities bishops must have. Hence he uses the words, elders and bishops synonymously, to designate the same servants of the ecclesias. St. Peter identifies them in 1 Pet. 5:1-4. He uses the same figure of the elders feeding the flock, as St. Paul uses in Acts 20:28 of bishops. Moreover, the word translated "oversight" in v. 2 is another form of the root of the word translated overseer (bishop) in Acts 20:28, where elders are overseers; and in 1 Pet. 5:1, 2, elders are those who take the oversight, bishopric (Acts 1:20). These elders of 1 Pet. 5:1-4 are in v. 4, in contrast with the Chief Shepherd, shown to be shepherds, pastors, the term used to designate them in Eph. 4:11. J.F.R.'s sophistry (Z '32, 248, 23), that if the Holy Spirit has placed elders in the Church, the Holy Spirit must have made mistakes, we answer as follows: Never has a mistake been made in electing any one to the eldership when the Holy Spirit in the brethren dictated the choice; for that Spirit dictates the election of those only whom God wants as elders; for it makes its choice of those only whom the Lord by the proper spirit, talents and providential situations of the candidates, points out to be the Lord's choice. When these three things are not made by brethren the determining factors in influencing them to vote for elders, it is not the Holy Spirit that animates their vote, and hence the Holy Spirit does not appoint those so selected. The Ephesian Church was in its electing of elders—bishops (Acts 20:17, 28)—guided by those three things, hence the Holy Spirit made such elected ones their elders—bishops. That elders are the chosen servants of the Church is evident from other passages. Jas. 5:14, by designating 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the ones to be called to pray for the sin-sick as, the elders of the Church, shows by the emphasis of the twice used article that, not mature Christians in general are meant, but such special ones as are designated as the Church's special servants. 

The part that the elders played with the Apostles in the conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4), and that those took with James in advising St. Paul (Acts 21:18), certainly prove that, not mature Christians in general at Jerusalem were meant, but those who as elected representatives of the Jerusalem Church acted as its representatives in giving the desired opinion and the proffered advice. Furthermore, the language of the Greek in 1 Tim. 5:17 proves this same point: "Let those elders that preside [act as the official representatives, hence elected officers] well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor [not simply work, but toil in such sacrifice as exhausts one unto bending down] in the word and doctrine." When to parry off the thought that an election to office is required to put one into a position to fulfill the office works indicated in 1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14, 15; Acts 20:28, 35; 1 Pet. 5:1-4; 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:9, he says (Z '32, 249, 29) that they do not do these things because of being elected, but because of being sons of God, he again becomes guilty of sophistry; for those not elected to the eldership do not have such duties; and as faithful sons of God would not attempt to arrogate the office of doing them, while those who are elected to do them, do them, because by their election thereto it has become their duty as stewards of God to do them, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 9:15, 16, of himself. When J.F.R. says (Z '32, 260, 6) that the mature could not be made mature by vote, and hence reasons that elders should not be elected, he again reasons sophistically, using the word elder as though it meant only an old person or one mature in grace. The fact of the matter is



this, that exercising an official function as a representative of an ecclesia requires an election for the sake of decency, order and edification, as it is also required to prevent usurpers and would-be leaders from inflicting their conceited, power-grasping, unsought ministry upon a church. 

In Z '32, 260, 7; 261, 9, J.F.R. claims that the unity of Eph. 4:13 could not be reached in the Apostle's days; therefore local churches had to have pastors, i.e., bishops (but no elders, except unofficial mature ones, since he claims elders never were elected servants of the Church). He claims that that unity was reached in 1918, hence no more pastors, teachers, bishops, are Divinely electable since 1918. Against this many things may be said. His reason would dispense with the use of apostolic, prophetic and evangelistic ministers also. Again, he makes the unity consist of perfection of faith, which word he uses in the sense of the Truth. That cannot be its sense in Eph. 4:14, because that is implied in its conjoined word, knowledge. But since he claims that it is just since 1918 that special Truth has been advancing, his kind of perfection of faith has not yet come; therefore the servants of the Church mentioned in Eph. 4:11 would still be needed. Furthermore, his saying that the unity of Eph. 4:13 could not have been reached before 1918 proves that he does not understand the Apostle's statement. The unity for which the Apostle stood has existed ever since Pentecost; for as St. Paul defines it in Eph. 4:3-6, it is the unity of the one spirit, body, hope, Lord, faith, baptism and God; for this is the unity of God's faithful people, the Christ, Head and Body, and that has been ever since Pentecost. This unity does not mean the perfection of [Truth] knowledge, which comes only with the very end of the stay of the Church on earth, since the Truth for the Church will continue to advance until then. The faithful in all stages of the Church had the privilege of 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


knowing all the Truth then due; and this was sufficient to give them the unity of knowledge that was the basis of faith as the word is used in vs. 6 and 13—(1) mental appreciation and heart's reliance and (2) faithfulness. But all along the true Church had the seven features of unity mentioned in Eph. 4:3-6. It would have been impossible for her to have been the Church and not to have had them. Jesus' prayer, which was assuredly answered (John 17:11, 21-23), proves that the Church from Pentecost onward would have the unity of Eph. 4:3-6, 13; and each one would share in it as he entered and progressed in it. According to the Ephesians passage, in disproof of J.F.R.'s proposition, the Church would always have her general and local Divinely appointed teachers until the Church would be complete and leave the world—until we all come to a perfect man—while he claims new ones have been added to the Church ever since 1918. And this disproves his proposition (Z '32, 261, 9; 262, 15, 16) that since 1918 the churches were not to have pastors, teachers, elders, bishops, prophets. 

Then he proceeds to change God's organization of the local ecclesias, casting out elders and requiring the local ecclesias to form a totally unscriptural organization. Instead, a service director should be had and should be appointed as follows: A number of candidates should be selected by the local ecclesia and their names be sent to him; and from among these he selects the service director. In this he has added another to the very numerous proofs that as the little pope he imitates his step-brother, the big pope, who from a number of suggested candidates appoints the one whom he wants to make a bishop. And his procedure in disrupting the organization of the local churches and organizing them on an unscriptural basis is an exact counterpart of his step-brother's course, who, as the big pope, did that very thing for all local [Romanist] churches. Furthermore, his little Catholic 



churches are (Z '32, 264, par. 23) by this new organization to elect a service committee to work with and under the service director—another counterpart of the organization of the large Catholic churches, seen in the special helpers of the bishops. Only such as will be J.F.R.'s parrots, repeating and enacting senselessly what he has taught them (and in requiring this he again imitates his big step-brother, the Roman pope) can be service directors and members of the service committees. His requiring a pledge of his partisan followers (the little pope's counterfeit priests) to go wherever he sends them, and to do there whatever he charges them is another counterpart of the papal counterfeit. No more teachers can be had in these churches (Z '32, 264, 26, 28). Why should there be, since forsooth they are all taught of Jehovah?! But they may have chairmen, who will not teach, but read off the questions on his articles in the Tower, and thus all of the class attendants will teach one another! Of course James' earnest and much needed exhortation (Jas. 3:1—"Be not many teachers") is no more applicable. It is out of date, since the Holy Spirit has been withdrawn from his church and angels (indeed and in truth, fallen angels) are the teachers and helpers of his church, since 1918. There should be no more deacons (Z '32, 265, 30) elected, since, he claims, there were allegedly none in the Apostles' days (1 Tim. 3:8-10; Acts 6:1-6; Phil. 1:1). But why bother about how things were in the Apostle's day; for has not the Holy Spirit been since 1918 withdrawn and angels taken its place (for his church)?! Fallen ones evidently. Another example of his thinking to change times and laws. 

In Z '32, 371–376 he has an article in which he denies that the expression, "In the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in the [so the Greek] Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth" (Eph. 1:9),

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


refers to the Millennium, but claims that it refers to the period of his special movement since 1918. A proper translation of the passage will immediately prove that it does refer to the third dispensation: "That … He [God] might again make Himself Head as to all things in the Christ." In Greek, unlike English, verbs have, in addition to the active and passive voices, the middle voice, which is used instead of the active voice when the latter controls reflexive pronouns; e.g., John loves himself. The word above translated, "again make Himself Head," is in the middle voice of the verb anakephalaioo. This translation Rotherham, who denies the Millennial work, and whose translation J.F.R. quotes as giving a pre-Millennial thought, of course could not use, and hence twists the passage into something like harmony with his view, making it pre-Millennial. No real scholar will from grammatical reasons alone deny the grammatically exact translation above. Only then would one deny it, if he forces the language into conformity with his preconceived opinions, as Rotherham does in this instance. It is because of denying the Millennial opportunities for fallen angels and dead humans that so-called orthodox translators always darken this passage by incorrect translation. 

The above translation being true, the passage is self-demonstrative as being Millennial and post-Millennial. God was once Head of all angels [things in heaven] and of the entire human family [things on earth], but when sin came some angels and all humans cast off His Headship. It is God's purpose through the Elect to establish this Headship again, but only as to all who will be in the Christ [Head and Body]. Through the Millennial and Little Season's work of the Christ God will again make Himself Head, not of all angels and men, but of all of these who will come into and perseveringly remain in the Christ. This translation and our comments on it completely 



overthrow the new view under consideration. We will briefly answer the main points that J.F.R. presents for his view. He says that the expression, "in the dispensation of the fulness of times," cannot refer to the Millennial and post-Millennial times, because never will anybody, except the Church, be in Christ, hence, he alleges, the expression, "in Christ," makes the passage pre-Millennial. But St. Paul does not agree with him, for he shows that the faithful restitutionists will also be in the Christ; for consecration and Spirit-begetting in our Age put one into the Christ as a body member; and in the next Age consecration will put one into Christ as a son, as 1 Cor. 15:21-23 proves. While it is true that the word oikonomia means dispensation in the sense of administration, yet the expression, "the fulness of times," connected with the work of God's again making Himself Head as to all things in the Christ, proves the administration to be in the third administration, the third dispensation. His putting this self-evidently post-Gospel-Age passage into his Harvest is therefore only another of the numerous examples of his imitating his big step-brother in thinking to change times and laws. 

In Z '33, 68, 6, he wrongly explains the distinction between synteleia and telos in Matt. 24:3, 14. He claims that synteleia means the completion of the time that Satan rules by sufferance and without hindrance, and that telos means the time of the complete passing away of Satan's world. Hence he claims that the synteleia ended in 1914 and that the telos will end at the end of Armageddon. According to the Bible the synteleia is the Harvest in its fullest sense, in its full work toward the symbolic wheat and tares (Matt. 13:39-43) and therefore is from 1874 to 1954 and 1956, while the telos is only the reaping and gleaning period, 1874 to 1914 and 1916 (Matt. 24:14; 1 Cor. 10:11). According to 1 Cor. 10:11, compared with vs. 6-10, the telos ends before the sixth sifting, which 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


began in 1917; for St. Paul enumerates only 5 siftings as occurring in the telos of each of the two (Jewish and Gospel) Ages. Hence it stopped before 1917, when the sixth sifting began. His pertinent change is another example of his Thinking to change times and laws. 

In Z '33, 99–105, 115–122, he thinks to change times and laws as to the type of Israel's deliverance. Thus he says that in the commissioning of Moses to deliver, and in the deliverance of Israel, Moses does not always type Christ, but sometimes represents the Church (Z '32, 100, 6; 101, 13). But it was Jesus, not the Church, who was commissioned to deliver antitypical Israel; and no passage indicates that Moses types the Church alone, apart from Jesus Christ. Nor does the type show it. The serpent, according to J.F.R., does not type sin and evil (but see Num. 21:4-9; John 3:15; 1 Cor. 10:9; 15:56), but what is evil to Satan and his organization (Z '33, 101, 11); while Moses' fleeing from the serpent types the Church fearing the persecution of 1918! But that persecution was not an evil to Satan, hence the application is a misfit. Then he claims (Z '33, 102, 14, 15) that God's saying to Moses, "Put forth thy hand and take the serpent by the tail," was addressed to the Church and types that the Church is charged to spread the message of the Day of Vengeance—which he says is an evil to Satan! But he has repeatedly taught that the command to the Church to proclaim the Day of Wrath was long after 1922, up to when, and for several years afterward, their message stressed, not vengeance, but the millions fable; while the scene (Ex. 3:4) in Sinai from his viewpoint preceded 1914 or 1918, when Christ is alleged to have come in His Second Advent, typed by Moses' coming to Egypt. Hence this is another misfit. Again, he claims that the act of Moses' putting forth his hand types Jesus destroying Satan's organization. This contradicts the preceding thought, for 



the one commanded to put forth his hand must be the one to obey the command, while his view would mean that the Church did not obey the command! Of course such jumping back and forth with explanations contradicting the definitions—somersaults—which his setting of things compels him to do in about every attempt he makes to explain a type to fit his views, is self-evidence of the erroneousness of his views. His mixing up the type of the three signs as given to Moses in the mount and the three signs as wrought by Aaron in Egypt, and thus mixing up their antitypes, is due to his failure to distinguish between what was taught by God to Jesus alone before His Second Advent as to what He should do after it would set in typed by what God taught Moses in the mount, and what the Church wrought after the Second Advent set in, typed by Aaron's working the signs in Egypt. The failure to mark this distinction is responsible for his confusion in introducing the Church into the antitype of the serpent picture and the hand picture as enacted in the mountain. It will be noted that he offers no antitype for the hand and the water picture at all in so far as they enter the account of the proceedings in the mountain. The reason for this omission is this: that they, as related in the mountain experience of Moses, are fatal to his view. 

Again, he claims (Z '32, 102, 17) that Moses' reluctance to undertake the mission types excuses that his followers made to undertake their mission. But neither his followers, nor the Church, were commissioned to deliver the world from Satan's empire. This is exclusively Jesus' work, even as in the type Aaron was not commissioned to deliver Israel, but only to act as the mouthpiece and agent of Moses, the deliverer. Moreover, if such excuses on the part of the Church had been made, Aaron, its pertinent type, would have had to make them, which he did not do. Again, he teaches that Aaron's starting out to meet

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Moses types the Societyites starting out to meet Christ in 1919. But as Aaron's starting out to meet Moses was before the latter reached Egypt, whose arrival in Egypt types the setting in of the Second Advent, which he variously fixes as during 1914 or 1918, the Church must have started out to meet Christ (which it did in the Miller Movement of 1829–1844) before His Second Advent, which J.F.R. claims occurred in 1914 or 1918. Hence his antitypical starting out to meet Christ is from a year to five years after His Second Advent set in! Their (Christ's and the Church's) meeting, as he says, being in 1922, is again after the Second Advent set in, according to his view, while antitypical Moses and Aaron met one another before the Second Advent set in, i.e., in the Second Advent movement that immediately preceded 1874, wherein they had the Truth on the time of His arrival and looked for it to come in 1874. All of this, of course, upsets his viewpoint; and thus his thinking to change times and laws on this subject ends in confusion, as that of his big step-brother has ended. His claim that God's saying in Ezek. 38 that He will bring upon Israel the worst of the heathen means God will bring upon Satan's organization the worst of the heathen, i.e., that God would bring his nation (Spiritual Israel) against that organization, as its worst enemy, is, in the first place, giving his followers a bad name! Again, this contradicts his symbolic setting for Israel in Ezek. 38, 39, for it is against his alleged Israel (his followers) of these chapters, that the worst of the heathen are to come, which we understand to be the worst of the anarchistic remnant that will plunder fleshly Israel in the last year of the trouble. 

He claims that the Egyptian magicians' casting down their rods types Satan's agents afflicting the antitypical Egyptians. Such an antitype would require Egyptians to have been injured in the type, which did not take place. The fact that neither



Aaron's cast-down rod, nor that of the Egyptians, afflicted anyone in the type proves that they do not type the infliction of evil, but have to do with teachings with reference to evil, which, of course, refutes the setting of the view under review. Would Aaron's serpent swallowing those of the magicians type the Church afflicting the people more than Satan's servants do? His setting would imply it. His claim (Z '33, 115, 2) that the miracle of the leprous hand was not performed before Pharaoh, cannot be allowed; for it would mean that Moses disobeyed, hence Christ would disobey, God's command so to do (Ex. 3:21), the silence of the Scriptures as to the fulfilment being not admissible as a proof that Moses and Jesus would disobey a positive command of God. 

Again, he teaches that the hand of Moses does not represent God's power, but must represent a creature's activities and services (Z '33, 116, par. 6). Hence he claims that the inactivity of Moses' hand (i.e., while in his bosom) represents the inactivities of the Societyites in 1918–1922 (Z '33, 117, 9, 10). Apart from the refutation that we gave above to such a setting, since in those mountain scenes Moses types certain of Jesus' preparatory Second Advent activities, his view is unfactual; for Societyites were very active from Sept., 1919, to Sept., 1922. They then, engaged in many very large drives, were exceedingly active. He claims that the Nile represents commerce, that the dry land represents the Great Company and other rightly disposed people, and that the pouring of the waters of the Nile upon the dry land types pouring the Truth on the Great Company and others rightly disposed to his work (Z '33, 118, 15). But this contradicts his definition, which makes the waters that constitute the Nile mean commerce, which therefore would make pouring water from it upon the dry land mean pouring commerce upon these two classes! The waters becoming blood, he 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


claims, type that commerce originated with the devil and is used by him. But that would prove that Christ and the Church who made the antitypical water blood must be the devil! Moreover, it is untrue to say that commerce originated with the devil, though its abuse doubtless originated with, and is fostered by him; for the three foundations of society—the symbolic earth—which God made (Heb. 1:10), are the right of private ownership of property, government control in human affairs and competitive business. God, in organizing society for the present dispensation, gave these three things and commended their use and protected, e.g., Israel, in their use. It is the fearful abuse of these three good things, fostered by Satan, that has, among other things, made the present symbolic earth evil. Thus we have pointed out various of the errors of the details of his new view on the voice of the three signs. The foundation error of his view is, of course, his thinking, as the little pope, to change times and laws, ascribing what refers to the Parousia to his counterfeit of it. We have by an article that passed through sixteen issues of The Present Truth, vindicated the details of our Pastor's setting of Israel's Enslavement and Deliverance as true, and need not repeat these here. 

We will now review the follies of right-eye darkening that J.F.R. sets forth on the book of Ruth in six installments of the Tower (Sept. 15–Dec. 1, 1932). In Chap. VI of Vol. IV we have given what undoubted facts and harmony of the facts with the type prove to be the antitype of this book. He applies the story of Ruth from Ruth 1:2 onward to his movement and thus in this thinks, like his big step-brother, the pope, to change times and laws. The fact that the special period of the pertinent ruling judge is not in Ruth 1:1 mentioned, is proof that it cannot be a part of the type and therefore cannot point out a corresponding part in the antitype. Hence it proves that 



J.F.R.'s claim (Z '32, 278, 22) that the time of the famine that occasioned the emigration of Elimelech and his family from Canaan to Moab is to be placed in the time of Israel's oppression by Eglon, king of Moab, is not only proofless, but also fictioned to enable him to evade the fact that said emigration was disloyal to God's Covenant arrangement for Israel and types a bad thing; for this fact contradicts the whole setting of his antitype, in which he claims (Z '32, 291, 3, 4) that Elimelech types the Holy Spirit and that his emigration from the Covenant land types that the Holy Spirit sometime after 1914 went with J.F.R.'s followers among the great ones of Christendom (whatever that ambiguous thing can mean), while his death (Z '32, 294, 18) types its being taken away from the Church in 1918, which is a gross error, as the Holy Spirit never was, never will be, nor ever can be taken from the faithful (John 14:16; 1 John 2:27). This thought is, next to his denouncing character development, the most iniquitous thing he has taught. If the oppression by Eglon had then prevailed, it would have been a compelling reason for Elimelech and his family to remain away from Moab, for people seeking refuge from famine and oppression would certainly not immigrate into the oppressor's domain. Moreover, Eglon's oppression began not longer than 80 years after Israel entered the land (Ex. 17:9-14, Joshua was scarcely younger than 40 when commanding Israel in this battle; Josh. 24:29; Judg. 3:8, 11). This would have made Obed about 190 years old at the begettal of Jesse and Jesse about 190 years old at the begettal of David (Ruth 4:22; Acts 13:20, 21)! He gives (Z '32, 277, 15, 16) false definitions for some of the names, in the interest of his pertinent errors. Boaz does not mean fleetness, but strength. Orpah does not mean nape (of the neck), but stiff-necked, stubborn. Ruth does not mean female friend,

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


companion, but friendship. Judah does not mean praises of Jehovah, but praised. 

His thought (Z '32, 278, 23) that the famine of Ruth 1:1, 2 typed a supposed famine for the faithful from 1914 to 1918 is untrue; for in that time the faithful feasted on Parousia, and the beginning of Epiphany Truth. But it is a fact that from 1917 to the present time his followers have been in a famine of Truth; but this is not typed by the famine of Ruth 1:1, 2. His statement (Z '32, 279, 25) that it made no difference whether Elimelech lived in Canaan or Moab during a famine, is certainly untrue; for (Heb. 11:25) we are to choose suffering affliction with the people of God rather than enjoy abundance with the enemies of God. Elimelech's and Naomi's leaving God's people for Moab, contrary to J.F.R.'s thought (Z '32, 279, 29), was a violation of their covenant obligations and blessings, and types something bad. This destroys his view (Z '32, 291, 3, 4) that Elimelech types the Holy Spirit and that his doings type those of the Holy Spirit. Corroborative of the correct thought is Naomi's lamentation over her real losses as chastisements for her and his wrong-doings in leaving the land of Israel (Ruth 1:3, 5, 13, 20, 21). Thus J.F.R.'s blaming Bro. Russell for disapproving Elimelech's and Naomi's course in leaving Canaan for Moab is blameworthy. The only reason he has for saying (Z '32, 279, 27) that the Moabites represent the great ones of Christendom hating God's people during the World War, is the wish to make it so, there being nothing in the text or in other Scriptures to suggest such a thought. When he applies 1 Cor. 10:6, 11, as a proof that the book of Ruth is typical, he makes a false application, since St. Paul there limits his references to types, to those things which he there mentions. Other Biblical considerations, however, prove that the book is typical. Nothing, except his wish, as father to his thought (Z '32, 280, 3, 4), suggests that 



Naomi and Ruth type those who allegedly since 1918 vindicated God's name, Naomi supposedly typing those faithful to him in 1917–1919 (Z '32, 292, 7), Ruth those called into his movement since 1922. His claim (Z '32, 292, 9; 293, 10), that Mahlon and Chilion represent those who have striven to develop character for kingdom fitness, cannot be true, since the Bible everywhere commends such a course as spiritually profitable. He rejects the harvest work done from 1874 to 1916 as amounting to nothing, because it involved character development (Z '32, 293, 11)! 

He thinks (Z '32, 295, 20) that Ruth after deciding to stay with Naomi pictures those who become faithful after 1918, yet elsewhere he dates their decision from 1922 on, while to him Orpah types those who rebelled against his leadership of his movement after 1918. But his partisan followers are Biblically disapproved and some that rejected his leadership are of the Little Flock. Mahlon's and Chilion's death cannot, as he says (Z '32, 298, 26), type those cut off by the beginning of his judgment in 1918, for the Bible teaches that judgment began with the house of God shortly after our Lord's return in 1874 (1 Cor. 10:6-14). Again, this view is unchronological, because those whom he regards as the ones cut off are those whom the Bible and facts show were cut off by him in 1917 (Zech. 11:16). According to his setting, Naomi's leaving Moab cannot type God's people leaving Satan's organization in 1918 (Z '32, 296, 28); for his antitypical Naomi left the Nominal Church earlier than 1918 and never went back. Nor can her reaching Bethlehem (allegedly reached in antitype in 1922, Z '32, 297, 33) type his followers' realizing that Christ had come to His temple in 1918; for he teaches that her activities in Bethlehem type his followers vindicating Jehovah's name from 1919 on, as a work of theirs in his alleged Bethlehem, while they never heard of an alleged coming to Christ's temple in 1918 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


until years after 1922. Various of his claims as to Ruth and Naomi require them to have come to his Bethlehem in 1918, which is only another of his chronological inconsistencies. His claim (Z '32, 296, 29) of Naomi's calling Ruth (which in the type she certainly did not do, rather the reverse, as Ruth 1:8-18 proves) types God's again visiting the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name, is unbiblical. God's real activity therein is but one uninterrupted activity, lasting from 36 A. D. to 1916 (Matt. 28:18-20). His thought (Z '32, 297, 31) that Naomi's (alleged) calling Orpah and Ruth to follow her types the efforts of God's Parousia people, 1874 to 1914, in seeking to bring people to consecration, cannot be a true antitype, for Naomi never tried to induce them to follow her; rather when they attempted to do so she sought to dissuade them. Orpah, he says (Z '32, 311, 20; 312, par. 26), types those consecrated ones who were his followers in line for the kingdom, but in unfaithfulness turned back to the study of Tabernacle Shadows and developing character! If the antitypical famine was from 1914–1918, and the antitypical emigration was between 1914 and 1918 and antitypical Elimelech's death was in 1918, how could Orpah and Ruth type antitypes acting from 1874 to 1914? 

He claims (Z '32, 312, 31) that Naomi became God's organization, which is supposed to be the woman of Is. 54, at the time of Ruth's decision, which was, he elsewhere claims, in 1922; but supposedly, as he elsewhere claims, in 1918, 1919, as God's organization, this woman began to bear children and rejoice (though St. Paul in Gal. 4:27 shows that from Jordan and Pentecost on she did these things); but after in 1922 at her supposed arrival at supposed Bethlehem Naomi should have grieved, which elsewhere he teaches was in 1918! His Harvest he now claims began in 1918 (Z '32, 325, 16, 18). For several years we charged that his setting of things denied the Harvest 



as beginning in 1874 and fixed it as beginning in 1918, which charge of ours he for as many years denied. This proves that he acted the hypocrite during those years, doubtless fearing that his followers were not yet prepared to accept such a patent departure from the Truth, which he was then hypocritically claiming he had not changed. Ruth's gleaning, he teaches (Z '32, 340, 6), types not only gathering saints, but spiritual food, which she ate, a splendid example of failing to keep separate the harvest figure from a feast figure! He claims (Z '32, 342, 38) that Naomi wanted Ruth to become Boaz' wife so that King David might be produced—a thing that was entirely unknown to her; for while it was then known that the Messiah was to come from Judah, it was not then known from which family of Judah this would be, nor was it known that it would be through David, for the good reason that David was not foretold as a coming one through whom the Messiah would come. This fiction is invented to make his antitype plausible. The near kinsman, he says (Z '32, 356, 7) represents those who refuse to leave off Elijah work to do Elisha work! 

Then, because, his setting for the antitype being false, he cannot consistently make Boaz everywhere type our Lord, he must (Z '32, 357, 14) twist him into applying to the Church—his Naomi and Ruth! Then (Z '32, 357, 19) he sets forth the proposition that to become the wife of Boaz Ruth takes the place of Naomi, the latter being in reality the one whom Boaz should have married as the near relation! This, of course, is a blunder, because Elimelech had had children by Naomi, and levirate marriage in Israel was arranged for on behalf of a man who died childless, whereupon his brother or other nearest relative residing in the same estate was to take his widow and raise up seed for the dead (Luke 20:27-32; Deut. 25:5-10). The reason that Naomi, as well as Ruth, had a claim to the field is that while Ruth's husband 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


was the firstborn and thus was heir to the main body of his father's estate, Chilion also had a share in it, which had become his widow's, but his widow by forsaking Israel's hopes and becoming a heathen again (Ruth 1:15) forfeited her share therein, which then reverted to Naomi. It was Ruth's sharing in that field as the widow of the childless Mahlon that required her to be taken by the one who redeemed it, to raise up seed for Mahlon (Ruth 4:5). These facts completely spoil J.F.R.'s fictitious antitype, based on his fiction that Naomi was the one that Boaz should have married. Thus his antitype for the book of Ruth is proven unfactual—by its disharmonies, fictions, twistings and all-around unfitness; while the view of the antitype that we have set forth in Chap. VI of Vol. IV, fits the involved facts and chronology and is in harmony with itself, every Scripture passage and doctrine and the true Harvest as J.F.R. once saw it. 

We will continue our review with the May 1, 1933 Tower. In Z '33, 131–137 is an article on, Who is for Jehovah? In par. 3 he sets forth the thought that Joshua (Josh. 24:14, 15) calling upon Israel to choose that day whom they would serve, the Lord or the idols of the heathen, types our Lord calling upon the people of Christendom to choose between Jehovah and the present gods of Christendom from 1918 onward, Joshua's house allegedly typing J.F.R.'s remnant. Our Pastor's thought is better; for he on the basis of St. Paul's allusion (Heb. 4:8) gave the passage a double application: (1) to the Gospel Age, particularly to the Jewish and Gospel Age Harvests, though not excluding the time between these, and (2) to the Millennial Age, more particularly to its Little Season. In the Gospel-Age application Joshua types our Lord and His house types the Church (Heb. 3:6), while the Israelites in general represent the nominal people of God. Through the various calls and 



siftings the antitypical Joshua has called upon the latter to choose Jehovah by consecration and by loyalty in consecration, assuring them that He and the Church would serve the Lord. In the Millennial-Age application Joshua types the Christ, Head and Body. His house types the Millennial Levites—the Ancient and Youthful Worthies and Great Company, while the Israelites type the Restitution class. While in a general way the call of the Restitutionists to choose whom they will serve will be given during the Millennium, more particularly and specially will this exhortation be given during the Little Season. On no Scriptural, reasonable or factual ground can this type be limited in its application to the period from 1918 to Armageddon, as J.F.R. claims, though doubtless one of its special Gospel-Age applications is to the Parousia and Epiphany combinedly. In par. 5 he says, the Kingdom shall be preached, etc., applies to a command issued by Jesus after 1918, i.e., after His alleged coming then to the temple, and thereafter to be fulfilled by J.F.R.'s remnant. Even from his own standpoint this cannot be true, for he claims that the end was in 1914; hence from his viewpoint this preaching must have preceded 1914. But the end of the Gospel Age is the Harvest (1 Cor. 10:11), which began in 1874. Hence Matt. 24:14 was fulfilled before 1874, i.e., in the distribution of the Bible in every nation, which facts prove occurred by 1861. 

In pars. 7-12 he misconstrues the cautions against railing at the present order in Studies, Vol. VI, (607, 608), claiming that in the second reference Bro. Russell said that the Lord's people would be authorized to do such railing later; and then he claims that Bro. Russell thereby forecast J.F.R.'s movement as the one that would do the alleged forecast Divinely pleasing railing at the present order. Neither reference warrants such a thought. The second reference tells the brethren to wait on the Kingdom to rebuke present 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


evils and to abstain entirely therefrom until the Kingdom comes, when all these difficulties will be rectified. In the meantime the Lord will rebuke them in an agitational way, not by the Little Flock, but by those—the Lord's great army of the unconsecrated—who would agitate in advance to their own and other's injury, as the paragraph implies. The charge to the Lord's people not to rail applies to them eternally in this and in the next life. J.F.R.'s fierce denunciation of the clergy, politicians and capitalists is forbidden railing; and in so far as part of his railing has been directed against some faithful members of the priesthood, between Aug., 1930, and July, 1933, it was his part in the large impenitent thief's railing at the large Jesus undergoing crucifixion. 

His statement in par. 16 that the proclamation of the day of vengeance must be made between the time of Christ's coming to His temple and Armageddon requires some correction. This proclamation was partly to precede and partly to follow Christ's coming to His temple. Accordingly, it was done from 1829 onward in the Miller and Cleansed Sanctuary movements and from 1874 (when He came to His temple) onward; and so far as the priesthood is concerned it was to be completed in each country where they were before that vengeance struck that country. Hence it was by them completed world-wide by the end of 1916. The fact that they were to proclaim the day of vengeance as a forecast proves that it would be completed in each country before the vengeance set in there. The war began the Lord's vengeance. It began in various European countries variously from 1914 to 1916. America was the last country to enter the World War; hence that vengeance had set in world-wide by April, 1917. Hence before that time the proclamation of the day of vengeance prophesied in Is. 6 and 61, had been made. This proves that J.F.R.'s "proclamations" since 1919, when the first



phase of the vengeance had already ended, are not the predicted proclamation of the day of vengeance of Is. 6 and 61. It also proves that the one which occurred from 1829 to 1874 and from 1874 to 1916 was the Divinely predicted one, and that that of J.F.R. is a counterfeit; for to wait until the vengeance of the day of vengeance had already set in before proclaiming it as coming is prima facie evidence of a false movement; and to claim it to be the true movement is prima facie evidence of fraud. While the Scriptures teach that the Great Company would make a twofold denunciation of the Nominal Church (Rev. 19:2, 3), the first corresponding to the second smiting of Jordan and the second to their work from 1919–1920, it nowhere associates these with Is. 6 and 61, both of which forecast Little Flock work. 

In par. 29 he says that even if 1 Tim. 2:1, 2, referred to prayer for civil rulers, on which he later on more than casts doubts, it does not apply since Jesus came to His temple, allegedly in 1918. He gives no pertinent Scripture that proves his point. The charge that St. Paul there gives is not limited to a certain period of the Faithfuls' stay on earth, just as his contrasted charge as to the sisters' not teaching in the Church is not limited as to time, but applies throughout the Church's earthly stay; and since always God's people are to seek to lead a quiet and peaceable life, they are to pray for such blessings on rulers as would conduce thereto. Of course, we are not to pray anything for them that would be out of harmony with God's plan. But we may ask that God would so bless their efforts as would be to His glory and the good of His people. As long as they hold office we are to obey and pray for our rulers as such. When at the end of the paragraph he suggests, slyly of course, that 1 Tim. 2:1, 2, refers in part to the officers of the Society, he teaches a transparent sophism. In his repetitions he acts apparently on the same 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


principle on which the Jesuits act—"do not attempt to prove your statements; for the effort to prove arouses suspicion in the minds of the hearers. Repeat, repeat, repeat, and the repetition will gradually be accepted as proof by most people." 

In Z '33, 147–153 is an article on Jehovah's Prophet, allegedly based on Acts 3:22. In this article in par. 1 he misrepresents our Pastor as applying that prophecy particularly to the Little Season at the end of the Millennium, whereas our Pastor applies the verse in the part that speaks of the raising up of the Prophet, even as Peter does, to the Gospel Age, and the rest of the verse to the Millennial Age and its Little Season, which is also the application that he makes of v. 23. Again, he denies that the Prophet here referred to is the Christ, Head and Body, asserting that it applies only to Jesus. But if we closely study Deut. 18:15-18, we find that St. Peter has quoted it in Acts 3:22 and 23 from the Septuagint, which gives a composite paraphrase rather than a literal translation. But as v. 15 reads, both in the Hebrew and the English, it proves that the Prophet is a multitudinous one: "The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren [a Prophet consisting of brethren; hence a multitudinous one]." This Prophet is here spoken of, not only as gathered out of Israel [both typical and antitypical]—"out of the midst of thee," but as consisting of brethren of such—"of thy brethren." It will be noted that the expressions, "out of the midst of thee," and, "of thy brethren," are not synonymous. The former tells from among whom the Prophet would be raised up; and the latter tells of whom he would consist. The fact that he would consist of brethren overthrows the central thought of the entire article under review, destroying its claim that this Prophet is Jesus alone, and that His pertinent ministry is from 1918 to the end of Armageddon. 



The ministry of Jesus while in the flesh is not, as the article under review claims (par. 5), the teaching referred to in Deut. 18:15-18. It was during that time that He was being raised up as the Head of the Prophet. Moreover, if Jesus alone were referred to in that passage, fleshly Israel alone would be referred to in the passage as the ones taught; for it was from their midst alone that Jesus was raised up. This fact proves that from both Israels (Is. 8:14) this Prophet has been raised up, which fact also proves that Jesus alone is not that Prophet. Nor does the passage give any hint on giving such a testimony on Jehovah as J.F.R. claims it teaches (par. 8) and as his movement allegedly has been giving since 1919 (including his 1925 fiasco!). Hence his "irresistible [!] conclusion" (par. 8) is a humbug conclusion. The connection of Acts 3:19-21 proves that the ministry of that Prophet is during the Millennium and at its end. Further, if his view (par. 11) as to those referred to as taught in this passage—his remnant at the Age's end—were true, Jesus would have to have sprung from them, and that since 1918, when the remnant allegedly first came into existence. His claim that Peter's expression (Acts 3:22), "unto you," clearly refers to J.F.R.'s remnant, is as clear as the black mud of Texas after a heavy rain; for Peter applies the words, "unto you," of vs. 22, 23, in vs. 25, 26, as primarily addressed to fleshly Israelites. Neither this text nor any other text teaches what he teaches on Jesus' coming to the temple in 1918 and thenceforth beginning to fudge His own. This theory is read into this and all other Scriptures that J.F.R. alleges teaches it. His statement (par. 21) for the steenth time that the division set in among God's people after Passover, 1918 is a demonstrable untruth, as all Truth people know that it started and had its largest single manifestation during 1917; and this fact destroys his whole setting as to the facts of the

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Harvest. This untruth is necessary to build up the entire theory that claims the Harvest to begin in 1918, which year's division was much smaller than that of 1917, but it is illogical in that it teaches a harvest sifting before any of his harvest reaping is done. It is in line with the thought that he has been a leader in what is the sixth sifting—large division—since Jesus came to the temple in 1874. 

In Z '33, 163–169 is an article on, His Covenant People. He says Deut. 29:1 refers to his covenant of the Kingdom. But Deut. 29:1-13 expressly refers to the Israelites' consecration and to the Oath-bound Covenant, as vs. 12-15 show. It was to the earthly features ["as the sands by the sea"] of the Oath-bound Covenant (Gen. 22:16-18) and to Israel's covenant of consecration that the words of Deut. 29:1-15 primarily refer, and they were given to Israel according to the flesh, the faithful ones among them alone proving themselves to be Ancient Worthies, who realized the earthly promise as theirs. St. Peter shows the same thing in Acts 3:25, 26; and according to Gal. 4:27-31, the spiritual features ["as the stars of the heavens"] apply throughout the Gospel Age to the Seed. He charges (par. 13) that elders, whom he characterizes continually as "elective elders," and who deny his proofless claims that none are Scripturally elected as elders, that their rejection of his views is due to their selfish desire to want to be somebodies, to appear before audiences to show off, to make discourses, etc., etc., etc. Look at his record and you will find none among the Lord's people to equal it in grasping for power, and in hunger for luxury, influence, popularity, prominence, wealth and rulership. We pass by his 1917 record on these points as too well known to need recital. He accepted his position under the charter and will, promising publicly by word and writing to be faithful to our Pastor's teachings, arrangements, charter and will; but, like the great popes 



in their relation to the Apostles, he used that position to undermine and overthrow his charter, will and arrangements, to repudiate most of the teachings, to suppress all his publications, to belittle him before the brethren, and to belie and drive away those who advocated our Pastor's ways. He has used his position to set forth a set of drunken follies as truths, and right-eye darkenings as light. He has tyrannized over the Board, the other Tower editors, the Bethel family, the branch offices, the elders and ecclesias of the Society. He has branded some faithful brethren as parts of the man of sin. He has railed at them, the clergy, politicians and capitalists, which is neither the spirit of power, nor of love, nor of a sound mind. He has almost entirely destroyed study meetings, disorganized ecclesias, turned most study meetings into salesmen—coaching assemblies ("pep-meetings"), commercialized the Truth and luxuriated in his wantonness. Such has been the course of the one who rails at elders who disapprove of his teaching, as selfish, power, influence, popularity, prominence, etc., seekers. This glass-house dweller dares throw stones! 

The following incident among many others the Church ought to know as revelatory of his attitude toward power and office: The third day after our Pastor's death, i.e., on Nov. 2, 1916, both he and we reached Bethel, he from a business, we from a pilgrim trip. He called us aside, asking us whether Pastor Russell was to have a successor. We answered that we did not know. Knowing that we understood a number of types that pointed out individual acts of leading brethren, he then asked: "Do you not know some Scripture on the subject?" We replied that we did not, having never thought of the subject, but told him, who was betraying a marked interest in the question, that we would think it over, and that if anything came to mind, we would tell him of it. Many brethren will remember that the thought prevailed 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


among the brethren (a thought that many others and the writer know Bro. Russell held, as more than once he and we spoke on that subject together) that, as the steward of the penny parable, our Pastor was to give the penny—the opportunity of service in smiting Jordan, which many brethren were expecting him to give. The morning of Nov. 3, the day after the above-mentioned conversation with J.F.R., we awoke early, our mind being much weighed down by our beloved Pastor's death. Among others, the thought came to our mind, "Bro. Russell died without giving the penny. He, therefore, while having been that Servant, had not been the steward of the parable who gave the penny." As a matter of fact, he had, unknown to himself and us, given it in its twofold distribution, even as many of us later came to see. Then the thought came to mind, "Here is the answer to J.F.R.'s question: Bro. Russell is to have a successor." Immediately after breakfast, in harmony with our promise, we called J.F.R. aside, telling him we had the answer to his question of the day before. Great interest and eagerness overspread his face; and eagerly beckoning us to follow, he led the way to his room. As soon as we were inside, he locked the door, then asked us what our thought was. We explained it, and he promptly answered, "That is so." Then he asked us whom we thought the successor to be. We replied that we did not know, but he would undoubtedly be a brother of deep humility, loving zeal, deep knowledge of the Scriptures and trusted by the brethren for these three things. Then, enlarging, we added, "We do not need to worry over who he is. In due time the Lord will bring him forward; but let no one seek that place; for woe to him who seeks to 'set' himself in the Body of Christ." As we think over subsequent events, we feel persuaded that the Lord, knowing of his power-grasping and leading spirit, gave him through these words a warning. 



J.F.R. convinced himself without Biblical warrant that he was the steward. He gave as the penny, Studies, Vol. VII. All will recall how he taught that it was the penny. He even had a cut of a penny made and printed on the dedicatorial page of that book. One reason why he, without the Board's authorization, had Studies, Vol. VII prepared, printed and distributed was his belief that he was the steward. It will be noted that it was on Nov. 3, 1916, that we gave him the thought that the penny parable taught that Bro. Russell would have a successor. The Bible teaches that it was on Nov. 3, 1916, that he began to displace A. H. MacMillan, A. I. Ritchie and W. E. Van Amburgh in the exercise of executive and managerial powers, as the Bible also shows that he drew up his power-seeking by-laws on Dec. 29, 1916. We would here remark that there is a very detailed record of his doings from Nov. 3, 1916, to Aug. 8, 1917, given in several books of the Bible. We came to see this in March, 1917, while yet in Britain, and after our return, April 9, 1917, we watched him closely and saw him fulfilling the details of these types. It was with this thought in mind that on June 23, 1917, we said to him: "I know you like a book, I not only know what you have been doing [since Nov. 3, 1916], but what you are going to do [until Aug. 8, 1917]. The Bible gives a very detailed account of past and future doings of yours." We refused his request to tell him where. We have stated that he luxuriates in wantonness. For one of the proofs on this point we refer our readers to P '34, 68, par. 2–69, par. 2. 

In Z '33, 179–186 is an article on His Sanctuary. In it he says (pars. 3, 4) that an epitome of the vision of Dan. 7 shows that Satan's organization has seven heads: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and Great Britain. To this we reply that that chapter does not refer at all to Egypt and Assyria,

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


nor to seven heads, and that Britain is not referred to at all there, not even as one of the horns of the Roman beast. Moreover, without any reference to an alleged Satan's organization whatever, the four universal Gentile empires of the Times of the Gentiles are referred to, which fact excludes reference to Egypt, Assyria and Britain among the empires referred to as such in the vision and explanation of Dan. 7. Again Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece are not of the seven-headed Scriptural beast, since the harlot was never supported by them, actually did not exist during their domination (Rev. 17:9). He claims that the three horns plucked up to make way for the little horn are Spain, France and Holland, and that the little horn is Britain, which he asserts is the seventh head of the beast of Rev. 13 and 17. Then he sets up the thought that Anglo-American imperialism is the two-horned beast of Rev. 13. This view cannot be correct, because: (1) Spain, France and Holland have not been plucked up, for they still exist. (2) They have existed as governments more or less contemporaneously with Britain for many centuries, while Daniel shows that the little horn coming up out of the beast's head rooted out three governments that existed before it to make way for itself. (3) Holland as a government never was a horn on Daniel's fourth beast, though it is a part of the Germanic horn of the Rev. 13 and 17 beast. (4) Britain, never having ruled in Italy, can not be one of the horns of the fourth beast of Dan. 7. (5) If this view were correct, that Britain sprouted as the little horn, 286 A. D., it came into existence as the little horn before Spain, France and Holland as governments came into existence, and her defeats of Spain, France and Holland began from 13 to 15 centuries after her sprouting as the alleged little horn. (6) A so-called Anglo-American imperialism is not a government, hence cannot be the two-horned beast. (7) There is no such a thing as Anglo-American



imperialism as governments, though Britain and America have more or less imperialistic policies, but these policies are entirely separate and distinct from one another. A policy is not a horn, which is a government, nor is a policy a beast, which must be a government. (8) If Britain were the seventh head of the ten-horned beast, it can not be the two-horned beast, which is defined as quite different from that. These facts effectually dispose of the new view of the little horn of the seventh head of the Rev. 13 and 17 beast and of the two horns of the two-horned beast of Rev. 13. Of course, it therefore disposes of his new view of the war on the saints (par. 24) as being the persecution of himself and his followers during the World War. Certainly, even his followers were not in that year worn out, thought doubtless more or less for a few months restricted in their Vol. VII, etc., activities, but were then allowed to distribute Bro. Russell's volumes. 

His thought (par. 25) on his little horn (Britain) changing times and laws is both nonsensical and unfactual: (1) It was an officer of the Federation of Churches, not Britain, who stated that the League of Nations was the political expression of God's Kingdom. (2) This Federation officer by that declaration made no change in times and laws, as J.F.R. holds, though he stated a thing that, if put into effective operation as a teaching and practice would have thought to make such a change. (3) Britain never put such a teaching into practice. (4) Not Britain, but France has been the most influential force in engineering the policies of the League. (5) The League has never changed a single time or law of the Divine Plan, hence no such changes were made so far as it is concerned. (6) We have above sufficiently refuted the whole setting that he gives to that impotent misfit called, The League of Nations. (7) So far from America issuing a decree that all should worship his 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


image—the League—America has steadfastly refused to sanction it or join it. Thus we see that while with his little horn no times and laws were changed, he even admitting that God is not allowing it (end of par. 26), there was a real changing, in counterfeiting Gospel-Age times for Millennial times and the Truth as God's eternal laws for error, by the papacy, the real little horn. His claim (pars. 27, 28) that Daniel fixes the time of setting up the abomination of desolation, of the change of times and laws, as occurring after our Lord's Second Advent (Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14), is transparent sophistry. These references show the time of the destruction of the beast and the little horn, and not the time when the little horn would do its devastating work against the saints. Moreover, God began in 1914 to destroy the beast of Dan. 7, hence before, according to the view under examination, the beast made war on the saints, while Dan. 7:21 shows that it was after that war was over that God began to destroy the fourth beast of Dan. 7. Moreover, in an entirely unwarranted way does J.F.R. mix the visions and interpretations of Dan. 7 and 8. 

The article on, His Sanctuary, is continued in Z '88, 195–202. He claims (par. 3) that the fulfilment and the understanding of the vision of Dan. 8:9-14 are by Dan. 8:17 proven to belong to the Time of the End. Against this view we offer the following: (1) The word vision in Dan. 8:17 does not simply cover the part of the vision given in Dan. 8:9-12, as J.F.R. contrary to facts assumes, but refers to the entire vision—vs. 3-14. (2) Manifestly this vision was not in its entirety limited to the Time of the End, for Gabriel's interpretation shows that it begins with Medo-Persia. (3) Rightly translated, the pertinent clause of Dan. 8:17 reads as follows: "because for (not at) the Time of the End is the vision," i.e., it is for the understanding and advantage of God's people 



living in the Time of the End (Dan. 12:10). (4) The Time of the End did not begin in 1914, as J.F.R. claims (par. 3), but in 1799, as shown in Chap. V. (5) The date 1914 is assumed without any proof as the date of the Time of the End. (6) God's people got their understanding of the vision of Dan. 8:3-14 before 1914, which proves that the Time of the End began before that date. (7) J.F.R., as the little pope, being the head of the little Antichrist, of necessity must, like the big pope, furnish counterfeit interpretations on every salient feature of God's Plan; hence his Time of the End as coming after 1914 is a counterfeit Time of the End. His claim (par. 6) that Ireland could not be one of the two horns of the second beast (Rev. 13), because it never was a world power, is false, for it assumes that only world powers could be horns. The Heruli, Ostrogoth and Lombard horns were not world powers, neither was the Norman power (in southern Italy), yet they were symbolic horns. He claims that Holland was a horn, yet it was not a world power. His claim that America is one of the horns of the two-horned beast is half-brother to the Seventh Day Adventist thought on this subject. Moreover, the prophecy's saying nothing about the little horn pushing west excludes the U. S. from the picture. Only the needs of J.F.R.'s counterfeit requires this piece of eisegesis. Actually what is papacy's exalting itself to be the symbolic heavens (Dan. 8:10) he claims means Anglo-American imperialism opposing his remnant! Then, he adds, papacy's setting itself in counterfeit of the Christ as the prince of the host is not the meaning of Dan. 8:11, but it means Anglo-American imperialism setting itself against our returned Lord as leader of J.F.R.'s remnant! 

The taking away of the daily sacrifice, he claims, means preventing the Societyites' doing their work in 1918. That work was the distribution of Studies, Vol. VII 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


and kindred literature, which the Society now brands as false teaching, while the U. S. allowed the six volumes to be continued in distribution. Their present position as to Studies, Vol. VII and its related literature proves from their own standpoint that that suppression was not one of a Divinely well-pleasing book. Hence its suppression could not have been the taking away of the daily sacrifice, as he contends in pars. 15–24. As a matter of fact, the service of sacrifice of the Lord's people did not cease in 1918, though an Azazelian work at that time was much curtailed. Of course, this new twist is the little papacy's counterfeit interpretation for the true one given by the Lord through that wise and faithful Servant. His claim against the true view (par. 23), that the papacy could not set aside the continual imputation of Christ's merit is only a straw man. No Truth teacher who has understood the subject ever set forth such a claim: Our Pastor's thought was that the papacy set aside the teaching of the continued efficacy of Jesus' merit for all Adamic sin, whether committed before or after justification, by teaching that Jesus' merit avails for the cancellation of the Adamic sin and sins before baptism, later Adamic sins needing the sacrifice of, masses for their cancellation. Whoever accepted that teaching did for himself set aside the continual sacrifice of Christ. One of J.F.R.'s characteristic "methods of deceit" when he wants to set aside our Pastor's teachings, is to give a foolish misrepresentation of them (the straw-man trick) and then refute his misrepresentation; and thereafter set forth his little papal counterfeit as the Simon pure thing. The base of the sanctuary, he claims, (Dan. 8:11) is his followers, as the alleged last members of the Church: The base of a natural building certainly is not the last things built up into the structure! The Bible pictures are quite different on this subject. When it sets forth the thought that the Truth supports the Church, it speaks



of the Truth as the base, the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18). When it sets forth the chief servants of the Church as the support of the Church, it speaks of them as the foundation, with Jesus as the chief corner stone (Eph. 2:19-22). It never uses, and that from self-evident reasons, the last ones to become parts of the Church as the foundation of the Church! In Dan. 8:11 the great ransom teaching and Christ as its Giver are set forth as the base, foundation of the sanctuary. 

J.F.R. teaches that the alleged opposition of Anglo-American imperialism to his work is prophesied in Dan. 8:12. But he has greater liberties for his propaganda in America and Britain than in any other country. His work in Poland is nearly entirely suppressed. It is entirely suppressed in Germany and Italy. If he would fulminate against the other continental European governments as he does against Britain and America, every one of them would suppress his work. The degree of tolerance which the British and American governmental officials show his work in the teeth of the vituperation that he pours out upon them is remarkable—in striking contrast with his intolerance toward them. We might here remark that the governmental opposition that his partisans have undergone since early in 1933 is a part of the breaking of the legs of the two symbolic large thieves, the better ones among them being parts of the large penitent thief, and the bad ones among them, with him as their leader, being parts of the large impenitent thief. 

His article on, His Sanctuary, is concluded in Z '33, 211–219. He says (par. 6) that the attempt to explain the cleansing of the Sanctuary prior to 1918, the alleged time of Christ's coming to His temple, was merely a guess bound to be mistaken, since he claims that Christ would first have to be in His sanctuary before He could cleanse it and thus explain its meaning.

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Such a view is an unprovable assumption, but also is contrary to facts as to his own position, since its cleansing was properly explained before 1918. He contends (par. 8) that the days of Daniel are literal days. He sets up the proposition (par. 8) that God holds people responsible for their wrongs "only after they have received knowledge" of their wrong. This proposition sweeps away responsibility for sins of ignorance—a thing that is contrary to God's character, whose perfection must condemn all wrong and wrongdoers, though He does so less severely in cases of sins of ignorance than in cases of sins against knowledge. The fact that He exacts the penalty of sin on infants disproves J.F.R.'s proposition. The fact that by nature's laws He inflicts painful penalties on sins done in ignorance also disproves the proposition. Why do we pray for forgiveness of sins of ignorance, if God does not hold us responsible for them? That servant "that knew not [his Lord's will] and did commit things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes" (Luke 12:47, 48), is God's sentence of condemnation on J.F.R.'s proposition. While admitting that in 1929 he misinterpreted the 2300 days, he now claims (par. 13) that Daniel's 2300 days began on May 25, 1926, and ended Oct. 15, 1932, but just as in the case of his 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, he has again figured wrongly on the 2300 days; for from May 25, 1926, to Oct. 15, 1932, is a period of 2340 days [PT '34, p. 160; '45, p. 160]. Thus: 



Thus his period is forty days too long, and that spoils his claim. He claims (par. 13) that according to the Bible way of counting time, 2300 days equal 6 years, 4 months and 20 days. We answer that if he thereby means that the Bible way of counting 2300 is to make them equal to 2340 days, he misrepresents the Bible way of reckoning in a manner similar to that of his step-brother, the big pope, who claims that according to the Bible way of counting, 3 × 1 = 1. We have serious doubts that the Bible way of counting makes 2300 = 2340 and 3 × 1 = 1! 

Having shown that his period for the 2300 days is a transparent error, let us see of what he makes the cleansing of the sanctuary consist. Instead of making it consist of freeing the sanctuary from the errors fostered by the mass error, he makes it consist of driving out of the temple those whom he calls castaways from his remnant. But Dan. 8:13, 14, shows that it consists of ridding the sanctuary of those things centering in that which set aside the continued efficacy of Christ's sacrifice and which trampled down the Truth, the Church and the nominal people. This was the mass, from whose every defiling effect the true Church was freed at the end of 2300 years, in 1846, and was not a casting out of such new creatures as failed to remain of the true Church, let alone of his remnant. Moreover, even the actual 2300 days from May 25, 1926 to Sept. 5, 1932, have not seen the complete separation from his remnant of all those who have left his movement. Literally hundreds in the year and 8½ months since then have left him and his movement, and we venture on the basis of Zech 11:17 to say that thousands will yet leave his movement, until not one new creature nor good Youthful Worthy will remain with him—his remnant will finally be reduced to lapsed Youthful Worthies, lapsed tentatively justified ones, complete worldlings and "second deathers." But apart from what will yet befall him,

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the hundreds who are continually leaving him even now, 1 year and 8½ months after the end of 2300 actual days since May 25, 1926, prove that his kind of sanctuary cleansing has not yet been completed, nor has it even entered the beginning of its end. Nonsensical is what he gives as that which will set aside a thing not even remotely connected with the separation of his kind of rejected ones; for he goes on to say that these 2300 days are connected in the beginning with the warning against the Rulers in the proclamation of the London Convention, May 25, 1926, and in the end with the resolution against elders in the ecclesias and in favor of the right (?) way of organizing the ecclesias without elders and deacons, appearing in the Oct. 15, 1932 Tower. How could that warning to Rulers drive out his alleged unworthy ones from his alleged temple? Moreover, very many were before it separated from his remnant. 

Against this view we state a number of things: (1) As we showed several years ago when answering his then new view of Daniel's 2300 days, the angel tells Daniel that the vision (Dan. 8:13, 14) that he had seen in chapter 8, i.e., the one of the 2300 days, had as to its time features 70 weeks cut off of it (Dan. 9:24), which 70 weeks, 490 days, i.e., 490 years, we know reached from 455 B. C. to 36 A. D. Since these 490 years were only a part of the 2300 days, the 2300 days cannot be literal days of 24 hours, but are literal years. This consideration alone completely destroys the view under study. (2) His view that Anglo-American imperialism could not have been guilty of the sins that they had, according to his view, before committed and that he charges against them, until his proclamation of May 25, 1926, rebuking the rulers of the world for said sins made them guilty of them, cannot be true for the reasons given above. (3) Hence, as Dan. 8:13, 14, proves, the evils there mentioned as committed were committed during those 



2300 days, as v. 14 shows, while his view of the evils as having been committed in the persecution of 1918 makes the evils committed about eight years before his 2300 days began, which again destroys his view. (4) Again, not one hint is given in Dan. 8:13, 14, nor elsewhere in Scripture, that informing the wrongdoers of their pertinent former sin would begin the 2300 days, which thought is not only based on a demonstrable error, as shown above, and contradicts the statements of vs. 13, 14, but is an invention created to bolster up his demonstrably erroneous view. (5) That which he gives as the ender of the 2300 (actually 2340) days, the Oct. 15, 1932 Tower resolution, disorganizing the Divine organization of ecclesias and organizing in their stead "companies" without elders and deacons, could not be a thing connected with cleansing the sanctuary, since in the little Gospel Age it is a part of the work of the little abomination of desolation defiling the little temple. (6) Having refuted in Chapter V what he says in pars. 20–22 on the 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, we will here simply refer our readers to that refutation without repeating it. 

In par. 26 he reiterates his oft-given advice not to discuss their teachings with objectors. This reminds us of a cartoon published in 1903. During the very hot summer of that year many who drove horses sought to shield them from sunstroke by putting caps on their heads. It will be recalled that Mr. Bryan that summer sought to prevent the gold wing of his—the Democratic—party through Mr. Parker, at that time an aspirant for the Democratic presidential nomination, from propagandizing the entire party away from his silver views. A cartoonist touched off the situation as follows: He represented Mr. Parker's face on a $20.00 gold piece as the sun smiling with golden rays upon the donkey, as the symbol of the Democratic party, and Mr. Bryan as the donkey driver, 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


putting a cap on the donkey's head to shield it from a stroke from the rays of the golden sun. J.F.R.'s course under consideration is well symbolized in Mr. Bryan's act toward the Democratic donkey! Then he applies (par. 30) the prophecy of the righteous shining forth in the kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13:43) to his followers since 1918 giving forth his messages, and that in the face of the fact that the passage shows that the pertinent shining forth comes after the tares have all been burned in the fiery furnace, while his shining forth precedes it! 

Then in six issues of the Tower, i.e., from that of Aug. 1, 1933, to that of Oct. 15, 1933, he discusses Zech. 1-11. Apart from what he writes on Zech. 11, we necessarily will give only some short refutations of some of his main hallucinations. In changing times and laws (Z '33, 229, par. 14), he entirely separates the time of preparing the way of the Lord and the day of Jehovah's preparation, claiming the former as from 1874 to 1918 and the latter as since 1918. But the Bible shows (Mal. 4:5, 6) that in a general way, the whole Gospel Age was the time of preparing the way of the Lord, and that in a particular way from 1829 (the Miller Movement) onward, as pictured in the John type, was the time of preparing the way of the Lord (Is. 40:3-8, compared with vs. 1, 2, 9-11; Matt. 3:1-4); while the day of preparation is the period from 1799 until the end of the trouble, as Dan. 12:9-12 and Nah. 2:3 teach. Without the slightest Biblical hint of such a view and activity, he claims (pars. 20–25) that the rider on the red horse (Zech. 1:8) was inspecting Jerusalem and pictures Jesus inspecting those in the temple, and that the riders on the other horses picture inspecting angels assisting Jesus in His inspecting work. Rev. 6, treating of similar things, disproves such a thought. The young man of Zech. 2:1-4 with his measuring line is allegedly (page 243, par. 2) his remnant since 1918, while actually he 



represents, generally, the Lord's people, especially Bro. Russell, describing the kingdom message by and from Studies, Vol. VI. It is like the description of Rev. 21:15-17. The day of the Lord, he claims (246, par. 12), is from 1918 onward, but this cannot be true, since it includes, among other preceding things, the World War. The golden candlestick of Zech 4:2, 3, he claims (248, par. 18), represents enlightenment and joy, also the organization and witness work of his movement, while Jesus in Rev. 1:20 defines it as the whole Church, which it is as the enlightener of the brethren. The two olive trees of Zech. 4, he says (248, par. 19), are his two kinds of "Jehovah's witnesses"—those who became his adherents from 1918 to 1922, and those who became such since 1922. But the Bible teaches that they are the Old and New Testaments (Rev. 11:3, 4, compare with 5-13). Later on he defines them (250, par. 29) as Jesus as Priest and as Executive. The two thoughts are not harmonious. The mountain of Zech. 4:7, he says (249, par. 22) is the opposition. But they are not a kingdom. It doubtless refers to the nominal kingdom of God (Dan. 2:45). He says (249, par. 23) that Jesus, the corner stone was finally laid in 1918. The Bible knows of only one laying of that corner stone, and that occurred before Pentecost (Acts 4:11). J.F.R. endorses the papistically advised and conceived N. R. A. (271), several of whose principles, because of their source, are features of the beast's mark. 

Z '33, 259–266 treats of Zech. 5. Its ephah, he claims (par. 8), is a huge judgment measured out; while it being a vessel—teaching—and from the expression, their likeness in all the earth, we understand is to represent the three great errors common to the nominal church: trinity, inherent immortality and eternal torment. He defines its lead as hypocrisy (par. 9); but lead, as a counterfeit of silver, is used to represent error counterfeiting Truth. The woman he defines 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


(par. 9) as his man (!) of sin and the clergy; while as an evil woman she evidently represents the nominal church. The two women who transport the ephah and its woman, he claims (par. 10) are good angels; while they evidently represent the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church, who minister (carry) the three great above-mentioned errors that hold in their power the nominal church. The fact that the two women had wings like a stork, a bird that was unclean (Lev. 11:19), proves these women to be unclean, hence not good angels. Shinar, he teaches (par. 11), is the state of destruction; while it represents through the confusion of tongues there (Gen. 11:2, compare vs. 3-9) the sphere of the confused creeds of the nominal church. In pars. 13–26 he attempts to explain Zech. 6, applying it to his movement, and mixes up matters with his usual hallucinations, and to make his applications he ascribes things to the four chariots and the four men of v. 10 that are nowhere Scripturally ascribed to such symbols. In Z '33, 275–283, he publishes an article entitled, Obedience, which, of course, papistically means submission to his movement! The article is supposed to explain Zech. 7 and 8. To him (pars. 2–5) those who asked whether they should continue the fasts held for the evils Babylon inflicted on Israel represent those who hold memorial services for our Pastor! What else, in addition to being transparent folly, is this than charging the Parousia Movement with being Babylonian? Had he not lost the pertinent Truth he might have seen that the inquirers represent some people who came into the Truth during the Parousia and who were wont to ask, if they should not keep up the sad practices that were derived through the evil experiences of spiritual Israel from symbolic Babylon's attacks on them as they went into captivity to antitypical Babylon, i.e., worrying over the dead, the impenitent, the heathen, the saving of souls, penance, etc. He twists (par. 20) the old men 



and women of Zech 8:4 into representing those in his movement from 1918 to 1922 and the boys and girls of v. 5 into representing those of his supporters who came into his movement since 1922. A babe in the Truth should recognize the description as Millennial. 

The "no hire" for man and beast, of Zech. 8:10, he says (par. 24) means that no one could serve during the 1918 persecution, which is untrue; for many of the brethren continued then to sell our Pastor's literature furnished by the Society. The connection shows that this is to occur after the foundation of the Church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon. In many places he casts belittling aspersions on our Pastor, e.g., (par. 27) he disparagingly charges that in Bro. Russell's day about half of the Tower's space was devoted to views from the Watch Tower, but in his own days he has so much of advancing Truth to give that no space remains for views from the Watch Tower! His charge against Bro. Russell on this point is false. We do not remember one issue (and we have read all the Towers from the beginning) that had half of its space devoted to the signs of the times, though God has put His seal of approval on our Pastor's pertinent activity (Is. 21:5-9; Hab. 2:1, 2). No, J.F.R. does not publish such signs as Views from the Watch Tower. He fills The Tower with mud splashes, in which he tries to bend almost everything into a prophecy of his movement—thus The Tower is now about entirely devoted to counterfeit signs of the times! In par. 28 he makes the blasphemous statement that prior to 1922 real spiritual Israel was cursed by God. No comment is needed on this statement. The ten men of all the languages of the earth (Zech. 8:23), according to him (par. 35), are the people who favor his movement, but are not of the remnant. The connection shows that European society (the symbolic earth) is

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the whole earth here spoken of, where there are exactly ten language nationalities. Hence the ten men are the ten language groups in national respects. He claims that the Jew here is Jesus. Fulfilled prophecy shows that it is Israel, beginning at the Berlin Congress, 1878. 

In Z '33, 291–299, is an article on Melchizedek. J.F.R. says (pars. 4–6) that Zech. 9:9 is a prophecy of our Lord as Melchizedek, hence applies, he claims, since 1918. This claim in both parts is false, because the Evangelists (Matt. 21:5; John 12:15) apply the passage to our Lord's period of humiliation, while Melchizedek refers to him as Priest and King in Glory (Zech. 6:13). No amount of sophistry on certain omissions can change the application of the passage from our Lord's entrance into Jerusalem to an alleged coming to the temple in 1918, but the passage says nothing of His coming to the temple, as J.F.R. tries to twist it, but speaks of His entrance into Jerusalem. To say that the words, "just and having salvation," were omitted by Matthew because applicable only to the alleged coming to the temple in 1918, is untrue, for our Lord certainly was just and brought salvation when he entered Jerusalem; nor did He enter the temple on an ass, as that would have defiled it, which disproves J.F.R.'s second application. Jesus' approving the people's crying "Hosannah" (save now) proves that He then brought salvation to Jerusalem; and He lamented over their rejecting it (Luke 19:41-44). Furthermore, a comparison of the quotation as found in Matthew with it as found in John shows that John omitted even more than Matthew, which on J.F.R.'s principle would mean that it applied to something else than that to which Matthew's quotation applied! Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem on the ass and its foal types, parallels, Jesus' presenting Himself to Christendom in 1878 through the Ransom and the Second Advent teaching, and in the eight large wonderful days typed 



the Large Jesus' entrance into the Nominal Church by the same two teachings given by word of mouth and the printed page. The language of Zech. 9:9 is not a temple prophecy, but of His presenting Himself to Jerusalem as representative of fleshly Israel. J.F.R. explains (pars. 12, 13) the mishneh, the double, of Zech. 9:12, as he falsely explains the pe shenaim of 2 Kings 2:9, i.e., to mean twice as much of the Holy Spirit to be given antitypical Elisha as antitypical Elijah had. Against such a false interpretation the following points hold: (1) Pe shenaim, as we have shown, means two classes, while Mishneh means double, here in the sense of a repetition, though a few times it means twice as much. (2) His interpretation contradicts his interpretation of the prisoners of hope, whom he falsely defines (par. 11) as the Great Company. But it is to the prisoners of hope spoken of collectively that the prophet declares the double; and, of course, these as allegedly the Great Company do not get twice as much of the Holy Spirit as the Little Flock, regardless of whether we call both antitypical Elijah and antitypical Elisha the Little Flock, as J.F.R. does. Actually the prisoners of hope here are Fleshly Israel. Leeser, as a Jew translating the passage so as to take out of it its application to our Lord, interpolates the words, good and happy message, after the word double. (4) J.F.R.'s claim that the word here rendered today should be rendered, "that day," in the sense of the day of the Lord's alleged coming to His temple, is a false lexical remark made to bolster up his false theory. Matthew's and John's use of Zech. 9:9 and its connection, as well as the fulfilled prophecy's showing that the double ended for Israel in 1878, prove that Bro. Russell's thought on the passage is correct. 

In Z '33, 307–314, J.F.R. has an article on, Shepherds and Staves, in which, of course, he makes a special effort to ward off our interpretation of Zech. 11:15-17 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


as applying to him. But his effort is a flat failure, as our examination of it will show. In par. 2 he claims that the oaks of Bashan are the capitalists ("big business"). A comparison of Is. 2:13 and Ezek. 27:6 proves that the mightiest of the clergy are thereby meant; for in both passages, as the connections show, the clergy are spoken of. This is also shown in Ps. 22:12, where the inserted word should be oaks; for the expression, bulls of Bashan, never occurs in the original of the Bible; but that of, oaks of Bashan, occurs several times. With the right word inserted, the connection proves that in Ps. 22:12 the chief priests (the leading clergy) concerned in our Lord's death are meant. Hence in Zech. 11:2 the leaders among the clergy are meant by the oaks of Bashan. The young lions of Zech. 11:3 are not the politicians (par. 3), but are the Protestant denominations, which, in comparison with Papacy, the lion, are young lions, even as united Protestantism is the young lion (Ps. 91:13), To his thought (par. 4) that in v. 5, by the sellers and shepherds of the flock the clergy, his man of sin and the elders are meant, we reply that such is not the case. It is the Judas class, both in and out of the Truth, whose chief leader among the Truth People is J.F.R., who sell the Lord's flock in the strict sense of the word. And it is the clergy—the leaders—in both large and little Babylon who pity not the sheep, but for their own gain ruthlessly mistreat them. The most conspicuous example of such shepherds among Truth people (vs. 15-17) is J.F.R., whose oppression of God's sheep has for years been crying out to God for vengeance. This vengeance is manifest in God's depriving him gradually of the Truth he once saw, in letting him wander in ever-increasing darkness, as his writings prove, and in gradually depriving him of his influence over new creatures and good Youthful Worthies. He misapplies the expression (v. 6), "I will deliver the men every



one into the hand of his king," to mean that the Lord will have mercy on those not of J.F.R.'s remnant, but sympathetic with his propaganda, by putting them into Christ's hand for safety. The entire verse treats of those in sympathy with present society ("earth") and the punishment coming upon them. They are delivered every one into the hands of his king by coming into the power and control of his own class in organizational respects; thus capitalists have fallen into the control of their capitalistic organizations, laborers into the control of their labor organizations, politicians into the control of their political organizations, clergymen into the control of their religious organizations. Thus, the organization of each group is the king of that group. In this organized condition society ("the land," literally, the earth) will be smitten without deliverance. 

His claim (par. 6) that v. 6 applies after the Holy Spirit allegedly ceases to function as Advocate, Comforter and Helper, is an impossible thought, because as long as the Church and the Great Company are in the world the Holy Spirit will function in them in these three capacities (John 14:16). Above we have refuted this thought. The time of v. 7 is from 1874 to 1954, the Parousia and Epiphany. Against his claim (par. 6) that the flock of the slaughter (v. 7) is his remnant, the Great Company and his unconsecrated sympathizers, we give first his own interpretation of the same expression in v. 4, that it is the Little Flock. Notice how this is further proven by the identifying of the flock of the slaughter with the poor [humble] of the flock, in v. 7. Hence those spoken of as fed in v. 7 are the Little Flack, which would, of course, include crown-losers also, as long as they are not yet manifested as Great Company members. Then (par. 7) he claims that the staff Beauty represents what he calls, the everlasting covenant, and that the staff Bands represents what he calls the covenant for the kingdom. The everlasting covenant he says is an agreement between

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


God and the race, and was made after the flood, in which God promised no more to destroy the earth with a flood, if man would not shed blood. Against such a thought we premise that God made an unconditional promise to the race, regardless of what man would do or leave undone, never again to destroy the earth with a flood. This was a unilateral covenant, an unconditional promise, just like the Abrahamic and Sarah Covenant, or promise, even as God Himself says (Is. 54:9; Gal. 3:20) and therefore bound God alone. Its unconditionalness was guaranteed by the rainbow, which disproved, by evidencing that the watery canopy ("waters above the heavens") no longer existed, the possibility of another world-wide flood. While God gave certain prohibitions to the race (Gen. 9:4-6) after He had given the Noachian Covenant, these did not condition that covenant. J.F.R.'s thought is (par. 14) that man, having murdered right and left, violated his agreement in the alleged eternal covenant, therefore God is no longer bound to His part of that alleged conditional covenant and therefore will break it by bringing on Armageddon, notice of which He is alleged to have given through J.F.R.'s book, Government! But the covenant bound God unconditionally never again to flood the whole earth. It made no promise, conditionally or unconditionally, not to bring on the Time of Trouble. Hence the trouble will not come by God's breaking the alleged eternal covenant, which J.F.R. claims is meant in v. 10. Moreover, an eternal covenant is unchangeable. Accordingly, J.F.R.'s eternal covenant is an error, without the slightest foundation in Scripture, reason or fact. Hence it cannot be the staff Beauty, whose cutting asunder cannot mean, as J.F.R. claims (pars. 12, 13), Jehovah's voiding of the unchangeable Noachian Covenant. 

If by the covenant for the kingdom, which he claims is the staff Bands (par. 7); he means anything else



than the covenant of sacrifice, which is an unconditional covenant binding us alone to God (Ps. 50:5); and the Sarah Covenant, which is an unconditional covenant binding God alone to the Seed, he again means something that is without any foundation in Scripture, reason or fact. That a staff is not a feature of a covenant figure, but is a feature of the shepherd figure, is self evident. Hence it cannot represent a covenant, but something connected with a shepherd. A shepherd's staff in the Bible always represents his counterpart's teachings, while a shepherd's rod in the Bible always represents his counterpart's official arrangements (Ps. 23:4; Is. 9:4; 10:15, 24; 14:5; 30:31, 32; Jer. 48:17; Hos. 4:12). Even where the shepherd picture is not used the staff frequently represents teachings (Zech. 8:4; Heb. 11:21). The Bible nowhere uses the staff of a shepherd to represent a covenant. Hence neither Beauty nor Bands represents a covenant. J.F.R. prooflessly assumes this to evade our interpretation of Beauty as representing the Parousia Truth pertinent to the development of the Little Flock, and Bands as representing the Epiphany Truth pertinent to the development of the Great Company. And, like all his evasions, he presents folly for the beauty and wisdom of the Truth interpretations. The pertinency of the figures, their Scripturalness, reasonableness and factualness prove our thought of these two staves to be true, while the impertinency, unscripturalness, unreasonableness and unfactualness of J.F.R.'s interpretations prove his view to be erroneous. What we said above on his everlasting covenant shows these to be the qualities of his Beauty's interpretation; and what we will now say of his teaching on Bands will show the same qualities as applying to it. (1) If Bands is the kingdom covenant, it will never be broken in the sense that he speaks of breaking a covenant, setting it aside; for that covenant abides firm toward the faithful; and it never applied 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


to the unfaithful. (2) He makes a sorry attempt to explain his views of the breaking of Bands, which, if he really explained, he would find would yield demonstrable error; for if his definition of its breaking, as he used it in reference to the breaking of his everlasting covenant (a repudiation of it) were true, there was no breaking of Bands. (3) The Bible does not speak of breaking, but cutting asunder of both Beauty and Bands, i.e., rightly dividing the Word of Truth. (4) His first suggestion, that breaking of Bands means the breaking of the kingdom covenant with organized Christianity (par. 21), is an impossibility, for the covenant of sacrifice and that of Sarah never were made with organized Christianity; for only the consecrated make the former to God: and God alone makes the latter to the Seed, the faithful new creatures only. (5) His second thought, that such breaking of the covenant for the kingdom as against unfaithful consecrated ones occurred through the separation (breaking of the brotherhood) between his followers (Judah) and those whom he calls unfaithful (Israel), occasioned by his giving his followers the name of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931, is a false explanation; for long years before that his followers were separated from those whom he calls the unfaithful. (6) He confuses the breaking of Bands with the disrupting of the brotherhood between Judah and Israel, while the Scripture shows that the latter is a consequence of the former. 

The true explanation of cutting asunder of Beauty appears from the fact that it resulted in the feeding of the flock (v. 11) which recognized it (Beauty) to be the Word of God. Beloved, did not the right dividing of the Parousia enable us to recognize it to be the Truth—the Word of God? Yea, verily. So did J.F.R. once recognize it to be. And did not its right dividing also result in God's breaking His covenant with all the [nominal] people of God? For by 



His making His Parousia people the ones through whom He rightly divided the Word of Truth did He not break His Age-long arrangement—covenant—to use the nominal church to be His mouthpiece? He broke that agreement in 1878 when He cast off the nominal church, and this was the purpose and result ("that I might break") of His taking His real people as His exclusive mouthpiece at the beginning of the Parousia for the work of rightly dividing the Word of Truth. Thus Scripture, reason and facts are against J.F.R.'s view of Beauty and are in favor of our view. The same is the condition with reference to Bands. It is the Epiphany Truth pertinent to the development of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. In what did its right division result? In separating the Truth-loyal and Truth-retaining Little Flock (Judah) and the Truth-disloyal and Truth-rejecting Great Company (Israel), or as v. 14 puts it, "that I might break the brotherhood [union] between Judah and Israel." Ever since Nov., 1916, when there became clear to the writer the first specifically Epiphany truth, a truth that J.F.R. knows we told him, W. E. Van Amburgh and A. I. Ritchie, in their official capacity as the executive committee, on Nov. 10, 1916, the evening before we sailed for Europe, i.e., that the sixth—the Great Company—sifting was coming and that we were going to run into it in Europe, one Epiphany truth after another coming out, the division between the Little Flock and the Great Company has become increasingly in evidence. It was the knowledge of this coming sifting that so depressed us the morning of Nov. 11, 1916, that we were unable to give the Bethel Family a comforting farewell address at the table just before we left for our steamer bound for Britain. Against our view, nothing on the basis of Scripture, reason and fact can be logically urged. And the contrast between J.F.R's. understanding and ours on these staves will leave no 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


one who has spiritual discernment well developed in a moment's doubt after a study of them, that the former is drunken folly of right-eye darkening and the latter Truth on the subject. 

He teaches (par. 9), as an explanation of v. 8, that its three shepherds are his man of sin, the clergy and class elders and that the one month of v. 8 is the month of Nisan, 1918, when Jesus supposedly came to the temple and cut off from it the three above alleged classes. Against such thoughts many things can be urged: (I) The passage, its connections and the book in which it is found, being clothed in figurative language, the month is to be taken figuratively and therefore stands for a month of years, 30 years, i.e., from Passover, 1878, when Mr. Barbour was cut off from the Little Flock, manifested as such in the No-Ransomism sifting, to Passover, 1908, when Mr. Henninges was cut off from the Little Flock, manifested as such in the Sin-offerings, Covenants and Mediator sifting, the third shepherd being Mr. Paton, who was cut off from the Little Flock in 1881, manifested as such in the Infidelism sifting. (2) According to his own view (par. 21), that the foolish, unprofitable shepherd is his man of sin, he cannot be one of the three shepherds of v. 8, as he claims (par. 9), because v. 15 shows that the foolish, unprofitable shepherd is one still later dealt with than any other treated of before in this chapter—"take thee yet"—later on, after the things previously described had at least begun to be dealt with. (3) According to the use of language in vs. 3, 5, and the Bible elsewhere, the clergy as such, whom he calls one of the three shepherds, are called shepherds (plural), not a shepherd (singular), while his interpretation makes them called in v. 8 one shepherd (singular). Hence the use of language in this chapter and everywhere else in the Bible proves that these three shepherds are three individuals. 

(4) Everything in the preceding and in the immediately 



following part of the chapter refers to Parousia matters, except the brief reference to Bands in v. 7; hence the connection proves that the three shepherds were Parousia characters. (5) It is untrue that the class elders, his third shepherd, were cut off from his remnant in Nisan, 1918; for they continued in his remnant as among its chief proponents until recently, even as he elsewhere admits, and some of them as individuals are still with him. (6) Those of the clergy who were cut off from the Little Flock experienced this before Sept. 16, 1914, while most of the clergy never were a part of the Little Flock, and thus never were cut off from it. (7) The same is true of many, whom he considers of the man of sin and of many who have been class elders. (8) Moreover, a clear-cut distinction cannot be drawn by him between his man of sin and some elders. (9) His man of sin, which we have by 15 reasons (Chap. V) refuted, and thereby have proven our Pastor's view to be correct, is a fictitious thing, and therefore is unavailable for application as one of these three shepherds. (10) Class elders, being in part Little Flock members, in part Great Company members, in part Youthful Worthies and perhaps in part Second Deathers, evidently could not be one of the three shepherds. (11) The same being the composition of his man of sin, he cannot be one of the three shepherds. (12) That part of the clergy who never were Spirit-begotten could not be Second Deathers, hence could not be one of the three shepherds. These 12 reasons, besides others, refute his view of v. 8. 

His thought (par. 11), that the three classes referred to in v. 9 (actually the Second Deathers ["that dieth"], the uncleansed Great Company ["that is to be cut off," i.e., from the Little Flock, and that is not fed by the Lord while in Azazel's hand] and God's nominal people ["the rest"], all left foodless by the Lord), are the ledlings of his three shepherds, 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


is not correct, because they are not three mutually exclusive classes, for at least two of them more or less overlap one another. His claim (par. 15), that Jesus by using the language of Matt. 23:37-39 gave up service to Israel and therefore, according to v. 12, demanded the price [wage] for His service (30 pieces of silver) from the clergy through Judas, who stole the money, is not true to fact, because it would have made Judas' sale of our Lord not a betrayal—it would have made Jesus command the sale and sanction it, and Judas' sin consist of stealing the money, not in betraying our Lord. The true thought of v. 12 is Christ's ministry, dangerous to the Jewish hierarchy, was to them in their curious state of mind a demand that they possess themselves of him as a slave (30 pieces of silver was then the price of a slave), so that as their slave property, they might do whatever they wished with Him—slay Him. Erroneous is the thought that he derives from Jesus' alleged refusing longer to serve Israel, viz., that his remnant by a proclamation made in August, 1931, "A Warning from Jehovah," and by taking the name, "Jehovah's Witnesses," was separated from further connection with Christendom. If that connection be membership therein, it was broken years before. If it be one of service, as he claims, it has not occurred yet; for his remnant is still serving Christendom by proclamations, literature, radio talks, etc. Hence both applications are hallucinations. According to his habit when unable to give even an erroneous explanation of an antitype, he glides over the antitypical 30 pieces of silver in indefiniteness. From his viewpoint of antitypical Judas he, of course, cannot, as he admits, explain the thing symbolized by Zechariah casting the 30 pieces of silver down (par. 20). The connection shows that the Second Advent time is referred to throughout this chapter. Vs. 12, 13, are applicable to Jesus for no other reason than that He is a type of the Church in 



the end of the Age. These verses apply to the betrayal of the Church at the end of the Age. It was the ministry of the feet members from 1874 onward, as dangerous to the clergy, that became to them a demand on them that they possess themselves of the Church for the antitypical 30 pieces of silver. 

Those who have become antitypical Judas, crown-losers in every case, have sold the feet members for the price of power, influence, advantage, etc., as teachers and leaders. They thus at the time of the purchase were crown-losers, though shortly thereafter became Second Deathers. What they bought was Levitical (Great Company) service. The price of a Levite was 5 pieces of silver (Num. 3:46, 47). Levite leadership is had separately over the three Levite groups: Gershonite, Kohathite and Merarite, both among Truth people and in the Nominal Church. These threefold leaders, one for each group, would, make the total cost of such leadership among the Truth Levites amount to 15 (3×5) of the antitypical silver pieces, and that among the Nominal Church Levites the same. Thus the total price—power, influence, advantage of Levite leaders and teachers—is 30 antitypical pieces of silver. Among Truth people all sifting leaders have been paid this price of Levite leadership, but have had to betray the feet members whose office stood in their way to get this price. Thus Messrs. Barbour, Paton, etc., by no-ransomism betrayed the feet members to get such power. Messrs. Henninges, Williamson, McPhail, etc., by no-Church-sin-offeringism betrayed the feet members to get such power. Thus, e.g., J.F.R., etc., by revolutionism betrayed the feet members to get such power. And, of course, the Judas section in the Nominal Church did these same things. A secondary application is the following: As 30 pieces of silver are the price of a slave, to whom the owner could do as he pleased, so the "Truth clergy" and nominal church 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


clergy gave the sifting leaders power, etc., as the price of betraying the feet members to the clergy who use their "slave" unto a cutting off of him from mouthpieceship to the public. The siftlings are the potter, whose possession (sphere of service) is turned into a burial place for strangers (those dying from their standing before the Lord) to the Little Flock through the antitypical 30 pieces of silver; as to them is given the alleged advantage furnished by the use of the antitypical 30 pieces of silver. In contrast with J.F.R.'s inability to explain this matter, we submit the following: The betrayed Church yielded up its control over the power of Levite leadership by letting go of it in the Church and by permitting it to fall into the sifters' hands, who in turn used it as a means of buying a place of burial from siftlings for strangers to the Little Flock, as above described. This it did in the case of Truth and Nominal Church sifters. This, among other things, it is very manifest, was the way antitypical Elijah allowed the mantle to fall into antitypical Elisha's hands, the latter's leaders seizing the control over it and antitypical Elisha in so far as he consisted of siftlings, who received the alleged advantage of the antitypical price for their field of service which became a burial place for strangers to the Little Flock. From the above we can see that J.F.R. is the chief member of antitypical Judas among Truth people, even outranking in this bad eminence Messrs. Barbour, Paton and Henninges, the three shepherds of v. 8. In our Lord's case, he through Judas dropped the 30 pieces of silver in the temple to the potter, by His teachings having stirred up Judas to repentance, the latter therefore surrendering the use of his money for the potter's benefit. 

Then J.F.R. (par. 21) comes to the discussion of the foolish and unprofitable shepherd, and by what he offers on the subject furnishes good corroborative factual evidence that he is that shepherd. His evil servant



[a class], he claims, is that shepherd (par. 21); but that class is his man of sin, who, he claims, is one of the three shepherds of v. 8, while v. 15 ("take thee yet") proves that another than any of the three shepherds is meant. Our interpretation (v. 16) of the "cut off" as being the separated Little Flock, the "young" as being the Youthful Worthies, the "broken" as being the Great Company and the still-standers as being the non-progressing tentatively justified, none of whom does J.F.R. serve, as v. 16 shows. The other details of the entire section (vs. 15-17), our readers will find in Chap. III. He interprets (par. 23) the cut off as the Great Company, the young as the hungry ones scattered in the Nominal Church, the broken as those injured by Satan's organization and the still-standers as those not progressing in knowledge. This view cannot be true, for these four lap over into one another. Moreover all of these four things which he gives are marks of the Great Company. So, too, those scattered in the Nominal Church and those not advancing in knowledge are injured by what he calls Satan's organization. Thus, his alleged four classes are not such at all; for there is no clear-cut distinction between them. How different are the clear-cut distinctions indicated in the four classes as we interpret them. Again, as a matter of fact, many of those whom he calls that evil servant do the four things that this passage says the foolish, unprofitable shepherd does not do. Hence his interpretation is false. He says that to take the instruments of this shepherd means to take up the service that they have cast off and to perform it. This cannot be true; for the services of such a shepherd are evil, which the Lord would not have us take up and do; for be it noted that long before a shepherd could become an unprofitable and foolish one the Lord takes away his field of service. Hence his instruments could not mean the Lord's service, even if instruments

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


should mean the privilege of service, which they do not mean. A shepherd's instruments are two staff and rod, the former representing a teacher's doctrines and the latter his arrangements. The taking up of these means laying hold on his teachings and arrangements for refutative discussion. 

This shepherd cannot be a class, as he claims, because when, apart from the Christ as shepherd, more than one shepherd is referred to, even though they be of one general character, the plural is always used of them (Is. 56:11; Jer. 23:4; 25:34-36; Ezek. 34:2, 7-10; Zech. 10:3; 11:3, 5); and whenever the singular number of the word is used, an individual shepherd is referred to (Ps. 23:4; 80:1; Is. 40:11; 44:28; Ezek. 34:23; 37:24; Zech. 13:7; John 10:2; Heb. 13:20). Even as three individuals are the three shepherds of v. 8; so the shepherd of vs. 15-17 is an individual. That he is an individual is further evidenced by his being spoken of as leaving the Little Flock, a thing that is always entered or left individually. The great prominence to which he attains ("in the land"—earth, i.e., throughout society) after leaving the Little Flock also implies his being an individual; for no class leaving the Little Flock has attained, or can attain such great prominence as this shepherd does. 

Hence his interpretation of the chapter, especially of vs. 15-17, greatly lends corroboration to our view. God has by undeniable facts so unbreakably fixed this passage upon him as its fulfiller that he will never evade it by the twists that he makes, in his effort to make it apply to his demonstrably non-existent man of sin, evil servant, etc., etc. The arguments that we have given in Chap. III on The Foolish, Unprofitable Shepherd, supplemented by many others, hold him a prisoner as within a cage which will, despite his ineffectual attempts to break out of it, finally crush out his executive and teaching life, even as Bajacet,



the Turkish Sultan, captured by Tamerlane, the Mogul Emperor, was by the latter put into a portable cage and borne about until, in his frenzied efforts to be free, he killed himself. 

Then, ignoring the fact that Bro. Russell used Matt. 10:26 ("there is nothing hidden, etc.") as teaching a general principle applicable during the Gospel and Millennial Ages, he quotes (327, par. 27) one of his applications of it to the Millennial Age, then proceeds to treat that use of it as Bro. Russell's only application of it, then proceeds to refute such a thought—all he does is to kick over a straw man of his own making. That the principle of Matt. 10:26 is susceptible of general applications to any thing or time covered by its principle, is manifest from St. Paul's statement (1 Tim. 5:24): "Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some they follow after [unto judgment]." Then J.F.R. applies it as operating only after 1918 in his temple, despite the fact that Matt. 10:26, like the rest of the chapter's instructions, applies to the Twelve, to govern their conduct before Pentecost (Luke 22:35, 36; Matt. 10:14, 9, 10), hence before they were in the temple! He also says that Jesus' speaking of His telling a thing in darkness means telling something in secret in the temple since 1918 (par. 27), and that despite the fact that it was told by Jesus to the disciples as to a way they had already got and were to give out information, before they came into the temple. 

Then he offers a most foolish new view on the penny parable. The new view makes God the householder; Jesus the steward; the laborers those who are in his temple for judgment and do his kingdom service; the penny the name, Jehovah's Witnesses; the day the time after Jesus in 1918 came to the temple for judgment (Z '33, 339, par. 2). His hours are a year long. His day begins Sept. 1–7, 1919 (par. 9), during the Cedar Point Convention. His call-hours are: 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the first: Sept., 1919, to Sept., 1920; the third: Sept., 1922, to Sept., 1923 (par. 10); the sixth: Sept., 1925, to Sept., 1926 (par. 11); the ninth: Sept., 1928, to Sept., 1929 (par. 12); the eleventh: Sept., 1930, to Sept., 1931 (par. 13); the twelfth: Sept., 1931, to Sept., 1932. The first trouble with his interpretation is that it makes the day thirteen hours long, i.e., a year too long for his view, for from Sept., 1919, to Sept., 1932, are thirteen, not twelve years. The second difficulty is that the third, sixth, ninth, eleventh and twelfth hours begin a year too late in each case; for the beginning of the third hour is not three (as he makes it), but two hours after the beginning of his first hour. A third weakness: Since he has been having siftings every year from 1917 onward to the present there cannot be the 5 siftings of 1 Cor. 10:1-14 dovetailed into his five call periods, which is another fatal defect in his new view. Then he makes his penny, the giving of the alleged new name, to have occurred at the Columbus, Ohio, Convention, July 26, 1930, which was over a year and a month before his eleventh hour ended, while the parable requires it to be given after the twelfth hour was over, which his setting would make after Sept., 1932. What if Moffatt does say that the third hour began at 9 A. M., the sixth at 12 noon, etc.? This higher critic is wrong on the subject; even a child should know better; for if the first hour of a symbolic day of twelve years begins at 6 A. M., the second would begin at 7 A. M. and the third would begin at 8 A. M., and the fourth, not the third, at 9 A. M. But J.F.R. uses the 9 A. M. as the beginning of the third hour because he has nothing from Sept., 1921, to Sept., 1922, that can be stretched into the remotest resemblance of a call. But this mistake throws his third and following call-hours out of joint by a whole year or symbolic hour of his kind. He tries to hide the deficiency by making Sept., 1930, to Sept., 1931, the twelfth hour, and that contrary 



to the rest of his setting; but in spite of this trick, the giving of his penny occurs over a month before this trick twelfth hour, whereas it should occur after the real twelfth hour. 

But there are other wrong features to his new day. While there were special efforts initiated Sept., 1919, and Sept., 1922 (the latter coming a year too late to be during the third hour), there was no special service launched from Sept., 1925, to Sept., 1926; for during that period, though a year too late for what should have been his sixth hour, his 1925 fiasco paralyzed his public work for over a year and he was mending his fences too industriously in covering up his 1925 fiasco to allow the initiating of a special new form of service. The articles that he mentions in the first part of par. 11 and the Indianapolis Convention could not have been a part of his sixth-hour call, coming as they did before its beginning. Giving new teachings is not a call; a call is an arousement to coming into the Truth and to service therein, each one employing at least one new form of service to issue the call. In spite of the article, A Call to Action, Nov. 1, 1925, there was almost no response, while there was a very marvelous response to service from Sept., 1919, to Sept., 1920, and from Sept., 1922, to Sept., 1923, though the latter was a year late for the requirements of his day and hour setting. Notice how very vague are his thoughts on the sixth-hour call in par. 11. Again, the declaration against Satan for Jehovah was made at the Detroit Convention, July 30–August 6, 1928, and circulated before Sept., 1928; hence this call came a month before his ninth hour began, though his ninth hour is an hour late. Then consider for awhile his penny. It is a sectarian name and nothing else. Above we refuted J.F.R.'s claim that the sectarian title, "Jehovah's Witnesses," is a Scriptural expression, that it is the promised new name, and that God commanded it to be given as an honorable and distinctive appellation 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


to J.F.R.'s remnant. Now he tells us that this sectarian name is the penny. We have already shown that it was prematurely given. It lacks other marks of the real penny. It was not given a twofold distribution, whereas the real penny was. His first called were not given it last; those called in his eleventh hour were not given it first. Those who rejected it (his murmurers) did not take it and go to work with it as the real murmurers did with the real penny. The Lord would never rebuke those who in the right spirit rejected or objected to receiving a sectarian name. His Mordecai and Naomi did not receive it after his Esther and Ruth. Moreover, the latter could not be those called in the eleventh hour, since he claims that they are those called from 1922 to the present, his false third hour lasting only to Sept., 1923, while his Mordecai and Naomi were for the most part called before his first hour. Again, his murmurers, the class elders (Z '33, 355, par. 2; 357, par. 8), received his sectarian name gladly and were its chief supporters, and their dissatisfaction was not that the name did not give them enough, as he falsely charges (par. 11), but that his new teachings regarding elders were unscriptural, and on this they were right, hence could not be the parable's murmurers. His claim (par. 16) that his new name was actually given in the first hour, 1919–1920, but not made known until 1931, proves that it was not the penny; for the penny was not actually given in the first hour, but after the twelfth hour, and was known from the first hour on, while his penny was unknown as such until after the 14th hour began. His giving dates in his interpretation is in violation of his teaching on "time is no more," i.e., that the Lord's people should no more pay attention to time features! At any rate, he showed an utter abandonment of exactness on the time features of the parable in his interpretation of it. For stupidity, flatness, unworkableness, this new view of the 



penny takes a place in the front ranks of J.F.R.'s follies of right-eye darkening. 

Then he sets forth some real Rutherfordian mud splashes, e.g., (1) The expression, supreme love to God, is unscriptural, because it [allegedly] limits love for God (Z '33, 371, par. 4). (2) Love for the brethren means to love them as self (par. 4). [Against this we would say, Such is the love that the natural man should have. Love for brethren is the new commandment of Christ, i.e., to love them sacrificially unto death, as He loved us, while loving as self is only duty love, which does not love as Christ loved us.] (3) The Parousia teaching and work magnified Jesus, not the Father (par. 19); [this he says despite what Studies, Vol. V teaches to the contrary]. (4) The Parousia teaching and work was selfish, because it taught character development and the hope of the kingdom (par. 21)—[a charge against God's elect (Rom. 8:33)]. (5) Self-seekers among the consecrated will not be awakened until after the Millennium—Seventh Day Adventist doctrine—for which thought he quotes Rev. 20:13 (par. 27). (6) Jesus' being made perfect through suffering does not mean His being made through suffering complete in nature, organism or character, but that He suffered to disprove Satan's (alleged) challenge of God to place a man on earth who would maintain his integrity (Z '34, pars. 4, 6–10). [The connections of Heb. 2:10; 5:7, 8, prove that Jesus' endurance perfected (crystallized) Him in character and won for Him a crystallized, unchangeable, nature and organism—Divine nature.] (7) He claims that Rom. 15:4 proves that all Scripture has some fulfillment while his remnant is on earth (Z '34, 19, par. 1). How about Daniel's 70, 69, 62 and 1 weeks, the prophecy of the virgin birth, Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and numerous other Scriptures devoted exclusively to the First Advent? There are, of course, numerous other ones that refer to the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


period between the Harvests, but he perverts them to his movement; so, too, are there numerous prophecies exclusively Millennial and post-Millennial. 

In Z '34, 19–27, he sets aside our Pastor's teachings on Ps. 17:15, as referring to the resurrection of the Christ, claiming (par. 5) that it is falsely explained in our hymn, No. 105. He sets forth the thought that the Old Testament does not say of its faithful that they hoped for a resurrection (par. 7). Against this please see Job 14:13; 19:25, 26 A. R. V.; Ps. 49:14 (the upright); Hos. 13:14; Dan. 12:13; compare with Gen. 12:1-3; 22:16-18; compared with Heb. 11:9, 10, 13, 35, 39; Is. 2:3 [Jerusalem, and similar contrasts between Zion and Jerusalem, like Is. 62:1, etc.]; 32:1 [princes]; 24:23; Ps. 107:32 [assembly of the elders]; Joel 2:28 [old men]. In par. 10 he says that in the Parousia very little was said on the joys of the Lord's return. In contradiction we appeal to the experience and knowledge of all tried Parousia brethren. Studies, Vols. II, III and IV have very much to say thereon, as have the other volumes, particularly Studies, Vols. I and VI. Then he ridicules the brethren as selfish who cherished the hope set before them during the Parousia, claiming that such a hope proves them not to have loved the Lord (par. 11). And this he does in spite of such Scriptures as the following: Acts 23:6; 24:14, 15; 26:6, 7; 28:20; Rom. 5:2, 4, 5; 8:24, 25; 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 1:18; 4:4; Col. 1:5, 23, 27; 1 Thes. 1:3; 5:8; 2 Thes. 2:16; Titus 1:2; 2:13; 3:7; Heb. 3:6; 6:11, 18, 19; 1 Pet. 1:3, 13, 21; 1 Pet. 3:15; 1 John 3:3. Then he says that the Parousia brethren who cherished such a hope developed into the evil servant class (par. 13). There is no such a class, but he is the individual who by indulging in self during the Parousia, rather than in the hope set before him, did develop into that evil servant and foolish unprofitable shepherd. 



After the foregoing, in an attempt to take out the resurrection hope from Ps. 17:15 and to construe the passage as applying to his remnant's allegedly being with our Lord in the temple since 1918 for judgment, he offers (par. 17) the following false translation of the Septuagint on Ps. 17:15: "Let me appear righteous before Thee; let me be satisfied with the display of Thy glory." The following is the proper translation of the Septuagint on this verse, though its translation is not correct, while that of the A. V. is: "I will be seen in righteousness in Thy presence; I will be satisfied when I shall be seen with Thy glory." But, as said before, the A. V. is here correct: "As for me, I will behold Thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness." See Young, also the A. R. V., whose italicized (interpolated) word beholding should be omitted. His statement, made to rid the passage of the idea of the resurrection, that Rotherham omits the word awake, is false, for Rotherham has it in his translation, for he renders the second clause as follows: "[I] shall be satisfied when awakened by a vision [sight] of Thee." He offers as an alternate for the last phrase, "by Thy appearing." But the A. V., we believe, is a decidedly better rendering here. The connection, which contrasts the sufferings of the faithful in the present with their glories in the future, proves that this passage refers to the resurrection and has no reference to the Lord's people seeing the Lord's presence in the temple, which presence there is since 1874. 

Then J.F.R. tells us (pars. 28, 29) that our meeting the Lord in the air (1 Thes. 4:17) does not refer to the resurrection, but to his remnant's being, while in the flesh, in J.F.R.'s temple since 1918. 1 Thes. 4:16, 17 describes the first resurrection in its two parts; in v. 16 that part of it experienced by the sleeping saints, and in v. 17 that part of it applicable to the living saints. A theory is hard pressed for proof 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


that to find it tries to tear out of Ps. 17:15 and 1 Thes. 4:17 the saints' resurrection. He claims (par. 32) that a symbolic trumpet means executing [we suppose he means exercising] Divine authority. On the contrary, a trumpet represents a message and blowing it represents proclaiming a message (Lev. 25:9, 10; Num. 10:1-10; Joshua 6:4-20; Rev. 8:2, 6, etc.). The last trumpet, the trump of God, he claims (par. 33) began to sound in 1914 and ends with Armageddon. He offers no proof for this claim. Then he prooflessly asserts that the last trumpet is not the seventh trumpet. The same events occurring under the last and the seventh trumpet, it evidently is the same (1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thes. 4:15; Rev. 11:15-18). This last passage proves that it began to blow in 1874 and will end after perfection is restored in man and the earth, which overthrows his thought on the last, the seventh trumpet. His false interpretation of Revelation from chapter 6 onward compels him to deny the identity of the last and the seventh trumpets. Then he asserts (par. 37) that our gathering to the Lord (2 Thes. 2:1) does not mean our being taken to meet Him in the air in the resurrection, but means J.F.R.'s remnants coming into his teachings as meeting Jesus for judgment in His temple since 1918. Here he confuses the harvest gathering into the Truth, which he perverts to mean to come into his teachings, with our gathering with all the brethren of the Age to the Lord beyond the vail. He reasserts for the steenth time (par. 29) the to him known falsehood that the so-called opposition betrayed him and others to the civil authorities in 1918; whereas it was his seditious Tower articles, lectures (e.g., at Tacoma, Wash., advising the public not to buy bonds and take part in the war), mutiny-inciting letters to soldiers in army camps, etc. 

In Z '34, 35–42, is the first installment of an article entitled, Hope of a Tree. The tree that he discusses



is the one of Dan. 4, seen in a dream by Nebuchadnezzar. Our Pastor's view is: The tree before it was cut down represents the perfect, sinless race, and after it was cut down represents the race under the curse, until 607 B. C., when the dream, changing to an insane man living as a beast for seven times, represents the race under the curse during the Times of the Gentiles, while the restoration of the beastly man to normality represents the race restored to perfection. This beautiful, factual and evidently true interpretation of our Pastor J.F.R. rejects and offers in its stead one in which Nebuchadnezzar is made in the tree to represent Jesus, Satan, "regal power in the abstract," Satan's alleged organization, or anything else that the needs of J.F.R.'s vagaries require. There is no such reality as "regal power in the abstract"; regal power as a reality must be in the concrete. Philosophers for theoretical purposes make a distinction between a thing in the abstract and in the concrete; but actually the distinction is one only of words so far as the abstract is meant; for by that they mean, not a human being that ever existed, but one's idea of human qualities that they mentally build into an imaginary man. The expression, "regal power in the abstract," is a non-existing thing; it is an imagination; for regal power, actually to exist, must always lodge in a royal person. We recall how this non-existent thing was used by J.F.R. to make Ahasuerus in one scene represent Jehovah, Jesus, Satan and civil officers—four things! Such a thing is a wizard wand to transubstantiate a thing into anything the wizard wishes! The Bible never deals with a thing in the abstract. Its things are always concrete. His use of "regal power in the abstract" is a Satanic trick intended to deceive. It was invented by him to cover up the types' manifest contradictions of his theories, should his definitions be consistently applied to the type. 

Nebuchadnezzar, in view of his restoration, makes 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


the proclamation of Dan. 4:1, which J.F.R. interprets (Z '34, 36, par. 7) to type Jesus' making proclamations from the alleged temple from 1918 on. This would logically imply that Jesus was represented by the hewn-down tree and the insane man, and was also a sinner (v. 27), who should repent! How evade this conclusion? By the magic wizard wand, "regal power in the abstract!" In the same par. he says that the word Nebo in the word Nebuchadnezzar points out the latter as the type of our Lord as prophet in the temple since 1918. The Chaldean word Nebo, a proper noun, is the name of the god who was the messenger and scribe of the other gods, the Mercury of the Romans. Hence Nebuchadnezzar means, whom Mercury protects. Our Lord certainly was not alluded to by that heathen god! In par. 8 he says that the Gospel of the Kingdom could not be preached until after Jesus in 1918 allegedly came to the temple, while he repeatedly tells us that the end came in 1914; and Matt. 24:14 shows that the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached to all nations before the end would come. "All the peoples, etc." to whom Nebuchadnezzar made his proclamation in Dan. 4:1, J.F.R. says (par. 9), are only those who have ears attuned to J.F.R.'s message. He claims (par. 13) that Nebuchadnezzar's declaring in vs. 2, 3, what God had done to him types what Jesus since in the temple after 1918 has been allegedly saying what God has done to Him. This again implies that the tree and the insane man type Jesus. Oh, no! "Regal power in the abstract" makes it apply to Jesus, or not to Jesus, as the wish of the wizard lists. 

Then Daniel interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar (par. 19) types Jesus explaining the Truth to the remnant from 1919 on. Here "regal power in the abstract" makes Nebuchadnezzar, the dreamer getting his dream explained, represent the remnant. This implies that the tree and insane man represent J.F.R.'s remnant.



Oh, what a fine hobby horse is "regal power in the abstract"! It hocus-pocuses anything the wizard wants. Actually he always makes the antitype concrete, for always it is some person or thing. He claims (par. 20), without the slightest ground for the thought, that Nebuchadnezzar's calling Daniel (v. 9) the master of the magi (chief of the learned men) implies that the other magi were there present. This is imagining power "in the abstract." In par. 22 he tells us that the tree represents "overlordship over the earth in the abstract," and that this includes Satan and his organization. But these two are concrete; hence there is no "overlordship in the abstract" here. He interprets (par. 23) the tree reaching to heaven to represent that Satan's office of overlordship over the race and the earth is heavenly in origin. "The tree towering above the earth pictures" in the abstract "the overlordship [Satan's, as he in this par. says, which, to be real, cannot be in the abstract, but must be in the concrete] of the earth together with the organization of the earth." He then says (par. 23) that the tree above the ground represents Satan's organization; but since in par. 22 he teaches that the tree towering above the earth is God's creation, he makes God the Creator of Satan's organization. This must have been "in the abstract." Then he declares (par. 24) that the root stock below the trunk, the devil's organization, is man as created in God's image. Then we are told (par. 25) that Satan's organization provides for the needs of all on earth, allegedly typed by all beasts and fowls feeding and shaded under the tree. But this contradicts his picture that the part of the tree under the earth represents man. Again, Satan and the fallen angels, instead of providing for all mankind, have in most cases done the very reverse. How much more reasonable our Pastor's interpretation that unfallen man was the ruler and protector of the beasts. 

Then (par. 27) he tells us that the decree (v. 14)

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


was simply a declaration that the legal right of Satan's organization to rule man and earth was taken away from it when Satan and man sinned. This must be a case of legal authority "in the abstract," for in the same par. he says that the decree was not enforced until 1914. But his view contradicts his oft-repeated statement that Satan up to 1914 ruled by God's authorization, which was given to him in Eden and never taken away until 1914, a thought that we formerly refuted. But there is another absurdity in his thought; for it was some time after the tree was cut down, held in the earth with bands of iron and brass and wet by the dews of heaven, that, the figure changing, the seven times began on the insane man, similarly wet by the dews as the tree was. This would make the seven times begin after 1914. Then he makes (par. 30) the mud-clear statement: The visible part of the tree stands for the invisible part of Satan's organization and the invisible part of the tree for Satan's visible organization! Then (Z '34, 51, par. 2), after quoting Eph. 1:10; Dan. 4:26, he declares: These Scriptural texts prove beyond all doubt [italics ours; note J.F.R.'s characteristic dogmatism] that the "tree … pictures Satan's organization." If it does, its growing up again proves that Satan's organization will not only be restored, but that it will forever glorify God; for the antitypical thing cut down will be restored and forever glorify God. He interprets the expression (par. 8), "the basest of men," in the sentence (v. 17), "He setteth over it the basest of men," to mean Jesus, giving the word basest the meaning of lowliest. The word does not mean lowliest. The word basest is an adjective of the superlative, whereas shephal is one of the positive degree. In the first place, its meaning must be made to fit Nebuchadnezzar, in whom the first fulfilment came. He cannot type our Lord in this transaction. The Aramaic word shephal here used means low, abased, humbled



The last meaning seems best fitted for Nebuchadnezzar and mankind. It is those who will have been humbled by their experience with evil who will gain and retain restitution, as Nebuchadnezzar, humbled by his experience, was restored to the kingdom. 

In par. 11 the statement is made that Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4:19 types regal power in Christ's hands. In this verse and chapter there is no suggestion that Nebuchadnezzar so does; for he throughout the chapter acts as the same person in a connected set of events, given a prophetic dream, seeking its interpretation, receiving it, refusing to amend his ways as exhorted (v. 27), sinning, crazed, abased, lives as a beast for seven times, afterward repents, is restored and glorifies God for deliverance. At no stage does he type our Lord. Our Pastor's interpretation fits every detail of the story; the one under study as a thorough misfit is a piece of drunken folly. The claim (par. 11) that he must be Christ, because of Daniel's alleged prayer (v. 19) and the claim that punishment will come, not upon Christ, but upon His enemies, allegedly while He is in the temple since 1918, is false from several standpoints. In the first place, Daniel did not offer a prayer wishing the dream to be fulfilled on the king's enemies; for knowing God's will, that Nebuchadnezzar suffer as forecast in the dream, he would not have tried to interfere with the Divine program by praying against it. The thought that a prayer or wish was expressed by Daniel at the end of v. 19 is based on the interpolated word be. The word is should be the interpolated word. Daniel's thought is as follows: "O, king, the dream is one in the interest and according to the desires of your enemies and haters," which evidently was the case. In par. 12 he makes the extraordinary statement that Satan became the god of this world in 606 B. C. If that were the case, then this world, the evil order of affairs since the flood, had no ruler until it was nearly 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


half over. How then could Satan have dominated all heathen nations and more or less dominated most Israelites, the former from the flood, until 606 B. C., if he were not the god of this world? What happened in 606 [more precisely 607] B. C. is that Gentile rulership under a Divine lease became universal, Satan as a god having ruled since shortly after the flood. Certainly the illogical view just examined could not be the product of a sober mind, but must be the view of drunken folly, a sure proof of which lies in the fact that its proponent could have offered it in the face of the wondrously beautiful, clear, harmonious, factual, reasonable and Scriptural view of our Pastor in Studies, Vols. I and II. 

In the March 1 and 15 Towers, 67–75, 83–94, is an article entitled, His Name, which should rather have been entitled, The Ten Plagues, as they are the preponderate part of the article. In that article he claims that the ten plagues were poured out through his movement. Here, as in his usual claims, there are no clear-cut distinctions severing as distinct his ten plagues from one another. In this article he makes (pars. 4, 7, 10, 14) the statement that the New Covenant was made at the death of Christ. We defer the discussion of this point until later in this chapter. 

Next (par 13) he repudiates another truth that he admits he once accepted—that the Ancient Worthies will become spiritual after the next Age, claiming that Jesus and the Church, being heirs of the earth, will always be its kings and that the Ancient Worthies will always represent them as princes. The sophistry involved in this reason becomes apparent when we recognize that there is no more incompatibility between the restitutionists becoming kings over the earth (Heb. 2:8; Rev. 21:24; Matt. 25:34; Dan. 4:36) in subordination to the kingship and heirship of the Christ than there was in Adam's being the king of the earth and its animal and vegetable life under God's kingship. 



That the Ancient Worthies will become spiritual is manifest from the following: (1) Job, one of them (Jas. 5:11), by inspiration tells us that apart from his flesh, and after it will have been dissolved into dust, he would personally see God, which can be done by spirits alone (Job 19:25, 26, A. R. V.). (2) If the Ancient Worthies were to be princes forever on earth, seeing that the restitution class will be kings here eternally after the Little Season, the former would eternally be the latter's inferiors. (3) If they were to remain on earth even as kings, they would have to be degraded from their Millennial superiority to the restitutionists to equality with them eternally, which the Divine attributes would not effect nor permit. (4) The Divine attributes can be depended on to reward them for their Millennial and Little Season faithfulness, which to do will require their receiving more than kingship over the earth, for this will be the reward of the restitutionists for their Millennial and Little Season faithfulness. (5) As Millennial and post-Millennial Kohathites they will have no inheritance in the earth—their inheritance will be heavenly; even as the Priests and other Levites will not have an earthly inheritance, this being typed by Israel's priests and Levites having no inheritance in the land (Num. 18:20, 23, 24). (6) As antitypical Levites they will be of the Millennial firstborn. All firstborn having their names written in heaven, made heavenly, they will become spirit beings (Heb. 12:23; compared with Ex. 12:11-13, 21-23, 37; 13:1, 2, 11-15, etc.). (7) All of the Levites, hence also the Kohathites, being, with the priests, located about the tabernacle at the same relative distance therefrom, and nearer to the tabernacle than the other Israelites, separate and distinct from the latter, thereby type the eternal spirituality of the entire tribe of antitypical Levi. (8) Israel's giving tithes to both priests and Levites types the eternal inferiority and subjection of the restitution

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


class to all of antitypical Levi; hence all the antitypical Levites will be spiritual eventually. (9) The Ancient Worthies, having been more faithful than the Great Company, will eventually have a higher reward than eternal human nature, since the Great Company will have such higher reward. (10) The fact that the Little Flock as antitypical Priests and the Great Company as antitypical Levites will be spiritual, implies that all the rest of antitypical Levi will be spiritual. These reasons vindicate our Pastor's thought and refute J.F.R.'s repudiation of it. 

Then he tells us (par. 18) that the man of sin is referred to in 2 Tim. 3:1-9 by antitypical Jannes and Jambres. As already stated, we have by 15 reasons that he cannot answer disproved his view of the man of sin; and by the same 15 reasons have proven that in the little Gospel Age he is the head—little pope—of the little man of sin. But apart from this we can from 2 Tim. 3:1-9 disprove that antitypical Jannes and Jambres are the man of sin: (1) The man of sin has been in progressive existence ever since the days of St. Paul (2 Thes. 2:7), while Jannes and Jambres type errorists at the end of the Age exclusively (2 Tim. 3:1). (2) The man of sin is always presented in the Bible as one symbolic thing, while Jannes and Jambres represent two different classes. (3) These two classes are presented as consisting of many individuals working more or less individually, and not each set as one body, as is the case of Antichrist. Thus for the Parousia all of the false teachers in the nominal churches and among Truth people, as opponents of the Truth, are antitypical Jannes (he deceives by oppression); and thus for the Epiphany all of the false teachers in the nominal church and among Truth people, as opponents of the Truth, are antitypical Jambres (he revolutionizes). Thus antitypical Jannes and Jambres are members of many bodies and companies, while Antichrist being but one body, his members 



are members of but one body. (4) The nominal church and the Truth parts of antitypical Jannes and Jambres have been and yet are of much doctrinal contradiction against one another, while this is not so of the members of the man of sin. (5) The man of sin is only one, and that a separate and cohesive part of antitypical Jannes and Jambres. (6) Antitypical Jannes and Jambres as such are not a counterfeit of the Christ—Antichrist. 

The rest of his article, including its second installment, sets forth a view of the ten plagues that makes them allegedly fulfill in activities of his movement. His first plague, turning the waters of Egypt into blood, he claims, is commercialism becoming deadly in its effects. This cannot be true, because water in Bible symbols represents teachings, not commercialism—if it is clear, the Truth; if it is defiled, error. Not only the Nile, which sometimes represents the worldly peoples, but all other Egyptian waters were involved; hence here, not the peoples, but teachings are meant. He claims that this plague began to be poured out at the Columbus Convention, in the resolution entitled, An Indictment, which was widely circulated. But this could not have been the thing turning the world's teachings into blood; for it had almost nothing to do with teachings, and it certainly did not make commercialism, which largely produced the World War, so deadly as it was before that indictment. Next, he tells us (par. 29) that the second plague corresponds to the second woe of Revelation. This is not true, for the second plague was that of frogs, which corresponds to the sixth plague of Revelation (Rev. 16:13). This fact proves that his explanation of the nature and means of the second plague cannot be true. The other eight plagues he treats of in Z '34, 83–94. In discussing the third plague, that of lice, he tells us (par. 3) that Herod Agrippa was eaten by lice, but the Bible says that it was by worms

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


(Acts 12:23). Then he says (pars. 6, 8) that the symbolic lice of the third plague are Satan and Satan's agents, which evidently is erroneous, since the antitypical Egyptian sorcerers made them, and so did antitypical Moses. The former could not create Satan and Satan's agents, and the latter would not. He says that his remnant's Truth messages (which ones he does not say, and thus makes no clear-cut distinction in his plagues) made the lice. Hence his message must make Satan and his agents! He claims (pars. 10, 11) that the Society's message on the higher powers made the fourth plague, that of the antitypical flies, and that Satan and his agents are these flies. This makes them the same as the lice, which proves that he does not understand either plague. His fifth plague—antitypical of the murrain on the beasts, he says (par. 14) is a plague upon the world's commercial instruments, agents, schemes, organizations, etc. But this is commercialism and its torment is his first plague. Hence there is no clear-cut distinction between his first and fifth plagues. For in each plague the nature of the plague and the means of the plague differed from these two things in all the other plagues. The message of vengeance is supposed to be the plaguing instrument. But this applies to all his plagues; hence again there is no clear-cut distinction between the plaguing instruments of the plagues. He makes (par. 17) his sixth plague, the antitype of Egypt's sixth plague, the same as the first plague of Rev. 16:2. This cannot be true, because that would make the antitype of the sixth Egyptian plague come in a time order contrary to that of the first of Rev. 16, which is the first of the last seven. He later suggests his sixth for the fifth of Rev. 16, which only increases the confusion of his setting. He says (Light, 21, to which he refers [par. 17] for more information on the sixth plague) that this plague was the proclamation at the Cedar Point Convention, Sept., 1922, 



and that its pertinent work was the pouring out of the first plague of Rev. 16, and the antitype of the sixth on Egypt. But that proclamation, emphasized as the message of the Kingdom then and for three years more, preached the millions-never-dying-after-1925 proposition. Moreover, that message was preached for about three years before Sept., 1922. Hence this plague was a counterfeit and misdated plague, as its supposed message has been factually proven false. 

His seventh plague, he claims as (par. 21) that of hail, which was the seventh and last of Rev. 16, is the declaration against Satan and for Jehovah, initiated at the Detroit Convention early in Aug., 1928. Please note that, except for part of the tenth plague, the seventh plague of Rev. 16 was the last chronologically to be poured out. But he gives several others as having been poured out after the plague of hail. Hence he misunderstands the antitype of the seventh Egyptian plague. Our readers are aware that we do not understand the time order of the Egyptian plagues to be the same as those of Revelation. But the seventh of Rev. 16 and the tenth of Egypt are evidently the last two chronologically poured out in the fulfillment. His eighth plague, that of antitypical locusts, he says (par. 25) began in the mass attack May 25, 1932, at Bergenfield, N. J., four years after his seventh plague of Rev. 16 and of Egypt. This, for the reason given above, is wrong, for it should have come chronologically before his seventh. Moreover, as he correctly says, the eighth Egyptian plague corresponds to the first woe of Revelation, which proves that in time it must precede the seventh plague of Rev. 16. This proves that he misunderstands the antitype of the eighth Egyptian plague and the first woe of Revelation. His ninth plague, that of darkness (the fifth of Rev. 16), he says (par. 27) was initiated by the warning addressed to the rulers of the world, issued at the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


London Convention May, 1926. But his beast is what he calls Satan's visible organization, which he says consists of Capital, State and Church in all their organizations, as these exist in Christendom. But his 1926 warning was not addressed to any but the civil rulers, who are not even his beast, though they are officers of one of its departments. Hence this is another misfit plague. He says that the three days' darkness represents the time from May, 1926, until Armageddon. But he elsewhere insists that the days of Revelation all symbolize literal days, while already eight years have passed since his three days of darkness began. This shows that he is in darkness on the subject. He says that Pharaoh's threat of death on Moses represented threats by the Romanists and the press against his remnant, and by the police of Plainfield, N. J., coming to his lecture armed to the teeth! 

His tenth plague—death of the firstborn (par. 30)—is the eternal annihilation of "the leaders and chief ones in the religious, commercial and political branches of his (Satan's) organization … which … includes the [his] man of sin … the strong-arm squad [police, etc.] and those who put forth their strength to carry forward Satan's schemes, and also the counterfeit of God's kingdom, namely, the League of Nations." That much of this is false is evident from the fact that most of the above-indicated persons never were Spirit-begotten (one of them is even an impersonal thing, the League of Nations), hence cannot go into the second death, and thus are not of antitypical Egypt's firstborn. He says (par. 38) that the typical lamb taken on Nisan 10 into the house types God's receiving Jesus in the temple since 1918. In the first place, in the type the lambs were set aside, but not taken into the houses. In the second place, the setting aside of the lamb was four days before its death, typing Jesus being by the Jewish leaders set aside for death four days before His death.



Then he says (par. 40) that the sprinkling of the lamb's blood on the lintels and door posts types public confession of the blood of Christ, also of Christendom's destruction, and that the New Covenant has been inaugurated toward the remnant. No comment needed. To celebrate the Memorial properly, he says (par. 41), one must take part in his drives. How like his big stepbrother—the big pope—in his demands of service to him as conditional of partaking in the communion. 

It will be recalled that we showed that Ruth 4:9 proves that our Lord by undertaking the pertinent ministry, took over all the power rights of antitypical Ruth (Youthful Worthies) and Naomi (the Great Company, especially in its Society adherents' aspects), derived from their kinship to the lapsed Great Company leaders (antitypical Elimelech) and the lapsed tentatively justified leaders (antitypical Mahlon and Chilion) i.e., Jesus acquired all the rights of management and teaching in such leadership powers from the Society editors and directors. This means that the Lord Jesus from 1920 onward has taken away from these editors and directors the office of being the mouthpiece and managers of antitypical Elisha (antitypical Ruth and Naomi). The latter therefore do not do their work under the teaching and managerial auspices of these editors and directors, and have not been doing so since early in 1920. Their work, in so far as it has been Divinely approved as that of antitypical Elisha, has therefore been a more or less individual work of proclaiming the Truth, mainly by word of mouth, under Jesus' teaching and management. It further follows that whatever they have done under the direction and writings of these editors and directors, particularly those of J.F.R., has unqualifiedly been the work of Azazel; and is not a witness work of and for God; but of and for Satan, in a sense similar to Antichrist's. 

The next article that we will review is entitled, His

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Covenants, which runs through eight issues of The Tower, April 1 to July 15, 1934. Its main error is that the New Covenant was made at Calvary with Christ for the Church, and that it was inaugurated with J.F.R.'s remnant in 1918. It is, according to this view, a covenant under which the Church has been since Calvary, and which belongs exclusively to the Gospel Age. On this matter J.F.R. has gone into deeper darkness than the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants sifters of 1908–1911; for they properly taught that the New Covenant would operate toward the world in the Millennium, their error being in making it operate during the Gospel Age also. He says that what was actually a threat and a part of the curse (Gen. 3:15) with which God menaced Satan "was in fact a covenant of Jehovah, because it was an expression of His purpose" (Z '34, 198, 22). This is a clear disproof of J.F.R.'s definition of a purpose being a covenant. 

He ignores entirely in his list of covenants the all-embracing Abrahamic Covenant of Gen. 12:2, 3 in its typical and antitypical features, and gives its name to the Oath-bound Covenant. He limits to but part of one of its antitypical features that of Gen. 22:16-18 (Z '34, 199, 24, 25; 201, 38), thus confounding it and the Oath-bound Covenant. The typical and antitypical Abrahamic Covenant of Gen. 12:2, 3 is an epitome of the entire plan of God, the entire Bible being its elaboration, while the Oath-bound Covenant is given to the typical and antitypical Abraham and the typical and antitypical seed in their varied relations. He claims that Jesus alone is the Seed of the Oath-bound Covenant (Z '34, 168, 23; 169, 30). He makes the Covenant that God confirmed to Israel in Moab as their part in the Oath-bound Covenant an entirely different covenant from the Oath-bound Covenant of Gen. 22:16-18 (Z '34, 200, 28, 29), which from his principles it has to be, if as he holds, the Oath-bound Covenant 



has Jesus as its exclusive Seed. But the Bible shows that it was Israel's share in the Oath-bound Covenant (Deut. 7:7, 8; 29:12-14; Ps. 105:8-10; Rom. 11:28, 29), which God confirmed to Israel in Moab. This so-called Moab Covenant he makes typical of his so-called kingdom covenant, which he thinks is taught in Luke 22:29 as a covenant different from the Oath-bound Covenant. Luke 22:29 explains a matter that belongs to the Sarah Covenant; and because that Covenant is a promise, the word in it translated by J.F.R. to covenant should be translated to promise. Again, and for the same reason, he makes the Davidic Oath-bound Covenant (Ps. 89:3, 4, 28, 29, 34) one entirely separate from the Oath-bound Covenant of Gen. 22:16-18, whereas it is a matter that belongs to that Covenant, the one that promises by an oath that the Head of the chief seed of Abraham would be an eternally royal Descendant of David, a promise that God graciously made to David for the latter's faithfulness. Finally, under our refutations, J.F.R. has abandoned his claim of years' standing, that the Covenant of sacrifice is the Sarah Covenant, and now rightly recognizes it to be our consecration vow. The above are some of his chief pertinent errors. The main purpose and contents of this review will be a proof that the New Covenant operates exclusively Millennially and post-Millennially. 

We begin with some pertinent definitions and explanations. The word, covenant, as related to God, is used in three senses in the Bible: (1) in the sense of promises either binding one party—a unilateral or unconditional covenant, or binding two parties to one another conditionally—a bilateral or conditional covenant; (2) such promises with all their pertinent teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc., and (3) such promises with all their pertinent teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc., and the servants who minister to the covenant's subjects these promises with all their pertinent teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc.

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


It will be noted that in each succeeding sense of the word, as above given, all that was in the preceding sense is contained, plus something else. This something else we have indicated by our italics in the second and third senses of the word. Therefore we may speak of the first of these senses as a covenant in the narrow sense of the word, of the second as a covenant in the wider sense of the word, and of the third as a covenant in the widest sense of the word. 

Attached to some of God's Covenants were various provisions that do not put obligations on the subjects of the covenants; but are arrangements that they are privileged to use to insure their being kept in the covenants' blessings, e.g., to the Sarah Covenant an Advocate, a Priest, a Prophet, a King are attached, whose work it is to bring the Body of the Seed into a condition to receive and then to continue to receive the blessings of that Covenant; but the pertinent duties of that Advocate, Priest, Prophet, King toward the Body of the Seed are not the duties of that Body, but they have the privilege of availing themselves of the blessings He can work for them. Again, to the Old Law Covenant were attached a mediator, a priesthood, a prophetship, a kingship with pertinent functions that were not parts of the covenant obligating the people to perform the duties of these officials, since they were not actually parts of the contract between God and Israel; but were arrangements conducive to make that covenant work favorably for God and the people. Nor are the obligations of the subjects of such covenants the obligations of those so attached to the pertinent covenants, since they are not under such covenants, i.e., are not their subjects. It is for this reason that many of the antitypes connected with these Law Covenant-attached-features belong to the Gospel Age, i.e., to Christ and the Church, though those of the Law Covenant features that obligate the people type the New Covenant features belonging to the Millennial Age. The same



phenomena appear in certain features attached to the New Covenant, i.e., there are a Mediator, High Priest, Prophet, King, Judge attached to the New Covenant, not as obligating the people to the Former's duties, but to make it operate favorably for God and them. This principle of covenant-attached features that do not obligate the people under the pertinent covenants, but that through other covenants do obligate their officials, and that are the privilege of the covenants' subjects to use in order to insure to them the covenants' blessings, and the non-obligation of the said covenant-attached persons to obey the said covenants' demands on their subjects, because they are not subjects of the said covenants, must be kept in mind or confusion will certainly ensue on the pertinent covenants, e.g., if the Christ class as the Mediator attached to the New Covenant are regarded as its subjects instead of administrators of its provisions for the people's blessing, due to the Christ's relations to the Oath-bound Covenant and their consecration, confusion will arise as to the time of the New Covenant's operation. It is J.F.R.'s disregard for this principle that is responsible for many of his false applications on the subject of the covenants. 

As some examples of a unilateral covenant—a covenant binding only one party, i.e., an unconditional promise or promises, we may cite God's Covenant with Noah never again with a flood to destroy society, the symbolic earth (we say the symbolic earth, since the literal earth never was, nor ever will be, destroyed by any thing, Gen. 9:8-17); our consecration, which is the sacrificial Covenant (Ps. 50:5); the overshadowing Covenant, which we call the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:2, 3), and which is a summary of God's entire plan; and the Oath-bound Covenant, of which the Sarah Covenant is a part (Gen. 22:16-18). These covenants bind only one party—they are unilateral, one-sided; hence they are unconditional promises. It is for

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


this reason that the Abrahamic and Sarah Covenants are repeatedly called the promises, binding God only (Rom. 9:8, 9; Gal. 3:8-22, 29; 4:23-31; Heb. 6:12-19). As examples of covenants which as promises are conditional on the fulfillments of certain obligations assumed by the parties to the covenants or promises—bilateral covenants—we may cite the Mosaic and the New Covenants (Eph. 2:12; certain features of the Abrahamic promises are here also included). In the former, God and Israel entered into a covenant—contract—with one another, God promising as His part of the Covenant or contract to give Israel life, the right to life and its life rights, if Israel kept the Divinely-given teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc. (Gal. 3:12, 10), and Israel as its part of the Covenant promising to keep these, if God would reward such obedience with everlasting life (Ex. 24:3; Gal. 3:12; Deut. 30:15-20). These conditional promises constituted the Law Covenant in its narrow sense. That the New Covenant consists of the promises that God and man will Millennially and post-Millennially make to one another on certain conditions is evident from Ezek. 18:1-24; and these conditional promises will constitute the New Covenant in its narrow sense. God's two conditional Covenants are contracts whose terms bind God and Israel to one another. 

As an example of the word, covenant, used in the second or wider sense of the word, we may cite the Law Covenant as consisting not only of the above-mentioned conditional promises, but also of the teachings, arrangements, institutions, etc., that were made the basis of the Covenant in its narrow sense, and that as such were obligations of the parties to the Covenant (Ex. 24:3, 7; 34:27, 28; Deut. 4:13; John 1:17; Heb. 9:1-10; 10:1-4). In this sense the Covenant was forty years in its making (Heb. 8:9; 3:7, 9), its first parts being certain (not all) features of the Passover, given before they left Egypt, the Sabbath, given before 



they came to Sinai, the features given at Sinai, where the contract, the covenant in the narrow sense, was made, and those given after they left Sinai until they were ready to enter Canaan (Ex. 12:8-50; 16:22-30, 20-23; and numerous ones in Lev., Num. and Deut). The teachings, arrangements, institutions, etc. (contained especially in the New Testament), whereby God is realizing the oath-bound promises in its Sarah Covenant features to the Christ, are likewise seen to be, with those promises, the Oath-bound Covenant to the Christ in the second sense of the word. Also all of the arrangements, institutions, teachings, etc., of the Millennium will, with the New Covenant promises, be the New Covenant in the wider sense of the word. 

As examples of the word, covenant, in the widest, the third sense of the term, we cite the Mosaic, the Sarah and the New Covenants, whenever they are presented as wives of God (Gal. 4:21-31; Is. 54; 60:6; Gen. 25:1-5). This requires explanation and proof. In addition to the conditional promises of the Law Covenant and their pertinent teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc., the covenant in this sense of the word includes the servants who ministered the covenant teachings, institutions, arrangements, etc., i.e., the covenant provisions, to his fellow Israelites. The latter as ministered unto, were the children of the Law Covenant. Let us note well this distinction: It is not so much one of the persons as much as of relations of the pertinent persons. When the Israelites ministered the covenant provisions to one another, they acted as the mother, antitypical Hagar (Gal. 4:24, 25); and when ministered unto with the covenant provisions by their brethren, they acted as the children, antitypical Ishmael (Gal. 4:25, 29, 30). 

From this standpoint, in the first place Moses was this mother, not in his capacity of giving the covenant provisions, for in that capacity he was the mediator of the Covenant, but after they were given, in his capacity 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


of ministering them to the Israelites; secondly, in their capacity of so ministering, the elders of the people, especially the twelve princes, the seventy judges, the seventy elders, the priesthood, the Levites, the parents, the prophets, and finally everyone else who would do any teaching of the Covenant's provisions to his fellow Israelites, were added to Moses as parts of the mother. It thus eventuated that all Israelites, in their capacity of ministering to their fellows with the words, etc., of the Covenant, were the mother. In their so functioning they were Jehovah's wife, antitypical Hagar nourishing Israelites as her children. This wife was in existence as such before they reached Sinai; she was in Moses, Aaron and the elders of Israel, who taught Israel in general, and in the heads of the families, who taught their families in particular, certain of the Passover arrangements, already functioning in Egypt, out of which we are assured God called Israel, His Son (Hos. 11:1). Moses was not the friend of the Bridegroom in this case, as J.F.R. claims, because no friend of the Bridegroom was used for any of the Father's symbolic wives, even as typed in Abraham, who, without any friend of the Bridegroom, took Hagar, as his owned slave as a concubine, and not as a full wife, even as he also did with Keturah (Gen. 25:5, 6). Being a concubine and Sarah a full wife, Keturah could not be since 1918 a successor of Sarah, typing the same thing as she, as J.F.R. contends, claiming (Z '34, 168, 26) that both were the types of his alleged Jehovah's organization, Sarah up to 1918, Keturah since then. Nor could Keturah be such for another reason; her sons were not joint-heirs with Isaac, but were exiles from Abraham's home, so as not to partake with Isaac in his inheritance (Gen. 25:5, 6). 

Turning to the Church's Covenant now operating, in the third sense of the word: It consists of the Oath bound promises (only, however, in their application to the Christ), of all their elaborations, as found in many 



Old Testament passages and in practically all New Testament passages, and of the brethren in their capacity of ministering these things to one another. These ministering brethren consist, first, of our Lord, then the Apostles, then the prophets (both those of the Old Testament and the non-apostolic Gospel Age teachers of the general Church), then evangelists, then pastors or teachers, then the non-official brethren of the Church, in their capacity of ministering to their brethren with the Covenant provisions. Thus, in ultimate analysis, antitypical Sarah in the last feature of the Covenant in the widest sense of the word, beside the writers of the Old Testament, is all of the Little Flock's members in their capacity of ministering to one another, while Isaac types these same persons, except the writers of the Old Testament, in their capacity of being ministered unto by one another. The only exception to this is our Lord. He was not nourished by His Little Flock brethren; but He was nourished by the Old Testament writers, who are a part of antitypical Sarah, as we will later show. In the next Age the New Covenant as Jehovah's wife, in the third sense of the word, will include the pertinent promises, etc., and those who apply these to the restitution class: (1) the Christ, (2) the Great Company, (3) the Ancient and (4) the Youthful Worthies, (5) believing Israel and finally (6) all the faithful of the restitution class (Matt. 25:34-40). 

Now to the Biblical proof of this third sense of the word covenant, when one is spoken of as Jehovah's wife. In treating of the Law Covenant and of the part of the Oath-bound Covenant relating to the Christ, in Gal. 4:21-31, under the figure of Jehovah's—God's, not Christ's—wives, St. Paul mentions Sarah as the type of the latter and Hagar as the type of the former. To prove that Sarah is the mother of us all as members of the Christ class in our capacity of being nourished by her, St. Paul cites Is. 54:1. Like Sarah, who as the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


wife of youth and long into old age was barren, though the married wife, so the one there addressed was barren as the wife of youth and into old age, though the married wife (v. 6). As Sarah, as it were, was forsaken and thus practically a widow in shame of barrenness and in grief, while another, Hagar, was taken in her place; so the one here addressed was in the shame of barrenness in grief, as it were, forsaken and in practical widowhood (vs. 4, 6, 7), when another (the Law Covenant as antitypical Hagar) was taken in her place. And as Sarah was, so to speak, taken again as wife and bore Isaac, so the one here spoken of is reinstated as wife and becomes the mother of her husband's—God's—children (vs. 5, 18). She is given an oath (v. 9) as pledge of her Husband's loyalty to her and to the welfare of her children, as an unconditional Covenant, promise, like that made to Noah after the flood; and this oath given to her proves that she is not simply the Oath-bound promise. V. 17, compared with vs. 9, 10, demonstrates that she consists of the Lord's servants connected by an oath with His Oath-clad Covenant. This truly demonstrates that antitypical Sarah is the Oath-bound Covenant to the Christ with all its Biblical elaborations and the servants who apply these to the children of God, the Christ, in the Oath-bound Covenant. Thus our first proof from Gal. 4:22-32 and Is. 54:1-17, demonstrates our third definition of a Biblical Covenant to be correct. During her time of barrenness and practical forsakenment the faithful of the Old Testament were the personal, ministering part of the Sarah Covenant, whose sorrows, ministries and sufferings are described in Is. 54; Heb. 11; Pet. 1:10-12. 

Another proof of this third definition is found in Acts 3:25. In the preceding verses St. Peter had, by general and particular statements and quotation, said that all the prophets—hence this began with Enoch (acting as Melchizedek), Noah and Abraham (Jude 14, 15; 



Gen. 9:26, 27; 20:7)—had foretold the times when the Christ would in the Millennium return and introduce the refreshing, literally, the springing up again, with growth and greenness of cut-down and sunburned grass after copious showers that came upon it, i.e., restitution, of all things lost in Adam's fall—every feature of God's image and likeness. He then proceeds to mention two parts of the mother of God's children, which, from his quotation of the third promise of the Oath-bound Covenant, we at once recognize to be antitypical Sarah. These two parts of the mother are (1) the Oath-bound promises (Gen. 22:16-18), as is evident from St. Peter's quotation of one of them—"in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:18)—and (2) the prophets who through their Old Testament writings ministered various elaborations of all three features of this Covenant to the Christ (1 Pet. 1:10-12). "Ye are the children (1) of the prophets and (2) of the Covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, 'And in thy seed shall all the kindreds [families, nations] of the earth be blessed.'" St. Peter addresses them as the children of antitypical Sarah, because the preceding part of his sermon with its Old Testament quotations had already brought them as consecrated Israelites in Moses (1 Cor. 10:1, 2) into Christ by faith; and in v. 26, St. Peter tells them that this blessing from God in Christ was intended for their cleansing from all human filthiness (2 Cor. 7:13). 

Still another proof of this third definition is St. Paul's expression in Gal. 4:19, uttered immediately preceding and introductory to his explanation of the Sarah and Hagar types. In this passage St. Paul directly sets himself forth as a part of the mother (antitypical Sarah is such) of God's Little Flock children, and states that as such he was travailing in pain again to bring them to birth, which, of course, is a mother-function: "My little children, of whom I travail in

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


birth again until Christ be formed in you." Because of being a part of this mother, St. Paul, St. John and St. Peter call those to whom they minister the promises their children (1 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; 1 John 2:1, etc.; 1 Pet. 5:13). These proofs demonstrate the Biblicity of our three definitions. 

We are now ready to present our general arguments against J.F.R.'s position that the New Covenant is a Gospel-Age arrangement made with Christ for the Church at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918 with J.F.R.'s remnant. Our first argument against his general position is that the claim that the New Covenant was made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918 is a self-contradiction; for to make a covenant and to inaugurate it (this latter is not a Scriptural term) as used in Truth literature are one and the same thing. At Calvary the merit was deposited (Luke 23:46) that sureties the New Covenant (Heb. 7:22). Surety is always given in view of the operation of a future thing. When St. Paul, therefore, in 63 or 64 A. D. wrote the epistle to the Hebrews the New Covenant was not yet made; for it was then merely suretied. Hence it was not made at Calvary. Again, what is spoken of as inaugurating the New Covenant, sprinkling the blood on the book and the people as well as on the Tabernacle and vessels (Heb. 9:18-20), is the making of the New Covenant, or, to put it in another form, is the sealing of the New Covenant. The word egkekainistai (v. 18), for which J.F.R. prefers the translation, inaugurate, means initiate, and this certainly is its meaning here. The New Covenant will be begun to be initiated in the beginning of the Millennium by sprinkling the antitypical book, Divine justice (Heb. 9:19-22), which act does not type, as J.F.R. contends, that the law was in force toward the remnant (Z '34, 134, 15), but satisfying justice, like sprinkling the mercy seat. Its initiation will proceed with sprinkling the antitypical people, tabernacle and 



vessels during the entire Millennium. It thus takes the whole Millennium to initiate the New Covenant, which is the entire Millennial work of the Mediator in sealing or inaugurating or making it as a contract. 

Hence we see that there is no difference between making and inaugurating the New Covenant; both mean its sealing, its initiation, making it enter into operation. Hence to say that the New Covenant was made at Calvary with Jesus, when He entered no covenant, J.F.R.'s proofless claim to the contrary not withstanding, and was inaugurated for J.F.R.'s remnant in 1918, is a contradiction in terms, separates the making from the inaugurating of it by nearly 1900 years (!), as well as places the operation of the New Covenant in a wrong dispensation. Notice, please, J.F.R.'s juggling in his alleged explanation of the New Covenant's inauguration. He claims that to inaugurate means to induct into an office, which is doubtless the meaning of the word when the inauguration of officials is referred to; then he goes on to explain that the inauguration of the New Covenant is the induction of his remnant into its office since 1918 as Jehovah's witnesses. What has he done by this explanation? He has not thereby explained the inauguration of the New Covenant at all; he has explained the inauguration of alleged officers of the New Covenant! This would be like saying that the U. S. was inaugurated at the inauguration of each president! This piece of juggling, changing the inauguration of the New Covenant into inauguration of its alleged officers, is illustrative of lawyer Rutherford's "methods of deceit." 

The second argument that we make against his general position is that it is absurd to teach that Jesus is the Mediator between God and the Church (Z '34, 105, 27); because it implies that neither God nor the Church trust one another and will not deal directly with one another, but only through a go-between. This 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


will appear from the following: There are two classes among men: (1) the faith class (Gal. 3:7-9, 14, 26-29); and (2) the unbelief class (2 Thes. 3:2). God's unilateral covenants, as involved in His plan, imply that God trusts the subjects of these covenants, and that they trust Him as the Giver of them. Hence these do not need a mediator to guarantee them to one another, though they need a Priest to at-one them and an Advocate to satisfy justice (Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:1, 2). We are God's sons who have, as seen in the priesthood figure, in the one Spirit as the World's High Priest direct access to God in our Covenant through our High Priest's intercession (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 4:14-16; 7:24, 25), and who have as touching our humanity in the Court-of-law picture Jesus Christ, the Righteous, as our Advocate, for our righteousness (Rom. 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; 1 John 2:1, 2). Under such circumstances it is most absurd to speak of our having a Mediator between our beloved and trusted Father and us, His beloved and trusted children. What kind of a family would that be in which the father would so distrust his children as not to deal with, and speak to them, and in which the children would so distrust their father as not to deal with, and speak to Him, but would use a guarantor as a go-between for them? This is implied in there being a Mediator between them. 

Our third general argument against J.F.R.'s making the New Covenant operate in the Gospel Age is that a mediated covenant can operate only between mutually distrustful parties. Hence the New Covenant will operate between God and the world only, and therefore is Millennial. God and the unbelief class need a Mediator between them (Heb. 9:13-23; 12:18-20, 24-27). The following illustration will clarify the subject: Let us suppose that there is a person who desires to build a house of his own materials and according to his own plans, specifications and detailed drawings, and who does not desire to do the actual 



building, but desires to have a building contractor do it. Let us further suppose that he does not fully trust the prospective contractor properly and efficiently to use his materials and to follow conscientiously and efficiently his plans, specifications and detail drawings, which things, if not done, will mean loss to him. What would he do? He would require of the contractor a bond, let us suppose, so large as would cover all possible losses, and as the contractor of himself could not furnish. And let us further suppose that the contractor does not fully trust the property holder to pay him the contract price, and would not in his distrust accept his word to pay it or his bond as sufficient. How could they be brought together into contractual relations as to building that house, since neither trusts the other enough to accept his personal word or bond? It could be done by a mediator as follows: Let us suppose that a bonding company or an individual trusted by both can furnish satisfactory bonds for each and thus guarantee each party of the contract to the other. Let us also suppose that this bonding company or individual negotiates with each for the other and satisfies each with the other on the basis of his bonds given to both, and thereby brings them into actual contractual relations with one another. That bonding company or individual by working back and forth between the two parties unto their accepting his guaranteeing both parties of the contract to one another has thereby mediated the contract, was its mediator. 

A mediator is not, as popularly supposed, a reconciler of hostile parties with one another, which is a priest's function; but he is the maker and guarantor of a contract as between mutually distrustful parties, who otherwise would not enter the contract. Thus Moses as Mediator between God, who was distrustful of Israel, and Israel, who was distrustful of God, negotiated between them and guaranteed each to the other as to their promises in the Law Covenant

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


(Ex. 19:6-9; 20:18-21; 24:2-8). The same is necessarily true of the persons involved in the New Covenant as the antitype of the Law Covenant. The New Covenant is for the unbelief class, who do not believe God's conditional promises in the Covenant, and for God, who does not believe the conditional promises of the unbelieving world. The antitypical Mediator, Head and Body, negotiates between them to make them conditionally willing to enter contract relations with one another. To overcome their yet remaining distrust He guarantees the world to God by giving Him the merit of His sacrifice in satisfaction of His justice (sprinkling the book) and by promising to stripe the disobedient unto reformation and to put the incorrigible to death. This guarantees the world to God. The Mediator then will proceed to guarantee God to the world. This he does gradually for 1000 years through imparting his human right to life and its accompanying life-rights to those who will obey him (sprinkling the blood upon the people), thereby raising them step by step out of their physical, mental, moral and religious imperfection into the same kinds of perfection. 

Thus the Mediator will take 1000 years for mediating, i.e., making, sealing, inaugurating, initiating or making operative the New Covenant. Once so made the two parties will enter into direct contractual relations with one another, which will first set in during the Little Season. This shows that the Mediator's function is not to reconcile hostile parties, which is the Priest's work, but is to negotiate between mutually distrustful parties, as to a contract and to guarantee them to one another unto their entering contractual relations. These considerations demonstrate the absurdity of teaching that Jesus mediates the trusting Father and the trusting Church into the distrustful contractual relations implied in mediating the New Covenant! The Covenants operating between them are unilateral. On God's part they are the Sarah



features of the Oath-bound Covenant, which is mediated, sealed, inaugurated, made, initiated or made operative by His oath (Gen. 22:16-18; Heb. 6:13-18, the word emesiteusen, translated confirmed by the A. V. in v. 17, literally means mediated and is derived from the same root as mesites, mediator, Gal. 3:19); and the one on the Church's part is the Covenant of sacrifice (Ps. 50:5). Hence the New Covenant does not operate during the Gospel Age nor between God and the Church. It would be a misfit for them! 

The unilateral Covenant—the one sided promises—that operates from God toward the Church are the Sarah features of the Oath-bound Covenant, i.e., those features of Gen. 22:16-18 that develop the Christ class (Acts 3:25; Rom. 9:8, 9; Gal. 3:14-29; 4:21-31; Heb. 6:12-20). This is our fourth general argument against J.F.R.'s view on the New Covenant as made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918. J.F.R. denies that the Oath-bound Covenant is the mother of the Church, claiming that it is the mother of the Head alone, that the sonship of the Church is by adoption alone, and not by a covenant as a mother. He claims that there is no Sarah Covenant, but Sarah represents what he calls God's organization. Every one of the above-cited passages disproves his view. In contradiction to his pertinent view let us see what God says about it. Acts 3:25 directly quotes the third feature of the Oath-bound Covenant to consecrated Jewish believers in Christ and says that the faithful consecrated are the children of it as a Covenant and of the prophets. Since God is their Father, this Covenant and the servants who applied it, here the prophets, must be the mother, which proves that not Jesus alone as J.F.R. dogmatically affirms, but also the Church are children of the Oath-bound Covenant; nor are they, as J.F.R. as dogmatically affirms (Z '34, 201, 39), adopted children of God as contrasted with God's generated children. They are by Him of His own seed begotten 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


(John 1:12, 13; 3:3-8; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Pet. 1:4; 1 John 3:1, 2, 9; etc.). The Greek word hyiothesia should not be rendered by "adoption" or "adoption of sons," as in the A. V. In every case, as all its occurrences prove (Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5), it should be translated sonship, as the Diaglott properly gives it. 

Gal. 4:22-31, more particularly 24-28, and most particularly 24, prove that Sarah types The Christ-developing features of the Oath-bound Covenant. Against the plainest kind of language J.F.R. denies this, claiming that Sarah types no covenant at all, but types J.F.R.'s so-called Jehovah's organization (Z '34, 201, 40, 41). He denies that St. Paul explains a type here, affirming that it is an allegory as distinct from a type! Our reply is that all types are allegories, though some allegories are not types; but here the allegory is a type. The word translated in part in v. 24 by the A. V. by the noun, allegory, is not a noun, but is a verb, which the Diaglott properly renders by "being adapted to another meaning," which is exactly what is done with a type when it is interpreted antitypically. Not only so, but the word of v. 24 autai translated these is the feminine demonstrative pronoun, whose antecedents are the bondwoman and the free woman of vs. 22, 23. Hence the translation should be, these women are [type] two Covenants, which J.F.R. impiously dares to say is untrue, claiming that Hagar is an allegory for fleshly Israel and Sarah for Jehovah's organization (Z '34, 167, 20, 21). Here it is expressly stated that Sarah types one of two Covenants. One of these Covenants is described as from Mt. Sinai, i.e., the Mosaic Law Covenant typed by Hagar v. 24, 25, who is by J.F.R. denied as a type of the Law Covenant, but is by him claimed to type the nation of Israel. This same covenant is, as antitypical Hagar, also described as the present Jerusalem, both of which are used here as meaning the Law Covenant. That Hagar 



does not type the Israelitish nation is evident from the fact that her child types such (v. 25). Then in v. 26 the Sarah Covenant typed by the free woman, Sarah, is called the high or exalted Jerusalem. Ano we render by the adjective high (the Diaglott renders it exalted), just as in Phil. 3:14 it is rendered by the adjective high in the expression high calling. The Diaglott properly says that the high or exalted Jerusalem is the [antitypical] free woman, antitypical Sarah, which, v. 24, Paul says is one of two Covenants. These facts demonstrate that Sarah types a Covenant that has children, not only one child, unless they, as in the type, are considered a composite child. What kind of a Covenant? One of a unilateral promise, as vs. 23, 28 and Rom. 9:8, 9 prove. What kind of promise? Spiritual, as a combination of vs. 23, 28 and 29 proves. What is the promise? Acts 3:25, quoting from Gen. 22:18, proves that it is the Oath-bound promise. Of what feature of that promise? The Christ-developing feature of it, as Gal. 3:14-29; 4:22-31 and Heb. 6:17-20 prove. Of what is this feature of the Oath-bound Covenant-promise the mother? Not only of the Head, whom J.F.R. affirms decidedly with capitals "ALONE" to be the Seed; but also the Body, as vs. 26-28, 30, 31; Acts. 3:25; Gal. 3:16, 29 and Heb. 6:17-20 prove. When does this Covenant produce its children? Exclusively in the Gospel Age, beginning at Jordan, as the passages cited two sentences above prove. What do these considerations do with J.F.R.'s views that Sarah does not represent a covenant, that there is no Sarah Covenant, that the only Seed of the Oath-bound Covenant is our Lord, that the Church is under the New Covenant and that the New Covenant is exclusively the Gospel-Age Covenant? As our fourth general argument they do with J.F.R.'s pertinent errors exactly what exploding TNT would do with a soap bubble! 

Our fifth argument disproving the view that the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


New Covenant was made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918 is the following: The two sin-offerings seal the New Covenant and are thus shown to be involved in the Mediator picture; hence the Mediator is the Head and Body; and therefore the New Covenant cannot be made or inaugurated until the humanity of the entire Mediator is dead, which disproves J.F.R.'s view under examination, and proves our Pastor's view. This is especially taught in Heb. 9:13-23. The Mediator of the New Covenant is not a single individual, Jesus, as J.F.R. so gratuitously assumes, but a company, Jesus, the Head, and as such the dominating part of the Mediator, and the Church, the Body. Many Scriptures give us this thought, more particularly Heb. 9:13-23. Its Diaglott rendering is much better than that of the A. V., for which reason we will base our comments largely on it. In v. 13 we meet the expression, "bulls and goats," corresponding to the bullock and goat of Israel's atonement day service, and typing severally the same things—the bulls, the humanity of Jesus, the goats, that of the Church, laid down in sacrifice (Heb. 7:26, 27; 13:10-16; 10:1-10, 19, etc.). It will be noticed that the peace offerings of Ex. 24:5 are mentioned as oxen (bullocks). It is not there said what were the burnt offerings, which imply the sin offerings, since they were God's manifested acceptance of the sin offerings. This fact doubtless made St. Paul in v. 13 mention bulls and goats in the type, since the burnt offerings typing perfect humans were bullocks and those typing people in their humanity conditioned somewhat like the Church were of lambs or kids (Lev. 1:3, 10). The reason why a number of bulls and goats were used at the sealing, making, of the Law Covenant was that all the people had to be sprinkled, and the blood of one bull and goat would not have sufficed to sprinkle about 2,000,000 people (v. 19). Had the blood of one bull and one goat been enough for the purpose at hand, only one of each 



would have been used. In v. 14 the antitypes of Moses, who through the young men (plural) slew the bulls and goats, is shown to be the Christ, the slayer of the better sacrifices (plural, v. 23). The plurality of the young men sacrificing the bulls and goats proves a plurality in the antitypical sacrificers. The blood of the (emphatic) Christ does the antitypical cleansing. He is actually spotless in the Head and reckonedly so in the Body; and by the Holy Spirit of sonship made the offering at Jordan in the Head and at Pentecost in the Body members, who represented the whole Body throughout the Age in that one act of offering. The blood of the Christ's Head cleanses our consciences from the condemnation of sin; and the blood of the Christ's Body (since we, like our Lord, are perfected by suffering, Heb. 2:10; 1 Pet. 5:10) in the case of each one of us cleanses his own conscience from the power of sin, so that we are meet for God's service. In v. 15 St. Paul points out what the death [blood] of the Christ, who is Head and Body, makes Him be—the Mediator of the New Covenant. This demonstrates that the Mediator is a multitudinous one, consisting of the mystery class, with Jesus the dominant, and therefore the representative member of it; for which reason He, as the representative of the whole Mediator (the dominant part thus standing for the whole), is sometimes spoken of as the Mediator of the Covenant (Heb. 12:24; 1 Tim. 2:6). This Mediator—the Head and Body—is such, as His death (the merit being that of Jesus alone) cancels the sins committed under the first Covenant, i.e., those of the Jews, that these Jews, having had the unchangeable call to the earthly favor (Rom. 11:29), might receive the promise given them—the land of Canaan as an eternal inheritance. This disproves J.F.R.'s thought that the Church is meant by the expression, "They that have been called" (Z '34, 104, 23). 

After some general remarks in vs. 15 and 16 on the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


validating of God's blood-mediated Covenants, St. Paul proceeds to explain, type and antitype, the sealing of these blood-mediated Covenants, of which there are two and only two in God's plan. The sprinkling of the book of the Law by the blood of bulls and goats (v. 19) types the satisfaction of Divine justice by the death of the antitypical Bullock and Goat, corresponding to the atonement day's sprinkling of the bullock's and goat's blood on the mercy seat. That book is thus a copy, type (v. 23), of that thing in the Kingdom of Heaven which is Divine Justice. That sprinkling will be done instantly, and will instantly seal, make, the Covenant Godward. The sprinkling of the people (v. 19) is a copy of the sealing, making, of the New Covenant manward in the earthly phase of the Kingdom of Heaven, and it will take 1,000 years to complete it, i.e., it will take the 1,000 years of the Millennium to give the people—Israel primarily and the Gentiles who join Israel under the New Covenant, a privilege that will then be open to all the non-elect, dead and living—the right to life and its life-rights, Jesus and the Church's legacy to Israel and the Gentiles under the New Covenant. The tabernacle in its court feature was sprinkled, typing that the Ancient and Youthful Worthies would in the Kingdom be cleansed by the same Mediator's blood in the sealed New Covenant. The cleansing of the vessels types the ridding of any error from any doctrinal, corrective, refutative and ethical teaching that may by the Ancient and Youthful Worthies be in any way mistaught during the Kingdom. Note, please, how the Apostle, after speaking of the cleansing of the copies, the types, i.e., the people, the tabernacle and vessels, tells us that their antitypes, Millennial Israel and the Gentiles joining themselves to Israel, the Ancient and Youthful Worthies and their teachings, will be cleansed by better sacrifices (plural) than bulls and goats. Jesus' personal sacrifice was but one, and the Church's sacrifice is but one; but together



they are two, and therefore their separate sacrifices are here (v. 23) designated by the plural term, sacrifices. Therefore, Heb. 9:13-23 proves (1) that the Mediator of the New Covenant is a multitudinous one—Jesus, the Head and the Church, His Body, of which we will treat under our next argument more particularly and (2) that there are two sacrifices, not one only, that seal, make, the New Covenant operative. This fact destroys the theory under review, because the Covenant is thus shown in its Mediator to involve the Body, a thing that the theory under review necessarily denies. Hence the New Covenant operates after the completion of the Church's sacrifice. 

We now offer a sixth argument overthrowing the view that the New Covenant was made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918—the multitudinousness of its Mediator. Deut. 18:15-18 shows the Prophet like unto Moses—the Mediator—to be a multitudinous one, "a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren" [a Prophet who would consist of brethren, i.e., a composite one]. A comparison of Is. 49:7, 8 with 2 Cor. 6:1, 2 proves the same thing; for the one (Head and Body) who in Is. 49:7, 8 it is said will be given for (in the interests of, i.e., to seal) a Covenant of the people, is in 2 Cor. 6:1, 2 by Divine inspiration shown to include the Church called in this the time accepted for sacrifice unto the great salvation (Heb. 2:3). The messenger of the Covenant (Mal. 3:1) likewise is the Head and Body, who in their Second Advent will come to seal the Covenant. This passage also applies to Christ—the Head and Body—coming to mankind in His First Advent to work on the seal and to make it available for His Second Advent uses, and that because He thus types the coming of this larger Mediator in the Second Advent, even as John the Baptist typed the Church in the flesh in the end of this Age, preparing the way for the larger Christ. 2 Cor. 3:6 calls us servants of the New Covenant; for we are its servants,

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


because we further it. We serve, advance, this Covenant in four ways now: (1) by laying down our lives for its seal; (2) by developing characters that will fit us to administer its provisions when they will operate; (3) by helping our brethren to do the same two things; and (4) by reproving the world for sin, righteousness and the coming judgment, whereby the world is some what prepared to receive this Covenant. Hence this passage implies the multitudinous membership of the Mediator, as Head and Body. Our sharing with our Lord in drinking the cup of death makes it by His merit the seal of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20). Jesus is the surety of a better covenant (Heb. 7:22) than the Old Law Covenant, because His merit makes the death of His Body the seal of that Covenant. Hence His suretying it proves our participation in its Mediator. To surety something implies that it will be made later on—in the future, and not now. The allusion (Heb. 8:3) to the High Priest who offers gifts and sacrifices proves that from v. 3 on the Head and Body are meant. Hence v. 6 refers to the Mediator as Head and Body, not simply to the Head. The New Covenant is legalized—not established—because of better promises. What are they? The Oath-bound promises to the Christ, Head and Body (Gen. 22:17, 18; Gal. 3:16, 29); for these promises arouse them to such sacrificing zeal as enables them as new creatures to law down their humanity unto death as the seal of the New Covenant. This seal legalizes the New Covenant; for through the Gospel-Age sacrifices that seal is made and made available for the sealing of the New Covenant, which will be done during the Millennium, as shown above. Thus our examination of the Mediator figure proves that the Church is a part of the World's Mediator and as such lays down a sin-offering under Her Head. The Head and Body figure in the Mediator is here set forth and destroys the distinction necessary to the theory under examination—that the



Oath-bound Covenant excludes the Body and belongs only to the Head, a thought thoroughly refuted by St. Paul's statement that, antitypical of Isaac, the brethren are children of the Oath-bound promise (Gal. 4:28). 

We now present a seventh argument that proves that not only was the New Covenant not made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918; but that it must come after the Gospel Age: The Lord's Supper proves that not only Jesus' blood, but also that by His blood the blood of the Church is the seal of the New Covenant, which therefore cannot be made, inaugurated, sealed, or initiated, i.e., made operative, until the blood of the entire Church is shed. That additional to the bread and wine representing the body and blood of Jesus they represent the body and blood of the Church is taught by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16, 17, where he says that the cup represents the partnership of the Church in the Christ's death, shedding of the Christ's blood, and that the bread represents the partnership of the Church in the laying down of The Christ's humanity; and where as proof for the latter proposition he says in v. 17, "We, the many are one loaf, one body; for all we partake of the one bread." Matt. 26:28 and Mark 14:24, as their wording shows, give us the faith justification picture as symbolizing the reckoning to us all of the blessings that the New Covenant will actually give the world in the Millennium and in its Little Season. Hence in these two passages Jesus refers to the wine as symbolizing His blood of the New Covenant. 

If the New Covenant's blood were really sprinkled upon us our justification would be actual not reckoned; but our justification being reckoned, Jesus' blood apart from the New Covenant, is only reckonedly sprinkled upon us (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 3:24-28; Phil. 3:9), which refutes J.F.R.'s view. But Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor. 11:24, altering the language from, "This is my blood of the New Covenant" into, "This

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


cup is the New Covenant, etc.," give us the Church-consecration picture as the following exact translation with bracketed comments proves: This cup, that which is being poured out for you [to drink], by My blood is [represents] the New Covenant [since it symbolizes its seal]. The A. V. wording makes the word "poured out" modify the word blood, which construction Greek grammar forbids; for the Greek participle "poured out" is in the nominative case, neuter gender, to agree in case and gender with the word poterion, cup, in apposition to, and in definition of which it stands, whereas if it modified the word blood, it would have to be in the dative case to agree with the dative case of the word blood. Hence the phrase "by my blood" must not be connected with the participle, as though it were modified by the participle, but as we have translated it, it must first be connected with the words, "this cup" and then, because of their appositional and defining relation, to the words, "that which is being poured out for you [to drink]," as adding Jesus' merit to the thing symbolized by the cup as defined by the words, that which is being poured out for you [to drink]. The thought is this: By Jesus' merit, blood, the cup is made to represent the seal of the New Covenant, which cup is then by the expression, "that which is being poured out for you" [to drink], defined as the suffering of the Church unto death, since in Biblical symbols a cup represents, among other things, the Sin-offering sufferings (Ps. 23:5; 116:13; Mark 10:38, 39; John 18:11). St. Paul's language is the same, except that he omits the words, "that which is being poured out for you." Hence Luke's and Paul's wording as to the cup and the bread gives us the Church's consecration significance of the bread and cup, which proves that the Church, by Jesus' merit, blood, participates in preparing the seal of the New Covenant, the blood of the New Covenant, hence they prove that not only can the Church not be under the New Covenant, 



but that the latter cannot be made, inaugurated, initiated, or sealed, i.e., made operative, until the last member of the Church has completed his sacrifice in death; and therefore this proves that the New Covenant cannot be made until during the Millennium, hence was not made at Calvary, though there all the merit for that Covenant's seal was laid down; and hence it was not inaugurated in 1918, which overthrows J.F.R.'s view of the New Covenant as being over the Church and as operating during the Gospel Age, beginning at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918. 

We now come to our eighth general argument against J.F.R.'s view that the New Covenant was made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918. The mediatorial activity of making the seal of the New Covenant being a work for the entire Gospel Age, the mediatorial activity in applying the seal of the New Covenant being a work for the entire Millennial Age, and the New Covenant as a Covenant coming into operation between God and man at the end of the Millennium, after the Mediator's work is finished, and hence for the eternal operation between God and all who obey its provision, all the disobedient being destroyed without remedy under the post-Millennial trial, in the Little Season, J.F.R.'s view must be a delusion, since it teaches that the New Covenant was sealed at Calvary, by Jesus' blood alone (Z '34, 115, 4), inaugurated in 1918 and ceases to operate with the Church's leaving the world before the Millennium. We will proceed to prove our propositions from the Scriptures and with the proof of each will apply these proven propositions against J.F.R.'s view. We have above proved that Jesus and the Church are the Mediator of the New Covenant, and that during the entire Gospel Age they have been working on its seal, Jesus actually providing the whole merit of it by the sacrifice unto death of His perfect body, life, right to life and its attendant life-rights, which, embargoed on behalf of the 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Church to fit her for sacrificing acceptably to God (1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 13:15, 16), cannot be freed from this embargo to seal the New Covenant until the Church has completed its sacrifice. 

This is St. Paul's argument in Heb. 9:16, 17, which is well translated in the Diaglott as follows: "For where a covenant exists, the death of that which has ratified it is necessary to be produced; because a covenant is firm over dead victims [plural victims, not singular, victim], since it is never valid [and thus incapable of sealing or inauguration] when that which ratifies it is alive." In this passage the Apostle is laying down the general principle that prevails for the ratification and the consequent valid operation of blood-sealed Covenants in God's plan, of which there are two and only two. What precedes the ratification of a blood-sealed covenant is the death of the ratifier. Before the ratifier's death a blood-sealed covenant, the Apostle argues, is never valid, and becomes valid only after the ratifier's death. We have already proven that the ratifier—Mediator—of the New Covenant is the Christ, Head and Body. Therefore as long as any member of the Christ is alive the New Covenant cannot operate; for the Ratifier is thus not entirely dead. Hence, the Christ class not yet being entirely dead, the New Covenant does not yet operate. Notice that this passage speaks of blood-sealed covenants only. It does not describe a word-sealed covenant, like the one the Lord made with Noah, never again to destroy society by a flood (Gen. 9:8-17, Is. 54:9), and like the one God made with Abraham (Gen. 12:2, 3), nor a word-and-oath-sealed covenant, like the Sarah Covenant (Gen. 22:16-18; Heb. 6:16-20); but it speaks of God's blood-sealed covenants and says that they are firm, validly operative, over dead victims (plural, not a dead victim, singular). Hence in God's order blood-sealed covenants are ratified by a plurality of sacrifices. There are only two blood-sealed covenants



between God and human beings: the Old Covenant between God and Israel, mediated by Moses through the blood of bulls and goats, a plurality of sacrifices, which represent Moses himself as dead in a sense, even as the atonement day bullock and goat stood for Aaron, and in a sense represented him as dead, and the New Covenant, ratified by the death of the Christ, Head and Body, its Mediator. Since God's blood-sealed covenants are ratified, made valid, firm, over dead victims, the New Covenant must be ratified, made valid, firm, over dead victims. These victims are Jesus as a human being and the Church as human beings. The Apostle from vs. 18 to 22 proceeds to prove that the Old Covenant was ratified, and all its adjuncts were made valid for operating purposes by the blood of a plurality of sacrifices, bulls and goats: and then in v. 23 he proves that the things in the kingdom of heaven, here called heaven: its Covenant, its justice, its people, its tabernacle, its doctrinal, refutative, corrective and ethical teachings, are all made validly operative by the death of "better sacrifices," plural—the humanity of the Head and the humanity of the Body being these better sacrifices—for covenant purposes. Therefore Heb. 9:13-23 overwhelmingly proves that the New Covenant has not yet begun to operate, because its full Mediator is not yet dead. 

Hence J.F.R. is mistaken when he teaches that the New Covenant was ratified at Calvary. Its surety was there completed (He b. 7:22), for Jesus' death guarantees the New Covenant as coming; but it awaits the death of its entire Ratifier before it can be sealed, since it is sealed by the death of its Ratifier, Mediator, Head and Body (Heb. 9:16, 17). The fact that Jesus is in Heb. 7:22 called the surety of the better than the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, as before pointed out, proves that it does not yet operate; for surety is furnished and made to prevail until some future thing sets in, which is guaranteed by the surety as coming

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


by and by. Therefore Heb. 7:22 proves that at the time of the writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 63 or 64 A. D., after St. Paul's release from his first Roman imprisonment, the New Covenant was not yet in existence, but at that time was a future thing; for incontrovertibly surety is given not for a past or present, but for a future thing. Hence the New Covenant was not ratified at Calvary. On the contrary, the Body of the ratifying Mediator of the New Covenant began at Pentecost to be offered up, and this Body's offering up has ever since been continuing, having now progressed so far as to include the feet of the Christ (Is. 52:7), whose totality is on the altar. 

Having given eight general proofs that the New Covenant was not made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918, we next offer the ninth general proof on this point as given in Jer. 31:31-34, clarified by St. Paul's quotation of it in Heb. 8:8-12, to the effect that the New Covenant will in no sense begin to operate until after the Gospel Age is finished; for this passage gives twelve points proving that the New Covenant will not be made until after the Gospel Age is over. J.F.R., to evade the force of Jer. 31:31-34 and Heb. 8:8-12 as proving that the New Covenant is exclusively Millennial and post-Millennial in its operation, claims that not fleshly but spiritual Israelites are there meant, Judah meaning the Little Flock and Israel the Great Company. He does great and arbitrary violence to this passage and its context to force upon it his thought. As we expound the text we will expose his violences against it, but will first from the context show that fleshly Judah and Israel are in this section meant. Indeed a larger context (Jer. 30-34) than we will use discusses fleshly Israel. We will confine our contextual proofs to Jer. 31:22-40. The new thing (v. 22) that God will create, a woman compassing, surrounding, a man, is the Church as a part of the new Creation, whose rest is Christ. She compasses Him



in the sense that she is associated with Him as wife in their combined office work as the Deliverer of outcast Israel, the back-sliding daughter of v. 22. These will be the habitation of justice and kingdom of holiness for Israel restored to and building up Palestine (vs. 23, 24), by which Israel will be rescued from its weariness and sorrow endured during its dispersion (v. 25). This prospect would gladden the Church awakened from its second sleep (1 Kings 19:5-9; Matt. 25:5), from about 1846–1874 which prospect would make it not only happy thereafter, but would make even that sleep a sweet thing for the Church (v. 26). V. 25 treats of Israel's hope as centering in the Christ. 

Vs. 27-30 are even stronger as applying to fleshly Israel and Judah. The man of v. 27 is the Christ as new creatures in glory—the one new and perfect man of Eph. 2:15; 4:13; the beast of v. 27 is their sacrificed humanity considered as the bullock from the standpoint of the consecration picture of Lev. 8:2. Their seed is the Word of God (Luke 8:11-15), that of man in its expositions of the Christ as new creatures in their characters, teachings, office and works and that of beast in its expositions of the Christ as humans sacrificed for the salvation of the world. Israel and Judah will be a symbolic field sown with this symbolic seed (v. 27). As a result of this sowing, though during the Gospel Age, due to God's regarding them with disfavor (I have watched over them), plucked up, broken down, thrown down, destroyed (as a nation and God's people) and afflicted, they will by God's regarding them with favor (I will watch over them) be built and planted (developed and made fruitful physically, mentally, morally and religiously). Vs. 29 and 30 demonstrate that what is here discussed cannot, as J.F.R. contends, be the Church's present but is Israel's Millennial experience; for then only no more will people suffer for ancestral sins but only

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


for their own. Thus the verses that precede the New Covenant verses of Jer. 31:31-34 refer to natural, not to spiritual Israel. The same is true of the verses that follow. In vs. 35-37 God pledges by the stability of the universe (v. 35) and of the inscrutability of the universe's immensity and of the laws of gravitation (foundations of the earth) His loyalty—Israel's gifts and calling are unchangeable (Rom. 11:29)—to His Oath-bound Covenant to all fleshly Israel as a proof of their return to His favor, despite their apostacy during the Jewish and Gospel Ages. The rebuilding of literal Jerusalem to be a city for the Lord during the Millennium is pledged in vs. 38-40. Thus vs. 35-40 refer to fleshly Israel. 

We will now proceed to prove from Jer. 31:31-34, especially as it is clarified by Heb. 8:8-12 that the New Covenant is exclusively Millennial and post-Millennial, and therefore was not made at Calvary, though it was then suretied, nor inaugurated in 1918. The first of these points is indicated in Heb. 8:8. This covenant is to be made with fleshly Israel and Judah alone. But no covenant other than the certain features of the Oath-bound Covenant offered to them if faithful and actually given to their faithful and the Sinaitic Covenant has been yet made with that nation: It was not made at Calvary with Jesus for spiritual Israel, as J.F.R. affirms (Z '34, 100, (7), (6)). The fact that the nation was cast off from God's favor five days before our Lord's death and has ever since been in that cast-off condition proves that the Covenant promised it in Jer. 31:31-34 was not made with it yet. Hence v. 8 proves that not by 63 or 64 A. D. had the New Covenant been made with Israel, and facts prove that during the Gospel Age this has not yet been done. It never having been designed by God for spiritual Israel, of course it could not have been made with it at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918. V. 9, by the expressions, "not according 



to the covenant," also "and I regarded them not," proves in two other ways that not during the Gospel Age will the New Covenant be made with Israel, with whom alone it is to be made; for the Gentiles coming under it must thereby become Jews. This verse shows that the New Covenant will be different from the one God began to make with them (in certain of the Passover arrangements at the deliverance in Egypt, given before the Israelites came to Sinai) in the day He took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt. But He has not yet made a different covenant from that one with them. The next clause covers the whole Jewish Age, throughout which "they continued not in [did not obey] My [God's] covenant." The following clause, "and I regarded them not," covers the entire Gospel Age, in which God has disregarded them in the sense of casting them off from His favor for their Jewish-Age disobedience to His Covenant, culminating in their rejection of Jesus. J.F.R. quotes this part of the verse as it occurs in Jer. 31:32, "although I was an husband unto them," to prove one of his errors. This is a false reading. Ginsburg, the best edition of the Old Testament original, gives the proper reading, even as St. Paul in Heb. 8:9 gives it: "and I disfavored, disregarded them." J.F.R. has access to Ginsburg's correcting note in Rotherham on Jer. 31:32 as given by St. Paul in Heb. 8:9. Why did he not avail himself of the correct emendation given by St. Paul and proven by Ginsburg to be the right one? Was it because the correct reading overthrows his theory, since it proves that the New Covenant will not be made until after Israel's Gospel-Age period of disfavor will have ended—"and I regarded them not"? Certainly God never abhorred spiritual Israel (Is. 54:8). 

Heb. 8:10 gives five more proofs against J.F.R.'s view and in favor of our Pastor's, as to the time for

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


making the New Covenant. First, the expression, "after those days," refers to the period following the Jewish Age (when Israel "continued not in" God's Covenant) and the Gospel Age (when God disregarded them for their not continuing His Covenant). Hence the New Covenant is to be made, and that only with Israel after the Gospel Age, and therefore was not made at Calvary. Again, this verse teaches that when the New Covenant is made, and that with Israel only, God will put His laws in their minds, i.e., will give them the Truth. But this He has not done during the Gospel Age; for throughout this Age they have been in blindness (Rom. 11:25-32), while throughout the Gospel Age whatever Truth was due was put into Spiritual Israel's minds. Hence the New Covenant will not be made, and that with Israel only, until after this Age, and was not made with Spiritual Israel at all. Third, this verse teaches that when the New Covenant is made, and that with Israel only, God will make Israel's hearts pure and holy ("write them [God's laws] in their hearts"). Throughout the Gospel Age Israel has not had holy and pure hearts; hence it will be after the Gospel Age when the New Covenant will be made, and that with Israel only, while during the Gospel Age, hence before "after those days" God has been putting the law of Christ into Spiritual Israel's heart. Jehovah will be their God (powerful, Covenant Helper) accordingly. 

But God is not at all now in covenant relations with and helpfulness toward Israel, while during the Gospel Age, hence before "after those days" God is in the Oath-bound Covenant relations with Spiritual Israel. Hence the New Covenant is not yet operating. Fifth, this verse teaches that when the New Covenant operates Israel will be God's people, which they have not been during the Gospel Age, while during the Gospel Age, hence before "after those days" Jehovah has been Spiritual Israel's God. Hence the 



New Covenant will first come into operation after the Gospel Age; and therefore it was not made at Calvary and was not inaugurated in 1918. J.F.R. claims that the statement of this verse on God being their God and on their being God's people (Z '34, 121, 26) proves the language must apply to Spiritual Israel is completely overthrown by the same statement applied to the restitution class in Rev. 21:3. In v. 11 we find two more: When the New Covenant shall have been made, none will longer need to be taught by others; but ever since the ministry of Jesus began the faithful have had to be taught by their brethren. J.F.R. pretends that his remnant do not now have human teachers, that God and Christ alone are their teachers. This he knows to be untrue; for he knows he teaches his remnant by the Tower, his books, lectures, conversations, letters; so do others of them teach one another. So this passage does not apply to his followers, nor to any one else of God's people during the Gospel Age; for the true saints will have human teachers as God's mouthpieces to them as long as they are in the flesh (Eph. 4:11-14). The passage "they shall all be taught of God" means that while God will teach them He will use His chosen methods in teaching them, which He does through his chosen mouthpieces especially (Eph. 4:11-14). Hence the New Covenant will come after the Gospel Age; and its promise that they will no longer teach one another will be fulfilled after the Little Season. Again, now all Israel do not know the Lord, nor have they all since Calvary known Him; but when the New Covenant will operate post-Millennially, according to v. 11, all will know Him from the least to the greatest. V. 12 gives the eleventh and twelfth proofs of our understanding of its time of operation. Throughout the Gospel Age God was not merciful to Israel's unrighteousness, a thing that He will be, according to this verse, when the New Covenant is made with them,

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


with whom alone it is to be made. Again, throughout the Gospel Age God has been remembering their sins and iniquities, and that with high disfavor and severe punishments, while when the New Covenant comes into operation, according to this verse, He will no more remember their sins and iniquities. Thus this section (Heb. 8:8-12) gives twelve reasons that disprove J.F.R.'s new views on the New Covenant. 

We now give a tenth general proof that the New Covenant is not now operating: It is a Covenant of works, though for a while—until the end of the Millennium—it will have more or less grace and mercy attached to it, while the Covenant now operating is one of grace, though not unattended by works. That the New Covenant is a Covenant of works, though temporarily attended by a measure of grace and mercy, is evident from numerous Scriptures, e.g., Rev. 20:10; Ezek. 18:5, 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 24, 27; Jer. 31:29, 30. The fact that it is the antitype of the Law Covenant also proves that it is a works, as distinct from a grace Covenant. But the Covenant that has been operating since Jordan and Pentecost, being a grace Covenant (Rom. 4:13-16; Gal. 3:14-29; 4:21-31) also proves this, though not unaccompanied by works; for everyone who is in it had previously made a covenant to sacrifice all for the Lord in good works unto death (Ps. 50:5; Heb. 13:15, 16). The fact that the Grace Covenant has been operating ever since Pentecost—for our Lord since Jordan—disproves J.F.R.'s claim that the New Covenant—a works Covenant—set in at Calvary. 

As an eleventh general argument against J.F.R.'s position on the New Covenant, we would say: The New Covenant, as the antitype of the Law Covenant, cannot set in until the Law Covenant is entirely abrogated. The Law Covenant in those of its provisions that are attached to it for its practical operation, and that do not obligate Israel as a whole has been in



process of abrogation ever since Calvary, yea, ever since Jordan, as soon as they were antityped; but it yet binds Israel in its other features—in all that bound the people of Israel as a whole. The Law Covenant's sacrifices were abrogated at Jordan and Pentecost. Its temple, priesthood, mediator and sacrifices have been set aside (Heb. 10:9), as is also evident from the fact that they no more exist. Indeed, for the Christian Jew every part of it was invalidated and abrogated when he left Moses and came into Christ (2 Cor. 3:14). But its contractual features yet bind Israel. They evidently are bound by its ten commandments and those of its ceremonies that are limited to the Millennium so far as their antitypes are concerned—the matter of foods, drinks, festivals, etc. And most manifestly they have been under its curses throughout the Gospel Age, as their punishments abundantly prove. Outcast Ishmael's wandering with outcast Hagar in the wilderness types Israel suffering disfavor for Law violations with antitypical Hagar during the Gospel Age (Gal. 4:29, 30). This proves that Israel is yet under the Law Covenant, as Ishmael was under Hagar in the type. St. Paul distinctly teaches long after Israel was cast off from God's favor that it was still under the Law Covenant (Gal. 5:1-3), though he also teaches that Jewish Christians on coming into Christ ceased to be under the Law Covenant (Gal. 5:1; Rom. 7:1-6). Heb. 8:13, which is better translated in the Diaglott than the A. V., distinctly teaches that the Law Covenant had not yet—63 or 64 A. D.—passed away; nor has it since then passed away. This is proved by the present tenses of its participles: "Now that which is decaying and growing old is near vanishing away." This disproves J.F.R.'s view that the Law Covenant waxed old about the time of Jeremiah and passed away at Calvary (Z '34, 120, 22-24). The present tense of the Greek participle katargoumenon (being abrogated; 2 Cor. 3:13) proves 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


that the ministry of the Law Covenant had not yet been fully abrogated about the year 55 A. D., when St. Paul wrote 2 Cor. Nor has it yet been fully abrogated. Hence the New Covenant cannot yet be operating; for its operation awaits the full abrogation of the ministry of the Law Covenant; otherwise Israel would at one and the same time be under the Old and the New Covenant—an absurdity. The abrogation of certain features of the Old Covenant, like its priesthood, mediator, sacrifices, tabernacle and temple, is due to the fact there is an antitypical Priest and Mediator who is as such not under the Law Covenant and must offer the sacrifices that will avail after their completion in the antitypical Tabernacle and Temple and for the sealing of the New Covenant. For the Priest and Mediator must do these things preparatory to the inauguration of the antitypical Temple for God's abiding, meeting and blessing place for the people and of the New Covenant for their relations with Him. The Old Covenant is thus yet binding on Israel; and therefore the New Covenant cannot yet be in operation between God and them. This argument also overthrows J.F.R.'s view on the time and subjects of the New Covenant's operation and proves our Pastor's understanding to be true. 

As a twelfth general argument on the time of the New Covenant's operation we would say that the New Covenant being the antitype of the Old Covenant, it could not be operating before the Old Covenant entirely ceases to operate; while the Covenant that has been operating ever since Jordan and Pentecost began to operate 430 years before the Old Covenant came into existence. The Grace Covenant, which has been in operation throughout the Gospel Age was instituted with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 22:16-18; Gal. 3:15-29; 4:22-31; Rom. 4:13-16; 9:7-9) long before the Law Covenant, even as Sarah, its type, was Abraham's [God's type] wife before Hagar, the 



type of the Old Covenant, was his concubine. Hence the Covenant, operating from Jordan and Pentecost on (Acts 3:25), cannot be the New Covenant; for it operated hundreds of years before the Old Covenant; and the New Covenant, as the antitype of the Old Covenant, cannot have preceded but must follow the Old Covenant, and therefore does not now operate. This overthrows J.F.R.'s view. 

As a thirteenth general argument against J.F.R.'s New Covenant doctrine, i.e., that it began effectively to operate at Calvary and was inaugurated in 1918, we would say that the Covenant effectively operating since Jordan and Pentecost offers the Divine nature and Heaven to its subjects, while the New Covenant will offer perfect human nature and the paradisaic earth to its subjects. Hence the Covenant operating effectively ever since Jordan and Pentecost and until the Kingdom is not the New Covenant. The Covenant now operating offers the Divine nature and Heaven to its subjects. This is proven as follows: In 2 Pet. 1:4 we are told: "Unto us are given exceeding great and precious promises [the highest features of Gen. 22:17, 18 are a summary of these], that by these [even as a mother develops the fetus unto birth] we might become partakers of the Divine nature, after escaping [through our final overcoming] the corruption that is on the world [Adam's race] through lust." In 1 John 3:2 the same thing is taught: "Now are we the sons of God and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be [we do not yet know what our Divine resurrection bodies will be]; but when He [our Lord] shall appear, we shall be like Him [in nature and office like our Lord, who since His resurrection is the effulgence of God's glory—like God in character—the exact impress of His substance—Divine in nature—upholding all things by His powerful word—God's Vicegerent throughout the Universe, seated at God's right hand, Heb. 1:3-5]." This is also taught in Col. 3:4: 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


"When Christ, our Life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory [as His partners, and thus like Him]." Rom. 6:5 proves the same thing: "If we have been planted in the likeness of His death [have died with Him in sacrifice], we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection [have resurrection bodies like His—the exact impress of God's substance, hence Divine]." Phil. 3:20, 21 proves that the Covenant now operating will, among other things, give its subjects for their present body, which is one of humiliation, a body like our Lord's glorified body and will give them a heavenly home, even as now their conduct is such as will be theirs in heaven. John 14:2, 3 proves that the Covenant operating ever since Jordan and Pentecost gives a heavenly home: "In My Father's House are many mansions … I go to prepare a place for you; and if I go away, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am [on what plane of existence I will be] there ye may also be [they would spend eternity with Him in a heavenly nature, office and abode]." "So shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thes. 4:17). "Clothed upon with our house from heaven," "eternal in the heavens," "to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:1, 2, 8), are all expressions proving the same thing. To the same point are the promises in 1 Cor. 15:42-54, where the faithful from Pentecost on are promised resurrection bodies of incorruptibility, glory, power, spirituality, heavenliness, likeness to Christ's resurrection body, freedom from human nature, possession of immortality and a heavenly home. The foregoing passages are some of the promises implied in the first promise of the highest feature of the Oath-bound Covenant—"Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven"—heavenly in character, body and abode. We could cite many others, but the above will suffice in proof of our proposition that the Covenant now operating offers 



its subjects the Divine nature and office and home. 

On the contrary, the New Covenant will give perfect human nature and a perfect earthly home to its faithful subjects. The blessings promised as coming to Israel in Jer. 31:22-40, after the Gospel Age is past are there described as human and earthly and as New Covenant blessings, and are in certain details touched upon in Ezek. 36:24-38. They will at once be recognized as human blessings in an earthly home—just the blessings that the New Covenant promises. In both sections Israel's Gospel-Age dispersion among the nations and their return to their own land in an unconverted condition are set forth. Then comes the building up of the land and its cities. Then follows the Covenant's making. Both passages show that they will be cleansed from former sins, that they will be taught God's Word and be given new hearts and God's Spirit. Human hearts—hearts of flesh, human—will be given them, according to both passages, instead of stony hearts—inhuman hearts. They will walk in the Lord's ways, dwelling in the land of Israel, becoming His people and He their God. They will enjoy the abundant fruitage of the earth, nor will they suffer famine any more. The desolate land will be tilled by them and will become like the garden of Eden. The desolate and ruined cities of Israel will be rebuilt and inhabited by multitudes of holy people. Here sinless human beings amid perfect, happy conditions on earth are described as a result of the New Covenant blessings. Ezek. 37 likewise shows that Israel as a united people will dwell in Palestine again (vs. 12-22); and that (vs. 23-28) under the kingship of the Messiah, the antitypical David, they will become God's people and He their God, walking in His ways under the blessings of the (New) Covenant of peace that God will make with them, that God's tabernacle (Christ and the Church) will be among them and that all the nations will recognize the Lord's sanctifying

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


work on Israel (Rev. 21:3-5). Ezek. 18:3, compared with Jer. 31:28-34, proves that Ezek. 18 refers in part at least to Israel in Palestine, after the Gospel Age, under the New Covenant. The Covenant is shown to be one of works, and not of grace (vs. 4-9), a thing not true of the Gospel-Age Covenant. People no more then will suffer for ancestral sin, a thing not true now; but will suffer each for his own sin (vs. 10-20, 21-30), a thing not now always true. The passage is Millennial and proves that the New Covenant will then operate and that toward human beings, not toward new creatures. Ezek. 16:53-63 shows that Israel will be restored to her former estate from the tomb (even as Sodom, vs. 53-56, returns from the tomb), as well as from the nations, and will come into a blessed condition in Palestine through the operation of the New Covenant (vs. 60-62), whereby God will become pacified with Israel. Thus Ezek. 37:26; 16:60-62 disproves J.F.R.'s claim that Jehovah will make no Covenant with the restitution class, nor with fleshly Israel (Z '34, 117, 10), alleging it would be inconsistent for God to make a covenant with those who broke a preceding one, which claim is contrary to Jeremiah's, Ezekiel's, Hosea's, Amos' and Paul's words. Thus the New Covenant's blessings are earthly—conferring earthly life, nature, abode, works and surroundings. Since these blessings did not abound in Palestine from Jordan to Pentecost on, yea, since it was long after Pentecost, and even after Acts 28, that they were rooted out of their land unto captivity in other lands, whence they must return at the end of the Gospel Age before the New Covenant will be made with them, we conclude that the New Covenant has not yet come into operation. Its giving an earthly nature, blessings and abode, as yet future things, and the Covenant now operating giving the Divine nature, blessings and home, we conclude that it was not made at Calvary, nor inaugurated in 1918.



As a fourteenth general argument proving that the New Covenant did not begin to operate at Calvary, we would say that our faith justification, apart from any works, secures for us reckonedly all the blessings that the New Covenant by works will confer actually on the obedient when it operates. Undoubtedly the justification that has operated since Pentecost is a faith, not a works justification (Rom. 3:20-5:1; 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; Gal. 2:16-18; 3:10-13, 24; Phil. 3:9). Justification is God's act (Rom. 8:33), whereby for the merit of Jesus He (1) forgives the believer, whether Jew or Gentile, his sins (Luke 24:45-48; John 20:23; Acts 2:28; 10:43; 1 John 1:7, 9), and (2) reckons Christ's righteousness to him as his (Rom. 3:21-27; 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; Gal. 3:22; Phil. 3:9; in most of the preceding passages the expression, "faith of Jesus," occurs and means the faithfulness—righteousness—of Jesus; John 3:14-16, 18, 36; 20:31). The same justification we see operated from Pentecost on. St. James, emphasizing works and faith in connection with justification, does not contradict the above; rather he is referring to what we must do in order that the Lord may with safety to us vitalize our faith justification, i.e., actually forgive us our sins and actually reckon Christ's righteousness to us, which before He only tentatively did, i.e., we must do the good works implied in advancing from the beginning of tentative justification (the gate of the court) into consecration (come under the first veil). But our doing these good works did not vitalize, i.e., make actual, our justification by faith, which is exclusively God's act and is done by His grace apart from any merit of our works, solely through Jesus' merit accepted by faith. Thus James' language does not prove that a covenant of works—the New Covenant—has operated and justified from Calvary on, as J.F.R.'s position implies, though he does not express the thought. 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


When we ask ourselves what the blessings are that the New Covenant will Millennially confer upon Israelites and Israelite-made Gentiles, we find them summed up in Christ's perfect human body and life, right to perfect human life and its life-rights. The right to human life is the Divinely sanctioned privilege of a human being in harmony with justice to exist perfectly, which implies the possession of perfect human physical, mental, moral and religious faculties and life, while the life-rights are the blessings attached to such a right to life, e.g., a perfect earth, climate, home, food, fellowship between God and man (which implies forgiveness of sin) and between man and man, rulership of the earth, of nature's laws and of the animal creation, in so far as man comes in contact with them. These were the main things that Adam lost for himself and his race, and that Christ sacrificed for mankind. Hence He has them as assets to give to man. This He will do on condition of faith and obedience to the New Covenant arrangements in the Millennium (Ezek. 16:53-63; 18:4-26; 36:24-38; 37:23-28; Jer. 31:22-38; Rev. 20:12; 21:3-5; 22:3). Thus a works-justification will prevail under the New Covenant. No such thing prevails now; for now a faith-justification prevails. But a justification is a justification, whether it be actually so or reckonedly so, the difference being, not one of fact as to God's judgment, but one of method. Hence faith-justification reckons to the faith-justified all that actual justification really will give, i.e., the perfect human body, life, the human right to live and its accompanying life-rights. Hence we by our faith-justification have reckonedly what the obedient of the world actually will get in the end of the Little Season—the confirmed right to human nature, life and life-rights. 

Hence the Scriptures speak of our now having everlasting life (reckonedly, of course) through our 



faith-justification, as can be seen from John 3:36; 5:24; 1 John 5:12. Hence, also, the Scriptures can properly quote the language of the New Covenant, which applies exclusively Millennially and post-Millennially, in proof of the Gospel-Age justification, since the New Covenant blessings actually given its subjects in the Millennium and Little Season are reckonedly ours now in the Gospel Age, even as St. Paul in Heb. 10:14-18 does. He does not quote this passage, Heb. 10:16, 17, from Jer. 31:33, 34, to prove that the New Covenant now operates, but to prove that Christ's one imputation of His merit for the Church—"them that are sanctified"—forever frees them from the Adamic sin, and also reckons them in the possession of His righteousness, which reckonedly perfects them—a blessing that the world will actually get through obedience to the New Covenant provisions. This reckoned relation to the New Covenant blessings warrants St. Paul's quoting Jer. 31:33, 34 to prove our eternal perfection from the Adamic sentence and the possession of Christ's imputed righteousness, through Christ's one offering imputed on our behalf and accepted by us in faith, without in the least implying that the New Covenant was made at Calvary and operates over the Church. Praised be our God for this blessing, which gives us all the benefits of the New Covenant reckonedly, without our actually coming under it and its consequent dangers! What does this prove? First, that J.F.R.'s contention (Z '34, 132, 7) that the New Covenant was actually made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918, to prove which he quotes as an especially important argument Heb. 10:14-18, is false; and, second, that the New Covenant operates exclusively after the Gospel Age, during which its blessings by way of anticipation are reckoned to all believers, tentatively to unconsecrated, and vitalizedly to consecrated believers. In the same connection he argues that the blood of the Covenant wherewith we are 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


sanctified (Heb. 10:29) is the blood of the New Covenant, which he alleges proves we are under the New Covenant. This is erroneous and will be recognized as such when we remember that it is the blood of the sacrificial covenant that sanctifies us. Our consecration made and carried out sanctifies us! 

Our fifteenth and sixteenth general arguments in proof of the New Covenant's operating exclusively after the Gospel Age, and therefore not since Calvary, are that their faith justification, which anticipatorially reckons the New Covenant blessings to Gospel-Age believers, makes them in their consecration acceptable in the Sarah features of the Oath-bound Covenant, and our consecration is the antitype of the circumcision associated with the Abrahamic Covenant, while the New Covenant consecration is the antitype of that of the Law Covenant. The Bible clearly teaches that we are made acceptable to God in our consecration by our faith justification through Jesus Christ. This is one of the things implied in St. Paul's statement in Rom. 5:1, 2. Justified by faith through Christ, we therein through Him in consecration have access to the grace of the high calling, in which we stand in Christ. This is likewise taught in Rom. 12:1, wherein the expression, "the mercies of God"—forgiveness of sins and imputation of Christ's righteousness to us, i.e., faith justification—are set forth as the things that should arouse believers to make, among other things, an acceptable sacrifice. Sts. Paul and Peter say that the priesthood's sacrifices are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, i.e., through His imputing His righteousness to them (Heb. 13:15, 16; 1 Pet. 2:5). Thus their Covenant of sacrifice—consecration vow (Ps. 50:5)—was acceptable through their faith justification, which makes the consecrated eligible to the Oath-bound Covenant in its Sarah features. It also made the pre-Gospel-Age seed eligible to an earthly feature of that Oath-bound Covenant.



This St. Paul teaches in Rom. 4:10, 11, 13, 14, 16. This becomes clear when we understand that to Abraham circumcision came after justification as the latter's seal; for circumcision as a type of consecration naturally would come after Abraham's justification by faith, sealing it to him. Circumcision symbolizes the Ancient Worthies' consecration (Rom. 2:28, 29). 

St. Paul's analysis of the parts of the Church's consecration and his calling them the constituents of antitypical circumcision prove completely that the circumcision connected with the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:9-14) types the Church's consecration connected with the Sarah Covenant (Col. 2:11, 12; compare with Rom. 6:3-5). And the type thoroughly pictures this forth: As in consecration (1) the human will is at once put to death and (2) the body is gradually put to death, so these things are respectively symbolized (1) by cutting away the foreskin and (2) by shedding the circumcised person's blood, which flows for some time. The other side of consecration in its two features is also typed by the other side of circumcision. As in consecration (1) a healing from the natural selfishness and worldliness sets in and (2) good spiritual health is increasingly present as consecration is being carried out; so these two things are respectively typed in the second side of circumcision: (1) in the healing that sets in and (2) in health that is increased as the healing increases. Clearly does St. Paul (Gal. 3:21, 22) teach that the Oath-bound Covenant in its Sarah features is made available to believers through Jesus Christ's faith—righteousness—which of course they receive in justification by faith. Therefore, from the fact that faith justification in the Patriarchal, Jewish and Gospel Ages made its subjects eligible to the Oath-bound Covenant in various of its features, dependent on their standing before God, and from the fact that faith justification reckoned to its subjects anticipatorially all the New Covenant

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


blessings, we conclude that the New Covenant could not have been operating from Calvary, nor be inaugurated in 1918, while the consecration associated with the New Covenant is the antitype of the circumcision connected with the Old Law Covenant (John 7:22). We give the fifteenth and sixteenth arguments together because they are somewhat related. These two arguments prove that the New Covenant must operate after faith justification ceases to operate, i.e., after the Gospel Age, which overthrows the setting of J.F.R.'s New Covenant. 

Our seventeenth general argument in proof that the New Covenant operates exclusively after the Gospel Age is: All new creatures have been in the same Covenant as Jesus—the Sarah features of the Oath-bound Covenant. This cannot be the New Covenant, inasmuch as it was not even suretied, let alone operating, until He had died on Calvary. Jesus' sinlessness proves Him not to have been under the New Covenant which is one that forgives the sins of all under it (Jer. 31:34). Hence none of the Gospel-Age brethren, who stand in the same Covenant with God as He, can be in the New Covenant. Rom. 9:7-9, compared with Gal. 3:16, 26-29, proves that the preeminent seed of Abraham is the Christ—Head and Body—the One Seed, the one new man (Eph. 2:15), the perfect man (Eph. 4:13). The features of the Oath-bound Covenant typed by Sarah are the mother of this seed, as Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:22-31 and Acts 3:25 prove. This Covenant is repeatedly called the promise (Rom. 9:7-9; Gal. 3:8, 9, 14-19, 29; 4:23, 26, 28). St. Paul in Heb. 6:12-17 calls it the promise, and of the promise he speaks as the Oath-bound Covenant. That Covenant developed our Lord as a new creature; and it has developed the brethren as new creatures since Pentecost, as the passages cited above and as Heb. 6:12-20 prove. This argument is overwhelming on the point before us; 



for Jesus as a new creature having been developed by the same Covenant as the brethren from Pentecost on, and Jesus being spoken of thirty or thirty-one years later as suretying the future operation of the New Covenant, none of the Gospel-Age brethren have been under the New Covenant; hence it comes after the Gospel Age. This destroys the whole theory of J.F.R. and proves our Pastor's view. 

The Scriptural types on the Covenants likewise prove that the New Covenant operates exclusively after the Gospel Age; and we offer them as our eighteenth general argument against J.F.R.'s new view and in favor of our Pastor's view. God has been pleased to use Abraham and his three wives—rather the one wife, Sarah, and the two concubines, Hagar and Keturah (Gen. 25:6) to type matters in respect to the three great Covenants. The original and all-embracing Covenant with Abraham is recorded in Gen. 12:2, 3. It is of seven parts or promises and is a summary of God's plan; and all of God's later Covenants are made operative by what it promises. Its first promise, "I will make of thee a great nation," applies antitypically to all the seed in general, but it more especially applies to the Christ, Head and Body, the fruitful and holy nation of Matt. 21:43 and 1 Pet. 2:9. This first promise of the Abrahamic Covenant is elaborated in Gen. 22:16-18, where it appears as what we call the Oath-bound Covenant, because of God's oath added to it (Gen. 22:16; Heb. 6:13-21). It has two aspects, a heavenly and earthly aspect, as is implied by the expressions: the seed like the stars of heaven and the seed like the sands of the sea shore. Each of these seeds is again divided into two classes: the heavenly into the Little Flock and the Great Company, and the earthly into the Ancient Worthies and the Youthful Worthies. Ultimately the full seed will include the Jews in their capacity of blessing all mankind, and in an attenuated sense, the faithful restitutionists

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


(Rom. 11:29; Matt. 25:34-40). That part of the Oath-bound Covenant, which is but an elaboration of the first promise of the original Abrahamic Covenant, and which applies to the Christ, is typed by Sarah. Sarah does not type those features of the Oath-bound Covenant that develop the Great Company, the Ancient Worthies, the Youthful Worthies, Israel and the faithful restitutionists. She types those promises only which develop the Christ (Gal. 3:15-29; 4:23-31; Rom. 9:7-9). That a feature of the Oath-bound Covenant developed the Ancient Worthies we can see from Acts 3:25, where St. Peter is addressing certain Christ-believing Israelites indeed, who therefore had been of the Ancient Worthies class, and who living in the end of the Jewish Age and the beginning of the Gospel Age, were given the privilege of transfer into that heavenly feature of the Oath-bound Covenant typed by Sarah. Heb. 6:12-17 in part and the whole of Heb. 11, particularly v. 39, prove that the Ancient Worthies were subjects of the Oath-bound Covenant in its earthly part. From certain other Scriptures, not quite so clear as the above, we gather that the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies are likewise developed by two other features of the Oath-bound Covenant; so, too, Israel and the faithful restitutionists (Heb. 11:12). These features of the Oath-bound Covenant are not typed by any of Abraham's wives. 

That the Law Covenant is typed by Hagar [flight], who was added to Sarah [princess], is plainly taught in Gal. 4:23-31. As the seed-promising part of the original Covenant, given first without an oath as the first promise of the original Abrahamic Covenant, was 430 years before the Law, so this fact was pictured forth by Sarah being Abraham's real wife years before Hagar was taken as concubine. But as the concubine bore her son before Sarah bore hers, so the Law Covenant developed Fleshly Israel before antitypical Sarah



developed Spiritual Israel. Later, at antitypical Isaac's weaning time of the Christ class, i.e., during the Jewish Harvest, the Law Covenant and its product—Fleshly Israel—were cast off (Gal. 4:29, 30) and remained cast off during the Gospel Age (Rom. 9–11; Gal. 4:29, 30), just like Hagar and Ishmael, who remained cast off during the rest of Sarah's life, antityped by Israel's hardness and consequent rejection by God until the full number of the Elect be won (Rom. 11:25-27). Sarah, thus continuing, types the fact that the highest phase of the Oath-bound Covenant has been developing the Christ class from Jordan (Matt. 3:13-17; Acts 10:38; 3:25; Rom. 11:7-9; Gal. 3 and 4), until the end of this Age, when Israel would be recovered. 

After Sarah's death Abraham took as a concubine, Keturah (incense), who types the New Covenant. So after the Gospel Age, when the Sarah Covenant will have ceased operating, so far as developing the Seed is concerned, God will take another Covenant as a symbolic concubine. But, one asks, how do we know that Keturah types the New Covenant? We answer, Is. 60:6, 7 proves this. Is. 60 unquestionably describes the Millennial reign of The Christ, under the picture of a city—Zion (v. 14)—the same thought as is in the New Jerusalem of Rev. 12. Kedar [dark] and Nebaioth [heights] (v. 7) were Ishmael's [whom God hears] eldest, hence chief, sons (Gen. 25:13), and stand typically for the two principal divisions of Israel as they were designated in the divided kingdom: Israel (the ten tribes under Ephraim) and Judah (the two tribes under Judah), even as we find them set forth in the classic New Covenant's passage—Jer. 31:31-34. Ishmael's twelve sons (Gen. 25:16) type Israel's twelve tribes. Hence v. 7 shows how the descendants of Jacob in their two divisions, who will have the New Covenant made directly with them, will be blessed by the Millennial arrangements

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


—New Covenant arrangements. By Keturah Abraham had six sons (Gen. 25:2). In Is. 60:6 the rendering should be: "the dromedaries of Midian [strife, one of Keturah's sons], even Ephah [darkness, Midian's firstborn]." Sheba [oath] was the firstborn of Jokshan [bird catcher, overcomers of the fallen angels], another of Keturah's sons. We understand that Keturah's sons, Midian and Jokshan, type respectively Israel and the Worthies, Ephah, typing those believing Israelites now in darkness who will be Millennial overcomers, while Sheba represents the Ancient Worthies, and Dedan (lowly), Jokshan's other son, types the Youthful Worthies in the Millennial Age under the New Covenant. These Is. 60:6 shows will be Millennially blessed and will prove a blessing; and this proves them under the New Covenant; which we have above proved to be the Millennial Covenant. This in turn proves that Keturah types the New Covenant. The typical relations of Sarah, Hagar and Keturah prove that the first represents the Covenant that develops the Christ, that the second represents the Covenant that developed Fleshly Israel in the Jewish Age, and that the third types the New Covenant coming after the first and second will cease to operate. This typical setting destroys J.F.R.'s theory that Keturah allegedly types not the New Covenant, but his alleged Jehovah's organization, his antitypical Sarah, the latter allegedly typing it until, the former since 1918 (Z '34, 166, 17-20). It also destroys his view of the New Covenant. 

We now offer our nineteenth argument against J.F.R.'s position that the New Covenant was sealed at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918 by commissioning the remnant to carry on J.F.R.'s drives (Z '34, 133, 9): St. Paul's clear teaching in Heb. 12:18-29 that the inauguration of the New Covenant as the antitype of the Old Covenant's inauguration occurs after the Gospel Age and not during its end. 



St. Paul traces the type and antitype quite detailedly. To appreciate his argument, let us remember that Israel's march from the Red Sea to Sinai types the progress of Spiritual Israel from Pentecost to 1874–1878 and onward, accordingly, as various stages of the Kingdom's, Mount Zion's, establishment sets in (Heb. 3, 4; 1 Cor. 10:1-11). Fleshly Israel's three days' march from the Red Sea types the journey of Spiritual Israel in the fifth, sixth and seventh 1,000 years' days of man's history (Ex. 15:22). The absence of water types the absence of the clear Truth between the Harvests and at the beginning of the second Harvest. The experience at Marah types how life's experiences without the refreshment of Christ are bitter, but with Christ are sweet; also how without the real teachings of Christ the teachings of the creeds are bitter, and that with the former, healing from bitter error comes to the Faithful (Ex. 15:23-26). The experience at Elim (oaks, mighty ones) types how from the Lord's mighty ones, the holy apostles and prophets of the Gospel Age (Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11), refreshment and shelter have come to Spiritual Israel in its desert wanderings (Ex. 15:27). The experience in connection with the manna (Ex. 16:1-36) types how the Lord has been giving His hungry Spiritual Israel Christ as the Bread of Life (John 6:31-69), who is the Truth, which is but a description of Him as such. The experience at Rephidim (Ex. 17:1-7) with the rock and the water types how Christ (Moses) sacrificed Himself (smiting the rock), from which the ransom Truth flows out unto the satisfaction of Spiritual Israel's thirst (1 Cor. 10:4). The battle with the Amalekites (Ex. 17:8-16) types Spiritual Israel's warfare by the Word with sin until the end of the Age. As Moses' uplifted hands supported by Aaron and Hur brought victory to Fleshly Israel, so Jesus' ministry, supported by the Little Flock and Great Company leaders, brings victory to Spiritual 

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


Israel—a prophecy that the Lord will ultimately annihilate sin (vs. 14-16). The selection of the judges (Ex. 18) represents how the Lord has during the Gospel Age been selecting the teachers for the Church, to assist Him in ministering to the people. The third month (Ex. 19:1, 2) suggests again that it is in the third 1000-years' period after the start of Spiritual Israel's journey that they come nigh to antitypical Sinai—Mount Zion, the kingdom. 

Thus when St. Paul says to the Church (Heb. 12:18, 22) not, "ye are [have] not come" but "ye have not been approaching, etc.," he addresses not simply the first readers of Hebrews, but the entire Church from Pentecost to the various time stages in the establishment of the Kingdom, as the antitypes of Israel marching from the Red Sea to Sinai; even as we have above very briefly outlined the antitypes of Israel's experiences as some of the general experiences of the Church from Pentecost to these various time stages in the establishment of the Kingdom. As we see the antitypes of the things indicated in vs. 18-21, we recognize that they have in part been fulfilling since 1874, are in part now fulfilling and in part will fulfill later, but all fulfilling before the New Covenant's inauguration, facts destructive of the theory under review. St. Paul gives a contrast: "Ye have not been approaching the mount that might be touched [typical of the sight-proof, invisible, condition of the kingdom in its heavenly phase] and burned [typical of the kingdom's indestructibility] and to fire [typing the kingdom's destructiveness to all opposition] and unto blackness [typical of the uncertainty, ignorance and confusion as to God's ways prevailing in the earthly classes during the Parousia and Epiphany, i.e., before the New Covenant will be made] and darkness [typical of the fearful sights and terrible events especially as expressions of error with which this Age is now closing] and tempest [typical of the Time of 



Trouble now on the world, beginning with the World War, and to increase in Armageddon, and in Anarchy to come unto a completion] and the sound of a trumpet [the seventh trumpet of Truth on religious and secular things that has been blowing since 1874] and the voice of words [the teaching and discussions of moral and religious duties as the antitypes of the announcement of the ten commandments from 1874 onward. Parts of this we have been hearing on all hands in the exposures of evil and in the cries for justice, and in the clear enunciations of the Truth, and it will continue unto a completion]. 

"Which they that heard entreated that no word more should be spoken unto them [typical of how those who since 1874 are being exposed for their evils and are being given pertinent commands and prohibitions by the Lord's principles everywhere discussed—and all are being more or less so treated—desire and entreat that this cease]; for they could not endure that which was enjoined [typical of how man's present weaknesses and sins make unbearable to him these exposures, commands and prohibitions]. If even a beast [civil power] touched [offered resistance to, or impinged against] the mountain [kingdom coming more and more into power beyond the vail], it should be stoned [by the Lord's people hurling the principles of God's Word at its misconduct, ultimately ending in its destruction, e.g., rebuking the illicit cooperation of church and state]. And so fearful was the appearance [typical of the terror by night, the troubles of the period ushering in the kingdom] that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake [typical of how the Christ class yet in the flesh would be in more or less distress as it lives amid the scenes of the great trouble]." Please note that all of these things happened in the type before the Law Covenant as a contract was made or inaugurated (Ex. 19:12-20:21; 24:1-8). These being the things that precede the inauguration

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


of the New Covenant, and they being yet in progress of antityping, the New Covenant could not have been inaugurated in 1918. They prove that the making or inaugurating of the New Covenant comes after the Time of Trouble. The people, before they entered the contract that was the Law Covenant in its first sense (Ex. 19:8), promising to do what God told them in vs. 4-6, do not type subjects of the New Covenant making a promise to keep the New Covenant requirements, since the typical contract was not yet made; but type the Gospel-Age faith-justified people of God, particularly since 1874, in their faith justification promising to live in harmony with the New Covenant's law of justice reckonedly kept as theirs in their faith justification as precedent to their entering the Sarah Covenant privileges, which are typically described in vs. 5, 6, and into which they enter by their Covenant of sacrifice (1 Pet. 2:9). The promise (Ex. 24:3) to obey all the Lord asked was Israel's promise to accept and keep the Law Covenant's laws and naturally was made after its main laws were told them in Ex. 20-23, the antitype of which is Millennial. This refutes J.F.R.'s thought that the promise in Ex. 19:8 types his remnant's promising to be faithful to the New Covenant as preliminary to their getting the kingdom (Z '34, 102, 13). 

From v. 22 onward the Apostle tells us what the entire Gospel Church throughout the Age has been approaching. "But ye have been approaching Mount [the kingdom of] Zion [what gives light. This defines the Christ class as the Enlighteners of the Millennial world, John 1:9; Is. 29:18, 24; 35:5; 40:5; 52:10; 60:1-22; 1 Tim. 2:4, Mount Zion here is the antitype of Mount Sinai], unto the city of the living God [the religious government that the almighty and all-energetic Jehovah is in two phases about to establish over the earth for its proper rule and blessing, typed by Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy 



elders, Ex. 21:1, 9], the heavenly Jerusalem [the spiritual, religious government, the Christ, typed by Moses, Ex. 24:1, 9, that will be the foundation of peace, Jerusalem meaning foundation of peace, between God and man and between man and man, working a peace that will abide eternally], and to innumerable hosts of angels [the spiritual agencies typed by Moses whereby Satan's empire is being and will be overthrown and the kingdom is being and will be established (2 Thes. 1:7; Matt. 25:31). These agencies, of course, belong exclusively at the end of this Age], to the general assembly [of the Little Flock, typed by Moses, which has its first general gathering at the completed first resurrection; hence this was not from 1918 onward] and to the Church of the firstborn [these consist of both the Little Flock, typed by Moses, and the Great Company, typed by Aaron, Nadab and Abihu respectively representing the Millennial Eleazar and Ithamar, Ex. 24:1, 9, which the type of the two older sons suggests; hence after this Age is ended, since the Great Company as such is developed in the end of this Age; and hence this was not since 1918], who are enrolled in heaven [thus those who either as Little Flock members or as Great Company members finally overcome, a fact that can be in completion only at the end of the Epiphany; hence this cannot have been from 1918 onward] and to God [Ex. 24:10, 11, who cannot be seen until the end of the Age by the Faithful] the Judge [Rewarder] of all [the overcomers of this Age, a thing that can be completed only after the Epiphany; hence not since 1918. In the following we give what we consider the correct translation of the pertinent clause]; also [in addition to being the judge in the sense of rewarding the overcoming Little Flock and Great Company, He is also the Rewarder] of perfected ones [the Ancient and Youthful Worthies, typed by the 70 elders, Ex. 24:1, 9-11] just in their

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


dispositions [as respects faith and righteousness, for which in this life they had or are having trial. This is a thing that cannot come until the Millennium, after the deliverance of the Little Flock and the Great Company (Heb. 11:39, 40); therefore it could not have been from 1918 onward], and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant [typed by Moses (Ex. 24:1-8), being the Head of the Mediator, and thus standing for the whole, may be called the Mediator of the New Covenant, without in the least impinging against the thought that the Head and Body constitute the entire Mediator. This overthrows J.F.R.'s thought on his remnant's coming in 1918 to the Mediator as a proof of the Covenant's inauguration, Z '34, 148, 9], and to the blood [not the imputed merit that the Church has had from Pentecost onward in her faith justification, but to the applied merit that the world will get under the New Covenant, Ex. 24:5-8] of sprinkling [antitypical of that which Moses sprinkled on the book, people, tabernacle and vessels, Heb. 9:18-23], which speaketh better things [peace between God and man, and life and blessing for man] than that of Abel [which cried to God for vengeance on Cain for murdering Abel, Gen. 4:10]. 

"See that ye refuse not [obedience to] Him [God] that speaketh [by our Lord, Heb. 1:1, 2]. For if they [Fleshly Israel] escaped not [punishment and death] when they refused [obedience to] Him [God] that warned them on earth [i.e., with respect to the commands and prohibitions of an earthly Covenant], much more shall not we escape who turn away [in unbelief and disobedience] from Him [God] that warneth from heaven [on the commands and prohibitions of heavenly, spiritual Covenants implied in the relations between the Covenant of sacrifice and the Sarah Covenant, our Mother. The 'much more' does not connect the Law Covenant and the Sarah Covenant as type and antitype, but contrasts them, since the 



latter is so much higher than the New Covenant, the antitype of the Old Covenant], whose voice then shook the earth [made it quake, Ex. 19:18, 19]; but now [throughout the Gospel Age] He hath promised, saying, Yet once more will I shake not the earth only [society is now in state, capital, family and labor shaking by awful exposures, conflicts, crises, etc., of the present, incidental to the operation of the secular and religious Truth that the Lord has ever since 1874 been spreading everywhere, bringing to light the hidden things of darkness and making manifest the counsels of hearts, in His epiphanizing all things during His second presence, preparatory to the establishment of His Kingdom and the inauguration of the New Covenant]. 

"But also the heaven [the powers of spiritual control—the religious systems and leaders, whose creeds, organizations, practices and adherents are, by both the secular and religious Truth that the Lord is giving in His second presence, preparatory for the Kingdom and the New Covenant, being shaken and overthrown, to the discomfiture of the clergy, whose influence is by these exposures being undermined. These conditions, of course, mark the end of the Age and precede the inauguration of the New Covenant, even as their types (Ex. 19:16-19) preceded the inauguration of the Law Covenant (Ex. 24:5-8). Hence these shakings are not limited to Truth people as J.F.R. claims, Z '34, 149, 11-14]. And this word, 'Yet once more,' signifieth the removal [destruction in the Time of Trouble with which this Age ends, Dan. 12:1; Matt. 24:21, 22] of those things that are shaken [out of place], as of things that are fabricated [erroneously and sinfully made and done], that those things which are not shaken [truly and righteously made and done, and thus not overthrown in the pertinent tests, with which the end of the Age is especially marked

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


(Mal. 3:1-4; 1 Cor. 3:12-15); and thus they stand and do not fall] may remain [everlastingly]." This section with its particulars destroys the thought that the New Covenant was inaugurated in 1918; for the things it describes as preceding the New Covenant's inauguration are still in process of enacting, or are shortly to be enacted; and the things that accompany its inauguration are wholly future. 

As the twentieth general argument, we will merely quote and briefly expound 1 Tim 2:4-6, as a disproof of the theory under review; for J.F.R. claims (Z '34, 101, 10) that the New Covenant is for the Church only, as distinct from the remainder of mankind, and not for the world, and actually has the rashness to quote this passage as a proof for his view. Perhaps he quotes it to forestall its use against him; for this passage, contrary to his teachings, clearly proves that Jesus will be the Head of the Mediator for men: "God willeth to have all men [not the elect only, as J.F.R. says (Z '34, 104, 24), but the elect first, then the dead and living non-elect, all of whom together constitute "all men"] to be saved [not everlastingly in eternal life, as J.F.R. says (Z '34, 104, 24), but everlastingly from the Adamic sentence] and [additionally] to come unto an accurate knowledge of the Truth [after being freed from the Adamic sentence. For these two blessings the Apostle in the next two verses gives three reasons]; for [the first reason for the two blessings of v. 4] there is one God [the one God is the wise, just, loving and powerful Jehovah, whose unity finds its most emphatic expression in the perfection of His character, wherein perfect wisdom, power, justice and love blend in harmony with one another, and in such harmony dominate His other attributes of character, as well as His plans and works. Such a unity, especially such a character unity, is the first guarantee for the two blessings mentioned in v. 4, since He has sworn to work these two 



blessings: (1) to free from the curse; (2) and to give the Truth to all (Gen. 22:18)], and one Mediator between God and men. [Please note that in treating of the Mediator he does not say He is Mediator of all men mentioned in v. 4, but only a Mediator of men, not of those who are New Creatures; because Jesus is not the Mediator for the Church. The word men in the phrase, 'between God and men,' means all non-elect men, dead and living, when the New Covenant operates, i.e., in the Millennium; hence the New Covenant is intended not for the Church, but for all the non-elect, regardless of whether they happen to be living or dead at the inauguration of the New Covenant], the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom [a corresponding price for Adam's debt, and thus He is empowered to free all from the Adamic sentence and to give all the Truth] for all men. [This, then, the ransom for all men, is the second reason here given why God wills all men to be saved everlastingly from the Adamic sentence and additionally to come unto an exact knowledge of the Truth. This phrase, a ransom for all men, again proves that the word men in the phrase, 'between God and men,' not all men, in v. 5, means only the whole non-elect world, dead as well as living, those with whom the New Covenant will deal in the Millennium], the testimony for its own seasons [This is the third reason for the two blessings of v. 4. Note please the word seasons, plural, not season, singular. The Gospel Age is the due season to give the testimony of the ransom for all men, in order to the deliverance of the Elect from the Adamic sentence, and in order to their coming into an accurate knowledge of the Truth. This has been done on their behalf, that they might have a chance to gain the elective salvation. The Millennium is the due season to give the testimony of the ransom for all men, in order to the deliverance of the non-elect, dead and living, from the Adamic sentence,

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


and in order to their coming into an accurate knowledge of the Truth whereby they may be put on trial for life everlasting under the New Covenant arrangements]." This passage therefore refutes the New Covenant view of J.F.R. both in so far as it claims the New Covenant was inaugurated in 1918, and in so far as it denies that this Covenant will operate toward all the dead and living non-elect in the Millennium. His faulting (Z '34, 105, 25) our Pastor for saying that the testimony is for all men in their due seasons comes with poor grace, when we consider that our Pastor was his benefactor. 

Our twenty-first general argument for the time when the New Covenant will operate, as against J.F.R.'s theory on the subject, is the harmony of the view that we have presented with itself, with all Scripture passages and doctrines, with God's character and the sin-offerings, with the purposes of the Scriptures and with facts, while J.F.R.'s theory is in disharmony with itself, e.g., making the New Covenant (Z '34, 101, 10) operate over those that the Bible calls "new creatures" (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17), whereas the New Covenant is an earthly covenant to develop human beings to perfection; also claiming it to be made over 1900 years before it Scripturally will be made to operate, etc. J.F.R.'s theory contradicts all the many passages that we have quoted on the New Covenant. It contradicts numerous Scriptural doctrines, e.g., (1) the multitudinous Mediator, (2) the Covenants, (3) the two sin-offerings sealing the New Covenant, and (4) the exclusive operation of the New Covenant after the Gospel Age. It contradicts God's character; for it makes Him offer the brethren from Pentecost onward things that belie and belittle what He actually did offer and give them. It impinges against the Ransom by making it impossible for it to be used as a corresponding price for Adam and his race in the next Age; for if it sealed the New Covenant 



for the Gospel Age none of it would exist after this Age for the world's use. It is contrary to the purposes of God's plan toward the Church and the world. And it denies facts; for all the facts prove that the New Covenant has not yet operated and will not operate until this Age ends. His view, therefore, contradicts the seven axioms. 

J.F.R.'s new view on the New Covenant as having been made at Calvary and inaugurated in 1918 is supported by nothing except sophisms, perversions, self-contradictions and extraordinarily arbitrary interpretations. We will merely mention without comment those of them not previously refuted, since they are so glaringly erroneous: (1) All God's covenants are bilateral, i.e., conditional; (2) his view of the Oath-bound Covenant's and Jehovah's alleged organization being two women implies that the Seed has two mothers; (3) Moses' mission to Egypt types Jesus' First Advent; (4) it was not an object of the Law to give life to the obedient; (5) Jesus not a Son of the Law Covenant; (6) not fleshly Israel, but his remnant is meant by the Israel of Rom. 11:25-33; (7) the fullness of the Gentiles does not mean the full number of the Gentile Elect; but the full time up to Cornelius' conversion, 36 A. D.; (8) the ungodliness of Rom. 11:26 is the Parousial teachings on character development, the Pyramid and obedience to civil rulers; (9) 2 Cor. 3 proves that the New Covenant is the Gospel-Age-operating Covenant; (10) the change into the same image (2 Cor. 3:18) not one of character but the transubstantiation of antitypical Elijah into antitypical Elisha; (11) Rom. 15:4 proves the New Covenant, as one of the things previously written about for our learning, operates during the Gospel Age; (12) the servants of the letter (2 Cor. 3:6) are the admirers of Pastor Russell's writings; (13) the Lord's Goat is his remnant (those following him since 1919); (14) Keturah's children cannot type the

Second Miscellany on Right-Eye, etc. 


restitutionists: (15) the promise of the Kingdom began to operate in 1918; (16) the Law Covenant made to type the New Covenant's getting a people for God's name; (17) the New Covenant does not give life to its subjects; (18) all God's Covenants with others, so far as He is concerned, are eternal; (19) in the transfiguration scene Elijah represents Jesus during the work from 1874 to 1918, and Moses therein represents him as Prophet, Priest and King from 1874 to 1918; (20) Elijah's restoring all things means restituting the things once existing, but later lost in Israel—the doctrine of God's name (which elsewhere he teaches was not restored until 1922) and of the kingdom; (21) the restitution and refreshing of Acts 3:19, 21 are respectively the restoring of the lost truths and the rejoicing of his remnant since 1919; (22) the residue of men (Acts 14:17) are his proselytes since 1922; (23) there will be no Millennial Covenant with the restitution class; (24) the only Covenant operating during the Millennium will be the Oath-bound Covenant between God and the Seed. 

His course since late in 1916, as described in Matt. 24:48-51; Zech. 11:15-17; 2 Tim. 3:1-9, as well as in numerous types, which some day we will lay before the Church, proves that in head and heart he has gone so wrong that God put a fivefold curse on him, described in the above passages: (1) sudden cutting off from the high calling; (2) gradual loss of the Truth; (3) gradual loss of his influence over New Creatures and faithful Youthful Worthies; (4) a gradual undergoing of the punishments of a hypocrite and (5) a gradual experiencing of great chagrin, sorrow and disappointment. Inexpressibly sad is such a fate; but it is the Divine will for the one who so grossly sinned by omission and commission against the Little Flock, the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies and the Tentatively Justified (Zech. 11:6), who so grossly transgressed against the Lord, the Truth and his fellow- 



servants (Matt. 24:48, 49); and whose character, as that of the chief of the Truth Jambresites, is so wicked as to be truly described, with that of Jambresites, in 2 Tim. 3:2-8. This is the root explanation of his gross aberrations. Our perseverance in refuting his errors is not, as he falsely charges, due to a desire to take revenge for his unjust acts against us and to gain his office as president of the Society, but to obedience to the charge of Zech. 11:15 out of love for God, the Truth and the brethren, and hatred for error, sin and exploitation of the brethren, of which evils he has been very increasingly and grossly guilty. Since May, 1935, we have reviewed no more of his writings, because our reviews sufficiently prove him a hopeless case; and what he has since then (from the Apr., 1935, Tower onward) written is so erroneous, clearly patent as such to Truth people, that it would be unprofitable to use time to refute his ever increasing drunken folly in right-eye darkening; for every new thought he gives shows such folly, adding to the drying up of his arm, which will continue until his right eye will be entirely darkened and his arm clean dried up. "O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united"—Gen. 49:6! 

I want a sober mind, 

A self-renouncing will, 

That tramples down and casts behind, 

The baits of pleasing ill; 

I want a godly fear, 

A quick, discerning eye, 

That looks to thee when sin is near, 

And sees the tempter fly; 

A spirit still prepared, 

And armed with jealous care; 

Forever standing on its guard, 

And watching unto prayer.