SIGNS OF THE TIMES AMONG TRUTH PEOPLE. 

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AMONG GOD'S PEOPLE SINCE OUR PASTOR'S DEATH. SEPARATION OF ELIJAH AND ELISHA. AZAZEL'S GOAT. SIXTY LEVITE GROUPS. THE ADVANCING LIGHT. THE FIRSTFRUIT WAVE LOAVES. THE FLOOD YEAR. BEREAN QUESTIONS. 

‍

THE THEME of this chapter requires some explanation to make clear its meaning. Especially is this true of the words, "it all." By the words, "it all," we refer especially to the happenings among God's people since the death of our dear Pastor. What is the meaning of the peculiar events among God's people since our Pastor's death? This is the thought that we have condensed into the question taken as our subject. This question implies that there have been significant things happening among the Lord's people since our Pastor went beyond the vail. These things are to be considered as signs of the times that deserve our attention, understanding and responsiveness. To deny that these events are highly significant and altogether different from any other events among God's people would betray a woeful inability to discern the signs of the times. And to understand them will prove helpful from many standpoints, particularly from the standpoint of assisting us to take an intelligent and Divinely warranted stand toward these things and their resultant conditions. 

(2) It is undeniable that very unusual things have taken place since our Pastor left us. While he was with us in the flesh there was peace among us. We were a united people. We loved the same table of Truth; we developed the same spirit of fellowship; we ministered to the same Truth, and that by the same 

A Miscellany. 

8 

general methods. Those were joyous days of feasting, fellowship, growth and service. We all had the same bond of peace, the same spirit of oneness, the same hope of our high calling, the same work of service, the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism and the same God as Father, all of which were the joy and rejoicing of our hearts. But in many of these respects changes have set in, and now we are no longer a united people; we do not in many ways believe the same things. Some of us have repudiated some of our former beliefs and have accepted discordant ones in their stead. Many of our former practices some have set aside, taking others in their place. Some among us have revolutionized against many of the teachings and arrangements that the Lord gave us through "that Servant." Leaders among us—some real and some would-be—have made divisions among us; and thus we see that many things have been occurring among us that must be significant. 

(3) To some these things have a general significance as implying peculiar events; but they do not see any special Scriptural significance in them. But surely, beloved, events overshadowing many other events that we do recognize as being pointed out in the Bible must also be Biblically marked. We believe that these events are Scripturally indicated. Since some of these events are among the most important happenings among any one generation of God's people, it would be contrary to the Scriptural procedure and the Scriptural teaching for them not to be set forth in the Scriptures. Do we not recall the Lord's assurance that He would do nothing in His plan except such things as He would set forth in the Word (Amos 3:7)? This being the case we should expect to find some Biblical prophecies or types referring to these momentous events. If our hearts are hungry, humble, meek, honest and holy (consecrated), we will eventually be among those to whom the Scriptural meanings of these 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

9 

events will be unfolded. We believe that among other things there are especially three Scriptural lines of thought that find their fulfillments in the remarkable events among God's people since "that Servant" left us. Let us see by the Lord's help what these three things are. 

(4) The first of these great events, Scripturally marked, is the 1917 separation of the Lord's people into two general divisions: (1) adherents of the Society under its "present management" and (2) non-adherents of the Society under its "present management." This separation corresponds as antitype with type in the minutest details with the separation between Elijah and Elisha. Let us note this correspondence. We all recall that our Pastor pointed out that Elijah's and Elisha's coming to Jordan typed the crown retainers and the rest of the Lord's people in the Truth coming in 1914 to the peoples in Christendom judged down unto the wrath of the Time of Trouble. The smiting of Jordan by Elijah corresponds to the crown retainers from Oct., 1914, to Nov., 1916, chastising Christendom for its great sins that led up to and brought about the war; while Elisha's not smiting, but walking along with Elijah, types the consecrated who were not of the Little Flock either abstaining altogether or, shortly after beginning, ceasing from denouncing Christendom's sins, but sympathizing with antitypical Elijah in this work. The antitypes being unharmed is pictured in the two prophets crossing the river's bed dry shod. These events certainly occurred from the fall of 1914 to that of 1916. Elijah's and Elisha's walking and talking together after crossing Jordan until their separation, corresponds to the peaceable fellowship of all the consecrated in the Word, work and Spirit of the Lord until the separation set in. But just as the peaceable fellowship and communion of Elijah and Elisha was broken up by their separation, so the sweet fellowship in the Word, service and Spirit of

A Miscellany. 

10 

the Lord between the crown retainers and the other consecrated brethren, from the standpoint of mouthpieceship toward the world, ceased with the separation which set in among the Lord's people in the summer of 1917. Let us not forget that our dear Pastor in Jan. 1916, forecast that this separation was to be expected within a little more than a year, which now we see did actually take place within a year and a half (Z '16, 39, col. 2, par. 2). 

(5) That this setting is correct the facts clearly prove. All must admit that there was peaceful fellowship in the Church, in general, following the first smiting of Jordan until the summer of 1917. All must admit that this peaceful fellowship was broken up in the summer of 1917, and that by the greatest division which has ever occurred among God's consecrated people. All must further admit that this separation divided God's people into two classes: (1) adherents of the Society under its present management and (2) non-adherents of the Society under its present management. Consequently the breaking up of the fellowship among God's people and the dividing of them into two classes after antitypical Jordan's first smiting must be the long expected and predicted separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha; for there could be no breach of harmony between them until after the first smiting; and the breach after that must have been their separation. To this conclusion all the preceding, accompanying and following events agree in the perfect harmony of an antitype with its type. Above we have shown the harmony in the events of type and antitype preceding the separation. Let us now look briefly at the accompanying and following events. First let us examine the accompanying events. 

(6) Just as the two prophets walked on peacefully communing together until the fiery chariot and horses appeared and separated them, so did the Little Flock as God's mouthpiece to the world and the rest of the 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

11 

consecrated walk and talk together in sweet communion until the antitypical chariot and horses drove between and separated them. In the symbols of the Bible, chariots represent organizations (Berean Comments on Ex. 14:9; Is. 31:1; etc.). The chariot of Israel would fittingly represent the most important organization among the Lord's people—the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which has always been more important than the People's Pulpit Association and the International Bible Students' Association, as organizations. The fieriness of the chariot types the trials in which the Society, as consisting of the Board and its officers, was involved, on account of the Society's president usurping authority over the Board, especially as exemplified in his busybodying in our work as the Board's special representative in Britain and on account of his recalling us, the Board's special representative, without the authorization or knowledge of the Board, which usurpatory acts and other usurpatory acts of the Society's president moved the Board's majority to seek to abolish his powers as executive and manager as well as his usurped controllership. This course of the Board's majority occasioned the president usurpatorially to oust these four directors. This whole course of events was very trialsome to the Society as consisting of the Board and its officers, hence the antitypical fiery chariot. Horses in Biblical symbols type teachings, secular or religious. (See Berean Comments on Is. 31:1; Rev. 6:2; 19:14; etc.) The supposedly legal but actually illegal teachings that the Society's president claimed necessitated the ousting of the four directors (who sought to put an end to his unholy ambition and usurpation) and the appointment of four pseudo-directors, are represented by the horses; and their fieriness types their trialsomeness. The horsemen represent the so-called "present management"—the Society's president, his special representative and its secretary-treasurer.

A Miscellany. 

12 

These officials manipulated these illegal doctrines in such a way as to drag the sorely tried Board, as an organization, before the entire Church unto dividing the latter into two parts—those siding with the Board's majority and those siding with the "present management." It is undeniable that this combination of things—the illegal doctrines and the sorely tried Board—by the driving power of the present management was made to divide the Church by forcing the brethren to decide for or against the present management, and to end the peaceful union, co-operation and fellowship between the Little Flock and the rest of the consecrated in the Truth. Henceforth this division persisted, about 10,000 being on one side, and from about 30,000 to 40,000 being on the other side; and this undoubtedly antitypes the separation between Elijah and Elisha. 

(7) If the separation of 1917, which followed the first smiting of Jordan and the sweet fellowship of the Lord's people after that smiting, is not the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, how can there be a separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha with the Church so thoroughly divided as it is now? The only possible place to find a separation that antitypes that of Elijah and Elisha is where we put it. All the facts agree with this and do not agree with any other setting. It is the completeness of this agreement of type and antitype from the standpoint of the above setting, combined with the necessary conclusion flowing therefrom—that the partisan Society adherents are of the Great Company—that forced the Tower to give up our Pastor's view of the Elijah and Elisha type and to invent four others successively to evade this necessary conclusion. Also the P.B.I., repudiating this setting, and seeing that the present divided condition of the Church makes a future separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha impossible, have given up faith in the separation of Elijah and Elisha as being at all typical. Thus the 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

13 

repudiations of these two groups is strongly confirmatory of the truthfulness of the above setting. 

(8) When we look at the events connected with, but following, the separation among the Lord's people in 1917, we again find a complete conformity between them and the events connected with, but following Elijah's and Elisha's separation, which third form of conformity would be a conclusive proof of the correctness of our understanding of this type and antitype. Elisha's cry, "My father, my father," types the Society adherents' recognition of, surprise and sorrow at and discussion of, such prominent brethren, as the Elijah leaders and their companions were, as being separated from them and as being accused of attempting to wreck the Society! His cry, "The chariot of Israel," types the Society adherents' recognition of, surprise and sorrow at, discussion of and agitation for the Society as the supposed channel, as being involved in such trials and supposed danger. His cry "And the horsemen thereof," types the Society adherents' recognition of, surprise and sorrow at, discussion of, and agitation for the present management as being in the predicament in which the trouble indicated them to be. Certainly the Society adherents, antitypical Elisha, made this threefold cry in the antitype. 

(9) It will be noted that before Elisha uttered this threefold cry, it is said of him, "he saw." In the Hebrew it is not said what he saw. The A.V. inserts the word "it" in italics, thereby indicating that this word has no corresponding word in the original. We believe the word, him, should be supplied, since the statement, he saw, is the record of the fact that Elisha saw—recognized—Elijah up to the time of their separation: the condition that Elijah told him he would have to fulfill in order to become his successor (2 Kings 2:10, 12). This types the fact that the Elisha class recognized the Elijah class as the Lord's mouthpiece to the world up to the time of the separation. And

A Miscellany. 

14 

the expression, "He saw him no more" (v. 12), records the fact that Elisha after the separation no longer recognized Elijah as he had previously done, typing the fact that antitypical Elisha no longer recognized the Elijah class as formerly. Certainly this has had its fulfillment. No more are the Faithful recognized by the Society adherents. Instead the "avoid them" policy has been enacted by the Society adherents against the faithful Elijah class. 

(10) Elisha's rending his garments in twain types the violence unto double-mindness (Jas. 1:8) committed by the Society adherents to their character graces by the wrongs that they committed in the separation; for they grossly violated truth and righteousness by their course at the separation. The falling of Elijah's mantle types the letting go of the power of being God's mouthpiece to the world on the part of the Faithful. This occurred through their representatives'—the five directors—letting the power of controlling the instrumentalities, agencies and finances, whereby the work was done, slip out of their hands at the insistence of usurpers. Elisha's picking it up types the Society adherents' taking up controllership of the work. Elisha's return to the Jordan represents the Society adherents' giving their attention to public work toward Christendom judged down to the wrath of the time of wrath. His standing at the Jordan types their preparation and readiness to work toward the peoples; and his smiting Jordan types the Society adherents' chastising—rebuking—Christendom for its sins, through Vol. VII, lectures, conversations and the Fall of Babylon tract. These acts were set into operation about the fall of 1917. Thus they followed the separation which took place in the summer of that year. Thus we have examined the events preceding, accompanying and following the separation, and they show a perfect correspondence between themselves and the type, even as we should expect to find as between type and antitype. 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

15 

(11) It is easy for us—by a simple test—to see who antitypical Elisha is. As in the type Elisha had the mantle after the separation, so in the antitype that class must be antitypical Elisha who had the mantle after the separation. The mantle types the powers of mouthpieceship toward the world. These powers were the instrumentalities (the Truth literature), the agencies (the Bethel family, pilgrims, colporteurs, volunteers, etc.) and the finances, whereby it was possible to do the work. Who had and controlled these powers after the separation? Undoubtedly those who remained with the Society and who by their representatives—"the present management," the new board, etc.—carried on the work. Therefore they must be antitypical Elisha. 

(12) We repeat it: The perfect correspondence between the type and our understanding of the antitype forced the Society's president (in order to evade the conclusion that he was leading the Great Company) to repudiate our Pastor's view of Elijah and Elisha; for our above-given understanding points out the actual fulfillment of the antitype along the lines that our Pastor forecast that it would occur. And it also forced the P.B.I. (in order to evade the conclusion that the Lord made use of us as the special representative of the antitypical Elijah class at the separation, and in giving the truth on the fulfillment of the Elijah and Elisha separation, as the Society's president was the special representative of the Elisha class at the separation and the one to give the error on the subject), to give up faith in the typical character of the separation of Elijah and Elisha. These two facts are eloquent with proof of the correctness of the setting of the antitypical fulfillment as given above. We have treated the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha in detail in Vol. III, Chapter II, to which we refer our readers for these details. Truly this understanding gives a Scriptural, reasonable and factual explanation of the separation between the Lord's people during 1917. Beloved 

A Miscellany. 

16 

brethren, "can ye not discern the signs of the times" therein? 

(13) A second set of remarkable events has been enacting since our dear Pastor went beyond the vail: (1) revolutions against the Lord's teachings and arrangements given through "that Servant" on the part of various leaders, supported partisanly therein by their adherents; and (2) a steadfast resistance to such revolutions on the part of those who have been faithful to such teachings and arrangements, which resistance culminated in the resisters' withdrawing of priestly fellowship from the revolutionists. It is undeniable: (1) that revolutionism has been committed against the Lord's teachings and arrangements given through "that Servant" on the part of certain leaders who have therein received partisan support by many of their followers; and (2) that the Faithful resisted them unto withdrawal of priestly fellowship. In Britain this revolutionism began through Bros. Shearn's and Crawford's seeking to subvert our Pastor's Tabernacle arrangements and set aside many of his Bethel arrangements. In such revolutionism they received partisan support from others. Supported by not a few, we resisted them steadfastly until their stubbornness in revolutionism forced us to withdraw priestly fellowship from them. In America the present management conspired to put into the hands of the Society's president all our Pastor's powers, despite his contrary arrangements in the charter and will. This conspiracy was resisted by the so-called "opposition." The conspirators retaliated by ousting the Board's majority, depriving us of opportunities of service, driving us and others from Bethel and most deceitfully misrepresenting the situation to the Church through Harvest Siftings and a convention, pilgrim and correspondence campaign the world over. A little later the Sturgeonites and Ritchieites enviously revolutionized against the evident prominent use the Lord was making of us in resisting the revolutionists

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

17 

and in giving the truth on antitypical Elijah and Elisha. 

(14) In 1918, by a series of acts like those of the "present management," occurring on the anniversaries of the latter's acts, the P.B.I. revolutionized against the Lord's arrangements on giving meat in due season and sought to foist a corporation on the Church to manage its work. These things were resisted by us and our supporters steadfastly until the withdrawal of priestly fellowship from the P.B.I. Board and their partisans was made necessary. Shortly afterwards the Standfast brethren began to revolutionize by endorsing the Society's revolutionism up to Passover, 1918, discouraging all further work apart from "comforting the Brethren," and fighting the Epiphany work. Olsonism with its false teachings on Revelation, etc., by its leaders, who were not appointed to the pilgrim office by the Lord through "that Servant," assuming the privilege of teaching the General Church, and by its attacks on the Epiphany work, reared its head in revolutionism, which was resisted by the Epiphany saints until the latter withdrew priestly fellowship from the former. Then the Hirshites revolted against certain arrangements for the training of prospective elders as set forth by our Pastor, against confining Church voting to the Spirit-begotten members of the Church, and against certain Epiphany arrangements in dealing with Levites. Here again the Faithful resisted until priestly fellowship was withdrawn from the former by the latter. 

(15) In the two preceding paragraphs the beginnings of revolutionism in eight groups are set forth. But the revolutionists did not limit themselves to such revolutionism. They went very much further in the wrong. The Tower editors, especially their leader, the Society's president, began to set aside various of our Pastor's teachings to introduce opposing errors, e.g., on Elijah and Elisha, tentative justification, Youthful Worthies, various parables, the jubilee, etc., etc., until 

A Miscellany. 

18 

literally hundreds of errors have been introduced and hundreds of our Pastor's teachings and interpretations have been repudiated. They have so greatly changed his arrangements for conducting the work that one cannot recognize in what they are now doing the work as he arranged for it to be done. The P.B.I. have added to their initial revolutionism. They adopted a charter that in not a few ways is revolutionary of the sample charter for controlling corporations among Truth people. On doctrinal questions they have gone astray on large parts of Revelation and Daniel, and on the entire chronology they have adopted nominal church views as against our Pastor's, whom they deny to have been "that Servant"! Similarly, others of the above-mentioned revolutionists have added to their initial revolutionisms. 

(16) In every instance we and our supporters have resisted these revolutionisms. The columns of The Present Truth contain many articles exposing these errors of doctrine and wrongs of practice. The Lord has enabled us in every case successfully to refute these errors of doctrine and to reprove these wrongs of practice. So steadfast have we been in defending the Truth and its arrangements and in refuting the errors and their arrangements that even our revolutionistic brethren have had to admit that we stand consistently for the teachings and arrangements that our dear Pastor gave. Our course in this respect has been misrepresented as a contentious and cantankerous one by the revolutionists, who at first attempted to answer our presentations. But our replies so completely crushed their answers that they have ceased attempting replies, alleging that they stand for peace and will have nothing to do with controversy, thereby pretending great meekness in contrast with what they allege to be our contentious spirit! When did our Lord, our Pastor and other faithful servants of the Truth keep silent when their presentations were attacked and errors were 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

19 

introduced (Micah 5:5, 6)? Certainly they acted as we do in similar conditions, and not like the revolutionists. 

(17) But what is the significance of such revolutionism and its steadfast resistance, both of which as prominent events have impressed the Lord's people? We understand such revolutionism to correspond to Azazel's goat seeking to extricate itself from the grasp of the high priest, and such resistance to correspond to the high priest dragging Azazel's goat from the door of the tabernacle to the gate of the court. We have treated of this subject in great detail in Vol. IV, Chapter III. Here we will limit ourselves to generalities. That the sin of the Great Company is revolutionism is evident from Ps. 107:10, 11, which we will quote and explain after first giving a summary of the Psalm: Vs. 1-9 treat of the Little Flock; 10-16 of the Great Company; 17-22 of Fleshly Israel during the Gospel Age and at its end; 23-32 of the world during and at the end of the great tribulation; 33-38 of the Millennial conditions and people; 39-42 of the good and evil in the Little Season; and 43 shows that whoever understands this Psalm will understand Jehovah's plan for the human family. According to this setting, vs. 10-16 treat of the Great Company. We now will quote and in brackets explain verses 10 and 11: "Such as sit in darkness [error into which the Lord permits the Great Company class to fall while they are in Azazel's hands] and in the shadow of death [danger of the Second Death, to which their willfulness nearly brings them], being bound in affliction [Satanic temptations, 1 Pet. 5:8, 9] and iron [strong bonds of selfishness, worldliness and sin]; because they REBELLED [revolutionized] against the words [teachings] of the Lord, and CONTEMNED [despised; considered as of small and negligible account] the counsel of the Most High." [God's Plan consists of a series of truths, facts and arrangements, whose setting aside in any particular is contempt against the whole 

A Miscellany. 

20 

plan (Jas. 2:10). Certainly, therefore, setting aside the arrangements for doing the Lord's work, given through "that Servant," is contemning God's counsel, Plan.] 

(18) This passage, as shown above, treats of the Great Company. It charges them with (1) revolutionism against the teachings of the Lord and (2) with contempt of His arrangements. The repudiation of various of the Lord's teachings and arrangements this passage proves to be the sin—especially the manifesting sin—of the Great Company. Revolutionism manifests them as such. Only then, according to this passage, do we know that a New Creature is of the Great Company, when he revolutionizes against the Lord's teachings and arrangements. We cannot be sure of their loss of their crowns by other sins than revolutionism, for we cannot judge what degree of other wrongs effects the forfeiture of one's crown; but when New Creatures revolutionize against the Lord's teachings and arrangements, we are by the Lord (through such revolutionism) informed that such revolutionists have lost their crowns and are thus in the Great Company. Ps. 107:10, 11 is the passage whereby God gives us this information. We do not judge them. God, by their conduct, judges them; and, as explained in this Scripture, by their revolutionism, He manifests them to the Faithful as Levites—Great Company members. Let us repeat it: We do not judge them when we, on account of their manifested revolutionism, DECLARE them to be Great Company members. We thereby merely announce God's judgment previously given by Him and now, through their revolutionism, as shown in this Scripture, manifested to us. Our Pastor taught that after the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha and before the Faithful would leave the earth, they would know who are of the Great Company, even as the following quotation (Z '16, 264, par. 1) proves: "It will be after the

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

21 

smiting of Jordan—after the division of the people by the Message of the Truth and the mantle of Elijah's power—that the separation of the Church into two classes will take place. Thereafter, the Elijah class, the Little Flock class, will be CLEARLY MANIFESTED, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT from the Great Company class. The division, be it remembered, will be caused by the fiery chariot—some very severe, trying ordeal, which the Elect class will promptly accept and enter into; the Elisha class holding back from the persecution, but not drawing back to sin or to a repudiation of the Lord. It will be but a little later on that the whirlwind (probably anarchy) will bring about the 'change' of the Elijah class." Another quotation from him (1916 Convention Report, 198, Question 10) reads as follows: "The Great Company class will first be manifested when the Elijah class will be separated [from it] by the fiery chariot; and from that time and onward it would be proper to speak of some as being of the Little Flock and others of the Great Company … After the Lord has manifested the distinction between the Elijah class, the Royal Priesthood class, and the Great Company class, the Elisha class, then thereafter those will be represented as being in the Court." 

(19) Let us repeat it until the thought is thoroughly grasped: It is their revolutionism against God's teachings and arrangements that manifests the crown-losers as such to the faithful and enlightened Little Flock. The necessity of their knowing the crown-losers as such springs out of their ministry toward them; for apart from such knowledge how could they intelligently lead them in their humanity as Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court, deliver them to the fit man and still later on abandon them in Azazel's hands (Lev. 16:20-22)? How could they apart from such knowledge consider them as no longer in the Holy, but as antitypical 

A Miscellany. 

22 

Levites in the Court, whom they with and under their Head consecrate to their Levitical work (Num. 8:13; comp. 8:5-26)? Aaron's sons would have been blind—a quality which would have disqualified them for priestly ministration, and thus for the service of consecrating the Levites (Lev. 21:16-24)—if they could not have seen the Levites as such, whom they together with Aaron were cleansing and consecrating to Levitical service. So in the antitype, during the cleansing and consecrating of the Great Company as antitypical Levites, not only the High Priest, Jesus, but the Under-priests cleanse and consecrate the Great Company as Levites, and therefore the Under-priests would be blind as to this service and thus disqualified for it, if they could not see who are of the Great Company. Let no one therefore, brethren, any longer say that we are indulging in forbidden judging when we declare the Lord's manifested judgment as to the Great Companyship of revolutionizing new creatures. 

(20) Let us now briefly look at the picture of Azazel's goat (Lev. 16:20-22) and note the correspondence of type and antitype. That Azazel's [averter's and perverter's] goat was tied to the door of the tabernacle is implied by the Hebrew word translated "set" (Lev. 16:7), which means "to station," "to fix." No goat, seeing the other goat killed and the high priest entering and leaving the Holy at least twice, would have stood still during the time of such events—over an hour—unless tied. According to the Pyramid the last member of the Lord's Goat class was placed upon the altar Sept. 16, 1914. Immediately thereafter the World's High Priest, Jesus and the faithful Church, began to confess Christendom's sins in the hearing of the Great Company. This confession is another picture of the acts that constituted Elijah's smiting Jordan, antitypical Gideon's First Battle and the saints' binding the kings and princes, etc. (Ps. 149:5-9). Certain it is that from the public meeting at the Fort Worth 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

23 

Convention (Sept. 20, 1914) onward until Nov. 1916, great emphasis was put upon declaring the sins of Christendom that led up to and caused the World War. The war itself became the occasion for such activity. This was done by our Pastor's sermons in the papers, by his and the pilgrims' lectures, by the colporteurs' specializing on Vol. IV, and by the volunteers' distributing pertinent tracts, such as, Distress of Nations, Social Conditions beyond Human Remedy, Why Financiers Tremble, Clergy Ordination Proven Fraudulent, The World On Fire, etc. And it was not the Great Company brethren who did this work in the Lord's Spirit unto a completion. They listened to it being done, as Azazel's goat heard Aaron confess the sins over it. 

(21) As in the type, the next step was loosing Azazel's goat, untying it, so the antitypical Goat of Azazel was untied, given more liberty. This occurred by two things: (1) by the World's High Priest, Head and Body, permitting such errors to spread on our Pastor's powers as "that Servant" as emboldened various Great Company brethren to disregard his authority as "that Servant," and consequently to seek to set aside his arrangements for doing the work; and (2) by the Head of the World's High Priest removing "that Servant's" powerful hold on the controllership of the work through his death. These two things gave the restive revolutionistic antitypical Goat opportunities for revolutionism that they did not have before these two things set in. This burst for liberty, self-will, began in England, where the first-named unloosing act set in at least a year before our Pastor died, and resulted in efforts being put forth to get our Pastor to give up the exercise of his controllership in the London Tabernacle and Bethel. The Lord knowing fully, and our Pastor knowing measurably, what was going on, selected us to be the priest in the flesh who should especially represent them in handling, under our Head, 

A Miscellany. 

24 

the revolutionists. Accordingly, after our Pastor's death the British section of Azazel's Goat made a dash for liberty. They found that the rope that was about them was in hands that jerked them off their feet! The Lord Jesus through us and our supporters firmly and victoriously resisted their revolutions, led the Goat to the Gate, and because of their stubbornness in due time withdrew priestly fellowship from these revolutionists, delivered the Goat to the fit man, unfavorable circumstances. 

(22) On our return to America we found that "the present management" had so far gone into error on "that Servant's" powers in regulating the work by his arrangements, charter and will as to consider their provisions negligible—contemned the counsel of the Most High, e.g., discontinuing the newspaper service, disarranging the pastoral and the Angelophone work, taking away controllership from the Board, securing for the Society's president all our Pastor's controllership of the work, etc., etc., as well as rejecting tentative justification in talks before the Bethel family, but not yet in the Tower articles, etc. On seeing these things, we set ourself against them and rallied five of the seven directors to the work of resisting such revolutionism and of attempting to secure the operation of our Pastor's arrangements and teachings in the work. This led Azazel's Goat in America, headed by the "present management," to give mighty jerks on the rope. Such jerks were: depriving us of service, ousting the four directors, driving us and others from Bethel, falsifying the conditions to the Bethel family, publishing a thoroughly dishonest Harvest Siftings, and campaigning by conventions, pilgrim visits, conversation and correspondence to win the Church to their support. The World's High Priest gave counter jerks, by Light After Darkness, Harvest Siftings Reviewed, Facts For Shareholders, etc. The arbitrariness of the "present management" and its partisan

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

25 

supporters caused the World's High Priest to withdraw priestly fellowship from these—to deliver them to the fit man, and later to abandon them to Azazel. 

(23) In principle these same things were done to the Sturgeonites, Ritchieites, P.B.I.'s, Olsonites, Standfasters and Hirshites on account of their revolutionisms. Our Lord's repeated attacks through The Present Truth on the errors of the Tower, of the P.B.I. Herald, of Olsonism's views, of Standfastism, of the Elijah Voice Society, etc., are only so many jerks that the World's High Priest has been giving to Azazel's Goat in connection with each form of its revolutionism. The Priesthood gave steadfast resistance. Beloved brethren, it is not contentiousness and cantankerousness on our part that prompts us to resist these revolutionisms. It is a genuine devotion to Truth and righteousness that animates us therein. Why? Because Satan through the revolutionists seeks to destroy the Truth and the Truth arrangements in order to ruin God's people and plan. Knowing this, his fell purpose, as an enlightened and faithful servant of the Truth and the Lord's people, and entrusted with such a work by the Lord, we have thrown ourself athwart the course of these revolutionists, determined by the Lord's grace to resist them unto the utmost—until they throw up their hands in surrender, as those of them who will retain the Holy Spirit surely will do in due time; for the Lord has given us a mouth and wisdom that none of our adversaries can gainsay or resist. They tried it; but have given up the attempt as useless. Why so? Because God's Truth is stronger than Azazel's errors. It is not by ability of our own that we have the Truth and the victory. It is solely the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Thus have we explained Scripturally the second set of events that have been occurring among the Lord's people since our Pastor's death. "Can ye not discern the signs of the times" in them? 

A Miscellany. 

26 

(24) We now come to the third set of events among the Lord's people since our dear Pastor's death: the division of the Great Company into many groups. These divisions, we understand, correspond as antitype to the divisions of the Levites. Our Pastor told us that in the end of the Age, after the reaping was over, the Levites would be manifested in their various groups. This division we see going on before our eyes. In the type there were three general classes of Levites: the Kohathites, the Merarites and the Gershonites (Num. 3:17). It will be noted that the Kohathites had no wagons, or chariots (Num. 7:9); likewise the priests had none; while the Merarites had four (Num. 7:8) and the Gershonites had two (Num. 7:7). We have seen that wagons, or chariots, type organizations. The priests have not had, nor do they have, earthly organizations to do their work. But we notice that many of the revolutionists also will have nothing to do with organizations controlling their work. These unorganized revolutionists are the antitypical Kohathites. 

(25) There are two groups of organized revolutionists: (1) those who sought to gain and succeeded in gaining control of our Pastor's corporations: corporations that were dummy, inactive corporations during his life, he controlling everything; and (2) those who sought, but failed to gain control of our Pastor's organizations and then proceeded to form several of their own. The former correspond to the Mahlite Merarites, the latter to the Gershonites. The Mushite Merarites in The Elijah Voice Society formed a Society. Thus we find among the revolutionistic New Creatures three general groups antityping the Kohathites, the Merarites and the Gershonites. 

(26) But the three general groups of Levites were divided into eight subdivisions: two of which were Gershonites—Libnites and Shimites, four of which were Kohathites—Amramites, Izeharites, Hebronites

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

27 

and Uzzielites, and two of which were Merarites—Mahlites and Mushites (Num. 3:17-20). Accordingly, we are to look for eight subdivisions among the three general groups of antitypical Levites; and these we certainly find. Above we showed that certain of the antitypical Levites—those who do not believe in organizations controlling their work—are the antitypes of the Kohathites. These antitypical Kohathites consist of four subdivisions, antitypical of the four divisions of the Kohathites. The Sturgeonites are the antitypical Uzzielites; the Ritchieites are the antitypical Hebronites; the Olsonites are the antitypical Izeharites and the Hirshites are the antitypical Amramites. None of these, as antitypical Kohathites, have organizations in control of their work. Above we have seen that the Mahlite Merarites type those who gained control of our Pastor's organizations, which were three antitypical wagons: (1) The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society, (2) The People's Pulpit Association and (3) The International Bible Students' Association. The Society adherents gained control of these at the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha in 1917. The next year the Society adherents split into two parts: (1) those who endorsed the military compromises of the Society leaders after their arrest, by remaining with the Society, and (2) those who disapproved of these by withdrawing from the Society—the Standfasters. The latter then formed an organization as a committee which functioned for awhile, but finally disappeared to be followed by the Elijah Voice Society, a branch of the Standfasters. The Society adherents correspond antitypically to the Mahli Merarites and the Standfasters to the Mushi Merarites; and the four above-mentioned organizations correspond antitypically to the four wagons given to the Merarites. Above we showed that those revolutionists who believe in organizations controlling their work, but who failed to get control of our 

A Miscellany. 

28 

Pastor's organizations, are the antitypical Gershonites. In England the Shearno-Crawford movement tried, but failed to get control of the I.B.S.A., and in America those who later first functioned as the Fort Pitt Committee and afterward as the P.B.I. sought, but failed to gain control of all three of our Pastor's organizations. These two groups then formed organizations of their own: (1) the former the Bible Students' Committee—the B.S.C. for short, and (2), the latter the Pastoral Bible Institute—the P.B.I. for short. The former correspond to the Libnite Gershonites and the latter to the Shimite Gershonites. Thus we find the main divisions and subdivisions of the revolutionists to correspond as antitype to the main typical divisions and subdivisions of the Levites. Thus we find just what we should expect, if the Levites are now being developed as a whole and in their main divisions and subdivisions. This is highly confirmatory of the correctness of our viewpoint of these events. "Can ye not discern the signs of the times" in these many things? 

(27) But some may object to this setting of things, saying that while there are these three main divisions, there are more than these eight main subdivisions among the revolutionists. To this we assent, and add that according to the type we should expect more: for the three sons of Levi through their eight sons had many children, who in turn had other children until there were in the Levitical genealogies 60 heads of families recorded. These type 60 divisions into which the eight subdivisions will develop by the time the Levites are through with their divisions! The 60 pillars in the Court type the same thing. Allusions are also made to these 60 groups from two different standpoints in Cant. 3:7; 6:8. So we see in the subdivision of the three divisions and eight subdivisions the antitype working unto a sixty-fold division. This is not yet complete [written in 1925], but will in due time 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

29 

be completed; and its progressing toward a completion should increase our faith in the correctness of the above setting [it is now complete]. "Can ye not discern the signs of the times" in these things? 

(28) These three signs of the times are what we had for years been expecting to be enacted after the reaping was finished. We have elsewhere given 63 reasons proving that the reaping ended by Oct. 1914, and the gleaning in April 1916. Hence these things are now in order. Nor can they be explained Scripturally, reasonably and factually from any other standpoint, as is evident from the complete failures of all other explanations. These events, therefore, prove the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, the leading of Azazel's Goat to the Gate and fit man by the World's High Priest, and the separation of the Levites into their divisions, subdivisions and sub-subdivisions to have been enacted. This is the Voice of these signs, and therewith agree all the Scriptures. 

(29) If the above setting is correct, as the Bible, reason and facts prove, the work of the Editor of The Present Truth and of the Studies In The Scriptures and the author of The Epiphany Studies In The Scriptures, must have a totally different character from what it has been represented to be by those whom the Bible, reason and facts prove to be revolutionists. They have represented him to be an insane, ambitious, self-seeking, fraudulent and mischievous power-grasper. But if the above setting of things be true, these charges are gross misrepresentations, and his work and efforts among the Lord's people against the revolutionists since our Pastor's death are Divinely sanctioned, directed and supported, i.e., our opposition to the revolutionism of the British managers, of the "present management," of the P.B.I., etc., was authorized by the Lord, directed by the Lord and supported by the Lord, who of His abounding grace, despite our weaknesses and mistakes, has been pleased

A Miscellany. 

30 

to use us in this work to encourage our fellow priests and to oppose the revolutionism of Azazel's Goat in Satan's attempts through it to subvert and pervert the Truth and the arrangements that the Lord has made for conducting the Truth work. And if this is true, the revolutionists whom we sought first with loving and private persuasion to draw back from their wrongs, and whom we opposed with increasing rigor, only as they increased their willfulness in persisting in their revolutionisms, are the ones who should be repudiated by God's people. The events and the Scriptures prove that they have been the ambitious, self-seeking, fraudulent and mischievous power graspers, who, caught red-handed by us in wrongdoing, used on us the fraudulent stop-thief cry of the pursued wrong-doer to divert attention from their evil deeds and teachings. 

(30) They have accused us of bitterness; but we challenge the production of one bitter sentence from our writings. Our plainness and clearness of exposure required by Epiphany purposes they have misrepresented as bitterness. Some of them have accused us of betraying them to the officials, whereas we sought to shield them when questioned by one of their prosecutors. Some of them have charged us with being of the Judas class, whereas we have faithfully served the brethren at constant self-sacrifice and loss of our human rights. Some of them have publicly proclaimed that we were of the Second Death class, whereas our retention and service of the Truth prove the contrary. They have whispered many defamations of our personal character all of which are gross misrepresentations. Their perversion of various truths and the Truth arrangements and their introduction of errors and wrong arrangements prove that they have measurably fallen away from the Lord, while our retention and defense of the Truth and its arrangements, combined with being given the advancing light for the 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

31 

support of the brethren and our self-denying service of the Lord and the Truth and the brethren, and that despite the persecutions heaped upon us, prove that the Lord has approved of our general course, while disapproving of their general course. Brethren, beloved in the Lord, examine our teachings, our service and our life, as they are in deed and in truth, and you, barring the inevitable weakness of our earthen vessel, will find them to be in harmony with those of God's loyal servants. Not many of you are in a position to examine our life apart from what you see in our writings; but you are in a position to examine our teachings. If you give them an honest, hungry, humble, meek and holy examination, you will find them in accord with, based upon, and flowing out of, those which God gave us through "that faithful and wise Servant." In view of this and the terrible errors and repudiations of Truth on the part of our opponents, "can ye not discern the signs of the times" as witnessing of our teachings and work that they are given and done in the Truth and Spirit of God, and that the revolutionisms against the Lord's teachings and arrangements on the part of our traducers originate in Azazel—Satan—and are done in his spirit? 

(31) A fourth sign of the times is that the Truth advances along Epiphany lines; but at the same time, as against it, much error is presented as advancing light. In Z '26, 115-119, is an article on, "The Shining Light." It uses Prov. 4:18, 19 as the text of the article, which furnishes another illustration of how the pope of little Babylon, in the spirit and manner of the pope in great Babylon, applies to himself and his followers, the counterfeit faithful, the things that the Bible applies to the real faithful; and the things that the Bible applies to the unfaithful, the counterfeit faithful, like himself and his partisan followers, he applies to the real faithful. Therefore, to him the part of the passage that speaks of increasing light coming to the 

A Miscellany. 

32 

just, means that he and his followers are getting the increasing light; while the part of the passage which speaks of the darkness as being the portion of the wicked and of their stumbling unawares, he applies to the Truth people who have left the Society. Especially do his readers understand him thereby to mean the Epiphany-enlightened brethren. While doubtless many of those who left the Society, like the partisan Society adherents themselves, are Levites, and therefore like themselves have stumbled unawares into various errors because of their measurable unfaithfulness, some who have left the Society have not gone into darkness, but have been getting the advancing Truth as due. The proof that they have so fared is that they retain all that our Pastor gave them and have received as advancing Truth such things only as are based upon, in harmony with, and developed out of what he taught. The advancing Truth must agree with the past Truth. It does not repudiate the formerly received Truth, but makes it clearer and brings out further details that project the same Truths into greater elaborations. But that which leaves part of the former foundations, tears down other parts of them and builds on other and contrary running foundations, cannot be a part of the former house. It must be a part of another house. 

(32) Therefore we say that the Epiphany teachings, standing squarely on the Parousia Truth and being built higher thereon, must be the advancing Truth; while what the Society's president is giving as advancing Truth, leaving as it does parts of the Parousia foundations and breaking other parts of them down to put contrary-running foundations in their place, must be deviating error, not advancing Truth. Hence the little pope of little Babylon and his partisan followers, like the great pope in great Babylon and his partisan followers, are stumbling unawares into increasing darkness as their portion (Prov. 4:19), while the Epiphany-enlightened brethren are walking in the 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

33 

increasingly shining path of the just (Prov. 4:18). Nor does it make any difference how much the little pope of little Babylon, like his prototype, the great pope of great Babylon, struts, boasts and speaks swelling words in his claims of Divine mouthpieceship, the channel, he is none the less, yea in part for that very reason, the head of the little Antichrist; and the works that he is continually exhorting his followers to do as the sacrifices of the real sin-offering, are but works of the little abomination that maketh desolate—little Babylon's counterpart of the mass in great Babylon; while his so-called light is in little Babylon real darkness—the counterpart of the darkness of great Babylon in its Roman Catholic quarter. But, wholly given over to Satan, the little pope of little Babylon will continue, like his prototype, the great pope in great Babylon, to strut, to boast and to speak swelling words until the judgment of God forever strikes him down, as it will his prototype in great Babylon; for strong is the Lord God that judgeth him; for having bowed the knee to Baal—Satan—when he, Satan-like, grasped for power and began to lord it over God's heritage, using hundreds of Azazelian falsehoods to blacken the faithful and to deceive the unwary, he turned God into his Opponent, who is only letting him, the little pope, like the great pope, be raised higher and higher that his fall may be all the deeper; and when he lights he will be symbolic pulp, leaving, like the great pope, behind him the memory only of his atrocious sins against the Lord, the Truth and the brethren (Matt. 24:48, 49). 

(33) In par. 14, in the article under review, the Society's president reiterates, for perhaps the hundredth time, a falsehood that he knows to be a falsehood, i.e., that our Pastor for years taught that a person could be justified before consecration and then later gave up this thought. We will prove in Volume VI such a statement of our Pastor's view to be an error, and as presented by the Society's president to be a falsehood;

A Miscellany. 

34 

and now we charge the Society's president, who has repeatedly said that our Pastor gave up tentative justification before he died, with deliberately, and therefore wickedly, misrepresenting our Pastor's position on the subject, which he doubtless does the more easily to palm off a false doctrine. The item in the above mentioned paragraph is introduced to illustrate allegedly how the (supposed) advancing Truth clarifies previous obscurities. And what actually took place in our Pastor's experience as to his teaching on justification in its time relation to consecration was a case of an advancing truth clarifying obscurities; but note the fact that the truth of justification before consecration at no time was repudiated by our Pastor. We repeat it: Our Pastor never denied or repudiated his teaching that one was justified before his consecration; for up to within a few days before his death, in his last printed statement on the subject [The Foreword of Vol. VI], he still taught that one is justified before his consecration, because numerous Scriptures teach it, notably Rom. 3 and 4 and Gal. 2, and, as for years he had been doing, he called such justification up to the very end a tentative one. But in 1909 he began, by contrast, to call attention to a twofold distinction in justification, a thing that he did not with the distinctiveness of a striking contrast, with suitably differentiating terms, bring out before. He came to see distinctly that justification is exercised in two ways by God: (1) tentatively, which is its mode of operation before consecration, and (2) vitalizedly, which is its mode of operation after consecration. While he taught both of such justifications years before 1909, yet then for the first time he brought them out by differentiated terms in striking contrast with one another, and clearly showed when each of them operated. But the Society's president repudiates tentative justification, claiming that there is no justification at all operating before consecration, and belies our Pastor's view by claiming 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

35 

that he, like the Society's president, gave up tentative justification, i.e., the justification that operates before consecration. Our Pastor truly did advance with the advancing light on the subject, and therefore when the due time came he clarified the subject wherein it before had been obscure, by explaining and proving that tentative justification during the Gospel Age, and in keeping with its purposes, operates exclusively before consecration, and that after the priesthood's consecration vitalized justification operates exclusively. The error of the paragraph under review lies in the fact that it silently ignores the existence of tentative justification and denies the existence of justification in any sense for Gospel-Age purposes before consecration. The stubbornness, perversity and dishonesty of the Society's president on this subject is a strong proof that he either has not "developed character," or, after having done so, he corrupted it grossly. The latter we believe to be true of him. 

(34) Par. 15 rightly inveighs against the error of those brethren who deny that the light has been advancing since Bro. Russell's death. Such dear, bewildered brethren are to be congratulated, however, for holding to the Parousia Truth. In this they do better than the Society's partisans, who repudiate much of it; but they would do still better, if they would accept the Truth that has in the Epiphany been given in harmony with, as based upon, and as a further development of, the Parousia Truth. Certainly we are not yet in the perfect day, for then error will no more raise its head; hence more light is to be expected for the path of the just (Prov. 4:18). But not everything that is offered as light should be accepted as such; since Satan as of yore is still putting darkness for light and light for darkness. By what criteria then may we judge as to what really is light and what really is darkness among the things offered to us as light? Since light agrees with light, and darkness and light disagree, i.e., since

A Miscellany. 

36 

Truth agrees with Truth and Truth and error disagree, such things as are based upon, in harmony with, and flow out of the Parousia Truth must be the advancing light, and what contradicts it or sets it aside or does not flow out of it must be error. These criteria as to Truth and error are certainly true and safe. Hence what the Society's president has been presenting as light in contradiction and repudiation of the Parousia Truth must be error—it is Azazelian darkness set forth as light. But the Epiphany teachings, being in harmony with, based upon, and elaborated out of the Parousia Truth, must be the advancing light, which Satan is, by antitypical Jambres, whose chief leader is the Society's president, setting for darkness. Therefore, it is not true, as the paragraph under review claims, that those who accept the Society's "new views" are walking in the light, and that those who reject them are necessarily wicked, are walking in darkness and know not at what they stumble. The facts and the Scriptures prove that "that evil servant" is the great stumbler and walker in darkness, and knows not at what he stumbled. (Matt. 24:49); and he has occasioned the stumbling of more New Creatures and Youthful Worthies than any other man that ever lived. From this we can construe measurably how overwhelmingly great his guilt before God must be. Beloved brethren, especially you of the Society who had the Truth in Bro. Russell's days, we beseech you to distrust, as from Satan, every teaching that repudiates the teachings that our Lord gave through him whom He placed over the household and the storehouse (Matt. 24:45-47; Luke 12:42-44), the antitypical Eleazar at the end of the Gospel Age, who had as his charge the antitypical Tabernacle, furniture, vessels, oil, sweet incense and the daily meat offering (Num. 4:16). Therefore, in the interest of your own souls, distrust the contrary teachings of the Society's president,

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

37 

"that evil servant" of Matt. 24:48-51, and the "foolish and unprofitable shepherd" of Zech. 11:15-17. 

(35) Prov. 4:18 shows, among other things, that the light must be advancing, because we are not yet in the perfect day, and that, accordingly, there must have been new features of Truth coming due since our Pastor's death. But only such things should be regarded as the advancing Truth as agree with the Parousia Truth, which the Lord gave through the Parousia Servant, "that faithful and wise Servant," because Truth agrees with Truth, and does not contradict it. But there are brethren who neither believe the Lord's Word in Prov. 4:18, nor our Pastor's explanation of it (A 20-28)—that until the perfect day would come the Truth would increase. They claim that no more light has or can come after his death, since, they argue, the storehouse was in his charge. Undeniably we are not in the perfect day; for the empire of Satan is still here, and the operation of the two phases of the Kingdom is years in the future. These brethren think that they are standing by our Pastor's teachings in their contention; but they evidently are not; for he himself repeatedly taught that the light would continue to shine until the perfect day, which is sometime in the future. The fact that errorists use the principle of the advancing light to effect an entrance for their errors, as the supposed advancing light, does not justify the opponents of their errors in denying the truth that the light does advance unto the perfect day, any more than counterfeit money proves that there is no genuine money. We gave above the criteria by which we can know what is and what is not advancing light. 

(36) Nor does the fact that our Pastor had charge of the entire storehouse prove that no advancing Truth would come after his death by another. Even while he was alive the Lord gave some new features of the Truth first to other brethren, whose duty in such cases 

A Miscellany. 

38 

was, not first to present it to the brethren in general, but to him, and let him present it first either directly, i.e., by himself, or indirectly, i.e., by them, to the brethren in general. The cases of the Edgar Brothers on the chronology and on the Pyramid, of Bro. Barton on Is. 18 (Z '04, 230-232), and on the individual Satan's binding (Z '10, 315, 316), of Bro. Bundy on the parable of the lost piece of silver, etc., etc., are facts to the point. And this is true because the Lord Himself promised that every able and faithful servant of the Truth would by Him be favored with bringing something new out of the storehouse (Matt. 13:52). Such a giving of some new Truth by the Lord to other servants of the Church than our Pastor was certainly not in disharmony with the fact that our Pastor during his life had charge of the entire storehouse. And if it was not then, we may be certain that now, since our Pastor does not have any more the charge of the storehouse, for someone else to bring forth things new and old from the storehouse is not in contravention to the thought that the storehouse was formerly in our Pastor's charge. The very figure used by the Lord on this subject, when understood, proves this. This figure implies that there was a certain householder, having a steward who had charge of his storehouse, and that there were other servants co-operating with and under this steward in the ministering of the things in the storehouse to the household. The steward did not put the goods into the storehouse. They were placed there by his lord. Usually his lord told him the new things that he was to bring forth for the household, he not knowing what and where they were until his lord told him. Exceptionally, and without at all displacing him as steward, his lord would tell other faithful servants of the nature and location of some new things in the storehouse, and tell them to bring them out and show them to the steward, who would then arrange for them to be given to the household. 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

39 

But when that householder's steward died, the householder was not thereby estopped from having his household fed with other new things, hitherto kept unused, in the storehouse, just because that steward formerly had charge of the storehouse. Nay, on the contrary, even though he should not have appointed another steward, he would yet use someone to bring forth such new things as he desired his family to eat. Just so has our Lord been doing before and since His special steward died, and thus ceased being His steward. This disproves the contention under consideration, supposedly based on the fact of our Pastor's having charge of the storehouse. 

(37) The brethren who err on the meaning and implications of our Pastor's having charge of the storehouse do not understand the functions of his office. He was the Parousia messenger, appointed by the Lord over the storehouse and the household for Parousia purposes—giving the Parousia Truth and superintending the Parousia work. Thus he gave the Church the full Parousia Truth, and superintended the full gathering of the Church (hence he can have no successor), and thereby gave the foundation of the Epiphany Truth and work; for the Parousia Truth and work are the foundation of the Epiphany Truth and work. But, as our Pastor's work was not that of gathering the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies as such, the truths that he gave on these subjects were not full enough for the work of gathering these as such. Their gathering as such is an Epiphany work, for which special Epiphany truths also, not due to be seen in his day, are needed. Therefore "things new and old" are needed for the Epiphany work. The facts of the case prove that our Pastor did not understand these new Epiphany things, e.g., the time of the deliverance of the Church, the length of the Time of Trouble, the time of Israel's deliverance, the duration of the dealing with the Great Company and the 

A Miscellany. 

40 

Youthful Worthies, the time relation between the sprinkling of the Goat's blood and the dealing with the Great Company, etc., all of which and other things too are Epiphany matters. Hence he made mistakes on these subjects. This we say without the slightest disparagement of him; for though used more markedly than any other servant of God, except our Lord (for of these, except our Lord Himself, he is undoubtedly the greatest), he could not see things before due. Hence, whenever he attempted to explain things not yet due, he made mistakes on them, as the above-enumerated things, as well as other things, prove, e.g., his premature explanation of the meaning of the pounds, of the parable of the penny, of the honor given to all saints, etc. 

(38) All of us are familiar with the fact that our Pastor taught, up to about 1909, that everything in the Bible, which is given for the saints' understanding (1 Pet. 1:12; Rom. 15:4), would be understood by the Church before leaving the world, i.e., by 1914, as he then supposed. Later, in view of the fact that he saw that there was not time enough by 1914 for about ¾ of the Bible that were not yet commented on to be made clear, he gave up the thought that all things in the Bible would be understood before all new creatures would leave the world (supposedly by 1914). Had he known the length of the Epiphany, he would not have given up that thought; for it is evidently a Biblical one; for the Bible expressly teaches that everything in it would be understood while the Church would yet be in the flesh (Rom. 15:4). What follows from this? That the Bible passages which he did not explain before his death—about 66 per cent of the Bible—will be explained during the Epiphany, and that correctly. Moreover, he himself said just before he died that it was to be expected that the true explanation of Ezekiel and Revelation, which he had expected to give, would be given by another brother

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

41 

after his death. In the summer of 1916 he told the Bethel family that there were in the Revelation four things that he did not yet understand—the number of the beast (he evidently had by then concluded that the Adventist view, which he had once endorsed, i.e., the numerical value of the letters on the pope's crown, was wrong), the 1600 furlongs of Rev. 14, Rev. 17:9-11, and above all the key of the book. At the Dallas Convention, Oct. 21, 1916, he told the brethren in answer to a question as to when he would write on Revelation that there were certain matters therein, especially its key, that he did not understand and that until he would understand them he would not think it due for him to write thereon. His not understanding these things, coupled with his statement, nine days later—the day before his death—that another was to be expected to give the true explanation of Revelation and Ezekiel implies that he held that the Truth would advance after his death. Moreover, when he expressed his doubts as to the time relationship of the deliverance of the Church and of the sprinkling of the Goat's blood on the one hand and the dealing with the Great Company on the other hand, he expressly stated that the brethren who would be living at their fulfillment would understand them more clearly than he did (Vol. IV, Chapter III). These facts prove that he expected increased light to come after he gave up his stewardship over the storehouse. Thus the Bible, the teachings of our Pastor, facts and reason, all prove that the light was to advance, even after our Pastor's death. Therefore those are in error who teach that, in view of his having had charge of the whole storehouse, no new light could first come through another, and that none should be expected after his death. 

(39) We have written the foregoing on the occasion of a letter which one of our correspondents has written us. We will quote the letter a little later on. Our readers know that we stand whole-heartedly for that 

A Miscellany. 

42 

great body of Truth that our Pastor gave us. The Present Truth and the Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures are the only publications among Truth people that do this. Our stand on this subject was stated in P '19, 103, pars. 1 and 2, and has faithfully been carried out to the best of our knowledge. We believe our candid readers will support us in this statement. We will quote these paragraphs 

(40) "The Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany stands squarely and sincerely for the Parousia Truth, as basic for all further development of the Truth. Thus it heartily embraces the system of Truth which is presented in the writings of our beloved Pastor, as well as holds to its principles and spirit. Whenever he gives two or more harmonious views of a Scriptural passage or doctrine, we accept all; whenever, as in a few instances in the great system of Truth which he presented, these cannot be harmonized, we accept the latest expressions, unless they are manifestly not so harmonious with the Scriptures, Reason and Facts as earlier ones. In all cases of unfulfilled types and prophecies we hold to his thought as the one along whose lines we look for their fulfillments. And as he in many cases rejected a former interpretation of a type or prophecy after its fulfillment proved that he misunderstood it, e.g., the deliverance of the Church, the restoration of Israel, the [complete] destruction of organized evil in the world and the establishment of the earthly phase of God's kingdom at certain times; so only after a type or prophecy is fulfilled differently from his understanding of it, would we attempt to set aside his interpretation in favor of what the fulfillment of the type or prophecy proves to be its proper interpretation. Thus it will be seen that we honor him as God's appointed channel for the Parousia Truth [and for giving the foundations of the Epiphany Truth]; but like him do not believe him to have been infallible, and therefore make only such 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

43 

changes as in principle he made; i.e., such as clear fulfillments force us to make. All sober and non-partisan brethren and friends of his will agree to the propriety of this course. It was his own method under such circumstances, and we follow it. 

(41) "As to things new: The Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany, as it is given by God to understand, rejects whatever new views it discerns to be 'fanciful interpretations, wild speculations and frenzied delusions,' and will to the best of its ability keep all such things out of its columns, unless it is to state them for purposes of refutation. Further, it recognizes that, while many new things presented to the Church belong to the realm of fanciful interpretations, wild speculations and frenzied delusions, there are many new features of Truth pertaining mixedly to the Little Flock, Great Company and the Youthful Worthies, as well as to various worldly classes that are, have been and will be unfolding from literal and symbolic passages. As these become clear to us and due for the Church, The Present Truth will be pleased to announce and explain them, not dogmatically, but suggestively, with the supporting Scriptures, that each may be helped to judge for himself, and thus build for himself an independent faith structure. The Present Truth will endeavor to subject all its teachings to the Word, on the basis of the Parousia Truth, in harmony with the seven axioms of Biblical interpretation: Every Scriptural passage or doctrine must be interpreted harmoniously, (1) with Itself, (2) with all Scriptures, (3) with all Scriptural Doctrines, (4) with God's Character, (5) with the Ransom and Sin-offerings, (6) with Facts and (7) with the purposes of the Bible, and will reject everything contrary to any of these axioms." 

(42) Above we referred to a letter which we promised to quote later. The writer of the letter has, among other letters, written us four in which he strenuously 

A Miscellany. 

44 

insisted that we were teaching contrary to our Pastor, and therein were doing as badly as The Tower and P.B.I. Herald, without even specifying in the first three letters wherein he thinks we do so. To the first and second letters we replied, stating that we were unconscious of so doing, and asked him to give instances of such teachings. To our two letters we received no answers. After the Sept., 1926, Truth appeared, which, among other things, mildly pointed out as erroneous the claim of those who say that the light has not been advancing since our Pastor's death, he wrote us, blaming us severely for our understanding, and again, without particulars, accused us of teaching contrary to our Pastor's views. We did not answer the third letter, because of its harsh, condemnatory tone and its reiterating charges on which its writer withheld specifications twice before asked for by us. On Oct. 31 he mailed us what he calls a supplement to his third letter. This supplement we quote as his fourth accusing letter: 

(43) "Dear Brother: Will you please read an article under heading, Mind the Same Things? The article is found in Watch Tower 1909, page 233. Especially we would be glad to have you note in this article pars. 1, 2 and 3, col. 1, page 234. Having done so, please read and note the last par., col. 2, page 234, on Dawn Studies, etc. If the Dawn Studies are but the Bible rearranged, and we believe this to be true, then I ask you whether you are doing injury to the cause prosecuted [advanced] by the Lord through His faithful servant. If there is anything that puts the successors of Pastor Russell, as they call themselves, to real test, it is this very article. If the Dawns are the Bible rearranged, as above, it surely needs no additions or subtractions, for the Bible is complete. Again, on pages 265-268, 1909 Tower, subject, The Will of the Lord be Done, note on page 266, bottom of col. 1, under sub-heading, Sons and Daughters 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

45 

Shall Prophesy. Note especially col. 2, pars. 2 and 3. Having done so, ask yourself the question whether you differ in your teachings from our dear Pastor. Having done this, will you please read the letter which was published in the Sept. 1st Watch Tower [1926], then ask yourself the question whether or not these 'would-be' up-to-date teachers are doing more injury to the cause—Up-to-date—the path of the just is as a shining light, etc., etc. My dear brother, it is very easy to deceive yourself and others in your teachings, but you cannot deceive God. He is not mocked. No, He knows what is going on in the offices of these up-to-date teachers. If I were these men, I would never mention the name of that 'Great man of God,' for each time they do so they thus add more condemnation to that which they already have. It is no surprise at all to me that you do not seek to defend your stand, for you are wise enough to know that in doing so you will only do injury to your own propaganda. I am writing this supplement with no animosity in my heart against you as an individual at all. However, I promised the Lord more than 30 years ago that I would defend the Truth against any who would assail it, even if I had to stand alone. However I am glad to say that the Lord has many more who are standing loyal. May God help you to get your eyes open is our prayer. Yours in Him." 

(44) We will leave it to the Lord to judge the letter's general condemnatory spirit against the one who defends our Pastor's teachings as no one else in the Truth does. We have covered the main points of the writer's misunderstandings above, but will add some other items. We read the articles that the letter requests us to do, and enjoyed them immensely. We are in heartiest sympathy with them, and have time and again re-echoed their principles in print and orally. We believe that the Six Volumes are "the Bible arranged topically" just as our Pastor meant. But we 

A Miscellany. 

46 

do not believe that he by the expression, "the Bible arranged topically," meant what the writer of the above letter claims he meant by it, i.e., that everything in the Bible is in those Six Volumes, and that hence there is no need of additional light beyond that given in the Six Volumes; for our Pastor, both by word and act, held otherwise. If he thought that all of the teachings of the Bible were given in the Six Volumes, why did he prepare to write a seventh? Why did he give us booklets like those on the Tabernacle, Spiritism, Hell, Bible and Evolution, and Our Lord's Return, explaining some matters not explained in the Dawns? Why did he give us sermons explaining many things not touched on in the Six Volumes? Why, after writing the last of the Six Volumes, did he for 13½ years give us the Towers, which contained many things new, not treated of in the Six Volumes? Why did he on dying say that the new things of Revelation and Ezekiel, that he had expected to write, are to be expected from another hand than his? Why did he hold, for a number of years after 1903, when the Sixth Volume was completed, that all things not yet understood in the Bible would be understood before the Church left the world? Why did he write new things in the scenario of the Photo-Drama of Creation if all the Bible's light was in the Six Volumes? Evidently these things prove that the brother does not understand what the expression, "the Dawn Studies" are "the Bible topically arranged," means. We understand it to mean that they explain systematically the main subjects of the Bible, but not everything in it, nor everything in it that the Lord means for us to know, for the Bible teaches that all the Bible will be understood before the Church passes from the earth (1 Pet. 1:12; Rom. 15:4); while the Six Volumes do not explain even 15% of the verses of the Bible, and while in his other writings our Pastor comments on 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

47 

about 15% more. So much on the half-baked thought of the letter on this point. 

(45) We now come to the only specification that the letter's writer has made on his solemnly grandiose charges that we "teach contrary to our Pastor," and that as badly as the Tower and the P.B.I. Herald; and it is indeed an illustration of the proverb, "Behold, mountains travail, and bear an insignificant mouse!" We quote the two paragraphs that the letter particularizes for us to read (Z '09, 266, col. 2, pars. 2, 3): 

(46) "The two ages and their blessings are distinguished, therefore, by the expressions, 'In those days,' as signifying the Gospel Age, and 'After those days,' as signifying the Millennial Age. We are still in the Gospel Age, styled 'In those days.' And we still have the blessings promised in this Age, namely, the bestowment of the Holy Spirit upon God's servants and handmaidens regardless of age, sex or national distinction. This blessing began at Pentecost and will close with the anointing of the last member of the Body of Christ. Then will begin the other part of the blessed promise, namely, 'After those days I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.' This blessing surely does not apply to the present time; and just as surely it will have fulfillment under the ministration of the Millennial Kingdom. Then will come the time when 'Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,' shall teach. That will not be a teaching in the Church, nor of the Church, but a teaching of the world by the world, under the supervision of the glorified Christ and the perfected Ancient Worthies as the earthly representatives of the heavenly Kingdom. 

(47) "Now notice the expression, 'Your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions.' We prefer a different translation, which, we believe, gives the intended thought, namely, 'Your young men will see the glorious visions (of restitution blessings, etc., in process of fulfillment) of which your 

A Miscellany. 

48 

ancient men dreamed (the things respecting which they vaguely hoped and dimly understood and greatly longed for)." 

(48) Evidently the writer thinks that par. 3 of Z '09, 266, col. 2, is the one to which we (supposedly) teach contrary. Our readers know that we apply the words, "Your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions," to the Millennial inspirational activities of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies. We are warranted in applying them to the Millennium, because in both of the above-quoted paragraphs our Pastor rightly applies Joel 2:28 to the Millennium. Our Pastor's explanation of the special words here referred to is very brief, so brief in fact that we are not sure just what he meant by it, for his explanation is quite susceptible of several meanings. He does not explain whom he understood by the young men, nor by the old men. Since he applies the passage to the Millennium, he may have meant that some restitution things that the aged at first would see dimly would later be seen clearly by the young people. Or he may have meant that what old people in this life longed for as coming in the Millennium, the young folks then would clearly see. Or, again, he may have meant that what Old Testament people saw dimly would be clearly seen by the young in the Millennium. Any of these three thoughts and all of them are true, so far as they are concerned in themselves; but the explanation he gives is too indefinite for us clearly to see his thought, hence is no proper basis for the charge brought against us. The reason our Pastor did not have the full light on this verse is that it is Epiphaniac. Has it ever struck our dear readers that while our Pastor said that those whom we call Youthful Worthies will be the Millennial associates of the Ancient Worthies as princes, he never once cited a Scripture to prove it. He simply drew the conclusion from the fact that there were more

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

49 

consecrations than available crowns since the general call ceased in 1881, and from God's general methods of dealing in the way of rewards with similar characters. So far as we can recall, he treated of the Youthful Worthies in but three places in his writings—F 156, 157; Z '11, 181, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, col. 2, pars. 6, 7. Additionally he treated of them at Convention Question meetings (What P. R. Said, 151, 152, 154). In none of them does he cite a Scripture dealing with the Youthful Worthies as distinct from the Ancient Worthies. Why this from one who so strenuously insisted on Scripture as the source and rule of faith? The answer can only be that the subject being an Epiphaniac one, no Scripture on the subject was due to be understood before! But the Epiphany being the time for dealing with this class as such, Scriptures not previously understandable began to open up on the subject. Our Pastor's comment on the pertinent words of Joel 2:28 is as fine an illustration of the truth that it is impossible clearly to explain a passage before it is due as we could give. We are not at all blaming or disparaging him on this head; for no one can understand a passage before it is due; for even our Lord could not understand when the Judgment Day and Israel's having the Kingdom restored to them would come, until that truth was due; but whenever a passage was due our Pastor always, as "that Servant," interpreted it correctly. 

(49) Please mark, dear brethren, we do not contradict our Pastor on this verse. We do not deny that any one of the above three understandings of his explanation will be factual, for doubtless those three things will have taken place by the time the Millennium will have advanced some time, though we do not think that any of them is the Divinely intended thought of the pertinent clause. Some one gave a mistranslation to our Pastor, which suggested the explanation that he gave. Not understanding the

A Miscellany. 

50 

proper translation and not being a Hebrew scholar, he accepted the mistranslation on the mistranslator's authority, since it gave an undoubtedly true thought. In our library we have twenty-four translations of the Old Testament, every one of which renders the pertinent words as the A.V. renders them. Then we have a Bible that gives variant renderings of 150 of the ablest Hebrew translators whenever their renderings differ from the English Bible, and none of them translate like the mistranslation that someone gave our Pastor. Only one of these 150 changes the words (but does not change the thought) thus: Your old men shall have dreams. We know that the translation under review is wrong because the tenses of the Hebrew words translated in the A.V. "shall see" and "shall dream", are the same in the Hebrew of this verse—they are both the future tense, not one future and the other past as the mistranslation under review gives them. Moreover, there are no words in the Hebrew corresponding to the words "of which" in the clause "of which your ancient men dreamed." Hence the suggested translation, which gives an indefinite though a true thought, is wrong. The A.V. is thoroughly correct here, and our explanation of it is strictly in harmony with it. That this language of Joel 2:28 on the old and young men was not due to be understood in our Pastor's day is positively proved by the fact that he could not interpret the proper translation, but while giving a true thought on a suggested mistranslation, he expressly preferred the mistranslation to the correct one. We ask, How could it be better proven that the passage was not due to our Pastor to interpret than by these facts? On the other hand, we are satisfied that no one could, before the passage was due, have given so good an interpretation as our Pastor did, whose interpretation, though not the Divinely intended one for these clauses, contained no doctrinal, reasonable or factual error. We are satisfied that if our Pastor

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

51 

were giving the Epiphany Truth, he would explain the pertinent words as we do, seeing that they so clearly substantiate from the Bible his teachings on the Millennial activities of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies in their teaching office. 

(50) We repeat it, we do not contradict, as not factual, the three meanings that our Pastor's explanation can carry, for we believe all three of them are true. We do not contradict his doctrine on the Ancient or Youthful Worthies. We simply give the explanation that the correct translation suggests as better than the one which a false translation suggested to our Pastor, who was made to believe it was the true translation. Therefore, in view of the indefiniteness of his explanation of the false part of the translation on which it was based, of the undueness of the light on the pertinent clause in his day, of the evident desire of the letter's writer to convict us of teaching contrary to our Pastor, of his classifying us with our Pastor's real repudiators, and of his seemingly having nothing else to advance to prove his claim against us, is it not appropriate that we should quote as descriptive of his acts the proverb, "Behold, mountains travail, and bear an insignificant mouse"? We should be congratulated, if this is all our enemies can advance as proof of their claim that we "teach contrary to our Pastor." Such self-styled defenders of the Truth harm it; for to be a real Truth defender requires poise and the ability properly and soberly to appraise matters—things that the letter's writer seems to lack, if we may judge from our correspondence with him. We pass by without further comment on his insinuations against our candor and fair dealing with our readers than that this article proves that we have no fear to write on the paragraph alleged as against us. Nor will we accept his suggestion, based on his mountain-travailing and mouse-bearing proclivities, that we never mention our Pastor's name. We will, praise God, keep right 

A Miscellany. 

52 

on faithfully defending his teachings in all good confidence, honest purpose and transparent candor as hitherto, despite such accusatory letters written against one who has suffered and toiled much for the maintenance of "that Servant's" teachings and arrangements against real repudiators of them. Having above repelled our accuser's charge, and proven him guilty of repudiating our Pastor's view on the advancing light after his death, we are reminded of the proverb on glass-house dwellers throwing stones, and especially of Rom. 2:1, "thou that judgest another, etc." 

(51) Our discussion raises another question: Does the statement of Prov. 4:18, on the light shining more and more unto the perfect day, mean, as the Apr., 1936, Dawn, page 17, par. 4, claims, not the unfolding of the advancing truths of the Bible as due going on until the perfect day, but the illumination of the Christian's pathway by an increased ability to apply the principles of the Lord's Word to the problems of his conduct in his daily life? To this we answer: We note that Dawn's answer is not in harmony with our Pastor's thought from the beginning to the end of his ministry, as can be seen, e.g., from the explanation that he gives Prov. 4:18 in A 20-28, in which, among other things, while not ignoring the lesser truth that Dawn one-sidedly emphasizes as the truth on the subject, our Pastor emphasizes the greater truth, saying, "While it is true that the path of each individual believer is a shining one, yet the special application of this statement is to the just [justified] as a class" (A 20, par. 2). That our Pastor held to this greater truth as the special sense of Prov. 4:18 throughout life no one conversant with his teachings will in honesty deny, e.g., Vols. I-VI use Prov. 4:18 as the motto passage of the series, on their title pages, in the sense of his explanation given in A 20-28; and he would have so used this passage on the title page of Vol. VII, had he written that volume, since, as the motto of the entire 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

53 

series, he thus indicated that it gave the advancing Truth as due. We note, secondly, that Dawn gives as the truth its thought in contradictory contrast with the thought that increasing knowledge on God's plan accompanies God's people as a class unto the end of their path, even unto the perfect day. Hence Dawn's one-sided emphasis of an indirect application of the passage in contradictory contrast with its special application is a contradiction of our Pastor's thought, and is some of that deceptive alleged new light, against which Dawn inveighs (in others). Thus "the Lord taketh the wise in their own craftiness." But what do the pertinent facts prove? Three things: Firstly, and especially, our Pastor's explanation of the special application of the passage is certainly true, as e.g., the history of the unfolding of God's plan in the Parousia and the Epiphany proves, yea, even from the beginning of the Reformation by individuals through Marsiglio in 1309 A.D.; secondly, that Dawn's one-sided and contradicting contrasted emphasis sets aside the main truth on the subject; and, thirdly, Dawn champions an error on the subject. Dawn came to this error in an effort to evade (1) the Society's gross error on the subject that their contradictions of our Pastor's true teachings are advancing light, and (2) the true advancing light—the Epiphany Truth—that is based upon, elaborated out of, and in harmony with our Pastor's view of the Lord's Word; this second evasion Dawn commits in an attempt to escape the conclusion that the Parousia and the Epiphany Truth teaches, that the Epiphany is devoted especially to the manifestation and cleansing of the Great Company (2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 7:14), a combination of which Truth proves the Dawn to be an unclean Levitical movement, in which its active, participating crown-losers, as antitypical Lot, and its active, participating Youthful Worthies and faith-justified, as antitypical Lot's two daughters, are committing antitypical incest,

A Miscellany. 

54 

and producing symbolic bastards, antitypical Moabites and Ammonites, who will Millennially find themselves among the restitution class (Gen. 19:30-38; Deut. 23:2-6). Dawn's strictures (in the same article as contains the above-refuted error) against us (without naming us) as "seeing himself in the Scriptures" the Lord Himself will shortly answer in a way that will unanswerably show it, in making such strictures and teaching various errors, to be a mouthpiece of Azazel. 

(52) During the year 1916 at the Bethel table we asked our dear Pastor whether the forty days from Jesus' resurrection to His ascension typed the Parousia Period (1874-1914), and whether the ten days from His ascension to Pentecost typed the following ten years as the time that must intervene from the end of the reaping until the Spirit would begin to be poured out upon all flesh (1914-1924). His answer was that he hoped to give his thought on those forty days and their following ten days in the Tower sometime, and therefore would defer his answer until that time. His manner in giving this answer, as well as the answer itself, gave the impression that he held these periods to be typical. But he never gave his thought on them to us through the Tower, his death doubtless preventing it. Since the manifestation of the Levites has been going on, we have frequently thought of the typical significance of these two periods. From the fact that so frequently in the Scriptures periods of forty days are used typically of the reaping period (1874-1914) we feel satisfied that the forty days of our Lord's resurrection history type the forty years of the Harvest, particularly from the standpoint of the period in which our returned Lord gave instructions to the Church respecting the Kingdom—the Parousia Truth (Acts 1:3). But if we were now to ask our dear Pastor as to the typical significance of Jesus' Pentecostal work of presenting the Church to God ten days after His ascension, we would not 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

55 

connect the antitype's end in 1924 with the outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh; for there remains only three years [this was written in 1921] until the fall of 1924, and the prophetic program to be enacted between now and the beginning of the Spirit's outpouring upon all flesh is of too gigantic proportions to be enacted within three years. Rather, if now asking him what should be expected from the fall of 1923 to that of 1924 as the antitype of Jesus' Pentecostal presentation of the Church to God, we would inquire whether it would not mark chronologically the beginning of the offering of the Levites to Jehovah by our Lord, and by contrast the presentation of the Priests to God separate and distinct from the Levites (Num. 8:11, 13, 21). We will now proceed to explain our reasons for such thoughts. 

(53) The types of the firstfruits connected with Passover and Pentecost are recorded in Lev. 23:9-14, 15-21. As our Pastor explained, the first ripe sheaf represents our Lord as a New Creature, and its presentation before Jehovah on Nisan 16 represents our Lord's resurrection on the third day, as the Firstfruits of them that slept (1 Cor. 15:4, 20; Z '98, 68). The expression firstfruits seems always to refer to the New Creature, and never to the humanity of the Lord's people (Rom. 8:23; 11:16; 16:5; 1 Cor. 15:20, 23; 16:15; Jas. 1:18; Rev. 14:4). Therefore the high priest presenting and waving the first ripe sheaf before the Lord on Nisan 16 types our Lord presenting Himself to Jehovah as a New Creature at His resurrection, and from then on continually as such serving Jehovah. The presentation of the two firstfruit loaves baked with leaven (Lev. 23:17), and their waving before the Lord, cannot represent something done beyond the veil, else leaven would not have been put into the loaves. It must, therefore, represent something done with New Creatures this side of the veil; for, while in the flesh, our New Creatures are

A Miscellany. 

56 

associated with the corruption (leaven) that is in our flesh, and are by it more or less hampered in their activities. 

(54) Our dear Pastor has shown that these loaves baked out of the firstfruits flour type the Little Flock and the Great Company (Z '98, 68)—expressions that are equivalent to the expression, the Church of the Firstborn (Heb. 12:23). Accordingly not as human beings, but as New Creatures, are these two classes typed by these two loaves made from the flour of the firstfruits. It would seem that the presentation of the loaf that typed the Little Flock has the same typical significance as the presentation of Aaron's sons to the Lord—their consecration to the priesthood (Lev. 8:13, 24-27, 30-36). Furthermore in that picture, in a tentative sense, the presentation of all new creatures is typed, though in the finished picture only those who retain the antitypical Priesthood are included. Hence in a tentative sense the presentation of those who later become of the Great Company, and who are typed by that loaf which types the Great Company as new creatures, is also typed in Lev. 8:13, 24-27, 30-36; but they, of course, are not there typed in the finished picture. On the contrary, in the finished picture their presentation as Great Company members, as such, is typed by the presentation of the Levites in Num. 8:11-21. Hence in the finished picture the presentation of the second loaf, i.e., the one that types the Great Company, types the presentation of the cleansed Great Company as such—a thing that is yet future [to 1921]. Such a presentation of them by our Lord to Jehovah will be their consecration to their Levitical service as such. The antitype of the waving of the loaf, in the finished picture, could not take place until the Great Company as such were active—not in Azazel's service, but—in the Lord's service. That this event is future is manifest from the fact that their purification, their shaving themselves, and their washing their garments,

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

57 

which precede their offer to God, is not finished (Num. 8:21, 7-11). 

(55) As we have seen that our Lord's initial Pentecostal presentation of the entire Church antitypes the presentation of the two loaves by the typical high priest on Pentecost (Lev. 23:16-21); and as we have seen that our Lord's teaching His disciples of the Kingdom during the forty days' of His resurrection experience types our returned Lord teaching His new creatures in the flesh the Parousia Truth, so it would seem that our Lord's delay of ten days after his ascension before presenting the Church to God types how during the ten years from 1914 to 1924 our Lord delays to present the Church in its two parts as such, separate and distinct, to the Father. Then as Jesus presented the whole Church of the Firstborn to God at Pentecost, so it would seem that He thereby types how during the end of the antitypical ten days, i.e., between Oct., 1923, and 1924, He will at the consecration of the Levites present the Little Flock as such and the Great Company as such to God for their future distinct services, the presentation of the Little Flock and Great Company being in the finished picture the antitype of the presentation of the loaves typing the Little Flock and Great Company. This would seem to imply that by the fall of 1924 the Truth Levites and the Priests will begin to be individually manifest as separate and distinct; and that by the complete presentation of the antitypical Truth Levites as such to the Father for their Levitical service all other New Creatures in the Truth would be openly acknowledged by Jesus before God and His New Creatures as His Under-priests. Hence somewhat before the fall of 1924 we may expect [in 1921] a work to begin that will lead to each New Creature recognizing himself and all other New Creatures as antitypical Priests or antitypical Levites, as the case may be, in view of being publicly demonstrated 

A Miscellany. 

58 

as such before God and the Church by Christ, our Lord. This is typed by Moses' setting the Levites before Aaron and his sons—the priests and Levites, of course, recognizing one another as such (Num. 8:13). In the meantime the Lord gives the Epiphany-enlightened saints, who are only a part of the Priesthood, in their conscious dealing with Azazel's Goat to recognize the more markedly revolutionistic and sectarian Levites as such (Lev. 16:21). The work of the World's High Priest in dealing with Azazel's antitypical Goat does not cover so wide a sphere of activity as that covered by Num. 8:7-21. His work of leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate and to the fit man, as described in Lev. 16:21, is covered by the work of sprinkling the water of separation upon the Levites, and of giving them the razor with which they are to shave themselves—sever themselves from their claims to, and their exercise of, powers that do not belong to them (Num. 8:7) While Lev. 16:20-22 does not include nearly so wide a range of the things pertaining to the Great Company as Num. 8:7-21, yet there seems to be no reference to the confession of sins and the fit man and Azazel experiences set forth in the latter passage. The chief difference in these passages is this: the former passage treats of the humanity, the latter of the new creatures of the Great Company. 

(56) It is our expectation that the presentation of the Epiphany Levites as a class will have begun by [written 1922] the fall of 1924. It is very certain that this will not include every individual Great Company member in the flesh: for many of them, e.g., the last ones to come into the Truth who are now in the nominal church, will not be so presented until after most of the Little Flock leave the earth; for the true Church will still be in the flesh after 1924. Nor is it reasonable to expect that every Truth Levite will be by that time presented to the Lord for true Levitical work. It is more in harmony with the time types 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

59 

that have so far been fulfilled on certain predicted dates to expect that by Oct., 1924, the beginning of their presentation will have set in—that of a class in certain of its members rather than of every individual of that class. Thus in fulfillment of a part of the time type (Lev. 23:11, 15-17) of the firstfruit loaves at Pentecost only a part of the Little Flock, as representatives of the whole, was then presented to the Lord, the rest of them being presented at their consecration throughout the Gospel Age. Thus, too, the ends of the 1290 and 1335 days did not mark the completion but only the beginning of the revelation of certain pertinent truths. Again, as seen in the 2520 years' parallel, the tenth day of the fifth month (Aug. 1, 1914)—2520 years after the burning of the temple (Jer. 52:12)—did not mark the completion, but the beginning of the destruction of Christendom. It seems to be a general Scriptural rule that when many individuals of a class are involved and when time types or prophecies are due to be fulfilled in them, the prophetic time marks the beginning, and not the completion, of the predicted event. It is for this reason that it seems to us more reasonable to expect that by Oct., 1924, the beginning of the presentation of certain cleansed Levites will be witnessed rather than the beginning and completion of the presentation of all of them, as it is also unreasonable to expect all of them at the same time to come into the right heart attitude. We should therefore rather expect to see, then, not all, but some of them, as representatives of the whole class, presented to the Lord for His service, even as we see that this was done at Pentecost in the parallel case of the Little Flock, covered in the first feature of the same type (Lev. 23:15-17). However, as this is a prophecy whose fulfillment is yet future, we cannot be certain about its details until the fulfillment comes. Then we will know more about it than we do now. 

(57) Do we look for a thorough and clear separation 

A Miscellany. 

60 

of the Priests and Levites by this fall (written Aug., 1924)? The question arises in view of our forecast (P '21, 151, 152) for the fiftieth year since 1874, based on the presentation of the two antitypical wave loaves at Pentecost (Lev. 23:15-21; Acts 2:1-4). The antitypical fifty days—fifty years—are from Oct. 1874, to Oct. 1924. The fiftieth day began Oct. 1923, and ends Oct. 1924. We have, therefore, been for nearly eleven months in this antitypical day. Has the forecast been fulfilling? We answer, Yes. For about the last ten months we have been observing certain acts which show that the Lord is manifesting good Levites as such. Our readers will recall how we have shown that the Levite movements have been working out on time, e.g., on the anniversary of a Levite leader of one group committing revolutionary acts, a Levite leader of another group did a similar thing (P '20, 98-100). Beginning with Nov. 11, 1923, we have been observing a series of similar revolutionisms against Epiphany arrangements on the same dates. The good non-Epiphany Levites, of course, do not revolutionize against Parousia teachings and arrangements; for that is characteristic of bad Levites. Nor is it reasonable to expect the Epiphany-enlightened section of them to revolutionize against Epiphany truths; rather as we understand the matter, their revolutionism is and will be against Epiphany arrangements. From this standpoint we see evidences showing that certain priests and good Levites are mutually becoming active, and are thus becoming manifest as such. Their acts are just seven years to the day later than similar acts began to be enacted, when a certain priest and leaders in the Gershonite and Merarite groups began their separate acts. We do not expect this work to be complete by Oct. 1924. Perhaps the following year—Oct. 1924, to Oct. 1925—will witness similar revolutionisms among the good Levites who are now mingling with the Levitical groups under 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

61 

bad Levite leadership. Probably very few will recognize the work going on until the Lord will make clearer manifestations through the Small Jesus after the end of the small eighth wonderful day—toward the end of 1925 and afterward. All the cases that have already come under our notice have been marked with a recognition of the wrong-doing and a humbling of themselves on the part of the wrong-doers. This would be in line with their cleansing themselves; and as they have been doing this they have doubtless been presented to Jehovah by Jesus, their High Priest, as parts of the Great Company, in antitype of what our Lord did at Pentecost with that class. This fact would imply that the faithful priests are undergoing the antitype of the presentation of the Little Flock at Pentecost. [Good Levites' coming into manifestation since the foregoing was written becomes more and more pronounced—year after year since Oct. 1924.] 

(58) It will be recalled that in 1906 Jesse Hemery wrote a letter to our Pastor on the antitype of the Flood year, and that this letter was published in Z '06, 111. It was Jesse Hemery's thought that the Flood year typed one year, i.e., the year from Oct., 1914, to Oct., 1915, as the year in which the Time of Trouble would begin, progress and end. While it is true that the Great Tribulation began in 1914, facts, of course, prove that it has not by any means yet ended. Accordingly, the Flood year could not type the year period suggested by Jesse Hemery. The Scriptures, as our Pastor interpreted them, evidently give us two distinct sets of types connected with Noah's Flood experiences: (1) The days before the Flood (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27) typing the period preceding the tribulation in its various stages; and (2) the days of the Flood, typing the period in which certain ones are delivered from the destruction which involves others (1 Pet. 3:20, 21). In Vol. IV our Pastor in great detail traced the antitype of the days before the Flood, and we will

A Miscellany. 

62 

treat of them no further in this article, desiring to give some details on what seems to us to be the antitype of the Flood year. 

(59) It will be remembered that our dear Pastor explained the Ark as typing "Christ and the power in Him which will replenish and reorganize Society" (A 318). Christ and that replenishing and reorganizing power are summarized in the Abrahamic Covenant, which we all know was made in April, 2045 B.C., i.e., 2044¾ years before Jan. 1, 1 A.D. Therefore it would be in harmony with our Pastor's definition of the Ark's antitype to define its antitype as the Abrahamic Covenant, the embodiment of God's counsel; whose central feature is the Seed of Abraham, The Christ, and whose glorious work of replenishing and reorganizing power is to bless all the nations of the earth (Gal. 3:8, 16, 29). The relation between these two sets of thoughts is that of container to the things contained, and as such give the two sets of antitypes, that on the Ark typing the Covenant being the one explained in this chapter. Thus both sets of antitypes are harmonious. It will also be noticed that there were four human pairs who went into the Ark, as well as at least one pair of every clean and unclean kind of animals. We know that there are four elective classes who in this life obtain a good report through faith in the Abrahamic Covenant: (1) The Christ, (2) the Ancient Worthies, (3) the Great Company, and (4) the Youthful Worthies. Noah undoubtedly types our Lord, who is the Heir of the righteousness which comes to us by faith (Heb. 11:7). These classes we understand to be typed in their respective order by Noah and his wife, Shem and his wife, Japheth and his wife and Ham and his wife, the males apart from Noah representing all the leaders of their respective classes and the females the rest of these classes. We understand the animals in the Ark to represent the non-elect who will ultimately be saved. We understand 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

63 

the clean animals to represent the Jews, as typically clean, who will be saved, and the Tentatively Justified, as tentatively clean, who will be saved. The unclean animals we understand represent those of the present unclean world who will be saved; while those who perished in the Flood we understand to represent from one viewpoint those who have perished under the Adamic curse, and from another standpoint, the movements and systems of Satan's Empire and the Second Death class. Just as in the type the clean and the unclean animals occupied altogether different positions in the Ark from those of Noah and his family, so in the antitype the Jews and the Tentatively Justified on the one hand, and the prospectively saved of the rest of mankind on the other hand, are quite differently related to the Abrahamic Covenant from antitypical Noah and his family. These animals were placed in the Ark to type that anticipatorily their antitypes would be included in the Abrahamic Covenant. As the Ark in the type was the means of rescue from the Flood, so God's eternal purpose—the Abrahamic Covenant—is the means of safety from destruction. These general remarks will prepare us better to see the antitype of the Flood year. 

(60) Apart from those Ancient Worthies who lived before the Covenant, but who were by God anticipatorily considered as in that Covenant, the first ones actually to enter the antitypical Ark—the Covenant—were Abraham and Sarah. Hence the antitypical Ark was first entered by the Ancient Worthies as a class in the persons of Abraham and Sarah in 2045 B.C. The last of all the classes to enter the antitypical Ark consists of the Youthful Worthies. They as a class first entered the antitypical Ark in 1881, when the General Call ceased, and as a result the surplus consecrators became a class different from any other class. Thus between April, 2045 B.C., and Oct., 1881 A.D., the four elective classes actually and the rest

A Miscellany. 

64 

anticipatorily entered the Covenant; and consequently this period is, we believe, the antitypical Flood year, on the principle that types in their time features give us the beginnings of the antitypes. This will become all the more apparent if we consider the Flood year as a leap lunar year plus ten days (Gen. 7:11; 8:14), i.e., an ordinary year of 365 days, which was its actual duration. Ordinary lunar years consist of 354 calendar days, leap lunar years of 355. The lunar year of the Flood was a leap year. Hence we should consider in the antitype that the time from April, 2045 B.C., to Oct. 1881 A.D. was a symbolic year consisting of 365 symbolic days. It was just about 3925.50 years from the Covenant until Oct. 1881. This time, then, would be the antitypical Flood year. A day of such a year would be 1/365 of 3925.50 years, which is 10.7547945 years. From the standpoint of such a year containing such days we give below a table indicating the exact periods and the years B.C. and A.D. marked typically by the various Flood days mentioned in Gen. 7 and 8, beginning the calculation with the date of the Covenant with Abraham, April, 2045 B.C. 

DAYS YEARS DATE 

Gen. 7:12 40 430.19178080+ July 1615, B.C. 

Gen. 8:4 107 1150.76301364+ April 464, B.C. 

Gen. 8:3 3 32.26438356+ July 432, B.C. 

Gen. 8:5 70 752.83561640+ May 322, A.D. 

Gen. 8:6 40 430.19178080+ July 752, A.D. 

Gen. 8:10 7 75.28356164+ Oct. 827, A.D. 

Gen. 8:12 7 75.28356164+ Feb. 903, A.D. 

Gen. 8:13 35 376.41780820+ July 1279, A.D. 

Gen. 8:14 56 602.26849312+ Oct. 1881, A.D. 

365 3925.49999980+ 

(61) In this table we have given the exact time from the end of each stage of the Flood year to the 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

65 

end of the next stage mentioned in days and years as type and antitype, as well as the date B.C. and A.D. when each antitypical stage ended. In each case we are to remember that the date given marks the end of the pertinent antitypical day. Each antitypical day began 10.7547945+ years before its end. Hence the antitypical events are to be found within a period beginning 10.7547945 years before the above dates. The total of the years as added—3925.49999980+ — is decimally very slightly shorter than the 3925.50 given above. This almost infinitesimal difference is due to the fact that we stopped with our dividing operation, in finding the length of a symbolic day in the antitypical Flood year, after we reached the eighth decimal, knowing that a difference of only a few seconds would result—a period that is so very short that it could make no difference in our calculations. As in the type the end of each day-period specifically mentioned brought some relief from preceding disadvantages, and was the promise of further relief, so in the antitype the end of each antitypical day, typically indicated, brought a relief from preceding disadvantages suffered by those in the antitypical Ark, and was a promise of further relief. Having made these general remarks we now proceed to give some details. 

(62) The first Flood period—the downpour of rain—lasted forty days; and on the theory that a day typed 10.7547945 years of the symbolic year of 3925.50 years, these forty days would represent 430.19178080+ years. With April, 2045 B.C. as the starting point, 430.19178080 years later would bring us to July, 1615 B.C., as the end of the fortieth antitypical day. This antitypical day began 10.7547945 years before. What striking event occurred between Oct. 1626 B.C., and July, 1615 B.C.? We answer, the Law Covenant was made with Israel, beginning exactly 430 years from the Abrahamic Covenant, hence in April, 1615 B.C. During these 430.19178080 years all outside of the 

A Miscellany. 

66 

Covenant—the antitypical Ark—were suffering from lack of its shelter; and only those in it were protected from the deluge of the curse pouring down its woes. By entering into the Law Covenant the faithful in Israel received added blessings—otherwise not theirs—though none of them could gain life by the Law. As symbolized by the pertinent ascending passage of the Pyramid they by entering the Law Covenant were lifted up in many ways above those who were not so favored. Thus during the symbolized time—the antitypical fortieth day—relief from past disadvantages and promise of future relief were given those in the antitypical Ark. All of us are sufficiently familiar with the history of the first forty symbolic days of the antitypical Flood year to recognize both the woes of those who were without, and the blessings of those who were within, the antitypical Ark, and to recognize the relief that came toward the end of those forty days to Israel delivered from Egyptian bondage, and the blessings that their Law Covenant brought them. 

(63) Five actual lunar months, if they begin as the Flood did, from a date in the second lunar month (Gen. 7:11), consist of exactly 147 days, not 150 days, as the P.B.I. Editors and Directors claim. Hence these five months of the Flood ended 107 days after the forty days' downpour of rain ended. Each one representing 10.7547945+ years, 107 typical days symbolize 1150.76301364+ years, which number of years from July, 1615 B.C. would bring us to April, 464 B.C., the end of the 107th antitypical day. This antitypical day, therefore, began 10.7547945+ years before, i.e., July, 475 B.C. In the type it will be noticed that the Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat at the end of the fifth month (Gen. 8:4). What event occurring within the years 475 to 464 B.C. would antitype the Ark resting on Ararat's mountains? We answer that in 468 B.C. the Persian empire through the 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

67 

commission that its King, Artaxerxes, gave Ezra (Ez. 7:1-28) furnished very especial support to God's real people and their hopes—the Covenant—and provided for their help especially along religious lines according to the Word of God. While previously this empire favored Israel with respect to their return and the building of their temple, it made no such generous provision for their religious needs as was done in connection with Ezra's commission. Here the antitypical Ark, the Abrahamic Covenant, rested—was borne up—supported—by the kingdom (mountain) that consisted of many kingdoms (mountain peaks). In this connection we might remark that if we should accept the P.B.I. chronology for Ezra's commission, 457 B.C., our date, April 464 B.C., would be seven years too early for Ezra's commission; and if we accepted their theory of the first five Flood months as being 150 days, Ezra's commission would be skipped altogether. Nor could we fix any other event of outstanding importance within the proper period as an antitype of the Ark's resting on the mountains of Ararat. This type is, like the Pyramid, another corroboration of the Scripturalness of our chronology. 

(64) In the type the next day-period mentioned—the beginning of the water's subsiding—ended 150 days from the beginning of the Flood (Gen. 8:3), or three days after the Ark rested on Ararat. These three days represent 32.26438356+ years, and ended July, 432 B.C. Accordingly, the last of these antitypical days began Oct., 443 B.C. What occurred during the period between Oct., 443 B.C., and July, 432 B.C.? In Israel Nehemiah in Oct., 443 B.C., finished the first twelve years of his reformatory and defensive work for Israel; and leaving on a brief visit for Persia he shortly afterward returned, and completed his reformatory activity on behalf of Israel (Neh. 13:6-31). This reformation very ably freed Israel from many evils formerly in their midst, and so firmly established

A Miscellany. 

68 

them in their peculiar covenant relations—both in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants—as largely secured them against the demoralizing effect of heathen fellowship and dealings. For centuries from that time onward Israel enjoyed peace and security as a result of the recession of the curse of heathenism from their midst, and remained very largely free from the contaminations of heathendom. Yea, this curse began to abate for them. 

(65) The next period in the type (Gen. 8:5) lasted seventy days and on its last day the tops of the mountains were seen. The antitypical seventy days lasted 752.83561640+ years, ending in May, 322 A.D., as its last symbolic day began Aug., 311 A.D. What events occurred between Aug., 311 A.D., and May, 322 A.D., corresponding to the appearance of the mountains from under the Flood? We answer that during those years, e.g., in 313 A.D., the last of Pagan Rome's persecutions ended, after continuing ten years (Rev. 2:10); Constantine made his various edicts of religious toleration, which gave both true and counterfeit Christians religious freedom; and both the true and the false Christianity used their freedom to do what each considered best. During this time, 318 A.D., Arius began his very fruitful work for Truth. Thus religious freedom was for the first time in history proclaimed by earth's mightiest kingdoms, both in the eastern and in the western parts of the Roman Empire, which at that time consisted of two equally authoritative kingdoms, united in one Empire (the mountains of Gen. 8:5). Certainly for the Empire to grant religious freedom to the Christians was a marked stage in the subsidence of the curse, so far as it concerns the Abrahamic Covenant and all therein, howsoever related thereto. 

(66) The next period in the type came to an end forty days after its preceding period, and on its last day a raven and a dove were sent forth, the dove, but not the raven, returning in the evening to Noah (Gen. 8:6-9). 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

69 

These forty days type 430.19178080+ years and bring us to July, 752 A.D., its last symbolic day beginning Oct., 741 A.D. What events occurred during this period corresponding to the sending forth of the raven and the dove? We have already a number of times seen (Vol. III, Chapter II) that a raven is used to represent sectarianism. On the other hand, the dove is used to represent the Holy Spirit, especially of Truth and Love (Matt. 3:16). We understand the raven of these verses to represent Papal sectarianism, especially as it was carried on in Germany and France by Boniface as the representative of Pope Zacharias, who reigned A.D. 741-752, the exact period of the antitypical fortieth day of Gen. 8:6. While previously to 741 Boniface sought to convert German heathen, it was especially after the death of Charles Martel, 741 A.D., that Boniface, instead of seeking to convert the heathen, sought to subject all converted Germany and France to the Pope, and wrought unweariedly to this end for over ten years, and succeeded in Romanizing these countries, driving out all who would not submit to Rome's organization, doctrines and practices. If ever a sectarian lived, it was surely Boniface, whom Romanists call the Apostle of the Germans. Certainly this sectarian's activity brought none of his followers and works to the Abrahamic Covenant (the raven returned not to the Ark). But he did fight to the end, by means fair and foul, every one who would not submit to the Romanizing of their Irish, British, French or German forms of Christianity. His work, especially in France and Germany from A.D. 741-752, more than anything else made these countries bow down at the feet of the pretended successor of St. Peter. 

(67) But what corresponded to the dove that was sent out at the same time as the raven was sent out by Noah? We answer that there was an anti-Romanizing movement, led by a Frank named Adalbert, by a 

A Miscellany. 

70 

Scotchman named Clement, and by an Irishman named Virgilius, during this antitypical fortieth day. They opposed the worship of angels, saints and relics, pilgrimages and auricular confession, insisted on the priesthood of all the consecrated, and the worship of God in spirit and in truth, as against Rome's formalism. They also rejected the Romish canon law, the obligatoriness of the decrees of the synods, and of the teaching of the Roman Church Fathers, as well as the celibacy of the priesthood. They insisted on the Scriptural teaching of a hope for the dead heathen, and of the selection of a "Little Flock" as the Lord's Bride. These teachings these three men and their followers set forth with clearness and love, and their activity was evidently of the Holy Spirit; and hence it would properly be symbolized by the dove. Boniface secured their condemnation and imprisonment by the civil power, and their ecclesiastical condemnation at a synod at Soissons, France. Soon they recovered their liberty. Then Boniface persecuted them before Pope Zacharias, and secured their condemnation, unheard, at a Lateran Council, A.D. 745. For several years they were persecuted and before 752 they were entirely suppressed and their movement ceased (the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot). Yea, antitypical Noah stretched forth His power and drew back this movement as being premature for the conditions then prevailing. 

(68) Seven days later, in the type, Noah sent forth the same dove, and in the evening it returned with an olive leaf in its mouth plucked from an olive tree. These seven days represent 75.28356164+ years, which ended Oct., 827 A.D., the seventh symbolic day beginning Jan., 816 A.D. What movement that was pervaded by the spirit of Truth and Love was active A.D. 816-827? We reply, the anti-Papal Absolutism and anti-Idolism movement led by Claudius of Turin, the principal man of the Thyratira Church, "the first 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

71 

Protestant Reformer," and, his special helper, Agobard of Lyons. We have already explained the main features of this movement (Vol. III, Chapter II), and refer our dear readers to it for a fresh study. This movement gave more promise than the former, that of 741 to 752, and gave out more Truth, which was by far more widely spread and assimilated. The fuller Truth and greater prosperity of this movement above the former one are represented by the plucked-off olive leaf in the mouth—Holy Spirit utterances—of the dove. This gave our Lord—antitypical Noah—assurance that the waters of the curse were more and more subsiding for the Lord's purposes. Noah's receiving it again into the Ark types the fact that since conditions were not yet fully ripe to let a Holy Spirit movement take its free course in the world, it had again to be withdrawn from work amid the evils of the curse. 

(69) Seven days later Noah sent forth a third time the dove, which did not return again to him (Gen. 8:12). These seven days represent 75.28356164+ years, which ended Feb., 903 A.D., the seventh antitypical day beginning May, 892 A.D. What events (A.D. 892-903) correspond to the third sending forth of the dove and its not returning? We reply that during this period Alfred the Great, King of England, was especially active in the interests of Christianity, Law, Order and Education in his realm. Alfred was one of the noblest of rulers, and one of the best men that has ever lived. To his people he was a genuine David, planted in a Christian soil; and it was especially through the educational and religious work that he set into operation in England that the antitype of the dove's being sent forth the third time was realized. He personally and through others translated valuable books from Latin into English, that his people might have the best of literature then obtainable. He founded schools and colleges for the people; he strove to instill the true principles of Christianity in his people; and

A Miscellany. 

72 

among other things translated the Psalms into English, and was the first one during the Dark Ages to render a considerable portion of God's Word into the living language of a European nation. In his noble life and in the movement along religious and educational lines that he brought into being we see the dove spirit, the Holy Spirit of Truth and Love. And the movement so started continued more or less to the present—the dove returned not again to the Ark. 

(70) The next date mentioned in the type is the first day of the first month, in the 601st year of Noah (Gen. 8:13). This date came 35 days after the preceding date, and these 35 days type 376.41780820+ years. The antitypical 35 days ended July, 1279 A.D., the thirty-fifth day beginning Oct., 1268, A.D. What corresponding events occurred A.D. 1268-1279? During this time the zeal for anti-Saracen Crusades died out, and Louis IX of France, 1269 A.D. obtained for the French Church many valuable privileges wrung from the Papacy, insuring the French more liberty than the Catholic Church of any other country had. Crusades were encouraged among Christian rulers by the popes to wrest the Holy Land from its Mohammedan rulers. The popes promised full indulgence to the Crusaders who would deliver the holy sepulcher from the infidel Mohammedans. Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont, France, 1095 A.D., roused France to the first Crusade, and thereby started a movement that soon spread over all Christendom, lasting nearly two hundred years, and dragging down to death millions of men who under the banner of the Cross went forth with carnal weapons to battle supposedly for the Lord with the Saracens. In all, seven Crusades were organized and led against the infidels. The last of these was organized and led by Louis IX of France in 1270. Half of his army, including himself, was that year carried away with pestilence, which ended what proved to be the last anti-Saracen Crusade.

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

73 

All subsequent efforts of the popes to arouse such Crusades ended in failure. The kings and people had had enough of them; and Acre, the last Christian stronghold in Palestine, was taken by the Saracens in 1291 A.D. Surely the Crusades were a curse, and their ceasing—the waters of the curse drying up—was a blessing to mankind, a distinct relief from some of the rigors of the Adamic curse. 

(71) The Crusades ended just 25 years before God, by Philip the Fair, of France, in A.D. 1295, began a great and long series of acts stretching over centuries, whereby He gradually by civil rulers, religious and political reformers and worldly educators and scientists dried up the features of the curse centering in the Papacy, and working against the Covenant and God's people; and by the time Oct., 1881, was reached this drying up process was so complete that mouthpieceship had been (1878) wholly taken away from the Nominal Church, both in Catholic and Protestant sects. This is the period typed by the 56 remaining days of the Flood year. This period of 56 days typed 602.26849312 years, which ended Oct., 1881. The last day of these antitypical 56 days began Jan., 1871. During this antitypical day our Lord returned, raised the sleeping Saints, cast off Babylon, ended the General Call, and began to develop the Youthful Worthies, who were from God's viewpoint anticipatorily in the antitypical Ark with all its other classes from the beginning of the antitypical Flood year. The going forth from the Ark types the entrance of the various classes into the conditions where they will no more need the Abrahamic Covenant, i.e., the eternal conditions of blessedness—beyond the period of imperfection—secured by God's rainbow promise that there will be no more curse, and given when the sacrifices offered to God will be eternally pleasing, in the new heavens and in the new earth (Gen. 8:15-22). Praise be to God for light on the Flood year! 

A Miscellany. 

74 

(72) The foregoing raises some questions that we will state and answer: 

Question: Why do we say above that the first five Flood months were 147 days and not 150 days? 

Answer: The months of the Flood year, like all literal Bible months, were, of course, lunar months. A lunar month averages 29.53059 days; hence the lunar calendar is adjusted to take care of the actual time of each lunation as follows: The odd-numbered months, with occasional exceptions to make up the fraction over 29½ days, and to harmonize the added thirteenth month, are months of 30 days, while the even-numbered months are months of 29 days. The Flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month of the lunar year, hence in an even month. Its first five months ended on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. In addition to covering the end of the second month, these five months covered two other even months, i.e., the fourth and sixth months. Hence these five months consisted of three months containing 29 days each, and of two months containing 30 days each, and therefore lasted 147 days. This fact, as well as others, corroborated by the event—Ezra's commission—on the last one of these 147 days in the antitypical Flood year, proves that the P.B.I. Editors and nominal-church writers in general are wrong in their claim that God, apart from designating the prophetic months in the Old Testament, counted the months as containing 30 days and the years as containing 360 days. 

(73) The second question follows: Question: Is it not self-contradictory to teach that the antitypical Flood year began 2045 B.C., and that persons, typical of classes which began to exist thousands of years later, entered the Ark before the Flood began, while these antitypical classes entered the antitypical Ark long after the antitypical Flood year began? 

Answer: We are to remember that the antitype of

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

75 

the days before the Flood year (Luke 17:20, 27) consists of conditions in the world before and especially during the Parousia; while the Flood year represents the time during which the elect classes by consecration entered into covenant relations with God (1 Pet. 3:20 [last clause], 21). Entering the Ark was a part of the former picture. As God in the cases of Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc., anticipatorily gave them the benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant, i.e., treated them as being in that Covenant centuries before it was made, so He anticipatorily considered classes to be in the antitypical Ark—the Abrahamic Covenant—centuries before these classes came into being, on the principle that God "calleth those things that are not as though they were," in view of His plan respecting them (Rom. 4:17). Again, as our Pastor held and as a number of types prove, this type is one that sets forth the Youthful Worthies as a part of the Ancient Worthies; hence they are included in them as entering the Ark before the Flood began. This will harmonize the apparent discrepancy. The reason that no typical reference is made to our Lord's death in the Flood picture is because it would have had to be typed by something done inside the Ark, while the various Flood stages refer to happenings outside the Ark. 

(74) Our third pertinent question is: Since Alfred the Great's reform work is pointed out in the antitypical Flood year, should we consider him as one of the Little Flock reformers? 

Answer: We rather think he was, because his movement was typed by the dove—a symbol of the Holy Spirit. The other two reform movements—that of Adalbert, Clement and Virgilius (741-752) and that of Cladius of Turin (816-827)—typed by the first and second doves sent forth, were Little Flock movements. And this fact, combined with the fact that a dove represents each of the three reform movements, favors our answer. Moreover, Alfred's character was 

A Miscellany. 

76 

certainly that of a Little Flock member. He is probably the noblest and best king that ever sat on a throne. By having the Holy Spirit he was in a position to better even David as a king. There will in all likelihood be representatives of every calling and condition of humanity in the Little Flock, in order sympathetically to assist others of the same calling and condition in life; and we know of no other king who has been so Christlike as was Alfred—one of the very few earthly monarchs who has really deserved the title, the Great. 

(75) Our last question is: Why were some lesser reform movements typed in the Flood year, while many greater ones were not? 

Answer: Several answers will clarify the question: (1) One of the methods that the Lord used in revealing His purposes in the Bible, is to give "here a little, there a little." In no one passage or place in the Bible do we find everything stated pertinent to any of the more important features of Biblical revelation. It is for this reason that all the reform movements typed in the Scriptures are not represented in the Flood year type, or in any other one type. Hence only certain of them should be expected to be represented in the Flood picture. (2) It seems that this type rather represents the subsidence of the secular features of the curse on the race as such; hence the amelioration of secular evils of the curse, rather than the amelioration of religious evils of the curse, is most prominently emphasized in the Flood year type. This will account for the fact that the more important Little Flock movements are not emphasized in this type, since they were occupied with coping with the religious evils of the curse upon man. 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) What does our theme require? Of what words in it is this especially true? What is meant by the words, "it all," in the theme? What does our subject mean? What does our theme imply? What does our text mean in connection with our theme? What is implied in denying 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

77 

special significance in the implied events? How does our understanding of these events advantage us? 

(2) What kind of events has happened among us since our Pastor's death? What were our condition and privileges while he lived? What has since set in? What two evil activities have set in since then? 

(3) What kind of a significance do some attach to these events? What do they not see in them? Why should we expect to find Scriptural significance in them? How unique are some of these events? Why must they be Scripturally marked? Quote and explain a proof text on this point. What heart condition is necessary to receive the Biblical explanation of them? At least how many lines of Biblical thought are evidenced in these events? 

(4) What is the first of these? Into how many and into what divisions were the Lord's people separated in 1917? To what does this separation correspond? How does it do so? What is typed by Elijah's and Elisha's coming to Jordan? By Elijah's smiting Jordan? By Elisha's not smiting? By his walking along with Elijah across the river's bed? By their crossing dry shod? When did the antitypes occur? What is typed by Elijah's and Elisha's walking and talking beyond Jordan? What is typed by their ceasing from these two acts? When did the antitypical separation set in? Who forecast its time quite accurately? When and where? 

(5) What proves the correctness of this setting? What four things do facts force all to admit? Of what must these events be the antitypes? Why? What things agree with this view? 

(6) What events accompanied the separation—type and antitype? What do chariots symbolize Biblically? What is the chariot of antitypical Israel? Why it rather than two other organizations? What does the fieriness represent? What does the fiery chariot represent? What events made the antitypical chariot fiery? What do horses symbolize Biblically? What do the horses under consideration type? What made the antitypes fiery? Whom do the horsemen type? How did they drive the antitypical chariot and horses? Among whom did they drive these? What resulted there from? Explain the division—type and antitype. What were the approximate numbers on both 

A Miscellany. 

78 

sides? Of what is this division undoubtedly the antitype? 

(7) Why must this division be this antitype? What do all the connected facts imply? How have these facts affected the Tower editors? The P.B.I. editors? What conclusion do their courses corroborate? 

(8) What third line of events corroborate the same thought? What is typed by the cry, "My Father, my Father"? "The chariot of Israel"? "The horsemen thereof"? Were there antitypes of these three cries? 

(9) What is the proper word to insert after the words, "He saw," in verse 10? Why? What is the force of the word saw in verses 10 and 12? Why is it stated in verse 10, "He saw him"? What is meant—type and antitype—by the expression of verse 12, "He saw him no more"? State some of the facts of the antitype. 

(10) What is typed by Elisha's rending his garments in twain? By Elijah's mantle falling? Elisha's picking it up? His return to the Jordan? His standing at Jordan His smiting Jordan? By what instrumentalities was this done? When did the three last mentioned acts set in? What did they follow? What kind of events associated with Elijah's and Elisha's separation have we hitherto examined? What do they manifest? What does this prove? 

(11) How can we prove who antitypical Elisha is? What is the proof? Why is it conclusive? What does the mantle type? What are the three chief powers typed by the mantle? Who controlled these powers after the separation? What does this prove? 

(12) What did the perfect correspondence between the type and the antitype force the Tower editors to do? Why? What did it force the P.B.I. editors to do? Why? How did the Society's president act at the separation and in attempting to explain it Scripturally? What conclusion is favored by these logically forced repudiations? Where are these matters, here summarized, set forth in detail? What kind of an explanation does our view give of the 1917 separation? 

(13) What is the second set of remarkable events among the Lord's people since "that Servant's" death? What is the certainty of these events? What are some, of the details in both sets of events in Britain? In

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

79 

America? How do, both sets of events appear in both countries? What were two smaller sets of events after the chief one first described? 

(14) Who did some prominent revolutionizing in 1918? What are some of the correspondencies of their acts with those of the 1917 revolutionists? In what particulars did they revolutionize? With what did this revolutionism meet? Who gave it? To what extent? Who followed the P.B.I. in revolutionism? In what especially did they revolutionize? What revolutionistic movement followed the Standfast movement? In what especially did it revolutionize? What was the last of these general revolutionistic movements? In what did its revolutionism consist? To what did it lead the Faithful? 

(15) What is set forth in the two preceding paragraphs? What else did the revolutionists do? What did the Tower editors, especially their leader, do as to our Pastor's teachings? What are some of the particulars on this head? What has the Society's president done with many of our Pastor's arrangements? With what results? What have the P.B.I. done beyond their initial revolutionism? In what particulars? What have other revolutionists above mentioned further done? 

(16) What occurred in every case of revolutionism? Through what journal was this especially done? What is the source of its refutations? What have the revolutionists been forced to admit? What two things have they done to the resisters? With what success? Whose examples justify the course of the resisters? 

(17) What do such revolutionism and its resistance mean? Where is this matter treated of in greater detail? How can we prove that the Great Company's sin and means of manifestation is revolutionism? Give a summary of Ps. 107. What is meant by darkness in Ps. 107:10? By the shadow of death? By affliction? By iron? By the expression, the words of the Lord, in verse 11? By the counsel of the Most High? Of what does God's Plan consist? How does rebellion against any of its arrangements mean rebellion against the whole Plan of God? 

(18) Of whom does Ps. 107:10, 11 treat? With what two things does it charge them? According to it, what is

A Miscellany. 

80 

their manifestating sin? When only can we know that a new creature is of the Great Company? Why can we not be sure of this in connection with other sins? By what does the Lord manifest to the Priesthood the forfeiture of a crown? What passage proves this? Who only judges them unto Great Companyship? What is the Priests' function as to their Great Companyship? Who taught that while in the flesh the Priests would recognize the Great Company as such? Where did he teach it? In what words in the two quotations did he teach it? 

(19) What thought must be repeated here? Why must the Priests now be able to recognize the crown-losers as such in their humanity? What three of their ministerial acts toward their humanity require this? What ministerial act toward their new creatures requires this? In what blemished condition would the Priests now be, if they could not discern the Great Company as such? Show this—type and antitype. From what should these considerations restrain us? 

(20) What type forecasts the above facts as to the revolutionisms of the Great Company and the Priests' resistance thereof? What does Azazel mean? What proves that Azazel's Goat was tied to the door of the tabernacle? When did the last begettal of the Spirit occur? What was thereafter immediately done by the World's High Priest? In what other ways is this work set forth in the Bible? What was greatly emphasized from Sept. 18, 1914, onward? By what means was it done? Who did and who did not do this? What did those new creatures do who did not declare Christendom's sins? 

(21) What in the type and the antitype followed the confession of the sins over Azazel's goat? By whom was it done? In what two ways was it done? What new thing did these two things furnish the antitypical Goat? Where did it begin? When did the first loosening act begin in England? With what did the spurt for liberty begin in England? Who was by the Lord and our Pastor selected to handle the British revolutionistic brethren? What did they do after our Pastor's death? What interfered with their dash for liberty? Who successfully resisted their revolutionism and withdrew priestly fellowship from them? What are the types of these two acts?

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

81 

(22) What error among the brethren was being practiced in America while the English trouble was on? In what ways was it manifesting itself? What did the brother who led the English brethren against the revolutionists do toward the American revolutionists? What effect did this have on the present management and their partisan supporters? In what ways did this effect express itself? What did the World's High Priest do to counter this effect? Through what means? What else did the arbitrariness of the present management prompt the Priesthood to do? 

(23) Through what periodical did the World's High Priest continue to resist the revolutionists? What groups and their mouthpieces were such revolutionists? How often was this resistance given? Of what characteristics did this resistance not partake? Of what did it partake? Why? Why is this resistance invincible? How has this been manifested? Who is not and who is the source of this victorious resistance? 

(24) What is the third set of remarkable events among the Lord's people since our Pastor's death? To what do these events correspond-type and antitype? Who forecast the manifestation of the Levites in their various groups after the reaping? What is happening before our eyes with this forecast? How many general classes of Levites were there? What were they called? Who among the sons of Levi had no chariots for their work? Who among them had them? How many did each of these groups have? What do wagons or chariots type? Who are the antitypical Levites who have no organizations to control their work? 

(25) How many groups of organized antitypical Levites are there? What is the difference between them? To whom do each of them correspond? To what do the three classes of revolutionists correspond? 

(26) Into how many subdivisions were these three Levite groups separated? How many subdivisions were there among the Gershonites? The Merarites? The Kohathites? What should this lead us to look for among the three antitypical Levite groups? What do we find in this respect? How many subdivisions have the antitypical Kohathites? What are these, and how do they correspond 

A Miscellany. 

82 

to the four Kohathite subdivisions? What do they not have and use? Whom do the Merarites type? What organizations did our Pastor form? Who got control of these at the 1917 separation? How did the Society divide in 1918? What did the Standfasters form? To what did it give place? Of whom are the Society adherents and the Standfasters the respective antitypes? To what do their four organizations correspond? Who are the antitypical Gershonites? What did their British branch seek, but fail to gain? Their American branch? What did these two groups then proceed to do? What are these two organizations? To what does each of these groups correspond antitypically? What has our investigation on this line brought to light? 

(27) What objection is offered to this setting of things? How is it to be answered? How many heads of families did the Levites ultimately develop? What do these heads of families type? What, in the Tabernacle, pictures the same thing? What do we see progressing along this line? Is it yet complete? How should this affect our faith in this setting of things? 

(28) What had we for years been doing as to the three signs discussed in this article? When did the reaping end? The gleaning? How many reasons have been given in proof? How only can they be explained Scripturally, reasonably and factually? What is in line with this thought? What do they therefore prove? What is the voice of these events? What agrees with this? 

(29) What follows as to the character of the Editor's work since our Pastor's death? How have the revolutionists represented him? What does the above setting do to these representations of him? What has the Lord done to his work? What uses has the Lord made of him? What does this setting of things prove should be done to the revolutionists? Describe the progress of the Editor's treatment of them. What are they proven to be? What tactics have they been using on the Editor? 

(30) How have they misrepresented his plainness of speech? How has his conduct when being questioned by their prosecutor been misrepresented by them? How has his defense of the brethren against their revolutionism been misrepresented by them? How have they misrepresented

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

83 

his standing before Justice? What disproves this charge? What have they done as to his character? What does their revolutionism prove of them? What do his retention of the Truth and its arrangements and his giving of the meat in due season prove of him and of them? How should his course be treated? What will best help the bewildered ones to recognize his place and work in the Lord? What qualities are necessary for such a recognition? What do the signs of the times say as to him and his opponents? 

(31) Of what does the article of Z '26, 115-119 give an illustration? To what perversions did the illustrated course lead? Whom especially do the sympathizers with the view set forth in the article understand to be meant disapprovingly by it? What standing, similar to that of many Societyites, do some who left the Society have? What similar experience do both have? Why? How, on the contrary, have others fared? What proves this answer to be true? How does advancing Truth stand related to past Truth? What must be the character of the alleged Truth which antagonizes the past Truth? 

(32) What proof have we that the Epiphany teachings are true? That J.F.R.'s are erroneous? What two conclusions follow from these two facts? Despite what is J.F.R. the head of the little Antichrist? What is the real character of the sacrifices of his followers? Of his alleged advancing light? What parallel will he continue to fulfill? What guarantees his overthrow? Why will God overthrow him? Why is he now being allowed to attain higher and higher elevation? What will result as he lights from the fall? 

(33) What to him known falsehood does he reiterate? Where will this be proven? With what is he charged? Why does he in this matter misrepresent our Pastor? How is this item introduced by him? In our Pastor's case of what is his progress in teaching justification by faith an illustration? What statement is repeated in the text? What proves this? Why did he so teach? What did he begin to do in 1909 on this subject? While teaching both tentative and vitalized justification before 1909, how did he thereafter teach them as not before? What does J.F.R. do with tentative justification? By what 

A Miscellany. 

84 

claim? How does he belie our Pastor therein? How did the latter clarify the pertinent Truth? Wherein does the article under review teach falsely? What is to be said of J.F.R. in this connection? 

(34) Against what does paragraph 15 of the reviewed article rightly inveigh? For what are those inveighed against to be congratulated? Than whom do they do better? By what would they do still better? What day have we not yet reached? Why not? What results from this? What should not be done with everything offered us as light? Why not? By what criteria may we judge as to what is advancing light and what is darkness? Why are these proper criteria? What do they prove J.F.R.'s alleged advancing light to be? As to the Epiphany teachings? How does Azazel set it forth? Through whom? What flows from these things as to the pertinent claims of the article under review? What do the pertinent facts and Scriptures prove as to J.F.R.? What has he occasioned? What may be construed there from? To what appeal should these things lead? Why should this appeal be heeded? In what interests should its contrasted appeal be heeded? Why? 

(35) What does Prov. 4:18 show? Why is this true? What only should be accepted as the advancing light? Why? How do some stand on Prov. 4:18 and our Pastor's explanation of it? What is that explanation? What is the theory of such brethren as to the matter of the advancing light? What proves that we are not yet in the perfect day? What proves that such brethren are not in harmony with our Pastor's pertinent thought? What fact does not disprove that the light still advances? What comparison illustrates this? What was given above? 

(36) What does the fact that our Pastor had charge of the storehouse not prove? What fact occurring while he was yet alive would not be against the view that is here opposed? What was, and what was not the duty of such finders of new features of Truth? What are some facts proving that not all new features of Truth became clear to him first? How does Matt. 13:52 prove such facts as of Divine origin? In disharmony with what fact do these facts not stand? If not then, how about now, since he no more has charge of the storehouse? How 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

85 

does the pertinent figure prove this? What are the pertinent facts implied in this figure? How do the facts of this figure apply to the case at hand? What do these considerations prove as to the point under review? 

(37) What should be said as to the pertinent errorists' view of our Pastor's office functions? As what did he function? As such how did he function? What flows from this as to his having a successor? While acting as the Parousia messenger what did he also give? Why is this? What work as such did our Pastor not have? What results from this as to his pertinent teachings? To what period does the gathering of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies belong? For this work what kind of truths also are needed? What follows from this? What do the facts of the case prove? What are some of these facts? What kind of matters are these things? What did he make when dealing on these undue things? In what are these remarks not made? Despite what could he not see things not yet due? What resulted from this fact when he attempted to explain undue things? What are some illustrations on this point? 

(38) Based upon 1 Pet. 1:12; Rom. 15:4, what view did our Pastor hold up to 1909 as to the understanding of the Bible by 1914? What, after 1909, induced him to change his mind on this thought? What knowledge, not had by him, would have prevented this change of view? Why? What follows from this? What did he say while dying, as to the true explanation of Revelation and Ezekiel? What four things in the book of Revelation did he tell the Bethel family were not understood by him? What pertinent thing did he tell the convention at Dallas, Oct. 21, 1916? What is implied in the two above-mentioned facts? How is the same thing implied in his saying that what was uncertain to him as to the time relation of sprinkling the Goat's blood and dealing with Azazel's Goat would be clearly understood by those who would witness the latter? What do all these facts imply? What four general things, accordingly, prove that the light would advance after our Pastor's death? What results there from as to the view under examination? 

(39) What occasioned the foregoing discussion? What do the readers understand? What are the only publications 

A Miscellany. 

86 

that do this? Where is this stand set forth? What has been done with it? Who will support this statement? 

(40) What is this stand? What does it, accordingly, embrace? As to two or more different, but harmonious interpretations of his on the same point? As to such as are not harmonizable? With what exception? As to unfulfilled types and prophecies? When only would we set aside an interpretation of his on such types and prophecies? In this whose example do we follow? What are some cases to the point? What two things does this stand prove of the author? Hence, what kind of changes alone in principle will he make as to our Pastor's teachings? Who will agree to this stand? Why? 

(41) What is the author's stand as to unsound new things? While recognizing that many unsound things are presented, what does he nevertheless recognize? To whom do these new things pertain? From what kinds of passages do these come? What will the writer do with such things? Why? To what things will such new things be subjected? What are these axioms? What will be done with things contradicting these? 

(42) To what was reference made above? How many, among others, has the writer oppositionally written to the author? What specifications were omitted in the first three? What pertinent reply was made to the first two? How were these replies treated? What in the Sept. 1926, Present Truth induced the brother to write a third oppositional letter? What accusations did the third letter contain? How was the third treated? Why? What did the brother mail Oct. 31, 1926? What is here done with this fourth letter? 

(43) What is a summary of the argument of the letter quoted as paragraph (43), as to all new light ceasing at our Pastor's death? What is the general tone and object of the letter? 

(44) What will be left to the Lord in this letter? What was done with the articles referred to in the letter for reading? What are the author's attitude and activities toward their principles? What is his belief as to the Dawns' being the Bible arranged topically? What does the letter claim as to the meaning of that expression? Why? What is the first disproving fact against its claim?

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

87 

The second? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? The seventh? What do these seven reasons prove? What does the expression mean? Why is this true? How do the cited passages prove this view? What eighth fact proves that the Six Volumes do not give all the light of the Bible? What other fact proves that our Pastor did not give all its light? 

(45) How many counts does the letter allege as a proof that the author "teaches contrary to our Pastor"? Even to what degree? What proverb is illustrated by this alleged count? What two paragraphs are said to contain this count? 

(46) How does the first of these two paragraphs read? 

(47) How does the second read? 

(48) Which of the two quoted paragraphs does the letter's writer think the author contradicts? How does the author apply the words, "Your old men shall dream dreams; and your young men shall see visions"? What warrants the application of the passage to the Millennium? What in truth may be said of our Pastor's explanation of these words? Why? What does he not explain as to the young men and the old men? His application of the passage to the Millennium may favor what interpretation? What second thought may he have meant? What third thought may he have meant? What may be said of any or all of these three thoughts? Why is his explanation no proper basis for the letter's charge? Why did our Pastor not have the full light on the subject? Though teaching that the Youthful Worthies would be the Ancient Worthies' Millennial associates, what did he never offer in proof of his thought? How did he come to the thought? Where only has he treated of the Youthful Worthies thus? What is not cited in these five passages? Why this absence of proof from Bible passages? What has occurred in the Epiphany as to such passages? Of what is our Pastor's comment on the pertinent words a fine illustration? How is our pertinent course not to be understood? Why was it not to his disparagement? What weightier examples prove this? What was the character of our Pastor's interpretations of things due? 

(49) What is to be marked? How is this answer proven true? What was given our Pastor as the basis of

A Miscellany. 

88 

his explanation of the pertinent clauses of Joel 2:28? What did he do with the mistranslation? Why? How do Bible translations treat this matter? How many of them were by the author consulted on this verse? How many of them change the wording, but not the thought? What three things prove the translation under study to be wrong? What conclusion follows this? What is positive proof that this passage was not due to be understood in our Pastor's day? On the other hand, what may be said in his defense? Of what may we be sure as to this passage, if he were living now in the Epiphany? Why is this to be believed? 

(50) What should be here repeated? Why? What else do we not contradict? What is the actual condition as between the Pastor and the author on this matter? What six things warrant the quotation of the proverb on mountains travailing and bearing an insignificant mouse? What should the author receive, if this little thing is all that can be charged against him in defense of the solemnly grandiose accusation of the letter under review? Why do self-styled defenders, like the letter's writer, harm the Truth? What will be passed by without further than a brief comment? What is it? What in the letter will not be accepted? What will the author's course continue to be? How? Why? Despite what? With the refutation of the letter and with the proof that its writer repudiates our Pastor's thought on the advancing light, what two things naturally come to mind? 

(51) What question is raised on the nature of the advancing light by The Dawn? What answer does it give? In disharmony with what is its answer? How long did our Pastor hold his pertinent thought? Where is it elaborated? What is the lesser truth on the advancing light? The greater truth thereon? Which is the one specially emphasized in Prov. 4:18? What did he do with it? How long? What fact corroborates this answer? What would have lent more corroboration thereon, had he lived to write it? Why is this so? How does Dawn give its thought as the truth in relation to the larger truth? What two conclusions result therefrom? What Scripture is fulfilled in this state of things? How many things do the pertinent facts prove? What is the first 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

89 

and especial one of these? What facts prove this? The second? The third? To evade what two things did Dawn come to champion this error? Why does it attempt to evade the second of these two things? What does a combination of the Parousia and Epiphany Truth prove of Dawn on this point, in the first place? In the second place? How do the cited passages prove the second thought? What will the Lord do shortly with Dawn's strictures against the writer for "seeing himself in the Scriptures"? 

(52) What question did the author ask our Pastor at Bethel in 1916? What was his answer? What impression did his manner of answering give? What did he fail to give thereon? What has been done on this matter since the Levitical manifestations began? What conclusion should be drawn as to the involved 40 days from the frequent typical use of 40-day periods as typing the Parousia? If asking the question now, with what would the author not connect the following 10 days? Why not? If asking the question on the 10 days in 1921, how would the author have framed it? 

(53) Where is the type of the firstfruits connected with the Passover and Pentecost recorded? What is typed by the first ripe sheaf and its presentation before Jehovah on Nisan 16? How do the cited passages prove this? To what does the expression firstfruits always refer? And never to what? How do the cited passages prove this? What is typed by the high priest's presenting and waving the first ripe sheaf before the Lord, Nisan 16? To what condition can the presentation and waving of the two wave loaves not refer? Why not? To what condition do they refer? Why so? 

(54) How did our Pastor explain the antitype of the two loaves? How does the citation prove this? To what are the terms, Little Flock and Great Company, equivalent? How does the cited passage prove this? How do these two loaves type these two classes? What is the parallel type of the presentation of the loaf typing the Little Flock? How do the cited passages show this? What two things are brought out in the presentation of Aaron's sons in the consecration service? How is the Great Company involved in that picture? How not? On

A Miscellany. 

90 

the contrary, in the finished picture where and in what is the Great Company's presentation as such typed? What is typed by the second loaf in the finished picture? To what time did it belong in 1921? What will such a presentation of them be? Until when must the activity of the second loaf's antitypical waving wait? In whose service, negatively and positively? What proved that their waving was future to 1921? 

(55) Of what is our Lord's initial presentation of the entire Church the antitype? What is typed by our Lord's 40 days' pre-ascension teaching of the disciples on the Kingdom? By His delay of 10 days after the ascension before presenting the Church to God? By His presenting the Church on Pentecost to God? Of what will the presentation of the Great Company be the finished picture? What does this seem to imply? What seems to be implied by the complete presentation of the Truth Levites? What should [in 1921], therefore, be expected to set in before the fall of 1924? In view of what? By what is this typed? How does the cited passage prove this? What does Jesus give the Epiphany-enlightened priests to recognize in the meantime? How do the works with Azazel's Goat and with the Levites compare and contrast with one another as to sphere of activity? As to leading the Goat to the Gate and the fit man and the first three pre-consecration works on the Levites? As to Lev. 16:20-22 and Num. 8:7-21 in general? What things in the former are not mentioned in the latter? What is the chief difference between the two passages? 

(56) In 1922 by when was the presentation of the Epiphany Levites expected to have begun? Whom was it not expected to include? Why not? What was not to occur until after 1924? What also was not then expected to have occurred by that time? What was then more harmonious with the manner of the fulfillment of other time types? How is this manner of fulfillment indicated as to the time feature of Lev. 23:11, 15-17? As to the ends of the 1290 and 1335 days? As to the 2520 years' parallel? What seems to be the pertinent Scriptural rule when many individuals of a class are involved? What would this imply as to the date Oct. 1924, and the Great Company wave loaf? What other thing corroborates 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

91 

this? What was in 1922, accordingly, to have been expected? When would certainty come? 

(57) What did the questioner seem to have in mind? What were the antitypical 50 days? What was the period of the antitypical 50th day? How long had we been in the antitypical 50th day when the question was answered? How long had the forecast been fulfilling when the answer was given? What peculiarity has been working in the various Levite movements as to their time relation to one another? How does the citation prove this? With what date did a series of annual parallels in Levitical movements set in on the presentation of good Levites? Against what do good non-Epiphany Levites not revolutionize? Of whom is that kind of revolutionism characteristic? What should not be expected of good Epiphany Levites? Against what may they be expected to revolutionize? What has since sometime during the antitypical 50th day been occurring among good Levites? How long to the day after similar acts characterized the bad leaders of Levite groups. What in this connection was not expected by Oct. 1924? What was suggested as a probability for the period, Oct. 1924, to Oct. 1925? What was suggested as a probability as to pertinent manifestations after the end of the small eighth wonderful day? What has marked the cases already manifested? With what would that be in line? As they would do this, what would Jesus be expected to do? What would this imply as to the Little Flock? In antitype of what? 

(58) What did Jesse Hemery do in 1906 that was that year published in the Tower? What was his thought on the flood year? What do facts indicate as to his view? What do they prove as to his view? How many antitypes do the Scriptures give on Noah's flood experiences? What is the first of these? The second of these? Where did our Pastor give details on the first of these? What will be here done with the second of these? 

(59) What, according to our Pastor, did the Ark type? In what is this antitype summarized? When was this covenant made? How long before Jan. 1 A.D.? What would be in harmony with our Pastor's definition? Why so? What is the relation between these two lines of thought? How are these two sets of antitypes to be 

A Miscellany. 

92 

harmonized? How many human pairs went into the Ark? At least how many pairs of clean and unclean animals? How many and what are the elect classes? What are typed by the four human pairs? What are typed by the animals that entered the Ark? What do the clean animals represent? What do the unclean animals type? What are the lines of thought typed by those who perished in the flood? What is typed by the clean and unclean animals' occupying different parts of the Ark from the four human pairs? Why were these sets of animals put into the Ark typically? How does the Ark type the Abrahamic Covenant in their missions? What will these general remarks help us to do? 

(60) Who were the first to enter the antitypical Ark? How is this related to the pre-Abrahamic Covenant Ancient Worthies? When was the antitypical Ark first entered by the Ancient Worthies? In the persons of whom? What class of the elect was the last to enter the antitypical Ark? When? As a result of what? Between what times did the elect classes actually enter the Ark? How and when did the rest enter it? What, accordingly, is the antitypical Flood year? On what principle? How will this become all the more apparent? What is the difference between an ordinary and a leap lunar year? Which of these two kinds of years was the Flood lunar year? How should we, therefore, consider the actual Flood year, type and antitype? How long was the antitypical Flood year? How long would a day of such a year be? On the basis of this, how long are the periods marked typically by the chronological periods of the typical Flood year? 

(61) What is indicated by the dates of the two sets of Flood years in the tables given at the end of the preceding paragraph? What must be remembered as to the dates given in the table? How long before its end did each antitypical day begin? Accordingly, when are the antitypical events of the antitypical days to be expected to have occurred? Why is the total of these years not exactly 3925.50 years? What is typed by the fact that the end of each mentioned day brought some relief and gave promise of greater relief? What will now be taken up? 

(62) How long did the first period of the Flood last? 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

93 

What did it bring? How long did the antitypical 40 days last? With April, 2045 B.C., as the starting point, when did these antitypical 40 days end? When did the 40th begin? What notable event occurred during the last of these antitypical 40 days? During the antitypical 40 days what happened to all outside of the Ark? To those inside the Ark? What did the faithful in Israel receive by entering the Law Covenant? Despite what? How is this symbolized in the Pyramid? Accordingly, what happened during the 40th symbolic day? With what are we familiar? 

(63) How many days did the first five lunar months of the typical Flood year last? How long after the 40th day did they last? How many years did these 107 days type? To what date from July, 1615 onward did these years lead? When did the 107th antitypical day begin? Whereon at the end of the fifth month did the Ark rest? What antitypical event occurred between 475 and 464 B.C.? How had the Persian Empire previously favored Israel? How did that compare with its helps to Israel through Ezra? What was then done to the Covenant? What three remarks do these facts suggest as to the P.B.I.'s chronology, which puts Ezra's commission in 457? What, accordingly, like the Pyramid, does the Flood year do for the true chronology? 

(64) What happened on the 150th day of the Flood year? What do the involved 3 days type? When did the antitypical 3 days end? What occurred at the beginning of the 3rd antitypical day? Shortly thereafter? What followed Nehemiah's return to Jerusalem from Babylon? What did Nehemiah's work accomplish for Israel? How long did the effects of this reformation last? In antitype of what was this? 

(65) How long did the next period of the Flood year last? What appeared at its end? How long did the antitypical 70 years last? When did they end? When did its 70th day begin? What events occurred between Aug., 311 A.D. and May, 322 A.D., typed by the top of the mountains appearing above the flood waters? What is the antitype of the mountains appearing? How were these events beneficial to the Abrahamic Covenant and those in it? 

A Miscellany. 

94 

(66) How long until the next Flood year period ended? What were sent out of the Ark on the 40th day? How long did the antitypical 40 days last? To what date do they bring us? When did the antitypical 40th day begin? What does a raven type? How is this Scripturally shown? What does a dove type? How is this Scripturally shown? In whom was the antitype of the sending forth and the remaining away of the raven fulfilled? As what? When? What had Boniface previous to 741 been doing? After what event did he begin a sectarianizing work? As such a worker how may Boniface be described? What do Romanists call him? What was the twofold effect of his strenuous labors? 

(67) What is the antitype of the dove sent out at the same time as the raven? What did the anti-Romanizing movement do? When? Who were its three leaders? What Romanist doctrines and practices did they oppose? What positive truths did they set forth? How did they set forth these teachings? How is this symbolized? What twofold condemnation did Boniface secure against them? After their liberation what did he then do against them? What were the results of his further persecution of them? How are their untoward experiences typed? What was thereupon done? How is this typed? Why did the involved movement not prosper? 

(68) What occurred 7 days later in the type? What do these 7 days type? When did they end? When did the antitypical 7th day begin? What Spirit-pervaded movement was active from 816 to 827? Who were its two main leaders? Where has this movement been explained? What should be done with that explanation? How does this movement compare with the one of 741752? How is its greater prosperity typed? What assurance did this movement give our Lord? How is this typed? What is typed by Noah's receiving the dove a second time into the Ark? 

(69) What did Noah do a third time 7 days later? What did the dove no more do? How many years do these 7 days represent? When did the antitypical 7 years and the 7th begin? What events correspond to the third sending of this dove and its not returning? What 

Signs of the Times Among Truth People. 

95 

is said in the text of the character and works of Alfred the Great? Of what is the dove's course the type? What is the antitype of the dove's not returning? 

(70) How long later did the next mentioned typical event occur? How many years are typed by these 35 days? When did the antitypical 35 days end? When did its 35th begin? What two special events occurred during the period of 1268 to 1279? What is a short description of the crusades? How many of them were there? Who led the last? How did they end as a whole? What effects followed popes' subsequent efforts to arouse others? What was their result? The result of their ceasing? How is this typed? 

(71) When relatively to Philip the Fair's anti-papal activities did the last crusade end? Who through him began a centuries-long opposition to the papacy? Through whom? What did He thereby accomplish? As the antitype of what? What had already been thereby accomplished by 1881? By what days of the Flood year is this period typed? How many years are typed by these 56 days? When did they antitypically end? When did the 56th antitypically begin? What great events occurred during their last antitypical day? How had the Youthful Worthies been in the Ark during the antitypical Flood year? What is typed by the going forth from the Ark? Under what conditions? What should we render to God for light on the Flood year? 

(72) What is a question raised by the foregoing study on the Flood year? What kind of months were those of the Flood year? How long is a lunar month actually? By the lunar calendar? Which lunar (calendar) months are of 30 days? Which of 29 days? When did the Flood begin? When did its first five months end? In what even months were these five months? In how many even and odd numbered months were they? How did they come to amount to 147 days? What does this fact, among others, corroborated by the time of Ezra's commission, do with the P.B.I's and the nominal-church writers' contention? 

(73) What is the second question arising from the preceding discussion on the Flood year? What do the conditions before the Flood type? The Flood year? Of what was entering the Ark a type? What benefit in this 

A Miscellany. 

96 

connection did God give Abel, Enoch and Noah? By contrast how did He treat classes who came into existence long after the Covenant was made? On what Bible principle? On what other principle may the Youthful Worthies be said anticipatorially to have entered the Ark in 2045 B.C.? What does this do with our question? Why is no typical reference made to our Lord's death in the Flood year picture? 

(74) What is the third pertinent question? What is the answer to this question? What is the first reason for this? What similar movements suggest this answer? What symbol of all three movements suggests this answer? What bearing on the answer has Alfred's character? What other reason suggests this answer in Alfred's favor? How was his character, compared with that of other kings? 

(75) What is our last pertinent question? What is the first reason given in answer to this question? What is the second reason given in the answer thereto? 

‍