Epiphany Truth Examiner


View All ChaptersBooks Page



IN DESIGNATING Biblical ideas it is well, as far as possible to call them by Scriptural terms. This we usually do, e.g., Instruction, Justification, Sanctification, Redemption, etc. Sometimes we are compelled to designate a Biblical idea by a term not found in the Bible; e.g., Tentative Justification, Vitalized Justification, etc. That these are Scriptural thoughts is apparent (Rom. 4:1-25; John 3:36; Rom. 4:11; 1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 9:24; 10:14; James 2:14-26; 1 John 2:2). So, too, we do not find the expression "Ancient Worthies" in the Bible, though the faithful of the Old Testament are called ancients (zekenim, Is. 24:23), elders and old men (zekenim, Ps. 107:32; Joel 2:28; presbyteroi, Heb. 11:2), and are referred to as persons "of whom the world was not worthy" (Heb. 11:38). So also the term "Youthful Worthies" is not found in Scripture; though, as will be shown in this chapter, the idea that is intended to be conveyed by these words is Biblical. The nearest approach to this language that we find in Scripture is the term "young men," literally "youthfuls" (Joel 2:28), in harmony with the use of the word "ancients" (Is. 24:23); and in distinction from the class so designated. It does not seem to us to be the best use of language for Biblical students to distinguish these two classes by the contrasting

The Epiphany's Elect. 


terms, Ancient and Modern Worthies; because the term, Modern Worthies, is not so nearly a Scriptural expression as is the term, Youthful Worthies. Moreover the Biblical thought (Joel 2:28) is better brought out by the contrasting names, Ancient and Youthful Worthies. Therefore this book calls them Youthful Worthies. 

(2) Before the General Call to the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ ceased in 1881, the persons that we call "Youthful Worthies" did not exist as individuals of a class; but since that time they have been, and now are coming as such into existence, and are showing evidence of existence as such. Yea, we would not be surprised, if they become shortly very marked as a class, separate and distinct from the Little Flock and the Great Company. The reason for their coming into existence as a class, though undiscerned hitherto as such, is that, since the General Call ceased in 1881, more people consecrated to the Lord than could be provided with crowns that awaited aspirants; and therefore the surplus consecrators were not begotten of the Spirit. The Lord seemingly held them in reserve; and as from time to time crowns were lost by the measurably unfaithful, He selected the most faithful and eligible of these by Spirit-begetting to have the lapsed crowns. As time went on, the number of these in reserve seems to have continued increasing more rapidly than the number of those who lost their crowns; consequently a large number of them was in reserve, when all the Elect were finally won. Since that time many more are consecrating, and doubtless still greater numbers will consecrate, for none of whom crowns will be available. "That Servant," among other places, treats of this class in F. 156, 157; Z '11, 181, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, pars. 11, 12; Question Book, 151, 152. 

(3) The Epiphany seems to be shedding considerable light on this class, light that was not due during 

The Youthful Worthies. 


"that Servant's" life. Doubtless more will become due on this class as the "bright shining" increases. It therefore is appropriate that we present some of the Epiphany Truth pertaining to the Youthful Worthies. The Lord bless it to all of us, especially to the class immediately concerned—the Youthful Worthies! 

(4) To us as Bible Students the source and rule of faith and practice is the Bible alone; hence our faith and practice on all religious subjects should come to us from the Scriptures. We must require, therefore, that light on this, as well as on all other subjects of faith and practice, be shown to flow from that Book of whose teachings it says, "The entrance of Thy Words giveth light" (Ps. 119:130; Is. 8:20). Do the Scriptures teach that there will be such a class as we call "Youthful Worthies"? Our answer is: They do. We will quote and discuss some of the main passages on this topic. 

(5) We begin with our text, the clearest of all on this subject: "And it shall come to pass afterward [after the Gospel Age, during which the Lord pours out His Spirit for His servants, the Little Flock, and handmaidens, the Great Company, compare Joel 2:29 with 2 Cor. 6:17, 18] that I will pour out My Spirit for all flesh; and your [The Christ's] sons [converted fleshly Israel and the persevering, but unconsecrated believers of the Gospel Age] and your daughters [converted Gentiles of the Millennial Age, Is. 60:4] shall prophecy [teach the Truth to those of mankind who then will not know it, Matt. 25:35, 37, 40]; your old men [Ancient Worthies] shall dream dreams [will be given new and inspired deeper revelations as a part of 'another book of life,' Rev. 20:12] and your young men [Youthful Worthies] shall see visions" [will be given inspired less deep representations, clarifying and elaborating for themselves and the people the teachings of the Old and New Testaments, as well as of "another book of life"]. All classes from among mankind

The Epiphany's Elect. 


savingly associated with the Plan of God are thus treated of in Joel 2:28, 29. These and the repentant fallen angels will constitute the seven [perfect number] classes of those whom Christ delivers from sin and condemnation unto perfection and everlasting life in His work as Savior. 

(6) 2 Tim. 2:20: "In a great House [the great House of the typical Aaron, Lev. 16:6; Num. 17:2, 3; 3:6-9, 17-20, consisted of his sons and the three typical classes of Levites—the Kohathites, Merarites and the Gershonites; accordingly, in the great House of our Great High Priest, there are four classes antitypical of these] there are not only vessels of gold [the Little Flock, Mal. 3:3], and of silver [the Great Company, Mal. 3:3, see Berean comments on Mal. 3:3 and 2 Tim. 2:20], but also of wood [the Ancient Worthies] and earth [the Youthful Worthies, who with the Ancient Worthies will be, during the Millennium, the human members of the antitypical Aaron's House, as they were or are also human before the Millennium], and [additionally] vessels of honor [the faithful Restitutionists] and dishonor [the Goats of the next age]." 

(7) Ps. 72:3: "The mountains shall bring peace to the people; and the little hills by righteousness." This entire Psalm describes the Millennial reign of Christ, implying that symbolic Jerusalem will be the seat of Government (v. 16). Literal Jerusalem was built upon two mountains, Zion and Moriah, and upon two hills, Akra and Bezetha. Zion and Moriah represent the heavenly and the earthly phases of the Kingdom respectively—i.e., The Christ and the Ancient Worthies as the two higher powers of the Kingdom. (See v. 16, "top of the mountains," etc.) Akra and Bezetha represent the tributary (subordinate) powers of the Kingdom, i.e., the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. (See Berean comments on the "hills.") As Moriah was the first height of literal Jerusalem to be

The Youthful Worthies. 


built by the Israelites, so the Ancient Worthies were the first part of the Kingdom to be developed. And as Zion was the second height of this city to be built by the Israelites, so the Little Flock was the second part of the Kingdom to be developed. As the hill Akra, one of "the little hills," was the third height of Jerusalem to be built by the Israelites, so the Great Company is the third class among the powers (a subordinate power) of the Kingdom to be developed. And as the hill Bezetha was the fourth and last height of Jerusalem to be built by the Israelites, so the Youthful Worthies are the last one of the powers (the other subordinate power) of the Kingdom to be developed. The world of mankind are symbolized by the valley sections of literal Jerusalem. The thought of this passage seems to be that the two phases of the Kingdom, co-operated with by the subordinate powers of the Kingdom (the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies), will be used by Jehovah to bless the world of mankind with peace and prosperity through righteousness during the Millennium. 

(8) Before presenting the Scriptures on our next point, we desire to make some preliminary explanations. Bible Students will recall that in Tabernacle Shadows the Levites are set forth as typing the Faith Justified; that in F. they are set forth as typing the Ancient Worthies, the Great Company, etc., and that in The Towers from 1907 onward they are set forth as typing the Great Company. These various antitypes seem to give some of the friends difficulty, as if they were not in harmony with one another. The harmony between these different statements will become manifest, if we rightly divide the Word of Truth, as did our Pastor, from the standpoints of the Gospel Age, the Millennial Age and the Transitional Period between them. We understand that all three sets of thoughts given by our Pastor are correct. The Gospel Age has its peculiar set of antitypical Levites, the Faith

The Epiphany's Elect. 


Justified, including the Youthful Worthies who become and remain such during the Transitional Period; the Millennial Age has its peculiar set of Levites, the Ancient Worthies, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies; and the period that forms the transition between these two Ages, i.e., the Harvest, particularly its Epiphany period, has its peculiar set of Levites, i.e., the Great Company. Hence we are to understand that these three sets of antitypical Levites are not contradictory of one another. We must not, however, confuse them with one another. If we limit each set to its particular period of time as above, and remember of the Gospel-Age Levites that they lap over the Harvest Period, because of the lapping of the two Ages, they will be found to harmonize with one another. The fact that the typical Levites represent different sets of antitypes is not to be considered exceptional. Such things are frequent in the Scriptures, i.e., Samson, Joshua, David, etc., are types of various sets of antitypes. By using one type to represent various antitypes Jehovah shows His manifold Wisdom. 

(9) In each of these three periods we are to understand that the antitypical Levites consist of three groups, Kohathites, Merarites and Gershonites. During the Transitional Period those Levites, the tentatively justified, who will not consecrate lose their tentative justification, i.e., cease to be tentative Levites and are put out of the Court; while those who do consecrate, the Youthful Worthies, retain their tentative justification and remain in the Court as Gospel-Age Levites of three groups, Kohathites, Merarites and Gershonites, throughout the Transitional Period. Additionally, the Great Company becomes during this Transitional Period Levites of three groups, Kohathites, Merarites and Gershonites. But it must be kept in mind that the Great Company Transitional Levites are different from the Youthful Worthies as persisting Gospel-Age Levites in the transition time. Excepting 

The Youthful Worthies. 


the Good Youthful Worthies, the three groups of each class are associated severally with one another; and thus are of the corresponding groups of each of these two classes, i.e., those Youthful Worthies who are associated with the Transitional (Great Company) Kohathite Levites, i.e., the partisan Olsonites, Sturgeonites, etc., are the Kohathites of the Youthful Worthy (Gospel-Age) Levites; those Youthful Worthies who are associated with the Transitional (Great Company) Merarite Levites, i.e., the partisan Society adherents, etc., are the Merarites of the Youthful Worthy (Gospel-Age) Levites; and those Youthful Worthies who are associated with the Transitional (Great Company) Gershonite Levites, i.e., the partisan Pastoral Bible Institute (P. B. I.) adherents, etc., are the Gershonites of the Youthful Worthy (Gospel-Age) Levites. 

(10) Num. 3:6-8; 1:49-54; 3:23, 29, 35, 40-51; Heb. 12:23 prove that the three groups of Levites, as types of the Millennial Levites, together with Aaron's family, type the Church of the Millennial, not Gospel, Age, firstborns, as Jehovah's servants in a particular sense. The priests represent the Little Flock; and from the standpoint of the Millennial Levites the Kohathites, the Ancient Worthies; the Merarites, the Great Company; and the Gershonites, the Youthful Worthies. (See F 128, 129.) It will be noticed that the statement on page 129, with respect to the Gershon family, is that it represents the "saved world of mankind." This was doubtless the best that could then be given. The clear Truth on the "Youthful Worthies" not being due before the Epiphany, we see that the Millennial Gershonites as a class could not then be understood as a type. But when we consider the fact that the typical Gershonites were (1) counted in as a part of the firstborns (Num. 3:12-17, 45), and (2) furthermore were separated (Num. 1:49-53) from the "Israelites" for the service of the Tabernacle, to which

The Epiphany's Elect. 


the "Israelites" were not to come nigh for service (v. 51), we can readily see that they type for the Millennium a part of the Church of the Millennial, not Gospel, Age firstborns, and not "the saved world." The fact that this could not be seen by "that Servant" is not to his disparagement in any sense, any more than was it to the disparagement of Jesus that He could not, while in the flesh, know the time of the Judgment Day. Nobody can see Truths before due; and explanations of Scriptures before they are due, unavoidably need, and, when due, receive some adjustment. As all three classes of Levites were given to Aaron and his sons for the service (1) of the Tabernacle and (2) of the people (Num. 3:6-8); so the Ancient Worthies, Great Company and Youthful Worthies will be given to the antitypical Aaron and his sons to serve (1) them and (2) the people, the world of mankind; and as all three classes of the Levites were given (Num. 3:23, 29, 35) special locations about the Tabernacle, separate and distinct from the "Israelites" of the other tribes, these three classes type three classes separate and distinct from the World of Mankind, who are typed by the "Israelites." 

(11) Is. 60:13: "The Glory of Lebanon [Lebanon means white, and its evergreen trees, the glory of Lebanon, represent the righteous as antitypical Levites, Ps. 92:12, 13] shall come unto Thee [the antitypical Levites will be brought to Christ and the Church, Num. 3:6-9], the fir tree [Ancient Worthies], the pine [the Great Company] and the box [Youthful Worthies] together [rendering a co-operative service], to beautify the place of My sanctuary"—a Levitical work (Num. 3:6-9) it was to beautify the sanctuary of the Lord. 

(12) Dan. 3: In this chapter an account is given of the experience of the three Hebrew Youths—Shadrach, royal; Meshach, guest; and Abed-nego, servant of the prophet. Z '15, 260, pars. 9, 10, explains that the image types militarism, to which God's people in the end of 

The Youthful Worthies. 


the Age will not bow down; and Z 1899, 170, pars. 3, 7, explains that the image types Churchianity—the Beast and his Image—to which God's people in the end of the Age will not bow down. Both applications are reasonable, and we believe are correct. It is not accidental that God's people who refuse to bow down to Militarism and Churchianity in the end of the Age, should be represented by three Hebrew youths refusing to worship the Golden Image. Evidently these three youths represent three classes—the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies—those who have to cope with the spirit of Militarism, Papalism, and Federationism, and who refuse to bow down to them, though led by this course to great sufferings. Not only does the number of the Hebrew youths suggest these three classes as living side by side at the extreme end of the Age, but their names are significant of the same thought: Shadrach, royal, reminds us of the royal priesthood (1 Pet. 2:9); Meshach, guest, reminds us of those who are invited to be guests at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, an Epiphany work (Rev. 19:9); Abed-nego, servant of the prophet, would seem to suggest another class, separate from the others, and specially devoted to the mouthpiece of God. 

(13) 2 Kings 2:9, 10: "And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. And he [Elijah] said, … It shall be so unto thee." That there is something wrong with the translation, "double portion of thy spirit," is manifest from the fact that the Lord will not give twice as much of His Spirit to others as to His faithful Little Flock, to whom of all His creatures He gives the largest measure of His Spirit. The expression pe shenayim translated here "double portion," occurs in but two other passages of the Old Testament—Zech. 13:8; Deut. 21:17. In the former passage it is translated "two parts," i.e., two classes, the Little Flock and the Great Company 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


(see Berean comments); in the latter passage, as in 2 Kings 2:9, it is translated "double portion." This translation is manifestly incorrect; for if, e.g., a father in Israel had five sons, he did not divide the inheritance into six equal parts, and give two parts to the firstborn, and one part to each of the other four sons; for the firstborn usually received the bulk of the inheritance, and that legally, as now, e.g., among the nobility of Britain, etc. The following is what took place in Israel in the case of Israel's firstborns: They formed two classes; they became at their father's death the heads of their families, i.e., they became the fathers of the families; and they remained sons also. These two relations, constituting the firstborns as two classes, seem to be meant by the expression pe shenayim in Deut. 21:17. Thus we see in these two passages, the only ones in Scripture, apart from 2 Kings 2:9, where the expression pe shenayim occurs, it means two classes. And this seems to be its meanings in 2 Kings 2:9: "Let there be of me two classes [acting] in thy spirit" [power, i.e., office as God's mouthpiece to Israel]. 

(14) We are familiar with the fact that "that Servant" taught that Elisha typed the Great Company and the Ancient Worthies, i.e., two classes. Accordingly 2 Kings 2:9 properly rendered teaches the thought that Elisha types two classes. We are also aware of the fact that "that Servant" taught that the Unbegotten Consecrated who will be faithful will be associated in reward and office with the Ancient Worthies in the next Age (F. 156, pars. 1, 2; Z '11, 181, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, pars. 11, 12; Question Book, 151, 152). This thought of his gives us the connecting link to interpret this message fully. Certainly in the antitype of 2 Kings 2:9, 10 the Ancient Worthies personally took no part; for these verses were antitypically fulfilled after September 16, 1914, and before June 27, 1917, while the Ancient Worthies are not yet recovered 

The Youthful Worthies. 


from the tomb. How then could we construe the facts harmoniously with this Scripture? We answer: They were present and spoke representatively in their associates, the "Youthful Worthies"; as they will also representatively in these partake of the rest of the antitypes of Elisha's acts, all of which type things that will occur before the Ancient Worthies shall have returned from the dead, though we may look for a second fulfillment, after the Ancient Worthies return. So viewed we recognize that 2 Kings 2:9, 10 teaches us that the Youthful Worthies share with the Great Company in being God's mouthpiece to Nominal Spiritual Israel—share in the powers symbolized by Elijah's mantle. The above seven lines of Scriptural thought prove that in the end of the Gospel Age and in the Millennial Age there is a class that is separate and distinct from the Little Flock, the Great Company, the Ancient Worthies and the Restitution class; a class faithful to God while Satan, Sin and Death hold dominion over the earth; and afterward associated with the Little Flock, the Ancient Worthies and the Great Company in blessing the World of Mankind, the Restitution class. Therefore we conclude that the Youthful Worthies are those faithful brethren who, consecrating since 1881, are not Spirit-begotten. 

(15) What is the present work of the Youthful Worthies? Above we saw that the Youthful Worthies as Gospel-Age Levites consist of Kohathites, Merarites and Gershonites in the Transitional Period, even as the Great Company as Transitional Levites consists of Transitional Kohathites, Merarites and Gershonites; it was also above suggested (in view of Elisha typing both of these classes, at least as respects the partisan Society adherents, 2 Kings 2:9) that the Kohathites of each of these two classes, the Merarites of each of these two classes, and the Gershonites of each of these two classes severally work together. Unless the Lord should separate the Gospel-Age Youthful Worthy Levites 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


in their three groups from the corresponding groups of the Transitional (Great Company) Levites, the work of the former in their three groups seemingly would be to co-operate severally with the corresponding three groups of the latter, in so far as the latter work along the lines of the Teachings, Arrangements, Charter and Will (the Kohathites being exempt from the corporational obligations of the Charter and Will, not having symbolic chariots, Num. 7:9), which the Lord gave through "that Servant." The good Levites of both classes during the Transitional Period will mingle more or less among the Priests, and will do a work that will be of special helpfulness to the Priests. In view of these conditions the questions will arise in the mind of every faithful Youthful Worthy, "What should I do in the Lord's service? and with which group of the Lord's People should I associate myself?" We know of no better answer to give to this question than that each one seek faithfully to do that which he thinks is the Lord's will for him to do; and associate with that group of the Lord's people of whose principles and course he can approve. This will lead each one to his proper group and work at this time. 

(16) From the fact that the Gershonites had charge of all the curtains and coverings of the Tabernacle, except the second veil, and the curtains of the Court, including the gate of the Court, with their cords (Num. 3:25-27; 4:21-28), it would seem that the Millennial ministry of the Youthful Worthies will be especially to teach and apply to the people the doctrines of Justification and Consecration, with certain limited features of the truths implied in these two lines of thought, i.e., certain features of the truths respecting Sin, Righteousness, Repentance, Faith, Consecration, Obedience, the Sin-offerings, the High Priest, the Under-priests, the Graces, etc., with the explanation of suitable Scriptures, as proof texts of these truths, and as refutation texts against errors on these subjects. As the antitype

The Youthful Worthies. 


of the hill Bezetha in Jerusalem, it would seem that the Youthful Worthies will teach things respecting, and exercise some subordinate powers for the Kingdom. Details on their present and future mission must be left for later consideration. 

(17) Something as to the rewards of the Youthful Worthies: We understand that they will be rewarded in association with the Ancient Worthies. The Divine Attributes in relation to the earthly parts of the Oathbound Covenant, as well as specific passages seem to prove this to be true of them. 

(18) First we will reason from the Divine Attributes in their relation to the earthly parts of the Oathbound Covenant in apportioning rewards to those who faithfully serve God, while sin is in the ascendancy, i.e., some "which be of the faith of Abraham." In the Lord's Plan His Wisdom arranged, and His Power, Justice and Love will co-operate to give Princeship as a reward (Ps. 45:16; Is. 32:1; Gal. 3:6-9) in the Millennium to the Ancient Worthies, who (before, Matt. 11:11-13; Heb. 2:3, the Ransom merit was available for imputation, and the general call to the Divine nature and joint-heirship with Christ began) were faithful to God amid conditions made very difficult by reason of the ascendancy and the domination of Satan, sin, error and death among men. Accordingly, we reason that the Divine attributes would arrange for a similar reward for the Youthful Worthies in the Millennium for similar faithfulness to God (after the imputation of the Ransom merit was no longer available for certain consecrators, and the general call to the Divine nature and Joint-heirship with Christ ceased, but before the application of the Ransom merit is made and the Kingdom of God is established among men) amid conditions made very difficult by reason of the ascendancy and domination of Satan, sin, error and death among men. The reason is very apparent; both classes show the same spirit of faithfulness

The Epiphany's Elect. 


amid the same hard conditions under the handicap of there being no Ransom merit available for their use. The unchangeableness of God's holy character in view of His oath to the entire faith class guarantees a similar reward to those who were similarly faithful under similar difficult conditions and who were subject to a similar handicap in a similar inavailability of the Ransom merit for their benefit (Gen. 22:16-18; Gal. 3:6-9; Rom. 4:16). 

(19) Joel 2:28 shows that their measure of the Spirit would enable them to have special revelations in the form of visions. 

(20) 2 Tim. 2:20 proves that as a part of the household of the faithful they will be honorably used, and will be next to the Ancient Worthies on earth in Christ's family. 

(21) Ps. 72:3 shows that with the Great Company they will be Nobles in the Kingdom of God, wherein The Christ will be the Kings, and the Ancient Worthies will be the Princes. 

(22) Is. 60:13 proves that they will receive as a reward the perfection of human nature, thus partaking in the "resurrection of the just" with the Little Flock, Great Company and Ancient Worthies (Luke 14:14), and in the "better resurrection" with the Ancient Worthies (Heb. 11:35). 

(23) Num. 3:40-51, compared with Heb. 12:23 (The Judge [Rewarder] of all [Spirit-begotten ones], also of just men perfected in their dispositions," I. V.), proves that they will be a part of the Church of the Millennial, but not of the Gospel-Age, firstborns, and as such will be honored with the privilege of serving Christ and the Church in the interests of the world of mankind as teachers of the people, from whom, however, they will be separate and distinct. 

(24) 2 Kings 2:9, 10: As a part of the antitypical Elisha they will be privileged to share in many restitution works, as many things that they will do before 

The Youthful Worthies. 


entering into their reward will be repeated after the "better resurrection," e.g., the awakening of the Shunammite's son, the healing of Naaman's leprosy, etc. Thus theirs will be a glorious reward during the Millennium. 

(25) But the fulness of their reward comes after the Millennium, when they will, with the Ancient Worthies, be changed from human to spirit beings. Z '13, 52, 53 proves, e.g., by their being antitypical Firstborns and Levites without inheritance in the land, that the Ancient Worthies will be made spirit beings after their Millennial work. Some of these arguments prove this of the Youthful, as much as of the Ancient Worthies. It pleased the Lord to privilege us in 1905 to be at the Bible House in Allegheny, when for the first time "that Servant" announced that seemingly the Ancient Worthies would be made spirit beings after the Times of Restitution. He said that the location of the Kohathites' tents, as in the case of those of certain Amramites (Moses, Aaron and his family, but not Moses' family, 1 Chro. 23:13-15) and of those of the Merarites, next to the Tabernacle, separate and distinct from the tents of the "Israelites," seemed to prove that the Ancient Worthies would become spiritual after the Millennium. With the thought of F. 129 regarding the Gershonites in mind as representing "the saved world of mankind," we asked him whether that reason would not prove that the entire saved world would become spiritual, and that this earth would not be man's eternal home? After some discussion "that Servant" dropped the matter, and did not for several years bring it up again, when he again taught that the Ancient Worthies would become spiritual. For the first time, in 1909, something appeared in "The Tower" intimating that the Ancient Worthies would become spiritual; and in Z '13, 52, 53, beginning with col. 1, par. 2, fulfilling a promise that he had several years before made to the Church, i.e., that he would some 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


time give the Scriptural proof for the Ancient Worthies' change of nature, he gave a number of proofs on that subject. We refer our readers to that Tower, requesting them, if they have it, to read in it the article to which we allude, before proceeding further with this article. 

(26) It is reasonable and Scriptural to expect for the Youthful Worthies, as well as for the Ancient Worthies, that they will receive ultimately a higher reward than they could have on this earth. As the Ancient, so the Youthful Worthies would be everlastingly degraded instead of being everlastingly rewarded for their Millennial service and suffering for the world, and their post-Millennial service for the faithful of the world, and for their post-Millennial suffering for righteousness at the hands of the Second Death class, if they would remain on the earth forever; for since all human beings found worthy of everlasting life will henceforth be equal (Matt. 25:34; Rev. 21:24), it would follow that the Youthful, as well as the Ancient Worthies, from being the Millennial superiors, would be degraded to being the eternal equals of the world of mankind, if as human beings they remained eternally on this earth. Thus God would not only not give them any reward for their Millennial and post-Millennial service and suffering, but would post-Millennially give them no more than He will give to those who would not serve Him, but did serve Satan, sin, error and death, during the period that these were in the ascendancy and domination among men. The Divine Attributes do not reward such faithfulness by eternal degradation. Therefore we should not expect that the Youthful and the Ancient Worthies will remain on the earth amid human conditions and associations, i.e., remain human. 

(27) It would seem that the Divine Attributes would reward them far above the world of mankind for their Millennial and post-Millennial service and

The Youthful Worthies. 


sufferings, which will be far above those of the saved world. This, combined with the preceding point, proves that they will be made higher than human beings. 

(28) Heb. 12:23 (compare with Ex. 12:11-13, 21-23, 27; 13:1, 2, 11-15; Num. 3:40-51) proves that the names (disposition and nature) of all the firstborns are written in heaven, i.e., that all of them will finally develop spiritual dispositions, gain spiritual bodies, and thus have a spiritual inheritance as theirs. Numbers 3:40-51 proves that the Gershonites, together with the Kohathites and Merarites, were taken for the firstborns of Israel; consequently the former, typing the Youthful Worthies, are included among the number of the Church of the Millennial, but not Gospel-Age, firstborns whose names are written in heaven, i.e., the Youthful Worthies will develop spiritual dispositions, gain spiritual bodies and inheritances. 

(29) Num. 18:20, 23, 24 proves that neither the priests nor the Levites had any inheritance in the land. This, of course, included the Gershonites as well as the priests, Kohathites and the Merarites. As "that Servant" implies in the article referred to above, not to have any inheritance in the land types that the antitypes of these four classes of Levi's descendants would not have an earthly but a heavenly inheritance, i.e., heavenly dispositions, bodies, homes, etc. Therefore the Youthful Worthies, as the antitypes of the Gershonites, will become spirit beings. 

(30) Num. 3:23: The location of the Gershonites, being separate and distinct from the locations of the twelve tribes of the "Israelites," would type for the Youthful Worthies a spiritual inheritance; as the locations of the Kohathites (Num. 3:29), and the Merarites (Num. 3:35), and the priests (Num. 3:38), all separate and distinct from the locations of the twelve tribes of the "Israelites," the world, would 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


type spiritual inheritances for the Ancient Worthies, Great Company, and Little Flock. 

(31) Heb. 7:1-10: To give tithes according to this passage symbolizes to acknowledge one's inferiority and subjection to the one to whom one gives tithes. And since "the four distinct families of Levites may properly represent four distinct classes of justified humanity, when the reconciliation is completed—the saints," etc. (F 128), the type (Num. 18:21, 24) seems to prove that the world of mankind will be inferior and subject to the Ancient Worthies, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies; and the type (Num. 18:25-32) seems to prove that these three classes in turn will be inferior and subject to the Little Flock. Inasmuch as the Youthful Worthies, as well as the others, will be receiving tithes forever from the saved world of mankind, and inasmuch as all on earth as kings (Matt. 25:34; Rev. 21:24) will be equals of one another, it follows that the Youthful Worthies will have a higher than a human inheritance on this earth, i.e., a heavenly disposition, nature, abode. 

(32) Rev. 20:9: Before suggesting this verse as a probable proof that the Youthful Worthies will be made spiritual, we quote from Z '13, 53, col. 1, pars. 1-4, for the purpose of proving that the words printed in italics contain a principle that demonstrates that the Youthful Worthies are meant by the term, "Camp of the Saints," and that the term, "Beloved City," here applies to the Ancient Worthies as the representatives of the Beloved City, the Glorified Church. The Tower quotation to which we refer reads, as follows: 

(33) "This same thought [that the Ancient Worthies will become spiritual] seems to be pictured in the Revelation. At the end of the thousand years Satan will be loosed that he may go forward to test the people that are on the earth, to manifest to what extent their hearts are loyal to God and to the principles

The Youthful Worthies. 


of righteousness. The result of this test will be that some will fall away (Rev. 20:7-10). We read, 'And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city; and fire came down from God out of Heaven, and devoured them' (Rev. 20:9). The 'beloved city' is the New Jerusalem; the. Church in glory, not the Church in the flesh. The rebellion incited by Satan will be not only against the earthly Princes, but also against The Christ. 

(34) "By that time, having reached perfection of organism and powers, the people will assert themselves in thus going up to encompass the camp of the saints ['and the beloved city,' which in the text is also referred to as encompassed]. That the Church cannot be meant is evident from the fact that human beings could not attack an unseen force of spirit beings, as the Church will then be. Just as in Great Britain, the people have gone to Parliament to protest, so the rebellious faction of mankind will protest against their faithful Princes. We fancy that we hear them say, 'It is time that this government be turned over to us. We protest against your remaining in power any longer.' In rebelling against the earthly phase of Messiah's Kingdom, however, they are rebelling against the Lord. Consequently Divine judgment will overtake them—'fire from Heaven.' 

(35) "Since this rebellion is to occur at the close of the Millennial Age, and since mankind will at that time have reached perfection; therefore this separation of the Ancient Worthies from the rest of the world seems to imply that God has some special purpose in respect to them. The term camp itself implies that theirs is only a temporary condition or arrangement, and that God has some better thing in store for them." 

(36) Let us notice carefully the first set of words that are printed in italics above, and the words that 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


are in their midst in brackets. If the expression, "compassed the Camp of the Saints," proves that the glorified Church cannot be meant by the "Camp of the Saints," for the reason "that human beings could not attack an unseen force of spirit beings, as the Church will then be," it would follow for the same reason that by the expression, "compassed … the Beloved City," the glorified Church cannot be meant, though that expression would ordinarily suggest the glorified Church. Rather, it would seem that the Ancient Worthies, as the visible representatives of the invisible Beloved City, as such, are here meant by the expression the "Beloved City." If this is true, then "the Camp of the Saints" would be another class, i.e., the Youthful Worthies, against whose subordinate power the goat class will rebel after Satan is loosed; and therefore the language in italics at the end of the quotation would prove that the Youthful Worthies will become spiritual. It not being due to be understood at the time "that Servant" wrote the article, no one could see it then, though his statement gives us the clue to the proper understanding of the passage. 

(37) The foregoing, we trust, will be sufficient to enable us to recognize and stand properly related to the Youthful Worthies. The Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Lord richly bless them in their place and service! 

(38) A number of our correspondents have called our attention to an article entitled, "Worthies—Ancient and Modern," in Z '20, 21-28, and have asked us to express our opinion of it. This request has prompted us to review here the teachings of Z '20, 21-28. We feel all the freer so to do, because the Tower calls the subject an "open question." It begins the article as follows: "Question: Do the Scriptures teach that at this time the Lord is developing a class which can be properly designated a 'modern [Youthful] worthy class?' There has been much discussion of the above question, 

The Youthful Worthies. 


and we deem it necessary and proper that the Watch Tower now [italics are ours] consider it." The obvious impression given by this quotation is that the Tower has not previously considered this subject. This impression is an untrue one, as the subject was set forth quite correctly in Z '18, 355-357 with quotations from "that Servant's" pen. But the two articles flatly contradict one another, that of Z '18, 355-357 plainly affirming, and that of Z '20, 21-28 flatly denying our dear Pastor's thought that those who consecrating and proving faithful in the interval between the close of the General Call in 1881 and the inauguration of the earthly phase of the Kingdom, and finding no crowns available for themselves, will become associated in reward and service with the Ancient Worthies in the Kingdom. (F 156, pars. 1, 2; Z '11, 181, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, pars. 6, 7, 11, 12; Question Book, pp. 151, 152.) Those who believe that the Society is "the channel" for giving the seasonal meat to the priests, it would seem to us, must be perplexed by this as well as by other pointed contradictions appearing in the Tower during the last twenty-one years. 

(39) The question before us for discussion is not a subject of comparatively minor importance, such as varying interpretations of isolated verses, all such interpretations being in harmony with the general Plan; but it is a doctrinal question, and one of no small importance, affecting as it does the standing of thousands of people now consecrated, and that of hundreds of thousands that will yet consecrate. For the benefit of those who may not have read the article under review we give the following brief analysis of it. First, it lays down three requirements that the Lord makes as precedents of obtaining His approval: (1) Faith leading to justification, (2) consecration, (3) faithfulness amid the Divinely applied tests. Second, it refutes the claim that unconsecrated people interested in, and measurably serving the Truth are to be associated in reward

The Epiphany's Elect. 


and service with the Ancient Worthies. Third, it refutes the thought that the following passages teach that there will be a Modern (Youthful) Worthy class: (1) Zeph. 2:3; (2) Ps. 41:1, 2; (3) Zech. 13:8, 9; (4) Amos 9:13; (5) Matt. 8:11; (6) John 8:51. Fourth, it quotes and explains partially, and then repudiates totally our Pastor's view of the subject as stated in F 156, pars. 1, 2 and Z '15, 269, col. 2, pars. 6, 7, etc. Fifth, it sets forth the claim that the doctrine of the Modern (Youthful) Worthies as taught in the foregoing references of "that Servant's" writings contradicts the doctrines of the Ransom, the Advocate and Mediator, the Covenants and the Church's Commission. We are glad to express our hearty agreement with some of these positions; but the Scriptures and "that Servant's" "well reasoned" expositions compel us to dissent from others. We of course are not positive of the authorship of the article; but its style, manner of reasoning and underlying error, the denial of Tentative Justification as now operating, are those of J.F.R. At any rate as one of the Editors of the Tower at headquarters, he has doubtless given the article his endorsement. 

(40) We begin first with the pleasurable task of expressing our agreement with the claim of the article that those friends who assent to the Truth, and who render it some service, but who do not consecrate, are not to be the associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service in the Millennium. And the reason why they will not be such is, because they are not in character like the Ancient Worthies. To be the latter's Millennial Associates certain people will have to exercise the same kind of justifying faith, the same kind of consecration to the Lord, and the same kind of faithfulness amid similar trials as were theirs. Hence no matter what relation some may hold to the Truth and the Truth people, if they do not do the three things that the Ancient Worthies did, they will not be 

The Youthful Worthies. 


their Millennial Associates in reward and service. Nor did our Pastor ever intimate that they would so be. In the places where he treats of the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies, e.g., F, 156, pars. 1, 2; Z '11, 187, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, pars. 11, 12, etc—he (expressly in F 156, pars. 1, 2) shows that he is discussing the Millennial reward and service of those unbegotten consecrators who from 1881 onward act in the above three mentioned particulars, just as did the Ancient Worthies. Nor have we nor anybody else in harmony with that Servant's thought on the subject ever taught such a reward and service for such unconsecrated Truth friends. Hence though the article under review, in denying such honors for such unconsecrated Truth friends, sets forth the Truth with reference to them; yet it sets forth such Truth as does not answer the question with which the article begins, and to which it proposes to give an answer: "Do the Scriptures teach that at this time the Lord is developing a class which can be properly designated as a 'modern [Youthful] worthy class?'" If such error on the subject is taught, it is of course in the province of the Tower, while treating on the subject of the Youthful Worthies to correct it; but it should, it seems to us, do so in a way as not naturally to leave some people under the impression that such persons are meant by the term Modern (Youthful) Worthies; for they are not meant by that term by those who are in harmony with our Pastor's thought. 

(41) But perhaps it was the purpose of The Tower editors in part to correct the erroneous thought that the children of the consecrated would become Ancient Worthies, which some got from Clayton Woodworth's letter entitled, "A Father's Letter to his Son," in Z '08, 263, 264. If such was their purpose, it is worthy of all praise. It may prove further helpful to the friends to learn that that letter was through a mistake inserted in The Tower to fill up space by another 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


than our Pastor, during the latter's absence from the Bible House on a prolonged Pilgrim trip, and that "that Servant" on being questioned on the subject denied the general teaching of the letter, and the mistaken conclusion that some drew from it as to the Truth people's children as such becoming Ancient Worthies, as well as deplored its appearance in the Tower. 

(42) Again we are pleased to agree with the article under review in its denial that the following Scriptures apply to the Youthful Worthies: Zeph. 2:3; Ps. 41:1, 2; Zech. 13:8, 9; Amos 9:13; Matt. 8:11; John 8:51. It quotes them as being applied by some to prove that there will be a Youthful Worthy class to be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service. None of these passages has any specific reference to such a class; our dear Pastor never so applied them; neither have we ever so applied them; nor have we ever heard of their being so applied, before we read the article under review. These passages being, therefore, inapplicable to the subject, it is not necessary for us to discuss them on this point, remarking however in passing that we do not understand Zeph. 2:3 and Zech. 13:9 to apply to the Israelites alone, and that during Jacob's trouble, as The Tower now claims. Rather, we understand them as "that Servant" has expounded them. So, too, we think our Pastor's later thought on Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29, that those coming from the East, West, North and South are the Little Flock (Ps. 107:3; Acts 15:14; Z '14, 59, col. 2, pars. 1, 2), is better on account of its closer agreement with the connection than that which the article under review quotes from Z '04, 335. However, as these points are not relevant to our subject, we pass them by without further comment. 

(43) In discussing another's teaching it is always well to find out what the real basis of his position is; for this enables one the more readily to test its truth

The Youthful Worthies. 


or error. Some writers for varying reasons keep their basic principle more or less out of sight; and this has been done in the article under review. Usually such a course is pursued because, if the basic principle of the argument were clearly recognized, the reader would the more likely be turned against it. The following considerations on this point are here worthy of note: (1) From December, 1909, until his death, as can be seen from many Towers published from December 15, 1909, until that of September 15, 1916 (Z '09, 360; Z '10, 12, 13; 93, col. 2, pars. 3-6; 246, col. 2, pars. 1-4; Z '11, 394; Z '12, 152, col. 2, par. 4; Z '13, 92-94; Z '14, 67; Z '15, 103, 104; 292, 293; Z '16, 281), and from the Foreword of F. written Oct. 1, and finally approved for the press Oct. 16, 1916 (P '22, 192, ¶ 6), our Pastor taught Tentative and Vitalized Justification, separate and distinct, as operative during the Gospel Age; (2) The Truth people believe in Tentative Justification as operating during the Gospel Age, in harmony with the Scriptures, e.g., Rom. 4:1-25 and our Pastor's teachings. (3) J.F.R., the leading spirit among The Tower editors, and at least one of his editorial associates, W.E. Van Amburgh, deny the doctrine of Tentative Justification as operative during the Gospel Age. (4) They do not deny it in The Tower expressly in so many words; but they repeatedly, as in the article under review, deny the thought contained in the expression, Tentative Justification. (5) When writing of Gospel-Age Justification, they not only uniformly ignore both (a) mentioning the term, Tentative Justification, and (b) explaining the idea involved in that term; but also uniformly use language that is true of Vitalized Justification only, and that is untrue of Tentative Justification. (6) This same method of making people forget certain phases of a doctrine by ignoring them, and by talking as the purpose in view required on others of its phases exclusively, whenever discussion of that doctrine occurred, 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


was characteristic of, and conducive to the great falling away in the beginning of the Age. (7) If Truth People generally knew that this method was being used by at least two of the Tower editors, they would be more on their guard against various errors that J.F.R. and some of his associates have been holding, and are "privily" bringing in among the unsuspecting' sheep. If our dear readers will keep in mind that The Tower's denial of Tentative Justification during this Age is the foundation of its rejecting the Scriptural doctrine that those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Restitution sets in, for whom there are no crowns available, and hence no Spirit-begetting for Gospel-Age purposes possible, will be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service, they will be able by Scriptural, reasonable and factual thinking completely to overthrow every argument that the article under review presents to defend its thesis; for through Tentative Justification alone can God now deal with this class in preparing them for association with the Ancient Worthies. 

(44) The main difference between Tentative and Vitalized Justification is the following: In the former God reckons the merit of Christ as imputed to and for a believer, whereas it is not actually so imputed; in the latter God actually had Christ's merit imputed for and to a believer whose consecration God was about to accept by the begettal of the Spirit. Now to the Scriptural proof of the former: Very briefly would we note some of the thoughts that St. Paul in Rom. 4:1-12 gives us on Tentative Justification. Having in the preceding section demonstrated Justification by faith alone, he in Rom. 4:1-12 proceeds to prove that the same kind of a faith Justification as operated in the Patriarchal and Jewish Ages also operates during the Gospel Age. This he proves by citing (1) the experience of Abraham, and a Scripture (Gen. 15:6) with reference to him (vs. 1-3), as an

The Youthful Worthies. 


example and proof for a Gospel-Age Justification (vs. 4, 5); and (2) the experience and statement of David (vs. 6-8, compare with Ps. 32:1-5) as an example and proof for a Gospel-Age Justification. This must, therefore, refer to Tentative Justification; for that was the only kind experienced by Abraham and David. Then he proceeds to prove that such a Tentative Justification is during the Gospel Age applicable to ALL believers. We call particular attention to verses 11, 12, which we quote from the Diaglott: "And he [Abraham] received the symbol of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness [Tentative Justification is here meant, because the merit that by imputation vitalizes Justification was not yet in existence] of that faith which he had while in uncircumcision; in order that he might be [1] the FATHER OF ALL [whether they are consecrated or not] uncircumcised [Gentile] BELIEVERS [hence not only consecrated, but also unconsecrated believers], that righteousness [Tentative or Vitalized Justification, dependent on the non-imputation or the imputation of merit for them] may be accounted unto them ["ALL uncircumcised BELIEVERS"]; and (2) a father of Circumcision [Jews] not only to those who are of Circumcision [those Jews who do not accept Christ] but to those also who tread in the footsteps [those Jews who accepting Christ left all to journey to Heavenly Canaan, as Abraham left all to journey to earthly Canaan] of the faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision." Undoubtedly these twelve verses, as well as the rest of the chapter, especially verses 21-24, prove Tentative Justification as operative during the Gospel Age. The distinction between the faith of a tentatively justified believer and that of a consecrated believer is among other ways brought out in the Greek through the prepositions epi, on, for the faith of a tentatively justified believer, and eis, into, for the faith of a consecrated believer, as can 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


be seen in the use of the former in Rom. 4:5, 24; Acts 16:31 and of the latter in John 3:36; Acts 10:43. The latter kind of a faith is a consecrating faith which puts one into Christ; for a faithful justified believer continues to believe until he believes into (comes into) Christ. Among others, the following Scriptures prove Tentative Justification: 1 Cor. 7:14; Rom. 12:1; 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 1:30; Lev. 9:9, 12, 18. The following, among others, treat of Vitalized Justification: Heb. 9:24; 10:14; Jas. 2:14-26; 1 John 2:2; 1 Cor. 6:11. If the writer of the article under review believed in Tentative Justification as now operating, and thought logically on it, he never would have written that article; for it is based on the denial of Tentative Justification as now operating, whereas Tentative Justification furnished a basis for the Old Testament Faithful to have such relations with God as resulted in their qualifying for their Millennial reward and service; and whereas similar results for the Youthful Worthies are now possible from the same kind of a Justification. 

(45) As we are aware, every important feature of God's plan, illustrative from the standpoint of the At-one-ment, is symbolized in connection with the Tabernacle; hence the Lord has taken care to symbolize Tentative and Vitalized Justification by that curtain of the goats' hair (Ex. 26:7-9) which was doubled "in the forefront of the Tabernacle," the part visible to those in the Court typing Tentative Justification, and the part visible to those in the Holy typing Vitalized Justification. The following considerations will make this clear. The covering of badger (seal) skins, clearly visible to those in the camp, types The Christ class as they appear to the world, i.e., as unattractive and repulsive. The rams' skins dyed red, hidden under the first covering, represent the merit of Jesus' humanity. The ten curtains of goats' hair covered by the rams' skins dyed red represent the justified humanity

The Youthful Worthies. 


of the Church as covered by Christ's merit. The eleventh, the uncovered curtain, i.e., that which was doubled "in the forefront of the Tabernacle," represents not the Church's justified humanity, but Justification by faith, the part (as stated above) visible to those in the court typing Tentative Justification, and the part visible to those in the Holy typing Vitalized Justification. The linen curtains type The Christ as new creatures, in whom as such there is no sin (1 Pet. 2:22; Rom. 8:1-4; 1 John 3:6, 9). This curtain as doubled was first antitypically brought to our attention in The Tower of December 15, 1909, in the article on the Wedding Garment, and was repeatedly so brought to our attention since that time, by the true channel for the seasonal meat, our dear Pastor, in the distinction between Tentative and Vitalized Justification; but the part visible in the antitypical court is now denied by the counterfeit channel for giving seasonal meat to the priests, which, as a corporation, was the true channel for the work of the antitypical Mahlite Merarites. 

(46) The main differences between Tentative and Vitalized Justification are: (1) As concerns God's Justice, the former operates without, the latter with its being satisfied by Christ's merit; (2) as concerns Christ's merit, the former acts without, the latter with the imputation of His righteousness in the interests of the person concerned; (3) as concerns the recipient's activity, the former operates by the sole instrumentality of faith in the teachings of the Word on pertinent subjects without consecration, the latter by the instrumentality of such a faith with consecration; (4) as concerns the things imputed, the former has its faith actually, and Jesus' merit reckonedly (Rom. 3:21-28; 4:3-8, 21-25; 10:4), the latter its faith and Jesus' merit actually, imputed as righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30; Gal. 2:16-20; 3:22; Phil. 3:9) [the term, "the faith of Jesus" means the faithfulness,

The Epiphany's Elect. 


righteousness, of Jesus]; (5) as concerns the Adamic sentence, the former is without, the latter with its cancellation; (6) as concerns fellowship with God, the former is partial, the latter is full; (7) as concerns opportunities for entering covenant relations with God, while the former always gives opportunity of entering a grace-covenant relation with God, it does not always open an opportunity of entering into the Sarah-Covenant relation with God, as can be seen in the case of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies; the latter always gives access to the Sarah-Covenant relation with God. 

(47) The doctrine of Tentative Justification as operating from the time of Abel, Enoch and Noah (Heb. 11:4-7), until restitution begins, is a Scriptural one, and will remain so despite the denials of the counterfeit channel for seasonal meat for priests, which was the true channel for the work of the antitypical Mahlite Merarites, developed since the death of the true channel for giving seasonal meat to the household, "the Steward," "that Servant," our beloved Pastor. As long as Rom. 4:1-25, etc., remain parts of the Bible, that doctrine will stand despite the attacks that the counterfeit channel for giving seasonal meat to the priests makes upon it. 

(48) But some may ask, How does the article under review deny Tentative Justification as now operating? We answer, not only by its entire basis and its main general lines of argument by which it seeks to set aside the doctrine of the Youthful Worthies; but by specific statements which imply such a denial. Additionally many brethren know that J.F.R. and W.E. Van Amburgh deny Tentative Justification, e.g., the former often doing it before the Bethel Family in the Spring and Summer of 1917, the latter doing this not only then and there, but also before the Class at New Britain, Conn., December, 1919, in answering a question as to whether "that Servant" taught it. We

The Youthful Worthies. 


will quote only one statement among many that prove that they deny, not the express term, which would result in their arousing opposition to their efforts, but the idea implied in the doctrine of Tentative Justification as now operating. Z '20, 26, col. 2, par. 2, opens as follows: "Stated in other phrase, justification since the resurrection of Jesus results only (italics in both cases are ours. St. Paul thought differently, Rom. 4:1-25; so did "that Servant") to those who have imputed to them the merit of Jesus' sacrifice." This statement is true of Vitalized, but untrue of Tentative Justification. And because of the exclusive emphasis on the idea of Vitalized Justification, and the absence of the idea of Tentative Justification (perhaps the omission of both of these terms is not unintentional as conducive to making their readers forget the distinction!) the article, like other recent Tower articles on Justification is grossly misleading. Half-truths are more misleading than whole errors, as the course of every erroneous system proves. And the half-truth that the article under examination sets forth as the whole truth on Gospel-Age Justification will prove to be so on the subject of the Youthful Worthies, if the brethren do not keep in mind the other half-truth on Gospel-Age Justification. The antitypical curtain as doubled is necessary for us to keep in view to see daylight on Gospel-Age Justification; as the fog in the article under examination exists largely, because The Tower editors teach only one-half of such truth. 

(49) There is another point in the article under review in connection with which only half of the Truth is told, and that in such connections as results in the accumulation of more fog on the subject that it professes to elucidate. We refer to the treatment of the justification of the Ancient Worthies and of that of the Gospel Church. As far as it speaks of the justification of the former its language is correct enough; but it befogs the subject by what it leaves unsaid as 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


to the nature and privileges of their justification, which need consideration in order to estimate properly the relation of their justification to the Divine Justice and the Ransom merit, and the similar relation of the justification of the Youthful Worthies to the Divine Justice and the Ransom merit. The article under examination, to prevent its readers from concluding (as the article certainly gives that impression) that the justification of the Ancient Worthies was complete, vitalized, should have mentioned the following facts: (1) Their justification was of a kind in which the satisfaction of Justice did not take place; (2) that they lived and died under the Adamic sentence; (3) that they were justified to fellowship only; (4) that their trial was of faith and obedience only, proved by Samson's case especially, and not of love, without a trial and possession of which no one will ever gain everlasting life; and (5) that their trial for life, unlike that of the Vitalizedly Justified, who are tried for life now, was not in this life; but is to be in the Millennium (Heb. 11:40). None of these five thoughts is true of the Vitalizedly Justified. Hence the article, by the way it links all justification previous to the Millennium, leaves the reader under the impression that the Ancient Worthies' being pleasing to God in their justification was in the same sense as is the privilege of the Gospel Church in its justification to be pleasing to God. These important omissions put such great blemishes into the article as becloud the points which should be emphasized, and which, when clearly set forth, prove for the Youthful Worthies the same relation to the Divine Justice and the Ransom merit as that of the Ancient Worthies. Surely all of us recall how "that Servant" stressed the differences between the nature and privileges of the justification of the Ancient Worthies, which was tentative, because not made through the actual imputation of Jesus' merit, and that of the Gospel Church, which is vitalized, 

The Youthful Worthies. 


because made through the actual imputation of Jesus' merit to the consecrated. 

(50) We see, then, that the justification of the Ancient Worthies was not to life, which requires the satisfaction of Justice by the actual imputation of Christ's merit (Rom. 3:21-26; 5:18, 19); for they remain until the present under the Adamic sentence. Whatever Covenant favors God gave them, instead of setting this sentence aside, were given them conformably with Justice exacting from them the Adamic death. Hence they were not as Ancient Worthies put on trial for life. Their trial was of faith and obedience, and that from Abraham onward in connection with a Grace Covenant (Rom. 4:13-16; Gal. 3:18). This Grace Covenant neither ignored, nor set their Adamic sentence aside; but recognized its justice; and did not interfere with its execution; but meantime operated toward them as an unconditional promise, made possible through their Tentative Justification (Rom. 4:13-16), in view of the fact that a Ransom would some day satisfy Justice and cancel the Adamic sentence for them. Hence God dealt with them as a kind prison warden would with a worthy convict in view of his future lawful freedom. He could do this in harmony with Justice and the Ransom, by leaving them suffer the former's sentence, and in the meantime give them opportunities of demonstrating their faith in, and loyalty to Him, as a preparation for their future lawful freedom. Thus He arranged in their interests as Millennial works: (1) the application of the Ransom as a seal of the New Covenant for the cancellation of their Adamic sentence, (2) their awakening from the dead, and (3) their reward, not everlasting life, for which they must first stand trial, and that under the New Covenant (Heb. 11:40), but human perfection and princeship (Heb. 11:39, 35; Ps. 45:16). Their Tentative Justification, i.e., justification to fellowship (Jas. 2:23) by their faith, which faith in

The Epiphany's Elect. 


due time was proven to be genuine by their consecration faithfully maintained under sore trial (Jas. 2:21, 22), made it possible for God to give them such promises as gave them the hope of a reward in the future (Heb. 11:10, 13-16), and as left them under the curse, while they exercised hope in the promises. Without such a Tentative Justification God's Covenant dealings with them could not have taken place; with it they could; for thus in harmony with the curse and His Justice God has always drawn near to those who have drawn near to Him. Praised be His Holy Name for such wondrous grace! 

(51) These are the second set of things that the article under review omits mentioning, and thereby befogs the question that it professes to clarify. The two sets of things, (1) Tentative Justification with what it implies as the basic one, and (2) the exact position of the Ancient Worthies as to Justice, the sentence, their covenant standing, their trial and future relations to the Ransom and the New Covenant, clarify the situation as to the Youthful Worthies; for the latter's relation to God is now precisely the same as was that of the Ancient Worthies in all essential respects, i.e., as to (1) repentance, (2) faith, (3) justification, (4) consecration, (5) faithfulness in hard tests of faith and obedience apart from a trial for life, (6) environment inconducive to righteousness and conducive to sin, (7) satisfaction of Justice, (8) the Adamic sentence, (9) the earthly features of the Oath-bound Covenant, (10) God's gracious Love, (11) the merit of Christ, (12) the New Covenant, (13) a trial for life, (14) the impossibility of entering the High Calling because of its unopened door, which is no fault of theirs. The fact that one class lived, when it was too soon for Divine Justice to be satisfied for it on the basis of the imputed merit, and the fact that the other lives, when it is too late for the Divine Justice to be satisfied for it on the basis of the imputed merit, by

The Youthful Worthies. 


which alone access to the High Calling is possible, are facts that are equalized before the bar of Justice and the Ransom by the consideration that both lived, when it was too soon for Divine Justice to be satisfied for them by the applied merit. Hence giving the Youthful Worthies under the same conditions the opportunity of becoming the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service is no more contrary to the Divine Justice and the Ransom than was giving the Ancient Worthies the opportunity of qualifying for their Millennial reward and service. St. Paul and "that Servant" were among the deepest and sharpest reasoners on the Ransom that ever lived, by far more able as such than the Tower editors; and they neither saw nor made a denial of the Ransom in their teaching Tentative Justification (Rom. 4:3-12) as giving Youthful Worthies (Gal. 3:6-9; Rom. 4:11-16; 2 Tim. 2:20; Joel 2:28) a standing of fellowship with God and a trial of faith and obedience, but not a standing in a trial for life, even as was the case of their teaching of the Ancient Worthies. 

(52) The mere fact that the Youthful Worthies are living since the resurrection of Jesus is not determinative as to the principles of exact Justice and the Ransom. Divine Justice can never, either before, or after the Resurrection of Jesus, consent to its violation, which dealing with the Youthful Worthies exactly as with the Ancient Worthies no more does than did dealing with the Ancient Worthies; and since it is the merit of Jesus alone that propitiates Justice, and not the time in which once lives, any time argument truly based on Justice and the Ransom that would disprove the harmony between Divine Justice and the Ransom on the one hand, and the opportunity of qualifying for Youthful Worthiship on the other (since it is given them, while under the sentence, in view of the future application of the Ransom, as was the case with the Ancient Worthies), would equally disprove the harmony between 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


Divine Justice and the Ransom on the one hand, and the opportunity of qualifying for Ancient Worthiship on the other; for it is not the difference of time, as the article under review claims; but the essential nature of Divine Justice and of the Ransom in their relation to the Tentatively Justified and unbegotten consecrated, in view of a future application of the Ransom merit, that determines the question. Hence the argument of the article under review that such an opportunity operating now is contrary to Justice and the Ransom is unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactual—fog! 

(53) To sum up in the form of a question and answer: What made the Old Testament Faithful available for Ancient Worthiship? Answer: Tentative Justification, consecration and faithfulness in their trial of faith and obedience, in view of a future application of the Ransom for them. What now makes the Unbegotten Consecrated available for Youthful Worthiship? Answer: In view of a future application of the Ransom for them, the same three things. In other words through Tentative Justification God has given both of these classes, in view of the future application of the Ransom for them, an opportunity to gain a reward that will glorify His name, and hence their trial is, in each case alike, in harmony with the Ransom. 

(54) The article under review claims that, when our dear Pastor taught for the Youthful Worthies Millennial association with the Ancient Worthies in reward and service, he meant those unbegotten consecrators only who would live in the interval between the begettal of the last member of the Little Flock and Restitution times; and then the article proceeds to deny this half-truth. The article to prove that such was his thought quotes only a part of what he said; and lets the part unquoted that shows that he included all such as could not be provided with crowns, and 

The Youthful Worthies. 


be begotten of the Spirit, from the time of the close of the General Call in 1881 until Restitution sets in. Both of these lines of thought, among other places, he expounds in the two paragraphs of F 156. The opening sentence of the first of the two paragraphs proves that he refers to both: "Another point arises here: In view of the fact that the High Calling [the General Call] is closed [in 1881 it ended; he does not say, "In view of the fact that the High Calling will be closed"], etc. Here is another case of the editors telling half of the truth only; and then unwilling to let us enjoy this half, they even proceed to deny IT! 

(55) The claim of the article that the Harvest began 1878 and ended 1918 will be found refuted in Volumes V and VI of this work, to which we refer our readers for details. The Pyramid's corroboration of this refutation as pertaining to 1918 is found in Vol. III, Chapter VII. The last member of the Little Flock having been begotten by the Fall of 1914, and the last member of the Little Flock having been sealed in the forehead Passover, 1916, shown as above indicated, all persons consecrating since the first of these two dates cannot Scripturally hope for Little Flockship, and should not be encouraged so to hope. Their hope is in Youthful Worthiship. To arouse them to false hopes now will only give them greater disappointment by and by. 

(56) Further, the article under examination claims that: "No one of the human race can stand before God without a Mediator or an Advocate," and hence reasons that there can be no opportunity of qualifying for Youthful Worthiship before the New Covenant is in operation; because they are under neither an Advocate nor a Mediator. We quote the above sentence as an example of sweeping statements and half truths that abound in the article. The following corrections must be made to make the sentence tell

The Epiphany's Elect. 


the truth: (1) In order that Adam and Eve before their fall and Jesus be not ruled out from having had a standing before God, the word "fallen," or its equivalent, must be inserted between the words "the" and "human." The editors would grant this, as a later statement of theirs proves. (2) In order that the standing of the Ancient Worthies in covenant relation with God as justified to fellowship, while on trial of faith and obedience, but not on trial for life, be not ruled out, the sentence must be corrected somewhat as follows: "No one of the fallen race can stand in covenant relation before God's Justice in a trial for life without a Mediator or an Advocate." So corrected the sentence tells the truth; but so corrected the sentence destroys The Tower editors' argument based on its half-true sentence, as the following considerations prove: God did without a Mediator or Advocate enter into covenant relation with the Ancient Worthies as such, not indeed as freed by His Justice from the sentence in a trial for life (for they had no such standing and trial before Him); but without being on trial for life, and while suffering the Adamic sentence under the demands of Justice, they stood without an Advocate or Mediator before God's Love in covenant relation, a relation made possible in virtue of their Tentative Justification, which God's Wisdom planned for, and which His Love gave to them (in view of the fact that the Ransom would in the Millennium be applied for them and thus satisfy Justice for, and release them from the Adamic sentence) before they would or could obtain the blessings that Divine Justice stopped them from receiving until the Ransom would be applied for them (Heb. 11:39, 40). Hence under the same conditions God could without an Advocate or a Mediator have the same covenant dealings with the Youthful Worthies. Hence the editors' argument against there now being Youthful Worthies from the standpoint of their not having an Advocate or Mediator falls to the 

The Youthful Worthies. 


ground. This argument is not, as they claim, "another point that is controlling in this question, and settles it beyond peradventure of a doubt." Rather, it is only some more fog! Moreover, the Youthful Worthies are tentatively under an Advocate through their Tentative Justification. 

(57) The same remark that it is only fog applies to the editors' argument that the doctrine of the three Covenants, typed by Abraham's three wives, estops there being a Youthful Worthy class before the inauguration of the New Covenant; because they are not children of antitypical Sarah or Hagar. It is true that the Youthful Worthies are not children of the Sarah, or of the Hagar Covenant; neither are the Great Company; nor were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., nor any of the preceding and subsequent Ancient Worthies, as such, as is manifest from the fact that some of them died, before either of these Covenants produced seed. For their argument to be binding, it must be proven that no other Covenant than these two has either operated hitherto or is now operating. But such an alleged proof is false; for the Covenant, certain earthly features of the Oath-bound Covenant (Gen. 22:16-18), that operated between God and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the subsequent Ancient Worthies, and that anticipatorily operated between God and Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc. (Heb. 11:3-7, 39, 40), is the Covenant that operates now between God and the Youthful Worthies; for if it could operate anticipatorily in the case of Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc., it could now operate in the case of the Youthful Worthies, as the whole trend of Scriptures, Reason and Facts implies that it does. If any doubt still lingers on this subject, Gal. 3:6-9 and Rom. 4:16 ought to dissipate it; for they teach that all who have the same kind of Faith that Abraham had will, each in his own class, with Abraham be blessed with the privilege of blessing all the families of the earth! This promise is the

The Epiphany's Elect. 


Covenant! It now operates toward the Youthful Worthies; for they "are of the faith of Abraham," i.e., "they trust where they cannot trace" (2 Cor. 4:13; 5:7)—and "are therefore blessed with faithful Abraham." It is true that the earthly features of the Oath-bound Covenant do not now give life; for life will be given both of these classes by the Keturah Covenant; but it does give them a certain kind of a standing before God, even as previously defined. The Covenant that during this life operated toward Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other Ancient Worthies was not typed by any of Abraham's three wives. Nor are those of its features that cover the Great Company and fleshly Israel (Rom. 11:28, 29). But as the very identical condition does not unmake the Great Company's and fleshly Israel's Oath-bound Covenants, this Covenant's not being typed by any of Abraham's wives does not make it non-existent; for many passages testify of its existence; and this is the Covenant that is similar to the one that covers the Youthful Worthies. 

(58) Hence The Tower editors' reasoning that, since the Youthful Worthies are not developed by Sarah or Hagar, and that, since Keturah is not yet operating, there is no such a class now, presupposes the proposition that there is no other Covenant than these three, which presupposition is untrue. Therefore their argument on this point is built upon quicksand; and if we keep in mind that the Covenants which operate between God and the Ancient and Youthful Worthies do not now give them life, but leave them under the Adamic sentence, from which they will be delivered by the Ransom, the Godward seal of the New Covenant, the future mother of their humanity, all of the figurative fog raised by their argument about the three Covenants disproving the existence of Youthful Worthies vanishes before the sunrays of Truth! 

(59) Finally, the commission of the Church is appealed to by the article under review as a proof that 

The Youthful Worthies. 


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

The Epiphany's Elect. 


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

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


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

(2) Since what date have the Youthful Worthies been 

The Youthful Worthies. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(12) Briefly expound Dan. 3, type and antitype. What is there in the number of the Hebrew youths typing the 

The Epiphany's Elect. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Youthful Worthies. 


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

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

(28) From Heb. 12:23; Ex. 12:11-13, 21-23, 27; 13:1, 2, 11-15; Num. 3:40-51, show that the Youthful Worthies will have a heavenly disposition and nature. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Epiphany's Elect. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Youthful Worthies. 


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

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

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

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

The Epiphany's Elect. 


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

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

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

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

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

The Youthful Worthies. 


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

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

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

The Epiphany's Elect. 


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Youthful Worthies. 


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

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

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

The Epiphany's Elect. 


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

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


HE lived true, long years a witness 

To the pure high-thoughted Oath, 

That in the ripeness of the Ages 

Will bless Jew and non-Jew both. 

Not a priest, and not a churchman, 

From all proud presumption free, 

Shepherd-chief and shepherd-warrior, 

Human-faced like you and me; 

Human-faced and human-hearted, 

To the pure religion true; 

Purer than the gay and sensuous 

Grecian, wider than the Jew. 

Common sire, whom Jew and Christian, 

Turk and Arab, name with praise; 

Common as the sun that shines 

On East and West with brothered rays.