“Surely he shall not be moved forever: the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.” (Psa. 112:6)
Among other promises that the Lord has given the righteous, is one which pledges that they shall be in everlasting remembrance, i.e., that they will be held in sacred, hallowed and loving memory for their faithfulness. While this promise pertains to the Ancient Worthies especially, it is applicable in a general way to all of the righteous. In the Scriptures, certain righteous ones are specified whose very mention by name in the Bible, is a guarantee that they will be everlastingly remembered; for as long as the eternal Word lasts, so long will such persons, e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, etc., be held in hallowed, sacred and loving memory. So, too, certain righteous ones are specified by name in Church history, whose very mention there as antitypes of certain ones in the Scriptures, is a guarantee that they will be held in everlasting remembrance. As long as the eternal Word is understood by its pertinent antitypes, so long will such persons as Marsiglio, Wyclif, Huss, Wessel and That Servant be held in hallowed, sacred and loving memory. Yea, of all extra‑Biblical characters, we believe That Servant will be held in most hallowed, sacred and loving remembrance. Thus we need not be ashamed to esteem, love and honor one whom Jehovah has so signally esteemed, loved and honored. (1 Sam. 2:30)
Such honor is proper, because the memory of such persons is worthy of being kept alive; because it does those good who keep it alive; and because it continues the good influence of such persons. St. Paul had this same thought in mind when he tells us we should be “looking to Jesus.” The Lord, Himself, vouches for the faithfulness and wisdom of That Servant’s character (Matt. 24:45‑47; Luke 12:42‑44). He was faithful in great and small things. He was wise in his words, methods, plans, arrangements and works. He was full of the faith, hope and knowledge that makes one wise. He was an example of the self‑control and patience that makes one strong. He practiced that piety and brotherly love that makes one just; and he was a living expression of that charity that makes one loving. Beautifully did he exemplify humility, meekness, longsuffering and forbearance. His courage, industry, self‑forgetfulness, liberality, amiability and frugality were most striking. He was as nearly a model Christian as Adamic imperfection has permitted any of Adam’s fallen children to be a true “example of the believers.” Such a character held in remembrance must prove to be a means of honor to God and helpfulness to God’s Household.
The office that he held as That Servant made him the Lord’s special representative, and as such it made him, at a most remarkable time of all history, Christ’s special eye, mouth and hand. As the Lord’s special eye, it was, generally speaking, his function to see the things first of all that the Lord desired the Church to see. As the Lord’s special mouth, it was his responsibility to declare the Lord’s message, after being apprized of it himself, to others with reference to God, Christ, the Spirit, creation, man, good and evil principles, persons and things, the fall into, and punishment for sin, the permission of evil, the ransom, high calling, restitution, justification, consecration, the hereafter, covenants, prophecies, histories and types of God’s Word. As Christ’s special hand, it was his duty to superintend and do whatever work the Lord called on him to superintend and do toward the Church, Great Company, Youthful Worthies, Israel and Christendom.
How may we, therefore, cooperate with the Lord in furthering the blessed influence of his memory? We may do so by esteeming for ourselves and helping others to esteem his office and his work. Rightly to esteem his work, implies our taking God’s view of it. How honorable, effective, faithful and wise was that work in its reaping and gleaning the Church, gathering many of the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies, encouraging despondent Israel, comforting the mourning, binding tares, kings and princes and executing judgment! How wonderful it was from the standpoint of a Teacher, Pastor, Advisor, Lecturer, Author, Preacher, Editor, Theologian and Executive! To esteem him as such and to encourage others to esteem him as such will make his memory a blessing; for it will continue in our own and others’ lives the effects of his works done in the above-mentioned capacities. This implies that we continue to regard him as our helper by faithfully studying and practicing his teachings, spirit and works and commending them to others for their study and practice. This implies that we cherish and live in harmony with these teachings and practices, defend them against all attacks, and do our part in spreading them as well as encouraging others to do likewise. Our so doing will enable us to co‑operate with God in preaching the “good Word.”
Some of us have for years been daily praying God to bless his memory. We are sure such have received a blessing from their prayers; for they have served to keep fresh in their minds his memory, teachings and office; and thus they have among other things helped them to abide faithful to his teachings and to a proper recognition and appreciation of his office; but those who have not frequently recalled what he was to them have valued his teachings and office but little, and have accordingly been open to all sorts of ignoring and repudiations of his teachings.
There is even at this late date more or less confusion among some of the Truth people as to who or what is meant by the expression “that Servant.” According to several views the expression “that Servant” refers to a class. Some claim that, understood as a class, the expression “that Servant” means the teachers in the Church; others claim that it means the Little Flock, and still others ‑the Tower Editors and their disciples – claim that it means the Society’s directors, organized with their agents, or the shareholders or both combined. In Reprint 1946 and Volume 4, page 613 our dear Pastor modestly gave the proofs that the expression “that Servant” refers to an individual, i.e., to himself. With this view all well instructed Truth people agreed, until the Society leaders, to make their usurped powers more secure, spread the opinion that the Society, a business corporation, is “that Servant.” Accordingly the Tower Editors and their followers must be reckoned among those who teach that “that Servant” is not an individual, but is a class.
The Scriptures (Matt. 24:45‑47; Luke 12:42‑46) clearly refute such claims, teaching that the expression “that Servant” means an individual. In both passages “that Servant” is clearly distinguished from the Church, because he is spoken of as being made “ruler over His [the Lord’s] Household”; hence he cannot be the Household, the Church. Again, the fact that he is spoken of as giving them “meat in due season” distinguishes him from the “Household,” the Church. Furthermore, his being called the “steward” proves that all of the servants of the Household cannot be meant, for the steward is the special representative of the Householder, having in charge all the latter’s goods during his time of office, and as such has also all the other servants in his charge. (In our Lord’s day individuals, not classes, were stewards.) Moreover, he is expressly distinguished in Luke 12:45 from all the other servants, in that he is forbidden “to beat the menservants and maidens,” i.e., all the other servants of the Church. Hence the expression “that Servant” cannot mean the servants of the Church as a class, because in this passage he is clearly distinguished from them. Therefore, in view of the fact that these two Scriptures distinguish him from the Church as a whole and from all of the other servants of the Truth, we should conclude that he must be an individual.
Furthermore, the facts of the Harvest history prove that an individual, our sainted Pastor, is meant by that expression. For the Harvest, understood as the reaping and gleaning period, is past. During that time not a class, i.e., neither the Church, nor all Servants of the Truth, nor the Society, had the entire Storehouse in their charge, nor gave the meat in due season, nor ruled the Harvest work; but “that Servant” alone did these things. Hence, he alone fulfilled the prophecy.
Nor could it have been reasonably done otherwise. How could the entire Church have had the entire Storehouse in its charge, or have given itself the meat in due season, or have ruled the work? How could all of the Servants of the Truth have had these privileges? And have not the divisions in the Church, caused by various power‑grasping leaders, proven the unreasonableness of the attempt to rule the Church by all the leaders? Moreover, how could a “dummy corporation” with “dummy directors” have ruled the Household, given the meat in due season and had charge of all the goods? From these considerations we see the absurdity of the teaching of those who claim that the expression “that Servant” means a class.
Truly during the reaping and gleaning time our Pastor had charge of all the goods, and gave the meat in due season. Practically every feature of the Harvest message was first seen by him, and was then first taught by him to the Church. So, too, every branch of the Harvest work was in its general aspects under his charge.
True to the passages of Matthew 24:45‑47 and Luke 12:42‑44 he was appointed to this office after our Lord’s Return, as a reward for being found faithfully administering the food to the Household when the Lord came, which was before the Society existed, and which proves that the Society cannot be “that Servant.” So, too, in his office work he was both faithful and wise; and therefore he was blessed by the Lord according to these Scriptures with a continuance in his office. In calling him faithful our Lord prophesied that he would be loyal to the end; and through his very faithfulness he was privileged to fulfill official obligations and privileges that gave him a wider and more fruitful field of service than any other servant of God ever had on this earth, our Lord alone excepted.
Time and sign prophecies prove that our Lord returned in 1874. After His coming He found our Pastor faithfully ministering as much truth as he had; and after certain tests He honored him shortly with executive charge of the work and soon after with special mouthpieceship – the two functions of the office of “That Servant.” And all the while he ministered as such during the Harvest, and exercised the functions of that office. He did, under our Lord, have executive charge of the work of the Church at large, and he was the special agent through whom the Lord gave the Parousia Truth. Thus his having exercised the official functions of “that Servant’ during the Parousia, proves him to have been “that Servant.” The fulfillment of the prophecies of the two above noted passages in him, prove him to have been “that Servant.” Thus the Parousia proves him to be “that Servant.”
Some of the Gospel Age prophets had a special doctrine that they emphasized above all others, and which acted somewhat as the foundation of all their teachings; and we believe this was true of Brother Russell, which we would briefly describe as: A correct understanding of the Atonement as portrayed in Leviticus 16, the central teaching of which is RESTITUTION.
Leviticus 16 reveals the offerings for sin, which in turn effects atonement, which “in due time” will accomplish the “restitution of all things.” (Acts 3:19‑23) After clearly understanding this great truth, Brother Russell repeatedly preached it in his public lectures; and he urged all the pilgrims to do likewise. This in turn aroused the vicious antagonism of the Hell‑fire preachers throughout Christendom; but the more they opposed, the more the message prospered; and by the time Brother Russell died in 1916 it was considered by many in Christendom as a reflection upon the intelligence of any one who still believed in eternal torment as the wages of sin.’
That the doctrine of Restitution sparked Brother Russell’s entire ministry after receiving this Truth surely none will dispute. It is probable he never delivered a public discourse thereafter in which Restitution did not have a large and prominent place. And those who witnessed the Photo‑Drama will recall the oft‑repeated expressions: “India needs Restitution; China needs Restitution,” etc., etc. We know, too, that his favorite Scripture was John 3:16,17, the mainspring of which is also Restitution: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And early in his ministry he urged the Pilgrims and Bethel speakers to stress Restitution in their public discourses, as he himself also did.
THE PAROUSIA MESSENGER
Inasmuch as he had made crystal clear the meaning of the Lord’s Parousia – over the thousand years, and in its various stages – he began to be referred to as the Parousia Messenger. This title is not to be found in the Bible by direct statement, but it is easily conceived by considering a few texts. In Psa. 91:11 it is stated, “He will give his angels a charge concerning thee”; and the Manna comment for November 17 explains that these angels would be human messengers provided for the special oversight and welfare of the Church. Thus, Parousia Messenger could aptly be stated Parousia Angel, but Parousia Messenger makes the thought a little clearer to the average reader.
He was the Parousia Messenger, as well as That Servant (Matt. 24:45‑47), he was the prophet unto the nations (Jer. 1:5), he was “that faithful and wise steward” (Luke 12:42), he was one of the stars (Rev. 1:16), he was one of the prophets in the Gospel‑Age Church, and those who knew him intimately would readily testify that he was one of the foundation stones in the Parousia Church (Eph. 2:20), he was a pilgrim, he was a warrior and, as such, he was the antitypical Parousia David. He was also the antitypical Eleazar of the Gospel‑Age Harvest. As such he had full charge of the antitypical Tabernacle, the Church: “He shall make him ruler over all his goods.” In this he was the parallel of the twelve Apostles in the Jewish Harvest. He was a genteel man, but most of his adult years were spent in fighting – set for the defense of the Truth.
While directing the Harvest work, Pastor Russell disseminated truth on the Ransom, Creation, fall of man, High Calling, Resurrection, the Kingdom of God, and other doctrinal topics. He refuted errors on eternal torment, evolution, the trinity and human immortality. He detailed and charted the Plan of The Ages, outlining the Biblical teaching of three worlds (2 Peter 3:6,7,13) and their Ages (1 Cor. 10:11, Dia.). His writings on the restoration of Israel have brought him recognition in recent years. The book EARLY AMERICAN CHRISTIAN ZIONIST by Jewish author, David Horowitz, states: “Pastor Russell, in all his writings, proved that the theme of the whole Bible revolves around the return of the Children of Israel to their ancient homeland, the Holy Land with Jerusalem as the capital.”
Pastor Russell as “That Servant” carried out his mission and faithfully followed God’s command to “write the vision and make it plain upon tables.” He made clear the Plan of the Ages to the Lord’s brethren. (Hab. 2:3; Eph. 3:11, Dia.)
In his day “That Servant” never sought to draw attention to himself, nor did he claim any special revelation from God. The “gathering saints” focused not on him but on the spiritual food which they saw as coming forth from the Lord in “due time.”
That Servant entered into his reward October 31, 1916, and since that time the Adversary has done all in his power to distort the Truth in every way possible – by setting it aside for “new light,” by perverting the Truth, by revolutionizing against the Truth. All those who have “continued in the Truth” once delivered unto the Saints (Jude 3) are much saddened to witness such distortions, etc. Some have gone from one group to another, hoping to find the pure faith – and some have come to the conclusion that they would separate themselves from all groups. We believe that is a mistake, because there are yet others of like mind who seek to “abide in His Word,” and who are keeping up the “good fight,” in upholding and defending the faith. Such a course is the only way we can be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren. We are to “lay down our lives for the brethren,” and we cannot do that if we isolate ourselves and refuse to hold up the standard because we do not want to “stand the heat of the day.” The Truth received into “good and honest hearts” makes us “good soldiers”; it does not make cowards of us. If we have a cowardly spirit, the Lord did not give it to us. “For God did not give us a Cowardly Spirit, but one of power [courage], and of love, and of a sound mind.” (2 Tim. 1:7, Dia.) And the Apostle Paul tells us: “Retain an outline of wholesome words, which thou didst hear from me, in that faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good entrusted charge, through that holy Spirit which dwells in us. Thou knowest this, That all those in Asia turned away from me: of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.” (2 Tim. 1:13‑16, Dia.)
That Servant’s memory deserves to be kept fragrant among us; and it can be so kept best of all by a faithful use of the Truth that he ministered to us, and by a loyal copying of his holy example. Such a course on our part will conduce to his memory being continually blessed to us and to others, and is the best kind of celebration of his life and death.
Why should we pray for our Pastor’s memory to be blessed? We might give several answers to this question. In the first place, God has promised (Psa. 112:6) to bless the memory of such brethren; and it is evidently proper, good and useful so to do or God would not have made this promise. It is proper, because the memory of such brethren is worthy of being kept alive; because it does those good who keep it alive; and because it continues the good influence of such brethren. God’s having made the promise for such reasons, we may well ask Him to bless our Pastor’s memory. Again, our Pastor’s character is one for whose memory one may properly pray a blessing. The Lord, Himself, vouches for the faithfulness and wisdom of his character (Mark. 24:45‑47; Luke 12:42‑44). He was faithful in great and small things. He was wise in his words, methods, plans, arrangements and works. He was full of the faith, hope and knowledge that makes one wise. He was an example of the self control and patience that makes one strong. He practiced that piety and brotherly love that makes one just; and he was a living expression of that charity that makes one loving. Beautifully did he exemplify humility, meekness, longsuffering and forbearance. His courage, industry, self‑forgetfulness, liberality, amiability and frugality were most striking. He was nearly a model Christian as Adamic imperfection has permitted any of Adam’s fallen children to be. Such a character held in remembrance must prove to be a means of honor to God and helpfulness to man. Therefore it would be proper to pray God bless his memory!
THE EPIPHANY MESSENGER
Pilgrim Brother Paul S. L. Johnson was Brother Russell’s special helper during the final years of his life. We also pay tribute to Brother Johnson as the Epiphany Messenger after the death of the Parousia Messenger for his faithfulness in upholding and defending the truth given to us by That Servant, refuting the errors and exposing the errorists in keeping with “Them that honor me I will honor.” (1 Sam. 2:30) We should honor those that the Lord honors – not as “angel” worshipers but in sound and proper appraisal of their position and service in the household, and as “examples of the believers.”
Let their memory abide fragrant to us and be an inspiration for greater fidelity to, and fruitfulness in the Lord. Our Lord himself said, “If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honor.” (John 12:26)
PEACE TALKS COLLAPSE OVER JERUSALEM
THURMONT, Md. (AP) – The Middle East peace talks at Camp David collapsed Tuesday over rival claims to East Jerusalem. Disappointed, President Clinton said he tried several approaches but could not come up with a solution. “They couldn’t get there; that’s the truth,” Clinton said at the White House after two weeks of intensive negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
“This is agonizing for both of them,” Clinton said at a hastily arranged news conference. “I think they both remain committed to peace. I think they both will find a way to get there if they don’t let time run away from them.”
Clinton’s own time to arrange a historic settlement could be running out. With less than six months left in office, his legacy as a peacemaker rested on the summit talks at the presidential retreat in Maryland’s Catoctin mountains. He was skeptical of bringing Barak and Arafat back to Camp David for another try, but said peace was the goal, not which American president helped achieve it between two people destined to live side by side and to share “a common future.”
The Israeli and Palestinian delegations said in a statement they intended “to continue their efforts to conclude an agreement on all permanent status issues as soon as possible.” They also said they understood the importance of avoiding unilateral actions – an implicit pledge by Arafat not to declare a Palestinian state outside negotiations with Israel.
And, in a gesture to Arafat, the statement said the only path to peace was resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council after Middle East wars in 1967 and 1973. These call for Israel to relinquish territory won from the Arabs in exchange for secure borders. Arafat several times has said he would declare statehood if no agreement was reached by September 13, a deadline set by him and Barak.
Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a top Arafat aide, blamed Barak for the failure, saying he entered the talks with his “no’s.” “The Israeli position was the cause of failure,” he said.
Clinton credited both sides with seeking a compromise on the future of Jerusalem, but suggested Barak took bolder steps than Arafat. “The Palestinians changed their position, they moved forward,” Clinton said, lifting the veil of secrecy he had imposed on the details of the negotiations. “The Israelis moved more.”
At another point, Clinton said, “Prime Minister Barak showed particular courage, vision and an understanding of the historical importance of this moment,” and Arafat “made it clear that he, too, remains committed to the path of peace.”
Abdel Rahim said Arafat would tour Arab countries and urge them to convene a summit for foreign ministers to work on a unified Arab position. “We are going to implement what has been decided at the PCC (the Palestinian Central Council) to declare the sovereignty of the Palestinian state on Palestinian land,” he said. Hassan Abdel Rahman, the PLO’s representative in Washington, said in an interview with APTN that he hoped peace talks would continue because “the alternatives to a peace agreement are very ugly.”
Barak, at a news conference, warned: “If there will be a unilateral declaration, we will be forced to make unilateral acts of our own.”
A senior U.S. official said at the State department: “We will not support unilateral moves. Our focus will continue to be on good‑faith negotiations.”
Barak’s spokesman, Gadi Baltiansky, told Israel radio that over the summit’s last two days, it had become clear the Palestinians were maintaining “extreme, unreasonable positions.”
Palestinian sources said the breaking point was Israel’s refusal to recognize Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem’s walled Old City, offering only access to the A1 Aqsa mosque, the third‑holiest site in Islam. Arafat was infuriated, the sources said.
Israeli sources portrayed Barak as far more generous, offering at first municipal control of some Arab neighborhoods and then proposing Palestinian sovereignty over them.
Rahman told The Associated Press that Israel’s offer of limited sovereignty was unacceptable and a “nonstarter.” He said the Palestinians insisted on sovereignty over the entire Old City.
The collapse occurred overnight, as Clinton engaged in another protracted session with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators.
At 3 a.m. Tuesday, Arafat sent a letter to Clinton saying he saw no point in continuing because the Israeli position on Jerusalem could never lead to an agreement, Palestinian sources said.
“If you ask me, ‘Did they make enough progress to get this done?’ Yes,” Clinton said. “But they’ve got to go home and check, they’ve got to feel around. I feel that we have the elements here to keep this process going... I think it can happen.”
Reaction to the breakdown was quick. “This failure is another indication that the only choice we have is resistance,” said Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin. “Only by force are we able to retain our rights... We are ready to become martyrs, and we say one short sentence: They will pay a high price if they think to attack us and reoccupy the land.”
Barak had vowed never to divide Jerusalem, which Israel reunited in the 1967 Six‑Day war by forcing Jordanian troops to surrender the Old City.
At the same time, he offered a series of concessions from the outset, including transferring much of the West Bank to the Palestinians, dismantling of most Jewish settlements and permitting thousands of Palestinian refugees to live in Israel.
That cost Barak the support of three political parties that had been in his government. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a prime time news conference before the talks broke down that Barak must reject any deal that would call for sharing sovereignty over Jerusalem with the Palestinians. Netanyahu said he wanted to avert a “ripping apart” of Israeli society. (By Barry Schweid, AP Diplomatic Writer)
LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST
Many thanks for your letter of April 30, 2000. Charles T. Russell didn’t know anything about the hour 1914‑1954. That was the hour that “that Servant” didn’t know about when “The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society” was cut asunder (Matthew 24:49‑51). This is history.
According to Russell himself “our Lord, the great Chief Fisherman, designed to catch a particular number of fish of a particular kind, no matter how many of other varieties went into the net with them; and when the full number of the desired, peculiar kind, have entered the net it is ordered ashore for the purpose of sorting and separating. When the net is thus ordered ashore, the commission given at the beginning of the age, to cast the net into the sea, should be understood as at an end; and all who would continue to be coworkers with the Lord must give heed to his directions, and no longer give their time to general fishing, but to the present work of selecting and gathering.”
John and Morton Edgar were appreciated by Russell as you can see in the Tower. John Edgar died in 1910, but Morton Edgar worked together with my father during most part of the hour 1914‑1954. See enclosed letter from Morton Edgar to my father in 1949. I have many letters from Edgar. My father died in 1954 and Morton Edgar a few years earlier.
The branches of “The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society” went on with general fishing; my father did not. My father visited Russell in Brooklyn before the first world war. Russell appointed him leader of some of the work concerning the truth in Sweden.
All the best and many kind regards. Anders Karlen (SWEDEN)
31 January 1949
Dear Brother Karlen,
Diagram CII with letter arrived on Saturday 29th January 1949, and I am very thankful to hear from you. Please do not get the idea that I am tired of getting these wonderful diagrams, because I look forward to them, and am always glad when still another is delivered through the mail. We cannot have too many of them!
As I have said before, I always thank the Lord for revealing to you these faith-inspiring Pyramid features, and for the self‑sacrificing spirit which you manifest in giving me an understanding of them through your diagrams and letters. I thank the Lord for all your help, and pray Him that He will reward you in His due time.
With much love in His Name, from Sister Minna and myself.
Your loving brother by His favour, Morton Edgar
(Page 8 Contains a reproduction of pictures from the London Graphic and text from the April 8, 1911 Edition at ½ size, which will not reproduce here.).