NO. 241: MORE CONCERNING CORNELIUS (CONTINUED)

No. 241

My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

In our May paper No. 239 we offered extended analysis on Cornelius and his con­dition before Peter’s visit; but time and space did not allow us the detail that the subject required. Thus, we now offer further comment in refutation of what is pre­sented in the Jan.-Feb. PT, pp. 11-15. For the benefit of our readers who no longer read the PT we now quote the opening paragraph on p. 11 of this paper, under the head­ing of “Tentative Justification & Cornelius’ Standing”:

“It IS saddening to see what lengths persistent errorists will go to uphold their errors – how with cleverly worded sophistry (such as we quoted from That Servant!—JJH) they will twist, misrepresent and disparage in order to evade the Truth and uphold their errors, how they will misuse and even fight against plain statements of Scriptures in order to do so.”

We have quoted this statement by RGJ because we shall now offer further proof that he was there describing himself. The Truth is that the standing of Cornelius would be no issue with RGJ if it did not impinge against his Campers Consecrated. He is now so enmeshed in this quagmire of error that he is forced to set aside one fundamental doc­trine after another – doctrines that dispute his contentions concerning his Campers Con­secrated.

ABOUT CORNELIUS

On p. 15, col. 2, par. 4, there is this: “Bro. Russell’s many and oft-repeated statements to the effect that Cornelius was not yet a believer in Christ as his Sav­ior when Peter came and told him the saving words.” We ask him now to cite just one of those “oft–repeated statements” by Brother Russell that would set aside the fact that Cornelius was “repentant and believing” before Peter’s visit. We have quoted from Brother Russell that Cornelius was consecrated of years’ standing, and that he was a just and devout man. However, while we are waiting for RGJ to find the one statement from Brother Russell that supports his error, we now offer a quotation from Reprint 2988, col. 2, last paragraph onward, that clearly contradicts what RGJ is try­ing to have his readers believe:

“Cornelius, the centurion, whose acceptance with God is the subject of this lesson, was evidently converted to God and to righteousness years prior to this incident (Peter’s visit as described in Acts 10:34-44—JJH). This is the testimony; he was a worshiper of God, a benevolent alms-giver, and his love of righteousness and his consistent life were recognized amongst those with whom he had to do; yet, nevertheless, something was necessary before he could be accepted by God in the proper sense of that word. (He must await his “due time”—JJH) There is a lesson here for those who imagine reverence of God and morality are all that is necessary to divine acceptance. As Cornelius had these qualities in large measure be­fore his acceptance, the Lord’s dealing with him may well be a guide for all others who desire to approach Him in covenant relationship.

“Although devout, etc., as we have seen, Cornelius was not a Jew; and realized himself to be outside the pale of special divine favor. (Like Peter he had to be instructed by the Lord how he, a Gentile, could receive this favor—JJH) Still he prayed to God... for enlightenment respecting the divine character and plan... Cornelius needed to know of the Lord Jesus from the true standpoint; he must exercise faith in him as his redeemer, before the memorials of his piety would count for anything with God........ (Self–evidently, he was a worshiper of the God of Israel, and no doubt had a great re­spect for the followers of Jesus, who had accepted Him as their Messiah—JJH)

“Evidently Cornelius was full of faith in the Lord... He did not wait to see if Peter would come; he knew that he would come; he had faith (belief—JJH) in the Lord’s promise through the angel: Accordingly he gathered together his friends and relatives and household – those upon whom he had been exercising an influence, and who, like him­self were pious (“repentant and believing”—JJH) and earnestly desirous of knowing all that they might learn concerning the way of life... (It seems they were in the proper condition of heart for a full commitment to the Lord sometime before their “due time” for God’s acceptance – but the “way” was not opened for them until the 3½ years of spec­ial favor to individual Jews had expired—JJH)

“Meantime, Peter, with all the prejudices belonging to the Jews for centuries, needed to be prepared to receive this first out–and–out Gentile brought into the Church. (It would seem that Peter was at least as ignorant of what was to be done as was Cor­nelius—JJH)

“Peter’s message, ‘words,’ explaining matters, enabled Cornelius and his house­hold to grasp by faith (emphasis by Brother Russell) the great redemption which is in Christ Jesus... Saved at once from alienation from God and from condemnation, as sin­ners...

“Having called for an expression from those present – especially from the brethren who accompanied him from Joppa – to know if any objection could be thought of why these dear brethren, who had believed in the Lord, who had given evidence of their consecra­tion and good works, even before they knew of the Lord and His glorious plan, and who had now been accepted of God, and His acceptance manifested – why these should not be admitted to every blessing and arrangement which God had provided for His faithful ones – irrespective of their being Gentiles by birth.”

Cornelius was a worshiper of Israel’s God, so the question might arise, Why didn’t he become a proselyte Jew if he desired to be in covenant relationship with God? Cor­nelius was well acquainted with the Jewish religion, otherwise he wouldn’t have been worshipping Israel’s God. But there was a dissension among the Jews – a few Israel­ites indeed accepted Jesus as their Messiah, but the majority didn’t accept Him. Some who didn’t become His followers referred to him as the Messiah (even Josephus referred to Jesus in his history as the Messiah); but the “due time” had not come for Cornelius to understand this fully. Thus, he was overjoyed when the angel visited him; and, as That Servant has aptly stated, Cornelius had sufficient faith to know that Peter would come – just as the angel had told him. And so it was with Peter – he, too, when properly instructed, had sufficient faith to do what he was told, even though, hither­to, he was prejudiced the same as other Jews.

Be it noted that the quotation from Reprint 2988 is four years later than Reprint 1922 – the latter being the one that RGJ contends is the only place where That Servant made a mistake about Cornelius.   He tells us that anytime before and after the article in Reprint 1922, Brother Russell supports his contention, that Cornelius was not “repentant and believing” before Peter’s visit. But note in the above quotation That Servant tells us that Cornelius had been converted to God and to righteousness years prior to Peter’s visit to him.

It is quite clear from That Servant’s teaching and from the Scriptures, that Cornelius was a righteous and God-fearing man years prior to Peter’s visit. He had done all that he could – had witnessed a good confession of his faith in the God of Israel to his household and friends, and had influenced them to do likewise. Conver­sion is a much more comprehensive and potent word than repentance. One cannot be converted until he is repentant. Self–evidently, therefore, Cornelius had to be re­pentant if he had been converted; and this illustrates just one more Truth that RGJ has lost, or never clearly understood. In support of this conclusion we now quote from E–6:232:

“The word repentance means much more than a change from wrong to right knowledge as to one’s moral state. It means not only a change from a wrong to a cor­rect knowledge as to sin and righteousness, but also a change of disposition from a love of, and pleasure in sin to a sorrow for, and a hatred and abandonment of sin, and also from hatred and avoidance of righteousness to a love and practice of righteousness. Anything short of this is not a Biblical repentance.”

It is indisputable that Cornelius had Biblical repentance as described above by the Epiphany Messenger. And we now quote further from E–6:233:

“Revivalists make con­version consist of ‘repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus.’ Conversion, as the Bible teaches, is the entire process of turning from depravity into the image of God, and is a lifelong work. JFR has not only forsaken the Truth definition of conver­sion (Berean Comments Acts 3:19), but has fallen into deeper error on the subject than has the nominal Church.”

St. Peter’s statement in Acts 3:19 – “repent and be converted” – is definitely to the point that repentance must first come before any real conversion is accomplished; and, when RGJ sets this clear teaching aside, it is ample evidence that he now has the same teacher as did JFR, and that he is still in the clutches of Azazel – “deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Tim. 3:13)

Let us here stress the reason that RGJ has “turned his ears away from the Truth, and has turned to fables” (2 Tim. 4:4): It is his persistent effort to substantiate his delusion about Campers Consecrated by attempting to see types that support his er­ror. In his letter published in the Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower he admits his “besetting sin” in this respect, in which he says: “My faculty for seeing pictures and types be­came so developed that my eye would skim over a chapter, jumping at a chance picture here and there, and missing nearly all the original meaning and proper application of the text. The Bible I loved was thus becoming quite barren to me in respect to its intended use... I was enjoying it more as one would enjoy a picture book or ‘Grimm’s Fairy Tales.’.. Finally I came to the point where it became quite difficult for me to distinguish between truth and error; and I was in danger of losing my appreciation of the truth and devoting myself to the fanciful.”

And it is tragic to note that after all these years he is yet in the same condi­tion: it is quite difficult for him to “distinguish between truth and error”; other­wise he would not have referred to statements of That Servant regarding Cornelius to support his error, when those statements annihilate his position instead of support­ing him. He must have been too busy in 1910 with his own imagination to take sober note of the following statement in Parousia Vol. 2, pp. 173,174:

“But in considering types, we should carefully avoid the error of many well-meaning people, who, when they begin to see there are significant types in the Scriptures, run to the extreme of treat­ing every Bible character and incident as typical (as does RGJ when he thinks he finds support for his Campers Consecrated – such as the Hill Ophel, his Nethinim, etc.—­JJH), and are thus led into error by curiosity and ingenuity.”

In our previous statements we quoted from That Servant that Cornelius, consecra­tion and conversion were of years’ standing. So in his opinion Cornelius was more than “repentant and believing,” even though God would not deal with him until the “due time.” It is elementary that repentance must precede consecration and conversion ­and we observe that Jesus was also consecrated from boyhood, as is shown by his state­ment at the age of twelve: “Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49) However, the Father’s business for Him actually began when Jesus had be­come thirty years of age, and presented Himself at Jordan. Much the same can be said about the Prophet Samuel, who became “Judge” in Israel only after he had reached matu­rity, but he was consecrated from birth; and the same can be said of Brother Russell.

RGJ’s teachings clearly reveal him as a “foolish” virgin and “the unprofitable ser­vant” of Matt. 25:30 (see Berean Comment), who has “built his house upon the sand.” (Matt. 7:26) And the “house built upon the sand” will fall in due time – “and great will be the fall of it.”

The question properly arises: Why all this uproar about Cornelius? The answer is that it is due to RGJ’s errant nonsense concerning his Campers Consecrated. After the door to the Court is closed those in the Camp are in the same relevant position as was Cornelius before the 3½ years of special Jewish favor had expired after Jesus’ death. God could not accept the consecration of Cornelius until the “due time”; and it is not now the “due time” for God to accept Restitutionists’ consecration – nor will it be due time for God to accept such consecrations until the end of the Millennium ­when the Restitutionists will have become perfect. Just as in the case of Cornelius, God was mindful of his piety, and kept his prayers in remembrance, the Mediator is also mindful of the piety of the “repentant and believing” in the Camp after the door to the Court is closed, and their prayers will be held in remembrance until their “due time” for acceptance when the New Covenant is inaugurated. And, if God will have nothing to do with Restitutionists during the Mediatorial reign, certainly He will have nothing to do with them now! God and Jesus both deal with the elect during the Faith Age; but The Mediator only will deal with the Restitutionists during the Mediatorial reign – although in full accord with God’s will and arrangement. This is elementary – some­thing all the babes learned who came into Present Truth; and is in full harmony with the teaching of both Messengers – the “faith once delivered unto the saints.”

The nominal church teaches only one salvation – a salvation which can be gained only during this “present evil world.” However, the Bible teaches Two Distinct Sal­vations – one for the elect during the Faith Age (this “present evil world”), and one for the non-elect during the Works Age (the “world to come”). Apparently RGJ is not clear on this teaching – otherwise he would not be so confused in his statements. He became confused when he produced his non–existent class of Campers Consecrated, just as JFR became confused when he produced his non-existent class of Jonadabs (now called the Great Crowd of Rev. 7:9). Of course, such a monstrosity has caused both of them to pervert or reject other important Truths in their desperate effort to uphold their errors. That is why he is now presenting such “foolishness” about Cornelius and a “narrow way” in the Camp, which is simply a weird innovation – the invention of RGJ.

Neither Messenger ever hinted at such a situation; none of us ever heard of it until RGJ “discovered” it. The Berean Comment on 2 Tim. 3:13 well applies to him: “Being deceived... Becoming more firmly entrenched in the snares of their own weaving, so as to make it impossible to extricate them.” God will send to such “an energy of delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11, Dia.); and the Berean Comment on that text: “Great delu­sions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.” Certainly RGJ had more opportunity than any of the crown–losers for “possessing the most light of Present Truth”; and when he was under the benevolent influence of the Epiphany Messenger he was very vigorous and effective in combating the very errors he himself is now presenting. He was quite courageous and unafraid of the errorists at that time – because he had the Truth! “How are the mighty fallen!” (2 Sam. 1:19) In his present course he is manifesting an excellent antitype of King Saul; but we hope he may yet extricate himself, and not have an end­ing similar to that of King Saul.

“FINISHED PICTURE” OF EPIPHANY IS FUTURE

On p, 13, col. 2, of this PT, there is this comment under the above subheading: “This errorist (meaning JJH) makes another serious misrepresentation when he states that the finished picture of the Epiphany, according to RGJ is now 20 years gone.” We have never taught that the ‘finished picture’ of the Epiphany... is now 20 years gone. In its Camp feature the ‘finished picture’ has not yet even come.”

On occasion we have stated that RGJ is so befuddled that he cannot read plain and simple English and understand what he has read after he reads it. The Cornelius matter is an excellent illustration. And it seems now that he is no longer able to discuss simple arithmetic and come up with the correct answer. Especially would we direct attention here to the interpretation of Rev. 22:11, which appears in E–10:114. That interpretation was very clearly intended to embrace the “finished picture”; and no amount of jugglery can make anything else out of it. Yet we have RGJ using some of that explanation and definitely applying it to 1954 as “finished”; but he is now tell­ing us “he never taught that the ‘finished picture’ of the Epiphany is now 20 years gone.” As we have previously stated, he doesn’t seem to know from one year to the next just what he is teaching, which causes him to revolutionize against many Parousia and Epiphany truths; and it seems he is now revolutionizing against the truth as given in Rev. 22:11 on the finished picture – given us by the Epiphany Messenger – while all the time accusing us of “misrepresenting” him! To substantiate this statement we would refer our readers to the March 1955 PT, 30, col. 1 – Question re Tentative Justification. Here is what RGJ said then:

“Until the Ransom merit is applied on behalf of the world, and restitution, which brings actual justification, begins, tenta­tive justification (See E. Vol. 4, pp. 341–352 for details on this subject) will be given to believers as a prerequisite to their being acceptable to God in consecration.... Throughout the Gospel Age, until the initial beginning of the Basileia on Sept. 16, 1954, tentative justification has been a prerequisite to being acceptable to God – until restitution begins.”

­It was something to behold when he was forced to discard the foregoing by Brother Johnson! He did that because of our annihilative refutation of his erroneous conclusion taken from E–4:342 – his own citation. Brother Johnson distinctly and clearly in­forms us that Youthful Worthyship would be available as long as Tentative Justifica­tion is available – “until Restitution sets in.” RGJ then did an ‘about face’ and began teaching that tentative justification would be available all during the Kingdom reign for Restitutionists! When he now contends that Cornelius was not “repentant and believing” before Peter’s visit, and cites That Servant as his authority, it would seem that he learned just nothing from his previous humiliation regarding “tentative justification until restitution begins.” Again we used his own citations to refute his contention about Cornelius. It gives us no pleasure to place him in such embar­rassing situations – and it is our hope that these experiences will give him an incen­tive to extricate himself from the clutches of Azazel. If he does this and cleanses himself, he will then understand the Truth somewhat like the good Youthful Worthies. (See E–4:129)

However, we have often quoted the Epiphany Messenger – There will be NO TENTA­TIVE OR VITALIZED JUSTIFICATION DURING THE KINGDOM REIGN (E–15:261) – which he has ignored completely, all the while declaring that he is faithful to Epiphany Truth. Nevertheless, from what he is presently teaching, and what he taught in 1955 and on­ward for a time, he is following the same course of JFR, which has placed the Jeho­vah’s Witnesses in the malignant confusion they now preach.    Thus the following from E–6:231 is now pertinent to RGJ: “Whoever logically holds the Scripture Truth on Tentative and Vitalized Justification will, generally speaking, be free from the spiritual contagion that holds ‘that evil servant, in its grasp as a fevered victim (Psa. 91:6).”

Up to now RGJ is using the technique of JFR – walking “in the counsel of the ungodly” – keeps silent on the refutations he cannot answer. We suggest that some of his faithful adherents now ask him if he accepts the Epiphany Truth on Tentative and Vitalized Justification as given in E–15:261, and that he publish a clear and definite statement as to his stand on this item, and whether or not we “misrepresent” him when we quote from the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching.

Also, he has been persistently emphatic that the Epiphany “ended in a restricted sense” in 1954; and has just as emphatically contended that the Court gate of the Epiphany Tabernacle was closed against further entrance therein in 1954. Of course, we do not agree with that at all; we are merely repeating what RGJ has been saying. However, we now ask – If the Gate was permanently closed in 1954, is not that feature of the Epiphany Tabernacle also finished? It seems RGJ does not know that the words “end” and “finish” have the same meaning! It will be interesting to read his answer to this.

It should not require argument that the closing of the Gate would have direct bearing on the Epiphany Camp, because no one can any longer leave the Camp by going through the Gate into the Court. Such a situation in the Camp would be the beginning of the “finished picture” for the Camp. The same would be true of the Most Holy: if the last saint has left the earth, and entered the Most Holy (Heaven), as RGJ contends, then that feature of the Epiphany Tabernacle is also finished.      Further, if the last member of Azazel’s goat has been forced from the Holy – leaving a complete vacancy in that section of the Tabernacle – then that part of the Epiphany Tabernacle is also fin­ished, ended in every sense of the word. Thus, according to him, the Most Holy and the Holy are in the completed “finished picture” – that is, if we accept his teaching that the last saint was glorified in 1950.     If the Court is not in the “finished pic­ture,” then let him make it clear what part of the Court is “unfinished.” The Camp is in the finished picture, so far as allowing any one to enter the Court from the Camp. All this was fully accomplished on or before 1954, according to RGJ; yet he now offers the nonsensical statement, “We have never taught that the finished picture of the Epi­phany is now 20 years gone.” No, he never used the word “finished” in any of the fore­going; he just taught it, and is now saying we “misrepresent” him. JFR gave us the same argument in a letter he wrote us about 1920: “Johnson misrepresented me!” Of course, the same thing happened with JFR’s supporters after 1917; and look where they are to­day! With both of these organizations, their actual, although not verbal, motto is: My sect, my leaders, right or wrong! This makes about as much sense as a son or daughter saying, I’ll be guided by my mother, drunk or sober! Surely, “They that be drunken are drunken in the night” (1 Thes. 5:7 – Epiphany night).

Furthermore, RGJ has been vehement in contending that Rev. 22:11 was partially ful­filled in 1954. If it was, then that feature was also ended, finished, at that time. As most of our readers know, we emphatically disagree with all of his conclusions, and continue to reassert the Truth regarding the Epiphany Tabernacle, and the “finished pic­ture” – knowing of whom we have learned such Truth.     It is our thought that we have not yet approached the Epiphany, or the Epiphany Camp “in the finished picture,” because we accept the teaching in E–10:209 – that “the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture will contain the repentant and believing, but unconsecrated Jews and Gentiles.” The condi­tion of each class is fixed in the finished picture; and that fixed condition will not occur until sometime in Anarchy. Brother Johnson expected Anarchy in its early stages to begin by 1956.

A 1914–1954 PARALLEL

On p. 13, col. 2, par. 6, RGJ attempts to make a parallel between 1914 and 1954, and we quote: “As in the unfinished (emphasis by RGJ) Epiphany Court, as it existed from 1914 to 1954, there were three classes... so in the unfinished (emphasis by RGJ) Epiphany Camp, as it exists from 1954 onward, there are three classes – (1) the Conse­crated Epiphany Campers, a consecrated and spirit–enlightened but not Spirit–begotten class, a non–Levitical class, (2) the unconsecrated tentatively justified and (3) the unjustified nominal people of God.”

It should be noted that RGJ now has a finished picture of the Epiphany Tabernacle in those respects we have enumerated – the Most Holy, the Holy, and partially in the Court – existing side by side with his unfinished picture. Let him show a similar parallel with the Epiphany Court from 1914 to 1954. Furthermore, none of the crown-­lost leaders were manifested as such until 1917 – more than two years after the Epi­phany Court had come into existence. And the first public declaration that the High Calling was no more operative did not come until the Spring of 1918 – 3½ years after the call had actually closed. Let him now show a similar parallel to that in his present set-up. He says there are now “three classes” in the Camp. When he eliminates the “unjustified, nominal people of God” in his finished picture (and we assume that is his position), then that would still leave two classes in the finished picture – unless he plans to eject his “unconsecrated tentatively justified” from his Camp, too. And it would be interesting to know if he now considers the unconsecrated tentatively justi­fied as not “repentant and believing” – as he is contending about Cornelius. Any tenta­tively justified persons now would have exactly the same justification as did the Gos­pel Age Levites all during the Age. Would he say that those Levites were not “repent­ant and believing”?

Also, he says “all crown–losers, Great Company members, were remanded from the Holy into the Court in 1914.” This statement is true from God’s standpoint, because He would have immediate knowledge when any persons lose their crowns (this being true all during the Gospel Age when crown–losers were not manifested as such); but it was not true so far as the earthly members of the Household of Faith were concerned. RGJ himself was not manifested to the Epiphany brethren until 1938 – at least 24 years after the accomplished fact. Will he have a parallel for that in 1978? Furthermore, he continues to stress the “unfinished picture.” Why does he not tell us what his finished picture will be. In E–10:209 we are told there will be but ONE CLASS in the Camp – the “repentant and believing” unconsecrated. We now ask RGJ, Does he agree with that?

Also, in 1914, when the High Calling closed, there were at least 7,000 saints on earth – fixedly, although not actually – not yet glorified. If his 1954 parallel is operating logically, then he should also be teaching that since 1954 the Court of the Tabernacle should have the same relative position and operation as did the Holy after 1914. Is that his position?

In the January 1940 PT we are given a description of the finished picture of the Epiphany Tabernacle:

“For the Epiphany the most holy represents the condition of Divine beings; the holy in the finished picture represents the condition of the crown–retain­ing New Creatures (See comment below—JJH); the court in the finished picture repre­sents the condition of the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies (and RGJ says that is the condition of the Court now – since 1954––JJH); the camp in the finished picture represents the formerly faith–justified ones who hold to the Ransom and practice right­eousness, and converted Israel; while the territory outside the camp represents the condition of those who were the Gospel-Age Camp, or who are excommunicated ones.”

RGJ now has a “fixed” condition for the Court – says since 1954 it contains only the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. However, it is clear enough that The Epiphany Messenger expected the above setting to be realized by 1954–56 – while he was still with us – at which time Rev. 22:11 would also apply to the Epiphany Taber­nacle “finished picture,” and the Revelation text complementing each other. In E–10:114 Rev. 22:11 is treated as a composite text, which it is; therefore, when one part of it is fulfilled, all of it will be fulfilled – in keeping with the “finished picture” of the Epiphany Tabernacle.

Again we direct the attention of our readers to his statement: “We have never taught that the ‘finished picture’ of the Epiphany is now 20 years gone.” Let us stress now that we are considering the Epiphany Tabernacle. RGJ has been very loud and determined that the last saint left this earth in 1950. If that is true, then the last saint entered the Most Holy (Heaven), making that picture complete. If it is completed, is it not finished? Or does he contend that ‘complete’ and ‘finish’ mean two different things here? Further, if the Most Holy was completed in 1950, then self–evidently the Holy was completed, finished – in that it has since 1950 been totally vacant, and will remain so until the Millennial Tabernacle comes into exist­ence. Or does he have a different thought on this now?

Also, he has been teaching that the Gate to the Court was fully closed in 1954. If he is right on that, then all the tentatively justified unconsecrated had to be ejected from the Court on that date. And would that not likewise complete, finish, the Epiphany Court from that standpoint? Yet he is telling us that he has never taught any of these things from the ‘finished’ standpoint! All of these things he has been emphasizing for about 21 years or more. As for his ideas on the Camp and Campers Consecrated, we have contended all along that this is just some of his “strong delusion” – and that is still our position. Any babe in the Truth can recognize that the Epiphany Camp is not yet finished; nor have we contended that he ever taught that it is finished; and we state now that the Camp won’t be in the finished picture until sometime in Anarchy. While he may never have stated in so many words that the other features of the Epiphany Tabernacle are finished, yet no other conclusion can be drawn from what he has been teaching about those places. He teaches that Rev. 22:11 “began” to be fulfilled in 1954. He should say, according to his teaching about the last saint gone in 1950, that Rev. 22:11 “began” to be fulfilled in 1950 – since the Most Holy was finished, insofar as concerns Divine Beings, and the Holy was finished ­vacant – since then. Surely all of us learned that Rev. 22:11 could only apply to the “finished picture” of the Epiphany Tabernacle.

The Epiphany Court and the Gospel-Age Court represent the condition of justifi­cation. During the Epiphany the Court has contained three classes – the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and the tentatively justified. Those tentatively justified who fail to consecrate will eventually all be expelled from the Court; but the faith­ful Youthful Worthies, in their humanity and new minds, remain permanently in the Court until they die. But this latter is not true of the Great Company. When they are abandoned to Azazel only their new creatures are represented in the Court, while their “flesh” (humanity) is being buffeted by Azazel in their fit–man wilderness ex­periences. However, once that work is completed in them – their “fleshly minds” de­stroyed – what is left of their humanity also returns to the Court condition – after which time the following is said about them in E–4:129:

“After the Levites’ cleansing, they will doubtless partake of the Epiphany truths that are for them; for then they will be somewhat like the good Youthful Worthies, who are privileged to see and appreciate every truth except such truths as the Lord may desire to be limited to the priests.”

And we would observe here that if, and when RGJ cleanses himself, he will no longer be teaching that persons such as Cornelius can be consecrated and converted before they are “repentant and believing.” He will then see the Truth on this sub­ject as we now see it, and as Brother Russell taught it.

“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31–32)

Sincerely your brother

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim