by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 233

On pp. 59-62 of the above Present Truth we find a number of Questions and Answers in a feeble attempt to rebut our previous refutations of RGJ’s errors on Tentative Justification, and the like. And on p. 61, col. 1, there is this Ques­tion: “Was Cornelius already a ‘truly repentant and believing’ one in Christ as his Savior when the Apostle Peter and six accompanying brethren (Acts 11:12) came to his home at the end of the 70 weeks?” And RGJ’s answer: “The Scriptures show that he was not.”

He then offers numerous citations from Brother Russell to prove his point, although he offers one on p. 61, col. 2, par. 4, to the effect that Cornelius was “a man pre­pared to be a follower of Jesus – a Christian.” We now ask, At what time did Cornel­ius become “prepared to be a Christian”? It will be noted that Peter says not one word about consecration when he came into the home of Cornelius. If Cornelius were not already consecrated, would it not be logical first of all to inform him of that fact, and the obligations that go with it? That Servant teaches that Cornelius, as well as other Gentiles, were consecrated – although the Lord did not accept, or use their consecration, until the 70th week had expired, as we shall subsequently quote in this article.

Let us consider carefully what Peter said to Cornelius. In Acts 10:34-43 he used just 223 words. Of these 128 are words such as “a – an – and – the,” etc. Thus, it would not require rapid speaking to say the whole thing in one minute. Also, in Luke 14:28 Jesus counsels that we “count the cost” before taking such a step. So RGJ is now telling us that Cornelius became “repentant and believing,” and that he “counted the cost,” ALL in about one minute! He says the “Scriptures clearly show” this to him. But the “Scriptures did not “clearly show” this to That Wise and Faithful Servant ­although RGJ’s statements “clearly show” to us that this is just some more of his nonsense.

In Luke 23:47 the centurion (possibly Cornelius) said, “Truly, this man (Jesus) was righteous.” And Acts 10:2, Dia. states that Cornelius was “a pious man, and one fearing God with all his house, doing many charities for the people, and praying to God always.” Further in Acts 10:4: “Thy prayers and thine alms went up as a memorial before God.” Note the Berean Comment on this: “If prayers cannot be answered immediately, they are not forgotten, but are kept as memorials until the right time comes for their answer.” And Cornelius’ right time came when our Lord gave him instructions to send for Peter.

Therefore, with the probable exception of the 81 brethren (whose “names were writ­ten in Heaven”—Luke 10:20; Heb. 12:23), Cornelius was in much the same position as those in the upper room at Pentecost, as That Servant teaches. Those in that room could not receive the Holy Spirit until the “due time” – just as Cornelius could not re­ceive the Holy Spirit until the “due time.” And, in saying this we do not ignore the fact that the Jews as a nation were consecrated to God – “Baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:2-4)

However, knowledge is not the controlling factor here (although they did require some know­ledge), for they all, even the Apostles and the Seventy, were very meager on what a Christian should be. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in my name; shall teach you of all things which I said to you.” (John 14:26,Dia.). The Berean Comment on this text says: “It was impossible for the Apostles to understand the plan of God until after Pentecost; .. To your remembrance – Enable you to recall and reproduce.” We mention here also Peter’s use of the sword in the Garden that night. “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal...” (2 Cor. 10:4) Thus, those in the upper room needed the Holy Spirit to clarify things for them – just as Cornelius needed the Holy Spirit to clarify things for him; and even the Apostle Paul studied for three years to be sure he would know what he was doing.

In a ludicrous attempt to ‘prove’ his contentions, RGJ quotes (p. 61, col. 2, of this PT) from Parousia Vol. 5, p. 214: “Again, when the due time came for the Gospel to be preached to Gentiles, the Lord, in accordance with his choice, sent Peter to do this work, telling Cornelius to send for Peter, and telling Peter to go to Cornelius, and to speak the words of the Gospel to him and his household (accordingly, they had not been spoken to him before).”

The words “accordingly, they had not been spoken to him before” are included in this quotation, as though they are from Brother Russell, whereas, they are inserted by RGJ, and simply his own opinion – an opinion which is categorically contradicted in the next few lines of this same page: “On this occasion Peter used the second key, opening the Gospel door for the Gentiles, God witnessing to the fact by the miraculous manifestations of His Spirit upon Cornelius and the other consecrated believers from among the Gentiles with him.” If Cornelius and the others were consecrated, as Bro. Russell says, they were certainly “truly repentant and believing.” Here again he re­sorts to the same tactics of JFR, who used the same technique of the unprincipled trick­ster; and the Lord rewarded him accordingly.

Also, the truth on the Tabernacle clearly disputes the foregoing contention. Con­secration there is typed by the first vail, and spirit begettal by the condition of the Holy; but no one could get into the Holy without going under the first vail, the first vail typing consecration. As we have often pointed out, RGJ has lost the Truth on some important features of the Tabernacle, but this should not surprise us. He self-admitted­ly is one of those people of whom St. Paul says, “God will send to them an energy of de­lusion.” (2 Thes. 2:11, Dia.) He also admits his sins during Brother Johnson’s lifetime, as recorded against him by the Epiphany Messenger in Epiphany Volume 10. His inclina­tion to “make pictures and draw types from every chapter in the Bible” he also admits and records himself in the Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower. This should have served as a warning to him, but, self-evidently, this continues to be one of his “besetting sins,” as he “makes pictures and draws types” to substantiate his “strange fire” (false doctrine) of Campers Consecrated – his perversions of the Tabernacle types, and other related sub­jects. Apparently, his past experiences haven’t profited him very much. It seems he was too busy “making pictures and drawing types” in 1910 to find the time to read the Towers of that time – some of which we shall quote later in this paper.

On p. 62, col. 1, par. 6, he says: “Accordingly, in view of the above consider­ations from the Scriptures and oft-repeated and consistent teaching of Bro. Russell from the time he wrote the Z 1922 statement until 1916 (a statement quoted by us to which RGJ strenuously objects—JJH), it is clear that Cornelius was not already ‘.truly repentant and believing’ in Jesus as Savior when he was visited by Peter and six others at the end of the 70th week. And therefore it is clear also that this errorist’s statement is thoroughly erroneous, ‘Those in the (Epiphany) Camp in the ‘finished picture’ will be in the same relative position as was Cornelius before consecration was acceptable for the Gentiles.’” We shall now prove that RGJ’s ‘foolish,’ as well as false asser­tions, that Brother Russell did not teach in harmony with his Z 1922 statement since that time – until in 1916 – are just some more of his false accusations. Surely, if he were not so befuddled by Azazel he would not present such ridiculous false statements – state­ments that can be so easily proved to be false by numerous statements of That Servant after his writings in Z 1922. On p. 61, col. 2, par. 4, RGJ quotes a small excerpt from Reprint 4344, March 1909, to ‘prove’ his contention that Cornelius was not “repentant and believing” before St. Peter’s visit, but he ‘conveniently’ omitted the following from this same article, which is even more convincing than That Servant’s teaching in Z 1922 – ­that indeed Cornelius was “repentant and believing” before St. Peter’s visit:

“Cornelius had his vision first. He saw in a vision ‘openly,’ not in a dream, an angel of God coming in unto him. He talked with the angel and received the assurance that his prayers and alms of years had now been received of the Lord, because the ‘due time, had come – the end of Israel’s covenanted favor. We may be sure that at the same time the aims and prayers of all other Gentiles ascended up as incense to the Lord. We may be sure that blessings were arranged also for all such, and the Gospel sent to them, though not in so marked a manner as to Cornelius, because the Lord would make of his case a special lesson for the benefit of the Apostles and of all of us who have lived since. In recounting this matter elsewhere Cornelius says that the angel told him to send for St. Peter and gave him the address and added, ‘When he is come, he shall tell thee words, which will be the saving of thyself and house.’” (Reprint 4344, col. 2, par. 4)

Although from the above, it is self-evident that God was dealing with Cornelius before Peter came to him, because his “alms and prayers” which had been kept as a memorial, were now received, nevertheless, we now quote further from this same article:

“Let us note carefully what these words of life were. They were the simple story of the Cross... The essence of the message was that ‘Christ died for our sins, accord­ing to the Scriptures, and rose again for our justification.’ The message continued, and showed how the justified ones were invited to become joint-sacrificers with and thus joint-sharers in Christ’s coming glory. The centurion’s heart had been troubled, there was something in the message that satisfied his longings as nothing else had ever done. He believed in the Redeemer and was thus justified. His consecration to the Lord, of years’ standing, now became intelligent and specific. As his heart went out to the Lord in full acceptance of the Divine terms, in full consecration of his little all to the Divine service, the Lord accepted it, and manifested the acceptance; just as he had done with the consecrated Jewish believers at Pentecost. God having thus recognized Cornelius as a disciple and follower of Christ, a new creature begotten of the Holy Spirit, Peter tells us that he could not believe otherwise than that it was right for him to explain baptism to the centurion, and to give him water immersion, symbolic of the immersion into Christ’s death, which he had already experienced.” (Reprint 4345, col. 1, par. 2 – the same article from which RGJ quoted an excerpt to ‘prove’ Cornelius was not “repentant and believing” before Peter came to him.)

Why did RGJ omit the above in his quotation from this article? Is it possible that he can only see what he wants to see and believe – statements that he believes uphold his contentions? Or can it be that he is so blinded and befuddled by Azazel that he can­not understand clear and convincing statements by That Servant, when they dispute his present-day contentions for his errors? Or does he make such ridiculous statements, and omissions, because he believes his sectarian devotees will swallow anything he pre­sents without question – just as is true of a large majority of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who accept, without question, anything Headquarters presents? If we ourselves had made the statement that we quoted from That Servant in Z 1922, RGJ would have shrieked to High Heaven that we were revolutionizing against Parousia Truth, and ‘lawyer-like,’ twisting the Scriptures – an ‘unfit Truth teacher,’ and a ‘sifting errorist.’

In his desperation to make a case for himself and his “strange fire” (false doc­trine) of Consecrated Campers, he goes from one error to a worse error, and from one ‘foolish’ statement to a more ‘foolish’ statement, and from one false accusation to a worse false accusation against the sifting errorist,’ the ‘unfit Truth teacher,’ etc.”, all because we reproduce the teachings of the Epiphany and Parousia Messengers, and re­sist his revolutionisms of these Truths, as we attack his errors with indisputable Truth from the two Messengers and from Scripture. So we rest in the assurance that as we “continue in what we have learned and been assured of,” the promise is ours: “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.” (Luke 21:15) So we are resolved to “watch in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, and make full proof of our ministry.” (2 Tim. 4:5)

Just a little reflection here will reveal RGJ’s shallow and irresponsible think­ing on this matter. Cornelius lived in Caesaria, a city on the Mediterranean Sea about 50 miles from Jerusalem and about 25 miles from Joppa, where Peter was staying before he was told to visit Cornelius. Caesaria was then the seat of the Roman governors of Palestine, and also the home of Philip the Evangelist (Acts 8:39); 21:8,9). However, at that time Rome was a pagan country, with its emperors emphatically opposed to Chris­tianity. How then did Cornelius become persuaded to forsake the Pagan Gods of Rome, and accept the true God of Israel? Certainly not by reading Roman literature, or by listening to the Pagan priests of Rome! There was only one way he could have learned about it. Probably he had heard Jesus during His ministry. Also, almost certainly, he would have learned about Jehovah from Philip, his four daughters, and his neighbors, because we may rely upon it that Philip and his daughters would preach “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” in the city where they lived.

Of course, he had not heard the exact words that Peter spoke in his home; but he certainly had heard enough persuasive speech by others – such as Philip, et al – to convince him that Jehovah was the true God, and that Jesus was His Son – “a righteous man.” Thus, when RGJ says our reasoning on this subject “is another prime evidence that this errorist (meaning JJH) is now unfit to be a Truth teacher,” we would reply that his own irresponsible prattle on this matter should logically go into some comic strip. It is little wonder that Jesus described his kind as a “foolish man who built his house upon the sand.” (Matt. 7:26,27)


Then on p. 59 RGJ attempts to argue that Restitutionists will have “peace with God” during the Mediatorial reign; and at the top of p. 61 he assails our statement that the “truly repentant and believing” in the finished picture of the Epiphany Camp will be “without any kind of justification.” Well, our statement is simply in har­mony with Brother Johnson’s teaching that, “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” (into RGJ’s Camp with his Consecrated Campers—JJH). had when this occurs, they cease entirely to be of the Household of Faith.” RGJ may now resort to some more of JFR’s technique and say “Brother Johnson changed his mind about this,” or contend the same as he has about Cornelius regarding what That Servant gave in Z 1922 – that Brother Johnson “consistently taught otherwise in all his subsequent writings up to 1950.”

RGJ contends his Campers are of the Household of Faith in the Camp – but, be it noted, he discovered this Truth (?) for the first time AFTER the demise of the Epiphany Messenger. At least no one heard him teach Campers Consecrated prior to 1950 – nor did we hear him teach that the Household of Faith would be in the Camp after 1950. We, how­ever, continue to uphold and defend the teaching of the two Messengers on the Tabernacle types for the Gospel Age up to 1914, for the Epiphany, for the “finished picture” of the Epiphany, and for the Mediatorial reign. The Epiphany Messenger never changed his teaching on The Fourfold Tabernacle Picture as given in the January 1940 Present Truth. On p. 13 of that Present Truth he states that “the camp in the finished picture repre­sents the formerly faith-justified ones who hold to the Ransom and practice righteous­ness, and converted Israel.” Of course, he at times referred to the Tentatively Justi­fied in the Camp, just as we often refer to a former Judge as Judge “so-and-so” – and as our Lord is called “the Son of Man” (Acts 7:56) at a time when He was immortal and the “glorified Son of God” – after His office as “the Son of man” was finished at the cross.

Since the “finished picture” of the Epiphany, according to RGJ, is now 20 years gone, it would seem that the “finished picture” will be longer than the Epiphany proper. All opportunity for consecrations under the High Calling ceased in 1914 – and, if we accept the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching, all consecrations acceptable to God, while sin and evil are in the ascendancy, will cease at the beginning of the “finished picture” of the Epiphany. However, just as Cornelius’ prayers and alms were held in memorial until the “due time” for God’s acceptance, the Campers alms and prayers will also he held in memor­ial for them until their “due time.” But the difference in the memorials held for the Gentiles and the Campers now is this: Cornelius made his consecration to God, while the Campers will make their consecrations to the Christ, when the New Covenant is inaugurated.

A little reflection will demonstrate the Truth on Tentative Justification: In 2 Cor. 6:1 St. Paul says, “We beseech you that ye receive not the Grace of God in vain.” Thus, we ask, Just what is this “Grace of God”? Is it not tentative justification? And, if they lose this “Grace of God” (their justification), just what is then left of them so far as their standing before God is concerned during the Faith Age, when sin and evil are in the ascendancy? Surely no one will dispute the fact that “sin and evil are in the ascendancy.” If RGJ wants to contend that his Campers are consecrated, thus have not received the Grace of God in vain, we ask him for some support from the Scrip­tures and from the writings of the two Messengers, other than his own imagination, to prove consecration is available in the Camp in the “finished picture” of the Epiphany ­and acceptable to God.

In Rom. 5:1, Dia., there is this: “Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom, also we have been introduced into this favor in which we stand.” Note that “this favor” is the result of faith. And note the following from E-11:169, bottom: “When this Age ends Christ’s merit will cease to be an imputable thing.” Brother Johnson tells us in E-6:195, bottom, that the “finished pic­ture” contains those who are less than tentatively justified. And That Servant says in Question Book, p. 312: “At the close of this Age there will he no Tentative Justifica­tion.” And in E-15:261, par. 1, there is this: “Let us see the condition of justifica­tion that will prevail during the Millennial Age. During that Age there will be neither a tentative nor a vitalized justification, since both of these kinds of justification operate on the basis of the imputed ransom merit, as distinct from the applied ransom merit; and the Millennium will have no imputed, but applied ransom merit operating.”

But RGJ would have us believe that Brother Johnson changed his mind about Tentative .Justification, just as JFR contended That Servant changed his mind on Tentative Justifi­cation. Of course, the formerly faith-justified who retain the character qualities they developed when their faith-justification was operative, can be referred to as faith-­justified, as is often done of a Judge, Senator, etc., whose offices as such had expired. When one refers to him as Judge, after the tenure of his office had expired, that does not make his office as Judge operative, anymore than it makes the faith of the formerly faith-justified operative in the Camp after their ejection from the Court. Whether we refer to them as the tentatively justified or the faith-justified when in the Camp, that doesn’t make faith-justification, with all its privileges of consecrating, accept­able to God, as it was when they were in the Court.

RGJ proof-read the above statement in E-15, and this book was published in 1950. It now seems he was as careless with his proof-reading as he is with his statement that Brother Russell made one mistake in his earlier writing (namely, Jan. 1896, Reprint 1922), but consistently taught that Cornelius WAS NOT “repentant and believing” before Peter came to him, in all his general teaching from Jan. 1896 until 1916.

Also, from that same E-15, published in 1950, proof-read by RGJ, there is this:

“The Millennial justification will require the entire Millennium to complete, because it will be an actual as distinct from the reckoned justification of the Gospel Age. (But RGJ claims that the Restitutionists will have a tentative works justification, as distinct from the actual justification—JJH) And the conditions on which it will be bestowed will be faith and obedience unto perfection.” (p. 261) Does RGJ contend that “tentative” justification is NOT an imputable thing in the Mediatorial reign for his tentative works justification? And further: “They will have to obey the Millennial teachings and arrangements completely to gain justification in completeness... The result will be that they will be completely justified by works at the end of that Age. In a word, faith is the justifying instrumentality and thus the condition of justifica­tion of this Age, while obedience will be the justifying instrumentality and thus the condition of justification in the next Age.” (E-15:262, bottom and p. 263, top)

But RGJ sets aside the above Epiphany Truth, as he revolutionizes against both Parousia and Epiphany Truth on Tentative Justification, and heedlessly and wantonly con­tends for his perversions of the Camp and the Court. His loss of the “spirit of under­standing” on these Truths is as apparent as his confusion on what Brother Russell taught regarding Cornelius being “repentant and believing” prior to Peter’s visit. As Brother Johnson has aptly said, such crown-losers, while in the clutches of Azazel, not only cannot receive advancing Truth, but they lose the understanding of many vital Truths they once received and believed. And this seems to be RGJ’s trouble, as he makes one ‘foolish’ assertion after another – assertions that can be easily refuted by any one who takes the time to familiarize himself with the Scriptures, and with the writings of the Messengers.

We now quote from E-8:532: “Both tentative justification and vitalized justifica­tion are acts performed in heaven (Heb. 9:24). While the passage just cited strictly speaking, refers to vitalized and not to tentative justification, it teaches that in heaven is the place where justification is performed; and it therefore implies that there is where tentative justification is performed.” And on p. 548 of this same book: “The Youthful Worthies, accordingly, are of the tentative firstborn now, as they and the Ancient Worthies will also be such during the next Age.” The Worthies are Levites during the Epiphany, and are distinctly separated from the world of mankind; and so they will be in the next Age – they will be Levites and not counted in with the world of mankind, the Restitutionists, even though they are recipients of the New Covenant blessings.

Brother Johnson said in E-10:392 that JFR prevented many, by his perversions of various Truth teachings and arrangements, from entering into the justified state; and we believe the same is true of RGJ as he perverts “various Truth teachings and arrange­ments,” particularly as he upholds and defends his non-existent class of Campers conse­crated. The LHMM and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are unique in manufacturing such false doctrine – unique in the fact that no other groups emanating from the Harvest Truth have invented such classes. These two classes – Campers Consecrated and the Jonadabs, or “great crowd” – are indeed twins.

As we have previously stated, in this Age there can be no acceptable consecration without first having tentative justification – while the Restitutionists’ justifica­tion is actual, and gradual, which they cannot receive, even anticipatorally, until they are consecrated. There is a marked difference in consecration “unto death” dur­ing the Faith Age, when sin and evil are in the ascendancy, and consecration “unto life” under the Kingdom reign. In the Kingdom all who have pure hearts will receive actual and complete justification at the end of the Millennium – and all of this “profusion of words” by RGJ is just a desperate attempt to gloss over his contention that tentative justification will continue all during the Mediatorial reign. In view of our pulveriz­ing refutations of that error, he is now forced to modify it by saying it will be a ‘tentative’ works justification. And when RGJ says the Jews will then be tentatively justified, he is simply indulging in some more of his nonsense! There will be no tenta­tive justification in the Millennium, just as the Epiphany Messenger teaches – no tentative faith justification: The only kind of justification operating during the King­dom will he actual justification, which will he gradual, and will not be completed until the end of the Millennium when they are perfected in mind, body and in heart.

Once more we raise the question: Just what is Tentative Justification in this Faith Age? It is nothing more nor less than reckoned Restitution, reckoned perfection. Thus, there cannot possibly he Tentative Justification in the next Age; otherwise there would he no need for a Mediator. If RGJ’s contention that Restitutionists will have “peace with God” under a ‘tentative’ works justification is true, they would of neces­sity have a ‘reckoned’ actual justification (reckoned perfection). Such a condition would eliminate the need for a Mediatorial reign, because “peace with God” would mean that God would he dealing with them. However, they would need an Advocate before they reach actual perfection, just as those of the Faith Age need an Advocate. So in­stead of speaking of a Mediatorial reign, we should speak of the Millennial reign of the Advocate. If we keep this thought clearly in mind, we shall have no problem at all in giving RGJ’s errors their proper rating.

Such symbolic witchcraft (especially deceptive false doctrine) is abhorrent to God, and “God’s people by pertinent refutations are not to allow false-teaching churches, which practice symbolic witchcraft by erroneous teaching as Satan’s mouthpieces (2 Kings 9:22; Rev. 2:20-23), to go unrefuted, but are zealously to refute their symbolic witch­crafts (not suffer a witch to live, v. 18).” (E-11:388)


Let us consider now “repentant and believing.” Repentance has two parts: one as to sin (which the repentant one forsakes and abhors), and one as to righteousness (which the repentant one embraces and champions). Thus, repentance is the first great step toward justification, the next step being faith – the combination of these two produc­ing justification by faith. During this Faith Age this produces “peace with God.” We emphasize, however, that faith is the dominating factor during this Age; but, while some faith will he necessary during the next Age, the real justifying instrument then will be works. Justification by faith will not be possible during the next Age. There­fore, none can obtain “Peace with God” by faith in the next Age, as is done in this Faith Age. And, since God does not accept imperfect works, the Restitutionists cannot have “peace with God” until their works are perfect. That is why a Mediator will then he nec­essary – the same being a go-between for parties who are at enmity with each other. The justification by faith in this Age is an instantaneous thing directly from God; justi­fication by works in the next Age will be a gradual thing obtained through the benevolent offices of the Mediator.

And, when RGJ tries to inject the peace offerings into this discussion, he demon­strates once more his ever-increasing loss of the “spirit of understanding” (Matthew 25:1-10 – See Berean Comments), as he continues in his revolutions and perversions of the Truth he once received, believed and taught – which is self-evident to all those who retain the “spirit of understanding” they received when they came into Present Truth. The peace offering then will he offered to the World’s High Priest, and not directly to God: “And for that reason during the Millennium God will put the race into the hands of the Mediator and will not deal with them at all.” (E-15:332) And further on p. 332: “These peace offerings include the vows that the world will make in connection with their consecration.... Jesus will direct all of the work of the Under priesthood as the World’s High Priest ministers the people’s peace offerings, their meat and drink offerings and their trespass offerings.”

The peace offerings of the Restitutionists will be in fulfillment of a vow, or a thank-offering, as That Servant tells us in Tabernacle Shadows, p. 98: “This offering was to be of the herd or flock; and it could be made either in fulfillment of a vow (covenant), or a willing ‘thank-offering.’” “But notice the difference between the treatment of such sin-offerings and the sin-offerings of the ‘Day of Atonement’ (the Gospel Age—JJH). The latter were offered to God (Justice) in the ‘Most Holy,’ as ‘the better sacrifices’; the former were offered to the priests, who, during the Atonement Day (Gospel Age—JJH) had purchased the people. The acknowledgment of the people will be made to their Redeemer. The Priest, indeed, took and offered to the Lord a portion of the offering, as a ‘memorial,’ as a recognition that the whole plan of redemption as executed on the Atonement Day (Gospel Age) was the heavenly Father’s, but appropriated to himself the remainder as his portion – by eating it.... The offerings of the Atone­ment Day (Gospel Age—JJH), as we have seen were always burned (Lev. 6:30; Heb. 13:11), but the later trespass-offerings, offered after the Day of Atonement (Gospel Age—JJH), were not burned, but eaten (appropriated) by the priests.” (Tabernacle Shadows, pp. 99, 100)

More from That Servant: “It can readily be seen that the world thus under the Mediator during the Millennium will need no Advocate, because they will have no deal­ings with the Father, but merely with Christ, the Mediator.” (Reprint 4584, col. 2 March 15, 1910) Also, “The Heavenly Father has assumed no responsibilities for the race; He is not dealing with the race; He does not even propose to do the judging of them, to see whether or not they shall attain to worthiness of eternal life; on the contrary, we are assured that He has committed the whole matter to the Son.” (Parousia Vol. 5, p. 470, bottom, p. 471, top)

And, if God will not deal with them at all, just how can they be said to have “peace with God”? Only those confused and befuddled with “strong delusions” could come up with such nonsense. (See 2 Thes. 2:11-12 and Berean Comments) We can pro­duce many more statements from That Servant stating that “God will have no dealings whatever with Restitutionists until the end of the Millennium,” statements with which RGJ was at one time in harmony – but we believe what we have given herein will be suf­­ficient for now. Whether he is so confused now on Tentative Justification and “peace with God” during the Mediatorial reign, that he cannot understand these clear statements from That Servant, just as ­he is over Cornelius not being “repentant and believing” when St. Peter came to him, ­remains to be seen. But it is our fond hope that these clear statements from That Servant will give him “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Tim. 2:26)

That Servant says that, “Any one may offer homage to God, bow the knee or express thanks and appreciation.” (Reprint 5379, Jan. 1, 1914) Even the thanks and apprecia­tion offered to God by good worldlings today will inure to their blessing in the King­dom – but that does not gain them “peace with God.” If Restitutionists desire to thank God during the Mediatorial reign, they may do so – but that will not give them “peace with God,” even though such an attitude will eventually lead to “peace with God” at the end of the Millennium. Even though the Christ will receive and appropriate the “peace-offerings” of the people, their thanks to God will be held in memorial for them until their due time for “peace with God” – just as was true of Cornelius before the 70th week had expired.

As we have said, we could multiply quotations from That Servant and the Epiphany Messenger that clearly dispute RGJ’s contentions and refute his errors on tentative justification, the Camp and the Court, etc., without further comment from us – but we believe what we have presented herein is all-sufficient to pulverize all his errors as given in his “Questions and Answers” in the Present Truth under review.

“By this I know that thou favourest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me. And as for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest me before thy face forever. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting.” (Psa. 41:11-13) And may the Lord add His blessing!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim