No. 204
On pages 23‑29 of the above paper RGJ offers further comment on “the ending of the Epiphany period,” in which he is voluminous about our tactics of a “shady lawyer,” tricks of a “shyster lawyer,” etc.; and he says we treat Brother Johnson’s writings “shabbily.”
If we allow that his present accusations are true, there is nothing in Brother Johnson’s writings anywhere that says we treated him personally in shabby fashion; but the record is clear enough that RGJ did just that ‑ and more. And for him to make himself vulnerable now on such a sensitive matter, even a “shyster Lawyer” would know better; but knowing him to be in the clutches of Azazel, nothing need surprise us concerning him. Definitely, he is unable to reason clearly on the Truth, or to assess sound procedure for his own welfare. He not only treated Brother Johnson in shabby manner, but he even attempted to foist his perversions and revolutionisms upon him, criticized him as being “impractical,” carried on a whispering campaign against him right in the Philadelphia Ecclesia (See E‑10:585), prevailed in his efforts to deny aid to a “sick, penniless and starving Youthful Worthy widow,” which almost caused a division in the Class.
And with the foregoing a matter of recorded fact, it should cause us no surprise now to see him making scurrilous attack upon another Youthful Worthy who is faithfully and consistently resisting his revolutionisms, perversions and “strange fire” against the teachings of the Epiphany Messenger and against That Servant. Immediately after the Epiphany Messenger’s death, RGJ carried on a whispering campaign against us, too, so it should be evident to all that this “leopard cannot change his spots.” He still reveals the same “approbativeness, bad conscience” and lying tongue that is ready to “explode like wine and new wine skins ready to burst.” (See E‑10:585, top) Of course, we realize his present effort is just a smoke screen to divert the attention of his readers from the crushing refutations we have given his gross and persistent revolutionism against Parousia and Epiphany Truth concerning the Jewish rating in the Kingdom. Indeed, he is not only treating the writings of That Servant and the Epiphany Messenger “shabbily,” but he is also setting aside the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul.
There is nothing at all akin to the foregoing in the record concerning JJH; but we do have a letter from Brother Johnson, in which he says – I do many things for you, my dear Brother, that I do not do for others, because of your faithfulness to the Lord, the truth and the brethren; and he said the same many times to us personally. Also he said similar things to us about other brethren, although among those fully faithful brethren never once did he mention the name of “Brother Jolly.” However, he does put into writing his distrust of him since as early as 1923, and especially so since 1938.
In this March‑April paper RGJ resorts to his usual diatribe against JJH, slandering him as “the errorist” at least fifty‑six times in the seven pages he devotes to the subject matter. Yet, in this same paper, p. 30, col. 2, he would have his readers know of his gracious prayers for the “sifting errorist,” although his acts belie his words. From one side of his mouth he is sanctimoniously praying for the poor deluded “errorist,” even as he screams to high Heaven from the other side of his mouth about our renegade teachings and acts. As we have previously stated, such unctuous prattle is simply rank hypocrisy. “He that turneth away his ear from the hearing of the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Judging from his sins of the past and present, it seems he offers the same kind of prayers for himself that he offers for JJH; and this readily accounts for his spiritual condition and the morass of error in which he is now involved.
QUOTATIONS FROM THE EPIPHANY MESSENGER
He castigates “this errorist’s perfidious course” for quoting only a part of Bro. Johnson’s comment in E‑4:53, so he adds what we left out. What we left out makes no difference in the thought at all, which is why we left it out. We always make special effort to use as few words as possible for efficiency – so long as we clearly express ourselves; whereas, with RGJ he can always be depended upon to express a sentence in two or three paragraphs. ‘“Loquacious, repetitious, false criticisms” is the way Brother Johnson describes him in E‑10:591; and it is clear enough to us now that Brother Johnson had him properly evaluated. He does the same with the Question Meetings at Conventions ‑ goes into such detail that when he is finished the questioner doesn’t know what his question was ‑ and perhaps feels foolish that he asked it. We refer, of course, to those questions regarding his “advancing truth,” etc.
After quoting E‑4:53, he again refers to the Epiphany in its “narrow or restricted sense,” although he cannot point to one instance where the Epiphany Messenger ever spoke of the Epiphany in such manner. The words are pure invention by RGJ; and it seems that he like his kinsmen early in the Epiphany – uses “vain repetitions, as the heathen do, who think they will be heard for their much speaking.” (Matt. 6:7) Once more we emphasize that there are no words anywhere in the Epiphany Messenger’s writings which refer to the Epiphany in its ‘marrow sense” ‑ anymore than there is no mention of the crown‑losers who lost the High Calling by the skin of their teeth receiving an “attenuated” abandonment, as he claims for himself and his soul mates in the LHMM. See E‑15:525 for the truth as given by the Epiphany Messenger. “Narrow senses’ for the Epiphany period will be found only in RGJ’s “non” sense.
Those of us who know – and believe – Epiphany Truth will have no difficulty whatever in evaluating RGJ’s “profusion of words” if we keep in mind the teaching that crown losers are strictly forbidden from offering a new doctrine. Such attempt is the forbidden “gazing” of Ex. 19:21 ‑ the offering of “strange fire” before the Lord. His entire effort in this Present Truth is to defend his “strange fire” of Campers Consecrated. And, when we consider that it is the identical twin of That Evil Servant’s Jonadabs (now named by the Witnesses as the Great Multitude), it should cause all to weigh carefully anything he may offer in defense of it. By his own admission, RGJ was forced out of the Holy in 1938 – some 34 years ago; yet he now has the audacity to attempt a return to the Holy to secure from the Lampstand sufficient new light to form a new doctrine.
CONCERNING 1954
Once more he stresses 1954 as the date line for his “strange fire’s of Campers Consecrated, and once more he cites E‑10:114 – and once more we quote from that page:
“After 1954 no more persons will enter the tentatively justified state.”
He not only casually ignores that statement – as he accuses JJH of treating Brother Johnson’s writings “shabbily” – but he is bending all effort to bring new ones to tentative justification in his feeble and futile effort to fill the Epiphany Camp. One writer has well summarized, “Usually when a fellow becomes convinced he’s wrong – his argument gets louder.”
He stresses that his Attestatorial Service began in 1954, one of the chief features of which is to fill the Epiphany Camp with his Consecrated Campers, so we turn once more to the record: According to his Annual Report in the January 1955 Present Truth, he had 1,422 subscribers to his Present Truth; and in 1971 (according to his January 1972 Annual Report) he had 1,096 subscribers. Thus, he is down about 23% in seventeen years – a glowing testimonial indeed to his Attestatorial Service; and his attempt to fill the Epiphany Camp. Behold, a mountain travailed and a mouse came forth! Brother Johnson has told us that after the Great Company members are cleansed, they will have a fruitful ministry. Applying this conversely, the Great Company will not have a fruitful ministry until they are cleansed; and this then reveals to us a clear proof of RGJ’s present condition.
Furthermore, E‑10:114 tells us that by Passover 1956 the last Great Company member will have come into the Truth. How many of them has RGJ brought “into the Truth” since 1954? His lawyer would quickly tell him, Don’t answer that question. Could he name ten? Considering the indisputable figures, it should be clear to all that RGJ’s bombast about 1954 is simply voluminous talk – the technique of a present‑day politician who is running scared. Indeed, what you are speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you say! We find no necessity for name‑calling “errorist, shady lawyer, shyster lawyer,” etc., with such facts to substantiate our contentions; the record is more than enough. In fact, by 1959 – five years after his Attestatorial Service began – did he have more or less new creatures with him?
THE 1954 PARALLEL
On p. 28, col. 2, RGJ berates us for what we published in a previous paper about his parallel that did not parallel. The parallels that occurred up to 1941 “are all grace parallels, not wrath parallels,” he says. Then he offers some of his own ‘grace’ parallels, such as: “The Watch Tower reported a deficit in finances in Dec. 1911, and in Dec. 1951 the P.T. reported a deficit in finances.” This is certainly an impressive illustration! Most people would consider a bank overdraft as a “dis” grace; RGJ is the only person we have ever met that would classify it as a ‘grace.’ Then follows another one: “Sept. 1, 1911 new bindings with more attractive covers were first announced for the six volumes.... and it was Sept. 1, 1951 that a new and more attractive cover for the Herald of the Epiphany was first announced.” (Here he is boasting about his superiority over the Star Member preceding him, as this crown‑lost leader asserts he is ‘paralleling’ That Servant. However, this is nothing new for RGJ: back in 1923 he was doing the same thing.) If our readers can see anything other than a pure physical performance here, we would be glad to hear from them. We fail to see any ‘grace’ operation here at all – but we do find some of his claims now, and his talking down to God’s Mouthpiece during Brother Johnson’s ministry, ‘dis’graceful.
He also cites Brother Johnson’s expectation of Anarchy by 1956. Had that occurred, we wonder if he would have considered that a ‘grace’ parallel, too. The parable of the Virgins likewise receives attention from him, and he says it “had to end fully in October 1054.” If it ended then, what proof does he have for it other than just the mere calculation? We are in full accord with the Scriptural injunction – By the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established.
Here again he reveals the confused condition of his mind, as he is unable “to rightly divide the word of Truth.” All the dates he offers for the ‘grace’ parallels had their Parousia counterparts before the violent features of the Time of Trouble had started; consequently, those acts back there could not be associated with acts of violence. But, when 1914 came, the acts of violence came, too. And, based upon those very acts of violence, The Epiphany Messenger expected acts of violence forty years later in Armageddon for 1954, and Anarchy by 1956. Furthermore, he expected the death of the Parousia Messenger in 1916 to be paralleled by his own death in 1956. Were RGJ not befuddled by Azazel, he would recognize that those ‘grace’ parallels concerned primarily the Church; whereas, the acts of violence concerned primarily the world. The world knew practically nothing of the happenings in the Church prior to 1914; but the world was thoroughly aroused by the acts of violence that occurred in 1914 ‑ just as they will be even more aroused with the acts of violence that are ahead in Armageddon and Anarchy.
In our previous paper we asked for just one small item to prove that Restitution began in 1954. His answer to this is that Restitution began in 1874. Certainly we agree with that; the Seventh Trumpet (the Jubilee Trumpet) began to sound then, and it has been sounding louder and louder since then. But we ask again, name one event in 1954 that made it different from 1953 or 1955. That seems to us a fair appraisal of the item.
And as to his Attestatorial Service, he now offers the new notion that it parallels the 1914 service only in its beginning, but not in its ending! Well, according to Webster a parallel is a thing “alike in essential party’; and surely the end of that service is just as ‘essential’ as the beginning – just as the close of the High Calling is as essential as its opening. And, when we recall that RGJ himself set the date of Sept. 20, 1954, we can but reply that his date is ‘self‑serving’; and in the courts of our land self‑serving testimony has about the weight of a feather. Thus, considering what he has accomplished in the past seventeen years, that is all the value we should give it.
Further on p. 29, col. 1, he states “the errorist... seems to be insisting that we throw out entirely 1954 as a Biblically marked date.” Here again the “Azazelian” cunning of this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” (See E‑10:591, 646) manifests itself, because we have never even hinted at such a thing. Often in out papers we have stated our full approval with the interpretation of Leviticus 12 as covering the eighty years from 1874 to 1954, as most of our readers know; but our objection to RGJ’s use of it is that he is reading into it things that are not there at all. To conclude that a sign‑off for Great Company developing truths occurred in 1954 – and that should be proof for the close of the Youthful Worthy call ‑ is simply some more of his nonsense.
DEUT. 10:10 – This text is stressed as a ‘proof’ for 1954; but a close analysis shows it to teach just the reverse. Each 40‑day stay of Moses in the Mount was typical; and it is sound reasoning to conclude that type and antitype must correspond in every detail. We see no reason to quarrel with the thought that Moses’ first 40‑day stay in the Mount was typical of the period from 1874 to 1914. But, did Moses’ second ascent of the Mount follow immediately his first forty‑day period? No, it certainly did not! At least several days elapsed before he went back the second time. The record clearly reveals this; and reason would support the thought also, because he did not eat food or drink water all during the first forty‑day stay. This would certainly necessitate some time for him to recuperate from that ordeal ‑ just as Jesus was also hungry after His 40‑day stay in the wilderness. All this being true, there is no sound reason to conclude the second forty years in the antitype should follow immediately the first one; the type itself offers direct contradiction to such a thought. It does not correspond in every detail with the antitype.
When Brother Johnson taught that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical, he was reasserting Parousia Truth ‑ the teachings of the Parousia Messenger. When he taught that the small Parousia period and the Epiphany would be equal in time, he thought he was teaching with Scriptural support – he relied on the two forty‑day periods of Moses on the Mount. This persuaded him to conclude that the Epiphany and the small Parousia periods would be the same. And from this same parallel he drew the conclusion that he would die in 1956 as a parallel to That Servant’s death in 1916. But he died in 1950. Surely not even RGJ is contending that he died in 1956 – to prove the parallel. If we contend that the Epiphany ended in any sense before the main features of the Time of Trouble have appeared, then we deny that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical. And such teaching is direct contradiction to both Parousia and Epiphany Truth and to the Scriptures.
As all Truth people should know, forty is a Bible number for trial; but it does not always indicate a forty‑year period. The forty‑year journey in the wilderness by Israel was typical of the entire Gospel Age; and there is no similarity whatever – in point of time – between the wanderings of fleshly and spiritual Israel. And none of the trials involved could be understood beforehand; otherwise, they would not have been much of a trial. Many of the time predictions in the Parousia and the Epiphany resulted in sore trial upon the Church. However, the fully faithful accepted what time itself revealed; whereas, some of the “foolish” crown‑losers refused to accept what time decreed. Right up to September 1914 A. H. MacMillan openly insisted that the Church would be glorified in October of that year – in direct contradiction of That Servant’s denial. Perhaps it is in order here to ask – Had Brother Johnson died in 1940, instead of 1950, would RGJ have insisted that the last saint then left the earth? He probably would have done just that; he would not have wanted any saints around to interfere with his program. Too, that would have forced him to preach that he and his kinsmen were cleansed Levites – just as he has been doing since 1950 ‑ although his acts and revolutionistic teachings since that time clearly reveal to all unbiased minds that his contentions are merely some more of his foolish imaginations. ‘“Deceived and being deceived.”
PROPER EPIPHANY DISTINCTIONS
On p. 24, col. 1, RGJ offers a sub‑heading: “Errorist Ignores Proper Distinctions.” Then he proceeds to quote from E‑10:10. We have never discussed that because it was not particularly pertinent to the subject matter. However, RGJ now makes it important, as he quotes from that citation: “So far as God’s people are concerned, the Epiphany is divided into two periods – (1) The time in which the priesthood deals with Azazel’s Goat, and (2) the time in which the Priesthood deals with the cleansed Levites.” Then he offers some more of his slanderous conclusions: “It is obvious that this errorist is not interested in such clear distinctions.” Now that he has become interested in “such clear distinctions,” perhaps he will please tell us “the time in which the Priesthood deals with the cleansed Levites.” This is certainly a pertinent question to the subject he has injected into the discussion. He is teaching that there was no longer any Priesthood on earth after 1950. If he wants to tell us now that the dealing with the cleansed Levites was before 1950, let him give us some proof of it. But, even if he could produce such proof, it would not be relevant to this discussion, because it could have no bearing whatever on 1954 – four years after the last Priest left the earth – according to his own teaching, which we do not accept.
On p. 25 he says the Parousia ended in one sense in the fall of 1914, for which he properly quotes Brother Johnson. Then he adds his own conclusion that the Parousia will end in a second sense in 1954, but this is purely some more of his imagination. Let him show anywhere in Brother Johnson’s writings that he told us there would be two small Parousias.
On p. 26, col. 2, bottom, he ridicules us for quoting from Epiphany Vol. 4, where Brother Johnson “inferred” certain things regarding 1954. He tells us that was first published in 1921, “when the advancing light was comparatively dim” on the subject. If Brother Johnson had changed his mind about that by 1938, why didn’t he say so? In this same Volume 4, p. 21, there is this: “The Epiphany is limited to the time between the Parousia and the Basileia. It is used to designate the period of the great tribulation (emphasis by Brother Johnson), the Time of Trouble.” Nothing whatever said here about a second Parousia ending in 1954. In fact, if RGJ’s Basileia begins in 1954, and the Parousia extends “in a limited sense” to 1954, let him give us “the time between the Parousia and Basileia” as the period of the Epiphany ‑ that is, explain the “‘overlapping” and what features it includes.
On p. 27, col. 1, bottom, RGJ presents some more of his nonsense regarding 1954 and 1956. He cites P ‘47, p. 53, in “what appears to be Brother Johnson’s last statement” – in which “he says not one word about the fighting stage of Armageddon beginning in 1954….. Though he did expect Anarchy to begin in 1956.” Well, here is something! If he did “expect Anarchy to begin in 1956” – just when should we expect the ‘fighting’ stage of Armageddon? Unless RGJ is now the exception, all Truth groups expect a lull between Armageddon and Anarchy. If that is true – and we still believe it is true – then what length of time would RGJ allow for Armageddon if it should not have begun by 1954? Should we receive such puerile talk from a worldling, we would quickly walk away – but since he is preaching such foolishness to the general church, we feel an obligation to the brethren to take note of it, even as did the Epiphany Messenger feel the obligation to record the foolishness of this same “loquacious, repetitious and false‑accusing” Epiphany crown‑loser. (See E‑10 591; also p. 585)
It would seem that such palaver as the foregoing is simply a smoke screen to divert the attention of his readers from his revolutionism on the Jewish question; and he may be fooling some of the people some of the time. However, he is probably fooling himself worst of all. We know some brethren who still support him that do not accept his errors – just as there were some priests in the Society that did not accept JFR’s errors; but the Society had become ‘home’ to them, and they loved many of the brethren there, so they stayed. We knew some of them very well, who openly admitted to us that the errors appearing in the Watch Tower made them grit their teeth; and this same situation prevails now with some who still give token acceptance of RGJ’s leadership. We expect, D.v., to say more about this Present Truth in a future writing, but for now we offer:
SOME DE FACTO PARALLELS
Pertinent to our subject, we now offer some parallels – not of time, but parallels of fact:
(1) JFR placed himself on equality with Brother Russell. (See May 1932 PT, p. 78, colt l, par. 1) RGJ and his soulmates not only claimed equality with Brother Johnson, they actually considered themselves superior. Note E‑10:588 – “They (RGJ and associates – JJH) exhort that the right be chosen and the good be known. This they say because J. alleged that he was righteous (in his office work) but that God had taken away his privileges, and that notwithstanding his proper work he was reckoned a falsifier (whereas, RGJ and companions were the actual falsifiers – JJH)...These claims of J. aroused them to revile J... They give as a reason for these misrepresentations (actual falsehoods – JJH) the misrepresentation that J. had claimed that it is of no advantage for one to delight himself in God... Again in arrogance (a sense of superiority which manifests itself in an overbearing manner, Webster – JJH) they demand J.’s attention to their saying.” This is a record of the GOOD Levites in the Epiphany Movement!
(2) JFR completely rejected tentative justification; RGJ has perverted tentative justification – it is now available in the Camp, says he.
(3) JFR invented Jonadabs – a non‑existent class; RGJ has invented Campers Consecrated – also a non‑existent class.
(4) JFR refused to “visit those that be cut off” (Zech. 11:16 – the Little Flock that he had forced out of the Society); RGJ refuses to “visit those that be cut off” says they were all glorified as of 1950. Like JFR, he also “cut off” all new creatures who refused to go along with his errors. He vilified those who refused to accept his edict “Last Saint Gone.”
(5) JFR taught error to the justified; RGJ teaches error to the justified.
(6) JFR disfellowshiped brethren who opposed his errors, calling them tools of Satan; RGJ disfellowships brethren who oppose his errors and revolutionisms, and casts them out (Isa. 66:5), especially castigates the ‘sifters’ who publicly expose and resist his errors, calling them the tools of Satan. Our Lord himself had similar experiences with the Scribes and Pharisees of His Day; they called Him Beelzebub. (See Matt. 10 24‑25)
(7) JFR wept copious tears from the platform in ‘deep sympathy’ for the ‘poor deluded sifters’; RGJ now prays for the ‘poor deluded sifters.’
(8) JFR claimed to be Pastor and Teacher ‑ to be in charge of the Society, even as Brother Russell had been; RGJ claims to be Pastor and Teacher, and to control the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement with the same authority Brother Johnson controlled it. All those with reasonable knowledge of the law know that neither of these crown‑losers could legally ‘control’ either Movement as the founders had done. These Movements were not willed to them personally, to possess and control according to the dictates of their minds.
(9) JFR said the Basileia began in 1914; RGJ says the Basileia began in 1954.
(10) JFR applied condemnatory texts to those that opposed his errors – texts that properly applied to him; RGJ does the same – The Papacy does the same.
The Scripture comes vividly to mind: “The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.” (Eccl. 9:17,18)
“CONFUSION WORSE CONFOUNDED:’
On p. 25, col. 1, RGJ offers quite some elaboration about the various stages of the large Parousia. However, he paraphrases The Epiphany Messenger’s comments in Epiphany Vol. 4, p. 44 (without directly quoting it); and here is what he says:
“The errorist does not mention the three senses in which the Parousia is used. He says nothing at all about the Parousia’s second stage ending with the end of the Epiphany period, for to do so would interfere with his purposes. It is evident to any one who considers the matter carefully and does not have his understanding darkened, that just as the Parousia ended in a restricted, or narrow, 40‑year sense, in the Fall of 1914, then continued concurrently with the Epiphany and ended in a wider, 80‑year, sense in the Fall of 1954, so the Epiphany ended in a restricted, or narrow, 40‑year, sense in the Fall of 1954.”
Be it noted that this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” (E‑10:591) is here charging us with ignoring the “three sense” of the Large Parousia, while all our writings in refutation of his errors have set out those three distinct and correct “senses” to correct his “non”‑sense. We have no need or desire to set the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching aside on the large Parousia, the small Parousia period, and the Great Tribulation, or Epiphany, period. We heartily agree that one of the ‘senses’ that Brother Johnson refers to ‑ the small Parousia period – has ended. We are now in the second ‘sense’ to which he refers, if we accept his teachings on the Epiphany. But when RGJ clings to the date of 1954, and a 40‑year Epiphany period ending there, then we are bound to have at least FOUR ‘senses’ of the Large Parousia. Surely any one with the “spirit of a sound mind” knows that with the ending of the Great Tribulation, a definite ‘sense’ will have ended – even more so than when the small Parousia ended. Quite a few Truth people do not accept the thought that the small Parousia is ended. They continue to do a reaping work. And certainly none of the world can see that the small Parousia has ended. But when the Great Tribulation ends, then all who are then living will be aware of that – as quickly as the turmoil ends in their area. We doubt there will be any of the Truth brethren who will dispute that.
That Servant and the Epiphany Messenger taught that the Great Tribulation and the Epiphany are identical; and, if we accept that premise, then we surely do know whether the Epiphany has ended or not. If we accept RGJ’s 1954 date for the ending of the Epiphany, we repeat: there will be FOUR SENSES. But we accept Brother Johnson’s ‘senses’ in preference to RGJ’s non‑‘senses’ here.
Note the following quotation from E‑4:43, bottom, and top of p. 44: “The Bible, as our Pastor rightly held, in so far as our Lord’s Second Advent is concerned, uses the Word Parousia in three senses: (1) in the sense of the 40 years of reaping, i.e., from 1874 until the Time of Trouble, 1914; (2) in the sense of the 80 years from 1874 to 1954 (though our Pastor did not see the Epiphany would last 40 years, it not being due in his time to see this), i.e., to include the Parousia in the first sense and the Epiphany as a period, which he did so understand though not its duration; and (3) in the sense of the entire 1000 years of His Second Advent.”
In other words, we have been living in the large Parousia ever since 1874, and will continue in the large Parousia until the end of the Kingdom – but during this large Parousia we have a small Parousia period, and a Great Tribulation period. The Great Tribulation period and the Epiphany period are identical, if we accept both Messengers’ teaching.
While it is important to our discussion to stress what the Messengers did not see, it is very important to our present understanding to note clearly what they did see.
Both Messengers saw very clearly that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical, and we quote now a little from E‑4:54 to the point: “We understand that the special tribulation period and the Epiphany as a period are one and the same thing. We purpose here to prove this thought from the Scriptures and to illustrate it from our Pastor’s writings...Matt. 26:64 proves that the Epiphany began with the World War, which began the destruction of the Nominal Church...will progress through the Revolution....... Hence this passage proves that the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are identical.”
Follows now some more from E‑4:55 (53): “We will now quote and expound passages that prove that the Epiphany will end with Anarchy and Jacob’s Trouble. Its beginning, progressing and ending with the Time of Trouble demonstrates the Epiphany’s identify with the Time of Trouble.”
The real violent features of the Time of Trouble have not yet appeared; therefore, to contend it has already ended in a restricted sense is simply vagarious talk – the talk of a deluded crown‑loser. (See 2 Thes. 2:11) “Before those days hire for man could not be obtained, And hire for beast was there none, And neither to him that went out nor to him who came in was there success by reason of the danger, Yea, I let all men loose each one against his neighbor.” (Zech. 8:10, Rotherham) When this Scripture has been fulfilled, it will then be proper to speak of the end of the Epiphany as a period of time ‑ the last special period of the Gospel Age.
When the Epiphany Messenger said the Parousia is used in three senses, he did not intimate that the large Parousia (the third sense) would be ending when the small Parousia or the Epiphany had accomplished their purposes. However, if RGJ now wants to interpret it that way, then let him stay strictly with what is quoted above. If we want to strain matters (as he is now doing), we can say the small Parousia ended in a “restricted sense” in 1914, and in the full sense in 1916. Then, accepting his jugglery of the Epiphany, this feature ended in “a restricted sense” in 1954, but won’t end in its full sense until the end of Jacob’s Trouble. This would give us four senses; and, when we consider “the entire thousand years,” we may manufacture a few more of his “senses” – thus making a total of at least five senses, instead of the three described in Epiphany Vol. 4. We offer this compilation of senses in the hope it may finally silence RGJ’s “non” senses. The mere ending of Phase One (the small Parousia), and of Phase Two (the Epiphany) makes no allowance whatever for the ending of the large Parousia at those dates. The main purpose of the Parousia (the perfecting of mankind) has not even started; thus, to discuss its ending before it starts is indeed “confusion worse confounded.”
We have no quarrel whatever with the three senses described by Brother Johnson; we are objecting to the distortion injected into them by this crown‑loser. Brother Johnson says the Epiphany is the second sense (as a period ‑ the Great Tribulation period). Although he taught there would be a number of seasons in the Epiphany, he never discusses more than one ending – the end of Anarchy and of Jacob’s Trouble. He thought that 40 years would be sufficient for the events of the Great Tribulation, or the Epiphany – just as That Servant mistakenly thought two or three years would be sufficient for these things.
When RGJ stresses two of the Epiphany’s purposes (the Priesthood’s dealing with Azazel’s Goat; then following with another period for dealing with the cleansed Levites), he could just as properly say the Epiphany ended in “a restricted sense’s then as he can with the 1954 date, and that with a little less “non”‑sense than his present contentions. That would then give him at least three Epiphany endings by 1954; but nowhere does the Epiphany Messenger suggest such effervescent flummery. When these Levites extricate themselves from the clutches of Azazel, and their fleshly minds are destroyed (1 Cor. 5:5), they will have lost some of their “senses,” but they will also gain a priceless gift – “the spirit of a sound mind.” (2 Tim. 1:7)
“The Lord redeemeth the soul of His servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.” (Psa. 34:22)