NO. 171: FURTHER COMMENT ON THE MAY-JUNE 1969 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 171

During our discussion of this paper in our No. 170 we omitted certain elaborations through stress of time and circumstances. Thus, we now offer further discussion.

Great stress has been placed upon the year 1954 by RGJ; but his conclusions are purely a figment of his own imagination. In Leviticus 12 we believe the date is clear­ly set forth; but that type had only to do with the cleansing from error of the Little Flock and Great Company developing truths. The date is also revealed (or we might say, hidden) as the beginning of the Third Watch (see our paper No. 108); but in neither of these dates is there the slightest hint of the end of the Youthful Worthy call. These things were the sole conclusion of the parallel to 1914, which time has clearly revealed to have been an improper conclusion. There is, therefore, no Scripture anywhere on which RGJ is justified in making the decisions he has made concerning 1954, and since.

Let us consider now the 1914 date, and the faulty expectations entertained by the Little Flock concerning it. Those of us who still retain the chronology given us through That Servant are convinced that 1914 did mark the end of the Gentile Times, which gave some foundation for the expectation of the glorification of the last saint, and the es­tablishment of the Kingdom. But a much more compelling Scriptural type offered justifi­cation for the Little Flock concluding ten years before that date, and earlier – that the last saint would leave the earth in 1914. We quote from E–3:51 (bottom):

“Found Elijah sitting on the top of a hill, literally the mountain. This mountain represents the kingdom, and Elijah’s sitting on the top types the fact that at that time, from early fall of 1914 onward, the entire eventual Elijah class was in the embryo King­dom, i.e., the last one of those who would prove faithful had been begotten of the Spir­it, and henceforth no one else would be invited to the High Calling; for all embryo new creatures who will overcome are by us to be regarded as already in the highest or heav­enly phase of the Kingdom – sitting on the top of a mountain (Rev. 14:1); and certainly by October, 1914, almost all of us understood that the last one of the Faithful had been begotten of the Spirit, and a little later came to see that the harvesting that yet re­mained was of a gleaning character. Moreover, the fact that Elijah was then on the moun­tain’s top implies that he had previously reached and ascended the mountain. His reach­ing the mountain also types the fact that the Church somewhat before early Fall, 1914, reached the time when the Kingdom beyond the vail would be working to overthrow Satan’s Empire, which working began September 21, 1914, after the outbreak of the World War. This is in harmony with our Pastor’s secondary thought on the antitype of Elijah’s com­ing at the end of the 40 days – 1914 – to Horeb, the Mount of God (1 Kings 19:8), i.e., that the Church in the flesh would at that time come to the time when the Kingdom be­yond the vail would stand up to overthrow Satan’s Empire through the great tribulation.”

The foregoing extensive quotation is given to reveal the very potential dates the Little Flock had for believing, early in the Harvest, that 1914 would prove to be the end of their earthly journey. And these, and other Items, had been so compelling in their outlook that Brother Johnson himself in the Spring of 1914 was still firmly convinced that the complete glorification would come that Fall, and it was with consider­able restraint that he withheld himself from openly contradicting Brother Russell’s con­clusion that the Church would still be here after 1914. Be it noted, however, that the date was correct; the only failing was in the wrong conclusions drawn from it ahead of time – and this applied to all the Little Flock, including Brother Russell himself up to about 1910. Little wonder that he warned us that prophecy cannot be understood in de­tail until it has been fulfilled, or is in course of fulfillment. Compare this now with the conclusions presented for 1954, and we are forced to decide that there is no compari­son – that only a “foolish” virgin would attempt to make one.

But going on, the Czarist regime in Russia was overthrown in the fall of 1917 – the collapse of one of the most imposing “mountains” in human history. How well do we remem­ber prominent elders telling us at that time that we were then literally “walking by sight” – faith had become reality. And certainly there was strong justification for that conclusion, too. But again, compare that with 1954, and we find again that there is no comparison – absolutely nothing occurred in 1954 that would cause any one in the world to regard it as a history–making date. And nobody in the Church believes it either – ex­cept RGJ and his sectarian supporters!

ANTITYPICAL MIRIAM

In our August paper we offered limited comment on the Miriam type, as it appears in Numbers 12. It was her power–grasping and evil–speaking against Moses that resulted in the Lord afflicting her with leprosy, because of which she was ejected from the Camp of Israel for seven days into the wilderness – until she was cleansed. Azazel’s Goat was also sent away into the wilderness (Lev. 16:21); but there is a distinction to be made in the two types. Azazel’s Goat includes all crown–losers, because every one of them must undergo fit–man experiences – some more, some less; but Miriam types only the Great Company leaders, who committed a special type of sin; namely, attempting to grasp power and to speak evil of the fully–faithful Star Members. And because of this they were stricken with antitypical leprosy – Great Company uncleanness.

Miriam’s leprosy did not cover her entire body – probably just her head – which would indicate contagion in teachings and filthiness of the mind, the same being anger, malice, hatred, strife, lying tongues especially against faithful brethren, etc. And to this end we quote some from E–9:140:

“What a horrible condition was that in which antitypi­cal Miriam found herself! While all through the Age the uncleanness of the crown–losers could be seen, apart from those specially pointed out as such by inspiration during the Jewish Harvest, this uncleanness was not recognized as that of crown–losers until the Epi­phany; but in the Epiphany this uncleanness has not only been seen, but it has also been seen as Great Company uncleanness. In all cases it has manifested itself in persistent revolutionism against either the Lord’s teachings or arrangements, or against both, with power–grasping, lording and sectarianism, in very arbitrary usurpations, as the case of JFR shows the most plainly of all. The list of unholy characteristics set forth in 2 Tim. 3:1–9 is seen more or less in all of the leaders of the Levite groups – self–lovers, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers (lying slanderers), disobedient to (spiritual) par­ents, unthankful, inhuman, implacable, false accusers (a charge specially recorded against RGJ by Brother Johnson in E–10:585 – “not a few misrepresentations,” and “false–accusing Epiphany crown–loser” – p. 591—JJH), without self–control, fierce, haters of good men, traitors, heady, high–minded, pleasure–lovers rather than God–lovers, formalistic, without religion’s power, deceivers of weak–minded, corrupt–hearted and fickle–willed women, un­fruitfully studious, corrupted in opinion, apostates from the Truth, liars, hypocrites. What horrible characters!”

The foregoing is Brother Johnson’s own description of antitypical Miriam in her leprous state, and not something we have concocted. And we may be certain that is still their condition unless they have repented and reformed their characters. Here is some­thing on that part of it from E–9:150:

“God does not forgive the impenitent, since such a course would encourage sin.... For Him to forgive and heal the Great Company without repentance on their part would en­courage their continued sin.”

Then more from page 154:

“In Azazel’s hands they have exceed­ingly untoward experiences. Their leprosy at first increases there, into horrible condi­tions: new swellings (sins), new boils (selfish­ness), new hot burnings (worldliness), new scalds (errors) – (such as confusion on the just and the unjust, Campers Consecrated written in the Book of Life when there is no such book yet open for them, confusion on 1 Cor. 15:24, etc.—JJH), new leprous spots on their garments (power–graspings and lord­ings – such as claims of being Pastor & Teacher while introducing multiform errors—JJH), and new leprous outbreaks (sectarian­isms) – (such as advising his fellow–sectarians not even to speak to those who oppose RGJ’s errors—JJH). Truly horrible is this.”

And concerning such characters RGJ describes them as a “higher class” – not to be contra­dicted or withstood by the ‘lower class’ Youthful Worthies. He even has the pa­thetic audacity to say this about the situation: “On the other hand, cooperating with the Great Company, it serves as a safeguard for the Youthful Worthies against the subtle attacks of Satan to entice them to usurp the teaching office of the Great Company.” Cer­tainly, here we have spiritual bedlam in the extreme! RGJ offers this as a generalized statement, so we can only conclude that he believes Youthful Worthies should have “coop­erated” with JFR and other leading Society errorists, or any other leprous leaders (anti­typical Miriam) wherever they might be found. Just a little reflection on all of this will readily convince our readers that it has never been necessary for us to resort to name–calling – just the plain and simple truth is more than enough.

RGJ’S CARIBBEAN TRIP

During March RGJ visited Trinidad, and reported as follows in the May–June Present Truth, p. 44:

“We served various meetings for the brethren... and enjoyed precious fellow­ship with them. They have stood faithful and loyal to the Truth and its spirit during the sifting that broke out in their midst in 1962.... We still pray for the few who left us at that time and are glad to learn that some have been recovered and that others are gradually getting their eyes open to the true situation.”

Respecting “the few” who left him in 1962, here are the facts: RGJ’s own Memorial Report for the year 1961 (the year before the separation) gives 45 participants (See PT 1961, p. 64, July–August); and his own Memorial Report for 1963 (the year after the sep­aration—See PT 1963, July–Aug., p. 63) gives 18 – a loss of 27, – or 60% – which RGJ describes as “the few.” And when he says that some are coming back to him, we quote now a letter about that from one who left him in 1962:

“It is not true that some of the friends are going back to the other class. Although they sent programs to a few of us during RGJ’s visit, no one attended.”

It would seem Brother Johnson gave us an accurate report in E–10:585: RGJ was guilty of “not a few misrepresentations... and a bad conscience”; and we are now pain­fully reminded that his “leprosy” in that respect has not only continued, but has actu­ally increased since the restraining hand of the Epiphany Messenger is no longer with him, and he has lost all brotherly help and favor of the Priesthood after 1950 – a con­dition and position much the same as that of JFR after he took charge of the Society after Brother Russell’s death.

Furthermore, we received an interesting newspaper report that said this about his public appearance in Trinidad: “Dr. Jolly, founder of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement of the U.S., and his granddaughter Mary addressed a gathering of men and women at the Mutual Society Hall, San Juan, on Sun­day afternoon.”

It would seem the question is properly in order here: Has he now made granddaughter Mary an Evangelist – to address public gatherings?

Again, we have been reliably informed that some of those who remained with him after the 1962 separation are soulmates in “leprosy” with antitypical Miriam (although we do not include all of them in this category), so he is more than welcome to whatever consolation he may receive from their adherence to him. We make no particular effort toward such at present; and we often remove one from our mailing list when we learn of his “leprous” condition. We are happy to state, however, that those that have at­tached themselves to us from the LHMM since 1955 – or have left RGJ – have been those most highly regarded by Brother Johnson and by the brethren generally before 1950; whereas, some of those still adhering to RGJ have openly revealed characters that are quite in keeping with what we quoted above from Brother Johnson about “leprous” Miriam. And, in fairness to those that still support RGJ, we are persuaded that some of the bet­ter ones among them have not accepted the errors that he has introduced since he took control – for which they are to be commended. In fact, some of them who still remain friendly toward us have told us this themselves, so we are not publishing mere opinion to curry favor with our readers.

So far as we know, none with us take this attitude toward our Truth presentations. Rather, they are sufficiently grounded in Tabernacle Shadows to know that neither the Parousia nor the Epiphany Messengers ever hinted at a justification outside the linen curtain – outside the righteousness of Christ. Thus, they are quite in harmony with E–9:19:

“The advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth formerly received, as some de­ceivers teach. Those of us who during the Parousia watched this peculiarity of the Truth, its dueness, i.e., its coming as the needs, circumstances and experiences of God’s people require, and who during the Epiphany are watching its dueness, know that this is a true principle in practice.”

And, acting upon this “true principle,” they have also received as “due Truth” this statement from E–9:134:

“It will be noted that while God has given the non–star­–membered teachers of the General Church and the more prominent local elders visions and dreams, He has never given them to see as a thing new a doctrine. This privilege is limited exclusively to our Lord acting in the star–members. Any attempts on the part of a non–star–membered teacher or of a non–teacher as the first one to work out a doc­trine would be speculation, and would, therefore, not result in uncovering a new truth, but would result in error.”

And more from E–10:XXIV: “All the brethren, except the star–members, are forbidden direct Bible study on new doctrines, types and prophecies, which is ‘gazing’ for them.”

Also from E–11:495:

“None of these brothers (probably Little Flock members—JJH) were the first to see new doctrines, which under Jesus is the exclusive privilege of star–members. As non–star–member scribes instructed unto the Kingdom of God, they have been privileged to find new confirmations of doctrines previously made known by Jesus to His star–members.”

All of the foregoing is a direct and cogent contradiction to RGJ’s Consecrated Epi­phany Campers, because the expression is to be found nowhere in either the Parousia or Epiphany writings. And because we point out these expressions as a warning to all, RGJ refers to us as the “sifting errorist.” Of course, he has learned the weakness and limitations of those who blindly swallow such diatribe; but he – and they – will eventu­ally recognize his “advancing truth” for what it is – a “house built upon the sand.”

As we have so often stressed, when Azazel’s Goat is led into the wilderness at the hands of the fit man – abandoned to Azazel – they no longer have that “peace of God which passeth understanding”; and the reason for this is simple enough: As they become enmeshed in their various errors – such as Campers Consecrated (with justification out­side the righteousness of Christ), confusion on 1 Cor. 15:24, etc., – the faithful use the Truth against them with such devastating force that their confusion becomes apparent to all. The Lord thus abandons them in their trial time, even as He at the same time keeps sure His promise to those who retain the Truth: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.” This is so clearly set forth in Josh. 1:5: “There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: As I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”

As all of us know, Moses was a type of the Gospel-Age star–members leading spiritual Israel from Egypt (type of the world in sin) to the Heavenly Canaan; and the Lord was with every one of them. And even as Moses had consoled Israel in his farewell address, so Joshua also was able to say to them just before he entered the tomb: “Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts, and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good which the Lord your God spake con­cerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.” (Josh. 23:14) Joshua never once suffered defeat in battle; and, when any one claiming to stand in the same position as the star–members (claiming to be Pastor & Teacher) suf­fers one defeat after another, we may be certain he is one of those who has “built his house upon the sand.”

If our readers will keep two things clearly in mind, it will aid greatly in under­standing events today: First, Almost all crown–lost leaders have failed to “wait upon the Lord.” This was emphatically revealed aforetime in their type, King Saul of Israel, who proceeded to offer his own burnt offering when Samuel delayed to appear. (I Sam. 13: 8-13) And of this act Samuel bluntly told him, “Thou hast done foolishly.” And many of our readers know that one of the primary causes of That Evil Servant’s deflections was his failure to “wait upon the Lord.” “He said in his heart, My Lord delayeth”; things are not progressing fast enough to suit me!

The second and more important point is that crown–lost leaders all during the Age have perverted every stewardship doctrine that the faithful Little Flock leaders produced; although we are not unmindful of the good warfare some of them waged with certain features of those truths. Azazel means Perverter; and the one goat of Lev. 16:8 was specifically “for Azazel.” None of those “for Azazel” ever built up the stewardship doctrines; they always tore them down in some of their features. Thus, it should not surprise us at all ­in fact, we should expect to see crown–lost leaders of our time doing what their kinsmen of the past have done. Take, for instance, the leaders of the Society after 1916: They have perverted out of all recognition the sound and sober doctrines produced by That Ser­vant; their present teachings bear little relationship to the Parousia Truth. And when RGJ tries to tell his readers that the Epiphany Messenger “made provision” (another “chan­nel” similar to the one proclaimed in 1917) for the errors he has been presenting since 1950, that is simply a ruse to lull his sleepy adherents into accepting his perversions of the Epiphany Truth, which the faithful Epiphany Messenger labored so diligently to produce. The “perversions” we see appearing today are simply a continuation of past conduct by anti­typical Saul, and not “provisions” by the Epiphany Messenger; and they are an open book to all who understand that type in its pristine purity. The clear and persistent teaching of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers was to the effect that the erection of the Epiphany Camp would come after Babylon falls – after antitypical Miriam is cured of her “leprosy”; but RGJ is proceeding to do that work now – before Babylon falls – without “waiting on the Lord.”

In this connection, a little from P–6:318 should prove helpful here: “In the study of the divine revelation the congregation should first, last and always recognize the difference between the foundation principles of the doctrines of Christ (which no member may change or alter, nor consent to have questioned) and the discussion of advanced doc­trines (such as Campers Consecrated, the just and the unjust, justification outside the righteousness of Christ, whether we are now in the Epiphaneia, the Apokalypsis, or the Basileia, etc.—JJH), which must be in accord with the foundation principles (Tabernacle Shadows being the foundation teaching for the entire Six Parousia Volumes—JJH). The lat­ter should at all times have full, free opportunities to be heard, and there should be meetings at which they can be heard.” Just let any one attempt to question the errors of today, and they are quickly disfellowshiped; the errorists want none of the sound counsel given above from That Servant.

Let us remind our readers, however, that RGJ once fully concurred with the above counsel by That Servant; and after the separation in 1917 he was pronounced and profuse in his condemnation of the Society leaders who ignored that counsel and were branding as “sifters” those who had left them and were recommending that counsel to the General Church – at which time he was happy to be numbered among the “sifters.” Now he himself sets that counsel aside, as he yells “sifting errorists” at those who still recommend it; so we offer a pertinent quotation from E–4:33:

“Can it be possible that they (the crown­losers) carelessly overlooked our oral and written proofs on this subject? Perhaps. If so, the Lord will hold them responsible for what they could have learned, but what through neglect or inattention they failed to learn. We think the likelier explanation of their course in this matter is the following: Being now in Azazel’s hands (as RGJ has been since 1950—JJH), their minds are filled with his suggestions, which they set forth as Truth, despite what they had previously learned.” We ourselves are in full accord with this latter suggestion by the Epiphany Messenger.

“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.” (Jer. 9:23,24)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Do God’s Covenants enable us to make a clear distinction between the elect and the non–elect?

ANSWER: – It is our understanding that the Covenants make a very clear cleavage between these two classes, of which we offer the following proof: Let us consider first the broad aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:3) If we combine this with Matt. 25:34–36, we recognize that “all families of the earth” assist in blessing each other: “The King shall say to them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom ... For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: Naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me.” It is this service of the “sheep” to others of their weaker brethren that contributes to bring to them the kingdom inheritance – just as it is the failure by the “goats” to do these things that brings upon. them the sentence of annihilation.

But when we consider the oathbound covenant in Gen. 22:15–18 there is no hint of the “sheep” playing any part whatever in that “blessing”; it was simply “the seed” that was to do the blessing – which seed would be “as the stars of Heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore.” This “seed” – the Elect, the Just, etc. – would be spiritual and earthly (the Heaven – the sea shore), and would bless all the remainder of mankind. This is very clearly stated in Gen. 25:1–6: “Unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, east­ward, unto the east country” – the “children of the east” typifying the worldly wise. But, “Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.” – vs. 5. “The sons of the concubines” type various divisions of restitutionists; and, if this picture means anything at all, we are forced to the conclusion that those sent “to the east country” were given no consid­eration whatever when Abraham’s estate was finally distributed after his death – he had given all that he had unto Isaac. “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” (Gal. 4:28)

In addition to the children of Keturah, there was Ishmael who assisted Isaac in his father’s funeral, but received no part of the estate. (Gen. 25:9) This is further con­firmed in Isaac’s dealings with Jacob: “Let the people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee.” (Gen. 27:29) “Isaac said unto Esau, Behold I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants” – verse 37.

In a broad sense, the Patriarchal Age (the Age of the First Fathers) began with the end of the flood, and ended with the death of Jacob, after which his descendants were re­ferred to as “the children of Israel,” in keeping with his change of name as given in Gen. 33:28. At Jacob’s death, for the first time the Jews are mentioned in the Bible as the twelve tribes of Israel. The Patriarchal Age lasted 659 years – from the end of the flood until the death of Jacob; but let us note particularly that during that time only four names may be regarded as the first fathers – Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the more restricted sense, the first fathers are only Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But among the progeny of these three we have the names of Ishmael, the six sons of Keturah, and Esau, with none of these ever mentioned as the first fathers, although they all lived during the Patriarchal (the “First Fathers”) Age. Nor do we find them receiving any of the covenant blessings that passed directly from Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob. In the broader sense the Jews often referred to the fathers as all of their prominent ancestors, such as Joseph, Moses, et al, as these had given the nation fatherly care during their lives. And St. Paul tells us that “our fathers... were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” (I Cor. 10:1,2) This made of the nation a consecrated people, yet only those among them who attained Ancient Worthiship were in any way counted as “the seed” of the Abrahamic Cov­enant. Reasoning from this standpoint, if there should be a consecrated class here in the end of the Age that is outside the Tabernacle Court, they would have no more part in the blessing activities of the Abrahamic seed than would those Jews of the Jewish Age, who are not counted among the Elect.

It is well that we keep clearly in mind that every human being that is eventually brought to perfection does so under some covenant; and it is well also that we remember that there is at present no covenant operating in the Epiphany Camp. Furthermore, there is a fourfold Tabernacle picture – Gospel Age, Epiphany, Millennial and Post–Millennial, ONLY ONE of which operates at a time. Also, once any of these is erected it permits of no changes during the time of its operation. All who are familiar with Tabernacle Shad­ows know this was true of the Gospel–Age Tabernacle; and this same is true of the Epi­phany Tabernacle up until the time that Rev. 22:10,11 would apply. This is clearly stated by the Epiphany Messenger as follows:

“For the Epiphany the Most Holy represents the condi­tion of the crown–retaining new creatures; the Court in the finished picture represents the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies; the Camp in the finished picture represents the formerly faith–justified ones (those who had been in the Court with tentative justifi­cation—JJH) who hold to the Ransom and practice righteousness, and converted Israel (no consecrated ones mentioned in the Camp “in the finished picture”—JJH); while the terri­tory outside the Camp represents the condition of those who were the Gospel–Age Camp, or who are excommunicated ones.”

The foregoing is given as a foundation for the following question by Brother Johnson in Volume 5:

“Is it the correct thought that those consecrating after Spirit–begettal and the High Calling end, but before Satan’s empire is fully overthrown and the Kingdom set up, be associated with the Ancient Worthies, the ‘young men’ who will ‘see visions’? F 156, 157, Z ‘11, 181, par. 6,7; Z ‘15, 269, par. 11,12.” We offer just one paragraph from the above citations, Reprints 5761: “It is our thought that with the closing of the door of this Gospel Age there will be no more begetting of the Holy Spirit to the spirit nat­ure. Any afterward coming to God through consecration, before the inauguration of the res­titution work (before the New Covenant is inaugurated—JJH), will be accepted by Him, not to the spirit plane of being, but to the earthly plane. Such would come in under the same conditions as the Ancient Worthies who were accepted of God. The Ancient Worthies came in, no call being opened to them – the High Calling not being yet open, and the res­titution opportunities not open. But they freely gave themselves up to God without know­ing what blessings their consecration would bring, except that they had the intimation that they would, in the future life, have a ‘better resurrection’ than would the remain­der of the world.”

It will be noted we have underscored in the Question “before Satan’s empire is fully overthrown and the Kingdom set up,” and we have underscored in the Tower quotation “be­fore the inauguration of the restitution work.” These two statements, one from the Epi­phany Messenger, and the other from the Parousia Messenger, mean substantially the same thing. Thus, we now inquire of RGJ: Is Satan’s empire fully overthrown and the Kingdom set up? Here is a revolutionism that is much more pronounced and more serious than was his revolutionism against Epiphany arrangements in 1938. Surely, his most partisan sup­porters, who still retain any semblance of Epiphany Truth will recognize this clear revo­lutionism; and we now advise them to inquire of RGJ if he will recant from his revolu­tionism as he did in 1938 – or will he grossly and persistently continue therein to his eventual complete undoing?

Let us stress again: Only the faith features of the Abrahamic Covenant can be oper­ative during a faith dispensation, in which we now are; and here is something from E–12, p. 736:

“In faith dispensations God has so conditioned the Bible’s teachings as to make them enlightening only to the faith class.... The Bible’s teachings, therefore, through Jesus’ ministry give light to the faith classes from the time It finds them dead in trespasses and sins, until they make their calling and election sure to the salvation respectively pertinent to the four elect groups.”

And companion to this quotation is the following from E–16, p. 315:

“All the merit used in the atonement work is that of Jesus exclusively; but He having imputed it on behalf of the Church, and she thus becoming its imputative possessor, her sacrifice is necessary to release this merit of Jesus from the embargo on it before Justice by virtue of its being imputed to her, in order that, freed from all claims that embargoed it as long as before Justice it secures the Church while in the sacrificing condition, it – Christ’s one merit – might be applied on behalf of the world; for the entire merit (hence it must be free from all embargoes) is necessary to release Adam and the race in him from the death sentence, in the Millennium.”

In E–4 substan­tially the same thing is said regarding the applied merit to the Youthful Worthies; their tentative justification and consecration place an embargo on the merit until the last one finishes his course. But this conclusion would not be true as respects any one attempt­ing consecration in the Camp, because no feature of any Covenant is now operating in the Camp. Also, it is not possible to divide Jesus' merit between the Court and the Camp.

This may also be determined from another standpoint: The Gospel–Age “Church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23) is comprised of all who will attain the spirit nature – the Little Flock and the Great Company. The Ancient and Youthful Worthies will be the Mil­lennial–Age firstborn – but only those two classes. Thus, the Gospel–Age and Millen­nial–Age firstborns comprise the four elect groups mentioned above. All others – the quasi–elect, as well as the Gentile sinners and the Heathen world – are the afterborn, for whom the merit is eventually applied when the New Covenant begins to operate. Therefore, none of such could place an embargo on the merit now, and any attempt to do so finds no confirmation anywhere in the Bible, or anywhere in the Parousia or Epiphany writings. All of these must receive their development under the second blood covenant ­the New Covenant – making a clear distinction between the Elect and the Non–elect in this Age and in the next Age.