by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 85

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

 (Reprint of No. 11, with pertinent additions)

At the outset it is strongly urged upon all to prove what is offered herein by close checking with the Scripture references and the teachings of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. Blind sectarianism in its leaders and ledlings always pleads just the reverse. “Disfellowship and avoid those who expose their errors,” has always been their cry, But, “sectarianism is a great sin,” says Brother Johnson, “for it does not act from devotion to the Truth, the Truth arrangements and the Spirit of the Truth, but from devotion to partisanship.” And, again “Such support is bound to make one unclean; for the works of sectarianism are wrath, strife, envy, preju­dice, partiality, enmity, persecution and misrepresentation of the faithful, approval of certain evils and disapproval of certain good things of the Truth and its arrange­ments” (E:4-299).

 Secondly, it should be noted that The Epiphany Solomon and The Epiphany Messenger are distinctly two different pictures, which intertwine in some respects, but which have a distinctive cleavage and divergence in other respects. Thus, it becomes nec­essary to describe clearly The Epiphany Messenger in order to have a clear understand­ing of The Epiphany Solomon.

The Epiphany Messenger is a clear and complete parallel of The Parousia Messenger – a fact which is not true of The Epiphany Solomon and The Parousia David. In May of 1876 Brother Russell, “as antitypical Eldad came up to the antitypical Tabernacle” (Vol. E-9, p. 47), at which time he became The Parousia David, The Parousia Messenger (Vol. E-14, p. 11). ‘‘For 71/2 years from May 1, 1876 to October 31, 1883 he was in friendly cooperative association of the leading brethren,” the Hebron (friendship) condition (E:14-95). In October 1883 he began the Jerusalem phase of his reign, which continued for 33 years to October l9l6 (E:14-140).

 But, just as the Lord allowed Brother Russell to make certain mistakes for the future trial of His people, so the Lord also allowed Brother Johnson to do the same. However, in both cases they left sufficient in their writings (unknown to them at the time of writing) for the faithful truth-seekers to correct some of those mistakes. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson was firmly convinced he would be here to October 1956, he logically and properly concluded his parallel of The Parousia Messenger would cover substantially 401/2 years from October 1916 to October 1956. However, since Brother Russell was in the Hebron condition ‘‘with leading brethren for 71/2 years,” why should not the same be true of Brother Johnson if he was to “parallel” him? And that is just what we find to be the case! There is abundant evidence that he was anointed as The Epiphany Messenger in May 1910. Note in this connection E:9-300:

 “Immediately thereafter J arrived at the well and dipped from it, on the basis of 1 Cor. 10:1-14, the Truth on the five harvest siftings in themselves and in their relation to the five harvest calls.... As at his well experience the Lord gave our Pastor the final function of the office of That Servant, so He seems in connection with this well experience to have set this brother apart for the office of the Epiphany Messenger; for much of the Epiphany Truth is based on what he got at the well.”

 The above is further confirmed in Vol. E:10-131 (top): “The Lord rewarded his steadfastness and victory in this battle with the demons with a sudden, unpremeditated insight into the types of the five siftings of the Harvest, as St. Paul points them out in 1 Cor. 10:5-11. This understanding flashed through J’s mind with no study at all, by a sudden illumination.”

 And from May 1910 to October 1950 is exactly 40½ years. Were we in possession of the facts, we would probably find the parallel fits exactly to the day. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson was so firmly convinced he would be here to October 1956, it is not in the least to his disparagement that he did not see this parallel during his lifetime. The understanding of it was not due; and “nobody can see Truths before due” (E:4-324). This is in harmony with Brother Russell’s statement that prophecy cannot be fully and clearly understood until is has been fulfilled, or is in the course of fulfillment. Generalities, Yes; but details, No! We are still in the Age of Faith; and what Faith would be necessary if God’s people could see a detailed schedule of their activities fifteen years before they occur? When at any time over the Ages did the Faith Class have a chart fifteen years in advance of the grievous trials which came upon them?

 If the foregoing is a proper understanding of this matter, then it should be immediately apparent that any attempt to “make” parallels of That Servant after Oct. 1950 could come only from an admixture of nonsense and Azazelian jugglery. Further­more, if the parallel was completed in October 1950, then much that has been said for the year 1956 needs thorough re-examination. It should be noted that parallels are always dangerous and uncertain foundation unless they can be corroborated by the Bible, or the Great Stone Witness. Fully believing the parallel would prevail until October 1956 (although there exists in it a six-months’ shortage no one has ever satisfactorily explained – from October 1916 to October 1956 is 40 years, and not 40 1/2 years)

 Brother Johnson wrote in E:10-114 (top): “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover 1956.”

The veriest babe in the Truth should be able to see that this schedule has not been met, and that a sober reappraisal should be made of the general situation; yet our Executive Trustee plunges blindly on with his “Lord’s work” just as though all were harmony and precision. Surely, “strong delusion” does indeed accomplish a “strange work” in the doubleminded!

 But, whereas there could be an overlapping of the parallels of The Parousia and Epiphany Messengers, such could not be true of The Parousia David and The Epiphany Solomon, because Solomon could not begin his reign until David was dead. Therefore, the Epiphany Solomon could not begin his reign until Nov. 1, 1916 – after the death of the Parousia David –; and 40½ years from Nov. 1, 1916 will bring us to Passover 1957, of which much more will be said later.

 There are a number of outstanding, distinctive and exclusive events in Solomon’s reign, the first of which is God’s appearance to “Solomon in a dream by night” (I Kgs. 3:5-12) in Gibeon, in which dream Solomon asked of God “an understanding heart to judge thy people.’’ ‘‘And the speech pleased the Lord.... I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall there any arise like unto thee. And the Lord gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart.... and Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men.” (1 Kgs. 4:29-31) When we were working with Brother John­son in 1947 during his illness, we quoted this Scripture, then asked him: You say Bro. Russell had a higher and much more important office in God’s House than you do; why, then, should this Scripture say you have more wisdom than any before you, which would include Brother Russell? His answer: “I have what he had, plus what I have; and that makes more than he had.” All of us know that the writings of the Good Epiphany Solomon are without equal in many respects; and every thought of it should cause us to breathe a silent prayer that “God bless his memory.”

 The “three thousand proverbs,” etc. (1 Kgs. 4:32) were certainly distinctive of Solomon; and even worldly people recognize the wisdom contained in them, although their writing was probably spread over his good years. Aside from them, the second outstand­ing accomplishment of Solomon was his building the House of the Lord – typical of the Epiphany Solomon “Arranging God’s people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work.” In the overall sense, “God’s House of many mansions” includes every obedient intelligent creature in the Universe. In the earthly sense, for the Ages of Faith, it would be restricted to those human beings that have come into covenant relationship with ­Him. This House has had three subdivisions: (1) The House of Servants, those Jews over whom Moses was leader (Heb. 3:5); (2) The House of Sons – the faithful Christians over whom Christ is leader (Reb. 3:6); (3) The House of Friends, those faithful ones who lived before and after the call into Christ, such as Abraham, etc., ‘‘who was called the friend of God” (Isa. 41:8; Jas. 2:23). Thus, the scripture, “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the House of the Lord” (Psa. 122:1) is expressive of such who received the invitation to enter God’s House – who made their covenant with Him (came into His House) with zeal and gladness of heart. And surely the Epiphany Solomon classified the Little Flock, the Great Company, the Ancient and Youthful Worthies in their respective groups as none other had ever done; in this phase of his wisdom it was truly prophesied, “there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall there any arise like unto thee.”

“Solomon began to build the House of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah... in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign” (2 Ch. 3:1-2; 1 Kgs. 6:1) ‘‘And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished” (1 Kgs. 6:38)

Thus, its building required 7 1/2 years; and it was completed 10 years and 8 months after Solomon ascended the Throne of the Lord in Israel.

 ‘‘But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years” (1 Kgs. 7:1) – he built the two houses in twenty years (1 Ecs. 9:10). Therefore, of Solomon’s reign: Ten (10) Years, eight (8) months to build God’s House; Thirteen (13) years to build His own House – Twenty-three (23) years, eight (8) months, both houses completed after his reign began. The building of the Epiphany Solomon’s House symbolizes “establishing himself in his own sphere as the Lord’s Epiphany Executive.” How did he accomplish this? By expounding those types which had foretold of him. And where did he do this? Specifically in Vol, E-10, The Epiphany Messenger. And when was this done? Vol. E:10-107 col. 2, bottom says, “In 1938 J. commences to write E.J. 1939-41 ...finishes E.J.” If we add 23 years and 8 months to Nov. 1, 1916, it brings us to the latter half of 1940, by which time he had substantially completed “his own house.” Thus, in 23 years and 8 months, from Nov. 1, 1916, The Epiphany Solomon had built the Lord’s House – ­“arranged God’s people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work”–; and had built his own house – “established himself in his own sphere as the Lord’s Epi­phany Executive.” All of this is clearly set forth in Vol. E-10, which was published and released to the brethren in 1941.

 The Lord Appears unto Solomon the Second Time – ‘‘And it came to pass when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the Lord, and the king’s house.... that the Lord appeared to Solomon the second time, as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon” (1 Kgs. 9:1-2). When Brother Johnson had completed Vol. E-10, it seems he had con­cluded that his Epiphany writings were sufficient, as evidence the following from Vol. E-10, p. 651:

‘‘For the Little Flock J. will send along ten of Brother Russell’s publications, which J. has had reprinted for this purpose, i.e, the six Studies, Tabernacle Shadows, Manna, Hymnal and Life-Death-Hereafter, all laden with Epiphany notes; and the ten volumes of Epiphany Studies, of which this book is the tenth, all laden with powers the Epiphany Truth and its arrangements – for the Little Flock to help it come into harmony with Epiphany matters.”

But he later concluded he himself would write eleven more volumes for the enlightenment and strengthening of God’s people at this time, While it is probable that some of his first ten volumes contain the most profound of his writings, yet the last eleven of them also contain much of “meat and drink” for God’s people. He gave to this writer quite some detail of his struggles before the Lord in prayer to understand and correlate per­tinent parts of those volumes – “I am but a little child”( 1 Kgs. 3:7); and the Lord had answered his prayers for wisdom and understanding in the pertinent subjects.


But, just as God had placed a warning in the New Testament (Luke 12:45,46) to That Servant to continue in humility and uprightness before Him, so He gave Solomon a warning against forsaking the way of David his father: “If thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked..... I will establish the throne of thy kingdom forever..... But if ye shall at all turn from following me..... this house which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight,” etc. (1Kgs. 9:4-9). The Good Epiphany Solomon heeded this warning! Sadly enough, the typical Solomon did not heed it – just as the Evil Epiphany Solomon has not heeded it. “He had seven hundred wives, and three hundred comcubines: and his wives turned away his heart..... and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father..... And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord.... and the Lord was angry with Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:3-9). As Bro. Russell and Brother Johnson both properly taught, the large Good Solomon was typical of the reigning Millennial Christ. Brother Johnson also taught that the Large Evil Solomon was antityped by by Papacy (Vol. E:10, Appendage XXXIV):

“In the large picture Solomon in his good acts types the Millennial Christ in the good acts of their reign, and (2) in his evil acts he types the Papacy before the Refor­mation; for the division of the Kingdom from Solomon’s son is blamed upon his wicked deeds, and certainly papacy’s pre-Reformation evils caused the division in the Church, as the 2520 years’ parallels show,”

 Brother Johnson’s interpretation, based upon the 2520 years’ parallel is mathemati­cally sound. The period of Israel’s kings was 513 years, of which Saul, David and Solo­mon covered 120 years, leaving a remainder of 393 years; thus Solomon’s death was 999 years before the birth of Christ (606 plus 393 equal 999). And 999 subtracted from 2520 brings us to 1521 A.D. And, just as Israel’s kings came to an ignominious end 393 years after the death of Solomon when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in the fall of 607 B.C., so the ignominious end of Spiritual Israel’s kings had its beginning 393 years after 1521 – viz., in 1914.

 In April 1521 Luther came to debate at the Diet of Worms; but instead of being given an honest hearing, he was outlawed by the Emperor. This made the final cleavage between Protestant and Catholic, the separation for which there was no healing; and Christendom was divided into two antagonistic parts from that time on, just as was Israel after the death of Solomon. In the type, Rehoboam, foolish young man that he was, accepted unwise counsel, telling the Jews, “My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” (1 Kgs. 12:14). The ordinary whip for public punish­ment contained a number of leather thongs; but the scorpion used for scourging was said to have been made a more vicious instrument by adding metal beads or sharp metallic points to the leather strips. The statement by the foolish Rehoboam was well adapted to the contentions of the two camps in divided Christendom at Luther’s time, because the Catho­lic teaching of future punishment for the wicked was indeed much more moderate than the rabid Protestant claims. The Catholic teaching did attempt to take some of the sting from condemned sinners by teaching a purgatory, where they had some chance of being eventu­ally “purged” sufficiently to escape their horrible fate; but the Protestants held out no such palliative – it was either Heaven or Hell –, and was well depicted by the inscrip­tion which the celebrated Milton placed over his entrance to the final abode of the damned: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.” Thus, whereas the Papal fathers “chastised them with whips,” the Protestant leaders “chastised them with scorpions.”

 As Brother Johnson has so ably explained, there was also a rift in Protestanism itself between the Lutheran and Zwingli camps, which had its beginning in 1521; so that feature will not be elaborated here.

It should be noted that at the time preceding the Reformation, Catholi­cism had just about sunk to the bottom of the dirty barrel through the widespread sale of Indulgences by the loathsome John Tetzel. Yet at that very same time they were issuing their “great swelling words” – they were occupying the “Chair of St. Peter,” all the while their teach­ings were choked with error in so many places. Even their stewardship doctrine, “There is but one true Church,” was sullied and distorted by their application of it. And such similar wrongs we should expect to find in the Evil Epiphany Solomon – although on a much smaller scale, of course. These evils we expect to itemize and elaborate in due course; but for the present we shall consider just an outstanding few,

 In our March 27, 1956 writing we have already identified R. G. Jolly’s modern improved sale of Indulgences. In addition, his claim to be sitting in the “Chair of St. Peter” is to be found on a small scale by his statement on page 87, col. 1, par. 1 of the November 1955 Present Truth:

“Brother Johnson controlled fully the LHMM until the day of his death, even as we (R.G.Jolly) now so control it.”

Brother Johnson organized and controlled the LHMM absolutely; he could not be deposed as its Executive, because only the Lord and he himself had established him in his position. But R. G. Jolly was voted into the office of Executive Trustee by the brethren in Convention assembled; and he could be deposed in like manner – a thing that was not possible with Brother Johnson. Therefore, his claim of “controlling fully the LHMM,” as Brother Johnson had controlled it, is simply brazen usurpation and power grasping; and it is here apropos to quote a section from E:4-277 (bottom) and p. 278:

 “In every case of Great Company leaders they have been guilty of power-grasping and lording. When we pass them one after another in review we will see this to be the case. From first to last they want more than the Lord gives them; hence under Satanic temptation they grasp for power and lord it over God’s heritage, which makes them fall under God’s disfavor.”

 Another item: The Papacy used all pressure to suppress the Bible in Luther’s time because it did not want its blind sectarian followers to know what it contained, So, also, the Evil Epiphany Solomon (R. G. Jolly) has suppressed the unpublished writ­ings of the Good Epiphany Solomon. There is certain evidence to prove he has even in­structed his “Yes-men” to juggle and falsify concerning some of those unpublished truths which the Good Epiphany Solomon gave to them verbally.

 Another instance of R. G. Jolly’s “great swelling words” is to be found in his attitude toward any who oppose him. Openly he admits he is not a member of Christ’s Body; also says he is not successor to the Epiphany Messenger. But from the other side of his mouth he claims for himself the prerogatives of the saintly and faithful Star Member. In his efforts to “make” parallels into which he fits himself, while he yells “second death” at his opponents, he seems to be completely blinded to the fact that a great change would take place once “Jesus whom thou persecutest” (Acts 9:5) is no longer on earth. Whether his opponents are still of that “Jesus,” as they claim, matters not at all for this discussion, because he himself openly confesses himself NOT to be of Him. Therefore, gainsaying a Levite (though he might even be a cleansed Levite) is a totally different situation than it was for those uncleansed Levites and Second-deathers who opposed the saintly Parousia David and the Good Epiphany Solomon. Thus, the charges he has hurled at some of his opponents can be nothing more than other “great swelling words.” More about this will appear in later writings, but it should here be recorded that his claim that none should critically appraise his “Lord’s work” is quite in tune with the edicts of the large Evil Solomon: “When I ope my lips, let no dog bark.” It is also in identical cast with That Evil Servant’s statement in the March 15, 1918 Watch Tower, as follows:

“With deep regret we here mention that the practice of some is to go about the classes and at first, by soft and smooth speech, assure the dear sheep that they have deeply the interest of the Lord’s work at heart; and then suddenly they bring a tirade against the work as the Lord is conducting it through the channel that he has used for the past forty years, Some of the dear sheep become very much disturbed, and some are shaken out. This is another evidence of the great shaking now in progress (in the same identical vein R. G. Jolly issued the proclamation that there was a “slight shaking” – See Jan. 1955 P.T., p. 10, col. 2). It would seem that any one who is loyal to the Lord and his cause and the brethren would not seek to disrupt his work; at least, if they could not see eye to eye with the manner in which it is being conducted, the proper spirit would prompt such to remain quiet or quietly to withdraw (such ‘timely’ advice by JFR and RGJ has always been given against the faithful – had Jesus followed that course He probably would not have been crucified!). Any other spirit would not seem to be the spirit of the Master.”

 The foregoing quotation from That Evil Servant has such a familiar ring to it that were one to close his eyes and hear it read he would have difficulty in dis­tinguishing it from some of the remarks in this last May 1956 Present Truth, as evidence the following from page 50, col. 2 (bottom):

 “JJH is so bent on faulting us for what he calls a ‘colossal’ failure..... Usually those who complain the most do little or nothing else than complain. Instead of putting their shoulders to the wheel, or at least not hindering progress, some even try to discourage others.”

Just as the Papacy (the large Evil Solomon) and JFR (The little Pope) plead just to be left alone so they could run riot with their sins, their errors, their usurpations and power-graspings, so the Evil Epiphany Solomon pleads with the same tune and words – “If you don’t want to help me in my evils, then at least don’t ‘find fault’ with what, I’m doing; just let me proceed placidly in the footsteps of my soulmates of the past,’’ This is the course he is still pursuing, as evidence his treatment of certain Trinidad brethren in 1962.

 In keeping with the above, mention should be made of his self-sufficient course after he took office as Executive Trustee. Never once did he call a general meeting of the Pilgrims to discuss the situation. Had he possessed even a small amount of the Good Epiphany Solomon’s “spirit of a sound mind,” he would have realized that “In multitude of counsel there is safety.” Had he followed this sage advice, he could at least have reposed in the assurance that his mistakes were not fully his own, but were the result of combined and considered deliberation. Of course, the path he has taken would yield to him all the glory of success, just as it also places at his feet the full ignominy for his failures. Just as Rehoboam wanted none of the counsel of the Elders of Israel, but chose the rash advice of young and inexperienced men, so the Evil Solomon chose rather the opinions of novices, a few of whom he flattered with the title of his ‘‘Advisers’’ – in reality his obedient and subservient “Yes-Men.”

 In diametrical contrast to such a foolish course, note the attitude of That Wise and Faithful Servant, when he was faced with a similar situation: “Instead of hasten­ing to spread this message before the Church, he saw that the Truth therein contained (on the sin-offerings typed in Lev. 16) was so great as to justify his first calling together in a conference the leading brethren in the Truth, who spent eight days in earnest study of the involved matters, and at the end of that time were all convinced that it was true. Then he preached on the subject before the Allegheny Church.” E:9-297, bottom.

 Had the Evil Epiphany Solomon taken just a small page from the book of wisdom of That Wise Servant in his announcement that the last Saint was gone, as well as on other subjects, and had spent days with leading brethren in their discussion, there would certainly not now be the deplorable condition we find in the LHMM. Even though he were fully right in the decisions he made as he did make them, no amount of discussion would have changed the Truth about those decisions – just as eight days of discussion by That Wise Servant with leading brethren did not detract one whit from the Truth as he finally preached it; in fact, it is quite probable that those eight days of humble and sincere discussion enlarged his understanding and reassured his conviction that the Lord had revealed to him a staggering and far-reaching truth. But R. G. Jolly’s weak­ness is so pronounced in this comparison that he not only did not assemble the leading brethren for conference, but he actually advised Pilgrim Wm. Eschrich, who up to Oct. 22, 1950 was unalterably confirmed in his belief of his own saintship, that he was not even needed at the funeral in connection with RGJ’s far-reaching decisions that were made in a few days’ time at Philadelphia – although R. G. Jolly himself admitted in his two-hour talk to the brethren assembled the evening following the burial that he had been so distraught and bewildered at Brother Johnson’s death that he did not know which way to turn (even though his announcement that the last Saint was gone was so emphatic, loud and detailed that he gave every outward appearance of “the stout heart”¾Isa. 10:12)

 But the specific charge against Solomon was that “he loved many strange (foreign) women” – a thing that was specifically forbidden to the Jews; but one which they seemed ever ready to violate. Scarcely had they left Egypt, until this weakness beset them (Num. 25). And when Solomon, the head and supposedly the example of all Israel went astray in this fashion, it is little wonder that “the Lord was angry with Solomon,” because his wives had “turned away his heart” from serving the Lord. As all Truth people know, women in the Scriptures so often type nominal churches. A classic text on this subject is Isa. 4:1, for which please see the Berean Comments. The Good Epiphany Solomon had barely departed this earth until the Evil Epiphany Solomon made quick to seek the company of the very ones so severely criticized in Isa. 4:1. A superficial observer might have concluded – from his loud and detailed “blessings” he was receiv­ing at the renegade conclaves and his fraternizing with individual pseudo “Pastors and Teachers” – that he had come upon some new and unusual situation. Odd, indeed, is it not, that The Good Epiphany Solomon never woke up to his opportunities in that direc­tion? On Jan. 18, 1954 we wrote R. G. Jolly as follows about that matter:

 ‘‘Also, during that Sales Talk (at the Chicago Convention in October, 1953) you gave some considerable oration on the great blessings you had been receiving by col­laborating with some preachers in your neighborhood – the people who have built their houses of ‘wood, hay and stubble,’ the same who will be destroyed along with their buildings in the approaching world trouble (See E:4, Epiphany Elect, page 54). And you are receiving great blessing by consorting with such!”

 His answer to the above was as follows: “I am sorry to see you of late taking such an antagonistic attitude, not only, and especially, against the teachings of Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson on Baptism, etc., but now also against it seems almost anything or everything I do.”

 He pursues this item further on page 20, col. 1 of the March 1956 Present Truth: “JJH found fault with our tract publishing; our witnessing to the Truth at non-Epiphany Truth Conventions camp meetings, churches in Babylon, etc. (though Bro. Russell and Bro, Johnson served similarly),” (It would be most interesting to have R. G. Jolly’s comment today – Aug. 1, 1962 – respecting his $5 Correspondence Course, his attendance at conglomerate Conventions, etc., which he was extolling in 1953-56–JJH)

Just a few months before he died (June 1950 P. T., page 92, Question 2), Brother Johnson had this to say about the matter:

Question: – Should the Epiphany brethren cooperate in the movement that is seeking to reunite the divided Truth people?

‘‘Answer: – Such a platform is not suitable to the Epiphany, especially so far on in the Epiphany as we now are.... Such unionism does not benefit the Faithful; rather it exposes them to needless danger and other disadvantages; and the Measurably Faithful are thereby increasingly endangered through greater exposure to the pestilence that walketh in darkness.... Its indifferentism, which compromises the Truth and more or less fellowships with error (2 Cor, 6:14) is the same as that of the combinationism sifting of the Reaping Time (1891-94), Indeed, this unionistic movement is in the Little Gospel Age the counterpart of the combinationism sifting of the large Gospel Age. This one fact should be evidence enough to Epiphany-enlightened saints of the Satanic origin of this unionistic movement.... Hence, it is a delusion for Epiphany friends to take part in such movements in the hope of helping various ones to the Epiphany Truth, just as it would have been a delusion for the reaping saints to have cooperated with Babylon’s combinationism in the hope of winning the combinationists to the Truth. Like Luther’s clean rooster whose owner put it in among some lousy hens in the hope that its cleanness would encourage the hens to become clean, only to find that it became lousy also, these will not cleanse the combinationists, but will themselves become contam­inated.”

 It would seem the above statement by Brother Johnson is clear enough for a child to understand, so it will be most interesting to know R. G. Jolly’s authority for his statement on page 20 of this March P.T, – “Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson served similarly.” Also, while he is so absorbed in “making” parallels, perhaps he would be well advised to consider the part he himself is performing in the little combinationism sifting described by Brother Johnson above. Here it is also in order to cite again. E. Vol 10, p. 401: “JFR sowed the evils of ... combinationism and many other evil qualities, and did this as an alleged service to God.”

 In E. Vol. 14, p. 5 (middle) Brother Johnson says, “Saul types the crown-lost leaders from early in the third century until Armageddon.” And, in discussing how “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul,” he makes this observation in E. Vol. 9, p. 524:

 ‘‘As the Spirit of the Lord ever led Brother Russell forward in every good word and work, so an evil spirit came upon antitypical Saul, ever plunging him into deeper errors, blunders and misdeeds.... Nor are we to understand that God directly wrought such a disposition in either Saul. Rather, as indicated in a general way in the case of reprobates, in 2 Thes. 2:9-11, the Lord withdrew his former hindrances to Satan’s machinations, and thus let the latter have free access to both Sauls.” (In the case of R. G. Jolly, ‘free access’ was not given to Satan’s machinations until the removal of Star Member Brother Johnson, who hindered Satan somewhat in his ‘machinations’ toward R. G. Jolly by continuing to give him “brotherly fellowship” and help until his death, as distinct from Priestly fellowship, which had been withdrawn from him.)

 Note Brother Johnson’s statement above, “the Lord withdraw his former hindrances to Satan’s machinations.” And what was this hindrance in the case of the leaders of the LHMM? Why, it was just what we have been contending now since early in 1954 – it was the withdrawal of the last Star Member on October 22, 1950! Thus, we could expect The Evil Epiphany Solomon to go from error to error, from blunder to blunder, and from misdeed to misdeed – exactly as we have seen him do. Having pointed out so many of his errors, blunders and misdeeds, and not wishing to have this article overly lengthy we shall not here attempt to point out his errors in the March 1954 P.T., p. 24, on “Truths Hidden in The Years of Noah’s Age,” which he brazenly labels ‘‘Advancing Truth,’’ as he has also done with others of his errors; we shall leave that for a future writing; although it is especially appropriate here.

Nor shall we analyze the enemies that “the Lord stirred up unto Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:14-40). Suffice to say they were “an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.” Gratefully can we reflect that the “days of Solomon” will come to an end in about a year, in the spring of 1957. In the meantime, the Lord may reveal further truths in connection with this matter; but we offer what has been given thus far in the hope it may bless all God’s faithful people, and accrue to His honor and glory.

FURTHER CONFIRMATIONS (Written June 15, 1962)

 We are now more than five years past the date that the reign of the Epiphany Solomon ended; and we are now in position to point out certain similarities between the large Evil Solomon (the Papacy) after 1521, and those of the small Evil Epiphany Solomon after 1957. Just as the Papacy did not pass out of existence after 1521, so we should not expect R. G. Jolly, as an individual, or as apart of antitypical Saul, or as an uncleansed Levite leader in Little Babylon, etc., to pass out of existence after the spring of 1957 –.although both of them ceased in their Solomon antitypes after. 1521 and 1957, respectively. Now we ‘‘wait upon the Lord” to reveal clearly – before making positive proclamation – whether R. G. Jolly is in fact fulfilling much more serious and conclusive pictures that will determine his eternal status in the Great Eternal Purpose. We do not adopt this course through vacillation; instead, it is not our wish to be found among those who say in their hearts, ‘‘my Lord delayeth.” (1 Sam. 13:8-13

In the Foreword of E-13 Brother Johnson said he hoped to add a chapter treating of the Epiphany Solomon. This the Lord prevented by removing him in death – and wisely so, because he most certainly could not have seen what we now present; therefore, such attempt by him would almost certainly have been intermingled with mistakes – just as is true of some of his observations re 1954-56.

 However, the stentorian protest of the Fully Faithful Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and others did force a certain outward reformation of the evil Papacy. Their protestations became so determined, accentuated and expansive that the Papacy was forced to ban further sale of Indulgences in the year 1562 at the Great Reform Council of Trent.

 But it should here be stressed that their reform was in no way that “godly sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation” (2 Cor. 7:10); it was merely the “sorrow of the world which worketh death.” That they were still the same at heart –although offering some outward reformation to secure “the praise of men” – is clearly attested by their terrible persecution of the Huguenots in France in 1685, when “persecution raged with the utmost violence, thousands of churches were torn down, vast numbers of confessors were tortured, or sent to the galleys,” causing many to flee to the wilds of the Cevennes and “at last exterminated by an army at least ten times their strength.” Already on August 27, 1572 (just ten years after the Council’s condemnation of indulgences) had the persecu­tion of these staunch Protestants been accentuated by the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day in France, at which time the gutters actually ran with blood of the slaughtered ‘heretics! – “in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents”-­Jer. 2:34.

 And so also with the Evil Epiphany Solomon (deceased as such since 1957), he has been forced by stress of circumstances and the continued exposures of his evils to evidence some measure of reformation, though manifesting no real reforma­tion of heart. Among the reforms he (R.G.Jolly) has been forced to recognize may be listed:

1. He has reversed the use of his own selected texts for testimony meetings at Conventions – without Star-member comments – and has returned to those contained in the Manna book, with Star-Member Comments.

2. He is no longer refer­ring to the tracts for Antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle as “timeworn and threadbare,” while praising his own flimsy Flying Saucer tract. The clear revelations of the time itself have had much to do with this, of course.

3.  He no longer uses prepared lists of names for his Convention testimony meetings to be sure no one other than his staunch supporters should be heard.

4. There is no longer anything at all heard about the Queen of Sheba Class, a topic that was widely, and profusely discussed in the Spring of 1954. Often was the expression heard among his trusting adherents – “Isn’t it wonderful that we will now proceed to fill the Epiphany Camp with the Queen of Sheba Class?” Be it noted that in some of those very Ecclesias which were loudly voicing such sentiments there are now fewer attendants than there were in 1954. Furthermore, with the passing of the Solomon pic­ture in 1957, it would be straining matters in the extreme to discuss further such a Class coming to the Epiphany Solomon, since that Solomon is long dead. Not even the writings of the good Epiphany Solomon, who died in 1950 are receiving any special recognition by such a Class. It should be clear enough by now that there can be only one other application of that type, and that is the large Millennial application pro­vided for us by That Servant; whereas, time itself has clearly proven that the views of R. G. Jolly re the queen of Sheba class were simply some more of his “foolish effusions.” (See E:10-591)

 There is one other feature of this Solomon picture yet to be explained; and we hope to present it to our readers “in due time”; but for now we humbly and thankfully acknowledge the Grace of our Beloved Lord for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit which still works according to His promise “to guide you into all Truth.’’ ‘‘Beloved, I pray above all things that thou mayest prosper (spiritually) and be in health.” (3 John 2)



QUESTION: – If the sun now reaches the Vernal Equinox in Pisces, instead of it Aries, as it did in Jesus’ day, would that change your conclusion about the correct date for the Memorial in 1962?

ANSWER: – No, not at all! In E:7-366 Brother Johnson states, ‘‘The Jews’ festivals were fixed to the seasons of the year, e.g., the Passover in the Spring.” Therefore, it is clear enough that it is the season, and not the Zodiac, that determines when the Passover should be kept. Therefore, when Josephus wrote in Jesus’ day that they kept the Passover ‘‘when the sun is in Aries,” it was tantamount to saying the Passover must be kept after the Vernal Equinox – in the Spring. This year the “Cousins” kept the Memorial of the festival in the Winter; and that is why the Jews did not use the March moon, as did Jolly-Krewson, because they knew the festival is a Spring festival, and not a Winter festival. By accepting this simple explanation, it will be readily apparent that not only the Passover itself (Nisan 14) would occur in the Spring, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread would also be observed in the Spring – even though the latter might at times extend into Jyar (or Zif) – the second month of the Jewish calendar. That is why Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both stressed that our Memorial must never be kept before the Vernal Equinox. This rule we accept; and that rule forced us then to use the April moon this year which came new on April 4, bringing the proper time for Nisan 14 after 6 p.m. April 17, at which time we kept the Memorial.

It is appropriate observation here that the Scriptures describe the Jews as a “stubborn and a stiffnecked people”; but this sometimes adverse quality has kept them in the Truth on the Passover festival as a Spring Festival – one which they would under no circumstances observe in the Winter. However, it is not for God’s fully faithful people to be “stubborn and stiffnecked,” as it was that very quality which led to King Saul’s rejection by the Lord (I Sam. 15:23): “Stubbornness is iniquity (disharmony with justice) and idolatry (inordinate conceit).” We wish to repeat what was stated in our July paper, that innocent and uninformed use of the wrong Memorial date is not a grave offense. We ourselves had already written up the wrong date for 1962, but proceeded immediately to investigate thoroughly once it was directed to our attention; and we are grateful to the Lord, and to the brother, that we were directed to the clear and correct understanding of the subject. But, if we are correctly informed, the mistake was brought King Saul “stubbornness,” and his subsequent reviling of us as he “stubbornly” clings to his error, that we fault in this matter. He “rejected the word of the Lord” (I Sam. 15:23); therefore, “the Lord hath also rejected thee,” and will continue to reject him until he cleanses himself of his stubbornness and other evil qualities (such as railing against the Fully Faithful in the case of Brother Roach of Trinidad, et al) that he may “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness,” Therefore, this defeat over the correct Memorial date is just one more defeat and humiliation for antitypical Saul, of whom R. G. Jolly is a part. (See our paper No. 76 A, Nov. 1, 1961.



Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be multiplied!

 We, the friends of the Trinidad Ecclesia, do extend our sincere thanks to you for your recent visit to us. We can assure you, dear brethren, that we were very much helped by your encouragement, and our only regret was that your stay could not have been longer. Your visit was indeed very timely, when we consider the test we were going through. Your exhortations, and refutations of the errors now prevalent, were most inspiring.

 Keep up the good work, and may the Heavenly Father continue to use you as He sees fit. Most of us have received your articles and find them very enlightening. I trust you will continue sending them. Our special love to all the friends over there.

            Yours by His Grace, Sister ------- Secretary-Treas. TRINIDAD


Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian greetings to you and yours!

 My pen nor tongue can express my overflowing joy when I received and read your article of June 1st. It certainly expresses God’s love toward His faithful people – also the characteristics of His Fully Faithful.

 I trust that the attitude of our dear Brother Roach toward R.G.Jolly for the defense of the Truth will bring blessings not only to the dear ones in Trinidad, but to others elsewhere. Certainly God will prove us whether we love the Lord with all the soul, mind and strength. We here are still fighting. As for me, I am determined to wage a relentless warfare to the end of my course, with the Lord’s help.

My prayers for you and the dear ones with you are “Be thou faithful unto death...”

Yours by His Grace, Brother ------- JAMAICA


Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving greetings in our Redeemer’s Name!

 Your June 1 paper has been received. I can hardly express the joy and blessing I have received when I read it – to see how God’s word is revealing Satan’s errors and his agencies who are trying to entrap God’s people. We know that those who receive the Truth ‘in the love of it,’ God will not suffer the evil one to take them from Him. Psa. 91:1. I had in mind that Brother Roach would come to see the condi­tion. When he was leaving here I had a glimpse of him, and seeing he was an elderly man I said, “What a pity; no doubt he was from Parousia days.” I had a talk with Sister Condell. She said she had written to him.

 A few days before I received your paper I was looking over my books and found Feb. 1, 1949 Present Truth where Brother Johnson treats on seven salvations. Now R. G. Jolly has really separated and brought the sons into the Gospel Age. We pity his condition. If he were obedient to the words of God given through the Star Members he would not have been in Satan’s trap. He will reap what he has sown. When he brought out his Epiphany Campers Consecrated class I could not see where he got it. But as a Brother said (who is now dead) while we were conversing, that it is the sons of Joel 2:28 that he is bringing over into this Gospel Age as his “consecrated campers “

 R.G. Jolly said in one Convention that he would not be like Rutherford, but I’m sorry to say he has been like him in every step of the way. In one of Rutherford’s Conventions it wore down my spirit to see him sell in the Convention his “Millions Now Living” booklet Bro. Russell never advocated such money-making. We have to thank the Lord for you, dear Brother... With much Christian love for you and the dear ones with you.                

Yours by His Grace, Sister ------- JAMAICA