My dear Brethren! – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
On p. 58 of this July‑August 1961 Present Truth the above caption heads some comments by R. G. Jolly in which he once more refers to us as using the “trickery of a shyster lawyer”; and in this he once more validates Brother Johnson's description of him as a “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser.” So, when he refers to “special trials that have come since 1954,” we repeat that many of these trials are directly chargeable to R. G. Jolly himself
On p. 60, top of col. 2, he makes comment on the two periods of the Epiphany that “concern God's people,” the first of which he describes as “the time in which the Priesthood deals with Azazel's Goat, and (2) the time in which the Priesthood deals with the cleansed Levites.” As R. G. Jolly well knows, Brother Johnson never at any time before his death referred even to those Levites in the Epiphany Movement as anything other than “good Levites,” as a class, for whose cleansing he was earnestly yearning. As late as 1943 he clearly stated that R. G. Jolly was not to be counted among the “cleansed Levites.” Therefore, will R. G. Jolly please tell us how and at what time prior to October 1950 “the Priesthood dealt with the cleansed Levites.” This should be no problem at all for him if he is right in the article we are now reviewing. And did Brother Johnson deal with these “cleansed”(?) Levites as a class before the Truths thereon were clarified and cleansed (before the Mother of the Daughter was purified’)? We have repeatedly confronted him with similar questions on this matter; and his only retort is his customary “false-accusing” name‑calling. And we may be certain he won't answer it this time either! If his 1954 conclusions are correct, they should certainly fit in exactly with the things that were accomplished by that date; that is, there should be some tangible physical evidence to support him. And his failure to analyze this crux of this entire system of his teaching will be sufficient to convince all truly‑enlightened Epiphany Truth people of his true condition and character.
We direct attention to another item as a perfect companion to the foregoing, the same being found on p. 30 of his March 1955 Present Truth; and we quote his Question and Answer with some bracketed comments:
Question: – Do any unconsecrated ones remain in, and do additional ones enter, the tentatively‑justified condition since Sept. 16, 1954?
Answer: – Until the Ransom merit is applied on behalf of the world, and restitution, which brings actual justification (emphasis by JJH), begins, tentative justification (see E Vol. 4, pp. 341‑352 for details on this subject) will be given to believers as a prerequisite to their being acceptable to God in consecration (Rom. 5:1,2; 12:1). In E Vol. 4, p. 346, par. 1, we read that “the doctrine of Tentative Justification as operating from the time of Abel, Enoch, and Noah (Heb. 11:4‑7), UNTIL RESTITUTION BEGINS (emphasis by R. G. Jolly) is a Scriptural one... As long as Rom. 4:1‑25, etc. remain parts of the Bible, that doctrine will stand.” Thus tentative justification made the pre‑Gospel‑Age seed eligible to an earthly feature of the Oath‑bound Covenant (YES, it made them eligible for an elect class – NOT FOR THE QUASI‑ELECT – Nor was it for the purpose of making it possible for the non‑elect, or Restitutionists, to consecrate before the New Covenant is inaugurated – JJH), as is shown in Rom. 4:10,11,13,14,16. (Note: When Brother Johnson said “From the time of Abel, Enoch, and Noah” he was specifically speaking of the elect classes (four elect classes selected) – in this instance of the Ancient Worthies! – JJH). This becomes clearer when we understand that to Abraham circumcision came after (Emphasis by R. G. Jolly) justification, as the latter's seal; for in the Scriptures circumcision is used to type consecration (Rom. 2:28,29). Thus Abraham's circumcision, symbolizing his consecration, naturally would come after his justification by faith, sealing it to him. Likewise, throughout the Gospel Age, until the initial beginning of the Basileia (emphasis by JJH) on Sept. 16, 1954, tentative justification has been a prerequisite to be acceptable to God in consecration during that time thereby setting a seal on their justification, so that it did not lapse for Gospel‑Age elective purposes (emphasis by R. G. Jolly). “Consecration is always in order” (E Vol. 4, P. 420); (Note: Yes, 'in order' during the Gospel Age after they came into the court! And such consecrations – of Quasi‑elect, or Restitutionists – will be _in order’ in their “due time” – when ACTUAL JUSTIFICATION can be obtained under the New Covenant Arrangements, and not before, as was claimed by J. F. Rutherford, and now by R. G. Jolly! – JJH) – hence it continues after Sept. 16, 1954; and, as a prerequisite to consecration “until restitution begins,” tentative justification must therefore also continue. (Yes, in the Epiphany Court, the proper place for tentative justification. – JJH) While, therefore, as stated in the answer to the previous question, we understand that after Sept. 16, 1954 no more persons remain in, nor thereafter enter, the tentatively‑justified condition for Gospel‑Age elective purposes, i.e., as a step toward membership in one of God's elect classes (emphasis by R. G. Jolly), we nevertheless believe that persevering faithful justified ones will remain in, and additional ones will enter into, the tentative‑justified condition for Epiphany Camp purposes, i.e., as a step toward becoming Consecrated Campers. (Note: R. G. Jolly calls them Epiphany Campers consecrated – yet he says it is due to the Basileia having its initial beginning, making it possible for Epiphany Campers to consecrate! Why not Basileia Campers? In the overlapping of the Parousia Period into the Epiphany period, were we not actually in the Epiphany Period from 1914 onward –with the Parousia overlapping as necessary for the gleaning, etc.? We know the Epiphany Period and the Time of Trouble as one and the same is Scripturally true; but during R. G. Jolly's “period” the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are not one and the same, as the main features of the Time of Trouble are still future – to be undergone in his Basileia “initial beginning.” – JJH) It would seem, therefore, that those tentatively‑justified ones who consecrate after Sept. 16, 1954 and before restitution begins, and thus become Consecrated Epiphany Campers, by their consecration set a seal upon their tentative justification (emphasis by JJH), so that it will not lapse for Epiphany Camp purposes. (Note: But Brother Johnson distinctly teaches that those who are remanded to the Epiphany Camp are those whose tentative justification have _lapsed’ – lapsed for any purpose during the Gospel Age, except as they retain their character development for Millennial‑Age purposes. So those whose Tentative Justification do NOT LAPSE, are the faithful YOUTHFUL WORTHIES IN THE COURT! – that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the UNconsecrated. – JJH)
It will be noted that R. G. Jolly was quite emphatic, even in March 1955 (and we would suggest that his readers meditate upon R.G.J.'s 1955 presentation and compare with his present‑day teaching on tentative‑justification operating during the Kingdom – and compare with J. F. Rutherford's course of changing one fundamental teaching of That Servant’ after another to fit his new views – errors) – that he was in full agreement with Brother Johnson and his teaching that “tentative justification operates until restitution begins.” He has now rejected that Truth, replacing it with his “advancing(?) truth” that tentative justification will continue all during the Kingdom reign. Is he now telling us that he and Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were all wrong in their previous teaching that tentative justification is a “faith” justification – that the Lord has elected him, a Levite abandoned to Azazel in 1950, to correct a teaching which by all viewpoints should have been cleansed of all error in all ways by 1954? Or is this just another of his “mud splashes” that have been responsible for many of the “special trials that have come since 1954”? This one point in itself should be plenty to convince even a beginner (an honest beginner) of R. G. Jolly's UNRELIABILITY as a Truth teacher!
Here is another clear statement from Brother Johnson re tentative justification: “When this (Gospel) Age ends Christ's merit will cease to be an imputable thing,” (E‑11:170, bottom). Will R. G. Jolly explain his position relative to the above, or will we merely hear more name‑calling from him? Before he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950 he firmly believed the Truth on tentative justification we are here quoting from the Epiphany Messenger. Also, on p. 183: “Faith justification operates only during the Gospel Age.”
He goes into quite some detail – and correctly so – on p. 58, col. 1 about the trials that came at the first and second Advents, which trials stumbled the Measurably Faithful and the complete outcasts, as they were contemporaneously a source of strength to the Fully Faithful. But Jesus Himself set forth the method by which the Fully Faithful would “know the Truth” in his answer to John's disciples who had been sent to ask, “Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear (His teachings) and see (His works).” – Matt. 11:2‑6 In those things they “heard and saw” Jesus did not contradict Himself, as R. G. Jolly has now done on his tentative justification bungle. (Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company, says Brother Johnson.) In this, of course he has gone to the other extreme of That Evil Servant. The latter eliminated tentative justification entirely as a Gospel‑Age teaching; whereas, R. G. Jolly says it will carry right on beyond the Gospel Age and into the Millennial reign – just as he claims it has now been enlarged to include his Epiphany Campers. As said, this should be enough for even a beginner to accurately calculate R. G. Jolly's capacity as a Truth teacher. Of course, he's been forced into this bungling reversal of his own approval of Brother Johnson's truthful exposition on tentative justification by the acceptance of his error on Consecrated Epiphany Campers (his false doctrine handed to him by J. W. Krewson and NOT BY THE EPIPHANY MESSENGER!) – just as Brother Johnson predicted of those who fall into Azazel's hands.
Referring again to his p. 60, col. 2 (top), he offers E‑10:10/108 as a reference in proof of his 1954 contention. On p. 103 of that very reference – R. G. Jolly's own citation to prove his position – there is this:
“The nominal‑church foolish virgins, by varied experiences ... coming into the Truth during 1954‑1956.”
Would the merest babe in the Truth contend that prediction occurred by 1956, or even yet has occurred in 1961 – seven years after the “initial beginning” of R. G. Jolly's Basileia? We may be certain R. G. Jolly's only answer to this will be some more of his cheap name‑calling!
When 1914 arrived there was abundant physical visible evidence to substantiate that date. When 1954 arrived, there was not one single item of physical visible evidence to support that date. As an evidence of R. G. Jolly's chagrin and desperation in having just nothing to support his “Attestatorial Service,” we recall his jubilation and loud “loquacious foolish effusions” (Brother Johnson's description of him) in October 1956, when he shouted forth his claims about England‑France‑Israel moving against Egypt “RIGHT ON TIME.” But, after a little reflection, and when that move collapsed completely in the downfall of England's Prime Minister Eden, even R. G. Jolly saw how ludicrous had been his exultation – and it has never been mentioned since. And that is the nearest he has ever come to producing any physical visible support for 1954‑56. When the true Pastors and Teachers made a mistake, they humbly admitted it; when R. G. Jolly makes a mistake he just covers it up with another mistake (just as did J. F. Rutherford), knowing many of his readers have very short memories – following in the footsteps of That Evil Servant instead of in the footsteps of the Two Messengers (Star Members).
He makes quite some play on Lev. 12, as respects the developing truths for the Little Flock and the Great Company. We are in full agreement with Brother Johnson's interpretation of that Scripture; but there's just nothing in that picture that even hints at a termination of the Epiphany in any sense whatever by the end of that 80 years. In fact, all of us certainly realize that Tentative Justification is a teaching here in the end of the Age that has to do with the development of all New Creatures; it was fully purified of all error by the last two Star Members. But R. G. Jolly now has the impudence to tell us it has been necessary for him – an uncleansed Levite – to offer some changes in that truth; although the very type upon which he himself now leans disputes his error in full. Every face‑saving attempt he has made has only made more manifest to truly enlightened Epiphany Truth people his pitiful paucity of clear reasoning on fundamental Truth, as he resorts to “loquacious foolish effusions” and name‑calling as a prop for his bungling.
RESPECTING GENESIS 26
In corroboration of the statement immediately above, we refer to R. G. Jolly's Genesis article on pages 52‑55. So long as he adheres to Brother Johnson the article is superb; but, when the Jolly “logic” is injected, then the Azazelian bungling comes hand in hand. At top of p. 55, col. 1, he says the “justified humanity, as pictured in Azazel's Goat” perishes in the wilderness. In a following paper we shall treat this in further detail – giving Brother Johnson's true explanation; but for present purposes we ask what is typified by the “wilderness”? We have repeatedly stressed that in the Tabernacle and kindred pictures a place types a condition in the antitype. Apparently this has not even yet registered with R. G. Jolly, or he would not offer his nonsense on the subject.
Let us assume a member of the Philadelphia Ecclesia being abandoned to Azazel: Does such a person actually go off into the literal wilderness, as did Miriam in Numbers 12? No, of course NOT! That person would continue to live in the same house, follow his same secular occupation, and be the same person from all worldly viewpoints. The only change in his status would be the withdrawal of “all brotherly help and favor” from him by the Fully Faithful; he would be disfellowshiped. But this would be known only to those in the Truth who were familiar with his case. Thus, his “justified humanity” would be only moderately affected, but certainly would not “perish” – although his “fleshly mind” would be badly pummeled and eventually “destroyed” if he were properly exercised by his “unfavorable circumstances.” We shall have more on this matter in a subsequent paper; and we ask our readers' indulgence as we direct attention to R. G. Jolly's claim at bottom of col. 1, p. 55, that he is one of “the cleansed Great Company” being used “exclusively to bring forth advancing Truth.” His understanding of the item just discussed is a splendid proof of just how “cleansed” he is and what kind of “advancing Truth” he is presenting! What he is speaks so loudly we can't hear what he says!
In R. G. Jolly we have just one more living Epiphany illustration of what occurred after the Apostles passed away. As the Roman Church grew, it injected one error after another – just as R. G. Jolly is now perverting tentative justification in its time and place features – all the while saying they were following and preserving the Truth as passed to them by St. Peter. R. G. Jolly and other leaders in Little Babylon all vociferously and with profusion of words claim they are adhering to and upholding the Truth as given by That Servant, although they do just the reverse in actual practise, R. G. Jolly now adding the Epiphany Messenger to his “authority” for his perversions (Azazel means Perverter). Brother Johnson taught – in harmony with Brother Russell – to the day of his death that tentative justification ceases to operate when the Gospel Age ceases, and is typed by the Tabernacle Court. This R. G. Jolly now rejects, all the while he repeats, repeats, repeats how he is upholding the Epiphany Messenger's teachings. Brother Johnson accused That Evil Servant of giving Brother Russell the “Judas kiss” by such chicanery.
“The Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth. The Lord preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down. He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto him. Praise ye the Lord.” Psalms 145:18; 146:9; 148:14 –
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST
QUESTION: – You have offered much criticism of Evangelists. Do you consider that office unworthy of respect?
ANSWER: – It is certainly not our wish to discount Evangelists in general. Eph. 4:11 clearly states that our Lord “gave some evangelists... for the work of the ministry”; and St. Paul admonished Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.” (2 Tim. 4:5) It would seem that the evangelistic office is a step above that of local elders, so any praise due elders would apply to evangelists with added emphasis. In 1 Tim. 3:1, 2 St. Paul states, “If a man desireth the office of a bishop (elder), he desireth a good work ... must be blameless..of good behavior.... apt to teach”; and Titus 1:9, “he should be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” – all of which would also apply to evangelists.
Our comments respecting one evangelist appointed by Brother Johnson (J. W. Krewson) have been actuated by his power‑grasping, his irresponsible talk, his inability to present “sound doctrine,” and his failure to “do the work of an evangelist” as Brother Johnson intended he should do. What we have said concerning him would be equally applicable to any General Elder, or lesser officer in the Church, if they resorted to his distortions and perversions. But to all evangelists of Brother Johnson's appointment, who hold his memory in loving respect, we would once more offer St, Paul's appeal with double emphasis now: “Do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry”!
LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST
Our dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!
Your kind letters received and both much appreciated. Thanks! It is real good to have a few words from time to time, although we are sure you must have little time nowadays on account of the increasing demands made upon you in the Lord's service – with the preparation of your carefully written articles to help the Truth brethren in particular to see matters aright – and to prove who is manifesting their faithfulness to all the teachings the dear Lord has given us through His last two Star Members; and also those who are so guilty of repudiating and perverting the “Word of God,” as well as breaking the Lord's arrangements which are surely intended to bind us together in faithfulness and obedience to Him and to one another in Christian love and service.
We received your No. 74 issue... which like all the others contains ever so much food for thought....... You convincingly prove to us all just how antitypical “Hiram is safer with the Ass, than the Ass is with Hiram.” How very true indeed is this saying, when we recall Bro. Johnson's statements that the “Ass” types.Truth Teachings, and that “Hiram” types R.G.J.
Sincerely your Brother & Sister ---------- ENGLAND