My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
Having attended the Chicago Convention October 28-30, we are once more moved to examine the “abominations that were done there.” (Ezek. 9:4) Quite a few of the speakers again stressed 1954 – without offering even the minutest evidence that marked 1954 in any way whatever. Therefore, we now offer further comment on
Rev. 22:10, 11: Here is the interpretation Brother Johnson gave for this text: “He that is unjust (the tentatively justified, who are not actually justified, not just), let him be unjust still (remain tentatively justified, and not consecrate); and he that is filthy (the impenitent sinners, who in no sense are clean), let him be filthy still (remain in his then condition); and he that is righteous (Levites of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, who, being in the Court, are righteous), let him be righteous still; and he that is holy (Priests are holy, since they are in the Holy), let him be holy still.”
“Certainly, when we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel-Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent, for the tentatively justified and sinners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of v. 11 be given, but, of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to continue faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”
We are in complete accord with the foregoing; but we would emphasize that this Scripture is a composite text, by which we mean part of it cannot apply in 1954, with the other parts of it applying in later years. If any one part of it applied in 1954, then all of it was fulfilled then. If every part of it did not apply at 1954, then none of it did. Thus, we inquire: Is there a Truth person anywhere – even of those deep in the clutches of Azazel – who would be so ridiculous as to claim that all of Rev. 22:10,11 was fulfilled in 1954? We doubt that any of them will champion such a view. Therefore, any attempt to apply the text piecemeal places such persons under the condemnation of St. Peter’s words: “And reckon the patience of our Lord as Salvation; even as our beloved Brother Paul, according to the wisdom imparted to him, wrote to you; as also in All his Epistles, speaking in them concerning these things; in which some things are hard to be understood; which the uninstructed and Unstable (all crown-losers are unstable—See Jas. 1:8) PERVERT (Azazel means Perverter), as also the other Scriptures, to Their Own Destruction (2 Pet. 3:15-16, Dia.) Such vagary can only result in extreme humiliation and chagrin (the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” of the “unprofitable servant”—See Matt. 25:30; also Berean Comments: “Unprofitable servant – The Great Company class... Into outer darkness.... The darkness common to and resting upon the whole world of mankind .... Gnashing of teeth.... Sorrow, Disappointment and chagrin in every sense”. And we offer our opinion that such humiliation is rapidly approaching – much nearer than many may believe.
Insofar as R. G. Jolly has thus far declared himself, he has attempted to eliminate only entrance into the Court for new Youthful Worthies, having stated several tines that the door to the Court is closed only for entrance, but not for ejection of those who are there. But Rev. 22:10,11 clearly states that when none can come into Court justification, then “he that is filthy, let him be filthy still” – that is, remain in his unjustified condition. But, as his “double mind” so often does, he just reverses this whole situation: He is now making pronounced effort toward “the filthy” to bring them into justification. Yes, the “unstable” do “pervert” just about everything they touch!
All classes of the text “remain” where they are when the text really applies. But, has R. G. Jolly said anything about the Great Company “remaining” where they are – no chance of the second-death for them? Or, has he said one word about Youthful Worthies “remaining” in their standing at 1954? Of course, this latter question makes much of his present teaching self-evident nonsense; because his Youthful Worthy “sifters” (?) did not even put in a public appearance until 1955 – a full year after he had closed his entrance into the Court. As Brother Johnson so ably analyzed: When these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. We must remember that these crown-losers – even though they were crown-losers before being made manifest as such – were not ejected from the Holy until they openly revolutionized and were thus manifested. The same would probably apply to unfaithful Youthful Worthies. They may have lost their favor with God long before they are manifested as such; but, they would not be ejected from the Court until they are manifested by their revolutionism.
Also, Brother Johnson’s teaching on Rev. 22:10,11, when its fulfillment would come, would be for the faithful remaining on earth to exhort and encourage each other to “continue in the faith” – to finish their course with joy. If, as R. G. Jolly now claims, the saints have all left the earth, it would leave then only the cleansed Great Company and good Youthful Worthies in the picture – to help each other to remain faithful, while allowing the “filthy” to “remain filthy still.” Self-evidently, the vast majority of the Great Company have as yet not even recognized themselves, much less have they made any visible effort at Class cleansing. The Holy, too, is empty – has been empty since 1950, according to his claims.
FURTHER HIDEOUS EISEGESIS
There was one candidate for immersion; and R. G. Jolly stressed to that young man that Jesus’ merit is now imputed to him for justification – at the same time informing him that he is in the Epiphany Camp. While he did not directly say so, the only conclusion to be drawn is that he now has Christ divided between the Court and the Camp. It seems unbelievable that any one schooled in the sober teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson could swallow such interpretational humbug! It is contrary to all logic, and directly contradictory of the teachings of both Star Members who repeatedly taught that the MERIT is on EMBARGO IN THE COURT until all the elect have finished their courses on earth. It is a fitting parallel of the Vexation experienced by Jeremiah: “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” (Jer. 5:31) Yes, the “end thereof” will be a sorry spectacle indeed!
Note now Brother Johnson’s explanation of the double (folded) curtain on the front of the Tabernacle (E-4:344): “As we are aware, every important feature of God’s plan, illustrative from the standpoint of the At-one-ment, is symbolized in connection with the Tabernacle; hence the lord has taken care to symbolize Tentative and Vitalized Justification by that curtain of the goats’ hair (Ex. 26:7-9) which was doubled ‘in the forefront of the Tabernacle,’ the part visible to those in the Court typing Tentative Justification, and the part visible to those in the Holy typing Vitalized Justification. The following considerations will make this clear. The covering badger (seal) skins, clearly visible to those in the camp, types The Christ as they appear to the world, i.e., as unattractive and repulsive. The rams’ skins dyed red, hidden under the first covering, represent the merit of Jesus’ humanity. The ten curtains of goats’ hair covered by the rams’ skins dyed red represent the justified humanity of the Church as covered by Christ’s merit. The eleventh, the uncovered curtain, i.e., that which was doubled ‘in the forefront of the Tabernacle,’ represents not the Church’s justified humanity, but Justification by faith, the part (as stated above) visible to those in the court typing Tentative Justification, and the part visible to those in the Holy typing Vitalized Justification. The linen curtains type The Christ as new creatures, in whom as such there is no sin (1 Pet. 2:22; Rom. 8:1-4; 1 John 3:6,9). This curtain as doubled was first antitypically brought to our attention in the Tower of Dec. 15, 1909, in the article on the Wedding Garment, and was repeatedly so brought to our attention since that time, by the true channel for the seasonal meat, our dear Pastor, in the distinction between Tentative and Vitalized Justification; but the part visible in the antitypical court is now denied by the counterfeit channel (just as it is denied by the present leadership of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement – although not denied completely, as did JFR, but PERVERTED just as he has perverted other vital doctrines to accommodate the present “strange fire” – false doctrine – of Epiphany Campers Consecrated—JJH) for giving seasonal meat to the priests, which, as a corporation, was the true channel for the work of the antitypical Mahlite Merarites.”
If those in the Court saw the front side of the curtain as an evidence of their tentative justification, just what does the Camper now see as an evidence of his Justification? And, If “every important feature of God’s plan” is symbolized in the Tabernacle, let R. G. Jolly tell us where his Campers Consecrated is symbolized there. And let us not forget that that curtain bespeaks the same meaning in both the Gospel Age and Epiphany Tabernacles, the latter of which is still operating.
In violent difference to R. G. Jolly’s present contention, Brother Johnson stated in Volume E-4 that those forced from the Court into the Camp automatically lose their tentative justification for consecration for this Gospel Age – or until the New Covenant is operative. But the present leader of the LHMM now reverses that – he’s giving them tentative justification in the Camp, instead of taking it from them.
Here is Brother Johnson’s conclusion:
“The Youthful Worthies, of course, are not of the New Creature Household of Faith, because they are not new creatures. But from the standpoint of having ‘the faith of Abraham’ (Gal. 3:7,9) they are, of course, like him, of the Household of Faith. They are among the believers referred to under (2). They are however, somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith, having used the grace of God in vain; while the former, consecrating and proving faithful, retain their Tentative Justification, and are thus of the Gospel-Age Household of Faith who persist into and during the Epiphany.” (E-4:406)
As to R. G. Jolly’s false teaching about the Miriam class and HIS Epiphany Campers Consecrated, let us consider Brother Johnson’s teaching in E-ll:293 (published in 1948): “Accordingly, for the Millennium and the Little Season Aaron types the Ancient and Youthful Worthies as the mouthpiece of the Christ among men. Hence the prophetess, Miriam, coupled with Aaron in v. 20 as his sister, suggests that mouthpieces subordinate to the Ancient and Youthful Worthies are typed by Miriam. We know that believing Jews who in the Old Testament times were not faithful enough for Ancient Worthiship, nor in the Gospel Age faithful enough to be transferred from Moses into Christ, and that believing Gentiles during the Gospel Age who while faithful unto death (or until ejected from the Court in the finished picture—JJH) in justification, did not consecrate, will constitute a class of saved ones distinct from the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles of pre-Millennial times who will become faithful restitutionists. Such pre-Millennial believing Jews and Gentiles are the sons of Joel 2:28 and Is. 60:4 ......
“The unconsecrated but faithful tentatively justified of the Gospel Age undergo similar experiences for similar reasons, which also manifests the same glorious graces; for these and the believing Jews will be associated as the FIFTH ELECT CLASS in a Millennial World-wide work, hence their similar preparation for that work.” (E-12:187,188—Published In 1949)
In the face of all this, R. G. Jolly has the impudence of Azazel in his false claims – especially in his explanation that Brother Johnson and That Servant both meant that there would be Youthful Worthies “until Restitution sets in”; that there probably would be Youthful Worthies on up to Jacob’s Trouble! But here is what they taught:
“But the two articles flatly contradict one another, that of Z ‘l8, 355-357 plainly affirming, and that of Z ‘20, 21-28, flatly denying our dear Pastor’s thought that those who consecrating and proving faithful in the interval between the close of the General Call in 1881 and the inauguration of the earthly phase of the Kingdom, and finding no crowns available for themselves, will become associated in reward and service with the Ancient Worthies in the Kingdom.” (E-4:337)
“If our dear readers will keep in mind that The Tower’s denial of Tentative Justification during this Age is the foundation of its rejecting the Scriptural doctrine that those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Restitution sets in, for whom there are no crowns available, and hence no Spirit-begetting for Gospel-Age purposes possible, will be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service, they will be able by Scriptural, reasonable and factual thinking completely to overthrow every argument that the article under review presents to defend its thesis.” (E-4:342)
And if the lord’s people will “continue in what they have learned (from the faithful Pastors and Teachers) and been assured of” they will be able to overthrow every argument presented in favor of their “new views,” their “strange fire,” their perversions of Tentative Justification, as well as their division of Christ’s merit between the Court and the Camp!
CONCERNING JESSE HEMERY
One of the speakers offered several comments of praise concerning Jesse Hemery of England. Yes, Brother Russell did hold the man in high esteem – or he would not have put him in charge of the London Tabernacle, and the work in Britain. Also, at one time he held similar good opinion of J. F. Rutherford. But, to offer such compliments to these men without relating their ultimate end leaves a sad lack, as we see it; and certainly inferentially casts a shadow of complaint against Brother Johnson and his experiences with both of them. No longer did Brother Johnson refer to “Brother” Hemery, because he considered him sadly doubleminded, hypocritical and a rank revolutionist in the Epiphany. He was one more who claimed “harmony” with Brother Russell – all the while he repudiated large parts of the Parousia Truth, and rejected completely all Epiphany Truth. At his death a few years ago he no longer accepted the chronology, the Lord’s Second Presence, Brother Russell’s interpretation of the “seven angels” of Rev. 2 and 3; and many other vital Parousia truths.
We simply relate these points for the benefit of such of our readers who may not be informed; and we believe the Scripture in Ezekiel 33:13 is the proper one to quote here: “When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered: but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.” Nor should we remember the righteousness of those who turn from that righteousness to do iniquity if the lord does not remember it! The same goes for those who have committed iniquity, but turn from their evils: “If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him; he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.” (Ezek. 33:15,16) Yet there are some who say, “The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.” (Ezek. 33:17) And, if that be the Lord’s attitude, is there any reason why we should not hold the same opinion? And just what conclusions must we draw concerning those present in that Chicago meeting who later in their testimonies praised the discourse regarding Jesse Hemery, etc.?
CONCERNING CAMPERS CONSECRATED
During the Sunday morning Question Meeting a number of questions were presented regarding Epiphany Campers; and R. G. Jolly made quite some ado about a “sifter” stating the matter as Campers Consecrated, instead of Consecrated Campers. In his distinctly ha-ha manner he elaborated on the propriety of stating one saw a “black cat”: How would it sound to say a “cat black”? In this nonsense he either demonstrated a tragic lack in English education, or he was simply “throwing dust” to avoid answering the real point in the question. It is not general work-a-day practice to place the adjective behind the noun, but it is certainly common enough, and considered good English, to do so in general prose and poetry writings. For Instance, how often did Brother Russell and Brother Johnson refer to the Church Militant; the Church Triumphant; Warriors bold; soldiers brave and true; The Church real and nominal, etc.; God Almighty; Saints humiliated; the Kingdom glorious; Captains Courageous, etc. All of these have the adjective follow the noun – a construction sometimes used to add euphony or variety to one’s writings. Therefore, when R. G. Jolly resorts to profuse oration over a statement that is grammatically correct, and which does not change in the least the error he is attempting to establish, he is simply perpetrating another hoax upon his gullible audience. It seems it’s not enough that he talk nonsense on the Truth; he also now has to talk nonsense on the English language to add to the confusion of the brethren – besmirching the Truth (the Faith once delivered unto the Saints) while attempting such “sleight-of-hand.” We all know there was a time when he himself knew better – when he himself would have laughed at another who presented such flapdoodle; and he is now a lurid example of the fate that befalls those who come into the clutches of Azazel. And equally tragic is the spectacle of his audience laughing approval of his “path of error” (Jas. 5:20, Dia.), Instead of attempting to retrieve him from his sad situation. Indeed, such people do become partaker of his sins. “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” (1 Tim. 5:22—See Berean Comment) When R. G. Jolly himself became entangled with his present errors, It was because he ignored this text in his collaboration with his “cousin” Krewson. He could have saved himself and possibly his “cousin” Krewson had he “continued in what he had learned and been assured of” from the faithful-Pastors and Teachers – The Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” (1 Tim. 4:16)
Of course, all of this was done to “pervert,” to put the lie upon, the teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. Both of them taught that the opportunity to enter Youthful Worthiship would prevail until the world was in such a turmoil in the spasms of Anarchy that no work toward such could be done by any of us. And Brother Johnson clearly taught in E-l0:672 that some Youthful Worthies not yet consecrated would be won AFTER Babylon’s fall (after Armageddon). And in view of our refutation aforegoing of R. G. Jolly’s 1954 date, then his present contention regarding that date is just some more of his nonsense.
And his contention that his Campers Consecrated will receive their “higher” reward than other restitutionists generally by their superior characters they now develop is likewise as porous as a sieve. As Brother Johnson has clearly taught, All who survive the Little Season must enter it with perfect characters; and the reward for such character will be “Every man a King.” Can his Campers Consecrated possibly be any more than a King in the Ages to follow? Just how puerile and volatile can he become anyway?
HIS “HIGHER” CLASS
He was also quite emphatic that higher classes are never led by lower classes, and here again he shows his meager knowledge of Epiphany truth. In the Samuel-Saul type, who was anointed to be King (leader) in Israel? Was is not Saul – a type of the Gospel-Age crown-lost leaders? And in that time between 1849 and 1874 were not all the denominations in Big Babylon dominated by crown-losers? In fact, in all the groups in Little Babylon during the entire Epiphany, would R. G. Jolly contend that even one of those groups (other than the Epiphany Movement under Brother Johnson) had a crown-retainer as their leader? Yet Brother Johnson said there were saints in all those groups, with more in the Society than even in his own movement. There is also another outstanding and timely illustration of this in the Bible, on which we hope to elaborate in a future writing.
THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER PRESENT TRUTH
In the first article, “Led By The Spirit – Drawn By God” on p. 66 of this paper is an article, which is in considerable part a word-for-word reproduction of an article by J. F. Rutherford in the Dec. 1, 1918 Watch Tower. The latter in turn borrowed it from Brother Russell, which was his legal and moral privilege; and it is to his credit that he did not attempt to inject any of his own errors into what Brother Russell had written (of course, he had not yet invented his Jonadabs or earthly Great Multitude). But not so R. G. Jolly! He must sully that superb article by infusing Campers Consecrated into it. Of course, in this he employs the Hitler technique at every opportunity: Make the falsehood big enough, and repeat it often enough, and a certain element will eventually believe it. And, generally speaking, Brother Russell’s writings are of such sublime composition that they still look quite good even with some error injected into them; and they certainly tend to embellish that error with a certain halo of truth. However, when any editor stoops so low in “his path of error” (Jas. 5:20, Dia.), he simply reveals his desperation, and displays to all unprejudiced minds that his “double mind” is still very aggressive for the works of Azazel (“one goat for Azazel” – Lev. 16:8).
Abreast of the foregoing was his attempt at Chicago to justify his Campers Consecrated by saying “somewhere in Parousia Volume One, and somewhere in Epiphany Vol. Four” (he couldn’t remember the exact place) both Messengers supported his present error. Strangely – very strangely – Volume E-4 was not on the display table, although the other Epiphany volumes were there. Just happenstance, would you say? Well, maybe! (Of course, all Epiphany-enlightened brethren know that this Epiphany Vol. Four contains basic doctrinal teachings for the Youthful Worthies and Great Company, and especially for the characteristics of the latter class. None of us need be deceived by the Azazelian errors now presented against these teachings if they adhere closely to the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching therein.) Of course, those of us who know what Brother Russell and Brother Johnson taught, we know they definitely contradicted his present contentions instead of supporting then.
As our readers know, we have contended all along that nothing – just nothing occurred in 1954 to demonstrate it is a prophetic date. R. G. Jolly has an answer for us on that: Plenty happened then, he said, to mark the date. Didn’t the Attestatorial Service start then? Yes, he embarked on his big error then; and that is something for all of us to conjure with. Only a person emboldened by Azazel would still contend for a parallel to 1914-16. His “parallel” is now twelve years old; and still has accomplished Just nothing when compared with 1914-16. If our statement here is not 100% the truth, let R. G. Jolly set out what occurred in 1914-16; then give the parallel happennings in 1954-56. But to help him along somewhat, let him consider that we made widespread attack upon his “path of error” (his Attestatorial Service) in 1955. Was there anything even remotely similar in 1915? Also, Sr. Condell in Jamaica and Brother Baxendale in England, openly deserted him in those years – two people held in high esteem by Brother Johnson.
AZAZEL MEANS PERVERTER
It is an unsavory coincidence that about the first doctrinal deflection of J. F. Rutherford after Brother Russell’s demise was on Tentative Justification. And one of the first major deflections of R. G. Jolly after Brother Johnson’s demise is also on Tentative Justification. While he does not deny the doctrine – as did JFR, he has perverted it out of all recognition to what Brother Russell and Brother Johnson taught about it. He is even carrying it over through the whole Basileia – a faith justification into a “works” Age – an elective doctrine into the free-grace administration. Both Star Members clearly taught that Tentative Justification ceases when the Gospel (Faith) Age ceases, and that it operates only in the Court (in fact, is typed by the Court) in the Gospel Age and Epiphany Tabernacles. And also unsavory is his perversion of the Talents parable (giving the “good and faithful” commendation to the “unprofitable servant”). Here again Brother Johnson had to refute J. F. Rutherford’s perversion of that parable – just as we have had to refute R. G. Jolly on his perversion of that Talents parable.
Also, as did J. F. Rutherford, he distorts and perverts many features of the Tabernacle to accommodate his “new views” (false doctrines) – the linen curtain; Tentative Justification; no Laver for his new consecrators; rejects from the Court into the Camp, along with his Consecrated Campers, and the whole nominal church all mixed into one – a “mix-uppery” if there ever was one! And, since 1954, an identical twin in Campers Consecrated to J. F. Rutherford’s Jonadabs (now the Large Multitude). And all of these we have refuted – mainly from the writings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson – just as Brother Johnson was obliged to do with J. F. Rutherford’s errors. Strange indeed, isn’t it, that each new error presented by R. G. Jolly bears such close resemblance to the errors of J. F. Rutherford (as though he has been studying his technique instead of “continuing in that which he had learned and been assured of” from both Star Members)? Clearly enough, both of them (J. F. Rutherford and R. G. Jolly) have had the same Instructor – Azazel, the Perverter. Both of them have trodden the same path of error, and it requires no savant to discern this. Truly, “we are not of them that sleep”! – although we faithfully attempt to “turn back the sinner (crown-loser) from his path of error.” (Jas. 5:20, Dia.)
The following from That Servant is apropos for such: “But there are some who still have a kind of frenzy of mind, and some of these attacking us. They launch forth as though they would demolish us, and they battle for the error as though it were the truth. In their warfare they use the weapons of slander, malice, hatred, strife, and various other works of the flesh and the devil. Their choice of weapons is a proof that they are under a delusion, blinding them through false doctrine (such as Epiphany Campers Consecrated, etc.—JJH).” Please see 2 Thes. 2:10,11 and Berean Comments.
“Yea, the Lord shall give that which is good; and our land shall yield her increase. Righteousness shall go before him; and shall set us in the way of his steps.” (Psa. 85:12,13)
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim