by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 39

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

As promised in our paper or July 1958, we now offer some further comments on the above text, the same being prompted by R. G. Jolly's statement in the Present Truth; and by a discourse, The Treader of the Winepress, at the Grand Rapids Conven­tion over the Memorial‑Day week‑end. The speaker at that time said the "plowman" and the "treader of grapes” mean one and the same thing in this text.

As we have so often stated, the Bible rarely uses unnecessary words or makes vain repetitions merely for euphony or easy reading. However, should we assume that this is one of those unusual cases, then we should be able to read the text by leav­ing out "the treader of grapes”, and it should be just as clear and sensible as though it were left in. Let us try it: "The plowman shall overtake the reaper ... and him that soweth seed.” It now becomes readily discernible that the text as stated is a monstrosity as viewed from the natural standpoint. It is impossible in the natural order for the plowman to overtake him that soweth seed, because no seed can be sown until the plowman has first broken the ground and prepared it to receive the sower's seed. Therefore, it is impossible for the plowman to overtake him that soweth seed. "Come, let us reason together, sayeth the Lord”; and any time we encounter a text interpretation that is unreasonable, we may be certain there is something wrong with our understanding of it.

It has been contended that this sowing of seed has been fulfilled all during the Age by the Church in its reproof of the world for sin, for righteousness, and for judg­ment to come. But the facts do not fit this contention. At no time was this work ever stopped in the United States even at the height of the war hysteria. Even the Seventh Volume was not suppressed until the spring of 1918; and even after that had happened there was almost no official interference with public meetings or religious gather­ings – we were as free as before the war began to "reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment to come.” But, if the explanation is accepted that we propounded in our paper of August 1957 (copy free upon request), all is in full har­mony.

It should be noted, too, that the "vine of the earth”, with its various branches and its "clusters fully ripe” is still with us. Therefore, the "treader of grapes” has not done his work; the only thing that can be said is that a "softening‑up’ proc­ess has been going on since the plowman overtook the reaper and put an end to the reap­ing work. When the vine or the earth is eventually given to "the burning flame” it will almost certainly put a quick and complete end to the work of him that soweth seed regardless of what interpretation we accept for this expression.

In this connection, it should be noted that neither Star Member even remotely dreamed that 1958 would see conditions as we now see them. And because they could not foresee clearly the present status, they made mistakes. This is quite in harmony with Brother Johnson's statement in B‑9‑121 (bottom): "Do not the contradictory re­sults of the studies of Levite leaders prove the same thing? And do not the mistakes of star‑members in presenting things before due prove this same proposition?” All of us are witness that both Principal Men made mistakes in their efforts to offer detailed explanation of prophecy not yet due to be understood; and this Amos 9:13 is certainly one of such.

Also, it is opportune to remark here that of all the texts we presented in our August 1957 paper on The Last Saint, and of a number of others since then, no attempt has been made to handle any of them by either R. G. Jolly, J. W. Krewson, or any of their Yes‑Men, except this Amos 9:13. On this latter they have thought they have some­thing from Brother Johnson to support them; and, in their desperation for even a straw to grasp they rushed headlong into their comments on Amos 9:13 without stopping to think how their remarks might sound under a reasonable scrutiny.

On p. 58, col. 2 (top) of this July‑August 1958 PT there is this statement: "The few who are now falling away to the error that the treader of grapes has not yet overtaken him that soweth seed ... are no longer able consistently to sing, as of some­thing that has already entered into fulfillment our Hymn No. 171 – "He is trampling out the winepress where His grapes of wrath are stored.’” This same Hymn has been in the book since l905, so we have another bit of R. G. Jolly nonsense. If the brethren were "able consistently to sing” it for nine years before the Plowman had even started his work, how much more consistently can they sing it now! We wonder if R. G. Jolly will be "glad to admit his mistake and correct it” in this instance?

"Due Truth for all the Consecrated” – Reviewed

On p. 58 of the July‑August 1958 Present Truth R. G. Jolly offers some more of his cheap trickery and perversion in a niggardly effort to justify another of his loose and irresponsible statements. He uses Joel 2:28‑29 and J. F. Rutherford to present an irrelevant and wordy display on the word "for”. This is characteristic of him – always some wily twist to pervert the Truth. His analysis should embrace "for all God's con­secrated people to discern” – "to discern” being the crux of the statement, and not the word "for.” In this connection, it should be noted, too, that he embraces Joel 2:28‑29, but ignores completely the real relevant text on his statement – namely, 2 Thes. 2:11, "God will send them strong delusion.” He uses the word "all” in his statement without any qualifications; and this allows for no exceptions – "all” means "all.” So he is saying in effect that the "due Truth is for all to discern”, but God sends them "strong delusion”, so they cannot discern it.

His statement is an identical twin to the Babylonish nonsense that the Bible is for all; whereas, the last two Star Members taught that a limited understanding of the Bible would actually be harmful to large numbers of the human race in its present con­dition. Many of such might actually carry a Bible on their person – purchased with their own money – so it would be "for” them to no good purpose whatever; it would only harm them if they had not the "love of the Truth.”

Also note carefully R. G. Jolly's statement: "We have never stated nor taught that the leaders in Little Babylon "discerned the due Truth by the aid of His Holy Spirit’, as this sifting leader would like to have the brethren think.” No, he never taught this; be just said, "ALL.” How many of the Consecrated, think you, have discerned the due Truth during the Epiphany? By generous allowance, shall we say one per cent? This would leave ninety‑nine per cent who haven't discerned it. But, when R. G. Jolly says it's "for all of God's consecrated people to discern”, any one should be able to know he means only one per cent when he says, "all”! Of course, he's not specifically mentioning the other ninety‑nine per cent as being included or excluded from his "all”; any one who could not see he meant only one per cent by "all” could be nothing other than a "sifter’! His flimsy evasion here is an identical twin to J. W. Krewson's Do‑You‑Knows – the latter says he's not stating he knows; he's just asking his readers if they know. Again we repeat, we should think R. G. Jolly would be ashamed, but it seems there is no shame in him.

He quotes from E‑15‑652 "The Scriptures teach for all times that the due Truth is for all the consecrated” and be says "this is almost word for word” the same as his statement. Yes, it's "almost” word for word; but, chronic perverter that he is (Azazel means Perverter), he leaves out the few words that substantiate our position, and destroy his. These words are, "as they are loyal”, which words are to be found six lines above the quotation offered. He accuses us of clubbing Brother Johnson over his (R. G. Jolly's) head; but the truth here is that he is perverting Brother Johnson, while Brother Johnson says in effect exactly what we contended. We said on P. 7 of our Feb. 1958 article "fully faithful”, which means exactly the same thing as Brother Johnson's qualification, "as they are loyal.” Also, Brother Johnson does not use R. G. Jolly's words "to discern.” While it is true that due Truth is for all the fully faith­ful, yet we know of a certainty that some of them did not even recognize the Harvest Truth for many months after Sept. 1914 – did not "discern” it as soon as many others, although we agree it was for them, as Brother Johnson states. They did discern it in due course.

If any are inclined to question the above statements, we offer something from E‑4‑129: "So far as meat in due season – the advancing Truth – is concerned, they do not partake of it, but reject it, while in the fit man's and Azazel's hands... After the Levites' cleansing, they will doubtless partake of the Epiphany truths that are for them... Whatever, however, the lord may give during the Epiphany for the priests alone will be for them alone, until it has served its secret purpose; then it will be understood by the properly disposed Levites. E.g., now the understanding of the priest­ly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate, delivering him to the fit man and abandoning him to Azazel, Is withheld from them. After they are cleansed they will understand these things. So there will doubtless be things connected with the priest's activities toward them after they are cleansed which will be concealed from them until the secrecy has served its purposes when they will be clarified to them.”

From the above, it is clear enough we have some more of R. G. Jolly's nonsense. How could the thing "concealed from them”, possibly be "for them to discern”? And we are now not talking about those in Big or Little Babylon – the foregoing statement would apply to all Great Company members, even those in the LHMM. This becomes clear enough when we recall that those in the LHMM now contend they are cleansed – were cleansed at October 22, 1950 – although Brother Johnson emphatically and repeatedly taught that all of them (even those who lost out by the "skin of their teeth” – see E‑15‑525) must be abandoned to Azazel before they can be cleansed. Instead of the due Truth be­ing "for them to discern”, God actually sends them "strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11); it's "for” them all right (according to R. G. Jolly), but God Himself sends them an "energy of delusion” so they won't be able to discern it. This undoubtedly explains much in connection with R. G. Jolly himself. The "seven reasons” he offered in 1957 are simply a paraphrase from E‑9‑125; so the reasons taken by themselves are right, as we should expect, because they are Brother Johnson's analysis. But Brother Johnson dis­tinctly teaches that the Great Company cannot discern the due Truth while in Azazel's hands; in fact, they actually repudiate many Truths they did once clearly discern be­fore their abandonment. R. G. Jolly himself is a striking illustration of this, and explains his many bungling refutations of other errorists – just as he has done in this instance. "Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company”, says Brother Johnson; and R. G. Jolly's bungling in the present discussion offers clear proof that he is still in Azazel's clutches. It would have been much to his aid had he answered J. W. Krewson with the all‑embracing Truth as we have presented it herein; but it is apparent that Azazel has him so befuddled be can't offer a clear and inclusive statement, even when such a statement would lend prestige and elevation to his teachings.

The force of the foregoing is emphasized in R. G. Jolly's case when we recall that in February 1955 at Jacksonville he said that, so far as he knew, Brother Johnson had never withdrawn "brotherly help and favor” from him. His statement there was in­deed the truth; yet he was contending at the same time that he was cleansed – an impossibility, according to Brother Johnson's clear teachings. The contradiction in this situation hit him as lightning from a sunny sky a few weeks later at Winter Park ­when he was informed of his confusion of "priestly fellowship’ and ’brotherly help and favor.’ This clear teaching by Brother Johnson was right before R. G. Jolly and others in the LHMM; it was "for” them., yet they were unable to "discern it.” And his inability even yet to clearly discern it offers cogent proof that he is still befuddled by Azazel. Even in the case of JFR, priestly fellowship was withdrawn from him before "all brotherly help and favor” – just as was true of R. G. Jolly – the only differ­ence being Brother Johnson's violent separation from JFR as opposed to the gracious removal by God Himself of the last Star Member from the LHMM.

If it is not already clear to our readers, we now emphasize it has never been our contention that anything we have done has directly contributed to abandoning Azazel's Goat to Azazel  – nor could any other Youthful Worthy do it. This has been exclusively the work of the World's High Priest; and our only purpose in offering so much comment upon it since 1954 is our honest endeavor to be a "vessel unto honor”, a faithful servant and defender of that Truth we have received through our Beloved Epi­phany Messenger. It is his clear teaching – and no one has yet attempted to refute our stand for it – that all Great Company members must be abandoned to Azazel before their cleansing can be effected; and before complete abandonment to Azazel can be accomplished all brotherly help and fellowship of the World's High Priest would have to be withdrawn from them. R. G. Jolly has consistently and persistently grossly revolutionized against this Epiphany truth in his claim that "good Levites” meant the same as "cleansed levites” – that the "good Levites” of the LHMM were already "cleansed” at October 1950. In setting aside the Star Member's clear teachings on this subject he has offered "strange fire” before the Lord; and his guilt in this thing extends to any and all who support him in it. As one trying to be "faithful to the Truth and the brethren”, we can only direct it to the attention of those who have an "ear to hear.” "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”; and to the others we can only propose the Scriptural warnings that apply, then leave their judgment with Him who looketh on the heart. However, if we failed in our duty as a General Elder to expose this Jambresian error, then the Lord would not only raise up another to do it, but would require the blood of the erring ones at our hands (Ezek. 3:18). The Truth here is simply an illustration of "discerning the due Truth” by the aid of the Holy Spirit” – a truth which R. G. Jolly has not been able to "discern”, with all his loud and lengthy talk about this and many other subjects notwith­standing. May he, and all his partisan supporters, be properly exercised unto "dis­cerning the due Truth by the aid of the Holy Spirit”, and thus extricate themselves from the clutches of Azazel! It is the clear teaching of the Star Member as given to and for the Elect "to discern”; and we are now only "contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints.”

When J. W. Krewson first presented his error on the "abandonment” of the Azazel Goat Class we considered it insignificant enough to ignore; but, when R. G. Jolly pounced upon it with same 750 words because he thought he had a point on which he could "show up” another, we considered it important enough to re‑emphasize the Truth on it – the Truth in which R. G. Jolly certainly had not yet "discerned” even when writing this last July‑August 1958 PT. He even then thought JJH "wishes he had nev­er challenged the statement in P.T. '57.” But, No! We do not wish we had never challenged it – rather we are convinced that in this, as in so many other of his failures of the past, R. G. Jolly will "gnaw his tongue for pain” (Rev. 16:10) and chagrin at the exposure of his own ignorance and inability to "discern due Truth”, for which he himself had actually proof-read what Brother Johnson wrote. He read, but he understood not; "eyes they have, but they see not” (could not "discern”).

R. G. Jolly says, "If we had made a mistake in the P. '57, P. 94 statement above, we would be glad to acknowledge it, and to correct or retract the state­ment.” To those of us who know him, the gross hypocrisy of this statement is sad­ly too readily apparent. Has he been "glad to acknowledge and correct” his perver­sion on "The Faithful and Measurably Faithful”; his perversion on Brother Russell's analysis of Hab. 3:17, 18; his nonsense on "Judas not a thief”; his gross revolu­tionistic handling of the Slander Case (a revolutionism against both Parousia and Epiphany teachings), etc.? And we shall patiently wait to see if he will "acknow­ledge and correct” his perversion on E‑17‑414, wherein he has Brother Johnson say­ing  – in direct contradiction to his clear expression on it elsewhere  – that Resti­tution will be accomplished by 2874. For one who talks so much, and says so very little, as does R. G. Jolly, it is stretching credulity just a little too far to as­sume he knew whereof he spoke when he published his comment in 1957 on "discerning due Truth.” The most generous appraisal we could make of it  – if he did know the full truth on it  – is that he is certainly subject to censure for issuing such a garbled and confusing statement to refute J. W. Krewson's presenta­tions. He who now pleads that the "preservation of the purity of the Truth is close to his heart” (even though we have proven him guilty of numerous falsehoods), should certainly have included at least some of the Truth we have presented aforegoing when he attempted to criticize another for his error in the matter. It should be borne in mind that he himself was the critic in his 1957 publication, so he cannot plead temporary lapse for the slipshod utterance he made then. When he uses the word "all” in criticizing another, we can only conclude he meant "all” – that he wasn't clear on the Truth himself then, or he would have made that Truth clear to his readers.

Concerning Revelation 19

In this last answer to us he is "reminded anew” of our teachings on Rev. 19:1‑9. Why he should inject this here we do not quite see, but we welcome the occasion to offer our readers some further comment on it from the Jan. 1927 PT, p. 11, col. 1:

"Rev. 19, giving a description of the marriage of the lamb as taking place, which description is followed a few verses later by the vision of a symbolic war, which he perverts to mean Armageddon, is also used by him to prove that all the Church will be delivered before Armageddon. The fact that John (the Church) wor­ships the angel after the marriage is proclaimed as taking place, should have pre­vented his using this passage to prove that the deliverance of the entire Church will take place before the marriage of the Lamb takes place. Our Pastor rightly identified the first resurrection from 1878 onward with the marriage of the Lamb. In the near future, according to this section, the Great Company will proclaim to the world what it previously did not make a subject for the public – the first resur­rection as going on. Rev. 19:7‑10 unanswerably proves that the marriage of the Lamb is taking place while some of the Little Flock is in the earth – John charged with a mission by the angel and worshiping him, after the marriage proclamation. There­fore, his contention that all most be delivered before the marriage takes place is wrong... Hence this chapter does not prove the thought that the Church will be de­livered before Armageddon; rather it leaves the Church on earth while Armageddon is raging, where it will be long afterward.”

Here is more from this same PT, p. 11, col. 2: "That the Church will not be delivered before Armageddon is manifest, among other passages, from Ps. 46, which teaches that not only throughout Armageddon, but also at least in part of the anarchy, will the Church be in the earth... We marvel that, in the face of so clear a passage, interpreted as above for us by our Pastor, brethren will allow Satan so completely to befuddle them as Bro. Adam has an the passages that be cites to prove his"error that the Church will be delivered before Armageddon. Surely it can only then be understood when we remember that they are in Azazel's hands, and therefore cannot think clearly while in that condition.”

And R. G. Jolly's revolutionistic course in which be is persisting unto gross revolutionism, can only be understood when we remember that he was fully abandoned to Azazel at October 22, 1950 by the removal of the Star Member who had previously restrained and afforded him "brotherly help and favor”; at which time he immediately set aside the clear and Scriptural teaching on the deliverance of the Church, and thereby revolutionized against both Parousia and Epiphany Truth. It continues to be our hope and prayer that he will yet be able to extricate himself from Azazel's clutches so he may be able to understand the "due Truth” for his cleansing, and again embrace the clear Truths he once so loudly proclaimed and taught (especially when he believed himself to be a member of the Church, which is His Body).

The "unanswerable proof” cited above becomes readily apparent with a little analysis. Rev. 19:1 (Dia.) says "I heard a loud voice as of a great crowd in Heav­en”, and verse 6 uses almost the same words, "I heard as it were a voice of a great crowd.” The "great crowd” of verse 1 were the Societyites smiting Jordan the second time, as antitypical John (the Little Flock) stood by listening. As we might ex­pect from "double minds”, they thought they were smiting Jordan the first time –­ just as they proclaimed the correct message, "It is finished” in March 1918, but had the wrong date. Of course, just about everything they did was sullied with an admixture of error.

So also with the message of verse 6. Both Star Members taught that the "mar­riage” was accomplished as each Saint was glorified; but it remained for R. G. Jolly to be the first Great Company member to make this announcement publicly in an offi­cial capacity. But, just as antitypical John "heard” the message of verse 1, so he also "heard” the message of verse 6. This is why Brother Johnson says the proof is "unanswerable” that some members of antitypical John would still be on earth when that message of verse 6 was given. Brother Russell has well stated that the comfort­ing message of Revelation would came to the Saints in their "time of dire need”; and the events since October 1950 offer glowing tribute to his foresight – the interpre­tation by Brother Johnson has come to them in their "dire need.” And to those who attempt to deprive them of this "dire need” we offer the warning of Rev. 22:19, "If any one take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” It should be kept in mind that Brother Johnson's statement that he would be the last Saint was his opinion only – he freely admitted he had no Scripture to prove it. But his "unanswerable proof” of Rev. 19:6 is clear, concise and positive, leaving no question of doubt on his interpretation. His "opin­ion” was not based on Scripture; it was based upon the 40‑year parallels, which have had a different out‑working, as we proved in "The Epiphany Solomon” article (copy free upon request). It is certainly beyond the least doubt that the parallels did not ma­terialize as Brother Johnson expected they would.

R. G. Jolly contends in this July‑August 1958 PT that the first "advancing Truth” after Brother Johnson's death was presented by him the night of Oct. 27, 1950. On that fateful night he set aside the "unanswerable proof” quoted above; he set aside Psalms 46 and the forceful clear interpretations of both Star Members; he set aside 1 Thes. 4:17 and Zech. 8:10, with the clear and convincing analyses of those texts by Brother Johnson. And his violence to these clear Scriptures is the "advanc­ing Truth” about which he is now prating!! "And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul...How are the mighty fallen.” (2 Sam. 1:12,25.)

And it would seem here is a good place to consider some more of R. G. Jolly's "advancing Truth”, because it has to do with the subject matter herein. Beginning on page 7 of the Jan. 1947 PT and continuing to page 14, R. G. Jolly offers twenty-seven calculations, twenty of which "Prove” the last Saint would not leave the earth until Oct. 31, 1956. We reproduce below No. 9, p. 9, because it is one of the simpler ones:

"Another calculation which, likewise, brings us to the exact date, Oct. 31, 1956, and which, likewise, uses dimensions of the King's Chamber and its Coffer, is as fol­lows: To the King's Chamber's cubic capacity (19,566,046.88 cu. ins.) add 5 times the Coffer's interior capacity (5 x 71,250 equals 356,250 cu. ins.; 5 is the Pyra­mid's sacred number) and is connected particularly with the symbolical King's Chamber, Sci. Fe., 105, 147, 151), which gives us l9,922,296.98 cu. ins. Divide this number by the number of cu. ins. in the Coffer's interior (71,250) and we have 279,61117, which multiplied by 7 (the number of Divine perfection) gives us 1957.27819. As is often done in Pyramid calculations (10 x 10 x 10 x 10 equals 10,000), we subtract from this number an even 1/10,000th part of itself, which gives us 1957.08247. De­ducting from this number the 1¼ years B.C. to Jesus' birth date, we have 1955‑83247 as the number of years A.D. Now .83247 of the year 1956 (a leap year) equals 305 days, which, as in the previous calculation, again brings us to exactly Oct. 31, 1956! This remarkable calculation confines itself exclusively to the cubical capacities of the King's Chamber and its Coffer and three of the Pyramid's special numbers: 5, 7 and 10,000, to point out what we believe to be the exact period of time from the date of Jesus' birth to the establishment of His Kingdom in glory.”

All of these computations he also tossed out the window that night of Oct. 27, 1950 (without making any mention of them, of course). We suggest our readers go back and take a look at the PT with these figures, because we have here a crushing corrob­oration of the truth, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.” Could even the most biased adherent of E. G. Jolly do other than admit that these calculations came from only one source  – from the tricky and nefarious mind of Azazel? But R. G. Jolly now magnanimously declares he is "glad to acknowledge a mistake, and to correct it”; so we invite him now to tell us all what system he used to arrive at his twenty‑seven answers, and what was wrong with that system. And, while he's telling us this, tell us, too, if he availed himself of J. W. Krewson's "mathematical ability” in forming these twenty‑seven problems  – just as he availed himself of that "ability” in 1950 to "prove from the pyramid” that Rev. 19:6, Psalms 46, 1 Thes. 4:17 and Zech. 8:10 do not mean what they say, and that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson did not under­stand these Scriptures. Do you think he will do it?

May Grace and Peace be multiplied to all who call upon the Lord in a "good and honest heart.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim