My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
In this September Present Truth appear same Questions and Answers purporting to deal with some of our recent writings, the comments on Zechariah being an attempt to uphold R. G. Jolly's contention that Brother Johnson was the last Saint. As all Bible Students know, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both taught that a type must never be used to establish a doctrine; it can only be used to support a doctrine already established. But in this instance, R. G. Jolly not only does not prove a doctrine by his Zechariah type, he actually tries to set aside a doctrine already well established – and he makes this attempt by a fractured type at that!
In Brother Johnson's explanation of the Zachariah type he emphasized that he would be here until 1956, and that his end would be a violent one. Since neither the date of his death nor the manner of his death occurred according to expectation, we state it was a fractured type. But the doctrine was well established by both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that some Saints would remain an earth until the violent features of the Time of Trouble arrived. In our August 1 writing on The last Saint we offered a number of Scriptures and comments from the Star Members pertaining to this matter – enough certainly to establish the doctrine just set forth –; and we now offer others in support of it.
Brother Johnson's belief that his would be a violent end (if he were to be the last Saint) comes logically enough. The first “righteous blood” to be shed occurred in the violent death of Abel; and the last “righteous blood” – specifically described as such by Jesus – came through the violent death of Zechariah. The last righteous blood actually to be shed violently in pre‑Gospel‑Age times was that of John the Baptist; and Brother Russell accepted that as a concluding type of the Gospel‑Age priesthood in his belief that the last ones would come to a violent end. For Gospel‑Age purposes the first righteous blood to be shed was that of Jesus – also violently poured out – just as St. Paul's blood likewise was violently “poured out” (2 Tim. 4:6, Dia.). And the Scriptural teaching seems clear and indisputable that the last righteous blood of this Age would be violently poured out – as instance, 1 Thes. 4:17: “We which are alive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.” Brother Johnson's comment on this in E‑6‑581 follows:
“The anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, as indicated by Elijah's whirlwind ascent, and by the last ones being `violently seized by clouds', the literal translation of the Greek rendered In the A.V. of 1 Thes. 4:17, `caught up in the clouds'.”
The foregoing is exceptionally clear; and cannot be explained away by a mere fractured type. Let R. G. Jolly – and all others who claim the Saints are no more – give their explanation of the above, in harmony with their present position.
Companion to the foregoing is Brother Johnson's statement in E‑6‑630 on Zech. 8:10:
“The `no hire' for man or beast of Zech. 8:10.... is to occur after the foundation of the church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon.”
Here again is some more doctrine that must be discarded if the fractured type of Zechariah is to prevail. It will be noted that all the types we presented in our August writing support the doctrine. In further support of our statement that Zechariah could type the last Star Member, but not the last Saint, we offer the Moses type – wherein he types the Star Members. Moses did not complete the march of Israel into Canaan, which shows clearly enough that it would not be a Star Member in the end of this Age who would complete the march of spiritual Israel into the heavenly Canaan.
At the Chicago Convention R. G. Jolly put quite some extended emphasis on his contention that we must certainly know the last Saint in his individual person, otherwise we cannot know when the last one is gone. This argument is in line with his reasoning in general. Suppose we ask him – Does he know in the individual person who was the last one to be spirit‑begotten? But we do know the date it happened! Certainly the last spirit‑begettal is no less important than the last glorification – we could not have the latter without the former. And be it noted that the last spirit‑begettal in the mere fact itself was not even known until 3 1/2 years after it occurred. Undoubtedly, the Lord will give us the right date for the last glorification “in due time” – and we may be sure we won't have to cling to a fractured type to prove it when the “due time” arrives.
There is also the prophecy of Gen. 3:15 – “Thou (Satan) shall bruise his heel (the last members of the Christ company on earth). Is there any physical evidence to show this “bruising” has yet occurred?
But, weak as the Zechariah type appears, it is reasonably solid compared to the nonsense offered in explanation on page 78 of “John hearing the Rev.19:6,7 message.” R. G. Jolly contends that John in this Scripture is transposed from the Little Flock to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. This contention is strikingly coincident to the claim of That Evil Servant that Elijah was transposed into Elisha – just by the death of Brother Russell. And the only argument given for the transformation in Rev. 19:6,7 is the death of Brother Johnson – and nothing more. Well, if there be any sound substance to this contention, we should be able to substitute “Great Company” for the pronoun “I” in verse 6. Let's try it and notice how it sounds: “The Great Company heard as it were the voice of the Great Company” (apparently talking to themselves). Does it sound sensible? Yes, indeed, definitely “non”‑sensible! As Brother Johnson so ably stated – When these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. And the contention in this instance of John being transformed from the Little Flock to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies – then talking to themselves – well nigh approaches “perfection” in nonsense. And the sin here is doubly magnified when R. G. Jolly attempts to besmirch Brother Johnson's good name by attaching such nonsense to him, and claiming the Bible teaches it. Is the claim that “three times one equals one” any more ridiculous?
The foregoing remarks re John on Patmos representing God's people would be inappropriate had R. G. Jolly properly qualified Brother Johnson's statement about John “representing the Lord's people.” John represents only “the Lord's faithful and obedient people.” In no instance in the Bible do God's faithful and obedient people in their faithfulness represent unfaithful or measurably faithful and disobedient people. Every Great Company type has one or more reprehensible feature attached to it; and the reason is self‑evident – they portray those particular failings of various Great Company members. Even in the case of Moses – great and good man that he was ‑ he pictures future unfaithful classes only when he was disobedient. And in the case of Cyrus, a heathen, he represented Christ only when he was doing God's will “my shepherd Cyrus,” Isa. 44:28. To say that faithful Apostle John represented the uncleansed Great Company since 1950 is sacrilege. There must indeed come a time when John on Patmos (Patmos means “suffering"”) will represent all God's people – but this cannot be so until the Great Company are cleansed, obedient and faithful. We have offered so much from Brother Johnson and otherwise – including R. G. Jolly's truthful admission at the Jacksonville Convention in Feb. 1955 that Brother Johnson had never withdrawn brotherly favor from him – which is certainly true, and is proof that R. G. Jolly couldn't possibly have been cleansed at October 22, 1950, because the final step had not been taken in his case to effect his full cleansing – viz., the withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor by the World's High Priest. Certainly none of the various groups were cleansed at October 22, 1950 as a class. None of this has been answered, because R. G. Jolly cannot answer it. Let him and his sectarian supporters continue to fight the Truth, if they will; they must eventually hear the Lord's word grating on their ears – “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5).
But that isn't all! He says JJH tries to make it “appear that Vol. E‑3‑133 is all there is to Brother Johnson's teaching on this matter.” For one who ignores and violates so much of Brother Johnson's teachings, this statement is Azazelian impudence supreme. In his comment on this very section of Scripture, why does he not state what Brother Johnson taught about it in E‑10‑113:
“Verse 9 contains a charge that will be given by the Epiphany Messenger to the Little Flock.”
He also ignores completely Brother Johnson's explanation of verse 10 on this same page 113, which explanation is further enlarged in E‑10‑656, as follows:
“The Little Flock... will express special reverence for, and subjection to J. whose continuance, according to Rev. 19:10, J. will refuse to permit..... Thereafter the report will be made to J. that the Little Flock will have been decreasing in numbers and strength.”
Clearly enough, Rev. 19:6 through 10 is a continuous narrative; therefore, if the Little Flock on earth is included in verse 10, they must self‑evidently be included in verse 6. And that Brother Johnson is right in concluding the Little Flock are referred to in verse 10 becomes clearer by reading from the Diaglott: “And he (Bro. J.) says to me (John – the Little Flock), See; No! I am a fellow‑servant with thee, and of those brethren with thee who have the testimony of Jesus.” Certainly, Brother Johnson never included himself in with the Great Company as “a fellow‑servant with thee and of those brethren with thee who have the testimony of Jesus.” Clearly enough, the Great Company have lost “the testimony of Jesus”, because they are no longer of the Jesus company (See Acts 9:5).
Furthermore, Brother Johnson states in E‑5‑420 that the message of Rev, 19:5 will be preached by the Great Company after they are cleansed. For the past two years we have offered many proofs from Brother Johnson's writings showing that no Levitical group was cleansed at October 1950 – though there were individuals among them who probably were cleansed. None of this has been refuted to date, so we shall not pursue it further here.
The suggestion has come to us through the mail that Rev. 19:6 makes no allowance for a false message – which would be the case if we are right and R. G. Jolly, et al, are wrong. To this we answer that the same premise would apply to Rev. 16:17 – “It is finished.” The message that the High Calling was closed was published first by the Great Company in the Society; and, while the message was correct, their date was wrong. They offered March 27, 1918, instead of September 16, 1914; and it offers a fitting parallel to the present contention about the Saints being no more on earth. As Brother Johnson so truly stated —Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company.
And repeatedly is the aspersion offered in those Answers that JJH is the “errorist”. Repeatedly does R. G. Jolly cast the stones at others that should be hurled at himself. Then he lifts the clause from JJH – “I may not be 100% versed in everything Brother Johnson has written.” Why didn't he offer a little more here? The real errorist and trickster is always manifested by such tactics, as all of us certainly know. We reproduce the paragraph which we ourselves published October 29, 1955 (copy free upon request).
“I may not be 100% versed in everything Brother Johnson has written; but when someone such as you tries to give me some instruction or correction, I expect you yourself to know what you are talking about. I am quite familiar with what Brother Johnson says in Vol. 10, P. 113; and I agree with his explanation of Rev. 19:1‑2. When the Bible states that work would be done by a “great crowd” I think that fits in pretty well with the “great crowd” in the Society giving Jordan its second smiting. But why didn't you go on and discuss Verse 6? That speaks also of a “great crowd” saying “The Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth.” Brother Johnson states in the very 1941 citation you give that fulfillment was future; and he stated often enough in other places that the “great crowd” would have a fruitful ministry “after the fires of Armageddon” (Rev‑ 7:14). Why didn't you say something about that? Are you contending that a “great crowd” has been proclaiming this message since October 1950? By generous count, could you possibly show a hundred? It is little wonder you repeatedly and loudly proclaim your “love for your dear Youthful Worthy brethren”! And do you consider that slanderers and scandalmongers have “cleansed” themselves in harmony with Rev. 7:14? Do you? I may as well quote your own words here, “Think it over, dear brother.” Also, you are conspicuously silent on Rev. 22:10 and Berean Comments. Why?”
R. G. Jolly says JJH “failed to admit he was in error” in the above quotation. Yes, JJH failed to admit it because there was no error to admit! The real error here clings to him; and he once more manifests his uncleansed condition by this untruthful twist. He will undoubtedly fool those of his readers who close their eyes, open their mouths, and swallow what he puts therein. This may all seem real cute to him; but “God is not mocked”, and the day of reckoning is slowly but surely approaching.
On pages 75, 76 and 77 there is presented some consideration of Vicegerency, The Crown, and Right to Rule, in which R. G. Jolly talks quite a bit, but says almost nothing – just as he talked for four hours at Crofts Hill, Jamaica last January 10 and had said so very, very little at the end of those four hours that he could not offer a single line about that meeting in the Present Truth. Present happenings make quite clear why Brother Johnson accused R. G. Jolly of being loquacious, effusive, repetitious, etc.
There is offered some comment on Matt. 28:18 – “All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth”, and the Greek word “exousia” is given to show the text should read – “All authority is given unto me in heaven and on earth.” Had R. G. Jolly clearly understood this matter, he would have analyzed “all power” and “all authority”. Of course, had he done this, his “profusion of words to no purpose” would have appeared ridiculous even to the most benighted of his sectarian readers. To illustrate: Mr. A in New York city gives to Mr. B a Power of Attorney (all authority) to purchase for him a property at public auction in San Francisco the following week. On his way to San Francisco Mr. B has an accident that puts him into the hospital at Chicago – so he cannot be on hand the day of sale. Thus, Mr. B failed in his mission; he had “all authority”, but he lacked the power to exercise his authority because he was not where he should have been on the day his authority designated. But, regardless of the Greek in Matt. 28:18, Jesus had “all authority” and “all power” at His resurrection, and was assured of His ability to use them “in due time” —as God's eternal purposes directed. Had Mr. B not been deterred at Chicago, his “All authority” permitted him to do only a certain thing at a certain place at a certain time. And Jesus was in much this same position at His resurrection as respects the Restitution process, the dethroning of the Gentiles, etc.
But the text must be read in the light of sanctified reason, or it becomes nonsense. He had “all authority” and “all power” to do only what is in harmony with God's character and God's eternal purposes. Thus, He had not authority or power to “defile the temple of God”; He had not authority or power to lie, because He is “the faithful and true witness.” At His resurrection he had “all authority“ and “all power” to accomplish restitution (it could not be effected without Him); but He could not begin it then – His authority and power could operate only in harmony with God's eternal purposes. The same is true of His authority and power over the nations. He could not evict them until their regime had run its course to 1914 – although He did have authority and power to intervene if those nations interfered in their actions with God's eternal purposes; and He probably did do so on various occasions — Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, etc. – when their success would have thwarted the grand march of the Plan of the Ages.
We have offered the foregoing detail to show why Brother Russell stated in Volume 2, pages 73‑83 that Jesus did not possess the crown in its full sense until 1914. And, if He did not have it until then, neither could the 144,000 “reign with Him” in the full sense until 1914, as the full number was not actually “with Him” until 1914. All of this was made clear in our October writing, we think. On page 80, par, 1, Brother Russell says this:
“God will not take the dominion from them (the Gentiles), to give it to His anointed until that lease expires, `until the Times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.'”
R. G. Jolly says the “errorist” (JJH) “appeals to some statements from Brother Johnson (which he thinks support his contention, though they actually do not do so).” It would seem a faithful Truth teacher – who yells “errorist” at JJH – would take some of those quotations and point out how and why and where “they actually do not do so.” For instance, let him offer his comments on the above quotation from Brother Russell. Also, on page 2, of our December 8, 1956 writing, and again in ours of November 1, 1957, we quoted the following from Brother Johnson re 1 Cor. 15:24:
“What is meant by all rule, and all authority and power? We answer every vestige of Satan's governing, of Satan's claim of right, and of Satan's might; all of this must be destroyed utterly and forever, and this will be done at the end of the Little Season.”
Let R. G. Jolly point out how the above from Brother Johnson “actually does not do so.” Also, again we ask him to correlate it with his “faulty disc” for E‑17‑124. This quotation is from Brother Johnson just a year or so before he died; so why does R. G. Jolly keep harping about a quotation in 1938 – twelve years before he died? Is he offering an honest presentation to his readers when he ignores these latest quotations we are giving? And while he is at it, let him consider his own published statement in the 1954 P.T., P. 5, col. 1, par, 1 as follows:
“The Millennial reign of Christ will, therefore, be for the full subjection of all enemies and the restoration of peace and covenant relationship between God and man,”
Does R. G. Jolly still believe the above? If so, how does he reconcile it with his present position?
Coupled with our writing of November 1, we think these two articles will be about sufficient to fulfil our prediction that R. G. Jolly would in due course follow the example of That Evil Servant – assume an “abused” silence, and persuade his readers to do likewise. And we think the same prediction will prevail with respect to The Last Saint – also with his “consecrated Epiphany Campers.” In Brother Johnson's words (E‑5, P. 18) we also say: “When did our lord, our Pastor and other faithful servants of the Truth keep silent when their presentations were attacked and errors were introduced (Micah 5:5, 6)? Certainly they acted as we do in similar conditions, and not like the revolutionists.
“In all thy getting, get understanding.” And it is the prayer of the writer that each who reads these presentations “in sincerity and in truth” may grow in that understanding that maketh wise unto salvation.
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle ,Pilgrim