My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
In this March‑April Present Truth we find an elaborate discussion of the quasi‑elect, a large part of which is direct quotation or paraphrase of what Brother Johnson has already written on the subject, along with some parts that would appear to be excerpts from Brother Johnson's unpublished writings. With all of Brother Johnson's statements we are in full agreement; but at the outset we believe it should be emphatically noted that nowhere does Brother Johnson speak of a “quasi‑elect consecrated” – in every instance he speaks of them as the faith‑justified unconsecrated. Therefore, it behooves us to determine whether this new teaching is Scripturally sound – as the article under review claims.
We shall examine first “The other half Tribe of Manasseh”, as it appears on page 25, col. 2, where it is stated “the other half Tribe of Manasseh, which found its inheritance with the other nine tribes on the west side of Jordan, fittingly pictures the Consecrated Epiphany Campers.” Is there anything in the type to prove this, aside from the fact that they were just the “other half Tribe”? No, there is not; just the reverse is shown. Nowhere is any single member of that half tribe, or any group of them, shown to have even the slightest pre‑eminence over the other nine tribes. Even in the revolution after Solomon's death it was Jeroboam the Ephrathite who became king over Manasseh and the other nine rebelling tribes; and “Jeroboam built Shechem in Mount Ephraim, and dwelt therein”—1 Kgs. 12:25.
Furthermore, the one tribe that had pre‑eminence of long standing over the others was Judah, because they all knew Messiah was to come from that tribe; and it was the Tribe of Judah that eventually asserted itself to such an extent that all Israel accepted their name – commonly known now as Jews. Although Benjamin adhered to Judah in the aforementioned revolt, there was so few of Benjamin because of the incident recorded in Judges 20 that the two tribes were styled the Kingdom of Judah, and the people themselves as Judahs. As time went on, the name Judah became slurred by common usage to Juahs; and eventually to Jus, or Jews, which name has clung to the entire remainder of all twelve tribes, so that they are now known throughout the earth as Jews — the name having its origin in the Tribe of Judah.
In col. 1 of page 25 it is properly stated that the “subordinates” of all twelve tribes typed the quasi‑elect, which is Brother Johnson's thought. And, while there were probably some such in the half Tribe of Manasseh, there is just nothing to indicate that they exercised any authority outside their own bailiwick; so it is simply a tawdry and foolish invention to declare the whole half Tribe of Manasseh types the quasi-elect. It should also be noted that this half tribe “did not drive out the inhabitants.. but the Canaanites would dwell in that land” — Judges 1:27. Nor did the land allotted to Manasseh carry any special significance; there was nothing in it of special note. Jerusalem, in which centers the major hopes and carries the fondest memories of all Jews even to this day, was the capital of the Kingdom of Judah, although it was allotted to Benjamin in the original division of the land; but even this location is on the borderline of Judah and was first taken by them before it was occupied by Benjamin — Judges 1:8. All of the foregoing is direct Scriptural contradiction of the type now being presented as “Scriptural” to the readers of the Present Truth.
Next, we ask, What has become of R. G. Jolly's interpretation of Rev. 22:11? He has previously said this has its application at September 16, 1954. If that contention is right, then there can be no more “justification by faith” offered to any newcomers. Without “justification by faith” to give them “peace with God”, just what standing can his present quasi‑elect consecrated have? Can he quote to them Romans 12:1 if they have nothing “holy” to present? And under what law will he put them? “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country.”—Lev. 24:22. Will he put them under that “one manner of law” – the exacting law of self‑denial and cross‑bearing that pertains to the Elect – without offering them a corresponding compensation? If not, then what law! Can he offer them any hope of a “better resurrection”? And, if the Highway of Holiness is not yet open – as R. G. Jolly admits – then is theirs a consecration unto life, or unto death? Also, will he admonish them to “lay down their lives” for the Elect, when they cannot be of the Elect? If they do not participate in the “better resurrection”, then we can only conclude that theirs will be a resurrection in the common order with mankind in general, their only recognition being that they may appear somewhat better than their fellows when they do finally re‑appear on earth. If theirs is a consecration unto death, as has already been indicated in other Present Truths, then they cannot even be of that “third part I will bring through the fire.” (Zech. 13:8,9 See Berean Comments) And, if theirs is a consecration unto death, will they need to prove “faithful unto death”?
These are certainly logical questions for him to answer before he prevails upon his readers to study his presentation. If he cannot offer a clear and convincing answer to them all, then it would seem his whole presentation can result in nothing other than a secondary application of the incest of antitypical Lot (Gen. 19:30‑38), with substantially the same results. And any who study such perversion can expect the sure plagues that come from imbibing such error!
It should be noted, too, that Brother Johnson puts the quasi‑elect all in one class none of whom will have a “better resurrection” –; whereas, R. G. Jolly presents “ten distinct groups” on page 27 “quoted below”, as though Brother Johnson had written what he presents. We suggest that all read the citation in Vol. E‑12, page 519; then compare it with what R. G. Jolly “quotes”.
We believe time will prove R. G. Jolly's “consecrated Epiphany Campers” to be nothing more than a counterfeit – just as time has proven his Attestatorial Service to have been only a counterfeit. We say this without malice; it is the simple truth stated in words that best express it. As we all know, before the Little Flock Attestatorial Service was over in October 1916 every one of the Saints on earth was engaged in it; whereas, there were fewer Great Company engaged in the 1954‑56 service at its end than there were at its beginning, the same being only a very small fraction of all of them now on earth. Besides, the great public acclaim that was given the Photo‑Drama in 1914‑16 was certainly physical attestation of its success, was evidence of the cleansed group who were conducting it under Brother Russell, and of the Divine blessing which it received. It was a fitting tribute to one of God's great and true noblemen – in much the same fashion as was given by the public to “the Apostle and High Priest of our profession” as He rode into Jerusalem just before His death. The Photo‑Drama was without equal in its field at the time; it was the first production to synchronize sound with pictures; and it received the applause that was its just due. Almost the complete reverse is to be said about the Bible in Films. There's nothing new about it; it is a very commonplace production – so much so that an isolated sausage company used it to advertise its various brands of sausage over television. So far as we could discern, it was the exact duplicate of the Bible in Films. Such an Attestatorial Service should be expected to reap the rewards in keeping with its class – and this it has done!
Before closing this writing, we feel obligated to offer some comments on
“THE EDITOR'S TROPICS TRIP”
He says that “on arriving in Jamaica he visited the Condell home in the country”; but he is painfully silent about the real purpose of that visit, and its results. Why? He did not travel some forty miles into the mountains just to offer a prayer at the grave of our dear departed brother. He was invited to come there to appear before the Crofts Hill Class to answer questions – to which Sister Hoefle and this writer were also invited. So far as we know, R. G. Jolly had no advance notice of our arrangement to be there. He conducted a four‑hour continuous meeting, about which he gives not a word in his report. Again we ask – Why? The meeting was started shortly after 4:00 p.m., at which R. G. Jolly was presented with seven written questions, during the course of which he invited oral comment and questions ‑ but emphatically refused to hear any questions from us. He carried that meeting on continuously until shortly after eight o'clock; then attempted to close it. But the Crofts Hill brethren had come to that meeting for knowledge, so one of them made a motion that Brother Hoefle now be heard. After some attempt to kill the motion on the plea that those assembled “must be very tired by now” (which indeed they were), the vote was almost unanimous that we be heard, at which we took charge with the statement that we would be very brief; and we concluded within fifteen minutes.
During that short time we asked R. G. Jolly if he had any questions to ask us (a courtesy he emphatically refused us while he was in charge), to which he answered, No. We then asked if he would allow us to ask him some questions, to which he shouted, “I don't want to talk to you at all” (although he approached us with a cordial handshake and smile earlier that same day – when no brethren were present – which we both in courtesy accepted). Just think of it, Brethren! The “Pastor and Teacher” cringing from questions – afraid to ask questions, afraid to answer questions from the very “Sifters” he had come there specifically to “refute”. Could you think of Brother Russell or Brother Johnson adopting such a course under the same circumstances? Would they have been put to flight in a situation like that? What think you? R. G. Jolly offers here a perfect illustration of “What Pastor Russell Said”, pages 289‑296, with special notice to pages 293‑5. Well, the next day on the platform at the Kingston Convention he was his usual brave self again – loud and verbose ‑, when he was sure we could not answer him. His conduct was sadly reminiscent of other members of antitypical Saul during the Parousia day, who hid their faces and fled from the Truth, but who excoriated and railed at the “heretics” once they reached their own doorstep, and were convinced the throng was ready and willing to cry, “Crucify Him”.
But it should be noted that, so far as we are informed, not one of those present in that meeting on Thursday, January 10 changed his view about R. G. Jolly's sins of teaching and practice. It is truly a sorry spectacle to see one once enlightened with the Word of Truth, one who one tine was fully persuaded that he was a “secondarily Prophet”, fallen so low that he now shrinks from “refuting the gainsayers”, a quality which St. Paul specially enjoins upon those who consider themselves teachers of Truth. Throughout the Gospel Age the Lord's promise has been sure and steadfast to His faithful mouthpieces: “I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.” (Luke 21:15) It is now clear enough, from the performance at Crofts Hill that fatal afternoon, that R. G. Jolly no longer reposes in the security of that promise; but he is now forced to follow the shameful course of That Evil Servant of “avoid them” and “hush‑hush” – all the while he accentuates his “whispering campaign” in stealthy and unprincipled concept of Azazel. And any and all who give ear or encouragement to such depraved methods must surely become a partaker of his sins. We may be sure the day is not far distant when “iniquity shall have an end”!
May the God of all Grace make you perfect, stablish, strengthen and settle you.
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
Questions Of General Interest
Question: Brother Jolly has referred to the wilderness experience of the Little Flock and the wilderness experience of the Great Company as though they are similar and for the same purpose. What is your thought on this?
Answer: It is true the Bible states that both classes are in the wilderness condition during the Gospel Age; but there is one small item that must be taken into consideration here. It is the letter “f”. It is said in Rev. 12:6 that the Faithful True Church “fled into the wilderness”; whereas, it is stated in Lev. 16:10 that the Measurably Faithful are “led into the wilderness” – “to send him away unto Azazel”. It is also stated in Rev. 12:6 that the Faithful Church “hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there”; whereas, it is stated in Lev. 16:21 that Aaron shall confess over the head of Azazel's Goat (the Measurably Faithful) “all the iniquities of the sons of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins” – led into the wilderness to be buffeted by Azazel. From these citations it should be readily apparent that the Faithful Church fled into the wilderness condition for protection, while the Measurably Faithful are led there for correction. If these distinctions are kept clearly in mind, then it is all right to say that both classes are in the wilderness condition during the Gospel Age.
Question: Brother Jolly often states that his present position is proven to be of the Lord's appointment because Brother Johnson recommended him for the position of Executive Trustee. What do you think about that?
Answer: Yes, he has repeatedly made such claims orally. He did so again at Jamaica on January 10; and he elaborated by saying there was no analogy between the mistake made by the brethren selecting the Apostle to fill Judas' place and his present position, because those brethren were not spiritbegotten; whereas, R. G. Jolly's selection comes from a spirit‑begotten Star Member. We tried to question him on this, but he would have none of our questions; so we made a statement on it when it came our turn to speak, something as follows: The seventh and eighth Principal Men – spirit begotten Star Members ‑both named J. F. Rutherford to his position. Brother Johnson actually cast his vote for JFR as President of the Society, and he also repeatedly stated later that he was the leader of antitypical Elisha, the Truth section of the Great Company. But, did he continue as that leader? Certainly he did not – any more than he continued in the position of Saint and third‑ranking warrior of the Parousia David. Instead, he “went to his place” – “the perdition of ungodly men.” Therefore, we are not interested in what R. G. Jolly may have been twenty years ago as a yardstick for his present course; we're interested only in what he is today. And the course of That Evil Servant is indisputable proof of his foolish reasoning in the statement he made at Jamaica and other places.
Letters of General Interest
Dear Bro. Hoefle: Christian greetings!
I want to thank you and Sr. Hoefle for sending me your articles .... I appreciate this kindness very much, and I assure you I will give them my thoughtful and prayerful consideration. A cheek for $___ is enclosed to help... and if possible I shall endeavor to send an occasional contribution.
With sincere Christian love, I am Brother___________, Pennsylvania
Dear Brother Hoefle:
I should have written you before this, but I learned you were not home. I have studied and have proven your types and writings through Bro. Russell's and Bro. Johnson's teachings. It is in harmony with both Star Members' teachings. The Lord has also opened my eyes to see the evil part of Solomon's reign. I have found out a few of Jolly's errors before it was pointed out to me — and I noted them. The last one was the Faithful and Measurably Faithful .... The Lord has also opened my eyes to see that you are bringing out some advancing truth, which the Lord did not privilege Brother Johnson to see in his lifetime – especially The Third Watch.
There is much more I would like to say, but ill health prevents me... I wonder to know how brethren from Parousia time, after reading that parallel (R.G.Jolly being a parallel of That Wise & Faithful Servant), cannot see the errors that Krewson gave to him, and he (RGJ) endorsed them. I see your faithfulness in defending the Lord's sheep, by showing Professor Jolly's errors. Dear Brother, I refer you to Luke 6:22,23.... Please give love to Sister Hoefle and yourself. Trusting if it is the Lord's will I'll be able to meet you again. Yours by His Grace,
Mr. John Hoefle
I have been recev'g letters from you. I dont know you and i dont know how you obtand my adress. I am not interested in your writ'gs and am only putt'g them in the fires, so this to aske you to please discontinue send'g me any more of your foolish writ'gs.
Sincerly yours _________, California
Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace!
There are five here who have class study each Wednesday and one receives your letters and passes them around for each of us to read... Three of us find the copy “The Third Watch” so good we would love to have a copy each if it isn't asking too much of you and who types them for you.
I am enclosing $____ and I will send more as I am able.
Christian greetings in His dear name, Sister __________, California
Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in the Lord's Name!
This is just a note to let you know I have received your last letter and all your writings. I have read all your writings and find you have a great knowledge of Brother Johnson's works, so send along any writings on Youthful Worthies.
With Christian love to you and Sister, I remain, Sister __________, Pennsylvania