NO. 99: RESPONDING TO THE TRUMPET'S CALL

No. 99

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

“If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8) This query by St. Paul is undoubtedly prompted by the record of the two silver trumpets which the Lord told Moses to make (See Numbers 10), and which Brother Johnson has explained typify the Old and New Testament Bible mes­sages. That these would be typical is evidenced by the fact that they had to do with the law and the Tabernacle arrangements and the march of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan. They were to be blown “for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps.” That these trumpets served more than one purpose is clearly stated in v. 5 – “blow an alarm”; and in v. 10 – “in your day of rejoicing and in your appointed seasons.”

While the main purpose of this article is the feature of v. 5, we first offer some comment on the second feature – the “Appointed seasons.” Chief of these was the sounding of the Jubilee Trumpet every fiftieth year, which was to proclaim a special year of rest for man and land; and to set at liberty such of the Israelites whose improvidence had forced them into a state of slavery with their brethren.  This Jubilee trumpet year was typical of the grand year of Jubilee, the great thousand ­year day, the reign of the Christ which is to free mankind from the slavery of sin and death now more than six thousand years gone. This is described in Revelation 10 and 11 as the “seventh trumpet,” whose sounding began in 1874 and will continue through­out the entire thousand-year day during which Satan, who “has the power of death” (Heb. 2:14) is to be bound that he may deceive the nations no more.  Thus, we our­selves are now living during the sounding of this trumpet.

And, since we are so directly concerned with the seventh trumpet's sounding, it is well that we consider a few of its more important messages. Among the first of these is that given in Rev. 10:6: “There should be time no longer.” This statement has been accepted literally by the great bulk of Christendom, even to using the hymn, “When my work on earth is ended, and time shall be no more.” Just a little reflection must impress us that time must continue so long as there is any intelligence remain­ing to note and be influenced by time; and, since Jehovah Himself is without begin­ning or ending, so also time itself must be. Therefore, the hymn is a self-evident inanity.

That Evil Servant also offered a perversion of this text almost equally ludicrous when his 'Millions Now Living Will Never Die' and his 1925 deadline were time-proven error. To divert attention from his colossal blunder on that date he proposed the interpretation that, since so many mistakes had been made on time interpretations, therefore, no more consideration should be given the subject. This also caused him to cast aside the Pyramid with its many time-feature truths.

To answer this revolting perversion Brother Johnson directed attention to the proper translation of the text from the Diaglott: “The time shall be no longer de­layed” – that is, the long-awaited “manifestation of the sons of God,” for which the slave-burdened human race has been waiting with groanings and travailings, would be­gin to be made manifest by their proceeding to establish the Mediatorial Kingdom in power and great glory for the “blessing of all the families of the earth.” And among the first blasts of the Seventh Trumpet was That Servant's declaration that the Millennial morning had most certainly appeared to extirpate the rule of sin and death.

Another of the initial features of the Seventh Trumpet is given in Rev.  10:7, “The mystery of God should be finished” – that “mystery which was kept secret  since the world began” (Rom. 16:25) that the Christ is not an individual, but a composite company (See Berean Comments). It was this text that furnished the name for Volume Seven, “The Finished Mystery,” and which caused the sorest of trials upon God's people in 1917-1918. That book, which was made a test of fellowship by the Society then, has since become “expurgatus,” with the present-day Society adherents forbidden to read it. Those of us who became involved in that grievous trial should have learned well the lesson that we should approach with much trepidation and minutest scrutiny any new publication by crown-lost leaders; but, sad to relate, so very few profited by the experience. At that period were there not only “great voices in Heaven, but the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead that they should be judged.” (Rev. 11:15-18)

THE CALL TO BATTLE

But, not only did the seventh trumpet announce “your day of rejoicing,” it also gave out the call for all spiritual Israel to gird themselves for the battle of this Great Day, and to wholeheartedly respond to the Harvest message of Present Truth, to proclaim the controversial messages of the Harvest time the Truth against error. ''And if ye go to war in your land (the sphere of the Truth and its spirit) ... ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.” (Num. 10:9) Here, then, is the promise of victory to all those who wholeheartedly respond to the Trumpet's call – “saved from your enemies” – the same being sin, error, selfishness and worldliness. And the rules of the conflict are the same for all – ­“Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger (the Youthful Worthies), as for one of your own country” – the Church of the Firstborn. (Lev. 24:22) Typical of the conflict in the beginning of this Millennial day is the record of Gideon and his fully faithful band of three hundred (Judges 7:15-23), wherein the Truth people went forth to do battle with the antitypical Midianites (present-day errorists). And in that type it was Gideon blowing his trumpet (v. 18) that signaled the others to blow with their trumpets, the which brought consternation and complete demoralization to the Camp of Midian. The blowing of the trumpet was the call to Battle.

AS “GOOD SOLDIERS”

And be it remembered that it was only after very minute instructions that Gideon and his three hundred proceeded to that battle – typical of the fact that the fully faithful in the end of this Age would also be thoroughly instructed in the cause, the method, and the art of the battle of the Great Day – “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” but are the “sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God.” Thus is stressed the necessity for knowing the Truth and imbibing fully of its spirit – and emphasized in the Manna comment for December 20, “Only the studious find the narrow way to the Divine approval and acceptance.''

It is well that we bear in mind that our Lord, “the Captain of our Salvation,” never sends forth His soldiers without sufficient instruction to gain for them com­plete victory, so long as they are faithful. None are ever asked to do more than they are able to do. We recall an instance that was told to us very early in the Epiphany, wherein it was related how Brother Russell on a certain occasion was assigning some symposium topics to various brethren. One of them, receiving a sub­ject which was difficult and new to him, began to make excuse, whereupon Brother Russell asked if he were going to whimper and whine his way out of the battle, or if he would be a “good soldier.” The brother accepted without further protest, and gave an excellent account of himself for the service.  Apropos to this incident are the March 28 Manna comments: “The true soldier does not debate his cause. He is rightly supposed to have settled upon its justice and righteousness before he enlisted to serve it.” Therefore, we may properly conclude that we must first learn the rules, then resolve to obey them in every circumstance, whereupon we shall certainly be able to “endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.”

Nor does “hardness” come in a day, a week, or a year;  it is the result of “patient continuance in well  doing – perseverance  in  good  works”  (Rom.  2:7—Dia.) – just as the successful boxer must do miles of 'road work' in training for a bout, skipping rope, etc., to develop hardness and stamina in his legs, back and arms if he would eventually prevail. And by similar comparison must we engage in persistent study of the Truth if we would be “weaned from the milk” (Isa. 28:9) and become “skillful in the word of righteousness” (Heb. 5:13), if we would see victory as “good soldiers.” And it is by the victories of such good soldiers who “endure hardness” that the Truth progresses. Most of us have been witness to this, retrospectively or actively, all during the Parousia-Epiphany days. It is the controversies with error that have advanced the fully faithful in Grace, knowledge and privilege of service –­ even as those same controversies have scattered and discomfited the errorists, so well typified in Gideon's victory over Midian.

A “BAD SPIRIT”

And all during the Gospel Age, but particularly now at its close, when the errorists have been so badly routed that they become speechless, they have then embraced the battle cry of last resort –Those who wield the Truth against them have a “bad spirit.” To this day the foremost argument of the Roman Catholics against Martin Luther is that he showed a “bad spirit,” because he stunned them with the unanswerable truth against their many errors. It needs no argument that dear Brother Luther did not assail his opponents with 'kid gloves'; in fact, his wording was at times so rough and vivid that for a time Brother Johnson questioned his saintly standing – he found it difficult to understand how any one using the language Luther did could be of the Little Flock. But he finally came to realize that the times then prevailing required such a person as Luther to make his message effective with the people of that day. Respecting Luther, we emphasize that Brother Johnson in final judgment counted Luther as one of the fully faithful 49 Stars – held in the Lord's “right hand” (Rev. 1:16) – regardless of his “bad spirit.”

And in 1917 the same retort of “bad spirit” was hurled at Brother Johnson, too He described H. J. Shearn, of England, as the most cunning hypocrite he had ever met; yet that trickster gave answer, “You see, brethren, the 'spirit' that he shows.” Others of the discomfited Levites embraced the same weapon, as he smote their errors hip and thigh, and sent them into demoralized retreat, yelling “bad spirit” back over their shoulders as they ran. In answer to a letter we sent That Evil Servant, he said, among other things, “Paul S. L. Johnson is vilifying me.” Yes, J. F. Rutherford was really being vilified – by the Truth, poor fellow!

Be it emphasized that the errorists have always been good runners, instead of “good soldiers” – just as the Midianites ran over each other that night in the valley of Moreh in their effort to separate themselves in haste from the small handful of men who were blowing their trumpets in no uncertain sound. Moreh means “teacher,” in allusion to the fact that so many errorists set themselves up as Pastors and Teachers in defiance of God's faithful mouthpieces. Instance the case of Arius when he boldly faced the overwhelming odds at the Council of Nice – “the Midianites like grasshoppers for multitude” (Judges 7:12). And against that horde came one old man, supported by but two others, to do battle as a “good soldier” against about 380 opponents. Arius, then almost 75 years old, was banished from the Roman Empire, a sentence sufficient to crush even a young vigorous man; yet this “good soldier,” who blew the trumpet message that “THERE IS BUT ONE GOD,” accepted that trying edict, not as a runner, but as the good soldier that he was; went to North Africa, and there organized a virile group of Christians in the remaining eleven years of his life. And what did they call themselves? Why, Arians, of course! Having responded to the trumpet's call, Arius was a good soldier to the last.

Thus, it does not surprise us that we ourselves have had similar experience since Brother Johnson's death, especially in recent months. As example, Fred Blaine in Trinidad, who also proved himself a good runner when we invited him to meet with us on the platform before the brethren there – although we assume he did his usual good job of talking “proven sifter,” of whispering about the “bad spirit of JJH” – at a safe distance from the battle front. And the “cousins” also (Jolly­-Krewson) have been profuse with their accusations of “bad spirit,” even as they con­fuse and contradict each other – in like manner as did the Midianites at Moreh. As example, the correct date for the Memorial: J. W. Krewson contends it is a Little Flock developing Truth (although Brother Johnson himself clearly states it is a Great Company developing Truth) – as R. G. Jolly is silent on this feature, appar­ently fearing to handle that point at all. Note the similarity here with Mark 14:56: “Many bear false witness against Him, but their witness agreed not together.” Also, J. W. Krewson says our quotation from Brother Johnson – “Never before the Vernal Equinox” – is a quotation from Josephus (more “false witness”)” – even as R. G. Jolly ignores Brother Johnson's statement completely. Other similar instances could readily be offered, but we would spare you, not wishing to make this article over-­lengthy. But in all of this the “cousins” have been excellent 'whisperers' about the “bad spirit” of JJH, as note J. W. Krewson's paper of March-April No. 49, pp. 9 and 14; but “their witness agrees not together.” (Mark 14:56)

The feature of response to the trumpet's sound throughout this Gospel Age may be stressed in the good fight against sins of teaching and practice in entrenched strongholds of error. The fight against sin, selfishness and worldliness, indivi­dually considered, has been more of the head and the heart within the “good soldiers” themselves; but the conflict with errors of teaching and practice is the phase of battle that has made voluminous record in the pages of history. It was Jesus' faith­ful “witness to the Truth” against Jewish priestcraft that cost Him His life—­John 18:37 (See Berean Comment). It was exposure of errors by the faithful against the papal system that brought upon them the excruciating persecutions, indescribable for their heinous cruelty, and which spilled “the blood of prophets and of saints” (Rev. 18:24). It was That Servant's attacks against the Midianite strongholds of eternal torment and inherent human immortality that brought upon him the venom and slander of Christendom – so much so that when one brother once said to him, “Brother Russell, you are the most loved man on earth,” he replied, “Yes, and the most hated!” The same may be said for Brother Johnson. When he discomfited the crown-lost errorists, and put them to complete silence, they then proceeded to whisper, “He hath a Devil –­ He is Satanized – He is an insane usurper.” And, since “The Disciple is not above his Lord,” need it concern any of us if we receive the same treatment, we who were counted among his disciples? All thus abused have the strong assurance of our Lord's inter­ceding prayer on our behalf, “Rise up, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee” – let the errorists do the running, as the faith­ful “good soldiers” do the pursuing with the Truths at their disposal.

“GIVING ALL DILIGENCE”

When St. Peter appeals to the Fully Faithful to “give all diligence” (2 Pet 1:5), he also offers the appealing assurance that those who do as he counsels “shall never fall” – even though we have need of reminder, though we know these  things  and “be established in the PRESENT TRUTH.” It is also the counsel of  the  worldly  sage  that  “Diligence is the mother of good fortune” – to which may be added  the  words of  Solomon, “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings.” (Prov. 22:29) And the chief striving of every “good soldier” who answers the trumpet's call should be diligence to “put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil” (Eph. 6:11) – the especially deceptive false teachings of the errorists, the antitypical Midianites. And to all such who give such diligence in response to the trumpet's call, to all such the promise is sure, “There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling” (Isa. 91:10) – no sifting error can possibly contaminate our abode.

Sincerely your brother,

John J.  Hoefle, Pilgrim

--------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – On pp. 55,56 of this July Bible Standard Brother Jolly announces another new tract for special distribution to Jehovah's Witnesses. What is your opinion of the tract?  Is it doctrinally true?

ANSWER: – When R. G. Jolly says, “Israel as a nation will be the first of the nations to come into harmony with the new order of affairs on earth,” he is stating a generalized truth, somewhat after the manner of Brother Russell in Volumes 1, 3 and 4; but this forces us once more to inquire, Is it motive or ignorance that prompts him to avoid clarification? Brother Russell offers a correct and detailed explanation of the question in Reprints 5164, Jan. 15, 1913 Watch Tower as follows:

“The New Covenant will begin to swallow up the old Law Covenant as soon as the Kingdom is established. The Scriptures indicate that the first to receive it will be the Ancient Worthies. Raised from the dead to human perfection, they will form the nucleus of the new arrangements in the earth. Next in order will be those who have been known as Christians (the quasi-elect—JJH), but who have not consecrated to death (as R. G. Jolly claims for his Campers Consecrated—JJH), and Jews who have been consecrated to the law, but who have been blinded. Gradually the light will come to all who love righteousness and hate iniquity. Sprinkled from all sympathy with evil, they will make their declaration of full loyalty to God. In due time this light will spread to all kindred and tongues and nations.”

The foregoing is a true definition of the quasi-elect, which is explained in the same exact manner, but using different words, by Brother Johnson in E-10:209 – ­“The Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.”

It should not require much spiritual understanding to realize that the foregoing statements by both Star Members will not embrace the Jewish nation in all its living individuals throughout the earth, but just a representative part – even only a part of those now in Palestine, or yet to arrive before Jacob's Trouble – any more than could be said of all individuals of the Jewish nation in the Jewish Age (although our Lord presented Himself at His First Advent to the Jew – the first to receive the Gospel Message, even though only a representative few accepted Him). The large majority of them failed to receive the blessings of the Mosaic Covenant, almost all of the “ten lost tribes” losing it, with the majority of the remaining minority also losing it. “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh.” (Rom. 11:7) “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly.” (Rom. 2:28) If we are very exacting, then we are forced to state that the qualified Jews in Palestine at the time the Kingdom is established (those still trusting in the promises to “the fathers”) will begin to receive the blessing of the quasi-elect even before their Christian section of the same class of “sons” (Joel 2:28) begin to receive theirs.  The promise, “To the Jew first” (Rom. 2:9,10) is certain of accomplishment – if for no other reason than that they will be “on the ground floor” – right there in the land of Palestine when “the fathers” appear on the scene; but in addition to reason and facts, we have “also a more sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet. 1:19) given by our Lord as cited above, which is all-sufficient for us, But, before that time arrives, the undesirables – those not of the quasi-elect – ­will have been eliminated – “half the city shall go forth into captivity” (Zech. 14:1-3).

It is our conviction that R. G. Jolly understood all of the foregoing when he was under the benign supervision of the Epiphany Messenger. Why, then, is he com­pletely silent about it in his new tract? Can it be he is back to his old trick of “misrepresentation” (See E-10:585), of which Brother Johnson warned the General Church? He has been telling his Campers Consecrated that they will be chief above all the quasi-­elect, because of their “consecration unto death,” and would naturally be the first to be blessed under the Worthies – with a higher standing before the Lord than the unconsecrated quasi-elect; whereas, his new tract says the Jewish nation will be first to be blessed.  The JW's use similar technique by telling their “Great Multitude” that they will precede all others – so there is little to choose between the promises they make to their hybrid non-existent class than there is of the promises R. G. Jolly is making to his Campers Consecrated, with both of them offering “strange fire” (false doctrine) in their attempts to “run ahead of the Lord” and create a special Restitution Class not described in the Scriptures or taught by either of the last two Principal Men.  This reminds us of two unscrupulous political parties, each trying to out-promise the other, with the voters asking in disgust, “Why change? What can you give us that we don't already have?” Certainly, there is not much incentive for the JW's “Great Multitude” to decide to become Campers consecrated; so we ask if R. G. Jolly may have thought of all this when preparing his new tract, or if this is some more Parousia-­Epiphany Truth on which he is now “sitting in darkness” (Psa. 107:10)? Please note he has defined quite clearly and correctly the true four elect classes of the Kingdom – ­but not one word about his own semi-elect consecrated fifth class in his recently ­constructed Camp – the same being a very close “relative'' to the JW's “Great Multitude.” Just an oversight, would you say – or “handling the Word of God deceitfully”?—2 Cor. 4:2. In our Three Babylons Tract we have presented the true view on this subject, exactly as Brother Russell and Brother Johnson taught it – as we have also analyzed the erroneous views of the JW's and LHMM on their hybrid non-existent classes, and have shown them to be perversions (Azazel means Perverter) by crown-lost leaders in Little Babylon of the Truth given by the last two Star Members. As for ourselves, we still accept in total the teachings of both Messengers, as defined aforegoing, the same being summarized in E-4:342 (7) as follows:

“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, will be the Millennial associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service” – (with the unconsecrated but repentant and believing Jews and Gentiles comprising the quasi-elect, the “sons” of Joel 2:23—JJH).

And to afford credence and substance to the foregoing by Brother Johnson, we offer this from Brother Russell:

“It is our thought that with the closing of the 'door' of this Gospel Age there will be no more begetting of the Holy Spirit to the spirit nature. Any afterward coming to God through consecration, before the inauguration of the restitution work, will be accepted by Him, not to the spirit plane of being, but to the earthly plane. Such would come in under the same conditions as the Ancient Worthies ... Our thought is that whoever under such conditions as these will make a full consecration to the Lord, to leave all to follow in His ways, and will live up faithfully, loyally, to that consecration, may be privileged to be counted as a similar class to those who preceded this Gospel Age. We know of no reason why the Lord would refuse to receive those who make a consecration after the Close of the Gospel Age High Calling and before the full opening of the Millennium.” (This is exactly as we have presented it in “earnestly contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints” – Star Members – Jude 3—JJH) See Reprints 5761, Sept. 1, 1915 Watch Tower.

Be it noted that Brother Johnson built his Epiphany elaborations exactly in line with Parousia teachings, just as we do with both Parousia and Epiphany teachings (“The advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth formerly received, as some deceivers teach” – E-9:19 – as do the “Cousins” with their new false doctrine of Campers consecrated or Quasi-elect consecrated). And all during Brother Johnson's ministry he was refuting and denouncing the non-existent class of the Jehovah's Witnesses, just as we are now doing with the LHMM non-existent class – the only difference between Brother Johnson and us at present being that now we are burdened with just one more such non-existent class (Campers consecrated), which places an additional obligation upon us because of the deflection of our fellow pilgrims and former brethren. Gospel-Age history con­tinues to repeat itself all through its last special stage (the Epiphany period). Brother Johnson's extra burdens were also imposed by his fellow pilgrims and former brethren.

And what shall we say of the same class of leaders here in the end of this Age, but to repeat what our Beloved Lord said of the Scribes and Pharisees at the begin­ning of the Gospel Age: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves”—Matt. 23;15; and the Berean Comments on this Scripture: “With your missionary activities... One convert to your false and therefore injurious doctrines.... The effect of the preaching of the bungling argu­ments of sectarianism in India has been to turn the whole country from heathenism to complete infidelity.” (Yet R. G. Jolly claims they are bringing them to “justification”!)

-----------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS  OF  GENERAL  INTEREST

Dear Sirs: – Recently the husband of one of the members of my parish died. Several days later she received in the mail a copy of the Herald of the Epiphany, a special edition for August 1st, 1959. The letter was mailed from some place in Con­necticut. It was unsigned and there was no return address. It was obvious that the sender had apparently read of the death in the newspaper and had addressed the corres­pondence to Mrs. ------- in hopes that under the duress of grief, this particular point of view of death and life after death might find acceptance.

This whole thing was extremely upsetting to Mrs. -------. She and I both feel that this kind of thing is neither good taste nor good Christianity. She and her family are regularly at worship in our church. They find their faith in Jesus Christ both helpful and inspiring. One of her sons is seriously considering the ministry as his vocation.

I realize that you may have little control over this kind of activity but if you do, I hope that you will do what you can to see that it ends. I will affirm your right to publish and to distribute literature and propaganda. But I do think that it is un­fair to enter a family's life with this kind of thing at the time of death.  Certainly I cannot imagine that Jesus would do this kind of thing.

Sincerely, ------- Minister (MASSACHUSETTS)

Our answer to the above letter:

Sir: – Christian Greetings!

In your letter of March 8 you inform us that your member Mrs. ------- received one of our papers after the burial of her husband, and that the contents of our tract are objectionable to you. We have no way of knowing who sent Mrs. ------- the paper; but we are convinced that the paper contained the Truth as revealed in the inspired Record if it bore our name. Therefore, when you resent “the entrance of that Word that giveth light” (Psa. 119:130), I cannot but wonder whether you are properly motivated in your ministerial activities. Those who love God's Word seek to bless others – ­especially in “their time of need” – with the comforting assurance of His Plan of Salvation and a future hope for the dead. That is my understanding of a Christian's obligation toward others, as embodied in that “wisdom that is from above.”

When you say you “cannot imagine Jesus would do this kind of thing,” I remind you of a prophetic text concerning Him (Isa. 61:1-3): “The spirit of the Lord is... upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek... to bind up the brokenhearted.... to comfort all that mourn.... the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.” Self-evidently, this text would have its primary appli­cation in just such a case as the death of Mr. -------; and in what better way can any of us apply ourselves to the grief-stricken than by ministering “the Good Word of God”? Surely, you yourself know that the ministers and leaders of our Lord's Day, the High Priest in particular (“he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin”—­John 19:11), resented Him because He bore ''witness to the Truth” (which exposed their errors). Since the “servant is not above his Master,” we are not too much surprised when we receive much the same treatment from present-day ministers and leaders.

When Mrs. ------- came to you with our paper, could it possibly be that its most dis­turbing feature to you was the Truth it contained, and that she herself wanted to know how to reconcile this Truth with the error that you and others have taught her in the past?

No, my dear sir, I think Jesus would have done even as we have done had He been here under circumstances similar to ours; and we may be sure that He would have re­ceived much the same 'objections' from you and others that we receive as we seek to be a good witness and “good soldier” of Jesus Christ.

Sincerely yours, John J. Hoefle – Executive Director

...........................................................................

My dear Brother Hoefle – Greetings in His dear Name!

I appreciate your letter of June 7 very much, and also the last article you mentioned. I can't see how it could be better! I sure get blessings and wonder­ful help from them – in fact, all your writings are uplifting and encouraging, and are ringing true with both Parousia and Epiphany Truth. How we can “Praise the Lord for His merciful kindness is great toward us.” I am so thankful to the dear Lord for you, dear Brother, and I pray for the Lord to keep you faithful, so that we can be faithful –­ and rejoice in the Truth greatly.

I know Brother ------- got the papers, for he told me he had read them – and he, too, thought they were good....

My Christian love to you and all with you – and May the Lord's rich blessing be with you all is my prayer. Your sister in the One Faith ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)

P.S.  Please send some more tracts....Thank you!

----------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

OUR SPECIAL EFFORT: – In harmony with Bro. Johnson's custom, we designate October 13 through Nov. 10, which includes five Sundays – in which all may participate in serving at Church doors who have opportunity – for our Special Effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle. The Epiphany Messenger did this in honor of the memory of That Wise and Faithful Servant, who “poured out his soul unto death” in faithfully presenting these Truths to Big Babylon, and refuting and resisting their errors. We also invite all who are 'like-minded' to join with us in the distribution of the Three Babylons tract (which is a summary of Epiphany teaching) to individuals and groups in Little Babylon, in special remembrance and honor of the Epiphany Messenger, who likewise “poured out his soul unto death” in faithfully presenting these Truths to Little Babylon, while resisting and refuting their errors.  We call our readers' atten­tion to Bro. Johnson's statement on the Gideon tracts as follows:

“We now see that the public testimony that the Little Flock has been giving against Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead is connected with the leading of nominal-church section of Azazel's Goat from the door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court .... We are certain that the faithful (Little Flock) will be the only ones to persist therein (1) unto a completion (2) in the true spirit of the High Priest,”

And to this we add: “True enough (v. 4), the dear ones who participate in this conflict are antitypically faint, i.e., they are weak in numbers and in resources: but the Lord God Almighty is with them by His Vicegerent, our beloved Gideon, the Lord Jesus, who is invested with all authority in heaven and in earth (Matt. 23:20), and with whom but one is a majority and an invincible host! And with an unwavering faith in and an implicit obedience to Him, though faint, they are yet pursuing! And with Him they will yet capture antitypical Zebah and Zalmunna, as they have struck them a blow, before which they are even now in ignominious flight with their terrified host.”See E-5:237 (64)

And we are certain that the faithful Youthful Worthies will heartily join with them, even as they did under Bro. Johnson – because we know any participation in the Battles of the Faithful will surely receive the approval and reward of the Lord. So, to all the faithful – whether Priests or Youthfuls – we gladly supply these “timely tracts” free, carrying charges prepaid, our only limitation being the recommendation that no more be ordered than will be faithfully distributed in the true spirit of a “good soldier” in this Battle. And we ask all to join with us in praying, God bless their memory!

NO. 98: OUR JULY PAPER NO. 97 (CONTINUED)

No. 98

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

Due to the time element and other considerations, we were unable to give full analysis to the May-June Present Truth, so we now keep our promise to present further comment thereon; and we begin with Brother Johnson's statement in E-5:497 (25):

''The reason for the reassertion of the Parousia Truth is that many who were once its exponents as pilgrims, elders, etc., are seeking to over­throw it. As Satan's mouthpieces, in proportion to their abilities they are attacking the Truth that they once professed to hold as dearer than life itself. Some of these attack some of its features; others attack others of its features; and by the time that the sixty groups of Levites will have been formed (the LHMM is one of those sixty groups – JJH), every feature of the Parousia Truth will have been repudiated and attacked by one or another of the sixty groups of Levite leaders.”

We now present to R. G. Jolly and Fred Blaine our Question No. 16: Do you believe the above teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? But, as we await their answer, we now proceed to explain why Brother Johnson could logically reach such a conclusion. In E-8:192, he offers this fact: “The crown-lost leaders in all cases perverted some doctrinal feature in the teachings given by the Little Flock crown-retaining leaders. “ We find this even more to the point in E-5:499:

''He (Bro. Johnson) abhors controversy with brethren (just as we also do–JJH), and at first had, by the Lord to be pushed into it, greatly against his inclina­tions (as was also our own experience – JJH).... Just as after the Apostles fell asleep, Satan used crown-losing leaders who hungered for a following to pervert the Apostolic Truth, until it was lost from the earth through their efforts, culminating in the papacy; so after That Servant passed beyond the veil, Satan began to raise up crown-lost leaders to take away from the Church the Truth that the Lord gave by him, seeking to destroy it entirely,”

Thus, it should not surprise us at all to see R. G. Jolly doing identically the same thing that his kinsmen in the other 59 groups have been doing – something he was not in position to do until he was fully abandoned to Azazel in 1950. Let us not for­get that Brother Johnson taught that all new creatures were to be regarded as Priests, and in the Holy, until they revolutionized, and were then forced into the Court. But so long as they remained in the Holy, many of them (even including That Evil Servant before he became such – and including also R. G. Jolly before his manifesta­tion in 1938) gave commendable and valiant aid to the Truth movement. It was only after their abandonment to Azazel that all of the Epiphany Levite leaders began their headlong rush to pervert various features of the Parousia Truth. That is why Brother Johnson states in E-10:398:

“As long as the priesthood does not abandon crown losers, Azazel cannot possess himself of them.”

And, according to R. G. Jolly's own admission, Brother Johnson never at any time dur­ing the latter's life abandoned R. G. Jolly (withdrew brotherly fellowship from him). That is why he retained – on the surface, at least – the Epiphany Truth while restrained by Brother Johnson's presence with us; and that is why we may be fully certain now that he is not cleansed, as he claims. Otherwise, he would not have become so befuddled by Azazel that he would have accepted and persistently retains, those perversions of Parousia and Epiphany Truth that were fed to him by his “cousin” J. W. Krewson.

And he kill continue to “wallow” in such errors until he comes to a correct understanding and sufficient honesty to admit the truth (“they admitted not the love of the Truth”– 2 Thes. 2:10, Dia.) on the abandonment procedure for all crown-losers, as set out so succinctly and clearly in E-15:525-527 and in E-4:210 – a teaching on which he self-evidently wasn't clear – although he may have understood, perhaps vaguely, its workings toward crown-losers in other groups. This is exactly as Brother Johnson taught about this Class, as it is recorded in E-4:129!

“Whatever 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.”

Clearly enough, R. G. Jolly does not yet understand this doctrine; and this in turn is prima facie evidence that he cannot possibly be cleansed. Otherwise, he would understand it, as Brother Johnson has stated he would. Indeed, here is provided a striking example in proof of this Epiphany teaching – the most prominent crown-loser (R. G. Jolly) in the Epiphany Movement, one who was proof-reading about everything Bro. Johnson wrote, yet no more grasping its portent as applicable to himself than those who had never read the teaching – even though Brother Johnson cogently emphasized its applicability to all crown-losers in all its features before they can be cleansed – ­the same applying to the very best of them right in the Epiphany Movement (to those who lost their crowns by the “skin of their teeth”– Please see E-15:525).

Note also that Brother Johnson insisted that crown-losers were never forced out of the Holy until they revolutionized – that they must first revolutionize before they could be abandoned by the Priests and delivered over to Azazel. Yet, in the face of this clear Epiphany teaching, R. G. Jolly immediately declared all new creatures in the Epiphany Movement, and everywhere, to be crown-losers at Brother Johnson's death; and received them (of the LHMM group) and used them as Pilgrims, contrary to Brother Johnson's action with R. G. Jolly when he was manifested in 1938, and forced out of the Holy. However, since 1950 all the LHMM leaders who have embraced R. G. Jolly's errors have clearly revolutionized against Epiphany Truth and some features of Parousia Truth, thus definitely manifesting themselves – although this conclusion certainly would not apply to those Epiphany new creatures who have left him. That is why we insist that some priests are to be found among those who have not revolutionized. To all of our readers we urge another careful reading of The Epiphany Messenger's writings as cited herein. Especially do we stress this with our Youthful Worthy readers, because revolutionism by them would in principle label them in like manner to revolutionizing new creatures – a loss of their Class standing and the Lord's disapproval.

THE PARALLEL OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

It should be kept in mind that Brother Russell here in the reaping feature of the Gospel-Age Harvest was an exact parallel to the twelve Apostles in the reaping feature of the Jewish Harvest; and, as soon as those Apostles passed from their earthly activities, the crown-lost leaders began immediately to pervert one after another of their teachings. That is why Brother Johnson could reach the conclusion he did in E-5:497; and we ourselves have been witness to the truth of his observation, even moreso than he himself had been, because the last Levite post to operate as such under a crown-lost leader is the L.H.M.M., which process could not begin until after Brother Johnson's death. And what do we see with respect to this group? Have they not matched stride for stride their kinsmen in the other 59 groups? And does this not automatically prove all of the sixty groups to be Little Babylon – confusion? Here are just a few illustrations:

(l) – They now teach Tentative Justification in the Camp; whereas, the Parousia Truth (and confirmed and reasserted repeatedly by the Epiphany Messenger because of the Epiphany crown-lost leaders' perversions on Tentative Justification) stated this condition is typed in the Court.

(2) –     In Tower Reprints, page 5526, caption “The Present Crisis,” Brother Russell says this, in part: “The present terrible war is not the great time of trouble in its fullest sense of the word, but merely its forerunner. The great time of trouble of the Scriptures (the Epiphany period in its fullest sense, because the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identicalJH) will be brought on by Anarchy – ­the general uprising of the people;. as the Prophet says, 'every man's hand against his neighbor' – Zech. 8:10.” (But R. G. Jolly has the 'overlapping' of the Time of Trouble – The Epiphany period – taking place when only the 'forerunner' – as Bro. Russell tells us – has transpired–JJH)

Clearly enough, if Brother Russell is right, the Prophet is here describing the Great Tribulation, the Epiphany period in the “fullest sense of the word.” R. G. Jolly now repudiates this Parousia Truth by having the Epiphany period end in its “restricted sense” in 1954; whereas, it has not yet even in 1963 arrived in the “fullest sense of the word” if the Parousia Messenger knew whereof he wrote. And the “cousin” (J. W, Krewson) has the Epiphany period as a thing of the past, before it has actually arrived in “the fullest sense of the word.” This perversion by the both of them is exactly in keeping with perversions of other truths by the crown-lost leaders in the other 59 groups, except worse for the “cousins” because of the greater light received by them from the Epiphany Messenger. This conclusion by us is also based upon another Parousia teaching, as given in the Berean Comment on 2 Thes. 2:11: “Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.”

Therefore, we now propound our Question No. 17 to Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly: Do you believe the foregoing teaching by the Parousia Messenger, a teaching which was accepted in every detail by the Epiphany Messenger?

CERTAIN SCRIPTURES IGNORED

In E-4:341 Brother Johnson makes this comment: ''This method of making people forget certain phases of a doctrine by ignoring them,, and by talking as the purpose in view required on others of its phases exclusively, whenever discus­sion of that doctrine occurred, was characteristic of, and conducive to the great falling away in the beginning of the Age..”

Surely, all of us know – even as those now truth-repudiating leaders of the LHMM themselves know – that it has ever been a characteristic of all errorists to stress such Scriptures as suit their purpose, even as they ignore, or even repudiate, other Scriptures that would utterly destroy their position. Early in the Epiphany we were refuting an errorist on the state of the dead, etc., at which he cited Elijah's whirl­wind experience, to prove that here at least was one that had gone to Heaven. When we quoted in offset John 3:13, “No man hath ascended into Heaven,” he violently cast down the Bible, and shouted, “I don't believe that!” – and walked away.

Thus, also, Jehovah's Witnesses are now forced to ignore certain Scriptures which destroy their present contentions. In their funeral discourses they no longer quote 1 Tim. 2:4, “God will have all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the Truth”; just as they also now pass by 1 Cor. 15:22, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Likewise, a Christian Science reader made use of Rom. 8:17 in his funeral oration, “If children, then heirs, and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.” And right there he stopped, knowing that the remainder of the text, “if so be that we suffer with Him,” would cause him to appear imbecilic, since they contend there is no suffering – it's all just a state of mind.

CONSECRATION IN THE CAMP

Come now R. G. Jolly and his henchmen no longer using Heb. 13:13, “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing his reproach.” In times past this was always an appropriate and often-used text in consecration discourses; but not so any longer in the LHMM. Even the merest beginners might want to know just how they are to “go to Him without the camp,” even as they are now being told that they come to Him ''within the camp” – as Consecrated Campers. Last Fall at the Chicago Convention August Gohlke made quite some point in his discourse of how one section of those formerly associated with them had gone to one extreme, while the other section had gone to the other extreme – even as they themselves were occupying “the golden middle.”. Indeed, there was much more Truth mixed in with his error than he himself realized. Had he but omitted the word “golden,” his statement would have been the full truth; for they are now decidedly occupying the “middle” when they place their proselytes in the Camp. It is truly the “middle” between the Court, which contains the truly justified, and “without the Camp.” (“Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,” saith the Lord – Luke 19:22)

Be it ever remembered that Big Babylon also has occupied “the golden middle” all during the Age; they also are in the Camp, which places R. G. Jolly's Campers Conse­crated right where they belong – right with Big Babylon (confusion). Repeatedly did Brother Russell warn that we are not to follow wayward brethren, or prospective new­comers in their forbidden paths outside the Court; rather, we should call to them to join or rejoin us, as the case might be. But it is no longer a matter of calling such into the Court; to offer consecration hopes to new ones it becomes necessary to join them in the Camp, as that is the only place in which they can logically be served –­ that is where they are. Note now a further comment by Brother Johnson on this Camp position (E-8:566-89):

“The faith-justified (the unconsecrated) in their three groups were privileged to be assistants of the new creatures in this work, and they succeeded in working in the people a measure of pleasement with God, that much as they would allow with their being parts of the antitypical Camp.... God did not expect that degree of pleasement with Him from the unjustified antitypical Camp.... Their development in these respects would stop short of repentance and faith, which are the transitional steps out of the antitypical Camp (away from Babylon – “Come out of her, my people,”! Rev. 18:4 – JJH) into the antitypical Court.”

Now comes another quotation from E-8:13 on this subject: “It is only a narrow view that, leaving out of consideration certain Scriptures (as R. G. Jolly is now doing – JJH)... facts as well as sound reason, moves some Truth people to deny that the tentatively Justified are also pictured forth by the Levites.”

Here is a clear statement that the Levites type the tentatively justified; or, stat­ing it in reverse, the Gospel-Age tentatively justified are antitypical Levites. Does R. G. Jolly now include his tentatively iustified Consecrated Campers as anti­typical Levites? Let him give a clear answer to this question also – if he has one. And we emphasize again that there is no Tentative (faith) Justification after the Gospel Age. (Please see E-11:169 and E-11:482.) Brother Russell offers further con­firmation of this question of antitypical Levites in the Question Book, p. 694:

“All who are in harmony with God in any sense of the word are, tentatively, Levites.... will become actual Levites.... they make an entire consecration.”

MORE ON HOW SIFTERS SHOULD BE HANDLED

It will be recalled that in the May-June PT R. G. Jolly assumes an attitude of disdain toward sifters; he won't cheapen himself by engaging any of them in contro­versy – that is, since he himself is now wallowing in the quagmire of error. Be it noted that in that 1909 encounter with M. L. McPhail Brother Johnson did not even wait for a challenge from that sifter; he went directly to where he was and sought him out – in the presence of a large number of the Chicago Church. And his reason for this is clearly set forth in E-5:489, top: “In delivering us now our Lord does two things: (1) He rescues us from all the snares that the Devil (who is the leader and motivator of all sifters – JJH), the world and the flesh lay for us; and (2) He gives us victory in all our conflicts with them.” This is quite in harmony with St, Paul's conclusion in 2 Cor. 2:l4: “Thanks be unto God, which always causes us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savor of His knowledge by us in every place,” The “savor of His knowledge” was not made manifest in Chicago that April day by Brother Johnson refusing to face the sifter; rather, it was “Made manifest” by his bold encounter with the sifter through the “savor of His knowledge” to the bless­ing of the sheep in that congregation. Brother Johnson did not allow the sifter there to chase him away and send in a written answer to the burning questions at issue – ­which would have been the case had Brother Johnson failed to have the Truth on his side.

Of course, at that time Brother Johnson was faithfully building upon Christ as The Rock; whereas, R. G. Jolly has been building upon Christ as “the sand.” (Please see Epiphany Volume 5, p. 473 onward – “Two Houses Built and Tested.”)

We now quote a little from E-5:491 – “In sickness and wounds they (the Fully Faith­ful) must be hopeful of cure; and in all things endure hardships as good soldiers.. of Jesus Christ.... Such come off more than conquerors.... in this the best of all wars... (19) But crown-losers do not so wage war (as exemplified in the counsel R. G. Jolly now proffers to Fred Blaine and others – JJH).... These accept the defeatist mental attitude. They attempt to act out and often do act out, in many a fight the couplet of certain cowardly earthly soldiers:

                                                He who fights and runs away

                                                Lives to fight another day.

(20) However such a sentiment may occasionally be true in earthly wars, it certainly is not true in our warfare of the Spirit. To yield in, and flee out of its battles, leads to discharge from the army of the King's Own. Moreover, such yielding and flee­ing expose one to greater danger than facing the foe.”

Certainly, all of us who have borne any measure of the heat and toil of this trialsome day know from personal experience the clear and indisputable truth of the foregoing. R. G. Jolly and Fred Blaine at one time in their warfare, under the sus­taining and skillful leadership of the Epiphany Messenger, knew it, too. When R. G. Jolly urgently prevailed upon JJH to engage the foe in battle in 1951, he did so because he was fully persuaded that JJH would not return from the wars all cut and bleeding –­ just as he knows now that is exactly what would happen to Fred Blaine if he gave him a similar assignment, in an attempt to defend his errors. If we are indeed that “sifter” he heralds now with his “profusion of loud words,” then, of course, there would be no hope of rescuing JJH from the 'snare of the fowler.' But what about his duty to the sheep in Trinidad? Just how is he “taking heed to the flock” (Acts 20:28) when he leaves them at the mercy of the “sifter”? Of course, for one who has built his house upon “Christ as the sand,” such erratic drivel is now all that is left to him. And, when we compare the valiant soldiers both of these were under the inspiring leader­ship of the beloved Epiphany Messenger with their present abject crawling, truckling and fleeing, we can but once more quote the words of 2 Sam. 1:25: “How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle.... and the weapons of war perished” – THE TRUTH, which is ever the weapon of warfare of the Fully Faithful.

Thus, we join with St. Paul (1 Cor. 15:57) in meeting all perverters (Azazel means Perverter) and sifters alike with the blessed assurance: “Thanks be to God which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is the privilege of the Faithful to think ever in terms of victory; there is no such thing as defeat in our battles so long as we are fully obedient soldiers to the instructions of the Good Cap­tain of our Salvation. If we are faithful in putting on “the whole armor of God” in this evil day, then we may rest in the strong consolation that “no weapon (of sifter or perverter) that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the (fully Faith­ful) servants of the Lord.” (Isa. 54:17)

And for now, “I will praise thee forever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints,”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

--------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – You continue to refer to brother Jolly's “bad conscience,” mentioned by Brother Johnson in E-10:585. Aren't you being unjust and evil to cast up today something that occurred over twenty-five years ago?

ANSWER: – There are circumstances in which the accusation of your ques­tion would cer­tainly be pertinent. For instance, the laws of our United States are humane and just enough that they prohibit calling any one a thief who may have been convicted of this felony, served a prison sentence therefor, and subse­quently resumed his place with society – that is, if such a person steals no more. This is exactly in harmony with God's law, written in Eze. 33:15-16: “If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity.... None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him.” Certainly, all will agree this is as it should be, and is accentuated by Brother Russell in Vol. 6, wherein he teaches we should not cast up past wrongs to erstwhile disfellowshiped persons who have been received back into the Ecclesia.

However, if past wrongs continue to assert themselves, then it is our duty to oppose them with even more vigor and decision than at the first offense. Thus, we continue to cast up the sins of the Papacy that are centuries old, because that System gives no evidence at all of repentance. And we should follow the same course with R. G. Jolly – or toward any one else who is in position to hurt others by their sins – ­who clearly manifests a similar disposition. It would be wrong not to do so. We be­lieve clear justification for our present course is to be found in R. G. Jolly's state­ment in the Feb. 1951 PT, p. 31, col. 2:

“I can truly say that I recognized no willfulness in anything that I did (in his revolutionism of 1938JJH), for I verily thought I was doing the Lord's will.”

It was only after the necessity of Brother Johnson's very harsh exposure that he came to see he had done a wrong – so says R. G. Jolly. In contrast to this, note that Bro. Russell, March 1, 1913 WT, Reprints 5197, col. 1, disputes this in toto:

“Blemishes are the weaknesses and imperfections of the flesh. Spots are NOT those wrong doings of which we are unconscious.”

At the time Brother Johnson convinced R. G. Jolly that what he did in 1938 was so wrong that it unmistakably manifested him as a crown-loser, then we believe he should have been able to recognize the weaknesses and sin that caused him to lose his crown – ­had he been truly repentant and possessed of a “pure heart” after his submission to that correction. Had he then fully recognized “the sin that doth so easily beset him” (a “bad conscience,” etc.), he would also have recognized the willfulness on his part when he committed the gross wrong, and would have been so much on his guard in the future that he would not fall again, realizing only too well that further “hard­ness of sin” under God's disciplin­ary hand would surely eventuate in another “sorer punishment” (Heb. 10:29). However, his rush to assert himself so dogmatically and dictatorially the very night after Brother Johnson's funeral offers clear evidence that his 1938 rebuke by Brother Johnson only humiliated him, but did not work in him a true humility (a proper self-estimate); otherwise, he would not have proceeded as he did.

Consider once more that type and antitype must correspond in every detail; then pair the performance of R. G. Jolly with his type, King Saul – 1 Sam. 15:13-24:

“I (Saul) have performed the commandment of the Lord... And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord.... but the people took of the spoil... And Samuel said .... Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord He hath also rejected thee from being king. And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned.” Says R. G. Jolly: “I recognized no willfulness in anything that I did.” Said King Saul: “Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord – I recognize no willfulness in anything I have done.” Note the Berean Comment on v. 13: “Manifesting considerable hypocrisy,” etc. His lie is repeated in v. 20; and it was only Samuel's stern countenance and rebuking finger that eventually forced Saul to admit:. “I have sinned,” In identical fashion does this “correspond in every detail” with R. G. Jolly's record of his 1938 “rebellion” (Revolutionism), when confronted with the caustic rebuke of a member of antitypical Samuel – Brother Johnson.

Similar to the foregoing is his Revolutionism against Parousia and Epiphany arrangements, when he attempted to set aside the Manna texts and comments for testimony at Conventions. R. G. Jolly also saw no wrong in that – “recognized no willfulness in anything I have done” – until our own rebuke for that wrong persuaded him to correct it. And for this we certainly commend him, even though his subsequent conduct bears witness of no true repentance from the heart; he still persistently revolutionizes against other important Parousia and Epiphany Truths and Arrangements.

There is no available record that he has ever “confessed” (1 John 1:9) any of the besetting sins that entered into his 1933 exposure; his only confession – under extreme compulsion – is that he did do an 'unconscious' wrong at that time. Nor do we have any record of his admitting any besetting sins that caused him to lose his crown. Until such thorough search of self, and admission of guilt – and a true repentance – no crown-loser can be cleansed, as is clearly taught by the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers, and by Scripture.

In the same Watch Tower reference (Reprints 5197), Brother Russell gives us the following:

“It is the duty of the new creature to detect the imperfections, errors and shortcomings of the flesh, and go immediately to the throne of Grace with them, to obtain mercy and forgiveness. Only those with tender consciences (the crown-retainers – JJH) will keep the garment unspotted. The failure to do this seems to be the reason why so many (the Great Multitude–JJH) fail to make their 'calling and election sure.'”

From the foregoing, it should be clear enough that R. G. Jolly did not have a tender conscience prior to 1914 (otherwise he would not have lost his crown); and it is also clear enough he did not have a tender conscience in 1938 (24 years later); it is also clear enough he did not yet have a tender conscience in 1951; otherwise, he would not have been so solicitous to cover up his past wrongs. It should also be clear enough from this that he could not possibly have been cleansed in 1951, as he claimed to be – and as he still claims to be. This is exactly the attitude we should expect from one in Azazel's clutches; such a person fails to recognize his evils, while browbeating those under him for any seeming outward offense to make himself appear righteous. Therefore, he could not possibly cleanse himself from something which he could not recognize (while 'deluded'– 2 Thes. 2:11) – “the sin which doth so easily beset him” (a bad conscience, approbativeness, prone to lying, etc.) – ­which is just the reverse of the Fully Faithful Little Flock, who did recognize their sins, and speedily corrected them and sought forgiveness for them. Has R. G. Jolly ever sought forgiveness for the sins that caused him to lose his crown? We remember very clearly – from our own personal experience with him in 1926 – that he had not then come to such recognition of himself (although he was having no difficulty at all then in recognizing other crown-losers and the “sins that beset them”), because he discussed with us personally his standing in the Body of Christ, how he would not place a mater­ial value upon his 'pearl of great price' (which self-evidently he had already done at the time he lost his crown). That was at least twelve years after he had already lost that 'Pearl' – sold his 'birthright' (crown).

Referring again to p. 31, col, 2, bottom of the Feb. 1951 PT, where R. G. Jolly is telling Brother Haviland he “verily thought he was doing the Lord's will” in his 1938 revolutionism, and whereby he was attempting to place dear Brother Haviland in the same class with himself, we now state in defense of Brother Haviland that he was never manifested by revolutionism, as was R. G. Jolly; therefore, the comparison is simply some more of his (R. G. Jolly's) perverted thinking. Maybe Brother Haviland was a crown-loser; but we have nothing – just nothing at all – to prove that he was such; yet we say also in fairness we cannot definitely assert that he was a Saint) although Brother Johnson regarded him as such, and so did many of us. And, when he said he was aware of nothing amiss in his consecrated life, he verily spoke the truth – ­from a good conscience; therefore, R. G. Jolly's browbeating of one of the Lords little ones was simply one more evidence of his “bad conscience” as late as 1951. And his similar treatment of others since that date offers further confirmation that his conscience is still “bad”..

Knowing the past as we do – knowing the teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on this subject – knowing also R. G. Jolly's present behavior – that is why we continue, and properly so, we think, to remind all of R. G. Jolly's “bad conscience.” In 1 Tim. 4:2 St. Paul mentions some “having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” Whether this is now R. G. Jolly's condition, we leave in the hands of Him who judges all things wisely and well. Once more we emphasize that it gives us no pleasure at all to expose the sins of R. G. Jolly – or the sins of any one else – even though we may appear to be “rude in speech” (2 Cor. 11:6). St. Paul admonishes us to “exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceit­fulness of sin” (Heb. 3:12). This is an obligation placed upon us all; thus, ''We use great plainness of speech” (2 Cor. 3:12) in a sincere effort to “provoke to love and good works” if by any chance we may rescue R. G. Jolly and others of like disposition from the snare of the fowler.

-----------------------------------------------------------

LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Friends: –

I have been receiving literature from Epiphany Bible Students, and I do not find it profitable, so please don't send anymore and save your money. I know nothing of Bro. Jolly or Bro. Hoefle or their disagreement and very little of the Epiphany Movement... To me it is sad to see two, who claim Christ as their example, quarreling so bitterly. I knew Bro. Johnson as a child when I went with my parents to meetings at the Bible House in Allegheny when Bro. Russell was living, but never read any of his books (Bro. Johnson's).... Please read the Epistles of John and try to get the deep meaning that is in them.

I read the Bible “as is” and my relationship to God is very simple, I love Him and know that he loves and cares for me. Christ is our glorious example. He died to give us life and lived to teach us of the Father. Our Father arranges the times and season, and I trust his wisdom and justice – and love. I do not have to concern myself about them I know that I am kept by his power in “the shadow of his wing.”

So much is written today to no real purpose. We need encouragement and food – real food... I appreciate written talks by brethren, but they must be uplifting – something that brings me closer to our heavenly Father and to a deeper understanding of his love. I do not believe that we judge the brethren. God alone knows their hearts and intentions, and he can handle it all without me. With Christian love ------- (WASHINGTON)

NOTE: When this dear lady says “Christ is our glorious example,” it is simply so much empty talk, devoid of meaning. Apparently she is a parlor Christian – of whom there are legion – using her Bible as a “textbook,” and believing that our Lord, the Reformers and the Parousia Messenger were all engaged “to no real purpose” as they were constantly “quarreling so bitterly” with their brethren in error. But she doesn't wish to be bothered – just let ''God alone handle it all without me!”

We appreciate the cooperation and zeal of the brethren who send us names; but we would appreciate it if they would also give us the religious background with the names, if possible. In that way we would know what kind of literature they are able to receive.

NO. 97: A FURTHER ANSWER TO R.G. JOLLY

No. 97

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

On pages 40-48 of this May-June 1963 Present Truth R. G. Jolly offers a weak and perverted (Azazel means Perverter) attempt to answer those Eleven Questions con­tained in our March paper No. 93, in which he reverts to his usual name-calling and reviling slanderous technique. He accuses us of “trickery,” so we shall point out what he himself has done in his answers; then allow our readers to determine for themselves who is guilty of “trickery” here. Our June 1 paper No. 96 had already been mailed May 18, four days before we received the May Present Truth; and our June paper offers enough in itself to demonstrate clearly to all R. G. Jolly's folly; but we now offer further refutation to make doubly apparent just how “crafty” and befuddled by Azazel he has become since he was abandoned to that Evil One in October 1950 – a teaching by the Epiphany Messenger that he now refuses to accept (the abandon­ment process for all Great Company Members, whether they are the ones who have lost Little Flockship by the 'skin of their teeth' or whether they escape Second Death by a similar margin–See E-15:525).

“NEW DOCTRINES BY LEVITES”

He begins by quoting from E-7:138, “If the antitypical Levites seek to teach the Priests.... nor are they to seek to discover new light and spread it before the Church.” and there he stops! Consider now the rest of it; “As this would be attempting to go into the Holy, from which they have been excluded, and would result in their offering strange fire.” This last portion makes a shambles and mockery of his whole attempt here. Brother Johnson places no limitations on this truth – whether before or after his death – and for self-evident reasons. Once a Great Company member is excluded from the Holy, he could just as easily regain his crown and his priestly anointing as he could to go back into the Holy. And clearly enough, from Brother Johnson's reasoning, the only place from which a new doctrine can be obtained is from the lampstand in the Holy. For some years now R. G. Jolly has been adroitly attempting to put himself into the “Light” Class, the “Salt” Class, etc. Is he now becoming so bold that he is working himself back into the Holy? Let R. G. Jolly point out the “dead fly in this ointment” –­ if he can! Let him reveal our 'trickery' here – if he can! All during the interim when there were no Star Members, and crown-losers were then also forced to serve themselves, no Great Company leader was ever privileged to bring forth a new doctrine. Some of them ably defended some of the Truths given to them by the Star Members, although all of them perverted the Stewardship doctrine entrusted to them – some more, some less; but none of them had a 'cup' (produced a new doctrine). Some of these Great Company leaders were among the highest and best intellectual examples of all Great Company leaders, and had to be cleansed in character if they kept their Great Company Class standing; so in the case of some of them, at least, had such a privilege ever been possible for Great Company leaders, when they were cleansed in character God would have given them “advancing new doctrinal light,” if such had been in order for them. Certainly, it would be more in harmony with the “spirit of a sound mind” to assume they could regain their crowns after such character cleansing, than to teach they could gain a place to which they wouldn't have been called had they been faithful and never lost their place in the Holy – namely, the office of Pastor and Teacher! It may be that some of them lost their crowns by so doing ('gazing') while in the Holy; and we believe that has been true of quite a few here in the end of this Age: They did considerable 'gazing' under Brother Russell. As to R. G. Jolly, we have his own admission in his Nov. 15, 1910 letter that he had been guilty of making types and pictures of about everything until a pilgrim persuaded him it was wrong. It could be that even then he was restrained from. further 'gazing' by That Wise and Faithful Servant – because such persistent, 'gazing' would have caused him the loss of his standing in the House­hold altogether. And we all know that he again presumed upon the Lord's Goodness to such an extent that he and others “presumed to ask God's mouthpiece to be silent, and to let them become his teacher.” (See E-10:588, top) It could be that the Last Star Member also retrained him at that time sufficiently enough to save him from losing his standing in the Great Company. If R. G. Jolly were cleansed, as he claims to be, then we believe that he would be very reluctant to make any loud claims for himself for fear that he might just be repeating what has caused him such great loss in the past. But, as Brother Johnson so ably teaches, when they are fully abandoned to Azazel (without any restraint from the Star Members) they are controlled by Azazel more than they are by the Lord – and they are permitted to do their worst. (Please see E-15:519, par. 1 for further description.)

At the bottom of col. 2, p. 41 of this Present Truth, he makes quite some ado about Brother Johnson's statement that “the Great Company would have to serve itself” after the Star Member is gone – as though that were some deep and weighty truth. Brother Johnson could likewise have added: “Because that's all that will be left to them.” (Surely we all know that the Great Company characteristics won't permit them to be restrained or instructed by anything less than the “Mighty Hand of God” through His Star Members – although not completely by them; although Abraham, et al, who type the Little Flock would receive correction from those of a “lower class” – even from a worldling when they were in the right and the Faithful, because of the fallen humanity might be wrong in an act, although not wrong in heart intention.) But in the case of the Great Company having to “serve themselves,” a twelve-year-old boy could reason as much: If his parents died, he also would have to look out for himself unless he were fortunate enough to find a benefactor. And, while Brother Johnson did say the Great Company would have to serve 'itself' after his departure – a truth self-evident even if he had not spoken it – at no time, or in no place, did he offer the slightest hint that they would be expected – or permitted – to bring forth a new doctrine while doing their 'serving'; because he knew, perhaps more acutely than any of us, that any attempt by them to re-enter the Holy to gain new light (a new doctrine) from the Lampstand would be offering “strange fire” by them, and would result in death if persisted therein – just as it did “bring forth death” to the Society leaders.

From the type of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10:1-7 Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both realized the inclination - and danger - of crown-losers offering “strange fire” (false doctrine) – such as they have done all during the Gospel Age. Brother Johnson issued copious warnings; Brother Russell even attempted in his will to restrain them, but to no avail. The Society leaders immediately concluded they, too, must “serve themselves” after the Star Member had gone; and what a “service” they have presented! R. G. Jolly has been loud in his criticisms of his kinsmen in Little Babylon; but he just learned just nothing from their unholy course; Both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson have warned us that we would find the most evil from those who have had more opportunity. And who has had more opportunity than those who have basked under the benevolent influence and teaching of both Messengers –­ the Parousia and Epiphany Truth! We need not think it strange from the Measurably Faithful when the restraining hand of the Star Member is removed from them – because at that time they are fully abandoned to Azazel: They are privileged to “serve themselves.” However, there is a brighter picture for them when they seek to “turn from the error of their way”; at that time the Lord will assist them as they seek in true humility to retrace their steps. (PLease see E-15:527, par. 1 for details by Brother Johnson.)

Lest any should conclude we are attempting to becloud this important teaching, we now quote from E-7:277, bottom:

“The Great Company's selfish propensities, especially exercised in self-will, grasping for power, lording it over God's heritage, dividing the Flock (even dividing the Classes of the Tentatively Justified Conse­crated into Youthful Worthies and Campers Consecrated! – JJH), and desiring to shine before others as able teacher and executives are so uncurbed by themselves that not one of them (and this would include R. G. Jolly – JJH) alone can be trusted with an unrestricted General Ministry.”

So we now propose Question 12 for Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly: Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? Again we urge R. G. Jolly to point out the “dead fly in this ointment” – if he can!

Also, further from E-9:134 – “While God has given the non-star-membered teachers of the General Church and the more prominent local elders visions and dreams, He has never given them to see a thing new a doctrine.”

Note that Brother Johnson is here discussing the Fully Faithful Little Flock, and not crown-losers; yet even the lesser lights of the Very Elect have never been favored with bringing forth a new doctrine! In the face of this, let R. G. Jolly resort to his usual “profusion of words” to justify his sinning ways – and let all become involved with him who are of his same mind – and let all who see clearly his unholy course accept St. Paul's counsel: “From such turn away.” We now behold a crown-loser – a person who has been excluded from the Holy for lo these many years –­ a person who lost his anointing (the spirit of understanding) some fifty years ago –­ repeatedly directing our attention to the “advancing Truth” (new light) he has pre­sented since 1950! Once this is viewed in its proper perspective, we are forced to give his contention the same description Brother Johnson gave to similar perversions by That Evil Servant: Instead of 'new light,' his effusions are simply new mud splashes of error; also his presentations by J. W. Krewson are in the same category, such as “Brother Russell's parallels,” “John's Beheading,” etc.

R. G. Jolly even has the unmitigated gall to bring in Joel 2:28,29 and the “inspired deeper revelations” that will come through physically perfect Levites in the Kingdom reign. If their writings are “inspired,” is he now claiming that his perverted jumble is a similar comparison and justification for his present course and acts? Says Brother Johnson, “When these crown-losers fall into Azazel's hands, they talk all sorts of nonsense!” Witness now another corroboration of this sage conclusion by Brother Johnson in E-6:180 –

''All crown-losers will eventually drop out of the Epiphany Movement”

Based on the foregoing, we now present Question No. 13 to Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly: Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? And, while we are waiting for the answer, we advise our readers that this statement by Brother Johnson has alerted us to view with a very critical eye any 'changes' or 'advancing Truth' pro­posed by R. G. Jolly, because we know he, as a crown-loser, will not drop out of the Epiphany Movement until he has first dropped out of Epiphany Truth. Again we urge R. G. Jolly to point out the “dead fly in this ointment” – if he can!

MORE ON CAMPERS CONSECRATED

On pages 42-43 and 44 R. G. Jolly offers more “profusion of words” re his campers Consecrated – no Youthful Worthies after 1954, etc. – with his conglom­eration in the Camp. In the same reference he cites in E-10-114 he omits the very words that makes a shambles of his entire presentation:

“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.”

Why does R. G. Jolly tacitly omit this part of Brother Johnson's statement? We answer, Because R. G. Jolly's teaching doesn't agree with the Epiphany Messenger. R. G. Jolly believes sinners can “arise to a higher standing before God, and that the tentatively justified can consecrate and have a higher standing than others of their class when 1954 arrived” – the time R. G. Jolly claims Rev. 22:11 applies (to which Brother Johnson had specific reference when he said they could arise no higher before the Lord). If the entire interpretation of Rev. 22:11 be accepted at 1954, as Brother Johnson outlines, then R. G. Jolly has no more justification for attempting to win sinners to tentative justification, and for the tentatively justi­fied to consecrate, than any one has to continue inviting the tentatively justified to consecrate with Youthful Worthy prospects. But our position is that so long as sinners may repent, and tentative justification is available for them, it is our privilege and duty to invite them to consecrate with Youthful Worthy hope yet in order; and we take this position because the Epiphany Messenger taught that so long as Tentative Justification is available, there is such a class (Youthful Worthy) open for such aspirants, who would be rewarded, if faithful, with the Ancient Worthies.

To make our own position entirely clear, we accept word for word the interpre­tation of Rev. 22:11 just as Brother Johnson gives it on p. 114; but we contend his date of 1954 is wrong for this interpretation to operate – because Armageddon, Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble are still future (and Brother Johnson firmly believed Anarchy would be here, in its initial stages, at least, by 1956). R. G. Jolly follows just the reverse of our position, contending for the 1954 date (whether the Scriptural events predicted for the Epiphany period had transpired or not. In this he follows the course of That Evil Servant after 1916 – “My Lord Delayeth” – as he proceeded to invite Restitutionists to consecrate to have a superior (higher) standing in the Kingdom.), but vitiating substantial and vital portions of the interpretation. As we have stated previously, if the interpretation of this and kindred Epiphany Scriptures is wrong, then the date itself has absolutely no foundation on which to rest. We have gone into considerable detail on this important feature in our June paper, so we shall not repeat it here; but we now offer once more a contention and question we have often presented, and which R. G. Jolly has just as persistently ignored: In the Tabernacle type a plane represents a condition in the antitype. Therefore, what condition in the antitype is now represented by his Camp?

RESPECTING TENTATIVE JUSTIFICATION

On pages 44 and 45 there is more “profusion of words” re tentative justifi­cation in the Camp. R. G. Jolly even goes so far that he accuses Brother Russell of teach­ing tentative justification in the Millennial Camp – although he does now, since our annihilative refutations on his previous positions, modify this as “a tentative actual justification.” Either R. G. Jolly does not understand the meaning of tentative justification, and its purpose, does not clearly understand the teachings of both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on this vital doctrine, or he is now willfully perverting their teachings as a cover-up for his Campers Consecrated. For his sake, it is our earnest hope that it is only a question of ignorance with him – and not willful perversion. Tentative Justification – or even vitalized Gospel-Age Justification – ­does not make one right; it merely reckons him right; whereas, a works justifica­tion in the Kingdom reign does not merely reckon one-right; it will actually make right... This is so elemental that any one not in the clutches of Azazel will need no argument to understand it. And, clearly understood, it just brands as more of his nonsense R. G. Jolly's effort to teach Tentative (faith) Justification under the Mediatorial reign. Certainly, it was not Brother Russell's thought, although we must admit his choice of words was faulty; it would have been much clearer had he speci­fied an anticipated justification, or a progressive justification, because one will become a little closer to actual justification each day he faithfully applies him­self in works accompanied by faith to his Kingdom opportunities. We now follow with quotations from both Star Members to prove conclusively just what they did believe and teach:

(1)        Question Book, page 312, “At the close of this Age there will no longer be a tentative justification.”

(2)        Question Book, p. 402, “Now, in the world's case in the next age, justification will not be by faith (tentative justification – JJH) but by works.”

(3)        E-11:169 (27) “There will be no more faith justification working during the Millennium.”

(4)        E-11:170, bottom: ''When this Age ends Christ's Merit will cease to be an imputable thing.”

(5)        E-11-167(25): “Only during the Gospel Age can our Lord's merit be appropriated by faith alone.” (faith justification)

(6)        E-7:65 – ''Hence Christ, owning this deposit, has it avail­able for an actual purchase of the world, which He will make, to cause the works justifying process of salvation to operate” – (par. 10): ''Faith is the only instrumental cause of justification, i. e., the only agent that lays hold on and appropriates justification.”

(7)        E-8:384 – “Justification by faith makes one no more than a nominal Christian.”

(8)        E-6:199,202: “One's journey from the Camp to the Gate cannot at any stage represent a real faith in Christ as Savior” (although R. G. Jolly now bequeaths such a faith to his Campers – JJH)... JFR's new view allows for no symbolization for the tentatively justified condition.” (Up to now R. G. Jolly has offered no symbolization for the condition of his Campers Consecrated and justified.) Top of P. 202: “Passing through the antitypical Gate puts one into Tentative Justification.”

(9)        E-6:195–”In the finished picture (the end of the Epiphany for those in the Camp – JJH) those who are less than tentatively justified.”

We propose now Question 14 for Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly: Do you believe this teaching of the Epiphany Messenger in E-6:195? Let R. G. Jolly point out “the dead fly in this ointment”–if he can!

R.        G. Jolly appeals to Epiphany Volume 4 repeatedly to support his “strange fire” of Campers Consecrated – “The doctrine of Tentative Justification as operating from the time of Abel, Enoch and Noah (Heb. 11:4-7), until restitution begins, is a Scriptural one.” (E-4:346)

Doesn't R. G. Jolly know that Brother Johnson was here teaching that Abel, one of the Ancient Worthies, was at the beginning – therefore, the Youthful Worthies here in the end of this Age would also have opportunity so long as tentative justi­fication is available? We believe he once understood this teaching very clearly; or he was merely giving 'lip' acceptance of Epiphany Truth.

However, just to support the above contention, we now follow with more from Brother Johnson in the same Epiphany Volume, just a few pages apart from R. G. Jolly's oft-repeated quotation:

“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.” (E-4, p. 342 (7)

Could any one, just any one, but those who are so befuddled by Azazel they can't understand what they read when they read it, mistake Brother Johnson's pur­pose and teaching on “The doctrine of Tentative Justification as operating from the time of Abel, etc. until restitution begins?” It is clearly manifest why Brother Johnson said, “Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed and, others of them afterward.” He said this because he taught that so long as Tentative Justification was available, then Youthful Worthies could be won – BEFORE BABYLON IS DESTROYED AS WELL AS AFTER. He made no room, or mention of Restitutionists consecrating while Tentative Justification was in operation; Consecrated Epiphany Campers found no lodging in his teachings,

We now propose to R. G. Jolly and Fred Blaine our Question No. 15: Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger on p. 342(7) of Volume 4? We inquire further, Are these two people (Fred Blaine and R. G. jolly) “willingly ignorant” of this clear conclusion and teaching by Brother Johnson, or are they just ignorant? We await their answer with much interest. But for now we add for the further eluci­dation of our readers another conclusion by Brother Johnson:

“This method of making people forget certain phases of a doctrine by ignoring them, and by talking as the purpose in view required on others of its phases exclusively, whenever discussion of that doctrine occurred, was characteristic of, and conducive to the great falling away in the beginning of the Age.” (E-4:341)

In due time we shall present some Scripture Re G. Jolly is now forced “to ignore” – ­just as is true of the Jehovah's Witnesses in their treatment of Tentative Justifica­tion and their “strange fire,” as well as others in their treatment of their errors. This fault has been general with all those who fall into Azazel's clutches all dur­ing the Age, and especially in the Epiphany period – and more especially at this present time by those who have sinned against greater light (those who have had opportunity to receive Epiphany Truth and been under the benevolent influence of the Epiphany Messenger). The statement on page 342 (7) leaves just no room at all for Campers Consecrated – but it does still allow for us to continue to win new Youthful Worthies; and we are fully persuaded that all those who are “of the Truth” will recognize this Truth, and be protected by the faithful and correct teaching of the Epiphany Messenger.

Also, lest we appear to quote the Star Members in parrot-like rote, we now pro­ceed to a Scriptural definition of Tentative Justification – its necessity and purpose; and we appeal first of all to Martin Luther's text for reliance in producing his stewardship doctrine: “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand.” (Rom. 5:1,2) Clearly enough, it is this justifying faith that makes peace with God for the sinner; and it thus makes way for St. Paul's appeal in Rom. 12:1 –­ “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God.” If the one having “peace with God” hearkens to St. Paul's appeal and offers his body in sacrifice, he then acquires the “peace of God, which passeth understanding.” However, if he declines the invitation to present himself, he eventually loses “this grace wherein we stand,” and in process of time is relegated to the Camp, or even beyond the Camp, as the case demands. St. Paul makes it very clear, however, that this is a faith justifica­tion made possible “through our Lord Jesus Christ.” If now Campers Consecrated be a sound doctrine, let R. G. Jolly show where and how in the Camp his Consecrators come into this “grace through Jesus Christ.” There should certainly be something some­where to point out to such people the source of their “grace.”

The question now is proper: Why must any one during the reign of sin first be justified before he can present himself? This answer is to be found in the Tabernacle types in the animals offered. In every instance the animal must be perfect – “a lamb without blemish,” Ex. 12:5. Since every antitype is not only equal, but greater than its type, it logically follows that the “better sacrifices” of this Gospel Age must also be perfect, in addition to possessing other superiorities over the type. God cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance; and, since among fallen men “there is none righteous, no not one – none able to redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him” –, it would be contrary to God's fundamental law of Justice to enter into a Covenant with sinners. This difficulty is then removed by the “one able to open the book”; His merit is tentatively offered to cover the imperfections of those wishing to come to God through faith, thus making their sacrificial offering “acceptable unto God.” That is why Brother Johnson concludes in E-6:713 (top): “Faith justification (tentative justification–JJH) ceases to operate after the Gospel Age.”

Thus viewed, it becomes readily apparent how ridiculous it would be to teach a faith justification during a works dispensation, or vice versa. In fact, the Pope in Big Babylon does just that – justification through works; and it was this that caused the rupture with Martin Luther. We assume R. G. Jolly considers the tentative justification he now attempts to confer upon his Campers Consecrated is a faith justification. If he does so believe, then the process of faith justification must ever remain constant. Brother Johnson teaches that the consecrated Jews were tenta­tively reckoned in the antitypical Court, even though they lived too soon for the anti­typical Gospel-Age Tabernacle to be in operation. But, since the time that Tabernacle was tentatively erected, there can be no justification outside the “righteousness of Christ.” So we ask once more – Where Is the Righteousness of Christ shown in the Camp? We are specifically informed by Brother Johnson (a harmonious and reasonable Epiphany teaching) that Christ's executorship does not extend to the Camp during the end of this Age.

All during the Epiphany it was shown in only one place – inside the linen curtain in the Court. If that was changed in 1954, there should be some proof of it. If we are to accept only the word of a Levite (even permitting for the question's sake that this Levite is “cleansed”), then we expose ourselves on all sides to the “cunningly devised fables” of men; others could claim the same privilege, and bedlam would cer­tainly follow. Let R. G. Jolly, then, present some inspired proof from the Word of God for his present contention, or let him forever hold his peace! If he cannot provide his proof, who, then, is the real trickster, the real “shady lawyer” in this controversy? In due time we shall have more to say on this Campers Consecrated subject.

THE “ATTESTATORIAL SERVICE”

Once more R. G. Jolly has the temerity of the “foolish” to focus attention upon his 1954-56 “Attestatorial Service” – a fiasco which anyone not befuddled by Azazel should be only too glad to forget. That service was to have been a parallel – on a larger scale – of the 1914-16 Service; but here are some of the essentials in which it proved just the reverse: (1) Brother Johnson expected to be here, and give that Service his own personal supervision – just as the 1914-16 Service was supervised by a Star Member. Instead, the 1954-56 affair was supervised by an uncleansed Levite; and it was a dismal failure in every respect in which the 1914-16 service was a huge success.

(2)        The 1914-16 Service brought every member of the Little Flock into Present Truth. That is why Brother Johnson said in E-10:114 that “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover of 1956.” Did this expectation materialize? It is indeed no surprise that R. G. Jolly would fail to quote this vital point in his reference to E-10:114 – even as he yells “stop thief” at us for omitting non­essential parts of our quotations from Brother Johnson. It is a safe conclusion that there were less Great Company members in the L.H.M.M. in October 1956 than there were in September 1954. Thus, the real feature “attested” by that service was the uncleansed condition of those leading that service. Brother Johnson repeatedly stated that “after the Great Company are cleansed, they will have a fruitful ministry.”(E-4:49) And, whereas, every member of the Little Flock joined in the 1914-16 service, there was merely a very feeble minority of the Great Company in the 1954-56 service.

On p. 48 R. G. Jolly attempts a pathetically weak alibi for Fred Blaine's refusal to meet us before the brethren at Trinidad. He cites E-10:117-120, and Bro. Johnson's encounter with M. L. McPhail; and he does his usual work of perverting this item, too. He says Brothers Russell and Johnson “never arranged to debate with willful sifters.” Where did any willful sifters challenge them to a debate? Sifters usually realize where they can't appear (Azazel is that well informed); sifters always hide behind some thing or somebody! Here's what Brother Johnson himself says about that situation in Chicago on April 18-19, 1909: “After much thought and prayer J. decided to make a special effort to win him, and in case of failure to destroy, if possible, his sifting influence in that Church,” In the encounter that followed M. L. McPhail was so thoroughly beaten that he, “crestfallen, immediately went away, exhibiting to about 125 brethren his complete defeat.” (This is what would happen to all sifters when pitted against those skilled in handling the Truth! – JJH) By any stretch of the imagination, can there be any analogy whatever with the present attitude of R. G. Jolly and Fred Blaine toward us? The only analogy we can think of is the similarity of their attitude with those who are perverting the Truth and misrepresenting those who defend the Truth –such as J. F. Rutherford, et al. That Evil Servant also was “too polite” to engage Brother Johnson (or even R. G. Jolly at the time he was submitting to Brother Johnson's teaching, and restraining hand) and others in debate – after he lost the Truth. He didn't hesitate at all to debate with errorists when he was still under the benign influence of That Servant. If they had the Truth, wouldn't they be willing to face this “sifter” (?) under any condition in order to destroy his influence with the brethren in Trinidad – realizing that JJH is influencing a large number there, and will surely go there again to strengthen and bless them? In fact, under the benign influence of the last Star Member, both of them waged good warfare against sifters (when the Truth was with them they didn't exhibit cowardly retreat) in the 1948 division; and in 1951 R. G. Jolly strongly urged JJH to attend the Detroit Dawn Convention, and other meetings there, “to protect the sheep,” as he himself stated it. You may be sure that none of the leaders at that Convention would be so “foolish” as to engage in a debate with this “sifter” – JJH – an attitude and method R. G. Jolly has been forced to join, because of his own perversions and derelic­ions since the demise of the last Star Member; nor would they even engage in very much conversation with him – warning others to avoid him (just as does R. G. Jolly since he has joined the ranks of those who “serve themselves”). But R. G. Jolly was so well pleased with the result that he invited JJH to recount his exper­iences to the Philadelphia Labor Day and the Chicago October Conventions in 1951.

Not only was he so well pleased with the results of our efforts toward the Dawn brethren at that time, that he wanted us to give a resume of it, but he also himself, at least on one occasion, gave this experience as his own, just as we had experienced it. We overlooked this episode, because we realized it had impressed him so much that he wanted to tell an interesting recital to the Conven­ioners – and, knowing he is in the hands of Azazel, this little incident was to be expected and understood. We have our notes on this if by any chance R. G. Jolly is inclined to challenge this statement. However, we realize that R. G. Jolly may have his own recordings of these Conventions. And R. G. Jolly also knows now (befuddled by Azazel, though he is) what would happen to Fred Blaine if he should attempt a similar course with JJH – because those abandoned to Azazel still realize where the Truth is, and they “avoid !em” (although they also seem to realize their superiority over other errorists, when they themselves have the Truth against them). Nor is this due to JJH's “sharp mind” about which R. G. Jolly has warned his adherents, because even all the shrewdness of the Adversary cannot outwit the Lord and His Truth in the humblest of brethren. M. L. McPhail was next to Brother Russell in intellect during the Parousia. The promise is sure: “For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.” (Luke 21:15) There­fore, this “double minded man, unstable in all his ways” (Jas. 1:8 – see especially the Berean Comment) now attempts the whining technique of the chastened politician: “Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's be gentlemen!”

Also, a year or two after 1951 we engaged an errorist in written controversy on the correct date for the Memorial ; and R. G. Jolly was so pleased with our refutation that he asked for our file on the case – and which he has never returned. We now call upon him to send it back to us; and he will do so if he has even one­half the gentility and ethics he attempts to assume in this May Present Truth.

Furthermore, we are told Fred Blaine was asked in Trinidad to define a sifter. His answer – if we are correctly informed – “A sifter is one who perverts the Truth.” If that was his answer, it is more, misleading than right. Most Great Company members all during the Gospel Age – and especially so here in the Epiphany – have perverted the Truth that once sanctified them. Would any of us want to contend that every Great Company member has been a sifter? Of course, his answer is simply a clear revelation of Fred Blaine's shallow and irresponsible thinking under his present leader; and offers further confirmation of R. G. Jolly's efforts to alibi him from the battle front.

As for ourselves, “we have confidence, Because we have a good conscience (not a “bad conscience” ascribed by Brother Johnson to some who oppose us), wishing to conduct ourselves well among all.... Now may that God of peace, who brought up from the dead that Shepherd of the sheep.... knit you together in every good work, in order to do his will.” (Heb. 13:18-21, Dia.)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

----------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

(Memorial reports, etc.)

Dear Brother Hoefle: - Greetings in the Master's Name! Your kind and encouraging letter was received with much joy and appreciation....

We celebrated the Lord's Memorial with peace and solemnity, unlike the unrest which was so disturbing last year. Twenty-three (23) friends partook, and three (3) unavoidably absent (they partook 30 days later). Brother Martin officiated and Brother Roach gave the principal address.

We recall with pleasure the visit from you and Sr. Hoefle.... May the Lord bless you for the encouragement you gave us. We join in sending warm Christian love to you, Sr. Hoefle and all the dear friends there.

Yours by His Grace, TRINIDAD ECCLESIA Sr. ------- Sec.

........................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings through our Beloved Lord!

We here at W. S. are thankful for your prayers and thoughts during the Memorial season. There were six of us to participate..... On Sunday April, 7 meeting we had our first study in the First Volume with 14 people attending...... Please do pray for our First Volume study and our new participants.

With Christian Love, The W. S. Ecclesia

per Sec. ------- (NORTH CAROLINA)

.................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our blessed Lord and Head!

Yours of the 30th March has been duly received. It was accepted with much love and appreciation, and we can assure you, dear Brother, that your loving instructions and help are always welcome.

Our blessed privilege in participating in the Memorial of our Redeemer's death was fully met, Eight of us met at our usual assembly hall. We are striving daily to appropriate to ourselves the blood and flesh of our loving Savior...... With this comes our warmest love to you, Sister Hoefle and the dear brethren with you.

Sincerely your brethren - Crofts Hill Ecclesia - per ------- Sec, (JAMAICA)

NOTE: We have other reports from Classes, as well as from individuals which we are omitting because of space at this time. Although we have not publicly requested the brethren to give us these reports, it is most encouraging to receive them; and we do thank all who have given us these reports – the Classes as well as the individuals. (Brother Hoefle)

NO. 96: PROGRESSIVE TRUTH

No. 96

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

Many of our readers are familiar with Brother Johnson's superb analysis of 2 Tim. 3:16,17, as embracing all purposes of the Word of God: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor­rection, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” A very casual examination of this King James translation will reveal that it is faulty in several respects. Certainly, all scripture is not given by inspiration of God, because the dictionary defines “scripture” in its broad sense as “anything written,” and in a more limited sense as “any sacred writing” (such as the Sanskrit, the Koran, etc.), while it is limited to our Bible only in its narrowest meaning. In measured contempt, Solomon declares, “Of making many books (various writings) there is no end.” (Eccl. 12:12) Certainly, no one would contend that all books written have been “by inspiration of God.” The first “is” in the King James text being an interpolation, drastically perverts St. Paul's words of all sound meaning. Note now the Diaglott rendering: ''All Scripture, divinely inspired, is indeed profitable for teaching, for conviction (refuting), for correction, for that discipline which is in righteousness; so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly fitted for every good work.”

A more lucid concept is obtained by stating the first clause, “All Scripture that is God-enbreathed”; that is, all Scripture that is vitalized by the energizing force emanating directly from the Almighty. This is most emphatically affirmed in 2 Pet. 1:21—Dia.: “Not at any time was prophecy brought by the will of man (it is not the product of human thought), but men from God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” Thus, the Old Testament prophets' writings were “God-enbreathed”–brought forth by an energy not their own. Therefore, St. Paul states that “All Scripture (not only that in the Old Testament, but that in the New Testament as well) that is God-enbreathed is profitable.” Many have been the false prophets who would make such claim for their writings, perhaps the most outstanding in “the time of the end” being Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon cult, who claimed he was inspired by a dream to seek out the golden plates which contained an added revelation to the inspired writ­ings already in our possession. But his golden plates directly contradicted and vitiated so much of the Biblical “God-enbreathed” writings that the very ordinary student may readily realize that those plates are not “progressive truth,” but are in fact grossly “progressive” error.

When That Servant appeared on the scene he wrought mightily in removing the accumulated rubbish heaps of centuries past, presenting a system of truth which was truly harmonious with itself and with all “God-enbreathed” writings contained in the 66 books of our Protestant Bible. If we accept the premise that he really did give us “The Present Truth” (2 Pet. 1:12) as contained in those 66 “God-enbreathed” books, then we appear ridiculous indeed if we attempt to set that structure aside with any “progressive truth” now.  Truth must forever be the Truth; nor can it ever be annulled by any manner or profusion of added writings. If such attempt is made, we may immediately conclude that such claim is simply fraud, and should be immediately cast away. Brother Johnson emphasizes this in E-9:19 – “The advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth formerly received, as some deceivers teach.” Therefore, what was doctrinal Truth two thousand years is still doctrinal Truth today (the ten strings of the Bible “harp of God” are eternal and unchanging), and will be doctrinal Truth a thousand years hence – “Jesus Christ the same yesterday (the Jewish Age), and today (the Gospel Age), and forever (“for the Ages” to come—Heb. 13:8). Of course, it is symptomatic of all errorists that they claim to be presenting “progressive” or advancing truth, thus “deceiving and being deceived,” (2 Tim. 3:13) And St. Paul tells us in this same chapter that such errorists would become pronouncedly worse as we approach the end of the Age. With such warning from the “God-enbreathed” Word, it behooves us to be on the alert against such “deceivers” if we would maintain our own standing in God's Household.

Early in the Epiphany some of us were witness to That Evil Servant's efforts to foist his “progressive truth” upon us; and we were much blessed in escaping that diabolical system of nebulous error that enmeshed his partisan adherents. Brother Johnson expended much effort and multiplied pages of The Present Truth in exposing – “refuting” – his errors (that which we should not believe) – so much so that many com­plained about “too much controversy”; but, as he himself explained, a careful read­ing of those refutations would also impart much of “doctrine” (that which we should believe) to all who read them with an understanding mind. And, as he also explained, God's people should be fundamentally peaceable – in harmony with St. Paul's words, “As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18); but, in harmony with James 3:17, the “wisdom from above” is not primarily peaceable – it is “first pure.” Thus, if we would develop and maintain that “purity of heart” which will enable us to see God (Matt. 5:8), we would break the peace rather than to become defiled with impurity of teaching, regardless of who that teacher might be. This also is our own attitude with respect to those with whom we once lived peaceably, but were forced to break the peace through their perversions of teaching and practice.

In this, as in all Scriptural analysis, we sometimes err greatly if we do not consider all texts that bear on a given subject. In the present consideration there are two statements by our Lord which some might say directly contradict each other; but they do not do so at all if considered in the light of sanctified reason. One of these is Luke 10:5—Dia.: “Into whatever house you enter, say first Peace to this house. And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest on him; but if not, it shall return to you.” These words had particularly impressed us when we were early in the Truth and engaged in the colporteur work, so we always made it a point to repeat Jesus' words to ourself as we approached the door. And with that approach, never once in all our experience did we ever have a door slammed in our face, although on many occasions “a son of peace” was not the inhabitant,

Consider now the seeming conflict of Jesus' statement in Matt. 10:34-37—Dia: “Think not that I am come to send forth peace on this land; I am come not to send peace, but war. For my coming will set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother .... so that a man's enemies will be found in his own family. He who loves father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me, is not worthy of Me,” The reconciliation of these two seemingly conflicting statements is readily made when we consider that it is not to be our improper conduct, but the Truth, that is certain to arouse the animosity of all gainsayers and errorists: This is emphasized in Heb. 4:12—Dia.: “The word of God is living, and energetic, and more cutting than any two-edged sword, cutting through even to a separation of life and breath, and of joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intents of the heart,”

A large portion of so-called Truth people today seem to believe the three texts aforegoing are now just past history, not applicable at all to this our day. This is a sad fallacy, of course; for so long as “evil men and impostors will make progress for the worse” (2 Tim. 3:13—Dia.), then all the more is it necessary for those who would be “faithful to the Truth” to wield the “sword” (sharp refutative Truth) against them – just as did “That Faithful and Wise Servant” and the Epiphany Messenger so long as they remained with us. So we say to all, “Go and do thou likewise!”

KINDRED ERRORS

Therefore, it is now our purpose to examine some of the teachings that forced Brother Johnson to break the peace in order that he might remain “first pure”; and compare them with some of the present-day teachings that have forced us also to break the peace. In E-6:177 Brother Johnson explains that That Evil Servant “cut off” certain members of the Little Flock “from the fellowship of the majority of God's people.” And all of us know that he consigned Brother Johnson, the leader of those “cut off,” to the second death. Since 1950 R. G. Jolly and J, W. Krewson have done substantially the same thing with many who still retain their high-calling hope.

Continuing in par. 1, p. 178: “He likewise has failed to seek the young one, the Youthful Worthies. Denying that there can be such a class ... he, of course, does not seek to win people for Youthful Worthiship.” Have not R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson done exactly the same thing since 1954, as they claim the time is past to win new ones to this class? And in cleaving to this teaching, along with the one aforegoing, do they not once more offer conclusive evidence that they are indeed “cousins”?

Further we read: “Nor does he feed – strengthen – that that standeth still, the Tentatively Justified.  These evidently constitute the company that 'standeth still,' for they do not progress to consecration.” In a limited sense the “cousins” also follow the footsteps of that Unprofitable Shepherd here, J. W. Krewson actually denies (as did JFR) that there are any new ones coming to tentative justification since 1954 – his “quasi-elect consecrated” are a “faith-justified” class in the Camp; whereas, R. G. Jolly places his tentatively justified in the Camp – a place where none ever appeared before – purely a product of his own invention, because neither Star Member ever taught such a thing (and we find no Scripture or combination of Scripture to support such a contention). And note also at top of page 180, “All crown-losers will eventually drop out of the Epiphany Movement,” Substantially, this was also true of the crown-losers with respect to the Parousia Movement (if we allow that the Parousia Movement and the Parousia Truth are inseparably related), who remained under the leadership of That Evil Servant. ONLY THOSE of the Great Company who became associated with the Epiphany Messenger retained Parousia Truth, being described by him as the “good Levites.” And just as J. F. Rutherford fell primarily from the Parousia Truth, leading others with him, so has R. G, Jolly now fallen from much of the Epiphany Truth, leading others with him; as is also the case with his “cousin” J. W. Krewson, who has done substantially the same thing,

THE CAMP CLEARLY DEFINED

In E-6:195 Brother Johnson presents a very lucid definition of the Camp, type and antitype, some of which we now quote:

“'Outside the Camp' means a condition of disfavor with, and rejection from among the rebellious nominal people of God. The Camp means, as above passages imply, the rebellious nominal people of God who, while desiring some relation to God, do not desire it sufficiently to be approved by him, even for fellowship with Him.  In the Harvest of the Jewish Age they were the about-to-be-rejected or the rejected house of Israel. During the Gospel Age they have been those professed Christians that have not heartily repented toward God and heartily exercised faith toward Jesus, or those who have not remained in these conditions of heart and mind, though desiring some fellowship with God, i.e., those who have not even been tentatively justified, or those who did not retain Tentative Justification, though loud in their professions .... in the finished picture, those who are less than tentatively justified.”

Certainly, here is another teaching by the Epiphany Messenger that is diametri­cally opposed to the “cousins,” one of whom (R.  G. Jolly) has his Consecrated Campers possessing Tentative Justification, while the other one (JWK) has his Campers with a “faith justification” (less than tentative), but has them consecrated in the Camp, which teaching also violently contradicts the above quotation, because Brother Johnson teaches that those in the Camp he describes are there because they have failed to consecrate, Nor need we be uncertain about the time setting here, because Vol. 6 was published in 1938, but Brother Johnson is discussing a picture yet in the future-­“THE FINISHED PICTURE.”

On several previous occasions we have directed attention to Brother Johnson's teaching in E-11:591 to the effect that only one Tabernacle antitype operates at one time; and we have asked the “cousins” to declare which antitype they consider to be now operating. Each time our question has been met with unclear statements, or silence by the both of them. Why? Are they afraid of the question? Afraid to make a clear declaration of what they wish their partisan adherents to believe? We opine they will both continue their silence on this important teaching (the Tabernacle is basic for all Parousia Truth, and for much Epiphany Truth) – just as they have also done on those 27 Pyramid “mis”-calculations which they presented in the January 1, 1947 Present Truth.

As “the sword” (sharp controversial Truth) was upon That Unprofitable Shepherd, so it has also been upon the “cousins,” forcing them to accept “new errors to take the place of the opposing truths.. “Instead of the Truth that opposes their errors being permitted by them to set aside their errors, they cling to their errors unto the repudiation of one truth after another contradictory to those errors.” (See E-6:186) And in all of this J. F. Rutherford kept insisting upon his “progressive development” of the Truth presented and clarified by That Servant (See E-6:190, middle) – just as R. G. Jolly now speaks of the “progressive development” of his tabernacle, Rev. 22:11, etc.

As Brother Johnson has so aptly stated, When crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense. And one of the crowning bits of nonsense exuded by R. G. Jolly since 1950 is to be found in his Jan-Feb.  PT, p. 7, col. 1, par. 1, when he speaks of “the Epiphany work God has placed into our charge.” And this choice piece of flummery comes from one who stoutly contends we are now into the Basileia for some nine years – since the 'overlapping' began in 1954. If we are now in the Basileia, just what of Epiphany work can there possibly be left to do? Will he answer this question? And will he also point out to us where Brother Johnson ever once, after 1917 (when the Parousia overlapping had been fully completed), spoke of the Parousia work that had been placed into his charge? Here is indeed nonsense and confusion extreme! And how his readers can accept such hocus-pocus would be unbelievable were we not witness to it.

CONFUSION ON FAITH CLASSES

Nor is this all. He insists that his Campers Consecrated are a “faith class,” along with the other four real faith classes of the Gospel Age and Ages past. Now, note the clear and annihilating contradiction given to this perversion (Azazel means Perverter) by Brother Johnson in E-12:517, par. 1:

“The Land's two parts symbolized the two great doctrinal features of God's plan: (1) Election and (2) Free Grace. The Land of Israel was and is divided into two parts, with the River Jordan and its system of lakes and seas as the boundary between them.  The Land east of the Jordan represents the doctrine of Election, i.e., that God during the period of the ascendancy of sin selects out of the world the faith classes; and the Land west of the Jordan represents the doctrine of Free Grace, i.e., that during the Millennium God will give all passed over during the elective period, the non-elect, the unbelief classes, the opportunity to gain restitution.... It will be recalled that Rueben, Gad and the half Tribe of Manasseh received the Land east of the Jordan as their inheritance on condition of their crossing Jordan and helping the rest of Israel conquer the Land west of Jordan, which they did. Thus God offers the Elect, the Little Flock (Rueben), the Great Company (Gad), and the Worthies (the half Tribe of Manasseh) a heavenly inheritance, with the understanding that they will help the non-elect to obtain restitution, the non-elect salvation.”

Let the “cousins” fit their Consecrated Campers into this picture if they can, thus proving to all the validity of the “progressive truth” they are now advocating. In fact, when R. G. Jolly teaches the half Tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan types his Consecrated Campers, he offers direct contradiction to the foregoing (another Epi­phany perversion by him – Azazel means Perverter); as does also J. W. Krewson when he tries to antitype Manasseh with his repentant fallen angels, who are neither a faith class nor a restitution class. When we see so much of sound doctrine lost in twelve short years since the Epiphany Messenger's death, we come to a ready under­standing of how great parts of the “faith once delivered to the Saints” were lost in the Interim between the two Harvests.

Viewing once more R. G. Jolly's statement on p. 9, col. 2, bottom, of this Jan-Feb. PT – “Many are brought to the Lord and to a better knowledge of the Truth at the hands of brethren in their groups, both in Little Babylon and in Big Babylon” – ­we quote some of the Manna comment for February 4 from each Messenger: “Babylon and her blasphemous doctrines” (Brother Russell);  and “Where has more light been sinned against than in these sects (of Big Babylon), and upon what will God's plagues come with more severity than upon these sects?....In a secondary sense this  passage  well applies to the Lord's people coming out of the sects of Little Babylon” (Bro.  Johnson).

THE NAZARITE COVENANT

Let us now turn to a resumé of Num. 6:3 (the Nazarite obligations) in its relation to 2 Tim. 3:16,17, as explained by Brother Johnson in E-8:137-140:

'In the Timothy text the four things are set forth that God's people are to do with “God-enbreathed” Scripture – (l) For doctrine (that which we should believe); (2) For refutation of error (that which we should not believe); (3) For correc­tion of misconduct (that which we should not do); and (4) For instruction in right­eousness (that which we should do). As contrasted with this, Numbers 6:3 commands the Nazarite to abstain from (1) wine, (2) strong drink, (3) vinegar of wine, and (4) vinegar of strong drink.  The “wine” herein types ethical errors – the “strong drink” doctrinal errors – the “vinegar of wine” false corrections of misconduct and supposed corrections of right conduct – the “vinegar of strong drink” attempted refutations of Truth attacks on errors, and attempted refuta­tions of truths. In Isa. 28:1-7 there is a scathing denunciation of the “drunk­ards of Ephraim” in Big Babylon, who have imbibed to the full of all four of the things specifically prohibited the true Nazarite; and the setting is “In that day,” which began in 1874, in which “wicked men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,” until the “beast is slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.” (Dan. 7:11)

Consequently, Brother Johnson states on page 139: “If they (the servants of the Truth in the Church) should accept (drink) Babylon's ethical, doctrinal, correctional and refutative errors, they would not only injure themselves, but also the Church.... Such errors should be shunned by the entire priesthood .... especially its teachers .... These grapes represent the false principles upon which Babylon's errors are built.”

Comparing the foregoing with R. G. Jolly's conclusion in this Jan-Feb. 1963 P.T., we readily perceive the violent contrast between his own reasoning and that of the Epiphany Messenger; makes crystal clear why any one holding such views would lose his crown, and why he was a ready prey to the errors of Campers Consecrated, John's Behead­ing, Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels (with himself as parallel of Bro.  Russell), the Tabernacle errors, etc., which were fed to him by his “cousin” (J.  W. Krewson) im­mediately the true Nazarite (Brother Johnson) was taken from us. It explains also why we are so pronounced and persistent in wielding “the sword” (sharp refutative Truth) upon him, and why we shall continue to do so for the protection of “the flock, over which the Holy Spirit hath made us an overseer” (Acts 20:28). Nor could we do other­wise if we would continue to be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren. We do this, not of delight, but because “necessity is laid upon me .... this I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.” (I Cor. 9:16,23) And to the foregoing we add from Tower Reprints 4851:

THE BIBLE LOST TODAY

It may amaze some when we say that to the masses of the people today God's Book is lost.  What! do you say, Have we lost over a hundred million Bibles in Christendom, and are we not printing more than a million copies every year? How can you say that the Word of the Lord is lost today?

Alas! Bibles we have, but to the majority of the specially cultured they are Bibles no longer – they are the inspired Word of the Almighty no longer! They are studied, believed and obeyed no longer. It is still fashionable to have Bibles; it is still customary to take texts from them – this is done by ministers, who privately confess that they have no faith in the Bible – that they have no more faith in the Bible than in Shakespeare. And the number of religious teachers who have thus rejected the Word of God as the divinely inspired Message is much greater than the majority of people surmise.  Nearly all ministers graduated during the past twenty years from nearly all of the universities, colleges and sem­inaries of Christendom, in Great Britain, Germany, the United States and Canada, are really infidels, unbelievers. (Note: This was written in 1911 by Brother Russell. Self-evidently, the people are much better today than they were then – ­even though the Scriptures tell us they will “wax worse and worse” – without even having received the scourging of Armageddon, according to R. G. Jolly's teaching!)

And to all “rooted and grounded in the Faith, as ye have been taught” we com­mend likewise –”Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand” (2 Cor. 1:24) – “Wherefore, my beloved Brethren, be you settled, unmoved, abounding in the work of the Lord at all times, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Cor, 15:58—Dia.)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle,  Pilgrim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION  OF  GENERAL  INTEREST

QUESTION: – Brother Johnson taught that the Epiphany is a 40-year period, the same as the Parousia period. Therefore, are you not revolutionizing against Epiphany Truth when you teach that we are yet in the Epiphany since 1954?

ANSWER: – No, we are not revolutionizing against the teaching of the Epiphany period. A simple question should resolve this matter: Shouldn't the interpretation of the pertinent Scriptures determine all in this teaching? Most certainly IT IS THE INTERPRETATION! Brother Johnson clearly demonstrated from Scriptures such as 2 Tim. 4:1, 2 Thes. 1:7,8, etc., that the Epiphany is a period of time – THE LAST SPECIAL PERIOD OF THE GOSPEL AGE. The Dawn and others, we are told, dispute this teaching – there is no Epiphany as a period, according to them. Those of us who still believe there is an Epiphany period in the end of this Age base our belief on such passages as those just cited, as well as the interpretation given them by Brother Johnson. Therefore – very clearly – if we cast aside the interpretation, then the period automatically falls with­out further ado.

Which, then, shall we accept? Brother Russell gave us “The Times of the Gentiles” from his interpretation of certain Bible passages – saying they would end in 1914. The “signs of the times” clearly corroborated his understanding of the matter; but the times themselves also just as clearly disputed some of the conclusions he gave us without Bible texts to support them. Very early in the Parousia he taught a complete collapse at 1914; then later modified that by declaring it might take a year – to 1915 – to accomplish so much. By 1912 he himself saw that his predictions could never all be realized in three short years, so he modified his opinion still further. By 1915 he realized that he had no further date to indicate the complete downfall of Gentile institutions, and he ceased making predictions – other than to state it would be only a short time. As late as 1910 one prominent and gifted pil­grim made a statement something like this: Don't you know that in the closing of 1914 the present arrangements of things is going to be wiped out? And, when the Czarist regime in Russia toppled in late 1917 prominent brethren said to us person­ally – We're not walking by faith any more; we now walk by sight; and some of them confidently believed that the Little Flock would all leave the earth by Passover of 1918. At that late date, had any then just hinted that present institutions would still be operating in 1963, he would have been held in derision by all – and we be­lieve this would include Brother Johnson himself. However, we would call attention to a remarkable article by That Servant, entitled “The Great Day of Judgment – Its Nature and Object” in which he reveals a very clear understanding of what should take place during the period following 1914:

“The earlier part of the judgment upon Christendom will be especially upon the antitypical sons of Levi, the silver class. These made a consecration of themselves to the Lord, as did the gold class, the faithful overcomers, 'more than conqueror,’ This silver class we understand to be the great company, who are to 'come up' out of the great tribulation, and to 'wash their robes (which have become spotted and soiled) and make them white in the blood of the Lamb.' Rev. 7:9-17.......

“The fire of this great day shall 'try every man's work, of what sort it is.' It will prove who of the professed disciples of Christ have built upon him as their foundation with gold, silver, and precious stones of divine Truth, and thus have constructed a true, strong, worthy character, unswervingly loyal to the Lord; and it will prove who have built with wood, hay and stubble. It will likewise discover who have built upon a foundation of sand. – 1 Cor. 3:11-15” (April 15, 1914 Watch Tower, Reprints 5442)

It is clear enough that all who embraced Epiphany Truth from a “good and honest heart” did so because the Epiphany Messenger upheld and defended Parousia Truth, and upon which all his faithful Scriptural Epiphany advancing Truth was based.

Are we now to conclude that Brother Johnson revolutionized against Parousia Truth when he corrected the over-enthusiastic expectations of Brother Russell as to time features? Certainly not! As he himself put it, he gave highest respect to Brother Russell's opinions until time itself – or clear Bible passages – demonstrated those opinions to be untenable and wrong. That is also our attitude with respect to the teachings of Brother Johnson. We are in full accord with his interpretation of those Scriptures which bear on the Epiphany – just as we set aside his opinions which time itself has clearly demonstrated were wrong. The “signs of the times” gave not the least iota of corroboration for the Epiphany to end in the year 1954 –­ either in the world, or among the Truth sections of the General Church. Nor does the type of Lev. 12 (the purifying of the Little Flock and Great Company developing truths) have any bearing whatever on this matter. Therefore, we do not preach – or accept – 1954, except as it applies to the interpretation of Lev. 12 – although we cleave to the Scriptural interpretations for the Epiphany period. The “cousins” (Jolly-­Krewson) take just the reverse position; each of them clings to the one thing wrong –­ the opinion that 1954 would witness the beginning of the end of the Epiphany – as they ignore the clear Scriptural interpretations. We now quote just one of the very many pointed expressions by Brother Johnson, the same being at top of page 15, Epiphany Vol. 4:

“The epiphaneia, the apokalypsis, of our Lord means, not Jesus making Himself visible, nor simply Jesus making Himself known, but His making every other person and every principle and everything known in the end of the Age. (Note: Has this yet been accomplished? If not, then we must still be in the Epiphany!—JJH) Apokalypsis, like epiphaneia, also means the Epiphany period (I Cor. 1:7; 2 Thes. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7, 13; 4:l3). Accordingly, epiphanizing and apokalypsizing, and the Epiphany and the Apokalypse, being respectively identical, we can see that the special time of such epiphanizing, apokalypsizing, is the time of trouble – the time from 1914 onward for a considerable number of years yet. The following Scriptures prove this thought: Luke 17:29,30 (Sodom's destruction typing Christendom's—Rev. 11:8); Matt. 26:64 (the troubles of ecclesiasticism are symbolically set forth here as the clouds of Heaven); 2 Thes. 1:7,8. These passages in their order refer respectively to the war, revolution and anarchy of the Time of Trouble. Hence we see that the Epiphany is the special Apokalypse time and is the same as the time of Trouble.... by the time it is completed the whole Church (the Little Flock and the Great Company—JJH) will be with the Lord. (Note: There is nothing said here about a 'restricted' or a 'narrow' sense – no hint that the Epiphany-Time of Trouble will be waning after 1954 – before the real violence of the Time of Trouble has even begun in 1963—JJH) Accordingly, the words epiphaneia and apokalypsis, in the sense of an action, and in the sense of a period, are synonymous .... So far as the world and the Great Company are concerned, this epiphanizing, revealing, has been gradually going on since the tribulation began – 1914, and will increase and finally come to a climax at the end of the Epiphany – the end of the Time of Trouble. This is the reason why the Time of Trouble is emphatically the Epiphany, the Apokalypse, for it clearly with more distinctness than the preceding period (the 1874-1914 Parousia period—JJH), manifests pertinent persons, principles and things.” (All emphasis ours—JJH)

Hence, it is the “cousins” (Jolly-Krewson) – and not JJH – who have revolutionized against the teachings of the Epiphany Messenger regarding the Epiphany period, because the Epiphany period is identical with, and inclusive of, all phases of the Great Tribulation – War, Armageddon (Revolution), Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble – as the per­tinent Scriptures clearly teach. Note, however, that R. G. Jolly has the overlapping of the Epiphany into the Basileia at 1954, with Armageddon, Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble still future, even in 1963; while the “Apokalypsis Messenger” (J. W. Krewson) starts a new period altogether at 1954 – without citing one Scripture that speaks of an apokalypse period. This is in direct contrast to the Truth given us by Brother Johnson; he gave us clear Bible texts that specifically speak of an epiphaneia – a special period of time. Therefore, time itself has clearly demonstrated that it is now ''wresting the Scriptures” given us by St. Paul (See 2 Pet. 3:16) – such as 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 1:7; etc. – to attempt any sort of ending to the Epiphany period at 1954.

When Brother Johnson thought and taught that the Epiphany would end lappingly in 1954, he also taught on that basis that the violent features of the Tribulation would be here, at least in the initial phases – much the same as when Brother Russell taught that those violent features would come with 1914. Both were wrong in their expectations, but they were right in their Scriptural analysis regarding the Epiphany. Therefore, any who desire to remain in harmony with the Epiphany Messenger must agree that the Epiphany period is still with us – and will continue with us until all features of the Time of Trouble have been measurably accomplished. In other words, if we are to “continue in the things we have learned, and been assured of” – from clear Bible texts – then we must conclude that the overlapping into the Basileia cannot even begin at least until we reach the initial stages of Anarchy, with Jacob's Trouble soon to follow – because the Epiphany period and the Time of Trouble (the Great Tribulation) are identical. After that, we can expect the Kingdom proper –the true Basileia period –­ which will inaugurate the “blessing of all the families of the earth.” At that time all in Little Babylon, who have retained any vestige of Parousia-Epiphany Truth, and are still in the Household of Faith, will know – without need of elaborate persuasion – ­that we have come to the true ending of the Epiphany period.

---------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS  OF  GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving greetings through our dear Redeemer!

Your remarks in your letter, “The Lord's promise is sure,” if we continue in what we have learned and been assured of, is of great importance. The monthly papers we receive are a real blessing – and the questions in the last paper (April) Are very interesting. You are able to give the brother sound answers.

It would be good if you could give the answers in one of your papers. It seems that you are the only one the Lord has raised up to carry on the work of the Star Members – the doctrines and arrangements and refuting the error. It is a great work to assist the Levites in their cleansing.

We are sending --lbs. to Jamaica next week. Brother ----- joins me in warm Christian love to you both and all with you. Yours by His Grace ------- (ENGLAND)

...........................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in our Redeemer's Name! We would like to have some tracts –Where are the Dead, The Resurrection, etc. We have already distributed those that you sent and would like to continue to do so. As you know, dear Brother, we are not rich in this world's goods, but we would like to send a small contribution to assist with the expenses.

We look forward to receiving your papers. May the Heavenly Father continue to use you to assist us. We all join in sending Christian love to you, Sister Hoefle and all the dear friends. Yours by His Grace -------- Sec/Treas. (TRINIDAD)

...........................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian greetings! I just received the notice that Mr.------- ­sent you from Williamstown about the tracts Mrs. ------- received. I am glad I am one of those base and foolish ones that had the privilege to confound the wise. No doubt Mr. ------- placed Mrs. ------- husband in the heavenly realm at his funeral, as did a minister at my brother's wife’s funeral. After the services at the grave he turned to the friends and said, “Now as we are here together I will take this oppor­tunity to tell you, dear friends, that she is not here, but gone home to be with the Lord.” .........

Please send me some more tracts, Where are the Dead and The Resurrection.

Christian love to all the friends, Sister  ------- (CONNECTICUT)

...........................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace in Jesus' Name! I hope this finds you both well. All is going quite well with me. ...I have heard from Sister ------- and Sister -------. There are other brethren not so sectarian. Do you have Sister ------- address? Here are several names for your mailing list.......

I also met Brother Eschrich in Tel Aviv. I heard about his wife's passing. We talked on Campers Consecrated, but we didn't make any progress on that line. I also met Sr. ------- I understand she still lives there ....

Please let me know how much it costs to print and mail ---- tracts to me. Thank you very much! Daily I long so much for God's blessed Kingdom. I do want to be more pure and loving in heart and mind, and more in my actions. God be with you both in this New Year, and all the brethren there with you.

“The Lord thy God, He it is that doth go with thee;

He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” (Deut. 31:6) With Christian love to you both, Your sister by faith in Jesus our Savior, by the Grace of God,

-------  (CALIFORNIA)

............................................................

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n –

Dear Sirs: – Greetings in our dear Lord's Name! Your literature came to hand – one, Where are the Dead and What is the Soul. I am happy to say I know the Lord. God is good and I don't know what we would do without Him. It is wonderful to know His love and Grace. May this Peace rest upon you.

Yours in Him, ------- (KANSAS)

NO. 95: THE MARCH-APRIL PRESENT TRUTH REVIEWED

No. 95

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

On p. 26, col. 2 of this March-April P.T. there is a caption “False Accusations Exposed,” which once more reveals the cunning trickery of those in Azazel's clutches. (See E-10:646) And, if that was R. G. Jolly's intent toward the Epiphany Messenger himself, it should cause no surprise that he accords us the same treatment. He says we insert the word “ Jewish” in his statement that appears in his Nov-Dec. P.T., p. 93, col, 2, par. 4. We suggest all go back and read what he has said there. He says there isn't “any notice of this thirteenth month given in the Bible.” We are in full agreement with that statement; then he proceeds to explain how “ the modern Jewish calendar” reconciles the lunar and the solar years by the metonic cycle which they adopted in 360 A.D.

Does R. G, Jolly know exactly how that reconciliation was effected when Jesus was on earth – 360 years before the Jews adopted the Meton recon­ciliation? But, if he was discussing two different years in the same paragraph, why didn't he make that clear? He says it would be “foolish” to use the present “heathen-based Jewish calendar” for our own calculation – and we agree in certain respects; but, if he rejects the present method, it is most elemental to expect he would state precisely what authority he does use. Does he know? We repeat, DOES HE KNOW?

He once more accuses us of “the tactics of a shady lawyer” in this matter. It was not here – and never has been in any instance in the past – our intent to mis­quote or distort his statements. We have plenty of Truth to use against him without stooping to ''Azazelian'' methods, as he himself has done (See E-10:646). In the paragraph following the one herein under scrutiny he quotes “Fausset's Cyclopedia”; but there is nothing in that quotation that even hints at thirteen months in the year, so what is he trying to prove by that? It is common knowledge today there are about seven more lunar months in every nineteen years than there are solar months – exactly the same as it was in Jesus' day; therefore, the only question now before us is what method was used then. If R. G. Jolly knows that method, he hasn't said so.

He who discerns clearly, teaches clearly; but Brother Johnson says it is impossible for those in Azazel's clutches to think clearly on any Scriptural subject; and we have repeatedly proven in the past how befuddled R. G. Jolly's thinking has become since his abandonment to Azazel in 1950. Here is just another illustration of it – even as he yells “shady lawyer” at us to conceal his own bungling. Brother Johnson's clear statement is that the Passover must be “ never before the Vernal Equinox.” We now accept that unequivocally, regardless of what sort of year R. G. Jolly was discussing on p. 93 of the Nov-Dec. P.T.; but we now advise, too, that henceforth he make himself clear, without “profusion of words.” Then he won't have any complaint with us – or any one else –misunderstanding him. Let him now state clearly exactly how the calculation was made in Jesus' day, if he knows.

Let us not forget that a Levite (R. G. Jolly) has offered now another of his “new” ideas on the Memorial: He is the first among Truth people during the entire Parousia­ Epiphany ever to hold the service in the winter, so far as we know – before the Vernal Equinox. Let us remember, too, that it was the “cousins” (Jolly-Krewson) who opened the attack upon us; we originated no charges whatever against them. J. W. Krewson showed himself so ridiculously weak that he was silenced in short order; and R. G. Jolly is now crying “false accusations.” Note he makes it plural; then proceeds to discuss “a” statement we made, We are ready enough to withdraw and apologize for any statement any time against him if it becomes clear that statement does him any injustice. He insists our insertion of the word “Jewish” in his statement was the “tactics of a shady lawyer.” Clearly enough, we did add the word “Jewish” because we concluded that was his thought. Now, with all his “profusion of words” to dis­credit our inadvertence, he still hasn't made clear just what he did mean.

However, when he accuses us of “shady lawyer” tactics, he is simply attempting a cover-up for his own weak position and the conduct which is inherent in his Leviti­cal character. (See E-10:646), as cited aforegoing; also, E-10:585, where Brother Johnson tells us R. G. Jolly has a “bad conscience” – a charge Brother Johnson never made against JJH). This is further confirmed in the very harangue he now offers to justify himself – and he does so in identical “shady” fashion to what he now berates in us. Note p. 27, col. 1, par. 5: “The false accuser, with his (JJH's) appeals to Josephus.” It was Brother Johnson who first appealed to Josephus; we merely accepted the conclusion he reached after he cited Josephus: “Never before the Vernal Equinox.” Therefore, it was Brother Johnson – not JJH – who originally “appealed” to Josephus; we knew nothing about the Josephus record until Brother Johnson referred us to it. Who, then, is the “shady” character here? And, if R. G. Jolly does not wish to accept Josephus, as did Brother Johnson, for the method in use in Jesus' day, let him cite some other authority who knew the method then in use. Will he do this? We very much doubt it!

However, while we are waiting for him to make himself clear, we shall proceed to make our own position unquestionably clear; so we quote from the Jewish Encyclo­pedia:

“ There is no mention of an intercalary month in the Bible, and it is not known whether the correction was applied in ancient times by the addition of one month in three years, or by the addition of ten or eleven days at the end of each year... The fixing of the lengths of the months and the intercalation of months was the preroga­tive of the Sanhedrin.”

And be it noted that the High Priest was automatically the President of the Sanhedrin. Therefore, the uncle of Josephus, who was High Priest, was also President of the San­hedrin; and it was this body that fixed the date for the Passover at the time of Jesus. Thus, Josephus, himself a priest of the first course, would be as well qualified as any one then living to tell us when the Passover should be kept – which he says was “ while the sun is in Aries,” which motivated Brother Johnson's conclusion that the Passover (Nisan 14) must be after the Vernal Equinox. Therefore, R. G. Jolly's snide remarks about “appeals to Josephus” are simply some more of his symbolic witch­craft (especially deceptive false teachings). On the other hand, Brother Johnson's “ appeals to Josephus” are sound and time-honored, because we cannot find a single instance in the entire Gospel Age where the Jews ever observed the Passover before the Vernal Equinox, which, coupled with the Josephus record of the custom in Jesus' day, adds indisputable corroboration to Brother Johnson's conclusion – “NEVER BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX.”

Lest we be misunderstood, we are in full agreement with both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that the present-day Jewish calendar is inaccurate; but that is no justification for assuming they do not understand the proper “ season” for their festivals, particularly for the Passover, even as Brothers Russell and Johnson both kept within the proper season (“ALWAYS AFTER THE VERNAL EQUINOX” ) when they were wrong many times in the exact date for the Memorial: They never celebrated the Passover BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX! Self-evidently, the Jews have clung with typical Jewish tenacity to the teachings of the Fathers that their Passover must be observed after the Vernal Equinox – or, “NEVER BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX,” as taught by Brother Johnson for Spiritual Israel. Therefore, we now charge R. G. Jolly and his “cousin,” J. W. Krewson, before all, with observing the Memorial thirty days too early in 1962 – ­and no amount of name-calling or loud “profusion of words” will absolve them from that responsibility.

            Even though the last two Star Members made mistakes in their exact dates for the Memorial, neither of them ever went so far wrong that they kept it “out of season” – ­before the Vernal Equinox – as R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson have done. Not even Big Babylon has been so far wrong in all the records we can find. They, too, always observe Easter AFTER THE VERNAL EQUINOX – during the Spring Season! The “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson) hold a unique position in their celebration of the Passover BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX! And these two hold this close harmony on this error (as they do on many other errors), even as they attempt to resist the true Epiphany teachings, while suing each other for the name (Laymen's Home Missionary Movement) bequeathed to us by the Epiphany Messenger. “Only let us be called by thy_name to take away our reproach.” (Isa. 4:1)

Furthermore, if Brother Johnson was correct in his conclusion in the February 1933 Present Truth, that his presentation there was a “Great Company developing Truth,” then we are all forced to the conclusion that Brother Russell never saw clearly how to calculate the Memorial date, because he was at least one day wrong on almost every one he observed – just as Brother Johnson also was probably one day wrong in every date he published prior to 1933. Thus, the “cousins” – and more specifically R.G.Jolly – ­have loosed quite an uproar with a very weak foundation under their feet, We opine the both of them have simply made this attempt to divert attention from the many humi­liating defeats we have otherwise administered to them, and others yet to come to them on the errors they are advocating. Specifically, this present outburst by R. G. Jolly is probably an adroit attempt to have his readers – particularly those in Trinidad –­ forget those eleven questions we proposed for Fred Blaine while he was there. “they hate him that rebuketh in the gate (place of prominence), and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly” ; (Amos 5:10) – and “anoint themselves with the chief ointments (such as the title of Pastor and Teacher): but they are not grieved for the afflic­tions of Joseph” (those true teachings of Brother Johnson which they both have set aside). (Amos 6:5,6)

“ CAMPERS CONSECRATED” AGAIN

On pages 27-30 of this same March-April paper R. G. Jolly resorts to more of his “profusion of words,” subject as above; but here again he ignores Item No. 1 in his discussion, the same being his authority to present a new doctrine (whether he is 'cleansed or uncleansed'). In E-10:XXIV Brother Johnson states:

''All brethren, except the star-members, are forbidden direct Biblical study on new doctrines, types and prophecy, which is 'gazing' for them.”

In the paper under review R. G. Jolly offers great elaboration of “types” to substantiate his teaching – some of which were never given us by either the Parousia or Epiphany Messengers. This he does in clear violation of the aforementioned teach­ing, and in direct contradiction to much that has been given us by the Messengers. Brother Johnson also emphasizes the above quotation in E-7:138 and in E-11:495. Therefore, before he attempts to offer “proof” of his new doctrine, let R. G. Jolly first give us a clear Scripture, or “group of Scriptures,” as his authority to set aside the Epiphany Messenger's teaching as quoted aforegoing. There is just no point at all in presenting extended discussion on any matter that is clearly illegal at its very inception, and thus on a false foundation.

A LOOK AT NUMBERS 7

But, while gaiting for him to do that, we now offer a convincing type in proof that Brother Johnson was correct in his teaching – the same being the type set forth in Numbers 7, wherein the twelve princes of Israel typed twelve groups of crown-lost leaders in the Gospel Age. This is most clearly and convincingly expounded in Epiphany Volume 8, pages 169 through 461.

            Among other things, each prince offered a bowl, charger and spoon, the same typifying respectively those three sections of inspired Scripture described by St. Paul as “refuting, correction and instruction in righteousness.” (See 2 Tim.3:16) On p. 192 (29) Brother Johnson tells us “there was no offering of cups” by the princes, thus attesting that none of their antitype were permitted to bring forth new doctrines. Rather, “the crown-lost leaders in all cases perverted some doctrinal feature in the teachings given by the Little Flock crown-retaining leaders.” While this type stresses the good and commendable work done by the crown-lost leaders in their Gospel-Age service for God, it does not overlook the evils of those “double­minded” men (See p. 197, top), as evidenced by the figure six being prominent in the weights of the vessels offered, six being a symbol of evil or imperfection. And by their perversion of the symbolic “cups” (doctrines) that were entrusted to them, they in that part of this type reveal the antitypical service to Azazel (Azazel means Perverter). And every one of them was guilty of such perversions.

Be it noted we are not here teaching that the crown-lost leaders in the Epiphany are a part of this antitype; but we do stress their identical conduct to their kins­men of the interim epochs of the Gospel Age. We have already explained in our paper No. 22, June 1, 1957: “ To substantiate this conclusion it becomes necessary first of all to offer an analysis of Brother Russell's Stewardship Doctrine, which we believe to be:

“A correct understanding of the Atonement as portrayed in Leviticus 16, the central teaching of which is Restitution,” (copy of this article free upon request)

And R. G. Jolly himself is commendably among the foremost in declaring how the Society leaders have so atrociously perverted that doctrine, so that they are now actually denying the Ransom, ignorant though they may be of the fact. Their ignorance, however, does not change the fact.

And the present leaders, and some erstwhile leaders (J.W. Krewson, et al), in the L.H.M.M. have also grossly perverted the Stewardship Doctrine entrusted to them by the Epiphany Messenger, the same being,

“The Epiphany in its Relation to the Epiphany Elect,”

as set out in our No. 26, October 1, 1957 paper, p. 4 (copy free upon request). Their perversions – as has been true of all their kinsman of the past – have taken from the Truth and added their own errors to the “ cup” (doctrine) entrusted to them. And this is just what we should expect from those abandoned to Azazel; 2 Thes. 2:11 emphatically states that all such persons would experience “an energy of delusion.” Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both taught tentative justification only in the Court; the present L.H.M.M. leaders teach it in the Camp. Neither Messenger ever taught a consecrated class in the Parousia or Epiphany Camp – nor did they teach con­secration available for Restitutionists during the large Gospel Age or in its last special stage (the Epiphany period). The present leaders do teach that consecration is available for Restitutionists before the Highway of Holiness is opened up for them. The Epiphany Messenger described the quasi-elect as those who failed to consecrate; the present L.H.M.M. leaders now have some of them among the consecrated. Nor did the Epiphany Messenger himself ever speak of the Epiphany period in the end of the Age in a “ narrow” or “restricted” sense. That has been added by R. G,-jolly to give some semblance of plausibility to his many other Epiphany perversions. As stated aforegoing, R. G. Jolly definitely “is not grieved for the afflictions of Joseph.” (Amos 6:5-6)

Let us keep in mind also that R. G. Jolly has never presented a “progress report” for his Campers Consecrated – and for good cause: He hasn't any to offer! Consider now – in contrast – the orderly progress report given by the Messengers for every New Creature of the Gospel Age. Aside from those born in tentative justification (in the Court condition), every New Creature made orderly progress from the Camp (some few, perhaps, even from outside the Camp) to the Gate of the Court, entering which he immediately experienced a change in his standing once he stepped through the Gate: He became tentatively justified. Thereafter, he made orderly progress past the brazen altar (noting in limited degree the sacrificing of the Christ Company), washing at the Laver, until he reached the first veil of the Tabernacle proper. Passing through that veil in consecration he immediately experienced another change in his standing: He became a New Creature in the Holy.

Here is surely a story of orderly progress not to be found in any feature of R. G. Jolly's Campers Consecrated. Note he now admits he has them mixed right in with those ejected from the Court in 1954, and with the nominal people of God (See p. 30, col. 2, par. 2), and with the quasi-elect unconsecrated! Thus, his Campers Consecrated experience no change whatever in their standing by their consecra­tion –­ the Camp types only one condition, just as the Court, the Holy and Most Holy type only one condition; we have no way of discerning his Consecrated Campers from the other Campers! And this latter statement is probably about as close to the real Truth as anything he has presented on the subject!

On p. 30 he says there are now “three (emphasis by R. G. Jolly) classes in the post-1954 Epiphany Camp: (1) the Gospel-Age nominal people of God; (2) the loyal unconsecrated quasi-elect.... (3) the Consecrated Epiphany Campers.” In the face of this conglomeration, just what condition is now typed by his Camp? We offer the only logical answer: It types a condition of CONFUSION – confusion worse confounded! And this one teaching by him of itself clearly places him and his partisan supporters right where we have repeatedly contended they are – in LITTLE BABYLON (Babylon means Confusion). Let us ever remember that a place in the tabernacle type pictures a con­dition in the antitype. Thus, the Court types only one condition – JUSTIFICATION. Even though there be several different classes of people in the Epiphany tabernacle Court, each one of them is in a justified condition. Contrast that now with R.G.Jolly's “post-1954 Epiphany Camp,” in which he has tentatively justified, ex-tentatively justi­fied (those remanded from the Court since 1954), non-tentatively justified (the quasi­elect unconsecrated), and those without any justification of any kind (the nominal people of God). Confusion? Babylon? Yes, indeed; and in obnoxious extreme! This is graphically described by Brother Johnson in E-6:369 (top):

“They have run ahead of the Lord... even as Saul failed to wait for the sacri­fice until Samuel came to make it ... They became teachers of error (symbolic sorcery), even as Saul took to witchcraft.... This is the large type–that of the Gospel Age. But there is a smaller type, which is confined to the Epiphany, and which has been fulfilling and has yet sometime to run.” (Published in 1938)

We are now witness to some of its fulfillment right at our own doorstep. Saul is taking to symbolic witchcraft (especially deceptive false teachings), with conse­crated, unconsecrated, nominal unjustified people, others once tentatively justi­fied who “ received the grace of God in vain” – all in a confused jumble in one place (R. G. Jolly's Camp). It is little wonder that Brother Johnson made the observation, When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense.

And in the face of all these perversions R. G. Jolly is crass enough to declare on P. 29, col. 2, par. 2, that they “walk in the light” ... We remember very distinctly how C. A. Wise, Vice-President of the Society under That Evil Servant, came to the Dayton, Ohio Class early in the Epiphany, and gave a discourse on “Walk in the Light.'' In that talk he emitted much harangue about “Paul S. L. Johnson and his deluded followers falling behind the Light” – because they were adhering to and defending that Truth that had been entrusted to them by the Parousia Messenger, and were not accepting the new teachings then coming from the Unprofitable Shepherd whose “ right eye shall be utterly darkened.” (Zech. 11:17)

At that time the Society leaders were introducing many new erroneous types, as they also cast aside the Truth (in similar fashion as we see today from R. G. Jolly) that had once made them clean (John 15:3); and it was a spectacle to behold as those potent orators – of strong lungs and big mouth – tore down the Truth given by the Lord through the Parousia Messenger – and built up the error with their “profusion of words” that started the Little Babylon sects of Confusion. At that time That Evil Servant ''whispered'' privately to brethren how Brother Russell received most of his teachings by intuition; whereas, he, being a lawyer accustomed to think in hard and clear fashion, reached his conclusions by sound logic (?). And this was swallowed by his trusting followers unto a complete perversion of the tabernacle types, until eventually, they threw out the entire Tabernacle Shadows book. All this had a small beginning, of course, starting with their denial of tentative justification. The L.H.M.M. leaders have not yet perverted to that extreme; so far, at least, they have just moved tenta­tive justification from behind the linen curtain out in front of the “ wall of unbelief.” And in making this change, they are “walking in the light.” In exasperation at such twaddle, Brother Johnson simply said, “Nonsense!” And we join with him in similar expression at what passes before us now! We shall offer much more on this in our June paper.

“For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” (Psa. 1:6) And with this comes the prayer that “The Lord will give strength unto his people (the fully faithful of all classes); the Lord will bless his people with peace.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

 ----------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Do you believe a Youthful Worthy can lose his tentative justification and again regain it?

ANSWER: – We know of no Scripture to support such a view. It is clear enough that those who are ejected from the Holy because of measurable unfaithfulness can never regain entry to the Holy – tears and strong cryings availing nothing. Also, those New Creatures who are ejected from the Court (Second-deathers) nevermore regain their standing in God'[s Household. With this precedent before us, we believe it is unreasonable to conclude any other procedure for those who lose their Youthful Worthy Class standing for similar reasons. In fact, if they would be able to do so, it would seem to us to encourage indolence, which is a trait contrary to all Scriptural teaching. We can well fancy many saying, Why exert ourselves to sacrifice and toil now when we can do so later and attain the same results?

Therefore, it is our conclusion that the Youthful Worthies who lose their Class standing because of unfaithfulness, also lose their tentative justification and are ejected from the Court – a re-entry to which is forever barred to them. The Court is the only place in the Tabernacle picture that types justification; and the entrance to the Court is a GATE – not a revolving door for any one to enter into tentative justi­fication, then go back into the unjustified worldly condition from which they came; then back again into the Court condition at will (although there is a Gate to enter, and a Gate through which those who are in the Court can be ejected). We believe when one is ejected from the Court (once loses his tentative justification standing), that he has lost his standing as a Youthful Worthy forever and cannot regain it – anymore than the Great Company can regain their standing among the Little Flock and again enter the Holy, the place from which they have been ejected because of unfitness therefor.

-----------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dearly Beloved Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our Lord!

I have the Present Truth of March-April 1963, and it would seem that Brother Jolly is replying to part of my letter of January 5. Before going further, I would draw attention to a statement of Brother Russell in Z-5347, col. 1, par. 6. I must now ask, What death did Brother Johnson die to antitype Matt. 23:35? Was he slain or did he die a peaceful and quiet death? Has he not shown in his own correction of 1 Thes. 4:17 that the last member, or members, of the Little Flock would be taken away in violence –''violently seized away''?

In E-5 (Miscellany), p. 297 (44), also same book p. 442, where Brother Johnson expected Anarchy in 1954, which has not materialized even yet. (Which proves we are still in the Epiphany, and not in the 'overlapping' Epiphany period – JJH) Is not Brother Johnson in harmony with Brother Russell when he says in E-3:213 (21):

“Thus the Little Flock here proves to be the salt of the earth and the stayer of the second phase of the Great Tribulation?” (written in 1938)

One cannot take from the Star Members' writings what suits him and throw the rest aside unless facts are to the contrary. Another case: Brother Russell produced the Photo Drama in 1914 as an attestatorial work. (See Z-5479, col. 2, last par.) Who produced Bible in Films in 1954 – Merchants?

Christian greetings to dear child Sister Hoefle and all the others your way.

                        I am (signed) L.F. Roach (BELMONT – PORT OF SPAIN – TRINIDAD)

(Now follows a postcript by Brother Roach to his open letter to R. G. Jolly Jan. 5 – JJH)

When I wrote to you about your meeting with Bro. Nelson at Piarco on your return to Trinidad that day, you denied what I said that it was a dirty plot between you both. I am quite satisfied now that this very Bro. Nelson went and knocked at Bro. Peters' home to the surprise of Bro. Peters, between the last week of January and the first week in February, boasting that through your directions he has successfully managed to cause the separation of the Trinidad Ecclesia (also that it is he and not I who did it), by telling you of the separate Memorial.

Under the guidance of our Lord through Bro. Johnson I brought the (Epiphany) Truth to Trinidad, and I am prepared to defend the Truth and to defend Jehovah's character. I notice that Rom. 8:28-35 is operating now on my behalf. It is a very crucial test for me. Bro. Hoefle has given me a very helpful thought that some of us get our severest trials early in life and some of us at the closing days of our life; but in all of our trials God overrules according to E. Vol. Eight, page 642, first 18 verses.

I can now see why, though you and Bro. Johnson lived together, yet he passed you over and sent 600 miles away to Bro. Hoefle to conduct his funeral service.

Signed: L. F. Roach

(This postcript is part of open letter to R. G. Jolly from Bro. Roach, which appeared in our No. 92, Feb. 1, 1962 paper, pp. 6-7 – JJH)

.......................................

Dearly beloved Brother Hoefle: – Peace be multiplied!

Excuse my brevity. I am fighting against my physical weakness. Yesterday morning I discovered in one of my old books the accompanying letter from Brother Johnson, which I would like you to publish along with my reply to Brother Robertson's and R. G. Jolly's accusing letters of clericalism.

I think it necessary to tell you something about Brother McBarnett. He came into the Truth about 1923, during the separation of the Little Flock and Great Company in Trinidad. He was among the first ones I brought into the Epiphany Truth in 1931 – an eloquent preacher, he went to Venezuela in 1949 to get a job. While there he preached and used to draw hundreds to hear him, even some of the Watch Tower people. He made enemies of Roman Catholic priests and was slowly poisoned. The British people rushed him back to Trinidad where he was hospitalized for about four days and died. In such cases there should have been a Coroner's inquiry. In this case there was none because there was no union between Trinidad, a British colony, and Venezuela, a Spanish Republic. I reported everything to Brother Johnson, who was grieved over the situation. He told me to probe the matter, but Trinidad Police have no power in a foreign country. Brother McBarnett died in Sept. 1950.

I am improved from sickness about 75%.

Christian love and greetings to Sister Hoefle, the others and yourself.

By His Grace, (Signed) L. F. Roach (date, March 7, 1963 – TRINIDAD)

My dear Bro. Roach: Grace and peace!

Yours of Sept. 6 with your report and some book orders was appreciatively received. I want to tell you, my dear Brother, that I greatly appreciate the work you are doing and that I am glad to see that you are doing the work and having it done in harmony with the Parousia and Epiphany arrangements, for example, the many Home-Gatherings and meetings for the public that you have been conducting as indicated on your report. May the Lord bless you in your endeavors to serve Him and His cause. The literature which you ordered has been sent to you. I am announcing the death of Bro. H. McBarnett in the October PRESENT TRUTH and await further word from you on the subject.

As to appointing someone else to take Bro. McBarnett's place, I would do it if I knew of someone qualified. (Unlike crown-lost leaders who rush to appoint brethren to fill a vacancy, Brother Johnson – the true Pastor and Teacher – sought to abide by the Scripture, “Lay Hands hastily on no one and be not a partaker in Others' Sins; keep Thyself pure.” 1 Tim. 5:22–Dia. – JJH)

Sending you my hearty Christian love and the assurance of my prayers which also applies to yours and the other dear ones, I remain

Your brother and servant, (Signed) Paul S. L. Johnson

(date, Sept. 13, 1950 – PHILADELPHIA, PA.)

...........................................

Our dear Brother Roach: Greetings of love in our Lord's Name! We regret delay in writing before now.

The reason is we have been flooded through burst pipes, etc. However, we are hoping the worst is over, and that the warmer days and longer daylight with the life­giving sunshine will help us get over the long and extremely cold weather we have had here in England. Of course, we do comfort ourselves in the thought that “Grace and Strength” sufficient for our needs is daily given us. Also the promise given us in Rom. 8:28; Isa. 30:15; Psa. 46, etc.

We appreciate the privilege of reading your letter to R. G. Jolly, containing the Truth so valuable and vital to those of us who love the Truth “above Rubies,” or anything else in this world, which is something these Azazelian Levite Brethren – especially the leaders – have yet to learn and appreciate more than life itself. This continual stubborn­ness, self-will and arrogance, will prove very costly indeed to quite a few brethren. “How are the mighty fallen” ! Spiritual pride, like any other kind of pride, truly “goeth before a fall.” And how much we have desired to help the brethren! So often have efforts been made by us, but they “ desire none of us yet.” But in the Lord's “due time” they will be glad to hear – indeed even ­anxious to have help from those of us who have humbly accepted the Lord's deliverance from Little Babylon's wrong teachings and practices. See Epiphany Vol. 10, p. 360, bottom of page – “as the brethren arose in resistance to revolutionism in the groups to which they had adhered, and from which loyalty forced them to separate themselves.” Compare with page 643. It would seem clear that this last group in the form of the L.H.M.M., though no worse than some other groups, which explains why Brother Johnson could call them and others, “good Levites” – though requiring cleansing. See p. 274: “The ten good Levite groups... the cleansing of these is a thing to be devoutly hoped for.” God bless you!

Accept our united love in the Lord, with assurance of our prayers that His richest blessings be yours daily.

From your Brother and Sister in Him, The Baxendales (ENGLAND)

 (date, Feb. 11, 1963)

..................................................

Dearly beloved Bro. and Sr. Baxendale:

Greetings in our dear Redeemer! Your letter of Feb. 11, 1963 received with much appreciation. I read about the disastrous weather which occurred in England. My sympathy was with you. We all do know our dear Heavenly Father is faithful and has never failed one of all His promises.

As concerning my letters to Bro. Jolly, he has my sympathy. I was evidently used of the Lord to rebuke him when he was in Trinidad (Z-5184, col. 1, par. 9) (2) Not observing the Memorial with him in obedience to E. Vol. XI, p. 208. (I never thought it would be so far-reaching!) (3) Now this quotation of yours – “How are the Mighty fallen” has drawn more sympathy for him (RGJ). However, let us pray, watch and see.

At this moment I am a sick man, and have to get some one to write for me. With respect to your references in The E. Vol. 10, I prefer to refer those to Brother Hoefle who seems to be set aside for that purpose – and has the strength and ability. I know that you are in touch with the latest. I would not like to delay reply to your good letter one day longer.

Warm Christian love and greetings to Sister Baxendale and yourself, I remain in His Service. (Signed) L. F. Roach –TRINIDAD – (date, March 7, 1963)

........................................

To Bible Students,

Please do not send me any more literature. I am one of Jehovah Witnesses! I understand the Holy Bible.

Yours sincerely ------- ENGLAND

.........................................................

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n

Dear Sir:

Will you please send me a copy of What is the Soul, The Resurrection of the Dead. I have a copy of Where are the Dead. I like this very much, as it is exactly as I believe. I am a Bible Student and would like to get all the right advice I can on these matters. My minister this past Sunday preached a sermon contrary to this teaching.....

Yours truly ------- CALIFORNIA

.......................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian Greetings!

As I have stated in former letter concerning the young man who is so earnest in the Truth, I have given to him my back issues of your publica­tions. There are four missing.......... May I ask, When, what month and year did you start printing these letters? Thanks...

I will not write much here, but refer to the letters written to you by other brethren that cover my thoughts on your work more and better than I can put in words. We three here love all you and your dear family in God's Truth send us, and we pray the dear Lord's care always for you, for his work to be done as necessary.

With Christian love and prayers from each of us ------- CALIFORNIA

.............................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Greetings in our dear Savior's Name! I was glad to hear from you. I wanted to write before, but I am not as good this winter as other winters. Thank you for your letter – also for the papers. The dear Lord surely is with you! They could not be better. He surely is preparing a “Table” for us and has led us thus far – and may we be faithful to Him and the Faith!

Your Questions for Fred Blaine are just wonderful. You can't know what blessings I get from them, so I study them over and over.... I hope this finds you and Sister in health and very happy in the Lord.

Yours in the one Faith, ------- PENNSYLVANIA

.................................................................

Epiphany Publishing Company

We would like for you to send us the following tracts: The Herald of the Epiphany, Where are the Dead, What is the Soul, Resurrection of the Dead, the Three Babylons, and any others which you might have.

------- KANSAS