NO. 75: THE SONS OF GOD

No. 75

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

On page 92 of the 1960 Nov‑Dec. Present Truth R. G. Jolly again revels in some more of his name‑calling and loud talk about the “teacher of sophistry” and “this errorist” (referring to JJH in both instances); and once more does he offer a vivid illustration to prove that those in Azazel's hands lose their ability to discern between Truth and error, and offers an irrefutable example in proof of Brother Johnson's words in E‑4:128 (9):

“For the most part they (the Great Company).... see only counterfeit light, i.e., such as never was on the antitypical lampstand, and thus partake of un­clean bread, i. e., such as never was on the antitypical table.... As a re­sult their new creatures are famished, weak, sickly and asleep.”

In this they offer striking contrast to the good Youthful Worthies, “Who are privi­leged to see and appreciate every truth except such truths as the Lord may desire to be limited to the priests.”

In view of the foregoing, it is little wonder that R. G. Jolly screams forth his “counterfeit light,” and contrasts it with the real Truth that we presented on the Gospel‑Age Sons of God, pointing to our presentation as ”sophistry” and “error.” And in this he will fool the majority of his readers, those whom the Lord wishes to receive buffetings similar in nature to those meted out to uncleansed Great Company members during their abandonment to Azazel – those dwellers in Laodicea who are “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Rev. 3:17) So confused is R. G. Jolly in his answer to us that he fails to see any difference in the Old Testament “sons of Jacob” and the “sons of Levi” and in the New Testament “sons of God.” And in the face of this he is crass enough to refer to himself and his cohorts as “cleansed good Epiphany Levites”!

Be it noted in Malachi Chapter 3 that it is Jehovah Himself who is the speaker, and He is sending His Messenger (our Lord Jesus) to accomplish a certain work among the “sons of Levi.” If these are the same as the New Testament Gospel‑Age “sons of God,” why does not Jehovah refer to them as “my sons,” as He does elsewhere when addressing the Fully Faithful? Even R. G. Jolly's own quotation from Brother Russell at the bottom of p. 92, col. 2, says, “These sons of Levi, in the antitypical sense, are the household of faith.” Is R. G. Jolly willing to accept this statement for just what it says? If so, then he must include in it all the tentatively justified, plus his Campers Consecrated. Is he now trying to put them also in the Gospel‑Age “sons of God”? Be it understood that we are not now trying to complicate this issue with “profusion of words,” so we hasten to explain that Brother Johnson shows from his various statements that it is new creatures here in the end of this Age that are specifically being “purged” – although the purging applies in a secondary and limited sense to all members of the Household of Faith. The criticism we now offer is that R. G. Jolly should have made such explanation if the matter were clear to him, because “he that discerns clearly, teaches clearly”; but we realize he does not discern clearly, so it is impossible for him to teach clearly – even when he has the Truth on a subject (although he is the one now in full error on the “sons of God!”).

It will be noted in E‑5:118 (28) that Brother Johnson says, “The sons of Levi (the “justified” in contrast to the “unjustified” – JJH)... represent the Lord's people in and out of the Truth.” Further, in E‑5:137 (62): “Who will be able to stand when He appeareth (when He makes all His people manifest, i.e., in the Epiphany, Mal.3:2)?” And in E‑5:395 Brother Johnson explains that the “sons of Levi” even refer to the first Advent “in a secondary application.” Further, in E‑5:415 (22), Brother Johnson tersely states, “By the sons of Levi in this text the Little Flock and the Great Company are meant”; but there is not the least hint in this expression that those “sons of Levi” are synonymous with the New Testament “sons of God.”

In support of our statement aforegoing, we now offer something from Brother Russell in Z Reprints 4574, col. 1, bottom: “Notice how distinctly the Scriptures differentiate between the church class (the 'little flock’ of underpriests, and the 'great company’ of antitypical Levites) and the remainder of mankind. 'Ye’, 'we,’ and 'us’ are terms Scripturally applied to those 'called’ during this Gospel Age to be sharers with Christ in the high or heavenly calling ... Christ's members over whom He is the Head – the bride class, of whom He is the Head or Bridegroom.”

Complementing the above is this in E‑3:213: “Thus the Little Flock here proves to be the salt of the earth and the stayer of the second phase of the Great Tribulation (Armageddon – JJH) in order to the completion of her work toward Azazel's Goat.”

This leaves not the least doubt but that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson diametri­cally contradict R. G. Jolly's determination to put himself and his lesser lights into the “light,” “salt” Class of the New Testament; for our Lord clearly states, “Ye (those mentioned by Brother Russell above) are the light of the world; ye are the salt of the earth.” If the last two Star Members are right in their interpre­ta­tion of these texts, then R. G. Jolly displays some more impudent Levitical presumption in his brazen attempts to put the Great Company (cleansed or uncleansed) into the same Class with the saints.

Brother Johnson lends confirmation to the foregoing in E‑12:275, where he speaks of “Christ and the Church,” which term he applies exclusively on this page to the saints, the “us” Class, in contrast to the Great Company: “There is still another difference between the sufferings of the Great Company and those of the Church” (the Little Flock, the “us” Class the “salt” and the “light” – JJH).

Once more we quote from Brother Russell from Z Reprints 2481, col. 1, par. 1, in order that all may clearly discern what manner of personä R. G. Jolly is, and what credence they may place in any of his “counterfeit light”:

“The Lord's wrath is come on the _children of disobedience’. Who are these children of disobedience? Are they the wicked, the worldly, the unregenerate? No, none of these; for they are not 'children’ at all, The reference evidently is to those who have become children of God by His legitimate arrangement of (1) justification and (2) sanctification  through faith in Christ. He is referring to those who are of the class 'called to be saints,’ but who fail to make sure their calling and election to joint‑heirship with the Lord, as members of the Kingdom 'Little Flock’ ...... He refers to the Great Company.”

In this July Bible Standard is an article on “The Christian Walk,” and on p. 51, col. 1, he offers some comments in pars. 2 and 3 which demonstrate once more that “his eyes are dim, that he cannot see” (see 1 Sam. 4:15 and 3:2, where Eli types a certain section of the Great Company who “cannot see”). The Berean Comment for Col. 3:6 states clearly and specifically “the Great Company” are the “children of disobedience”; yet R. G. Jolly applies this text to other classes in his usual foggy and misleading manner. Had he even a glimmer of understanding on this text, then we know full well he would not have offered his bracketed comments (although his comments are indeed the Truth): “Be ye therefore not partakers with them (the children of disobedience; do not take part with them, fellowship with them – in such evil things; do not seek their company, or feed on literature they produce).” Certainly, the Lord's faithful people are strongly admonished to follow explicitly the foregoing counsel while the Great Company are in Azazel's hands. in harmony with Brother Johnson's advice that we should stoutly resist “Combinationism,” we also counsel the Lord's faithful people in general not to seek the solace of fellow­ship or instruction in any of Little Babylon's groups – although those “rooted and grounded” in Epiphany Truth may do so on propitious occasions in the hope of helping such as have “ears to hear.” This may often prescribe a lonely way, but it is cer­tainly the only safe and proper way. We here direct attention to our readers that Combinationthoism is the third Slaughter Weapon; thus a worse evil than Sectarianism, which is not classified as a Slaughter Weapon at all, and is being rapidly swallowed up in Protestant groups by the Combinationism Slaughter Weapon. It is something to behold how this “Perverter” (Azazel means Perverter) of Scripture (R. G. Jolly) strives to replace himself into texts which were once his (the salt, light, etc.), but from which he has eternally been ejected, and to remove himself from those texts which specifically refer to him, such as “the children of disobedience.”

Before leaving this feature, we feel we would be remiss if we didn't draw atten­tion to his par. 1 on p. 50, col. 2 of July Bible Standard. This entire paragraph is 100% correct if the “we” he is discussing are the saints. But, if he includes himself in the “we,” as “not having the spirit of fear,” then again he offers abject perversion of Heb. 2:15: “(The Great Company)  through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (See Berean Comment for a very clear explanation by That Servant..)

As Brother Johnson informs us in E‑15:525, these “disobedient” ones are eventu­ally formally disfellowshiped by the Fully Faithful, during which time they are to be abandoned to Azazel “for the destruction of the flesh.” This means God also temporarily abandons them – much the same as an earthly father disinherits a wayward son for his reformation. There are a number of things such people lose when they fall from the priesthood: They lose their crowns, thus being forever removed from the Body of Christ, the Bride Class; they lose their anointing, which is never regained; they lose the spirit of understanding, which prevents them from thinking clearly and correctly on Scriptural subjects while in Azazel's hands; they lose some of the “exceeding great and precious promises” which once were theirs; and they lose their standing as “sons” in God's Household during the Gospel Age – although they will become daughters in God's Household after their cleansing. In fact, while they are in Azazel's hands – and until they reform – they also lose that “Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (being “bound in affliction and iron” – Psa. 107:10), and lose their favor of God (although many of them still receive great “praise of men,” but are Scripturally designated as “sinners” against their Covenant by Sacrifice). All this is inferentially stated by Brother Johnson in E‑9:155 as follows:

“We hail it as the day when our bound and Azazel‑controlled brethren will come to the liberty of God's daughters (2 Cor. 6:18).” Thus, clearly enough from Brother Johnson's conclusion, they are no longer considered “sons of God” (as R.G. Jolly claims) – are not even considered as “daughters” during their abandonment – but are relegated to the position of “daughters” after their full recovery from Azazel.

Companion to the foregoing, we offer corroboration from Brother Russell in Parousia Vol. 6, p. 378: “Those begotten again to this new spirit or disposition, the Spirit of God, and having become pupils in the school of Christ to learn of Him and walk in His steps – these, and these alone, can be safely put under the Law of Liberty. if they lose the spirit of sonship, they cease to be sons, cease to be under this Law of Liberty.” While the Fully Faithful have ever been scrupulously careful not to abuse that “Liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free,” not so the Measurably Faithful. They have not only abused that Liberty to the extent of losing their crowns and “grieving the Holy Spirit of God, whereby they were sealed” (Eph. 4:30), but many of them prescribed a liberty of their own (after the restraining hand of the Star Members were removed from them), which has caused them to talk all sorts of nonsense and present much of the false doctrine that has been foisted upon the Household of Faith during this Gospel Age.

Note Brother Johnson's comments in E‑13:87: “He (Satan) used the speculative minds of the second, third and fourth centuries' crown­-lost leaders as the means of palming off his counterfeit of our Lord's natures and His office. The mental twists and contortions ... had the hardest kind of mental gymnastics to perform in their efforts to harmonize even seemingly the teachings of St. John .... with their God‑man theory.”

In his letter published in the November 15, 1910 Watch Tower, R. G. Jolly admitted the same sort of “mental gymnastics”; and we believe those of our readers who read with unbiased mind will conclude he is now hard put with more of his “mental gymnastics” in his determination to put himself and his cohorts into the “light,” the “salt,” the “us‑we‑ye” Class of Gospel‑Age “sons,” in direct contradiction to the clear teachings of the last two “Principal Men.” Once more – in this Epiphany period, which is mani­festing persons, principles and things – Satan is using the “Speculative minds of crown‑lost leaders” to reinstate themselves into those positions forever lost to them among the fully faithful Christ Company.

Some more of Brother Johnson's teaching pertinent hereto is to be found in the Question and Answer on p. 155, col. 2 of the October 1935 Present Truth:

“Question: Are Jesus' wilderness experiences typical?

“Answer: Their forty days represent the time during which the Church, like Jesus during the forty days, spent much time in study of the Truth for its proper use as to self and others. His fasting typing the Church's self‑denials during the Parousia, and His temptations during the forty days representing the Church's Parousia temptations. As the three great temptations of Jesus came after the forty days, so the three great temptations of the Church have come after the Parousia, in the Epiphany. Jesus refusing to use His miraculous powers for self‑indulgence – a thing in which the Great Company contemporaneously failed. Jesus refusing to use faker methods to attract attention of the world types the Church refusing to give up the Lord's arrangements for doing His work and keeping to the methods given in the Parousia – a thing in which the Great Company failed, as witness the changes in the Lord's arrangements, in seeking to attract the multitude by sensational methods and messages, e.g., high‑powered book selling, regional directors, Millions Now living, etc. (also Flying Saucers; $5 correspondence courses; Combinationism –such as Youth for Christ, a Babylonish method; beckoning to the world to consecrate now as Campers Consecrated, similar to J.F.R's “drives” of various kinds – JJH). Jesus refus­ing for the price of serving Satan to take powers that were not His (the kingdom of this world) types the Church refusing for the price of serving Satan to grasp for power and Lord it over God's heritage (Baal worship, such as disfellowshiping saints and pronouncing them second‑deathers only because they continued to hold their _glorious hope’ – JJH) – a thing in which the Great Company, in leaders and led, failed, as wit­ness the power‑grasping and lording and partisan support of such power grasping and lording in the Great Company.”

Now follows a list of those New Testament texts relating to “sons of God”; and we offer the observation that every one of them refers to the “very elect,” the saints, with not a single one of them including the Great Company:

John 1:12 – As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God (see Berean Comment). Rom. 8:14 – As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God (see also Rom. 8:19). Phil. 2:15 -‑ That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God.

Heb. 2:10 – Bringing many sons to glory (Note Berean Conmentä – “glory, honor and immortality”).

1 John 3:1,2 – Now are we the sons of God (Note Berean Comment for v. 1: “us” – Christ's joint‑heirs).

There are many other texts containing only the word “sons”; but these, too, substan­tiate the above quotations. As said in our Paper No. 63, the Great Company will eventually again become “sons of God,” though on a lower plane than the Fully Faithful “sons” of this Gospel Age; but this offers no justification whatever for terming them “sons” at the present time, when the best appellation allowed them after their cleansing is that of ”daughters,” according to Brother Johnson.

Pertinent to this situation is the teaching of Brother Johnson in E‑11:369:

“Then God adds a final prohibition that in approaching The Christ as God's Altar, either in this or the next age...... one should not with vaunting ambition exalt himself by grasping for powers not given him by God and by lording it over others (neither ... by steps). Whosoever so does, now or Millennially, will fall into sinful practises against God's arrangements and into false teachings against God's Truth, and will be exposed unto shame is such (that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon).”

Be it noted that R. G. Jolly has arrogated to himself a position in many texts that apply only to the Saints, with different words but substantially the same thought as J. W. Krewson's contention, “What one does  through another, he does for himself.” Thus, the “cousins” give lurid proof of their kinsmanship in thought and technique. There is yet one outstanding type in which R. G. Jolly has not attempted to inject himself, and that is the large Gospel‑Age Samson. On that he has been conspicuously silent, as it is a clear and irrefutable contradiction to his teaching that Brother Johnson was the last Saint. With the two antitypical pillars of the Philistines' temple still standing, he is hard‑pressed indeed to fit this situation into his many perversions – his “nakedness is being fully discovered.”

DESTROYING FLESH OF AZAZEL'S GOAT

Related to the foregoing is R. G. Jolly's teaching respecting the “humanity” of Azazel's Goat. Going back to his statement in the March 1956 Present Truth, p. 28, col. 1, he correctly states that the bullock (of Lev. 16) represents the humanity of Jesus, that the “Lord's Goat” represents the humanity of the Little Flock, and that Azazel's Goat represents the humanity of the Great Company; then he proceeds to say that the humanity of Azazel's Goat was not cleansed by the wilderness experience. In this latter he is talking some more of his nonsense. If the humanity of that Goat is completely destroyed in the wilderness, just what would be left for the Great Company to “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteous­ness”? Certainly, any novice in Present Truth knows that none of the three princi­pals in Leviticus 16 sacrifices the New Creature! Therefore, if the New Creature is not sacrificed – and if the Old Man’ is destroyed, just what would Azazel's Goat Class have left (after their wilderness experience – designed for their cleansing) to “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness”? Our Lord Himself had nothing but His human body to sacrifice. Without that body, He could not have accomplished His mission to “give His (human) life a ransom for many.” “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me” (Heb. 10:5); and “He taketh away the first (the animal sacrifices of the Tabernacle services), that He may establish the second” (the sacrifice of Himself primarily, and His Body Members secondarily –Heb. 10:9). All any of us have to offer in sacrifice is our human all – primarily our bodies as “living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1) willingly and not as a thing to be forcibly destroyed by Azazel (because of measurable faithfulness). Had R. G. Jolly discerned this teach­ing clearly, he would have taught it clearly; but his statement as recorded in his 1956 paper, when taken just as it appears, is very misleading to say the least, if not  actually grossly erroneous.

Brother Johnson offers a clear and correct elucidation of this matter in the June 1950 Present Truth, p. 50, Question and Answer: “According to the word (1 Cor.5:5)  both their fleshly minds and fleshly bodies (of the Great Company) are to be destroyed … Evidently their fleshly minds will be largely destroyed some considerable time before  their fleshly bodies, because this will be necessary before they can in an acceptable  manner render the service.that they will perform after their cleansing, and before they leave the flesh (Num. 8:21,22)."

This is quite a different explanation than the one offered by R. G. Jolly, who  on occasion has made the public statement, “Let the humanity be destroyed in the  wilderness; it has to be destroyed anyway" (but the Little Flock’s humanity is con-  sumed alS they willingly use their human all in obedience to His Word and Arrange-  ments). But, according to Brother Johnson, if their humanity is completely destroyed  in their wilderness cleansing, there would then nothing remain for an "offering unto  the Lord."

Were R. G. Jolly "fully persuaded in his own mind" concerning the things herein  discussed, why is he not stressing the cleansing and proper place and work of the  cleansed Great Company, as did Brother Johnson? The Fully Faithful have a three-  fold mission in this life, according to Brother Russell and Brother Johnson: First,  to make sure the attainment of their own goal; Second, to help others of their  brethren to do the same thing; Third (and incidental to the other two), to witness  a good confession to the world "for Sin, for righteousness, and for judgment."  Therefore, the obligation of R. G. Jolly and his kinsmen is primarily their own salvation and share in the Church of the Firstborn, after which it is their Obligation  to aid other Great Company members to evaluate properly their true condition and the  Lord's requirements for them. All this talk about converting Israel or winning  "Consecrated Epiphany Campers" (a non-existent class) is merely remotely incidental to the other two requirements we have outlined. Quite often the Truth is unpleasant  to those whose toes it cramps; but we ourselves accept the edict to "preach the word"  whether it be a "savor of life unto life, or of death unto death" (2 Cor. 2:l5)--not  that we specially find pleasure in offering corrective teachings against the wayword  course of our brethren in iniquity, because we believe we are in full harmony with St. Paul's precept, "Love rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the Truth." It would give us pleasure supreme to see such "turn back from their path of error"  (Jas. 5:20--Dia.); and it is our prayer that our efforts may prove a real assistance  to them to that end.

"But the king shall rejoice in God; everyone that sweareth by him shall  glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped ;" Psalms 63:11

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Sir or Sirs:  

You or one of the members of your "society" have recently sent me a copy of  The Herald of the Epiphany. I cannot answer to the person who sent it, for it was without return address. If you would kindly read what I have to say about some things I would be very delighted … What you are doing is calling the Bible a liar. You go around telling people there is no such place as hell. Well, I wonder why the rich man looked up from hell and begged for a drop of water to quench his tongue. He was tormented in flames … You only teach the verses you pick out … One of these days the people who teach these lies will look up from hell and beg for water. And I would like to tell you that YOU can't put anybody's soul in a nutshell. You can't, but maybe God can! Please-read your Bible and study it more carefully. Be sure and get you a real Bible and not a Bible that is especially prepared for the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses … To end my letter I would like you to ask your friends not to send me anymore trash. A friend and believer in the  Bible---Florida   

………………………………..

Dear Brother Hoefle:  

Greetings in our dear Lord's Name! Received your letter of May 15 and was pleased to hear from you, but sorry to hear that Brother Wells is so seriously ill. I hope by now he is better and well again.  Thank you for the reference of Psa. 149:6-9. I had studied it before and had it all marked. Had no trouble in finding it. I studied it two or three times since you wrote and was greatly blessed by the Lord in so doing. It is very enlightening and it also has become much clearer to me.

I met Brother------and his wife on Sunday as I went to visit the Dawn. He spoke on the "Harvest." I had a talk with both on the Harvest and the "Door" being closed. Some of the friends were up and were very nice to me. I sent some Babylons tracts to some of them.

I think the last paper No. 73 would be good for the two elders of the Dawn.

Please send some tracts - Where are the Dead and What is the Soul, and the Resurrection. I am thankful that we are on the Lord's side. Praise His Name!

With Christian love and prayers to all. Thank you for tracts … Sr. --- Pa.

………………………………..

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n Dear Sir:

I got a copy of the Herald of the Epiphany today. It was a special edition, printed Aug. 1, 1959. I have never heard of The Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n and don't know how you got my name. But I did enjoy it very much … Since I had just buried my son (51 years old) who died suddenly of heart attack …

I would like a copy of "What is the Soul" - "Where are the Dead" and “The Three Babylons" - or anything else you have that would help me bear my loss.

Sincerely yours, -------- Kansas

………………………………..

My dear Brother Hoefle: - Grace and peace in His dear Name!

Please send me … "The Resurrection of the Dead" - Enclosed is $_ for the Lord's service. Please let me know if you receive this -- being a shut-in it is the best way for me to help in the Lord's service to send money.

In the Lord's service, Sr. ----Conn.

NO. 74: R.G. JOLLY AGAIN

No. 74

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

On pages 42‑46 of this last May‑June Present Truth R. G. Jolly presents a number of Questions and Answers in another feeble attempt to justify his failures and sub­stantiate his “strange fire” (false doctrine) of Campers Consecrated. And once again does he make lamentable display of his errant reasoning powers, and confirms Brother Johnson's classification of him as a “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser”. (See E‑10‑591) At the outset, be it ever remembered that his Campers Consecrated false doctrine was first fed to him by J. W. Krewson, whom he now repeatedly and emphatically castigates as a “sectarianizing errorist” – doing this in the very same paper in which he supports that “errorist's” errors. This is indeed a new and “strange” performance – sufficient in itself to require no further comment to satisfy those who are “rooted and grounded” in sound doctrine (just as J. W. Krewson's acrobatics on R. G. Jolly's being cleansed when he was with him from 1950 to 1952, which he has changed – now correctly contend­ing that R. G. Jolly's antics at that time were parallel to J. F. Ruther­ford after Brother Russell's demise, should also be sufficient for those who are “rooted and grounded” in Epiphany Truth). And, in this same observation, let us remember also that the two “cousins” now contradict each other on this doctrine of tentative justi­fication for their Campers Conse­­crated.

At various times we have quoted Brother Johnson that by September 16, 1914 the Body of Christ was fully gathered – tentatively and individually (“on that day Moses had fully set up the tabernacle”); and on that very same day that Tabernacle pic­ture passed forever out of existence to make way for the Epiphany Tabernacle and its arrangements. So we now ask R. G. Jolly our oft‑presented question: Did the Epiphany Tabernacle pass out of existence in September 1954 to make way for the Basileia Tab­ernacle? He's always avoided this question, and we opine he will continue to do so, because he doesn't dare to face that issue. And, when September 16, 1914 arrived, there appeared also the full and complete Body of Christ. In R. G. Jolly's “parallel” to that date is he now contending that at 1954 the full and complete Great Company and Youthful Worthies also were finally and irrevocably determined in their respective classes? He should have an answer for these questions. He should give his followers something to substantiate his “offerings” (his “new light”).

On p. 44 he offers his usual “profusion of words” about the “laver,” present­ing a confused jumble of Gospel‑Millennial‑Age conditions. Since 1954 are we in the Age of “works,” or are we still in the Age of “faith”? He complains about our hand­ling of the Star Members' writings, apparently realizing that his loud “loquacious, repetitious, foolish effusions” (also Brother Johnson's description of him) will con­tinue to bamboozle those he has browbeaten into his “avoid them” (of JJH and his associates) – a true parallel to That Evil Servant's tactics against Brother Johnson. At top of col. 2, p. 45 he cites Brother Russell's Question Book to prove Tentative Justification in the Millennial Kingdom. Why doesn't he also quote p. 312 of that same Question Book, wherein Brother Russell says: “At the close of this (Gospel) Age there will no longer be a tentative justification”...?

And why doesn't he also comment on Brother Johnson's statement in E‑11:169 (27): “There will be no more faith justification working during the Millennium”? It will be noted that this time he forgets’ Brother Johnson's teaching that “Tenta­tive Justification will continue until Restitution”; so at least he learned from our previous refutation of his “strange fire” not to have the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers contradicting each other on the same page of his paper. And he should also consider the teaching in E‑7:65 (top): “He (Christ) will cause the works justi­fying process of salvation to operate” – in the Millennium.

Furthermore, in E‑6:708 Brother Johnson says: “We advance from the beginning of tentative justification (the gate of the court).” R. G. Jolly will probably contend that this condition applied before 1954; but again we emphasize that Brother Johnson was discussing the Epiphany Tabernacle. Therefore, once more: Is that Tabernacle still with us?

As to persons gaining some cleansing in the Camp from the Laver, any babe in the Truth should know that. Nor have we ever disputed it! St. Paul speaks of those who are “seeking God, if perhaps they might feel after and find Him” (Acts 17:27 – Dia.), which was the condition of many of us before ever we reached tentative justification just inside the Gate. But his contention here has no bearing on the subject; such cleansing does not in itself place one into justification and consecration. Be it noted that both Messengers gave the first veil of the Tabernacle as the place of con­secration. Certainly, if there were the least merit to Campers Consecrated, then some special place shouldä be indicated for their consecration in the Camp. But that doesn't bother R. G. Jolly! Just any place is all right – up a tree, on some rock, anywhere! And this would have to occur right in the midst of a multitude of the un­justified (i.e., worldlings) – quite a great gulf between that arrangement and the true one as performed in the seclusion of the Tabernacle enclosure by the truly justified – ­among the justified and no others. Yes, quite a difference! “Bungling is the usual and natural activity of the Great Company,” says Brother Johnson.

We now offer the following from E‑11:383 (29): “The six sets of sifting leaders God .... will put into such controversial disadvantages that amid them to defend his errors he will be continually surrendering formerly held truths that impinge against his new errors, as was done with all six sets of harvest sifters. Thus does God punish such invasions.”

In the case of R. G. Jolly, he at one time fully believed and often quoted Brother Johnson's statement that “tentative Justification will continue until Resti­tution begins,” and that such justifica­tion ceases to operate when the Gospel Age ceases. He fully believed – and emphatically contended – that it was a faith justifi­cation for the faith dispensation – in harmony with the last two Principal Men. Now he is “surrendering formerly held truth that impinges against his new error” – ­the error of Campers Consecrated that he imbibed from the “errorist” (J. W. Krewson) whom he denounces in the very same paper in which he defends this “strange fire.”

In this connection, he also wants to quote Brother Johnson's explanation of Rev. 19:1‑10. Why does he not also quote his comments on Rev. 22:10, 11 in E‑lO:ll4? Here is some of it: “1954 is the date that .... no more persons will enter the tentatively‑justified state. Hence the exhortation – “He that is unjust (the tentatively justified who are not actually justified, not just), let him be unjust still (remain tentatively justified and not consecrate).” Is R. G. Jolly following out this part of his 1954‑56 parallel – or is he yet encouraging the tentatively justi­fied to consecrated as Consecrated Campers? Here is another instance where we can be reasonably sure we shall receive nothing but silence from him, because he has no answer. In this respect it means, of course, that the Tentatively Justified who do not consecrate while in the Court can remain as such in character (although it is not possible for them to progress any further in their class standing...). Their tenta­tive justification has lapsed and they are remanded to the Camp.

Furthermore, why doesn't R. G. Jolly explain Brother Johnson's statement in E‑6:195 where he says the Camp in the finished picture contains those LESS than Tentatively Justified? And why doesn't he quote from E‑4:322 where Brother Johnson tells us they cease to be Levites and cease to have tentative justification? They are put out of the Court.

And, continuing we now quote from E‑4:405 (1):

“QUESTION: Are the Youthful Worthies of the Household of Faith?”

We quote part of Brother Johnson's answer on p. 406: “The Youthful Worthies, of course, are not of the New Creature Household of Faith, because they are not new creatures. But from the standpoint of having _the faith of Abraham’ (Gal. 3:7,9) they are, of course, like him, of the Household of Faith. They are among the be­lievers referred to under (2). They are, however, somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith” (cease altogether – and lose their opportunity to become of the Household of Faith FOREVER – JJH), having used the grace of God in vain; while the former, consecrating and proving faithful, retain their Tentative Justification, and are thus of the Gospel‑Age Household of Faith who per­sist into and during the Epiphany.”

R. G. Jolly teaches that his Epiphany Campers Consecrated are of the Household of Faith and are walking a _narrow’ way in the camp! Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both teach the solid Truth on Tentative Justification – they taught that tentative justification ceases with the Gospel‑Age! So when any of the Lord's people become confused and bewildered on the subject of Tentative Justification, then they are that much ready to imbibe the false doctrines of the various Revolution­istic Great Company Leaders.

For the sake of clarity, we again emphasize that Tentative Justification cannot be attained any place but in the Court. R. G. Jolly's sole purpose in his question on Tentative Justification is a cover‑up for his false doctrine (“strange fire”) of Epiphany Campers Consecrated – yet he does not mention CONSECRATED Campers! He treats solely of Tentative Justification. But the zenith of his hypocrisy isä on p. 45, par. 2, col. 2, where he says: “Thus we see that Brother Johnson did not deny or teach against the Ransom when he taught that the Camp would after 1954 picture the condition of certain tentatively justified ones...” Of course, Brother Johnson never denied the Ransomä in any of his teachings – and most assuredly he did not deny the Ransom in his teaching on tentative justification! He taught that tentative justification was attained IN THE COURT! Why didn't R. G. Jolly mention this? The reason he didn't is that such a faithful Truth teaching would set aside his ef­forts to obtain “newcomers” into his Epiphany Camp!

In par. 1, col. 1, p. 43 he speaks of the 1950 work of the “Good Levite section after their cleansing had begun.” Is he now finally agreeing with us that the Good Levites were not cleansed at Brother Johnson's death?

THE THOUSAND‑YEAR REIGN AGAIN

Further, in par. 2, he states JJH “has been unwilling to face squarely perti­nent Scripture, e.g. Rev. 20:1‑7.” August Gohlke made that same false claim at the last Philadelphia Convention; and we exposed his lack of veracity in our October paper, No. 65, quoting from our No. 27 of November 1957. Thus, R. G. Jolly's state­ment here cannot be an unwitting slip; it must be classified for what it is – just brazen falsehood. And yet this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” (quotation from Bro­ther Johnson) is so unprincipled that he shouts “bold and outright falsehood” at us! We offered the only correct and reasonable interpretation – namely, that the binding and the loosening of Satan are “the thousand years,” and not the binding and the reigning. Of course, we are not surprised that R. G. Jolly cannot see this, since uncleansed Great Company members not only do not receive due Truth, but reject itä as they revolutionize against formerly accepted truths while completely abandon­ed to Azazel (all brotherly help and fellowship having been removed by the Faithful) – ­just as he is also now doing with “faith” justification.

We now offer the following from Z Reprints 2739‑40 (pp. 367‑71), relating to this subject:

“QUESTION: – I understand from Rev. 20:4‑6, that Christ will reign one thousand years, and from verses 2 and 7 that Satan will be bound during that period. If Christ began to reign in 1878, and Satan will not be bound until 1915, the two periods do not seem to synchronize; and furthermore, both extend beyond the seventh‑thousand year period which, according to our Bible chronology, began in the Autumn of 1872. How is this? Can you assist me?

“ANSWER: – The Lord has evidently arranged for the gradual closing of the Gospel Age and opening of the Millennial Age, in such a manner that the one laps upon the other, with some particular purpose in view; but just what His pur­poses are He has not been pleased to inform us; and since this extends into the future we may reasonably suppose that it is not now 'meat in due season for the Household of Faith?’ When the end has been reached and accomplished, we have no doubt whatever that it will be manifested to all of the Lord's people that His Word has been accurately fulfilled. Until then a certain amount of faith is required and expected from those who have so many evidences of the Lord's wisdom and exactness in the features of His Plan already accomplished. “We can trust Him where we cannot trace Him.” Apparently this matter of when the thousand‑year period should be reckoned as fully beginning and fully ending will be an open question until the close of the Millennial Age. It is our expectation, from Rev. 20:8,9, that the obscurity of this question will have something to do with the final test of loyalty and obediene to God............

“The Scripture declaration respecting the saints, the _overcomers’ is, 'They lived and reigned a thousand years.’ The reign of the saints cannot be properly said to begin before all the _jewels’ have been gathered, nor before _the times of the Gentiles’ end, in 1914. Nor isä it said that their reign will be no longer than a thousand years. After the thousand years' reign Satan shall be loosed and the above trial shall ensue; but the _reign of Christ and the Church’ will evidently continue long enough after the thousand years to destroy all found unworthy in that final test, and to thus complete the work for which this reign is instituted; – for, as expressed by the Apostle, 'He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet’.... And when all things shall be subdued unto him (some by conversion and some by destruction), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (the Father).”

The “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” repeatedly shouts “teacher of sophistry” at JJH. Let him now give a clear “Yea” or “Nay” as to whether he is in harmony with That Servant's Scriptural presentation as set out above!

On p. 44, col. 2, par. 1, he once more repeats, repeats, repeats his error re “Due truth for all the consecrated.” And he does this despite the crystal‑clear statement of Brother Johnson 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 .... the Lord gave all the Faithful consecrators for whom no crowns were available an understanding of all deep things, except an appreciative under­standing of the opera­tion of the Spirit of Begettal in the heart.”

It will be noted from the foregoing that uncleansed Great Company members re­ceive a marked avoidance; and that even the fully faithful Youthful Worthies would not understand fully all features of due Truth. This reference in E‑4:129 has been offered by us repeatedly; with this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” ignoring it each time. WHY?

In this connection, we now cite E‑16:122‑25 (which is R.G. Jolly's own publica­tion) with respect to the abandonment process: “These revolutionisms (of the Great Company) were resisted by the Faithful .... corresponds to Aaron leading the goat to the gate of the court preparatory to delivering it to the fit man..... Amid these experiences they act so out of harmony with truth and righteousness as to necessitate the Priesthood's withdrawing all brotherly help and favor from them” – that is, they are disfellowshiped.

E‑16 was copyrighted in 1953 “by Raymond G. Jolly” for use in the 1954 “Attesta­torial Service”; and it did indeed “attest” a woeful indictment against him. Did he believe the above quotation when he published it? We inquire further: Did he understand the “due Truth” contained therein when he approved its publication? If he understood –and if he believes it – let him declare when the Priesthood dis­fellowshiped him by withdrawing all brotherly help from him. Did this happen while Brother Johnson was with us? R. G, Jolly himself says that Brother Johnson did not with­draw brother help and fellowship from him at any time (as distinct from priestly fellowship), which we know to be true. He's been very emphatic that he was cleansed at 1950. Let him now produce the proof, or forever hold his peace! Did he ever once as much as mention this “due Truth” to any congregation in lecture or in study, and offer the proper understanding of it? Surely, a teaching so vitalä to him should have received his very profound and extensive consideration and discus­sion in public and privately. Be it noted, too, that Brother Johnson clearly teaches that none of the Great Company can be cleansed without being first fully abandoned to Azazel (the World's High Priest withdrawing all brotherly help by dis­fellowshiping them). “God Himself temporarily abandons them” while they are in that condition. (See E‑15:525).

“Now consider this, ye that forget God (by revolutionizing against the Truth as given through those Faithful Stars that "He holdeth in His right hand’), lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso offereth praise glorifieth Me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright (in harmony with the Truth) will I show the salvation of God.” Psa. 50:22‑23

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑---------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – There seems to be no more comment about our money crisis. Has the United States Government now fully settled this matter?

ANSWER: – By no means; it is just another of those items on which they are “sitting on the safety valve.” In 1960 the world consumption of silver was over a hundred million ounces more than all the operating silver mines produced; and that situation will probably be more severe for 1961. We have it from private sources that are usually very accurately informed, that our Government is losing from one‑half to one million ounces of silver per day at present (written May 26), and that the silver reserves are reaching a depletion of critical proportions. This is being kept scrup­ulously quiet; but it would seem its eruption will be all the more violent when it eventually is publicly revealed. When that occurs, the gold situation will also ex­plode, and the same may be true of certain base metals.

We should not be lulled to sleep by the surface calm that now exists. One world‑renowned economist gave a survey of this matter to a carefully selected group just recently; and an intimate business acquaintance informed us that he told them the United States Treasury had had a “financial heart attack” last fall – that another could be expected soon, probably even before 1961 is over – and that the second one would almost certainly prove “fatal.”

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian love and greetings in our Redeemer's Name!

It is with much thanks to God that I am still spared to participate in our Lord's Memorial this year. I had such a serious attack that I thought my last moment had come. But, as you have said, the Lord has a work for all of us, whether for others or in ourselves. I have received many blessings from yours and Brother Russell's comments on same.

We thank the Lord for using you to defend the Parousia and Epiphany Truth in this time when the Adversary and his agents are trying to put it out. But God's Word will stand forever and accomplish the things wherein He sends it – and prosper therein.

I notice your trying experiences with brethren who claim to be holding up the two Star Members' writings – and at the same time discarding and putting them into error. I read sometime ago in Vol. 2 – “The Parousia Messenger”, where Brother Johnson said God would smite them with blindness – that the Truth might appear to them as error and error as Truth. As for Brother ------'s letters, I am much sur­prised over his action. He is quoting the Apostle Paul and he seems to forget how much Brother Paul stood for principle. He has invited you to his mountain top – the one where Satan wanted our Lord to go with him! But we are thankful that you will not go there with him, for the Bible shows that you will be faithful in carrying out the work that the Lord has given you to do. We believe the time will come when the Lord will magnify you. See Joshua 4:14.

My sympathy goes out to you, my dear Brother! But these experiences are evi­dences of your faithfulness. All the faithful have to pass through similar exper­iences.

With this comes my love for you, Sister Hoefle, Sister Dunnagan and all the dear ones with you.

Yours by His Grace, Sister ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ JAMAICA

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace in His dear Name!

In reading your last paper – No. 70 – and Bro. ------'s letters, there seems to be a wrong spirit in the letter (A commandeering spirit and an unwarranted attack on you before he knew both sides of the story). In Prov. 18:13 – “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a folly and shame unto him.” Brother Russell says we must not jump to conclusions without facts (See Par. Vol. 1, p. 46). We must not condemn until we have weighed all evidence in the case or course. All must be squared by the rule of Justice – the Golden Rule.

Brother Johnson says we are to resort to controversy when opponents fight the Truth with error (E‑8:671) and throw stones (truths) at them (E‑11:378‑79). We must give them warning. That's what I believe you are doing, Brother Hoefle. The Truth shall be thy shield and buckler.... Psalms 91:4

May the Lord continue to bless you in His service.

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

BEREAVEMENT NOTICE: On June 6 occurred the death of Brother C. H. Wells of Winston‑Salem, N.C. He was widely known as a beloved brother and a skillful artisan in the dental profession. He was a true nobleman from the human viewpoint, possessed of a hearty generosity and gracious humility which endeared him to his fellows. We mourn with those who mourn his loss, and rest in the hope that he will be one of God's “princes” in the Kingdom now being established.

NO. 73: SOME EPIPHANY OBSERVATIONS

No. 73

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

In view of the sharp and extended differences respecting the Epiphany as a period of time, and the things to be accomplished during the Epiphany, that have arisen among the erstwhile staunch adherents of Brother Johnson, we consider it most opportune at this time to recapitu­late some of the salient features that have been presented by the last two Star Members on this important period, with the Scriptures pertinent thereto. At the outset, we accept the same position toward Brother Johnson that he accepted toward Brother Russell; namely, even his personal observations should carry great weight with us, and should not be discarded unless time itself or clear Scripture statements nullify those opinions. So we all know that the Last Saint, in the person of Brother Johnson, was NOT GLORIFIED IN 1956, as he expected. There is nothing in the chronology that designates 1950 in any way whatever. The only thing the “cousins” have produced is a Pyramid calculation; and, when we consider the 27 fraudulent calculations they gave us in the January 1947 Present Truth, then we here want no more of their Pyramid “corroborations” on any item whatever. Be it remembered that the Pyramid is not designed to set aside the Scriptures; it is simply a “witness” for the Bible, by which “witness” they now nullify 1st Thes. 4:17; Zech. 8:10; Psa. 46; Gen. 3:15 – and the interpretations of Brother Johnson himself on these Scriptures.

In the Parousia Day it was not the “due time” for those brethren to see the details, or the period of time, or the work to be accomplished during the Epiphany. Therefore, when Brother Johnson was clearly convinced by self‑evident time features that Brother Russell's conclusions were either immature, premature, or completely wrong on future Epiphany occurrences, he did not hesitate to make the necessary cor­rections – although he still stoutly maintained, and properly so, that Brother Russell was the Parousia Messenger and That Wise and Faithful Servant. And that is now our position with respect to some of Brother Johnson's teachings that time itself has proven immature, or premature or completely wrong in his expectations, although we still regard him as the 49th Star Member, the Epiphany Messenger and the Eighth Principal Man. We believe the same generous spirit should be extended to both Messengers in their mistakes that Brother Johnson himself magnanimously offered for Brother Miller in his faulty conclusions on his time features: “Instead of censuring him for inexactness, we are warranted in admiring the general correctness of his time pro­phetic views.” (E:8‑209)

With this introduction, we now offer a resume of what Brother Johnson believed and taught with respect to the Epiphany, starting with E:4‑14 (7): “We understand that the Epiphaneia, in the first sense of the word (bright shining, manifesting principles, persons and things), has the same primary meaning as the word Apokalypsis (revelation) primarily has. This is evident, we under­stand, because they do the same thing: the Epiphaneia as an action, reveals persons, principles and things as they are. Thus the Lord now epiphanizes or apokalypsizes Jehovah, Himself, the Church, the Great Company, the Truth, the hidden things of darkness, the counsels of hearts ... Hence 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 clearly known that is to be made known in the end of the Age. Apokalypsis, like Epiphaneia, also means the EPIPHANY PERIOD l Cor. 1:7; 2 Thes. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7,13; 4:12)...... Accordingly, the words Epiphaneia and Apokalypsis, in the sense of an action, and in the sense of a period, are synonymous.... 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 Parousia – JJH), manifests pertinent persons, principles and things.” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson teach contrary to the Epiphany Messenger's teach­ings – one teaching that we entered into the Basileia concurrently with the Epiphany, the other that we are in the Apokalypse period as distinct from the Epiphany period. Each of them do this while holding on to the date of 1954‑56 as the end of the Epiphany. All of us know that Brother Johnson expected the violent features of Armageddon and Anarchy to take place by that date; but we know from the Scriptures if the 1954‑56 date had not accomplished these violent features of the Time of Trouble that the Epiphany as a period did not end there in either its restricted, “narrow” or its wider sense, because the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are one and the same).

Continuing in E:4‑21 (14): “Remembering that the Epiphaneia and the Apokalypsis are one and the same time and that this period is for the benefit of the world and the Great Company, i.e., that the Lord Jesus in this period manifests His presence to them in their interests – we can readily see that the Scriptures teach that the Epiphany, as a period, is the Time of Trouble. Luke 17:28‑30 is a passage to the point.”

Further in E:4‑53 (51) and 55 (53): “The expression, the Time of Trouble, is used in two senses. In its wide sense it covers the period from 1874 until the end of Anarchy and of Jacob's Trouble. In its narrow sense it covers the period from the beginning of the World War in 1914 until the end of Anarchy and of Jacob's Trouble .... (R. G. Jolly teaches that its _restricted’ sense, or _narrow’ sense, ended in 1954‑56 – JJH) We will now quote and expound passages that prove the Epiphany will end with Anarchy and Jacob's trouble, i. e., will end with the end of the trouble ... 2 Thes. 1:7,8; Zech. 12:1‑10; Ezek. 38:39 – “They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced (Rev. 1:7); and they shall mourn for it” (the piercing, I.V.), etc. All Truth people recognize at once that this passage refers to the end of Jacob's trouble, and that it proves our Lord's revelation of Himself to Israel as their long rejected Messiah. Hence these two verses prove that the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are identical.”

Then some more in E:4‑65 (63): “The Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age, and therefore it will continue at least until the last member of the Little Flock leaves this earth, and probably nearly until about the establish­ment of the earthly phase of God's Kingdom. This probability is due to the fact that the Epiphany implies a revelation (apokalypsis, uncovering) of the Lord's Second Advent to the world as the Present King.”

The foregoing quotations can leave not the slightest doubt that Brother Johnson himself firmly believed that the Epiphany would not end in its narrow, or restricted sense, or in any other sense, until the Time of Trouble had also ended. And, before this can be properly ignored, we should have some clear Scripture to justify such an act. And, when J. W. Krewson contends that the years in the life of Moses offer such Scripture, we reply that this is just thin and transparent nonsense. And the same may be said for R. G. Jolly in his contention that the Epiphany ended in its “restricted sense” in 1954‑56. The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical, so Brother Johnson teaches, according to clear Scriptural proof, although the date 1954‑56 is nowhere revealed in Scripture passage or chronology; it was merely Brother Johnson's expectations based on a parallel which did not materialize. All of us know that identical twins are alike in features, size and characteristics – ­so much so that the unskilled eye often mistakes one for the other. And the same may be said for the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble. However, there is no such thing as “identical” twins in persons – because there is some little difference to be found upon close scrutiny; but there is such a thing as one and the same thing in the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany, or Apokalypsis period, as that is a Scrip­tural teaching.

If the Epiphany ended in any sense whatever in 1954‑56, then the Time of Trouble has ended also to that same “identical” degree. Certain­ly, no one with a “sound mind” (and the Lord gives the Faithful the 'spirit of a sound mind’ – while he sends “strong delusions” to the measurably faithful) would take such a contention (that the Epiphany, or Apokalypsis, ended in 1954‑56 and the time of Trouble ended there, too). Brother Johnson also taught that by 1554‑56 Babylon would be destroyed and the last member of the Great Company would have come into Present Truth! See E:10‑114. No one possessing sound mentality would contend that those things had transpired by the end of 1956, and most certainly not by 1950, the date now claimed by the “cousins” for the passing of the last Little Flock member. In fact, there are fewer members of Great Company in Present Truth even now at this late date than there were in 1954 – ­even for those who claim the LHMM is now “Present Truth.” And R. G. Jolly's con­tentions about his “Attestatorial Service” are also just thin and transparent non­sense. The Little Flock's Attestorial Serviceä in 1914‑16 garnered every member of the Little Flock into Present Truth, and thus stamped that effort as a genuine and clean work; whereas, the 1954‑56 effort did just the reverse – it manifested the uncleansed condition of its leader and his prominent accomplices. Brother Johnson taught that the Great Company would have a fruitful ministry after their cleansing; therefore, any abortive effort on their part is a sure indication to all unbiased minds that they are not yet cleansed and are in an unfit condition to perform a fruitful work pleasing to God. The LHMM, as part of Little Babylon, also followed in its predecessors' footsteps (the Society and others) in the attempted conversion of Israel (before “due time”), which also has proved to be abortive. Also, one of the Dawn leaders freely admitted that their effort toward Israel's conversion was not being received, nor doing the work they had expected.

The unsound contentions of both the “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W.Krewson) force them into all sorts of ridiculous contentions. These are partly punishments from the Lord to “make manifest their folly before all,” and partly the efforts of Azazel to humiliate them, and, if possible, to remove them completely from the Household of Faith. It is certainly not our wish to offer “profusion of words to no purpose,” soä we once more offer a Scripture that proves beyond the slightest doubt that we are still in the Epiphany period – that we are not in the Apokalypse period, as distinct from the Epiphany period, according to “cousin” Krewson, or in the Basileia period concurrently with the Epiphany period, according to “cousin” Jolly. This Scripture is 2 Thes. 2:8 (Dia.): “Then will be revealed the Lawless One (The Man of Sin) whom the Lord Jesus will ... annihilate by the appearing of His presence” – äby the epiphaneia of His Parousia. Since the destruction of the Man of Sin is so unmistakably an Epiphany work (see Berean Comment), it leavesä a clear brand­mark on all those who claim we are no longer in the Epiphany. One of the “cousins” is now proclaiming that this destruction will take place in the Apokalypse, while the other says it will occur in the Basileia (although irrefutable evidence forces R. G. Jolly to cling feebly to the Epiphany also); but St. Paul, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson all correctly teach that this destruction is exclusively an EPIPHANY WORK! To all who have succumbed to this deceptive mirage we now offer the exclamation of St. Paul (Gal. 3:1 – Dia.): “O thoughtless Galatians! Who has deluded you!”

It is well in order to point out here that the foregoing Epiphany truths have been repeatedly and sharply stressed, so that the “cousins” are without excuse in their present pursuit of their perversions (Azazel means Perverter). Therefore, their course identifies them clearly enough as persistent Revolutionists, and is certain to remove the both of them completely from the Household of Faith if they do not speedily reverse their wayward course.

In this connection, be it observed it was also the Epiphany Messenger's teach­ing that when deflectors from the Truth throw away any vital truth, they must then embrace other errors to reconcile their position; and that is just what has happened with the “cousins” when they forsook the truth about the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble being identical: They were forced to produce the “strange fire” (false doctrine) of Campers Consecrated, with the two of them contradicting each other even on some features of that brand of spiritual hybrid. None of this would have occurred had they adhered to the Truth on the Epiphany period as presented by the Epiphany Messenger. The Epiphany being identical with the Time of Trouble is a Scriptural, fundamental foundation Epiphany truth; once that is disturbed, there is emphasized confusion in a variety of ways.

And these “strong delusions” have revealed yet another “oddity.” There were many who claimed to be in full accord with the Epiphany Truth when Brother Johnson was still with us, but who then had not the courage of a mouse to proclaim or defend that Epiphany Truth; but, now that they have repudiated it, they manifest the cour­age and boldness of a lion in attacking the Epiphany Messenger and Epiphany Truth they once accepted, and in defense of the error they have accepted in its place. They also show the same determined zeal (a zeal _not according to knowledge’) toward their respective sect in Little Babylon as was done by many in Big Babylon during the Parousia Day, to the point of espousing their errors at the expense of that Truth which once sanctified them. Of course, this is a clear revelation to those of us who still retain that truth that such have now become victims of the Sixth Slaughter ­Weapon Man, Revolu­tion­ism, that the “plague (of “leprosy” has come nigh their dwell­ing” (Psa. 91:10). Here is a timely observation by That Servant on this point, in Parousia Vol. 3. p. 181:

“But we have no intimation in the Scriptures, nor any reason for supposing that God ever used or recognized that church‑nation (Israel), its rulers and representatives, after it was cast off. And this same lesson should be recognized here, in connection with Babylon. She is spewed out of the Lord's mouth: and neither the voice of the Bridegroom nor of the bride shall be heard in her any more forever. – Rev, 18:23.

“It is in vain that some attempt to make a plea for their quarter of Babylon, and while admitting the general correctness of the prophetic portrait, to claim that their sect, or their particular congregation, is an exception to the general character of Babylon, and that, therefore, the Lord cannot be calling upon them to withdraw from it formally and publicly, as they once joined it.

“Let such consider that we are now in the harvest time of separation, and remember our Lord's expressed reason for calling us out of Babylon, namely, “that ye be not partakers of her sins.” Consider, again, why Babylon is so named. Evidently, because of her many errors of doctrine, which, mixed with a few elements of divine truth, make great confusion, and because of the mixed company drawn to­gether by the mixed truths and errors. And since they will hold the errors at a sacrifice of truth, the latter is made void, and often worse than meaningless. This sin of holding and teaching error at the sacrifice of truth is one of which every sect of the Church nominal is guilty, without exception. (And we here say the same for every sect in Little Babylon – JJH) Where is the sect that will assist you in diligently searching the Scriptures, to grow thereby in grace and in the knowledge of the Truth?. Where is the sect which will not hinder your growth, both by its doctrines and its usages? Where is the sect in which you can obey Jesus' words and let your light shine? We know of none.”

During Brother Russell's Day there were many who came with him but still re­tained their Babylonish characteristics. Some of these prominent brethren went back into Big Babylon, as well as some of the less prominent, in the separation after Brother Russell's demise. Of course, many others went with the various “Little” Babylon groups. And so we find it since Brother Johnson's demise – there are some who have gone into “Little” Babylon now that once faithfully assisted Brother Johnson in resisting the errors of Little Babylon during his lifetime.

Another pronounced “oddity” of this Epiphany period time is the rash of so‑called teachers, who take parts of the Parousia and Epiphany Truth and garble and confuse it with admixture of their own foolish errors. Note what Brother Johnson says about them in E:14‑383:

“Therefore God Himself is against the false preachers, who plagiarize the Truth teachings from His servants, and with changes palm it off as their own; for God op­poses those who preach their own knowledge as God's Word.”

An outstanding example of this is to be found in R. G. Jolly and his articles on Genesis. His article on Genesis 24, starting on page 26 of the March‑April 1961 Pres­ent Truth, is superb, with very little of criticism to be offered for it. But those of us who know him well also know very well that he has not the capacity to construct such an article without a Star Member's help. We are not contending here that the exact wording of that article is by Brother Johnson; but we do contend the basic con­cept is what he had left at his death, and was to be included in his proposed Vol. 16, which he had promised to us in the January 1950 Present Truth. Be it observed that R. G. Jolly, in self‑will, rushed headlong to produce Volumes 18 and 19, labelling them Nos. 16 and 17 (in his abortive attempt to 'convert’ Nominal Christians, as well as natural Israel), labelling them Nos. 16 and 17, while allowing the Genesis teachings of the Epiphany Messenger to “cool” sufficiently to palm them off as his own now. It will be very interesting to observe, if he now presents Volume 18 on Genesis, whether he corrects some of his errors he has injected into those interpre­tations – such as antitypical Abraham rescuing Campers Consecrated in 1950 (four years before any of them appeared on the scene, even according to R. G. Jolly's own teach­ings); and his error on Sarah as the step‑sister of Abraham instead of his half‑sister.

J. W. Krewson was quite emphatic at the 1956 Philadelphia Convention that Brother Johnson had left just a bare pittance of teachings at his death, because (so he informed us personally) R. G. Jolly had told him that. But Brother Johnson informed us before his death that R. G. Jolly was the most secretive person he had ever known. Secretive­ness is a virtue, used by God and His faithful people, in harmony with sincerity and honesty; but “the abuse of secretiveness makes people untruthful, deceitful and hypocritical,” says Brother Johnson – it then becomes a “dis”grace. This sin and its resultant bad qualities explain in large part R. G. Jolly's “bad conscience” (see E:10‑585), and account for much of the evil he has espoused since he was abandoned to Azazel – October 1950.

There is much more that could be presented along these lines, which we hope to continue in due course, but for now we close with a statement from Brother Johnson respecting his own vexing experiences with uncleansed Levites and would‑be teachers in God's House (E:10‑559):

“As in all other cases in this book, not the Levites' attempts to refute these are typed, but their criticizing him (the Epiphany Messenger) on personal matters in connection with their pertinent controversy is set forth. They denied him to be wise, claiming that he was answering with error and was filled with endless strife.... They accused him of expelling from his heart reverence and from his mouth proper speech in matters pertaining to God, and of having utterances coming from iniquity and of choosing to use a crafty speech. They claimed that his teaching, not they, proved him an errorist, his doctrines witnessing against him, reminding him to re­member that his elders were abler than he was who was but young ... They accused him of ambition that covetously sought others' positions, even making him turn against God and speak evil words ... They falsely accused him of being corrupt and imbibing iniquity.”

Many older Great Company members now accuse us of being a “Youthful,” and thus unqualified to teach them; but, just as Brother Russell gave Brother Johnson a pil­grim appointment with instruction to teach his elders and fault‑finders, so Brother Johnson also gave us a similar appointment for similar purposes. And just as the early Epiphany errorists accused Brother Johnson of being “corrupt” and wanting “to be a somebody,” so J. W. Krewson now also accuses us – although we are now merely offering instruction to the General Church as we did when Brother Johnson was still with us. We have clear authority from God through the Epiphany Messenger to address the General Church; whereas, the best rating Brother Johnson could see for J. W. Krewson was that of Evangelist. Brother Johnson was also vexed with the Toms, Dicks and Harries, who arrogated to themselves the office of General Elder – after Brother Russell's demise – in addition to many duly‑appointed Pilgrims who had revo­lutionized against Parousia Truth – in much the same vein as we now find ourselves. Be it observed that during Brother Johnson's life, no one, so far as we know, ever offered the protests and complaints about us that now emanate from uncleansed Levites and power‑graspers since his death.

Brother Johnson said of the “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑losers” (and the same would be true of their Youthful Worthy soulmates) that they are “loquacious, repetitious, presumptuous, full of false criticism and foolish effusions” (E:10‑591); and it seems that the many humiliations and harrowing experiences that have come to them are yet sadly inadequate to reform them. “Can the leopard change his spots?” Nor should we think it “strange” if these same people still reveal that the years have not changed them! Clearly enough, it will require “great tribulation” to cleanse them, that they may “offer to the Lord an offering in righteousness” – ­a consummation devoutly to be wished. And to all who read comes our prayer for suf­ficient “eye salve” that you may “know the Truth, and that the Truth may make you free indeed.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Our dear Bro. Hoefle: – Jude 2!

We thank you very much for the picture of yourself and look forward to receiving (as you say) a better one of yourself and also of Sr. Hoefle. Words are inadequate to express our gratitude to you for the monthly letters we receive. We thank the Lord for your faithful devotion to duty in refuting error. To assist our wayward brethren it is necessary to continually reprove for wrong teachings and practices.

When the perfect day is here, error will no longer raise its head to deceive.

We notice you say that Bro. Johnson in the fall of 1946 was desperately ill, emaciated and bed‑ridden. When he was taken ill in Glasgow June 1946 Sister.... diagnosed nervous prostration. Bro, Johnson did not like the sound of that, so she then said – “well, nervous exhaustion,” to which he better appreciated......

Our dear Brother wore himself out for us. We have faith to believe he is with our Lord and all the risen elect of God – therefore, we can rejoice that his trials are over. We pray you will be kept faithful. Psa. 91; Ruth 2:12 –

Brother..... has received the 2 lbs. Will send again when we can. Our dear Jamaica brethren must have many trials. We pray for them. 1 Peter 1:7 –

Our united love to you both and all those with you.

Your Bro. & Sr ------- ENGLAND

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

Dear Bro. Hoefle: – Greetings in our dear Master's Name!

It is happifying to know that we have Servants in both the periods who endeavor to keep the “Truth stream pure.” God's blessing be yours!

Kindly forward a quantity of Where are the Dead .... So then may I join you in pursuit of Zeba and Zalmunna and in mind in the coming Memorial.

By His kind favor, Brother ------- New Jersey

NO. 72: IN HIS STEPS

No. 72

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

"To this you were called; because even Christ suffered on your behalf, leaving you a copy, so that you may follow in His footsteps; Who committed no sin; neither was deceit found in His mouth"--l Pet. 2:21 (Dia,). Here is a concise summation of the Christian's duty - and privilege; he has set before him a "copy" which he is to emulate to the best of his ability--although it is fully conceded that none of the fallen race can, or will, imitate in fullness that great "copy" which has been left for us. The Apostle Peter is telling us that our Lord left us a perfect example in word and deed--He committed no sin, did nothing wrong; and He spoke always the truth --no deceit found in His mouth. Those who clearly grasp the import of our great "copy" will have no part in "whispering campaigns" or political wire-pulling in the election of officers in the Church; theirs will be a character which is actuated in all ways by the principles of righteousness--not according to what some people may think of us, but according to the standard of righteousness found in the Scriptures. Therefore, in order to develop that character which is pleasing to God, we should in every detail of life consider carefully what is right and what is wrong, according to that standard. This course is Scripturally termed meditating in God's law. When we reach that development of character in which thought, word and deed are measured by the principles of righteousness, we shall have attained godlikeness--Psa. 119:97.

What the Lord desires to see in his people is not merely an outward manifestation of devotion to him and to his brethren, but a development of love in our hearts and our dispositions. If we profess to love one another and yet pursue a course of self-seeking, wherein do we manifest love? So St. John admonishes to love not in word only, but in deed and in truth--. John 3:18.

Primarily, the godly are those who are in Christ Jesus, members of his mystical body, having presented their human bodies living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God through the merit of the great Advocate. Secondly, the term godly includes those who live righteously, in sympathy with Christ Jesus, even though they may not live up to the full standard which the Lord has set, because they shrink from the suffering that results from godly living. Thirdly, the term godly includes some in the remote past, who, believing in the promise of the Lord that the "Seed" shall some day come, separated themselves from the rest of the world and, having obtained new aims, new ideas, were out of touch with the remainder of the race because of having a different standard--Heb. 11:13-16"

The Ancient Worthies composed this third class, who had a share in the suffering of the godly and a participation also in the blessing. Moses, for example, preferred to suffer affliction with the people of God, rather than to participate in the honors of the Egyptian Government. Although adopted into the family of Pharaoh, he had respect to the promise that the Messiah would come. Hence he suffered on account of his faith in the promise. So all the patriarchs desired to be in harmony with God, in accordance with His promise made to Abraham, and because of belief. In that promise they suffered more or less persecution- -Heb. 11: 24- 26; 36- 38. And those godly ones of the Old Testament record find their counterpart today in the fully faithful Youthful Worthies, who now have the opportunity--because of increased knowledge combined with the experiences of the past--to develop even better characters than did many of their forerunners. Those noble characters of ancient times did not comprehend the scope of agape love, that disinterested good will toward all men which adorned the Saints of this Gospel Age; but their counterparts of today have had the personal friendship, the noble example, and uplifting instruction of the last two "principal men" as living examples of agape love in operation. Once more we direct attention to E:4-319 (5), where Brother Johnson correctly identifies the "godly" of all Ages--namely, the Little Flock and Great Company, and the Ancient and Youthful Worthies, as the four "elect" saved classes of Joel 2:28,29. These, with the "sons" (the quasi-elect) and the "daughters" (converted Gentiles of the Millennial. Age), and the repentant Angels comprise the seven saved classes retrieved from the reign of evil--the "sons" being the believing, but unconsecrated, Jews and Gentiles from the Law Covenant to the full end of this Gospel Age, the same including the Epiphany Campers (unconsecrated) in the finished picture. There is nothing here or anywhere else in the Scriptures to substantiate a class of Epiphany Campers consecrated.

Some one may ask, "Why should the godly suffer?" The Bible answers that sin has brought the world into opposition with God, Whoever, then, would have all men speak in commendation of him would not be in harmony with the divine arrangement, for the masses of the world are pursuing a course that the Lord does not approve. We are not saying that everything which the world does is sinful, but that the standards of God are so high that because of their fallen condition the masses of the world are not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can they be, for they are carnal, sold under sin. (Rom. 8:7; 7:11-15) Those who wish to have influence with the world must cater to popular prejudices. On the contrary, those who would be God's people must be loyal to the principles of righteousness and consequently must go in opposite direction to that of the world. Hence they are opposed by the world.

A striking illustration of this condition is to be found in the person of a man swimming upstream at a time when the River Jordan (a type of the curse) was flood-swollen and rushing rapidly to its entrance into the Dead Sea. From the standpoint of God the course of the world is sinful. There is a tendency in our flesh to go with the world, who are laboring under false views of various kinds, because that course is in sympathy with the desires of our own fallen flesh. Hence to live godly is to live in opposition to the course of the world and of our own flesh. This would include not only living uprightly and avoiding Sin, etc., but also the making of sacrifices as well, where principles are not involved. We are to beware, however, lest we be deceived along this line. Not only are we contending with the world, but we are wrestling with wicked spirits in high positions.--Eph. 6:12

Sometimes Satan's arts seem to be employed to get those who are trying to live godly into contention with each other. One of his devices is to make unimportant things seem important, and in this way to make people think that they are contending for righteousness' sake, and that the sufferings that they bring on themselves in this manner are for righteousness' sake. Another device is to deceive people into"busy-bodying in other men's matters," --1 Pet. 4:15

Our influence upon each other should be uplifting; we should not cause others to grieve, except where suffering is absolutely necessary. Hence the Lord's people should cultivate the fruits of the Spirit increasingly--meekness, gentleness, patience, brotherly kindness, love. The cultivation of these fruits of the Spirit is a law respect to the Lord’s people. All who would live godly in Christ Jesus are to seeto it that they are not the cause of suffering to others--especially to those of the Household of Faith.

While it is true that all who will live godly in this world will suffer to the extent to which they are out of harmony with the present evil conditions, yet the promised blessings of the Scriptures are to those who live godly in Jesus Christ, those who are Christians. Of these St. Peter says, "If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.--l Pet. 4:16. 

A Christian is a follower of Christ, one who has cast in his lot to suffer with Christ (or for Christ), that he may also be glorified with the Lord (or be included the 'better' resurrection, as the case may be). (2 Tim. 2:12) From the Apostle's standpoint, therefore, no one could suffer as a Christian unless he had become a Christian.

Every painful experience which our Lord had was suffered for righteousness' sake--not only the great sufferings, not only the great fight against sin, but also all the little, unpleasant experiences common to the world. Being "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26), there was no reason why he should suffer. We do not understand that the Heavenly Father has provided sufferings, trials and difficulties for the angels who are in harmony with Him. Nor do we think that Jesus, being a Son in full accord with the Father, would have suffered were it not for his covenant of self-sacrifice. All of His sufferings were because He had come into the world to be man's Redeemer. They were all parts of His necessary experience.

The sufferings which our Lord endured were the result of his activity in the service of the Father; and none of His faithful followers should expect to escape similar sufferings under similar circumstances. These were His weariness, His weakness after giving out His vitality to heal others, His bloody sweat, his ignominious buffetings, and all the reproaches, the sneers and the bitter words incurred on account of his faithfulness, to all of which he meekly and quietly submitted until his suffering on Calvary terminated his human existence.

There is no question that suffering in general is not suffering with Christ, but with Adam. Our physical infirmities which are of heredity, are not sufferings of Christ. Rather we should speak of the sufferings of Christ as being voluntary and not involuntary. When the Apostle says that if we suffer with the Lord we shall also reign with him (2 Tim. 2:12), he means the suffering which we bring on ourselves through faithfulness to our covenant. St. Paul speaks of filling up that which is left behind the afflictions of Christ for his Body's sake, which is the Church, (Col.1:24). These experiences are not for Adam's sake.

In St. Paul's own case he had, we believe, weak eyes as a result of his wrong course in persecuting the Church; and that wrong course was, no doubt, largely the result of heredity. When the Apostle speaks of the sufferings he endured on account of his eyes, he does not speak of them as the sufferings of Christ, but says that his affliction was a messenger of Satan to buffet him. (2 Cor. 12:7) We might then say that all physical sufferings resulting from heredity are ministers of Satan opposing us, causing us much difficulty.  However, we believe that the Lord is pleased with us if we resist these ministers of Satan.

If we should think of all our physical pains and aches as sufferings for Christ, then we should be obliged to think of our mental defects also as sufferings for Christ. For instance, a man who had a disabled hand might have a comparatively even temper; another might have a perverse temper, leading him into trouble, leading him to busybody in other men's affairs, etc. Thus his disposition causes him to suffer as a busybody and not for Christ. Paul tells us that our defects in character are works of the fallen flesh. (Gal. 5:19-21). If the sufferings that come to us because of imperfect mental conditions are sufferings of heredity, the physical sufferings which result from imperfect physical conditions, cannot be counted as sufferings for Christ.

In the case of a Christian, inherited weaknesses and those brought upon himself by the violation of the laws of God previous to his entrance into the family of God as a son, while not sufferings with Christ, will be made advantageous to him. These weaknesses our Father sees fit to leave with us, but assures us that His Grace will be sufficient for us. (2 Cor. 12:9) While the realization of such care for our interests is humiliating in that it forces conviction of our weakness, yet it is refreshing and inspiring in that it proves our Father's love for us. "The Father Himself loveth you." --John 16:27.

But when one has undertaken to follow in the footsteps of Christ, whatever affliction that person undergoes because of following the Lord, is suffering as a Christian; and whatever our experiences in suffering may be, these are not necessarily the portion of the sons of God, for the angels do not suffer; but He permits the Church to have them in order to develop and crystallize character. If we rejoice that we are found worthy to share in the sufferings of the present time, every trial will be turned to advantage as a part of our Christian experience. "They are not of the world.'" (John 17: 16) Therefore all of our experiences must be regarded as Christian, for correction in righteousness and for educational purposes.

But this is taking a broader, deeper view than ordinary. Certainly a Christian is not ashamed of what he may suffer because of his loyalty to the Lord, to the Truth and to the Brethren. In these sufferings he is to glorify God and to be thankful for them. He is to be glad for the opportunity of enduring something, to show not only the Lord, but himself also that he has endured something for Christ's sake. Every sacrifice that we make is for the purpose of suffering as a Christian, and we are not ashamed so to suffer.--1 Pet. 4:16

There are others who suffer more or less as Christians suffer, but they are suffering from a worldly standpoint. People sometimes say, "This worldly man has his trials and sufferings, and shows such patience, such resignation, that surely he is suffering as a Christian." But we do not understand that anyone can suffer as a Christian unless he takes the steps necessary to make him a Christian. We are to view matters from God's standpoint. Doubtless many have suffered as Christians from a human viewpoint who were not Christians. In the dark ages many were put to death for the sake of principle. In our own day there are people who give no evidence of being Christians, but who would rather die than have the Bible taken out of the public schools. Although they do not understand the Bible, yet if these were times of persecution, many would die at the stake in order to keep the Bible in the public schools.

A point may properly be made here that there is a wide gulf between our consciences and our civil or legal rights. Our Lord instructed His people (Matt. 5:39, 40): “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also … if he take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also." Certainly, if an adversary should smite us unjustly on the cheek, that would be a trying violation of our legal rights, but it would be no violation of our conscience to permit him to do so, or to turn the other cheek to him, Or, if he unjustly prevail in the courts to seize our coat, that would be a moral violation of our legal rights; but it would be no violation of our conscience to accept the verdict graciously and nobly.  Or, if some claiming even to be brethren should slander us, this, too, would be a violation of our legal rights; but it may sometimes be better for the general cause that we "suffer it to be so." Many of us are familiar with Brother Russell's suit against the Brooklyn Eagle for the contemptible and slanderous statements made about him in that publication-- a case in which he was most unjustly defeated.  He was certainly justified in the action he took; but he accepted the unjust verdict as "suffering as a Christian," and let the matter rest there. It is all too easy to allow resentment to overwhelm us when we are defeated in a cause where we are so preeminently right; and the beloved Parousia messenger there showed his strength and nobility of character when he accepted the result as "of the Lord." "This is thankworthy if a man, for conscience toward God, endure grief, suffering wrongfully." He cannot always tell whether suffering is for Christ's sake. But where people have suffered for conscience' sake, they have thus cultivated characters, and will get a blessing in the next age for that suffering. Suffering with Christ, as we have seen, is not the ordinary suffering common to all in the fallen state, but only such experiences as are the result, more directly, of following Christ's example in advocating unpopular truths and in exposing popular errors, Such were the causes of the sufferings of Christ; and such will be the causes of suffering, persecution and loss to all who follow in His footsteps. Such will have fellowship in his sufferings now, and in the end will be counted worthy to share in the reward given for faithfulness to principle.

Throughout the Gospel Age this course has meant self-sacrificing labor and endurance of reproach in the sowing and watering of Christ's doctrines. Now, in the end of the Age, it means a similar fidelity and endurance in the separating work and the gathering of the "Israelites indeed" (the elect). The Epiphany will make manifest the 'counsels of hearts.’

Our Lord forewarns us that in the end of the Gospel Age, many who have a love for Christ will allow their love to grow cold because of the iniquity and sin in the world. (Matt. 24·:12) It will be a test for such to decide whether they will partake of the worldly spirit.  We see this test in operation now. A great many people who name the name of Christ, who really love the Lord, who appreciate much of his character, who would like to see the right prosper, nevertheless have no thought of making a spectacle of themselves before men.  They would like to do right, to walk honorably, and to have the favor of men as good citizens.  But as to being warm and faithful followers of the Lord through "evil report and good report” (2 Cor. 6:8)—their faith and zeal are not sufficient to endure the test.

The Lord Jesus has very clearly informed us that to follow in his steps will mean trials and difficulties in the flesh. He says, "In the world ye shall have tribulation,"· (John 16:33) St. Paul repeats the sentiment, saying, "He must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God"; and he emphasizes the thought, saying, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (Acts 14: 22; 2 Tim. 3: 12) There is no other way to enter the kingdom than by self sacrifice, deadening of the flesh, mortifying it.  In proportion as the New Man grows, the old man perishes, until the sacrifice shall have been completed in death.

The Lord’s people should thoroughly understand the terms and conditions upon which they have been called. They should therefore not think it strange when trials come upon them, no matter how fiery, no matter how severe. The Apostle Peter lovingly counsels the Church: "Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you; on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part He is glorified." (1 Pet. 1:12-14). The Lord is to be not only the Instructor, but also the Refiner to purge out the dross, that we may be made ready to share with Christ in the Kingdom.

The Scriptures plainly teach that special trials may be expected in the church amongst the brethren. And we find it to be true that our severest trials come not from without, but, as the Apostle in substance says, "From among yourselves shall arise false brethren," to injure the flock in general through personal ambition. (Acts 20:30). This becomes a test not only to the church, but to all those who are in contact with us, for if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it,--1 Cor. 12:26.

We are not, therefore, to think it strange if there are trials and difficulties, if more or less dispute arise in the church. We are to cultivate gentleness, meekness, patience, loving-kindness toward all. Nevertheless, if a dispute arise amongst the Lord's people, we are to recognize that such things are unavoidable amongst those who have the truth. Our heads are imperfect, and consequently it requires time to come into line with the teachings of the Lord's word. Even disputation makes life an activity, and is better than a dead condition--not to care what is spoken or not spoken. Nevertheless, those who have zeal should be careful that they manifest the Spirit of the Lord, as above indicated--gentleness, patience, meekness, brotherly kindness, love, humility.

“Think it not strange that there are fiery trials amongst yourselves, arising from one cause or another, that will make it "particularly severe for you. Those amongst whom you are thrown in contact will cause you suffering, because of your zeal and their misunderstanding, their imperfection, etc. All of these fiery trials will work out good for you. It is far better to be amongst those who are fervent in spirit than to take place amongst those who are lukewarm and thus lose the privilege of being one of those who are footstep followers of Christ.  Perhaps those who are lukewarm will, in the time of trouble learn a lesson. But the faithful are to learn their lesson in the present time--allowing the experiences of life to work out for them a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.--2 Cor. 4:17.

The above quotation embraces That Wise and Faithful Servant's exact words on the matter. Some of our readers may recall that at the Philadelphia Convention last Labor Day it was stressed from the platform that there is full harmony and tranquility at the Philadelphia headquarters; and similar comment has come to us respecting other groups in Little Babylon. Very strange, is it not, that uncleansed Levites are so quickly able to "improve" upon the experiences of their betters (our Lord, the Apostles and the Star Members)? Note the words of the Apostle Peter: "Beloved, be not surprised at the fire among you, occurring to you for a trial, as though some strange thing was befalling you.” (1 Pet. 4: 12--Dia.)  We all know the fiery trials that befell our Lord from those in His own group and physically near Him--the same with the Apostles, as testified by Paul and Peter -- the same at Bethel under Bro. Russell -- and the same with Brother Johnson at Philadelphia. But now, behold!  Uncleansed Levites all about us are not having the "fire among them!" It will be noted Brother Russell emphasizes that it is "zeal for the Truth" by the Faithful that enkindles the "fire among you."  Therefore, with perfect peace now "reigning" among the Levites, can it be that the true "zeal for the Truth" has departed from them?

Our knowledge of God is limited; yet it is only what we should expect of the Heavenly Father, that any whom He accepts as his children will have divine love and care in the supervision of their affairs, which will make all things work for good to them. The tendency toward lukewarmness is becoming more and more pronounced as the Age draws to a close, and the Adversary is resorting particularly through the Slaughter-Weapon Man of Combinationism to bring this about. It's not important what we believe anymore, according to the great mass of church-goers, so long as you are "headed in the right direction." And, accepting this premise, it matters not in what sect we may dwell in Big or Little Babylon, with Mohammed or Confucius, so long as our desire is an abode in Heaven when we die. This was decidedly NOT the attitude of the last two Star Members, who "contended for the faith once delivered unto the Saints" to the pouring out of their souls unto death. Unswervingly and continually did they hold before them that Great "Copy" in their defense of the Truth in a determined effort to "follow in His footsteps." We know of some who care not how many conflicting opinions may be held on the same subject; in fact, we have met individuals who hold two or three different opinions on the same subject, with none of those opinions being right. Yet these people abide in smug complacency, which will apparently only be changed by the "great tribulation" just ahead. All of us know Brother Johnson's pronounced aversion for Combinationism (a worse evil than sectarianism, because it lulls into complete sleep those who once had "a zeal, but not according to knowledge"--they now have no zeal); and those who yet hold him in that. respect, love and devotion which is his due, as a faithful teacher in God's House, will give full heed to his teachings on this matter.

Since the Lord is our Shepherd, no one is able to pluck us out of his hands. (John 10:28, 29) We are as dear to him as the apple of his eye. He that began a good work in us is able to complete it in the day of Jesus Christ. (Phil. 1:6) So the more faith we have the more we appreciate the text, "We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are the called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28) This includes even the things that seem to be very contrary, very evil, very disadvantageous .

Our Lord said, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." (John 17:3) To know the Father means to be in fellowship with him, to have an intimate acquaintance with him. Experience corroborates this fact. The more obedient we are as children the more intimate is our acquaintance with Him. And if we are unfaithful, even for a little space, we shall fail to make development along spiritual lines. But in proportion as we are seeking to walk in His ways, we become intimate with Him in the particular sense in which a child knows his father. This knowledge gives us the trust that He cares for us as His children, and makes all things work together for good to us--Rom. 8: 28; 1John 1: 6, 7.

Ours is a covenant of sacrifice. There are certain laws and principles which are not to be broken. Along these lines the Lord Jesus tells us that the Father will appoint those next to the Lord who have demonstrated most of the Spirit of the Redeemer. He will not put anyone in such a position or into the Kingdom arbitrarily.  His character, His words, stand pledged that He will make the best of us that He is able to do, while at the same time recognizing our wills as paramount in making the best of us.

Jehovah does not seek those as His children who need to be forced. Our Lord said that the Father seeketh such to worship Him as worship Him in spirit and in Truth. (John 1:23) We are to work to the best of our ability, But with all of our stumbling the Lord stands pledged that He will not leave us if we are faithful, and that He will make even our stumbling work out for good to us, provided they do not "stumble" into the pitfall of the sixth Slaughter-Weapon Man of Revolutionism (forsaking the Parousia or Epiphany Truth or Arrangements), because such persistent "stumbling" would manifest such as having lost their Class standing.

But those New Creatures who must be forced to a compliance with the rules-who, as the horse or ass, "must be guided with bit and bridle"--will eventually be among those who bewail that "the summer is past, the harvest is ended, and we are not saved." We emphasize once more that there has never been a "call" to the Great Company Class, because God would never issue a "call" to anyone to fall; they are the failures for whom God has graciously provided a serving place "before the Throne" instead of "in the Throne" with the crown-retainers, who "through fear of (sacrificial) death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." These are the ones temporarily abandoned to Azaze1 by our Father,  much the same as an earthly father disinherits a wayward son pending his reformation; they are "such as sit in darkness, and the shadow of death, bound in affliction and iron; because they rebelled (revolutionized) against the words of God, and condemned the counsel of the Most High." (Psa. 107:10,11) In the Great Tribulation He shall "bring down their heart with labor ... brake their bands in sunder ... and save them out of their distresses." And companion with these will be the measurably faithful Youthful Worthies who have aided and abetted them in their wayward course.

Much of the foregoing is taken from Brother Russell's writings, which we consider most timely for this particular season; and it is our hope it may "provoke to (agape) love and to good works," "The fear (reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and a good understanding have all they that do His Commandments:  His praise endureth forever." Psa. 111:10

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Our dear Brother Hoefle: - Sincere and loving greetings in our Lord's Name!

We thank you for the second binder received in goodorder on Monday ….Also for the parcel of letterheads….

So our LHMM brethren have some in their midst who "are now denying that there is such a thing as "Little Babylon"! They say Brother Johnson was wrong when he labeled the groups as such. Well I hope to write out a few very clear and convincing proofs that Brother Johnson was absolutely correct in regard to all he said in this connection, giving in all cases his own statements ….. which are quite convincing enough to the faithful, and should be to all the LHMM brethren. Of course, you, dear Brother, have so often reminded us, the majority, if not all the brethren of all existing Levite groups, "talk all sorts of nonsense"--and will, I may add, continue to do so until the full force of the coming near future events hits them so hard as to sober them up. Then they will be glad to call upon the Lord in 'their distress’; then He will in His own time and way deliver them from their Babylonish condition into which they have gotten themselves, and in which they still are--some more and some less--standing guilty before the Lord. They will some day realize their folly and be greatly ashamed, not only on account of their doctrinal errors but for the part they have taken against their brethren who refused to repudiate those teachings given to us by the Lord through the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. See Isa. 66: 5 -- I have always contended that all Truth given by the Lord should be regarded as a sacred trust--and this is something our Great Company Truth brethren have not done; they are rapidly falling from the Truth and its Spirit in all existing groups, including the LHMM group. True we all make mistakes, even as Brother Russell and Brother Johnson openly and honestly, as Star Members, stated so. But there was a vast amount of Truth from the great Divine Storehouse which was so faithfully delivered to us by them.

Brother Russell asked us all in that last Watch Tower he was privileged to publish - "Have we been taught of the Lord in vain?" There is only one correct answer to that question, so far as the majority of brethren are concerned. This is all in the Lord's hands and certainly best left with Him.  We are still in the Epiphany--the period of manifestations of persons, principles and things, and these manifestations are going against all. Truth groups, as very soon now they will have to humbly confess.

We have just heard of the passing of a dear LHHM brother whom we have known since 1912, dying on a grass verge near his home. This is the fifth death in peculiar circumstances in the last four or five years belonging to the …..Ecclesia.

Now we close with our love in the dear Redeemer's name, God bless you both and all the dear ones with you! Your Brother and Sister in the Lord ...... ENGLAND

……………..

Dear Brother Hoefle: - Greetings in the Name of our Lord and Master!

Your kind letter of Nov. 18 is to hand. I have also received your … paper and have been just wondering what answer Brother -------- made to your letter.  When 1 saw it in the December article, I thought Oh! what profusion of words! No wonder the Scriptural terms such as "dogs" that bark for their sects, are used against them. Certainly Brother Johnson rightly states that when these uncleansed Great Company are in Azazel's hands they talk all sorts of nonsense--for the light that was within them becomes darkness, and how great is that darkness! Your experiences are well in keeping with that of Brother Johnson, and we pray the dear Lord will help you as you strive in defending the Truth. You can be assured of my supplication on your behalf--that you may be faithful to the end.

With this comes my warm Christian love for you and the dear ones with you.

Yours by His Grace - Brother……..JAMAICA

NO. 71: LEVITES - TYPE AND ANTITYPE

No. 71

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

“And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of the firstborn among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine.... I am the Lord” – Num. 3:12,13. With this terse statement by Jehovah God was laid the foundation for the first system of an organized religious system for God's faithful people. Previously, the head of each house was mainly his own priest; he built his altars, and offered his own sacrifices for himself and for his house. (See Gen. 22:9) But, with the call of the Levites things would be decidedly differ­ent; and as time developed the religious routine did indeed become most pronouncedly different.

As all Bible Students know, the Levites were the descendants of Levi, one of the twelve sons of Jacob –  the “thirteenth” tribe of Israel. This oddity developed when they were called out from among their brethren to perform the various services of the newly‑formed religious system that was to regulate them after their deliver­ance from bondage in Egypt. Thenceforth, the names of Joseph and Levi were no longer counted among the twelve tribes, these two having been supplanted by the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. Here comes the logical query, Why were the Levites thus chosen and separated out from among the other tribes? The episode in Ex. 32:25-­29 may give us the answer: “When Moses saw that the people were naked... then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the Lord's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him .... Moses said, Consecrate yourselves today to the Lord (margin).” But now that the Levites had been separated from their brethren, they in turn experienced a distinct cleav­age into priests and Levites. “Thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death,” the Lord had told Moses (Num. 3:10 – see also Num. 18:1‑8). Then in turn Aaron's house was given two clear separations – Aaron the high priest, and his four sons, Eleazar, Ithamar, Nadab and Abihu, as the underpriests (Ex. 28:1‑2). Each of these had their specialized services to perform; and the rebellion of Nadab and Abihu from their proper place had brought about their death (Lev. 10:1‑8), leaving then but two underpriests, Eleazar and Ithamar, the elder of which was to advance to the office of high priest as a matter of succession, and the same with his eldest son after him – much the same as the kingship in England and other monarchies. None of the Levites –  Priests or lesser Levites – were to have any inheritance in Canaan land when Israel took over there: “Unto the tribe of Levi Moses gave not any inheritance: the Lord God of Israel was their inheritance.” (Josh. 13:33)

Just how pronounced was the distinction between priests and lesser Levites is set forth in Num. 3:9: “Thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons; they are wholly given unto him.” (See also Num. 8:19) When we consider the service of the Tabernacle and all the ceremonial features related thereto, it becomes clearly apparent that it would have been impossible for Aaron and his sons to perform even a small part of it; thus, the necessity for the help of the lesser Levites – a point that will have consideration in viewing the antitype of this arrangement.

And the words of Jesus leave no doubt whatever that the priesthood, the lesser Levites, the Tabernacle and its pertinent services were typical in every feature: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18); “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” (Luke 16:17). Therefore, St. Paul knew whereof he spokeä in 1 Cor. 10:11 – Dia.: “These thing occurred to them typically; and were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the Ages have come.” At the first Advent the Jews had come to “the ends of the Ages” – the final “end” of the Jewish Age and the first “end” (or beginning) of the Gospel Age; as we also now are in the “ends of the Ages” – the closing “end” of the Gospel Age and the open­ing “end” of the Millennial Age. Therefore, those who complain about so much “typ­ing” by Brother Russell and Brother Johnson are in effect condemning the clear teach­ing of St. Paul; those types are for our special help in this Epiphany time, which is the last special period of the Gospel Age. That is why Brother Russell taught that every feature of the Tabernacle ceremony must continue until its antitype appears; otherwise, the law would pass away before it was fulfilled – or “filled full” –, thus putting to naught the words of Jesus and St. Paul.

Having now this firm foundation, it well behooves us to “earnestly look into” some typical aspects of the Levites. In Tabernacle Shadows Brother Russell explains that the Aaronic priesthood was typical of the Gospel and Millennial‑Age “royal priest­hood”; and St. Peter (I Pet. 2:9) emphatically states, “Ye (the saints) are a royal priesthood.” And of this Gospel‑Age “royal priesthood” Jesus said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Here again the type and antitype are clearly set out by St. Paul: “And no one takes the honor on himself (the “priestly” honor), but he being called by God, even as Aaron was.”

Here it is well to note that each successive high priest in Israel was merely a continuation of that one grand type exemplified in Aaron –  just as his great anti­type Jesus was but one antitype. And, as every antitype must be greater than its type, so in this instance it is so clearly evident that Jesus, the antitype, was greater than Aaron, the type. The same would apply for the underpriests, Aaron's sons: they were far less than their Gospel‑Age antitypical “royal” priests. Aaron was a virile priest, honorably, zealously and unselfishly fully devoted to his office. Similar observation can be made of Jesus and His Fully Faithful of this entire Gospel­-Age. However, sad to relate, this was not true of some of Aaron's descendants. Time, ease and temptation made wretched examples of some of them. It was a true and righteous priesthood when Aaron occupied the office. By the time of the prophet Jeremiah that priesthood had deteriorated into a priestcraft; and that priestcraft was no more than priest“graft” when Caiphas sent Jesus to the cross.

And all during the Gospel Age the same sad history has been re‑enacted. All of the grand and eloquent Star Members were a true “royal priesthood,” as instance just a few of them: Arius, Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, John Wessley, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. And so often there followed them the priestcraft, then the priest “graft” in those movements they inaugurated. Our own day offers an outstand­ing example in the “Society.” When Brother Russell died he was possessed of about $200.00, having freely spent his own sizable fortune to enhance and ennoble his priestly movement. He was truly “That Faithful Servant!” But, hardly had he left us before That Evil Servant rushed to the priestcraft, then the priest“graft,” as he “made merchandise” of his trusting adherents through his collection of royalties on the books they sold, etc.

Now, another typical feature should draw our attention; namely, the Levites. Brother Russell says they typified the tentatively justified of the Gospel‑Age –  ­those believers not of the “royal priesthood.” These, too, were “wholly given” unto the priests. Without their help the true Gospel‑Age priests would have been so few in numbers and so limited in resources as to make it impossible for them to do the work appointed them to do. There has also been a tremendous multitude of the “Great Company” all during the Age, who also contributed a good and a bad adjunct to the Christian army; but these are not shown in the personal performers of the Taber­nacle, the reason being there was no Great Company Class during the Gospel Age until we came into the Epiphany period, when this group as a Class came into much prominence; and they will become yet much more prominent in the near future. Although they are the antitypical “sons of Levi,” this expression is not synonymous with the Gospel‑Age sons of God, a “sleight‑of‑hand” attempted by R. G. Jolly in his Nov‑Dec. 1960 Present Truth, p. 92 (of which we hope to say more in another paper; but we observe here that his jugglery in this instance offers just one more proof of his unclear mind and uncleansed condition).

But in this Epiphany time another class of Levites has appeared –  the Youthful Worthies –  a class treated in great detail by Brother Johnson in his Volume 4, in the Present Truth and in other publications. And with this Class – as with the New-­creaturely “sons of Levi” – there is to be found the measurably faithful and the fully faithful. Inasmuch as the Great Company are the measurably faithful “sons of Levi,” we should expect Youthful Worthies to gravitate to the various groups who are inclined to the evils of that group. Of these Brother Johnson says in E:9‑232 (52)‑bottom:

“It will reach its climax in the mourning of the Great Company, reprobate Youthful Worthies, tentatively justified and campers when they recognize their real standing later in the Epiphany, .... this mourning includes every kind of sor­row, fear, restraint, discouragement, etc.”

There is much more here on pages 233‑235, which is most profitable reading at this time. Of course, as with many of the New Creatures who become fully reprobate and go into the Second Death, so with the fully reprobate Youthful Worthies –  they will “die” as Youthful Worthies, though not as human beings – as is true of the Second Deathers. With such, they will mostly experience the fate of Korah and his group (Num. 16:1‑32): “the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up” – that is, they will retrograde to the social order whence they came.

However, of the fully faithful Youthful Worthies Brother Johnson says they, too, are a special class of Levites, transitional Epiphany Levites, decidedly different from that Great Multitude of transitional Levites who must “wash their sullied robes by great tribulation.” Note the following from E:4‑322 (9):

“It must be kept in mind that the Great Company Transitional Levites are different from the Youthful Worthies as persistent Gospel‑Age Levites in the transi­tion time. Excepting the Good Youthful Worthies (who were with the priestly move­ment of Brother Johnson when Vol. 4 was written – JJH), the three groups of each class are associated severally with one another.”

A further confirmation of the foregoing is to be found in E:9‑230 (50): “The Par­ousia Congregation, with the exception of the Little Flock, was an evil congrega­tion, the faithful Youthful Worthies here as everywhere else being ignored in this picture.”

In Mal. 3:3 we are told the “messenger of the covenant” (the Lord Jesus –  see Berean Comment) will “sit as a refiner and purifier of silver.” That this text is pointedly for this Epiphany period is so very clearly explained by Brother Johnson. The “silver” is the Truth; and the word “purifier” should be translated “polisher” –  ­furbisher or shiner. What is the meaning here? It is simply that the Lord would “polish” or brighten the Truth as one of His special Epiphany missions by sharp con­troversies that have extended throughout this entire Epiphany period; and will wax sharper and warmer as the Epiphany reaches its grand climax in the “appearing” of the Son of Man toward the end of “Jacob's trouble.” Thus, those who object to the Epiphany controversies are in effect telling the “Messenger of the Covenant” that they do not approve of what He is doing. And of such Brother Johnson has this to say in E:4‑42 (41):

“Those who do not appreciate the Epiphany will stumble at its teachings, exposures and work, while the others will stand amid them, declaring Righteous are Thy judgments, 0 Lord! Yea, they are entirely righteous.”

During the Parousia and the Epiphany our Lord elected two brilliant and fully faithful mouthpieces in His mission to “polish” the Truth. Their Skill in contro­versy is a refreshing and sacred memory to all the fully faithful; and we may rest in the assurance of the Lord's mighty declaration in Malachi that He will not be wanting for fully faithful brethren to continue “the good fight” of “polishing the silver” even brighter and brighter until the full close of this Epiphany period. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it!!”

R. L. GOUGH AGAIN

Below we publish a further exchange of letters that are the aftermath of our December 1 paper, No. 67:

December 28, 1960

Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Greetings in the name of Him who loved us first!

This is not a reply to your letter of the 10th November (I told you that I would ignore your letters until you retrace your steps, and I mean to do so), but I am constrained to write to you in protest against your unwarranted attacks on Brother Motley, in your December 1, Circular. It is un‑Christian, uncharitable, and a violation of the principles of Christian ethics. When I read it, it made me sick at heart, to think that anyone in the Truth, and professing to be a leader and teacher, could retaliate in a manner so low and mean. This is surely “hitting be­low the belt,” and “playing the man instead of the ball,” –  a method of controversy in which you have certainly excelled!

I do not know if all that you have said is true –  how much of it is truth, how much is half‑truth, and how much is a distortion of the facts. I would very much like to hear Brother Motley's side, to get his version of the story. (It would have been very easy to obtain Bro. Motley's address from R. G. Jolly and get his side of the story –  JJH) But assuming that it is all true, and exactly as you have written it, you have violated the principles of decency and good behavior. Where is your brotherly love? Where is your longsuffering and forbearance? It is bad form to do a man a kindness and then tell him about it afterward; it is even more reprehensible to tell it to the world, as you have done! Even some men of the world would scorn to do that!

And what is the reason for your tirade against the Brother? Because he dares to disagree with your views, and dares to take sides against you in a religious con­troversy? If he had become one of your “supporters” the world would never have heard about the $400.00 and the “I promise to pay.” Did you think that your kindness would purchase his conscience? Did you expect it to act as a muzzle, or deprive him of his freedom and liberty to think and act? It would have been better if you had never been kind to him, than to be kind, and then use it to vaunt yourself. Your kindness had in it the venom of a rattle‑snake! What a tyrant your kindness is intended to be!

What has the Brother done you –  not repaid your loan of $400.00? The value of the blessed Christian Brotherhood cannot be expressed in terms of dollars! One brother died owing me 100 lbs ($500.00 in those days), and nobody ever heard of it – this is the first time that even this much of it is being mentioned. So what? Has the Brother hurt you? Why have you hurt him in return? Have you forgotten that “When he (our Master) was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not”? Was the Brother ungrateful? Have you forgotten that God is kind even to the unthank­ful? (God certainly is kind to the unthankful, but He doesn't specially bless and guide them – nor does he hinder their proper experiences and chastisements for their recovery. As Brother Johnson teaches, God turns against those who turn against Him – ­Truth and Righteousness – JJH) The Brother wrote about “the hurts that we receive from false brethren.” That is something we could all say. All of us have been hurt by brethren, true and false. There was no specific reference to you. Did the cap fit you? Did your conscience tell you that you were one of the false brethren? The Brother mentioned that he was a “staunch supporter” of Bro. Jolly, and that was to you as a red rag is to a bull, so you decided to “show him up” for supporting Bro. Jolly after receiving kindness from you many years ago. What a spirit! No wonder Bro. John Krewson says that those who imbibe the spirit of your teaching develop a personal animosity toward Bro. Jolly – here we see it being extended to one of Bro. Jolly's supporters. And you claim that you and your supporters are the “cleansed Levites”! (Another “false‑accusing Epiphany Levite: We have never at any time claimed, either overtly or covertly, to be “cleansed Levites”..JJH) Would God you had never been “cleansed,” and I pray that God will deliver me from that kind of cleansing! “By their fruits ye shall know them.” I find that you are bearing very sour and bitter fruits! When you were here in 1957 I told you that your spirit was bad. What abundant proof you have given of the truth of that statement!

In my December, 1958, letter, I told you that you never seem able to make allow­ances for the weaknesses, frailties, and shortcomings of the brethren; now I tell you that you have never learned to forgive, and unless you learn to do that, you can never sincerely pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” (This self‑admitted Epiphany Levite is telling us that he knows our condition; that he knows we have never learned to forgive. Undoubtedly he must know that at some time he very seriously deflected, otherwise he would have retained his crown; yet he knows so much about the condition of others, but failed to see his own true condi­tion when he so needed to correct his sins – JJH) Admitting that Brother Motley is all wrong – that he has failed to appreciate your kindness, and that he has neglected to repay you – why should you be so resentful? (Was Brother Johnson resentful to­ward R. G. Jolly when he felt it necessary to expose his treatment of the Youthful Worthy cancerous sister – even though R. G. Jolly had repented outwardly at the time of this exposure? –  JJH) If you cannot bear with the failings of one brother here, how are you going to bear with the failings of the world in the Millennium? If you cannot forgive a brother once, how are you going to forgive anybody “seventy times seven”? Why didn't you try to obtain the Brother's address and write to him about the matter, asking him to repay the loan? (Why didn't you, Brother Gough, ask R.G. Jolly for the brother's address so you could get his 'story’ about the matter? – JJH) That would have been the proper thing, and would have been more Christlike! Instead, you have held it in your heart with a spirit of resentment, waiting for an opportun­ity to expose him. For shame! I have not so learned Christ! (“False‑accusing Epi­phany Levites” – as Brother Johnson tells us. They have all the answers with most of them all wrong! – JJH)

You write about the crown‑losers being in Azazel's hand. The Adversary has you so well tied up in a bag, that only the Lord will be able to set you free – if you will allow Him. Let me tell you straight (Emphasis ours –  JJH), my wayward and de­luded brother: if I had ever been foolish enough to support you in the past, when I read your vicious attack on Brother Motley, it so sickened me, that I would have dis­sociated myself from you immediately.

The Master says that when we do alms we must not let our left hand know what our right hand doeth, that our alms may be in secret. You rendered a kindness to the Brother in secret, and presumably you kept it in secret for many years. Then because the Brother dares to disagree with you on a religious issue, you decided to make it public, so you printed it and told the world. This is not the action of a “cleansed Levite”: only an uncleansed Levite would be guilty of such a thing! 1 John 2:10‑11

I am on the mountain top breathing the pure air (spiritual oxygen) of love – ­the love that beareth all things, that endureth all things, that suffereth long and is kind, that does not render evil for evil unto any man, that is kind even to the unthankful, that feeds and gives drink even to an enemy, that forgives seventy times seven, that covers a multitude of sins, that is not provoked to anger, that vaunteth not itself, that worketh no ill to its neighbour, that does not avenge itself, that does not retaliate, and that never faileth. How could I come down and associate with you on a lower level, and breathe the impure air (spiritual carbonic acid gas) of resentment, revenge, retaliation, bitterness, of rendering evil for evil (assuming that the brother had done you evil), of anger, of hate, and the whole lot of the works of the flesh and the devil? It would poison me as it has poisoned you.

Have you ever heard of the “mantle of love” that is used to cover the failings of the brethren? Read the Manna comment for December 14.

(Note: Brother Gough –  another self‑admitted crown‑loser –  hesitates not to proclaim his own character fitness (his agape love) in the foregoing, while denouncing the “bad” spirit of his brother. We do wonder whether he was declaring his agape love and character fitness at the time he was losing his crown to another, while at the same time castigating some faithful crown‑retainer – accusing him of having a “bad” spirit! – JJH)

There is a gulf between us – the loveless gulf of resentment and retaliation. This gulf is impassable from my end, because I will not and cannot stop loving; but it can be passed from your end, because you should and can stop hating, if you will. The Great Physician has medicines which will sweeten the bitter heart, if you will take it according to directions.

Instead of wreaking your vengeance on the Brother, why didn't you leave the whole matter in the Lord's hand? The Lord says, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” Isn't that good enough for you?

Why don't you return to the mountain top where you once were? The atmosphere up there is so sweet and pure; so refreshing and stimulating! Can I invite you to come back? I would welcome you, my wayward brother. Your present activities have robbed you of the sweet spirit of love. The truth sanctifies; it brings forth the fruits of the spirit, the summum bonum of which is LOVE. But your “new light” or “advancing truth” has robbed you of love, and developed the opposite spirit – that of resentment, retaliation, etc., etc., etc. There is a saying that “ambition killed Caesar.” And the ambition to be “teacher” has almost killed the spirit of brotherly love in you.

Are you going to come back to the mountain top? I am waiting and looking out for you. “I write not this to shame you, but to warn you.” “Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.” “Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up.”

Have you forgotten what the Lord says? Though you speak with the tongues of men and of angels; though you understand all mysteries and all knowledge; though you have all faith; though your monthly circulars are filled with “New light” and “advancing truth”; though you claim to be a “cleansed Levite”; though you condemn everybody else as “uncleansed”; though you scoff at the crown‑losers and claim to be superior to them, if you have not LOVE, you are just “sounding brass, or a tink­ling cymbal” – you are exactly, NOTHING.

I love you, my erring brother. Brother Russell said that love must never let go its hold on a brother man, until God's unerring judgment declares him to be ir­reformable. So my love will hold unto you in prayer, that God will convert you from the error of your way, and that He will show mercy unto you in that day.

With Christian love, and prayer that the Lord will sweeten your heart, and fill it with His own sweet Spirit of the love that covers a multitude of sins, and that “never faileth,” I remain, Sincerely your brother, (Signed) R. L. Gough

P.S. May I ask you to publish this letter in your February Circular? I doubt if it will be in time for the January one.

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

January 12,1961

Dear Brother Gough: – Christian salutations!

In your letter of December 28 you tell me I am unchristian, uncharitable, and violate the principles of Christian ethics by what I published concerning H. H. Motley. Just what is your opinion of him, when he refers to me as a “false brother” and a “liar” – statements from him unwarranted and without any provocation from me toward him personally? You have made similar accusation about my treatment of R.G. Jolly – although, apparently, it is quite acceptable to you to have him slander me, resort to much abusive name‑calling, and multitudinous falsehoods.

You say I present a “tirade against the brother, because he dares disagree with my views.” When he makes the charge – “Brethren that we esteemed highly turn from the Truth to lies of their own invention” – are you classifying that as a mere dis­agreement? Or, isn't it a clear charge – publicly made – that I am a reprobate and a fraud?

When you consume three pages to express yourself in this matter, you do indeed manifest that you are a true kinsman of R. G.Jolly. He also takes three pages to state what would more effectively be given in three paragraphs by Brother Russell or Brother Johnson. To give you a clear and pointed example: On pages 12, 13 and 14 of this January Present Truth R. G. Jolly several times refers to “the aforemen­tioned sectarianizing errorist,” thus using thirty‑nine letters to say what would more directly and clearly be stated with just nine letters, had he simply stated the name of J. W.Krewson as the one he was criticizing.

It now becomes painfully pointed why Brother Johnson felt compelled to publish to the General Church that R. G. Jolly and his soulmates are “loquacious, repetitious, false‑accusing and foolishly effusive.” In case the full forceful meaning of these words does not fully register with you, Brother Johnson was telling all of us on p.591 of his Volume 10, in genteel manner, what the man in the street would colloquially classify as a lot of gasbags, or hot‑air artists. And with this background, you im­plore me to “return to the mountain top” with you. No, Brother, I much prefer the same low position that Brother Johnson occupied! With him, I prefer rather the appeal of the Scripture, “Blessed is the man that standeth not in the way of sinners” (the Great Company).

Just what do you know about H. H. Motley, that you now arise to champion him? Have you ever met the man? At least five different brethren have given me unsavory news about him, some of which I know to be true of my own knowledge – some of it much worse than I published; yet I made no attack upon him until he himself attempted to Publicly vilify me. If you had wanted to know H. H. Motley's side of this situation, why didn't you write and ask him for it before bothering me? Then you could have been sure of your ground; but, then, if you had done that, you might have seen beforehand just how ridiculous you now appear.

You speak about “ethics” of men of the world; and it seems your education here also is very limited. Had H. H. Motley had such ethics, he would have hesitated long before publicly attacking one who had shown him nothing but kindness and generosity. Even without his public attack against me, I would have been justified in what I did, since others have informed me he has tried to wheedle money from them – offering some of the same lopsided arguments you now present. Knowing that some of our readers do give him a measure of brotherly fellowship, such exposure may have protected others. In his case, the same as it was with R. G. Jolly when I exposed his evil practices, my long‑suffering could no longer be in harmony with justice and 'love for the brethren’ had I continued to remain silent after his false charges against me before the General Church.

R. G. Jolly didn't hesitate at all to inform all his readers that I had asked him for a substantial loan (not a gift), although he didn't inform them that he had just been the recipient of about $11,000 through a direct contribution from me. I assume that what he did there was quite all right with you, even though he was “eating my bread” at the time he did it –  just the reverse of this Motley situation. Nor do you take excep­tions to R. G. Jolly's name‑calling when it applies to this “errorist” (?) when he refers to me. He has indulged in all sorts of cheap appellations – all false (“false ­accusing”) – such as 'shyster lawyer,’ etc., etc.; while anything I have labelled him has been mainly taken from Brother Johnson's writings (when he found it necessary to expose R. G. Jolly).

When H. H. Motley refers to me as a “false brother,” is he there exposing my false teachings, or is he indulging in the very thing you now so loudly condemn in others (your charges being made mainly and specifically to me – even commending J. W. Krewson if he has any false accusations to make against JJH, although his falsehoods in regard to my Pilgrim appointment from Brother Johnson have been exposed and proven false, as well as many other items); namely, personalities, without corroborating evidence? What I said about him, I stand ready to prove, and the same applies to what I say about R. G. Jolly. Let him then prove what he said about me! As Brother Johnson has so aptly stated, When these crown‑losers fall into Azazel's hands they talk all sorts of nonsense, and can no longer think clearly on Scriptural matters. You say I and my supporters claim to be “cleansed Levites.” Show me one place in any of my writings where I've ever made that claim! You, like R. G. Jolly, just open your mouth and say something, whether you know whereof you speak or not.

You use this expression “cleansed Levites” in a manner that clearly reveals your mind is badly befuddled on the subject –  very badly befuddled. The fully faithful Youthful Worthies occupy the same standing of consecration as do the Little Flock; but the measurably unfaithful among them are in nowise pictured with the Great Company “sinners” against their covenant of sacrifice – even though some of them may experience similar chastenings. But the faithful Youthful Worthies keep faithful by purifying themselves daily – as do the Little Flock –  by rendering up a daily account to their Father. However, the measurably unfaithful Youthful Worthies are nowhere said to be abandoned to Azazel; that is exclusively a Great Company characterization, and comes to them exclusively for the destruction of their fleshly minds to make them once more acceptable residents in God's Household – to cleanse them (that their spirits might be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus!).

Along this same line, you tell me I have “never learned to forgive.” Here again, with all your “loquacious and foolishly effusive” words (quotation from Bro. Johnson), you clearly reveal you do not understand the fundamentals of forgiveness. I refer you to the Berean Comments on Luke 17:3‑4: “If he repent – but not otherwise.” Also, the Berean Comments on Luke 23:34: “There is no mention in the Scriptures of forgiveness on God's part without the requirement of repentance.” In harmony with this, Brother Johnson has written – “God never forgives the impenitent; to do so would be to encour­age sin.” And in the face of your sad limitations in understanding, you are now boldly championing the cause of others who are as limited as you are!

You speak about “breathing the pure air of love.” You certainly demonstrated that "pure air of love”) when you attempted to cudgel and browbeat the aging and ailing widow of your erstwhile bosom‑friend, dear Brother Condell. Of course, it was my “unchristian” spirit then that finally silenced you. You gave an excellent demonstration there of that “love” about which you are now prating so profusely! And I'm going to let you in on a secret here, my Brother: My “unchristian spirit” that silenced you a few years back will once more silence you here in this matter.

You ask me to publish your letter. Why don't you ask R. G. Jolly to do it – as he did with that other letter from you? And have him publish this answer at the same time, if you wish. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson always said the Pilgrims were their personal representatives. If R. G. Jolly feels the same way about it, why not suggest to him that he have H. H. Motley write an answer to my public exposure – for publication in the Present Truth? That way all may know all the details, which won't be true if this is kept as a private matter between you and me. I do not approve of the “whispering campaigns” R. G. Jolly conducted under Brother Johnson, nor do I approve his “whispering campaigns” against me. If he is ever cleansed he will cease such underhanded and nefarious machinations (of Azazel), and seek earnestly to be open and aboveboard in his dealings with his brethren, with the world, as well as with his enemies. J. F. Rutherford was more of a Master at this than R. G. Jolly, but it seems that R. G. Jolly is doing his best along that line.

You haven't been the least backward in pointing out my Christian duties to me, so I shall now reciprocate: It is your duty to impress upon R. G. Jolly his obliga­tion to all those who rely upon your teachings, to publicize this matter in the Present Truth – to “make manifest my folly to all” (2 Tim. 3:9), if such is my condi­tion. You certainly do talk plenty, considering your limitations. My opinion is that R. G. Jolly will be more than glad to have this Motley episode forgotten as quickly as possible; and that he himself did not dictate your letter to me. And I am persuaded you will not receive any thanks from him for proceeding as you have.

As I told you several years ago, it is certainly not my wish to hurt you if I cannot help you; nor would I now have made public mention of you had not you your­self invited it. Many accused Brother Johnson of having a “bad spirit,” as you now accuse me; but mere words do not prove anything. The Roman Church still yells “bad spirit” at Martin Luther, as his teachings still hurt them; and the real reason for such accusations against Jesus, against the Apostles, and against the Star Members is that name‑calling was the only thing left after their clear presentations of Truth left the gainsayers “speechless.”

And so I send you once more my brotherly solicitations and the prayer that you may “turn back from your path of error” (Jas. 5:20 – Dia.) to that clear and invincible Truth you once accepted from the Epiphany Messenger.

Sincerely your brother,

(Signed) John J.Hoefle

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

“The fear (reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and a good under­standing have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth forever.” Psalms 111:10

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

QUESTION: – Is it all right for us to distribute the antitypical Gideon tracts that are published by the L.H.M.M. and other groups?

ANSWER: – This question presented itself in similar substance to Brother Johnson early in the Epiphany; and it will be recalled he went to the Society and to the P.B.I., requesting such literature with the understanding that he would be willing to distribute it with their name on it. Their refusal was undoubtedly over­ruled by the Lord, because Brother Johnson would not have considered such a thing ten years later – after he saw from the Scriptures the true condition of those leaders. We now should profit by his experience. We all know that The Resurrection, Soul, and Where are the Dead tracts, which the two Star Members presented were, and still are, 100% the Truth; but the Truth is deprived of much of its beauty if it is sullied by a tainted background furnished by the revolutionistic uncleansed Levite leaders of these Movements.

This would certainly not justify us in attacking the Truth, even if it is in unclean hands. Our proper course would be to stand aloof. As Brother Johnson has clearly taught, when uncleansed Levites are abandoned to Azazel “God temporarily abandons them” (See E:15‑525), which is much the same as a father disinheriting a wayward son until he repents of his “wilfulness, rebellion and waywardness.” (E:15‑526) For us, then, to place our stamp of approval upon such while God abandoned them would be much the same as telling God we think He is wrong in the treatment meted out to them. However, for those in the various Movements who have these 'timely’ tracts, it is to their credit that they concentrate their efforts on these known Truths rather than on tracts and literature produced by these uncleansed Levite leaders.

It is our understanding that J. W. Krewson recommends the distribution of R. G. Jolly's tracts – which does not surprise us (he may have helped produce some of them), as he has repeatedly revealed how unclear he is on some Parousia and Epiphany teach­ings. Even if R. G. Jolly does eventually cleanse himself – and J. W. Krewson is not at all sure he will do so –, this would be no excuse at all to encourage him while he is revolutionizing against one truth after another. The influence he has on others while afflicted with the contagion of spiritual leprosy should be a strong deterrent in our attitude toward him. Of course, we are acutely aware of the close relation­ship of these two “cousins” – and especially the “tie that binds” them in their mutual, though in some points strongly divergent, contentions on Epiphany Campers Consecrated, etc.; but we need not become ensnared by that bond in our own efforts. The tracts we have prepared are receiving excellent acceptance (see Letters of General Interest); and we ourselves are therewith content, resting in the full assurance that we need never offer apology for our perverse conduct or perversion of various features of the Truth and its Arrangements. When Brother Johnson approached the Society and the P.B.I., he did not then have the wherewith to prepare that literature under his own name. Once he did have his own literature, he would under no circumstances have re­ferred inquirers after the Truth to those organizations; nor should we do so, as they are all part and parcel of Little Babylon, and the principle would be just the same as referring such to Big Babylon.