NO. 162: THE SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER 1968 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 162

On pages 66-69 is to be found an article “False Claims on Rev. 19:8 Examined” – ­four pages of castigation against those brethren who disagree with RGJ’s view that the last saint left the earth in 1950. Before we analyze his statements in detail, we would ask once more why he refuses to give to the brethren other parts of Reve­lation that Brother Johnson left us. In the January 1950 Present Truth Brother Johnson stated that Revelation was then clear to him, and he was intending to put it into book form for us. He was prevented from doing this, however, because of increasing physical difficulties and his death that Fall.

The notes left on Revelation are not RGJ’s private property; they belong to all of us. Why, then, does he continue to keep them concealed? Our opinion is that if he did publish those notes they would completely annihilate his present position on a number of things. When we arrived in Philadelphia on the evening of Wednesday, October 25, 1950, preparatory to conducting Brother Johnson’s funeral two days later, one of the first questions we asked RGJ was what about so much of the Bible still left unexplained – especially so, as respects Revelation. RGJ’s answer was quick and positive: Every one in the Bible House was well-informed on the book, and all of them understood the four keys necessary to a correct understanding of it.

But nothing has ever been said in the Present Truth about publishing the notes that Brother Johnson left; and we were well-informed a few years after the funeral that the Bible House family had been emphatically forbidden to discuss those notes. And we know of our own knowledge that certain members of the Bible House staff openly and grossly falsified concerning some of the explanations Brother Johnson had given them. Why? And again we ask, WHY?

In the article now under discussion RGJ offers detailed quotations from Brother Johnson on Rev. 19:8, etc., to “prove” there can be no more saints on earth. Why does he ignore here, why is he completely silent on Brother Johnson’s teaching of a 25-month overlapping of the Epiphany into the Basileia (1954-1956) as a parallel to the 1914-1916 overlapping of the Parousia into the Epiphany? And we should keep in mind, too, that all the Little Flock participated in the “attestorial service” of that period. It is already 18 years since Brother Johnson’s death, and no one hon­estly willing to face the truth would contend that any one of the things he had pre­dicted for those 25 months has even yet came to pass here in 1968. Brother Russell himself saw his mistaken predictions for 1914, and openly measurably corrected them; but Brother Johnson died before he had time to see his mistakes for 1954-1956. This, however, does not mean the rest of us have to be too derelict to correct what time itself clearly demonstrates to be mistaken expectations. Just think of it! RGJ’s “overlapping” is already more than fourteen years gone – and no end in sight. His “attestatorial service” is now fourteen years going – with but a mere handful of the “great crowd” even admitting its existence, much less having anything whatever to do with it. The fallacy of this position is so glaringly apparent that it is little wonder RGJ makes desperate effort to detract attention from it by resorting to such articles as the one we now review.

 CONCERNING 1954

All of us know – who wish to face the matter honestly – that Brother Johnson’s explanation of Rev. 19:6-8 goes hand in glove with what he gave on Rev. 22:10,11 in E-10:114, where he stated:

“1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the truth by Passover 1956.” When the time arrives that all the Great Company come into Present Truth there will then be a “great crowd” indeed; and their message will then be “as the sound of many waters” (peoples). As of now, RGJ’s proclaiming his message, with the infin­itesimal number with him (even if he includes the Youthful Worthies, as he is trying to do), is simply as the whispering of a mouse – and a very small mouse at that.

He places great stress upon the past tense of verse 7: “the marriage of the Lamb came.” In verse 6 we also find the past tense: “Our Lord God, the Omnipotent reigned.” Just how does he explain that past tense with respect to his other con­tentions here? Once again, an honest appraisal of both these texts show they have reference to the beginning, and not the full realization of their content. Our Lord began to take to Himself His great power to reign in 1874; still more of it He took in 1878; more in 1881; much more in 1914 when “the stone cut out of the mountain without hands” (Dan. 2:45) smote the image on the feet. All of this is in the past, properly described in the past tense; our Lord God has been reigning as respects the things done. Yet no one with the “spirit of a sound mind” would claim that He is fully reigning in Kingdom Glory. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are attempting to believe this as of and through themselves, but even RGJ scoffs at such claims.

But if this line of reasoning applies to the reign, it must also apply to the marriage. All of us know Brother Johnson’s teaching that the marriage had been going on – had “come” – as each member of the Bride partook of the First Resurrection. Thus, the marriage “came” in its first grand initial portion in 1878; it “came” to Brother Russell in 1916; and it “came” to Brother Johnson in 1950. Only one sadly befuddled by Azazel would attempt to distort this Scripture as RGJ now tries to do.

PROCLAIMING DIRE CONSEQUENCES

On P. 68, col. 1, par. (5) RGJ says those now “in their uncleansed and rebel­lious condition are in danger of the second death.” Yes, those actually in that condition are indeed in danger of the second death! They “sit in darkness (error), and the shadow of death” – the second death—Psa. 107:10. When the renegade Church of Rome pronounced similar dire sentence upon heretics, they were also partly right; but one of their big mistakes was in failing to see that they themselves were the worst offenders of all. We would not take this extreme accusation against RGJ; but we would certainly say he is leaning in that direction. He himself is flagrantly disputing the statement in E-10:114: “after 1954 it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent.” He is still telling sinners they may “repent” and receive tentative justification – but they can now get it in his Camp, instead of in the Court – the place where both Parousia and Epiphany Messengers said it must be found.

But we might ask here, Which is more important: To know the date the last one came into the Bride Class, or the correct date the last one died – or will die? And, while Brother Johnson was very emphatic about the date the High Calling closed, he never to our knowledge threatened any with the second death if they did not accept his teaching. In fact, he freely admitted there were saints in the other groups who openly contradicted him – who did not accept the Epiphany Truth, with some believ­ing him to be in the Second Death himself. (See E-10:671) And concerning his teach­ing that gross and persistent revolutionism would reveal one as a crown-loser, yet he never consigned to the second death even those “sitting in the Shadow” because they still considered themselves saints, but were not so. And we believe all will agree that some of the Saints in other groups died during Brother Johnson’s ministry, still believing the High Calling open, as did also some of the Great Company: they didn’t go into the second death because of that belief. It takes a “cleansed” (?) Levite (crown-lost leader) to offer such flummery.

On p. 69, col. 1, bottom, he quotes Brother Russell: “It is after the Little Flock is changed and the Great Company is still in a measure of tribulation,” etc. Just what tribulation was RGJ, or the “Great Company in general,” in when Brother Johnson died in 1950? As Brother Johnson so ably stated, When crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. And here is simply some more of it! The “great tribulation” that is to cleanse the Great Company to wash their robes – is still in the future. Thus, Brother Russell’s statement taken at exactly what he says – is a direct contradiction to RGJ’s statement. As so often occurs with would-be Pastors and Teachers (crown-lost leaders more especially), the very texts, the very quotations they offer, reveal the errancy of their claims instead of supporting them.

SOME NOTES ON REV. 19:6; 11:15-17

In further confirmation of the foregoing, note now especially the Berean Comment on Rev. 19:6: “A great multitude.... All mankind after Babylon’s fall; but especially the Great Company.” Here is a clear statement by Brother Russell that the message of Rev. 19:6-8 is due after Babylon falls. And certainly Brother Johnson taught that such would be the case, in harmony with That Servant’s teaching – although he (the Epiphany Messenger) mistakenly believed that Babylon’s fall would be before 1956 – just as Brother Rus­sell thought it would be shortly after 1914 – and that Anarchy would probably be here in its initial stage by 1956. RGJ is very verbose in offering other parts of what Brother Russell taught, so why is he now ignoring this essential section? And why is he ignoring the “events” predicted for 1954-1956 that Brother Johnson clearly taught? Just how much reliance is to be placed in any one who resorts to such Azazelian trick­ery? (E-10:646, top) Please note he accuses the brethren of presenting “False Claims” who accept what Brother Russell teaches here. Thus, he is indirectly accusing Bro. Russell of offering “False Claims.”

And certainly all who have “received the Truth in the love of it” (2 Thes. 2:10) must conclude that such language in the present circumstances is unkind and unfair. But, then, we should not forget that RGJ offered “unfair and unkind criticisms” of Brother Johnson, too – which he admits (See E-10:585 bottom); so we should probably not be surprised to find him doing the same thing against others of lesser stature than Brother Johnson. To be “unkind and unfair” is evidently a deep-rooted evil in RGJ’s character – one to cause distrust and abhorrence in all who conduct themselves “in sincerity and in truth.” And it should also be a warning to all that we are be­ing extremely foolish if we are gullible enough to believe the Lord would ever favor an “unkind and unfair” person with any advancing truth. He himself is now revolu­tionizing against the clear and direct teachings of That Servant, and against the teachings of Brother Johnson, all the while he is accusing those who have not thus revolutionized of making “False Claims.”

Let us now notice Rev. 11:15-17, some of which we offer with the Berean Com­ments: “Great voices.... The widespread message of Present Truth.... particularly distributed in 1902.” “And hast reigned.... In a sense from 1878; actually from 1914.”

Be it noted that this language “hast reigned” is in the past tense – just as it is past tense in the Diaglott of Rev. 19:6. Let RGJ fit this into his “past tense” comments on Rev. 19:8 – if he can!

THE ROBE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

And as respects the “robe of righteousness,” he again quotes Brother Russell on p. 68, col. 2, par. 1: “It became a permanent gift from the Bridegroom to as many as accepted the invitation to union with Him.” Why then so much uproar about Rev. 19:8? “The fine linen represents the righteous acts of the saints.” Would he tell us the saints have not performed “righteous acts” during the time of their earthly sojourn – during the time the “fine linen” was theirs only through imputation? The only difference between the “fine linen” in the flesh and the “fine linen” in Glory is that the present fine linen is imputed to them; whereas, in Glory they have it as their Own. But in either case, there is no difference in the “fine linen,” because the fine linen imputed to them is the actual fine linen of their glorified Lord.

At the bottom of col. 2, p. 69, RGJ says: “Evidently they (those who do not accept his teaching re the last saint—JJH) are cutting themselves off from among all (italics RGJ’s) God’s servants, and are no longer among those who reverence Him above all else.” That is a very strong charge: “cutting themselves off...... and no longer among those who reverence Him above all else.” Is he telling us here there are none of “God’s servants” in the other Truth groups? None of those groups – not even any individuals, so far as we can learn – accept his edict. In this he is in exact alignment with Dark-Age Papacy, and with That Evil Servant, who said the same about those who did not agree with him. The Jehovah’s Witnesses – in harmony with RGJ – say the same about us, too. And in all this he once more displays the impu­dence and the hypocrisy of King Saul of Israel, who furnished us with the type of such crown-lost leaders as RGJ, when he describes those dissenters not in agreement with him as guilty of “self-will, self-exaltation, usurpation, pride, position and power grasping.” (Couldn’t he think of a few more high-sounding adjectives here? It sounds like a Papal Bull!) And once more we answer, “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee”!

2 TIM. 2:17-19, DIA.

Here we offer the words of St. Paul regarding a similar situation at the begin­ning of the Age: “The word of those men will eat like a mortifying sore; of whom are Hymenius and Philetus (crown-losers who had been abandoned to Azazel by St. Paul – See 1 Tim. 1:20); who missed the mark with respect to the Truth, saying that the RESURRECTION has already happened (the First Resurrection as regards the Saints who had died previously); and they are perverting the faith of some. However, the firm foundation of God stands, having this inscription, The Lord knoweth those that are His; Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”

Much the same condition prevails now at the end of the Age, the only difference being that Levites abandoned to Azazel were insisting the First Resurrection had al­ready begun, whereas, here now in the end of the Age these Levites are declaring it is fully completed. Both, however, “missed the mark with respect to the Truth” on the subject, having also “missed the mark” with respect to their own standing in the High Calling. It seems that “missing the mark” is a common malady with the crown-losers.

And we would now offer the same counsel as did St. Paul: “Let every one who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity” – let them cease accusing brethren of resorting to “false claims,” brethren whose only failing (according to their charges), so far as they know, is their conviction that they have not “missed the mark with respect to the Truth” on the First Resurrection. We would say to all such: Determine for yourselves whether you wish to accept the teaching of That Servant, who has told us this message is due AFTER BABYLON FALLS, or whether you now wish to ac­cept the word of one abandoned to Azazel (as were those two in St. Paul’s day), who is now saying this teaching by Brother Russell is a “false claim.” And bear in mind, too, that all are as guilty as RGJ who support him in this – even though they may not openly join with him his evils.

Let us stress once more that the only Scriptural rule, or standard, for recog­nizing crown-losers is by their gross and persistent revolutionism. It would not be in harmony with God’s character to permit any one to denounce others as crown-­losers because of their human frailties, etc.; nor does the Bible give the slightest hint that there would be a blanket manifestation in one 24-hour day of all crown-losers here in the end of the Age. There will come a time when the remaining crown-losers will recognize themselves as such. They will discern that the “harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.” (Jer. 8:20) That time is yet future! But there is no hint or indication in the Scriptures that they will recognize themselves as such the very day it became “past.” The “signs of the times” will manifest it so unmistakably that all new creatures will then recognize themselves as such. And the Epiphany Messenger so taught – he thought those signs (Armageddon and Anarchy) would be here by 1956, at which time all crown-losers would be in “present truth.” Bro. Johnson was very pronounced in emphasizing this Scriptural rule for recognizing crown-losers – by their manifesting themselves as such by Gross and Persistent Revo­lutionism of the Truth or its Arrangements, or both. Any who have received this Epiphany Truth and now grossly and persistently revolutionize against it, and pro­nounce “dire consequences” upon those who do not likewise revolutionize, are guilty of God-forbidden “judging”; and, as is so often the case with such errorists, they themselves face the “dire consequences” they mistakenly direct toward their erstwhile brethren.

Again we quote Isa. 66:5: “Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.” (See E-4:87 and 155; E-6:280 – “the mouthpiece priests are crucified ‘without the gate,’ both in great and in little Babylon.” Also, E-6:527)

“He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

THE CHICAGO CONVENTION

The usual turmoil again – confusion, Babylon extreme. One speaker stressed there is no discord, no disharmony among them. All are in perfect harmony on the Epiphany Truth, with Brother Jolly as the Lord’s appointed leader. Even RGJ him­self saw the weakness of this statement, and attempted to “make amends” in his sub­sequent remarks – although the attempt on his part made only more glaring the folly of his predecessor on the platform. In fact, it was suggested to us that we offer a question for Sunday morning requesting RGJ to take a hand vote of those present to learn if they are all a “unity” in their belief of his Campers Consecrated. Rather, we decided simply to record the incident with the suggestion that RGJ himself take such an accounting at his next Labor Day Convention – and also at the next Chicago Convention.

RGJ also complained about the “chronic faultfinders,” who even fault him when he quotes Brother Russell. The only times we have ever found such fault with him was when he used an earlier opinion that Brother Russell later corrected himself ­or when he quotes Brother Russell to support his error, even injects some of his own errors into it – when the citations do not support him; they often directly contradict him. And we now stress again that this is simply proof that he has lost the “oil in his lamp” – the spirit of understanding on Present Truth. If RGJ should now quote Brother Russell that the Church has been under the New Coven­ant, we would certainly “find fault” with that. And, if he should quote Brother Russell that the Gentile nations would be removed and the Kingdom fully established by 1915, we would certainly “find fault” with that!

All of this, of course, is a desperate effort on his part to minimize the crushing refutations we have given his many errors; and we now state that the Bible itself is a chronic “faultfinder” against the crown-losers – the “children of diso­bedience.” Brother Russell was a “chronic faultfinder” against the same class; Brother Johnson was a “chronic faultfinder” against the same class. Let us not for­get that St. Paul in Heb. 12:16,17 describes this class as “profane persons”; yet, if we but repeat St. Paul’s words, the cry immediately emerges – “chronic faultfinder”! (Please see Heb. 12:16,17, Dia., and E-6, bottom and top of p. 447; also 1 Tim. 1:9; 2 John 8)

Along this same line, there was quite some-profuse testimony about a Sister recently departed who had been in the Truth since about 1908, and “fully faithful” all her life. That would mean, of course, that she was of the Little Flock. Yet these same people give us the double-talk that Brother Johnson was the last of the “fully faithful” – and now gone some eighteen years. Of course, it is seldom that the disciple rises above his lord. And, as Brother Johnson so well put it – Those who fall into Azazel’s clutches talk all sorts of nonsense. Thus, it should not sur­prise us at all that those who are persuaded by RGJ’s nonsense would also talk the same sort of nonsense.

We realize that these dear brethren (we regard them as “brethren,” even though they do not so regard us!) mean well – that they may have unwittingly spoken the truth about the departed Sister. Most of us know it was Brother Johnson’s opinion that many of those who embraced the Truth during the 1908-1911 sifting continued steadfast unto the end. But to those of our brethren who now read this, it is our fond hope they will be better persuaded, and will recognize the confusion worse con­founded into which their leader has inveigled them, when he revolutionized against the clear Epiphany teaching that it is only by gross and persistent revolutionism that the Great Company manifest themselves as such – none of us ‘manifest’ them as crown-losers; and it is also our hope and prayer that RGJ’s partisan supporters will cease and desist from this God-forbidden judging. If we allow ourselves to be inveigled into such revolutionism – a position that God gives to no man – then the Lord Himself will manifest His displeasure of such people by sending them “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11), as He has indeed been doing since Brother Johnson’s demise.

In the Question Meeting RGJ again emphasized his errors on Campers Consecrated, etc., and stressed Leviticus 12 as “proof” that the Youthful Worthy call ended in 1954. However, there is not the slightest hint in this type that it includes the Youthful Worthies; it is exclusively a recitation of New Creatures – the Little Flock and Great Company developing Truths from 1874 to 1954. And for him now to attempt such an interpolation is exactly the same technique employed by Trinitarians, who “added” Scripture to “prove” their error.. It should be noted that Brother Johnson does not even mention the Youthful Worthies in his interpretation of Leviticus 12 in Volume 4.

He offered a similar contortion on Heb. 2:15: “Deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” Some one asked who these people are. RGJ said primarily the Great Company; but it could also include the Little Flock, Youthful Worthies and his Campers Consecrated. A look at the Berean Comment will readily persuade any one that Brother Russell could not possibly have included any of the Fully Faithful (those who kept their sacrifice upon the altar) in his interpretation. The “fear” St. Paul mentions in the text is fear of the sacrificial death (the result of which produces their fleshly minds), which “fear” is the direct cause for losing one’s crown. Thus, it is a gross insult to the faithful Little Flock to include them with the crown-losers in this text; and RGJ’s attempt to do so is just one more revolutionism against Parousia and Epiphany Truth – that Truth he brazenly contends that only he and his kind have “not revolutionized against, but, on the contrary, have defended and still defend both in their fullness.” (See 1968 PT, p. 62, col. 2, par. (2). Just as with Leviticus 12, he now reads something into the text that isn’t there at all. Of course, Azazel means Perverter; so it should not surprise us to see one abandoned to Azazel repeatedly perverting Parousia and Epiphany Truth, even as he contends he is upholding it. Much the same has been done by those who have tampered with the Bible, even while loudly and emphatically contending that they “believe the Bible from cover to cover.” Is it any wonder St. Paul labels such crown-losers as “profane” persons!

Inasmuch as there is no laver in the Camp, some one wanted to know how RGJ’s Campers Consecrated receive their cleansing. His answer: By looking at the linen curtain! This is the same linen curtain, of course, that the faithful all during the Age – including the Epiphany – have been holding up, concerning which Brother Russell explained it is a “,wall of faith” to those within, and a “wall of unbelief” to those without. Thus, he now has his Campers receiving their cleansing by merely gazing at the linen curtain. So we would ask, do the residents of the Court secure their cleansing merely by gazing at the laver there? RGJ also said that the laver is not now being removed from the Court to the Camp, nor will it be all during the Kingdom. We fully agree with this, and would also state that a “narrow way” is not being opened up in the Camp, nor will a “narrow way” be opened up for Restitu­tionists all during the Kingdom. The laver types the Old and New Testament – the Bible. The Bible is primarily for the elect, although describes the non-elect. The promises in the Old and New Testaments are to enable the elect to walk a “narrow way.” When the Kingdom is fully established, and the New Covenant inaugurated, another Book will be opened – a book that will enable the Restitutionists to walk up the Highway of Holiness.

In answer to another question – the Resurrection of the Just and the Unjust, RGJ said that his Campers Consecrated would have the Resurrection of the Just! When we differentiate between the resurrection of the just and the unjust, the resurrection of the just is instantaneous, and the resurrection of the unjust, grad­ually, by Judgments. The Just is rewarded in their resurrection; the unjust includes all the Restitutionists as they gradually become actually justified – perfect in mind and body. The Ancient and Youthful Worthies receive the “better resurrection” (made perfect in body), which is specifically stated in Hebrews 11. He offers the same kind of confusion regarding the Book of Life when he says his Campers Consecrated are now inscribing their names in the Book of Life. Their Book of Life is not even opened! We will have more to say about the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust in a future writing.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me; seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. As they were increased, so they sinned against me; therefore will I change their glory into shame. They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity. And they shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings.” (Hosea 4:6-9)

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

The October paper is received, and it is so wonderful! Sister ------- and I discussed it for a long while...... the tabernacle and His Temple..... See Manna texts for Feb. 7 and 9; the Plan of the Ages, pp. 79-8 and 141; the New Creation, pp. 461 and 464.

We here are praying for you. May God bless you more and more! Please let me hear from you. God bless you and Sister Hoefle and all the others. May God bless you all! “Sweet is the work, my God, my King – to praise thy Name and give thanks and sing.” Hymns 275, 23, 309 and 315.

Your brother ------- (TRINIDAD)

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

Dear Brother: Greetings in His dear Name!

It was nice hearing from you and we look forward to seeing you another time, if it be God’s will. I am enclosing a check for the Lord’s work and ask God’s special blessing upon you, as you seek to serve Him day by day.

Will you please send me about 200 copies of What Is the Soul, and Where Are the Dead?

We saw the ......... the first Sunday of the month and enjoyed studying together. ........ Let us pray we will be faithful, come what may.

With Christian love, sister -------. (CONNECTICUT)

PS – Dear Brother & Sister, Amen to all of the above and God bless you! – Sr. -------

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

I received your very welcome letter with the Convention program, which I greatly appreciate – also your comments. You may be sure that I am anxiously awaiting your comments of the Conven­tion, which I know will be thorough. We are very fortunate that we have such a good reporter who gives the facts, and very critical as to errors and perversions of the Truth – and to find one who is still loyal to the Epiphany Truth as we originally received it.

We have been quite busy this summer and are quite well. We had a hot and wet summer.....

Hoping this finds all of you in the best of health and that you will be able to attend the Chicago Convention also.

With much Christian love, Brother ------- (MICHIGAN)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied!

I trust that these few lines meet you and yours basking in the sunshine of the Master’s bounteous Providence. Let me now hasten to solicit your pardon for not sending until now the dues for books received. The plan upon which we agreed has up to now proven to be inconvenient for use.......

We over here are trying to forge ahead as best we can, and do thank the Lord for His wonderful and timely supply of “meat in due season” through you, our dear Brother. We, I am sure, would be at an entire loss for words with which we could express our appreciation of the numerous manifestations of your unstinted kindness and love for and toward us. My sincerest wishes – also those of Sister ------- go out for the continued growth in spiritual and temporal good health of yourself, Sister Hoefle, and the friends your way. I remain,

Your brother in the faith ------- ­(TRINIDAD)

NO. 161: THE JULY-AUGUST 1968 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 161

On p. 61 is set forth an attempted explanation of some “Prophecies Concerning Benjamin,” which betray the confused condition of the Editor’s mind, along with a very limited ability in spiritual discernment, as well as some self‑evident rank dishonesty. And he labels such statements as these from us as “disparaging the Good Levites, speaking all manner of evil against them falsely,” etc. This statement by him is a fit companion for one made by J. F. Rutherford, when he wrote to us that “Paul S. L. Johnson is vilifying me.”

There is quite some elaboration of the virtues of “good Levites”; but he says nothing about good Levites who become “Bad Levites.” Nor does he mention the disputations of the “good Levites” with the Lord’s Mouthpiece. This is akin to the second deathers who quote texts concerning themselves when they were saints, and of the Roman Church applying Scriptures to themselves that actually condemn instead of supporting and lauding them in their present reprobate state. Any one with even a smattering of Epiphany Truth knows that good Levites become manifested as bad Levites when they revolutionize against truths they once proclaimed correctly.

It is stated in col. 1, par. 4, that an attempt is made “to ascribe evil characteristics to an antitype (Benjamin) where none are indicated”; and on p. 62, col. 1, bottom, there is the further comment that Benjamin was “indeed especially loved and favored of God.” And in col. 2, par. 4, “Typical Benjamin enjoyed God’s special protection even to the very end of the Jewish Age.” Here is simply a duplication of Levitical attempts all during the Age to analyze Scripture by using only a part of the pertinent texts – that part that particularly seemed adapted to their errors, the same resulting in Babylon – confusion. In Judges 19‑21 we have the record of Benjamin as the chief culprit in what is probably the most reprehensible crime of the entire Old Testament, wherein the Lord not only did not give Benjamin “special protection” – as RGJ so emphatically states – but He actually instructed their own Jewish brethren to go up against them (20:28); and verse 35 declares, “the Lord smote Benjamin before Israel.” Thus, the statement that “Benjamin enjoyed God’s special protection even to the very end of the Jewish Age” is nothing more than impudent falsehood. Be it remembered that because of the great slaughter inflicted upon Benjamin by their own Jewish brethren there that Benjamin was thereafter the very most diminutive tribe of all Israel; they were almost exterminated because of their sin then.

SAUL AND JONATHAN

Much the same conclusion may be drawn by RGJ’s attempt on p. 61, col. 2, par. 3, to laud Saul of Benjamin and his son Jonathan as “mighty warriors, making prey of their enemies.” This commendation was true of them only up to the time that Saul “rebelled” (typical of present‑day Levitical revolutionism against the Truth), after which time one failure after another overtook them until their enemies eventually made “prey” of them. (See 1 Sam. 31:4‑6) They came to an ignominious and humiliating end. This is so graphically expressed by David in 2 Sam. 1:25: “How are the mighty fallen!” Certainly, any one with even a smattering of Present Truth knows that both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were very pronounced in exposing the evils of antitypical Benjamin; and much of what we have written is simply quotations from them. Thus, we have often repeated that Saul is a type of the crown‑lost leaders (a part of antitypical Benjamin) until Armageddon, when he will be slain as such – although not necessarily to a completion physically. However, those of them that do survive the Armageddon cudgeling will then be cleansed from their present evils – prepared to perform a fruitful ministry as a result of that cleansing. And this includes RGJ himself – although he makes strenuous effort to exalt himself as a cleansed Levite now. But, when that time comes, his readers will then know just how much credence they should have placed in his present praise of antitypical Benjamin. (1 Sam. 31:1‑6)

With such glaring contradictions so clearly in the record, it seems unbelievable that the Present Truth Editor would be so crass as to offer illustrations that in the ultimate actually completely condemn him and his kind. It is an identical twin to JFR’s course. As all of us know, he, too, performed valiant service under the benign leadership of Brother Russell – just as did RGJ under the faithful guidance of Brother Johnson – notwithstanding his disputations and revolutionisms even then. With the both of them, it was only after their abandonment to Azazel – through their separation from the faithful priesthood – that they plunged headlong into vitiation of truth and righteousness. Indeed, half truths such as RGJ presents are often more misleading than whole errors. An impartial appraisal – a fully comprehensive appraisal of this situation is to be found in E‑15:519, 520:

“As we saw that there was a progress from good to a mixture of good and evil in their dispositions, the good being the Holy Spirit in them, while they were measurably unfaithful, so there is a progress in their condition of being very unfaithful; for it degenerates into varying degrees of a preponderance of the evil mind over the good mind in the worst of them, and in the preponderance of the good mind over the evil mind in a comparatively few of them – those who almost, but not quite won out in the high calling; and in some it is more or less a case of half of one and half of the other, with considerable of see‑sawing between them. Yet a double mind is in all of them, as St. James assures us: ‘A double minded man is unstable in all his ways’ (Jas. 1:8), with very much of variation in the double‑mindedness in the individuals, even as we saw above....Always they either set aside in revolutionism more or less of the teachings of the Bible and more or less of the arrangements that God has given for His work, or they partisanly support others who become guilty as leaders or ledlings of those two forms of rebellion. Whenever a company of them form a group, they become partisan sectarians: and their leaders always grasp for power and lord it over God’s heritage (1 Pet. 5:3), becoming guilty of love for money, influence, honor from men and leadership. (Note the very clear application of this to RGJ himself in E‑10, p. 585, top and p. 646, top – the very book from which RGJ quotes to laud antitypical Benjamin – JJH)....With all of this they increasingly lose part of their ability to discern between truth and error (also clearly true about RGJ and true in principal of those Youthful Worthies that succumb to his perversions of teaching and arrangements – JJH).

And the resentment of all of them at our repeated quotations similar to the above is clearly explained by Jesus Himself: “Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (John 3:20, 21)

However, it is certainly a pertinent observation here that all during this Age there has been a very close affinity between the sons of antitypical Rachel. This is so clearly shown in 1 Sam. 18:1: “The soul of Jonathan (typical of Gospel‑Age crown‑losers) was knit with the soul of David (type of Gospel‑Age Little Flock), and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” This is further confirmed in 2 Sam. 1:26 in the words of David after Jonathan’s death: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Thus, the Little Flock often has admired the good qualities of antitypical Benjamin with such fervency that they either failed to take note of their evils, or overlooked them with a generous indulgence. But this is no indication that their attitude was the right one, or that God viewed them similarly.

REBELLION IS ALWAYS THE SIN OF WITCHCRAFT

Then there is an attempt to disparage Youthful Worthies who oppose his revolutionisms by referring to Epiphany Vol. 4, pp. 446‑447. Certainly no Youthful Worthy should conclude he has any part of leading Azazel’s Goat to the Gate and deliverance to the fit man, which Brother Johnson is there discussing; but here again RGJ is offering another half truth. Should Youthful Worthies be gentle in reproving murderers, slanderers (murderers of a brother’s reputation – see Manna Comment for July 14), congenital liars, etc.? Brother Russell explained this situation very clearly when he said there are times it would be wrong not to have righteous indignation, and to show it. Brother Johnson himself was not nearly so drastic with JFR before he realized he had gone the way of Cain and Judas, after which he became more severe with him. And it certainly needs no qualification when we say it is right and proper for any worldling to resist evil toward himself and others, even if it is committed by the “Good Levites” – the Measurably Faithful. God Himself is against all evil, and approves of those who do likewise – whether those in His Household or others. Note the case of Pharaoh re Abraham – Gen. 12:14‑20. Certainly, God does not approve of the evils that the Measurably Faithful commit! RGJ’s tendency is much the same as some of the worldlings today: Pity the poor criminal, and denounce the innocent for wanting him brought to justice – denounce good principles!

That the Youthful Worthies should be positive in their stand against all evil is clearly confirmed in E‑15:532:

“St. Paul gives the testimony as to all the Ancient Worthies, that they wrought righteousness and exercised faith (Heb. 11:1, 2, 33), and in principle these passages apply to the Youthful Worthies. Hence it is a Biblical teaching that the Ancient and Youthful Worthies have that part of the Holy Spirit, God’s disposition, that is the will to do God’s will....consecration to righteousness....the consecration of sanctification...the will that wills God’s will sacrificially. In other words, so far as consecration is concerned, they make the same consecration as the Little Flock ..... their attitude is the same.”

Thus, it is their duty to reprove for sin, for righteousness, and for judgment (John. 16:8‑11). It is indeed a matter for weeping as we observe RGJ crying that he is being treated too severely for his violations of truth and righteousness. “Don’t do that,” says he, “because I am a higher class than you are” – even as his repeated perversions scream to high Heaven that his behavior is often of a much lower class. When the Ancient Worthies exposed and reproved the corrupt priesthood, their ‘higher class’ was often emphasized. “The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” (Jer. 5:31) “Answerest thou the high priest so?” (John 18:22)

In the face of this, and much more, RGJ is brazen enough to declare that “the Good Levites are the only group that has not revolutionized against Parousia and Epiphany Truth, but, on the contrary, has defended and still defends both in their fulness.” (p. 62, col. 2) Here are some of the fundamental Parousia and Epiphany Truths against which RGJ and his ledlings have revolutionized:

(1) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the Scriptural teaching of Six Saved Classes only from among mankind as set out in Joel 2:28, 29 (see Epiphany Vol. Four, pp. 319‑320). RGJ now has Seven Saved Classes from among mankind – a clear revolutionism against Epiphany Truth.

(2) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the Epiphany Truth on the Abandonment process for Azazel’s Goat (the Great Company) as set out in Epiphany Vol. 15, p. 525, and other places. RGJ now teaches that it isn’t necessary for the “Good Levites” (that is, he and those with him in this revolutionism in the LHMM)) to be fully abandoned to Azazel – that is, to have all brotherly fellowship and favor of the Priesthood withdrawn from them before their cleansing can be effected (which includes all restraining influence of the Star Members such as was removed from JFR after the death of That Servant, after which he openly revolutionized against the Truth and its Arrangements – and offered “strange fire” – especially in his newly invented class of Jonadabs – before the Lord). RGJ has also revolutionized against the Truth (having revolutionized against the Arrangements during the Epiphany Messenger’s ministry), and has offered “strange fire” – especially in his newly‑invented Campers Consecrated Class, after the death of the Epiphany Messenger. He does all this in the face of the Epiphany Messenger’s clear teaching that ALL OF THEM – the good, the bad and the in between, including those who lost Little Flockship by the ‘skin of their teeth’ – would have to experience full abandonment to Azazel before their cleansing could be effected. RGJ now disputes and revolutionizes against this truth as he tells us he and his kinsmen in the LHMM don’t have to have this process.

(3) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the Star Members’ teaching on Tentative Justification in the Court only. RGJ now has Tentative Justification in the Camp also, to accommodate his Campers – a direct contradiction of both Parousia and Epiphany Messenger. In his denial completely of tentative justification, JFR was forced to move the place of consecration in the Tabernacle picture from the door of the Tabernacle to the Gate; but RGJ now goes him even one better: He removes consecration from the Court altogether, and has it floating about somewhere in the Camp just where he has never made clear. As we have so often stressed, of the Gospel‑Age, the Epiphany and the Millennial Tabernacles, ONLY ONE operates at a time. Let RGJ state which one is operating now, and the confusion of his ‘justification in the Camp’ then will become glaringly apparent.

(4) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the teaching that the Camp contains the unconsecrated. RGJ now teaches consecration is available for his Campers – a direct revolutionism against both Parousia and Epiphany Truth.

(5) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against Parousia and Epiphany Truth regarding the Laver. Both Messengers taught that the Laver is indispensable for the Tentatively Justified and the Consecrated. He has his Campers “consecrated” in the Camp without the benefit of this indispensable Laver.

(6) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against Epiphany Truth that Revolutionism against the Truth or its Arrangements) gross and persistent), or both, is the ONLY yardstick for recognizing new creatures as crown‑losers. RGJ now teaches that all new creatures are crown‑losers whether they have revolutionized against any Truth or its Arrangements or not (Truths and Arrangements they once accepted and upheld).

(7) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the Epiphany teaching on Lev. 12 claims to have produced Great Company developing truth now – 14 years after the 80 day (year) period is over. We shouldn’t be too surprised to see him offer some Little Flock developing Truth one of these days – that is, if he doesn’t extricate himself from the clutches of Azazel. Any of the brethren who have received Parousia and Epiphany Truth in a “good and honest heart” will be able to recognize these perversions, distortions, and repudiations as gross and persistent revolutionisms against the Truth. Only those who have been in a leprous house and become contaminated with leprosy cannot “discern between good and evil” – between adherence to the Truth and revolutionism against the Truth.

(8) – Have Rebelled (Revolutionized) against the clear teaching of Epiphany Vol. 1, p. 115, bottom, 116, top “God’s love toward Israel helped the faithful among them to qualify for Ancient Worthies and helped the measurably faithful among them to be fit for the first place among the world of mankind in the Restitution Age.” RGJ now has his Campers Consecrated scheduled for the “first place” among Restitutionists – just as the Jehovah’s Witnesses also displace the Jews from “first place” to supplant them with their “large crowd.”

With such revolutionisms so glaringly apparent, RGJ’s claim to adherence to the Parousia and Epiphany truth is akin to the bombast of the Papacy in claiming strict adherence to the teachings of St. Peter, and to the effervescent claims of other groups who also avow adherence to the teachings of That Servant. All of which finds placement in Solomon’s denunciation of the brazen harlot – “she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness” (Prov. 30:20).

As a final observation on RGJ’s loose and irresponsible teachings, note his statement on p. 56, col. 1, par. 3: “Who shall be able to stand?” He applies this text (Mal. 3:2) here to the fifth Parousia sifting; and then at the bottom of col. 2 (same page), he says, “The reference clearly applies to this Epiphany period.” All instructed in Epiphany Truth know that “Who may abide the day of His coming” is the part of this text that applies to the Parousia ONLY; and the Epiphany Messenger was very emphatic in his time application of the two parts of this text. This text in both parts applies to new creatures. In the Parousia it was a matter of whether they “abide” as new creatures, or go the way of Judas as did the ransom‑deniers, et al, of the Parousia. In the Epiphany it is “Who shall be able to stand?” – continue in the Little Flock standing during this separation time, this manifesting time. And how do we recognize those who fall – the crown‑loser who do not ‘stand’ (those who revolutionize against the Truth and its Arrangements – one or both)? It is gross and persistent revolutionism that separates the crown‑retainers from the crown‑losers.

Now RGJ has admitted that his revolutionism against the arrangements under the benign leadership of the Epiphany Messenger, was gross and persistent. Since the Epiphany Messenger’s demise – at a time when he had lost the brotherly fellowship and favor of the Priesthood, and his complete abandonment to Azazel, he has revolutionized against the Truths which we have enumerated in this paper – although it isn’t clear in the case of Mal. 3:2 whether he is in this instance revolutionizing against this Epiphany Truth, or if he is simply so befuddled by Azazel that he unwittingly contradicts himself right on the same page of his magazine. Truly, those who fall into the clutches of Azazel offer all sorts of nonsense in their writings and teachings. In fact, he is in a very poor position now to use that Epiphany section, because he claims there are none at all left on earth who have been “able to stand”: He says such are all gone from the earth.

“I will also praise thee with the psalter, even thy truth, O my God; unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel. My tongue also shall talk of thy righteousness all the day long: for they are confounded, for they are brought unto shame, that seek my hurt.” (Psa. 71;22, 24)

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – On p. 389 of the July 1, 1968 Watch Tower the question is asked, “Is your religion the true one?” Then they make the statement, “The test is a relatively easy one to make.” Is it easy to “discern between truth and error” in religious teachings?

ANSWER: – There is plenty of Scripture to dispute that statement. In 2 Pet. 3:16 it is said that the Apostle Paul had written “some things hard to under stand, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest.” And in Psa. 97:11 it is written, “Light (truth) is sown for the righteous.” The inference here is clear enough that the Truth is not sown for the unrighteous; and the Manna comment for June 19 has this: “It is God’s provision to open the eyes of understanding of those only whose hearts are in sympathy with righteous principles. To others the Truth would be an injury.” In support of this we have the words of Jesus in Mark 4:11, 12: “Unto you (the Disciples) it is given to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God: but unto them that are without (the unrighteous, the unstable and the unlearned), all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” Of course, elementary truth can be understood by the good worldlings – those who are seeking to live in harmony with good principles. But, the Apostle Paul tells us that “Strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” (Heb. 5:14) Self‑evidently, the “test” is not relatively easy for any except those who are of “full age.”

God put the secrets in the Bible in so hidden a manner that none could understand them except by a special act of God’s enlightening grace, which He has withheld from all except from those to whom He wished to reveal Himself – the faith class. It is for this reason that the Bible in large part is simply unintelligible to any but the fully faithful – and that as due. This St. Paul makes very clear in 1 Cor. 2:7‑14. Truly he could say, “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery” – in a secret way.

The Witnesses themselves offer ample contradiction to their contention in this instance, because they make radical changes from year to year in their own understanding of the Scriptures – so much so that they now offer direct contradiction to very many things they presented as the Truth in years past. Thus, if we should admit that they now have the Truth, it would readily follow that it has not been “relatively easy” for them themselves to find that Truth. And of those who are now their devoted “dedicated” devotees, how many do we meet that know their own teachings today, and can “give to every man a reason for the hope” they cherish.

Their thought is the same as that held by the Editor of the Present Truth, although he does limit his contention that the Truth is for all the consecrated. But even this is clearly contradicted by 2 Thes. 2 11, “Because they received not the love of the Truth ..... God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” – not the Truth, but a lie! His “strong delusion” that we are already fourteen years into the Basileia, and that this is a parallel to the 25‑months overlapping of the Parousia into the Epiphany (Sept. 1914 to October 1916), is perhaps the foundation “strong delusion” for most of his other “strong delusions.” As all Truth people know, the Laver in the Court of the Tabernacle types the Bible; and, as the typical priests in Israel washed at the Laver, so the Gospel‑Age people of God wash in the antitypical Laver, the Bible. Yet he now places his consecrated Truth seekers in the Camp, where there is no Laver, no chance for them to wash. And just how much Truth should we expect his consecrated Campers to see when they do not even have access to the antitypical Laver in the Court:

It might be well to remember here that all systems of error have some truth in them; otherwise, nobody would believe them. And the Watch Tower article under dis­cussion has many items of truth, as they sandwich in their error that it is “relatively easy” to understand the most intricate of all books, the Bible. And the Present Truth magazine also has much Truth in it to embellish the errors it contains. St. Paul tells us in Eph. 2:19 20: “Ye (the true Church) are of the Household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets (the specially enlightened leaders of the Gospel Age).” Without the help of these guiding lights, it would be impossible for the ordinary seeker to gain more than a smattering of that knowledge that “maketh wise unto salvation.” “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” (Rom. 10:14, 15) Nor would so many people be in gross darkness if we didn’t have false teachers: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2 Pet. 2:1‑2)

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Mr. Hoefle:

I send you a study which I published in the U.S. several years ago – about a subject you wrote about in your No. 158. I hope to publish a book about Evangelical Churches and their attitude toward Zionism, and shall use your material in re-editing my chapter about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Sincerely yours, Dr. ------- (JERUSALEM)

Answer to above:

Dear Doctor ------- Christian greetings!

Your note of June 20 just arrived, so I hasten to assure you that you are free to use anything I have written. Also, it will be my pleasure to assist you further in any way I can with your new book, of which I would like a copy when you have it ready.

The Reprint you enclose is quite interesting, although I am intimately familiar with much it contains. To inform you somewhat about myself: As a youth I was confirmed into the Lutheran Church, but it was not until I read Pastor Russell’s Scripture Studies that I became an active Christian. At that time I was quite in harmony with the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society (now Jehovah’s Witnesses). I attended those two Cedar Point Conventions mentioned in your Reprint; I was energetic in circulating the petitions (on which we eventually secured more than a million names – a volume large enough to fill an ordinary rail freight car) in 1919, which resulted in Rutherford and his seven associates being released from Atlanta Penitentiary, to which they had been sent in 1918. About 1920 Rutherford proposed that I become his personal secretary, which I have since been very grateful I did not accept, as his multitudinous departures from the teachings of Pastor Russell were soon to make their appearance a fact which caused me to leave the Witnesses about 1923.

About that time I became closely associated with Pastor Paul S. L. Johnson (a Christianized Jew, about whom I have written you briefly in the past), and I continued that relationship until his death in 1950. His publishing name was Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, of which R. G. Jolly became the guiding officer after Pastor Johnson’s death. He has also followed the course of Rutherford in forsaking the teachings of Pastor Russell, although not nearly to the same extreme degree. Enough so, however, that I was forced to make an open break with him in 1955 – which distressed me much, as I had provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Pastor Johnson in the work he did. I conducted his funeral; and, so far as I know, his group was the only one of the many schisms that developed after Pastor Russell’s death that strictly adhered to the latter’s teachings – a course I now try to follow scrupulously, with the exception of the time features of those prophetic observations that time has clearly proven to be wrong. However, it is still my firm belief that we are in “the time of the end” (Dan. 12:4), exactly as Pastors Russell and Johnson taught, with the reservation that some of their expectations have not materialized at the dates they expected. It is good to note you seem to have such a good opinion of Pastor Russell, as he was truly a profound and honorable man.

Enclosed is one of my No. 133 – The Time of the End – which I hope you will find interesting, and I offer you my cordial good wishes for success with your coming book.

Sincerely your brother and servant, John J. Hoefle

……………………………………..

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

I was very glad to get your last letter – and I thought I could send you the additional names for your list. I find some of these people very liberal, and think they will read other views at least, although they are not too well established in Present Truth. I also enjoyed the July issue on the Epiphany – a very good answer to John W. Krewson. Only wish I had some names and addresses of his people. One that I know is Mrs.-------, and another Mr. and Mrs. -------

Brother and Sister ------- visited us a week ago Sunday ……. They said RGJ is going to have the Philadelphia Convention in a Baptist Church about a mile from the Bible House……. Said they didn’t have enough room in the Bible House – having only a small chapel in which used to be a big ball room in the residence.....

I will be anxiously awaiting the August issue on the Jewish Question. Personally, I do not expect a lot of results toward the Jews at the present time. I believe that the Jews will not accept Christ, or the Truth, until late in Jacob’s trouble. Here are a dozen, or more, of Jewish names for you to send the August paper to. I surely hope you will get some reaction from these brethren. Let me know.

With much Christian love, Brother ------- (MICHIGAN)

………………………………………

Dearly beloved of The Lord! May Grace and Peace be your continued portion.! Num. 6:24‑26

It was really very sweet of you to send us your message before we left for Ireland. Sister sent the message on to Beaumaris, and acquainted Brother ------- also with the message. Recently we had two Jehovah’s Witnesses call. We did not know them personally. Of course, they think we merit Second Death because we don’t believe their views. However, we had a good talk, and we trust they will remember some things. They are obsessed with their views, and their excuse for changing doctrines, etc., was – they are human! The brother was continually emphasizing the organization. He did not like being told that the Roman Church had a great organization. “Oh, don’t liken us to them!” he said. He made no comment about their memoralizing Jehovah and not the sacrifice of Jesus who died for our sins....

We will return around the 2nd or 3rd. Our united love to Sister and yourself also Sister Dunnagan and Sister Moynelo. God bless you all!

Your sincere brother ------- (ENGLAND)

……………………………………….

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace through our dear Redeemer!

Haven’t meant to be quite so long answering yours of the 15th. I am enclosing $‑‑‑‑ for the work. I have been rereading the 1967 papers, and they are so good! Just do not see how any one can think differently on the “end” in 1 Cor. 15:20‑25. You make it plain enough for any one. One would have to be blind not to see it. Surely even Jolly sees it now.

With much love and prayers, ------- (KANSAS)

NO. 160: "A VOICE OUT OF THE TEMPLE"

No. 160

(Reprint of No. 22, June 1, 1957, with additions and revisions)

The caption for this treatise is taken from Rev. 16:1, the real thought of which would be better expressed by “A voice out of the Tabernacle.” To substantiate this conclusion it becomes necessary first of all to offer an analysis of Brother Russell’s Stewardship Doctrine, which we believe to be:

A correct understanding of the Atonement as portrayed in Leviticus 16, the central teaching of which is Restitution.

It should be noted that those Star Members who received special stewardship doctrines received them early in their ministry; quite often those doctrines were the cause of their leaving the religious group with whom they had been associated; and it was the teaching that provided stimulus throughout their entire ministry. For instance, Martin Luther was motivated by Romans 5:1 to break with the Catholic Church, because this text was a direct contradiction of the Catholic belief in justification by works, as opposed to St. Paul’s clear statement that it is justification by faith that brings “peace with God.” Luther’s primary objection, of course, was the sale of indulgences, the elimination of which he believed would at least start a cleansing of the Roman system; but it soon became clear to him – after his expulsion from that Church – that it was simply a surface malady, fed and encouraged by justification by works. Thus, his “justification by faith” almost automatically and very quickly be­came the antithesis of indulgences and their underlying evils.

While the doctrine of Restitution was not directly responsible for Bro. Russell’s leaving his “orthodox” surroundings, it was indeed indirectly responsible for his do­ing so. His very vitals rebelled at the teaching of eternal torment for the unsaved world; and this revulsion – much the same as Luther’s experiences with indulgences in turn drove him toward the proper explanation, which he received when the Atonement ­Day ritual was made clear to him in type and antitype. That the doctrine of Restitu­tion sparked Brother Russell’s entire ministry after receiving this Truth surely none will dispute. It is probable he never delivered a public discourse thereafter in which Restitution did not have a large and prominent place. And those who witnessed the Photo Drama will recall the oft–repeated expressions: “India needs Restitution; China needs Restitution,” etc., etc. We know, too, that his favorite Scripture was John 3:16, 17, the mainspring of which is also Restitution – “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And early in his ministry he urged the Pilgrims and the Bethel speakers to stress Restitution in their public discourses, as he him­self also did.

To avoid argument, it should be here stated that Brother Russell taught all the stewardship doctrines of the past, in addition to Restitution, although he had to remove many a rough spot from those doctrines – taints, impurities and distortions that had been attached to them by the crown–lost leaders of the past. When the Harvest arrived, the time also arrived to restore “the faith once delivered to the Saints” (Jude 3), so that the “Harp of God” would once more be attuned to its pristine harmonious melody. This Brother Russell accomplished with all the skill of the master artisan! With­out Restitution, the “Plan of the Ages” was an empty and unsatisfactory expression, a fact which was recognized by many great and good men of the past. Martin Luther’s fine mind and magnanimous heart rebelled against the fate of the unsaved as it had been taught to him by the Catholic Church; but in vain did he seek the answer. He knew full well of St. Peter’s teaching in Acts 4:12, “There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”; and he was ever prodded by the indisputable fact that untold millions had never heard that Name. “Somehow there must be a way after death for them to hear that name,” he said; but he had to admit he had no Scripture to substantiate him, and he could not explain how or what the process would be. John Wesley also chose to stress the love of God rather than the wrath of God; he also was too delicately formed to accept with good appetite the teaching of eternal torment – although he did admit to his belief in it, even though his sensitive and loving disposition caused him inner revulsions. Rather, he stressed “The spirit and the bride say, Come.” He could not then know he was more than two hundred years ahead of his time in using Rev. 22:17.

The struggles of these good and fully faithful men to reach a satisfying answer is well set forth by the parable of the lost coin in Luke 15:8–10; and Brother Rus­sell’s peace of mind at finding the answer is well stated in the words, “Rejoice with me, for I have found the piece which I had lost.” To make this teaching clear to all, we here itemize the “ten pieces of silver” (truth), the ten strings of the Harp of God: (1) the Creation – of Adam and Eve; (2) the Condemnation – the fall into sin; (3) the Law – given to Moses at Sinai; (4) the Ransom – the anti–lutron by Jesus; (5) the Resurrection – Jesus the first–born from the dead; (6) the High Calling – “a new and living way” (Heb. 10:20; (7) Justification; (8) Sanctification; (9) Restitution ­the sounding of the Jubilee trumpet (Lev. 25:9—See E–8, p. 659); (10) the Second Death.

But, just as preceding Star Members had their stewardship teachings perverted by the crown–lost leaders who followed them, so Azazel (the meaning of which is Perverter) immediately led the crown–lost leaders to pervert Brother Russell’s stewardship doc­trine of Restitution. This began in a mild way at first – not so much perversion in its early features, as it was failure to “Wait on the Lord.” That Evil Servant and his henchmen determined to “rush” Restitution with their “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” When time itself proved that teaching to be an abortion, they then pro­duced a real perversion – No restitution at all for Adam, or any who refuse now to accept their teachings! Just as the “Millions” teaching came early after the Star Member was gone, and was then only a mild perversion, so we are probably now seeing a repetition on a smaller scale in the teaching of the “quasi–elect consecrated” and Epiphany Campers Consecrated.

REVELATION 16

The foregoing elaboration is presented to prepare the explanation of why the temple in Rev. 16:1 is really the tabernacle. It is the same temple as described in Rev. 11:19 – “The temple (tabernacle) of God was opened (explained) in heaven (among the brethren in the heavenly places –Phil. 3:20), and there was seen in his temple (tabernacle) the ark of his covenant” – the ark representing in its chest the Christ, head and body, and in its mercy seat and two cherubim the four attributes of God, this latter being the explanation given in Tabernacle Shadows. In conversation with Brother Johnson, he told this writer several times that when he was having trouble in understanding the sin offering, and some things in the volumes, Brother Russell kept repeating to him: “But those volumes came out of Tabernacle Shadows.” From this we can readily see why Tabernacle Shadows was basic to the understanding of Parousia Truth – just as “Elijah and Elisha” is basic to Epiphany Truth. Thus, the “voice” out of the Tabernacle” was in reality the Seven Volumes of Scripture Studies given to the “seven angels” (God’s true Church in the Harvest time), with the instruction: “Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.” (Rev. 16:1) Therefore, we conclude Brother Russell’s stewardship doctrine to be as aforementioned, as it occupied a large place – a very large place – in Tabernacle Shadows; and we venture the opinion that, aside from the inspired writings, Tabernacle Shadows is the biggest little book ever published.

It should be noted here that it was not many years after Brother Russell’s death that Tabernacle Shadows was cast aside completely by those who took over his executive offices. And not many years after Brother Johnson’s death those who took over his executive office perverted some of the fundamental teachings of Tabernacle Shadows ­mainly by putting Justification in the Camp, outside the linen curtain of Christ’s righteousness, and without the cleansing access to the Laver, so vital to Justifica­tion of any kind in this Gospel Age.

And from this great little book, bearing Brother Russell’s stewardship doctrine, came the “seven vials of wrath” – better translated by the Diaglott as “seven bowls of wrath.” We say this is a better translation because it was mainly in their controver­sial features that the seven volumes “plagued” those whose errors they exposed. Bro. Johnson has ably explained in Epiphany Volume Eight that the bowls, chargers and spoons of Numbers 7 represent refutative, correctional and ethical teachings; thus, these bowls are the same as the “refuting” of 2 Tim. 3:16. And what is it we refute? We refute error! And it is the refutation of error that always arouses the antagonism of errorists. In these seven “bowls” there was much of corrective and ethical teach­ings, too; but these did not elicit the same savage reprisals as did the refutations of error. Even the members of antitypical Balaam (those who teach error for profit) agree that professing Christians should behave themselves – outwardly, at least.

It should be borne in mind that those mainly aroused by these refutations were the members of antitypical Saul and their ledlings; and a moderate analysis of their character will disclose why this was so – and still is so. Brother Russell says Saul “manifested considerable hypocrisy” (see Berean Comments on 1 Sam. 15:13); and his antitype is also not lacking in this “dis”grace. Nor were their prototypes lack­ing in it, as witness the words of Jesus, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” It should be noted that all of them are atrocious liars and that another of the root evils of hypocrisy is an overweening approbativeness. Note the words of 1 Sam. 15:17: “When thou–wast little in thine own sight.... the Lord anointed thee king over Israel”; but, having once reached the head of the crowd, he apparently became power–drunk with his own importance, and resorted to “rebellion (Revolutionism). And with such characters, the unforgivable sin that incites their hatred (Isa. 66:5, “Your brethren that hated you.”) is to parade their errors before the gaze of the mob. Therefore, the “bowls” that came out of Tabernacle Shadows were indeed “the wrath of God” to them. To such, Present Truth has always been a “savor of death unto death” (2 Cor. 2:16); whereas, to the Faithful it has ever been a “savor of life unto life.” The observation was appropriate in the Parousia concerning the members of antitypical Saul – as it is still appropriate concerning them: They know that we know that they know that they don’t know!

“And the first went, and poured out his bowl on the earth (organized Society), and there came an evil and malignant ulcer on those men having the mark of the beast, and on those worshipping his image.” Volume 1 was published in 1886, and truly it proved to be a “malignant ulcer” to antitypical Saul and his henchmen; it was a ‘hot penny’ – they could not hold it, and they were afraid to drop it. The stewardship doctrine of Restitution, with which Volume 1 is replete, made material for a “plan of ages,” the likes of which had not been known since the days of the Apostles; and it placed Restitution and eternal torment at opposite ends of the measure. It did in­deed “spoil the vines” for many a hell–fire evangelist! Also, Chapter 14 – The King­dom of God – made a shambles of the teaching that we now have Christendom – Christ’s Kingdom; and it showed the present order to be a far, far cry from “Thy will be done on earth.” Our Lord’s Return, The Permission of Evil, The Day of Judgment, etc., etc., all combined to make this “bowl” a “malignant ulcer” – “a savor of death unto death” to many members of antitypical Saul.

The second “bowl,” “The Time Is At Hand,” made its appearance in 1889; and the third, “Thy Kingdom Come” in 1891 – “and they became blood.” These “bowls” defined clearly “The Man of Sin” and his counterfeit Millennium as a direct contradiction to Restitution. About this time many of the more “cultured” of antitypical Saul were describing the Jewish sacrifices as blood, blood, blood – barbaric and out of place in Christianity; but these bowls pointed to the “better sacrifices” as fundamental and inseparable to Christianity, that “without shedding of blood there is no remission” of sins (Heb. 9:22), that the consummation of the better sacrifices provided the hope for Restitution, and the only hope for “Thy kingdom come.”

And the time features were indeed a powerful refutation of those who were loudly proclaiming “no man knoweth the day nor the hour”; and of those who were lustily singing, “When my work on earth is ended, and time shall be no more.” The second “bowl” demonstrated the correct translation of Rev. 10:6 to be, “The time shall be no longer delayed”; that is, the “time is at hand” for God, through the Christ, to carry out His promise of Restitution – that the time had arrived for the blessing of all the families of the earth. Many of us recall the opposition that came when “The Second Coming of Christ” was preached. As instance, the tale of one brother, long in the Truth: A Pilgrim was coming to a small town in Ohio to preach on the Second Coming; and the brother was trying to rally his neighbors to the meeting. Said one, “You know the Bible teaches no man knoweth the day nor the hour, and I think we ought to rotten-egg the fraud out of town when he gets here.” The brother, using considerable tact, said, “Well, come on, and bring your eggs; if he’s a fraud, I’ll help throw a few at him myself.” The Pilgrim gave a very masterful presentation, at the conclusion of which the brother went to the rostrum and said to his neighbor, “Well, Joe, you’ve now heard the man; do you want to start throwing your eggs?” The man had been most impressed, and his only answer was, “I guess not.”

It should be noted, too, that Volume 3 contained a moderate explanation of the Great Pyramid of Giza, showing from the prophetic statement of Isa. 19:19–22 that the “altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt” was indeed “a sign and a witness” to the great Plan of the Ages as contained in the Bible. Thus the pertinence of verse 7: “I heard another (angel) out of the altar” – in “the midst of the land of Egypt.” This truth, too, has been completely rejected by some, and distorted by others since Brother Russell’s death.

The fourth bowl appeared in 1897; and it certainly affirmed its title, “The Battle of Armageddon,” in that “power was given to scorch men with fire.” It pointed out the prevalent sins among rulers, clergy, aristocracy and labor; and was a true fulfillment of Jesus’ words in John 16:8–11: “When the Holy Spirit is come, it will reprove the world of sin (the wrongs they are committing), of righteousness (point out the right way to do), and of judgment” (warn them of the coming judgment, which in this instance was in its initial phase to be the “battle of the great day of God Almighty”). But, “as it was in the days of Noah,” they neither heeded nor wanted to hear that message – “repented not to give God glory.”

In 1899 came the fifth “bowl” poured out upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness (great portions of the beast’s teachings were proven to be error, superstition and tradition – the “precepts of men”); and they gnawed their tongues for pain” (v. 10). It should not cause much argument when we declare that Volume 5 was Brother Russell’s masterpiece. His analysis of the Holy Spirit, of Life Everlasting and Immortality, of the Trinity, The Soul, of Sheol–Hades–Gehenna, left his opponents “speechless.” Of a truth, “they gnawed their tongues with pain.” So clear and convincing were the presentations of the fifth “bowl” that many segments of the secular press gave it unstinted praise; although antitypical Saul and the lesser lights “repented not” (v. 11).

Then came the sixth “bowl” early in this century, which contained much less of controversial writings than the previous five had done. In fact, its title – “The New Creation” – is well in keeping with verse 12 – “that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared”; its purpose was to instruct the true church (kings of the east) in every good word and work. It was the “law,” the better way, to every one who is “of the truth.” And any one who knows and faithfully abides by the teachings of Volume 6 can be assured of the best of present possessions – “a good and honest heart.”

The seventh vial did not appear until 1917; and, as Brother Johnson so aptly stated, it appeared in a vile condition. It had been produced by uncleansed Levites a “rush” production, at the urging of That Evil Servant in his haste to “eat and drink with the drunken” (Levites drunken with error). However, as the seventh “bowl” (its controversial features), there was not too much fault to find with it, the reason for this being that the “bowl” portions of “The Finished Mystery” were almost completely paraphrase or exact quotation from the Star Member. It was the injection of their own ideas into what should have been a priestly production that brought those uncleansed Levites eventually to Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. They had run ahead of the Lord to publish the seventh vial; had published it in a vile condition; and the Lord rewarded them “according to their works” – by reducing them to durance vile (prison). In fact, the expression in verse 6 regarding Volume 3 is also emphatically pertinent here: “Thou gavest them also blood to drink (revulsive error); they deserve it.” (Dia.)

That Fit–Man experience had a salutary effect upon at least one of the eight who went to Atlanta: George Fisher, who wrote the Ezekiel comments of the Seventh Volume (which part Brother Johnson declared to be far superior to the Revelation part by Clayton Woodworth). Brother Fisher eventually saw “the Judge” in his true colors; and before his death he personally wrote to the writer of this article: Any one who does not see JFR as That Evil Servant is just that much out of Present Truth.

It is worthy of note that it was not the “bowl” features of Volume Seven that brought its writers into trouble; it was their own foolish statements about the war then raging, and their diatribe on Patriotism, which remarks were definitely out of order at the time. Therefore, in their incarceration they did not “suffer as a Christian” (I Pet. 4:16); rather, they paid for their own folly – although it should be noted that any persecution which came to them because of the true and opportune features of the seventh “bowl” would be counted to them for righteousness’ sake.

We offer the foregoing as a help and guide to all God’s people who may be in­clined to follow blindly the errors and bad judgment of uncleansed Levites; because they do so at their own peril – “God brought down their heart with labor; they fell down, and there was none to help.” (Psa. 107:12)

With this writing comes the prayer of the writer that it may prove a blessing to all our brethren – a means of growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Be­loved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ – and of continuing “in the faith once delivered to the Saints.”

“Trust in the Lord, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he will give thee the desires of thine heart. And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.” (Psa. 37:3,4,6)

Sincerely your brother.,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

To Mr. John J. Hoefle:

How silly can you be to think the Jews are still God’s “Chosen Nation” when they rejected God’s dear beloved Son? The present-day Jew has just as much chance as you and I do to gain God’s favor and blessing as “individuals.”

Please remove my name from your mailing list. We are moving our office July 1, and I shall no longer receive mail at this address. Hope you wake up! ------- (FLORIDA)

Answer to above letter:

Dear Sister -------: Christian greetings! In your letter of June 20 you ask us to remove your name from our mailing list, which we are doing. However, since you ask how silly can we be to think the Jews are God’s Chosen people, I feel constrained to write you yet this once.

You offer no Scripture to prove your contention, although I assume you do profess belief in the Bible. Thus, I would ask if you think St. Paul was also silly when he wrote in Rom. 11:26–28: “All Israel shall be saved. There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.... As concerning the Gospel (the good news of the Gospel-Age elective salvation), they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” Just as the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation, so the virtues of the fathers are also handed down to future gen­erations. Thus, St. Paul is telling us that God remembers the faithfulness of Abra­ham, Isaac and Jacob, and will thus grant “salvation to the Jew first” (Rom. 1:16).

If you affiliate with any special religious group, I assume you would be ready enough to admit that not all of them are good Christians, that only those among you who “show their faith by their works” will eventually be found among the Elect of this Gospel Age. And, while “blindness in part has happened to Israel,” and the true Christian of this Age have been blessed with the Great Salvation in their stead, this does not make of none effect the promises that are still theirs “for the fathers’ sakes.”

You hope I “will wake up,” which would mean your motives toward me are good – if I were asleep (spiritually). However, our main purpose in all we are doing is to “wake–up” brethren in the various groups so they might be able to “discern between good and evil” – between truth and error; and we consider we have accomplished some­thing when we arouse any as you have been aroused. But we have also been able to “wake up” some to the errors in their various groups sufficiently enough for them to, forsake those errors.

Anyway, I have given you some Scripture to substantiate my contention, although you have not offered me a single one yourself. If you have any, I would be glad to have them; and I would assure you, too, that our services are available any time you in­vite them. We here try to stay with the Bible, and we put our trust in leaders only to the extent that they also give “sound doctrine” in proof of their statements. I am also enclosing a tract on The Three Babylons, which gives at least succinctly our belief.

With this comes my cordial good wishes for your highest welfare, and the prayer that you may be “guided into all truth” and be blessed also with the Spirit of the Truth.

Sincerely your brother, John J. Hoefle

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

Dear Mr. Hoefle: Some time ago you sent me a wonderful write-up on The Time of The End – dated July 1, 1966. I would like to have 25 or more. As to the time of the end, this is better than anything I have read. My wife passed on this last Tuesday night. I want to help some one and I know the write–up you have is good, and I can truthfully say I will not be ashamed to pass them out. We were Witnesses from 1944 to 1960. We believe they are wrong in judging peoples and so on.

Enclosed is $..... If more, let me know. ------- (Mississippi)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Loving greetings in our dear Redeemer’s Name!

I am glad to say that we received the tracts in good condition, and thank you..... Now we shall get busy sending them out. We thank you again for your letters which are deeply interesting and uplifting – also the monthly articles which we receive and study. We got the June issue....... I am glad to say Sister and I are quite well and we trust that you, dear Brother and Sister Hoefle, are the same. And we know that we are all rejoicing In the truth! Thank you and Sister Hoefle for the photo of you both – also of your dear sister. They are so good! And now, May the God of all good, bless and keep you all at Mount Dora in His loving care, in Jesus dear Name we ask it.

As ever your Brother & Sister by His Grace, ------- (NEW  JERSEY)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be yours through our Blessed Master!

I hereby acknowledge the receipt of your letter, and also to assure you of my willingness to cooperate in anywise for the Truth and its service. Re the Convention attendance, I could not be definite, but there were approximately 70 present on the day of my visit in Kingston. In Crofts Hill it was not really a Convention – the Brother had only paid a visit to the Class of eight brethren. They had invited us and three from our Class were there..........

The monthly articles are always enjoyed by us. Our prayers are always at the Throne of Heavenly Grace on your behalf. May the dear Lord bless and keep you all in this our day of peril.

Yours by His grace ------- (JAMAICA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: In answer to your lovely letter and much appreciated one, I wish to inform you that I am a Bible Student. The book I men­tioned is the book on the Scriptures you mentioned in one of your articles – also I would like to get some hymn books, if you have them. I was handed one of your articles by Mrs. ------- That is how I became acquainted and sent you a letter. Please put me on your regular mailing list. I greatly appreciate receiving your wonderful literature.

I remain your Christian friend ------- (CANADA)

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

Our Special Effort in antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle this year will be from October 13 to November 10. And we now quote from The Epiphany Messenger’s last Present Truth (the year 1950) on this work:

“Are all preparing to take a zealous part in the special effort.... in volunteer, sharpshooter, lecture and conversation work in memory of our dear Pastor’s work against the erroneous doctrines of the consciousness of the dead and eternal torment? If not, let us be about the King’s business. Be sure to order the necessary literature now.”

In like manner we encourage our faithful brethren to “be about the King’s busi­ness,” and order the necessary literature now. Most of our brethren know of our Gideon literature, especially designed to continue this good work. These tracts ­Where Are the Dead, What Is the Soul, and The Resurrection of the Dead – are available free and postage paid. Also the Divine Plan of the Ages – Parousia Volume One – is good to use in connection with this special effort, which we can also furnish if ordered in time.

The first year following the Epiphany Messenger’s demise, the Executive Trustee of the LHMM concentrated on a tract he had just published – Do-You[Know, having printed a million of them. However, he made no mention at all of special effort in antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle in his Present Truth that Fall. Instead, he was more absorbed with telling the world that the last Priest had departed this earth, and he placed great stress upon this in the September, October and November 1951 PT’s. His zeal for the blessed memory of the departed Star Members seemed very much abated at that time; and this continued to such an extent that he actually described the Gideon tracts as “timeworn and threadbare” at the Chicago Convention in 1953 – at which time he had produced another of his “specials,” “The Flying Saucer.” Against this departure from established Epiphany arrangements we made personal protest to the Editor himself.

When Brother Johnson left us in 1950 that did not mean that antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle was also finished. Nor is it finished yet. This is clearly evident from the emphasis that some prominent evangelists still offer for the God–dishonoring doctrines of Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead. Thus we cordially invite those of like mind as ourselves to join with us once more in this “good fight,” as it is an arrangement made for Epiphany purposes until it ends in victory over anti­typical Zebah and Zalmunna.

This Battle is one in which the Saints are the primary participants – the Victors – having provided the literature and the arrangements; but any Battle the Youthful Worthies participate in that assists the Saints in their work, will not go unrewarded. Of course, the Battle that the faithful Youthful Worthies engage in as Victors, is the Battle against Sectarianism and Clericalism (see E–5, pp. 228–229). The Great Company Class is not given this credit – although as individuals some of them have participated therein. It is sectarianism and clericalism in the Measurably Faithful Youthful Worthies that blind their eyes to the work the Lord has for the faithful – such as antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle, and the battle against Oreb and Zeeb (Sectarianism and Clericalism), which the good Youthful Worthies should resist in their own groups and in other groups if they would continue faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren. Some of us recall the course of good Youth­ful Worthies who resisted the errors of That Evil Servant that he propounded in the Harp of God, The Golden Age, etc., which resistance was eventually rewarded by the Lord bringing them into Epiphany Truth.

To all who yet offer the prayer, “God bless their memory,” we not only suggest special effort in this work, but also appropriate testimony and discourse in honor of the departed “righteous.” “Them that honor Me, I will honor.”

NO. 159: THE MAY-JUNE 1968 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 159

In the May-June Present Truth is to be found a number of Epiphany truths per­verted (Azazel means Perverter) and half truths juggled in a desperate effort to make a case against “the sifter” – the reference being to us, of course. On p. 47, col. 2, par. 1, the statement is made: “Bro. J. gave many proofs from the Bible that thoroughly establish the Epiphany in its narrow or restricted sense as ending in 1954.” As we have so often pointed out, Brother Johnson never in any of his writings states the Epiphany ends “in its narrow or restricted sense” in 1954. In fact, in E-4:53, bottom, he teaches just the contrary:

“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 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. It is in the narrow – the second – sense of that term that we use it in our subject. We under­stand that the special tribulation period and the Epiphany as a period are one and the same thing.”

It is thus clear enough from the foregoing that Brother Johnson unequivocally con­tradicts RGJ’s statement. Nowhere does Brother Johnson teach an Epiphany period in a “narrow or restricted” sense – although he does use that expression about the beginning of The Time of Trouble in its “narrow sense” in 1914 – but the ending of The Time of Trouble in both its wide sense (from 1874) and in its narrow sense (beginning with the Epiphany in 1914) ends with the end of Jacob’s Trouble. The Time of Trouble in its wide sense and in Its restricted sense END AT THE SAME TIME – the end of anarchy and Jacob’s trouble. The Epiphany ends also with Jacob’s Trouble: The Epiphany and The Time of Trouble in its restricted sense are one and the same.

But, in Hitler-like manner, RGJ repeats, repeats, repeats his contradiction of the clear teaching of the last Star Member as a necessary corollary to some of his other errors – believing that by his “much speaking” (Matt. 6:7) he will persuade the “unstable and the unlearned.”

WHO ARE THE SIFTERS?

This question is raised on p. 46, and part of the comment by RGJ reads like this: “And if they are exposed as errorists and sifters, they object strenuously and retaliate by misrepresentations, false accusations, vituperations, etc.” Here again, as Brother Johnson has so clearly taught, those guilty of such offenses often accuse others of those very things in an effort to whitewash themselves. Our older readers will recall Brother Johnson’s treatment of JFR’s treatise on hypocrisy, in which he stated JFR was well-qualified to define hypocrites, because he himself was one of the worst hypocrites in the entire Gospel Age. Note now Brother Johnson’s description also of RGJ in E-10:591:

“A loquacious, repetitious and false-accusing Epiphany crown-loser pouring out partly wise and partly foolish effusions” – almost the identical words RGJ now uses against us. And on p. 594 Brother Johnson makes this comment on Job 38:2: “The good Levites (of which RGJ was a part at that time—­JJH), the crown-losers in the Epiphany Movement, darken the Truth by their teachings without proper knowledge.” He freely admits he is one of those there described, so no one in good conscience can accuse JJH of “misrepresentations or false accusation” when we quote his own admissions. He is now “darkening the Truth” without proper knowledge even more than he did then.

He presents this theory on p. 46: “Bro. Johnson called JFR and others like him sifters, and they in turn called him the same; and now you speak of certain ones as sifters and they accuse you of being like JFR, who accused Bro. Johnson of being a sifter. It is rather confusing. Who are the sifters?” Any time we make state­ments concerning RGJ we offer copious proof of our statements – just as we have done in the statement quoted above from Volume 10. And when we say he is like JFR – ­is taking a similar course – we offer proof for that, too. JFR was open in his criticism of Brother Russell as being impractical; and he immediately began to dem­onstrate his “practical” mind after Brother Russell’s death. He ‘outsmarted’ the opposition and made his position secure as President of the Society. RGJ did the same after Brother Johnson’s death – and often accused him of being impractical while he was still with us. JFR immediately denied Tentative Justification altogether once he came to power. RGJ perverts Tentative Justification by placing it in the Camp – something neither Messenger taught or ever hinted. JFR invented a new earthly consecrated class – first the Jonadabs, now his Large Company; RGJ has invented a new earthly consecrated class – his Campers Consecrated – in direct contradiction of the teaching to be found in E-10:209 and other places.

JFR did not hesitate at all to use unscrupulous methods to gain his ends. The same may be said for RGJ – one outstanding example of record being in E-10:585:

“Another incident illustrative of antitypical Elihu’s unfair and unkind criti­cisms of J. occurred in connection with J.’s advocating the ecclesia’s giving finan­cial help to an aged Youthful Worthy widow who was both sick and penniless. Certain ones not pleased with her carried on a whispering campaign against her and against J. for advocating her being helped by the ecclesia, resulting in such feeling being aroused as almost made a division in the ecclesia; and R. G. Jolly again was J.’s main opponent before the church on the subject. Actually the sister by a combina­tion of starving and cancer died; and the hospital blamed the ecclesia to J.s face therefor.”

Note now Brother Russell’s comments in Parousia Vol. 6, p. 469 concerning just such a situation:

“As our Lord was for three and a half years breaking His body, and for three and a half years giving His blood, His life, and only finished these sacrifices at Calvary, so with us: the laying down of our lives for the brethren is in small affairs of service, either temporal or spiritual, the spiritual being the higher, and hence the more important, though he who would shut up his compassion toward a brother having temporal need would give evidence that he did not have the Spirit of the Lord ruling in his heart in any proper degree.”

The above-quoted statements by both Messengers apply directly to RGJ by his own admission; and we now invite him to produce any such statement against JJH. All who have known us at all over the years know that our purse strings were always open to the Truth and to those in need – or to any personal service we could render. Thus, RGJ’s statements in the present instance are simply some more of his “beating the air” with his “profusion of words to no purpose” (other than to falsify - even his own pre­vious statements, for his present needs).

The article under review, however, continues: “In Bro. R.’s day some boasted of the financial support they had given him... The same condition prevailed during Brother Johnson’s ministration .... and we also have had to face the same problem since his death. It seems that some have given as to the LHMM instead of as to the Lord, even though their personal service may be comparatively small.” If any of our readers heard about JJH’s financial help to Brother Johnson during his lifetime, they found it out from others aside from JJH. And since his death we have made mention about it only in rebuttal of accusations against our sincerity and integrity. Be it noted here that Brother Johnson never made any exposures of JJH, either in writing or in conversation, such as he has left in his writings concerning RGJ; so we say: Let the established record speak for both of us.

However, such picayune tactics of RGJ are best exposed by quoting from his Present Truth of 1952, p. 70, col. 2: “Bro. John J. Hoefle.... probably the largest financial contributor to the Lord’s Epiphany work.... made possible the purchase of plates and other materials for various books that were published, donating the Bible House property free from debt to the work, and additionally donating thousands of dollars to the exhaustion of his finances... ably helped Bro. Johnson in legal and general executive matters.... In 1947 ‘at a most opportune time’ he left everything to serve at Bro. Johnson’s bedside, assisting in correspondence work, etc. Bro. John­son spoke of him as ‘my real son Timothy’ and later wrote him: ‘I love you because of your personal good qualities, which I appreciate, and because of the great service you have been to the Epiphany Truth’...... Bro. Johnson made special request that he serve at his funeral.” We have underscored certain parts of the foregoing to empha­size RGJ’s falsehood in his present writings that “our personal service may be comparatively small.”

All of this is a pointed example of the Truth of St. James’ statement that “a doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways”; and it offers open and indisputable proof of RGJ’s brand of integrity and just how much reliance may be placed upon any­thing he says or does. That statement in 1952 was entirely without any prompting from us; it was his own voluntary and unbiased expression then. He did not even learn directly from us that we had donated the Bible House; nor did any of our read­ers learn about it from us. Brother Johnson told a few, and the gossip quickly pyra­mided. RGJ repeatedly impugns our motives in our present activities – all the while his own credibility stands glaringly exposed in the Epiphany Volumes, of whose publi­cation we exerted not the slightest influence other than our financial support and faithfulness to the Epiphany Truth contained therein. And for those who are gullible enough to believe that the Lord would bless such a character with any advancing truth, we would simply remind them that thousands also blindly accepted the ‘advancing truth’ of JFR; and note the grand outcome – We have Jehovah’s Witnesses! And with the re­versal of his opinion of us under Brother Johnson in his published commendation of us in 1952, and his statement now in this Present Truth, we realize that his position upon anything, the Truth or the brethren, is subject to change to fit his present errors – just as is true with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We never know from one year to another what he may want his sectarian devotees to think. We wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him doing the same thing to others with him now – who are held in high esteem by him – if they resist his errors openly. Yes, his question is very timely: Who are the sifters?!!

REAL TROUBLE MAKERS USUALLY THE REAL SIFTERS

It is well to consider here that RGJ has been very liberal in his bestowal of the “sifter” designation since Brother Johnson’s demise. At the time of Brother Johnson’s funeral he related how it had came to him “in a flash” at 4 a.m. the morn­ing after his death that there were then no more saints left on earth. And for those who openly objected to accepting his “flash” as Present Truth he immediately labeled them as “sifters,” and designated some of them as second-deathers. At that time some of the brethren asked us if we considered certain dissenters to that “flash” as second-­deathers; and we gave them then – while we were still very friendly, and brotherly and cooperative with RGJ – what we still consider the correct answer to the question: At best, if those believing themselves to be saints are not so, then it would simply be one Levite sassing another levite; and there’s nothing worthy of death in that un­less the argument should eventually produce a deadly-working of animosity toward each other. It may be, of course, that RGJ was told of our position, which prompted his desire to get rid of us – hence the slander and the whispering campaign against us.

As we said then, our own position in the argument was a detached one, and we had no intention of heaping abuse upon those who disagreed with RGJ. It is not our province to put any one into the Body of Christ, or take any one out of it; and we saw no occasion for hurling violent epithets because of it. But of all those who disa­greed with RGJ, we met not one who consigned him to the second death because of that disagreement – although RGJ was ready enough, “loquacious and repetitious” enough, to bestow the label of death upon those who had the courage to resist him. As Brother Johnson so aptly declared respecting uncleansed Levites back in 1917-1920, they were the real trouble makers, but were vociferous in blaming the faithful for the differ­ences.

And has It not been thus all during the Age? Consider just a few: Augustine, a crown-loser, was very dramatic and oratorical toward those who disagreed with him. Crown-loser John Calvin succeeded in the burning of Michael Servetus because he could not meet the truth of Star Member Servetus. Crown-losers succeeded in banishing the saintly and gifted Arius to Africa, when they themselves were the guilty errorists. And the same thing happened with Star Member John Wessel, who was forced to seek refuge in Holland by the errorists who could not “gainsay nor resist” the truths he taught. Much the same can be said of Martin Luther and his flight to Wartbury Castle. During That Servant’s lifetime, the rack, the stake, etc., were not permitted, so they did the next best thing – they slandered him maliciously when they could not “gainsay nor resist” the truths he taught. And when we were in Jamaica in 1957, RGJ hurled invectives at us from the platform. One faithful sister made the remark that he would also burn us at the stake if he had the power. So why should we, or any one else, be overly disturbed at the slander of “sifter” by an uncleansed levite today! “Take, my brethren, the prophets (both Old and New Testament prophets) as an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.” We have no record of the fully faithful ever resorting to the tactics of the Great Company – the crown-lost leaders.

SOME MORE “ADVANCING TRUTH”

On p. 34 of this same paper is an article entitled, “The Epiphany Messenger’s Death Date in the Parallels,” in which the editor attempts to “make” a parallel be­tween the last day of Brother Russell’s life and the last eleven months and 22 days of Brother Johnson’s life. And in a desperate attempt to synchronize this abnor­mality he cites E-10:302 to “prove helpful in a somewhat similar manner.” The ref­erence he gives has to do with Esther type and antitype, and the word ‘parallel’ is not even mentioned by Brother Johnson. And for very good reason: According to Webster’s dictionary, a parallel is, “Anything equal to or resembling another in all essential particulars; a counterpart”; whereas, in type and antitype the two must correspond in every detail. “Every detail” refers to performance and character only, and in no sense involves the time features. To Illustrate, the typical Day of Atonement was one 24-hour day, but the antitypical Atonement Day is the entire Gospel and Millennial Ages. Again, Elijah’s 3½–year drought in Israel is antityped by 1260 years in the Gospel Age. But such divergence cannot exist in a properly-­constructed truth parallel; and for RGJ to attempt to force a “parallel” between one day for Brother Russell and eleven months and 22 days for Brother Johnson – by juggling a type interpretation into a parallel – simply reveals once more his desper­ation and the confused condition of his mind since he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950. Some ‘parallel’! Some nonsense! As Brother Johnson so aptly observed, When these crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. And here’s just another sample of it – still manufacturing the same Grimm’s Fairy tales that he did in 1910 under Brother Russell (see his letter in the Nov. 15, 1910 WT).

THE KING SAUL TYPE

As stated previously, we only display our own spiritual blindness if we anticipate any advancing truth from such uncleansed Levites. This is so clearly shown in the case of King Saul of Israel, who was a type of the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon. Let us consider just a few of his descriptive acts. In 1 Sam. 15:23 Samuel told him (because of his disobedience with the Amalekites) that he had been rejected from be­ing King in Israel – just as the Gospel-Age crown-losers have been rejected from their kingly Inheritance. The reason: “Rebellion (revolutionism) is the sin of witchcraft”; and witchcraft is typical of especially deceptive false teachings – such as RGJ’s “parallel,” his distortion of the type in Leviticus 12, and his “revised” pyramid fig­ures to fit 1950, instead of 1956, as he had it “figured” in 1947. Brother Johnson records similar actions by him in E-10:646, when he revolutionized (rebelled) by attempting to foist his views upon the Philadelphia Church – “so Azazelianly constructed (antitypical witchcraft--JJH), as, if possible, to have deceived the very Elect” – just as his “parallel” will now deceive many.

And proceeding further to 1 Sam. 16:14, we are told that “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” The “evil spirit” causes RGJ to go into one error after another, and resort to falsehood whenever it suits his convenience – as instance his “Present Truth” (?) we are now describing. Continu­ing to 1 Sam. 28:6: “The Lord answered Saul not, neither by dreams (does not give these crown-lost leaders clear views on difficult Bible subjects), nor by Urim (does not give them harmonious blending of truth teachings, as note RGJ’s confusion now on Leviticus 12), nor by prophets (takes from them even those truths they once received from the Star Members, and gives them instead “strong delusion,” confusion, error – ­“blood to drink”—Rev. 16:6; 2 Thes. 2:11).

Let us not forget that to none of the errorists did God ever give any advanc­ing truth. Instead, every one of the crown-lost leaders during the Age perverted the fundamental truths that were presented by the faithful Star Members, and pro­duced the sects In Big Babylon – just as the crown-lost leaders in the Epiphany have perverted parts of the Parousia Truth and produced the sects in Little Babylon – the last one is the crown-lost leader of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. And it is well to emphasize here that the average church member during the Age did not realize what was going on – that they were being slowly and deftly led into error (antitypical witchcraft) – just as RGJ has been doing with his sleepy adherents since 1950. The Epiphany is specifically a time for “making manifest the counsels of hearts” (“who shall stand when He maketh manifest?”—Mal. 3:2); and all of us are certainly witness to the fact that the major portion of this “manifesting” is still future; thus, we must still be in the Epiphany – without any “narrow or restricted sense.” And one attempting to establish a “narrow or restricted sense” is simply speaking some more “non” sense.

But the real monstrosity of this ‘advancing truth’ is to be found on p. 36, col. 2, par. 1, where he states: “The above considerations cause us once again to marvel at God’s great wisdom... we rejoice also that the antitypical mother of the maid child (Lev. 12) thus experienced an additional feature of her 80 years’ cleansing (E Vol. 4, p. 100).” For those who may not be too familiar with Brother Johnson’s interpreta­tion of Lev. 12, we simply summarize by saying that the 40 days’ purification for the male child types the cleansing from all error of the Little Flock developing truths in the 40 years from 1874 to 1914; and the 80 days’ purification for the female child types the cleansing from all error of the Great Company developing truth from 1874 to 1954 – 1954 ending the 80 days. And there is no leverage in this – the interpre­tation stands as an established fact in fulfillment if Brother Johnson knew whereof he taught. Now comes a Levite – a “loquacious, repetitious” Levite – who would add 14 years to the type, without offering the slightest explanation for the change, and without explaining how his 94 years (from 1874 to 1968) will harmonize with the 80-day type. And he offers this type to prove he is producing “advancing truth”! But he offers an entire paragraph of “rejoicing” in this new “advancing truth” he has just seen. As Brother Johnson said of RGJ’s kinsmen earlier in the Epiphany, their ‘new light’ is simply “mud splashes.” And RGJ is the one who now yells loudly ‘errorist, sifter’ etc. – all the while emphatically contending that Lev. 12 “proves” the end of the Epiphany in its “restricted sense.” As we have said of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he is certainly consistent in his Inconsistencies!

Let all understand that we hold to the teaching that the Great Company as a Class are not yet cleansed. But we hold equally firm to the conviction that their cleansing will not come from ‘advancing truth’ (?) produced by Great Company leaders; it will come from applying those truths already clarified and cleansed from all error prior to 1954. And when RGJ says he “stands ready with a yearning heart and open arms to receive any who would humbly desire to return to the green pastures of the Epiphany truth,” it is apparent he is once more “walking in the counsel of the un­godly,” because J. F. Rutherford often made similar appeal to his erstwhile Society brethren to return to his “green pastures” – while he himself was the main offender in forsaking Parousia Truth (the real “green pastures”).

MORE AZAZELIAN TRICKERY

Let us now consider a statement on p. 46, col. 2, bottom: “The sifter who teaches what Brother Johnson termed ‘sophistry’ on the saints’ reign.” And right along with this we offer a statement from p. 56, col. 1, bottom, of the July-Aug. 1967 PT:

“The errorist (meaning us) who teaches what Bro. Johnson termed ‘sophistry’ on the saints’ reign claims that the ‘end’ in 1 Cor. 15:24 refers to the end of the Little Season.” This second statement then continues to offer some consider­able elaboration on the “sifting errorist creating confusion in the minds of some.”

We direct our readers’ attention to the fact that 1 Cor. 15:24 is not even mentioned in this May-June 1968 Present Truth – and for very good reason: Our paper No. 148 of Sept. 1, 1967 so thoroughly and clearly devastated RGJ’s erroneous position on this text that he has not dared mention it even once in the Present Truth since that date. And the ‘sophistry’ of which he speaks in the second instance is exactly the same as the ‘sophistry’ mentioned in the first Instance – with 1 Cor. 15:24 in­separably linked to both. But, RGJ, realizing the crushing defeat he experienced in our paper No. 148, dares not mention that text any more. Thus, when he attempts his present technique by omitting the text, he is doing exactly the same thing of which Brother Johnson accuses him in E-10:646: “so Azazelianly constructed as, if possible, to have deceived the very Elect” – he is now offering some more antitypical witchcraft to his readers (witchcraft being especially deceptive false teachings).

In a desperate effort to bolster his “house built upon the sand,” RGJ offers quite some detail about himself as antitypical Hiram. Certainly, the parts of this type which Brother Johnson has expounded we accept without argument; but it is well to consider here that the typical Hiram died about twenty years after completion of Solomon’s Temple, and about seven years after completion of Solomon’s house. Thus he died about nine years before Solomon died. Nine years before the Good Epiphany Solomon died would be 1941 – in which year Brother Johnson published Volume 10, in which is related the various evils of RGJ that we have discussed herein. From that published record it should not be at all difficult for any unbiased mind to reach a sound perspective of RGJ, and just what value to place upon anything he says about himself – or about JJH either.

And if any are a mind to elevate RGJ because Brother Johnson selected him to act as Executive Trustee (which is a business trust, and nothing more), we would remind them that Brother Russell selected J. F. Rutherford for a trusted position in the Society, and Brother Johnson cast his vote at the first election for JFR as Presi­dent of the Society. Thus it is in order here to quote from E-9:556:

“We often seek to do one thing for the Lord and He works something entirely different from our efforts. The best of us are not qualified to select God’s special servants, as such reject God’s choice and choose otherwise.”

When electing RGJ to be the business manager of the LHMM after his death, the Epiphany Messenger stressed that we were not authorized or qualified to elect a Pastor and Teacher for God’s people; we should let that be from the hands of the Lord. Clearly enough, then, RGJ is not strengthening his name-calling efforts when he tries to eulogize on himself as antitypical Hiram – especially so when we consider it in the light of the funereal ‘eulogy’ Brother Johnson gives him in Epi­phany Vol. 10.

SOMETHING FROM THAT SERVANT

Pertinent to our present discussion is something written by Brother Russell in the Jan. 15, 1915 WT, p. 24-25 (Reprints 5615): “In the morning Eli (type of the Great Company in the nominal Church—JJH) inquired of Samuel whether or not the Lord had spoken any further, and what He said. It was a trial to Samuel to tell his friend and benefactor, who was like a father to him, respecting the Lord’s criticism and pro­nouncement of judgment against himself and his family; but Eli demanded to know the full particulars, and we read that ‘Samuel told him every whit.’ Thus it is often with the Lord’s faithful servants; their tenderness of heart, their sympathy, might prompt them to hide, to cover, matters which their sense of duty may require them to speak boldly. In every case the individual’s conscience must be educated, and of course the Word of God is the educator. When Eli heard what the Lord had declared respecting his family, he answered most loyally, ‘It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good.’ But however faithful and submissive he may thus appear to be, we know that his character was not satisfactory to God.”

The foregoing is certainly our own attitude in the events that have transpired since 1950. The critical role which “of necessity has been laid upon me” does not give us fleshly pleasure; the only satisfaction we do receive from it is the con­viction that we thus are “faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren.” And we are sure that this was true of the Epiphany Messenger when he realized he had to record the Azazelian practices of RGJ, if he would be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren. Undoubtedly he took no pleasure in it, except the pleasure of be­ing faithful, even though the duties were unpleasant, when he recorded RGJ’s being his main opponent in the cancerous widow case, the Resolution before the Philadelphia Church (see E-10, p. 646), etc.

As previously stated, we had thought to ignore this Present Truth, but later consideration convinces us we should issue this witness against RGJ and against all his supporters who are “wandering from the Truth.” And in this connection, we would once again quote from Brother Russell for all who have “an ear to hear”:

“If, therefore, we love and obey the Lord and desire to grow in His favor, His written Word is our daily meditation and study; and thus we grow in knowledge: not, however, by finding out each year that what we learned last year was false (such as finding out that six saved classes from the human family as taught by the Messengers, is false – and that seven saved classes from the human family as now taught by a crown-lost leader, is true; and finding out that Tentative Justification can extend to the Camp, while the Star Members taught that the Court is the only place for Tentative Justification, and is a type of Tentative Justification – their teaching being false, and the crown-lost leader’s “new views” true!—JJH), but by adding to what we learned last year, by putting on more and more of the armor of God until we realize its glorious completeness in the full discernment of the Divine Plan of the Ages.”

And, as Brother Johnson states in E-15:629: “God declared that His teaching will not by His servants always carry on controversies with the wicked (Gen. 6:3). His servants say that by His teachings God testified against sinners (Neh. 9:30). Speaking of the creed idols, God says there is not the truth in their mouthpieces—­Ps. 135:17 (the “mouthpieces” – those crown-lost leaders who have always opposed the faithful by producing their “advancing truth”—JJH).”

“For these things who is qualified? For we are not like the many, traffick­ing the Word of God; but really from sincerity, and as from God, in the presence of God, we speak concerning Christ.”—2 Cor. 2:16, 17 – Dia.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST

Beloved Brother and Sister Hoefle:

I am enclosing a letter from a Jewish Christian that I used to write to, but lost her address. This is all I know of her. She met a Christian Jew and they were married. She embraced his Christian faith – and this aroused her zeal to bless and help her own people.

I am no longer able to do much, and you may be too busy to engage in a corres­pondence with her. But it is encouraging to know of her zeal. I also have a book­let claiming a large work, and a successful one, for the Jews. When Joseph and Mary brought their 8-day old child to the Priest for certain rites to be done, the Priest told them, “This child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel.” Great service may lie ahead in “God’s due time.”

Lovingly,

Sr. Fowler (May 30, 1968) (MASS.)

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

Just three days after writing the above letter, our beloved Sister L. L. Fowler departed this earth; and it will be noted that she was “abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). It is our fond hope for her that her “labor was not in vain in the Lord,” and that she gained victory in full measure of her “glorious hope.” She had been our good friend and faithful yokefellow for many years.

NO. 158: A REVIEW OF THE JEWISH SITUATION

No.158

Since the death of That Servant one group of Truth people after another have attempted to console the sons of Jacob (the Jews) – and proselyte them. Hardly had J. F. Rutherford become president of the Society, than he published a book on “Comfort For the Jews.” This book contained many vital Truths – Truths the Wit­nesses no longer accept and teach. They no longer offer any ‘comfort’ whatever for the Jews, because they claim for themselves the Scriptural promises that belong to the Ancient Worthies and the Jews. They now offer “Annihilation For the Jews.” Whether blinded by Azazel, or by political expedience (at which JFR was quite adept), he eventually completely revised his position toward Zionism and the Jews. So his successors have accepted the shibboleth of “Annihilation For the Jews.” Of course, this reversal of practice and teaching may have been prompted by their total fail­ure to proselyte any of them, as they now present the unbiblical theory that they themselves are “God’s Chosen People,” something the Jews could not swallow. The Witnesses now boast that Pastor Russell is the founder of their organization – at the same time setting aside all his basic and fundamental teachings, particularly on the Jews and Zionism. That Servant was a friend of the Jews – and a friend of Zionism. All who are acquainted with That Servant’s teaching know that he taught that the Ancient Worthies (See Hebrews 11) would be the earthly representatives of Christ’s Kingdom on earth, with the faithful Jews the first recipients of the bless­ings of their Kingdom administration.

The Dawns tried with the Jews and totally failed in their efforts – just as did JFR. The last effort toward the Jews has come from the Executive Trustee of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, using the title for his booklet “Jewish Hopes and Prospects.” Of course, with his newly-invented Class of Consecrated Campers, who are to supersede the Jews and all others of the non-elect in rank and favor – something the Jews could not swallow – his efforts have dismally failed also. And why have all these groups failed? Because they have “run ahead of the Lord”! When the Lord authorizes a work for His people, that work cannot fail. It is not yet God’s “due time.” The Epiphany Messenger was emphatic that the Great Company could not have a divinely-pleasing and fruitful ministry until they are cleansed in Armageddon (and Armageddon is yet future) – after which cleansing their efforts toward the Jews and others would be an acceptable offering before the Lord.

A HOUSE LEFT DESOLATE

Just before His crucifixion Jesus lamented over the City, “O Jerusalem, Jeru­salem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chick­ens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord.” (Matt. 23:37-39) The “desolation” pronounced by Jesus was not their racial eradication; it was their religious and political destruction. When the Romans took Jerusalem in the year AD. 70, the Jews were scattered to the four winds, their temple was destroyed, their priesthood elimi­nated, with no longer any place left to them that they could call home. St. Paul tells us in Rom. 11:25 that “blindness is happened in part to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles come in” (to complete the Body of Christ). The years past bare immutable testimony to their “blindness in part”; but those same years also offer eloquent proof that their blindness was only in “part,” and not total. Over the centuries the efforts of the militant Gentiles to convert them, or to absorb them, have been complete failure – a mute witness to the critical words spoken con­cerning them that they are a “stubborn and stiffnecked” people. (See Ex. 32:9; Psa. 78:8; 2 Chron. 30:8; Acts 7:51) But, while this expression was hurled at them adversely, their very insubordination has been the means of preserving their racial identity until this day.

IS THE LAW STILL BINDING?

If their “house was left desolate” at the crucifixion, the logical question arises, Are they then still under the Law Covenant as mediated between God and them by Moses? The answer to this is – Partly, Yes; Partly, No. As we have stressed in previous papers, Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the Law was to pass until all had been fulfilled. Therefore, that part of the Law that has been fulfilled is no longer binding upon the Jews; but they are still bound by that part only that is not fulfilled. We should first of all understand what is embraced in the law Covenant. It began when God gave them the Passover In Egypt – when the Angel of Death “passed over” their houses that night, while slaying all the firstborn of the Egyptians. And it concluded with the ministry of Moses, when the Angel of the Lord buried him in “a vale in the land of Moab.” Thus, the Law Covenant includes almost everything written in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteron­omy. This is stressed by St. Paul In Heb. 8:9, which is a partial resume of Jer. 31:34:

“Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.”

At the crucifixion God “regarded them not” – cast them off – “Your house is left unto you desolate.” There had been previous castings off as, e.g., when they went seventy years into captivity into Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, and other lesser ones; but the final crushing “casting off” was the one pronounced by Jesus.

God had promised them everlasting life if they would obey His Law – “the man that doeth these things shall live in them” (Lev. 18:5); and the Jews at Sinai had readily agreed to the proposal. “All the words which the lord hath said will we do” (Ex. 24:3). They did not want to die, any more than other human beings want to die; but they learned in due course that what they had thought was ‘unto life’ was really ‘unto death.’ It simply made glaringly apparent their undone condition. But  St. Paul states that that Law which they could not keep “was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith (rather than by the imperfect attempt of works under the law). But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Gal. 3:24,25) Thus, clearly enough, those Jews who accepted Christ were no longer under the Law.

But for those who refused Christ during this Age the law has been in gradual process of ending – although it has not yet fully come to an end for them. For in­stance, an institutional type, such as the Day of Atonement, comes to its end when the antitype appears. Therefore, when St. Paul states, “Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us” (those who accepted Christ), we may know that that type is no longer obligatory upon any one.

And we have the law of reason to substantiate this. God never expects any one to do the impossible; and it is now impossible for the Jews properly to perform those ceremonies that require the services of a High Priest, as was Aaron. Why is it now impossible? Because God so “desolated” their house in A. D. 70 that the Tribe of Levi lost its identity; and the High Priest must come from the Tribe of Levi. There is some assumption that the names Cohen, Levi, Levine, etc., are the Levites; but this cannot be substantiated by reasonable proof.

Therefore, the Jews have been without a High Priest since the dispersion began in A. D. 70. Thus, any attempt on their part to keep the Day of Atonement is simply a feeble gesture, although the more devout Jews make solemn effort to observe it yearly; the very religious among them fast in the synagogue that day. Nevertheless, it is an empty ceremony. Without a High Priest to offer up the Bullock and the Goat, the observation becomes devitalized, ineffective. Although the Jews today do not know it, they are no longer to keep that type, which has been fulfilled by the offering of a “better sacrifice” – Jesus; and their present attempts to keep it are totally with­out merit. “Without the shedding of blood is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:22); thus, there can be no “atonement” on that day without a priest to “shed the blood” of the bullock and the goat – which must be done even in the typical atonement for one year. But St. Paul states that Jesus “taketh away the first (by Himself ful­filling that type through the shedding of His own blood) that He may establish the second” – by providing a “better sacrifice” for all who would receive Him. (Heb. 10:9) “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)

However, by the same process we may conclude that those features of the Law that have not been fulfilled are still obligatory upon the Jews. For instance, the Ten Commandments (which are actually the heart of the whole Law Covenant) are still binding, since the New Covenant to come through the “better sacrifices” has not yet appeared. When that Covenant appears, saith the Lord, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.... And they shall no more teach every man his neighbor, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them.” (Jer. 31:33-34) However, this part of the Law (the Ten Commandments) being still obligatory upon them, God has been able justly to punish them all during this Age for their iniquities – violations of that Law. That certain features of the Law have gradually passed away as they were fulfilled, St. Paul states in 2 Cor. 3:7, Dia.: “Now, if this dispensation of death, engraved in letters on stones (the Ten Commandments) was attended with Glory, so that the sons of Israel were unable to look steadily into the face of Moses, because of the bright­ness of his countenance – which dispensa­tion is passing.”

IF ANY MAN SUFFER AS A CHRISTIAN

In 1 Pet. 4:16 the Apostle encourages certain believers: “If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.” We believe this text has a direct bearing on our subject as can be seen from St. Peter’s opening salutation in verse 1: “To the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,” etc. The Emphatic Diaglott states it thusly: “To the sojourners of the dispersion.” These are the same people referred to in John 7:35, being certain Jews who had been expelled from Jerusalem for fomenting disregard of the Roman yoke, or who had left because they could not tolerate Rome as their governing body. Some of these had accepted Jesus as their Messiah, although they had only heard of Him through Peter or others, never having actually seen Him.(v. 8: “whom not having seen, ye love”).

Such Jews who had the courage to accept the name “Christian” were the special targets of those Jews who rejected Him. So intense was the animosity at that time that the mere mention of the name Christ would cause the unbelieving Jew to turn around and spit upon the ground. And such unbelievers were ever ready enough to heap verbal and physical abuse upon their supposedly renegade brethren who had accepted Him and His teachings. This fierce antagonism is markedly related respect­ing St. Paul in Acts 9:1,2: “And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest. And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.” It was not enough for Paul that he should aid and abet the murder of Christians in Jerusalem (See Acts 7:58), he would travel to distant Damascus to do what he could there to afflict this hated sect. This illustrates how appropriate were the encouraging words of St. Peter to such Jewish converts: “If any man suffer as a Christian.” His statement has lost much of its import today, because it is usually a mark of respect now in Christendom to declare any man is a good Christian! However, the faithful foot­step followers of Jesus do indeed “suffer as a Christian” in the abuse they receive from their erstwhile brethren – just as did the faithful Jewish Christian suffer in the abuse they received from their erstwhile brethren then.

DOUBLE FOR ALL HER SINS

From the death of Jacob until their “house was left unto them desolate” was a period of 1845 years, during which time the Jews were the special recipients of God’s favor. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities,” so states the Prophet (Amos 3:2). It needs no argument that the Law of Moses – as to diet, morality and justice to one’s neighbor was far ahead of its time; and it certainly brought a great advantage to the Jew. But they failed to take full advantage of their opportunities. Particularly did they become lax, and often vicious, respecting their religious obligations. Already in Jeremiah’s time (just before the capture of Jerusalem and the seventy years’ captivity in Babylon) the “wailing prophet” was upbraiding them for their lacks in this respect: “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so.” (Jer. 5:31) And by the time Jesus came this condition was decidedly worse.

Nor did they wish to be reminded of their waywardness. Jeremiah pleaded with them: “Return, thou backsliding Israel” (Jer. 3:12) – but they not only ignored his plea, but eventually stoned him to death. They also stoned Zechariah in the very court of their house of prayer (2 Chron. 24:20, 21); and tradition has it that they sawed Isaiah in twain – all contrary to the law of Moses. Many of the other prophets were shamefully mistreated. Nor could any excuse of ignorance or frailty be offered in return. “What advantage hath the Jew? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” (Rom. 3:2) Truth and righteousness were ever with them, but they refused to adhere to them. Said Jesus, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22 - See margin)

Thus, in due process of time the day came that Israel “should receive of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” (Isa. 40:2; 61:7; Jer. 16:16-18; Zech. 9:1) The word double in Isa. 40:2 is from the Hebrew word ‘kephal,’ meaning double fold; and the Hebrew word for double in the other texts cited is ‘mishneh,’ which means exact duplication – just as if we should fold a piece of paper at precise center, the top part would be a ‘mishneh’ (exact double) of the bottom part. And, since Israel’s period of favor lasted 1845 years, so should we expect the period of dis­favor to be 1845 years.

Before attempting proof of the chronology, it is well in order to consider some features of the disfavor – all items in history. Once the dispersion was accomplished in AD. 70, no Jew was allowed residence in Jerusalem. This challenge aroused the admirable ingenuity of Jewry to every conceivable tactic to re-enter their beloved and sacred homeland. They tried to take it by force; they tried to secure it through diplomatic maneuver; they even tried to buy it – probably tried about every resource known to men – with every effort total failure, until the “due time.” “I am the Lord, I change not”; and we find positive proof of this in the sentence of the 1845-year double upon Israel. And during all this time they suffered the terrible persecutions recorded in the books of history. During that time the Scrip­ture in Psa. 107:17,18 found copious fulfillment: “Fools because of their trans­gression (the great transgression of crucifying the Lord of Glory), and because of their iniquities (sins against the Law of Moses), are afflicted. Their soul abhor­reth all manner of meat; and they draw near unto the gates of death.”

But if their special favor ended in 33 AD. at the crucifixion of Jesus, their dis-favor should end 1845 years later – namely, in 1878. In that year was held the Berlin Congress of Nations, dominated by Disraeli (otherwise known as Lord Beacons­field), Prime Minister of England – the first Jew in history ever to hold that office. Through threat of force by the then superior naval and armament might of England, he forced the “terrible Turk” to grant citizens’ rights to aliens in Palestine; and this for the first time since A. D. 70 permitted the Jew to return to the land of “milk and honey.” Note now the first verses of Isa. 40: “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath re­ceived of the Lord’s hand double (kephal) for all her sins” – sins committed during the 1845 years of favor.

But, just as the beginning of the time of favor was a gradual one, so we should expect the return of favor after 1878 to be a gradual one; here a little, there a little. Nor were the Jews themselves too ready to rush back to Palestine. There­fore, the prophecy of Jer. 16:16-21 came into prominence: “Behold, I will send for many fishers (with enticing bait) and they shall fish them; and after will I send them many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain (powerful kingdoms where they were dwelling), and from every hill (democratic governments), and out of the holes of the rocks.... I will recompense their iniquity (violations of the Law of Moses) and their sin (in crucifying the Lord of Glory) double (‘mishneh’).... There­fore, behold, I will cause them this once to know, I will cause them to know my hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is the Lord.”

THE SECOND TANGIBLE EVIDENCE

But from 1878 to 1914 the progress in Palestine seemed slow, and almost hope­less; yet during that time the fervent Zionists were strenuously endeavoring to make some progress. Came then the war in 1914, signaling the end of the “Gentile Times.” And with it came an astounding performance. The Triple Entente, with the assistance of the United States, were attacking the central Powers at every strategic location; and it was thus that England sent General Allenby in 1918 with air and land forces to eject the Turks from Palestine. Knowing the sacred memories of Jeru­salem for Christian and Jew alike, the General was loathe to do anything that might destroy this hallowed landmark. So he concluded to group his entire air force in one spot, and send them flying over the City in an effort to dislodge the Turks. The effect was indeed beyond his expectations: The Turks were so intimidated and disheartened by the great odds so clearly against them – and already much wearied with four years of disastrous war – that they deserted the City without a battle. And it would seem that that strategy by General Allenby gave the fulfillment to the prophecy of Isa. 31:5: “As birds flying, so will the Lord of Hosts defend Jerusa­lem; defending also He will deliver it; and passing over He will preserve it.”

In A. D. 70, after the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Jewish polity sank deeper and deeper into Limbo, as the Gentile glory rose to dominate the earth. With the advent of liberty and religious freedom in the United States, many Jews from many lands came here; and they have prospered enormously – beyond their fondest dreams – so that many of them have come to the false conclusion that this may be the land which the Lord has preserved for them. But, since 1918, when the Lord returned to them their beloved City – through almost no effort at all on their part, in sharp contrast to their failures of the centuries to secure it by their own ingenuity – the land of Palestine has been constantly on the rise, even as the Gentile Governments have become more and more involved in various complexities. We see now an exact reversal of the procedure after AD. 70, when the Jews as a nation went down, and the Gentiles up; now the Jews are going up and the Gentiles down.

And continuing in this fashion, they eventually established the Nation of Israel in Palestine in 1948. Despite the great progress that has been made in the past twenty years, those years have also produced their share of toil, privation, and quak­ing, as they find themselves surrounded by armies on three sides, and by the sea on the fourth side. Already two distinct wars, and many exhausting skirmishes have tended to mar their prosperity; but it should be noted that the Gentile nations everywhere have had their share of the same.

MONEY TROUBLES, TOO

The concern over war with the Arabs has affected Israel exactly as wars have affected the Gentiles: Their money has deteriorated because of it. In 1948 their pound was worth four American dollars; now it is worth 29 cts. The cost of defense and immigration – coupled with a reluctance on the part of wealthy Jews here in America to pour too much money into their shaky economy – has caused them to spend more than they have earned. Thus, they are feeling the financial pinch, just as many Gentile nations have seen their currencies melt away during the years. They are now spending twenty times as much for arms as they did in 1950.

Other considerations also enter into this. Some Arab countries have found rich oil fields; and, as Solomon has so wisely observed, “Money is a defense” (Ecc. 7:12) and “Money answereth all things” (Ecc. 10:19). Thus, some Gentiles, who once regarded them with contempt, now address them in respectful terms as they see the “black gold” spouting from their oil wells.

The Labor problem also affects Israel. The Histadrut Union, inclined toward Socialism, contains about a million members, who have not yet learned that Capital­ism is the best form of incentive and well-being of the human race in its present fallen state. Undoubtedly, a form of Socialism will prevail when the Lord estab­lishes His Kingdom – when the “Law goeth forth from Mount Zion, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (although the actual Government in Jerusalem will be a benevolent autocracy) – but that time is yet some years future.

“JACOB’S TROUBLE”

In the extreme end of this Age the Scriptures describe what is termed “Jacob’s Trouble” (Jer. 30:7) – the last spasm of woe before the Messianic Kingdom is inaugur­ated under the leadership of the Ancient Worthies. This is graphically predicted in Zech. 14:1-3: “Behold, the day of the lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle.” The Invaders will probably be the marauding hordes from the nations round about – nations devastated by years of conflict, crop failures and pestilence, who will view with a jealous grasping eye the excellent results of Jewish effort. The “unwalled villages” (Eze. 38:11) will seem an easy prey for them, as they fail to reckon with the hand of the Lord in Pal­estine’s restoration. But, just as success seems within easy grasp for the invaders, the Prophet states the “Lord shall fight against those nations, as when He fought in the day of battle” – as He fought for Moses, for Joshua, for Gideon, for David, etc.

This future prospect we can but view through a glass darkly; thus it would probably be folly to attempt to offer details now. However, to our readers the question may properly arise: What, then, should be our attitude toward Jewry at this time? Our answer would be that we should attempt to follow out the counsel of the Lord that He recorded for us some three thousand years ago: “Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem ... that her iniquity is pardoned.” (Isa. 40:2) Even though it may not yet be the “due time” for them to “look upon Him whom they pierced, and to mourn because of it” (Zech. 12:10), yet we may minister to them “a cup of cold water,” to strengthen them in their present difficulties. As Brother Russell properly observed, all who take this attitude will not lose their reward.

We recognize there is still trouble ahead for them – “even Jacob’s trouble” ­but that will accomplish God’s purposes in all of them who are of “the faith of Abraham.” And it would seem that this class is the controlling body there now, as they have only one Jewish sect in Jerusalem at this time – the orthodox, those who in faith look for “the consolation of Israel.” The various modernist divisions of Jews among the nations are not controlling the religious policies there. But what­ever of “comfort” we may extend to them, we should yet bear in mind that this is not our chief work at this time; it is merely a helping hand – “doing good unto all men as ye have opportunity.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, now take the opposite view.

DOES GOD FAVOR ZIONISM?

In the June 1, 1968 Watch Tower, the Witnesses say “Zionism must fail because Jehovah is having nothing to do with it.... Zionism is a part of this old world or system of things and therefore is doomed along with it.” All who have been in­structed in Harvest Truth know that That Servant favored Zionism; and J. F. Ruther­ford, too, at the outset of his administration was high in his praise of Zionism. In the August 15, 1918 Watch Tower (Reprints 6315-6316) he offers strong commenda­tion for Zionism, with the statement, “Our readers will perhaps recall that the thought above expressed is the same that Pastor Russell set forth in his sermon on Zionism, delivered in the Hippodrome on Oct. 9, 1910.” And in the May 15, 1919 Watch Tower (Reprint 6433), he said that Zionism is a further evidence of the ‘set­ting up of the Kingdom.’ One thing we can say for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are indeed consistent in their inconsistencies! We believe the following from That Servant is most apropos here:

“If, therefore, we love and obey the Lord and desire to grow in His favor, his written Word is our daily meditation and study; and thus we grow in knowledge: not, however, by finding out each year that what we learned last year was false (the Witnesses repeatedly renounce their previous views, in direct contradiction to the instruction of their proclaimed founder – although it would be refreshing if they renounced their present system of error and replace with the Truth; but they re­nounce their previous errors to replace with their “new light” – newly-invented errors to fit their present needs—JJH), but by adding to what we learned last year, by putting on more and more of the armor of God until we realize its glorious com­pleteness in the full discernment of the Divine Plan of the Ages.”

According to their June paper, some of their “dedicated” devotees in Egypt were given vicious treatment because of their supposed encouragement of Zionism. This the Witnesses now describe as “slanderous untruths.” Well, it depends entirely upon which of their literature we read – that which they are distributing now, or what J. F. Rutherford was publishing in 1918-1925. We certainly whole­heartedly deplore the abuse they are receiving now in Egypt; but it would seem a logical question to inquire if they now hold J. F. Rutherford responsible for their present unhappy situation in Egypt. And are they now “suffering as a Christian” (See page 3 of this paper) – even as they repudiate their sound Biblical teachings of 1918 – or would they now be suffering as evildoers – a chastening from the Lord for repudiating the Truth they once cherished?

Does God favor Zionism? That Servant taught with Scriptural support that He does, and we continue to believe and teach this Truth. Zionism certainly supports the Jews returning to Palestine, and we heartily accept the thought that all who favor that which God has ordained will not fall to receive God’s approval.

“The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully.... Is not my word like as a fire, saith the Lord; and like a hammering that breaketh the rock in pieces?..... Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord that steal my words every one from his neighbor..... I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies.... Yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord.” (See Jeremiah 23:28-32)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother: Your No. 156 at hand. Very interesting – very timely work of clarifying Present Truth so much needed at present.

Brother ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

I have received the May and June papers and they were wonderful! The J.W. Issue is a masterpiece. Will you print it in tract form like Where Are the Dead? They would be wonderful to hand out – especially to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to our door. I have an opportunity to witness once in awhile.

I was glad to see that you made Bro. Jolly back down on Tentative Justifica­tion operating all during the Millennium. No doubt his own followers made him do so – and he is trying to run for cover by blaming every one else except himself. Anyway, Bro. Jolly shows his folly in the Present Truth (magazine)......

Well, I must close for this time. Hoping this finds all well there. We are about as usual here. Let me hear from you soon, as I need your fellowship.

With much Christian love, Brother ------- (MICHIGAN)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in the name of our precious Savior and Lord!

I am writing to thank you for your noble defense of the Truth as given to us through His chosen servant – our dear Brother Russell. “Holding on to the things which we have learned, knowing of whom we have learned them.” (2 Tim. 3:14) I am so thankful the Lord pulled us away from the Jehovah’s Witness movement at its very beginning!

May God continue to bless you as you endeavor to strengthen and encourage all who are standing, defending and holding on to this precious Harvest Truth, which is unchangeable. (Mal. 3:6)..... O glorious Hope and Prospect! May God keep us and help us to be faithful and worthy, that we may press on in “full assurance of faith.” (Reprint 5424).

Yours by His marvelous Grace, Sr. ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)