NO. 29: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE CHICAGO CONVENTION

No. 29

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

The Chicago Convention October 25‑27 gave further evidence of the deplorable con­ditions among the brethren in general in the LHMM – and especially so of the uncleansed condition of the leaders. In addition to a number of rank falsehoods from the platform by R. G. Jolly, he exploded with the statement that the “sifters (viz., JJH and company) should know by now that they are not welcome.” It should be observed that this R. G. Jolly is the same person who had the brethren specifically vote in the Philadelphia disfellowshipment proceedings in 1955 of Brother and Sister Krewson, that they be per­mitted to attend meetings so long as they occupied the back seats and took no part in meetings. More and more is the truth impressed upon us – “A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.” So often does he reverse himself as occasion seems to require; and in all this we are sadly reminded of C. A. Wise, Vice‑President of the Society under That Evil Servant: “Brethren, we don't believe this year what we believed last year; and we probably won't believe next year what we are believing this year.” – “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel”—Gen. 49:4.

The brethren who have known us intimately over the years know full well it was never our tendency to praise self; we are indeed a firm believer in the adage, “Self­praise has a bad odor.” But there comes occasion when close personal statements must be offered; and we believe this is one of them. At no time during Brother Johnson's life can any honestly say that we prated over the physical and financial energies we expended to build the LHMM to the place it occupied at Brother Johnson's death; and we do so now only to demonstrate the colossal gall of the statement by R. G. Jolly quoted above. In money alone, we contributed more than enough to purchase the entire Tabernacle which now houses this same R. G. Jolly – the same Tabernacle in which we “should know we are not welcome”. Of course, it is the age‑old spiritual `mayhem' being enacted once more ­“Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” The reproving finger of Truth has always been most unwelcome in the house of spiritual lepers, so we should “think it not strange” – although we observe that we have seen gutter bums with a better sense of ethics than R. G. Jolly has displayed in this instance. There was just the most passing notice taken of other “sifters”; the concentration was all on JJH and company; the “avoid them” was emphasized in all quarters in scurrilous depravity.

And in contrast to the courtesy voted to Brother and Sister Krewson, be it noted that JJH has never at any time before Brother Johnson's death, or since, attempted to grasp for himself powers that were not justly his through the Pilgrim appointment that was his from Brother Johnson's hand. At no time have we attempted to set ourselves up as Pastor and Teacher, or to question R. G. Jolly's right as Pilgrim to address the Gen­eral Church. Our opposition to him has come solely through his sins of teaching and prac­tise – a duty that “of necessity is laid upon me” 1 Cor. 9:16), a duty we would be most happy to have removed when the causes are removed.

It should be noted there was one brother at this Convention who does not even be­lieve Brother Johnson was one of the Saints; yet he was received into the Love Feast – ­Hail, Brother, glad to see you! And there were others there of whom even worse could be said; but we spare you and them! All of this is quite in keeping with the course of That Evil Servant who failed to correct erring and corrupt brethren so long as they were “in harmony with the channel” – meaning, of course, doing obeisance to JFR. It is little wonder that the LHMM has so rapidly deteriorated since the departure of our beloved Epiphany Messenger. “I am against them that cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness” (Jer. 23:32). And the stream of abusive invective against JJH and company is only sadly reminiscent of the treatment accorded to Martin Luther and Thomas Crammer by the errorists they exposed. As Brother Johnson has so well ex­plained – These two exalted brethren were the special targets of the Papacy because it was these two who hurt them most with the hard cutting truths they hurled against that monstrous citadel of error. We do indeed pity those who are motivated by such perverse inclinations; but we ourselves consider it a small matter as we consider those grand Protestants of the past who received similar treatment from their “brethren who cast them out” (Isa. 66:5).

It seems fitting here to compare and contrast the course of Brother Johnson, That Evil Servant – and R. G. Jolly. It should be remembered that Brother Johnson's faith­fulness to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren was never once questioned during the en­tire Parousia – (Just as has been true of JJH during the entire Epiphany when Brother Johnson was with us) – although That Evil Servant was often subject to criticism during the Parousia, just as R. G. Jolly was guilty of open Revolutianism during the Epiphany. But did Brother Johnson tell R. G. Jolly to get out of the meeting house? No, indeed; on the contrary, he gave him every brotherly help he could, that conditions would allow, in an effort to help him recover himself from the mire into which he had fallen – even allowing him to take limited parts in meetings, etc., and eventually recommending him before the brethren as Executive Trustee (believing he would cleanse himself in due time). R. G. Jolly has sadly betrayed that trust, and is now in much the same position as the “wicked servant” of Matt. 18:23‑35. He continually besmirches JJH with the “sift­er” opprobrium, although his contention could not be true even if all he claims about us is correct. At Chicago he offered quite some “profusion of words” about “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on Baptism” – although he himself stated publicly that this “out of harmony” is not fundamental. Of course, he hasn't been able to prove any of his contention here; but, even if he could, but it's not “fundamental”, why brand any one a “sifter” because of it? And much the same can be said for his loud talk on the 1,000‑year reign and the linen garments. His arguments on both these items were so weak they smacked of talk that is heard from derelicts – just yelling without saying anything. But, assuming he is right on all of it, he is still guilty of slanderous falsehood when he labels us as “sifters”.

We wish it known that R. G. Jolly and his most partisan supporters are indeed wel­come in any meetings at which we have charge, and we would welcome their questions in Question Meetings – just as we invited R. G. Jolly to ask us questions at the Crofts Hill, Jamaica meeting last January 10 when we occupied the platform. And we would coun­sel all in harmony with our views to grant such every civility and such brotherly help as their condition and attitude would permit – in an effort to help them if possible. And we do now offer a cordial invitation to such to attend any meetings at which we may officiate, and to come with such questions as they may have. We believe this is in har­mony with the course of Jesus, who never turned His back on a questioner. The Truth does not need to run away from questions – although we often see error run away from the Truth's answers.

Prompted by some statements made by R. G. Jolly in his discourses Friday and Sat­urday nights, some questions were put into the Question Meeting, one of which follows:

“Brother Russell teaches the Queen of Sheba and Solomon picture is our Lord and the Restitutionists – a Kingdom picture. In your discourse you claim it is an Epiphany picture, with Brother Johnson as Solomon. Is this your “advancing Truth”, or do you claim Brother Johnson himself taught this doctrine, revolu­tionizing against his own teachings as given in E‑4 “The Epiphany Elect”, and his teachings of the Epiphany Tabernacle?

As is his wont when he cannot answer a question, he proceeded to give a small discourse without answering the question; but he did say that even though it were a Kingdom picture, it could have other applications, so it would do no harm to preach it now. This is another trait of That Evil Servant, who said his “Millions” doctrine may belong to the next Age, but it is still proper to give the message now. And by such a course both of these pseudo Pastors and Teachers throw away another Scripture which “cramps their style” – Namely, 2 Tim. 2:15, “rightly dividing the word of truth”. We here em­phasize that any time a clear Bible text is ignored or vitiated it can work nothing but mischief; and the history of the Gospel Age certainly corroborates this statement. Just as sensible would it be to defend those errorists hundreds of years ago who preached “the spirit and the bride say come, and whosoever will let him come”. The message was out of setting, and it could do nothing but work the confusion it did – just as any mes­sage out of setting now will result only in confusion. In fact, it was apparent right in this Convention in the confused statements that R. G. Jolly himself made at various times – statements that directly contradicted each other. For instance, he told the two candidates for immersion that God now vievs them as justified; yet he stated on another occasion that there is no tentative justification since 1954 for Gospel‑Age pur­poses. Also, in his answer to a question bearing on the matter, he said his Consecrated Epiphany Campers would not receive the resurrection of the Just, such resurrection be­ing reserved only for the Ancient and Youthful Worthies. What kind of just(ification) does his Quasi‑elect (or Epiphany Campers “consecrated”) have if they are not counted in with the Just? And how can they walk the same narrow way with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies and still receive the resurrection of the Unjust(ified)? Of course, he may have some explanation for the difference in the justification now enjoyed by the Youthful Worthies and that accorded his Campers, and it would be very interesting to hear what it is, if he has one. We shall not offer here further comment on others of his foolish statements on this and other points; we wait for him to put them into print, at which time there will be much more to say. However, once more do we state that it was at the beginning of the Epiphany that a Great Company‑Youthful Worthy combination produced the incestuous sons of antitypical lot; so here in the waning of the Epiphany in its narrow sense we have another Great Company‑Youthful Worthy concoction in the Con­secrated Epiphany Campers – with both members of this duet now hurling invectives at each other. It's hardly likely they can both be right, so that – viewed by generous standards – at least one‑half of this team must have been in “spotted” garments when this new doctrine was given birth.

Inasmuch as this will probably be our last message for this year, we extend to one and all cordial good wishes for a blessed Holiday Season, and for the blessing that maketh rich and addeth no sorrow therewith to all who serve the Lord from a “good and honest heart.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

Question: – On page 38 of this last Krewson Volume there is this statement: “To state that RGJ or others were abandoned to Azazel when and because Brother Johnson died is just as nonsensical as stating that the Apostles were abandoned to Azazel when and because God removed our Lord as His special eye, hand and mouth from their midst.” What is your thought on this?

Answer: – The statement is superficially shallow and reveals clearly enough that Brother Krewson is incapable of rightly dividing the writings of the Star Members ­and demonstrates why an Evangelist rating was the best Brother Johnson could give him. It will be noted he says “the Apostles”. Presumably he means all twelve of them, although it is clearly stated of Judas, “Satan entered into him” (Luke 22:3), and that shortly thereafter “he went and hanged himself”. Of course, the remaining eleven were not aban­doned to Azazel, because they were the Fully Faithful – which class is never at any time abandoned to Azazel. Only Azazel's Goat is “for Azazel”. Naturally, Judas was not a member of that Goat, but the analogy is pertinent. Had he repented after his deflection ­before he had fully left the Household of Faith – he would have been received back into measurable grace, because the promise is without restriction, “He that cometh unto me I will in nowise cast out.” However, it probably was impossible for Judas to have that “godly sorrow” that worketh true repentance, because “he was a thief”, and no honesty was in him.

But just as the eleven were not delivered to Azazel at Jesus' removal, so the Fully Faithful (the Very Elect) in the Society were not abandoned to Azazel when Brother John­son left there – even though That Evil Servant and his cohorts were then fully abandoned; nor were the Fully Faithful in the LHMM abandoned to Azazel at October 22, 1950. Aban­donment divides Azazel's Goat into two classes – one part cleansing themselves of their sins; the other receiving the fate of Gehenna. Nor is it usually possible for us to know the exact time at which this latter class fully leaves the Household. But it should be noted that abandonment is accomplished by the “withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor” – which is just another way of saying they must be disfellowshiped. Now, we have R. G. Jolly's written statement that Brother Johnson “used him as formerly” after the 1938 episode; and we have Brother Johnson's written statement that he (R. G. Jolly) had not cleansed himself in 1943. And, since his cleansing could be brought about only by disfellowshipment (just as was true with the brother in 1 Cor. 5), we ask Evangelist Krewson, just as we have so often asked R. G. Jolly, to offer the proof for this event prior to 1950. If he was cleansed at 1950, as Evangelist Krewson apparently claims, he had to have the necessary experience to accomplish it – just as would be the case with other members of Azazel's Goat in the LHMM. Furthermore, if R. G. Jolly, et al, were cleansed at 1950 they have since become uncleansed a second time – as Evangelist Krew­son himself presently claims – and this poises a delicate question: If they have re­turned again to their “wallowing in the mire”, can they receive a second cleansing? It may be possible, of course; but we doubt it is probable.

During the past two years we have been repeatedly enjoined to make open exposure of Evangelist Krewson's many foolish statements, which we have steadfastly declined to do – having not the least desire to hold him up to ridicule – just as we lovingly, but with increasing severity; remonstrated with R. G. Jolly before making public exposure of him. Even when we treated of some of his nonsense on the Stewardship Doctrines on page 7 of our August 1 writing, we tried to set up the quotations from his letters in such fashion that our general readers could not know of whom we spoke. We did this in the hope of sobering him and winning him, if possible; but it seems he is determined to have it otherwise, which leaves us no alternative. Be it noted that he and R. G. Jolly embrace many of the same errors, which they concocted together during their palmy days their chief divergence now being a “contention among them, which of them should be thought the greatest” (luke 22:24—Dia.). Henceforth, we shall consider them both to­gether, in the same basket where they belong; and we state for the benefit of all that there will be plenty of this in future, D.v.

We have also had another compelling reason for concentrating our refutations against R. G. Jolly, this reason being the same as Brother Johnson gave for his con­centration upon That Evil Servent. The latter was in position to do more harm than any other person in the Epiphany – just as R. G. Jolly is now also in that same relative position. Brother Johnson reposed his trust in him, just as Brother Russell trusted JFR; and the betrayal of that trust should be a prime motivation with all who pray “God bless his memory”. Early in the Epiphany there was quite a plague of Toms, Dicks and Harries (as Brother Johnson styled them) who had never been authorized to address the General Church, but who were badly infested with the “writer's itch”. Many such Brother Johnson ignored completely; but on occasion he did analyze their errors if they became more than passing troublesome. However, with the Pilgrims of Brother Russell's appointment he felt quite differently when they presented errors to foist upon the Lord's unsuspecting sheep; he considered them a real menace — even as did our Lord with the Scribes and Pharisees – and as did also the faithful reformers who expended their strength and talents against the LEADERS of the Papal Hierarchy, rather than against those never having occupied the office of General Elder in the Church. This has been our policy and will continue to be so, except as set forth herein.

Question: – On page 38 of this Krewson circular there is this statement: “We may be opposed to ones, like we are to RGJ, if it is based solely upon Truth deviations, but not on character faults”. Is this sound doctrine?

Answer: – No, it certainly is not sound doctrine. Once more this brother shows that he – who aspires to the teaching position – cannot even read the teachings of others and understand what he has read after he reads them., We pointed this out in the foregoing question; and sometime back in connection with his contention about the crown‑lost leaders “developing” the Stewardship Doctrines. It is true here also – he has read something without understanding what he has read. When Jesus warned, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy”, was He referring to character or teach­ing? And when Brother Johnson classified JFR as one of the worst hypocrites of the en­tire Gospel Age, was he not referring to his character? In fact, when Evangelist Krew­son calls R. G. Jolly a liar, is he not assailing his character?

It should be borne in mind there is a difference between character blemishes due to Adamic depravity and character blemishes that are sins against light. Of course, our only course against the former should be one of benevolent remonstrance – especially so in the case of others – although we should be severe in the judgment of ourselves concern­ing such. But it should also be borne in mind that Brother Johnson pointed out what all of us know – That all of the Saints have believed and taught more or less error, but such “Truth deviations” did not cause them to lose their standing in Christ. Many of them believed and taught a most heinous doctrine – Eternal Torment – but they did this without guile or hypocrisy. But, when hypocrisy was joined with this monstrous error, then the character faults of such teachers should be attacked – just as the Great Com­pany sins of lying, slander, corrupt opinions, false accusers (such as accusing some of being “sifters” who are not), should be attacked. And Brother Johnson did attack them, using the very words – WHAT HORRIBLE CHARACTERS! (See E‑9‑141, top).

It will be recalled that R. G. Jolly has repeatedly said, “I'm not here to defend my character”; so it seems these two aspiring teachers also here embrace anothe per­version – much the same as That Evil Servant also advanced the thought, “Character de­velopment not necessary, so we don't discuss it any more.” Certainly, an intellectual hypocrite like JFR teaching Truth is more to be despised than a lowly Saint who is teach­ing error.

Question: – At Chicago the question was presented, Is Gideon's second battle ended? Brother Jolly said it is still in progress. Do you agree with this?

Answer: – Most certainly we do, although we are sorry to note that R. G. Jolly's acts are not in harmony with his words. It will be recalled that we remonstrated with him after the 1953 Chicago Convention because he said the very tracts that are pertinent to this second battle are “time‑worn and threadbare” – that we should have something more up‑to‑date and alive at this time (meaning his “Flying Saucer”). It should be noted Brother Johnson counselled perseverance in this battle until its full consummation; and he said on page 159 of Volume E‑5 that the Fully Faithful would continue in it to a com­pletion. If that battle is not yet over, then here is another proof that some of the Elect must still be with us. But R. G. Jolly is stressing his Flying Sauser and Israel's Return as the things to use at this time. In the case of the Saucer tract, it must be carded as speculation; there is just no definite proof that it is true. But none of us have the slightest doubt that the tracts on this second battle are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. For all who agree that this second battle is still in progress, and who still regard Brother Johnson as the Epiphany Messenger, we urge them to persevere in it – firm in “the things thou hast learned, and been assured of, know­ing of whom thou hast learned them.”

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

Letters of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace!

I know you are busy and so do not want to take too much of your time, but I would like to tell you that I was so happy to have the privilege of attending the Chicago Convention. However, my experiences there were not all pleasurable. There was much grief mingled with the joy. The grief was over the decline in spirituality among the brethren of the LHMM since last I met with them.

On the first day of the Convention, Brother Jolly came briskly forward and gave Sister ‑‑‑‑‑‑ and me a warm welcome, saying he was so glad to see us. After that the brethren in general gave us warm and cordial greetings until on Sunday morning Brother Jolly spoke so disparagingly of the “sifters” at the Question Meeting. Very few of the brethren would even look our way after that, although Brother Jolly had specifically said he did not consider us sifters – only “bewildered.”

I had looked forward with pleasure to the privilege of testifying at the Memorial Service for the two Messengers, but Brother Gavin did not allow one voluntary testimony. He called by name those whom he wished to testify and allowed them to talk as long as they liked – even encouraging them to do so. At last he seemed to have run out of names as he asked Brother Eschrich to come forward, which he did – using the remaining time. One can't help wondering if there were other brethren who wished to give their testi­mony at this special meeting and whether they, too, were sorely disappointed even as I was.

   Self‑evidently, the purpose of this method of calling individuals by name to testi­fy was to prohibit some from giving testimony – the same purpose as was reportedly ac­complished by using a list of names at the Philadelphia 1956 Convention.

It's just impossible to know where Brother Jolly stands or what he really thinks about anything if we consider his contradictions of himself, both in attitude and in word. When commenting an Gideon's Second Battle, he spoke of the “counterfeit 300”; then on another occasion he said those with priestly hopes were just bewildered and should be treated kindly. A few years back he was calling them second‑death sifters; so we certainly can't know his real heart's attitude here.

   It is my hope and prayer that the faithful brethren will wake up and resist these evils – not only for themselves but for the good of others.

I realize you know these things as you were there, but I wanted to give you my reaction and observations of this my first Convention for some time. You may publish this letter if you like.

Your Sister by His Grace __________ Oklahoma

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in the name of our dear Redeemer!

.............. also got another from Krewson, so I wouldn't be surprised if ....... His teachings are almost the same as RGJ's and we disfellowshiped him. Of course, I think he means this class when he says “some have a personal animosity toward RGJ”. Well, if a hatred for lying and slandering can be called personal animosity, then I guess we have it. By His Grace, Sister ___________ N.C

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

Comment on the counterfeit 300

We all know the last Star Members said the Papal Millennium was the great counter­feit – just about as low a rating as could be given them and still keep within Christian decorum. Therefore, R. G. Jolly's “treat them kindly” coupled with his name‑calling is just some more Great Company doubledealing (“a doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways”).

NO. 28: ZECHARIAH TYPE

No. 28

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

In this September Present Truth appear same Questions and Answers purporting to deal with some of our recent writings, the comments on Zechariah being an attempt to uphold R. G. Jolly's contention that Brother Johnson was the last Saint. As all Bible Students know, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both taught that a type must never be used to establish a doctrine; it can only be used to support a doctrine already es­tablished. But in this instance, R. G. Jolly not only does not prove a doctrine by his Zechariah type, he actually tries to set aside a doctrine already well established – ­and he makes this attempt by a fractured type at that!

In Brother Johnson's explanation of the Zachariah type he emphasized that he would be here until 1956, and that his end would be a violent one. Since neither the date of his death nor the manner of his death occurred according to expectation, we state it was a fractured type. But the doctrine was well established by both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that some Saints would remain an earth until the violent features of the Time of Trouble arrived. In our August 1 writing on The last Saint we offered a number of Scriptures and comments from the Star Members pertaining to this matter – ­enough certainly to establish the doctrine just set forth –; and we now offer others in support of it.

Brother Johnson's belief that his would be a violent end (if he were to be the last Saint) comes logically enough. The first “righteous blood” to be shed occurred in the violent death of Abel; and the last “righteous blood” – specifically described as such by Jesus – came through the violent death of Zechariah. The last righteous blood actually to be shed violently in pre‑Gospel‑Age times was that of John the Baptist; and Brother Russell accepted that as a concluding type of the Gospel‑Age priesthood in his belief that the last ones would come to a violent end. For Gospel‑Age purposes the first righteous blood to be shed was that of Jesus – also violently poured out – just as St. Paul's blood likewise was violently “poured out” (2 Tim. 4:6, Dia.). And the Scriptural teaching seems clear and indisputable that the last righteous blood of this Age would be violently poured out – as instance, 1 Thes. 4:17: “We which are alive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.” Brother Johnson's comment on this in E‑6‑581 follows:

“The anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, as indicated by Elijah's whirlwind ascent, and by the last ones being `violently seized by clouds', the literal translation of the Greek rendered In the A.V. of 1 Thes. 4:17, `caught up in the clouds'.”

The foregoing is exceptionally clear; and cannot be explained away by a mere fractured type. Let R. G. Jolly – and all others who claim the Saints are no more – give their explanation of the above, in harmony with their present position.

Companion to the foregoing is Brother Johnson's statement in E‑6‑630 on Zech. 8:10:

“The `no hire' for man or beast of Zech. 8:10.... is to occur after the founda­tion of the church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon.”

Here again is some more doctrine that must be discarded if the fractured type of Zech­ariah is to prevail. It will be noted that all the types we presented in our August writing support the doctrine. In further support of our statement that Zechariah could type the last Star Member, but not the last Saint, we offer the Moses type – wherein he types the Star Members. Moses did not complete the march of Israel into Canaan, which shows clearly enough that it would not be a Star Member in the end of this Age who would complete the march of spiritual Israel into the heavenly Canaan.

At the Chicago Convention R. G. Jolly put quite some extended emphasis on his con­tention that we must certainly know the last Saint in his individual person, otherwise we cannot know when the last one is gone. This argument is in line with his reasoning in general. Suppose we ask him – Does he know in the individual person who was the last one to be spirit‑begotten? But we do know the date it happened! Certainly the last spirit‑begettal is no less important than the last glorification – we could not have the latter without the former. And be it noted that the last spirit‑begettal in the mere fact itself was not even known until 3 1/2 years after it occurred. Undoubtedly, the Lord will give us the right date for the last glorification “in due time” – and we may be sure we won't have to cling to a fractured type to prove it when the “due time” arrives.

There is also the prophecy of Gen. 3:15 – “Thou (Satan) shall bruise his heel (the last members of the Christ company on earth). Is there any physical evidence to show this “bruising” has yet occurred?

But, weak as the Zechariah type appears, it is reasonably solid compared to the nonsense offered in explanation on page 78 of “John hearing the Rev.19:6,7 message.” R. G. Jolly contends that John in this Scripture is transposed from the Little Flock to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. This contention is strikingly coincident to the claim of That Evil Servant that Elijah was transposed into Elisha – just by the death of Brother Russell. And the only argument given for the transformation in Rev. 19:6,7 is the death of Brother Johnson – and nothing more. Well, if there be any sound substance to this contention, we should be able to substitute “Great Company” for the pronoun “I” in verse 6. Let's try it and notice how it sounds: “The Great Company heard as it were the voice of the Great Company” (apparently talking to themselves). Does it sound sensible? Yes, indeed, definitely “non”‑sensible! As Brother Johnson so ably stated – When these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. And the contention in this instance of John being transformed from the Little Flock to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies – then talking to themselves – well nigh ap­proaches “perfection” in nonsense. And the sin here is doubly magnified when R. G. Jolly attempts to besmirch Brother Johnson's good name by attaching such nonsense to him, and claiming the Bible teaches it. Is the claim that “three times one equals one” any more ridiculous?

The foregoing remarks re John on Patmos representing God's people would be inap­propriate had R. G. Jolly properly qualified Brother Johnson's statement about John “representing the Lord's people.” John represents only “the Lord's faithful and obedi­ent people.” In no instance in the Bible do God's faithful and obedient people in their faithfulness represent unfaithful or measurably faithful and disobedient people. Every Great Company type has one or more reprehensible feature attached to it; and the reason is self‑evident – they portray those particular failings of various Great Com­pany members. Even in the case of Moses – great and good man that he was ‑ he pictures future unfaithful classes only when he was disobedient. And in the case of Cyrus, a heathen, he represented Christ only when he was doing God's will “my shepherd Cyrus,” Isa. 44:28. To say that faithful Apostle John represented the uncleansed Great Company since 1950 is sacrilege. There must indeed come a time when John on Patmos (Patmos means “suffering"”) will represent all God's people – but this cannot be so until the Great Company are cleansed, obedient and faithful. We have offered so much from Brother Johnson and otherwise – including R. G. Jolly's truthful admission at the Jacksonville Convention in Feb. 1955 that Brother Johnson had never withdrawn brotherly favor from him – which is certainly true, and is proof that R. G. Jolly couldn't possibly have been cleansed at October 22, 1950, because the final step had not been taken in his case to effect his full cleansing – viz., the withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor by the World's High Priest. Certainly none of the various groups were cleansed at October 22, 1950 as a class. None of this has been answered, because R. G. Jolly cannot answer it. Let him and his sectarian supporters continue to fight the Truth, if they will; they must eventually hear the Lord's word grating on their ears – “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5).

But that isn't all! He says JJH tries to make it “appear that Vol. E‑3‑133 is all there is to Brother Johnson's teaching on this matter.” For one who ignores and violates so much of Brother Johnson's teachings, this statement is Azazelian impudence supreme. In his comment on this very section of Scripture, why does he not state what Brother Johnson taught about it in E‑10‑113:

“Verse 9 contains a charge that will be given by the Epiphany Messenger to the Little Flock.”

He also ignores completely Brother Johnson's explanation of verse 10 on this same page 113, which explanation is further enlarged in E‑10‑656, as follows:

“The Little Flock... will express special reverence for, and subjection to J. whose continuance, according to Rev. 19:10, J. will refuse to permit..... Thereafter the report will be made to J. that the Little Flock will have been decreasing in numbers and strength.”

Clearly enough, Rev. 19:6 through 10 is a continuous narrative; therefore, if the Little Flock on earth is included in verse 10, they must self‑evidently be included in verse 6. And that Brother Johnson is right in concluding the Little Flock are referred to in verse 10 becomes clearer by reading from the Diaglott: “And he (Bro. J.) says to me (John – the Little Flock), See; No! I am a fellow‑servant with thee, and of those breth­ren with thee who have the testimony of Jesus.” Certainly, Brother Johnson never in­cluded himself in with the Great Company as “a fellow‑servant with thee and of those brethren with thee who have the testimony of Jesus.” Clearly enough, the Great Company have lost “the testimony of Jesus”, because they are no longer of the Jesus company (See Acts 9:5).

Furthermore, Brother Johnson states in E‑5‑420 that the message of Rev, 19:5 will be preached by the Great Company after they are cleansed. For the past two years we have offered many proofs from Brother Johnson's writings showing that no Levitical group was cleansed at October 1950 – though there were individuals among them who probably were cleansed. None of this has been refuted to date, so we shall not pursue it fur­ther here.

The suggestion has come to us through the mail that Rev. 19:6 makes no allowance for a false message – which would be the case if we are right and R. G. Jolly, et al, are wrong. To this we answer that the same premise would apply to Rev. 16:17 – “It is finished.” The message that the High Calling was closed was published first by the Great Company in the Society; and, while the message was correct, their date was wrong. They offered March 27, 1918, instead of September 16, 1914; and it offers a fitting parallel to the present contention about the Saints being no more on earth. As Brother Johnson so truly stated —Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Com­pany.

And repeatedly is the aspersion offered in those Answers that JJH is the “errorist”. Repeatedly does R. G. Jolly cast the stones at others that should be hurled at himself. Then he lifts the clause from JJH – “I may not be 100% versed in everything Brother Johnson has written.” Why didn't he offer a little more here? The real errorist and trickster is always manifested by such tactics, as all of us certainly know. We reproduce the paragraph which we ourselves published October 29, 1955 (copy free upon request).

“I may not be 100% versed in everything Brother Johnson has written; but when someone such as you tries to give me some instruction or correction, I expect you yourself to know what you are talking about. I am quite familiar with what Brother Johnson says in Vol. 10, P. 113; and I agree with his explanation of Rev. 19:1‑2. When the Bible states that work would be done by a “great crowd” I think that fits in pretty well with the “great crowd” in the Society giving Jordan its second smiting. But why didn't you go on and discuss Verse 6? That speaks also of a “great crowd” saying “The Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth.” Brother Johnson states in the very 1941 citation you give that fulfillment was future; and he stated often enough in other places that the “great crowd” would have a fruit­ful ministry “after the fires of Armageddon” (Rev‑ 7:14). Why didn't you say something about that? Are you contending that a “great crowd” has been proclaim­ing this message since October 1950? By generous count, could you possibly show a hundred? It is little wonder you repeatedly and loudly proclaim your “love for your dear Youthful Worthy brethren”! And do you consider that slanderers and scan­dalmongers have “cleansed” themselves in harmony with Rev. 7:14? Do you? I may as well quote your own words here, “Think it over, dear brother.” Also, you are conspicuously silent on Rev. 22:10 and Berean Comments. Why?”

R. G. Jolly says JJH “failed to admit he was in error” in the above quotation. Yes, JJH failed to admit it because there was no error to admit! The real error here clings to him; and he once more manifests his uncleansed condition by this untruthful twist. He will undoubtedly fool those of his readers who close their eyes, open their mouths, and swallow what he puts therein. This may all seem real cute to him; but “God is not mocked”, and the day of reckoning is slowly but surely approaching.

On pages 75, 76 and 77 there is presented some consideration of Vicegerency, The Crown, and Right to Rule, in which R. G. Jolly talks quite a bit, but says almost noth­ing – just as he talked for four hours at Crofts Hill, Jamaica last January 10 and had said so very, very little at the end of those four hours that he could not offer a single line about that meeting in the Present Truth. Present happenings make quite clear why Brother Johnson accused R. G. Jolly of being loquacious, effusive, repetitious, etc.

There is offered some comment on Matt. 28:18 – “All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth”, and the Greek word “exousia” is given to show the text should read – “All authority is given unto me in heaven and on earth.” Had R. G. Jolly clearly understood this matter, he would have analyzed “all power” and “all authority”. Of course, had he done this, his “profusion of words to no purpose” would have appeared ridiculous even to the most benighted of his sectarian readers. To illustrate: Mr. A in New York city gives to Mr. B a Power of Attorney (all authority) to purchase for him a property at public auction in San Francisco the following week. On his way to San Francisco Mr. B has an accident that puts him into the hospital at Chicago – so he cannot be on hand the day of sale. Thus, Mr. B failed in his mission; he had “all authority”, but he lacked the power to exercise his authority because he was not where he should have been on the day his authority designated. But, regardless of the Greek in Matt. 28:18, Jesus had “all authority” and “all power” at His resurrection, and was assured of His ability to use them “in due time” —as God's eternal purposes directed. Had Mr. B not been deterred at Chicago, his “All authority” permitted him to do only a certain thing at a certain place at a certain time. And Jesus was in much this same position at His resurrection as respects the Restitution process, the dethroning of the Gentiles, etc.

But the text must be read in the light of sanctified reason, or it becomes non­sense. He had “all authority” and “all power” to do only what is in harmony with God's character and God's eternal purposes. Thus, He had not authority or power to “defile the temple of God”; He had not authority or power to lie, because He is “the faithful and true witness.” At His resurrection he had “all authority“ and “all power” to accomplish restitution (it could not be effected without Him); but He could not begin it then – His authority and power could operate only in harmony with God's eternal purposes. The same is true of His authority and power over the nations. He could not evict them until their regime had run its course to 1914 – although He did have authority and power to intervene if those nations interfered in their actions with God's eternal purposes; and He probably did do so on various occasions — Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, etc. – when their success would have thwarted the grand march of the Plan of the Ages.

We have offered the foregoing detail to show why Brother Russell stated in Volume 2, pages 73‑83 that Jesus did not possess the crown in its full sense until 1914. And, if He did not have it until then, neither could the 144,000 “reign with Him” in the full sense until 1914, as the full number was not actually “with Him” until 1914. All of this was made clear in our October writing, we think. On page 80, par, 1, Brother Rus­sell says this:

“God will not take the dominion from them (the Gentiles), to give it to His anointed until that lease expires, `until the Times of the Gentiles be ful­filled.'”

R. G. Jolly says the “errorist” (JJH) “appeals to some statements from Brother John­son (which he thinks support his contention, though they actually do not do so).” It would seem a faithful Truth teacher – who yells “errorist” at JJH – would take some of those quotations and point out how and why and where “they actually do not do so.” For in­stance, let him offer his comments on the above quotation from Brother Russell. Also, on page 2, of our December 8, 1956 writing, and again in ours of November 1, 1957, we quoted the following from Brother Johnson re 1 Cor. 15:24:

“What is meant by all rule, and all authority and power? We answer every ves­tige of Satan's governing, of Satan's claim of right, and of Satan's might; all of this must be destroyed utterly and forever, and this will be done at the end of the Little Season.”

Let R. G. Jolly point out how the above from Brother Johnson “actually does not do so.” Also, again we ask him to correlate it with his “faulty disc” for E‑17‑124. This quota­tion is from Brother Johnson just a year or so before he died; so why does R. G. Jolly keep harping about a quotation in 1938 – twelve years before he died? Is he offering an honest presentation to his readers when he ignores these latest quotations we are giv­ing? And while he is at it, let him consider his own published statement in the 1954 P.T., P. 5, col. 1, par, 1 as follows:

“The Millennial reign of Christ will, therefore, be for the full subjection of all enemies and the restoration of peace and covenant relationship between God and man,”

Does R. G. Jolly still believe the above? If so, how does he reconcile it with his pres­ent position?

Coupled with our writing of November 1, we think these two articles will be about sufficient to fulfil our prediction that R. G. Jolly would in due course follow the ex­ample of That Evil Servant – assume an “abused” silence, and persuade his readers to do likewise. And we think the same prediction will prevail with respect to The Last Saint ­– also with his “consecrated Epiphany Campers.” In Brother Johnson's words (E‑5, P. 18) we also say: “When did our lord, our Pastor and other faithful servants of the Truth keep silent when their presentations were attacked and errors were introduced (Micah 5:5, 6)? Certainly they acted as we do in similar conditions, and not like the revolutionists.

“In all thy getting, get understanding.” And it is the prayer of the writer that each who reads these presentations “in sincerity and in truth” may grow in that under­standing that maketh wise unto salvation.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle ,Pilgrim

NO. 27: MORE ON THE 1,000 YEAR REIGN OF THE CHRIST

No. 27

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

In our February 1 writing an this subject we offered copious quotations from the Star Members in support of our contention that the 1,000‑year reign of Christ and the Saints could not, and did not begin until 1914. That article has never been answered in the Present Truth; and it comes now to our notice that R. G. Jolly is again resort­ing to his choice secret weapon – the “whispering campaign.” He recently wrote a let­ter to a Sister saying he has not anewered our February 1 paper because we have kept silent on Rev. 20:2‑7. For one who has kept silent on so many things himself, the weakness of this excuse should need no detailed comment here. As we said on February 1, his silence on our challenge of his “faulty disc” would have justified our complete si­lence until he replied to that; but we went ahead anyway with further clarification of the subject – having regard for the Truth primarily, and overlooking such reprehensible ethics. But once again do we challenge his explanation of the “faulty disc.”

However, we do admit to silence on Rev. 20:2‑7 – and with definite purpose. We have been trying to determine, if possible, how dull his spiritual perception has be­come since he was abandoned to Azazel on October 22, 1950. It is certainly not our mission in life to destroy men's lives, so under no circumstances would we wish to cat­alog unjustly any one as a part of the Epiphany Jambres. But, when we see a once highly­ respected teacher of Present Truth ignoring the elementary principles of Scriptural ex­egesis, it does indeed give no small cause for wonder. After detailedly adhering to the elementary principles of Scriptural analysis ourselves, it would seem that should have had a sobering and cleansing effect on R. G. Jolly. Could be, of course, that it did register, and that is the real reason for his silence on our February 1 article. On this we can only guess. The three primary rules for true Scripture interpretation are:

(1) The interpretation must be in harmony with the text itself;

(2) It must be in harmony with all other Bible texts;

(3) Use the Bible as a book of texts – Not as a textbook.

R. G. Jolly's explanation of Rev. 20:2‑7 violates all three of the above primary re­quirements. Treating first Rule No. 2 above, his interpretation is pointedly out of harmony with Matt. 25:31‑46. In view of the detailed comments we have offered on this Scripture, it would seem that even one befuddled by Azazel should have grasped the im­plications. Whenever any interpretation of two Scriptures makes them contradict each other, there is present at least one of three considerations: Part or all of the text is spurious; the translation is at fault; or the interpretation itself is wrong. Now, there is nothing to indicate that Rev. 20:7 is spurious, or improperly translated. This leaves for it only the third point – R. G. Jolly's interpretation is wrong! Even he should have been sobered by the detailed writings we presented on the subject – ­though we did not at any time specifically mention the three primary rules set out above. Specifically was this detail given on page 4 of our October 1, 1956 treatise. Then, on page 2 of our December 8, 1956 article we quoted this from Brother Johnson re 1 Cor. 15:24:

“What is meant by all rule, and all authority and power? We answer every vestige of Satan's governing, of Satan's claim of right, and of Satan's might; all of this must be destroyed utterly and forever, and this will be done at the end of the Little Season.” (NOT AT 2874)

This quotation carries identically the same thought as is found in E‑17‑124 (bottom), with the language changed just enough that it will take a magician of very superior skill to juggle it with a “faulty” disc. If R. G. Jolly is right in his contention of a “faulty” disc as authority to change E‑17‑124, then his “correction” is a direct con­tradiction of Brother Johnson's statement we quoted an December 8, and which is re­peated here. Again an page 4 of our February 1, 1957 presentation we quoted this from Vol‑ E‑17‑196:

“In Matt. 25:31‑46 (the parable of the Sheep & Goats) there is given a brief description of the results of the Judgment process. V. 31 shows our lord's Second Advent with His faithful angels, or messengers; and the next verse shows how He gathers all nations before His MILLENNIAL THRONE, making them subject to Him as THEIR KING.”

Now we shall proceed to show that R. G. Jolly's interpretation of Rev. 20:2‑7 is not in harmony with the text itself. He admits Satan's binding began in 1874; he also admits that the reign of Christ and the Saints could not in any sense begin before 1878. Therefore, his emphasized “the” thousand years is only 996½ years; but this seems to make no difference to him. Here is a fine illustration of consistency in reverse from one who expended many hundreds of words to prove a one‑day discrepancy in the false 35 ­year parallels. The flaw in his interpretation of the 1,000‑year reign is so readily apparent that it seems unthinkable that we should have to point it out at all. Also, this false interpretation is directly contradicted by Brother Johnson in the November 15, 1949 Herald, and in E‑5‑422:

“The Millennial Age has several beginnings – 1874, 1878, 1881, 1914.. otherwise, we could not claim for Christ and the Church a full thousand years' reign.”

R. G. Jolly tries to get around this by contending “the part must here be taken for the whole” – although that elastic idea still leaves him 3½ years short on his “the” thousand years. In this connection, Brother Russell said in April, 1911 (Tower Reprints 4799) that the Kingdom was not then set up; whereas, he said in Feb. 1915 (Reprints 5632) that the Kingdom of God is set up. This is in harmony with his statement in Questions, answer to Question 3, p. 427, that the “power to reign” (the crown in 1914, as is clear­ly explained in Vol. P‑2‑75 (bottom), 77 (middle), 78, 79, 80 and 81‑‑JJH) was the Kingdom – Not the glorification.

His whole difficulty stems from his attempt to use the Bible as a textbook, in­stead of a book of texts. And we all know there was a time he knew better than this! It should be evident by now that the binding and the reigning are each one thousand years; and it is just as evident they do not have the same beginning, so they cannot have the same ending – although they do run concurrently for most of the time. And a 3­½ year divergence is just as quickly to be rejected as would an error of thirty‑five years, or one hundred years. It is not the reigning and the loosing that should be paired here; it is the binding and the loosing. Therefore, verses 7‑8 should be transposed immediately after verse 3 – and all the difficulties will vanish. This is Brother Johnson's thought here, too. And it is an excellent example of a “little here, a little there” – the same as Joel 2:28, 29, which cannot be understood if we read it as a textbook. The Bible is more mixed up than a Chinese puzzle – as Brother Johnson reverently declared; and the book of Revelation is an outstanding example. It has brought only confusion to all who attempted to unlock it before the “due time.”

The 2520‑year parallel and the 3520‑year parallel substantiate our position; but R. G. Jolly's interpretation does violence to the 2520‑year parallel, and voids com­pletely the 3520‑year parallel – just as his soulmates in the P.B.I. did with many parallels in their attempted 19‑year “correction” of the chronology. The 2520‑year parallel starts with the end of Adam's Day; and the first half concludes in 607 B.C., with the second half ending in 1914. As we pointed out on page 3 of our February 1, 1957 writing, the “crown” represents the power or authority to reign. There are two kinds of parallels – related and contrasted; and the 2520‑year parallel is an example of a contrasted parallel. In Ezek. 21:25‑27 the judgment was pronounced: “And thou, profane wicked prince (Zedekiah)... take off the crown.” It will be noted he was not commanded to lay down the “scepter” (the right to reign), because the promise was sure that “the scepter shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh come” (Gen. 49:10). But Zedekiah did lose the crown – the authority to reign. At His resurrection our lord re­ceived the scepter; but He did not then receive the crown in its full sense, because the Gentiles were to have their day until the second half of the parallel had run its course – Namely, to 1914. Thus, we contend that Christ and the Saints could not begin to reign prior to 1914, because they did not possess the crown in its full sense until then. Thus, the parallel in contrast: At 607 B. C. the profane wicked prince forced to remove the crowm; at 1914 the Righteous Prince graciously invited to put on the crown to evict the Gentiles whose times had run their full course.

The 3520‑year parallel has its start at the beginning of Adam's Day, the first half ending in 607 B. C. – when the profane wicked prince was forced to remove the crown. The second half ends in 2914 (3520 minus 606), when the Righteous Prince takes off the crown – thus making way for the Sheep to put on the crown – every man his own king: “The kings of the earth (the faithful restitutionists) bring their glory into the heav­enly city.” (Rev. 21:24,26)‑ Vol. E‑11‑290 (top). Note also the Berean Comments an Ezekiel 21:25.

Let us now consider the purpose of the Christ's reign. Is it not “the restitution of all things”? And what is to be restored? Why, it is “that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). We perceive four things were lost: God's favor was lost; Paradise was lost; Dominion was lost; Life was lost – and that in the order mentioned. It should not require argument that the peace and quiet of Paradise in its pristine purity cannot again be restored un­til all evildoers and all evil things are annihilated; and this contention is corrobor­ated in E‑17‑414 (bottom):

“By the time the Millennium and its subsequent `Little Season' will have fully ended, God through the Christ (Head and Body)... will have blessed all the willing and obedient of mankind with restitution.”

Then will be fulfilled Rev. 22:5: “There shall be no night there” – fter the Little Season's night has been dispelled by Paradise restored. Then – nd not until then ­will the reign of the Christ have accomplished the “restitution of all things.” Nor can this possibly be effected by 2874; therefore, the reign of the Christ cannot be the same thousand years as Satan's binding.

We believe our presentation offers a harmonious whole, with all pertinent Scripture properly applied. If R. G. Jolly cannot do the same with his interpretation, then we call upon him to correct his errors here, as well as his sins of teaching and practise in so many other places, in order that he may properly present “an offering in righteous­ness” unto the Lord. His “whisperings” in private simply accentuate his uncleansed con­dition – a weakess of which Brother Johnson accused him, and of which he manifestly has not yet rid himself. And we do now especially entreat him once more to undo the sin he has perpetrated when he instructed his readers to write that error into Brother John­son's statement in E‑17‑124 under guise of a “faulty disc” – or to harmonize his “cor­rection” with the quotation we have offered on page 2 of this writing!

And may the blessing that maketh rich abide with all who read in a “good and honest heart.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgram

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

Question of General Interest

Question: – Are you out of harmony with the teachings of the Star Members on the linen garments of sacrifice and the robes of Glory and Beauty?

Answer: – No, we are not. We were indeed remiss in our comment about it last December in that we did not elaborate. As Brother Russell came to see, the Atonement Day ceremony types the entire Gospel and Millennial Ages; and the atoning features of the antitypical Gospel‑Age sacrificing cannot be considered to end fully until the last Great Company has left the earth. While these are not a part of the Sin‑Offering, they do atone for the wilful sins of Christendom – just as “that generation” of Jesus' First Advent atoned for Israel's wilful sins against the Law.

As to the Saints, there are two viewpoints to be considered in their change from linen garments of sacrifice. Rev. 14:13 tells us they “rest from their labors” at their resurrection to the Divine Nature; thus, their sacrificing ceases then as individuals. Note Brother Johnson's comment along this line in E‑4‑156 (6) to 159 (8). On page 159 there is this statement: “The sacrificial robes (linen garments) represent the Church's condition during her sacrificing time” – which statement is taken from Brother Russell's comment in 1910 Tower, p. 136. There is more on this in E‑17‑413 (bottom): “In the sacrificing, Gospel‑Age condition ... as typed in Aaron in his linen garments; secondly, in their glorified condition...typed in Aaron in his garments of glory and beauty.”

While the Saints cease their sacrificing as individuals when they “rest from their labors”, the World's High Priest does not complete the Gospel‑Age feature of the atoning work until the Great Company is fully dealt with; and from this stand­point they must be viewed in the linen garments until the last Great Company has left the earth.

R. G. Jolly has raised quite some fuss about our December 1, 1956 comment on this matter, complaining about our silence on it, since he offered his partial com­ment about it in the January Present Truth. But – in true character – he says noth­ing about his own silence on the real point we were discussing last December – Namely, the antitype of Lev. 16:23‑24 – wherein the high priest is depicted as standing naked in the court after he removed his linen garments. As we pointed out, once the last Great Company is gone, and the linen garments are removed – as viewed from every stand­point – the glorified World's High Priest will still not be authorized to don the gar­ments of glory and beauty; because putting on those garments means the start of the resurrection process of the Basileia. The length of time, which at this time is un­certain, consumed between complete removal of the linen garments (completion of the atoning work) and putting on the garments of glory and beauty is the antitype of the high priest standing naked in the court after removal of his linen garments of sacri­fice.

If R. G. Jolly can offer nothing better than a "whispering campaign” against the foregoing, then let him forever hold his peace – and especially let him desist from his “whispering campaign” that we are “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson” on the matter of the linen garments. But if he makes public answer in the Present Truth, let him state clearly whether or not he thinks the “standing naked” has application to any period or circumstance here on earth – as applicable to the Saints.

NO. 26: SOME PAROUSIA-EPIPHANY COMPARISONS

No. 26

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

In Matt. 13:24‑30 Jesus spoke the parable of the Wheat and Tares, along with several other parables in that same chapter; but it seems “the parable of the tares” particularly intrigued the Disciples, so at first opportunity they asked “Declare un­to us the parable of the tares of the field.” Since they were still `natural man' ­not yet having received the Holy Spirit – it is easily understandable why they should be more concerned about those that were to be “gathered into bundles for the burning” than for the “wheat to be gathered into my barn”, because they took it more or less for granted that they themselves were of the Wheat class. But the “burning of the tares” as a mystery to them – particularly, when and how. In His explanation Jesus said in verse 39 – “The harvest is the end of the world”; and it is specially with this statement that we now occupy ourselves.

If the Harvest would constitute the “consummation” (full end) of the Age, we are privileged to draw certain sound conclusions about it. As most of us know, both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were established in their belief that the reap­ing feature of the Harvest was a period of forty years. Now, if we accept that prem­ise, then we have in Jesus' words one of the most convincing texts that the reaping ended September 16, 1914 – at which time the High Calling would be forever closed. Once the reaping came to its consummation, the High Calling must forever pass out of existence, never again to be revived under any circumstances. It was on that day that the Little Flock section of the Gospel‑Age Church of the Firstborn was tentatively and individually “sealed in the forehead” – the 144,000 had been finally and eternally won. On that day also the Gospel‑Age Tabernacle was “fully set up”—Numbers 7:1.

And, once the Gospel‑Age Tabernacle was complete in its every part, the construc­tion of the Epiphany Tabernacle would have its start; and only those who recognized this fact would be doing the lord's work with His full approval and blessing. Hind­sight is always better than foresight; and probably none at the beginning of the Epiphany realized the full import of the transition as the work on the Gospel‑Age Tabernacle ceased and the work an the Epiphany Tabernacle began. Certainly, That Evil Servant and his partisans realized it not at all, or they would never have be­gun their “Millions Row Living Will Never Die" campaign, because that preaching com­pletely ignored the Epiphany – going as it did from the small Parousia to the Basi­leia. Time has clearly proven the folly of that effort – so much so that even Je­hovah's Witnesses themselves do not want to hear it mentioned any more. It was a bold and impudent attempt to run ahead of the Lord; and it has received the rebuke which was its due.

We believe we have in our LHMM group after Brother Johnson's death a comparison similar to what happened under JFR after Brother Russell's death. If we really be­lieved Brother Johnson was the Epiphany Messenger, then we should have followed the arrangements he made for the Epiphany – a fact which we gently but firmly called to R. G. Jolly's attention as soon as he began to broach the first of his changes in those arrangements. He also would run ahead of the lord in his effort to “do great works, win great numbers.” Even after Brother Johnson's death, the work of the Epiphany Tabernacle should have continued – should have gone on to the time in the Epiphany when that work would be stopped by “the treader of grapes” – just as the work with the Gospel‑Age Tabernacle went right on until that work was stopped by “the plow­man.” But, as is so often true with such perversions, there is never any turning back. That would be an admission of blunder; and, surely, no crown‑lost leader should be brought to such humiliation! The real work of the Epiphany was to win Youthful Worth­ies and to deliver Azazel's Goat into the hands of the Fit Man. The latter part of that work was accomplished to the full at October 22, 1950, when the last section in the LHMM was completely and finally abandoned to Azazel by the Lord's removal of His special eye, hand and mouth from their midst. No Group cleansing had yet started then, of course — none of the Groups as such are yet cleansed, although individuals among them may be cleansed in character.

But, even though the abandonment was completed on that date, that does not in any sense presume the second part to be completed at the same time. In fact, the most partisan supporters of the Executive Trustee – those who were willing to commit to the second death those who still considered themselves Saints – even they realized that Youthful Worthies could be won – up to October 1954, as they contend. If there is anything in the Scriptures to show that work would be concluded in 1954, none of them have yet pointed it out. Brother Johnson clearly taught some of the Youthful Worthies would be won before Babylon's fall and some after. So far as we know, there are only two Scriptures that establish 1954 – one being the type of “purification” in Leviticus 12. This we accept without dissent; but that type has only to do with the developing Truths for the Little Flock and Great Company; and those Truths were all in evidence by 1954 – had been pointed out clearly. Aside from this type, we know of no Scripture anywhere that lends support to the many predictions concerning that year altho, as we explained in our January 1 writing, it was indeed the end of the “second watch.” But nothing in these two Scriptures just cited offers even a hint that the effort toward Youthful Worthies should be abandoned – although R. G. Jolly and his parti­sans accept that position as though there be no doubt about it. Among criminals this by­word often prevails – Follow boldness with more boldness. That was Hitler's philosophy, too; and such tactics do often overawe those they wish to persuade. It is a cheap form of psychology, a form of `third degree'; and is often employed by those who realize their own glaring limitations, but wish to divert the attention of others away from those lacks which they subconsciously realize are only too present. Therefore, when such shout often and loudly enough that the work toward Youthful Worthies is finished ­just as did That Evil Servant with his “Millions Now Living” – a certain segment is sure to be convinced beyond question of doubt. Thus, the Witnesses are so enmeshed with their perversion of Brother Russell's Stewardship Doctrine on Restitution that they do solemnly and dogmatically warn the unconvinced that “you've had your chance” (through their conversation with that individual Witness – who usually has hardly enough understanding of his own religion to know which is `up') – “There remaineth now no hope for you”! Indeed, “the heart of man is deceitful above all things.. And who can know it?”

However, if no more Youthful Worthies could be won after October 1954, then the gate to the Epiphany Tabernacle court is hermetically sealed shut – so far as entrance is concerned, although the exit feature of that gate would still swing out for any un­worthy occupant of the court. Once the time does arrive – whether that be 1954 or same other date – exactly the same situation would prevail with respect to the Epiphany Tabernacle court as applied to the Holy of the Gospel‑Age Tabernacle at September 1914. The reaping was the end of the Age; and, once the reaping closed, the entrance into the Holy also closed – although there was still an exit from the Holy, too, just as there would be from the court. Indeed, great numbers of the “large crowd” were not only al­lowed to pass out of the Holy, they were actually forced out as their revolutionisms clearly manifested them to be members of Azazel's Goat. It should be noted that many of them were the rabid and unchristian adherents of That Evil Servant for a period – until they, too, woke up to him (as did Brother George Fisher, of whom we wrote in our June paper). Then, lacking the humility to admit their folly, they just drifted off somewhere to themselves – a pitiful Isolated specimen. Many of us know of such. And it is our prediction now that the same process will repeat itself with many in the LHMM. It is the old, old spectacle being enacted again) as it occurred with fleshly Israel and continued with spiritual Israel throughout the Gospel Age. Jeremiah is often styled the Weeping Prophet because of his lamentations over the “backsliding children of Israel”, an he plead with them to “return to the Lord our God, the salva­tion of Israel.” But they would not hear!

The foregoing brings us to a consideration of the “consecrated Epiphany Campers” a name R. G. Jolly has given to the quasi‑elect whom he would have to consecrate be­tween October 1954 and the opening of the Highway of Holiness. He objects to calling them the quasi‑elect “consecrated” – perhaps because he can find not the least corrob­oration anywhere in Brother Johnson's writings for such a class. Anyway, it seems to us a question is in order: If the Epiphany court is closed to such (and R. G. Jolly says it is), are they still to be considered in relation to the Epiphany Tabernacle? He quotes Brother Johnson that “Tentative justification will continue until restitu­tion” – and we offer no dissent from that. But what does that have to do with those who can no longer secure tentative justification? The mere fact that others may have it can mean absolutely nothing to those who cannot obtain it. Tentative justifica­tion was given to the Household of Faith to enable them to consecrate – for elective purposes. No one has ever received tentative justification in the Camp. There is indeed a `great gulf' between the two positions; and R. G. Jolly's contention about 1954, when coupled with his exposition of Rev. 22:11, needs much more explaining than he has yet given it. His quotation of Brother Johnson that “tentative justification will continue until restitution” means nothing at all to his “consecrated” Epiphany Campers. It leaves them and him in a most awkward position. Of course, as we should expect from such mis‑leaders, he fails to answer these and the many other questions we raised in our May 1 paper about this new “consecrated” class he has brought into existence. He just continues to shout “advancing truth” (in reality “Advancing error”) –Follow boldness with more boldness. To make our own position clear here, be it defi­nitely understood that we do not question in any respect Brother Johnson's teachings on the quasi‑elect as a class who maintained their tentative justification but failed to use it for elective purposes – although they are remanded to the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture as the truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.

But we direct attention that R. G. Jolly teaches that the Great Company and Youthful Worthies are on a narrow way, but not the narrow way – which is right enough; but he now attempts to put his “consecrated” Epiphany Campers (his newly‑conceived class) on this same narrow way, while he slams the door of the court into their faces – ­the door that provides the only entrance into a narrow way. Since when does the Tab­ernacle picture of the Gospel Age, The Epiphany or the Basileia set forth a “narrow way” of any kind IN THE CAMP? We wonder if he is about to produce a “faulty disc” on Tabernacle Shadows to sustain his contention – just as That Evil Servant discarded Tabernacle Shadows and the Pyramid (Bible in stone) to continue in his “Millions” and other Azazelian perversions. In his attempt to put his quasi‑elect “consecrated” in the same narrow way with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, but having them in the camp, while the others are in the court) he offers a very present illustra­tian of St. Paul's words in Eph. 4:14 (Dia.): “Every wind of that teaching which is in the trickery of men, by cunning craftiness in systematic deception.” It would seem to be a brand of magic such as was displayed by Jannes and Jambres, the Egyp­tian magicians who withstood Moses at the court of Pharoah.

Consider now the words of Jesus in John 10:7 – “I am the door of the sheep”; and the Berean Comments on this text – “There is but one way into the `Court'.” Then Brother Russell's statement on page 18 of Tabernacle Shadows – “There was only one gateway to enter the `Court'; the type thus testifying that there is but one way of access to God – one `gate' – Jesus ... `I am the way' (John 14:6).” Therefore, if the `gate' is the “one way of access to God”, and that the gate is now closed, as R. G. Jolly contends, what standing can his “consecrated” Epiphany Campers possibly have before God? Can this new class be other than a secondary application of the incest of anti­typical Lot—Gen. 19:30‑38? Even when the Highway of Holiness is opened, Jesus will be the only `way' into that – the way of actual Justification not now being opened for the Afterborn – although the quasi‑elect (the unconsecrated as defined by Brother John­son) will have prepared for their walk on that way once the Epiphany in its narrow sense subsides at the end of Jacob's Trouble, these same formerly faith‑justified (quasi‑elect) being the unconsecrated but repentant and believing Jews and Gentiles living in the finished picture of the Epiphany Camp (those having died prior to that time not being treated here). And we wonder how many of his adherents will be able to offer anything approaching a clear exposition of this perversion to others – a theory in which he himself has left so many questions unanswered – just as is true with the Witnesses in their “witnessing”. Of those who have perverted the teachings of the Star Members during the entire Gospel Age Jesus Himself has said, “I never ap­proved of you.” Therefore, let all who are reckless enough to put themselves under such disapproval do so; “as for me and my house”, we shall have none of it.

In no sense can his quasi‑elect “consecrated” be a part of the Church of the Firstborn – either Gospel Age or Millennial Age; they are the Afterborns from every viewpoint. Yet R. G. Jolly has the crassness to inform them they must walk a narrow way – a way the Elect now traverse – but they must do this without the sustaining prom­ises of that narrow way. Viewing this from any standpoint, is it just not Azazelian nonsense to submit such a proposal to any one? As Brother Johnson has so ably taught, it is not possible for mere man to rise above himself; therefore, when any human be­ings do rise above themselves, they do so “not by (their own) power, nor by might, but by my spirit, sayeth the Lord.” And we receive and retain that Holy Spirit only through the Mothering Promises held out to us; otherwise, none could possibly continue in any narrow way to the end of earth's journey.

As an integral part of this article, we feel it appropriate to state that we consider Brother Johnson's Stewardship Doctrine to be

The Epiphany in its Relation to the Epiphany Elect

As we have stated on other occasions, the various Star Members saw their Stewardship Doctrines very early in their ministry; and it was that teaching that gave animus to their entire earthly career. This is so clearly proven by examining the effort of Brothers Russell, John Wesley, Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer, Robert Browne and others; and it was true of Brother Johnson, too. Not only did he see clearly the Epiphany in its “times and seasons”, as well as its acts, but he also “built the house of the Lord” upon his Epiphany understanding — he arranged the Epiphany elect classes, giv­ing us all the developing truths for the Great Company and the basic truths for Youth­ful Worthies. This we explained in detail in our July 2, 1956 writing on The Epiphany Solomon – a copy of which we shall gladly furnish free upon request.

But, as in the case of Brother Russell and all the other Star Members, Brother Johnson's Stewardship Doctrine was quickly enough perverted by the crown‑lost leaders that followed; in fact, he was not yet in his grave before it began by an attempt to eliminate one class of the Epiphany Elect from our midst – Namely, the Little Flock. At Brother Johnson's death no one contended that was the end of the Epiphany viewed from any standpoint – not even R. G. Jolly; but the crown‑lost leaders did immediate­ly proceed to eliminate one of the Epiphany Elect Classes. And, as always happens in such cases, it was necessary to produce other errors and forsake certain truths to bol­ster up the first error. It wasn't long until appeared an article declaring the Meas­urably Faithful must now be the Faithful – to replace the Faithful they had eliminated by their perversion of the Stewardship Doctrine. And hand in glove with that came the “Truths Hidden in the Years of Noah's Age” (a writing we shall sometime analyze, D.v.), showing how the Great Company must now serve themselves. Brother Johnson had made it clear enough that the Priests would provide the “razor” that would cleanse the Le­vites – Numbers 8; but, with the elimination of the Faithful, they would now proceed to cleanse themselves – by announcing they need no “razor”, they are already cleansed – ­as though Brother Johnson's removal had cleansed them, instead of abandoning them to Azazel. And they have gone about this in true keeping with all past performance. And how have they done it? Why, by just ignoring those teachings that would accomplish their cleansing (deleting those parts that pertain to the Great Campany when reproduc­ing the Star Members, writings for the Present Truth readers) – so much so that by now those parts are eliminated that might focus attention upon their appalling condition, and resolutely denying the process by which they were abandoned to Azazel. We have already pointed out some of this – and there will be more to follow. But it now be­comes crystal clear why our loving Heavenly Father will submit them to “great tribu­lation” for their cleansing – they just won't learn any other way.

We believe it timely to offer here another quotation from Brother Johnson (E‑6‑364, bottom): “Sacrificing the Lord's Goat is a totally different thing from leading forth Azazel's Goat to the gate and to the fit man and delivering him to Azazel. How do we lead it to the gate? By resisting its revolutionism. How do we deliver it to the fit man? By withdrawing Priestly fellowship. How do we deliver it to Azazel? By withdrawing all brotherly help and favor.” We repeat that this third process was never carried out by the Priests during Brother Johnson's life to the sec­tion of Azazel's Goat in the LHMM; but their delivery to Azazel was arbitrarily ac­complished by the Lord through Brother Johnson's death. It should be noted that the sit­uations with the Society at July 27, 1917 and with the LHMM at October 22, 1950 were identical in every detail, except that in the former That Evil Servant malevolently ejected the Lord's eye, hand and mouth; whereas, in the LHMM he was graciously re­moved by the Lord Himself. Nevertheless, each group was deprived of “all brotherly help and favor”, regardless of the process. And Brother Johnsen clearly and repeat­edly taught that All OF THEM must experience the third step – ABANDONMENT TO AZAZEL – ­for their cleansing. Thus, it should require no further argument to prove they were not cleansed – as a group – at October 22, 1950, because they had not at that time had their abandonment as a group, although this would not include all individuals among them, of course.

Then, in addition to these already mentioned comes now another perversion of the Stewardship Doctrine – the quasi‑elect “consecrated,” or “consecrated Epiphany Campers” (whichever way you wish to say it).

Did Brother Johnson ever teach such a class for the Epiphany? He certainly did not! But in many parts of his writings does he confirm a quasi‑elect unconsecrated: and especially clear is his teaching about it on pages 519 (middle) and 526 (middle) of Volume 12, on page 330 of E‑17, and on pages 545‑47 of E‑15. In addition, he offers a direct contradiction to this whole mirage in Volume E‑10‑209 (middle):

“The Gospel‑Age Camp is the condition of the unjustified people of God while the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.”

Will this quotation from the Epiphany Messenger allow for any compromise with R. G. Jolly's “consecrated” in the Epiphany Camp? Well, once more we repeat – let those pervert the teachings of the Star Members who are reckless enough and “unstable and unlearned” enough to ignore the wiles of Azazel (Azazel means Perverter); but this writer and his house will have no part of it.

As part and parcel of this discussion) it should be emphasized that the crown­lost leaders who have perverted the various Stewardship Doctrines are exactly the same characters as are found typed by King Saul. And at the time of Saul's deflection Samuel levelled this accusation at him: “Rebellion is the sin of witchcraft” (1 Sam. 15:23) – which, in the language of the Epiphany Messenger, would read like this: “Revolutionism is the sin of especially deceptive false teachings.” In R. G. Jolly's revolutionism against Brother Johnson's teaching on the quasi‑elect we have a classic example of “especially deceptive false teachings.”

While considering the Stewardship Doctrines of the last two Star‑Members, we be­lieve it opportune to observe that at the very beginning of the Gospel Age the “comman salvation” (Jude 3) — Restitution – travelled arm in arm with the “great salvation” (Heb. 2:3) – the Elect. These doctrines became alienated in the long and trying in­terim of the Age; but it seems pointedly pertinent that they should again embrace each other in the end of the Dispensation – even as the last two Principal Men also walked arm in arm together in such blessed intimacy until one of them was called to “rest from his labors” (Rev. 14:13); while the other continued with us until he had clari­fied to the full his Stewardship Doctrine in perfect harmony with that “unity of the faith” that had so blessed God's people during the Harvest.

As a conclusion, we feel we cannot do better than quote from Brother Johnson (E‑15‑520): “As these evil qualities grow in the Great Company under Satanic manipu­lation they lead their followers into increasing errors and Satan‑given wrong arrange­ments for the Lord's work.... With all this they increasingly lose part of their ability to discern between truth and error.”

And further from E‑11‑623, Chapter 7: “Lovingly the Epiphany messenger entreats his symbolic children to hold to his truths and his precepts, exhorting them to obey his precepts as life‑givers, and to make his truth most dear to them, to write them into their acts and to inscribe them into their affections and wills, to make the Truth their closest of kin, and to make discretion a close relative.”

 As companion to the above, we consider most appropriate St. Paul's advice to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14): “Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Question of General Interest

Question: – Is it correct to say others before Brother Russell preached Restitution?

Answer: – It certainly is correct, just as it is correct to state that every Steward­ship Doctrine analyzed in Volume 8 was preached by Star Members of a prev­ious era. However, when Brother Russell appeared, the Bible states in so many words that the doctrine of Restitution had been lost (Luke 15:9). Also, in E‑9‑110 (23) Brother Johnson says – “The ten pieces of silver represent the ten main Biblical doc­trines. Nine of these were never wholly lost to the Church, though there accumulated much symbolic tarnish on them. But one of them, restitution, was wholly lost for centuries to the church.”

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

Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: Christian Greetings of love and Peace!

 Thanks for your letter of ...... replying to mine of the ..... I certainly find myself in hearty agreement, especially do we like the article The Last Saint in which you have pinpointed matters very well indeed. Undoubtedly the dear Lord is guiding you by His Holy Spirit in this work you have undertaken for Him and His cause, so that our dear brethren in the L.H.M.M. may be helped. Truly, the humble, honest‑hearted brethren in sincerity and Truth are so greatly blessed and this bless­ing we appreciate, received in Joy and with a Peace of heart and mind beyond all human understanding; and we praise the lord for these tokens of His love and favor toward us. Sure enough through “controversy these matters are becoming clarified” to the glory of God. Nor will they cease to be so until the lord has completed His purpose toward the L.H.M.M. brethren and as many others as possible.

It was not possible for me to go to the Hyde Convention this past week‑end... but Sister ‑‑‑‑ was there on the Saturday evening and heard RGJ give his talk on Psa. 68 – Notes on which she hopes to send to you in due course. Who is the Dry land? He seemed to convey the thought that Psa. 68 speaks of the L.H.M.M..... RGJ applied Psa. 68:2 to those of us who have left the L.H.M.M. who are vanished like “smoke” “driven away” – into a “dry land.” Well, well – now you know! Also, he stated the ‑‑‑‑‑ brethren are “luny – i. e. lunatics”. Well, well – and again I say. Surely proof of his being on a “Rampage”! How unkind! .. And on quite a few of these say­ings of his, RGJ had the brethren “rocking with laughter.” If it were not for the seriousness of these things, the sadness of them, one would be tempted to wander if by the time he is to come this way again if he will have his hearers, i. e. the majority of then not only “rocking” but “rolling” also. His mind seems clearly to be of that type – making sport of the brethren. Please see Epiphany Vol. 6, PP 575­578 re Psa. 68.

If there is anything you would like me to undertake on your behalf here in England, please let me have your mind on the matter. With much love to you, Sister Hoefle and to all the dear ones with you from us all here. I am – Yours in His service – Brother ------- England.

NO. 25: THE JULY 1957 PRESENT TRUTH REVIEWED

No. 25

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

First, let us consider “Questions of General Interest”, as set forth on page 60 – ­the Answers to which contain some statements that, for sheer‑trick­ery and perversion, were probably never surpassed by That Evil Servant. R. G. Jolly tries to make a case for his contention that the Christ Company will all have left this earth before Armaged­don; and in his first paragraph on page 62 he offers in proof of this the citation in E‑4, pp. 54‑57. Too bad he did not start at the bottom of page 53, where this state­ment is found:

“The expression, The Time of Trouble, is used in two senses... In its narrow sense it covers the period from the beginning of the World War in 1914 until the end of anarchy and Jacob's Trouble.”

Therefore, when he quotes Brother Russell on page 61, Col. 2, par. 2 – “All the mem­bers of the body will be fully delivered, exalted to the glorious condition, before the severest features of the trouble came” – he should have explained what the “severest features” are if he wished to present an honest case to his readers. For the ben­efit of our readers, we connect the above quotation with one on page 56 (54) of Volume E‑4 (the same citation he offers for his “proof”):

“We have proven that the Epiphany began with the War and will progress through the Revolution and will end with the Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble. Its beginning, progressing and end with the Time of Trouble demonstrates its identity with the Time of Trouble.”

Then, further on page 57, top (Also his same citation of “proof”):

“Scripture, reason and facts prove that during the War this separation between the New Creatures – the Little Flock and the Great Company – began. However, since this is an Epiphany work) according to this passage, the Epiphany was here during the World War; but other Scriptures show that this separation of the two classes will continue during the Revolution. Probably it will continue until the early part of Anarchy.”

Now, note the bottom of page 57 (Again his citation of “proof”):

“The Little Flock, with the exception of a few of its members, will leave the world before Anarchy begins; and these few will leave early in Anarchy”.

Again, on page 59, middle:

“Still another passage, compared with the foregoing passages, implies this progressive character of the Epiphany: Col. 3:4, `When Christ, who is our life, shall appear (manifest Himself completely to the world), then shall ye also appear (manifest yourselves) with Him in glory'. This pas­sage doubtless refers to the grand climax of the Epiphany and its work at the and of the trouble.” (At the end of Jacob's Trouble.)

It should be carefully noted that R. G. Jolly uses this same Col. 3:4 on page 61, col. 1, par. 4 to “prove” 1954‑56, before which he claims all the Saints must have left the earth.

The foregoing quotations are from the very book, and the selfsame pages that R.G. Jolly offers to “prove” his contention about the Saints. Certainly, any one with a sixth‑grade education could see – with no difficulty whatever – that his citations prove just the reverse of his claims. In the face of this, we can but conclude that no one in reasonable possession of his faculties would make such a blunder except he be fully and completely in the hands of Azazel. This is truly a sad condition for one who basked in the luxurious and brilliant Epiphany Truth for more than thirty years to make such miserable display of his condition; and to one and all who do not wish to make complete shipwreck of their hopes came the words of St. Paul, “From such turn away!” “If the blind lead the blind!” Apparently, he cannot help himself from tread­ing the identical footsteps of That Evil Servant, the latter also having made the same contemptible blunders as he reposed in the assurance that his sleeping and dis­interested readers would not trouble themselves to verify his citations. Why should they, when they had the “Channel”? Experience is a dear teacher; and hopeless indeed is the condition of those who will not learn even by experience. That Evil Servant and his henchmen are a lurid and horrible spectacle to all who call upon the name of the Lord from a “pure heart, a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith.” And in all of this, R. G. Jolly has the brazen effrontery to refer to this “sifter as sparing no means, fair or foul, true or false, in his efforts to draw away disciples after him­self.” Such expressions from him surely deserve the retort of Prov. 30:20 – “An adult­erous woman, she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” And, as Brother Johnson so aptly states, “Blundering is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company.” It pains us to declare that the Present Truth has become the Present Perverter (Azazel means Perverter).

He makes also quite some play on Rev. 2:26,27; and his remarks reveal clearly that he does not know the meaning of “the nations broken to shivers.” It is true enough that the nations have been badly shaken and bruised from 1914 on to the present; but certain­ly none of them have been “broken to shivers”. Nor will that occur even in Armageddon, as that will occasion only a change in the form of Government; but not in any sense the elimination of Government in toto. As Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both so clear­ly taught, the “Heavens” shall pass away FIRST “with a great rushing sound” (2 Pet. 3:10 — Dia.); and the Berean Comment on this says, “a great hissing noise.” But the civil powers will continue for sometime after that; and they will be “broken together” Dia.) only through the process of Anarchy, which will indeed smash them into such bits that they will never again be assembled in their former likeness – just as a potter smashes a `reject' with his iron rod because he has no further use for it and does not wish it to appear as a usable vessel among his acceptable merchandise. This is the thought of Isa. 24:19, 20 – “The earth (society as presently organized) is utterly broken ... and shall be removed like a cottage.” Of course, all the Saints will be in glory when that occurs; but it has not yet occurred, nor will it occur for sometime yet.

He also offers some snide remarks about “The Christ's Thousand‑year reign” – just a generalized statement without specific comment. He did the same thing at the Grand Rapids Convention – his apparent purpose being to yell loud and long in the hope of impressing “the unstable and the unlearned” among his sectarian supporters. As we predicted sometime back, he would be silenced on this discussion – just as he has been silenced an the Faithful & Measurably Faithful, on Hiram, The Epiphany Solomon, Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels, etc., etc.; but it will be noted he makes no attempt to answer our February 1 paper, in which we set forth some dozen quotations from both Star Members. And why hasn't he done so? Because he's afraid to do so – just as he continues silent on his “faulty disc”; he's glad if his readers just forget about it. As we have previously said, he instructed his readers to write a transparent error into Brother Johnson's writings. And, if he is bold enough to do that – and not recant ­what shall we expect him to do with the unpublished writings he has in his possession?

On page 57 he offers an analysis of Psalms 32, much of which is very good – until he begins to pervert it as a cover‑up for Great Company “dis”‑graces. On page 59 he handles verse 9 as though it were a Millennial text. While it may have an application then, its primary application is in the Gospel Age – more particularly in the Epiphany; because it is contrasting two Classes, the Little Flock and the Great Company – although verse 10 deals briefly with a third Class, the wicked or ungodly – the “rasha”. Verse 8 tells us the Little Flock will be “guided with mine eye” – one of the senses of this expression being that the fully faithful Little Flock, those who have been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus”, would need only a look from their loving Heavenly Father to direct and keep them in the paths of righteousness; whereas, verse 9 is speaking of the Measurably Faithful, the Great Company, the heady ones who have required the restraint of “bit and bridle, else they will not came near.” Note the Berean Comment – “Those who can be guided only by continual scourging are not of the overcoming class.” They have been foreed – by Great tribulation – to fulfill their vows unto the Lord – “guided by bit and bridle” — the same ones to whom Brother Russell applies Matt. 7:21‑23, part of which we quote: “Have we not taught in thy name? And in thy name expelled demons? And in thy name performed many wonders? And then I will plainly declare to them, I never approved of you. Depart from me, you who practise iniquity.” (Dia.) These have “practised iniquity” (in‑equity – injustice) all during the Age by perverting Scriptures to their own advantage; by “casting out their brethren” (Isa. 66:5); by building up Baby­lon, great and small, etc. And, in the and they were committed to Azazel “for the de­struction of their flesh” – “Guided by bit and bridle” – in contrast to the Little Flock who “rejoiced to do thy will” under any and all circumstances. This Psalms 32 is a clear contrast between the two Gospel‑Age Classes; and, if it has a Millennial‑Age application, it will be contrasting two Classes there also – the Sheep and the Goats. It is hardly likely the Sheep will need “continual scourging” then, any more than the Little Flock have needed it now.

In his attempted perversion here to wave a “red herring” for Great Company benefit, he is doing the same thing he did at the Kingston Jamaica Convention last January 11‑13 with the sixth verse of the 68th Psalm. His discourse on the 68th Psalm was excellent so long as he adhered to the Star Member; but those “bound with chains, the rebellious that dwell In a dry land” are the Great Company who are unfruitful in service – they “dwell in a dry land”, dry land being unproductive of good fruits (see Psa. 107:10,11). Therefore, it is little wonder he takes almost no notice of verse 2 of this 32nd Psalm “in whose spirit there is no guile” – the Berean Comments for which are no “Deceit or hypocrisy; whose conduct is open and transparent.” This latter comment finds no com­panionship whatever with his “proof” in Volume 4 on the Saints, or the Berean Comment on Psa. 32:8, or his perversion of Psa. 68:6. But it should be noted he says “con­strained obedience is for the beast.” Brother Johnson says the Great Company exper­ience a “constrained” death; so we have here an example by R. G. Jolly of how Azazel has these people use a word correctly now and then if its use will in any way humiliate them —just as he causes them to use words incorrectly for the same reason.

The article on page 50 — “Avoid it, Pass not near it, Turn from it” – is a vitiated reproduction of Brother Russell's article on page 338 of the November 15, 1898 Watch Tower. As we have came to expect, it contains the usual percentage of perversions (Azazel means Perverter) by R. G. Jolly – alterations, additions and deletions. The original article was excellent, and expertly suited to its purpose; but on page 52, col. 2, there is this left out after par. 3:

“in the light of our path the Body of Christ now sees that... a testing is taking place... to separate the true, the consistent “wise virgins”, who faithfully follow the lord in self‑sacrifice, from the “foolish virgins” who attempt to please both the lord and the world, and make a failure of both. Our lamp shows us that as soon as this testing in the nominal church is complete a great time of trouble will break out.”

Now, we wonder why R. G. Jolly would leave the above out of his attempted reproduction of Brother Russell's article! Don't you wonder about it, too? And, we make the obser­vation that this perversion is by the same R. G. Jolly who says on page 62 of this same Present Truth that this “sifter (JJH) is sparing no means, fair or foul, true or false, in his efforts to draw away disciples after himself.” It will be recalled he made the statement this spring that henceforth he would ignore this “sifter” and confine his paper to “advancing Truth.” Are we to consider these multifarious and nefarious per­versions of the Star Members' writings his understanding of “advancing Truth”? It should be borne in mind it is a perversion – by omission – when he omits from their writings those component parts of articles which treat of the Great Company – a Class of God's people which at this time specifically needs the cleansing teachings of the very comments of those Star Members which he omits (Numbers 8).

May the God of all Grace make you perfect — stablish, strengthen and settle you.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

Question: Are you contending that our Lord did not return in 1874 to start the Millennium?

Answer: No; we are in full agreement with Brother Russell's chronology, which shows that the Millennium began in 1874 with our lord's Second Advent. Our only contention is that THE CHRIST had to reach the “full stature” in 1914 before their 1,000‑year reign could begin. Toward the close of his ministry Brother Johnson saw clearly that the Millennium must have several beginnings (which would mean several endings), else the Saints could not be said to reign “with Him (our Lord) a thousand years. As Brother Russell taught, the “power to reign” could not be theirs until “The Kingdom” was fully set up; therefore, the risen Saints began a work at their resurrection, to be sure, but that activity did not constitute their “reign” because “The Kingdom” had not been fully set up at any time prior to 1914. R. G. Jolly con­tends that the beginning of the individual Christ's reign in 1874 is the same as Satan's binding (which is true); but, when he contends that this also starts the reign of THE CHRIST, he has a self‑evident contradiction in his own figures. It is only when the last Saint came into the Body – in 1914 – that it could be truthfully said the Kingdom was fully set up – even though all of them may not then have been fully “sealed” with the Present Truth. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both are in full agreement with this statement – on which we hope to have much more to say “in due time”, D.v.