NO. 171: FURTHER COMMENT ON THE MAY-JUNE 1969 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 171

During our discussion of this paper in our No. 170 we omitted certain elaborations through stress of time and circumstances. Thus, we now offer further discussion.

Great stress has been placed upon the year 1954 by RGJ; but his conclusions are purely a figment of his own imagination. In Leviticus 12 we believe the date is clear­ly set forth; but that type had only to do with the cleansing from error of the Little Flock and Great Company developing truths. The date is also revealed (or we might say, hidden) as the beginning of the Third Watch (see our paper No. 108); but in neither of these dates is there the slightest hint of the end of the Youthful Worthy call. These things were the sole conclusion of the parallel to 1914, which time has clearly revealed to have been an improper conclusion. There is, therefore, no Scripture anywhere on which RGJ is justified in making the decisions he has made concerning 1954, and since.

Let us consider now the 1914 date, and the faulty expectations entertained by the Little Flock concerning it. Those of us who still retain the chronology given us through That Servant are convinced that 1914 did mark the end of the Gentile Times, which gave some foundation for the expectation of the glorification of the last saint, and the es­tablishment of the Kingdom. But a much more compelling Scriptural type offered justifi­cation for the Little Flock concluding ten years before that date, and earlier – that the last saint would leave the earth in 1914. We quote from E–3:51 (bottom):

“Found Elijah sitting on the top of a hill, literally the mountain. This mountain represents the kingdom, and Elijah’s sitting on the top types the fact that at that time, from early fall of 1914 onward, the entire eventual Elijah class was in the embryo King­dom, i.e., the last one of those who would prove faithful had been begotten of the Spir­it, and henceforth no one else would be invited to the High Calling; for all embryo new creatures who will overcome are by us to be regarded as already in the highest or heav­enly phase of the Kingdom – sitting on the top of a mountain (Rev. 14:1); and certainly by October, 1914, almost all of us understood that the last one of the Faithful had been begotten of the Spirit, and a little later came to see that the harvesting that yet re­mained was of a gleaning character. Moreover, the fact that Elijah was then on the moun­tain’s top implies that he had previously reached and ascended the mountain. His reach­ing the mountain also types the fact that the Church somewhat before early Fall, 1914, reached the time when the Kingdom beyond the vail would be working to overthrow Satan’s Empire, which working began September 21, 1914, after the outbreak of the World War. This is in harmony with our Pastor’s secondary thought on the antitype of Elijah’s com­ing at the end of the 40 days – 1914 – to Horeb, the Mount of God (1 Kings 19:8), i.e., that the Church in the flesh would at that time come to the time when the Kingdom be­yond the vail would stand up to overthrow Satan’s Empire through the great tribulation.”

The foregoing extensive quotation is given to reveal the very potential dates the Little Flock had for believing, early in the Harvest, that 1914 would prove to be the end of their earthly journey. And these, and other Items, had been so compelling in their outlook that Brother Johnson himself in the Spring of 1914 was still firmly convinced that the complete glorification would come that Fall, and it was with consider­able restraint that he withheld himself from openly contradicting Brother Russell’s con­clusion that the Church would still be here after 1914. Be it noted, however, that the date was correct; the only failing was in the wrong conclusions drawn from it ahead of time – and this applied to all the Little Flock, including Brother Russell himself up to about 1910. Little wonder that he warned us that prophecy cannot be understood in de­tail until it has been fulfilled, or is in course of fulfillment. Compare this now with the conclusions presented for 1954, and we are forced to decide that there is no compari­son – that only a “foolish” virgin would attempt to make one.

But going on, the Czarist regime in Russia was overthrown in the fall of 1917 – the collapse of one of the most imposing “mountains” in human history. How well do we remem­ber prominent elders telling us at that time that we were then literally “walking by sight” – faith had become reality. And certainly there was strong justification for that conclusion, too. But again, compare that with 1954, and we find again that there is no comparison – absolutely nothing occurred in 1954 that would cause any one in the world to regard it as a history–making date. And nobody in the Church believes it either – ex­cept RGJ and his sectarian supporters!

ANTITYPICAL MIRIAM

In our August paper we offered limited comment on the Miriam type, as it appears in Numbers 12. It was her power–grasping and evil–speaking against Moses that resulted in the Lord afflicting her with leprosy, because of which she was ejected from the Camp of Israel for seven days into the wilderness – until she was cleansed. Azazel’s Goat was also sent away into the wilderness (Lev. 16:21); but there is a distinction to be made in the two types. Azazel’s Goat includes all crown–losers, because every one of them must undergo fit–man experiences – some more, some less; but Miriam types only the Great Company leaders, who committed a special type of sin; namely, attempting to grasp power and to speak evil of the fully–faithful Star Members. And because of this they were stricken with antitypical leprosy – Great Company uncleanness.

Miriam’s leprosy did not cover her entire body – probably just her head – which would indicate contagion in teachings and filthiness of the mind, the same being anger, malice, hatred, strife, lying tongues especially against faithful brethren, etc. And to this end we quote some from E–9:140:

“What a horrible condition was that in which antitypi­cal Miriam found herself! While all through the Age the uncleanness of the crown–losers could be seen, apart from those specially pointed out as such by inspiration during the Jewish Harvest, this uncleanness was not recognized as that of crown–losers until the Epi­phany; but in the Epiphany this uncleanness has not only been seen, but it has also been seen as Great Company uncleanness. In all cases it has manifested itself in persistent revolutionism against either the Lord’s teachings or arrangements, or against both, with power–grasping, lording and sectarianism, in very arbitrary usurpations, as the case of JFR shows the most plainly of all. The list of unholy characteristics set forth in 2 Tim. 3:1–9 is seen more or less in all of the leaders of the Levite groups – self–lovers, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers (lying slanderers), disobedient to (spiritual) par­ents, unthankful, inhuman, implacable, false accusers (a charge specially recorded against RGJ by Brother Johnson in E–10:585 – “not a few misrepresentations,” and “false–accusing Epiphany crown–loser” – p. 591—JJH), without self–control, fierce, haters of good men, traitors, heady, high–minded, pleasure–lovers rather than God–lovers, formalistic, without religion’s power, deceivers of weak–minded, corrupt–hearted and fickle–willed women, un­fruitfully studious, corrupted in opinion, apostates from the Truth, liars, hypocrites. What horrible characters!”

The foregoing is Brother Johnson’s own description of antitypical Miriam in her leprous state, and not something we have concocted. And we may be certain that is still their condition unless they have repented and reformed their characters. Here is some­thing on that part of it from E–9:150:

“God does not forgive the impenitent, since such a course would encourage sin.... For Him to forgive and heal the Great Company without repentance on their part would en­courage their continued sin.”

Then more from page 154:

“In Azazel’s hands they have exceed­ingly untoward experiences. Their leprosy at first increases there, into horrible condi­tions: new swellings (sins), new boils (selfish­ness), new hot burnings (worldliness), new scalds (errors) – (such as confusion on the just and the unjust, Campers Consecrated written in the Book of Life when there is no such book yet open for them, confusion on 1 Cor. 15:24, etc.—JJH), new leprous spots on their garments (power–graspings and lord­ings – such as claims of being Pastor & Teacher while introducing multiform errors—JJH), and new leprous outbreaks (sectarian­isms) – (such as advising his fellow–sectarians not even to speak to those who oppose RGJ’s errors—JJH). Truly horrible is this.”

And concerning such characters RGJ describes them as a “higher class” – not to be contra­dicted or withstood by the ‘lower class’ Youthful Worthies. He even has the pa­thetic audacity to say this about the situation: “On the other hand, cooperating with the Great Company, it serves as a safeguard for the Youthful Worthies against the subtle attacks of Satan to entice them to usurp the teaching office of the Great Company.” Cer­tainly, here we have spiritual bedlam in the extreme! RGJ offers this as a generalized statement, so we can only conclude that he believes Youthful Worthies should have “coop­erated” with JFR and other leading Society errorists, or any other leprous leaders (anti­typical Miriam) wherever they might be found. Just a little reflection on all of this will readily convince our readers that it has never been necessary for us to resort to name–calling – just the plain and simple truth is more than enough.

RGJ’S CARIBBEAN TRIP

During March RGJ visited Trinidad, and reported as follows in the May–June Present Truth, p. 44:

“We served various meetings for the brethren... and enjoyed precious fellow­ship with them. They have stood faithful and loyal to the Truth and its spirit during the sifting that broke out in their midst in 1962.... We still pray for the few who left us at that time and are glad to learn that some have been recovered and that others are gradually getting their eyes open to the true situation.”

Respecting “the few” who left him in 1962, here are the facts: RGJ’s own Memorial Report for the year 1961 (the year before the separation) gives 45 participants (See PT 1961, p. 64, July–August); and his own Memorial Report for 1963 (the year after the sep­aration—See PT 1963, July–Aug., p. 63) gives 18 – a loss of 27, – or 60% – which RGJ describes as “the few.” And when he says that some are coming back to him, we quote now a letter about that from one who left him in 1962:

“It is not true that some of the friends are going back to the other class. Although they sent programs to a few of us during RGJ’s visit, no one attended.”

It would seem Brother Johnson gave us an accurate report in E–10:585: RGJ was guilty of “not a few misrepresentations... and a bad conscience”; and we are now pain­fully reminded that his “leprosy” in that respect has not only continued, but has actu­ally increased since the restraining hand of the Epiphany Messenger is no longer with him, and he has lost all brotherly help and favor of the Priesthood after 1950 – a con­dition and position much the same as that of JFR after he took charge of the Society after Brother Russell’s death.

Furthermore, we received an interesting newspaper report that said this about his public appearance in Trinidad: “Dr. Jolly, founder of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement of the U.S., and his granddaughter Mary addressed a gathering of men and women at the Mutual Society Hall, San Juan, on Sun­day afternoon.”

It would seem the question is properly in order here: Has he now made granddaughter Mary an Evangelist – to address public gatherings?

Again, we have been reliably informed that some of those who remained with him after the 1962 separation are soulmates in “leprosy” with antitypical Miriam (although we do not include all of them in this category), so he is more than welcome to whatever consolation he may receive from their adherence to him. We make no particular effort toward such at present; and we often remove one from our mailing list when we learn of his “leprous” condition. We are happy to state, however, that those that have at­tached themselves to us from the LHMM since 1955 – or have left RGJ – have been those most highly regarded by Brother Johnson and by the brethren generally before 1950; whereas, some of those still adhering to RGJ have openly revealed characters that are quite in keeping with what we quoted above from Brother Johnson about “leprous” Miriam. And, in fairness to those that still support RGJ, we are persuaded that some of the bet­ter ones among them have not accepted the errors that he has introduced since he took control – for which they are to be commended. In fact, some of them who still remain friendly toward us have told us this themselves, so we are not publishing mere opinion to curry favor with our readers.

So far as we know, none with us take this attitude toward our Truth presentations. Rather, they are sufficiently grounded in Tabernacle Shadows to know that neither the Parousia nor the Epiphany Messengers ever hinted at a justification outside the linen curtain – outside the righteousness of Christ. Thus, they are quite in harmony with E–9:19:

“The advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth formerly received, as some de­ceivers teach. Those of us who during the Parousia watched this peculiarity of the Truth, its dueness, i.e., its coming as the needs, circumstances and experiences of God’s people require, and who during the Epiphany are watching its dueness, know that this is a true principle in practice.”

And, acting upon this “true principle,” they have also received as “due Truth” this statement from E–9:134:

“It will be noted that while God has given the non–star­–membered teachers of the General Church and the more prominent local elders visions and dreams, He has never given them to see as a thing new a doctrine. This privilege is limited exclusively to our Lord acting in the star–members. Any attempts on the part of a non–star–membered teacher or of a non–teacher as the first one to work out a doc­trine would be speculation, and would, therefore, not result in uncovering a new truth, but would result in error.”

And more from E–10:XXIV: “All the brethren, except the star–members, are forbidden direct Bible study on new doctrines, types and prophecies, which is ‘gazing’ for them.”

Also from E–11:495:

“None of these brothers (probably Little Flock members—JJH) were the first to see new doctrines, which under Jesus is the exclusive privilege of star–members. As non–star–member scribes instructed unto the Kingdom of God, they have been privileged to find new confirmations of doctrines previously made known by Jesus to His star–members.”

All of the foregoing is a direct and cogent contradiction to RGJ’s Consecrated Epi­phany Campers, because the expression is to be found nowhere in either the Parousia or Epiphany writings. And because we point out these expressions as a warning to all, RGJ refers to us as the “sifting errorist.” Of course, he has learned the weakness and limitations of those who blindly swallow such diatribe; but he – and they – will eventu­ally recognize his “advancing truth” for what it is – a “house built upon the sand.”

As we have so often stressed, when Azazel’s Goat is led into the wilderness at the hands of the fit man – abandoned to Azazel – they no longer have that “peace of God which passeth understanding”; and the reason for this is simple enough: As they become enmeshed in their various errors – such as Campers Consecrated (with justification out­side the righteousness of Christ), confusion on 1 Cor. 15:24, etc., – the faithful use the Truth against them with such devastating force that their confusion becomes apparent to all. The Lord thus abandons them in their trial time, even as He at the same time keeps sure His promise to those who retain the Truth: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.” This is so clearly set forth in Josh. 1:5: “There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: As I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.”

As all of us know, Moses was a type of the Gospel-Age star–members leading spiritual Israel from Egypt (type of the world in sin) to the Heavenly Canaan; and the Lord was with every one of them. And even as Moses had consoled Israel in his farewell address, so Joshua also was able to say to them just before he entered the tomb: “Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts, and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good which the Lord your God spake con­cerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.” (Josh. 23:14) Joshua never once suffered defeat in battle; and, when any one claiming to stand in the same position as the star–members (claiming to be Pastor & Teacher) suf­fers one defeat after another, we may be certain he is one of those who has “built his house upon the sand.”

If our readers will keep two things clearly in mind, it will aid greatly in under­standing events today: First, Almost all crown–lost leaders have failed to “wait upon the Lord.” This was emphatically revealed aforetime in their type, King Saul of Israel, who proceeded to offer his own burnt offering when Samuel delayed to appear. (I Sam. 13: 8-13) And of this act Samuel bluntly told him, “Thou hast done foolishly.” And many of our readers know that one of the primary causes of That Evil Servant’s deflections was his failure to “wait upon the Lord.” “He said in his heart, My Lord delayeth”; things are not progressing fast enough to suit me!

The second and more important point is that crown–lost leaders all during the Age have perverted every stewardship doctrine that the faithful Little Flock leaders produced; although we are not unmindful of the good warfare some of them waged with certain features of those truths. Azazel means Perverter; and the one goat of Lev. 16:8 was specifically “for Azazel.” None of those “for Azazel” ever built up the stewardship doctrines; they always tore them down in some of their features. Thus, it should not surprise us at all ­in fact, we should expect to see crown–lost leaders of our time doing what their kinsmen of the past have done. Take, for instance, the leaders of the Society after 1916: They have perverted out of all recognition the sound and sober doctrines produced by That Ser­vant; their present teachings bear little relationship to the Parousia Truth. And when RGJ tries to tell his readers that the Epiphany Messenger “made provision” (another “chan­nel” similar to the one proclaimed in 1917) for the errors he has been presenting since 1950, that is simply a ruse to lull his sleepy adherents into accepting his perversions of the Epiphany Truth, which the faithful Epiphany Messenger labored so diligently to produce. The “perversions” we see appearing today are simply a continuation of past conduct by anti­typical Saul, and not “provisions” by the Epiphany Messenger; and they are an open book to all who understand that type in its pristine purity. The clear and persistent teaching of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers was to the effect that the erection of the Epiphany Camp would come after Babylon falls – after antitypical Miriam is cured of her “leprosy”; but RGJ is proceeding to do that work now – before Babylon falls – without “waiting on the Lord.”

In this connection, a little from P–6:318 should prove helpful here: “In the study of the divine revelation the congregation should first, last and always recognize the difference between the foundation principles of the doctrines of Christ (which no member may change or alter, nor consent to have questioned) and the discussion of advanced doc­trines (such as Campers Consecrated, the just and the unjust, justification outside the righteousness of Christ, whether we are now in the Epiphaneia, the Apokalypsis, or the Basileia, etc.—JJH), which must be in accord with the foundation principles (Tabernacle Shadows being the foundation teaching for the entire Six Parousia Volumes—JJH). The lat­ter should at all times have full, free opportunities to be heard, and there should be meetings at which they can be heard.” Just let any one attempt to question the errors of today, and they are quickly disfellowshiped; the errorists want none of the sound counsel given above from That Servant.

Let us remind our readers, however, that RGJ once fully concurred with the above counsel by That Servant; and after the separation in 1917 he was pronounced and profuse in his condemnation of the Society leaders who ignored that counsel and were branding as “sifters” those who had left them and were recommending that counsel to the General Church – at which time he was happy to be numbered among the “sifters.” Now he himself sets that counsel aside, as he yells “sifting errorists” at those who still recommend it; so we offer a pertinent quotation from E–4:33:

“Can it be possible that they (the crown­losers) carelessly overlooked our oral and written proofs on this subject? Perhaps. If so, the Lord will hold them responsible for what they could have learned, but what through neglect or inattention they failed to learn. We think the likelier explanation of their course in this matter is the following: Being now in Azazel’s hands (as RGJ has been since 1950—JJH), their minds are filled with his suggestions, which they set forth as Truth, despite what they had previously learned.” We ourselves are in full accord with this latter suggestion by the Epiphany Messenger.

“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.” (Jer. 9:23,24)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Do God’s Covenants enable us to make a clear distinction between the elect and the non–elect?

ANSWER: – It is our understanding that the Covenants make a very clear cleavage between these two classes, of which we offer the following proof: Let us consider first the broad aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:3) If we combine this with Matt. 25:34–36, we recognize that “all families of the earth” assist in blessing each other: “The King shall say to them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom ... For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: Naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me.” It is this service of the “sheep” to others of their weaker brethren that contributes to bring to them the kingdom inheritance – just as it is the failure by the “goats” to do these things that brings upon. them the sentence of annihilation.

But when we consider the oathbound covenant in Gen. 22:15–18 there is no hint of the “sheep” playing any part whatever in that “blessing”; it was simply “the seed” that was to do the blessing – which seed would be “as the stars of Heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore.” This “seed” – the Elect, the Just, etc. – would be spiritual and earthly (the Heaven – the sea shore), and would bless all the remainder of mankind. This is very clearly stated in Gen. 25:1–6: “Unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, east­ward, unto the east country” – the “children of the east” typifying the worldly wise. But, “Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.” – vs. 5. “The sons of the concubines” type various divisions of restitutionists; and, if this picture means anything at all, we are forced to the conclusion that those sent “to the east country” were given no consid­eration whatever when Abraham’s estate was finally distributed after his death – he had given all that he had unto Isaac. “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” (Gal. 4:28)

In addition to the children of Keturah, there was Ishmael who assisted Isaac in his father’s funeral, but received no part of the estate. (Gen. 25:9) This is further con­firmed in Isaac’s dealings with Jacob: “Let the people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee.” (Gen. 27:29) “Isaac said unto Esau, Behold I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants” – verse 37.

In a broad sense, the Patriarchal Age (the Age of the First Fathers) began with the end of the flood, and ended with the death of Jacob, after which his descendants were re­ferred to as “the children of Israel,” in keeping with his change of name as given in Gen. 33:28. At Jacob’s death, for the first time the Jews are mentioned in the Bible as the twelve tribes of Israel. The Patriarchal Age lasted 659 years – from the end of the flood until the death of Jacob; but let us note particularly that during that time only four names may be regarded as the first fathers – Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the more restricted sense, the first fathers are only Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But among the progeny of these three we have the names of Ishmael, the six sons of Keturah, and Esau, with none of these ever mentioned as the first fathers, although they all lived during the Patriarchal (the “First Fathers”) Age. Nor do we find them receiving any of the covenant blessings that passed directly from Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob. In the broader sense the Jews often referred to the fathers as all of their prominent ancestors, such as Joseph, Moses, et al, as these had given the nation fatherly care during their lives. And St. Paul tells us that “our fathers... were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” (I Cor. 10:1,2) This made of the nation a consecrated people, yet only those among them who attained Ancient Worthiship were in any way counted as “the seed” of the Abrahamic Cov­enant. Reasoning from this standpoint, if there should be a consecrated class here in the end of the Age that is outside the Tabernacle Court, they would have no more part in the blessing activities of the Abrahamic seed than would those Jews of the Jewish Age, who are not counted among the Elect.

It is well that we keep clearly in mind that every human being that is eventually brought to perfection does so under some covenant; and it is well also that we remember that there is at present no covenant operating in the Epiphany Camp. Furthermore, there is a fourfold Tabernacle picture – Gospel Age, Epiphany, Millennial and Post–Millennial, ONLY ONE of which operates at a time. Also, once any of these is erected it permits of no changes during the time of its operation. All who are familiar with Tabernacle Shad­ows know this was true of the Gospel–Age Tabernacle; and this same is true of the Epi­phany Tabernacle up until the time that Rev. 22:10,11 would apply. This is clearly stated by the Epiphany Messenger as follows:

“For the Epiphany the Most Holy represents the condi­tion of the crown–retaining new creatures; the Court in the finished picture represents the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies; the Camp in the finished picture represents the formerly faith–justified ones (those who had been in the Court with tentative justifi­cation—JJH) who hold to the Ransom and practice righteousness, and converted Israel (no consecrated ones mentioned in the Camp “in the finished picture”—JJH); while the terri­tory outside the Camp represents the condition of those who were the Gospel–Age Camp, or who are excommunicated ones.”

The foregoing is given as a foundation for the following question by Brother Johnson in Volume 5:

“Is it the correct thought that those consecrating after Spirit–begettal and the High Calling end, but before Satan’s empire is fully overthrown and the Kingdom set up, be associated with the Ancient Worthies, the ‘young men’ who will ‘see visions’? F 156, 157, Z ‘11, 181, par. 6,7; Z ‘15, 269, par. 11,12.” We offer just one paragraph from the above citations, Reprints 5761: “It is our thought that with the closing of the door of this Gospel Age there will be no more begetting of the Holy Spirit to the spirit nat­ure. Any afterward coming to God through consecration, before the inauguration of the res­titution work (before the New Covenant is inaugurated—JJH), will be accepted by Him, not to the spirit plane of being, but to the earthly plane. Such would come in under the same conditions as the Ancient Worthies who were accepted of God. The Ancient Worthies came in, no call being opened to them – the High Calling not being yet open, and the res­titution opportunities not open. But they freely gave themselves up to God without know­ing what blessings their consecration would bring, except that they had the intimation that they would, in the future life, have a ‘better resurrection’ than would the remain­der of the world.”

It will be noted we have underscored in the Question “before Satan’s empire is fully overthrown and the Kingdom set up,” and we have underscored in the Tower quotation “be­fore the inauguration of the restitution work.” These two statements, one from the Epi­phany Messenger, and the other from the Parousia Messenger, mean substantially the same thing. Thus, we now inquire of RGJ: Is Satan’s empire fully overthrown and the Kingdom set up? Here is a revolutionism that is much more pronounced and more serious than was his revolutionism against Epiphany arrangements in 1938. Surely, his most partisan sup­porters, who still retain any semblance of Epiphany Truth will recognize this clear revo­lutionism; and we now advise them to inquire of RGJ if he will recant from his revolu­tionism as he did in 1938 – or will he grossly and persistently continue therein to his eventual complete undoing?

Let us stress again: Only the faith features of the Abrahamic Covenant can be oper­ative during a faith dispensation, in which we now are; and here is something from E–12, p. 736:

“In faith dispensations God has so conditioned the Bible’s teachings as to make them enlightening only to the faith class.... The Bible’s teachings, therefore, through Jesus’ ministry give light to the faith classes from the time It finds them dead in trespasses and sins, until they make their calling and election sure to the salvation respectively pertinent to the four elect groups.”

And companion to this quotation is the following from E–16, p. 315:

“All the merit used in the atonement work is that of Jesus exclusively; but He having imputed it on behalf of the Church, and she thus becoming its imputative possessor, her sacrifice is necessary to release this merit of Jesus from the embargo on it before Justice by virtue of its being imputed to her, in order that, freed from all claims that embargoed it as long as before Justice it secures the Church while in the sacrificing condition, it – Christ’s one merit – might be applied on behalf of the world; for the entire merit (hence it must be free from all embargoes) is necessary to release Adam and the race in him from the death sentence, in the Millennium.”

In E–4 substan­tially the same thing is said regarding the applied merit to the Youthful Worthies; their tentative justification and consecration place an embargo on the merit until the last one finishes his course. But this conclusion would not be true as respects any one attempt­ing consecration in the Camp, because no feature of any Covenant is now operating in the Camp. Also, it is not possible to divide Jesus' merit between the Court and the Camp.

This may also be determined from another standpoint: The Gospel–Age “Church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23) is comprised of all who will attain the spirit nature – the Little Flock and the Great Company. The Ancient and Youthful Worthies will be the Mil­lennial–Age firstborn – but only those two classes. Thus, the Gospel–Age and Millen­nial–Age firstborns comprise the four elect groups mentioned above. All others – the quasi–elect, as well as the Gentile sinners and the Heathen world – are the afterborn, for whom the merit is eventually applied when the New Covenant begins to operate. Therefore, none of such could place an embargo on the merit now, and any attempt to do so finds no confirmation anywhere in the Bible, or anywhere in the Parousia or Epiphany writings. All of these must receive their development under the second blood covenant ­the New Covenant – making a clear distinction between the Elect and the Non–elect in this Age and in the next Age.

NO. 170: A REVIEW OF THE MAY-JUNE 1969 PRESENT TRUTH

NO. 170

A number of items in this paper should have some analysts, so we begin with the article on p. 41, “Truths Hidden in the Years of Noah’s Age.” RGJ places great stress upon the fact that the Great Company would have to “serve itself” after the de­parture of the last Priest; but it seems to us it should require no great brilliance to recognize such a self-evident fact. What else could they do? Thus, he stresses a very elementary point, as he passes in silence a few major items that are definitely essential to a proper understanding of his subject.

In col. 2, par. 1, he quotes Brother Johnson to the effect that “the Church would always have her general and local (italics by RGJ) Divinely appointed teachers until the Church would be complete and leave the world.” Then, he proceeds to the conclusion: “Therefore, since the star-members are all gone, including the final one, and since they continued in the service of the Little Flock wholly, thus giving them direct service from a star-member until the whole Little Flock completed their course... it follows that with the taking away of the final star-member there would be no Little Flock members left on earth.”

All brethren familiar with Epiphany Truth know of the teaching in E-15:525, that ALL crown-losers (the best of them as well as the worst of them) must be abandoned to Azazel before they can be cleansed, and that they would be led astray during their abandonment – some more and some less; and that they would then go into devious errors “cast the unprofitable servant (the Great Company) into outer darkness” – error (Matt. 25:30 – See Berean Comment) – and be given “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11 – See Be­rean Comment). During their abandonment, Scriptures once clear to them become dim, often causing them to teach error on subjects where they once had the Truth. And, if they do that with the Scriptures, they would do the same with the star-members’ writ­ings. They are unable to read, and understand, difficult and involved explanations. “Rebellion (Revolutionism) is the sin of witchcraft” – especially deceptive false teach­ings (1 Sam. 15:23).

And this is exactly what has occurred with RGJ in the present instance. Brother Johnson says “the Church would always have her general and local (italics by RGJ) Di­vinely appointed teachers.” But there is no mention in this statement of a star mem­ber; RGJ simply read that into it. Brother Johnson appointed us a general elder ­or general teacher – as he did a number of others; but none of his appointments were star members. Only a few of the general elders (pilgrims) appointed by Brother Rus­sell were attracted to Brother Johnson after 1917; so the major portion of his pil­grims were his own appointees. Nor did all the general elders die in 1950; some con­tinued for sometime after that date, as the facts clearly demonstrate. All Brother Johnson’s pilgrim appointees taught the general church, which included the Great Com­pany, the Youthful Worthies, the Tentatively Justified, as well as the Little Flock. If RGJ wants to argue this point, then let him tell us who was the star member from the time William Miller died in 1849 until Brother Russell arrived – more than twenty years later. If RGJ wishes to enlist Brother Johnson’s help here, let him also ex­plain this indisputable fact.

Furthermore, it needs no argument that the vast majority of crown-losers in the various Truth groups, and in Big Babylon, were “serving themselves” without the ser­vices of a star member prior to 1950; and they continued right on doing it since that time. Thus, their situation in that respect has not changed one iota since 1950. In fact, many of them have been serving themselves all during the Gospel Age – and most especially so during this Epiphany period. RGJ did indeed try to “serve himself” under the Epiphany Messenger in several instances, and did actually revolutionize against the Arrangements during that time. However, he did have direct service (re­straint and supervision) from a star member, and he was “made manifest” of what sort (class) he was at that time when he openly rebelled (revolutionized). We can concur in the Great Company receiving direct service from a star member until the Epiphany Messenger’s demise if we accept those Great Company members in the Epiphany Movement as a representative number (the part taken for the whole) – although that wouldn’t mean that the Great Company in the majority did have direct service from him – nor would it mean that the Little Flock in the other groups had direct service from him. The status has not changed one iota even yet for any of the Great Company leaders in the other groups: they did not accept direct service from the star member when he was with us, nor are they accepting indirect service from him now.

But the status has charged for one Great Company leader, viz., the Executive Trustee of the LHMM. He is indeed receiving no direct service from the Epiphany Mes­senger now – and he readily disposes of any indirect service (his writings) where it interferes with his plans and present errors. The same condition exists in lesser degree today in the LHMM that existed in the Society when That Servant died: Those Great Company leaders were no longer restrained or influenced by the direct service of the star member before them (That Servant), and they did indeed “serve themselves.” And what a service they gave themselves! Many of us were witness to that 1917 debacle, and of the revolutionism, the false doctrines and the “casting out” (Isa. 66:5) of those who remained faithful to the Parousia teachings. Those crown-losers also were the Lord’s ‘Mouthpieces,’ according to them! After Brother Johnson’s demise in 1950, we had some of the same “casting out,” and some of the same revolutionisms, except on a much smaller scale – with some of the same errors in evidence: Jonadabs (now the Large Multitude) in the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Campers Consecrated (the identical twin of the Jonadabs) now with the LHMM.

Also, Brother Johnson often stressed that there were more Little Flock members in the various Truth groups than there were with him. What “direct service” from a star member did they have after 1916, when they wouldn’t even read the Epiphany Mes­senger’s literature? The Epiphany Messenger also stressed the fact that the Little Flock did not have to take instruction from him to make their calling and election sure. All of us know that many of these saints were deceived into believing that Brother Johnson was in the second death; thus, they would have nothing to do with him. We wonder if RGJ will answer this – or will he just pass it by in silence, as he has done with the crushing defeat we gave him on 1 Cor. 15:24, and numerous other items?

And this same RGJ is the one who is now telling us on p. 42, col. 1, par. 2, that his teachings (real “clear” teachings such as he is now offering on the Truths Hidden in the Years of Noah’s Age) should “serve as a safeguard for the Youthful Wor­thies against the subtle attempts of Satan to entice them to try to usurp the teach­ing office of the Great Company.” And in the face of the glaring inconsistencies we have examined herein, RGJ is now telling his readers that HE is the one the Lord has chosen to prevent the Great Company and Youthful Worthies from going “further and fur­ther astray.” The Papacy and That Evil Servant have made identical claims for themselves.

“QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST”

On p. 46 RGJ poses a number of questions and answers designed to refute some state­ments in our April paper; and he calls upon Brother Johnson to support him, saying “his (Bro. Johnson’s) teachings are in harmony with each one of them, including those in which the Consecrated Epiphany Campers are involved.” This statement by RGJ is simply a self-evident falsehood. We have repeatedly asked him to show one place in any of Brother Johnson’s writings where he even hints at Consecrated Campers in the finished Epiphany picture; but up to now he hasn’t done so. And he hasn’t done so because he can’t do so! Thus, once more we quote as our answer a direct contradic­tion by Brother Johnson to RGJ’s “Jonadab” relatives: “The Epiphany Camp in the fin­ished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” (E-10:209) We call special attention to this Volume 10, because it is a much later, and more direct and relevant statement, than what RGJ attempts to offer from Volume 5.

RGJ is in a tantrum because we say he is making an addition to the Epiphany House of the Lord. We would now elaborate our statement to the effect that he is now trying to do exactly what his bosom (ex)-co-laborer “Cousin” Krewson actually claims to be do­ing: He is finishing the work of the Epiphany Messenger! RGJ doesn’t say that in so many words as does “cousin” Krewson – but “acts speak louder than words”; and RGJ’s “acts” in this instance are a classic example. Of course, he does say Brother Johnson “made provision” for what he’s been doing, but this is simply another attempt on his part to becloud what Brother Johnson really taught on the subject in E-10:209.

Let us recall that around 1954 RGJ was lavish in his determination to make “Epi­phany Parallels” of Brother Russell; but time itself has clearly demonstrated how non­sensical his conclusions were. Thus, he is now ready enough to have his readers for­get that jumble, as he attempts the milder thought that Brother Johnson “made provis­ion” for what he has been doing since 1954.

Be also quotes Brother Johnson from E-4:420, that “consecration is always in order”; then he has the unmitigated audacity to cite E-10:114; but he uses only that part of the latter that is convenient for him. If he wants to provide his readers with honest teachings, why does he not also quote from E-10:114: “When we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel-Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate.” If he now wants to insist upon the date of 1954 as the end of the Youthful Worthy call, let him then also accept what we have just quoted, and explain how he fits the two together. To make our own position clear here, we accept the interpretation of Rev. 22:10,11 as correct in all its parts; but we con­tend that time itself has definitely demonstrated that Brother Johnson was mistaken on the time he set for it to operate; but that time mistake does in no way alter the truth contained in the interpretation.

As we have said in previous papers, Rev. 22:10,11 is a composite text; when one part of it is operative, then all of it is operative. Just selecting a part of it that suits the convenience is eisegesis – not exegesis. It is a procedure of which RGJ’s crown-lost kinsmen all during the Age have been grossly guilty in their handling of the Bible. Of course, all of them were a part of the goat “for Azazel” (See Lev. 16:8, margin); so it should not surprise us at all to see RGJ now following in their steps. The mere fact that Brother Johnson has made a time-feature mistake, does not reduce him in our estimation – any more than Brother Russell’s mistakes on predicting future events limits him in our estimation. That Servant did make the correct prediction for the be­ginning of the “Time of Trouble,” or the Epiphany, although he was mistaken as to its dur­ation. The same with the Epiphany Messenger: he correctly pointed out the beginning of the “Time of Trouble,” or the Epiphany, although he was mistaken as to its duration and subsequent details. No prophecy can be understood in detail until it has been fulfilled, or is in the course of fulfillment; and Brother Johnson says he and Brother Russell, as well as other star members, were at fault for attempting such details before the “due time.”

To say that consecration is always in order requires the limitation that St. Paul himself puts upon it in Rom. 12:1, 2 – it should be in accord with “that good and accep­table, and perfect will of God.” The first question then is: What is God’s will? Is it God’s will now to deal with the Restitution class? Both Messengers are very positive in their statements regarding the world of mankind – that none of them are acceptable during this Age before the Highway of Holiness is opened for them. Christ’s merit – imputed or tentative – is for the elect only. And it is the elect only who will share in the resurrection of the “just.” Brother Russell treats of this in his Book of Covenants, and many other places. He also treats of those who consecrate be­tween the Ages – during the time when the High Calling is ended and before the Highway of Holiness is opened, assuring us that such consecrators will have a reward with the Ancient Worthies. (See Sept. 1, 1915 Watch Tower, Reprint 5761)

The situation here is exactly the same as it has been with baptism: Some had re­ceived John’s baptism (Acts 19:1-6); but they learned from St. Paul that it had ac­complished just nothing for them. The same would apply to the general run of Restitu­tionists who consecrate during this Age – before their “due time.” It would be use­less for them, as God is not now dealing with Restitutionists, and will not deal with them until the end of the Millennial when they are tested and perfected. Tentative Justification is a partial consecration – a determination toward righteousness; but unless they consecrate with “all the heart, mind, soul and strength,” and put a seal on their tentative justification, they will eventually be ejected to the Camp. As Brother Johnson has said, the Tentatively Justified are no more than Nominal Chris­tians – because, unless they do consecrate, they will eventually take their place in the Camp with the Nominal Christians. So also would be a consecration for the Epiph­any Camp in the finished picture, if we still adhere to Brother Johnson’s Scriptural teaching that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture will contain the UNconsecrated. It is indeed quite a coincidence that That Evil Servant should also have advocated con­secration for the Camp many years ago; and now comes another crown-lost leader doing identically the same thing! Of course, those abandoned to Azazel would logically ab­sorb the same errors from the same teacher.

It should not be overlooked that RGJ’s Attestatorial Service in 1954 was started with the firm conviction that it would parallel the 1914-16 Little Flock Attestator­ial Service; and he made his plans with that in mind. This, according to E-10:114, should have been the date “that the last member of the Great Company would get his first enlightenment that would bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956.” Is there the slightest indication that this has occurred? Of course not! And RGJ has become so enmeshed in his confusion of what to do about it that he knows not which way to turn – except to call names, “sifting errorist,” etc. Of course, it was “Cousin” Krewson who fed him Campers Consecrated (or quasi-elect consecrated), based upon the improper time setting of 1954; and he now allows RGJ to face the resultant confusion. As we have so often stated, not one infinitesimal ‘sign of the times’ has appeared to give support for that date. This one fact in itself should cause all who are reason­ably schooled in Present Truth to be wary of such a date. Had nothing happened in 1914, we would have been forced to conclude that the Gentile Times had not been properly cal­culated.

RGJ attempts his usual “profusion of words to no purpose,” as he tried to enlist the support of Brother Johnson on the various “classes” of saved human beings. There­fore, we also now accept the following from Brother Johnson in E-5:62 (59):

“It will be noticed that there were four human pairs who went into the Ark, as well as at least one pair of every clean and unclean kind of animals. We know that there are four elective classes who in this life obtain a good report through faith in the Abrahamic Covenant (the “just”—JJH):

(1) The Christ, (2) the Ancient Worthies, (3) the Great company, and (4) the Youthful Worthies. Noah undoubtedly types our Lord, who is the Heir of the righteousness which comes to us by faith (Heb. 11:7). These classes we understand to be typed in their respective order by Noah and his wife, Shem and his wife Ja­pheth and his wife and Ham and his wife, the males apart from Noah representing all the leaders of their respective classes, and the females the rest of these classes. We understand the animals in the Ark to represent the non-elect who will ultimately be saved (the “unjust”—JJH). We understand the clean animals to represent the Jews, as typically clean, who will be saved, and the Tentatively Justified as tentatively clean, who will be saved (all the quasi-elect—JJH). The unclean animals we under­stand represent those of the present unclean world who will be saved; while those who have perished in the flood we understand to represent from one view-point those who have perished under the Adamic curse, and from another standpoint, the movements and systems of Satan’s Empire and the Second Death Class. Just as in the type the clean and the unclean animals occupied altogether different positions in the ark from those of Noah and his family, so in the antitype the Jews and the Tentatively Justi­fied on the one hand, and the prospectively saved of the rest of mankind on the other hand, are quite differently related to the Abrahamic Covenant from antitypical Noah and his family (they occupied the position of the “unjust,” while Noah and his family occupied the position of the “just”—JJH). These animals were placed in the Ark to type that anticipatorily their antitypes would be included in the Abrahamic Covenant.”

If RGJ or others want to attempt to change the foregoing, that is their concern. Let them attempt to remodel, or modernize, “the House of the Lord,” as it was con­structed by the good Epiphany Solomon, if they will. But also let them not complain later when “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” which is to be the lot of the “unprofitable servant” (Matt. 25:30 – See Berean Comment: “Sorrow, disappointment and chagrin in every sense”) as their house “built upon the sand” (See E-5, Chapter 7 and Luke 6:46, 49) topples over, and they along with it. Brother Johnson makes no hint at more than SIX saved “classes” from among mankind in the above quotation; and that teaching remained as his firm conviction to the day of his death.

When RGJ says Brother Johnson “made provision” for his work since 1954, we would offer a clear contradiction to his conclusion from E-9:156: “Miriam joining the people in journeying types the Great Company, especially in its leaders, doing the clean work that will be theirs after their cleansing – building the Epiphany Camp, first, from among the nominal-church believers after the nominal church is destroyed, and, second, from among fleshly Israel after they look upon Him whom they pierced and mourn for it (Zech. 12:10).”

Let us note that leprous Miriam in Numbers 12 types the crown-lost leaders during the Age – and especially here in the Epiphany. And all of us know that one of their outstanding evils has been their refusal to “wait upon the Lord.” Thus, it should oc­casion no surprise to observe another crown-lost leader in the person of RGJ also re­fusing to “wait upon the Lord,” as he revolutionizes against the clear Epiphany teach­ing respecting the work of antitypical Miriam in the finished picture. Instead of waiting until the nominal church is destroyed to construct the Epiphany Camp, he is doing it now. Here is some more from the same quotation that emphasizes what we have said aforegoing:

Miriam will be in the antitypical journey, among other things, engaging in her work of gathering Gentile and Jewish believers into the Epiphany Camp, the service per­formed as a part of the final journey (to Paran), which is the final Gospel-Age growth in grace, knowledge and service.”

“I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge.” (1 Cor. 1:4-5) “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excel­lency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:1, 4)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – The Epiphany Messenger told us that Brother Jolly was antitypical Hiram, and his principal helper for many years.

Therefore, are you not revolutionizing against the Epiphany Truth when you repeat­edly criticize Brother Jolly as you do?

ANSWER: – We only criticize him for his revolutionisms against Parousia and Epiphany Truth. No, we are not revolutionizing against the Truth or its Arrange­ments when we do that, anymore than did Brother Johnson when he criticized J. F. Rutherford for his sins of teaching and practice. Quite a few of the brethren thought Brother Johnson was wrong when he resisted J. F. Rutherford’s revolutionisms, etc. In this query the questioner makes a mistake common with many Truth brethren – a mistake akin to some Big Babylon people who contend that “once in Grace, always in Grace.” It is never revolutionism against the Truth or its Arrangements to resist error, and to offer justifiable refutation against the sins of teaching and practice of others – re­gardless of who they may be – so long as the action is done “without strife or vain­glory.” It would even be proper to criticize saints also if they were presenting error to the General Church – and necessary to the welfare of the General Church, and for themselves. And it would be proper Christian decorum to do so publicly if the Gen­eral Church would profit by it. St. Paul even “withstood the Apostle Peter to the face” (Gal. 2:11) when he was teaching error. The general rule for such matters would be to do so privately if it be simply a matter between two brethren (“if thy brother trespass against thee, go tell.... him alone” –Matt. 18:15). It should be done before the ecclesia if it be a class matter; and before the General Church if the offense be against the General Church.

Brother Johnson offered a certain amount of deserving praise for RGJ, but he did not hesitate to record open criticism of him either before the General Church when the offense was serious enough to require such public manifestation. All of us know his faults were sufficiently serious enough to require such public manifestation, even as they were serious enough to lose for him “the pearl of great price.” He himself has publicly admitted that. That is General Church knowledge – and that for definite purpose – although it would be definitely wrong to parade his past sins before the Church now if his present conduct were Scripturally unimpeachable. But it would be equally wrong not to take proper notice of it – and that before the General Church – if his present sins of teaching and practice are a continuation, or recurrence, of those recorded sins. They were not recorded by Brother Johnson for the sole purpose of humiliating and hurting RGJ, but rather to help him by reminding him of “what manner of person” he once was – as well as for the purpose of protecting others against any further machinations that might come from him.

The Scriptural rule for all of this is the attitude of God Himself toward erring brethren: “The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness.... none of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him.” (Eze. 33:12-16) There are outstanding examples in the Bible of both classes of people. God was greatly pleased with the good Solomon at the beginning of his reign (1 Kgs. 3:5-14) – just as He became greatly displeased with him when he deflected from the ways of David his father, and “did evil in the sight of the Lord.” (1 Kgs. 11:1-6) The same observation applies to Judas; and to That Evil Ser­vant. That Evil Servant’s past service and good deeds under That Servant were well known to the brethren – hence, so many stayed with the Society, and became enmeshed with his gross errors of teaching and practice, because they thought he was still the same person they had known in former years. It is a well known fact that the same has occurred all down the ages: When Martin Luther and other Reformers resisted Papacy there were many who thought he was the one doing the wrong; when Brother Russell came on the scene many in Big Babylon thought he was the one doing wrong – just because he was exposing the sin; of teaching and practice of Big Babylon, and resisting their errors; and it was much the same with the Epiphany Messenger: he, too, suffered much from the revilings and persecutions he received from his former brethren. But he did not let that deter him from his vows and resolves to be faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the brethren. And so it is today with those who faithfully endeavor to pursue the same course in resisting the errors so prevalent in our day they, too, receive the same treatment from the same kind of brethren.

Thus, our opinions should not be influenced by what people once were but by what they are now. The brethren gladly welcomed St. Paul after he became one of them: they didn’t hold his past conduct against him; but they did not mourn for Judas once they saw clearly the extent of his sins – “by transgression he might go to his own place.” (Acts 1:25) Brother Johnson loved J. F. Rutherford more than he loved any one else in the Harvest Movement – excepting Brother Russell, of course; but he did not hesitate to expose him before the General Church when it seemed expedient to do so – to be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren. And that should be the attitude of all faith­ful brethren – to be “faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren.” When our Lord exposed the Scribes and Pharisees for their sins of teaching and practice, that was His motivating purpose.

And with us, we had only good will and brotherly love toward RGJ when Brother Johnson died, and we believe he was well aware of this. We warmly assured him of this as we returned from the cemetery together the day Brother Johnson was interred. So here again, we offer some more from Eze. 33:8,9: “When I say unto the wicked, 0 wicked man, thou shalt surely die: If thou doest not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand... If thou warn him.... if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.” This Scripture is the influencing factor in our pres­ent attitude toward erring brethren. There is a growing antipathy in the various Truth groups against controversy; but it is our opinion they give no heed to this Scripture, and in this they are decidedly remiss. They are not being influenced by the sound prin­ciples of the Truth, but rather by their sentiments – “knowing after the flesh.”

Perhaps we should offer here some elaboration on King Saul of Israel, because he is the outstanding Bible type of Gospel-Age crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon. His rise to the throne was not the result of his own political ambitions; it was solely through the Lord’s choice of him. And Saul shrank back from the great exaltation – “he could not be found.... had hid himself among the stuff.” (1 Sam. 10:21,22) His exalta­tion to be King was accompanied by his own commendable modesty. Yet in such a very short time he displayed a direct reversal of his good character; he then regarded him­self as above all human and Divine restraint. And, whereas faithful Samuel had been the human agency to anoint Saul into the royal office, he did not in the least hesitate to recite to him his gross deflection, and to withdraw all brotherly help and favor from him: “Thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.” (1 Sam. 15:26) There are valuable lessons in this en­tire fifteenth chapter of Samuel; and we suggest that the questioner, and all our readers, read carefully and meditatingly. It will lead to a proper appraisal of some of the problems that confront us now. Antitypical Saul is definitely the leader of that class of people of whom Jesus said they are the “foolish man which built his house upon the sand” (Matt. 7:26, 27), and “great will be the fall of it” (See E-5:508-09), when the Lord eventually abandons them in their trial time. To such the promise does not apply, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” Rather, they will all re­ceive exactly the same treatment from the Lord that Saul received from Samuel – until their cleansing processes are completed. ‘Tis a consummation devoutly to be desired!

“But crown-losers fail to do His sayings as to their taking Him as their Teacher and that in two respects. They fail to seek His teachings in the right way and frequently take as His teaching things that He does not teach. The Lord guarantees to give the meek (Ps. 25:8,9), the hungry (Matt. 5:6), the humble (Matt. 11:25), the honest and good (Luke 8:15) His Truth; but He will not give it to others. It is be­cause the Faithful have the above-mentioned qualities and then use faithfully the seven axioms as the tests of Truth that they are freed from error and taught the Truth by the Lord..... Consequently, they imbibe more or less of error. Some of them go to the ex­treme of receiving with blank and unquestioning minds whatever a real or fictitious chan­nel of the Lord presents to them. It is even required of them in the Catholic wards of Great and Little Babylon to shut their eyes, open their mouths and swallow whatever is presented to them on the ground that it is not theirs, but God’s business to keep the channel clean, while it is their business to drink whatever comes through the channel.” (E-5:479)

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n

Dear Sirs:

Thank you very much for sending “Where Are the Dead” and “What Is the Soul”! Have mailed them to a friend. Enclosed is a check for mailing Where Are The Dead, What Is The Soul, The Resurrection of The Dead, Two Distinct Sal­vations, The Three Babylons, God’s Great Sabbath Day, and The Great Reformer – four copies each. J. E. W. is my brother-in-law – whose wife recently passed on. We are all interested in your material. Thank you!

Sincerely ------- (FLORIDA)

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

Dear Sir: I am writing in regards to the letter my mother received from you after my father’s death – or the Catholic papers is actually what it was. The different religions have their own views and beliefs on death. I am not condemn­ing your belief because I as an individual value our freedom of religion. But I am saying that I am not a Catholic, and I do not believe in Purgatory.

The death of our Dad was very sudden and very shocking, but the one relief we all had was that he would have no more pain and he will finally get the rest that he has needed for so long. Our relief was knowing that Dad was in Heaven.

My purpose in writing this letter is that you should cease from sending your literature to any one but Catholics.

Yours truly,------- (GEORGIA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be unto you!

Yes, we sent ... pounds to Brother ......... Sr. ........... sent us some to send for you, and we made it up to ... pounds. We are glad it has been received. It was good to hear from you – also from dear Sister Hoefle. We did not expect you to write for our birthdays, as we know you have been extra busy with moving and sick­ness to contend with, too.

We thank the Lord for your services, but the more important things come first. Nevertheless we do thank you! What a privilege it is to be in “Present Truth”! Psa. 91:7 Oh, that our straying brethren would read “Studies in The Scriptures”! So true, Vol. 4, page 592 and onward – and 242-243. Then Vol. 3, pages 241-242 and Note 6, bottom of page 413. Brother Johnson’s Volume 10, pages 111-112.

Our love to Sister Hoefle, Sister Moynelo and Sister Dunnagan and yourself.

Your sincere brethren ------- (ENGLAND)

NO. 169: GOD'S GREAT COVENANTS

No. 169

A number of covenants are set forth in the Bible, which may be broadly grouped into two classes – word covenants and blood covenants. While there are a number of word covenants, there are but two blood covenants. After brief comment on the former, we shall offer some detail on the latter. Although the blood covenants find their base along with certain details in some of the word covenants, it is the blood covenants commonly named in the Scriptures the Law Covenant and the New Covenant – that particularly concern the great majority of the human race.

The first word covenant, conveniently styled the ADAMIC COVENANT, is found in the very beginning of the Bible – in the first days of human history: “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (dying thou shalt die” – see Margin, Genesis 2:16, 17). The man had no choice in the terms of this covenant – he must accept it, and abide by its terms, or receive the inevitable result, experience the “dying process” until the grave eventually claimed him – in Adam’s case 930 years of “dying.”

While the Genesis account does not specifically describe this mandate as a covenant, the prophet Hosea (6:7) does say so: “But they (the Jewish nation) like men (“like Adam,” see margin) have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.” Just as Adam had attempted deceit and shallow argument after his violation of his covenant, so had the Jews done likewise in their attitude toward the Law Covenant. It is well to note here, however, that there was no written covenant with Adam, as there was with the Jews at Sinai. Nevertheless, the “treachery” was the same in both cases: both covenants were violated by the human parties thereto falling into sin. A difference, too, may be noted: Adam was perfect, and had no inclination at all toward sin; thus, his was a deliberate act – whereas, the Jews had been “born in sin, shapen in iniquity,” of which more later.

A second covenant is the one with Noah, or to Noah, the RAINBOW COVENANT: “I do set my bow in the cloud...neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth” (the human social order) – Gen. 9:8‑17 – a covenant between Me and the earth...a token of the covenant between Me and all flesh.” In Isa. 54:8, 9, further reference is made: “With everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah shall no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wrath with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart (the strong earthly Kingdoms in the Time of Trouble), and the hills (lesser and more democratic governments) be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed.

The ABRAHAMIC COVENANT is another word covenant: “The Lord said to Abram, Get thee out of thy country...unto a land that I will show thee... And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:1‑4) In this word covenant is the first intimation of the great Plan of the Ages which would restore to mankind what had been lost by Father Adam. The word Abram means “high father”; and God presented him with some severe exaction before he could claim the covenant as his: “Get thee out of thy country (Ur of the Chaldees), and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee.” (Canaan, present‑day Palestine, especially that part in the vicinity of Jerusalem) The confirmation of this covenant – after Abraham had complied with his requirements – was 430 years before the Law (blood) Covenant was given (Gal. 3:17) at Sinai.

The foregoing covenant was re‑affirmed and elaborated in Gen. 22:16‑18, which recitation is styled the OATH‑BOUND COVENANT because of its wording: “By myself have I sworn (sealed with an oath), saith the Lord....that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore....and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” St. Paul refers to this covenant in Heb. 6:13, 14: “When God made promise to Abraham, because He could sware by no greater, He swore by Himself, Saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.” All of this was the result of Abraham attempting, at God’s command, to sacrifice his son Isaac on Mount Moriah, from which the Angel of the Lord restrained him at the crucial moment. And, while this may also be defined as a word covenant, the near sacrifice of Isaac, and the actual sacrifice of the ram in the thicket (vs. 13) gave a mild hint of things to come later in the blood covenant of Sinai and the still later one of “Mount Zion” (Heb. 12:18‑24).

In the Oath‑bound Covenant also came the first intimation that Abraham’s seed would be both heavenly and earthly. “Now, we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.” (Gal. 4:28) And there appears here a very unusual circumstance: Abraham is titled “the father of all them that believe” (Rom. 4:11), and with him was the Oath‑bound Covenant originally made; yet he himself is not to be of the heavenly seed. In Hebrews 11 St. Paul directly includes Abraham by name; then offers the summation: “These all...received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us (the spiritual Isaac, “the children of the promise”), that they without us should not be made perfect.” Jesus verifies this conclusion in Luke 7:28: “Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least in the Kingdom of God (the Class in which Paul includes himself – the “us” class) is greater than he.” Thus, Abraham will eventually be one of the children of antitypical Isaac.

There is yet another word covenant, the COVENANT OF SACRIFICE: “Gather My saints together unto Me; those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.” (Psa. 50:5) It could properly be stated here that this is a semi‑blood covenant, because it involves the death of each individual who becomes a part of it. These individuals compose the Christ Company, those who “were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God.” (Rev. 20:4) Not all of them have come to a violent end (as did Jesus, the Apostles, and many others during this Gospel Age), but each one did truly “pour out his soul unto death.” Thus, each one furnishes the blood – his own blood – to seal his part in this Covenant, even as Jesus also “left us an example, that we should follow in His steps.” (1 Pet. 2:21) Thus, we believe the expression ‘semi‑blood covenant’ is properly placed here. None of those involved in this Covenant of Sacrifice had his part therein sealed by the blood of other men or animals – as do the two real blood covenants – but each one has heeded the appeal of St. Paul: “Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God.” (Rom. 12:1)

THE LAW COVENANT

Comes now a consideration of the Law Covenant, the one at Sinai mediated by Moses, as proposed by God and accepted by all Israel. It is indeed properly described as “the blood of sprinkling,” with the terse summation of it contained in the Ten Commandments (literally, ten words) as given in Exodus 20; and more briefly stated by Jesus Himself: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul, with all thy strength, and thy neighbor as thyself.” But in its broad sense it began with the Passover in Egypt, when “the blood of sprinkling” of the typical lamb was observed by each Jewish house that awesome night. And, continuing, it embraces practically everything in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

            Jesus said that all of that law was typical – that “one iota or one tip of a letter shall by no means pass from the Law, till all be accomplished.” (Matt. 5:18, Dia.) And St. Paul elaborates upon this in Heb. 10:1‑9, Dia., part of which reads: “The Law, having a shadow of the future good things, not the very image of the things, is by no means able with the same animal sacrifices which they offer continually, to perfect those who draw near....Sacrifice and offering and whole burnt offering thou didst not desire, nor didst delight in (which are offered according to the Law); Then He (Jesus) said, Be­hold, I come to perform Thy will. He takes away the first (the continual sacrifices of the Law) that He may establish the second” (the “better sacrifices,” of Himself and all who have joined with Him by “following in His steps” – See Heb. 9:23). In 1 Cor. 10:11, Dia., this “shadow” is further confirmed: “These things occurred to them (the Jews) typically.”

The Law, being an institutional type, must continue until its antitype appears to “fulfill” it, to fill it full in every minute detail. But, once the antitype does appear, the type is no longer effective or obligatory upon those involved. Therefore, when Jesus “takes away the first....that He may establish the second,” He in one master stroke eliminated all the animal sacrifices of the Law, which in turn left no more room for the Jewish priesthood or the rituals they performed. However, the “ten words” of the Law still bind those who have not accepted Christ; and that feature of the Law Covenant must continue operative until its antitype, the New Covenant, is inaugurated.

The various features of the Law are distributed over four whole books of the Pentateuch; but the acceptance by the people is contained in just one simple sentence: “Moses took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” (Ex. 24:7, 8)

It needs reminding, however, that the great majority of the people quickly forgot the covenant. Most of them had not even the will to abide by it; but of those few who did wish to do so, it soon became apparent that they were unable to do so. They were far removed from the condition of Adam when the Lord’s command was given to him in Eden. He could have done what was asked of him; but even those faithful Jews who earnestly strove to keep their covenant found that what they thought was unto life was really unto death, which prompted St. Paul to write: “I was alive without the Law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” (Rom. 7:9) He, speaking representatively for all Israel, had come to realize that the Abrahamic covenant, which assured the blessing of all men, including Paul and all his brethren, had put all of them in the position of eventually attaining life; but, when they placed themselves under an ideal beyond their ability to reach, the Law itself then commanded death for disobedience – whether that disobedience were willful or in spite of their best efforts to avoid disobedience. However, they were blessed when they endeavored to obey the Law (Josh. 23:3).

The Law Covenant (the first of the blood covenants) also had attached to it certain offices and intermediary persons not found in any of the word covenants. There was Moses the Mediator; also, a priesthood, prophets and kings who performed certain services that were not parts of the obligations of the people in their promises concerning the covenant. The same will be true of the second blood covenant (the New Covenant) when it is in full operation. However, these persons and offices were not part of the covenant itself.

The Law Covenant, with its righteous arrangements for human relations, its superior dietary requirements, and its worship of the one true God in holiness of purpose and avoidance of all superstition and traditional chicanery, was a far step from the religions of Canaan and the east country. Thus, it is little wonder that Satan attempted to counterfeit such parts of the Plan of the Ages as he understood. It had been dimly hinted in the transgression in Eden that a deliverer would eventually come to succor men from the disaster he had invited by his willful disobedience. And as more was added to the Divine Revelation, Satan busied himself by not only counterfeiting what was revealed, but using also his imagination to concoct features as he considered they might eventually be.

As stated previously, the Law Covenant was typical in all its details; but parts of it were to be fulfilled during the Gospel Age, and the remainder during the Millennial Age. Thus, Jesus was the Gospel‑Age antitype of the Atonement‑Day bullock, and the Church, His Body, has been the Gospel‑Age antitype of the Atonement‑Day goat as typed in Leviticus 16. Inklings of the Ransom and the Sin Offering were gradually revealed as the inspired testimony increased through the writings of the various “elders,” the 24 writers of the Old Testament (Rev. 4:4; 5:5). As it gradually began to be revealed that Jesus would die and then be raised from the dead about the Passover time in the Spring, Satan busied himself with a counterfeit of this in the heathen religions, especially in that of Babylon.

It will be recalled that Babylon was founded by Nimrod (upstart) – Gen. 10:10, whose sinful performances became so obnoxious that he was eventually executed at the instigation of Melchizadek, his body was divided into fourteen pieces, one of which was sent to each section of the then established world, as a warning to others not to continue in his evil ways. But Satan immediately moved Nimrod’s cult survivors to circulate the rumor that he had not really died, that he was too strong to be contained in the tomb, that he was now risen and placed in the sun. This quickly led to sun‑worship under the name of Baal, Tammuz, etc. And by the time Israel was to lose its national individuality in the fall of 607 BC, the belief had been well established in Babylon that Tammuz died every Spring, but he was brought back to life again, and his place in the sun, by three days of violent weeping by the women of that city.

This idea had become so strong by that time that it had captivated certain renegades in Jewry, which aroused the Prophet to write: “He brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.” (Ezek. 8:14) Here was the counterfeit of the experience of Jesus: “Women bewailed and lamented Him. But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.” (Luke 23:27, 28) By the time Babylon had reached its pinnacle, its Satan‑invented religion had with certain variations infected the whole heathen world, which inspired the expression from Jeremiah (51:7) – “Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord’s hand, that made all the earth drunken; the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore, the nations are mad.”

And this same situation found even greater repetition in the Gospel Age through the manipulations of the Roman Church, of which the Apostle John had written in advance of the occurrence: “I saw a woman....having a golden cup in her hand....upon her forehead a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.” (Rev. 17:4, 5) Note the close similarity between the two recordings. We have offered this slight digression here to show how true types of the Law Covenant have been greatly overshadowed by the earlier inventions of the great “serpent” (deceiver) – to the extent that most Christians know little or nothing about them.

THE NEW COVENANT

Some of the prophets were more or less aware of what had transpired, as evidence the words of Jeremiah (31:31‑34): “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant (the Law Covenant) that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake (some of which we have described aforegoing), although I was an husband unto them; But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts....and they shall no more teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.” The Prophet Ezekiel (36:26, 27) writes more of the same: “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”

The Apostle Paul discusses these Scriptures in the eighth chapter of Hebrews, quoting large portions of them, then summing up in this wise: “In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first (the Law Covenant) old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” – as its various features were fulfilled. The contrast is very incisive in the first verses of this chapter: “We have such an high priest...A minister of the true tabernacle (not the tabernacle made with hands at the time of the Law Covenant), which the Lord pitched, and not man....But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant (the New Covenant) which was established upon better promises.”

This, the second blood covenant, has been already assured, although its administration is yet future – waiting for the full number of servants to be gathered who shall officiate and mediate it between God and the whole human family. “Ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched....and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words..... but ye are come unto Mount Sion....the heavenly Jerusalem....to God the judge of all... to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel....See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh....Wherefore, we receive a Kingdom which cannot be moved.” (Heb. 12:18‑28)

The Mediator of this New Covenant will be primarily Jesus, but joined with Him will be the entire Christ Company. They in turn will be assisted by the Great Multitude (Rev. 7:9), and the Worthies – four elect classes (the “just”) who will administer the blessings to those of the “unjust” who will bow with the knee and confess with the tongue that Christ is Lord. (Phil. 2:9‑11) Those who “will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:23)

It should be noted here that the New Covenant is eminently superior to the Law Covenant, because it will actually accomplish all it is designed to do. We say the New Covenant is superior to the Law Covenant, because the Law Covenant was “weak through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3) The Law Covenant itself could have no superior if it had been kept by the Jews. “All God’s works are perfect.” The imperfection of the Law Covenant was in the human weaknesses of those who agreed to keep it, but could not do so – their own imperfections making them insufficient to cope with the perfection required in the Law. But the New Covenant – through the better Mediator – will give life to all who will receive it under the easier terms of that covenant. Under the Law Covenant and its Mediator there was no such provision, and it brought the reverse – death.

Thus, the question properly arises, Why was there a Law Covenant at all if the human acceptors could not possibly adhere to it? St. Paul offers his usual superb logic on the question in Gal. 3:21‑29: “If there had been a law (covenant) given which could have given life, verily righteousness (justification) should have been by the law...But before faith came, we were kept under the law...wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ (by persuading all the persuadable ones of their inability to save themselves by their works under the law), that we might be justified by faith.. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”

The Apostle offers further enlightenment on this in Romans 10:1‑4: “My heart’s desire and prayers to God for Israel is that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God (as some of them earnestly endeavored to keep the law), but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God (by accepting Christ). For Christ is the end (the fulfillment) of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” But of those who have not accepted Christ, “God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all” (Rom. 11:32) – in the Kingdom; they are to have the broad classification of the “unjust.”

All of the “just” will have a better resurrection than any of the “unjust.” The blessing of the nations through Abraham’s seed will come from “the stars of Heaven” (two elect classes raised as spirit beings before the New Covenant can begin to operate) and from the “sand of the seashore” (the two elect classes who will officiate as perfect human beings on earth). “The Law shall go forth from Mount Zion (the Heavenly Jerusalem), and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (in Palestine).” Thus, all four of these elect classes will receive a better resurrection than their former human associates, with those serving from Jerusalem being elevated to the spirit realm after the New Covenant has met all its requirements to make every human being (who will hear that Prophet) a king in his own right. But even at that time it will properly be said that all the Covenant’s administrators (the four elect classes) will have received a superior resurrection to that of the residue of men. And this leaves no space at all for the non‑existent classes taught by the errorists of our day – such as Campers Consecrated, quasi‑elect consecrated, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Jonadabs, or “large crowd” – among the “just,” either at the beginning of the New Covenant, or at the end of the New Covenant.

And what shall we say of the non‑elect – all those who will have part in the resurrection of the unjust? All of us know there are many noble people among them, as well as many who are not so noble. However, among the elect – among those who have covenanted to walk a ‘narrow way’ during the ascendancy of sin and evil – there are not many “wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, called” (1 Cor. 1:26). And what shall we say of these noble ones? Will their nobility be overlooked? No! They will be greatly blessed, even at the beginning, as they seek to walk up the Highway of Holiness, because it will be easy and agreeable for them to conform themselves to the Kingdom’s righteous laws. When they recognize God’s love, His goodness and mercy toward them, they will be glad. They will be among those for whom the promise applies: “whosoever is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” And what shall we say of the very wicked? Among them, too, there will be some who will come to love and appreciate God’s love and goodness toward them, and as they seek to extricate their sinful tendencies they will join with those who walk up the Highway of Holiness.

When God’s Plan is fully understood it clarifies God’s past and present dealings with the children of men. The Bible becomes in its light a book harmonious with itself, with God’s character, Christ’s Ransom, the Holy Spirit’s work, man’s needs and with facts. It indeed is thereby demonstrated to be the depository of God’s marvelous Plan of the Ages, as well as the glorious expression of His adorable character. He thus becomes loved by us with “love Divine all love excelling,” and with “joy of heaven to earth come down.” Let us worship, praise and adore Him, all whose works praise (reflect credit upon) Him. “Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are Thy ways, Thou King of saints. Who shall not fear (reverence) Thee, O, Lord, and glorify Thy name? for Thou only art holy; for all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy righteous acts (A.R.V.) have been made manifest!”

“And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb....And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him.” (Rev. 22:1, 3) “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” (Rev. 21:4)

Some comments are now presented on Psa. 103:2‑4, as an aid to demonstrate the working of the New Covenant, and to reveal its superiority over the Law Covenant: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits; Who forgiveth all thine iniquities (by providing the perfect Sin Offering of Christ); Who healeth all thy diseases (as each one returns from the tomb, he must self‑evidently be rid of the cause that sent him to the grave, otherwise he would immediately succumb once more); Who redeemeth thy life from destruction (“the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in His beams” to “redeem them from death, and ransom them from the power of the grave”); Who crowneth thee with loving kindness and tender mercies (physical, mental, moral and religious perfection).” As Job has written, “His flesh will become fresher than a child’s; he shall return to the days of his youth.” (33:25)

These are indeed “Glad tidings of great joy” which shall be for all people – and we send this forth with the prayer that it will bless, uplift and comfort all who receive it – especially those of the Household of Faith. “I will praise thee, O Lord, among the people: I will sing unto thee among the nations. For thy mercy is great unto the Heavens, and thy truth unto the clouds. Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: let thy glory be above all the earth.” (Psa. 57:9‑11)

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: - What is meant by the expressions, clean Youthful Worthies and unclean Youthful Worthies?

ANSWER: – These terms are used somewhat, but not altogether, like the expression clean and unclean Great Company members. By a clean Youthful Worthy one is meant who either never spotted the tentative robe of Christ’s righteousness or, having spotted it, has washed it white in the blood of the Lamb and in the water of the Word. By an unclean Youthful Worthy one is meant who has spotted the tentative robe of Christ’s righteousness and has not washed it white in the blood of the Lamb, and in the water of the Word.

The only difference is this: That whereas some Youthful Worthies do not spot their robes, ALL Great Company members do spot their robes.

We should note this point very carefully – the Great Company members were already remanded for spotting their robes when they were in the High Calling. They had spotted their robes to such an extent that they were ejected from the Holy, and from the “more than conquerors.” They can never again regain that Class standing. However, the Youthful Worthies who spot their robes and cleanse themselves are not remanded from their Youthful Worthy standing – but they lose their superior position, and do not regain that. Nor are we to be too hasty about concluding all those who have gone into various errors are of this class. Some of them may not have spotted their robes to the extent of losing their more favorable standing in the Youthful Worthy Class: some of them have been deceived, and will eventually recognize this and cleanse themselves from these errors. Their hearts had continued right before the Lord; they make mistakes of the head, but not of the heart, having been unduly influenced by their unclean Great Company leaders for a time.

By a clean Great Company member is meant one who has washed his robe white in the blood of the Lamb and in the water of the Word. The reason we call unclean almost all of those Youthful Worthies who mingle with the unclean Great Company groups is that with many exceptions they have more or less the same revolutionisms and character qualities as their Great Company associates. Such Youthful Worthies, like their Great Company associates, will have to cleanse themselves in the blood of the Lamb and the water of the Word in order to become overcomers. And then they will Millennially be Libnite Gershonites, whereas those who remained clean will become Millennial Shimite Gershonites.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brethren

Have received one of your publications for April 1969. I like your article “Into the Wilderness.” I would like to get better acquainted with you Maybe if we get to know each other better we would be able to work together.

Sincerely yours, ------- (MICHIGAN)

………………………..............................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings through our Beloved Lord!

Your paper on the Last Saint has been received. Dear Brother, the Tabernacle Shadows and What Pastor Russell said about the Mercy Seat, etc., all corroborate what you teach.

Brother RGJ sent me a Standard....But we see things better. In Tabernacle Shadows the Camp, the Court and the Tabernacle ‑ only one way of access to God. Only the gate Jesus: “I am the way.”

May God bless you and all with you. Give all at the Bible House my Christian love.

Your brother,  ……. (TRINIDAD)

…………………………

My dear Brother Hoefle: Fond Christian love and greetings! Grace and peace!

Your beautiful card and good help has been received – and I would not be able to put my gratitude to you in words. Since last year I have been having some very severe testings of faith – the kind of worries one prefers to bear alone – in private. I am not left without a good share of blessings, however. Thank God, in all of them I prove His love for me.

As you say, in this Season we scarcely get away from some trying times – but up to now there are no new trials for me, and I don’t know of any our brethren are passing through, for which God be praised! I, for one, am very much helped with the monthly articles, and I anxiously await their arrival. Many truths I was unable to understand became clear. Thank you for all you have done and are doing. God bless you, and all the others at the Bible House

Yours through His Grace,       ------- (JAMAICA)

……………………...........................................

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

Your good letter is received, and we were very glad to hear from you, and to know that you had such a refreshing service, as we also commemorated our Lord’s death, and our participation with Him. Indeed we deem it a great privilege, and we were much blessed in our observance. We know that where two or three are gathered together in His Name, He will be there, and that to bless – and we truly felt His blessing!

You will notice in our previous letters we have addressed them to Donnelly Street, not knowing that you had moved until you told us in your letter a little while back..... Kindly let us know where to send our letters.

Enclosed are 50 names for you ……. Sister joins with me in sending you both and all at Mount Dora our warmest Christian love and the Lord’s richest blessing.

Sincerely your brother and sister by His Grace, ------- (NEW JERSEY)

…………………........................................

My dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in our dear Redeemer’s Name!

After posting my last letter to you, I was surprised when I went to Sister’s place that the tracts were already there. Thanks! The friends started distributing at once. ....The books have not yet arrived.

The brethren join me in sending warm Christian love to you and all the friends there.

Your sister by His Grace, ------- (TRINIDAD)

NO. 168: THE GREAT COMMISSION

No. 168

After His resurrection Jesus had gone into Galilee to meet the Disciples, as He had promised them He would do (Matt. 26:32); and there He spoke to them what is commonly declared to be “The Great Commission” (Matt. 28:19, 20): “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Motivated by this order, many Christians have zealously proceeded to the re­mote parts of the earth, declaring the name of Jesus to savage hordes, even as others of their fellows engaged in great drives to raise millions of dollars to finance those who would “save” the poor heathen. Up to now, at least, it must be admitted that their efforts have been far from successful. Even in those countries claiming to be Christian the practice of The Golden Rule is much conspicuous by the failure of the large majority to make even a token attempt to observe it. After more than nineteen hundred years of this effort, this dismal failure does indeed call for some reflection.

First of all, let us consider a critical translation of Jesus’ words: “Go, disciple all the nations, immersing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all things which I have enjoined upon you.” Clearly enough, from this more exact translation, The Great Commission was not an order to convert the whole world – it was merely intended to win disciples from the various nations. And to what purpose? Our text says, “Immersing them into the name” – that is, into the heart and mind, the disposition of the Father and of the Son.

This conclusion is clearly corroborated by reference to Acts 19:1-7, where the twelve men there assembled had told the Apostle Paul that their baptism had brought them substantially nothing, that they had been given the baptism of John. Whereupon, “having heard this, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus.” So their previous immersion in water had failed to “disciple” them; it was only after they had been immersed “into” the name of the Lord Jesus, and Paul had laid his hands upon them, that the gifts of the spirit came to them. All during the Age, much immersing has been done, and is still being done, without bringing the recipients “into” the name ­into the disposition of the Lord Jesus. And, if this has not been accomplished in them, then the ritual has been merely an exercise in futility – an immersion of water and words only, with the participants in no better condition than they were before the ceremony.

“THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM”

It is frequently stated that “Jesus went about.... preaching the gospel (the good news, glad tidings) of the Kingdom.” (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14, etc.) This King­dom was an important feature of His ministry, so much so that the Disciples themselves were much imbued with the thought. Even after His resurrection He spoke to them “of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3,4), which prompted the question from them: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel.” This they did before the Holy Spirit had been given them; and Jesus’ answer is companion to The Great Commission in Matthew: “Ye shall receive power, after the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

During the evening of the last Supper, Jesus had told them, “I go to prepare a place for you.... I will come again, and receive you unto Myself.” (John 14:2,3) Not yet having received the Holy Spirit, the Apostles received these statements much as natural men, considering them from material standpoints. And they were much per­suaded that His “coming again” would be in a very short time, this opinion aided in large measure by the experience at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-23). In the course of that conversation Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him – probably a discreet prodding for the three times that Peter had denied Him the night of the betrayal. Then Jesus informed him that his death would be a violent one, imposed upon him by other hands, at which Peter pointed to “that disciple whom Jesus loved” (the Apostle John) with the query, ‘‘And what shall this man do?” (vs. 21) This would be better trans­lated, “Lord, and what of this man?” In other words, if Peter was to die in gruesome fashion, what about this particular favorite of Yours – How will he die? ‘‘Jesus says to him, If I wish him to abide till I come, what is that to thee?” (vs. 23) “The re­port, therefore, went out among the brethren, that that Disciple would not die,” although Jesus said no such thing. However, the tale persisted, so much so that certain ones in Corinth thought the Kingdom had already been established, and that they were then reigning. (1 Cor. 4:8)

It seems reasonably certain that the Apostle John lived to the age of about one hundred years.  Thus, he was one of the last – if not the very last – to see Jesus while He was on earth. The Roman army under Titus captured Jerusalem in the year 70 AD.; and few, if any, of the Jews who were in the city at that time escaped execution. The Apostle John lived for thirty years, more or less, after that event. Just where he was at that particular time we do not know, but we can be certain he was not in Jerusa­lem then. However, until the day he died, there could be some surface substance to the tale that he would survive until the Savior came the second time, as He had promised He would. But the death of the Apostle did definitely eliminate any further credence in the story, which, as John himself stated in the last verses of his Gospel writing, had no real substance to it in what Jesus had said to Peter.

But of those who had reposed strong belief in the legend, we can well appreciate the disappointment that must have been theirs when the last glimmering hope was fully subdued in the death of John. And as those remaining ones expired – with still no evidence of a second coming – we can readily understand how a situation arose that was identical with the one confronting the Jews when Moses remained so long in Mount Sinai: “When Moses delayed to come down out of the mount (as Jesus was seemingly also doing after his ascension to the Heavenly Mount), the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.... and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.” (Ex. 32: 1-6) This situation with Israel saw an exact reproduction in the Gospel Age after Jesus had been away from this earth for several hundred years, and still no evidence of His return. He had promised the Kingdom upon His return, and it became very easy for those disappointed Christians to talk themselves into believing that perhaps He had meant that they should take on this task themselves, since there was just nothing to indicate that the Lord would be doing it Himself.

The Kingdom reign was to be a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-4); and the members of the Christian Church gradually determined that they should engaged upon the thousand ­year task of making earth ready as a proper preparation for His return. This had its first potential impetus when Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nice  in 325 AD. mainly to determine whether the Trinity should be determined as the accepted faith of the general church. Arius was the champion of the truth  against this error; and his­tory says of him that he was a man of clear intellect. Yet only two of that vast assembly of church prelates agreed with him. The vast majority – about 250 – decided otherwise, and the Emperor agreed with them; and from that conclave emerged what is now commonly known as “The Apostles’ Creed.” Arius was banished from the Roman Empire, and forced to take refuge in northern Africa, where he died eleven years later – not, however, without leaving his “footprints on the sands of time,” for he left behind him a flourishing colony of Christians zealously contending that there is but “one God” (Eph. 4:6). And what name did they attach to themselves? Why, Arians, of course!

THE COUNTERFEIT REIGN

In due time came the Pope of Rome, claiming for himself universal sovereignty over “the Church which is His Body.” By 799 this had made such an imprint upon people and rulers alike that Charlemagne of France virtually ceded his authority unto the Pope; and thus began “the Holy Roman Empire” – the beginning of that thousand-year reign which would cause “every knee to bow, and every tongue to confess that Christ is Lord.” (Phil. 2:9-11) During the next thousand years the determination that the Church should con­vert and rule the world was supported by the armies of the various countries, and by all the ingenious tortures that the human Intellect could devise. It was indeed a full counterfeit of that glorious reign which the Lord Himself had promised would ‘‘wipe away all tears from their eyes.... no more death, neither sorrow or crying, neither any more pain.” (Rev. 21:1-4)

The colossal fraud of the whole arrangement was finally toppled over by Napoleon in 1799 (just a full thousand years after Charlemagne, also of France, had set it up), when he took the Pope captive to Paris, where he eventually died. Thus was furnished to the whole world clear evidence that the papal claim of supremacy in church and civil court was nothing more than a vicious myth.  In all of this the Lord was saying in ef­fect once more: “I have seen this people.... let Me alone....that I may consume them.” (Ex. 32:9,10) It is little wonder that so many ‘‘protesters’’ arose with Martin Luther and other noble reformers over the past five hundred years, although great effort is being made today to forget the past crimes, and let us all join in a grand brotherhood of man, with the Fatherhood of God.     But, as one wit has expressed it: There are too few brothers, and too many hoods. The real reign of Christ is self-evidently an occurrence yet future.

THE CHURCH’S REAL MISSION

Based upon a misunderstanding of The Great Commission, a misunderstanding based somewhat upon the poor and inaccurate translation found in the King James version of the Bible, The Church has vigorously engaged upon an attempted conversion of the world when our Lord delayed His return. But it should by now be apparent to the ordinary believer that it has not been God’s purpose to have it so; otherwise, He would have accomplished it. Either that, or we are forced to the miserable admission that He has been too weak to do it. This latter is certainly contradicted by the record of Gen. 1:3, 14, 16: “God said, Let there be light: and there was light.... lights in the firmament of the Heaven to divide the day from the night.... and it was so.... God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also.” Here is a clear record of power unlimited – a power so awesome that man would be forced to bow the knee before it whenever the com­mand goes forth. It is clear that God has not been “trying” to do something for the past nineteen hundred years that was a little too much for Him!

During “this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4) there have been three dispensations, or Ages – The Patriarchal, the Jewish and the Gospel Ages;  all of them “faith” Ages, with the Gospel Age being by far the most Important. At the very outset of this Age Jesus “abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light (made it clear for the first time) through the gospel (the ‘good news’ of the Kingdom)”—2 Tim. 1:10. And for the promulgation of this ‘good news’ St. Paul says of himself, “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.” And in sympathy with this St. James says “How God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name (a privilege first offered to the Jews, which, when rejected by them, brought forth the expression from Paul: ‘Lo, we turn to the Gentiles’—Acts 13:46).... After this (when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in) I will return and build again the Tabernacle of David... that the residue of men might seek after the Lord (when His Kingdom is finally established in power and great glory, forcing every knee to bow)”—Acts 15:14-18.

During these three Ages certain called-out ones have preached righteousness, which has restrained somewhat the tendency toward depravity so prevalent all about us. This has been more apparent in the Gospel Age, as Jesus said it would be. “The Holy Spirit will convict the world concerning sin (will point out the evils of this present dispen­sation through those who have the Holy Spirit), and concerning righteousness (will teach the world the correct conduct as against the evils now prevalent), and concerning judg­ment (will explain the judgment as it will truly be when the Kingdom is established)”—­John 16:8. But up to now all of this has simply been a ‘‘witness’’ of things to come ­a mere token of the glorious actuality.

THE JUDGMENT DAY

In Acts 17:31 St. Paul declares, “God hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained.” It is clear that that “day” was in the future when Paul said what he did; and St. Peter states that “the heavens (the present ecclesiastical systems) and the earth (the present social order), which are now.... are reserved unto the day of judgment,” (2 Pet. 3:7) But the Apostle Peter then clarifies his statement with these words: “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years,” which is further confirmed in Psa. 90:4: “A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.” St. Paul further states in 1 Cor. 6:2: “Do you not know that the saints shall judge the World?”

The Scriptures thus draw a sharp line of demarcation between the “saints” and the “world” – or between the elect and the non-elect. This is further emphasized in Rev. 20:4: “I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God (the saints, as described in Rev. 6:9).... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” And Rev. 5:10 tells us where this reign shall be: “Thou has made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”

A SECOND COUNTERFEIT REIGN

As stated aforegoing, the Roman Church seized upon such texts to establish them­selves as earth’s rulers for a thousand years – from 799 to 1799; but of the true reign it is written, “There will be no night (error) there.” (Rev. 21:25) Just the reverse of that was true, however, under the terrible papal reign. That reign is now recorded in history as The Dark Ages, because the “night” of sin and death and error was so in­tense that not even a good clear record of it is to be found in the history books.

It is a sound observation that history often repeats itself; and this is often true in religious history, just as it is true in secular records. Comes now here in the end of the Age the Jehovah’s Witnesses, attempting on a smaller, but hardly less sanguine scale, to establish themselves as the rulers for a thousand years. They would now have us believe the Kingdom has been established under them; and, while they do not themselves perpetrate the same violence in the same manner as did the Roman Church, nevertheless, they are telling us that their select group will take gleeful note of the blood bath that they now predict for the Armageddon that lies just ahead. Their pre­diction is that their faithful “dedicated” devotees are to survive that carnage, and on into the Kingdom of peace that will follow – never any more to experience death. Let us note, however, that this prediction has been broadcast for quite a few years now; and time itself is shaking the confidence of many of them, as they note the death of many of the faithful – touching them in like manner as it does the world in general. Up to now, at least, the Angel of death has shown very little respect of persons, as the pro­cessions to the cemetery proceed much the same as in times past.

Thus, here again, time itself has forced them to “reform” somewhat from their one­time positive promises. Just recently we discussed this point with one of their “dedi­cated” adherents – a lady well along in years. Forced to admit the truth of our conten­tions, she also admitted she “may not” live through Armageddon – or even until then. Here again the Witnesses show their kinship to the Roman system, which has ever been ready to change any of their teachings where ‘policy’ seemed expedient. However, “the leop­ard can’t change his spots.”

Above we quoted St. Paul’s statement that “the saints shall judge the world”; and our Lord had said of these saints, “Fear not, Little Flock, it is the Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom” – the reign over the earth. At present the Witnes­ses have much over a million of their “dedicated” partisans – hardly a “little flock” by any standard. Nor do we see any abatement of the evils of this world; in fact, they are very much on the increase since they began their “reign” – which is hardly the description given us in the Bible when our Lord’s Kingdom is established for the purpose of blessing “all the families of the earth.” And note the close similarity of the old Roman claim to the Witnesses’ present one: No salvation outside of our organi­zation; but damnation (annihilation in Armageddon) to all who refuse us. Just a slight variation to the old Roman claim of eternal torment for all the heretics, even as they sold salvation in the form of indulgences to any and all who had the price and would bow the knee to them. Certainly, we have no wish to be facetious in the comparison we now offer; it is public property to all who would recognize it. The Roman Church gave the edict – Heaven for the faithful; Hell for the heretics. The Witnesses now give the edict – The Kingdom for the faithful; eternal annihilation in Armageddon for the here­tics. Clearly enough, a second counterfeit reign!

GOD’S WORD EXPOSES COUNTERFEITS

Before the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 by the Roman Army it is clearly apparent that many Christians were so imbued with the thought of an imminent return of the Lord that it was necessary for the Apostle Paul and others to protest vigorously their false expectations. One such expression is found in 2 Thes. 2:1-10, parts of which we quote from the Diaglott translation: “We entreat you, Brethren, concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (to establish the Kingdom for which He had taught them to pray), and our assembling to Him (in power and great glory), that you be not quickly agitated in mind, nor alarmed, neither by a spirit, nor by a discourse, nor by a letter as from us, as though the day of the Lord was present. Let no one delude you by any means, because the apostasy must come first, and there must be revealed that Man of Sin, that son of destruction, the opponent who lifts himself above everything called Divinity or Majesty; so as to seat himself in the temple of God.” St. Paul had writ­ten to the Corinthians, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?”—l Cor. 3:16. Thus, “seating himself in the temple of God” is simply another way of saying that the apostates would be so much in the majority that they would submerge the true Christians; and, until they had seen that accomplished, they could be sure the Lord had not returned, or the Kingdom set up.

Then, to emphasize, the Apostle continues, “Do you not remember that while I was with you, I said these things to you?... Then will be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus will annihilate by the appearing (bright shining) of His presence.” While it may be contended that that annihilation is now in process, as “knowledge shall be in­creased” in the time of the end (Dan. 12:4), It is certainly not yet an accomplished fact. Therefore, there definitely cannot be any visible Kingdom yet, because the Apostle is em­phatic that the “annihilation” of the apostasy must be accomplished before the Kingdom’s inauguration.

Another point may be considered here: The Bible clearly teaches, and our own personal experience confirms that truth, that all men do not have the quality of faith (2 Thes. 3:2). Therefore, they cannot display or put to use something they do not have. This leads to the fact that men are presently divided into a faith class and a non-faith, or unbelief class. And, of the non-faith class, as well as of the faith class, there are many variations. The Apostles, who were born with faith in their very blood stream, “said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.” (Luke 17:5) And it is also written, “Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” (Heb. 11:6) Yet, the Roman Church for hundreds of years, and the Witnesses now in our day, would tell us there is no Kingdom hope for this unbelief class – i.e., for those now living. Nor even yet for the faith class that cannot agree with and become “dedicated” to their interpretation of the Scripture.

Another striking similarity between the Roman Church and the Witnesses is this: The Roman Church stoutly claims to adhere to the teachings of the first “pope,” Saint Peter; the Witnesses make the same claim respecting their founder, That Servant. With­out detailing all the vagaries and contradictions to both of these positions, we confine ourselves to this item of a faith class in this present Age, and now quote from the first “pope”: “The trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that per­isheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ (at His second Advent to establish His Kingdom)... receiving the end (the purpose) of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.” (1 Pet. 1:7-9)

And the Witnesses in like manner declare their adherence to the teachings of That Servant, who was very emphatic in his belief that the non-faith class could not possibly receive a fair trial now because of their inherent limitation, coupled with the fail­ure of many of the heathen even to hear that Name – and there “is no salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) For “God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.” (See Rom. 11:31-32) Also, Jesus Himself said, “When the Son of Man cometh (at His second Advent), shall He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) The clear inference is that true faith would be a very scarce article when our lord returns, which is a direct refutation of the large memberships to be found in the Roman Church and with the Witnesses. But they both boast of their numbers as their strength, even though we know from Scriptural authority, therein lies their weakness.

It requires little argument that love of life is the strongest desire in most of us. Thus we can find little fault with the Jews at Sinai, when Moses gave them the Law and the promise along with it that “the man that doeth these things shall live in them” – at which “all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.” (Ex. 24:3) And the magicians, the astrologers, the sorcerers were crafty enough to tell King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon many centuries later what he wanted to hear: “O king, live forever.” (Dan. 2:4; 3:9)

Therefore, when the Roman Church promised immortality (immunity against death) to their faithful adherents, they were telling them something they wanted to hear, which made it easy to believe. And when the Witnesses now tell their “dedicated” devotees they will live right on through Armageddon, and never die, they are also telling them something they want to hear – which makes it easy for them to believe, and understand­able that their numbers are increasing rapidly, even as they boast. The founder of their Movement, That Servant, never advocated such a teaching – nor did he boast of his numbers. The nearest support he ever gave to it was to quote Zeph. 2:3, “Seek right­eousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger.” That this is merely a hope for those who do that, and not a definite assurance and prom­ise to all the meek, is better revealed in Rotherham’s translation of the text: “Seek Yahweh, all ye lowly of the land, who have wrought what He appointed, Seek right­eousness, seek humility, Peradventure ye shall be concealed in the day of the anger of Yahweh.” There is nothing at all in this surmise to justify the express promise of survival now made by the Witnesses to lure proselytes to their banner. Certainly, it is to the advantage of all worldlings to “seek meekness,” because it will be only the meek who will inherit the earth. (Matt. 5:5)

OTHER RELATED ERRORS

St. Paul clearly taught that the World’s judgment was future (Acts 17:31); St. Peter clearly taught that it was future (2 Pet. 3:7,8), and that it would continue for a thousand years – not just for a few years here in the end of the Age, as the Witnesses now proclaim for those now living. And in this they are joined – in less positive man­ner – by some of our very prominent evangelists: Make your decision for Christ now, even if you don’t clearly understand what you are doing; you don’t have to understand the Bible (the good Word of God) to know God. But the Prophet tells us in direct and simple speech just the reverse of all this: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord (the great judgment day of which Peter and Paul wrote).... that I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts... and they shall no more teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother (as the Witnesses and others are now fever­ishly attempting), saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity (their violations of the Law of Moses), and I will remember their sin (for crucifying the Lord of Glory) no more.” (Jer. 31:31-34)

In a lesser sense, the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement also now offers a limited perversion of the foregoing. They tell their proselytes that salvation for the elect is no longer available to them (although they admit we are still in the Age of faith, which is only for the elect), but they may consecrate themselves now as a future refuge when the Kingdom is eventually established – although their founder, Pastor Johnson, never taught any such thing; in fact, he directly disputed it.  But this doesn’t bother them either – any more than the gross perversions of the teachings of their founder disturb the Witnesses.

And in all of this, our Lord Himself offers direct contradiction to the efforts of all such teachings in John 17:6-9: “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world.... I pray not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given Me.” Yet, the record is clear also that God does love the world: “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here is given us an irrefutable distinction between the faith class (those who have responded to the call of salvation in this Age), and the non-faith class (all others not included in the elective salvation) who will receive their salvation under easier conditions, when their thousand-year judgment day is fully established.  This is further confirmed by St. Paul in Gal. 3:8, “The Scrip­ture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel (the good news of the Kingdom), saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” And in Gal. 4:28, the Apostle clarifies this further: “We, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise” (the elect of God who will eventually bless all the fam­ilies of the earth – the non-elect – in the great Judgment Day).

All of which finds substance in the words of Jesus: “If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31,32)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Why is it that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Dawns, the PBI, etc., observe the Memorial on April 1, but we keep it on March 30?

ANSWER: – We do not know why those different organizations use April 1, unless it could be that they are influenced by the moon becoming full this year dur­ing April 2, a day which begins at 6 p.m. April 1 Bible Time. As for ourselves, we consider our method of finding the Memorial date relatively simple:

Each November we ask the Naval Observatory at Washington for the date of the next Vernal Equinox and the date of the new moon nearest that Equinox Jerusalem time. That is the date we accept as Nisan 1 – unless it would bring Nisan 14 before the Equinox; in which case we would use the following new moon. After that, thirteen days bring us to Nisan 14; and Exodus 12 tells us that the “remembrance” is to be kept on that date without any variation. In fact, the only way the moon enters into the matter at all is to determine Nisan 1; after that it is a simple matter of adding 13 to that date. Had we waited this year until the moon becomes full, it should be clear enough that we would be holding our Memorial on Nisan 16 (April 1 being two days later than March 30); and that is the date of the resurrection, and not the date of the crucifix­ion. There is nothing whatever in the Bible to support such a date for us. We believe our readers will readily agree that in such cases we should follow the Bible, rather than any Jewish custom or other method, regardless of how deeply rooted that time had seemed to venerate the methods of others for the occasion.

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

QUESTION: – Sometime ago some one gave me a Herald of the Epiphany, subject Where Are The Dead? It is interesting, but what about Enoch and Elijah – and Moses who appeared at the transfiguration of the Lord Jesus? Where was, and is he? Shouldn’t we conclude that those good men are in Heaven?

ANSWER: – The transfiguration recorded in Matt. 17:1-13, and the whirlwind experience of Elijah have misled many Christians into believing these two men must be in Heaven; but Jesus Himself was very emphatic that “no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the son of man.” (John 3:13) St. Paul adds strength to this statement in Acts 26:23, “Christ should be the first that should rise from the dead”; and further in 1 Cor. 15:20, “Christ has become the firstfruits of them that slept.” As respects Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration scene, Jesus said it was “a vision” (vs. 9); and a vision is somewhat after the manner of a dream where one might see a dead relative. However, such a dream would be no proof at all that the relative was alive, or in heaven.

In 2 Chr. 21:12 it is stated that Elijah wrote a letter to King Jehoram of Judah; and that was about eight years after his whirlwind experience that had taken him from Elisha after they had crossed Jordan. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that Elijah was removed by the fiery chariot to some remote spot, but not taken into heaven.

In 2 Kgs. 2:12-18 “the sons of the prophets” insisted upon a three-day search for Elijah, lest he be in distress upon “some mountain or in some valley.” These were educated men, in nowise considered stupid; and they certainly did not believe Elijah had gone up to God’s throne, or they would have known better than to go searching for him. They were persuaded they would be able to find him, although their search proved unsuccessful.

As for Enoch, it is simply related that “he was translated that he should not see death.” (Heb. 11:5); but there is no hint here that he was “translated” to God’s throne. And we may be certain that he was not taken there, as the Bible never contra­dicts itself. If Jesus had been wrong in John 3:13, that “no man hath ascended into heaven,” He could just as easily be wrong in other places, which would make Him a fallible teacher, and not worthy of our implicit confidence. St. Paul further says of all three of these men that “they received not the promise: God having provided same bettor thing for us (the Christ company), that they without us should not be made per­fect (raised from the dead, perfected in the resurrection)”—Heb. 11:39,40.

NO. 167: THE LAST SAINT (PART I)

No. 167

(Reprint of No. 24 – with pertinent additions)

With erstwhile Epiphany brethren still tenaciously clinging to the belief that Brother Johnson was the last saint, and because of the many letters that still con­tinue to come to us on the subject, we believe it again opportune to offer further treatise of the topic. For a short while after Brother Johnson’s death, we adopted a generous view of the subject – so much so that, after Brother Alger returned to Detroit from the Chicago Convention that fall in 1950, we voted that he be allowed to present his views on the subject, which he did in two successive one-hour dis­courses. Then, when a member of the Detroit Class suggested that we offer a refu­tation of Brother Alger’s views, we declined to do so, saying at the time that we did not consider it vital to us personally or to the others there.

After we returned to Detroit in October 1950 from conducting Brother Johnson’s funeral, we said then that nothing we thought, or wished, could place any one in the body of Christ, or take any one out of it, because: “God hath set the members in the Body.” Therefore, we scrupulously avoided heaping any abuse upon those who held an opinion contrary to ours. That also is still our position. But we believe it now in order to state that we were overmuch and too easily influenced by the conclu­sions of R. G. Jolly on this subject, because we held him in high esteem and confi­dence in 1950. Had we known him then as we know him now, we would have taken a nar­rower and much more critical view of anything he presented as “advancing Truth”; but it should be observed that we are always most easily misled by those we trust. Even Jesus learned this by His own bitter experience – “mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted” (Psa. 41:9).

According to his own admission the evening after the funeral, R. G. Jolly him­self held the view for sometime after Brother Johnson’s death that there were still Saints among us, which belief left him suddenly as he lay awake in the early morning hours when he received a flash that there are no more Saints on earth (just as he received a sudden “illumination” – another flash – on his way to the Grand Rapids Con­vention in 1955 concerning his Campers Consecrated: They would be the “new” Millen­nial princes – similar to the ‘types and pictures’ he was making in 1910 as mentioned in his letter published in the November 1910 Watch Tower). We have always been wary of manifested crown-losers who make claim to special illumination, or flashes of ‘new’ light! All such light flashes of which we know were actually mud splashes of error.

As stated above, we took a generous view toward those who still continued in their High Calling Hope, because we clearly realized at the time that whether the answer be Yea or Nay it in nowise affected the status of any winlings that might attach themselves to us; this was not even remotely related to the issue such as Brother Johnson advocated early in the Epiphany when he taught the High Calling should no longer be presented to newcomers. After 1950 the work as respects new­comers to the Epiphany Truth was exactly the same as it had been before; nothing at all had been changed there – nor had R. G. Jolly advocated such a change. Nor, in the final analysis, would anything whatever be changed with respect to the status of Saints, should there still be some among us. However, that fatal event October 22, 1950 did most mightily affect the status of one individual – namely, one R. G. Jolly (a manifested crown-lost leader who admitted his manifestation). If there are still Saints on earth, then the claims he has made since that date can be only the babble of a gross perverter – his claims such as paralleling Brother Russell, his claim of Pastor and Teacher, his claim that he now represents the “Lord’s Arrangements,” etc., as he sets aside one arrangement after another The Epiphany Messenger established for the Epiphany period.

As some of our readers already know, Brother Johnson had seen thirty-three reasons for the High Calling closed when we first became acquainted with him early in the Epi­phany (the acquaint­ance being only through his writings; we had not then yet met him per­sonally). So we wrote him thirty-three reasons why he was wrong. But did he answer us with abusive imprecations? Not at all! Rather, he suggested we visit him for a personal talk, which invitation we accepted immediately; and at which time he gave us the counsel one might expect of him whom God gave “largeness of heart” (1 Kings 4:29) the counsel being that he and this writer continue as brethren in the “love of the Truth,” leaving the ultimate rewards with the Lord, but resolve to meet the covenants we had made. Had RGJ had such “largeness of heart” his experiences would have been much different! It was a bitter pill for him to acknowledge himself as a crown-loser when he manifested himself as such under The Epiphany Messenger’s leadership and re­straint. If a crown-loser had made such an announcement of him when he still had the High Calling Hope, does any one believe that he would have accepted such a pro­nouncement – especially, knowing as he did that revolutionism is the only yardstick, and the crown-loser making such an announcement used some other yardstick for his pronouncement? This is what he “pronounced” of all new creatures – not only in the Epiphany Truth, but all new creatures in the other Truth groups. He did not accuse them of revolutionism – his only charge was that they were living and Brother Johnson was dead.

And we present this generous view of the beloved good Epiphany Solomon in strik­ing contrast to the baleful revilings and actions after October 1950, when many breth­ren were disfellowshiped simply because of their honest belief in their Saintly stand­ing – and a vicious “whispering campaign” (something RGJ is adept at starting) con­ducted that such brethren were in the second death – a vile repetition of the degrad­ing performance in 1917, when the same tactics were used against Brother Johnson and other magnanimous brethren. It is also to the shame of many so-called Youthful Worthies associated with both “cousins” (RGJ and JWK) that they joined heartily, and even gleefully, in encouraging their leaders in this disgraceful performance. Reports have come to us from various sections that such Youthful Worthy classes were prompt to disfellowship those who adhered to their High-calling hope – just as many of them have disfellowshiped us for continuing to uphold and present the fundamental doctrines taught by both Star Members.

When the question was put to us at that time whether those that had separated themselves from us because of the controversy might be in the second death, we answered, “Ridiculous! Brother Jolly does not stand in the same position as Brother Russell, or any other Star Member; at best, if the separatists were not in fact saints, then it could only mean one Levite sassing another Levite, with both sides possibly wrong – especially in their attitude.” This might eventually deteriorate into such “reviling” that it could lead to the second death for some on either side of the argu­ment; but we could see no evidence that it had proceeded to that point then. Cer­tainly, this could be no Scriptural cause to disfellowship any one; but the Epiphany is a time for ‘making manifest the counsels of hearts’ – a truth which must apply to all in the Household of Faith. Hence, what happened after 1950 ‘made manifest’ the uncleansed condition of many Great Company and Youthful Worthy members; and be it observed that those most blindly partisan in their support of the present Executive Trustee have been those most ready to reveal that “instruments of cruelty are in their habitation.” For all this there must eventually come a fearful reckoning.

“PATHS OF ERROR”

It has been suggested that “Last Saint Brother Johnson” or “Last Saint Gone” was the Epiphany Messenger’s Stewardship doctrine; and it would be for those of us who remain to develop that doctrine. Any one grounded in Parousia and Epiphany Truth should readily see the error in this position. No crown-lost leader ever developed any Gospel-Age stewardship doctrine; rather, every one of them perverted what the Star Members left for them. Brother Russell himself gave us the SCRIPTURAL teaching that the last saints would be here until early in Anarchy; and Brother Johnson offered additional proof of that from the Bible, although he did make the mistake of believing that he would be the last one – that he would remain here until 1956 – a parallel to Brother Russell’s death in 1916. Certainly, it should require no argument that his parallel to Brother Russell’s death did not materialize; he died in 1950. In a prev­ious paper we gave what we believe was Brother Johnson’s stewardship doctrine: The Epiphany in its relation to the Epiphany Elect.

After the death of each Star Member, the crown-lost leaders PERVERTED the stew­ardship doctrines left in their charge. This was true of J. F. Rutherford, who per­verted Brother Russell’s stewardship doctrine (Restitution, etc.) by offering conse­cration – or ‘dedication’ to the world of mankind; and this is true of RGJ who has PERVERTED Brother Johnson’s stewardship doctrine – The Epiphany in its Relation to the Epiphany Elect: he now has another non-existent class to walk a narrow way with the Elect in this Epiphany period. In this he also PERVERTS both Messengers’ teachings and Stewardship doctrines. Of course, he has also perverted the teaching of both Mes­sengers on the “last Saint,” in his determination to eliminate the saints in 1950; but that perversion was not the stewardship doctrine of Brother Johnson or Brother Russell, as all Parousia and Epiphany-enlightened brethren know. If the time element had pro­duced the other features that both Messengers taught would be a criterion of this great event – the Time of Trouble such as would topple the earth in its social, governmental, and religious elements – then we ourselves could fully subscribe to the thought that Brother Johnson was the last saint, or at least among the last saints to leave the earth (since his expectation of 1956 had fallen through because of his death in 1950).

SOME PERTINENT TYPES

As this controversy developed into a most serious and painful disturbance in 1951, we did then in that year ask RGJ what answer he had for the large Gospel-Age Samson – considering Brother Russell’s statement in the Berean Comments on Judges 16:30, “With the death of the last member of the Church, the Body of Christ, will surely come the downfall of Churchianity and the present system of world power.” He offered the very reasonable observation that God’s estimate of “Immediate” would not necessarily be a day, a week, or even months – with which we agreed; but, now that over eighteen years have elapsed, this item certainly requires a more scrupulous appraisal. At that time RGJ asked that we keep silent on this point in order not to aid the “opposition” in their arguments against him, because it was indeed a premise which could not be conclusively overthrown; and the weight of argument might easily appear to favor the other side.

As companion to the Samson picture we have the words of Jesus, “Ye are the salt of the earth.... ye are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:13,14); and here is the Berean Comment on v. 14: “When the lights have all been extinguished, the great time of trouble will follow.” In the same line of argument is the David-Saul type, the latter typing the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon. In the type Saul died first – ­he and his sons “that same day” (1 Sam. 31:6) –, of which David was witness. Brother Johnson certainly thought the antitype would follow the time order of the type, his mistake in this matter being only that he thought he himself would be one of the David class who would be here to witness the “funeral” of antitypical Saul in the Armageddon collapse of the social order (the leaders then dying as antitypical Saul, but not necessarily as individual human beings). In line with this, we have his statement in Epiphany Volume 3, p. 446, Middle: “It will, therefore, not be manifest who will be the eventual Little Flock members, until all the Truth Levites have been manifested, have cleansed themselves (Num. 8:7), have recognized themselves as Le­vites (Num. 8:9,10), have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb (Num. 8:12), have been set apart for the true Levitical service (Num. 8:11), and are set before the Priests as their servants (Num. 8:13).” Certainly, no one will contend that the foregoing has yet occurred even here in 1969! Even RGJ doesn’t make such a claim for those outside his group.

Aside from the Apostles and Brother Russell, it was not necessary at any time during the Gospel Age for Saints to accept instruction from Star Members who lived contemporaneously with them. Thus, the Saints with Luther did not receive instruc­tion from Zwingli, and vice versa, etc. And It was Brother Johnson’s clear teach­ing that Saints living in the Epiphany were not required to receive instruction from him; so the question would seem properly in order: If the Saints were not required to accept instruction from him while he lived, why should they have to die just be­cause he is dead? And for 20 years after Brother Miller died there was no Star Mem­ber at all on earth! RGJ contended in one Present Truth that the Saints must have a Star Member living contemporaneously with them, and now that there was none it was a ‘proof’ there are no more saints left. We called his attention to this mistake, which he resented more than he appreciated – although he hasn’t made this foolish claim since that time.

OTHER PERTINENT SCRIPTURES

Following on, we consider Amos 9:13: “The plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed.” A careful reading of this text will reveal it is written in reverse of the natural order – because the “sower of seed” must precede the “reaper” in the usual agricultural process. And Bible students have long since learned that inspired Scripture is not written in loose or careless manner in construction or choice of words. Brother Russell has shown that this is a Harvest Truth; and the words of Jesus apply in the Harvest of the Gospel Age, just as they did in the Jewish Age: “The fields are already white to harvest.... I sent you forth to reap whereon ye bestowed no labor.” (John 4:35-38) Thus, the harvesters of the Gospel Age were enjoined, “Thrust in thy sickle, and reap” (Rev. 14:15) – reap with the sickle of Present Truth; the wheat into the barn, the tares into bundles for the burn­ing – reap the fields which they had not sown. Therefore, the “plowman” (the Time of Trouble – see Berean Comment) would overtake “the reaper,” putting a stop to the reap­ing work. By that time the wheat (the Faithful) and the barley (the Measurably Faith­ful) harvests were complete in their reaping features – the night had come wherein no man could work in “reaping” the saints, as the war overtook the various countries of Christendom.

In the Jewish economy the land had been divided by lot, and each man tilled his own plot of ground. Barring unusual circumstances, the same person sowed and reaped the same field. Inasmuch as Amos 9:13 was written upon that premise, we believe it is logical to conclude that the same CLASS is meant by the “reaper” and the “sower of seed” In both parts of the text – the same being primarily the Little Flock. Once the reaping ceased, a new work began – the work of sowing seed to win Youthful Worthies. In the case of reaping, all Classes joined in the work, as they also have done in the sowing of seed; but the Little Flock predominated in the reaping to its completion; and the construction of our text would cause the logical conclusion that they should do the same with the “sowing of seed.”

Who is the “treader of grapes” that shall overtake “him that soweth seed”? It is the Armageddon and Anarchy features of the Time of Trouble. It should be noted that after the earth is plowed it still has the appearance of earth, and – given reasonable time – will revert back to substantially the same appearance it had before the plowing. But not so when grapes are trodden. In Palestine this usually occurred about August by placing the grapes in a stone or wooden trough, when the husbandman tramped them out with his bare feet, thus allowing the juice to flow into a second trough – after which the remaining pulp was cast away as refuse. And be it noted that once this was done, the grapes never again had the appearance of grapes, never again reverted to grapes, as is the case with earth after it is plowed. Thus, the symbolic earth now still retains its original appearance some 55 years after “the plowman” over­took “the reaper” – a thing that will never again be true of the grapes once they are trodden out.

And what are the grapes? They are the “clusters of the vine of the earth.... fully ripe.... cast into the great winepress of the wrath of God.” (Rev. 14:18,19). The tread­er of grapes is the same thing Daniel saw (Dan. 7:11): “I beheld till the beast was slain.... and given to the burning flame.” This has not yet occurred; therefore, the “treader of grapes” has not overtaken “him that soweth seed” (the Little Flock in their endeavors to win Youthful Worthies – the last elect and the last consecrated class of the Gospel Age “in the finished Epiphany picture.”). Therefore, “him that soweth seed” must still be with us. This is in harmony with the clear, direct and emphatic teach­ings of both Star Members – both of whom repeatedly stated, from Scriptural authority, that some of the “feet members” would remain at least until the “treader of grapes” had begun to do his work. So we are presented here with the teachings of two Star Members the last two “principal Men” – as against the teachings of an uncleansed Levite, one who has clearly demonstrated time after time that the “oil in his lamp” has gone out. RGJ has in times past – although not anymore because of our crushing refutations – re­peated in parrot-like precision: “The doctrine of Tentative Justification as operat­ing from the time of Abel, Enoch and Noah (Heb. 11:4-7), until restitution begins, is a Scriptural one, and will remain so despite the denials of the counterfeit channel...” (E-4:346).

If the “oil in his lamp” had not gone out he would have realized that the subject of Tentative Justification, and its time limit, is for the very purpose of establish­ing the time element for winning Youthful Worthies, as can be readily seen from the fol­lowing:

“If our dear readers will keep in mind that The Tower’s denial of Tentative Justi­fication during this Age is the foundation of its rejecting the Scriptural doctrine that those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Restitution sets in (just as RGJ is now do­ing—JJH), for whom there are no crowns available, .... will be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service, they will be able by Scriptural, reason­able and factual thinking completely to overthrow every argument that the article under review presents to defend its thesis; for through Tentative Justification alone can God now deal with this class in preparing them for association with the Ancient Worthies.” (See E-4:342) And we, too, will be able by Scriptural, reasonable and factual think­ing completely to overthrow every argument that RGJ presents to defend his thesis (his perversion of Tentative Justification and his non-existent class).

There is another Scripture directly bearing on this subject in Rev. 19:6-8, where the declaration is made by the “great crowd” (the Great Company of crown-losers) that “our Lord God, the Omnipotent, reigned.” They are joined in this by the “sound of many waters, and as a noise of mighty thunders”; and the Berean Comment says this will take place “after Babylon’s fall.” There is not yet the slightest indication that the “many waters” (large numbers throughout Christendom) are sounding such a message – nor should we expect it yet if Brother Russell was right in saying it would occur “after Babylon’s fall.” Not even do we hear this ‘message’ sounded by any of the Truth groups (over 18 years after it was proclaimed by RGJ!) other than the LHMM group. But this was Brother Russell’s teaching to the day he died in 1916, and it was confirmed by Brother Johnson until the day he died in 1950. Comes now a Levite to tell us both of them were wrong in their Scriptural interpretation! Therefore, we are forced to the sad conclusion that here is one more Parousia and Epiphany truth that is now being thrust out by those who would have us believe there are no more saints on earth.

A “FORCED” ATTESTATORIAL SERVICE

And to aid each one in this determination, we direct attention to the ‘Attesta­torial Service’ (?) that has supposedly been carried on since 1954 by the ‘cleansed’(?) Levites. Just what has been accomplished by it? Has the leader of the LHMM convinced even one small group that the High Calling is closed, and that crown-losers should now be cleansing themselves? In fact, has he convinced even one individual in any group aside from his own, who considered himself a saint in 1950, that he was wrong in his opinion? His Present Truth subscribers in 1966 were fewer by almost 500 than they were in 1954 – a decrease of 34% as a result of his great (?) Attestatorial service for 12 years! How does this compare with the Attestatorial Service of 1914-1916? But, where­as he should be zealously engaged in declaring the Great Company cleansing truths far and near, what do we find him doing? Aside from obstinately declaring there are no more saints on earth (leaving none to gainsay his authority as the Lord’s mouthpiece at present), HIS main objective is to win campers Consecrated (a non-existent class) exactly as the Jehovah’s Witnesses are also doing with their special non-existent class! Note the elegant detail in which Brother Johnson describes him, and them – and all their kinsmen, as they are thus befuddled by Azazel:

“Filling their minds with more or less error (such as justification outside the Court, etc.—JJH), Satan makes them busy themselves with false religious work, works of false propaganda, of building false religious sects. He deceives them into be­lieving they will accomplish great works, win great numbers (as the Witnesses and other. have already done, and as the LHMM is feverishly trying to do—JJH), gain great favor, etc..... He leads all of them on wild goose chases.” (E-15:525) Always “working for the Lord,” but not doing the Lord’s work!

If the LHMM leader still retained the Epiphany Truth that the ONLY Scriptural gauge for determining crown-losers is gross and persistent revolutionism against the Truth and/or its Arrangements (or the partisan supporters of such revolutionists), then he himself would know of plenty of crown-losers whom he should be warning of their precar­ious state (many of whom he recognized as such before the demise of the Epiphany Messen­ger). But, instead, what do we find him doing? We find him fighting and perverting the truth on the Abandonment process, and now setting aside the Truth that ONLY revo­lutionism is the true gauge for recognizing new creatures as crown-losers. Thus, he abuses those with Little Flock hopes (that is, his Epiphany-enlightened brethren) – not for any revolutionism they have committed, but merely for standing steadfast in a be­lief of their own faithfulness – a belief in which he himself encouraged them to contin­ue prior to October 1950.

This same sifting error by crown-losers found its exact duplicate during the Harvest of the Jewish Age, and note St. Paul’s vivid description of them:

“The word of those men will eat like a mortifying sore; of whom are Hymenius and Philetus; who missed the mark with respect to the Truth, saying that THE RESURRECTION has already happened (as RGJ also now declares the First Resurrection “has already hap­pened” to a completion); and they are perverting the faith of some (just as RGJ has perverted the faith of some). However, the firm foundation of God stands, having this inscription, ‘The Lord knows those who are His.’” (2 Tim. 2:17-19, Dia.) History re­peats itself here in the end of this Gospel Age! So far as we know, he is the only crown-lost leader who has perverted this Truth. Certainly, RGJ has “perverted (Azazel means Perverter) the faith of some” Youthful Worthies and new creatures as he “wanders from the Truth.... in his path of error” (Jas. 5:19, 20—Dia.), as he revolutionizes against the clear Epiphany Truth, namely: Gross and Persistent REVOLUTIONISM against the Truth and/or its Arrangements is the only sure guide for determining crown-losers in this Epiphany period.

And the Attestatorial service that began in 1954 has been such a miserable fail­ure that only one sadly befuddled by Azazel would have the temerity even to make men­tion of it at this late date. The true Attestatorial Service of the Saints in 1914–­1916 lasted for 25 months, and was a marked success from every standpoint. Large con­vention halls and theatres could not receive the huge crowds that came to see the Photo­drama of Creation; and the smiting of Jordan with the pertinent truths was made appar­ent in every country of Christendom. Quite a contrast, and certainly not a true paral­lel, to the feeble effort that was made after 1954; and which RGJ insists is still be­ing continued – although its effects cannot be discerned even with a microscope. And the “parallel” is now fifteen years gone, as compared with 25 months in 1914-1916, with fail­ure clearly marked all over it. Here again only one badly befuddled by Azazel would be crass enough to label it a “parallel” at all – 25 months against fifteen years. It is a tremendous presumption on the gullibility of his readers, because it is no “parallel” at all!

Therefore, Beloved, “Be infants no longer, tossed and whirled about with every wind of that teaching which is in the trickery of men, by cunning craftiness in sys­tematic deception; but being truthful in love, we may grow up in all things into Him, who is the Head – the Anointed One; from whom the whole Body, being fitly joined and united, by means of every assisting joint, according to the proportionate energy of each single part, effects the growth of the Body for the building up of itself in love.” (Eph. 4:14-16, Dia.)

(to be continued)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – What is your answer to Brother Jolly’s three questions in the March-April Present Truth on the resurrection of the just and the unjust?

ANSWER: – In this, as with all of his other errors, he becomes more deeply involved with each utterance he makes. The resurrection of the just is an expres­sion found only twice in the Bible – Acts 24:15 and Luke 14:14. Neither of these Scriptures allows for any “Yes and No” juggling, as RGJ is now attempting. Here again he is caught in a web of his own weaving. The Question at the Chicago Convention simply asked if the Campers Consecrated would experience the “resurrection of the just.” To this he gave an unqualified Yes, stating that they are now among the justified, so they would necessarily experience the resurrection of the just – although he then said they would not have part in the “better resurrection.”

A little analysis will demonstrate how foolish his contention is: ALL of “the just” (the four elect classes) will appear in the resurrection with more than they had in this life – rewarded according to their faithfulness and opportunity; but his Campers Consecrated will appear in the resurrection with less than they have had in this life, that is, if we accept his contention that they now have tentative justifica­tion. Gospel-Age tentative justification is a faith justification; and it ceases to operate when the Gospel Age ends. Thus, all the quasi-elect during the entire Age, and including those now in its end, will appear in the resurrection without that faith justification which they had in this Age. Of course, all the living quasi-­elect will have ceased to be tentatively justified and remanded to the Camp in the “finished Epiphany picture” (See E-10:209). Thus they will come back from the grave with the exact characters they had at death: there is no change in the grave. But they will not come back with perfect physical, mental and other human qualities, any­more than will the other Restitutionists. And if perchance they should live through the Time of Trouble, they will merge into the Kingdom from the Epiphany Camp. This is the teaching of the last two “principal Men,” and the teaching that we continue to uphold and defend. Even those tentatively justified in the Court are no more than nominal Christians, so long as they fail to consecrate (if we accept the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching); and with the close of this Age all who fail to consecrate will be ejected to the Camp where they will take their place among the nominal Christians.

This does not mean that these Campers will have less intrinsic merit, because those among them who continue repentant and believing will have the benefit of the good characters they have developed in this life, enabling them to make greater and quicker progress up the Highway of Holiness. But this same condition would be true of those who have not accepted Jesus as their Savior at all, if they have conducted themselves honorably, nobly and altruistically in this life. If they are in this condition, they will readily accept Jesus as their Savior when the Kingdom is established.

Campers Consecrated will come up in the resurrection with their generation – no different except in their character than their neighbors. Thus, there are only four Scriptural classes of the just – and the Epiphany Messenger never taught more than four. Let RGJ give us even one Scripture to justify his “Yes and No” answer in this matter! Let him show one line in the Epiphany writings that supports his answer! His tactics are simply the tactics of many politicians who also readily say, Yes and then again No. He says “we must distinguish carefully between generalities and speci­fic applications”; but the two texts we have given (Luke 14:14 and Acts 24:15) do not generalize – they are very specific, and that for good reason: Because all others must self-evidently be classified among the unjust, regardless of how noble or ignoble they may have been in this present evil world.

He attempts to “generalize” his present error by posing the question, “Are we still in the Parousia?” Of which Parousia is he now talking – the small or the large one? The small Parousia ended in 1914; and in no sense of the word can we now “generalize” ourselves as being in it. And as for the large Parousia, we have never been out of it! RGJ’s efforts to extricate himself from the quagmire of his own making simply “makes manifest to all” that “teaching which is in the trickery of men, by cunning craftiness in systematic deception” (Eph. 4:14, Dia.) – simply some more of his nonsense. Yet he is crass enough to refer to us as “the sifting errorist” – in which he offers us just one more proof of Brother Johnson’s correct appraisal of him in E-10:585: “A bad con­science” and guilty of many misrepresentations; and in E-10:592: “Loquacious, repeti­tious, and a false-accusing Epiphany crown-loser.”

For a time he was teaching that Brother Russell taught tentative justification would still prevail in the Kingdom reign; but our crushing refutations of his error there made him beat a hasty retreat. But, as he did that he also used the same tac­tics he is using against us now. However, when we consider his type – King Saul of Israel (a type of the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon) – and the depraved methods he used against faithful David, we should “think it not strange” at what we see transpir­ing now.