NO. 174: 1 COR. 15:24 AGAIN

No. 174

(Reprint of No. 148, Oct. 1, 1967, with additions)

On page 56 of the July-August Present Truth RGJ attempts to answer our presenta­tion on the above text in our paper No. 144, July 1967. And revealing once more his “bad conscience” (E-10:585), he resorts to his usual name-calling, slander and railing accusations. It may seem strange to some that he does not resort to such tactics when discussing !he errors of Jehovah’s Witnesses; but there is sound explanation for this: Against the Witnesses he has the Truth, and is refuting error, so he has no need for mud-slinging – the Truth is more than sufficient for his purposes. But, in his alter­cations with us the situation is reversed – so much so that vilification is about the only weapon left to him, as he attempts to defend his errors.

All of our readers will readily admit that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were not infallible; but they both had the humility and nobility of character to admit mistakes when they made them – just as David and other outstanding Bible personages did with their failings. But do we find RGJ admitting any of his mistakes? Certainly he has made plenty of them since 1950, so that he comes well within the scope of Brother Johnson’s declaration that “Bungling is the usual and natural activity of the Great Company.” In proof of this we offer just one instance – the 1954 Attestatorial Ser­vice. This activity was begun with much fanfare, even producing Volumes 18 and 19 (mis-numbering them 16 and 17 ahead of the order in which the Epiphany Messenger had arranged them) as special material for the occasion. It would be most interesting to know if he has sold enough of these two books even to pay for the original cost of set­ting the type. Will he answer this? It will be a pleasant surprise if he does!

But further – and more important – relating to the same in his own record for that Attestatorial Service: According to his Annual Report for 1954 (see page 11 of the January 1955 PT), he had 1422 subscribers to the Present Truth; and for 1966 (see p. 10 of the January 1967 PT – the Annual Report) he had only 934 subscribers to his paper. So, for that “special effort” he lost ‘only’ 488 subscribers to the Present Truth, or almost 30% of his readers. It is probably in order here to say that we have gained much more than 30% in the readers of our paper that we have been issuing since that time. Is it any wonder that he has an inordinate urge to talk – to talk when he has just nothing to say? “Loquacious and repetitious” (E-10:591) – repeat, repeat, repeat! His Attestatorial Service since 1954 should cause him to hang his head in shame for “running ahead of the Lord” – if he has any shame in him.

SOME PROPER QUESTIONS

In his answer to our presentation on 1 Cor. 15:24, RGJ offers copious citations from Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, coupled with his usual name-calling of us, and his own profuse comments to prove us wrong. Did he know all this in 1949, or is this something just new to him? And, if he did know it back there – and Brother John­son knew it, too (as he now claims) – why did the both of them make such a tragic over­sight when they proofread the Herald of the Epiphany for November 15, 1949. Since Bro. Johnson is not here, RGJ will have the privilege of speaking for himself on this query. Will he do it? And why is it that he was completely silent on our analysis of Revelation 20:13, 14: “Death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire”? Can it possibly be that he just overlooked it (although we allowed a copious paragraph for it on the first page of our paper No. 144); or is it that he has no answer, leaving silence as his only retreat? Here is a clear Scripture with a direct bearing on the discussion – a Scrip­ture necessary to the analysis if the whole truth on the item is to be obtained. There­fore, will we now hear from him on it?

FURTHER ANALYSIS

“Death and Hell cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death”—Rev. 20:14. In a broad and accommodated sense it may properly be stated that the “lake of fire” has existed all during this Age, and that a certain specific few have been cast into it –beginning with Judas. The same situation will also prevail under the Kingdom reign with those “sinners a humdred years old, who shall be accursed.” (Isa. 65:20) But “the lake of fire prepared for the Devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41) is much more exclusive, having only one time setting – at the very extreme end of the Little Season. And the Scripture is very explicit that “death and Hell” are also cast therein at the same time. And, so far as we know, there is only one type, or other Old Testament reference, to this grand drama, the same being the destruction of Pharaoh and his Egyptian hosts in the Red Sea as they were pursuing Israel.

This is all very graphically and detailedly explained in E-11:245-296; and at the bottom of page 252 there is this statement: “Satan will use this doctrine deceptively, by ignoring the fact that the thousand years will end lappingly just as they began lap­pingly, in various stages 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914, and by reiterating in his temp­ting suggestions that it ended in 2874” – just as one now in Azazel’s clutches is also contending for 2874. On page 250 it is stated that Satan, the fallen angels and apos­tate restitutionists will enter the Little Season with perfect faculties, but not perfect characters. Before 2874 the “sheep” will not recognize the “goats” – just as was true during the Parousia for the Great Company as such. It was then not known which were Little Flock and which were Great Company so long as they conformed outwardly at least to the Harvest Truth; and this will be the identical situation between the good and bad restitutionists up to 2874. But the testings of the Little Season will make this reve­lation; and will gradually educate the faithful for the antitypical Red Sea experience which will annihilate the unfaithful at the full end of the Little Season.

But their destruction is not what is meant by “death and Hell” being cast into the lake of fire, the antitypical Red Sea – although these will occur simultaneously – at the full end of the Little Season. In this connection, Volume E-8, pp. 603-620 present an excellent analysis of the Gospel-Age and Millennial-Age Passovers, with their pertinent applications and meanings to the firstborns and the afterborns. The afterborns are clas­sified as the “defiled” ones during this Gospel Age (Num. 9:9 14), who must cleanse them selves during the next Age – must have this cleansing completed before the start of the Little Season – otherwise, they will fall in the Little Season test.

On p. 608 is the following: “The defilement and its condemnation lasting seven days types the fact that one must undergo actual or reckoned cleansing of the Millen­nial Age, the antitypical seventh day, in order to be rid of the Adamic defilement and condemnation” – the Adamic death process (sin, error and selfishness). And further on P. 616: “If he (the defiled one) leaves any of these (Christ’s right to life and life rights) unappropriated, he enters the Little Season with an imperfect character and thus will fall in the final trial during the Little Season” – he will be cast into the lake of fire, the antitypical Red Sea, along with the Devil and his angels at the full end of the Little Season. Note, please, how clear it is from the foregoing quotation that Brother Johnson considered the “defiled” ones as entering the Little Season still con­taminated with the Adamic death process (sin, error, selfishness) – which, therefore, cannot be destroyed until its possessor is also destroyed. “That final trial will be the last stand that Satan, sin and error and all in sympathy with them will ever make; for oppression (of Satan, sin and error, with their concomitants of dying and death – ­the Adamic death process—JJH) shall not rise again.” (E-11:268)

Lest any misunderstand us, we emphasize that 1874 is clearly marked in the Bible, as is also 2874, and would properly be designated as the Kingdom day – the time during which “all that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and come forth” (John 5:28, 29). It was Brother Russell’s surmise that the awakening of all the dead race might occur within the first five hundred years of that Day. This we do not attempt to dispute, but merely to observe that it will perforce have to be fully accom­plished by 2774 (100 years ahead of 2874) if “the sinner a hundred years old” is to have his hundred-year opportunity. However, at whatever time, when the last one leaves the tomb, that day will also mark the end of Adamic death state; no more will be con­tained in the Adamic death state, no more can ever enter it. That enemy will be de­stroyed that identical day – many years before 2874. That being true, and since it oc­curs at least a hundred years before the start of the Little Season, it should be readily apparent to all that the tomb, the death state, cannot possibly be the “last enemy” to be destroyed. Thus, there is left only one other fleshly enemy – and that is the Adam­ic death process – that last enemy to be destroyed.

On p. 57, col. 2 (top), of the article under discussion, RGJ quotes from an early PT by Brother Johnson:

“The Present Truth stands squarely and sincerely for the Parousia Truth, as basic for all further develop­ment of the Truth. Thus it heartily embraces the system of Truth which is presented in the writings of our beloved Pastor, as well as holds to its principles and spirit. Whenever he gives two or more harmonious views of a Scriptural passage or doctrine, we accept all; whenever, as in a few instances in the great system of Truth which he pre­sented, these cannot be harmonized, we accept the latest expressions, unless they are manifestly not so harmonious with the Scriptures, reason and facts as earlier ones.” Then RGJ says for himself, “This is still the policy of THE PRESENT TRUTH, and we apply the same rule to Brother Johnson’s writings.”

It will be noted that on the previous page we quoted from Epiphany Vol. 8, p. 608; and we call attention to the fact that the first nine volumes of Epiphany Studies (in­cluding Vol. 8, of course) were first published in 1938. Would RGJ tell us now that this Vol. 8 is also a “later expression not harmonious with the Scriptures,” and that this is his reason for rejecting also this part of Vol. 8 – as he also now tries to do with the Herald of the Epiphany of Nov. 15, 1949?

MORE FROM THE MESSENGERS

First of all, we offer again the Nov. 15, 1949 Herald, identically as we gave it in our paper No. 144:

“He (Christ) shall have put down all rule and all authority and all power (every vestige of the governorship and of the pretended authority and of the pre­tended might of Satan, all of this will be put down by the almighty hand of Christ, the head, and the Church, the Body, using God’s power as that almighty power in their hand). For He must reign until He hath put all enemies under His feet (thus we see that not only persons are these enemies, but also things. The Adamic death in the sense of the dying process is this last great enemy; and, because of his faithfulness, Jesus became the One who will after the close of the Millennium finally destroy it.”

If we should now agree with RGJ about that ‘faulty’ disc, and change the “of” to “is” as he demands, just what difference would it make in the above statement of expla­nation by Brother Johnson? The only logical change to be made here – if indeed a change is required – would be to eliminate the entire statement we have just quoted, and declare that statement to be the real mistake. Clearly enough, he didn’t dare do that – even some of his sleeping readers might then have become aroused.

But we offer some more from E-11, Chap. IV, wherein is described the deliverance of the afterborn, the full accomplishment of which occurs at the full end of the Little Season. On p. 274 Brother Johnson treats of Rev. 20:10, 14 and 15. We gave a detailed analysis of some of this in our paper No. 144, declaring that “death” in Rev. 20:13, 14 refers not to the Adamic death state, but the ADAMIC DEATH PROCESS; and on p. 274 Bro. Johnson offers exactly the same interpretation that we do. And let us keep in mind that this Revelation Scripture is probably the outstanding companion text of 1 Cor. 15:24, because the “death” in both texts is from the Greek ‘thanatos’; and means the same in both texts. Therefore, we now ask – Is RGJ also now casting aside Rev. 20: 13, 14, and branding Brother Johnson’s interpretation on that text wrong, too? Vol. 11 was published in 1948 – at least a year before the Nov. 15, 1949 Herald; and we all know the material had to be prepared for publication sometime before 1948.

Next we offer another quotation from Brother Russell (Reprints 5293, col. 1, par. 2):

“While the sprinkling of the blood upon the Mercy Seat on behalf of all the people takes place before restitution begins, or before the right to live can be given to any of the Ancient Worthies, nevertheless, those who would get God’s blessing, His uplifting influence, must become Israelites that is become believers in God, by believing in the Mediator, who will be God’s representative. This law will be applicable to the whole world. If mankind would get everlasting life, they must accept Christ and join themselves to this earthly Kingdom class. Christ’s Kingdom must rule until all the wicked are destroyed.—1 Cor. 15:24-26”

Here is some more that RGJ is now ready to toss into the waste basket. Certainly, it needs no large amount of Present Truth to know that the “wicked” of the foregoing are the “goats” that will be destroyed at the end of the Little Season, along with their defilements of the Adamic death process (sin, error and selfishness). And, since RGJ has branded our presentation in No. 144 as “sifting literature.... from Satan,” it would seem he must now also do the same thing with large parts of Brother Russell’s and Brother Johnson’s writings. He should certainly make himself clear here.

Inasmuch as the Adamic death state will be eliminated by 2774 at the very latest, it should be clear to all that it cannot possibly be the “last enemy” of 1 Cor. 15:24. Israel’s escape across the Red Sea makes this all crystal clear: With Pharaoh typing Satan, the Egyptians type the “wicked” mentioned above by Brother Russell; they are the typical “goats” of the parable, even as the fleeing Israelites are the typical “sheep” of the parable; and the Red Sea saving the “sheep,” and at the same time de­stroying the “goats” is the typical Lake of Fire of Rev. 20:14. Speaking of those “goats,” Brother Johnson says on p. 125 of Vol. 17:

“By the trial during the Little Season at the Millennium’s close, their (the ‘goats’—JJH) unholy heart’s condition (the Adamic death process—JJH) will become manifest, and they will perish in the Second Death – everlasting destruction (Rev. 20:7-9, 15).”

Inasmuch as those entering the Little Season do so with perfect faculties, it should require no great argument that the “unholy heart’s condition” of the “goats” is the Adamic death process still present with them. That is why the Adamic death process is “the last enemy”: Those persons “defiled” with it must first be destroyed before the thing can be annihilated. Thus, Brother Johnson’s statement in the Nov. 15, 1949 Herald that “not only persons are these enemies, but also things” is correct, and must stand as he gave it. The “persons” in his statement are the same as “the wicked” in Brother Russell’s statement, the same as the “goats” in the parable – to be destroyed when “cometh the end” – the “end of the Little Season.

It should also be evident from the foregoing that the “goats,” with their per­fect faculties, could have rid themselves of their “unholy heart’s condition” – which they were physically able to do, but simply willfully refused to do it. This is in strict keeping with the Harvest of the Jewish Age: the “wheat” accepted Christ, and were physically able to make their “calling and election sure,” even as the “chaff” of that nation were consumed in the fire of destruction by the Roman Army in the year 70 AD. The “wheat” were physically able to gain salvation; thus, the “chaff” also could have gained it had they willed to do so. And in the Harvest of this Age the “tares” are to be burned, as the “wheat” is gathered into the Heavenly barn. The “wheat” were physically able to do what was required of them to gain their objective; and, while the Great Company were also physically able to do the same thing (to do all that the Lord required of them), they refused through measurable “unholy heart’s condition,” and must also pass through the ‘fire’ of this Age – though not to their destruction, but to their cleansing. This they will also be physically able to do; and those who do not do it act from choice – just as will the “goats” who choose to go into the Lake of Fire at the full end of the Little Season.

In view of the foregoing, it should be evident to any ‘babe’ in the Truth that the pursuing Egyptians were the Jews’ enemies, and that those enemies are antityped by the wicked, the “goats” that go into the antitypical Red Sea – the Lake of Fire – the Second Death at the full end of the Little Season. This then makes the Lake of Fire, the Sec­ond Death, the friend of the “sheep,” because it forever separates them from their ene­mies. It is well to remember, however, that, while Satan and his angels also go into the Lake of Fire, it may not be strictly correct to speak of them going in a second death, because they never came under the Adamic condemnation. However, if we view the Second Death as a sentence, it would mean the same thing – utter destruction from among the people. The consummate result is the same – they go into eternal annihilation, just as do the “goats,” who may properly be described as going into the second death. Once more this analysis sets out the “last enemy” as the Adamic death process operating in the “goats” because of their unruly heart’s condition – impregnated with sin, error and selfishness, which would actually do violence to the “sheep,” and probably will really do so with the Worthies by perhaps murdering them. It would appear that the “goats” will perish in exact manner as did Nadab and Abihu, when “there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them.” (Lev. 10:1-2)

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, TOO

In the August 15, 1967 Watch Tower the Witnesses also treat 1 Cor. 15:24, giving it the exact interpretation offered by RGJ in his August 1967 Present Truth – although in this instance the Witnesses simply present their views without calling others “sifting errorists,” etc., who may differ with them. However, the Witnesses are em­phatic that they are “The Channel” for the Truth – the same claim that is made also by “cousin” Krewson. Therefore, RGJ has two “Channels” in full agreement with him, and he should be able to answer our views with greater ease, now having the assistance of these two great “Mouthpieces.”

A SOBER APPRAISAL

In closing, we would say to our readers that we do not consider an incorrect under­standing of 1 Cor. 15:24 to be a sifting error. Such a mistake will not cause any one to lose his Class standing – anymore than would the improper date for the Memorial cause any one to lose his Class standing. A few years back, when we were diligently endeavoring to present the correct method to determine the Memorial date – to keep it as a Spring festival, as the Jews have always done with their Passover the “cousins” (Jolly-Krewson) offered much ridicule in their attacks against us. However, at no time did we suggest dire consequences for them – or for any one else – who did not agree with us; nor did we recommend disfellowshiping any one because of it. That is also our attitude on 1 Cor. 15:24. Not so, however, with RGJ! He, true to his past record ­“loquacious, repetitious and false accusing” (E-10:591) – is profuse in his name-calling: “sifting errorist – sifting literature – from Satan.” Brother Russell and Brother John­son were never forced to stoop to such tactics. Almost invariably, during this Epi­phany period, when intricate texts have come under examination, the real sifters never have the Truth on them – the Lord does not show them such favor. (See 2 Thes. 2:11 ­Berean Comment)

Although we feel none of us are warranted in disfellowshiping others because of a differing opinion on either of the above subjects, nevertheless we, as Truth people, should seek to know the Truth on every Bible passage, and particularly on such teach­ings as prominent as are “the last enemy” and the correct Memorial date. It is for this reason we go into quite some detail to offer the Truth on these teachings, believing that by so doing it will enable our readers to grow in Grace and in the knowledge of our Beloved Lord Jesus. Our fond wish to all on these, and on all Truth matters, is that “thou mayest prosper, and be in health” – Spiritually and physically – “even as thy soul prospereth.” (3 John 2)

Sincerely your Brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

THE THOUSAND-YEAR REIGN

The Sept-Oct. 1969 PT has prompted us to reproduce our paper No. 148 as above set out. Further comment, however, is apropos: On p. 78, col. 1, second-last paragraph, RGJ says, “we have from Scriptures, reason and facts thoroughly refuted the ‘sophistry’ of the teaching respecting the saints’ reign,” etc. The citations he offers in support of his contention are found in P 156, 30-32 and P ‘57, 9-11 – his own writings. Espec­ially on p. 10, col. 2, of the latter does he lay great stress upon “the end” of 1 Cor. 15:24 in his attempt to refute our own writings on this subject, saying that this “end” is 2874 – “and immediately thereafter comes the Little Season.”

In E-17:124 Brother Johnson says, “Then cometh the end (the end of the Little Sea­son),” which statement, if accepted as it stands completely annihilates RGJ’s position. To get around this, he claims a ‘faulty disc’ was misread – that the statement should read, “The end is the Little Season.” However, this same statement is to be found else­where, so there must have been more than one ‘faulty disc’ if RGJ’s conclusion is the truth. We quote: “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death (thus we see that not only persons are these enemies, but also things. The Adamic death in the sense of the dying process is this last great enemy; and, because of His faithfulness, Jesus became the One who will after the close of the Millennium finally destroy it).” Note well, “after the Millennium” ­that is, during the Little Season.” Thus, RGJ’s ‘faulty’ disc is clearly revealed as nothing more than a flimsy fabrication – walking in the footsteps of typical King Saul in his endeavor to falsify his way out of an embarrassing situation.

However, in the above reprint, issued over two years ago, we gave his contention such a crushing refutation that he has not dared even mention 1 Cor. 15:24 in his writ­ings since that time – although in answer to a question on 1 Cor. 15:24 at one of his Con­vention Question Meetings, he agreed with us. Yet he is now brazen enough again to falsify that he “thoroughly refuted” us. This is a claim that both “cousins” often make, with just nothing to support their claims. Perhaps they think by “much speaking” they will sway “the unstable and the unlearned.” But viewed from God’s standpoint, and His Word, they are “words to no profit.”

Therefore, we once more direct the attention of our readers to Brother Johnson’s record of RGJ in E-10:585, to the effect that he has “a bad conscience”; and all of us know that one of the chief things that makes for a “bad conscience” in people is that they are chronic falsifiers; they readily resort to falsehood whenever it suits their convenience. And this has been RGJ’s course on numerous occasions. Nor should we be surprised at this, because Lev. 16:8 (margin) says the one goat was to be “for Azazel.” Azazel is just another name for the Devil, and Jesus tells us that the Devil is “the father of lies” (John 8:44). Thus, it is “only logical” here to conclude that those in his clutches – as all crown-losers are at one time or another – would resort to his lying tactics, as is now being done in this Sept.-Oct. PT. Please see Isa. 59:13 and Prov. 6:18. No one will be able to falsify himself into the Kingdom Class, even if they do gain temporary advantage now in this “present evil world.”

This malevolence of character is so strikingly shown in King Saul (type of the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon). He readily resorted to falsehood when Samuel con­fronted him with his “rebellion” and “stubbornness.” Said Saul: “I have performed the commandment of the Lord,” which statement was just a raw falsehood. (1 Sam. 15:13) He later stressed the falsehood: “Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord” (v. 20); but under the stern and unyielding pressure of Samuel, he was forced to admit, “I have sinned.” (v. 24) If this type is carried out in minute detail, we may take some present consola­tion in the anticipation that these falsifying crown-lost leaders will eventually come to admit their guilt in their sins of teachings and practice – although it will take force and pressure. For now, our counsel to RGJ and all his kinsmen would be to take heed to the Scripture: “Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.” (Psalms 32:9)

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Epiphany Bible Students Association

Mount Dora, Florida

Gentlemen:

July 14 I led the worship for the memorial service of Mr. and Mrs. ------- of ------- They were killed in an auto accident. Shortly after the funeral the family received two copies of “The Herald of the Epiphany.” The titles were “What is the Soul?” and “Where Are the Dead?”

I deeply wish to believe your intentions were to be helpful to this family in this deep loss. Please be assured, however, this was not the result. During such a time per­sons do not need the kind of material you send. To “take advantage” of such a situation is both sadistic and foreign to the God who loves and cares. The result of your litera­ture has been to anger and harden an already difficult situation.

If your type of ministry is needed at all it is not in this area. There are many areas of vital need – it is most unfortunate you have not chosen more carefully. I ser­iously hope your efforts will be directed into a more understanding and effective ministry.

Sincerely,

Pastor of First Baptist Church (Florida)

Our answer:

Dear Pastor ------- : Christian greetings!

This is in response to your letter of August 22, in which you characterize our efforts to preach “the good word of God” as “sadistic.” In those papers the Hebrew word “sheol” and the Greek word “hades” are analyzed to reveal the state of the dead; but it seems you are not only ignorant of the meaning of those words (which are synony­mous with each other), but you are even now unable to grasp their meaning after they are clearly explained to you. I admit it disturbs me that a supposedly educated man – such as you appear to be – cannot comprehend my presentation. But you are the first one to present that problem.

Jesus said, “Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.” But for preaching the Truth the Scribes and Pharisees (the preachers of that time) placed Him on the cross. Later, however, St. Peter explained: “I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” (Acts 3:17) This same generous consideration I now extend you.

It may interest you to know we have some Baptist ministers on our mailing list, a gratuitous courtesy they receive at their own request. Apparently these men did not at­tend the same school you did. It would rather seem that you still cling to the Dark-­Age belief that the unsaved persons of this and past Ages must endure eternal torment in the “Lake of Fire”; and you are presumably disturbed that we here see something much better in store for them – “Good Tidings of Great Joy, which shall be to all people,” as taught In the Scriptures.

If you are in this vicinity any time (1901 Morningside Drive), I would welcome a visit with you. You may be assured of a Christian reception – “without partiality and without hypocrisy.” I am persuaded you will not find anything “sadistic” about me or any of my assistants, all of whom give their services without consideration of “filthy lucre.” Thus, none of us are actuated by selfish motives.

Yours in the Master’s service,

John J. Hoefle

Executive Director

PS – Enclosed is my paper – “Two Distinct Salvations” – which is in keeping with Acts 24:15: “There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” This paper complements the two you already have, and I am interested to know if you con­sider this “sadistic,” too.

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

Dear Bro. Hoefle: Grace and peace in the Lord!

I was at Manchester for the Hyde Convention. I wrote Bro. Jolly and told him the Tabernacle shows that consecration in the Gospel Age is to death. Any in Camp must come into the court, which the Bible shows. I told him Camp consecration is to life and in the next Age. The Kingdom is to the Jew first. The Ancient and Youthful Worthies will be back for the purpose of the New Covenant. I think it did some good, for I said you worked with Brothers Russell and Johnson, and you want to pray to see things right for the Truth. God does not make Truth to fit our plans, but His.

At the Convention no one said anything about Camp consecration. The first day I had a talk with Brother ....... about Camp consecration. This was at tea time. After they all saw this they kept away from me. I had to sit by myself most of the time...

Christian love to you both.    Yours by His Grace ------- (ENGLAND)

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

Dear Brother & Sister Hoefle:

Christian love and greetings in the name of our Redeemer!

Received your letter and appreciated it very much. Don’t know whether I mentioned it to you, but I had a light stroke in my left sight ....... But we are trusting in the dear Lord. Hymn 94.

There are several groups of Bible Students here, including Dawnites. They have a Bible Study, claiming that the Authorities do not allow them to have one in the “Volumes.” How wonderful would it be for all to abandon their partisan ideas and instead unite their efforts to uphold the Lord’s Truth as given to us through our dear Lord’s own choice – our dear Brother Russell. If Brother Paul were here today he would use the same rebuke (and even stronger to the various divisions (carnal) of Bible Students as he did to the Corinthian brethren (1 Cor. 1:10-13). Don’t you think so?

We are thankful to the Lord that we have been kept by His Grace (Manna Jan. 1), and striving to defend it to the best of our ability (without mixing any one else’ ideas).

Trusting this finds you both, dear Brother and Sister, rejoicing in our blessed Hope. Please convey our warm Christian love to all the dear brethren in the dear Class ­holding a good measure for yourselves.

In the One Hope by His Grace, Bro. & Sr. ------- (GREECE)

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

Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n

Please send me free copies of “Where Are the Dead” and “The Resurrection of the Dead.” Thank you!

------- (PENNSYLVANIA)

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

ADDENDA TO NO. 174

MORE ON THE-SEPT-OCT. 1969 PRESENT TRUTH

 On pp. 66-76 the above paper carries an article on Habakkuk, which is mostly an excellent presentation, because it is mainly by Brother Johnson; but it seems almost impossible for RGJ to handle the writings of either Brother Russell or Brother Johnson without injecting some of his errors into them. That is his responsibility, of course, and he can expect to reap the rewards of his sowing – as will also all those who en­courage him in his evil ways.

As a case in point, we mention p. 72, col. 2, par. 1: “It is only logical to expect that he (Brother Johnson), a prominent member of the Little Flock, would have the honor of being the last Little Flock member to leave the earth.” We offer the ob­servation here that what is “only logical” to a mind such as RGJ has may be errant non­sense to other minds. It should be noted that Brother Johnson told us that when these crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. Therefore, it behooves us to be wary of any “logical” statements that may come from them. People who talk nonsense are apt to be very illogical; thus, the words of Solomon, “in all thy getting, get understanding.”

 As all of our readers know, Moses led Israel from Egypt (type of the world in sin) to Canaan (typing for Gospel-Age purposes the sphere of the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth, and in the larger sense a type of the Heavenly Canaan). In that journey Israel typed the Gospel-Age spiritual Israel as they have journeyed from antitypical Egypt to antitypical Canaan; and Moses as their leader typed the Star Members (the leaders) who have led spiritual Israel in their Gospel-Age journey. Who of us would question that Brother Russell was not such a leader! He was as much in command of the Harvest work and the Lord’s “good soldier” as was any general who ever lived at the head of his army. But Moses did not lead Israel over Jordan into Canaan; it was Josh­ua who did this; and Joshua was not of the Tribe of Levi, he was of the Tribe of Eph­raim. Thus, for the first time since leaving Egypt Israel was under the command of one not of the Tribe of Levi; and be it noted that it was Joshua who commanded the priests and all the people in every minute detail of that crossing. “Joshua spake unto the priests, saying, Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass over before the people. And they took up the ark of the covenant, and went before the people.? (Joshua 3:6) There­fore, when a Levite in Azazel’s clutches tells us it is “only logical” that a Star Mem­ber would be “the last Little Flock member to leave the earth,” we would reply that here in Joshua is a very clear Scripture that shows us how illogical is such a conclu­sion.

DUE TRUTH FOR ALL GOD’S CONSECRATED PEOPLE

On p. 78, col. 2, bottom par., there is this statement: “The Scriptures teach that for all times the due Truth is for all God’s consecrated people to discern, by the aid of His Holy Spirit.” This is another “logical” conclusion that is shallow in the very extreme; and is directly contradicted by Volume E-4, p. 129: “Whatever the Lord may give during the Epiphany for the priests alone will be for them alone.” But, lest we lean too much on Brother Johnson, let us ask: During the Parousia did “all God’s consecrated people” discern the due Truth? It may be argued that the Six Volumes of Scripture Studies were for them; but those volumes were also available to all Christen­dom. Yet we know that the vast majority of the people never read them at all; and, of those who did, many violently opposed them. The great bulk of crown-losers in Big Baby­lon did not “discern the due Truth by the aid of His Holy Spirit.”

 And we inquire further, Did “all God’s consecrated people” discern the due Truth in the Epiphany? We know they did not, for many of the Little Flock in the various groups would have no part of the Epiphany writings, believing as they did that their writer was In the second death.

But harking back to the Philadelphia epoch, did any one of the saints there dis­cern all the due Truth? We all know they did not, as they were scattered throughout the sects of Christendom, and often in extreme opposition to each other. We may carry this point even further, and say that the Star Members themselves did not discern nearly all the due Truth of their time. Martin Luther, hero of the Reformation, gave very determined opposition to the Truth on the Lord’s Supper as presented by Zwingli, although the latter made a special visit to him to discuss that and other truths. and what about Calvin and Servetus? Calvin was so much in opposition to the due Truth that there is but one God that he actually had Servetus burned at the stake, as he proceeded on his way nursing his error on the Trinity and absolute predestination. For one capa­ble of perpetrating the horrible crime that Calvin committed it is “only logical” that the Lord would not favor him with the due Truth.

Our position here is further corroborated by the parable of the “unprofitable ser­vant” (the Great Company class – see Berean comment on Matt. 25:30). We are told that his punishment was to be “cast into outer darkness” – error. It is impossible to be cast into error, and be blessed with the due Truth at the same time – although such trans­parent nonsense seems “only logical” to RGJ. Here is something more from E-13:41 that is exactly to the point:

“So far as the old truths were concerned, they (the Great Company) became increas­ingly unclear thereon, and so far as the advancing Truth in its blessing the part of the cleansed Sanctuary that was separate from Babylon was concerned, they were entirely blind.”

The foregoing had an exact duplication during the Epiphany with most of the Parou­sia crown-losers; and it is now becoming quite apparent with RGJ himself. In this con­nection, we quote further from E-7:277:

“With the organizational leaders of the Great Company deadness to self and the world and aliveness to God are not complete (Jas. 1:8). Their selfish propensities, especially exercised in self-will, grasping for power, lording it over God’s heritage, dividing the flock (as did RGJ immediately after Brother Johnson’s demise—JJH) and desiring to shine before others as able teachers and executives are so uncurbed by themselves, that not one of them alone can be trusted by the Lord with an unrestricted General Ministry.”

Does RGJ still accept that Epiphany Truth, or is this just one more instance for him where an old Truth is becoming increasingly unclear? During Brother Johnson’s life – especially before RGJ was a manifested crown-loser – we heard RGJ stress this important truth. Will he now give us his present understanding of it? Of course, in all of this he is treading the identical footsteps of That Evil Servant, of whom Brother Johnson wrote the following in E-6:377:

“Almost never does he allude to or quote a passage in an article on his pet views but he corrupts its sense. Yet he says he has not changed our Pastor’s teachings, has only clarified them.”

 Almost the exact words RGJ uses when he injects errors into Parousia or Epiphany writings!

“UNPROFITABLE SERVANT...... OUTER DARKNESS”

On Oct. 31–Nov. 2 we attended the Chicago Convention of the LHMM – with much the same experience as in times past. RGJ had his usual “profusion of words” in the Ques­tion Meeting. Some one – apparently charitably inclined – asked if the “sifters” might be wrong in the head, but still have a good heart – believe they were serving God. He proceeded to explain that we cannot read the heart, and that one sifter – apparently influenced by his wife, somewhat after the manner that Jezebel stirred up Ahab – had made the statement that he wondered if he was doing right in his oppositional activities. As usual, he did not have the courage to mention any name, so no one can be certain of whom he spoke. Of course, he and others there knew that many there would believe he referred to us; but we wish to make it very clear to all that we never offered such a statement. He is ever ready to present a new “Grimm’s Fairy Tale,” as was his habit dur­the Parousia (See his letter in the Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower); and anything he says must be tempered with that knowledge. He also compared us to Judas.

Another question: Bro. Johnson teaches all Great Company members must be fully abandoned to Azazel before they can be cleansed – and that all brotherly fellowship must be withdrawn before they can be fully abandoned. At what time were you and other Great Company members in the Epiphany Movement fully abandoned to Azazel? He gave no answer at all as to when they were abandoned, although he attempted to explain that the abandonment was only the abandonment of the humanity. He never attempted to cite the teachings of the Epiphany Messenger on the abandonment process as given in E-4:210, E-15:525, and many other places – nor did he cite any references to Brother Russell’s teaching. Be it noted, that none of the Great Company members in the LHMM were fully abandoned to Azazel during Brother Johnson’s life, because all those who remained with him continued to receive brotherly fellowship and help from him, even after they were manifested crown-losers and all priestly fellowship had been withdrawn from them. Also note, that when they are fully abandoned all brotherly fellowship and favor of the priesthood are withdrawn from them – they are left to their own devices – much the same as J. F. Rutherford was some time after Brother Russell’s death when he got full control of the Society, and true of RGJ after the Epiphany Messenger’s death and he got full control of the LHMM. He had no restraining hand upon him then, although his fleshly mind had not been destroyed. He offered the inane remark that we don’t need to care about our humanity, because it is to be de­stroyed; so we now offer the question: With what would he or any of his kinsmen have to make an “offering in righteousness” after they are cleansed if all their humanity is de­stroyed?

 He stated also that the questioner was confused, having failed to differentiate be­tween the humanity and the new creature of such crown-losers. We have always understood that the difference between the Little Flock and the Great Company is the Great Company’s double mind (fleshly) and the single mind of the Little Flock. Clearly enough, from the expression on his face, and the jumbled manner of his answer, he was the one confused, as he resorted again to his usual “profusion of words” to no profit – some of which no doubt caused even some of his most partisan supporters embarrassment – that is, if they have re­tained even a smattering of the faithful teachings given us by the Epiphany Messenger. One simple question here should suffice: When the Corinthians “delivered such an one unto Satan” (1 Cor. 5:1-5), did they cast his humanity from their midst, or his new creature, or both? While it is true that “the destruction of the flesh” (fleshly mind) must par­tially include the destruction of the humanity while they are being “buffeted by Azazel,” yet this is only partial. If the destruction of their humanity were complete before their fleshly mind is completely destroyed, there would no longer be a way for them to make an “offering in righteousness” to the Lord. The very purpose of the abandonment is to destroy their fleshly minds – their double minds (James 1:8); and we hope to make it indisputably clear in our subsequent remarks that this cleansing has not yet occurred with RGJ – in fact, if he spoke what he really believes, then he does not yet know what the abandon­ment process is – which is in harmony with Brother Johnson’s teachings of that Class, that none of them fully know the methods which the Lord uses on them while in their uncleansed condition.

Then this question: If tentative justification is available in the Camp, does it mean consecration is available for all mankind in the Camp now before the Kingdom is established and the New Covenant inaugurated? To this he replied, It doesn’t mean that. at all! The questioner has lost sight of the fact that only the tentatively justified can consecrate. The Heathen and Mohammedans can’t consecrate. To this we would add a simple question of our own: Since when are the Heathen and the Mohammedans in the Camp? Even the merest babe in the Truth knows that the Camp types Christendom – the nominal rebellious people of God – and in the finished picture of the Epiphany, the repentant and believing, but unconsecrated, Jews and Gentiles. These people have not been sufficiently strong enough to come into the Court – the only place either Messenger ever taught for any kind of justification in this faith Age – and to do “that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” (Rom. 12:1-3) Also see RGJ’s letter in E-6:166/168, which is the correct teaching on Tentative Justification. This was while he was under the benign in­fluence and restraining hand of the Epiphany Messenger.

Also this: Is there enough material on hand for the 21 volumes promised by Brother Johnson? Here again he said the questioner was confused – that Bro. Johnson never said there would be 21 volumes. He expected 21 or the equivalent; he has done this. Here is what Brother Johnson said in the 1950 PT, P. 10-11: “As we stated in the Nov. 1949 Truth, p. 175, we trust, D.v., to publish perhaps three more of the last seven Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures in 1950, if the necessary funds come to hand... However, we have full assurance of faith that the Lord will enable us to complete the writing of the rest of the 21 volumes. The last two of these 21 volumes, D.v., will be on the book of Reve­lation (practically every part of which is now clear to us).”

Is RGJ’s mind so befuddled by Azazel that he would unwittingly make such a false statement, or is he willfully making this false statement as a cover-up for his errors? If our readers will refer to the last page of Vol. 15, they will find that all six of these unpublished volumes are listed: Vol. 16 – Genesis – Leviticus – Deuteronomy; Vol. 17 Numbers, Vol. 2; Vol. 18 – The Chart of God’s Plan; Vol. 19 – The Millennium; Vol. 20 Revelation, Vol. 1; Vol. 21 – Revelation, Vol. 2. When RGJ produced Vols. 16 & 17, they were The Chart of God’s Plan and the Millennium – although he did not list other unpub­lished volumes as did the Epiphany Messenger in Volume 15. It is clear enough, however, to all who are familiar with Brother Johnson’s writings, that RGJ has been using much of the material left on Genesis, Numbers and Deuteronomy for articles in his Present Truth –although with his errors injected in places to support his “new light.” This “sleight-of-­hand” may fool the “unstable and the unlearned”; but we may be quite sure that “God is not mocked” by this chicanery.

One other question: “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness.” (Matt. 25:30). Who is the unprofitable servant and what is the outer darkness? RGJ was quick to respond that the unprofitable servant were those who denied the Ransom or the sin-offering; and that the ‘outer darkness’ was the second death for them. Note now the clear logic of Brother Russell in the Berean Comment: “Unprofitable servant...The Great Company class. The Lord does not deny that he is a servant, nor does he charge him with being an enemy.” And note also how clearly Brother Russell defines the outer darkness (error) in the comments on 2 Thes. 2:11: “Giving them over to error, which they prefer to the Truth.... Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.” Certainly, RGJ was indeed favored with the Parousia and Epiphany Truth (the most light of Present Truth); and his answers to these and other questions at that Chicago meeting clearly reveal that he is now flound­ering around in “outer darkness,” as the Lord had predicted of the “unprofitable servant” the crown-losers. We enumerate just a few of these where he has either perverted, or gone completely into outer darkness:

(1) He is now in “outer darkness” on the Abandonment process as given in E Vols. 4 and 15; rejects almost completely the Truth as given by the Epiphany Messenger; (2) “outer darkness” on the Camp when he attempts to put the heathen into it; (3) “outer darkness” on the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture as given in E-10:209, where Bro. Johnson says it will contain the “repentant and believing, but not consecrated”; he is now putting his consecrated into the Epiphany Camp; (4) “outer darkness” on the resur­rection of the Just; (5) “outer darkness” on the Tabernacle Court as the only place for justification in this Faith Age; (6) “outer darkness” on OUTER DARKNESS being error, as manifested by his comments at Chicago.

NO. 173: LAST SAINT - PART TWO (CONTINUED FROM NO. 167)

No. 173

Next we analyze Eph, 4:11-13. The five classes of servants here named – the twelve Apostles, the Prophets (49 Star Members), the Evangelists, Shepherds and teach­ers – for the work of the ministry, etc., are given to the Church for two specific reasons: (1) “Till we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, (2) to a full grown man, to the measure of the full stature of the Anointed Ones.” (Dia.) So we ask first, What is meant by “the unity of-the faith”? If any are inclined to believe it means understanding the entire Bible, then we must admit that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson never came to the ‘unity of the faith,’ because they freely admitted they did not understand the entire Bible – nor does any one else yet understand it, so far as we know. But, if we define “unity of the faith” to be a clear and harmonious understanding of the “ten strings of the Harp of God,” then we must conclude Brother Russell and all who came into, and clearly understood Harvest Present Truth indeed came to “unity of the faith.”

That this is the position God wishes His people now to accept is shown in Isa. 52:8, “Thy watchmen.... shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.” Note Berean Comments on this: “In the harvest of the Gospel Age, Clearly, Harmoniously.” It was Brother Russell’s Stewardship Doctrine centering about Restitution that brought “unity of the faith” for the first time in history to God’s people as a collective group. It is true that St. Peter preached Restitution (Acts 3:19-23); and it is true that St. Paul was “caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter” (2 Cor. 12:4); but it is also true that the General Church of that time had not come to the “unity of the faith,” had not come to a clear understanding of Restitution. Note the Berean Comments on verse 4: “unspeakable words” (the message of Present Truth) – “it is not lawful” (because not yet due). Thus, Brother Russell is in agreement that, though St. Paul himself may have arrived at “unity of the faith,” he made no attempt to convey that knowledge to the General Church then. In support of this, note 2 Tim. 2:18, where some were “saying that the resur­rection is past already”; also 1 Cor. 4:8, where some apparently thought they were al­ready “reigning” (as Papacy claimed). Certainly, in these two instances there could have been no clear concept of Restitution – no “unity of the faith.”

This “unity of the faith” may be summarized tersely as a general good understand­ing by all in the Parousia movement of the Great Plan of the Ages, involving the Two Salvations – for the Elect and the Non-elect – described in Rev. 15:3 as “the Song of Moses and the Lamb.” All who accepted Harvest Truth were reasonably clear on this much of the Truth, the same being true also of the Truth section of the crown-losers (not then manifested), of the tentatively justified and true even of the “mixed multi­tude” who liked the Truth, but not sufficiently enough to give themselves wholeheart­edly to its practice and spread. Such a situation had never before existed In the Gos­pel Age.

Therefore, a “Prophet” (a Star Member – Brother Russell) did accomplish the first of the two purposes for which the servants of the Church were appointed – “till we all attain to the unity of the Faith.” And we in Epiphany Truth believe he also accomplished the second of these purposes – “the measure of the full stature of the anointed one.” When the last one was begotten of the spirit in September 1914 – when they had all come to antitypical Mount Horeb – there also for the first time was reached “the full stature of the anointed one” In that the Body was then fully and irrevocably complete unto that unity which “every joint supplieth, to the effectual working in the measure of every part.” (Eph. 4:16) And, be it noted that once the “unity of the faith” and the “full stature” had been reached, neither Brother Johnson nor a hundred more Star Members could add one Iota to that “full stature.” Therefore, when it be argued that Eph. 4:11-13 teaches a Star Member must be the final Saint, we answer there is nothing in this text to support that contention; all the requirements of the text were met by the time Brother Russell finished his ministry.

We remind our readers that the large majority of the Saints received no personal ministry from a Star Member after Brother Russell’s death, as Brother Johnson himself so freely and often admitted. However, those who attached themselves to Brother Johnson did receive growth in knowledge, and opportunities of service, not given to those in the various Truth groups; but it did no more for them than just that – they all maintained their place in the completed Christ regardless of their locale of activity. The Little Flock developing Truths were all presented and cleansed of all error by October 1914; all the Saints had come into Present Truth by Passover 1916 – which then brought them all Into “unity of the faith,” although they were not then, or by October 1916, or at any time on earth thereafter, endowed with the same degree of knowledge. It is well to note here, too, that the composite Body members never at any time after 1916 reached a “unity of the faith” in the least comparable with that “unity” which they had under Brother Rus­sell. After Brother Russell’s death, and the resultant confusion, they no longer men­tioned “unity” of purpose insofar as their work was concerned. Instead, they once more went into a “dis”-unity of the faith.

SOME PERTINENT TYPES

We now proceed to a consideration of the Zechariah type of 2 Chron. 24:20, 21. Zechariah was High Priest in Israel; therefore, he was a link in the continuation of a Tabernacle type – and it should be emphasized at this point that every type pertinent to the Tabernacle service had to continue until its antitype appeared. This was true of all the Aaronic types that centered in the Tabernacle – chief of which was the office of High Priest. In the strict sense, Israel had only one High Priest – just as Spiritual Israel has only one “Apostle and high priest of our profession” (Heb. 3:1). Aaron was the only High Priest directly called of God and directly anointed into the Priest’s office by God through Moses (Ex. 29:7) – just as Jesus was the only one selected to fill His office, and – “no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron” (Heb. 5:4,5). All the High Priests that followed Aaron came to that office by sucession, as a matter of birth – just as the ruling monarchs of England reach their position as a matter of birth. Thus, some of them were weak – as was Eli; and some were sinful – as was Caiaphas. But all of them were probably reasonably accurate in their performance of the Atonement-Day service and similar ceremonies; and, so far as we can recall, none of them ever lost their priestly anointing – the type continued unbroken until the antitype appeared; none of them ever died for improper “sprinkling of the blood” on the Atone­ment Day each year.

It should be observed, too, that the Aaronic Priesthood was the only all-inclusive type of the Gospel-Age Priesthood. All other types pertinent to the Christ had certain limitations – lacked some one or more of the features to be found in the Aaronic order. And just as Aaron was the special eye, hand and mouth of Moses (Ex. 4:10,17; 7:1) – Moses typing Christ – so also was each priest that followed Aaron the special eye, hand and mouth of God in Israel. (See Berean Comments on Jn. 18:13) Reasoning back from the anti­type, had any High Priest violated his anointing, he would have been forever rejected from the priesthood, just as all who lose their priestly anointing in the Gospel Age are barred forever from returning to that office, or of exercising the powers of that office. Los­ing their anointing is identical to losing their crowns; and any who attempt to exer­cise the office of eye, hand and mouth of the Lord, once they lose their priestly anoint­ing, would simply be power-graspers of the worst order. We present this detail to demon­strate the extreme folly of any crown-loser who would attempt to set himself up as Pastor and Teacher before the Lord – especially one who has been schooled in Epiphany Truth, and admits he is a crown-loser. Saul typed the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon; and once Saul had been rejected by the Lord, “the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by urim, nor by prophets.” (1 Sam. 28:6)

It is stated Zechariah was “stoned in the court of the house of the Lord”; and Jesus said this occurred “between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:35). Certainly, this addition by Jesus was not without purpose. We know the brazen altar in the court types the humanity of the entire Church. And Zechariah was slain between the altar and the temple. Thus, while it is logical enough to conclude that Zechariah types the last eye, mouth and hand (the last Star Member of the Church), it is clear enough from this type that he would pass from the picture while some were still in the sacrificing condition (the brazen altar), with others already in the glorified state (Solomon’s Temple). Therefore, instead of this type proving antitypical Zechariah would be the last Saint, it proves just the reverse – that there would still be some sacrificing Saints after he had gone. It proves also, that those Saints remaining after antitypical Zechariah’s death would never again be served by a special eye, hand and mouth – that God would “supply all their needs” through other sources by His Word and Providences.

In support of this conclusion, we have Brother Johnson’s analysis of Rev. 19:1,2, as given in E-3:132-134. In vs. 1 it is stated John “heard a great crowd in Heaven”; and the words in verse 6 are substantially the same – “heard the voice of a great crowd.” Brother Johnson says verses 1 and 2 refer to the Great Company in the Society smiting Jordan the second time; and at the bottom of page 133 he says: “Whenever John is said to hear this or that the reference always is to the things transpiring at the time of hearing.” Then on page 134: “Therefore, the John Class hears the message of the Great Company delivered while the Little Flock is yet in the flesh” (emphasis by Brother John­son). Either Brother Johnson is wrong in his analysis of verses 1 and 2; or others are wrong in their conclusions re verses 6-9. John “heard” the message of the Great Company in verses 6-9. Therefore, both messages must occur while the John Class is in the flesh if we accept Brother Johnson’s teaching on this. Let us emphasize, too, that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both taught that this message would be delivered by the “great crown” after Babylon’s fall. (See Berean Comment)

It is well to keep in mind here, too, that the Apostle John was on the Isle of Pat­mos, where he received the entire vision of Revelation. Patmos means ‘suffering, mor­tal’ and is used to symbolize the suffering and mortal condition in which the Church lives while in the flesh. In the January 1950 Present Truth Brother Johnson said that just about the entire book of Revelation had become clear to him that he intended to give us that book in the near future. This he was unable to do his death preventing it. But where are the notes he left on that Interesting book? We are painfully forced to con­clude that they have been craftily concealed by some one – or perhaps through a conspiracy of more than one. And what would be the motive for such concealment? Here again we are forced to conclude that the publication of those notes would annihilate the present con­tention that there are no more saints on earth. We know of our own knowledge that great pressure has been brought to bear on those who were with Brother Johnson during the final months of his Illness to refuse to discuss this subject of the Revelation and Brother Johnson’s teachings on some of it; and some of them have grossly and brazenly told false­hoods about It. “This thing doth the Lord hate.... a lying tongue” (Prov. 6:17); so we need not expect the Lord’s favor to rest upon such persons.

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

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

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

Companion to the foregoing Is Brother Johnson’s statement in E-6:630 on Zech. 8:10 ­“The ‘no hire’ for man or beast of Zech. 8:10.... is to occur after the foundation of the church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon.”

Here again is some more doctrine that must be discarded if the fractured type of Zechariah is to prevail. It will be noted that all the types we have presented support the doctrine; and Brother Russell stresses that “a type must not be used to teach a doctrine, but merely to illustrate one that is already taught In plain terms” (See Be­rean Topical Index, p. 25, top),

In further support of our statement that Zechariah could type the last Star Member, but not the last Saint, we offer the Moses type wherein he types the Star Members. Moses did not complete the march of Israel into Canaan, which shows clearly enough that it would not be a Star Member in the end of this Age who would complete the march of spiri­tual Israel into the Heavenly Canaan.

CONCERNING OCTOBER 22, 1950

Shortly after Brother Johnson’s interment the “proof” was produced in the Present Truth that the date October 22, 1950 was shown in the Pyramid; but the fact that the date 1950 is nowhere shown in the Bible is unanswerable proof against that date. Isa. 19:19, 20 states that “the altar to the lord in the midst of the land of Egypt.... is for a sign and a witness.” Thus, it should never be regarded as the source of truth and faith, as these are to be found in the Bible; the Pyramid can only be considered as a “witness” to such Bible Truth. Therefore, those who would ‘prove’ the 1950 date from the Pyramid are fundamentally on “sinking sand” before they start. (See E-4:463-464)

Companion to the above is Paul’s teaching in 2 Tim. 2:18, Dia.: “They missed the mark with respect to the Truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened; and they are perverting (Azazel means Perverter) the faith of some.” And as it was in the beginning of the Age, so we find the duplicate now: Some are now contending that the first resurrection is already past (completed), and are also perverting the faith of some, One error usually begets other error, and such has been the case here. It was the first important error to appear after Brother Johnson’s death, and it was but the be­ginning of many more to follow.

It is indeed a “coincidence” of no trifling sort that we have two sets of crown-­losers at the very beginning of the Gospel Age introducing into the true faith some re­volting errors that now find exact duplication here in the extreme end of the Age by two sets of crown-losers - these crown-losers playing such a prominent part, we cannot over­look them. Nor could St. Paul overlook those in his day. He uses some of his best sar­casm against the one group at Corinth who were contending the “Kingdom had already been established”: “Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us! and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.” (1 Cor. 4:8) There is an exact duplication of that error now being promulgated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who also claim the reign is here, and that their “dedicated” adherents will go right through Armageddon and never see death. Note the Berean Comment on this text: “You imagine that somehow the reign of Christ is in progress.” Could more fitting de­scription of the Jehovah’s Witnesses be offered respecting this situation today? Their deluded followers “imagine that somehow the reign of Christ is in progress.”

The second set of crown-losers at the outset of the Age were advocating that the Resurrection was already past: “The word of Hymenaeus and Philetus doth eat as a can­ker.” (2 Tim. 2:16,18) The margin says, “doth eat as gangrene”; and the Diaglott says, “doth eat as a mortifying sore.” It would be difficult to find more acerbic words than these to define that error; and now in the extreme end of the Age we have another crown-­loser (a self-admitted crown-loser, who claims he is the chief of all crown-lost leaders, and he asserts there are no saints here to dispute his claim) – the Executive Trustee of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement – saying also, “that the (First) resurrection is now past already” (fully accomplished). Note also the Berean Comment on verse 17: “Forerunners of the Papacy.” Yes, history is indeed repeating itself in our very pres­ence! And once again we say, What a “coincidence”!

Much stress is also placed upon the Zechariah type by some; but the interpreta­tion certainly did not materialize as had been expected, so we quote once more from E-5:42 (40), respecting such interpretations:

“In all cases of unfulfilled types and prophecies we hold to our Pastor’s thought as the one along whose lines we look for their fulfillment’s. And as he in many cases rejected a former interpretation of a type or prophecy after its fulfillment proved that he misunderstood it, e.g., the deliverance of the Church, the restoration of Israel, the (complete) destruction of organized evil in the world and the establishment of the earthly phase of God’s kingdom at certain times; so only after a type or prophecy is fulfilled differently from his understanding, would we attempt to set aside his inter­pretation.... Like him, we do not believe him to have been infallible.”

And these are exactly our sentiments respecting Brother Johnson: We do not be­lieve him to have been infallible, so that, when the time has come and long since past concerning his predictions that did not materialize for 1954-56, we also look to other sources for the correct understanding of them.

Once more we stress Brother Johnson’s teaching that ONLY Revolutionism (the Sixth Slaughter-Weapon Man of Eze. 9:2) can be the touchstone to determine any one a crown-loser:

“It is revolutionism or its partisan support against the Truth and its arrange­ments, and ONLY revolutionism or its partisan support against the Truth and its arrange­ments, that manifests crown-losers as such..... We earnestly exhort the brethren to take heed to the thing that manifests Leviteship, and we earnestly caution them against making character blemishes the ground of declaring brethren to be Levites.... The Lord alone - the heart-searcher – is competent to give such a decision. We have no right to judge any one to Leviteship.” (E-4:132) If the foregoing is still PRESENT TRUTH ­and we do accept it as such – then those who point out crown-losers on any other basis are once more themselves revolutionizing against a clear Epiphany truth.

Be it noted here, however, that many in our day go to the other extreme and con­tend it is gross error to declare any one at all to be a crown-loser. This, they say, is “judging before the time.” Such contention is based upon mere sentiment, and noth­ing else, as evidence the clear statement of St. Paul in Heb. 4:12, Dia.: “The Word (the Truth) of God is living, and energetic, and more cutting than any two-edged-sword.. and is able to judge the thought and intentions of the heart.” According to the words of Jesus, “By their fruits you will discover them” (Dia.) This conclusion is true of all who come into the Household of Faith. Thus, 1 Jn. 5:16, Dia. says, “There is a sin unto death; I do not say that he should ask concerning that.” And the Berean Comment on this text states this: “Even­tually manifesting itself outwardly.” From these Scriptures and from Brother Russell’s statement – it is very evident that we are warranted in reach­ing certain conclusions from what we see physically and with the “eyes of understanding.” Note the Berean Comment on Matt. 7:16: “Some people, like thistles, are always scatter­ing seeds that cause trouble; false doctrines, evil surmisings, errors.” And “the pure in heart” are able to see this just as readily as they are able to see actual thistles growing about them.

A GENERAL RESUME

We present this analysis of The Last Saint for such as care to receive it; but we caution our readers against abusing those who do not agree with us. Such a course would simply place us in the same uncleansed condition as those who malign and denounce such as do believe our presentation; thus, our condition would be no better than theirs – a state to be devoutly avoided. We ourselves do not wish to come under the curse of Luke 17:1, 2: “It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him through whom they came! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” If others wish to in­cur this risk, that is their concern. However, we wish to emphasize that our thoughts herein deal only in generalities; we do not contend that all who say, “Lord, Lord,” will enter in. That is a matter between the Lord and the individual claimants – and we are content to leave it there. If any belie their claims by their “bad fruits” (by gross and persistent Revolutionism against Parousia or Epiphany Truth, or Arrangements), we shall be ready enough to conclude that such are crown-losers; but we shall be equally ready to observe the “good fruits” of those who still retain their saintly hopes. Nevertheless, it should be clearly understood that we here do not charge Revolutionism to any who have mistakenly classified themselves as crown-losers because of Levitical pressure and per­version after 1950, if they continued to maintain their integrity in a “good and honest heart.” As we said previously, mere opinion changes the status of no one – any more than the strong cryings and fears of Jesus in Gethsemane detracted one whit from His final destiny.

In this connection, we believe it well to note the striking similarity in the technique of Azazel from first to last of the Gospel Age. Jesus had said, “Simon, Simon, behold, the Adversary has asked for you, that he may sift you like wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail.” (Luke 22:31, Dia.) Here is a clear statement that Satan would attempt to destroy the Christ Company at its very out­set by snaring the one to whom was committed “the keys of the Kingdom.” And what was his modus operandi? Why, he used “a certain maid-servant” (Luke 22:56, Dia.) in his attempt to topple over and destroy Peter; but he failed because Jesus had specially prayed for him that his “faith fall not.” And in keeping with his attempt against the first members of the Christ Company at the beginning of the Age, he proceeded in identi­cal fashion at the end of the Age by using a “handmaid” (Joel 2:29) – a Great Company member – to “bruise the heel” of the Body in an effort to destroy the grand Plan of the Ages. This same “handmaid” is actually typed by a maid in his Pilgrim office under That Servant (which office he lost in the Epiphany when manifested a crown-loser):

“The foregoing fourteen brothers, the Sunday pilgrims, saw things of God’s plan through Brother Russell’s eyes..... and there were three other Sunday pilgrims scheduled on the Tower’s last page, who, however, were not members of the Bethel family, but resided at their own homes, the last two doing secular work week days, Bros. (1) Jolly, (2) Stevens and (3) Woodworth (three daughters).” (E:14-282)

All just happenstance, you think? Yes, Satan (Azazel) is a wile deceiver; and “we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11) “lest he should get an advantage of us.”

Perhaps it should be stressed here that the saints were directed very pointedly to the faithful course of the Ancient Worthies as an incentive for them to follow faithfully in their footsteps. (Heb. 12:1) And to that “great cloud of witnesses” enumerated by St. Paul in Hebrews 11 we today could add a second great cloud of witnesses, the same being the saints of this Gospel Age. They, too, have been “examples of the believers,” models for us all to emulate. But, is there any such exhortation anywhere in the Scrip­tures that we should follow the steps of crown-losers? Does the Bible anywhere tell us we should emulate the course of Israel’s King Saul? At the present time there is but one leader in any of the groups who openly admits he did go the way of Saul, that he is no longer in that Elect Company of the “more than conquerors.” Would he advise any one even his pseudo Campers Consecrated – to follow the same course he did? It is sage worldly wisdom that we should seek counsel on any facet of finance, science, economics, etc., from those who have made a success in their respective endeavors, and not from those who have made shipwreck of their chosen occupation. This would be equally true with respect to matters pertaining to the Truth. The race isn’t always to the swift, but that’s the place to look for it; nor has total victory always been attained by the Saints, but that’s the place to look for it!

We offer here one more quotation from Brother Johnson (E-8:706): “The end of the Epiphany will end the Priestly part of the journey (from antitypical Sinai to Paran).” Is RGJ now contending that the Epiphany ended in 1950, or is this just one more Epiphany teaching against which he is revolutionizing?

May the Spirit of Grace and understanding abide with each one; may each be blessed with that “wisdom from above, which is without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”

Sincerely your brother,

John H. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Gentlemen:

Each month I read your magazines. They give inspiring and spiritual informa­tion on various texts. I first got acquainted with your literature when I found one of your “Herald of the Epiphany” in a bus here. I picked it up, and to my amazement it contained various profound answers to many questions. Thank you for forwarding me your magazine.

Please may I have a copy of each of the seven booklets: (1) Where are the Dead? (2) What is the Soul? (3) The Resurrection of the Dead, (4) The Three Babylons, (5) Two Distinct Salvations, (6) God’s Great Sabbath Day, and (7) The Great Reformer.

Thank you and may God bless you richly!

       Sincerely yours ------- (CALIFORNIA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Loving Christian Greetings in Jesus’ dear Name!

Please excuse me for waiting so long before writing. All is quite good here. I have had one of those sorts of flue-type colds, but am pretty well recovered by now. I enjoyed the August paper – also I was noticing in Present Truth, June 1, 1945, page 96 (answer to 2nd question, page 95) Brother Johnson speaks of faith justified (after their faith justification lapses at extreme end of Age) being remanded to the Camp. Also page 182 and top page 183, E. Volume 11 is good. You may have noted this. I just send them along as I notice them.

I hope you are all well. Please remember me to Sister Hoefle (Thank you, Sister, for your nice note at end of letter) – also to Sister Moynelo (and I hope she is more recovered from her operation) and Sister Dunnagan.

With Christian love to you all from

Your sister by faith ------- (CALIFORNIA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied!

Your good letter is received, and as always we are very glad to hear from you. Indeed we are very glad to be able to help in the great work in which we are engaged. It is truly the Lord’s work, as you have stated.

As we have said before, your monthly letters are so good, so encouraging and strengthening, and stimulating to Holiness. You say so much in a few lines that is so helpful, and it means so much to us. We are truly with you, dear Brother Hoefle, in your every effort to serve the dear Lord and the brethren. And be assured of our prayers on your behalf, that God will give you the strength to carry on this great and good work. Thank you very much for the contribution to the paper you are prepar­ing. I feel very honored. We thought that statement by our dear Pastor was so timely today.

Sister and I are quite well, and we trust you both are the same. Be assured as we approach the Throne of Heavenly Grace we always ask Him to especially bless you both, and all at Mount Dora. Sister joins with me in sending warmest Christian greet­ings. God bless you!

Your brother and sister, ------- (NEW JERSEY)

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

Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n

Mount Dora, Florida

Dear Sirs: Probably two months ago some one gave me your Special Edition of “The Herald of the Epiphany,” the subject, “Where are the Dead?” It is very interesting! What about Enoch and Elijah? And Moses who appeared at the transfigur­ation of the Lord Jesus? Where was and is he?

A copy each of the following will be appreciated: No. 2 – What is the Soul? No. 5 – Two Distinct Salvations – and No. 7 – The Great Reformer. Thanks.

Sincerely ------- (CALIFORNIA)

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

Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n

Mount Dora, Florida

Dear Sirs: I received some reading of the Resurrection of the Dead, and I am very much interested. So would like to receive additional copies of What is the Soul? Where are the Dead? and The Three Babylons. I thank you!

Mrs. ------- (OKLAHOMA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in our Redeemer’s Name!

We received all the books you sent, and all in good order. The money will be sent to you through Sister ------- as usual. 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.

Sister ------- did not get your letter. I forgot to mention in my last letter that the elderly Sister who is sick partook of the Memorial with her daughter who cares for her, as it was not possible for her to join us.

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

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

NO. 172: THE LAODICEAN STAR

No. 172

“One like unto the Son of Man... had in his right hand seven stars”—Rev. 1:13-16. “The Finished Mystery” offered the following explanation for this text, which that book quoted from page 345 of the 1916 Watch Tower:

“This One whom we thus know, thus recog­nize, as the Instructor and Caretaker of the candlesticks, we are also to recognize as having In his right hand – in His favor as well as His power – seven stars, the angels, the messengers, of the seven churches. That they are in His right hand seems to teach us that these should be considered as in some special sense under the Master’s guidance, protection and care in the Interest of the Churches which they represented.” We have offered this quotation from Brother Russell because it fits exactly our own understand­ing of the text.

However, the book then goes on to name the “seven stars” as St. Paul, St. John, Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther and Russell. This part of the book is not from Brother Russell, but is the private interpretation of the writers of the book which we believe is contrary to sound Bible analysis. We disagree also with most of their time predic­tions, because time itself has demonstrated them to have been nothing more than the imagination of the writers of the book – a sure proof that they were not qualified to write the book at all; and anything they have presented which is not directly from Brother Russell should be given very careful scrutiny. As instance, they say: “The chronology as it appears in the Studies In the Scriptures is accurate.” With this statement we fully agree, but the Witnesses themselves (those claiming to be the “chan­nel” for Divine Truth at the time they wrote the book) are now in complete disagreement with their own teaching in 1917; and we simply offer these few conclusions as an intro­duction to our own analysis of the “seven stars,” etc.

In Rev. 12:1 it is stated that “the woman” (the true Church) “had upon her head a crown of twelve Stars.” That these “twelve stars” are the twelve Apostles needs no elaboration; but we direct attention to the fact that there is just nothing in the statement to indicate that “star differeth from star in glory” – the twelve in the pic­ture appear as equals. And the statement by Jesus to all twelve of them confirms this: “He that heareth you, heareth Me”; they all received the miraculous gifts of the Spirit; they all were empowered to “bind and loose” on earth as occasion might require. There­fore, if the “star” to the Church at Ephesus contained more than one individual, we should be warranted in believing the six succeeding “stars” to those six churches of the Age would also have more than one individual in them.

It is our understanding that the “seven stars” are the same as the seven “angels” (messengers) of Revelation Two and Three; they are the same as the “seven shepherds” of Micah 5:5; and they are the same as the “seven pipes” and the “seven eyes” of Zech. 4:2 and 4:10. Rev. 1:20 directly states “The seven stars are the seven angels of the seven churches.” The Bible seldom uses different words just to be different; there is usually a specific meaning in the different words used, and this seems to be true here. “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write.” (Rev. 2:1) This might be better stated, “Unto the angel of the church for Ephesus write.” The message to be given was not for the individual benefit of the star who delivered it; it was rather “for” that Messenger at that particular time to deliver to the church. As the “seven shepherds” of Micah 5:5, these same persons would guard and protect the sheep – “take heed unto all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers.” As the “seven pipes” of Zech. 4:2 they were the channel through which the Holy Spirit was administered to the Church; and as the “seven eyes” they were God’s watchmen – “I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel” (Eze. 3:17), “The watchmen shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion” (Isa. 52:8).

As the “seven stars” those shepherds of the sheep not only gave enlightenment to the Church during the night of sin and death, but they also gave a measure of light to the Christian world in general – “you appear as luminaries in the world” (Phil. 2:15, Dia.). Some of these “luminaries,” such as the Apostles, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and a few others, stand out prominently in the pages of history; but many of them have received only passing notice in the records. We instance particularly Arius, of whom many in the Christian world have never heard at all; yet he is probably one of the very brightest of them all, aside from the Apostles. We give just one example: When he was at the Council of Nice in 325 defending the Truth that there is but “one God,” he was overwhelmingly out­numbered by the bishops assembled from the then Christian world. Yet one of those oppos­ing him shouted forth during the heated debate: This man has the populace so stirred up that if you go into a store and ask the price of bread, the answer you get back from the clerk is, The Father is superior to the Son; the Son is inferior to the Father. While there is little mention made of him today, it is clear enough that Arius was “a burning and a shining light,” a true “luminary” in 325; and this, and similar incidents concern­ing the other “stars” gives us a more vivid conception of Jesus’ words concerning all the fully faithful, “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.” Eventually, when the lives and works of such “stars” are skillfully written by capable writers during the Kingdom reign, we can see how the words of Jesus will then be fully understood and appreciated. But considering now the Laodicean Star, it is our understanding it contained two members, the first of whom we discuss as

THE PAROUSIA MESSENGER

This is the title we offer for Brother Russell because he officiated during the small Parousia from 1874 to 1914, and because he made crystal clear the meaning of the Greek Parousia – as PRESENCE, and not COMING, as it is generally given in the King James translation. Once that became clear to him, it began to sweep away many of the accumu­lated errors of the past, leading directly to his understanding of the 16th Chapter of Leviticus, the same being a concise picture of the entire Atonement, which culminates in “the restitution of all things” (Acts 3:19-21).

It is pertinent to our subject to consider here Micah 5:5 as it pertains to Brother Russell. “When the Assyrian shall come into our land (The Assyrians were a very warlike and destructive people, well portraying the errorists of this Gospel Age), and when he shall tread in our palaces (by devastating the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth among God’s true people), then shall we raise up against him seven shepherds, and eight princi­pal men.” The fact that there are “eight principal men” among the “seven shepherds” is additional proof that the seven shepherds were composite groups, and not individuals.

If we view the Bible as the origin of all spiritual Truth, then we must admit that it came first of all; but, if we consider those who have vitiated its teachings (the antitypical Assyrians – the errorists), then it is clear that the error came first, with the Lord sending deliverance through His stars, angels (messengers), eyes, shepherds and eight principal men – who have “wasted the land of Assyria with the sword,” the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of Truth. If we consider Brother Russell as the seventh one of those eight principal men to appear on the Gospel-Age stream of time, all of us who are familiar with his teachings must admit that he did wield the “sword of the spirit” most mightily against the accumulated errors of the past.

It had been prophetically stated of him – “I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations”—Jer. 1:5; and his true calculation of the chronology, with 1914 as the end of the Gentile Times, put the finger of identification upon him as a prophet who had spoken in the name of the Lord. He had predicted the outbreak of a world war by the fall of 1914; and this had received much ridicule from his enemies, who had contended that civilization had advanced much too far to allow of such a conflict. We have been told that when the Gideon’s had their convention in Toronto in 1913 they there openly stated that such an expectation was simply beyond belief, what with the advances in science, medicine, art and culture that had been experienced in this generation. But when the war came exactly on time many of his critics openly confessed that he had indeed spoken the truth, and should receive due recognition for it.

But here we concern ourselves mainly with two of his teachings that still vitally concern us – Tabernacle Shadows and his refutation of Combinationism as it appeared in the Chicago Parliament of World Religions in 1893. When the Parousia Messenger began his min­istry, the erroneous doctrine of eternal torment as the wages of sin was so deeply en­trenched that it was generally considered sacrilege to gainsay it. Many were the promi­nent and forceful orators who appeared as evangelists in their crusades to save the poor sinner from such an awful fate, so that Brother Russell was faced with what seemed an im­possible assignment. This is so graphically revealed in Judges 6:5 and 7:12: “The Mid­ianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grass­hoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea­side for multitude.

And against this portentous force Gideon was arrayed with his band of 300 – outnum­bered by probably more than a thousand to one. This was precisely the situation when Brother Russell began his attacks on human immortality, the consciousness of the dead, and eternal torment as the wages of sin. His most popular public discourse was, Where Are The Dead, which always included a good exposition on Restitution. When he sent out breth­ren from Bethel for Sunday discourses he always urged them to include a good portion of their public discourse on Restitution; and he himself occasionally remarked to brethren, “That’s the subject!” when he was to speak on Where Are The Dead.

He kept steadfastly at the subject and its pertinent errors, so that he was able to see certain victory ahead by the time he had finished his ministry. By 1916 it was con­sidered by many intellectuals as a distinct mark of ignorance on the part of those who still regarded eternal torment as the wages of sin. This is probably best stated by repeating what Pilgrim Brother Sidney Morton once told us: He was spending some time at Bethel – as all the pilgrims occasionally did. Brother Russell wanted all the brethren to keep abreast of current events, so he appointed two or three to peruse the leading newspapers each day, and give a resume at the dining room table. This saved the remaining brethren from spend­ing valuable time with the newspapers. On one occasion one of the reviewers began to read:

There is a man in our town

Who thinks he’s wondrous wise;

He fell into a bramble bush

That put out both his eyes.

There were several more similar stanzas, and Brother Russell was beginning to show his annoyance at what seemed to be pretty much on the vaudeville side of things, when the final lines were read:

There is a man in our town

Whose name I need not tell;

I’m sure you all must know him,

For he put the fires out of Hell.

Certainly Brother Russell was the “principal man” of God’s Household in his day; he was the “angel” (messenger) to the Church in Laodicea; he had a message to deliver ­and he delivered it with telling force – until the very day his Great Captain finally said to him, It is enough! But his ministry brought upon him the most vicious attacks from the brightest lights of Satan; and they were legion. When they could not gainsay or resist the Truth he preached, they devised the most vicious sort of slander against him – he was grossly immoral, a thing he could deny, but he could not disprove; and the human mind being as it is today, the advantage was with the slanderers. Many were ready enough to believe the evil side of things. Others referred to him as “That braying Balaam’s Ass!” Here was indeed the antitype of Jeremiah’s being “let down in the dungeon... where there was no water (truth), but mire (filthy words)”—Jer. 38:6. All of this he took in stride, being mindful of Jesus’ words: “It is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master, and the servant as his Lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelze­bub, how much more shall they call them of His Household?”—Matt. 10:25. The Lord Him­self had called him “blessed”; and this more than compensated for the slanders hurled at him by “the workers of iniquity.” (Psa. 37:1)

COMBINATIONISM: He was adamant against the Combinationist sifters, which sifting had become prominent at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. Combina­tionism takes the position that it matters not what one believes so long as he is sincere in his belief. In that Convention in Chicago such an attitude tended to place all the as­sembled heathen dignitaries on equality with Christian ideals. And it might be observed that the quality of Christianity that was displayed at that Convention by some in attend­ance tended to confirm such a conclusion. In fact, some of the heathen were heard to remark that they thought they should be coming to America to convert us to their ways and beliefs, instead of us sending missionaries to them to charge their ideals.

Combinationism is Scriptural fornication – a combining of forbidden things. It finds its type in Num. 25:1-18, where some of the Jews were engaging in illicit union with the heathen round about in direct violation of the sixth Commandment. St. Paul pin­points this situation in 1 Cor. 10:8: “Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” And in vs. 11 he states that those things happened to them “as types” and “are written for our (special) admoni­tion and learning, upon whom the ends of the Ages are come.” Being in the closing “end” of the Gospel Age and the opening “end” of the Millennial Age (the ‘ends’ of the Ages), St. Paul’s admonition is specially for our benefit in this day, although it was also true in the closing of the Jewish Age and the beginning of the Gospel Age, when Paul wrote about it.

Brother Russell was rigidly opposed to Combinationism, and he made his stand known in no uncertain terms. In this he is individually typed by Phinehas (Num. 25:7,8), who was the chief underpriest at that time. Certainly, those of us who are familiar with the history of the Harvest will offer no argument against the conclusion that Brother Russell was decidedly the chief underpriest in God’s Household during his ministry. Phinehas means “brazen mouth”; and those of us who know the record know there was never any compromise of principles by Brother Russell; and it was his unyielding stand against the Combinationist sifters that revealed him as “That Servant” of Matt. 25:46 for the first time to the brethren generally. For his uncompromising adherence to the “rules” many today still pray, God bless his memory. But this becomes only an empty and meaning­less expression if we fall to follow the grand ideals he left. He was indeed that wonder­ful “man of God” – and “example of – and to – the believers.” And with Combinationism everywhere rampant today, we do well to take heed to ourselves lest we also fall under its deceptive lures.

To start from nothing against tremendous odds – as evidence the case of Gideon with his 300 – and to achieve the success he did, required remarkable ability. It could be said of him that he was versatile, efficient and immensely capable in whatever manner he applied himself. One outstanding business man once remarked that his services would be worth $2,000,000 per year to any corporation large enough to afford that kind of help. Another man once remarked to him, Pastor Russell, you have put the standard of Christian living entirely too high. His answer: I didn’t put it there, Brother; the Lord did.

While his great ability was essential to his ministry, another item contributed much to his success. When he appeared upon the scene there were many in the various sys­tems who were longing for reform – “men in the midst of the City who sigh and cry for all the abominations that be done there.” (Eze. 9:4) Thus, there were some who were not only ready to hear him, but they also joined enthusiastically with him in the work. Over a period of time he attracted to himself quite a number of the best minds in Christendom; and it is elemental to the success of any enterprise that its organizer surround himself with capable assistants. This That Servant did; and, following St. Paul’s counsel to “prefer one another in honor,” he freely delegated authority to any who showed the capac­ity to act accordingly. In this also he was a noble “example of the believers.” But he continued only to promote them so long as they also were uncompromising to principle and fundamental doctrines of the Bible. All during his ministry his shibboleth was, “Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sin,, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Rev. 18:4) He was a determined and unyielding foe to Combinationism to the end of his ministry.

When That Servant appeared on the scene all of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible except Restitution – were being taught in some section of Christendom; but all of them were either directly cumbered with some error, or were not clearly understood by those at­tempting to teach them. Before he had finished, every one of those doctrines, including Restitution, had been relieved of all rubbish, and had been made crystal clear. This was foretold in Mal. 3:1-3: “The Messenger of the Covenant... shall sit as a refiner and puri­fier of silver.” The word ‘purifier’ in this text would be better rendered ‘polisher’; and who of us will not admit that That Servant did ‘Polish’ the Truth (silver) in admir­able brilliance! And in doing this he never resorted to the tricks of oratory. There were better orators than he, but certainly no better preachers. And in him was a living proof of our Lord’s sure words, “I will give you a mouth (eloquence) and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.” (Luke 21:15) Every one that “was of the Truth” heard his voice gladly.

He was engaged in “the good fight” until the very day he died; and it could be said of him as one historian wrote about Martin Luther: He fell peacefully asleep in Jesus. “Them that honor Me, I will honor, saith the Lord”; and the Lord did honor him greatly. And if we wish to honor him, we can do so in no better way than to adhere to and uphold that Truth that was so dear to him. As Jesus said of Himself: “He who has My command­ments (the Truth) and observes them, that is he who loves Me.” (John 14:21, Dia.) It is our hope and prayer that this brief review may prove a rich blessing to all our readers as we approach now the 53rd anniversary of That Servant’s death.

THE EPIPHANY MESSENGER

The second member of the Laodicean Star was Brother Paul S. L. Johnson, whom we style the Epiphany Messenger because he clarified the Epiphany as an act and as a period of time in a manner never before done by any one else – so far as we know. He clearly demonstrated from the Scriptures that the Epiphany would follow the small Parousia, and would be the last period of the Gospel Age, that this special period would manifest persons, principles and things with a brilliance before unknown. Of course, That Servant had predicted there would be an Epiphany following the small Parousia, which would begin when the Time of Trouble would begin (See Reprints p. 2979) – but he gave no elaborate details about it, although what he did say formed the foundation for what the Epiphany Messenger wrote about it.

While the Greek Epiphaneia occurs six times in the New Testament, we here select only two texts as pointedly pertinent to our present discussion. In 2 Tim. 4:1 it is stated that “the Lord Jesus Christ shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and king­dom.” The general concept throughout Christendom is that the “quick” in this text means those human beings still alive, and the “dead” are those in the tomb; but That Servant properly defined these classes as those quickened by the Holy Spirit and the fallen angels, with the dead including all other human beings – whether in the tomb or out of it; that is, those “dead in trespasses and sins.” “God hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the (dead) world,” that “day” being the 1000-year day of His reign – a time that was future when Paul wrote, and is still future for the great mass of persons, although the foundation for its operation began to be laid in 1874. But “the quick” were to be judged in His Epiphaneia. Thus, the text would be more clearly expressed in this manner: He shall judge the quick at His Epiphaneia, and the dead at His Basileia (kingdom).

The various features of these great accomplishments by the Lord were given in lucid detail by the Epiphany Messenger. And the second text to have our attention is 2 Thes. 2:8 (Diaglott): “Then will be revealed the lawless one (whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the breath of His mouth, and annihilate by the appearing of His presence).” “The appearing of His presence” is literally, “the Epiphaneia of His Parousia.” The Epiphaneia (bright shining as an act and as a period of time) has been gradually eroding the very foundation stones of the Man of Sin’s structure, until today it is visibly falling over. But it has not yet fully done so, so we have here a sure proof that we must yet be in the Epiphany, and that this period will continue until the “annihilation” is fully accomplished. This feat is much nearer than many suppose; and it is our intention to say much more about it in the near future.

Another feature of this period, according to That Servant, would be to reveal those who have built their “house upon the Rock” and those who have built their “house upon the sand.” So long as this revealing has not yet been fully accomplished, we have here another proof that we must now still be in the Epiphany. But the Epiphany is definitely a time of separating, and a time of combining. Of His Parousia our Lord had foretold: “In the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares (combine them), and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.” (Matt. 13:30) Clearly enough, from this text Combinationism would be rampant before the harvest had been completed; and it offers explanation as to why both members of the Lao­dicean Star were so emphatic in their denunciation of it, and their warning for the faith­ful to have none of it.

The Epiphany Messenger had emphasized that the Gospel Age would be repeated here in the Epiphany on a small scale insofar as the Truth is concerned. The chief culprit of the Gospel Age in overthrowing the Truth has been the Man of Sin, that system having per­verted or counterfeited every important feature of the Great Plan of the Ages. And in this Epiphany the Little Man of Sin (the Society, the self-styled “Channel”) has done the same thing with every important feature of the Harvest Truth. Most of our readers know too, how determined was the Epiphany Messenger in exposing the errors of That Evil Ser­vant and his cohorts in the Society.

Tabernacle Shadows was basic for a proper understanding of the Harvest Truth; and Brother Russell himself said that the Six Volumes of Studies in the Scriptures all had their origin in that book. The Epiphany Messenger elaborated considerably on that con­tention, and emphasized that every important feature of God’s Plan was revealed in the typical Tabernacle that Moses constructed. But hardly had That Servant been buried be­fore the Society editors began to demolish the Tabernacle teachings, which brought forth determined exposures by the Epiphany Messenger – so much so that they eventually aban­doned the Tabernacle completely. The heat of exposure became more than they could bear. The Epiphany Messenger contended – very logically – that if Tabernacle Shadows were basic for the Parousia Truth, it must also be basic for the Epiphany Truth; it was the founda­tion stones, and any superstructure must therefore be built upon that solid foundation.

Thus, it became his privilege, and duty, to defend almost every feature of the Har­vest Truth – just as the Gospel-Age reformers were compelled to defend every feature of God’s Plan against the encroaching errors of the Man of Sin. This embroiled all of them in constant warfare – even as their Captain had also been involved in much contro­versy during His 30-year stay on earth. This caused resentment on the part of many who had once been his bosom brethren; and “they walked with him no more.” And many of those who resented him became ready candidates for the evil of Combinationism.

Combinationism is an illicit union or cooperation of God’s people with persons, principles, things and practices not fully approved by God. Examples of it are evident in the union of church and state (probably the worst form of it), of denominations with denominations, of uncleansed Levite movements with other uncleansed Levite movements, of Christian people with religio-secret-societies, of Christendom generally with Judaism, and heathenism. Of all the movements that originated from the Parousia Messenger’s organization, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been among the most rigid against actually combining with other movements; but they have also been probably the most remiss of all of them in adopting the methods of those people they studiously avoid in actual contact.

After the death of Pastor Russell, J. F. Rutherford decided to ‘modernize’ the organization he had formed, and he introduced a sales campaign to distribute their lit­erature after the same pattern used by business organizations to sell their products. Lest we be misunderstood, we find no fault with secular businesses using their advertis­ing and sales ingenuity to dispose of their wares – so long as they adhere to the Truth; but the use of such methods to disseminate Christian principles, literature, etc., is violently contrary to the high ideals given by Jesus in the fifth, sixth and seventh chap­ters of Matthew. Nor would the Parousia Messenger adopt their technique. But J. F. Ruth­erford had some seasoned business salesmen in his group, and these he persuaded to go from city to city to teach their sales technique toward the sale of his literature. The ideals of his adherents immediately began to decline – until now the high ideals of the Parousia Messenger, based upon sound Bible principles, are almost completely gone from his group.

In a very short time the Epiphany Messenger – who had a strong love for the Parousia Messenger and the ideals he had established – saw the trend of things, and objected so strenuously that a complete and irreparable separation resulted within a matter of months. Others joined themselves to him through the same motives – although the great majority, many of them not too well grounded in the Parousia Truth, remained with the Society. And in a very few years those who remained were so engulfed with the spirit of Combinationism in practice that the Parousia ideals were a lost asset. In much lesser degree, the same thing has resulted in the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, which is the organization founded by the Epiphany Messenger – not by R. G. Jolly as reported in the Trinidad newspaper last March. We ourselves say, God bless the memory of both Messengers, as we seek to “continue in the things we have been taught” by the both of them; and we abide in the conclusion of Solomon: “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices with strife.” (Prov. 17:1)

A fitting conclusion to the foregoing is to be found in Parousia Vol. 6, p. 658: “The Sword of the Spirit – the Word of God – is the only offensive armor of the Lord’s little band. The Captain prevailed in His ‘good fight’ against the Adversary, saying, ‘It is written’; and this is the battle-cry of His followers. Others than the true soldiers have fought for the Lord with carnal weapons, and with human philosophies and worldly wisdom and organization (the methods used by the Society and the LHMM, as stated above—JJH), and decrees of councils and synods and presbyteries, but we must de­pend in the struggle of this ‘evil day? upon the Word of God — ‘It is written.’ We must use no darts like Satan’s – anger, malice, hatred, strife. And ‘the Sword of the Spirit’ can only be possessed by careful study and leading of the Spirit after consecration, after enlistment in this army.”

And to the foregoing we would add another paragraph from Parousia Vol. 2, p. 361: “We desire again to impress our readers with the fact that Papacy is the Antichrist, not because of its moral obliquity, but because it is the counterfeit of the true Christ and the true Kingdom. It is because of a failure to realize this fact that many Protestants will be deceived into cooperation with Papacy in opposition to the true King of Glory.”

The above was written some eighty years ago, but it has the ring of yesterday; and persuades us all the more in our conviction that the Parousia Messenger was indeed “the prophet unto the nations,” and that he was That Wise and Faithful Servant of Matt. 24:45. It should also now be given its true evaluation by all who “have an ear to hear what the spirit sayeth unto the Church” at this very time; and to avoid Combinationism for the evil that it is lest we “receive of her plagues.”

“We are a sweet odor of Christ to God... not like the many, which adulterate and negotiate the Word of God for their own lucre and advantage; but really from sincerity, and as from God, in the presence of God, we speak concerning Christ.” (2 Cor. 2:15-17, Diaglott footnote.)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

On October 31 it will be 53 years since the Parousia Messenger finished his course; and on October 22 it will be 19 years since the Epiphany Messenger joined him. We would suggest that the various Classes hold a joint memorial service for them some time during the last week of October. Also, to Classes and Individuals we would mention once again the Special Effort in antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle this year from October 12 through November 9 (an arrangement instituted by the Epiphany Messenger for the Epiphany period in the Battle against the Consciousness of the Dead and Eternal Torment for its completion). We have an ample supply of Where Are the Dead and What Is the Soul, as well as other Gideon tracts and literature – available free, postage prepaid to all who wish to engage in this “good fight.” We pray the Lord’s special blessing upon all our readers at this special season. These tracts do contain the Truth that both Messengers taught all during their ministry, and stressed for witness work toward the public – the Truth that maketh free indeed; and we have the strong assurance that victory must surely be ours “if we faint not.” We Invite all those of like mind to join with us in this good work and in the prayer, God bless their memory! (See 1 Sam. 2:30)

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle and family:

How good to get your card and note of comfort. I appreciate it no end. Yes, the past month has been pretty rough, something to live through, but praise God, I’ve gotten relief in the past week........ Today I feel the best I have for 6 months, so I trust the future is a bit more rosy........

Oh how we need the kingdom, but how fortunate we are to know it is drawing nigh. God haste the day! With Christian love to you “4” – Sr ------- (CONNECTICUT)

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

Dear John J. Hoefle:

Thank you for your “No. 168” message. It was my plan to comment on some of the subjects in the former “Special Edition” messages you sent me. Certainly, we see “eye to eye” on some things. There is so much confus­ion and opposition among Bible Teachers and Preachers – and to unbelievers it is a mark that the Bible is not the Word of God – when actually the Bible predicts this confusion, deception and apostasy.

What moved me to write you this morning? Yesterday my next door neighbors told me they saw Billy Graham on a TV program “Laugh-In........ The husband is anti-religious and he said this is another proof that religion is a racket. The wife studies, or rather reads, “metaphysical” literature. Have you heard of the scandalous and irreverent – yes, to me! – sacrilegious TV program? And for a “man of God” to participate in it! Lord, to whom shall we go – you have the Words of Eternal Life.” “If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” (John 8:36)

Sincerely, ------- (CALIFORNIA)

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)