NO. 204: THE MARCH-APRIL PRESENT TRUTH

No. 204

On pages 23‑29 of the above paper RGJ offers further comment on “the ending of the Epiphany period,” in which he is voluminous about our tactics of a “shady lawyer,” tricks of a “shyster lawyer,” etc.; and he says we treat Brother Johnson’s writings “shabbily.”

If we allow that his present accusations are true, there is nothing in Brother Johnson’s writings anywhere that says we treated him personally in shabby fashion; but the record is clear enough that RGJ did just that ‑ and more. And for him to make himself vulnerable now on such a sensitive matter, even a “shyster Lawyer” would know better; but knowing him to be in the clutches of Azazel, nothing need surprise us concerning him. Definitely, he is unable to reason clearly on the Truth, or to assess sound procedure for his own welfare. He not only treated Brother Johnson in shabby manner, but he even attempted to foist his perversions and revolutionisms upon him, criticized him as being “impractical,” carried on a whispering campaign against him right in the Philadelphia Ecclesia (See E‑10:585), prevailed in his efforts to deny aid to a “sick, penniless and starving Youthful Worthy widow,” which almost caused a division in the Class.

And with the foregoing a matter of recorded fact, it should cause us no surprise now to see him making scurrilous attack upon another Youthful Worthy who is faithfully and consistently resisting his revolutionisms, perversions and “strange fire” against the teachings of the Epiphany Messenger and against That Servant. Immediately after the Epiphany Messenger’s death, RGJ carried on a whispering campaign against us, too, so it should be evident to all that this “leopard cannot change his spots.” He still reveals the same “approbativeness, bad conscience” and lying tongue that is ready to “explode like wine and new wine skins ready to burst.” (See E‑10:585, top) Of course, we realize his present effort is just a smoke screen to divert the attention of his readers from the crushing refutations we have given his gross and persistent revolutionism against Parousia and Epiphany Truth concerning the Jewish rating in the Kingdom. Indeed, he is not only treating the writings of That Servant and the Epiphany Messenger “shabbily,” but he is also setting aside the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul.

There is nothing at all akin to the foregoing in the record concerning JJH; but we do have a letter from Brother Johnson, in which he says – I do many things for you, my dear Brother, that I do not do for others, because of your faithfulness to the Lord, the truth and the brethren; and he said the same many times to us personally. Also he said similar things to us about other brethren, although among those fully faithful brethren never once did he mention the name of “Brother Jolly.” However, he does put into writing his distrust of him since as early as 1923, and especially so since 1938.

In this March‑April paper RGJ resorts to his usual diatribe against JJH, slandering him as “the errorist” at least fifty‑six times in the seven pages he devotes to the subject matter. Yet, in this same paper, p. 30, col. 2, he would have his readers know of his gracious prayers for the “sifting errorist,” although his acts belie his words. From one side of his mouth he is sanctimoniously praying for the poor deluded “errorist,” even as he screams to high Heaven from the other side of his mouth about our renegade teachings and acts. As we have previously stated, such unctuous prattle is simply rank hypocrisy. “He that turneth away his ear from the hearing of the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Judging from his sins of the past and present, it seems he offers the same kind of prayers for himself that he offers for JJH; and this readily accounts for his spiritual condition and the morass of error in which he is now involved.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE EPIPHANY MESSENGER

He castigates “this errorist’s perfidious course” for quoting only a part of Bro. Johnson’s comment in E‑4:53, so he adds what we left out. What we left out makes no difference in the thought at all, which is why we left it out. We always make special effort to use as few words as possible for efficiency – so long as we clearly express ourselves; whereas, with RGJ he can always be depended upon to express a sentence in two or three paragraphs. ‘“Loquacious, repetitious, false criticisms” is the way Brother Johnson describes him in E‑10:591; and it is clear enough to us now that Brother Johnson had him properly evaluated. He does the same with the Question Meetings at Conventions ‑ goes into such detail that when he is finished the questioner doesn’t know what his question was ‑ and perhaps feels foolish that he asked it. We refer, of course, to those questions regarding his “advancing truth,” etc.

After quoting E‑4:53, he again refers to the Epiphany in its “narrow or restricted sense,” although he cannot point to one instance where the Epiphany Messenger ever spoke of the Epiphany in such manner. The words are pure invention by RGJ; and it seems that he like his kinsmen early in the Epiphany – uses “vain repetitions, as the heathen do, who think they will be heard for their much speaking.” (Matt. 6:7) Once more we emphasize that there are no words anywhere in the Epiphany Messenger’s writings which refer to the Epiphany in its ‘marrow sense” ‑ anymore than there is no mention of the crown‑losers who lost the High Calling by the skin of their teeth receiving an “attenuated” abandonment, as he claims for himself and his soul mates in the LHMM. See E‑15:525 for the truth as given by the Epiphany Messenger. “Narrow senses’ for the Epiphany period will be found only in RGJ’s “non” sense.

Those of us who know – and believe – Epiphany Truth will have no difficulty whatever in evaluating RGJ’s “profusion of words” if we keep in mind the teaching that crown losers are strictly forbidden from offering a new doctrine. Such attempt is the forbidden “gazing” of Ex. 19:21 ‑ the offering of “strange fire” before the Lord. His entire effort in this Present Truth is to defend his “strange fire” of Campers Consecrated. And, when we consider that it is the identical twin of That Evil Servant’s Jonadabs (now named by the Witnesses as the Great Multitude), it should cause all to weigh carefully anything he may offer in defense of it. By his own admission, RGJ was forced out of the Holy in 1938 – some 34 years ago; yet he now has the audacity to attempt a return to the Holy to secure from the Lampstand sufficient new light to form a new doctrine.

CONCERNING 1954

Once more he stresses 1954 as the date line for his “strange fire’s of Campers Consecrated, and once more he cites E‑10:114 – and once more we quote from that page:

“After 1954 no more persons will enter the tentatively justified state.”

He not only casually ignores that statement – as he accuses JJH of treating Brother Johnson’s writings “shabbily” – but he is bending all effort to bring new ones to tentative justification in his feeble and futile effort to fill the Epiphany Camp. One writer has well summarized, “Usually when a fellow becomes convinced he’s wrong – his argument gets louder.”

He stresses that his Attestatorial Service began in 1954, one of the chief features of which is to fill the Epiphany Camp with his Consecrated Campers, so we turn once more to the record: According to his Annual Report in the January 1955 Present Truth, he had 1,422 subscribers to his Present Truth; and in 1971 (according to his January 1972 Annual Report) he had 1,096 subscribers. Thus, he is down about 23% in seventeen years – a glowing testimonial indeed to his Attestatorial Service; and his attempt to fill the Epiphany Camp. Behold, a mountain travailed and a mouse came forth! Brother Johnson has told us that after the Great Company members are cleansed, they will have a fruitful ministry. Applying this conversely, the Great Company will not have a fruitful ministry until they are cleansed; and this then reveals to us a clear proof of RGJ’s present condition.

Furthermore, E‑10:114 tells us that by Passover 1956 the last Great Company member will have come into the Truth. How many of them has RGJ brought “into the Truth” since 1954? His lawyer would quickly tell him, Don’t answer that question. Could he name ten? Considering the indisputable figures, it should be clear to all that RGJ’s bombast about 1954 is simply voluminous talk – the technique of a present‑day politician who is running scared. Indeed, what you are speaks so loudly I can’t hear what you say! We find no necessity for name‑calling “errorist, shady lawyer, shyster lawyer,” etc., with such facts to substantiate our contentions; the record is more than enough. In fact, by 1959 – five years after his Attestatorial Service began – did he have more or less new creatures with him?

THE 1954 PARALLEL

On p. 28, col. 2, RGJ berates us for what we published in a previous paper about his parallel that did not parallel. The parallels that occurred up to 1941 “are all grace parallels, not wrath parallels,” he says. Then he offers some of his own ‘grace’ parallels, such as: “The Watch Tower reported a deficit in finances in Dec. 1911, and in Dec. 1951 the P.T. reported a deficit in finances.” This is certainly an impressive illustration! Most people would consider a bank overdraft as a “dis” grace; RGJ is the only person we have ever met that would classify it as a ‘grace.’ Then follows another one: “Sept. 1, 1911 new bindings with more attractive covers were first announced for the six volumes.... and it was Sept. 1, 1951 that a new and more attractive cover for the Herald of the Epiphany was first announced.” (Here he is boasting about his superiority over the Star Member preceding him, as this crown‑lost leader asserts he is ‘paralleling’ That Servant. However, this is nothing new for RGJ: back in 1923 he was doing the same thing.) If our readers can see anything other than a pure physical performance here, we would be glad to hear from them. We fail to see any ‘grace’ operation here at all – but we do find some of his claims now, and his talking down to God’s Mouthpiece during Brother Johnson’s ministry, ‘dis’graceful.

He also cites Brother Johnson’s expectation of Anarchy by 1956. Had that occurred, we wonder if he would have considered that a ‘grace’ parallel, too. The parable of the Virgins likewise receives attention from him, and he says it “had to end fully in October 1054.” If it ended then, what proof does he have for it other than just the mere calculation? We are in full accord with the Scriptural injunction – By the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established.

Here again he reveals the confused condition of his mind, as he is unable “to rightly divide the word of Truth.” All the dates he offers for the ‘grace’ parallels had their Parousia counterparts before the violent features of the Time of Trouble had started; consequently, those acts back there could not be associated with acts of violence. But, when 1914 came, the acts of violence came, too. And, based upon those very acts of violence, The Epiphany Messenger expected acts of violence forty years later in Armageddon for 1954, and Anarchy by 1956. Furthermore, he expected the death of the Parousia Messenger in 1916 to be paralleled by his own death in 1956. Were RGJ not befuddled by Azazel, he would recognize that those ‘grace’ parallels concerned primarily the Church; whereas, the acts of violence concerned primarily the world. The world knew practically nothing of the happenings in the Church prior to 1914; but the world was thoroughly aroused by the acts of violence that occurred in 1914 ‑ just as they will be even more aroused with the acts of violence that are ahead in Armageddon and Anarchy.

In our previous paper we asked for just one small item to prove that Restitution began in 1954. His answer to this is that Restitution began in 1874. Certainly we agree with that; the Seventh Trumpet (the Jubilee Trumpet) began to sound then, and it has been sounding louder and louder since then. But we ask again, name one event in 1954 that made it different from 1953 or 1955. That seems to us a fair appraisal of the item.

And as to his Attestatorial Service, he now offers the new notion that it parallels the 1914 service only in its beginning, but not in its ending! Well, according to Webster a parallel is a thing “alike in essential party’; and surely the end of that service is just as ‘essential’ as the beginning – just as the close of the High Calling is as essential as its opening. And, when we recall that RGJ himself set the date of Sept. 20, 1954, we can but reply that his date is ‘self‑serving’; and in the courts of our land self‑serving testimony has about the weight of a feather. Thus, considering what he has accomplished in the past seventeen years, that is all the value we should give it.

Further on p. 29, col. 1, he states “the errorist... seems to be insisting that we throw out entirely 1954 as a Biblically marked date.” Here again the “Azazelian” cunning of this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” (See E‑10:591, 646) manifests itself, because we have never even hinted at such a thing. Often in out papers we have stated our full approval with the interpretation of Leviticus 12 as covering the eighty years from 1874 to 1954, as most of our readers know; but our objection to RGJ’s use of it is that he is reading into it things that are not there at all. To conclude that a sign‑off for Great Company developing truths occurred in 1954 – and that should be proof for the close of the Youthful Worthy call ‑ is simply some more of his nonsense.

DEUT. 10:10 – This text is stressed as a ‘proof’ for 1954; but a close analysis shows it to teach just the reverse. Each 40‑day stay of Moses in the Mount was typical; and it is sound reasoning to conclude that type and antitype must correspond in every detail. We see no reason to quarrel with the thought that Moses’ first 40‑day stay in the Mount was typical of the period from 1874 to 1914. But, did Moses’ second ascent of the Mount follow immediately his first forty‑day period? No, it certainly did not! At least several days elapsed before he went back the second time. The record clearly reveals this; and reason would support the thought also, because he did not eat food or drink water all during the first forty‑day stay. This would certainly necessitate some time for him to recuperate from that ordeal ‑ just as Jesus was also hungry after His 40‑day stay in the wilderness. All this being true, there is no sound reason to conclude the second forty years in the antitype should follow immediately the first one; the type itself offers direct contradiction to such a thought. It does not correspond in every detail with the antitype.

When Brother Johnson taught that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical, he was reasserting Parousia Truth ‑ the teachings of the Parousia Messenger. When he taught that the small Parousia period and the Epiphany would be equal in time, he thought he was teaching with Scriptural support – he relied on the two forty‑day periods of Moses on the Mount. This persuaded him to conclude that the Epiphany and the small Parousia periods would be the same. And from this same parallel he drew the conclusion that he would die in 1956 as a parallel to That Servant’s death in 1916. But he died in 1950. Surely not even RGJ is contending that he died in 1956 – to prove the parallel. If we contend that the Epiphany ended in any sense before the main features of the Time of Trouble have appeared, then we deny that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical. And such teaching is direct contradiction to both Parousia and Epiphany Truth and to the Scriptures.

As all Truth people should know, forty is a Bible number for trial; but it does not always indicate a forty‑year period. The forty‑year journey in the wilderness by Israel was typical of the entire Gospel Age; and there is no similarity whatever – in point of time – between the wanderings of fleshly and spiritual Israel. And none of the trials involved could be understood beforehand; otherwise, they would not have been much of a trial. Many of the time predictions in the Parousia and the Epiphany resulted in sore trial upon the Church. However, the fully faithful accepted what time itself revealed; whereas, some of the “foolish” crown‑losers refused to accept what time decreed. Right up to September 1914 A. H. MacMillan openly insisted that the Church would be glorified in October of that year – in direct contradiction of That Servant’s denial. Perhaps it is in order here to ask – Had Brother Johnson died in 1940, instead of 1950, would RGJ have insisted that the last saint then left the earth? He probably would have done just that; he would not have wanted any saints around to interfere with his program. Too, that would have forced him to preach that he and his kinsmen were cleansed Levites – just as he has been doing since 1950 ‑ although his acts and revolutionistic teachings since that time clearly reveal to all unbiased minds that his contentions are merely some more of his foolish imaginations. ‘“Deceived and being deceived.”

PROPER EPIPHANY DISTINCTIONS

On p. 24, col. 1, RGJ offers a sub‑heading: “Errorist Ignores Proper Distinctions.” Then he proceeds to quote from E‑10:10. We have never discussed that because it was not particularly pertinent to the subject matter. However, RGJ now makes it important, as he quotes from that citation: “So far as God’s people are concerned, the Epiphany is divided into two periods – (1) The time in which the priesthood deals with Azazel’s Goat, and (2) the time in which the Priesthood deals with the cleansed Levites.” Then he offers some more of his slanderous conclusions: “It is obvious that this errorist is not interested in such clear distinctions.” Now that he has become interested in “such clear distinctions,” perhaps he will please tell us “the time in which the Priesthood deals with the cleansed Levites.” This is certainly a pertinent question to the subject he has injected into the discussion. He is teaching that there was no longer any Priesthood on earth after 1950. If he wants to tell us now that the dealing with the cleansed Levites was before 1950, let him give us some proof of it. But, even if he could produce such proof, it would not be relevant to this discussion, because it could have no bearing whatever on 1954 – four years after the last Priest left the earth – according to his own teaching, which we do not accept.

On p. 25 he says the Parousia ended in one sense in the fall of 1914, for which he properly quotes Brother Johnson. Then he adds his own conclusion that the Parousia will end in a second sense in 1954, but this is purely some more of his imagination. Let him show anywhere in Brother Johnson’s writings that he told us there would be two small Parousias.

On p. 26, col. 2, bottom, he ridicules us for quoting from Epiphany Vol. 4, where Brother Johnson “inferred” certain things regarding 1954. He tells us that was first published in 1921, “when the advancing light was comparatively dim” on the subject. If Brother Johnson had changed his mind about that by 1938, why didn’t he say so? In this same Volume 4, p. 21, there is this: “The Epiphany is limited to the time between the Parousia and the Basileia. It is used to designate the period of the great tribulation (emphasis by Brother Johnson), the Time of Trouble.” Nothing whatever said here about a second Parousia ending in 1954. In fact, if RGJ’s Basileia begins in 1954, and the Parousia extends “in a limited sense” to 1954, let him give us “the time between the Parousia and Basileia” as the period of the Epiphany ‑ that is, explain the “‘overlapping” and what features it includes.

On p. 27, col. 1, bottom, RGJ presents some more of his nonsense regarding 1954 and 1956. He cites P ‘47, p. 53, in “what appears to be Brother Johnson’s last statement” – in which “he says not one word about the fighting stage of Armageddon beginning in 1954….. Though he did expect Anarchy to begin in 1956.” Well, here is something! If he did “expect Anarchy to begin in 1956” – just when should we expect the ‘fighting’ stage of Armageddon? Unless RGJ is now the exception, all Truth groups expect a lull be­tween Armageddon and Anarchy. If that is true – and we still believe it is true – then what length of time would RGJ allow for Armageddon if it should not have begun by 1954? Should we receive such puerile talk from a worldling, we would quickly walk away – but since he is preaching such foolishness to the general church, we feel an obligation to the brethren to take note of it, even as did the Epiphany Messenger feel the obligation to record the foolishness of this same “loquacious, repetitious and false‑accusing” Epiphany crown‑loser. (See E‑10 591; also p. 585)

It would seem that such palaver as the foregoing is simply a smoke screen to divert the attention of his readers from his revolutionism on the Jewish question; and he may be fooling some of the people some of the time. However, he is probably fooling himself worst of all. We know some brethren who still support him that do not accept his errors – just as there were some priests in the Society that did not accept JFR’s errors; but the Society had become ‘home’ to them, and they loved many of the brethren there, so they stayed. We knew some of them very well, who openly admitted to us that the errors appearing in the Watch Tower made them grit their teeth; and this same situation prevails now with some who still give token acceptance of RGJ’s leadership. We expect, D.v., to say more about this Present Truth in a future writing, but for now we offer:

SOME DE FACTO PARALLELS

Pertinent to our subject, we now offer some parallels – not of time, but parallels of fact:

(1) JFR placed himself on equality with Brother Russell. (See May 1932 PT, p. 78, colt l, par. 1) RGJ and his soulmates not only claimed equality with Brother Johnson, they actually considered themselves superior. Note E‑10:588 – “They (RGJ and associates – JJH) exhort that the right be chosen and the good be known. This they say because J. alleged that he was righteous (in his office work) but that God had taken away his privileges, and that notwithstanding his proper work he was reckoned a falsifier (whereas, RGJ and companions were the actual falsifiers – JJH)...These claims of J. aroused them to revile J... They give as a reason for these misrepresentations (actual falsehoods – JJH) the misrepresentation that J. had claimed that it is of no advantage for one to delight himself in God... Again in arrogance (a sense of superiority which manifests itself in an overbearing manner, Webster – JJH) they demand J.’s attention to their saying.” This is a record of the GOOD Levites in the Epiphany Movement!

(2) JFR completely rejected tentative justification; RGJ has perverted tentative justification – it is now available in the Camp, says he.

(3) JFR invented Jonadabs – a non‑existent class; RGJ has invented Campers Consecrated – also a non‑existent class.

(4) JFR refused to “visit those that be cut off” (Zech. 11:16 – the Little Flock that he had forced out of the Society); RGJ refuses to “visit those that be cut off” says they were all glorified as of 1950. Like JFR, he also “cut off” all new creatures who refused to go along with his errors. He vilified those who refused to accept his edict “Last Saint Gone.”

(5) JFR taught error to the justified; RGJ teaches error to the justified.

(6) JFR disfellowshiped brethren who opposed his errors, calling them tools of Satan; RGJ disfellowships brethren who oppose his errors and revolutionisms, and casts them out (Isa. 66:5), especially castigates the ‘sifters’ who publicly expose and resist his errors, calling them the tools of Satan. Our Lord himself had similar experiences with the Scribes and Pharisees of His Day; they called Him Beelzebub. (See Matt. 10 24‑25)

(7) JFR wept copious tears from the platform in ‘deep sympathy’ for the ‘poor deluded sifters’; RGJ now prays for the ‘poor deluded sifters.’

(8) JFR claimed to be Pastor and Teacher ‑ to be in charge of the Society, even as Brother Russell had been; RGJ claims to be Pastor and Teacher, and to control the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement with the same authority Brother Johnson controlled it. All those with reasonable knowledge of the law know that neither of these crown‑losers could legally ‘control’ either Movement as the founders had done. These Movements were not willed to them personally, to possess and control according to the dictates of their minds.

(9) JFR said the Basileia began in 1914; RGJ says the Basileia began in 1954.

(10) JFR applied condemnatory texts to those that opposed his errors – texts that properly applied to him; RGJ does the same – The Papacy does the same.

The Scripture comes vividly to mind: “The words of wise men are heard in quiet more than the cry of him that ruleth among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good.” (Eccl. 9:17,18)

“CONFUSION WORSE CONFOUNDED:’

On p. 25, col. 1, RGJ offers quite some elaboration about the various stages of the large Parousia. However, he paraphrases The Epiphany Messenger’s comments in Epiphany Vol. 4, p. 44 (without directly quoting it); and here is what he says:

“The errorist does not mention the three senses in which the Parousia is used. He says nothing at all about the Parousia’s second stage ending with the end of the Epiphany period, for to do so would interfere with his purposes. It is evident to any one who considers the matter carefully and does not have his understanding darkened, that just as the Parousia ended in a restricted, or narrow, 40‑year sense, in the Fall of 1914, then continued concurrently with the Epiphany and ended in a wider, 80‑year, sense in the Fall of 1954, so the Epiphany ended in a restricted, or narrow, 40‑year, sense in the Fall of 1954.”

Be it noted that this “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser” (E‑10:591) is here charging us with ignoring the “three sense” of the Large Parousia, while all our writings in refutation of his errors have set out those three distinct and correct “senses” to correct his “non”‑sense. We have no need or desire to set the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching aside on the large Parousia, the small Parousia period, and the Great Tribulation, or Epiphany, period. We heartily agree that one of the ‘senses’ that Brother Johnson refers to ‑ the small Parousia period – has ended. We are now in the second ‘sense’ to which he refers, if we accept his teachings on the Epiphany. But when RGJ clings to the date of 1954, and a 40‑year Epiphany period ending there, then we are bound to have at least FOUR ‘senses’ of the Large Parousia. Surely any one with the “spirit of a sound mind” knows that with the ending of the Great Tribulation, a definite ‘sense’ will have ended – even more so than when the small Parousia ended. Quite a few Truth people do not accept the thought that the small Parousia is ended. They continue to do a reaping work. And certainly none of the world can see that the small Parousia has ended. But when the Great Tribulation ends, then all who are then living will be aware of that – as quickly as the turmoil ends in their area. We doubt there will be any of the Truth brethren who will dispute that.

That Servant and the Epiphany Messenger taught that the Great Tribulation and the Epiphany are identical; and, if we accept that premise, then we surely do know whether the Epiphany has ended or not. If we accept RGJ’s 1954 date for the ending of the Epiphany, we repeat: there will be FOUR SENSES. But we accept Brother Johnson’s ‘senses’ in preference to RGJ’s non‑‘senses’ here.

Note the following quotation from E‑4:43, bottom, and top of p. 44: “The Bible, as our Pastor rightly held, in so far as our Lord’s Second Advent is concerned, uses the Word Parousia in three senses: (1) in the sense of the 40 years of reaping, i.e., from 1874 until the Time of Trouble, 1914; (2) in the sense of the 80 years from 1874 to 1954 (though our Pastor did not see the Epiphany would last 40 years, it not being due in his time to see this), i.e., to include the Parousia in the first sense and the Epiphany as a period, which he did so understand though not its duration; and (3) in the sense of the entire 1000 years of His Second Advent.”

In other words, we have been living in the large Parousia ever since 1874, and will continue in the large Parousia until the end of the Kingdom – but during this large Parousia we have a small Parousia period, and a Great Tribulation period. The Great Tribulation period and the Epiphany period are identical, if we accept both Messengers’ teaching.

While it is important to our discussion to stress what the Messengers did not see, it is very important to our present understanding to note clearly what they did see.

Both Messengers saw very clearly that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical, and we quote now a little from E‑4:54 to the point: “We understand that the special tribulation period and the Epiphany as a period are one and the same thing. We purpose here to prove this thought from the Scriptures and to illustrate it from our Pastor’s writings...Matt. 26:64 proves that the Epiphany began with the World War, which began the destruction of the Nominal Church...will progress through the Revolution....... Hence this passage proves that the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are identical.”

Follows now some more from E‑4:55 (53): “We will now quote and expound passages that prove that the Epiphany will end with Anarchy and Jacob’s Trouble. Its beginning, progressing and ending with the Time of Trouble demonstrates the Epiphany’s identify with the Time of Trouble.”

The real violent features of the Time of Trouble have not yet appeared; therefore, to contend it has already ended in a restricted sense is simply vagarious talk – the talk of a deluded crown‑loser. (See 2 Thes. 2:11) “Before those days hire for man could not be obtained, And hire for beast was there none, And neither to him that went out nor to him who came in was there success by reason of the danger, Yea, I let all men loose each one against his neighbor.” (Zech. 8:10, Rotherham) When this Scripture has been fulfilled, it will then be proper to speak of the end of the Epiphany as a period of time ‑ the last special period of the Gospel Age.

When the Epiphany Messenger said the Parousia is used in three senses, he did not intimate that the large Parousia (the third sense) would be ending when the small Parousia or the Epiphany had accomplished their purposes. However, if RGJ now wants to interpret it that way, then let him stay strictly with what is quoted above. If we want to strain matters (as he is now doing), we can say the small Parousia ended in a “restricted sense” in 1914, and in the full sense in 1916. Then, accepting his jugglery of the Epiphany, this feature ended in “a restricted sense” in 1954, but won’t end in its full sense until the end of Jacob’s Trouble. This would give us four senses; and, when we consider “the entire thousand years,” we may manufacture a few more of his “senses” – thus making a total of at least five senses, instead of the three described in Epiphany Vol. 4. We offer this compilation of senses in the hope it may finally silence RGJ’s “non” senses. The mere ending of Phase One (the small Parousia), and of Phase Two (the Epiphany) makes no allowance whatever for the ending of the large Parousia at those dates. The main purpose of the Parousia (the perfecting of mankind) has not even started; thus, to discuss its ending before it starts is indeed “confusion worse confounded.”

We have no quarrel whatever with the three senses described by Brother Johnson; we are objecting to the distortion injected into them by this crown‑loser. Brother Johnson says the Epiphany is the second sense (as a period ‑ the Great Tribulation period). Although he taught there would be a number of seasons in the Epiphany, he never discusses more than one ending – the end of Anarchy and of Jacob’s Trouble. He thought that 40 years would be sufficient for the events of the Great Tribulation, or the Epiphany – just as That Servant mistakenly thought two or three years would be sufficient for these things.

When RGJ stresses two of the Epiphany’s purposes (the Priesthood’s dealing with Azazel’s Goat; then following with another period for dealing with the cleansed Levites), he could just as properly say the Epiphany ended in “a restricted sense’s then as he can with the 1954 date, and that with a little less “non”‑sense than his present contentions. That would then give him at least three Epiphany endings by 1954; but nowhere does the Epiphany Messenger suggest such effervescent flummery. When these Levites extricate themselves from the clutches of Azazel, and their fleshly minds are destroyed (1 Cor. 5:5), they will have lost some of their “senses,” but they will also gain a priceless gift – “the spirit of a sound mind.” (2 Tim. 1:7)

“The Lord redeemeth the soul of His servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.” (Psa. 34:22)

NO. 203: "LATTER TIMES"

No. 203

Several requests have come to us asking that we treat on the present‑day hallucination of “familiar spirits,” such as Mediums, Seances, etc., and what our attitude toward such should be. In 1 Tim. 4:1, we have a prophecy of the condition so prevalent on all sides in these ‘latter times.’ “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” (See Berean Comments) And Paul further exhorts, “If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.” (v. 6) “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them; for in so doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” (v. 16)

And he gives us further warning of this “evil day” in 2 Tim. 3:1 – “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” The Apostle is here referring to the Household of Faith, and not to the world in general. But the “Time of Trouble” is upon the whole world when these “perilous times” come to the Lord’s people. “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (v. 13, Dia.) – and it is especially for the protection of the fully faithful that these exhortations are given. “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.” (v. 14) The measurably faithful will partially succumb to the evils so prevalent in these ‘latter times’ and the unfaithful will wholly succumb; they will lose their standing in the Household. “And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:4)

FAITH HEALING ‑ HYPNOSIS, ETC.

Prominent and widely‑read magazines today are publicizing the practice of faith healing and hypnosis, which such captions as “HYPNOSIS – an Old Science” – “Out of Ancient Magic Comes New Medical Tool,” etc. So appealing has this teaching become that it has engulfed many members of the ministerial profession, with one prominent Evangelist observing: “Psychiatry is becoming so popular that psychiatrists are calling upon each other for help.” One line in a magazine says this: “The ‘modern’ minister is learning to obtain psychiatric help in handling deep‑seated problems.” One prominent minister in Washington, D.C., several years back, hanged himself in a high tower of his own chapel; and the news comment said “he had a nervous breakdown in 1948 and had been under treatment by a psychiatrist.”  If the psychiatrist could not cure the preacher, just how much chance, think you, would the preacher have of curing his flock that came to him for counsel and solace?

In another instance a minister was asked: “Do you think it is wrong – or against God’s will – for man to seek out hidden powers like hypnosis,” etc.? The answer “Certainly, it is not wrong, or against God’s will to develop, all powers of the mind.” In contrast, hear Isa. 8:19 – “When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: Should not a people seek unto their God?” And in Isa. 47:13, 14: – “Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble... They shall not deliver themselves.” Here is a clear inspired answer given about 3,000 years ago; and we consider it as sound today as it was then. The “art” was a “science falsely so‑called” at that time; and it is just as much so today.

It is not that we are wholly against psychiatry – because we readily recognize that in some cases some good has been accomplished; and in the profession there are some honorable and well‑intentioned men. If a person can’t get help from his family, his physician, or his minister, then he has no other source, apparently, but to see a psychiatrist. In many cases a married couple needs the counsel of an outsider – and in such cases if the couple consults a good psychiatrist, then he can help them adjust their marital difficulties. Many times the family and friends are too close to the matter to be able to advise impartially; and if their minister is unable to cope with the situation, then a psychiatrist may be the answer to their problem. In the case of the Lord’s people who have the promise of the Lord’s help in their every time of need, it seems they should be able to rest in the blessed assurance of His promises – and “wait upon the Lord” in full assurance of faith. The Lord’s people are not promised an easy way out, but they are promised “Grace (favor) sufficient” to bear whatever difficulties they may have, if the Lord doesn’t see fit to remove these difficulties. So in the case of the Lord’s fully consecrated people, when they go to a psychiatrist as a last resort, it is certain that the Lord is not answering their prayers. He does abandon those who come to Him with the lips, without full faith. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Nor does it mean that those who are abandoned at such times, are not God’’ children – but it does mean that the Lord has temporarily abandoned them until such time as they are able to come to Him with the full assurance of faith in His promises.

The Lord’s Truth people have been forewarned of this “evil day,” when spiritism, faith healing, hypnotism, etc., would be rampant – more so than at any time in history, and that more far‑reaching. We have only to glance at the newspapers and leading magazines to recognize that fact. All sorts of weird cults are springing up like mushrooms, details of which we shall not offer here; but just recently one in particular has engaged our attention because of the distress it has brought upon the parents of youths “in their late teens and early 20’s.”

Says one of them: “We’re convinced they’re victims of some form of mind manipulation, or why else their sudden change of behavior, wanting to destroy our institutions? not knowing or wanting us?”

One girl who has been recovered from the situation has this to say: “When I was a member of the Children of God, I would feel one way, but, when I opened my mouth to speak, the opposite meaning would come out. I had eaten rotten food and hadn’t bathed in two weeks, yet I told another member that I had never been happier. When I said that, I thought to myself, Why am I saying that? I’m miserable.”

From the foregoing it is apparent that not all who become contaminated with such antitypical witchcraft (especially deceptive false teachings) are irreparably damned; and it is well we keep that in mind – to lend a helping hand whenever opportunity should arise.

“MY HELP COMETH FROM THE LORD” Psalms 121:2

David had many trials – not only in his own family, but also from many other sources – yet he looked to the Lord for his help. The is not true of King Saul. At one time King Saul had been very zealous in eliminating “familiar spirits” in Israel, but after he had forsaken the Lord, and the Lord no longer heard his prayers, he himself went to the Witch of Endor. And that has been true in our times of antitypical Saul (Great Company leaders) during this Epiphany period. We know of one such case where a Great Company leader went to a psychiatrist for his mental anguish when he became a manifested crown‑loser. The Lord had abandoned him in his trial time – something the Lord never does to the fully faithful.

That Wise and Faithful Servant was well alerted to the evils set out above; and, if his warnings were pertinent in 1909, how much more are they wise and sound counsel today. “My help cometh from the Lord... The text reminds us that those who need help and who realize it should look to the Lord for it – not relying upon their own strength or wisdom, nor upon the assistance of their fellows. We are not to despise assistance from any quarter, but our chief reason for receiving any assistance should be our conviction that it has come from the Lord...We have the assurance of the Lord that there is but one place of safety at this time... under the shadow of the Almighty.” (Reprints 4311)

Then further on p. 4313: “Peter and John were God’s instruments in effecting an instantaneous cure... The only power exercised was the power of faith on the part of the Apostles, for the healed, so far as we know, had no knowledge of Jesus... Nor should we understand the apostolic command, ‘look upon us,’ to mean the exercise by them of any hypnotic influence... Perhaps there never was a time in the world’s history when humanity manifested more desire for physical healing than today. Nor can we blame the poor groaning creation for desiring relief...Note the fact that some of the strong delusions are supported by their claim to relieve physical pain. This is the claim of Spiritism that disease can be relieved through mediumistic powers, under another’s control... This is the claim of Christian Science, Mind Cure, Faith cure people, Divine Healers, etc. Some of these names are used merely as a cover and a pretense... The attitude of the public seems to be: Give us healing. Give us relief from our aches and pains. If it is of God, we are glad. If it is of the Adversary, as you claim, we still take it.

“Such great inroads have been made in the churches of all denominations by these mind cures, hypnotic cures, that ministers of all denominations are perplexed what to do...We do not dispute that cures are accomplished, nor that some of the theories and proceedings are legitimate enough. What we do claim is that the truth and rationality connected with these systems are the sugar‑coating which covers the poison. The poison connected with all of them is the poison of the Adversary, the power of the fallen angels exercised in its most subtle form, namely, mental suggestion – hypnotism... The doctrine of ‘Peace, troubled soul!’ is certainly a good and wise one, particularly when based upon a Scriptural faith in Jesus... The spirit of restfulness and ‘peace with God,’ if built upon false doctrines and erroneous suggestions and hypnotic influences, but hinders the soul from a proper approach to the Life‑Giver... Trouble will largely result from the intrusion of the evil spirits into human affairs, through the entanglement of human wills, weakened by Hypnotism. We warn all to be on guard against these modern miracle‑workers and we call attention to the fact that their operation is entirely different from anything recorded in the Scriptures.”

And from page 3181: “We are already passing into these very fires of this day of trial. We are already in the time when the wood, hay and stubble are being consumed, and when Higher Criticism, Evolutionary Theory, Christian Science, Hypnotism, under its own name and known as Mind Cures, etc., are devouring as a flame all that are not fully devoted to the Lord, and therefore, especially kept by His power through His Word and providence.”

KING SAUL AND THE PROPHET SAMUEL

That many of the Measurably Faithful do ignore this wise counsel is clear when we consider the type of their leaders – King Saul. His disobedience went from a small beginning to an extremity which caused his death. In 1 Sam. 13:8‑14 King Saul offered a burnt‑offering, contrary to Divine arrangement, and was reproved by the Prophet Samuel. Then in Chapter 15 we have the record of his gross disobedience and lying tongue when confronted once more by Samuel; and v. 23: “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord He hath also rejected thee from being king.” “And the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul” (1 Sam. 16:14). In due course he sought the Witch of Endor; then his ignominious and disgraced death in battle – a tragic instance and a sober warning to all that “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Here is perhaps the outstanding example in all Biblical history of a man one time beloved of God – “a choice young man and of noble appearance... not a man in Israel more noble than he” – who went from nothing to the very highest pinnacle in Israel; then back to nothing again – with his end much worse than if he had remained “little in his own sight” (1 Sam. 15:17), had never become king in Israel.

Then there is his pathetic pleading in v. 30 ‑ “Honour me now before the elders of my people” – the Lord’s favor gone, the kingdom to be taken from him in disgrace, he implores Samuel yet once more for that very empty and most fragile of possessions, “the praise of men.” But even this was denied him in the end, an end perpetrated by his own hand with his own sword – opportunity sublime (“the pearl of great price”) ignominiously and wilfully desecrated. King Saul is a type of the Measurably Faithful (the Great Company) leaders from early in the third century until Armageddon. (See E 14:5 These Measurably Faithful brethren, like King Saul, profess they are fully faithful – insist they have done no wrong “Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:20). And this hypocritical profession has often deceived the brethren and others, but they have never fooled the Lord.

“OUR FRAME – WE ARE DUST” (Psa. 103:14)

Man has four physiological qualities, of which we may sometime write in a future article; but for now we shall consider briefly his four appetites, the first and most compelling being the Alimentative – the desire for food and drink; second, the Procreative – the affinity for the opposite sex; third, the Acquisitive – the urge to buy, sell and get gain, to lay house to house and field to field; fourth, the Religious the desire to worship a higher being. The extremes of the Alimentative are the glutton and the ascetic, the drunkard and the teetotaler; of the Procreative, the extremes are the pervert and the celibate; of the Acquisitive the extremes are the miser and the spendthrift; of the Religious the extremes are the spiritualist and the gross materialist. The variations between these extremes are legion, so that the truth is well given, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:13) – a truth primarily applicable to the Christ Company, but true also of man as a physical organism. All lower mammals have the first two of these appetites; some of them have the third; but none of them have the fourth – none of them have any urge to worship a Divine Being.

Companion to the foregoing is the premise that the human head has seven distinct features, five of which are to be found in the lower mammals – two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, one mouth, one skin, these functioning to produce the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. None of the lower animals have any chin, the possession of which by man lends a certain distinction and strength to his face – even among the very ordinary human beings. Then the seventh feature is mental – the spiritual and benevolent qualities, which give man his Religious appetite. In none of the brutes do we find this quality; and in some human beings it is so lacking that it is impossible for them to exercise faith under the reign of evil (2 Thes. 3:2); but we should expect to find it predominant and increasing in strength in the Lord’s Household – among the fully faithful.

With such myriad of combinations, mentally and physically, we are able to understand more clearly the words of Jeremiah 17 9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” But, having arrived at a certain sound foundation in the foregoing paragraphs, we should be the better enabled to understand the full meaning of the “spirit of a sound mind.” If any should have eye trouble, they seek out an oculist – a specialist; if they have other various physical ills, they should consult a Doctor of Medicine if drugs are indicated; or one skilled in physical therapy and the like if drugs are not needed. This all seems simple enough to us; but why shouldn’t the same formula be followed if one has mental distress? If the disturbance comes from physical failure, then have the proper physical practitioner attend it. But, if it be purely a mental deflection – distress of mind, etc. – then the child of God should just as readily seek those best qualified to help him – the same being the Mouthpieces of God, or their teachings, or those of lesser prominence who are qualified for the task. Note the advice of the Apostle in James 5 14, 15 “If any one among you is sick, let him call for the elders of the congregation, and let them pray over him ... and the prayer of faith shall save the sick person” – the morally or spiritually weak. (See Berean Comments)

Psychology, Psychiatry, and such like, are high‑sounding words that carry a certain appeal to the “unstable and the unlearned”; but let us analyze them a bit. “Psychology” means the doctrine of understanding life or the soul. Now just how well qualified is a Psychologist to treat the soul when he does not even know what the soul is? Would we think to call in a carpenter if the furnace is out of order? Or a plumber if the electric lights are out? And should the Lord’s people seek after those with “familiar spirits,” necromancers, or hawkers of hocus‑pocus, when the prescription is clearly outlined in the Scriptures? It is well stated, “You can always tell a man from Yale; but you can’t tell him much.” It is reported that one in every ten persons in the United States today is a mental case of some kind. That means about twenty million of them in this country alone. And many of those who attempt to qualify to treat such cases must themselves resort to others of their kind to receive help for themselves. Consider the tragic case of the minister related earlier in this paper: He ignored the Word he had vowed to teach others, thus coming to ruin himself. Yet he was being paid well, to supply to the members of his congregation what he could not supply for himself. How many, think you, would receive the “peace of God which passeth understanding” from such ministry? And of the crown‑lost leaders – especially those who claim to understand Present Truth – who are forced to seek out a psychiatrist, what should we expect of them? The answer seems simple enough – to us, at least: we should expect only “an energy of delusion for them.” (2 Thes. 2:11)

SCIENCE – CHRISTIANITY

Without reservation, we are wholeheartedly at one with the science of Christianity. Science is “classification of facts,” says Webster; and the “facts” of Christianity are indeed “meat and drink” to us. But we are equally averse to “science falsely so‑called.” By the same rule, we are in complete accord with sound effort to influence the minds of others; and St. Paul gives precedent for this in his effort to influence the minds of the brethren at Philippi: “Whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, any virtue, any praise, think on these things.” If any think on such things, he is certain to be blessed with the “spirit of a sound mind” – he will possess the real science of Christianity – nor is he likely to incur the “woe” of those who “go down to Egypt (type of this “present evil world”) for help” (Isa. 31 1). But those who do “go down to Egypt for help’’ will not be admonished to seek the “sound doctrine,” the Truth – the “true, honest, just,” etc.; they are more likely to receive a balm for “itching ears” – to be told what they want to hear, rather than what they should hear.

WISE AND FAITHFUL WARNINGS

The following is a quotation from That Servant, as given on page 2629 of the Reprints: “Question: The world is full of aches and pains, diseases, and naturally we look about us for relief. You have already expressed your judgment that the cures effected by Christian Scientists and Spiritualists are probably produced by improper spiritual influences, although exercised to some extent at least in harmony with natural laws. I desire now to inquire respecting cures by hypnotism, and still other cures by so‑called magnetic healers. What shall we think of these, and will it be proper for the Lord’s consecrated people to avail themselves of such means for attaining health?

“Answer: We feel suspicious of magnetic and mental healing. In our judgment they in many instances are allied with or related to hypnotism; yet it is particularly difficult to draw the line here, because we all know that there is such a thing as a legitimate mental influence which we all exercise upon one another, favorably or unfavorably. We know, for instance, that hope and faith, love and joy, are healing and helpful influences whether exercised by our own minds upon our own bodies, or upon others. In this proper sense of the word every child of God possessing the spirit of love, the spirit of a sound mind, is a mental healer, and a heart healer, a wound healer; wherever he or she may be, the influence will be uplifting, comforting, strengthening to good impulses. If therefore the Lord’s consecrated ones visit the sick, their presence should be a refreshment, comforting, cheering and helpful, and so much the more if they carry in their hearts and communicate with their lips the exceeding great and precious promises of our Father’s Word. With this much of mental healing we are most thoroughly in accord.

“But Christian Science, Mind Healing and Magnetic Healing, running upon this same line, seem to carry it to an extreme – in the case of Christian Science to the extreme of lying to oneself and believing the lie, and thus gradually becoming a liar, self deceived and deceiving others in respect to all of life’s affairs. We cannot believe that any course so opposed to that which the Scriptures mark out can be of God, nor can we believe that the cures it at time effects are either natural or of God; we can only suppose, therefore, that the Adversary favors this lying and deceiving process to the intent that he may beguile the mind through further lies and deceptions far from God and the truth.

“Magnetic Healing is more on the order of hypnotic healing; that is to say, the magnetic healer gains a control over the mind of his subject which is somewhat akin to the control gained by mesmerists and hypnotists, and akin to the spirit control of spiritualism over its mediums. We can have no sympathy with anything of this kind, for even if we were satisfied that the power of control was merely a human power and not a Satanic one (and we are not satisfied of this), we cannot feel that it is right for one human being to subject his mind, his will, to another, when the evidences prove that every such subjection decreases his will power and places the subject more and more in the position of a slave or machine, subject to the influence or control of others breaking down his personality.

“The Lord’s people are admonished to make such a submission of their minds to the Lord, and no one else; and we are confident that the Lord will take no advantage of us under such conditions, to rob us of any good quality. On the whole, then, we urge the Lord’s people to be on guard against mind healers, etc., especially where, as in the case of Christian Science, the mind is to be given up to believe a lie (pain is merely a mental delusion), or in the case of hypnotism, it is to be given up or subjected entirely to another. Our minds are our greatest possession, and are to be given only to the Lord and to each other as directed by the Word of the Lord; and if we cannot have health without violating these principles, we can afford to be without the health for the few more days that remain under the present conditions, knowing that by and by, if faithful to the Lord, we shall have the perfect resurrection bodies promised.”

Thus, it is clear enough that the good that can and does come from a good cultivation of the mind has been badly sullied by the many perversions that have appeared during this Epiphany period; and we may reasonably expect much more of the same yet before the New Day fully dawns. All of this has a definite purpose, we may be sure; the Epiphany is the time for “making manifest the counsels of hearts” – revealing persons, principles and things, separating the true from the false. We are in “the evil day.” In the great harvest parable of Matt. 13:30, Jesus said, “Gather ye first together the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; then bring together the wheat into my granary.” (See Diaglott) The binding of the tares was well accomplished by 1914, and we were all impressed with the truth that “Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest.” (Josh. 3:15) The River Jordan being a type of the curse, we should logically expect all manner of evil to be rampant, as the released erstwhile “spirits in prison” carried on their deadly work. These are the same “four winds of heaven that strove upon the great sea” (Dan. 7:2) – just as they are the “four winds of the earth” in Rev. 7:1 that are “restrained by the four angels” (the messengers of wrath) until the due time to bring about the great war of 1914. Some have mistakenly thought that the “four angels” of this text are the demons; but it should be kept in mind that the fallen angels are nowhere in the Scriptures ever called angels after their antediluvian transgression. They are the “four winds,” “demons,” “spirits in prison,” etc., but never referred to as angels after the great flood.

“TRYING THE SPIRITS”

The ‘seducers’ of this our day are telling us to visit these seances, spirit mediums, etc., as we are heeding God’s word to “try the spirits” by so doing. In John 4: 1, the text they refer to says – “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” There is no intimation that the Apostle is advising us to “try spiritism” – no record of any of the Apostles seeking out “familiar spirits” to try them to see whether they were of God. They knew they were not of God; they knew such a course was a forbidden path for the Lord’s people. And the Lord’s people today who “continue in His Word” know they are not to tamper with such seducing spirits. The “spirits” in this text refer to teachings, and the clear thought of the Apostle John is that we are to try the teachings that are presented to us – whether they be truth or error.

Over the centuries the pseudo pastors and teachers in Big and Little Babylon have played upon the “itching ears” – just as have the politicians – by telling them what they want to hear. And what is it that people desire above all things? That they will not die! So they are told they don’t actually die; they just appear to be dead. Even the Chaldean soothsayers employed the technique on Nebuchadnezzar: “O king, live forever.” (Dan. 2:4) On rare occasions even ‘the father of lies” tells the truth; and he came pretty close to telling the truth in Job 2:4 “All that a man hath will he give for his life” Nor has “Millions Now Living Will Never Die” (the teaching of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), or survival through Armageddon, been devoid of appeal; it explains in large part the great increase in adherents of the group that promises such. And a close approach is made to this in the promise that “Campers Consecrated” may live right on into the Millennial Kingdom. But the real science of Christianity has never been popular. Jesus was crucified because of it; and Paul became the enemy of erstwhile brethren “because I tell you the truth.” (Gal. 4 16) All the Star Members have had the same experience; and we are witness of it especially as respects the last two of them. Therefore, we need “think it not strange” if the same experiences come to us. About the last thing the multitude wishes to hear is the Truth. Of this fact Jesus was well aware, as he offered the observation, “When the Son of Man cometh, will He find the faith (the Truth) in the earth?” When controversy arises, the truth usually comes forth – and the Truth is the last thing false teachers and their partisan supporters wish to hear. The words of Mal. 3:15 are especially applicable in this “evil day” “Now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.”

“THE SPIRIT OF POWER AND A SOUND MIND”

In 2 Tim. 1:7 we have the inspired assurance that “God did not give us a cowardly spirit, but one of Power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” (Dia.) And St. Paul tells us in v. 6 that this Holy Spirit is a “gift of God” which we should not fail to “stir up” in ourselves and in others of like precious faith. To the fully faithful, there is the sure promise of the “peace of God which passeth understanding”; whereas, to the unfaithful and measurably faithful there is also the affliction of a “cowardly spirit.” Such shall “flee when none pursueth,” and “have sorrow of heart” (Lev. 26:16, 17). It should be kept clearly in mind that the condition of these various classes is purely a state of mind; the “spirit of power” is will power – mental power, and not physical brawn. And the fully faithful who have this “spirit of power” have the same blessed assurance as did St. Paul himself “I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me.” To the unbelieving world such a statement from Paul would almost certainly cause smiles, and even ridicule. After he had received this “spirit of power” he had changed his name from Saul to Paul. It will be recalled that Saul, the first king of Israel, was head and shoulders above his fellows; thus, parents of that time would readily accept the name as a popular one for their sons, their hope being that their offspring would also “from the shoulders and upward be taller than any of the people.” (1 Sam. 9:2) But Saul of Tarsus came to manhood just the reverse of such hopes. He was a very small man, ascetic in appearance, frail of body, with a head much too large for the physique that supported it; and probably with a nose too large for his abnormally large head. Now it will be seen why he changed his name from Saul to Paul – Paul meaning “little one.” His mental brilliance and unusually forceful and logical thinking – coupled with the “spirit of power, and of love” – gave him a “sound mind” that invariably crushed all gainsayers. But it was these superb mental qualities that made him a “savor of life unto life” to many; and not in any physical, masculine appeal, so that those not “of the Truth” would find in him no attraction, but rather the reverse.

We have offered the foregoing in the hope it may be a firm and sound foundation for all who are seeking to “follow in His steps” and desire the “spirit of a sound mind.” The pronounced trend of our times throughout Christendom, and even among many Truth people, is to forsake the formula that gave to St. Paul his mental strength; and to seek rather the shady consolation of such as have “familiar spirits,” despite the clear instruction that such a course is forbidden. “Do not turn to mediums, nor make search for oracles, to render yourselves unclean with them.” (Lev. 19:31, Rotherham) It is our fond hope that what has been written will bless and strengthen all those who are “of the truth.”

“All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep His covenant and His testimonies” (Psa. 25:10); and “Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.” (Eph. 6:24)

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother:

My new address is ------- Your monetary article was very revealing in your No. 199, January 1, 1972 magazine. Keep on sending it to me.

Yours in Him, ------- (ENGLAND)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace in His Name!

I obtained your address from Brother -------. Could you please mail me your current paper beginning with January issue – and a few pamphlets on The Bible. And then please keep me on your mailing list. Thank you very much. I am enclosing $‑‑ to cover coats.

May the Lord watch over you and your work!

Your brother by His favor, ------- (ILLINOIS)

………………………......................……

My dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you!

Thank you for your Holiday greetings and the continued monthly papers. Yes, dear Brother, the years in the Truth have been good years, in spite of the troubles – and yes, tears too!

I thank the Lord for His needed Grace to choose the right way, however hard it might be. Sister and I have gone through “The Covenants” this winter, and Tabernacle Shadows. The Great Day of Atonement just beginning to study. How refreshing, and encouraging to realize we are in harmony with the Truth, its doctrines, precepts, promises, exhortations, prophecies, histories and types!

Sister joins me in warm Christian love to you and all with you. (Isa. 40 31)

Your brother by His Grace, ------- (ENGLAND)

NO. 202: THREE PARABLES

No. 202

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

In the 25th Chapter of Matthew there is recorded three parables by Jesus, the same being some of the last expressions before His death. In verses 1‑13 we have a recitation about the Little Flock and the Great Company – the “wise” and awake Little Flock versus the “foolish” and sleepy Great Company. Verses 14‑30 treat also of the Little Flock and the Great Company – the “good and faithful Little Flock” compared with the “wicked and slothful” Great Company (the “unprofitable servant”). And verses 31‑46 describe the two classes of Restitutionists – the faithful and obedient “sheep” on the right hand, and the disobedient and wicked “goats” on the left hand. A proper analysis of these three parables requires a clear understanding of “rightly dividing the word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) – giving to each one its proper time setting; and this we shall now endeavor to undertake.

WISE VIRGINS – FOOLISH VIRGINS

This parable has proper application only to the end of this Age, and has to do with the Little Flock and the Great Company in Big Babylon just prior to and shortly after the Lord’s Second Advent. Although the “wise virgins” have their part in the recital, the elab­oration is more with the “foolish virgins,” their conduct and their failures. However, in Matt. 7:21‑27 Jesus contrasts these two classes during the entire Gospel Age, classi­fying them there as “wise men” and “foolish men”; and this parable applies to every mem­ber of the Little Flock and every member of the Great Company. Thus, we are justified in referring to every one of the Little Flock as “wise,” and every one of the Great Company as “foolish.”

In the Matthew Seven version we are told the reason for the wise and the foolish – one class is wise because he “heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them”; but the other class is foolish because he “heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not.” Those that hear and do “built his house upon a rock”; whereas those that hear and do not “built his house upon the sand.” And of both classes it is said that “the rain de­scended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house” – with the one upon the rock remaining firm and impregnable, with the one upon the sand toppling over, “and great was the fall of it.” And upon these statements we now offer some expla­nation.

All four of the above parables had almost no explanation at all until the Harvest time, when “a faithful and wise servant... gave them meat in due season” (Matt. 24:45) – when the Lord clearly distinguished between the Little Flock and the Great Company. Thus, we find the Parousia Truth replete with finely detailed comment on the Great Company. Espe­cially was this true during the final twenty years of the reaping period. During this period three explanations were given for the Matthew Seven parable: First, the “wise man who built his house upon a rock” is the entire Little Flock, and the House is the true Church (built up – perfected in every good word and work); and the “foolish man who built his house upon the sand” is the nominal church, with the house thereof being Babylon. The fall of this Babylonish house began in 1914, and is continuing ever since.

Only those acquainted with the history of events since 1914 will fully appreciate this conclusion. In the Fall of 1917, when the Bolsheviks toppled over the Czarist re­gime in Russia, they gave the Greek Catholic Church a lethal blow, because the Czar was the titular head of that church. Therefore, since that date the Greek Church has been without a head – just as the Jewish House has been without a High Priest since the dis­persion in AD 70. Czarist Russia was one of the greatest and strongest of empires in all history, which made the Greek Church also a very powerful influence in world affairs. In many of the churches was to be found the supposed dead bodies of the saints that had never decayed – encased in glass containers about the rostrum of those churches. When the Bolsheviks took over, they took those bodies onto the front steps of the churches, picked them apart before the gazing public, and demonstrated that they were nothing but cotton frauds. Thus, that “house built upon the sand” has been falling ever since; and its complete collapse will be very much in evidence when the “burning flame” of Arma­geddon accomplishes its devastating work.

The second interpretation, which dovetails with the first and is in harmony with it, defines the wise builder as the Little Flock as a class – building upon gold, silver and precious stones – while the foolish builder is the Great Company that built upon wood, hay and stubble. It is common knowledge that the Great Company always courted the un­clean public – to gain great numbers, do great works, according to their own idea of things. This is graphically described in Ezek. 44:10,11: “The Levites [typical of the Great Com­pany]... went astray away from Me after their idols; they shall even bear their iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary [serving before the throne]... they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people... Because they ministered unto them before their idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity.” The basic mistake in all this is given in Ezek. 44:7: “Ye have brought into My sanctuary strangers [not the elect Little Flock], uncircumcised in heart [not consecrated to do the Lord’s “good and acceptable and perfect will”]... to pollute it.” All during the Age the crown‑lost leaders – men of great intellect, such as St. Augustine, John Calvin, etc. – have devoted their energies to construction of the systems; and we have now come to “the day when every man’s work will be made manifest, because the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire [the destructive influences now at work on all hands]”. (1 Cor. 3:13) Their house “built upon the sand” is rapidly crum­bling to ruin.

The third interpretation is a moderation of the second above, making individuals of the “wise man” and the “foolish man,” with the houses representing the individual faith and character structures of the builders. This is shown in Matt. 7:21‑23, where the introduction to the builder parable is given: “Not every one [individual] that saith un­to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in Heaven. Many will say to Me... have we not in Thy name done many wonderful works [many of the structures in Babylon are among the finest and most impressive in the entire world]? Then I will profess unto them, I never approved of you.” (See Diaglott)

It is well to note here that the word hear has three meanings in the Bible: (1) to take in sound through the physical hearing organ, the ear; (2) to understand; and (3) to obey. Clearly enough, the first meaning could not apply here, because many hear who do not understand, and who have no desire whatever to obey. They are represented in the Sower Parable as that “seed which fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up.” (Matt. 13:4) Therefore, we conclude that the second meaning is the one to be applied in the parable, because all who give themselves to the Lord during this Age understand suf­ficiently to know what they are doing; but these are eventually divided into two clas­ses – those who hear and obey, and those who hear, obey for a time, but become “weary in well doing,” then become classed with the “foolish man.” Thus, we conclude that every one of the Great Company may be described as “foolish”; and, while there have been many such individuals all during the Age, it is only in the end of the Age that they appear as a special class; and Jesus says we may recognize them by the building they have erected: “By their fruits [their building – character structure, etc.] you will discover them.” (Matt. 7:16, Dia.)

THE ROCK – THE SAND

In 1 Cor. 3:11‑13, Dia., St. Paul states this: “No one can lay another founda­tion besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. And if, on this foundation, any one build up gold, silver, costly stones; wood, hay, straw; the work of each will become manifest.” Here also the house built upon the rock, and the house built upon the sand are stated in other words. At one time every member of the Great Company was of the Little Flock; consequently, all began building on the rock – Jesus became the foundation for their character structure, but this is in no sense a reflection upon His character. “He left us an example,” which the “few” followed to the end, even as the “many” (a “great multitude”) did not do so. But, as in the natural building process, when the foundation be faulty, the superstructure may appear beautiful, thus highly de­ceptive to the unskilled eye, yet it will not stand the ravages of time and tide. This is presently being manifested on all sides. The central feature of every good character is agape love; but this feature is not found in sufficiency in those who build upon wood, hay, straw – in those who build their house upon the sand. And, “because they admitted not the love of the Truth... God will send to them an energy of delusion.” (2 Thes. 2:10,11, Dia.) Thus, it is their faulty foundation that fails them when “the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew.” The work of those who build upon Christ as the rock survives; whereas, the work of those who build upon Christ as the sand is destroyed when the test is applied – all de­pending upon the quality of the builders.

While the rock and the sand in the parable both represent Christ, they do not represent Him from a character standpoint, because His character has no “sand holes” in it; He has no weaknesses. He is ever the rock and fortress of the faithful – im­pregnable and secure. Therefore, we must conclude that attitudes and activities of the builders are represented by the rock and the sand. Thus we would understand the rock to represent Jesus as the Stayer, the Supporter, the Helper and the Strengthener of the faithful in their trial periods; and the sand to represent Him not as such to the mea­surably faithful (the Great Company), but their Forsaker, their Abandoner, the One who leaves them to their own weak resources during trials. Jude 22,23, Dia., is directly to the point: “Some indeed do you pity; but others save by fear, snatching them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” While their works are being burned, they themselves are saved so as by fire.

This is set out in another form in 1 Cor. 1:30, Dia.: “You are in the Anointed Jesus, Who became our wisdom from God, righteousness also, and sanctification and redemption.” The manner in which these four features is used determines what kind of build­ing is developed. First, as to wisdom, “the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” (Psa. 19:7) This wisdom comes through Christ as the rock (the Truth), our Teacher, causing us to know the Truth and to develop the spirit of the Truth. “The meek will He guide in judgment; the meek will He teach His way.” (Psa. 25:9) Some acquire a head knowledge ­– often an impressive head knowledge – without “admitting the love [spirit] of the Truth.” Thus, their structure is defective; their house is built upon the sand. Because of their flimsy foundation the Lord permits them to imbibe more or less of error, even though they may be constant attendants in Truth circles. Their bad heart condition automati­cally distorts their thinking; usually they become easy prey for ambitious leaders who lead them astray. They use such overly much as a crutch, which causes their house of sand to collapse tragically once the crutch is removed. We have been witness to very much of this during this time of trouble, which has been upon us since 1914.

Secondly, Christ is made unto us righteousness – justification. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 5:1) But, “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17) Therefore, wisdom (by instruction) must first appear to develop even a little faith, which, when sufficiently developed, brings the hearer to righteousness – ­justification. Both those who build upon the rock, and those who build upon the sand, have Christ as their justifier. However, here again both classes receive the same com­plete and perfect justification when they fully accept Christ as their Savior. He is made unto us righteousness. But this justification will not be fully maintained unless a determined and continual effort is made to practice justice. This the wise man does, but the foolish man does not. In this matter also the wise build upon Him as the rock; whereas, the foolish build upon Him as the sand. This violation of justice may appear in some very early in their Christian walk; in others it may be years in appearing. Instead of developing a “good conscience,” they display a bad conscience, and thus “the end of the commandment” (1 Tim. 1:5) is lost to them in small or large degree.

Thirdly, “Christ is made unto us sanctification” – setting apart for a holy pur­pose. Here again, at the outset both those who steadfastly build upon Christ as rock and those who build upon Him as sand began with perfect sanctification, which perfec­tion the one class eventually allows to deteriorate. They are those who “draw back” and cause the Lord to lose His pleasure in them. Some eventually draw back to complete destruction of their building; they cease all effort to build at all. This would not be true of any who ultimately gain “palms of victory” – those who continue to make some effort to build. While their house will fall in this trial time, they themselves will finally be saved “so as by fire,” although their works will be burned.

All who come into the Household in this faith Age have three activities required of them. The first, and most important, is a work in themselves – perfecting them­selves in every good word and work. The second, and next important, is helping those of like precious faith to do the same thing. “We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” (1 John 3:16) The third, and least important, is witnessing to the world “for sin, for righteousness, and judgment to come.” Those who build upon the rock view these requirements in proper perspective, giving to each its proper rating, and pursuing them with all diligence. But those who build upon the sand have generally reversed the or­der, placing most stress upon the third, next upon the second, and least of all upon the first. Thus the crown‑losers all during the Age have busied themselves with gaining great numbers and doing great works, which has made them more or less reprehensible – especially to those who had sufficient of the Holy Spirit to analyze the situation properly.

It is they also who “hated their brethren, and cast them out.” (Isa. 66:5) In this they have openly said, “Let the Lord be glorified” — and have been hailed by “the unstable and the unlearned” for “their much speaking.” Many who have built upon Christ as the sand have been great orators – great stage performers — and have often molded public opinion as they would clay in the hand. Yet all of them are classified as FOOLISH! Jesus gave special warning against such actions in Matt. 6:2: “When thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.” Hypocrite in this text is from the Greek hypokritai, meaning an actor. Many who have built upon the sand have been quite expert at putting on an act – to be seen of men; and, since they have accomplished their purpose, Jesus says of them that “they have their reward.” They have done “many wonderful works,” (Matt. 7:22) but the final judgment of the Lord is, “I never approved of you.” Here is the footnote in the Diaglott concerning this text: “The phrase of sounding a trumpet before them seems only a figurative expression to represent their doing it in a noisy, ostentatious way. Erasmus and Beza justly ob­serve that theathandi in verse 1 is a theatrical word; that hypokritai signifies disguised players in masks; and that sounding a trumpet may allude to music of the stage.” Upon such conduct the Lord voices emphatic disapproval; and those who resort to such tactics must justly be classified as those who build their house upon the sand.

Fourthly, “Christ is made unto us deliverance.” This means saving us from our enemies; and it has two applications – one during our earthly course, and the second in deliverance from the death state. “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day [the resurrection day].” (2 Tim. 1:12) In this present life the Lord always delivers those who build their house upon the rock. He delivers them from the snares of the world, the flesh and the Devil; and gives them victory over them. “God will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (1 Cor. 10:13) As He rescues us from such evils, He is indeed our Deliverer! But this He does only for those who build upon the rock, allowing those who build upon the sand to reap the rewards of their sowing. This is markedly revealed in King Saul of Israel, who is a type of the crown‑lost leaders during most of this Age. He and both his sons suffered defeat and death in one day at the hands of his enemies – typical of the Armageddon day here in the end of the Age.

The battle ground is mainly the mind of new creatures, and continues until it over­whelms the unfaithful, partially defeats the measurably faithful, but gains full victory for the fully faithful – who are “faithful until death.” This complete victory is not just one battle; it is one battle after another, some of which may be lost, but they arise to battle anew, repairing the break in the battle line until they “possess the gate [place of chief prominence] of his enemies.” (Gen. 22:17) Such victory comes to those who build upon the rock because of their faith, loyalty and obedience, and their endur­ance of hardness as good soldiers. Such never allow the thorns (the cares of this life) to choke them. But the foolish who build upon the sand allow the cares of this life, along with surfeiting and drunkenness (figurative and literal) to weaken their combative qualities to such a degree that defeat becomes more or less a habit with them – much the same as a prize fighter loses his endurance and skill through physical dissipation. Many of them become good runners, rather than good soldiers, thus disgracing their Captain and adding to the burdens of their faithful fellow soldiers, as they leave holes in the line of battle. The Lord guarantees to give the meek (Psa. 25:9), the hungry (Matt. 5:6), the humble (Matt. 18:4), the honest and good (Luke 8:15) His Truth; but He will not give it to others.

Time has demonstrated that the majority in the Parousia Truth Movement built upon Christ as sand, imbibing more or less of error, which revealed their glaring deficiencies once the restraining hand of the Parousia Messenger was removed. And the same may be said for those in the Epiphany Movement also. “By their fruits you will discover them” – the wise having built their characters through application of the Truth; whereas, the foolish built their characters – such as they are – through imbibing vicious and destructive errors. This building upon Christ as sand does not at all reflect upon the character of their great Captain, who is without sin. Their description is so very well set forth in Isa. 4:1: “We will eat our own bread [erroneous teachings]), and wear our own apparel [their spotted robes]: only let us be called by Thy name [Christians], to take away our re­proach.” Thus they build upon Christ as sand. The entire matter is determined by the doing or not doing “these sayings of mine.”

RAIN DESCENDED – FLOODS CAME – WINDS BLEW

While the entire Gospel Age had those who build upon the sand, they were never separated as a class until the end of the Age. This is typified in the Tabernacle pic­ture, which nowhere reveals a Great Company class. The last work of the High Priest on the Atonement Day was leading Azazel’s Goat to the Gate and delivering it to the fit man, thus forcing the conclusion that such would not appear as a distinct class until the end of this Age. And the sub‑heading above states how each class would be tested here at the end of the Age.

Rain in Bible usage designates the Truth. “My doctrine shall drop as the rain... as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass.” (Deut.32:2) And certainly the Truth has appeared in great volume here in the end of the Age to test each house for the quality of its building. Especially in the years just prior to 1914 That Servant stressed the truth on the Great Company, demolishing all their arguments, and causing rampant confusion in the camp of the antitypical Midianites. And during the period since 1916 the same statement may be made about those who have built their house upon the sand. Instead of being “good soldiers,” they have all become good run­ners. The “rain” has been beating upon their house with great force. “The hail [hard cutting truth] shall sweep away the refuge of lies.” (Isa. 28:17)

In like manner “the floods came.” Floods are water mixed with discoloring soil – the same being expressive of error mixed in with the Truth. This also has made its appearance – especially since 1916, from which time the clear Parousia Harvest Truth has had all sorts of error mixed into it, more perhaps than at any time during the Age in so short a time. During this period some have rejected completely Tabernacle Shadows, and have put repulsive error in its place; others have rejected the chronology; others have rejected in full or in part the teaching that the Jews will have preeminence dur­ing the Kingdom reign; others teach that the Epiphany as a period of time is already past, and this despite the fact that St. Paul clearly teaches that the “man of Sin” would be annihilated with the Epiphany of His Parousia (2 Thes. 2:8,Dia.). The floods of error have produced trying times for those who have built upon Christ as the sand.

Also, the “winds blew.” Biblical winds often represent wars – either physical or spiritual. Since 1914 we have seen plenty of evidence of physical wars; but there has also been plenty of spiritual wars during the Parousia between the Truth Movement and the sects of Big Babylon; and since 1916 between those who have retained Parousia Truth and those who have attempted to ravish it. Indeed the spiritual wars since 1916 have been very prominent among those who once claimed to embrace the Parousia Harvest Truth; and many is the house that has thus fallen during this time. The “foolish man” is even more apparent now than was true before the 1914 physical “wind” began to blow. The phys­ical evidence on all hands abundantly corroborated the presence of the wise and foolish virgins, and the truth of the Lord’s statements concerning both.

THE TALENTS PARABLE

In Matt. 25:14‑30 Jesus gave this parable, giving to one servant five talents, to another two talents, and to another one talent. The interpretation of this story is well explained in the Berean Comments, so we shall not repeat it here other than to deal with the ser­vant who neglected to use his one talent, thus receiving the Lord’s criticism and His description as the “unprofitable servant,” for which he was sentenced to “outer darkness” – error. This parable is an impressive companion with the one explained aforegoing. When the “floods came,” they depicted the same thing as the “outer darkness” of the parable now being considered. In both instances they create havoc for the “foolish man” who built his house upon the sand.

Whatever excuses we may be inclined to make for the “foolish man” and the “unprofitable servant,” some of whom at one time had five talents, and others two talents, the Lord makes very clear that having just one talent is not to be accepted as such excuse. The Lord never calls the worthless or the indolent to the elective salvation; or per­haps it would be better stated that the worthless or indolent find no appeal in the elec­tive salvation, because they are “weary in well doing” before they even start. Thus the point is stressed that all who were called in the “one hope of their calling” had suffi­cient ability to make that calling and election sure had they but used the means at their disposal. The meaning of this parable also was reserved for the end of the Age, when the “good and faithful servant” and the “unprofitable servant” were so clearly classified.

THE SHEEP AND THE GOATS

While the application of this parable (Matt. 25:31‑46) does not apply now, its meaning has been made quite plain, a thing not done until the end of the Age. But this parable also has been distorted out of all recognition to the interpretation given it by the Parousia Messenger. He properly gave it a Kingdom setting; whereas, some now attempt to apply it to the present, with its attendant confusion. The failure to “rightly divide the word of Truth” has been the cause of great bedlam all during the Age. In the past many have been trying to preach, “The spirit and the bride say, Come,” when there was no bride. The Witnesses are attempting to separate the sheep and the goats now, but out of the other side of their mouth they tell us that the bride is not yet completed – more than 10,000 of their “remnant” are still living. And other features of the Gospel‑Age program are yet clearly not completed. Therefore, there is no bride in the sense of Rev. 22:17 – “the water of life” is therefore not yet available to the Millennial sheep. Thus, here again the “rain and the floods” are beating upon the house of the “foolish man”; and its fall will become convincingly apparent when Armageddon will make known “their folly to all.” These people proclaim Pastor Russell as their founder, but they have distorted Restitution out of all resemblance to the way he taught it.

Often we hear it said that consecration is always in order, but this truth must be in harmony with God’s purposes before proper application can be made of it. Cor­nelius was in a consecrating attitude, but his presentation of himself was not accept­able until the “due time” for the Gentiles to come into the Body of Christ. Likewise now, any of the Restitution class wanting to consecrate before the Highway of Holiness is opened up for them, would be in a corresponding position – because the spirit and the bride are not yet saying, Come. This is elementary Parousia Truth, which should need no elaboration for those who have “continued in My Word.”

Another group perverting Restitution is the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement – ­these two being the only groups, so far as we know, who have gone awry on this doctrine. All who have a sound understanding of Harvest Truth know there can be no mixing of the elective and the free‑grace salvations; and the confusion of these two groups forces them into other errors to substantiate their teaching. The Witnesses have eliminated the Jews entirely in their plan, consigning them to eternal annihilation. The LHMM merely remands them to a secondary position in the Kingdom (replacing them with Campers Consecrated as the “first” and chief restitutionists), grossly revolutionizing against the Apostle Paul’s teaching and the teaching of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers – ­namely, the restitution blessings to the Jew first. Here is a clear illustration of a “house built upon the sand”; and we may rest in the calm conviction that “great will be the fall of it.”

“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free [those who build upon the rock]. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day [those who build upon the sand].” (John 8:31,32; 12:48)

Sincerely your brother, John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

========================

LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Glad to get your letter. I have my stenographer answering this for me. I am visiting in Ambridge at my granddaughter’s. Thank you for answering my question on Psychiatrists and Spiritism,

Your messages are just like the Star Members’s writings, as you hold to the Truth.

I am sorry to hear about your Aunt. You may write me here if you like, as I am not sure how long I will stay. The Lord bless you and all with you!

                                                Your sister by His Grace,….(PENNSYLVANIA)

………………………..

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Please place my name on your mailing list once again. My new address is posted on the envelope. The fellowship enjoyed through your letters is greatly needed and appreciated in these troublous times.                                                                       Sincerely your brother , ……. (CALIFORNIA)

………………………..

Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n:

Thank you for The Herald of the Epiphany – the Editions you sent to me. They are most interesting and I would like to get God’s Great Sabbath Day you suggested

                                                Very truly yours, …..(KANSAS)

NO. 201: SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

No. 201

Comes again the Memorial of our Lord’s crucifixion, the correct time this year 1972 being after 6 p.m. March 27. The date is determined after this manner: The moon nearest the Vernal Equinox comes new at the Thirtieth Meridian East, Jerusalem time, at 1:35 p.m. March 15, thus establishing 6 p.m. March 14 as Nisan 1, Bible reckoning. Counting to Nisan 14, we arrive at 6 p.m. March 27; and any time that evening after 6 p.m. would be proper for the celebration. We here at Mount Dora shall commence the service at 7:30 p.m.; and we issue a cordial invitation to any one in this vicinity to join with us if they be of one mind on the matter.

THE MEMORIAL’S MEANINGS

In the Memorial, commonly known throughout Christendom as the Lord’s Supper, we have one of the sacraments. The Roman Catholic and some eastern churches recognize seven different services as sacraments: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and matrimony. Protestants hold to only two: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The word ‘sacrament’ is from the Latin sacramentum; and in early ecclesiastical usage was used in a wide sense to denote any ritual observance or sacred thing. In everyday usage it had been applied in two ways: (1) as a pledge deposited in public keeping by the parties in a lawsuit and forfeited to a sacred purpose; (2) as the oath taken by a Roman soldier to the emperor, and thence to any oath. These ideas later combined to produce the concept of a sacred rite which was a pledge or token – an oath of loyalty – which in time led to limiting the word to baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

While the Roman Church observes seven sacraments, we believe the Protestant concept to be more in harmony with the Scriptures, because the Lord’s Supper and baptism are the antitypes of the two Old Testament sacraments; namely, the Passover and circumcism. In Matt. 28:19, 20 the risen Jesus specifically gave the disciples “the great commission” – to “baptize into (according to the Diaglott) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and by the Holy Spirit”; and in His last words to those same disciples on the night before He died He commanded them to “do this in remembrance of Me.” This latter is stressed by St. Paul in the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians as obligatory upon all who clearly recognize that “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us,” which sacrifice is declared every time we partake of the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper.

When the sacraments mentioned aforegoing are rightly and sincerely observed, they bring rich spiritual blessing to those who participate. The elements themselves – the bread and the wine – in the Lord’s Supper are of themselves only dead material; thus, it is only their faithful and sincere use that have any efficacy at all for the participants. The same would be true of the water used in baptism. It is only when we are “buried with Him in baptism” (Col. 2:12) that the water takes on an added significance not discernible to the ordinary onlooker.

THE SPECIFIC SYMBOLS

In the Lord’s Supper there are especially three thoughts symbolized, and they prove to be the three most important things to the Lord’s people in this life: (1) by our breaking the bread we symbolize our dear Lord’s Ransom‑sacrificial death on behalf of the Church and the World; (2) by our partaking of the bread and wine we in the first place symbolize faith‑appropriating justification through the death of Jesus; and (3) by partaking of the bread and wine in the second place we symbolize our consecrated humanity and our pledge to “walk even as He walked.” It is readily self‑evident that these three things are the main things to us in this life; and these three things should be kept acutely in mind in our preparation for and participation in the service – just as did the Jews in their scrupulous preparation to observe the Passover. In this latter, the day before the Passover the head of each house took a feather brush and a napkin and very carefully swept every evidence of leaven from the corners and remote places of the residence, which, when completed, he then burned the napkin and its contents – to be sure there would be no leaven remaining anywhere. With us, we do not scrutinize our homes; rather, we adhere to St. Paul’s counsel, “Let a man examine himself,” rather than the structure in which we abide.

St. Paul stresses the first of the above points when he tells us, “As oft as ye eat of that bread and drink of that cup ye do shew the Lord’s death till He come.” The words “as oft as ye eat” do not obligate us to do this often, as some mistakenly think, any more than observance of a birthday should be celebrated every day, or week, or month, even though we might say of such an occasion that we also show forth our birth as often as we perform a celebration of the event. Any memorial should be kept on its anniversary once each year. Nowhere does the Bible tell us to celebrate the Lord’s birthday (which would occur but once each year); but we are directly commanded to observe the date of His death – which also can occur but once each year. By our participation in the Memorial of our Lord’s death we declare, or preach His sacrifice, which is one meaning of the word ‘shew’ in the text. However, it is in order here to mention that we ‘shew’ the Lord’s death in the Memorial by act rather than by words, because we maintain a silence during the sharing of the loaf and the cup.

And by what act do we ‘shew’ His death? After the blessing of the bread, it is stated that it was broken; and, since all of the accounts make mention of this, it must be an essential part of the performance. Indeed’ the breaking of the bread is the very act that declares the breaking of our Lord unto death; “He hath poured out His soul unto death.” Once this is clearly seen, we can immediately recognize that the giving of individual wafers to the participants, or the breaking of the bread before it is passed about by the one conducting the service, must be contrary to the underlying spirit of the service. The breaking of the bread by each individual says by that act that he is also willing to be broken with Him in like manner as He was. “As He was, so are we in this world.” And as often as we engage in the service, just that often do we ‘shew’ forth the Lord’s death till He come – shew His Ransom sacrifice for us, which is truly the rock foundation of our faith. Without it we would be as the heathen – without God and without hope in this world.

When St. Paul told the Corinthians (1 Cor. 2:2), “I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified,” he was in effect saying that the two things uppermost in his mind were Jesus the Christ – who gave Himself a ransom for all and Him crucified. His narrow way began at Jordan and ended in fulness on the cross. “He left us an example that we should follow in His steps.”

In Matt. 26:28 Jesus said His blood was shed “for many for the remission of sins.” Therefore, when we partake of the bread, and especially of the cup (His blood), in clear understanding of their import, we may rest secure that we have forgiveness of sins. “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin... If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:7‑9) And this is our strong assurance regardless of what other men may think of us. It is sound doctrine that “Man looketh on the outward appearance”; and quite often what men see is colored by their prejudices, their selfishness, or their evil minds.

We are justified by faith in His blood; and, as such, we receive His righteousness – vitalizedly in some, reckoned in others. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted (reckoned) to him for righteousness.” Thus, we no longer have the Adamic condemnation (the disobedience by which many were made sinners), but we are participants of His obedience whereby many are made righteous. Speaking specifically to the saints at Rome – and through them to the entire Christ Company during the Gospel Age – St Paul declares, “We are buried with Him by baptism into death... in the likeness of His death.” (Rom. 6:4, 5) These words some attempt to accept literally, and this causes them to adopt very foolish customs and beliefs. Say they, What was the likeness of His death? And they proceed to reason that He was nailed to the cross; and, with the cross at the back of His head, He could not allow His head to fall backwards, it necessarily must fall upon His chest, as practically all pictures of the crucifixion show Him. Therefore, if they are to be “baptized in the likeness of His death,” they must be baptized face down in the water. Of course, this presents a very contrary view to what baptism should really give.

The third feature relative to drinking of the cup has to do with participation in the sin‑offering, a privilege reserved exclusively for the Christ Company. During the Age many have offered themselves thus, only eventually to fall by the wayside, losing their part in that offering. But to all who partake of that cup in sincerity and in truth we may be certain that the fiery trials of the Great Example will be passed on to them, each according to his ability to bear. During the Dark Ages, when the Roman Church was in its heyday, the participation of the cup was much more severe and brutal than it is today – although much the same spirit still prevails in the world, and may yet touch those who would follow in His steps. But in this we may accept the axiom, We know not what the future holds, but we know Who holds the future; and a few lines from the poet tends to emphasize this:

Serene, I fold my hands and wait,

Nor care for wind nor tide nor sea;

I rave no more ‘gainst time or fate,

For lo! my own shall come to me.

What matter if I stand alone?

I wait with joy the coming years;

My heart shall reap where it has sown,

And garner up its fruit of tears.

The stars come nightly to the sky;

The tidal wave unto the sea;

Nor time, nor space, nor deep, nor high,

Can keep my own away from me.

Let us keep in mind that those who despised our Lord the most were the ‘good’ people of His time. It was because He had such perfect answers to their criticisms that the Scribes and Pharisees came to despise Him so badly. He proved Himself to be their Master at every controversy, they who were putting themselves forth as the teachers of Jewry – who claimed to sit in Moses’ seat. And having pampered their pride for so many years, they were sadly lacking in the humility which was necessary for them to receive Him. In addition, He was ever ready to give fellowship to the ‘untouchables’ the publicans and sinners; and this, too, was anathema to the religious leaders of the nation. They were angry because He taught the people, which caused them to ask embarrassing questions of those who had been teaching them previously. And similar conditions exist today in Big and Little Babylon, which should not surprise us. “All that walk godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” If this is not a part of our own experience, then we should begin to question whether or not we actually are following “in His steps.”

However, this matter probably needs some clarification – the spirit of a sound mind. It is quite possible to bring disrepute upon ourselves through our own foolish acts – things that appear right at the time, but which are motivated by poor judgment. Perhaps none of us are without some of these experiences – some more, some less.

Often such situations are the manipulations of Satan We know he tried that on Jesus Himself, when he told Him to jump from the Temple and that God would bear Him up. Had he heeded this unsound suggestion, and found Himself disadvantaged physically because of it, His suffering would not have been ‘for righteousness,’ but for foolishness, an act of sheer presumption. The years should teach us all something; the chastenings of the past should sober us for the present – and they will to those who are rightly exercised thereby. Such stabilizing influences usually keep pace with our growth in knowledge and in grace.

THIS IS MY BODY ‑ IS MY BLOOD

In Matthew 26 and in Mark 14 we find the recording of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. Among Christians – many of them sincere and honest men – there has been conducted the sharpest controversy about the meaning of the words that head this section of our article. Satan has spread error on almost all Scripture; but espec­ially has this been true of the words given above. The worst of all these errors has been the one concerning the Mass, being the basis of the doctrine of transubstantia­tion, the same being the central feature of the “abomination that maketh desolate.”

In a broad sense there are two general views on the meaning of these words: (1) Those who teach the real presence of the body and the blood in the loaf and the cup; and (2) those who hold to the representative meaning of those expressions. Much ingenuity has been displayed in the defense of both positions; some of the ablest of Christian minds have been on both sides of the controversy. As most of our readers know, our own view is that there is no actual Presence of His Body and Blood in the bread and the wine; we regard them merely as representations of the same.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION

Let us consider first of all, that view which holds to the real presence – namely, that the words, This is My Body, This is My blood, teach that the actual body and blood of Jesus are present in the bread and wine, and are imbibed by the communicants. There are three main views on this feature of our subject, the first of which is that of the Roman Catholic Church. That system holds to what is commonly known as transubstantiation, which means the actual body and blood of Jesus are substituted, or changed into what before was merely bread and wine. This transformation is produced by the priest performing what is commonly known as the Mass. To make this position at all tenable, Romanist teachers admit that the emblems retain what is termed “the accidents” – that is, they still look the same to the human eye, they taste the same (that is, no difference whatever can be noticed after the so‑called change), have the same form, color, weight, etc., of bread and wine. But, despite the “accidents,” they contend the bread and the wine are actually lost and take on the essence of the body and the blood of the crucified Lord. And this substitution, this transubstantiation, the priest proceeds in the Mass to sacrifice afresh for the sins of the living and the dead. Thus, “the daily sacrifice was taken away” (Dan. 8:11), and “it cast down the truth to the ground.”

By way of refutation, we would say of the foregoing view that, if it were correct, the wording should be changed to, This has been changed into My Body; this has been changed into My blood. To teach a doctrine which would require a change in the wording to make good sense is of itself an admission of something badly wrong with the teaching. Furthermore, the Bible contradicts their view. If they were right, they should no longer speak of the bread and the wine – now changed into the body and the blood – but should then speak of those emblems in new phrase – as the body and the blood. But five different times does the Bible itself refer to ‘bread’ after its consecration and during its eating. (See 1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:26‑28) And in these same verses, using the container for the thing contained, the reference is to the ‘cup,’ describing the cup as “the fruit of the vine” – wine, and not blood. Therefore, by calling the elements bread and wine during their appropriation the Bible itself directly contradict transubstantiation.

The physical condition of the bread and the wine after consecration also contradicts transubstantiation. Both still taste exactly the same; and enough of the wine will still intoxicate the drinker, which blood will not do. It is generally known that priests often do become tipsy, or even intoxicated, if they must perform several masses in one morning, drinking a full glass of wine on each occasion. One of the vilifications that Roman Catholics hurl at Martin Luther is that he got drunk – which is probably true; and it is probably true of very many other priests for the reason just stated concerning multiple masses in one morning. In that service the priest does not minister any of the wine to the communicants, but drinks it all himself. Chemical analysis also confirms this – not only of the wine, but also of the bread. They are both exactly the same as they were before the consecration – and this leaves a wide spread between the chemical contents of a human body and the sacramental wafer that is given to the communicant. In lesser degree, this same may be said of different kinds of bread – rye bread, white and whole wheat bread, black bread, etc.

CONSUBSTANTIATION ‑ INSTRUMENTENTALIZATION

Some sections of Christendom teach consubstantiation, which carries the thought of a mingling of the bread and wine with the body and the blood; that is, both are present in the emblems. The Lutherans and the Episcopalians teach what may be termed instrumentalization, although they do not use that term itself. Their thought is that by means of the bread and the wine – which remain bread and wine during the service – the actual body and blood of Jesus are communicated to those who partake. Thus, it may be properly stated that transubstantiation, consubstantiation and instrumentalization all teach that the real body and the real blood are conveyed to those who partake during the service.

Therefore, the arguments that apply against one of the foregoing would apply against all three; and it is our thought that the Bible directly contradicts all three of them. (1) The Bible account of the original institution of the Lord’s Supper on the night before His death is certainly contrary to these three views. The body and blood of Jesus could not possibly have been in the bread and the wine He gave the Disciples because He was not yet dead; He was still very much alive. Thus, when He held in His hand unleavened bread He had taken from the table, it was self‑evidently quite a different thing from His body. Nor did He give any indication in the words He used that any significant change had taken place in that loaf.

With the exception of the two disciples on His right hand and on His left, none of the Disciples even touched Him in that service; nor is there the slightest hint in the wording that His body and His blood were being fused into the bread and the wine. Thus, such an assumption is based solely upon pure imagination. There is not the slightest suggestion in the whole event that would indicate that Jesus or the Disciples thought there was actual presence of body and blood in the bread and the wine. Also, the Mosaic Law expressly forbade the Jews from drinking even the blood of animals; and Jesus had told them He had come not to nullify the Law, but to fulfill it; and we may be certain some of the Disciples would have raised that question immediately, as they were all very scrupulous in their dietetic habits. Therefore, to claim that subsequent observance of the Lord’s Supper should be different from its original would in itself declare that they are not the same thing; that is, they are not the Lord’s Supper at all.

Jesus had told His followers, “My flesh I give for the life of the World.” That being true, the implication would be that He has now taken His flesh to Himself again for this new purpose; and such a procedure would be a contradiction of the Ransom; He would be taking back the Ransom price. The Scriptures also tell us that The Lord is that spirit, which, being true, He is no longer human; that is, He does not now have His human body and blood with Him to disperse in the services mentioned above.

This teaching also has unreasonable implications, one of which is that we must believe that the body and the blood of Jesus must be in many places at the same time. On certain occasions, such as Easter, etc., practically the whole Christian world celebrates the Lord’s Supper; and He would have to be present in every one of them if we are to accept the three teachings set out aforegoing. Also, when we consider the millions of persons who have observed the Lord’s Supper over the centuries, and even today, we must conclude that His body and His blood are inexhaustible elements if we are to believe these elements are present in every such service. This immediately reveals the absurdity of the teaching. There is nothing at all reasonable about it; we must accept it as one of the great unexplainable ‘mysteries.’ This also is contrary to Scripture which tells us, “Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord.” And, whenever we are asked to accept with blind belief what is contrary to our reason, we may certainly conclude that the Father of Lies must be its author; and not the great Teacher of Truth. Such an attitude always encourages superstition, ignorance and credulity, with accompanying degrading results.

THE UNDERLYING ERROR

The chief reason for these errors is that their propounders accept the position that there is but one meaning to the word ‘is.’ But, like many words in our language, it has more than one meaning. However, as noted above, those who hold to but one meaning of the word, have come up with three varying views of it. There are especially two literal meanings of the verb “to be”: (1) it is the predicate to denote actual existence; (2) it is the predicate to denote actual representation; but the meaning is literal in both instances. Thus, if we should say, A dog is an animal, we express actual existence; but, if we should say, as is so often done, of a picture on the wall, This is my father, my mother, brother, or what not, we would then mean an actual representation. And this would be true even if the picture represented one long ago dead.

The question now properly arises, Do other Scriptures substantiate this view? Take, for example, some of the parables: (before giving specific examples, we would stress that in a parable the thing said is never the thing actually meant) – In Matthew 13 Jesus gave the parable of the wheat and the tares, which He explained in response to the disciples’ questions. There He repeatedly used the verb ‘to be’ in various of its forms, saying that He who sowed is (represents) the Devil; and the reapers are (represent) angels.

The same may be said of types in the Bible, which are also representative things, presenting hidden meanings. For example, “This is (John the Baptist – represents) Elias (the Church) that is to come.” “That rock was Christ (represented Christ)” (1 Cor. 10:4). “These women (Sarah and Hagar) are (represent) two covenants.” (Gal. 4:24) In each of these examples the verb ‘is’ means ‘represents’ because a representative thing is being interpreted.

Some Biblical institutions are representative things; and, whenever the Bible explains them and uses the verb ‘to be’ to predicate the interpretation, it always means ‘to represent.’ “He (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision” (Rom. 4:12); and Gen. 17:10 says “This (circumcision) is (represents) My covenant.” Clearly enough here, circumcision could be nothing more than a representation when it uses the word ‘is’; and much the same may be said of the Passover. When the Jews in subsequent years would be asked by their children what mean these things, the head of the house was to tell them, “It is (represents) the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover.”

Another consideration proves that the word ‘is’ in these texts is used to predicate actual representation and not actual existence: It is the language that Jesus uses in connection with the cup, “This is the New Testament.” (1 Cor. 11:25; Luke 22: 20) Certainly in this expression the word ‘is’ cannot be the predicate of actual existence; the New Testament, or Covenant, is not a cup at all – it will be a contract between God and man, and mediated by The Christ during the Millennium. Hence, the word ‘is’ here means representation, and not actual existence. It would follow, then, that the same meaning is carried in all the places where Jesus discusses the subject of the bread and the wine.

There is yet another point in proof: It is St. Paul’s direct explanation of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor, 11:26. Immediately after quoting our Lord’s language in explanation of the bread and the wine, he explains it and the Church’s participation in it by these words: “For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew (preach, reveal) the Lord’s death.” Preaching, revealing are done in two ways – in words and in acts. When we keep the feast we do not speak; therefore, the announcement must be in acts, not words – in pantomime; and this is done in the breaking of the bread, and in the drinking of the wine. Thus, these acts are a representation of something else. Since the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine represent Jesus’ death, the bread and wine must then self‑evidently represent His body and His blood. Therefore, all of the foregoing is clear proof that the word ‘is’ does not mean existence, but actual representation.

A STILL DEEPER THOUGHT

The Lord in Luke 22:20, and St. Paul in 1 Cor 10:16, 17; 11:25 teach a still deeper meaning to these words. By the language, “We, being many, are one bread, one body,” the Apostle shows that the one bread to be broken represents the Church as well as Jesus, for the Church is the one body of Christ. (Rom. 12:4; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1: 24) In 1 Cor. 10:17 the Apostle calls the Church both the one bread and the one Body of Christ, which in the preceding verse he says is represented by the bread of blessing. Hence, the bread, in addition to representing the body of Jesus, represents the Church also as Christ’s body. That being true, it would be equally correct to say the bread and the wine represent the actual body and blood of the Church, the participants in the service, if that statement were true of our Lord. And no one of sound mind would think to suggest such a meaning to the Apostle’s words.

It is well here to stress the words of Jesus in Luke 22:20, Diaglott: “This cup is the New Covenant in My blood, that in your behalf being poured out.” As the Authorized Version translates this, the average reader would conclude that the clause, “which is shed for you,” modifies and explains the word blood; but the Greek grammar forbids such a construction. The participle translated ‘poured out’ and its governing article do not modify the Greek word for blood. The participle translated ‘poured out’ with its governing article sustains the same grammatical relation to the word ‘is’ as the Greek words translated New Covenant. Therefore, our Lord’s statement means that the cup by His blood (merit) represents two things: the New Covenant, and that being poured out for us. What is meant by the latter? Since a cup in Biblical symbols represents experiences that the Lord pours out for His people, we would understand that the cup in this connection also represents the sufferings unto death of the Church with Him.

Much of what has been presented herein has been gleaned from the writings of others, with some of our own thoughts interspersed herein; and it is our hope that our effort will prove a blessing to all who endeavor to “walk in newness of life.” Also, we would stress that it is not our intention herein to supplant the Passover article in Volume 6, the reading of which we heartily recommend to all. Thus, we pray for all a special blessing in the preparation for, and participation in this 1972 service, as we “do this in remembrance.” The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace!

“This is my body,” the Master said,

“Which is broken for you this day;

And this my blood, which is being shed

To open for you the way.”

Oh, the pain that the Savior bore,

And the grief that the Pure one knew!

By men depraved He was bruised sore‑­

Though not for Himself, but you.

Man could not grasp His wondrous thought,

Nor the matchless love that was shown.

It was an unfriendly race He sought;

He suffered and died alone.

And now comes the call to His faithful few:

“You may share what is left behind

Of the grief and suffering the Loved one Knew

For the blessing of all mankind.”

So may each to the table worthily come‑­

Nor earthly loss bemoan

Till he finally hear that sweet ‘swell done!

Sit down in my Father’s throne.”

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother John:

We wish to express our thanks to you for the inspiring service you gave at Aunt Nan’s funeral. I wrote but I wanted to write you personally. We are enjoying your tracts, also. Haven’t studied them close enough yet, but hope to soon. I have read through them, but didn’t look up the Scriptures on them.

Tell all Hello for us. I will write them later. We were drawn closer together with our Mother’s people under these pathetic circumstances. We wanted to send you a small token of our appreciation.

Sincerely, ------- (NORTH CAROLINA)

………………………………….

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

Just a few lines to tell you how very much all of us here in the Ecclesia appreciated your services in the deaths of our beloved Aunt Nan and Sister Mary. Some of the relatives and friends knew something of their faith in God’s Plan of Salvation, and His promised Kingdom – and knew that they had specially requested that such Truths and the “comfort of the Scriptures” be given at their funerals. The services were well received, and quite a few made favorable comments – saying it was very clear and understandable. We trust your efforts will result in lasting blessing to all those who are seeking to “know the Lord.” We here hope to do what we can to bless and help those who are further interested.

His Truth is indeed our shield and buckler, and a wonderful strength at such times as funerals are a pronounced indication that the “curse” is still with us. How wonderful it will be when that blessed Kingdom is established, and as you quoted – when “there shall be no more curse”....”And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death.”

May the Lord continue to bless your efforts to spread the good Word! Your brethren by His Grace,

THE WINSTON‑SALEM ECCLESIA ------- (NORTH CAROLINA)

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

“IN THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW”

During the month of December we had much cause for sorrow in the death of two loved ones of our own family.

NANCY ELLEN CRATER HOLCOMB, of North Carolina, our beloved Aunt, died Dec. 2, 1971, after a prolonged illness. We visited her a few weeks before she died, and at that time she knew she was dying, and expressed her submission to the Lord’s will, and her firm faith in God and His promised Kingdom. She requested then, as she had done on many previous occasions, that the Truth on the Kingdom, and “times of restitution” be given at her funeral as a “witness” to her faith. We mourn with all those that mourn, especially with the loved ones who so lovingly ministered unto her in her dying hours.

MARY HORN CAMPBELL, also of North Carolina, a beloved sister in the flesh and in the spirit, died December 17, 1971, who also made special request for our services at her funeral. She, too, had abiding hope and faith in the approaching Kingdom; and all who knew her well heard from her about her beliefs. As with the Prophet Jeremiah, “His word was in mine heart as a burning fire” (Jer. 20:9), so she witnessed at every opportunity. Although we “sorrow not even as others who have no hope,” yet we “mourn with those that mourn,” but rejoice in the prospect of seeing and being with her again in the Kingdom.

When some great sorrow, like a mighty river,

Flows through your life, with peace‑destroying power,

And dearest things are swept away forever,

Say to your heart each hour,

This, too, shall pass away!

NO. 200: TRUTH FOREVER ON THE SCAFFOLD

No. 200

During this Gospel Age the Truth has risen and been trampled under foot in each successive epoch of the Church. In the Jewish Harvest there was a specially bright shining, as “the light of life” brought “life and immortality to light through the Gospel” which bright shining was continued by the inspired Apostles, although “the mystery of in­iquity” was already manifesting itself in their day. We find much the same situation was manifest during the life of the Parousia Messenger and the power-graspers associ­ated with him. Once the restraining hand was gone, then a bedlam of turmoil and error arose in both instances, so that some features of the Truth were completely obliterated after the Apostles fell asleep, one instance being the doctrine of Restitution. Much the same has occurred since Brother Russell's death with respect to the High Calling, so that the organization he left behind is in utter confusion on this doctrine and teach­ings related to it. Even the doctrine of Restitution has been perverted out of all sem­blance to the way That Servant taught it.

FIRST LEVITICAL GROUP

As many of us know, J. F. Rutherford flitted from one change to another under the deft defense of the Truth by the Epiphany Messenger – a defense which forced JFR to abandon one truth after another to support each new error he promulgated; so that the Jehovah's Witnesses are now so far from the sound and sober teachings of That Servant that he would be unable to recognize them were he to return now (except, i.e., of course, as he has observed their course from beyond the veil). But, having once de­termined that the High Calling is closed (even though they do not have the right date for it), the Jehovah's Witnesses are forced to provide a place for their new converts. And where are they putting them? Why, in the “great crowd” of Rev. 19:1,6. As all Epiphany­-enlightened brethren know, both Messengers correctly taught there is but “one calling” (Eph. 4:4), the       same being the “high call–ing,” and the “great crowd” are the aftermath – the fall-outs of that calling. They are those who failed to make the grade, lost their standing became crown-losers – but were graciously given a secondary position in the great Plan of Salvation.

Nowhere do the Scriptures designate a “call” to the membership in the “great crowd.” Insofar as the High Calling is concerned, they are failures; and God never calls any one to be a failure. These people are designated the Measurably Faithful, because it was lack of faithfulness that caused them to lose their position among the Fully Faith­ful – the crown retainers. These Measurably Faithful are those who allowed their robes to become “spotted” – some more, some less, but all sufficiently enough to lose their standing among the Very Elect. In some the spots are so vague as to be almost invis­ible, even to those who were closely associated with them (they lost the High Calling “by the skin of their teeth”); in others the spots are so numerous and black that the white is almost obliterated. Some will miss the Second Death by “the skin of their teeth,” and some will lose their standing in the Great Company completely. But all of them through “fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:15); and this will be true of all crown-losers until their cleansing, at which time they will receive their deliverance from such bondage. “These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (Rev. 7:14) The words of St. Paul apply to the entire “large crowd”: if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” (Heb. 10:38)

Once any one falls from the High Calling, no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will then avail to gain reinstatement therein. When once ejected from the Holy they are not permitted to re-enter – nor offer incense on the Golden Altar. Once it is lost, the High Calling never opens a second time to such Measurably Faithful people. Like Esau, they find “no place for repentance” (so far as the High Calling is concerned), though they may “seek it carefully with tears”; they have forever parted with title to their “birthright,” as did Esau – even though he secured for it only a mess of pottage. It should be remembered that in those days of Isaac it was required of the eldest son that he fast on the birthday of a respected and prominent ancestor, while the youngest son feasted on that same day. Thus, Esau, with a sharp appetite prodding him, offered to trade (barter) places with Jacob – that he might feast while Jacob fasted in his place. His profligacy was considered an act of sacrilege in those days, and would arouse the contempt of all well-disciplined and honorable men. This explains why “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (loved less). Such flagrant disregard for their coven­ant of sacrifice has ever drawn the sharp criticism, disapproval, and chastening rod of Jehovah against those thus guilty (although He does not “hate” them – they are those “saved with fear,” making a difference) – and this observation will eventually be found to be true concerning the measurably faithful Youthful Worthies as it has been true concerning the Great Company; the extreme end of this Age will make this acutely manifest. How­ever, the Youthful Worthies – those consecrating between the Ages, after the High Call­ing is closed and before the Highway of Holiness is opened, as taught by That Servant and the Epiphany Messenger (E-4:342) – are not spirit-begotten, and are not in danger of losing life itself; but they are in danger of losing their class standing before God.

It is very pertinent to consider here that the present “large crowd” that the Je­hovah's Witnesses are fostering is to be of the earth, earthy – a class without hope of a spiritual reward. It is the first time in history that such a class as this has ever been presented. However, That Servant correctly taught that the “large crowd” is a New Creation, a part of the “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23), whose ultimate stand­ing will be as spirit beings “before the throne” (not “in the throne” where the Elect Bride will be).

In Parousia Vol. 6, p. 93, par. 1, there is this: “Neither is there a second call during this Gospel Age, though there is a second class of saved ones selected during this Age – the Great Company (Rev. 7:9-13)” – the same as the “large crowd” of Rev. 19:1,6. In furtherance of this position is the footnote on p. 707 of Vol. 6:

“The Great Company, although they cannot be counted in as participants of the First Resurrection, and sharers of its glory, honor and immortality, nor counted in with the Ancient Worthies, must, nevertheless, be counted as overcomers even though the overcom­ing be through great tribulation. And as overcomers, they must be esteemed to pass from death unto life, and, therefore, to be subjects of an instantaneous resur–rection, and not a gradual one, as in the case of the world, whose trial is future.”

The Jehovah's Witnesses accepted fully the above teachings for a number of years after Brother Russell's death, claiming that many who left them after 1916 were the Great Company – a class fallen from the Truth, a class fallen from the High Calling (the “one calling” of the Gospel Age), who “went out from us because they were not all of us.” (1 Jno. 2:19). Presently there is very little said about the Great Company in the various Truth groups, although That Servant gave us extensive elucidation about that Class. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses are talking about an entirely different Class, when they offer a “call” to their “large crowd”; but they are conspicuously silent an the real “large crowd” which Brother Russell expounded so clearly from the Scriptures. The real “large crowd” are to be scourged by Armageddon for their cleansing; whereas, the “large crowd” of the Jehovah's Witnesses are to receive a shadowing protection dur­ing that time. This is a revolutionism against the Truth taught by That Servant – and they have no Scripture to support their claim.

THE 60th LEVITICAL GROUP

While the LHMM takes some cognizance of the Great Company, this is due in part, at least, to the fact that their leader is the only leader of the Truth groups in this Epi­phany period emanating from the Harvest Truth who self-admittedly is one of the Great Company Class – a crown-lost leader. It is commendable that he recognizes his position in this respect, but is regrettable that he now claims that his position, as well as that of all other crown-losers, is superior to all others. This he teaches because of his efforts to teach that all the Very Elect are gone; that this is true because of the Epiphany Messenger's death in 1950 (although he taught that some of the Little Flock would be here on earth after that date). He has perverted much of the Truth on this Great Company Class, as presented by the Star Members, since 1950 – now claiming that all should be subject to their leadership. And some of his public oral teachings concerning the humanity of the Great Company is sadly ridiculous. Also, he claims that he himself was cleansed without being abandoned to Azazel, a revolutionism against the Epiphany Truth as given in E-15:525, E-4:209,210 and other places. The Epiphany Messenger taught that all crown-losers, including those who lost Littleflockship by the “skin of their teeth,” must be fully abandoned to Azazel before their cleansing could be effected.

Also, RGJ often stresses the ‘superior class' of the Great Company – and this he does as he tells us from the other side of his mouth that the majority of them are not yet cleansed! And once more he elaborates in the Nov-Dec. 1971 Present Truth his 'proof' that there are no members of the Little Flock on earth; but his main proof is simply a parallel that did not 'parallel.' He well knows that Brother Johnson expected to leave us in 1956 – just forty years after the death of Brother Russell. But, when he died in 1950, RGJ proceeded to put himself in Brother Russell's parallels – especially in his efforts in 1954 with his Bible films – to parallel the Photo Drama in 1914. All are witness to his failure in that effort. Brother Russell's Photo Drama was from 1914 to 1916, and was an outstanding success with the general public; RGJ's films are from 1954 to an indefinite future period – with very few taking notice of it other than his own group. It is not even recognized by other Truth groups. Did we not attend his Conventions, we wouldn't even be cognizant of its existence. Thus, his efforts are not a “parallel” in time or in accomplishment. Brother Russell died in 1916; RGJ is still here – sixteen years after 1956 – and still insisting upon the parallel! As the Epiphany Messenger so well states, When these crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense.

Throughout the Age the Fully Faithful have gladly been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God” (Rev. 20:4), have “chosen rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt” (Heb. 11:25,26); whereas, the Measurably Faithful have chosen rather the green plains of Sodom, “Well watered every­where, as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt.” (Gen. 13:10) Many of them have labored under the “strong delusion” that they could be the “rich man” in this world and “Lazarus” in the next world. (See Luke 16:19:31)

YOUTHFUL WORTHIES SIMILARLY CLASSIFIED

It is in order here also, we believe, to entertain such a concept for the Youthful Worthies. They are much the same people as those who embraced the High Calling during its term, and some of them are actually the children of such people – some of whose par­ents have “finished their course with Joy” among the Very Elect, with others being found among the Measurably Faithful. Therefore, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the children would be like their progenitors; it would seem a reasonable certainty to find fully faithful and measurably faithful ones among the Youthful Worthies. The Epiphany is a special time for “making manifest the coun­sels of hearts”; and it would be folly extreme to believe this will not also occur with those in the LHMM after the Epiphany Messenger's death. During his lifetime his re­straining hand withheld many from a contrary course, just as was true with Brother Rus­sell, and just as occurred when the restraint of the Apostles was removed from the early Church. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that many of the measurably faithful among them will be found among the quasi-elect in later calculations, while those who be­come badly reprobate will receive nothing more than the “resurrection to shame and age-lasting contempt.” (Dan. 12:2) “If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Just as the Measurably Faithful lost completely their standing in the Very Elect, so also can we expect the Measurably Faithful among the Youthful Worthies to lose their standing in their Class.

It is well that we keep always in mind the events of 1914. The date was right, but the expectations were very much wrong as respects the disposition of God's people. Although Brother Russell himself was telling the Household two years before that they had been expecting much too much for 1914, many of them stopped their ears to his warnings. And, when 1914 came and their hopes were dashed, many became offended – their weaknesses be­came acutely apparent. “Judgment must begin at the house of God... And if the righteous (the Saints) scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly (second-deathers) and the sinner (the Great Company) appear?” (1 Pet. 4:17,18) “The Covenant by sacrifice” is unto death, and not to any special date; only the Lord Himself is to say “It is enough”; and those who serve the Lord “with all the heart, mind, soul and strength” are fully content to accept this arrangement.

And, with 1954 came a similar situation. The date was right insofar as the Great Company developing truths were concerned, but it was also very much wrong as regards other expectations – with things similar to 1914 occurring since that time. As the Measurably Faithful were given over to “strong delusions” various, sundry and accentu­ated after 1914, so we are now witness to the same again since 1950. The Epiphany Mes­senger emphatically taught that the quasi-elect would be the unconsecrated – that the unconsecrated would be the residents in the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture ­that Tentative Justification would cease when the Gospel Age ceases. This latter Bro. Russell also taught. Yet the Measurably Faithful are setting aside these clear and reasonable teachings to make way for their Consecrated Epiphany Campers, or quasi-elect Consecrated – just as others have done with their antitypical Ammonites and Moabites – ­the Jonadabs, and now a “large crowd,” which is not the culls from the High Calling, but a class all their own who are to live right through Armageddon and on into the Kingdom. Because the Measurably Faithful “received not the love of the Truth... God shall send them strong delusion.” (2 Thes. 2:10,11).

And, as might be expected, they are saying almost nothing about the “great tribu­lation” that lies ahead for this “large crowd.” (Rev. 7:14) But we may happily and wholeheartedly join with St. Paul in 2 Thes. 2:13-17 (Dia.) in his warm encouragement to the Fully Faithful, “We are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren be­loved of the Lord, because God chose you a firstfruit for salvation, in sanctification of Spirit and belief of Truth... so then, Brethren, stand firm, and retain the instruc­tions you were taught (by the Star Member teachers appointed by the Lord)... and Jesus Christ Himself will establish you in every good work and word.” “Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest.” (Josh. 3:15) Not only have gross evils and injustice accentuated the curse since 1874, but we now also witness an overflowing scourge of abortive classes the likes of which was never before seen in human history. “As it was in the days of Noah” – the whole earth was then infested with physical hy­brids; now it is infested with spiritual hybrids.

A STRIKING CONTRAST BETWEEN THE FAITHFUL AND MEASURABLY FAITHFUL

At the Chicago Convention last October RGJ was asked for his proof for the things he is contending for 1954; and he went into profuse detail about the 'parallel' be­tween 1914 and 1954. We would stress, first of all, that parallels are teachings that are identical – “like in essential parts,” according to Webster. Thus, we now present a true parallel that is an exact duplication of 1954 – even to the words and events con­sidered therein. We refer to the Epiphany Messenger's expectation of Armageddon in June 1932. When that date came and went without any hint of Armageddon, he graciously admitted his mistake, and we now quote some of what he then said about it:

“Please note the similarities between our mistake in this matter and that of our Pastor on the deliverance of the Church by October 1914: In both cases the involved thoughts contained partial truths. In both cases the time forecasts were made as prob­able, not as certain (just as the events forecast for 1954 were “inferred,” and not cer­tain—JJH). In both cases mistakes were made as to the undue things... But please note how differently real false prophets have acted as to a mistakenly forecast date. When Mr. Barbour's dogmatic forecast on the Church's leaving the world Nisan 16, 1878, failed, instead of humbly acknowledging and correcting it; lest he might lose his influence as a teacher he sought to divert the Church's attention from the mistake by involving it into the no-ransomism controversy.

“When J. F. Rutherford's dogmatic forecasts as to 1925 failed, he sought even as late as 1926 to make his pertinent teaching seem true by intimating that the Ancient Worthies had returned and were in hiding in some Palestinian cave as a test to the So­cietyites! The Lord did not leave us holding the bag until after the forecast date was passed, as He did with Mr. Barbour, J. F. Rutherford, Zion's Messenger, Elijah's Voice, etc..... We approached June 11, 1932, not dogmatically, but tentatively, in faith.”

In like fashion, we may be certain that the Epiphany Messenger would have treated 1954 in identical 'parallel' manner when it came and went, and no evidence of Armaged­don appeared; and 1956, with no evidence of Anarchy. But RGJ is following the identi­cal footsteps of the Barbour-Rutherford renegades, as he clings to the 1954 date; and insists on using that parallel that didn't parallel for the fulfillment of Rev. 22:10,11. Thus, he associates himself with superior company; and, were we not witness to it, we would have much difficulty in believing that his trusting supporters could be so gullible and wanting in understanding as to accept such foolish contentions. When they do so they are not honoring the Epiphany Messenger, nor are they really helping RGJ as they support him in “his path of error.” (James 5:20, Dia.)

TWO GREAT LEADERS

In Reprints 5427, col. 2, Brother Russell has something on the subject: “Undoubt­edly, the principal remains always true that there are but two great captains in the warfare between sin and righteousness; namely Christ and Satan. It remains true also that whoever is fighting for the one is fighting against the other. It is for us to make sure, first of all, that we are on the Lord's side. There is still a further step to make sure that we are fighting as our Captain would have us fight... 'This is the will of God (concerning you), even your sanctification.' Thus our personal salvation comes first, in God's order. What is the next step? The answer comes, 'Feed my sheep; feed my lambs.' At first we might be disposed to demur, to say, Lord, should we not rather go after the straying, after the lost sheep? The answer is given by the Lord, Do good unto all men as we have opportunity, especially unto the Household of Faith. If, there­fore, the Household of Faith demands all of our time when we have the opportunity, we may do nothing for the lost sheep, but only helping to perfect those whom the Lord has already found..”

This advice has always been difficult for the crown-lost leaders all down the Age ­because it has always been these leaders who have wanted great numbers, popularity, etc. That is a characteristic of the Saul Class. He, too, wanted to please the people (1 Sam. 15:24). During That Servant's day even the weakest were able to give to every man a reason for the hope they cherished. “One shall chase a thousand, and two shall put ten thousand to flight.” Today, it is much the reverse with RGJ and his lieuten­ants. They now counsel their adherents to flee from the 'wolves' – even as King Saul fled from the Philistines (1 Sam. 31:1) – no longer are they able to “refute the gain­sayers.” Thus, instead of having an army of 'good soldiers,' willing to face every foe for the cause, he is developing an army of runners – an exact duplication of the army of Jehovah's Witnesses, who also spread the word quickly to “avoid” contact with us – who still retain the Truth as given us in this Laodicean period. We are not to forget that RGJ also was of those who did not run when under the restraining hand of the Epiphany Messenger – when he had the Truth on his side. But, true to his type now, King Saul typed the crown-lost leaders of this Gospel Age up to Armageddon, he has changed his tactics; and, just as Saul led Israel into defeat at the hands of the Philis­tines, so antitypical Saul has also repeatedly led trusting followers into defeat by those who hold the Word 'in sincerity and in truth.'

It is a tragic truth that all during this Age the people have hearkened more to antitypical Saul than they have to antitypical Samuel. The condemnation of Israel re­ceives little or no recognition at this time: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me.” Thus, many members of antitypical Samuel have received shameful treatment at their hands. We need mention only a few, such as Arius, Servetus, Zwingli, Cranmer, et al.

A SUMMATION

We have heard some say that they could never have made the High Calling anyway when they were told that they were crown-losers after Brother Johnson's death, whether they had revolutionized against the Truth and its Arrangements or not – they thought they were not good enough. This is foolish and unscriptural. God never calls any of us to be a failure, so He also never calls any to do anything they are not physically or mentally able to do. “Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of” (Matt. 6:8); this text carries the thought that God “sympathetically appreciates” our needs. Thus, He is able to put Himself fully and exactly in our position, and to evaluate perfectly the physical and mental capacity of any task we face. “Take my yoke upon you,” He told His Disciples. Here He was contrasting His yoke with the Law yoke under which they were laboring, and which they had found impossible to bear; they were indeed unequal yokefellows in that Law yoke. The Law had forbidden them to place an ox and an ass to­gether in the same yoke, because the dissimiliarity of those animals placed an unequal and exhausting burden upon one of them (Deu. 22:10 – see Berean Comment). But, when Jesus supplanted the Law with His yoke, He appreciated in perfection the strength of each one to bear his part of that yoke. Thus, if one could bear but ten percent of that yoke, His Lord would bear the other ninety percent, and so on. Therefore, He never asks any to bear more than his ability to do.

Nor should any of us be too hasty in our judgment of ourselves or others as to our weak and fallen human vessels. The Epiphany Messenger has summarized this matter in E-4:132-133 (13): “We earnestly caution against making character blemishes the ground of declaring brethren to be levites (Great Company members, although the same caution would apply to Youthful Worthies—JJH). It is revolutionism or its partisan support and its arrangements, that manifests crown-losers as such. The great touchstone of manifesting Leviteship is revolutionism or its partisan support, and nothing else.   The reason that misconduct cannot be the touchstone for us is that we do not know how to decide what vary­ing degrees of misconduct in various brethren forfeit their crowns. Therefore, such judg­ing is forbidden.”

In view of this clear and correct elucidation by the Epiphany Messenger, we urge that none – New Creatures, or Youthfuls – become discouraged if overtaken in faults, even repeated faults, faults that may vex or shock others in high degree, so long as they have not persistently cast away that Truth (or its arrangements) which they have understood and which has made them “clean.” “Now are ye clean through the words (the Truth) which I have spoken unto you,” said Jesus in John 15:3, and only the casting away of that cleansing Truth can be trustworthy evidence that any have fallen from their Class. As both Messengers have truly taught, when any are not worthy of the Truth the Lord will not permit them to retain it. We are not the heart-searchers, but God is – and when He makes manifest His judgment by permitting some to depart from the Truth, then we know that there was something wrong with their hearts that we could not know about be­forehand. Nor should this encourage us to the other extreme – that we need not fight all evil in ourselves to the extent of our ability. We are never to float listlessly downstream, because if we do so we will certainly lose the Truth and our Class stand­ing – although it is only the Lord who is to say when “sin is finished to bring forth death.” (James 1:15) Therefore, let us continue to “fight the good fight of faith” unto ultimate victory.

The last two Messengers were profuse in their writings of the Faithful and the Measurably Faithful. What we have given herein are quotations, or based upon what they have written. “Love is not easily provoked,” says St. Paul in 1 Cor. 13:5, but the translation is misleading. It would be better stated, “Love (agape) is not easily enraged, or infuriated,” because he specifically counsels in Heb. 10:24 that we should “consider one another to provoke unto love and good works: not forsaking the assemb­ling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day approaching.” Thus our purpose herein is to provoke to “love and good works,” for which “the assembling of yourselves together” is essential the moreso since we “are in the evil day.”

In Ex. 3:10, when God said unto Moses, “Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt” – the beloved man of God shrank back from such a seemingly impossible task... “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh,” said he; and he protested further, “They won't believe me.” In final protest Moses said, “I am not eloquent... but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.” But, after exhausting all protest, Moses accomplished what God had told him to do. Indeed, it is a common trait among the meek of the earth to under­estimate themselves, and often to overrate their adversaries out of all proportion to their intrinsic strength. Even the impulsive Peter was taken aback when Jesus told him “by what death he should glorify God.” (John 21:19) Perhaps all this is as it should be – that the Fully Faithful should ever realize that their strength rests not in the “arm of flesh” – “not by power, nor by might, but by my spirit, saith the Lord.” And in the very realization of their limitations they “can do all things through Christ Who strength­eneth them.” And may this “strength” be ever present with all who endeavor to serve Him “in good and honest hearts.”

“Good and upright is the Lord; therefore will He teach sinners in the way. The meek will He guide in judgment; and the meek will He teach His way. All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.” (Psa. 25:8-10)

Sincerely your brother,

John J Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Members of Christ:

Praise the Lord for the privilege of living and loving the Savior and the members of the Household of Faith! I think of you dear ones so often.... I talked to Sister C ------- Monday. She was cheerful as usual – and we talked of our faith and the Word of the Lord. I would be a very lonesome person if it were not for Sister C ------- and our visits over the phone.

I enjoy the papers each month. Sometimes I have to ask Sister C ------- to fill me in on some of the writings. I am praying and trusting in the Lord – and I desire your prayers. My warm Christian love to you and all with you.

Your sister by His Grace, ------- (NORTH CAROLINA)

………………………………………………….

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

I am sending our Christmas cards out early this year – as we plan to fly to Ari­zona to spend the Holidays.... We are rather fearful to go away, as there has been so much burglary, etc., going on, although not much in our part of the city. The Time of Trouble is getting more severe!...... We visited Brother and Sister ------- recently .... Their address for the next few months will be........ They will probably be back in May.

I sure appreciated the December paper! You sure did defend the Truth – and I hope you will be able to do so for a long time to come. I am enclosing a check for $--- ­as a little offering to the work, and to show my appreciation of your efforts, which I have done for the past 16 years. Hoping you all will have a Happy Holiday season, and to hear from you soon.

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

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

It is about time that I sent you a few lines. We must not forget to adapt the men­tal and spiritual part of our life – especially now at Christmas time.

Trust you and yours are in excellent health, and I wish all of you a wonderful Christmas and a real happy 1972. I am awaiting a new paper from you soon. There is always wonderful writing and spiritual understanding in your magazine. I trust that 1972 will bring us all a better understanding of life – its meaning and unfolding. It is always a real joy to read your excellent spiritual magazine. Therefore, the best to you and yours for the coming Holiday Season. God-recommended and happy 1972!

Sincerely yours ------- Col. (CALIFORNIA)

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

Dear Friends:

I have read with interest your June copy of “The Herald of Epiphany” – and would like to receive the other publications listed at the bottom of the copy. It is my understanding there is no cost or obligation connected with this request.

Also, would you give me some information concerning your organization.

Respectfully yours ------- (TEXAS)

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

Dear Sir:

Please send me the following booklets – The Resurrection of the Dead, What is the Soul, Where are the Dead, Two Distinct Salvations, The Three Babylons, God's Great Sab­bath Day and The Great Reformer. Thank you very much!

Sincerely ------- (NORTH CAROLINA)

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

SPECIAL EFFORT

Our Memorial date for this year is March 27 – and we suggest for our Special Effort in Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle Sunday, March 19 through Sunday, April 9, for our volunteer and sharpshooting in this Battle against Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead. The Battle is not over yet. Our tracts are free and postage paid; and the books, L-D-H and The Divine Plan of the Ages, are available also, and most appropriate for this Special Effort. We request that all who desire to participate with us in this Special Effort, to please order your literature in time.

Let us continue in this Arrangement made by the Epiphany Messenger until the Battle is won. We pray a special blessing on all those who participate, and trust they will receive many blessed experiences; and for those who are unable to participate – whose hearts are with us in this “good fight” – we pray for them also the blessing that maketh rich!