NO. 243: THE THREE WORLDS - CONDITIONS AND PEOPLES

No. 243

The request has come to us to offer an analysis of the three worlds mentioned in the Bible: (1) the world that was; (2) the world that now is; (3) the world to come – with their fundamental differences, similarities, and the time features in­volved in each one. These are very briefly epitomized in the third chapter of St. Peter’s second letter. In verse 6 he tells us that “the world that then was (before the flood), being overflowed with water, perished”; then continues in verse 7: “the heavens and the earth which are now” (the world that now is) are “reserved unto fire against the day of judgment.” Continuing in verse 13, “We look for new heavens and a new earth (the world to come), wherein dwelleth righteousness.” It is our inten­tion to correlate various statements in the Old and New Testaments – “here a little, and there a little” (Isa. 28:10) – concerning these three worlds, and depict their true Scriptural meaning.

However, before we proceed we would stress the fact that the Bible is written in two languages – literal and figurative – and this must be appreciated if we would avoid extreme confusion. For instance, the word earth in the Bible has two meanings: (1) the planet on which we live, and (2) the social order of human existence. To il­lustrate, in Gen. 9:11 we are told “there shall not be any more a flood to destroy the earth.” Surely, the planet on which we live was not destroyed by the flood, but the social arrangement in vogue then was completely destroyed by the flood. The same contention may be made for the word heaven, which has three different and distinct meanings: (1) God’s abode, which presumably is the Pleiades, the center of gravity of the Universe (see Job 38:31); (2) the atmosphere about this earth, into which Elijah was carried by the fiery chariot (see 2 Kings 2:9-12); (3) the present religious order (see 2 Pet. 3:7).

While the Old Testament of the Bible offers copious information about the above ­along with much detail about the world that was, and the world that now is, it remains for the New Testament to provide the information that enables us to accomplish our purpose. Therefore, we would initiate this treatise with the New Testament informa­tion, as we interweave Old Testament details into our conclusions.

In the New Testament the word “world” is translated from four different Greek words: 1 – Aion, meaning Age or Dispensation; 2 – Ge, land or earth; 3 – Kosmos, Arrangement or Social order; 4 – Oikoumene, the habitable earth or land. That these four words are not synonymous is self-evident; and the translation of all of them into the English word world simply reveals the inaccuracy with which the translators of the King James version of the Bible did their work. This is one great cause why so much error has arisen over the centuries, and the confusion that is now so preva­lent.

Although some of the above words may be used interchangeably, it would always be better to give the strictly correct meaning in each case. For example, in Matt. 24:3 the Disciples asked Jesus, “What shall be the sign of Thy coming, and the end of the world (aion)?” A more correct rendering would be, “What shall be the sign of Thy pres­ence, and the consummation of the Age?” In this particular text the end of the world and the end of the Age will occur at the same  time; but to give them the same meaning simply leads to unnecessary confusion. In this, the second world, in which we now live, there have been three Ages – the Patriarchal, Jewish, and the Gospel Age.  It so happens that the end of this Gospel Age will also be the end of this world; and, while the Gospel Age is fully included in this world, this world is not fully included in this Gospel Age.

The expression is often heard – “The end of the world”; and the vast majority in Christendom have come to conclude that this means the destruction of the planet earth on which we live. However, when reading Matt. 24:3 correctly, as given above, it will become readily apparent that the Disciples had no such thought in mind when they asked Jesus their question. The Greek Kosmos (the order of affairs) is the root of such English words as cosmos, cosmogony, cosmopolitan, etc. Cities such as New York and London are considered cosmopolitan districts because they contain a representation of almost all races and nations as their residents. Therefore, we believe it will provide profitable reading to offer an analysis of the three worlds in relation to the conditions and peoples that are described in the Bible.

“THE WORLD THAT WAS”

In 2 Peter 2:5 we are told that God “spared not the old world (kosmos), but saved Noah... a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world” (kosmos). And continuing, 2 Pet. 3:6 tells us, “The world (kosmos) that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” All of us know that this planet earth was not destroyed by the great flood; and it is in order to state here that the language of the Bible is often intricate and confusing if we do not read it critically. Some of it is literal, and some of it is figurative, or symbolic, or typical.  As stated on p. 1, when Gen. 9:11 says “neither shall there be any more a flood to destroy the earth,” it does not mean the literal earth on which we live, because it is still here. The “earth” that was destroyed by the flood was the kosmos, or order of affairs; and, since Solomon in­forms us in Ecc. 1:4 that “the earth abideth forever,” we accept for certain that the destruction of this present world will not bring about the destruction of this planet upon which we live.

Nor will the dissolution of the present order of affairs bring about the destruc­tion of all the people in this world – just as the destruction of “the world that was” did not destroy all the people then – although it did destroy all of them except Noah and his three sons and their wives, eight persons in all. To the great majority in Chris­tendom the “end of the world” implies the destruction of all the people upon the planet, as well as the destruction of the planet itself; but Isa. 45:18 tells us, “God Himself formed the earth, and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited.”

The Bible clearly reveals that eventually there will be many more people on this earth than there are here now; although the Bible is equally emphatic that in the years just ahead of us there will be many less people here than we have now. “Behold, evil shall go forth from nation to nation, and a great whirlwind (the Time of Trouble) shall be raised up from the coasts of the earth.  And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not he lamented, neither gathered, nor buried.” (Jer. 25:32,33)

SOME STRIKING PECULIARITIES - “Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” (Gen. 5:5) Much visionary reasoning has been produced to alter the meaning of the word ‘years’ as it is found in the fifth chapter of Genesis; but none of it has any foundation in fact. Here is what one commentator has to say about it: “The immense duration of life assigned to the antediluvian patriarchs has always  been  the  occasion of difficulty. Attempts have been made to explain away the figures. (a) It has been suggested that the names of those patriarchs represent dynasties. But the mention of the firstborn and of other children obviously refers  to  personal  history. Nor does the transference of these enormous figures to the duration of dynasties great­ly diminish the improbability of their literal historicity. (b) It has been suggested that the Hebrew word for “Year’ (shanah) is used in this chapter to denote a shorter period of time. But this arbitrary solution is devoid of any evidence in its favor. There is no reason not to interpret the statements of the antediluvian patriarchs quite literally.”

By totaling the various figures in the fifth chapter of Genesis, then adding the 600 years that Noah lived before the flood (Gen. 7:6), we come to the grand total of 1,656 years, which provides the number of years for “The World That Was.” And this is certainly a very, very short period of time if we compare it with some of the halluci­natory deductions of would-be pundits concerning the first man upon this earth – some of them talking in many millions of years back concerning this important fact.

According to Bible revelation, Methuselah was the oldest of all the patriarchs, being 969 years old when he died. Adam was 687 years old when Methuselah was born; and Methuselah was 369 years old when Noah was born. Thus, the two of them were con­temporary for 600 years, which would give them plenty of time to become well acquainted. Also, from this fact it becomes apparent that we need only the record of Methuselah’s life to span the date of creation of Adam to the flood – or one generation in a manner of speaking.

Then again, Noah and his family had the unique experience of living in two worlds ­“The World That Was” and “This Present Evil World” (Gal. 1:4). Noah himself lived for six hundred years in “The World That Was,” and three hundred and fifty years in “This Present Evil World” (Gal. 1:4) – “all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years” (Gen. 9:29). And the experience that was unique to Noah and his family of living in two worlds will also be repeated here in the end of “This Present Evil World” when it ends, and the next world begins. In Eph. 1:21 St. Paul tells us that Christ is above “every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.” From this it is apparent that the Bible clearly discusses, and de­scribes in some detail, three worlds. In Heb. 6:5 St. Paul speaks of “the powers of the world to come.”

It is of interest to note here, too, that Noah died just two years before Abraham was born. Thus Noah was in position to give all the details about the creation, the flood, and conditions after the flood; and it is probable (although we cannot state it as a fact) that he related those things to Terah, Abraham’s father, the latter then passing them on to Abraham after Noah’s death. Terah lived 75 years after Abraham’s birth, which means that the last 73 years of his life were contemporaneous with Noah.

“WORLD THAT WAS” WITHOUT RAIN – It is worthy of note that “The Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth... but there went up a mist from the earth, and wa­tered the whole face of the ground.” (Gen. 2:5,6) Therefore, when Noah began to build an ark as protection against a coming flood, it is little wonder his neighbors con­sidered it quite a joke: “They were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in mar­riage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark.” (Matt. 24:38) And without rain there would be no humidity, no fermentation, which accounted in part for the long lives of those who lived before the flood. It also accounts for Noah becoming drunk after the flood (Gen. 9:20-24), because he had not yet learned what the changed climatic con­ditions had produced. Thus, those who attempt to make sport of Noah, calling him an old drunk, do so through their ignorance of all the facts in the case. It is far fetched to believe that Noah, “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5), would become stupefied with alcohol. “Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” (Gen. 6:9)

THE ANGELS THAT SINNED – “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to Hell.” (2 Pet. 2:4) Who were these “angels that sinned”? The answer is to be found in Gen. 6:2-4: “The sons of God (angels) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and took them wives of all which they chose.... There were giants in the earth in those days... when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” The word “giants” in this text is from the Hebrew Nephilim, and means “fallen ones.” Being a cross between human beings and angels, they were a hybrid production, which is contrary to all the laws of nature. When God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle... and beasts of the earth after his kind” (Gen. 1:24), this was not just a statement of happenstance. When any species of ani­mals is crossed with another species, it produces a mule.  In everyday English a mule is understood to be a cross between a horse and a donkey – which produces a mule; but a mule may apply to any animal that cannot reproduce itself. Female mules never have colts; and this law is so firmly entrenched that even a dove and a pigeon cannot bring forth a young one that can reproduce itself. And, if left to themselves out in nature, such birds will not attempt to mate; they do it only under stress, or through the manipu­lation of man.

Those Nephilim hybrids are the origin of the legendary demigods that permeate the Greek and Roman mythology; they were presumed to be half man and half God, and the mere mention of their name often caused shivers in the human family. The word Nephilim oc­curs but three times in the Old Testament – once in Gen. 6:4 and twice in Numbers 13:33. When the ten spies brought back their evil report about Canaan, they said, “There we saw the giants (Nephilim) and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” This statement terrorized the Israelites, “and the people wept that night.” (Num. 14:1) When we consider that it was only 427 years from the death of No­ah to the birth of Moses, it means just a few generations separated them. Thus, we can well appreciate that the legend of those “giants” was quite fresh in the minds of the Jewish people. The report that “the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11) because of them was relatively recent news to the Jews; and they wanted no part of an encounter with them.

It is written of Noah that “he was a just man and perfect in his generations” (Gen. 6:9); but this does not justify the conclusion that he and his were the only people that had not been corrupted with hybrid contact. It would seem to be reasonable that there were others than Noah that were not hybrid stock, but they had fallen to the evil ways of the “giants,” thus were destroyed in the flood, along with all the Nephilim. The angels themselves, who had produced the Nephilim, dematerialized when the flood broke upon the earth; but they were not permitted to go back to Heaven. Rather, they were “cast down to hell” (2 Pet. 2:4). The Greek word for “hell” in this text is “tar­taroo,” which simply means the atmosphere about this earth. Thus, they were forced to accept the abode of their own choosing; and they are to be identified as the demons so frequently mentioned in the New Testament which infested certain human beings.

These “devils” are mentioned many times in the New Testament, a few of the more prominent citations being Matt. 9:32,33; 17:14-18; Mark 6:13; 7:29,30; Luke 4:41; 8:2; 8:26-33. The devils (the angels that sinned) were not destroyed in the flood, although the hybrid giants (the Nephilim) were; but the Jews were not aware of this, and they were so undone at the mere mention of them that they ran for forty years from some­thing that did not then exist.

A very short while after ejection from the Garden of Eden, crime began to make its appearance among men, the first major crime mentioned in the Bible being murder. Cain slew his brother because of envy. (Gen. 4:1-8) But, though evil deeds and evil men made quick appearance, it is well to keep in mind that there were those who resisted such, and made diligent effort to return to the favor of the Lord. Says St. Paul in Hebrews 11:4,5: “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he be­ing dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death.... before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” However, as it is in this present world, so it was then: Those that pleased God were greatly in the mi­nority.

From the creation to the birth of Jesus was 4128 years; and the “world that was” perished 1656 years after it began, which means that its end came in 2472 years B.C. Adding the present date of 1975 to that we find that “this present evil world” has al­ready continued for 4447 years – of which more later. However, it is well to note that of the ten cardinal truths contained in the Bible only two are described in the Genesis record as appearing in the “world that was.” These two are the Creation and the Fall of man. The third cardinal truth is the Law of Moses, which did not make its appearance until the Jews had left Egypt, of which more later.

“THIS PRESENT EVIL WORLD”  (Gal. 1:4)

As stated above, “this present evil world” (dispensation) began 4447 years ago, at which time there were but eight people to start it; whereas, just two people began “the world that was.” These eight people were Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. Shem is presumed to have been the eldest, his descendants being known as Shemites, or Semites. From his line eventually came Abraham, who was the father of the Jewish or Semitic race. They are thought to have settled in Asia Minor and Western Asia, although today Palestine (or Canaan land) is properly considered as their ancient place of abode. More on this as we consider the Patriarchal Age. In Gen. 9:26 we are told, “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

The second son of Noah was Japheth, whose sons are given in Gen. 10:2 as Gomer, Ma­gog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesh and Tiras. From these it is presumed came the original settlers of Europe; who are today recognized as the Caucasian, or white race. Most of them have been aggressive and warlike, probably possessing the best and the worst of hu­man characteristics.

The third son of Noah was Ham, whose sons were Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan. (Gen. 10:6) Because of his indecent conduct toward his father, Noah pronounced a curse upon him and his descendants: “Cursed be Canaan (son of Ham, thus grandson of Noah); a ser­vant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” (Gen. 9:25) This section of Noah’s offspring is thought to have migrated into Africa, and became the ancestors of the pres­ent Ethiopian, or black races. In Num. 12:1 we are told that “Miriam and Aaron (brother and sister of Moses) spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had mar­ried.” The marginal reading for Ethiopian is Cushite. Her name was Zipporah, daughter of Jethro, a priest of Midian. The skin of the Midianites was not full black, but rath­er light nut brown. However, the Biblical meaning of Cush is black.

The progress of evil in “this present evil world” is worthy of some attention here. The Law of Moses tells us that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the chil­dren unto the third and fourth generation; and this seems to have been pointedly true in the case of Cush and his sons, who seem to have carried with them through the flood some of the evils of the Nephilim (giants) who had “filled the earth with violence.” (Gen. 6: 11-13) In Gen. 10:8,9 it is recorded that “Cush begat Nimrod – he became a hero in the earth: he became a hero of hunting before Yahveh – and for this cause it is said, Like Nimrod, a hero of hunting before Yahveh.” (Rotherham translation) There is much hidden meaning in this text, because it does not mean that Nimrod was a pious follower of the true God, but just the reverse: He had set himself up in place of God; and his wicked acts are interwoven in most of the heathen religions.

“The beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was Babel” (Gen. 10:10) in the land of Shinar ..out of that land.. he went forth and builded Nineveh.” Here was the beginning of all the false heathen religions, with their incestuous feasts and idol worship. By the time Moses appeared some 800 years later these evils had made wide and devastating prog­ress; and the Jews were most emphatically commanded to have nothing whatever to do with them – a commandment which they repeatedly broke, as will be discussed later. However, we offer one case in point at this time: “Then all the men who knew their wives had burned incense unto other gods... answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the Queen of Heaven... as we have done... in the cities of Judah and Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the Queen of Heaven... We have wanted all things.” (Jer. 44:15-18)

Another instance similar to the foregoing had occurred some hundreds of years be­fore, as given in Judges 2:12,13: “They forsook the Lord God of their fathers... and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the Lord to anger... They served Baal and Ashter­oth.” The worship of Baal was accompanied with lascivious rites (1 Kgs. 14:23,24), the sacrifice of children in the fire by parents to the God Moloch (Jer. 32:35), etc.

Baal worshipers were sun worshipers; and all of the prominent ancient nations had some form of sun worship in their religion. The question properly arises, Whence came this “strong delusion”? When Moses wrote Genesis, Nimrod had been dead for some hundreds of years, but there still existed the popular saying, “Even as Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord.” (Gen. 10:9) His might lay in his hunting prowess, prompted by the conditions of his day. We recall that only eight people came through the flood, but many kinds of animals came forth from the ark, which multiplied much faster than did the people; and the more ferocious among them would readily strike terror into human hearts. Thus, any one who would offer protection to his fellows would be consid­ered quite a hero, which in itself would not be too wrong if that hero were a righteous man.

However, such was not the case with Nimrod. Shortly after the flood, the human race became divided into two camps – one toward evil, and one inclined toward righteous­ness. It would seem that Nimrod was the leader of the evil group; whereas, Shem was the leader of the righteous group. (Gen. 9:26) This conclusion is pieced together from the writings of various historians and other literate writers. As instance, Josephus, the great Jewish historian, makes this comment: “The multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God.”

In Gen. 10:11 it is recorded that Nimrod built the City of Ninevah. This statement enables us to couple Nimrod with the king Ninus of classical writings. The literal meaning of Ninevah is “The habitation of Ninus”; and the historian Apollodorous makes positive statement that ‘Ninus is Nimrod.’ From the gleanings of ancient writings it seems certain that Nimrod married his own mother Semiramis; therefore, he was his own father and his own son in a manner of speaking.  This is a close duplication of the idea current in Christendom that Jesus is also His own Father and His own Son.

That the descendants of Nimrod were denounced in the Bible is evident from Micah 5:6: “They shall waste the land of Syria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.” Also, from one of the famous sculp­tures of ancient Babylon Ninus and Semiramus are represented as actively engaged in the pursuits of the chase, the “quiver-bearing Semiramus” being a fit companion for the “mighty hunter before the Lord.” It seems certain also that Nimrod trained leopards to aid him in his pursuit of other animals; and it is interesting to note that the leop­ard skin was prominent in the religious rituals of other pagan nations. For instance, in Egypt the high priest wore a leopard’s skin when officiating on all important occa­sions, which was intended to commemorate some outstanding event in connection with the God Osiris. Much of the clothing of heathen gods and priests was intended to convey some meaning to those who were educated to understand them. And Nimrod and Osiris are just two different names for the same person. The writer Bunsen says Osiris was at once the husband and son of his mother; and Osiris was just another name for Nimrod or Ninus.

The name Nimrod means literally “The subduer of the leopard,” being derived from nimr (a leopard) and rad (to subdue). In ancient times ouch significance was to be found in names; most of the names in the Bible carry meanings intended to convey some characteristic of the persons who received them, or the work such persons would do. The name Cush (father of Nimrod) means black. Ham also was black, being the father of all the black races. Josephus says “Cush was he from whom came the Ethiopians.” Some translations of Jer. 13:23 state it thusly: “Can the Cushite change his skin, or the leopard his spots?”

Semiramus is said to have been a very beautiful but very depraved woman; and it is to her that much of the extravagant and licentious character of the heathen reli­gions has been ascribed. The special religious festivals of the Romans, the Greeks, the Assyrians, etc., were simply occasions to “eat, drink and be merry”; and the wine and sexual extremes to be found in all of them. In Canaan, for instance, male and female prostitutes were available in the religious temples; and the price for that service was cast into a coffer at the door of the temple as the visitor departed. The names varied in different countries; but the modus operandi was almost identical wher­ever it can be traced. In Egypt it was Osis and Osiris; with the Sidonians, Phoeni­cians and Canaanites it was Baal and Astarte, or Ashtoreth; in South Arabic it was Athtar and Athtart; in the Amarna letters it was Ashtartu. In Rome it was Venus, who is closely identified with the Greek Aphrodite, from which latter name is derived our English word aphrodisiac. Solomon is strictly condemned for his involvement with such characters: “Solomon went after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, and af­ter Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.” (1 Kgs. 11:5)

The dissolute segment of the human race, under the leadership of Nimrod and Semi­ramus, carried their debauchery to such extremes that the respectable element of so­ciety condemned Nimrod to death, cut his body into fourteen pieces, and distributed the pieces to various sections of the country as a warning to others who might be sim­ilarly inclined. However, Semiramus would not meekly accede to this action. She was not only beautiful and depraved, but she was also very ambitious and resourceful. Tra­dition has it that she invented the torture stake, which was a pointed stick often used in the execution of criminals by thrusting through the chest or driven longitudinally through the back or privy parts of the body and coming out of the mouth.

Being acutely aware of the mood of those who had executed her husband Nimrod, she knew she dared not openly carry on where he had left off. Thus, she contacted such of his adherents as were amenable; and had them meet in secret. At these conclaves they were given binding oaths of silence; were then anointed with “magical ointments” and given exciting drinks, which introduced into their bodily systems such drugs as tended to arouse their imaginations – to prepare them for the visions and revelations that were about to be made to them. One writer puts it this way: “Strange and amaz­ing objects presented themselves. Sometimes the place in which they were seemed to shake around them; sometimes it appeared bright and resplendent with light and radiant fire, and then again covered with black darkness; sometimes thunder and lightning, or fearful noises and bellowings, or terrible apparitions astonished the trembling specta­tors.” Then finally the great hidden god was revealed to them to calm them and to call forth their admiration and blind affections.

In this way Nimrod became the “father of the gods,” known as the first of the “deified mortals.” As such he was worshipped under the titles of Kronos and Saturn, the latter being the god of Mysteries, the name itself signifying “the Hidden one.” He was revealed to the initiated, but hidden to all others. In Greece and Rome Nim­rod carried the name of Bacchus or Dionysus; and in Rome the bacchanalian feasts were notorious for their frenzied singing, dancing and revelry – often with extreme sex orgies added. Leopards were used to draw the car of Bacchus; and he himself was rep­resented as clothed in a leopard’s skin, as were also his priests.  Herodotus, the father of history, says Osiris and Bacchus are one and the same; their rites also were almost identical.

Not being content with the legerdemain described above, Semiramus eventually not only had the executed Nimrod raised as an invisible spirit being, but he had taken up his abode in the sun, whence he is now said to be overruling in the affairs of men. Zoroaster was the sun god, the champion of goodness and light; and his worship was the state religion of Persia before they embraced Mohammedanism.

So flourishing had this mysticism become under the instigation of Semiramus, that, when she event­ually died, the myth was circulated by her devotees that she too was now an invisible spirit being, living in the moon – whence she ruled the world by night, just as Nimrod ruled it by day. It will be noted that the contour of a woman’s face is to some very clearly visible in the moon, when the moon is nearly full. In Isa. 47:13 the Prophet offers sharp criticism of such idiocy: “Let them take their  stand, I pray thee, that they may save thee – the dividers of the heavens, the gazers at the stars, they who make known by new moons, somewhat of the things which shall come upon thee. Lo! they have become as straw – a fire hath burned them up, They shall not deliver their own soul from the grasp of the flame.” (Rotherham)

As the sun is the Lord of the day, so Semiramus is styled “the Queen of Heaven”; and this teaching had made considerable impression upon the Jews shortly before they were carried away into Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar for their seventy years’ captivity ­“until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths; for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfill threescore and ten years.” (2 Chron. 36:21) In Jer. 44:17,18,19,25, Semiramus is directly described as “The Queen of Heaven,” to whom the Jews “burned incense, and poured out drink offerings.”

The Chaldean name for Nimrod, the son of Semiramus, was Zero-ashta – from zero’ “the seed, “ and ashta, “the woman.” However, the word Ashta also means “the fire”; therefore, Nimrod becomes Zeroastes, or Zoroaster, the name of the head of the fire worshipers. The voice of antiquity is clear and distinct that the first and great Zoroaster was an Assyrian or Chaldean, the founder of the idolatrous system of Babylon; therefore, Nimrod. Nimrod was the first Babylonian king; hence the title Molech pri­marily applies to him, because Molech means ‘king.’ This makes clear why the Scrip­tures indicate Molech (or Moloch) to be the terrible god of fire, the earthly represent­ative of Baal, the sun-god.

That this idolatry was already firmly established in the nations of Canaan when the Jews were leaving Egypt is clearly set forth in Deut. 12:31: “Even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.” And in Deut. 18:10 the Jews were emphatically commanded: “There shall not be found among you any one that mak­eth his son or his daughter to pass through the fire.” But Jer. 32:35 (written some 900 years later) tells us that the Jews had fully forgotten this commandment: “They built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind that they should do this abomination.”

This is Part One of a series of installments of The Three Worlds, which we trust will prove profitable to our readers to better acquaint them with the sins, evils and corruption of “the world that was” and this “present evil world” (Gal. 1:4), as well as enable us to appreciate the “world to come” wherein dwelleth righteousness. (2 Pet. 3:13)

“O come, let us sing unto the Lord: Let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.... For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand.” (Psa. 95:1,7)

Sincerely your brother,

John J.  Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 242: A RANSOM FOR ALL - "TO BE TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME"

No. 242

“God desires all men to be saved, and come to an accurate knowledge of the Truth... the man Christ Jesus gave Himself a ransom in behalf of all – the testimony in its own seasons.” (1 Tim. 2:4-6, Dia.) “The testimony in its own season” is very signifi­cant, and often overlooked by those who would have “all men” to be saved during this Faith Age. Salvation is not offered to “all men” during this Faith Age, but only for those who have sufficient faith to walk a “narrow way.” A “narrow way” is for the elective salvation, and all those who travel this “narrow way” will receive a ‘better resurrection’ than the world of mankind. The world of mankind – the non-elect – must await for their “accurate knowledge of the Truth” until their “due time.” Their due time is when the New Covenant is inaugurated and the Highway of Holiness is available for them – at which time they will also receive sufficient knowledge for their works’ salvation. There are two distinct salvations – the Great Salvation for the elect, and the Common Salvation for the non-elect.

It was not so very long after St. Paul died that the Truth on this text was first perverted by the crown-lost leaders of that time, and then completely lost – just as was also the Truth on the “restitution of all things” as given by St. Peter in Acts 3:21-23. So completely were these truths lost that the wiser of the Interim Preachers ignored them altogether – just kept silent; it was by far the safer and more discreet policy. But, when the “due time” came for the Harvest Truth to be proclaimed, Bro. Russell made crystal clear the Apostles, words, and explained the “Ransom for all” so ably that an unbiased child could understand it. However, since his death a situa­tion has arisen similar to the one after St. Paul’s death: The clear truth on the Ran­som has once more become dim to some, confusing to others, perverted or completely set aside by many of the crown-lost leaders – particularly on the “testimony in its own seasons.”

It is not our intention to analyze all the variations that have arisen since 1916, and we shall make rather brief comment only on the two extremes of “the pesti­lence that now walketh in darkness.” (Psa. 91:6) The first of these extremes prompted detailed and prolonged discussion in the Present Truth when Frederick Robison (one of the eight Society leaders who was sent to Atlanta penitentiary in 1918) left the Soci­ety and allied himself with Concordant-Versionism four or five years after the demise of Brother Russell. This system of error proclaims the belief of Universal Salvation – with even the Devil and his angels to be eventually saved. One of their ‘strong, points is that no spirit being or descendant of Adam can be lost, as that would mean that God suffers loss; and He would be failing if He failed to rescue from the meshes of sin those beings now involved in it; and this, they say, is impossible, because God is omnipotent, He cannot fail in anything. And this flimsy argument has ensnared a goodly number of the shallow, the unlearned, and the Sinners (crown-losers).

The simple answer to them is that God has said of Adam, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Therefore, when Adam returned to “dust” 930 years after his creation, God had not lost anything; He had exactly what He had when He started – a certain quantity of dust. There are a number of very clear and convincing Scrip­tures to refute Universalism, but these are completely ignored by the believers of this “Pestilence.” We have had extended correspondence with some of them, but they cling tenaciously to the false, and reject just as tenaciously the true. Yes, “Wisdom is justified of all her children.”

To make this presentation comprehensive and clear we believe it is in order to advance the query, “From what does God desire all men to be saved?” The plain impli­cation of salvation is that man now occupies some adverse position, from which it is desirable to free him. St. Paul also answers this point: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men.” (Rom. 5:12) Clearly enough, all of us came under the death sentence through no cause of our own; it was an inheritance passed on to us because of what “one man” did in the Garden of Eden; and it is this sentence that God desires to nullify through the vicarious atonement of one other man – The Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a Ransom for all. This, then, will be the ultimate accomplishment; but there is just no hint at all here that, once that sentence is set aside, it cannot once more be repeated. In fact, the condition of each man – after his first sentence is set aside – will have the same legal signifi­cance as a jail-bird of our day who has been pardoned. He may then select for himself which way he will go – either back to further crime, or a resolve to sin against soci­ety no more. If he chooses the latter, the prison walls have no more terror for him; he is free to enjoy “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as avowed to every law-abiding citizen by our Constitution.

And in identical fashion every man, as an individual, will also be free to “choose life that he may live” after he has been saved from his present inherited sentence of death. “I will redeem them from death; I will ransom them from the power of the grave.” (Hos. 13:14) However, this will be a matter of choice, which the “sheep” will gladly accept, but which the “goats” will reject. (Matt. 25:32, 33; Acts 3:23)

THE OTHER EXTREME

The antithesis of the Universalism teaching is the one now being promulgated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses; namely, Adam will have no further opportunity for salva­tion – that he is not included in the “all men” of our caption text: St. Paul did not know whereof he spoke when he said, “God desires all men to come to an accurate knowl­edge of the Truth.” And this same situation will apply to millions and millions of others – particularly those of this our day who refuse their ideas of “an accurate knowledge of the Truth,” so they say. Of course, it does not require much conversa­tion with the great bulk of their members to learn that they themselves are sorely lacking in “an accurate knowledge of the Truth,” so it is certainly not just cynicism when we inquire how such people can pass on to others “an accurate knowledge of the Truth” when they do not have it themselves. Of course, their lack of such “accurate knowledge” can be charged against the leaders of that organization, because the major­ity of their “large crowd” never received the Truth as taught by That Servant. It is their leaders (of error) who will receive the greater condemnation. (James 3:1)

In this, as well as the first-mentioned extreme – and in all the intermediate variations of error on this subject – we emphasize that such teachings are a direct denial of the Ransom, even though such teachers may emphatically deny such guilt. But let us notice there was only one man involved in the original sin – just as there is only one man involved in the Ransom from that sin. These two must be the exact equiv­alent of each other if logic is to apply at all, because the Greek antilutron (Ransom) means a perfect duplicate, an exact equivalent. And Adam has been the only man ever to live on this earth who was ever the exact duplicate of the man Jesus when He presented Himself for baptism at Jordan. At that time He was 30 years of (the Jewish and Biblical age of maturity); and He was the exact counterpart of Adam in Eden when God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” And, if this be true, Jesus could not possibly offer a true Ransom – an exact equiva­lent – for the rest of us, because none of us are perfect; therefore, Jesus would be paying more than an anti-lutron for any of us through Adam – just as our inherited sin was handed on to us through Adam. “As by the offense of one (Adam) judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one (Jesus) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” (Rom. 5:18) The “all men” here does not exclude Adam.

Therefore, we repeat that Universalism, and the rejection of Adam in the redemp­tive process, are both direct denials of the Ransom – wittingly or unwittingly, as the case may be. It does not require great intelligence to realize that Adam could not possibly have received “justification to life” through Jesus, when Jesus did not appear on this earth as the “Ransom (corresponding price) for all” until some three thousand years after Adam had entered the tomb. In passing, we stress that the Ransom for all has been efficacious only for the Elect and the prospective Elect during this Faith Age this Gospel (good news) Age, which is still with us, and will continue to be with us for some years – until the finished picture of this Epiphany period. More on this later.

THE MAY 1966 BIBLE STANDARD

The May 1966 Bible Standard (this article was first published in our No. 146, September 1966 paper) in its treatise of the Ransom is very good, and we offer no criticism of it, so far as it went – because it is the Truth as taught by both Messengers. However, it should not be overlooked that some of the worst renegades of this Parousia-­Epiphany period have retained enough of “Present Truth” (2 Pet. 1:12) to give them a certain appearance of respectability. If this were not true, then nobody would be de­ceived by them or their systems of error. Over the years it has come to us a number of times that certain preachers admit privately to a close scrutiny of the Six Volumes of Scripture Studies (although we have never heard one of them make such public admission); and they use much of the Truth in those books, palming it off as their own, as they mix into it much of their own error. In due course we may elaborate on some of these.

We believe it well that we consider St. Paul’s words that “Satan himself is trans­formed into an angel of light.” This is a technique he adopted about two hundred years ago – when he began to realize a change in tactics became necessary. And he has not only done this in the religious world, but he is also doing it in the political and civic circles. Recently we were much impressed by a newspaper item along this line, some of which quote:

“Yes, the Soviet Constitution guarantees religious freedom, but that is part of your problem. You use good words and then endow them with your own meanings. The Communists deal in slogans as bootleggers deal in faked spirits; and the more innocent the customer, the more easily he becomes a victim of the ideolog­ical hootch sold under the trademark of Peace, Democracy, Progress, or what you will.... While freedom may be given verbal praise in Russia... freedom there is just a hollow phrase.”

In identical fashion to the foregoing, many leaders in the Truth groups today make loud profession of “brotherly love,” all the while they “cast out” their breth­ren (Isa. 66:5); and make loud profession of harmony with the teachings of That Ser­vant (Brother Russell) – “only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach” (Isa. 4:1) – let us also parade as “angels of light.” And, when any of these repro­duce any of the superb articles of Brother Russell or Brother Johnson, let none reach hasty conclusion that the publishers are in that same elect company with those breth­ren, or that they are even in full heart harmony with the general system of doctrine and symmetry of interpretation which they presented. However, we do not charge the Editor of the Bible Standard with these tactics in his presentation of the Ransom in his May 1966 paper. As we have said, it is the Truth and we heartily subscribe to that Truth; and because it is the Truth, we now offer some supplementary attacks on Ransom errors that we feel meet our present-day needs.

The Standard article attacks the gross errors so prevalent in our day, but doesn’t include subtle errors that are being promulgated, which just as surely impinge against the Ransom as do these gross errors – and many times have a more evil influence upon some of our brethren who would not be ensnared by the grosser errors. We especially refer to those groups who now teach consecrated classes for this Age other than the Elect – a gross repudiation of both Messengers, teachings thereon – that all consecra­tors between the Ages (after spirit-begettal is no longer available, and before the Highway of Holiness is opened) will share with the Ancient Worthies in honor and ser­vice, if faithful to their consecrations while sin is in the ascendancy. Of course, the Editor of the Bible Standard couldn’t attack others for such deflections and im­pingement against the Ransom when he himself has a similar class.

Thus, in that May Bible Standard the Editor does say that the “large multitude” is a spiritual class, as he makes general attack upon the errors of the Witnesses; yet he fails to expose the fallacy of that non-existent class of Jonadabs because he himself has an almost identical twin in his Consecrated Campers. And, he who lives in a glass house must hesitate to throw stones. Also, in some respects at least, his Consecrated Campers are even more ridiculous than the Witnesses, Jonadabs. He proposes for his non­existent Class tentative justification in the Camp, which in turn forces him to have Christ divided – part of His merit in the Court, and part in the Camp. And, since he also admits that his Campers are strictly Restitutionists, and not included in the real Elect Classes of this Gospel Age, he once more has Christ “divided” – part of His merit applying now on behalf of the Elect “faith” classes, and part of it now applying to his Mediatorial-Age “works” class. It seems these two partners in error have completely forgotten Jesus’ words, “No man cometh unto the Father but by Me.” Just where is Jesus to be found in the Tabernacle Camp? Near the gate of the Court, or anywhere in the Camp? And, if the Witnesses’ “large Multitude” has no present faith justification, what pos­sible standing can they then have before God? “Mine own righteousness is as filthy rags.” (Isa. 64:6) However, it should be noted that the Jehovah’s Witnesses rejected altogether That Servant’s teaching on Youthful Worthies, but the LHMM continues to teach there is such a Class, although entrance into that elect class was closed in 1954. So they now teach two classes of consecrators “between the Ages,” one elect and one non-elect. The Jehovah’s Witnesses has been consistent in teaching one class after the ‘remnant’ has been selected, even though they have changed the name from Jonadab to “great crowd.”

However, by way of encouragement to those “dedicated” Witnesses who have accepted their position “in sincerity and in Truth,” and who are honestly trying to abide by the “dedication” they have made of themselves to serve the Lord, it may eventually be found that they all along have had that “righteousness that cometh of faith in Jesus” – that they do have a faith justification, even though they have been unaware of it. Of those, the scales will eventually drop from their eyes – just as will be true of Campers Consecrated or Quasi-elect Consecrated who came in with honesty of purpose. Such persistent and sincere ones will eventually awake to a realization that they have been stand­ing in the antitypical Court right along, and will be rewarded in honor and service with the Ancient Worthies, just as That Servant taught us regarding those consecrators “be­tween the Ages” before Restitution sets in. Then they will be able to do an accept­able work to God having an acceptable standing in THE RANSOM as applicable to this Age of Faith.

Of course, we should not forget that antitypical Saul (the crown-lost leaders we see all about us) cannot offer clear and complete refutation of the errors of their kinsmen so long as their own skirts have not been cleansed from the defiling errors (“the pestilence that walketh in darkness” of this Epiphany night) that now beset them. This is particularly true of the Editor of the Bible Standard, who presently is engulfed in such a quagmire of false doctrine (“strange fire”) with his own Campers Consecrated that he cannot offer the annihilative Scriptural refutation of Jonadabs – or the “large multitude,” however you wish to express it – that the error deserves. Prior to 1950, when he still embraced the clear Parousia and Epiphany Truth on the Elect and the Non­elect, he was quite forceful in his attacks on the non-existent Jonadabs (just as we now attack his non-existent class of Campers Consecrated), as they were then described in the Present Truth – the same magazine he continues to designate as Present Truth of which he is now also editor. It is this omission in the May Bible Standard that has motivated us to supplement his Ransom treatise therein.

Especially do we direct attention to p. 36, col. 2, par. 1, where the elect and the non-elect are clearly and correctly delineated. We are in complete accord with this paragraph because it, too, is exactly as Brother Russell has given it to us. But, inas­much as the Editor is making a frontal attack upon the Jehovah’s Witnesses, why does he not proceed to prove why his statement regarding the “great multitude” is correct, and that the Witnesses, contention concerning this class is incorrect? Of course, the real reason is that the Editor himself has invented a counterpart class of the Witnesses’ false “large multitude,” so he dare not expose their ridiculous teaching without expos­ing himself to similar ridicule. We have examined this subject in detail in our papers No. 130 and 131; but we stress once again that our analysis is not primarily concerned with the Bible Standard’s presentation of the Ransom (with which we ourselves concur), but our fault is found with his glaring failures in not giving full value to the “gold” in his hand. Actually the Editor himself does not concur with his published state­ments cited therein! If he did so, we would have no cause at all to present this paper; but his own invention of a non-existent Restitutionist (“works”) class in this “faith” Age is an error in some respects more vile than the Witnesses’ Jonadabs or “large crowd”; it is a vitiation and denial of the Ransom – whether he is aware of it or not. Christ’s merit is on embargo for the Elect and in the Court, and cannot be divided.

Perhaps it is well to note here, too, that any who are at all familiar with Parou­sia Truth have little difficulty in recognizing the Witnesses’ denial of the Ransom, as they place Adam, the Scribes and Pharisees, and countless others in the second death. But it is the subtle errors, such as Campers Consecrated, the tools of the sixth Slaugh­ter-weapon man that are creating havoc among erstwhile adherents to the sober teachings of That Servant. But dividing Christ’s merit between Restitutionists now in this “faith” Age and Restitutionists later on during the “works” dispensation is just as much a denial of the Ransom as the Witnesses’ “large crowd” – and decidedly more cul­pable because it has been done against much greater light.

Note the clear Parousia teaching on this point, as given on p. 7 of the Foreword in Vol. 5, October 1, 1916 (one of the last expressions by That Servant on the matter):

“This imputation of the merit of His sacrifice to the Church (to the Little Flock and the Great Company—JJH) by Jesus might be likened to a mortgage, or an encumbrance, upon the Ransom-sacrifice, which would hinder it from being applied to the world (of which Campers Consecrated are a part—JJH) until its application to the Church shall be completed.”

At one time – before the Epiphany Messenger’s demise – The Standard Editor be­lieved the above statement by the Parousia Messenger – at least he gave lip service to this teaching; and this is just one more Parousia and Epiphany Truth against which he is now revolutionizing. However, we believe there are quite a few brethren in other Truth groups who “continue in this Truth.”

As we have already stated, the May article is certainly excellent in everything it says so far as it goes; but this omission arouses our pity for this member of anti­typical Saul – much as our sympathy also is extended to typical King Saul. “When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord anointed thee King over Israel?” (1 Sam. 15:17) Saul had come from the smallest tribe in Israel, so “little in his own sight” that he “hid himself among the stuff” (1 Sam. 10:22) when the people would make him their king. Thus, he was a man who came from nothing, arose to the highest honor in a great nation, then relapsed into ignominious defeat, and death, and the loss of Israel’s throne for his posterity ­back once more to nothing. Indeed, a tale of deep tragedy! As we write this, it is our sincere hope and prayer that the Standard’s Editor may not continue “in his path of error” (James 5:20, Dia.) to the full fatality experienced by King Saul; and we now quote from his statement concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which applies in full force to him: “While we commend them (him) for the Scripturally supported truths that they (he) present, we decry their (his) many errors, some of which are against the car­dinal doctrines of God’s Word.”

It should be emphasized here that the Editor of the Bible Standard is now himself grossly and persistently perverting a “cardinal doctrine of God’s Word” as he “offers strange fire before the Lord,” and REVOLUTIONIZES against vital Truths he once accepted, upheld and defended, before the Epiphany Messenger’s demise in 1950 – as he then at­tacked the Witnesses’ “strange fire” of “Great Crowd,” or Jonadabs, and upheld Tentative Justification in the Court. Now he himself perverts the doctrine of tentative justifi­cation, as he extends it to the Camp – outside the linen curtain of Christ’s Righteous­ness. We should note carefully that there are Two Distinct uses of Christ’s merit, the same as there are Two Distinct Salvations: namely, Christ’s merit is an imputable thing during the Gospel Age – and an applied thing during the Kingdom reign. Tentative Justification is an imputable thing, and will cease at the end of the Gospel Age, as we have often quoted from the Messengers, writings.

When we reassert the Truth on the Court, the Camp, Tentative Justification and the different uses of the merit for Gospel-Age purposes and Kingdom purposes, we are “contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints” – the Truth as taught by both Messengers. They repeatedly emphasized in very definite manner that the Gospel-­Age tentative justification is an imputable thing – and that it will cease to operate when the faith classes (the elect) no longer need it (at the end of their course); that it cannot possibly operate when the “works” dispensation is inaugurated, because Christ’s merit will then be an applied thing – in its entirety and in a finality that will con­sume all of it in its application for the New Covenant. In this it differs from its use now in this Faith dispensation, because in no case has it ever been imputed in its entirety for any individual – only enough of it being used to supply the deficiency of the respective recipients who come under it; and in each and every case when it is applied, it is eventually returned to its depository (in the hands of the Heavenly Father), so that the full completion of this Faith Age will find Christ’s merit in ex­actly the same condition as it was when He proclaimed on the cross, “Father, into thy hands I commend (deposit) my spirit.” During the Kingdom the merit will be actually applied – used up.

And, as Brother Russell and Brother Johnson have both stressed repeatedly: If we keep clear on the doctrine of Justification in its relation to the Ransom, we are not likely to stray too far from “Present Truth.” Our own experience corroborates this. Of the many letters we receive almost all of the writers still show a sound retention of Parousia Truth, if they are still clear on the doctrines of Justification, the Ran­som, the Court and the Camp.

Also, letters and reports come to us from widely-separated localities (England, Scotland, Poland, Trinidad, Jamaica, the U.S., etc.) that many of the brethren in the LHMM do not accept or teach his Campers Consecrated “strange fire”; and we urge all who have a sympathetic interest in the Editor’s eternal welfare to inform him of their disagreement with this “pestilence that walketh in darkness.” We believe that would be a major kindness to him on their part.

“My Brethren, if any one among you wander from the Truth, and some one turn him back; know you That He who turns back a Sinner from his Path of Error, will save his Soul from Death, and will cover a Multitude of Sins.” (James 5:19-20, Dia. – See Berean Comment)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother: Ps. 89:1

I heard an interview on T.V. recently which interested me much. Dr. Toffler was giving his view-point of world conditions. Since he is an author, I purchased his new book, “Eco-Spasm.” It is a small paper-back but full of dire predictions. I thought you might appreciate a few quotes from it.

With your knowledge of finance and your knowledge of Biblical prophecies, there is nothing new, but psychology students, thinkers, readers, are very aware of our pre­carious situation. The Lord’s army will soon be on the march!

While money still has some value, I’m sending a donation for the Lord’s work. God bless you in all your worthy endeavors. Christian love ------- (FLORIDA)

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

Dear Friends:

I am searching for Bible Truth, and I believe you have it. Please send me all the Bible literature you can. Put me on your mailing list. Send samples of your mag­azine. I want to subscribe to it. Send me a complete list of all the literature you can. (1) Please answer: Is Jesus God? (2) Are these the last days? (3) Who is the Holy Spirit? Write soon.

Sincerely ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied!

Your recent letter received, and as always very glad to hear from you. I under­stand the pressure on you, with so few to carry on the Lord’s work.... But as you have said in your precious letters, you are doing the best you can.

We did enjoy our visit to your home. You have a lovely place with the beautiful lake. We had no intention of staying overnight. As we said in our previous letter, we were just passing through, and would it be convenient for us to stop over for a couple of hours........ God bless you all as you continue to serve the Lord – and we know we are all richly blessed.

Your brother by His Grace, ------- (NEW JERSEY)

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

My dear Brother Hoefle: Jude 2!

Thank you for your letter of March 18 and copy of letter sent to Bro. and Sr. ------- ­I am sure it will be a comfort to them. Sr. ------- and I spent a very blessed time at the Memorial, as well as in our preparation for it. The tie that binds our hearts in Christian love for those who were celebrating March 25 after 6 p.m. was indeed blessed!

Both of us were able to deliver a few tracts – and two ladies said “Thank you!” We hope to go again when the weather permits.

Our news of Sr. Davies is rather sad. She has broken her thigh in a fall outside and is in the Infirmary... Phoned last night and she is to be moved to another hospital for an operation. Your message was sent to her and Sr. Rooke before the Memorial. Sr. ------- let us know about Sr. Davis.

How you must have suffered for so long since the flood of 1913! And you must appreciate very highly your relief now. We wish for you good health and happiness in the Truth and its service. In spite of your sufferings, you have gained and kept the Truth! God bless you!

Last Sunday morning I put on the radio and a J.W. began to speak. He said this year 1975 is the end of the world, and if you don’t get into the Ark – their organi­zation – you were lost. Another day I saw a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I was going to have a word with them – but they opened their books and said, “We don’t have time to talk to you.”

Your February issue is excellent on the Millennium. We are in harmony with it. The rubbish must be swept away to make way for a clean way. The blessings of the New Covenant begin with the Jews and then to the Gentiles: Whoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Much love to you and all with you.

Sincerely, ------- (ENGLAND)

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

Dear Sir:

I was surely moved by one topic on the following list, and I would like to share this information with other friends. So please send me five copies of each of the following papers listed. Thank you for everything!

Yours respectfully ------- (TRINIDAD)

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

Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n

Att.: Brother John J. Hoefle,

We have been the recipients of so many blessings all of our lives, and we are asking if you can assist us in getting at least one more. Will you please send us a copy of your paper, No. 237, March 1, 1975, on “Some Thoughts for the Memorial.” A copy was loaned to us and we would like a copy for our file (the present copy must be returned). We are enclosing something to pay postage and packing.

Yours in the One Hope, ------- (FLORIDA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

We have just received the two packages of tracts, and in spite of their being late for the Special Effort, we were glad to have them to distribute.......

We are all fairly well and trust you and Sister Hoefle are keeping fit. Bro. ------- would like to have the book entitled Photo Drama of Creation. If you can get one for him, I’m sure he will be thankful.

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

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

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

Dear Sir:

Please send me a list of your publications. I am especially interested in the Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures by P. S. L. Johnson, or other Bible Student literature. Thank you in advance ------- (OHIO)

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

In harmony with the arrangements of the Epiphany Messenger for the Epiphany, we suggest Sunday, October 19 through Sunday, November 16, for our Fall Special Effort in antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle in the “good fight” against the two King Errors: Eternal Torment and Consciousness of the Dead. Please see Epiphany Vol. 5, pp. 236­234 – Antitypical Zebah and Zalmunna.

Our tracts, Where are the Dead, What is the Soul, and the Resurrection of the Dead are especially appropriate for this witness work – also the books, The Divine Plan of the Ages and Life-Death-Hereafter can be used to good advantage. All who wish to join with us in this Special Effort, please order the literature in time. Our tracts are free, postage paid.

We honor the Lord by continuing in His Truth and Arrangements – and we honor His faithful Mouth­pieces as we “bear witness” to these timely Truths. (1 Sam. 2:30) We invite all of like mind to join with us in the prayer, God bless their memory! (1 Tim. 5:17)

NO. 241: MORE CONCERNING CORNELIUS (CONTINUED)

No. 241

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

In our May paper No. 239 we offered extended analysis on Cornelius and his con­dition before Peter’s visit; but time and space did not allow us the detail that the subject required. Thus, we now offer further comment in refutation of what is pre­sented in the Jan.-Feb. PT, pp. 11-15. For the benefit of our readers who no longer read the PT we now quote the opening paragraph on p. 11 of this paper, under the head­ing of “Tentative Justification & Cornelius’ Standing”:

“It IS saddening to see what lengths persistent errorists will go to uphold their errors – how with cleverly worded sophistry (such as we quoted from That Servant!—JJH) they will twist, misrepresent and disparage in order to evade the Truth and uphold their errors, how they will misuse and even fight against plain statements of Scriptures in order to do so.”

We have quoted this statement by RGJ because we shall now offer further proof that he was there describing himself. The Truth is that the standing of Cornelius would be no issue with RGJ if it did not impinge against his Campers Consecrated. He is now so enmeshed in this quagmire of error that he is forced to set aside one fundamental doc­trine after another – doctrines that dispute his contentions concerning his Campers Con­secrated.

ABOUT CORNELIUS

On p. 15, col. 2, par. 4, there is this: “Bro. Russell’s many and oft-repeated statements to the effect that Cornelius was not yet a believer in Christ as his Sav­ior when Peter came and told him the saving words.” We ask him now to cite just one of those “oft–repeated statements” by Brother Russell that would set aside the fact that Cornelius was “repentant and believing” before Peter’s visit. We have quoted from Brother Russell that Cornelius was consecrated of years’ standing, and that he was a just and devout man. However, while we are waiting for RGJ to find the one statement from Brother Russell that supports his error, we now offer a quotation from Reprint 2988, col. 2, last paragraph onward, that clearly contradicts what RGJ is try­ing to have his readers believe:

“Cornelius, the centurion, whose acceptance with God is the subject of this lesson, was evidently converted to God and to righteousness years prior to this incident (Peter’s visit as described in Acts 10:34-44—JJH). This is the testimony; he was a worshiper of God, a benevolent alms-giver, and his love of righteousness and his consistent life were recognized amongst those with whom he had to do; yet, nevertheless, something was necessary before he could be accepted by God in the proper sense of that word. (He must await his “due time”—JJH) There is a lesson here for those who imagine reverence of God and morality are all that is necessary to divine acceptance. As Cornelius had these qualities in large measure be­fore his acceptance, the Lord’s dealing with him may well be a guide for all others who desire to approach Him in covenant relationship.

“Although devout, etc., as we have seen, Cornelius was not a Jew; and realized himself to be outside the pale of special divine favor. (Like Peter he had to be instructed by the Lord how he, a Gentile, could receive this favor—JJH) Still he prayed to God... for enlightenment respecting the divine character and plan... Cornelius needed to know of the Lord Jesus from the true standpoint; he must exercise faith in him as his redeemer, before the memorials of his piety would count for anything with God........ (Self–evidently, he was a worshiper of the God of Israel, and no doubt had a great re­spect for the followers of Jesus, who had accepted Him as their Messiah—JJH)

“Evidently Cornelius was full of faith in the Lord... He did not wait to see if Peter would come; he knew that he would come; he had faith (belief—JJH) in the Lord’s promise through the angel: Accordingly he gathered together his friends and relatives and household – those upon whom he had been exercising an influence, and who, like him­self were pious (“repentant and believing”—JJH) and earnestly desirous of knowing all that they might learn concerning the way of life... (It seems they were in the proper condition of heart for a full commitment to the Lord sometime before their “due time” for God’s acceptance – but the “way” was not opened for them until the 3½ years of spec­ial favor to individual Jews had expired—JJH)

“Meantime, Peter, with all the prejudices belonging to the Jews for centuries, needed to be prepared to receive this first out–and–out Gentile brought into the Church. (It would seem that Peter was at least as ignorant of what was to be done as was Cor­nelius—JJH)

“Peter’s message, ‘words,’ explaining matters, enabled Cornelius and his house­hold to grasp by faith (emphasis by Brother Russell) the great redemption which is in Christ Jesus... Saved at once from alienation from God and from condemnation, as sin­ners...

“Having called for an expression from those present – especially from the brethren who accompanied him from Joppa – to know if any objection could be thought of why these dear brethren, who had believed in the Lord, who had given evidence of their consecra­tion and good works, even before they knew of the Lord and His glorious plan, and who had now been accepted of God, and His acceptance manifested – why these should not be admitted to every blessing and arrangement which God had provided for His faithful ones – irrespective of their being Gentiles by birth.”

Cornelius was a worshiper of Israel’s God, so the question might arise, Why didn’t he become a proselyte Jew if he desired to be in covenant relationship with God? Cor­nelius was well acquainted with the Jewish religion, otherwise he wouldn’t have been worshipping Israel’s God. But there was a dissension among the Jews – a few Israel­ites indeed accepted Jesus as their Messiah, but the majority didn’t accept Him. Some who didn’t become His followers referred to him as the Messiah (even Josephus referred to Jesus in his history as the Messiah); but the “due time” had not come for Cornelius to understand this fully. Thus, he was overjoyed when the angel visited him; and, as That Servant has aptly stated, Cornelius had sufficient faith to know that Peter would come – just as the angel had told him. And so it was with Peter – he, too, when properly instructed, had sufficient faith to do what he was told, even though, hither­to, he was prejudiced the same as other Jews.

Be it noted that the quotation from Reprint 2988 is four years later than Reprint 1922 – the latter being the one that RGJ contends is the only place where That Servant made a mistake about Cornelius.   He tells us that anytime before and after the article in Reprint 1922, Brother Russell supports his contention, that Cornelius was not “repentant and believing” before Peter’s visit. But note in the above quotation That Servant tells us that Cornelius had been converted to God and to righteousness years prior to Peter’s visit to him.

It is quite clear from That Servant’s teaching and from the Scriptures, that Cornelius was a righteous and God-fearing man years prior to Peter’s visit. He had done all that he could – had witnessed a good confession of his faith in the God of Israel to his household and friends, and had influenced them to do likewise. Conver­sion is a much more comprehensive and potent word than repentance. One cannot be converted until he is repentant. Self–evidently, therefore, Cornelius had to be re­pentant if he had been converted; and this illustrates just one more Truth that RGJ has lost, or never clearly understood. In support of this conclusion we now quote from E–6:232:

“The word repentance means much more than a change from wrong to right knowledge as to one’s moral state. It means not only a change from a wrong to a cor­rect knowledge as to sin and righteousness, but also a change of disposition from a love of, and pleasure in sin to a sorrow for, and a hatred and abandonment of sin, and also from hatred and avoidance of righteousness to a love and practice of righteousness. Anything short of this is not a Biblical repentance.”

It is indisputable that Cornelius had Biblical repentance as described above by the Epiphany Messenger. And we now quote further from E–6:233:

“Revivalists make con­version consist of ‘repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus.’ Conversion, as the Bible teaches, is the entire process of turning from depravity into the image of God, and is a lifelong work. JFR has not only forsaken the Truth definition of conver­sion (Berean Comments Acts 3:19), but has fallen into deeper error on the subject than has the nominal Church.”

St. Peter’s statement in Acts 3:19 – “repent and be converted” – is definitely to the point that repentance must first come before any real conversion is accomplished; and, when RGJ sets this clear teaching aside, it is ample evidence that he now has the same teacher as did JFR, and that he is still in the clutches of Azazel – “deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Tim. 3:13)

Let us here stress the reason that RGJ has “turned his ears away from the Truth, and has turned to fables” (2 Tim. 4:4): It is his persistent effort to substantiate his delusion about Campers Consecrated by attempting to see types that support his er­ror. In his letter published in the Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower he admits his “besetting sin” in this respect, in which he says: “My faculty for seeing pictures and types be­came so developed that my eye would skim over a chapter, jumping at a chance picture here and there, and missing nearly all the original meaning and proper application of the text. The Bible I loved was thus becoming quite barren to me in respect to its intended use... I was enjoying it more as one would enjoy a picture book or ‘Grimm’s Fairy Tales.’.. Finally I came to the point where it became quite difficult for me to distinguish between truth and error; and I was in danger of losing my appreciation of the truth and devoting myself to the fanciful.”

And it is tragic to note that after all these years he is yet in the same condi­tion: it is quite difficult for him to “distinguish between truth and error”; other­wise he would not have referred to statements of That Servant regarding Cornelius to support his error, when those statements annihilate his position instead of support­ing him. He must have been too busy in 1910 with his own imagination to take sober note of the following statement in Parousia Vol. 2, pp. 173,174:

“But in considering types, we should carefully avoid the error of many well-meaning people, who, when they begin to see there are significant types in the Scriptures, run to the extreme of treat­ing every Bible character and incident as typical (as does RGJ when he thinks he finds support for his Campers Consecrated – such as the Hill Ophel, his Nethinim, etc.—­JJH), and are thus led into error by curiosity and ingenuity.”

In our previous statements we quoted from That Servant that Cornelius, consecra­tion and conversion were of years’ standing. So in his opinion Cornelius was more than “repentant and believing,” even though God would not deal with him until the “due time.” It is elementary that repentance must precede consecration and conversion ­and we observe that Jesus was also consecrated from boyhood, as is shown by his state­ment at the age of twelve: “Wist ye not that I must be about My Father’s business?” (Luke 2:49) However, the Father’s business for Him actually began when Jesus had be­come thirty years of age, and presented Himself at Jordan. Much the same can be said about the Prophet Samuel, who became “Judge” in Israel only after he had reached matu­rity, but he was consecrated from birth; and the same can be said of Brother Russell.

RGJ’s teachings clearly reveal him as a “foolish” virgin and “the unprofitable ser­vant” of Matt. 25:30 (see Berean Comment), who has “built his house upon the sand.” (Matt. 7:26) And the “house built upon the sand” will fall in due time – “and great will be the fall of it.”

The question properly arises: Why all this uproar about Cornelius? The answer is that it is due to RGJ’s errant nonsense concerning his Campers Consecrated. After the door to the Court is closed those in the Camp are in the same relevant position as was Cornelius before the 3½ years of special Jewish favor had expired after Jesus’ death. God could not accept the consecration of Cornelius until the “due time”; and it is not now the “due time” for God to accept Restitutionists’ consecration – nor will it be due time for God to accept such consecrations until the end of the Millennium ­when the Restitutionists will have become perfect. Just as in the case of Cornelius, God was mindful of his piety, and kept his prayers in remembrance, the Mediator is also mindful of the piety of the “repentant and believing” in the Camp after the door to the Court is closed, and their prayers will be held in remembrance until their “due time” for acceptance when the New Covenant is inaugurated. And, if God will have nothing to do with Restitutionists during the Mediatorial reign, certainly He will have nothing to do with them now! God and Jesus both deal with the elect during the Faith Age; but The Mediator only will deal with the Restitutionists during the Mediatorial reign – although in full accord with God’s will and arrangement. This is elementary – some­thing all the babes learned who came into Present Truth; and is in full harmony with the teaching of both Messengers – the “faith once delivered unto the saints.”

The nominal church teaches only one salvation – a salvation which can be gained only during this “present evil world.” However, the Bible teaches Two Distinct Sal­vations – one for the elect during the Faith Age (this “present evil world”), and one for the non-elect during the Works Age (the “world to come”). Apparently RGJ is not clear on this teaching – otherwise he would not be so confused in his statements. He became confused when he produced his non–existent class of Campers Consecrated, just as JFR became confused when he produced his non-existent class of Jonadabs (now called the Great Crowd of Rev. 7:9). Of course, such a monstrosity has caused both of them to pervert or reject other important Truths in their desperate effort to uphold their errors. That is why he is now presenting such “foolishness” about Cornelius and a “narrow way” in the Camp, which is simply a weird innovation – the invention of RGJ.

Neither Messenger ever hinted at such a situation; none of us ever heard of it until RGJ “discovered” it. The Berean Comment on 2 Tim. 3:13 well applies to him: “Being deceived... Becoming more firmly entrenched in the snares of their own weaving, so as to make it impossible to extricate them.” God will send to such “an energy of delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11, Dia.); and the Berean Comment on that text: “Great delu­sions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.” Certainly RGJ had more opportunity than any of the crown–losers for “possessing the most light of Present Truth”; and when he was under the benevolent influence of the Epiphany Messenger he was very vigorous and effective in combating the very errors he himself is now presenting. He was quite courageous and unafraid of the errorists at that time – because he had the Truth! “How are the mighty fallen!” (2 Sam. 1:19) In his present course he is manifesting an excellent antitype of King Saul; but we hope he may yet extricate himself, and not have an end­ing similar to that of King Saul.

“FINISHED PICTURE” OF EPIPHANY IS FUTURE

On p, 13, col. 2, of this PT, there is this comment under the above subheading: “This errorist (meaning JJH) makes another serious misrepresentation when he states that the finished picture of the Epiphany, according to RGJ is now 20 years gone.” We have never taught that the ‘finished picture’ of the Epiphany... is now 20 years gone. In its Camp feature the ‘finished picture’ has not yet even come.”

On occasion we have stated that RGJ is so befuddled that he cannot read plain and simple English and understand what he has read after he reads it. The Cornelius matter is an excellent illustration. And it seems now that he is no longer able to discuss simple arithmetic and come up with the correct answer. Especially would we direct attention here to the interpretation of Rev. 22:11, which appears in E–10:114. That interpretation was very clearly intended to embrace the “finished picture”; and no amount of jugglery can make anything else out of it. Yet we have RGJ using some of that explanation and definitely applying it to 1954 as “finished”; but he is now tell­ing us “he never taught that the ‘finished picture’ of the Epiphany is now 20 years gone.” As we have previously stated, he doesn’t seem to know from one year to the next just what he is teaching, which causes him to revolutionize against many Parousia and Epiphany truths; and it seems he is now revolutionizing against the truth as given in Rev. 22:11 on the finished picture – given us by the Epiphany Messenger – while all the time accusing us of “misrepresenting” him! To substantiate this statement we would refer our readers to the March 1955 PT, 30, col. 1 – Question re Tentative Justification. Here is what RGJ said then:

“Until the Ransom merit is applied on behalf of the world, and restitution, which brings actual justification, begins, tenta­tive justification (See E. Vol. 4, pp. 341–352 for details on this subject) will be given to believers as a prerequisite to their being acceptable to God in consecration.... Throughout the Gospel Age, until the initial beginning of the Basileia on Sept. 16, 1954, tentative justification has been a prerequisite to being acceptable to God – until restitution begins.”

­It was something to behold when he was forced to discard the foregoing by Brother Johnson! He did that because of our annihilative refutation of his erroneous conclusion taken from E–4:342 – his own citation. Brother Johnson distinctly and clearly in­forms us that Youthful Worthyship would be available as long as Tentative Justifica­tion is available – “until Restitution sets in.” RGJ then did an ‘about face’ and began teaching that tentative justification would be available all during the Kingdom reign for Restitutionists! When he now contends that Cornelius was not “repentant and believing” before Peter’s visit, and cites That Servant as his authority, it would seem that he learned just nothing from his previous humiliation regarding “tentative justification until restitution begins.” Again we used his own citations to refute his contention about Cornelius. It gives us no pleasure to place him in such embar­rassing situations – and it is our hope that these experiences will give him an incen­tive to extricate himself from the clutches of Azazel. If he does this and cleanses himself, he will then understand the Truth somewhat like the good Youthful Worthies. (See E–4:129)

However, we have often quoted the Epiphany Messenger – There will be NO TENTA­TIVE OR VITALIZED JUSTIFICATION DURING THE KINGDOM REIGN (E–15:261) – which he has ignored completely, all the while declaring that he is faithful to Epiphany Truth. Nevertheless, from what he is presently teaching, and what he taught in 1955 and on­ward for a time, he is following the same course of JFR, which has placed the Jeho­vah’s Witnesses in the malignant confusion they now preach.    Thus the following from E–6:231 is now pertinent to RGJ: “Whoever logically holds the Scripture Truth on Tentative and Vitalized Justification will, generally speaking, be free from the spiritual contagion that holds ‘that evil servant, in its grasp as a fevered victim (Psa. 91:6).”

Up to now RGJ is using the technique of JFR – walking “in the counsel of the ungodly” – keeps silent on the refutations he cannot answer. We suggest that some of his faithful adherents now ask him if he accepts the Epiphany Truth on Tentative and Vitalized Justification as given in E–15:261, and that he publish a clear and definite statement as to his stand on this item, and whether or not we “misrepresent” him when we quote from the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching.

Also, he has been persistently emphatic that the Epiphany “ended in a restricted sense” in 1954; and has just as emphatically contended that the Court gate of the Epiphany Tabernacle was closed against further entrance therein in 1954. Of course, we do not agree with that at all; we are merely repeating what RGJ has been saying. However, we now ask – If the Gate was permanently closed in 1954, is not that feature of the Epiphany Tabernacle also finished? It seems RGJ does not know that the words “end” and “finish” have the same meaning! It will be interesting to read his answer to this.

It should not require argument that the closing of the Gate would have direct bearing on the Epiphany Camp, because no one can any longer leave the Camp by going through the Gate into the Court. Such a situation in the Camp would be the beginning of the “finished picture” for the Camp. The same would be true of the Most Holy: if the last saint has left the earth, and entered the Most Holy (Heaven), as RGJ contends, then that feature of the Epiphany Tabernacle is also finished.      Further, if the last member of Azazel’s goat has been forced from the Holy – leaving a complete vacancy in that section of the Tabernacle – then that part of the Epiphany Tabernacle is also fin­ished, ended in every sense of the word. Thus, according to him, the Most Holy and the Holy are in the completed “finished picture” – that is, if we accept his teaching that the last saint was glorified in 1950.     If the Court is not in the “finished pic­ture,” then let him make it clear what part of the Court is “unfinished.” The Camp is in the finished picture, so far as allowing any one to enter the Court from the Camp. All this was fully accomplished on or before 1954, according to RGJ; yet he now offers the nonsensical statement, “We have never taught that the finished picture of the Epi­phany is now 20 years gone.” No, he never used the word “finished” in any of the fore­going; he just taught it, and is now saying we “misrepresent” him. JFR gave us the same argument in a letter he wrote us about 1920: “Johnson misrepresented me!” Of course, the same thing happened with JFR’s supporters after 1917; and look where they are to­day! With both of these organizations, their actual, although not verbal, motto is: My sect, my leaders, right or wrong! This makes about as much sense as a son or daughter saying, I’ll be guided by my mother, drunk or sober! Surely, “They that be drunken are drunken in the night” (1 Thes. 5:7 – Epiphany night).

Furthermore, RGJ has been vehement in contending that Rev. 22:11 was partially ful­filled in 1954. If it was, then that feature was also ended, finished, at that time. As most of our readers know, we emphatically disagree with all of his conclusions, and continue to reassert the Truth regarding the Epiphany Tabernacle, and the “finished pic­ture” – knowing of whom we have learned such Truth.     It is our thought that we have not yet approached the Epiphany, or the Epiphany Camp “in the finished picture,” because we accept the teaching in E–10:209 – that “the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture will contain the repentant and believing, but unconsecrated Jews and Gentiles.” The condi­tion of each class is fixed in the finished picture; and that fixed condition will not occur until sometime in Anarchy. Brother Johnson expected Anarchy in its early stages to begin by 1956.

A 1914–1954 PARALLEL

On p. 13, col. 2, par. 6, RGJ attempts to make a parallel between 1914 and 1954, and we quote: “As in the unfinished (emphasis by RGJ) Epiphany Court, as it existed from 1914 to 1954, there were three classes... so in the unfinished (emphasis by RGJ) Epiphany Camp, as it exists from 1954 onward, there are three classes – (1) the Conse­crated Epiphany Campers, a consecrated and spirit–enlightened but not Spirit–begotten class, a non–Levitical class, (2) the unconsecrated tentatively justified and (3) the unjustified nominal people of God.”

It should be noted that RGJ now has a finished picture of the Epiphany Tabernacle in those respects we have enumerated – the Most Holy, the Holy, and partially in the Court – existing side by side with his unfinished picture. Let him show a similar parallel with the Epiphany Court from 1914 to 1954. Furthermore, none of the crown-­lost leaders were manifested as such until 1917 – more than two years after the Epi­phany Court had come into existence. And the first public declaration that the High Calling was no more operative did not come until the Spring of 1918 – 3½ years after the call had actually closed. Let him now show a similar parallel to that in his present set-up. He says there are now “three classes” in the Camp. When he eliminates the “unjustified, nominal people of God” in his finished picture (and we assume that is his position), then that would still leave two classes in the finished picture – unless he plans to eject his “unconsecrated tentatively justified” from his Camp, too. And it would be interesting to know if he now considers the unconsecrated tentatively justi­fied as not “repentant and believing” – as he is contending about Cornelius. Any tenta­tively justified persons now would have exactly the same justification as did the Gos­pel Age Levites all during the Age. Would he say that those Levites were not “repent­ant and believing”?

Also, he says “all crown–losers, Great Company members, were remanded from the Holy into the Court in 1914.” This statement is true from God’s standpoint, because He would have immediate knowledge when any persons lose their crowns (this being true all during the Gospel Age when crown–losers were not manifested as such); but it was not true so far as the earthly members of the Household of Faith were concerned. RGJ himself was not manifested to the Epiphany brethren until 1938 – at least 24 years after the accomplished fact. Will he have a parallel for that in 1978? Furthermore, he continues to stress the “unfinished picture.” Why does he not tell us what his finished picture will be. In E–10:209 we are told there will be but ONE CLASS in the Camp – the “repentant and believing” unconsecrated. We now ask RGJ, Does he agree with that?

Also, in 1914, when the High Calling closed, there were at least 7,000 saints on earth – fixedly, although not actually – not yet glorified. If his 1954 parallel is operating logically, then he should also be teaching that since 1954 the Court of the Tabernacle should have the same relative position and operation as did the Holy after 1914. Is that his position?

In the January 1940 PT we are given a description of the finished picture of the Epiphany Tabernacle:

“For the Epiphany the most holy represents the condition of Divine beings; the holy in the finished picture represents the condition of the crown–retain­ing New Creatures (See comment below—JJH); the court in the finished picture repre­sents the condition of the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies (and RGJ says that is the condition of the Court now – since 1954––JJH); the camp in the finished picture represents the formerly faith–justified ones who hold to the Ransom and practice right­eousness, and converted Israel; while the territory outside the camp represents the condition of those who were the Gospel-Age Camp, or who are excommunicated ones.”

RGJ now has a “fixed” condition for the Court – says since 1954 it contains only the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. However, it is clear enough that The Epiphany Messenger expected the above setting to be realized by 1954–56 – while he was still with us – at which time Rev. 22:11 would also apply to the Epiphany Taber­nacle “finished picture,” and the Revelation text complementing each other. In E–10:114 Rev. 22:11 is treated as a composite text, which it is; therefore, when one part of it is fulfilled, all of it will be fulfilled – in keeping with the “finished picture” of the Epiphany Tabernacle.

Again we direct the attention of our readers to his statement: “We have never taught that the ‘finished picture’ of the Epiphany is now 20 years gone.” Let us stress now that we are considering the Epiphany Tabernacle. RGJ has been very loud and determined that the last saint left this earth in 1950. If that is true, then the last saint entered the Most Holy (Heaven), making that picture complete. If it is completed, is it not finished? Or does he contend that ‘complete’ and ‘finish’ mean two different things here? Further, if the Most Holy was completed in 1950, then self–evidently the Holy was completed, finished – in that it has since 1950 been totally vacant, and will remain so until the Millennial Tabernacle comes into exist­ence. Or does he have a different thought on this now?

Also, he has been teaching that the Gate to the Court was fully closed in 1954. If he is right on that, then all the tentatively justified unconsecrated had to be ejected from the Court on that date. And would that not likewise complete, finish, the Epiphany Court from that standpoint? Yet he is telling us that he has never taught any of these things from the ‘finished’ standpoint! All of these things he has been emphasizing for about 21 years or more. As for his ideas on the Camp and Campers Consecrated, we have contended all along that this is just some of his “strong delusion” – and that is still our position. Any babe in the Truth can recognize that the Epiphany Camp is not yet finished; nor have we contended that he ever taught that it is finished; and we state now that the Camp won’t be in the finished picture until sometime in Anarchy. While he may never have stated in so many words that the other features of the Epiphany Tabernacle are finished, yet no other conclusion can be drawn from what he has been teaching about those places. He teaches that Rev. 22:11 “began” to be fulfilled in 1954. He should say, according to his teaching about the last saint gone in 1950, that Rev. 22:11 “began” to be fulfilled in 1950 – since the Most Holy was finished, insofar as concerns Divine Beings, and the Holy was finished ­vacant – since then. Surely all of us learned that Rev. 22:11 could only apply to the “finished picture” of the Epiphany Tabernacle.

The Epiphany Court and the Gospel-Age Court represent the condition of justifi­cation. During the Epiphany the Court has contained three classes – the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and the tentatively justified. Those tentatively justified who fail to consecrate will eventually all be expelled from the Court; but the faith­ful Youthful Worthies, in their humanity and new minds, remain permanently in the Court until they die. But this latter is not true of the Great Company. When they are abandoned to Azazel only their new creatures are represented in the Court, while their “flesh” (humanity) is being buffeted by Azazel in their fit–man wilderness ex­periences. However, once that work is completed in them – their “fleshly minds” de­stroyed – what is left of their humanity also returns to the Court condition – after which time the following is said about them in E–4:129:

“After the Levites’ cleansing, they will doubtless partake of the Epiphany truths that are for them; for then they will be somewhat like the good Youthful Worthies, who are privileged to see and appreciate every truth except such truths as the Lord may desire to be limited to the priests.”

And we would observe here that if, and when RGJ cleanses himself, he will no longer be teaching that persons such as Cornelius can be consecrated and converted before they are “repentant and believing.” He will then see the Truth on this sub­ject as we now see it, and as Brother Russell taught 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.” (John 8:31–32)

Sincerely your brother

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 240: THE BIBLE - BELIEVERS AND UNBELIEVERS

No. 240

One of the Nation’s most popular magazines recently produced eight pages of com­ment on the Bible, with opinions of quite a variety of learned men, with quite a few of them revealing how unlearned they are on the Sacred Writings of Jew and Christian. It occurs to us that it will profit our readers if we analyze these various expressions.

Even among those who claim to be true believers there is a wide variety of thought – based in large part upon faulty translations, which go completely unnoticed by those who would offer comment. As an example, we shall consider first the translation most commonly used in Christendom, known as the King James version, which was translated about 1610 A. D. at the instigation of King James of England. His motives were undoubt­edly of the highest – he wished his subjects to have something in English that all the people could read. And, while the translation itself is grievously faulty, the work is in fine literary style, having been produced by some of the best minds then resid­ing in England. However, when any one refers to the King James version as “The Bible,” we should ever be mindful that it is not the Bible at all: it is a translation of the Bible; and that translation must necessarily carry with it whatever limitations were inherent in the men who did the work.

Some of the would-be full believers often delight themselves with the expression: I believe the Bible from “kiver to kiver”; and they have the King James version in mind when they say that. Seemingly they ignore completely more than 20,000 mistakes that are contained in that book; and none of those mistakes are inspired. Thus they are not the good “Word of God” (Heb. 6:5) at all. Therefore, if they believe the book as it appears in the King James version, they are not believing the Bible; they are believing the fallacy of man.

In the opening statements of the article they discuss the advent of Jesus with the misleading observation: “God become man.” And they are justified in that con­clusion if they rely upon the King James version of the Apostle John’s opening state­ment in his Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” Consider now an exact translation of that text: “In a beginning was the Logos (Greek for Word), and the Logos was with the God, and the Logos was a God. This was in a beginning with the God.” This latter reveals an entirely different meaning than does the erroneous King James translation.

Then the article proceeds: “Faced with mounting scientific evidence for evo­lution, many biblical critics long ago moved away from belief in the six days’ of creation in Genesis.” The ‘science’ that attempts to substantiate Evolution is de­scribed by St. Paul as “oppositions of science falsely so called.” (1 Tim. 6:20) Many of our leading scientists are now emphatic in their denial of the evolution the­ory; and one radio commentator has told us that one of the Universities in the United States is offering a course that exposes the error of evolution. It is not our pur­pose to give details against evolution, other than to say that the science of Mathe­matics proves evolution to be an impossible piece of nonsense. We offer this conclu­sion only as it pertains to man; we would agree fully that the first life on this earth appeared in the water, that a certain specialized evolution is admitted in the Genesis account itself when it states, “Let the earth bring forth grass.” (Gen. 1:11)

Also, the Genesis account offers direct contradiction to the belief that the six creative days are twenty-four-hour days. In Gen. 1:16-19 we are told that the sun and the moon did not appear at all until the fourth day. Consequently, the three preceding days were not regulated by the sun and the moon at all; and they must be construed as periods of time. Even with the present favorable conditions for producing grass, it is not possible to bring forth one blade of it in twenty-four hours. And this diver­gence would be even more pronounced if we consider bushes, flowers, and trees.

Then the article carries on: “Nor was Jonah actually swallowed by a ‘great fish.’” In Matt. 12:40 Jesus said, “As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The word whale in this text is from the Greek ketos, and actually means a “great sea monster.” It is a matter of record that such monsters have been found dur­ing this century; and, if we wish to attack the truth of what Jesus said, we must log­ically denounce Him as an unreliable and untrustworthy teacher in all His other sayings. If the Bible is wrong on any one point, it cannot be “the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15)

Some of these people are also rejecting the belief that Christ was born of a vir­gin; yet they are now forced to admit that “in 100 licensed sites in Israel archaeolog­ical digging continues to turn up new evidence that the Bible is often surprisingly ac­curate in historical particulars, more so than earlier generations of scholars ever sus­pected. By establishing physical settings of Scriptural accounts and certain details of corroboration (finding horned altars like those mentioned in 1 Kings 1:50, for ex­ample) recent archaeology has enhanced the credibility of the Bible.”

As stated above, many of the Bible’s most ardent believers and supporters exhibit much unreasonable confusion by accepting wrong translations; but their confusion be­comes even more apparent when they attempt to take figurative statements and give them a literal interpretation. One outstanding example of such folly in the distant past ­one which all now recognize to have been errant nonsense – was the belief that the earth was flat. This conclusion was based upon the statement in Isa. 11:12: “The Lord shall gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” How could the earth have four corners if it were not flat, they argued.

One outstanding antagonist of this foolish belief was Galileo, who lived from 1564 to 1642. His controversy with the Roman Catholic Church became so heated, and aroused so much public fanaticism that Galileo was eventually tried for heresy and was sentenced to be hanged, and one writer records it something like this: As they were placing the noose around Galileo’s neck a friend said to him: Galileo, all you need to do is say the earth is flat, and you can go on living. Whereupon, Galileo said, Yes, the world is flat, and the hanging was abandoned. The Church itself is now so humiliated by that episode that they prefer not to mention it at all; and, if they do, they say it was all the result of the stupidity of the churchmen of that time.

But other “dark sayings” of the Bible are not so easily settled. Science has in­deed proven that the earth is substantially round, but it has been unable to unravel the many parables spoken by Jesus; and there is sound reason for this. In Mark 4:11, 12 He said to the Disciples: “To them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand.” We would stress here that in a parable the thing said is never the thing meant. This is apparent enough to the general public in such parables as The Wheat and The Tares (Matt. 13:3-8); and in The Sheep and The Goats (Matt. 25:31-46). And, while it is universally conceded that Jesus did not mean literal Sheep and Goats, they still insist that the “everlasting fire” of v. 41 must be taken literally. Many who accept this position claim to be the Bible’s best friends, when in fact they are among its worst enemies, because science itself can pretty well explain away the “everlasting fire,” claiming it is an unsupported myth – which indeed is true if a literal application is made of the text.

In v. 46 it is stated: “These (the goats) shall go away into everlasting punish­ment.” In one of the more exact translations it is given this way: “These shall go forth to the aionian (age-lasting) cutting-off,” and the footnote has the following to say about it: “That is, in the fire mentioned in verse 41. The Common Version, and many modern ones, render ‘kolasin aionioon,’ everlasting punishment, conveying the idea, as generally interpreted, of ‘basinos,’ torment. Kolassin in its various forms only occurs in three other places in the New Testament – Acts 4:21; 2 Pet. 2:9; 1 John 4:18. It is derived from ‘kolazoo,’ which signifies, (1) ‘to cut off,’ as lopping off branches of a tree, to prune. (2) ‘To restrain, to repress.’ The Greeks write – ‘The charioteer (kalazei) restrains his fiery steeds.’ (3) To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as ‘punishment’; hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death.” (See 2 Thes. 1:9) The foregoing is in exact keeping with Rom. 6:23: “The wages of sin is death (a severance of life); but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Further from the article under review: “How do you preserve faith in the Bible in a world that seems increasingly faithless? For Protestants it is an especially poignant question. Besides the Scriptures, the Roman Catholics have the authority of tradition (it requires a good imagination to accept tradition as authority. “Ye make the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” – Matt. 15:6—JJH), the Jews the guidance of the Talmud. But Protestantism bases its faith on the Bible alone. Its truth is essential; if the Bible falls, faith topples.”

Yes, the Bible is essential to a true faith; but let us be sure we are taking the Bible, and not the fallacious versions of erring men. All of this is in true keeping with the query of Jesus: “When the Son of Man cometh, will He find faith in the earth?” (Luke 18:8) The writer says further: “An occasionally fallible Bible, therefore is a Bible that paradoxically seems more authentic.” When they say, “It seems more au­thentic,” they are coming a little closer to the truth!

In a later issue of this same magazine there is this statement: “All religions are equally valid; the choice among them is not a matter of conviction about truth but only of personal preference or life-style.” According to their position, believe anything you want to believe; it really doesn’t make any difference. This is quite a sharp difference from what St. Paul teaches in Eph. 4:5: “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

More now from the article of the first magazine: “In the 17th century the Dutch Philosopher Baruch (“Benedict”) Spinoza, an excommunicated Jew, used a method that would be widely emulated by rationalist critics during the Enlightenment: he treated the Bible as a human rather than a divine work and thus subject to investigation of its books according to date, authorship, composition and setting.” Here we are force­fully reminded of St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 3:19: “The wisdom of this world is fool­ishness with God.” A few points of proof: The Law given through Moses is eminently su­perior to anything that existed in the heathen world at that time. Also, some of the prophecies in the Bible were indisputably written hundreds of years before their fulfillment, which would be impossible if they were strictly of human origin. The 53rd Chapter of Isaiah is a prime example.

Jesus Himself had prophesied: “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations: and then shall the end come.” The Bible has now been translated into 1,526 languages – despite the determined efforts of men and devils to destroy it – and it is presently being bought by or sent to more people than ever before. In the U.S., seven noteworthy new versions have come out since 1966; and all have sold well. One of the largest publishing houses reports that sales of all editions in 1974 are five times as great as they were four years ago. This is in keeping with a recent Gallup Poll: “A far smaller proportion of Americans today than in 1957 believe religion can answer all or most of the problems of the day, with the change in attitudes most pronounced among young persons and Catholics..... Bible reading shows no evidence of decreasing.”

HISTORICAL CORROBORATION

Some vehement critics of the Bible’s inspiration contend that history does not give sufficient evidence for conclusive opinion in the case. “We cannot write a biog­raphy of Jesus,” they say; “there are too few facts in the New Testament. All we can say about Jesus is what Christians believed.” Let us now quote from Josephus’ Antiq­uities of the Jews, Book 18, Section 3, Paragraph 3: “Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

Flavius Josephus was born in 37 or 38 A.D., died in 100 A.D. Thus he was con­temporary with all the Apostles – probably knew some of them very well. He writes of himself in this manner: “The family from which I am derived is not an ignoble one, but hath descended all along from the priests.... I am not only sprung from a sacer­dotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses... of the chief family of the first course; nay, further, by my mother I am of the royal blood..... When I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning, on account of which the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law; and when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trial of the several sects that were among us... the Pharisees..... the Saducees.. the Essenes... When I was twenty-six years of age I took a voyage to Rome.”

Commenting upon this intellectual Jew, Bishop Porteus says this: “This history is spoken of in the highest terms by men of the greatest learning and the soundest judgment, from its first publication to the present time.

“The fidelity, the veracity, and the probity of Josephus, are universally allowed; and Scaliger in particular declares that, not only in the affairs of the Jews, but even of foreign nations, he deserves more credit than all the Greek and Roman writers put together. Certain at least it is; that he had the most essential qualification for a historian – a perfect and accurate knowledge of all the transactions which he relates; and had no prejudices to mislead him in the representation of them; and that, above all, he meant no favor to the Christian cause. For even allowing the so much contro­verted passage, in which he is supposed to bear testimony to Christ, to be genuine, it does not appear that he ever became a convert to His religion, but continued prob­ably a zealous Jew to the end of his life.”

While the foregoing from, and about, Josephus would not furnish sufficient infor­mation to write a biography of Jesus, it would seem it should be sufficient to place Him definitely on earth at the time claimed in the New Testament. Furthermore, the Book of Acts is more or less a historical recitation of events after Jesus’ resurrec­tion to the end of the Jewish nation in 70 A.D. And, while the Book of Acts has been accused of historical errors for certain details, it has since been proved by archaeologists and historians to be correct.

It is now generally admitted, too, that believers and non-believers alike have today a purer, more accurate text, for example, closer to the original than scholars or laymen have enjoyed since antiquity. We have a more accurate understanding of its meaning, made possible by the abundance of excellent translations. We have given a few of such instances foregoing. The article under review ends with this commend­able statement: “Both in the Jewish and Christian Bibles it is irreducible, some time, some where, God intervened in history to help man. Whether it was at the time of the Exodus, the giving of the Law, the Incarnation or the Resurrection, or any of those many smaller interventions that are still so cherished, ordinary human history was in­terrupted, and has never since been the same.”

In keeping with the confusion in some of the foregoing, we would mention a prom­inent evangelist who offered the statement that “we were created spiritual beings.” Nowhere does the Bible even hint at such a condition. While it is true that phrenol­ogists are in agreement that man is inherently a religious creature, that his religi­ous qualities are found in the highest part of his mind, this in no way warrants the conclusion that he is spiritual. Digressing just a little here, we would say that the religious qualities have been badly warped by the centuries of sin in man’s background. Thus, with some of them the top of the head is too high for normal thinking. These are caricatured as the “egg heads” – something just tells such people that man is spiritual. At the other extreme we find the flat heads – caricatured as the “roof tops” – and something tells them that man is only animal. Sound thinking finds a balance between these two extremes.

As stated, nowhere does the Bible teach that man is spirit; and, when such people as the evangelist mentioned above offer such teaching, declaring that they believe the Bible, it produces the logical conclusion in thinking people that the Bible is not re­liable. Thus, some of its would-be friends are in truth some of its worst enemies ­unwittingly so, of course. There are many Scriptures that directly contradict that man is a spirit, but we quote just one by Solomon, wisest of men: “That which befall­eth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast.... all go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward (there do you find such an un­reasonable teaching?), and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” (Ecc. 3:19-21)

There now exists one outstanding difference between man and beast: Man is prom­ised a resurrection from the dead. “God hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained (Jesus); whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31) The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead offers assurance that “all men” shall also be raised from the dead; but, until that time arrives, the dead “sleep in the dust of the earth” (Dan. 12:2) – just as do the beasts. But until that time of resur­rection: “The dead know not anything.” (Ecc. 9:5)

PRESENT-DAY THINKING

Anent the skepticism that is now so prevalent regarding the Bible’s authenticity, we quote the following from one of the more prominent columnists: “If there should be, on Christmas night, a second coming, would there not soon be a second crucifixion? And this time, not by the Romans or the Jews, but by those who proudly call themselves Christians?

“I WONDER! I wonder how we today would regard and treat this man with His strange and frightening and ‘impractical’ doctrines of human behavior and relationships. Would we believe and follow any more than the masses of people in His day believed and followed?

“Would not the militarists among us assail Him as a cowardly pacifist because He urges us not to resist evil? Would not the nationalists among us attack Him as a dangerous internationalist because He tells us we are all of one flesh? Would not the wealthy among us castigate Him as a trouble making radical because He bars the rich from entering the kingdom of heaven?

“Would not the liberals among us dismiss Him as a dreamy vagabond because He advises us to take no thought for the morrow, to lay up no treasures upon earth?

“Would not the ecclesiastics among us denounce Him as a ranting heretic because He cuts through the cords of ritual and commands us only to love God and our neighbors?

“Would not the sentimentalists among us deride Him as a cynic because He warns us that the way to salvation is narrow and difficult? Would not the Puritans among us despise and reject Him because He eats and drinks with publicans and sinners, pre­ferring the company of winebibbers and harlots to that of ‘respectable’ church mem­bers?

“Would not the sensual among us scorn Him because He fasts for forty days in the desert, neglecting the needs of the body? Would not the proud and important among us laugh at Him when He instructs the twelve disciples that he who would be ‘first’ should be the one to take the role of the least and serve all?

“Would not the worldly-wise and educated among us be aghast to hear that we can­not be saved except as we become as children, and that a little child shall lead us? Would not each of us in his own way find some part of this man’s saying and doing to be so threatening to our ways of life, so much at odds with our rooted beliefs, that we could not tolerate Him for long? I wonder!”

Several of the above questions carry an inference that is definitely wrong, but that is due to the poor interpretation that the writer makes, rather than any fault with the Bible itself.

THE BIBLE’S INSPIRATION

Many of the Bible’s critics regard it as a superior book – if not all, at least certain parts. Gibbon, himself an unbeliever, declares the book of Job to be the fin­est piece of literature in existence. And all men agree that the Golden Rule – “What­soever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matt. 7:12) – spoken by Jesus, is a lofty altruistic ideal, the best that has ever been spoken by men; but they counter with the observation that so very few even try to keep it, that it is pretty well lost in everyday life.

Also, we gladly admit that some of the Bible critics are people of considerable intellect and learning; and many of these agree that there is a natural revelation ­which reveals man’s undone condition, the sinfulness and depravity of the human race. The Bible also very pointedly declares the same thoughts; it also praises the order, beauty, harmony, utility and sublimity in the various features of the heavens and of the earth.

As stated previously, the critics come to conclusions about the Bible which are totally wrong, erroneous, because some of the Bible’s friends attribute to it many things which are not taught there. One of the most deadly of these errors is that man is a dual being – that is, that he has a body and a soul which are separated at death, the body returning to the earth whence it came, with the soul floating off into space as a spirit. But the scientific fraternity has been unable to produce one scintilla of evidence to substantiate this belief; in fact, science is forced to contradict it – as the Bible also does. The Bible stresses a resurrection of the dead. This word resurrection is from the Greek anastasis, which means a raising up to life again. But if man does not die at death, what need have we for a resurrection? And St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 15:19: “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”

Whence comes this misleading belief? It is to be found in Gen. 3:4: “The serpent (Satan) said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die”; and this original falsehood has become solidly implanted in all the religions of the heathen and Christian world. Concerning the devil, Jesus said this: “He was a murderer from the beginning (in the Garden of Eden)... he is a liar, and the father of it.” “Because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not (the truth being that the dead are dead, that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, that through Him “All that are in their graves shall hear His voice; and shall come forth.”—John 5:28,29).”

The Bible in its Old Testament, as it was increasingly given, has been accepted by the Jewish people generally for more than 3,500 years as a Divine revelation and cherished as such – just as the New Testament has been equally regarded by the Chris­tian world for almost 1,900 years. And it is in order here to state that the minds that have accepted the Bible as a Divine revelation have been decidedly superior to the minds of the people that have rejected it. We would mention the Apostle Paul (died 67 A.D.); Augustine (430), regarded by eminent scholars as the greatest intel­lect of the entire human race; Thomas Aquinas (the poor little “rich man” – who dis­posed of his great wealth, and ministered to the poor because he thought the Bible so required him to do); Martin Luther; Sir Isaac Newton, who discovered the law of gravity; Alfred the Great, King of England; and John Wesley, probably the greatest evangelist that ever lived.

AN IDEAL PLAN OF SALVATION

The Bible reveals the only “ideal plan of salvation” for all mankind. This great Plan of Salvation revealed therein commends itself most strongly as of Divine origin, and not the design of man. It is the embodiment of God’s four great attributes: Justice, Wisdom, Love and Power. No one else could come up with anything so sublime. “God is love” (1 John 4:8), and “He is faithful that promised.” (Heb. 10:23) “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:4) This does not mean that all men will be saved eternally, as some believe. Some believe that not only all men will be saved, but that even the Devil also will be saved; but those of us who have the “spirit of truth” also know the “spirit of error” (1 John 4:6): we know that the Devil, as well as all evil doers who do not turn from their “path of error” will be destroyed. “That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.” (Heb. 2:14) All those who will not obey when they “come to a knowledge of the Truth” will be “destroyed from among the people.” (Acts 3:24)

So when God tells us He will have “all men to be saved,” we need to “rightly di­vide the word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2:15) in order to understand that from which “all men” will be saved. All men will be saved from the curse that came upon all through the dis­obedience of Father Adam; and He will save all men from ignorance of the Divine Plan. “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor. 4:4) during this Faith Age – but during the next Age, the World to come – when “thy judg­ments (correct instructions – the knowledge of the Truth) are in the earth, the inhab­itants of the world will learn righteousness.” (Isa. 26:9)

There are many who do not know there are Two Distinct Salvations – one for the elect during this Faith Age, and one for the non-elect (all others – the Restitution­ists) during the next Age, the World to come. God’s Plan is in evidence in the var­ious Dispensations and Ages. In the first world (Kosmos), from the fall to the flood, the intention evidently was not to “save all men.” Had God attempted to save all men, He would have done so, because God never fails of any of His purposes. (Isa. 55:10, 11) There are two worlds thus far, but there are three Ages in this second world: (1) the Patriarchial Age, (2) the Jewish Age, and (3) the Gospel Age – the Age in which we are now. God’s purposes in all of these Ages have been elective, but in each Age along different lines from those of the others. Instead of dealing on cov­enant basis with all men during these Ages, He selected out of the world certain ones with whom He has so dealt. This selection or election was not done arbitrarily, as Calvinism teaches, for God never acts arbitrarily, but always in harmony with His char­acter – the blending of Wisdom, Justice, Love and Power. Broadly speaking, the human family consists of two classes: those who trust Him (by faith), even when they cannot trace Him, and those who will not trust Him out of sight – that is, a faith class and an unbelief class. This faith class can stand the trialsome training necessary to qualify them for their work of uplifting the non-elect in the third world – “the world to come.” (Eph. 1:21) The non-elect who lack sufficient faith to be put on trial under present unfavorable conditions, will then have their trial in the Third World under most advantageous conditions. There are some of the non-elect who have faith in God, but not sufficient faith to do the Lord’s will during the time when sin and evil are in the ascendancy. We all know such noble worldlings, and we know that God is not unmindful of their good qualities. “The Lord looketh from heaven; he be­holdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. Behold, the eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy.” (Psa. 33:13,14, 18) So He has “appointed a Day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31) We believe we are nearer that Day than when we first believed – so we continue to pray: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

The third world will be the order of affairs that God will establish after the destruction of the present order of affairs in this second world. Thus there will be in the World to come new heavens (new ecclesiastical ruling powers) and a new earth (new social order) in which righteousness will be established. (2 Pet. 3:7, 13) Thus the completed Plan of Salvation for all men – the elect and the non-elect ­will result to God’s glory, and the blessing of eternal life for all mankind who love righteousness. They will have full opportunity – an “accurate knowledge of the truth,” and the ability to walk in the paths of righteousness, if they so desire.

“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” (Gal. 3:8) This “plan” is so ideal and sublime that it is beyond the realm of human imagination. Some say it is too good to be true; we say, It is too good NOT to be true! Thus it is conceived as a Divine inspiration.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace in His Name!

I am sorry to learn of the illness and death in your family. I pray the Lord will be with you and yours at this time....

A year has passed since I wrote you requesting the volumes of The Divine Plan of the Ages.... Our study started about four months ago. The delay was due to a Bible study already in progress, involving the other members of our study group. Our study has not been without controversy – which was expected, of course. I am not sure what the feature holds for our group, but I rejoice in the years of blessing I have received in the Truth. If it be God’s will, it is my hope that through humble prayer our study will help open the eyes of understanding of those who are blinded by nominal church errors – and that we might be one in earnestly contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints.

My thoughts will be with you during our Memorial, and my prayers continue to be with you in your good work. Sincerely your brother ------- (CALIFORNIA)

PS - Enclosed is a small contribution to the Lord’s work.

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

Dearly beloved Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

It has been so long since writing you that I am really ashamed to write now. Your last two papers are really good! I have just reread them. I can’t read as much as I once did, but do read in the old Towers and, of course, the Manna, poem and hymns.

They moved me back to the cottage – same bedroom I had left five months ago. I thank the dear Lord over and over, for He is so good to me!

With much love, Sister ------- (KANSAS)

NO. 239: MORE CONCERNING CORNELIUS

No. 239

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

On pp. 11-15 of the Jan.-Feb. Present Truth there is another strenuous effort by RGJ to uphold his errors concerning Cornelius, the same being copiously marked with his usual diatribe against us. One of his complaints is that we underscore quotations from the two Messengers without saying the emphasis is ours. Yes, most of such empha­sis is by us, and we emphasize such clear statements of Truth for the very purpose of calling attention to the Truth in contrast to the Errors now promulgated by RGJ. The need to emphasize such Truths in the Parousia day was not necessary, because they were not refuting present–day errors; they were simply presenting the Truth. However, in some cases they did emphasize the Truths they presented, although we don’t make mention of that in every instance. We also emphasize certain Scriptures which annihilate RGJ’s errors, to make sure our readers get the thought clearly in mind – such Truths as RGJ once accepted, at least outwardly, and taught, while under the benign influence and re­straint of the Epiphany Messenger. We shall continue to underline such pertinent Truths without stating the emphasis is ours – and our readers may consider all empha­sis ours, unless noted otherwise.

The paper under review makes quite some ado about the sixteen references from Brother Russell that he cited in the July–August 1974 PT; and he contends that all these references support his error that Cornelius was not “repentant and believing” before Peter visited him. But in every one of these references That Servant corrobor­ates his teaching we presented from Reprint 1922, which RGJ contends is error. We shall subsequently prove our contention is correct when we quote these references, to­gether with others. We contend that all Brother Russell’s articles – written before and after the article in Reprint 1922 – are in harmony with the Truth that Cornelius was “repentant and believing” before Peter’s visit – and not only was he “repentant and believing,” but also his consecration was of years’ standing before Peter arrived.

In E–10:209 is a statement that the Epiphany Messenger never set aside, or modi­fied in any way, although RGJ now sets this teaching aside: “The Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” This statement is conveniently ignored by RGJ, but this one item alone is sufficient to answer all his contentions.

The real crux of this difference between us is whether or not Cornelius was “re­pentant and believing” before Peter visited him. While Brother Russell states quite clearly that Cornelius was also consecrated, we do not stress that point – other than to say that we do not know the degree of his consecration, even if we accept Brother Russell’s statement – nor is it necessary that we do. Our readers know from their own experience, and from observing others, that the depth of consecration increases with all the faithful – and especially is this true of the fully faithful leaders in the Church.

Also all crown–losers violate their consecration vows, even as they do violence to their justification. And this is clearly manifest by RGJ’s gross revolutionism against justification – and now becoming unclear on consecration as related to the “re­pentant and believing” As stated in E–15:517, Their new spiritual wills are undermined, “then it more or less blunted the keen edge of their new minds by dulling the spiritual perceptive, remembering and reasoning powers, which made them susceptible to accept error in place of formerly held Truth, and to add error to the Truth already had and kept.” This is manifestly the condition of RGJ as he continues to “accept error in place of formerly held Truth” in order to support his “strange fire” (false doctrine) of Epi­phany Campers Consecrated.

“Their errors of head certainly partially undermine their faith.... Moreover, they make them more or less bitterly partisan against the faithful for their opposing their wrong course, whereas they should love and appreciate them all the more for their efforts to rescue them from the snares of Satan.” (E–15:521) And to such God sends “an energy of delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11) to their believing the falsehood; and this has been glaringly apparent with RGJ since his abandonment in 1950. “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2 Tim. 3:12,13) The Berean Comments on v. 13 are to the point: “Seducers – Leaders astray from the Truth; Worse and worse – That rapidly increasing class that will no longer endure sound doctrine.”

THE CENTURION

Before treating of those quotations that RGJ offers, we now quote Luke 7:2-9, with some pertinent comments: “And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the el­ders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.... Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion (prob­ably Cornelius – see Berean Comment) sent friends to him, Lord, trouble not thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof.... For I also am a man set under authority.... and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh.... When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”

In that crowd following Jesus there would be found some of the very best Jews in Israel, yet He said the centurion’s “faith” (belief) had not been equaled by any of them. Yet RGJ would have us think that this centurion was not “repentant and believ­ing,” although his faith (belief), according to Jesus, surpassed that of the believing Jews at that time.

It is contended that Cornelius did not know what to do before Peter came to him, which is correct; but we would add here that Peter himself – an inspired Apostle ­did not know what to do until the Lord taught him what to do. Would any one contend that Peter was not “repentant and believing” because he was ignorant of the Gospel now going to the Gentiles?

REGARDING ACTS TEN

Let us consider now the visit of Peter: Acts 10:30, Dia., says this: “Four days ago I (Cornelius) was fasting till this hour; and at the ninth hour I was praying in my house.” Note that this occurred four days before Peter’s arrival. Yet RGJ would have us believe that this man, who was fasting and praying, was not “repentant and be­lieving.” Then verse 44: “The Holy Spirit fell on all those having heard the word.” These apparently are the “others” Brother Russell describes as consecrated believers; thus, it would seem Cornelius had been doing a very good job of bringing all in his house to the Lord’s service. Also, let us note well the fact that the centurion that had “such great faith” (Luke 7:9) was in that condition before his servant had been healed by Jesus; so it may be assumed that his faith (belief) was pronouncedly in­creased by the healing of his servant. And that event had occurred from four to six years before Peter’s visit as related in Acts 10.

The question may be asked, If Cornelius had such “great faith,” why did he not become a proselyte Jew, as Nicolas had done? (Acts 6:5) It is recorded in Luke 7:5 that “he loves our nation, and he built our synagogue.” Thus it is apparent that he was a man of considerable wealth and fine intellect – not just an ordinary man; and he no doubt had embraced Judaism in some considerable degree. Therefore, it may be assumed that he was much disturbed by the contention among the Jews themselves about Jesus; and this probably would cause him to proceed cautiously, seeking guidance from the Lord, as recorded in Acts 10:30.

Some of our readers will recall that Brother Russell had said he could not remem­ber the time that he was not consecrated to do God’s will. Yet he had more or less abandoned the Bible because of the erroneous creeds, all of whom claimed to secure their teaching from that book. But it should not require argument that his consecra­tion became much deeper and more compelling after he had come to understand Leviticus Sixteen and the Two Salvations.

THOSE SIXTEEN REFERENCES

The first one of these that we now quote is from Reprints 5834, col. 2, par. 5: “In the case of Cornelius, the Roman centurion, which we have cited in this article, we have seen that he was a just man, a good man. But he did not belong to the Jew­ish nation, to whom God had given his law. The only way in which Cornelius could have come into God’s favor prior to His appointed time – three and a half years after the cross – was to have become a Jewish proselyte. But when it became chronologi­cally due time for the Gospel to go to the Gentiles, this good man was notified, and gladly accepted the conditions and became a son of God, through faith in Christ. He received the begetting and anointing of the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews had pre­viously received them. All this shows us that God has a particular course marked out by which any may become His children. Unless they come in the appropriate way and in the appropriate time, none will be accepted as sons of the highest.”

Certainly, there is nothing in the foregoing to indicate Brother Russell thought Cornelius was not “repentant and believing”; rather, it adds support to the fact that he was. For the Gospel Age, “repentant and believing” puts one in a position to enter the antitypical Court condition – which is Tentative Justification. But there has never been any justification for this Faith Age outside that Court; and Cornelius could not enter that condition until the way was opened for him to do it. Therefore, there can be no consecration acceptable to God until a person enters the Court condi­tion. But one can be “repentant and believing” before entering the Court condition.

There are two parts to consecration: (1) The offer by the person, and (2) God’s acceptance of that offer. Such offers are never accepted until the “due time.” In the case of the Apostles and the 500 in the upper room, they could not receive the Holy Spirit until the “due time,” although they all were undoubtedly consecrated to the extent they understood the matter; but this understanding was very meager until they were fully enlightened – they understood very little of the great “Plan of the Ages.”

We now quote Par. 6 from the same Reprint 5834: “God’s dealing with Cornelius would indicate that in the case of any who now come to God, and pray to Him, not know­ing the appointed way, their prayers would, like those of Cornelius, come up as a me­morial before God. As the Lord took notice of the prayers of Cornelius and the de­sires of his heart to worship and serve God (“repentant and believing”—JJH), so we may suppose that He would take notice now of prayers and desires to come close to Him. He might not send some one like Peter to give them instruction at this time. That would depend upon His decision as to whether this would be the course of wisdom, as to whether such an one was suited to His present purposes. But any prayers offered in sincerity would not pass unnoticed, but would receive reward in due time – whether now or later.”

RGJ`s reference to Reprints 5833, par. 2, follows: “The angel of the Lord said to Cornelius: “Send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter, who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” (Acts 11:13,14) Those words were necessary to his saving – to the bringing of him into covenant relationship with God. Cornelius, being obedient (“repentant and believing”––JJH) sent for Simon Peter, who gave him the necessary instruction for drawing nigh unto God through Jesus. And unless we come to the Father through Christ, our prayers would not be received any more than those of Cornelius had been.” We stress once more that Cor­nelius – no matter how much he believed in Jesus – could not come through “the door” (Christ) until that “door” was opened to the Gentiles – regardless of what a noble char­acter he may have been. Even though he was “repentant and believing” the “gate” (Christ “I am the way”) to the Court had not yet opened for the Gentiles.

Then there is this in the next paragraph, same page: “When Cornelius heard the good message, he believed with all his heart; and likewise those who were with him. Doubtless he had heard of Jesus before, but now he understood the matter. He had been in the right condition of heart all along. (There is only one right condition of heart – that is, “repentant and believing.”––JJH) He had been praying and fasting. But even so he could not be accepted of God except through Jesus. He must have Christ as his advo­cate.”

Another citation is from Reprints 5832, last par.: “The Gentiles were altogether without God. They had no privilege of prayer. We come down to the beginning of the Gospel Age and to the case of Cornelius. We read that he was a just man, who gave much alms to the people and prayed always.   But his prayers could not be accepted, even after Jesus died. The death of Jesus did not bring Cornelius into covenant relationship with God. But when the seventy symbolic weeks of Jewish favor had been fulfilled, the due time had come for the Gospel to go to the Gentiles. God was then ready to receive him, and He sent an angel to him, who gave him this message from the Lord: “Cornelius, thy prayers and thine alms have come up for a memorial before God” The prayers and the alms of Cornelius had risen up as an incense before the Lord.” And likewise it will be the same for those who failed to consecrate in the Court, and those who become “repentant and believing” in the “finished picture” of the Camp ­their “prayers and alms” will come up for a memorial before God in their “due time.” All who fail to consecrate while in the Court condition (which is Tentative Justifi­cation) will “cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith.” (E–4:406) However, to such the text applies: “Seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger.” (Zeph. 2:3)

Follows now another reference from Reprint 5379, par. 3: “The first Gentile whose prayers were received, according to the Bible, was Cornelius. And even his prayers were not acceptable until he had been instructed concerning Christ and His redemption work and had become a follower of Jesus. Then his prayers and his consecration were acceptable to the Father, and he was received into the family of God as a son. Then as a son he had the privilege of prayer.––Acts 10:25–48.”

A further reference from Reprints 5200, col. 2, bottom: “Cornelius was a man who sought harmony with God (Would this not make him “repentant and believing?”––JJH). Although he prayed for years and gave much alms, yet his prayers and alms did not come up before God until an appropriate time – not until Jesus had died and ascended up on high, there to appear in the presence of God for us. (Acts 10:1,2,4; Heb. 9:24) Three and a half years after the cross, at the end of time of special favor to the Jews, this man’s prayers and alms came up before God as a memorial.” (Would God keep any one’s prayers as a memorial, if that man wasn’t “repentant and believing”?)

We now quote reference from Reprint 5101, par. 1: “As soon as the limit of the time expired God manifested His favor toward the Gentiles by sending the Gospel message to Cornelius, a reverential and holy and generous Gentile.” It would seem he had done all he could to keep the Jewish law, as the Jews themselves had done. Could any one be truthfully described as “holy” if not truly “repentant and believing”?

Here we digress just a little to quote the last paragraph on the same page of Re­print 5101, of this article entitled “TO THE JEW FIRST”: “Nevertheless the Scriptures most clearly declare that the natural seed of Abraham, the Jews, are still heirs of a certain promise of God, which in due time will come to them. To their nation will come the great privilege of being the foremost nation amongst men during Messiah’s glorious reign, when the church glorified, spiritualized, will be with Him in His throne....... St. Paul thus explains that the full number, to complete the elect kingdom class, must be first found among the Gentiles, and then,.... natural Israel will obtain the great earthly blessings which are still theirs and which were promised to their fathers...... ‘They shall obtain mercy through your mercy.’—Rom. 11:25-34.”

The above is corroborated in E-15:550, bottom and p. 551, top: “The Kingdom will, of course, begin to work on the Worthies, and then through them upon the restitution­ists who will survive the time of trouble, and that starting with the Jews in Palestine.”

And now RGJ’s reference to Reprint 4345: “Note well the fact that, even though the special favor promised Israel had ended, there was still but one way for the good tid­ings to reach Cornelius. St. Paul declares that ‘faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.’ It came not to him by impression. Just so today: the knowledge of the truth goes not to people, however ready for it, by mental impression, but still, as then, God honors and uses His faithful ones as His mouthpieces. Mark the expression, ‘When he is come, he shall tell thee words which shall be to the saving of thyself and house.’ Now, by reason of the art of printing, the message reaches many otherwise by printed words.

“Let us note carefully what these words of life were. They were the simple story of the cross: The story of man’s fall, his sentence to death, his hopelessness as re­spects extricating himself from that condition and sentence; and the remedy which God in mercy provided. The essence of the message was that ‘Christ died for our sins, ac­cording to the Scriptures, and rose again for our justification.’ The message continued, and showed how the justified ones were invited to become joint-sacrificers with and thus joint-sharers in Christ’s coming glory. The centurion’s heart had been troubled. There was something in the message that satisfied his longings as nothing else had ever done. He believed in the Redeemer and was thus justified. His consecration to the Lord, of years, standing, now became intelligent and specific. As his heart went out to the Lord in full acceptance of the Divine terms, in full consecration of his little all to the Di­vine service, the Lord accepted it, and manifested the acceptance; just as He had done with the consecrated Jewish believers at Pentecost. God having thus recognized Cornel­ius as a disciple and follower of Christ, a new creature begotten of the Holy Spirit, Peter tells us that he could not believe otherwise than that it was right for him to ex­plain baptism to the centurion, and to give him water immersion, symbolic of the immer­sion into Christ’s death, which he had already experienced.”

Please note that we have underlined the words, “His consecration to the Lord, of years, standing.” We emphasize this point because we are here presented with a weird segment of truth (?) by RGJ: In E–10:209 we are told that people may be “repentant and believing” without consecration; but RGJ is now telling us that Cornelius and his house could be consecrated far many years without being “repentant and believing”! The folly of this mirage is so apparent and so elemental that it is difficult to believe it came from RGJ, who is presently shouting to high heaven that JJH is unfit to be a Truth teach­er, that we are a trickster, an errorist, a ‘sifter’ of the first order. With the truth we have presented on this subject, we find no need whatever for name-calling (which is often an evidence of a losing cause), but we merely quote Heb. 5:12: “When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first prin­ciples of the oracles of God.”

It is recorded in Act 10:45 that “those believers of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was even poured out upon the Gentiles.” Peter had to be informed also by the Lord Himself; those with him did not understand it until they saw it with their own eyes, and heard them “speaking in tongues,” etc. Yet Cornelius had been informed about this by the angel four days before Peter and company arrived at his house. Of course, Cornelius was not saved four days be­fore; that came only when he had been inducted into the Body of Christ. But he had been consecrated for many years – just as the Jewish believers had been before Pentecost – “a pious man, and one fearing God with all his house, doing many charities for the people, and praying to God always.” (Acts 10:2) And RGJ would have us believe that this “pious and God-fearing” man was not “repentant and believing”! Well, as we have so often stated, When these crown–losers fall into the clutches of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense; and this is another sample of it.

Further from Reprints 4345, col. 2: “Our Lord had declared that He would give St. Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. A key symbolizes right or authority to open. On the Day of Pentecost the Lord used St. Peter as His special mouthpiece in opening the door of the kingdom to the Jewish people, to all who were in the right condition of heart to receive its blessings (just as was true of Cornelius and those of his house—­JJH).”

Let us consider now RGJ’s use of Reprint 4344, col. 1, par. 6: “The record shows that Cornelius was a just man, a reverential man, a benevolent man, a man every way prepared to be a follower of Jesus – a Christian.” That is as much as he gave us; he does not even finish the sentence, which says – “the only obstacle being that he was not a Jew.” This last clause is certainly essential to a proper understanding of the mat­ter. Then there follows some more in that same paragraph: “That obstacle was not Jew­ish prejudice, but an insurmountable one – God’s unwillingness to deal with any others than His covenanted people of the seed of Abraham. So as soon as the covenant arrange­ment with Israel terminated, and God’s due time for dealing with such Gentiles as were in proper condition of heart (such a condition of heart could mean such a person is “repentant and believing”—JJH) He had no difficulty in finding messengers to convey the good tidings.”

If the “ONLY OBSTACLE” in the way of Cornelius was that he was not a Jew, then he must have been “repentant and believing” even if we set aside That Servant’s teaching that he was consecrated of years’ standing. But why does RGJ omit such vital lines from his quotation? Is it not that they annihilate his position? And let us recall that this same RGJ, in his Sept.-Oct. 1974 PT, vehemently denounces the Dawn editors far using Brother Russell’s writings deceitfully! The article in Reprint 4344, entitled, “The First Gentile Convert” is excellent, and our readers will receive a blessing if they would read the whole article.

In the July-Aug., 1974 PT, RGJ offers something from Reprint 1989: “Cornelius needed to know of the Lord Jesus from the true standpoint; he must exercise faith in Him as his Redeemer, before the memorials of his piety would count for anything with God, or bring him into the desired relationship and under the Divine favor.” The last clause is omitted in the July-Aug. PT; but the part he quotes does not support his cause any at all. We now quote some more from that same article, par. 3, col. 2:

“He not only prayed, but prepared to cooperate with God in the answering of his own prayer. The three persons sent (two of them household servants, and one of them a soldier, all devout persons, who feared God) give us good evidence that this Gentile who was feeling after God, and striving to the best of his ability to please and honor him, had not been keeping his light and his faith under a bushel. It had shone out before his family and servants, and before the soldiers under his control. This is the kind of man whom God delights to acknowledge, whatever may be his nationality or color of his skin, and all such are recognized of the Lord, and favored above others with light and truth – ever since the close of typical Israel’s special favor.”

Another of those sixteen references – Reprint 2071, col. 2, top, beginning at bottom of col. 1: “Another illustration about that same time was Cornelius. As the centurion whose servant was sick, he had already manifested faith in the Lord Jesus to such an extent that our Lord said to him, ‘I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.’ The testimony respecting him was that he was a just man, that feared God, that he prayed and that he had been kind to God’s people. More could be said of him as a worshiper of God because, first, he was a Gentile without God and having no hope in the world; secondly, he had neither the truth nor the spirit of the truth which would have permitted him to offer any higher worship than that of fear and obedi­ence. But we note how the Lord marked such characters not only in Israel but outside of Israel; and when the time fully came (at the end of the seventy weeks of special favor to Israel – three and a half years after the cross), when the time came that the Gospel might be preached to the whole world for a witness, and the barrier between Jews and Gentiles was broken down, this same man, Cornelius, who worshipped to the best of his knowledge, was the first one to be favored outside Israel. Although he prayed, gave much alms, feared God, and was just, yet before he could be called and accepted of the Lord or become a worshiper of the kind the Lord seeketh to worship Him, he must be instructed – he must have the truth, and he must have the spirit of the truth.”

There is just nothing in the foregoing to support RGJ’s contention about Cornel­ius not being “repentant and believing”; in fact, it points to the reverse. Cornelius was fully prepared to step into the antitypical Court the instant the Gate was opened for him.

Another reference from Reprint 1452, par. 1: “A simple message, truly; yet very necessary to be told to and to be believed by Cornelius and his household before they could be Christians or brethren, or ‘saved’ in God’s sense of that word.” Then from P Vol. 6, p. 680, bottom: “Cornelius was instructed to send for Peter, who would tell him ‘words’ by which he might be brought from his condition of alienation and separa­tion into a condition of harmony and sonship.”

Let us emphasize here that none of the “repentant and believing” in the Camp are ‘saved’ in God’s sense of that word during this Faith Age. In the Millennial Age the “repentant and believing” will be among the first to consecrate under the New Covenant arrangement. Even the covenant-keeping consecrated Jews had to be properly instructed before they could receive the Good Tidings. As Brother Russell has stated, Cornelius had been consecrated for many years before he could be properly accepted, or ‘saved’ in the strict sense of that term.

It will be noted that we have not included Reprint 2990 or P Vol. 5, p. 214, be­cause they are similar to the others we have quoted. In conclusion, we would quote from E–15:520 regarding crown-losers:

“As their heads deteriorate, so do their hearts deteriorate. The very fact that their heads deteriorate is preceded with some deter­ioration of their hearts, and in turn is followed by further worsening of the heart. Their errors of head certainly partially undermine their faith, sear more or less their consciences and put a cloud between them and the Lord.”

We are warned that RGJ, et al, had bad consciences (E–10:585); and such a condi­tion not only does violation to their justification, but also impairs their consecra­tion vows. Such persons do not have the “right condition of heart” – as did Cornelius. Be it noted that RGJ is self–evidently going into more and more error in an effort to uphold his “strange fire” (false doctrine) of Campers Consecrated; and in his desper­ation to answer the truth we have presented against his errors, he has written us out of the Household of Faith – something we have never done with him. And all well–in­formed brethren know from experience that faithful leaders are always more generous to­ward their opposers than their opposers are of them. This was apparent in the 1917 controversy, when many good and faithful brethren were consigned to the Second Death by the very persons that were heading in that direction themselves.

But we are persuaded by the sound logic in E–11:664: “He who corrects a wrong­doing leader will later obtain more consideration than a deceitful flatterer.” “It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.” (Prov. 21:15)

As we seek to be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, we may rely on the promise that “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and testimonies.” (Psa. 25:10)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

These few lines are to let you know we are still standing in the Truth of our Beloved Master, dear Brother. When I think of the work that you are doing to uphold the Truth and refute the error – to think at this time you are standing up for the Parousia and Epiphany Truth, as no one else is doing – it fills my heart with joy. May the Lord stablish your heart unblamable in Holiness before God (1 Thes. 3:13). Please send some literature to me to give out. My Christian greetings to you and all at the Bible House. May God bless and keep you all! Love & peace... Bro. ------- (ST.VINCENT)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Loving Christian greetings!

We visited in Florida over the Holidays. It was a pleasant experience, as we had never been there this time of the year. It was nice visiting with the family and friends – also much pleasure in discussing some features of Truth, and refuting the arguments of Consecrated Campers. Please put the following name on your mailing list. I tried to call you by phone, but could not get through.....

Your Jan.-Feb. issues read with much appreciation. I thank God for your honest, clear, and good presentations! Please mail copies of the Jan.-Feb. issues to -------.

Our sincere Christian love and best wishes and prayers to you and all in your house.

Sincerely your Brother & Sister ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)

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

Dear Sir:

I have been receiving some of your papers. I have never read your paper on the Soul, or The Divine Plan of the Ages. I would like to have some of your tracts and literature. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are here in town, but I do not follow them.

Sincerely ------- (MISSOURI)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

I am wondering if you received my last letter, and the booklet I sent you? Also, I am enclosing a little contribution to help with the work. I received the Jan-Feb. papers First Class, but have not received the regulars. Since I have loaned these out, will you please send me some extras?

Hope all of you are fine. With much Christian love, Bro. & Sr. ------- (MICHIGAN)

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

Dearly beloved of the Lord: Grace & peace be your continued portion!

We passed your thanks to Sister ------- for her contribution. Brother is saddened that replacements don’t seem to be found these days to take the place of the older brethren. So few are willing to devote time and energy to reading and studying the Divine Plan that has so much comforted us – and given our Lord His rightful place in our lives, showing us what a wonderful God is ours, Who has shown us some of His wonderful arrangements for the benefit of humanity.

Brother was horrified at the letter from England in the October paper. Broth­ers Russell and Johnson were both faithful to the Lord and the brethren, and the Tabernacle Shadows booklet is a great help in understanding doctrine. Restitution is the time for correcting the evils, through the fall of man. None of us can claim perfection, but the Studies in the Scriptures help us to rectify our attitude – God giving us the “spirit of a sound mind.” But we leave all with the Lord – and we do know we are nearing the Kingdom as we see prophecies being fulfilled. The world is in such a turmoil! Mr.------- thanked us for sending the tracts – said he had re­cently read of Pastor Russell’s witness to the Jews.... He (Bro. R.) was a faithful man, who knew Israel’s destiny. We will write him again and tell him his name had been forwarded to you for your mailing list. Love to you and all with you.

Your Brother and Sister ------- (ENGLAND)