by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 90

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

“The law of Yaveh is complete, bringing back the soul, The testimony of Yaveh is confirmed, making wise the simple.” (Psa. 19:7 – Rotherham) The Law of God may be viewed from three standpoints in the Bible: First, the Ten Commandments as given to Moses in Mount Sinai; Second, the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible, the same being also the first of the three main divisions of the Old Testament (The Law, The Proph­ets and The Psalms); Third, the entire Word of God as revealed in the Bible. As viewed from any of these as­pects, the Law of the Lord is immutable and eternal “without variableness or shadow of turning.” This is the di­rect opposite of the law of man, which is in large part a product of evolution – warped, adjusted, im­proved, eliminated in accordance with the demands of the times. A pointed illustra­tion of this is our Traffic Laws, which the invention and expanded use of the auto­mobile have made so necessary only during the past fifty years. The production of traffic lights for the larger cities has created a major industry, with the incidental laws changing to fit the changing times.

 But no such evolution or adjustment has been necessary with the Law of the Lord, nor have any condi­tions arisen over the centuries to cause its revision in any of its aspects. “The Law of the Lord is perfect,” which means it is designed to fit all oc­casions and every side of every question – regardless of how extreme the case may be. In the United States, County Prosecutors, States' Attorneys, etc., and in the British Empire the Crown Counsel, are elected or appointed to administer the law; and it is the duty of these public servants to free the innocent, as well as to convict the guilty. That their efforts over the centuries have been far from perfect needs little argument. The statement is as true today as it was three thousand years ago that “Man looketh on the outward appearance.” Consequently, public officials have often con­victed innocent men of heinous crimes which they did not commit – even to the point of executing some for murders which they did not commit; whereas, the guilty have also much more often escaped the just penalty for their crimes through the inefficiency, inadequacy, or corruption of public officials.

 The question is properly in order, What is Law? In secular phrase, “Law is a rule of action,” and it needs no further definition than these six short words; there­fore, Psalms 19:7 is confirmed in Isa. 28:17, “Justice also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet.”


 During 1962 our attention has been directed to the case of Jolly vs. Krewson; and, regardless of all pro­test to the contrary, we consider it a reasonable assumption that this debacle is very much the outgrowth of the personal feud between them. How­ever, not knowing many of the facts, we would not belittle ourselves by attempting to pass judgment – except to observe that it appears quite clear that there is much of pro and con to be presented for both litigants. Our main purpose here is to reveal the pathetic paucity of understanding in both of them. Clearly enough, neither of them could claim a “passing grade” in their understanding of “the Law of the Lord,” proof of which we proceed to offer clearly and briefly – quite in contrast, we hope, to the “profusion of words” offered by the “cousins” in their respective presentations.

             Inasmuch as “the Law of the Lord” is perfect (fully complete), it must be able to embrace fully every imaginable circumstance. Therefore, we are always justified in assuming the extremes of any given situation; which, having done, if the Law of the Lord does not harmonize, then we should conclude immediately that our own reason­ing is at fault. Now, J. W. Krewson has offered 1 Cor! 6:1-6 in condemnation of R. G. Jolly – seemingly believing that St. Paul's instruction is all-inclusive. We wonder if he has read the Diaglott of 1 Cor. 6:2, where St. Paul states he is discussing “trivial causes”?  St. Paul, himself a lawyer, knew full well that his comments could reach no further than “trivial causes.”

 Let us assume an extremity: Suppose one brother murdered the wife or child of another brother. Would any of us be so naive or imbecilic that we would determine the police should not be called in such a case? In fact, the law of our land demands that civil law officers be notified of such cases; and, any one failing to do so is then subject to prosecution as “an accessory after the fact” of murder; and becomes liable to a long prison sentence for such failure. Therefore, St. Paul could not possibly have referred to such an extreme.

 Coming now to a somewhat milder case: A brother steals $10,000 from a brother, both of them ac­cepted in Class fellowship. The one wronged follows Jesus' advice: “Go to thy brother”; but the brother will not hear him, so he takes two or three with him. Again refused, he brings the thief before the Class; but the thief is still adamant, refuses to hear the Class, and is disfellowshiped. Again we ask, Should such a person be allowed to revel in the stolen money, or should the local law enforcers be called in? Manifestly, this likewise could scarcely be classified as a “trivial cause.”

            Coming now to the Jolly-Krewson case: R. G. Jolly is accusing J. W. Krewson of theft – the theft of a name – the value of which we need not attempt to determine; nor do we wish to express opinion on the merits of either side other than already indi­cated above. R. G. Jolly may consider the L.H.M.M. name to be worth much more than $10,000, in which belief he may be right or wrong. In early youth, we ourselves engaged in a substantial amount of patent-law work, so we have some experience in the niceties of patent-law decisions based upon the “prior art” (the procedure and base already de­termined by invention and legal process). Based upon our own knowledge, we would say both sides in the case at issue have some cause for argument either way; but this concession in no way offers justification for the profuse and unsatisfactory presenta­tions of the “cousins” in their respective attempts at self-justification; and it forces us to the conclusion that neither of them clearly understands “the Law of the Lord.''


 As most of us know, J. W. Krewson has been formally disfellowshiped by the Philadelphia Class at R. G. Jolly's instigation. Without attempting to determine the justice of the case, we are nevertheless forced to ac­cept the fact; and the Scriptures clearly tell us in Matt. 18:17 that such person disfellowshiped is to be regarded “as a heathen man.” Is J. W. Krewson trying to tell us that he himself would not bring a heathen into the Gentile courts if one should steal substantially from him? Clearly enough, when R. G. Jolly has the Truth to sustain him, he is so befuddled by Azazel that he can no longer clearly present his case to advantage even for himself. instead of the voluminous words he did offer (and which probably left many of his readers more confused than they already were), it seems to us that just a paragraph or two along the lines we have presented would have stopped all mouths. But, as Brother Johnson has so ably taught us, When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they can no longer think clearly on any Scriptural subject.

            J. W. Krewson says 1 Cor. 6:1-6 condemns R. G. Jolly, wherein St. Paul asks if “there is not among you a wise man not even one – who shall be able to decide.” As stated above, St. Paul was discussing “trivial causes.” Without passing judgment, let us assume that R. G. Jolly's claim is a “trivial cause.” inasmuch as he now regards J. W. Krewson “as a heathen man,” the text would even so not be applicable. Of course, it would have simplified matters very much – and saved the heavy legal expense for both sides had R. G. Jolly asked J. W. Krewson, before going to Court, if J. W. Krewson would allow him (R. G. Jolly) to appoint the “one” (the “wise man among you”) to hear and determine the matter. Such procedure would have added considerable sub­stance to R. G. Jolly's cause before the General Church; and we think it needs little argument that J. W. Krew­son would have refused the ruling of, say, August Gohlke or Bernard Hedman or Fred Blaine (as such “wise man among you”).


            Concerning “Order and Discipline” in the Church, Brother Russell has given very clear explanations in Vol. Six, pages 273-348; and we mention specifically pages 290-294, as well as p. 412 through 416. In addi­tion, we consider the centuries past on the evils of excommunication. Almost all of the Star Members were excommunicated; the vast majority always cast out the Fully Faithful minority. And in every such instance the majority was wrong. In the case of individuals in local Ecclesias it is probably correct to assume that there the reverse was true. Where local Classes have moved to disfellowship individuals (for gross immoralities and the like in conduct, or for gross doctrinal deflection such as denial of the Ransom or Sin-Offering), more individu­als were probably wrong, and the Classes right – although this also was certainly not always true, where the charge was trivial or instigated by sectarianism or clericalism. As stated, however, in E-11:12, par. 6, it has been the special pastime of Satan all during the Jewish and the Gospel Ages to have the Nominal Church cast out (disfellow­ship) the Fully Faithful – especially so, with those qualified as leaders in the General Church.

 Thus, it is said of the “two-horned beast” in Rev. 13:11-13 that he “exercised all the power of the first beast.... so that he maketh fire to come down from Heaven”; that is, this second great false system likewise claimed power to excommunicate and cast out of God's Household all “dissenters” – the real protesters, Protes­tants. How­ever, in all such cases the cast-out brethren were blessed by the Lord with the new companionship of those of their fellow-servants whose characters were in keeping with their own, and which gave them the “fellowship of kindred minds, like to that above.” Thus, their excommunication actually did them favor – just as was true when Pharaoh urged the Israelites to leave Egypt in haste.

 And the uncleansed Levites of our day are also urgent to walk in the evils of the past; they are quick to “make fire come down from Heaven” – to disfellowship all troublesome gainsayers. Nor has R. G. Jolly been one whit behind his kinsmen of the past in this respect. Immediately after Brother Johnson's demise he was loud and quick in excommunicating many whose only offense was their contention that they were among the Fully Faithful – just one more instance of “making fire come down from Heaven” on those not willing to ac­cept his errors. And this has been his practice in the years since. As Brother Johnson has further stated in E-11:25 (17):

             “These evil shepherds used inculcation of error.... human traditions.... slander.... and oppositional propaganda,” against the Fully Faithful. Inasmuch as R. G. Jolly seems determined to harmonize his actions with Levites of the past, we now remind him that many others, such as Brothers Luther, Wesley, Russell, John­son, et al, will even­tually receive recognition as outstanding reformers blessed of the Lord, who also were excom­municated by the uncleansed Levites of their time. As Brother Russell has stressed, if one is disfellow­shiped, that act in itself does not rule him out of the Household of Faith; it is purely an act of discipline de­signed to recover the erring one from his objectionable ways. Nor should we regard excommunication by Levites (be they cleansed or uncleansed) in the same category with the same act by the Fully Faithful, because all Levite New Creatures have lost their anointing, and with it a large part of the “spirit of understanding”; which makes their reasoning unsound on many Scriptural and ethical subjects. This is once again clearly dem­onstrated in the thinking of R. G. Jolly on this Krewson lawsuit. And we know, too, that all who have been excom­municated by uncleansed Levites have not been of the Fully Faithful, as in the case of J. F. Rutherford with other uncleansed Levites. He had them excommunicated, too, when they interfered with his plans and schemes; also the one that has the most power will excommunicate any who has similar ambitions to his (to be “Pastor and Teacher”) and interferes therein (also wants to be the “chiefest”).

 Yes, “the Law of the Lord is perfect,” and blessed are all they who can accept it “in spirit and in Truth.” “Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies; The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth Of fools poureth out foolishness.” (Psa. 40:4; Prov. 19:26)

Sincerely your Brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



QUESTION: – Is it true that the Jews as such are not shown in Noah's Ark?

ANSWER: – This contention is not the truth if we are to accept the Epiphany Messenger's presentation on that over-all typical portrayal; namely, The Christ shown in Noah and wife – Ancient Worthies in Shem and wife – Great Company in Japheth and wife the Youthful Worthies in Ham and wife – the quasi-elect in the clean ani­mals, and all other restitutionists in the unclean animals. We discussed this matter at some length in our Octo­ber 1, 1962 paper, No. 88, page 6, as positive proof that a class such as Epiphany Campers Consecrated finds expression only in R. G. Jolly's imagination (which he seems to think is quite sufficient, according to his con­tentions at this last Chicago Convention).

 At the Chicago Convention Question Meeting on October 28 he offered the flimsy erratic observation that the Jews as such are not shown in the Ark; so why should Campers Consecrated need lodgment in that type? Brother Johnson clearly teaches that the quasi-elect (unconsecrated) are shown in the clean animals – the quasi-elect being comprised of those Jews faithful to the Law Covenant, and the believing and repentant Gen­tiles who accept Christ as Savior. (See E-5:62-61) Brother Johnson makes it crystal clear that the Jews, together with the Gentiles who are in the same relative condition, are represented in Noah's Ark – the quasi-elect in the clean animals, and the others in the unclean animals.

 If there be any substance whatever to R. G. Jolly's presentation, then with equal propriety we might conclude that the quasi-elect from the Gentiles are likewise not shown in the Ark. This would then force the conclusion that none of the quasi-elect (whether 'consecrated' as R. G. Jolly claims for his Epiphany Campers, or unconsecrated, as Brother Johnson teaches) are shown in the Ark. If Brother Johnson's explanation is cor­rect, then R. G. Jolly's teaching is self-evidently false, and just some more of his nonsense.

 Following with R. G. Jolly's “logic,” the unfaithful Jews as such are also not shown in the Ark, because the unclean animals type all the non-elect unbelievers -­Jews and Gentiles alike. Clearly enough, many Jews have not secured those blessings held forth to them by Moses. ''He is not a Jew who is one outwardly,” says St. Paul in Romans 2:28; that is, an over-developed nasal appendage sitting in a synagogue makes one no more an Israelite indeed than does a Gentile's presence in a Christian Church make one a Christian.

 Therefore, to offer the puerile vagary that the believing Jews as such are not specifically shown in the Ark (where Brother Johnson groups them with believing Gen­tiles in the clean animals) simply reveals the des­peration of R. G. Jolly to establish his non-existent Consecrated Campers Class. Certainly, such a Consecrated Class as he sets forth (who are sacrificing all earthly ambitions in the same degree and manner of the Youthful Worthies to such an extent that one cannot distinguish one from the other, he says!) should have some definite place in Noah's Ark (even more prominently mentioned than the quasi-elect) for their encouragement – even though R. G. Jolly offers them just nothing above Restitution for such self-denial and cross-bearing! The exhibi­tion is in exact keeping with the Jehovah's Witnesses to establish their non-existent Jonadabs, which latter are also the product of an uncleansed Levitical imagination (although they do offer their non-existent class some reward: they boldly tell them they will live through Armageddon and forever – a replacement for their “Millions Now Living Will Never Die”).

 As Brother Johnson has so correctly stated, “When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense”; and here is just one more excellent example that he knew whereof he wrote; and, in his “profusion of words” on this very same Question, R. G. Jolly was once more shouting that he is a “cleansed” Levite – ­all the time loudly demonstrating his UNCLEAN condition by his errors and “strange fire” offered be­fore the Lord at that time. “Thus they were cut off from the fellow­ship and the habitation of God's people as long as they remained lepers. They could, of course, associate with fellow lepers, but not with the clean Israel­ites, who were warned of their presence by the muffled cry, UNCLEAN. Antitypically are the symbolic lepers to be cast out from association with the Little Flock and good Youthful Worthies, who are to take warning of their presence by their muffled teachings – ERRORS. (E-4:272)

QUESTION: – Rev. 19:9 says, “Blessed are they (the Great Company) which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.” Does this prove that the Great Company has a call?

ANSWER: – It certainly does not prove, or even hint at such a thing. The Diaglott says, “Blessed are those who have been invited to the marriage supper.” We must ever consider that such an “invitation” is indeed a glorious privilege, and one not to be despised by those who receive it, or ridiculed by those who hear of it; but we should consider with equal emphasis that the teaching that this is their “call” is simply some more Levitical perversion (Azazel means Perverter). “They rebelled (revolutionized) against the words of God” – the Truth (Psa. 107:11). Brothers Russell and Johnson both stressed there is no “call” to be of the Great Company; God never “calls” any one to be a failure, and allowing for such a Class was God's merciful way of retrieving them from eternal death.

 One of the speakers at the Chicago Convention went into quite some detail about the “call” of the Great Company; and one of the pilgrims later privately suggested the “call” as the one incorrectly translated in the King James version in Rev. 19:9. Note the emphatic contradiction to this by Brother Russell in Reprints 5247, col. 1, par. 8: “Only those who are more than overcomers will be of the royal priesthood. There is no excuse for our getting into the Great Company. Let us keep our hearts with all diligence. Let us watch our hearts. If they are still in full harmony with God's will, we shall have little trouble with our tongues.” Nor would there be a Great Company Class if it were not for the wrong heart condition that put them there.

 It is a sad commentary indeed that the very ones who should profit by the teach­ings of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers are the ones now most ready to pervert their teachings concerning this measurably faith­ful Class.



Dear Brother Hoefle:  Loving Christian greetings!

 I have waited longer than I should to acknowledge your kindness in sending me the bound cop­ies. Of course, I have spent all spare time devouring it. For a long time I waited and prayed for fellowship in the real Truth. Ever since Bro. Johnson's passing “beyond the veil,” I have watched with uncertainty and a measure of fear that all was not well with the L.H.M.M.; – especially after the suggestion was given by a Pil­grim several years ago that we should not find fault with Bro. Jolly, “because he is the Lord's appointed,” etc.

 Everything seemed too “cut and dried,” with no room for proving the Truth any­more. But I had no op­portunity to settle down and review the Epiphany Truth until about three years ago. The more I re-studied the Epiphany Volumes and pre-1951 Present Truths, the more it looked to me as if Brother Hoefle was getting the same kind of treat­ment that was given Bro. Johnson for his defense of the Truth. This year I became con­vinced that no proof of “Consecrated Epiphany Campers” was in harmony with either Scrip­ture or the teachings of Brothers Russell or Johnson. The more I examined complaints against Bro. Hoefle's views, the more I was encouraged to hope that at least one leader among the Epiphany Truth people still stands faithfully for Truth and righteousness. So I went to Philadelphia, praying that I might meet and get acquainted with you there. Sitting back of you, in the Tabernacle, I deliberately watched you, during the first service Sunday morning. Your conduct and reverent expressions did not impress me as being that of sifters! I knew that “watch dogs” were on the alert, but I reminded myself that I must take the opportunity to meet you. I was ready to hear your explanations, and study to see if they were true.

 How laughable is Bro. Jolly's charge, that Bro. Hoefle is a “sophist”! Sometimes you seem almost too blunt; but, certainly never do you invite any one to get into the Kingdom by holding onto your coattail! Never do you claim any authority except to hold forth the words of Life, as any Pilgrim is commissioned to do!

 I shall continue to examine your messages and look for Scriptural proof; for I do not regard you as in­fallible. And, so far as I may be able, I shall rejoice to be privileged to support the good work, financially and in any other way that I can.

 May the Lord increase your opportunities of service! I desire, always, an interest in your prayers. Ear­nest Christian love to you both, and to all the dear ones there, from Your sister and colaborer ------- TEXAS


Dearly beloved Bro. Hoefle: – Greetings in our Lord Jesus!

 Your kind sympathetic letter of October 5 received. I am not at all surprised at R. G. Jolly going worse every day. I suppose he has read Brother Martin's letters in your last two papers, which made it worse than I had personally known. I am awaiting the Sept-Oct. P.T., which up to today has not arrived; so I shall not wait longer to reply to you.

 The Jolly group has promptly paid the money for the projector; and at our last monthly meeting we had..... present (about two-thirds of all Epiphany Truth people in the Country); and at that meeting three of our staunchest members were absent.

 Accompanying this is a letter from Brother and Sister...... from England. I told them that I consider their letter and the reply can be helpful to certain ones of the Household of Faith; and that, if they have not any objection, and you also think it helpful, you might publish it.

 I remain with warm Christian love for dear Sr. Hoefle, all the associates with you and yourself, In the Master's service, L. F. Roach (TRINIDAD)


Dear Brother Roach: – Loving Christian Greetings!

            It has been a real pleasure to read your letters which have appeared in Brother Hoefle's papers, and to know something of your many trials. You have the love and much sympathy of Sister and myself. of course, we also know that these things must needs be, for nothing else can so clearly “manifest the counsels of hearts” among the Lord's people; and both you and we have the full assurance to go right on in the way He has so gra­ciously marked out for us, and receive His blessing and encouragement daily – all the while rejoicing in all His precious promises – grace, strength and love. When we read, as often we do, “My Grace is sufficient”, and “In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength,” as well as be reminded that “all things work together for good to those who love the Lord and who are called according to His Divine purpose,” we rejoice in all His love and the outworking of that purpose for each one of us. Please remember, our dear Brother, that we shall continue to remember you continually at the “Throne of Grace,” and we know this will always be your delight as well. The prayer of the Righteously disposed, availeth much. God Bless and keep you secure in His love. We are your Brother and Sister “In His Keeping ------- ENGLAND

(Note: This is just one of the many letters received commending and encouraging the valiant course of Brother Roach in his stand for Truth and Righteousness and against Error and SinJJH)


Dear Brother and Sister..... Grace and peace in our dear Lord!

            Your kind and sympathetic letter of Oct. 1 received with true Christian love and appreciation. Yes, I have been having trouble with the great Usurper of Star Members' powers over the years, and it reached the climax when I addressed two members of prominence in the Household of Faith “Brother and Sister” – and re­fused to withdraw it. Have you seen or heard of such presumption? Of course, with respect to R. G. Jolly's false doctrines, etc., somehow I was never troubled until they reached the Class. My guide was – and still is – the Scriptures and Star Members. When Bro. Jolly teaches that Rev. 22:11 was fulfilled in 1954, I wonder whom he was address­ing when he says “he that is holy, let him be holy still” when they were all dead four years before? (according to R. G. Jolly's edict – JJH) The July-August so-called Present Truth has cast me into a lion's den, but I am sure to get out unhurt. See Vol. IX, p. 457, top, Brother Russell's “New Creature received no damage from the symbolic lions, as fierce, savage, malicious and violent as they were. Truly, they did not hurt him (v. 22.). In both the type and the antitype, the reason was the same–'innocency' (v. 22).”

 On Sept. 30, 1962 the Principal Man in the plot here against me, as reported in Bro. Hoefle's paper No. 86, page 7, September 1962, gave me a cordial Christian handshake, Psalms 6:7: “Mine eye is consumed be­cause of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies,”

 I want it clearly understood that I am not at all putting myself equal to Bro. Russell, though in 1916 he was called upon to give judgment in an incident in connection with my activities in service, and I got his deci­sion – which was commendable. However, I must thank Bro. Jolly very much for pushing me into his com­pany. I regret the delay in replying, which is due to waiting for Sept-Oct. P.T. to see what is the next move. But up to now I have not received it.

 With warm Christian love to dear Sister -------. and all the dear ones in England, and you, I remain your “Yokefellow” in Him, L. F. Roach (TRINIDAD)


Dear Sirs:

            Please send me booklet “What is the Soul”; also the one entitled ''Where are the Dead” and the Three Babylons tract. I surely will appreciate any other reading matter. Thank you! ------- PENNSYLVANIA


Dear Bro. Hoefle:

Thank you for the tracts. I got some out. They are good for the job!

My sister of Darlington has been away from home a lot, and my work takes me away. I am pleased re Bro. Armstrong letter and your refutation of the error in it. Grace and peace for you to know and do his will. Hymn 23 - Your Bro. By His Grace ------- (ENGLAND)