by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 82

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

 “These things occurred to them (the Jews) for types, and were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the Ages have come,” says St. Paul in 1 Cor. 10:11; and “these things” are specifically those incidents which occurred in their forty years' wandering from Egypt to Canaan. And they are specifically for “our admonition” in the ends of the Ages, the “ends of the Ages” being primar­ily the Jewish Harvest of forty years and the Gospel‑Age Harvest of forty years, with a secondary application being the overlapping of the Jewish‑Gospel Ages and the overlapping of the Gospel‑Millennial Ages – the consummation of the Gospel Age (or full end), and the front end (or beginning) of the Millennial Age. Inasmuch as we are living in this latter period it is with that time that we now concern ourselves.

Often have we heard it stated of the Epiphany brethren generally, and Brother Johnson individually, that they are always dealing with types, types, types – a type for everything; and don't give us any of your types! But be it noted that it is not we who have given the types; it is the inspired record itself which sets forth the types of which we speak. Therefore, those who today reject types are actually rejecting a large portion of the Bible itself – they join the ranks of the higher critics, whether or not they are willing to admit as much.

And such cannot possibly be fully sanctified by “present truth,” any more than could those who rejected Jesus and the Apostles be sanctified by the “present truth” of that day. If we reject types which are given specifically for “our admonition” in the end of this Age – the very time in which we are living – then we need not expect to continue in that Truth which makes us free indeed. Let us ever remember that Brother Johnson stressed that we are in that Epiphany period (“in His own season” – 1 Tim. 6:15, Dia.), wherein the “moon” is shining; and it is largely from those Old Testament teachings typified by the moon that he expounded so many types. And all the more lamentable is the condition of those who once saw and accepted those teachings on types, and who then reject them. As Brother Russell explains, such a course implies unfaithfulness; and, while we may mourn for such – as Israel did for King Saul – it is forbidden that we attempt to follow such in their wayward course.

We may exercise much more longsuffering with those who accept wrong interpre­tations of types from false leaders than we do with those who deny types in toto. Of those who summarily reject types we can allow no degree of tolerance, as we con­tinue to “contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints.” On one occasion we remarked to Brother Johnson somewhat along this fashion: “In the beginning of this Age the first 'Principal Man' was a man named Paul, often designated as the Apostle of types; and in the end of this Age we have the Eighth (or last) Principal Man, also a man named Paul, likewise an 'apostle' (or expounder) of types.” At this he emitted his hearty laugh.

Let us remember also that, while That Servant dealt much more profusely with the New Testament than with the Old Testament, yet the correct understanding of the types of Leviticus 9 and 16 enabled him to see clearly those doctrines of the New Testament so essential to the Harvest work. Had he not seen clearly – early in the Harvest – the type of Restitution as revealed in Leviticus 16, it would not have been possible for him to do the work appointed him to do. The six volumes of Scripture Studies all appeared after the foundation for them had been laid in Tabernacle Shadows – substan­tially a book of types. And with equal force, Brother Johnson needed the enlightenment of those New Testament truths for a clear understanding of those Old Testament types which he explained with such clarity. So if we are to reach anti­typical Canaan (the Truth and its Spirit) we need to understand and accept the faithful and true types as expounded by the two Messengers. Nor should we forget that Brother Russell made some mistakes in his type interpretations – just as did Brother Johnson; and this has caused some to go to the extreme of rejecting all their interpretations of types. Just a little reflection on St. Paul's words in 1 Cor. 10:11 (types – for our admonition) will demonstrate the fallacy of such con­clusion. How could those types possibly help us “in the ends of the Ages” if we did not understand them – if some one did not give their correct interpretation? Nor do wrong interpretations always eliminate the type itself, as evidence Brother Russell's mistaken understanding of the Gershonites about the Tabernacle typing Restitutionists. His mistake did not eliminate that type; it merely needed the “due time” to produce the correct understanding of it which Brother Johnson gave us. And by the same token, time will probably reveal to us a clearer understanding of some of those types given to us by the Epiphany Messenger – such as the King Saul type, etc. We believe our readers will readily agree with us that much of Brother Johnson's interpretations was considerably more intricate than those types applying to the Parousia; and we marvel that the beloved Brother did not make more mistakes than he did. But the mistakes of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers did not stumble any of the Fully Faithful, even though such mistakes may at times have presented “the trial of your faith.” So, to all who have an “ear to hear” we would emphasize St. Paul's words, “let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” And, just as the unfaithful in the typical wilderness journey were all destroyed, so we may now expect the Measurably Faithful to stumble, and the fully unfaithful to be destroyed by operation of the antitypes. Those who have been among us over the years need no argument about the truth of this observation.

We believe it may be properly stated that types are the most difficult section of the Bible to interpret correctly; and by the same token they are the most diffi­cult to understand clearly. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson often warned that we are not to confuse types; that is, that we should not attempt to interpret any two of them as though they were one. If we do, confusion is sure to result. On several occasions, as we discussed this and related matters with Brother Johnson, he told us he remarked to Brother Russell a few times that he had no problem understanding the six volumes of Scripture Studies, but he could not understand some teachings in Taber­nacle Shadows (specifically the Sin Offerings), at which Brother Russell said to him, “Why, those volumes all came from Tabernacle Shadows” – a statement which Brother Johnson explained to us is corroborated by Rev. 16:1, “I heard a great voice out of the temple (tabernacle).” It will be noted that the remainder of Chapter 16 is de­voted to a detail of the “seven bowls,” or seven volumes of Scripture Studies, which came “out of the Tabernacle,” which same is exclusively an analysis of “types.” This is treated in more detail in our No. 22, June 1957 paper.

And yet, with such exacting premise, many have not hesitated to discard com­pletely his types – just as others quite unqualified have attempted interpretation of types and produced “nonsense upon nonsense,” as Brother Johnson has described it. We have been told that Brother Russell was heard to remark, “Some of the dear Pilgrims do paint some awful pictures” – rushing in where angels fear to tread. And the same is true yet today. Not too far back we heard one prominent minister who conducts a regular Sunday radio broadcast – a gifted orator of excellent education – go into quite some detail of how our Lord Jesus was “typed” by the Scapegoat of Leviticus 16. Why? Why, because that goat had the sins of Israel confessed upon it; and so also our Lord bore our sins. Let us now consider an elemental and fundamen­tal rule for interpreting types – namely, there must be a correspondence in every detail between type and anti­type. Had this dear man just thought to look in the margin of his Bible, he would have then learned that the expression in Lev. 16:8, “the other lot for the scapegoat,” would read, “the other lot for Azazel – the Devil.” Would he then conclude that our Lord was appointed for the Devil! Furthermore, “scapegoat” is merely a contraction for “Escapegoat,” the same applying because that goat “escaped” into the wilderness, whereas, the other goat was slain and its blood sprinkled in the designated places. Surely, our Lord “escaped” nothing; He drained the cup of woe in all its most tragic details. His blood finally shed to “cleanse us from all sin.” Thus, the attempt to portray the scapegoat as a type of Jesus is both laughable and lamentable in the extreme, because “without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin” – Heb. 9:22. And the tragic inconsis­tencies of type and antitype in this instance just related are often paralleled by some who claim to be “in the Truth,” and who should certainly know better – of which more later on.

Among the types that Brother Johnson specially detailed was that of Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8). Of these he says that Jannes means “he deceives,” and he types the second‑death sifters of the Parousia; while Jambres means “he revolts,” and types the Epiphany sifters speaking and acting against God's teachings and arrangements given through That Servant, and thus acting as Satan's mouthpiece to withstand Christ speaking the Parousia and Epiphany Truth through His people, and especially through His Epiphany mouthpieces. If we are fully alive to the force of this explanation, then it is not difficult for us to understand why those who come within the scope of this type – those who revolutionize and speak against the Epiphany Truth – are ready enough to ignore and dispose of types; because this Jannes‑Jambres type condemns their every word and act.

Seeing this teaching clearly, all the more do we need to consider St. Paul's warning in 1 Cor. 10:6 (Dia.), “Now these things were made types for us, in order that we might not be cravers after evil things, as they (the Jews) craved.” And, “Wherefore, let him who is thinking that he has stood, take care lest he fall.” (v. 12) To which we also add 2 Pet. 1:12, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things: though ye know them, and be established in THE PRESENT TRUTH.” It was from this latter that prompted Brother Johnson to name his paper, The Present Truth; and may each one indeed determine for himself that he is “established in the Present Truth” and “take heed lest he fall.”

There is a certain plausibility to error – some more, some less; other­wise, it would deceive no one. The Papal system, with all its “deceivable­ness of unrighteous­ness, with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thes. 2:9,10), still clings to that wholesome Truth that there is but one true Church that is the custodian and preserver of the Truth. And upon that truth their system of error has been constructed, because it is just a small step further to claim that they are that one true Church, with St. Peter as the first infallible pope. Any who go that far with them are self­evidently forced to believe whatever the infallible pope may say. Indeed, all of us are duty‑bound to accept and believe what St. Peter wrote by inspiration – although many forget that there is just nothing in any of his writings that designates him as the first pope; and therein lies the malady. Many of the popes of the Dark Ages have attempted to interpret types – just as many today attempt to explain types – all of which have a measure of plausibility until they are analyzed by a comparison with the Truth, after which they quickly topple over in ruins. But none of this should cause us to despise types, because we believe many of our readers will agree that it has been through a clear understanding of those types expounded by the last two Principal Men that we have been enabled to “grow in Grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Whom be glory both now and forever” – 2 Pet. 3:18.


In his last paper J. W. Krewson fills a number of pages with his “Types and Antitypes,” our answer to which will be brief, as we have no wish whatever to engage the time and energy of our readers in pouring over voluminous “words to no profit” (2 Tim. 2:14). In their “much speaking,” the Jolly‑Krewson twosome offer just one more evidence that they are true “cousins” – they can always be depended upon to express a sentence in two or three paragraphs any time. Rather, we offer a funda­mental and elemental rule for discerning true and false interpretations of types – ­namely, type and antitype must correspond in every detail if the interpretation be a true one. Applying this one simple rule now to J. W. Krewson's paper No. 43, it will then readily appear for the flimsy flapdoodle that it is. Inasmuch as the first article of this paper treats of types, we follow with our comments re J.W. Krewson, because he is the most profuse pseudo‑typer we know of all the Toms, Dicks and Harries of the entire Epiphany period.

Let us consider first – J.W. Krewson has Gavin, Cotton, et al, anti­typing both Peter and Judas. Let him show such a correspondence for that last Thursday night of our Lord's stay on earth. Also, in his comments on his antitypical denial he has those brethren led to their act by Robert Markett. Let him show in the type the correspondence of some one leading Peter to his denial of Jesus that last night. Also, in that same night “the Lord looked upon Peter (after his denial) .... And Peter went out, and wept bitterly” (Luke 22:62). If J. W. Krewson has a correspon­dency for this in his antitype, he has failed to give any hint of it. Why? When Brother Johnson offered his interpretations, he left nothing to the imagination (although we well remember that J.W. Krewson has invited his readers to use their imagination); he was meticulous in explaining every detail to the full satisfaction of his readers. But J. W. Krewson – who now claims succession as his (Brother Johnson's) “agent” – is conspicuous for his failure to present such illuminating detail.

Then again he involves us (JJH) in his antitypical Judas. In another of his interpretations (Mark 12:28‑34) he portrayed us as one “not far from the kingdom of God,” claiming we were about ready to accept him. We pulverized that presentation so completely in our May 1960, No. 60 paper (copy free upon request) that he has never dared mention it again; so he now offers another twist and attempts to make us a part of his Judas jumble. Let us make a brief scrutiny: He says we prevailed upon the Winston‑Salem Ecclesia to disfellowship him. In the type Judas went to the Jewish leaders; in his proposed antitype J. W. Krewson has JJH (the leader) going to the ledlings – just the opposite, instead of correspondence to the type. In the type Judas received thirty pieces of silver (the price of power) for his despicable act. What power did we receive in J. W. Krewson's antitype? He hasn't shown any – because there isn't any. In fact, his own words betray him when he says we had the Winston‑Salem Ecclesia “under our thumb.” If that be taken at its face value, we could have had no more power over that Class afterward than we did before. And, in the type, did Judas have the Jewish High Priest “under his thumb” when he sold his Lord for money?

Of course, the facts of the case are just the reverse of what J. W. Krewson presents, because it was at that very time that he was trying by despicable methods to betray us; and he resorted to slander to do so. Thus, it was his own unholy conduct that prompted the Winston‑Salem Class to inform him that his presence was no longer desired in their midst; we had nothing to do with that. In fact, we had previously advised them to give him, his wife and the Marketts brotherly fellowship in what proved to be a fruitless attempt to aid all or some of his group by a “good example.” At no time – so far as we know – did a single member of that Class accept him as Pastor and Teacher, or even inferentially endorse any of his errors (any more than they did R. G. Jolly); he was merely offered the common Christian courtesy which we had advised them to give him. The slander just mentioned had to do with the scur­rilous statements J. W. Krewson was circulating in an underhanded method to prove us a fraud – and doing this at the very time we were be­friend­ing him. Here is what he wrote one brother:

“We do not believe JJH was appointed to the pilgrim office by Brother Johnson but on the authority of a reliable witness are reasonably certain he was appointed an auxiliary pilgrim. It seems that after Brother Johnson's death he dropped the adjective auxiliary and claimed the office of pilgrim.” Then, when we produced our pilgrim certificate, J. W. Krewson revealed his true character by attempting to lie his way out of a pit of his own digging. He now contends Brother Johnson had no authority to appoint pilgrims. In answer to this, we have repeatedly referred him to E:10‑249 (bottom), where Brother Johnson expounds Ezra 7:25, showing where he did have authority to appoint pilgrims for Epiphany purposes. J. W. Krewson has steadfastly ignored this citation – continuing (as does also his “cousin” R. G. Jolly) to repeat, repeat, repeat, his falsehood, and offer­ing reference to his past falsehoods to “prove” his present falsehood. Whatever may be the limitations of the “cousins,” there is certainly no limit to their gall! And it is this same J. W. Krewson who is now crying “Betrayal!” Indeed, the very same! Is he now also trying to prove Brother Johnson a fraud along with us? And, during the twenty years he was with Brother Johnson did he ever once raise the question of his authority to appoint pilgrims for Epiphany purposes? Time after time in the Present Truth did Brother Johnson announce the Pilgrim schedules of those whom he himself had appointed to the office; but we never heard of J. W. Krewson register­ing any protest about it. And we are reason­ably certain that at least some of those Pilgrims do not now have a paper with the LHMM seal upon it certifying their pilgrim appointment, as we ourselves do have – although we would not say that such failure detracts one whit from that standing which Brother Johnson repeatedly gave them during his life – ­unless their subsequent acts attest to their demotion by the Lord.


On pages 30‑32 of this paper appear some Questions and Answers purporting in large part to rebut statements in our January paper No. 78; and here R. G. Jolly once more reveals himself in true picayune manner. In his first question he states “there is no record that Abraham ever heard the name of Jesus.” It will be noted on page 4 of our January paper we quoted him as saying “Abraham never even heard of Christ.” Perhaps it has finally dawned on him that the word “Christ” means anointed – ­and that the Hebrew 'anointed,' the Greek 'anointed' and the English “Christ” all mean identically the same thing. Jesus became Jesus Christ – or Jesus the Anointed One – ­at Jordan when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Him; and while the name Jesus it­self does not appear in the Old Testament (except in the accommodated form of Joshua – ­Jah saves), there is in Psa. 2:2, the “Anointed One.” Also, in Gen. 49:10 – “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah.... Until He come in as a Shiloh.” (Rotherham) Young's Concordance explains Shiloh as “A description of Messiah as the Prince of peace.” And, while these Scriptures were written after Abraham's time, we may be fully assured that he, and other fully faithful persons before and after him, had a name for this One for Whom they hoped as their “Anointed” Savior, that was in essence identically the same thing. “A rose were still a rose if called by other name!” All the citations that R. G. Jolly offers from the two Messengers support our con­tention, that Abraham did 'hear' the name Christ, and our Lord's own words attest to that; and Brother Russell in R. G. Jolly's very citation to Z 5905, col. 2, gives the­ very Scripture we used against him (R. G. Jolly) re his 'foolish' remarks at Phila­delphia and Chicago Conventions, “Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56), to show that Abraham was justified by his faith in Christ! Our Lord used these words in His contention with the Scribes and Phari­sees at His First Advent; and we now find it necessary to use the same words in our contention with their prototype, one of the 'scribes' (R.G.Jolly) of His Second Advent.

At times when we have attacked R. G. Jolly's foolish contentions, he has remained silent when silence was Golden for him. But this is one of the times he felt compelled to give an answer; and in his answer he only makes more 'manifest his folly' before all. Azazel prompts him to do certain things at times to further humiliate him, be­cause Azazel not only seeks to 'use' those in his clutches, but he doesn't care how much he 'abuses' them – or destroys them.

In his next Question and Answer he says his Consecrated Epiphany Campers will have a Millennial reward a 'similar' to that of the Youthful Worthies. Now we wonder why he didn't say “similar to the Ancient Worthies” (because the Ancient and Youthful Worthies have 'similar' rewards in the Kingdom)? There­fore, his statement about his Campers Consecrated would apply with equal force to both classes of Worthies, because “things equal to the same things are equal to each other.” But why doesn't he quote Brother Russell or Brother Johnson as his authority for his statement? The reason is obvious – Neither of them ever made such a statement. But, when Brother Johnson said the Youth­ful Worthies would have a reward 'similar' to the Ancient Worthies, he explained very clearly what he meant by 'similar' and what he meant by 'reward.' Why doesn't R.G. Jolly do the same for his contention on his Epiphany Campers Consecrated? Manifestly, he has no appropriate explanation – his statement is just some more of his “foolish effusions.” The first main similarity for Kingdom purposes is the Resurrection of the “just” as set forth in Hebrews 11. This means quite a different Resurrection to the one “by judgment,” which all the non‑elect receive. Does R. G. Jolly include his Campers Consecrated in this 'similar reward' of the faith‑justified elect (the actual consecrated); that is, will they have a “better resurrection”? If not, but are raised in the general resurrection of the world, just what will be 'similar' about that to the “better resurrection” received by the Worthies?

When Brother Johnson stated that the Worthies' rewards would be 'similar,' he explained that the two classes would be Princes and Nobles – they will be the visible rulers of the Kingdom (physically perfect, an indisputable evidence of their first 'reward'). Is R. G. Jolly now contending his Consecrated Epiphany Campers will 'similarly' appear with the Youthful Worthies? In fact, none of his Campers Conse­crated in the tomb will be awakened when the Kingdom is established with the Worthies (and R. G. Jolly tells us his Campers Consecrated are consecrated 'unto death').

Coming now to his first question on page 31, re “changing his views on the end­ing of the Epiphany.” Let R. G. Jolly quote where Brother Johnson ever contended Armageddon and Anarchy would occur AFTER THE OVERLAPPING PERIOD OF 1954‑56. He's finally admitting that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical, and that Papacy (the 'Man of Sin') is to be destroyed in the Epiphany – as we have repeatedly contended (a destruction that is yet future). Surely, all of us know that for the world in general, the most telling Epiphany features are the troubles ahead – yet R. G. Jolly has those very important Epiphany features occurring AFTER HIS overlapping! Just how ridiculous can he be? If the Epiphany ended in a 'restricted' sense in 1954, did the Time of Trouble end in a “restricted” sense then? We have presented this question before, with the same answer – SILENCE – as he continues to yell “errorist” at us. When he mapped his program after Brother Johnson's death – at the instigation of J. W. Krewson – he did so on the premise that Armageddon in its fury would be with us by 1954. A blind man should have known better; but those befuddled by Azazel are blind indeed! When Brother Russell saw that 1914 did not bring the events he expected, did he go right on preaching that they did produce what he had previously expected? No, of course, he didn't! But, then, he was That Servant – and therein lies the great difference. That Servant was never in Azazel's clutches, but the one in Azazel's clutches (R. G. Jolly) tells us that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are one and the same – yet in the same breath hastens to point out that the Epiphany is over in its 'restricted' sense, and that we are now in the overlapping with the real trouble still future! And he has the effront­ery to declare “there is no con­flict” between his present views and those of Brother Johnson. Brother Johnson said Armageddon in its violent features would be here in 1954, and Anarchy by 1956. Is that still R. G. Jolly's contention? Or is there in actual fact quite a pronounced 'conflict' – in fact, an impassable gulf – between the views of Brother Johnson and those now held by R. G. Jolly regarding the Epiphany period? Nowhere did Brother Johnson ever teach that only the “wind” feature of the Time of Trouble would com­prise the Epiphany proper (as that was just the initial beginning of the Epiphany) – that it would end in “its restricted sense” before the more violent features of Armageddon and Anarchy would occur. R. G. JOLLY IS THE ONE CONTENDING THAT! Brother Johnson's unqualified statement is that the Time of Trouble (which R. G. Jolly finally admits in this March P.T.) and the Epiphany are identical (and he gave us the Scriptures to support it), and its narrow sense ('narrow' means the same thing as 'restricted,' as now used by R.G.Jolly) would be from 1914 to the end of Jacob's trouble, regardless of what that date may be. See E:4‑53 (51)

AND NOW ANTITYPICAL JONADAB: – On p. 31, col. 2, R. G. Jolly accuses us of mak­ing a statement that is “untrue, very deceptive and a gross misrepre­sen­ta­tion of what Brother Johnson really said.” How did we do that? We contended about the same Class Brother Johnson referred to as 'non‑existent.' The Question at Chicago in 1961 did not mention Jeremiah 35 – nor did R. G. Jolly mention Jeremiah 35 in his answer. Our whole contention was regarding the same Jonadab 'non‑existent Class' that Brother Johnson referred to in his April 1939 Present Truth, which can be easily proved by referring to that Present Truth; and we also catalog R. G. Jolly's Epiphany Campers Consecrated in the same 'non‑existent' category. Clearly enough, the Question posed at that Chicago Convention had to do with R. G. Jolly's Epiphany Campers Conse­crated joining up with the Jonadabs of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To whitewash his bung­ling answer, he now reverts to Jonadab of Jeremiah 35. Is he now contending that these Talmudists of Jeremiah 35 are a consecrated class? We never know the length to which R. G. Jolly's gymnastics will lead him, when he is contending for his false doctrine (“strange fire”) of Epiphany Campers Consecrated. Is he now coming up with a SIXTH “Consecrated” class to befuddle himself and his readers? Had his answer to such a Question been 'certain' (“For if the trumpet give an 'uncertain' sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” – l Cor. 14:8), then he would have succinctly answered the Question to the effect that his “Consecrated” Epiphany Campers could not 'merge' with such Jonadabs (whether of the 'religious class' he refers to now, or whether of JFR's 'non‑existent' Jonadab class), because they are not a consecrated class. Will he now express himself clearly, so that all may know just what he does mean? Does R.G. Jolly now contend that the Question at 1961 Chicago Convention had reference to the Jonadabs of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or to the reference he gives us in Epiphany Vol. 14? Let him (R. G. Jolly) make himself clear and answer this with a clean Yes or No, and all will be easier for his readers. We can answer him further if his contention is for the Jonadab of Epiphany Vol. 14, because this still will militate against his false doctrine (“strange fire”) of Epiphany Campers Consecrated (a 'non‑existent' class), even tho, as he stated, it might not be expedient for them (Epiphany Campers 'Consecrated') to 'merge' with the Jonadab class (OF WHICH ORDER? we ask) at this time. Is this a Sixth Class for elective purposes (another not shown around the Tabernacle? Let him make his contentions clear, and we will, D.v., make our answers clear so that all the brethren will know our contentions, as well as the contentions of R. G. Jolly regarding the matter.

And on the top of p. 32, where he quotes our statement, “As Brother Johnson has so well stated, it is not required of Youthfuls that they develop Agape love.” Here again he reveals what manner of man he is. Whenever we have made this statement, we have always added to it, “but they should do so if they can.” Yet he now wishes to contend that we are “denouncing character development” – and he does this with the full knowledge that in almost every paper we publish, where we discuss him, we denounce the miserable character which he himself displays at every turn. Yet he yells “sophist” at us! Clearly enough, his distortions and twists in the Questions we now examine re­veal the technique of desperation – the gibbering of one approaching the end of his intellectual tether – the futile spasms of one who subconsciously realizes the roof is about to fall in on him – one who stands perilously close to the abyss of a moral bank­rupt, as he strives to extricate himself from the meshes of his own Azazelian bungling. Had he the moral courage of the weakest neophyte, he would long ago have repudiated Campers Consecrated “strange fire” (false doctrine) which he absorbed from J.W.Krewson­ – but instead he continually goes from bad to worse to accomplish his gradual annihilation in the quagmire of error in which he now finds himself. We do indeed pity him, as we see him thus buffeted by Azazel – although our exper­iences with him have accentuated our sympathy for dear Brother Johnson in the vexations he must have experienced with such a “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser and his foolish effusions.” (See E:10‑591)

Coming now, to “THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD”: – R. G. Jolly quotes in his last sentence an expression from Brother Johnson that should have sobered him in his own writing on this point: “St. Paul.... referred to his explaining every general feature of God's plan.” Is R. G. Jolly now contending that his Campers Consecrated is NOT a “general feature” of God's plan? Does he consider the Ancient and Youthful Worthies “general feature” of God's plan? Will he answer these questions? We may be certain that he won't! By his own analysis in this very paper we are discussing he says his Consecrated Campers will receive a reward 'similar' to the Youthful Worthies. If his contention is correct, then it should require little argument to prove that his Conse­crated Campers would be just as much a “general feature” of God's plan as are the Worthies. And be it noted, St. Paul does set forth the Worthies as a part of the “general features” of God's plan!

“Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” Psa. 127:1



Dear Brother Hoefle: – Sorry to have to write this letter to you. Sally lived this life to the best of her ability and is now resting in peace.

I have received your March 1, 1962 message – read and enjoyed it. I believe you are right on the Memorial date. The last time I had the service with Sally – for the last time.

   With Christian love, Your Brother --------- MICHIGAN


My dear Bro. Hoefle: – Grace and peace be yours! At last I am home and out of the Hospital. I wore a cast for six weeks and it was heavy to 'tote' around. I lost weight and vitality, but the experiences I had at the Union County hospital witnessing to the Truth far outweighed any pain I suffered – and I would gladly go through it again. The ministers go to the rooms of the patients who belong to their church, and as I occupied a two‑bedroom with another patient the ministers would engage me into their conversations. Of course, you know how easy it is to bring religion into a conversation with a minister. Two Baptist ministers came right into line for a Truth witness.... when the patients they visited introduced me to them as a “fine” Bible Student........ They were sure to inquire as to my church affiliation, and that gave me my chance. I explained that I was undenominational because I could not sanction the errors taught in all denominations – and then I attacked their teaching of the immortality of the soul, and quickly quoted Isa. 53:12 that Jesus, a perfect soul poured his out unto death, but that the ministers teach that we imperfect souls are immortal – and either go to heaven if good, or to a lake of fire and burn throughout eternity, if we die as sinners. You should have seen the reaction of those two Baptist ministers when I put that as a question to them. I said: “Why do you teach error on that Bible truth when the Bible gives you such plainly stated facts that souls die?” One old minister... choked up, got up, said good‑bye to his Baptist patient, ignored me completely and walked out. The other is Max Holmes, and lives in Blairsville. He was so angry he got up and said he was leaving because he wanted to continue being a gentleman. I just quietly told him that he was neither a gentleman nor a Christian, and my knowledge of him was based on other conversations we had with him and his attitude and vilifi­cation of those who believed differently to his religion. He does not have any real friends in Blairsvilles I learned from some of his own Baptist Church‑goers. All that I have talked with seemed eager to hear the Truth – and, most of all, asked questions. The Methodist minister is much the finer man than Holmes, and asked questions and seemed deeply interested. He is a 'chum' of my doctor.....

I am still here and still witnessing for the precious Truth which has been mine for over 50 years...........

My special love to you and all at Mount Dora, By His grace --------- Georgia


Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace to you and yours! I am in receipt of your letters. The later one re date of our Lord's Memorial was read and accepted as being correct. Also March 1 article, which has supplied us the necessary help and assistance for participation in our Lord's Memorial supper.

We cannot express our appreciation to the dear Lord for one as you are who has so ably defended His Truth at this time. As was in our Lord's last hours He had many trials and testings – even His own familiar friend betrayed Him. So likewise we should expect similar trials. May you be encouraged in your 'labour of love' toward the Lord's cause and His dear ones – Matt. 10:25 tells us what we should expect. Be of good cheer and the Lord will deliver you and His faithful people as He did with Joshua of old. We here, though a little company, are still keeping up the “good fight.” May the good Lord bless you and keep you all for His dear name's and mercy's sake. I close with Hymn 88. Yours by His Grace – Bro --------- JAMAICA


Our dear Brother Hoefle: ‑ Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

We are in thorough agreement with the Supplement to No. 80, Immediately after reading it we got S.S. Vol. 6, reading Note 4, page 733 onward, and we are thankful for the enlightenment. How like Brother Russell and Brother Johnson for you to investigate a suggestion of such nature! And we appre­ciate your humility before the Lord to amend any discrepancy – again, this is how the Star Members gave corrections to their writings ........

Bro -------, from ---- is in contact with the L.H.M.M., and he says we are wrong and Jolly is right. Had quite a tussle with Epiphany Campers Consecrated. He never sends any quotations for us to look up (of course he hasn't any!). We wonder if he looks up the references we send to show the error of doctrine And practice. Now he is disputing your pilgrim office, so a copy of your appointment was sent to him.

Brother ------- has just called, and he, too, is in agreement with Supple­ment to No. 80, and glad to have S.S. Vol. 6, Note 4 pointed out to him in verification......

Our tracts are exhausted, and we would like a quantity to distribute. Thank you in anticipation to continue Gideon's Second Battle. Our united love to you, Sister Hoefle and all the dear ones who see “eye to eye” – Joshua 1:7‑9.

                                    Your brethren by His Grace – Bro.& Sr ------- ENGLAND


Dear Brother Hoefle: – Please send me promptly Resurrection of the Dead tracts for free distribution. I thank you! I hope you have plenty of spiritual blessings as you two seek earnestly to do the Divine will..,.

                                    Much Christian love, Your Brother ------- PENNSYLVANIA


Dear Sir: – Please send me your free copies of the following: The Resurrection of Dead – The Three Babylons and What is the Soul. Thank you!

------- KANSAS