by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 122

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

In Gen. 10:15-20 it is reported that the sons of Canaan (the same being the grandsons of Ham, and the great grandsons of Noah) were Sidon, Heth, the Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgashite, the Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite, the Arvadite, the Zemarite and the Hamathite. This record is repeated substantially verbatim in 1 Chr. 1:13-16. In Gen. 15:19-21 ten nations are given as the inhabitants of Canaan, whose terrain Abraham and his seed would eventually inherit. But in Ex. 3:8, in Josh. 11:3 and Judges 3:5 six nations are listed as the ones with which the Jews would contend in battle in Canaan, the same being given below with the meaning of the names and their Gospel-Age antitypes:

  1. Canaanites (merchants) – Worldliness;

  2. Hittites (fear) – ­Cowardice;

  3. Perizzites (inhabitants of the plains) – Siftingism;

  4. Jebusites (threshing floor) –Erroneousness;

  5. Hivites (villagers) – Sectarianism;

  6. Amor­ites (highlanders) –Sinfulness.

    In Numbers 13:29 it is stated the Amorites, the Hittites and the Jebusites are “such as dwell in the mountains.” We believe the reason for giving only six names in Ex. 3:8, Josh. 11:3 and Judges 3:5 is that the number six in the Scriptures is the num­ber of evil or imperfection; and the character portrayals given above just about encompass all the major evils with which God's people have had to contend in this Gospel Age.

    However, the purpose of this treatise is to consider mainly the Sons of Jebus, the Jebusites, of whom this is written in Josh. 15:63 – “As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.” While the warriors of Judah launched the main attack against the Jebusites, they did so in behalf of Benjamin, as the warriors of Benjamin were few in number. Before the Jews entered Canaan the chief stronghold of the Jebusites was called “Jebusi, which is (now) Jerusalem.” (Josh. 18:28)

    As all Truth people learned from Brother Russell, the two sons of Jacob and Rachel were Joseph and Benjamin, the same being typical of the Gospel-Age Little Flock and Great Company. But the Tribe of Benjamin had the Jebusites in their very midst all the years of the Judges; these “uncircumcised” occupied the stronghold of Zion “unto this day.” Thus, being completely surrounded by Benjaminites, they could not get out; nor could their enemies get in. Consequently, the Israelites were offering asylum and protection to their own enemies. And what Is the Gospel-­Age application of all this? Why, it simply reveals very clearly that the Great Company (antitypical Benjamin) during this Age have been the main protectors and preservers of antitypical Jebus – “ERRONEOUSNESS.”

    In proof of the foregoing, we need only consider the antitype of Numbers 7, in which the princes of the twelve tribes typed the crown-lost leaders of this Age. And it has been the crown-lost leaders who perverted (contaminated with error) the twelve stewardship doctrines that were fathered by antitypical Jacob. It is they who nurtured the errors that built Great (and Little) Babylon; it is they who perverted into sects the various Little Flock movements that arose dur­ing the Age. It is error that has been at the bottom of every sifting – error of teaching or practice, but usually both, And all of this had its beginning with “your brethren that hated you, and cast you out” (Isa. 66:5). Thus, all during this Age antitypical Benjamin has fostered and protected the erroneous procedure that led God's people astray – encompassed the antitypical Jebusites round about, and built up Great (and Little) Babylon.

    The obnoxious condition continued in the type all during the period of the Judges – 450 years; and for the 40 years of Saul's reign as king; and for 7½ years during David's reign. David then determined this had gone on long enough; but the Jebusites had occupied the hill country for so long they considered it impregnable – they sneered at David's army. “Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither,” they said (2 Sam. 5:6) – inferring that even a lot of cripples could repel any attack against Jebusi. But the Lord was with David, as he had been with Joshua; and the promise was still sure that the “victory that overcometh the world, even your faith” would once more assert itself in David's case. And in short order “David dwelt in the fort, and called it the City of David” – Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:8).

    What, then, is the Gospel-Age application of David's great victory? We believe it centers in Brother Russell, who was the Parousia David in his battles against the errorists. All of us are witness that he overthrew with a strong arm the No-Ransom and Infidelism sifters (errorists) early in the Parousia, and completely vanquished the Parousia Goliath as evidenced in the Evolution theory. So thoroughly did he defeat all the errorists of his day that it could be said every Little Flock developing Truth had been purified of all defilement by September 1914; he had put to rout all the antitypical Jebusites in a manner no one would have believed possible in 1874. The raucous boasting of the Goliaths and all other antitypical Jebusites had been completely silenced. May we repeat once again, God bless his memory!


    On p. 6 of his paper No. 60 J. W. Krewson again reiterates his error that “the twelve chief graces are typed by the twelve stones set up in the midst of the river Jordan by command of Joshua.” To him “the Scriptures clearly teach this,” he says. Apparently, he has read the fourth chapter of the book of Joshua while in a state of coma if that section of Scripture “clearly teaches” such an interpretation to him – ­either that, or under very dangerous spiritual direction. And, apparently, he didn't bother to read at all the Berean Comment on Josh. 4:9!

    Let us take a careful look at the record in Joshua Chapter 4: Verse 2 the Lord commands Joshua to “take twelve men out of the people, out of every tribe a man.” Thus, those twelve men clearly acted for the whole twelve tribes. And v. 5 tells us each man was to take a stone, “according to the number of the tribes of the children of Israel.” Clearly enough, the twelve stones represented the same thing exactly as did the twelve men; that is, the twelve tribes of Israel. Since things equal to the same things are equal to each other, the twelve men must also type “the twelve chief graces” if the stones type those graces, as J. W. Krewson teaches. Would any one with even a smattering of Present Truth accept such a contention? Let us bear in mind that those twelve men were warriors, with swords by their sides, bent upon the conquest of Canaan; and to set forth such a picture as typical of “the twelve chief graces” is simply transparent nonsense. But, if we have them typifying the Gospel Age Spiritual Israel, armed with the “sword of the spirit,” we have harmony in every detail; and let us not forget that twelve is a Little Flock number.

    Besides, the record expressly states that the men and the stones represented the twelve tribes of Israel; and in no place in the Bible is there the slightest hint that those fleshly tribes would typify the graces of the spirit. Rather, they type the twelve tribes of Spiritual Israel – sometimes the nominal, sometimes the true. And Joshua's act in constructing an altar from those stones is in exact keeping with Elijah's act in doing identically the same thing (See 1 Kgs. 18:32). And Brother Johnson says in E-3:26 (22) those twelve stones in Elijah's Altar typed “the twelve tribes of Spiritual Israel” – “the true Church, the altar.” Note his repetition of this in par. 23, p. 27.

    Furthermore, those twelve stones from the bottom of Jordan would be slimy and mud-covered (the Jordan was then at flood stage – Josh. 3:15; 4:18), which had no tool of man upon them. This is just the exact opposite of the diamonds, rubies, etc., that portray the graces of Spiritual Israel. Such gems are a pleasure to behold, and have received their polishing and formation by the careful application of much tooling by man – just as Spiritual Israel has developed the graces “through much tribulation.” There is a certain symmetry and order to clear Bible exegesis – just as there is always revulsion and disorder to Bible eisegesis; and this distortion by J. W. Krewson is a pronounced example of eisegesis. There is nothing anywhere in the Scriptures to support the type he has attempted to make; it is an excellent com­panion for some of the types R. G. jolly has offered (which is another strong confir­mation of their ‘cousin’ relationship). As further corroboration of our understand­ing of this type, we offer the following from E-11:369:

    ''The altar of stones seems to represent the humanity of the Christ as an abiding condition of the Altar members (“They are there unto this day,” Josh. 4:9 – JJH) as unremovable from that altar, hence the Millennial Altar.” — ­And Joshua leading Israel into Canaan is antityped by Jesus leading Spiritual Israel into the Heavenly Canaan.

    Then further by Brother Johnson:

    “That altar should be accepted by the Millen­nialists as God will have made it, without their trying to shape it by erroneous opinions of their own (not build it of hewn stone, just as was true of the altar built by Joshua – JJH); for such opinions attached to that altar (lift up thy tool upon it) would defile it.” Tools properly applied to precious stones, representa­tive of the graces, accomplish just the reverse: instead of “defiling” such stones, the craftsman's tools “refine” them and bring out their beauty. J. W. Krewson's “erroneous opinion” on Joshua's altar would properly be regarded as such “defiling.”

    In close harmony with the comments of Brother Johnson, and with our own addi­tional analysis as given aforegoing, is Brother Russell's own interpretation of the Joshua altar:

    “A man from each of the twelve tribes was selected; each one was to carry a stone from the midst of the Jordan to the shore, and these twelve large stones were to be set up as a memorial, a reminder to Israel­ites for coming generations of how the Lord had brought them over Jordan. (Josh.4:2,9)

    “It was not necessary that the priests should remain in Jordan, and die there, on behalf of the delivered Israelites, in order to complete the type, for instead, by the Lord's direction, twelve stones were placed where they stood, representing the twelve tribes of Israel – representing the 144,000 out of all the twelve tribes (Rev. 7:1-8) who constitute the royal priesthood, and who become dead with Christ, according to the flesh, that they may live with Him as new creatures, partakers of the divine nature, and participators with Him in the great work of blessing all the families of the earth.” (Reprints 3085/3086)

    We all make mistakes; Brother Russell and Brother Johnson made mistakes. But mistakes made by “good and honest hearts” are always corrected when the mistake be­comes apparent. It is only when such mistakes are persistently repeated that they become reprehensible, and cause the erring one to become “leprous” – as is now clearly manifest with J. W. Krewson's repetition of his perversion (of Parousia and Epiphany Truth) after we clearly revealed his folly in the matter in our papers Nos. 59 and 70. It is extremely distressing to note such meddlers constantly on the prowl for “new light” to set aside completely, or to pervert the true “shining light” that has come to us through the Laodicean Star; and we urge our readers to consider some of the farewell address of the same Joshua who ordered the construction of the altar in Jordan:

    ''If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange gods, then He will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good.” (Josh. 24:20) And observe, too, the Berean Comment on this verse: “Typifying that God will send strong delusions to those who receive not the love of the Truth,” as prophesied in 2 Thes. 2:11.

    If J. W. Krewson has the audacity to answer the foregoing, it would not surprise us to see his favorite “sleight-of-hand” as his excuse: “What one does through another, he does himself”! He may tell us that Brother Russell would see the error of his typical interpretation of Joshua's altar if he were here; but, since he is not here, he's now using J. W. Krewson to make the change for him. Most of us are aware of the intricacy and difficulty obtaining with most types; but this one of Joshua's altar seems to us at least to be one of the plainest and least intricate of any of the types; thus, it is difficult indeed for us to comprehend the sort of thinking that attempts to pervert it. It has been the pronounced tendency of the Jehovah's wit­nesses to “go and do likewise” all during this Epiphany period. They, too, have vitiated some of the simplest truths in their unsalutary urge for “new light” (“much speaking” – Matt. 6:7; “profane, empty declarations” –2 Tim. 2:16, Dia.).

    By this let none conclude that we are against new light; definitely, that is not our position, for we rejoice in any advancing Truth that any brother may by God's Grace present to His people. But in all of it we repeat again that advancing Truth does not set aside Truth already revealed, as some deceivers would have us believe; but it must be in harmony with, and add beauteous superstructure to that Truth we have already “learned and been assured of.”


    Many of J. W. Krewson's expressions on the Bible are in keeping with his explana­tion of Joshua's Altar in Jordan. Often his statements are completely misleading; often some of them are outright revolutionism (and repudiation of the Star Members' faithful teachings). Some he has forsaken because of our annihilative refutations against him; but when he does so, he just remains silent on his past errors – giving the Truth at times, as though that were his position all along. He made the statement in one of his previous papers, “Error must be defended – Truth can stand for itself.” In our Jan. 1, 1959 No. 43 paper, we completely annihilated such an UNSCRIPTURAL contention. Now he claims to be a champion himself, and a defender of the Truth!

    Another instance is his article on page 75 of his paper No. 62 – “The Way, the Truth and the Life.” We shall not detail the many slipshod and misleading state­ments of that article, some of which impinge his former statements (although that doesn't matter to him, because he counts upon the sluggishness of his readers – ­just as do the Jehovah's Witnesses), or directly contradict them. But here we shall confine our observation to his last two paragraphs on p. 80, and the two at top of P. 81. The definitions he offers are definitely inadequate. Why does he not apply the “Way – Truth – Life” to the Gospel-Age and Epiphany Tabernacles? Clearly enough, if he did so, it would leave no room at all for his quasi-elect consecrated, or for 'cousin' Jolly's Campers Consecrated. In those Tabernacle pictures Jesus becomes the “Way” only to those who come through the Gate (the “Way” into the Court). He becomes the “Truth” only to such as present themselves at the first veil (the “Truth” entrance into the Holy for Gospel-Age new creatures, and the “Truth” to the Youthful Worthies in an accommodated sense). Then Jesus becomes the “Life” at the second veil (the same being the acquisition of the Divine Nature by the Gospel-Age Fully Faithful, the spirit nature for the Great Company, and the spirit nature for the Ancient Worthies and Youthful Worthies at the end of the Little Season).

    The foregoing presents an elevating and convincing definition of the Way, the Truth, and the Life as embodied in our Beloved Lord – portrayed in the Tabernacle type – although it leaves no room at all for Faith-Age consecrations in the Camp. It will be noted, J. W. Krewson states on p. 80 that “Jesus is the exclusive means of approach to God,” which statement is certainly the Truth (but does it fit with his “strange fire” – ­false doctrine – and his other contentions?). Let him offer one iota of proof anywhere that such 'Approach to God” is shown in the Camp. In due time we expect to analyze other vagaries presented by him, particularly his “Jambresian Folly” on pages 91-98, which applies most forcefully and clearly to J. W. Krewson himself. His slanderous falsehoods offer solid reason why the Lord has permitted him to make the many blunders that he has made in teaching and arrangement.

    In this same No. 62 paper he reiterates his revolutionism and repudiation of the Epiphany Messenger's clear teaching on the Worthiest having no part with the Great Company in the sin-atonement for the world's willful sin (See his pp. 79,83). He often gives citations to Epiphany teachings that have no bearing on his conten­tion whatever. On p. 77, bottom, he cites his readers to Epiphany Vol. 12, p. 274; but on the next page (p. 275) is Brother Johnson's clear teaching that the Worthies have no part or parcel in the sin-atonement for willful sins (as JWK claims they have): “Finally, the Great Company sufferings in relation to sin-atonement are for the willful sins of the world in sin-atonement and thus differ from those of the Church; and they differ from those of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies, which Worthies do not suffer at all for sin-atonement, which again, makes their sufferings differ from those of these three classes.” (E-12:275) Yet in this same paper he deplores revo­lutionism and the 'setting aside' of Parousia and Epiphany Truth! Even if we didn't have Brother Johnson's clear statement, in direct contradiction to J. W. Krewson's contention (that the Worthies share with the Great Company in the sin-atonement for the world's willful sins), we would know from fundamental teachings of the Truth that the Worthies could have no part or parcel in sin-atonement for willful sins, or any other sins. Let J. W. Krewson present further comment on this that he is right and the Epiphany Messenger is wrong, after which we shall offer further elaboration and refutation on his gross revolutionism of Epiphany Truth.

    He also offers persistent revolutionism against the teachings of both Brothers Russell and Johnson regarding the final departure of the Gospel-Age Elijah. Both Messengers clearly taught from Psa. 46 that the whirlwind ascent of Elijah into Heaven (2 Kgs. 2:11) typified the departure of the last members of the Body of Christ in the very violent features of the Time of Trouble. If his Present Truth (?) of the Apokalypsis is so convincing, why does he not clarify this subject? Repeatedly have we presented this question, but we receive complete silence from him as our answer*


    The last of the Old Testament writers had told the Jews, “I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord” (Hal. 4:5); and the Jews had been so much impressed with this prophecy that they were constantly on the alert for the physical re-appearance of the ancient Elijah, not realizing that this was one of those “dark sayings” they could not understand. But when John the Baptist appeared Jesus said he was that Elijah that had been promised (See Matt. 11:14, Dia. and Matt. 17:20). And, just as John had been the ''messenger'' (Mal. 3:1) to announce the personal Jesus, so the Christ Company in the flesh has been announcing the second coming of the Lord all during the Age, with the larger and much more ominous “great and dreadful day.”

    But, as Brother Russell explained, the specific characteristic by which all might recognize antitypical Elijah would be that as God's mouthpiece he would seek to reform the world – just as the first Elijah repeatedly endeavored to reform Israel, the rulers as well as the people. Jesus Himself was the leader and forerunner of the Gospel-Age Elijah, as is clearly revealed in his statement to Pilate, “I testify to the Truth” (John 18:37, Dia.). And all during the Age His lesser brethren have also witnessed to the Truth against the evils in Church and State. Some of these leaders are still household names today – such as Luther, Wesley, Cranmer, et al; while others have receded into obscurity (except to such of us who look for them) – names such as Claudius of Turin, Berangar of Tours (France), Peter Waldo, Marsiglio, John Wyclif, John Huss, John Wessel, and others.

    All of the members of the Gospel-Age Elijah, and particularly the leaders among them, were outraged at the evils and crimes committed in the name of religion; all of them protested and attempted reform, as did Elijah; and all of them received the same treatment as did he at the hands of his “brethren.” From the time of Abel to this our present day it has been common practice for evildoers to praise the dead saints, even as they have crucified the living saints of their own day. The Jews repeatedly chanted “Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,” as they vexed and abused the great and magnanimous Moses. The later Jews lauded Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses, as they murdered their own prophets in resentment against the Truth spoken against them. And the more of truth there was in their message, the more they were hated and abused, Jesus Himself being the outstanding example. “We have Abraham as our father,” they said (Luke 3:8); “they have Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29). Then they proceeded to crucify Him – much the same as their ancestors had done to Zechariah, their faithful priest (2 Chr. 24:20-22).

    It is a proper observation that the Jewish ritual established under Moses, and many of the Christian units that originated with the Gospel-Age Star Members, have all progressed through three stages: Priesthood, Priestcraft and Priest- “graft.” Aaron was a faithful and fully consecrated priest; so were many of his successors. But, by the time of Zedekiah, “the profane and wicked prince,” he was encouraged in his evil ways by the priestcraft then in charge to abuse the faithful Jeremiah. Such priest­craft is usually actuated by that worldly wisdom which knows not God. As we said in the Jebus pages, Jerusalem was considered impregnable against the puny weapons of that day; thus, it was only “logical” worldly wisdom that those mercenary priests should advise Zedekiah to give no heed to the pessimistic Jeremiah. Nobody had ever taken the city – just as no one had been able to take Tyre – so why should any one take it then? But Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar; and Zedekiah fell with it, along with his “experts” in priestcraft.

    Later, when Cyrus allowed the Jews to return, they returned to the evil ways of their fathers; and by the time Jesus appeared, their priesthood was scraping the very bottom of the dirty barrel. The Law had clearly stated that the animals for sacrifice should be “without blemish”; but the priesthood of Jesus' day had strained that to an extremity never intended by Moses. It is said they had as many as 70 faults with which to reject sacrificial animals – even a wart on its belly, or some such, be­ing sufficient cause for rejection. What, then, would the pious Jew do who had traveled several days to reach the temple for his purification? The answer was quite simple: Those priests, who would not accept his animal, had one in the yard behind the temple that they would sell to him “at a reasonable price.” Then, they would take the original animal in trade, transfer it to the stack pen, and sell it to the next Jew who came similarly with his animal. Little wonder Jesus thundered at them, “My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of robbers.” (Matt. 21:13, Dia.; John 2:13-17) Yes, Priest-“graft” was in its heyday!

    There is no need for us to detail the Priest-“graft” of the Roman Church, and others; our readers are sufficiently familiar with the facts. But a word would be “in season” here concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses, because we believe J. F. Ruther­ford converted the saintly Parousia Movement, developed by That Servant, from a true Priesthood to a degraded Priest-“graft” in less time than any other instance in human history. He was quick to see the possibilities of “slave” labor – trusting brethren going from house to house, standing on street corners, etc., selling his books at a handsome royalty to him. And his henchmen have given no more heed to the Elijah of our day (Brother Johnson and other faithful brethren) than did their ancestors give heed to the Elijah of years past. Nor should we “think it strange.” Nor should it surprise us if we receive similar treatment (because, “If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you” – John 15:20; and, if we would be faithful in “bearing witness to the Truth,” we are certain to receive persecution – 2 Tim. 3:12); but we may take consolation in the fact that we are in the fraternity of the Elect Company. Thus, ''we glory in tribulations” also (Rom. 5:3-5); and therewith may we be content. The more nearly we testify of Truth, the more likely are we to receive the “reward of the prophets.” May we be content with such things as we have; the writings of the Laodicean Star are indeed our rich inheritance. But the Truth they gave is to some a “savor of life unto life, and to others a savor of death unto death; and who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:15,16) Their books are like mirrors: If a mule looks in, we should not expect an angel to look out!


    In their attempts at reform, both the typical and antitypical Elijahs have been accused of being the troublemakers, agitators, sifters, seditionists, etc. Ahab and his Baal-worshipping Jezebel were the most wicked pair ever to rule Israel. “Ahab did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him.” (1 Kgs. 16:30). Yet it was Ahab who had the gall to charge Elijah: “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” (I Kgs. 18:17) And in identical language the Priest-“grafters” hurled the accusation at Jesus: “He stirreth up the people”! (Luke 23:5)

    So also “that woman Jezebel” (Rev. 2:20), and her murderous paramour, “The Holy Roman Empire,” made repeated charge against the Gospel-Age Elijah that they, too, were ‘troubling’ “this present evil world.” They raised doubts, caused divisions, agitated the troubled waters, was the contention. Thus, it is a sage observation that the wise man adapts himself to his surroundings, but the fool tries to adapt his surroundings to him; and thus we progress! The evildoers have always been the cause of the trouble, but they have invariably blamed the righteous for the trouble. The antitypical Jebu­sites (the errorists) have themselves always been at the bottom of every division in the Church, but they have always accused their fully-faithful brethren of causing the uproar (and they prevailed, because they were the ones to take over after each Star Member finished his course: They were able always to keep the majority, so they ac­cused the righteous of being 'sifters,' because they resisted their errors and did cause other faithful brethren to ‘sift’ – leave the majority; and the “unstable and the unlearned” always were convinced that the Fully Faithful were the ones who “caused divisions among you,”). This clear record of history should certainly teach us some­thing; but it is a sad observation that so few, so very few, have learned anything from it.

    Therefore, “Let the peace of the Anointed preside in your hearts.... Let the Word of the Anointed dwell in you richly.... Whatever you may do, in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Col. 3:15-17)

    Sincerely your brother,

    John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



    My dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be yours!

    I have desired to write you a few lines before now; didn't even know that I would be alive until this time. I am thankful to the dear Lord that He has spared me to see this time that we are living in – such as never was on the page of Jamaica's history.... It is really a fulfillment of our Pastor's teaching, as made clear in Parousia Vol, 4.

    I have also observed how the Lord is using you mightily in defending His Truth, and to encourage His faithful people..... I am still here with Sister ------- Oh, she is very kind and helpful to me! If I am not privileged to write to you again, may the dear Lord bless and keep you in His service! Here comes my warmest love to you, Sister Hoefle – also Sisters Wells and Dunnagan, and to all the other dear ones with.

    Yours by His Grace, Sister ------- (JAMAICA)


    Dear Brother Hoefle: Loving greetings through our Beloved Lord!

    This little note is to let you know of my temporary change of address. The way has been opened for me to visit...... I have a grandson who is planning to give up his present work for one that will pay much more...... I meant to give him your review of the financial world, but have misplaced it..... If you think it advisable, would you send him a copy? His address is....... May you both continue to feel our Lord's favor and love!

    Faithfully yours ------- (MARYLAND)


    Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in our dear Redeemer's name!

    Let me thank you for the papers for March, April and May. Thank you for all the encouragement that you both have given me in your letters.... Brother and I are endeavoring to study to make ourselves approved unto God. We both do earnestly look forward to the papers, for they are interesting, inspiring and full of rich food – which I feel (as a newcomer) that every sincere believer ought to find from them........... In my humble way I see as I understand it, that you are doing what Paul exhorts the elders to do in 1 Pet. 5:2,3.......

    With warm Christian greetings and love from Brother and myself to you both, and to the brethren among you. Jude 21,25.

    Your sister in the Faith ------- (TRINIDAD)



    In harmony with the Epiphany Messenger's arrangement to honor the memory of That Wise and Faithful Servant at this season, we designate Sunday, October 17 through Sunday, November 15, which includes four weeks and five Sundays, for our SPECIAL EFFORT in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle. As Brother Johnson has pointed out, the fully faithful will participate in this “good fight” unto its completion. Let others, who do not appreciate this arrangement, follow the ''will-o-the-wisp,” of their various Levitical groups, but let all the faithful Epiphany-enlightened brethren “Continue in what they have learned and been assured of” from the Laodicean Star. By so doing we not only honor their memory, but we also serve God in His appointed way.

    Our Nos. 1, 2 and 3 may be used in service at Church doors and individually; and our No. 5 as follow-up toward interested individuals. Also, our No. 4 – Three Babylons – may be used in connection with the various Levitical groups wherever opportunity permits. Order your literature in time. All free – and postage prepaid, of course. If you have need of other Parousia and Epiphany literature in your witness work, let us know about that.

    Wherever two or three can meet together (October 31, or some other date during this period, if more convenient), a Memorial service in remembrance of both Messengers would be a blessing. We should honor those whom God honors (See John 12:26); and as we join together in service and in Truth, let us join together in prayer – God bless their Memory!