My dear Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
When we exposed the folly of J. W. Krewson's twelve moss‑covered and unsightly stones from Jordan's river bottom (see our paper No. 60, May 1, 1960), we felt at that time his interpretation of those stones picturing twelve appealing Christian adornments was about the zenith of interpretational nonsense; but now comes something even worse in his paper No. 34, page 8, “The Stone With Seven Eyes,” and his general comments on Zechariah, Chapter 3, with his “Epiphany‑Apokalypsis antitype.” Clearly enough, he is sadly incompetent to offer any interpretations of any kind on “stones,” as they are used in the Scriptures.
It is well known to advanced Bible Students that many of the Old Testament types have more than one antitype; but it should be known that the manifold fulfillments must also adhere to a certain pattern of logic, with the basic truth in the large antitype being apparent in the smaller antitypes. Apparently, J. W. Krewson isn't bothered with that logic, or he could not have offered his readers the interpretational jumble that he has now presented. He says the “filthy garments” of verse 3 “represent the graces, possessions and privileges of service” of his “Cleansed Nucleus”; but he offers no Scriptural precedent for such an interpretation. It will be noted in the Berean Comments, where That Servant presents the large Atonement‑day antitype, that those “filthy garments” type the “Church's righteousness” – that righteousness of their own which is as filthy rags before it is clothed anew with Christ's righteousness (see Isa. 64:6‑Berean Comments).
Be it noted that this is stated as a fact, not as a thing conjured up in the foolish imagination of other human beings. Their “filthy rags” is their Divine unerring appraisal before they were “justified by faith.” A little reflection will demonstrate why this must be true: “Man looketh on the outward appearance,” sometimes judging much too harshly, sometimes much too generously. There have been noble worldlings of high ideals and exemplary in morals and integrity whom many have considered Saints; but they were not Saints at all, some of them not even in the Household of Faith. Others have received great deference because of their wealth, their artistic or inventive genius. On the other hand, some of God's true noblemen, Saints of the Most High, have been thrown to the lions, have had their heads chopped off, crucified head down, etc. Therefore, it should be elementary that no Scripture would bear an interpretation based upon man's view of the “outward appearance.” This one consideration alone should be sufficient to brand J. W. Krewson's interpretation for the spiritual rubbish that it is.
It should be noted in this picture (v. 5) that “a fair mitre” was placed upon Joshua's head, and that the “filthy garments” were upon the body only – thus depicting our Lord as the righteous head of His one‑time unsightly body members. But J. W. Krewson now gives this “righteous head” position to his “Cleansed Nucleus”; then, in a feat of unbelievable hocus‑pocus he says it was the unjust critics of that “Nucleus” who brought forth the “advancing Truth” that the Body of antitypical Joshua was fully complete in Glory at October 22, 1950. It was R. G. Jolly, whom J. W. Krewson now admits was uncleansed at October 22, 1950, who first made the proclamation that the last Saint had “entered into the joys of his Lord.” This is indeed something to behold!!!
Then he continues with the assertion that “eyes in Biblical symbols refer to knowledge,” and the “stone” is a Truth teaching.” Just what the difference is – if any‑between “knowledge” and a “Truth teaching” he doesn't explain; and, if there is any difference, we do not discern it. It will be noted in the Berean Comments on v. 9, Brother Russell says it was “that stone” – an explanation that is logical and understandable from any and every viewpoint, because the Bible itself says He was “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” Again, Jesus Himself clearly defines a stone in Matt. 16:18 as a Truth teaching (the same being much clearer and more direct than J. W. Krewson's “five stones” proof), when He told Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church,” the same having reference to Peter's Truth statement that Jesus was “the Christ.”
However, where in the Bible can J. W. Krewson find a stone or rock meaning a Truth statement, and at the game time have that stone described with the qualities of a sentient being! The stone of v. 9 has “seven eyes”; and it is the stone with seven eyes that produces the results of v. 10, “every man under the vine and under the fig tree,” which is a prophecy of blessing to result from the reign of The Christ. Certainly, the teaching that the last Saint was glorified at October 22, 1950 could not bring such a result – even it it were the Truth! In E:8‑456 (top) Brother Johnson confirms Brother Russell's interpretation of the stone being “that stone” by explaining the seven eyes of Zech. 4:10 are the Star Members of this Gospel Age. That is an explanation that is harmonious from every viewpoint, because the 49 Star Members have been the Lord's eye, hand and mouth to perfect His Body – “I will guide thee with mine eye.”
Lest we lead our readers into the same confusion of J. W. Krewson on this subject, we readily admit that “eyes” in the Scriptures do sometimes mean teachings. In a Question and Answer found elsewhere in this paper, we define the “seven spirits” as the seven main parts of the Bible teachings – doctrines, precepts, promises, exhortations, prophecies, histories and types –, and Rev. 5:6 (Dia.) informs us that the “seven eyes are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.” These seven spirits, these seven inanimate eyes, have been the composite Truth by which the seven animate eyes (the 49 Star Members of the Gospel Age) have “perfected the Saints” (Eph. 4:12). Thus, “that stone” of v. 9 is the glorified head of the Christ possessed of “seven eyes,” the 49 Star Members of the Gospel Age. We believe this explanation will commend itself to our readers as reasonable and factual, in contrast to the weird and confused “gazing” of J. W. Krewson.
It should be noted here, too, that in E:6‑629,630 Brother Johnson accuses JFR of applying about everything in Zechariah to his movement; and it seems J. W. Krewson is now following the same course. A word to the wise should be sufficient.
On page 14, last par., J. W. Krewson accuses JJH of “speculation and deceptive teaching” relative to John's Baptism, but he fails to offer proof whereof he speaks. This is the technique of the unprincipled politician, who realizes if he shouts loudly and often enough, a certain class will believe him, even though his contention may be errant nonsense. In almost every treatise we have offered on John's Baptism we have referred to Acts 18, and just as often have the “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson) remained silent on this Scripture. The same applies to 1 Pet. 3:21, although on this latter R. G. Jolly did once effuse some of his specialized nonsense. And why have they avoided these Scriptures? It's because they can't answer them!
But it will be noted that when we accuse either of them of “gazing,” or speculation, or such like, we always point out clearly and detailedly our reasons for our statements. And by this method we have completely silenced them on one subject after another, so much so that they do not even dare mention many of them any more. This has proven to be true on J. W. Krewson's “Seven Questions” with respect to the last Saint. We doubt not he would have reproduced those Seven Questions as the Seven Eyes of his Zechariah mirage had we not so completely exposed his nonsense thereon – although the seven he does now present are in part a take‑off of those Seven Questions. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it!”
Of course, in his bold disregard of the truth, J. W. Krewson demonstrates anew his “cousin” relationship to R. G. Jolly. All along we have contended R. G. Jolly was a badly sullied and uncleansed Levite at October 22, 1950. For several years J. W. Krewson ridiculed this Epiphany teaching – saying R. G. Jolly was cleansed so long as he accepted J. W. Krewson's “thinking” by publishing his articles in the Present Truth. Now he apparently accepts our teaching on this matter – without the flicker of an eyelash – just as though he himself had been teaching this right along. And he's now doing exactly the same thing with respect to Brother Johnson's appointment of pilgrims. He emphatically contended Brother Johnson could not appoint pilgrims for Epiphany purposes (only Pilgrims of J. W. Krewson's Auxiliary Order); said he had a “reliable witness” that JJH never received a pilgrim appointment from Brother Johnson. This contention, too, we ground into the dust (proving his contention to be absolute falsehood by producing our written Pilgrim Appointment given us by the Epiphany Messenger). He was guilty of gross slander in the vicious opinions he circulated on that matter. Now that he's been fully and finally silenced on that item, he puts forth another slander – right where he left off. But, instead of contending we were a fraud in signing “Pilgrim” after our name, he's now taken a new tool of the Adversary – “speculation and deceptive teaching” – ; and in the same breath speaking of Brother Johnson's “pilgrim appointments,” as though he had never held any other view (although he contended openly and covertly for it until we exposed his sins of practise and teaching on the matter). So we have here another “noble” example of a “Pastor and Teacher!”
Let us not be of those “who darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge!” (Job 38:2) Let us rejoice and thank God we do not need “to make lies our refuge, and behind falsehoods to hide ourselves.”
THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION
At the last conclave over Labor Day R. G. Jolly was reported to be distressingly ill, so that he could not appear on the floor of the Convention at all during the threeday gathering. This necessitated quite some adjustment of the program, as another of the scheduled speakers was also too ill to appear, and his part had to be filled by another.
One of these substitutions occurred on Saturday afternoon when August Gohlke attempted a fill‑in by discussing the Basileia and the thousand‑year reign of the Christ. The jumble that he offered was something to contemplate! He not only contradicted himself on occasion, but he contradicted what R. G. Jolly has taught on the beginning of the reign, and he also contradicted the clear teachings of Brother Johnson on the subject – all the while profusely slurring “the errorist” who now teaches contrary to what he himself was lamely attempting to set forth. Time and space will not allow here a detailed analysis of the beginning and ending of “the thousand years,” but we offer just one quotation from Brother Johnson to prove our point – lest it seem we are attempting the same sleight‑of‑hand as the Jolly‑Gohlke combination:
“Let us first of all remember that the Jewish and Gospel Ages ended by time stages lapping into their succeeding Ages, we may reasonably infer that the Millennium will so do; otherwise we could not claim for Christ and the Church a full 1,000 years' reign.” See Nov, 15, 1947 Herald of the Epiphany, p. 43, col. 2, bottom; also see E:5, p. 422, and our quotation in our No. 19, Feb. 1, 1957.
We would also refer to our No. 9, May 1, 1956, where we quoted from the Berean Comments on Rev. 11:17: “And has reigned.... In a sense from 1878; actually from 1914.”
We have offered the foregoing in previous papers; but it has always been avoided by R. G. Jolly – just as it was avoided by August Gohlke. And why is it always avoided? It's because they have no answer for it! This one consideration makes a shambles of the presentation offered the afternoon of Sept. 3; and it clearly demonstrates who are the real ERR0RISTS in this controversy. He also falsely charged that we refuse to face the Scripture in Rev. 20:1‑4. We not only have faced it, but we gave the correct interpretation of this Scripture in our No. 27, Nov. 1, 1957, pp. 1‑2, part of which we repeat as follows: (For the record, we now say that we never heard of this brother indulging in falsehood under Brother Johnson's tutelage, but it seems that he, too, has succumbed to the Azazelian influences surrounding him. Satan is “the father of lies” – John 8:44)
“The three primary rules for true Scripture interpretation are:
(I) The interpretation must be in harmony with the text itself;
(2) It must be in harmony with all other Bible texts;
(3) Use the Bible as a book of texts – Not as a textbook. (p. 1)
“Now we shall proceed to show that R. G. Jolly's interpretation of Rev. 20:2‑7 is not in harmony with the text itself. He admits Satan's binding began in 1874; he also admits that the reign of Christ and the Saints could not in any sense begin before 1878. Therefore, his emphasized “the” thousand years is only 996½ years; but this seems to make no difference to him. Here is a fine illustration of consistency in reverse from one who expended many hundreds of words to prove a one‑day discrepancy in the false 35‑year parallels (of J. W. Krewson). The flaw in his interpretation of the 1,000‑year reign is so readily apparent that it seems unthinkable that we should have to point it out at all. Also, this false interpretation is directly contradicted by Brother Johnson in the November 15, 1949 Herald, and in E:5‑422.” (See No. 27, p.2)
These brethren are a spectacle to behold! Under the firm and good guidance of the Star Member they gave some evidence – whether feigned or real, genuine or counterfeit, we cannot now determine – of a sincere and reasonably embracing “knowledge of the Truth.” But now – under the leadership of one abandoned to Azazel – they offer the dribblings that might be found in an institution of mental derelicts.
And this same procedure was apparent in the Business session Saturday night, when Bernard Hedman ordered us to leave the meeting; and actually had his own father‑in-law ejected by two determined brethren of large physique. Jesus had forewarned that the Truth would set father against son, mother against daughter; but He never counselled those blessed with His Truth to ‘cast out their relatives.’ Rather, He and St. Paul advise the display of “an example of the believers” to such unbelievers in the chance – and hope – such noble exemplary treatment might open their eyes also to “the way of life.” Thus, in the casting out of the father‑in‑law we have some more thinking in reverse by those claiming to be “in the Truth.” It is indeed to laugh and to weep at such procedure.
Bernard Hedman was occupying the chair in R. G. Jolly's place; and it was not apparent why there should be any secrecy at that meeting, as its general purpose was rather detailedly posted on the bulletin board all day beforehand. That this performance had been well rehearsed beforehand was readily apparent – just as the Scribes indulged in nefarious and sundry scheming with respect to Jesus when He appeared in their midst. So we need “think it not strange” when they “put you out of the synagogue ... And all these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor Me.” (John 16:2‑3) We say of them, as Brother Johnson said of the antitypical “bramblebush” (JFR – See Judges 9:7‑15), let them go their way; but as for us, we shall not leave “our fatness” to indulge in kindred flippant or vicious vagary! It becomes increasingly and sadly apparent that many are “in the Truth,” but the Truth is not in them!
There were other disturbing errors over the three days, which we shall not now detail, or identify the speakers. However, we feel we would be remiss not to state there were some excellent and refreshing presentations by brethren who adhered well to the fundamentals of the Star Members. We refer specifically to most of the Symposium and the Monday presentation on “Our Father.”
Also, we noted there was no mention made in our presence of the Epiphany Campers consecrated, not even in the baptismal discourse – although the four elect classes were mentioned. It was also brought out that the quasi‑elect may consecrate now, with which we agree, of course (the quasi‑elect having opportunity to become Youthful Worthies by faithfully carrying out their consecration vows).
The penalty that “cometh of evil” was also clearly apparent when the same two brethren mentioned above directly contradicted each other on Saturday and Monday. In the Basileia talk on Saturday August Gohlke went to some considerable detail to declare we have been in the Basileia since 1954, with the Epiphany overlapping – just as was true of the Parousia‑Epiphany. At some other suitable occasion we shall prove the nonsense of this; but, for now, we state that on Monday Bernard Hedman directly contradicted the statement made on Saturday by emphatically detailing that we are now in the Parousia‑Epiphany period – which is correct. This jumble is akin to R. G. Jolly's contention on Tentative Justification, when he, on the very same page, has Brother Russell saying Tentative Justification will continue into the Millennium, and then having Brother Johnson say it will end with the ending of the Gospel Age. When we published our Three Babylons Tract, accusing the LHMM also of being back in Babylon (confusion), it would seem we knew whereof we spoke.
Be it noted these are the same people who decry the abuse heaped upon our Beloved Lord – all the while they pour the same “cup” for His faithful followers. This is nothing new, of course; it is as old as the oldest records! The newly‑liberated Jews drove their beloved liberator Moses to distraction; their children praised Moses, but heaped most wretched abuse upon the Prophets that appeared after his death; their descendents praised Moses and the Prophets, as they “crucified the Lord of Glory.” And in our own day those loud in praise of Moses, the Prophets, and our Lord lowered antitypical Jeremiah (Brother Russell) into the pit of slander; while in the Epiphany those extolling That Servant gave to the beloved and faithful Epiphany Messenger, Brother Johnson, an identical duplication of the slander that had gone to Brother Russell. So we need “think it not strange” if history once again repeats itself. Thus, we “count it all joy” to be found in the same company of those who were found faithful, as they endured the same ill treatment as was true of St. Paul.
Our endeavors to “bless and curse not” are to some “a savor of life unto life” – just as they must inescapably be to others a “savor of death unto death.” It is a timeworn technique of the Adversary to “cast out” the faithful and enshrine the errorists in “Moses' seat” after the death of each faithful Prophet or Star Member.
To all who have the Truth in their minds, and the spirit of the Truth in their hearts, we offer the heart‑warming promise, “He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.”
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST
QUESTION: – In Rev. 3:1 it speaks of “the seven spirits of God, and the seven stars.” If the “stars” are the 49 leaders of God's Gospel‑Age people about which you wrote in your No. 59 of last April 1, who are the “seven spirits” in this text?
ANSWER: – While the “seven stars” are personalities, it is not true that the “seven spirits” are also personalities. Rather, the seven spirits are the full Truth of the Bible which the Star Members taught in its seven main parts; namely, doctrines, precepts, promises, exhortations, prophecies, histories and types. The Apostle John – one of the “stars” and the writer of Revelation – gives us the key to this understanding in his first epistle, 4:1, where he instructs us to “prove the spirits, whether they are from God”; and the Berean Comment explains this: “Every doctrine amongst men; this has no reference to spirit beings.” And 1 Jno. 5:6 (Dia.) makes this quite clear: “the spirit is that which testifies, because the spirit is the Truth.” Thus, the “seven spirits” would be the seven main lines of Biblical teaching, with which the “seven stars” of the Gospel Age have built up “the body of the Anointed One” (Eph. 4:13–Dia.), seven being the number indicating divine perfection.
Aside from the inspired teachings of the Apostles, who constitute the first twelve of the “stars,” and who are the composite “star” to the “congregation in Ephesus,” the remaining 37 “stars” have not been infallible in their presentations of the “seven spirits,” some of them erring sadly in their analyses, especially where the Truth was not “due” for them in their time. As is well‑known to all our readers, some of the Gospel‑Age Star Members actually taught God‑dishonoring doctrines, such as eternal torment, which error was forged when the Truth on Restitution was lost, which truth was not again found until the Harvest period, and was designed to be the stewardship doctrine of That Servant, Brother Russell. Nevertheless, they did accomplish their mission to “the complete qualification of the Saints” (Eph. 4:12‑Dia.); and the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers of this Harvest period did clarify and teach without error the ten fundamental “doctrines” of the Bible, although they, too, made some mistakes in others of the “seven spirits.” The Lord undoubtedly permitted this for “the trial of your faith”; and we believe God's people would be well advised to view with thankful and appreciative hearts and minds their “work and labor of love” and the great blessings that have come to all of us through their faithful ministry, whereby they did “lay down their lives for the brethren.”
As the greatest secular writer of all time so ably stated, “the evils that men do live after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”; and it is a further truth that “Ingratitude is the reward of the world.” But, since “we are not of the world,” we should not be overcome of its evils, and especially so by the sin of ingratitude. In Rom. 1:21‑28 St. Paul speaks of some who “knew God, but glorified him not, neither were thankful.” As a consequence of this and other sins “God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” Therefore, let us all rejoice in those blessings which have come to us through our understanding of the “seven spirits” as expounded to us by the “seven stars,” and especially so by the last two of those “stars” – one, or both, of whom were known personally to many of our readers.
LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST
Dear Bible Students Ass'n:
I would like to have the additional copies of What is the Soul, Where are the Dead and The Three Babylons tracts.
Elder ------- Springfield, Mass.
I wish to have copies of “Where are the Dead,” “The Resurrection of the Dead,” “The Three Babylons,” and “What is the Soul.” Thank you!
Dear Brother Hoefle:
Loving greetings in the Redeemer's name! I was rereading your papers and wondered how pilgrims, elders and evangelists in Jamaica who read your writings cannot get to see how the Lord is using you to show up Scriptures and Star Members' writings as against errors of the Adversary and his agencies, to entrap the Lord's people in this last Gospel‑Age experiences.
As for JWK, his errors are very subtle. He has given Prof. Jolly sixteen of Brother Russell's offices, and he takes Brother Johnson's for himself. From what I read of his Brother Russell's Epiphany parallel, I see your love for the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren, in that you do not show yourself up but let the Truth do its work .... Your July 1, 1960 paper helps me to understand why many cannot see due to losing the ‘spirit of the truth.’
One of Prof. Jolly's pilgrims was here recently supporting his errors and fighting the Epiphany Truth, just as Big Babylon fought against the Parousia Truth. He is also using tacts to see if he can catch some of those who see the errors of R. G. Jolly. But by God's grace we are determined to stand in the liberty wherewith Christ made us free.
You are always remembered in my prayers, and the dear ones who co‑labor in this good work. May the Lord bless and keep you, Sister Hoefle, Sister Dunnagan and the other dear ones there with you.
Yours by His Grace, Sister ------- Jamaica
Dear Brother and Sister....
Thank you very much for your most interesting tract. As we can see, the Jehovah's Witnesses are getting more and more into outer darkness. The enclosed information from their latest magazine “Awake” confirms the point I want to make. Even Solomon now is not to have a resurrection. Certainly they don't love mercy, or walk humbly.
I am afraid, as you say, that Bro. Jolly has too high an estimation of himself. However, you say Brother Hoefle adheres to the Scriptures as Brother Russell always stressed.
I will be glad for any more tracts, or magazines you care to send to me, for which I also enclose $ ... to send to Brother Hoefle.
With Christian love ------- England
NOTE: The above letter was to a dear Brother and Sister in England, a result of their good efforts to 'bear witness to the Truth.’
Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in Jesus' Name!
I received your most welcome letter in the last nail. I wonder if it is now, at this Convention time, the Lord's time to make a change at the Bible House. Surely, they can see something of what their doings are leading to – a complete break‑away from all truth, it seems to me. May the dear Lord bless Sister Hoefle's and your presence at the Convention to His Honor and praise, and the good of His Priests and Worthies, and any others of the Lord's little ones that may be influenced.
You know I consider you both brave, very brave, to enter the Hornet's nest. That it what it seems like to me.
Again I thank you for the binders. There are many things in the papers that I overlooked, that I feel I should know about.... May the dear Lord bless the Conventioners because of your presence there!.....
Yours by His Grace ------- Ohio
Dear Brother Hoefle:
Greetings! It is always a pleasure to read your articles, and as the first of the month comes I look for them if they haven't already arrived. I have been trying for several weeks to write to you, and my only reason for not doing so is because I just haven't been able..... Just to let you know how weak I am, the article before the last one I had to stop two times and lie down before I could read on. I always read them later, as after I get the thought I then reread mine carefully. I'll tell you again, that as soon as I can walk I'll send for tracts to put out....... Don't think anything about my physical condition. Just told you so you would know. I pray for both of you every day. The Lord bless you!
Sister ------- California