NO. 60: ABRAHAM - SARAH - ABIMILECH

No. 60

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

In this March‑April 1960 Present Truth appears an article captioned as above, which is excellent in its generalities because it is mostly Brother Johnson's inter­pretation, and all of his details dovetail together in a symmetry which cannot fail to appeal to every one who is “of the Truth.” But, as we have pointed out in prev­ious writings, we need not expect a good clean exposition from R. G. Jolly on any­thing so long as he is in his present uncleansed condition; and this is borne out in the article we are now considering.

On page 21 (5) he says Sarah was Abraham's step‑sister, but Gen. 20:12 says “she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother.” This would make her Abraham's half‑sister, not his step‑sister. It is certainly not our wish to “strain at gnats”; such is definitely repulsive to us, and many such instances in R. G. Jolly's writings have we passed over in silence. But we draw attention to this mistake be­cause it has a vital bearing on the smooth continuity of the entire interpreta­tion. It should be remembered that step‑children are actually no relation to each other whatever, and the physical and civil laws of our day do not forbid them to marry, although our laws here in the United States do prohibit such a union between half‑brothers and half‑sisters. In Abraham's day, however, the race was still young, and it seems no evils resulted from his union with his sister of half‑blood.

However, as stated above, there is more to this union than meets the eye of the casual reader. In this type Abraham types God in His attribute of Love, and Sarah types the Sarah features of the Abrahamic Covenant; and this gives the two a “blood” relationship in the Gospel age, after a manner of speaking. The very purpose of the Sarah Covenant is to perfect in (agape) Love all who remain faithful to it; and it has accomplished this with every member of the completed Body of Christ. Thus, “like begets like,” and the Love of God has worked in full and unrestrained fashion in those “who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth” – through the gripping affinity of God's love as it has operated in the Sarah Covenant. As in the natural human state the two become one in matrimony, so in the fusion of God's love with the Sarah Covenant, those under it become one with God – one in Divine Love this side the veil, and one in the Divine Nature the other side the veil – a glorious union, consummated in perfection. “I pray for them... that they may be one... that they may be made perfect in one... that the world may know that Thou hast... loved them as thou has loved me”...(see Manna Comments for John 17:20‑23, March 27). Therefore, the blood‑relationship in the type portrays a feature in the general picture, which could not have been done had Sarah been no relation whatever to Abraham, as would have been true had she been his step­sister only.

Also, while quoting from Brother Johnson's comments in the January 1920 Present Truth, it would have been most appropriate had R. G. Jolly included the following:

“These Philistines (sectarians) represent the Great Company in their capacity of making divisions among God's people, crying out by word or act “avoid them,” and then blaming those whom they drive out of their midst for making the divisions.”

All of us have been witness to this procedure, and some of us have had bitter per­sonal experience with it. When Brother Johnson was forcibly ejected from Bethel in 1917 the report went forth to the four corners of the earth, “Brother Johnson has gone out of the Truth.” He was “out of harmony with the Lord's arrangements” – ­just as those who have left the LHMM since 1950 are also described. The Jehovah's Witnesses still tenaciously pursue this policy – any one who dares question their erroneous teachings is soon pressured out of their assembly; then the report is cir­culated, “They have gone out of the Truth.” Truly, “Instruments of cruelty are in their habitation!”

“Charity ... the bond of perfectness”

Inasmuch as the Sarah Covenant is joined by “blood” and matrimony to God in His attribute of Love, some observations on this “principal thing” would seem pertinent. Col. 3:14 tells us, “Above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfect­ness.” And, having this “bond,” all such may rest secure in the precious promise of 1 Pet. 3:13, “Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” Throughout the Gospel Age the antitypical Philistines have vigorously pursued the vagar­ious course so clearly defined in Isa. 66:5, “Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.” Throughout the Gospel Age we have had a “wheat” class, which has always been predominantly overshadowed by the “buck”‑wheat class. Seeing this condition so clearly from past and present experience, why should any be disturbed if it reaches out and touches him? “So persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

In private conversation with Brother Johnson, he impressed upon us the fact that it is not required of Youthful Worthies that they achieve “the bond of perfectness” – ­agape love in perfection – but they should certainly do so if they have the ability to do so. And his reason for this advice comes clearly enough from St. Paul's admonition – “it is the bond of perfectness.” Any one having this “bond” cannot be pushed out of God's Household by the clamor of Philistine multitudes. Thank God for this blessed assurance! The essence of Col. 3:12‑15 (Dia.) applies to all in the Household, although St. Paul was clearly enough addressing it to the Saints: “Be clothed therefore, as Chosen ones of God, beloved Saints, with bowels of mercy, kindness, humility, meekness, patient endurance; bearing with each other, and freely forgiving each other, if any for some things may have a cause of complaint; even as the Lord forgave you, so also do you forgive. And besides all these things, put on love; it is the bond of the com­pleteness. And let the peace of the Anointed preside in your hearts, for which you were also called in one body.” All of God's people who have conformed themselves to this appealing instruction, and who have not united themselves with sectarian leaders in a partisan manner, are not to be counted among the antitypical Philistine hordes. Let each, therefore, “stand fast in that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”; and “the peace of God” will rule in such hearts unto ultimate victory.

JOSHUA'S ALTAR IN JORDAN

As promised in our last issue, we now offer further comments on the altar Joshua constructed in the midst of the River Jordan. At that time we ridiculed J. W. Krew­son's interpretation of the twelve stones as being the twelve chief graces. We based our statement primarily upon Brother Johnson's interpretation of a similar situation – ­where Elijah also constructed an altar of twelve stones (see 1 Kings 18:30‑32). In E:3‑26 there is this in explanation of this Scripture: “Their appeal was to all the consecrated (twelve stones, the twelve tribes of Spiritual Israel) on the basis of the Bible as the sole source and rule of faith and practice ... Thus, they gathered together the true Church, the altar.”

The word translated “stones” in Kings and in Joshua 4 is the Hebrew “eben” – ­the same meaning anything from a small pebble to a huge rock. “David chose him five smooth stones (eben) out of the brook” (1 Sam. 17:40). It is the same word also to be found in Josh. 8:30, 31, “Joshua built an altar unto the Lord ... an altar of whole stones (eben), over which no man hath lift up any iron.” The stones (eben) of Josh. 4 also were uncut and unpolished – “over which no man hath lift up any iron” – thus force­fully depicting the words of Daniel 2:45, “the stone was cut out of the mountain without (human) hands.” The stones of the antitypical temple have been chiselled by God alone, allowing only such contributions from human beings as served His purpose; thus, it may be said of them, “Over which no man hath lift up any iron.” In contrast to this, the graces of the Bible are depicted by precious stones, which have been ground and polished to an excellent nicety by the iron tools of man – that they may display their inherent splendor – as the Saints also “show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.” Therefore, using the uncut and unpolished stones from the bottom of the River Jordan to type such fineness is just some more of J. W. Krewson's nonsense – the same being apparent throughout all his writings.

It should be kept in mind that Elijah was a type of the Gospel‑Age Christ, as Joshua is a type of the Millennial‑Age Christ, so the construction of an altar by the both of them under similar circumstances (in the presence of their enemies) would have a close relationship. Also, all Bible types have a certain fundamental reason­ableness in relation to the actors therein; and it would be rather a far cry to be­lieve that Joshua would have a very intimate understanding of the principal grace of Divine (agape) love at a time when he was daily carving out the vitals of human beings with his sword. And, while Joshua in the largest antitype is the Millennial Christ, yet he also depicts a fully faithful leader of God's faithful Israel in the end of this Age for Epiphany purposes; and his altar in Jordan would therefore type all God's faithful Israel in the extreme end of this Age – one stone for each tribe to embrace the whole. (Note also E:13‑24, “The Little Flock was enriched by God through His giving it the Divine Truth as figurative silver and gold, the graces as precious stones.” Certainly, no similarity here with the muddy and moss‑covered boulders from the bottom of the River Jordan!)

MORE ON KREWSON TYPES

In his paper No. 28, pages 26‑27 he presents an interpretation of some Scripture in Matt. 22:34‑40 and Mark 12:28‑34, which is worse bedlam if possible than his in­terpretation of Joshua's altar, as analyzed above. He says JJH antitypes the lawyer who questioned Jesus, JWK himself being the “little Jesus” in this picture. Be it noted, first of all, that in the actuality the lawyer questioned Jesus directly, and not indirectly through uncleansed Levites. In our writings of 1955‑56 never once did we address a question to J. W. Krewson – either directly or indirectly; in fact, we left him tacitly alone until he began his attacks upon us, since which time we have exposed one after another of his interpretations as just so much nonsense – so much so, that he has not even dared mention many of them since our analysis was published. Nor did we address any questions to the uncleansed Levites themselves during the years in question, except perhaps as accusations against their unrighteous course and their errors of teaching and arrangements (revolution against the Epiphany Truth and Arrangements). And finally, in this last March Present Truth does R. G. Jolly offer approval of our contentions in one point at least, when he now finally admits that J. W. Krewson has no authority to address the General Church. (Of course, this is a complete reversal of his position immediately after Brother Johnson's death, when he gave J. W. Krewson the very opening that he was craving and which paved the way for the course which R. G. Jolly is now finally correctly condemning – a most force­ful example of “a doubleminded man unstable in all his ways.” (Jas. 1:8) It should be remembered that those who deflected under Brother Russell fell from a high position (four of them his companion helpers), for which they were qualified while faithful; whereas, J. W. Krewson was elevated by R. G. Jolly to a position that Star Member Brother Johnson had steadfastly refused to give him.) But, aside from this, our 1955‑56 papers were truthful and telling exposures of the sins of the uncleansed Levites involved, none of which the lawyer did to Jesus. At no time did we address a single question to J. W. Krewson, directly or indirectly, although he did address some to us in his letters then, which questions we answered in accordance with the Scriptures – just as we also did with respect to the uncleansed Levites that we were exposing back there. So his setting is nonsense at the outset; therefore, his superscructure should self‑evidently be more of the same. He says that Jesus' observa­tion, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,” indicates we were not “far from es­pousing the due Truth” – meaning by this, we assume, that we were not far from accept­ing J. W. Krewson's teachings.

Nothing is further from the Truth! When Daniel Gavin gave us those first “three discourses” in Mount Dora in 1955 and urged us to go to Philadelphia to confer with J W. Krewson, we declined because we saw many errors in the presentations, and realized, too, that J. W. Krewson had no right to address the General Church, being only an Evangelist. Right after Brother Johnson's death R. G. Jolly apparently little dreamed that Evangelist Krewson was shrewdly scheming to outshine him when he prevailed upon him to publish in the Present Truth, under a Krewson by‑line, the flattering types and “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels” – that, instead of looking up to him (to R. G. Jolly), he was “looking down his nose” at him. And once more we press the question: Was J. W. Krewson collaborator with R. G. Jolly in those 27 Pyramid compu­tations in 1947, which time has so clearly proven to be just a jumble of figures – ­a vile “confidence game” of computations? Neither of the two “cousins” have offered any comment or answer to this question. Why?

Being such bosom‑confidante “cousins,” R. G. Jolly knew J. W. Krewson “after the flesh” in blind gullibility, accepted him as his chief adviser and “ghost writer” (actually calling him out of the bed at early hours for his approval of his course in various ways) – “foolishly” ignoring his limited ability. (The Lord gives the Fully Faithful the “spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind,” as was so clearly manifested in Brother Johnson's appraisal of J. W. Krewson.) But, as we have observed on previous occasion, R. G. Jolly was decidedly more loyal to J. W. Krewson than was J. W. Krewson to him. However, had R. G. Jolly been faithful to the truths and arrange­ments he “had learned and been assured of” from the beloved Epiphany Messenger (know­ing full well the rating Brother Johnson had given to J. W. Krewson), he would then have been apprized of J. W. Krewson's power‑grasping tendencies, instead of feeding them as he also fed his own “approbativeness and bad conscience” – (see E:10‑585,top). When he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950, Azazel took full advantage of His opportunity – ­for which we have a certain deep sympathy for R. G. Jolly. Heaven forbid that we may ever be found guilty of “rejoicing in iniquity” – in the distress and humiliation of a brother, or any other human being.

Since he has made his own bed, he can but lie in it; and we are truly grateful that we in nowise contributed one iota to the making of that bed for him. And now he is left in the humiliating position of defending his “strange fire” (the false doctrine of Campers Consecrated, the “foster child” inherited from J. W. Krewson, etc.) – a task which is “bringing down his heart with labor” (Psa. 107:12) as “the Hornet” (the stinging truths) continues to “sting” him with unremitting thrusts at every turn. (Ex. 23:28)

And, while R. G. Jolly was unwittingly feeding J. W. Krewson delusions of grandeur, another of Brother Johnson's pilgrims who should have known better – Daniel Gavin ­was contributing to J. W. Krewson's delinquency by secretly placing those “three dis­courses” in the hands of all brethren who would receive them. The both of them ele­vated J. W. Krewson contrary to sound Epiphany doctrine; and the “sin still lieth at their door” for those brethren he has led astray. When Daniel Gavin was a guest in our home in Mount Dora in 1955 it was suggested to him that a lack of humility was apparent in those “three discourses,” to which he quickly replied: “Brother Krewson is the most humble brother I know!” (It was at this very time that Daniel Gavin told the Winter Park Ecclesia that R. G. Jolly could not give any kind of discourse except elemental, or that based on what he already had learned. In other words, he was not capable of giving “deep” present truths (?) as promulgated by J. W. Krewson.) And it seems he continued in that delusion into June 1955 at least, as he was the “pilgrim” present at the New England meeting where a plan of strategy was outlined to unseat R. G. Jolly – to force him to compromise and share honors with J. W. Krewson. But it would seem that our own sharp and telling attacks in August and September of 1955 prompted Daniel Gavin to a sudden reversal, and he speedily returned to “dear antitypical Baanah” at the Philadelphia Convention on Labor Day. Our prayer for both Daniel Gavin and R. G. Jolly is that they yet “turn back from their path of error” (James 5:20, Dia.), and once more espouse the solid truths given us by the beloved Epiphany Messenger.

It should be clear enough to all unbiased minds that all three of those herein discussed have flagrantly contributed to the aberration and humiliation of one another by their gross Revolutionism of Epiphany Truth and Arrangements – a sin which none can honestly charge to us. Our differences with any and all – and especially with these three – have been our defense of the Epiphany Truths and Arrangements which they have so grossly violated.

And, when J. W. Krewson says we were not “far from the Kingdom of God” in 1955, he is indulging in spiritual flummery. At that time we were either “in the kingdom of God” or we were not. Insofar as any flesh and blood could be in it, that is, we were either fully in God's Household, or we were out of it. Brother Johnson undoubt­edly thought we were in it, or he would not have given us a pilgrim appointment – ­with authority to address the General Church in any country in the world. Of course, J. W. Krewson may since have received a “message” from Brother Johnson from beyond the veil, telling him that his appointment of JJH to the pilgrim (not auxiliary pil­grim) office was all a mistake; and we may hear more about this from J. W. Krewson in due course. We realize, of course, that many people hold titles who are not en­“titled” to them; but we want more than just J. W. Krewson's word for it before we shall conclude that about ourselves. The “Kingdom of God” in Jesus' day could mean only one thing – to become His footstep follower and a member of the Christ Company. For Harvest purposes, since 1874, it would mean the faithful acceptance of the due Truth under That Servant. Even Brother Johnson said we must accept their professions with respect to the Little Flock and the Great Company until such time as gross Revolutionism against the Truth or Arrangements manifested the one from the other. And this principle was also true during Brother Johnson's life with respect to the Youthful Worthies.

The Lord set forth the related importance of the servants of the Church in Eph. 4:11‑13; and it is our obligation to abide by this until “their fruits” demon­strate that those servants have lost their rating. Over the years we have “coveted no man's silver or gold,” nor have we coveted or been envious of the position or honor of any of God's people; and it was with much regret that we were forced to wield the cudgel against J. W. Krewson; but we are obliged to rate down J. W. Krewson very decidedly when he speaks of “goodwill’ toward the brethren,” while he openly and brazenly tried to slander us by admitting to other brethren he was trying to cast suspicion upon our integrity with respect to our pilgrim appointment by Brother Johnson. At that time he said he had a “reliable witness” that we were parading as a fraud be­fore the Household; but it should be self‑evident to all that this was just a brazen falsehood on his part, as he has produced no such “reliable witness.” And, for such a person to orate about “goodwill’ toward the brethren,” while he attempts Murder against them (see Berean Comment on 1 John 3:15: “By this standard every slanderer is a murderer”) does not speak of the Truth being in him.

When Jesus told the inquiring lawyer, “thou art not far from the Kingdom,” what did He mean? Why, He meant that the lawyer was not far from accepting Him. When we exposed the uncleansed Levites, and gave them the correct answers to their wrong course, certainly we were not close to accepting them. Nor were they giving us the correct answers. We were giving them the correct answers. Even J. W. Krewson him­self admits we were honest in our writings of 1955‑56, so there was nothing then, at least, that would indicate we were not fully in God's favor; whereas, the lawyer who questioned Jesus made no profession of accepting the way of sacrifice, He had not become a disciple of Jesus up to that time; whereas we had given all outward evidence, at least, of a full acceptance of the Kingdom promises for elective pur­poses. We believe any babe in the Truth should know that any and all faithful Epiphany‑enlight­ened brethren are a part of the Epiphany Elect, as analyzed by Bro. Johnson in Volume 4; so the inconsistency and incongruity of his “interpretation” stamp it for what it is – “strong delusion”!

The writings of J. W. Krewson generally are on a par with what we have examined herein, but we have passed much of it by as not worthy of note. We have commented on the foregoing especially because it is a personal attack upon us.

We pray for all our readers the “spirit of understanding” that they may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of Him who hath called us to better things, and has shown us a better way.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in the name of our Beloved Saviour!

This is to tell you that we as a class resent John W. Krewson's presumptions in his voluminous last issue and we know the Lord does not use a broadcaster of his surmisings, especially when they are as false as his statement that we disfellow­shiped R. G. Jolly because of your influencing us to do so.

We hope you will publish this letter so the dear brethren who love honesty and truth, may know that we alone are responsible for that act, and the only influence you exerted upon us was to advise us not to act hastily on a matter of such vital importance, which did cause us to wait longer than we would have.

You never once suggested that we disfellowship R. G. Jolly. Every member of this Class felt that it should be done for the ten reasons outlined in our letter to him.

It is still our hope and prayer that some time we may again have brotherly fellow­ship with R. G. Jolly; that he will renounce and correct the erroneous teachings fur­nished him by J. W. Krewson, as well as certain actions on his part not yet corrected.

May the Lord continue His blessing and keep you faithful to the end is our prayer.

With much Christian love,

The Winter Park, Florida, Ecclesia