by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 58

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

Comes again the Memorial of our Lord's death, and with it the realization of the truly sanctified faith‑justified that its observance under existing conditions draws nearer and nearer to a finality. This realization should ever determine us to continue in the course we have embraced and to reside in that Isolated and priv­ileged place provided for us as we

“Go to Him without the Camp”

In Ex. 33:7 we read, “And Moses proceeded to take a tent and pitch It by Itself outside the camp afar off from the camp, and he called it the Tent of Meeting, – ­and so it came to pass that whosoever was seeking Yahweh went out unto the tent of meeting, which was on the outside of the camp.” (Rotherham) Moses in this instance types our Lord as he arranged to remove the Star Members and his fully faithful people from the midst of the measurably faithful and the tare class, beginning in the Per­gamos epoch of the Gospel‑Age church and continuing until 1799. We quote parts of Brother Johnson's comments on this from E:11‑430 (70):

“God had our Lord do another thing indicative of His displeasure with His nominal people, i.e., remove the faithful servants of the Truth and Its Spirit from places of prominence and influence in the nominal church – caused the sym­bolic woman, the Covenant promises and the servants who apply them to the brethren to go into the wilderness condition (Rev. 12:6) – to the Tent of Meeting, not the Tabernacle, but Moses' official residence – and that not but slightly away from the erroneous doctrines, practices, organization and disciplines of the nominal church, but very far from these, and made the Truth and the servants who applied it to the brethren, as well as these last, the place where God resided, met with His people and blessed them. Henceforth every one who in heart's loyalty sought fellowship with the Lord in spirit, truth, righteousness and holiness went forth from the nom­inal church to such Truth, its applying servants and the others of His real people, apart from the nominal church (without the camp)... When our Lord busied Himself with Truth matters, Its applying servants, etc., the Truth and its Spirit as due became manifest (the cloudy pillar descended), and remained at the entrance, consecration, where God revealed truths to Jesus in the star‑members.”

The foregoing dovetails so very beautifully with St. Paul's admonition in Heb. 13:13, “Let us, then, now go forth to Him outside of the camp bearing reproach for Him.” (Dia.) And it is such a very clear‑cut and definite course of procedure for all who elect to “follow In His steps.” Such Indeed is one very appropriate Thought for the Memorial. In principle, this arrangement is as true today as it ever was, of which we shall offer some elaboration further on.

“What mean ye by this service?”

All the details of the original Passover in Egypt were pre‑arranged with meti­culous care and exaction, even to its future remembrance “throughout your generations,” and the Instruction of the Jewish children during future observances. It was prop­erly anticipated that inquiring and curious children would ask, “What mean ye by this service?” (Ex. 12:26), thus providing the opportunity to instruct them in the niceties and the solemn responsibility of every Jew participating in it. And this exaction so thoroughly gripped the Jewish conscience and imagination that the Passover observance today is almost identical to what it was in the day of Christ, excepting only the temple sacrifices which are no longer performed. However, they yet make very elabor­ate preparations for the festival. In previous years we have detailed the search for leaven. After all leaven was collected, it was then cast into the fire, and the master of the house declared in Aramaic that any further leaven that may have been in his house and of which he was unaware was to him no more than dust.

The eldest son of each family, if he were thirteen years or older, was required to fast on the day leading up to the service. Then on the evening of the 14th all the male members of the house betook themselves to the synagogue, attired in their best apparel. On their return they would find the house lit up, and the “Seder” or paschal table prepared. The head of the family took his place at the head of the table, after which all the family, including the servants, were seated around the table, to partake of the Seder, or Haggadah, as some Jews designate it. To be cer­tain the question would properly arise, the youngest son was previously coached to ask, when they came to the table, why on this night above all other nights do they eat bitter herbs, unleavened bread, etc., at which the head of the house would re­late the story of the original Passover and the deliverance of the Jewish firstborn on that fateful night in Egypt. Then proceeded the feast, which had been elaborately and meticulously prepared – the bitter herbs such as parsley and horseradish, and a kind of sop with charoseth consisting of various fruits compounded into a sort of mucilage and mixed with vinegar and salt water – each arranged in its own vessel. At the outset the master took some of the bitter herbs, dipped them into the charo­seth and gave to each one present to be eaten along with the first cup of wine. Thus the feast continued throughout the evening until the fourth cup and the recita­tion of the Great Hallel – after which, in the case of Jesus and the Disciples, “they went out Into the Mount of Olives.”

Many of the requirements of the original Passover were subsequently ignored, and properly so. The Lord had told them in Egypt, “Thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand, – so shall ye eat it in haste, it is Yahweh's passing over.” Every minute detail in these instructions is fraught with grave significance to those who would commemorate the memorial of “Christ our passover Who is sacrificed for us.” The girdle in Bible symbols represents the serving features of those who would be servants in God's Household. “He that is chief among you, let him be your servant,” – just as Jesus Himself illustrated this on His last night by “girding” Himself, taking a towel and washing the Apostle's feet. “I am among you as one that serveth,” He had told them. Then, the sandals on their feet were a representation of the Gospel‑Age fact that “we have here no abid­ing city”; always should God's people be alert to “move on” as occasion dictated, ever willing to follow the cloudy‑fiery pillar, the Truth as due; and to remember always that “The King's business requires haste” – no time to linger and ‘change clothes’ when the occasion should arise to journey on. And all this should be done with “your staff in your hand,” the staff typifying God's precious promises, with­out leaning on which no one could ever make the journey from antitypical Egypt (the world in sin) to the heavenly Canaan.


As most of us know, so many features of the true religion have been counter­feited by Satan. This was even true of Jesus' death and resurrection. In Eze. 8:14 it is related, “there sat women weeping for Tammuz.” Tammuz was the Sun God of the Babylonians, consort of Ishtar. He was identical with Adonis, the same as Baal of the Canaanites. Tammuz supposedly died each year, descended into the lower world, and was brought back to life by the weeping and lamentation of Ishtar, who was joined in her weeping by the women of Babylon. Thus, as Jesus was being led to the cross and he saw women weeping along his journey, He mildly admonished them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.” (Luke 23:28).. It is also related in Eze. 8:17 that the Jews “put the branch to their nose,” in keeping with the custom of the Persian sunworshipers holding before them a branch of date, pomegranite or tamarisk that their breath might not contami­nate the risen deity. All of these sacrilegious practices by the Jews brought forth the scathing denunciation of God by the mouth of His prophets; and are a warning to all God's people to “have no other Gods before thee.”

While it is our hope and prayer that the foregoing will result in blessing our readers, by no means is it our thought that this should replace the excellent expo­sition of the Passover in Parousia Volume 6. We believe it also appropriate to offer something from E:11‑210 (66):

“Moses' charging Israel to remember Nisan 15 as the day that they went forth from Egypt from the house of servants, types our Lord's charging the Gospel Church in general, and the Parousia and Epiphany Church in particular, to remember anti­typical Nisan 15 as their deliverance time from the house of servants to sin, error, selfishness and worldliness. This implies a remembering of our justification, sanctification, and deliverance, as well as of our Truth Instruction (1 Cor. 1:30; Rom, 8:29, 30). As Israel in general remembered the typical deliverance at all times and in particular at the Passover, so are we as antitypical Israel to remember our deliverance at any and every time, but especially in connection with our Memorial service. We do the antitypical remembering, not only in thought, but also by living out the principles implied in our instruction, justification, sanctification and de­liverance. As God's mighty delivering power exercised on Israel's behalf deserved their remembering their deliverance day, so the power of God exercised in our deliv­erance from our taskmasters of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in our com­ing out of Satan's empire, is worthy of our remembrance in thought, word and deed. One way in which Israel was to remember the typical deliverance was to abstain from leaven. Accordingly, we are to commemorate our deliverance, among other ways, by abstaining from antitypical leaven – sin, error, selfishness and worldliness.”

There is much else that could be included here, but we believe the foregoing will suffice to bring forcefully to mind once more our obligations to “do this in remembrance of ME”; and it is our hope and prayer that all our readers may be richly blessed in their preparation for and participation in this year's Memorial as they “consider Him who endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself.” This year we shall commemorate the Memorial at 1507 N. Donnelly Street, Mount Dora, Florida, at 7:3O p.m., Friday, April 8, 1960; and we invite all who may be of like mind to join with us in this service.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



In keeping with the practice of Brother Johnson at the Memorial Season, we men­tion the Special Effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, which this year is from March 27 through April 17. What Is the Soul, Where Are the Dead, and the Resur­rection tracts are especially adapted for this Battle, and can be served at Church doors as well as house to house. The Resurrection tract is especially good for serv­ing at Church doors and individually around Easter time. This tract can be used with What Is the Soul for the bereaved work at this special season also. However, for general bereaved work we suggest that the friends continue using Where Are the Dead and What Is the Soul, as arranged by Brother Johnson for that work.


In this last January Present Truth R. G. Jolly displays more of his “profusion of words” on this subject. For several years now it has been apparent to us that R. G. Jolly himself is not clear on the fundamentals of the doctrine of Baptism as expounded by Brother Russell and Brother Johnson – although he continues his talk, talk, talk. This is as we might expect from the “loquacious, repetitious and false‑accus­ing Epiphany crown‑losers” of his type, as Brother Johnson so faithfully records. It would indeed be very foolish of us to expect a good “clean” exposition from him on any subject so long as he is in his present “uncleansed” condition. He says we utter a falsehood when we say he accused us of being a “shyster” – that he only said we were “using the tactics of a shyster lawyer.” How ridiculous and puerile can this man be? It's a well‑accepted adage that “Handsome is as Handsome does!” Thus, if we are using a shyster's tactics, it would make us such. He well knew, when he first made the charge, that his readers would accept such a conclusion, too; but he's now trying to whitewash himself as his depraved methods prove a boomerang to him.

He says at top of page 12 that he has answered us on 1 Pet. 3:21. That is, he made an attempt to answer; and in that answer he indirectly ridiculed Brother Russell for saying the people to whom Peter wrote were “Jews.” We immediately exposed his non­sense; and he's been silent ever since. Yes, he answered all right – with his answer all wrong in typical Jolly nonsense – just as has been true of so many of his state­ments in this Baptism controversy. He asks us to “offer a single instance” where John's Baptism was not available after the conversion of Cornelius. We have repeatedly cited him to Acts 18. Why doesn't he answer it? Here Apollos was preaching to the Jews. Also, it is clearly stated that he understood only the Baptism of John! And it is also just as clearly stated that Apollos needed some instruction from Aquila and Priscilla (Jews) to bring him up‑to‑date on the Present Truth on Baptism. Why has R. G. Jolly so consistently avoided this chapter while he pours out page after page of harangue on other features of this subject? (It will be noted, too, he's been completely silenced on the nonsense he tried to advance about the Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8:27‑39).

In Acts 18 there is not the slightest hint that Apollos even spoke to a Gentile – ­much less that he baptized one; he was working boldly in the synagogue with the Jews. Yet Apollos did not understand the subject of Baptism – “knowing only the baptism of John.” Clearly enough from this text itself, Apollos “knew” the Baptism of John, and he was preaching it to the Jews. Why, then, did he need further instruction on the subject of Baptism if he knew whereof he was preaching, and was preaching it to the right people? Let R. G. Jolly explain what was wrong with Apollos' understanding of Baptism – if he can. Repeatedly we have asked him for a Scripture to support his posi­tion, and each time he squawks back – like the parrot on the crossbar – Brother Russell said this and Brother Johnson said that; but he has produced no Scripture to prove what they said. He's asked us for a Scripture to prove our position, to offer one instance where John's Baptism was unacceptable after the 70th week. Well, we've given him one here in Acts 18 – a very clear one, too. Up to now he has very definitely avoided this entire chapter. Will he now answer, or will he simply continue his name­calling!

Then he proceeds to offer some more of his profuse detail with respect to Eph. 4:5, “there is one Immersion (baptisma)”; and he attempts to show how out of harmony we are with the Star Members. Here's what we said at top of page 8 of our paper No. 55 (Dec. 1, 1959): “the one immersion is fundamentally that immersion into Christ which operates through the Holy Spirit.” This is essentially the same inter­pretation offered by Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. But, had R. G. Jolly been clear on this item, he would have analyzed the basic concept of the text. It should be noted that there is nothing – just nothing at all – in Eph. 4:5, when considered as an individual text, that warrants in the slightest degree the interpretation the Star Members have given it. The text simply says, “there is one Immersion (baptisma)”; and the only conclusion any one can draw from this statement without referring to other Scriptures is that there is but “one immersing in water.” Brother Russell and Brother Johnson obtained the hidden Truth on this text by the help they received from such texts as Luke 12:50 (Dia.): “I have an immersion (baptisma) to undergo; and how am I pressed till it may be consummated.” Clearly enough, Jesus was not here discussing his immersion (baptisma) by John at Jordan, because that was long past; but He was here discussing an immersion (baptisma) whose consummation was future, and which referred to the eventual full and complete “pouring out of His soul unto death” on the cross.

However, as stated, Eph. 4:5 gives not the slightest hint of such an immersion (baptisma). That is why many in the nominal church conclude from this and similar texts that some form of water ceremonial for each individual is “one of the sacra­ments” (the other sacrament being the Lord's Supper). Of course, had R. G. Jolly given his readers this interpretation, then much of what he did say about it on pages 12‑15 would have been exposed for the twaddle that it is.

We gave him some of the truth on this text in our previous writing, but it passed right over his head, which demonstrates how blind he is, and is just one more proof that the “oil In his lamp” has gone out. When he headed his question, “Errors on Eph. 4:5 Exposed,” he certainly did some “exposing” – he “exposed” his own tragic Ignorance in most definite fashion. He's ever ready to be “loquacious, repetitious and foolishly effusive” (See E:10‑591, par. 1) on any subject; it matters not to him whether he understands it or not. But we realize full well why he has been so determined to continue his “profusion of words” on John's Baptism: He thought he had at last found one subject where he could maintain his position. However, we opine he will now have had plenty; but, if he is still imprudent enough to try again, let him be sure to include Acts 18 in his comments; and answer also our exposure of his folly that he presented the one occasion on I Pet. 3:21.

He is probably also glad to embrace any acceptable diversion from the withering “extinguisher fluid” (the Truth) that we have been directing at his “strange fire” (false doctrines) – such as Consecrated Epiphany Campers – such as the Epiphany (the Time of Trouble) ending In a “restricted sense in 1954” – such as Tentative Justification (a faith justification) operating throughout the Millennium (a works dispensation). It should be recalled here that his “shyster tactics” remark was aimed at our attack on his Epiphany error re 1954, which we published last summer, thoroughly exposing his nonsense, since which time he has been completely silent on the matter. Who, then, was the real culprit in the use of “shyster tactics” back there?

In view of his despicable name‑calling here and elsewhere, we consider it proper to attempt a close scrutiny of his depraved character since Brother Johnson's death. In January 1957 he made a special trip back into the hills of Jamaica to “refute the gainsayers” in the Crofts Hill Class; and he was oosing his usual confidence and bravado – before he knew he would be facing the “sifters” themselves. He started that meeting at 4:00 p.m., and kept it continuously in session until 8:00 p.m. – ­a total of four hours – during which time he would not tolerate a single question from the “sifters.” Then he made an adroit attempt to close the meeting summarily; but certain stalwart brethren forced him –by vote of those assembled (22 to 4, if we remember correctly) – to allow the “sifter” (JJH) to be heard. Knowing how weary the brethren already were, we consumed not more than fifteen minutes, during which time we asked R. G. Jolly if he had any questions he wished to ask us. When he said No, we then asked if he would entertain our questions on our time, at which he shouted, “I don't want to talk to you at all!”

Just think of it, brethren! There was the “cleansed” Epiphany Levite, the “Pastor and Teacher,” cringing before the “sifter.” Just visualize what Brother Johnson would have done in his position! We know he would gladly have seized such a propitious opportunity to pulverize the sifter and vanquish him from the scene of combat – just as he repeatedly did with one uncleansed Levite leader after another early in the Epiphany, so that one of them moaned, “In every debate Brother Johnson makes me look like thirty cents.” The Detroit Class asked R. G. Jolly to come there, also, to answer questions in the presence of the “sifter”; but he ran away from that invitation, too.

We believe Judges 2:14 now becomes most pertinent: “The Lord sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.” While Brother Johnson was yet with us, could we possibly visualize R. G. Jolly – or any reasonably‑enlightened Epiphany Truth person – ­cringing before the gainsayers before 1950? We would have considered it a monstrous joke had any one suggested such a situation would be among us within six short years after the beloved Epiphany Messenger had departed.

It should ever be borne in mind that Brother Johnson taught us that R. G. Jolly is a part of antitypical King Saul. And we should ever consider that the first thing the typical Saul did after his sins caught up with him was to begin lying his way out (see 1 Sam. 15:13). And that was an exact blueprint of what R. G. Jolly has been doing since Brother Johnson's demise. On. page 8, par. 1, col. 1, he discusses the “sifters”, et al, at the last Chicago Convention, saying “half the group consisted of his (JJH) – wife and those related to her, either by blood or marriage.” Aside from the two of us there was five more such as he describes, making seven in all. Of those having no fleshly attachment whatever to the “sifters” there was at least nine, most of whom had come from considerable distances for the very purpose of aligning themselves with the “sifters,” and who were in complete accord with us. Thus, his statement of “half” the group is just another of his falsehoods – a loose and irresponsible statement. In our December paper we exposed another of his false­hoods, which he made from the Convention platform. When he can sit behind his desk in Philadelphia and call names, or when he can stand before a Convention of the Lord's people and tell falsehood after falsehood (where he is sure he will not have Immediate opposition), he is every whit the brave “little” man; but when there appears the pros­pect of a direct frontal engagement with the “sifters,” he cannot “any longer stand before his enemies.”

Had the “sifters” and their adherents not attended his Friday evening “Business Session” at Chicago (the same being nothing more than a lame attempt at a sales pep talk), the hall that evening would have had a most deserted appearance. If we recall correctly, the “sifters”, et al, constituted almost half those present – although there was plenty of his partisan supporters in the building. Apparently, even some of them know when they have had enough!

We give to him now a permanent invitation without limitations to attend any of our meetings, bring with him as many of his partisan supporters as he wishes, bring with him all his questions – so long as he conducts himself in the same orderly and ethical decorum as we do at his meetings. We would go even further: He may present his questions verbally – to be sure there is no evasion on our part. Will he dare reciprocate this courtesy to us? And we make this overture despite our con­viction that R. G. Jolly is th No. 1 Offender of the Epiphany since Brother Johnson's death. The deplorable conditions and turmoil in the L.H.M.M. since 1950 are largely chargeable directly to him! His condition is so deplorably uncleansed that lying and name‑calling are the only weapons left to him, so that now we quote some more of the pathetic words chanted over the discredited typical King Saul and his son Jona­thon: “How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle.” (2 Sam. 1:25) As we have so often stated, there has been much too much time and space expended on John's Baptism; but we are determined we shall impose a full quietus on his non­sense on this subject – just as we have effectively done with him on so many other subjects.