by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 52

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

In his last July‑August paper R. G. Jolly offers some four pages of attempted answer to our July 1 analysts – without mentioning our name, of course. This is noth­lng new with him, although Brother Johnson said he considered it his duty to name the errorists he was refuting – just as we do wlth R. G. Jolly.

And that he is again thinking in reverse in this instance is also nothing new; it is just one more testimonial to his tragic incapacity. On p. 57 he sets out “Seven Points of Striking Similarity” between JJH and JFR – all of which are true of R. G. Jolly himself. When J.F.R. denied the Youthful Worthy Class, he was denying something both Star Members taught. When R. G. Jolly contends for Campers Consecrated, he is contend­ing for something neither Star Member taught, and which one of them (Brother Johnson) specifically denied. R. G. Jolly quotes again from E‑10‑209 to prove his Campers Con­secrated. In this very citation Brother Johnson says the “Campers” in the finished picture will be the “un”consecrated. Also, both Star Members taught Tentative Justi­fication in the Court; and Brother Johnson said all “in the finished Epiphany” pic­ture lose that Justification when they are eventually forced into the Camp. R. G. Jolly is now preaching Tentative Justification in the Camp without getting into the Court at all! Let each one, then, determine whether he will accept the teaching of the Lord's Eye, Hand and Mouth, or whether he will accept the perversions (Azazel means Perverter) of a discreditied Levite.

Also, he speaks of “another great progressive step in the development of the antitypical the fall of 1954.” This he sets up as a comparison for 1914. In 1914 the signs of the times, the parallel dispensations, and the chronology all gave “witness” to that date. Let R. G. Jolly show how even one of these three lends credence to his date of 1954! Furthermore, in 1917 it was That Evil Servant who “cast out” his brother (Brother Johnson); then embarked on his rampage of perver­sion, falsehood, slander and deceit, as he held control of the Society. In 1954‑56 it was R. G. Jolly who “cast out” his brother, as he declared he was “controlling the L.H.M.M. even as Brother Johnson had controlled it.” We have resisted him in these evils the same as Brother Johnson resisted That Evil Servant. And in the face of these irrefutable facts – facts known to all informed brethren –  R. G. Jolly is crass enough to cry “shyster” at JJH!

When Brother Johnson refuted J.F.R. on the Youthful Worthies, he was teaching a class inside the linen curtain; R. G. Jolly now teaches a class outside the linen curtain. He also says this is because the Epiphaneia is now “merging Into the Basi­leia.” If that is true, why, then, is he talking a “narrow way”? If the Basileia is dawning, the Highway should also be appearing. Is he promising his Campers Consecrated life or death on their “narrow way”?

On pages 58‑59 he raises quite some dust about our quotation of Brother Johnson in E‑4‑53. If Brother Johnson did not mean that the 4,32 Time of Trouble in its narrow sense” and the “Epiphany in its narrow sense” were a synonymous expression in his reasoning, let R. G. Jolly show where Brother Johnson ever characterized the Epiphany as in the “restricted sense” from 1914 to 1954. In E‑6‑400 Brother Johnson says “we infer that Anarchy will reach a crisis in 1954.” Certainly, all of us know that the Time of Trouble will reach a crisis in Anarchy; and Brother Johnson expected that crisis in 1954. That crisis did not come; consequently, the Epiphany in any sense whatever did not end there.

“Things equal to the same things are equal to each other”; and certainly Brother Johnson's writings in many places affirm our contention that he considered the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany as one and the same, regardless of R. G. Jolly's “non”­sense, or any other sense he tries to offer for it.

The New Testament teaching on the Epiphany as an act had its beginning in the Jewish Harvest with the activities of Jesus Himself; but our concern in this discus­sion is more particularly with the Epiphany as a period – the last special period of the Gospel Age. In E‑4‑21 (14) there is this: “The Epiphany is used to designate the period of the great tribulation.” And at the top of page 22: “The Epiphany as a period is the period of the great tribulation.” Further, on page 34: “The Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are one and the same period.” With these statements we are in full agreement; they are fully confirmed by the Bible. However, if the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany “are one and the same period”, then, self‑evidently, if the Epiphany ended in a “restricted sense” in 1954, the Time of Trouble should also have ended in a “restricted sense” in 1954. Did it? The contention that there was such an ending is purely a Jolly invention – just as Campers Consecrated is also a Jolly­-Krewson invention.

In E‑4‑28 (23) we find this: “The Scriptures teach that the separation of the Great Company from the Little Flock is an Epiphany work.” According to the teaching of the “cousins,” this separation was fully accomplished in October 1950 not October 1954. If that work was fully accomplished in 1950, then the Epiphany in its “restricted sense” should have ended at that time, although we have come to the sad realization that we need never expect consistency from the Jolly‑Krewson twosome – except their consistency in supporting each other's errors (that they originated when they were inflating each other's ego), and in their inconsistency.

It is pertinent here also to quote from E‑4‑45: “Parousia is used in respect to the earliest stage of the second advent, while apokalypsis relates to the same advent later: – not that apokalypsis and epiphaneia relate to another or third advent, but merely to a later feature (not features, since these two words both as an act and as a period are synonymous).”

Companion to the above we add this from E‑4‑55 (bottom): “The Epiphany will end with the Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble, i. e., will end with the end of the trouble.” And from E‑4‑54 (middle): “The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical.” Further, from E‑4‑49 (top): “The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are one and the same thing.”

We offer these quotations grouped as we have them because they make crystal clear that both “teachers” are now revolutionizing against clear Epiphany teachings, and both of them are once more embracing kindred errors. J. W. Krewson has the Epiphany ending in 1954, and entering into the Apokalypsis period; and R. G. Jolly has the Epiphany ending in 1954, and entering into the Basileia period. These quotations clearly show that all three features accomplish the same thing at the same time; the Epiphany ends when the Time of Trouble ends (not at 1954); the Apokalypse begins and ends when the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble begin and end – no intervening end in a “restric­ted sense.” These three expressions are so closely interwoven that they cannot be sep­arated. If R, G. Jolly had the discretion and prudence of an honest ‘babe’ in the Truth, he would have known better than yell “shyster” at JJH, for the quotation of E‑4‑53 – ­because the Time of Trouble “in Its narrow sense” is the Epiphany In its narrow sense; and the both of them are the apokalypse in its narrow‑sense! We are in complete accord with Brother Johnson's teachings here, because he has proven his analysis from clear Bible texts; whereas, the “cousins” have nothing to prove their claims. We have here just one more proof that “the oil has gone out” in R. G. Jolly's lamp – that he is so befuddled since he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950 that he can no longer think clearly on any Scriptural subject.

R. G. Jolly offers some more of his thinking in reverse re our quotation from E‑11‑473. When we analyzed the Scripture “All power (authority) is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth,” we gave R. G. Jolly such a crushing defeat that any one not so brazen or obtuse as he is would have been careful never to mention the matter again. There we clearly showed that Jesus had all authority and all power at His resurrection – ­but only to be used in harmony with righteousness and God's eternal purposes. From this standpoint, Jesus' Executorship not only extends over the Camp all during the Gospel Age, but even to the heathen nations outside the Camp of spiritual Tsrael. Society itself, Governments, etc., are not permitted to interfere with His Plans and Purposes. It will be noted Brother Johnson says in this very quotation, “the faith-­justified when their faith‑justification lapses, which seemingly will occur in every case by Oct. 1954.” How does R. G. Jolly now handle this statement? Does he accept it as the Truth; or is he ignoring it to suit his present purposes? If he were clear on this matter himself, he would have clarified this statement by Brother Johnson.

As we have so often stated, Brother Johnson said no Great Company member would ever be permitted to bring forth a new doctrine. We realize full well that he and his “cousin” (J. W. Krewson) worked this out together while they were feeding “Bro. Russell's Epiphany Parallels” to trusting brethren. Let him show one small scraping or gleaning of types, direst Scriptures, parallels or chronology to offer a past pic­ture to this spiritual bedlam to which we have been witness (Epiphany Campers “conse­crated” for .... Restitution? purposes on a “narrow way” with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies).

He parries a thrust at J. W. Krewson for not offering a point‑by‑point vindica­tion of his new Apokalypse teaching; but our readers will probably recall we demon­strated clearly enough in our subsequent article that neither of them knew whereof they wrote. However, “out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,” so we set out some points below that R. G. Jolly himself has completely ignored in our July 1 paper, which he presently claims to be “refuting”:

(1) On page 2, par. 3, we quoted from E‑10‑672: “Our non‑truth ... Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some... before Babylon is destroyed, and others of them afterward.” This is completely ig­nored by R. G. Jolly.

(2) On page 3, par, 1. we gave extended comment on his semi‑moronic observation about the “furniture not being moved out of the Holy when God moves the Great Company out.” Why should God move the furniture out with the Great Company when He removed the Great Company for the very purpose of separating them from that furniture? We readily understand why he did not answer this – and why he never will answer it; our analysis made his “folly manifest to all.” But this matter of furni­ture presents an unbridgable gap in his Campers Consecrated contention. He cannot locate one piece of furniture in the Camp for them, so they are inhabiting a “vacant house” – vacant in “sound doctrine,” as well as in furnishings. As Brother Russell has so ably taught, no one can approach the point of consecration without first washing at the laver; yet R. G. Jolly has his Campers Consecrated doing it.

(3) Then at top of page 4 we quote from E‑10‑114: “Certainly, when we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel‑Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate.” R. G. Jolly is silent on this, too. He makes the claim that the “catch” is in “for Gespel‑Age purposes.” The last special Period of the Gospel‑Age (the Epiphany) is “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” Inasmuch as he yells “shyster” at JJH for presumably mis‑handling Brother Johnson's teachings (the charge being simply some more of his “profusion of words to no purpose”), let him fit this statement in with his Campers Consecrated, – if he can!

(4) Another item upon which he is silent is our quotation from E‑17‑330: “The quasi-­elect are those Jews and Gentiles who accepted Jesus as Savior, but failed to con­secrate.” The “narrow way” (or a “narrow way”) is for the consecrated during the Gospel‑Age (for Gospel‑Age purposes); and the Highway of Holiness, which is yet to be opened, is for the consecrated (Restitution­ists) of the Millennial‑Age (for Millennial-­Age purposes), which will include both believing but unconsecrated Jews and Gentiles of the Jewish and Gospel Ages, along with all obedient children of the Christ. The consecration “for Gospel‑Age purposes” is “unto death”; while the consecration “for Millennial‑Age purposes” (for all Restitutionists) is “unto life.”

(5) Nor has he attempted to correct his bungling that Brother Johnson teaches Tenta­tive Justification ceases when the Gospel Age ceases; but in another paragraph of his same paper he has Brother Russell saying Tentative Justification ceases when the Mil­lennial Age ceases.

(6) Then, on page 5 (bottom) we quote from E‑10‑114: “After 1954 ... no more persons will enter the tentatively justified state.” Of course, R. G. Jolly has nothing to say about this, or the complete failure of his 1954‑56 Attestatorial Service. That Service produced nothing to parallel 1914‑16, except a contrasted parallel; whereas, 1914‑16 clearly demonstrated to all the watchers the cleansed and sanctified condition of the Saints, the 1954‑56 episode made sadly manifest – in contrast – the uncleansed condition of R. G. Jolly, et al. And because that is still his condition we may be sure he'll continue in silence on these enumerated points in the hope that his readers will forget about them. He allowed J. W. Krewson to talk him into Campers Consecrated (quasi‑elect consecrated); and he now clings tenaciously to this error, although he is slowly and surely sinking with it.

(7) In our July 1 paper we urged all our readers to study the Jolly paper side by side with ours; and this point R. G. Jolly also ignores. We once more make urgent appeal to all in this matter, although we realize only too well that under no circumstances will R. G. Jolly want his readers to follow this advice. If they did, they would probably learn the Truth!

Inasmuch as R. G. Jolly is once more shouting the “stop thief” bogey of JFR, we believe it quite pertinent here to offer some comments on a letter he has published on page 64 by a brother initialed “J.R.” This brother has the same initials as one who wrote us a saucy and illiterate letter about some phraseology we had published, the same being a direct quotation from Brother Johnson – in quotation marks – with the clear statement it was Brother Johnson's observation. We answered him as follows:

Dear Brother....... Greetings through our Beloved Lord!

In your letter of July 10 you say you “want to love me and understand me,” which I do appreciate; but it is difficult for me to understand you when you say you have given “careful and long consideration and examination of the literature” I have sent you. I just can't see how you could possibly have given “careful and long considera­tion” to what I sent you, and then criticize my use of the word “lousy.” Didn't you notice, my brother, that that word was in a quotation I made from Brother Johnson's writings? So you are really criticizing him, and not me, in this instance. And when you make such a weak mistake, it does indeed cause me to wonder how well you have read the Parousia and Epiphany Truth, which you claim to understand.

Your charges against me that I make “evil charges against the Lord's earthly leader” painfully remind me of the record in John 18:19‑23, where the officer struck Jesus in the face with the palm of his hand as he asked Him the question – “Answerest thou the high priest so?” – the “Lord's earthly leader” of that day. And Jesus said to him, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”

You think “The Lord would be pleased if I would come back into the fold of the Truth,” so it would seem you have come to the conclusion that I have lost the Truth. Do you know that such people as you said exactly the same thing about Brother Johnson – used almost the very same words you have sent me? “Brother Johnson has gone out of the Truth,” they said. I often wonder where those people are now – although I'm pretty sure I know where Brother Johnson is. You, too, say you want to be “my brother,” although you have disfellowshiped me – you address me as “Mr. Hoefle.” Here you take a lot upon yourself, you do indeed; so, when you question my qualifications for doing what I am doing, I would truly like to know your qualifications for what you are do­ing –  especially since you have read what I have written in such a careless fashion that you fault me for quoting Brother Johnson's own words.

You hope I shall “cease sending you and all the other Brethren in the Truth my material – It really isn't appreciated.” This may be true of you, my dear Brother; but don't you think you are making a pretty broad statement when you include “all the other Brethren”? I receive many letters of appreciation from able brethren in America and Europe who have been long in the Truth – some of them under Brother Russell – so you should speak only for yourself and keep yourself within the bounds of Truth.

I am taking your name off my mailing list, as you request; but I have written you this lengthy letter in the hope it may help you. I have asked you for nothing, my Brother – not as much as a postage stamp. If you should change your mind about wanting some more of what I write, and will let me know about it, it will still cost you nothing. In the meantime, I pray for you sufficient of our good Heavenly Father's “eye salve” that you may receive the Truth and the spirit of the Truth, which is the blessed privilege of all God's faithful people at this time.

Sincerely your brother, (Signed: John J. Hoefle)

We would have relegated this incident to Limbo; but we are since informed that this same brother is one of the leaders who counselled that California Class to revo­lutionize grossly against Parousia and Epiphany arrangements by putting through a motion that a bare majority would be sufficient to elect the servants for that Class. As a result, eight of the fifteen voters elected that brother into the elder's office against seven contrary votes; and he now voices high praise of R. G. Jolly. One of the complaints Brother Johnson voiced against J.F.R. was that he failed to correct corrupt and erring brethren so long as they approved him. We cannot fault this broth­er “JR” too much, as he self‑evidently is among “the unstable and the unlearned”; nor need we find ourselves surprised that R. G. Jolly would encourage him in his revolu­tionism, as it was on this very matter of church elections that R. G. Jolly himself so cunningly and boldly revolutionized in 1938. (See E‑10‑645, bottom) And it is this same R. G. Jolly who now yells “shyster, sifter‑errorist” at one who is attempting to maintain the sound order which he himself tried to tear down in 1938, and is now en­couraging others to follow in his steps –  just as did That Evil Servant in 1917.


In his Question and Answer on p. 60 R. G. Jolly tries to vindicate his perversion on these two points; and once more he demonstrates his tragic inability to reason clear­ly on Scriptural matters. He says Jesus spoke the words of Matt. 5:13,14 to “non-­Spirit‑begotten consecrated ones,” so it would be proper to do the same with similar people now. In Luke 12:32 Jesus said to these very same people: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.” If his argu­ment puts such people now in the “Salt” and in the “Light,” then it should put them in the “little Flock”, too. Perhaps he's leading up to this, as he has read himself into about every Scripture pertaining to the Saints except the Little Flock and the Samson type.

Not only does he pervert the Scripture, but he also uses the same “sleight‑of-­hand” on Brother Johnson's teaching In E‑15‑278. If we go back to p. 276 (eleventh argument), we note these words: “He (Jesus) is the Agent that God has used to beget aspirants to the High Calling... The church is undergoing an experience of regeneration unto the Divine nature... our change from human to Divine nature.” And further on ­P. 277 (twelfth proof); “He helps us to develop... the higher primary graces .... Each faithful New Creature has these experiences in character growth.” All of this is lead­ing up to p. 278, where Brother Johnson says, “the civilizing uplift that He through His faithful Church has effected among the nations.” Then at top of p. 279, last lines of proof thirteen: “His faithful people as the light of the world and the salt of the earth.”

As we have pointed out so often, R. G. Jolly has been persistently placing himself in the various Scriptures that pertain exclusively to the Saints. Is he now enlarging his perversions to place himself and others like him among those who “experience regen­eration unto the Divine nature”? Is he contending that crown‑losers have been “faith­ful to develop the higher primary graces”? Back in 1954 already R. G. Jolly transposed himself from the Measurably Faithful to the Faithful; and the humiliation the Lord gave him then in that perversion apparently was not nearly sufficient to reform him – just as his 1938 humiliation did not altar his “Azazelian” leanings. At the top of p. 646 in E‑10 Brother Johnson forewarned us of R. G. Jolly's cunning and trickery – a warning which undoubtedly is “from the Lord” for those now who have “ears to hear and eyes to see.”

At the top of p. 62, col. 2, he again repeats that his “proof” will stand that the Bride was complete in glory in October 1950. Here again the “teacher” is completely silent on Psa. 46, 1 Thes. 4:17, Zech. 8:10, Gen. 3:15 and Brother Johnson's analysis of Rev. 19:5‑10. Some “teacher”! Some “Proof”!


The enclosed tract is for use with the various 'Truth’ groups. We realize full well that many of our readers cannot know of their own knowledge whether some of the statements contained in this tract are the truth; but we give them the assurance that we do know of our own knowledge that its contents are true, having had close associ­ation with many brethren prominent in the Society early in the Epiphany. We urge all to read this tract carefully before attempting distribution of it. This is in keep­ing with the instructions Brother Russell gave to the colporteurs and others who dis­tributed the literature – that they should read and understand his books, tracts, etc., before asking any one to accept them.

We have made this Three Babylons tract, and the other three for Antitypical Gid­eon's Second Battle, as dignified and genteel as we know how to do; and we admonish our readers to present them in like manner. It is indeed a paradox that we are the “sons of peace”; yet we are fighting so much of the time. But our fighting should bring no pleasure to us, except as we delight in “the defense of the Truth.” We should always be sure the antagonism comes from others of contrary spirit to our own, rather than provoked by our own conduct toward them. During the years we spent in the colporteur work early in the Epiphany, we kept one text constantly in mind: “Into what­ever house you enter, say first, “Peace to this house.” And if a “son of peace is there, your peace shall rest on him; but if not, it shall return to you.” (Luke 10:5‑6, Dia.) With such approach, never once in all those years did we ever have any one slam a door before us, although there were plenty who disagreed wlth what we had to say and with what we were doing. However, should we receive any undue harsh treatment when seeking to do them good (witness Truth), we are not to “think it strange.”

And this advice we offer to our readers now – whether the approach be to a house or to an individual. It should be readily apparent that this Three Babylons tract is ideally suited for presentation to those Jehovah's Witnesses who stand on street cor­ners offering their own literature. As Brother Johnson so often stated, he believed there were many Saints still in the Society; and we know of our own knowledge that we have many brethren there who were there when Brother Russell had charge. Such people cannot but recognize the truth contained in this tract, and they offer an ideal con­tact, knowing as we do aforehand just exactly what they have belleved and preached as well, in fact, as they know it themselves. Therefore, this tract will be excellent to pass out at their meetings, as well as at the meetings of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement and other groups.


St. Paul urges all to “preach the word – in season, out of season”; but Brother Russell's admonition in the Manna Comment for August 28 tells us it is to be our own Inconvenience that is meant here, and not that of our prospective listeners. It should not require much argument that our interruption of others in the midst of a meal would almost certainly bring to us a cool reception, and correspondingly an unreceptive “ear” toward the Truth we are espousing; and the same would be true should we interrupt any one busily engaged in the pursuit of a livelihood, such as a busy filling‑station oper­ator, or such like. Better far would it be for us to wait until such persons are free from that which immediately occupies them. Here again, “peace be to this house” should be the guiding incentive, The Truth is beautiful, and of a glory distinctive to it alone – just as was true of Him who gave it to us: “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” For this reason Jesus Himself did not “cause His voice to be heard in the street” (Isa. 42:2); and “he left us an example that we should follow in His steps.” Thus, armed with the Truth and its Spirit, none can fail to re­ceive the blessing that has been promised to those who “continue in His word.”

It is our hope and prayer that the four tracts we now offer will meet with hearty response from all who call upon the name of the Lord in sincerity and truth, and that the blessing maketh rich will abide with all who engage in their distribution. “There is no restraint of the Lord to save by many or by few”; and the 'pebble from the brook’, “It is written,” will ever be found more than sufficient in defense or offense against imposing Big or Little Babylon. Thus, we pray the Lord's rich blessing upon all who engage in this “good fight”; and may each one resolve to adorn the Truth with a holy life!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim


Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace & Peace!

I enjoyed the article “The Church's Glorification – Reviewed.” It was very good and helpful. J. W. Krewson's constant reiteration of the expression, “What one does through another he does himself” if seen in its true light in regard to him would be most enlightening. This is the way it should read: “What one (Satan) does through another (Krewson) he (Satan) does himself.” Your remark re J. W. K's June‑July paper #27 is most apropos, “the same being as much of nothing as we have ever seen exhibited.”

In R. G. Jolly you have a more wily foe, but yet quite similar – buddies more or less in many ways – regarding erroneous thoughts, error, etc. You will have to give some thought with reference to the July‑August P.T. – especially as to the article, “A Refutation of”, etc. I am glad Professor Jolly was never my teacher. I studied “comprehensive reading” in school, but this ‘Jolly’ doesn't seem to understand what he reads. Take for instance The Faithful and the Measurably Faithful. “How readest thou?” And there are many other things. But perhaps he is dissembling, and it would seem more logical to believe so because R. G. Jolly has a good mind. He must have a reason for such distortions. The epithet 'shyster’ might be and is more applicable to him... I know you to be honest and others know that, too.

Christian love – Bro. ---------.