NO. 48: MOSES - ITHAMAR - JOSHUA

No. 48

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

Repeatedly the question has been presented to us – Did the Epiphany Ithamar fin­ish his work by October 1950? Without equivocation, we now answer, Yes, he certainly did. All of us know Brother Johnson gave us a clear interpretation on many types ­perhaps more than any one since the days of the Apostle Paul. If his presentations were correct – and we believe they were so in large measure –, then we are in position to draw certain conclusions from his analyses. For instance, if he was the antitypical Solomon, then we must conclude this antitype would continue for a period of forty years, with the latter years revealing a counterpart of the evil deeds of Solomon. This could not possibly have been fulfilled by Brother Johnson, so we must look to some other indi­vidual to complete the picture – and to complete it with many evil deeds. We think we offered a reasonable explanation of this in our Epiphany Solomon in our July 2, 1956 paper; and we hope to have more to say about this in due course. But for now, we state he could not possibly antitype the evil deeds of Solomon, because he did not live out the forty years, and performing the evil deeds would have made him unfaithful – in which case he could not have been a Star Member and the Eighth Principal Man. Solomon’s “heart was no longer perfect toward the lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.”

But let us now consider Ithamar: Surely, none of our Epiphany readers will dispute the clear fact that the 35 individuals of the Gospel-Age interim Ithamar were all Star Members; nor should any exception be taken to our statement that the Epiphany Ithamar was also a Star Member. Now, Moses in certain pictures typed the entire 49 Star Mem­bers that appeared during this Gospel Age. Therefore, the Epiphany Ithamar (a Star Mem­ber) must be included in the Moses picture of all 49 Star Members; so there is the in­escapable conclusion that the last member of antitypical Moses and the Epiphany Itha­mar were concurrent with each other – being actually the same person (Brother Johnson) ­and that when the one completed his antitype, the other must per se also complete his antitype. At no time during the Gospel Age did any Star Member fail to complete his special work – just as Jesus said of Himself – “I have finished the work thou gavest me to do.” It might be argued that we are not unalterably bound by precedent in a sit­uation like this. Be that as it may, if that precedent of the entire Gospel Age were to be ignored here in the end of the Age, then surely only another Star Member would appear to complete the work of the Epiphany Ithamar; and this would mean that antitypical Moses is not yet dead. At present, there is no evidence whatever to prove that such is the case. Throughout this Age the various members of antitypical Moses were the Special Eye, Hand and Mouth of the Lord; and, on those occasions when there was no mem­ber of antitypical Moses officiating there appeared the counterpart of Judges 17:6 ­“In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

While we believe no more Star Members will appear before the full end of the Gos­pel Age, we are presented with some very clear Scripture from which we may conclude that a new and different situation now exists from anything yet experienced by God’s people. In Deut. 32:52 there is the verdict given to Moses: “Thou shalt not go over thither unto the land which I give to the children of Israel.” But Deut. 34:4 tells us: “I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thith­er.” For Gospel-Age purposes, Canaan types the sphere of the Truth and its spirit, says Brother Johnson; and in the large Millennial sense Canaan types the Kingdom inheritance. Certainly, every Star Member did inherit the sphere of the Truth and its spirit for his time., or they would not have been faithful; therefore, we must con­clude that God’s decree “thou shalt not go over thither” means for us that a Star Member would not complete the march of God’s people in the Kingdom garner that this would fall to the lot of the antitypical Epiphany Joshua.

It should be kept in mind that Joshua – being of the Tribe of Ephraim was not of the priestly line; and his leadership of Israel was the first experience of this kind for them since they had left Egypt. But “Joshua was full of the spirit of wis­dom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him.” (Deut. 34:9) As Brother Johnson has explained, laying on of hands has three meanings – (1) Representation, as in Lev. 8:14, ‘‘Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock,” thus saying in effect that the animal about to be offered in sacrifice represented them; (2) Bestow­al of a gift or power; (3) Endorsement, recommendation, as in 1 Tim. 5:22, “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” Paul thus advising the brethren generally not to be too quick to endorse strangers who come into our midst. It seems the second and third meanings apply here in the case of Joshua. “Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom; for (because) Moses had laid his hands upon him.” Apparently, much of the wisdom of Moses was conferred upon Joshua as he “laid his hands upon him.” And, certainly, Moses by that act also gave strong endorsement to Joshua before the children of Is­rael, which approval was confirmed by God, who “spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister.” (Judges 1:1) Therefore, antitypical Moses in the person of Brother Johnson, was brought to the very border of the Millennial Canaan. Whether or not he surmised toward the end that it would not be his portion to “go over thither” we can­not be certain; but we can be certain that he did not go over thither as the leader of God’s people. It seems we may also be certain that he wittingly or unwittingly “laid his hands upon” antitypical Joshua.

It is well to recall at this point that Brother Russell also “laid his hands upon” Brother Johnson to became the Epiphany Messenger and to “build the house of the Lord.” “David the king (typing here the Parousia David, Brother Russell) said unto all the congregation, Solomon, my son, whom God alone hath chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the lord God ... 0 Lord God of Abraham...give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart ... to build the palace. And the Lord magnified Solomon exceedingly in the sight of all Israel.” (1 Chron. 29:1, 18,19,25) How much Brother Russell was aware of what he was doing for the Epiphany Solomon we may not be sure; but we do know that he did not in defi­nite words or acts self-evident to all, perform this. Rather he did so by the spec­ial privileges afforded Brother Johnson and by the loving private ministry he gave him. This was certainly as the Lord desired it, because the large majority (mostly the Measurably Faithful) did not have sufficient of the Holy Spirit to discern this, and they mistakenly thought the anointing had been given to That Evil Servant, so they were an easy prey for his perversions (“God shall send them strong delusion”). We are all witness to the extremity of the strong delusions that were sent upon them.

And, as the “lord magnified Solomon,” so he also did with the typical Joshua – after Moses had laid hands upon him and had gone to his grave in Mount Nebo – “There shall not any man be able to stand before thee al the days of thy life: As I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” (Judges 1:5) This promise is almost verbatim the one given to the Saints in Heb. 13:5 “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” It should be remembered, too, that the priests were there to bear the ark over Jordan into Canaan; but they were under the leadership of Joshua. Here also is one more proof that some Saints would still be here on earth after the last Star Member had gone. And all this assures us that the Epiphany Joshua will be skilled in handling the word of Truth – so much so that “there shall not any man be able to stand before thee,” We may be just as certain, too, that the Fully Faithful will have the leading of the Holy Spirit to “guide them into all Truth” and to discern the leadership and strength of the one the Lord has chosen to lead His people into the Heavenly Canaan.

On this general subject presented herein we expect to say much more in future writings; but in concluding this paper we again recall the teaching of Brother Rus­sell that prophecies and types cannot be clearly understood until they are fulfilled or in course of fulfillment. Therefore, it was not within the scope of Brother John­son to understand this Moses-Joshua-Ithamar type because he died before the due time for it to be understood. We know of a certainty that he could not reconcile the evil deeds of Solomon’s later life with his own understanding of his own future, so he attempted to accept by faith what he could not present by cold and irrefutable log­ic. The same applies to the Epiphany Joshua: He well knew Joshua was of the Tribe Ephraim, which could not be reconciled at all with his predictions about himself for the future, so he accepted this also by faith, leaving the future to itself. This should impress us with the caution to tread softly in explaining future events if we cannot fit every feature in its proper place to make an unassailable picture based upon well-rounded logic. However, to the praise of Brother Johnson, we quote his kindred conclusions from E-10:667:

“It might here be added that it had also been the intention of devoting a chap­ter to the study of J. as the smallest antitype of Joshua...But two reasons prompted a change of mind on the subject: (1) There are too many things in the antitypes of both these characters (Solomon and Joshua) not yet fulfilled, which would necessarily make a study of them not only incomplete, but unclear, since the events...are of a character whose fulfillments must largely take place before they can be clearly seen.”

We may offer further that when a trial of faith is involved in connection with any antitype we may be certain that antitype will not be clearly understood before it has occurred; otherwise, its purpose to sustain the faithful and defeat and demoral­ize the unfaithful and measurably faithful would be thwarted. However, it should be observed that it would have been impossible for the interim Ithamar to carry on with­out the groundwork of the Jewish Harvest Eleaser (the twelve Apostles) – it would have been impossible for the Epiphany Ithamar (Brother Johnson) to carry on without the groundwork supplied him by the Parousia Eleazer (Brother Russell) – and it would be impossible for the Epiphany Joshua to carry on without the groundwork provided by anti­typical Moses, just as it would have been impossible for the typical Joshua to carry on without the preparation of Moses in that type. The stronger characters in every instance preceded their lesser brethren – even though these lesser brethren were in many instances among the outstanding intellects of the entire human race, as, for instance, the Interim Ithamar in the person of Martin Luther: He is rated among the 25 greatest intellects of all time.

“The meek will He guide in judgment; and the meek will He teach His way. All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep His covenant and His testimon­ies.” (Psa. 25:9,10)

CONCERNING THE MARCH 1959 PRESENT TRUTH

Generally speaking, this last March Present Truth is to be commended for the unwitting truth it offers, although it is a little too much to expect ever to find a Present Truth by R. G, Jolly that would be entirely free of perversions. On page 18, col. 1, he says, “John’s baptism continued to be administered during the Jewish Har­vest”; and in this he offers confirmation that he has been a close student of Hit­ler’s technique – Repeat, Repeat, Repeat, and eventually some will believe whatever the falsehood may be. We have repeatedly asked him for a Scripture or for a single instance to prove John’s baptism was efficacious after the 70th week; but he has never done so because he cannot do so. And, so far as we can find, neither Star Member ever made such a sweeping statement of John’s baptism. Thus, R. G. Jolly stands alone in his contention with not one scintilla of proof for his statement.

He follows the same line on page 25, col. 2, par. 1, when he states “God gives the Truth for, or on behalf of, all of the consecrated, and it is for them to dis­cern.” And he makes this statement despite Brother Johnson’s clear contradiction of it in E-4-129, which we presented on page 3 of our September 1958 paper. This is the same groove that That Evil Servant finally accepted in the face of Brother Johnson’s withering annihilations of his errors; he simply ignored the Epiphany Messenger as he continued to repeat, repeat, repeat, his numerous gross and per­sistent perversions. it seems R. G, Jolly is now resigned to the same subterfuge.

But perhaps the more to be noticed in the paper under review is the truth stated on page 21, col. 1, par. (9): “In 1916... there were no Consecrated Epiphany Campers among the quasi-elect. Therefore, as such they are not separately pictured here.” This is certainly the truth they are not pictured here! Nor are they to be discerned in any of the other Scriptures or types that portray the true elect classes. We cannot find them in Joel 2:23, 29; We cannot find them anywhere in the Tabernacle types; we cannot find them in 2 Tin, 2:20; we cannot find them in Isa. 60:13; we can­not find them in Isa, 72:3; nor can we find them in Noah’s Ark, where the Noah fam­ily in its entirety represents four elect classes in their completeness, with the clean animals portraying the Jews, end the unclean animals the Gentiles – these six classes and the recovered fallen angels constituting the seven classes recov­ered from the curse of sin and death. The Ark is the embodiment of God’s plan; and the Consecrated Campers should certainly have some place in it – if there is such a class consecrated and walking a “narrow way” while sin is in the ascendancy. But these Campers are to be found only in the roving imagination of R. G. Jolly and his “cousin” J. W. Krewson – just as the non-existent Jonadab class found lodging only in the foolish and perverted imagination of That Evil Servant and his co-publishers of “advancing truth” (?) – in reality Azazelian-concocted false doctrine. And it should be noted that Campers Consecrated (while sin is in ascendancy) is even a worse monstrosity than were the Jonadabs, because the name Jonadab is actually to be found in the Bible (2 Kings 10:15-23); whereas, the name Campers Consecrated is just as noticeable by its absence as is the class itself in any of the Scriptures or types where it should logically be if the class were genuine. According to the contention of the “cousins,” their Consecrated Campers – or Quasi-elect Consecrated ­are the stand-out of all the quasi-elect of the Jewish and Gospel Ages; so it is contrary to all Scriptural exegesis not to find them set out in those places that portray the other elect classes. It is little wonder that the last two Star Mem­bers never saw such a class – although they are the ones who gave us the true inter­pretations on those Scriptures and types that describe all the other elect classes; nor are they indicated in any Scriptures or types that picture the quasi-elect. In addition to all this, it is Brother Johnson’s teaching that no Great Company leader would ever be given a new doctrine – and this Campers Consecrated is assured­ly a new doctrine; and coming from such a source is a proof in itself that it is a false doctrine.

‘‘And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when We believed.”– (Rom- 13:11 – See Berean Comments) —

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Question of General Interest

QUESTION: – Brother Johnson often referred to himself as “the last rose of summer” ­as you yourself must certainly know –, and he often said he would be the last Priest to leave this earth. How do you harmonize these Scriptures you stress so much with the statements of Brother Johnson as quoted herein?

ANSWER: – Brother Johnson’s statements and the Scriptures can’t be reconciled with the clear facts before us. Brother Johnson said he “thought” he would be the last Priest, but admitted at one Philadelphia Convention he had no Scripture to prove it. He was also convinced his demise would be in 1956. When we were help­ing him in 1947 he often had friendly altercations with his Philadelphia physician, who relied upon his scientific skill to contradict Brother Johnson’s “parallel” conclusions. The good doctor was adamant in his statements to Brother Johnson that it would be impossible for him to live to 1956 with his heart in such fragile con­dition. Time clearly proved the doctor was right, and Brother Johnson was wrong.

It is axiomatic in mathematics that when a mistake in the structure is found, the final answer must be altered accordingly. Since the 1956 “parallel” as re­spects Brother Johnson is a self-evident error, it seems to us quite foolish to cling to an answer that was reached by a faulty mathematical structure – yet R.G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson insist upon doing just that. In Brother Russell’s case he lived beyond the time he predicted for himself; and some in 1914 accused him of being a false prophet and they “walked with him no more.” The miscalculations by both of them simply proved they were not infallible, but that did not impugn their sincerity –nor did their mistakes in their ultimate earthly end set aside in the least degree their sound exegesis of certain Scriptures – Namely, Rev. 19:1-10 and Psa. 46, which we treated in detail in our Sept. 1, 1958 issue. Nor does it set aside their sober and clear analysis of Zech. 8:10 and 1 Thes. 4:17, which texts we treated in detail in our November 15, 1957 paper; and we now repeat a part of that, as follows:

‘‘As all Bible Students know, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both taught that a type must never be used to establish a doctrine; it can only be used to sup­port a doctrine already established. But in this instance,, R. G. Jolly not only does not prove a doctrine by his Zechariah type, he actually tries to set aside a doctrine already well established – and he makes this attempt by a fractured type at that!

“In Brother Johnson’s explanation of the Zechariah type he emphasized that he would be here until 1956, and that his end would be a violent one. Since neither the date of his death nor the manner of his death occurred according to expecta­tion, we state it was a fractured type. But the doctrine was well established by both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that some Saints would remain on earth until the violent features of the Time of Trouble arrived. In our August 1 writ­ing on The Last Saint we offered a number of Scriptures and comments from the Star Members pertaining to this matter – enough certainly to establish the doctrine just set forth –; and we now offer others in support of it.

“Brother Johnson’s belief that his would be a violent end (if he were to be the last Saint) comes logically enough. The first “righteous blood” to be shed occurred in the violent death of Abel; and the last “righteous blood” – speci­fically described as such by Jesus – came through the violent death of Zechariah. The last righteous blood actually to be shed violently in pre-Gospel-Age times was that of John the Baptist; and Brother Russell accepted that as a concluding type of the Gospel-Age priesthood in his belief that the last ones would come to a violent end. For Gospel-Age purposes the first righteous blood to be shed was that of Jesus – also violently poured out – just as St. Paul’s blood likewise was violently “poured out” (2 Tim. 4:6-Dia.). And the Scriptural teaching seems clear and indisputable that the last righteous blood of this Age would be violently poured out – as instance, 1 Thes. 4:17: “We which are alive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.” Brother Johnson’s comment on this in E-6-581 follows:

‘The anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, as indicated by Elijah’s whirlwind ascent, and by the last ones being violently seized by clouds, the literal translation of the Greek rendered in the A.V. of 1 Thes. 4:17, caught up in the clouds.?

“The foregoing is exceptionally clear; and cannot be explained away by a mere frac­tured type. Let R. G. Jolly – and all others who claim the Saints are no more – give their explanation of the above, in harmony with their present position.

“Companion to the foregoing is Brother Johnson’s statement in E-6-630 on Zech. 8:10:

‘The no hire for man or beast of Zech. 8:10 ... is to occur after the founda­tion of the church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon.’

“Here again is some more doctrine that must be discarded if the fractured type of Zechariah is to prevail. It will be noted that all the types we presented in our August writing support the doctrine, in further support of our statement that Zech­ariah could type the last Star Member, but not the last Saint; we offer the Moses type – wherein he types the Star Members. Moses did not complete the march of Israel into Canaan, which shows clearly enough that it would not be a Star Member in the end of this Age who would complete the march of spiritual Israel into though heavenly Canaan.”

Every feature of the 1956 calculation has been proven wrong by time itself; yet the “cousins” insist that the answer must still be the same as though every feature had been proven right. Only those befuddled by Azazel reason thus! J. W. Krewson tried to move R. G. Jolly into the final six years of the “parallel” in a desperate effort to make it work; but by 1956 the “teacher” (J. W. Krewson) and the gullible “student” (R, G. Jolly) were hurling invectives at each other – both of them glad to drop that feature of the “parallel,” too, but still tenaciously clinging to the original answer. Let either of the “cousins” show one small shred of analogy in 1914-16 to their atti­tude toward each other in 1954-56. Will they do it? If they continue to rely upon this “parallel,” they should have a clear explanation here. They should also have a new and better interpretation for Psa. 46, Rev. 19:1-10, Zech. 8:10 and 1 Thes. 4:17. Up to now they have been markedly silent on all these Scriptures. Why?

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

Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother: – May the joy of the Lord be your strength!

Thank you for your letters, Brother Jolly shows himself up with Epiphany Campers and other mistakes – as if he can change God’s times and seasons! The manifestation of his mistakes should make him be willing to do better and to say he made a mistake about it. The spirit of truth – love, if he can see it, would make him do so. By their fruits you shall know them—2 Pet. 12:2.

To pervert the truth and give out to others after all the time he had with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson shows he is in a bad way. It is time he pulled himself up before it is too late, If he did it, it would not only be good for him but for all in the L.H.M.M.

Your Brother by His Grace ........ England

PS – John 14:15; Psa. 15 and 19. Poems of Dawn – “Scatter Seeds of Kindness.

Hymn Nos. 166 and 73.

_________________________________________________________________________

May 15, 1959

No. 48-A

CONCERNING J. W. KREWSON

In his April‑May 1959 Paper No. 26 the above‑mentioned self‑appointed “Pastor and Teacher” devotes parts of numerous pages to relate the story of his preparation to be the Apokalypsis Messenger –or whatever he styles himself. At the top of page 2 he says “we approach closer and closer to the end of the Gospel Age and its Harvest.” Now, this self‑styled “Teacher” claims to be a close student of the Epi­phany Messenger’s teachings – and to be in harmony with them; yet here he indispu­tably – and truthfully – admits we are still in the Gospel Age. But Brother John­son just as clearly – and truthfully – taught that the Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age; that the Epiphany and the Apokalypse are one and the same in point of time, and that they accomplish exactly the same things. Therefore, if we are still in the Gospel_Age, we must still be in the Epiphany. Our contention is in full harmony with the Epiphany Messenger: We are still in the Gospel Age; therefore, we are still in the Epiphany in its narrow sense – the “narrow sense” being the Time of Trouble from 1914 to the end of Jacob’s Trouble. Therefore, any attempt to superimpose an Apokalypse as a special period upon the Epiphany as the last special period of the Gospel Age is simply a gross perversion of the Scrip­tures as correctly interpreted by our beloved Brother Johnson.

Then at top of page 20 (56) he introduces a strange and mystical teaching, in keeping with his novel idea about an Apokalypse apart from an Epiphany, when he com­ments about his “fatherly Truth relationship to the two former servants (Brothers Russell and Johnson).” Never before in nature or in Parousia or Epiphany teach­ings have we ever heard of the father appearing after the child. In E‑8‑145 Brother Johnson says, “The Scriptures speak of those whom God uses as ministering the be­gettal to us as our spiritual fathers. (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Phile.10).” This flows logically enough from James 1:18, “Of His own will begat he us by the word of Truth.” Here we are told that in the case of the Christ Company (and by analogy to the Youthful Worthies) it was the energizing vitality of the “word of Truth” that begat them to “newness of life” – this “word of Truth” being usually ministered by one already begotten by it, with such ministers being referred to as the spiritual fathers of those thus begotten. Especially does this application pertain to the Star Members. But in the innovation now presented by J. W. Krewson he has himself fathering the Truth that logically fathered him! Also has Brother Johnson preced­ing Brother Russell – in total reverse of all Brother Johnson ever wrote about the relationship of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. This is indeed a new brand of “advancing Truth”!

But concerning J. W. Krewson’s “special preparation” for his position of “Apoka­lypsis Teacher,” we believe it apropos to quote now from B‑14‑178 and 267:

“Doubtless the lord revealed to Brother Russell from Bible types and prophecies many a thing that he never told the brethren, but that he used to guide his work, even as he has been doing to the Epiphany Messenger; and among these things he doubtless revealed to him that the writer (Brother Johnson) would have charge of the priestly work after his death, which will account for the special services and training that Brother Russell gave him from 1909 onward, especially from 1914 onward to his death. (P. 178) In May 1916 he called J. to himself and said this to him: _I have some good news to tell you: You have been promoted. I gave word to Brother Sturgeon (who then had charge of the pilgrim work) not to send you to small churches, but to send you to large churches only... (1) He caused him to visit only the larger churches; (2) that summer, next to himself, sent him to more con­ventions than any other pilgrim; and gave him there more, and more important dis­courses than any other pilgrim, e.g., had him act as chairman of three of that sum­mer’s conventions, and, though he was present at the service, had him deliver the bap­tismal talk at the Newport Convention – a thing that, if he were present, so far as we know, he never had anyone else than himself do, and had him deliver eight talks at the Newport Convention and eight at the Norfolk Convention, more than he had arranged for himself.”

From the foregoing, it should be clear enough that Brother Johnson knew what method to pursue to advance a brother; and we submit that none of the foregoing did he pursue with J. W. Krewson. He did not even put him in position to address the General Church; nor did he ever – even once – allow him to present a discourse at any General Convention. This was in keeping with his policy to allow only pil­grims or auxiliary pilgrims offer discourses at Conventions. The only office that he gave J. W. Krewson “to prepare him for his present office” was that of Evange­list – which office gave him no authority whatever to address the General Church. Yet this power‑grasper has not only arrogated to himself the pilgrim office, but is also brazen enough to tell those officially in the pilgrim office by Brother John­son’s appointment that they have no authority to address the General Church. He goes even further – he arrogantly and flagrantly puts the lie on Brother Johnson (the brother he “loves” so much!) by stating he had no authority to appoint pil­grims; and he does this in clear and perverse defiance of the following in E‑10‑249 (bottom):

“J. was commissioned finally, according to the Divine wisdom given into his care (wisdom in thine hand, Ezra 7:25) to appoint for Epiphany. not for Parousia, purposes auxiliary pilgrims (magistrates) and pilgrims (judges), to assist the lord’s people in teaching ways (judge), along the lines of things old (know the laws) and new (know them not).”

Then, on page 24 of this No. 26, he proceeds to pervert the teachings of the Parousia Messenger, as contained in the July 14 Manna Comment, because Brother Russell was referring there only to truthful statements. As he said elsewhere, even telling of truth maliciously to injure another is slander. And doubly so would it be slander when the tale related is a falsehood. In his attack upon our pilgrim office, J. W. Krewson said he had a “reliable witness” to prove J.J.H. was only an auxiliary pilgrim before Brother Johnson’s death, that J.J.H. dropped the word “auxiliary” after Brother Johnson’s death and self‑styled himself a full pilgrim. It should be clear enough to all that this statement was a gross unmiti­gated falsehood; and he excuses himself in the doing of this as necessary to “ex­pose a false teacher” (meaning JJH). Let him show any place in the Bible, or the teachings of the Parousia or Epiphany Messengers where God’s people are commissioned to use falsehood to expose falsehood. In fact, Prov. 6:19 tells us God hates “a false witness that speaketh lies”; and the penalty upon those who “encourage them­selves in an evil matter” is clear and unmovable: “They shall make their own tongue to fall upon themselves.” (Pea. 64:5.8) Here again he shows his close relationship to his “cousin” R. G. Jolly: Both of them resort readily and in facile character to falsehood whenever it seems to suit their convenience.

Nor is this anything new in Gospel‑Age history. In E‑8‑340 Brother Johnson narrates the case of “the patriarch of Constantinople (New Rome) constantly in controversy with the bishop of (old) Rome for equality” – just as the two “cousins” now strive for supremacy, each one claiming to be “Pastor and Teacher,” each one reeking with error and sin (slander, falsehood, etc.), and each of them persecuting and reviling God’s faithful people.

Of course, we should not be surprised that “a false witness that speaketh lies” would also be bold enough to tell others many years longer “in the Truth” than he claims for himself that they do not “know the difference between slander and the necessity (duty) of ... exposure of a false teacher.” Nor should we be surprised if such a perverter often contradicts his own statements – as we described in the first paragraphs of this paper – and as he has done in numerous other instances. Nor, having so little respect for the Truth as he does, should we be surprised at the claims he makes for himself, claims which have no substance in fact prior to 1950. The only claims he has to offer is that of an uncleansed Levite who be­stowed privileges and honor upon him in defiance of Brother Johnson’s judgment of this brother; and R. G. Jolly has received the humiliations due him for such setting aside of the Epiphany Arrangements. It should be borne in mind that although Brother Johnson was admittedly the most favored of all pilgrims appointed by Bro. Russell, yet he never told other lesser pilgrims they had no right to address the General Church – although he did attack the Toms, Dicks and Harries for foisting themselves upon the General Church (not having been appointed to the pilgrim office by That Servant). But “Evangelist” Krewson hesitates not at all to tell duly ­appointed pilgrims that they should keep silent while he finds it “necessary to write of himself.” (See page 1 (4) No. 26)

In this connection, we know of a number of earnest and capable brethren who have written J. W. Krewson about the above and related matters, and we quote just some of that correspondence to inform our readers on the type of thinking that ema­nates from J. W. Krewson:

869 N. 42nd Street

Philadelphia 4, Pa.

January 22, 1959

Dear Bro. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑: Greetings in His dear name.

Received your letter of November 30, 1958 but have up to now put it aside, not that I did not desire to correspond with you as a brother in the Truth, but realized that my efforts would be useless in your present state of mind..........

If you had a child in the fourth grade of school and that child would try to argue or debate with a pupil in the higher grades you would think the child was do­ing a very foolish thing. To you it would be apparent that the child was illy equipped for such a encounter, being too young and inexperienced to the older pupil. You would realize he required much more study and testing before he would even be­gin to understand what the older pupil was talking about. You would additionally see that his little knowledge had to a certain extent puffed him up giving him a false appraisal of his ability, hence causing him to think he could stand against a more advanced scholar.

As you continue to notice his conduct toward the older child you would compre­hend that he did not see himself in his true light. You would be forced to the con­clusion that in his answers to the older scholar he totally lacked understanding of the subject under discussion. Loving the child very much you might censure his actions and conduct somewhat but knowing he had acted perhaps on childish impulse you would to a certain extent overlook what he had done, hoping as he would grow older the unwisdom of his actions and the true import of his foolishness would dawn upon him.................

Your brother by His grace,

(Signed)  John W. Krewson

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

February 18, 1959

Dear Brother Krewson:

Your letter of Jan. 22, postmarked Jan. 24, is before me, which acknowledges re­ceipt of my letter of Nov. 30, 1958, but doesn’t answer it at all; in fact, the sub­ject is not even mentioned – Namely, Brother Hoefle’s Pilgrim Appointment, given to him by the last Star Member.

When you wrote your insinuations and slanderous remarks in your Do‑You‑Knows of January 1958, didn’t you realize that some “fourth‑grader” might question you regarding them – since you said enough in your published statements to provoke some questions from the brethren? To refresh your mind, I will quote you some of these Do‑You‑Knows regarding Brother Hoefle’s Pilgrim status as listed in your January 1958 paper:

“Do you know Bro. Johnson gave us an Evangelist appointment in 1936, and thought enough of us to put it in writing with the seal of the L.H.M.M. upon it.”

(Comments: No one has ever questioned your Evangelist appointment, that we know of. But did such an Evangelist Appointment give you the right to address the General Church by discourse at Conventions, much less by the printed page?)

“Do you know it would be well to ask J. J. H. to produce in writing his appoint­ment from Bro. Johnson?”

(Comments: This was done and Brother Hoefle produced the written appointment ‘in writing’ as you seemed to desire – even offered to send a photostat copy to any who might want further proof. So it seems that Brother Johnson thought enough of Brother Hoefle to put this in writing – and much more. Why haven’t you publicly acknowledged that you now have seen the ‘written proof’ which you doubted he had received – since you yourself were the one who wanted him to produce such written proof?)

“Do you know if J.J.H. contends his appointment as a Pilgrim was a verbal one only, we should be very skeptical of such credentials for this is much akin to Catholic tradition?”

(Comments: I don’t know exactly what you think you mean by being “akin to Catholic tradition,” but you, nor any one else need be ‘skeptical’ now since he has produced the required proof to allay all ‘skepticism’ regarding it – and that from the Epiphany Messenger himself.)

“Do you know as the Scotchman might say – I have me douts he was ever appointed a Pilgrim?”

(Comments: You no longer have any need for your “douts.” But many brethren are not too much surprised at your having so many doubts about the credentials of others – ­having the power‑grasping tendencies that you do – because you yourself certainly don’t have any credentials from the Epiphany Messenger to address the General Church in any capacity. And Brother Johnson saw to it that you didn’t overstep yourself when he was here with us. Such a statement by you, as set out above, re your ‘douts,’ is most unbecoming for any true Pastor and Teacher – is puerile and vindictive – tactics which would only befit those who have became entangled with the Adversary, and can find nothing but false accusations, slanderous remarks, etc., to cast at the Lord’s faithful. When Brother Hoefle exposes the sins of leading brethren he does it with Truth and not with insinuations, innuendoes, and the like. And such misleaders as you and R. G. Jolly are only too glad to let it rest – remain silent – just as you have in regard to this Pilgrim matter that you provoked with your published ‘douts,’ since you cannot meet the Truths he presents against you.)

“Do you know it will be interesting to note how he squirms out of this dilemma?”

(Comments: Now you know how he ‘squirmed’ out of this dilemma – in the same way he squirmed out of other false accusations – by simply proving them to be utterly false. You have made no mention of it, so far as I know, as to how Brother Hoefle did ‘squirm’ out of that dilemma. Why not?)

And furthermore, when he ‘squirmed’ out of that ‘dilemma’ he proved you to be a false accuser and a slanderer, the same as have all other self‑appointed Pastors and Teachers, been manifested when the Faithful Servants of God presented the Truth against their errors of doctrine and practice.

Now in your wordy letter of Jan. 22 you tell me you can’t answer a simple ques­tion regarding the Pilgrim controversy (a controversy that you started with your own public accusations) because it seems that I am a ‘fourth‑grader’ and cannot under­stand the meaning of Yes and No. When have any true Pastors and Teachers tried to overawe a Fourth‑Grader when they asked them a simple question? Your answer is similar, except far more ridiculous, than the case Brother Russell gives us in his Question Book. See “What Pastor Russell Said,” Question 3, page 289 through middle of page 296. If you have this book I suggest you read it very carefully and prayerfully. However, in case you don’t have it I shall quote a little from the book:

P. 294, middle: And this reminds me of another gentleman. As I was going down the street near the Bible House, walking a little more rapidly than usual, I passed him. I suppose he recognized me and said, “Brother Russell, a moment.” And he caught up with me. He was a man that I had never spoken with in my life. He was a very nice‑looking gentleman, well dressed. I did not know who he was. He gave me his name, but I have forgotten it. He said, “I wanted to ask you a question about a parable.” I thought that was very queer for a man to meet you on the street and ask you that kind of a question. I said, “What parable is it, brother?” He told me – ­I have forgotten now which one it was – but it was a very simple, plain parable, and I answered the question and explained it very easily, I think, in about two minutes’ time. “Why,” he said, “that is very simple, very satisfactory,” and repeated, “very satisfactory.”

I said, “How does it come you are so agitated about so small a matter as this?” He said, “I wonder why it is my preacher cannot tell me that. I belong to Dr. Ken­nedy’s church, just opposite the Bible House – the principal Presbyterian church in Allegheny – and I have gone to him and asked him that very question.”

“Now,” he said, “you would have thought I was the most stupid man on earth, and he practically told me, ‘why, you have not sense enough to understand it if I were to explain it to you.’ He made me feel like a very small potato. I have never thought that I was a great man, but I thought I was deserving at least of reasonable treatment, that he might have tried to tell me, and then if I could not understand it, it would have been my fault. He just sat down on me instead of telling me; he did not tell me anything about it. Now, what do you suppose was the reason for that?”

I said, “Brother, I guess the reason why he did not was because he did not know how to answer it, and thought that was the best way to get out of it.”

Now, I hold some of the same sentiments of this brother who went to the nominal Preacher for an answer – I think you have deliberately tried to belittle me because you either can’t answer me, or you won’t answer for fear further comment from you might entangle you even more than you are already entangled. However, you don’t make me feel that I am the “most stupid man on earth”; rather, it is the other way around (because you see I came into Parousia Truth in 1918 and I am sufficiently grounded in the Truth not to be intimidated by such tactics) – I think you make your­self look pretty stupid when you send me such a letter as you have.

As for my secular education, I attended Wesleyan College and Columbia University – ­and my records there are above average – in fact, excellent. I tell you this to in­form you that I am able to read and write the English language – and not for the pur­pose of boasting, as none of us have whereof to boast. “Who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” And I also tell you this to let you know that I can perceive when others don’t have the ability to read and write the English language.

All God’s chosen Mouthpieces (the Star Members) have been men of unusual intellec­tual ability and talent – head and shoulders above all their contemporary brethren. And it is right and proper that they should be, because our Heavenly Father is a God of Wisdom. He gives all His faithful children the Spirit of a Sound Mind – even the Fourth‑Graders receive this Spirit, if faithful – and most assuredly His chosen Lead­ers have more of this Spirit than all ... the ledlings. So if we have any other spirit, then the lord didn’t give it to us.

We all know that the last two Star Members were recognized by all who knew then well as being men of superior intellectual ability and great talents. If either of them had pursued earthly gain they would have been noted by the world as men above others. Do you think you fit anywhere in this category? And the last Star Member – ­brilliant and faithful – did not find in you the necessary qualifications to give you even an Auxiliary Pilgrim appointment, much less a Pilgrim appointment. It would have been well had you pondered that before presenting R. G. Jolly so much error for publication. Proper motives and a proper self‑estimate would have deterred you from the course you have pursued. I well realize that R. G. Jolly may have had this hu­miliating experience coming to him, but for you to contribute to his erroneous course should be no comfort to you.

Brother Hoefle has asked whether you helped R. G. Jolly in his 1947 Pyramid calculations to prove the Last Saint would be glorified in 1956. You have made no statement regarding this. Did you help him in these calculations the same as you helped him with the calculations on the Pyramid to “prove” 1950 was the date the Last Saint was glorified?

Again referring to the quotation from Brother Russell regarding the Nominal Preacher who tried to intimidate and overawe his questioner – did you know about the dear brother who traveled many miles to ask J. F. Rutherford a question? And do you know what JFR answered? He said, “How dare you question me!?” In substance that is what you have told me in your January 22 letter; however, I am not intimi­dated by such Satanic‑inspired tactics.

Be assured if it ever becomes possible for me to help you “turn from the error of your way” – both in doctrine and in practice – I shall be happy to do so. I take no pleasure in unrighteousness of any kind. And if you ever come to the point where you can answer simple questions – especially regarding your own published statements – ­then I shall be glad to hear from you. But I do wonder just how many brethren you have written the same “fourth‑grade” broken record that you have sent to me – be­cause it has a parrot‑like ring, as though it had been rehearsed through many letters.

Sincerely yours ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

There is much more similar to the foregoing that we have in our possession; but we spare you, believing this to be sufficient and a fair and unbiased sample. May it inure to the instruction and blessing of all God’s faithful people!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle pilgrim

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

Letter of General Interest

My dear Brother Hoefle: ‑

Greetings in our dear Lord’s Name!

Thank you very much for your kind letter of April 15. I received it yesterday and also for the help you gave me....

Thank you for the papers. I just can hardly wait until they come. Well, they came yesterday after dinner and I have read them twice already – and they are wonder­ful! Not all jumbled up – they are short and sweet – right to the point. And we can surely thank and praise the Lord for giving the Truth to the faithful to enjoy and for their upbuilding in all the Graces of the Holy Spirit, and in love....

I pray for you all. You sister by His Grace ____________, Pennsyl­vania.