by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 50

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

This last May‑June Present Truth is almost completely composed of “The Progres­sive Tabernacle Picture,” which we shall now endeavor to give a “progressive” analysis. Sometime back we offered the observation that anything R. G. Jolly presents from his own reasoning would be so certain to be honeycombed with error and perversion that it will offer no problem to demonstrate from his statements that he is still in Azazel's hands, and that he will be unable to think clearly while in that condition. Whether he sometimes intentionally confuses his papers, or whether he is so tragically in­competent, we cannot know for certain – nor shall we try to determine the matter.

On page 34, col. 1, he correctly states, “Brother Russell showed the typical setting of the Tabernacle and the Camp is progressive.” (emphasis by RGJ)... Then he proceeds right on to say, without qualification: “In addition to the Gospel‑Age setting, there is a transitional, or Epiphany, setting.” Where did Brother Russell ever explain an “Epiphany” Tabernacle? Technically speaking, the Millennium began in 1874. Was there the remotest evidence of any merging of Tabernacles then – especially so, of the Millennial Tabernacle? It was for Brother Johnson to see the due Truth on this matter; Namely, that in the merging of the Gospel‑Age and Millennial‑Age Tab­ernacles there must be superimposed an Epiphany Tabernacle. And it should be recalled here once more that, while the fact that the Epiphany Tabernacle existed in 1914, the recognition of that fact did not occur to God's people for a number of years after 1914 not even to the Epiphany Messenger himself.

But, when he did become cognizant of that fact, he proceeded to define the Epi­phany Tabernacle in strict harmony with the Gospel‑Age Tabernacle, with respective classes of God's Household occupying the Most Holy, the Holy and the Court. Note now the pronounced difference in the Jolly‑Krewson twosome Tabernacle. They have a void in the Holy through their contention that the Saints on earth are no more; and they had this void there already four years before their own date of 1954 –  four years before their “progressive” picture began to “progress.” In addition, they have a “narrow way” in the Camp. This is indeed something to behold – a void in the Holy, a “narrow way” in the Court, and another “narrow Way” in the Camp, with Tentative Justification existing in the Camp outside the linen curtain; that is, outside the righteousness of Christ. It is little wonder neither Star Member ever saw such a picture! As our be­loved Brother Russell stated on occasion, “Some of the dear brethren do paint some awful pictures!” According to R. G. Jolly's letter in the Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower, he was one of those at it then; and he is still at it!

Furthermore, the Epiphany Tabernacle could not be erected until the “due time”; but, when that “due time” arrived, it was done immediately – the High Calling definitely closed, and the Youthful Worthy Class instituted. No “progression” in these matters, although the due Truth on these things was progressive all through the Epiphany. There­fore, a similar situation should exist in 1954 if the Millennial Tabernacle, with its restitution blessings, is now being constructed. It should be noted that one of the cardinal controversies right after 1916 was Tentative Justification – That Evil Ser­vant denying it completely, which forced him to deny also a Youthful Worthy Class. The Jolly‑Krewson twosome now also deny opportunity for entrance into the Youthful Worthy Class since 1954; and this forces them grossly and flagrantly to pervert Tenta­tive Justification by having it in two places – in the Court and in the Camp. And it should be kept always in mind that this is decidedly and exclusively their own brain‑child. For those instructed in the sober teachings of Brother Rus­sell and Brother Johnson, this should be more than enough; but we shall continue.

It is clear enough that the chief purpose of R. G. Jolly is to “make” a case for his Campers Consecrated in this paper under review. To do this he offers copious quo­tations from Brother Johnson, many of which speak of the Epiphany Camp “in its fin­ished picture.” Are we now in the “finished picture?” If not, then here is some more gross perversion (Azazel means Perverter). He also speaks of the Epiphany “in its re­stricted sense” ending in 1954. Brother Johnson says in E‑4‑53 (51) that the Epiphany in its “narrow sense” is the Time of Trouble, beginning in 1914 and ending with Jacob's Trouble. Now, “restricted” and “narrow” mean the same thing. Why, then does R. G. Jolly use the word “restricted” instead of the word “narrow,” as Brother Johnson does? His reason is obvious enough: If he used the word “narrow,” even the weakest of his readers would awake to the hoax he is perpetrating upon them.

Then, too, he indulges in his usual profusion of words to explain the changes occurring in the Gospel‑Age‑Epiphany transition. All he says is well known to ex­perienced Epiphany readers; and we believe many of them also understand some things about that transition that have passed right over R. G. Jolly's head. This is noth­ing new, of course, as we have often demonstrated that he reads the writings of the last two Star Members without understanding what he reads. This is evidently true of the subject now under discussion, as we shall presently prove. And some of the very quotations he offers from Brother Johnson are a direct contradiction to his contentions. For instance, on page 37, col. 1 (14) he quotes from E‑4‑99 respecting the “faithful and measurably faithful servants of the Truth.” About nine years ago, at Brother John­son's death, he wrote The Faithful (the Little Flock) right out of this interpretation; and five years ago he attempted to supplant The Faithful with himself. Most of our readers are well acquainted with the crushing defeat we gave him on that perversion; but, by his own contention, he has had a void in that picture for about nine years – ­just as he has also had a void in the Tabernacle Holy. Yet, he has the effrontery now to offer Brother Johnson's correct interpretation in desperation to prove his Campers Consecrated folly.

Then, on page 38, col. 1 (23) he quotes a part of E‑10‑209. That page clearly states, “the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” And in E‑10‑672, which he offers in the same place, there is this: “Our non‑truth Great Company and Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed, and others of them afterward.” This is cer­tainly a clear contradiction of Campers Consecrated now – because Babylon is not yet destroyed; and R. G. Jolly passes it by in silence. We emphasize here that neither Star Member ever so much as hinted that any one would receive Tentative Justification in the Epiphany Camp. This is an Azazelian invention of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome – ­exclusive to them. Another direct contradiction of this situation is to be found in E‑11‑473, top:

“Jesus' pertinent work as Executive for the antitypical Tabernacle ... will continue with the Little Flock, Great Company and Youthful Worthies until they respectively finish their courses, but will cease with the faith‑Justified when their faith‑Justification lapses, which seemingly will occur in every instance by Oct., 1954, according to Rev. 22:11.”

The foregoing is in keeping with Brother Johnson's teaching that all lose their Tentative Justification when they are forced out of the Court. Note well that in the above reference Brother Johnson still speaks of these people as “faith‑justified” even after Jesus is no longer Executor toward them, and after their _faith‑justification lapses,’ which change occurs when they are forced from the Court into the Camp “in the finished picture.” It is also clear from this statement that Jesus' Executorship does not at any time extend beyond the Court in the Epiphany – which means the Campers Consecrated are supervising themselves; and they will receive the reward that is sure to come from such a course. R. G. Jolly himself is truthfully contending we are still in the Epiphany, in harmony with Brother Johnson's teachings; but his own teachings demonstrate he's quite out of harmony with the other half of Brother Johnson's teach­ings, to wit: The Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age. If we are still in the Epiphany, then we are also still in the Gospel Age; therefore, any con­secrations accepted now must be for Gospel‑Age purposes. Here's just another instance of error's disrupting influence in an orderly Truth structure.

We remind our readers here that advancing Truth must be consistent with Truth al­ready understood; and there is always a consistency, a clear relationship, to the past. After 1916, as the Great Company were ejected from the Holy, they certainly lost some­thing. R. G. Jolly should need no reminder of this after his 1938 experience. Follow­ing the same consistency, we should properly conclude that those ejected from the Court would also lose something; and with this Brother Johnson is in agreement – he says they lose their Tentative Justification with their ejection. R. G. Jolly also offers the semi‑moronic observation that, as the Great Company members were ejected from the Holy, the furniture in the Holy was not moved into the Court with them. No. it wasn't; neither were the Saints moved into the Court with them; but all the furniture was al­ready in the Court that was necessary for them and the Youthful Worthies. The altar of sacrifice was there; the laver was there; and this is all the furniture they needed. Let him show any similar equipment in the Camp for those ejected from the Court.

Furthermore, God separates the Great Company from the golden altar because they refuse to use it; that's why they lost their crowns in the first place. He separates them from the golden lampstand for much the same reason. “Because they admitted not the love of the Truth .... God will send them an energy of delusion.” (2 Thes. 2:10, 11 ­Dia.) He separates them from the shewbread, because that shewbread represents the Sarah features of the Abrahamic promise; and that part of that promise no longer per­tains to them. And in the face of all this, R. G. Jolly offer his readers the “bril­liant” deduction that when God designedly wills to separate the Great Company from the furniture in the Holy He does not move that furniture out with them when He moves them out. How ridiculous can he be? Here again, the matter of consistency should prevail; but we need not look for consistency from those befuddled by Azazel. As Brother John­son has so well stated, “They cannot think clearly while in that condition”; rather, they talk all sorts of nonsense; and R. G. Jolly is a classic corroboration of this sage observation. The furniture in the Holy was only for the typical priests, as it is also only for those counted as antitypical priests; and God purposely separates the Great Company from that furniture as their delivery to Azazel begins in order to give them Fit‑Man experiences. God forces their separation from the furniture in the Holy because of their revolutionism, as R. G. Jolly himself knows only too well – although it seems he's doing his best to have his readers forget it.

On page 39, col. 2 (28) R. G. Jolly says “consecration is always in order.” Yes, breathing is always in order, too –  if one has enough life to be able to breathe. Was it in order for Cornelius to consecrate before the 70th week expired? If so, to what did he consecrate, and was his consecration accepted? During the Gospel Age all consecrators presented themselves as “living sacrifices unto God”; and to such as were spirit‑begotten He then became their Father. In the case of the Youthful Worthies God becomes their Father anticipatorily. Can this same thing be correct of Campers Conse­crated? Will not all restitutionists, including all the quasi‑elect, be the children of the Christ? The Mediator is not yet mediating; the World's High Priest has not yet donned the robes of glory and beauty; no restitution blessings of any kind are yet being accomplished; the marriage supper is still future; therefore, there cannot pos­sibly be any legitimate children of the Kingdom. Who, then, is now receiving the consecration of these Campers Consecrated, who will in the final analysis be only Kingdom children of the Christ? In E‑10‑114 Brother Johnson says:

“Certainly, when we came to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel‑Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent, for the tentatively justified and sinners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition.”

As we said aforegoing, R. G. Jolly reads the writings of the Star Members, but is so befuddled by Azazel he doesn't understand what he has read after he reads them. He doesn't seem to understand that Brother Johnson meant they could not (the sinners) receive tentative justification, and that the faith‑justified (those lapsed ones) could arise no higher (in their respective standings –  class) after that time. In E‑8‑384 Brother Johnson says, “Justification by faith makes one no more than a nomi­nal Christian.” And in E‑17‑330 he says the quasi‑elect are “those Jews and Gentiles who accepted Jesus as Savior, but failed to consecrate, yet remained faithful to the Ransom and righteousness.” In other words, those at the end of this Age are in the same condition of those who died who were faithful to their tentative justification. How much clearer could Brother Johnson's statement be? Again we repeat, the Campers Consecrated is exclusively a concoction of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome; neither Star Member ever taught it, nor did either of them ever teach that any one could receive Tentative Justification in the Epiphany Camp. In E‑8‑318 Brother Johnson writes, “Justification suggests a court scene and is used in a judicial sense, and there­fore means to declare or reckon right, not to make right.” Therefore, it becomes clear that when one loses his Tentative Justification merely because of technical ejection from the Epiphany Court because of time features, the inherent integrity of such a person changes not in the least – he is intrinsically the same person as he was the day before (the same as those who died faithful to their tentative justification in the Gospel‑Age – their character would be the same, but they had lost the oppor­tunity for becoming one of the elect). But he has lost something identical in nature to a man losing his coat; the loss of the coat changes the inherent man not in the least, even though he has lost a valuable possession. So also with those ejected from the Epiphany Court “in the finished picture” – they lose that Grace of God that had been reckoned justification to them for purposes of consecration during the Gospel ­Age; but they would still be loyal justified people – although no longer of the Household of Faith. (see E‑4‑406) As Brother Johnson says of such, they still hold to Jesus as their Savior and still adhere to righteousness. There have been millions of such people all during the Gospel Age – people who “received the Grace of God in vain” for elective purposes – and Brother Johnson truly and Scripturally states in PT 1927, P. 113, that Tentative Justification ceases to operate after the Gospel Age ceases to operate; but at no time did he ever hint that any one could acquire Tentative Justi­fication in the Epiphany Camp.

On p. 41, col. 1 (34) R. G. Jolly offers a gross perversion of Brother Johnson's teachings on this matter as he quotes, “tentative justification operates from Abel's day until restitution begins.” Then he proceeds to contend that Brother Johnson said it would “continue to be given... for Epiphany Camp purposes.” But Brother Johnson makes no such statement; it is purely R. G. Jolly's perversion. As we stated in a previous paper, Brother Johnson gave us good Scriptural proof that at least one now having Tenta­tive Justification would continue living until Restitution begins. That will make it operative until Restitution; but there's just nothing in that statement that tells us others will continue to receive Tentative Justification right up to the beginning of Restitution. And be it noted that such persons (who will continue to live up to Resti­tution) now has his standing in the Court, and will continue to have it there until the Epiphany Tabernacle does merge into the Millennial Tabernacle.

Following on, in (36) there is presented a quotation from Brother Russell in the Question Book, where he stated, “the world might then be said to be tentatively justified (in the Millennium).” Here R. G. Jolly is certainly handling That Servant's state­ment deceitfully – just as Brother Johnson accused That Evil Servant of doing. When Brother Russell says they will gradually acquire actual Justification by a more or less slow process, he meant that any time they had made any progress whatever, they could be said to hold the prospect of actual justification if they continue on the Highway of Holiness to a completion. Thus, Brother Russell meant they would have prospective – or anticipatory – actual justification so long as they hold on to even part of it. But, ignoring our charge for the present, let us consider what R. G. Jolly has done here: In his paragraph (34) he has one Star Member saying Tentative Justifi­cation ends when the Gospel Age ends (“until Restitution begins”); then in (36) he has another Star Member saying Tentative Justification ends when the Millennial Age ends. And he leaves his readers to untangle this jumble as best they may! As Brother John­son has so correctly written, “Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company”; and here indeed is bungling of a revolting and irresponsible sort. As we showed from PT 1927 above, Brother Johnson says Tentative Justification ceases to oper­ate when the Gospel Age ceases to operate; but R. G. Jolly would now have Brother Russell giving a direct contradiction of that statement, and leaving his readers to decide for themselves which of the Messengers they wish to believe. BEHOLD, the Pastor and “Teacher”!

Had R. G. Jolly been able to think clearly, he would not have offered such a per­verted twist to Brother Russell's statement; he would have realized that Brother Johnson must have had good and sound reason for teaching that Tentative Justification ceases when the Gospel Age ceases. The primary question to be asked here is: Why is Tentative Justification? We answer: God cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance; and, since “there is none righteous, no, not one,” therefore, He tenta­tively reckons the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner that he may “present a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Rom. 12:1). For what reason is this done? It is done so that certain features of the Atonement may be perfected – to make way for the blessing features of that Atonement. Thus, “God may be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Rom. 3:26) But God never follows the foolish or ne­farious ways of Azazel. Only those in Azazel's hands do that! Since the sacrificial features of the Atonement will have been fully realized by the close of the Gospel Age, and the time forever past for “living sacrifices” to be presented to God, no more sac­rificing will be necessary or “acceptable” once the Gospel Age ends. Thus, there would be no point whatever in having Tentative Justification in the Millennium – no purpose accomplished in having it. It would be clear foolishness, to which God is never a party. God will not then be “inviting” any to serve Him; He will be demanding obedi­ent cooperation in that day. Of course, we should not expect R. G. Jolly to see this, because he is in Azazel's hands, and he won't ever be able to think clearly while in that condition.

There is also some mention of that 1954‑56 Attestatorial Service in a weak at­tempt to bolster the case for his Campers Consecrated; but the part that completely annihilates his entire position and makes a spiritual bedlam of this whole Present Truth now being reviewed, R. G. Jolly is ready enough to “overlook.” We refer again to his citation on page 114, Vol. 10, where Brother Johnson says this:

“1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956; after l954 no more Youthful Worthies will be won; and after 1954 no more persons will enter the tentatively‑justified state.”

If R. G. Jolly wants to make capital of a part of this page 114, let him accept all of it! If he does try to accept all of it, it will prove his Attestatorial Service a failure, and will completely close his mouth about new ones receiving Tentative Justification after 1954. It should be kept clearly in mind that Brother Johnson's statement above was based entirely upon the parallel, because it was at Passover 1916 that the last Little Flock member was won for Present Truth. Can R. G. Jolly point to a similar accomplishment for 1956 with the Great Company? Here he tosses aside the self‑evident indisputable truth – as he also does for page 672 of Vol. 10 – and swal­lows the self‑evident mistake in toto. But, then, what else should we expect from one in Azazel's hands! It would seem quite timely here to quote some more from Brother Johnson (E‑6‑149): “Nor must another thing escape our memories: When Pastor Russell wrote the article in 1884, from which the Tower quotes, he believed that both the Harvest and the Time of Trouble would end by Oct.,1914.” So we say now concerning this page 114: When Brother Johnson wrote it, he was fully convinced from the parallels – that by 1956 the world would be in the throes of Anarchy; but time itself has definitely demonstrated that the parallel was not there, the mistaken parallel that R. G. Jolly now grasps to build his Campers Consecrated house. But, as is true of the Great Company as a Class, he also is building his house upon “sinking sand,” and great will be the fall of it. (See Vol. E‑5‑473‑542)

In closing this paper, however, we wish to voice our hearty accord with R. G. Jolly on one thing: He is advising his readers to study this May‑June Present Truth. Enthusiastically so we advise them to do the same thing! If they do so, then those with a “good and honest heart” will be saved from the fate of R. G. Jolly and his er­rors. We suggest they put this paper and his Present Truth side by side in honesty of purpose; then they will see where lies the “spirit of understanding.” Will R. G. Jolly dare to give his readers this same advice? And may the God of all Grace stab­lish, strengthen and settle you in every good word and work!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim


Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Greetings in the name of our Blessed Savior!

I noted with much interest Brother Armstrong's letter published in the May‑June 1959 PT, p. 47; and I'm happy that he is in full agreement with your refutation of J. W. Krewson's contention that “error must be defended –  Truth can stand for itself.” So far as I know you are the only one who has ably refuted his error. However, Bro. Armstrong would have done much better had he identified the “errorist” and acknow­ledged your faithful “defense of the Truth” in his letter. Nevertheless, we are hap­py to note that Bro. Armstrong has publicly taken his stand with your position in the matter – and to note that other British brethren are in full agreement with you, too.

We often wonder if the brethren carefully read what R. G. Jolly and J.W. Krewson present to them? They often “refute”, dispute and contradict themselves. R. G. Jolly has done this repeatedly with his Epiphany Campers consecrated; and a notable case from J. W. Krewson's writings is his statement mentioned above. He first published this er­ror in his No. 23 (1958) Do‑You‑Knows –  and repeated the error in his No. 25 (1959) Do­-You‑Knows. He would do well to refrain from publishing Do‑You‑Knows when he doesn't know himself. But in his No. 26 (1959) he clearly disputes himself by telling the brethren, “Our efforts has been for the confirmation and defense of God's word, the Truth – ­John 17:17”. Those who have carefully read his writings know that his main “defense” has been for his own errors (especially his contention that he is “Pastor and Teacher”).

May the Lord continue to bless you as you seek to “defend the Truth,” and as you seek to be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren.

By His Grace, ---------


No. 50-A

 “The Church's Glorification” – Reviewed

In this June‑July paper No. 27 J. W. Krewson offers some 22 pages of detailed comment on this subject – the same being as much of nothing as we have ever seen exhibited on 22 printed pages. The ease with which he eliminates one direct and impelling Scripture after another that voids his contention defies even the Papacy's wiliest trickery to “make” argument to suit their convenience. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established,” saith the Holy Writ; and the Par­ousia and Epiphany Messengers adhered strictly to this inspired instruction. But not so J. W. Krewson! In fact, by sound analysis he has no “witnesses” at all for his contention that the last Saint left the earth in 1950 – his sole reliance being the current event, the death of a man. And, when he says there is no Scripture to deter­mine the first resurrection’ in 1878, he is simply offering another of his falsehoods. The chronology and the parallel dispensations both pin‑point that date, thus offering testimony at the “mouth of two witnesses.” That is the only way Brother Russell was able to find that date.

And this same logic will be found to support every important event recorded in the Bible, such events being confirmed by two or more “witnesses” – the “witnesses” being the chronology, the signs of the times, the parallel dispensations, or direct Scripture passages. But for 1950 there is no support whatever in chronology, in the parallel dispensations, in the signs of the times, or direct Scripture passages. Primarily, the Bible itself should direct us to the date or the event, with corrobor­ation to be found in the signs of the times; but J. W. Krewson takes it the other way round and attempts to establish the Bible by the signs of the times. The same argu­ment applies to the Great Pyramid of Egypt: It is a “witness” to the Bible, which automatically gives it an inferior rating to the Bible itself. Even so, aside from his own interpretation of the Great Pyramid, J. W. Krewson now offers his readers only a current event (the death of Brother Johnson) as proof conclusive that the Saints on earth are no more since 1950. His various Scripture interpretations are exclusive­ly his own – and he often offers one of his interpretations to substantiate another of his interpreta­tions, just as does B. G. Jolly in his Writings.

As we have previously stated, many of the Saints in Little Babylon had no other ministry from a Star Member during the entire Epiphany period than what they received up to the time of Brother Russell's death. Many of them actually considered Brother Johnson in the Second Death. Therefore, from their standpoint it was a matter of fact that they had no direct ministry from a Star Member during all that time. And, while J. W. Krewson offers so many statements from Brother Johnson in his 22 pages, why is he so meticulously silent on another very important statement by Brother Johnson, which he repeated over and over – right up to the tine of his death; Namely, that he realized there were more Saints outside the Epiphany Movement than there were in it, the Little Papacy itself having more than any other group? Why does J. W. Krew­son now give his oft‑repeated statement the silent treatment? There can be only one answer: It would make nondescript foolishness of his entire 22 pages of “sleight‑offhand.” We ourselves know of some Brother Johnson expected to come into the Epiphany Truth by 1956.

And, when on page 2, par. 1. he offers the “little stewardship Truth of the Good levites,” he is again resorting to a method that is distinctly and exclusively Krewson. Every one of the Stewardship Doctrines of the entire Gospel Age was first presented by the specific Star Member himself – and thoroughly established by him during his earthly ministry. It was the Levites who perverted that doctrine in every instance; but J. W. Krewson now has the Levites offering and developing a stewardship Truth after the Star Member left this earth – a thing new and peculiar in Gospel‑Age annals. As we have previously stated; those Stewardship Doctrines sparked and inaugurated the ministry of every Star Member who espoused them, and they continued to defend and elaborate upon them throughout their entire Star Member ministry. In our paper of October 1, 1957, page 4, we offered Brother Johnson's Stewardship Doctrine:

The Epiphany in its Relation to the Epiphany‑Elect –

and we offer the prediction now that time will demonstrate the truth of our contention, as it will also demonstrate the error of J. W. Krewson's belief. Certainly, the Epi­phany was uppermost in everything Brother Johnson taught. He even styled himself the “Epiphany” Messenger; and his teachings in connection with it had a most wholesome and cleansing influence upon all who accepted them. But just the reverse has been the case with those who have accepted J. W. Krewson's position. We need only accept his own contention, and what we ourselves have observed since 1950. The teaching J. W. Krewson now offers has the LHMM as a group in much worse condition than they were in 1950; it has made sadly manifest their uncleansed condition as a group – a condition that has been growing steadily worse since 1950. If theirs is a sample of the “cleans­ing” we may expect in the other Groups when they finally come to accept J. W. Krewson's interpretation, then we may look forward to a sorry spectacle indeed when all 60 groups are to be found in like condition.

Nor does his contention that this teaching will cleanse them fit in so well with Rev. 7:14, 17, which tells us they will receive their cleansing through “great tribulation” and that “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” Just the re­verse of this has been the case since they have been preaching their “little steward­ship truth.” In fact, at the first Philadelphia Convention after Brother Johnson's death, one of the Pilgrims, who had been regarded as a Saint before 1950, said from the platform it was the “best Convention he had ever attended”; he was rejoicing greatly, it seems, that a Star Member was no longer with us to supervise and bless the Convention. We wonder if the Apostles expressed themselves in like manner after Jesus' ascension. And the same could be said of others, too, in similar position. But it should be stressed now that their acceptance of the error on the last Saint in 1950 is the direct cause of so many other errors they were forced to accept – ­such as John's Beheading, Campers Consecrated, etc. And we offer the appeal to them now that they return to “The Epiphany in its relation to the Epiphany Elect,” as they will find this to have a greater cleansing influence upon them before Armaged­don than anything else could possibly do – just as it kept them all from “rebelling against the words of God” before 1950.

Another piece of nonsense supreme is to be found in par. 2 of page 2, where it is contended that any one questioning Brother Johnson's opinion that he would be the last Saint prior to 1950 would have “manifested one as a levites.” The only way such ques­tioning would have manifested any one as a Levite would be if such person inaugurated a sifting movement over his question. Otherwise, Brother Johnson, as well as Brother Russell, always invited guestions on the things they taught – as all experienced Epiphany brethren surely know of their own knowledge!

Furthermore, he attempts to void Psalms 46, 1 Thes. 4:17, Zech. 8:10, Gen. 3:15, etc., on the flimsy pretext that “what one does through another he does himself.” R. G. Jolly has been placing himself in the position of the Saints on all these Scriptures, too; so we should not be surprised to see the “cousins” once more in agreement on their errors, as we have so often remarked. But the “Pastor & Teacher” now outdoes even his “cousin” (R. G. Jolly) by hinting on Page 7, par. 4, that he and his supporters will also fulfill the large Gospel‑Age Samson picture. This is akin to the split in the early church, when the Roman branch styled their head the “Pope,” the same meaning “Papa”; so the Greek Catholic Church immediately went them one bet­ter, naming their head the “Patriarch,” which means “Great Papa.”

It should be kept ever in mind that this “Pastor & Teacher” flits from one posi­tion to another – just as does his “cousin.” When one position becomes a little too warm, he just forgets about it – in his writings, that is. We gave him a crushing defeat on our Pilgrim status and Brother Johnson's own teaching that he was author­ized to appoint pilgrims for Epiphany purposes; and this he now passes by in silence –­not even a “Do‑You‑Know” hint about it. It seems clear enough that he is now using his No. 27 paper as a “red herring” to have his readers forget about it, too. But, in his contention that he is now the Epiphany Joshua, let him show where the typical Joshua ever suffered such a defeat – or, in fact, any defeat whatever. Also, let him answer “Yes” or “No” whether he assisted R. G. Jolly in those Pyramid computations in 1547, and that system of pseudo‑mathematics that was foisted upon the Lord's people at that time. With the “cousins” being among the very loudest supporters of the 1956 date, he is now crass enough to ask others why they did not question his contentions before the year 1956 unanswerably proved them wrong – the year 1956 itself being the only certain way known to us that would indisputably stamp those 27 computations the fraud they turned out to be.

Companion to the above‑mentioned fraud is “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels” – ­a “strong delusion” which J W. Krewson fed to R. G. Jolly right after Brother Johnson's death. Would J. W. Krewson still contend that those writings were the Truth, as they should have been had they come from the “Pastor & Teacher”? And is he now willing to assume the position of those gainsayers who withstood Brother Russell during the last six years of his life, as he has been doing against R. G. Jolly? It would be most interesting to have his explanation of this beclouded and questionable situation; but we can be reasonably certain he will pass this by in silence, too.

In like vein, he asks how those who claim to be Saints know they are spirit-begotten. St. John gives a clear answer to this question: “You have an anointing from the Holy One; you all know it.” – John 2:20, Dia. And here are Brother Russell's Berean Comments on this verse: “Have this evidence that you are members of the Body of Christ.” The word “anointing” in this text is from the Greek “charisma,” which has the same Greek root as the English “Christ,” the meaning of which is “anointed” – the name Jesus Christ meaning “anointed Savior.” Coining an explanation here, we might say, “You have a Christing’ (induction into the Body of Christ) from the Holy One; you all know it.” And the fact that they do have this christing’ is evidence enough to them that they do have it. Had J. W. Krewson known half as much as he now claims to know, he would then know better than to ask such a stupid question; but his ques­tion here is akin to R. G. Jolly's brilliant’ deduction that God does not move the furniture out of the Holy with the Great Company when He moves them out of the Holy. Whatever may be the limitations of these two “cousins,” there seems to be no limit to their nonsense – although both of them are brazen enough to repeat, repeat, repeat that “JJH is blind.” It should be noted that this word “charisma” occurs only three times in the New Testament, the other two times being in verse 27 of this same chapter; “The anointing (charisma) which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you (that you have it); but the same anointing (Charisma) teaches you concerning all things.” In spite of this plain Scripture and Brother Rus­sell's interpretation of it, J. W. Krewson yet wants further confirmation of the sub­ject!

Similarly, he contends that error should always be replaced with the Truth; those who now contend that Brother Johnson was not the last Saint should be able to name who the last Saint will be. This again is just some more nonsense. Prior to 1925 the So­ciety was announcing the return of the Ancient Worthies and the establishment of the Mediatorial reign. Brother Johnson ridiculed the teaching; but he did not give the truth on it because he did not know the truth, anymore than we know now the year the Ancient Worthies will return. The same was true of their contention that antitypical John had been beheaded in 1918. He laughed at that, but did not offer the correct interpretation because he did not have it. The same was true of their interpreta­tion of Revelation, and the PBI interpretation of the same book: Brother Johnson denied they had the right interpretation, but said he would offer the correct one when the “due time” arrived for it to be understood. Also, there is the Papal contention that the Millennium began in 799. The Saints for hundreds of year knew it was the “counter­feit” reign, but they could not give the right date until the “due time.” Then, let us consider 2 Tim. 2:18, where St. Paul says some were “saying that the resurrection is past already.” St. Paul also simply laughed at the idea, but did not give the date for the First Resurrection because he did not then know it. He adopted the same attitude toward some in Corinth (1 Cor. 4:8), who thought they were then reigning with Christ. St. Paul's only answer to this was: “I would to God you did reign, that we also might reign with you.” Here we have two answers from an inspired Apostle, which merely deny the error without attempting to produce the right answer in point of time – ­nor does he give us this correct answer anywhere else in his writings. Therefore, to present such an imbecilic question in this instance, the “Pastor & Teacher” once more gives evidence of his pathetic limitations. Once more we repeat a teaching which Brother Johnson stressed so often: Where a trial of faith or character is involved, the Lord's people may be certain they will not understand the details of any prophecy or type until the trial has been met, or for sometime after it has been met.

In this connection, Brother Russell was for a considerable period convinced that he and all the Little Flock would be glorified by 1914. When asked if he would con­sider himself one of the Great Company were he to remain on earth after 1914, he quick­ly said, No, of course not! He not only know he would be “faithful” from Matt. 24:45, but he knew also that he did have – and would continue to have – that “charisma” which would assure him he was still in the Body. The same would also have applied to Bro. Johnson had he lived beyond 1956, instead of dying six years before that date. If the Lord wants us to know the name of the last Saint, we shall know it “in due time”; but in 1950 we were not dogmatically determined of the truth of this matter either way. That is why we resolutely declined to heap abuse upon or harass any who then refused to relinquish their High‑Calling Hope. We felt the Lord would make the matter plain “in due time” – and He has made it plain to us and to many others.

Throughout this 22 pages of No. 27 J. W. Krewson repeatedly takes refuge in his favor­ite retreat: “What one does through another he does himself.” On pages 2‑4 of our No. 36 we gave a clear and exhaustive analysis of this point, to which we refer our readers. That paper has never been answered by either of the “cousins,” and we shall now offer some additional thoughts about it. Brother Johnson clearly and unmistakably said he had authority to appoint Pilgrims for Epiphany purposes, and he gave JJH a pilgrim appointment based upon that authority. J. W. Krewson now contends he had no such authority. Therefore, the question: Is Brother Johnson now announcing “through another” (JWK) that he was wrong in his interpretation of Ezra 7:25? And again, Bro. Johnson fully agreed with Brother Russell that the Epiphany and Apokalypse were one and the same in period, that they accomplished the same things during that time. So. the question: Is Brother Johnson now discrediting Brother Russell “through another” and telling us he taught us error through the same mediumistic manipulation? Also, in E‑4‑7‑72, Brother Johnson proved to all receptive minds that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble were one and the same “in the narrow sense,” thus concluding the Epiphany would be the last special period of the Gospel Age. Is he now telling us “through another” that his profuse and emphatic Scripture interpretation in E‑4 was just so much error, which we must now undo through “the one the Lord is now using to bring forth the advanc­ing Truth?” And, when he told us some Youthful Worthies would be won “after Armageddon,” is this something he is also now telling us “through another” that it was just so much error when he taught it to us personally?

And one other important point: In J. W. Krewson's claims that he finished the work of the Epiphany Messenger up to 1956, what became of antitypical Gideon's Sec­ond Battle? In view of his phobia to ask inane question, perhaps we border on the ridiculous ourselves to expect a sensible answer from him on any question we may pro­pound; but we shall assume the risk. Does he contend that Battle was finished with Brother Johnson's death (just as he is claiming about the Saints), or is he carrying on that Battle in secret – just as he did with his “first Apokalypsis Convention?” He has never once stressed this Battle in any of his papers – if indeed he has mentioned it at all. Why not – if he is completing the work of the Epiphany Messenger?

Sincerely your brother

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim


Letters of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace!

Your many letters have been greatly appreciated and helpful, though I had no time to answer them .... Without the help of the Lord I would never have been able to keep going, and I am so thankful to Him!

I was so glad to get the July paper. When we read the P.T. article we felt sure you would answer it and we were just waiting for it to arrive. Your article is very fine. For those who have studied Tabernacle Shadows, the article by R. G. Jolly should not have been too deceiving (though I do think it was more smoothly and cun­ningly written than most of his), but for the new ones in the Truth, particularly his Consecrated Epiphany Campers, I think it would seem very convincing.

I liked your Joshua paper very much. Of course, I like all of them and find them all most helpful. They have the clear logic and ring of truth to them, and do not conflict with what we have learned from Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. May the Lord continue to guide you is my daily prayer, so your words may be enlight­ening and helpful to all.

Aside from what you have written, it is my opinion your spirit has shown that you are guided by the Lord. You are the only one since Brother Johnson's death who has not been power‑grasping – seeking a following – and showing other attri­butes of character not in keeping with a pure heart! I thank the Lord for the blessing of knowing you. We both send you both our warm Christian love. Sister ---------, Oregon


Dear Brother and Sister Hoefle: ‑

Loving greetings in our Lord's Precious Name! So glad to get your mice letters.....All the way... I've had the blessed privilege of defending the Truth against the power‑grasping “birds” that took control after Brother Russell's demise, and now since dear Brother Johnson left us. And the pattern is the same – Force, is the word! We are sifters and trouble makers if we refuse to recognize their claims to power – ­and how very important they are to the Lord's will for His people! You are, of course, the main targets now, and you can expect plenty more of it; but the Lord will be with you and will sustain you through it all.

We think of you both every day and pray for you and all those who cooperate with you in defense of the Truth, for I know that you are able defenders of the Truth as we learned it from the Lord's special Stars to the Church. And He will not forsake you, but will supply all your needs!.........

With warm Christian love to you and all there –

Sister ---------, Georgia