by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 41

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

In this September‑October Present Truth, page 69, col. 2, there is quite some elaboration on “this glorious witnessing work” – with another slur at the “sift­ing leaders”, although he does not mention our name. Answering for JJH and his house, we cling to the teachings of both Star Members that there are three features to our work: First and most important, to perfect ourselves in every good word and work. Second, and next important, to assist others in doing the same thing. Third, and last, to witness to the world “of sin of righteousness, and of judgment to came.” We call attention to the Manna Comment for February 5: “We find that the great work which God asks of us is not work for others, but work in ourselves.”

And another quotation from E‑6‑352: “This teaching of a supposed opposition between character development and covenant keeping, which is treated by J.F.R. as though it meant only serving the Truth, witness­ing, is doubtless the basis of his ex­treme emphasis on service and his comparative neglect an the other six features of covenant keeping: (1) deadness to self and the world, (2) study of the Word, (3) watchful­ness and (4) prayer according to the word, (5) practicing the word and (6) suffering for loyalty to all six previous parts of our covenant keeping. This extreme emphasis injures many. We certainly believe in service. It is surely one of the seven features of our covenant obligations; but to stress it one‑sidedly and extremely to the comparative neglect of the other six features of our covenant obligations results in a one‑sided and consequently narrow and insufficient devel­opment. A well-rounded development, embracing all features of our covenant obli­gations, is needed If we would be conformed unto the image of God's son.”

The foregoing is clear enough, and fully expresses our own stand; we are in full accord with the quotations above. R. G. Jolly complains that the “sifters” have retarded his witnessing effort; but he has no one to blame but himself if the more alert ones are becoming discouraged with him and his “great works.” Time itself has proven the folly of his Flying Saucer tract – just as time has demonstrated the failure of his $5 Correspondence Course. What with Sputniks and other devices of dazzling speed, any one would now appear quite ludicrous to offer a Flying Saucer tract in explanation; and some of his erstwhile supporters have the sagacity to realize that. The same goes for his DYK, which not a few now clearly realize to be error since reading our devastating refutations of views on the Last Saint, etc. Had he followed with the Epiphany work as arranged by the Epiphany Messenger (instead of “contemning the counsel of the Most High”– Psa. 107:11), he would certainly have had no opposition from this writer; and we doubt he would have had any from any one else associated with the LHMM. The “timeworn and thread­bare” tracts used by The Epiphany Messenger in Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle are still the most “up‑to‑date” Truths for witnessing work, to those in darkness concerning them. There is a special reason why R. G. Jolly has had so little to say about Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, on which we will have more to say in a future writing. But for now we felt it expedient to express our “in harmony” with That Wise and Faithful Servant, as well as with the Epiphany Messenger, on their fundamental teaching regarding “service.”


Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – What is meant by the text, “Let us go unto him, without the camp, bear­ing the reproach with him”?

ANSWER: – To go to Him “without the camp” would mean to do His will at all costs whether with the approval of the Nominal People of God or not. And to do His will we are not likely to receive the approval of the sects and sectarians of our day anymore than our Lord received the approval of the Jewish System of His day. Brother Russell says:

“For our lord in his day to have gone outside the camp would have been to go outside the nominal church system of his time and to do the will of the Father irrespective of their support; and for us now to follow him thus outside the camp would be to go outside of present environments, viz., outside of Christendom, in the sense of ignoring the views and teachings, the approval, the snares, of Christendom.”

And so it was after the death of That Wise and Faithful Servant, those who went to Him “without the camp” (without the approval of the “Channel”) did in­deed bear the “reproaches with Him.” And so it is today, if we “continue in His word” we will be His disciples indeed; but if we compromise the Truth for the present advantages and approval of the Nominal People in order that we might “sacrifice” (“services”), we cannot “go unto him, without the camp, bearing the reproach with him.” King Saul thought, too, he would compromise in order to “sacrifice” (serve contrary to the,Lord's arrangements). “For I bear them rec­ord that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom. 10:2) And our Lord says of them –  “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”


QUESTION: – In Lev. 9:24 we are told “there came out a fire from before the Lord.. and consumed the burnt offering”; and in Lev. 8:32 Aaron and his sons are commanded to “burn with fire” what was left of the offering. The Berean Comments on 9:24 say this fire showed God's acceptance of the sacrifice; and the Comments on 8:32 say it shows “we are completely and entirely consumed.” Inas­much as fire in the Bible usage usually types destructive influences, will you please harmonize this with the Comments on these verses?

ANSWER: – It is quite true that fire usually does typify destruction in the anti­types, and we believe it is true in these two instances also – there being a twofold significance here. We are in full agreement with Brother Rus­sell's conclusions; but we think there is a pointed antitypical significance of a destruction character, too.

The Sin‑Offering was tentatively and individually complete in September 1914; and the destructive influence that began then most remarkably demonstrated God's ac­ceptance of that Sin‑Offering. This destructive force is still at work, and will culminate with Jacob's Trouble, at which time The Christ will be revealed in the “fire of that day.” We think we have here a strong corroboration of our belief that the High Calling closed in September 1914 by the very fact that destructive forces be­gan right on time to demonstrate God's acceptance of the Gospel Age offering for sin. This is confirmed in 1 Cor. 3:13 – “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.” Certainly, it was the “fire” of the Epiphany day that manifested God's acceptance of the offering of the Fully Faithful, while at the same time manifesting persons, principles and things among all classes of Society. We think this explanation harmonizes fully with Bro. Russell's conclusions as given in Tabernacle Shadows on this matter. God manifested His acceptance of the type by fire; God manifested acceptance of the antitype by anti­typical fire. Brother Russell could not see the antitype in its fullness, because he never realized that before his death the Sin Offering was tentatively and individu­ally complete in 1914.


QUESTION: – Do we understand you to teach that all Justified Believers, including the Tentatively Justified, are typified by the Levites?

ANSWER: – Yes, that is the way we understand the types. All those in the Court condition are counted as Levites until their faith‑justifi­cation lapses and they are forced out of the Court at the end of the Epiphany. Brother Johnson clarifies this when he tells us in the Epiphany the Great Company are also counted in with the Levites. But that doesn't mean there are no others counted in the levitical picture during the Epiphany. Certainly, the Youthful Worthies are among the Levites, and the unconsecrated Tentatively Justified are also counted in with the Household of Faith so long as they are in the Court condition – because the Court still contains the levites. Brother Russell in Tabernacle Shadows makes this very clear: “As we now pass to the consideration of the inauguration of the typical priest­hood, we notice that the tribe of the Levites (typical of all the justified believers) existed before the priesthood was instituted. So in the antitype the “Royal Priesthood” began with the anointing of Jesus, the High Priest (at bap­tism, Luke 3:22; Acts 10:38); but be­lievers, justified by faith in Christ, had lived long before that. For instance, Abraham believed God, and was justified by his faith (Rom. 2:2,3). Though even the type had not yet come in his day, Abraham, as a justified believer, was a member of the 'household of faith’, typified by the Levites.” (p. 27)

We should note from the above that those who came before the selection of the Church were typified by the Levites – i. e., if they were counted in the Household of Faith; and so it is since the Church has been completed – those who come to the Lord must came through the GATE: they must be in the Court Condition and counted as Levites if they are of the Household of Faith.

R. G. Jolly contends that the “Household of Faith” has now extended to his Epi­phany Camp, but Brother Johnson nowhere teaches such an oddity. There is only ONE Household of Faith, and that one is pictured forth by the Levites who are in the Court. The quasi‑elect are not pictured in are not of the Household of Faith in the final analysis. In the final adjustment they are remanded to the Camp for Millennial‑Age purposes.

At this last Philadelphia Convention, R. G. Jolly said if they didn't have the understanding regarding his Epiphany Campers, that the lord's people would still be bringing the “tentatively justified” into the Court Condition. But the Court is the only place that types the condition of the Tentatively Justified. If R. G. Jolly has opened up another way, the lord does not recognize it – anymore than He recognized the “sacrifices of King Saul” when done in disobedience to His commands. (1 Sam. 15:13‑23 In his effort to withstand the devastating Truth that has been presented against the Campers Consecrated, R. G, Jolly has stressed the Star Members' explanation as presented above to be “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” But in his refuta­tions of J. W. Krew­son he unqualifiedly (and correctly) contends that the Epiphany is still with us.

How note Brother Johnson's comment in E‑4‑65 (63): “The Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age; and therefore it will continue at least until the last mem­ber of the Little Flock leaves this earth, and probably nearly until about the estab­lishment of the earthly phase of God's Kingdom. This probability is due to the fact that the Epiphany implies a revelation (apokalypsis, uncovering) of the lord's Second Advent.”

From the above it is clear enough that Brother Johnson teaches that the Epiphany “for Gospel‑Age purposes” is still with us, regardless of whether the Saints are all gone or not; and that the Epiphany and the Apocalypse are one and the same in point of time. Also, in E‑11‑473 Brother Johnson says Jesus' executory work pertains to the antitypi­cal Tabernacle Court for all who remain in that Court until the end of the Epiphany. Is R. G. Jolly now also moving Jesus' executory work into the Camp – just as he presumably has done with the laver? – or is he contending that Jesus' executory work does not extend to, and dominate, his Campers Consecrated?


QUESTION: – Will you please offer some comment on Brother Krewson's statement on p. 18 of his No. 22 paper that you “are apparently unable to recognize slander when you see it”?

ANSWER: – Any one making the claims J. W. Krewson does should certainly define slander for the benefit of his readers. In this instance, of course, he wouldn't want them to know the true meaning, because even his most prejudiced adherents would then recognize his fraudulent contention as another attempt by him to lie his way out of his previous lies. Here's the legal definition of slander:

Malicious publication of false tales or suggestions tending to injure the reputation of another. (See also Manna Com­ments for September 10.)

It will be noted from the above that “intent” is largely present in slander; and J. W. Krewson specifically wrote letters to brethren stating it was his “intent” to cast suspicion upon us, and he hoped to do this in the minds of many brethren. It should be kept in mind that when he first began to malign us, he contended he had learned from a “reliable witness” (just hearsay evidence, and thus clearly evil sur­mising) that Brother Johnson had never given us a Pilgrim appointment – that we had boldly advanced ourselves after Brother Johnson's death by dropping the word “Aux­iliary” from what Brother Johnson had given us. After we annihilated his slanderous charge by publishing our Pilgrim Certificate, he now offers the twist that we are not “up enough on Epiphany teachings” to know the office Brother Johnson gave us. Well, he is in effect making that charge against the Epiphany Messenger himself, be­cause the Epiphany Messenger gave us the Pilgrim appointment, and clearly stated in his covering letter that the Pilgrim office was superior to the Auxiliary Pilgrim office. We have only accepted the Epiphany Messenger's Epiphany teaching on this matter. Even if J. W. Krewson now thinks he knows more than the Epiphany Messenger himself knew (“deceiving and being deceived”) when he wrote us as he did with our Certificate, this would still be no excuse whatever for J. W. Krewson to impugn our integrity as he has maliciously attempted to do. Clearly enough, the truth has not been a motivating force with him in this instance; and one sin readily leads to other sins – as it has done in his case. If J. W. Krewson had the least semblance of Christian ethics, he would have apologized for his wrong course in the falsehood he circulated, as he himself declared it in his public and private utterances. Like his “cousin” R. G. Jolly, he has great ability to reverse himself whenever it seems ex­pedient. J. W. Krewson himself stated – without reservation – that one of Brother Johnson's Pilgrims attended his New England meeting in June 1955 (we refer to Pilgrim Daniel Gavin). Certainly, any and all of J. W. Krewson's readers who are of “a good and honest heart” will not endorse, or even condone, his falsehoods and evasions in this matter. If J. W. Krewson knew Brother Johnson was making a mistake to give us a Pilgrim appointment, he should have told Brother Johnson about it. Did he do it? Did he ever protest to R. G. Jolly for publishing our Pilgrim status after Brother Johnson's death? Or has the Lord, by special illumination, Just now whispered the Truth to him about it? “An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.” (Prov. 11:9)


QUESTION: – How may we determine who are sifters, and who are God's true mouthpieces?

ANSWER: – Perhaps we should first approach this question from a negative viewpoint. Exposing the sins and errors of false teachers or Great Company leaders does not make one a sifter; otherwise, every Star Member would have been a sifter. It should be noted, too, that their “brethren who cast them out” have been only too ready to yell “Sifter” at the Star Members when they could not meet the Truth they presented. We all know how this was done to Brother Johnson by the crown‑lost lead­ers, and especially so by That Evil Servant. “By their fruits ye shall know them”, is a primary and excellent measuring rod for the true and the false. “The works which I do testify concerning me that the Father has sent me”, says Jesus (Jno. 5:36‑‑Dia.); and none who are “following in His steps” will need to resort to falsehood to prove they are “of the Truth.”

God's true servants teach Truth to enlighten,

While false teachers use error to frighten.

At the recent Philadelphia Convention R. G. Jolly read a statement by Brother Russell concerning sifters; then proceed­ed to state some rank falsehood about the “sifters” who were present. We called this injustice to his attention after the meeting; but his only comment was, “I don't care to argue it.” Of course, there was one salient difference between Brother Russell and R. G. Jolly, which the latter was only too glad to ‘overlook’: When Brother Russell called any one a sifter he also proceeded vigorously to refute that sifter's errors with sledge‑hammer force. Now the situa­tion is just the reverse – this ‘sifter’ (JJH) is refuting R. G. Jolly with such force that his only remaining weapon is name‑calling. In view of our own recent analysis of his “Due Truth for all the Consecrated”, he dared not even mention it from the Convention platform. It is very evident he would like to resort to That Evil Servant's method of forcible ejection, as was done with Brother Johnson after he had completely closed their mouths with the force of his Truth presentations. Yes, R. G. Jolly would like to do the very same thing now; but he's just a little afraid of the consequences. Of course, name‑calling is the weakest and one of the most depraved of weapons; it is the last resort of the weakling and the perverter. As we predicted re his “Due Truth” conten­tion, he is only too glad to forget it and to hope and pray that his sectarian followers will forget it, too. “How are the mighty fallen!”

On P. 79 of this last September‑October Present Truth R. G. Jolly makes quite some ado about the 'sifters’ who attended the Philadelphia Convention, his remarks being directed at us without mentioning our name, of course. His comments are almost word for word what That Evil Servant so unjustly published about R. G. Jolly himself early in the Epiphany (R. G. Jolly receiving the personal help and brotherly fellowship of the last Star Member, and being under the influence of his restraining hand at the time R. G. Jolly went from Class to Class among Society adherents in a commendable effort to open their eyes in identical fashion as we now do. And Brother Johnson gave the cor­rect analysis of JFR's attitude then, saying he is forced to warn against the Epiphany Truth, because any who read Brother Johnson's analysis of the Watch Tower errors with an open mind would then be forced to forsake JFR. Thus, JFR conducted a campaign of fear and intimidation among his servile supporter –  his action being the railing of the “impenitent thief” – and he, the real sifter then, succeeded in developing Jehovah's Witnesses, just as his ‘Big Brother’, the Number One Sifter of the entire Gospel Age, succeeded in developing the Papal System. In the very near future we hope to analyze other parts of this last PT, at which time we shall prove that R. G. Jolly has “lost the oil in his lamp.” We make this statement without malice or boasting, our only purpose being an earnest effort to help those that can be helped, allowing those enslaved by fear and ignorance to cleave to R. G. Jolly – just as Brother Johnson did with the Society sectarians.


QUESTION: – Why do you insist that the Azazel Goat Class (all the Great Company) will have to have all brotherly fellowship and favor withdrawn from them, as distinct from Priestly Fellowship, before they can receive their wilderness exper­ience necessary for their cleansing?

ANSWER: – We insist upon this procedure because it is a clear Scriptural Epiphany teaching repeatedly taught to us by the Epiphany Messenger, and because it is gross revolutionism to substitute any other method than the Lord's. We have quoted Brother Johnson's clear statements regarding this abandonment process, which are to be found in E‑15‑525 and other similar statements in several articles – ­“As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove Suffic­ient to fully free their Holy Spirit from the bondage of developed world­liness, selfishness, error.....

“Their delivery to Satan implies that they come into such a condition as the priests disfellowship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them. It also implies that God temporarily abandons them.”

And haven't we witnessed that God has abandoned these Great Company leaders, particularly in the chief one among us – R. G. Jolly – when he receives no help in the perilous condition he finds himself with his errors on the Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” and many other errors he has inherited from J. W. Krewson's escapade in fantasy.

And we quote from E‑4‑203: “Letting the Truth section of Azazel's Goat go in the wilderness seems to mean the part of the fit man's course whereby he puts Azazel's Goat into a condition of isolation from the Faithful, whose measurable favor and help they enjoyed previously to this step – a condition in which they are not even given brotherly fellowship (1 Cor‑ 5:11,13).” And on page 204 of E‑4: “There is a dif­ference between the World's High Priest's with­draw­ing priestly fellowship just be­fore delivering Azazel's antityp­ical Goat to the fit man, and the fit man's letting this class go into the wilderness, i. e., putting them in a condition wherein they experience the full loss of the Priesthood's favor and personal help, by their withdrawal of brotherly fellowship.” It was only through the Lord's removal of Brother Johnson that the Azazel Goat Class in the L.H.M.M. lost the brotherly fellowship and personal help and favor of the World's High Priest, because so long as The Epiphany Messenger was with us he gave personal help and favor to the Great Company members in our group, and continued to give them brotherly fellowship, even though same were manifested crown‑losers.


Letters of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle:‑ Grace and peace in Jesus our dear Master!

I received your most comforting letter.... I appreciate your prayers very much, for I know that God heareth His faithful children at all times, and is answering them even while they are calling on Him...

On Sunday 17th the L.H.M.M. had a filmstrip show here...... Two brethren from Bartons came to carry on. They had service at Brother ‑‑‑‑‑‑ home .... during the day, and later in the evening they went to the more popular part .... out an the road and there put up the filmstrip, having a public meeting on the road just as any other sect would have done – a thing that I had never seen in Brother Russell's or Brother Johnson's time. We are now able to see how flat they have fallen, and how much they think of this precious Truth. I suppose they think a wonderful work has been done. The brethren here with us are strong and pray for you that the Lord bless and keep you steadfast to the end, with much courage amid the varied opposi­tion you are having to meet. Accept warm love for you both and all the other dear

ones. God bless you! Sister ---------, Jamaica


Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Christian Greetings!

You will no doubt have read in the May‑June Present Truth a letter written by the British Representative R. E, Armstrong to the leader of the LHMM, Brother Jolly. On reading this letter my mind went at once to a letter sent by R.E.A. to yourself Sept. 30, 1955, a copy of which you sent me to read. In this letter he claims to be among those brethren who are “reasonable and charitably disposed.” Surely, here R. E. A. is manifesting a doublemindedness of a very peculiar brand when he in his letter to R.G.J. says that, “Some people just don't know when to fade out.” What a very wrong spirit indeed for a brother representative of the LHMM to possess! Whoever would desire such a thing to happen to a brother such as yourself – a brother whom R.E.A. has correctly conceded as a fact that you have proved your­self to be a brother beyond reproach; and that Brother Johnson's love and confi­dence toward you was of the highest. In R.E.A.'s correspondence to you in 1955‑56 how often he proves himself to be of a grievously wrong spirit In putting words in­to your letters which you had not used. This is misrepresenting you. 0, how I do hope that this brother will meditate much and often upon his own closing words to you in the last letter he sent you on March 12, 1956 as follows: “Praying always that we may have Divine wisdom, which is first pure, free from evil surmising, and then peaceable, and with Christian love.”

Surely, dear Brother, one is entitled to ask – Is it in keeping with Divine wisdom – “which is first pure” – to have such an unholy desire for certain breth­ren to “fade out”? Again would it not seem that R.E.A. has proved himself once more to be guilty of “evil surmising” in regard to a brother such as yourself who has already given much evidence of being used by the Lord? And, as a Man of God I firmly believe you will continue to acquit yourself as a valiant Soldier of Christ, having the true interest of God's people at heart. Such uncharitable statements by R.E.A. show a poor kind of Grace when one remembers that he himself “faded out” of the Epiphany Truth and ceased to be active therein from about 1924 to 1941. and, whilst we were glad to witness his return to the Truth, we cannot but very much re­gret his “power‑grasping” and “lording” activities since his coming again into the Epiphany Truth.

Sincerely your brother in the Lord ---------, England


Dear Brother & Sister Hoefle: – Grace and peace! Received your letter and notes re the 1958 Philadelphia Conven­tion. As to the four cigar­ette butts found in the Bible House basement, if Bro. Jolly doesn't find anything worse than cigarette butts there, he may consider himself lucky. I would much rather be a “smoking” Christian than a lying one anytime. One is a weakness of the flesh – weaknesses we all have more or less – and lying a weakness of the mind, or spirit – much more dangerous, I should say. It may be that Bro. Jolly will change. I hope and pray so.

I want to say again I enjoyed the October article on Campers Consecrated very much. The people accepted and approved J. W. Krewson at one time, and that includes R. G. Jolly – and now they are stuck with it. They made a mistake and hate to ad­mit it. Why can't they be honest? It doesn't cost too much to tell the truth – and it would mean their blessing... might perhaps help J. W. Krewson, but I am a little doubtful of that. As ever my Christian love to all, Brother ---------.


And may each grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Beloved Lord Jesus!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim