NO. 70: SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

No. 70

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

Comes once more the Memorial of our Lord's death, and it is our hope and prayer that with it comes to all our readers the firm conviction that the past year has resulted to one and all a rich increase in Grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus. And it is with that thought in mind that we now proceed to a consideration of our subject, admitting freely that much of what follows is directly from the last two Star Members, or is prompted by the thought they have given us.

THE PASSOVER DEFINED

In 1 Cor. 5 St. Paul treated of one in the Corinthian Church who had done despite to the Spirit of Grace in limited measure, because of which he counseled that Church “to deliver up that person to the Adversary, for the destruction of the flesh ... for even our pascal lamb, Christ, was sacrificed.” With such a clear con­nection between the Passover service in type as outlined in Exodus 12, we are forced to a consideration of type and antitype in their relation to each other. While the sacrifice of the lamb by each household on that fateful night in Egypt did bring a temporary staying of death to each firstborn, eventually every one of them “slept with their fathers” in that great abode “where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary be at rest.” But in the antitype there is just the reverse of this; those during the Gospel Age who “eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood” – ­and continue therein in sincerity and in Truth – pass from death unto life. And, while a very large number of them did experience a sleep, they entered that sleep in the strong assurance that they would “awake in His likeness“ – a state not promised nor anticipated by those firstborns in Egypt who eventually entered the death state.

Therefore, we observe that the typical Passover in general represents the de­liverance of God's people from Satan's rule on the basis of the antitypical Lamb's blood; its emphasis, therefore, is mainly on justification through faith in Christ's merit. The feast of the Passover, celebrated Nisan 14‑21 represents mainly the sal­vation of the Gospel Age and it joys, etc., particularly that of the Gospel Church, which is the antitype of the account in Ex. 12; but celebrated the 14‑21 of the second month (as done by those unable to partake of it on the first month), it types mainly the salvation of the Millennial Age, particularly that of the world of mankind, which is the antitype of the account in Numbers 9:6‑14.

THE CORRECT DATE

The correct date for the Memorial has ever been a subject of much controversy, and it still continues. First of all, it is clearly established in the Scriptures that the crucifixion of Jesus took place on a Friday, which has become generally labelled “Good Friday” throughout Christendom. Regardless of how we may describe it, Mark 15:42 leaves no doubt about the day being Friday. Thus, all Christendom has had at least a common and mutual starting point for many generations, although even this is now attacked by a limited group of errorists, who are contending that the day was Wednesday. And how do they reach this conclusion? Why, because it tells us in Dan. 9:27, “in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice (Messiah be cut off) and the oblation to cease.” That their conclusion is so very clearly con­tradicted by Mark does not seem to bother them at all. As all of us know who are even reasonably informed in Parousia Truth, those 70 weeks of Daniel 9 are not literal weeks, but figurative weeks, “a day for a year” – 490 literal years. And Messiah's cutting off in the midst of that last week prophesied the crucifixion just 3½ years after our Lord was baptized in the River Jordan – 3½ years being the exact “midst” of the 70th symbolic week. Whatever else of Truth such people may know, we have here evidence of gross revolutionism against Parousia and Epiphany Truth when they attempt to give this 70th week a literal application in their attempt to nullify the clear statement of Mark 15:42. (See also Matt. 27:62; Luke 23:54; John 19:31; the text in John 19:31 also contradicting in direct words this attempted perversion of the Truth)..

But, even among those of us who do not succumb to such nonsense, there is still some variation in arriving at the proper date. The Jewish rabbins use the full of the moon after the first new moon nearest the Spring Equinox; but there is just nothing in the Bible to support this view. Last year (1960) this reckoning made them a full two days askewä on their date. Seemingly the Dawns followed the same method, or a similar one, because they observed the Memorial on Sunday night, April 10, after six o'clock; whereas, our own participation occurred on Friday night, April 8, after six o'clock. Exodus 12 commands, without qualification, that the Passover be killed and eaten on Nisan 14, regardless of the condition of the moon on that date. In fact, the moon is not even mentioned in the Exodus account; therefore, any variation from Nisan 14 can be none other than V4,32 the tradition of men.”

In Ex. 12:6 it is reported that the Jews were to kill the lamb “in the evening”; but the marginal reference makes this “between the two evenings” – that is, at six p.m. Inasmuch as the Jewish days began at six p.m., it could in all truth be said that our Lord kept the Memorial of the type and yet also became the great antitype “in the same day.” After six p.m. Thursday He and His disciples killed and ate the typical memorial; and before six p.m. Friday He had said, “It is finished,” indicat­ing He had filled to the full the antitype of the first passing over in Egypt, as Exodus 12 relates it.

The Jews partook of the type by first purging out of their houses all leaven (Ex. 13:7 – a type of sin); they ate it “with bitter herbs” (typical of the trial­some experiences of those who would partake in the antitype); and only the circum­cised were to partake of it (indicating it was only for the consecrated in the anti­type). Such consecration up to 1881 when accepted by God, placed that person in a condition of vitalized justification; and since that date the principle, though not the actuality of vitalized justification has applied to all the antitypically circum­cised. And it is only such as persevere in that justification to the extent of their ability to cleanse themselves of the Adamic condemnation and depravity as are truly qualified to commemorate the Great Antitypeä – although we realize that millions throughout Christendom partake of the “Lord's Supper” without even the knowledge that this is their real obligation in the service.

OUR OWN ATTITUDE AT THIS SEASON

It is well to consider that it is not our obligation to pass judgment upon any who attempt to memorialize the Antitype; especially, at this season it is much more to our blessing to consider the words of St. Paul in Titus 3:4‑7 (Dia.): “When the Goodness and the Philanthropy of God our Savior, appeared, He saved us, not on account of those works of righteousness which we did, but according to His own mercy, through the bath of regeneration, and a renovation of the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” And, having clearly this thought in mind that “we are saved by faith, and not by works” – through “the Goodness and Philanthropy of God” – we may then fully comprehend St. Paul's counsel in 2 Tim. 2:25, “In meekness correcting the opposers; perhaps God may give them a change of mind in order to a knowledge of the Truth; and that they may be recovered from the snare of the Enemy.” Thus, considering our own condition before the Truth found us, we should clearly recognize that others may now be in the same condition in which we once were, and from which we were recovered by “the Goodness and the Philanthropy of God.” This thought should greatly help us to “keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and Truth” – in true humility (a proper self‑estimate) and thank­fulness of heart and mind. In this attitude, we may reflect upon all the years past, and particularly over the one just passed, as we ponder the words of Joshua, after he had conquered the nations of Canaan (typifying how the Fully Faithful all during the Gospel Age have conquered their enemies – the world, the flesh and the devil), and have transformed their minds with the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth unto making themselves “mete for the inheritance of the Saints in light”: “Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you.” (Josh. 23:14)

CONCERNING UNCLEANSED LEVITES

At various times the question has come to us, Should we partake of the Memorial with known uncleansed Levites? We now attempt to answer this by the same rule we observed in Brother Johnson; namely, we should not seek the association of uncleansed Levites for this service. Rather, it would be preferable to partake of it alone than to appear to encourage them in their wayward course. “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices with strife.” (Prov. 17:1) When we are alone, and the Lord present with us, we are at least certain of the com­pany we keep. “It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawl­ing woman in a wide house,” says the wisest of men in Prov. 21:9; and particularly was this accentuated during the Harvest when the call went forth to “Come out of her, my people.” Once the “brawling woman” (Babylon), who had consorted with the Kings of the earth, and had become “drunken with the blood of the saints,” was fully cast off, then it was indeed far better to retire to remote and humble surroundings (“the corner of a housetop”) than to partake of the glamour and pomp of discarded and deceptive ritual. And the same principle would apply during the Epiphany to Little Babylon.

However, should uncleansed Levites gravitate to our Memorial meeting, we should certainly forbid them not. All during the Epiphany Brother Johnson knew that un­cleansed Levites sat in his Memorial service and partook of the emblems with him; but he never raised the question except in the case of those that had been formally disfellowshiped. As Brother Russell so clearly taught, there are two reasons – and only two reasons – for disfellowshiping any one; namely, gross immorality and gross doctrinal deflection. As all of us know, many of the good Epiphany Levites (though uncleansed prior to Brother Johnson's death) were not guilty of either of these two deflections, so Brother Johnson forbade them notä – hoping and praying all the while that good association might tend to “turn back a sinner (a Great Company member) from his path of error.” (Jas. 5:20‑‑Dia.) This also is our attitude.

In this connection, we believe it apropos to offer a quotation from Brother Russell (Reprints p. 1453, col. 2) – although this is not taken from one of his Memorial articles, and should be considered with that limitation: “Those who reject the Scriptural statement that our Lord Jesus gave Himself a corresponding price, a substitute, a ransom for all, are to be rejected from recognition as brethren, and even to be avoided. The Apostle John says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you (man or paper, professing to be a teacher), and bringeth not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is par­taker of his evil deed.” (Compare 2 John 9‑11; Gal. 1:8,9; 2 Tim. 3:5; Titus 3:10) Thus it is evident that we who would follow closely the way marked out for us have not much liberty or choice in our attitude toward those who deny the very foundation of our faith – however much they may desire to company with us. Compare also the rules respecting immoral persons who desire fellowship (1 Cor. 5:11; Eph. 5:11; 2 Thes. 3:6‑14, although there is generally less danger from such than from those who become doctrinally corrupted.”

At first thought, some might be inclined to be astounded by the conclusion afore­going that there is generally less danger of corruption from the immoral than from doctrinal deflection; but St. Paul clearly shows us in 1 Cor. 5 that there is hope of the morally weak gaining life, whereas, there is no hope whatever for those guilty of gross doctrinal deflection; such are “twice dead, plucked up by the roots.” (Jude 12) Therefore, we do well to consider those who prate about making the “outside of the platter clean” – those who have no surface vices – as decidedly more dangerous than those who manifest these objectionable features, but who are not defiling the Temple of God with their death‑dealing errors. We know that the sixth “Slaughter Weapon” (Eze. 9:2) is Revolutionism; and it has been especially active during the Epiphany. Of course, the ideal and desirable condition is to be free from both ailments, but fleshly weaknesses are the less dangerous of the two evils. “If a man eateth and drinketh unworthily, he eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself”; that is, his fleshly weaknesses cannot, and will not “rub off” on the one sitting elbow to elbow with him in the meeting. But this is not so easily spoken of the sixth Slaughter­weapon men. Their Revolutionism can – and does – often contaminate those with whom they come in contact; therefore, the mistake in accepting the supervision of such for our Memorial service.

We would offer here a further observation from Brother Johnson: When the world sees a man in the gutter prone from alcoholic excess, the general tendency is to view with generous sympathy such a derelict, and this attitude is commendable enough. But many who are drunken with error are in much more deplorable condition, yet they are often respected and even honored by the world because of their physical, educa­tional or financial veneer. How forcibly do the inspired words come to us, “Man looketh on the outward appearance.” And, even with God's people who earnestly strive for proper appraisal by the “spirit of a sound mind,” even they are often deceived by “outward appearance”; we are indeed “touched” by this infirmity so prevalent in the human race. So befitting are the words of St, James (Jas. 2:1‑9 – Dia.): “My brethren, do not hold the faith of Jesus Christ. our glorious Lord, with a respect of persons. For if a man enter your synagogue, having gold rings on his fingers, in a splendid robe, and there also enter a poor man in dirty clothing; and you look on the one wearing the splendid robe, and say, Sit thou here in an honorable place; and say to the poor man, Stand thou; or sit there on my footstool; Do you not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges from evil reasonings? .... If indeed you keep a royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy­self, you do well; but if you respect persons, you commit sin, being convicted under the law as transgressors.”

James was undoubtedly aiming his remarks at those hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees of his time who were willing enough to ignore that inner corruption “that cometh of evil” in those of imposing outward show, as they attempted with painstaking scruple to ascribe outward corruption to our Lord, who knew no sin, by accusing Him of being a winebibber and a glutton, who plucked corn on the Sabbath for His hungry followers. And their kind have been ever with us, and especially so in this Epiphany time – ever ready to ascribe outward uncleanness to the Fully Faithful in an effort to cover their own inner taint that cometh of error. We are yet in the Epiphany, which is the last special period of the Gospel Age, the “time of Harvest,” and “Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest” (Josh. 3:15). Therefore, we may expect at this time a pronounced accentuation of looking on “the outward appearance” ­especially, a judging of the Fully Faithful by such standards; while the Lord looketh “on the heart.”

As was the habit of Brother Johnson, so we now also urge all to read the Passover of the New Creation in Parousia Vol. Six, as our comments herein are in nowise in­tended to replace that clear and timely exposition. It is also well for those who can possibly find the time to read one or more of the Gospel accounts of our Lord's passion and the pertinent Berean Comments in the days preceding the service. Thus will come to all the full blessing of this year's Memorial service. And to such we pray the Lord's rich blessing upon their preparation for, and participation in the service. This year we will observe the service at 7:30 p.m., March 29, at 1507 N. Donnelly, Mount Dora, Florida; and we extend a cordial welcome to any and all of like mind who may be in our vicinity, who wish to join us then.

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

SOME MORE KREWSON NONSENSE

In his January paper No. 36, J. W. Krewson once more displays his flummery and railing falsehood in about four pages of “Do‑You‑Knows” – many of them so flippant and unsound that we had at first thought determined not to humor them with any rec­ognition whatever. However, some of our readers have observed that we are bounden to “make manifest his folly to all”; hence, these comments. At the outset it should be kept in mind that he doesn't believe those “Do‑You‑Knows” himself; he's either asking for information or indulging in a “kind of repartee” (quoted from his paper). Repartee is ever the tool of the evasive and unscrupulous politician, of the trick­ster and confidence man, of the big‑town smart aleck – thus far beneath the dignity of one claiming to be a teacher in the Lord's House.

THOSE TWELVE STONES IN JORDAN (Joshua 4)

On page 25 he offers several quips about our refutation of his interpretation that the twelve stones which Joshua ordered gathered from Jordan's bed is simply so much nonsense; and he now magnifies his previous nonsense by his present “Do‑You‑Knows” nonsense. He says they were not boulders, as our “inept reasoning would imply,” because they were carried on the shoulders of the twelve Hebrews. Even today, a muscular large man could carry a two or three‑hundred‑pound boulder on his shoulder; and certainly those twelve “selected” men of Israel would have been able to do as much then when the race was much more virile than it now is. Webster's dictionary defines a boulder as “from a size distinctly larger than a cobblestone to one ten or more feet in diameter.” When he tried to compare those stones with the twelve stones in the high priest's breastplate, he is resorting to “sleight of men and cunning craftiness” (Eph. 4:14) in addition to his nonsense. When he made reference to E:14‑292, why did he leave out the word “precious” from Brother Johnson's comment on the precious stones in the breastplate? We answer that, had he included the word “precious,” then the weakest and least observant of his readers would have readily grasped the nonsenseä of his contention. It is the descriptive adjective “precious” that is the real crux here, and not the “stones” – just as in “green” grass or “dry” grass, it is the descriptive adjective that carries the weight, the only similarity being in the grass root of such expressions.

Furthermore, the record says the altar constructed from those twelve stones is “there unto this day.” Had they been stones of the size in the breastplate, they would have been toppled over and scattered by the first cat or rabbit that brushed against them; they would not be “there unto this day.” And when he intimates that the “144,000 of the elect” (the correct reading of the Berean Comment, as opposed to his paraphrase) and the twelve graces of the Holy Spirit are interchangeable expres­sions, he reveals further his shallow and unreliable thinking – this same J. W. Krewson who refers to our “inept reasoning.” We know of another sifting Evangelist who charged Brother Johnson with the same thing (inability to reason and “officious”), so we “think it not strange” for this present‑day Evangelist to use the same toward us. All schooled Truth people know that Jordan is a type of the curse, or sin; and the twelve stones of that altar by Joshua are emblematic of the “stone‑wall” opposition to sin by the faithful Little Flock all during the Age – whereas, the graces of the Holy Spirit are “the hidden man of the heart” (I Pet. 3:1‑7), and often not seen or appreciated by hardened sinners. Therefore, when J. W. Krewson asks if the Hebrew word “eben” carries any weight as to the antitype, the answer is NO!; the antitype must be determined from all the surrounding circumstances, and not alone by the Hebrew word. Therefore, when we branded his interpretation as non­sense, it was the mildest word we could find for it; a more acerbic description would be “spiritually moronic.”

He says our “aspersions ... are on a par with our attempts to refute the teachings re the Quasi‑elect Consecrated.” Yes, indeed, they are on a “par”; we've repeatedly demonstrated that teaching also to be the same sort of nonsense, inspired by the same Deceiver, as the twelve stones of Jordan. In grateful reverence to our Great Teacher do we accept the accusation! And in further refutation of his nonsense on the twelve stones (eben) of Joshua, we direct attention to Judges 9:5,18, where Abimelech is said to have slain seventy men on one stone (eben). Does J. W. Krewson want to compare this stone (eben) with those in the breastplate? Another instance is 1 Kings 18:31,32, where Elijah “took twelve stones” (eben) – which he did himself without eleven others aiding him – and built an altar large enough to accommodate the burning of an entire bullock. Shall we now compare these stones (eben) with those in the breastplate? In our paper No. 60 we correctly defined “eben” as any­thing from a small pebble to a huge rock,” and that the stones in Joshua's altar and in Elijah's altar represent the “true church”; and Brother Russell's Berean Comments confirm this interpretation.

THOSE PYRAMID CALCULATIONS

On page 25 J. W. Krewson says our criticism of those 27 computations in the January 1947 Present Truth “is in reality casting innuendos at the Epiphany Messenger over the back of R. G. Jolly.” Why doesn't he speak for himself? It seems too much for these “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson) to be able to give a straight answer to anything. If he (J. W. Krewson) had no part in that colossal hoax back there, he could be saying so with less words than he has now used. However, in the fall of 1946 – when those compilations were presented to Brother Johnson – J.W. Krewson was right in Philadelphia, so he knows – as well as we know – that Brother Johnson was then desperately ill, emaciated and bed‑ridden. Several months later Brother Johnson told us in detail that his physical forces had been so dissipated that he realized he was continuing to breath by the faintest of effort. Therefore, he was in no posi­tion to determine the veracity of that system of error that came to him from (shall we say?) the “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson). In any event, time has indis­putably proven those “mathematics” to have been a revolting structure of “witchcraft” – ­(“witchcraft” being the Scriptural description for especially deceptive false teach­ings) – and Brother Johnson would be easily able to see that now if he were still with us.

AND NOW JOHN'S BAPTISM AGAIN

On page 24 there is the statement that “Baptism was a Little Flock developing Truth .... correct as given by 1914.” Those words taken by themselves are certainly true; but where is his proof that John's Baptism enters into that? The main con­tention here is the date that John's Baptism ceased to be efficacious. Brother Russell did not give that date; neither did Brother Johnson; nor have R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson done so. This certainly would have been done had it been a part of the Harvest Truth on Baptism (Little Flock Developing Truth); but all of us know that this fact yields not one iota of influence upon our present performance of the service. All the profuse talk by the “cousins” on this matter is prompted by their belief that they thought they had at least one point upon which they could stigmatize JJH; but it seems R. G. Jolly has had more than enough by now; and our prediction is that J. W. Krewson will be equally silenced in due course. Up to now neither of them has made one word of comment on Acts 18, which is the introduction to Acts 19:1‑6. Why do they continue in silence here if they have an answer?

ABANDONMENT TO AZAZEL

On p.26 he presents nonsense extreme when he says “R. G. Jolly was at the time of his initial revolutionism in 1938 in Azazel's hands.” (R. G. Jolly is quite a specimen according to J. W. Krewson – he can still receive not only brotherly help and favor from the World's High Priest, but can also receive priestly fellowship and STILL BE ABANDONED TO AZAZEL – which both “cousins” teach). To accentuate his inane conclusion here let all of us note carefully that while R. G. Jolly was pre­paring his motion for the Philadelphia Church – and at the very time he did present it – he had not yet even been manifested as an Epiphany Levite; he was being given priestly fellowship! And the one who now presents this weird and novel conclusion is the same, THE VERY SAME, who accuses JJH of “unethical and untruthful statements”! Just think of it, Brethren! Before any crown‑loser could be abandoned to Azazel, his sins had to be manifested to all, at least in the local Ecclesia (see 1 Cor. 5); but J. W. Krewson now has one abandoned while he was yet given priestly fellowships. Note the contrast by Brother Johnson who says abandonment means the withdrawal of “all brotherly help and favor”; that is, they are disfellowshiped. This propounder of nonsense (who complains at our description of him thus), who accuses us of revo­lutionism – sets forth an unbelievable supposition, when compared with Brother John­son's clear presentations of the abandonment process in E:4‑210, E:15‑525, and in E:6‑364, the latter of which we quote:

“How do we lead Azazel's Goat to the gate? By resisting its revolutionism. How do we deliver it to the fit man? By withdrawing priestly fellowship. How do we deliver it (abandon it – JJH) to Azazel? By withdrawing all brotherly help and favor.”

What a contrast between the real and the pseudo Pastor and Teacher! Brother Johnson's clear and Scriptural teachings on the Great Company, and especially the abandonment process, cannot be set aside – although some are attempting to do so. The “cousins” gross revolutionism on this item alone (of Epiphany Truth) brands them as Revolutionists, and their continuing in such revolutionism in the face of the clear Truth presented against them (from Brother Johnson's writings), means that they are persistent REVOLUTIONISTS against Epiphany Truth. Need we say more?

ANCIENT WORTHIES UNTIL PENTECOST

On p. 26, D‑Y‑K No. 3, there is some more “dreaming” re Jews being of the Ancient Worthies up to Pentecost. He, like R. G. Jolly, often reads Brother John­son's writings, but doesn't understand what he has read after he reads it. In E:6‑715 Brother Johnson says some of those won at Pentecost “had been” of the Ancient‑Worthy Class. Why wait till Pentecost? J. W. Krewson could have been equally correct – and equally confused – to say the Apostles “had been” until they joined a higher class. But does that make them “Ancient Worthies” after John the Baptist? The words of Jesus should be clear enough in this matter (Luke 16:16–Dia.): “The Law and the Prophets were till John; from that period, the Kingdom of God is proclaimed, and every one presses towards it.” This statement of Jesus was quite some time before Pentecost; in fact, it was quite some time before Jesus' death. And this same J. W. Krewson is the one who complains that we label many of his expressions as “nonsense”!

OUR PILGRIM STATUS

Once more does J. W. Krewson malign our Pilgrim appointment. We “desire so intently to be a somebody among the brethren,” he says. In view of this latest calumny by him, we are much moved to inquire if he is being wilfully dishonest, along with his nonsense. Repeatedly have we directed his attention to E:10‑249, as follows: “J. was commissioned (by God) finally, according to the Divine wisdom given into his care (Ezra 7:25), to appoint for Epiphany, not for Parousia, purposes auxiliary pilgrims and pilgrims, to assist the Lord's people in teaching ways.” If there could be the slightest doubt of Brother Johnson's intention and firm belief as set out above, such doubt is completely dissipated by the letter of October 11, 1942, which carried the apointment to us:

“I am enclosing a certificate of your appointment as a Pilgrim of the Epiphany Bible House of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, signed by myself and sealed with the seal of the Movement.

“Upon entering this phase of the work, my dear brother, you can be assured you will have the special opposition of the Adversary (a prediction that has been most painfully fulfilled in our case – JJH) and those who have his spirit, and thus will have severer trials. On the other hand, remember the Lord is on our side and will give you special help and blessings, if you faithfully use your privileges of ser­vice. (This prediction also we acknowledge in grateful and reverent appreciation to our Heavenly Father – JJH)

“As an Evangelist you had the privilege of accepting invitations to speak at home gatherings ... under the auspices of the Epiphany Bible House ... seeking to interest outsiders in the Truth, helping new ones already in the Truth and working toward the Levites ... to an understanding of the Epiphany Truth and its arrangements. Your sphere of service included stressing the easier features of the Parousia and Epiphany Truth to outsiders and giving them Chart talks and other simple talks .... the easier features of the Epiphany Truth.

“Then, as an Auxiliary Pilgrim you have had the same sphere of service, but your work has been particularly toward the brethren, e.g., serving them on pilgrim trips, delivering discourses at Conventions, etc. An Auxiliary Pilgrim's field of service is in any locality within a country or nation, except in some few cases where they go into nearby country; whereas a Pilgrim's sphere of service is larger and not so limited, e.g., Pilgrim trips are usually longer, over a wider area, etc. I pray the Lord to bless you and make you a blessing in this good work. Any ecclesia outside of your home ecclesia has the right to invite you to serve it.”

In further confirmation of the foregoing, we quote this from the March 1950 P.T., pp. 40 & 41: “We (Brother Johnson) call the traveling lecturers Pilgrims and Auxiliary Pilgrims; and we call those whose ministry is more limited and is especially directed to bringing new ones into the Truth, Evangelists.”

Then there is this in the body of our Pilgrim appointment: “This authorization gives the said John J. Hoefle the right and privilege of preaching the Gospel and lecturing on the Bible in any country in the world.”

In the foregoing it is well to note the classification of an Evangelist that Brother Johnson offers. It is also well to note that this is the classification with which he honored J. W. Krewson, to which had he been faithful would continue to be his privilege and honor. Thus, there is no question whatever respecting the comparative ratings that the Epiphany Messenger bestowed upon J. W. Krewson and upon the Pilgrims. Can it be that “Evangelist” Krewson is now rending his garments (his character qualities) in the same manner as did That Evil Servant and others early in the Epiphany? On occasion we asked Brother Johnson what had motivated the unbrotherly and unholy course of those who had so shamelessly and unjustly maligned and mistreated him. His answer: “It was envy, Brother!”

THIEVES – LARGE AND SMALL

All things considered, we believe it now the Lord's will that we present the technique of J. W. Krewson in comparison with certain members of the “two large thieves,” as given in E:5‑322 (68):

“The antitypical thieves,” says Brother Johnson, “are those leaders of Truth Movements who have stolen spiritual prerogatives, and their partisan supporters .... like G. K. Bolger (et al) .... who never were appointed by the Lord through That Servant as general elders, and who have stolen the privilege of addressing the General Church on Parousia matters ... These and others...are parts of these symbolic thieves. Those who continued their railing on the Large Jesus, the priesthood, into the ninth hour, the impenitent thief.” While members of the “impenitent thief” did much railing and reviling of the beloved Epiphany Messenger and his faithful adherents, none of them ­ever raised the question about his Pilgrim appointment by Brother Russell. But J. W. Krewson goes beyond the evils even of the “impenitent thief”; he has not only “stolen” the office of General Elder, but he now wishes to accuse JJH of having stolen something that was given to him by the Lord through the Epiphany Messenger (rob him of his rightful office). He accuses us of revolutionism, of unethical and untruthful statements, all in the face of the clear and direct appointment by Brother Johnson which we possess. He publicized his success at that New England secret meeting back in June 1955 (to unseat R. G. Jolly) by mentioning that he had “Pilgrims” and “Auxiliary” Pilgrims present. The only Pilgrim, so far as we know, present at that meeting was Daniel Gavin. And where did Daniel Gavin receive his appointment as Pilgrim? Why, from the identical source we did – from the Epiphany Messenger! We know not whether Daniel Gavin has a signed and sealed certificate, as we do; but we are certain he doesn't have any more than that.

It is with profound sorrow that we see J.W. Krewson falling so low; and we counsel him now to consider that the extreme humiliations he has received so often from our refutations are a punishment from the Lord to him, and a justification of us against the slander he has been circulating about us. We appeal to him to de­sist from such. “The sword” has been sorely upon him, and will continue until he either reforms or leaves completely the Household of Faith. When R. G. Jolly pauses to consider, and we urgently and prayerfully now counsel him to do so – from what sort of character he received “John's beheading,” the “Pyramid Corroboration of the Last Priest,” his “Bro. Russell's Epiphany Parallels,” and the “Campers Consecrated” false doctrine (“strange fire”), we inquire, how long can he continue to attempt defense of those abominable and defiling errors? In a threat against us (in his “Babel” – ­confusion) he says he “is baiting another hook for JJH.” If his new “hook” is at all similar to his past “hooks” he will then just portray once more the clumsy and bungling fisherman who hooks himself instead of the fish. “Thou comest to me with a sword, and a spear, and a javelin, but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel.”

“Great peace have they which love thy law; and nothing shall offend (turn them aside – stumble) them. Psalms 119:165

Sincerely your brother.

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

THE SPRING SPECIAL EFFORT

This year the date for the Special Effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle is from Sunday March 12 through Sunday April 9. In keeping with Brother Johnson's past recommendation, we specially recommend The Resurrection tract for distribution around Easter – either at church doors, house to house, or by mail. The other tracts – Where are the Dead and What is the Soul, are also for partici­pation in this Battle. The Battle against these two king errors is not yet com­plete, and the tracts prepared for this work are yet most timely for the pursuit of Zebah and Zalmunna. It will be our special pleasure to supply the pertinent literature to all who are in position to engage in this good work.