NO. 94: "CONSIDER HIM"

No. 94

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

As the passion of our Beloved Lord comes once more acutely to our attention because of “the Cross,” it is well that we meditate again upon St. Paul's words in Hebrews 12:1-3 (Dia.): “Consider Him attentively who has endured such opposition from sinners, so that you may not be wearied, being discouraged in your souls.” The specific primary grace accentuated by this text is our Lord's perfection in Patience – His cheerful continuance in well doing amid excruciating trials – His “narrow way” finished in His death at Calvary.

In these first three verses of Hebrews 12 St. Paul is offering in summation his discussion in Hebrews 11 of the faith of many of the Ancient Worthies – “For by this (faith) the ancients were attested.” (Heb. 11:2,Dia.) By this Faith Abel ''was attested to be righteous” (v. 4); Enoch ''had been attested to have been well-pleasing to God”; Noah's “Pious fear” was attested (v. 7); Abraham's “obedience” was attested (v. 8); Moses' sense of values was attested (vs. 23-29), as he “appointed the Pass­over” (the type of “Christ our Passover,” whose memory we once more cherish and re­vere), departed from Egypt (type of the world in sin), “passed through the Red Sea as though a dry place”; Rahab was attested “having received the spies in peace” (v. 31); others were attested by “a trial of mockings and scourges, and also of bonds and im­prisonment, were stoned, sawn asunder, tempted, died by slaughter of the sword, went about in sheepskins and in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated.... all “attested by means of faith” (vs. 36-39).

Clearly enough, by means of just one of the virtues or graces many of the Ancients ''were attested”; and in none of them could it be said that they reflected in perfection those sterling qualities St. Paul attributes to them. But, as we “con­sider Him,” we are reminded that not just one, but all, of the virtues and graces com­bined perfectly in Him–nothing lacking, whether we “consider” one or all of the “beauties of holiness” as our Lord reflected them in perfection of character.

Thus “considered,” we are most forcefully impressed as to why the record tells us He was the one “altogether lovely” – lovely in perfection of “faith, fortitude, self-control, patience, piety brotherly-kindness, love” (2 Pet. 1:5-7, Dia.); and why He was “anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows” – “made a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). Hence, we need not ''consider Him” only viewed “on the cross”; let us also “consider Him” in His “glory and virtue” that we may “know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death.... thus minded.... our conversation in Heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ .... fashioned like unto His glor­ious body.... to subdue all things unto Himself.” (Phil. 3:10-21)

SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

Let us ponder now the Memorial of His death, a service commonly described through­out Christendom as the Lord's Supper–this and Baptism being regarded as the two Sacraments of the Christian religion. Over the years it has been one of the most controversial of subjects; and it is said there are now in existence about two hun­dred different variations in time of keeping, manner of keeping, and significance of keeping. This, as with so many other essential Christian doctrines, has been debated by able scholars and intellects–so severe at times as to cause them to overlook com­pletely that this teaching above all others should designate the Prince of Peace and bring God's people to peace with each other. In fact, in 1 Cor. 10:16 St. Paul states that the participation in the bread and wine of this service is a “common union”; and this intimate relationship becomes accentuated when we consider that the indivi­dual grapes which produce the cup, and the individual grains of wheat which produce the bread, lose completely their divers identities and are fully fused or merged into one common whole.

THE DATE

As stated, the time for keeping this service is violently in dispute. The Roman Catholic Church attempts observance of it every day in early morning Mass; and the service is often repeated that same day at weddings and other special occasions. They also pronouncedly stress it at the deathbed, requiring a priest to perform it except in very extreme instances. others among the Protestant sects keep the service once a week; others once a month; others three or four times a year. But it remained as a feature of Harvest Truth to eliminate all of the confusion in the emblem significance, and largely so as respects the time of observance. When Jesus said, “This is my body; this is my blood,” it should be elemental that those items could not possibly have been His actual body and blood, because he was still alive with His Disciples, ministering to them, and teaching them. Therefore, He could have meant none other than that the bread and the wine represented His flesh and blood. The Harvest Truth also clearly proved the service To be an annual one–just as is true of Christmas, or a birthday, or a wedding remembrance, or a death day. Therefore, to celebrate one's birthday as whim or occasion arose would be just as proper–or improper–as remembering the day of our Lord's death; the Scriptures clearly state that, ''As oft as ye do this, ye do show forth the Lord's death till He come.” (1 Cor. 11:26)

But even among those who thought they had imbibed clear understanding of time and significance from That Servant there arose extended controversy about the time element after his death; and it remained for the Epiphany Messenger to clarify still further the calendar accounting. And even with those who had sat at his feet for many years the time feature again came into dispute last year – a regrettable incident, be­cause it seems all Truth people clearly perceive the significance of the service, and it would be to the blessing of all if the exact time of service might also be established We are clearly told in Exodus 12 that the observance of the typical Passover must be on Nisan 14; and it is clearly established also that “Christ our Passover” was offered up as the antitypical Lamb of God on Nisan 14. Thus, “He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb. 10:9,10)

If, then, there be no dispute on the day of the month, the same being the 14th of Nisan, there leaves but one other consideration – How do we determine when Nisan begins? Unfortunately, the Bible is silent on this matter, from which we may conclude it is not vital to our present spiritual state or our eternal salvation. Therefore, we can but do the best we can with what we have outside the Bible; and from Josephus and other Jewish records it would seem reasonably certain that the original Passover in Egypt was kept after the sun had crossed the Equator on its way north, thus definitely establishing the Passover as a Spring festival. And so the Jews have maintained it over the centuries – even as Brother Johnson has also stressed it in E-7:366, and as elaborated in our paper No. 85.

It should be clearly understood that when Brother Johnson made the positive state­ment in his 1933 Present Truth that we should “never observe the Memorial before the Vernal Equinox,” he was not there quoting from Josephus, or from any one else; it was not even a paraphrase from Josephus or any other writer; it was his own firm convic­tion, with full support for his belief in the statement by Brother Russell to the same effect in the 1907 Watch Tower. We ourselves are in full harmony with what they deter­mined; and we believe all of us should be firm in contending for what the Star Members gave us, because there is nothing anywhere to dispute their position. once this became clear to us a year ago, we node haste to correct what we would now consider a grievous mistake.

WHO MAY PARTAKE

This question also has been subject to much heated contention throughout the Gospel Age. In the Roman Church only members in good standing may do so; and even those may not do so unless they first make confession before their priest the day before, and neither eat nor drink the next morning before the actual service. The Roman Church has used this as a cruel weapon of punishment over the years, as they “ex”-communicated various and sundry dissenters, with the dissenters often right, and the Church body wrong. This extreme of severity in the Roman Church is offset on the other hand by an extreme of laxity in some Protestant Churches, some allowing the man on the street to walk in and partake, without even asking what his professions may be.

Among Truth people we attempt to arrive at a healthy medium between these two extremes, although both Star Members in our time stressed that the service is only for those who have covenanted to “follow in His steps.” of course, even this has been set aside by the Jehovah's Witnesses, as they have also perverted so many other clear Harvest Truths. While there is a certain rigidity in our own exactions for the ser­vice, there is also a healthy liberality, leaving it in large measure to the indivi­dual conscience. Therefore, St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 11:28, “Let a man examine himself”–nothing hinted here about a priest or any other person examining us – ”he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” From this it is clear enough that the righteousness of some will not avail for the evils of others; nor will the evils of others contaminate the righteous. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both accepted that premise, while making straight paths for their own feet–even as we also should do. Thus, Brother Johnson at no time sought out the companionship of those whom he knew to be uncleansed Levites; on the other hand, when such came into his service, he did not command them to leave. His attitude was in true keeping with that of our Lord, “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen, my Beloved ... A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench.” (Matt. 12:18-20) Thus did both Messengers of our time minister to the weak and fallen, as well as to the strong and upright, lest the weak “should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.” (2 Cor. 2:7)

However, we make definite note of Brother Johnson's teaching that it is far better to observe the Memorial alone than it would be for us to congregate with those who have appointed a “leprous” Levite leader to conduct the service. And, if we clearly recognized the condition of such a leader, yet sat at his feet to “show forth the Lord's death,” it would be repellant to all good principle. “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith (possessing the 'peace of God which passeth understanding'), than an house full of sacrifices with strife.” (Prov. 17:1) At the Memorial season the Adversary is usually most active to discourage, belittle, betray, abuse and falsely accuse the fully faithful; and his best tools for such occasion are almost always 'leprous' Levites leaders; but the advice of St. Paul is most appropriate at such time–”from such turn away!”

And, while extending leniency to those who must have leniency, each one should strive for himself to consider St. Paul's words in 1 Cor. 11:31, “If we judge our! selves, we should not be judged”–let each use that rigidity of self-estimation which is in keeping with “the spirit of a sound mind.” Along this line Brother Russell has offered excellent counsel:

“To be of this class requires fulness of consecration; and these are and will be the overcomers, who shall be deemed worthy of joint heirship with Christ Jesus their Lord in His kingdom. To this class, obedient and watchful, the Lord says, 'I will guide thee with mine eye'– 'Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and afterward receive me to Glory,” Those who can be guided only by continual scourging are not of the overcoming class, and will not be accounted worthy to be of Jesus' Bride, and have such a witness from the Lord through the Spirit of the Truth – contrast Ps. 32:8, 73:24 with Rev. 7:9,14.” Therefore, let us keep the feast in simplicity of deportment, with sincerity of purpose, with malice toward none but with charity toward all.

With this comes the writer's prayer for the Lord's rich blessing to all our readers in their preparation for, and observance of this year's Memorial. we our­selves shall participate at 1507 N. Donnelly, Mount Dora, Florida, at 7:30 p.m., April 6; and cordial invitation is extended to any and all in this vicinity then who are of 'like mind' to join with us. “Sanctify the Lord of Hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.” (Isa. 8:13)

Sincerely your brother,

John J, Hoefle, Pilgrim

---------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in our Master's Name!

A week ago I received the Nov-Dec. 1962 P.T. In that paper Bro. Jolly is still trying to justify himself in the eyes of his readers, and so adding falsehood to falsehood, he refers to me as a new disciple of “this sifter.” In my letter I was pointing out the charge Bro. jolly layed against Brother Roach as “highly clericalistic”–but which fits him (Bro. jolly) – when he said Brother Roach acted contrary to Church rule. He is quite right in saying every local Church is mistress of her own affairs; but there's no truth when he said that this Church did appoint a Chairman for the Memorial service for 1962 (see P.T. July-Aug. p. 60, top of col. 2, and other places, too).

The brother in question only got to know that he was to be Chairman of that meeting the same-evening when he arrived for the service (that is what the Brother Told me sometime later); then it was Bro. Jolly said to the Brother, “I understand you are the Chairman,” and asked him if he had any special preparation. He then handed him a program – and it was the only one of its kind that evening!

He said I accuse the Chairman of clericalism in the exercise of his proper chairmanship. He said some latitude must be given the Chairman – which is quite true; but I say no latitude was given to him when he had to go according to the dictates of the program given to him by Bro, Jolly at the beginning of the meeting. I happened to see the program as the service was in progress, as I did not even know what passage of the Bible to read when I was called upon to read the lesson for the service. Then for the first time I saw against my name what I was to read. Where, then, is the latitude given to the Chairman, as Bro. jolly claims in the Nov.-Dec. P.T., P. 90, par. 2?

Sometime in 1959 the funds of our local Class were very low, due to sending one of our local elders to St. Vincent, and by Bro. Jolly sending other representatives of the West Indies to use. He had then intended to send a pilgrim to us the next year, but the friends then requested Brother Roach to notify Brother Jolly that we could not entertain a pilgrim the next year because of lack of funds – that if one must be sent, his stay with us must be only four or five days. Now, without Bro. Jolly giving any reason at all, he sent a pilgrim the next year for ten days! That does not look like a Church is mistress of her own affairs at all. I say it is Clericalism! (And we agreeJJH)

Also, he said J, like “this sifter”, used the same designation of Epiphany Campers Consecrated. Well, to put it the other way – Epiphany Consecrated Campers – would not extinguish his “strange fire. The only way to extinguish his “strange fire” is to teach according to the Star Member's presentation on the subject. Brother Johnson in E. Vol. 10, p. 209, states that in the finished picture the Camp “is the condi­tion of truly repentent and believing, but NOT consecrated Jews and Gentiles,” Bro. Jolly, who is not a Star Member, teaches just the contrary. In the same book, p. 672, Brother Johnson also offers a contradiction to Campers Consecrated. As for me, I prefer to accept the Star Member's teachings on the subject – and not that of a Levite.

Yours by His Grace, Brother George Martin (dated Jan. 28, 1963 – TRINIDAD)

 P.S. Please. send us some more tracts.

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

Dearly beloved Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our Lord!

I received your letters; also the stickers and all the tracts in good shape. Thank you. I could not put them out as yet.... We've had a hard winter, and I have been sick...... Thanks for letting me know about the lawsuit, for I do not get the P.T., but your writings prove that they both are wrong* It does not matter whether I read their errors. Anyway, they are just words, words, words. Praise the Lord for His Truth. I look forward to the articles, and just sit down and read them as soon as they come. The Lord surely spreads a table without 'vomit' – and how we praise Him and thank Him! Now wouldn't that be something if the Lord had 'vomit' on His table the same as the Levite groups! Where would we go?

The answer to your question re the crown-losers in the Epiphany Movement being a part of Little Babylon is in Epiphany Vol. 10, p. 588, twelve lines down. I believe the Youthful Worthies are part of Little Babylon, too (those who stay with them).

Love to you all and all with you  -------  (Pennsylvania)

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

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n

Mount Dora, Florida – Gentlemen: Please send me the following literature which you offer in your booklet ''The Resurrection of the Dead”: – What is the Soul; Where are the Dead; The Three Babylons. Thank you!

Yours very truly ------- (NEW JERSEY)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace!

I have received your letters, as well as the literature you have sent, and have thoroughly enjoyed all. To say it was enlightening would be putting it very mildly. This literature has cleared up many points troubling my mind concerning the Epiphany Truth. I realize now that instead of doubting Brother Johnson, as the Epiphany Messenger, with his many types and antitypes, and his mis­taken expectations in connection with 1954-56, I should have paid more attention to the way Bro. Jolly tried to force their fulfillments. How clear now when one sticks to Brother Johnson's expositions of the Epiphany Truth. In short, most all my con­fusion lay in trying to harmonize Brother Johnson with Bro. Jolly–when I should have done the opposite.

Thanks to you I now feel I can go back to the Epiphany volumes with renewed vigor and interest, as if reading them for the first time. There are several short questions I'd like to ask you: (1) Is the Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n considered to be the Priestly organization? (2) Wherein lies the goal of the E.B.S.A.? And do you plan any large witness work to either group? (3) In the Appendix of Studies Vol* Three (pp. 382-386) are ten Scriptural reasons pointing to 1954 as a prophetic date. Now I realize quite well what did not take place at this time (or in 1956). Could you tell me what did take place during the period of 1954-56? (4) I noticed in one of the letters you sent in the “Interested Letters” section someone asked you about the use of the name “Jehovah.” I would appreciate your comments on this. (5) Brother Johnson stated several times in his writings that all the Bible would be interpreted before his death. This, we know, failed to materialize. Do you think it will be before the EPiphany is over–and/or the Kingdom is established? (6) In a couple of your letters you mentioned a $5 Correspondence Course put out at one time by Bro. Jolly, but later dropped. What were the details on that? Also, his “entertaining” methods at several of the Conventions.....

As you probably noticed in the latest Bible Standard ------- visited B'ham last week........ I did not push any particular point, but after the meeting was over I did mention to the group that I had been corresponding with you. you could actually see Bro. and Sr.------- eyebrows raise. They didn't speak unkindly of you, tho. The only thing he committed himself upon was that he “believed” that originally some personal conflict was behind yours and Bro. Jolly's “estrangement.” I tried to press that a little further, but he dropped it and would not renew.........

If You and Sister Hoefle are ever in our vicinity, I would consider it an honor and pleasure if you would stay with us ....

Hoping this finds you and Sr. Hoefle in the very best of health, and with the assurance of our love and prayers as you pursue your ministry, I am Your Bro ------- BIRMINGHAM

NO. 93: TRINIDAD AND FRED E. BLAINE

No. 93

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

On page 8 of our January paper we proposed that Fred E. Blaine meet with us on the same platform in Trinidad for a question-and-answer debate on Campers Consecrated and related subjects. This was before we had any intimation whatever that he was already scheduled to be there February 9 to 17. In our proposal we agreed to pay our own expenses, and his, too, if necessary – although his plans to be there would make the latter part unnecessary. However, as might be expected from a big, brave “pilgrim” (by R. G. Jolly's appointment), who has the “courage” to revile us as a “proven sifter” in the columns of The Present Truth – while he himself remains at a safe distance away from us – we have had nothing but silence from Fred E. Blaine. Therefore, we set out below some of the questions we had planned to ask him in Trinidad, questions which we have scrupulously designed to be without “guile or hypocrisy”; and we offer them now openly in the hope they will commend themselves to all our readers in that same manner;

(1)  In E-7:138, in E-10:XXIV, and in E-11:495, Brother Johnson teaches that no Levite is ever permitted to teach a new doctrine to the Lord's people – that any attempt by them to do so makes them guilty of “gazing” and offering “strange fire.” Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If you do, why, then, have you accepted and teach the new doctrine of Campers Conse­crated as presented by R. G. Jolly?

(2)     In E-11:591 Brother Johnson gives this: “There is a threefold set of antitypes of the tabernacle type: (1) The Gospel-Age antitype, (2) the Epiphany antitype and (3) the Millennial-Age antitype. only one of these three antitypes operates at a time, i.e., only one of them can be visible as working at any one time, and the other two are kept out of sight at such a time.”

Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, which taber­nacle is operating now, and how does your Campers Consecrated fit into it?

(3)     In E-10:672 Brother Johnson offers this: “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.” Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, why did you stop trying lo win Youthful Worthy brethren, when Babylon is not yet destroyed?

(4)        In E-10:209 Brother Johnson presents this: “The Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, why are you now trying to place consecrated people in the Camp, contrary to that teaching?

(5)        You say in your letter published in the Nov-Dec. Present Truth, p. 95, that Campers Consecrated is based upon the teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. Please show where either of them taught that Tentative Justi­fication ever has been – or ever will be – represented in the Camp, as you now teach it with respect to your Campers Consecrated.

            6)         R. G. Jolly teaches that the half Tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan types his Campers Consecrated. Please show where Brother Johnson ever taught that.

            (7)        In 1962 Present Truth, p. 79, col. 2, bottom, R. G. Jolly says, “MANY are affiliated with the L.H.M.M. who are not consecrated.” What classification do you give those people? And where do you place them about your present tabernacle with relation to your Campers Consecrated?

(8)        Brother Russell teaches that no one can make an acceptable consecration without first washing at the laver. Do you believe this teaching by the Parousia Messenger? if you do, then please explain how your Campers Consecrated can make their consecration acceptable in the Camp, where there is no laver.

(9)        In E-6:199 Brother Johnson states: “One's journey from the Camp to the Gate cannot at any stage represent a real faith in Christ as Savior, inasmuch as the Court curtain represents things connected with faith–the outside of it a 'wall of unbelief' in Christ's righteousness to those outside, the inside of it a 'wall of faith' in Christ's righteousness to those inside.”

Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, how do you fit your Campers Consecrat­ed into this picture, who are outside the linen curtain?

(10)      In E-9:19, bottom, Brother Johnson has this: “The advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth formerly received, as some deceivers teach.” Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If you do, then please explain why you now set aside the Truth you formerly held on the curtain as set out in Question No. 9–why you now teach tentative justification in the Camp when both the last star members denied such teaching – why you now teach acceptable con­secration without a Laver when you once believed otherwise?

(11)      In E-10:114 we find this by Brother Johnson: “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956; after 1954 no youthful Worthies will be won; and after 1954 no more persons will enter the tentatively-justified state. Hence the exhortation (Rev. 22:11): 'He that is unjust (the tentatively justified who are not actually justified, not just), let him be unjust still (remain tentatively justified, and not consecrate); and he that is filthy (the impenitent sinners, who in no sense are clean–those outside the Camp – JJH), let him be filthy still (remain in his then condition); and he that is righteous (Levites of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, who, being in the Court, are righteous), let him be righteous still; and he that is holy (Priests are holy, since they are in the Holy), let him be holy still.' Certainly when we come to the time that 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; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of v. 11 be given, but, of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to remain faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”

Do you believe any part of this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, please point out which part of it you believe, and how it justifies your present teaching respecting Campers Consecrated.

In running away from an open hearing on their “strange fire” of Campers Conse­crated, Fred Blaine is simply revealing he is of like character to his leader, R. G. jolly, who meets the question the same way. In 1957 he had agreed in writing to make a special trip to Crofts Hill, Jamaica for a verbal question and Answer meeting. But that was before he knew we were going to be there, a fact he did not learn until he saw us on the same plane with him Jamaica-bound, Then he declared from the plat­form he would not entertain any questions from us or Sister Hoefle; but he carried on a “profusion of words” for four solid hours – from about 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. After such an exhaustive ordeal we did not wish to burden the weary brethren with further prolonged talk from us, so we used only about fifteen minutes. But in that short time we asked R. G. Jolly if he would then entertain questions from us on our own time, which he refused. We then asked if he had any questions he wished to ask us, to which he shouted, “I don't want to talk to you at all!” Then, the Detroit Ecclesia invited R. G. Jolly specifically to have an open discussion with us there on Campers Consecrated and other subjects; but he ran away from that invitation, too.

Did R. G. Jolly or Fred Blaine ever run away from the “gainsayers,” when they were fortified with the real Epiphany Truth under our Beloved Brother Johnson? But now, because of their many perversions, they are experiencing that chastening the Lord promised such in Lev. 26:14-17: “If you will not hearken unto me.... despise my statutes (by of f ering 'strange fire' such as Campers Consecrated, and the likeJJH) ....... shall flee when none pursueth.” Indeed, if these two–and others of their kind–had even a smattering of self-respect, they would be so ashamed that they would never again look another congregation of the Lord's people in the face.

But,

Hollow men, like horses hot at hand,

Make gallant show and promise of their mettle;

But, when they would endure the bloody spur,

They fall their crests, and, like deceitful jades,

Sink in the trial.

Clearly enough, the precious promise of the Lord in Luke 21:15 (Dia.) is no longer theirs: “I will give you eloquence and wisdom, which all your opponents will not be able to gainsay, or resist.”

All this is in decided contrast to the attitude of the beloved Epiphany Messenger early in the Epiphany, at which time – so far as we know – he was ever ready to meet the loud and profuse Levite leaders at every opportunity–a situation which must be very clear in R. G. Jolly's memory, because he was there himself and was witness to it. It is also in decided contrast to the clear instruction of St. Paul in Acts 20:28-30 to the elders (leaders) at Ephesus: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock .... grievous wolves shall enter in among you.” But the “cleansed” Levites of our day regard only the first part of this admonition, “take heed unto YOURSELVES”; and allow the flock to face the “grievous wolves” as best they can. From the Convention platform in Philadelphia next Labor Day – if past precedent is any criterion – we shall hear loud and profuse words from R. G. jolly about “the sifters in our midst” (where he's sure he'll be safe, with no one to answer); and we'll probably hear from Fred Blaine about his “pilgrim” trip to the tropics and his 'very interesting and refreshing stay in Trinidad' – where he also will be safe. But in all this it is hardly likely that either of them will quote our Lord's words, “The Good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”

THE JAN-FEB. PRESENT TRUTH

Complement to the foregoing, we take notice of R. G. Jolly's comments on page 9, col. 2, last par., of this Jan-Feb. PT, where he is profuse in his praise of ''many, measurably faithful brethren ... with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are serving the Lord.” We suggest our readers read his commendations carefully about these people who are bending every energy to build up ''Little Babylon”; then compare it with Brother Johnson's own analysis of this same situation in E-13:744 – “Their respective attitude toward Great and Little Babylon, which are to be annihilated, was that they who would treat them as they treated God's true people would be favored by God; and that they who would dash the sects of Little Babylon against the doctrines of the Truth would be favored by God.”

Our Three Babylons tract was designed for the very purpose of carrying out the Epiphany Messenger's counsels on this matter, and in attempting to follow the foot­steps of St. Paul, as he himself describes his course in Acts 20:17-38: “Ye know from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, Serving the Lord with all humility of mind...and how I kept back nothing. that was profitable unto You .... and have taught you publicly, and from house to house.... neither count I my life dear unto myself.... For I have not shunned to declare unto YOU all the counsel of God.... I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my neces­sities, and to them that were with me.” This has also been our own attitude over the years.

Further, at the bottom of page 9, there is this statement by R, G. Jolly: “Hany are brought to the Lord and to a better knowledge of the Truth at the hands of brethren in other groups, both in Little Babylon and in Big Babylon” (specifically does he name here the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Little Catholic Church, which is akin to giving the same praise to the Roman Catholic Church in Big Babylon). To a “better knowledge” of what Truth? jer. 51:9 states, “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed”; and St. John tells us in Rev. 18:23: “The light of a candle (the sancti­fying Truth) shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee .... for by thy sorceries (that 'better knowledge of the Truth' now praised by R. G. Jolly) were all nations deceived.” All of us blessed with Parousia and Epiphany Truth know that the two Messengers said that even the heathen would be worse off than they now are should they imbibe the spirit and erroneous teachings of Big Babylon; and our Lord Himself said the same of their counterparts in His day: ''make the proselyte twofold more the child of Hell (Gehenna – type of the second death) than yourselves,” (Matt. 23:15). But now, Behold! The “cleansed” Levite sees these things in a much clearer and more favorable light than did Jesus and the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers! “Let him that thinketh he stand@ take heed lest he fall.”

THE JOLLY-KREWSON LAWSUIT

The decision in this litigation has gone against J. W. Krewson, which does not surprise us. Whether he will be “properly exercised” remains to be seen; but the altercation has forced at least one improvement in R. G. Jolly: He has not hesitated to name clearly J. W. Krewson as the one whom he is discussing. Aside from this, it will be recalled we mentioned our own patent-law experience some forty years ago, at which time copyrights were issued by Washington for a fee of $1. We have no way of knowing what arguments were advanced by opposing counsel in this case; but we do know that patent law is a very complicated and exclusive profession–a law unto itself-­so that the ordinary civil or criminal lawyer knows almost nothing about it. When J. W. Krewson thought he was making a 'coup' by registering the L.H.M.M. name in Pennsylvania, he was simply deceiving himself; because the federal law is very clear that authors have just as much protection for their work without copyrights as they do with them, so long as their product has gone through interstate commerce. Therefore, the only good that results from a copyright is that it eliminates the necessity of proving the interstate-commerce action. Therefore, J. W. Krewson's registry of the name was an action to accomplish nothing. Our Government has established some rigid rules to discourage thievery among the writing and publishing section of our fellow­countrymen.

On the other hand, “The Present Truth” is not invention by R. G. Jolly or by Brother Johnson, having been at public disposal for the past nineteen centuries as it appears in 2 Pet. 1:12 – “Ye Know and are established in the Present Truth.” (See Contents block on page 2 of The Present Truth) In such cases the courts are very liberal in their interpretations; and we believe it probable the judge would not have ruled against J. W. Krewson had his address been elsewhere than in Pennsyl­vania, and not right on the front doorstep of R. G. Jolly. As an illustration, some twenty years ago the Coca-Cola Company brought suit against the Pepsi-Cola Company for infringement of name. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court of the United States, which tribunal ruled against Coca Cola, saying there was not enough similarity to mislead any one in ordering one drink when he had intended to have the other. The general rule seems to be to 'wink' at plagiarism so long as it causes no injury to the one bringing the complaint – much the same as in criminal law, where the rule is, Without injury, there can be no crime. Thus, R. G. Jolly was required –and was able to prove to the Court's satisfaction – that he was suffering injury by the course of J. W. Krewson. Inasmuch as Appeals Courts usually do not permit further evidence, but rule only on points of law, it would seem J. W. Krewson is due for another defeat in his appeal.

While we have offered this detail for the interest and enlightenment of our readers, let us keep in mind that the fight is not ours; ours is “the good fight,” and none other, And for this good fight “God hath not given us the spirit of fear (to run away when “grievous wolves” attempt to ravage the flock), but of (will) power, and of (agape) love, and of a sound mind.” And with this comes our prayer that this may ever be the blessed portion of all our readers.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

-------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dearly beloved Brother Hoefle – Greetings in our Lord's service!

All your letters and papers received. With respect to that gentleman. I sent Bro. ------- to pay him a visit. He has shown some interest....

Enclosed are two letters I would like you to publish (see belowJJH).

Though tired, I must say this, Bro. Jolly would never allow Bro. Blaine to meet you..... Warm love to both of you and the others of the Household in your locality. In His service, L. F. Roach (P.S. – Bro.------- is the man I rescued out of the possession of evil spirits in 1941. That's why reference is made. – L.F.R.)

Dear Brother Roach:

I have been receiving pamphlets by Bro. Hoefle, and he mentioned his trip to Trinidad. I am the daughter of Brother ------- of Jamaica, and I am wondering if you knew him, as he was a very active worker in the Movement.

I have a picture taken when Bro. Russell was in Jamaica. You may be in it. My father came to America several times. He died here in 1924. There is too much controversy among the people who are carrying on the work Bro. Russell started. You seem to be a target right now. Hope you can withstand the pressure being waged against you. Would like to hear from you. I left Jamaica in 1901, and through my father's influence met with those of 'like precious faith' – got your address from Bro. Hoefle. Sincerely ------- (Enclosed addressed envelope for answer)

Answer from Brother Roach to above Letter

Dearly beloved Sr -------

Greetings in our dear Redeemer! I received a letter from you on the 8th of January 1963, which has emotionally touched me; but, as you know, after you have made a consecration which is accepted, you no longer exercise a will of your own. After having under the Epiphany Messenger (Bro. Johnson) constructed that part of L.H.M.M. in Trinidad (he died in 1950), naturally I got associated with Bro. Jolly, a Levite. I learned much from The Epiphany Messenger in many places in his writings, some of which I quote from Epiphany Vol. 7, p. 138 –”Gershonism”: “Nor are the Levites to seek to discover 'new light' and spread it before the Church, as this would be attempting to go into the Holy, from which they have been excluded, and would result in their offering “strange fire.” Now I have been asked to cooperate with a Levite to spread the false doctrine of “Campers Consecrated” before the Church. Whom do you think I should obey? Acts 5:29. Well, my dear Sister, that and that alone is the cause of all the trouble. Everything else emanates from that. Yes, I am Bro. Jolly's target today, but I Am learning a lot from it, for from the many letters I am getting from various countries I can more clearly see what is meant by “Love – Making a difference” – Jude 21:231 Whereas before I would get such letters as yours from those whom I knew personally, today it is not so.

You know if you are walking in a way one has already walked, and that person tells you what you are going to meet, and you are meeting it, you feel certain that you are on the right way (John 16:2). Certainly, if our Lord had fraternized with the Scribes and Pharisees, they would not have put Him out of their synagogue. My dear Sister, are not the experiences of today giving positive evidence our Captain is in our midst? Surely!

Now as concerning your father, I did not know him. You see Jamaica was blessed with the Reaping Work before Trinidad. The reaping reached Trinidad in 1912, and I was among the first ones to be then blessed. Having chucked away sectarianism then, you think I will please any man to pick it up again? Keep on reading Brother Hoefle's papers and you will get the latest. 1 Thes. 5:21

Brother Johnson once told me when a forecast and the fulfillment turn out differ­ent to expectations that you should re-adjust your understanding to suit the facts. You must be hearing the term “clericalist” being hurled at me. Why? Because I refused to associate with the false doctrine, “Campers Consecrated.” And (2) to memorialize with uncleansed Levites (see Epiphany Vol. 11, page 208). I was charged and condemned by an illegally constituted Court of Elders (see “What Pastor said” on p. 233, Question 1910, middle on; also Epiphany Vol. One – “God,” page 138, par. 1) on the instruction of the Controller of L.H.M.M. for the alleged offenses stated above. The Class knew nothing about it and (2) I was not summoned to attend the trial. I ignored the Court and its unjust decision when I was informed. Result: Division in Trinidad. (This proves very clearly who the real 'clericalists' are in this Trinidad divisionJJH)!

With true Christian love to you, my dear Sister. I abide with you in our dear Redeemer. – L. F. Roach (TRINIDAD)

Our beloved Brother Hoefle: Jas. 1-17 – Greetings through our dear Redeemer!

Received your dear card for which I thank you. It is a long time since I last wrote. This is due to having lost some questions which I noted as they came to mind; and also by doing some overtime work for school – ­and also searching around for a comfortable place to buy ....

Can you please send us the name and address of that Sister in Texas whose letter is the first to appear on your Dec. 1, 1962 paper? .....Enclosed is a tract printed by Pilgrim Tract Society .... Do you think it worthwhile attacking?.......

I do not believe that R. G. Jolly ever read Epiphany Vol. 11, page 208. If he did, and understood what he read, he and his colleagues could not be charging Bro. Roach with keeping a separate Memorial. The Lord is giving us ample proof of Bro. Roach's standing in the Household of Faith. The Lord knoweth them that are His.

What an amount of shameful, barefaced lies R. G. Jolly tells about his presence and actions on the night of the Memorial. How can he face those followers of his here who know (that he does not fear God in this his last chance as a new creature), that they are assisting him with lies to clear himself, Surely the Epiphany is the time of manifesting persons, principles and things! Maybe R. G. jolly knows that his followers are the ones who are to give him eternal life, and not Jehovah – so he has to make straight his way in their sight, or estimation, and set the Lord aside without remorse of conscience.

I have not yet got the picture of the group. I hope to have it as soon as I can. I have already asked someone to do so. Please give our warmest Christian greetings to Sr. Dunnagan and Sr. Wells and the dear brethren, especially those who in distant countries bear up Bro. Roach in their prayers. To you both Heb. 13:20,21.

Your sister through Him ------- (TRINIDAD)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be multiplied!

We were pleased to have your letter.... and also your card. We are enclosing a flash photo taken by our son in our old home.... where memories of our dear Brother Johnson still linger.

It would be grand to meet you, and we know that there are few in numbers in Britain scattered about – yet, you understand, as did Brother Johnson and also Bro. Russell in the early days, numbers are not great. We with you realize the Lord was with us in the fight. “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon” in the two stands taken. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit,” for the battle is the Lord's. As Brother Johnson says in E. Vol. 5, p. 201, God has impressed this lesson by limit­ing the privilege of engaging in the battle to a very small number, compared with the number of their adversaries. Thus, there could be no doubt that the victory was of the Lord. His glory, the Lord will not give to another. Isa. 48:11; Isa. 42:8 God decided that the test should be the attitude of each individual toward the Truth. J Judges 7:4-7; E. Vol. 5, p. 203, p. 206; E. Vol. 4, p. 449 (51). One's consecration is shown by our love for Him and His written word – a desire to be obedient and a desire to grow in His favour, and a delight in meditation, study and practise. Sr.–-joins me in Christian love to you and all the dear ones with you. The Lord's blessing be upon you all. Numbers 6:24-26. Your brother by His Grace ------- (ENGLAND) P.S. Our love to the faithful in Jamaica and Trinidad –

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

 Dear Brother Hoefle:

May the dear Lord abundantly bless you and keep you is my earnest prayer. I do ask Him to guide you in the work you are doing, and that it may all redound to His honor and glory and praise.

I have attended the combination Class here a few times. They bend over back­ward to avoid controversy, and so leave many questions half answered – saying we can't hope to see eye to eye. How are they ever going to get the Truth? They study Vol. 5 and Vol. 1, and of course get most things straight. But when some one gets it wrong he is only half corrected. With Christian love ------- (CALIFORNIA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings of Christian love!

I would be glad to have Brother –- call on me if he is ever in this vicinity..... I received a nice letter from Sister ------- I am glad she doesn't believe in Campers Consecrated; also, I hear from Sister ------- now and then. We used to attend the same class in El Sereno, California. Sister ------- also lived here for awhile ....

I hope this finds you both well, and I wish for you and the brethren in your vicinity a good New Year in the Lord.

With Christian love and prayers ------- (CALIFORNIA)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

The Memorial is Saturday, April 6, after 6:00 p.m., this year. Therefore, in harmony with Brother Johnson's Arrangements for the Epiphany, we are suggesting that the friends participate in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle beginning March 24 through April 21, for our Special Effort. Our tracts, Where are the Dead, What is the Soul, and Resurrection are specially designed for this work. We shall be happy to supply these tracts free of all cost to all the brethren who desire to participate with us in this “good fight.” Also, the Three Babylons tract is specially prepared for witness work against the groups in Little Babylon.

NO. 92: AN EPIPHANY SUMMARIZATION

No. 92

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

 Those of us who still believe that Brother Johnson was the Epiphany Messenger and the Epiphany Solomon must then also confess, if we hold this belief in sincerity and in Truth, that he clearly defined the Epiphany as an act and as a period of time, and also gave us distinct description of persons and things that would become mani­fest during that time. In 2 Chro. 7:11 we are told that “Solomon finished the house of the Lord, and the king’s house: and all that came into Solomon’s heart to make in the house of the Lord, and in his own house, he prosperously affected.” Building “the house of the Lord” for Epiphany purposes means precisely designating the various classes of God’s people and assigning them the work they should do. Thus, he clearly defined the Little Flock, the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies and the quasi-elect; but in none of this did he ever make mention of a Class of Consecrated Epiphany Campers; therefore, we are forced to the conclusion, either that the Epiphany Messenger did not “finish the House of the Lord,” or that those who now attempt to add to it are foisting a false doctrine upon God’s trusting people.

THE EPIPHANY DEFINED

In many Present Truths and in Epiphany Volume 4, pp. 7-73 offer considerable elaboration, with Scriptural proof, that the Epiphany and Apocalypses and the Time of Trouble from 1914 to the end of Jacob’s Trouble are  all one and the same thing as an act and as a period of time. We begin by quoting E:4-14 (7):

‘‘We understand that the epiphaneia, in the first sense of the word (bright shining, manifesting principles, persons and things), has the same primary meaning as the word apokalypsis (revelation) primarily has. This is evident, we understand, because they do the same thing: the epiphaneia, as an action, reveals persons, principles and things, as they are. Thus the Lord now epiphanizes or apokalypsizes Jehovah, Himself, the Church, the Great Company, the Truth, the hidden things of darkness, the counsels of hearts–in a word, brings all pertinent persons, principles and things to bright light in their real character, in so far as this is necessary at the present stage of God’? plan.”

Following with E:4-21 (14): “In the sense of the second period of our Lord’s Second Advent the Epiphany is limited to the time between the Parousia and the Basileia. It is used to designate the period of the great tribulation, the time of Trouble. (So far as Brother Johnson’s teaching is concerned, this is then a settled fact; nothing whatever said about a “narrow” or “restricted” period once the Time of Trouble began. From any and every viewpoint, the Epiphany from 1914 to the end of Jacob’s Trouble is identical with the Time of Trouble–the only difference being the words used to designate the twoJJH) Remembering that the epiphaneia and the apokalypsis are one and the same time and that this period is for the benefit of the world and the Great Company, i.e., that the Lord Jesus in this period manifests His presence to them in their interest–we can readily see that the Scriptures teach that the Epiphany, as a period of time, is the Time of Trouble.” This is also reiterated more emphatically in E:4-55,56 (53 and 54).

Then in E:4-59, bottom: ‘‘Hence we see that Col. 3:4, compared with other scriptures teaches that the Epiphany and its work are progressive, having in the War their small beginnings, in the Revolution their growth and development, and reaching at the end of Anarchy and Jacob’s Trouble their grand climax, so far as the world is concerned. This climax (end of Anarchy and Jacob’s TroubleJJH) is so overshadowingly important that our Pastor placed by far the most emphasis upon it when treating of the Epiphany work, though he did not leave unnoticed the earlier features of the Epiphany and its work toward the world and to­ward the Great Company.”

Be it distinctly noted that both Star Members placed by far the greater emphasis on those features of the Epiphany still future; whereas, R. G. Jolly now has the Epiphany ended and lapping into the Basileia before those features have even begun, with J. W. Krewson eliminating them completely. And let each determine for himself which of these leaders he will accept here.

Following with E:4-45 (43) Brother Johnson quotes, with his own full approval, from Brother Russell’s our Lord’s Return: “Parousia is used in respect of the earliest stage of the Second Advent, while apokalypsis relates to the same Advent later: – not that Apokalypsis and Epiphaneia relate to another or a third advent, but merely to a later feature (not features, since these two words both as an act and as a period are synonymous).”

In his paper No. 47, P. 167, J. W. Krewson offers the “sleight-of-hand” that Epiphany-Apokalypse mean the same as an act, but not as a period. In view of the clear statement above quoted, such a statement by J. W. Krewson can be nothing more than hypocritical jugglery.

“The Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age” (see E:4-65, par. 63); and “by the time it is completed the whole Church will be with the Lord.... Accordingly, the words epiphaneia and apokalypsis, in the sense of an action, and in the sense of a period, are synonymous.” (E:4-15) We have clearly defined Epi­phany and Apokalypse “in our No. 34 of May 1, 1958, showing clearly there the respect in which these words differ in definition, and the bearing this difference has on our present study.

The foregoing quotations certainly can leave not the slightest doubt that both the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers regarded Epiphany, Apokalypse and Time of Trouble (since 1914) as so closely interwoven and related that they cannot be separated as one period of time. Therefore, any one attempting to teach that those two believed otherwise is simply perpetrating gross fraud upon God’s people. If those who now con­tend that both Messengers were wrong can produce Scripture and logic to prove their point, that is still another matter; but let them first do this, or forever hold their peace, We are among the first who are ready to admit that Brother Russell and Bro. Johnson both made mistakes – they were not infallible –, some of which they themselves corrected in due course. Others of their mistakes were corrected by those who followed after; but we are also most emphatic in our contention that we want more than just mere opinion or sophistry to back up such contentions. Even if the teaching on the Epiphany-Apokalypse period were not fully substantiated by Scripture (being only ­the opinion of the two last Star Members), we would certainly rely on their opinion, until time or events had disproved it, rather than the opinions of the two “cousins.” But this faithful teaching is fully corroborated by Scripture.

Now follows more from page 34 of Vol. 4: ‘‘We know that it is by the Great Tribula­tion that the Lord will manifest Himself as present as their Deliverer to the Great Company and to the world.... Hence the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are one and the same period. But the Time of Trouble began with the World War.... Therefore, ever since 1914 we have been in the Epiphany.” A simple question is in order here: Has the World or thi Great Company recognized Jesus as present as their Deliverer? Surely, no one among us is foolish enough to contend that the World has made such recognition; and we know, too, that only a very small segment of the Great Company – as such, – so recognizes Him. Of all the sects in Big and Little Babylon, the leader of the L.H.M.M. is the only one – so far as we know – who openly admits he is a crown­loser. Therefore, the Epiphany has not even passingly accomplished its purpose toward the World; and only very, very moderately in so far as the Great Company is concerned. And similar comparison applies to the Time of Trouble. The second, third and fourth phases (the fourth being Jacob’s Trouble and actually the extreme finale of the third phase) have not yet even appeared. Therefore, the Epiphany has also failed in its purpose a third time if the Jolly-Krewson twosome are correct in their present conten­tions.

If their present contentions are correct, the Epiphany has failed in a fourth particular; namely, the fulfillment of 2 Thes. 2:8, where we are told that our Lord Jesus ‘‘will annihilate the Man of Sin by the epiphaneia of His Parousia.” This Scrip­ture J. W. Krewson has ignored completely, although we have used it on numerous occasions; and only recently has R. G. Jolly made a lame attempt to fit it into his Epiphany overlapping picture. But he has had to do this by the flimsy argument that we are now in the ‘overlapping’ of the Epiphany-Basileia. And he is crass enough to claim this ‘overlapping’ is a parallel to the Parousia-Epiphany overlapping, which was a period of twenty-five months in 1914-1916. But his ‘overlapping’ has now been going on for almost nine years! Quite a “parallel,” isn’t it? Before he is through, he may find his ‘overlapping’ is almost as long as his Epiphany period proper. It is certain there is yet no end of his ‘overlapping’ in sight; and his partisan supporters should be jubilant indeed as they view what stares them in the face.

There is another point to be considered here: When Brother Russell explained the Gospel-Age antitype of the Moses Tabernacle, he defined very clearly the Most Holy, Holy, Court, Camp, and beyond the Camp. When Brother Johnson offered his Epiphany antitype, he also did the same for that Tabernacle. When we place the Apokalypsis and loverlapping” Basileia “Pastors & Teachers” beside the real Pastors and Teachers of our time, it is truly a spectacle to behold. Up to now, with almost nine years’ time, neither of them has offered clear presentation of their respective Tabernacles. WHY? We answer, It is because their Tabernacles are just as much out of joint as are their contentions that the Epiphany is a thing of the past. Both of them now have a ‘vacant house’ in their Holy; and their Camp is bedlam of admixture, with their Consecrated Campers, those expelled from the Court when losing their Tenta­tive Justification there also, with neither of them courageous enough to declare if Nominal Christendom is also still there. Yes, the Lord is “sending such an energy of delusion to their believing this falsehood.” (2 Thes. 2:11, Dia.)

Another consideration impinges greatly against the present Epiphany teachings of the’ “cousins” is this: (E:11-100 (29)

“If we keep in mind the antitypical setting of the Scripture which we are studying, from the time of Moses’ and Aaron’s arrival in Egypt onward to Israel’s departure from Egypt, as referring to conditions during the first and second stages of our Lord’s Second Advent (the Parousia and Epiphany–JiB.), we will see that this part of the type refers not only to the Parousia, but also to the Epiphany.” In the few pages following the above Brother Johnson proceeds to explain how the liberation of certain sections of age-end Levites, and the work they would accomplish, would also be an Epiphany work. None of that has yet occurred; so we ask again, Who is right – the Epiphany Messenger or the ‘cousins’?

In October 1921 P.T.) p.150, under the caption, The Duration of the Epiphany, Brother Johnson makes this statement:

‘‘We can see that the Epiphany in its widest sense will continue for awhile after the Great Company, who precede the Ancient Worthies in the resurrection, will leave the earth. If, as seems probable, there will be the same length of time for the Epiphany to lap into the Basileia (which time has clearly proven to be an incorrect expectation–JJH), we should expect that the Basileia, the Kingdom, would require about two years and one month for its recognition by the Gentiles.... It will thus be seen that on some phases of this subject we cannot as yet speak with positive assurance, On this subject ‘we know in part’ only.... It would be wiser to say nothing at all on the subject to those who do not accept the Parousia Truth, and very little to others not in the Epiphany Truth,” (But the “cousins” don’t agree with such wisdom: R. G. Jolly felt it necessary to inform the world in his D-Y-K tract that the last Saint was gone! And similar unwisdom can be said of J. W. Krewson–JJH)

From the foregoing, it should be clear enough that had Brother Johnson lived through 1956 he would have recognized the fallacy of his expectations for that time, and would have told the Church about it–just as Brother Russell did about 1915, when those expectations failed to materialize. And it would seem R. G. Jolly should yet retain enough of the ‘spirit of understanding’ to do the same thing now, instead of tenaciously clinging to that cluster of error handed to him by J. W. Krewson on Consecrated Campers. The reason Brother Russell retained his contentions about 1914 was because the ‘signs of the times’ (the outbreak of the War exactly on time) con­firmed his date, even though some of his expectations were wrong. However, with the dates 1950, 1954 and 1956 not a single expectation for those years – NOT ONE – prevailed; therefore, contending for such non-existent items is akin to the mirage that befogs the desert traveler into believing he sees water just ahead. It is little wonder that the best word we have to describe such contentions is NONSENSE!

LEVITES - GOOD AND BAD

And, having perverted or nullified so much of Epiphany Truth, is it not something to behold both the “cousins” stoutly contending they are “in full harmony with the Epiphany Messenger”? In this respect their kinsmen in the Dawns have done exactly the same thing with Brother Russell’s writings. They, too, claim to abide by what he taught, all the while throwing out very large parts of Volumes Two and Three. Certainly the latter are no longer in Parousia Truth–just as many once with Brother Johnson are no longer in Epiphany Truth–regardless of their loud claims to the con­trary. And let us be not deceived: such garrulous flummery can only result in many losing their Class standing if they persist therein. It matters not what their standing may once have been. All crown-losers at one time had their standing among the Saints (some of them for many years, some for perhaps only weeks or months); many crown-losers were GOOD Levites under the beneficent leadership of the last two Principal Men, but this is no assurance at all that they would continue that way. Some such eventually became very bad Levites; many even went into the second death. So the past is no true gauge for the present; there is only one true measuring rod, and that is the TRUTH. As Brother Johnson explained, the Good Epi­phany Levites would revolutionize only against Parousia or Epiphany arrangements; and R. G. Jolly is a prominent example of this under Brother Johnson. When he revolutionized against arrangements in 1938, and was upbraided by the Epiphany Mes­senger, he then had the humility to acknowledge his failing, and depart therefrom –which demonstrated before all that he was then a Good Levite, However, his revolu­tionisms against both Parousia and Epiphany Truth since Brother Johnson’s demise, now force us to forget the past, and to catalog him among the Bad Levites – just as has occurred with some others in similar manner.

It is not our wish, or our pleasure, to mention individuals unless circum­stances force us to do so. Thus, on occasion we do not offer names when criticizing some things taught from convention platforms, and the like, by lesser lights. Therefore, if and when we see some revolutionizing against Parousia or Epiphany arrangements, we do not consider it our burden to publish the names of such. on the other hand, this does not prevent us from observing what goes on; nor need it prevent any of our readers from making like observation. However, we do always try to point out the Truth to such if we have opportunity, considering James’ words in 5:20 (Dia.) that if “we turn back a sinner (a Great Company member) from his path of error, it will save his soul from death.” And we try always to do this in harmony with St* Paul’s counsel to to the Galations (Gal. 6:1-3,Dia.): “If a man should be surprised by some fault, do you, the spiritual, reinstate such person with a spirit of meekness.... for, if any one think he is something, being nothing, he deceives himself.”

We can but preach the things we have seen and heard, knowing full well that our experience is certain to conform to that of St. Paul, “good soldier of Jesus Christ” that he was: “Now, thanks be to that God, who always leads us forth to triumph with the Anointed One, and who diffuses by us the fragrance of the knowledge of Him in every place. Because we are a sweet odor of Christ to God, among those who are being saved, and among those who are perishing; and to these, indeed, an odor of death to death, and to those an odor of life to life.... For we are not like the many, traffic­ing the Word of God; but really from sincerity we speak concerning Christ*” (2 Cor. 2:14-17, Dia.).

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

---------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – On page 95 of the Nov-Dec. Present Truth Brother Jolly states that on Sept. 22, 1950 Brother Johnson examined the data for the 1951 Memorial date to come before the Vernal Equinox, and approved it. if that is true, would not Brother Johnson also have approved March 18, 1962 as the right Memorial date?

ANSWER: – It is a character quality of R. G. Jolly to resort to half truths whenever it seems expedient; and, says Brother Johnson, “Half truths are often more misleading than whole errors.” In this present instance he has once more attempted to hide behind a half truth, and thus saddle the responsibility upon Brother Johnson for his own mischief – although he is ever ready to ignore completely the true and proven teachings of Brother Johnson that do not appeal to him.

A number of times over the past seven years we have referred to those 27 “mis”­calculations to “prove” 1956 that appear in the January 1947 Present Truth (to ‘prove’ that the full end of the Church in the Spirit-begotten condition would be in 1956 – which R. G. Joily now just as dogmatically claims to ‘prove’ was in 1950 instead of 1956, which he ‘calculated’ in this Jan. 1947 P.T., p. 13, col. 1, par.1) -­but, up to now, R. G. Joily’s only explanation for these false contentions is that Brother Johnson “approved” them. Those figures are a product of the Jolly-Krewsom twosome, which time has clearly proven to be symbolic witchcraft (especially deceptive false teachings). It will be recalled that in the fall of 1946 Brother Johnson had his desperate coronary thrombosis; and he told us in 1947 (when we were living in the Bible House with him to help him carry on the work) that for several months after that physical breakdown he was so weak he could hardly breathe – so close to death that he had said to himself, “it wouldn’t be so hard to die.” And it was in that condition that he “examined” and approved those eight pages of what time has clearly proven were just so much Azazelian legerdemain, most cunning mathematical sleight­of-hand and false in every figure.

Some of us recall that one of J. W. Krewson’s claims to present title of Pastor and Teacher is that Brother Johnson delegated to him the yearly chore of calculating the Memorial date. if he did that – and no one has denied that he did this chore – ­then he also made the calculation for 1951, which R. G. Jolly now claims Brother Johnson “examined.” And be it noted that at Sept. 22, 1950 Brother Johnson was just one month from death, and in a desperately weak condition – so weak, in fact, that he had not even the strength three weeks before that date to arise from his sick bed and appear at the Philadelphia Labor Day Convention; so he asked us to bless the assembly in his place with the Aaronic benediction.

Also, Doctor (Brother) Alger tells us that during the latter part of September, when he was in Philadelphia giving physical ministry to Brother Johnson, that he was so weak he told him not to ask any more Bible questions. So it was in that condition that he “examined” another set of Jolly-Krewson figures – just as he had four years earlier, and in similar dissipated physique, “examined” the symbolic witchcraft that this pair (the Jolly-Krewsom twosome) presented to him. For shame that R. G, Jolly should sink so low that he must appeal to such deception to sustain himself! This one point alone should be sufficient for all to heed St. Paul’s counsel, “From such turn away”!

---------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Jolly: – Greetings in His service! Your letter of August 25, 1962 received on the 27th, same month; and the truth is I never intended replying because of the ‘man of straw’ you made and then laboured on. I never at any time denied having a separate Memorial! I deny I failed to get a house at St. James and had to resort to Belmont. The owner of the house at St. James is a sister who asked me to hold the Memorial at her home; but, when I saw that the daughter of the owner of the house was inclined to be with you at Tunapuna, at once I changed to Belmont, in order not to divide the family for such a solemn occasion. I may tell you right here that if there is another new creature in Trini­dad, it is this dear old St. James sister, who does not travel. I desired no rift. This sister is the first to close down L.H.M.M. meetings at her house. She has been saintly enough to prevent the slanderer leading meetings at her house. (jas. 3:9,10; 1st John 3:15) The rest of your letter, the humiliating portion, I deem confidential.

When I kept away from your meetings, especially the Memorial at which you officiated, according to Brother Martin’s letters as shown in Brother Hoefle’s paper No. 88, Oct. 1, 1962, 1 acted on Brother Johnson’s teachings where he says, “do not invite uncleansed Levites to our Memorial,” etc., which I cannot just now recall. However, I was confident that my character would be vindicated from the attacks you have made upon it in your July-August 1962 paper; and Brother Hoefle has brought to my attention a much stronger passage in Epiphany Vol. 11, page 208:

“While the Great Company are in their uncleansed condition – impenitent – ­they should not keep the annual Lord’s Supper; and for this reason the Epiphany-enlightened saints should not memorialize with them, nor welcome them to their own celebrations.”

How do I now rejoice for this my substantiation in the Household of Faith! In your so-called progressive Tabernacle you force a void in the Holy, in the face of That Servant’s teaching in Z 5173, col. 1, par. 6: “Even today, although the truly consecrated believers in the Great Redeemer are confessedly few in number, yet the saltness from the teachings of the Savior has a wide influence upon the world. Without it, doubtless, corruption and a complete collapse would have come long ago. In spite of it, we see corrupting and corrupt influences at work everywhere; and the wider our horizon, the more general our information, the more we realize the truth of this statement.

When the last member of the body of Christ shall have passed beyond the veil, the salt will be gone. Then corruption will take hold swiftly, and the result will be the great time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation Matt,24:21; – Dan, 12:1.”

This is in complete harmony with the Samson type in judges 16:21-30 – a type you have completely avoided since our beloved Brother Johnson’s death. You say the salt are among others – Campers, etc. I believe you are sincere in wanting to have me back, but that is not possible while you are “impenitent” in holding onto the “strange fire” of Campers Consecrated, the 1954 items that have completely failed of fulfilment, etc, As far as I understand, every Little Flock came under That Servant’s ministry: hence, his writings are addressed chiefly to them. Do you know that in 1960, for about six months, I defended an innocent one who knew nothing about it until when I asked the sister involved to be my principal witness at the trial for slander? of course, you know well, as it is because of the revival of this case* The opponents think me too strict and must be made to bow. I am in possession of documentary evidence.

As regards protecting the innocent (See Z 5417, col. 2, par. 4): “In a case where an innocent person is suffering wrong, and we have full knowledge of the matter, then it might be our duty to manifest anger, righteous indignation. It would be proper to manifest a certain degree of anger if we saw even a dumb brute mistreated. If we saw the principles of righteousness being outraged, it might become necessary to manifest some anger, some indignation.”

I had intended the whole of your letter to be confidential, but seeing the attacks which you are falsely making against a non-sifter – but a prominent member of the Household of Faith, Brother Hoefle (a Pilgrim by Brother Johnson’s appoint­ment) – I send my reply open. May 1963 be more glorious than 1962.

I am

In the Master’s Service, L. F. Roach (January 5, 1963) – TRINIDAD

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving Christian greetings!

First, I must thank you for the tracts and the assurance that you can supply other literature when I need it... Now, to happier news: At the suggestion of Mrs -------, we are having, not a weekly, but a daily study of the Divine Plan. Often, she stops to exclaim, ‘‘This is good!”.....

I am forcefully reminded of the careless lack of proper order and expression of reverence in meetings of some Truth people. At......, for example, when Bro ------- visited the ------- Ecclesia, Bro ------- volunteered to suggest that, instead of having the regular meeting, we just visit. Remembering the suggestion that when Truth people visit, the topic of conversation would naturally be on the Scriptures, I asked a question on Scriptural proof of the Youthful Worthy calling ending in 1954, Bro ------- relieved Bro ------- of saying anymore than “I don’t know,” by blusteringly demanding, “Do you agree with Bro. jolly – or don’t you!” That was all the backing Bro ------- needed to take the step (as a supposedly righteous one!) of disfellow­shiping ------- and me – Sr. -------, because she objected to the Channelism, so clearly manifested by our brother.........

How soon will our sleeping brethren arouse themselves to the real Truth?

As soon as their characters develop the necessary affinity for the Truth, I’m sure Brother Johnson would answer. Now I can understand better how Bro. Johnson yearned for the return of bewildered brethren!

Praying the Lord’s continued blessing on your labor of love, and desiring always an interest in your prayers, I remain with hearty Christian love, ------- (Texas)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Season’s greetings in the Name of our Blessed Lord!

We take this opportunity of expressing our deepest appre­ciation of your faithful and devoted service in the Lord’s work..... our prayers for you, dear Brother, is that the good Lord may help you to be faithful to the end as was Joshua of old. Although opposed by many errorists – especially R. G. Jolly – yet there’s consolation in knowing that J. F. Rutherford was Brother Johnson’s greatest Opponent – and likewise was our Lord opposed at His First Advent by those who professed to be Children of Light. The unfaithful are always stumbled – Psa.119:165.

Your articles are always welcome.... We can see the condition that R. G. Jolly and his chief supporters are in. It is no wonder Brother Johnson has so often said, “When one falls into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense.”

The Lord has promised to support and bless His people and surely He will lead you to the end. (Josh. 1:5-8) We wish you, dear Sister Hoefle and all the dear ones with you an enjoyable Christmas, and may the New Year find you and all there still standing and rejoicing in the Lord’s favour and service.

Yours by His Grace, Crofts Hill Ecclesia (JAMAICA)

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

My dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be multiplied unto you!

I thank you for your letters of encouragement and instruc­tions to right living... and I thank God for you both and wish I had words to express my appreciation....

We received our December article and, as we generally do, all commented on it after the service. Truly God’s law is perfect and changes not; even with all the changes of times it needs no change. While man made laws must be continually adjusted to meet the needs of time... It would have been much better for them if R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson had taken some counsel with the wiser ones. They might have wasted less money; nevertheless since J. W. Krewson is not counted as a brother, it wasn’t wrong to take him to court if found not so trivial. it is plain, however,’ that R, G. Jolly has lost all favor from the Lord and is unable to defend the simplest Truth; even if he is correct on a point he can’t even defend that point. It is a pity to see these brethren when they lose God’s favor – very much a true antitype of Saul. (“The spirit of the Lord departed from Saul.” – l Sam. 16:14 – JJH)

May the Lord continue to bless you as you endeavor to be faithful in his service. Remember me always in your prayers.

Yours by His Grace ------- (JAMAICA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be with you!

You have our sincere thanks, long overdue, for sending us your writings... How our name got on your list is yet rather a mystery to us. We saw you, Brother Hoefle, in Los Angeles, with Bro. Johnson, on one of his last trips out there. So you are not wholly a stranger to us...

We never did and do not now go along with R.G. Jolly in his dogmatic statement that with the passing of Bro. Johnson the last of the Church was gone from the earth. He had no Bible proof for such a claim at the time, as developments during the last 12 years have abundantly proven. So he must make statements and claims that will not stand up, or alone – then he runs around them spouting out words and more words to stop them up. Still they fall flat and more flat. if it were not so serious, his words and actions, and antics (which include lies) would be ridiculous. Thus he has turned into a volcano of words, and like a volcano his words are only ashes and rocks, even hot ones... But why continue? Surely he has been and is being used for a purpose, though we at present do not see exactly what it is. Even a volcano spews itself out and dies down, and in due time its crater, in endless cases, is filled with pure refreshing water, Let us hope!....

Oh yes, this M. O. is to pay for paper and stamps on the writings sent us. We can never pay for the work it took and takes. If you ever see Bro. Roach again, give him our Christian love, and remind him that far away unknown friends are pray­ing for him, that he faint not.

Our love to you and best wishes for whatever this year may hold....

Brother & Sister ------- LOUISIANA

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

Epiphany Bible Students Association

Sirs: Please send me free copies of the following and oblige: The Resurrection of the Dead, The Three Babylons, and What is the Soul.

                                                Sincerely yours ------- TRINIDAD

NO. 91: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

No. 91

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

In our paper last January we offered quite some detailed comment on SILVER in its artistic, monetary and commercial aspects and the pressure that had been build­ing up to force a higher price than the one fixed for many years by our Government in Washington. Before our January paper had been placed in the Post Office the Pres­ident declared a “free” market on the metal about five o’clock one afternoon; and the price advanced thirteen cents an ounce before the market opened the next morning. Since that time it has edged steadily higher, so that the price is now over thirty cents an ounce above what it was a year ago. The same upheaval is certain to apply to the course of gold, the pressure on which is even now at the exploding point, with secret processes being manipulated in a frantic effort to avoid the inevitable. Some of these are “unlawful for a man to utter”; but the source of our information comes from experts whom we have known for many years and whose integrity has our full respect. This past summer one of the more prominent Florida newspapers carried an editorial on this item, to which we responded with the following letter, which was published on July 9:

Editor:  Referring to your editorial in the July 3 paper, Distrust of Dollar Abroad, it is indeed most refreshing to read your com­mendable observations. Of course, you might have been a little more di­rect and incisive in your wording. At present we have in the United States about $22 billions of short-term foreign deposits, which are convertible into gold on demand; whereas we have a little over $16 billions of gold to meet that staggering liability.

 If the U.S. bank examiners found a bank anywhere in this country in such deplorable financial circumstances, they would not allow that bank to open its doors tomorrow morning.

 Therefore, it’s little wonder that foreign bankers – who know the banking rules at least as well as you and I – view the American dollar with critical eye.”

In the foreword to Vol. 4, dated October 1, 1916, Brother Russell had this to say about the world’s financial condition:

“The debts of the warring nations are authoritatively stated to amount to fifty-five billions of dollars – a sum which, of course, can never be paid in gold; and everybody knows there is not sufficient gold even to pay the interest on the debts of the world... Evidently the war will not stop from lack of men to shoot and be shot, but either from lack of food or from financial weakness. That it will be the latter is the author’s opinion.”

A FAR STEP

When Brother Russell expressed the opinion that it would be finances that would wreck the present order, his opinion was surely correct; but little did he then real­ize the astronomical figures that would appear as present institutions “shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up.” (Heb. 1:11,12) At October 1, 1916 the national debt of all the warring nations combined was fifty-five billions of dollars; in 1962 the federal debt of the United States alone is about three hundred billions (it was about one billion in 1914), and the overall debt in this nation alone (national, state, local and commercial) is now over one trillion dollars, and growing at a rate of about fifty billion annually. Today the currency issued by the United States Government is merely an engraved piece of paper – a “promise-to-pay” nothing; and this is generally accepted without question by the average citizen because so little is said about it. Both political parties have been guilty of using the printing press – the Democrats more so than the Republicans – both guilty enough that they dare not criticize the other; thus, the tremendous vagary is usually given the silent treatment, and the general public remains uninformed.

 In all major countries the currency (printed money) has been devalued one or more times since we have come into the Epiphany (the Time of Trouble). By the end of 1923 in Germany there had been issued more than 496 quintillion marks (496,000,000,000,000,000,000), and had by that time become so jittery that it was quoted hourly. We are acquainted with a man here in the United States who was employed in a German industry at that time about two blocks from the Belgian border; and he has told us that, when they received their weekly pay on Saturday, they did not walk, they ran, to the Belgian border to convert their wages into Belgian money before it shrank still further. In 1924 the new Reichsmark was introduced, but it, too, went the way of the former, so that another devaluation was forced in 1948. The same story may be told of the Russian Ruble, the French Franc, the Italian Lira, the Greek Drachma and many other currencies; and the question logically arises, How long will faith in the United States regard “slips of paper” as money? It seems an indisputable conclusion that a dollar confidence crisis lies ahead, the only question mark being WHEN?

CONCERNING ANTITYPICAL JEHORAM OF JUDAH

 Due to foreign skepticism of the American dollar, a continuous drain has developed against our gold reserve, so that it is now only about sixteen billion dollars’ worth – ­down more than eight billions from the high some years back. Our officials have exerted frantic under-cover pressure to prevent further withdrawals, so critical has the situa­tion become. It has been well-defined that a nation is no stronger than its financial structure; it is the sustaining midsection of the figurative sovereign body. In Epi­phany Vol. 3, PP. 195-249 Brother Johnson has given us quite some detail on 2 Chro. 21:1-20, as typical of America reaction in cooperation with the evils of the Euro­pean Ahab. In that Scripture it is related how Jehoram’s “bowels fell out” by reason of the sickness that befell him; and Brother Johnson applied the antitype to the election result in the fall of 1932. But it would seem a more pronounced fulfillment may yet occur in the near future if much more gold is withdrawn from the United States; its monetary structure will experience complete collapse – just as would occur to a human being if the viscera were suddenly removed from the midsection. This is an item well worth watching!

OTHER EVILS

It is properly observed also that the demoralization of the world money structure has been followed closely by deterioration of the moral, ethical and religious fiber of the general public. This is particularly attested in the growing juvenile delin­quency, which has many parents and public officials near distraction. It has been a correct expression that, “Many children today feel that the only time they should ‘shift’ for themselves is when their parents buy them a new automobile.” The religious fiber is also strongly on the downgrade; COMBINATIONISM is “defiling the house, and filling the courts with the slain.” (Eze. 9:7) Nor can these things be properly ignored by God’s faithful people. We are indeed to be “sons of peace”; but Brother Johnson has stated this matter so very well in E-3:170 (top):

“But while they are peaceable, they are not primarily peaceable. They are primarily pure: and to maintain purity of doctrine and life, they will break the peace rather than keep it at the expense of principle. Surely all of us have been deeply saddened by the breaking of peace among the Lord’s people.”

AMONG TRUTH PEOPLE

The foregoing is definitely our attitude as respects our conduct toward those with whom we once walked arm in arm. Sweet fellowship in peace is greatly to be desired; but it is a sad commentary of history that the truest and best of God’s people have had constant warfare throughout the Gospel Age with those of their brethren who would pervert Truth and conduct. And usually they have been blamed as the troublemakers as they protested such actions. The wicked and impudent Ahab cast the accusation at the fully faithful Elijah (a type of the Gospel-Age Elect): “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” (1 Kgs. 18:17) This is also further accentuated in 2 Chro. 25:14-16, where the Lord sent a faithful prophet to rebuke the sinning King Amaziah, with the erring king casting this insolent retort at him: “Art thou made of the king’s counsel?” And here is Brother Johnson’s comment on that situation: “Thus proud wrongdoers usually charge those who rebuke at the gate.” And excellent comment by him on such cases is to be found in E-13:557 (top):

 “One of the proofs of human depravity is the rise of corruption after a season of good development in most human movements... a pro­cedure that almost always sets in the case of those new creatures who for a time run well and then later lose their crowns. We see this in the Parousia movement, changing in most cases to more or less corrupt Great Company movements during the Epiphany.”

 And, says Brother Johnson in E-13:486, the rebukes and corrections of the faith­ful increased as apostasy increased; and, in turn, St. Paul’s words in 2 Thes. 2:11 (Dia.) were fulfilled against the apostates: “On this account God will send them an energy of delusion, to their believing the falsehood.”

 During 1962 a few such instances have appeared among erstwhile Epiphany Truth people; namely, the Memorial date, and the Jolly-Krewson lawsuit. Each of these “cousins” makes loud claim to the title “Pastor and Teacher”; yet with the Memorial date each of them has been refuted by the Truth we presented. In this controversy they did indeed offer strong “dis”-proof of their claims. The same principle applies to their arguments about the lawsuit, wherein each of them has presented voluminous verbosity, while clearly revealing that neither of them understands the subject being discussed. And in the face of these crushing defeats, J. W. Krewson still has the brazen effrontery to declare in his paper No. 46 that no one has been able to refute his teaching. With little effort we could produce numerous other examples where the “cousins” have been equally crass; but these two should suffice in our “retro­spect” for 1962. Clearly enough, many who once seemed in good spiritual health under the faithful guidance of the Epiphany Messenger have now lost much of Epiphany Truth; and we are safe in predicting they will yet lose much more of it if they do not “turn back from their path of error.” (Jas. 5:20-Dia.) Let us consider here another statement from Brother Johnson in E-11:74:

“If Israel would not undertake and persevere in the involved spiritual journey – CONSECRA­TION made and carried out – ­it is certain that the Lord would send to them a strong delusion – a symbolic pesti­lence (2 Thes. 2:9-12) – as He has done and is doing to the unfaithful from 1878 onward in the six harvest siftings (Revolutionism being the sixth sifting slaughter­weapon–JJH). The antitypical sword of v. 3 represents controversial Truth refut­ing the errors of the unfaithful.”

 This, too, has been enacted against the measurably faithful, as is shown in our controversies over the 1962 Memorial date, the correct interpretation of 1 Cor. 6:1-6, on Campers “Consecrated,” the ‘chief enemies of Jesus,’ the justification status of unfaithful Youthful Worthies, the types of Abraham and Isaac on Moriah and Moses on Pisgah, etc., during the year past which we now view in Retrospect.

This also from E-13:744 – “Their respective attitude toward Great and Little Babylon, which are to be annihilated, was that they who would treat them as they treated God’s true people would be favored by God (8); and that they who would dash the little sects of both Babylons against the doctrines of the Truth would be favored by God (9).”

 Seeing then, that we know beforehand what the end will be for Big and Little Babylon, “we will not fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea... (because) there is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the City of God, the Holy of the tabernacles of the Most High.” (Psa. 46:1-4) Therefore, may you who see these things clearly make firm resolution, “my beloved brethren, to be settled, unmoved, abounding in the work of the Lord at all times, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 15:58-Dia.)

 With this comes our heart-felt reciprocal cordial good wishes throughout 1963 to all whose Holiday greetings have come to us, and our prayer for spiritual health and prosperity to all our brethren everywhere. “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience (cheerful endur­ance amid trying circumstances) that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise... We are not of them who drawback unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” (Heb. 10:35-39)

Sincerely your Brother, John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

There has been a hearty response from some of our readers to our request for names of Jehovah’s Witnesses, L.H.M.M., and from other Little Babylon groups for our article No. 88, October 1, 1962, re the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Revelation 9; and we think the results have been good thus far. We are having a re-run of the articles to supply copies for additional names received; and we shall welcome such further response.

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – A prominent Protestant churchman recently gave a news interview, in which he said he was very happy at the progress being made toward unity among Catholics and Protestants, because we could now stress irenics instead of polemics. What is your opinion of this, and will you please explain?

ANSWER: – We certainly do not agree with such a viewpoint. “Irenics” is properly defined as “theology concerned with securing Christian unity”; whereas, polemics” is “the art of disputation, its object being refutation of errors.” The cleric you mention is advocating just the reverse of the Apostle Jude (v. 3, Dia.): “I had a necessity to write to you, exhorting you to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.” Clearly enough, the cleric and the Apostle cannot occupy the same theological house, because the former is just using intricate speech born of high-sounding words to advocate COMBINATIONISM, while the Apostle Jude is stressing the necessity for doctrine which “is first pure, then peaceable.”

 Let us examine Brother Johnson’s definition of Combinationism in E-9:395 (38): “By com­binationism we mean an illicit union of God’s people (the sifting of the sixth-hour call.... typically set forth in Numbers 25... representing the great ones of Christendom in church, state and capital – par. 37) with evil persons, principles, things and practices, e.g., introducing clericalistic principles and practices among the consecrated, uniting them in their studies, services and characteristics. The justified practice combinationism when they mix their principles and practices with those of the camp (as R. G. Jolly is now doing by mingling his Campers Consecrated with the great horde of unjustified campers–JJH). The camp practices combinationism when they cooperate with non-Christian religious movements... Examples of combina­tionism are evident in the union of church and state, of denominations with denomi­nations, of Levite movements with Levite movements.”

 “Those that died in the (typical) plague were twenty and four thousand” (Numbers 25:9), the largest toll exacted in any of the Wilderness plagues, the next nearest having destroyed only fifteen thousand. Apparently the number is indicative of the grievous pestilencial force in the end of this Age; and it should be a proper warning to all of us. That this pestilence is boldly on the march is seen in the election of a Roman Catholic to the United States’ Presidency –­ an event that would have been impossible even twenty years ago. There is now also a Roman Catholic at the head of the French Government; and the same in Germany, one-time cradle of the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther; and we may reason­ably conclude that the frequent visits of the German Chancellor to Washington go deeper than what is revealed in the daily press. And the Protestant leaders in France, England and the United States offer their whole-hearted approval of this spiritual malady. Here is an exact quotation from Rev. Dr. Marc Boegner, long-time leader of French Protestantism:

“Many of the problems may be seen in a new color and in a new mood. What’s important is that polemics be replaced by irenics. There can be something totally new connecting the men of the Roman Church and men of other churches.”

Yes, the ‘new color’ mentioned by Rev. Boegner is closely associated with the expression in Joel 2:6, “All faces shall gather blackness” – a ‘new color’ indeed!

The same tendency is also clearly apparent in Little Babylon, with many now taking a very conciliatory attitude even toward the Little Catholic Church there, with the terrible sins of the past either forgotten, excused or modified, just as is being done with the past sins of the Roman Church. Certainly, those of us who still pray, “God bless the memory” of the last two Principal Men should be even more opposed to combinationism than they were; and all of us who are at all familiar with their attitude know they would not look upon this evil with any degree of allow­ance. Viewed from this standpoint, those of the L.H.M.M. who now embrace this third slaughter-weapon man (Eze. 9:2) are most guilty of all. They did accept the benign teaching of the Epiphany Messenger when he was still with us – at least, they gave lip-service thereto; yet he had barely left us until this pestilence was allowed to afflict them. At the Chicago Convention in 1961 one man was asked to read the Vow in the morning devotional service, who almost certainly did not believe or prac­tice parts of it, thus making a hypocrite of him and them for so doing; yet it bothered them not at all. They seem ready to embrace about every one except those who are pointing out their sins to them; and our answer to such is the statement of the Master Himself in Luke 12:48 – Dia.: “From any one to whom much is given much will be required; and from him with From much has been deposited (such as the benign and prolific explanations of the last Star Member), they mill exact the more.”

--------------------------------------------------------

LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Bro. Hoefle:

            Greetings in the Master’s Name! I am writing to tell you I have not received the September article .... I have had a glance at Bro. Roach’s. I am also look­ing forward to the October paper, with some extras. I note what you said about the mixed reception you experienced at the Convention. Such experiences are good, as they afford us an opportunity to manifest Christ’s spirit.

The friends would like to have some tracts before Nov. for distribution: Where are the Dead, Resurrection, etc.... Bro. ------- has had his mind poisoned against you. That was R. G. Jolly’s chief motive in sending that vicious letter to the class, in which he referred to you as “that sifter” – and then to come in person.

Our love to the dear ones. God bless you all!

Yours by His Grace, Bro ------- TRINIDAD

-----------------------------------------------------------

(Supplement)

November-December 1962 Present Truth

 Inasmuch as the forepart of this paper was through the printer before we received the Nov-Dec Present Truth, we now refute his contentions in this Supplement.

On p. 94, col. 1, par. 5, he raises the question of our honesty for omitting the words “according to Josephus, Book III, chap. 10, sec. 5.” This seems to us a very cheap maneuver on his part, and reveals once more the kind of man he is. If our readers will refer to our “Supplement to No. 80,” it will be noted there that we not only gave the reference, but actually quoted more of it than did Brother Johnson in his quotation. Also, in our No. 87 Special we answered R. G. Jolly’s “cousin” (J. W. Krewson) in detail on a similar bit of nonsense.

When he speaks about the rule that Brother Russell established, Brother Johnson proves (and is admittedly accepted by R. G. Jolly himself) that Brother Russell was at least one day wrong on almost every Memorial he observed – just as Brother Johnson humbly admits for himself a one-day mistake on the Memorial dates he established prior to 1933. Brother Johnson distinctly and clearly tells us in that same Feb. 1, 1933 Present Truth (pp. 24,25) that “Our Pastor had great difficulty in this matter, and so far as we can make out from his varied methods, he sometimes used the full-moon day, sometimes the Jewish calendar..... and sometimes, disregarding all four of these, he used we know not just what method.” Here is a statement that clearly points out that Brother Russell used many different methods (other than the one we now accept – ­namely, that the new moon “nearest” the Vernal Equinox should always be used, with the exception that Brother Johnson succinctly sets out – “NEVER BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX” – a conclusion of his own, which he derived from the statements of Josephus) – ­all of them incorrect in one day, at least, according to his “Correction” just cited. So Brother Johnson adds in this same “Correction” – “By showing us the real beginning of the lunar month as He regards it, God indicates that none of us has been on the right tract... We thank God that as a part of the mother of the daughter (a Great Company developing Truth–JJH) we have been cleansed from another item of error and are being sanctified by another item of advancing Truth.”

That Brother Johnson regarded Josephus as an authority, and did not quote him for the purpose of refuting what he said, we quote the following:

“Brethren, in this matter let us adhere to the rule that our Pastor gave as his latest and most mature thought on the method of finding Nisan 1 – a thought that according to Josephus prevailed in the New Testament Times – i.e., that the new moon nearest – whether before or after – the Vernal Equinox points out Nisan l...” (But Bro. Johnson clearly makes an exception to this rule when the new moon nearest the Vernal Equinox sets the date of the Passover before the Vernal Equinox, because he himself makes the observation and statement that Nisan 14 should not be observed “BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX,” based on the statement of Josephus that “the sun must be in Aries” – another way of saying that this celebration should not take place “Before the Vernal Equinox.”)

The method of Jesus and the Apostles during New Testament times, “according to Josephus,” is Brother Johnson’s ONLY citation of authority, since the Bible is silent thereon. So far as we know, both Star Members adhered to this rule (whether their Passover dates were incorrect or not) and never observed the Passover BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX.

 Brother Johnson also had excellent reason for following Josephus. As we said in previous papers, if Josephus could be correctly quoted to fix the extreme end of Nisan, he could with equal propriety be quoted to fix the beginning of that month. And Josephus says that when he lived that was regulated by the sun being in Aries – ­which occurred then at almost identically the same time as the Vernal Equinox.

While it is admitted that Josephus is unreliable as a historian, neither Brother Russell nor Brother Johnson – nor any one else, so far as we know – questions his understanding of Jewish religious ritual when Jesus was on earth (until now, with these new “Pastors and Teachers,” the Jolly-Krewson twosome, who once more demon­strate their “cousin” kinship). Here is something from the autobiography of Josephus:

“My family is not an ignoble one, but hath descended all along from priests... By my mother I am of royal blood, for the sons of Asamaeous, from whom she descended, were both high priests and kings... The high priests and principal men of Jerusalem came frequently to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the Law.”

 It will be noted that Jesus had no quarrel with the Scribes and Pharisees as to the date they observed Passover; but He prepared to observe it – and did observe it – ­on the date the Jews determined. Let us consider also that Josephus himself was of the first-ranking order of serving priests, so that he would be thoroughly qualified to explain the Jews’ religious customs, his uncle having been high priest in Israel – in rank with Caiphas, Eli, Zechariah, Zadok and other successors of Aaron. Clearly enough, Brother Johnson was not refuting Josephus, as he was doing with the modern Jewish calendar; he was quoting him as an authority on Jewish ritual. In fact, there is little other than Josephus’ statement on which we can rely, the Bible being completely silent on the matter (otherwise Brother Johnson would have cited the Scripture); and, whatever was correct for Jesus and the Apostles, would be equally right for us today. That is why Brother Johnson offered us this exception regarding the new moon nearest the Vernal Equinox for Nisan 14 – “NEVER BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX” – a conclusion (not quotation) he based exclusively on what Josephus gave. So we say to R. G. Jolly, as we also said to J. W. Krewson: Show us one instance during the entire Parousia-Epiphany periods that either Brother Russell or Brother Johnson observed the Memorial before the Vernal Eguinox. If R. G. Jolly now rejects Josephus – upon whom Brother Johnson relied in certain essential respects for his conclusions – then let him now direct us to some other authority upon which Brother Russell and Brother Johnson relied for the conclusions they gave us. From all the records we now have, it would seem Jesus had no argument whatever with the statements of Josephus; but this doesn’t seem to bother R. G. Jolly in his rejection of Josephus now.

 On P. 93, col. 2, par. 4, R. G. Jolly states that the addition of Ve-Adar in seven of every nineteen years “does not alter the Jewish beginning of each year with the new moon nearest the Vernal Equinox.” This is a false statement – and R. G. Jolly knows it’s false. In 1962, the very year now in contention, the Jews begin Nisan 1 (their new ecclesiastical year) with the new moon after the Equinox, while R. G. Jolly’s statement would force them to use the new moon before the Equinox. Had they used his method in 1962, they would have observed the Passover at about the same date (March 18) that R. G. Jolly mistakenly used for his Memorial. Sad to say, such falsehoods seem to bother R. G. Jolly not at all – all the while he “admits” how “cleansed” he is! “He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.” (Psa. 101:7)

THE TRINIDAD SITUATION

 On p. 89 there is more “profusion of words” by R. G. Jolly in defense of his “strange fire” – Epiphany Campers Consecrated, or Consecrated Epiphany Campers, as you wish (because in either case it is a non-existent class). There’s no point in wasting time and space over shallow formality. Apparently R. G. Jolly never read the article, “Worthies – Ancient and Modern.” However, when he tries to make a point that he has been teaching Campers Consecrated “for eight years” (emphasis his), he reveals once more his inability to think clearly on any Scriptural or secular matter. He himself claims to be winning new ones now who have imbibed the errors of Big and Little Babylon for many more than “eight years.” The real issue here is; Did Brother Roach “teach” Consecrated Campers for “eight years,” or is R. G. Jolly now prating just because he himself has taught the error for “eight years”?

 And, from whom did he receive the doctrine? When R. G. Jolly claims both Star Members teach such a doctrine he is engaging in gross fraud. Let him show where either of them ever taught Tentative Justification in the Camp. Certainly, none of us ever heard of this doctrine until R. G. Jolly first presented it in his paper. Thus, it is a new doctrine. And in E-10-XXIV and in E-11:495 Brother Johnson says such attempt, especially by a Levite, cleansed or uncleansed, is offering “strange fire” before the Lord. Here is also the clear teaching of the same Epiphany Messenger re such on page 208 of Epiphany Vol. 11:

“While the Great Company are in their uncleansed condition – impenitent – ­they should not keep the annual Lord’s Supper; and for this reason the Epiphany­ enlightened saints (such as those who do not accept R. G. Jolly’s “strange fire”–JJH) should not memorialize with them, nor welcome them to their own celebrations.”

 From the foregoing it is very transparent what the Epiphany Messenger believed; yet R. G. Jolly now shouts “clericalism!” at Brother Roach because he accepts the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching – while at the same time raising much flapdoodle about the “sifters” and their “deceit.” We shall have more on this in our February paper, D.v.; but we think it appropriate here to quote some of the “good” Levites disputa­tions against Brother Johnson earlier in the Epiphany, of which R. G. Jolly was chief’:

“Repetitiously they tell of their taking part in the discussion, claiming they were speaking in righteousness and sincerity (vs. 2,3) They repeat... that they were God’s workmanship (v. 4). They challenge J. to stand forth and answer them, if he can (v. 5) Believing that they who were crown-losers were crown-retainers, they boast that they have the same relation to God as he, as New Creatures (v. 6)... They charged that he blamed God as picking fault with him, counting him as His enemy (v. 10)... They demanded an answer to their (false) charge that he had been contending against God, who is not bound to account to anyone as to His affairs (v. 13)...”

(Please see full account of these “good” Levites and their disputations, etc., against the Epiphany Messenger in Epiphany Vol. 10, pp. 585-587–JJH)

 Once more does R. G. Jolly offer the type of Lev. 12 to justify his teachings and activities since 1954 (see p. 89, col. 2). We certainly are in full agreement with Brother Johnson’s interpretation of this type; but we are also in direct opposition to R. G. Jolly’s application of it. This type has to do with the Little Flock and Great Company “developing truths”; there is not the slightest hint in it to involve Youthful Worthies, much less Campers Consecrated. Thus here – as in many other instances – does R. G. Jolly pervert the Epiphany Messenger’s teachings to serve his own errors (Azazel means Perverter), as he ignores the very truth that he should be accepting. On P. 525 of Vol. 15 Brother Johnson stresses one of the princi­pal Great Company developing truths; namely, they must all be abandoned to Azazel for their cleansing (which includes those who lose Little Flockship by the “skin of their teeth). This truth R. G. Jolly ignores completely so far as he is concerned by claiming he was “cleansed” without this process. Also, he makes no effort what­ever to declare it – or accept it – for other Great Company members in his organiza­tion. WHY?

FRED E. BLAINE AGAIN

 R. G. Jolly has known for some considerable time that his Campers “Consecrated” was causing much difficulty in Trinidad (as it is also doing in many other sections, with the ablest and most enlightened brethren generally being the ones who will have none of it, and the “unstable and the unlearned” being the most ready to receive it). Last spring a year ago he sent ‘trouble-shooter’ Fred E. Blaine to the Trinidad trouble spot; but what do we hear? If we are correctly informed, the special dele­gate sent to instruct and explain “Campers Consecrated” never once in any of his discourses made any attempt to expound “Campers Consecrated.” Why? He says in his letter published on page 95 of this Nov-Dec P.T. that the doctrine “is built on the writings of ‘that servant’ and the Epiphany Messenger,” so he should be happy and quali­fied to explain it at every opportunity if he really believes what he now says in his letter.

 Anyway, we now propose to him that he appear before the Trinidad brethren on the platform with us – we to ask him questions, and he to ask us questions on the teaching – with equal rights to each of us, and in order and decorum. He charges in his letter that we are a “proven sifter.” Our proposal now provides him with an opportunity of “proving” himself and also “proving” us on the Campers Consecrated issue, and the “sifter” issue as well. R. G. Jolly should be very happy to embrace this opportunity for Fred Blaine by defraying his expenses; but, if he is cheap enough to decline, then the Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n has a special fund for such purposes; and we shall arrange to pay his expenses – and allow him to select the time he wants to be there, too.

 One outstanding reason for the world’s demoralized condition today is that it is overpopulated with irresponsible bagatelles – persons whose chief attribute is just a big mouth, which they are afraid to open unless they can hide behind a wall some place where they are sure they’ll be safe. Our proposal now presents the opportunity to Fred Blaine to prove to the Trinidad brethren and to the entire General Church that he is not such a person. May we hear from him soon! Be it noted that of all that 1961 extended trip through Jamaica, Trinidad, Panama and South America, Brother Roach was the only one specifically mentioned by Fred Blaine at the Philadelphia Labor Day Convention in 1961, as being “very clear in Parousia and Epiphany Truth “ We are in full agreement with Fred Blaine’s observation of Brother Roach, because we also found him “very clear in the Truth” when we made our Pilgrim trip to Trinidad in April of 1962.

----------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST:

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in Jesus’ Name!

 You are perhaps wondering why I have not written to you. I have great opposition from my wife. Brother Jolly and the Present Truth is everything to her. We are at great odds.......

 What I meant by the L.H.M.M. needing you, just look at the small gatherings – ­like in Chicago when I was there, and you also. There is none in ––– and one in ––– and she is sick and feeble......

I will close for this time. Hope you are both well and May God bless you!

             Your fellow-servant in His Name ------- (dated 12/3-62)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Enclosed find check for I sent for some tracts a few days ago, and said I would send a check later when I had a chance to go out.

Sincere Christian love to all ------- Conn.

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

 Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be multiplied!

It was good to see you at Chicago, and I am very happy that I could be there. Please send me the tracts – Where are the Dead, What is the Soul and the Resur­rection tracts. Brother ------- joins with me in sending you both, and Sisters Dunna­gan and Wells, warm Christian love.

As always, Your brother ------- MICHIGAN

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

CORRECTION:- Please refer to our Dec. 1, 1962 paper, p. 4, par. 1, and change Prov. 19:26 to read Prov. 15:2.

NO. 90: THE LAW OF THE LORD

No. 90

My dear Brethren: - Grace and peace through our Beloved Lord

“The law of Yaveh is complete, bringing back the soul, The testimony of Yaveh is confirmed, making wise the simple.” (Psa. 19:7 – Rotherham) The Law of God may be viewed from three standpoints in the Bible: First, the Ten Commandments as given to Moses in Mount Sinai; Second, the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible, the same being also the first of the three main divisions of the Old Testament (The Law, The Proph­ets and The Psalms); Third, the entire Word of God as revealed in the Bible. As viewed from any of these as­pects, the Law of the Lord is immutable and eternal “without variableness or shadow of turning.” This is the di­rect opposite of the law of man, which is in large part a product of evolution – warped, adjusted, im­proved, eliminated in accordance with the demands of the times. A pointed illustra­tion of this is our Traffic Laws, which the invention and expanded use of the auto­mobile have made so necessary only during the past fifty years. The production of traffic lights for the larger cities has created a major industry, with the incidental laws changing to fit the changing times.

 But no such evolution or adjustment has been necessary with the Law of the Lord, nor have any condi­tions arisen over the centuries to cause its revision in any of its aspects. “The Law of the Lord is perfect,” which means it is designed to fit all oc­casions and every side of every question – regardless of how extreme the case may be. In the United States, County Prosecutors, States' Attorneys, etc., and in the British Empire the Crown Counsel, are elected or appointed to administer the law; and it is the duty of these public servants to free the innocent, as well as to convict the guilty. That their efforts over the centuries have been far from perfect needs little argument. The statement is as true today as it was three thousand years ago that “Man looketh on the outward appearance.” Consequently, public officials have often con­victed innocent men of heinous crimes which they did not commit – even to the point of executing some for murders which they did not commit; whereas, the guilty have also much more often escaped the just penalty for their crimes through the inefficiency, inadequacy, or corruption of public officials.

 The question is properly in order, What is Law? In secular phrase, “Law is a rule of action,” and it needs no further definition than these six short words; there­fore, Psalms 19:7 is confirmed in Isa. 28:17, “Justice also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet.”

CONCERNING 1 COR. 6:1-6 AND MATTHEW 18:15-17

 During 1962 our attention has been directed to the case of Jolly vs. Krewson; and, regardless of all pro­test to the contrary, we consider it a reasonable assumption that this debacle is very much the outgrowth of the personal feud between them. How­ever, not knowing many of the facts, we would not belittle ourselves by attempting to pass judgment – except to observe that it appears quite clear that there is much of pro and con to be presented for both litigants. Our main purpose here is to reveal the pathetic paucity of understanding in both of them. Clearly enough, neither of them could claim a “passing grade” in their understanding of “the Law of the Lord,” proof of which we proceed to offer clearly and briefly – quite in contrast, we hope, to the “profusion of words” offered by the “cousins” in their respective presentations.

             Inasmuch as “the Law of the Lord” is perfect (fully complete), it must be able to embrace fully every imaginable circumstance. Therefore, we are always justified in assuming the extremes of any given situation; which, having done, if the Law of the Lord does not harmonize, then we should conclude immediately that our own reason­ing is at fault. Now, J. W. Krewson has offered 1 Cor! 6:1-6 in condemnation of R. G. Jolly – seemingly believing that St. Paul's instruction is all-inclusive. We wonder if he has read the Diaglott of 1 Cor. 6:2, where St. Paul states he is discussing “trivial causes”?  St. Paul, himself a lawyer, knew full well that his comments could reach no further than “trivial causes.”

 Let us assume an extremity: Suppose one brother murdered the wife or child of another brother. Would any of us be so naive or imbecilic that we would determine the police should not be called in such a case? In fact, the law of our land demands that civil law officers be notified of such cases; and, any one failing to do so is then subject to prosecution as “an accessory after the fact” of murder; and becomes liable to a long prison sentence for such failure. Therefore, St. Paul could not possibly have referred to such an extreme.

 Coming now to a somewhat milder case: A brother steals $10,000 from a brother, both of them ac­cepted in Class fellowship. The one wronged follows Jesus' advice: “Go to thy brother”; but the brother will not hear him, so he takes two or three with him. Again refused, he brings the thief before the Class; but the thief is still adamant, refuses to hear the Class, and is disfellowshiped. Again we ask, Should such a person be allowed to revel in the stolen money, or should the local law enforcers be called in? Manifestly, this likewise could scarcely be classified as a “trivial cause.”

            Coming now to the Jolly-Krewson case: R. G. Jolly is accusing J. W. Krewson of theft – the theft of a name – the value of which we need not attempt to determine; nor do we wish to express opinion on the merits of either side other than already indi­cated above. R. G. Jolly may consider the L.H.M.M. name to be worth much more than $10,000, in which belief he may be right or wrong. In early youth, we ourselves engaged in a substantial amount of patent-law work, so we have some experience in the niceties of patent-law decisions based upon the “prior art” (the procedure and base already de­termined by invention and legal process). Based upon our own knowledge, we would say both sides in the case at issue have some cause for argument either way; but this concession in no way offers justification for the profuse and unsatisfactory presenta­tions of the “cousins” in their respective attempts at self-justification; and it forces us to the conclusion that neither of them clearly understands “the Law of the Lord.''

CONCERNING EXCOMMUNICATION

 As most of us know, J. W. Krewson has been formally disfellowshiped by the Philadelphia Class at R. G. Jolly's instigation. Without attempting to determine the justice of the case, we are nevertheless forced to ac­cept the fact; and the Scriptures clearly tell us in Matt. 18:17 that such person disfellowshiped is to be regarded “as a heathen man.” Is J. W. Krewson trying to tell us that he himself would not bring a heathen into the Gentile courts if one should steal substantially from him? Clearly enough, when R. G. Jolly has the Truth to sustain him, he is so befuddled by Azazel that he can no longer clearly present his case to advantage even for himself. instead of the voluminous words he did offer (and which probably left many of his readers more confused than they already were), it seems to us that just a paragraph or two along the lines we have presented would have stopped all mouths. But, as Brother Johnson has so ably taught us, When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they can no longer think clearly on any Scriptural subject.

            J. W. Krewson says 1 Cor. 6:1-6 condemns R. G. Jolly, wherein St. Paul asks if “there is not among you a wise man not even one – who shall be able to decide.” As stated above, St. Paul was discussing “trivial causes.” Without passing judgment, let us assume that R. G. Jolly's claim is a “trivial cause.” inasmuch as he now regards J. W. Krewson “as a heathen man,” the text would even so not be applicable. Of course, it would have simplified matters very much – and saved the heavy legal expense for both sides had R. G. Jolly asked J. W. Krewson, before going to Court, if J. W. Krewson would allow him (R. G. Jolly) to appoint the “one” (the “wise man among you”) to hear and determine the matter. Such procedure would have added considerable sub­stance to R. G. Jolly's cause before the General Church; and we think it needs little argument that J. W. Krew­son would have refused the ruling of, say, August Gohlke or Bernard Hedman or Fred Blaine (as such “wise man among you”).

A LOOK AT HISTORY

            Concerning “Order and Discipline” in the Church, Brother Russell has given very clear explanations in Vol. Six, pages 273-348; and we mention specifically pages 290-294, as well as p. 412 through 416. In addi­tion, we consider the centuries past on the evils of excommunication. Almost all of the Star Members were excommunicated; the vast majority always cast out the Fully Faithful minority. And in every such instance the majority was wrong. In the case of individuals in local Ecclesias it is probably correct to assume that there the reverse was true. Where local Classes have moved to disfellowship individuals (for gross immoralities and the like in conduct, or for gross doctrinal deflection such as denial of the Ransom or Sin-Offering), more individu­als were probably wrong, and the Classes right – although this also was certainly not always true, where the charge was trivial or instigated by sectarianism or clericalism. As stated, however, in E-11:12, par. 6, it has been the special pastime of Satan all during the Jewish and the Gospel Ages to have the Nominal Church cast out (disfellow­ship) the Fully Faithful – especially so, with those qualified as leaders in the General Church.

 Thus, it is said of the “two-horned beast” in Rev. 13:11-13 that he “exercised all the power of the first beast.... so that he maketh fire to come down from Heaven”; that is, this second great false system likewise claimed power to excommunicate and cast out of God's Household all “dissenters” – the real protesters, Protes­tants. How­ever, in all such cases the cast-out brethren were blessed by the Lord with the new companionship of those of their fellow-servants whose characters were in keeping with their own, and which gave them the “fellowship of kindred minds, like to that above.” Thus, their excommunication actually did them favor – just as was true when Pharaoh urged the Israelites to leave Egypt in haste.

 And the uncleansed Levites of our day are also urgent to walk in the evils of the past; they are quick to “make fire come down from Heaven” – to disfellowship all troublesome gainsayers. Nor has R. G. Jolly been one whit behind his kinsmen of the past in this respect. Immediately after Brother Johnson's demise he was loud and quick in excommunicating many whose only offense was their contention that they were among the Fully Faithful – just one more instance of “making fire come down from Heaven” on those not willing to ac­cept his errors. And this has been his practice in the years since. As Brother Johnson has further stated in E-11:25 (17):

             “These evil shepherds used inculcation of error.... human traditions.... slander.... and oppositional propaganda,” against the Fully Faithful. Inasmuch as R. G. Jolly seems determined to harmonize his actions with Levites of the past, we now remind him that many others, such as Brothers Luther, Wesley, Russell, John­son, et al, will even­tually receive recognition as outstanding reformers blessed of the Lord, who also were excom­municated by the uncleansed Levites of their time. As Brother Russell has stressed, if one is disfellow­shiped, that act in itself does not rule him out of the Household of Faith; it is purely an act of discipline de­signed to recover the erring one from his objectionable ways. Nor should we regard excommunication by Levites (be they cleansed or uncleansed) in the same category with the same act by the Fully Faithful, because all Levite New Creatures have lost their anointing, and with it a large part of the “spirit of understanding”; which makes their reasoning unsound on many Scriptural and ethical subjects. This is once again clearly dem­onstrated in the thinking of R. G. Jolly on this Krewson lawsuit. And we know, too, that all who have been excom­municated by uncleansed Levites have not been of the Fully Faithful, as in the case of J. F. Rutherford with other uncleansed Levites. He had them excommunicated, too, when they interfered with his plans and schemes; also the one that has the most power will excommunicate any who has similar ambitions to his (to be “Pastor and Teacher”) and interferes therein (also wants to be the “chiefest”).

 Yes, “the Law of the Lord is perfect,” and blessed are all they who can accept it “in spirit and in Truth.” “Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies; The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth Of fools poureth out foolishness.” (Psa. 40:4; Prov. 19:26)

Sincerely your Brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

-------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Is it true that the Jews as such are not shown in Noah's Ark?

ANSWER: – This contention is not the truth if we are to accept the Epiphany Messenger's presentation on that over-all typical portrayal; namely, The Christ shown in Noah and wife – Ancient Worthies in Shem and wife – Great Company in Japheth and wife the Youthful Worthies in Ham and wife – the quasi-elect in the clean ani­mals, and all other restitutionists in the unclean animals. We discussed this matter at some length in our Octo­ber 1, 1962 paper, No. 88, page 6, as positive proof that a class such as Epiphany Campers Consecrated finds expression only in R. G. Jolly's imagination (which he seems to think is quite sufficient, according to his con­tentions at this last Chicago Convention).

 At the Chicago Convention Question Meeting on October 28 he offered the flimsy erratic observation that the Jews as such are not shown in the Ark; so why should Campers Consecrated need lodgment in that type? Brother Johnson clearly teaches that the quasi-elect (unconsecrated) are shown in the clean animals – the quasi-elect being comprised of those Jews faithful to the Law Covenant, and the believing and repentant Gen­tiles who accept Christ as Savior. (See E-5:62-61) Brother Johnson makes it crystal clear that the Jews, together with the Gentiles who are in the same relative condition, are represented in Noah's Ark – the quasi-elect in the clean animals, and the others in the unclean animals.

 If there be any substance whatever to R. G. Jolly's presentation, then with equal propriety we might conclude that the quasi-elect from the Gentiles are likewise not shown in the Ark. This would then force the conclusion that none of the quasi-elect (whether 'consecrated' as R. G. Jolly claims for his Epiphany Campers, or unconsecrated, as Brother Johnson teaches) are shown in the Ark. If Brother Johnson's explanation is cor­rect, then R. G. Jolly's teaching is self-evidently false, and just some more of his nonsense.

 Following with R. G. Jolly's “logic,” the unfaithful Jews as such are also not shown in the Ark, because the unclean animals type all the non-elect unbelievers -­Jews and Gentiles alike. Clearly enough, many Jews have not secured those blessings held forth to them by Moses. ''He is not a Jew who is one outwardly,” says St. Paul in Romans 2:28; that is, an over-developed nasal appendage sitting in a synagogue makes one no more an Israelite indeed than does a Gentile's presence in a Christian Church make one a Christian.

 Therefore, to offer the puerile vagary that the believing Jews as such are not specifically shown in the Ark (where Brother Johnson groups them with believing Gen­tiles in the clean animals) simply reveals the des­peration of R. G. Jolly to establish his non-existent Consecrated Campers Class. Certainly, such a Consecrated Class as he sets forth (who are sacrificing all earthly ambitions in the same degree and manner of the Youthful Worthies to such an extent that one cannot distinguish one from the other, he says!) should have some definite place in Noah's Ark (even more prominently mentioned than the quasi-elect) for their encouragement – even though R. G. Jolly offers them just nothing above Restitution for such self-denial and cross-bearing! The exhibi­tion is in exact keeping with the Jehovah's Witnesses to establish their non-existent Jonadabs, which latter are also the product of an uncleansed Levitical imagination (although they do offer their non-existent class some reward: they boldly tell them they will live through Armageddon and forever – a replacement for their “Millions Now Living Will Never Die”).

 As Brother Johnson has so correctly stated, “When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense”; and here is just one more excellent example that he knew whereof he wrote; and, in his “profusion of words” on this very same Question, R. G. Jolly was once more shouting that he is a “cleansed” Levite – ­all the time loudly demonstrating his UNCLEAN condition by his errors and “strange fire” offered be­fore the Lord at that time. “Thus they were cut off from the fellow­ship and the habitation of God's people as long as they remained lepers. They could, of course, associate with fellow lepers, but not with the clean Israel­ites, who were warned of their presence by the muffled cry, UNCLEAN. Antitypically are the symbolic lepers to be cast out from association with the Little Flock and good Youthful Worthies, who are to take warning of their presence by their muffled teachings – ERRORS. (E-4:272)

QUESTION: – Rev. 19:9 says, “Blessed are they (the Great Company) which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.” Does this prove that the Great Company has a call?

ANSWER: – It certainly does not prove, or even hint at such a thing. The Diaglott says, “Blessed are those who have been invited to the marriage supper.” We must ever consider that such an “invitation” is indeed a glorious privilege, and one not to be despised by those who receive it, or ridiculed by those who hear of it; but we should consider with equal emphasis that the teaching that this is their “call” is simply some more Levitical perversion (Azazel means Perverter). “They rebelled (revolutionized) against the words of God” – the Truth (Psa. 107:11). Brothers Russell and Johnson both stressed there is no “call” to be of the Great Company; God never “calls” any one to be a failure, and allowing for such a Class was God's merciful way of retrieving them from eternal death.

 One of the speakers at the Chicago Convention went into quite some detail about the “call” of the Great Company; and one of the pilgrims later privately suggested the “call” as the one incorrectly translated in the King James version in Rev. 19:9. Note the emphatic contradiction to this by Brother Russell in Reprints 5247, col. 1, par. 8: “Only those who are more than overcomers will be of the royal priesthood. There is no excuse for our getting into the Great Company. Let us keep our hearts with all diligence. Let us watch our hearts. If they are still in full harmony with God's will, we shall have little trouble with our tongues.” Nor would there be a Great Company Class if it were not for the wrong heart condition that put them there.

 It is a sad commentary indeed that the very ones who should profit by the teach­ings of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers are the ones now most ready to pervert their teachings concerning this measurably faith­ful Class.

---------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle:  Loving Christian greetings!

 I have waited longer than I should to acknowledge your kindness in sending me the bound cop­ies. Of course, I have spent all spare time devouring it. For a long time I waited and prayed for fellowship in the real Truth. Ever since Bro. Johnson's passing “beyond the veil,” I have watched with uncertainty and a measure of fear that all was not well with the L.H.M.M.; – especially after the suggestion was given by a Pil­grim several years ago that we should not find fault with Bro. Jolly, “because he is the Lord's appointed,” etc.

 Everything seemed too “cut and dried,” with no room for proving the Truth any­more. But I had no op­portunity to settle down and review the Epiphany Truth until about three years ago. The more I re-studied the Epiphany Volumes and pre-1951 Present Truths, the more it looked to me as if Brother Hoefle was getting the same kind of treat­ment that was given Bro. Johnson for his defense of the Truth. This year I became con­vinced that no proof of “Consecrated Epiphany Campers” was in harmony with either Scrip­ture or the teachings of Brothers Russell or Johnson. The more I examined complaints against Bro. Hoefle's views, the more I was encouraged to hope that at least one leader among the Epiphany Truth people still stands faithfully for Truth and righteousness. So I went to Philadelphia, praying that I might meet and get acquainted with you there. Sitting back of you, in the Tabernacle, I deliberately watched you, during the first service Sunday morning. Your conduct and reverent expressions did not impress me as being that of sifters! I knew that “watch dogs” were on the alert, but I reminded myself that I must take the opportunity to meet you. I was ready to hear your explanations, and study to see if they were true.

 How laughable is Bro. Jolly's charge, that Bro. Hoefle is a “sophist”! Sometimes you seem almost too blunt; but, certainly never do you invite any one to get into the Kingdom by holding onto your coattail! Never do you claim any authority except to hold forth the words of Life, as any Pilgrim is commissioned to do!

 I shall continue to examine your messages and look for Scriptural proof; for I do not regard you as in­fallible. And, so far as I may be able, I shall rejoice to be privileged to support the good work, financially and in any other way that I can.

 May the Lord increase your opportunities of service! I desire, always, an interest in your prayers. Ear­nest Christian love to you both, and to all the dear ones there, from Your sister and colaborer ------- TEXAS

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

Dearly beloved Bro. Hoefle: – Greetings in our Lord Jesus!

 Your kind sympathetic letter of October 5 received. I am not at all surprised at R. G. Jolly going worse every day. I suppose he has read Brother Martin's letters in your last two papers, which made it worse than I had personally known. I am awaiting the Sept-Oct. P.T., which up to today has not arrived; so I shall not wait longer to reply to you.

 The Jolly group has promptly paid the money for the projector; and at our last monthly meeting we had..... present (about two-thirds of all Epiphany Truth people in the Country); and at that meeting three of our staunchest members were absent.

 Accompanying this is a letter from Brother and Sister...... from England. I told them that I consider their letter and the reply can be helpful to certain ones of the Household of Faith; and that, if they have not any objection, and you also think it helpful, you might publish it.

 I remain with warm Christian love for dear Sr. Hoefle, all the associates with you and yourself, In the Master's service, L. F. Roach (TRINIDAD)

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

Dear Brother Roach: – Loving Christian Greetings!

            It has been a real pleasure to read your letters which have appeared in Brother Hoefle's papers, and to know something of your many trials. You have the love and much sympathy of Sister and myself. of course, we also know that these things must needs be, for nothing else can so clearly “manifest the counsels of hearts” among the Lord's people; and both you and we have the full assurance to go right on in the way He has so gra­ciously marked out for us, and receive His blessing and encouragement daily – all the while rejoicing in all His precious promises – grace, strength and love. When we read, as often we do, “My Grace is sufficient”, and “In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength,” as well as be reminded that “all things work together for good to those who love the Lord and who are called according to His Divine purpose,” we rejoice in all His love and the outworking of that purpose for each one of us. Please remember, our dear Brother, that we shall continue to remember you continually at the “Throne of Grace,” and we know this will always be your delight as well. The prayer of the Righteously disposed, availeth much. God Bless and keep you secure in His love. We are your Brother and Sister “In His Keeping ------- ENGLAND

(Note: This is just one of the many letters received commending and encouraging the valiant course of Brother Roach in his stand for Truth and Righteousness and against Error and SinJJH)

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

Dear Brother and Sister..... Grace and peace in our dear Lord!

            Your kind and sympathetic letter of Oct. 1 received with true Christian love and appreciation. Yes, I have been having trouble with the great Usurper of Star Members' powers over the years, and it reached the climax when I addressed two members of prominence in the Household of Faith “Brother and Sister” – and re­fused to withdraw it. Have you seen or heard of such presumption? Of course, with respect to R. G. Jolly's false doctrines, etc., somehow I was never troubled until they reached the Class. My guide was – and still is – the Scriptures and Star Members. When Bro. Jolly teaches that Rev. 22:11 was fulfilled in 1954, I wonder whom he was address­ing when he says “he that is holy, let him be holy still” when they were all dead four years before? (according to R. G. Jolly's edict – JJH) The July-August so-called Present Truth has cast me into a lion's den, but I am sure to get out unhurt. See Vol. IX, p. 457, top, Brother Russell's “New Creature received no damage from the symbolic lions, as fierce, savage, malicious and violent as they were. Truly, they did not hurt him (v. 22.). In both the type and the antitype, the reason was the same–'innocency' (v. 22).”

 On Sept. 30, 1962 the Principal Man in the plot here against me, as reported in Bro. Hoefle's paper No. 86, page 7, September 1962, gave me a cordial Christian handshake, Psalms 6:7: “Mine eye is consumed be­cause of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies,”

 I want it clearly understood that I am not at all putting myself equal to Bro. Russell, though in 1916 he was called upon to give judgment in an incident in connection with my activities in service, and I got his deci­sion – which was commendable. However, I must thank Bro. Jolly very much for pushing me into his com­pany. I regret the delay in replying, which is due to waiting for Sept-Oct. P.T. to see what is the next move. But up to now I have not received it.

 With warm Christian love to dear Sister -------. and all the dear ones in England, and you, I remain your “Yokefellow” in Him, L. F. Roach (TRINIDAD)

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

Dear Sirs:

            Please send me booklet “What is the Soul”; also the one entitled ''Where are the Dead” and the Three Babylons tract. I surely will appreciate any other reading matter. Thank you! ------- PENNSYLVANIA

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

Dear Bro. Hoefle:

Thank you for the tracts. I got some out. They are good for the job!

My sister of Darlington has been away from home a lot, and my work takes me away. I am pleased re Bro. Armstrong letter and your refutation of the error in it. Grace and peace for you to know and do his will. Hymn 23 - Your Bro. By His Grace ------- (ENGLAND)