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)

NO. 89: THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION, SEPTEMBER 1-3, 1962

No. 89

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

Once more we offer limited comment on some of the ‘oddities’ and ‘perversions’ at this last Labor-Day Convention, which vagaries continue to appear in never-ending stream since Brother Johnson’s demise. Viewing conditions as they continue to develop, we are presented with a clear picture of the happenings of the Gospel Age past, with the fall into error after each Star Member finished his courses. Also, we can the more easily comprehend the full meaning of St. Paul’s words in 2 Thes. 2:10: “They received not the love of the Truth” – of which more later.

A SACRILEGE – At the Question meeting on Monday morning some one unknown to us pre­sented the question: Who were the chief enemies of Jesus at His first Advent? R. G. Jolly’s answer: “The world, the flesh and the Adversary.” In 1 John 2:16 (Dia.) there is the statement, “Everything in the world (the Kosmos, this present evil order of affairs) – the desire of the flesh, and the desire of the eyes, and the pomp of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.” It is certainly true that the evils described by St. John are the pronounced enemies of all the fallen followers of Jesus – some more some less; but to declare these as in anyway influenc­ing the path of Jesus is pronounced sacrilege. “I have overcome the world” (John 16:33) He said, in His appeal that we do likewise. This would apply more pointedly to what we commonly describe as “worldliness.”

If we limit the world (Kosmos) to the present social order, then it should be modified in its enmity to Jesus according to His own words in John 8:44, “You are of your father, the devil.” Those mentioned in this text were those Pharisees who eventu­ally crucified Him. They were the “good people” of that time (the same kind of “good people” the Lord’s faithful followers have to face today) – those loudly proclaiming their “cleansed” condition – those “seeking to kill Me (Jesus)” – John 8:37. Even Pilate (one of the rulers of this Kosmos), who made no “cleansed” claims for himself, said, “I find no fault in this man!” So this could not apply to the general world, but only to those religious perverts – false-accusing Scribes and Pharisees (Azazel means Perverter). A comment by Bro. Russell in May 1, 1911 Watch Tower is directly to the point:

“In consequence of this conflict between light and darkness, our Lord suffered at the hands of those who professed to be children of the light, children of God; and who had, at least a little light. Our Lord was not maltreated by either the Roman Governor or the Roman soldiers, of their own volition; for they were so totally blind as not to appreciate the light which he displayed. His persecutors were those who had some light, but who-hated the brilliancy of the great Light shining upon them.” (Reprints 4813)

However, the gross outstanding sacrilege in R. G. Jolly’s answer is his desig­nation that Jesus’ “flesh” was one of His “chief enemies.” This certainly could be said of the Great Company, who all their lifetime were “in fear” of the sacrificial death and failed to subdue their fleshly minds; but certainly was not true of Jesus in any sense of the word. Jesus in His humanity knew no sin; His human body was ever the perfect servant of His new creature, and did His every bidding; it was the perfect sacrifice which He through His new creature offered up for us. Thus, it seems unbelievable that such an irresponsible and erroneous answer could emanate from one who had heard the sober teachings of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers for more than forty years. Nor can this be given the perversive twist that it was the flesh of others to which R. G. Jolly was referring, because that is properly included in the “Devil” and certain elements of “the world,” since it was the Devil’s obedient and servile children who did our Lord to death. The Adversary and his deceived led­lings were thechief enemies of Jesus, the ledlings being the good “cleansed” Levites of that time. It is proper to consider, of course, that the Fully Faithful of the Gospel-Age (aside from Jesus) did have “the flesh” as one of their chief enemies; but in this battle the Fully Faithful were “more than conquerors.” With them, as with St. Paul, it may be truly said of them, “I keep my body under, and bring it into subjection” (make a servant of their humanity, although not perfectly so, as was the case with Jesus).

PETER, THE GREAT ROCK – Then, on another occasion, Chairman Gavin stated that Peter was the “Great Rock” of Apostolic times. in no place does the Bible give such a description of him! The expression is a mimic of the Roman Church’s claims for him; and is their perversion of Jesus’ words in Matt. 16:18, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” The word Peter is from the Greek “petros,” which means a stone (a small rock); whereas, “this rock” is from the Greek “petra,” meaning a huge rock. This statement by Jesus had followed Peter’s statement, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God”; and it was this great foundation rock – that “Jesus is the Christ” – that would form the base for construction of the Gospel-Age Church. This overwhelming truth does indeed put Peter (petros, little stone) in proper perspective here. “Thou art Peter (a little stone), and upon this rock (this huge rock – that I am the Christ) will I build my church.” Peter is truly small in comparison to the great Truth respecting Jesus as the Christ. Here again, we would little expect such a remark from one presumably schooled in Parousia and Epiphany Truth.

The chairman also made the puerile observation that the large number in attendance at the Convention was certainly an evidence of the Lord’s blessing upon the Movement. If that reasoning be sound, then the Roman Catholic Church must stand first in the Lord’s choice, with Jehovah’s Witnesses standing foremost in Little Babylon for bless­ings from On High. And Jesus, with His “Little Flock” at the first Advent, and the Epiphany Messenger, with his small group early in the Epiphany, must have rated very low indeed in God’s favor. This statement by the Chairman was just one of the “oddities” of the Convention. He, too, claims to be in “Present Truth!”

ODD AND PERVERTED INTERPRETATIONS RESPECTING MOUNTAINS – Another speaker presented a full discourse regarding various mountains mentioned in the Bible, and their significance. One of these had to do with Abraham presenting Isaac for sacrifice on Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:1-14); and he concluded that it was a type of God offering up Christ in His new creature. As Brother Johnson so often stressed, the correct inter­pretation of types is among the most difficult of all Bible exegesis; yet it seems the tendency of the “unstable and the unlearned” to “rush in where angels fear to tread” – to present their explanations of Bible types. It would seem only elemental that before attempting such they would at least read what the last two Principal Men had offered; but even that is just too much for them! Their own ideas might be definitely contradicted and made to look ridiculous when placed beside what the Star Members have written. And that wouldn’t be right, now, would it?

Rom. 12:1 appeals to the Gospel-Age tentatively justified to “present your bodies a living sacrifice unto God.” And this is precisely what all the faithful consecrated have done, including Jesus Himself (although a Great “Multitude” failed to carry out their “covenant by sacrifice”). “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me.” (Heb. 10:5) That body was the antitypical Atonement-Day bullock offered upon the brazen altar in the tabernacle Court; whereas, the new creature is located in the Holy. Every Gospel-Age consecrator presented his body a living sacrifice, which, if accepted, was then offered up by the High Priest Jesus, with each Fully Faith­ful consecrator cooperating with the High Priest to carry out unto a completion the sacrifice of his human body. At no time did Jesus or any of His members offer their new creature as a sacrifice; rather, it was the New Creature of each that sacrificed his humanity (except, of course, those new creatures who fell into the Great Company, those of them who gain the “palm branch” experiencing a “constrained” death in contrast to the sacrificial death of the Little Flock). Had the New Creature been sacrificed, there would then have been just nothing left. Thus, the statement of the speaker-­probably made through ignorance, we assume – is a gross perversion of Parousia and Epi­phany Truth.

The same speaker also offered comment on Moses on Mount Pisgah just before his death (See. Deu. 34:1-6) – his interpretation of this being that Moses there typed the second-death class of the Gospel Age. In the Berean Comment for verse 5 Brother Russell says Moses typed “in this case the Law Covenant which must end before the people could enter into their rest” – that is, the Law Covenant and its mediator must be completely obliterated, “buried,” before the world of mankind can receive the bless­ings of the Millennial Canaan that will accrue through the New Covenant and its “greater than Moses” Mediator, the Christ Company.

Then there is a second interpretation of this subject: Inasmuch as Moses is a type of the Gospel-Age Star Members who have been leading spiritual Israel from anti­typical Egypt to the Heavenly Canaan, his death before completing the crossing of Jordan types the fact here in the end of this Age that one not a Star Member would be the final leader of God’s faithful people into Millennial Canaan.

The interpretation that Moses on Pisgah was a type of the second-deathers is also. akin to sacrilege. There is no reference whatever made on Pisgah with the incident of Moses’ loss of temper in Num. 20:7-13 (where he did type Gospel-Age second deathers) in the account of his death and burial. Rather, the Lord on Pisgah is talking intimately to Moses, and the zenith of praise is accorded to him in v. 10: “There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” it would seem quite appropriate here to offer some brief parts of Brother Russell’s comments re Moses in Reprints 5333 and 4053, of the October 15, 1913 and Sept. 1907 Watch Towers:

“Pisgah is one of the peaks of Mount Nebo. From it Moses got a considerable glimpse of the promised land, toward which his eye of faith had looked for eighty years and toward which he had laboriously guided the nation of Israel for forty years. This grand old servant of God, fully resigned to the divine will and arrangement, was put to sleep by the Lord whom, he served. The Jews have a saying that the Lord kissed him there.

‘‘Moses had faithfully fulfilled the work of the Lord committed to his care down to and including his orations, mentioned in our last lesson, in which he urged upon Israel faithfulness to God similar to that which he had illus­trated in himself. The Lord’s time had come for a change in Israel’s leader­ship, and Moses was instructed to go up into the mountain called Nebo, whose culminating-peak is Pisgah – about nine miles east of the northern end of the Dead Sea. There God gave him a vision, a view of the glorious land where the people he had loved – and in whose interests he had sacrificed the honors and dignities and luxuries of the Egyptian Court – were to have their home as the people of the Lord, under the terms of the covenant which he had med­iated at Mount Sinai. In the clear atmosphere of that country any eye may see much of the land of promise, but under divine blessing and assistance, as in Moses’ case, we can readily realize that the vision, the view, could be a very comprehensive one. It was a part of this great leader’s reward, which doubtless greatly comforted his heart, enabling him to see that his labor for the Lord had not been in vain, but was destined finally to bring forth great fruitage.”

Even the unenlightened world has offered words sublime about the Pisgah episode:

By Nebo’s lonely mountain,

On this side Jordan’s wave,

In a vale in the land of Moab

There lies a lonely grave;

And no man knows that sepulcher,

And no man saw it e’er;

For the angels of God upturned the sod

And laid the dead man there.

And so without sound of music,

Or voice of them that wept,

Silently down from the mountain’s crown

The great procession swept.

This was the truest warrior

That ever buckled sword;

This the most gifted poet

That ever breathed a word;

And never earth’s philosopher traced

With his golden pen,

On the deathless page, truths half so sage

As he wrote down for men.

And had he not high Honor? –

The hillside for a pall!

To lie in state, while angels wait,

With stars for tapers tall,

And dark rough pines like tossing plumes,

Over his bier to wave

And God’s own hand, in that lonely land

To lay him in the grave.

Yes, a strange eulogy for second-deathers; very strange indeed – and without precedent in Bible interpretation! May we ever keep in mind the experience of Moses, the beloved “Man of God,” when he committed his one great evil deed (Num. 20:7-13), as “he smote the rock twice.” It was the same sort of “cleansed” people discussed herein that drove the good men to complete exasperation and loss of his self-control. Let us strive earnestly not to be overcome in like manner!

GENERALITIES: – Another Question placed in the Question Meeting was along this line: If a Youthful Worthy should lose his standing, could he then become a Consecrated Epiphany Camper? With this question, as with so many others to which R. G. Jolly either doesn’t know the answer, or where a truthful answer would be very dis­turbing and unwelcome, he just talked a lot without saying anything, so that the ques­tioner knew no more at the end than if he had not asked at all. Self-evidently, if a Youthful Worthy should lose his Class standing and lose his justification he would be forced out of the Court, and into the Camp. But R. G. Jolly now has his Consecrated Campers in the Camp – and tentatively justified! Therefore, one losing his Youthful Worthy standing and his Tentative Justification in the Court, and forced into the Camp because of unfaithfulness, could hardly take his place in the Camp, if those in the Camp are also justified! Thus, R. G. Jolly just talked, and talked, and talked.

Returning now to consider 2 Thes. 2:10 – “they received not the love of the Truth”. All during the Gospel Age there has been a Great Company who “received not the love of the Truth. At one time these people had a crown reserved for them; they were members of the Little Flock, the “salt of the earth,” the “light of the world” – all of which they lost because they failed to receive “the love of the Truth”; and “for this cause God shall send them strong delusion.” Thus, the Great Company lost their Class stand­ing; and great numbers of them in turn experienced total loss – the Second Death. Now, is there any reason to assume that God’s Justice should work along a clearly pre­scribed line all during the Gospel Age, then suddenly be set aside when the Age is com­ing to a close? There is just no Scripture or logic for such a conclusion!

Yet, with the sort of spiritual food on this last Convention table that we have analyzed aforegoing, there were quite a few – led by R. G. Jolly, Daniel Gavin and others – who were loud in their declarations that “this is the best Convention we have ever attended!” So, what shall we say for such? The Epiphany is a time for “making manifest the counsels of hearts”; and we may be sure this work will continue to a completion. And those revolutionizing now against Parousia or Epiphany Truth will experience also a loss of their Class standing – just as has occurred all during the Age. Some of these will eventually be of the quasi-elect – in analogy to the Measurably Faith­ful among Gospel-Age new creatures; and some will eventuate with nothing more than ordinary Restitution (perhaps with less favorable opportunity than some who didn’t have opportunity to receive the Truth during this Age). For some years now it has been our conviction that the large majority of the L.H.M.M. will be no higher than the quasi-elect; and their Revolutionisms as above described confirm this conviction – just as Revolution­ism all during the Epiphany has also manifested the crown-loser new creatures. Therefore, “he that thinketh that he standeth, let him take heed lest he fall!” (1 Cor. 10:12) And may the good work continue to a completion! Nor should we in the least fear the criticisms, the rebuffs, the insults, the abuse of such Class losers. It is the same treatment that the crown-losers accorded our beloved Brother Johnson and all the Fully Faithful Elect all during the Epiphany. And we may rest in the firm conviction that all of the Measurably Faithful – of whatever Class – will persistently revolutionize against Parousia or Epiphany Truth before the Epiphany is over – thus manifesting the loss of their Class standing.

Companion to the foregoing, we refer our readers to E:5-201/207, a few excerpts of which we quote here (beginning top of p. 203):

“Jesus decided the test.... should be the attitude of each individual (toward the Truth..... (top of p. 204). The Very Elect refuse to bow down in human servility to the earthly dispensers of the Truth.... Their appre­ciation of the Truth was so great that they were willing to work diligently to obtain it. The Truth is not for the easy-going Christian, but for those who labor for it... (top of p. 206). Neglecting That Servant’s repeated exhortation to accept nothing that he wrote or taught, unless they proved it true, they simply swallowed what he said, just because he said it.... (top of p. 207) To them the Truth was not “sweeter than honey and the honey comb.”

Clearly enough, if we are to accept Brother Johnson as above, it was the Truth that made the distinct and effectual cleavage between the Parousia Faithful and Measurably Faithful; and we believe the process is just as much in order now in accomplishing Epiphany testings and separations, and will continue thus to work to the full Epiphany’s close.

In closing this treatise, we believe it proper to state that not all the spiritual food at this Convention was of the type we have analyzed. The remarks of some of the speakers were in full harmony with the “things we have learned, and been assured of” – ­for which we rejoice – and extend our commendation. our fond wish would be that we could find no occasion at all for the criticisms we have expressed, although our victories over the errors of all Class losers is sufficient to all our needs. “By this I know that thou favorest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me. As for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest before me thy face forever.” (Psa. 41:11,12)

Sincerely your brother,

 John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace in Jesus’ Name!

For some time now I have intended to write you re a few things I have noted in the back issues of the Present Truth since 1950 (when comparing what you have pre­sented with what Bro. Jolly teaches). You will recall how Bro. Jolly came out so quickly and dogmatically re the Last Saint gone, even to the extent of overpowering and breaking the heart of a dying brother (Bro. Haviland – see his letter in the Feb. 1951 P.T.). The real impudence and hypocrisy demonstrated here is R. G. Jolly’s answer to Bro. Haviland (also in the Feb. 1951 P.T., p. 31, col. 2, bottom). Bro. Jolly says in that letter, “I can truly say that I recognized no willfulness in anything that I did, for I verily thought I was doing only the Lord’s will, but the Lord gave me to see through our dear Bro. Johnson’s assistance that a motion that I made in the Phila­delphia Church was really contrary to the Epiphany arrangements.” This statement is made in the face of the fact that Bro. Jolly knows, or should know, that it is only through willful, gross and persistent revolutionism of the Truth or its Arrangements that any new creature is manifested a crown-loser! It is just possible that Brother Johnson’s ‘assistance’ did cause him to submit to his proper exposures, because if he didn’t, at least outwardly, submit to them he couldn’t have remained with the Movement under Brother Johnson. Certainly, none of us can have any reason to doubt dear Bro. Haviland’s statement, that he knew of no time that he had willfully and willingly displeased the Lord, because we have no record of revolutionisms by him (gross or otherwise); quite, a contrast from the statement by R. G. Jolly, when he knew he was opposing the Lord’s Mouthpiece – and he also knew he was in strong opposition to Brother Johnson when he, by “whispering campaign,” managed to withhold and deny needed succor to a dying widow!

It seems that Brother Jolly’s statement there (in 1951) re himself and his revo­lutionisms answers much for us now – and is a yardstick for his subsequent conduct. He still doesn’t seem to know that ‘gazing’ and ‘strange fire’ offered before the Lord, and to the brethren, are gross violations of the Truth and its Arrangements for any one – much less a crown-lost leader who endangers his life by so doing. (We have repeatedly pointed out these failings – even more emphatically than did Bro. Johnson in his Vol. 10 exposures, for his correction and for the protection of the brethren–JJH.)

Then there is an Announcement in the July 1951 Present Truth that the brethren shouldn’t write Pilgrims and ask them questions; that in harmony with Brothers Russell and Johnson he directs them to send their questions direct to him (to R. G. Jolly)! Here is another gross impudence! He admits he is a crown-loser (even if he were cleansed, as he claims) – yet he was (and thinks he still is!) in position to answer all the ques­tions. If the brethren followed his advice and accepted his answers, then they would be sure to see no wrong in him (even as he can see no ‘willfulness’ in himself)! This advice is on par with the kind of advice J. F. Rutherford gave to his sectarian adher­ents; and those ‘heeding’ his advice became error-bound: They didn’t receive the Epiphany Truth. J. F. Rutherford also claimed to be ‘head’ of the “Lord’s Arrangements” for dispensing the Truth – just as R. G. Jolly now claims to be such ‘head.’

R. G. Jolly’s answer to the question, ‘What is the highest work that the Lord has given for the Epiphany” (in May 1952 P.T.) is also very misleading to fit in with his claims on Last Saint Gone. His answer: “The declaration of the Church’s glorification after its sufferings sacrificially are completed” (E Vol. 14, p. 269). What Bro. Johnson actually says in this reference in Vol. 14 is this: He cites the highest work of the antitypical Gershonites, et al, then says that “J’s position in that series between the Gershonite and Merarite leaders implies that his main Epiphany work is with the antitypi­cal Gershonites and Merarites, but not exclusively so...... while his subject, The Glori­fication of the Church, represents the highest work that the Lord has given him (the Epiphany Messenger–JJH) for the Epiphany: the declaration of the Church’s glorifica­tion after its sufferings sacrificially are completed, which he will do when writing on Revelation, his last general work on earth.” This was his (Brother Johnson’s) work as the Epiphany Messenger! Whatever Brother Johnson has written on Revelation has been withheld from the brethren, so we are not informed about this “highest work” due to R. G. Jolly not being a faithful steward of that which was left in his hands for the brethren. Brother Johnson promised the Lord that he would give all the knowledge that the Lord gave him for the brethren, to the brethren, and would not hold it selfishly for himself. This he faithfully did when he had the knowledge in completeness. But now after Brother Johnson’s demise it certainly is R. G. Jolly’s obligation to give the brethren what Brother Johnson left for them. He would have looked much more like a ‘cleansed’ Levite to the faithful brethren had he faithfully given the ‘meat in due season’ (all the teachings for the Household that Brother Johnson left for them) to the Lord’s people in the L.H.M.M. Had he faithfully done what he should have, then he would have been “suffering for righteousness’ sake” when brethren accused him of doing an unclean work; and such a privilege would have been a great blessing to him (“suffering for righteousness” instead of suffering for wrong-doing).

And coupled with the above, R. G. Jolly also foists J. W. Krewson’s ‘gazing’ alongside his own perversions and errors – namely, “Brother Russell’s parallels” (R. G. Jolly being the parallel of Bro. Russell!), “John’s Beheading,” and numerous other errors – which at the time was pleasing to R, G. Jolly. It probably was J. W. Krewson’s energetic mind that figured out a quasi-elect consecrated class after 1954 (which R. G. Jolly had to change to Epiphany Campers Consecrated in order to ‘save face’). It would not be surprising if R. G. Jolly wouldn’t be happy to get out of that dilemma, but can’t do that without upsetting his whole ‘arrangements’ at the Bible House.

I realize that R. G. Jolly has some opposition from some of the brethren in the L.H.M.M., when they resisted his trying to use Big Babylon methods for his Conventions (in solos and violin entertaining), but his main and most hurtful (to him) oppositions have come from your refutations of his errors and your faithful resistance of his sins of teaching and practice. Being the crown-lost leader that he is, he seems to be unable to resist any attractive and sensational (and entertaining) methods available for him at his Conventions, etc. The Truth in its simplicity is just not enough for him!

May the Lord bless and guide you as you continue to resist and refute such errors and errorists!

By His Grace, -------

Note: We are always glad for the brethren to carefully study R. G. Jolly’s Present Truths and compare them with what we present. In this way the faithful will be able to “discern between good and evil,” and thereby be better equipped to resist the ‘gainsayers’ and help enlighten the helpable brethren–JJR

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in our Redeemer’s Name!

As we are approaching the time when we commemorate the deaths of Brothers Russell and Johnson, we shall be thankful if you will send us some tracts for distribution, which are appropriate to the occasion.

The friends join in sending much Christian love to you, Sister Hoefle and the dear friends.

Yours by His Grace, ------- Secretary-Treas. TRINIDAD

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – I will now answer your letters... They are all so wonderful and encouraging! I am very sorry to hear about Sister -------­ and her daughter. I hope it will turn out all right with the both of them. You mention R. G. Jolly’s defeats at your hands; and I am wondering if he might not receive some more if he does not change his course.

I sent those papers to Bro. S. and Bro. W. I hope they will read them, and enjoy them as I do. Well, I hope by this time everybody is well and very happy in the Lord. May the good Lord bless you all is my prayers

Your sister in the Truth ------- PENNSYLVANIA

P.S. Please send some more Resurrection and What is the Soul tract. Thank you!

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian Greetings!

I am sending you a small contribution for the work. I look forward to the November issue. The Samuel and Saul study showed more clearly what I had already seen; May the Lord continue to strengthen you as you seek to uphold His’ Truth and arrangements.

Hearty Christian love from ------- TEXAS

NO. 88: BROTHERS FROM EVERY VIEWPOINT

No. 88

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

In the December 1, 1961 Watch Tower of the Jehovah's Witnesses there is a presentation on the Valley of Decision (pages 712-726), which is such a wretched jumble that it seems unbelievable that adults who can read and write could ever be influenced to believe it, because it violates just about every rule of logic by which Scripture may be properly interpreted The article we now examine is a sorry attempt to fuse the prophecies of Joel, chapters one and two, with Revelation, Chapter nine, making symbolisms of words that appear to them convenient, and indis­criminately accepting other words literally when that seems to suit their purpose. Thus, when we determine them as the Little Catholic Church in "Little Babylon," we do so with no wish to be frivolous or acerbic; we believe our remarks following will clearly prove to all unbiased minds that the large Roman Catholic Church in Big Babylon is in fact the elder brother of the "Little" Catholic Church (the Jeho­vah's Witnesses) in "Little Babylon."­

It is soberly contended that the Roman Catholic Church has counterfeited and perverted almost every important feature of the Great Plan of Salvation as set forth by the Scriptures; and the "Little Brother" (the Jehovah’s Witnesses) has done the same with the plan of Salvation as taught by That Wise and Faithful Servant. Almost the only thing left with the Jehovah's Witnesses that Pastor Russell willed to them is the Watch Tower name (and we can say about the same for the L.H.M.M. in regard to Pastor Johnson's teachings in many, many respects); the teachings which they inherited from him have been twisted, distorted and perverted out of all resemblance to what they once were before October 1916.

In attempting to pair the "locust" of Joel 1:4 with the "locust" of Rev. 9:3 they pass by in complete silence the other three pests of Joel 1:4 --the palmerworm, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar. This in itself should arouse the suspicion of every careful reader.  However, in both Joel and Revelation the locust is set forth as a devastating pest; and, when the Jehovah's Witnesses read themselves (as Christians and individuals) into that pestiferous portrait as being God's faithful people, they use a rule of interpretation nowhere substantiated by the Bible --although in many respects this portrait fits them perfectly, in their efforts to eject their many false doctrines upon the people. Note in contrast the sublime and inspiring description in Isa. 52:1,7, "O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments ....How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace ....salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth." Could any but a grossly perverted imagination possibly say the two classes in Isa. 52, and Joel 1 and Rev. 9 represent the same elements? As Pastor Russell faithfully instructed his followers, they may call us all sorts of things ("pests," troublemakers, etc.), but we are not to be such!  They called our Lord Beelzebub, but He wasn't Beelzebub, nor did he accept" the name as applicable to Him! But these Jehovah's Witnesses accept the name of 'pests' and boast about it!

However, the application of "locusts" to themselves we believe to be appropriate enough; they represent the same class of devastating 'pests' set forth in Joel and in Revelation. It will be noted that in the first chapter of Joel the prophet describes under the figure of blights, droughts and famines the devastating work of the great Apostasy, which began to show marked evidence already in St. Paul's day, which proceeded in the second and third centuries to the development of a hierarchy (the palmerworm--and just as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done in this Epiphany period). This evil grew very gradually from the simplicity of the Apostolic Church, over the centuries in a fashion something as follows: As churches were established in various localities, with elders as teachers, preachers, etc., there arose in such gatherings a 'chief elder,' or bishop; then came the archbishops --a super-elder over a number of churches; then came the patriarchs, who were superior to the archbishops, and told them what they must do; after which came the cardinals, who supervised the patriarchs; and over the cardinals eventually came the Pope (or Papa)--father and overlord of all the churches. The latter part of this development came in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries--described in the prophecy of the "locust." Superimposed upon that came the Great Antichrist System (2 Thes. 2:7-10), portrayed by the cankerworm--which continued in full force and power until the Reformation begun by Martin Luther laid the groundwork for the various systems in Sectarianism --depicted by the caterpillar, the fourth of the devastating pests. All four of these evils con­tinued until 1874 when our Lord's Parousia set in, at which time the promise of Joel 2:25 began to be fulfilled: "I will restore to you the years that the Locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpillar, and the palmerworm.

Just as in nature all fruitage, verdant vegetation, etc., are destroyed by such literal pests, so the various stages of the apostasy from primitive efforts of the Lord and the Apostles gradually grew and obliterated the wholesome simplicity and virility of the early Church; and there came the spiritual spoliation described by the four pests mentioned by Joel, the same being in effect viciously false and destructive teachings --the second development of which grew from the false teach­ings of the growing Papacy and portrayed by the antitypical "locust." And likewise, here in the end of this Age, there has now appeared the "Little Brother" in the form of Jehovah's Witnesses--and admitted by them to be a secondary application of the antitypical locust --which has indeed been a 'spoliation' of the faithful and true teachings of That Servant, just as Big Papacy was a 'spoliation' of the Apostolic teachings! "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee," saith the Lord;

In addition to the eisegesis just outlined, there is more of the same when we consider the time setting when the antitypical locusts of Rev. 9:3 made their appear­ance. It occurred when "the fifth angel sounded" (Rev. 9: 1).  The "trumpet" of the fifth angel had already completed its work by the year l479--over 400 years before the Jehovah's Witnesses appeared on the scene. And this shameless proclamation comes from them now with the full knowledge that J. F. Rutherford claimed he and his cohorts began to sound the "seventh trumpet" a few years after Brother Russell's death in 1916. None could be misled by such a jumble who have even a smattering of that clear and logical "present Truth" expounded by That Servant.

During the time prior to 1914 when Bible Students contended that they were not of any sect, the wiseacres from Big Babylon offered the retort, "All right, we'll accept you at your word: You're not of any sect; therefore, you must be ''Insect!'' And now comes the Jehovah's Witnesses (who claim to be "Bible Students") freely admitting that they are indeed and in fact "insect"! ("Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.") Then on-page 718, bottom, they interpret the "five months' torment." of Rev. 9:5 as "the period of their life before God's war of Armageddon, as symbolized by the five months assigned to the locusts." Where is the precedent for such an inter­pretation? It is such an indeterminate time that just nothing can be deduced from it-· it's from 1919 until When? Why, until Armageddon! And, when is Armageddon? They don't tell us!

Let us ever keep in mind that when Pastor Russell interpreted Revelation he followed a well-defined rule of concluding that the numerals of Revelation are literal, but the nouns (excepting such as John, God, Christ, etc.) are symbolic. This latter is directly stated in Chap. 1, v. 1: "Jesus Christ....sent and signified it"; that is, it was to be written in "signs," or symbols. In 1917 the very same organization that now is designated Jehovah's Witnesses copyrighted and published The Finished Mystery under the auspices of the Peoples Pulpit Association; and on page 12 of that book they correctly offer the interpretation which we have here set forth.

And on page 157 of that same book they correctly interpret the "five months" as symbolic months of 30 symbolic days each--150 days--or 150 literal years. Be it remembered that when that book appeared back there, it was made a test of fellow­ship--was used as an "instrument of cruelty" (Gen. 49: 5). Elders were asked to resign who would not teach it; those who would not distribute it to the general public were driven from the colporteur work; and divisions were caused in innum­erable classes throughout the world.

The one who supervised the writing of the Revelation section of that book was Clayton J. Hoodworth, one of the "drunken" of Matt. 24:49, with whom That Evil Servant did "eat and drink" --a crown-loser drunken with error .At that time we ourselves were in the colporteur work under direction of The Watch Tower Bible &Tract Society; but, seeing many of the atrocious perversions contained in The Finished Mystery, we ignored it, offering only the six Volumes of Studies in the Scriptures written by Brother Russell (although we were not attacking the book--just not recommending it). When J. F. Rutherford was informed of that, he advised the Dayton, Ohio Class, of which we were then a member, to refuse to give us any more territory, thus forcing us out of the colporteur work. We now recognize that incident as "of the Lord," for it caused us to inquire of Brother Johnson for the Epiphany Truth --who had already declared The Finished Mystery was the "seventh vial" of Rev. 16:17, even though it was in a vile condition. How little did we realize that that blessed Truth which refreshed, strengthened and sustained us then, would be the very same Truth which we are now caused to defend and sustain. Truly, "Ye know not what shall be on the morrow." (Jas. 4:l4) But it is little wonder that the same Finished Mystery which was adamantly commanded in 1917 is now "Index Prohibitorum" to the present-day members of Jehovah's Witnesses, since it directly contradicts so many of their present-day teachings--just as many of their previous teachings have had to be discarded to make room for their "new light.”

Just note in this connection page 3 of the Publisher's preface (of The Finished Mystery), where is set forth the correct teaching of Pastor Russell regarding the consummation, of this Age. There is properly described the three spasms --or phases of the Great Tribulation with which this Age will end --War, Revolution and Anarchy. They have now dropped the third phase, informing their devotees that the approaching Armageddon (Revolution) is all we are to expect --and that their "locusts" (pestiferous insects) will emerge from this next phase never more to die! This is akin to what they were promising for 1925 when, early in the Epiphany, they were vehemently preaching ''Millions Now Living Will. Never Die."

Then they say on page 719 (29) that their symbolic locusts (their adherents!) "make a noise that sounds like a squadron of war chariots rattling along to the beat of many horses' hoofs," we are reminded of the Great Shakespeare's description of such persons: "Hollow men, like horses hot: at hand, make gallant show and promise of their metal; but, when they would endure the bloody spur, they fall their crests, and, like deceitful jades, sink in the trial." This is surely an exact characteriza­tion of these symbolic locusts (the Jehovah's Witnesses), because they, too, beat a hasty retreat whenever they meet a true follower of the Lord who has faithfully continued in the Truths expounded by That Servant, Pastor Russell, who confuses and staggers them with "PRESENT TRUTH" in contrast to their colossal jumble of error and perversion. Having all this in mind, we were prompted to prepare our Three Babylons tract --detailing the correct interpretation of Joel. 2:28, 29 --a tract which the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses now forbid their 'locusts' to read (even as do some of the leaders of other "Little Babylon" groups). In this also they are a true 'little brother' to the Roman Catholic Church, which has issued the Dark­Ages interdict to its members: "Reading is doubt; doubt is heresy; and heresy is Hell!" We ourselves never refuse to read any of their literature, even though it be only contrasting their error with the Truth; nor do we prevail upon our readers to refrain from reading their papers, if they have the time and are inclined to do so-­-just as we do not exert pressure upon our readers to taboo R. G, Jolly's "Present Truth" (a misnomer now, the same as The Watch Tower is a misnomer) and the papers of J. H. Krewson. If any of our brethren refuse their literature in an insulting manner, it is not at our behest or example (although we have been present at conven­tions where R. G. Jolly not only told his sectarian adherents to 'avoid us,' but also NOT TO READ OUR LITERATURE because it was poison!  R, G. Jolly's 'kinship' to Jehovah's Witnesses is most glaringly apparent--"made manifest" in this Epiphany period).

Also, in The Finished Mystery, page 159 is offered this correct interpretation for Rev. 9: 11: "And they have their king" --The same king as exercises general rulership over all the ecclesiastical affairs of this present evil world…"Whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon" – and he is a bad one sure enough! "But in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon” – That is destroyer – but in plain English his name is Satan, the Devil.

We direct our readers to take definite note that these present-day Jehovah's Witnesses select for themselves the designation of 'locusts' of the four pests men­tioned in Joel; and this insect is said in Epiphany Vol, 17, page 32 to type the rising Roman hierarchy in the fourth, fifth and sixth, centuries A.D.  And in true 'little-brother' fashion, they also admit having over them as their king Abaddon (the bad one) --just as the Papacy is the outstanding visible representative also of that Old Serpent, the Devil and Satan. "For the Lord shall rise up as in Mount Perazim….. that; he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act." (lsa. 28:21--See Berean Comments) "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee," saith the Lord! Indeed, we do wonder if our Three Babylons tract was the motivating force that prompted them now to admit the real truth about them­selves (in an effort to destroy the effect of the true interpretation of Joel 2:28,29 set out therein)--ignorant though they may be of the thing "hereof they speak! Of course, we ourselves do not consider the individuals of that group as the antitypical 'locusts' (even though their leaders plague them with that appellation); it is rather their false teachings that: are fully illustrated by that devastating insect--just as was true of the false teachings of the rising Papacy early in the Gospel Age, which are typed by these locusts. We believe that many individuals of the Jehovah's Witnesses group are deceived by the outward show of that system (the biggest sect in "Little Babylon"), the same as many were deceived by the splendor and outward show of Big Papacy (the largest sect in Big Babylon), As we know, many Catholics have had their eyes opened by the light of present Truth, and we believe many of the 'Witnesses will be liberated from their sectarian bondage when present Truth reaches them ("And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," – John 8:32).

So those of us who have continued in that Truth (that made us free) are not impressed by their "much speaking" and their outward show and numbers (any more than the faithful brethren in the Parousia were overawed by the Big Catholic Church nor are the faithful Parousia and Epiphany brethren overawed by the efforts toward pomp and show displayed by the leaders in the L.H.M.M., in seeking to imitate both Big and Little Babylon by "much speaking", etc.), as we rest fully in the promise, "For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist." Verily we have been strengthened and encouraged by that "mouth and wisdom" as we have witnessed the errorist’s ‘flight' from the presence of such faithful and informed Bible Students, as they refuted their errors with the Truth.

We offer the true interpretation of the "locusts" of Rev, 9:3 as describing the diabolic teaching of indulgences (a devastating 'pest' in every respect) which flourished during the symbolic five months --150 symbolic days, actually 150 years -­of Rev. 9:5. The practice of indulgences appeared during the Crusades--innocently enough promising 'indulgence' to all who offered their service in the crusading armies attempting to wrest the Holy Land from the "Terrible Turks." In time the teaching was developed as an aid to fill the empty coffers of the greedy money ­loving popes of that time.

When the practice succumbed to the lure of 'filthy lucre,' there appeared also God's fully faithful mouthpieces in protest.  “When the Assyrian” (the errorists) shall tread in our palaces" (the Truth teachings which are the abode of the fully faithful), then shall we raise up against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men--'princes of men'--Micah 5:5, margin. The "seven shepherds" of this text are the "seven angels to the seven churches," each of which had a 'principal man' (a 'prince')--with two 'principal men' (or 'princes') in the Laodicean, or seventh epoch. The 'principal man' during the sounding of the fifth trumpet was Marsiglio, whose specific ministry was from 1309 to 1328 A.D, His ministry was climaxed in 1324 by the appearance of his book "The Defender of the Peace"--a work which aimed at the papal evils of that time.

If we add 150 years to 1328, we come to l478, when we find John Wessel just beginning his ministry as the 'principal man' sounding the sixth trumpet. This trumpet continued to sound for 391 years (See Rev. 9:15), until 1870 when That Servant began to sound the seventh trumpet.

It will be noted in Rev. 9:4 that the locusts ‘injured' only "the men who have not the seal of God in their foreheads." The assets of the locusts are described by the words, "as it were" golden crowns, etc.; that is, they did not actually possess such valuables-·-the whole arrangement was just a parade of counterfeits. The same may be said for "breastplates as it were iron breastplates." In Eph. 6:14 St. Paul entreats God's people to have "on the breastplate of righteousness," the same being their strong assurance that this would certainly effect their salvation. Then again, in Micah 4:13 the promise is held forth to this same class that Jehovah "will make thine horn iron." The horn in Bible symbols represents power, and an iron horn would represent unbreakable power, as evidenced in Dan. 2:33 by the "legs of iron" of the metal-man image, which portrayed the Roman Empire and its unbreakable power in its heyday. But the "as it were iron breastplates" of Rev. 9:9 indicate a counterfeit, and depict the very strong delusions of those who rested secure in their "righteousness" and its attendant salvation, which had been assured by the Pope as they purchased for filthy lucre his indulgences for their evil deeds--the transaction in fact actually depriving them of that security which they sought. Thus, their "breastplate of righteousness" as it were of iron actually was simply "wood, hay and stubble"--"like the chaff which the wind driveth away" (Psa. 1:4)--a devastating pesti­ferous deception well portrayed by the all-devouring locusts.

John Wessel saw this clearly enough (although we doubt he understood the correct interpretation of Rev. 9). That faithful mouthpiece of the Lord is rated by history as "the most renowned scholar of his time--a man of rare erudition--a reformer before the Reformation." He aligned himself with the anti-papal party and protested the growing paganizing of the Papacy, contending that "Sin can be forgiven by none but God." That battle cry of the sixth angel was hurled forth by Martin Luther as a mighty thunder; and, supplemented by others of his day, forced the Great Reform Coun­cil of Trent to declare an end to the abuse of indulgences in the year 1562. Thus, the sting of the locusts began to subside in 1478 through the exposures of Wessel and others just 'five months' (l50 literal years) after the death of Marsiglio--and was completely nullified by 1562.

"The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things." (Prov. 15:28) "Yea, the Lord shall give that which is good; and our land shall yield her increase," (Psa. 85:12)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

…………………….

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: -Are Consecrated Epiphany Campers represented in any way in Noah's Ark?

ANSWER: -No! And it would be essential for them to be shown in the Ark in some clear manner if they are a genuine class, because that Ark is a "Type of Christ and the power in Him which will replenish and reorganize society." (See Gen. 6:19 -Berean Comment) In other words, the Ark portrays the embodiment of God's Plan. (Nor does Noah's Ark portray the Jehovah's Witnesses'  Jonadabs, or any of their ­earthly "organization" that will allegedly survive Armageddon.) In elaborating this statement, Brother Johnson gives us this in E:5-62 (59): 

''It will be noticed that there were four human pairs who went into the Ark, as well as at least one pair of every clean and unclean kind of animals. We know that there are four elective classes who in this life obtain a good report through faith in the Abrahamic Covenant: (1) The Christ, (2) the Ancient Worthies, (3) the Great Company, and (4) the Youthful Worthies, Noah undoubtedly types our Lord, who is the Heir of the righteousness which comes to us by faith (Heb. 11:7), These classes we understand to be typed in their respective order by Noah and his wife, Shem and his wife, Japheth and his wife and Ham and his wife, the males apart from Noah representing all the leaders of their respective classes, and the females the rest of these classes. We understand the animals in the Ark to represent the non-elect who will ultimately be saved. We-understand the clean animals to repre­sent the Jews, as typically clean, who will be saved, and the Tentatively Justified as tentatively clean, who will be saved. The unclean animals we understand represent those of the present unclean world who will be saved; while those who perished in the Flood we understand to represent from one viewpoint those who have perished under the Adamic curse, and from another standpoint, the movements and systems of Satan's Empire and the Second Death Class. Just as in the type the clean and the unclean animals occupied altogether different positions in the ark from those of Noah and his family, so in the antitype the Jews and the Tentatively Justified on the one hand, and the prospectively saved of the rest of mankind on the other hand, are quite differ­ently related to the Abrahamic Covenant from antitypical Noah and his family. These animals were placed in the Ark to type that anticipatorily their antitypes would be included in the Abrahamic Covenant."

From the foregoing, it is clear enough that the clean animals typed the quasi-elect --those "truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated, Jews and Gentiles."  (See E: 10-209) They are those who have "adhered to righteousness" and who accept Christ as their Savior –anticipatorily in the Jewish Age, and actually so during the Gospel Age. Note we have underscored the words "adhered to righteousness," be­cause this feature of the quasi-elect is definitely portrayed in the clean animals by all of them having the split or divided hoof, such hoofs typifying that their con­duct has been acceptable to God and to man --they have practiced righteousness--­have made "straight paths for their feet" --adhered to the Mosaic law to the extent of their ability (even perhaps more so than the 'measurably faithful' Great Company Class, and the 'measurably faithful' of the Youthful Worthies have done during the time they were measurably unfaithful before their cleansing--although adherence to righteousness does not admit the quasi-elect as one of the fully elect classes). Thus, it is apparent that the quasi-elect are clearly shown in the Ark; and it is equally apparent that the same Ark is completely silent about a consecrated segment of this class at any time during the Gospel Age in the embodiment of God's Plan. Clearly enough a consecrated division of the quasi-elect is an Azazelian perversion by uncleansed Levite leaders (Azazel means Perverter)--whether they be designated Epiphany Campers Consecrated, Quasi-elect Consecrated or Jonadabs, It is an arbitrary addition to "that which is written," and without Scriptural foundation in the Ark, which reveals the "whole counsel of God" in its generalized features--emphasizing the same six classes as are found in Joel 2:28,29, but no more.

…………………….

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear   Brother Hoefle: -Greetings in the Master's Name!

Bro. Jolly wants his readers to believe that it was Bro. Roach who caused the division of the Trinidad Ecclesia, by keeping a separate Memorial service. He is the one, and is now playing up minor considerations in order to hide the real cause of the division he himself has created in this Island, by the offering of his "strange fire" (Epiphany Campers Consecrated). He charges Brother Roach with ignoring Brothers Russel and Johnson's instructions from the Scripture on the subject of Church Government--that a local  Ecclesia is mistress in her own affairs to arrange for its meetings and their leaders; and that it is not for anyone or more of its leaders, contrary to the Ecclesia's previous arrangement, to arrange for counter-meetings with self-appointment as their leader or leaders. Now this is exactly what R. G. Jolly did, for it was R. G. Jolly (a guest) and elder Brother Robertson, who arranged for the Chairman, and that he (R. G. Jolly) would be guest speaker--and that I would do the Bible reading for the Memorial service.  Bro. Khan was to serve the wine and Bro. Robertson the bread. I can tell you, Brother, the Ecclesia knew nothing of such arrangements. Only when in the course of the meeting, when I was called upon by the Chairman to read the Bible lesson, was I aware that I was to do the reading.  I was sitting near the Chairman; I had no notice.  Just after the meeting started Bro. Jolly handed something to Bro. Pilgrim, for he was the Chairman for that meeting, and that something was the program.  Indeed such action is the dis­position to ignore the Church and to make himself (R. G. Jolly) and his judgment superior to the whole. (Such a course by any leader was totally discountanced by Brother, Johnson, as he well knew such conduct is a step toward overlording, and control of elders and bishops--yet R. G. Jolly accuses others of that of which he himself is most guilty!--JJH)

What a good and clean Levite leader--to lead the "good and clean" Levites! I think it is 'good and clean' clericalism! --Rev. 2:6,l5

May our dear Heavenly Father bless you all! By His Grace, (Signed) Brother George Martin

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

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n

I have enjoyed reading the two articles you sent me, The Resurrection of the Dead and What is The Soul. Now will you please send me Where Are The Dead?

Thanks very much!                                              Mrs ……MARYLAND

……………..

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF GENERAL INTEREST,

As was the custom of Brother Johnson, we designate a period for this season as a Special Effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, which is from October 14 through November 11 this year. The Epiphany Messenger did this to honor the memory 'of That Wise and Faithful Servant, who valiantly fought these two King Errors (Zebah and Zalmunna--warfare against the doctrines of Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead) all during his ministry; and we now invite the brethren of 'like mind' to join with us in this "good fight" in memory of both these Special Servants of the Lord. (1 Tim. 5:17) We shall be pleased to supply the pertinent literature free of all charge (Where are the Dead, What is the Soul and The Resurrection tracts) to all who wish to participate in this good work; also to join with us in the petition, "God bless their memory!"

If any of the brethren would like to receive extra copies of this Jehovah's Witness article, they will be available free upon request. If any have names of members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or of members of other groups, and would like for us to send them the article direct, please send them in.