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.

NO. 86: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE JULY-AUGUST PRESENT TRUTH

No. 86

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

On page 50 of the paper under review, under the caption ‘‘Gathering or Scattering – Which?” R. G, Jolly again “makes manifest” what manner of person he is by directing Scriptures at others that correctly apply to him. That Evil Servant did exactly the same thing, and aroused substantially the same comments from Brother Johnson that we have on numerous occasions expressed toward R. G. Jolly. One case in point is Rom. 16:17,18, “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.” Let R. G. jolly make clear once and for all when, where, and from whom he learned his doctrine of “Consecrated Epiphany Campers.” We have repeatedly asked this question, with each time Silence as the only answer. And we may be certain of the same Silence once more.

In col. 1, par. 1, p. 50 he speaks of “developing and perfecting His (the Lord’s) Consecrated Epiphany Campers” since 1954. In E:10-114 Brother Johnson clearly teaches that when the time arrives to apply Rev. 22:11 (which time he then in 1941 thought would be 1954), “it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent.” R. G. Jolly sets that aside, of course, and substitutes some teaching (errors) of his own since 1954 – all the while screaming at others for teaching “contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.” The basic cause of the turmoil in Trinidad this year stems directly from the “strange fire” (false doctrine) of R. G, Jolly’s ‘‘Consecrated Campers’’ since 1954, an error which Brother Roach and others there refuse to swallow – just as we have refused to do it – so it Is he (R. G. Jolly), and not_they, who is respon­sible for the Trinidad division; and the text “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” rightly applies to R. G. Jolly (which motivated Brother Roach in his course toward R. G. Jolly, who is the real culprit in causing divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine he has learned from the Star Members).

But, just as did That Evil Servant, R. G, Jolly accuses the Faithful of guilt for aberrations that are solely his responsibility. And for this he will surely receive the “shame” (Isa. 66:5) which the Lord has reserved for “brethren” of his strain. As Brother Johnson has so correctly stated in E:3-190, the chief wrongdoing of such crown-losers are in their ‘‘relations to God, to Jesus, to His prospective bride and to one another.” And R. G. Jolly offers vivid and compelling proof that Brother Johnson spoke the truth. His conduct since October 22, 1950 toward the Faithful up to his present and latest attack against the Faithful Bro. Roach of Trinidad clearly reveals that he has not overcome this evil, which he will surely have to do before he ever becomes a cleansed Levite.

When R. G. Jolly accuses Brother Roach of influencing others to a separate Memorial this year, it would be well if he offered proof for his accusation, be­cause we have Brother Roach’s testimony that it is completely false – just another Jolly falsehood – unless we admit that Brother Roach’s faithful magnetism was that “influence.” We were informed by those brethren who attended that meeting that they went to Brother Roach’s home for the Memorial without any Invitation from him – without even previously informing him of their intentions; they were impelled by the “example of the believers” which they have witnessed in Brother Roach over the years, and they were determined to minimize the abuse he was receiving from a “leprous” Levite. (See E:4-243-302)

And be it noted that Brother Roach has never gone “contrary to the doctrine which he has learned” from the Star Members – although R. G. Jolly has flagrantly done so with his self-styled Campers Consecrated, his errors on tentative justi­fication, on Rev. 22:11, on the abandonment process for Azazel’s Goat (See E:l5­525, par. 1), etc., etc. And this perverter (Azazel means Perverter) now vilifies and stigmatizes a brother because he refuses to ‘‘wallow’’ in those errors – a brother who insists upon retaining the “doctrine he has learned” from the Fully Faithful Star Members, as he rejects the “strange fire” emanating from an uncleansed Levite leader.

When he complains that Brother Roach received us, why does he single out Bro. Roach for the occasion? Many of his more prominent Auxiliary Pilgrim-Evangelist representatives have no hesitancy in giving us brotherly greetings at R. G. Jolly’s own Conventions; and they do this openly before him. Self-evidently these breth­ren are persuaded by the exhortation and warning of the beloved Epiphany Messenger:

‘‘Among many Truth people, therefore, clericalism is one of the burning questions. It is almost everywhere rampant. In Little Babylon we have a little presbyterial system of church government – the rule of elders. In its work-director we have its ecclesial bishop..... In the Society pilgrims we have the little cardinals, and in the Society’s president we have the little pope. Trampled under the feet of these clericalists the democracy that in Brother Russell’s day exercised the autonomy and independence of the ecclesias, varyingly in the organizational Levite subdivisions, is being destroyed. Some of the brethren have been aroused to appropriate action in this matter; some are very timidly resisting.....

‘‘And to you, dear Epiphany-enlightened brethren, we would address a suit­able exhortation: ‘Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.’“ (See E:8 pp. 349-350 for the complete warning and exhortation)

These brethren give us such brotherly fellowship because they have known us over the years; they also know that Brother Johnson never exposed us before the General Church as “loquacious, repetitious and false-accusing” (E:10-591), nor as “unfair and unkind,” as he has done with R. G. Jolly; and they refuse to be­come partakers of his sins. Such Youthful Worthy brethren who resist R. G. Jolly’s clericalism are participating in the battle against clericalism and sectarianism in Little Babylon, and if persisted in to the end will be counted as overcomers of these two sins with the faithful Youthful Worthies (See E:5-226-229 – battle against Oreb and Zeeb). The Great Company Class will not be counted as overcomers in this battle, because it has been the Great Company all during the Gospel Age who actually perverted the Star Members teaching and started the various sects to build up Big Babylon – just as it was the Great Company who started the various sects in Little Babylon to build up Little Babylon.

This is probably the real reason R. G. Jolly has made such pronounced effort to expel us from his Conventions; he cannot persuade those brethren to ignore us.... those brethren who still retain the “spirit of love and a sound mind” which is now so sadly deficient in R. G. Jolly himself since his full abandonment to Azazel in October 1950, and is readily apparent by his “strong delusions,” one after another. Therefore, he fulfills the prophecy of Jesus in John 16:2,3, “they shall put you out of the synagogues.” Yes, we pity him, poor little man that he is! He will probably make even more desperate efforts to exclude us from the Conventions just ahead, in an attempt to cover up his blundering on this 1962 Memorial date, and the stinging defeat he has suffered in Trinidad in keeping with the King Saul antitype. (Please-see our No. 76-A, November 1961 on “Samuel and Saul.”)

On p. 60, col. 2, bottom, there is this statement by R. G. Jolly: “A good conscience, properly regulated by the Scriptures and the teachings of the two star-members, could not lead one into an act of revolutionism against the Lord’s Truth and arrangements, causing him clericalistically and rebelliously to over­ride the prerogatives of the local ecclesia.” We are in full accord with that statement as it stands! But we do reflect upon the record of these two (Brother Roach and R. G. Jolly)! At no time did Brother Johnson have occasion to announce Brother Roach as a clericalist, a revolutionist – nor did Brother Roach ever seek to seize control of the Lord’s Mouthpiece; and we now ponder how and when R. G. Jolly came to know the meaning of a “good conscience.” Brother Johnson clearly tells us on p. 585 of Vol. 10 that R. G. Jolly had a “bad” conscience, and often “misrepresented” Brother Johnson – just as he is now “misrepresenting” Brother Roach. Notice also on the same page 585 that Brother Johnson openly accuses R. G. Jolly of being “unfair and unkind”; and R. G. Jolly reveals nothing now at this late date to indicate he has rid himself of these evil characteristics. He is now “unfair and unkind” in his vicious “misrepresentations” of Brother Roach – just as he did with the Epiphany Messenger himself, and just as he has done toward us on numerous occasions.

It is because Brother Roach does have a “good conscience” in that he properly refused to sit at the feet of a proven perverter in the solemn Memorial service. Had R. G, Jolly himself shown the proper humility and “love” for Brother Roach that he professes, it would have been a simple matter for him to allow another to offer the Memorial discourse. That would have placed him in a much better position, because it is not for individuals, generally speaking, to disfellowship each other – ­just as we pointed out Fred Blaine’s disregard of Scriptural teaching in his error for personally disfellowshiping us, when we had done nothing whatever to him per­sonally (contrary to his false accusation against us on p. 47 of the May-June P.T.); and no ecclesia had disfellowshiped us – nor had R. G. jolly himself disfellow­shiped us at the time. So there was no precedent for such conduct set out in the Scriptures, in the Star Members’ writings, nor even by his uncleansed Levite leader (R. G. Jolly himself) at the time.

Yes, “bad” consciences, “misrepresentations” and “unfair and unkind criticisms” seem to be just as prevalent evils now as they were when Brother Johnson was harassed and bruised by them, which he recorded for the protection of all of us in faithful­ness to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren, that we all may be forewarned against such sins (such record otherwise being unnecessary, if not to protect others while serving as chastisement to correct these evils in R. G. Jolly). Clearly enough, there are many who claim to be “in the Truth”; but the Truth is not in them!

And it seems apropos now to point out that Brother Johnson tells us these crown-losers (of which R. G, Jolly is a part) “Repetitously” boast of their right­eousness (just as R. G. Jolly is now doing in his letter to Brother Roach), and they criticize and pick Brother Johnson to pieces, demanding his attention (just, as R. G. Jolly is now doing to Brother Roach), “They profess that they did not seek to intimidate nor oppress him (Bro, Johnson)” – just as R. G. Jolly claims for himself in his latest attack against Faithful Brother Roach. (Please see E:10-586 for complete details of the references cited,) Be it noted, R. G. Jolly claimed to be a crown-retainer when he was a crown-loser; he is now claiming to be a cleansed Levite when he is a very UNCLEAN Levite, as is clearly manifested by his continued evils and perverted teachings. Also he by act claims that a “cleansed” Levite leader stands in the same relative position of a Star Member in that he has boldly foisted upon God’s people a new doctrine (actually offering “strange fire” before the Lord). In all his “loquacious foolish effusions” now, just as was the case under Brother Johnson, he by his acts clearly reveals his inferiority (his uncleansed condition) by his sins of teaching and practice, while repetitiously voicing his “superiority” over the faithful while comparing his course to theirs (just as revealed in his letter to Brother Roach). Nor should we be surprised that he denies such evils, all the while he repeatedly indulges in such wrongs. That Evil Servant, and the Pope in Big Babylon, have done precisely the same thing, as they repeatedly requested all to behold their “cleansed” and righteous condition. “Why call ye me Lord, and do not the things which I say?”

Now follows Brother Roach’s answer to R. G. Jolly’s letter as published on page 58 of the July-August Present Truth:

Dear Brother Jolly: - Christian greetings!

In your letter of May 29 you write me some 4,000 words which you crowd into six pages of closely written typing – full of repetitious effusions and “false­accusing” sentences; and I am now beginning to appreciate from painful personal experience with you why Brother Johnson felt it necessary to describe you in Vol. 10, p. 591, as “loquacious, repetitious, false-accusing and pouring out foolish effusions.” Please know that I have no wish to follow your example in my answer to you.

A number of times you refer to a “sifter and open active enemy of the Truth and arrangements”; but you leave me to guess this “sifter’s” identity, because you do not give me his name. You have attacked more than one ‘sifter’ (?) in your publications before the brethren, so that it would be well for you to resolve to be honest and clear in all your accusations against them, making clear and concise statement so that all the brethren will not become more befuddled than they are already as to your contentions. In this same letter you also repeatedly refer me to the example of Brother Johnson. When discussing such people as leaders in various groups, did Brother Johnson ever leave us in doubt as to their identity? Of course he did not! When attacking the evil course of such prominent ‘mis’leaders, Brother Johnson left us in no doubt as to their identity. He always clearly identified the errorists so that all the breth­ren would be properly informed and forewarned.

You are also telling me I even refused to have conference with you when you sent a special messenger to arrange one. Yes, I did refuse and requested him to draw your attention to “Arch-enemy of God’s People” on page Z 5183, where That Servant advised to keep away from you, thereby rebuking you for applying Scriptures out of their time features. Knowing the brother as I do, I believe he did it.

In our Berean Study in preparing for this year’s Memorial when we got to p. 469) Vol. Six, par. 1, you were discussed in connection with your conduct on page 555 of E. Vol. Ten, with that Youthful Worthy widow in comparison to 1 John 3:17. There were only five or six of us, and I requested that it should not be made public. I next considered 1 Tim. 4:12, that one who claims to be at the head of a religious group should be an example of it.

When I also remember your animosity against Brother and Sister Hoefle in which you left America and showed here in Trinidad, I felt I would be a hypocrite of the darkest hue to sit at the same table with such an one. I am glad to know that we are not enemies, and that I can drop you a note sometime if necessary.

I rejoice in Brother Russell’s advice to keep the prize always before my eyes. Page Z 5082, col. 1. par. 5-7. I cannot see why you accepted that letter from Bro. Krewson in your January 1952 Present Truth.

On p. 3. par. 2, you say Brother Johnson’s teachings “include the Consecrated Epiphany Campers.” Please give me some references where he teaches such a class.

You use many more ‘words’ about my failure to attend certain meetings arranged by the Trinidad brethren. You are well aware that I have not supported you in the false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Consecrated – nor have I supported you in any of your gross revolutionisms against the Truth and its Arrangements; nor have I acted hastily in withdrawing from you entirely. As you know, I am now fully persuaded that you are presenting ‘strange fire’ before the brethren, because I well realize that no crown-lost leader can receive any new doctrine from the Lord; that they can only receive such “due Truths” from the Star Members. Until you have ‘purged’ yourself of these sins of doctrine and practice, please consider me strong and firm in my stand against such a course. My only proper course as a faithful “overseer of the flock” (Acts 20:28) is to stay away from your meetings and follow St. Paul’s counsel, “from such turn away” (so long as you continue in the “error of your way”). Be assured that there is nothing ‘Personal’ against you in my decision, because I am fully persuaded that I must take a firm stand against such errors of doctrine and practice if I would be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren.

When you accuse me of having a separate Memorial and inviting various brethren to partake with me, you make a false accusation against me (just as you did under Bro. Johnson against others). Certain brethren who came to partake with me came of their own volition, without any coercion, invitation and arrangement on my part. I now request that you correct the misrepresentation you made of me on this matter in your May-June P.T. in your next Present Truth. (Emphasis ours–JJH) If you have the ‘love’ for me, the Truth and Righteousness that you profess, and that you should have, then it will be your pleasure to make this correction and vindicate my course in the eyes of the brethren.

Among other things you say the Memorial Season is a time to purge ourselves of the ‘leaven’ (false doctrines being one of the vital issues mentioned). I have faith­fully continued in the fundamental doctrines of the Star Members; nor have I accepted any ‘new doctrine’ given by any crown-lost leader. It would have been a great bless­ing to you and others had you ‘purged’ yourself from this ‘strange fire’ of Epiphany Campers Consecrated at this past Memorial Season. It is my hope and prayer that you will yet see your proper course and “turn from the error of your way” while it is called TODAY.

The Lord has dealt bountifully with me over the past fifty years, especially under Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. He has “guided me with His eye” in the way I should go, even as He has promised the Fully Faithful. I am now past 90, and I am thankful there is no record made (by either Star Member) of any revolutionism against the doctrines or the arrangements at any time. (Yes, this beloved Brother was loved and respected by both Star Members because of his faithfulness; but now when he is past 90 years this self-claimed ‘cleansed’ Levite leader finds him a clericalist and a revolutionist because he resists his errors – just as he resisted similar crown-lost leaders in-the beginning of the Epiphany –JJH) Since I have been placed in a prominent position, such deflections would have been made manifest – ­especially during this Epiphany. The Epiphany Messenger would not have hesitated to record such serious deflections (revolutionisms, etc.), had there been any – even as he did in cases of other prominent brethren serving in similar positions under him. Ever since the Epiphany Messenger’s demise, I have continued to persevere in faith and obedience to the Lord and His Truth, without that “fear of man which bringeth a snare.”

Since Brother Johnson found it necessary to record a few of your serious deflec­tions, as well as to record some of your characteristics (“loquacious effusions” etc.), I find it my duty, painful though it may be, to exhort you to forsake such devious methods (such as your six-page letter reveals) and seek to speak forth the Truth in clear and unmistakable language, abandoning all “foolish effusions” and repetitions of ‘‘Words to no profit.”

There is much more I could say, but this should suffice for now. if you can accept the above exhortations, then I shall appreciate a clear and brief answer to the various questions I have asked you herein.

Yours by His Grace, (Signed) L. F. Roach

June 26, 1962

It is our hope and prayer that the facts set out above will vindicate the faith­ful course of Brother Roach in contrast to the evil course of R. G. Jolly against him as set out in the July-August Present Truth on pp. 58-62; and that if possible for R. G. Jolly, he will turn from his evils, repent and call upon the Lord in sincerity and in Truth. (See Psalms 107:10-13)

Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies.” (Psa, 60:12)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

My dearly beloved Bro. & Sr. Hoefle: – Grace be multiplied!

Your very sympathetic letter received and I was put in a state of inactivity for the balance of the day. When I think of Bro. Jolly saying in this so-called Present Truth that I enticed brethren to celebrate the Memorial with me, it is some­thing to behold. Oh, yes! It was the very thing I purposely avoided. I will give you an instance. One of the five or six brethren who used to attend the Passover B. S. in Vol. Six with me, and to whom I used to give a regular gift out of my small pension (knowing she is a penniless widow and would need money to pay her taxi fare), wasn’t offered this help at the time. I had the amount ready to give her the moment she asked for it, but I did not offer her the money lest she feel that I was paying, or enticing, her to come..... Lo and behold the very thing I thoughtfully refrained from doing is the very thing Bro. Jolly says I did! Well, well, well! ..............

I thank you for the reference to Bro. Cranmer in E. Vol. 8. My dear brethren, I have to close right now, as tears are darkening my sight. I ask help from you both and from the other brethren by prayer. May God bless you!

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

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our blessed Lord and Master!

Yours of June 16 and the July and August articles are duly received. We are glad to receive these rich blessings. it certainly brings pain to our hearts to see how befuddled these uncleansed Great Company members are. I had to speak harshly to one of R. G. Jolly’s able Pilgrims, who – after my efforts to prove Campers Consecrated as a false doctrine from Volumes and Towers of Brother Johnson – ­actually refused to hear the volumes read. Certainly, we fear for them!

I have also received from Brother ------- a few days ago ...pound on your behalf; also Brother Roach has written to me a very encouraging letter. Oh! we thank the dear Lord for such faithful brethren! Although advanced in age, I believe the Lord has much work for him to do, so may we pray the Lord’s continued blessing to rest with him and the dear ones in Trinidad.

The dear brethren here are all still fighting the “good fight” – although not all physically fit. We believe the good Lord has a work for all His faithful to do, and all must accomplish that which the Lord desires of them. So may you in His ser­vice be one found worthy to share in God’s eternal blessings!

May our love and prayers for you, Sister Hoefle and the dear ones with you, bring much blessings as you all continue to be faithful. Hymn 13.

Yours by His Grace....... Bro ------- JAMAICA

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

Dear Brother and Sister Hoefle: – Loving greetings in Jesus dear Name!

I am late in thanking you for the nice folders. Thank you very much.

I think ------- wrote you about them, but I ought to myself if possible. The trouble is I have so little good eyes to see what I have written. I guess I had better let M .... do it for me after all.

Lovingly, Sister ------- OHIO

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!

Pertaining to your Pilgrim trip, accompanied by Sister Hoefle, to our dear Brother Roach and the Brethren in Trinidad, as related in your message of June, No. 83, it is interesting indeed re Star Members’ teachings, doctrines and Truths... Divinely supported, and your part therein, enabled by His sanction so to do, to offset the errors.... I would herewith enclose a small remittance to enable our pursuit of Zeba and Zalmunna, ever with the wish and prayer of upholding “Truth and Righteousness.”

With hearty Christian love and prayers for all the brethren in your vicinity.

By His Favor, Brother ------- NEW JERSEY

Note: The following letter has just been received from Brother Roach (Aug. 10, 1962), which we would have included in the general exposure of R. G. Jolly had we received it in time. However, since R. G. Jolly makes such public attacks upon us through the letters of others about not publishing his side, we now ask why he would fail to publish Brother Roach’s letter in the July-August, 1962 P.T., especially since it was the one he was answering, dated May 5, 1962? We believe that this letter from Brother Roach will help clear up some of the false accusations made against him by this Levite leader, therefore we now give it to the brethren for their information:

Dear Brother Jolly: – Grace be multiplied!

Your letter dated April 21, 1962 re my dismissal as Auxiliary Pilgrim of L.H.M.M. received with thanks. You will not see with me, but I can only say from a human stand­point it is somewhat late.

From the tenor of your letter it is easy to see that certain facts are concealed from you, I am going to tell you them as Brother Martin gave them to me, as from the so-called emergency meeting: Brother Nelson had a secret talk with you at Piarco Airport. He, Brother Nelson, left you and went for Brothers Khan and Robertson and the three of them came to him where it was agreed that I should be made to apologize to the class before serving them in any form, and if I had succeeded in having things my way, that they, the elders would walk out of the meeting. This was on the night of the 29th of March. Brother Robertson was to give me personally a notice. I never got that notice. When I took the chair to lead a Berean Study they pounced upon me, giving me no chance. See Z 5740, col. 2, par. 5 & 6. Of course as I am the one to be gotten rid of, it does not matter. (This is the only Brother that we recall that was praised so highly by Fred Blaine at last year’s Labor Day Convention–JJH) When I pressed and told them that even among heathen justice is not denied, I was told that I held a separate Memorial Service without the Class’ permission, Please see Z 5501, col. 2, par. 5.

Three days before the so-called elders meeting, that is on the 26th of March, Nelson was foolish enough to go to Brother Martin seeking advice how to put the case to the class about my holding a separate Memorial, among other things he told Brother Martin how he had suffered a lot at the hands of Brother Roach and now it is his turn to come back.

In 1960 in the slander case, I fought it alone for Brother Robertson was in full sympathy with Nelson, in so much that when you gave instructions for the second apology Brother Robertson instructed the apologizer to do so during a prayer and testimony meeting, and those who knew nothing about the matter had to ask questions, The idea of turning a prayer meeting into a business meeting to honour a slanderer! (And these are the brethren R. G. Jolly thinks are ‘fitted’ to take care of the spiritual interests of the brethren in Trinidad! Why? Because they go along with him in his revolutionistic course, and with his false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Consecrated! –JJH)

You, Brother Jolly are to be blamed, for you know the man and when he, as an individual, brought his charge you should have seen vengeance behind it, as did dear Brother Martin who refused to be a party to it, and shut down all L.H.M.M. meetings at his house. Dear Sister Walcott, at St. James, has done likewise.

I call the whole business a dirty plot, and I quote Isaiah 51:17: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.”

Brethren are coming one by one inquiring what is happening. A certain one said he is sorry he has left the Anglican Church.

In closing, I deem it appropriate to you that I am told many things you said to the discredit of dear Brother Hoefle, so I thought it only fair to invite him to come to Trinidad and defend himself, which he did with marked success.

I am in the Household of faith and challenge the two clergymen and laymen who could not even allow the case to be put to the vote to explain to inquirers. However, the situation is unique still!

Yours by His Grace, L. F. Roach - May 5, 1962.

Note: We make special emphasis to the praise Fred Blaine made of this brother, because it was timely and true, when he said this brother, although up in age, was so very clear in the Truth. And we say Amen to that statement. – JJH

MORE ON THE 1962 MEMORIAL DATE

No. 87

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

On pp. 113-117 of this July-August 1962 paper No. 45 of J. W. Krewson there is further “profusion of words” containing many falsehoods on this subject; and on p. 115, par. 2, he describes as a “rash statement” our comment that “nowhere does the Bible give even a hint about how we should arrive at Nisan 1.” We quote a similar 'rash statement' by Brother Johnson: “While the Herald conceals the fact that the Jewish calendar is frequently out of harmony with its rule for Nisan 1, its main plea is that we must follow the Jewish calendar, because, they say, it is Scriptural and logical. On this point we take issue and make the following objections (the same kind of objections we offered against J. W. Krewson for similar claims–JJH): (1) The Bible nowhere states definitely the method of calculating the beginning of Nisan or any other month, much less the arbitrary method of the Jewish calendar.” Feb. 1933 P.T., p. 30, col, 1 – Please see for verification of this quotation from Brother Johnson. We now wonder if J. W. Krewson read our quotation from Brother Johnson: “The Bible nowhere states definitely the method of calculating the beginning of Nisan,” etc. in our July paper, p. 2, par. 4? Does he contend that Brother Johnson also made a “rash statement”? And this statement by Brother Johnson is to be found in the identical P.T. from which J. W. Krewson quotes!

And when he quotes in the same paragraph from P.T. 1933, p. 27, col. 1,2, respecting the testimony of the 2520 and 1845-year parallels, it seems here again he's read something which he doesn't even yet understand (much the same as his con­fusion on “Truth needing no defense” and on Brother Johnson's appointment of Epiphany Pilgrims, etc.). Up to 1933 Brother Johnson himself was under the incor­rect belief that the new month began the evening after the moon news; and it was not until 1933 that Brother Johnson realized it begins at six p.m. the evening before it news. To elucidate: If the moon came new at 10:06 p.m. April 4 (as it did in 1962), the custom had been to begin Nisan 1 at six p.m. April 5; and it was not until 1933 that Brother Johnson came to see the truth – that Nisan 1 should begin at six p.m. April 4, if the moon newed during that day. Therefore, Brother Johnson's calculation had only to do with the first day of the month – ­any month, whether that be Nisan or any other month – and it is to that extent ­and to that extent only – that the parallels influence the Passover date, or any other Biblical dates. It still does not inform us how to determine which moon should be the Nisan moon.

When J. W. Krewson says the statement by Brother Johnson “never before the Vernal Equinox” is a quotation from Josephus, this is just another of his brazen' falsehoods, as well as an idiotic one – because it would be a simple matter for the brethren to verify the fact that Josephus did not say it by referring to Josephus' Antiquities, Book III, Chap. 10, sec. 5, to which Brother Johnson re­ferred (the statement made by Brother Johnson being his own conclusion, based upon Josephus' statement regarding the month Nisan being synonymous with Aries in Jesus' day). Therefore, we have simply quoted Brother Johnson in this matter-­not in any effort to justify self, but to offer a clear presentation of the Truth on the subject.

Therefore, when J. W. Krewson says our source of information “must be Satan and the fallen angels,” he is in effect directing that very same attack upon Bro. Johnson. We ask J. W. Krewson the simple question: Did he go to sources outside the Bible to determine the Nisan moon this year, or did he learn that from some­where in the Bible itself? (And we wonder whether this “Pastor and Teacher” knows that the real Pastors and Teachers used “authenticated secular history” for chrono­logy not recorded in the Bible – “reliable dates of the Christian era, and several centuries before it” ?) Will he answer this question, or will he just offer another five pages of “words to no profit,” adding falsehood to falsehood – just as his “cousin” (R. G. Jolly) does when faced with the Truth in refutation of his errors? In fact, were it not for Josephus, and other non-Biblical recordings, we would have no way whatever of knowing that Nisan should not substantially cor­respond with our own January, which begins our year. Thus, J. W. Krewson's remarks here are simply some more of his nonsense – the kind of nonsense that usually DOES COME from “Satan and the fallen angels” (probably the same source the “cousins” received their Pyramid calculations to prove their errors). Brother Johnson accepted Josephus' statement in Antiquities, Book III, to which he referred, but did not quote. even as we ourselves accept it as New Testament procedure.

On his last par. of p. 116 J. W. Krewson attempts to belittle our quotation offered by Brother Johnson (re Josephus' statement), that the Jewish rule in Jesus' day required the Passover to be kept within a month after, but never before­ the Vernal Equinox. Here again J. W. Krewson apparently just reads without under­standing; because Brother Johnson refers to the same Josephus (although he does not quote him verbatim) to prove that in Jesus' day the “sun must be in Aries” when the Passover is kept. See Parousia Vol.Six, p. 734 – Brother Johnson's note.

And, if the foregoing is not enough, we now call upon J. W. Krewson to pro­duce one instance during the entire Parousia-Epiphany period when either Star Member ever observed the Memorial before the Vernal Equinox.

Right at the outset in 1955 (when he first presented himself as “Pastor and Teacher” to the brethren in general) we became aware of J. W. Krewson's limited education, as was so clearly revealed in his writings, grammar, etc. Although R. G. Jolly openly made mention of this defect, we ourselves kept silent; realizing that most of the Apostles were “ignorant and unlearned men,” and that scholastic attainment is not an essential to correct Biblical interpretation (although we all know that the Apostle Paul was 'chief' of the Apostles, and had more secular knowledge, which he faithfully used in the Lord's service – hence had many priv­ileges not bestowed on others just as faithful, but without his education); therefore, it would require more than grammatical ineptitude to condemn his pre­sentations. (However, as to the Apostles, we know from the records that they were men of solid judgment and intellectual ability – they had the rarest of gifts, innate intelligence, to which was added the “spirit of understanding” inherent in the ''Wisdom from Above,” and which is self-evidently so sadly lacking in J. W. Krewson). But it is now clearly evident that he is not even able to read plain English lit­erature, and understand what he has read after he reads it. Clearly enough, he often hears a bell ringing somewhere, but he is unable to locate the bell. He had our August paper No. 85 in plenty of time to read our quotation from E:7-366 from Brother Johnson – the Passover must be kept in the Spring. (His No. 45 did not reach us until August 18)... That book was published in 1938 – five years after the quotations now offered by J. W. Krewson. Why was he completely silent on this latest expression by the Epiphany Messenger. Again we ask, WHY?

It seems apropos to refer here to J. W. Krewson's statement at the top of p. 115: ''The celebration of the Memorial being a Little Flock developing Truth (P. vol. 6, pp. 457-484), the Lord used Brother Russell to establish the proper rule for determining the annual date (emphasis ours) for its celebration. But Brother Johnson says in Feb. 1933 Present Truth that such proper rule was not even given to him until the year 1933, from which we quote:

But, beloved, God is no stinful Giver (Jas. 1:5). When He gives He gives liberally; and in this gift of Truth He has given us more Truth than is above indicated. He has finally given us the correct way of finding out the Memorial date. 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, sometimes the method we have hitherto advocated (1800 E.L.), sometimes the U.S. Eastern Standard Time, and sometimes, disregarding all four of these, he used we know not just what method. In 1905, perplexed by these various methods, he even advocated giving up Nisan 14 altogether and taking instead the nominal church date – the eve of Good Friday. And during the Epiphany various groups of the Lord's people have used all five of these ways and have quoted him in approval, 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 track; and He also thus points out to us additional Truth.” (Feb. 1, 1933 P.T., p. 24, col. 2, par. 3)

And we quote further on this subject from Brother Johnson: “This experience is another evidence that the Lord's mouthpiece priests are not infallible; but when the Truth is due the Lord, graciously pardoning past errors, lovingly uses them to announce it. How could He continue to use them as such mouthpieces, if they did not gladly humble themselves, acknowledge their shortcomings and be glad to anounce the advancing light? (This is the attitude of the real Pastors and teachers! – JJH.... We thank God that as a part of the mother of the daughter we have been cleansed from another item of error and are being sanctified by another item of advancing Truth (the error from which Brother Johnson was cleansed was the previous incorrect method of deriving Nisan 1–JJH). May the same bless­ing be the privilege of all God's Israel as they serve the Truth.” (p. 25 of same P.T., top of page) These quotations were taken from an article under the heading of “A Correction,” pp. 23-25.

J. W,Krewson says he is not offering his present attack to benefit his readers (they don't need it!); he's just doing it “in the interest of our supporters.” It is our fervent hope that at least some of his readers understand this subject better than he does! His brazen and ignorant exposition causes us to wonder if he has accepted the slogan of a certain criminal element in America: “Follow bold­ness with more boldness.” This technique he repeatedly follows – just as he is also now doing with R. G. Jolly in connection with 1 Cor. 6:6; so we are left to wonder if J. W. Krewson is now really, honestly trying to enlighten our readers, or whether he is attempting a cheap and bungling ruse to bamboozle his own supporters.

How timely in this instance are the words of the Wise Man in Prov. 19:23; 22:28 and 19:27: “The fear of the Lord tendeth to life: and he that hath it shall abide satisfied; he shall not be visited with evil.” Therefore, all of us should earnestly ponder, “Remove not the ancient landmarks, which thy (spiritual) fathers have set (those teachings explained when due for us especially by the last two Principal Men). Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from, the words of knowledge.” And “With all thy getting, get understanding.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgram

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

Letter of General Interest

[Received too late to go in our original Sept. 1 article]

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

I have, dear Brother, received the three bound volumes you sent to us, with much thanks and appreciation. They are to us what we read in Mal. 3:10. When I read Article No. 1 re correspondence with certain brethren in high places, I was shocked! I will not comment further on that at this time.

Now, re Brother Jolly's Tropics Trip, he stated in the Present Truth of May­ June 1962, p. 46, col. 2, under the heading “Editor's Tropics Trip,” par, 1, 3rd line: “We spoke on various subjects connected with self-examination, 1 Cor. 11:28-34, in purging out of the leaven of false doctrine of malice and wickedness.” Yes, he did 'Preach' those things to us, but at the same time his heart was full of malice and wickedness, and well needed the purging out of the leaven of false doctrine – ­such as Epiphany Consecrated Campers, teachings contrary to Brother Johnson and Brother Russell. According to St. Paul in Rom. 2:21-22 – Thou therefore, which teachest another, teachest not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (v. 22) Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? And, after citing other Scriptures, R. G. Jolly said, “Preparatory to the Memorial, this is much needed, especially because one of your elders, whose name we need not men­tion here, for we would spare him.” The idea he, Brother Jolly, would spare Brother Roach! Just another one of his techniques, for he has good reasons for not mention­ing names. You see, Brother Roach is too well known by the brethren in the West Indies. He knows if he mentioned his name some of these brethren would write to Brother Roach, asking questions. R. G. Jolly doesn't want to be exposed! He said it was Brother Roach who made the division of the Ecclesia in Trinidad. That is not so! It was actually R. G. Jolly himself that brought about the separation, after having developed a certain amount of hatred for Brother Roach, for he said Brother Roach sent Christian love to Brother and Sister Hoefle (Other representa­tives of R. G. Jolly have sent 'Brother and Sister Hoefle' Christian love also–JJH), his enemies – and that he had joined hands with the sifters. Because of that he dis­missed Brother Roach from being the representative of the L.H.M.M.! Knowing that was not sufficient for the friends to dis-esteem Brother Roach as their faithful elder, R. G. Jolly planned to write a letter to the Ecclesia to impress the brethren with the thought that Brother Roach was no longer fit to be an elder of the Class, since he had joined with the sifters, who, he said, was teaching errors. The letter was written in such a manner that it would undermine their confidence in him (Bro. Roach), if the truth were not made known to them. After the letter was read to the Class, I, being the Chairman at that meeting, got up and said: “I deplore the read­ing of such a letter to the Class, especially as we are now preparing for the Pass­over Memorial service.” I said further: “Such a letter would cause a separation of the Class” – (for while the Brother was reading the letter, tears were in the eyes of some of the brethren, as they saw at once the underlying evil motive behind the letter). He, R. G. Jolly, was glad to use the same opportunity to come down here to deeper impress into the minds of the friends the 'unfitness' of Brother Roach to serve them as their Elder – and he did succeed in some measure.

His hatred further manifested itself when on his return trip he had to stop at the Airport in Trinidad, where a brother who has a similar hatred for Brother Roach, traveled about twelve miles to meet Brother Jolly to seek advice from him – how to put a case before the Class to remove Brother Roach from the eldership, because, he said, Brother Roach had violated a principle by keeping a separate Memorial ser­vice; and so he (R.G.Jolly) was able to give him the advice he wanted. As Bro. Roach was down on the program to conduct a Berean Study, he (R.G.Jolly) advised the Brother to get the elders to hold an emergency meeting so as to prevent Bro. Roach from conducting such a study – until such time that he would ask forgiveness for keeping a separate Memorial service. (And this is the same R. G. Jolly who accuses faithful Brother Roach of 'clericalism!JJH)

At the meeting the supporters (of R. G. Jolly) behaved so inhuman that I thought it best two days later to go to Brother Robertson, the secretary, and tell him that due to the behavior of some of the brethren, I would have no further meetings held at my home under the name of the L.H.M.M., and that was the end of it. (Others in Trinidad followed this course, too–JJH)

Sister Martin and I send warm Christian love to yourself, Sister Hoefle and to Sister Wells and Sister Dunnagan and the other dear ones with you.

Yours by His Grace, Brother George Martin – TRINIDAD

NO. 85: THE EPIPHANY SOLOMON

No. 85

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

 (Reprint of No. 11, with pertinent additions)

At the outset it is strongly urged upon all to prove what is offered herein by close checking with the Scripture references and the teachings of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. Blind sectarianism in its leaders and ledlings always pleads just the reverse. “Disfellowship and avoid those who expose their errors,” has always been their cry, But, “sectarianism is a great sin,” says Brother Johnson, “for it does not act from devotion to the Truth, the Truth arrangements and the Spirit of the Truth, but from devotion to partisanship.” And, again “Such support is bound to make one unclean; for the works of sectarianism are wrath, strife, envy, preju­dice, partiality, enmity, persecution and misrepresentation of the faithful, approval of certain evils and disapproval of certain good things of the Truth and its arrange­ments” (E:4-299).

 Secondly, it should be noted that The Epiphany Solomon and The Epiphany Messenger are distinctly two different pictures, which intertwine in some respects, but which have a distinctive cleavage and divergence in other respects. Thus, it becomes nec­essary to describe clearly The Epiphany Messenger in order to have a clear understand­ing of The Epiphany Solomon.

The Epiphany Messenger is a clear and complete parallel of The Parousia Messenger – a fact which is not true of The Epiphany Solomon and The Parousia David. In May of 1876 Brother Russell, “as antitypical Eldad came up to the antitypical Tabernacle” (Vol. E-9, p. 47), at which time he became The Parousia David, The Parousia Messenger (Vol. E-14, p. 11). ‘‘For 71/2 years from May 1, 1876 to October 31, 1883 he was in friendly cooperative association of the leading brethren,” the Hebron (friendship) condition (E:14-95). In October 1883 he began the Jerusalem phase of his reign, which continued for 33 years to October l9l6 (E:14-140).

 But, just as the Lord allowed Brother Russell to make certain mistakes for the future trial of His people, so the Lord also allowed Brother Johnson to do the same. However, in both cases they left sufficient in their writings (unknown to them at the time of writing) for the faithful truth-seekers to correct some of those mistakes. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson was firmly convinced he would be here to October 1956, he logically and properly concluded his parallel of The Parousia Messenger would cover substantially 401/2 years from October 1916 to October 1956. However, since Brother Russell was in the Hebron condition ‘‘with leading brethren for 71/2 years,” why should not the same be true of Brother Johnson if he was to “parallel” him? And that is just what we find to be the case! There is abundant evidence that he was anointed as The Epiphany Messenger in May 1910. Note in this connection E:9-300:

 “Immediately thereafter J arrived at the well and dipped from it, on the basis of 1 Cor. 10:1-14, the Truth on the five harvest siftings in themselves and in their relation to the five harvest calls.... As at his well experience the Lord gave our Pastor the final function of the office of That Servant, so He seems in connection with this well experience to have set this brother apart for the office of the Epiphany Messenger; for much of the Epiphany Truth is based on what he got at the well.”

 The above is further confirmed in Vol. E:10-131 (top): “The Lord rewarded his steadfastness and victory in this battle with the demons with a sudden, unpremeditated insight into the types of the five siftings of the Harvest, as St. Paul points them out in 1 Cor. 10:5-11. This understanding flashed through J’s mind with no study at all, by a sudden illumination.”

 And from May 1910 to October 1950 is exactly 40½ years. Were we in possession of the facts, we would probably find the parallel fits exactly to the day. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson was so firmly convinced he would be here to October 1956, it is not in the least to his disparagement that he did not see this parallel during his lifetime. The understanding of it was not due; and “nobody can see Truths before due” (E:4-324). This is in harmony with Brother Russell’s statement that prophecy cannot be fully and clearly understood until is has been fulfilled, or is in the course of fulfillment. Generalities, Yes; but details, No! We are still in the Age of Faith; and what Faith would be necessary if God’s people could see a detailed schedule of their activities fifteen years before they occur? When at any time over the Ages did the Faith Class have a chart fifteen years in advance of the grievous trials which came upon them?

 If the foregoing is a proper understanding of this matter, then it should be immediately apparent that any attempt to “make” parallels of That Servant after Oct. 1950 could come only from an admixture of nonsense and Azazelian jugglery. Further­more, if the parallel was completed in October 1950, then much that has been said for the year 1956 needs thorough re-examination. It should be noted that parallels are always dangerous and uncertain foundation unless they can be corroborated by the Bible, or the Great Stone Witness. Fully believing the parallel would prevail until October 1956 (although there exists in it a six-months’ shortage no one has ever satisfactorily explained – from October 1916 to October 1956 is 40 years, and not 40 1/2 years)

 Brother Johnson wrote in E:10-114 (top): “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover 1956.”

The veriest babe in the Truth should be able to see that this schedule has not been met, and that a sober reappraisal should be made of the general situation; yet our Executive Trustee plunges blindly on with his “Lord’s work” just as though all were harmony and precision. Surely, “strong delusion” does indeed accomplish a “strange work” in the doubleminded!

 But, whereas there could be an overlapping of the parallels of The Parousia and Epiphany Messengers, such could not be true of The Parousia David and The Epiphany Solomon, because Solomon could not begin his reign until David was dead. Therefore, the Epiphany Solomon could not begin his reign until Nov. 1, 1916 – after the death of the Parousia David –; and 40½ years from Nov. 1, 1916 will bring us to Passover 1957, of which much more will be said later.

 There are a number of outstanding, distinctive and exclusive events in Solomon’s reign, the first of which is God’s appearance to “Solomon in a dream by night” (I Kgs. 3:5-12) in Gibeon, in which dream Solomon asked of God “an understanding heart to judge thy people.’’ ‘‘And the speech pleased the Lord.... I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall there any arise like unto thee. And the Lord gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart.... and Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men.” (1 Kgs. 4:29-31) When we were working with Brother John­son in 1947 during his illness, we quoted this Scripture, then asked him: You say Bro. Russell had a higher and much more important office in God’s House than you do; why, then, should this Scripture say you have more wisdom than any before you, which would include Brother Russell? His answer: “I have what he had, plus what I have; and that makes more than he had.” All of us know that the writings of the Good Epiphany Solomon are without equal in many respects; and every thought of it should cause us to breathe a silent prayer that “God bless his memory.”

 The “three thousand proverbs,” etc. (1 Kgs. 4:32) were certainly distinctive of Solomon; and even worldly people recognize the wisdom contained in them, although their writing was probably spread over his good years. Aside from them, the second outstand­ing accomplishment of Solomon was his building the House of the Lord – typical of the Epiphany Solomon “Arranging God’s people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work.” In the overall sense, “God’s House of many mansions” includes every obedient intelligent creature in the Universe. In the earthly sense, for the Ages of Faith, it would be restricted to those human beings that have come into covenant relationship with ­Him. This House has had three subdivisions: (1) The House of Servants, those Jews over whom Moses was leader (Heb. 3:5); (2) The House of Sons – the faithful Christians over whom Christ is leader (Reb. 3:6); (3) The House of Friends, those faithful ones who lived before and after the call into Christ, such as Abraham, etc., ‘‘who was called the friend of God” (Isa. 41:8; Jas. 2:23). Thus, the scripture, “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the House of the Lord” (Psa. 122:1) is expressive of such who received the invitation to enter God’s House – who made their covenant with Him (came into His House) with zeal and gladness of heart. And surely the Epiphany Solomon classified the Little Flock, the Great Company, the Ancient and Youthful Worthies in their respective groups as none other had ever done; in this phase of his wisdom it was truly prophesied, “there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall there any arise like unto thee.”

“Solomon began to build the House of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah... in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign” (2 Ch. 3:1-2; 1 Kgs. 6:1) ‘‘And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished” (1 Kgs. 6:38)

Thus, its building required 7 1/2 years; and it was completed 10 years and 8 months after Solomon ascended the Throne of the Lord in Israel.

 ‘‘But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years” (1 Kgs. 7:1) – he built the two houses in twenty years (1 Ecs. 9:10). Therefore, of Solomon’s reign: Ten (10) Years, eight (8) months to build God’s House; Thirteen (13) years to build His own House – Twenty-three (23) years, eight (8) months, both houses completed after his reign began. The building of the Epiphany Solomon’s House symbolizes “establishing himself in his own sphere as the Lord’s Epiphany Executive.” How did he accomplish this? By expounding those types which had foretold of him. And where did he do this? Specifically in Vol, E-10, The Epiphany Messenger. And when was this done? Vol. E:10-107 col. 2, bottom says, “In 1938 J. commences to write E.J. 1939-41 ...finishes E.J.” If we add 23 years and 8 months to Nov. 1, 1916, it brings us to the latter half of 1940, by which time he had substantially completed “his own house.” Thus, in 23 years and 8 months, from Nov. 1, 1916, The Epiphany Solomon had built the Lord’s House – ­“arranged God’s people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work”–; and had built his own house – “established himself in his own sphere as the Lord’s Epi­phany Executive.” All of this is clearly set forth in Vol. E-10, which was published and released to the brethren in 1941.

 The Lord Appears unto Solomon the Second Time – ‘‘And it came to pass when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the Lord, and the king’s house.... that the Lord appeared to Solomon the second time, as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon” (1 Kgs. 9:1-2). When Brother Johnson had completed Vol. E-10, it seems he had con­cluded that his Epiphany writings were sufficient, as evidence the following from Vol. E-10, p. 651:

‘‘For the Little Flock J. will send along ten of Brother Russell’s publications, which J. has had reprinted for this purpose, i.e, the six Studies, Tabernacle Shadows, Manna, Hymnal and Life-Death-Hereafter, all laden with Epiphany notes; and the ten volumes of Epiphany Studies, of which this book is the tenth, all laden with powers the Epiphany Truth and its arrangements – for the Little Flock to help it come into harmony with Epiphany matters.”

But he later concluded he himself would write eleven more volumes for the enlightenment and strengthening of God’s people at this time, While it is probable that some of his first ten volumes contain the most profound of his writings, yet the last eleven of them also contain much of “meat and drink” for God’s people. He gave to this writer quite some detail of his struggles before the Lord in prayer to understand and correlate per­tinent parts of those volumes – “I am but a little child”( 1 Kgs. 3:7); and the Lord had answered his prayers for wisdom and understanding in the pertinent subjects.

SOLOMON BECOMES EVIL

But, just as God had placed a warning in the New Testament (Luke 12:45,46) to That Servant to continue in humility and uprightness before Him, so He gave Solomon a warning against forsaking the way of David his father: “If thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked..... I will establish the throne of thy kingdom forever..... But if ye shall at all turn from following me..... this house which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight,” etc. (1Kgs. 9:4-9). The Good Epiphany Solomon heeded this warning! Sadly enough, the typical Solomon did not heed it – just as the Evil Epiphany Solomon has not heeded it. “He had seven hundred wives, and three hundred comcubines: and his wives turned away his heart..... and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father..... And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord.... and the Lord was angry with Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:3-9). As Bro. Russell and Brother Johnson both properly taught, the large Good Solomon was typical of the reigning Millennial Christ. Brother Johnson also taught that the Large Evil Solomon was antityped by by Papacy (Vol. E:10, Appendage XXXIV):

“In the large picture Solomon in his good acts types the Millennial Christ in the good acts of their reign, and (2) in his evil acts he types the Papacy before the Refor­mation; for the division of the Kingdom from Solomon’s son is blamed upon his wicked deeds, and certainly papacy’s pre-Reformation evils caused the division in the Church, as the 2520 years’ parallels show,”

 Brother Johnson’s interpretation, based upon the 2520 years’ parallel is mathemati­cally sound. The period of Israel’s kings was 513 years, of which Saul, David and Solo­mon covered 120 years, leaving a remainder of 393 years; thus Solomon’s death was 999 years before the birth of Christ (606 plus 393 equal 999). And 999 subtracted from 2520 brings us to 1521 A.D. And, just as Israel’s kings came to an ignominious end 393 years after the death of Solomon when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in the fall of 607 B.C., so the ignominious end of Spiritual Israel’s kings had its beginning 393 years after 1521 – viz., in 1914.

 In April 1521 Luther came to debate at the Diet of Worms; but instead of being given an honest hearing, he was outlawed by the Emperor. This made the final cleavage between Protestant and Catholic, the separation for which there was no healing; and Christendom was divided into two antagonistic parts from that time on, just as was Israel after the death of Solomon. In the type, Rehoboam, foolish young man that he was, accepted unwise counsel, telling the Jews, “My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions” (1 Kgs. 12:14). The ordinary whip for public punish­ment contained a number of leather thongs; but the scorpion used for scourging was said to have been made a more vicious instrument by adding metal beads or sharp metallic points to the leather strips. The statement by the foolish Rehoboam was well adapted to the contentions of the two camps in divided Christendom at Luther’s time, because the Catho­lic teaching of future punishment for the wicked was indeed much more moderate than the rabid Protestant claims. The Catholic teaching did attempt to take some of the sting from condemned sinners by teaching a purgatory, where they had some chance of being eventu­ally “purged” sufficiently to escape their horrible fate; but the Protestants held out no such palliative – it was either Heaven or Hell –, and was well depicted by the inscrip­tion which the celebrated Milton placed over his entrance to the final abode of the damned: “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.” Thus, whereas the Papal fathers “chastised them with whips,” the Protestant leaders “chastised them with scorpions.”

 As Brother Johnson has so ably explained, there was also a rift in Protestanism itself between the Lutheran and Zwingli camps, which had its beginning in 1521; so that feature will not be elaborated here.

It should be noted that at the time preceding the Reformation, Catholi­cism had just about sunk to the bottom of the dirty barrel through the widespread sale of Indulgences by the loathsome John Tetzel. Yet at that very same time they were issuing their “great swelling words” – they were occupying the “Chair of St. Peter,” all the while their teach­ings were choked with error in so many places. Even their stewardship doctrine, “There is but one true Church,” was sullied and distorted by their application of it. And such similar wrongs we should expect to find in the Evil Epiphany Solomon – although on a much smaller scale, of course. These evils we expect to itemize and elaborate in due course; but for the present we shall consider just an outstanding few,

 In our March 27, 1956 writing we have already identified R. G. Jolly’s modern improved sale of Indulgences. In addition, his claim to be sitting in the “Chair of St. Peter” is to be found on a small scale by his statement on page 87, col. 1, par. 1 of the November 1955 Present Truth:

“Brother Johnson controlled fully the LHMM until the day of his death, even as we (R.G.Jolly) now so control it.”

Brother Johnson organized and controlled the LHMM absolutely; he could not be deposed as its Executive, because only the Lord and he himself had established him in his position. But R. G. Jolly was voted into the office of Executive Trustee by the brethren in Convention assembled; and he could be deposed in like manner – a thing that was not possible with Brother Johnson. Therefore, his claim of “controlling fully the LHMM,” as Brother Johnson had controlled it, is simply brazen usurpation and power grasping; and it is here apropos to quote a section from E:4-277 (bottom) and p. 278:

 “In every case of Great Company leaders they have been guilty of power-grasping and lording. When we pass them one after another in review we will see this to be the case. From first to last they want more than the Lord gives them; hence under Satanic temptation they grasp for power and lord it over God’s heritage, which makes them fall under God’s disfavor.”

 Another item: The Papacy used all pressure to suppress the Bible in Luther’s time because it did not want its blind sectarian followers to know what it contained, So, also, the Evil Epiphany Solomon (R. G. Jolly) has suppressed the unpublished writ­ings of the Good Epiphany Solomon. There is certain evidence to prove he has even in­structed his “Yes-men” to juggle and falsify concerning some of those unpublished truths which the Good Epiphany Solomon gave to them verbally.

 Another instance of R. G. Jolly’s “great swelling words” is to be found in his attitude toward any who oppose him. Openly he admits he is not a member of Christ’s Body; also says he is not successor to the Epiphany Messenger. But from the other side of his mouth he claims for himself the prerogatives of the saintly and faithful Star Member. In his efforts to “make” parallels into which he fits himself, while he yells “second death” at his opponents, he seems to be completely blinded to the fact that a great change would take place once “Jesus whom thou persecutest” (Acts 9:5) is no longer on earth. Whether his opponents are still of that “Jesus,” as they claim, matters not at all for this discussion, because he himself openly confesses himself NOT to be of Him. Therefore, gainsaying a Levite (though he might even be a cleansed Levite) is a totally different situation than it was for those uncleansed Levites and Second-deathers who opposed the saintly Parousia David and the Good Epiphany Solomon. Thus, the charges he has hurled at some of his opponents can be nothing more than other “great swelling words.” More about this will appear in later writings, but it should here be recorded that his claim that none should critically appraise his “Lord’s work” is quite in tune with the edicts of the large Evil Solomon: “When I ope my lips, let no dog bark.” It is also in identical cast with That Evil Servant’s statement in the March 15, 1918 Watch Tower, as follows:

“With deep regret we here mention that the practice of some is to go about the classes and at first, by soft and smooth speech, assure the dear sheep that they have deeply the interest of the Lord’s work at heart; and then suddenly they bring a tirade against the work as the Lord is conducting it through the channel that he has used for the past forty years, Some of the dear sheep become very much disturbed, and some are shaken out. This is another evidence of the great shaking now in progress (in the same identical vein R. G. Jolly issued the proclamation that there was a “slight shaking” – See Jan. 1955 P.T., p. 10, col. 2). It would seem that any one who is loyal to the Lord and his cause and the brethren would not seek to disrupt his work; at least, if they could not see eye to eye with the manner in which it is being conducted, the proper spirit would prompt such to remain quiet or quietly to withdraw (such ‘timely’ advice by JFR and RGJ has always been given against the faithful – had Jesus followed that course He probably would not have been crucified!). Any other spirit would not seem to be the spirit of the Master.”

 The foregoing quotation from That Evil Servant has such a familiar ring to it that were one to close his eyes and hear it read he would have difficulty in dis­tinguishing it from some of the remarks in this last May 1956 Present Truth, as evidence the following from page 50, col. 2 (bottom):

 “JJH is so bent on faulting us for what he calls a ‘colossal’ failure..... Usually those who complain the most do little or nothing else than complain. Instead of putting their shoulders to the wheel, or at least not hindering progress, some even try to discourage others.”

Just as the Papacy (the large Evil Solomon) and JFR (The little Pope) plead just to be left alone so they could run riot with their sins, their errors, their usurpations and power-graspings, so the Evil Epiphany Solomon pleads with the same tune and words – “If you don’t want to help me in my evils, then at least don’t ‘find fault’ with what, I’m doing; just let me proceed placidly in the footsteps of my soulmates of the past,’’ This is the course he is still pursuing, as evidence his treatment of certain Trinidad brethren in 1962.

 In keeping with the above, mention should be made of his self-sufficient course after he took office as Executive Trustee. Never once did he call a general meeting of the Pilgrims to discuss the situation. Had he possessed even a small amount of the Good Epiphany Solomon’s “spirit of a sound mind,” he would have realized that “In multitude of counsel there is safety.” Had he followed this sage advice, he could at least have reposed in the assurance that his mistakes were not fully his own, but were the result of combined and considered deliberation. Of course, the path he has taken would yield to him all the glory of success, just as it also places at his feet the full ignominy for his failures. Just as Rehoboam wanted none of the counsel of the Elders of Israel, but chose the rash advice of young and inexperienced men, so the Evil Solomon chose rather the opinions of novices, a few of whom he flattered with the title of his ‘‘Advisers’’ – in reality his obedient and subservient “Yes-Men.”

 In diametrical contrast to such a foolish course, note the attitude of That Wise and Faithful Servant, when he was faced with a similar situation: “Instead of hasten­ing to spread this message before the Church, he saw that the Truth therein contained (on the sin-offerings typed in Lev. 16) was so great as to justify his first calling together in a conference the leading brethren in the Truth, who spent eight days in earnest study of the involved matters, and at the end of that time were all convinced that it was true. Then he preached on the subject before the Allegheny Church.” E:9-297, bottom.

 Had the Evil Epiphany Solomon taken just a small page from the book of wisdom of That Wise Servant in his announcement that the last Saint was gone, as well as on other subjects, and had spent days with leading brethren in their discussion, there would certainly not now be the deplorable condition we find in the LHMM. Even though he were fully right in the decisions he made as he did make them, no amount of discussion would have changed the Truth about those decisions – just as eight days of discussion by That Wise Servant with leading brethren did not detract one whit from the Truth as he finally preached it; in fact, it is quite probable that those eight days of humble and sincere discussion enlarged his understanding and reassured his conviction that the Lord had revealed to him a staggering and far-reaching truth. But R. G. Jolly’s weak­ness is so pronounced in this comparison that he not only did not assemble the leading brethren for conference, but he actually advised Pilgrim Wm. Eschrich, who up to Oct. 22, 1950 was unalterably confirmed in his belief of his own saintship, that he was not even needed at the funeral in connection with RGJ’s far-reaching decisions that were made in a few days’ time at Philadelphia – although R. G. Jolly himself admitted in his two-hour talk to the brethren assembled the evening following the burial that he had been so distraught and bewildered at Brother Johnson’s death that he did not know which way to turn (even though his announcement that the last Saint was gone was so emphatic, loud and detailed that he gave every outward appearance of “the stout heart”¾Isa. 10:12)

 But the specific charge against Solomon was that “he loved many strange (foreign) women” – a thing that was specifically forbidden to the Jews; but one which they seemed ever ready to violate. Scarcely had they left Egypt, until this weakness beset them (Num. 25). And when Solomon, the head and supposedly the example of all Israel went astray in this fashion, it is little wonder that “the Lord was angry with Solomon,” because his wives had “turned away his heart” from serving the Lord. As all Truth people know, women in the Scriptures so often type nominal churches. A classic text on this subject is Isa. 4:1, for which please see the Berean Comments. The Good Epiphany Solomon had barely departed this earth until the Evil Epiphany Solomon made quick to seek the company of the very ones so severely criticized in Isa. 4:1. A superficial observer might have concluded – from his loud and detailed “blessings” he was receiv­ing at the renegade conclaves and his fraternizing with individual pseudo “Pastors and Teachers” – that he had come upon some new and unusual situation. Odd, indeed, is it not, that The Good Epiphany Solomon never woke up to his opportunities in that direc­tion? On Jan. 18, 1954 we wrote R. G. Jolly as follows about that matter:

 ‘‘Also, during that Sales Talk (at the Chicago Convention in October, 1953) you gave some considerable oration on the great blessings you had been receiving by col­laborating with some preachers in your neighborhood – the people who have built their houses of ‘wood, hay and stubble,’ the same who will be destroyed along with their buildings in the approaching world trouble (See E:4, Epiphany Elect, page 54). And you are receiving great blessing by consorting with such!”

 His answer to the above was as follows: “I am sorry to see you of late taking such an antagonistic attitude, not only, and especially, against the teachings of Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson on Baptism, etc., but now also against it seems almost anything or everything I do.”

 He pursues this item further on page 20, col. 1 of the March 1956 Present Truth: “JJH found fault with our tract publishing; our witnessing to the Truth at non-Epiphany Truth Conventions camp meetings, churches in Babylon, etc. (though Bro. Russell and Bro, Johnson served similarly),” (It would be most interesting to have R. G. Jolly’s comment today – Aug. 1, 1962 – respecting his $5 Correspondence Course, his attendance at conglomerate Conventions, etc., which he was extolling in 1953-56–JJH)

Just a few months before he died (June 1950 P. T., page 92, Question 2), Brother Johnson had this to say about the matter:

“Question: – Should the Epiphany brethren cooperate in the movement that is seeking to reunite the divided Truth people?

‘‘Answer: – Such a platform is not suitable to the Epiphany, especially so far on in the Epiphany as we now are.... Such unionism does not benefit the Faithful; rather it exposes them to needless danger and other disadvantages; and the Measurably Faithful are thereby increasingly endangered through greater exposure to the pestilence that walketh in darkness.... Its indifferentism, which compromises the Truth and more or less fellowships with error (2 Cor, 6:14) is the same as that of the combinationism sifting of the Reaping Time (1891-94), Indeed, this unionistic movement is in the Little Gospel Age the counterpart of the combinationism sifting of the large Gospel Age. This one fact should be evidence enough to Epiphany-enlightened saints of the Satanic origin of this unionistic movement.... Hence, it is a delusion for Epiphany friends to take part in such movements in the hope of helping various ones to the Epiphany Truth, just as it would have been a delusion for the reaping saints to have cooperated with Babylon’s combinationism in the hope of winning the combinationists to the Truth. Like Luther’s clean rooster whose owner put it in among some lousy hens in the hope that its cleanness would encourage the hens to become clean, only to find that it became lousy also, these will not cleanse the combinationists, but will themselves become contam­inated.”

 It would seem the above statement by Brother Johnson is clear enough for a child to understand, so it will be most interesting to know R. G. Jolly’s authority for his statement on page 20 of this March P.T, – “Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson served similarly.” Also, while he is so absorbed in “making” parallels, perhaps he would be well advised to consider the part he himself is performing in the little combinationism sifting described by Brother Johnson above. Here it is also in order to cite again. E. Vol 10, p. 401: “JFR sowed the evils of ... combinationism and many other evil qualities, and did this as an alleged service to God.”

 In E. Vol. 14, p. 5 (middle) Brother Johnson says, “Saul types the crown-lost leaders from early in the third century until Armageddon.” And, in discussing how “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul,” he makes this observation in E. Vol. 9, p. 524:

 ‘‘As the Spirit of the Lord ever led Brother Russell forward in every good word and work, so an evil spirit came upon antitypical Saul, ever plunging him into deeper errors, blunders and misdeeds.... Nor are we to understand that God directly wrought such a disposition in either Saul. Rather, as indicated in a general way in the case of reprobates, in 2 Thes. 2:9-11, the Lord withdrew his former hindrances to Satan’s machinations, and thus let the latter have free access to both Sauls.” (In the case of R. G. Jolly, ‘free access’ was not given to Satan’s machinations until the removal of Star Member Brother Johnson, who hindered Satan somewhat in his ‘machinations’ toward R. G. Jolly by continuing to give him “brotherly fellowship” and help until his death, as distinct from Priestly fellowship, which had been withdrawn from him.)

 Note Brother Johnson’s statement above, “the Lord withdraw his former hindrances to Satan’s machinations.” And what was this hindrance in the case of the leaders of the LHMM? Why, it was just what we have been contending now since early in 1954 – it was the withdrawal of the last Star Member on October 22, 1950! Thus, we could expect The Evil Epiphany Solomon to go from error to error, from blunder to blunder, and from misdeed to misdeed – exactly as we have seen him do. Having pointed out so many of his errors, blunders and misdeeds, and not wishing to have this article overly lengthy we shall not here attempt to point out his errors in the March 1954 P.T., p. 24, on “Truths Hidden in The Years of Noah’s Age,” which he brazenly labels ‘‘Advancing Truth,’’ as he has also done with others of his errors; we shall leave that for a future writing; although it is especially appropriate here.

Nor shall we analyze the enemies that “the Lord stirred up unto Solomon” (1 Kgs. 11:14-40). Suffice to say they were “an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon.” Gratefully can we reflect that the “days of Solomon” will come to an end in about a year, in the spring of 1957. In the meantime, the Lord may reveal further truths in connection with this matter; but we offer what has been given thus far in the hope it may bless all God’s faithful people, and accrue to His honor and glory.

FURTHER CONFIRMATIONS (Written June 15, 1962)

 We are now more than five years past the date that the reign of the Epiphany Solomon ended; and we are now in position to point out certain similarities between the large Evil Solomon (the Papacy) after 1521, and those of the small Evil Epiphany Solomon after 1957. Just as the Papacy did not pass out of existence after 1521, so we should not expect R. G. Jolly, as an individual, or as apart of antitypical Saul, or as an uncleansed Levite leader in Little Babylon, etc., to pass out of existence after the spring of 1957 –.although both of them ceased in their Solomon antitypes after. 1521 and 1957, respectively. Now we ‘‘wait upon the Lord” to reveal clearly – before making positive proclamation – whether R. G. Jolly is in fact fulfilling much more serious and conclusive pictures that will determine his eternal status in the Great Eternal Purpose. We do not adopt this course through vacillation; instead, it is not our wish to be found among those who say in their hearts, ‘‘my Lord delayeth.” (1 Sam. 13:8-13

In the Foreword of E-13 Brother Johnson said he hoped to add a chapter treating of the Epiphany Solomon. This the Lord prevented by removing him in death – and wisely so, because he most certainly could not have seen what we now present; therefore, such attempt by him would almost certainly have been intermingled with mistakes – just as is true of some of his observations re 1954-56.

 However, the stentorian protest of the Fully Faithful Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and others did force a certain outward reformation of the evil Papacy. Their protestations became so determined, accentuated and expansive that the Papacy was forced to ban further sale of Indulgences in the year 1562 at the Great Reform Council of Trent.

 But it should here be stressed that their reform was in no way that “godly sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation” (2 Cor. 7:10); it was merely the “sorrow of the world which worketh death.” That they were still the same at heart –although offering some outward reformation to secure “the praise of men” – is clearly attested by their terrible persecution of the Huguenots in France in 1685, when “persecution raged with the utmost violence, thousands of churches were torn down, vast numbers of confessors were tortured, or sent to the galleys,” causing many to flee to the wilds of the Cevennes and “at last exterminated by an army at least ten times their strength.” Already on August 27, 1572 (just ten years after the Council’s condemnation of indulgences) had the persecu­tion of these staunch Protestants been accentuated by the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day in France, at which time the gutters actually ran with blood of the slaughtered ‘heretics! – “in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents”-­Jer. 2:34.

 And so also with the Evil Epiphany Solomon (deceased as such since 1957), he has been forced by stress of circumstances and the continued exposures of his evils to evidence some measure of reformation, though manifesting no real reforma­tion of heart. Among the reforms he (R.G.Jolly) has been forced to recognize may be listed:

1. He has reversed the use of his own selected texts for testimony meetings at Conventions – without Star-member comments – and has returned to those contained in the Manna book, with Star-Member Comments.

2. He is no longer refer­ring to the tracts for Antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle as “timeworn and threadbare,” while praising his own flimsy Flying Saucer tract. The clear revelations of the time itself have had much to do with this, of course.

3.  He no longer uses prepared lists of names for his Convention testimony meetings to be sure no one other than his staunch supporters should be heard.

4. There is no longer anything at all heard about the Queen of Sheba Class, a topic that was widely, and profusely discussed in the Spring of 1954. Often was the expression heard among his trusting adherents – “Isn’t it wonderful that we will now proceed to fill the Epiphany Camp with the Queen of Sheba Class?” Be it noted that in some of those very Ecclesias which were loudly voicing such sentiments there are now fewer attendants than there were in 1954. Furthermore, with the passing of the Solomon pic­ture in 1957, it would be straining matters in the extreme to discuss further such a Class coming to the Epiphany Solomon, since that Solomon is long dead. Not even the writings of the good Epiphany Solomon, who died in 1950 are receiving any special recognition by such a Class. It should be clear enough by now that there can be only one other application of that type, and that is the large Millennial application pro­vided for us by That Servant; whereas, time itself has clearly proven that the views of R. G. Jolly re the queen of Sheba class were simply some more of his “foolish effusions.” (See E:10-591)

 There is one other feature of this Solomon picture yet to be explained; and we hope to present it to our readers “in due time”; but for now we humbly and thankfully acknowledge the Grace of our Beloved Lord for the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit which still works according to His promise “to guide you into all Truth.’’ ‘‘Beloved, I pray above all things that thou mayest prosper (spiritually) and be in health.” (3 John 2)

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – If the sun now reaches the Vernal Equinox in Pisces, instead of it Aries, as it did in Jesus’ day, would that change your conclusion about the correct date for the Memorial in 1962?

ANSWER: – No, not at all! In E:7-366 Brother Johnson states, ‘‘The Jews’ festivals were fixed to the seasons of the year, e.g., the Passover in the Spring.” Therefore, it is clear enough that it is the season, and not the Zodiac, that determines when the Passover should be kept. Therefore, when Josephus wrote in Jesus’ day that they kept the Passover ‘‘when the sun is in Aries,” it was tantamount to saying the Passover must be kept after the Vernal Equinox – in the Spring. This year the “Cousins” kept the Memorial of the festival in the Winter; and that is why the Jews did not use the March moon, as did Jolly-Krewson, because they knew the festival is a Spring festival, and not a Winter festival. By accepting this simple explanation, it will be readily apparent that not only the Passover itself (Nisan 14) would occur in the Spring, but the Feast of Unleavened Bread would also be observed in the Spring – even though the latter might at times extend into Jyar (or Zif) – the second month of the Jewish calendar. That is why Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both stressed that our Memorial must never be kept before the Vernal Equinox. This rule we accept; and that rule forced us then to use the April moon this year which came new on April 4, bringing the proper time for Nisan 14 after 6 p.m. April 17, at which time we kept the Memorial.

It is appropriate observation here that the Scriptures describe the Jews as a “stubborn and a stiffnecked people”; but this sometimes adverse quality has kept them in the Truth on the Passover festival as a Spring Festival – one which they would under no circumstances observe in the Winter. However, it is not for God’s fully faithful people to be “stubborn and stiffnecked,” as it was that very quality which led to King Saul’s rejection by the Lord (I Sam. 15:23): “Stubbornness is iniquity (disharmony with justice) and idolatry (inordinate conceit).” We wish to repeat what was stated in our July paper, that innocent and uninformed use of the wrong Memorial date is not a grave offense. We ourselves had already written up the wrong date for 1962, but proceeded immediately to investigate thoroughly once it was directed to our attention; and we are grateful to the Lord, and to the brother, that we were directed to the clear and correct understanding of the subject. But, if we are correctly informed, the mistake was brought King Saul “stubbornness,” and his subsequent reviling of us as he “stubbornly” clings to his error, that we fault in this matter. He “rejected the word of the Lord” (I Sam. 15:23); therefore, “the Lord hath also rejected thee,” and will continue to reject him until he cleanses himself of his stubbornness and other evil qualities (such as railing against the Fully Faithful in the case of Brother Roach of Trinidad, et al) that he may “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness,” Therefore, this defeat over the correct Memorial date is just one more defeat and humiliation for antitypical Saul, of whom R. G. Jolly is a part. (See our paper No. 76 A, Nov. 1, 1961.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be multiplied!

 We, the friends of the Trinidad Ecclesia, do extend our sincere thanks to you for your recent visit to us. We can assure you, dear brethren, that we were very much helped by your encouragement, and our only regret was that your stay could not have been longer. Your visit was indeed very timely, when we consider the test we were going through. Your exhortations, and refutations of the errors now prevalent, were most inspiring.

 Keep up the good work, and may the Heavenly Father continue to use you as He sees fit. Most of us have received your articles and find them very enlightening. I trust you will continue sending them. Our special love to all the friends over there.

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

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian greetings to you and yours!

 My pen nor tongue can express my overflowing joy when I received and read your article of June 1st. It certainly expresses God’s love toward His faithful people – also the characteristics of His Fully Faithful.

 I trust that the attitude of our dear Brother Roach toward R.G.Jolly for the defense of the Truth will bring blessings not only to the dear ones in Trinidad, but to others elsewhere. Certainly God will prove us whether we love the Lord with all the soul, mind and strength. We here are still fighting. As for me, I am determined to wage a relentless warfare to the end of my course, with the Lord’s help.

My prayers for you and the dear ones with you are “Be thou faithful unto death...”

Yours by His Grace, Brother ------- JAMAICA

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving greetings in our Redeemer’s Name!

 Your June 1 paper has been received. I can hardly express the joy and blessing I have received when I read it – to see how God’s word is revealing Satan’s errors and his agencies who are trying to entrap God’s people. We know that those who receive the Truth ‘in the love of it,’ God will not suffer the evil one to take them from Him. Psa. 91:1. I had in mind that Brother Roach would come to see the condi­tion. When he was leaving here I had a glimpse of him, and seeing he was an elderly man I said, “What a pity; no doubt he was from Parousia days.” I had a talk with Sister Condell. She said she had written to him.

 A few days before I received your paper I was looking over my books and found Feb. 1, 1949 Present Truth where Brother Johnson treats on seven salvations. Now R. G. Jolly has really separated and brought the sons into the Gospel Age. We pity his condition. If he were obedient to the words of God given through the Star Members he would not have been in Satan’s trap. He will reap what he has sown. When he brought out his Epiphany Campers Consecrated class I could not see where he got it. But as a Brother said (who is now dead) while we were conversing, that it is the sons of Joel 2:28 that he is bringing over into this Gospel Age as his “consecrated campers “

 R.G. Jolly said in one Convention that he would not be like Rutherford, but I’m sorry to say he has been like him in every step of the way. In one of Rutherford’s Conventions it wore down my spirit to see him sell in the Convention his “Millions Now Living” booklet Bro. Russell never advocated such money-making. We have to thank the Lord for you, dear Brother... With much Christian love for you and the dear ones with you.                

Yours by His Grace, Sister ------- JAMAICA