NO. 84: MORE ON THE 1962 MEMORIAL DATE

No. 84

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

In the May‑June 1962 papers of J. W. Krewson and R. G. Jolly (both 'feeding' the sheep (?) every two months, while 'feeding' the world – at least in R. G. Jolly's case with his Bible Standard – more often, contrary to the Scriptural teachings on such matters, and contrary to the procedure of Brothers Russell and Johnson) there is quite a detailed attack upon us for offering April 17 after 6 P.M. as the proper time to observe the Memorial of our Lord's death. By joining hands once more in this in­stance (as well as in many other Instances – such as their publications, etc., etc, contrary to the Arrangements) to embrace the same error (just as they have done on Campers Consecrated, etc.). they once again provide potent proof that they are indeed "Cousins” (See our Nov. 1, 1961 paper No. 76‑A).

At the outset, let us make clear that we do not count it a grave offense if the wrong date is used by honest mistake; that is, if it be done inadvertently and in good conscience, and not carelessly so. Furthermore, we believe this subject is much too complicated for the brethren in general to work out for themselves; it is mostly the responsibility of the leaders – although we have the strong assurance of faith that all the Fully Faithful will recognize whence comes the Truth about it once it is made clear to them. All of us know that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both made honest mistakes in their calculations of the date; and probably the only chastening that came to them from the Lord was their humiliation before the Household in being forced to admit their fallibility. But, when pompous and irresponsible leaders offer profuse and insulting diatribe against us for the Truth we presented, their responsi­bility is thereby greatly increased; and their subsequent humiliation will also be emphasized accordingly. Thus, we hope to present our analysis now in sufficient de­tail to make the item clear to all the Fully Faithful. And be it emphasized that we should use the right date if we know the right date, because  – "He that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

First, on p. 83, par. 4 of J. W. Krewson's paper he states, "The rule laid down in the Scriptures, in the Parousia and Epiphany writings is that.... moon NEAREST the Vernal Equinox news at Jerusalem, it is the one ALWAYS to be taken,” etc. This statement is simply a rank falsehood in all its parts. Let him show such a rule from the Scriptures if he has one! And if he had one, why didn't he cite the Scrip­ture? The only thing we have definitely in Exodus is that the Passover should be slain on Nisan 14; but nowhere does the Bible give even a hint about how we should arrive at Nisan 1. Nor does the feast of unleavened bread enter into the calculation, as he contends. That feast was the seven days following the Passover itself. Thus, it was the Passover that determined the date for the feast; the feast had nothing whatever to do with setting the date for the Passover.

If the foregoing be true, then we must go to sources outside the Scriptures to set the date for Nisan 1. Seemingly, the Jews left Egypt after the Vernal Equinox -­the Equinox being the exact instant when the sun is directly over the Equator, which occurs at about March 21 and September 21 each year. That is why Josephus stresses the point the way he does In connection with Aries; and that is why Brother Johnson quoted him, too. If Brother Johnson's logic is any good at all for one end of the month Nisan, it seems to us very elemental that it should apply with equal force to the other end of Nisan. And the Jews, deeply impressed as they were by their miracu­lous delivery from bondage, would be very scrupulous to hold the Memorial also in keeping with this reasoning at the correct season.

            In the year 1962 the Jews' calendar contains a Ve‑Adar (or second Adar) begin­ning March 5 and ending April 4. Had they used the March moon this year, as the Jolly‑Krewson twosome have done, they would have observed their Passover Memorial in the last month of the year, Ve‑Adar, instead of in the first month Nisan, as the Scriptures insist they must do. But we rejoice for them that this much of the "Oracles of God” has not been lost by them over the centuries past. We fully agree that their calendar is unreliable; but from this it does not follow that the fact of the Pass­over in Egypt, and the season of its occurrence, are also confusion to them.

The whole Christian world accepts the moon as a factor each year in determining the date of our Lord's passion. In the English Prayer Book it is stated that Easter can never occur later than April 23; and it has been that late on only a very few occasions in the past nineteen hundred years. This year it was on April 22, just one day short of the extreme. But it was the moon which determined April 22, because the Christian world in general dates Good Friday as the first Friday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox; and it would not be possible for a moon to come to its full later than about April 20 if the previous one came full even one minute before the Vernal Equinox. Had the Christian world used the March moon this year, then Easter would have occurred on March 25. In fact, this question was raised, and various views presented, early in March over WJR Detroit, Michigan, one of America's most powerful radio stations. In due course we sent in one and one‑half typewritten pages on the subject, which was read over that Station on March 12, and apparently 'refuted all the gainsayers,' as there was no further comment. Our analogy is too lengthy to reproduce herein, but any of our readers who wish a copy are welcome to it upon request.

Perhaps Brother Russell and Brother Johnson understood this much better than we have stated it; but we have not resorted to this detail to becloud the real point. If the last two Principal Men were not in full accord with what we presented, we would have hesitated long to make the decision we did this year 1962 respecting the correct date. Here's what Brother Russell says about it in Reprints 3968 (1907 Watch Tower, p. 98):

"When the new moon comes a little before the Spring Equinox, it starts the Jewish ecclesiastical year; – ­provided the full moon be not before the Equinox.”

Clearly enough, Brother Russell makes unequivocal exception to his rule about the "nearest" moon; and this year 1962 is one of those exceptions. When the Jolly‑Krewson twosome started their new moon on March 5 to begin Nisan 1, they then had the moon come full before the Equinox, which is wrong according to Brother Russell.

And Brother Johnson followed Brother Russell by stating the same exception on p. 30, Feb. 1933 P.T., under the caption, "Jewish Calendar Unbiblical.” Here is what he says:

"The Jewish calendar in use during the time of the New Testament... required Nisan 14 to come within a month after, but never before the vernal Equinox.”

Also, same P.T., col. 2, Brother Johnson says: "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.” Thus, Brother Johnson diametrically dis­putes J.W. Krewson – although he does tell us, as did Brother Russell, that usually it is the new moon "nearest” the Spring Equinox that governs.

Could the foregoing citations be any clearer than they are? In following them, the date of April 17 which we used this year was right; and the date of March 18 used by the "Cousins” was wrong. Note especially that R. G. Jolly quotes from the 1907 Watch Tower and from the 1933 Present Truth; but he ignores the exceptions in both instances. Was this wilful on his part? Or is it because he is now in Azazel's hands, at which time Brother Johnson says such persons are so befuddled of mind they can no longer think clearly on any Scriptural subject? And, be it noted, he is crass enough to revile us several different times as a "teacher of sophistry” – even while he himself, as is his usual custom, is the one in error here, and not we. For shame that he should sink so low! "Sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” (Acts 23:3) In the past, after we have fully refuted his many errors, he has withdrawn behind a wall of silence, thereafter resort­ing to his reviling name‑calling, which is all there is then left for him. Will he resort to the same tactics in this present instance? And will his trusting followers uphold him in his evils, thus becoming a partaker of his sins? We abide our time!

MORE ABOUT R, G, JOLLY

Throughout both May‑June papers of the "Cousins” there is a kindred jabbering jumble, which would be unbelievable were we not actually witness to it. To analyze those in the Krewson paper would require a full effort in itself, which we leave for a future occasion, now confining ourselves largely to R. G. Jolly.

On p. 44, col. 1 he discusses "Justification and the Linen Curtain"; and about every citation he offers to "prove" his point very clearly disproves his claims. He presents E:10‑114 as his first – quoting only part of it, of course, as is often his custom, even as he shouts "shyster lawyer” at us. On p. 114 Brother Johnson clearly states:

"After 1954 .... no more persons will enter the tentatively justified state.... Certainly, when we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel‑Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent for the tentatively justified and sin­ners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of Rev. 22:11 be given, but, of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to continue faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”

R. G, Jolly says his Epiphany Campers 'consecrated' can arise higher than the other quasi‑elect; that the "sinners’ can obtain tentative justification in his Epiphany Camp, and consecrate, and gain a standing higher than 'sinners.' But Brother Johnson distinctly teaches that no such thing can exist when Rev. 22:11 is fulfilled. Brother Johnson teaches that when Rev. 22:10‑11 applies the class standings of all individuals are already fixed. But R. G. Jolly, the 'cleansed' (?) Good Levite leader disputes Brother Johnson's teachings now, just as he attempted to withstand and dispute him during his lifetime. We wonder if R, G, Jolly still believes that Brother Johnson is the Epiphany Messenger? "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (Rev. 22:13,19). R. G. Jolly and others are now receiving such plagues.

Is there any reason at all to assume that only a portion of Rev. 22:11 would be applicable at 1954‑56, as R. G. Jolly now attempts to have it? Even he contends his supporters should continue his "Attestatorial Service” to win Great Company members and Consecrated Campers to the Truth – in spite of Brother Johnson's inter­pretation and emphatic statement that such efforts would be useless once the time arrives for Rev. 22:11 to apply. Clearly enough, fulfilled facts themselves demon­strate that 1954‑56 has no relation whatever to Rev. 22:11 – any more than 1956 has any relation whatever to those 27 counterfeit pyramid calculations presented by the "Cousins” in the Jan. 1947 P.T, Their penchant for mathematical "witchcraft" (especially deceptive false teachings) is something to contemplate! Indeed, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure!" "The covering is narrower than that a man can wrap himself in it" (Isa. 23:20 – See Berean Comment), Once more we ask – Does R. G. Jolly believe all this reference (as quoted from E:10‑114)? Or, is he just selecting what suits him? He does the same thing with p. 672 of Vol. 10, where he omits the follow­ing from Brother Johnson's statement:

"Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed, and others of them afterward.”

Our use of this statement in our refutations of R. G. Jolly's errors also causes him to yell "shyster lawyer" at us. Thus, when he refers to us as a "teacher of sophistry, this errorist," etc., he is offering the same kind of "Truth" that he does for his Memorial date; it is just some more of his thinking in reverse. We offer to him and his readers the Proverb (13:5), "A Righteous man hateth lying." Here is a sure and complete contradiction to his claim that he is "cleansed." If he were in that "cleansed" condition of which he now so blatantly contends, he, too, would "hate lying."

In this same setting he uses Brother Russell's writings in like manner when he refers to p. 402 of the Question Book. We now offer something from the Question Book, p. 312, year 1912, as follows: "Question: Can one who has entered the Holy as a Priest, during the Gospel Age, ever drop back into the Great Company, or Court Condition? Answer: This is a misunderstanding – the Great Company are not in the Court. The only ones in the Court now are those in a tentatively justified condi­tion – the Great Company are not in the Court (in the Parousia – JJH). The only ones in the Court now (in the Parousia) are those in a tentatively justified condi­tion.”

Brother Russell did not see the full and clear Truth on the Youthful Worthies, although he did see such a Class (Brother Johnson didn't see such a class as Epiphany Campers Consecrated at all! But R. G. Jolly sees it!). It was an Epiphany 'doctrine' (the Youthful Worthy Class) given to us with ample Scriptural proof by the Epiphany Messenger, the last Star Member (only Star Members are given new doctrines); and we challenge any new doctrine given to us by the 'cleansed' or 'uncleansed' Great Company leaders, because God does not give them new doctrines ('cups' – See E:8‑193). We believe all the doctrines were given to us before the last two Principal Men were removed from us; and that the only points left on these faithful and true doctrines are the clarifications of some of the items, as the Lord directs us. Insofar as R. G. Jolly's Epiphany Campers are concerned, he doesn't even claim for them the RESURRECTION OF THE JUST (although he clings tenaciously to the thought that they are 'tentatively justified' here in the end of this Age – and that in his Epiphany Camp). He admits that they will receive their Resurrection with the UNJUST, yet he contends they will have a peculiar and special position above the others who failed to consecrate during the Gospel Age! Who could be more ridiculous than R. G. Jolly (except J.F. Rutherford with his "Millions Now Living” and J. W. Krewson with his 'cleansed nucleus')?

Brother Russell continues on p. 312: "At the close of this Age there will NO LONGER be a tentative justifica­tion." How very wise was this "Wise and Faithful Servant"! And Brother Johnson adhered to this teaching. Of course, when the 'finished picture' is with us, there will no longer be a tentative justification offered. Why? Because the Gospel Age purposes will be fulfilled, and the Millen­nial Age purposes will be in the immediate future, when consecration for all Resti­tutionists (the formerly tentatively justified of the Gospel Age who failed to seal their tentative justification in consecration, together with those who were never in the Court during the Gospel Age, or during the Epiphany, the last Special Period of the Gospel Age) – of which R. G. Jolly's Campers Consecrated will be a part, unless he has befuddled them so much by their 'supposed' consecration for his (R. G. Jolly's) purposes – or some purpose besides Gospel‑Age or Millennial‑Age purposes, that they won't even have the standing of the quasi‑elect (the same applying to the Society's "great company" and to J. W, Krewson's quasi‑elect consecrated). So it is only such people as R. G. Jolly, J. W, Krewson and the Society who would offer such unscriptural rewards for such people! Neither Star Member gave the least intimation they ever saw such a Class for any kind of purpose. We are still living in the Last Special Period of the Gospel Age, the Epiphany, in which persons, principles and things are being made manifest most clearly before our eyes. if we have "continued in what we have learned and been assured of” (from the last two Principal Men), then we are indeed in a blessed condition! We will be protected from all such Levitical nonsense, whatever their loud and boastful contentions are regarding their 'cleansed' condition.

As Brother Johnson has so often stressed, "Azazel means Perverter"; and the perversions of R. G. Jolly which we herein examine are adamant proof of his definition! Here it is appropriate to quote from p. 18 of "Tabernacle Shadows”:

"The Camp was the nation of Israel at large, which was separated from all holy things by the curtain of white linen, representing to those within, a wall of faith, but to those without ("at a respectful distance" – p. 14, par. 2) a wall of unbelief which hindered their view of an access to the holy things within."

Neither the Parousia nor the Epiphany Messenger ever changed the interpretation given above, or even hinted that it should be changed; nor did either of them ever hint of a consecrated class in the Parousia or Epiphany Tabernacle Camp! Also, the Tabernacle itself had an outer covering of seal skins (mistranslated 'badger' skins) – ­an unsightly picture to those without, concealing completely from such the glorious things within the structure. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit, for they are foolishness unto him" (unattractive and malodorous pelts). And no amount of Levitical "sleight‑of‑hand" can erase this picture! Let us keep in mind that the linen curtain hid from view in large measure the altar of sacrifice and the laver; those in the Camp could not see that equipment – they could not see through the curtain! But now, Behold the miracle of an uncleansed levite! He has improved the vision of his Campers in such pronounced fashion that they can see right through that figurative curtain! That's the only way, of course, that they could view the altar and the laver, because in the Camp R. G. Jolly has his Campers in a vacant house – no furni­ture or fixtures of any kind in it. How ridiculous ('foolish') can he be! And granted that his Campers Consecrated could perchance see through the curtain, they still would be in no position to use the altar or the laver, as they are not in the Court – and there is no such furniture in the Camp!

Notice another quotation from E:17‑330: "The quasi‑elect in the Millennium ..... those Jews and Gentiles who accepted Jesus as Savior, but failed to consecrate, yet remained faithful to the Ransom and Righteousness." Let us keep in mind that Vol. 17 was published in 1956 by R. G. Jolly himself as a part of his "Attestatorial Service." This does indeed attest much for him! Did he believe it then? And does he still believe it?

As we have so often stated, A place in the Tabernacle types represents a condition in the antitype. R. G. Jolly resolutely ignores this truth – and for good cause. Can he explain what condition his present Camp represents? During all the Gospel Age up to the Epiphany, the Tabernacle Court (the place) represented the condition of the tentatively justified – ALL in the Court condition were tentatively justified. In the Epiphany Tabernacle the Court still represented the condition of the justified – the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies and the unconsecrated tentatively justified. ALL in the Court condition – and only those therein – were justified, the only difference being the degree, or progress, of the justified. Now that he has moved Tentative Justification into the Camp, does his Camp now also represent the condition of the justified, right along with the Court? And are all in his Camp now justified, as has been consistently true of the Court all during the Gospel Age and the Epiphany? Or does his Camp condition contain some of one kind and some of another – just as he attempts with his interpretation of Rev. 22:11? We opine that even Azazel (Azazel means Perverter) will deem it expedient to ignore this question.

GOOD LEVITES – CLEANSED LEVITES

On p 36 of this May‑June P.T., there is further "profusion of words" by R. G. Jolly, in which he accuses us of not being clear respecting the Truth on Cleansed Levites – some of which is so confused that we wonder if he himself understood what he was trying to prove. Anyway, when he says in col. 1, last par. (and you will note that we especially point out exactly where the brethren can find his statements – while he, who admits he is the "cleansed” Levite of this Epiphany – just fails to point out definitely any statement we make for fear his deluded followers might try to see the article to which he refers and thereby be persuaded by the Truths presented therein!), that the "Good Levites.... are properly spoken of as being cleansed by late in 1950," he offers the same "proof" for this statement that he does for his Campers Consecrated, etc. (only his word, which has been proven to be worthless – and the same 'proof' he has offered for his false accusations of dear Brother Roach in his report of the 'elder' – actually Brother Johnson's duly‑appointed representa­tive, and R. G. Jolly's until just recently – and the Trinidad happenings when he was there. Brother Roach never accepted or taught the false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Conse­crated, although R, G. Jolly was not kept in darkness thereof, but has been R. G. Jolly's representative since 1950, and through 1954, when R. G. Jolly first began to teach this 'strange fire') – which 'Proof' is exclusively R. G. Jolly's own word for it – and nothing more!

We quote the clear rule given us by Brother Johnson in E:15‑524, bottom and P. 525, by which rule, and only by this rule, is the cleansing of ALL GREAT COMPANY MEMBERS ACCOM­PLISHED: – "These experiences.... contribute toward that end in all the Great Company, and almost entirely accomplish it in those who lost Little Flockship by the skin of their teeth (the Good Levites – JJH).... As in none of the Great Company (Good or Bad – JJH) do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient.... the Lord resorts to a second set of untoward experiences.... He delivers them over to Satan..... Their delivery to Satan implies that they come into such a condition as the priests dis­fellowship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them. (When did this happen? Why, it could only have occurred when Brother Johnson was removed by the Lord! At no other time did R. G. Jolly receive complete disfellowshipment and separation in an official manner by the World's High Priest! – JJH).... It also implies that God temporarily abandons them, and lets Satan (Azazel) buffet them.”

The above is exactly the same experience as given AZAZEL'S GOAT in Lev. 16, when the Fit Man turns him loose into the wilderness. Let R. G. Jolly show where he and other Great Company members in the Epiphany Movement (who came with Brother Johnson at the outset as he did and remained with him until his death) ever received such discipline by the Church or by him (where they were completely disfellowshiped) and cast out ("that they may learn not to blaspheme” – 1 Tim. 1:20). In fact, he publicly admitted at Jacksonville, Florida, and also at Winter Park, Florida, in March 1955, that he himself had never received such treatment necessary for his final cleansing in his own Epiphany experience. That admission came at a time before we began pointing out the Truth to him on the abandonment process," which evidently was withheld from his understanding (even though it was there for those who had 'under­standing') until the purpose of it was no longer needed. It is self‑evident now that R. G. Jolly was one sadly unenlightened about its real meaning – otherwise he wouldn't have answered as he did on these two occasions (and this is a tribute to Brother Johnson's clear teaching that the Great Company could not understand the steps to be taken in connection with their abandonment and cleansing, until such time as the necessity of the secrecy was no longer needed).

Note in E:4‑129: "Now (during Brother Johnson's life – JJH) the priestly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate, delivering him to the fit man and, abandoning him to Azazel, is withheld from the Great Company." Apparently, R.G.Jolly does not even yet (in 1962) understand this teaching – and we caution our readers not to be misled by his perversions of it, because it is a faithful Epiphany teaching given by the faithful Epiphany Messenger for our admonition.

This subject is further clarified in E:6‑364, par. 2 (as well as in E:4‑203,210, etc.): "How do we lead Azazel's Goat (the Great Company, for their cleansing – JJH) to the gate? (1) By resisting its revolutionism. How do we deliver it to the fit man? (2) By withdrawing Priestly fellowship. How do we deliver it to Azazel? (3) By withdrawing all brotherly help and favor." Will R. G. Jolly still contend that he had the necessary steps taken for his cleansing in the face of these plain Epiphany teachings – where Brother Johnson clearly sets out that ALL THE GREAT COMPANY HAD TO BE COMPLETELY DISFELLOWSHIPED AND ALL BROTHERLY FAVOR WITHDRAWN BY THE WORLD'S HIGH PRIEST BEFORE ANY OF THEM COULD BE CLEANSED (either Good or Bad Levites)?

Did R. G. Jolly ever have all favor withdrawn from him by Brother Johnson at any time prior to his removal by the Lord Himself? The answer is No! Does R. G. Jolly revolutionize against this faithful Epiphany teaching? The answer is Yes!  Has he persisted in such revolutionism?  The answer is again Yes!

In 1938, when R. G. Jolly grossly revolutionized against the Epiphany Arrange­ments, and attempted to "gain control” of Brother Johnson (See E:10‑586, top, and p. 646, top), it was then that Brother Johnson withdrew "priestly fellowship" from him (classified as No. 2 above); but at no time did he deliver him to Azazel for his complete abandonment necessary for his cleansing, by withdrawing all brotherly help and favor from him – by completely disfellow­shiping him ("that he might learn not to blaspheme" – 1 Tim. 1:20). R. G. Jolly admits as much in col. 2, par. 1, when he says Brother Johnson "used him as formerly in his magazine and book publishing work." This simply means he was allowed to perform the duties of an ordinary clerk. At Brother Johnson's recommendation, the Philadelphia Church did receive him as a "guest speaker," as he claims – without, however, allowing him to officiate longer as an elder of that Church, and not allowing him to close with prayer even those meetings at which he was a "guest speaker." This truth about his revolutionism in 1938, as we have set it forth (and as Brother Johnson has recorded it for our protection), does not appear merely so "matter‑of‑fact" and inconsequential as his own recitation of it in this May‑June Present Truth would lead the uninformed reader to believe.

He also tries to write up a "similarity" between the Little Flock in 1914 and the 'cleansed' (?) Great Company in 1954 (actually 1950, he says!); but there is no similarity – no more than there is between the 'children of disobedience' (the Great Company) and the 'children of obedience' (the Saints, the "us‑ye‑we and salt" class)! In 1914‑16 the Little Flock had a Fully Faithful Star Member (Brother Russell) and his companion helper (Brother Johnson) to supervise and guide them in that Attestatorial Service; and it was a complete success! It brought all the Little Flock into Present Truth. Let us compare that with the 1954‑56 "Attestatorial Service!" We need ask R. G. Jolly only two questions: (1) What did he expect to accomplish when he launched his Attestatorial Service in 1954? (2) What did he actually accomplish by 1956? Will he answer these questions? We doubt that even he is so befuddled by Azazel that he will attempt to answer these two questions! Instead of bringing all the Great Company into Present Truth by November 1956, be probably had even less of that class than he started with in 1954; and all his attempts in other directions were even more pronounced failures, if possible. Consider now Brother Johnson's teaching: "After the Great Company are cleansed, they will have a fruit­ful ministry." By the same process of reasoning – If they do not have a fruitful ministry, then they are not cleansed!

On p. 37, col. 2, par. 2, R. G. Jolly stresses that "Good Levites.... do not revolutionize against Epiphany truths" (No, they did not under Brother Johnson! If they had and persisted therein he would have withdrawn all brotherly fellowship and favor from them. So those who remained under his restraining hand Did Not, during Brother Johnson's lifetime, revolutionize against Epiphany teachings!); but he (R. G. Jolly) has repeatedly and persistently revolutionized against the Epi­phany truths on the Abandonment and Cleansing Process, as well as many other Epiphany teachings – and is doing so once more in this paper we are now examining. And, while doing this very thing, he issues his "great swelling word" of self‑righteousness, just as the Pope in Big Babylon, and That Evil Servant in Little Babylon have done. Certainly, he was once classed as a "Good Levite” when he was under the restraining hand of the last Star Member, and he performed commendable service for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren then (just as he was once classed as a Saint, in the Tabernacle Holy, and had a crown "laid up for him'); but since that time he has become one of the "bad" Levite leaders indeed! Why? Because he has sinned against much greater light. With R. G. Jolly, as with others (J.F. Rutherford, et al), it seems no one would recognize how 'clean' and righteous he is (even as was true of the Scribes and Pharisees) if he himself did not proclaim it so loudly. Indeed, "Thou dost protest too much"! (What you are speaks so loudly, we can't hear what you say!) Nor did Jesus Himself recognize such people as 'leansed' leaders in His Day, despite all their protestations for themselves, and their false charges against our Lord for his 'ncleansed' condition – just as the 'leansed' Great Company leaders do today (yelling "shyster lawyer," etc., etc., when they cannot face the Truths charged against them). So they 'cast out the Faithful' who resist their sins of teaching and practice, just as they did our Beloved Lord; and they are 'crucified' by them, even as was Jesus by those 'cleansed' leaders (Scribes and Pharisees) of His Day.

He quotes also from Brother Johnson's words in Present Truth 1935, p. 175, col. 2, top: "The Good Levites, the leaders of whom are good." Right here, why doesn't he explain that he wasn't even considered a Levite when Brother Johnson wrote that – that R. G. Jolly was then masquerading as a Priest at that time; that only Brother Johnson knew then that he was a Levite? Also, why doesn't he quote from a much later statement by Brother Johnson in E:10‑646, published in 1941 (after he was disgracefully manifested before all as a crown‑loser), which describes the con­duct of R. G. Jolly and two of his "kinsmen" (all leaders of the Good Levites) in 1937‑38, in which he says they attempted to "gain control of the Lord's mouthpiece!", Brother Johnson himself – by introducing a resolution in the Philadelphia Church "so Azazelianly constructed as, if possible, to have deceived the very elect?" One of R. G. Jolly's collaborators in that bold, impudent and power‑grasping escapade in 1938, was E. F. Hochbaum, whom Brother Johnson later characterized as a Bad Levite, and who revolutionized himself right out of the Epiphany Truth in 1948 (at which time Brother Johnson withdrew all brotherly help and favor from him – just as R. G. Jolly has done with the Epiphany Truth since Brother Johnson's death), taking with him a small group of soulmates, of whom he is now the leader in a sifting move­ment. But R. G. Jolly remained until his death – measurably accepting some of the restraint of the Last Star Member – receiving his complete abandonment from the Lord Himself when He removed Brother Johnson from our midst.

Truly, "Wisdom is justified of all her children"! Note also that in 1941 (six years after 1935), pages 585‑591 of Vol. 10, Brother Johnson mentions R. G. Jolly by name, describing him as a "false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser"; and on p. 594 he states this: "God charges that both the three bad Levite groups and the good Levites, the crown‑losers in the Epiphany Movement, darken the Truth by their teachings without proper knowledge" – just as R. G. Jolly has so flagrantly done in this paper we now analyze.

"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”!  Indeed, this Epiphany time does "manifest the counsels of hearts."

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

CONCERNING R.E. ARMSTRONG

My dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!.......

It would seem, dear Brother... that both Bro. and Sr. Armstrong are due in the USA this next August; also that RGJ is taking them to quite a number of LHMM classes... We have known for quite a time that R.E. Armstrong would like to have settled down in the USA when he was there, but Sr. Armstrong did not favor this...

May the dear Lord's richest blessing abide with you and also with those who by His Grace are with you. With much love in His Name... Bro. & Sr ------- ENGLAND

(NOTE: – R.E. Armstrong is another good "cleansed" Epiphany Levite who reflects upon the "extent of error into which JJH has fallen" – his reference being to the Truth we have presented on the correct Memorial date, as he himself embraces the error about it given by R.G.Jolly. The Epiphany is truly a time for "making manifest the counsels of hearts"; and we may be certain every leader in the Epiphany Movement will be "manifested" for exactly what he is – good or bad – before its end – JJH)

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

CONCERNING FRED E. BLAINE

On p. 47 of this May‑June P.T. is a letter from the above 'leader,' in which he complains about a letter we wrote to him "several years ago" (actually Oct. 15, 1955); so we reproduce that letter to him to correct the falsehood he makes – namely, that we described him as we did was because I (Fred E. Blaine) "would not enter into an altercation with him." We publish this letter so that all may be able to judge the matter according to the Truth, and the truthfulness of this "cleansed" leader.

Dear Brother Blaine:

In your discourse before the Detroit Ecclesia last Sunday you attempted to become quite technical on the third chapter of 2nd Timothy – so much so that you even set aside the teachings of Bro. Russell. If you will read p. 415 of Vol. 6 you will note he says that an individual is not to judge his brother – disfellowship him; that this is a decision for the Church. Also, p. 416 of the same Volume we read: "The object is not to cast the brother off utterly; but merely to show disfavor toward his wrong course with a view to assist him to its correction. To treat such an one 'as an heathen man and a publican' would not mean to slander or dishonor him even after he had been cast off........ We are neither to speak ill of, nor to look cross at, publicans and sinners, nor to refuse to do busi­ness with them; but we are to withhold from them the special fellowship and courtesy appropriate to the brethren of the New Creation and possessed of the holy Spirit and its love, joy and peace."

Even if I belonged to the latter class, your conduct at the Detroit Ecclesia would not have complied with the clear teachings of That Wise and Faithful Servant. However, I do not belong to that class (I have not been disfellowshiped – by the Church), yet you came into that meeting hall (where I am a duly‑elected Elder and a Pilgrim appointed by Brother Johnson), and walked within a few feet of me without even saying Good Morning. Indeed, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." (NOTE: R.G.Jolly had not disfellowshiped us at that time, so this 'pilgrim' of R.G.Jolly's appoint­ment even rushes ahead of him with his cruel (individual) pronouncements and dis­fellowshipment – besides ignoring and setting aside the Arrangements and the Scrip­tural teaching of That Wise and Faithful Servant – JJH)

Your attitude in some of the above is just a step or so above the moronic, and makes crystal clear why Bro. Johnson did not see in you the qualifications of an Auxiliary Pilgrim, and why you do not yet possess such qualifications. "When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which is the first principles of the Oracles of God." (Heb. 5:12)

(Dated Oct. 15, 1955) Sincerely your brother, (Signed) John J. Hoefle

NOTE: In the face of Fred E. Blaine's misrepresentation of the above, we wonder how much we can depend on the other statements he has made regarding his faith in the false doctrine of Epiphany Campers consecrated. Brother Roach reported that he did not mention the 'strange fire' in Trinidad; and other brethren have reported the same of him when he was in their midst.

NO. 83: OUR PILGRIM TRIP TO TRINIDAD

No. 83

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

Early in April we received the 'Macedonian Call' from our beloved brethren in Trinidad to “Come over and help us” (Acts 16:9); whereupon we, accompanied by Sister Hoefle, proceeded immediately to pursue the privilege at hand. We left Mount Dora April 19, returning April 26, during which time we ministered person­ally for the first time to the Lord's people in the Island of Trinidad – the same being about 2,500 miles from our home and headquarters in Mount Dora.

There we found many sincere, studious brethren, well grounded in Present Truth, but sorely disturbed by the errors that have been presented to them by R, G, Jolly and others. During our stay in Trinidad about 75% of all the brethren there attended one or more of our gatherings; and we heard not one dissenting voice after they had listened to our presentations on various topics now in controversy – including the latest disputation on the correct date for the 1962 Memorial Service. Thus, we believe our efforts will result in much good to those dear brethren individually and collectively, and to all the brethren everywhere. Psa. 133:1

A VOICE FROM TRINIDAD

Our pilgrimage to Trinidad was prompted in large part by various letters that came to us from our beloved Brother L. F. Roach, and a few other faithful brethren. We reproduce several of these letters below; but first we wish to apprise our readers of a brief history of Brother Roach and his experiences in the Harvest work, a brother whom we consider one of the Lord's Fully Faithful followers, and a true yokefellow – ­just as we reported of our beloved departed Brother and Sister Condell of Jamaica.

Brother Roach came into Present Truth under Brother Russell before the “great tribulation” began in 1914. As the errors of That Evil Servant became more numerous and repulsive, he withdrew in a measure of confused isolation – until the Lord brought him into contact with Brother Johnson in 1931. The relationship was immediately cemented and prospered to the extent that the Fully Faithful Star Member (Brother Johnson) promoted Brother Roach in March 1938 to be the representative of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement in the Trinidad area – which office he held until he was dis­missed and rejected as such just 24 years later in March 1962 by crown‑lost leader R. G. Jolly. Markedly appropriate in this instance is the comment of Brother Johnson in E:6‑280, par. 1:

“Our experience in this respect is the experience of God's Priesthood, especially its leaders, and most particularly its Head, from the days of Jesus until now, as we see in the case of Jesus, the Apostles, the angels of the five churches between the Harvests, our Pastor and now ourself. We comfort our heart with the reflection that we are privileged to go the same way as they. Pertinent is the saying of Is. 66:5: “Hear ye the Word of the Lord, ye that tremble (that reverentially stand in awe) at His Word: Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for My name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified (we hate and cast them out for God's glory); but He shall appear to your joy; and they shall be ashamed!'”

The breach between Brother Roach and R. G. Jolly was gradually widened by the errors on Campers Consecrated and other deflections; it was not the result of sudden or ill‑considered emotional conclusion – nor did it involve any ill will or disdain of personality by Brother Roach: It was exclusively a clash between Truth and error. During the altercation R. G. Jolly at one time advised Brother Roach “not to agitate” – ­the inference seemingly being it would be all right to reject his errors re Campers Consecrated, etc., so long as Brother Roach kept his convictions to himself. This causes us to wonder how many more of the L.H.M.M. leaders have been given similar instruction by R. G. Jolly; and we think it apropos to ask our readers if such con­duct is in accordance with the principles expressed by Brother Johnson during his time as head of the L.H.M.M. Could any of us believe that Brother Johnson would have continued in the pilgrim service any who told him they could not in good conscience teach the Youthful Worthy doctrine? Can there be the slightest doubt that Brother Johnson would immediately have counselled such a brother to withdraw from the pilgrim service until such time as he could understand the Youthful Worthy teachings? Why shouldn't R. G. Jolly have the same high standards regarding his representatives if he himself were fully persuaded in his own mind that Epiphany Campers consecrated is a true doctrine?

We remind our readers that Brother Roach was highly commended by Brother Blaine at the last Philadelphia Convention over labor Day, as one approaching 90 years of age, but with a mind still very clear on Epiphany Truth. It is indeed to the com­mendation of Brother Blaine that he himself still possesses enough of the 'Spirit of Understanding' that he could appreciate in some measure at least the capacity of another brother who has retained those things which he has “learned and been assured of, knowing of whom he has learned them” – that Truth received through the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. Brother Roach's letters now follow:

“Dear Brother Jolly: – May our dear Lord's grace abide with you! I received your letter of 12th instant in which you want me to believe that you have not received an answer to yours of October 5, even one subsequent. I can assure you I have no time nor energy to worry now. Did I not tell you more than once that it was partisanship that brought the separation at Crofts Hill Jamaica? Did I not tell you that in Berean studies I could not get Campers Consecrated fitted in E.V. 17, page 37 top? Did I not tell you that I accepted Brother Johnson's teaching that the Epiphany in its narrow sense is from 1914 to the end of Jacob's trouble? That if any one is now enjoying opportunities of restitution, then you and I should not be here on earth? (E.V.6, page 481). Further did I not bring to your attention that you have departed from principle by trying to get me to believe that suffering for righteousness' sake is not necessary for Youthful Worthyship. (See 1 Pet. 1:11; E.V. 17, page 96, par. 1; Z 5184, col. 1, par. 8) Were it not for that false doctrine of Campers Consecrated you would not be in this strait.

“The only time feature I found myself in jam with was the “Time of the End” when I did not see things work as I had always expected; but, lo and behold I got it over by E. V. 17, page 284, par. 3, where Brother Johnson says that it is from 1799 to establishment of the Kingdom. Is that why you now move away 1956? You should let it remain for a landmark.

“As concerning that letter which appeared in Brother Hoefle's paper, you are against my addressing him as Brother and his wife as Sister. Why? Is it because you forbid them to attend your meetings, and if peradventure they should attend they must do so after the meeting starts and leave before it ends. Does the New Creation teach us that disfellowshipped brethren are our enemies? Are brethren forbidden to correspond with one another? I also noticed what you did to them was without the cooperation of anybody. Then you tell me that I must repudiate that letter! From the tone of your letter I can see rage. Since about 1958 I was reading Brother Hoefle's papers. I told you so, too. We have had very little correspon­dence except one letter when you introduced an extra “narrow way.” Seeing they were inquiring for information which I had, and which I thought would be helpful – and in which my activities in the Lord's service were involved – I gave it, of course. Z 3205, col. 1, top. They are the Lord's as well as we, regardless of what you say or do.

“You said I wrote to Brother Hoefle without having tendered my resignation. Resignation from what? I belong to no party. That is why I came out of Jamaica with a clean slate (1 Cor. 3:3‑5).

“Now I am asking you kindly in the interest of Truth and the brethren here in Trinidad to read Z 5284, Caption – “Doctrine more or less Important.” I would like for you to consider it and do not put any yoke on the dear ones' neck. I am not supporting you in doing so.

“As Executive Trustee I kept nothing from you – but things you considered against your wrong teachings you passed over in silence. Finally you demand an immediate financial report. Thank God I have a letter about a year ago from you thanking me for my liberality in finance to the Movement. My honesty is well known locally.

“As you will be with us in March this year – and to help your ministry to suc­cess this matter will be a secret unless circumstances force an exposure.

“Another fundamental set aside, “Restitution to follow the establish­ment of the Kingdom.” Aug. 15, 1906, p. 3845, col, 1, par, 2; Z4571, col. 2, par. 3. Of course somewhere must now be provided for your Campers! My sympathy goes out to you.  I pray that you see the error of your way and reverse by His Grace!

            Signed: L.F. Roach – dated Jan. 24, 1962 – Trinidad

“P.S. Have no fear for your money. You are going to get every cent (He says in a subsequent letter that he did not mean dishonesty on my part – L.F.Roach 3/27‑62). (2) I accept not anything that contradicts the Star Members' teachings, even by a comma.

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

“Dearly beloved Christian Brethren – Trinidad Ecclesia:

Greetings in our dear Redeemer! A bit of information until I be with you on the first Sunday in next month, D.v. From April last year I had to be out­spoken with Brother Jolly because of false teaching which he produced and which are contrary to those of the Laodicean Stars. At one time he wanted me to com­promise by telling me that if I am not in harmony with the other elders I should not oppose them. My only reply was Acts 5:29. Things calmed down a bit until I got to know that secret ministering on Campers consecrated was active. Acting on John 5:44, I wrote Brother Jolly a very blunt letter, to which he replied (judging from its tone outrageous), telling me that he was suspending me. Why suspend? Why not dismiss? No compromise with the Truth!

“Let me close with these comforting words, dearly beloved: We are living in the Epiphany when God is making manifest persons, principles and things according to Mal. 3:1‑3; and if we were to be left out, that would be proof positive that we are not His children. Let us then set aside sectarianism, partisanship, etc., for it is that among other things that brought the separation at Crofts Hill in Jamaica in 1957. If we are to be kept united, let it be on the basis of James 3:17. I can look with joy and comfort on my having my heart fixed upon Jehovah and Him alone. Psa. 57:7 I came out with commendation from both separate parties in Jamaica.

“By God's grace I hereby promise you that I am prepared to be as faithful to my Trust as I have always been. This is my second experience of this kind in the Truth. The first was when I was with the Society after that Servant died, with Rutherford; and (2) after the Epiphany Messenger died with Brother Jolly. Errors must be repudiated. New doctrines under Jesus are the exclusive privilege of Star Members. E.V.XI, page 495 bottom. Brother Jolly is trying to make you believe that I am giving you teachings from Brother Hoefle, but each of you can testify that I have proven all I ever said by reading the Truth Volume to you.

            Yours by His Grace, L. F. Roach – Dated Feb. 13, 1962‑ TRINIDAD”

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

“Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in the Beloved!

I know that you are interested to learn the result of Bro. Jolly's visit to Trinidad. He left yesterday. Acting on the advice of That Servant in Z Reprints 5183, Feb. 15, 1913 – THE ARCH-ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD – ­I attended none of his meetings (save, of course, the one kept in my house on the 13th inst., according to program). He arrived just in time, shook hands, and after the meeting we had about two to three minutes chat. Next day he sent a special messenger to arrange a private talk. I told the messenger to refer him to the above‑mentioned article; and, therefore, I want no conference. Because of objec­tion which the Class had taken because of his visiting us at this time, I sent the accompanying long question, which I learned caused almost every one tears. They felt sorry for him. Also, the attached list of typewritten questions. (NOTE: R.G. Jolly suspended Brother Roach, then began to request conferences. This is illustra­tive of much of his conduct since Bro. Johnson's death – so often thinking in reverse. Surely, Bro. Roach's correspondence with 'Hoefle' was not in itself sufficient cause for suspension. R. G. Jolly should have requested his conference with Bro. Roach before suspending him; and not after. Because of this high‑handed conduct by R.G. Jolly, Bro. Roach was quite within the bounds of propriety and approved Christian conduct to refuse to sit at the feet of R. G. Jolly in any meeting he conducted – whether it be a Memorial service, or any other meeting. This would be particularly true in view of Bro. Roach's decision that he could not in good conscience longer represent R. G. Jolly – and did not wish to offer any appearance of approval of his errors of doctrine and wrong practices – JJH)

“The Class observed that he was in a dilemma. I had already caused some to read the references before, so they were the judges. They are all trying to pre­serve the unity of the Class; but I am telling them it can be only on the basis of James 3:17.

“I am given to understand that in a testimony meeting he told them how he tried to keep me from reading your papers – that you are teaching that the High Calling is still open. At one time I thought your criticisms of Jolly were too severe; but I am satisfied now that you are fully justified in so doing.

“I would like to have you pay us a visit during the Easter Holiday, as Sister -------. will then be on vacation. Of course, you will come on the same condition you first intended, as we are all poor people. Let me hear from you as soon as possible, so that I can announce it.

“I am tired now and must close. With warm Christian love for one and all I received all the papers you recently sent; and, where they were duplicated, I gave to whom I think can benefit from them. I remain, dear Brother, Yours by His Grace.

            Signed: L.F. ROACH – Dated March 20, 1962 – TRINIDAD

NOTE: Now follows the Questions mentioned in par. 3 of the above letter:

“Do you not think you are doing the Class a great disservice by visiting us at this solemn season of the year, and bringing such disturbing and controv­ersial questions as Campers Consecrated and No more Youthful Worthies after 1954, and having them passed as though they were in harmony with Star Members' teachings? And the brethren only saying before your face, Yes, I agree – you well knowing that Brother Johnson on page 209 of E. Vol. 10, says that in the finished picture the Epiphany Camp consists of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles?

“Why treat us like that? Is it because, as I am told, you look at us as being ignorant, or of short memories? I can assure you that next month, whether or not I am down for a discourse, I am going to expose this thing. You are the one to officiate at our Memorial service. Shame! Are Nicolaitanes (Rev. 2:14,15) people who care little for the spiritual welfare of others?

“(5) Brother Johnson admitted fallibility in many things, so why are you now, without one jot of evidence, forcing 1954 upon us? See E Vol. 7, p. 290, par, l.

NOTE: Now follows a paragraph from the Feb. 15, 1913 article by Brother Russell: “St. Paul shows that the most subtle attacks of the adversary are to be expected through human agencies. Satan works in the hearts of the 'children of disobedience' (the Great Company, per Berean Comment; Col. 3:6 – JJH); and the more honorable they are, and the more closely identified with the Lord and His people these 'children of disobedience' may be, the greater service they may render to the Adversary. (The 'double minds' of the Great Company serve partly the Lord, and partly Azazel – ­Azazel means Perverter – and especially so while they are abandoned to Azazel – JJH) For this reason, Satan presents himself as an angel of light, and not as a messenger of darkness; for well he knows that error and sin will repel the children of light.”

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

“Dear Brother Hoefle: The note on the other side of this paper will show how things were. Considering him not a fit man and proper person to conduct the Passover service, knowing conditions according to your paper of December 1961, I celebrated with six others at home. This is the brother who believes there are still Saints here –

                                    Signed: L. F. Roach – March 20, 1962

Here is note referred to above:

“Dear Bro. Roach: – I am sent here chiefly to try to persuade you not to observe the Memorial at St. James apart from the general body, which savors of a division. I personally would advise against it – despite doctrinal differences which Bro. Jolly thinks are major, and not minor, I think differently. on the doctrinal points that count, you are both at one. I give you the above in writing because of your physical handicap. Dated March 16, 1962 – ­Signed: Bro ------- Trinidad”

Now follows a list of Questions by Brother Roach to R. G. Jolly:

“Having accepted your teaching that the Kingdom started in 1954, will you tell us, When did the cataclysm of trouble which is to precede it take place – and the then present order swept away in its entirety? (Z Reprints 5650 – March 1915, col. 1, par. 6)

“(2) Seeing that some such as the Jonadabs, Campers Consecrated and Quasi‑elect Consecrated are enjoying restitution blessings, does that mean that the embargo which was placed upon Jesus' merit when He became our Advocate is now released and applied on behalf of the world for them? (Z Reprints 5666, April 1, 1915)

“(3) Seeing that up to today a lot of stress is being put on the four exhortations of Rev. 22:11, which were to be given by the Epiphany Messenger in 1954, but who died in 1950, Who eventually gave them – and with what results? Also, Why do you ignore Brother Johnson's teaching on page 672, par. 2, E. Vol. 10, where he says that Youthful Worthies can be won up to and after Babylon is destroyed? Furthermore, who are the disobedient ones of Col. 3:6? (See Berean Comments on Col. 3:6 – JJH)

“(4) In E. Vol. 17, p. 37, top, Brother Johnson coupled the sons and daughters of Joel 2:28, and told us that they are to be developed during the Millennium. Why have you now separated them, and bring forward the sons into the Gospel Age? By what authority?

“(5)  Will sacrificing be possible, or required, in the coming Age, as now (Z 3845, col. 1) and, (2) will Restitution precede or follow the establishment of the Kingdom?

“(6)  On p. 614, top, par. 1, Vol. 8, Brother Johnson says that the signal that Restitution salvation is operating will be the return of Ancient and Youthful Worthies. When was that signal given?

“(7)  We are told on p. 581 of E. Vol. 6 that the anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, who will be violently caught up in the clouds, according to 1 Thes. 4:17. who are spiritual Israel there referred to?

Follows now a letter from Brother Roach to R. G, Jolly:

“Dear Bro. Jolly: – Greetings in the Beloved!

Your letter to the Class re my suspension as the Movement's representative has caused quite a commotion, coupled with the fanfare, sheer necessity, given to the acting holder, I was forced to cause a letter from me to be read at the same time, in which I said this is my second experience of this kind in the Truth.

“(l) In 1918, after America had entered the first phase of World War 1, and Rutherford unnecessarily interfered by advising men eligible for enlistment not to enlist, and he and his associates were cast into prison, I here in Trinidad was in a fairly high semi‑military office, I was reported to the Governor as being a Russellite, and therefore was false to the Government. I was then told that I must disassociate from Russellism or be dismissed. I had no other means of liveli­hood; I recalled Daniel's similar position in ancient days. I told the Governor that I cannot disassociate from those people, for I find them the only Christians. I was born and bred in the Anglican Church, of which the Governor was a member. Well, I do not know what went on secretly in the Governor's office, but I know that I was in service five years longer, when I was eligible to retire on a pension, which I now deem a salary in the Lord's service. During those five years, waiting for the Lord's decision, which I felt absolutely certain of, I had to refute Ruther­ford's false teaching, attempting to bring forward the New Covenant to 1918, hence “Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 'Virgins Fair,' 'Sheep and Goats prophecy operation now,' (A similar doctrine to Campers Consecrated – JJH), and a lot more tommyrot.

“(2) I came into contact with Brother Johnson through his writings in 1931.

Right away I saw the unbroken link of Truth, for which I had already undergone a victorious test. I then hunted up all old Bible Students, whom I knew had left the Society, and under Brother Johnson formed this Class in Trinidad, which is now undergoing their first Class testing, similar to what I underwent from 1918‑1925. Bringing forward time features (See one instance, if no more, 1 Cor. 4:8). Brother Johnson says in Vol. 17, p. 37, that the sons and the daughters of Joel 2:28, will be developed during the Millennium. You are now pleased to separate them, and bring forward the sons into the Gospel Age Restitu­tion started in 1954, etc.

“In your letter you place me in Satan's hands. I can assure you that there is the same amount of Truth in that condemnation as there is in the Pharisees ascribing Satanic powers to Jesus – Matt. 12:24‑28.

“I told you before, and I tell you again, it is no use worrying with one another, because we are on the opposite end of a pole. I tell you now positively I do not want to be reinstated as Your representa­tive, for I want no honor from man, but from God only – John 5:44.

“In the early portion of this letter I said that your acting representative is from sheer necessity. After all, somebody must represent you.

“What I am going to say is in the interest of the Truth. If you look up your office file, you will see in one of my letters of 1959, when this brother was going to St. Vincent and Bequia, that he would have been well advised not to repeat things which he cannot prove from the Bible, because the people were not as backward as he may think.

“I am told that on the day he read your letter to the Class he said that you are Divinely appointed and cannot make a mistake. (Brother Roach has now informed us the Brother has made humble apology for this statement, for which we commend him – JJH) – Well, I need not tell you that I refuted that stoutly, by quoting the history of Saul, who was also Divinely appointed, but was finally re­jected because of 'disobedience.'

“On your first visit to Trinidad (after Brother Johnson's death) in 1951, 1 told you that we are looking to you as a pointer to point to Star Members' writings. Many of the brethren still remember those words; but, seeing you are now pointing in an opposite direction, there is no alternative but to forsake you.

“Wishing you all that is good, with the full assurance that no creature can thwart the Eternal Plan, I remain, Yours in His Grace, – (Signed) L. F, Roach ­Dated March 12, 1962 – TRINIDAD”

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

We now call upon R. G. Jolly to present public answer – without evasion or subterfuge – to Brother Roach's questions set out above. And with this comes our prayer that this controversy may result to the blessing of God's Fully Faithful people everywhere; and the reminder once again that “the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable.... without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” – (Jas.3:17)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

My dear Brother Hoefle:

My heart's prayer for you both is one of thanksgiving for your service and prayers, which have been answered the past weeks of my husband's sickness by the supplies of strength and loving kindness. It may even open a door to service in my own town, as the ... minister called on him in the hospital, and was assured by him that his wife knew all about the Bible (slightly exaggerated) and the minister said he would call on me.....

I am enclosing a clipping sent me from Brother ------- which might interest you and arouse your sympathy. It hadn't occurred to me that many ministers may be con­fused re the virgin birth.... I have received a parcel of reading matter from Hebrew Christian Bible class..... I intend to send the Jewish editor “Where are the Dead” and the Resurrection tracts,...

The cards continue to come weekly urging me to get in touch with the P.T. editor – from Florida, Burmington, Glendale, Cal. One amusing thing was a letter from an aging southern sister asking if I was the one sending them, and if so she would refuse them, etc. I could honestly tell her “Not Guilty.

Your sister in the love of and faith in the Blessed Word ------- MASSACHUSETTS

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace unto you and yours!

I enjoy your paper very much. One thing I cannot understand in Bro. Jolly's writings – I do not see any Epiphany Consecrated Campers; and there can be no consecration outside the Court or linen curtains, as Brother Russell plainly taught in Tabernacle Shadows. I've never heard Bro. Johnson mention it in any of his Present Truths.

May the Lord bless you and keep you and Sister Hoefle in His love.

I remain your Youthful brother ------- NEW JERSEY

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

NO. 82: THESE THINGS FOR TYPES

No. 82

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

 “These things occurred to them (the Jews) for types, and were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the Ages have come,” says St. Paul in 1 Cor. 10:11; and “these things” are specifically those incidents which occurred in their forty years' wandering from Egypt to Canaan. And they are specifically for “our admonition” in the ends of the Ages, the “ends of the Ages” being primar­ily the Jewish Harvest of forty years and the Gospel‑Age Harvest of forty years, with a secondary application being the overlapping of the Jewish‑Gospel Ages and the overlapping of the Gospel‑Millennial Ages – the consummation of the Gospel Age (or full end), and the front end (or beginning) of the Millennial Age. Inasmuch as we are living in this latter period it is with that time that we now concern ourselves.

Often have we heard it stated of the Epiphany brethren generally, and Brother Johnson individually, that they are always dealing with types, types, types – a type for everything; and don't give us any of your types! But be it noted that it is not we who have given the types; it is the inspired record itself which sets forth the types of which we speak. Therefore, those who today reject types are actually rejecting a large portion of the Bible itself – they join the ranks of the higher critics, whether or not they are willing to admit as much.

And such cannot possibly be fully sanctified by “present truth,” any more than could those who rejected Jesus and the Apostles be sanctified by the “present truth” of that day. If we reject types which are given specifically for “our admonition” in the end of this Age – the very time in which we are living – then we need not expect to continue in that Truth which makes us free indeed. Let us ever remember that Brother Johnson stressed that we are in that Epiphany period (“in His own season” – 1 Tim. 6:15, Dia.), wherein the “moon” is shining; and it is largely from those Old Testament teachings typified by the moon that he expounded so many types. And all the more lamentable is the condition of those who once saw and accepted those teachings on types, and who then reject them. As Brother Russell explains, such a course implies unfaithfulness; and, while we may mourn for such – as Israel did for King Saul – it is forbidden that we attempt to follow such in their wayward course.

We may exercise much more longsuffering with those who accept wrong interpre­tations of types from false leaders than we do with those who deny types in toto. Of those who summarily reject types we can allow no degree of tolerance, as we con­tinue to “contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints.” On one occasion we remarked to Brother Johnson somewhat along this fashion: “In the beginning of this Age the first 'Principal Man' was a man named Paul, often designated as the Apostle of types; and in the end of this Age we have the Eighth (or last) Principal Man, also a man named Paul, likewise an 'apostle' (or expounder) of types.” At this he emitted his hearty laugh.

Let us remember also that, while That Servant dealt much more profusely with the New Testament than with the Old Testament, yet the correct understanding of the types of Leviticus 9 and 16 enabled him to see clearly those doctrines of the New Testament so essential to the Harvest work. Had he not seen clearly – early in the Harvest – the type of Restitution as revealed in Leviticus 16, it would not have been possible for him to do the work appointed him to do. The six volumes of Scripture Studies all appeared after the foundation for them had been laid in Tabernacle Shadows – substan­tially a book of types. And with equal force, Brother Johnson needed the enlightenment of those New Testament truths for a clear understanding of those Old Testament types which he explained with such clarity. So if we are to reach anti­typical Canaan (the Truth and its Spirit) we need to understand and accept the faithful and true types as expounded by the two Messengers. Nor should we forget that Brother Russell made some mistakes in his type interpretations – just as did Brother Johnson; and this has caused some to go to the extreme of rejecting all their interpretations of types. Just a little reflection on St. Paul's words in 1 Cor. 10:11 (types – for our admonition) will demonstrate the fallacy of such con­clusion. How could those types possibly help us “in the ends of the Ages” if we did not understand them – if some one did not give their correct interpretation? Nor do wrong interpretations always eliminate the type itself, as evidence Brother Russell's mistaken understanding of the Gershonites about the Tabernacle typing Restitutionists. His mistake did not eliminate that type; it merely needed the “due time” to produce the correct understanding of it which Brother Johnson gave us. And by the same token, time will probably reveal to us a clearer understanding of some of those types given to us by the Epiphany Messenger – such as the King Saul type, etc. We believe our readers will readily agree with us that much of Brother Johnson's interpretations was considerably more intricate than those types applying to the Parousia; and we marvel that the beloved Brother did not make more mistakes than he did. But the mistakes of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers did not stumble any of the Fully Faithful, even though such mistakes may at times have presented “the trial of your faith.” So, to all who have an “ear to hear” we would emphasize St. Paul's words, “let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” And, just as the unfaithful in the typical wilderness journey were all destroyed, so we may now expect the Measurably Faithful to stumble, and the fully unfaithful to be destroyed by operation of the antitypes. Those who have been among us over the years need no argument about the truth of this observation.

We believe it may be properly stated that types are the most difficult section of the Bible to interpret correctly; and by the same token they are the most diffi­cult to understand clearly. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson often warned that we are not to confuse types; that is, that we should not attempt to interpret any two of them as though they were one. If we do, confusion is sure to result. On several occasions, as we discussed this and related matters with Brother Johnson, he told us he remarked to Brother Russell a few times that he had no problem understanding the six volumes of Scripture Studies, but he could not understand some teachings in Taber­nacle Shadows (specifically the Sin Offerings), at which Brother Russell said to him, “Why, those volumes all came from Tabernacle Shadows” – a statement which Brother Johnson explained to us is corroborated by Rev. 16:1, “I heard a great voice out of the temple (tabernacle).” It will be noted that the remainder of Chapter 16 is de­voted to a detail of the “seven bowls,” or seven volumes of Scripture Studies, which came “out of the Tabernacle,” which same is exclusively an analysis of “types.” This is treated in more detail in our No. 22, June 1957 paper.

And yet, with such exacting premise, many have not hesitated to discard com­pletely his types – just as others quite unqualified have attempted interpretation of types and produced “nonsense upon nonsense,” as Brother Johnson has described it. We have been told that Brother Russell was heard to remark, “Some of the dear Pilgrims do paint some awful pictures” – rushing in where angels fear to tread. And the same is true yet today. Not too far back we heard one prominent minister who conducts a regular Sunday radio broadcast – a gifted orator of excellent education – go into quite some detail of how our Lord Jesus was “typed” by the Scapegoat of Leviticus 16. Why? Why, because that goat had the sins of Israel confessed upon it; and so also our Lord bore our sins. Let us now consider an elemental and fundamen­tal rule for interpreting types – namely, there must be a correspondence in every detail between type and anti­type. Had this dear man just thought to look in the margin of his Bible, he would have then learned that the expression in Lev. 16:8, “the other lot for the scapegoat,” would read, “the other lot for Azazel – the Devil.” Would he then conclude that our Lord was appointed for the Devil! Furthermore, “scapegoat” is merely a contraction for “Escapegoat,” the same applying because that goat “escaped” into the wilderness, whereas, the other goat was slain and its blood sprinkled in the designated places. Surely, our Lord “escaped” nothing; He drained the cup of woe in all its most tragic details. His blood finally shed to “cleanse us from all sin.” Thus, the attempt to portray the scapegoat as a type of Jesus is both laughable and lamentable in the extreme, because “without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin” – Heb. 9:22. And the tragic inconsis­tencies of type and antitype in this instance just related are often paralleled by some who claim to be “in the Truth,” and who should certainly know better – of which more later on.

Among the types that Brother Johnson specially detailed was that of Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8). Of these he says that Jannes means “he deceives,” and he types the second‑death sifters of the Parousia; while Jambres means “he revolts,” and types the Epiphany sifters speaking and acting against God's teachings and arrangements given through That Servant, and thus acting as Satan's mouthpiece to withstand Christ speaking the Parousia and Epiphany Truth through His people, and especially through His Epiphany mouthpieces. If we are fully alive to the force of this explanation, then it is not difficult for us to understand why those who come within the scope of this type – those who revolutionize and speak against the Epiphany Truth – are ready enough to ignore and dispose of types; because this Jannes‑Jambres type condemns their every word and act.

Seeing this teaching clearly, all the more do we need to consider St. Paul's warning in 1 Cor. 10:6 (Dia.), “Now these things were made types for us, in order that we might not be cravers after evil things, as they (the Jews) craved.” And, “Wherefore, let him who is thinking that he has stood, take care lest he fall.” (v. 12) To which we also add 2 Pet. 1:12, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things: though ye know them, and be established in THE PRESENT TRUTH.” It was from this latter that prompted Brother Johnson to name his paper, The Present Truth; and may each one indeed determine for himself that he is “established in the Present Truth” and “take heed lest he fall.”

There is a certain plausibility to error – some more, some less; other­wise, it would deceive no one. The Papal system, with all its “deceivable­ness of unrighteous­ness, with all power and signs and lying wonders” (2 Thes. 2:9,10), still clings to that wholesome Truth that there is but one true Church that is the custodian and preserver of the Truth. And upon that truth their system of error has been constructed, because it is just a small step further to claim that they are that one true Church, with St. Peter as the first infallible pope. Any who go that far with them are self­evidently forced to believe whatever the infallible pope may say. Indeed, all of us are duty‑bound to accept and believe what St. Peter wrote by inspiration – although many forget that there is just nothing in any of his writings that designates him as the first pope; and therein lies the malady. Many of the popes of the Dark Ages have attempted to interpret types – just as many today attempt to explain types – all of which have a measure of plausibility until they are analyzed by a comparison with the Truth, after which they quickly topple over in ruins. But none of this should cause us to despise types, because we believe many of our readers will agree that it has been through a clear understanding of those types expounded by the last two Principal Men that we have been enabled to “grow in Grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Whom be glory both now and forever” – 2 Pet. 3:18.

MARCH‑APRIL 1962 NO. 43 BY J. W. KREWSON

In his last paper J. W. Krewson fills a number of pages with his “Types and Antitypes,” our answer to which will be brief, as we have no wish whatever to engage the time and energy of our readers in pouring over voluminous “words to no profit” (2 Tim. 2:14). In their “much speaking,” the Jolly‑Krewson twosome offer just one more evidence that they are true “cousins” – they can always be depended upon to express a sentence in two or three paragraphs any time. Rather, we offer a funda­mental and elemental rule for discerning true and false interpretations of types – ­namely, type and antitype must correspond in every detail if the interpretation be a true one. Applying this one simple rule now to J. W. Krewson's paper No. 43, it will then readily appear for the flimsy flapdoodle that it is. Inasmuch as the first article of this paper treats of types, we follow with our comments re J.W. Krewson, because he is the most profuse pseudo‑typer we know of all the Toms, Dicks and Harries of the entire Epiphany period.

Let us consider first – J.W. Krewson has Gavin, Cotton, et al, anti­typing both Peter and Judas. Let him show such a correspondence for that last Thursday night of our Lord's stay on earth. Also, in his comments on his antitypical denial he has those brethren led to their act by Robert Markett. Let him show in the type the correspondence of some one leading Peter to his denial of Jesus that last night. Also, in that same night “the Lord looked upon Peter (after his denial) .... And Peter went out, and wept bitterly” (Luke 22:62). If J. W. Krewson has a correspon­dency for this in his antitype, he has failed to give any hint of it. Why? When Brother Johnson offered his interpretations, he left nothing to the imagination (although we well remember that J.W. Krewson has invited his readers to use their imagination); he was meticulous in explaining every detail to the full satisfaction of his readers. But J. W. Krewson – who now claims succession as his (Brother Johnson's) “agent” – is conspicuous for his failure to present such illuminating detail.

Then again he involves us (JJH) in his antitypical Judas. In another of his interpretations (Mark 12:28‑34) he portrayed us as one “not far from the kingdom of God,” claiming we were about ready to accept him. We pulverized that presentation so completely in our May 1960, No. 60 paper (copy free upon request) that he has never dared mention it again; so he now offers another twist and attempts to make us a part of his Judas jumble. Let us make a brief scrutiny: He says we prevailed upon the Winston‑Salem Ecclesia to disfellowship him. In the type Judas went to the Jewish leaders; in his proposed antitype J. W. Krewson has JJH (the leader) going to the ledlings – just the opposite, instead of correspondence to the type. In the type Judas received thirty pieces of silver (the price of power) for his despicable act. What power did we receive in J. W. Krewson's antitype? He hasn't shown any – because there isn't any. In fact, his own words betray him when he says we had the Winston‑Salem Ecclesia “under our thumb.” If that be taken at its face value, we could have had no more power over that Class afterward than we did before. And, in the type, did Judas have the Jewish High Priest “under his thumb” when he sold his Lord for money?

Of course, the facts of the case are just the reverse of what J. W. Krewson presents, because it was at that very time that he was trying by despicable methods to betray us; and he resorted to slander to do so. Thus, it was his own unholy conduct that prompted the Winston‑Salem Class to inform him that his presence was no longer desired in their midst; we had nothing to do with that. In fact, we had previously advised them to give him, his wife and the Marketts brotherly fellowship in what proved to be a fruitless attempt to aid all or some of his group by a “good example.” At no time – so far as we know – did a single member of that Class accept him as Pastor and Teacher, or even inferentially endorse any of his errors (any more than they did R. G. Jolly); he was merely offered the common Christian courtesy which we had advised them to give him. The slander just mentioned had to do with the scur­rilous statements J. W. Krewson was circulating in an underhanded method to prove us a fraud – and doing this at the very time we were be­friend­ing him. Here is what he wrote one brother:

“We do not believe JJH was appointed to the pilgrim office by Brother Johnson but on the authority of a reliable witness are reasonably certain he was appointed an auxiliary pilgrim. It seems that after Brother Johnson's death he dropped the adjective auxiliary and claimed the office of pilgrim.” Then, when we produced our pilgrim certificate, J. W. Krewson revealed his true character by attempting to lie his way out of a pit of his own digging. He now contends Brother Johnson had no authority to appoint pilgrims. In answer to this, we have repeatedly referred him to E:10‑249 (bottom), where Brother Johnson expounds Ezra 7:25, showing where he did have authority to appoint pilgrims for Epiphany purposes. J. W. Krewson has steadfastly ignored this citation – continuing (as does also his “cousin” R. G. Jolly) to repeat, repeat, repeat, his falsehood, and offer­ing reference to his past falsehoods to “prove” his present falsehood. Whatever may be the limitations of the “cousins,” there is certainly no limit to their gall! And it is this same J. W. Krewson who is now crying “Betrayal!” Indeed, the very same! Is he now also trying to prove Brother Johnson a fraud along with us? And, during the twenty years he was with Brother Johnson did he ever once raise the question of his authority to appoint pilgrims for Epiphany purposes? Time after time in the Present Truth did Brother Johnson announce the Pilgrim schedules of those whom he himself had appointed to the office; but we never heard of J. W. Krewson register­ing any protest about it. And we are reason­ably certain that at least some of those Pilgrims do not now have a paper with the LHMM seal upon it certifying their pilgrim appointment, as we ourselves do have – although we would not say that such failure detracts one whit from that standing which Brother Johnson repeatedly gave them during his life – ­unless their subsequent acts attest to their demotion by the Lord.

THE MARCH‑APRIL 1962 PRESENT TRUTH AND R. G. JOLLY

On pages 30‑32 of this paper appear some Questions and Answers purporting in large part to rebut statements in our January paper No. 78; and here R. G. Jolly once more reveals himself in true picayune manner. In his first question he states “there is no record that Abraham ever heard the name of Jesus.” It will be noted on page 4 of our January paper we quoted him as saying “Abraham never even heard of Christ.” Perhaps it has finally dawned on him that the word “Christ” means anointed – ­and that the Hebrew 'anointed,' the Greek 'anointed' and the English “Christ” all mean identically the same thing. Jesus became Jesus Christ – or Jesus the Anointed One – ­at Jordan when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Him; and while the name Jesus it­self does not appear in the Old Testament (except in the accommodated form of Joshua – ­Jah saves), there is in Psa. 2:2, the “Anointed One.” Also, in Gen. 49:10 – “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah.... Until He come in as a Shiloh.” (Rotherham) Young's Concordance explains Shiloh as “A description of Messiah as the Prince of peace.” And, while these Scriptures were written after Abraham's time, we may be fully assured that he, and other fully faithful persons before and after him, had a name for this One for Whom they hoped as their “Anointed” Savior, that was in essence identically the same thing. “A rose were still a rose if called by other name!” All the citations that R. G. Jolly offers from the two Messengers support our con­tention, that Abraham did 'hear' the name Christ, and our Lord's own words attest to that; and Brother Russell in R. G. Jolly's very citation to Z 5905, col. 2, gives the­ very Scripture we used against him (R. G. Jolly) re his 'foolish' remarks at Phila­delphia and Chicago Conventions, “Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56), to show that Abraham was justified by his faith in Christ! Our Lord used these words in His contention with the Scribes and Phari­sees at His First Advent; and we now find it necessary to use the same words in our contention with their prototype, one of the 'scribes' (R.G.Jolly) of His Second Advent.

At times when we have attacked R. G. Jolly's foolish contentions, he has remained silent when silence was Golden for him. But this is one of the times he felt compelled to give an answer; and in his answer he only makes more 'manifest his folly' before all. Azazel prompts him to do certain things at times to further humiliate him, be­cause Azazel not only seeks to 'use' those in his clutches, but he doesn't care how much he 'abuses' them – or destroys them.

In his next Question and Answer he says his Consecrated Epiphany Campers will have a Millennial reward a 'similar' to that of the Youthful Worthies. Now we wonder why he didn't say “similar to the Ancient Worthies” (because the Ancient and Youthful Worthies have 'similar' rewards in the Kingdom)? There­fore, his statement about his Campers Consecrated would apply with equal force to both classes of Worthies, because “things equal to the same things are equal to each other.” But why doesn't he quote Brother Russell or Brother Johnson as his authority for his statement? The reason is obvious – Neither of them ever made such a statement. But, when Brother Johnson said the Youth­ful Worthies would have a reward 'similar' to the Ancient Worthies, he explained very clearly what he meant by 'similar' and what he meant by 'reward.' Why doesn't R.G. Jolly do the same for his contention on his Epiphany Campers Consecrated? Manifestly, he has no appropriate explanation – his statement is just some more of his “foolish effusions.” The first main similarity for Kingdom purposes is the Resurrection of the “just” as set forth in Hebrews 11. This means quite a different Resurrection to the one “by judgment,” which all the non‑elect receive. Does R. G. Jolly include his Campers Consecrated in this 'similar reward' of the faith‑justified elect (the actual consecrated); that is, will they have a “better resurrection”? If not, but are raised in the general resurrection of the world, just what will be 'similar' about that to the “better resurrection” received by the Worthies?

When Brother Johnson stated that the Worthies' rewards would be 'similar,' he explained that the two classes would be Princes and Nobles – they will be the visible rulers of the Kingdom (physically perfect, an indisputable evidence of their first 'reward'). Is R. G. Jolly now contending his Consecrated Epiphany Campers will 'similarly' appear with the Youthful Worthies? In fact, none of his Campers Conse­crated in the tomb will be awakened when the Kingdom is established with the Worthies (and R. G. Jolly tells us his Campers Consecrated are consecrated 'unto death').

Coming now to his first question on page 31, re “changing his views on the end­ing of the Epiphany.” Let R. G. Jolly quote where Brother Johnson ever contended Armageddon and Anarchy would occur AFTER THE OVERLAPPING PERIOD OF 1954‑56. He's finally admitting that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical, and that Papacy (the 'Man of Sin') is to be destroyed in the Epiphany – as we have repeatedly contended (a destruction that is yet future). Surely, all of us know that for the world in general, the most telling Epiphany features are the troubles ahead – yet R. G. Jolly has those very important Epiphany features occurring AFTER HIS overlapping! Just how ridiculous can he be? If the Epiphany ended in a 'restricted' sense in 1954, did the Time of Trouble end in a “restricted” sense then? We have presented this question before, with the same answer – SILENCE – as he continues to yell “errorist” at us. When he mapped his program after Brother Johnson's death – at the instigation of J. W. Krewson – he did so on the premise that Armageddon in its fury would be with us by 1954. A blind man should have known better; but those befuddled by Azazel are blind indeed! When Brother Russell saw that 1914 did not bring the events he expected, did he go right on preaching that they did produce what he had previously expected? No, of course, he didn't! But, then, he was That Servant – and therein lies the great difference. That Servant was never in Azazel's clutches, but the one in Azazel's clutches (R. G. Jolly) tells us that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are one and the same – yet in the same breath hastens to point out that the Epiphany is over in its 'restricted' sense, and that we are now in the overlapping with the real trouble still future! And he has the effront­ery to declare “there is no con­flict” between his present views and those of Brother Johnson. Brother Johnson said Armageddon in its violent features would be here in 1954, and Anarchy by 1956. Is that still R. G. Jolly's contention? Or is there in actual fact quite a pronounced 'conflict' – in fact, an impassable gulf – between the views of Brother Johnson and those now held by R. G. Jolly regarding the Epiphany period? Nowhere did Brother Johnson ever teach that only the “wind” feature of the Time of Trouble would com­prise the Epiphany proper (as that was just the initial beginning of the Epiphany) – that it would end in “its restricted sense” before the more violent features of Armageddon and Anarchy would occur. R. G. JOLLY IS THE ONE CONTENDING THAT! Brother Johnson's unqualified statement is that the Time of Trouble (which R. G. Jolly finally admits in this March P.T.) and the Epiphany are identical (and he gave us the Scriptures to support it), and its narrow sense ('narrow' means the same thing as 'restricted,' as now used by R.G.Jolly) would be from 1914 to the end of Jacob's trouble, regardless of what that date may be. See E:4‑53 (51)

AND NOW ANTITYPICAL JONADAB: – On p. 31, col. 2, R. G. Jolly accuses us of mak­ing a statement that is “untrue, very deceptive and a gross misrepre­sen­ta­tion of what Brother Johnson really said.” How did we do that? We contended about the same Class Brother Johnson referred to as 'non‑existent.' The Question at Chicago in 1961 did not mention Jeremiah 35 – nor did R. G. Jolly mention Jeremiah 35 in his answer. Our whole contention was regarding the same Jonadab 'non‑existent Class' that Brother Johnson referred to in his April 1939 Present Truth, which can be easily proved by referring to that Present Truth; and we also catalog R. G. Jolly's Epiphany Campers Consecrated in the same 'non‑existent' category. Clearly enough, the Question posed at that Chicago Convention had to do with R. G. Jolly's Epiphany Campers Conse­crated joining up with the Jonadabs of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To whitewash his bung­ling answer, he now reverts to Jonadab of Jeremiah 35. Is he now contending that these Talmudists of Jeremiah 35 are a consecrated class? We never know the length to which R. G. Jolly's gymnastics will lead him, when he is contending for his false doctrine (“strange fire”) of Epiphany Campers Consecrated. Is he now coming up with a SIXTH “Consecrated” class to befuddle himself and his readers? Had his answer to such a Question been 'certain' (“For if the trumpet give an 'uncertain' sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” – l Cor. 14:8), then he would have succinctly answered the Question to the effect that his “Consecrated” Epiphany Campers could not 'merge' with such Jonadabs (whether of the 'religious class' he refers to now, or whether of JFR's 'non‑existent' Jonadab class), because they are not a consecrated class. Will he now express himself clearly, so that all may know just what he does mean? Does R.G. Jolly now contend that the Question at 1961 Chicago Convention had reference to the Jonadabs of the Jehovah's Witnesses, or to the reference he gives us in Epiphany Vol. 14? Let him (R. G. Jolly) make himself clear and answer this with a clean Yes or No, and all will be easier for his readers. We can answer him further if his contention is for the Jonadab of Epiphany Vol. 14, because this still will militate against his false doctrine (“strange fire”) of Epiphany Campers Consecrated (a 'non‑existent' class), even tho, as he stated, it might not be expedient for them (Epiphany Campers 'Consecrated') to 'merge' with the Jonadab class (OF WHICH ORDER? we ask) at this time. Is this a Sixth Class for elective purposes (another not shown around the Tabernacle? Let him make his contentions clear, and we will, D.v., make our answers clear so that all the brethren will know our contentions, as well as the contentions of R. G. Jolly regarding the matter.

And on the top of p. 32, where he quotes our statement, “As Brother Johnson has so well stated, it is not required of Youthfuls that they develop Agape love.” Here again he reveals what manner of man he is. Whenever we have made this statement, we have always added to it, “but they should do so if they can.” Yet he now wishes to contend that we are “denouncing character development” – and he does this with the full knowledge that in almost every paper we publish, where we discuss him, we denounce the miserable character which he himself displays at every turn. Yet he yells “sophist” at us! Clearly enough, his distortions and twists in the Questions we now examine re­veal the technique of desperation – the gibbering of one approaching the end of his intellectual tether – the futile spasms of one who subconsciously realizes the roof is about to fall in on him – one who stands perilously close to the abyss of a moral bank­rupt, as he strives to extricate himself from the meshes of his own Azazelian bungling. Had he the moral courage of the weakest neophyte, he would long ago have repudiated Campers Consecrated “strange fire” (false doctrine) which he absorbed from J.W.Krewson­ – but instead he continually goes from bad to worse to accomplish his gradual annihilation in the quagmire of error in which he now finds himself. We do indeed pity him, as we see him thus buffeted by Azazel – although our exper­iences with him have accentuated our sympathy for dear Brother Johnson in the vexations he must have experienced with such a “false‑accusing Epiphany crown‑loser and his foolish effusions.” (See E:10‑591)

Coming now, to “THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD”: – R. G. Jolly quotes in his last sentence an expression from Brother Johnson that should have sobered him in his own writing on this point: “St. Paul.... referred to his explaining every general feature of God's plan.” Is R. G. Jolly now contending that his Campers Consecrated is NOT a “general feature” of God's plan? Does he consider the Ancient and Youthful Worthies “general feature” of God's plan? Will he answer these questions? We may be certain that he won't! By his own analysis in this very paper we are discussing he says his Consecrated Campers will receive a reward 'similar' to the Youthful Worthies. If his contention is correct, then it should require little argument to prove that his Conse­crated Campers would be just as much a “general feature” of God's plan as are the Worthies. And be it noted, St. Paul does set forth the Worthies as a part of the “general features” of God's plan!

“Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” Psa. 127:1

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Sorry to have to write this letter to you. Sally lived this life to the best of her ability and is now resting in peace.

I have received your March 1, 1962 message – read and enjoyed it. I believe you are right on the Memorial date. The last time I had the service with Sally – for the last time.

   With Christian love, Your Brother --------- MICHIGAN

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

My dear Bro. Hoefle: – Grace and peace be yours! At last I am home and out of the Hospital. I wore a cast for six weeks and it was heavy to 'tote' around. I lost weight and vitality, but the experiences I had at the Union County hospital witnessing to the Truth far outweighed any pain I suffered – and I would gladly go through it again. The ministers go to the rooms of the patients who belong to their church, and as I occupied a two‑bedroom with another patient the ministers would engage me into their conversations. Of course, you know how easy it is to bring religion into a conversation with a minister. Two Baptist ministers came right into line for a Truth witness.... when the patients they visited introduced me to them as a “fine” Bible Student........ They were sure to inquire as to my church affiliation, and that gave me my chance. I explained that I was undenominational because I could not sanction the errors taught in all denominations – and then I attacked their teaching of the immortality of the soul, and quickly quoted Isa. 53:12 that Jesus, a perfect soul poured his out unto death, but that the ministers teach that we imperfect souls are immortal – and either go to heaven if good, or to a lake of fire and burn throughout eternity, if we die as sinners. You should have seen the reaction of those two Baptist ministers when I put that as a question to them. I said: “Why do you teach error on that Bible truth when the Bible gives you such plainly stated facts that souls die?” One old minister... choked up, got up, said good‑bye to his Baptist patient, ignored me completely and walked out. The other is Max Holmes, and lives in Blairsville. He was so angry he got up and said he was leaving because he wanted to continue being a gentleman. I just quietly told him that he was neither a gentleman nor a Christian, and my knowledge of him was based on other conversations we had with him and his attitude and vilifi­cation of those who believed differently to his religion. He does not have any real friends in Blairsvilles I learned from some of his own Baptist Church‑goers. All that I have talked with seemed eager to hear the Truth – and, most of all, asked questions. The Methodist minister is much the finer man than Holmes, and asked questions and seemed deeply interested. He is a 'chum' of my doctor.....

I am still here and still witnessing for the precious Truth which has been mine for over 50 years...........

My special love to you and all at Mount Dora, By His grace --------- Georgia

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace to you and yours! I am in receipt of your letters. The later one re date of our Lord's Memorial was read and accepted as being correct. Also March 1 article, which has supplied us the necessary help and assistance for participation in our Lord's Memorial supper.

We cannot express our appreciation to the dear Lord for one as you are who has so ably defended His Truth at this time. As was in our Lord's last hours He had many trials and testings – even His own familiar friend betrayed Him. So likewise we should expect similar trials. May you be encouraged in your 'labour of love' toward the Lord's cause and His dear ones – Matt. 10:25 tells us what we should expect. Be of good cheer and the Lord will deliver you and His faithful people as He did with Joshua of old. We here, though a little company, are still keeping up the “good fight.” May the good Lord bless you and keep you all for His dear name's and mercy's sake. I close with Hymn 88. Yours by His Grace – Bro --------- JAMAICA

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

Our dear Brother Hoefle: ‑ Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

We are in thorough agreement with the Supplement to No. 80, Immediately after reading it we got S.S. Vol. 6, reading Note 4, page 733 onward, and we are thankful for the enlightenment. How like Brother Russell and Brother Johnson for you to investigate a suggestion of such nature! And we appre­ciate your humility before the Lord to amend any discrepancy – again, this is how the Star Members gave corrections to their writings ........

Bro -------, from ---- is in contact with the L.H.M.M., and he says we are wrong and Jolly is right. Had quite a tussle with Epiphany Campers Consecrated. He never sends any quotations for us to look up (of course he hasn't any!). We wonder if he looks up the references we send to show the error of doctrine And practice. Now he is disputing your pilgrim office, so a copy of your appointment was sent to him.

Brother ------- has just called, and he, too, is in agreement with Supple­ment to No. 80, and glad to have S.S. Vol. 6, Note 4 pointed out to him in verification......

Our tracts are exhausted, and we would like a quantity to distribute. Thank you in anticipation to continue Gideon's Second Battle. Our united love to you, Sister Hoefle and all the dear ones who see “eye to eye” – Joshua 1:7‑9.

                                    Your brethren by His Grace – Bro.& Sr ------- ENGLAND

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Please send me promptly Resurrection of the Dead tracts for free distribution. I thank you! I hope you have plenty of spiritual blessings as you two seek earnestly to do the Divine will..,.

                                    Much Christian love, Your Brother ------- PENNSYLVANIA

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

Dear Sir: – Please send me your free copies of the following: The Resurrection of Dead – The Three Babylons and What is the Soul. Thank you!

------- KANSAS

NO. 81: A REVIEW OF CAMPERS CONSECRATED

No. 81

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

Motivated by a number of requests for further elucidation of Conse­crated Epiphany Campers as presented by R. G. Jolly, and Quasi‑elect Consecrated as desig­nated by J. W. Krewson, we now present a concise resume of this subject, using the Question and Answer form of analysis.

Question: – Did either of the last two Principal Men ever teach such a class in the end of this Age?

Answer: – No, neither of them even hinted that we should look for such persons in the Household of Faith, although Brother Johnson clearly taught that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the "formerly faith-­justified ones who hold to the Ransom and practise righteousness, and Converted Israel." However, of these he clearly states in E:10‑209 that they would be the "not" consecrated Jews and Gentiles.

Question: – Is such a class designated in any direct Scripture, or indicated in any type or prophecy?

Answer: – No, there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that even hints at such a class. And be it remembered that a type that might seem to allow such interpretation would in itself be insufficient, because it is clearly stated on p. 25 of the Berean Topical Index under Types and Figures that "A type must not be used to teach a doctrine, but merely to illustrate one that is already taught in plain terms."

Question: – If there is no direct Scripture, type or prophecy to prove Campers Consecrated, how did the idea originate?

Answer: – It is a pure invention of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome.

Question: – Should we expect them (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson) to see a new doctrine?

Answer: – No; their attempt in this matter is a part of the "gazing" so clearly forbidden in Ex, 19:21‑23. Here's Brother Johnson's comments on such matters: "All the brethren, except the star‑members, are forbidden direct Biblical study on new doctrines, types and prophecy, which is 'gazing' for them." (E:10‑XXIV)  And again on page XXVI: "Nonsense upon nonsense has been produced by the typing of the Toms, Dicks and Harries during the Parousia and the Epiphany." Campers Conse­crated is just some more of that "nonsense."

Note further in E:11‑495: "None of these brothers were the first to see new doctrines, which under Jesus is the exclusive privilege of star‑members .... They have been privileged to find new confirmations of doctrines previously made known by Jesus to His star‑members." And further in E:11‑369: "This was a pro­hibition to brethren now inventing new teachings as true (such as Campers Conse­crated – JJH) and from God, a prohibition which the six classes of sifters and others have disregarded. (This should prove to all the Fully Faithful just who are the real "sifters" since Brother Johnson's death – JJH). It impliedly charges that the teachings that God gives by Jesus be held, AND NO OTHERS."

Question: – Could there possibly be a place for Campers Consecrated in the Epiphany Tabernacle?

Answer: – Not if the Epiphany Messenger gave us the Truth on the Epiphany Tabernacle. In E:6‑199/202 he clearly states there can be no justification outside the linen curtain. And in the same book, p. 348, he says Tentative Justification – ­which comes only to those inside the linen curtain – must precede the call to conse­cration.

Question: – Are we still operating under the Epiphany Tabernacle?

Answer: – So far as we know, neither of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome can deny that the Epiphany Tabernacle is no longer with us; but they impliedly deny it by their Campers Consecrated "strange fire" (false doctrine). We say this be­cause the Epiphany Messenger never placed such a class in or about the Epiphany Tabernacle. Note his comments in E:11‑591: "There is a threefold set of antitypes of the Tabernacle type: (1) the Gospel‑Age antitype, (2) the Epiphany antitype and (3) the Millennial‑Age antitype. Only one of these three antitypes operates at a time; i.e., only one of them can be visible as working at any one time, and the other two are kept out of sight at such a time." In view of such clear comments by the Epiphany Messenger, those who now attempt to change the Epiphany Tabernacle are forced into one of two positions: (1) They must admit they no longer accept the truth on the Epiphany Tabernacle, as given to us by the Epiphany Messenger himself; or (2) They must contend we are no longer operating under the Epiphany Tabernacle. If this latter is true, then the Millennial‑Age, or Basileia, Tabernacle must logi­cally be present with us.

Question: – What is Brother Johnson's interpretation of the complete Epiphany Tabernacle?

Answer: – In the finished Epiphany Tabernacle the Most Holy represents the condition of Divine beings; the Holy represents the condition of crown-retaining New Creatures – members of the Body of Christ; the Court represents the condition of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies; the Camp represents the con­dition of the formerly faith‑justified (those people who lost their Tentative Justi­fication in the Court by being forced from the Court, thus receiving the "grace of God in vain" for elective purposes); and outside the Camp represents the unbeliev­ing world, and the excommunicated.

Question: – Is there any evidence that the Basileia Tabernacle has come into existence?

Answer: – No evidence whatever! And to demonstrate the confusion of those who succumb to the Sixth Slaughter‑weapon Man (Revolutionism) we cite p. 8 of the January 1962 Bible Standard, col. 1, bottom, where R. G. Jolly states the "Epiphany signs are now plainly manifest in our midst." This statement is indeed the Truth; and those signs were clearly apparent in 1914 when the Epiphany period began. "The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical," says Brother Johnson; and the Time of Trouble (one of the more pronounced "signs" of the Epiphany) made its appearance at precisely the same time as did the Epiphany period. With this "word behind thee" as a sure guide, we may definitely conclude that equally strong "signs” of the Basileia will also appear when the Basileia Tabernacle is erected and the Basileia is ushered in. Thus far, R. G. Jolly has not pointed out a single one of those signs.

Question: – What outstanding feature makes a clear distinction between the Epiphany and Basileia Tabernacles?

Answer: – There is total absence of New Creatures in the flesh in the Basileia Tabernacle. In the Millennial Tabernacle Brother Johnson sets forth the Most Holy and the Holy as containing Divine beings operating Godward and manward; the Court containing only Levites – the Great Company as spirit‑being Merarites, the Ancient Worthies as Kohathites, and the Youthful Worthies as Gershonites, none of which can be described as New Creatures from the Gospel‑Age viewpoint; the Camp containing the World undergoing Restitution; and outside the Camp having those not yet beginning Restitution, and those second‑deathers who die at one hundred years of age. Therefore, we may know with absolute certainty that, so long as even one New Creature remains on earth in the end of this Age, it would be utterly impossible for the Millennial‑Age Tabernacle to begin operation. Therefore, R. G. Jolly's teaching that we are now in the Epiphany‑Basileia overlapping in the same sense as was true of the Gospel‑Age Epiphany overlapping from 1914 to October 1916 is just some more of his nonsense.

Clearly enough, R. G. Jolly is forced to straddle the Epiphany‑ Basileia "fence" because of his Campers Consecrated. In his headlong rashness and bungling ("Bungling is the usual and natural activity of the Great Company," says Brother Johnson), to foist his Consecrated spiritual "hybrids" upon his trusting followers, he is "manifest­ing his folly to all" (2 Tim. 3:9) – running ahead of the Lord in identical fashion to That Evil Servant, who said in his heart, "my Lord delayeth." Of course, it is a character feature of the members of antitypical Saul (type of the crown‑lost leaders up to Armageddon) that they learn nothing from their own mistakes, or the mistakes of others. The typical King Saul bungled from each mistake to a more serious mistake – ­a sad spectacle indeed, finally driven in dire extremity to the Witch of Endor; thence, to a most humiliating end at the hands of the detestable Philistines. “How are the mighty fallen!” (2 Sam. 1:25)

Another indictment of R. G. Jolly by the Epiphany Messenger on his Campers Consecrated is to be found in E:7‑138, as follows: "Nor are the Great Company to seek to discover 'new Light' and spread it before the Church, as that would be attempting to go into the Holy, from which they have been excluded, and would re­sult in their offering strange fire."

These prohibitions against "strange fire" (false doctrine) have been repeatedly and pointedly directed to R. G. Jolly's attention; yet he still persists. Those of his adherents are to be commended who refuse to be dragged into the "bottomless pit" (error) with him. When he was expelled from the Holy in 1938 under the most humi­liating circumstances, it would seem it should have taught him a lesson he would never forget; but he, like his type King Saul, has learned just nothing from his bungling mistakes. Is it any wonder other uncleansed Levites in other groups refuse to give him any attention? Is it any wonder he has experienced abject failure with his $5 Correspondence Course – his Flying Saucer tract – his attempts at those 'chop­suey' conventions – his attempt to convert Israel, etc,, etc.? Like others of his kinsmen during this Epiphany period, he has inherited gold and he has quickly turned it into ashes; and we may be sure the Lord will continue to give him "blood to drink" (Rev. 16:6) until he manifests a true repentance, cleanses himself resolves never again to attempt to re‑enter the Holy, from which he has been definitely excluded for this Epiphany period.

And, as Brother Johnson also tells us in E:11‑383 (29), when Revolutionists seek to set aside those truths that once sanctified them and made them "clean" (John 15:3), they are soon forced by the Fully Faithful's defense of those truths to give up other formerly‑held truths. Thus, the invention of Consecrated Epiphany Campers (or Quasi‑elect Consecrated) by the "cousins" (Jolly‑Krewson) has forced the both of them to abandon the truth on Tentative Justification, as presented by both of the last Star Members. "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it!"

"Come not among these nations that remain among you" (those groups that suc­cumb to the Sixth Slaughter Weapon Man – Revolutionism) – Josh. 23:7; "That thou mayest regard discretion, and that thy lips may keep knowledge" (the proven and tried teachings of the Star Members) – Prov.5:2.

Sincerely your Brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be unto you and yours!

Our L.H.M.M. brethren here in Britain are having adverse experiences at this present time, which of course we realize may be some of their 'fit man' experiences from the Lord's hand, which we trust will be for the good of such when they "cry unto the Lord in their (great) distress" (Psa. 107:11‑13). Also, Mal. 3:2, 3 has already been experienced by some brethren....

Your No. 76, October 1961, article on "The Star of Laodicea" brought vividly to my mind the many privileges the Lord gave us in those now far‑off days when both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson ministered to us the 'Word of Truth.' ...... As I have told you, I accepted the Truth in 1904, but it was not until 1913 when our Pastor came to London that I was privileged to symbolize my con­secration by baptism. It was at that Convention, along with 83 brethren, the right hand of fellowship was given to me from "That Servant" himself. What a blessed memory of that sacred occasion I still retain! I am ever grateful to the dear Lord for arranging remarkable experiences for me soon after I came into the Truth. Many times when I went along the seashore at Southport where I was born, after reading Parousia Volume 1, I found myself offering my humble thanks to the Lord for His love and favor – and especially for the blessing of Brother Russell's visit to my home town, at which time he gave his talk on "Beyond the Grave" to between 700 and 750 attentive people at Southport. Furthermore, I was privileged to be the first brother to welcome Brother Russell on that occasion – on the steps of the hall in which he was to speak....... He asked me if any one was conducting the afternoon meeting......... I told him Brother Hemery was speaking. Brother Russell then said he had to go to a chemist for medicine for himself, so I told him the best place......

It might be well to state that I was by myself for five years, tracting and colporteuring as best I could.... Then two dear Sisters came along in the colporteur work.... They called upon a lady and her husband in Southport who had recently lost their son. This man had been given opportunity to embrace the Truth 20 years before. He wrote for some tracts and when he received them he also received a communication from Brother Russell. But somehow he lost – to some extent – his interest in the Truth. It was the two colporteurs, together with the loss of his son, which rekindled his interest in the Truth – so much so that he ordered the Six Volumes of Scripture Studies, as well as throwing open his home for meetings each Sunday. Soon a class of eight was increased to thirty, regularly meeting in a room specially engaged for the study, spread and practise of the Truth.

Now, in conclusion, I come to what has always been a great source of comfort, joy and peace throughout my entire consecrated life – the privilege of asking Him daily to richly bless their memory (dear Brothers Russell and Johnson) to all of us. May all God's people be blessed with a knowledge of the 'Divine Plan of the Ages' through their faithful ministry!

I want to tell you how it all came about that Brother Russell was sent to my home town – which, I believe was undoubtedly in answer to my prayers made nine years previously as I walked along the seashore with my Volume in hand, requesting the dear Lord, that if it be His will, He would overrule matters so that our Pastor would in 'due time' come to Southport. This he did in 1913 at which time he gave the talk on "Beyond the Grave," which was greatly appreciated by all present. After this meeting, Brother Hemery called me to him and explained the reason for Brother Russell's presence in my home town. It seems there was one vacant date open, and Southport and Barron in Furness.... were the two places Brother Hemery thought of. Southport was decided upon. In this way our dear Lord remembered my prayers and blessed that visit to us all.

Faithfully your brother --------- ENGLAND

P.S. I might add that my first introduction to all Brother Russell's writings was during the years 1901‑1904, at which time I was interested in Physical Culture and health matters generally – and obtained books written by Melville C. Keith of Ohio, USA, on various physical complaints. He issued a magazine called the "King's Command," and evidently was a deeply religious man. In this paper he mentioned that if any of his readers were interested in Biblical matters they could not do better than write to Mr. C. T. Russell for tracts. This I did and read them more than once – then ordered all the Volumes.... if I remember correctly, there was a Pilgrim appointed by Brother Russell whose name was Keith, and I have often wondered whether he was in anyway a relation of this Doctor Keith.

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!

I am enclosing an article on the subject of Silver. It appeared shortly after I received your January paper and thought that you might enjoy reading it. I enjoyed your article on this subject, as well as others. It seems to me that things are developing so very rapidly on all fronts that momentous events are ominous.

Please greet Sr. Hoefle and the other brethren.

                                                Your brother in His service --------- ILLINOIS

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Sincerest greetings to all in our dear Redeemer's Name!

I am so very anxious to hear from you that I find the papers take so long to reach us. So does Bro -------- He anxiously awaits them. I pay him a visit every other day. His first greetings are "I have not heard from Brother Hoefle." ......

I am beginning with ourselves here. I do wonder how the friends have studied Tabernacle Shadows – one of our very important books. If our hearts and minds are not rightly exercised, or if we do not pray for a wise and understanding heart, we will only have empty Theory. Taber­nacle Shadows speaks of the Wave Offering (p. 45, par. 2 to p. 46 first 12 lines). If a sincere study and understanding had taken place, applying it to ourselves, we would not speak of Brother.... as being old and deaf and should give up and allow the younger ones to take over; If the Lord is working out that part.... all we have to do is to rejoice to see the things that we study are working out among us. We should try to get all the corrections we could get from him, and rejoice in the Lord and wait patiently upon Him. Why is so much haste to thrust him out? I cannot see why. All I can say is, if we have read enough to understand, this is the time of the MANIFESTATION of Persons, Principles and Things. May God help us (especially those higher than we are) to be faithful (he cannot stop till the Lord takes it from him – ridiculing him for his physical fitness or unfitness is doing exactly as the modern young who do not know better). We should learn to understand who we are – why we are – where we are – and apply the teachings to ourselves in the proper order..... We are to fight to kill the old nature and not allow it to be or have superiority over the new....

Now for Brother Jolly, who has suspended our dear Brother --------- as his repre­sentative. I can discern the 'old man' very much at work. I am shocked to know that he, of all persons, should pay a secret visit to Rome. I read this with grave concern. Was it to convert the Pope? What then? This is a jig‑saw puzzle. I read of Saul in 1st Samuel 28:6‑8. Why try to throw dust in our eyes, telling of different personages' visits..... I do wonder if he is fighting against the Lord's teachings and arrangement. We know what Judas went to them for. Truth has foundation – is Spirit and is Life Eternal. Error has no foundation – the Scriptures tell us it is the Bottomless Pit.... How can any one, in all the advancing light, be so blind? I feel we should be glad to know we have a kind Brother who would show us that we are straying from a right path, and show us where and how we can retrace our steps. I read what David said (Psa. 51)

Note R.G.Jolly's comments in the Jan‑Feb 1962 P.T, p. 14 under Questions of General Interest: Consecration now and after Highway opens and Consecrated Epi­phany Campers; also Letters of General interest, p. 15, par. 4 – the few discontented ones of 1954, etc. (whole par. 4). They themselves do not understand this is a public witness against them. What a pity Brother Blaine was not strong enough in character to tell him (R. G. Jolly) to his face of his doubts and fears as to the false teachings he is spreading over the world. He is throwing, or thinks he is throwing, dust in our eyes, when he says he is strictly dealing with Star Members' teachings – when in truth and in fact he is by a very wide margin by‑passing them and fooling himself while leading others astray.

May the Lord bless you and keep you humble, steadfast, unmoveable. The Lord cause His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you.... May the Lord wonder­fully bless you, Sister Hoefle and all the brethren. I do rejoice that you earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints.

Yours by His Grace – Sister ---------, TRINIDAD

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

New York, Feb. 20, 1962

Postal Card

Are you so hard up for a mailing list that you must persist in sending your stuff to those who have repeatedly asked to be removed from your mailing list?

Please do not ignore this 4th (at least) request to stop sending your literature which is every bit as unwelcome as is your presence at LHMM gatherings.

Your lack of taste and bad manners in both respects are sickening to those who know that God's special servants never forced their presence or writings on others.

I repeat, please do not send your stuff from your place or from any other town or person either.

(From) ---------------– ,-------------------

(Note: In 1956 -----------------complimented and commended us for exposing some of the evils in the L.H.M.M. About that time also ------------------had made full acceptance of J. W. Krewson; then somersaulted back to R. G. Jolly. Both of these people now believe in Campers Consecrated – although they cannot explain why. Apparently, they also do not know that Brother Johnson did just the reverse of what they claim for him (treated such as they with the same love and long‑suffering as we have, and would have helped them had they permitted him); so we have here a modern example of the "unstable and the unlearned" – 2 Pet. 3:16; and, as is usual with such people, they seem determined to remain that way. We are also amind to consider St. Peter's counsel: "It is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish persons." – 1 Pet, 2:15 It is apparent that these two would have been strong supporters of the Scribes and Pharisees who felt Jesus had no right in their synagogue. Of course the Lord's presence to 'bear witness to the Truth' would have 'sickened' them had they been in the audience with those sectarians. Yes, this Epiphany time is "making manifest the counsels of hearts"!

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

The 1962 MEMORIAL – If any of our readers observed the 1962 Memorial on the wrong date of March 18 – and now wish to correct their mistake – it would be quite "decent and in order" to perform the service again after 6 p.m. April 17 – which we consider the correct date. This is in keeping with Brother Russell's advice after he had given the brethren a wrong date for the Memorial under similar circumstances. (See Z. 1913, p. 66, col. 2, par. 1)

NO. 80: SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

No. 80

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

Comes once again the Memorial of our Lord's crucifixion, wherein He provided the Great Antitype of Israel's lamb for the Passover in Egypt; and it is with deep reverence that we once more direct attention to observations concerning it. So much has been written about this subject by Brother Russell and Brother Johnson in their volumes and magazines that we would not presume to offer anything new about it. As Brother Johnson always advised the Lord's people to read and meditate upon The Passover in Parousia Volume 6, so we now also make similar recommendation.

THE DATE

Since so much confusion and variety of opinions exist on the time and occasion for partaking of the "Lord's Supper," we now consider it opportune to make further examination of this important feature. In doing so we shall offer two other observa­tions, which digress somewhat from the Passover proper, yet have an underlying rela­tion to it. The Papal system is directly responsible for the present confusion, motivated as they were to go as far away as possible from anything that might lend the slightest prestige to Jewry. This has been permitted by God, of course, for two reasons: First, and probably foremost, to add to their strafings under their Gospel-­Age "double" of disfavor; and, Second, to permit the unfaithful and the Measurably Faithful of this Age to join with them somewhat in their cup of woe.

At the start of the Age the first move made away from Jewry was innocent enough, as the Disciples congregated on the first day of the week to "break bread" together in fraternal good will. Thus, the Sabbath of the Christian world was changed from Saturday to Sunday, as we now see it. By this step the first great separation from the Jews took place. We assume all of our readers know we are not advocating Satur­day as our Sabbath, because Christians are not under the Law of Moses in letter; but we believe all will readily realize that the difference in the Jewish and Chris­tian Sabbaths makes a distinct cleavage between Jew and Gentile.

Second, with this same thought in mind is the birthday of Jesus. As all of us know, there is no foundation whatever in Scripture or secular history for observing December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. As Brother Johnson has clearly pointed out to us, His birthday had to be on the Atonement, the tenth day of the month Tizri (or Tishri) – the seventh month of the Jewish year, or about October 10 of our present calendar. This is because all types of the Old Testament that had a set date for their observance had to have the antitype begin on that same date. "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:18) Therefore, since Jesus was the Great Antitype of the Atone­ment‑Day sacrifice of the bullock offered for sin, that type could not pass away until He presented Himself as the antitype. And this He could not do until He had reached the age of thirty years (when the Jews reckoned one to be a man), at which time He was the exact duplicate of the man Adam, for whom He would offer Himself on the cross.

How, then, came the aberration on this matter? We answer again, the Papal System produced a cunningly devised fable for December 25 by a reasoning devious and cunning. They brought forth the suggestion that the Vernal Equinox is the time for all vegetable life to spring forth from the sleeping earth after the winter's rest. Therefore, that time – about March 25 – must be the time the life in Mary's womb must also have had its animation. And, counting nine months from March 25 would bring us to December 25; and here again a blow was given to Jewish prestige. Just consider the respect that would necessarily be theirs if the Christian world observed the birth of the Messiah on the identical day that Jews sit in sackcloth and ashes, fasting and repentant for sins of the year past on their Day of Atonement. Such occurrence could not but cause endless comment and investigation to determine this phenomenal co‑incidence, even as it now goes by unnoticed under the present arrangement. On this point also there is no command in the Bible to make special celebra­tion of Jesus' birthday, so we have no partic­ular quarrel with those who choose to do so on December 25.

Thirdly, the date for the Memorial itself: By an arbitrary ruling, based upon nothing at all, The Papal system decreed the first full moon after the Spring Equinox would determine. And, to have it always on Friday, they designated the first Friday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox, with the Sunday following that as Easter, or Resurrection morning. The account of the Passover in Egypt says – "with­out variableness, nor shadow of turning" – that the lamb was to be killed and eaten on Nisan 14; and that the "memorial throughout your generations" should be kept on the same date, and that Nisan would begin when the moon came new. There is no difficulty what­ever in understanding this matter if the simple commands of Exodus 12 are read with­out prejudice, although the Christian observance of Good Friday and the Jewish observance of their Passover memorial are often almost a full month apart; and the Christian world in general now recognizes no connection whatever between the two. Here again, Jewish prestige was depleted during the "double" of Gospel‑Age disfavor.

THE SERVICE

As there was but one Passover in type, so there is but one "lamb of God" in anti­type; and by taking notice of that antitype each year, we merely do so "in remembrance" – ­just as the Jews to this day keep their Passover in remembrance. And the service for the occasion is unique; there is no other service like it in Christian ritual throughout the earth. When our Lord gave command that we observe it, He did so in simplicity of speech and with few words. "He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: THIS DO in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you." (Luke 22:19,20) Yet, upon these two forthright and uncomplicated sentences great rituals have been erected by the various sects of Chris­tendom – some more, some less. Funda­ment­ally, no more would be required of us in our observance than our Lord's statement; although it is certainly in keeping with decorum and orderly procedure that a preparatory foundation be laid for partaking of the bread and the wine by reading and explaining the various elements involved where more than one person "keeps the feast." However, it is equally good decorum and orderly proce­dure that we avoid the pompous play upon words and "stage" performance, which is to be found in some quarters.

The solemnity of the occasion should be stressed, however, that all be done "decently and in order" – not shabbily, nonchalantly, as of some "common thing." It is commendable that the Christian world overemphasize the "feast" with impressive service and sedate and select speech, rather than by the other extreme of no propriety at all. The Roman system requires each participant to attend 'confession' – usually the prev­ious afternoon or evening – before acceptance of the emblems; and, until recently, nothing was to be eaten or drunk the morning of the service. While this in itself stresses the great regard that the system attempts to display for the service, it also overawes those present in a manner never intended by Jesus when He instituted it. Here we need not discuss the errors that have been superimposed over the centuries by such nicety of display and demand, as that feature has been well set forth in the writ­ings of both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. Blessed are we if we may arrive at that balance of mind and heart that does not overdo or underdo the service – greatness in simplicity, inspiration in solemnity, uplift and virtue in a "good and honest" participation!

GENERALITIES

They who approach the service as aforementioned are they of whom St. Paul writes, who judge themselves, and who thus need less chastening of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:31) – ­the Fully Faithful in whatever Elect Class they may abide. Such are "more than con­querors" "buried with Him" – "dead unto sin, but alive toward God." To such, obedient, watchful, as "little children," the promise is sure, "I will guide thee with mine eye" – "Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory." And to these the promise is sure, "No good thing will He withhold from them that walk uprightly" (Psa. 84:11) Strengthened by such assurances, each worthy participant may confidently review the year past and engage the year future "in newness of life."

Quite often, immediately before or after doing this "in remembrance," the Fully Faithful are made specially mindful, through having to drink of His cup, that the bread and the wine carry weighty implications for them. As our Lord "poured out His soul unto death," so have His faithful followers done during the Age. "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand," said St. Paul in his second epistle to his 'son' Timothy; and the Diaglott makes this even more emphatic, "I am already being poured out, and the time of my dissolution has come near." Thus, this "good soldier" realized with full clarity and calm anticipation that his own life would soon be "poured out" by the Roman executioner just as one might pour water from a pitcher. And in this there was no whining, no reviling of his persecutors, no scheming to escape. "Theirs not to make reply; theirs not to question why; theirs but to do and die!" And, having reached that pinnacle of victory, he could say with all confidence, "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day!"

CONSIDER HIM

In all of this – particularly at this Memorial season – the words of St. Paul (Heb. 12:3) are most timely: "Consider Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." In that eloquent and touching discourse which He gave His disciples on the same night in which He insti­tuted the Memorial of His death, He had said among other things, "They hated me with­out a cause." And let us never forget that "they" who thus hated Him were the so‑called 'good people' of that day – those who claimed to be longing for the appearance of their Messiah, Him whom they 'hated without a cause' when "He came to His own," His own re­ceived Him not. And be it remembered that He whose speech was "full of grace and Truth," so that "Never man spake like this man," said exactly the right thing, in the right place and at the right time; so that there was in truth no cause for any to hate Him. Yet, hate Him they did, as He wept over their undone condition.

And in all of this also "He left us an example that we should follow in His steps," bearing ever in mind that it is often the Measurably Faithful who add to the afflictions of the righteous – "your brethren that hated you, and that cast you out for my name's sake." Of such the Scriptures exhort us (Prov. 23:17), "Let not thine heart envy sinners ­but be thou in the fear of the Lord all the day long." Brother Johnson's comments on this text are found in E:11‑655: "He (the Epiphany Messenger) charges them (the Fully Faithful) not to be envious of Great Company members, who are violating their covenant of sacrifice, however much they may seem to prosper." And to this we would add the words of Prov. 17:1, "Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices with strife." Therefore, "Let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and Truth." (1 Cor. 5:8)

As is our usual custom, we shall "keep the feast" at 1507 N. Donnelly, Mount Dora, Florida, at 7:30 p.m. the evening of March 18 [SEE SUPPLEMENT BELOW]; and we extend cordial welcome to all of like mind who may be in the vicinity to join with us. And to all our readers near and far do we present the consoling solicitation, "The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace!"

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – What about the Present Truth and J. W. Krewson in their January‑February papers offering their quasi‑elect and Campers Consecrated the possible hope of "living through into the Kingdom"? Is this just another evidence that they are "cousins"?

ANSWER: – This "hybrid" teaching is manifesting more things than just one; especially is it revealing the source of their "advancing Truth" (?). "God is not the author of confusion" (I Cor. 14:33), yet here is confusion worse confounded. On p. 14, col. 2, of this January P.T., R. G. Jolly correctly states "consecration is now unto death"; yet he offers his Consecrated Campers nothing more than Restitution. As Bro. Johnson has so clearly taught, Justice never requires sacrifice; yet we now have the "cousins" appealing for sacrifice to gain what will come to all the "sheep" of the Mediatorial reign without sacrifice.

Be it remembered that the two of them worked this "hybrid" class out together, although they now dispute even each other on certain features of it – R. G. Jolly now teaching Tentative Justification in the Camp, and J. W. Krewson denying this, although his own contention is merely a "cousin" to it. It is a solid, fundamental, and in­disputable teaching of both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that there can be no righteousness (justification) outside the “linen curtain"; and it would seem the merest beginners in Present Truth should recognize that truth. And, when the "cousins" – ­long‑time residents in the house of Epiphany Truth – attempt to set aside such a funda­mental, yet elemental, teaching which they once believed and taught, it should require no prolonged elucidation from us to depict their true condition. There now comes to us the clear blast of the trumpet of Truth, "Unclean, unclean"! (Lev. 13:45)

Of course, this "bait" is nothing new. The Chaldean necromancers used it on King Nebuchadnezzar, "O King, live forever." (Dan. 2:4) This wish is as ancient as the human race; man does not want to die. It formed the root of That Evil Servant's drive, "Millions Now Living Will never Die"; and the Jehovah's Witnesses are still preaching it with much Satanic success, although they have been forced to change the label – now their obedient devotees will go right through Armageddon and into the Kingdom without dying.

As Brother Johnson said of it as early as 1920, It may be true, but it is not the message of Present Truth to preach it to the world. We believe his observation is just as pertinent now as it was then. "Justification by works" is not yet Present Truth; it is still "Justification by faith", as we are yet in the Age of Faith – faith in the righteousness of Christ to all within the linen curtain (the Court), just as it is a wall of unbelief to those without. Let those follow the "way of Baalam" who wish to set aside this truth; "as for me and my house," we shall have none of such pernicious perversion.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!

I received your letter and read it with much pleasure and profit. You hit the nail squarely on the head in all particulars. I talked with Bro. --------- and he told me that his study group was going to study the Epiphany Campers in their study and go through the entire subject, as they can't see it. You may be sure I encouraged them to do so and gave them a few pointers I could recall from Bro. Johnson's writings. He told me that when Bro. Fred E. Blaine was out here ... that he told him privately that he could not ­see it either – or even prove it. So you can see that a whole lot of the brethren are waking up. I opine that the question on the Epiphany Campers and Jonadabs should cooperate may have been put to Bro. Jolly by Bro. --------- just to plague him (R. G. Jolly).

I was glad to read your comments on Bro. Eschrich's talk. It was just like him. He had similar views in the late 40's. With much Christian love, Your Bro. --------- MICHIGAN

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

Our dear Brother and Sister Hoefle: – 2 Peter 1:2

It is with pleasure we write to you, appreciating all your labours of love for God, our Lord Jesus and the Truth, coming from that source. Your able defence of Truth against the devastating errors promoted through the L.H.M.M. reminds us of Brother Johnson's able defence against errorists.

How thankful we are that Bro. Johnson gave us to understand the type of character R. G. J. was! And since he (RGJ) has given us ample proof of lack of reformation on his part, one wonders if some brethren continue to read the Epiphany Volumes. If so, why are they not amazed at the outworking of all the affairs of present‑day society. Evident­ly more shaking is needed. – Heb. 12:25‑19; Heb. 2:1

E Vol. 4, pp. 126‑118 gives a good description of the condition of the Priests and Levites. As Levites the Great Company are now in the Court condition, having no longer access to the Holy condition. How can any Great Company leader teach in­creasing light? R.G.J. was never given that function. Bro. Johnson gave him (through the brethren's request) the Executive Trusteeship, to conduct the business affairs of the L.H.M.M. In the Lord's due time He raises up a faith­ful leader. To appoint a successor in a teaching capacity would mean "Apostolic" succession – a thing Brothers Russell and Johnson agreed was unscriptural (E Vol. 8, pp. 346‑347; S.S. Vol. 4, p. 33).

It would seem that you have somewhat silenced RGJ on the error of the Epiphany Campers consecrated. The speakers of the L.H.M.M. also appear to be avoiding that error. Bro. Johnson taught some Youthful Worthies would come into the Truth before Armageddon and some during, and some after Armageddon. We are glad to note this partial cleansing and would rejoice to see our misled brethren applying the God‑given Truths of doctrine and practice, through the Laodicean Messenger in its two Star Members.

Thank you very much for the papers we receive. We look forward to them coming and would like, if you can, to send the Sept. 1961, which did not come our way, except through our dear Bro. and Sr. ---------, when we enjoyed their fellowship with us here .....

Last week we sent –- to Bro. --------- to be sent on to you. Our prayers continue that you be kept faithful as Joshua, and that you have much consolation through the dear ones supporting you. Our love and deep sympathy for the bereaved ones, whom you will miss and yet rejoice in their resting, or glorification, as the case may be. 1 Thes. 4:13,14; Rev. 20:6. Fervent love to Sister Hoefle and yourself and all who meet with you in fellowship. Your brethren by His Grace ... Bro. & Sr --------- ENGLAND

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

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

May you be continually enlightened to give us clean, clear teachings from the Star Members through whom we have been able to get "meat" to strengthen us in our daily journey on the "narrow way" which our dear Redeemer has marked out for us, if we con­tinue to be faithful.

I just cannot see what use errors are. How can the writings of the faithful Star Members be so plain – and yet perverted by others! Let us hope that R. G. Jolly sees the error of his way and will turn ere long – because looking at him as he is is fearful..... I am so positive that we ought to obey God and not man; also that the Word of God makes it very clear that we are fighting (not against flesh and blood, but against "principalities and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places." God has not left us in any doubt, but sent us His Personal Representative and Saviour – ­and also His Star Members. One thing I believe we fail to understand – (l) He is able to raise up workers to carry on his work; and (2) that we harm no one but ourselves first, and mislead others (when we fail to "obey His Word").

I do hope that the Lord continues to guide you (which I know He will), to give us more clean Truth – and that you remain faithful to the end. I earnestly look for­ward to receiving your 'cleansings' (articles). I repeat, as some of the brethren in England of June 1961 p. 6 – "We thank (God) the Lord for your faithful devotion to duty in refuting error, and endeavoring to keep the "Truth stream pure."

Please give my sincere love to the brethren and Sister Hoefle, and send us your pictures. Please keep faithful.

Your Sister --------- TRINIDAD

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

Our dear Brother and Sister Hoefle: – Loving Greetings in our dear Redeemer's Name!

We wish for one and for all the Lord's blessings and privileges during the coming year. We here in England have so far had perhaps one of the worst winters exper­ienced......

That was a hard experience Sister Wells received at the hands of R.G.J. We pray the Lord's grace and strength will be hers daily – that the Lord's blessings and peace of mind in all such experiences will be with her, helping her to "endure hardness as a good and faithful soldier of Jesus Christ." We cannot come to any other conclusion re R. G. J. than that he has manifested a very wrong spirit in so many ways. We often think of his spiritual condition when here in Manchester in 1959, when he previously appointed us to be the Guest at that Convention. We saw clearly the manifestation of a really crafty and wicked spirit; and we saw also that he was on the losing side in his battle with the "evil spirits." Then later on during that Convention it came to light that R.G.J. was going to Rome. He saw the Pope (whatever that meant), but he did not want any of us to know anything about this. When he found out that some one or more had let this fact be known, he was troubled. One just wonders whether that was why R.G.J. sent the brethren here those almost worthless coins – to pacify them.... A magic master stroke of Satan.

Our Christian love to you both and all the dear ones with you —  Bro. & Sr. --------- ENGLAND

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

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

We here continue to rejoice in the Lord and in His Truth. All the brethren in our Class, as well as those who came from long distances, wish to express appreciation for your Pilgrim ministry and for the discourse. There were 21 present.

When my beloved husband (Bro –) and I attended the Chicago Convention in 1959 he was shocked and hurt at the treatment he received from the brethren, especially the 'leaders.' He knew R. G. Jolly, Pilgrim Eschrich, et al, very well, as we have entertained them in our home many times. He was very fond of them. R. G. Jolly didn't speak to him at all, and Pilgrim Eschrich only spoke after Bro. --------- followed him up and he was practically forced to speak. Since Pilgrim Eschrich brushed right past him, Bro. --------- asked him: "Don't you know me?" He answered that he did. When we came back Brother --------- said to me: "If that is what they call Christianity, I don't want any of it. Nor will I ever give them any support, financial or otherwise." He asked that I tell them that. But I was glad he was able to see for himself so there would be no doubt in his mind and heart about the evils you were exposing of those in 'high places.' Afterward he came to see it was a privilege to have some of the same experiences of our Blessed Lord – from brethren that "cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed" (Isa. 66:5). I have thought about what he said many times since his demise. They should indeed be ashamed now, because Bro –‑ always treated them well. All here join in sending you hearty Christian love,  Your Sister --------- N. C.

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

Supplement to No. 80

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

A CORRECTION OF 1962 MEMORIAL DATE

Since writing our March paper No. 80 a beloved brother has suggested to us that the Memorial date this year should be after 6 P.M., April 17, instead of after 6 P.M., March 18. After sufficient research; we are persuaded he is right, based upon the following quotation from Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, Book III, Chapter 10, Sec. 5:

"In the month of Xanthicus, which is by us called Nisan, and in the beginning of our year, on the 14th day … when the sun is in Aries (for in this month we were delivered from bondage under the Egyptians), the law ordained that we should every year slay that sacrifice …. called the 'Passover'; and so we do celebrate."

While it is generally conceded that Josephus is decidedly unreliable as a historian (many of his dates are open to dispute), yet Brother Johnson says of him that he 'was a well-informed Jewish priest and a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostles" who said the Passover must be kept while the sun was in Aries, which in this year 1962 is from March 21 to April 20. Therefore, March 18 would be several days too early, which now prompts us to present the change to April 17 after 6 P.M., because the next moon after the Vernal Equinox news at 10:06 P.M. April 4, thus making Nisan I from 6 P.M. April 4 to 6 P.M. April 5; and, adding 13 days, we now have April 17 after 6 P.M. as Nisan 14. Incidentally, the Jewish Passover this year is April 18, after six p.m., the difference arising from the erratic Jewish calendar, although they are still within the Aries cycle. Whatever may be derogatory of Josephus as a historian, it would seem he was very well informed on the religious ritual of that nation; and that is all that concerns us now.

As Brother Johnson has explained, the Jewish calendar is constructed in accordance with the Metonic cycle, which allows for seven intercolated months in every nineteen years. The first month of the year is Nisan, and the last is Adar. In those seven years that have thirteen months there is added a Ve-Adar, the same occurring in this year 1962, thus making possible the beginning of Nisan at the late date of April 4. Were this not the case, then Nisan I would occur March 5, thus forcing their Passover date about March 18--several days before Aries appears, and contrary to their custom of thousands of years. We hope this explanation will prove clear and acceptable to our readers.

Since our special Spring Effort announced in our February paper was based on March 18 for our Memorial, we suggest that we begin our Special Effort March 25 through April 22 instead of the previous date. This period will cover our Memorial of April 17, after 6 p.m., for which it is intended. May the Lord richly bless one and all who participate in this good work.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

•