NO. 70: SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

No. 70

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

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

THE PASSOVER DEFINED

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

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

THE CORRECT DATE

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

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

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

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

OUR OWN ATTITUDE AT THIS SEASON

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

CONCERNING UNCLEANSED LEVITES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOME MORE KREWSON NONSENSE

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

THOSE TWELVE STONES IN JORDAN (Joshua 4)

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

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

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

THOSE PYRAMID CALCULATIONS

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

AND NOW JOHN'S BAPTISM AGAIN

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

ABANDONMENT TO AZAZEL

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

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

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

ANCIENT WORTHIES UNTIL PENTECOST

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

OUR PILGRIM STATUS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIEVES – LARGE AND SMALL

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

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

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

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

Sincerely your brother.

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

THE SPRING SPECIAL EFFORT

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

NO. 69: CHARACTERS TRIED AND TRUE

No. 69

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

In 2 Pet. 1:5‑7 are presented the essentials of Christian character, the which, if one lacks, “he is blind” (v. 9); but by the doing of which “you will never fall” (v. 10). A sober consideration of such a character structure should be the constant striving of all who are determined “not to fail.” That knowledge (the “Know‑how”) is the primary requisite herein needs no elaboration. It is not only the beginning, it is the constant companion during our earthly pilgrimage. At the consummation of his ministry St. Paul wrote, “for I know whom I have believed.” (2 Tim. 1:12) Follow­ing is Brother Rus­sell's statement of the matter in Parousia Vol. 5, p. 238, par. 2:

“As we mature, 'grow in grace,’ we will desire, seek and obtain, in addition to the milk of the Word, the 'strong meat’ which the Apostle declares is for those of fuller development. (1 Pet. 2:2; Heb. 5:13,14) The development in the “graces” of the Spirit, faith, fortitude, knowledge, self‑control, patience, piety, brotherly kindness, love, will bring us into closer fellowship with the Father and with Jesus, so that the Lord will be able and willing to communicate to us more and more clearly a knowledge of his gra­cious plans, as well as of his own gracious character.”

In giving us the Seven Higher Primary Graces, as Faith, Self‑control, Patience, Piety, Brotherly Love, Charity, Brother Johnson differs slightly from the above; but in E:1‑71, he distinctly tells us that Knowledge is an ingredient of Wisdom: "The third element of God's character is His graces. Usually we speak of the main attributes of God's character as WISDOM, POWER, JUSTICE and LOVE. But, as St. Peter shows us in his famous addition problem (2 Pet. 1:5‑7), these are capable of being re­solved into their parts as follows: Wisdom is a combination of faith, hope (which is the heart of forti­tude) and knowledge. Power (will power as distinct from omni­potence, which is an attribute of be­ing and not of character) is a combination of self‑control and patience. Justice is a combination of pi­ety (duty‑love to God; in God's case this goes out to good principles, not to any person, which, if it did, would imply that God has a superior – an impossibility) and Brotherly-Love (duty‑love to the neighbor). St. Peter does not analyze love; he simply mentions it as charity. These seven graces we call higher primary graces, because they are graces that, act­ing through the religious affections as qualities, are the chief and dominating graces. These graces in God are holy; they act in a holy man­ner and attach themselves to holy objects only."

We know that none of us can obtain 'knowledge of God' without developing it through the Holy Spirit; that no one, no matter how brilliant– even as brilliant and cunning as Satan– can obtain such 'knowledge of God' without God's help. God does not help the wicked to secure 'knowledge of God.' Nor does He help the Great Company while they are in the hands of Azazel. It would only injure them and others, while in that uncleansed condition, so they not only do not receive additional 'knowledge,' but the knowledge they have already received becomes dim, obscure and warped – includ­ing many "strong delusions."

In all such discussions it should be kept clearly in mind that none of these graces– except agape love– can be developed to perfection in ourselves or in others. During the Gospel Age the only grace required in perfection is agape love; therefore, St. Paul admonishes, "Put on love, which is the bond (or seal) of perfectness." It is the crowning top stone of character structure– just as the extreme tip of a pyra­mid is itself a perfect pyramid; and, if severed from the pyramid's top would in Feb. 1, 1961 – itself still present a full and complete and perfect pyramid. This is also grandly portrayed in the personality of Jesus, who is "above all" (except the Father Himself), Lord over all, but Himself a perfect unit, even though embracing the whole saved contin­gent of the human family in a perfect struc­ture under Him.

Altho, we believe there are but Seven Higher Primary Graces, as that is the number for Divine perfection, yet God's attributes are: Wisdom, Power, Justice and Love. He promises the Faithful that He will give them this, as much as they are able to receive. So, Love (Charity) is what we call a per­fect character, the end of all development of the Graces. Perfect Love (agape) in the heart, and that crystalized, is all God requires of His Saints. When we attain that and crystalize it, then we have actually "attained the mark" while yet in the flesh. But God tells us that He will give us the spirit of "power and of love and of a sound mind" (here are His four great attributes: Power, Love, Sound Mind – a sound mind would include Justice and Wisdom); and He gives us these attributes because of our faithfulness in develop­ing Faith, Fortitude, Knowledge. Self‑control, Patience, Piety, Brotherly Kindness‑­which if we develop and practise will give us that (Agape) love desired to the ex­tent of our capacity.

The Saints all have the capacity to develop that Perfect Love, otherwise none of them would be 'more than conquerors'; and the Great Company, after their cleans­ing, will also have to develop that Perfect Love if they gain Eternal life, although theirs will be forced by their adverse experiences during their abandonment process; otherwise, they would go into the Second Death. Brother Johnson tells us that some of the Youthful Worthies will be able to develop that Agape Love, and they should do it if they are able. But no doubt some of them won't be able to do that in this life, although they should do it as much as it is possible for them. However, they are not on trial for life – Character Per­fection – even as the Ancient Worthies were not on trial for life, but on trial for their faith (their faith­fulness in obedience to His Word and Providences). So some of the Youthful Worthies can and will be faithful who do not perfect Agape Love, even as was true of the Ancient Worthies, because their trial is not so crucial in that respect, to refine and develop character for Eternal Life at this time. While we have no proof for it, it would seem reasonable conclusion that those Youthful Worthies who do have the capacity to develop perfect agape love, but who fail to do so through indolence or wil­fulness, will in the final summation be counted as unfaithful and will not gain that Kingdom Prince­ship which will be the reward of all the faithful Worthies.

Brother Russell has this to say in Parousia Vol. 5, p. 239: "Each should ask himself whether or not he has this witness of the Spirit, this testimony to his growth as a new creature in Christ Jesus, and whether or not he is developing and maturing the kind of fruit here specified. Let us remember also that our growth in love and in all the Spirit's fruits is dependent largely upon our growth in knowledge; and our growth in knowledge of divine things is dependent also upon our growth in the Spirit's fruits. Each step of knowledge brings a corresponding step of duty and obediences and each step of duty and obedience taken will be followed by a further step in knowdedge, for so, the Spirit witnesseth, shall be the experience of all who shall be taught of God in the school of Christ. If we have this witness of the Spirit of growth, both in grace and in knowledge, let us rejoice therein, and let us follow on in the same pathway until it shall bring us, under divine guidance, to perfection, both in knowledge and in grace."

However, no one will ever reach perfection in Wisdom, which has as its ingredient Knowle­dge, because God reserves such Wisdom and Knowledge for Himself alone; even His only begotten Son will never achieve all‑knowledge. Nor will any of the Saints achieve Justice, Wisdom and Power that is inherent in God only– although they will re­ceive sufficient of these three attributes to do the Fa­ther's will. But in the attri­bute of Love, they will achieve that in its perfection for them; they will de­velop (and receive) perfect (Agape) love while in the flesh, because no one will be of the First (chief) Resurrection (to Divine Nature) unless they have developed a perfect character (perfect Love). We are told that God will give "it" (this perfect character) a "body as it has pleased him." (1 Cor. 15:38) Of course, we all know that the Saints have varying degrees of knowledge, but each one has sufficient knowledge to develop in himself Perfect (Agape) Love: each one during the Harvest came into the Parousia Truth and received enough developing Truth to perfect himself in Love (the lend of the commandment'); however, some of the Saints needed more knowledge than enough to develop their characters, as they were given further knowledge for the purpose of the work the Lord had for each of them. We cite Brother Johnson and others in the Epiphany Truth as examples. They were given additional Truth to serve Him (which they would do, because they were in complete heart‑harmony with the Lord's plans and purposes for them).

In keeping with the foregoing, the expression is often heard, ''He knows too much for his own good!" While this may sometimes be true, it was certainly not true of St. Paul, nor of any of the Star Members, nor of any of the Gospel‑Age fully faith­ful. Brother Russell has well stated that we should esteem most highly those whose zeal for the Truth – "as the hart panteth after the water brook" – goads them constantly to the acquisition of more of that blessed Truth. It is a true observation that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Often do we read of novices crippling themselves and others by attempting to construct bombs and the like with their meagre knowledge. Thus, instead of knowing too much, they know too little. Quite often the Truth is injured also by those who know too little, yet insist upon appearing ''wise.'' The ideal, of course, is to possess the virtues and graces in perfect bal­ance, something which only Jesus Himself was able to do. But, by a system of checks and balances, to be found in Holy Writ, all the fully faithful achieve enough of bal­ance to gain the inheritance they seek. Thus, the Scriptures tell us, "Knowledge puffeth up (in one not properly balanced), but love buildeth up." In similar vein, "the generous heart shall be made fat," and "God loveth a cheerful giver"; but, generosity carried to extreme, may make one a spendthrift or an "easy mark" for the world's greed. Therefore, the admonition for "stewards to be found faithful."

It needs no argument that our Heavenly Father is perfect in generosity, and He has the wherewith to be generous – "the gold is mine, and the silver is mine; and the cattle on a thousand hills are mine." Yet we find Him also perfect in economy‑­nothing wasted. Some twenty years ago we were talking to a Government supervisor in one of the large national parks in the West. "When we first moved in here," he said, "we thought weld improve upon nature; so we made war on the mountain lions because they were eating the deer. Before long we had so many deer that great herds of them died by winter starvation; there wasn't enough food to go round. We also cleaned up the fallen logs, only to find there was no breeding ground for bugs, which deprived the birds of their food, and drove them from the park. Now the only thing we regu­late here is Man; everything else keeps in perfect balance if we just leave things alone." Yes, generosity needs economy to give it proper balance!

And what shall we say of the virtue of courage! God's army is no place for the cowardly; yet it is a proper observation that "Prudence is the better part of valor." We once knew a man who boasted he had never felt fear at any time in his entire life. Yet one night he heard a marauder at his back window, rushed right out the door with the light at his back, affording a perfect target for the gun in the burglar's hands. His courage that night was actually a liability, as it resulted in his death. Just a little prudence would have prompted a different approach to his problem. God never requires His people to be 'show‑offs'; and we need never fear we are lacking in cour­age if we attempt a sound and prudent evaluation of any difficulty before rushing to grips with it.

Much more might be said, but we offer now the words of St. Peter, 2 Pet. 1:8­(Dia.): "These things (the graces he enumerates) being in you and abounding, they will not permit you to be inac­tive (ever ready to "preach the word, in season and out of season") nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus." Here is a clear con­clusion that growth in the other graces must of a certainty yield growth in knowledge; and each advance in knowledge increases and crystalizes all our other graces– if that knowledge is received in "the love of the Truth." Knowledge is the first requirement to came into God's Household; and it must continue prominent in our progress until we hear that final "Well done, good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joys of thy Lord."

MORE ON THE EPIPHANY TABERNACLE COURT & CAMP

In the November‑December 1960 Present Truth (which reached us Dec. 15– too late for any comment in our January 1 paper) there is more volume of words by R. G. Jolly tending to bolster his bedraggled Consecrated Epiphany Campers. On. p. 90, col. 1, par. 3, he states "there is nothing in E:10‑672 that militates against the teaching that there is a class in the antitypical Camp that has been consecrating since 1954." No, there isn't anything specifically in that statement on p. 672; but there certain­ly is something definitely against it on p. 209 of that same book, where Brother Johnson states "the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles." Repeatedly we have quoted this statement; and just as repeatedly have the Jolly‑Krewson twosome main­tained complete silence on it. WHY? It's because they have no answer for it.

Furthermore, this question is just another example of R. G. Jolly's ''Azazelian cunning" (See E:10‑646, top). On p. 672 Brother Johnson clearly states "Youthful Worthies, not yet consecrated are to be won after Babylon is destroyed." Has Baby­lon yet been destroyed? If not, is R. G. Jolly still try­ing to win Youthful Worthies, or is he denying this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? And with this cunning is commingled that admixture of nonsense that is to be found so often in so many of his statements. In the present instance he is relying upon the short memories of so many of his readers, and relying upon their apparent incapacity to analyze the fundamental premise he is presenting. Had he said eleven years ago (while Brother Johnson was still with us) that "nothing in E:10‑672 militates against the teaching" that there would be Consecrated Epiphany Campers after 1954, the folly of his observation would then have been apparent to even the very immature among Epiphany Truth people. Why do we say this? It's because Brother Johnson never heard of Consecrated Camp­ers‑­has specifically taught just the contrary. Clearly and emphatically had he told us that, so long as the Epiphany Tabernacle was in existence, the place of justifica­tion and consecration would be found in the Court, and the Camp would contain the unconsecrated in the finished picture. Having made himself so clear in the matter, it would have been self‑evident surplus to add on p. 672 – or anywhere else in his writings – that there would not be any Consecrated in the Camp. It would have been self‑evident nonsense to refute a statement that did not then exist; and Brother Johnson was not given to nonsense – just the reverse of R. G. Jolly, from whom we have always the nonsense– just never any end to it!

Both Star Members taught Consecration in the Tabernacle Court. When any one steps figuratively one inch inside the Gate, he is in a tentatively justified condi­tion, just as he is fully without it one inch outside that Gate. But that is not nearly the end of it: One must progress toward the door of the Tabernacle as he advances toward Consecration; and Brother Russell clearly teaches it would be im­possible for any to make an intelligent consecration without first washing at the antitypical Laver. Therefore, since there is no Laver in the Camp, an acceptable consecration would be impossible in the Camp. Nor is there one hint anywhere in direct Scripture, type, picture or prophecy that there would be such a Class as Campers Consecrated in the end of this Age. That is purely and exclusively an invention of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome. No, the Parousia Messenger and the Epiphany Messen­ger could not see consecration without washing at the Laver; but R. G. Jolly has no trouble at all in seeing that. Why is that? Because he is in the hands of Azazel, and, as Brother Johnson says, when they are completely abandoned to Azazel they can't think clearly on the Truth. Nor has R. G. Jolly himself faithfully used that laver daily. Had he done so he would have retained his crown.

In this connection, we should never forget that all during the Age it was the crown‑losers who lusted for large numbers, even though the Spirit of the Truth was negligible in so many. To have the worldly (the "mixed multitude" – See Ex. 12:38) counted among the Fully Faithful has ever been det­rimental to both classes. And it has bien false promises and false hopes that have ever been the hon­eyed hoax that has attracted the "mixed multitude," and who have always continued as "Egyptians" at heart. This is pointedly noticeable in the Epiphany converts of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the promise that has won them. "Just join us," they say, 'And you'll live right through Armageddon, and never die." R. G. Jolly has hinted a similar reward for Campers Consecrated; but our continued sharp and stinging exposures have placed a measure of restraint upon him. As it is, he is saying very little to them about "a narrow way," because he is acutely aware that his "reward" for them is all out of keeping with the trying "covenant by sacrifice" that the Fully Faithful now experience. The "safety in numbers," which has ever been the goal of Big and Little Babylon, was never men­tioned by the last Star Members. Rather, they stressed the narrow way, which could be maintained unto a completion only by those who faithfully imbibed the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth.

As we have so often quoted from various of Brother Johnson's writings, we now offer some more from that very same 10th Volume upon which R. G. Jolly now attempts to lean:

"This Scripture (Ex. 19:21‑25) proves that, generally speaking, Jesus as God's Mouthpiece, and thus the exclusive Interpreter of the Word, would use in the end of this Age the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers as antitypi­cal Aaron ... to interpret to the brethren the Word as due, especially on new doctrines, prophecies and types. And any attempt of others to unravel these three things as new matters would be the prohibited gazing – specula­tion – of Ex. 19:21‑25, and would meet with a cutting off from their stand­ing, if not stopped."

Inasmuch as Campers Consecrated is a new doctrine – a weak, futile and erroneous attempt to of­fer a new interpretation of certain types – it is certainly "GAZING." Let the Jolly‑Krewson twosome persist in their Revolutionism; in view of the repeated and detailed warnings we have issued, their blood is certainly upon their own heads. To offer a new doctrine or type would in itself be serious enough; but it becomes doubly serious when such attempt also flagrantly vitiates the clear interpre­tations of both Star Members on the Parousia and Epiphany Tabernacles. Brother Johnson has clearly taught that on anything that upsets, or negates, the Tabernacle setting, the Lord's people should be very skeptical of it – i.e., if they believe and continue in these Truths. J. F. Rutherford disposed of Tabernacle Shadows altogether, and it certainly looks like the Jolly‑Krewson twosome are leaning in the same direction. To demoralize the orderly and sober interpretations on the Tabernacle by the last Star Members is in some respects even worse than denying in toto what they have presented.

As a further warning, we now offer some more from E:10‑XXV: "We are sure that during the Parousia and Epiphany, particularly during the latter, among Truth people, typing has been the most abused of all seven lines of Bible thought. Satan, knowing that by typing he could introduce error perhaps more effectively than by other means, has made this his favorite way of spreading error among the nominal and real people of God."

In his letter of Nov. 15, 1910, R. G. Jolly admitted his incapacity to interpret types (it probably caused him to lose his crown then); but it seems his costly and colossal failures in the past have taught him just nothing– he still plunges head­long into further "gazing"! And this same R. G. Jolly continues loudly and repeat­edly to shout "The Errorist" at one who is exposing his nebular visions! This is in keeping with what he continued to "repeat, repeat, and repeat" to Brother Johnson when he was telling him that he (Bro. Johnson) was wrong to oppose his erroneous course. (See E:10‑588; also E:10‑545 where J. F. Rutherford taught his followers to 'avoid' Brother Johnson's teachings, and 'avoid' him also. We don't do that to R. G. Joily, nor to his teachings, because we feel sure the more the Lord's faith­ful people look into his erroneous teachings the better enabled they will be to dis­cern between "truth and error." Let R. G. Jolly continue to 'avoid' naming the "errorist" and follow in the footsteps of J. F. Rutherford. As for us, we prefer to follow in the open and direct course of the Epiphany Messenger, so that our readers may be sure of whom and whereof we speak.)

THE EPIPHANY‑APOKALYPSE PERIOD

Then on p. 90, col. 2, R. G. Jolly attempts to offer a "parallel" between the lapping of the Parousia‑Epiphany, and the Epiphany‑Basileia. He says that since 1954 new consecrators can no longer have their standing in the Court, but must be in the Camp– a "parallel" to no new consecrators in the Holy after 1914. By October 1916 there was no longer any Parousia Tabernacle at all. Is he now telling us there is no longer an Epiphany Tabernacle at all since 1956? For his "parallel" to make any sense at all, that's the only logical conclusion to draw from his contention. As we have said pre­viously, miscalculations of time features by the last two Star Members do not in any sense disrupt God's arrangements for His people. Either we are in the Epiphany Tabernacle, or we are not. Back in the 1914‑16 lapping, the place of Justification remained the same. But in R. G. Jolly's 1954‑56 "Parallel" it is not the same; but that doesn't make any difference to him (R. G. Jolly). He's as able to ''make" types and parallels today as he was in 1910, it seems! Perhaps more so, as he doesn't have the restraining hand of a Star Member over him.

There is another point which applies here with indestructible force to annihilate his entire posi­tion, and it is this: Cod's "times and seasons" always accomplish what God designs they should ac­complish. Thus, when the "Parousia came to a full end by October 16, 1916" (see E:4‑20(13) – those features of the Harvest work that were to be finished by that date had been fully accomplished; and this same premise will apply to the Epiphany. In 2 Thes. 2:8 (Dia.) St. Paul writes that "the lawless one (the Man of Sin) the Lord Jesus will annihilate by the appearing (Epiphany – see Berean Com­ment) of His presence" (the large Parousia). The Man of Sin certainly was not "annihilated" by Octo­ber 1956, which proves clearly enough we cannot now be in an Apokalypse period (as claimed by one of the "cousins", J. W. Krewson); nor can we yet be in the Basileia period, as is now claimed by the other "cousin" – R. G. Jolly. That "son of destruction" (2 Thes. 2:3 – Dia.) is reserved for "destruction" in the period of destruction – namely, the Epiphany.

"The Epiphany is used to designate the period of the great tribulation, the Time of Trouble" says Brother Johnson in E:4‑21 (14). The destruction of "the lawless one" is in no sense a Basileia work; that must be accomplished in the Epiphany – ­before the Basileia begins to "judge the dead." In this same epistle where Paul foretells "the Man of Sin," he also predicts that those who "admitted not the love of the Truth (The Great Company and the Second Deathers) will be sent "an energy of delusion"; and "some of these delusions may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth," says Brother Russell. (See Berean Comment) Certainly, those in the Epiphany Movement have possessed "the most light of Present Truth"; and this Epiphany period (which ''makes manifest the counsels of heart") is indeed manifesting those who received not "the love of the Truth." Campers Consecrated‑­the Apokalypse as a period distinct from the Epiphany– and the Basileia as the per­iod of destruction for the Man of Sin – none of these items are to be found anywhere in the Present Truth teachings of Brother Russell or Brother Johnson. Therefore, those who champion these "strong delusions" are being manifested by the period de­signed for mani­festation and destruction – the Epiphany.

On p. 91, col. 1, he offers "Scriptural evidence respecting 1954," one of these being "Moses' twofold stay in the mountain." If our readers will refer to the Berean Comments for Ex. 34:29‑35, they will note Brother Russell correctly interprets the vail on Moses' face after the second forty days as "typifying the Ancient Worthies." Apparently, R. G. Jolly is not familiar with this teaching of That Servant, or he would not have offered his present nonsense on this item. Let him produce his 1954 "parallel" for that! His perversions of one teaching after another of the Star Mem­bers have indeed "become issues and tests upon God's (Epiphany‑enlightened) people"‑­as he states it; and his perver­sions are manifesting "who shall be able to stand" (Mal. 3:2) in this Epiphany trial time in "the things they have learned, and been assured of" at the feet of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers.

In this connection, we cite Brother Johnson's interpretation of Numbers 7 on the offerings of the Gospel‑Age princes. Not a one of them presented a "Cup" in his offering– which is a clear and strong directive that no Crown‑loser would ever be favored by God with a new doctrine. And certainly if no Crown‑loser could do this, one now in Azazel's hands could not be so favored! This teaching also R. G. Jolly now perverts (Azazel means Perverter). And, when the Jews gathered enough Manna on the sixth day to last over the Sabbath, that also typed no new doctrines during the antitypical Sab­bath. R. G. Jolly now perverts that teaching also!

On p. 91, col. 2, he makes a pseudo‑comparison between us now and J. F. Ruther­ford in 1920; but here again he is thinking in reverse– nothing new for him! Back in 1920 the Society adherents denied a class that the Parousia Messenger had taught; R. G. Jolly is now advocating a class that the Epiphany Messenger did not teach, but in fact clearly contradicted his (R. G. Jolly's) Campers Con­secrated by his teach­ing on p. 209 of Vol. 10 that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the unconsecrated. And by presenting this glaring dissimilarity he hypocritically shouts once more he is upholding the "true teaching of the Epiphany star‑member"! Although the crown‑losers are not full hypocrites, many of them are forced to partial hypocrisy because of their sins of teaching and practise. Brother Russell has this to say about them in the August 1, 1910 Reprints 4655: "These are not hypocrites, however, but since the time of trouble is properly for hypocrites, they will have their portion with the hypocrites..... As a result (of the "time of trouble"‑JJH) they will be granted the palm branches and the place before the throne, to serve God in his Temple."

Furthermore, we are not denying Tentative Justification – as was done in 1920. We simply contend that such justification must be obtained in the same place (the Court), and in the same way so long as the Epiphany Tabernacle continues with us. This R. G. Jolly is now denying, so it is he that is paral­leling J. F. Rutherford, et al, at present, and NOT US! He is actually perverting the faithful teaching of both Star Members by his false doctrine ("strange fire") – Consecrated Epiphany Campers. And when Brother Johnson "swept aside" the no‑covenant argument re Youthful Worthies, he produced a number of clear Scriptures to prove his point. This R. G. Jolly has not been able to do for his Camp­ers Consecrated. Let him produce just one Scripture setting forth such a class! Joel 2:28 actually names the "Youthfuls" as such; so the Scripture was there for Brother Johnson to interpret and de­fend – a very clear Scripture; but R. G. Jolly has no such Scripture for his Campers Consecrated. The name, as well as the class, are purely the Jolly‑Krewson twosome invention. While J. W. Krewson has tacitly remained mostly silent all during this altercation, even he still apparently has enough spiritual discernment to realize that Tentative Justifi­cation in the Camp is a perversion of the Truth; so the two of them now contradict each other on this point. It would be most interesting to know whether this same dis­agreement existed at the time they were first brewing this unholy libation. Will they answer this question, or just give it the silent treatment– as they both have done with so many of our exposures of their errors. Their silence on those Pyramid cal­culations as "proof" that Brother Johnson would be here until 1956 (presented in the January 1947 Present Truth), to­gether with their calculations on the Pyramid to "prove" the last Saint was glorified in 1950, is an­other manifestation of their weakness. They are ever ready to produce "proofs" for their Scripturally unsupported presentations.

On p. 92, col. 1, there is the statement that "soon after the fall of 1914 Bro. Johnson began teach­ing...the door of entrance into the High Calling closed." At best, this statement is a very loose use of the truth. Why doesn't R. G. Jolly give the date when Brother Johnson began to preach "the High Calling closed"? Or doesn't he know it was not until well into 1918 – almost four years after the fact – that Brother Johnson first saw this Truth? His shoddy sleight‑of‑hand here is habitual technique with him – in keeping with his Question re p. 672 of Vol. 10, which we discussed on page 1 of this paper.

And now, ''Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." "The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants; and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate." (Psa. 35:28)..

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Our dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace, Mercy and Peace be your portion;

We would be grateful to have your complete papers, as mentioned in your Nov. 1960 article. Eagerly do we look forward to your monthly papers, and thank the Lord for your lucid explanations. We continue to pray the Lord to grant to you wisdom and understanding– His Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth; that we, too, will be teachable, through the light of the Holy Spirit. His Word and Providences in our lives remind us of the Psalmist – "I will lift up mine eye unto the hills," etc. Psa. 121 and Hymn 12 – the latter verse applying to the Little Flock particularly.

As it is nearing Christmas and the New Year 1961, we wish you and Sister Hoefle, and all the dear ones with you, a happy holiday season and a good New Year ahead of you in the service of the Lord. 2 Thess. 2:16,17.

Your brethren by His grace – – – – - England

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving greetings of Grace and Peace!

It was a real pleasure to hear from you today, and I thank you for all the answered questions or thoughts. The tracts came in the best condition yet, and later my Advance Copy. So I feel that you have given much time to me.

As I read the letter I realized, dear Brother, that you are troubled on every side, (Bro. Gough's letter– JJH) I did not know you had such strong opposition in Jamaica. I hope that brother will be profited by your good reply.......

It is a privilege to defend his true teachings (Brother Russell's) by this renewal of Gideon's Second Battle. This is the comfort the people will need as this evil day grows more evil. May the dear Lord bless you both in your zeal amid so much affliction from those who were once brethren.

Thank you for explaining re the Volumes for loaning. I have some now on hand and assume that I can get more from you when needed,

Have read the December number once and expect to study it later. I will be glad to be of any as­sistance to Mrs .... that I can. Thank you for the opportunity.

With love in the Lord and continued prayers for your blessing and deep joys from Him, to you both and the kind friends who sent me their love....

Sister – – – – - Mass.

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

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

We continue to look forward to your monthly articles and pray the Lord's con­tinued blessing on your efforts to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (the last two Star Members in particular).

We note that R. G. Jolly published the same letter twice– first in his Sept­Oct. P.T., and again in his Nov‑Dec. P.T. If he had published this letter again several months later (as a repeat), that would be bad enough (but perhaps excusable), but to publish the same letter in two Present Truths (one right after the other) cer­tainly indicates that he is in bad need of letters to publish (against the sifters!). This Sister from New Jersey advises the Lord's people not to read the sifters' lit­erature. "They are playing with fire, and surely will get burnt" (if they do!), she says. This sounds very much like the same Sister (from New Jersey) who once was a "staunch supporter" of J. W. Krewson; he was her "Pastor and Teacher" then (upon the advice and leadership of Pilgrim Gavin). Now it seems her eyes are opened to see that R. G. Jolly is really the "Pastor and Teacher" (the Lord's Mouthpiece!). "Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the Truth"! It would seem that such an unstable person should be happy just to keep silent; but they usually want to be heard– to advise others; and they always seem to re­ceive plenty of support and encouragement from "Pastors and Teachers" of the Jolly type! (being sure they are heard– just as Brother Motley and Brother Gough must be heard). R. G. Jolly is so ever ready to "repeat, repeat, and repeat" even in his publishing letters (if they are knocking the "sifters"). We heartily wish that he would "repeat" the Truths he once accepted and not try to run ahead of the Lord with his new (false) doctrines and his own ideas.

We here participated in the Special Effort (in Memory of the Two Messengers)‑­served several churches with Where are the Dead (Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle). We also had a blessed Me­morial service for Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, using Brother Johnson's funeral discourse and comments in Brother Russell's memory – ­and using your funeral discourse for Brother Johnson, in Brother Johnson's memory. We also had testimoies from all (there were 10 present). We don't know whether you want reports on these Special Efforts or not. If so, we will send you a more detailed re­port. (Note: We are always pleased to receive such reports – JJH)

May the Lord bless you as you continue your able refutations against the errors so prominently advocated by the two would‑be "Pastors and Teachers," and may you continue to bless His people with the Truth and its Spirit.

Your Brother by His Grace – – – – - N.C.

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

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

We take this opportunity in extending our warm and sincere Christian greetings and wishes for a prosperous New Year. May the dear Lord continue His blessings, keep and direct you both throughout your stay on earth.

As it pleased the Lord to direct you for the leading of His people, we pray that he will help you to be faithful as Joshua of old. We though little but a united company here, are striving to be faithful in serving the Lord and His cause. We have served quite a number of tracts......It is our desire to sow beside all waters, for we know not whether will prosper.

With this comes our prayers for you both and the dear ones with you.

Yours by His Grace, – – – – - ,Ecclesia – Jamaica

No. 69

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

In 2 Pet. 1:5‑7 are presented the essentials of Christian character, the which, if one lacks, “he is blind” (v. 9); but by the doing of which “you will never fall” (v. 10). A sober consideration of such a character structure should be the constant striving of all who are determined “not to fail.” That knowledge (the “Know‑how”) is the primary requisite herein needs no elaboration. It is not only the beginning, it is the constant companion during our earthly pilgrimage. At the consummation of his ministry St. Paul wrote, “for I know whom I have believed.” (2 Tim. 1:12) Follow­ing is Brother Rus­sell's statement of the matter in Parousia Vol. 5, p. 238, par. 2:

“As we mature, 'grow in grace,’ we will desire, seek and obtain, in addition to the milk of the Word, the 'strong meat’ which the Apostle declares is for those of fuller development. (1 Pet. 2:2; Heb. 5:13,14) The development in the “graces” of the Spirit, faith, fortitude, knowledge, self‑control, patience, piety, brotherly kindness, love, will bring us into closer fellowship with the Father and with Jesus, so that the Lord will be able and willing to communicate to us more and more clearly a knowledge of his gra­cious plans, as well as of his own gracious character.”

In giving us the Seven Higher Primary Graces, as Faith, Self‑control, Patience, Piety, Brotherly Love, Charity, Brother Johnson differs slightly from the above; but in E:1‑71, he distinctly tells us that Knowledge is an ingredient of Wisdom: "The third element of God's character is His graces. Usually we speak of the main attributes of God's character as WISDOM, POWER, JUSTICE and LOVE. But, as St. Peter shows us in his famous addition problem (2 Pet. 1:5‑7), these are capable of being re­solved into their parts as follows: Wisdom is a combination of faith, hope (which is the heart of forti­tude) and knowledge. Power (will power as distinct from omni­potence, which is an attribute of be­ing and not of character) is a combination of self‑control and patience. Justice is a combination of pi­ety (duty‑love to God; in God's case this goes out to good principles, not to any person, which, if it did, would imply that God has a superior – an impossibility) and Brotherly-Love (duty‑love to the neighbor). St. Peter does not analyze love; he simply mentions it as charity. These seven graces we call higher primary graces, because they are graces that, act­ing through the religious affections as qualities, are the chief and dominating graces. These graces in God are holy; they act in a holy man­ner and attach themselves to holy objects only."

We know that none of us can obtain 'knowledge of God' without developing it through the Holy Spirit; that no one, no matter how brilliant– even as brilliant and cunning as Satan– can obtain such 'knowledge of God' without God's help. God does not help the wicked to secure 'knowledge of God.' Nor does He help the Great Company while they are in the hands of Azazel. It would only injure them and others, while in that uncleansed condition, so they not only do not receive additional 'knowledge,' but the knowledge they have already received becomes dim, obscure and warped – includ­ing many "strong delusions."

In all such discussions it should be kept clearly in mind that none of these graces– except agape love– can be developed to perfection in ourselves or in others. During the Gospel Age the only grace required in perfection is agape love; therefore, St. Paul admonishes, "Put on love, which is the bond (or seal) of perfectness." It is the crowning top stone of character structure– just as the extreme tip of a pyra­mid is itself a perfect pyramid; and, if severed from the pyramid's top would in Feb. 1, 1961 – itself still present a full and complete and perfect pyramid. This is also grandly portrayed in the personality of Jesus, who is "above all" (except the Father Himself), Lord over all, but Himself a perfect unit, even though embracing the whole saved contin­gent of the human family in a perfect struc­ture under Him.

Altho, we believe there are but Seven Higher Primary Graces, as that is the number for Divine perfection, yet God's attributes are: Wisdom, Power, Justice and Love. He promises the Faithful that He will give them this, as much as they are able to receive. So, Love (Charity) is what we call a per­fect character, the end of all development of the Graces. Perfect Love (agape) in the heart, and that crystalized, is all God requires of His Saints. When we attain that and crystalize it, then we have actually "attained the mark" while yet in the flesh. But God tells us that He will give us the spirit of "power and of love and of a sound mind" (here are His four great attributes: Power, Love, Sound Mind – a sound mind would include Justice and Wisdom); and He gives us these attributes because of our faithfulness in develop­ing Faith, Fortitude, Knowledge. Self‑control, Patience, Piety, Brotherly Kindness‑­which if we develop and practise will give us that (Agape) love desired to the ex­tent of our capacity.

The Saints all have the capacity to develop that Perfect Love, otherwise none of them would be 'more than conquerors'; and the Great Company, after their cleans­ing, will also have to develop that Perfect Love if they gain Eternal life, although theirs will be forced by their adverse experiences during their abandonment process; otherwise, they would go into the Second Death. Brother Johnson tells us that some of the Youthful Worthies will be able to develop that Agape Love, and they should do it if they are able. But no doubt some of them won't be able to do that in this life, although they should do it as much as it is possible for them. However, they are not on trial for life – Character Per­fection – even as the Ancient Worthies were not on trial for life, but on trial for their faith (their faith­fulness in obedience to His Word and Providences). So some of the Youthful Worthies can and will be faithful who do not perfect Agape Love, even as was true of the Ancient Worthies, because their trial is not so crucial in that respect, to refine and develop character for Eternal Life at this time. While we have no proof for it, it would seem reasonable conclusion that those Youthful Worthies who do have the capacity to develop perfect agape love, but who fail to do so through indolence or wil­fulness, will in the final summation be counted as unfaithful and will not gain that Kingdom Prince­ship which will be the reward of all the faithful Worthies.

Brother Russell has this to say in Parousia Vol. 5, p. 239: "Each should ask himself whether or not he has this witness of the Spirit, this testimony to his growth as a new creature in Christ Jesus, and whether or not he is developing and maturing the kind of fruit here specified. Let us remember also that our growth in love and in all the Spirit's fruits is dependent largely upon our growth in knowledge; and our growth in knowledge of divine things is dependent also upon our growth in the Spirit's fruits. Each step of knowledge brings a corresponding step of duty and obediences and each step of duty and obedience taken will be followed by a further step in knowdedge, for so, the Spirit witnesseth, shall be the experience of all who shall be taught of God in the school of Christ. If we have this witness of the Spirit of growth, both in grace and in knowledge, let us rejoice therein, and let us follow on in the same pathway until it shall bring us, under divine guidance, to perfection, both in knowledge and in grace."

However, no one will ever reach perfection in Wisdom, which has as its ingredient Knowle­dge, because God reserves such Wisdom and Knowledge for Himself alone; even His only begotten Son will never achieve all‑knowledge. Nor will any of the Saints achieve Justice, Wisdom and Power that is inherent in God only– although they will re­ceive sufficient of these three attributes to do the Fa­ther's will. But in the attri­bute of Love, they will achieve that in its perfection for them; they will de­velop (and receive) perfect (Agape) love while in the flesh, because no one will be of the First (chief) Resurrection (to Divine Nature) unless they have developed a perfect character (perfect Love). We are told that God will give "it" (this perfect character) a "body as it has pleased him." (1 Cor. 15:38) Of course, we all know that the Saints have varying degrees of knowledge, but each one has sufficient knowledge to develop in himself Perfect (Agape) Love: each one during the Harvest came into the Parousia Truth and received enough developing Truth to perfect himself in Love (the lend of the commandment'); however, some of the Saints needed more knowledge than enough to develop their characters, as they were given further knowledge for the purpose of the work the Lord had for each of them. We cite Brother Johnson and others in the Epiphany Truth as examples. They were given additional Truth to serve Him (which they would do, because they were in complete heart‑harmony with the Lord's plans and purposes for them).

In keeping with the foregoing, the expression is often heard, ''He knows too much for his own good!" While this may sometimes be true, it was certainly not true of St. Paul, nor of any of the Star Members, nor of any of the Gospel‑Age fully faith­ful. Brother Russell has well stated that we should esteem most highly those whose zeal for the Truth – "as the hart panteth after the water brook" – goads them constantly to the acquisition of more of that blessed Truth. It is a true observation that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Often do we read of novices crippling themselves and others by attempting to construct bombs and the like with their meagre knowledge. Thus, instead of knowing too much, they know too little. Quite often the Truth is injured also by those who know too little, yet insist upon appearing ''wise.'' The ideal, of course, is to possess the virtues and graces in perfect bal­ance, something which only Jesus Himself was able to do. But, by a system of checks and balances, to be found in Holy Writ, all the fully faithful achieve enough of bal­ance to gain the inheritance they seek. Thus, the Scriptures tell us, "Knowledge puffeth up (in one not properly balanced), but love buildeth up." In similar vein, "the generous heart shall be made fat," and "God loveth a cheerful giver"; but, generosity carried to extreme, may make one a spendthrift or an "easy mark" for the world's greed. Therefore, the admonition for "stewards to be found faithful."

It needs no argument that our Heavenly Father is perfect in generosity, and He has the wherewith to be generous – "the gold is mine, and the silver is mine; and the cattle on a thousand hills are mine." Yet we find Him also perfect in economy‑­nothing wasted. Some twenty years ago we were talking to a Government supervisor in one of the large national parks in the West. "When we first moved in here," he said, "we thought weld improve upon nature; so we made war on the mountain lions because they were eating the deer. Before long we had so many deer that great herds of them died by winter starvation; there wasn't enough food to go round. We also cleaned up the fallen logs, only to find there was no breeding ground for bugs, which deprived the birds of their food, and drove them from the park. Now the only thing we regu­late here is Man; everything else keeps in perfect balance if we just leave things alone." Yes, generosity needs economy to give it proper balance!

And what shall we say of the virtue of courage! God's army is no place for the cowardly; yet it is a proper observation that "Prudence is the better part of valor." We once knew a man who boasted he had never felt fear at any time in his entire life. Yet one night he heard a marauder at his back window, rushed right out the door with the light at his back, affording a perfect target for the gun in the burglar's hands. His courage that night was actually a liability, as it resulted in his death. Just a little prudence would have prompted a different approach to his problem. God never requires His people to be 'show‑offs'; and we need never fear we are lacking in cour­age if we attempt a sound and prudent evaluation of any difficulty before rushing to grips with it.

Much more might be said, but we offer now the words of St. Peter, 2 Pet. 1:8­(Dia.): "These things (the graces he enumerates) being in you and abounding, they will not permit you to be inac­tive (ever ready to "preach the word, in season and out of season") nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus." Here is a clear con­clusion that growth in the other graces must of a certainty yield growth in knowledge; and each advance in knowledge increases and crystalizes all our other graces– if that knowledge is received in "the love of the Truth." Knowledge is the first requirement to came into God's Household; and it must continue prominent in our progress until we hear that final "Well done, good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joys of thy Lord."

MORE ON THE EPIPHANY TABERNACLE COURT & CAMP

In the November‑December 1960 Present Truth (which reached us Dec. 15– too late for any comment in our January 1 paper) there is more volume of words by R. G. Jolly tending to bolster his bedraggled Consecrated Epiphany Campers. On. p. 90, col. 1, par. 3, he states "there is nothing in E:10‑672 that militates against the teaching that there is a class in the antitypical Camp that has been consecrating since 1954." No, there isn't anything specifically in that statement on p. 672; but there certain­ly is something definitely against it on p. 209 of that same book, where Brother Johnson states "the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles." Repeatedly we have quoted this statement; and just as repeatedly have the Jolly‑Krewson twosome main­tained complete silence on it. WHY? It's because they have no answer for it.

Furthermore, this question is just another example of R. G. Jolly's ''Azazelian cunning" (See E:10‑646, top). On p. 672 Brother Johnson clearly states "Youthful Worthies, not yet consecrated are to be won after Babylon is destroyed." Has Baby­lon yet been destroyed? If not, is R. G. Jolly still try­ing to win Youthful Worthies, or is he denying this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? And with this cunning is commingled that admixture of nonsense that is to be found so often in so many of his statements. In the present instance he is relying upon the short memories of so many of his readers, and relying upon their apparent incapacity to analyze the fundamental premise he is presenting. Had he said eleven years ago (while Brother Johnson was still with us) that "nothing in E:10‑672 militates against the teaching" that there would be Consecrated Epiphany Campers after 1954, the folly of his observation would then have been apparent to even the very immature among Epiphany Truth people. Why do we say this? It's because Brother Johnson never heard of Consecrated Camp­ers‑­has specifically taught just the contrary. Clearly and emphatically had he told us that, so long as the Epiphany Tabernacle was in existence, the place of justifica­tion and consecration would be found in the Court, and the Camp would contain the unconsecrated in the finished picture. Having made himself so clear in the matter, it would have been self‑evident surplus to add on p. 672 – or anywhere else in his writings – that there would not be any Consecrated in the Camp. It would have been self‑evident nonsense to refute a statement that did not then exist; and Brother Johnson was not given to nonsense – just the reverse of R. G. Jolly, from whom we have always the nonsense– just never any end to it!

Both Star Members taught Consecration in the Tabernacle Court. When any one steps figuratively one inch inside the Gate, he is in a tentatively justified condi­tion, just as he is fully without it one inch outside that Gate. But that is not nearly the end of it: One must progress toward the door of the Tabernacle as he advances toward Consecration; and Brother Russell clearly teaches it would be im­possible for any to make an intelligent consecration without first washing at the antitypical Laver. Therefore, since there is no Laver in the Camp, an acceptable consecration would be impossible in the Camp. Nor is there one hint anywhere in direct Scripture, type, picture or prophecy that there would be such a Class as Campers Consecrated in the end of this Age. That is purely and exclusively an invention of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome. No, the Parousia Messenger and the Epiphany Messen­ger could not see consecration without washing at the Laver; but R. G. Jolly has no trouble at all in seeing that. Why is that? Because he is in the hands of Azazel, and, as Brother Johnson says, when they are completely abandoned to Azazel they can't think clearly on the Truth. Nor has R. G. Jolly himself faithfully used that laver daily. Had he done so he would have retained his crown.

In this connection, we should never forget that all during the Age it was the crown‑losers who lusted for large numbers, even though the Spirit of the Truth was negligible in so many. To have the worldly (the "mixed multitude" – See Ex. 12:38) counted among the Fully Faithful has ever been det­rimental to both classes. And it has bien false promises and false hopes that have ever been the hon­eyed hoax that has attracted the "mixed multitude," and who have always continued as "Egyptians" at heart. This is pointedly noticeable in the Epiphany converts of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the promise that has won them. "Just join us," they say, 'And you'll live right through Armageddon, and never die." R. G. Jolly has hinted a similar reward for Campers Consecrated; but our continued sharp and stinging exposures have placed a measure of restraint upon him. As it is, he is saying very little to them about "a narrow way," because he is acutely aware that his "reward" for them is all out of keeping with the trying "covenant by sacrifice" that the Fully Faithful now experience. The "safety in numbers," which has ever been the goal of Big and Little Babylon, was never men­tioned by the last Star Members. Rather, they stressed the narrow way, which could be maintained unto a completion only by those who faithfully imbibed the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth.

As we have so often quoted from various of Brother Johnson's writings, we now offer some more from that very same 10th Volume upon which R. G. Jolly now attempts to lean:

"This Scripture (Ex. 19:21‑25) proves that, generally speaking, Jesus as God's Mouthpiece, and thus the exclusive Interpreter of the Word, would use in the end of this Age the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers as antitypi­cal Aaron ... to interpret to the brethren the Word as due, especially on new doctrines, prophecies and types. And any attempt of others to unravel these three things as new matters would be the prohibited gazing – specula­tion – of Ex. 19:21‑25, and would meet with a cutting off from their stand­ing, if not stopped."

Inasmuch as Campers Consecrated is a new doctrine – a weak, futile and erroneous attempt to of­fer a new interpretation of certain types – it is certainly "GAZING." Let the Jolly‑Krewson twosome persist in their Revolutionism; in view of the repeated and detailed warnings we have issued, their blood is certainly upon their own heads. To offer a new doctrine or type would in itself be serious enough; but it becomes doubly serious when such attempt also flagrantly vitiates the clear interpre­tations of both Star Members on the Parousia and Epiphany Tabernacles. Brother Johnson has clearly taught that on anything that upsets, or negates, the Tabernacle setting, the Lord's people should be very skeptical of it – i.e., if they believe and continue in these Truths. J. F. Rutherford disposed of Tabernacle Shadows altogether, and it certainly looks like the Jolly‑Krewson twosome are leaning in the same direction. To demoralize the orderly and sober interpretations on the Tabernacle by the last Star Members is in some respects even worse than denying in toto what they have presented.

As a further warning, we now offer some more from E:10‑XXV: "We are sure that during the Parousia and Epiphany, particularly during the latter, among Truth people, typing has been the most abused of all seven lines of Bible thought. Satan, knowing that by typing he could introduce error perhaps more effectively than by other means, has made this his favorite way of spreading error among the nominal and real people of God."

In his letter of Nov. 15, 1910, R. G. Jolly admitted his incapacity to interpret types (it probably caused him to lose his crown then); but it seems his costly and colossal failures in the past have taught him just nothing– he still plunges head­long into further "gazing"! And this same R. G. Jolly continues loudly and repeat­edly to shout "The Errorist" at one who is exposing his nebular visions! This is in keeping with what he continued to "repeat, repeat, and repeat" to Brother Johnson when he was telling him that he (Bro. Johnson) was wrong to oppose his erroneous course. (See E:10‑588; also E:10‑545 where J. F. Rutherford taught his followers to 'avoid' Brother Johnson's teachings, and 'avoid' him also. We don't do that to R. G. Joily, nor to his teachings, because we feel sure the more the Lord's faith­ful people look into his erroneous teachings the better enabled they will be to dis­cern between "truth and error." Let R. G. Jolly continue to 'avoid' naming the "errorist" and follow in the footsteps of J. F. Rutherford. As for us, we prefer to follow in the open and direct course of the Epiphany Messenger, so that our readers may be sure of whom and whereof we speak.)

THE EPIPHANY‑APOKALYPSE PERIOD

Then on p. 90, col. 2, R. G. Jolly attempts to offer a "parallel" between the lapping of the Parousia‑Epiphany, and the Epiphany‑Basileia. He says that since 1954 new consecrators can no longer have their standing in the Court, but must be in the Camp– a "parallel" to no new consecrators in the Holy after 1914. By October 1916 there was no longer any Parousia Tabernacle at all. Is he now telling us there is no longer an Epiphany Tabernacle at all since 1956? For his "parallel" to make any sense at all, that's the only logical conclusion to draw from his contention. As we have said pre­viously, miscalculations of time features by the last two Star Members do not in any sense disrupt God's arrangements for His people. Either we are in the Epiphany Tabernacle, or we are not. Back in the 1914‑16 lapping, the place of Justification remained the same. But in R. G. Jolly's 1954‑56 "Parallel" it is not the same; but that doesn't make any difference to him (R. G. Jolly). He's as able to ''make" types and parallels today as he was in 1910, it seems! Perhaps more so, as he doesn't have the restraining hand of a Star Member over him.

There is another point which applies here with indestructible force to annihilate his entire posi­tion, and it is this: Cod's "times and seasons" always accomplish what God designs they should ac­complish. Thus, when the "Parousia came to a full end by October 16, 1916" (see E:4‑20(13) – those features of the Harvest work that were to be finished by that date had been fully accomplished; and this same premise will apply to the Epiphany. In 2 Thes. 2:8 (Dia.) St. Paul writes that "the lawless one (the Man of Sin) the Lord Jesus will annihilate by the appearing (Epiphany – see Berean Com­ment) of His presence" (the large Parousia). The Man of Sin certainly was not "annihilated" by Octo­ber 1956, which proves clearly enough we cannot now be in an Apokalypse period (as claimed by one of the "cousins", J. W. Krewson); nor can we yet be in the Basileia period, as is now claimed by the other "cousin" – R. G. Jolly. That "son of destruction" (2 Thes. 2:3 – Dia.) is reserved for "destruction" in the period of destruction – namely, the Epiphany.

"The Epiphany is used to designate the period of the great tribulation, the Time of Trouble" says Brother Johnson in E:4‑21 (14). The destruction of "the lawless one" is in no sense a Basileia work; that must be accomplished in the Epiphany – ­before the Basileia begins to "judge the dead." In this same epistle where Paul foretells "the Man of Sin," he also predicts that those who "admitted not the love of the Truth (The Great Company and the Second Deathers) will be sent "an energy of delusion"; and "some of these delusions may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth," says Brother Russell. (See Berean Comment) Certainly, those in the Epiphany Movement have possessed "the most light of Present Truth"; and this Epiphany period (which ''makes manifest the counsels of heart") is indeed manifesting those who received not "the love of the Truth." Campers Consecrated‑­the Apokalypse as a period distinct from the Epiphany– and the Basileia as the per­iod of destruction for the Man of Sin – none of these items are to be found anywhere in the Present Truth teachings of Brother Russell or Brother Johnson. Therefore, those who champion these "strong delusions" are being manifested by the period de­signed for mani­festation and destruction – the Epiphany.

On p. 91, col. 1, he offers "Scriptural evidence respecting 1954," one of these being "Moses' twofold stay in the mountain." If our readers will refer to the Berean Comments for Ex. 34:29‑35, they will note Brother Russell correctly interprets the vail on Moses' face after the second forty days as "typifying the Ancient Worthies." Apparently, R. G. Jolly is not familiar with this teaching of That Servant, or he would not have offered his present nonsense on this item. Let him produce his 1954 "parallel" for that! His perversions of one teaching after another of the Star Mem­bers have indeed "become issues and tests upon God's (Epiphany‑enlightened) people"‑­as he states it; and his perver­sions are manifesting "who shall be able to stand" (Mal. 3:2) in this Epiphany trial time in "the things they have learned, and been assured of" at the feet of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers.

In this connection, we cite Brother Johnson's interpretation of Numbers 7 on the offerings of the Gospel‑Age princes. Not a one of them presented a "Cup" in his offering– which is a clear and strong directive that no Crown‑loser would ever be favored by God with a new doctrine. And certainly if no Crown‑loser could do this, one now in Azazel's hands could not be so favored! This teaching also R. G. Jolly now perverts (Azazel means Perverter). And, when the Jews gathered enough Manna on the sixth day to last over the Sabbath, that also typed no new doctrines during the antitypical Sab­bath. R. G. Jolly now perverts that teaching also!

On p. 91, col. 2, he makes a pseudo‑comparison between us now and J. F. Ruther­ford in 1920; but here again he is thinking in reverse– nothing new for him! Back in 1920 the Society adherents denied a class that the Parousia Messenger had taught; R. G. Jolly is now advocating a class that the Epiphany Messenger did not teach, but in fact clearly contradicted his (R. G. Jolly's) Campers Con­secrated by his teach­ing on p. 209 of Vol. 10 that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the unconsecrated. And by presenting this glaring dissimilarity he hypocritically shouts once more he is upholding the "true teaching of the Epiphany star‑member"! Although the crown‑losers are not full hypocrites, many of them are forced to partial hypocrisy because of their sins of teaching and practise. Brother Russell has this to say about them in the August 1, 1910 Reprints 4655: "These are not hypocrites, however, but since the time of trouble is properly for hypocrites, they will have their portion with the hypocrites..... As a result (of the "time of trouble"‑JJH) they will be granted the palm branches and the place before the throne, to serve God in his Temple."

Furthermore, we are not denying Tentative Justification – as was done in 1920. We simply contend that such justification must be obtained in the same place (the Court), and in the same way so long as the Epiphany Tabernacle continues with us. This R. G. Jolly is now denying, so it is he that is paral­leling J. F. Rutherford, et al, at present, and NOT US! He is actually perverting the faithful teaching of both Star Members by his false doctrine ("strange fire") – Consecrated Epiphany Campers. And when Brother Johnson "swept aside" the no‑covenant argument re Youthful Worthies, he produced a number of clear Scriptures to prove his point. This R. G. Jolly has not been able to do for his Camp­ers Consecrated. Let him produce just one Scripture setting forth such a class! Joel 2:28 actually names the "Youthfuls" as such; so the Scripture was there for Brother Johnson to interpret and de­fend – a very clear Scripture; but R. G. Jolly has no such Scripture for his Campers Consecrated. The name, as well as the class, are purely the Jolly‑Krewson twosome invention. While J. W. Krewson has tacitly remained mostly silent all during this altercation, even he still apparently has enough spiritual discernment to realize that Tentative Justifi­cation in the Camp is a perversion of the Truth; so the two of them now contradict each other on this point. It would be most interesting to know whether this same dis­agreement existed at the time they were first brewing this unholy libation. Will they answer this question, or just give it the silent treatment– as they both have done with so many of our exposures of their errors. Their silence on those Pyramid cal­culations as "proof" that Brother Johnson would be here until 1956 (presented in the January 1947 Present Truth), to­gether with their calculations on the Pyramid to "prove" the last Saint was glorified in 1950, is an­other manifestation of their weakness. They are ever ready to produce "proofs" for their Scripturally unsupported presentations.

On p. 92, col. 1, there is the statement that "soon after the fall of 1914 Bro. Johnson began teach­ing...the door of entrance into the High Calling closed." At best, this statement is a very loose use of the truth. Why doesn't R. G. Jolly give the date when Brother Johnson began to preach "the High Calling closed"? Or doesn't he know it was not until well into 1918 – almost four years after the fact – that Brother Johnson first saw this Truth? His shoddy sleight‑of‑hand here is habitual technique with him – in keeping with his Question re p. 672 of Vol. 10, which we discussed on page 1 of this paper.

And now, ''Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." "The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants; and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate." (Psa. 35:28)..

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Our dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace, Mercy and Peace be your portion;

We would be grateful to have your complete papers, as mentioned in your Nov. 1960 article. Eagerly do we look forward to your monthly papers, and thank the Lord for your lucid explanations. We continue to pray the Lord to grant to you wisdom and understanding– His Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth; that we, too, will be teachable, through the light of the Holy Spirit. His Word and Providences in our lives remind us of the Psalmist – "I will lift up mine eye unto the hills," etc. Psa. 121 and Hymn 12 – the latter verse applying to the Little Flock particularly.

As it is nearing Christmas and the New Year 1961, we wish you and Sister Hoefle, and all the dear ones with you, a happy holiday season and a good New Year ahead of you in the service of the Lord. 2 Thess. 2:16,17.

Your brethren by His grace – – – – - England

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving greetings of Grace and Peace!

It was a real pleasure to hear from you today, and I thank you for all the answered questions or thoughts. The tracts came in the best condition yet, and later my Advance Copy. So I feel that you have given much time to me.

As I read the letter I realized, dear Brother, that you are troubled on every side, (Bro. Gough's letter– JJH) I did not know you had such strong opposition in Jamaica. I hope that brother will be profited by your good reply.......

It is a privilege to defend his true teachings (Brother Russell's) by this renewal of Gideon's Second Battle. This is the comfort the people will need as this evil day grows more evil. May the dear Lord bless you both in your zeal amid so much affliction from those who were once brethren.

Thank you for explaining re the Volumes for loaning. I have some now on hand and assume that I can get more from you when needed,

Have read the December number once and expect to study it later. I will be glad to be of any as­sistance to Mrs .... that I can. Thank you for the opportunity.

With love in the Lord and continued prayers for your blessing and deep joys from Him, to you both and the kind friends who sent me their love....

Sister – – – – - Mass.

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

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

We continue to look forward to your monthly articles and pray the Lord's con­tinued blessing on your efforts to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (the last two Star Members in particular).

We note that R. G. Jolly published the same letter twice– first in his Sept­Oct. P.T., and again in his Nov‑Dec. P.T. If he had published this letter again several months later (as a repeat), that would be bad enough (but perhaps excusable), but to publish the same letter in two Present Truths (one right after the other) cer­tainly indicates that he is in bad need of letters to publish (against the sifters!). This Sister from New Jersey advises the Lord's people not to read the sifters' lit­erature. "They are playing with fire, and surely will get burnt" (if they do!), she says. This sounds very much like the same Sister (from New Jersey) who once was a "staunch supporter" of J. W. Krewson; he was her "Pastor and Teacher" then (upon the advice and leadership of Pilgrim Gavin). Now it seems her eyes are opened to see that R. G. Jolly is really the "Pastor and Teacher" (the Lord's Mouthpiece!). "Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the Truth"! It would seem that such an unstable person should be happy just to keep silent; but they usually want to be heard– to advise others; and they always seem to re­ceive plenty of support and encouragement from "Pastors and Teachers" of the Jolly type! (being sure they are heard– just as Brother Motley and Brother Gough must be heard). R. G. Jolly is so ever ready to "repeat, repeat, and repeat" even in his publishing letters (if they are knocking the "sifters"). We heartily wish that he would "repeat" the Truths he once accepted and not try to run ahead of the Lord with his new (false) doctrines and his own ideas.

We here participated in the Special Effort (in Memory of the Two Messengers)‑­served several churches with Where are the Dead (Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle). We also had a blessed Me­morial service for Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, using Brother Johnson's funeral discourse and comments in Brother Russell's memory – ­and using your funeral discourse for Brother Johnson, in Brother Johnson's memory. We also had testimoies from all (there were 10 present). We don't know whether you want reports on these Special Efforts or not. If so, we will send you a more detailed re­port. (Note: We are always pleased to receive such reports – JJH)

May the Lord bless you as you continue your able refutations against the errors so prominently advocated by the two would‑be "Pastors and Teachers," and may you continue to bless His people with the Truth and its Spirit.

Your Brother by His Grace – – – – - N.C.

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

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

We take this opportunity in extending our warm and sincere Christian greetings and wishes for a prosperous New Year. May the dear Lord continue His blessings, keep and direct you both throughout your stay on earth.

As it pleased the Lord to direct you for the leading of His people, we pray that he will help you to be faithful as Joshua of old. We though little but a united company here, are striving to be faithful in serving the Lord and His cause. We have served quite a number of tracts......It is our desire to sow beside all waters, for we know not whether will prosper.

With this comes our prayers for you both and the dear ones with you.

Yours by His Grace, – – – – - ,Ecclesia – Jamaica

NO. 68: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

No. 68

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

Once again we take note of another year gone by; and, for ourselves, we offer grateful acknowledgment of the blessings that have been ours – physically, temporally, and most especially, our spiritual blessing in opportunities of service and growth in Grace and in the Knowledge of our Beloved Lord. It is indeed well established that experience is the best teacher, and the accumulated experience of the many years past is perhaps the greatest asset of God’s people in their earthly pilgrimage-­especially so, when that experience is balanced by the Spirit of a Sound Mind. And, viewing the experiences of the past Epiphany years, we anticipate with a glad heart those experiences that lie just ahead. Therefore, in Retrospect “we know that all things have worked together for our good” (Rom. 8:28), and in Prospect we resign our­selves to a continuation of the blessed guidance of the years already gone. And it is in this attitude of heart and mind that we now present the following observations:

RESPECTING FINANCE

Once more we draw attention to the world’s financial status, particularly of the United States. The overall debt in this country at present is just about ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. This includes the federal (just under three hundred billion), the state, the municipal and the private debts. Real estate mortgages alone are just about two hundred billion dollars. These figures are beyond the grasp of the human mind; they are also beyond the scope of solid discipline and permanent orderly control. Thus, at any time – almost over night – the financial situation could become violently de­moralized. Just this fall there was quite a “run” on the gold hoard of the United States – prompted by fear of what our new administration in Washington may do, come 1961. In fact, if President-elect Kennedy attempts to carry out his campaign prom­ises, we may expect no end of turmoil; but of this we may only wait and see.

Our readers may wonder why we so often stress the financial premise when there seems to be so little said about it by the opposing political parties here; but it is our opinion that they fear to bring the subject into public focus. No one of them even mentions repayment of these colossal debts; the nearest thing to financial sanity is a “balanced budget” (which simply means keeping the spending even with the income), and the payment of the interest that the debts require. The U.S. Govern­ment interest burden each year now is over ten billion dollars. Now and then certain international financial publications of restricted clientele make free comment; but each time they do so it is with wailing and wringing of hands. If the interest rates are raised, it is unbearable; if the interest rates are reduced, that also is unbear­able. Just this past year the United States has prevailed upon the Governments of England, Germany and France to have their central banks reduce their rediscount rates, although those countries purposely had increased those rates to attempt regulation of inflationary segments in their own economies. Therefore, they were persuaded by the United States to do just the reverse of what they believe to be the sound and sensible economic process for their particular situations.

Thus, they find the consuming jugernaut to the rear of them, and the bottomless pit to the front of them; and we ourselves become most acutely conscious of the prophecy that “all faces shall gather blackness,” and that present institutions “shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up.” (Heb. 1:11,12) As time and wear cause the best of garments to come apart at the seams, and to show holes from wear, so present institutions are manifesting similar erosion; so it is not a question of “if” but “when” they shall come to journey’s full end.

 Above we made mention of the “run” on the United States gold store, and that the financial situation might become panic over night. Lest we appear to cry calamity without due cause, we present here some information that came to us in confidence from a source that we consider very reliable. Just this fall the price of gold in the open. London market jumped from slightly over $35 per ounce to $41 per ounce over night, this rise presenting itself before any of the bullion or commodity exchanges were open for business that morning. The English officials were so alarmed that they immediately telephoned Washington for instructions to cope with it. When Washington was informed that the head of the Bank of England was in Canada for a fishing holiday, they sent a special airplane to bring him to Washington, after which he was sent by special plane to England to try to calm the situation. This was accomplished through a succession of moves, which, if we are informed correctly, was only a temporary palli­ative; we are assured that the situation will once more assert itself in the near fu­ture. (This is written Nov. 20, 1960) -

While we cannot state this incident as a fact from our own knowledge, we have strong reason to consider it to be the truth. However, it is a statistical fact that there are over twenty billion dollars of short-term foreign balances in the United States at present which are subject to payment in gold upon demand; whereas, there is ohly eighteen billion dollars of gold in the United States stock pile. In other words, there is about two billion dollars less of gold than would be neces­sary to satisfy the demand if the demand should be made. Therefore, it will be most interesting just to stand at a distance and watch “the passing financial show.”

RESPECTING GOVERNMENT

As with finance, so also with the “powers that be,” the prophecy of Hag. 2:7 comes prominently to the fore: “I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come.” Even in Turkey there was violent rioting against the Govern­ment in power in 1960; and the international press made the observation that this is the first time in history that the Turks have ever made such display of themselves. The Government in power was forced to resign. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury visited the Pope in Rome for the first time in about 400 years. Since the Stuarts were dethroned in England, it is a part of English governmental law that no Catholic may ever occupy the throne there. Therefore, when their own Archbishop makes pilgrim­age to Rome, we may be sure it was prompted by dire necessity. And, when we hear in the United States that a man’s religion should not enter into his choice for public office, we state that such contention is not the brand of tolerance; it is the mark of ignorance or stupidity. We wonder if those same people would say it makes no dif­ference to them if a Mohammedan should aspire to be President of the United States! But, respecting England’s Archbishop visiting Rome’s Pope, we offer again the prophecy, “Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me.” (Isa. 54:15) Indeed, the slaughter weapon of Combinationism (Eze. 9:2) is still collecting its deadly toll, and God’s people would be well advised to avoid its death-dealing ensnarement.

“POWER AS KINGS ONE HOUR WITH THE BEAST”

Many of our readers will recall some articles on Rev. 17:12, which appeared in January 1 and April 1, 1932 Present Truths, in which Brother Johnson discussed the Vatican Treaty and Concordat with Mussolini. In those articles he mentioned various periods of time that are set forth in the Bible as an hour--among them three years and four months (the same being 1/12 of 40 years), six years and eight months (1/12 of 80 years), etc.; and on page 61, col. 2, par. 2, he said:

When Brother Johnson observed that Brother Russell could not see clearly some things future, which were not yet due to be understood, he mentioned specifically that Bro, Russell was unable to see the greatly extended period of the Time of Trouble. Surely, we can now apply that same observation to him. He thought 6-2/3 years would be much too long for that “hour”; but we see clearly enough now (hindsight is so much better than foresight) that 6-2/3 years were not nearly long enough. As Brother Russell has so well stated, Prophecy in its details cannot be understood clearly until it is ful­filled or in course of fulfillment; and we now wish it clearly understood that we try also to be guided by that rule. Therefore, since the abysmal destruction of the “Beast” is yet future, we cannot be positive in our conclusions about it. However, we also have the “sure word of prophecy” that “the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) Therefore, we are surely justified in concluding that the destruction of the “Beast” will somewhere be clearly disclosed in the Bible.

The largest specific “hour” of which we now know is 1/24th of the Millennial day, the same being 41 years, eight months. Either that hour must apply in the present calculation, or we must look for a new beginning for the hour. In the 1932 articles under discussion Brother Johnson said he could not be certain if the hour would start from the beginning of negotiations (about October 1926) or from their completion in early February of 1929. Nor are we now in any better position to de­termine this fact than was he. If the “hour” is 41 years, eight months, then it will end in June 1968 if the beginning of negotiations is to be reckoned. If it is fig­ured from the completion of those negotiations, then it would end in October 1970. On this we can but wait. When the House of Savoy severed all relations with the Vatican in 1870, then for the first time since 539 A.D. did the Papacy have no poli­tical standing in Italy; she was after that in the position of the spiritval di­vorcee. But when Mussolini restored that standing, and gave the Vatican official recognition as a State, then the Catholic system could once more proclaim, “I sit a queen, and am no widow” (Rev, 18:7); her marital status with the Italian Govern­ment had once more been restored.

As present institutions rip wider at the seams, as they wax older and older and dissipate their physical and financial resources in their schemes and struqglcs against the antitypical Assyrians, we may be certain the Papal system will be more than will­ing to consort once more with the Gentile kings to avert the approaching holocaust. The master political strategy of the ages is with that system; and we may be certain those in power in that system will use all the craftiness, the duplicity, the politi­cal sagacity and the persecuting power at their disposal to maintain the “queenly” status; but we may be also equally certain that “in one day shall her plagues come--, death, and mourning, and famine ... for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.”(Rev,18: 8)

RESPECTING TRUTH PEOPLE

During the Epiphany Brother Johnson occupied himself in large measure with Great-Company uncleanness, and it has been our portion to do likewise. He gave us certain fundamental rules for this time in which “the quick” are being judged; and we do well to take heed to them. In E:5-20 (18) we find this:

 “The repudiation of various of the Lord’s teachings and arrangements this passage proves to be the sin--especially the manifesting sin – of the Great Company. Revolutionism manifests them as such. Only then, according to this passage, do we know that a New Creature is of the Great Company, when he revolutionizes against the Lord’s teachings and arrangements. We cannot be sure of their loss of their crowns by other sins than revolutionism.”

We set out the above to demonstrate how ridiculous it was in 1950 to declare that Brother Johnson’s death made blanket manifestation of all crown losers, when large numbers of such people in the L.H.M.M. had given no evidence whatever of revolu­tionism up to 1950 (had they done so, Brother Johnson would have announced them, just as he did R. G. Jolly and others), which Brother Johnson declares to be the only means by which we may make such determination.

And, as Brother Johnson teaches in E:13-557, when such crown-losers form a move­ment, it becomes speedily corrupt, going from bad to worse--to which the entire Gospel Age bears unimpeachable witness. By revolutionizing against various features of the Truth which came to them through the Star Members, they have been forced to embrace other errors and forsake other Truths, and to resort to falsehood and persecution of the Faithful to retain their “Praise of men.” All of us have been witness to this proce­dure all during the Epiphany; but, whereas, we viewed it at a distance up to 1950, it has come acutely close to us since that date. When we have the Truth, it is never nec­essary to “make lies our refuge, and behind falsehoods to hide ourselves.” It was as King Saul (a type of crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon) rebelled against the word of the Lord (as it came to him from Samuel the Prophet), that he began immediately to resort to falsehood and to blame others for his own bungling disobedience. (See 1 Sam. 15:13-15)

All during the Gospel Age the Saul antitypes have been the big talkers, the know­it-alls, the lung-thinkers. In E:13-761 Brother Johnson says of them: “They got themselves great reputations in Babylonian church circles for using their controver­sial weapons against the Interim star members and their special helpers... They were destructive against the true Church, and with their errors defiled it, and by their misrepresentations (lying) they degraded it.”

Brother Johnson had intimate association with such early in the Epiphany, as can be seen from his comments in E:10-555, respecting Job 12:2, where he is typed as tell­ing the “lung-thinkers” in his own Epiphany group: “No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.” With them, as with their soulmates of the past, they knew everything, they had all the answers to all the questions, with most of those answers partly wrong, or totally wrong. Therefore, we need “think it not strange” when those very same people now attempt the same technique with us. Clearly enough, they do not change their ways easily; that is why it will require the “great tribu­lation” to cleanse them--a thing devoutly to be desired.

STUDY – PRACTISE – SPREAD OF THE TRUTH

It is gratifying to note that many of our readers continue in Brother Johnson’s counsel to study, practise and spread the Truth. As Brother Russell has so ably stated, “Only the studious find the narrow way to the Divine approval and acceptance.” (See Dec. 20 Manna comment) And, as he stated on other occasion, “Study that is not put into practise is worse than a waste of time.” It is a sad commentary that many with whom we have had contact this past year are “ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the Truth.” And it is also equally sad that many such never lack for words--voluminous words--to contend for what they have not correctly learned or properly discerned. Once one has earnestly studied the Truth, and has made conscientious effort to practise it, the spread of it will then motivate him as it did the Prophet Jeremiah: “His word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in in bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.”

Quite a few are availing themselves of the tracts we have provided--What is the Soul, Where are the Dead, The Resurrection and The Three Babylons – and are proceed­ing to an intelligent application and spread of the Truth with a zeal that is tempered with knowledge and the “spirit of a sound mind.” Such are spreading what they “have learned, and been assured of”; and the Letters of General Interest attest to a reason­able measure of success therein. This is “the day of small things,” so we need not expect to convert the world, nor find whereof to boast in that measured prosperity that is ours; but we have been told by unbiased minds that our tracts do have a cer­tain dignity and distinction that the booklets and small tracts of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other sects of Little and Big Babylon do not have. Therewith let us be content, doing nothing through strife and vainglory but in the ‘love of the Truth.’

We here do heartily reciprocate the excellent and manifold Holiday greetings and good wishes that have come to us; and our wish and prayer for one and all are that the Morning Resolve and the Vow may continue to find responsive receptance in a “good and honest heart.” And may all continue in the studies of the Parousia and Epiphany, even as Brother Johnson has exhorted. To all such we commend Psa. 40:4: “Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his truth, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Have you ever found out whether J. W. Krewson had a hand in the 27 com­putations on the Pyramid, etc., in the January 1947 Present Truth? The same question about Campers Consecrated, too – did J. W. Krewson give that Ad­vancing Truth (?) to R. G. Jolly along with John’s Beheading and Brother Russell’s Parallels?

ANSWER: – No, we know no more about J. W. Krewson’s part in either of thesc questions now than we ever did. It would seem that either, or both of the “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson) would be eager to claim the fame or avert the blame for these presentations; but so far the real cagerness on the part of both of them is the hope that your questions may lapse into the limbo of complete silence. When the attitude of these pseudo Pastors and Teachers on such important discussions is compared with what the real Pastors and Teachers (the Parousia and Epiphany Messen­gers) did under similar circumstances, then it is little wonder so much cause for criticism is readily apparent in both of them – in their teachings and in their con­duct. On one occasion Brother Russell had this to say regarding Matt. 22:13:

“Bind him hand and foot (i.e., restrain his influence by thoroughly answering his arguments), and cast him into outer darkness.” Certainly, all will agree that those 27 mythical computations and the Campers Consecrated contention are definitely “an argument,” and should be fully and thoroughly silenced, according to Brother Russell’s advice.

But the “cousins” not only follow the ‘avoid them’ policy with respect to us personally, but they do the same thing regarding simple questions regarding their teachings. To ‘avoid” (ignore) such is expedient for their prestige as self-appointed Pastors and Teachers. It would be a simple matter for either of them to claim or disclaim their part in “seeing” these respective items, if they themselves really believe what they teach. J. F. Rutherford was a “past” master in such ‘avoiding’ (Brother Johnson, personally, as well as his able refutations and attacks). So once more we propose the questions: Did J. W. Krewson have any part in the compilation of those “Pyramid Corroborations of Epiphany Date”, begin­ning on page 7 of the 1947 Present Truth? Also, is he or R. G. Jolly the ‘inventor’ of Campers Consecrated, or Quasi-elect Consecrated (whichever name they choose to use)?

It is not merely for the sake of contumelious phrase that we refer to these two ‘mis’-leaders as “cousins.” It is because of the close relationship in teach­ing and practise; and in due course, E.v., we shall offer some direct Scriptural support for our contention of this close relationship.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Our dear Brother Hoefle: - Grace and peace!

Thanks very much for your kind letter of Sept. 30; also the October paper deal­ing with “Some More Krewson Gazing” – and the “Philadelphia Convention.” We appreciate the masterly way you deal with these Matters; also the forthright spirit manifested by the way you refute the erronous teachings and wrong practises of R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson--both of whom are in Satan’s power, who is making use of them to con­fuse and hinder brethren from holding steadfastly to the Truth given by the dear Lord through His faithful Parousia and Epiphany Messengers.......

 Thus, like the Adversary, they are presenting increasing darkness as light. They are becoming so blind to the Truth, the Light, which is the direct cause of the stumbling into confusion, and one delusion after another (Jude 11,12,13). Oh how sad must be their real spiritual condition! How are the mighty fallen! See 2 Sam. 1:19, 25,27. The danger ahead of all such brethren using weapons of the Adversary is surely that they themselves will, like the weapons they have so often used since their going into darkness, perish everlastingly.

 How very timely is the Manna for October 11, both comments and Scripture refer­ences, not forgetting the Poem – all very helpful to meditate much upon by all desir­ous of being “clean vessels of the Lord.”

 In view of what I have written in this letter to you, my dear Brother, let us take great heed to the Apostle Peter’s words of exhortation given to us all in 2 Pet. 3:17. May we ourselves take heed to the Apostle Paul’s words as given us in 1 Cor. 15:58, then all will be well with us, as it will also be with all the dear brethren like-minded.

 May God’s rich blessings, love and peace, be with you both--also with the dear ones with you at Mount Dora and elsewhere. Sister ... and myself send you our fervent love and good wishes in the Lord. Faithfully your brother in His dear Name --------- England

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

My dearly beloved Brother and Sister Hoefle: – Loving greetings in Jesus’ Name!

Your good letter just came .... Thanks very much for your good wishes for us. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have been out in full force here, too. They certainly are zealous, even though they are way off and drifting farther. Perhaps the tract (Three Babylons) will help to open their eyes to the fact.

I am glad that you are going to attend the Chicago Convention. May it prove a great blessing to you first and to all there...... Surely R. G. Joily has very little mercy in his makeup, for all the opportunities he has had. He has been a poor student if he doesn’t know better .... otherwise he goes against his better knowledge and under-­standing to maintain his position...... May you be able to bless many by your presence there--even though, as usual, you must suffer many insults.

 May the dear Lord strengthen you both mightily, that they do you no harm but only bless you spiritually as well as physically. May the dear Lord do for the Saints present what He has done for me through your faithful service..... May he bless you both abundantly, is my prayer for you. By His Grace -------- Ohio

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

Dear Brother Hoefle – Loving greeting in our Lord’s precious Name!

 I am still on deck fighting the “good fight” of faith, and “fighting” is putting it mildly. Sometimes it seems almost a mad scramble to stay on top. The times now in which the world moves, I sometimes wonder how much longer anarchy will be held off. There are spots of it all over the world..... We get many opportunities to give the good news to others and to encourage them to study their Bibles so they may know of the grand Restitution blessings coming to them. Briefly, here is just one such case........

 More and more I am impressed with the Scripture (2 Tim. 1-7) “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love, and of a sound mind.”

And we notice that power is mentioned first. And isn’t it the most powerful thing we know of? (Yes, the Truth and its Spirit give; the faithful Power over all their enemies--JJH) Who can pull it down or put it to flight? It closes every mouth and stands up against every attack of God’s enemies. We who are of the Truth have much to be thankful for and to be loyal to! You are proving its power.

Much Christian love to you and all there. By His Grace --------- Georgia

NO. 67: MORE ON "THESE TEN YEARS"

No. 67

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

 In accordance with the promise in our November paper, we now offer further thoughts on the September‑October Present Truth. On p. 68, col. 2, par. 2, there is some profuse comment by R. G. Jolly re “Brother Johnson's teachings helping” him to see how the Epiphany would overlap into the Basileia. It seems it isn't enough for him to choke his paper with his errors – he must place the responsibility for such gross errors and perversions on the Star Members, as he at the same time intones, “God Bless Their Memory.”

If there is any foundation at all in his own (not Brother Johnson's) _manufac­tured’ parallel, then there should be a small Basileia – just as there was a small Parousia and, a small Epiphany. Is he trying to teach this? He doesn't make him­self clear on it. In any event, let us examine the matter! 2 Tim. 4:1– Dia., tells us, “Christ Jesus is about to judge the living and the dead, by His appearing (Epi­phany) and by His kingdom (Basileia).” As all Epiphany‑enlightened brethren know, the “living” include the New Creatures at the end of the Age, and the “dead” refers to the dead world of mankind, whether in the tomb or out of it. Therefore, we make this text clearer by stating, “Christ Jesus is about to judge the living at His Epiphaneia, and the dead at His Basileia.”

 At the very first day of the Epiphaneia in September 1914, the judgment of the crown‑retaining division of the ”living” was completely and irrevocably determined – ­no more could enter the High Calling, and those Saints in it would certainly retain their crowns. At the very day the overlapping of the small Parousia into the Epi­phany ended in October 1916, the judgment that had already been determined began to be manifested. Note Brother Johnson's comment about it in E:4‑20,21:

“In a word, the Parousia is preparatory for both the Epiphany and the Basileia, the Kingdom, and the Epiphany carries forward the results of the Parousia, and intro­duces the Basileia, the Kingdom... With the beginning of the first smiting of Jordan the Parousia and the Epiphany began to lap into one another; and by October 16, 1916, the Parousia was at a full end. One may ask, Why do we fix on this date as the full end of the Parousia? We answer: for two reasons: (1) On that day our Pastor left Bethel for the last time, and actually relinquished his hold at head­quarters and never took it up again. (2) On that day the leaders of the Levites in America and England began as such to take a firm stand against one another. At Bethel on that day our dear Pastor spent several hours seeking to reconcile, on the one hand, J. F. Rutherford and A. H. MacMillan, and H. L. Rockwell on the other hand, with one another..... On the same day in England Jesse Hemery and six elders supporting him became irreconcil­ably opposed to H. J. Shearn and the ten elders supporting him in his efforts to set aside our Pastor's controllership in Tabernacle Affairs and the assistant pastorship of Jesse Hemery in the Taber­nacle...... therefore, with the first of these dates we believe the Parousia as a period ended, and from then on we have been in the Epiphany without there being any more a lapping of the two periods under consideration into another....... The Epiphany of our Lord's Second Advent is limited to the time between the Parousia and the Basileia. It is used to designate the period of the great tribulation, the TIME OF TROUBLE.”

Here is some more from E:4‑217 (79): “In the Millennium, Basileia, the third stage of our Lord's Second Advent, the Lord will bring to light individually the world's hidden things of darkness and manifest their hearts counsels.”

It should be apparent to any novice that the foregoing shows not the faintest parallel to 1954‑56, except the parallel R. G. Jolly has manufactured. Parallels are of two kinds – related and contrasted. Even the only “contrast” in these two contentions is the repulsive contrast of R. G. Jolly's nonsense with the sound, sober and erudite Truth that Brother Johnson has given us. “When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense,” says Brother Johnson; so we should “think it not strange” – in fact, it is a strong visible and indisputable truth that he is not cleansed. Note carefully Brother Johnson says the small Parousia was at a full end on October 16, 1916. Therefore, if R. G. Jolly's parallel is a true one, the Epiphany should have come to a full end at October 16, 1956. He has accused us of “shyster lawyer” tactics in our truthful attacks on his ‘restricted’ end of the Epiphany in 1954. We believe it will be quite unnecessary to hurl any abusive epi­thets at him in return –  just allow his ‘parallel’ to speak for itself. Even he him­self is emphatically contending we are still in the Epiphany – even if we swallow his ‘restricted’ end in 1954 – and we are now four full years past the full end of his man­ufactured parallel.

To carry the analysis a little further, on the very day (October 16, 1916) that Parousia overlapping ended, Epiphany manifestations began. Therefore, if any paral­lel exists in 1956, a similar thing should occur. DID IT? We are not, even yet in 1960, in the violent features of the Time of Trouble; and Brother Johnson clearly states above that the Epiphany is the GREAT TRIBULATION. When the Epiphany judgments began to be manifested in 1916, some human beings saw it immediately; and, by the same logic, when the Epiphany fully merged into the Basileia, the same situation will prevail. And what is that situation? Why, it will have to do with the judgment of the human race in general –  the manifestation of which will be the resurrection of the Wor­thies. Then – and not until then – will the world fully recognize their Elect stand­ing. On that day of their resurrection will the Basileia be clearly and irrefutably instituted. There was not the slightest hint of this in 1956; and there isn't yet – ­four years after the _manufactured’ parallel should have been fully established. So we repeat: It is simply some more of R. G. Jolly's nonsense – just as was true of “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels.” It should be noted once more that R. G. Jolly still brazenly contends he is sustained, and is sustaining, the Star Members; as he boldly and shamelessly sets aside their teachings in the very same paper which carries his claims of _loyalty’ he proclaims his DISLOYALTY.

EPIPHANEIA‑APOKALUPSIS

On p. 75 R. G. Jolly offers some comments on this subject; and we are certainly glad to agree with him any time that he preaches the Truth. But even when he preaches the Truth, he just can't present a good clean exposition – a clear proof of his un­cleansed condition. In col. 1, par. 2, he quotes from E:17‑256, par. 1; but he also injects some of his own comments in brackets – just as though these also are by Brother Johnson. In this particular instance his bracketed insertions are correct – just as they have been wrong on so many other occasions. However, his statement, “epiphan­izing and apokalypsying are both required at the same time for a complete exposure,” is simply a garbled take‑off of what we have presented on this subject in our No. 34 of May 1958. In that paper we elaborated on R. G. Jolly's weakness in his own earlier presentation, because he did not present in clarity what he now attempts to do with the help of our paper No. 34. This is all right with us, of course; but his ethics in this instance –  appearing to quote Brother Johnson while actually using a reconstruction of our presentation and indirectly quoting us – are just another indication of the “little” man that he is; and does indeed remind us of those brethren who turned against Brother Johnson as the Epiphany Messenger, yet continued to use the Epiphany Messenger's teachings in their presentations, even while vilifying Brother Johnson. What he is now using from our No. 34 is the very thing we said his paper lacked in his attempted refutation of J. W. Krewson.

“THE OTHER HALF TRIBE OF MANASSEH”

On p. 71, col. l, par; 2, R. G. Jolly states he “appreciates the help he received from them (Brother Johnson and Brother Russell) in setting forth other items of advanc­ing Truth in the Present Truth (the name being clearly a misnomer), such as... The Other Half Tribe of Manasseh.” For sheer gall and brazen Levitical impudence, this excels about anything we have ever witnessed! Brother Johnson offered not the slight­est hint anywhere in his writings to corroborate such a contention. R. G. Jolly offers the nearness of relationship to the half tribe east and the half tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan as his main argument in the matter. On that premise, the children of the Gospel‑Age saints ought to have some sort of high ranking in God's Household; certainly they have been closer to their parents than any one else. Yet we know that many of them left the Household of Faith completely – “received the Grace of God in vain!”

Also, the Half Tribe East of Jordan joined the other two tribes to help the 9½ tribes establish themselves West of Jordan. There isn't the slightest hint any­where in the narration that the Half Tribe of Manasseh West of Jordan joined those from East of Jordan in accomplishing this work for the other Nine Tribes. Yet, Brother Johnson has clearly stated that the true quasi‑elect (unconsecrated of the Gospel‑Age) of the Mediatorial reign would join in such a work.

Furthermore, both Star Members gave us the clear teaching that in many of the Old Testament types a place types a condition in the antitype. Apparently, this part of their true teaching has not helped R. G. Jolly in his endeavors toward advancing Truth. Clearly enough, he doesn't understand this Truth teaching of the Star Members at all. Note now some quotations along this line, E:12‑187 (Bottom):

“The unconsecrated but faithful tentatively justified of the Gospel Age undergo similar experiences for similar reasons .... for these and the be­lieving Jews will be associated as the fifth elect class in a Millennial world‑wide work ... (p. 188, last of par. 1) thus will be fulfilled toward Israel and the Gospel-­Age unconsecrated .... tentatively justified the good things that God promised them.”

E:12‑517, par. 1: “The Land East of the Jordan represents the doctrine of elec­tion, i.e., that God, during the period of the ascendency of sin selects out of the world the faith classes; and the Land West of the Jordan represents the doctrine of Free Grace, i.e., that during the Millennium will give all passed over during the elective period, the non‑elect, the unbelief classes, the opportunity to gain resti­tution on condition of faith and obedience. It will be recalled that Reuben, Gad and half of the tribe of Manasseh received the Land East of the Jordan as their in­heritance, on condition of their crossing Jordan and helping the rest of Israel con­guer the Land West of Jordan, which they did. Thus, God offers the Elect, the Little Flock (Reuben), the Great Company (Gad) and the Worthies (the half tribe of Manasseh) a heavenly inheritance, with the understanding that they will help the non‑elect to obtain restitution. (Further on p. 519, par. 1)... Sharon (Plain of Sharon, which is a place – JJH) represents the quasi‑elect in the Millennium.”

In the foregoing we direct special attention to Brother Johnson's interpretation that the place in the type represents the condition in the antitype; and it would be most interesting to hear R. G. Jolly's explanation of just what “help he received from the Star Members” to interpret those Palestinian places into his Consecrated Campers. Clearly enough, the One who helped him here was not the Star Members; it was the One in whose hands he has been since Brother Johnson's death (Azazel's). As Brother Johnson has so aptly stated, “When these people fall into Azazel's hands, their minds become so befuddled they can no longer think clearly on spiritual matters.” Thus, they not only do not receive new Truth – even that presented by the priests –, but they become benumbed and befogged on much of the Truth that once blessed them. They are given “strong delusions.” One thing after another has R. G. Jolly set aside completely, or perverted (Azazel means Perverter), that he once fully accepted and believed.

ANOTHER “CLEANSED” EPIPHANY LEVITE

In this same paper with “These Ten Years” appeared a letter submitted by Auxiliary Pilgrim R. L. Gough, of Jamaica, which contained a slurring reference to this “sifter” (JJH). It prompted us to write him the letter set out below:

Dear Brother Gough: –  Greetings through our Lord Jesus!

This last Present Truth has published a letter from you, in which you refer to “the two sifters,” apparently referring to me as one of these two. You then charge that “nearly all the alleged new light of these two has contradicted the writings of the two Laodicean Star‑members,” whereas, you yourself “have chosen the Star‑members.” Therefore, I would like to ask you some questions.

R. G. Jolly has profusely and vehemently contended that “due Truth is for all the consecrated”; and he repeats this contention in the paper that carries your letter. In E:4‑129 Brother Johnson says this: “Whatever the Lord may give during the Epiphany for the priests alone will be for them alone ... now the understanding of the priestly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate.. is withheld from them (the uncleansed Levites).”

How do you reconcile your statement of “choosing the Star‑Members” with this clear statement by Brother Johnson?

            2. R. G. Jolly now has the Half Tribe of Manasseh West of Jordan typing his Consecrated Epiphany Campers; whereas, Brother Johnson taught they type the same kind of Restitutionists as the other Nine Tribes. What is your answer to this?

            3. In E:10‑209 Brother Johnson says, “the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of .... the NOT consecrated.” R. G. Jolly is now trying to complete the Epiphany Camp with his consecrated! Do you “choose the Star Member” here, or do you prefer R. G. Jolly?

            4. Brother Johnson taught that Tentative Justification ceases when the Gospel Age ceases. R. G. Jolly is now teaching it will continue during the Kingdom reign. Do you “choose the Star Member” here?

            5. In E:10‑672 Brother Johnson says “Youthful worthy brethren not yet conse­crated are to be won for the Truth” after Babylon is destroyed. R. G. Jolly now disparages this teaching as error. Do you “choose the Star Member” here?

            6. In E:15‑525 Brother Johnson teaches that all crown‑losers (including those who lost Little‑flock by the skin of their teeth) MUST BE FULLY ABANDONED to Azazel for their cleansing, the abandonment resulting from the withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor from them by the Priests. In your own individual case, will you please inform me when you underwent this experience during your life prior to October 1950?

            7. When talking to me in Jamaica in 1957 you said then you would not consider me – or any one else – a sifter and out of God's Household unless he became grossly im­moral or denied the Ransom or Sin Offering – that you were then acutely aware of the injustice that had been done to Brother Johnson by ignorant brethren. Have you now changed your mind about that?

Much of the foregoing bears directly upon changes of the Star Members' writings by Levites since Brother Johnson's death, changes in the fundamental Parousia and Epiphany teachings which are supported by Scripture; and they are certainly vital to the spiritual health of all of us. Therefore, I hope you will gladly and promptly give clear and complete answers to these questions.

I assure you of my prayers that you may receive and be guided by “the spirit of understanding.” Sincerely your brother, (Signed) John J. Hoefle ­(dated October 12, 1960).

The following was received in answer, dated October 26, 1960, although we did not receive it until Nov, 6, 1960.. The letter was postmarked October 31.

Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Greetings in the name of our Saviour!

This will acknowledge your letter of the 12th October. You, yourself, are at variance with Brother Johnson on so many points, it is strange that you should men­tion that point at all; and it is amazing that you should have the temerity to quote Brother Johnson! Why don't You quote him to yourself, on the many points on which you flatly contradict him? Is it that you claim the right to do so yourself, while you condemn others for even apparent variations? Let me remind you of some proverbs: “Finger say kooday, never kooyah,” meaning, “Do not point the finger at others, when it should more properly be pointed toward yourself:” “Kettle must not call pot black,” meaning, “People must not accuse other of things which they, themselves, are guilty;” “People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.” And there is a saying that some people throw dirt on others in order to cover their own dirt!.

 My letter in the P.T. seem to have excited you. I observe that while you quoted Brother Johnson in some of the questions, and gave E. Volume references, you did not do so in all of them; and the same thing applies to your references to Brother Jolly's teachings. Do you expect me just to take what you say, and come to conclusions on simply what you allege?

I have nothing to retract, from the letter which appeared in the Sept.‑Oct. P.T. I meant just what I said. Your alleged new light in so many instances contradicts the Scriptures and the teachings of the two Laodicean Star‑members that it would not be possible to go along with you and remain faithful to the Lord and the Truth. (Note: It would have been becoming to have just remembered and mentioned one item‑­JJH) As between you and the two Star‑members, I have chosen the Star‑members. While I do not hope to convince you of the many errors of your way, both in doctrine and conduct, since the able exposures and refutations in the P.T. have not been able to do so, I will reply briefly to your questions:

            (1) In P.T. '57, page 94, after exposing and refuting your errors on the Plow­man and the Grape‑treader of Amos 9:13, in which you contra­dict the teachings of the Laodicean Angel, Bro. Jolly discussed “Spirit­ual Discernment.” He there stated: “The Scriptures teach that for all times the due Truth is for all of God's consecrated people to discern, by the aid of His Holy Spirit.” This is almost word for word as Bro. Johnson stated it in E. Vol, 15, page 652: “The Scriptures teach for all times that the due Truth is for all the consecrated.” You try to find fault with this state­ment, and by quoting from E. Vol. 4, page 129, with certain omissions, you try to make it appear that Bro. Johnson contradicts Bro. Jolly's statement, and thus also contra­dicts his own statement in E. Vol. 15, page 652 (though you hide the latter inevitable conclusion by conveniently not mentioning it). I cannot approve of such blatant duplicity. I impeach you of handling the Star‑members' writings “deceitfully” as some do the Scriptures! If you would more carefully note his word “due” you would be more likely to see the light. (Note: We particularly note that Brother Johnson teaches that the uncleansed – though 'consecrated’ – Great Company do not receive “due” Truth, but reject it while in Azazel's hands – JJH) .. He says that “for all times the DUE Truth is for all the consecrated”; and in E. Vol. 4, page 129, where you foolishly think he contradicts himself, he shows plainly that for a limited time certain truth regarding their dealing with Azazel's Goat was DUE to the Priests alone, hence was then withheld from those for whom it was not DUE; but he states clearly that after “it has served its secret purpose, then it will be understood by the properly disposed Levites” (it will then be DUE for them to understand). So Bro. Johnson and Bro. Jolly are surely right in teaching that “for all times the DUE Truth is for all the consecrated.” Bro. Jolly refuted your false position so thor­oughly in P.T. '58, page 58,59, that I need add nothing more, except that I might remind you that the Apostle Paul received certain truths that were not yet DUE for others to understand (2 Cor. 12:4). (Another Scriptural proof of our contention and position. – JJH) I agree with Bro. Johnson rather than you.

            (2) You give no reference, so I reply merely that I find no contradiction between Bro. Jolly's and Bro. Johnson's teaching on the half tribe of Manasseh to the West of Jordan. They both teach that this half tribe, with the other nine tribes, “type the entire restitution class” (see E Vol. 4, page 451). (We also continue to believe they are the “unconsecrated” of the Gospel‑Age who will have opportunity to consecrate under the New Covenant arrangements, but not before. – JJH)

            (3) Since you do not hold to Bro. Johnson's teaching that the Epiphany in its narrow sense ended in 1954, you give me no basis for the proper discussion with you of this point. (Brother Johnson tells us that the Epiphany, beginning in 1914 and ending with Jacob's trouble, is its ‘narrow sense,’ which is an excellent basis for ‘proper discussion.’ – JJH)

            (4) Here again you give no reference. However, you so openly contradict Bro. Johnson's teachings on this subject that I cannot go with you. For example, in E. Vol. 10, page 114, he stated that “after 1954 no Youthful Worthies will be won,” and he bases this teaching on a number of Scriptures (Please cite the Scriptures! – JJH), but you still hold forth Youthful Worthy hopes to new consecrators; he shows that now “no more consecrations are possible for Gospel‑Age purposes,” but you claim they are; he shows (E. Vol. 10, page 209; 14, page 266, 5, page 420) that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of the truly repentant and believed ones, the loyal faith‑justified, the believers in Jesus as Saviour and King, but you falsely teach that both the Gospel‑Age and Epiphany Camps are “assigned to the unjustified by both Star Members.” (We agree that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture con­tains the believing and repentant, but the UNCONSECRATED – JJH) I prefer to follow the teachings of the two Star Members as defended by Bro. Jolly, rather than to fol­low your opposing vagaries. If you have not profited by the able presentations on this subject in P.T. '55, pages 13, 22, 30; P.T. '58, pages 59‑61, 91‑93; P.T. '59, pages 38, 56, 57, there is nothing I can do that would help you. (We are not ready to refuse to help this Brother, if he will permit us – JJH)

            (5) In 1941, when Bro. Johnson wrote E. Vol. 10, page 672, he expected the Epiphany to end in its full lapping into the Basileia in 1956 and that there would be a short period of time between the destruction of Babylon in the Revolution and October 1954 when the last Youthful Worthy would consecrate (see page 114); but in his later writings, from 1947 on (see P.T. '47, page 53, paragraph 2; P.T. '54, pages 51‑54), he showed that there would be a further lapping beyond 1956, and that the building of the Epiphany Camp would come after 1954. (Brother Johnson tells us in E:4‑15 – “Accordingly, the words epiphaneia and apokalypsis, in the sense of an action, and in the sense of a period, are synonymous.” Also, “It is in the narrow – ­the second – sense of that term that we use it in our subject.” See E:4,53‑54 – ­He further tells us what the other sense is – the 'wide’ sense – on p. 53 ­“In its wide sense it covers the period from 1874 until the end of anarchy and of Jacob's trouble.” But the 'narrow sense’ begins in 1914, at the beginning of the first phase of the Time of Trouble – the World War.– JJH) It is not treating Bro. Johnson rightly to use his earlier writings against the clearer light that he pre­sented in his later and clearer understandings of the Truth as it gradually unfolded. This is another instance of your handling his writings deceitfully! (Brother Johnson gave us ample Scriptural proof that the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are one and the same thing. Even R. G. Jolly has used this to some extent against J. W. Krewson's errors on the Apokalypsis. A “doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.” – ­The humiliations, buffetings permitted in their fit‑man experiences, especially after their full and complete abandonment, are especially permitted by the Lord to bring about the “destruction of their flesh”(ly) minds “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” We continue to pray that all who are under­going their fit‑man experiences will be properly exercised thereby. – JJH)

            (6) As to your question regarding E. Vol. 15, page 525: this matter was re­ferred to and discussed in P.T. '56, pages 27,28. I am quite in harmony with the explanation given there. As to my personal experiences, I prefer not to discuss them with you, for I am quite aware of your opposing attitude. (Note: We have no opposition to Brother Gough's acknowledgment of his revolutionism of either the Epiphany Truth or its Arrangements under Brother Johnson – before 1950 – as this is the only gauge we are permitted to use in recognizing New Creatures as crown­losers; nor are we arguing that Brother Gough is not now a crown‑loser, manifested as such by his revolutionism. – JJH)

            (7) I am still “acutely aware of the injustice that had been done to Brother Johnson by ignorant brethren.” What is the point you would like to make? (The point we are making is that we are receiving the same treatment that Brother Johnson received, and that for the same reason – our exposures of uncleansed Levites – JJR) I do not see that any injustice has been done to you. (No injustice in circulating slander about us? – JJH) On the contrary, you have been unjust to Bro. Jolly. Have you forgotten the awful things which you said about him, and the many vile names you called him? (We have exposed his sins of practise and teachings, but we have never conducted a “whispering campaign” against him as he has against us, even as he did under Brother Johnson – JJH) Do you remember that I spoke to you about it when you were here, and advised you to “play the ball and not the man,” and you said, “I agree, brother, I agree”?

I still think that no one is out of God's Household unless he became grossly immoral or denies the Ransom and the Sin Offering. I believe that you are in har­mony with these truths (and I hope and pray that you will ever be), and are there­fore a member of the Household of Faith. (We are pleased Brother Gough is not “in harmony” with R. G. Jolly in this respect. Even at Jamaica in 1957, R. G. Jolly called us all sorts of vile names and warned the brethren not to speak to us – ­not to shake hands with us, as we were poison. The leading brethren didn't agree with him at that time either. – JJH) But I believe you have become a sifter. When you were here, I entertained the hope that you would come to realize that you were on “the wrong side of the fence” (as I told you at the time), and retrace your steps. Instead, you have gone from bad to worse. St. Paul says, “Mark them which cause divisions” (Romans 16:17). (The favorite text of J. F. Rutherford against Brother Johnson. – JJH).. The logical effect of your activities is to cause a “sifting” among the brethren and divide them, and those who “sift” are sifters. (We constantly seek to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ and ‘lay down our lives for our brethren,’ the measurably faithful, as well as the faithful. – JJH) Therefore, on this point, I have changed my mind somewhat, because of your continued and persisted opposition to the Lord's Truths and Arrangements.

 But I still pray for you. St. Peter says, “The Lord is not slack.. but is long­suffering to us‑ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” So I pray that the Lord will convert you from the error of your ways, and cause you to come to repentance. I also pray for you on the basis of St. Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus, that “You may find mercy of the Lord in that day” (2 Peter 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:18). (The spirit of brotherly love demonstrated here causes us to hope and believe this brother will be one who will successfully come through the 'great tribulation.’ – JJH)

Instead of using such strenuous efforts to find faults and flaws, you would be better occupied by renouncing your teachings that so openly contradict the Scriptures, such as I Cor. 15:24; Psa. 149:7‑9; Rev. 20:2‑7, etc., your teaching of what Bro. Johnson called “sophistry,” your opposing views on Baptism, and your many other contradictions of the teachings of the Laodicean Star‑members, which you frequently wrest and twist to suit your own purpose; using their former immature statements against their later, more developed ones, etc. There is no need for you and me to discuss matters further until you make a radical change in your teachings and atti­tude for the better.

 I have read your circulars for several years – from the beginning – and I still think that you are on the “wrong side of the fence,” and that you are illogical, sophistical and superficial. Prejudice is a thief of reason, and your prejudice against Bro. Jolly makes it difficult (if not well nigh impossible) for you to think straight or reason clearly on any matters relating to him. It prevents you from understanding what he writes, and makes you see only faults and flaws in every­thing that he does or says. Your molehills have become great mountains in a few short years. What a pity! (Note: Self‑evidently, “whispering campaigns” and slander such as R. G. Jolly conducted against us are very insignificant ‘slips’ on the part of a leader – not considering his revolutionism and false doctrine following as a natural sequence to such activities – J.J.H)..

I still “choose the Star‑Member” as well as associate with, support and “hold up the hands” of Bro. Jolly, because of his loyalty to, harmony with, and defence of their teachings against your errors as well as those of others.

I can still say, “God bless you!” – according to your needs, according to your heart's condition to receive it, and according to His wisdom. But I would advise you not to use your time and stationery and postage stamps to write to me again, until you have completely retraced your steps and made a public confession of it. Otherwise, I will find it necessary to ignore your letters.

 With Christian love and best wishes, I remain,

Sincerely your brother, (Signed) R. L. Gough – Jamaica

The comments in the above signed “JJH” are ours. Below we quote our answer to the above, dated Nov. 10, 1960:

Dear Brother Gough: – Christian greetings!

            In your letter of October 26 you say you will “ignore my letters until I have completely retraced my steps”; but I feel impelled to write you once more just for the record. You advise me “to play the ball and not the man”; and I suppose that statement does have a certain appeal to superficial thinkers. However, it would be interesting to know just how any one can “play the ball” without tackling the man who is carrying the ball. Your advice here is in keeping with the other statements you make. And the Star Member (Brother Johnson) you claim to uphold certainly never failed to expose the “man” as well as the “ball” (the error of teaching and practise) he was throwing, in his exposures of J. F. Rutherford and other uncleansed Levites of his day.

            You complain that I do not quote Brother Johnson for all the points I made in my letter of October 12. No, I didn't! But maybe I assumed too much for you; it never occurred to me that I would need to become profuse over elementary Epiphany teachings with you who have been around so long. Is there any one of my unsupported statements that you do not believe to be true, that you are unable to find in the Epiphany writings of Brother Johnson? If there is, just point it out, and I'll gladly give you the citation for it.

            In your No. (1) on p. 1 you refer to E:15‑652 re “Spiritual Discernment.” In this you reveal the same confused reasoning as does R. G. Jolly. You do this by attempting to use present and future tenses as though they mean one and the same thing. I fully agree that the Great Company will come to understand some of Present Truth after they are cleansed – just as Brother Johnson teaches –; but, when he clearly states that such Truth is “withheld from them” in their uncleansed condition, then certainly it is not “for them” in their uncleansed condition. It is you who handle this question “deceitfully,” and not I. Any _babe’ in the Truth should know that when two inspired Scriptures seem to contradict each other, the fault is not with those Scriptures; the fault lies with the one who argues “contradiction.” And the same principle is true in this instance. In E:15 Brother Johnson is discussing “Classes” – faithful Classes; and this must be moderated by his statement about un­faithful Classes, as well as Measurably Faithful individuals of the Household (the con­secrated). Brother Johnson was making a general statement, which can apply only in a general way – even in Times of Restitution. Even with the Faithful, the due Truth is for them as they are able to receive it and use it. Jesus was the only one who re­ceived the Holy Spirit without measure; all others receive it by measure, as they are able and according to their needs. You offer the same nonsense here that comes from nominal Church – that the Bible is for all men now. We can't dispute the fact that it is here – anymore than we can dispute the Epiphany Truth is here. Not too many of the ‘consecrated’ have received Epiphany Truth, and many of those who have (the uncleansed Great Company in particular) are now perverting and revolutionizing against it. But Jesus clearly states (Mark 4:11,12 – Dia.), “to those without (the world) all things are done in parables; that seeing, they may see, and not perceive.” The Great Company (the ‘consecrated’) stand in the same relative condition during their Abandonment to Azazel. Brother Johnson said the due Truth is hidden from the uncleansed Levites, that “they may not perceive” until they are cleansed. While some of them are privileged to read the Epiphany Truth, it is a self‑evident fact that they do not understand what they read; the ‘understanding’ is withheld from them. I do not wonder that R. G. Jolly, and those in similar condition, fight against this! We know from personal discussion with him after Brother Johnson's demise that he (R. G. Jolly) did not see any difference between “Good Levites” and “Cleansed Levites” – although Brother Johnson made the matter very clear in his writings. So, tell me, was he then too dense to understand the matter, or had it been “withheld” from him during Brother Johnson's life? R. G. jolly proof‑read about everything Brother Johnson wrote, so he had every opportunity to read the Epiphany Truth. Clearly enough, he doesn't understand the ‘abandonment’ process yet, even though it is set out in definite and distinct words by the Epiphany Messenger; although I agree with you he “will” yet understand it (in the future) if and when he cleanses himself. Brother Johnson makes this very clear in E:4‑129‑130: “The understanding of the priestly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Coat to the Gate... is withheld from them. After they are cleansed they will understand these things... from 1881 on the Lord gave all the faithful consecrators... an understanding of all deep things, except an appreciative understanding of the operation of the Spirit of begettal in the heart.” And elsewhere Brother Johnson says that they (the Great Company) not only don't receive due Truth, but reject it while in the Fit‑Man's hands (while they pervert the Truths they had previously received).

            Then your (4) on p. 2: Your argument here is truly an identical repetition of R. G. Jolly. As you must know, Brother Johnson taught that all who are forced from the Court at the end of this Age lose their Tentative Justification in the fin­ished picture. But they are still intrinsically the same people as they were before. Call them what you will – “loyal faith justified,” or what not –, but your attempt to argue nomenclature is certainly handling Brother Johnson's writings very deceitfully. He said such people would be unconsecrated; whereas, R. C. Jolly says they are the “consecrated.” You ignore this, the vital crux of the whole argument, as you refuse “to follow my opposing vagaries.” WHY? Did R. G. Jolly assist you in writ­ing your letter? This “strange Fire” (false doctrine) is a twin to what the Jeho­vah's Witnesses are now foisting on their proselytes, although R. G. Jolly's efforts will never reach the proportions of this prominent sect in Little Babylon. As I have men­tioned before, even though perhaps not intentional, this is a perversion of the Ransom teaching. Restitutionists and the Faith Classes are not on trial at the same time during the Gospel‑Age.

            Now, I consider your (5) on p. 2: You speak of Brother Johnson's “clearer light...and clearer understandings of the Truth” re 1954‑56 than he gave in Vol. 10. Cite me to some of that “clearer understanding,” won't you please. You accuse me of changing some of Brother Johnson's teachings on this time feature. Where have I changed any of his writings anywhere that are Scripturally supported? When Bro. Johnson's death occurred in 1950 instead of 1956, as he thought, I didn't make that change! The EVENT itself changed that thought and teaching. Early in the Epiphany uncleansed Levites accused Brother Johnson of the same thing – and truthfully so, because time itself clearly demonstrated the inaccuracy of some of Brother Russell's future predictions. Only the grossly ignorant, or the willingly ignorant, would have failed to do what Brother Johnson did. And I say the same now for our time. It should be kept in mind that the Gospel‑Age and Epiphany Tabernacle picture (God's arrangement with respect to the Household of Faith) would self‑evidently remain the same, even though the Star Member miscalculated some time events in relation thereto (which has always been a trial of the Faithful). When time itself indisputably proved some of their anticipations wrong, then only “the unstable and the unlearned” would attempt to change God's arrangements in the Tabernacle picture. “The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical,” says Brother Johnson. If that is true, and he offers much Scriptural proof for it (See E:4‑7 through 72), then the Epiphany Taber­nacle cannot change until the Time of Trouble is over. To attempt to change God's arrangement on that is simply perversion of the worst sort (Azazel means Perverter) and gross nonsense. Here again, I challenge you to show one scintilla of proof from Brother Johnson's writings where he even hinted that the Epiphany Camp – at any time – ­would contain consecrated Tentatively Justified. Christ's merit cannot extend to the Restitutionists while it is on embargo in the Court. And you accuse me here of “handling his writings deceitfully”!

            On p. 3 (7) you accuse me of being unjust to Brother Jolly. I wonder if you read the early paper I sent out about him? On several occasions after Brother John­son's death – and before that “loan” item came up – I told R, G. Jolly in brotherly love of some of his mistakes in teaching and practise; and I continued to write him similarly until I learned he was going about slandering me, and encouraging others to do so (even while he was addressing me as “Dear Brother”). Even when I accused him of that (before I made public exposure of him), he didn't deny it. When the issue became too warm for him, he simply “made amends” by disfellowshiping me. At that Philadelphia Convention of 1955 when the brethern assembled there had the first exposure, it was a most appropriate time for him to deny the charges publicly and offer proof of his denial. Instead of doing the proper thing then, he simply made mention from the platform, that 'according to some paper,’ etc., he and Daniel Gavin were “bad eggs.” Seemingly, this is all quite fine with you, This does not surprise me, since you freely admit your soulmate relationship. Repeatedly have I accused him of falsehood; and I have the written proof of my statements here in our file. He ac­cuses me of lying, of having a “bad spirit”; but he offers no more than his unsup­ported word for his statements, which he repeatedly demonstrates is worthless. Of course, if he had the Truth on his side, he wouldn't have to resort to such tactics; nor would he do it if he were actuated by honorable motives. That is why he, and others like him, will be cleansed only by “great tribulation” – if they are cleansed at all. Brother Johnson placed it in his written record that R. G. Jolly had a “bad conscience,” that he was “unfair and unkind” (See E:10‑585 where these exact words are to be found). Now, you tell me I'm on the “wrong side of the fence.” Well, I'm on the same side of the fence as Brother Johnson, the same side I was on when he was here with us – and I thank God at every remembrance of it!

            You speak of my “opposing views on Baptism,” etc., which you say I “wrest and twist to suit my own purpose.” Why don't you cite one instance of such “twisting and wresting”? For your convenience I refer you to my No. 23, July 1, 1957, No. 55, Dec. 1, 1959, and No. 58, March 1, 1960 papers in which John's Baptism is treated, and ask that you cite one perversion of Scripture, if you can. All I've asked in this matter is Scriptural proof in relation to Acts 18, which has never been forth­coming. You say you are kindly disposed toward me, so I now ask you for that proof.

            Had you been given your Fit‑Man experiences in your abandonment process before 1950, that would have been some help perhaps to R. G. Jolly (proving that you were fully abandoned by the Faithful and had received your cleansing therefrom). There is much more I could write, but this is already quite lengthy. I reciprocate your Christian love, and assure you of my earnest prayer that we may very shortly once more “dwell together in unity.” (Psa. 133).

Sincerely your brother, (Signed) John J. Hoefle

ANOTHER “CLEANSED” EPIPHANY LEVITE – A REAL GOOD ONE!

            In this Sept‑Oct. P.T. there is also a letter from Auxiliary Pilgrim Hubert H. Motley, in which he speaks of “the hurts that we receive from false brethren”; so we feel it in order here to relate our own experience with this “staunch supporter” of R. G. Jolly. Thirty years ago this “staunch supporter” was resident in Detroit, as we also then were. He was so destitute he was sleeping on the floor of a small resident garage; and, being one of those “false brethren” to whom he refers, we gave to Brother Motley the lift of love – brushed the dust of the garage off him, gave him an excellent suit of our own clothes (which fit him almost perfectly) and other clothing, and ad­vanced him various sums of money so he could rehabilitate himself and leave Detroit for parts in which he felt he could better start life anew. We still have in our possession his “I promise to pay” for $400.00, although this does not nearly cover all the gratuities and advances we made to him.

            After he left, we heard from him on occasion; but never once in all these years has he even hinted at repayment of the $400.00; but he's a good “staunch supporter” of R. G. Jolly – undoubtedly a true soulmate! Isn't it truly remarkable how such a per­son has no trouble at all to understand the “truths” (actually the errors) that have been foisted upon the unsuspecting sheep since Brother Johnson's death (And which he himself is circulating as an Auxiliary Pilgrim), yet he just can't grasp the clear and simple truth of a paper with his own name signed to it – an “I promise to pay” for $400.00!! It seems R. G. Jolly attracts quite a few of such “staunch supporters” –, and he is quite welcome to them. However, if any of our readers know the present address of Brother Motley, we would like to send him one of these papers – free, of course. His “staunch support” of R. G. Jolly, while ignoring his debt to us, is in keeping with the general thinking of those in Azazel's hands. Apparently, the text “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” has no more force with them than the “abandonment” teachings of Brother Johnson. Nor does the text “Owe no man anything, but to love one another” mean anything to this “cleansed Levite”.

            Our readers should ever bear in mind that all during the Epiphany it was the uncleansed Levites who heaped abuse of all sorts upon Brother Johnson – the main reason for that being his teaching that their cleansing could come only through fit‑man exper­iences, the same being unfavorable circumstances and persecuting persons. For this they labelled him the No. 1 “sifter” after 1916. For five years now we have been pub­lishing the same teaching on this that he did; and we are receiving the same treat­ment. In this they offer much the same resentment as the disobedient boy who is about to receive the paddle from his parent – they're being abused, of course!

THE “LORD'S REPRESENTATIVE” SAW:

            On Saturday October 29 at the Chicago Convention, Daniel Gavin gave the Baptismal talk, in which he offered a rather sketchy and vague reference to a “new class” since 1954. If we followed him understandably, he did not refer to this Class by name – ­although he did mention the “Queen. of Sheba” contingent... That is, we did not hear “Consecrated Epiphany Campers” or Quasi‑elect Consecrated. But, be that as it may (we could not hear too distinctly at times, as his tones were subdued, even as most of the speakers spoke in subdued tones at that Convention), he said this new Class was first seen by the “Lord's Representative.” If we have the story straight –  and we admit to hearsay here –, it was J. W. Krewson who “sold” this Consecrated quasi‑elect to R. G. Jolly; so it would be very interesting to know just who Daniel Gavin had in mind when he said the “Lord's Representative” first saw this Class. We do know – ­of our own knowledge – that he was fully convinced and told us this personally, that J. W. Krewson was the “Lord's Representative” in 1955; and we know, too, that he con­tinued in that belief for some time after he left our home, after he stood up so “nobly” for R. G. Jolly at that Winter Park meeting, as he was continuing to distribute J. W. Krewson's discourses where he could. So we wonder if he still holds that belief, or if the idea became so entrenched in his mind then that he just can't get rid of it. This would be in keeping with the course of a “doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways” – a crown‑loser.

MORE REVOLUTIONISM AGAINST PAROUSIA TEACHINGS

            This same Daniel Cavin also refuses a civil greetings to the “Sifters,” even away from the meeting hall, which is also contrary to the teachings of That Wise and Faithful Servant – although we do acknowledge that R. G. Jolly and some of the leaders in the L.H.M.M. have not reached that point as yet in their revolutionisms. That Ser­vant taught that we should treat the 'cast out’ (disfellowshiped) as “heathen and publicans.” (See Parousia Vol. 6, p. 416) – Actually, they are “sinners” if they have been justly cast out. However, many times the Faithful have been 'cast out’ while the “sinners” cried, “Let the Lord be glorified.” (See Isa. 66:5) Certainly, we don't refuse to greet such “sinners” in common civility, even though we cannot re­ceive them in Christian fellowship. However, we did receive Daniel Gavin in fellow­ship, love and confidence, in our home before we knew of his traitorous course, not only toward us, but also to R. G. Jolly, and finally toward J. W. Krewson. It seems he was faithful to no one or anything. His record is unique, we believe. So we need not be surprised when he fails to comply with the simple and understandable features of the Parousia and Epiphany Truth (Truths that even the 'babes’ can understand and appreciate), as Brother Johnson tells us that while they are thoroughly unfaithful, and being buffeted by Azazel, during their abandonment period, they can't think clearly on matters of the Truth, as is so sadly manifest here.

            We extend our warm greetings and best wishes to all our brethren everywhere for the coming Holiday Season. “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 4:7)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle,

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Sirs:

            Thank you for sending me your leaflets entitled “Where are the Dead” at a time when I needed an answer to that question more than ever before. The fact that you contacted me means that you read or heard of my young son's death. Of course, I am interested in his future after such a brief life on this earth.

            I was a Baptist by birth, and an Episcopalian by raising, but have had no conso­lation from or belief in either. I have long looked for a true faith that I could be­lieve in and, after reading your leaflet it comes the closest to what I have always believed in my innermost self.

            Please send me your other leaflets: The Resurrection of the Dead, The Three Babylons and What is the Soul. Thank you!

--------- Mass.

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

To Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n:

            Will you please send me a copy of “What is the Soul”?

Yours truly --------- Conn.

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

Dear Sirs:

            I would like to have free copies of The Resurrection of the Dead and Where are the Dead. My address is......

Sincerely yours --------- N. C.

NO. 66: "THESE TEN YEARS" REVIEWED

No. 66

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

The above captioned article appears in this September‑October Present Truth; and once more we repeat the words of our Beloved Lord, “Wisdom is justified of all her children!” Just recently one erstwhile Jehovah's Witness said the question was contemptuously hurled at her: Do you place the Bible above the Watch Tower? In sub­stance – if not in so many words – R. G. Jolly now asks his readers if they place the unproven words of Brother Johnson above the Bible. In this matter of the Last Saint we have offered clear Scriptures to prove this event could not possibly have occurred on October 22, 1950; and each time has R. G. Jolly ignored the Bible, while emphati­cally repeating “what a man said.” While this same man (the beloved Epiphany Mes­senger) also truly said that “prophecies and types connected with a trial of character cannot clearly be understood until the trial is met by the Faithful.” (See E:4‑160, top, re some immaturities of That Servant.) But R. G. Jolly failed to include what he (Brother Johnson) really taught on the matter – namely, that the last Saint would not be glorified until early in Anarchy! Be it clearly understood we do not wish to discount the last two Star Members; but, by the same token, we shall not place their thoughts, unsupported by Scripture, and their word above that “which is (infallibly) written” by inspiration. The Epiphany Truth would be sadly out of order had Brother Johnson treated That Servant's thoughts and words (unsupported by Scripture) in the same manner as does R. G. Jolly with the Epiphany Messenger's thoughts and words (where it suits his purpose) unsupported by Scripture. R. G. Jolly accepts just the reverse position, while relying heavily upon his name‑calling to convince his readers. In this he clearly reveals who his soulmates are.

About forty years ago Billy Sunday came to Dayton, Ohio – where we then resided. As many of us know, his greatest prop was eternal torment as the wages of sin. There­fore, we wrote him a letter setting forth many Scriptures to refute his God‑dishonor­ing theme, telling him if he did not answer our letter from his platform, we would submit our letter to the local newspapers for general publication. After some sar­castic remarks from his strong pair of lungs, he shouted, “He's a big idiot!” That was his answer to the Truth! We wrote similarly to a local hell‑fire preacher in Dayton; and his answer was, “This man must have been kicked by a mule in his youth. Poor fellow!” And their audiences cheered to such “lung‑thinkers!” R. G. Jolly now offers abundant proof of his attachment to these kindred spirits by resorting to the same technique.

He makes pretense of relying upon Brother Johnson; and at the same time openly contradicts him. Brother Johnson repeatedly and emphatically taught that in this Epiphany time the gauge of Leviteship was REVOLUTIONISN, and nothing else! R. G. Jolly now ignores that teaching, saying the death of a man made blanket manifestation of all Levites. Having received his “inspiration” on this teaching while theorizing in bed at 4:00 A.M., a day or two after Brother Johnson's demise, it is little wonder he informed Pilgrim Eschrich his presence was not needed at the funeral! Just think of it! Were any of the United States Pilgrims given such advice when Brother Russell died? But it is clear enough now why R. G. Jolly did such a thing. Knowing that Pilgrim Eschrich retained strong Little‑flock hopes, it would have been awkward – most awkward – for an uncleansed Levite to arise and assume control. Such a thing just couldn't be!

Following is a partial reprint of some of our observations on the above (complete papers free upon request) – none of which has R. G. Jolly even attempted to answer:

“When we returned to Detroit in October 1950 –  after conducting Brother Johnson's funeral – we said then that nothing we thought or wished would place any one in the Body of Christ, or take any one out of it, because – “God hath set the members in the Body.” Therefore, we scrupulously avoided heaping any abuse upon those who held an opinion contrary to ours. That also is still our position. But we believe it now in order to state that we were overmuch and too easily influenced by the conclusions of R. G. Jolly on this subject, because we held him in high esteem and confidence in 1950. Had we known him then as we know him now, we would have taken a narrower and much more critical view of anything he presented as ‘advancing Truth!’; but it should be observed that we are always most easily misled by those we trust. Even Jesus learned this by His own bitter experience – ‘mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted’. (Psa. 41:9) According to his own admission the evening after the funeral, R. G. Jolly had himself held the view for sometime after Brother Johnson's death that there were still Saints among us, which belief left him suddenly in a flash as he lay awake in the early morn­ing hours (just as he received a sudden ‘illumination’ on his new Millennial princes on his way to the Grand Rapids Convention in 1955). We have always been wary of mani­fested crown‑losers who made claim to special illumination; but our confidence in R. G. Jolly at that time submerged a caution which we ordinarily maintain.

“As stated above, we took a detached view of the controversy because we clearly realized at the time that whether the answer be Yea or Nay it in nowise affected the status of any winlings that might attach themselves to us; this was not even remotely. related to the issue such as Brother Johnson advocated early in the Epiphany when he declared the High Calling should no longer be presented to newcomers. After 1950 the work as respects newcomers was exactly the same as it had been before; nothing at all had been changed there. (Note: Nor has it been changed since 1954, despite the false doctrines to the contrary – namely, the Epiphany Campers consecrated or Quasi‑elect consecrated.) Nor, in the final analysis, would anything whatever be changed with respect to the status of Saints, should there still be some among us. However, that fatal event October 22, 1950 did most mightily affect the status of one individual – ­Namely, one R. G. Jolly (a manifested crown‑lost leader). If there are still Saints on earth, then the claims he has made since that date can be only the babble of a gross perverter – claims such as paralleling Brother Russell, the claim of Pastor and Teacher, the claim that he now represents the ‘Lord's Arrangements,’ etc. As some of our readers already know, Brother Johnson had seen thirty‑three reasons for the High Calling closed when we first became acquainted with him early in the Epiphany (the acquaintance being only through his writings; we had not then yet met him person­ally). So we wrote him thirty‑three reasons why he was wrong. But did he answer us with abusive imprecations? Not at all! Rather, he suggested we visit him for a per­sonal talk, which invitation we accepted immediately; and at which he gave us the counsel one might expect of him whom God gave ‘largeness of heart’ (I Kings 4:29) – ­the counsel being that he and this writer continue as brethren in the love of the Truth, leaving the ultimate rewards with the Lord, but resolve to meet the covenants we had made. And we present this generous view of the beloved Epiphany Solomon in striking contrast to the baleful revilings and actions after October 1950, when many brethren were disfellowshiped simply because of their honest belief in their Saintly standing. For Shame!! Certainly, this could be no Scriptural cause to disfellowship any one; but the Epiphany is a time for ‘making manifest the counsels of hearts’ – a truth which must apply to all in the Household of Faith. Hence, what happened after 1950 “made manifest” the uncleansed condition of many Great Company and Youthful Worthy members; and be it observed that those most blindly partisan in their support of the present Executive Trustee have been those most ready to reveal that “instruments of cruelty are in their habitation.” For all this there must eventually come a fearful reckon­ing!

“As this controversy developed into a most serious and painful disturbance in 1951, we did then in that year ask R. G. Jolly what answer he had for the large Gos­pel‑Age Samson – considering Brother Russell's statement in the Berean Comments on Judges 16:30, “With the death of the last member of the Church, the Body of Christ, will surely come the downfall of Churchianity and the present system of world power.”

He offered the very reasonable observation that God's estimate of “immediate” would not necessarily be a day, a week, or even months – with which we agree; but, now that almost seven years (Note: written in August 1957) have elapsed, this item certainly requires a more scrupulous appraisal. At that time R. G. Jolly asked that we keep silent on this point in order not to aid the “opposition” in their arguments against him, because it was indeed a premise which could not be conclusively overthrown; and the weight of argument might easily appear to favor the other side.

“As companion to the Samson picture we have the words of Jesus, “Ye are the salt of the earth ... ye are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:13,14); and here is the Be­rean Comment on v. 14: “When the lights have all been extinguished, the great time of trouble will follow.” Just prior to Brother Johnson's death, the Korean war had commenced; the financial structure seemed to be tottering; the antitypical Assyrians were definitely on the march; “all faces were gathering blackness”; gloom was preva­lent in all quarters. In contrast, we believe an unbiased view would declare the “earth” to be in better state of preservation today than it was in 1950 – on the sur­face, at least. Thus, there is no secular physical evidence that the “salt of the earth” has been removed to bring about its “spoiling”; the “lights” have not yet all been extinguished.

“In the same line of argument is the David‑Saul type, the latter typing the crown-­lost leaders up to Armageddon. In the type Saul died first – he and his sons “that same day” (1 Sam. 31:6) – , of which David was witness. Brother Johnson certainly thought the antitype would follow the time order of the type, his mistake in this matter be­ing only that he thought he himself would be one of the David class who will be here to witness the “funeral” of antitypical Saul in the Armageddon collapse of the social order. In line with this, we have his statement in E:3‑446 (middle): “It will, there­fore, not be manifest who will be the eventual Little Flock members, until all the Truth Levites have been manifested, have cleansed themselves (Num. 8:7), have recog­nized themselves as Levites (Num. 8:9,10), have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb (Num. 8:12), have been set apart for the true Levitical service (Num. 8:11), and are set before the Priests as their servants (Num. 8:13)". Certainly, no one will contend that the foregoing has yet occurred!

“We now proceed to a consideration of the Zechariah type of 2 Chron. 24:20, 21. Zechariah was High Priest in Israel; therefore, he was a link in the continuation of a Tabernacle type – and it should be emphasized at this point that every type pertinent to the Tabernacle service had to continue until its antitype appeared. This was true of all the Aaronic types that centered in the Tabernacle – chief of which was the office of High Priest. In the strict sense, Israel had only one High Priest – just as Spiri­tual Israel has only one “Apostle and high priest of our profession” (Heb. 3:1). Aaron was the only High Priest directly called of God and directly anointed into the Priest's office by God through Moses (Ex. 29:7) – just as Jesus was the only one selected to fill His office, and –  “no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron” (Heb. 5:4,5). All the High Priests that followed Aaron came to that office by succession, as a matter of birth (Note: In The Epiphany especially, Spiritual Birth – those who were “in the Truth” just as the ruling monarchs of England reach their position as a matter of birth. Thus, some of them were weak – as was Eli; and some were sinful – as was Caiaphas. But all of them were probably reasonably accur­ate in their performance of the Atonement‑Day service and similar ceremonies; and, so far as we can recall, none of them ever lost their priestly anointing – the type contin­ued unbroken until the antitype appeared.

“It should be observed, too, that the Aaronic Priesthood was the only all‑inclusive type of the Gospel‑Age Priesthood. All other types pertinent to the Christ had certain limitations – lacked some one or more of the features to be found in the Aaronic order. And just as Aaron was the special eye, hand and mouth of Moses (Ex. 4:10‑17; 7:1) – ­(Moses typing Christ) – so also was each priest that followed Aaron the special eye, hand and mouth of God in Israel. (See Berean Comments on John 18:13) Reasoning back from the antitype, had any High Priest violated his anointing, he would have been for­ever rejected from the priesthood – just as all who lose their priestly anointing in the Gospel Age are barred forever from returning to that office, or of exercising the powers of that office. Losing their anointing is identical to losing their crowns; and any who attempt to exercise the office of eye, hand and mouth of the Lord, once they lose their priestly anointing, would simply be power‑grasp­ers of the worst order. We present this detail to demonstrate the extreme folly of any crown‑loser who would attempt to set himself up at Pastor and Teacher before the Lord. Saul typed the crown-­lost leaders up to Armageddon; and, once Saul had been rejected by the Lord, “the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.” (1 Sam. 28:6)

“It is stated Zechariah was “stoned in the court of the house of the Lord”; and Jesus said this occurred “between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:35). Certainly, this addition by Jesus was not without purpose. We know the brazen altar in the court types the humanity of the entire church. And Zechariah was slain between the altar and the temple. Thus, while it is logical enough to conclude that Zechariah types the last eye, mouth and hand (the last Star Member of the Church), it is clear enough from this type that he would pass from the picture while some were still in the sacrificing condition (the brazen altar), with others already in the glorified state (Solomon's Temple). Therefore, instead of this type proving antitypical Zechariah would be the last Saint, it proves just the reverse – that there would still be some sacrificing Saints after he had gone. It proves also, that those Saints remaining after antity­pical Zechariah's death would never again be served by a special eye, hand and mouth –  ­that Cod would “supply all their needs” through other sources by His Word and Providences.

“In support of this conclusion, we have Brother Johnson's analysis of Rev. 19:1,2 as given in E:3‑132,133,134. In v. 1, it is stated John “heard a great crowd in Heaven”: and the words in v. 6 are substantially the same – “heard the voice of a great crowd.” Brother Johnson says vs. 1 and 2 refer to the Great Company in the Society smiting Jor­dan the second time; and at the bottom of page 133 he says: “Whenever John is said to hear this or that the reference always is to the things transpiring at the time of the hearing.” Then on page 134: “Therefore, the John Class hears the message of the Great Company delivered While the Little Flock is yet in the flesh” (emphasis by Brother Johnson). Either Brother Johnson is wrong in his analysis of vs. 1 and 2, or others are wrong in their conclusions re vs. 6‑9. John “heard” the message of the Great Company in vs. 6‑9. Therefore, both messages must occur while the John Class is in the flesh if we are to accept Brother Johnson's teaching on this matter.

“In this connection, we believe it well to note the striking similarity in the technique of Azazel from first to last of the Gospel Age. Jesus had said, “Simon, Simon, behold, the Adversary has asked for you, that he may sift you like wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail.” – Luke 22:31 (Dia.) Here is a clear statement that Satan would attempt to destroy the Christ Company at its very outset by snaring the one to whom was committed “the keys of the Kingdom.” And what was his modus operandi? Why, he used “a certain maid‑servant” – Luke 22:56 (Dia) ­in his attempt to topple over and destroy Peter; but he failed because Jesus had specially prayed for him that his “faith fail not.” And in keeping with his attempt against the first members of the Christ Company at the beginning of the Age, he proceeded in identical fashion at the end of the Age by using a “handmaid” (Joel 2:29) – a Great Company member – to “bruise the heel” of the Body in an effort to destroy the grand Plan of the Ages. This same “handmaid” is actually typed by a maid in his Pilgrim office (see E:14‑282). All just happenstance, you think? Yes, Satan is a wily deceiver; but “we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11) “lest he should get an advantage of us.” (See August 1, 1957 article.)

The following is from our Nov. 15, 1957 issue: “As all Bible Students know, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both taught that a type must never be used to establish a doctrine; it can only be used to support a doctrine already established. But in this instance, R. G. Jolly not only does not prove a doctrine by his Zechariah type, he actually tries to set aside a doctrine already well established – and he makes this attempt by a fractured type at that!

“In Brother Johnson's explanation of the Zechariah type he emphasized that he would be here until 1956, and that his end would be a violent one. Since neither the date of his death nor the manner of his death occurred according to expectation, we state it was a fractured type. But the doctrine was well established by both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that some Saints would remain on earth until the violent features of the Time of Trouble arrived. In our August 1 writing on The Last Saint we offered a number of Scriptures and comments from the Star Members pertaining to this matter – enough certainly to establish the doctrine just set forth – ; and we now offer others in support of it.

“Brother Johnson's belief that his would be a violent end (if he were to be the last Saint) comes logically enough. The first ‘righteous blood’ to be shed occurred in the violent death of Abel; and the last “righteous blood” – specifically described as such by Jesus – came through the violent death of Zechariah. The last righteous blood actually to be shed violently in pre‑Gospel‑Age times was that of John the Baptist; and Brother Russell accepted that as a concluding type of the Gospel‑Age priesthood in his belief that the last ones would come to a violent end. For Gospel‑Age purposes the first righteous blood to be shed was that of Jesus – also violently poured out – just as St. Paul's blood likewise was violently “poured out” (2 Tim. 4:6,Dia.).. And the Scriptural teaching seems clear and indisputable that the last righteous blood of this Age would be violently poured out –  as instance, 1 Thes. 4:17: “We which are alive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.” Brother Johnson's comment on this in E:6‑518 follows: “The anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, as indica­ted by Elijah's whirlwind ascent, and by the last ones being ‘violently seized by cloud’, the literal translation of the Greek rendered in the A.V. – 1 Thes. 4:17 ‘caught up in the clouds.’”

“The foregoing is exceptionally clear; and cannot be explained away by a mere fractured type. Let R. G. Jolly – and all others who claim the Saints are no more – give their explanation of the above, in harmony with their present position.

“Companion to the foregoing is Brother Johnson's statement in E:6‑630 on Zech.8:10: The ‘no hire’ for man or beast of Zech. 8:10... is to occur after the foundation of the church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon.’

“Here again is some more doctrine that must be discarded if the fractured type of Zechariah is to prevail. It will be noted that all the types we presented in our August writing support the doctrine. In further support of our statement that Zech­ariah could type the last Star Member, but not the last Saint, we offer the Moses type –  wherein he types the Star Members. Moses did not complete the march of Israel into Canaan, which shows clearly enough that it would not be a Star Member in the end of this Age who would complete the march of spiritual Israel into the heavenly Canaan.

“There is also the prophecy of Gen. 3:15 – ‘thou (Satan) shalt bruise his heel’ (the last members of the Christ company on earth). Is there any physical evidence to show this ‘bruising’ has yet occurred?

“But, weak as the Zechariah type appears, it is reasonably solid compared to the nonsense offered in explanation on page 78 of ‘John hearing the Rev. 19:6,7 message.’ R. G. Jolly contends that John in this Scripture is transposed from the Little Flock to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. This contention is strikingly co‑incident to the claim of That Evil Servant that Elijah was transposed into Elisha – just by the death of Brother Russell. And the only argument given for the transformation in Rev. 19:6,7 is the death of Brother Johnson – and nothing more! Well, if there be any sound substance to this contention, we should be able to substitute “Great Company” for the pronoun “I” in v. 6. Let's try it and notice how it sounds: “The Great Company heard as it were the voice of the Great Company” (apparently talking to themselves!). Does it sound sensible? Yes, indeed, definitely ‘non’sensible! As Brother Johnson so ably stated – When these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. “And the contention in this instance of John being transformed from the Little Flock to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies – then talking to themselves –  well nigh approaches ‘perfection’ in nonsense. And the sin here is doubly magnified when R. G. Jolly attempts to besmirch Brother Johnson's good name by attaching such nonsense to him, and claiming the Bible teaches it. Is the claim that ‘three times one equals one’ any more ridiculous?

“The foregoing remarks re John on Patmos representing God's people would be inappropriate had R. G. Jolly properly qualified Brother Johnson's statement about John ‘representing the Lord's people.’ John represents only ‘the Lord's faithful and obedient people.’ In no instance in the Bible do God's faithful and obedient people in their faithfulness represent unfaithful or measurably faithful and disobedient people. Every Great Company type has one or more reprehensible features attached to it; and the reason is self‑evident – they portray those particular failings of various Great Company members. Even in the case of Moses –  great and good man that he was – ­he pictures future unfaithful classes only when he was disobedient. And in the case of Cyrus, a heathen, he represented Christ only when he was doing God's will – “my shepherd Cyrus,” Isa. 44:28 – To say that faithful Apostle John represented the uncleansed Great Company since 1950 is sacrilege. There must indeed come a time when John on Patmos (Patmos means ‘suffering’) will represent all God's people – but this cannot be so until the Great Company are cleansed, obedient and faithful. We have offered so much from Brother Johnson and otherwise – including R. G. Jolly's truthful admission at the Jacksonville Convention in Feb. 1955, that Brother Johnson had never withdrawn brotherly favor from him – which is certainly true, and is proof that R. G. Jolly couldn't possibly have been cleansed at October 22, 1950, because the final step had not been taken in his case to effect his full cleansing – viz., the withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor by the World's High Priest. Certainly none of the various groups were cleansed at October 22, 1950 as a class. None of this has been answered, because R. G. Jolly cannot answer it. Let him and his sectarian supporters continue to fight the Truth, if they will; they must eventually hear the Lord's word grating on their ears – ‘It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks’ (Acts 9:5).

“Furthermore, Brother Johnson states in E:5‑420 that the message of Rev. 19:5 will be preached by the Great Company after they are cleansed. For the past two years we have offered many proofs from Brother Johnson's writings showing that no Levitical group was cleansed at October 1950 – though there were individuals among them who probably were cleansed. None of this has been refuted to date, so we shall not pursue it further here.

“The suggestion has come to us through the mail that Rev. 19:6 makes no allowance for a false message –  which would be the case if we are right and R. G. Jolly, et al, are wrong. To this we answer that the same premise would apply to Rev. 16:17 – “It is finished.” The message that the High Calling was closed was published first by the Great Company in the Society; and, while the message was correct, their date was wrong. They offered March 27, 1918, instead of September 16, 1914; and it offers a fitting parallel to the present contention about the Saints being no more on earth. As Brother Johnson so truly stated – Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company.” (See our Nov. 15, 1957 article)

On p. 67, col. 2, par. 3, last sentence, R. G. Jolly attempts to “beauty‑parlor” his errors by quoting Brother Johnson, “I will be watching you from beyond the veil.” For a time after Brother Johnson's death, some of R. G. Jolly's subservient Yes‑men even went about the country declaring Brother Johnson was still supervising “our work from beyond the veil.” This was an identical “twin” to the Society preaching after Brother Russell's death; and it became apparent soon after 1916, and soon after 1950, that the bungling efforts of uncleansed Levites so disgraced the beloved Star Members that the thought was quickly dropped. “Bungling is the natural and usual procedure of the Great Company,” said Brother Johnson.

On pages 68‑69 R. G. Jolly disparages a Youthful Worthy sifter (presumably J. W. Krewson); taking him to task quite laboriously for his erroneous “parallels.” It will be noted, however, that he fails to mention “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels,” by the same person, which R. G. Jolly willingly and gladly published in the Present Truth, so long as they fed his ego. (Note: This parallel is in keeping with all his subsequent parallels – hallucinations.) Would a child in grammar school now not evaluate those presentations for the spiritual rubbish that they were? Time itself has offered a clear exposure of that nonsense!

Then, on p. 69, R. G. Jolly makes an attempt toward “the other errorist,” mean­ing JJH. He speaks of “a loan of a large sum of money” he refused in 1952 – presumably as our reason for finding fault with him. Why doesn't he state the amount of the loan? And why doesn't he offer at least some small section of our correspondence with that to lend credence to this slur he is setting up? The answer is, He hasn't any! As Bro. Johnson has so ably stated, “half truths are more misleading than whole errors.”

We inform our readers now that we requested from R. G. Jolly a loan of $5,000, which may have been a “large sum” to him, as it is probable he never realized such an amount in his own possession before he received his “promotion” to Executive Trus­tee of the L.H.M.M. But, there's more to this! Back in the thirties, during the depression, Brother Johnson approached us in the hope we might secure title to 1327 Snyder Avenue to avoid the movement of headquarters and the resultant confusion. We not only advanced the money to buy outright 1327 Snyder Avenue, but we also gave Brother Johnson title to the property. After Brother Johnson's death R. G. Jolly asked our permission to dispose of that property (he must have felt some obligation then, or he would not have needed to ask our permission), which we graciously encour­aged him to do, so that all L.H.M.M. effort could be directed from the present Taber­nacle. R. G. Jolly disposed of 1327 Snyder for about $11,000.00 –  a clear windfall to him under the circumstances. And for him now to attempt this insulting reference to our request for a loan (not a gift, although he was a recipient of a much larger gift from us at the time,) for less than half the proceeds of our own gift to the Movement, simply establishes what a little man he is – a very cheap “little” man!

Brother Johnson on at least one occasion related that at Christmas time, when brethren would send him special tidbits, he would offer R. G. Jolly a half of what he had received, which R. G. Jolly readily accepted. Then, later Brother Johnson learned that those same brethren had sent R. G. Jolly an amount equal to his own; so that, after dividing with him, R. G. Jolly then had three times the amount Bro. Johnson himself had. As Shakespeare so aptly stated, “Yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look!” Yes, indeed, R. G. Jolly hath a “lean and hungry look.” Whatever of education he may have received to further his insatiable ambition to be a “preacher,” it was sadly inadequate to cleanse his cheap interior. It grieves us deeply to offer this uncomplimentary observation of him, but his unholy ambition, revolutionistic course, together with his offering “strange fire” (false doctrines) forces us to make crystal clear just what ‘manner’ of man he is.

When Brother Johnson said the Great Company would have to serve themselves after his demise, there is nothing about that which should arouse any awe. It's a self-­evident truth! All during the Gospel‑Age the Great Company has done the same thing after the demise of the Star Member. And what a service they offered! They always seized control through hook or crook; after which their chief service was persecuting the Faithful as they themselves built up Big Babylon; just as during the Epiphany the Great Company have persecuted the Faithful as they built up Little Babylon – ­and just exactly as R. G. Jolly has been doing since Brother Johnson's death.

On p. 70, col. 1, par. 2, R. G. Jolly once more refers to “this errorist” (JJH) in connection with the abandonment process, so we quote again from E:15‑525, which directly contradicts him now – as it has done right along – and we ask once more for a clear answer to this and the other Scriptures we have presented foregoing on the Last Saint, etc. WILL HE DO IT?

“But these experiences have not proved enough entirely to free their new minds, hearts and wills – their Holy Spirit – from their developed bondage to self, the world and sin, though they contribute toward that end in all and almost entirely accomplish it in those who lose Little Flockship by the skin of their teeth. Thus we see that the rod helps toward freeing their Holy Spirit, God's disposition in them, from its pertinent bondage. (E:15, bottom of P. 524; and top of page 525)

“Is in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient fully to free their Holy Spirit from the bondage of developed worldliness, selfishness, error and sin, and in a large number hardly fazes them at all, and variously but in­completely affects the rest of them, the Lord resorts to a second set of untoward experiences, which are calculated finally fully to deliver their New Creatures from the bondage into which their unfaithfulness to their justification or consecration has brought them. 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. It also implies that God Temporar­ily abandons them, and lets Satan buffet them, until their fleshly minds are destroyed, which delivers the New Creature, the Holy Spirit, from the bondage of sin, selfish­ness, worldliness and error. Filling their minds with more or less error, Satan makes them busy themselves with false religious work, works of false propaganda, of building false religious sects. He deceives them into believing they will accom­plish great works, win great numbers, gain great favor, etc. The upshot of it all, however, is great disappointments, troubles, losses, frustrations and failures, as is shown of them in Ps. 107:12; Matt. 7:21‑23,26,27.” (See E:15‑525, par. 1)

That such withdrawal of all brotherly fellowship and favor from the Great Company for their 'abandonment to Satan’ is supported by clear Scriptures, and not Brother Johnson's thought merely, can be seen by 1 Tim. 1:20 and 1 Cor. 5:5

R. G. Jolly still insists that due Truth is for all the consecrated, despite Brother Johnson's clear contradiction of his contention. Note the Question (9), p. 128, in E‑4, and Answer, part of which follows: “What, however, the Lord may give during the Epiphany for the priests alone, will be for them alone, until it has served its secret purpose... E.g., now the understanding of 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 them.” (It is self‑evident that R. G. Jolly did not under­stand his ‘abandonment process’ during Brother Johnson's ministry, and it is clear enough that he is still in ignorance – still kept ‘secret’ from him – despite the clear and simple Epiphany teachings that have been repeatedly presented to him.)

How much clearer could this be? Of course, we're not surprised that R. G. Jolly is blind to this clear teaching (the Great Company not only can't receive ‘advancing truth,’ but they lose a large part of what they have already received ‘when in the hands of Azazel’), because it is clear enough from his writings that he does not even yet understand the abandonment and cleansing process of the Great Company. Brother Johnson says in E:4‑129: “So far as the meat in due season – the advancing Truth – ­is concerned, they do not partake of, but reject it, while in the fit man's and Azazel's hands. And as a result their new creatures are famished, weak, sickly and asleep, out of which sleep some of them will never awaken.”

            R. G. Jolly does not only reject ‘advancing truth,’ but he now rejects the Epiphany teaching on the ‘abandonment process’ – a fundamental Scriptural Epiphany teaching. His New Creature is indeed ‘famished, weak, sickly and asleep’! We do pity his condition! But no one can help him by supporting his ‘erroneous course.’ J. F. Rutherford doubtless never understood his ‘abandonment to Azazel process’ – ­and he ‘never awakened from his sleep.’ R. G. Jolly is a living example of the fact that “due truth” is not for all the consecrated, i. e., if he is still in the House­hold of Faith.

In this connection it is well to note that, after the abject failure of his $5 Correspondence Course, his Flying Saucer tract, his attendance at those “Chop Suey” Conventions (Did they order him out? We wonder!), his efforts to impress the Great Company in other Little Babylon groups, now he comes somewhat to life with the tracts of antitypical Gideon's Second Battle – after our exposure of his evils here – ­in a weak attempt to ‘prove’ he is cleansed by his espousal of those “timeworn and threadbare” tracts. While we are much pleased to see this reversal on his part, we must yet note his multitudinous other revolutionisms, false doctrine, etc., in which he still continues, which keep screaming to the sky – “UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN!” (E:4‑271– top)

There is much, much more that could be said about R. G. Jolly's Present Truth (a misnomer), his perfidy, his perversions (Azazel means Perverter), but this should suffice for now. In due course we shall offer more, D.v. “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart!” (Psa. 15:1‑2) For now, to all who read “in a good and honest heart” we pray the God of all Grace may stablish, strengthen and settle you in every good word and work.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

We suggest October 16 through November 13 as our period for the Special Effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle (against the Consciousness of the Dead and Eternal Torment). The date this year is almost the same as was given us the last year of Brother Johnson's ministry. In 1950 the date was October 15 through November 12. The Where are the Dead, What is the Soul and The Resurrection tracts are specially adapted for participation in this Battle. The Battle is not complete yet, and Brother Johnson tells us the Faithful will participate therein unto its completion. So we urge all Epiphany‑enlightened brethren everywhere to use similar literature for this Special Effort, leaving other work to those who do not appreciate the priv­ilege of serving such ‘timely’ literature. An excellent way to engage in this battle is at church doors for those physically able and providentially situated to do so.

To those in our group who are enlightened regarding the condition of all the groups in Little Babylon, we suggest they continue waging the ‘good fight’ against their revolutionisms and ‘strange fire’ (false doctrines). The Three Babylons tract may be used toward Little Babylon, although it is not a part of Gideon's Second Battle. Our beloved Epiphany Messenger ‘poured out his soul’ unto death in resisting, refut­ing, and attacking the errors in Little Babylon, and we do indeed honor his memory by using the Epiphany Truths he gave to us in continuing the battle against error, sin, selfishness and worldliness, especially as manifested in the various groups of Little Babylon. Let us continue to pray daily, “God Bless their Memory,” and pro­ceed in our daily lives to ‘continue’ in the Truths they ministered to us.

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: –  Will you please explain Rev. 20:12, “the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life.”

ANSWER: –  “The books were opened” simply means that our present Bible will be made plain, expounded, explained to all mankind during the Millennial reign. Our present Protestant Bible contains 66 books, 39 of which are in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The meaning of the word “Bible” is “the books,” and it would have been just as correct and more revealing had the text read, “the Bible was opened”; but, clearly enough, the Lord did not wish to make the statement so easily understood for all at this time.

“Another book” is probably a third section of our Bible, which will be given during the Millennium for the further revelation and guidance of the human race. In Joel 2:28 it is stated, “your old men (Ancients) shall dream dreams, and your young men (Youthfuls ) shall see visions.” The Ancients and Youthfuls are the Ancient and Youthful Worthies, who will receive inspired messages, as did the Ancient Worthies to build the Old Testament; and these inspired works will comprise “another book” to be added to our present Bible, or The Books.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian greetings in the name of our Lord and Head!

Yours of the 15th of Sept. is to hand. Thanks for those kind words of en­couragement. It is ever my determination to serve the Lord, so that I, too, might be found faithful. Although passing through different adverse circumstances of life, yet as the mariners at sea I shall fight until my deliverance comes.

I am also in receipt of the October paper. It has certainly warranted our interest and keen attention. Your experiences at the Philadelphia Convention, and elsewhere, with uncleansed Great Company brethren, and their associates, are not at all strange to me. From my personal experience here with some of the opposers to the clear and faithful teachings of our dear Pastors has made me understand beyond the shadow of a doubt what kind of treatment you must be having.

But as I have told some with whom I came in contact, that a faithful Servant of the Lord is always a type of another, whether Little Flock or Youthful Worthy. As you have rightly shown, from our Lord's Day it has been the same experiences – ­even until now. Let each rejoice as the good Lord has favored them to suffer for righteousness. Brother Russell tells us we are to defend the Truth. it is as God's and Christ's representa­tives, and our standard, and we should defend it, 'even until death.’ When we recall Brother Johnson's experiences with Rutherford and his adher­ents, then it affords you great courage to continue your fight in defense of the Truth – your experiences being similar to his. These claimed present‑day ‘Pastors and Teachers,’ they fight but like craven coward who cannot withstand the Truth. Likewise their fol­lowers. They try to avoid us. Why? Because they cannot stand before the Truth as it shines forth on their .... sleepy faces. Oh, may the dear Lord still be with you, to keep and strengthen you for His service, is my daily prayer for you. For your con­tinued strength, I quote October 5 Manna text and its Comments.

I ask to be remembered to Sister Hoefle and to the dear ones with you, and wishing you all the Lord's richest blessings

Yours by His Grace, Brother ------- Jamaica

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Love to you both in His dear Name!

Please send me some more tracts, Where are the Dead and The Resurrection of the Dead. Enclosed is a little for the Lord's service.

Yours in the Master's service ------- Conn.

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace in Jesus' name!

I thank you for your good letter, and I think I will keep looking for what knowledge your writings produce, as I am blessed by your writings; and since I do believe God is using you to lead spiritual Israel I think I can get all due Youthful Worthy truth gradually in “due time.”

Thank you for your August article. We talked it over one Sunday after service, and all thought it was so plain. It is a puzzle how brethren who seem so well versed in Parousia and Epiphany Truths could be so blinded they cannot see such plain pointers..... Dear Brother we appreciate your labor for Truth and Righteousness, and the Lord will surely recompense you... Hymn 93.

Your sister by His Grace ------- Jamaica