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

NO. 65: SOME MORE KREWSON "GAZING"

No. 65

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

When we exposed the folly of J. W. Krewson's twelve moss‑covered and unsightly stones from Jordan's river bottom (see our paper No. 60, May 1, 1960), we felt at that time his interpretation of those stones picturing twelve appealing Christian adorn­ments was about the zenith of interpretational nonsense; but now comes something even worse in his paper No. 34, page 8, “The Stone With Seven Eyes,” and his general com­ments on Zechariah, Chapter 3, with his “Epiphany‑Apokalypsis antitype.” Clearly enough, he is sadly incompetent to offer any interpretations of any kind on “stones,” as they are used in the Scriptures.

It is well known to advanced Bible Students that many of the Old Testament types have more than one antitype; but it should be known that the manifold fulfillments must also adhere to a certain pattern of logic, with the basic truth in the large antitype being apparent in the smaller antitypes. Apparently, J. W. Krewson isn't bothered with that logic, or he could not have offered his readers the interpretational jumble that he has now presented. He says the “filthy garments” of verse 3 “represent the graces, possessions and privileges of service” of his “Cleansed Nucleus”; but he offers no Scriptural precedent for such an interpretation. It will be noted in the Berean Com­ments, where That Servant presents the large Atonement‑day antitype, that those “filthy garments” type the “Church's righteousness” – that righteousness of their own which is as filthy rags before it is clothed anew with Christ's righteousness (see Isa. 64:6‑­Berean Comments).

Be it noted that this is stated as a fact, not as a thing conjured up in the fool­ish imagination of other human beings. Their “filthy rags” is their Divine unerring appraisal before they were “justified by faith.” A little reflection will demonstrate why this must be true: “Man looketh on the outward appearance,” sometimes judging much too harshly, sometimes much too generously. There have been noble worldlings of high ideals and exemplary in morals and integrity whom many have considered Saints; but they were not Saints at all, some of them not even in the Household of Faith. Others have received great deference because of their wealth, their artistic or inventive genius. On the other hand, some of God's true noblemen, Saints of the Most High, have been thrown to the lions, have had their heads chopped off, crucified head down, etc. Therefore, it should be elementary that no Scripture would bear an interpreta­tion based upon man's view of the “outward appearance.” This one consideration alone should be sufficient to brand J. W. Krewson's interpretation for the spiritual rubbish that it is.

It should be noted in this picture (v. 5) that “a fair mitre” was placed upon Joshua's head, and that the “filthy garments” were upon the body only – thus depicting our Lord as the righteous head of His one‑time unsightly body members. But J. W. Krewson now gives this “righteous head” position to his “Cleansed Nucleus”; then, in a feat of unbelievable hocus‑pocus he says it was the unjust critics of that “Nuc­leus” who brought forth the “advancing Truth” that the Body of antitypical Joshua was fully complete in Glory at October 22, 1950. It was R. G. Jolly, whom J. W. Krewson now admits was uncleansed at October 22, 1950, who first made the proclamation that the last Saint had “entered into the joys of his Lord.” This is indeed something to behold!!!

Then he continues with the assertion that “eyes in Biblical symbols refer to knowledge,” and the “stone” is a Truth teaching.” Just what the difference is – if any‑­between “knowledge” and a “Truth teaching” he doesn't explain; and, if there is any difference, we do not discern it. It will be noted in the Berean Comments on v. 9, Brother Russell says it was “that stone” – an explanation that is logical and under­standable from any and every viewpoint, because the Bible itself says He was “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” Again, Jesus Himself clearly defines a stone in Matt. 16:18 as a Truth teaching (the same being much clearer and more direct than J. W. Krewson's “five stones” proof), when He told Peter, “upon this rock I will build my church,” the same having reference to Peter's Truth statement that Jesus was “the Christ.”

However, where in the Bible can J. W. Krewson find a stone or rock meaning a Truth statement, and at the game time have that stone described with the qualities of a sen­tient being! The stone of v. 9 has “seven eyes”; and it is the stone with seven eyes that produces the results of v. 10, “every man under the vine and under the fig tree,” which is a prophecy of blessing to result from the reign of The Christ. Certainly, the teaching that the last Saint was glorified at October 22, 1950 could not bring such a result – even it it were the Truth! In E:8‑456 (top) Brother Johnson confirms Brother Russell's interpretation of the stone being “that stone” by explaining the seven eyes of Zech. 4:10 are the Star Members of this Gospel Age. That is an explanation that is harmonious from every viewpoint, because the 49 Star Members have been the Lord's eye, hand and mouth to perfect His Body – “I will guide thee with mine eye.”

Lest we lead our readers into the same confusion of J. W. Krewson on this subject, we readily admit that “eyes” in the Scriptures do sometimes mean teachings. In a Ques­tion and Answer found elsewhere in this paper, we define the “seven spirits” as the seven main parts of the Bible teachings – doctrines, precepts, promises, exhortations, prophecies, histories and types –, and Rev. 5:6 (Dia.) informs us that the “seven eyes are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.” These seven spirits, these seven inanimate eyes, have been the composite Truth by which the seven animate eyes (the 49 Star Members of the Gospel Age) have “perfected the Saints” (Eph. 4:12). Thus, “that stone” of v. 9 is the glorified head of the Christ possessed of “seven eyes,” the 49 Star Members of the Gospel Age. We believe this explanation will com­mend itself to our readers as reasonable and factual, in contrast to the weird and con­fused “gazing” of J. W. Krewson.

It should be noted here, too, that in E:6‑629,630 Brother Johnson accuses JFR of applying about everything in Zechariah to his movement; and it seems J. W. Krewson is now following the same course. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

On page 14, last par., J. W. Krewson accuses JJH of “speculation and deceptive teaching” relative to John's Baptism, but he fails to offer proof whereof he speaks. This is the technique of the unprincipled politician, who realizes if he shouts loudly and often enough, a certain class will believe him, even though his contention may be errant nonsense. In almost every treatise we have offered on John's Baptism we have referred to Acts 18, and just as often have the “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson) remained silent on this Scripture. The same applies to 1 Pet. 3:21, although on this lat­ter R. G. Jolly did once effuse some of his specialized nonsense. And why have they avoided these Scriptures? It's because they can't answer them!

But it will be noted that when we accuse either of them of “gazing,” or specula­tion, or such like, we always point out clearly and detailedly our reasons for our statements. And by this method we have completely silenced them on one subject after another, so much so that they do not even dare mention many of them any more. This has proven to be true on J. W. Krewson's “Seven Questions” with respect to the last Saint. We doubt not he would have reproduced those Seven Questions as the Seven Eyes of his Zechariah mirage had we not so completely exposed his nonsense thereon – although the seven he does now present are in part a take‑off of those Seven Questions. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it!”

Of course, in his bold disregard of the truth, J. W. Krewson demonstrates anew his “cousin” relationship to R. G. Jolly. All along we have contended R. G. Jolly was a badly sullied and uncleansed Levite at October 22, 1950. For several years J. W. Krewson ridiculed this Epiphany teaching – saying R. G. Jolly was cleansed so long as he accepted J. W. Krewson's “thinking” by publishing his articles in the Pres­ent Truth. Now he apparently accepts our teaching on this matter – without the flicker of an eyelash – just as though he himself had been teaching this right along. And he's now doing exactly the same thing with respect to Brother Johnson's appointment of pil­grims. He emphatically contended Brother Johnson could not appoint pilgrims for Epi­phany purposes (only Pilgrims of J. W. Krewson's Auxiliary Order); said he had a “reliable witness” that JJH never received a pilgrim appointment from Brother Johnson. This contention, too, we ground into the dust (proving his contention to be absolute falsehood by producing our written Pilgrim Appointment given us by the Epiphany Mes­senger). He was guilty of gross slander in the vicious opinions he circulated on that matter. Now that he's been fully and finally silenced on that item, he puts forth another slander – right where he left off. But, instead of contending we were a fraud in signing “Pilgrim” after our name, he's now taken a new tool of the Adversary – “speculation and deceptive teaching” – ; and in the same breath speaking of Brother Johnson's “pilgrim appointments,” as though he had never held any other view (although he con­tended openly and covertly for it until we exposed his sins of practise and teaching on the matter). So we have here another “noble” example of a “Pastor and Teacher!”

Let us not be of those “who darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge!” (Job 38:2) Let us rejoice and thank God we do not need “to make lies our refuge, and behind false­hoods to hide ourselves.”

THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION

At the last conclave over Labor Day R. G. Jolly was reported to be distressingly ill, so that he could not appear on the floor of the Convention at all during the three­day gathering. This necessitated quite some adjustment of the program, as another of the scheduled speakers was also too ill to appear, and his part had to be filled by another.

One of these substitutions occurred on Saturday afternoon when August Gohlke attempted a fill‑in by discussing the Basileia and the thousand‑year reign of the Christ. The jumble that he offered was something to contemplate! He not only con­tradicted himself on occasion, but he contradicted what R. G. Jolly has taught on the beginning of the reign, and he also contradicted the clear teachings of Brother John­son on the subject – all the while profusely slurring “the errorist” who now teaches contrary to what he himself was lamely attempting to set forth. Time and space will not allow here a detailed analysis of the beginning and ending of “the thousand years,” but we offer just one quotation from Brother Johnson to prove our point – lest it seem we are attempting the same sleight‑of‑hand as the Jolly‑Gohlke combination:

“Let us first of all remember that the Jewish and Gospel Ages ended by time stages lapping into their succeeding Ages, we may reasonably infer that the Millennium will so do; otherwise we could not claim for Christ and the Church a full 1,000 years' reign.” See Nov, 15, 1947 Herald of the Epiphany, p. 43, col. 2, bottom; also see E:5, p. 422, and our quotation in our No. 19, Feb. 1, 1957.

We would also refer to our No. 9, May 1, 1956, where we quoted from the Berean Comments on Rev. 11:17: “And has reigned.... In a sense from 1878; actually from 1914.”

We have offered the foregoing in previous papers; but it has always been avoided by R. G. Jolly – just as it was avoided by August Gohlke. And why is it always avoided? It's because they have no answer for it! This one consideration makes a shambles of the presentation offered the afternoon of Sept. 3; and it clearly demonstrates who are the real ERR0RISTS in this controversy. He also falsely charged that we refuse to face the Scripture in Rev. 20:1‑4. We not only have faced it, but we gave the correct interpretation of this Scripture in our No. 27, Nov. 1, 1957, pp. 1‑2, part of which we repeat as follows: (For the record, we now say that we never heard of this brother indulging in falsehood under Brother Johnson's tutelage, but it seems that he, too, has succumbed to the Azazelian influences surrounding him. Satan is “the father of lies” –  John 8:44)

“The three primary rules for true Scripture interpretation are:

(I) The interpretation must be in harmony with the text itself;

(2) It must be in harmony with all other Bible texts;

(3) Use the Bible as a book of texts – Not as a textbook. (p. 1)

“Now we shall proceed to show that R. G. Jolly's interpretation of Rev. 20:2‑7 is not in harmony with the text itself. He admits Satan's binding began in 1874; he also admits that the reign of Christ and the Saints could not in any sense begin before 1878. Therefore, his emphasized “the” thousand years is only 996½ years; but this seems to make no difference to him. Here is a fine illustration of consistency in reverse from one who expended many hundreds of words to prove a one‑day discrepancy in the false 35‑year parallels (of J. W. Krewson). The flaw in his interpretation of the 1,000‑year reign is so readily apparent that it seems unthinkable that we should have to point it out at all. Also, this false interpretation is directly contradicted by Brother Johnson in the November 15, 1949 Herald, and in E:5‑422.” (See No. 27, p.2)

These brethren are a spectacle to behold! Under the firm and good guidance of the Star Member they gave some evidence – whether feigned or real, genuine or counter­feit, we cannot now determine – of a sincere and reasonably embracing “knowledge of the Truth.” But now – under the leadership of one abandoned to Azazel – they offer the dribblings that might be found in an institution of mental derelicts.

And this same procedure was apparent in the Business session Saturday night, when Bernard Hedman ordered us to leave the meeting; and actually had his own father‑in-­law ejected by two determined brethren of large physique. Jesus had forewarned that the Truth would set father against son, mother against daughter; but He never coun­selled those blessed with His Truth to ‘cast out their relatives.’ Rather, He and St. Paul advise the display of “an example of the believers” to such unbelievers in the chance – and hope – such noble exemplary treatment might open their eyes also to “the way of life.” Thus, in the casting out of the father‑in‑law we have some more thinking in reverse by those claiming to be “in the Truth.” It is indeed to laugh and to weep at such procedure.

Bernard Hedman was occupying the chair in R. G. Jolly's place; and it was not apparent why there should be any secrecy at that meeting, as its general purpose was rather detailedly posted on the bulletin board all day beforehand. That this perform­ance had been well rehearsed beforehand was readily apparent – just as the Scribes indulged in nefarious and sundry scheming with respect to Jesus when He appeared in their midst. So we need “think it not strange” when they “put you out of the syna­gogue ... And all these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor Me.” (John 16:2‑3) We say of them, as Brother Johnson said of the anti­typical “bramblebush” (JFR – See Judges 9:7‑15), let them go their way; but as for us, we shall not leave “our fatness” to indulge in kindred flippant or vicious vagary! It becomes increasingly and sadly apparent that many are “in the Truth,” but the Truth is not in them!

There were other disturbing errors over the three days, which we shall not now detail, or identify the speakers. However, we feel we would be remiss not to state there were some excellent and refreshing presentations by brethren who adhered well to the fundamentals of the Star Members. We refer specifically to most of the Symposium and the Monday presentation on “Our Father.”

Also, we noted there was no mention made in our presence of the Epiphany Campers consecrated, not even in the baptismal discourse – although the four elect classes were mentioned. It was also brought out that the quasi‑elect may consecrate now, with which we agree, of course (the quasi‑elect having opportunity to become Youthful Worthies by faithfully carrying out their consecration vows).

The penalty that “cometh of evil” was also clearly apparent when the same two brethren mentioned above directly contradicted each other on Saturday and Monday. In the Basileia talk on Saturday August Gohlke went to some considerable detail to declare we have been in the Basileia since 1954, with the Epiphany overlapping –  just as was true of the Parousia‑Epiphany. At some other suitable occasion we shall prove the nonsense of this; but, for now, we state that on Monday Bernard Hedman directly contradicted the statement made on Saturday by emphatically detailing that we are now in the Parousia‑Epiphany period – which is correct. This jumble is akin to R. G. Jolly's contention on Tentative Justification, when he, on the very same page, has Brother Rus­sell saying Tentative Justification will continue into the Millennium, and then hav­ing Brother Johnson say it will end with the ending of the Gospel Age. When we pub­lished our Three Babylons Tract, accusing the LHMM also of being back in Babylon (confusion), it would seem we knew whereof we spoke.

Be it noted these are the same people who decry the abuse heaped upon our Beloved Lord – all the while they pour the same “cup” for His faithful followers. This is noth­ing new, of course; it is as old as the oldest records! The newly‑liberated Jews drove their beloved liberator Moses to distraction; their children praised Moses, but heaped most wretched abuse upon the Prophets that appeared after his death; their descendents praised Moses and the Prophets, as they “crucified the Lord of Glory.” And in our own day those loud in praise of Moses, the Prophets, and our Lord lowered antitypical Jeremiah (Brother Russell) into the pit of slander; while in the Epi­phany those extolling That Servant gave to the beloved and faithful Epiphany Messenger, Brother Johnson, an identical duplication of the slander that had gone to Brother Rus­sell. So we need “think it not strange” if history once again repeats itself. Thus, we “count it all joy” to be found in the same company of those who were found faithful, as they endured the same ill treatment as was true of St. Paul.

Our endeavors to “bless and curse not” are to some “a savor of life unto life” – just as they must inescapably be to others a “savor of death unto death.” It is a timeworn technique of the Adversary to “cast out” the faithful and enshrine the errorists in “Moses' seat” after the death of each faithful Prophet or Star Member.

To all who have the Truth in their minds, and the spirit of the Truth in their hearts, we offer the heart‑warming promise, “He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – In Rev. 3:1 it speaks of “the seven spirits of God, and the seven stars.” If the “stars” are the 49 leaders of God's Gospel‑Age people about which you wrote in your No. 59 of last April 1, who are the “seven spirits” in this text?

ANSWER: – While the “seven stars” are personalities, it is not true that the “seven spirits” are also personalities. Rather, the seven spirits are the full Truth of the Bible which the Star Members taught in its seven main parts; namely, doctrines, precepts, promises, exhortations, prophecies, histories and types. The Apostle John – one of the “stars” and the writer of Revelation – gives us the key to this understanding in his first epistle, 4:1, where he instructs us to “prove the spirits, whether they are from God”; and the Berean Comment explains this: “Every doctrine amongst men; this has no reference to spirit beings.” And 1 Jno. 5:6 (Dia.) makes this quite clear: “the spirit is that which testifies, because the spirit is the Truth.” Thus, the “seven spirits” would be the seven main lines of Biblical teach­ing, with which the “seven stars” of the Gospel Age have built up “the body of the Anointed One” (Eph. 4:13–Dia.), seven being the number indicating divine perfection.

Aside from the inspired teachings of the Apostles, who constitute the first twelve of the “stars,” and who are the composite “star” to the “congregation in Ephesus,” the remaining 37 “stars” have not been infallible in their presentations of the “seven spirits,” some of them erring sadly in their analyses, especially where the Truth was not “due” for them in their time. As is well‑known to all our readers, some of the Gospel‑Age Star Members actually taught God‑dishonoring doctrines, such as eternal torment, which error was forged when the Truth on Restitution was lost, which truth was not again found until the Harvest period, and was designed to be the stewardship doctrine of That Servant, Brother Russell. Nevertheless, they did accomplish their mission to “the complete qualification of the Saints” (Eph. 4:12‑Dia.); and the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers of this Harvest period did clarify and teach without error the ten fundamental “doctrines” of the Bible, although they, too, made some mis­takes in others of the “seven spirits.” The Lord undoubtedly permitted this for “the trial of your faith”; and we believe God's people would be well advised to view with thankful and appreciative hearts and minds their “work and labor of love” and the great blessings that have come to all of us through their faithful ministry, whereby they did “lay down their lives for the brethren.”

As the greatest secular writer of all time so ably stated, “the evils that men do live after them; the good is oft interred with their bones”; and it is a further truth that “Ingratitude is the reward of the world.” But, since “we are not of the world,” we should not be overcome of its evils, and especially so by the sin of in­gratitude. In Rom. 1:21‑28 St. Paul speaks of some who “knew God, but glorified him not, neither were thankful.” As a consequence of this and other sins “God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” Therefore, let us all rejoice in those blessings which have come to us through our understanding of the “seven spirits” as expounded to us by the “seven stars,” and especially so by the last two of those “stars” – one, or both, of whom were known personally to many of our readers.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Bible Students Ass'n:

I would like to have the additional copies of What is the Soul, Where are the Dead and The Three Babylons tracts.

                                                                        Elder ------- Springfield, Mass.

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

Dear Brethren:

I wish to have copies of “Where are the Dead,” “The Resurrection of the Dead,” “The Three Babylons,” and “What is the Soul.” Thank you!

 ------- Michigan

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Loving greetings in the Redeemer's name! I was rereading your papers and wondered how pilgrims, elders and evangelists in Jamaica who read your writings cannot get to see how the Lord is using you to show up Scriptures and Star Members' writings as against errors of the Adversary and his agencies, to entrap the Lord's people in this last Gospel‑Age experiences.

As for JWK, his errors are very subtle. He has given Prof. Jolly sixteen of Brother Russell's offices, and he takes Brother Johnson's for himself. From what I read of his Brother Russell's Epiphany parallel, I see your love for the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren, in that you do not show yourself up but let the Truth do its work .... Your July 1, 1960 paper helps me to understand why many cannot see due to losing the ‘spirit of the truth.’

One of Prof. Jolly's pilgrims was here recently supporting his errors and fighting the Epiphany Truth, just as Big Babylon fought against the Parousia Truth. He is also using tacts to see if he can catch some of those who see the errors of R. G. Jolly. But by God's grace we are determined to stand in the liberty wherewith Christ made us free.

You are always remembered in my prayers, and the dear ones who co‑labor in this good work. May the Lord bless and keep you, Sister Hoefle, Sister Dunnagan and the other dear ones there with you.

Yours by His Grace, Sister ------- Jamaica

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

Dear Brother and Sister....

Thank you very much for your most interesting tract. As we can see, the Jehovah's Witnesses are getting more and more into outer darkness. The enclosed information from their latest magazine “Awake” confirms the point I want to make. Even Solomon now is not to have a resurrection. Certainly they don't love mercy, or walk humbly.

I am afraid, as you say, that Bro. Jolly has too high an estimation of himself. However, you say Brother Hoefle adheres to the Scriptures as Brother Russell always stressed.

I will be glad for any more tracts, or magazines you care to send to me, for which I also enclose $ ... to send to Brother Hoefle.

With Christian love ------- England

NOTE: The above letter was to a dear Brother and Sister in England, a result of their good efforts to 'bear witness to the Truth.’

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in Jesus' Name!

I received your most welcome letter in the last nail. I wonder if it is now, at this Convention time, the Lord's time to make a change at the Bible House. Surely, they can see something of what their doings are leading to – a complete break‑away from all truth, it seems to me. May the dear Lord bless Sister Hoefle's and your presence at the Convention to His Honor and praise, and the good of His Priests and Worthies, and any others of the Lord's little ones that may be influenced.

You know I consider you both brave, very brave, to enter the Hornet's nest. That it what it seems like to me.

Again I thank you for the binders. There are many things in the papers that I overlooked, that I feel I should know about.... May the dear Lord bless the Con­ventioners because of your presence there!.....

Yours by His Grace ------- Ohio

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Greetings! It is always a pleasure to read your articles, and as the first of the month comes I look for them if they haven't already arrived. I have been trying for several weeks to write to you, and my only reason for not doing so is because I just haven't been able..... Just to let you know how weak I am, the article before the last one I had to stop two times and lie down before I could read on. I always read them later, as after I get the thought I then reread mine carefully. I'll tell you again, that as soon as I can walk I'll send for tracts to put out....... Don't think anything about my physical condition. Just told you so you would know. I pray for both of you every day. The Lord bless you!

Sister ------- California

NO. 64: "PRESENT-DAY LEADERSHIP OF GOD'S PEOPLE" - REVIEWED

No. 64

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

This last July‑August Present Truth confines itself mainly with the article in question. This paper came to us in the July 12 mail, at which time our August No. 63 was already complete for mailing. While we consider our August number a reasonably good exposure of the Present Truth we now discuss, yet in view of the brazen attempt at self‑justifi­ca­tion by R. G. Jolly for his many sins of teaching and practise, and his impudent flaunting of the truth, we present here some further considera­tions. He repeats, repeats, repeats with the same gusto as the unprincipled politicians; and it is indeed a sad observation that the Truth has not taught him, after all these years, that politics means no more to the Truth than does the Truth to politicians –  ­“These are contrary, the one to though other.”

R. G. Jolly makes very detailed effort to prove his superiority over the Youth­ful Worthies; but....“What you are speaks so loudly we can't hear what you say!” At the outset, let us emphasize that we have never attempted to usurp his position; our only difference with him is because of his sins and gross revolutionisms against those very Truths he claims so loudly to be upholding. The veracity of his statements seems to concern him not at all! Take, for instance, his statement at top of p. 52 – “he has been greatly and unjustly faulted” –  for publishing Volumes 16 and 17. We direct our readers to the last page of Volume 15 (which was published in 1950, shortly before Brother Johnson's death), where it will be noted he clearly states the next volumes to be published would be: “Volume XVI – Genesis‑Leviticus‑Deuteronomy; Volume XVII ­Numbers, Vol. II.” At no time in any of his writings does Brother Johnson give the slightest hint that Volumes 16 and 17 would be The Chart and The Millennium, as one of his last acts was to declare them Volumes 18 and 19. So here again – as we have so often been forced to do – we must score another brazen falsehood against this “cleansed” Epiphany Levite.

On p. 55, col. 1, last lines of par. 2, he says we deny “a class of consecrated ones in the Epiphany Camp.” Brother Johnson also denied it! In E:11‑473 Brother Johnson says, “faith‑justification lapses...by October, 1954.” We have offered this quotation in previous writings; but it has always been ignored by R. G. Jolly. Why? Because he can't answer it! All of us know Brother Johnson taught just the opposite to what R. G. Jolly is now offering; namely, those forced out of the Court into the Camp automatically lose their tentative justification. He also taught tentative justi­fication operates to the end of the Gospel Age, at which time it will cease to operate.

SOME TYPES EXAMINED

He offers a number of types to compare the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, and once more displays his tragic inability “rightly to divide the word of Truth.” On p. 51, col. 1 (12) he discusses the “seed of Abraham.” Isaac and Jacob are out­standing members of that “seed.” Is he contending the Great Company are “higher” than they? Brother Johnson taught the Ancient Worthies would forever have a higher position than the Great Company (would be higher in position during the Kingdom, although lower in nature) – a teaching all can readily discern who have the spirit of a sound mind. (See E:4‑454 and E:1‑269) Of the Great Company Paul says in Heb. 2:15: “Through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (See Berean Comments) Of the Ancient Worthies the same Apostle writes in Heb. 11:37 – “They were stoned, sawn asunder, slain with the sword.” There is no evidence of “fear” in these grand characters – no comparison at all between them and the Great Company – no evidence at all that they sat behind desks, called names, and told one falsehood after another. Thus, Brother Johnson had excellent reason to rate them above the Great Company. And the Ancient Worthies are a part of “the earthly seed of Abraham” (sand of the seashore), which seed R. G. Jolly attempts to explain in the article under review. As Brother Johnson has aptly observed – when these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. And R. G. Jolly is a living corroboration of that sage obser­vation!

By the same token, when he tries to argue inferiority for the Youthful Worthies because they are not shown in the type of Lev. 12, we observe that the Ancient Worthies are not shown there either. Nor are the Youthful Worthy Class shown in with the Great Company Class in their abandonment to Azazel process, which is no reflection on the Youthful Worthy Class (although the measurably faithful Youthful Worthies will surely have to undergo similar untoward experiences to destroy their fleshly minds, while the fully faithful Youthful Worthies will remain dead to self‑will and alive to God's will). We are not here attempting to contrast the relative standings of the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies; we merely draw attention to the nonsensical deductions of one R. G. Jolly, who is attempting by these ethereal props to set up himself as a person­age in whose teachings others should rely. At no time have we ever attempted such self­exaltation, although the one (R. G. Jolly) who now attempts self‑exaltation for himself has repeatedly accused us of it. But, then, this is what we should expect of those who talk nonsense and who must rely upon “loquacious, repetitious, false‑accusing, foolish effusions” of Epiphany crown‑losers (See E:10‑591, par. 1) to inform others of their own importance.

On p. 54 (42) he speaks of “the exceedingly fruitful ministry of the Great Company when they as Jesus' agents gather the people into the camp condition of the Epiphany.” But Brother Johnson also teaches this would be “after they are cleansed” by the “fires of Armageddon”; and (44) on this same p. 54, Brother Johnson puts the clear contradiction to R. G. Jolly's present contentions when he says,

“building the Epiphany Camp, first, from among the nominal‑church believers after the nominal‑church is destroyed,”

Of course, this clear contradiction doesn't bother R. G. Jolly one bit; and he'll also keep right on falsely claiming he is upholding Brother Johnson's teachings, while he contradicts those teachings on the very same page. Yes, he certainly is a “noble” example of a ‘Pastor and Teacher,’ as he runs amuck and ahead of the Lord to do now what will correctly be done “after the nominal church is destroyed.”

We refer once more to Brother Johnson's teaching that only the Star Members of the Gospel Age have brought forth new doctrines, and we quote from E:10‑XXIV in the Appendix on Types:

“All the brethren, except the star‑members, are forbidden direct Biblical study on new doctrines, types and prophecy, which is ‘gazing’ for them.”

Campers Consecrated is not only a new doctrine, but it voids the teachings of the Star Member on that very doctrine. Brother Johnson taught the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the unconsecrated; and he never offered the slightest inference anytime anywhere of a consecrated Class in the Epiphany Camp. Thus, R. G. Jolly, who hurls at us the false charge of “sifter, usurper,” etc., proves himself guilty of those very things – proves himself guilty of “gazing,” the penalty for which, if persisted in, is D E A T H! Let all follow him in his heedless plunge who are likeminded; also, let him produce one instance where we have done any “gazing.” His revolutionism in this instance is even more serious than his revolutionism against the Star Member's doctrine that all of the Great Company must be fully abandoned to Azazel for their cleansing. He points to himself as a living “example” of a cleansed Levite without the necessity of being included in the clear teachings of the Epiphany Messenger:

“As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient fully to free their Holy Spirit from bondage of developed worldliness, selfishness, error and sin, and in a large number hardly fazes them at all .... 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” .... (See E:15‑525 and March 1949 Present Truth, p. 42, col. 2). R. G. Jolly is proclaiming that he was cleansed with­out that procedure (tells us this is Epiphany “error” instead of Epiphany Truth) –  ­that he was cleansed before October 1950! All must know that Brother Johnson did not at any time during his lifetime withdraw brotherly help from R. G. Jolly. Yet he has the audacity to claim he is _in harmony’ with the Epiphany Truth. We could cite many instances of his gross and persistent revolutionism, but these two instances should suffice for now.

The ironical feature of this “strange fire” (false doctrine) is that R. G. Jolly accepted it from J. W. Krewson, whom he is now reading right out of the Household of Faith. As always occurs in such instances, the acceptance of one error requires the abandonment of one or more previously held truths. In his desperation to find some support for his new class of spiritual hybrids (Campers consecrated), R. G. Jolly nominated the half tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan to type them – contrary to the truth he once accepted from the real Pastor and Teacher, Brother Johnson, to the effect that this half tribe was counted for the whole, the entire ten tribes west of Jordan typ­ing the Restitution class. He is also forced to abandon the following truth which he once accepted, this quote being from E:10‑209:

“The Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, BUT NOT CONSECRATED Jews and Gentiles ... a building of the Epiphany Temple for the Lord.”

R. G. Jolly must now change the construction of the Epiphany Temple – another truth he once accepted – to adapt it to his Campers consecrated. And in the face of this, he is still brazen enough to offer much loud talk about his “faithful adherence” to the Star Members' teachings; in fact, in the very Present Truth we are discussing he offers quite some detail about the Epiphany Temple – all the while he himself is the one who is desecrating that Temple.

Also, in view of R. G. Jolly's bombastic claims to being ‘Pastor and Teacher,’ we believe it very apropos here to quote from E:7‑277, where Brother Johnson is dis­cussing the seven Levites in charge of the Society specifically, and Great Company members in general:

“But with the organizational leaders of the Great Company, deadness to self and world and aliveness to God are not complete (Jas. 1:8). Their selfish propensities, especially exercised in self‑will, grasping for power, lording it over God's heritage, dividing the flock and desiring to shine before others as able teachers and executives are so uncurbed by themselves, that not one of them alone can be trusted by the Lord with an unrestricted General Ministry.”

His fourteen pages in the article under discussion are in large part a direct and subtle indirect attempt at self‑laudation, a trait which always produces a bad odor –  just the opposite of the holy Spirit which exudes a “sweet odor ... the fragrance of the knowledge of God in every place.” When Brother Russell, Brother Johnson, and St. Paul spoke and wrote of themselves they had the stature to support those expres­sions without resorting to trickery and one falsehood after another to make their statements hold. And, referring to his charge of power‑grasping by us, we answer in defense that we are doing now the same as we did during Brother Johnson's life –  ­although we now address the General Church in writing; whereas, we did it verbally from the platform in General Conventions prior to 1950. Nor did Brother Johnson ever pub­licly or privately accuse us of being a power‑grasper with a bad conscience, which charges he made in writing against R. G. Jolly – the same R. G. Jolly who still has the brass to yell “power‑grasper” at us. Our Pilgrim appointment specifically author­izes us to address the General Church in any country on earth; and that is all we are doing. Nor would we be doing that now if we had a faithful leader at the helm in the L.H.M.M. For about five years after Brother Johnson's death we made no public effort to disturb R. G. Jolly, although we did make many attempts privately to him per­sonally, and “in the spirit of meekness,” to correct his gross sins and persistent revolutionisms; and our public attacks upon him came only after long private efforts had failed to reform him.

In addition to his many errors and sins, he also in 1953‑55 was openly circulat­ing slander about us; so his present disadvantages and woes are the direct product of his own making. This is identically the same experience Brother Johnson had with him –  he also was eventually forced to declare to all the Church that R. G. Jolly had a “bad conscience, was unkind and unfair, was influenced by Azazel in his conduct, given to many misrepresentations.” And all this is recorded of him before he was fully abandoned to Azazel (before all Brotherly help and favor were withdrawn from him, and before all restraint was removed by the Lord through the demise of the last Star Member in 1950). It is indeed a sad and unsavory account of R. G. Jolly that Brother Johnson left us; and we would stand guilty before the Lord if we slighted the trust the Star Member reposed in us if we should keep silent in the face of what has transpired since 1950. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

OTHER TYPES EXAMINED

Once more does R. G. Jolly inject the Hiram type into his paper in a desperate face‑saving maneuver; and once more does he effuse his self‑evident nonsense. R. G. Jolly himself was among the first and the loudest to lay hold on the Scriptural history that Solomon built the house of the Lord and finished it; and this he repeated­ly quoted in his attempt to prove that Brother Johnson was the last Saint. If the Epiphany Solomon finished the Lord's house, then self‑evidently the Epiphany Hiram had to complete his part in that work at least as soon as Brother Johnson did his part. Thus, the Hiram type had to expire at least by October 1950. In the type Hiram not only passed completely out of the Scriptural record many years before Solomon died, but history tells us he actually died some years before Solomon died – indicating here in the antitype the full consummation of the Hiram type some years before 1950. There is the same evident nonsense in R. G. Jolly's comments here as we find in so many of his “new Truth” (?) presentations.

Nor should we fail to consider here the “lad who held Samson by the hand” (Judges 16:26), and the comments on p. 60 (60). in this type it is very probable that the lad did not die with Samson, and we are in hearty accord that the “lad” (R.G.Jolly) continued in the antitype after Brother Johnson's death. But we should not forget that the Philistines in this picture typed Sectarians, and the lad was one of them – that the lad had not the slightest idea he was aiding in destroying his own clan by what he did. If the antitype still continues – and we agree that it does – then R. G. Jolly is still the “little" sectarian boy.

But in all of this let us refer to That Evil Servant for analogy. Under That Servant (while JFR was still a Saint, and even after he had lost his crown because of unfaithfulness) he performed outstanding service of nation‑wide Prominence as antitypical Benaiah, “who was captain over the third thousand” (See E9‑271), “by his booklet issued during the Time of Trouble (winter), A Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens, refuting the nominal Church's slander against our Pastor (2 Sam. 23:20).” At that time JFR was among the “three of David's (Brother Russell's) four mighty men.” (See E:10‑121) But we find a desperately­­-fatal and sad ending to that once‑effective assistant to That Servant: “the Lord ... shall cut him off, and will appoint his posi­tion with the hypocrites.” (Matt. 24:51) And with this example of tragic retrogression before us –  a renegade who made shipwreck of sublime opportunity – are we to consider his former noble deeds or his eventual sad end (“the Lord cut him off”) in our present evaluation of him?

And by the same analogy we say now of R. G. Jolly that our chief concern is what he is now – today. Like That Evil Servant, he, too, was a Saint under Brother Russell, but lost his crown because of unfaithfulness. He, too, rendered effective service later as a Great Company member under both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson –  though JFR greatly outshone him in his good acts and prominence of position (altho, in fairness to R. G. Jolly, we offer the observation, too, that his evil deeds as “the evil Epiphany Solomon,” and since, have not been nearly as heinous as those of That Evil Servant). Therefore, his recitation of valiant and commendable deeds of days long past carries no more weight than those greater deeds of That Evil Servant – although the J.W.'s still loudly recite those good acts to “prove” their present errors. The labored attempt of R. G. Jolly to live in the past could be hilariously laughable were it not so very, very sad and serious in its present consequences. He was once “a son of God,” one of the Fully Faithful, a part of the “salt” and the “light”; and his determination to have himself yet in positions forever lost once they are lost should be viewed with acute suspicion by all God's fully faithful people. Such tactics are an age‑long trick of the Adversary – the Catholic Church exploiting the noble deeds of Saint Peter as a cover‑up for their revolting sins. And when R. G. Jolly refers to himself as “a faithful pilgrim under Brother Russell,” he is indeed taxing the credulity of his readers to the utmost. Had he been “faithful,” would he have lost his crown? In his letter published in Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower (Reprints 4716) he freely admitted there he was “gazing” – just as he's been “gazing” since Brother Johnson's death. And such “gazing,” through unfaithfulness, would cause him to lose his crown – just as it will cause him to lose his life if he persists in it. This warning is not our own conclusion; it is the teaching of the Star Member! “Lord, who shall sojourn 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)

In all this elaborate effort at self‑exaltation, the real concealed motive of R. G. Jolly is a sophistical attempt to divert the mines of his readers from the crush­ing refutations we have so repeatedly given him – especially those in recent months. Clearly enough, he must relieve that pressure – just as present‑day worldly autocratic frauds stir up trouble somewhere somehow when conditions at home become unbearable. Therefore, we think it well here to consider John 16:8: “When the holy spirit (Com­forter) is come, it will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg­ment.” These words by Jesus certainly entertain no respect of persons. The Holy Spirit (God's disposition and power in His people) is a priceless gift; it is also a very personal possession – not something floating about in space. But, as it brings with it “the peace of God which passeth understanding,” so it also places an obligation upon each one individually to “reprove for sin, for righteousness and for judgment.” Those who avoid this obligation offer reasonable doubt that they have the Holy Spirit at all, or have “grieved” it so badly it is almost extinct in them. And this obligation rests upon the small and the great in God's Household – “each one according to his several ability.”

In keeping with this truth, “the Lord sent Nathan unto David” (2 Sam. 12:1). While the both of them were Ancient Worthies and prophets in Israel, Nathan had no jurisdictional standing at all in the Government of Israel when he told David, the King, “Thou hast despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil in His sight.” And in Gen. 20 we have the record of the heathen Abimelech reproving Abraham, although typically and antitypically Abimelech was inferior to Abraham. A similar situation is recorded in Gen. 12:14‑20.

Furthermore, didn't R. G. Jolly advise all – Saints, Great Company, Youthful Worthies, or even the tentatively justified –  to use every power at their disposal to resist the evil course of That Evil Servant? And, has he not offered such advice to all in the L.H.M.M. respecting the evil leaders, et al, in other Little Babylon sects since Brother Johnson's death? But, concerning himself, is he telling us now it's just wrong to reprove him for sin, righteousness and judgment? It will be recalled that the pet slogan of That Evil Servant was “out of harmony with the Society” toward Brother Johnson and all others who criticized him. Even R. G. Jolly himself was “out of harmony with the Society!” And, while That Evil Servant was hypocritical enough to use the Society as his “beard” (a front to conceal the real man), R. G. Jolly makes no such pretense. He's now telling his readers, “Shame on you if you're out of har­mony with me – even though I do talk mostly nonsense!” It will be recalled that Brother Johnson repeatedly invited JJH to address the General Church, including the Saints, during those years he did not invite R. G. Jolly to do it – those years in which many of the brethren objected to service by R. G. Jolly because of his uncleansed condition – after he had been exposed as a power‑grasping revolutionist who tried to gain control of Brother Johnson. There are certain Scriptures treating of these Great Company leaders, which we hope to elucidate when we consider it the Lord's will for us to do so; but we believe present comments will suffice to satisfy our readers about the relative status of R. G. Jolly and ourselves. If we were properly qualified to “preach the word ... confute, rebuke, exhort, with all long‑suffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2) the General Church in the presence of the Star Member himself (who gave us the appoint­ment) and other Saints, then we should now be equally qualified to address those who self‑admittedly claim a lesser status. If we had an obligation to “preach the word” to the General Church under the Star Member's approval, how much more would we be obliged to do so now when a Levite – an uncleansed Levite – is in charge! In the months before his death, Brother Johnson repeatedly insisted that Brother Hoefle should con­duct his funeral; and he made these requests when the one of a “higher class” (R.G. Jolly) was right in the same house with him at Philadelphia, and JJH was 600 miles away in Detroit. Once more we repeat the words of Brother Johnson – those in Azazel's hands talk all sorts of nonsense!

“The way of the Lord is strength to the upright: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.” (Prov. 10:29) “They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth forever.” Psa. 125:1

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Greetings in His Name!

I continue to read the Present Truth magazine, as it helps me better to under­stand your refutations and strengthens my faith in the Truth. I also read J.W. Krewson's writings, although realizing that his writings could not possibly do the harm that R. G. Jolly's can (his foolishness being so transparent). In J. W. Krew­son's June paper he tells his readers it is “dangerous” to read R. G. Jolly's writ­ings. I note you tell your readers the opposite – to read the Present Truth and compare with your writings. Of course, I realize the Present Truth could not help ‘babes’ –  and such might become entangled with the L.H.M.M. sectarian errors, just as many such have become bound in sectarian bondage with the Jehovah's Witnesses. But for those who have been grounded in Parousia and Epiphany Truth not to be able to read what R. G. Jolly has to say, at this late date – and discern between truth and error, good and evil – is unthinkable! Nor do we believe any such would be so led for any length of time, except the measurably faithful, or the unfaithful.

J. W. Krewson now at last admits R. G. Jolly was uncleansed at the outset (after Brother Johnson's demise in 1950) just as you have taught all along. This is in direct contradiction to what J. W. Krewson has taught heretofore, and is a new twist for him. In his previous writings he's said R. G. Jolly was ‘cleansed’ when he was collaborating with him – when he was publishing his advancing (?) Truth (actually his advancing errors), but became uncleansed when his ambitious power-­grasping tendencies to ‘unseat’ R. G. Jolly became apparent to him; that when J. W. Krewson was no longer preparing the ‘food’ in the Present Truth magazine R. G. Jolly was abandoned to Azazel (at the time losing the brotherly ‑?‑ help of J. W. Krewson!). We note you have simply pointed out the clear Scriptural Epiphany teaching on the _abandonment to Azazel’ process –  which teaches that none of the Great Company (including those who lost their crowns by the skin of their teeth) could be fully abandoned to Azazel until all brotherly help and favor of the Priests were removed from them – which, in the case of R. G. Jolly, was done for the first time when Brother Johnson was removed at his demise in 1950. None of them could be fully cleansed, as you point out, without this last step (even though some, as apparently R. G. Jolly was for a time, received a partial cleansing when partially in Azazel's hands – See E:15‑524 and top of p. 525). But R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson revolutionize against this clear Epiphany teaching, and are persisting therein, it seems.

As you refer to them, these “cousins” were quite a pair when they were “in harmony” with one another: each one patting the other on the back for his efforts (in revolutionizing against the Truth and its Arrangements), without any restraint from any one at the time (at least any public resistance) of their fleshly minds.

Both have the same characteristics – hesitate not (as you often say) to practise any kind of gymnastics on large or small issues, if it suits their purposes, or whims. J. W. Krewson has reiterated the statement several times that Truth needs no defense, yet he repeatedly tells us he has to defend his teachings (see his June paper, page 8, par. 4). Is that an admission that his ‘teaching’ is error? At the bottom of page 16 of J. W. Krewson's June paper (and top of page 17) he points out the fact (which certainly is the truth!) that what happened in the L.H.M.M. head­quarters after 1950 was an “exact facsimile” to what happened after Brother Russell's death. This is quite an admission! How true it is! One error after another was foisted on the Lord's people, with J. W. Krewson the chief writer (as he admits ­see bottom of p. 21 and top of p. 22), while R. G. Jolly was the “dummy” editor. Did the Watch Tower under J. F. Rutherford ever publish one item of error written by Brother Johnson after Brother Russell's death? These strained parallels simply stand out for the nonsense, as you say, that they are! It is now quite a spectacle to see them “refuting” one another to gain the chief seat in the synagogue! J. W. Krewson says he's the only one now claiming the “teaching” office (i.e. to be the Mouthpiece). It seems to me that R. G. Jolly has done a great deal of that in the past, and is doing a pretty good job of pointing to himself as the chief one in the July‑August Present Truth. Certainly, R. G. Jolly has more “credentials” to dis­play than does J. W. Krewson (who has simply nothing to offer). He claims Brother Russell wasn't given any official standing by any previous Star Member. Of course not! Brother Russell did not work with and under any previous Star Member as did J. W. Krewson. He can't point out one official act Brother Johnson performed that would indicate he had any special talent or prerogatives. Brother Johnson very frequently pointed out the Toms, Dicks and Harries of the Krewson variety (who had writer's itch), who were never appointed to the Pilgrim office by Brother Russell. Brother Russell certainly ‘put his hand’ upon Brother Johnson (although the Lord gave him his appointment as Epiphany Messenger). He was a faithful Pilgrim.

Brother Johnson surely did give R. G. Jolly some recognition, even though he had to expose his sins. We all know that R. G. Jolly had certain fine qualifi­cations, but none of us ever heard of anything outstanding about J. W. Krewson until after Brother Johnson's demise (when R. G. Jolly gave him so much prominence). His (J. W. Krewson's) inability and inadequacy for the position he claims are only too clearly manifest in his writings.

There's so much more that could be said about the both of them, but I will stop for now. If you care to use any part of this letter in the interest of the Truth, you may do so. May the Lord bless you as you Courageously keep up the “good fight.”

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

NOTE: –  And the same may be said for the “advancing Truth” these two “cousins” have presented on the pyramid (both claiming it to be “advancing Truth”). Repeat­edly have we referred to those 27 mathematical frauds in the Jan. 1947 Present Truth. After that revolting exposition of their “skill” on pyramid figures, it would seem to us that only such as have no shame in them could ever again have the unmitigated gall to mention that structure. Those who can produce such counterfeit figures are able to “prove” anything with figures. Here is a powerful proof of the truism –  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure! It should be kept in mind that the pyramid is a “witness”; it does not produce advancing Truth – it merely “witnesses” to Truth already deduced from the Bible, which is superior to the pyramid. Without the Bible, the pyramid would tell us just nothing at all. –  JJH

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Thank you very much for sending me the tracts. I shall mail them as I have time. I am at a new address here in.... May the Lord bless you richly!

Your sister ------- Colorado

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Greetings in His Name! May I hasten to ask you to forward about 50 of the Resurrection tracts. I'm completely out. For the most part I've distributed these at burial grounds, and they were accepted. I trust you may ultimately receive some response for other literature. And now with ardent Christian love to you and Sister Hoefle, and all the Blessedness in this His Service.

By His Grace, Your brother ------- NJ

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Grace and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ in appreciation of the good work you are doing! I would like for you to accept this Calendar of ‘Bonny Scotland.’ These places are near where Brother and Sister ... are living, and they took me to see them during my summer holidays ...... I think I have mentioned to you before that Brother ... is over 90, and still working. I have managed to give out your tracts to various people, and have met with three who are interested in the Truth. I very often get mistaken for a Jehovah's Witness, until I manage to explain the difference..... Your writings are a great help, as owing to health and weather conditions I am unable to meet with Brother --------- only on the last Sunday of the month. He lives some distance away from me. May God bless you both and give you strength to carry on the good work.

In Jesus' Name and Service, Sister ------- England

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

My dear Brother Hoefle:

Greetings of love and peace in our dear Redeemer's Name! Well, Brother, I have received your papers, which we were very glad to get. There are features in them that we never understood before, and in many of the others, too. The statements are clearly put so that any one who might be interested could gain the _knowledge of the Truth,’ and understand. Thank the Lord for you, Brother! He has always reserved some one to do His work. Just like our dear Sister Condell, who has done such a wonderful work by sending our names to you that we can be getting the papers direct from you now that she has passed away. But she has a record left behind for the good work she has done. Oh, Brother, I just can't express the grievous blow and personal loss that the death of our dear sister has been to us..... May the Lord help each one of us to do our part as dear Sister Condell did hers. Fondest love from the home circle for you, Sister Hoefle and the others. The Lord bless and increase your knowledge more and more...

Your sister and brother ------- Jamaica

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Grace and peace be multiplied unto you and Sister Hoefle as brave, faithful Gideonites...... I no longer take P.T. or Bro. K's writings. I feel there is no doubt as to their having misled many dear ones whom I have tried to help. The tracts came the 28th and were so welcome. I am enclosing $... for the postage of this lot and the next one.

With sincere love in the Lord, Sister ------- Mass.