NO. 63: RESPECTING 1954

No. 63

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

Questions have come to us from time to time with respect to the status of Youth­ful Worthies that have been misled by the date 1954, and to new ones also being mis­led by it through the Jolly-Krewson twosome. In an effort to clarify further this serious situation we quote once more from E:10-672 (published in 1941), where Brother Johnson says, "non-Truth .... Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed and others of them afterward." If this compelling statement is accepted, it is in itself enough to annihilate completely the doctrine of Campers Consecrated or Quasi-elect Consecrated, and brand it for the "strange fire" (false doctrine) that it is.

But we shall elaborate further in an effort to make this matter clear beyond fear of further contradiction. We are told in 1 Kings 6 that Solomon built the house of the Lord, and "in the eleventh year (of his reign) the house was finished." (v. 38) Brother Johnson has interpreted the building of the House of the Lord for Epiphany pur­poses as “Arranging God's people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work." Certainly, we are still in the Epiphany; and if the Epiphany Solomon (Brother John­son) was to "finish the house," it would mean he had clearly seen and classified all the Epiphany elect classes before his death. All of us know full well that Campers Consecrated was not one of the classes he defined, because he clearly taught that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the believing, but unconsecrated, Jews and Gentiles.

In further support of our contention that Campers Consecrated is "strange fire" ''false doctrine) we cite E:11-495 (bottom): "None of these brothers were the first to see new doctrines, which under Jesus is the exclusive privilege of the star-members." Certainly, Campers Consecrated is a new doctrine; no one ever heard of it before the Jolly-Krewson twosome foisted it upon the LHMM adherents after Brother Johnson's death: so we repeat our contention in the paragraph above: If this compelling statement by Brother Johnson is accepted, it is in itself enough to annihilate completely the new doctrine of Campers Consecrated, and to brand it as a piece of Levitical impudence.

There is a fourth line of thought which militates against this false doctrine, the same being found in the erection of the Gospel Age, the Epiphany and the Millen­nial Tabernacles. At Pentecost when the first Gospel-Age new creatures (Jesus ex­cepted) appeared, the entire Church of the Gospel Age was there tentatively and repre­sentatively set up. (See E-8-174) When that event occurred, another event occurred in that same instantaneous flash of time – Namely, the reception of any more Ancient Worthies was immediately and forever ended; no more human beings could ever again join that select company. They must then join the Christ Company, or remain on the "broad road" until another "day" arrived. While it is true the last of the Ancient Worthies in the person of John the Baptist walked the road of sacrifice unto death concurrently with Jesus, he had come into that Company six months before Jesus arrived at Jordan; but after Jordan his disciples in ever-increasing numbers left him to fol­low Jesus. "All the prophets instructed till John." (Matt. 11:13-Dia.) "He must in­crease, but I must decrease." (John 3:30) Thus, any attempt of John's disciples to continue among the prophets would avail them just nothing. An identical situation de­veloped at Sept. 16, 1914, when the last member of the Christ Company was garnered into the Gospel-Age Harvest, thus setting up tentatively and individually the Gospel-­Age Tabernacle... Any newcomers into the Household of Faith who would persist after that time to be of the High Calling would find themselves in exactly the same position of the disciples of John who may have in­sisted on continuing in the Jewish-Age prophets – they would be definitely out of order. And, seeing the exacting precision with which the Jewish-Age and Gospel-­Age elective arrangements have been consummated, we are logically justified in con­cluding that the ending of the Epiphany Tabernacle and setting up of the Millennial Tabernacles would follow the same pattern; and Brother Johnson shows from his words quoted above that this would not occur until sometime after Armageddon. Therefore, it is little wonder the Jolly-Krewson twosome has not been able to produce a single Scripture anywhere to support their "strange fire." This is a little more raw, even, than the aberrations of That Evil Servant, who did produce some semblance of a Scrip­ture on which to hang his figurative hat. Here is a 'spiritual hybrid' without father or mother, a 'new creation' as weird as it is new, the first ever to be pro­duced without a mother – all the elect classes having been decidedly mothered by the precious promises of the Scriptures, with no such promises, prophecies or types be­ing addressed to Epiphany Campers Consecrated, and not a hint of the same in any of the writings of the last two Star Members. None of us who had sat at the feet of Brother Johnson for any period of time before his death would have believed such a situation possible ten years ago. Without the nurturing of a mother (feeding on the promises) no Gospel-Age consecrators could walk "the" or "a" narrow way. The only promises the "cousins" can offer for their covenant by sacrifice are those ap­plicable to ALL Restitutionists – who do not now sacrifice.

All of the foregoing poises some serious questions: First, what about those Youthful Worthies who have so flagrantly forsaken the clear teachings of the last Star Member to follow now in the deception of uncleansed Levites? We answer that 1954 was a crucial date for them to the extent that they have fallen under the errors presented then and since. Those who recover themselves will, we believe, maintain their Youthful Worthy standing, with many others probably losing their standing com­pletely. It needs no argument from us that a well-grounded humility is required to admit mistakes for which we have strenuously striven. The Epiphany is a time for "making manifest the counsels of hearts," and it would be folly indeed to think those in the LHMM would escape this Epiphany manifestation.

The second question now in order  is  what  hope  to  present  to  new  consecrators: Should we encourage such with Youthful Worthy prospects as their hope? We would not try to improve upon Brother Johnson's answer to this very question many years ago, as recorded in E-4-420 (19): "We should now encourage believers to consecrate, because consecration is always in order. We should, however, not now encourage any one to consecrate in hope of the High Calling. Nor should we now encourage people to consecrate offering them as the incentive a reward for so doing, because conse­cration should never be made to get a reward. It should be out of faith in the Lord's word, out of grateful love for past mercies and out of appreciative love for God's good character .... We are not to encourage them to enter into business dealings with God. We are to encourage them to enter into consecration dealings with God. Yes, we should zealously encourage believers now to consecrate to God in this true spirit."

 The Question set out above, with its answer, is probably more important to us now than it was at the time Brother Johnson answered it. He wrote it at the time to refute mainly the Society, Dawn and PBI errorists, who denied such a class, while proclaiming their own errors on their specific class of spiritual hybrids; but since his death there has arisen a new set of errorists proclaiming a new class of hybrids-­namely, Consecrated Epiphany Campers and Quasi-elect Consecrated, classes which neither Brother Russell nor Brother Johnson even so much as hinted would appear to­ward the end of the Epiphany. Therefore, we now give a hearty Amen to Brother Johnson's answer as being just as pertinent now as it was when he wrote it; and we advise our readers to carry on with it in the same spirit and the same zeal as was done when he was still with us. Therefore, we urge upon our readers a careful study of the Question on page 420, with the full answer presented there.

Also, a word is in order here about "consecration being always in order." Jesus Himself said, "No man cometh unto me, except the Father which sent me draw him"; and it should be kept clearly in mind that there are two parts to every con­secration – that is, the presentation by the one wishing to consecrate, and the acceptance of that offering by our Lord. We cite the case of Cornelius – "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house .... and prayed to God alway." It is certainly no exaggeration of truth to conclude that Cornelius was the same man, with the same heart condition, for a matter of days, at least (and probably for months, maybe even years, as it is Brother Russell's observation that he was probably the centurion whose servant Christ healed, and possibly the one who supervised the cruci­fixion of Jesus – See Berean Comment on Acts 10:1 and Matt. 27:54), before his offer­ing was accepted and on him "was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." Yet he could not come into the Christ Company until the "due time"! And just as fixedly, none can come into the Millennial arrangement on the Highway of Holiness until the "due time." In the case of Cornelius a compelling demonstration was given – crystal clear to all those present – that the "due time" had arrived to admit Gentiles into the Christ Company. Let those contending for Campers Consecrated show even the remotest external indication of any kind whatever that any change of procedure occurred at 1954. When the "due time" comes for such a change, we may be sure God's faithful people will not be left wondering and doubting – any more than was true when the nar­row way was opened for the Gentiles,

Tentative Justification for Gospel-Age elective processes is exclusively a Gospel-Age condi­tion; and both Messengers said it would cease to operate when the Gospel Age ceases to operate.  Nor did either of them ever say it would end before the Gospel Age ceases. All the evidence shows we are still in the Gospel Age; there­fore, Tentative Justification is still operating, and that for elective purposes as a faith justification. Those who do not use it will lose it in the end of the Age, being remanded to the Epiphany Camp, as Brother Johnson has repeatedly stated. Such of these as adhere to righteousness and continue to accept Jesus as their Savior will be among the quasi-elect of the Millennial Kingdom, making their consecration for admission to the Highway of Holiness – and not before. Let those, then who wish to offer the "strange fire" (false doctrine) of a non-existent Consecrated Campers Class go their way. If they persist therein, those of the Great Company who do so will lose life completely; and the Youthful Worthies who persist therein will fully lose their Class standing. Let each determine for himself what his course shall be.

Sincerely your Brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – In your analysis of Sectarianism, did you mean that all in Big and Little Babylon are sectarian?

ANSWER: – Most certainly not! There are individuals everywhere who are not sectarian, although in sectarian groups – just as there have been individuals in Present Truth all during Laodicea who have been rabidly sectarian, despite the faithful teachings and continued warnings of the two Messengers against this evil. However, just accepting the opinions of the two Messengers in preference to our own would not constitute any one a sectarian. Our attitude in this matter, as was the case with Brother Johnson in respect to the opinions of Brother Russell, is to accept the opinions of the last two Star Members in preference to our own, except where those opinions have been proven pointedly wrong by clear Scriptures, or where time has demonstrated that those opinions could not possibly be correct – as, for instance, some of Brother Russell's opinions respecting 1914, and some of Brother Johnson's opinions respecting 1954, etc.

Nor should we consider it our duty to harass those set in prominent position by the Lord when we differ with them in their opinions (although the differing with their opinions is certainly our privilege, and in some instances may be more nearly correct than theirs). We should realize that whatever mistakes they may make, and have made, will be overruled by the Lord "for good" – for their good as well as for the best interests of all the Lord's people. If they are faithful under-Shepherds, we should realize that even their mistakes are overruled for good, for the 'trial of your faith' in many instances. We are indeed to 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints' (their faithful teachings based upon Scripture), but we are not to contend combatively for their opinions, nor our own – nor are we to be contentious regarding differences of opinions which are impossible of present positive proof. One might say that some of the brethren who had a different opinion from Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, should have 'contended' over their faulty expectations. But we don't believe this would have been the proper course (even though if given an opportunity they could have expressed their opinions vs. the Star Members to them). Many of the Star Members have made mistakes regarding time features, but most of us realize (especially the faithful Epiphany-enlightened brethren), too, that these mistakes were indeed overruled for our good. Some have said it was sectarian to accept Bro. Johnson's expectations and opinions based on the parallels regarding the Epiphany period, etc., at the time he gave such thoughts. But such is not the case, although when time has proved them to be wrong we are not to hold on to those opinions and try to force features into them that aren't there. It is as true today as ever that hindsight is better than foresight; and mistakes of time always seem so self-evident when time itself makes those mistakes manifest. The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble being one and the same is a Scriptural teaching, and we should not abandon this funda­mental teaching, or any other basic Epiphany teaching, just because Brother Johnson expected the parallels to continue to work, which, of course, ceased at his death in 1950. If we are to forsake the Mouthpieces of God because of their expectations and such mistakes, then we would have to forsake many – such as Brother Hiller, Brother Russell, Brother Johnson, et al.

Nor do we consider it sectarianism for any of the Lord's people to accept the opinions of those whom the Lord specially uses in preference to their own opinions, although their own thoughts may subsequently prove to be more nearly correct. We should be free to express an opinion as against any one's, whether the Lord's Mouthpiece or otherwise, although we certainly shouldn't contend for our opinions as though we were 'contending for the faith' once delivered to the Saints. Naturally, the Lord's Mouthpieces, if not fully convinced by the logic against their opinions, would be inclined to hold to their own opinions until proved wrong. No faithful brethren would reason otherwise.

We all know there were some immaturities and errors in the Parousia Vol. 4, which was widely distributed as a witness work to the world, but we also know the Lord overruled this matter, even the immaturities and errors "for good" – especially for the Lord's people, because the Truths in that book are mainly phenomenally cor­rect, considering that it was written about 75 years ago.

One might ask – Why can't the Great Company leaders' mistakes be 'overruled for good' in the same way? The difference is this: God did not authorize them to do more than be faithful to their stewardship Truths (which they have always per­verted, while performing valiant service with those features they did not pervert). He did not authorize them to "preach" any prophecy or doctrine which they themselves felt they received directly from the Lord (the Lord does not give advancing Truth, or new doctrines to the Great Company leaders except through His Star Members). The Lord did not approve their efforts in this respect; their teachings of false doc­trines would be "strange fire." But in the case of the Star Members, He did indeed give them the 'meat in due season' to disperse to the Household; and in this they have taught certain opinions and expectations which had no Scriptural proof. Should we fault them for that? No, indeed! As they were faithfully seeking to ful­fill their office functions their various human qualities oftentimes were manifested in their writings. They were not infallible men; they did not write, as did the Apostles, by inspiration in the sense that their writings were perfect. But their teachings were perfect in that they did teach and preach all the Lord gave them to do.

So there is a difference, and a great difference, in the leaders who have been given doctrines by the Star Members as their stewardship, and the Star Members who were given the enlightenment as 'meat in due season' for the Household – directly from the Lord. The Epiphany-enlightened brethren are fully aware of this difference. We are not to fault the Star Members for their human frailties, nor are we to fault the Great Company leaders for their inherited human frailties; however, we are to fault the Great Company leaders for their power-grasping efforts and tendencies, and such human frailties as they willfully allow to control them. These are traits not found in the faithful Star Members and crown-retainers (the Little Flock): None of them were power-graspers, and some of them were very obscure so far as concerned notice from this world (although all 49 Star Members were very great in intellect and in the sight of God).

In connection with individuals among the groups of Little Babylon, we all know that there have been Saints among them during the Epiphany. They are not sectarian in spirit, of course, even though in the midst of a sectarian system. This was true of the saints all during the Gospel Age, even though affiliated with the various sects, they themselves were not sectarian in spirit (although in conduct perhaps they might have appeared so, having been injected with many sectarian errors). And we believe this applies to the Youthful Worthies in Little and Big Babylon – many of them may not be sectarian in spirit, although contaminated with sectarian errors. Some of them will be won for the Truth before Babylon falls and some after; and the fully faith­ful among them will conquer sectarianism in themselves, as Brother Johnson has shown from the type of Oreb and Zeeb, explained in E-5:226-228.

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

QUESTION: – On page 55 of the July 1960 Bible Standard Brother Jolly says the Great Company are "the sons of God." Is this correct?

ANSWER: – First of all it should be kept in mind that most of the article that now prompts your question is from the writings of Brother Russell. The last paragraph on page 54, col. 1, is almost verbatim the July 12 Manna comment on John 8:36. This certainly has our hearty approval. Had he confined himself to the writings of the Star Members, he would not have exposed himself to the many criticisms that have been directed at him.

However, part of what appears on page 55 is so garbled that it would be highly misleading to new readers. Half truths are often more misleading than whole errors and R. G. Jolly is most prone to this fault almost any time he attempts to express any of his own opinions. For sometime now he has been putting himself in the "us," the "we," the "salt," the "light," the Fully Faithful, etc., so it should be no sur­prise to see him moving himself right into the Gospel-Age sons. Rom. 8:16 says, "We are the children of God," and v. 17 leaves not the slightest doubt that this refers exclusively to the Saints, and does not include the Great Company – "If chil­dren, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."

All Gospel-Age new creatures were at the outset "sons of God"; but those of them who eventually lost their saintly standing then assumed an entirely different status. Note Brother Johnson's comments in E4–98: "We have previously pointed out that the Little Flock is sometimes typed by a male child, and the Great Company by a female child, when the two classes are contrasted; even as Little Flock members are spoken of as Jehovah's sons (John 1:12; 1 John 1:1,2), while Great Company members are spoken of as Jehovah's daughters and as His maidservants (2 Cor. 6:18; Joel 2:29)". We know of no place anywhere that crown-losers are referred to in the Bible as "sons." They are often classified as "sinners," a special class of sinners apart from the general run of Adamic sinners – sinners to such a degree that their entire works are burned (as was the case with Lot), they themselves escaping only with their lives. It should be kept in mind that R. G. Jolly is the only leader of any of the sects in Little Babylon who openly admits he is of the Great Company; but many of his other statements confuse the situation so badly that it is only too manifest that Babel (confusion) has him sadly in its grasp. Also, at no time does the Bible de­scribe the Saints as sinners; and Brother Russell taught it would be wrong for any Saint to pray, "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner" – because "ye are washed; ye are sanctified" (1 Cor. 6:11 – See Berean Comment).

Lest we be misunderstood, both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson teach that the Great Company will eventually be among the "sons of God" – just as every human being who survives the Little Season will also be a son of God, just as ''Adam was the son of God;" but it certainly is not a correct statement to teach this in the present tense of manifested Great Company members. In the Leviticus 12 type the Great Company is definitely classified as the female child "in the Parousia and in the Epiphany" (See E:4-98). And, since we are still in the Epiphany, this is the correct present classification for them, regardless of what may become of them in the future. As we have so often pointed out in our writings, we need never expect a clear and comprehensive exposition on any subject from R. G. Jolly so long as he remains in his present uncleansed condition.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n –

Gentlemen:

I am interested in securing copies of the following:

The Resurrection of the Dead

The Three Babylons

What is the Soul

Sincerely --------- Mass.

Dear Brother Hoefle:

I was so glad to hear from you and to get the papers. Please forgive me for not writing sooner. I think of you and pray for you both as I know how hard it is to give of your time, money and study. But I know it is the love of the Lord and the brethren – that you are faithful and loving to all of us. I am such a poor writer...... I think of you and Sister and love you all. Let me hear from you. I haven't heard anything from --------- I wish the enclosed could be more to help..

 God bless you and pray for me..

Christian love --------- N. J.

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in His dear name. Grace and Peace!

Please send me the "Third Watch" of January 1, 1957. I only have the 1957 papers from July 1 to Dec. 1, 1957. If you have them, will you please send them to me? Thank you! ... I noted what you have to say about the name Jehovah. Is it wrong to use that name? Brother Russell in Parousia Vol. 5, 40-41 says name applied to ''Father of glory" – see pp. 72-65. I know Jehovah's Witnesses is a sect and out of Harmony with the Truth.  Enclosed is $ ... for the Lord's work.

Yours by His Grace, --------- Conn.

NO. 62: THE SPIRIT OF THE TRUTH VS. THE SPIRIT OF UNDERSTANDING

No. 62

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

Inasmuch as it has been correctly stated that the Holy Spirit in God’s people is His “disposition” and His power in His people, and, since the Holy Spirit is basic to understanding the Truth and conforming ourselves to that Truth, it has been concluded by some that the two parts of our subject resolve themselves into one and the same thing. That such conclusion is not the correct one will become apparent, we believe, from our further analysis. At the outset, let us recognize that the Spirit of Understanding is of the mind, and precedes the Spirit of the Truth, which is of the heart; and that these are lost in the reverse order in which they are gained. The Spirit of the Truth is first “grieved” before one be­gins to lose the understanding of that Truth which once sanctified him. Therefore, let us keep clearly in mind that the Spirit of Understanding never departs from any one instantaneously; it must first be undermined by “grieving” the Spirit of the Truth in the heart; hence, the significance of the admonition, “Keep thy heart with all diligence.”

In Isa. 11:2 “the spirit of understanding” is in apposition to the “spirit of the Lord,” which proves these two expressions are an inseparable part of each other. However, in v. 3 we are told that the “quick understanding” which Jesus possessed was a result of “the spirit of the Lord that shall rest upon him.” Even in v. 2 it would hardly be technically correct to say the “spirit of the Lord” and the “spirit of understanding” are one and the same, because the “spirit of understanding” is only one of many qualities of the “spirit of the Lord.” Fundamentally, the “spirit of understanding” is God’s disposition in His people that enables them to perceive and to reason correctly, especially as respects Present Truth.

St: Paul has given us the truth that “the greatest of these (character qualities) is love” (agape), and St. Peter establishes agape as the crowning virtue (2 Pet.1:5-8) –­ the which, if we attain it, “will not permit you to be inactive nor unfruitful in the knowledge” (Dia.) – the Spirit of Understanding (the ability to perceive and reason clearly and correctly) will not depart from such characters. Therefore, regardless of the strivings, the laudable ambitions, the yearnings in some for “the more emi­nent gifts,” yet “a much more excellent way I point out to you” (1 Cor. 12:31––Dia.) –­ the “more excellent way” being the attainment and retention of agape love in the heart – the Spirit of the Truth.

In seeming contradiction to the foregoing, Solomon writes that “wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Prov. 4:7). It should be apparent that “understanding” is necessary for us to at­tempt the development of agape love in the heart; we must first learn about it, learn what it is, and its method of operation. This situation is thus akin to the old question, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That knowledge – the Spirit of Understanding – is basic to the acceptance of Christianity and the development of all the graces is clearly defined by St. Paul in Gal. 3:2 – “Received ye the Spirit by works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?” “How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? .... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”—Rom. 10:14-17 (how could it be possible to establish a faith on which to build agape love without the Spirit of Understanding?). Therefore, “to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded (have the Spirit of Understanding) is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6); “the King­dom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in a holy spirit” (Rom. 14:17) – the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth – understanding the Truth and conforming ourselves to it.

That some do not persevere as above described is only too sadly apparent; in fact, the Scriptures point out a “great multitude” who fail to do so. Only those who “abide in my word” – those who develop and retain the Spirit of the Truth – continue to “know the Truth that makes free indeed.” Such do not lose the Spirit of Understanding. But once the Spirit of the Truth is lost in the heart, the Spirit of Understanding is not long in departing from such people; and it soon becomes manifest to those about them – ­especially to those who have the Spirit of Understanding. Of course, such loss be­comes more precipitate where the deflection from the Spirit of the Truth is most pro­nounced. Brother Russell said of such that they “dream strange, unreasonable things.” Brother Johnson was still more direct and sharp: When these people are abandoned to Azazel (as the Lord lets go of their hand) they talk all sorts of nonsense, he said. He spoke thus of the “great multitude”; and the wording would apply exclusively to them, although the principle would follow through with the measurably faithful Youthful Worthies as well. As the Truth always imparts to its possessor “the spirit of a sound mind,” so its loss brings a corresponding unsound mind – moreso, quite often, than before such people knew the Truth at all. Therefore, the Lord’s words, “If the light that is in thee be(come) darkness, how great is that darkness!” But, while the measurably faithful may often go into extreme confusion of mind on the things they had once “learned and been assured of,” they do not lose fully the Spirit of the Truth unless they leave completely the Household of Faith. Nevertheless, the explana­tion is aptly set forth in James 1:15: “Then when lust (evil desire – selfishness, worldliness ) hath conceived (in the mind), it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished (in the heart, thus destroying fully the Spirit of the Truth), bringeth forth death” – the second death to the Great Multitude, and loss of Worthy­ship to others.

Manifestly, the degree of the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth is not the same in all even of the fully faithful. Jesus Himself had the Holy Spirit “without measure,” and this made Him of “quick understanding,” gave to Him the “spirit of wisdom (of a ‘sound mind’), the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the reverence of Jehovah.” (Isa. 11:2-3) In the twelve Apostles the Holy Spirit was also abundant enough to enable them to write by inspiration and to impart the miraculous gifts of the Spirit to others. All of the other 37 Star Members of the Gospel Age were men of unusual intellect, which enabled them to have more of the Spirit of Under­standing than did their fellows. And, while this made them lights of superior glory, it did not elevate them above the Class in which the entire 144,000 Saints are found. From the least to the greatest in that elect company all have had sufficient of the Spirit of Understanding in mind and the Spirit of the Truth in heart to enable them to “make their calling and election sure.”

Brother Russell has this to say in Parousia Volume 3, p. 94: “The oil, or spirit of consecration, and its attendant light cannot be communicated from one virgin to another. Each for himself must be filled with the spirit; each must get his own supply of oil (the Truth, and its spirit of consecration and holiness); and the cost is considerable in the way of self-denial and misrepresentation and fiery trial.”

The Holy Spirit is a gift from God to His faithful people; and, regardless of their heredity or providential circumstances, it develops in all the Spirit of Under­standing and the Spirit of the Truth.  This comes to all in ever-increasing measure as they continue faithful, just as it gradually decreases in the unfaithful, eventu­ally vanishing completely in those who “grieve the Spirit” unto death. But, as it gradually increases in the faithful, it makes them figuratively fragrant, comely and fully qualified to fulfill “His good pleasure” for each in the Household of Faith. This is graphically and forcefully portrayed in the anointing oil with which Aaron and others were inducted into office in the Jewish Age. Exodus 30:22-38 recites the formula for making the anointing oil, and the rules pertinent to its use. Aside from olive oil as its base, that oil contained cassia, calamus (or sweet cane) cinnamon and flowing myrrh – all to be the best and rarest of their kind.

All of these products were highly scented, used in the manufacture of perfumes. “Thou shalt make an oil of holy ointment... compounded after the art of the apothecary,” says Ex. 30:25; and the marginal reading states it was to be made “after the art of the perfumer.” Note, then, the beautiful reference of St. Paul in 2 Cor. 2:14-17 (Dia,): “We triumph with the Anointed One, who diffuses by us the fragrance of the knowledge of Him in every place. Because we are a sweet odor of Christ to God, among those who are being saved... an odor of life unto life.... We are not like the many, trafficking the Word of God: but really from sincerity, and as from God, in the pres­ence of God, we speak concerning Christ,” Thus, just as a rare perfume refreshes, relaxes and pleases all who smell it, so the Holy anointing in God’s people should make them ever more appealing to all right-minded persons; and especially is this true among those who have this anointing in themselves. It tends to attract them to one another, and enables them to sing with sincerity and ardor, “Blessed be the tie that binds,”

Of those thus “perfumed” St. Paul thunders forth the challenge: “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” Those of “low degree” who have succeeded in attaining to “His resurrection” – who faithfully preserved their anointing in full “fragrance” – have all the questions answered for them; the evil ridicule, the abuse, the derision are indeed “light afflictions” – they may all join in that grand anthem of their Lord and Elder Brother: “They shall see of the travail of their souls, and they shall be satisfied,” (Isa. 53:11) “By His knowledge (His “quick understanding”) shall my righteous servant justify many”; and this principle applies in its fullness to all those who faithfully “follow in His steps.” Especially in this Harvest period do we have the assurance that all the fully faithful have received the due Truth for them; and we are equally assured that the measurably faithful lose the words which once made them clean (John 15:3), thus clearly revealing their uncleansed condition.

Nor should this surprise us! “This is life eternal that they may know thee,” said Jesus. At first glance this seems very simple and easy of understanding – until we ask what it means to “know” God.  St, John gives us the answer: “And everyone that loveth (has agape love, the Spirit of the Truth, in his heart) is born of God, and knoweth God, He that loveth not (who has either lost the Spirit of the Truth, or never had it at all) knoweth not God,” (1 John 4:7,8) To all the latter – whether Great Company or Youthful Worthies – the judgment is clearly pronounced: “Because they admitted not the love of the Truth (did not develop the Spirit of the Truth in Their hearts)... on this account God will send them an energy of delusion, to their believing the falsehood; in order that all those may be judged who believed not the Truth,” (2 Thes. 2:10-12) Timely indeed are the Berean Comments on this Scripture: “If we do not cultivate love for the truth until it outweighs all other things, we will not be fit for the Kingdom... All, in the end of the Gospel Age, who, having been favored with the Word of God, have failed to appreciate and use it... Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possess­ing the most light of Present Truth,” The comments in Reprints, p. 5095, are good companion to the foregoing:

“Whatever may be the imperfection of mind and body resulting from the fall, those who receive the spirit of a sound mind are thereby made purer, kinder, gentler, less selfish and more thoughtful in regard to others. Those who are thus rightly exercised will develop the spirit of love increasingly until that which is perfect shall have come and that which is in part shall have been done away – 1 Cor. 13:10.

“The spirit of a sound mind makes one’s judgment clearer, truer, more trust­worthy than before, for it impels him to accept the instructions of the Word of God in respect to what he should and should not do, and to reject his own faulty judgment.”

When St. Paul speaks of some “who admitted not the love of the Truth,” it should be borne in mind that all who have ever received “the sweet odor of Christ” had at the time “a good and honest heart”; otherwise, God would not have accepted their sacrifice. A contrary instance is recorded in Acts 8:18-21, where St. Peter told the avaricious Simon: “Thou has neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.” But of those who have received the “anointing” – these then developed into two classes – those who “admitted the love of the Truth,” and those who failed to do so. “The love of the Truth” carries with it two meanings: “Love of Truth until it outweighs all other thing” (Berean Comments on above), and the love (agape) which the Truth is designed to develop in the hearts. The very purpose of the Sarah Covenant is to perfect in love (agape) all who embrace it; and this prin­ciple would be pertinent to all during the reign of evil who have “made a covenant by sacrifice.”

How pertinent, then, are St. Paul’s words in Rom. 11:22—(Dia): “Behold, then, the kindness and the severity of God; severity, indeed, toward those having fallen (through failure to keep the spirit of the Law, and the letter of the Law to the extent of ability), but the kindness of God towards thee if thou continue in that kindness; for otherwise thou even shall be cut off,”

Therefore, we may conclude with Col. 2:6,7 (see also the Manna Comments for May 9): “As ye have received Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk ye in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving,”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Will you please define Sectarianism, and give some explanation about it?

ANSWER: –  The dictionary defines sectarianism as “exclusive or narrow-minded attachment to a sect, denomination, party, school or the like”; and a sectarian is “one limited to denominational or partisan interests – a narrow-minded or bigoted denominationalist.” It has been clearly demonstrated over the centuries that political and religious sectarians want no criticism of their party or sect, regardless of how just and true and deserving such criticism may be. All of us know that the two major political parties here in the United States contain many thousands of rabid sectarians, many of whom are also even more sectarian in their religious beliefs. Such people often accept error and stop their ears to the truth. Those having such religious convictions have been among the worst enemies of our Bible, unintentionally so, of course. They are such as have burned their brethren at the stake – just as their Jewish forerunners crucified the Lord of Glory. They are the people who can bear no criticism, who are ever ready to crucify those they can­not effectively answer. They close their eyes, open their mouths, and swallow what is put therein.

The difference between a sectarian and an enlightened Truth person is that the former is steeped in error, whereas the latter is grounded in the Truth, and presents clear and unanswerable logical truth against the errorist sectarians. And it should be emphasized that defense of the Truth is not the label of a sectarian. We are specifically admonished in Jude 3 to “earnestly contend for the faith (the Truth) which was once delivered unto the saints. Inasmuch as the Bible exposes sectarianism as a great sin, it would under no circumstances offer instruction that would make one sectarian. If “contending for the Truth” brands one a sectarian, then Jesus was the worst sectarian the world has ever seen; and the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers would rate close to Him. Clearly, it is the bounden duty of all in the Household of Faith to “contend for the faith.” Some may call those “sectarian” who thus contend lawfully because they are unable to meet the Truths they present against their errors; name-calling is the only weapon left to such people – “they have ‘bad spirit’ and are too critical (of their errors, of course)”, they say. Nor should we view this from a limited standard. One of the four purposes of Divine inspiration is “for refuting” (2 Tim.. 3:16); and this would apply more to the sharp critical teachings than to the winsome corrections. It was not the Sermon on the Mount that brought Jesus to the cross; it was the unrelenting barbs of Matthew 23. Both Messengers repeatedly appealed to their readers to eliminate sectarianism from their characters; but it is clearly evident since their deaths that their appeal passed right over the heads of many of them – just as did also many of their other teachings. We, too, have attempted to wage a vigorous warfare against this great sin.

It has ever been a trait of sectarians to cry when they are hurt; thus, many of them in Little Babylon (the J.W.’s, Dawns, P. B. I., etc.) decried loudly their erroneous exposures by Brother Johnson.  “He’s always criticizing,” they said; but at no time did we ever hear of the last two Star Members whimpering because they were criticized, even though the criticism cast at them – was often rankly unjust.  They agreed with Solomon’s observation: “Rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.” And the Faithful expect criticism for the good they would do, if they would “follow in His steps.” There are many who want no controversy – want no “contending” for the Faith (they want the Truth with peace, but there is no such peace for those who wage a good warfare against error and the errorists, although there is “the peace of God which passeth understanding” that Jesus left with the fully faithful. But a cheap and indolent peace is the opposite to what St. Paul urges us to be – “endure hardness as a good soldier.” Manifestly, the career of a soldier is based upon controversy; and those who want none of it can possibly be a “good soldier” – nor need we expect such among the elect classes of the Kingdom, wherever else they may eventually find themselves).

In our day many are being “slain” by the slaughter weapon of Combinationism (Ezek. 9:1-7), which in some respects is the other extreme of Sectarianism – and is an expedient of Satan to hold together the present order. Big Babylon is now more guilty of this great sin than of Sectarianism, although they are still sectarian in spirit toward their sects combined. They inculcate the thought that one should be affiliated with some sect of their choice – in the “Combination” – any one of them is all right, just so they are a “member – of one of them, just “go to Church” on Sun­day. While sectarians contend for their sect right or wrong, true or false, the Combinationists embrace the position that “we are all heading for the same place – ­just on different roads.” This is clearly contradicted by Jesus: “narrow is the way that leadeth unto life” – not many ways, only the way (of Truth, for which we are to ‘contend’). Those who weary of the battle can do so only by forsaking their “narrow way.” The Lord’s true army is not composed of runners (away from the battle), even as the Captain of our Salvation never forsook the battle. “When the time was come that He should be received up, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51); and “He left us an example that we should follow in His steps.” “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

Brother Russell has this to say about Big Babylon in Parousia Vol. 3, pp. 181 and 182, and we believe this has a similar application to Little Babylon today: “And since they will hold the errors at a sacrifice of truth, the latter is made void, and often worse than meaningless. This sin of holding and teaching error at the sacrifice of truth is one of which every sect of the Church nominal is guilty, without exception. Where is the sect that will assist you in diligently searching the Scriptures, to grow thereby in grace and in the knowledge of the truth? Where is the sect which will not hinder your growth, both by its doctrines and its usages? Where is the sect in which you can obey Jesus’ words and let your light shine? We know of none.”

Little Babylon in many of its sects is both Sectarian and Combinationist, except, of course, the Jehovah’s Witnesses who claim, even as their prototype, Big Papacy, that their “channel” is the only way ‘unto life.’ They, too, are only too willing to allow the real Truth people to go their way if they won’t bother them: They, too, are put to flight by those who have the Truth against their errors, as all faithful Truth people have witnessed when they have had opportunity to refute their errors.

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

A CORRECTION: – In our May 1960 No. 60, we set out a quotation near bottom of page 1, which was obtained from the Jan. 1920 Present Truth.

In our comments we stated “it would have been most appropriate had R. G. Jolly included” that in his March-April P.T. We are now reminded that he did use what we quoted; and we are sorry we offered even a mild criticism of him because of it. This was just an inadvertence on our part, not in the least intentional (to accuse him of anything at all of which he is not guilty), as we have tried scrup­ulously over the past five years to be painstakingly just in our remarks about him. Certainly, his many gross revolutionisms and sins of practice have afforded more than enough for our analysis, without resorting to guile, trickery or perversion respecting anything he has taught or done. We believe all will realize the truth of this even in our May No. 60, because we had there plenty of Truth against his self-evident errors without using the quotation we did. Therefore, we ask the kind indulgence of all in this instance, with the hope it may not happen again. We know, of course, that this is hoping for much too much, as we freely admit our human frailties and limitations, believing with St. Paul in our efforts thus far, that “I am what I am by the Grace of God!”

When we realize what R. G. Jolly is trying to do to the Lord’s people in his false doctrine of Epiphany Campers consecrated, we well know that we cannot overdo our criticism of his subtle errors and presentations of Brother Johnson’s unpub­lished literature if we are to be faithful to the fundamental teachings of the last Two Star Members regarding such false doctrines promulgated by uncleansed Great Company Leaders (who attempt to do so under the guise that they are built on the fundamental teachings of the Parousia and Epiphany doctrines). This may cause us to make technical mistakes at times in our zeal to enlighten, strengthen and pro­tect the Lord’s people.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Friends: –

My neighbor received an envelope containing 2 pamphlets of the Herald of the Epiphany, one What is the Soul and one Where are the Dead. I am enclosing $--. I would like to have about 20 or 30 copies to mail to acquaintances and friends, whom I believe would be as interested as I am in seeing light and learning the Truth, or True Gospel.

I have studied and still do all that I can to find out about Prophecy... and of the Lord’s soon return, and the true Gospel of “The Kingdom of God.”

If you will tell me the amount to send for this number of pamphlets I will mail you a check.  Thanking you in advance, I am sincerely --------- Kansas

NO. 61: THE FAITHFUL AND THE MEASURABLY FAITHFUL

No. 61

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

The last two Star Members were profuse in their writings of the two designated classes in our caption, the Epiphany Messenger moreso perhaps on the Measurably Faith­ful, prompted undoubtedly by his own intimate and very disagreeable experience with these “brethren that cast him out.” (Isa. 66:5) What we shall say herein is either directly quoted from him and Brother Russell, or based upon what they have written. “Love is not easily provoked,” says St. Paul in 1 Cor. 13:5, but the translation is misleading. It would be better stated, “Love (agape) is not easily enraged, or in­furiated,” because he specifically counsels in Heb. 10:24 that we should “consider one another to provoke unto love and good works: not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day approaching.” Thus, our purpose herein is to pro­voke to “love and good works,” for which “the assembling of yourselves together” is essential – the moreso since we “are in the evil day.”

During this Gospel Age the Truth has risen and been trampled under foot in each successive epoch of the Church. In the Jewish Harvest there was a specially bright shining, as “the light of life” brought “life and immortality to light through the Gospel,” which bright shining was continued by the inspired Apostles, although “the mystery of iniquity” was already manifesting itself in their day –  much the same sit­uation as was manifest during the life of the Parousia Messenger and the power­graspers associated with him. Once the restraining hand was gone, then a bedlam of turmoil and error arose in both instances, so that some features of the Truth were completely obliterated after the Apostles fell asleep, one instance being the doc­trine of Restitution. Much the same has occurred since Brother Russell's death with respect to the High Calling, so that the organization he left behind is in utter confusion on this doctrine and teachings related to it. Even the doctrine of Resti­tution has been perverted out of all semblance to the way That Servant taught it!

As many of us know, That Evil Servant flitted from one change to another under the deft defense of the Truth by the Epiphany Messenger – a defense which forced J. F. Rutherford to abandon one truth after another to support each new error he promulgated; so that the Jehovah's Witnesses are now so far from the sound and sober teachings of That Servant that he would be unable to recognize them were he to return now (except, i.e., of course, as he has observed their course from beyond the veil). But, having once determined that the High Calling is closed (even though they do not have the right date for it), they are forced to provide a place for their new converts. And where are they putting them? Why, in the “great crowd” of Rev. 19:1,6. As all Epiphany Truth people know, both Messengers correctly taught there is but “one calling” (Eph. 4:4), the same being the “high calling,” that the “great crowd” are the aftermath of that calling, those who failed to make the grade, lost their standing, but were graciously given a secondary position in the great Plan of Salvation.

Nowhere do the Scriptures designate a “call” to membership in the “great crowd.” Insofar as the High Calling is concerned, they are failures; and God never calls any one to be a failure. Brother Johnson designated these people as The Measurably Faithful, because it was lack of faithfulness that caused them to lose their posi­tion among the Fully Faithful – these are they who have allowed their robes to be­come “spotted,” some more, some less. In some the spots are so vague as to be al­most invisible (they lost the High Calling “by the skin of their teeth”); in others the spots are so numerous and black that the white is almost obliterated. Such miss the second death by “the skin of their teeth.” But to the entire “large crowd” do the words of St. Paul apply, “If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” (Heb. 10:38)

Once any one falls from the High Calling, no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will then avail to gain reinstatement therein. Once it is lost, the High Call­ing never opens a second time to such Measurably Faithful people. Like Esau, they find “no place for repentance,” (so far as the High Calling is concerned), though they may “seek it carefully with tears”; they have forever parted with title to their “birthright,” as did Esau –  even though he secured for it only a mess of pottage. It should be remembered that in those days of Isaac it was required of the eldest son that he fast on the birthday of a respected and prominent ancestor, while the young­est feasted on that same day. Thus Esau, with a sharp appetite prodding him, offered to trade (barter) places with Jacob – that he might feast while Jacob fasted in his place. His profligacy was considered an act of sacrilege in those days, and would arouse the contempt of all well‑disciplined and honorable men. This explains why “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (loved less). Such flagrant disregard for their covenant of sacrifice has ever drawn the sharp criticism, disapproval, and chastening rod of Jehovah against those thus guilty (although He does not “hate” them –  ­they are those “saved with fear,” making a difference) – and this observation will eventually be found to be as true concerning the measurably faithful Youthful Worthies as it has been true concerning the Great Company; the extreme end of this Age will make this acutely manifest.

It is truly a part of God's purpose to let some fall in this evil day – just as He also enables others to stand. He therefore permits the “strong delusion” to take possession of all who have pleasure in unrighteousness, and who therefore do not be­lieve the Truth. Such are unworthy of the Truth, and sooner or later fall from it and lose more or less of it. Such not only lose some Truth, but also accept some error, failing also to see the advancing Truth. But we emphasize that it is impossible to find membership in the “large crowd” without first having had membership among the Very Elect in the High Calling, from which, having fallen, their next opportunity for life is presented them through membership in the “large crowd,” with the opportunity gone forever of returning to the Elect Christ Company.

It is very pertinent to consider here that the present “large crowd” that the Jehovah's Witnesses are fostering is to be of the earth, earthy – a class without hope of a spiritual reward. It is the first time in history that such a class as this has ever been presented. However, That Servant correctly taught that the “large crowd” is a New Creation, a part of the “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23), whose ultimate standing will be as spirit beings “before the throne” (Not “in the throne” where the Elect Bride will be).

Further, in Vol. 6, p. 93, par. 1, he says this: “Neither is there a second call during this Gospel Age, though there is a second class of saved ones selected dur­ing this Age – the Great Company (Rev. 7:9‑14)” – the same as the “large crowd” of Rev. 19:1,6.

In furtherance of this position is the footnote on p. 707 of Vol. 6: “The great company although they cannot be counted in as participants of the First Resurrection, and sharers of its glory, honor and immortality, nor counted in with the ancient worthies, must, nevertheless, be counted as overcomers even though the overcoming be through great tribulation. And as overcomers, they must be esteemed to pass from death unto life, and, therefore, to be subjects of an instantaneous resurrection, and not a gradual one, as in the case of the world, whose trial is future.”

The Jehovah's Witnesses accepted fully the above teachings for a number of years after Brother Russell's death, claiming that many who left them after 1916 were the Great Company – a class fallen from the Truth, a class fallen from the High Calling (the “one calling” of the Gospel Age), who “went out from us because they were not all of us.” (1 Jno. 2:19)

Is it not very strange that so little is said about the Great Company in the various sects of Little Babylon, when we recall that Brother Russell had given such extensive elucidation about that Class? Even the organization he left at his death is talking about an entirely different Class, when they offer a “call” to their “large crowd”; but they are completely silent on the real “large crowd” which Brother Russell expounded so clearly from the Scriptures. The real “large crowd” are to be scourged by Armageddon for their cleansing; whereas, the “large crowd” of the Jehovah's Witnesses is to receive a shadowing protection during that time. There is not a single text to support their claim, of course.

While the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement takes some cognizance of the Great Company, this is due in part, at least, to the fact that their leader is the only leader of the sects in Little Babylon who self‑admittedly is one of the Great Company Class. But, even with him, he has perverted much of the Truth on this Class as pre­sented by the Star Members. Some of his public oral teachings concerning their humanity is sadly ridiculous. Also, he claims that he himself was cleansed without being abandoned to Azazel, which is a direct contradiction to the teaching to be found in E:15‑525: “As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient fully to free their Holy Spirit from bondage .... their delivery to Satan (Azazel) implies that they come into such a condition as the priests disfellow­ship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them.” R. G. Jolly has publicly admitted that “brotherly help and favor” was never withdrawn from him at any time – which is correct. This admission,however, by R. G. Jolly puts a direct denial to the Truth on the subject, as just quoted from Brother Johnson. There is further and more elaborate comment on this subject in E:4‑209,210.

Throughout the Age The Fully Faithful have gladly been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God” (Rev. 20:4), have “chosen rather to suffer afflic­tion with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteem­ing the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt” (Heb. 11:25,26); whereas, the Measurably Faithful have chosen rather the green plains of Sodom, “Well watered everywhere, as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt.” (Gen. 13:10). Many of them have labored under the “strong delusion” that they could be the “rich man” in this world and “Lazarus” in the next world in the parable our Lord spoke. (See Luke 16:19‑31)

A paragraph is probably in order here also with respect to the Fully Faithful and Measurably Faithful among the Youthful Worthies. To us, it would seem folly in the extreme not to entertain such a concept with respect to this Class, as they are much the same people as those who embraced the High Calling during its term, and some of them are actually the children of such people – some of those parents probably having “finished their course with Joy” among the Elect, with others be­ing found among the Measurably Faithful. Therefore, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the children would be like their pro­genitors; it would seem a reasonable certainty to find fully faithful and measurably faithful ones among the Youthful Worthies. As all Epiphany Truth people know, the Epiphany is a special time for “making manifest the counsels of hearts”; and it would be folly extreme to believe this will not also occur with those in the L.H.M.M. at Brother Johnson's death. During his lifetime his restraining hand withheld many from a contrary course, just as was true with Brother Russell, and just as occurred when the restraint of the Apostles was removed from the early Church. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that many of the measurably faithful among them will be found among the quasi‑elect in later calculations, while those who become badly reprobate will receive nothing more than the “resurrection to shame and age‑lasting contempt.” (Dan. 12:2) “If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Just as the Measurably Faithful lost completely their standing in the Elect Class, so also can we expect the Measurably Faithful among the Youthful Worthies to lose fully their standing in their Class.

It is well that we keep always in mind the events of 1914. The date was right, but the previous expectations were very much wrong as respects the disposition of God's people. Although Brother Russell himself was telling the Household two years before that they had been expecting much too much for 1914, many of them stopped their ears to his warnings. And, when 1914 came and their hopes were dashed, many became offended –  their weaknesses became acutely apparent. “Judgment must begin at the house of God... And if the righteous (the Saints) scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly (second‑deathers) and the sinner (Great Company) appear?” (1 Pet. 4:17,18) “The Covenant by sacrifice” is unto death, and not to any special date; only the Lord Himself is to say “It is enough”; and those who serve the Lord “with all the heart, mind, soul and strength” are fully content to accept this arrangement.

And, with 1954 came a similar situation. The date was right insofar as the Great Company developing truths were concerned, but it was also very much wrong as regards other expectations – with things similar to 1914 occurring since that time. As the Measurably Faithful were given over to “strong delusions” various, sundry and accentuated after 1914, so we are now witness to the same again since 1950. Brother Johnson emphatically taught that the quasi‑elect would be the unconsecrated – that the unconsecrated would be the residents in the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture – that Tentative Justification would cease when the Gospel Age ceases. This latter Brother Russell also taught. Yet the Measurably Faithful are setting aside these clear and reasonable teachings to make way for Consecrated Epiphany Campers, or Quasi‑elect Consecrated –  just as others have done with their antitypical Ammonites and Moabites, the Jonadabs, and now a “large crowd,” which is not the culls from the High Calling, but a class all their own who are to live right through Armageddon and into the Kingdom – a repetition of “Millions Now Living Will Never Die” all over again, the only difference being a new label. “What fools we mortals be!” Because the Measurably Faithful “received not the love of the Truth ... God shall send them strong delusion.” (2 Thes. 2:10,11).. And, as might be expected, they are saying almost nothing about the “great tribulation” that lies ahead for this “large crowd.” (Rev. 7:14) But we may happily and wholeheartedly join with St. Paul in vs. 13‑17 (Dia.) in his warm encouragement to the Fully Faithful, “We are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God chose you a firstfruit for salvation, in sanctification of Spirit and belief of Truth ... so then,

Brethren, stand firm, and retain the instructions you were taught (by the Star Member teachers appointed by the Lord)... and Jesus Christ Himself will establish you in every good work and word.” “Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest.” (Josh. 3:l5) Not only have gross evils and injustice accentuated the curse since 1874, but we now also witness an overflowing scourge of abortive classes the likes of which was never before seen in human history. “As it was in the days of Noah” – ­The whole earth was then infested with physical hybrids; now it is infested with spiritual hybrids.

Occasionally we hear some remark that they could never have made the High Calling anyway, they are not good enough. This is simply foolish talk. Just as God never calls any one to be a failure, so He also never calls any to do anything they are not physically or mentally able to do. On one occasion we were discussing with Brother Johnson the words of Jesus, Matt. 6:8, “Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of”; and he told us the text carried the thought that God “sympathetically appreciates” our needs. Thus, He is able to put Himself fully and exactly in our position, and to evaluate perfectly the physical and mental capacity of any task we face. “Take my yoke upon you,” He told His Disciples. Here He was contrasting His yoke with the Law yoke under which they were laboring, and which they had found im­possible to bear; they were indeed unequal yokefellows in that Law yoke. Also, the Law had forbidden them to place an ox and an ass together in the same yoke, because the dissimiliarity of those animals placed an unequal and exhausting burden upon the one of them (Deu. 22:10 –  see Berean Comment). But, when Jesus supplanted the Law yoke with His yoke, He appreciated in perfection the strength of each one to bear his part of that yoke. Thus, if one could bear but ten per cent of that yoke, His Lord would bear the other ninety per cent, and so on. Therefore, He would never ask any to bear more than was his ability to do.

A word of caution would be pertinent here, too, lest hasty judgment be adminis­tered by ourselves or others with respect to the limitations of our weak and fallen human vessels. Brother Johnson has summarized this question in E:4‑132‑3 (13): “We earnestly caution against making character blemishes the ground of declaring brethren to be Levites (Great Company members, although the same truth would apply to the Youthful WorthiesJJH). It is revolutionism or its partisan support against the Truth and its arrangements, and only revolutionism or its partisan support and its arrangements, that manifests crown‑losers (or Youthful Worthies –  JJH) as such. The great touchstone of manifesting Leviteship is revolutionism or its partisan support, and nothing else. The reason that misconduct cannot be the touchstone for us is that we do not know how to decide what varying degrees of misconduct in various breth­ren forfeit their crowns. Therefore, such judging is forbidden.” In view of this clear and correct elucidation by the Epiphany Messenger, we urge that none – New Creatures, or Youthfuls –  become discouraged if overtaken in faults, even repeated faults, faults that may vex or shock others in high degree, so long as they have not persistently cast away that Truth (or its arrangements) which they have understood and which has made them “clean.” “Now are ye clean through the words (the Truth) which I have spoken unto you,” said Jesus in John 15:3, and only the casting away of that cleansing Truth can be trustworthy evidence that any have fallen from their Class. Nor should this send us to the other extreme that we need not fight all evil in our­selves to the extent of our full ability. We are never to float listlessly downstream, because those who do so must certainly lose their Class standing – although it is only the Lord who is to say when “sin is finished to bring forth death.” (James 1:15) Therefore, let us continue to “fight the good fight of faith” unto ultimate victory.

When God said unto Moses, “Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt,” (Ex.3:10) –  ­the beloved Man of God shrank back from such a seemingly impossible task. “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh,” said he; and he protested further, “They won't believe me.” In final protest Moses said, “I am not eloquent...but I am slow of speech, and slow tongue.” But, after exhausting all protest, Moses accomplished what God had told him to do. Indeed, it is a common trait among the meek of the earth to underestimate themselves, and often to overrate their adversaries out of all proportion to their intrinsic strength. Even the impulsive Peter was taken aback when Jesus told him “by what death he should glorify God,” (John 21:19) Perhaps all this is as it should be – that the Fully Faithful should ever realize that their strength rests not in “the arm of flesh” – “not by power, nor by might, but by my spirit, saith the Lord.” And in the very realization of their limitations they “can do all things through Christ Who strengtheneth them.” And may this “strength” be ever present with all who endeavor to serve Him “in good and honest hearts.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

Extra copies of this article free upon request.

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: –  Will you please explain what sort of persecution lays up for us “treasures in Heaven”?

ANSWER: –  St. Paul tells us, “All who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution,” and it is the persecution that comes from firmly and honestly “following in His steps” that enlarges and adds brilliance to the “star” of each of God's fully faithful people. “If ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled,” says St. Peter 3:14. The Diaglott emphasizes this text thus, “If you suffer on account of righteousness, you are blessed. And fear not with their fear, nor be alarmed.” Being blessed is much superior and much to be desired over being merely happy. We speak of happy married couples, of happy contest winners, etc., but such people may or may not be blessed of the Lord as the circumstances may be. On the other hand, many persons have suffered excruciating persecutions over the ages, yet the blessing of the Lord did not accom­pany them. As an example, the Jews during their 1845 years of their “double” have not endured their appalling persecutions for righteousness, but rather for their iniquities (against the Law of Moses) and their transgression (crucifying the Lord of Glory). Thus, theirs has not been a persecution to be compared with the persecu­tion of those who have “lived Godly in Christ Jesus,” even though such folks may have been their neighbors and suffering kindred persecutions.

Nor is it the preaching of past truths that always arouse antagonism. During the Dark Ages any one who questioned the infallibility of the Pope received severe persecution; whereas, today very little is even said about it, and no one in the more enlightened countries receives persecution for offering disbelief of this false­hood. Nor is any one persecuted today for preaching that “Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father,” although the Apostles and others were hounded and abused for preaching that truth in Jewry during the first century A.D. Disputing in our time the teaching that eternal torment is the wages of sin receives only passing notice, except in ex­treme cases; but it aroused great opposition during the Parousia. We should continue, of course, to “contend for the faith (the truth) once delivered unto the Saints,” whenever and wherever uncleansed Levites attempt to sully it with perversion. Such defense, however, would within certain limits then be considered a part of Present Truth. Therefore, we would conclude that teaching controversial Present Truth is what always arouses persecution, for which, if we suffer for it, blessed are we.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

My dear Brother Hoefle: –  Grace and Peace!

Thanks for your writings on Some Thoughts on the Memorial; also on “John's Baptism Again.” It is very helpful and interesting indeed to those of us intent upon “proving all things and holding fast to that which is good.” These two writ­ings are sure to be a blessing to all those who read them and who are completely devoid of the spirit of partiality, relying upon that “wisdom from above,” and guided by the Holy Spirit.

You will be interested to know that recently Sister --------- and myself made a special study of your August 1959, No. 51 article on “Bad Levites –  Good Levites – Cleansed Levites,” and now what you have revealed to us in your article on “John's Baptism Again” is a further help to correctly understand matters prevailing amongst the Lord's “Truth” people – specially amongst our dear L.H.M.M. brethren who (on account of the greatly increased knowledge of Present Truth given them by the Lord through – the “Epiphany Messenger”) are placed in a much more responsible position before God (for their repudiation and perversions of His teachings and Arrangements) than any one of the other existing Levite Truth Groups, as time and events will abundantly manifest.

The Lord's Epiphany enlightened people cannot afford to ignore these vital truths re arrangements and teachings of God's Word without great loss spiritually to them­selves. Of course, we realize why it is that R. G. Jolly having become more and more confused on Epiphany, as well as some Parousia teachings, is so easily liable to con­fuse his partisan followers so that they too trustingly, and evidently without giving proper heed to the sacred teachings of God's Word, meet with sad results to themselves. See Manna Aug. 18 – Heb. 2:1; 1 Thess. 5:21. Would it not seem that the results of giv­ing too much heed to power‑grasping leaders and neglecting reverent, prayerful and diligent study of the Lord's teachings is graphically described by our beloved Bro. Johnson in E. Vol. 10, Foreword, Page VI? I believe, my dear Brother Hoefle, the brethren of all Truth Levite groups would do well, benefiting greatly spiritually if they would only read E. Vol. 4, page 92, to the top of page 93. May God grant them the wisdom to see the truth of these words as applying to each, whether Great Company or Youthful Worthy members, then these things acted upon faithfully, especially by Great Company brethren, who have and still are so grossly transgressing against the Lord's teachings and Arrangements, would result in a blessing to them.

Perhaps very soon now the Lord will bring all brethren so transgressing into the “Valley of Decision,” and thus help them considerably to see the necessity of cleans­ing themselves ... from their various defilements individually, and this in turn would quickly lead to the Class cleansings so longingly looked forward to by the Epiphany Messenger. Let us pray that such will be the case, relying upon conditions so shaping themselves to this end in the Lord's due time.

In your article on “John's Baptism Again,” you rightly draw our attention once more to R. G. Jolly's “loquacious” behaviour which is more and more manifesting his unreliability as Executive Trustee of the L.H.M.M.; also as a teacher of the Lord's people he is proving himself to be a very unprofitable servant. As you have pointed out, a loquacious person is one who is garrulous, i.e., too talkative. Such people, as you say, talk, talk, talk – and more often than not, such persons very often suc­ceed in confusing almost everything they talk or write about. It is revealing to note what Bro. Johnson says in E. Vol. 11, p. 687, about “loquacious” brethren, which seems to have a special application to R. G. Jolly. “An errorist is loquacious; one can neither foretell what will happen during his life or after his death.” Someday we shall know who these partially cleansed Great Company Levite Chiefs and subordinate leaders are, who have unfortunately become “redefiled” and stand in great danger of second death. See. E. Vol. 4, page 297, par. 52. Also Heb. 2:1, 2, 3; which still remains as a warning to all spirit‑begotten members of consecrated believers. Hav­ing in mind Gal. 3:1, I often find myself saying – “O foolish Bible Students! who hath deluded you into disregarding vital truths of God's word?”

May the blessings of the Lord rest upon you daily!

Your brother in the Lord's service ---------, England

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

My dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving Greetings in Jesus' dear name!

I have been enjoying your Three Babylons tract by reading it over and over; and that beautiful poem! Doesn't it just fit in even more now than when it was written in the crisis of years ago. “Truth forever on the scaffold.” Let us be glad that this forever lasts only to the end of this age. How could he write it without knowing the truth? But he did know it in his heart and lived by it. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I think you do. The last verse in the first column – “We see dimly in the present, what is small and what is great” reminds me of something that happened here when Sister --------- was here with me......... I often think of it.

I remember the debate you had with Rev. --------- (a Babylonian), and his quoting some of the Scriptures that proved you right and him wrong. But he didn't notice it. I am very glad for others that you also reach to bless as you do me. May you find them all is my wish for them. God bless you and yours in your work for Him.

By His grace, Sister ---------, Ohio

NO. 60: ABRAHAM - SARAH - ABIMILECH

No. 60

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

In this March‑April 1960 Present Truth appears an article captioned as above, which is excellent in its generalities because it is mostly Brother Johnson's inter­pretation, and all of his details dovetail together in a symmetry which cannot fail to appeal to every one who is “of the Truth.” But, as we have pointed out in prev­ious writings, we need not expect a good clean exposition from R. G. Jolly on any­thing so long as he is in his present uncleansed condition; and this is borne out in the article we are now considering.

On page 21 (5) he says Sarah was Abraham's step‑sister, but Gen. 20:12 says “she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother.” This would make her Abraham's half‑sister, not his step‑sister. It is certainly not our wish to “strain at gnats”; such is definitely repulsive to us, and many such instances in R. G. Jolly's writings have we passed over in silence. But we draw attention to this mistake be­cause it has a vital bearing on the smooth continuity of the entire interpreta­tion. It should be remembered that step‑children are actually no relation to each other whatever, and the physical and civil laws of our day do not forbid them to marry, although our laws here in the United States do prohibit such a union between half‑brothers and half‑sisters. In Abraham's day, however, the race was still young, and it seems no evils resulted from his union with his sister of half‑blood.

However, as stated above, there is more to this union than meets the eye of the casual reader. In this type Abraham types God in His attribute of Love, and Sarah types the Sarah features of the Abrahamic Covenant; and this gives the two a “blood” relationship in the Gospel age, after a manner of speaking. The very purpose of the Sarah Covenant is to perfect in (agape) Love all who remain faithful to it; and it has accomplished this with every member of the completed Body of Christ. Thus, “like begets like,” and the Love of God has worked in full and unrestrained fashion in those “who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth” – through the gripping affinity of God's love as it has operated in the Sarah Covenant. As in the natural human state the two become one in matrimony, so in the fusion of God's love with the Sarah Covenant, those under it become one with God – one in Divine Love this side the veil, and one in the Divine Nature the other side the veil – a glorious union, consummated in perfection. “I pray for them... that they may be one... that they may be made perfect in one... that the world may know that Thou hast... loved them as thou has loved me”...(see Manna Comments for John 17:20‑23, March 27). Therefore, the blood‑relationship in the type portrays a feature in the general picture, which could not have been done had Sarah been no relation whatever to Abraham, as would have been true had she been his step­sister only.

Also, while quoting from Brother Johnson's comments in the January 1920 Present Truth, it would have been most appropriate had R. G. Jolly included the following:

“These Philistines (sectarians) represent the Great Company in their capacity of making divisions among God's people, crying out by word or act “avoid them,” and then blaming those whom they drive out of their midst for making the divisions.”

All of us have been witness to this procedure, and some of us have had bitter per­sonal experience with it. When Brother Johnson was forcibly ejected from Bethel in 1917 the report went forth to the four corners of the earth, “Brother Johnson has gone out of the Truth.” He was “out of harmony with the Lord's arrangements” – ­just as those who have left the LHMM since 1950 are also described. The Jehovah's Witnesses still tenaciously pursue this policy – any one who dares question their erroneous teachings is soon pressured out of their assembly; then the report is cir­culated, “They have gone out of the Truth.” Truly, “Instruments of cruelty are in their habitation!”

“Charity ... the bond of perfectness”

Inasmuch as the Sarah Covenant is joined by “blood” and matrimony to God in His attribute of Love, some observations on this “principal thing” would seem pertinent. Col. 3:14 tells us, “Above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfect­ness.” And, having this “bond,” all such may rest secure in the precious promise of 1 Pet. 3:13, “Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” Throughout the Gospel Age the antitypical Philistines have vigorously pursued the vagar­ious course so clearly defined in Isa. 66:5, “Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.” Throughout the Gospel Age we have had a “wheat” class, which has always been predominantly overshadowed by the “buck”‑wheat class. Seeing this condition so clearly from past and present experience, why should any be disturbed if it reaches out and touches him? “So persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

In private conversation with Brother Johnson, he impressed upon us the fact that it is not required of Youthful Worthies that they achieve “the bond of perfectness” – ­agape love in perfection – but they should certainly do so if they have the ability to do so. And his reason for this advice comes clearly enough from St. Paul's admonition – “it is the bond of perfectness.” Any one having this “bond” cannot be pushed out of God's Household by the clamor of Philistine multitudes. Thank God for this blessed assurance! The essence of Col. 3:12‑15 (Dia.) applies to all in the Household, although St. Paul was clearly enough addressing it to the Saints: “Be clothed therefore, as Chosen ones of God, beloved Saints, with bowels of mercy, kindness, humility, meekness, patient endurance; bearing with each other, and freely forgiving each other, if any for some things may have a cause of complaint; even as the Lord forgave you, so also do you forgive. And besides all these things, put on love; it is the bond of the com­pleteness. And let the peace of the Anointed preside in your hearts, for which you were also called in one body.” All of God's people who have conformed themselves to this appealing instruction, and who have not united themselves with sectarian leaders in a partisan manner, are not to be counted among the antitypical Philistine hordes. Let each, therefore, “stand fast in that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”; and “the peace of God” will rule in such hearts unto ultimate victory.

JOSHUA'S ALTAR IN JORDAN

As promised in our last issue, we now offer further comments on the altar Joshua constructed in the midst of the River Jordan. At that time we ridiculed J. W. Krew­son's interpretation of the twelve stones as being the twelve chief graces. We based our statement primarily upon Brother Johnson's interpretation of a similar situation – ­where Elijah also constructed an altar of twelve stones (see 1 Kings 18:30‑32). In E:3‑26 there is this in explanation of this Scripture: “Their appeal was to all the consecrated (twelve stones, the twelve tribes of Spiritual Israel) on the basis of the Bible as the sole source and rule of faith and practice ... Thus, they gathered together the true Church, the altar.”

The word translated “stones” in Kings and in Joshua 4 is the Hebrew “eben” – ­the same meaning anything from a small pebble to a huge rock. “David chose him five smooth stones (eben) out of the brook” (1 Sam. 17:40). It is the same word also to be found in Josh. 8:30, 31, “Joshua built an altar unto the Lord ... an altar of whole stones (eben), over which no man hath lift up any iron.” The stones (eben) of Josh. 4 also were uncut and unpolished – “over which no man hath lift up any iron” – thus force­fully depicting the words of Daniel 2:45, “the stone was cut out of the mountain without (human) hands.” The stones of the antitypical temple have been chiselled by God alone, allowing only such contributions from human beings as served His purpose; thus, it may be said of them, “Over which no man hath lift up any iron.” In contrast to this, the graces of the Bible are depicted by precious stones, which have been ground and polished to an excellent nicety by the iron tools of man – that they may display their inherent splendor – as the Saints also “show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.” Therefore, using the uncut and unpolished stones from the bottom of the River Jordan to type such fineness is just some more of J. W. Krewson's nonsense – the same being apparent throughout all his writings.

It should be kept in mind that Elijah was a type of the Gospel‑Age Christ, as Joshua is a type of the Millennial‑Age Christ, so the construction of an altar by the both of them under similar circumstances (in the presence of their enemies) would have a close relationship. Also, all Bible types have a certain fundamental reason­ableness in relation to the actors therein; and it would be rather a far cry to be­lieve that Joshua would have a very intimate understanding of the principal grace of Divine (agape) love at a time when he was daily carving out the vitals of human beings with his sword. And, while Joshua in the largest antitype is the Millennial Christ, yet he also depicts a fully faithful leader of God's faithful Israel in the end of this Age for Epiphany purposes; and his altar in Jordan would therefore type all God's faithful Israel in the extreme end of this Age – one stone for each tribe to embrace the whole. (Note also E:13‑24, “The Little Flock was enriched by God through His giving it the Divine Truth as figurative silver and gold, the graces as precious stones.” Certainly, no similarity here with the muddy and moss‑covered boulders from the bottom of the River Jordan!)

MORE ON KREWSON TYPES

In his paper No. 28, pages 26‑27 he presents an interpretation of some Scripture in Matt. 22:34‑40 and Mark 12:28‑34, which is worse bedlam if possible than his in­terpretation of Joshua's altar, as analyzed above. He says JJH antitypes the lawyer who questioned Jesus, JWK himself being the “little Jesus” in this picture. Be it noted, first of all, that in the actuality the lawyer questioned Jesus directly, and not indirectly through uncleansed Levites. In our writings of 1955‑56 never once did we address a question to J. W. Krewson – either directly or indirectly; in fact, we left him tacitly alone until he began his attacks upon us, since which time we have exposed one after another of his interpretations as just so much nonsense – so much so, that he has not even dared mention many of them since our analysis was published. Nor did we address any questions to the uncleansed Levites themselves during the years in question, except perhaps as accusations against their unrighteous course and their errors of teaching and arrangements (revolution against the Epiphany Truth and Arrangements). And finally, in this last March Present Truth does R. G. Jolly offer approval of our contentions in one point at least, when he now finally admits that J. W. Krewson has no authority to address the General Church. (Of course, this is a complete reversal of his position immediately after Brother Johnson's death, when he gave J. W. Krewson the very opening that he was craving and which paved the way for the course which R. G. Jolly is now finally correctly condemning – a most force­ful example of “a doubleminded man unstable in all his ways.” (Jas. 1:8) It should be remembered that those who deflected under Brother Russell fell from a high position (four of them his companion helpers), for which they were qualified while faithful; whereas, J. W. Krewson was elevated by R. G. Jolly to a position that Star Member Brother Johnson had steadfastly refused to give him.) But, aside from this, our 1955‑56 papers were truthful and telling exposures of the sins of the uncleansed Levites involved, none of which the lawyer did to Jesus. At no time did we address a single question to J. W. Krewson, directly or indirectly, although he did address some to us in his letters then, which questions we answered in accordance with the Scriptures – just as we also did with respect to the uncleansed Levites that we were exposing back there. So his setting is nonsense at the outset; therefore, his superscructure should self‑evidently be more of the same. He says that Jesus' observa­tion, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,” indicates we were not “far from es­pousing the due Truth” – meaning by this, we assume, that we were not far from accept­ing J. W. Krewson's teachings.

Nothing is further from the Truth! When Daniel Gavin gave us those first “three discourses” in Mount Dora in 1955 and urged us to go to Philadelphia to confer with J W. Krewson, we declined because we saw many errors in the presentations, and realized, too, that J. W. Krewson had no right to address the General Church, being only an Evangelist. Right after Brother Johnson's death R. G. Jolly apparently little dreamed that Evangelist Krewson was shrewdly scheming to outshine him when he prevailed upon him to publish in the Present Truth, under a Krewson by‑line, the flattering types and “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels” – that, instead of looking up to him (to R. G. Jolly), he was “looking down his nose” at him. And once more we press the question: Was J. W. Krewson collaborator with R. G. Jolly in those 27 Pyramid compu­tations in 1947, which time has so clearly proven to be just a jumble of figures – ­a vile “confidence game” of computations? Neither of the two “cousins” have offered any comment or answer to this question. Why?

Being such bosom‑confidante “cousins,” R. G. Jolly knew J. W. Krewson “after the flesh” in blind gullibility, accepted him as his chief adviser and “ghost writer” (actually calling him out of the bed at early hours for his approval of his course in various ways) – “foolishly” ignoring his limited ability. (The Lord gives the Fully Faithful the “spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind,” as was so clearly manifested in Brother Johnson's appraisal of J. W. Krewson.) But, as we have observed on previous occasion, R. G. Jolly was decidedly more loyal to J. W. Krewson than was J. W. Krewson to him. However, had R. G. Jolly been faithful to the truths and arrange­ments he “had learned and been assured of” from the beloved Epiphany Messenger (know­ing full well the rating Brother Johnson had given to J. W. Krewson), he would then have been apprized of J. W. Krewson's power‑grasping tendencies, instead of feeding them as he also fed his own “approbativeness and bad conscience” – (see E:10‑585,top). When he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950, Azazel took full advantage of His opportunity – ­for which we have a certain deep sympathy for R. G. Jolly. Heaven forbid that we may ever be found guilty of “rejoicing in iniquity” – in the distress and humiliation of a brother, or any other human being.

Since he has made his own bed, he can but lie in it; and we are truly grateful that we in nowise contributed one iota to the making of that bed for him. And now he is left in the humiliating position of defending his “strange fire” (the false doctrine of Campers Consecrated, the “foster child” inherited from J. W. Krewson, etc.) – a task which is “bringing down his heart with labor” (Psa. 107:12) as “the Hornet” (the stinging truths) continues to “sting” him with unremitting thrusts at every turn. (Ex. 23:28)

And, while R. G. Jolly was unwittingly feeding J. W. Krewson delusions of grandeur, another of Brother Johnson's pilgrims who should have known better – Daniel Gavin ­was contributing to J. W. Krewson's delinquency by secretly placing those “three dis­courses” in the hands of all brethren who would receive them. The both of them ele­vated J. W. Krewson contrary to sound Epiphany doctrine; and the “sin still lieth at their door” for those brethren he has led astray. When Daniel Gavin was a guest in our home in Mount Dora in 1955 it was suggested to him that a lack of humility was apparent in those “three discourses,” to which he quickly replied: “Brother Krewson is the most humble brother I know!” (It was at this very time that Daniel Gavin told the Winter Park Ecclesia that R. G. Jolly could not give any kind of discourse except elemental, or that based on what he already had learned. In other words, he was not capable of giving “deep” present truths (?) as promulgated by J. W. Krewson.) And it seems he continued in that delusion into June 1955 at least, as he was the “pilgrim” present at the New England meeting where a plan of strategy was outlined to unseat R. G. Jolly – to force him to compromise and share honors with J. W. Krewson. But it would seem that our own sharp and telling attacks in August and September of 1955 prompted Daniel Gavin to a sudden reversal, and he speedily returned to “dear antitypical Baanah” at the Philadelphia Convention on Labor Day. Our prayer for both Daniel Gavin and R. G. Jolly is that they yet “turn back from their path of error” (James 5:20, Dia.), and once more espouse the solid truths given us by the beloved Epiphany Messenger.

It should be clear enough to all unbiased minds that all three of those herein discussed have flagrantly contributed to the aberration and humiliation of one another by their gross Revolutionism of Epiphany Truth and Arrangements – a sin which none can honestly charge to us. Our differences with any and all – and especially with these three – have been our defense of the Epiphany Truths and Arrangements which they have so grossly violated.

And, when J. W. Krewson says we were not “far from the Kingdom of God” in 1955, he is indulging in spiritual flummery. At that time we were either “in the kingdom of God” or we were not. Insofar as any flesh and blood could be in it, that is, we were either fully in God's Household, or we were out of it. Brother Johnson undoubt­edly thought we were in it, or he would not have given us a pilgrim appointment – ­with authority to address the General Church in any country in the world. Of course, J. W. Krewson may since have received a “message” from Brother Johnson from beyond the veil, telling him that his appointment of JJH to the pilgrim (not auxiliary pil­grim) office was all a mistake; and we may hear more about this from J. W. Krewson in due course. We realize, of course, that many people hold titles who are not en­“titled” to them; but we want more than just J. W. Krewson's word for it before we shall conclude that about ourselves. The “Kingdom of God” in Jesus' day could mean only one thing – to become His footstep follower and a member of the Christ Company. For Harvest purposes, since 1874, it would mean the faithful acceptance of the due Truth under That Servant. Even Brother Johnson said we must accept their professions with respect to the Little Flock and the Great Company until such time as gross Revolutionism against the Truth or Arrangements manifested the one from the other. And this principle was also true during Brother Johnson's life with respect to the Youthful Worthies.

The Lord set forth the related importance of the servants of the Church in Eph. 4:11‑13; and it is our obligation to abide by this until “their fruits” demon­strate that those servants have lost their rating. Over the years we have “coveted no man's silver or gold,” nor have we coveted or been envious of the position or honor of any of God's people; and it was with much regret that we were forced to wield the cudgel against J. W. Krewson; but we are obliged to rate down J. W. Krewson very decidedly when he speaks of “goodwill’ toward the brethren,” while he openly and brazenly tried to slander us by admitting to other brethren he was trying to cast suspicion upon our integrity with respect to our pilgrim appointment by Brother Johnson. At that time he said he had a “reliable witness” that we were parading as a fraud be­fore the Household; but it should be self‑evident to all that this was just a brazen falsehood on his part, as he has produced no such “reliable witness.” And, for such a person to orate about “goodwill’ toward the brethren,” while he attempts Murder against them (see Berean Comment on 1 John 3:15: “By this standard every slanderer is a murderer”) does not speak of the Truth being in him.

When Jesus told the inquiring lawyer, “thou art not far from the Kingdom,” what did He mean? Why, He meant that the lawyer was not far from accepting Him. When we exposed the uncleansed Levites, and gave them the correct answers to their wrong course, certainly we were not close to accepting them. Nor were they giving us the correct answers. We were giving them the correct answers. Even J. W. Krewson him­self admits we were honest in our writings of 1955‑56, so there was nothing then, at least, that would indicate we were not fully in God's favor; whereas, the lawyer who questioned Jesus made no profession of accepting the way of sacrifice, He had not become a disciple of Jesus up to that time; whereas we had given all outward evidence, at least, of a full acceptance of the Kingdom promises for elective pur­poses. We believe any babe in the Truth should know that any and all faithful Epiphany‑enlight­ened brethren are a part of the Epiphany Elect, as analyzed by Bro. Johnson in Volume 4; so the inconsistency and incongruity of his “interpretation” stamp it for what it is – “strong delusion”!

The writings of J. W. Krewson generally are on a par with what we have examined herein, but we have passed much of it by as not worthy of note. We have commented on the foregoing especially because it is a personal attack upon us.

We pray for all our readers the “spirit of understanding” that they may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of Him who hath called us to better things, and has shown us a better way.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Letter of General Interest

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

This is to tell you that we as a class resent John W. Krewson's presumptions in his voluminous last issue and we know the Lord does not use a broadcaster of his surmisings, especially when they are as false as his statement that we disfellow­shiped R. G. Jolly because of your influencing us to do so.

We hope you will publish this letter so the dear brethren who love honesty and truth, may know that we alone are responsible for that act, and the only influence you exerted upon us was to advise us not to act hastily on a matter of such vital importance, which did cause us to wait longer than we would have.

You never once suggested that we disfellowship R. G. Jolly. Every member of this Class felt that it should be done for the ten reasons outlined in our letter to him.

It is still our hope and prayer that some time we may again have brotherly fellow­ship with R. G. Jolly; that he will renounce and correct the erroneous teachings fur­nished him by J. W. Krewson, as well as certain actions on his part not yet corrected.

May the Lord continue His blessing and keep you faithful to the end is our prayer.

With much Christian love,

The Winter Park, Florida, Ecclesia

NO. 59: THE SEVEN STARS

No. 59

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

...."in his right hand seven stars" – Rev, 1:16. "As for the secret of the seven stars, which thou sawest in my right hand .... the seven stars are messengers of the seven congregations."–Rev. 1:20, Dia. The "seven congregations" described and addressed in the first three chapters of Revelation actually existed at the time the Revelation was given to St. John, but it is clear enough from vs. 1 – "things which must shortly come to pass" – and from other expressions in chapters two and three that this prophecy reached far into the future and anticipated segments of the Gospel-Age Church of far greater Import than those small assemblies of the Apostle's time.

The same would apply to the "seven stars," as there is no record of a specific "star" (angel or messenger) coming to those small congregations, bearing in mind that all the Apostles, except St. John were dead at the time the Revelation was given. Much that we shall set forth herein is from Brother Johnson, but we shall not mention his name for each specific instance. Suffice to say here that he interpreted the "seven stars" as composite groups of men (not seven individuals, as some Interpreters have assumed) that were special teachers to the Gospel-Age Church from its inception to the end of the Age.

Be it noted here that in many instances the Bible is its own Interpreter; that is, to understand properly the interpretation of a certain Scripture, the key to that understanding will be found in some other section of the Bible. This is the case for a proper interpretation of the "seven stars." In Rev. 12:1 we are told "the woman invested with the sun" had on "her head a crown of twelve stars." That these "twelve stars" are the twelve Apostles needs no argument; therefore, the first epoch of the Gospel-Age Church had twelve special messengers to the "Church at Ephesus," and not just one individual; and those "twelve stars" were the composite "Star" to "the con­gregation at Ephesus," which our Lord held "in his right hand" – eleven members of that "Star" already dead when Revelation was written. Also, Micah 5:5 speaks of "seven shepherds, and eight principal men." These "seven shepherds" are the same as the "seven stars" of Revelation; whereas, the "eight principal men" are a part of the "seven shepherds," proving again that the "seven stars" are comprised of more than just seven individual men. It was Brother Johnson's interpretation that the seven composite groups included a total of 49 individuals – 12 in the first epoch, a total of 35 in the next five epochs, and two in the last epoch; and it is our purpose here to name those 49 Individuals, show the epoch of the Church in which they officiated, with some limited comment on certain outstanding parts of them. A number of our readers have asked the questions at various times, which we shall endeavor to answer herein, and we trust this exposition may prove a blessing to all who receive it. Thus, we proceed to:

THE CONGREGATTON IN EPHESUS – (Ephesus meaning "first, desirable" – a fitting name for this epoch), this first era being from 29 to 69 AD, with St. Paul as the Principal Man, the "angel" or "star" including all twelve of the Apostles as explained above. It should be noted, too, that although this epoch embraced forty years, the twelve stars officiated in the "church which is His body" for only 36½ years.

THE CONGREGATION IN SMYRNA – (Smyrna meaning "bitter," in allusion to the bitter and excruciating persecutions of the Pagan Roman Empire into the early part of the fourth century) continued from 69 to 313, the Principal Man being St. John. Here it is well to remember that John is the only one of the "stars" who was a "star" in two different epochs of the Gospel-Age Church, although he was the "principal man" in the second epoch only. He is presumed to have lived until about 100 AD The other "stars" of the Smyrna period are:

POLYCARP – a disciple of St. John, his ministry extending over more than seventy years. He in turn tutored the third "star" –

IRENAEUS – of whom no certain trace can be found after 190 AD –

TERTULLIAN –

THE CONGREGATION IN PERGAMOS – (Pergamos meaning "earthly elevation," having reference to that period in which the Papacy became greatly elevated as it united with Pagan Rome to form "The Holy Roman Empire") continued from 313 to 799, the principal Man being –

ARIUS, who was presbyter at Alexander from AD313 – "a man of clear intellect." At the Council of Nice in 325, which was attended by Emperor Constantine himself and 318 bishops from all parts of the Roman Empire, he was banished into exile, and his writings condemned to be burned. Of all that pompous throng assembled, only two Egyptian bishops, Theonus and Secundus, chose to "suffer affliction" with the "man of God," and went into exile with him. Arius went to North Africa, where he contin­ued for eleven years until his death (being over 80 years of age), at the end of which time there was a flourishing Christian colony there. And what did they name themselves? Why, Arians, of course! When the deeds of some of these grand "stars" are properly described in book form by some competent Ancient or Youthful Worthy, then will truly be fulfilled the words of Jesus, "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." The other "stars" of the Pergamos period were:

TICHONIUS (about 400 AD) – an outstanding opponent of "Saint" Augustine on apostolic succession and of the one church as being based in its unity on its bishops.

ADELBERT DESIDERIUS of France and Germany (about 745 AD)..

THE CONGREGATION IN THYATIRA – (Thyatira meaning "the sweet perfume of a sacrifice" in allusion to the elevating sacrifices of the true church during the drunken revel­ings of the apostate Roman Church) continued from 799 to 1309, the Principal Man being Claudius of Turin, who ministered from 799 to 839. He was the first Protestant Reformer, and wrote on almost the whole range of Scripture; but only his commentary on Galations is still extant. When Pope Paschalis became displeased at his preaching, he countered that the Pope is to be honored as an Apostle only when he does the works of an Apostle; otherwise, Matt. 23:2-4 applies to him. Other "stars" of the Thyatira period were:

RATRAMNUS, the "monk at Corbie" (about 850 AD) – DUNSTAN of England. He was the most conspicuous figure among the English clergy in the tenth century, became Archbishop of Canterbury in 959, died in 988; and was the most influential counselor of the four successive English kings ...

HUGH CAPET of France (about 972) –

ADALBERT of Prague, who first brought the message of salvation into Prussia, and was martyred In 997 ...

BERENGAR of Tours (about 1050) –

PETER ABELARD (1079 – 1142), the ablest teacher and theologian of the twelfth century – ministered for 28 years –

PETER de BRYS – He taught the true or invisible church is in the hearts of believers; contended God could be worshipped in a stable or other common structure; burned crucifixes in the cooking stove. He was burned at the stake by a raging mob in 1126.

HENRY of LAUSANNE – who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1148, and died there the following year. He had been the close companion of Peter de Brys, suc­ceeded to the leadership at his death – seemingly much the same as Brother Johnson had done at the death of Brother Russell.

ARNOLD OF BRESCIA – He was condemned in 1139, banished and enjoined to silence. He then joined Peter Abelard in France; was excommunicated by Pope Innocent II in 1141, and imprisoned in a cloister. He escaped and went to Switzerland, where he taught for some years. He was strangled in 1155.

JOHN WALDO (1173-1220).

THE CONGREGATTON IN SARDIS – (Sardis meaning "that which remains" in reference to the brief period just before the Reformation by Sects) continued from 1309 to 1479, the Principal Man being Marsiglio, who officiated from 1309 to 1343. His book, The Defender of The Peace, routed the claims of the entire papal hierarchy. Other "stars" of that period were:

JOHN TAULER, born at Strasbourg, studied at Paris, eventually returning to Strasbourg, where he died in 1361. A Dominican monk, his most important work was "The Imitation to The Poverty of Christ."

JOHN WYCLTF – much persecuted and his books often burned.

JOHN HUSS – After a tumultuous career, he was finally thrown into prison (after having been promised safe-conduct by the Roman Emperor Sigismund). After many months in prison, he was finally granted a public trial, which was in reality a revolting farce. His prosecutor addressed Sigismund, "By destroying this heretic, thou shalt obtain an undying name to all ensuing generations," At this Huss appealed to his promise of safe-conduct, which made Sigismund wince and blush. Kneeling down, he prayed to God for his enemies and unjust judges. Then seven bishops dressed him in priestly robes in order to strip him of them one after another amid solemn execra­tions. After this they put upon his head a pyramidal hat, painted with figures of devils, and uttered the words, "We give thy soul to the devil," at which Huss replied, "I commend it into the hands of our Saviour Jesus Christ," That same day he was burned at the stake, expiring amid prayer and praise, joyfully, courageously and con­fidently, showing himself worthy to rank among the martyrs of all time who had sealed their Christian confessions with their blood. His ashes were scattered on the Rhine River, June 8, 1415,

JEROME OF PRAGUE, a close friend of John Huss, had come to attend his trial, was also seized and thrown into prison, In May, 1416, he was granted a public trial; and on May 30 also suffered the fate of his beloved friend Huss – died at the stake, joyfully and courageously, as Huss had done. The Florentine humanist Poggio was present and gave enthusiastic expression in a letter still extant to Jerome's heroic spirit,

THE CONGREGATION IN PHILADELPHIA – (Philadelphia meaning "love of a brother," indicating the strong brotherly love that prevailed especially among persecuted Protestants during this epoch) continued from 1479 to 1874. We have timed the be­ginning of the "sixth angel" at 1479 because Rev. 9:13-15 says this angel "sounded his trumpet" for "an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year." Inasmuch as the "hour, day, month and year" are symbolic years, they would total slightly more than 391 literal years. If we should deduct this from 1374, it would give the beginning of the sixth epoch at 1483; but we have set the date forward four years, because the last member of the "sixth star," William Miller, had already been dead 21 years at 1870, and Brother Russell was already aggressively inquiring for the Truth which eventually made him the more prominent Principal Man of the two Principal Men that appeared in the Laodicean period of the Gospel-Age Church. The Principal Man of the Philadelphia epoch was John Wessel, who died in 1489. He preached "justification by faith" and that such justifying faith made active in Divine love was sufficient unto salvation. His deathbed words were, "I know only Jesus the crucified." The next "star" of this epoch was –

JEROME SAVONAROLA – He was born in Florence, Italy, in 1452, became a Dominican monk at San Marco, practiced rigid self-discipline, denounced the depravity of the clergy of his day, preached salvation by the Grace of God and justification through faith. "The ascetic monk became the man of the people," says the record. He was hung on the gallows May 23, 1498, then burned by a raging mob.

MARTIN LUTHER quickly followed Savonarola as the next "star" of Philadelphia. He was the outstanding hero of the Reformation-by-sects period, and rated by his­torians as one of the 25 greatest intellects of all time; yet he had that sublime humility which enabled him to say, "It could plausibly be said I borrowed everything from Wessel."

The other "stars" of Philadelphia were ULRICH ZWINGLI – (a contemporary of Luther, and founder of what was subsequently perverted into the Reformed or Presbyterian Church);

BALTHAZER HUBMAIER – (founder of subsequent perversion into the Baptist Church);

MICHAEL SERVETUS – (the Unitario-Universalist Church). He was also burned at the stake in Switzerland at the instigation of John Calvin in one of the most atrocious crimes of all history, the date being October 27, 1553;

JOHN WESLEY – (the Methodist Church);

THOMAS CRANMER – (Episcopal Church – burned at the stake in England in 1556 at the command of "Bloody Mary," England's queen);

ROBERT BROWNE – (the Congregational Church);

GEORGE FOX – (the Quaker Church, et al);

THOMAS CAMPBELL – BARTON W. STONE (the Campbellite Church); and

WILLIAM MILLER – (the Adventist Church).

THE CONGREGATION IN LAODICEA – (Laodicea meaning "justice for the people," in allusion to the rebellion of the masses against the classes, which speedily leads up to Armageddon). This period began technically in 1874, still continues, and contained only two "stars" – Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, the same being also the seventh and eighth principal men of Micah 5:5. We shall refrain from de­tailed comment about them here, just as we have done with a number of the Philadelphia "stars", because Brother Johnson has offered very elevating eulogies on these various men in his Epiphany Volumes. However, we believe it fitting at this time to consider St. Paul's narration of the persecutions of the Ancient Worthies, as he presents it in Heb. 11:35-38 (Dia.): "They were beaten to death...received a trial of mockings and scourges, and also of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, sawn asunder, tempted; they died by slaughter of the sword; they went about in sheep-skins and in goat-skins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (of whom the world was not worthy)." The Apostle then makes sublime appeal in Heb. 12:1 to all Gospel-Age believers, based upon his outline of those Ancients in the preceding chapter:

"Having such a great cloud of witnesses surrounding us ... we should run with patience the course marked out for us." The "us" in his appeal are the Gospel-Age Saints, of course; but his words have an application to all justified believers who endeavor to "follow in His steps." And we today may make double appeal of his words, because we are not only surrounded by the "great cloud of witnesses" of prev­ious Ages, but we also now have a "great cloud of witnesses" in the Gospel Age as our examples, and especially so in the "seven stars" to the seven churches." May their blessed memories ever be an incentive that we "give all diligence" .. "to run with patience the race before us,"

In conclusion, it is in order here to relate the proximity of the "seven congre­gations in Asia," which fact would also discount the thought of a special "star" to each of those churches. Ephesus was located on the River Cayster, 35 miles southeast of Smyrna, the same being the seaport of Asia Minor. Ephesus contained the Temple of Diana, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Of the Church in Smyrna there is no censure, but they were admonished to "fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer" – a very applicable reference to the terrible persecutions which ended with Diocletian in 313 AD The third church, Pergamos, was fifty miles north of Smyrna on the River Caicus, about fifteen miles from the sea; while Thyatira was about 27 miles from Sardis on the northern border of Lydia and on the road from Pergamos to Sardis. Sardis was about fifty miles east of Smyrna on the River Pactolus. Phila­delphia was 65 miles east of Smyrna and 28 miles southeast of Sardis; while Laodicea was 42 miles east of Ephesus on the River Lycos. It is mentioned in St. Paul's letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:13-16), which had been sent by Onesimus, a runaway slave of Philemon, in whose home the Colossian congregation seemingly was wont to meet. Colosse, Laodicea and Hierapolis (See Col. 4:13) constituted a triangle whose sides were about six miles each; thus, all three places could be visited by an 18-mile walk. All of the "seven congregations which are in Asia" could be contained in a circle whose radius was little more than fifty miles.

It was Laodicea of whom it was written, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing" (Rev, 3:17); and there was excellent visible reason for this at the time St. John wrote the Revelation. The city had warm springs, the bath­ing in which was very beneficial to the health. People traveled great distances to partake of the healing baths, and this influx of tourists gave Laodicea much wealth and an easy life in the mild Asia Minor climate. This made it an excellent model for the present-day "church in Laodicea," which, since 1874 has especially become "in­creased of goods, and neither cold nor hot." It is truly no problem to discern the truth of this at every turn; the real problem for God's people today is that they do not succumb to the flattering ease of prosperity and turn aside to "heap treasures together for the last days."

"Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Having spec­ially this thought in mind, we have compiled this treatise on the "Seven Stars"; and it is our hope that all our readers may heed Rev. 3:22: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches,"

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – J. W, Krewson states that the "scarlet cord" of Josh. 2:18 types the Sin-Offering; that the stones of Joshua's altar type the "twelve chief graces"; that he is a parallel to Wm. Miller's special helper. Would you please give your comment on these and others of his contentions that seem out of harmony with the Star Members?

ANSWER: – (1) On page 9, No. 23, par. 1, he describes the "scarlet cord" of Joshua 2:18 as a type of the Sin-Offering, The Berean Comments say it is a "symbol of the blood of the ransom," It should not require great intellect to determine the cor­rectness of That Servant here as against J. W. Krewson. While we cannot improve upon God's Plan ("all his works are perfect"), it is well to consider that His Plan could have been carried out without a Sin Offering; whereas, God's attributes would make it impossible to consummate the human plan of salvation without a ransom.

(2) Then on page 14 of No. 23, he says the twelve stones of Josh. 4:1-9 are the "twelve chief graces." Let him show any Bible precedent where uncut and un­polished boulders (stones of the field – in this case boulders from the river bot­tom of Jordan) are ever used to symbolize graces. In due course we hope to prove that these twelve boulders represent the "twelve tribes of Israel" (one for each tribe), thus depicting all_the consecrated – in harmony with what we have already written on Joshua,

(3) He's already admitted concerning his Do-You-Knows that he doesn't believe them himself (he's asking for information); therefore, any one who places any re­liance upon them shows himself as foolish as their writer. Also, it will be noted he often quotes from the Weymouth translation. That Evil Servant also used it ex­tensively; but Brother Johnson told us personally that Weymouth was nothing more than a paraphrase – a very untrustworthy work but the one now occupying the "teaching position" in Brother Johnson's place apparently accepts it as reliable. And when J. W, Krewson says on page 42 of his No. 29 he does not need to "read de­tailedly" our writings, we would answer by saying he apparently feels the same way about Brother Johnson's writings, too – as evidence his Do-You Know at top, of page 44 of No. 29, that he is a parallel to Brother Miller's companion helper (Bro. Wolf) in J. W, Krewson's relation to Brother Johnson. On page 492 of Vol. 10 Brother Johnson states he was the only Star Member of the entire Gospel Age who would not have a companion helper. Brother Johnson offers a second contradiction to his "parallel" in E-13-13 "Star-member Brother Miller and his special helper (Bro. Wolf of England, or Brother Hines of America, we are not sure which)." J. W. Krewson's exposition of his "parallel" bears that close relationship to the "proofs" contained in the writings of R. G. Jolly, which links then as very, very close "first cousins." And the "maker" of this parallel is crass enough to accuse JJH of "specu­lation"!

Of course we realize such teachings by the Epiphany Messenger bother J. W. Krewson not at all, as he changes one thing after another to suit his whims – just as does his "cousin" R, G, Jolly. The both of them are a unit in insisting the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture will contain the "consecrated"; whereas, Brother Johnson always insisted they would be the "unconsecrated," And, since 1554-56 (before which time even he admits there was no class of quasi-elect consecrated), it will be interesting to know if his quasi-elect consecrated are in the Epiphany Camp, or the Apokalypse Camp. These two "cousins" seem to have as hard a time with their non-existent classes as did JFR with his Jonadabs,

It shouldn't surprise us very much at anything he attempts, or what teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson he sets aside to suit his whims, when we con­sider his heading on No. 29 – "Second Smallest Antitype" (of Joseph). Brother Johnson says in Vol. 10, that he himself was the "smallest antitype of Joseph"; now comes J. W. Krewson making himself more important here even than the Epiphany Messenger – because the "second smallest" of anything must self-evidently be larger than the "smallest." In due course we shall probably say more on these and kindred pieces of "folly" by J. W. Krewson; but for now time and space deter us. He is indeed "seeing visions" – is having delusions of grandeur!

 J. W. Krewson still contends that "error must be defended, but Truth can stand on its own." Note Brother Johnson's sharp contradiction of this in E-11-708: "Epiphany-enlightened saints (as Jerusalem) striking terror into the hearts of the Levites (terrible) by her defenses of the Truth against Levite attacks and by her refutations of Levite errors by the standards of the Truth" Here again J. W. Krew­son tosses aside the sound and sober teachings of the one he claims is now working through him, just as he has done with his Apokalypsis set-up, with his quasi-elect consecrated concoction, with his rejection of Brother Johnson's analysis of Ezra 7:25 re Epiphany pilgrim appointments, etc., etc. Some of us remember when he gave R. G. Jolly the position of defending the Truth from all attacks, while reserving the office of "teaching" advancing truth (?) for himself. It now seems clear enough that this is just an adroit way of avoiding any response to our "extinguisher fluid" (the Truth) that has been presented so effectively against his false teachings (as presented particularly in our Three Babylons tract). The "cousins" just keep on repeating, repeating and repeating their errors, just as did That Evil Servant against Brother Johnson's attacks.

With his own teaching, Brother Johnson did what any true Pastor and Teacher would do: He defended his Truth teachings against all attacks (particularly the Epiphany doctrines), and effectively so – just as we also do with the Truth teachings we promulgate. Since we especially attacked this quasi-elect consecrated false doc­trine in our Three Babylons tract, it is "strange" neither of the "cousins" has at­tempted an answer to it – in their publications, that is (although we understand they do considerable "whispering"). In our Three Babylons tract we "extinguished" their "strange fire" on Joel 2:28,29 with the help of Brother Johnson's sound and Scriptural analysis of this Scripture (will they attempt to refute Brother Johnson's interpreta­tion of this Scripture?) – a point which neither of them has even attempted to answer. And our prediction now is that neither of them will attempt to do so; rather, they will prefer to continue their "whispering campaigns" on inconsequential and unprovable items against us (even as the Scribes and Pharisees did with Jesus in regard to the 'letter of the law') – just as JFR conducted his "avoid them" deceit against the beloved Epiphany Messenger, as he "gnawed his tongue for pain" against Brother Johnson's exposures of his many devious and revolting errors. Such has ever been the method of all self-appointed Pastors and Teachers, so we need not be surprised at the two "cousins.

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

LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings of love and peace through our dear Lord. I am very much in need of each tract.... This winter has been hard, especially on elderly people. One day I counted thirty widows among my addresses. Usually all leave relatives. I am thankful for this privilege of service – even though my heart sinks at the new columns each day, which prove the prevalence and sorrow of the curse.....

It was told to me that one brother who has great confidence in the Executive Trustee "Blew his top" when he read the Babylon tract. This proves that it has explosive power.

Many of us older ones love and pray for you both, for we have the assurance of faith that your message is true and timely.

Sister --------- Mass.