NO. 58: SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

No. 58

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

Comes again the Memorial of our Lord's death, and with it the realization of the truly sanctified faith‑justified that its observance under existing conditions draws nearer and nearer to a finality. This realization should ever determine us to continue in the course we have embraced and to reside in that Isolated and priv­ileged place provided for us as we

“Go to Him without the Camp”

In Ex. 33:7 we read, “And Moses proceeded to take a tent and pitch It by Itself outside the camp afar off from the camp, and he called it the Tent of Meeting, – ­and so it came to pass that whosoever was seeking Yahweh went out unto the tent of meeting, which was on the outside of the camp.” (Rotherham) Moses in this instance types our Lord as he arranged to remove the Star Members and his fully faithful people from the midst of the measurably faithful and the tare class, beginning in the Per­gamos epoch of the Gospel‑Age church and continuing until 1799. We quote parts of Brother Johnson's comments on this from E:11‑430 (70):

“God had our Lord do another thing indicative of His displeasure with His nominal people, i.e., remove the faithful servants of the Truth and Its Spirit from places of prominence and influence in the nominal church – caused the sym­bolic woman, the Covenant promises and the servants who apply them to the brethren to go into the wilderness condition (Rev. 12:6) – to the Tent of Meeting, not the Tabernacle, but Moses' official residence – and that not but slightly away from the erroneous doctrines, practices, organization and disciplines of the nominal church, but very far from these, and made the Truth and the servants who applied it to the brethren, as well as these last, the place where God resided, met with His people and blessed them. Henceforth every one who in heart's loyalty sought fellowship with the Lord in spirit, truth, righteousness and holiness went forth from the nom­inal church to such Truth, its applying servants and the others of His real people, apart from the nominal church (without the camp)... When our Lord busied Himself with Truth matters, Its applying servants, etc., the Truth and its Spirit as due became manifest (the cloudy pillar descended), and remained at the entrance, consecration, where God revealed truths to Jesus in the star‑members.”

The foregoing dovetails so very beautifully with St. Paul's admonition in Heb. 13:13, “Let us, then, now go forth to Him outside of the camp bearing reproach for Him.” (Dia.) And it is such a very clear‑cut and definite course of procedure for all who elect to “follow In His steps.” Such Indeed is one very appropriate Thought for the Memorial. In principle, this arrangement is as true today as it ever was, of which we shall offer some elaboration further on.

“What mean ye by this service?”

All the details of the original Passover in Egypt were pre‑arranged with meti­culous care and exaction, even to its future remembrance “throughout your generations,” and the Instruction of the Jewish children during future observances. It was prop­erly anticipated that inquiring and curious children would ask, “What mean ye by this service?” (Ex. 12:26), thus providing the opportunity to instruct them in the niceties and the solemn responsibility of every Jew participating in it. And this exaction so thoroughly gripped the Jewish conscience and imagination that the Passover observance today is almost identical to what it was in the day of Christ, excepting only the temple sacrifices which are no longer performed. However, they yet make very elabor­ate preparations for the festival. In previous years we have detailed the search for leaven. After all leaven was collected, it was then cast into the fire, and the master of the house declared in Aramaic that any further leaven that may have been in his house and of which he was unaware was to him no more than dust.

The eldest son of each family, if he were thirteen years or older, was required to fast on the day leading up to the service. Then on the evening of the 14th all the male members of the house betook themselves to the synagogue, attired in their best apparel. On their return they would find the house lit up, and the “Seder” or paschal table prepared. The head of the family took his place at the head of the table, after which all the family, including the servants, were seated around the table, to partake of the Seder, or Haggadah, as some Jews designate it. To be cer­tain the question would properly arise, the youngest son was previously coached to ask, when they came to the table, why on this night above all other nights do they eat bitter herbs, unleavened bread, etc., at which the head of the house would re­late the story of the original Passover and the deliverance of the Jewish firstborn on that fateful night in Egypt. Then proceeded the feast, which had been elaborately and meticulously prepared – the bitter herbs such as parsley and horseradish, and a kind of sop with charoseth consisting of various fruits compounded into a sort of mucilage and mixed with vinegar and salt water – each arranged in its own vessel. At the outset the master took some of the bitter herbs, dipped them into the charo­seth and gave to each one present to be eaten along with the first cup of wine. Thus the feast continued throughout the evening until the fourth cup and the recita­tion of the Great Hallel – after which, in the case of Jesus and the Disciples, “they went out Into the Mount of Olives.”

Many of the requirements of the original Passover were subsequently ignored, and properly so. The Lord had told them in Egypt, “Thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand, – so shall ye eat it in haste, it is Yahweh's passing over.” Every minute detail in these instructions is fraught with grave significance to those who would commemorate the memorial of “Christ our passover Who is sacrificed for us.” The girdle in Bible symbols represents the serving features of those who would be servants in God's Household. “He that is chief among you, let him be your servant,” – just as Jesus Himself illustrated this on His last night by “girding” Himself, taking a towel and washing the Apostle's feet. “I am among you as one that serveth,” He had told them. Then, the sandals on their feet were a representation of the Gospel‑Age fact that “we have here no abid­ing city”; always should God's people be alert to “move on” as occasion dictated, ever willing to follow the cloudy‑fiery pillar, the Truth as due; and to remember always that “The King's business requires haste” – no time to linger and ‘change clothes’ when the occasion should arise to journey on. And all this should be done with “your staff in your hand,” the staff typifying God's precious promises, with­out leaning on which no one could ever make the journey from antitypical Egypt (the world in sin) to the heavenly Canaan.

EVER THE TRUE AND THE FALSE

As most of us know, so many features of the true religion have been counter­feited by Satan. This was even true of Jesus' death and resurrection. In Eze. 8:14 it is related, “there sat women weeping for Tammuz.” Tammuz was the Sun God of the Babylonians, consort of Ishtar. He was identical with Adonis, the same as Baal of the Canaanites. Tammuz supposedly died each year, descended into the lower world, and was brought back to life by the weeping and lamentation of Ishtar, who was joined in her weeping by the women of Babylon. Thus, as Jesus was being led to the cross and he saw women weeping along his journey, He mildly admonished them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.” (Luke 23:28).. It is also related in Eze. 8:17 that the Jews “put the branch to their nose,” in keeping with the custom of the Persian sunworshipers holding before them a branch of date, pomegranite or tamarisk that their breath might not contami­nate the risen deity. All of these sacrilegious practices by the Jews brought forth the scathing denunciation of God by the mouth of His prophets; and are a warning to all God's people to “have no other Gods before thee.”

While it is our hope and prayer that the foregoing will result in blessing our readers, by no means is it our thought that this should replace the excellent expo­sition of the Passover in Parousia Volume 6. We believe it also appropriate to offer something from E:11‑210 (66):

“Moses' charging Israel to remember Nisan 15 as the day that they went forth from Egypt from the house of servants, types our Lord's charging the Gospel Church in general, and the Parousia and Epiphany Church in particular, to remember anti­typical Nisan 15 as their deliverance time from the house of servants to sin, error, selfishness and worldliness. This implies a remembering of our justification, sanctification, and deliverance, as well as of our Truth Instruction (1 Cor. 1:30; Rom, 8:29, 30). As Israel in general remembered the typical deliverance at all times and in particular at the Passover, so are we as antitypical Israel to remember our deliverance at any and every time, but especially in connection with our Memorial service. We do the antitypical remembering, not only in thought, but also by living out the principles implied in our instruction, justification, sanctification and de­liverance. As God's mighty delivering power exercised on Israel's behalf deserved their remembering their deliverance day, so the power of God exercised in our deliv­erance from our taskmasters of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in our com­ing out of Satan's empire, is worthy of our remembrance in thought, word and deed. One way in which Israel was to remember the typical deliverance was to abstain from leaven. Accordingly, we are to commemorate our deliverance, among other ways, by abstaining from antitypical leaven – sin, error, selfishness and worldliness.”

There is much else that could be included here, but we believe the foregoing will suffice to bring forcefully to mind once more our obligations to “do this in remembrance of ME”; and it is our hope and prayer that all our readers may be richly blessed in their preparation for and participation in this year's Memorial as they “consider Him who endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself.” This year we shall commemorate the Memorial at 1507 N. Donnelly Street, Mount Dora, Florida, at 7:3O p.m., Friday, April 8, 1960; and we invite all who may be of like mind to join with us in this service.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

In keeping with the practice of Brother Johnson at the Memorial Season, we men­tion the Special Effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, which this year is from March 27 through April 17. What Is the Soul, Where Are the Dead, and the Resur­rection tracts are especially adapted for this Battle, and can be served at Church doors as well as house to house. The Resurrection tract is especially good for serv­ing at Church doors and individually around Easter time. This tract can be used with What Is the Soul for the bereaved work at this special season also. However, for general bereaved work we suggest that the friends continue using Where Are the Dead and What Is the Soul, as arranged by Brother Johnson for that work.

JOHN'S BAPTISM AGAIN

In this last January Present Truth R. G. Jolly displays more of his “profusion of words” on this subject. For several years now it has been apparent to us that R. G. Jolly himself is not clear on the fundamentals of the doctrine of Baptism as expounded by Brother Russell and Brother Johnson – although he continues his talk, talk, talk. This is as we might expect from the “loquacious, repetitious and false‑accus­ing Epiphany crown‑losers” of his type, as Brother Johnson so faithfully records. It would indeed be very foolish of us to expect a good “clean” exposition from him on any subject so long as he is in his present “uncleansed” condition. He says we utter a falsehood when we say he accused us of being a “shyster” – that he only said we were “using the tactics of a shyster lawyer.” How ridiculous and puerile can this man be? It's a well‑accepted adage that “Handsome is as Handsome does!” Thus, if we are using a shyster's tactics, it would make us such. He well knew, when he first made the charge, that his readers would accept such a conclusion, too; but he's now trying to whitewash himself as his depraved methods prove a boomerang to him.

He says at top of page 12 that he has answered us on 1 Pet. 3:21. That is, he made an attempt to answer; and in that answer he indirectly ridiculed Brother Russell for saying the people to whom Peter wrote were “Jews.” We immediately exposed his non­sense; and he's been silent ever since. Yes, he answered all right – with his answer all wrong in typical Jolly nonsense – just as has been true of so many of his state­ments in this Baptism controversy. He asks us to “offer a single instance” where John's Baptism was not available after the conversion of Cornelius. We have repeatedly cited him to Acts 18. Why doesn't he answer it? Here Apollos was preaching to the Jews. Also, it is clearly stated that he understood only the Baptism of John! And it is also just as clearly stated that Apollos needed some instruction from Aquila and Priscilla (Jews) to bring him up‑to‑date on the Present Truth on Baptism. Why has R. G. Jolly so consistently avoided this chapter while he pours out page after page of harangue on other features of this subject? (It will be noted, too, he's been completely silenced on the nonsense he tried to advance about the Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8:27‑39).

In Acts 18 there is not the slightest hint that Apollos even spoke to a Gentile – ­much less that he baptized one; he was working boldly in the synagogue with the Jews. Yet Apollos did not understand the subject of Baptism – “knowing only the baptism of John.” Clearly enough from this text itself, Apollos “knew” the Baptism of John, and he was preaching it to the Jews. Why, then, did he need further instruction on the subject of Baptism if he knew whereof he was preaching, and was preaching it to the right people? Let R. G. Jolly explain what was wrong with Apollos' understanding of Baptism – if he can. Repeatedly we have asked him for a Scripture to support his posi­tion, and each time he squawks back – like the parrot on the crossbar – Brother Russell said this and Brother Johnson said that; but he has produced no Scripture to prove what they said. He's asked us for a Scripture to prove our position, to offer one instance where John's Baptism was unacceptable after the 70th week. Well, we've given him one here in Acts 18 – a very clear one, too. Up to now he has very definitely avoided this entire chapter. Will he now answer, or will he simply continue his name­calling!

Then he proceeds to offer some more of his profuse detail with respect to Eph. 4:5, “there is one Immersion (baptisma)”; and he attempts to show how out of harmony we are with the Star Members. Here's what we said at top of page 8 of our paper No. 55 (Dec. 1, 1959): “the one immersion is fundamentally that immersion into Christ which operates through the Holy Spirit.” This is essentially the same inter­pretation offered by Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. But, had R. G. Jolly been clear on this item, he would have analyzed the basic concept of the text. It should be noted that there is nothing – just nothing at all – in Eph. 4:5, when considered as an individual text, that warrants in the slightest degree the interpretation the Star Members have given it. The text simply says, “there is one Immersion (baptisma)”; and the only conclusion any one can draw from this statement without referring to other Scriptures is that there is but “one immersing in water.” Brother Russell and Brother Johnson obtained the hidden Truth on this text by the help they received from such texts as Luke 12:50 (Dia.): “I have an immersion (baptisma) to undergo; and how am I pressed till it may be consummated.” Clearly enough, Jesus was not here discussing his immersion (baptisma) by John at Jordan, because that was long past; but He was here discussing an immersion (baptisma) whose consummation was future, and which referred to the eventual full and complete “pouring out of His soul unto death” on the cross.

However, as stated, Eph. 4:5 gives not the slightest hint of such an immersion (baptisma). That is why many in the nominal church conclude from this and similar texts that some form of water ceremonial for each individual is “one of the sacra­ments” (the other sacrament being the Lord's Supper). Of course, had R. G. Jolly given his readers this interpretation, then much of what he did say about it on pages 12‑15 would have been exposed for the twaddle that it is.

We gave him some of the truth on this text in our previous writing, but it passed right over his head, which demonstrates how blind he is, and is just one more proof that the “oil In his lamp” has gone out. When he headed his question, “Errors on Eph. 4:5 Exposed,” he certainly did some “exposing” – he “exposed” his own tragic Ignorance in most definite fashion. He's ever ready to be “loquacious, repetitious and foolishly effusive” (See E:10‑591, par. 1) on any subject; it matters not to him whether he understands it or not. But we realize full well why he has been so determined to continue his “profusion of words” on John's Baptism: He thought he had at last found one subject where he could maintain his position. However, we opine he will now have had plenty; but, if he is still imprudent enough to try again, let him be sure to include Acts 18 in his comments; and answer also our exposure of his folly that he presented the one occasion on I Pet. 3:21.

He is probably also glad to embrace any acceptable diversion from the withering “extinguisher fluid” (the Truth) that we have been directing at his “strange fire” (false doctrines) – such as Consecrated Epiphany Campers – such as the Epiphany (the Time of Trouble) ending In a “restricted sense in 1954” – such as Tentative Justification (a faith justification) operating throughout the Millennium (a works dispensation). It should be recalled here that his “shyster tactics” remark was aimed at our attack on his Epiphany error re 1954, which we published last summer, thoroughly exposing his nonsense, since which time he has been completely silent on the matter. Who, then, was the real culprit in the use of “shyster tactics” back there?

In view of his despicable name‑calling here and elsewhere, we consider it proper to attempt a close scrutiny of his depraved character since Brother Johnson's death. In January 1957 he made a special trip back into the hills of Jamaica to “refute the gainsayers” in the Crofts Hill Class; and he was oosing his usual confidence and bravado – before he knew he would be facing the “sifters” themselves. He started that meeting at 4:00 p.m., and kept it continuously in session until 8:00 p.m. – ­a total of four hours – during which time he would not tolerate a single question from the “sifters.” Then he made an adroit attempt to close the meeting summarily; but certain stalwart brethren forced him –by vote of those assembled (22 to 4, if we remember correctly) – to allow the “sifter” (JJH) to be heard. Knowing how weary the brethren already were, we consumed not more than fifteen minutes, during which time we asked R. G. Jolly if he had any questions he wished to ask us. When he said No, we then asked if he would entertain our questions on our time, at which he shouted, “I don't want to talk to you at all!”

Just think of it, brethren! There was the “cleansed” Epiphany Levite, the “Pastor and Teacher,” cringing before the “sifter.” Just visualize what Brother Johnson would have done in his position! We know he would gladly have seized such a propitious opportunity to pulverize the sifter and vanquish him from the scene of combat – just as he repeatedly did with one uncleansed Levite leader after another early in the Epiphany, so that one of them moaned, “In every debate Brother Johnson makes me look like thirty cents.” The Detroit Class asked R. G. Jolly to come there, also, to answer questions in the presence of the “sifter”; but he ran away from that invitation, too.

We believe Judges 2:14 now becomes most pertinent: “The Lord sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies.” While Brother Johnson was yet with us, could we possibly visualize R. G. Jolly – or any reasonably‑enlightened Epiphany Truth person – ­cringing before the gainsayers before 1950? We would have considered it a monstrous joke had any one suggested such a situation would be among us within six short years after the beloved Epiphany Messenger had departed.

It should ever be borne in mind that Brother Johnson taught us that R. G. Jolly is a part of antitypical King Saul. And we should ever consider that the first thing the typical Saul did after his sins caught up with him was to begin lying his way out (see 1 Sam. 15:13). And that was an exact blueprint of what R. G. Jolly has been doing since Brother Johnson's demise. On. page 8, par. 1, col. 1, he discusses the “sifters”, et al, at the last Chicago Convention, saying “half the group consisted of his (JJH) – wife and those related to her, either by blood or marriage.” Aside from the two of us there was five more such as he describes, making seven in all. Of those having no fleshly attachment whatever to the “sifters” there was at least nine, most of whom had come from considerable distances for the very purpose of aligning themselves with the “sifters,” and who were in complete accord with us. Thus, his statement of “half” the group is just another of his falsehoods – a loose and irresponsible statement. In our December paper we exposed another of his false­hoods, which he made from the Convention platform. When he can sit behind his desk in Philadelphia and call names, or when he can stand before a Convention of the Lord's people and tell falsehood after falsehood (where he is sure he will not have Immediate opposition), he is every whit the brave “little” man; but when there appears the pros­pect of a direct frontal engagement with the “sifters,” he cannot “any longer stand before his enemies.”

Had the “sifters” and their adherents not attended his Friday evening “Business Session” at Chicago (the same being nothing more than a lame attempt at a sales pep talk), the hall that evening would have had a most deserted appearance. If we recall correctly, the “sifters”, et al, constituted almost half those present – although there was plenty of his partisan supporters in the building. Apparently, even some of them know when they have had enough!

We give to him now a permanent invitation without limitations to attend any of our meetings, bring with him as many of his partisan supporters as he wishes, bring with him all his questions – so long as he conducts himself in the same orderly and ethical decorum as we do at his meetings. We would go even further: He may present his questions verbally – to be sure there is no evasion on our part. Will he dare reciprocate this courtesy to us? And we make this overture despite our con­viction that R. G. Jolly is th No. 1 Offender of the Epiphany since Brother Johnson's death. The deplorable conditions and turmoil in the L.H.M.M. since 1950 are largely chargeable directly to him! His condition is so deplorably uncleansed that lying and name‑calling are the only weapons left to him, so that now we quote some more of the pathetic words chanted over the discredited typical King Saul and his son Jona­thon: “How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle.” (2 Sam. 1:25) As we have so often stated, there has been much too much time and space expended on John's Baptism; but we are determined we shall impose a full quietus on his non­sense on this subject – just as we have effectively done with him on so many other subjects.

NO. 57: GREATEST FAVOR - GREATEST TRANSGRESSION

No. 57

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

In Psa. 107:17 it is written of the Jews, “Fools because of their transgres­sion, and because of their iniquities, are afflicted.” During their time of national favor – when “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2) – this same Scripture just quoted also says, “Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities.” The “iniquities” for which they were punished refer to their sins against the Law of Moses; and for these they were repeatedly punished, finally having their national polity completely removed in the fall of 607 B.C., when they not only lost power to govern themselves, but also were scourged with 70 years under the oppressive yoke of the Assyrians “that the land might enjoy her sabbaths.” But “their transgression” – their great transgression –occurred when they “crucified the Lord of Glory,” for which they lost all national favor in 33 A.D., and all individual favor 3½ years later. And as “fools” they have been afflicted for this great transgression and for their iniquities during the years that have followed.

And their determination and ability through all these harrowing years to maintain their Jewish identity and to avoid assimilation by the peoples with whom they have mingled are mute testimony to their “stubborn and stiffnecked” character. Fools in­deed they have been, yet with a certain pathetic commendation due them for their determination to maintain even a token performance of the Mosaic rituals, which they are unable now to observe in a manner acceptably to God because they no longer have a High Priest after the order of Aaron. Such a High Priest they cannot have because he must come from the Tribe of Levi; and the dispersion in 70‑73 so completely sep­arated and dispersed them that they are not now certain which of their Rabbis are of the Tribe of Levi. They think those with the names of Cohen, Levine, Levinson, etc., are the descendants of Levi; but they are not at all certain of this. There­fore, they can only sit in “sackcloth and ashes” during their Atonement‑Day services in their synagogues – and attempt a token ritual in their Passover feast – with the essence and vitals of these ceremonies no longer present because their High Priest is absent.

Comes now the question – Was John's Baptism inseparably linked with their national and individual favor? It seems to us that it certainly was, that the end of the 70th week left them nothing except the general advantage that the “oracles of God” had bestowed upon them. If this were not true, then any Jew not conscious of sin against the law could come into Christ without any water baptism of any kind ­just as some did during the “70th week.” If we do not accept this premise, then we should be able to find some Scripture to show when it did end – or we must admit that John's Baptism would be efficacious for them even to this day. We should keep clearly in mind that John's Baptism did not immerse them into Christ; it merely prepared them to come into Christ.

It will be noted from the Diaglott reading of Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5 that these people were “Immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus” – that is, into the heart and mind (the disposition) of the Lord Jesus, and not “in the name.” John's Baptism could never at any time immerse them “into the name (heart and mind) of the Lord Jesus”; it could only prepare them to receive this blessing. But, prior to the end of that 70th week, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Rom. 10:4); they could come “into the name of the Lord Jesus” without further ado if they were not conscious of sins against the Law of Moses. Up to that time, if they did not need John's Baptism, they did not need any water Immersion of any kind – although it certainly would have been no transgression had they voluntarily chosen to follow the example given by Jesus at Jordan. However, this exclusive and special favor to them ceased to exist in every detail at the end of the 70th week – at which time they were in the same category as the Gentiles.

Here it is in order to emphasize that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both repeatedly accentuated the fact that all national favor was withdrawn from the Jews in the exact middle of the “70th week” of Dan. 9:25‑27 (“Your house is left unto you desolate” – Matt. 23:38), and that 3½ years later all individual favor was withdrawn from them. We now ask, What was the greatest favor – nationally and individually – that had ever been bestowed upon them by God? Was it not their special privilege of coming into Christ? And, if John's Baptism would enable any of them to receive this their greatest of favors, would not John's Baptism have been an integral part of that favor – so insepar­ably linked with it that it would be impossible to have one without the other? But, if all favor was withdrawn from them, even as individuals, at the end of the “70th week,” how could John's Baptism have continued with them as the special favor that it most certainly was? If that baptism continued to enable them to come into Christ after the 70th week, just what was the favor that was withdrawn from them at that time? Certainly, the knowledge they had received at the feet of their parents and leaders would continue with them until death unless they themselves wilfully desecrated it. Therefore, this advan­tage could not have been included in the withdrawal of all national and individual favor at the end of the 70th week. We have stressed this point in previous writings, and we now do so again. Let the Jolly‑Krewson twosome present their explanation of it – if they have one! They should be able to do this from the Scriptures if they know whereof they speak.

It must be remembered that the Jews “all were Immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (I Cor. 10:2 – Dia.), which immersion placed them anticipatorily in the antitypical Tabernacle Court. However, when they lost all individual favor at the end of the 70th week (as Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both clearly affirm), they were then forced out of the antitypical Court, and then had no more standing of favor than did the Gentile world, so far as coming into the Body of Christ. St. Paul directly teaches that justification by faith is the “grace of God,” which some re­ceive in vain; but the Jews as individuals all had this until the end of the 70th week – just as the children of the Christ have all had it during this Gospel Age. If they lost all favor then, self‑evidently they lost that “grace.” Therefore, the only way they could regain that grace (favor) would be for them to be “immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus,” just as was true of the Gentiles. Therefore, as we have said previously, we do not know whether those twelve men of Acts 19:1‑6 were Jews or Gentiles. But St. Paul's conclusion would have been exactly the same re­gardless of what they were, as John's Baptism could avail absolutely nothing at that time. If this were not true, we repeat – It would have the two leading Apostles of the Jewish Harvest contradicting each other on the subject of Baptism, as our analysis of 1 Pet. 3:21 in our December 1959 issue and other papers clearly proves. The incident of Acts 19 and the writing of St. Peter's first epistle were only a few years apart.

At this point it is certainly in order to analyze R. G. Jolly's position on this discussion of Acts 19:1‑6: With parrot‑like repetition, he shouts what Brother Russell and Brother Johnson SAID about these men being Gentiles – nor have we ever disputed they SAID it; but we repeat here once more that what they SAID is not essential to anything we do or believe concerning baptism as we practice it today. However, Brother Johnson said something else – based upon his mature meditation and with sound Scripture to prove it – Namely, “It will not be manifest who will be the Little Flock members until all the Truth Levites have been manifested, have cleansed themselves, have recognized themselves as Levites, have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14), have been set apart for the true Levitical service, and are set before the Priests is their servants." Certainly, none of this, so vital to present‑day events, has yet taken place; yet R. G. Jolly is unalterably insistent that there are no more Priests yet remaining for the flfillment of this picture. Nor should we forget that all this sound and sober teaching of the Epi­phany Messenger R. G. Jolly tossed out of the window in toto in ONE DAY – on October 27, 1950; apparently, he immediately forgot all the detailed Scriptural analysis that Brother Johnson had given us – he could remember only one thing, that Brother Johnson had SAID he thought he would be the last Priest. Yet, here is some sound doctrine that is vitally essential to the peace and prosperity of Zion at this very time; whereas, the exact date at which John's Baptism was no longer effective concerns us so very little just now. Consistency, thou art a Jewel! “Inconsistency,” thy name Is Jolly!

May goodness and mercy continue with all those who faithfully continue in His Word and Spirit. “Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.” (Psa. 106:3)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle Pilgrim

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

QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – In refuting the Jehovah's Witnesses' gross error that ARMAGEDDON will rid the earth of the Devil's invisible rule and of the imperfect Gen­tile Governments of selfish politicians, you say only the religious systems – BABYLON will perish in Armageddon. Do you mean there will be no religious groups to arise in the interim of Armageddon and Anarchy? And do you mean that the present govern­ments and social order will not be destroyed?

ANSWER: – When we said “only the false religious systems – BABYLON – would perish in Armageddon” we had special reference to Rev. 18:21 (see Berean Comments). BABYLON will go down in Armageddon, never to arise anymore, is what we believe and teach; and we are in harmony with both Star Members as to Armageddon and Anarchy. Certainly, In Armageddon (Revolution) the present order will be overthrown, and the present governments will also go down. But there will be no more BABYLON after Armageddon, although there will be other Gentile governments (a continuation of the Gentile governments). However, if we use the word Babylon to mean “confusion” instead of the BABYLONISH SYSTEMS, self‑evidently there will be confusion so long as Satan is here. All Satanic influence will not be destroyed until sometime after Jacob's Trouble. Brother Johnson tells us in E:4‑31:

“By the earthquake destroying the nominal Church, the clergy, and all their hearty supporters (2 Kings 9:30‑37; 10:18‑28; Isa. 65:11,12; Jer. 25:34‑38), the people will have a hearing ear for the Great Company's message, who by their min­istry will convert not only Israel (Cant. 5:8‑6:1), but millions of Gentiles (Rev. 19:6).”

The fires of Armageddon should cleanse the Great Company in character – even though they will still have many errors of teaching they have imbibed during their uncleansed condition, of which they will then rid themselves in varying degrees, depending upon their past and present providential circumstances.

As to religious systems after Armageddon, Brother Johnson tells us in E:16‑143‑144: “Worse famines and pestilences than those that accompanied the World War will come during Revolution. Its destructiveness of human life, prop­erty, comfort and health will be even greater than that of the World War (Jer.25:29‑33). And its end will witness the overthrow of every governmental, religious and aristo­cratic system on earth. (A 'babe in the truth’ – especially Epiphany Truth – would know that we specifically stated that ‘another group’ of unscrupulous politicians would succeed the present governments, but this will be only a continuation of the Gentile rule; their lease has expired, but they will continue to rule until com­pletely evicted in Anarchy – JJH) ...

“Again Satan will attempt to gain control and will erect an order of affairs (but will not include another BABYLON, which will fall in Armageddon never to rise anymore – JJH) in which his present forms of government, religion and aristocracy will be absent. Instead, a socialistic form of government (supplanting and succeed­ing the previous government – JJH) will prevail, and a perverted form of religious Truth and work (which has never been the ruling power during Babylon's heydey – JJH) which the Lord has been giving since 1874 through a certain so‑called channel be­tween God and man be made the popular religion after the Revolution. This form of government is symbolized by the ten horns of the beast (Rev. 17:11); and this form of religion is typed by Dinah, Jacob's daughter, while his 12 sons type the 12 sectarian denominations of Christendom (the present religious city – government – ­that will go down in Armageddon never again to rear its head, so the Scriptures distinctly tell us, with which all able Bible Students will concur – JJH), which will go down in Revolution. Such a socialistic form of government will preclude the existence of an aristocracy as such (we noted this in our Three Babylons tract – the destruction of aristocracy – JJH), though doubtless the heroes of social­ism will in effect be much like an aristocracy at that time. But that form of society will be short lived.”

Surely, all Epiphany‑enlightened brethren realize that Babylon (the “sectarian denominations of Christendom“ – Big Babylon, as well as the present sects of Little Babylon, as such, will be utterly destroyed in Armageddon (will perish) – never to arise anymore! But the Christ cannot take full control and establish the Kingdom Rule until the Gentile Governments have been fully and finally evicted, which will not occur until Anarchy. The only present form of Satan's invisible rule to be completely annihilated will be the false religious systems – BABYLON. His invisible rule will continue in civil governments, though of a different order. The Jehu dynasties will in all probability rule with “a rod of iron” – just as we see Russia at present; but they will be governments of “The Gentiles,” (the Gentiles will not have been evicted), regardless of what name they may assume.

Here's what Brother Johnson says in E:5‑427 (top): “The end of Babylon's destruction would be by the coming symbolic earthquake.” (that is, ARMAGEDDON – JJH)

We quote also from Nov. 15, 1913 Watch Tower, Reprints 5348, col. 2, bottom: “St. Peter describes the great day of wrath, intimating that It will begin with the nominal church class – the heavens, 'The day of the Lord will come as a thief In the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are therein, shall be burned up.’ (2 Peter 3:10) – Understanding the earth here to represent the present social order, and the heavens to represent the ecclesiastical order of affairs, we find that the ecclesiastical heavens are to pass away with a great noise, a great commotion, a great confusion, and their elements or component parts will be melted in the fervency of the heat and strife of that time; and that then the earth, or social order, will follow It in the combustion or consumption of the day – destroying the present social fabric – overthrowing all law and order in anarchy.”

Further from Reprints 5864 (top): “The ecclesiastical systems will, we believe, go into destruction first, according to the Bible. The fire will next affect the social and industrial organization.”

We know that the present social order, and present governments, will be over­thrown (destroyed In their present forms) and replaced by other governments; but BABYLON will be destroyed in ARMAGEDDON – will perish, never again to lift its head. Gentile Governments have been overthrown all during the Gentile Times, but they have been replaced by other Gentile Governments – as witness the upheavals in Germany and Russia during “this generation,” the violent French revolution in 1789, and the various changes in the Roman Empire over the centuries. Babylon, too, has changed her methods, and conduct, from time to time, but has never perished from the earth since her instigation. But when Babylon is overthrown in ARMAGEDDON she will perish forever from the earth never to arise anymore. The Gentile Governments will once more arise between Armageddon and Anarchy – not in their present form, of course, but “variegated in each country by the background of their respective Inhabitants... new groups of unscrupulous politicians.” This quotation from our Three Babylons tract we believe to be a correct appraisal of the conditions that will prevail then.

We are in harmony with both Star Members when we say only the false religious systems – that compose present‑day Big Babylon – will perish (be forever destroyed), never to appear anymore. Certainly, our readers are well aware of our conviction that the Capitalistic System as presently constituted will pass away forever in Armageddon, along with the various forms of governments now linked with that system – ­that antitypical Jehu will arise as the result of, and be the direct cause of, ARMAGED­DON – and that he will be the direct cause of antitypical Jezebel's destruction. As we all know, Jezebel has had her “face lifted” in various ways at various times, but she is still here. However, once Jehu has done his work, she shall “be found no more at all,” although Jehu will go right on reigning for some years after Jezebel is de­stroyed forever; thus, he may be viewed as a continuation of the Gentile Govern­ments – changed only in form – as he replaces the present governments for the period between Armageddon and Anarchy. He will still be a Gentile Government after he de­stroys Babylon forever – although a new BABYLON in any form will not arise again after Armageddon. As Brothers Russell and Johnson both taught, the “heavens” – (eccle­slastical control) will go down FIRST (i. e., in ARMAGEDDON), while the “earth” (political and social elements) of whatever form it may assume, will not be utterly wiped out until Anarchy.

Just what form the Jehu government will assume in America is not now too clear; but the “heavens” (present “false religious systems” – Big Babylon) will pass away immediately after he gains sufficient control, as is revealed in Rev. 18:9‑11: “The kings of the earth who have... lived deliciously with her (Babylon as presently constituted) ... and the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her.” The “Times of the Gentiles” ended in 1914, but the Gentile Governments have continued in a usurpatory manner in spite of the many changes in a number of them since that time, aggressively resisting their eviction, which will not be completed until Anarchy; and we believe they will continue to do this even more strenuously after Armageddon under the Jehu dynasties. When Jehu passes away In Anarchy, the next stable Government to arise will be the Mediatorial Reign of The Christ, after the end of “Jacob's Trouble.”

J. F. Rutherford gave this gross error to the Jehovah's Witnesses, at which time Brother Johnson refuted his claim that Satan's invisible kingdom would go down forever in Armageddon. Only one important part of Satan's invisible kingdom will be destroyed forever in Armageddon, and that is the false religious systems – BABYLON. We well realize that all present forms of governments and society in Christendom will be overthrown, but whatever form they may assume after Armageddon, they will continue to be part of Satan's invisible kingdom (governments and social order). Not so with the “heavens”; Satan will have lost control in that respect: Babylon will go down never to rise anymore.

Errorists are quick to seize upon technicalities when their gross doctrinal errors are attacked. We especially directed a Scripture, interpreted by the last Star Member, clearly refuting the Jolly‑Krewson false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Consecrated (or quasi‑elect consecrated). Will they attempt to set aside this faith­ful teaching of the Epiphany Messenger?

QUESTION: – Do you object to the use of the word “Jehovah”?

ANSWER: – No, we do not. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both used it, as we ourselves also do, although they, too, realized it is a coined word; but they continued its use because of long‑established custom – just as Brother Johnson continued to refer to the “Old and New Testaments,” although he realized these words also have no sound foundation; but long usage has entrenched them so deeply into the Christian conscience that he considered it more expedient to continue their use than to attempt to replace them. (See E‑12‑10) That is also our position with re­spect to the use of Jehovah; but we definitely are opposed to the use of the word as a sectarian name, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have perverted it. “Ye are my wit­nesses, declareth Yaveh” (YHWH‑‑Isa. 43:10) is a pronouncedly different declaration than “Jehovah's Witnesses,” when used to designate a sect. This we believe to be in harmony with Brother Johnson's analysis of the situation, too. (See June 1932 Present Truth, pp. 70‑77) ...

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!

Since reading your article on “Moses – Ithamar – Joshua” I have meditated much upon the very revealing truths you bring to our attention. And the first nine verses of Joshua seem to my mind very significant indeed; and seeing that Brother Johnson has pointed out to us that antitypical Joshua would be an individual chosen by the Lord to accomplish a very Important work, which was evidently to begin soon after The Epiphany Messenger's demise. Undoubtedly the Lord will in His due time reveal to us much more upon these matters, thus manifesting Persons, Principles and things, in a way that will be really astounding as a necessary help to our dear brethren... of the L.H.M.M. in particular and later to the brethren of other Levite groups.

In looking up In The Present Truth for March 1, 1948 I took special note of Brother Johnson's words to us all. (See top of page 42) – “God shows how in the time of trouble in the Measurably Unfaithful the graces of faith, hope, courage, perseverance, etc., will break down – Every spirit shall faint (Ezek. 21:7). The Lord stirred up the graces of courage zeal, piety, loyalty and obedience in Zerub­babel, Joshua, and all the rest of the people to start rebuilding the temple..... The Lord stirred up the spirit of Joshua ... and the spirit ... of the people .... work in the house of the Lord. Hag. 1:15.” Truly the zeal of the Lord will accomplish this to His glory. Soon now I believe the antitypical “spoilers” of the Lord's work, so far as the leaders are concerned, will be fully manifested, and eventually each persistent and wilful leader will go to his place – Acts 1:25. The Lord suddenly cutting them off from doing further harm to His teachings and arrangements.....

May the dear Lord continue to bless and enrich you dally in all the spiritual truths for the guidance, comfort and encouragement of the Lord's dear people. This No. 48 article, as well as the two following (No. 48A for May and No. 49 for June) could not have been written by you or anyone else without divine guidance.

May the dear Lord prosper your work to His glory is my fervent prayer. I am your brother “In His keeping” ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ England

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: –

There are no words to adequately express the gratitude that is in my heart to you and to the Lord for the help you have been to me and to all of those who are truly seeking the Truth.

I pray dally that the Lord will continue to bless you and keep you. I have no doubt you will be faithful and that the Lord will continue to use you to give us meat in due season. I thank Him daily and I thank you.

Wishing you a blessed Christmas, I am Your sister through His Kind Favor –

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑, Kansas

NO. 56: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

No. 56

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Comes again the beginning of another year, and the manifold evidences of disin­tegration continue to accumulate at every signpost. As we have so often stated, it is our conviction that decay of Capital itself will eventually accomplish collapse of the capitalistic system, and concrete evidence of this conclusion continues to manifest Itself in various ways. During this past year of 1959 the President of the United States has been urgently prodding the Congress to raise the statutory limit on the interest rate of Government bonds – the existing rate having been in force for now over forty years. And why does he wish this? Because it is no longer possible to persuade our citizens to invest their money in Government bonds because of other more attractive avenues of investment. It is proverbial among men of finance that when a man must pay exorbitant rates of interest in order to borrow money for his business operations it is an evidence that he is a bad credit risk, and the one con­tributes to accentuate the other, because the added interest burden makes just that much more difficult the profit which is essential to the successful conduct of any business. This past year other Governments also have been forced to raise interest rates, the Canadian Government having raised the interest rate on some of its bonds from 3% to 6%. One international financial publication of restricted clientele has this to say in an article under the caption of "The Money Mess":

"That the governments of Canada and the United States are having financial difficulties is widely realized ... The financial writers are beginning to cover the subject in a context of dire urgency....It could be suspected that some of the grave pronouncements that one reads are woven into a campaign to persuade Congress to raise the ceiling on longer term bonds beyond the 4.25% that now makes them unsalable, In Canada an obstacle to a free flow of credit exists in the ceil­ing which prevents banks asking for more than 6% interest on loans even though the money they use costs more .......High interests rates can, eventually, lead to large unemployment.  It is no coincidence that commentators, discussing current figures, refer to the highest this or the lowest that since the early 30's....... And it is true that the book of inflation has several chapters yet to be read and used.  But its use will only compound the difficulties the government has of find­ing the money to finance its enormous daily needs, bring ever higher interest rates as the competition for money increase;, and in the end defeat itself..... Writers who remain distrustful of the managed-money policy that has become so popular since displacement of the old automatic Gold Standard have often loudly declared that the new policy must wind up in confusion and chaos ... In the past national bankruptcy has come in countries that lost all sense of money soundness, and em­barked on such wild policies that the currency became near worthless – imposing terrific losses on the citizenry – and had to be replaced with a new currency. But when one looks around and sees how credit-crazy the people have become, even to the point of buying their pleasure, like travel, on time, one must be impressed with the idea that the old virtues of thrift and prudence have been forsaken by people and government alike, and that all live with a narrow safety-factor against financial disaster...Everybody knows that the American fiscal position is getting more uncomfortable all the time. The appeal for Europe to join in foreign aid just advertises gold weakness, and makes more people understand that when America has got to raise the price of gold to stop the erosion it will do so."

Another financial writer of wide recognition, with whom we have been intimately acquainted for some thirty years, has this to say in one of his recent papers:

"The great tragedy of our debt-creating-money-supply system is that it results in the accumulation of debt that can never be paid. We pass it on to posterity and ask that it be serviced according to our scheme of values, placing posterity in bondage until the end of time ... Is it fair and democratic to rivet these huge fixed charges into the lives of future generations? Indeed not! In fact, this is not democracy; it is hypocrisy ... If one dollar had been put into a savings bank in the year 1 A.D., and left to compound annually at three per cent, this dollar today would be worth about $10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 – ten sep­tillion dollars.....All we seem to know about debt is how to make it bigger and more burdensome."

Much more of the same could be included here, but we believe enough has been quoted to convey to our readers the trend of thinking of some of the more solid-thinking seg­ments of present-day society, and to corroborate the conclusions we presented in our paper, The Third Watch, of January 1, 1957 (copy free upon request) – and especially of our analysis of Rev. 18:17, "so great riches is come to naught." The Diaglott rend­ering of this verse says, "in one hour such great wealth is laid waste", the same be­ing a forecast of the wasting collapse of the capitalistic system here in the extreme end of the age, especially so during the Epiphany--the "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation." "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

IN  RELIGION

The decadence of the capitalistic system has been well paced with the deca­dence in the various religious systems; but we shall here concern ourselves only with the cults of Little Babylon. In the September 1959 Watchtower the Jehovah's Witnesses have this to say:

"Even in so-called darkest Africa the truth reaches the people... the people can receive this knowledge that means everlasting life – John 17:3... Jesus told of the dividing of the people into two great classes. On the one side would be the goatlike opposers of the Creator, while on the other the meek and obedient sheep­like ones. This dividing work is now being done. (That Servant and Brother Johnson both said this work would occur at the end of the Mediatorial reign -JJH).. The time for ignorance regarding God is past....It can truly be said that those who remain in ignorance of Jehovah's purposes now do so by choice, because he has made his Word available worldwide...And many nations shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the house of Jehovah, and the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. This Scripture speaks of the very time we now live in, the latter days."

Surely, no Epiphany-enlightened Truth person will require much help from us to discern the vagaries of the foregoing. The "spirit of a sound mind" will immediately cause us to ask, What about the morons, the lunatics, those possessed of evil spirits, etc. – do these now remain "in ignorance of Jehovah by choice, "as these perverters would have us believe? All about us we see people who "do not know the right hand from the left." Try as they may, could such people determine in their present con­dition what is the "knowledge of God"?

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES A SECTARIAN NAME

Had space been available, we would have put something like this in The Three Babylons tract: These people claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses and to adhere to the Bible; but the word Jehovah is not to be found in the original texts of the Bible – ­It is a mongrel word, "hybrid," "fantastic," "monstrous." The pronunciation of Je­hovah was unknown until 1520 A.D., when it was introduced by Galatinus, but was at that time contested by other scholars as against grammatical and historical propriety.

Brother Johnson says the nearest we can come to it in the English language is Yahweh, and Dr. Rotherham is very close to this with his Yahweh. In the original Hebrew text the name is presented by the Tetragrammaton (the Greek for 'four letters'), the same being the four Hebrew consonants Yod, He, Vav, He (YHWH). Since there are no vowels, it would be impossible to give the expression any kind of sensible or euphonious pro­nunciation; and it became known over the centuries as the incommunicable or the in­effable name. No Jew in Bible times would dare attempt to pronounce it, although this combination of four letters is to be found over seven thousand times in the Old Testa­ment. The expression Jehovah is coined by filling in the vowels of the word for Lord (Heb. – Adonai); but this is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal – Namely, Gormuna. As stated, the monstrous combination Jehovah is not older than about 1520, so the Jewish scribes are not responsible for the hybrid combination. Thus, these people who identify themselves by the coined sectarian name of Jehovah's Witnesses, and who claim now to be imparting "The knowledge of God" to darkest Africa, etc., don't even know "the knowledge of God" about their own name, or they would not be using it in the form they do. Yet, they arc vehement in their denunciation of other religious sects, labeling them as part of the "Devil's organization."

AMONG EPIPHANY TRUTH PEOPLE

In fact, right in the Epiphany Movement we find many who are too sleepy or too "sheepy" or too perverse to determine between Truth and error – even when the Truth is pointed out to them. It will be recalled that J. W. Krewson offered the statement, "Error must be defended; Truth can stand for itself." At first we considered that this statement might just be a piece of slipshod thinking written in a moment of weakness ­of which the best of us may sometimes be guilty. But, after we exposed its folly, he came right back in another paper (See March 1, 1959, p. 22 - No. 25) and insisted upon abiding in his error; so we can now but conclude that he is "willingly ignorant" in this and other subjects. Here is what Brother Russell says in the Manna comment for September 23: "Our good fight of faith consists in a considerable measure in our de­fense of the Word of God....As the Apostle says, 'I am set for the defense of the Truth,' We can do no less than defend the Truth..... we must defend our standard, even unto death." In the face of such a clear statement by That Servant, who gave us the "meat in due season," are we in the least uncharitable when we conclude that in this instance J. W. Krewson is a willful perverter? Furthermore, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both proved from the Scriptures that the Apokalypse and Epiphany as an act and as a period of time are synonymous; the Epiphany period is the Time of Trouble. J. W. Krew­son also now wilfully perverts this teaching of both Star Members.

And we have similar comment for R. G. Jolly and his gross revolutionism on the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble, on his Campers Consecrated, and many other items – where he directly and persistently contradicts the teachings of the Star Members, even after these are clarified for him. And, when he would place himself and his kind in the class of The Faithful, in antitypical Abraham, in the Salt and Light Class, the "ye" and the "us" class, which apply exclusively to The Christ Company, we believe he comes within the comment of Brother Johnson in E-11-369 (bottom): "God adds a final prohibition that in approaching The Christ as God's Altar, either in this or the next Age, thereon to offer one's sacrificial service, one should not in vaunting ambition exalt himself by grasping for powers not given him by God." And to his partisan sup­porters we would quote Ex. 23:2, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil"; nor should they, contrary to truth, righteousness and holiness favor the Great Company as a whole or in any of its groups--(See E:11-394). As Brother Johnson has so well stated, When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense; nor can they longer think clearly on any Scriptural subject. Perhaps the outstanding ex­amples of nonsense by R. G. Jolly in 1959 are his "sage" observations that God does not move the furniture out of the Holy with the Great Company when He moves them out, and having antitypical Abraham rescue Campers Consecrated a full four years before even R. G. Jolly himself claims there were such. And, when we observe such a situation we are fully warranted in concluding that he is still in the hands of Azazel.

And at this last Chicago Convention one of R. G, Jolly's ardent Yes-men attempted some comment on Campers Consecrated by admitting that they were no more than restitu­tionists – now on "a narrow way" and being persecuted for Truth and Righteousness, but would subsequently be transferred to the Highway of Holiness. Thus, they will re­ceive a demotion for their present sacrificing. And he urged all to take this step now, and not to wait for a more favorable day! Just note the close similarity be­tween this and the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which we have presented earl­ier In this article. NOW is the time to convert the world, according to their reasoning!

In his effort to have his Campers Consecrated teaching in proper balance, R. G. Jolly has indeed produced some weird calculations; and it would be unbelievable that people long under the sober instruction of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson would now "close their eyes, open their mouths, and swallow what is put therein." Especially so, is this true in view of the opposition that has been presented in our papers, oppo­sition which has been in defense of Brother Johnson's teachings that the Epiphany Camp In the finished picture would be composed of the formerly tentatively justified, but unconsecrated persons – those who in the end of this Age will have "received the Grace of God in vain" for elective purposes, (Will R. G. Jolly's Consecrated Campers be dead in the finished Epiphany picture, as will be true of all others of the Epi­phany Household of Faith?) It is ardently hoped that the analysis herein contained will sober all his adherents, especially those in teaching positions, to recover them­selves from "wandering from the Truth and turn back from their path of error"–Jas. 5:19-20

As we have repeatedly stressed, Brother Johnson taught that "to see new doctrines, under Jesus, is the exclusive privilege of star-members." (E:11-495) It is also taught in E-9-388 that "strange fire types false doctrines"; and those who persist therein can expect only the same penalty as came to Korah and his band. Clearly, R. G. Jolly has been treading the same footsteps of other Levite leaders, and he is reaping the same consequences – he inherited gold, and he quickly turned it into ashes. Since 1950 he has lost many of the truest and best of Brother Johnson's staunch supporters; and he still continues to lose them. Strange, isn't it, that the choice of the flock always appear as the "sifters"? In their latest book, Jehovah's Witnesses also quote St. Paul, "Mark them that cause divisions among you, and avoid them"; and this they hurl at Brother Johnson and others who forsook them after Brother Russell's death – ­just as R. G. Jolly has been doing since 1950 – all the while they themselves have been the real sifters, as evidence their defilement by more and more error. In 1950 we were wholeheartedly In support of R. G. Jolly, and gave him the strong assurance at the funeral that we would uphold his hands so long as he remained faithful to the trust delivered into his hands; and many others had the same attitude then – while many of those who have forsaken him since that time have done so only because of prin­ciples–AND FOR NO OTHER REASON!

 In 1951 we told him it was a mistake to publish only six Present Truths per year, Instead of twelve, that his first obligation was to "feed the flock of God"; but he would have none of our counsel, and he has been reaping the woes described by Brother Johnson in E-15-525:

 "Satan makes them busy themselves with false religious works (such as Campers Consecrated, etc.–JJH), .... He deceives them into believing they will accomplish great works, win great numbers, gain great favor, etc. The upshot of it all, however, is great disappointments, troubles, losses, frustrations and failures, as is shown of them in Ps. 107:12."

And only those who are so blind they will not see are unable to see in the fore­going a clear and detailed description of the course of R. G. Jolly since 1950.  We believe it In order to mention here that much of R. G. Jolly's present difficulty is due to the errors he accepted from J. W. Krewson, and which he still Insists upon trying to defend. Take, for instance, Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels, viewing those vagaries "in retrospect," would any babe in the Truth now place one iota of credence in any bit of that foolishness? And, concerning Campers Consecrated: His determined and continued attempts to defend this perversion find him deeper in the mire with each utterance concerning it. In the Question following this article we define briefly the impossibility of Tentative Justification in a works dispensation, a view R. G. Jolly in desperation advances as we continue to devastate and extinguish his "strange fire" on this perversion; and we shall eventually present more on this from the Star Members until he is forced to complete silence on it. If he continues to offer this "strange fire," then he can anticipate only the "sorer punishment" that must surely come to the antitypes of Korah, a punishment which will certainly attach to all New Creatures who encourage, aid and abet him in his continuance of this evil and the loss of Youthful Worthyship to others. At the Chicago Convention it was evi­dent to us – and to others – from his facial expression that he was "beating the air" in much that he said about his "progressive Tabernacle picture"; and we expect to offer more also on this "progressive" perversion in due course, D.v.

At this time we reciprocate the many Holiday remembrances that have come to us, the words of encouragement, the pledges of support, etc., from the United States and foreign countries; and to one and all of God's faithful people do ye send fervent love and all our best wishes, with the hope and prayer "thou mayest prosper and be in health." May the promise continually abide firm and steadfast with all: "I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee:"

Sincerely your brother,

 John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Will Tentative Justification still be operative during the Mediatorial reign?

ANSWER: – Certainly not! One of the speakers at this last Chicago convention made the assertion that Tentative Justification would continue to operate until the end of the Millennium.  Of course, all of us know this is a clear revolutionism against Brother Johnson's teaching that Tentative Justification will continue until Restitution begins. (See E:4-346) And Brother Johnson had a sound basis for his teaching. Tentative Justification is a faith justification and it entails a tenta­tive imputation of Jesus' merit. Under the Mediator there will be no imputation of Jesus' merit in any way whatever for any individual or group of individuals. Once the New Covenant is in operation, Jesus' merit will no longer be available for imputa­tion., thus making a faith justification an impossible thing. A faith justification can operate only in a faith dispensation, and it must end when the faith dispensation ends, A works justification operates in a works dispensation, which dispensation will begin to operate when the Mediatorial reign begins. Therefore, the statement of the speaker at Chicago was just some more Levitical nonsense; and is clear evidence those of the Great Company who teach it are still in Azazel's hands. And we regretfully entertain the "prospect" that such Levites will sink deeper and deeper into the cess­pool of error until they cleanse themselves or are forced out of the Household of Faith. In Brother Johnson's refutation of Concordant-Versionism, PT 1927, p. 113, col. 2,(top), he says this: "The New Covenant must operate after faith justification ceases to operate, i. e. after the Gospel Age," Let all revolutionize against this clear Epi­phany truth who wish to do so, but we counsel our readers to "continue in the things they have learned, and been assured of, knowing of whom they have learned them."

 We should ever bear in mind that neither Star Member ever saw Tentative Justifi­cation in the Camp, and the reason they did not see it is because no Scripture pass­ages, types or prophecies reveal such a perversion, It is exclusively an invention of the Jolly-Krewson twosome. In the finished Epiphany picture those forced from the Court Into the Camp are not thus placed because of any evil they have done; it is because of something they have not done – they fall to consecrate, thus "receiving the Grace of God in vain" for elective purposes, thereby losing their standing in the Household of Faith. Therefore, Brother Johnson said that at that time their ''Tentative Justification would lapse." (See E:11-473) If R. G. Jolly's conclusions about 1954 are correct (and he bases his time features exclusively upon Brother Johnson's statements), then it would seem he has a different meaning for the word "lapse" than the one offered by Noah Webster, who defines it thus: "The termination or failure of a right or privilege through neglect to exercise it within some limit of time, as the lapse of a life-insurance policy through failure to pay the premium." Let R. G. Jolly explain his position in harmony with this definition, if he can! And let him clarify, too, how some will lose their Tentative Justification by being placed in the Camp, while others (his Campers Consecrated) are at the very same time gaining their Tentative Justification by coming into that same Camp. While it is true that Brother Johnson refers to those ejected from the Court In the finished Epiphany picture as the "faith justified," note carefully his summation' of them in E:4-406:

 "The Youthful Worthies are somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith, having used the grace of God in vain."

Clearly enough, from the foregoing Brother Johnson has the faith justified leaving the Household of Faith as they go from the Court into the Camp; whereas, R. G. Jolly has his Campers Consecrated entering the Household of Faith in that very same Camp among those very same people who lose their place in the Household by returning to that Camp. Those in Azazel's bands talk all sorts of nonsense, and R. G, Jolly's contention in his picture is indeed a very choice example of the kind of nonsense they can produce in his Consecrated Epiphany Campers.

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

LETTERS  OF  GENERAL  INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in His dear Name!

Have just received your kind letter, and thank you for same. I am sorry I for­got ....to ask you to please send me 50 copies of Where are the Dead and 50 copies of What is the Soul, I am an isolated sister and very little I can do, but I want to do that little, for though 90 years young the dear Lord has not retired me.

Christian love, Sister --------- Mass.

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

Dear Friend:

I am in receipt of one of your publications, The Three Babylons. The same was delivered by one Mr, ...... resident somewhere in Jamaica, W.T. I should like to get in touch with him and through him your headquarters in Jamaica. Please furnish same at your earliest convenience ...

Thanking you in advance for an early reply.

Yours  by  His  Grace,  Rev.  ------Jamaica

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving Christian greetings of Grace and Peace through our Lord!

 I thank you for the two letters received .. I appreciate your loving interest and prayers! I rejoice in our Lord who knoweth my need and hath bountifully supplied me! I'm seeking to do His will, The Wisdom from Above ... Jas 3:17-18 .. I would like to send out a few tracts every week, D.v. for awhile.  Please send me 100 Where are the Dead ....

I remember you at the throne of grace and send warm Christian love...

Your sister by Grace ....... New York

NO. 55: "IN THE PLAINS OF MOAB"

No. 55

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

In our October 1959 paper we offered some observations respecting God's Faithful Israel “weeping” for antitypical Moses “in the plains of Noah,” all the while the false claims, misrepresentations and power‑grasping of uncleansed levites wax louder and louder. Now lies before us a 1959 copywright of “Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose,” the same depicting the Jehovah's Witnesses' “place in the sun.” Their unwarranted claims for themselves would not justify an analysis, but their slander of Brother Johnson, their distortion of facts, and some outright falsehoods in this book prompt us now to offer our readers some pertinent statements. Like all uncleansed Levites and second‑deathers of the entire Gospel Age, and especially like the Jehovah's Witnesses' “big brother” in Big Babylon (the Antichrist), they show themselves adept artisans in “making” history, “Behold, we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves” (Isa. 28:15), a characteristic of uncleansed Levites with which many of our readers are only too sadly conversant. We shall repro­duce brief parts of pages 68 through 73 of their book, as follows:

“On the point of organization, as early as 1881 Russell recognized that the ser­vant... was the entire body of anointed followers of Jesus Christ... In course of time this view was lost sight of and attention was focused more upon an indivi­dual man. The view generally held, that Pastor Russell himself was the 'faithful and wise ser­vant’ of Matt. 25:45‑47 (this should read Matt. 24 instead of 25—JJH) created consid­erable difficulty for some years... led many to regard Russell in what amounted actually to creature worship. They believed that all the truth God had seen fit to reveal to his people had been revealed to Russell, and now nothing more could be brought forth because 'that servant’ was dead. This attitude caused Rutherford to root out any rem­nants of creature worship that might be left in the organization. For that reason he did not seek the favor of men, and because of the course many had taken in times past, he was suspicious of those who seemed to be working to curry favor with him. This attitude led to an unusual directness in dealing with his associates. After Ruther­ford was elected president, it soon began to appear that there were some in the organ­ization who were not in favor of the arrangement. A few believed they should have been given this position and they went so far as to endeavor to wrest the administrative control from Rutherford's hands. This feeling began to develop early in 1917, within a few months after Rutherford was elected ... Pastor Russell had recognized the need for some one from the Society's headquarters to go to Britain to strengthen the brothers there after World War 1 broke out. He had intended sending P.S.L. Johnson, born a Jew, who had forsaken Judaism to became a Lutheran minister before he came to a know­ledge of the Truth. Johnson had served as a speaker for the Society and was a man of recognized ability. This brilliance finally led to his downfall.

“Because of Bussell's expressed wish, the committee that served before Rutherford's election sent Johnson to England for this proposed task. When he arrived in London he began to assume an authority the Society had not given him, and began to oppose the Society's policy and the Society's branch servant in the London office. He gave talks to the brothers in England to the effect that he, Johnson, was Pastor Russell's succes­sor, indicating that the mantle of Pastor Russell had fallen upon him just as the prophet Elijah's cloak had fallen upon Elisha.

“In the weeks that followed, he tried to take complete control of the British field and make himself the most prominent one in Britain. Without authority he even attempted to dismiss certain members of the London Bethel family. The work was so disrupted and such confusion developed that the Society's Branch servant was forced to complain to Brother Rutherford, the president of the Society. Immediately Brother Rutherford ap­pointed a commission of several prominent brothers in London, not members of the headquarters staff, to hear the facts in this case and report to him. The commission met and after due consideration recommended that Johnson be recalled to the United States for the good of the work in Britain.

“Brother Rutherford acted upon this recommendation and instructed Johnson to re­turn. Johnson, however, declined. He wrote letters and sent expensive cablegrams criticizing the committee, accusing them of bias in their deliberations and otherwise trying to justify the course he had taken. In order to make his position indispensable in Britain he used certain papers the Society had furnished him to facilitate entry into England and had the Society's funds in the London bank impounded...

“But Johnson was not able to hold out indefinitely and finally found it necessary to return to New York. There he persisted in his efforts to persuade Rutherford to send him back to England so that he might make his position more secure. When Brother Rutherford refused, he sought assistance from the Board of Directors and finally per­suaded four members to side with him in this issue by making it appear that Brother Rutherford was unfit to serve as president of the Society. Since the board of direc­tors consisted of only seven men, this meant that now the majority of the board of directors had gone in opposition to President Rutherford, Vice‑President Pierson and Secretary‑Treasurer Van Amburgh. This put the officers of the Society on one side of the issue and the directors who were trying to wrest the administrative control from the president on the other side...

“Their idea was to make the president's position secondary to the board of direc­tors.... Throughout the entire administration of Pastor Russell, the president and the other officers of the Society had been the ones to decide on new publications; the board of directors, as a body, was not consulted. Brother Rutherford continued this same policy as he took up the new administration. In the course of time the three officers decided to publish the 'Seventh Volume,’ which had been in prospect for many years and which Russell himself had hoped to write before his death. The officers then arranged to have two brothers at headquarters, C. J. Woodworth and G. H. Fisher, compile this book... under the title, 'The Finished Mystery.’

“At noon, July 17, 1917, this book was released at the Bethel dining room table... Completely surprised by its release, the opposing members of the board of directors im­mediately seized upon this issue and made it the occasion of a five‑hour controversy over the administration of the Society's affairs....

“Actually they had no cause for contention at all, because Russell himself had stated: 'whenever I find the key, I will write the Seventh Volume; and if the Lord gives the key to some one else, he can write it.’ They opposed the move because they had not been consulted.... In the five‑hour debate that ensued the four contentious members of the board of directors were joined by P.S.L. Johnson. All voiced grievances in the open before the entire headquarters staff. This controversy showed a number of the Bethel family were in sympathy with this opposition to the Society's administration under Brother Rutherford. If allowed to continue, it would disrupt the entire opera­tion of Bethel; so Brother Rutherford took steps to correct it.

“Paul the apostle had clearly stated that those who cause division were to be marked and were to be avoided. In harmony with this clear‑cut Scriptural principle it became necessary for Rutherford to reconcile these disgruntled members or ask them to leave. They thought it would be impossible for them to be replaced; but even before Russell's death, Rutherford, as an attorney, had pointed out to Russell that these members had not been properly elected...

“Rutherford knew this throughout this entire period of difficulty but had not brought the matter up, hoping that somehow these members would cease their opposition. When it became apparent that they would not, the time had come to legally dismiss them, which Rutherford did. This action infuriated these now defunct members of the board and they sought legal counsel in an effort to prevent Brother Rutherford from appoint­ing four more new board members. Their attorney merely confirmed Brother Rutherford's position that they had never legally been members of the board of directors and, there­fore, Rutherford was entirely within his rights as president of the Society in refus­ing to consider them as such. Immediately Brother Rutherford filled the vacancies with four others until their appointments could be confirmed at the next general corpora­tion meeting in 1918.

“Brother Rutherford did not summarily dismiss them, however. He offered them prominent positions as pilgrims, but they refused and voluntarily chose to leave Bethel. Unfortunately, and as was to be expected, their withdrawal from service at headquarters did not reconcile them to Jehovah's organization. Instead, they began to spread their opposition outside of Bethel in an extensive speaking and letter‑writing campaign throughout the United States, Canada and Europe. As a result, after the summer of 1917, many of the congregations all over the world were composed of two parties...

“Those forming this opposition were united for just a few months. At their con­vention in the summer of 1918, further differences ended in another split. Johnson went one way and the other four went another way, each with his followers. Johnson organized his own separate group, making his headquarters in Philadelphia, where he continued as _earth's great high priest’ until his death.”

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

We believe most of our readers will require no help from us to discern in the foregoing the rank falsehoods, the half truths, the shady inferences and the power­grasping tendencies of the Jehovah's Witnesses in this their latest attempt at justi­fication and self‑laudation for their evil course over the past forty years. They are seen allocating themselves as an integral part of “That Servant,” just as other un­cleansed Levites are classifying themselves as an integral part of the “Light” and the “Salt” class. How appropriate is Brother Johnson's statement: “The Great Company always want more than God wants to give them!” The Jehovah's Witnesses quote a state­ment from Brother Russell “as early as 1881.” This was more than ten years before he saw clearly that he himself — and he himself alone — was “That Servant” of Matt. 24:45‑47.

Here is Brother Johnson's clear and correct analysis of the subject, as con­tained in E:9‑325:

“It is fitting that we who prize his ministry as especially Divinely arranged and directed should consider him as ‘that Servant,’ according to Matt. 24:45‑47 and Luke 12:42‑46. There is even at this late date (1938) more or less confusion among some Truth people as to who or what is meant by the expression, ‘that Servant.’ According to several views the expression, _that Servant,’ refers to a class. Some claim that, understood as a class, the expression, ‘that Servant,’ means the teachers in the Church; others claim that it means the Little Flock; and more latterly still, others – the Tower editors and their disciples – claim that it means the Society, by which we must understand either the Society's directors, organized with their agents, or the shareholders, or both combined. This latter thought we have refuted in detail in vol. 6. In Z '96, 47, and D 613, 614, our dear Pastor modestly gave the proofs that the expression, ‘that Servant,’ refers to an individual, i. e., to himself. With this view all well‑instructed Truth people agreed, until lately the Society leaders, to make their usurped powers more secure, spread the opinion that the Society, a business corporation, is ‘that Servant’.....

“The Scriptures clearly refute such claims, teaching that the expression, ‘that Servant’ means an individual. In both passages 'that Servant’ is clearly distinguished from the church, because he is spoken of as being made ‘ruler over His (the Iord's) household’: hence, he cannot be the household, the Church. Again, the fact that he is spoken of as giving them _meat in due season’ distinguishes him from the _household,’ the Church. Furthermore, his being called the 'steward’ proves that all of the servants of the household cannot be meant, for the steward is the special representative of the householder, having in charge all the latter's goods during his time of office, and as such has also all the other servants in his charge. (In our Lord's day individuals, not classes, were stewards.) Moreover, he is expressly distin­guish­ed in Luke 12:45 from all the other servants, in that he is forbidden to ‘beat the menservants and maidens,’ i.e., all the other servants of the Church. Hence, the expression, ‘that Servant’ cannot mean the servants of the Church as a class, because in this passage he is clearly distinguished from them. Therefore, in view of the fact that these two Scriptures distinguish him from the Church as a whole and from all the other servants of the Truth, we should conclude that he must be an individual.”

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

Then, note the contention that Rutherford “was suspicious of those who seemed to be working to curry favor with him”! The rank hypocrisy of this statement is so well known to all informed people that it needs no further elaboration here. The only ones who did remain at Bethel were those who did extend “angel worship” to him. Back in the 1920's we had some correspondence with Brother George H. Fisher, who com­piled the Ezekiel section of Volume 7. At that time he wrote a personal letter to us, in which he stated that any one who does not recognize J. F. Ruther­ford as That Evil Servant is just that much out of Present Truth.

And we know, too, that Brother Russell's real purpose in selecting Brother Johnson to go to England in the fall of 1916 was because power‑grasping levites in that country were attempting to wrest control of the London Tabernacle and the British work from him. There is quite a difference in our statement here from the one the Jehovah's Witnesses now publish: “Pastor Russell had recognized the need for some one from the Society headquarters to go to Britain to strengthen the brothers there after World War 1 broke out.” Also, it is a matter of record that a great many of those Levites who received sharp criticism from Brother Johnson in England during his trip eventually were proven to be everything, and worse, that Brother Johnson charged them; and a large number of them later also left the Society.

Furthermore, their statement that Brother Johnson “continued as ‘earth's great high priest’ until his death” is just about as slippery and untruthful as anything ever published by the Papacy in their “history‑making” records. Note they do not say Brother Johnson made such a claim – which he never did do; but the uninformed reader would easily enough conclude that such was his contention.

The present writers of the Jehovah's Witnesses literature seem to have been ex­cellent pupils of J F. Rutherford's technique. He, too, was always ready to plant the poisonous seed whenever it served his purpose – seeds which could be interpreted very loosely, with always the opportunity to deny any interpretation that might even­tually prove unwieldly. When the trouble developed between Brother Johnson and J. F. Rutherford we decided to give each one fair and impartial brotherly justice. There­fore, when Brother Johnson said J. F. Rutherford had sent a cablegram to England, tell­ing those brethren there that Johnson is an insane usurper and to incarcerate him, we wrote J. F. Rutherford asking if he had sent such a cable. His answer: “I don't remember”! That statement was sufficient for us to conclude with whom we should place our alliance; and the reward of the blessed Epiphany Truth has compensated us multi­plied times during the past forty years for that decision.

For the record, it should be stated here, too, that J F. Rutherford was making bombastic claims forty years ago, claims that were perfect companions for the Papal claims all during the Dark Ages. Among others, he proclaimed that he would break the Devil's back in a year's time if he could just have a million dollars. He also pre­dicted a subscription list of four million in one year for The Golden Age. Instead, in less than one year news vendors were refusing the paper space because so very few sales were effected for it.

Perhaps the most despicable aspect of this foray into falsehood lies in waiting until Brother Johnson was dead before producing it; he is no longer here to answer the hypocritical charges and deceptive jugglery that these uncleansed Levites now audaciously circulate. Of course, these are the same people who for many years now have ridiculed the idea of character development by Christians, so we need be surprised at nothing to which they may stoop; their characters don't concern them very much. It is a matter of public record that Brother Johnson was manhandled and ejected by physical force from Bethel that day in July 1917, and his personal effects were shoved into the street after him. And his defense of Harvest Truth and his vast product of advancing Truth since then are the clear evidence of God's approval upon him, as his betrayers have sunk deeper and deeper into the cesspool of Satanic error. And we offer a prayer of profound thanks that we can offer this defense in Brother Johnson's absence, as we praise God for his blessed memory.

It should be noted, too, that Jesse Hemery, H J. Shearn and W. Crawford are not even mentioned in connection with Brother Johnson's English activities in 1917 – or anywhere else in the book under discussion —, although these three were the main insti­gators in the opposition which Brother Johnson attempted to correct; and we are in­formed all three of them later left the Society, taking with them a number of their partisan supporters. Thus, time itself has clearly demonstrated that Brother Johnson's evaluation of them was correct. Yet these three ringleaders of the 1917 English rebel­lion are not even mentioned, the attack being centered exclusively upon the dead man. WHY?

As all of us know, power‑grasping Levites have abode in abundance “in the plains of Moab” all during the Epiphany; God's faithful people have been surrounded by them on all sides – and now especially so as we “weep” for antitypical Moses. But, as we recognize that the last members of antitypical Moses “watched over our souls as they that must give an account,” we exclaim once more – God bless their memory!

In conclusion, we believe it fitting to offer some comment on Micah 5:5 – “When the Assyrian (the errorists) shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise up against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.” When we first pondered publication of “The Three Babylons” tract, we did so with considerable misgivings; but it would now seem to have had the Lord's overruling and blessing – the truth about the Jehovah's Witnesses was already here waiting for them when their latest production in error arrived. Please understand we do not claim membership among the “seven shepherds”; but we do utter a prayer of thanks at every memory of the two “principal men” whose sound teachings have equipped us to put to flight all Assyrians (errorists).

And may the “spirit of understanding” abide richly with all to whom this writing may come!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NOTE: — Extra copies may be obtained free upon request.

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

“John's Baptism” During Jewish Harvest

In this Sept‑Oct. 1959 P.T. the subject of John's Baptism is again elaborated, and R. G. Jolly once more refers to “the sifting errorist” without mentioning our name (his name‑calling being just one more evidence of his weakness). As we have repeatedly stated, the exact number of years that John's Baptism prevailed is not at all essential to our present belief and practise of baptism; and entirely too much space has already been expended upon it. R. G. Jolly himself freely admitted that the point “is not fundamental.” Why, then does he continue his harangue – ­and especially in this particular issue of the P.T.? (The initials “P.T.” should very well indicate “Present Perverter,” considering what R. G. Jolly has put into it since Brother Johnson's death)... There can be only one answer: It tends to act as a sort of salve, a smokescreen for the devastating refutations we have been giving his Campers Consecrated FALSE DOCTRINE, his gross revolu­tion­ism on the Epiphany period, and other FUNDAMENTAL teachings in our various papers. His attempt to seek refuge now in a trivial point NOT FUNDAMENTAL (as he himself admitted as far back as 1954) is simply a move of desperation on his part.

He makes quite some play on the olive tree and the wild branches; but, if he were clear on this matter, he would have made it clear in this paper under review. Once the natural branches were broken off, they then became identical in every way (except in the Divine knowledge that may have been theirs through heredity) to the wild branches; and John's Baptism today would avail them no more than it would the Gentiles. This being true, why the “profusion of words” about it? Can it be as a cover‑up for his omission of the most pertinent of all Scriptures on this subject – namely, 1 Pet. 3:21? Please note his complete silence on this most pointed and direct Scripture! As we previously explained, this epistle by St. Peter is directed specifically “to the so­journers of the dispersion” (Diaglott) – those Jews who had been dispersed to the ex­treme northeast part of Asia Minor, in those locales known as the Black Sea provinces. R. G. Jolly repeatedly accuses us of being “out of harmony” with the last Star Members, yet he himself displayed a sneering contempt over Brother Russell's Berean Comment that these people were “Jews, Israelites.” We realize full well that they were Christian converts, although Jews by birth. And to these very people St. Peter says that baptism is “not a putting away of the filth of the flesh,” which was certainly true of those who properly received John's Baptism. And why is R. G. Jolly silent on this text? Why, because he can't answer it —because it is a direct contradiction to his entire position! Of course, he's just doing the same here as he's been doing with fundamental texts that pertain to the Saints – just keeping silent.

It doesn't require extreme astuteness to understand that Paul's epistle to the Ephesians was principally directed to erstvhile Greeks who had accepted Christianity; but the 18th chapter of Acts – which offers the foundation for Acts 19:1‑6 – stresses the Jewish background of those in Ephesus at that time. Notice also Acts 19:8, where Paul worked in the “synagogue boldly for three months” after the incident related in the previous verses.

R. G. Jolly hurls contempt at our contention that at no time (except in the case of Jesus Himself) did two baptisms ever operate at the same time. We make such a state­ment because the Scriptures nowhere declare such a situation. Let R. G. Jolly present a “thus saith the Lord” if he has any to offer. We have repeatedly invited him to offer one single instance where John's Baptism was approved after the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10:48. This he hasn't answered because he can't answer it. It is clear enough from the 18th chapter of Acts that Apollos was not clear on baptism, “being acquainted only with the immersion of John” – vs. 25. R. G. Jolly has consistently ignored the situation in this entire chapter. Why? Note also his quotation on P. 78, col. 2, par. 3 of Brother Russell's observation: “It is possible that some sort of special favor continued with this class (Jews) until the full end of the Jewish har­vest, A.D. 69.” We invite our readers to take note of Brother Russell's moderation in this matter – “it is possible” – in contrast to the bombast of R. G. Jolly. And Brother Russell adopted this attitude because he realized the Scriptures were silent on the subject, and his moderation in his statement gives us just one more evidence that he was “wise.” And what a refreshing contrast this is when it is paired with Levitical bombast. Also, the event of Acts 19:1‑6 was within a very few years of the time St. Peter wrote his epistle to the “Jews,” telling them baptism was not effica­cious to “putting away the filth of the flesh.” Thus, R. G. Jolly now has the two leading Apostles of the Jewish Harvest contradicting each other on the subject of Bap­tism; but that doesn't seem to bother him at all – although he still has the colossal effrontery to yell “sifting errorist” at JJH – just as his “cousin” J W. Krewson is also doing, without attempting any answer to 1 Pet. 3:21! So we now invite them both once more to explain this text in harmony with their contentions, or forever hold their peace!

At this point we should take a close appraisal of Eph. 4:5 (Dia.), “there is one immersion,” and its related text in Gal. 3:24‑29. An analysis of the background for these two Epistles should prove very helpful. The Ephesian letter was written by St. Paul after his experience in Ephesus as given in Acts 19:1‑6. Also, there is some opinion (which lacks conclusive proof) that Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians while he was in Ephesus after the Acts 19 episode. Nor need it surprise us that the first converts in both these places would be Jews. If any of us were going to Hong Kong, China, to circulate the Truth, would it not be the most reasonable and expedient course that we should go first to the American settlement there? And that's the exact course taken by Apollos in Acts 18: “He began to speak boldly in the synagogue” (v. 26‑Dia.), as St. Paul himself also did, as evidence Acts 19:8. Therefore, it should be reason­able enough to conclude that the Ephesian congregation was mixed with Jews and Gentiles – just as was true in Galatia.

Let us consider now the history of Galatia: In 280 B.C. it was settled by the Gauls, whose original habitat was the central part of modern France. They came to Galatia as nomadic conquerors; hence, the origin of the name – Galatia, Keltae or Galli. Just prior to the advent of Jesus, Rome's Emperor Augustus designated it a Roman province, Galatia (one of the Black Sea provinces) – which name may be evolved "Gaul of Asia" (Julius Caesar had conquered Gallic France just a few years before Augustus became emperor), "Gaul‑Asia," or "Galatia." At A.D. 1 there were four dis­tinct nationalities there – Phrygian, Greek, Gallic and Roman, with Jews undoubtedly interspersed among them – the “sojourners of the dispersion.” Thus, St. Paul faced a situation here very similar to the one at Ephesus – a mixed congregation; and he offers some instruction to the Jewish segment how to regard their erstwhile heathen brethren. Previous to their acceptance of Christ, those heathen brethren had been worshipers of Bacchus and Cybele, the worship of whom was accompanied by wild music, dancing, sexual and alcoholic excesses, and hideous mutilations. And to this element would St. Paul's words in Gal. 5:19‑21 be most pertinent: “Now the works of the flesh are manifestly these – fornication, debauchery... inebrities, revellings ... those who practise such things shall not inherit God's Kingdam” – (Dia.).

Then we note Paul's teaching to the Jewish element in Galatia: “The law has became our pedagogue to lead to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But the faith having come, we are no longer under a pedagogue... as many of you as were immersed into Christ, were clothed with Christ. In him there is not Jew nor Greek... you are all one in Christ Jesus” – Gal. 3:24‑28, Dia. Here is a clear exposition of the fusion that occurred after the 70th week. Previous to that, “salvation was to the Jew first”; and Jesus instructed the disciples to “go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” This instruction they followed meticulously until the 70th week expired; and they would have continued in the same groove even after that had not the Lord given Peter a spec­ial vision to refrain from it. Thus, to the end of the 70th week there were Jews only; but after that there was “neither Jew nor Greek.” In the face of this, R. G. Jolly's contention that John's Baptism continued in effect until the end of the Jewish Harvest is just some more of his nonsense.

To such conglomerate congregations St. Paul writes, “there is one immersion” (Eph. 4:5, Dia.), and that there is neither “Jew nor Greek.” Had there been two im­mersions in vogue then, certainly such a capable and inspired teacher as St. Paul would have offered the explanation. We understand, of course, that the “one immersion” is fundamentally that immersion into Christ which operates through the Holy Spirit. How­ever, the word “immersion” in Eph. 4:5 is from “Baptisma,” and is the same word as con­tained in Luke 3:3 – “He (John) preached the immersion (Baptisma) of reformation.” The same is found in Rom. 6:4 — “We have been entombed with him by the immersion (baptisma) unto that death.” And St. Peter uses the same word in 1 Pet. 3:21: “Immersion (bap­tisma), a representation of this (Noah's experience in the ark completely surrounded by water) now saves us; not a putting away of the filth of the flesh.” St. Peter qualifies his use of “baptisma” to fit the picture he is portraying; but, in the absence of such qualification, then we can only conclude that the “one baptisma” must be all‑inclusive of all its features. This is confirmed (perhaps inadvertently) by Brother Russell himself in the Berean Comment on Eph. 4:5 – “one baptism‑consecration, and only one proper symbol of it.” Thus, we once again invite the “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson) to present a counter‑explanation of Eph. 4:5, Gal. 3:24‑28 and 1 Pet. 3:21 – if they have one – or now forever hold their peace!

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

Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle:

The following letter has been sent to R. G. Jolly to correct the falsehood told about the Winston‑Salem, N. C., brethren from the platform at this Chicago Convention. You may use this in any way you see fit for the best interests of the Truth:

To R. G. Jolly: —

You made the statement from the Convention platform at Chicago that some of the Winston‑Salem brethren had approached you to shake hands with you there – even though they had disfellow­ship­ed you. None of the Winston‑Salem brethren approached you to shake hands with you – either in the meeting hall or outside. However, you did ap­proach the two of us outside the meeting hall and offered your hand to us. If you made a mistake and did not recognize us, that was no excuse for the unmitigated false­hood you told the brethren assembled at that Convention.

It seems to bother you not at all to resort to falsehood whenever it seems convenient – “But be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” We understand it is our privilege and duty to greet publicans and sinners as kindly as the occasion requires – and this we did with you when you offered us your hand. But we did not greet you as “brother.”

Your continued erroneous course and many falsehoods manifested at this Chicago Con­vention further convince us that our course was the right one when we disfellowshiped you. We wish it were otherwise – we heartily wish and earnestly desire that you “turn from your path of error,” so that we could once again fellowship with you in the best of bonds, the Truth and its Spirit.

   You also insinuated that about all the brethren gathered at that Convention to up­hold Brother Hoefle's courageous stand for Truth and righteousness were relatives of Sister Hoefle. There were very few (only three) related by blood to Sister Hoefle; and you yourself know that the majority of the brethren assembled there for the pur­pose of upholding Brother Hoefle's hand as he seeks to serve the lord, were not physi­cally related to him or to Sister Hoefle at all – that they were related only in the best of bonds – spiritual unity.

   Your “very important” business meeting could only be matched by the Jehovah's Wit­nesses' “Service” sessions (a substitute for Testimony meetings held in Brother Rus­sell's day). “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of gehenna than yourselves.” (Matt. 23:15) Without a “business session” the brethren were there to serve the Truth – those who are upholding Truth and Righteousness.

   You also confessed that your group is no more in the Truth than the sects in Big Babylon – “maybe they had one degree more Truth than they have.” “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,” saith the Lord. Brothers Russell and Johnson clearly dis­tinguished between the sects in Big Babylon and “Truth People” – and they invited the brethren in Big Babylon to come out from among them. We readily admit that there are many good people in Big Babylon who have not yet received the Truth – but so long as they believe in the God‑dishonoring doctrines of Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead we cannot now designate them as “Truth People” – although some of them will yet come into the Truth and be faithful to it in their “due time” (and may have more of its spirit than you do even now).

Sincerely, -----------------

NO. 54: "I WILL SEND THE HORNET BEFORE THEE"

No. 54

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

The exodus of Israel from Egypt was indeed a stupendous undertaking in material, physical strength and courageous determination. The burden upon Moses in that effort is probably beyond a sound evaluation by any human being living today. God knew this full well; and He gave Moses and the Jews abundant encouragement for the immediate present, and in His promises of future special helps. One of these promises is con­tained in Ex. 23:28: "I will send hornets before thee, which will drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee." The word "hornets in this text is a collective noun and should read "the hornet" – just as we might speak of the fly, the hawk, the wolf, etc.

The Jews had been long under the oppressive yoke, an experience that could not fail to deplete their combative qualities. Thus, humanly speaking, it is no great surprise that they quickly wilted under trialsome experiences, and often plagued the beloved Moses and Aaron for the "leeks, the melons, the onions, the garlic" which had been theirs in Egypt—(Numbers 11:5). Also, they readily forgot the precious promise of "the hornet before thee" when the ten spies brought back their evil report of Numbers 13. "There we saw the giants," the spies had told them, "and we were ... as grass-hoppers...in their sight." This word "giant" is from the Hebrew "Nephilim," the same word as found in Gen. 6:4, "There were giants (Nephilim – fallen ones) in the earth in those days. With the horrifying tales of the great deluge that were handed down by "the fathers," there had come the legend of the "giants" that existed before that flood – those virile creatures, half god and half man, that permeate all Greek and Latin mythology, described as demigods in the numerous accounts. Self-evidently, the Jewish tradition was also impregnated with accounts of these "fiends from Hell" –creatures which they had never seen, but believed to be in existence in some hidden retreat. Thus, they were ready listeners when the ten spies reported to them that the Nephilim, the fallen ones, that race of super men, were the foes they must meet if they crossed Jordan into Canaan. "And the people wept that night...and murmured against Moses and against Aaron... Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt... let us return into Egypt" – Num. 14:1-4.

How easily is the fallen human heart and mind deceived and melted! Undoubtedly there were real giants in Canaan; Goliath of David's day 450 years later is proof sufficient of that. But Goliath, nor any of his kind, were of the Nephilim; God had attended to their annihilation in Noah's day.  And David proved speedily enough that the Goliaths in the camps of their enemies were creatures of frailty, vulnerable to the weapons, emotions, and senses, even as were the Jews themselves. Nor could any Goliath before nor since remain quietly in ambush behind rock or bush under the rousing sting of a hornet. It is said that the sting of six hornets has been suffi­cient to kill a horse, so we need no vivid imagination to evaluate the advantage that would be with the Jews as God would "send the hornet before them" – a promise which the Jews en masse so speedily disbelieved.

But, in addition to Moses and Aaron, who "fell on their faces," Caleb and Joshua held faith in God's promise: "The land... is an exceeding good land ... the Lord will give it to us," But the people would not hear, preferring instead the forty years' wandering in the wilderness, at the end of which all males who had departed Egypt at twenty years and over were corpses in that wilderness – all except the two, Caleb and Joshua. Therefore, when God repeated his promise in Deut. 7:20 to "send the hornet" among the Jews' adversaries, Moses was talking to a new generation – although it is clear enough from Joshua's farewell address that he had believed and had seen with his own eyes that "He is faithful that promised"; the Lord had indeed "sent the hornet be­fore them." (Josh. 24:12)

The Antitype

In considering this type, it should first of all be stressed that only the Hit­tites, the Canaanites and the Hivites are named in Ex. 23:28; whereas, at least a dozen nations are mentioned at various times – Amorites, Perrizites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Amalekites, Ammonites, Philistines, Maonites, Moabites – this list not including the Zidonians, whom the Jews never attempted to conquer, but usually held in friendly re­lationship. It will be noted, however, in E-12-516 that Brother Johnson lists only seven nations of Canaan whom Joshua conquered – the Canaanites (worldliness), Hit­tites (cowardice), Amorites (sinfulness), Perrizites (siftingism), Hivites (sectarian­ism), Girgashites (selfishness), and Jebusites (erroneousness). Brother Johnson also teaches that "the hornet" represented God's opposing and hurting power.

Why, we ask, are only three of the foregoing evils listed in Ex. 23:28? We be­lieve it is because those three sins have been most influential in retarding and de­stroying Christian character and progress all during the Gospel Age. These three –­ the antitypical Hittities (cowardice), Canaanites (Merchants-worldliness) and Hivites (sectarianism) – are the three evils St. Paul specifically opposes in 2 Tim. 1:7 "God did not give to us a cowardly spirit (of the antitypical Hittites) but one of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" – (Dia.)

The opposite of cowardice is courage, and the essence of courage is power (will power) and a strong heart. The quality of courage, when balanced by love and a sound mind, adorns a character as do diamonds and rubies the physical person. And God gives to all His faithful people the "spirit of power" – will power. "I can do all things through Christ, Who strengtheneth me," says St. Paul; and his great will power is elo­quent testimony to the truth of this statement. There was none of the antitypical Hit­tite (the cowardly spirit) in St. Paul. Courageous men of the world have some quali­ties and slogans that Christians may well emulate. One instructor, when training con­testants for grueling physical combat, always impressed upon them: "The other fellow is as tired as you are!" Thus, when the pace becomes so unbearably severe, and the body is crying for a respite, just remember your opponents feel exactly as weary as you do. "Fear not them that are able to kill the body," said Jesus; and St. Paul had ingrained these words into the very fiber of his heart and mind: "I shall not fear what man may do unto me," for "the fear of man bringeth a snare."

Secondly, the antitypical Canaanite (worldliness) is the very antithesis of (agape) love; and God has given His people this "hornet," the spirit of love, to enable them to overcome worldliness.  The two are exact opposites. "Love not the world (cosmos), nor the things in the world (cosmos). If any one love the world (cosmos), the love of the Father is not in him." (1 Jno. 2:15) The Canaanites were the lowlanders, the merchants who pursue vigorously the things of the world. "Where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also"; consequently, one cannot be motivated by the spirit of (agape) love, and yet put his heart into "the things of this world" – this cosmos.

Thirdly, the antitypical Hivite (sectarianism) is the extreme opposite of "the spirit of a sound mind." Note Brother Johnson's description in E-4-291 (47):

"Sectarianism is a great sin; for it does not act from devotion to the Truth, the Truth arrangements and the Spirit of the Truth (which virtues are the Gospel-Age "inheritance of the land" – JJH), but from devotion to partisanship. The Truth, its arrangements and its spirit are by it neglected or antagonized whenever this is in the interest of the sect. Their actual, though not verbal motto is: My party, I stand for it, right or wrong,"

And, further in E-4-299: "The works of sectarianism are wrath, strife, envy, prejudice, partiality, enmity, persecution and misrepresentation of the faithful, approval of certain evils and disapproval of certain good things of the Truth and its arrangements." Certainly, we can find none of "the spirit of a sound mind" in these reprehensible evils.

The sectarian spirit is one of the evidences of Great Company uncleanness – a clear proof that they have not extirpated the antitypical Hivite from their characters. The fully faithful gain complete victory over the Hittite (cowardice), over the Canaanite (worldliness), and over the Hivite (sectarianism); the fully unfaithful make full com­promise with these evils, and thus, shipwreck of their future; the Great Company make partial "covenant with them, and with their gods" (Ex. 23:32) – which is the direct cause of them losing their crowns. The fully faithful, who wage successful warfare against these evils, gain the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth as their unchangeable posses­sion – a goodly prize indeed for fighting "the good fight" – "more than conquerors." "Therefore, brethren, more earnestly endeavor to do these things, for thus richly will be furnished to you the entrance into the aionian Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

We may also offer a secondary application to "the hornet," as the sharp stinging truths in the Bible. Who of us has not had the experience of quoting a pertinent anni­hilative text to some gainsayer; then see him jump from his chair as though stung by a hornet! A good instance of this is to be found in Acts 21:28: "Men of Israel, help!" Those Jews had been "stung" by St. Paul's teachings to the point of willing to murder him. But Paul here again gave testimony that he had eliminated the antitypical Hittite (cowardice) from his character, as he calmly asked the Roman commander: "I entreat thee, permit me to speak to the people." How many would have been only too glad to "call it a day" after being rescued from a shrieking murder-bent mob; but St. Paul, "good soldier" that he was, gave again eloquent witness !hat "God did not give to us a cowardly spirit." And may his example be a strong stimulus to all who strive to "inherit the land" – the Truth, and the Spirit of the Truth.

Ephraim To The Battle

This treatise would be hardly complete were we to omit some comment on Judges 7:24-25, where we are informed "the men of Ephraim... took the two princes of the Mid­ianites, Oreb and Zeeb ... and brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon on the other side of Jordan." (See E-5:226-229) Oreb (raven) represents Sectarianism – just as does "the Hivite" in Ex. 23:28 – and Zeeb types Clericalism; and those two prince errors are the same as typed by the two golden calves which Jeroboam constructed, one in Bethel and the other in Dan – (see 1 Kings 12:26-30). And the victory over these princes is designated specifically as going to "the men of Ephraim" (typical of the Youthful Wor­thies in this Epiphany period), with no mention whatever made of the Great Company. This, Brother Johnson explains, is because

"The Lord counts as overcomers ... only those who first in their own characters overcome the disposition underlying such doctrines and practices ... just as only the 144,000 are counted victors over the Beast and his Image, tho, as we know, the Truth section of the Great Company opposed the Beast and his Image, but...are not more than overcomers ... however much they verbally preach and zealously work against them... On the other hand, from the type we infer that the Youthful Worthies overcome in their own characters the spirit of Sectarianism and Clericalism ... This consideration should arouse the Great Company to cleanse themselves"--(E-5:229).

It is well to stress here that sectarianism is of Satanic origin – a product of Azazel. And, as Brother Johnson has so clearly taught, the Great Company serve Azazel with the bad part of their minds (the 'fleshly mind' that must be destroyed if they are to be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus), as they also serve God with the good part of their minds. That is why James refers to them as "doubleminded." Thus, pro­moting and developing sectarianism with the bad part of their minds, they have built up the various sects in Big and Little Babylon, instead of fighting this evil as the Saints and fully faithful Youthful Worthies have done unto complete victory in their own characters. And, while individual Great Company members may suppress this evil in themselves, the vast majority will cling tenaciously to their various sects until the Lord Himself separates them from those sects by extreme scourging in Armageddon through the destruction of their sects. But, for the present, we are safe in concluding that any Great Company or Youthful Worthies who manifest the sectarian spirit are actually serving Azazel, regardless of the denials ;hey may put forth to the contrary. This is why ;he-Great Company are not mentioned as victors in the battle against Oreb and Zeeb; theirs is not a "more than conquerors" victory because their cleansing from this great sin is forced upon them when "their hearts are brought down with labor." (Psa. 107:12)

We should ever keep in mind that it was the Little Flock's faithfulness in anti­typical Gideon's First Battle that emphatically attested they were of the ''very elect.'' And we conclude from this that it will be the faithfulness of the Youthful Worthies in the battle against antitypical Oreb and Zeeb that will eventually determine them "worthy" to occupy places of rulership in the Kingdom with the "worthies" of the ages preceding this Gospel Age. Inasmuch as the Great Company do not make full conquest of these sins within themselves, they cannot serve as examples to those Youthfuls who accept their leadership. It is rather the example of the Fully Faithful that has been their help and instructor thus far – and will continue to be so to the consummation of the Epiphany. It is quite probable that those who fail in this conquest will find themselves either back in the world or among the quasi-elect in the Kingdom, and not among the fully faith­ful Worthies – although some of them have been the loudest professors, just as was true of Great Company. This should certainly cause each one to "examine himself" to determine whether he is performing "in sincerity and in Truth" his part in this "good fight" against antitypical Oreb and Zeeb, or whether he be "wallowing" in the mire of the great sin of depraved Sectarianism.

We believe, though, that a warning is here appropriate, lest any come to speedy judg­ment toward those now enmeshed in these evils. We are told in Ex. 23:29, "I will not drive them out (the Hittite, Canaanite and Hivite) from before thee in one year: lest the land become desolate and the beast of the field multiply against thee." This is just another way of saying what Brother Russell said about grand characters – they do not spring up mushroomlike overnight, but are fine-grained and strong like the olive tree – the result of years of determination in fighting "the good fight." Thus, the Lord allows each one time sufficient for his needs to "inherit the land" (the sphere of the Truth and its spirit); and it is only the "Lord who looketh on the heart" that can give equitable evaluation to each one. It should be sufficient for each one that he determine for himself that he is conquering the Hittite (cowardice), the Canaanite (worldliness), and the Hivite (sectarianism) from his own character and giving that assistance to others of his brethren who are "of the Truth."

We urge all to continue in this "good fight," ever "abounding in the work of the lord."

Sincerely your brother,

John  J.  Hoefle  Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – Why do you continue to attend L.H.M.M. Conventions when some of the brethren there snub you, and R. G. Jolly openly states you are not welcome?

ANSWER: - We do this because we have the joyful assurance that we do help some of our brethren by our attendance, and because we have a deep pity for those who ignore and abuse us. It is indeed a sore tragedy to see erstwhile brethren – brethren who have been blessed with many years of the blessed Epiphany Truth – now being brow­beaten by an officious Levite, just as the papal adherents allow themselves to be herded by the Catholic clergy. Ten years ago we would not have believed this possible in our own 'house."

It is indeed strange how "Circumstances alter cases."  Early in the Epiphany R. G. Jolly was going from class to class in commendable manner to help weak brethren who were being enslaved by That Evil Servant – just as Jesus Himself went into the synagogue in like purpose (and the same as we do when we attend his – R. G. Jolly's ­Conventions). R. G. Jolly then suffered for righteousness at the hands of That Evil Servant, as he faithfully cooperated with the last Star Member; and it is truly lamen­table that he now has reversed his position since he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950. For this he is receiving severe humiliation; and this will continue to be his portion until he cleanses himself or is finally ejected entirely from God's Household. And those who now contribute to his delinquency, and thus become a partaker of his sins, may be certain to receive the chastening rod also if they remain among the Epiphany Elect.

At this Philadelphia Convention some one – unknown to us – asked if the "sifters" had denied the Ransom or the Sin Offering. This put R. G. Jolly in a very awkward posi­tion; but he was forced to admit they have not done so. But they are still "sifters"! Why are they sifters? Why, because R. G. Jolly says they are; and does any one dare question him about it! This is identical to That Evil Servant's answer to a disturbed brother who journeyed all the way to Brooklyn for an answer to questions that were troubling him. And what reception did he receive? J. F. Rutherford roughly said to him, "How dare you question me"? And that same evil one branded our beloved Brother Johnson a "sifter" – just as R.G.J. now does to us, and just as was done to Jesus and to all the fully Faithful all during the Age by perverting Levites. And they, and we, have been "sifters" of commendable sort.  All have "sifted" the error from the Truth, just as we have been doing since 1950. Indeed, our “sifting" efforts in this respect have closed R. G. Jolly's mouth so completely on one perversion after another that the only cry left to him is "sifter," Our July and September papers have probably now forced him to silence on Campers Consecrated and his perversions on the "Salt" and the "Light." And if we receive persecution for such "sifting," happy are we, because the edict is cer­tain, "All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." And we once more call upon all who have received the blessed Parousia and Epiphany Truth "in sincerity" to cherish it according to their inalienable right therein, "to be strong, to quit you like men" (1 Cor. 16:13), and not to allow a dictatorial and perverting Levite to "tread in your palaces," (Micah 5:5)

QUESTION:– Why are you so certain no Great Company member could bring forth a new doctrine?

ANSWER:– In addition to Brother Johnson's clear Epiphany teaching, we  have  past  and present Gospel-Age experience; and the experience  itself  should  be  enough without Brother Johnson's corroboration. Certainly, no one grounded in Epiphany Truth would contend that any of the leaders in the 59 groups of Little Babylon have produced any advancing Truth (new doctrines) since 1916.  We all know they have given only advancing error. Why, then, should we expect anything different from the 60th post, the L.H.M.M.? It is an Age-old human weakness for rabid sectarians to "thank God they are not as other men" (Luke 18:11), when in reality many such have been even worse than those they castigate. Also, we believe our refutations of R. G. Jolly's "advancing Truth" (particularly his Epiphany Campers Consecrated) should convince all unbiased minds of the inherent errors in his new doctrines. We may have more to say about this in a later issue.

QUESTION:– Would you please give us your opinion of "Professor Jolly's comments on grammar, etc., in this last Sept-Oct. Present Truth?

ANSWER :– Brother Russell and Brother Johnson have certainly made it clear enough that each "ambassador for Christ" should strive toward emulation of our "Great Example" in thought, word and deed; but we also have St. Paul's observation that "not many great, nor many noble" have been called into God's Household. Also, Brother John­son has made it clear enough by his teachings and his own grand example that a brilliant mind schooled in the lore of this world is certainly no disadvantage in serving the Lord if those qualities be combined with a "good and honest heart." However, we believe it to be elemental, too, that the Lord has called many "ignorant and unlearned" men because of their inherent and cultivated good heart qualities, and has passed by the polished and highly educated, as evidence his selection of Brother Russell to be That Servant in preference to Dr. Cook and others who firmly considered they should have the seat "at the head of the table," Thus, an unlearned man who recognizes his limitations in proper humility (a true self-estimate) always holds far greater favor with the Lord than one schooled in technical niceties who rates himself too highly. It is well stated that a fool is a fool until he's educated; then he becomes an educated fool!

Take the case of R. G. Jolly himself: If the Lord had called him in place of an "ignorant and unlearned" Apostle, or instead of Brother Russell, we would have had all sorts of perversions in the New Testament, or in the Harvest Truth – and all of them in excellent grammatical etiquette (according to R. G. Jolly's rating) no errors in grammar (not many anyway!), but plenty of perversions presented in the finest (?) "wrappers." We all know that some of the pilgrims under Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were very effective under the sage handling of the Star Members, though their in­stitutional schooling was sometimes painfully limited. Brother Johnson describes how true this was of Evangelist Dwight Moody (although Dwight Moody never fully accepted Har­vest Truth, of course). But those pilgrims of limited education who remained in Epi­phany Truth until 1950 did not revolutionize under the guiding hand of Brother Johnson; so we think it proper to conclude that their lacks in education have not been the determining factor in their revolutionisms under the influence of R. G. Jolly since he has fal­len into the hands of Azazel. And none of the "ignorant and unlearned" during the en­tire Age have lost their crowns because of illiteracy; whereas, many of the Great Com­pany have probably lost their crowns because they knew too much from secular books, and too little of " The Book" (the Bible), the "Wisdom from Above."

On p. 77, col. 2, par. 1, of this Sept-Oct. PT under discussion, R. G. Jolly cites the case of "one of Brother Johnson's Pilgrims" who "seemed to resent" Brother Johnson's correction for his use of slang. Here is an example of R. G. Jolly's use of his own "wisdom" and "education" (using his 'fleshly mind' instead of the pure Wisdom from Above). He does not give the name of that brother, although we can be cer­tain from our knowledge of his past and present methods of campaign that he would readily "whisper" that name to any and all who ask it – just as he was "whispering" that JJH is "out of harmony on baptism" even while he was addressing JJH as "dear brother." Yet, when cornered, he admitted that the point wasn't fundamental. If any who read these comments are interested enough to inquire of R. G, Jolly the name of that pilgrim he cites, then we suggest they ask him also to let them see his proof (cite the refer­ence if it is a matter of public record). That should convince them of the kind of "stewardship" R, G. Jolly now considers to be his, as he calls to others to demonstrate "fidelity" in their own stewardship. We also admonish "fidelity" upon all, and we en­deavor to place an example of true Christian fidelity before them. R. G. Jolly says we are "verbose, repetitious and effusive." One would think he would be the last one to call attention to those words, as they are copied from Brother Johnson's writings about R. G. Jolly. Let R. G. Jolly show one instance where Brother Johnson ever accused JJH of such "lung thinking" – either in his public writings or private correspondence.