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.

NO. 53: SOME TIME FEATURES

No. 53

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

In E‑12‑368 Brother Johnson gives some excellent details on the 70 years’ Jewish captivity in Babylon, and the depopulation of the land during that time – from the fall of 607 B.C. to 536. Then he tells us this is a parallel to the end of this Age when “Satan began the antitypical 70 years’ depopulation of Christendom” – in 1914. Of these 70 years 45 are already past, leaving 25 years still future – to be ended in 1984. The beginning of the Jewish captivity was 2520 years from the end of Adam’s Day; and, just as the Assyrians then began the desolation of fleshly Israel, so the antitypical Assyrians began the desolation of spiritual Israel 2520 years later in 1914, from which time the captivity of spiritual Israel as represented in the nominal church has been growing steadily worse. But, just as the Jews experienced some easing of their bondage in 536 B.C., so we may expect some easing of the present bondage upon Christendom 2520 years later – or, in 1984.

Adam’s Day

It was told to Adam, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17); and “Adam lived 930 years, and he died.” (Gen. 5:5) From this it is evident that there remained 70 years of Adam’s Day after he died. If the parallel of this situation is to occur in the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:19‑23), then we need not look for Restitution to begin in even a remote manner before 70 years have elapsed after the Kingdom is set up, which Brother Russell showed from the chronology, the parallel dispensations, and the signs of the times, occurred in September 1914. Adding 70 years to 1914 would also bring us to 1984 – or 2520 years after the Jewish captivity came to an end, and the decree was promulgated to allow them to return to Palestine. Please understand we are making no specific prediction for the year 1984 other than that the stress upon Christendom will be materially eased at that time; but to what extent we cannot now be certain at this early date.

“ISRAEL WEPT FOR MOSES THIRTY DAYS”

In Deu. 34:8 it is recorded, “The children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days”; and it was not until the thirty days were ended that Joshua was told by the Lord to, “arise, go over this Jordan.” In leading Israel from Egypt to Jordan Moses certainly is a most compelling and clearly defined type of the Star Mem­bers in this Gospel Age, who have been leading spiritual Israel from Egypt to the Heavenly Canaan. But the last Star Member died in 1950; and, if there is to be an antitypical weeping for antitypical Moses by God’s faithful Israel, we can reasonably conclude it will be on the oft‑used scale of a day for a year, the end of which will occur in 1980.

At this early date it is not necessary for us to draw minute conclusions for the year 1960; but we do believe we are justified in stating that at least some of God’s fully faithful Epiphany Elect will yet be on earth up to that date to continue the 30 antitypical days of weeping – a year for each day of the type. Who of us who were intimately acquainted with the last Star Members do not experience sharp pangs of grief at every thought of their leaving us! And this grief will surely continue with us until we ourselves have finished our course as they did – “faithful until death.”

The word Jordan means “Judged down.” Among other things, the River Jordan is a type of the human race under the curse of sin and death. Also, in E‑9‑269(18) we are told “the Church’s last Gospel‑Age station was outside but near the nominal church (Jericho) when about to leave this earth for the Kingdom by death (Jordan).” Thus, if Jordan types “death” in this picture, it may be a reasonable assumption that the last of the fully faithful Epiphany elect will have came to the end of their journey preparatory to entering the Millennial Canaan, after which the large Joshua (the glori­fied Christ) will press the march to “inherit the land.” This is in the large anti­type, of course, and should not be confused with the small Epiphany antitype of Joshua.

Carrying the large antitype a little farther, Josh. 3:10 holds forth the promise: “The living God ... will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.” And Josh. 24:11 tells us this promise was fulfilled under the leadership of Joshua: “I delivered them into your hand.” In E‑12‑516 we find the meanings of these various names as follows: Canaanites – worldliness; Hittites ­– cowardice; Amorites – sinfulness; Etrizzites – siftingism; Hivites – sectarianism; Girgashites – selfishness; Jebusites – erroneous­ness. And there is also the explana­tion that these “dis”‑graces are the opposites of the seven primary graces as we find them given in 2 Pet. 1:5‑7: fortitude, knowledge, self‑control, patience, piety, brotherly‑kindness and love (Dia.). Brother Johnson and Brother Russell have treated all of these qualities in great detail, so we shall offer only limited comment on them here.

These seven primary graces are the total substance of a perfect character, as all other secondary and tertiary graces are embodied in them. They are the complete ex­pression of perfect wisdom, justice, power and love. Wisdom is the proper and correct application of “knowledge.” Justice embraces “piety” and “brotherly‑kindness,” be­cause these graces are a duty as required by Justice. Power is used and expressed in “fortitude,” “self‑control” and “patience.” Love is the heart of (agape) “love.” And these are the opposites of the evils listed in Josh. 3:10 and 24:11. The oppo­site of error (Jebusites) is Divine “knowledge”; the opposite of sectarianism (Hivites) is “fortitude”; the opposite of sinfulness (Amorites) is “self‑control”; the opposite of cowardice (Hittites) is “patience”; the opposite of siftingism (Ferizzites) is “brotherly‑kindness”; the opposite of worldliness (Canaanites) is (agape) “love.”

In the large antitype, the Millennial Joshua will enable the Millennial children of the Christ to overcame the above‑listed evils unto a completion, and to supplant them with the seven primary graces unto perfection. And, when this is done, the possessors of such characters will have “inherited the land” as their everlasting and unchangeable possession – the Truth and the spirit of the Truth. For now, in the small Epiphany picture (which must be viewed separate and distinct from the large antitype) the fully faithful of the Epiphany elect are enabled to wage a “good fight” against these “dis”‑graces, although each one gains the victory in varying degrees, de­pendent upon heredity, application and providential circumstances – with none of them developing the seven graces unto perfection, because they are the capacity only of a perfect man, Jesus being the only one during the Age who possessed them in per­fection and in perfect balance of justice, wisdom, power and love. But the ideal striving of each of us should be to attain them unto perfection, even though that ideal will not be reached until each attains that “better resurrection” that is the sure inheritance of all the fully faithful. And may this ever be the goal of each and all of God’s Epiphany Elect as we “weep” for antitypical Moses!

“IN THE PLAINS OF MOAB”

Furthermore, “the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab.” Moab types clericalism, the same being the haven of power. Here it is well to remember we are still in the time of harvest, and “Jordan < all his banks all the time of harvest” (Josh. 3:15) – a type that the evils of the curse would all be accentuated here in the end of the Age. This has been especially true of power‑graspers in politics, business, capital, labor and religion. “Money is power,” says Solomon; and many capitalists have resorted even to murder to secure money, and more money, and the power that money brings. The efforts of the U. S. Congress to curb corrupt and power‑grasping labor leaders is another illustration to the point.

And in religion power‑grasping has sunk so low and become so brazen that we find uncleansed Levites shouting loudly that they are cleansed; and not only so, but they claim also the office of “Pastor and Teacher” – they are the lord’s mouthpiece. This has been true especially in the Epiphany, and more especially since Brother Johnson’s death – the same bearing a close similarity to the corrupt and sullied clergy of the Dark Ages who claimed for themselves true holiness and custodian of the Truth, all the while they were reeking with moral and spiritual degradation and error. Of such we presently quote the lord’s words, “They have their reward”; they enter the same catalog with the “rich men who have heaped treasure together for the last days.” (Jas. 5:3) In due course we shall probably have much more to say about this, but for now we encourage the “Israelites indeed in whom there is no guile” to allow such power to have their “singing minute” all to themselves, as the true follow­ers of the Lord “wept for Moses in the plains of Moab,” the same being a sublime fig­urative expression that we are surrounded on all sides by power‑grasping < as we prepare to “go over this Jordan,” all the while holding in sacred memory the last of the beloved Star Members. And this we shall continue to do until the antitypical thirty days’ weeping for the Star Members are fully accomplished. May God bless their memory!

To all who receive the foregoing with favor we suggest that an excellent way to offer loving tribute to the last Star Members is by a Special Effort in Antitypical Gideon‘s Second Battle from October 16 to November 7 – in harmony with the custom established by Brother Johnson. To all who wish to follow this suggestion we offer the pertinent literature free upon request, and we gladly anticipate your wishes.

In connection with the above, it is perfectly placed here to relate that R. G. Jolly stated from the platform at this last Labor Day Convention at Philadelphia that he has “no objection if any one wants to put forth a special effort from October 16 to November 7”; and the enthusiam (?) with which he made his “concession” gave clear evidence of the heavy “weeping” he has been doing for antitypical Moses. And so far as we can recall, this is the only time he has mentioned the special effort from a Convention platform since our beloved Brother Johnson’s death. In fact, already in October 1953 (only three short years after the last member of antitypical Moses had departed) he already had his Flying Saucer tract with which to replace the “timeworn and threadbare” tracts for Antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle., and was strong in his emphasis that the brethren put forth a “special effort” every day to distribute his latest brainchild – a product which was not even mentioned this time in our hearing – ­so it would seem his Flying Saucer has become “timeworn and threadbare” in about six brief years – just as J. F. Rutherford’s “new” tracts and literature became, which he continued to replace with other sensational “works” until the same happened to them, and so on. All God’s faithful Parousia and Epiphany enlightened brethren know that those “timeworn and threadbare” tracts for use in Antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle are the best for witness against Big Babylon and their gross errors on these two king errors – Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead (Zebah and Zal­munna). And we again urge the faithful brethren to continue in this “good fight” with the pertinent literature, leaving the Flying Saucers, etc., for those who pre­fer the methods of R. G. Jolly and others who “think for themselves” instead of abiding by the lord’s arrangements for the Truth. Let them cooperate in his “Youth for Christ” adventure with Big Babylon, but let the faithful “continue in His Word and Arrangements.”

It is also worthy of mention that the whispering campaign still continues by letter and conversation that “JJH has a bad spirit,” all the while R. G. Jolly continues with his name‑calling of “Sifter, Errorist, Shyster, Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, Slanderer,” and such like, while we have used only such descriptive nouns against him as we are fully able to prove. And we have had definite reasons for this; Namely, that we con­sider name‑calling among the cheapest, lowest and oldest of Satanic devices. Name-­calling proves nothing, except the weakness of those who resort to it. And this they are usually driven to do by the truth that is hurled against them, and which they can counter by the only weapon left to them – that is, name‑calling. Several hundred years back the unprincipled priestcraft and priestgraft of that day was yelling “heretic” at the same kind of people that are often branded “sifter” today; and swallowed just about as readily by the gullible dupes. It has been clearly demonstrated over the centuries that the way of uncleansed levites is to deify, laud and lament over the Saints of the past, while they with equal ardor persecute the living Saints of their own day.

In his Sunday discourse on Baptism R. G. Jolly elaborated in excellent fashion (a compliment we are happy to pay him) on Gen. 17:9‑14. Especially do we refer to v. 14 – “the man not circumcised..... shall be cut off from his people.” This text is a perfect support for Brother Johnson’s contention that the unconsecrated (uncircumcised) must be ejected from the Court, and thus their Tentative Justification lapses in the finished Epiphany picture. Here is a clear conclusive proof that much R. G. Jolly has been feeding his trusting readers is clearly contradicted by the Bible, while there is just no Scripture to support this false doctrine, which originated in the foolish imagination of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome. He also said he had been criticized for describing “a narrow way” in the late Epiphany picture. If he refer­red to us in this matter, here is just another of his brazen falsehoods, because we are in full accord that the Great Company and Youthful Worthies are on a narrow way in the Court., though not on the narrow way of the Saints. But once more we also declare it is Levitical nonsense to speak of any on “a narrow way” in the Camp, when Gen. 17:14 states clearly enough that those “not circumcised” shall be cut off from his people (the Household of Faith) – that is, they lose their standing in the Epiphany Court, are remanded to the Epiphany Camp, thus forever losing their opportunity to walk “a narrow way” – in which position they remain as quasi‑elect unconsecrated until another and easier way is opened for them on the Highway of Holiness.

It should be noted, too, that there were ten candidates for immersion, mostly juveniles –; and once more in this same paper we do indeed commend R. G. Jolly for his complete silence on his Campers Consecrated and the false doctrines associated with that vagary. Surely, if ever a time were expedient for his clarification of this spiritual bedlam, that Sunday afternoon before those ten newcomers would have been the appropriate time and place for it – had he himself possessed a sanctified confidence in it. It is an elemental Biblical teaching that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh”; and, had this Campers Consecrated teaching been honestly fixed in R. G. Jolly’s heart, he could not have refrained an explanation at such a propi­tious time (especially due to the fact that we have attacked this false doctrine so vigorously). “Thy word was in mine heart, as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay” would have been the attitude of a faithful teacher of a true doctrine.

“Wherefore came out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.” Let each be persuaded in his own mind whether he desires to “continue in His Word and Arrangements” or whether he prefers the new and sensational doctrines and methods of uncleansed Levite leaders. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Letters of General Interest

Dated July 14, 1959

My dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our Blessed Master!

Your letter dated the 5th came safely to hand. I am very glad to hear from you myself... Sister and I sympathize greatly with the family there – especially with Sister Dunnagan regarding Brother Dunnagan’s death. It came to me as quite a blow. I felt as though he was some near relative. That’s just the way I think of you all there. Praise God we sorrow not as those that have no hope. He will come again in that glorious morning!

I note all you have said in your letter and think you both very kind. God bless you in your appointed way! J W. Krewson is truly going from bad to worse. In his June‑July he is casting a slur on our Lord’s return in 1874 – and if not stopped will dampen or chill the faith of some of the younger brethren. He is becoming a slaughter-­weapon man. We are glad that the lord has promised that the very elect will not be deceived. I think these words are most applicable at this time! We fear for him.

My warm Christian love for you and all the dear ones with you. Please do encour­age dear Sister Dunnagan to bear her great test. The Lord has told her it will not be more than she can endure.

Your Sister by His Grace, Sister Condell (Jamaica)

NOTE: – The above is the last letter we received from our beloved Sister Condell – ­just 10 days before her death on July 24. We do indeed “mourn with those who mourn” in this instance, as we do also cherish the hope that she has finally attained her life’s ambition to hear those most sublime of words: “Well done, good and faith­ful servant.” She was a “good soldier” to the last; and we believe a sober appraisal entitles us to say, “She hath done what she could!” Nor can more glowing tribute be given to the strongest and most prominent of God’s Household.

“O! at close of our day may each of us say,

“I have fought my way through;

“I have finished the work thou dids’t give me to do!”

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

It has been some time since I have written to express my thanks for the Truth as you have so carefully arranged for all who would still love the Lord more than life.

It has been years since I have been to a denominational meeting of any kind, but last week my work took me into two services where I was compelled to sit through the entire service. I really had to swallow hard to keep from crying at the “husks” they were trying to feed upon. Their oft‑repeated saying “the hottest fires of the deepest Hell” seemed to sober every one; but when the preacher was through all agreed it was a lovely sermon. My thought kept saying “Him who ye ignorantly preach.”

I am so glad that you are printing some tracts that we can give out to those we meet. For so long I have hesitated to give out any from any other division.

Enclosed please find a small donation for the work, to be used as you see best. Would you please send me – of each of the tracts, to be given away?

I thank our Father from the very depths of my soul that I have the Truth, and my most earnest prayer is that He will never allow me to lose one part of it, regardless of anything I may lose.

Praying God’s blessing upon the work, I am

Your sister in Christ, ‑‑‑‑----- (Texas)

NO. 52: "REFUTATION OF ATTACKS ON ADVANCING TABERNACLE TRUTH" - REVIEWED

No. 52

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

In his last July‑August paper R. G. Jolly offers some four pages of attempted answer to our July 1 analysts – without mentioning our name, of course. This is noth­lng new with him, although Brother Johnson said he considered it his duty to name the errorists he was refuting – just as we do wlth R. G. Jolly.

And that he is again thinking in reverse in this instance is also nothing new; it is just one more testimonial to his tragic incapacity. On p. 57 he sets out “Seven Points of Striking Similarity” between JJH and JFR – all of which are true of R. G. Jolly himself. When J.F.R. denied the Youthful Worthy Class, he was denying something both Star Members taught. When R. G. Jolly contends for Campers Consecrated, he is contend­ing for something neither Star Member taught, and which one of them (Brother Johnson) specifically denied. R. G. Jolly quotes again from E‑10‑209 to prove his Campers Con­secrated. In this very citation Brother Johnson says the “Campers” in the finished picture will be the “un”consecrated. Also, both Star Members taught Tentative Justi­fication in the Court; and Brother Johnson said all “in the finished Epiphany” pic­ture lose that Justification when they are eventually forced into the Camp. R. G. Jolly is now preaching Tentative Justification in the Camp without getting into the Court at all! Let each one, then, determine whether he will accept the teaching of the Lord's Eye, Hand and Mouth, or whether he will accept the perversions (Azazel means Perverter) of a discreditied Levite.

Also, he speaks of “another great progressive step in the development of the antitypical Tabernacle...in the fall of 1954.” This he sets up as a comparison for 1914. In 1914 the signs of the times, the parallel dispensations, and the chronology all gave “witness” to that date. Let R. G. Jolly show how even one of these three lends credence to his date of 1954! Furthermore, in 1917 it was That Evil Servant who “cast out” his brother (Brother Johnson); then embarked on his rampage of perver­sion, falsehood, slander and deceit, as he held control of the Society. In 1954‑56 it was R. G. Jolly who “cast out” his brother, as he declared he was “controlling the L.H.M.M. even as Brother Johnson had controlled it.” We have resisted him in these evils the same as Brother Johnson resisted That Evil Servant. And in the face of these irrefutable facts – facts known to all informed brethren –  R. G. Jolly is crass enough to cry “shyster” at JJH!

When Brother Johnson refuted J.F.R. on the Youthful Worthies, he was teaching a class inside the linen curtain; R. G. Jolly now teaches a class outside the linen curtain. He also says this is because the Epiphaneia is now “merging Into the Basi­leia.” If that is true, why, then, is he talking a “narrow way”? If the Basileia is dawning, the Highway should also be appearing. Is he promising his Campers Consecrated life or death on their “narrow way”?

On pages 58‑59 he raises quite some dust about our quotation of Brother Johnson in E‑4‑53. If Brother Johnson did not mean that the 4,32 Time of Trouble in its narrow sense” and the “Epiphany in its narrow sense” were a synonymous expression in his reasoning, let R. G. Jolly show where Brother Johnson ever characterized the Epiphany as in the “restricted sense” from 1914 to 1954. In E‑6‑400 Brother Johnson says “we infer that Anarchy will reach a crisis in 1954.” Certainly, all of us know that the Time of Trouble will reach a crisis in Anarchy; and Brother Johnson expected that crisis in 1954. That crisis did not come; consequently, the Epiphany in any sense whatever did not end there.

“Things equal to the same things are equal to each other”; and certainly Brother Johnson's writings in many places affirm our contention that he considered the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany as one and the same, regardless of R. G. Jolly's “non”­sense, or any other sense he tries to offer for it.

The New Testament teaching on the Epiphany as an act had its beginning in the Jewish Harvest with the activities of Jesus Himself; but our concern in this discus­sion is more particularly with the Epiphany as a period – the last special period of the Gospel Age. In E‑4‑21 (14) there is this: “The Epiphany is used to designate the period of the great tribulation.” And at the top of page 22: “The Epiphany as a period is the period of the great tribulation.” Further, on page 34: “The Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are one and the same period.” With these statements we are in full agreement; they are fully confirmed by the Bible. However, if the Time of Trouble and the Epiphany “are one and the same period”, then, self‑evidently, if the Epiphany ended in a “restricted sense” in 1954, the Time of Trouble should also have ended in a “restricted sense” in 1954. Did it? The contention that there was such an ending is purely a Jolly invention – just as Campers Consecrated is also a Jolly­-Krewson invention.

In E‑4‑28 (23) we find this: “The Scriptures teach that the separation of the Great Company from the Little Flock is an Epiphany work.” According to the teaching of the “cousins,” this separation was fully accomplished in October 1950 not October 1954. If that work was fully accomplished in 1950, then the Epiphany in its “restricted sense” should have ended at that time, although we have come to the sad realization that we need never expect consistency from the Jolly‑Krewson twosome – except their consistency in supporting each other's errors (that they originated when they were inflating each other's ego), and in their inconsistency.

It is pertinent here also to quote from E‑4‑45: “Parousia is used in respect to the earliest stage of the second advent, while apokalypsis relates to the same advent later: – not that apokalypsis and epiphaneia relate to another or third advent, but merely to a later feature (not features, since these two words both as an act and as a period are synonymous).”

Companion to the above we add this from E‑4‑55 (bottom): “The Epiphany will end with the Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble, i. e., will end with the end of the trouble.” And from E‑4‑54 (middle): “The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical.” Further, from E‑4‑49 (top): “The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are one and the same thing.”

We offer these quotations grouped as we have them because they make crystal clear that both “teachers” are now revolutionizing against clear Epiphany teachings, and both of them are once more embracing kindred errors. J. W. Krewson has the Epiphany ending in 1954, and entering into the Apokalypsis period; and R. G. Jolly has the Epiphany ending in 1954, and entering into the Basileia period. These quotations clearly show that all three features accomplish the same thing at the same time; the Epiphany ends when the Time of Trouble ends (not at 1954); the Apokalypse begins and ends when the Epiphany and the Time of Trouble begin and end – no intervening end in a “restric­ted sense.” These three expressions are so closely interwoven that they cannot be sep­arated. If R, G. Jolly had the discretion and prudence of an honest ‘babe’ in the Truth, he would have known better than yell “shyster” at JJH, for the quotation of E‑4‑53 – ­because the Time of Trouble “in Its narrow sense” is the Epiphany In its narrow sense; and the both of them are the apokalypse in its narrow‑sense! We are in complete accord with Brother Johnson's teachings here, because he has proven his analysis from clear Bible texts; whereas, the “cousins” have nothing to prove their claims. We have here just one more proof that “the oil has gone out” in R. G. Jolly's lamp – that he is so befuddled since he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950 that he can no longer think clearly on any Scriptural subject.

R. G. Jolly offers some more of his thinking in reverse re our quotation from E‑11‑473. When we analyzed the Scripture “All power (authority) is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth,” we gave R. G. Jolly such a crushing defeat that any one not so brazen or obtuse as he is would have been careful never to mention the matter again. There we clearly showed that Jesus had all authority and all power at His resurrection – ­but only to be used in harmony with righteousness and God's eternal purposes. From this standpoint, Jesus' Executorship not only extends over the Camp all during the Gospel Age, but even to the heathen nations outside the Camp of spiritual Tsrael. Society itself, Governments, etc., are not permitted to interfere with His Plans and Purposes. It will be noted Brother Johnson says in this very quotation, “the faith-­justified when their faith‑justification lapses, which seemingly will occur in every case by Oct. 1954.” How does R. G. Jolly now handle this statement? Does he accept it as the Truth; or is he ignoring it to suit his present purposes? If he were clear on this matter himself, he would have clarified this statement by Brother Johnson.

As we have so often stated, Brother Johnson said no Great Company member would ever be permitted to bring forth a new doctrine. We realize full well that he and his “cousin” (J. W. Krewson) worked this out together while they were feeding “Bro. Russell's Epiphany Parallels” to trusting brethren. Let him show one small scraping or gleaning of types, direst Scriptures, parallels or chronology to offer a past pic­ture to this spiritual bedlam to which we have been witness (Epiphany Campers “conse­crated” for .... Restitution? purposes on a “narrow way” with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies).

He parries a thrust at J. W. Krewson for not offering a point‑by‑point vindica­tion of his new Apokalypse teaching; but our readers will probably recall we demon­strated clearly enough in our subsequent article that neither of them knew whereof they wrote. However, “out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,” so we set out some points below that R. G. Jolly himself has completely ignored in our July 1 paper, which he presently claims to be “refuting”:

(1) On page 2, par. 3, we quoted from E‑10‑672: “Our non‑truth ... Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some... before Babylon is destroyed, and others of them afterward.” This is completely ig­nored by R. G. Jolly.

(2) On page 3, par, 1. we gave extended comment on his semi‑moronic observation about the “furniture not being moved out of the Holy when God moves the Great Company out.” Why should God move the furniture out with the Great Company when He removed the Great Company for the very purpose of separating them from that furniture? We readily understand why he did not answer this – and why he never will answer it; our analysis made his “folly manifest to all.” But this matter of furni­ture presents an unbridgable gap in his Campers Consecrated contention. He cannot locate one piece of furniture in the Camp for them, so they are inhabiting a “vacant house” – vacant in “sound doctrine,” as well as in furnishings. As Brother Russell has so ably taught, no one can approach the point of consecration without first washing at the laver; yet R. G. Jolly has his Campers Consecrated doing it.

(3) Then at top of page 4 we quote from E‑10‑114: “Certainly, when we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel‑Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate.” R. G. Jolly is silent on this, too. He makes the claim that the “catch” is in “for Gespel‑Age purposes.” The last special Period of the Gospel‑Age (the Epiphany) is “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” Inasmuch as he yells “shyster” at JJH for presumably mis‑handling Brother Johnson's teachings (the charge being simply some more of his “profusion of words to no purpose”), let him fit this statement in with his Campers Consecrated, – if he can!

(4) Another item upon which he is silent is our quotation from E‑17‑330: “The quasi-­elect are those Jews and Gentiles who accepted Jesus as Savior, but failed to con­secrate.” The “narrow way” (or a “narrow way”) is for the consecrated during the Gospel‑Age (for Gospel‑Age purposes); and the Highway of Holiness, which is yet to be opened, is for the consecrated (Restitution­ists) of the Millennial‑Age (for Millennial-­Age purposes), which will include both believing but unconsecrated Jews and Gentiles of the Jewish and Gospel Ages, along with all obedient children of the Christ. The consecration “for Gospel‑Age purposes” is “unto death”; while the consecration “for Millennial‑Age purposes” (for all Restitutionists) is “unto life.”

(5) Nor has he attempted to correct his bungling that Brother Johnson teaches Tenta­tive Justification ceases when the Gospel Age ceases; but in another paragraph of his same paper he has Brother Russell saying Tentative Justification ceases when the Mil­lennial Age ceases.

(6) Then, on page 5 (bottom) we quote from E‑10‑114: “After 1954 ... no more persons will enter the tentatively justified state.” Of course, R. G. Jolly has nothing to say about this, or the complete failure of his 1954‑56 Attestatorial Service. That Service produced nothing to parallel 1914‑16, except a contrasted parallel; whereas, 1914‑16 clearly demonstrated to all the watchers the cleansed and sanctified condition of the Saints, the 1954‑56 episode made sadly manifest – in contrast – the uncleansed condition of R. G. Jolly, et al. And because that is still his condition we may be sure he'll continue in silence on these enumerated points in the hope that his readers will forget about them. He allowed J. W. Krewson to talk him into Campers Consecrated (quasi‑elect consecrated); and he now clings tenaciously to this error, although he is slowly and surely sinking with it.

(7) In our July 1 paper we urged all our readers to study the Jolly paper side by side with ours; and this point R. G. Jolly also ignores. We once more make urgent appeal to all in this matter, although we realize only too well that under no circumstances will R. G. Jolly want his readers to follow this advice. If they did, they would probably learn the Truth!

Inasmuch as R. G. Jolly is once more shouting the “stop thief” bogey of JFR, we believe it quite pertinent here to offer some comments on a letter he has published on page 64 by a brother initialed “J.R.” This brother has the same initials as one who wrote us a saucy and illiterate letter about some phraseology we had published, the same being a direct quotation from Brother Johnson – in quotation marks – with the clear statement it was Brother Johnson's observation. We answered him as follows:

Dear Brother....... Greetings through our Beloved Lord!

In your letter of July 10 you say you “want to love me and understand me,” which I do appreciate; but it is difficult for me to understand you when you say you have given “careful and long consideration and examination of the literature” I have sent you. I just can't see how you could possibly have given “careful and long considera­tion” to what I sent you, and then criticize my use of the word “lousy.” Didn't you notice, my brother, that that word was in a quotation I made from Brother Johnson's writings? So you are really criticizing him, and not me, in this instance. And when you make such a weak mistake, it does indeed cause me to wonder how well you have read the Parousia and Epiphany Truth, which you claim to understand.

Your charges against me that I make “evil charges against the Lord's earthly leader” painfully remind me of the record in John 18:19‑23, where the officer struck Jesus in the face with the palm of his hand as he asked Him the question – “Answerest thou the high priest so?” – the “Lord's earthly leader” of that day. And Jesus said to him, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”

You think “The Lord would be pleased if I would come back into the fold of the Truth,” so it would seem you have come to the conclusion that I have lost the Truth. Do you know that such people as you said exactly the same thing about Brother Johnson – used almost the very same words you have sent me? “Brother Johnson has gone out of the Truth,” they said. I often wonder where those people are now – although I'm pretty sure I know where Brother Johnson is. You, too, say you want to be “my brother,” although you have disfellowshiped me – you address me as “Mr. Hoefle.” Here you take a lot upon yourself, you do indeed; so, when you question my qualifications for doing what I am doing, I would truly like to know your qualifications for what you are do­ing –  especially since you have read what I have written in such a careless fashion that you fault me for quoting Brother Johnson's own words.

You hope I shall “cease sending you and all the other Brethren in the Truth my material – It really isn't appreciated.” This may be true of you, my dear Brother; but don't you think you are making a pretty broad statement when you include “all the other Brethren”? I receive many letters of appreciation from able brethren in America and Europe who have been long in the Truth – some of them under Brother Russell – so you should speak only for yourself and keep yourself within the bounds of Truth.

I am taking your name off my mailing list, as you request; but I have written you this lengthy letter in the hope it may help you. I have asked you for nothing, my Brother – not as much as a postage stamp. If you should change your mind about wanting some more of what I write, and will let me know about it, it will still cost you nothing. In the meantime, I pray for you sufficient of our good Heavenly Father's “eye salve” that you may receive the Truth and the spirit of the Truth, which is the blessed privilege of all God's faithful people at this time.

Sincerely your brother, (Signed: John J. Hoefle)

We would have relegated this incident to Limbo; but we are since informed that this same brother is one of the leaders who counselled that California Class to revo­lutionize grossly against Parousia and Epiphany arrangements by putting through a motion that a bare majority would be sufficient to elect the servants for that Class. As a result, eight of the fifteen voters elected that brother into the elder's office against seven contrary votes; and he now voices high praise of R. G. Jolly. One of the complaints Brother Johnson voiced against J.F.R. was that he failed to correct corrupt and erring brethren so long as they approved him. We cannot fault this broth­er “JR” too much, as he self‑evidently is among “the unstable and the unlearned”; nor need we find ourselves surprised that R. G. Jolly would encourage him in his revolu­tionism, as it was on this very matter of church elections that R. G. Jolly himself so cunningly and boldly revolutionized in 1938. (See E‑10‑645, bottom) And it is this same R. G. Jolly who now yells “shyster, sifter‑errorist” at one who is attempting to maintain the sound order which he himself tried to tear down in 1938, and is now en­couraging others to follow in his steps –  just as did That Evil Servant in 1917.

THE “SALT” AND “LIGHT” IDENTIFTED

In his Question and Answer on p. 60 R. G. Jolly tries to vindicate his perversion on these two points; and once more he demonstrates his tragic inability to reason clear­ly on Scriptural matters. He says Jesus spoke the words of Matt. 5:13,14 to “non-­Spirit‑begotten consecrated ones,” so it would be proper to do the same with similar people now. In Luke 12:32 Jesus said to these very same people: “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.” If his argu­ment puts such people now in the “Salt” and in the “Light,” then it should put them in the “little Flock”, too. Perhaps he's leading up to this, as he has read himself into about every Scripture pertaining to the Saints except the Little Flock and the Samson type.

Not only does he pervert the Scripture, but he also uses the same “sleight‑of-­hand” on Brother Johnson's teaching In E‑15‑278. If we go back to p. 276 (eleventh argument), we note these words: “He (Jesus) is the Agent that God has used to beget aspirants to the High Calling... The church is undergoing an experience of regeneration unto the Divine nature... our change from human to Divine nature.” And further on ­P. 277 (twelfth proof); “He helps us to develop... the higher primary graces .... Each faithful New Creature has these experiences in character growth.” All of this is lead­ing up to p. 278, where Brother Johnson says, “the civilizing uplift that He through His faithful Church has effected among the nations.” Then at top of p. 279, last lines of proof thirteen: “His faithful people as the light of the world and the salt of the earth.”

As we have pointed out so often, R. G. Jolly has been persistently placing himself in the various Scriptures that pertain exclusively to the Saints. Is he now enlarging his perversions to place himself and others like him among those who “experience regen­eration unto the Divine nature”? Is he contending that crown‑losers have been “faith­ful to develop the higher primary graces”? Back in 1954 already R. G. Jolly transposed himself from the Measurably Faithful to the Faithful; and the humiliation the Lord gave him then in that perversion apparently was not nearly sufficient to reform him – just as his 1938 humiliation did not altar his “Azazelian” leanings. At the top of p. 646 in E‑10 Brother Johnson forewarned us of R. G. Jolly's cunning and trickery – a warning which undoubtedly is “from the Lord” for those now who have “ears to hear and eyes to see.”

At the top of p. 62, col. 2, he again repeats that his “proof” will stand that the Bride was complete in glory in October 1950. Here again the “teacher” is completely silent on Psa. 46, 1 Thes. 4:17, Zech. 8:10, Gen. 3:15 and Brother Johnson's analysis of Rev. 19:5‑10. Some “teacher”! Some “Proof”!

THE THREE BABYLONS

The enclosed tract is for use with the various 'Truth’ groups. We realize full well that many of our readers cannot know of their own knowledge whether some of the statements contained in this tract are the truth; but we give them the assurance that we do know of our own knowledge that its contents are true, having had close associ­ation with many brethren prominent in the Society early in the Epiphany. We urge all to read this tract carefully before attempting distribution of it. This is in keep­ing with the instructions Brother Russell gave to the colporteurs and others who dis­tributed the literature – that they should read and understand his books, tracts, etc., before asking any one to accept them.

We have made this Three Babylons tract, and the other three for Antitypical Gid­eon's Second Battle, as dignified and genteel as we know how to do; and we admonish our readers to present them in like manner. It is indeed a paradox that we are the “sons of peace”; yet we are fighting so much of the time. But our fighting should bring no pleasure to us, except as we delight in “the defense of the Truth.” We should always be sure the antagonism comes from others of contrary spirit to our own, rather than provoked by our own conduct toward them. During the years we spent in the colporteur work early in the Epiphany, we kept one text constantly in mind: “Into what­ever house you enter, say first, “Peace to this house.” And if a “son of peace is there, your peace shall rest on him; but if not, it shall return to you.” (Luke 10:5‑6, Dia.) With such approach, never once in all those years did we ever have any one slam a door before us, although there were plenty who disagreed wlth what we had to say and with what we were doing. However, should we receive any undue harsh treatment when seeking to do them good (witness Truth), we are not to “think it strange.”

And this advice we offer to our readers now – whether the approach be to a house or to an individual. It should be readily apparent that this Three Babylons tract is ideally suited for presentation to those Jehovah's Witnesses who stand on street cor­ners offering their own literature. As Brother Johnson so often stated, he believed there were many Saints still in the Society; and we know of our own knowledge that we have many brethren there who were there when Brother Russell had charge. Such people cannot but recognize the truth contained in this tract, and they offer an ideal con­tact, knowing as we do aforehand just exactly what they have belleved and preached as well, in fact, as they know it themselves. Therefore, this tract will be excellent to pass out at their meetings, as well as at the meetings of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement and other groups.

IN SEASON, OUT OF SEASON

St. Paul urges all to “preach the word – in season, out of season”; but Brother Russell's admonition in the Manna Comment for August 28 tells us it is to be our own Inconvenience that is meant here, and not that of our prospective listeners. It should not require much argument that our interruption of others in the midst of a meal would almost certainly bring to us a cool reception, and correspondingly an unreceptive “ear” toward the Truth we are espousing; and the same would be true should we interrupt any one busily engaged in the pursuit of a livelihood, such as a busy filling‑station oper­ator, or such like. Better far would it be for us to wait until such persons are free from that which immediately occupies them. Here again, “peace be to this house” should be the guiding incentive, The Truth is beautiful, and of a glory distinctive to it alone – just as was true of Him who gave it to us: “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.” For this reason Jesus Himself did not “cause His voice to be heard in the street” (Isa. 42:2); and “he left us an example that we should follow in His steps.” Thus, armed with the Truth and its Spirit, none can fail to re­ceive the blessing that has been promised to those who “continue in His word.”

It is our hope and prayer that the four tracts we now offer will meet with hearty response from all who call upon the name of the Lord in sincerity and truth, and that the blessing maketh rich will abide with all who engage in their distribution. “There is no restraint of the Lord to save by many or by few”; and the 'pebble from the brook’, “It is written,” will ever be found more than sufficient in defense or offense against imposing Big or Little Babylon. Thus, we pray the Lord's rich blessing upon all who engage in this “good fight”; and may each one resolve to adorn the Truth with a holy life!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace & Peace!

I enjoyed the article “The Church's Glorification – Reviewed.” It was very good and helpful. J. W. Krewson's constant reiteration of the expression, “What one does through another he does himself” if seen in its true light in regard to him would be most enlightening. This is the way it should read: “What one (Satan) does through another (Krewson) he (Satan) does himself.” Your remark re J. W. K's June‑July paper #27 is most apropos, “the same being as much of nothing as we have ever seen exhibited.”

In R. G. Jolly you have a more wily foe, but yet quite similar – buddies more or less in many ways – regarding erroneous thoughts, error, etc. You will have to give some thought with reference to the July‑August P.T. – especially as to the article, “A Refutation of”, etc. I am glad Professor Jolly was never my teacher. I studied “comprehensive reading” in school, but this ‘Jolly’ doesn't seem to understand what he reads. Take for instance The Faithful and the Measurably Faithful. “How readest thou?” And there are many other things. But perhaps he is dissembling, and it would seem more logical to believe so because R. G. Jolly has a good mind. He must have a reason for such distortions. The epithet 'shyster’ might be and is more applicable to him... I know you to be honest and others know that, too.

Christian love – Bro. ---------.

NO. 51: BAD LEVITES - GOOD LEVITES

No. 51

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

Since there seems to be considerable confusion on this subject, we believe it opportune to offer some further explanation. Bad levites are those who are guilty of both charges in Psa. 107:11 – “rebelled against the words (teachings) of God, and con­temned the counsel (the arrangements) of the Most High.” “Rebelled against the words of God” means they revolutionize against Present Truth grossly and persistently, which they once saw clearly and accepted. “Contemned the counsel of the Most High” means they hold in contempt God's arrangements for His work in the time in which they live – ­especially so, in Apostolic times and in the Parousia and Epiphany. For a long time Brother Johnson was in doubt about Martin Luther's position in the Christ Company until he came to realize that Luther never revolutionized against any truths that he clearly saw. Thus, any vitiation of truth or arrangements chargeable to Luther were due to the deep‑rooted errors of his time – so gripping that dear Brother Luther just could not extricate himself from them.

Good Levites – especially in the Parousia and Epiphany – are those who “Contemned the counsel of the Most High”; that is, they violated God's arrangements for conducting His work; but they did not revolution­ize against Truth once clearly seen and accepted.

Cleansed Levites would be those of both the erstwhile Bad and Good Levites who had been abandoned to Azazel, had received their fit‑man experiences – had “their hearts brought down with labor” (Psa. 107:12) – had “cried unto the Lord in their trouble” ­had been “saved out of their distresses” – had been “brought out of darkness” (the revolutionistic errors they had embraced). With the great majority now living this cleansing has not yet occurred.

Brother Johnson repeatedly referred to the Good Levites as those who had not revo­lutionized against Present Truth – those in the Epiphany Truth. But at no time did he say they as a Class were cleansed Levites. Rather, he stated “their cleansing is a thing devoutly to be desired”; but he realized full well they must first be abandoned to Azazel to effect their cleansing. That is why he stated some future features of this matter were not clear to him. He did not understand how the Good levites in the Epi­phany Movement would be abandoned to Azazel, since all of them must experience the bit­ter loss of all brotherly help and favor by the World's High Priest. Only by Brother Johnson's death was this made clear to us – an occurrence Brother Johnson could not pos­sibly foresee as the answer to this question.

And any and all once regarded by Brother Johnson as Good levites we would now per se be forced to catalog as Bad Levites if they have grossly and persistently revo­lutionized against those Epiphany Truths they once embraced and held dear. As an ex­ample, let us consider the case of R. G. Jolly: At no time did Brother Johnson publish that he was a cleansed Levite; he viewed him as one of the Good levites. As late as 1943 Brother Johnson clearly stated in the Present Truth that he was not yet cleansed. That was more than 27 years after being a Good Epiphany Levite. His claim now of be­ing a Cleansed levite – with no other argument to support that claim than Brother John­son's death – is just a levitical vagary. At no time prior to October 1950 had he had all brotherly help and favor withdrawn from him by Brother Johnson – had never been dis­fellowshiped by Brother Johnson; and his actions since that date clearly prove he is no longer even a Good Levite, because he has grossly and persistently revolutionized against Parousia and Epiphany Truths he once enthusiastically embraced. It should be remembered here that the course of That Evil Servant was much the same: At one time he was a Saint in association with That Servant; then he fell to the position of a Good Levite, a backward step probably not apparent to many of his Harvest associates in Present Truth. In due course he lost all, became That Evil Servant, “went to his own place” (Acts 1:25) – had his “portion with the hypocrites.” The words of Job 38:2 offer timely query here: “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” And the answer comes back to us from E‑10‑594:

“The three bad Levite groups and the good levites, the crown‑losers in the Epip­hany Movement, darkeneth the Truth by their teachings without proper knowledge.” R. G. Jolly is a lurid illustration of the truth of Brother Johnson's statement be­fore our eyes at this time, with his Campers Consecrated and the many other errors that he has presented to trusting brethren “by words without knowledge.”

A CLASS OF LEVITES FIXED

We do well ever to keep in mind that during the Gospel Age – before the Epiphany — ­Tentative Justification and Leviteship were substantially synonymous terms; but this sweeping statement would no longer be true during the Epiphany. During the Gospel Age those who lost their Tentative Justification also lost their levitical standing; but this did not lose for them all hope of a future life. All such who had not pro­gressed to vitalized justification will still experience a “resurrection by judgment.” But not so during the Epiphany with those who lose their levitical standing if they are to be found in the Great Company. Having progressed to vitalized justification, if they now lose out as Levites, they lose all. Thus, their standing as Levites is now fixed; and they must maintain their Leviteship, or all hope for them vanishes – a sit­uation not true during the Age before the Epiphany of those justified believers who progressed no farther than the Court.

Nor should we be foolish enough to believe that those who died in Tentative Justi­fication before the Epiphany will arise in Tentative Justification, as the Present Truth now indirectly contends. Such have “received the grace of God in vain,” never again to secure it in like manner. Their situation is identical with those forced out of the Court in the finished Epiphany picture. These latter also will lose their Tentative Justification in like manner as those who died with it, or lost it prior to death, dur­ing the Gospel Age before the Epiphany – nor will any of them ever again receive Tenta­tive Justification during the Basileia reign.

THE MARCH INTO CANAAN

Inseparably intertwined with the foregoing is the final Gospel‑Age march into Canaan. “To the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, spake Joshua, saying, Remember the word which Moses the servant of the lord commanded you, saying, The Lord your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land. Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valor, and help them: Until the Lord hath given your brethren rest, as he hath you, and they also have possessed the land which the Lord your God giveth them” – Josh. 1:12‑15. “Inherit­ing the land” for Gospel‑Age purposes means receiving the sphere of the Truth and its spirit. And to all such as have “inherited the land” has also come “peace with God” and the “peace of God”; they have entered into that “rest” (Heb. 4:3‑11) which is alone for the fully faithful people of God.

It should be carefully noted in this picture that the 2½ tribes had received their “rest” east of Jordan before Moses died; so it is clear enough that these would type the fully faithful New Creatures (the Saints), the measurably faithful New Creatures who had been cleansed (the Great Company), and the fully faithful Youthful Worthies. And it is specifically told to these that they shall “pass before your brethren armed” – “armed” with the Truth and the spirit of the Truth to lead their lesser brethren to receive what they themselves had inherited – “until the Lord hath given your brethren rest, as he hath you.” And to such – and to such alone – pertains the “great peace” of Psa. 119:165: “Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend (stumble) them.”

Let us observe now how this picture offers an impregnable refutation to the Present Truth's intertretation of Genesis 14 and the “trained controversialists” (the Campers Consecrated) so foolishly written into that picture by R. G. Jolly. If there were one scintilla of Truth in his interpretation, then surely his Campers Consecrated would appear in this picture with the Saints, the Great Cbmpany and the Youthful Worthies as the vanguard of the march into Canaan. But here also this non­existent class is nowhere in evidence – just as it cannot be found in any other Scrip­tures or types setting forth the true elect. Especially do we point out that the other half Tribe of Manasseh is not mentioned here; only that half of Nanasseh associated with Reuben and Gad is given specific notice. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

ANTITYPICAL GIDEON'S SECOND BATTLE

Enclosed are samples of three tracts we are now able to offer our readers as an aid to carry to a completion Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle. We have hesitated long before making this move; and we assure all it gives us no pleasure whatever to do so – except as we are convinced we are doing the Lord's will in the matter. Many of our readers have informed us they can no longer circulate any literature with Lay­men's Home Missionary Movement name on it because of the many errors that have ema­nated from that source since our dear Brother Johnson's death. This is our own atti­tude, too – especially so, since many of those errors are now being injected into the Bible Standard. We could not maintain “a good conscience and an unfeigned faith” were we to direct any inquirer to such perversions of the Star Members, writings. The tracts we now offer – Where Are The Dead?, What Is The Soul?, The Resurrection of the Dead – ­are a close reproduction of Brother Johnson's work, although not identically so. They are free upon request, our only restriction being that not more be ordered than can be properly distributed over a period of several months future. Next month we hope to have a fourth tract, The Three Babyions, which we shall present on the same terms.

We believe it is in keeping to state here that it is yet quite out of order to proffer the promise of life extended into the Basileia; no one has such authority at present. The Jehovah's Witnesses have been making such offer since shortly after the Epiphany began; but it is a known fact that many thousands of their adherents have already died who had relied upon their promise. It seems R. G. Jolly is now at­tempting some of the same in his veiled statements that his Campers Consecrated may “pass through the fire” and continue to live right into the Kingdom. His adherents will find themselves badly deceived if they accept his sugar‑coated “narrow Way” in the camp; and we expect “in due time” to present some Scripture explanations that will make this crystal clear to all who do not imbibe his “strong delusions.”

As respects the continuance of Gideon's Second Battle to a completion, we believe it appropriate to quote here from E5‑251: “We exhort those of the antitypical Three Hundred who mingle with the various levitical bodies to concentrate their attention to attacks on these two klng errors of antitypical Midian. Let such do this work, leav­ing to the Levites the work of proclaiming Millions Now living, etc., of canvassing for the Golden Age, of distributing Bible Truth Witnesses on Babylon is Fallen...etc.  Antitypical Gideonites, whether in or out of the Epiphany Truth, let us concentrate our attacks against the doctrines of Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead.”

In the same spirit and language of the foregoing do we now exhort in like manner, ad­vising our readers to engage in the Bereaved Work in their respective localities, leaving the distribution of Flying Saucers, etc., to those inclined to such Truth (?) work. Since Brother Johnson wrote the above, it should be observed that the Millions preaching, the Golden Age, etc., have fallen into total collapse – just as will be true of the Flying Saucer, and as has already occurred with the $5 Correspond­ence Course. The latter is not mentioned any more in any of the LHNM publications; and we wonder how many – if any – of the Flying Saucer tracts are yet being circulated. When the Basileia work is eventually inaugurated, we may be certain that the typical Moses will have full charge, or at least a major part, in conducting that work. But we do not yet have him to direct us, so we counsel the acceptance of the methods of our beloved departed antitypical Moses. Thus, all those who “continue in the things they have learned, and been assured of, knowing of whom they have learned them,” will not be likely to be led much astray.

In conclusion, what more appropriate words could we submit than those of Jesus – Matt. 7:22,23 (Dia.): “Many will say to me in that day, Master, Master, have we not taught in thy name? and in thy name expelled demons? and in thy name performed nany wonders? And then I will plainly declare to them, I never approved of you: De­part from me you who practice iniquity.”

Sincerely your brother

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Letter of General Interest

My dear Brother Hoefle – A Servant of our lord!

Greetings of love and peace in our dear Redeemer's name! We have received papers and are very thankful for obtaining them from you. Dear Sister --------- has been sending them to us and we have enjoyed the reading with satisfaction. We notice that each statement and comment are prompt and in harmnny with the two Star Members. We are more thankful to the Lord for providing a brave brother like you to stand and defend the Truth for the two Star Members and for us, the feeble brethren. God never leaves Himself without a witness – and if any one is high‑minded they can never be a true leader – especially when you are taking on their own account, the blessing of the Lord will not stay. They must be confused, for they are not only graspers but not Truth seekers. They will go like Rutherford as soon as the Lord sees that they are trying to stumble his children. He will know just what to do, for He is doing every­thing now at a quick date. So, dear Brother, be strong in the lord and in the power of his might. The lord bless you and yours and keep you and increase your knowledge more and more in His Truth till your time appointed.

Your Bro. & Sister ---------, Jamaica.

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

Announcement of General Interest

It is with much grief that we announce the death of our beloved Brother Guy C. Dunnagan on June 17, 1959. He was a true “yokefellow,” and his passing leaves a great void in our midst. Many of our readers will join with us in mourning his departure; and unite with us also in the joyful anticipation that he will appear among the “righteous” in the glorious Kingdom reign.