NO. 43: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

No. 43

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

Since February, 1958, we have been in the third hour of the large Parousia Day, as detailed in our paper of January 1, 1957. As an indication of the rapidity with which events are transpiring, we offer some further comment on the financial condi­tion of the civilized world, because it becomes increasingly apparent that the de­cadence of capital itself will eventually cause the collapse of the capitalistic system as we observe the “wisdom of their wise men perish, and the understanding of their prudent men to be hid.” The American coins still carry the inscription “In God we trust”; yet, as we view the mad rush by all classes for the elusive and rapidly­ shrinking dollar, it were now better expressed, “In THIS God we trust.”

Two years ago we stated that the overall debt in the United States – Federal, state, municipal and private – was about 750 billions of dollars. In the two years since elapsed it has now increased to about 850 billions of dollars, with the end nowhere in sight. Be it noted that this colossal debt is almost twice as much as the entire country is worth if it should be sold to the highest bidder; so there exists at present a state of abject insolvency despite the tremendous prosperity that appears an the surface. And this situation continues to be aided and abetted by the ridicu­lous premise that ''We can spend our way into prosperity.” This is contrary, of course, to all established precedent, both secular and biblical; it is a sound and indisputable saying that “The borrower is servant to the lender”; and the lord's people do well if they take heed to this bit of Truth.

If all the monetary gold in the world's treasuries today were placed in one heap, it could be buried in a hole 41 feet wide, 41 feet deep and 41 feet high, the approxi­mate worth thereof being 40 billion dollars. And it should be kept in mind that gold is yet the only international money of universal acceptance. Of this amount the United States has a little more than half, or about 21 billions. Against this the federal debt is about 280 billions – and we are presumably the richest (?) country on earth today. Just consider for a moment the others in the light of this! The “hour of wasting” (Rev. 18:17-Dia.) began in 1916, and the ''wasting'' has proceeded at an ever-increasing acceleration as a snowball rolling downhill. It is truly a great tribute to the viril­ity of the United States that it has continued so far on this spending spree without complete stagnation and collapse overtaking us. Our situation is identical in every respect to a young wastrel who inherits a vast fortune from a frugal and sagacious forbear, which he is unable to dissipate before death overtakes him, regardless of how improvident he may be, so large is the inheritance that comes to him. It is a true observation, “A fool and his money are some party”! And the fate of all the other nations hangs in the balance with our own financial imbalance, as was shown by the worried statements of a number of them when our economy showed signs of depression during the past year. Here is a small excerpt from one international financial pub­lication:

“Reports from well-informed sources in Washington suggest that the United States Administration is beginning to become concerned over the develop­ment. The dollar is not as popular as it was and European experience sug­gests that a flight of capital can develop very quickly if any doubt arises over a currency's stability. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. were to decline to redeem its obligations to foreign holders in gold. The dollar would fall right out of bed. The rush to get out of pure-paper dollars would shred them into confetti.”

One prominent citizen here has said the principal American export at present is Money; our vast productive capacity has overtaken the demand for our products, and this is apparent in the intensity of the competition now appearing in so many indus­tries. Our wheat crop for 1958 was almost 50% larger than the one in 1957; yet the surplus was already so large it is bursting the seams of our granaries. It is little wonder many starving countries harbor hatred for us, although the blame is leas with the United States than with some others. Canada and other countries who export wheat stren­uously protest our suggestions that we give some of our surplus to needy peoples, as that would destroy their market and distress their wheat growers.  It is a proper ob­servation that we are in the best of times and the worst of times. The vicious circle will not permit use of the very cures that are available; and our officials are deserv­ing of our sincere sympathy as they find themselves unable to extricate themselves and others from the vortex of collapse. They have attempted to bolster the International Monetary Fund with another four or five billion dollars; but that is only a “drop in the bucket” against the staggering debts everywhere prevailing. From January 1956 and up to the time General DeGaulle took charge in France, that country had been going back­wards to the extent of about 100 million dollars per month, so that the treasury was so completely drained the government could no longer pursue international trade.

UNITED NATIONS.....HOLY ALLIANCE

The United Nations continues to function, but its main accomplishment is publicity talk of what will be done. Of course, this organization is nothing new. There was the League of Nations after the first world war, but it collapsed very shortly under its own weight.  But the only thing new about that attempt was just the name, as its twin was to be found in the Holy Alliance of 1815 – after the defeat of Napoleon at Water­loo. It seemed then that all Europe would collapse, and a certain Baroness Von Kruden­er (a Russian mystic) induced Alexander 1 of Russia to sponsor her idea of a sort of holy (?) confederation of European States in a grand union of brotherhood and good will toward each other, with the high-sounding name of “The Holly Alliance.” It lasted just a little longer than it is now taking to write about it.

“JEHU DRIVETH CRAZILY”

In 2 Kings 9:20 we are told, “Jehu (type of present-day conservative labor)... driveth furiously.” The Hebrew word translated “furiously” means ''with madness''; or, as Brother Johnson stated it, “Jehu driveth crazily.” But the madness that Brother Johnson observed is indeed very tame compared to the antics of Jehu now. The determi­nation of Labor Leaders to enforce their will is very much an imitation of Hitler's tactics. At know personally of one instance in Detroit (of which nothing was ever re­lated in the newspapers) where labor ruffians broke both arms and both legs of one em­ployer as an example to others to “cooperate”; and much more of the same could be re­lated.  But perhaps the outstanding and most recent instance of “driving crazily” is to be found in a Canadian company of international repute that employs about 15,000 persons.  The average hourly wage of these people is $2.69, or $21.52 per day.  In this company, as elsewhere, competition and production overtook the demand for its products; it was forced to retrench. In an effort to do this equitably and to the detriment of as few as possible, it determined to keep all employees on a four-day week of $86.08, rather than lay off some and continue the remaining employees on six days.  But the labor leaders objected to this method, demanding that the entire force be re­tained an a four-day week, but be paid for six full days the same as always. The Com­pany could not meet such demands, so a strike was called and is in its third month at this writing (Nov. 25). Same of this writer's business associates who have contact with officials of the company involved inform us the Company will never accede to these demands, that they could not do so and continue in business. Surely, “Jehu driveth crazily.”

Such thinking as the foregoing makes for strange ana violent changes in government; and we consider it a strong probability that a Roman Catholic President will be elected in the United States in 1960. We do not make this as a prediction, but it seems very probable, and would be in keeping with the general trend of the times.

IN RELIGION

Not to be outdone by antitypical Jehu, many religionists also “drive crazily” ­and this is true among Truth people as well as others. One prominent magazine recently carried an article, “A New God for The Space Age”, of which we offer a few extracts:

“The most amazing event of modern history is the petering out of Christianity. Not only are the Bible stories going by the board, but a deeper side of religion seems also to be exiting.  This is the mystic concept of the human soul and its survival after death. Parsons are still preaching away on this topic and congre­gations are still listening. But congregation and parson both seem to have moved from church to museum....Religion today is a touchy subject, not because people be­lieve deeply and are ready to defend such belief with emotion, but because they do not want to hear it discussed.... Painting, once a major ally of the divines, has done with holy subjects long ago. And the composing of religious music is a lost activity. Even religious criticism, long the hallmark of the advanced thinker, is mainly out of print...The two forces that robbed man of his long-treasured soul are Science and the loss of respect for Life. As a result of the findings of Science, 1958 man is back among the brutes with no more divine breath in him than a tree toad.... All this re­modeling of mankind in one generation has taken place almost without complaint.”

A small part of the above is applicable to Truth people also. The only religion Jehovah's Witnesses care to hear discussed is their own; they have no ear or time for the opinions of others – in like spirit to their “Big Brother.” Of course, with the Roman Church “reading is doubt, doubt is heresy, and heresy is Hell”; they are not to read the Bible, as they may become confused; and the Mass is always recited or sung in Latin – to be certain the average member will be “sure” to understand it.

It has been a common weakness over the centuries to criticize others for the very vagaries of which we ourselves are guilty. So often do we hear Scripture quoted at “that man” across the street, while the speaker himself is more guilty of its viola­tion than the one at whom he is pointing. As instance – at the 1958 Chicago Conven­tion of the LHMM this fall quite some merriment was aroused by one relating how a cer­tain sectarian was determined to remain ignorant because he refused to read the tract that had been left with him; yet that very one who gave the testimony about this bigot­ted attitude was actually testifying against their own sins of conduct toward these writings, as they refuse our efforts to enlighten them. The conversation went about like this – after the man had handed back the tract that had been left with him: “Have you read this tract? No! Then how can you pass judgment upon it if you have not even read it?” At this recitation many smiled who are passing identical Judement ­without reading – upon our writings; and R. G. Jolly is instructing his own adherents to simulate this very depraved sectarian spirit in our own group. From the platform at several Conventions he has called our writings “poison”, which is much the same as “reading is doubt”, etc., because he himself knows if his adherents were to read in an honest effort to “discern” for themselves, they would indeed begin to doubt his many perversions and “newly-conceived” doctrines. The Papacy does the same; That Evil Ser­vant did the same; it is an adroit way to maintain a superiority of “educated” ignor­ance, while appearing to know whereof one speaks. “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee”, sayeth the Lord.

Yes, in this R. G. Jolly persistently lends his encouragement and approval. “Don't read the writings of the Sifters”, he tells them – just as Big and Little Papacy instruct their devotees.  It is little wonder there is so little real Christian spirit and charac­ter manifested among so many of his supporters. Nor does it appear to bother him how much lacking they may be in sound principles so long as they are applauding him. once again we counsel our readers to compare the Present Truth with our presentations; then determine for themselves where lies the “spirit of understanding.”

When wealth is lost, nothing is lost;

then health is loot, something is lost;

When character is lost, everything is lost!

At this same Chicago Convention R. G. Jolly offered the lame excuse that the lord's business meetings (meaning his own, of course) are to be viewed differently than worldly business meetings; these “require haste”, so they are not conducted with open discussion, formal motions, etc. This also is only R. G. Jolly's own interpretation of such gath­erings. When Brother Johnson conducted his Convention business meeting at Detroit in 1948, at which R. G. Jolly was elected Executive Trustee in prospect, there was a for­mal motion – drawn by skilled minds other than Brother Johnson – with open discussion about it. But R. G. Jolly will have none of this sort of thing, the real reason being that his business meetings are nothing more than “service” meetings, with testimonies by various ones about their successes to further his methods. As one of his more prominent representatives told us personally sometime back – R. G. Jolly is not con­ducting business meetings to dicuss our business; he is simply asking those present to approve what he is doing – much the same as is done at the JW Service Meetings.

At the Philadelphia Convention over labor Day he had fourteen speakers in his Symposium on Love, some of them just babes in the Truth. One of the speakers was once relieved from the Bible House by Brother Johnson because of his incompetence, Brother Johnson referring to him as the Great Pretender because he “pretended” to know so much about some things of which he knew almost nothing. Yet, with speakers of that calibre R. G. Jolly told the Convention their discoursing on Love was even better than Brother Russell's Pilgrims had presented on the same subject at a certain Convention Symposium back in the Farousia! The responsibility for order in the Church, and for the spiritu­al health of the members, rests squarely upon the leaders, as the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the last Star Members so clearly teach.

Such experiences bring us to a more acute understanding of Jesus' parable in Matt. 13:47-51, in which the great Truth fishing net is cast among the masses of hu­manity, bringing hosts of bad along with the good, with the undesirables cast back into the sea “at the end of the age.” This was evident after Brother Russell's death, when so many went their various ways, some in worse condition than when the Truth had found them. Thus, the Epiphany has made manifest the counsels of hearts; and it still continues to do so. It would be folly supreme to assume that this same situation should not now apply to the LHMM group. “Judgment must begin at the house of God”; and the time since Brother Johnson's death is very sadly manifesting the counsels of hearts – the Epi­phany is revealing persons, principles and things. Therefore, we should “think it not strange”! But it is well to consider that “He that hath much, of him much shall be re­quired”; and those that have basked in the rich Epiphany Truth for these many years must surely have a correspondingly greater responsibility before the Lord. “He that knew his Lord's will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes”! Of course, so many now in the LHMM have imbibed the fallacy that they will be saved by “works.” Works surely are necessary (“Faith without works is dead”); but it should be kept clearly in mind that works are the result – and not the cause – of salvation. At are informed that Brother Russell predicted that most of the Truth people would be back in Babylon before the Age fully ended; and we are witness to his wise foresight – most of them are there, and more will undoubtedly yet be there.  In fact, this will be true of all who have not “received the Truth in the love of it”; and it seems quite fitting here to present the Berean Cam­ments on 2 Thes. 2:10, 11:

“Love of the Truth” ...If we do not cultivate love for the truth until it out­weighs all other things, we will not be fit for the kingdom.

“Shall send them”...All, in the end of the Gospel Age, who, having been favored with the Word of God, have failed to appreciate and use it.

“Strong delusion”...Giving them over to error, which they prefer to the Truth.  Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.

In due time we shall have more to say on the above; but suffice now to say we are witness to further “strong delusions” since Brother Johnson's death, perhaps the chief of which are Campers “Consecrated” and the “salt of the earth” now including all of the Household of Faith – even these Campers (a Restitution Class) – while de­nying that the real “Salt” is still with us. Nor should it surprise us that persecu­tion comes to any and all who do not embrace these “strong delusions.” As true now as ever are the Poet's words:

Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, --

Yet that Scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His Own.

We see dimly in the present what is small and what is great;

Slow of faith, how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate,

But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,

List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,

“They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin.”

Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust,

Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and 'tis prosperous to be just;

Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,

Doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,

And the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

Therefore, let us be “not as tin many, who corrupt the word of God”! For 1959 we extend to our readers the fond hope of God's Goodness and Mercy, and that individ­ually and collectively all may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our Beloved Lord Jesus.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General  Interest

QUESTION: – Are the Jews still typically in the antitypical Tabernacle Court?

ANSWER: – No, indeed! When the 70th week was expired, all individual favor was with­drawn from them, which means those who had rejected Christ up to that time had received “the grace of God in vain.” Of course, they could be reinstated into God's favor by accepting Christ (coming through the Gate into the Court). Their situ­ation was analagous to those in the end of the Epiphany who fail to use their tenta­tive justification, and are forced out into the Camp at the Epiphany's end. Some of such will be of the quasi-elect, as Brother Johnson has taught; but this will not be­come clearly manifest until the Millennial Highway is opened after all the Faith Classes (elect classes) have finished their course – at the time Joel 2:28 applies. However, those ejected from the Epiphany Court at its end could not again return to the Household of Faith, as has been true of Gospel Age Jews who may have come into Christ after the 70th week. The rejects at the Epiphany's end could then secure nothing more than Millennial restitution. The above is the Epiphany Messenger's faithful teachings, and is in harmony with all fundamental Parousia and Epiphany Truth – which cannot be true of R. G. Jolly's newly-conceived doctrine which he designates as Epiphany Campers “Consecrated:” We hope, D.v., to offer more on this in a future writing.

QUESTION: – Will you please give us a little more on the Epiphany-Apokalypse?

ANSWER: – These words are not synonymous, but they are so closely interlocked that it is impossible to separate them for this time in which we are living. They accomplish the same thing in some respects without meaning the same thing – much the same as if a man should be hanged or shot. Either would result in his death, thus ac­complishing the same thing; yet shooting and hanging certainly do not mean the same thing.

It is the Parousia, or presence, that accomplishes the Epiphany, or bright shin­ing; and it is the Epiphany that accomplishes the Apokalypse, or uncovering. Thus, it is impossible to have an Apokalypse without an Epiphany; and it is equally impossible to have an Epiphany without a Parousia. At the first Advent “the people that sat in darkness saw great light” (Matt. 4:16).  At that time Jesus “brought life and immor­tality to light”; that is, His presence then epiphanized immortality, as the Old Testa­ment reveals just nothing about immortality as respects any human being. In 2 Tim. 1:10 St. Paul says that the “appearing (Epiphaneia) of Jesus .... brought life and immortality to light.” After the Apostles there developed what we now term “The Dark Ages”; they were not only “dark” in secular aspects, they were also “gross darkness” viewed reli­giously, so that the Old and New Testaments “prophesied in sackcloth” (Rev. 11:3). During that time the various Stewardship Doctrines propounded by the Star Members were simply a revival of truths lost after the first presence; there was no advancing Truth during that time.

Of course, it has always been true that “the entrance of thy word giveth light” (Psa. 119:30); and, while the word “light” in this text does not stem from Epiphaneia, the thought is much the same. Wherever God's word enters, there an Epiphany also oc­curs – not as a period of time, but as an act. This is one of the principal reasons that the Protestant countries of the world are the most enlightened – the result of the great distribution of and freedom in study of the Bible. Substantially all the progress in invention, literature, art, etc., is to be found in these Protestant coun­tries; and it is a sound observation that the intelligence of any country may be gauged by its artistic and inventive genius.

There can be no question that Brother Johnson inseparably linked the Epiphany with the Apokalypse – they are The same in point of time. In E-7-263, top, he says, “as surely as we are in the Epiphany, so surely will they...fail ... the lord is now sub­jecting their works of wood, hay and stubble to the fires of this apokalyptic day (1 Cor. 3:11-15).” Surely, this quotation in this book that was published in 1938 can leave not the slightest doubt that he used the words interchangeably, viewed them as accomplishing the same things during the same period of time; and Brother Johnson had clear Scriptural proof for this teaching.

QUESTION: – Brother Krewson says “error must be defended, Truth can stand for itself.” Is this Scripturally sound?

ANSWER: – No! The statement has no Scriptural support. If it were right, then the Apostles Paul and Jude were wrong. Phil. 1:17 says, “I am set for the de­fense of the Gospel”; and Jude 3 tells us, “Ye should earnestly contend for the faith (the Truth).” Actually, it is not possible properly to defend error because it has no sustaining foundation, being symbolized by the “bottomless pit.” Thus it is only the Truth that can be defended, because it is built upon “the rock”, the same as good and true character. Furthermore, Micah 5:5 states ''When the Assyrian (the errorists) shall tread in our palaces, then we shall raise up against him seven shepherds.” Cer­tainly, those “seven shepherds” (the various Star Members) were not raised up during the Gospel Age to defend error; they were specially raised up to defend the Truth against error - and which they did. Eventually, truth will prevail under the capable administration of righteousness – when the “knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the great deep and it may not then be necessary to defend it.' Early in the Epiphany Brother Johnson spent much of his effort toward defending the Parousia Truth. If it did not need defending, then he was simply “beating the air.” We, too, have been endeavoring to defend the Parousia and Epiphany Truth as every faithful servant must do if he would keep his Vow and Resolve. On page 5 of the very same paper which states “the truth can stand for itself” he speaks of Brother Johnson's ability to “defend the Parousia Truth.” J. W. Krewson's “consistency” is so inconsist­ent that he cannot even teach the same thing in the same way twice in the same paper.

Continued repetition of an error does not make it into a truth, nor does repeated denial of a truth make it into error; but the Jolly-Krewson twosome often resort to this technique.  Multiplied repetition of Campers Consecrated, the Iast Saint Gone, etc., does not form those errors into truths – even though such methods may influence “the un­stable and the unlearned”, even as Hitler awayed his partisans who allowed him to do their thinking for them. These “cousins” reverse their positions as frequently as does the weather. At one time J. W. Krewson told R. G. Jolly that he, as antitypical Zerub­babel, would be called upon to defend every feature of Parousia and Epiphany Truth against all attacks. The statement contained in his Do-You-Know is just the reverse of this; his new view says “Truth can stand for itself” – which is a neat alibi for ignoring the devastating exposures of his ''new truths” (actually gross errors). This is a new formula by both these “cousins”, who flee from, or ignore, the “gainsayers”, instead of refuting them in harmony with Scriptural obligation upon all teachers of Truth. Our previous Mouthpieces refuted the errorists with Scriptural proof – while these two “Mouthpieces” (?) repeat their errors and declare the Scriptural refutations presented against them are error, all the while ignoring the Scriptures used against them. All Truths must harmonize with fundamental Truths – thus they can be defended.

QUESTION: – Why do you object to a class in the Camp  at  the  end  of  this age fitting themselves for Mellennial Conditions – such as the Epiphany Campers “Consecrated”?

ANSWER: – We do not object to any one seeking to live in accordance with right principles so far as they are able. We do object to a pseudo class of Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” believing they are on “a narrow way”, because there is no “narrow way” opened for them in the Camp. The only way for Restitutionists is the Highway of Holiness, and that hasn't been opened for them yet. “And an high­way shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The Way of holiness; the un­clean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring man, though fools, shall not err therein.” The “way” here referred to is Christ – the only way for all mankind to get life. His merit is now on embargo for the Household of Faith, and this embargo will not be lifted until the last one of the Household has finished his course – which includes the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. So the “way” is not provided in the Camp at this time; it is only in the Court that the “way” is available for any one – and that by the way of a “narrow way” and not the Highway of Holiness at this time.

Christ's righteousness is shown only in the linen curtain about the Tabernacle Court; and without that righteousness it is impossible for any one to offer an ac­ceptable sacrifice to God.  There is absolutely nothing outside that curtain that even hints of a righteousness – no more so in the Camp than in the expanse outside the Camp. In the type a heathen could talk into the Camp at his discretion; but it was never permitted for him to enter the Court. Many Campers may even yet be seeking after righteousness – and may yet find it – but only if they enter the Gate into the Court, which is the only place where Christ's righteousness may be found now – the only place over which his Executorship extends (See E-11-473).

NO. 42: THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER P.T. REVIEWED

No. 42

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

In accordance with previous promise, we now offer some comments regarding “A Refutation” that appears on pages 73–79 of the Present Truth cited above. R. G. Jolly accuses us (without mentioning our name, as is his custom – contrary to both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson in such cases – although he shouts quite loudly his “in harmony” with them). He says we “club Brother Russell and Brother Johnson over his head”; but this is simply some more of his own subterfuge in a desperate effort to cover up for himself. As we have so often stated, the exact date at which John’s Baptism was no longer efficacious is only an unimportant date in ancient history – insofar as our present observance of the ritual is concerned. It is decidedly non–essential to our correct understanding and practice of Baptism now; and R. G. Jolly himself concurred in this conclusion back in 1954 when he attempted to berate us with his “whispering campaign” that JJH is ‘’out of harmony” on the doctrine of Baptism. Some of our brethren then – knowing JJH quite well, and not so gullible as R. G. Jolly had hoped – asked him pointedly how we were “out of harmony.” His answer was: “It’s not fundamental.” This indeed was the truth – and still is the Truth – his reason for now trying to make it appear “fundamental” is our crushing refutations of his own perversions on “The Faithful & Measurably Faithful”; on Hab. 3:17,18; for whom is “due Truth”; Restitution accomplished by 2874; ”Epiphany Campers Consecrated, Tentative Justification moved to the Camp”, etc.

We have never been out of harmony with the Star Members on any fundamental doctrine, and this includes Baptism – although R. G. Jolly himself is admittedly out of har­mony on a number of fundamental doctrines. Our only difference with them is a matter of opinion on the 12 men of Ephesus in Acts 19:1–6, which R. G. Jolly now attempts to magnify out of all proportion to its truth worth. We accept Brother Johnson’s position regarding That Servant: He always accepted his opinion unless time or clear Scripture disproved his opinions. Such is our attitude now. Had R. G. Jolly adhered to this principle with respect to Epiphany arrangements (had not “contemned the counsel of the most High”, Psa. 107:11), he would not now be engulfed in the quagmire of confusion on so many fundamental doctrines. But, just as we have completely silenced him on so many other subjects, we shall now proceed to silence him on this present difference; and to prove that the “oil in his lamp has gone out” (Matt. 25:8) – that he cannot even read the clear and direct English of the Star Members, and understand what he has read after he reads it.

After indulging in his usual “profusion of words” by way of introduction, he pro­ceeds to comment on the “gifts of the spirit” in the early Church; then proceeds to say the “early Church applies to the entire time in which the Apostles practiced the lay­ing on of hands.” So far as we know, the Apostle John was the last Apostle to leave this world – about 100 A.D. But for quite a few of his last years John was a prison­er on Patmos. This doesn’t seem to bother R. G. Jolly one bit; but we now ask him: During John’s imprisonment how did newcomers into the Christ Company obtain this “lay­ing on of hands”?

Of course, in this matter, as in his “refutation” of J. W. Krewson on “Due Truth for all the Consecrated”, he gives again a half truth; and half truths are more mis­leading than whole errors. He cites 1 Cor. 12:7 – “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal,” and he stresses the word “every.” Here is where he should have offered some explanation to teach his readers clearly, and enable them “rightly to divide the word of Truth.” Of course, being in the bog of confusion himself, we should not expect this of him since he was abandoned to Azazel in October 1950 – although he is crass enough to accuse JJH of being befuddled. Well, after com­paring his dissertation with this writing, our readers will have no problem to deter­mine who is “befuddled”, who is in Azazel’s hands.

Had R. G. Jolly been clear himself on this subject, he would have explained that St. Paul’s statement quoted above, “The manifestation of the spirit is given to every man”, is just as applicable now as it was when he wrote it. But it has a limitation now that it did not have then, because there are two kinds of gifts of the Spirit – ­the acquired and the miraculous. The acquired gifts are the fruits or graces developed over a lifetime by “every man” possessing the Holy Spirit. The miraculous gifts were an instantaneous matter – the gifts of healing, tongues, etc.– and were much more readily discernible to the natural man than the acquired gifts. Brother Russell offers the sound opinion (but it is just an opinion – no direct Scripture to prove it) that all those present at Pentecost received one or more of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. The same was probably true an the outpouring upon Cornelius. However, aside from these two instances, none could receive the miraculous gifts except hands were laid on them by an Apostle; and none of such recipients had the power to pass those gifts on to others. This explains why those gifts died out at substantially the same time as did the Apostles.

As we reflect upon the foregoing, we must conclude either that not nearly all in the Church after Pentecost received the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, or that none came into the Body unless an Apostle were present to lay hands on them. Let R. G. Jolly offer a clean comment on this premise – if he can: Of course, this premise passed clear over his head, although we hinted at it without offering details. We pur­posely withheld the details to determine, if possible, just how befuddled Azazel has made him. Here is another proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” His only answer here – if he tries to offer one – will be to yell loudly, “Sifter, Errorist, Sophist!”

Another still more pointed instance that we called to his attention along this line is that of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26–39. Any one in R. G. Jolly’s deli­cate and difficult position would have grasped the plain implications here; but the real point apparently completely escaped him – another proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” His only answer here also will be to yell loudly, “Sifter–Errorist”, etc. It is very clear from verse 7 in this chapter that Philip (the Deacon) had the miraculous gifts of the spirit – “cast out unclean spirits: and many paralytic and lame persons were cured” (Dia.). Verse 12 says Philip baptized them (the Samaritans) – ­certainly not with John’s Baptism, any more than he gave the Eunuch John’s Baptism. But verse 16 says the Spirit “was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” Then v. 17: “They (Peter and John, the Apostles) laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit”– undoubtedly received the miraculous gifts, which Philip was unable to bestow upon them. And, if Philip could not bestow those Gifts of the Spirit upon the Samaritans, no more could he do so for the Eunuch; so we have in this Eunuch a case of at least one “in Apostolic times” who came into the Christ Company without receiving the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Whether he ever later on came into contact with an Apostle and received those gifts by the laying on of hands we do not know; and we shall not attempt to be wise above that which is written. But the Eunuch “went on his way rejoicing”, although certain it is he did not receive the miraculous gifts of the spirit that day, nor likely for many days thereafter – if at all – , because he returned to “Candace, Queen of the Ethi­opians.” Do you think R. G. Jolly will ever attempt to harmonize this incident with his contentions? We may be sure he’ll do nothing more them yell, “Sifter”, etc.

In connection with the foregoing, R. G. Jolly makes this observation: “Since the Eunuch’s case is a very peculiar one, nothing conclusive in this connection can be drawn from what was said or not said at his baptism.” No, we shouldn’t expect any clear con­clusions to be drawn here – or anywhere else – by one abandoned to Azazel, and to wham Cod is sending “an energy of delusion, to their believing the falsehood.” (i2 Thes. 2:11––Dia.) When there is nothing to say, the Bible says nothing – quite the reverse of R. G. Jolly. With him, when there is nothing to say, he’ll find plenty of words with which to say it. It’s as clear as the noonday sun: Philip had not the power to bestow the miraculous gifts; the Bible makes this very clear in vs– 7, 15–17, as we pointed out aforegoing. Any one not befuddled by Azazel would see this without diffi­culty—especially so, since the Star Members have taught that only the Apostles were able to confer the miraculous gifts. Therefore, why should the record say unnecessarily that the Eunuch did not receive those gifts at Philip’s hands, when we are already clear­ly informed it was not within Philip’s power to bestow them?

It goes without saying that very shortly after Pentecost the “early church” con­sisted of Little Flock and Great Company members. Therefore, if the foregoing were not enough to prove him “foolish”, we cite the case of the one in 1 Cor. 5:1–5, who had been disfellowshiped. Even before the Ecclesia had cast him out, would R. G. Jolly now con­tend that that member of the early Church was blessed with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit?

R. G. Jolly then proceeds to say “this errorist (meaning JJH) gives no proof” that the two Baptisms never operated at the same time after Cornelius. No, of course not! The burden of proof here is on R. G. Jolly, because he is the one contending that two Baptisms did operate at the same time. We have repeatedly asked him for just and in­stance in the Bible to prove his position; but he hasn’t done so because he can’t. He may have nothing to say, but he’s always certain to find plenty of word to describe it! In this he shows again the close relationship to his “cousin” J. W. Krewson, who also demands “proof” that his erroneous dreams are not directly disputed by the Bible. These two “cousins” are able to crowd more words into fewer ideas than any one we know!

And in much the same fashion as just mentioned he says we offer no proof from Acts 18 that Apollos did not preach to the Gentiles. The burden of proof here again rests upon R. G. Jolly, since he is so loudly contending there were Gentiles in that group at Ephesus. His contention in several instances that JJH does not offer proof is akin to the argument of the moron who insists the moon is made of green cheese because there’s no place in the Bible that disputes the idea. Of course, as is common with his kind, he insists we contend those men of Acts 19 were Jews. Our readers know this is just a falsehood on his part, induced undoubtedly by his desperation to talk when he has nothing to say. We repeat again – We don’t know what they were; R. G. Jolly insists they were Gentiles, so we ask for his proof – nothing more or leas than just that. And, even if he could prove his point – which he has not done – it still would not change our present view of Baptism. But the Bible clearly states that Apollos was living with Jews who had been won to Christianity. If R. G. Jolly wants to include Gentiles in that arrangement, let him produce his proof for it; the burden is on him.

He next attempts something on 1 Pet. 3:21. He says we “give no proof” that the Apostle was there not discussing John’s Baptism. Certainly he is treating of water immersion; and it was water immersion by John the Baptist, plus repentance by the re­cipient, that wrought forgiveness for the Jews – cleansed them of their sins against the law of Moses. As we have said, most of the Apostles needed no water immersion of any kind. The text itself offers all the proof necessary to any one not befuddled by Azazel. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both considered this Scripture as treat­ing ONIY of Christian Baptism – with not the slightest hint in any of their writings that “proof” was needed to show it was not John’s Baptism. In fact, when R. G. Jolly published a summary of our Grand Rapids discourse on 1 Pet. 3:21 in the 1953 P.T. he himself then needed no “excuse” that it treated exclusively of Christian Baptism. But with him, if he accepted our position then, that’s no reason why he should do it now—although our position was then, and still is, in full “harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson” on this Christian baptism text.

We have previously stated that 1 Pet. 1:1 and the Berean Comment show this Epistle was written to the Jews. R. G. Jolly now offers the moronic objection that “Peter was addressing consecrated Christians, so the premise of this errorist falls to the ground.” Too bad Brother Russell didn’t think of that when he allowed the Berean Comment to be circulated! As Brother Johnson has so ably stated, when these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense; and the nonsense in this instance by R. G. Jolly is pathetic in the extreme. Without leaning on Brother Russell here (who says they were Jews), we’ll go back to Acts 18:2, where Paul was associated with a “Jew named – Aquila.” Would even the veriest novice in the Truth want to contend from this that Aquila was not also a Christian? Certainly not! And it’s clear enough from 1 Pet. 1:3,4 and 5:4 that those Jews whom Peter was addressing were already in the Body of Christ: “hath begotten us again to a lively hope... an inheritance incorruptible.” There­fore, those Jews (by birth), having already come into the Christ Company, were included in the “us” class (the Saints, as Brother Russell so often stressed). Then, they needed no further water immersion of any kind; and by no stretch of a foolish imagination could they possibly need John’s Baptism. For one who sat at the feet of the brilliant Star Members for over forty years to offer such nonsense now would be unbelievable were we not witness to it.

But the question is properly in order here: Thy, then, did St. Peter write them as he did? He did so because they had never seen Jesus in person; had probably never seen John the Baptist. Thus, their understanding of Baptism and other doctrines might well require some inspired instruction; and that’s what Peter gave them. We do not know whether Peter was ever immersed; but, if he ever was immersed, it would of necessity have had to be John’s Baptism. Yet he states to those Jews to whom he is writing: “Im­mersion, a representation of this, now saves us.” He is saying that Noah in the ark completely surrounded by water is a type of entrance into the antitypical Ark, Christ; and that this would be the only reason for them at that late date in the Jewish Harvest to teach and perform any Baptism. If this were not true, then the inspired Apostles would certainly have clarified the subject further to those converted Jews to whom he was writing. If R. G. Jolly’s contention is now correct, those Jews needed no Baptism of any kind if John’s Baptism were still to be practiced – unless they were conscious of sin against the Law, which Baptism would have been administered to them prior to their entrance into the Christ Company, while Christian Baptism is always after full consecration. Rather odd, isn’t it, that St. Peter would write them about something that concerned them not in the least, and would fail to mention the very fact that would be vital to Jews then (if R. G. Jolly is now right)? As a clear and inspired teacher, St. Peter would certainly have told those Jews which Baptism to offer to newcomers if two were in vogue. Certainly, it should not require argument that Peter is describing Christian Baptism – the same Baptism we understand and practice now. Those Jewish con­verts whom St. Peter was addressing would most likely contact their Jewish brethren and friends in an effort to win them for Christ. If John’s Baptism was the one they should have used for those Jews, again we ask – Isn’t it most strange that the inspired Apostle would explain the Baptism they should not use but ignore completely the Baptism they should use? It should be kept in mind that up to the time of Cornelius Christian Bap­tism meant no more to the Jews than John’s Baptism meant to the Gentiles. Neither was applicable to the other class of people. Of course, prior to Cornelius, Jesus was the only One to receive Christian Baptism.

A number of times in the past R. G. Jolly has lifted certain statements from Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson without using quotation marks; and he now makes quite some ado because we criticized those statements. This in itself is perverse enough, and demon­strates clearly his stature; but quite often when he lifts a sentence or two in that manner he actually perverts the general thought of the Star Members. Azazel means Perverted; and we have often proven him to be a most guilty perverter. But perhaps the prize piece of nonsense is to be found at the bottom of P. 77, col. 2, where he presents a revolting perversion of Brother Johnson’s statement, “Baptism signifies our induc­tion into the Church of the Firstborn”, and proceeds to say Brother Johnson often used the word “our” as referring only to the Priests; and R. G. Jolly now follows his example by meaning only the Great Company when he says ‘our.” If we go back to P.T. ‘57, P–34, we’ll find R. G. Jolly also uses the words “all of us.” Let him show where Brother John­son ever did that in addressing the General Church, while he referred only to the Saints.

But this is a small part only of our objection to his lame excuse here. In his jumble on the item, ‘’For whom is Due Truth”, he did the same thing with the word “all”; then contended any one should know he didn’t mean “all” when he said “all”, that he actually meant only less than one percent. Here he does the same thing: When he says “all of us” he means only the Great Company among his readers. How cheap can he get? As we have said, we should think the man would be ashamed, but it seems there is no shame in him, He read here a statement by Brother Johnson without understanding what he read – another cogent proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” Brother John­son has Biblical prerogative and precedent for using words “our”. “US”, etc., when re­ferring only to the Saints, because the Bible itself does just that. A classic example of this is our quotation in this paper of 1 Pet. 1:3,4, where the Apostle uses the word “US”, thus including those Jewish converts right in with himself as a part of the “us” the Christ Company. In fact, his Epistle, along with all the other Epistles, was pri­marily written only for the ‘Is” class. However, right here we should keep clearly in mind Brother Russell’s statement: “If they lose the spirit of sonship, they cease to be sons, cease to be under this law of liberty,” Here’s another point that has passed right over R. G. Jolly’s head—proving once again, if we need any more proof – that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” The Great Company is no longer under the law of liberty because their sacrifice becomes one of constraint, a forced termination to their consecration. But R. G. Jolly would like to forget this—and have his sectarian supporters forget it, too – as he attempts to seize Little Flock prerogatives for himself. Thus, he labors under many “strong delusions.”

Now, let R. G. Jolly show any such precedent for the Great Company. He has re­peatedly tried to take Little Flock, and even Star Member, prerogatives and fit himself into them, which proves he often reads without understanding what he has read. A po­tent illustration was his contention that the great Company is in the wilderness condi­tion just as the Little Flock had its Wilderness experience. We say this was his con­tention until we showed how ridiculous was his position; and we have since heard no more of it – just as we’ll probably hear no more from him now on this subject of Bap­tism. But we invite him to try again if he is inclined, as we have by no means ex­hausted the refutations that could have been presented herein, our absti­nence being due to the length already of this writing.

The Great Company is indeed a part of the Gospel–Age Firstborn, the reason being that they are among the first–begotten. Thus, all the first-begotten of the Gospel Age must eventuate into the firstborn, or go into the Second Death. But, as we recently wrote a Brother, God never calls any one to be unfaithful; hence there is no call to the great Company (no call to any Measurably Faithful class) – their final position is just an act of mercy by God to save them from eternal extinction. Therefore, this Class is accorded only secondary notice in the Scriptures; and it is only an act of Azazelian impudence when any of them try to fit themselves into the “us” Class. It is indisputably testimony to their uncleansed condition, and that they are in the hands of Azazel and cannot think clearly while in that condition. And for one of them to set himself forth as a teacher of “advancing truth”, while attempting such a course, as R. G. Jolly now does, is a clear warning to all that his claims should be viewed with acute suspicion.

It should be kept in mind that all the Great Company had entered the Gospel–Age Church of the Firstborn more than 44 years ago – that they then entered as a part of the “us” Class – and we know of a certainty that many of them have never had water immersion. Yet R. G. Jolly states in the preceding sentence – addressing all the Great Company, according to his own present contention – that “baptism signifies our consecra­tion.” Is he there telling those of his Great Company brethren that have had nothing more than a sprinkling in infancy – that were never immersed that that sprink­ling (their only water baptism) signified their consecration and induction into the Church of the Firstborn? Another loose statement akin to this is to be found on P. 75, col. 1, bottom: “Many Jews...late in the Jewish Harvest ... were baptized with John’s Baptism, just as in the case of those at Pentecost.” A Sister wrote to ask us if he is saying here that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that day was John’s Baptism; so we pass the question right on to him. Certainly there were two distinct and different baptisms that day, one performed by God, and one by men. When he says “those at Pentecost” is he in­cluding both groups in his statement? If not, why didn’t he say which group he meant if this Baptism matter is so clear to him as he would have his readers think?

In due course we hope to explain a certain type having to do with this situation; but for now we commend the foregoing to all for careful comparison with his presenta­tion – just the reverse of his advice to his readers. And may the “blessing that maketh rich, and addeth no sorrow therewith”, Abide with all who read in a “good and hon­est heart.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – Can you show by the signs of the times that the salt has left the earth?

ANSWER: – The foregoing is the gist of a question some one whom we do not know put in at this last 1958 Chicago Convention. R. G. Jolly, after his usual “profu­sion of words” said the “salt of the earth” as applied to the Little Flock is gone, but that the “salt” would still be here in the persons of the Great Company, the Youth­ful Worthies and the Consecrated Epiphany Campers. Jesus clearly stated, “Ye are the salt of the earth”, and it was a clear designation ONLY of the Little Flock the “us”, the ‘’we’’, the “our” class of the New Testament. Note the Berean Comments on Matt. 5:13: “Salt of the earth ... In proportion as you have given heed to the Lord’s Word and culti­vated its spirit. God’s people have had a preservative influence for quite a consider­able space around them.” And in Z 106–75: “Before very long we expect that all of the overcoming members of the body of Christ will be changed, glorified, and the body completed on the other side the veil will be without members on this side. The nights will have gone and the darkness will hold fuller away than ever; the salt will be gone and the corruption will take hold swiftly, and the result will be the great time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation.” Berean Comments on Matt. 5:14: “Ye are the light ... phos, the same word applied to our Lord.”

Thus, R. G. Jolly’s answer is a gross revolutionism of Parousia Truth (with which he claims to be “in full harmony”); and he is forced to this error by his other error that the true salt (the Saints) have all left the earth. Here is another illustration of Brother Johnson’s clear Epiphany teaching that the embracing of one error always forces those errorists to embrace other errors in a desperate effort to uphold their first error. Just as he tried to transfer the Measurably Faithful into the “Faithful”, and the “wilderness condition” of the Great Company (their abandonment to Azazel ­a condition where all brotherly fellow­ship and favor of the World’s High Priest has been removed!) into the “wilderness experience” of the little Flock (the “ye” class ­the more than overcomers who needed no enforced condition to destroy their fleshly minds), he now seeks to pervert the clear Scriptural teachings on the “Salt” Class to include the Great Company and other classes.

If his Campers “Consecrated” are a part of the “salt” – and the “earth” will not be dissolved until the “salt” (the preserving influence) is removed—then we need not expect dissolution of the present earth at all, as some of his Campers “Consecrated” will continue with us right up to the beginning of Restitution, according to R. G. Jolly’s own contention. It is worthy of note that neither the ‘signs of the times” nor the chronology point out October 1950 as the passing of the Last Saint; whereas, both of the important indicators do verify every other feature of God’s Plan, many of them of much lesser import than the passing of the “salt of the earth” (the last mem­ber of the “ye” Class, the Saints).

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

QUESTION: – We are informed that Brother Jolly stated at the 1955 Philadelphia Convention that the ‘sifters’ could them­selves be sifted out of the L.H.M.M. before another year had passed – and would not be seen there anymore. Do you know anything about that?

ANSWER: – Yes, your information is substantially correct; he was his usual positive self about it, too. And during that same time J. W. Krewson also gave us assurance in like positive manner that Pilgrim Gavin and other prominent brethren would publicly take their stand for him before 1955 had expired. But just the re­verse has occurred with the prophecies of both these ‘Pastors and Teachers.’ Now we can only wonder whether they then thought they were students of prophecy, and based their predictions upon some “strong delusion” that they had special illumination to ex­pound some biblical type or prophecy. Regardless of what they thought in 1955, time has clearly proven that their predictions were prompted solely by the wishes of their fleshly minds, at the instigation of the Adversary. And we can expect to see much more of this as certain developments unfold more fully.

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

QUESTION: – Do we understand you to accept Brother Jolly’s teachings on the Epiphany Campers Consecrated, except that the time is not yet; that this doctrine will be proper enough in the “Finished Picture” of the Epiphany?

ANSWER: – Certainly not! There never was, is not now, and never will be such a Class. As Brother Johnson has so often stressed, any interpretation must be in harmony with God’s character attributes; and this Campers Consecrated is decid­edly contrary to Cod’s Justice. This in itself should brand it for what it is – a Le­vitical vagary. As we have said, there is no Scripture anywhere to support it; and the Star Members never taught it. So there are at least two things to stamp it as error. During the Gospel Age all were called “in the one hope of their calling” – all who were faithful in “the narrow way” received the reward of that way – Immortality. Also, now, those who walk ‘a narrow way” will receive the same reward as all who con­tinue faithful in that way, Worthyship – just as those of the Great Company who even­tually receive the “palm” will all have the same reward of that way which they traverse. The only difference amongst any of the Classes will be one of honor – “star differeth from star” – ; but each will receive the nature pertinent to his Class.

Faith justification is only for the Faith Dispensation, in which we still are. And there is only one place that pictures such justification, and that is the Court. There is not the slightest hint in any Scripture, type or prophecy of a “narrow way” in the Camp. In the finished Epiphany picture those who have not improved their faith justification will have “received the Grace of God in vain” – be remanded to the Camp for another opportunity during the works justification under the New Covenant.

At present there is an embargo on the Ransom merit until all the faith–justified finish their course – as parts of the Bride, the Bridesmaids or the Worthies; and it cannot possibly be available for any other Class until that embargo is lifted. Of course, there are Epiphany Campers now, just as there have been such all during the Epiphany; but, not having come through that “one way”, the Gate (Christ), they do not now have faith justification any more than they did twenty years ago – nor will they ever have faith justification so long as they remain in the camp. And in the finished pic­ture those forced out of the Court into the Camp will actually lose the justification they had while in the Court.

J. F. Rutherford revolutionized against Parousia teachings only in his newly found doctrine, but R. G. Jolly revolutionizes against both Parousia and Epiphany teachings in his Epiphany Campers “Consecrated.’’ When Brother Johnson gave us the Epiphany teachings on the Epiphany Tabernacle it was harmonious with the Parousia teachings and with Tabernacle Shadows. Any honest–hearted parousia–enlightened brethren who had opportunity to look into Epiphany Teachings readily accepted Advanc­ing Truth as a part of the whole, because it did no violence to any Parousia funda­mental doctrine. This cannot be said about R. G. Jolly’s Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” – because it does violence to both Parousia and Epiphany teachings: It is a sin against greater light.

 Brother Johnson has this to say in E–4–406: “The Little Flock, the Ancient Worthies, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies will be the Millennial Household of Faith (2 Tim. 2:20).” No room here for R. G. Jolly’s Epiphany Campers “Con­secrated” (his ‘Household of Faith’) that he now says are walking “a narrow way” with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. And further: “The Priests and Levites dwell­ing about the Tabernacle type this Household of Faith (Num. 1;3:4). The Youthful Wor­thies, of course, are not of the New Creature Household of Faith, because they are not new creatures. But from the standpoint of having “the faith of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7,9) they are, of course, like him, of the Household of Faith..... They are, however, somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith, hazing used the grace of God in vain; while the former, consecrating and proving faithful, retain their Tentative Justification, and are thus of the Gospel–Age Household of Faith who persist into and during the Epiphany. The reason why they are of the Household of Faith is that they are a faith class; for all that are of the faith of Abraham are of the Household of Faith.” And those of the “faith of Abraham” are certainly pictured forth in the Court and not in the Camp – whether the Jewish Camp, the large Gospel–Age Camp, or the Epiphany Camp. Yet, R. G. Jolly claims his Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” are of the Household of Faith!’

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

Letters of General Interest

Dear Bro. & Sr. Hoefle: – Grace and peace!

I just received your October letter, and enjoyed reading every bit of it, and to tell you the truth I was going over the same subject in my meditations this morning. In most particulars I had arrived at the same conclusions you had, and I can’t for the life of me see how any Truth person can do any different. I can well remember when I first heard Bro. Jolly’s lecture on the “Queen of Sheba” class I couldn’t quite agree with him, as I thought it was too premature, and also could not see much advantage for any one to consecrate now for such a purpose, in view of the final rewards offered... You sure gave Bro. Jolly something to think about in your last letter; as you say, he, like J.F.R., will have to deny Tabernacle Shadows.

I do not think much of Bro. Krewson’s blast at Bro. Alger’s character. He shows his kinship to his twin Jolly...

The Lord will richly bless you, Bro. Hoefle, as you defend the Truth. You have done too much for the Truth to back down now. You greatly helped Bro. Johnson during the depression, when the rest of us were not able to do much; and you have one friend in the Truth that hasn’t forgotten it, but, – sad to say, there are many that have.

This last blast of Bro. Jolly in the Sept–Oct. P.T. about disfellowshiped members not being welcome was about the last straw. Any one with any intelligence ought to know his purpose ... You have him on the run, in my opinion ... The present movement will never get anywhere until they are cleansed, and I’m beginning to lose hope they ever will be cleansed. I look forward to your letters.. With much Christian love. Your Brother .....

NO. 41: THREE FEATURES OF OUR WORK

No. 41

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

In this September‑October Present Truth, page 69, col. 2, there is quite some elaboration on “this glorious witnessing work” – with another slur at the “sift­ing leaders”, although he does not mention our name. Answering for JJH and his house, we cling to the teachings of both Star Members that there are three features to our work: First and most important, to perfect ourselves in every good word and work. Second, and next important, to assist others in doing the same thing. Third, and last, to witness to the world “of sin of righteousness, and of judgment to came.” We call attention to the Manna Comment for February 5: “We find that the great work which God asks of us is not work for others, but work in ourselves.”

And another quotation from E‑6‑352: “This teaching of a supposed opposition between character development and covenant keeping, which is treated by J.F.R. as though it meant only serving the Truth, witness­ing, is doubtless the basis of his ex­treme emphasis on service and his comparative neglect an the other six features of covenant keeping: (1) deadness to self and the world, (2) study of the Word, (3) watchful­ness and (4) prayer according to the word, (5) practicing the word and (6) suffering for loyalty to all six previous parts of our covenant keeping. This extreme emphasis injures many. We certainly believe in service. It is surely one of the seven features of our covenant obligations; but to stress it one‑sidedly and extremely to the comparative neglect of the other six features of our covenant obligations results in a one‑sided and consequently narrow and insufficient devel­opment. A well-rounded development, embracing all features of our covenant obli­gations, is needed If we would be conformed unto the image of God's son.”

The foregoing is clear enough, and fully expresses our own stand; we are in full accord with the quotations above. R. G. Jolly complains that the “sifters” have retarded his witnessing effort; but he has no one to blame but himself if the more alert ones are becoming discouraged with him and his “great works.” Time itself has proven the folly of his Flying Saucer tract – just as time has demonstrated the failure of his $5 Correspondence Course. What with Sputniks and other devices of dazzling speed, any one would now appear quite ludicrous to offer a Flying Saucer tract in explanation; and some of his erstwhile supporters have the sagacity to realize that. The same goes for his DYK, which not a few now clearly realize to be error since reading our devastating refutations of views on the Last Saint, etc. Had he followed with the Epiphany work as arranged by the Epiphany Messenger (instead of “contemning the counsel of the Most High”– Psa. 107:11), he would certainly have had no opposition from this writer; and we doubt he would have had any from any one else associated with the LHMM. The “timeworn and thread­bare” tracts used by The Epiphany Messenger in Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle are still the most “up‑to‑date” Truths for witnessing work, to those in darkness concerning them. There is a special reason why R. G. Jolly has had so little to say about Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, on which we will have more to say in a future writing. But for now we felt it expedient to express our “in harmony” with That Wise and Faithful Servant, as well as with the Epiphany Messenger, on their fundamental teaching regarding “service.”

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

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – What is meant by the text, “Let us go unto him, without the camp, bear­ing the reproach with him”?

ANSWER: – To go to Him “without the camp” would mean to do His will at all costs whether with the approval of the Nominal People of God or not. And to do His will we are not likely to receive the approval of the sects and sectarians of our day anymore than our Lord received the approval of the Jewish System of His day. Brother Russell says:

“For our lord in his day to have gone outside the camp would have been to go outside the nominal church system of his time and to do the will of the Father irrespective of their support; and for us now to follow him thus outside the camp would be to go outside of present environments, viz., outside of Christendom, in the sense of ignoring the views and teachings, the approval, the snares, of Christendom.”

And so it was after the death of That Wise and Faithful Servant, those who went to Him “without the camp” (without the approval of the “Channel”) did in­deed bear the “reproaches with Him.” And so it is today, if we “continue in His word” we will be His disciples indeed; but if we compromise the Truth for the present advantages and approval of the Nominal People in order that we might “sacrifice” (“services”), we cannot “go unto him, without the camp, bearing the reproach with him.” King Saul thought, too, he would compromise in order to “sacrifice” (serve contrary to the,Lord's arrangements). “For I bear them rec­ord that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom. 10:2) And our Lord says of them –  “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 hell than yourselves.”

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

QUESTION: – In Lev. 9:24 we are told “there came out a fire from before the Lord.. and consumed the burnt offering”; and in Lev. 8:32 Aaron and his sons are commanded to “burn with fire” what was left of the offering. The Berean Comments on 9:24 say this fire showed God's acceptance of the sacrifice; and the Comments on 8:32 say it shows “we are completely and entirely consumed.” Inas­much as fire in the Bible usage usually types destructive influences, will you please harmonize this with the Comments on these verses?

ANSWER: – It is quite true that fire usually does typify destruction in the anti­types, and we believe it is true in these two instances also – there being a twofold significance here. We are in full agreement with Brother Rus­sell's conclusions; but we think there is a pointed antitypical significance of a destruction character, too.

The Sin‑Offering was tentatively and individually complete in September 1914; and the destructive influence that began then most remarkably demonstrated God's ac­ceptance of that Sin‑Offering. This destructive force is still at work, and will culminate with Jacob's Trouble, at which time The Christ will be revealed in the “fire of that day.” We think we have here a strong corroboration of our belief that the High Calling closed in September 1914 by the very fact that destructive forces be­gan right on time to demonstrate God's acceptance of the Gospel Age offering for sin. This is confirmed in 1 Cor. 3:13 – “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.” Certainly, it was the “fire” of the Epiphany day that manifested God's acceptance of the offering of the Fully Faithful, while at the same time manifesting persons, principles and things among all classes of Society. We think this explanation harmonizes fully with Bro. Russell's conclusions as given in Tabernacle Shadows on this matter. God manifested His acceptance of the type by fire; God manifested acceptance of the antitype by anti­typical fire. Brother Russell could not see the antitype in its fullness, because he never realized that before his death the Sin Offering was tentatively and individu­ally complete in 1914.

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

QUESTION: – Do we understand you to teach that all Justified Believers, including the Tentatively Justified, are typified by the Levites?

ANSWER: – Yes, that is the way we understand the types. All those in the Court condition are counted as Levites until their faith‑justifi­cation lapses and they are forced out of the Court at the end of the Epiphany. Brother Johnson clarifies this when he tells us in the Epiphany the Great Company are also counted in with the Levites. But that doesn't mean there are no others counted in the levitical picture during the Epiphany. Certainly, the Youthful Worthies are among the Levites, and the unconsecrated Tentatively Justified are also counted in with the Household of Faith so long as they are in the Court condition – because the Court still contains the levites. Brother Russell in Tabernacle Shadows makes this very clear: “As we now pass to the consideration of the inauguration of the typical priest­hood, we notice that the tribe of the Levites (typical of all the justified believers) existed before the priesthood was instituted. So in the antitype the “Royal Priesthood” began with the anointing of Jesus, the High Priest (at bap­tism, Luke 3:22; Acts 10:38); but be­lievers, justified by faith in Christ, had lived long before that. For instance, Abraham believed God, and was justified by his faith (Rom. 2:2,3). Though even the type had not yet come in his day, Abraham, as a justified believer, was a member of the 'household of faith’, typified by the Levites.” (p. 27)

We should note from the above that those who came before the selection of the Church were typified by the Levites – i. e., if they were counted in the Household of Faith; and so it is since the Church has been completed – those who come to the Lord must came through the GATE: they must be in the Court Condition and counted as Levites if they are of the Household of Faith.

R. G. Jolly contends that the “Household of Faith” has now extended to his Epi­phany Camp, but Brother Johnson nowhere teaches such an oddity. There is only ONE Household of Faith, and that one is pictured forth by the Levites who are in the Court. The quasi‑elect are not pictured in are not of the Household of Faith in the final analysis. In the final adjustment they are remanded to the Camp for Millennial‑Age purposes.

At this last Philadelphia Convention, R. G. Jolly said if they didn't have the understanding regarding his Epiphany Campers, that the lord's people would still be bringing the “tentatively justified” into the Court Condition. But the Court is the only place that types the condition of the Tentatively Justified. If R. G. Jolly has opened up another way, the lord does not recognize it – anymore than He recognized the “sacrifices of King Saul” when done in disobedience to His commands. (1 Sam. 15:13‑23 In his effort to withstand the devastating Truth that has been presented against the Campers Consecrated, R. G, Jolly has stressed the Star Members' explanation as presented above to be “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” But in his refuta­tions of J. W. Krew­son he unqualifiedly (and correctly) contends that the Epiphany is still with us.

How note Brother Johnson's comment in E‑4‑65 (63): “The Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age; and therefore it will continue at least until the last mem­ber of the Little Flock leaves this earth, and probably nearly until about the estab­lishment of the earthly phase of God's Kingdom. This probability is due to the fact that the Epiphany implies a revelation (apokalypsis, uncovering) of the lord's Second Advent.”

From the above it is clear enough that Brother Johnson teaches that the Epiphany “for Gospel‑Age purposes” is still with us, regardless of whether the Saints are all gone or not; and that the Epiphany and the Apocalypse are one and the same in point of time. Also, in E‑11‑473 Brother Johnson says Jesus' executory work pertains to the antitypi­cal Tabernacle Court for all who remain in that Court until the end of the Epiphany. Is R. G. Jolly now also moving Jesus' executory work into the Camp – just as he presumably has done with the laver? – or is he contending that Jesus' executory work does not extend to, and dominate, his Campers Consecrated?

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

QUESTION: – Will you please offer some comment on Brother Krewson's statement on p. 18 of his No. 22 paper that you “are apparently unable to recognize slander when you see it”?

ANSWER: – Any one making the claims J. W. Krewson does should certainly define slander for the benefit of his readers. In this instance, of course, he wouldn't want them to know the true meaning, because even his most prejudiced adherents would then recognize his fraudulent contention as another attempt by him to lie his way out of his previous lies. Here's the legal definition of slander:

Malicious publication of false tales or suggestions tending to injure the reputation of another. (See also Manna Com­ments for September 10.)

It will be noted from the above that “intent” is largely present in slander; and J. W. Krewson specifically wrote letters to brethren stating it was his “intent” to cast suspicion upon us, and he hoped to do this in the minds of many brethren. It should be kept in mind that when he first began to malign us, he contended he had learned from a “reliable witness” (just hearsay evidence, and thus clearly evil sur­mising) that Brother Johnson had never given us a Pilgrim appointment – that we had boldly advanced ourselves after Brother Johnson's death by dropping the word “Aux­iliary” from what Brother Johnson had given us. After we annihilated his slanderous charge by publishing our Pilgrim Certificate, he now offers the twist that we are not “up enough on Epiphany teachings” to know the office Brother Johnson gave us. Well, he is in effect making that charge against the Epiphany Messenger himself, be­cause the Epiphany Messenger gave us the Pilgrim appointment, and clearly stated in his covering letter that the Pilgrim office was superior to the Auxiliary Pilgrim office. We have only accepted the Epiphany Messenger's Epiphany teaching on this matter. Even if J. W. Krewson now thinks he knows more than the Epiphany Messenger himself knew (“deceiving and being deceived”) when he wrote us as he did with our Certificate, this would still be no excuse whatever for J. W. Krewson to impugn our integrity as he has maliciously attempted to do. Clearly enough, the truth has not been a motivating force with him in this instance; and one sin readily leads to other sins – as it has done in his case. If J. W. Krewson had the least semblance of Christian ethics, he would have apologized for his wrong course in the falsehood he circulated, as he himself declared it in his public and private utterances. Like his “cousin” R. G. Jolly, he has great ability to reverse himself whenever it seems ex­pedient. J. W. Krewson himself stated – without reservation – that one of Brother Johnson's Pilgrims attended his New England meeting in June 1955 (we refer to Pilgrim Daniel Gavin). Certainly, any and all of J. W. Krewson's readers who are of “a good and honest heart” will not endorse, or even condone, his falsehoods and evasions in this matter. If J. W. Krewson knew Brother Johnson was making a mistake to give us a Pilgrim appointment, he should have told Brother Johnson about it. Did he do it? Did he ever protest to R. G. Jolly for publishing our Pilgrim status after Brother Johnson's death? Or has the Lord, by special illumination, Just now whispered the Truth to him about it? “An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.” (Prov. 11:9)

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

QUESTION: – How may we determine who are sifters, and who are God's true mouthpieces?

ANSWER: – Perhaps we should first approach this question from a negative viewpoint. Exposing the sins and errors of false teachers or Great Company leaders does not make one a sifter; otherwise, every Star Member would have been a sifter. It should be noted, too, that their “brethren who cast them out” have been only too ready to yell “Sifter” at the Star Members when they could not meet the Truth they presented. We all know how this was done to Brother Johnson by the crown‑lost lead­ers, and especially so by That Evil Servant. “By their fruits ye shall know them”, is a primary and excellent measuring rod for the true and the false. “The works which I do testify concerning me that the Father has sent me”, says Jesus (Jno. 5:36‑‑Dia.); and none who are “following in His steps” will need to resort to falsehood to prove they are “of the Truth.”

God's true servants teach Truth to enlighten,

While false teachers use error to frighten.

At the recent Philadelphia Convention R. G. Jolly read a statement by Brother Russell concerning sifters; then proceed­ed to state some rank falsehood about the “sifters” who were present. We called this injustice to his attention after the meeting; but his only comment was, “I don't care to argue it.” Of course, there was one salient difference between Brother Russell and R. G. Jolly, which the latter was only too glad to ‘overlook’: When Brother Russell called any one a sifter he also proceeded vigorously to refute that sifter's errors with sledge‑hammer force. Now the situa­tion is just the reverse – this ‘sifter’ (JJH) is refuting R. G. Jolly with such force that his only remaining weapon is name‑calling. In view of our own recent analysis of his “Due Truth for all the Consecrated”, he dared not even mention it from the Convention platform. It is very evident he would like to resort to That Evil Servant's method of forcible ejection, as was done with Brother Johnson after he had completely closed their mouths with the force of his Truth presentations. Yes, R. G. Jolly would like to do the very same thing now; but he's just a little afraid of the consequences. Of course, name‑calling is the weakest and one of the most depraved of weapons; it is the last resort of the weakling and the perverter. As we predicted re his “Due Truth” conten­tion, he is only too glad to forget it and to hope and pray that his sectarian followers will forget it, too. “How are the mighty fallen!”

On P. 79 of this last September‑October Present Truth R. G. Jolly makes quite some ado about the 'sifters’ who attended the Philadelphia Convention, his remarks being directed at us without mentioning our name, of course. His comments are almost word for word what That Evil Servant so unjustly published about R. G. Jolly himself early in the Epiphany (R. G. Jolly receiving the personal help and brotherly fellowship of the last Star Member, and being under the influence of his restraining hand at the time R. G. Jolly went from Class to Class among Society adherents in a commendable effort to open their eyes in identical fashion as we now do. And Brother Johnson gave the cor­rect analysis of JFR's attitude then, saying he is forced to warn against the Epiphany Truth, because any who read Brother Johnson's analysis of the Watch Tower errors with an open mind would then be forced to forsake JFR. Thus, JFR conducted a campaign of fear and intimidation among his servile supporter –  his action being the railing of the “impenitent thief” – and he, the real sifter then, succeeded in developing Jehovah's Witnesses, just as his ‘Big Brother’, the Number One Sifter of the entire Gospel Age, succeeded in developing the Papal System. In the very near future we hope to analyze other parts of this last PT, at which time we shall prove that R. G. Jolly has “lost the oil in his lamp.” We make this statement without malice or boasting, our only purpose being an earnest effort to help those that can be helped, allowing those enslaved by fear and ignorance to cleave to R. G. Jolly – just as Brother Johnson did with the Society sectarians.

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

QUESTION: – Why do you insist that the Azazel Goat Class (all the Great Company) will have to have all brotherly fellowship and favor withdrawn from them, as distinct from Priestly Fellowship, before they can receive their wilderness exper­ience necessary for their cleansing?

ANSWER: – We insist upon this procedure because it is a clear Scriptural Epiphany teaching repeatedly taught to us by the Epiphany Messenger, and because it is gross revolutionism to substitute any other method than the Lord's. We have quoted Brother Johnson's clear statements regarding this abandonment process, which are to be found in E‑15‑525 and other similar statements in several articles – ­“As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove Suffic­ient to fully free their Holy Spirit from the bondage of developed world­liness, selfishness, error.....

“Their delivery to Satan implies that they come into such a condition as the priests disfellowship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them. It also implies that God temporarily abandons them.”

And haven't we witnessed that God has abandoned these Great Company leaders, particularly in the chief one among us – R. G. Jolly – when he receives no help in the perilous condition he finds himself with his errors on the Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” and many other errors he has inherited from J. W. Krewson's escapade in fantasy.

And we quote from E‑4‑203: “Letting the Truth section of Azazel's Goat go in the wilderness seems to mean the part of the fit man's course whereby he puts Azazel's Goat into a condition of isolation from the Faithful, whose measurable favor and help they enjoyed previously to this step – a condition in which they are not even given brotherly fellowship (1 Cor‑ 5:11,13).” And on page 204 of E‑4: “There is a dif­ference between the World's High Priest's with­draw­ing priestly fellowship just be­fore delivering Azazel's antityp­ical Goat to the fit man, and the fit man's letting this class go into the wilderness, i. e., putting them in a condition wherein they experience the full loss of the Priesthood's favor and personal help, by their withdrawal of brotherly fellowship.” It was only through the Lord's removal of Brother Johnson that the Azazel Goat Class in the L.H.M.M. lost the brotherly fellowship and personal help and favor of the World's High Priest, because so long as The Epiphany Messenger was with us he gave personal help and favor to the Great Company members in our group, and continued to give them brotherly fellowship, even though same were manifested crown‑losers.

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

Letters of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle:‑ Grace and peace in Jesus our dear Master!

I received your most comforting letter.... I appreciate your prayers very much, for I know that God heareth His faithful children at all times, and is answering them even while they are calling on Him...

On Sunday 17th the L.H.M.M. had a filmstrip show here...... Two brethren from Bartons came to carry on. They had service at Brother ‑‑‑‑‑‑ home .... during the day, and later in the evening they went to the more popular part .... out an the road and there put up the filmstrip, having a public meeting on the road just as any other sect would have done – a thing that I had never seen in Brother Russell's or Brother Johnson's time. We are now able to see how flat they have fallen, and how much they think of this precious Truth. I suppose they think a wonderful work has been done. The brethren here with us are strong and pray for you that the Lord bless and keep you steadfast to the end, with much courage amid the varied opposi­tion you are having to meet. Accept warm love for you both and all the other dear

ones. God bless you! Sister ---------, Jamaica

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Christian Greetings!

You will no doubt have read in the May‑June Present Truth a letter written by the British Representative R. E, Armstrong to the leader of the LHMM, Brother Jolly. On reading this letter my mind went at once to a letter sent by R.E.A. to yourself Sept. 30, 1955, a copy of which you sent me to read. In this letter he claims to be among those brethren who are “reasonable and charitably disposed.” Surely, here R. E. A. is manifesting a doublemindedness of a very peculiar brand when he in his letter to R.G.J. says that, “Some people just don't know when to fade out.” What a very wrong spirit indeed for a brother representative of the LHMM to possess! Whoever would desire such a thing to happen to a brother such as yourself – a brother whom R.E.A. has correctly conceded as a fact that you have proved your­self to be a brother beyond reproach; and that Brother Johnson's love and confi­dence toward you was of the highest. In R.E.A.'s correspondence to you in 1955‑56 how often he proves himself to be of a grievously wrong spirit In putting words in­to your letters which you had not used. This is misrepresenting you. 0, how I do hope that this brother will meditate much and often upon his own closing words to you in the last letter he sent you on March 12, 1956 as follows: “Praying always that we may have Divine wisdom, which is first pure, free from evil surmising, and then peaceable, and with Christian love.”

Surely, dear Brother, one is entitled to ask – Is it in keeping with Divine wisdom – “which is first pure” – to have such an unholy desire for certain breth­ren to “fade out”? Again would it not seem that R.E.A. has proved himself once more to be guilty of “evil surmising” in regard to a brother such as yourself who has already given much evidence of being used by the Lord? And, as a Man of God I firmly believe you will continue to acquit yourself as a valiant Soldier of Christ, having the true interest of God's people at heart. Such uncharitable statements by R.E.A. show a poor kind of Grace when one remembers that he himself “faded out” of the Epiphany Truth and ceased to be active therein from about 1924 to 1941. and, whilst we were glad to witness his return to the Truth, we cannot but very much re­gret his “power‑grasping” and “lording” activities since his coming again into the Epiphany Truth.

Sincerely your brother in the Lord ---------, England

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

Dear Brother & Sister Hoefle: – Grace and peace! Received your letter and notes re the 1958 Philadelphia Conven­tion. As to the four cigar­ette butts found in the Bible House basement, if Bro. Jolly doesn't find anything worse than cigarette butts there, he may consider himself lucky. I would much rather be a “smoking” Christian than a lying one anytime. One is a weakness of the flesh – weaknesses we all have more or less – and lying a weakness of the mind, or spirit – much more dangerous, I should say. It may be that Bro. Jolly will change. I hope and pray so.

I want to say again I enjoyed the October article on Campers Consecrated very much. The people accepted and approved J. W. Krewson at one time, and that includes R. G. Jolly – and now they are stuck with it. They made a mistake and hate to ad­mit it. Why can't they be honest? It doesn't cost too much to tell the truth – and it would mean their blessing... might perhaps help J. W. Krewson, but I am a little doubtful of that. As ever my Christian love to all, Brother ---------.

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

And may each grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Beloved Lord Jesus!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 40: MORE ON CAMPERS CONSECRATED

No. 40

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

Again in this last July‑August 1958 Present Truth there are a few pages on this and related subjects. At the outset it should be kept in mind that neither Star Mem­ber ever saw such a Class; neither is there a single Scripture to support it. It is solely a concoction of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome. In the May 1952 PT, P. 37, col. 2, par. 1, R. G. Jolly himself admits the “parallels” re the last Saint did not mater­ialize. On the very same premise, he is equally wrong in his attempted construction of his Campers Consecrated. In this he displays the same 'versatility’ as the large and small Popes; they accept what seems to serve their purpose, and ignore what ex­poses them. The Papacy had its counterfeit Millennium; JFR had his "Jonadabs" and his “millions”; and R. G. Jolly now follows in their steps with his Campers Conse­crated – which according to his own admissions, could just as plausibly be desig­nated as Restitutionists Consecrated. We say this because, in the final adjustment, at the end of the Little Season, he will have them receiving not one whit more than the present‑day vilest of the vile who shall acquire restitution without sacrifice under the benign Kingdom reign.

We now quote from E‑6‑400: “...we infer that Anarchy will reach a crisis in 1954, whether in its beginning, progress or end we are yet unable to say, as mark­ing the end of the Epiphany.” (While not specially pertinent to Campers Consecrated, the last part of this quotation is specially significant as respects the Epiphany being still with us. The Epiphany is the time of trouble, says Brother Johnson, the same being a clear Scriptural Epiphany truth. Thus, the Epiphany ends when the time of trouble ends, regardless of what that date may be. It needs no argument at this time that that date could not possibly have been 1954; and any conclusions reached now that are based upon such assumption for 1954, are simply some more Le­vitical nonsense.)

In E‑6‑437: “The reward of the...Ancient Worthies will begin after approxi­mately Nov., 1956.”

In E‑6‑506: “Satan will continue until he is put into the bottomless pit after Jacob's trouble, 1956.

In E‑10‑103 (middle): “The nominal‑church foolish virgins coming into the Truth during 1954‑56.”

E‑10‑114: “The last member of the Great Company will get his first enlight­enment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956.”

In the face of the foregoing, and the devastation which time itself has pro­vided, R. G. Jolly proceeded to plan his great program, the Attestatorial Service in 1954; and now his Campers Consecrated. Self‑evidently, it is impossible for him to present harmony in such confusion, which proves him a “blind leader of the blind.” Brother Russell saw his own mistakes re 1914 before he reached 1914; and Brother Johnson certainly would have seen his own mistakes re 1954 had he remained with us. However, R. G. Jolly, being in Azazel's hands, could not, and did not, see these mis­takes – even though some of them were pointed out to him before 1954. Instead, he plunged headlong and recklessly into the Attestatorial Service in 1954; and the re­sult is just what we should expect – chagrin and failure. (We might ask here, too, What has became of his $5 Correspondence Course?)

A comparison of the 1914 Attestatorial Service will make this clear: In 1914‑16, the tremendous success of that service “attested” the cleansed and fully faithful condition of the participants who persevered in it to a completion – demonstrated they were what they claimed to be – Saints of the Most High God. The 1954‑56 effort with its almost total failure, “attested” the uncleansed and unfaithful condition of the participants who persevered in it to a completion (they are viewed as very unfaithful while in the hands of Azazel – See E‑15, pp. 519 and 520) – just as we should expect of it. The Attestatorial Service of both groups “attested” their condition. It should be borne in mind, too, that the Great Company at 1954 very greatly outnumbered the Little Flock at 1914; so the bedraggled spectacle of 1954‑56 becomes all the more pronounced in ratio of those involved. Also, the 1914‑16 ser­vice won all the Little Flock into the Truth before its end; whereas, the 1954‑56 effort not only did not even approach such success, it probably had fewer Great Company members in it at its end than it had at the beginning. R. G. Jolly is certain­ly a good one to explain “spiritual discernment” and for whom is due Truth when we consider his own incapacity for “spiritual discernment” in connection with 1954‑56.

Having experienced the disastrous results of his Attestatorial Service, he yet proceeds on the same pattern and method with his Campers Consecrated – a pattern and method proven so decidedly unadaptable to the actual outworkings at 1954. Cer­tainly no sane person would contend Anarchy had even arrived – much less “reached a crisis” in 1954; and it was THE EVENT and not the date that prompted Brother John­son's statement. The Time of Trouble and the Epiphany are one and the same, says Brother Johnson – therefore, if the Time of Trouble is still with us, the Epiphany in its full sense is also still with us. We cannot eliminate one and retain the other, as R. G. Jolly now tries to do. Here again he shows his tragic incapacity “rightly to divide the word of Truth” – although he still “follows boldness with more boldness” by claiming he is the teacher of “advancing Truth.” In this confused con­dition, it is only reasonable that he reads things without understanding them “God will send them an energy of delusion, to their believing the falsehood”, 2 Thes. 2:11 – Dia. Being determined to pursue his own course, based upon the con­clusions he had erroneously reached in the spring of 1954, but seizing upon Brother Johnson's statement that “Tentative Justification continues until restitution”, he then produces his Campers Consecrated. As we have said previously, he has read Brother Johnson's statement without understanding what he has read – just as J. W. Krewson seems to have done, too. Brother Johnson gave us good Scriptural proof that at least one of those now tentatively justified will continue to live right on up to the start of Restitution (which may be yet some 30 years future); but this statement carries not the slightest hint that new ones will continue to receive tentative justification for thirty years yet. If his argument had any substance to it, we could follow the same reasoning and contend that, since New Creatures will continue as long as the Gospel Age continues (See E‑4‑20) – and we even yet have many of them with as – that new ones could receive vitalized justification (became New Creatures) at the present time. There's as much sense to one argument as to the other. In 1914 there was a tremendous physical attestation that Cod had “ordained Brother Russell a prophet unto the nations” (Jer. 1:5); but there was just nothing of that nature in 1954. R. G. Jolly's “Epiphany parallels of Brother Rus­sell” were such a vagary at 1954 that even he has not had the crassness to even mention the “parallel.” Yet R. G. Jolly proceeds just as though there were  – the same R. G. Jolly who is “glad to admit and correct his mistakes.” In 1914 the door to the Holy was sealed from the outside, but continued to swing out to eject the “large crowd”  – R. G. Jolly being one ejected since that date. But the Holy was the only place to receive vitalized justification and the anointing. As various ones lost their anointing, they also lost their standing in the Christ Company. So also with the Court: Any ejected from it would lose their Class standing; but the Tabernacle picture shows only one place to receive Tentative Justification – ­the Court.

In E‑11‑473 Brother Johnson writes this: “We may go even further and say that at their consecration to righteousness, as distinct from consecration to sacrifice, these two features of Jesus' executory work extend to the faith‑justified as Gospel-Age Levites to serve matters pertaining to the antitypical Tabernacle Court and its appurtenances. Hence we understand that Jesus' pertinent work as Executive for the antitypical Tabernacle and its appurtenances will continue with the Little Flock, Great Company and Youthful Worthies until they respectively finish their courses, but will cease with the faith‑Justified when their faith justification lapses, which seemingly will occur in every case by Oct., 1954, according to Rev. 22:11.”

On P. 59, col. 2 (bottom) of this July‑August paper R. G. Jolly says “Rev. 22:11 came into fulfillment in its fullness (E‑Vol. 10, p. 114).” – in 1954. Suppose we re­fer to p. 114: There Brother Johnson says, “..after 1954 no more persons will enter the tentatively Justified state.” We wonder if R. G. Jolly read this statement, or if he thinks his readers are too much asleep to read it, or if he is so befuddled by Azazel that he fails to grasp its implications. Let us continue: “He that is unjust (the tentatively justified who are not actually justified, not just) let him be unjust still (remain tentatively justified and not consecrate);.and he that is filthy (the impenitent sinners, who in no sense are clean), let him be filthy still (remain in his then condition); and he that is righteous (Levites of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, who, being in the Court, are righteous), let him be right­eous still; and he that is holy (Priests are holy, since they are in the Holy), let him be holy still. 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 and sinners to repent) for the tentatively justified and sinners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of v. 11 be given, but of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to continue faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”

Another point to be considered here is that Brother Johnson clearly taught that when Rev. 22:11 “came to a fulfillment in its fullness” (as R. G. Jolly claims it did in 1954), there would still be Priests here to proclaim its fulfillment. Here again R. G. Jolly takes the part that pleases him, but revolutionizes against the part that restrains him. “A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.”

When R. G. Jolly tries to have the foregoing interpretation of Rev. 22:11 work both ways., it simply “attests” his uncleansed condition, as he finds himself enmeshed in “an energy of delusion.” So that all may know our position, we contend Brother Johnson's interpretation is right, but his time setting is wrong. If R. G. Jolly accepts that interpretation “in its fullness”, as he states, how can he possibly preach Tentative Justification and Campers Consecrated at the same time! He says we are treading the steps of JFR, but this applies to him; he is saying once more “My Lord delayeth”, just as did JFR with his “Millions Now Living Will never Die.”

Furthermore, if R. G. Jolly had a clear understanding of Tabernacle interpreta­tion he would then know that a place always types a condition in that picture. Thus, the Court always types the Justified condition of those in the antitype. If we should assume that he could possibly be correct in his present contention that the Camp also types justification (along with the Court), yet he, according to his own admissions, has the Camp now typing at least two conditions at the same time – that of his Campers Consecrated, and that of the Court rejects. The vagary of this should be im­mediately apparent to any who have just ordinary knowledge of the sober teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on the Tabernacle types. Be also has “a narrow way” in the Court and in the Camp, which is another Levitical monstrosity. It should be observed that the Court for Epiphany purposes has an outstanding exclusive pecu­liarity: It contains three classes of justified – the Great Company, the Youthful ­Worthies, and the unconsecrated Tentatively Justified. At no other period, past or future, can this condition ever occur again.

R. G. Jolly repeatedly quotes Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that “consecra­tion is always in order”; yet Brother Johnson states in the above quotation, “it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate.” Take, for instance, Cornelius: Was consecration always in order for him? If so, what standing did he have before the 70th week expired? Even though his heart may have been “perfect” to­ward God, he still could not enter the High Calling until the “due time.” Certainly, it's always in order for a human being to want to do right; but, once the time ar­rives when there can be no more entry into the Household of Faith during the reign of sin, then such well‑meaning people could only wait for a new way (the Highway of Holiness) to be opened up  – just as Cornelius, in a consecratable condition, had to wait for the “Narrow Way” to be opened for the Gentiles. None of the Gentiles could then consecrate, and have their consecration accepted by God until the “way” was opened for them. And so it is with Restitutionists now – the way (Highway) has not been opened for them yet. “Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company”, says Brother Johnson; and bungling in its extreme is to be witnessed in this Campers Consecrated jumble. It should be kept in mind that consecration is a bilateral arrangement – the presentation by the individual, and the acceptance by God. During the Faith Dispensation consecrations have been accepted for entrance into the Household of Faith. Are these Campers now a part of the Household of Faith “for Gospel‑Age purposes”; or are they a part of the works dispensation for Millen­nial‑Age purposes? And, if they are now “sacrificing”, to what end and for what pur­pose are they doing so, since their ultimate end – according to R. G. Jolly himself cannot be other than general restitution? Furthermore, it is elemental that none can come to a consecration acceptable to God without first washing in the laver; so we repeat a former question: Has R. G. Jolly now moved the laver “for Gospel‑Age pur­poses” into the Epiphany Camp? Or does he now have a laver in the Court and one in the Camp? Or do his Campers Consecrated not need a laver? Everything else about this “doctrine” is distinctly a novelty of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome; and, to make it complete, maybe he now eliminates the preparation for consecration and the daily necessity for subsequent cleansing of his Campers Consecrated at any laver anywhere.

On page 113 of the 1927 Present Truth, Brother Johnson says faith‑justification ceases to operate after the Gospel Age. R. G. Jolly now contends no new faith-­justified ones enter into the Court “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” Brother Johnson says there won't be any faith‑justified anywhere after the Gospel Age purposes are ful­filled. Half truths are more misleading than whole errors; and here again R. G. Jolly is offering a half truth  – just as he has repeatedly done on the parallels with re­spect to 1954‑56. It goes without question that Brother Johnson based his conclus­ions re 1954‑56 exclusively on the parallels; and none of this has materialized – ­although his teaching will certainly be correct at the “due time”, at a date still fu­ture. But Brother Johnson mentioned no date in his 1927 statement quoted herein, so it allows of no variation in conclusion. Either the Gospel‑Age in its full Epiphany sense is still with us, or tentative justification is no longer available to new­comers. R. G. Jolly is insisting on having it both ways, so it's little wonder he is in the bog of confusion.

Here is something more on this same point from E‑10‑672: “There will be a large (Epiphany) work: (1) whereby oar non‑Truth Great Company and Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed and others of them afterward.” Here is another teaching of the Star Member that R. G. Jolly now tosses away because it interferes with his own “energy of delusion.” Note further this from E‑4‑406 (middle): “They (the Youthful Worthies) are, however somewhat different from the tentatively justi­fied who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith.”

It should be kept in mind that God's Justice does not require sacrifice of any one; but His Justice also rewards those who do sacrifice. Also, “There shall be one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your own country.” (Zev. 24:22) The “stranger” in this text types the Youthful Worthies who are under the same law of sacrifice as the very Elect (although not tried so severely, for several different rea­sons). If we understand R. G. Jolly aright, he now has his Campers Consecrated also under “one manner of law” with the Elect – “a narrow way”, he says. And he “invites” them to do this! As Restitutionists, they will be commanded, not invited, to consecrate – the command then being only to do right, with no opportunity to sacrifice. Yet, in the final analysis  – after the Little Season – his Campers Consecrated now on “a narrow way” will find themselves on an exact Par with others who gain restitu­tion on the “Highway.” “The narrow way” and “a narrow way” are “for Gospel-Age purposes” – and nothing else; therefore, if his Campers Consecrated are on any “narrow way”, it could be none other than “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” Again we repeat, it can­not be both ways; it must be one or the other – the Gospel Age for Gospel‑Age pur­poses is still here, or there is no longer any offer of tentative justification avail­able for any purpose whatever. Tentative justification and vitalized Justification are “for Gospel-Age purposes” only; and, as Brother Johnson has clearly taught, when the “Gospel‑Age purposes” no longer exist, tentative and vitalized justification will no longer prevail for any other purpose. Faith Justification is for the Faith Ages only (the Gospel Age being the last of these). Once the Faith Ages cease to exist, then Faith‑Justification must simultaneously cease to operate, as Brother Johnson so clearly and repeatedly emphasizes. The Jolly-Krewson twosome now revolutionizes against this clear teaching by the Star Member.

Brother Johnson emphatically taught that God never reveals a new doctrine through a Great Company member; but this doesn't bother R. G. Jolly either. We all know, too, that many of them have attempted it  – the most vivid in our time being That Evil Servant with his “Jonadabs” (a non‑existent class, Brother Johnson tells us), his “Millions” and his “Great Multitude” doctrine and his perversions on the Tabernacle which eventually forced him to reject completely Tabernacle Shadows. We wonder if R. G. Jolly will follow in his steps to a complete rejection of Tabernacle types. He has made a strong start with his Campers Consecrated; and his attempts to pre­sent a new doctrine – contrary to Divine arrangement (“contemned the counsel of the Most High”  – Psa. 107:11)  – has resulted in just the kind of jumble we are now witnessing.

However, assuming the foregoing might possibly be incorrect, then at least such new doctrine must per se be in harmony with doctrines already expounded by the Star Members. But this Campers Consecrated sets aside Brother Johnson's explanation of the type shown in the position of the twelve tribes, in which he contended the 9½ tribes between Jordan and the sea type the Restitutionists, ten being the number of human perfection with the half tribe of Manasseh taken as the whole. R. G. Jolly now grossly revolutionizes against this clear Epiphany teaching by attempting to move this half tribe of Manasseh in the antitype into position to join with the other half tribe of Manasseh east of Jordan to have his Campers an the same “narrow way” as the Youthful Worthies. Odd indeed it is that with all Brother Johnson wrote about the quasi‑elect, that he could not see this type as the Jolly‑Krewson twosome now sees it  – a view which perverts the Star Members' teaching to accommodate it to this non‑existent Campers Consecrated Class, just as JFR perverted the clear interpreta­tion of the Seventh Principal Man on Zech. 13:8 to accommodate it to his “Millions Now Living Will Never Die.” And all of us are witness to the debacle that resulted from that tampering with the Star Member's clear teaching. Let those go their way who are bent upon making a “twin” to that mistake; as for this writer and his house, we will have none of it.

In this last paper he also offers the lame excuse he does not wish to use too much space for refuting. Note also the contrast here with Brother Johnson's atti­tude: “Question: Why does Brother Johnson devote so much space to criticism? Answer: How could we as an under‑shepherd in God's flock be faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren, if we remained silent while Satan through various leaders among Truth people is seeking to undermine the Truth and the Divinely­given methods for its service, to the injury of God's sheep?” (See July 1941 PT, p. 112). Here again R. G. Jolly does despite to the wholesome and faithful course of the last Star Member and other Star Members such as Martin Luther, who also didn't fail to refute error energetically and persistently. He makes a lame apology about not having “space” to devote to the ‘sifters’; but Brother Johnson never offered such flimsy ‘excuse.’ Of course, Brother Johnson put out a Present Truth every month, too; and this afforded him plenty of space for all necessary purposes. And Brother John­son always clearly identified the sifters and errorists he was exposing, so that his readers knew conclusively whereof and of whom he spoke. This he felt impelled to do to “be faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren”; but R. G. Jolly apparently feels no such obligation for himself – although he is ready enough to claim he “now controls the LHMM even as Brother Johnson controlled it.” Clearly enough, his motive to “control” is decidedly different than was Brother Johnson's motive. In 1951, when R. G. Jolly first told us he was going to increase the Standard from six issues to twelve issues annually and reduce the Present Truth from twelve issues to six issues annually, we firmly but lovingly told him his first obligation – ac­cording to the Scriptures (Acts 20:28) – was to “feed my sheep”, to nurture those who had been committed to his trust. But, true to all Gospel‑Age performance of his soulmates (the crown‑lost leaders as typed in Saul up to Armageddon, R. G. Jolly himself being among the chiefest of these in the Epiphany's close), he was determined to “do great works, win great numbers”; and these eight years are a testimonial to his errant bungling. “Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company”, says Brother Johnson.

In all of this we say, let each be fully persuaded in his own mind; He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

Question: – On p. 18 of this July‑August paper No. 22 by Brother Krewson he makes a number of charges against Brother Alger. Can you tell us if these charges are true?

ANSWER: – It is not within our province to proclaim any individual now living a Priest; but we can be certain those are not Priests who have grossly and persistently revolutionized against Parousia or Epiphany teachings) or arrangements – as, for in­stance, is true of R. G. Jolly and others. This is the clear rule repeatedly empha­sized by Brother Johnson. If J. W. Krewson wants to use any other rule, that is his concern. However, when he says Brother Alger “unquestionably demonstrated by his conduct” that he is no Priest, he directly contradicts his own previous contention in his recent papers  – and clearly revolutionizes against Epiphany teachings. He has gone to some length to discuss Brother Johnson's statement in E‑4‑133 that character faults are not a true gauge in such cases – and we are in fill harmony with Brother Johnson's teachings as to what manifests one a Great Company. J. W. Krewson tried to build quite a case against us, falsely accusing us of doing the very thing he himself is now doing. If Brother Alger ever revolutionized against Parousia or Epiphany Truth, or arrange­ments, we do not know about it. Consistency, thou art a Jewel! Inconsistency, thy name is Krewson!

As further evidence of his inconsistency, he correctly states that “error should be supplanted with Truth.” He now offers only his word for quite a few statements he makes in this paper – although we have conclusively proven that his word is worth noth­ing. In our June 1 Supplement, p. 1, we accused him of lying about our position re E‑4‑133, and we offered the proof for our statement. This matter he is now glad to forget.

He states further that Brother Alger left Brother Johnson “on a flimsy pretext Oct. 21, 1950.” Here again he offers only his own worthless word for his statement. Why doesn't he define the “flimsy pretext”? Brother Alger says he left then because Pennsylvania law does not allow a physician from another State to sign a death certificate in Pennsylvania. We ourselves verified the law on this through the Philadelphia District Attorney's office; so we know Brother Alger's statement is correct. Had Brother Alger waited one more day to call in a local physician, be would have found himself in most delicate circumstances. Brother Alger accepted the Parousia Truth in 1894; he is many years past his allotted “threescore and ten.” He contributed many weeks of his time away from his Detroit practice in free attendance upon Brother John­son at various times; and we consider J. W. Krewson's present charge against him as most unkind and unchris­tian. If he can offer nothing better, he would be well advised to say nothing – although this seems to be difficult advice for him to follow.

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

Letters of General Interest

My dear Bro. Hoefle: Grace & Peace!

First, I want you to know how very much we enjoyed your last article for Aug. 1. That, in my humble opinion should open the eyes of those Levites who have gone into error .... drawing away disciples after themselves, showing plainly that they have lost the Truth and its Spirit ... It took me back to more than 50 years ago ... in 1907.... while I knew from the very first reading of a .... tract picked up from a muddy street, that I had something different ... it was in the spring of 1908 that love for what the Lord was giving me burned like a fire in my heart ... even though Satan has often prodded me with the thought – “Just who do you think you are; there are thousands of noble and fine people the Lord could bless,” etc., etc.... “not many wise or noble are called,” because God can and will show what He can make out of _nothing’... And that very thing should have kept the power‑grasping Levites in their places. Krewson is more inflated than Jolly, with his importance; and he is not even spirit‑begotten. So, naturally, he had to do away with the remaining Priests to make his claims stick... Unless we've missed the sign posts along the way, we'd say, only the Lord can handle their cases now! ....

Sincere Christian love to you and Sister Hoefle  – Sister ________.

NO. 39: CONCERNING AMOS 9:13

No. 39

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

As promised in our paper or July 1958, we now offer some further comments on the above text, the same being prompted by R. G. Jolly's statement in the Present Truth; and by a discourse, The Treader of the Winepress, at the Grand Rapids Conven­tion over the Memorial‑Day week‑end. The speaker at that time said the "plowman" and the "treader of grapes” mean one and the same thing in this text.

As we have so often stated, the Bible rarely uses unnecessary words or makes vain repetitions merely for euphony or easy reading. However, should we assume that this is one of those unusual cases, then we should be able to read the text by leav­ing out "the treader of grapes”, and it should be just as clear and sensible as though it were left in. Let us try it: "The plowman shall overtake the reaper ... and him that soweth seed.” It now becomes readily discernible that the text as stated is a monstrosity as viewed from the natural standpoint. It is impossible in the natural order for the plowman to overtake him that soweth seed, because no seed can be sown until the plowman has first broken the ground and prepared it to receive the sower's seed. Therefore, it is impossible for the plowman to overtake him that soweth seed. "Come, let us reason together, sayeth the Lord”; and any time we encounter a text interpretation that is unreasonable, we may be certain there is something wrong with our understanding of it.

It has been contended that this sowing of seed has been fulfilled all during the Age by the Church in its reproof of the world for sin, for righteousness, and for judg­ment to come. But the facts do not fit this contention. At no time was this work ever stopped in the United States even at the height of the war hysteria. Even the Seventh Volume was not suppressed until the spring of 1918; and even after that had happened there was almost no official interference with public meetings or religious gather­ings – we were as free as before the war began to "reprove the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment to come.” But, if the explanation is accepted that we propounded in our paper of August 1957 (copy free upon request), all is in full har­mony.

It should be noted, too, that the "vine of the earth”, with its various branches and its "clusters fully ripe” is still with us. Therefore, the "treader of grapes” has not done his work; the only thing that can be said is that a "softening‑up’ proc­ess has been going on since the plowman overtook the reaper and put an end to the reap­ing work. When the vine or the earth is eventually given to "the burning flame” it will almost certainly put a quick and complete end to the work of him that soweth seed regardless of what interpretation we accept for this expression.

In this connection, it should be noted that neither Star Member even remotely dreamed that 1958 would see conditions as we now see them. And because they could not foresee clearly the present status, they made mistakes. This is quite in harmony with Brother Johnson's statement in B‑9‑121 (bottom): "Do not the contradictory re­sults of the studies of Levite leaders prove the same thing? And do not the mistakes of star‑members in presenting things before due prove this same proposition?” All of us are witness that both Principal Men made mistakes in their efforts to offer detailed explanation of prophecy not yet due to be understood; and this Amos 9:13 is certainly one of such.

Also, it is opportune to remark here that of all the texts we presented in our August 1957 paper on The Last Saint, and of a number of others since then, no attempt has been made to handle any of them by either R. G. Jolly, J. W. Krewson, or any of their Yes‑Men, except this Amos 9:13. On this latter they have thought they have some­thing from Brother Johnson to support them; and, in their desperation for even a straw to grasp they rushed headlong into their comments on Amos 9:13 without stopping to think how their remarks might sound under a reasonable scrutiny.

On p. 58, col. 2 (top) of this July‑August 1958 PT there is this statement: "The few who are now falling away to the error that the treader of grapes has not yet overtaken him that soweth seed ... are no longer able consistently to sing, as of some­thing that has already entered into fulfillment our Hymn No. 171 – "He is trampling out the winepress where His grapes of wrath are stored.’” This same Hymn has been in the book since l905, so we have another bit of R. G. Jolly nonsense. If the brethren were "able consistently to sing” it for nine years before the Plowman had even started his work, how much more consistently can they sing it now! We wonder if R. G. Jolly will be "glad to admit his mistake and correct it” in this instance?

"Due Truth for all the Consecrated” – Reviewed

On p. 58 of the July‑August 1958 Present Truth R. G. Jolly offers some more of his cheap trickery and perversion in a niggardly effort to justify another of his loose and irresponsible statements. He uses Joel 2:28‑29 and J. F. Rutherford to present an irrelevant and wordy display on the word "for”. This is characteristic of him – always some wily twist to pervert the Truth. His analysis should embrace "for all God's con­secrated people to discern” – "to discern” being the crux of the statement, and not the word "for.” In this connection, it should be noted, too, that he embraces Joel 2:28‑29, but ignores completely the real relevant text on his statement – namely, 2 Thes. 2:11, "God will send them strong delusion.” He uses the word "all” in his statement without any qualifications; and this allows for no exceptions – "all” means "all.” So he is saying in effect that the "due Truth is for all to discern”, but God sends them "strong delusion”, so they cannot discern it.

His statement is an identical twin to the Babylonish nonsense that the Bible is for all; whereas, the last two Star Members taught that a limited understanding of the Bible would actually be harmful to large numbers of the human race in its present con­dition. Many of such might actually carry a Bible on their person – purchased with their own money – so it would be "for” them to no good purpose whatever; it would only harm them if they had not the "love of the Truth.”

Also note carefully R. G. Jolly's statement: "We have never stated nor taught that the leaders in Little Babylon "discerned the due Truth by the aid of His Holy Spirit’, as this sifting leader would like to have the brethren think.” No, he never taught this; be just said, "ALL.” How many of the Consecrated, think you, have discerned the due Truth during the Epiphany? By generous allowance, shall we say one per cent? This would leave ninety‑nine per cent who haven't discerned it. But, when R. G. Jolly says it's "for all of God's consecrated people to discern”, any one should be able to know he means only one per cent when he says, "all”! Of course, he's not specifically mentioning the other ninety‑nine per cent as being included or excluded from his "all”; any one who could not see he meant only one per cent by "all” could be nothing other than a "sifter’! His flimsy evasion here is an identical twin to J. W. Krewson's Do‑You‑Knows – the latter says he's not stating he knows; he's just asking his readers if they know. Again we repeat, we should think R. G. Jolly would be ashamed, but it seems there is no shame in him.

He quotes from E‑15‑652 "The Scriptures teach for all times that the due Truth is for all the consecrated” and be says "this is almost word for word” the same as his statement. Yes, it's "almost” word for word; but, chronic perverter that he is (Azazel means Perverter), he leaves out the few words that substantiate our position, and destroy his. These words are, "as they are loyal”, which words are to be found six lines above the quotation offered. He accuses us of clubbing Brother Johnson over his (R. G. Jolly's) head; but the truth here is that he is perverting Brother Johnson, while Brother Johnson says in effect exactly what we contended. We said on P. 7 of our Feb. 1958 article "fully faithful”, which means exactly the same thing as Brother Johnson's qualification, "as they are loyal.” Also, Brother Johnson does not use R. G. Jolly's words "to discern.” While it is true that due Truth is for all the fully faith­ful, yet we know of a certainty that some of them did not even recognize the Harvest Truth for many months after Sept. 1914 – did not "discern” it as soon as many others, although we agree it was for them, as Brother Johnson states. They did discern it in due course.

If any are inclined to question the above statements, we offer something from E‑4‑129: "So far as meat in due season – the advancing Truth – is concerned, they do not partake of it, but reject it, while in the fit man's and Azazel's hands... After the Levites' cleansing, they will doubtless partake of the Epiphany truths that are for them... Whatever, however, the lord may give during the Epiphany for the priests alone will be for them alone, until it has served its secret purpose; then it will be understood by the properly disposed Levites. E.g., now the understanding of the priest­ly matters pertinent to leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate, delivering him to the fit man and abandoning him to Azazel, Is withheld from them. After they are cleansed they will understand these things. So there will doubtless be things connected with the priest's activities toward them after they are cleansed which will be concealed from them until the secrecy has served its purposes when they will be clarified to them.”

From the above, it is clear enough we have some more of R. G. Jolly's nonsense. How could the thing "concealed from them”, possibly be "for them to discern”? And we are now not talking about those in Big or Little Babylon – the foregoing statement would apply to all Great Company members, even those in the LHMM. This becomes clear enough when we recall that those in the LHMM now contend they are cleansed – were cleansed at October 22, 1950 – although Brother Johnson emphatically and repeatedly taught that all of them (even those who lost out by the "skin of their teeth” – see E‑15‑525) must be abandoned to Azazel before they can be cleansed. Instead of the due Truth be­ing "for them to discern”, God actually sends them "strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11); it's "for” them all right (according to R. G. Jolly), but God Himself sends them an "energy of delusion” so they won't be able to discern it. This undoubtedly explains much in connection with R. G. Jolly himself. The "seven reasons” he offered in 1957 are simply a paraphrase from E‑9‑125; so the reasons taken by themselves are right, as we should expect, because they are Brother Johnson's analysis. But Brother Johnson dis­tinctly teaches that the Great Company cannot discern the due Truth while in Azazel's hands; in fact, they actually repudiate many Truths they did once clearly discern be­fore their abandonment. R. G. Jolly himself is a striking illustration of this, and explains his many bungling refutations of other errorists – just as he has done in this instance. "Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company”, says Brother Johnson; and R. G. Jolly's bungling in the present discussion offers clear proof that he is still in Azazel's clutches. It would have been much to his aid had he answered J. W. Krewson with the all‑embracing Truth as we have presented it herein; but it is apparent that Azazel has him so befuddled be can't offer a clear and inclusive statement, even when such a statement would lend prestige and elevation to his teachings.

The force of the foregoing is emphasized in R. G. Jolly's case when we recall that in February 1955 at Jacksonville he said that, so far as he knew, Brother Johnson had never withdrawn "brotherly help and favor” from him. His statement there was in­deed the truth; yet he was contending at the same time that he was cleansed – an impossibility, according to Brother Johnson's clear teachings. The contradiction in this situation hit him as lightning from a sunny sky a few weeks later at Winter Park ­when he was informed of his confusion of "priestly fellowship’ and ’brotherly help and favor.’ This clear teaching by Brother Johnson was right before R. G. Jolly and others in the LHMM; it was "for” them., yet they were unable to "discern it.” And his inability even yet to clearly discern it offers cogent proof that he is still befuddled by Azazel. Even in the case of JFR, priestly fellowship was withdrawn from him before "all brotherly help and favor” – just as was true of R. G. Jolly – the only differ­ence being Brother Johnson's violent separation from JFR as opposed to the gracious removal by God Himself of the last Star Member from the LHMM.

If it is not already clear to our readers, we now emphasize it has never been our contention that anything we have done has directly contributed to abandoning Azazel's Goat to Azazel  – nor could any other Youthful Worthy do it. This has been exclusively the work of the World's High Priest; and our only purpose in offering so much comment upon it since 1954 is our honest endeavor to be a "vessel unto honor”, a faithful servant and defender of that Truth we have received through our Beloved Epi­phany Messenger. It is his clear teaching – and no one has yet attempted to refute our stand for it – that all Great Company members must be abandoned to Azazel before their cleansing can be effected; and before complete abandonment to Azazel can be accomplished all brotherly help and fellowship of the World's High Priest would have to be withdrawn from them. R. G. Jolly has consistently and persistently grossly revolutionized against this Epiphany truth in his claim that "good Levites” meant the same as "cleansed levites” – that the "good Levites” of the LHMM were already "cleansed” at October 1950. In setting aside the Star Member's clear teachings on this subject he has offered "strange fire” before the Lord; and his guilt in this thing extends to any and all who support him in it. As one trying to be "faithful to the Truth and the brethren”, we can only direct it to the attention of those who have an "ear to hear.” "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it”; and to the others we can only propose the Scriptural warnings that apply, then leave their judgment with Him who looketh on the heart. However, if we failed in our duty as a General Elder to expose this Jambresian error, then the Lord would not only raise up another to do it, but would require the blood of the erring ones at our hands (Ezek. 3:18). The Truth here is simply an illustration of "discerning the due Truth” by the aid of the Holy Spirit” – a truth which R. G. Jolly has not been able to "discern”, with all his loud and lengthy talk about this and many other subjects notwith­standing. May he, and all his partisan supporters, be properly exercised unto "dis­cerning the due Truth by the aid of the Holy Spirit”, and thus extricate themselves from the clutches of Azazel! It is the clear teaching of the Star Member as given to and for the Elect "to discern”; and we are now only "contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints.”

When J. W. Krewson first presented his error on the "abandonment” of the Azazel Goat Class we considered it insignificant enough to ignore; but, when R. G. Jolly pounced upon it with same 750 words because he thought he had a point on which he could "show up” another, we considered it important enough to re‑emphasize the Truth on it – the Truth in which R. G. Jolly certainly had not yet "discerned” even when writing this last July‑August 1958 PT. He even then thought JJH "wishes he had nev­er challenged the statement in P.T. '57.” But, No! We do not wish we had never challenged it – rather we are convinced that in this, as in so many other of his failures of the past, R. G. Jolly will "gnaw his tongue for pain” (Rev. 16:10) and chagrin at the exposure of his own ignorance and inability to "discern due Truth”, for which he himself had actually proof-read what Brother Johnson wrote. He read, but he understood not; "eyes they have, but they see not” (could not "discern”).

R. G. Jolly says, "If we had made a mistake in the P. '57, P. 94 statement above, we would be glad to acknowledge it, and to correct or retract the state­ment.” To those of us who know him, the gross hypocrisy of this statement is sad­ly too readily apparent. Has he been "glad to acknowledge and correct” his perver­sion on "The Faithful and Measurably Faithful”; his perversion on Brother Russell's analysis of Hab. 3:17, 18; his nonsense on "Judas not a thief”; his gross revolu­tionistic handling of the Slander Case (a revolutionism against both Parousia and Epiphany teachings), etc.? And we shall patiently wait to see if he will "acknow­ledge and correct” his perversion on E‑17‑414, wherein he has Brother Johnson say­ing  – in direct contradiction to his clear expression on it elsewhere  – that Resti­tution will be accomplished by 2874. For one who talks so much, and says so very little, as does R. G. Jolly, it is stretching credulity just a little too far to as­sume he knew whereof he spoke when he published his comment in 1957 on "discerning due Truth.” The most generous appraisal we could make of it  – if he did know the full truth on it  – is that he is certainly subject to censure for issuing such a garbled and confusing statement to refute J. W. Krewson's presenta­tions. He who now pleads that the "preservation of the purity of the Truth is close to his heart” (even though we have proven him guilty of numerous falsehoods), should certainly have included at least some of the Truth we have presented aforegoing when he attempted to criticize another for his error in the matter. It should be borne in mind that he himself was the critic in his 1957 publication, so he cannot plead temporary lapse for the slipshod utterance he made then. When he uses the word "all” in criticizing another, we can only conclude he meant "all” – that he wasn't clear on the Truth himself then, or he would have made that Truth clear to his readers.

Concerning Revelation 19

In this last answer to us he is "reminded anew” of our teachings on Rev. 19:1‑9. Why he should inject this here we do not quite see, but we welcome the occasion to offer our readers some further comment on it from the Jan. 1927 PT, p. 11, col. 1:

"Rev. 19, giving a description of the marriage of the lamb as taking place, which description is followed a few verses later by the vision of a symbolic war, which he perverts to mean Armageddon, is also used by him to prove that all the Church will be delivered before Armageddon. The fact that John (the Church) wor­ships the angel after the marriage is proclaimed as taking place, should have pre­vented his using this passage to prove that the deliverance of the entire Church will take place before the marriage of the Lamb takes place. Our Pastor rightly identified the first resurrection from 1878 onward with the marriage of the Lamb. In the near future, according to this section, the Great Company will proclaim to the world what it previously did not make a subject for the public – the first resur­rection as going on. Rev. 19:7‑10 unanswerably proves that the marriage of the Lamb is taking place while some of the Little Flock is in the earth – John charged with a mission by the angel and worshiping him, after the marriage proclamation. There­fore, his contention that all most be delivered before the marriage takes place is wrong... Hence this chapter does not prove the thought that the Church will be de­livered before Armageddon; rather it leaves the Church on earth while Armageddon is raging, where it will be long afterward.”

Here is more from this same PT, p. 11, col. 2: "That the Church will not be delivered before Armageddon is manifest, among other passages, from Ps. 46, which teaches that not only throughout Armageddon, but also at least in part of the anarchy, will the Church be in the earth... We marvel that, in the face of so clear a passage, interpreted as above for us by our Pastor, brethren will allow Satan so completely to befuddle them as Bro. Adam has an the passages that be cites to prove his"error that the Church will be delivered before Armageddon. Surely it can only then be understood when we remember that they are in Azazel's hands, and therefore cannot think clearly while in that condition.”

And R. G. Jolly's revolutionistic course in which be is persisting unto gross revolutionism, can only be understood when we remember that he was fully abandoned to Azazel at October 22, 1950 by the removal of the Star Member who had previously restrained and afforded him "brotherly help and favor”; at which time he immediately set aside the clear and Scriptural teaching on the deliverance of the Church, and thereby revolutionized against both Parousia and Epiphany Truth. It continues to be our hope and prayer that he will yet be able to extricate himself from Azazel's clutches so he may be able to understand the "due Truth” for his cleansing, and again embrace the clear Truths he once so loudly proclaimed and taught (especially when he believed himself to be a member of the Church, which is His Body).

The "unanswerable proof” cited above becomes readily apparent with a little analysis. Rev. 19:1 (Dia.) says "I heard a loud voice as of a great crowd in Heav­en”, and verse 6 uses almost the same words, "I heard as it were a voice of a great crowd.” The "great crowd” of verse 1 were the Societyites smiting Jordan the second time, as antitypical John (the Little Flock) stood by listening. As we might ex­pect from "double minds”, they thought they were smiting Jordan the first time –­ just as they proclaimed the correct message, "It is finished” in March 1918, but had the wrong date. Of course, just about everything they did was sullied with an admixture of error.

So also with the message of verse 6. Both Star Members taught that the "mar­riage” was accomplished as each Saint was glorified; but it remained for R. G. Jolly to be the first Great Company member to make this announcement publicly in an offi­cial capacity. But, just as antitypical John "heard” the message of verse 1, so he also "heard” the message of verse 6. This is why Brother Johnson says the proof is "unanswerable” that some members of antitypical John would still be on earth when that message of verse 6 was given. Brother Russell has well stated that the comfort­ing message of Revelation would came to the Saints in their "time of dire need”; and the events since October 1950 offer glowing tribute to his foresight – the interpre­tation by Brother Johnson has come to them in their "dire need.” And to those who attempt to deprive them of this "dire need” we offer the warning of Rev. 22:19, "If any one take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” It should be kept in mind that Brother Johnson's statement that he would be the last Saint was his opinion only – he freely admitted he had no Scripture to prove it. But his "unanswerable proof” of Rev. 19:6 is clear, concise and positive, leaving no question of doubt on his interpretation. His "opin­ion” was not based on Scripture; it was based upon the 40‑year parallels, which have had a different out‑working, as we proved in "The Epiphany Solomon” article (copy free upon request). It is certainly beyond the least doubt that the parallels did not ma­terialize as Brother Johnson expected they would.

R. G. Jolly contends in this July‑August 1958 PT that the first "advancing Truth” after Brother Johnson's death was presented by him the night of Oct. 27, 1950. On that fateful night he set aside the "unanswerable proof” quoted above; he set aside Psalms 46 and the forceful clear interpretations of both Star Members; he set aside 1 Thes. 4:17 and Zech. 8:10, with the clear and convincing analyses of those texts by Brother Johnson. And his violence to these clear Scriptures is the "advanc­ing Truth” about which he is now prating!! "And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul...How are the mighty fallen.” (2 Sam. 1:12,25.)

And it would seem here is a good place to consider some more of R. G. Jolly's "advancing Truth”, because it has to do with the subject matter herein. Beginning on page 7 of the Jan. 1947 PT and continuing to page 14, R. G. Jolly offers twenty-seven calculations, twenty of which "Prove” the last Saint would not leave the earth until Oct. 31, 1956. We reproduce below No. 9, p. 9, because it is one of the simpler ones:

"Another calculation which, likewise, brings us to the exact date, Oct. 31, 1956, and which, likewise, uses dimensions of the King's Chamber and its Coffer, is as fol­lows: To the King's Chamber's cubic capacity (19,566,046.88 cu. ins.) add 5 times the Coffer's interior capacity (5 x 71,250 equals 356,250 cu. ins.; 5 is the Pyra­mid's sacred number) and is connected particularly with the symbolical King's Chamber, Sci. Fe., 105, 147, 151), which gives us l9,922,296.98 cu. ins. Divide this number by the number of cu. ins. in the Coffer's interior (71,250) and we have 279,61117, which multiplied by 7 (the number of Divine perfection) gives us 1957.27819. As is often done in Pyramid calculations (10 x 10 x 10 x 10 equals 10,000), we subtract from this number an even 1/10,000th part of itself, which gives us 1957.08247. De­ducting from this number the 1¼ years B.C. to Jesus' birth date, we have 1955‑83247 as the number of years A.D. Now .83247 of the year 1956 (a leap year) equals 305 days, which, as in the previous calculation, again brings us to exactly Oct. 31, 1956! This remarkable calculation confines itself exclusively to the cubical capacities of the King's Chamber and its Coffer and three of the Pyramid's special numbers: 5, 7 and 10,000, to point out what we believe to be the exact period of time from the date of Jesus' birth to the establishment of His Kingdom in glory.”

All of these computations he also tossed out the window that night of Oct. 27, 1950 (without making any mention of them, of course). We suggest our readers go back and take a look at the PT with these figures, because we have here a crushing corrob­oration of the truth, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.” Could even the most biased adherent of E. G. Jolly do other than admit that these calculations came from only one source  – from the tricky and nefarious mind of Azazel? But R. G. Jolly now magnanimously declares he is "glad to acknowledge a mistake, and to correct it”; so we invite him now to tell us all what system he used to arrive at his twenty‑seven answers, and what was wrong with that system. And, while he's telling us this, tell us, too, if he availed himself of J. W. Krewson's "mathematical ability” in forming these twenty‑seven problems  – just as he availed himself of that "ability” in 1950 to "prove from the pyramid” that Rev. 19:6, Psalms 46, 1 Thes. 4:17 and Zech. 8:10 do not mean what they say, and that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson did not under­stand these Scriptures. Do you think he will do it?

May Grace and Peace be multiplied to all who call upon the Lord in a "good and honest heart.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim