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

NO. 38: THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

No. 38

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

"I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings", says Hos. 6:6. This subject of knowledge, especially so with the "know­ledge of God", has been bandied about by all classes from the least unto the greatest; and a little reflection readily makes evident that it must be embellished with copious qualifications if it is to be retained in proper balance. Almost every virtue becomes a vice when overdone; therefore, almost every virtue requires a companion virtue if it is to be maintained in good perspective. This is certainly true of knowledge, because St. Paul says that "knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up." The great Apostle is not here putting a slur on knowledge, because no one can have too much knowledge if that knowledge is given proper balance by the grace of love. "The spirit of a sound mind" implies that such a person has all four of the Divine attributes in reasonable proportion – each companion to the other three prorated to its correct position. Knowledge is acquaintance with fact, clear perception of truth; and wisdom is the correct application of knowledge. Thus, a man who is gifted chiefly with knowledge may be said to be an intellectual man; one with knowledge and power, an austere man; one with knowledge, power and justice, a righteous man; and one with knowledge (wis­dom), power, justice and love is a "good man." And to one possessing these four the promise is sure and certain that his "steps are ordered of the Lord."

We often hear the remark that "knowledge is not the essential thing"; but this statement is only a half truth, and – Half truths are more misleading than whole er­rors. St. Paul does indeed say that love is the principal thing – that "love is the bond of perfectness" (Col. 3:14). And none with that "bond of perfectness" will ever be rejected by the lord, will never fall from the Class in which he finds himself. No Saint ever lost his crown so long as he retained that "bond"; and no Youthful Worthy will ever fall from his Class if he has and retains that bond. As Brother Johnson has so well stated, it is not required of Youthfuls that they develop Agape love; but they should certainly do so if they have the capacity to do so. Some may not be able to do this; but it should be readily evident that if they can and do ac­quire it then they have also the "bond of perfectness", which none can give nor take away – the possessor of that "bond" can never encounter shipwreck in his walk by faith.

Above we quoted St. Paul's statement that love is the principal thing, but here also qualification is necessary, because no one ever developed Agape love without patience, and none can retain it without that adorning grace. It is of such impor­tance that St. Paul mentions it last in Titus 2:2 in his admonition to be "sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience." Jesus had perfect love, but this He retained only through His perfection in patience – "He steadfastly (in full patience) set His face to go to Jerusalem." But we must go beyond patience in our qualification of Agape love. Before patience must come faith; and before faith must come knowledge – "the knowledge of God." This is emphasized in Romans 10:14-17: "How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard (received sufficient know­ledge to enable them to believe)? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?.... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Clearly, then, in the primary sense the "knowledge of God" is the principal thing; without that knowledge there could be no faith; without faith "It is impossible to please God", and without faith none could possibly gain that principal thing – Agape love. It has been our observation that those who would discount the virtue of knowledge – "not the essential thing" – are those who possess very little of it; and their contention is simply a lame alibi for their glaring in­capacity – "My people perish for lack of knowledge." We are instructed to "study to show thyself approved unto God"; and we are to account those elders ''worthy of double honor ... who labor in word and doctrine (the knowledge of God)" – l Tim. 5:17.

And with such servants abides the assurance of faith – they know that they know. Nor need such assurance "puff up" if that knowledge is moderated by Agape love. The Egyptians have a proverb: ''He who knows, but knows not that he knows, is timid – en­courage him. He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is ignorant – teach him. He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool – shun him. But he who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise – follow him." Surely, the last two Principal Men knew, and knew that they knew; the Scriptures specifically state of one of them that he was "wise"; and our trust was well placed as we followed them. Neither of them deemed it essential to be "as the actors", to use the tricks of oratory, or the flummery of the stage, much of which is simply humbug. A pleasant anecdote is re­lated of Charles Darwin, the famous naturalist: Some neighborhood boys attempted a prank upon him by catching a grasshopper, tearing off its wings and long hind legs, then substituting the wings of a wasp and parts of several other bugs. They then showed him their artifice, asking him if he could tell them what kind of a bug it was. "Did it make a humming noise when you first caught it out in the field"? he asked. "Oh, yes; it made a very loud humming noise when we first grabbed it.'' 'Then'', replied Mr. Darwin, "it's a 'hum'-bug."

Such is much the case with much of our present-day estimation of the "knowledge of God." A very prominent Evangelist recently said to his audience, "Coming to Christ is not dependent on understanding. I don't understand the digestive system) but I eat." The superficiality of this statement is readily apparent. The Evangelist him­self may not understand his digestive system; but other human beings do understand it, and this enables him to go on living. Had the human race not learned early in his­tory that same articles are deadly poison which destroy the digestive system, none would have survived onto this day. The Evangelist's physician understands the di­gestive system, and he hires that physician to keep his digestive system in proper con­dition. And by the same rule of measure the preacher should understand what he is feeding the flock – and should feed them the true "knowledge of God" – if he would save them from spiritual indigestion. Presumably, they are paying him to do just that just as the Evangelist pays his doctor to keep him physically well.

Of course, the tendency of the times is to discount the "knowledge of God" – ­it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you are headed in the right direction. Therefore, take no exceptions to your neighbor's beliefs; they  are  just  as  good  as knowledge and talent, as some mistakenly think, but, if sanctified, uses them advan­tageously for His cause, yet He certainly does not put the main emphasis on them, which main emphasis He lays upon characteristics of the heart." Yet St. Paul so often re­marks, "I would not have you ignorant, brethren." Also, "By His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many." It was by His knowledge that He explained the types and shadows of the Old Testament and "brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel." And at the very time He was doing this the critical statement was given to the Jews, "Israel hath a zeal, but not according to knowledge."

In Detroit at present there is a reciprocal understanding among many of the minis­ters of the different sects regarding 'mixed' marriages to this effect: If, say, a Luth­eran comes to his minister to be married to a Methodist, the Lutheran minister performs the service; then advises them to determine both to attend the same church. If the bride doesn't like the minister who has just joined her in wedlock, or if she cannot accept the Lutheran faith, then the minister advises his own member to follow his bride to the Methodist Church; or vice versa; Thus, in the overall figures, all is balanced up – and every one is happy. This means there is no longer controversy over what is the "knowledge of Cod"; if there be any conflict, it is now chiefly over per­sonalities – "there is no live coal to warm them", no living doctrinal Truth in its purity to stir their icy spiritual blood (Isa. 47:14). "They are shepherds that cannot understand; they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter" (Isa. 56:11). Don't expose my ignorance, and I won't expose yours, they say; and each of us will prosper in our own bailiwick. (See Berean Comments on Isa. 56:11.)

But, if we would be better used of the Lord, it is essential that we have a cer­tain amount of knowledge, although some with limited knowledge and inherent wisdom (the proper application of knowledge) often accomplish more than others with greater know­ledge but endowed with less wisdom. Therefore, Solomon says, 'Wisdom is the princi­pal thing; therefore, get wisdom, and with all thy getting get understanding." Com­panion thoughts are excellently expressed by both Star Members in the May 14 Manna comments: "What is it to grow in grace? It is to grow in favor with the lord through an intimate personal acquaintance and fellowship of spirit with Him...To grow thus in grace and not in knowledge is impossible.... If, therefore, we love and obey the lord and desire to grow in His favor, His written word is our daily meditation and study; and thus we grow in knowledge."

Errorists and superficial teachers offer just the reverse of the foregoing to their devotees.  When the Church of Rome was in its heyday it is well stated that its motto was: Reading is doubt; doubt is heresy; and heresy is Hell. That is, any who endeavored to inform themselves were doubting the infallibility of their leaders; and such must certainly be only the course of the heretic.  This was indeed the "doctrine of Balaam .... the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate." (Rev. 2:14-15.) Such are the antitypical Baal worshipers, who endeavor by sleight-of-hand and great oratorical shouting to overawe the "unstable and the unlearned." It should be noted that Baal was the Sun God – Lord of the Day – a fitting type of power-graspers and clericalists. At night the Heavens are filled with millions of stars, many of them much larger than our sun; yet they are all completely obscured during the daytime. They are still in their respective places, of course, but they are not visible to the human eye because of the daytime splendor of the sun. And such is much the con­dition of Gospel-Age power-graspers; they have outshone the true Star Members; have "cast their brethren out" and built up Great Babylon; yet the promise is sure to all the fully faithful – "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their father." And this exaltation will be one without end!

In this connection, be it noted that the orbit of the sun is from the East to the South to the West.  But those who follow Baal cannot ever receive any exalta­tion from the true God. Therefore, it is written, "Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south" – that is, no promotion from God to those who follow the course of Baal. In 1 Kings 18 is recorded the experience of Elijah with Jezebel's prophets of Baal – one against 450. There had been a long drought in the land, the country was blistering under the unrelenting rays of the burning sun. Therefore, Elijah gave those prophets of Baal every possible advantage when he told them to try their hand first – to kill their bullock, put it on the altar, and call upon Baal, their Sun God, at high noon to ignite the wood under their sacrifice. Well did they realize the mockery that would come upon them if they failed under such advantageous circumstances, which prompted them to call out, "O Baal, hear us...And it came to pass at noon that Elijah mocked them...and they cried aloud and cut themselves after their manner with knives." Then, when they were forced to admit failure (about three o'clock in the afternoon – vs. 29, "the evening sacrifice"), Elijah instructed that twelve barrels of water be poured upon his offering) after which fire came from Heaven and consumed his sacrifice. While the Gospel-Age Elijah has always had the assurance that "Thou hearest me always", fortified as they have been by the knowledge of God, which gave them a ''mouth and Wisdom which none of their adversaries were able to gainsay nor resist", seldom were they given the spectacular outward approval which came to the Prophet Elijah in his encounter with the Prophets of Baal that fateful day. In fact, in many instances during this Gospel Age the Baal worshipers (power-graspers) have gained the ascendancy – as instance the victory of Calvin over Miletus Servetus, etc.; yet the fully faithful have striven with the strength of Samson and the skill of the warrior David in their use of the knowledge of God. It should not be expected, of course, that all would demonstrate the ability of the Star Members in the use of this knowledge – although many have assumed they could do so. We recall the occasion when a gainsayer gave us the argument that Christ died and rose again "according to the Scriptures" – that this proved it was not actually true, but was only "according to the Scriptures", which were unreliable in their records.

It has been contended by some in our midst that the Truth has always come first, then followed by error. This is only a half truth; and half truths are more mislead­ing than whole errors.  In the broad sense, the Bible, which is the Truth, has been first, of course; but Micah 5:5 clearly states that ''When the Assyrian (the errorists) shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise up against him seven shepherds and eight principal men." This is in keeping with Prov. 24:16 – "A just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again." The "Just man" of this Gospel Age has been the fully faith­ful justified Christ Company, which fell into obscurity as much error sprang up about them after the death of each Star Member. We need only look at the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Adventists and others to note the force of this contention. If the Star Members came back who originated those movements – Martin Luther, John Wes­ley, William Miller – they would be unable to find their teachings in those organiza­tions that now claim to be their followers. In our time we have the instance of Brother Russell, and with what speed the falling occurred after he died. Jehovah's Witnesses bear no more resemblance to the truths he espoused and the organization he set up than does a vulture to a swan. The measurably faithful made quick havoc of his good work ­just as uncleansed Levites are doing all about us, some more, some less. And, as we observe this state of affairs, it behooves us all the more to equip ourselves with "the knowledge of Cod" to the extent of our natural and acquired providential circum­stances. The world in general, of course, "knows not God"; and the great mass of Chris­tian believers quite evidently have very little of the "knowledge of God." There is the constant and irrepressible conflict, the battle of darkness against light, and ­"The darkness hateth the light because it is reproved by it." But the "knowledge of Cod" is for "the children of light", who zealously try to pass it on to others, but with very limited success against the opposition of the "god of this world." Therefore, it confers its greatest blessing upon its possessor; hence, the world of Solomon, "Buy the Truth (the knowledge of God), and sell it not." To such, and to such alone, applies the promise of Psalms 91:10 – "Neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling." Such are the members of that "one Church, which in its entirety is the steward and administra­tor of the Truth (the knowledge of God), to preserve and defend it from error and to administer it for the benefit of the responsive." (E-8-253) And such will be in full agreement with the slogan on Brother Johnson's letterhead as respects the Knowledge of God – "The noblest science; the best instruction."

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – A sister recently wrote to me that you are out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on the doctrine of Baptism. Is this true?

ANSWER: – No, it certainly is not true. We adhere to the purpose, performance and understanding of this doctrine for our day exactly as they gave it to us. For five years now R. G. Jolly has been conducting a "whispering campaign" against us on this matter, in which he has been joined by his "cousin" J. W. Krewson, who attempts to conduct the same sort of "unclean" campaign against us, much the same as he tried to do with respect to our Pilgrim status. Both Star Members adhered to the belief (an opinion only) that the twelve men in Acts 19:1-7 were Gentiles; but we have raised a question about this, because there is no direct Scripture to sup­port it, and because the record in Acts 18 and 1 Pet. 3:21 appear to dispute their thought. We have treated this matter in quite some detail in our paper of July 1, 1957 (copy free upon request); and we have asked both "cousins" to desist in their sneaking ways, to came out openly and offer their explanation of Acts 18 and 1 Pet. 3:21. To date neither of them has done so; and it is our opinion that they won't, because they can't. Brother Johnson followed the practice of holding to Brother Rus­sell's opinions unless time or plain Bible passages disproved them; and we ourselves accept that position toward both Star Members. If the two "cousins" want to believe the men of Acts 19 were Gentiles, we would not argue the point; it makes just no dif­ference at all in our present belief and performance of Baptism. Nor would we now be using more space on this item, except that they endeavor to berate us – after the man­ner of Azazel – on this insignificant point in their underhanded desperation to find at least a little something to bolster their weak position generally.

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

QUESTION: – Matt. 23:35 and Luke 11:51 state, "Upon you may come all the righteous blood shod upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zecharias...whom ye slew between the temple and the altar," Bro. Jolly says these Scriptures clearly prove that Bro. Johnson was the last Saint –that there cannot pos­sibly be any more left on earth. Will you please publish your comments on this?

ANSWER: – R. G. Jolly uses a part of those Scriptures – and only a part. This in itself is always unmistakable evidence of the weakling and the perverter – (Azazel means Perverter). Until he can offer a clear explanation of the clause, ''whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" – the clause specially put there by Jesus Himself ­he is simply manifesting Azazelian impudence to quote these Scriptures at all as a part of his "proof" that Brother Johnson was the last Saint. Let him explain how Brother Johnson was 'slain between the temple and the altar" if he wants to use these Scriptures in his argument. We have given a clear explanation of it in our writings; let him give a better one if he has it.

Also, the typical Zechariah died about a thousand years BC Thus, there was other "righteous blood" shed after his death – John the Baptist, probably Jeremiah and others. If the antitype is to be consistent, why should not the same thing be true here in the end of the Age with the Little Flock – just as it was true with the Ancient Worthies? It is all very well to say Jesus used Zechariah because that record is found in 2 Chronicles, which is technically the last book of the Hebrew Bible; but, as we have outlined previously, the real reason Jesus chose Zechariah in His statement was be­cause Zechariah was the last officiating High Priest to be martyred, so far as the Bible reveals. This made him the last Ancient Worthy who could make an all-embracing type of the Gospel-Age priesthood – and especially so as the official Eye, Hand and Mouth of the Lord. But this would not mean that the Epiphany Zechariah had to be the last Priest, any more than it meant that the typical Zechariah was the last Ancient Worthy.

NO. 37: PRIESTCRAFT

No. 37

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

It seems most appropriate just now to present some thoughts on PRIESTCRAFT.

Since the day the tabernacle was fully set up by Moses and Aaron the various religious organizations that have existed in Jewry and Christendom have gone through three successive stages – Priesthood, Priestcraft and Priest-“graft.” As Israel’s first high priest, Aaron gave them a most faithful service – so much so that he is referred to in Psa. 106:16 as “Aaron the saint of the lord”; and he is the only Old ­Testament personage to receive such honor. As most of our readers know, it was Brother Johnson’s thought that the word “Saint” refers only to members of the Christ Company ­with which we agree. In discussing this subject with him on one occasion, this seem­ing contradiction in Psa. 106:16 was mentioned, and he offered the explanation that this one exception was made because of Aaron’s high degree of faithfulness) in which he most fittingly typified the Gospel-Age Saints as the true Royal Priesthood.

In due course this faithful Aaronic priesthood degraded into a priestcraft, which expression we use here in its derogatory sense as meaning unholy intrigue, or Azazel­ian cunning designed to promote self through defeating and destroying all opposition and at the same time fooling “the unstable and the unlearned.” A notable instance of priestcraft is to be found in the sons of Eli as recorded in 1 Sam. 2:12–25. A second illustration is the pompous Hananiah in Jer. 28:10-15, where he offered a false proph­ecy in his effort to dispute and defeat Jeremiah. And he not only was successful in having his false prophecy accepted, but he also succeeded in having the faithful and true prophet Jeremiah cast into the miry dungeon (a type of slander) – “Thou makest this people to trust in a lie.” The conditions then prevailing in Israel were most fittingly expressed in Jer. 5:31: “The prophets prophesy falsely... and my people love to have it so.”

And this attitude of the people easily made way for the third stage in the Jew­ish system – the period of priest-“graft.” By the time Jesus appeared on earth the system had reached the very bottom of the dirty barrel; graft by the priesthood had became revoltingly repulsive. The Law had specified that the animals presented for sacrifice should be “without blemish”, which stipulation had become so distorted and abused in Jesus’ day that it is said the priests had as many as seventy reasons why they would reject an animal. Thus, if a pious, trusting peasant came in from the hill country with his lamb or kid under his arm for sacrifice to make his peace with God, the grafting priesthood was there to examine the animal in meticulous fashion. And if they found a wart on its belly, or some other insignificant irregularity, his animal was rejected. So what was he to do? To go back home for another animal was out of the question. But the priests had a ready answer for him; they would sell him one they had in the yard back of the temple, allowing him something for his re­jected animal.  Then his rejected animal would be put into the yard and sold at a goodly price to the next penitent as “without blemish.” Yes, they had developed a thriving business in priest-“graft.” This enables us to understand more clearly the words of Jesus in Matt. 21:12, 13: “Jesus went into the temple... and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them... My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

But that “den of thieves” was composed of the “good” people of that time – those who always showed a “good” spirit in contrast to Jesus’ “bad” spirit. It was they who neither ate nor drank anything “unclean.” “All their works they do to be seen of men... the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called Rabbi”—Matt. 23:4-7. It was they who “sounded a trumpet before them” in their alms­ giving to “have glory of men” – “long prayers on the street corners to be seen of men” “fasting with sad countenance to appear unto men to fast” (Matt. 6:2,5 16). Indeed, they had made “the outside of the cup clean”, while the priest-“graft” flourished as a “den of thieves.” Little wonder is it that the Lord could find no further use for that system – “this day your house is left unto you desolate.”

And substantially the same pattern prevailed in the Gospel-Age systems, chief among them being the Papal organization.  By 325 A.D. priestcraft had acquired such strength that the Council of Nice was able to banish the faithful Arius from the Roman Empire, forcing him to take refuge in Northern Africa. And of that imposing assembly only one stood with dear Brother Arius and accepted his fate. Once more the people of “good” spirit prevailed, while ridding themselves of Arius and his companion – those with the “bad” spirit. Priestcraft was paving the way for priest-“graft.” By the time Martin Luther arrived the “den of thieves” was again in full evidence; John Tetzel was filling the papal coffers with his sale of indulgences throughout the length and breadth of Germany. And that system went the way of its Jewish twin - “weighed in the balances and found wanting,” rejected as useless, and consigned to the “burning flame.”

Following on, we come to the Harvest time, and again the same pattern. That Faith­ful and Wise Servant was scarcely in the tomb until priestcraft appeared again – unholy intrigue and Azazelian cunning by That Evil Servant and Company to rid themselves of the faithful Epiphany Messenger. Nor did that system waste any time with its priest­craft; we are in the day of rapid travels and the religious thinking must keep abreast of the times. Thus, in one man’s lifetime the system organized by the faithful Royal Priesthood went rapidly from priestcraft to priest-“graft”; before That Evil Servant died, his slave labor was filling his coffers with royalties from the sale of his liter­ature.

Observation of the past should teach us something; but the human race learns slowly, so very slowly. The small boy asked his father, “What is a financier?” The father ­“He’s a man who can gain experience without paying for it.” But the financiers are so very few, which leaves the great majority to pay, and pay dearly, for their experiences. That is why priestcraft is already prevailing and predominating in the LHMM in the few short years since Brother Johnson’s death. A vivid illustration was presented at the Grand Rapids Convention over this last Memorial Day week-end.  On one occasion R. G. Jolly declared with much emphasis and gusto: “The Present Truth won’t deal in personalities, but the Present Truth will defend the Truth!” Here is an excellent illustration of priestcraft – saying one thing, but doing the very opposite. In our group, who has indulged in personalities more than has R. G. Jolly? He has publicly called three different persons a thief; he has referred to this writer as an errorist, sifter, teacher of sophistry, would-be teacher, etc., etc. And all this, and more, he has said about others. And this he has done while perverting the Truth, instead of defending it – therefore, his statement should properly read: “The Present Truth in­dulges in personalities and repeatedly perverts the Truth.” All are not skilled in discerning between Truth and error, so we make charitable allowance for many of his supporters – but we find it difficult to extend much charity to those who agree with him that he “does not indulge in personalities.” Any one who reads his paper should see without help that his denial of this fact is simply priestcraft at its worst.  In fact, as soon as he made his statement from the Convention platform, “The Present Truth (meaning R. G. Jolly, of course) won’t deal in personalities”, he immediately began to rail at “the sifter in our midst.” Thus, he himself put the stamp of false­hood to his own statement before his own echo had subsided. He won’t deal in personalities, 0–o–oh, No–o–oh! Here’s the dictionary definition of “indulge in personalities”: Referring directly to, or being aimed at, an individual – especially, some­thing of a disparaging or offensive nature.

It should be kept in mind that both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson repeated­ly identified individuals, not because they found pleasure therein – anymore than do we – but because they were convinced that “necessity was laid upon them” to do so. Here is something quite to the point in April 1, 1932 PT, p. 58, col. 2:

“Now that we are exposing their wrongdoings and teachings, they quote against us from “that Servant’s’ writings statements on evil speaking. These apply to their course, not ours. As Jesus (Matt. 23) publicly reproved the Phari­sees; as Paul reproved Peter publicly (Gal. 2:11-15); as the Prophets in in­numerable places and the Apostles in many instances as God’s mouthpieces spoke against the wrong acts of evildoers, even mentioning their names (2 Tim. 3:8; 1:15; 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Pet. 2:15; 3 John 9:10; Jude 11); and as all Re­formers, e.g., our dear Pastor, spoke against the clericalists, frequently mentioning their names, so in cases like the present, where guarding the flock against the brethren who are “deceiving and being deceived’ is necessary, it is not only not wrong, but our bounden duty as servants of the Truth, to ex­pose the clericalists in our midst. “That Servant’s” view reproving their slanderous course against us and justifying our exposures of their wrongs against the Church and their three colleagues on the Committee, is found in the Manna comment for July 14th. If we should keep silence, God would raise up another servant to warn His people against their false teachings and wrong practices.”

We take our guidance from the above when we vigorously attack the Azazelian methods of R. G. Jolly; but R. G. Jolly takes his guidance from That Evil Servant, whom all Epi­phany-enlightened brethren know to have been a teacher of error, and one who received his instructions from Azazel, in whose clutches he was. Think you that R. G. Jolly would do this if he were proceeding in the power and might of the Truth and Righteous­ness that actuated and sustained the true Pastors and Teachers that God gave His people in the last two Principal Men? In this last May-June PT, p. 41, col. 1 (top) he says, “(the teacher of “sophistry” on the time of the saints reign, already clearly identi­fied in these columns,)” Why not specifically identify this “teacher of sophistry”? He could have done it in fewer words than he used to mimic JFR. Would he mimic JFR if he were not motivated by the same spirit?  Indeed, it is such methods that provide us with the strong assurance that he is in Azazel’s hands for buffeting experiences, and that the Lord’s blessing will be with those who courageously resist such evil practices as they have opportunity. We have every confidence that the faithful brethren realize it has been very distasteful to us from the outset to pursue the unpleasant task of ex­posing brethren whom we have loved and respected, in their sins of teaching and prac­tice as evidenced since Brother Johnson’s death. We emphasize, however, that at no time have we attacked R. G. Jolly, or others, with vicious gossip or published state­ments about their personal lives or family affairs – although those very methods have been employed against us in the slander that has been circulated since Brother John­son’s death, just as uncleansed levites did the same to Brother Johnson when they could not meet the Truth he presented. They gossiped that he had dissipated Sister Johnson’s finances; and on at least one occasion, which we remember quite clearly, even his mor­als were impugned. Of such methods none can justly accuse us – although we have produced the proof of slanders against us. Our course has been against erring brethren in their official capacity only, having studiously avoided family relationships, their business ethics, etc., although we have repeatedly been given derogatory information about some of them along these lines. Jesus did not use these methods against the Scribes and Pharisees, although He did attack their sins of practice (their character).

As we should expect, R. G. Jolly’s principal Yes-Men accept their example and in­struction from him. At this same Grand Rapids Convention one of them discoursed on “The Treader of the Winepress.” On two or three occasions he quoted Matt. 23:35 and Luke 11:51, “Upon you shall come all the righteous blood from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zechariah.” But he failed, carefully failed, to quote the clause, “whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Now, why would be do that? Well, some one might ask him what that means – and he might not be able to tell them – and that would be embarrassing! As we have previously pointed out, the addition of that clause by Jesus, when referring to 2 Chron. 24:21, is not without purpose. Partial quotations of Scripture or of others’ statements to warp or conceal the Truth are pretty good evi­dence of priestcraft. Much along the same line may be said of that same speaker’s use of Amos 9:13, of which we hope to treat in due course. But, as Jesus said of those in His day on earth, who resorted to similar tactics, “They have their reward”; in other words, they will reap even as they sow.

CHRIST’S THOUSAND-YEAR REIGN – Reviewed

In this May-June 1958 Present Truth there is presented about seven pages more on “Christ’s Thousand-Year Reign.” That our readers may reach a proper appraisal of this jumble, we first of all quote from p. 47, col. 2 (end):

“By the time (1) the Millennium and (2) its subsequent “little season’ (Rev. 20:3) will have fully ended, God through the Christ (Head and Body), the Seed of Abra­ham (Gal. 3:8, 16) 29). will (1) have blessed all the willing and obedient of mankind with restitution (in the Millennium proper, which ends in 2874), and (2) they will have stood faithful in the testings in the Little Season.” (E–17–414)

Now we suggest that our readers refer to bottom of p. 414, Vol. 17 and note the substi­tutions R. G. Jolly has made in that quotation – substitutions cunningly designed to pervert what Brother Johnson has written. Note especially his addition, “in the Millennium proper, which ends in 2874,”  Certainly it is his questionable privilege to be­lieve what he has added; but to include it in the quotation, thus putting R. G. Jolly’s own words into Brother Johnson’s mouth, is just what we might expect from any one in Azazel’s hands. Azazel means Perverter; and here we have a classic example of perver­sion. He also makes a butchery of Brother Johnson’s English, because if Brother John­son had used R. G. Jolly’s parenthesis he would have said in the last sentence of the above quotation, “they will have to stand faithful” instead of “they will have stood faithful”. We shall show later on that Brother Johnson directly contradicts R. G. Jolly’s addition as quoted above.

Also, he finally stintingly admits there is considerable conflict in the statements of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson; but those against his argument “really don’t mean anything.” To those about us we have often questioned how long it would be until R. G. Jolly would be forced into this admission, and what he would then do with it. But the Truth will out – and will prevail. We are pleased to note that at least a little – even though a very little – has finally registered with him. Now, on p. 44, col. 2, par. 1 he attempts to answer Brother Johnson’s statement, “We may reasonably infer that the Millennium will end by time stages; otherwise, we could not claim for Christ and the Church a full 1,000 years’ reign.” If R. G. Jolly is right in his pres­ent contention, then this statement by Brother Johnson is just empty and foolish. We know Brother Johnson was clear in his understanding that a part is often taken for the whole; also, that the Millennium in its first sense is from 1874 to 2874. He also knew that not even one of the Saints “reigned with Him” in 1874. Thus, none of them would “reign with Him” a full thousand years if that time ends in 2874. This is only simple arithmetic – and Brother Johnson understood the equation clearly enough. And because he did see it clearly, he was forced to make the statement just quoted to show that in no sense – “narrow sense”, “restricted sense”, or any way R. G. Jolly wants to term it – would that Scripture be stating the Truth if it were referring to 2874.

We have repeatedly predicted that R. G. Jolly will be forced to silence in this matter – and we now repeat that prediction. It’s been more than six months since our last paper appeared on this matter (Nov. 1, 1957); and he is wily enough to wait long enough to allow his readers to forget his past statements and defeats, and to give him a chance to adjust his previous contentions with the annihilation we have given his previous statements. He is now forced to state (p. 41, col. 2, par. 2, that “the Head alone from 1874 to 1878” reigned. And we may expect to see more – much more – of such acrobatics until, and if, he cleanses himself, just as we saw the same acrobatics in That Evil Servant on his numerous and contradictory views on Elijah and Elisha.

Take, for instance, his “faulty disc.” He has repeatedly admitted it isn’t clear. Now – for the first time – he’s telling us it makes no difference if the disc says “of” or “is”. It took him a long time to find that out; and, if he is now right, why send out the edict to change Volume 17 to fit the sleight-of-hand “correction” he made in 1956? But, when he tries to offer the flimsy explanation that the “effects of Satan’s reign” is meant – and that means “things” and not “persons” – he reveals once more his stature. Even if Satan were destroyed, but the least semblance of sin could yet be found (which will not occur, of course), wouldn’t that remaining sin still be the “ef­fects of Satan’s reign” not yet destroyed? He must give his readers a very low rating if he thinks they will swallow that!

Of course, he must accept the above hypothesis to justify his mutilation of Brother Johnson’s statement in E–17–414, wherein he injects his perversion, “mankind with resti­tution – in the Millennium proper, which ends in 2874.” Just as his tampering with that “faulty disc” directly contradicted Brother Johnson’s statements elsewhere, so he now does again on this restitution perversion. Here’s what Brother Johnson says about it in E–6–709:

“The right to human life is the Divinely sanctioned privilege of a human being in harmony with justice to exist perfectly, which implies the possession of per­fect human physical, mental, moral and religious faculties and life, while the life-rights are the blessings attached to such a right to life, e.g., a perfect earth, climate, home, food, fellowship between God and man (which implies for­giveness of sin) and between man and man, rulership of the earth, of nature’s laws and of the animal creation, in so far as man comes in contact with them. These were the main things that Adam lost for himself and his race, and that Christ sacrificed for mankind. This He will do on condition of faith and obedience to the New Covenant arrangements in the Millennium .... Hence we by our faith-justification have reckonedly what the obedient of the world actu­ally will get in the end of the Little Season – the confirmed right to human nature, life and life–rights.”

It should be noted the above is a direct contradiction to R. G. Jolly’s interpo­lation into Brother Johnson’s statement in E–17-414; and this he has done because he, like J. W. Krewson, has read something from Brother Russell and from Brother Johnson that he doesn’t understand. All who survive the Little Season must enter it with per­fect characters, says Brother Johnson in E–8–616; and such characters will be superior to what Adam had in Eden because those characters will be crystallized in righteous­ness – a thing Adam did not possess in Eden. But there is a wide gap between perfec­tion of character and physique as against “the restitution of all things” which R. G. Jolly apparently doesn’t understand, or he would not conclude from Brother Russell’s statement in Z 4442, par. 7. that “mediation for the thousand Years” (italics R.G.J.’s) accomplishes restitution. Jesus had a perfect character while on earth, but He cer­tainly did not have “the restitution of all things”; and many will be brought to per­fection of character and physique long before the Mediatorial reign will end, but they will not have “the restitution of all things.”

R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson seemingly hold to the same error here – which should not surprise us. But we are indeed surprised that their thinking is so shallow that they would pervert Brother Johnson’s statement in E–6–709. It should not require the intellect of a Star Member to see the Truth Brother Johnson has given – even if he had not said it; a little reflection should make this clear to a novice in the Truth. Dur­ing the Little Season mankind will be divided into two camps, one of them bent upon vio­lence and uproar – “Gog and Magog, to assemble them together for war... and...... they en­circled the camp of the Saints; and the beloved city.” (Rev. 20:8,9–Dia.) “Satan will at that same time fight the greatest battle of his career, against the Christ, Head and Body, who at that time will be God’s mighty Vicegerent, and against the Christ’s earthly representatives” – (E–17–423, top) – toward the end of the Little Season. Does this sound like the “peace and quiet of Eden before Adam sinned”?  Does it sound like “fellowship between man and man”, which Brother Johnson states to be one of the component consti­tuents of restitution? It would seem a sixth–grade boy should be able to see it does not. And, if it does not, then “the restitution of all things” will not yet be accomplished in 2874. Thus, it is easily seen why Brother Johnson comments in E–17–414 (bottom) as follows:

“By the time the Millennium and its subsequent “little season” (Rev. 20:3) will have fully ended, God through the Christ (Head and Body)... will have blessed all the willing and obedient of mankind with restitution, and they will have stood faithful in the testings in the Little Season.”

And again in E–17–367 (top):

“But favorably to influence all toward Him is far different from their living faithfully during the thousand years and standing the final tests during the Little Season.”

Brother Johnson has well said that these people talk all sorts of nonsense when they fall into the hands of Azazel; and here is another piece of “perfect” nonsense by R. G. Jolly, when he tries to teach that Satanic “war” and the “restitution of all things” can exist side by side at the same time.  And it is this same publisher of nonsense who yells “teacher of sophistry” at JJH, while he himself perverts these ele­mental truths! (Azazel means Perverter.) Again we invite our readers to compare his contentions with what we have set forth, a recommendation which is just the reverse of his counsel to his readers.

In this connection, note Brother Johnson’s statement in E–16–55 (bottom):

“Those who will not obey in the final trial, when Satan is loosed at the end of the Age (Rev. 20:1-3) will be destroyed in the second death, at the end of the Millennium.”

Then, further on p. 56 (middle): “The last expression of sin will occur in the Little Season, at the and of the Millennium.” Certainly, that “last expression of sin” refers to things as accomplished by persons.

As has been stated in previous writings, restitution will restore “that which was lost” – namely, Fellowship with God, Paradise, Dominion and Life. Surely, Dominion will not be restored by 2874! As Brother Johnson has so well explained, the Ancient and Youth­ful Worthies will be “princes in all the earth” throughout the Mediatorial reign – until 2874, after which they will become new-creaturely Sons of God. At that time the resti­tutionists will became princes, and succeed to kingship after the Little Season trial proves them faithful and after their erstwhile earthly rulers have departed this earth. Then, for the first time will Dominion be restored to them; then for the first time will they be kings, as was Adam in Eden. (See E–11–289, 290; and especially pp. 260-263, where Brother Johnson interprets the Little Season antitype of the wicked Pharaoh and his army pursuing fleeing Israel. Definitely, no “fellowship between man and man” is to be found in the turmoil of that clear picture.)

While R. G. Jolly’s own references and statements defeat him, we offer a few more of the many statements by the Star Members which also conclusively defeat him. The “stone cut out of the mountain without hands” was not complete until 1914, therefore, could not begin the smiting until 1914, at which time antitypical Elijah came to Mount Horeb. Note Parousia Vol. 3, P. 128:  “That the Gentile Times would not end until 1914 is found, on the contrary, to be in full harmony with the unfoldings of God’s plan for the campaign of the Battle of the Great Day exactly as foretold by Daniel (2:44), who declared, “In the days of these kings, shall the God of heaven set up a Kingdom, and it shall break in pieces and consume all these.” It must, therefore, be just as we have found it: Our lord must be present, must test the living members of His Church, must exalt them, glorify them and associate them with Himself in the power and authority to be exercised during the Millennium (Rev. 20:6).”  Now follows a quotation from Re­prints 5632:

“We believe that the time for the setting up of the kingdom was on September 21, 1914. At that time, when it was due for our Lord to take up His great Power and reign, the nations were already angry... The due time for the “wrath” was September 21... The nations have been in just this same unloving spirit one to­ward another for a number of years, but apparently they have been under some forcible restraint. We believe God’s time had not yet come.” (Feb. 15, 1915)

And here is more from the same article in Reprints, P. 5631:

“What time, then, is signified by the expression “in the days of these kings’, when the Kingdom of God was to be set up in power? To our understanding the first step in the setting up of this kingdom was the raising of the sleeping saints of the Gospel Ages which we believe was in the spring of 1878. Then began the glorification of the church. The work of setting up the kingdom has, we understand, been progressing from that date, and is now merely lack­ing the last members of the church class. When these have taken their places as members of the church in glory, the kingdom will be fully set up.”

Self–evidently, The Christ could not reign until they had a kingdom (to reign over), and they could not have a kingdom until September 21, 1914. Now couple the above quo­tations with this from E–6–427:

“In Rev. 18:23 the word “Bride’ is applied to the entire Church in the flesh and in the spirit in an activity begun Sept. 20, 1914. The following will clarify this so far as the Church in the flesh is concerned: Elijah’s coming to Mt. Horeb at the and of the 40 days types the Church coming 40 years after 1874, i. e., in 1914, to the kingdom, in the sense that the last begettal then occurring, all the faithful under the call up to that time will obtain the kingdom, and therefore in God’s sight (Rom. 4:17) they are from then on in the kingdom.”

There is yet very much more that could be presented on the subject; indeed we suggest the entire reading of the Reprint article cited above; but we believe what we have offered aforegoing is clear enough for a child to understand it. For a subject yet almost a thousand years future (except for that which applies to the various be­ginnings and their significance), it would seem more than enough has already been said. We have pursued it to its present extreme only because of R. G. Jolly’s errors and bom­bastic talk; and from this standpoint we hope the discussion has proven profitable to our readers. Obviously, none can know now the details of the Little Season’s overlap­ping; that time (which will be the Millennial-Age Harvest) will provide its own trials just as the Jewish and Gospel-Age harvests have done.

And once more do we offer the words of Solomon to all who call upon the Lord in a “good and honest heart” – “In all thy getting, get understanding.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – You teach that we are still in the Epiphany; so I would like to know if you think we are still in the Gospel Age, as your June 1 article on Tenta­tive Justification seems to indicate?

ANSWER: – Yes, we do believe we are still in the Gospel Age. Gospel means “good news”, and the “Gospel of the Kingdom” (Gal. 3:8) is the good news to the world of mankind of ultimate Edenic salvation. But, as applied to the Gospel Age, the good news is the call to become “heirs of that salvation” to minister it to the “residue of men.” Therefore, so long as there is at least one of such here on this earth who has answered that “call” and has been accepted into it, we must conclude that the Gos­pel Age is still with us. This is confirmed by E–4–20 (13):

“As periods, the Parousia and the Epiphany lapped into one another, somewhat after the manner in which, from 1874 until the last spirit-begotten person leaves this earth, the Gospel and Millennial Ages lap into one another.”

Inasmuch as there are New-creaturely Saints and levites yet on earth, the Gospel Age must also still be with us. R. G. Jolly’s comment at Grand Rapids Convention that “Tentative Justification in the Court is “for Gospel-Age purposes only”, is indeed correct; it is his failure rightly to apply it that is error. As we have pointed out before, does he move the laver from the court to the camp?  Once more he fails “rightly to divide the word of Truth.” Therefore, as the above quotation by Brother Johnson teaches – and which we accept – the Gospel Age is still with us in the same sense that it has been with us all during the Epiphany; and Tentative Justification “for Gospel–­Age purposes” exists now in the Court and not in R. G. Jolly’s newly-invented Epiphany Camp – although the Jolly-Krewson twosome revolutionize against this clear and once-accepted Parousia and Epiphany Truth.

QUESTION: – Do you deny that the Millennium began in 1874?

ANSWER: – No, we do not deny that the Millennium began in 1874. The chronology, the parallel dispensations and the Jubilee Cycles all pin-point 1874. We think Jesus then assumed some of his great power and began the binding of Satan, which bind­ing will continue until the Millennium in its primary features ends in 2874. The con­troversy is the Thousand-Year Reign of the Christ, which R. G. Jolly sets forth as the same thousand years of Satan’s binding. In no sense do we believe that the reign of The Christ began in 1874, nor did either of the last two Star Members ever advance the thought that The Christ began to reign in 1874. This idea is an invention of R. G.

NO. 35: ON TENTATIVE JUSTIFICATION

No. 35

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

In this advanced stage of the Epiphany it seems almost unbelievable that much effort should be expended to expound tentative justification for the benefit of those who have basked in the rich Epiphany Truth for so many years; but many of its principles in fact, its very foundation –  are now being vitiated by the theory of Consecrated Epiph­any Campers. It will be recalled by many of us that Brother Johnson rose to the defense of this doctrine as against the aberrations of That Evil Servant and completely crushed his vagaries. Especially did he rely upon Rom. 4:3‑8, where it is stated that “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” Inasmuch as the Way, the Truth and the Life (Jesus) had not yet appeared in Abraham's day, it is apparent he could not have had that righteousness that inheres to those during the Gospel Age who came into the Christ Company; but he had the righteousness that cometh of faith.

The faith‑justification which Abraham and those of his class had came from God, of course, but only after due demonstration of their faith in God by their living works that attested that faith, which required a mental effort on their part to cleave to right ways. During this Gospel Age there is a class blessed with tentative justification who do not even exercise a mental effort toward God. They are the immature children of the Church of the Firstborn (Heb. 12:23) – the Little Flock and the Great Company. This Church, having vitalized justification, must necessarily have their standing in the Court of the Tabernacle, which gives them a holy standing; and children born to such would self‑evidently also be in that holy condition, since they could not be born out­side the court to parents who were in the court. In 1 Cor. 7:14 St. Paul states this clearly enough: “The unbelieving husband is sanctified in the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother; otherwise, indeed, your children were impure, but now they are holy.” This word “holy” is from the Greek hagios, and is the same word used in Heb. 3:1, where St. Paul speaks to “holy brethren, associates of a heavenly calling” (Dia.). This, of course, makes such children only nominal Christians; their standing is due to something entirely beyond their will or desire. To such would also apply Rom. 5:1, who “being justified by faith, have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Such believers who have reached the age of accountability, have been intellectually persuaded to consider Christ as their Savior, have received a reckoned or tentative justification, have “peace with God”; but they are still only nominal Chris­tians. To such “brethren” St. Paul extends the invitation of Rom. 12:1 to present them­selves to God, which, if they do, will then give them the “peace of God” – which passeth understanding.

But Jesus has clearly stated that peace with God and the peace of God can come only through Him. In John 10:9 He says, “I am the Door of the sheep”; and in 10:1 there is this: “He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” In his recent defense of the Epiphany R. G. Jolly most emphatically declared that the Epiphany is still with us – and with this we fully agree. But, if that is true, then the Epiphany Tabernacle must also be with us; and the only place for tentative justification must be in the court, and not in the camp. Any time any one leaves the court to go into the camp he loses his justi­fication, as Brother Johnson so clearly states it in E‑10‑209:

“The Gospel‑Age Camp Is the condition of the unjustified people of God, while the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.”

Since the Epiphany is not yet finished, neither is the Epiphany Camp a finished pic­ture; and any attempt to make it such directly disputes Brother Johnson's clear writings as quoted above. Thus, it should be seen that any attempt at the present time to offer justification to those in the camp is really a denial of the Ransom, “climbing up some other way” than through the gate of the Court. We do not say those who presently preach consecrated Epiphany campers intentionally make such denial; neither do the vast multi­tudes who believe in human immortality intentionally deny the Ransom – but the fact re­mains just the same that they do so; and any who see this matter properly, then continue to preach it, must certainly then became guilty of intentional denial of the Ransom. Note Brother Johnson's description of the Epiphany Tabernacle:

“For the Epiphany the most holy represents the condition of the Divine beings; the holy in the finished picture represents the condition of the crown‑retaining New Creatures; the court in the finished picture represents the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies; the camp in the finished picture the formerly faith‑justified ones who hold to the Ransom and practice righteousness, and converted Israel.”

When Brother Johnson says as above that the “formerly faith‑Justified ones” are to be found in the camp in the finished picture, this is certainly clear enough that such have lost their tentative justification. And, by the same token, any new ones who might join such could have no better standing than they do. They, too, must be without any kind of justification – regardless of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome to the contrary. Note some more from Brother Johnson in E‑6‑195:

“During the Gospel Age they (in the camp) have been those professed Christians that have not heartily repented toward God and heartily exercised faith toward Jesus, or those who have not remained in these conditions of heart and mind, though desiring some fellowship with God, i. e., those who have not even been tentatively Justified, or those who did not retain tentative justification, though loud in their professions.”

And more from the same book on page 199: “One's journey from the Camp to the Gate cannot at any stage represent a real faith in Christ as Savior, inasmuch as the Court curtain represents things connected with faith – the outside of it a “wall of unbelief” in Christ's righteousness to those outside.”

And from the same book more on page 168:

“To deny this doctrine of Tentative Justification would be to deny and to be­come confused on many Scriptures and to repudiate important features of Tabernacle Shadows. How could any one appreciate the Brazen Altar, wash himself at the Laver and be tied at the door of the Tabernacle in consecration, and have his justification vitalized, without first being in the Court, the place of Tentative Justification (T 19, 20)? Surely, the Brazen Altar and the Laver were not taken into the Camp in order that those not tentatively justified might use them preparatory to making a consecration!... To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But what consolation that the Very Elect shall be manifested as not being deceived!”

AND WHO WROTE THE ABOVE? WHY, R. G. JOLLY HIMSELF – THE SAME R. G. JOLLY WHO NOW REPUDIATES THE VERY TRUTHS HE SO CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD WHILE HE WAS UNDER THE RESTRAINING HAND OF THE STAR MEMBER – AT A TIME HE STILL BELIEVED HE WAS OF THE VERY ELECT, AND HAD NOT YET BEEN ABANDONED TO AZAZEL! Here we have a crystal‑clear illustration of what is meant by one falling into the hands of Azazel and then receiving the punishment of 2 Thes. 2:10,11 – that “energy of delusion” which “God sends them” – by removing the restraints that formerly held them in the way of Truth and righteousness. Has R. G. Jolly now found a way to move the Laver into the Camp – in direct contradiction of his statement quoted above – “preparatory to making a consecration”? When we witness the repudiation of Truth once so clearly discerned, can any who are “established in the present truth” have the slightest doubt that he was abandoned to Azazel in October, 1950? On page 31, col. 1 of this last March 1958 PT he hurls the words of Brother John­son at J. W. Krewson (E‑5‑32): “Advancing Truth must agree with the past Truth. It does not repudiate the formerly received Truth... That which leaves part of the former founda­tions, tears down other parts of them and builds on other and contrary‑running founda­tions, cannot be a part of the former house. It must be a part of another house.... must be deviating error, not advancing Truth.”

And again on page 32, col. 1 he quotes from Brother Johnson (E‑6‑309): “But to the wicked (Matt. 24:48) God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant into thy mouth (richly given him by That Servant) and castest my words behind thee (by inventing new views whereby he casts away formerly‑held truths)?”

Surely, the words of Jesus (Luke 19:32) are here most pertinent: “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.” And to refresh the minds of our readers, we suggest they read R. G. Jolly's Question & Answer an Page 30, col. 1, of the March 1955 PT, where he says:

“We believe that persevering faith‑justified ones will remain in, and additional ones will enter into, the tentatively justified condition for Epiphany Camp pur­poses, i.e., as a step toward becoming Consecrated Epiphany Campers.”

In this connection, he has correctly quoted Brother Johnson that “Tentative Justi­fication will continue until Restitution”; but here again – like J. W. Krewson – he has read something which he apparently does not understand, and is trying to build on his false interpretation of Brother Johnson's statement. As Brother Johnson has so aptly put it – Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company.

In no way can R. G. Jolly reconcile his 1955 statement quoted above with either Star Member's teachings – he can reconcile it only with errorist Krewson's teachings ­from whom he originally received it – the same errorist be now so vehemently castigates. And be it noted that the “Advancing Truth” he presents above is a direct contradiction of past truth he once clearly expounded in refuting That Evil Servant; and he now has a camp view very closely akin to that very renegade he so expertly refuted while he was still under the benign influence of our Beloved Brother Johnson. It should be noted that the camp in the Gospel‑Age Tabernacle and in the Epiphany Tabernacle is assigned to the UNJUS­TIFIED by both Star Members; and, while JFR revolutionized against only one of them, R. G. Jolly now revolutionizes against both of them. And this is the self‑admitted leader of the Good Levites, in whom Brother Johnson placed his confidence; and we call upon him once more to comply with this trust, to retrace his steps and return to the sound Parousia and Epiphany Truth “while it is called today”. Once the truth on the Tabernacle is lost, then irreparable harm is done, as it is basic for Parousia and Epiphany teachings and for all advancing Truth.

It should be noted that both Star Members describe the levites as a type of the House­hold of Faith –  with their standing in the Court. Once they lose that standing, they cease to be antitypical Levites, and are forced into the Camp. Note Brother Johnson's comments in E‑4‑322 (this is only one of many such statements by him):

“During the transitional period (the Epiphany) those Levites) the tentatively justified, who will not consecrate lose their tentative Justification, i. e. cease to be Levites and are put out of the Court; while those who do consecrate, the Youthful Worthies, retain their tentative justification and remain in the Court ... throughout the Transitional period.”

But B. G. Jolly now puts his consecrated Campers into the Camp – with his newly‑invented type of Tentative Justification. Certainly, at least a few of those with tentative justi­fication at 1954 have since lost that standing, thus being forced from the Court into the Camp, commingling now with those in the Camp who are consecrated –  making a conglomera­tion of strange and peculiar vintage. Certainly, if his “new doctrine” is the Truth, he should be able to explain this clearly to the satisfaction of all.

It should be emphasized that Brother Russell stated there might be another elect class after the High Calling closed but before this Age had came to its full end. That Evil Servant immediately set that teaching aside, which he was forced to do because of his deflection on Tentative Justification. Brother Johnson annihilated his position, and clearly upheld from the Scriptures the Tentative Justification doctrine in the Court. Brother Johnson also clearly defined the four elect classes In the Divine Plan, finding nothing whatever to include a fifth class; but the Jolly‑Krewson twosome quickly invented a fifth class – in an accommodated reverse order from That Evil Servant's per­version, to do which they must “arrange” a pseudo Tentative Justification in the Camp ­– a Camp which is open on all sides with no specific entrance, the same being a direct contradiction to Jesus' words, “I am the door” to justification. Neither Star Member ever gave the slightest intimation of such an oddity.

In the January 1958 PT, p. 7, it is stated the quasi‑elect consecrated cannot be Scripturally explained – and with this we agree. But we add also that the consecrated Epiphany Campers cannot be Scripturally explained either –  that this “new doctrine” revolutionizes against the clear teachings of both Star Members, and especially so as respects the Epiphany Tabernacle. On page 8 of the same paper he says JWK presents another monument to his inability to serve as special teacher – and we would say his presentations on John's Beheading, Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels, the Pyramid, and the quasi‑elect consecrated prove the same thing – probably the worst of all these perversions being the “mix‑uptery” found in commingling the Court rejects with the Camp­ers “Justified”. Yet R. G. Jolly gladly received all these errors as “Advancing Truth” from J. W. Krewson until he awoke to the sad realization that “his own familiar friend” in whom he trusted was in reality blowing his own horn in concocting all these perver­sions – whereupon JWK immediately became the “errorist”, with R. G. Jolly still cleav­ing to those errors because he had allowed himself to become as enmeshed as a cat on fly paper – too sticky to handle and too “stuck” to let go. And what more shall we say about this? Well, suppose we allow Brother Johnson to say it (E‑7‑426):

“What the PBI editors need in this matter is reformation from hypocrisy and folly, and the possession of real knowledge and meekness; for had they been meek the Lord would have guided them; but, following their own wilfulness, the Lord gave them over to Azazel.“

   For need we add anything more than to pray the Lord's richest blessing upon all who call upon Him with a “good and honest heart.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

Question: – We have heard Brother Jolly, Brother Krewson and one of the Pilgrims praise the work of Evangelist Billy Graham – because they say the Lord is using him to bring new ones to Tentative Justification. Do you agree with their thought on this?

Answer: – Although it may be possible that some of Billy Graham's proselytes have received Tentative Justification, just as there are probably many tentatively justified in Big and Little Babylon – yet it seems to us preposterous that any who claim to be in Present Truth should not be able to see him in proper portrait, Namely – An antitypical Midianite. His own statements on eternal torment clearly confirm this – just as they also mark him as a member of antitypical Balaam (See Berean Comments an 2 Pet. 2:15,16 and Rev. 2:14).

The effort put forth by various brethren at the Graham meetings in New York last year was indeed commendable; and we rejoice that there is still sufficient light in R. G. Jolly that he had them use the Star Members’ “timeworn and threadbare tracts” (the way he described those tracts at a Chicago Convention a few years back). Also, we note with satisfaction that some of the other sects in Little Babylon give consid­erable prominence to these same tracts, too – although we have heard none of them give these tracts the slurring “timeworn and threadbare” description with which R. G. Jolly besmirched them. Perhaps the Faithful in those groups are instrumental in continuing the pursuit of antitypical Zebah and Zalmunna, as it is an Epiphany work, and will con­tinue to a completion. We hope and pray that those in the LHMM who have been blessed with a clear understanding of this type by Brother Johnson will continue to honor his memory and persevere in this “good fight.”

We observe that Brother Johnson each fall honored the memory of That Servant with a Special Effort using those “timeworn and threadbare” tracts; and, inasmuch as Brother Johnson died at almost the same date as Brother Russell, there should now be a double reason for this special effort. Instead, immediately upon Brother Johnson's death this Epiphany arrangement was set aside and ignored completely. Why?

Question: – Are you in agreement with Brother Krewson's observations in his February‑March 1958 paper regarding the Epiphany Messenger's Pilgrim appointments?

Answer: – No, we certainly are not! If J. W. Krewson were right, then no one would now have the privilege to address the General Church except those whom he approves. R. G. Jolly also – the same as did That Evil Servant – arrogated to himself the power “to save and to destroy” – just as J. W. Krewson is now attempting to do. R. G. Jolly has made it very clear he disapproves any of Brother Johnson's Pilgrims who do not “bow the knee to Baal” – meaning approval of his revolutionistic course for “the Lord's ar­rangements” (the same as did JFR). Brother Johnson says, “They claim that those of the pilgrims who were appointed through That Servant, and who are not laboring under its aus­pices have no right to be General Elders, i. e., teachers of the General Church.”

Sad to say, J. W. Krewson resorts readily and easily to falsehood when the truth will not serve his purpose. At the bottom of page 15 he says, “He (JJH) inferred.. that his appointment was something Brother Johnson told him personally.” He himself proposed the “inference”, then proceeded to build upon the figment of his own perverted imagination when we parried his insolent inference with a question of our own – which question did not affirm his own inference (evil surmising). As Brother Johnson has so well put it, “Evil surmisers usually _feel certain.’ But they feel more certain then they know.” It would be most interesting to know if J. W. Krewson has requested written credentials of any of the other Pilgrims; especially so did he require such from R. G. Jolly while he was submitting his Present Truth articles to him in the years immediately following Brother Johnson's death. And did he request Brother Gavin's written creden­tials before that New England meeting in 1955? If not, then what reason does he now have for singling out JJH? There is more here – very much more –  than meets the eye!

In our March 1958 issue we quoted briefly from Brother Johnson's letter to us at the time he sent our Pilgrim Certificate, and we now offer some more from that same letter:

“As an Auxiliary Pilgrim (emphasis ours) the work has been particularly to­ward the brethren, e.g., serving them on pilgrim trips, delivering discourses at conventions, etc. An Auxiliary Pilgrim's field of service is in any lo­cality within a country or nation, except in some few cases where they go in­to a nearby country; whereas a Pilgrim's sphere of service is larger and not so limited, e.g., Pilgrim trips are usually longer, over a wider area, etc. I pray the Lord to bless you and make you a blessing in this good work.”

From the foregoing it seems clear enough that Brother Johnson himself was convinced that he knew what he was doing, as he clearly differentiates between the auxiliary and the full pilgrim office. And this same J. W. Krewson who now accuses us of being “officious” also has the impudence to insult Brother Johnson's memory by telling us that Brother John­son did not know what he was doing! Well, let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind. And here is some more from Brother Johnson that seems to fit in here pretty well (E‑5‑516):

“Most of those who presume by printed page to address the general church have no right to do so, not having been appointed by the lord through His special Servant to the office of general elder in the church, without which office no one has the right to address the general church. The fact that so many of the pilgrims have gone into error should have deterred these lesser lights from usurping so dangerous a position; but lacking humility they judge themselves fit for an office to which the Lord never called them, and for which He evi­dently would not call them. To the fallen heart, to be a somebody is so en­chanting a thing that it will impel to almost any course to attain its ambi­tion.”

It should be noted that since 1955 J. W. Krewson never once – orally or in writ­ing – even hinted to us that we were using the Pilgrim addition to our name improperly. His first objection to this came when we began to hit the errors of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome. Note, too, that he stated, without the slightest qualification, that “Pilgrims” were in attendance at his New England meeting in 1955. It is our understanding there was one pilgrim at that meeting, the same being another of Brother Johnson's _pseudo’ appointments (according to J. W. Krewson's recent teachings); yet, when it serves his purpose, J. W. Krewson gives even that one a plural inclusion in his claims. That pilgrim then present at the Krewson meeting should certainly have known Brother Johnson's teachings concerning Evangelists, such as the one he there encouraged to foist his program upon the general church. R. G. Jolly should long since have known it, too; but he has never once referred to the quotations we now present – and this for reasons which he himself knows only too well.

Brother Johnson spent much time and effort defining the Arrangements of the Lord. During the Parousia the order of ministry was maintained through the use of General Elders, who had a ministry toward, but not over, the Vitalizedly Justified and the Tentatively Justified – the only one over the Household being the Seventh Principal Man. During the Epiphany this arrangement continued through the Eighth Principal Man –  with the ministry of the General Elders of the Epiphany Movement being toward, but not over, the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Tentatively Justified – the latter including the Youth­fuls and the unconsecrated. Brother Johnson had a ministry toward the Very Elect, but not over them – but he held a position superior to the other General Elders as respects the Great Company and the Tentatively Justified. His appointment of General Elders was for the General Church, including all members of it. All of them instructed all four classes during the Epiphany under Brother Johnson's ministry – and they still have that privilege so long as they adhere to the Truth and its Arrangements.

Such General Elders could revolutionize, before or after Brother Johnson's demise ­even as did Brother Russell's appointees – notable among them being J. F. Rutherford and R. G. Jolly. Nevertheless, JFR was a General Elder, and was thus privileged to Present Truth to the General Church, after Brother Russell's demise, as Brother Johnson freely admitted. Therefore, the first place to look for a Truth teacher would be among God's duly appointed general elders – either of Brother Russell's appointment or of Brother Johnson's appointment –  and not to the Tom, Dick and Harry variety, as Brother Johnson described them. Had J. W. Krewson been properly disposed after Brother Johnson's death, he would have been properly guided by the lord into whatever work within his limitations the Lord had for him. Instead, he immediately put his stamp of approval upon R. G. Jolly as “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallel”, thereby empowering him with some of That Servant's authority (?); and R. G. Jolly very soon returned the compliment by putting his stamp of approval upon J. W. Krewson as “Mrs. Russell's Epiphany Parallel” and this R. G. Jolly did despite the fact that J. W. Krewson never occupied a position in the General Church under Brother Johnson, the last Star Member, that even remotely approached the unique position originally held by Mrs. Russell whom she faithfully served under Star Member Brother Russell. It should be noted we have never questioned R. G. Jolly's right to address the General Church with Truth –  but we certainly do re­sist his efforts toward the General Church “to rebel against the words of God, and con­temn the counsel of the Most High” – Psa. 107:11. As R. G. Jolly himself admits, he lost his status as General Elder in the Church which is His Body; but Brother Johnson appointed him as General Elder for Epiphany purposes (and be himself contends – correctly so – that the Epiphany is still with us); therefore, he still has the privilege of using that office in harmony with the Truth and its Arrangements. The same would apply to other Pilgrims of Brother Johnson's appointment – according to their opportunities of service and ability, of course.

No instance has ever come to our notice that any of Brother Russell's Pilgrims were called upon, after his death, to produce verbal or written endorsement for their Pilgrim status; and we are painfully reminded of St. Paul's prediction of “perilous times” in the extreme and of this Age when the Adversary is driven to the straits re­vealed by J. W. Krewson in this instance. We are humbly thankful for the Lord's over­ruling goodness that we do have our written “credentials” as a bulwark from the Lord against J. W. Krewson's extremity to besmirch our influence and good name before the brethren because of our efforts to “be faithful to the lord, the Truth and the Brethren.” Whether R. G. Jolly or the others have their written Pilgrim Certificate as we have ours, we do not know – nor does it seem important to us. Certainly, we are not putting out any “Do‑You‑Knows” regarding such; nor are we requiring written proof now for what we accepted without question during Brother Johnson's ministry. At the outset, R. G. Jolly should have pointed out these Epiphany Arrangements to J. W. Krewson and to the entire Household – but he failed to do this because of self‑evident expedience. Of course, having tacitly ignored these basic Epiphany arrangements when be “laid hands hastily” upon J. W. Krewson immediately after Brother Johnson's demise, and became enmeshed with his er­rors, it is not particularly “strange” he then manifested a second failing in not using the lord's best weapon against him for the occasion in 1955. His skirts were still sul­lied with the errors J. W. Krewson bad “sold” to him, which be had willingly foisted upon the lord's people; so it is little wander be refuted error with error – “J.W.Krewson was Mrs. Russell's parallel”, and he is now receiving Fit‑Man experiences for his revolu­tionism against the lord's Epiphany Arrangements, where he once more did despite to Brother Johnson's judgment. And we may expect more of such experiences to come to him if be remains in the Household – the Household that is in the Court, and not in the Jolly-Krewson Epiphany Camp.

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

Letter of General Interest

 Bear Brother Hoefle:

Grace and peace through our dear lord Jesus! .... I know that you will be pleased to hear we had a blessed time during our participation of our Lord's Memorial Supper... I am anxiously waiting to see the May 1st writing. May the dear Lord bless your en­deavors to serve His Faithful people. I notice that RGJ's March‑April is heavily re­futing the Sifters – while at the same time refuting himself. I wonder if his follow­ers understand him...

Please accept my warm Christian love for yourself and dear Sister Hoefle, with all the other dear ones with you. Sister ‑‑‑‑ and Sister ‑‑‑‑ also join with me. The Lord bless and keep you under His protection. Yours by His Grace, Sister......... Jamaica

___________________________________________________________

No. 36 (Supplement)

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

Our June 1 article was already prepared for mailing when we received J. W. Krew­son's April-May 59 pages. Thus, we now offer a brief answer to a few items therein ­with more to follow in due course.

On page 51, par. 3, he "suggests that no attention whatever be paid to our pre­sentations" until we clearly and decisively answer his "seven composite questions" of August 1957 re the Last Saint.  Well, we think we gave a clear and honest answer to those questions in our May paper; so we now make the suggestion that the brethren appraise this erstwhile Evangelist to see if he can present a clear and conclusive "refutation" to the direct Scriptures and forceful explanations of the Star Members that we have offered on this subject of the last Priest. And we specifically mention Psa. 46 as set forth an page 6 (bottom) of our May writing – 1 Thes. 4:17 and Zech. 8:10 as presented on page 1 of our March 1958 and Nov. 15, 1957 articles. This is now the third time we are pressing for these answers. We well realize J. W. Krewson has no right to present his views to the General Church, but we believe his attempt to "refute" these clear Scriptures may be of some help to the brethren – and possibly be the means of sobering him somewhat. Until he offers clear and direct analysis to prove his contention, without his usual multitudinous evasions, then we would suggest to the brethren who desire to "continue in His word'' that ''no attention whatever be paid to J. W. Krewson's presentations" henceforth. We make this suggestion in har­mony with the Scriptural teaching in 1 Tim. 4:7: "But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness." Also, 1 Tim. 4:1-2: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron." (See Berean Comments)

Also, on page 57 (bottom) he lists some 44 of our "errors") and offers the sophistical remark that he has "not in all instances" refuted our writings, so he won't offer references. Why hasn't he given the references of those he did refute? Here again he shows his close "cousin" relationship to R. G. Jolly, who employs the same technique. And we note specifically his No. 7 at top of p. 58 – "in effect taught that character faults determine Leviteship." This is simply a raw falsehood, for we have never at any time taught that character faults in themselves alone mani­fest New Creatures as Levites – although these character faults are glaringly apparent after their gross revolutionism has manifested they are no longer of the Body of Christ. At no time did we ever teach – or even hint – such a thought. He himself was the first to present the error in his Do-You-Know, No. 3, P. 38 of his October-November 1957 paper as follows: "Do You Know we may be opposed to ones, like we are to R.G.J., if it is based solely upon Truth deviations, but not on character faults (E. Vol. 4:132, 133)." We annihilated his position on this error in our December 1957 writing, p. 5; and again on p. 5 of our March 1958 article. As we have said on previ­ous occasions, whatever may be the limitations of these two "cousins", there seems to be no limit to their bold-faced effrontery! J. W. Krewson himself presented the error on this question, because he had read something in E-4-133 that he did not understand. And it seems he does not yet understand it; so he yells "error" at JJH in a desperate attempt to cover up for himself. It will be interesting to see how far his ''nucleus" will develop (especially in "grace and knowledge") with that sort of chicanery. He strafes R. G. Jolly's "house of deceit" while attempting to build one of his own, which will do nothing other than encourage R. G. Jolly to continue in his uncleansed condition, as he has probably had enough experience with J. W. Krew­son when he was working "in harmony" with him to see through his trickery at this time. The "confidence" of which J. W. Krewson speaks was never established by Brother John­son on deceitful falsehood.

It should be food for thought now that J. W. Krewson has made full confession of his sins, as well as of the sins of those who collaborated with him, in his attempt to upset his friend and former ally, R. G. Jolly. We believe the situation is pretty well Epiphanized – for it is indeed revealing of "persons, principles and things"! J. W. Krewson, as well as R. G. Jolly, fulfill the prophecy – "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." We spoke of R. G. Jolly's name-calling (column by column – without one time clearly identifying the culprit) in his March-April 1958 Present Truth as a spectacle, and we think this "spectacle" presented by J. W. Krewson is an equal – if not surpassing that spectacle.  We say it is even more of a "spectacle" because it re­veals not only the traitorous acts of J. W. Krewson, but also of others – Namely, R. G. Jolly's still-respected Pilgrim (and we refer to Pilgrim Daniel Gavin). Appar­ently, if we had not come out when we did with the exposure of these brethren in their sins together, we doubt very much if Pilgrim Daniel Gavin would have been standing up at that 1955 Philadelphia Convention addressing R. G. Jolly as "dear antitypical Baanah", etc. We well remember that our Beloved Brother Johnson was hesitant to announce R. G. Jolly as a revolutionist when he first made the attempt to usurp control of Brother Johnson; and we think it is marvelous in our sight that the Lord overruled that R. G. Jolly not be exposed by himself in his gross sins of teaching and practice after Brother Johnson's demise.

We shall have further comment to offer in due course, but we close these remarks with the observation that neither of these two "cousins" has been able to couple JJH with the other – although we have joined them together with their same errors on numerous occasions. Let J. W. Krewson go back to 1917-21 and show where any one charged Brother Johnson with such a travesty in his teachings and practices, as we have been able to do with these two erring "teachers", and fit it together with his bungling types if he can do so.

With this we close our supplement to our June 1 article with the prayer that all God's faithful Israel everywhere seek to be faithful to "the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them."

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Question of General Interest

QUESTION: – Brother Krewson contends he is completing Brother Johnson's work, on the theory –What one does through another he does himself." Will you please give your thought an this?

ANSWER: – Certainly, the statement of Brother Johnson, "What one does through another he does himself", is 100% correct. But the way it has been handled by J. W. Krewson, and lamely refuted by R. G. Jolly, is a striking illustration of another of Brother Johnson's statements – "Half-truths are  more  misleading  than  whole errors." Apparently, neither of these "cousins" is  able  to  discern  the  "first  principles of the oracles of God", or of civil law in connection with this question.

An analysis of the "Law of Agency", as applied by American courts, will make this very clear, we think. If A sends B to sell a certain  property  to  C,  A  is  bound by B's acts only if B acts within the limits of his agency. Thus, if B should sell the property next door to C, A would in no sense be bound by that deal; the whole responsi­bility would lie between B and C. And, if B were personally irresponsible, C would be left "holding the bag", with no chance whatever of recourse against A, who had never authorized any part of the transaction.

The American and English courts have clearly defined the law of "Caveat Emptor", which is a Latin expression meaning, "let the buyer beware" – that is, let the pur­chaser examine the article he is buying. And this rule would pointedly apply to J. W. Krewson's claims that he is completing Brother Johnson's work. "Let the brethren be­ware" – that is, let them examine what he is offering them as Brother Johnson's "agent". Let them ask J. W. Krewson for his proof that Brother Johnson ever authorized him, either verbally or in writing, to carry on in his stead after his departure. In the A-B-C case, described above, B would be guilty of fraud, and could be sent to prison for perpetrating a hoax upon C. and J. W. Krewson would be just as guilty of fraud upon the brethren if he is attempting to sell them something which Brother Johnson never authorized him to do while in the flesh.

The present claim of J. W. Krewson is akin to the contention of JFR that he was pub­lishing the "posthumous work of Brother Russell"; but those who did just a little thinking then soon realized that Brother Russell was making so many more mistakes and display­ing so many more "dis"-graces with his immortal body than he did in his weak human body that they quickly concluded those claims were simply a hoax. And a comparison now of J. W. Krewson with Brother Johnson when he was still with us presents such a cavernous gap that it would force us to feel sorry for Brother Johnson in his glorified condi­tion should we give credence to such a travesty. Brother Johnson was never forced to resort to falsehood in any degree, much less having to resort to one falsehood after another to maintain his position while here; and we do well to heed the words of Jesus that those who do resort to falsehood are motivated by the Father of lies, and not by the Lord. "When any one speaks a falsehood, he speaks from his own, because his father also is a liar"—John 8:44 (Dia.). It should not require the ability of a Star Member to understand this elemental Truth. When R. G. Jolly says he has "thoroughly refuted" our contentions on the 1,000-year reign of the Christ, and other items, he, too, makes clearly manifest in whose hands he is. It is never necessary for the Truth to resort to falsehood to prove it is the Truth'

On p. 83 of the Sept. 1955 Present Truth, R. G. Jolly offers a lamentably weak and inappropriate disputation of J. W. Krewson's claims when he facetiously says: "Thus if a Pilgrim would send his wife to the classes to serve in his stead, the classes are to accept her as in his office, for 'What one does through another, he does himself!'" Such foolish repartee simply affirms once more that R. G. Jolly is woefully befuddled by Azazel. Certainly, if a Pilgrim sent his wife to "serve a class in his stead" he would be directly responsible for any disservice she might render them, as she would be his agent and would be fully authorized to do his work within the limitation of an agent – which would be fulfilling the oft-repeated "What one does through another he does himself." In such a case, however, the Class could and should ­refuse to receive her as a teacher in the Pilgrim's stead.  Just because he revolu­tionized would be no excuse for the Class to do likewise by agreeing with him.  But the fact still remains that if a man gave even verbal instructions to his wife to per­form some act for him, he would be bound by what she did – if his verbal instructions could be proven – just as he is legally bound to pay any debts she may amass, even though he did not authorize the purchases she made. (The only reason any agreements are re­duced to writing is to prevent the parties from lying about the terms later on.) If a man sent his adult son or servant to do something for him, he would be fully bound by their acts – so long as they acted within the scope of his instructions. R. G. Jolly's answer here is just another instance where he attempts to refute error with error – as he did on the "Discernment of due Truth", and other items.

R. G. Jolly says further: "We might say that since Jesus, the Chief Reaper of the Jewish-Age Harvest, did not live on earth until the end of the 40 years some one else had to function for Him in His office as the 'Chief Reaper' after His glorifica­tion." Certainly, Jesus made an indisputable delegation of His earthly powers – and He did this in the presence of trustworthy witnesses when He said to Peter, Matt. 16:19 (Dia.): "I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of the Heavens; and what­soever thou shalt bind on the earth shall be bound in the Heavens", etc. And again in Matt. 10:40: "He who receives you, receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." No one ever made a more ironclad appointment of agents than did Jesus in these words to the Apostles; and R. G. Jolly's comments here simply reveal again how unclear and confused is his thinking on spiritual matters. If Brother Johnson had given J. W. Krewson such a clear directive, then J. W. Krewson would indeed have whereof to boast; but we all know that Brother Johnson never manifested such foolishness toward him or toward any one else. And we recommend that the brethren go back to this Sept. PT, p. 83, and refresh their memory on R. G. Jolly's "refutations" in order to better inform themselves of his unclean condition. We well realize this is exactly opposite to R. G. Jolly's advice to his readers; he advises them NOT to read what JJH has to say, because, he says, it is poison. This is just another instance of his using the tactics of JFR instead of taking his leading from Brother Johnson. Brother John­son says of JFR: "There is a reason why he commands his followers not to listen to what he knows are unanswerable refutations of his position: If they study these refu­tations in the light of the Bible, reason and facts, they will forsake him.."

It should be recalled that J. W. Krewson was ready enough to heap ridicule upon us when he thought our pilgrim appointment had come to us only verbally from Brother Johnson. Such a stickler for formality should be only too willing to substantiate his own claims with clear and tangible proof.  Was he ever authorized even to do Pilgrim work under Brother Johnson? Does he now claim that Brother Johnson was so shortsighted while in the flesh that he couldn't properly appraise a brother with whom he had been in close personal contact for years – one right at his own doorstep? This same J. W. Krewson must have had some of the potentialities he now claims for himself during those years under Brother Johnson's ministry – but it seems now that Brother Johnson was either very shortsighted or self-willed when he failed – or refused – to recognize in him the qualities that would fit him for the Pilgrim office, if we are to accept J. W. Krewson's claims for himself now. We realize that many of Brother Russell's Pilgrims went astray, but we also know that one of those Pilgrims was faithful in his office and eventually became the Epiphany Messenger. R. G. Jolly certainly must have understood the lord's arrangements in regard to General Elders – but when he "laid hands hastily" upon J. W. Krewson because of personal friendship and self-aggrandizement, these Truths forsook him because of his unfaithfulness at the outset. And it has proved a sore and grievous boomerang against him.

J. W. Krewson says, "JJH should no longer sign himself pilgrim". Has he notified R. G. Jolly and Company of the same thing? He charges R. G. Jolly with revolutionism, so the "teacher" should certainly let them know where they stand – and whether they will receive their pilgrim office again when they accept him as their teacher. Of course, no one need decide about J. W. Krewson's pilgrim status, because he has never had such office – although he is now offering "pilgrim" service to the brethren. This is another instance of his "power-grasping" and gross revolutionism.  Brother Johnson himself received his Pilgrim appointment from the Star Member under whom he served, and it is indeed strange that Brother Johnson's own personal "representative" should not receive such a reasonable honor and office from him while he was with as in the flesh.