NO. 34: THE TRUTH ON THE EPIPHANY OR APOCALYPSE

No 34

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

In the March 1958 Present Truth appears an article with the above words in its heading, the same being presumably a refutation of J. W. Krewson's errors in his pre­sentation of October-November, 1957 on the subject. Generally speaking, so long as he adheres to the writings of the Star Members, R. G. Jolly has done an excellent piece of work in this instance. We compliment him for it; and we hope and pray he may im­mediately determine to adhere as closely to all the Truths taught by those same Star Members as he has done in some parts of his March article on the Epiphany-Apocalypse.

However, it seems to us most lamentable that he could not have the vision, the di­rect approach, the straightforwardness toward J. W. Krewson as did the Star Members in similar cases – and thus use their methods as well as their truth analyses. Never once in his article does he definitely identify J. W. Krewson as such, but repeatedly refers to "this sectarianizer", "this sifter", "this betraying writer", "this errorist", "'Tribute of Respect' writer", etc. In some of the very quotations he offers from the Star Members he has the example put before him, where JFR and G. K. Bolger are clearly identified by name – which left no doubt in the minds of their readers of whom they spoke. In the first line of his ''Lord's Supper" article on page 18 he begins it, "For the sake of new readers"; but he leaves these same "new readers" dangling in space concerning the errorist he discusses on pages 19 to 32. Of course, R. G. Jolly has followed the course of JFR, the PBI and others in so many instances, that it should not surprise us that, in his "refutations", he generously keeps the one he is exposing "incognito" – contrary, of course, to the things "he has learned and been assured of." But it is a pity that the excellent defense he has offered of the Star Members' writings should be sullied with Azazel's technique.

And the acerbity of his attack against J. W. Krewson in this instance, and the in­cisive elaboration he sets before his readers are a spectacle to consider; nor do we fault him too much for this – humanly considered. We have often commented to those near to us that the one thing in all human history that is most resented and stirs up the most deadly passions is the perfidious "double cross". Among the "beggarly ele­ments" it often leads to murder; and it foments schemes dark and sundry to "get even" among those not given to violent settlement of their scores. J. W. Krewson was R. G. Jolly's years'-long bosom friend and confidant; and the methods he used in conjunction with one of R. G. Jolly's still-respected Pilgrims to unseat R. G. Jolly during the years of 1954 and 1955 arouse nothing but righteous indignation in this writer's estimation of them both. R. G. Jolly undoubtedly learned from bitter experience from this shady mach­ination of these two "brethren" how Caesar must have felt when stating to his trusted friend Brutus, "That was the unkindest cut of all." As said, we cannot fault R. G. Jolly too much; but we do realize that the extremes to which he has gone in the instance now being discussed have only further revealed his own sad limitations. He was an "easy mark" for the flattering types, for "Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels, etc., with which J. W. Krewson lauded him with "buttered words"; and this sad aftermath is undoubt­edly some of his (R. G. Jolly's) fit-man experiences – in which we hope and pray he will be properly exercised. Human beings as they are presently constituted are creatures of extremes – it is only a step, a very small step, from love to bitter hatred, from gen­ius to insanity; and this is only too clearly demonstrated in R. G. Jolly's present casti­gations of his erstwhile "cousin in conspiracy."

For the sake of the record, we think it opportune to state here that Brother John­son had a most friendly and kindly feeling toward J. W. Krewson and his wife for their ever-ready willingness to give him help as occasion required; and we ourselves felt deeply grateful to them both for the devoted service they rendered him during his ill­ness when we were assisting him in 1947. Thus, our beloved Epiphany Messenger gave him as much recognition as he considered compatible with all the circumstances; yet the best office he could see for him was that of an Evangelist – not even did he bestow upon him the office of Auxiliary Pilgrim. And R. G. Jolly knew this just as well as we did; yet he immediately did despite once more to Brother Johnson's judgment to "lay hands hastily" upon the brother immediately Brother Johnson had departed from our midst. It seems R. G. Jolly had learned nothing at all from the rebuffs he had received over the years for gainsaying the judgment of the Epiphany Messenger; and this sad aftermath now rises to haunt him and harass him because he could not heed St. Paul's warning to "know no man after the flesh."

And we must say much the same for Pilgrim Gavin, who encouraged, aided and abetted J. W. Krewson during those fateful years of 1954 and 1955. Their many years in the Truth under both Star Members should have taught both R. G. Jolly and this Pilgrim better things; and we offer the opinion here that either and both of them are the more to be blamed. Had they not gone contrary to all precedent, had they exhibited a better standard of Christian ethics, this present tragic situation might not now prevail – although we real­ize it is a part of the "all things" (Rom. 8:28), and accept it as such. And we opine R. G. Jolly will yet receive much more of the same. Knowing the perfidy of the Pilgrim in question as R. G. Jolly did, he immediately forgot and forgave all when this Pilgrim once more gave him lip obeisance. Both Star Members would have put such a brother "on the shelf" for awhile, at least – to be certain of his true repentance; and we may be sure that any disdain for their sound counsel can result only in mischief and stripes for those who do so. When an old experienced pilgrim like Brother Wisdom offered his services to Brother Johnson, he declined his pilgrim service until such time as the brother might prove himself under his surveillance; and Brother Johnson followed this course at a time when he was sorely in need of help of a competent sort. We know of our own knowledge that Pilgrim Gavin put forth some considerable effort to circulate those first "three discourses" of J. W. Krewson. We have written proof for our state­ment; and the proof of several witnesses that he tried to prevail upon us to make a special trip to Philadelphia to confer with J. W. Krewson about them – which we had no intention of doing, and certainly did not do. We are also reliably informed that he was one of the "Pilgrims" who attended that Krewson secret meeting in New England; and encouraged him to present his program to the General Church, thus upholding him in the usurpation of the office of General Elder. But this conspiracy of the Gavin-Krewson twosome can be described as nothing other than traitorous double-dealing with R. G. Jolly, and it is indeed little wonder that he breathes much personal venom – another trait of those in Azazel's hands.

Nor can we overlook the fact that R. G. Jolly himself is guilty of some of the very charges he now hurls at J. W. Krewson. He says JWK bestows "Judas-like tributes of love and esteem on Brother Russell, while betraying him by repudiating some of his basic teach­ings." R. G. Jolly has done the very same thing with Brother Russell in his Habakkuk ar­ticle; he has also done the same thing repeatedly to Brother Johnson in his consecrated Epiphany campers, his contention about all the Saints having left the earth, etc. This we hope to prove in our near-future writings, D.v.

But for now let us consider the Epiphany-Apocalypse: On page 29, col. 1, par. 2, it is quoted from Brother Russell that the Parousia, Epiphany and Apokalypsis are "three words of distinctly different signification"; and with this thought we agree. Epiphany means "bright shining", and Apocalypse means "uncovering or revealment". When we con­sider them from 1914 on to the end of the time of trouble it is impossible to separate the two – just as it is impossible to separate spirit-begettal and vitalized justification. To illustrate this point: If a man should come into a dark room at midnight, and a dollar bill were lying on the floor, he could by no means see it until he turned on the electric light. Thus, it would be the bright shining of that light (correspond­ing to the Epiphany) that revealed the dollar bill (corresponding to the Apocalypse). It was impossible to see the dollar bill without the light; and this is exactly the re­lationship between the Epiphany and Apocalypse. Therefore, it is impossible to have an Apocalypse without an Epiphany; so that any one trying to set forth an Apocalypse apart from an Epiphany is simply talking rank nonsense.

However, while the Epiphany from 1914 to this date has vividly revealed many things to some, this has been far from true with the many. If a partially blind man came into a dark room with a dollar bill on the floor, he would be cognizant of a bright shining when the light was turned on – unless he were totally blind; but he still would not see the dollar bill. And so it has been with mankind in general during this Epiphany. Many of the more intelligent realize acutely that a "strange act" is going on, without grasp­ing its portent. This is clearly revealed in the course of the United States Government, whose present officials firmly advocate that we must give away about four billions of dollars in Foreign Aid each year if we are to survive. This is nothing more – on a much larger scale, of course – than what happened in Chicago when the Capone gang was in its heyday. They exacted tribute from many merchants for "protection" to insure against vio­lence to themselves, their families and their possessions. We are now pouring out bil­lions each year in a desperate attempt for protection against the "overflowing scourge", which the Epiphany is veiledly revealing to those in high places. But as St. Peter says, "he that lacketh these things (the seven primary graces) is blind, and cannot see afar off", so the "bright shining" is not revealing overly much to the great bulk of humanity. Nevertheless, whatever of uncovering is given to any one, it can come only as a result of the "bright shining"; so it is impossible to disassociate the two acts – which means it is impossible in the Scriptural meaning of the two words to have an Apocalypse with­out an Epiphany.

In the large sense, of course, the Epiphany (as an act) continues throughout the en­tire second advent (E-4-10) – which means that the Apocalypse (as an act) will also con­tinue during that time. But we believe one of the strongest Bible texts to prove the Epiphany as a period of time is still with us is 2 Thes. 2:8 – "That wicked (the man of sin) will be destroyed with the brightness of his coming" – "whom, the Lord Jesus will annihilate by the Epiphaneia of his Parousia''. While the bright shining in this text is defined by Brother Johnson as an act, this act will occur during the Epiphany as a period. Therefore, since the Man of Sin is not yet annihilated, the Epiphany must still be with us.

Strange as it may seem – indeed, "strange" is not nearly a strong enough word for it – R. G. Jolly still clings tenaciously to those errors he once imbibed from this same J. W. Krewson he is now castigating – one of these being his consecrated Epiphany campers, which error he re-affirms on page 27, col. 2 (of which we shall offer more in a later writing, D.v.). And his hold on this error forces him to pervert the writings of Brother Johnson that he claims so loudly to be upholding in the very lines where he accuses JWK. He repeatedly speaks of the Epiphany in the "restricted sense". Where does Brother John­son ever refer to it in that way? In E-4-53 (bottom) Brother Johnson speaks of it in the “narrow sense." Of course, the dictionary says "narrow" is a synonym for "restricted" ­they mean exactly the same thing. Why, then, does R. G. Jolly use the word "restricted" where Brother Johnson does not use it? Not because he thinks it makes no difference; oh, NO! If he used the words "narrow sense", then he could find nothing whatever to justify his conclusions about his 1954 date and his quasi-elect consecrated. Note Brother John­son's words:

"The expression, The Time of Trouble, is used in two senses... In its narrow sense it covers the period from beginning of the World War in 1914 until the end of anarchy and Jacob's Trouble."

From the foregoing, it is clear enough that the Epiphany in its "restricted sense" or its "narrow sense" is not nearly over; therefore, any conclusions based on the assump­tion that it is over can be only Azazelian perversion – the same sort of "stabbing in the back" that R. G. Jolly hurls so viciously at J. W. Krewson. As said, we shall have more to say about this in a future writing – at which time we hope to make a very thorough job of it. But, for now, we state again that if the Epiphany has not ended in its "narrow sense", then we should still be doing the Epiphany work as organized by the Epiphany Mes­senger.

On page 25, col. 2 (bottom) there is some more of the same, where he quotes from E-10-114 – "the message of Revelation 22:11 will not be due until October 1954, when the Epiphany begins to lap into the Basileia, kingdom"... "yet showed that some Great Company members would come into the Truth thereafter." Why didn't he quote some more from page 114 of Vol. 10? We answer – Because he was afraid to do so! Here's some more of it:

"1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956... and no more persons will enter the tentatively justified state."

The last clause of the above makes bedlam and nonsense of his consecrated Epiphany campers – of which more anon, as we said above. Therefore, we repeat once more that his presentation of this Epiphany-Apocalypse item is excellent so long as he adheres to the Star Members' writings; but it is the usual Jolly admixture of Truth and non­sense when he "leans to his own understanding".

In closing, we think it well to note that J. W. Krewson's treatment of this sub­ject is so crude and bungling that it won't fool any who are "established in the Pres­ent Truth", although it may influence a few of the "unstable and the unlearned"; but this cannot be said of R. G. Jolly's perversions, He injects his perversions much more cun­ningly and craftily. His revolutionisms against the Epiphany Truth are in keeping with his revolutionisms against the Epiphany arrangements, in support of which statement note Brother Johnson's comment in E-10-645 (last line):

"This led to J.'s exposing them (R. G. Jolly, et al) as attempting to gain control of J., the lord's mouthpiece. Not a few in the ecclesia sympathized with them; and had not J. been present and vigorously opposed their resolution, so Azazelianly constructed as, if possible, to have deceived the very Elect, it would doubtless have passed."

Of course, Brother Johnson is not here now to "vigorously oppose" him, so his crafty perversions of the Epiphany Truth and arrangements continue unrestrained in many in­stances. In this discussion he simply changes the word "narrow" to "restricted" (while loudly faulting JWK for doing just that very thing!) in his attempt to show some sort of termination for the Epiphany in 1954 and 1956. But Brother Johnson's statement is clear and decisive that the Epiphany in its "narrow sense" will terminate with Jacob's Trouble – and for this there is clear Scriptural support, because the Bible clearly defines the Epiphany in its narrow sense as the Time of Trouble; where­as, there is nothing – just nothing – in the Bible to show that it ended in 1956 in its "narrow" or "restricted sense." This is simply a fabrication by R. G. Jolly – of which more will be said as we now analyze

THOSE SEVEN QUESTIONS

On pages 20-23 of J. W. Krewson's August 1957 writing there is presented Seven Questions designed to defeat our contention that Brother Johnson was not the last Saint. In the main, we consider these questions just so much nonsense, with a couple of them even semi-moronic. In his profusion of words here again he shows his close relationship to his "cousin", both of whom perform "as the heathen do: for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking" (Matt. 6:7). His whole Seven Questions can be disposed of with one sentence:

Can you prove there was a Saint living on earth on October 23, 1950?

If that question can be hurdled, then we have no more need for the balance of his three pages than a frog needs a hair ribbon.

In his "first question" he asks what assurance we have that those considering them­selves priests are spirit-begotten – what specific Scripture, history, prophecy or type points them out. Well, some of Brother Russell's Pilgrims are still living; and, while this in itself does not assure them of spirit begettal, it is certain that Brother Rus­sell considered them to be such, or he would never have given them the Pilgrim office. But the "specific Scripture" for which he asks to answer this question is Matt. 13:52, "Every scribe which is instructed into the Kingdom of Heaven ... bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." As Brother Johnson has so ably taught, the only ones who brought forth "things new and old" during the Parousia-Epiphany were the more capable members of the Christ Company. Inasmuch as some of these survived him, we have the clear assurance that they were spirit-begotten – and they claimed to be Saints.

His "second question" says we must positively know who the last one will be. Why do we have to know it? We don't know who was the last one to be spirit-begotten – and this is certainly more important than the other; in fact, it is impossible to have the second without having the first. So far as we know, no one recognized that the High Calling had closed until over 3½ years after it had happened; so we must admit – if we wish to be fair – that Brother Johnson and all the others were teaching error on this matter, as they attempted to bring new ones into the Body during that time. We walk by faith, and not by sight; and, usually, such important events are never known beforehand, because the Truth on then often brings a trial upon God's people – just as the "High Calling Closed" most certainly did. "In due time" we shall know who the last one is ­if it proves important for us to know.

His "third question" says the last one would have to be a special teacher. Here again, we say – Why? Brother Russell had produced "unity of the faith"; and his writ­ings were certainly sufficient to enable any Saint to finish his course with joy. We know that those who did not come into the Epiphany Truth had nothing more than he left. As we pointed out in our Last Saint article (copy free upon request), Brother Johnson, as antitypical Zechariah, was the last official mouthpiece – so there won't be any more.

His "fourth question" asks how those Saints still living have performed a service for the Lord – how have they suffered for righteousness? He says it may "seem strange" that he asks this question; but it doesn't seem at all "strange" to us, coming as it does from J. W. Krewson. Aside from the fiery furnace" experiences, let him show where the Saints during the Parousia-Epiphany ever suffered more abuse from their "brethren who cast them out" than did those since Brother Johnson's death. Of course, it's no surprise that he doesn't see this, since he himself has been one of the main ones in­strumental in bringing this persecution upon them.

His "fifth question" wants to know which of the priests are going to complete ex­planation of the Bible .... Brother Johnson taught the Bible would be completely explained. He also taught that he himself would do that explaining; so we think J. W. Krewson him­self should reconcile this matter before asking such a question as he does in this in­stance.

His "sixth question" asks if the evidence of who is the last priest will be strong enough to convince the Truth groups and Babylon. That evidence certainly wasn't strong enough when Brother Johnson was here; they didn't believe him – and, from the evidence at our disposal, they believe it even less now. That is why R. G. Jolly is making al­most no progress in winning Great Company members to his battle cry. Many of those in the other groups know him from way back; and we know from personal conversation with some of them that they have far greater respect for the Master of the House (Brother Johnson) than they now hold for R. G. Jolly. And, as for Big Babylon, does J. W. Krewson think it is more important for them to know who the last Saint will be than for them to understand the High Calling! Or is it more important to know about the last Saint than to know about our Lord's Parousia? Or to know man is not a dual being? Or to "refuse Him that speaketh", as they have steadfastly refused to do with both Messengers? Or to know this is the "day of their visitation"?

His "seventh question" deals with the "little stewardship Truth of the Good le­vites." In our October 1957 paper we treated of this in detail, so it is not necessary to repeat it here. For us to name positively any individual now as a Saint, we would consider ourselves ridiculously presumptuous. Note what Brother Johnson says about it in E-7-327 (top): "As yet, none of those who have not revolutionized knows whether he is among such" (i.e., among the Saints). If they themselves do not know it, why should this writer or any one else expect to know it? Nor did R. G. Jolly know of any such revolutionism in many of those who still held on to their hopes October 27, 1950 – yet he was willing enough to revolutionize against this clear Epiphany teaching, and did do so the very night after the funeral in his first public statement to the brethren.

Coming back to Matt. 13:52 – "every Scribe instructed into the kingdom": Brother George Matthews was the brother who first saw the Truth on Gen. 15:8-10, so we have the assurance that he was one time a member of the Little Flock. The same for Brother Shull of Columbus, Ohio, who brought forth the Truth on the seven vials of Rev. 16. We mention these two brothers because we were intimately acquainted with them early in the Epiphany, often served on Convention programs and other services with them while the three of us were still with the Society. Many is the time we walked to and from meetings with Bro. Matthews when we were neighbors in Dayton, Ohio. He came into the Epiphany Truth, was a member of the Los Angeles Class until his death in 1954 (if we are properly informed, as we cannot say this of our own knowledge). At last reports Brother Shull was still living in Columbus, Ohio; and, while we realize that once having been of the Very Elect does not prove them so now, we want something more than a mere fractured type to prove them otherwise. On several occasions we discussed these brothers with Brother Johnson, because we both had known them so well, Brother Shull being one of those in Columbus who helped Brother Johnson into Present Truth. On none of those occasions did Brother Johnson say he had any evidence to prove either of them out of the Body of Christ, so we would now ask J. W. Krewson – or any one else – what evidence they have for such, aside from their fractured type.

It seems most apropos right here to quote a paragraph from col. 2, page 11 of the January 1927 Present Truth:

"That the Church will not be delivered before Armageddon is manifest, among other passages, from Pa. 46, which teaches that not only throughout Armageddon, but also at least in part of the anarchy, will the Church be in the earth. Verses 2-9 show that not only the kingdoms (mountains) will be overthrown in the Revolution (sea), but that society (earth) will be removed and melted (burned by symbolic fire which takes place in the first part of Anarchy, "the fire", with the destruction of the headless beast) while the Church is here. Seemingly one of the priests, the Epiphany Messenger, will be here until about the end of the entire trouble in order to direct the work of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, Hence the Scriptures disprove the deliverance of the Church before Armageddon. 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 on the passages that he cites to prove his error that the Church will be delivered before Armageddon. Surely it can only be understood when we consider that they are in Azazel's hands, and therefore can not think clearly while in that condition."

The foregoing is a clear Scripture explained by both Star Members, which J. W. Krewson would now set aside with his Seven Questions. It is clear enough that R. G. Jolly revo­lutionized against the above in his first official public appearance in Philadelphia the night of Brother Johnson's funeral October 27, 1950 – and still continues to do so ­thus proving him to be in Azazel's hands, the same as stated about Adam Rutherford; and J. W. Krewson joins him in this error, just as he does on the quasi-elect consecrated, John's Beheading, etc. We have also produced other clear Scriptures in previous writings 1 Thes. 4:17, Zech. 8:10, Judges 16:30, Matt. 5:13-14, 1 Sam. 31:6, etc. Let J. W. Krew­son reconcile his Seven Questions with these clear Bible passages and the clear explana­tions of the Star Members – if he can; and we say the same for R. G. Jolly and all others who accept their leading. As for ''me and my house", we shall abide by the clear Scrip­tures; and we shall allow others to be influenced by seven foolish questions and other perversions as their choice and spiritual condition may determine.

Indeed, we are realizing most acutely the force of Psa. 91:6, "the pestilence that walketh in darkness" – in the Epiphany night – but the promise is still sure and steadfast for all the fully faithful, "It shall not come nigh thee". Therein let us rejoice and give thanks unto our God, for He is good, for His mercy endureth forever!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace!

Thanks for the article dealing with R.G.J. and J.W. Krewson matters. Truly, you have, by the Lord’s help, tape-measured them both. The Lord has evidently spared me from the Krewson errors, for I only received one of the first issues, and that did not appeal to me correct in teaching or in spirit. Now he is being manifested as a wrongdoer of the first order, as one who is thoroughly deceived by the Adversary and being used by him mightily to the injury of many who are not sufficiently alert. O, how we do more than ever need to ''watch and pray" in this trialsome period!

We much appreciate your February article as well as this last issue for March. Surely 1 Cor. 15:58 and Heb. 6:10 are very comforting and encouraging, as also are the two following Scripture texts – Jude 24-25 and Isa. 54:17.

May the Lord's rich blessings rest daily upon you and grant you needed "grace and strength" as well as "Joy and peace" in His service is our prayer for you and Sister Hoefle, as well as all those with you. Assuring you of our love and prayers as the ............ Ecclesia, I am your Brother in His Service ............ England

The enclosed list of names and addresses will be useful to compare with your own list.

NO. 33: SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

No. 33

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

In offering a few of our own thoughts for this hallowed occasion, we first of all follow the course of Brother Johnson who always recommended that the brethren everywhere read the chapter in Volume F-6 on the Passover. Certainly, nothing we say here will improve upon that; our only thought is to add a little something in the hope it may prove even some little help to our readers. Thus, we offer as intro­ductory some thoughts from Brother Johnson in E-6-574:

"The spirit in which the Lord's Supper should be celebrated should as long as the Church celebrates it be the same as from the beginning: Sorrow that our sins brought our Lord to death; sympathy with Him and our fellow body members in their suffering; gratitude for our Lord in dying for us, and appreciation for His and the Body's faithfulness in suffering; gratitude and appreciation of our privileges symbolized in the Lord's Supper; rejoicing in the victory of Jesus and those already faithful unto death; prayer for those who have not yet finished their course; hope for their and our victory; faith in everything sym­bolized by the Lord's Supper; determination to go forward to a successful con­clusion and to help our brethren do the same. These sentiments have not changed and will not change so long as the Church's memorializing will be in order. Our Lord's second presence since 1874 has made no other change in the celebration than to energize us in the above-mentioned respects. His presence assures us of more favorable providence and a nearer realization of our hopes and rejoic­ing on behalf of resurrected saints."

In contemplating the Lord's Supper, the Memorial, it is probably well to con­sider that throughout Christendom all shades of meaning have been attached to it – from one extreme to the other.  Christian Scientists do not observe it at all – which means they attach no significance or meaning whatever to it; while those who observe it in the form of the Mass go to the other extreme by placing the actual body and blood of our Lord in the "accidents" of the communion. We shall entertain a few thoughts with respect to the Mass – a service which involves transubstantiation, this word meaning 'the substance transposed'. This is a more extreme view than that accepted by the Lutherans, who hold to Consubstantiation, meaning 'the substance contained'. The Cath­olic Church has multiplicity of names for this ceremony – as they do for so many other things: Table of the Lord, Holy of Holies, Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, The Euch­arist, etc.

The Catholics conduct two kinds of Masses – High Mass and Low Mass. High Mass in our day is usually sung by the officiating priest, and requires a number of assist­ants; Low Mass is recited, and requires but one assistant. To have the High Mass per­formed costs more money, of course. The performance in either case is intricate and lengthy, culminating in the "words of consecration", which are said actually to trans­pose the "accidents" (the bread and wine) into the actual body and blood of Jesus. And the "words of consecration" are without value unless they are uttered by a regu­larly ordained priest. Thus, individuals of the Church cannot observe the Lord's Sup­per without a priest to help them. On the other hand, the character of the officiat­ing priest seems to matter not at all – he has the power of "consecration" though he be of vicious criminal tendencies, some of them, as we know, having been convicted of actual murder and other heinous crimes. This, however, does not impair their ability in magic to create the "substance transposed." Of course, the poor human race thinks so little over what their religious leaders tell them, that the Prophet Isaiah (60:2) makes most apt observation, not only of Catholics but of many others, including many so-called Truth people: "Darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people."

Justification for the Mass demands weighty and sundry words of explanation. The transposition of the bread and wine into the body and blood have been described as "one substance converted into another – just as if wood were miraculously con­verted into iron, the substance of the iron remaining hidden under the external ap­pearance of the wood." Thus, "Jesus is directly present under the appearance of bread and wine." Since no human science can explain this – no human logic make clear its intricate depths – it must be accepted solely upon faith – another of the unex­plainable "Mysteries". Here is what one writer says about it: "The church honors the Eucharist as one of her most exalted mysteries, since, for sublimity and incom­prehensibility, it yields to the allied mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation.... These three mysteries constitute a wonderful triad .... far transcending the capabil­ities of reason... far above Pagan and non-Christian religions." It is defended with extensive presentation of cultured and intricate words by men of much literary skill; but is best described by St. John in Rev. 17:5: "Upon her forehead a name writ­ten, MYSTERY, Babylon the Great."

Some of these same writers also attack the Lutheran concept of Consubstantiation, or Imputation, with adroit and forceful rhetoric: "This heretical doctrine is an at­tempt to hold the real presence of Christ in the Holy Sacraments without admitting Transubstantiation", says one of them.  Of course, the Lutheran view holds "the sub­stance contained" – quite some difference from the Catholic "substance transposed." Here is their modified contention – "The substance of Christ's body exists with the substance of bread, and His blood together with the substance of wine .... not los­ing anything that it was, but assuming something which it was not."

It is not our wish to burden our readers with too many explanations of errone­ous methods in this matter. Already in the 16th century Christopher Rasperger wrote a book setting forth some two hundred different interpretations; but we think it well to terminate this feature of our presentation by setting out one other radical dif­ference between the celebration of the Mass and all other interpre­tations and rit­uals: After the "words of consecration" the priest offers the individual communi­cants only the transubstantiated wafer, but drinks the entire cup of transubstan­tiated wine himself, giving the communicants none whatever of it. There is a sur­face logic of explanation for this, of course: In the passing of this now sacred cup with its priceless contents from one to the other, it could very readily occur that one of them might be jostled in the process, thus spilling some or all of the sacred liquid. And, Horror of Horrors! The actual blood of Jesus would then trickle away and vanish into the carpet beyond hope of recovery; and such occurrence would be an indescribable calamity. Therefore, the priest drinks all of the cop himself to insure against this. And this last would have some justification, of course, if the first premise were true – That the wine had actually been transubstantiated into the actual blood of Jesus.

Of course, the theories defined aforegoing are the result of too much poor thinking and too little good thinking, and is an accumulation of dark-age rubbish gradually built into a furbished pyramid of error, a most deceptive counterfeit – ­an "abomination that maketh desolate." We ourselves realize that, since Jesus was not yet dead when He instituted the Lord's Supper, He could not possibly have been offering the Disciples His actual body and blood, because He still possessed them; He had not yet been "offered up." Therefore, He could mean only one other thing: This represents my body; this represents my blood.  And so we understand it; and it is with this true belief that we trust all our readers will partake of it.

Who, then should partake of it? We answer, All who can conform themselves to the requirements as contained in Volume 6. And how should we partake of it? We offer St. Paul's answer: "Let a man examine himself." This does not mean we are to examine others (except in extreme cases); it does not mean we should allow others to examine us. It means exactly what it says – Let a man examine himself. There is a worldly expression with a measure of surface appeal to it: Oh, would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us! But, from the Christian's standpoint this saying can have no appeal whatever. If Christians throughout the Age had viewed themselves as others have viewed them, then every one of them would have quit. We need only consider our Lord in this light to grasp the fallacy of it. They classified Him as a "gluttonous man, and a  winebibber,  a  friend  of  publicans and sinners" (Luke 7:34) – just as they had labeled John the Baptist as a  man demonized.  And all during the Age the vicious and adverse opinion of the Jews has been so intense against Jesus that almost universally they would expectorate and curse at the very mention of His name. Therefore, Jesus would have seen only de­spair and defeat and contempt had He viewed Himself as others viewed Him.

As the communicant "examines himself", his only proper viewpoint is to try to view himself as God views him. Some judge themselves much too harshly; others judge themselves much too leniently; but the judgment from on High is exactly measured to each individual case. Of course, it is impossible for us to form such perfect judg­ment of ourselves or of others – nor should this distress us; but it still leaves for us the ideal standard of judgment, for which we should all strive. It has been well stated that your reputation is what others think you are; your character is what you really are – what you are in the dark; that is, when you do what you do even though you are certain no other human being will know about it. In such cases, "good and honest hearts" abstain from evil from the purest of motives, because they themselves "love righteousness and hate iniquity" – just as they also practice "good works" from sheer love of that which is "pure, noble and of good report." If a man "examine himself" by these standards, then he will surely "keep the feast" in new­ness of life, with the peace of God reigning in his heart and mind – a peace which none can take away from him by any amount of contrary opinion.

A substantial part of this self-examination may well be devoted to an intro­spection of our Christian courage. From the time of Jesus on down through the Age many have loved right ways, but have lacked the courage to stand for the right. "Among the chief rulers also many believed on Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God" (John 12:42,43). Of these was one Joseph of Arimathea – "being a disciple of Jesus, but a concealed one through fear of the Jews" (John 19:38, Dia.) – who waited until Jesus was dead before rendering to Him that "cup of cold water" He so sorely craved and needed during those last turbulent days. Then there was the youth (Mark 14:51) standing in the Garden that awful night, clothed in a linen garment, who also fled naked and in terror at the first evidence of trouble for himself. He apparently represented many at that time who lost their tentative justification (represented in his leaving behind the linen covering) by forsaking Him who alone could justify them. And this youth forsaking his linen garment probably pictures a class of Truth people in the end of this Age who also will lose their tentative justification because they forsake those who courageously "witness to the Truth" under present adverse circumstances. "Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." Among such are those who "kiss Baal", and thus lose their tentative justification. See E-7-225, top. Thus, for all who attempt an honest self-examination, these cases just cited may well serve as pertinent examples. And such self-examination cannot do other than bring such to the table in a condition to "eat and drink worthily." "Therefore, let us keep the festival, not with the old leaven, nor with leaven of vice and wickedness, but with the unleavened principles of sincerity and Truth"1 Cor. 5:8 (Dia.).

This year we expect to commemorate at 1507 N. Donnelly, Mount Dora, Florida, at 7:30 P. M., April 1 – and we extend a cordial invitation to all of like mind to join with us as their convenience may determine. And to one and all everywhere do we wish and pray the lord's blessing for their preparation for and participation in this Memorial of "Christ our Passover who is sacrificed for us."

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Question of General  Interest

Question: – In 1 Tim. 3:16 St. Paul says, "Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness." Does he mean by this that we should avoid controversy in our witness of the Truth?

Answer: – If St. Paul meant what the Questioner seems to think, then he directly contradicts himself in other places. In 2 Tim. 3:16 he says one of the four cardinal purposes of inspired Scripture is "for reproof" (for refuting); and he says in Phil. 1:17, "I am set for the defense of the gospel." Jesus Himself certainly engaged in much controversy for the Truth during His ministry on earth. The King James version offers a very poor and misleading translation in the words "without controversy". The Diaglott renders it "confessedly great" – that is, "without any doubt", or "no room for argument or chance of successful dispute." "The mystery of godliness", which St. Paul says is "confessedly great" is the fact that the Christ is a composite company, consisting of many members – "Christ in you the hope of glory." This has been a great mystery completely hidden from the world of mankind in general during this Gospel Age. It is one of those things which "the natural man receiveth not" (1 Cor. 2:14). It is one of the great para­doxical expressions of the Bible that God's people are "Sons of peace", that they should "seek peace and pursue it"; yet they are fighting a great part of their time as "good soldiers." Their fighting for the Truth is not a matter of natural choice with them, as all of them would much prefer that all men everywhere receive the Truth in meekness and rejoicing; but the "god of this world" has blinded the minds of many, so that the true followers of Jesus have been forced to "fight the good fight" if they would be faithful in the covenants they have made. Hear the words of Jesus in Luke 12:51-53 – "Do you imagine that I am come to give Peace in the land? I tell you, No; but rather Division. For from this time, five in One House will be divided; three against two, and two against three; – Father against a son, and a Son against a Father; a Mother against the daughter, and a Daughter against the Mother"... And it has been the Truth – and the Truth alone – that has caused such controversy and divisions.

NO. 32: A LOOK AT THIS JANUARY 1958 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 32

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

On page 10, col. 2 (bottom) it is stated “the Good Shepherd spears through the Parousia and Epiphany Truth” – and the argument is presented that R. G. Jolly is in harmony with this, while this writer is not so. Of course, such an expression is simply empty talk without the proof to back it up; and his further comments demon­strate clearly enough that he is offering merely empty talk – of which he seems to have a boundless store. He sites 1 Kgs. 6:9, 14, “Solomon built the house and finished it”; and he places special emphasis on the word “finished”. Since he claims to be cling­ing to the Epiphany Truth, let him show where Brother Johnson ever gave that text the interpretation that R. G. Jolly tries to place there. Brother Johnson's explanation is this: “Built the Lord's house – arranged God's people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work.” It will be noted that R. G. Jolly offers as proof of his statement PT 1953, PP. 52;53, which is simply repeating the interpretation he himself offered then. In other words, he is now offering an unsound statement to prove the soundness of his unsound statement in 1953.

It is indeed pointedly coincidental that both R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson so frequently offer their own ideas as against plain Scriptural teachings, yet they claim to “speak Parousia and Epiphany Truth”! In our November 15 writing, page 1. we cited 1 Thes. 4:17 – “We, the living, who are left over, shall at the same time with them be violently seized by clouds.” This one Scripture ought to be enough to sober them ­in fact, it has sobered them to the extent of at least closing their mouths, as neither of them has attempted to handle it. Nor will they attempt it because they can't! While the text itself should be enough, note Brother Johnson's comments on it:

“The anarchists will terribly persecute spiritual Israel, as indicated by Elijah's. whirlwind ascent, and by the last ones being violently seized by clouds’, the literal translation of the Greek rendered in the A.V. of 1 Thes. 4:17, – ‘caught up in the clouds.’”

Along with the foregoing we offered Brother Johnson's comment an Zech. 8:10:

“The ‘no hire’ for man or beast of Zech. 8:10.... is to occur after the founda­tion of the church beyond the vail was laid, but before the glorified temple would be completed. Hence it evidently refers to the time of Anarchy after Armageddon.”

Neither of them have offered any comment on this either – because they can't! But both of them are ready enough to offer seven foolish questions (which we hope to ana­lyze shortly, D.v.) and their interpretation of types to prove that these plain Scrip­tures are wrong – just as they have completely avoided almost all the Scriptures we presented in our August 1957 treatise of The Last Saint. They both continue to pre­sent their own conclusions against the clear and indisputable conclusions of both the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers – all the while they are yelling “in harmony with Parousia and Epiphany Truth.” The Scriptures we have presented above and in August 1957 are largely Parousia and Epiphany Truth; and we now defy them or any one else to take those Scriptures one by one and point out where we are wrong in using them. In this connection, note Brother Russell's comment on page 25 of the Berean Topical Index under Types and Figures: “A type must not be used to teach a doctrine, but merely to illustrate one that is already taught in plain terms.”

R. G..Jolly's only answer so far to the foregoing is that we “misrepresent, slander, surmise evil and falsely accuse,” Of course, this technique he has borrowed from the corrupt politicians of our day. When such are caught – with their hands dripping cor­ruption – they offer the same defense, their opponents are out to “get” them.

The same goes for R. G. Jolly's quotation from Brother Russell on Habakkuk in the January 15, 1914 Watch Tower, as explained by us on Page 3 of our February writing. His twist there is a direct perversion of Brother Russell's teaching – not an adherence to Parousia truth, but a laceration of it, which he is forced to do to maintain his false position in this whole discussion.

He has complained of being “misrepresented, slandered”, etc., by us since we first made public exposure of him in 1955 – this being his only defense after the crushing de­feats we gave him on The Faithful and Measurably Faithful. On this one, tho, he did offer the lame alibi that his perversion of this plain Epiphany Truth by Brother Johnson was just his “opinion”. And this goes hand in glove with J. W. Krewson's “Do You Knows”, which we discuss later on in this article. On many of the errors of the Jolly‑Krewson twosome we have attacked them both – those errors to which they still cling with slight variations. The same for Baptism: Both of these “cousins” keep shouting we are wrong and “out of harmony with Parousia and Epiphany Truth”; but it will be noted that neither of them has made any attempt to handle the clear Scripture we offered from 1 Peter 3:21, as well as many other texts we presented to prove them wrong – or at least, that they could not prove themselves right. And against such presentations there comes that plain­tive wail ‑ “misrepresent, slander, evil surmise and falsely accuse.” A pretty weak _refutation’, wouldn't you say?

Then there is that “faulty disc” – by which “correction” R. G. Jolly has Brother Johnson saying Satan will be destroyed before the Little Season even starts. Yet, he will tell you he is in harmony with Epiphany Truth – and we are the perverters of it! He is being “misrepresented, slandered, falsely accused” when we denounce such unprin­cipled tampering with the real Epiphany Truth.

It is also appropriate to offer some further comment on our Question & Answer on page 6 of our February writing, the same treating with R. G. Jolly's statement that “the due Truth is for all of God's consecrated people to discern, by the aid of His Holy Spirit.” R. G. Jolly says he has two capable hard‑working brethren to assist him in Philadelphia in the research and preparation of the Present Truth. And the three of these – hard‑working deep‑thinking – by pooling their combined spiritual resources, produce an answer which is simply rank nonsense to a question of elemental substance. Certainly, all three of them have known all during the Epiphany that the leaders in Little Babylon have not “discerned the due Truth by the aid of His Holy Spirit.” Even though they were not versed in the plain Epiphany teachings on the subject – and even though they were not familiar with the plain Scriptural teachings on the subject – , it would seem this outstanding physical fact – which was staring them in the face as the Noon­day Sun – should have sobered them sufficiently to restrain them from offering Mother Goose logic on it. The physical facts dispute their answer, the Epiphany Messenger dis­putes their answer – and the Scriptures dispute their answer. Yet, R. G. Jolly is “ad­hering to the Parousia‑Epiphany Truth”, while the “errorist‑sifter” who exposes such nonsense is abusing him –“mirepresentation, slander, false charges, etc.”

We may be sure he will drop this subject like a hot coal, Just as he has done with others in the past – and will run on to other matters just as though nothing had happened. In this instance, he has once more handed his trusting adherents a piece of spiritual indigestion; but it won't bother him! He's their “Pastor and Teacher” who is “looking after their souls as one who must give an account”; but he won't mind at all that they have tucked another parcel of Levitical nonsense under their belts – he'll let them go right on contaminated with his perversion. We should think the man would be ashamed; but it seems there is no shame in him. We pity him!

CONCERNING J. W. KREWSON

On page 19 of his January 1958 writing there appear five “Do You Knows” having to do with our Pilgrim status, the last of which says “it will be interesting to note how he (JJH) squirms out of this dilemma.” Well, we won't try to “squirm out of this di­lemma”, because there's no dilemma present so far as we are concerned. For quite some­time we have been convinced that J. W. Krewson is cursed with the “mark of Cain” – just as is true of his “cousin” R. G. Jolly. In his five questions just cited he tries to put doubts in the minds of all his readers about our honesty, the implication being we are a fraud because we put ourselves forth as something that we are not. And, we shall handle this slander just as we have handled the slanders of his “cousin” and others ­by proving his claims to be completely false. We set out below a copy of our Pilgrim appointment:

Philadelphia 48, Pa. U.S.A.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

THIS is to certify that John J. Hoefle is a duly authorized Pilgrim of THE LAY­MEN'S HOME MISSIONARY MOVEMENT, authorized as such by the said MOVEMENT, through its General Pastor, Teacher and Executive Trustee, with headquarters at 1327 When Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

This authorization gives the said John J. Hoefle the right and privilege of preach­ing the Gospel and lecturing on the Bible in any country in the world.

GIVEN at the Epiphany Bible House, the said MOVEMENT'S Headquarters, on the eleventh day of the tenth month of the year of our Lord 1942 and signed by the Gen­eral Pastor, Teacher and Executive Trustee of the said Movement, and sealed with its seal.

(Signed) Paul S. L. Johnson

General Pastor, Teacher & Executive Trustee of the

LAYMEN'S HOME MISSIONARY MOVEMENT

(LHMM SEAL)

If any of our readers doubt that the above is fully genuine; we shall furnish a photo­static copy upon receipt of $2.

It is probably well to quote some of the letter, too, that Brother Johnson sent to us with the above:

My dear Brother Hoefle:

Grace and peace! I am enclosing a certificate of your appointment as a Pilgrim of the Epiphany Bible House of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, signed by myself and sealed with the seal of the Movement.

Upon entering this phase of the work, my dear brother, I desire to repeat the advice that our Pastor gave me before I entered the Pilgram work: “Be full of deep humility with loving zeal and everything will be well.” You can be assured that in this service you will have the special opposition of the adversary and those who have his spirit, and thus you will have severer trials. On the other hand, remember the Lord is on our side and will give you special help and blessings, if you faithfully use your privileges of service ...

Sending you my hearty Christian love with the assurance of my prayers that your work will be fruitful and pleasing to the Lord, I remain

Your brother and servant)

(Signed) Paul S. L. Johnson

Pertaining to this slander by J. W. Krewson, we offer below a letter from a brother, which is self‑explanatory:

Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in our dear Redeemer's name!

For some weeks past I have had correspondence with Brother Krewson on his challenge of your Pilgrim status; and I am now convinced that his published insinuations were not from the Lord, but are malicious and untrue. His hints mean you are a fraud, of course, which is a slanderous charge if not true. And, since I have always held you in high esteem as a General Elder in the Church, I now consider it my obligation to turn this correspondence over to you – in accordance with Brother Russell's instructions for such matters in the November 15, 1908 Watch Tower. You may publish any part, or all of it, including this letter, as you may see best.

You will note he says in his Nov. 24, 1957 letter: “We do not believe he was ap­pointed to the Pilgrim office by Brother Johnson but on the authority of a reliable wit­ness are reasonably certain he was appointed an auxiliary pilgrim. It seems that after Brother Johnson's death he dropped the adjective auxiliary and claimed the office of Pilgrim.” When I asked Brother Krewson for his “reliable witness”, he refused to pro­vide the name, but answered in his letter of Dec. 5, 1957: “We realize dear brother we are not directly answering your question but our 'Do You Know’ has accomplished its purpose in your case and perhaps others, it has brought this matter to your attention.” From this it seems clear enough he wants all his readers to suspect you of fraud.

The above reveals the brother's thinking and intent toward you, but I hope you will not overlook his statement in his Jan. 10, 1958 letter: “If you will examine the article where you think I made an accusation you will find I did not accuse Bro. Hoefle at all, I simply asked a question – Do You Know? I did not state I knew, the Do You Know asked if You knew? Thus I made no accusation against Bro. Hoefle.” I suppose, on the basis of this line of thinking, you could offer some “Do You Knows” along this line: Do You Know that Brother Krewson is a thief? Do You Know that he once served time in the peni­tentiary? Do You Know that he once murdered a man? Do You that he and his wife were once enmeshed in Spiritism, and are still involved in this evil? Then, if he or any one else should bring you to task for such incriminating statements, you could just ease out by saying – as he does –, “I did not state I knew; my Do You Know asked if you knew. Thus I make no accusation against Brother Krewson.” I wonder how he would like it if you tried that!

But, in the face of the aforegoing he offers the self‑righteous explanation in his Jan. 10, 1958 letter that he does not want to destroy your influence among the breth­ren – even while he offers written proof to me he is conducting a vicious “whispering campaign” against you. Brother Jolly offered almost the same words as his excuse for his “whispering campaign” of slander against you before he was forced into the Present Truth with it. How much of this Brother Krewson has done to others is better known to him than to any other person; but I told him I feel such tactics should be shunned by all who have named the lord as their Saviour, but it is especially unbecoming to one claiming to be a special mouthpiece of the Lord. And when he hopes others may be con­taminated with his falsehood, then he is “rejoicing in iniquity”, which is contrary to every concept of the Truth and its spirit that I know. The real Parousia and Epiphany Messengers never had to resort to such underhanded and unchristian tactics. They spoke whereof they knew, and only then did they do this when they considered it in the best interests of the Lord's sheep.

Furthermore, he offers another warped statement in the same Jan, 10 letter when he says, “Brother Hoefle claims Brother Johnson was not the last Priest; therefore, logi­cally RGJ and others must not have been abandoned to Azazel at his death.” I don't see how he could have the audacity to come out with such an observation in the face of your clear and conclusive explanation of it in par. 1, page 5 of your October 1957 article, where you quote Brother Johnson's teachings on the Abandonment process – which you have upheld right along. When he writes me such falsehoods and at the same time asks me to accept him as a teacher of “advancing Truth”, I can only say I just can't fit such things together.

You will note he prints six pages of Do You Knows in his Jan. paper, and in the No. 4 on page 21 he says, “This is no false statement.” I for one now know be wants us to believe this particular Do You Know; but It seems he admits that other Do You Knows are false – and with the rest he allows his readers to answer the questions. He is content to sow the seeds of doubt and willing to leave the rest for his readers to find out the best way they can. In this connection, he claims Brother Johnson is now work­ing through him. If so, he is doing it in complete reverse of the way he formerly did when with us in the flesh. When he published Do You Knows he was stating facts of which he himself was convinced – facts which he wished to convey to others. But the Krewson transition completely reverses this now –the Do You Knows are not statement of fact, but are asking the readers if they can come up with proof to support his falsehoods. I wonder how much of the “fruits of the Spirit” he expects to develop in his readers by this unsavory method.

May the God of all Grace grant you wisdom and strength to “hue to the line”; and I am sure He will. Be assured of my prayers, and whatever cooperation I can give you in this “good fight.”

Your brother by His Grace, ---------

J. W. Krewson's course in connection with our Pilgrim status offers a stellar illustration of a power‑grasper. He himself could receive nothing more than an Evan­gelist rating from the Epiphany Messenger; yet that Messenger was barely in the tomb before he grasped for himself the pilgrim privileges, trying at the same time unjustly to tear away those privileges from a brother (JJH) who had received them in fair and honorable fashion from that same Messenger because of his faithfulness and skill in handling the Word of Truth.

And may all of you be “blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

Question: – In Do You Know No. 9 on page 20 of this January 1958 Krewson paper there is some comment about “making character blemishes the ground for declar­ing brethren to be Levites.” Will you please elaborate on this?

Answer: – If you will go back and read DKY No. 3 on page 38 of the October‑November paper by the brother, you will note he does a complete about‑face in his No. 9 on page 20, mentioned in the Question. In his October‑November writing he plain­ly states we should not be opposed to others, such as RGJ, “on character faults.” Now he gives it the twist that we are judging them to be Levites on the basis of their character faults. We did not give any hint of such in our answer; and we agree fully with Brother Johnson in B‑4‑132,133. He wonders how we shall “squirm out of this di­lemma” re our Pilgrim appointment. It seems he “squirms out of his dilemmas” just by changing the subject, thinking by his “profusion of words” to becloud the point. Here again he shows himself a close “cousin” of R. G. Jolly –both of them using plenty of words, “as the heathen do; for they think they shall be heard for their much speak­ing” (Matt. 6:7). St. Paul certainly attacked the brother in 1 Cor. 5 for his character faults – not a thing said about his teachings. We wonder how J. W. Krewson could have the effrontery to come back on this question – that is, if he read our reference in E‑9‑140,141. As we said in our December paper, he had apparently read something in E‑4‑132,133 without understanding what he had read. In view of his follow‑up comment, he still either doesn't understand what he read, or he is now trying to “squirm out of his dilemma.” These people, such as RGJ, that we oppose are self‑admittedly out of the Christ company; and this admission they themselves made years before we began openly to oppose them on their character faults (sins of practice). In this we are on firmer ground than was Brother Johnson, because many of those he opposed because of their sins of teaching and practice did –and still do – contend they are of the Christ. As we said in our December paper, it is our bounden duty to be opposed to character faults – both in ourselves (first of all) and in others, the difference in the vehemence of that opposition being predicated upon each individual case. If charac­ter faults were the basis of judging into when, then only One in this Gospel Age would have finished His course with joy. J. W. Krewson's “profusion of words” here is simply so much nonsense – all the while he calls us a “novice”.

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

Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace!

I was so happy to receive your letter of December 28, and am thankful for your good wishes and for your prayers. I also received the February paper – the real Present Truth. It is an excellent paper, – just right – harsh enough, but not too harsh. I wouldn't know any way to improve it. I have been so disgusted at RGJ for always saying the “errorist”, “the sifter”, “one of the sifters” – never coming out into the open saying whom he means. I am so glad that is mentioned in this February paper. It is not too strong.

Also, you tell them you are a Pilgrim, and I think both Krewson and Jolly should be ashamed! But they won't be – they will find a way to justify themselves. Then that “when refuted” is just like RGJ. In his talks and in the P.T. he is always saying “there are Scriptures to prove”, but he does not cite the Scriptures. Why? He doesn't know any. Did Brother Russell or Brother Johnson ever say “the Scriptures prove”, and then not cite the Scriptures? Just makes me sick! I don't see how RGJ will ever be able to retrace his steps. He is acting as bad as JFR. Your writing, Brother Hoefle, is so clear and plain I just can't see how any one who really reads it can fail to see the logic. Sister ______ likes it and says surely all will see it. Well, of course, we know they won't; but surely some will.

The “Concerning Habakkuk” is so very good. Now, of course, I do realize that some have not had the opportunity to learn the Truth that I have had; so perhaps I should not be surprised that many won't get as much out of your papers. Oh, I do thank the Lord daily for guiding me all the way and bringing me in contact with the things I need to know......

Much Christian love, Sister ---------Oregon

NO. 31: NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1957 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 31

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

In accordance with the statement in our last writing, we now offer some elaboration on certain items in this last November‑December Present Truth.

First of all, we take note of some comments on page 94, where reference is made to “the errorist”. Presumably he means this writer, although he doesn't say so. Isn't it odd that R. G. Jolly, the self‑appointed Pastor and Teacher, cannot accept his leading from the true Pastors and Teachers of Laodicea who never once left their readers in doubt of whom they spoke – always designating them by name when refuting their specific errors? Now isn't it odd – so very, very odd – that he practices the same technique of That Evil Servant (the very same Perverter that R. G. Jolly himself was not afraid to call by name when refuting his errors early in the Epiphany), and is now using the very same methods in the Present Truth as did JFR in the Watch Tower? It will be recalled that JFR often made slurring and derogatory remarks about Brother Johnson and his teachings, but avoided the mention of his name. But where JFR – the Master Errorist of the Epiphany – was sure the Truth would serve his purpose (even as Satan quoted Scripture when it served his purpose) he had no qualms whatever about mentioning his opponents by name – and that repeatedly; as instance his refutation of the 19‑year “correction” to the chronology as put forth by the PBI. And in this Pres­ent Truth now under consideration the same course is followed – the PBI is specifically designated as such, with only a side reference made to this writer as “the errorist”. Just think it over, Brethren! Brother Johnson and Brother Russell had their chief interest primarily in presenting, defending and contending for the Truth – gaining a follow­ing being a secondary concern with them. They well knew the true sheep would hear the “voice”. And, in keeping with their methods, we also have attempted to tread their footsteps – never leaving our readers in doubt of whom we speak. The Star Members always sought to protect the sheep in clear and unmistakable fashion – which we also con­sider our first duty. As Brother Russell has so ably put it – “Christians in general overlook the important lesson, namely, that the chief work of the ministers and under-­Shepherds of the Lord's flock during this Age is to “feed the flock,”.

And, as stated in our December 1 writing, we shall henceforth consider Evangelist Krewson jointly with R. G. Jolly, as occasion requires – as we now do in this instance. Both of them use the same method described above, thus offering an easily read acknowl­edgment that they are “cousins” of most intimate relationship. Without mentioning us by name, he refers to us as a “novice – false teacher – inept reasoner, Auxiliary Pil­grim.” Whatever may be the limitations of these two “cousins”, there seems to be no limit to their gall. When we ponder the bungling presentations offered by Evangelist Krewson on the Stewardship Doctrines, the Abandonment to Azazel, and No Opposition to character faults, then consider his reference to this writer – or to any one else ­as an “inept reasoner”, the vagary of his contention should require no further comment. And, when he refers to this writer as an Auxiliary Pilgrim, he is simply putting forth a rank falsehood – just as his “cousin” also resorts to falsehood whenever it seems expedient. We sign our papers as Pilgrim because we are such by Brother Johnson's appointment – probably the only such Youthful Worthy in the United States, and possibly the first in the entire world – known as such by Brother Johnson – ever to receive such appointment by him. “The wisdom that cometh from above is first pure”; but Evangelist Krewson's suggestion at certain places in his writings, that his readers use their imagination would seem to indicate that many of his conclusions are not “pure wisdom” but are “pure imagination.”

Now to the statement of R. G. Jolly on page 94, col. 1, that he has “thoroughly refuted the sophistry of the teaching respecting the Saints' reign”. So far as we can recall, we have given specific answer to all salient items offered by R. G. Jolly on this sub­ject. If he knows of any we have not treated, we now invite him to set them forth. And in the same vein we now offer a number of points we have set forth, and ask R. G. Jolly to give the reference where he has “thoroughly refuted” these items.

Nov. 1, 1957, page 1, we quoted this from Brother Johnson on I Cor, 15:24: “What is meant by all rule, and all authority and power? We answer every vestige of Satan's governing, of Satan's claim of right, and of Satan's might; all this must be destroyed utterly and forever, and this will be done at the end of the Little Season.” Let R. G. Jolly give the reference where he “thoroughly refuted” this.

Nov. 1, 1957, page 2 (repeated from Feb. 1, 1957, page 4) we offered this from Brother Johnson: “In Matt. 25:31‑46 (the parable of the Sheep & Goats) there is given a brief description of the Judgment process. V. 31 shove our Lord's second advent with His faithful angels, or messengers; and the next verse shows how He gathers all nations before his MILLENNIAL THRONE, making them subject to Him as THEIR KING.” Where did R. G. Jolly “thoroughly refute” this?

Here we digress to consider his statement at the Chicago Convention that the bind­ing and loosing of Satan and the Mediatorial Reign occupy the same period of time. Cer­tainly, any novice in the Truth knows that the Mediatorial Reign has not yet begun – nor will it begin yet for a number of years; whereas, the binding of Satan did begin in 1874 and the loosing will occur at 2874 – just as the Mediatorial Reign, will end in 2874. Thus the Mediatorial Reign will fall far short of a thousand years, and cannot possibly be associated with R. G. Jolly's emphasized “the thousand years” of Rev. 20:7. When we showed in our November 1957 writing how utterly ridiculous was his contention about “the thousand years” it apparently sent him reeling so badly that he offered during his semi-­stupor a worse piece of nonsense than he had in the first instance. In E‑12‑265 Brother Johnson catalogs and describes in detail the 21 offices of Christ. Almost all these operate at some time during the Millennium – some of them starting at 1874, with a num­ber of them not doing so. Likewise, some of them terminate at 2874, but a number of them do not do so. Among the latter are the offices of King and Judge – neither of which will lapse until the end of the Little Season, just as Brother Johnson has stated. While individual judging will occur all during the Mediatorial service, the large over­all judgment will not even commence until the Mediators office ceases to operate at 2874. Now, to continue:

Nov. 1, 1957, page 2 (last paragraph), we stated R. G. Jolly's contention does violence to the 2520‑year parallel and voids completely the 3520‑year parallel. WHERE did R. G. Jolly “thoroughly refute” this?

Nov. 1, 1957, page 3, we stated the purpose of the reign of Christ and the Saints is to accomplish the “Restitution of all things” – which “Restitution” cannot possibly be realized until near the end of the Little Season. Where did R. G. Jolly “thoroughly refute” this?

Here is another expression from Brother Russell in Parousia Volume 6, p. 418: “The Son of Man shall come in his glory and all the holy messengers with him, as re­corded in Matt. 25:31‑46. When the Son of Man `shall sit on the throne of his glory' he has promised that his faithful Ecclesia, his Bride, shall share that Millennial judgment of the nations.” This Millennial judgment certainly includes the Little Season, the final over‑all separation of the Sheep and the Coats. So, while R. G. Jolly is “refuting”; let him “thoroughly refute” this, too!

And, of course, he should “thoroughly refute” his own statement on page 5 of the January 1954 Present Truth, as follows: “The Millennia! reign of Christ will, therefore, be for the full subjection of all enemies and the restoration of peace and covenant relationship between God and man.”

It should be noted that prior to the appearance of our Nov. 1, 1957 writing, R. G. Jolly had simmered down to about two items – the linen garments and his emphasized “the thousand years” of Rev. 20:7 – on which he continued with parrot‑like monotony: “The sifter‑errorist keeps silent on these two items because he cannot answer them.” Now that they have bean explicitly answered in our Nov. 1, 1957 presentation, he shrinks to the nondescript exclamation – “thoroughly refuted.” With this, of course, he will not fool any one who has carefully read what we have written; but we realize his chief concern is to keep those fooled that are still blindly following him; and – “If the blind lead the blind”!

CONCERNING HABAKKUK

In this same Present Truth is found the concluding article on the Habakkuk prophecy the same being indeed sublime so long as it adheres to the writings of the Star Members. This treatise by them would delightfully grace the pages of any publication, regardless of who “The Editor” of that publication might be. But once again – true to R. G. Jolly's style – we find the usual admixture of Truth and nonsense when he offers his own conclusions. It is truly tragic that in so many instances the clear uplifting comments of the Star Members must ever be sullied by Great Company meddling and perversion. On page 91, col. 2, “Present‑day Conditions Fitly Described”, there is offered a quotation from page 5383 of the Reprints, the same being from Brother Russell's article of Jan. 15, 1914; and from the quotation R. G. Jolly's conclusion is given on page 92, top of col. 2 “Heb. 3:17, 18 is no longer nearing fulfillment, but has entered into fulfillment.” When he attempts such perversions, there can be only one of two answers – Either he is completely befuddled by Azazel, so that he doesn't know what he's doing, or he is wilfully resorting to trickery to mislead the guileless and trusting sheep. Nor is it necessary for us to determine which of these two evils is present here. Suffice to show that in this very same article from which he quotes to prove the prophecy has “entered into fulfillment”, we now quote the following:

“When the little flock shall have passed beyond the vail, there will still be the great company of the Lord's people left here. Many of these will apparently continue in Babylon until the time of trouble shall cause Babylon to fall. And by the fall of Babylon these will be set free. Before all this is made plain to them, they may use the language of our text, and later came to see clearly. In the 19th of Revelation this company is spoken of as rejoicing in the fall of Babylon and saying, `Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him; for the marriage of the lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.' (Vs. 7) All things had seemed to them to be failures; and now they see that God's plan has not failed, but has been fulfilled.”

Certainly none will contend that the foolish virgins in Babylon are yet using “the language of our text”, as Brother Russell said above that they would do when it has “entered into fulfillment” – after Babylon falls! And Brother Russell plainly states, too, that the proclamation of Rev. 19:7 will not properly occur until Babylon falls; although R. G. Jolly repeatedly insists that he and his adherents are giving this message now – before Babylon has fallen!

It is well to consider here, too, the reference made in the last paragraph an page 91 to E‑15‑514 to the composite Great Company – how some of them miss the Second Death by the skin of their teeth, while others of them miss the Little Flock by the same margin. And while contemplating this, why not also consider page 525 of this same reference, which we have so often quoted, where Brother Johnson says that ALL OF THEM (the best and the worst of them) must be abandoned to Azazel through disfellowship­ment (withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor) by the Priests before their cleansing can possibly be effected? Instead, he mimics Hitler's technique to repeat, repeat, and repeat his falsity that the LHMM section of Azazel's Goat is already cleansed – but he never once has shown how he can harmonize this with Brother Johnson's teaching here. Our contention here is in defense and support of the oft‑repeated faithful teaching of the last Star Member an the Abandonment and Cleansing process of ALL THE GREAT COMPANY (including those who missed the Little Flock by “the skin of their teeth”) – against which teaching both self‑styled Pastors and Teachers have revolutionized, and are still doing so.

Furthermore, on page 90, col. 2, the “Six saved classes” are discussed; but it will be noted that there is no mention of the Consecrated Epiphany Campers. And why not? Because neither Star Member ever saw such a class, so it is not mentioned in their analysis of Habakkuk – or anywhere else in their writings. And R. G Jolly having been the first to make public proclamation of this class (so far as we know), it must be considered a new doctrine. But Brother Johnson plainly teaches in so many words that no crown‑lost leader could ever be favored with bringing forth a new Truth doctrine – although they have been used by Azazel to bring forth many a false doctrine. This very premise should cause the Lord's faithful people to cast a suspicious eye on anything new he may proclaim – and especially so with his Consecrated Epiphany Campers – because he does not have a single Scripture to support his teaching.

Another Point: On page 92, par. 2, R. G. Jolly says this – “We encourage all, whether they are new creatures or not, to take up this joyful proclamation of praise and honor to God, of Christ's reign begun, of the marriage of the Lamb being complete”, etc. This proclamation which he now asks all to declare is so potent that it actually caused a serious division in the LHMM itself. Even if it were the truth – which we be­lieve we have shown clearly enough to be error – it is such a strong message that even many of the most enlightened Truth people cannot receive it; yet his DYK tract was handed to his unthinking sectarian adherents with the instruction that they give it general distribution in all quarters. Notice now E‑4‑52 an such matters:

“It will thus be seen that on some phases of this subject we cannot as yet speak with positive assurance. On this subject `now we know in part' only.... Therefore, in discussing this matter let us be cautious not to be positive in our statements ... let us confine ourselves to such sobriety of speech as leaves the details of this time feature ... a matter of inference and not of positive Proof. It would be wiser to say nothing at all on the subject to those who do not accept the Parousia Truth, and very little to others not in the Epiphany Truth.”

In these two citations we have an excellent contrast between the Good and Wise Epiphany Solomon and the Evil and Foolish Epiphany Solomon. In over thirty years never once did Brother Johnson offer the brethren a tract for distribution to the general pub­lic declaring the close of the High Calling; but the very first tract that R. G. Jolly prepared for the brethren for general distribution positively declared – Not that the High Calling is closed, but a message of much greater intricacy (even if it were the undisputed Truth) – that every one in that High Calling had then left the earth. And he had a million of these tracts printed for general distribution! Recently he has been telling the brethren that it is now easier to interest people in the Truth because they no longer have a definite creed; and the foolishness of this contention is appar­ent when we ponder the fact that he has not even been able to teach the Truth to Truth people, the Epiphany‑enlightened Truth people. With all the great advantages at his dis­posal, he has gone steadily backward since 1950; therefore, we call upon him once more ­and to all the brethren everywhere – to use the tracts of the Good Epiphany Solomon to carry to a completion antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, and leave the unprovable speculations of R. G. Jolly for him to distribute if he thinks they are so much better than the works of the two Star Members.

And may the Holy Spirit of understanding abide richly with all who honestly try to imbibe that “wisdom from above, which is without partiality”.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

Question: – In his October‑November paper, P. 39) Brother Krewson says R. G. Jolly's ill­ness after the Chicago Convention was “permitted because of his opposition to the lord's Truth while there.” What is your thought an this?

Answer: – The only Truth we heard him oppose while we were in attendance was the Truth we ourselves have been presenting. Others have asked us the same question; and we had to tell them we are not certain why R. G. Jolly's illness was permitted. We know what Brother Johnson said about That Evil Servant's imprisonment and his later double pneumonia (these things occurring, apparently, before he was out of the Household of Faith), that those things probably came to him partly as suffering for right­eousness and partly as Fit‑Man experiences to recover him from his evil course, and to effect his cleansing. We would be inclined to offer the same answer to the question presented here. And it continues to be our prayer that all the experiences the Lord metes out to him for his cleansing will eventually work out for him that “godly sorrow” that will bring about a true repentance and reform – a “turning back from his path of error” – (Jas. 5:20‑Dia.).

Question: – You seem continually to lambaste R. G. Jolly and others who have slandered and abused you. Why do you not follow the course of our Lord with St. Peter as described in John 21, where He never once referred to Peter's denial, but used the most winsome terms to recover Peter?

Answer: – We would be most happy to have done just as Jesus did if our traducers had done what Peter did – evidence that true and Godly repentance for the gross sins they committed. But, until they are repentant, then we feel constrained to follow Brother Russell's Berean Comments on Luke 17:3 – If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him (to fail to do so means to injure him); and if he repent (but not otherwise, though always remaining in an attitude of forgiveness, waiting for the desired and necessary repentance). Of course, Peter was also one of the Little Flock; whereas, these brethren are admittedly members of Azazel's Goat – and this difference enters into the matter, too. At a Philadelphia Convention not long before Brother Johnson died our pre­sentation of this teaching caused quite an uproar among a number of those present; and it was R. G. Jolly himself who arose to the platform to declare that we had presented the Truth – and that our critics were wrong. It seems he is now willing enough to revolution­ize against this teaching – telling us by act, if not in plain words, that it is not necessary for the “sinner” to repent and make amends. Questions such as this one have come to us from other faithful and sincere brethren; and we are pleased to pre­sent what we believe to be the Truth on it. Brother Johnson has a very fine article in the August 1950 Present Truth – “Provoking One Another To love”. We quote from p. 116, col. 1:

But let us notice, dear friends, that there is a way in which sin may come upon us without being at the time a wilful sin, but which later might become wilful sin; for instance, any transgression committed, either in total ignorance or with only a partial acquiescence of our wills, might become a full, wilful, deliberate sin afterward, if we afterward came to a clear knowledge of the truth respecting the subject, and failed to repent of it to the Lord, and to undo so far as was in our power the wrong toward our fellow‑creatures. To consent to a sin clearly and fully understood, simply because at the time of its committal we were in ignorance, and to refuse to make amends for it, and thus to endorse the sin intelligently, would appear to make of it a wilful sin.”

We would recommend that the brethren read the whole article – also Brother Rus­sell's splendid article in August 15, 1916 Watch Tower, Reprint 5938 – Confession of Sin Essential to Forgiveness.” We wish to assure the brethren, one and all, that none would be more happy and pleased than we if the brethren who have slandered and sinned against us would turn from their path of error” and evidence godly sorrow” and true repentance so that they may make an offering in righteousness before the lord. Let us pray that such a condition may speedily be reached. If and when such evidence is produced, then it will be our good pleasure once again to receive them back into brotherly fellowship. But to do so before they manifest such repentance would be to turn our back on the lord's Word, thereby refusing to use the Wisdom from Above”, which is first Pure” and then peaceable.

Question: – In the November‑December 1957 F.T. (p. 94) there is the question – Do the Scriptures teach that all of God's consecrated people have spiritual dis­cernment?” What is your answer to this?

Answer: – In the first sentence of his Answer R. G, Jolly says, The Scriptures teach for all times the due Truth is for all of God's consecrated people to discerns by the aid of His Holy Spirit”; and the additional 500 words he offers are simply an elab­oration of his opening statement. The Scriptures do not teach any such thing; in fact, they directly contradict his sweeping inclusion of all God's consecrated people” – and Brothers Russell and Johnson contradict him, too. 2 Thee. 2:10‑12 says those who admitted not the love of the Truth..... God will send them an energy of delusion” (Dia.); and this frenzy of delusion” has been visited upon antitypical Saul all during the Gospel Age – Especially so here in the end of it. Saul types the crown‑lost leaders up to Armageddon, who have certainly been a part of God's consecrated people” – ­R. G. Jolly himself being one of them. In E‑9‑508 (middle) Brother Johnson says this: The Little Flock leaders .... felt distressed at their (the crown‑lost leaders) ever deeper fall into sin, error and tactical blunders.” Does this sound as though they dis­cerned the due Truth”? No, indeed! These crown‑lost leaders have not only Not discerned the due Truth”, they have actually fought against it – Just as R. G. Jolly has been fighting the Truth on the Abandonment and Cleansing Process of Azazel's Goat. And fur­ther from E‑4‑129(top): So far as the meat in due season – the advancing Truth ­is concerned, they (the G.C.) do not partake of it, but reject it, while in the fit man's and Azazel's hands.” Had his answer stated all God's fully faithful consecrated people”, his answer would have been technically correct, although it would even then need same ex­planation, because it has taken years for some of the fully faithful to discern some features of due Truth; and at no time have all of them discerned the due Truth in the same clarity and comprehension. A comparison of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson with others certainly proves this. And, does R. G. Jolly contend that the crown‑lost leaders in Little Babylon have been discerning the due Truth”? In his very answer to the question we are considering, R. G. Jolly accuses another of mixuptery”; but it is a debatable question which one of them shows the greater mixuptery” in this instance.

The uncleansed Levites have not been discerning the due Truth” – nor will they do so until they are cleansed, at which time they will discern it according to their individual capacity and needs. The crown‑lost leaders may then discern the due Truth” as clearly as the good Youthful Worthies – in keeping with Brother Johnson's teaching in E‑4‑129:

“After the Levites' cleansing, they will doubtless partake of the Epiphany Truths that are for them; for then they will be somewhat like the good Youthful Worthies, who are privileged to see and appreciate everything except such truths as the lord may desire to be limited to the Priests.”

To sum up, then: Due Truth is for all God's consecrated and fully faithful to dis­cern – each one according to his several ability” (1 Cor. 4:2; Matt. 25:15) – R. G. Jolly's answer is only a half Truth; and, half truths are more misleading than whole errors.” He who discerns clearly teaches clearly; and had he clearly discerned the due Truth”, he would not have offered such a foolish answer as a correction” to another's foolish comment. Here again he offers clear proof – as he has done so often over the past seven years – that Jesus knew whereof He spoke when He described this class as foolish.”

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

Letters of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in the Lord's Name!

Many times I have planned to write you ... the time goes by and I don't seem to do the things I would like to do. But I do want you to know how much I enjoy reading your writings. Mine came Saturday and I have read it over several times. I know our Lord will bless you for your tireless effort to feed the sheep and your work in helping Him. I got the Krewson roll, but after reading about half of it I couldn't go through all those words of nothing.

May our good lord continue to bless you much. Christian love, Sister ---------

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

 Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace!

All the articles are very much appreciated. You realize words do not always ex­press one’s thought – though they are the best conveyance we have. When I read each article as it comes, I sit and almost tremble with gratitude............

There are so many comments of praise due you for the truths you bring out in your articles, but they can’t be told in writing to do justice without too much writing,... I just long each month to get them. As Sister....... says, it is so wonderful! The lord supplies all our needs – even though the Star Members are gone..... I look forward to your papers as I did to the Present Truth and Watch Tower. I do wish you the best Christmas. Lots of love, Sister ......... California

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace be yours through our dear Redeemer's Name!

It is a great pleasure to me in sending you these few words. The words of Truth and enlighten­ment received at this time has surely brought joy and peace to my heart.

  Just after the death of our dear Bro. Johnson and these controversies set in, I found myself at the forks of the way. But as the Scriptures declare, whenever we reach these junctures we'll hear the voice behind thee, saying this is the way ­walk ye in it.” And I must say these expositions are none other than the voice of the Lord. It is the Lord that has brought about these shakings, so that those who cannot be shaken may remain. Surely, dear Brother, the Lord is making manifest the hearts of His people!

I have read all your writings and find satisfaction in them. We here have been much evil spoken of for standing for Truth and Righteousness and not following the erroneous teachings of RGJ who has manifested himself as an unclean Great Company.

Dear Brother, may the lord direct you in His service, while you still uphold His Truth and the principles of righteousness. May the Lord bless and keep you and all the dear ones who still faithfully trust in His name. Yours by His Grace, Brother ---------, Jamaica

NO. 30: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

No. 30

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

Comes now another year so we once more present a resume in retrospect and prospect.

It will be recalled that in our writing of a year ago we offered some detailed ob­servations on the “hour of wasting” of Rev. 18:17 (In one hour such great wealth is laid waste—Dia.); and we stressed especially how the recognized monetary systems of the na­tions had deteriorated during this second hour which began at Passover 1916 and would end at about January 1958; that the “hour of destruction” would probably not begin be­fore the second hour ended (and this has proven true); and that we would be certain to see more of the “wasting” process during the year 1957.

In keeping with the above, we have seen Finland forced to devaluate further its Markka (the unit of valve corresponding to our US Dollar) 39% – from FMK 231 to FMK 320 per US Dollar. France also “unofficially” devalued its Franc another 20% from 350 to 420 per US Dollar; but astute financiers thought that even this drastic slice was not enough, as the Franc immediately sold on the `black market' for as high as 460 to the US Dollar. The serious crisis that developed in the French Government last fall had money as its major cause, forcing the new government to borrow immediately over 200 bil­lion Francs in a desperate effort to stave off financial and political ruin. England also was forced to borrow another half billion dollars from the International Monetary Fund, the last such loan it can secure from that source without special legislation and sanction of the various members. Brought down to the language of the man in the street, such moves are nothing more than the action of an individual who has been on a prolonged drunk has borrowed and borrowed from all his friends until none will lend him another dollar has his clothes in tatters, his physical strength depleted, his pockets empty, his previous good name become a byword of disdain and pity, and his only recourse now being proceedings in bankruptcy. How appropriate is the statement of Isa. 24:20 – “The earth (society as presently organized) shall reel to and fro like a drunkard”!

Nor has the United States failed to be touched with the infirmities of its allies. During 1956 so many E‑bonds were cashed that drastic action had to be taken (with as little fanfare as possible, of course). It should be noted that the only security we have for the 270 billions in bonds outstanding is about 22 billions of gold in Fort Knox which means that any time ten per cent of the bond holders demand cash for them, the se­curity dwindles to the vanishing point. To retard the demand that developed in 1956, the US Government started to raise the interest rate on the bonds, which has served as a passing palliative. A year ago we stated that the overall debt in the United States ­Federal, State, Municipal and private – is about 750 billion dollars. Now, if the in­terest rate goes up just one per cent, it adds another 7½ billion dollars onto the backs of those who cannot afford to pay it, and gives it to those who do not need it. Such a “cure” can do nothing but aggravate the malady. It should be noted that at the beginning of this hour of “wasting” (at the time the United States entered the 1914 war) our Federal debt was about one billion dollars, as against 270 billions now – ­but the rate of interest is just about the same as it was in 1914, creating an imbalance of staggering proportions. When the Colonies fought the Revolutionary War in 1775‑1783 they issued Continentals (just another name for our present Dollar); and they printed so many of then that it was impossible to maintain their value. They were eventually redeemed at 2½ cents each, which then produced the expression, “Not worth a Continen­tal” – an expression which is still used to denote anything of trifling worth.

In keeping with the foregoing, an International Financial Publication with re­stricted clientele recently had this to say:

“The serious disequilibria in exchange that has been seen ever since the second world war is again making itself gravely felt. It is a result of the failure to came to real grips with the money‑deterioration caused by that war... If the West does not get its monetary house in order, its business and financial life will fall into chaos. That's a prediction made frequently and consistent­ly in these columns ever since the ending of the second world war.... We wit­ness a deadening shortage of credit. We see inflation still proceeding, although raggedly, and soon to be engaged in a battle with overproduction of goods. This could be marked by bitter strikes, and by grave disorderliness in mar­ket places, as the hopeless effort is made to adjust high wages to low prices. We see Europe possessed by the monetary jitters and fretting over exchange rates. We find men worried about the future of their jobs and their busi­nesses. We find governments anxious and harassed by the difficulty of living up to their promises. All these stresses and contortions stem back to the failure of the West to adjust its various currencies' worth, when weighted in gold, to the deterioration which took place in World War Two...... But the crisis in inflationary pressures of the past year, coinciding with such events as the Suez emergency, the French near collapse, the Indian deficits, and others, combined to force heavy borrowings from the International Monetary Fund. In less than a year Fiance has borrowed 262½ million, or half its quota, and now wants the other half. The United Kingdom has already borrowed 561½ million, and has a further standby credit of 738½ million. The fact that it cost 320 million to bolster Sterling against August's heavy losses suggests the option will soon be exercised, at least in part. Any hope that these borrowings can be repaid in the early future, and the Fund's finances restored, seems thin... The Fund has nine billion of assets, but much of it is in currencies that are not wanted... What makes the new French application significant is that tradi­tionally the Fund does not lend the second 50% of a country's borrowing quota without imposing rigorous standards of conduct upon applicants. Perhaps France will not qualify; but, if it does, the door will be opened for a flood of bor­rowings from several hard‑up countries, all in need of succor and including Argentina, India, Japan, Egypt, Indonesia and Columbia, to mention a few..... The Fund's remaining reserves could soon be exhausted if all demands are filled; and then what becomes of it and what becomes of the last hopes for international liquidity and exchange stability in the West? Unless some means could be found to shore up the Fund's reserves, the international payment system could fall in­to chaos.”

Certainly the foregoing needs no elaboration from us, so we simply offer the words of Jesus, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

ISRAEL IN RETROSPECT

During 1957 the Nation of Israel's troubles multiplied, due mainly to the fiasco of Suez in October 1956 – the mistake of which is now clearly apparent. It was a mis­take on the part of all three of the allied participants — England, France and Israel. This is shown in the forced resignation of Mr. Eden as Prime Minister of England – ­a resignation that was forced from within his own political party, although the labor Party was against him, too. It seems Israel learns slowly – so very, very slowly ­just as do Truth people. In ancient times the Lord had told them through his Prophet (Isa. 31:1) – “Woe unto them that go down to Egypt for help” – Egypt here typing the world in sin. But just as they did of old, so they still do: “They made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets” – Zech. 7:12. Note the Berean Comments on Isa‑ 31:1 – “Worldly ideas and plans for counsel as to how they should act in the crisis.”

One of the great evils of the Parousia‑Epiphany has been Combinationism – combines of Nations, politics, religions, etc. Few realize the enormous evils that have came from Combinationism since 1874; and Israel, still stricken with “blindness in part”, has suc­cumbed to it, too, seeking the aid of two nations that are now on the executioners block. Surely, such a move could bring nothing but the Lord's disfavor; and will cer­tainly contribute mightily to bring on Jacob's Trouble in due time. We see the Arab anger rising more and more against them in many quarters. It should be recalled that Combinationism was a large contributing cause of the 1914 war. The Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria and Italy was formed late in the last century, which then forced the formation of the Triple Entente of England, France and Russia. But in both these combinations there was present sharp conflict among themselves – of ideals, ambitions, etc. Thus, when the 1914 war came, King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy not only forsook his allies, but actually cast in his lot with the other side. But the Entente received a dose of the same medicine in 1917, when Russia affected a secret peace with Germany. An English army officer told us not too long back that this deflection by Russia almost brought about the defeat of the Entente, because it released a half million seasoned troops to be hurled at the Western Front in a surprise move, and it was only through ex­treme good fortune that they avoided collapse of their lines. Well may we ponder Brother Johnson's statement in E‑1‑155 (bottom): “Since 1874 Satan has been endangering God's people .... by multiplicity of false teachings and wrong practices... Some of the worst of these wrong practices – Cambinationism, etc.”

Had the Jews taken just the most passing notice of the past, they would have known better than to seek the Combinationism evil for their help. God had decreed to them “double for all their sins”, which resulted in their expulsion from their beloved native land and dispersed them throughout an unfriendly world. During those long and trying 1845 years they tried every trick in the Jewish curriculum to regain Palestine. They tried to take it by armed force, they tried to buy it, they tried all sorts of intrigue ­but they could no more circumvent the decree of Jehovah than could a fish swim up Niag­ara Falls. And yet, in His own appointed times, the Lord God gave them back their land without any effort at all on their part – and under most unusual circumstances. The Turks, who had possessed Palestine for centuries before 1914, made the mistake of join­ing the wrong side in a major war. In late 1915 England undertook the Gallipoli cam­paign against them, this stronghold being at the entrance to the Dardanelles. But the English‑Australian losses were so staggering (Over 100,000 men) that they were forced to give it up, not knowing that the Turks themselves under German generalship had also became so weakened in the fierce protracted fighting that they were down to one day's ammunition and supplies. Had the English persevered for another day, the Turkish col­lapse would have been inevitable. Even though they avoided defeat there, the Turks were in a very discouraged mood when General Edmund Allenby undertook the Palestine cam­paign in the fall of 1917. Having himself strong Christian leanings, and knowing the fervor and heart's yearnings of all Christendom for the “Beloved City”, General Allen­by had no appetite to devastate Jerusalem with his cannon, so he collected a very im­posing aerial armada and had it fly over the city to impress the Turks. This had the desired effect, and the Turks surrendered the city without a battle on December 9, 1917, bringing to the gifted General this line in history: “Making all allowances for the British superiority in strength, it must rank as one of the masterpieces of all military history – as perfect in execution as in design.”

In accomplishing this piece of strategy by air force, we believe the prophecy of Isa. 31:5 was then fulfilled: “As birds flying, so will the Lord of hosts defend Jeru­salem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it.” The English airplanes “as birds flying” did indeed “preserve it”; and for this we can all offer a prayer of thanks. And, had this most remarkable accomplishment been properly impressed upon the Jews, they would not have been so ready to “go down to Egypt for help” – knowing that He whose word never “returns to Him void” would give them “in due time” what He had promised to give them; and give it to them in such fashion that the waning Gentile nations of England and France may have no cause to glory in the strength of their “chariots and horsemen” to bring it about. There is indeed a lesson here for Truth people, and we offer again the words of Jesus: “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

TRUTH PEOPLE IN RETROSPECT

While 1957 has witnessed some faint, very faint glimmerings of attempts to elimi­nate “leprosy in the house”, one of the besetting sins of uncleansed Levites still pre­vails – “They have made lies their refuge, and behind falsehoods have they hid them­selves.” On page 62 of this last July Present Truth it is stated that JJH “is sparing no means, fair or foul, true or false, in his efforts to draw away disciples after him­self.” This statement is simply a slanderous falsehood by R. G. Jolly in a desperate effort to whitewash his own tragic sins of teaching and practice. He is in trouble, dire trouble; and we are inclined to believe that no one knows this better than himself. However, if he remains in the Household of Faith, we may be sure the Lord will force him to retract that unjust statement and make amends for it – just as extreme humilia­tion was meted out to him in 1938 for the misrepresentations he had circulated about Brother Johnson, which chastening humiliated him then, without humbling or cleansing him. And those of his partisan supporters who have encouraged him in his evil course will become partakers of his chastisement in proportion to their becoming partakers of his sins – and especially will this be true of his Pilgrims, Auxiliary Pilgrims, Evangelists and Elders. Those who have known us intimately over the years know of their own knowledge that we have coveted no man's silver or gold – that we have not failed to declare the whole counsel of God – and that we have given unstintingly of time, strength, skill and resources to promote the peace and prosperity of Zion, and have asked nothing in return save only the Grace of Him who looketh on the heart. These are not the quali­ties of unholy ambition; they are not the qualities found in those who wish to “draw away disciples after themselves.” Preaching the hard unrelenting Truth is not the way such perverters and sophists go about winning disciples. True Christian progress throughout the Age has been found in the train of those earnest reformers who “hewed to the line, letting the quips fall where they may,” those “good soldiers” who have been “counted as fools for Christ's sake”. And to and of such the witticism may soberly be quoted ­– The wise man adapts himself to his surroundings; but the fool tries to adapt his sur­roundings to him – and thus we progress. And it is the prayer of this “sifter, errorists, etc.”, that he may ever be found in the intimate company of such “fools”! And for the record, be it noted that it was just forty years ago in July 1917 that The Evil Servant ejected Brother Johnson from Bethel and lowered him into the miry pit of slander as the Epiphany Jeremiah (Jer. 38:6).

Another falsehood that still besmirches R. G. Jolly is that of his “faulty disc” for E‑17‑124. We have often pointed out that this “faulty disc” is a direct contradiction to other statements by Brother Johnson; and we again urge that this perverted state­ment be eradicated from Brother Johnson's writings. The sooner R. G. Jolly reconciles this perversion, the sooner will he rid himself of this taint of leprosy.

“Leave no black plume as a token

Of that lie thy soul hath spoken.”

“Until such repent and make amends they are to be held unclean”—E‑4‑271 (27). And for our honest reproof of such sins, we have received the identical opprobrium that was hurled at Brother Johnson – “a snake that poisons those who will read” what we write—­E‑6‑734 (middle).

In keeping with the foregoing, we offer same comment an Rev. 20:2 – “the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan.” As all Bible Students have came to know, the Bible does not contain unnecessary words – placed there merely for flummery or decoration to fill up the Book, as is the wont of fiction writers who are paid so much a word for their writings. We believe the words, dragon, serpent, devil and Satan, portray the four unholy attributes of Azazel – just as justice, wisdom, power and love describe the four holy attributes of Jehovah. As the “dragon” he has attempted to de­vour the Gospel‑Age Saints by the unholy use of power, just as he through Pagan Rome actu­ally did “devour the child” — Rev. 12:4. Honest opponents are devoured and crushed by unholy use of power, just as that great apostate `woman' used unholy power to become “drunken with the blood of the saints” – Rev. 17:6. As the “serpent”, the Evil One has been the deceiver, the beguiling tempter of the Saints in a perverted use of wisdom. “Now the serpent was more crafty than any living thing”—Gen. 3:1, Rotherham; “the woman was deceived” – l Tim. 2:14. As the “devil”, the Evil One has been the false accuser of the Saints, especially so in the Parousia‑Epiphany in the persons of Jannes and Jambres as “false accusers” (2 Tim. 3:3). And slander, lying, false statements about others' characters and motives, all these – are they not an abuse of justice, i. e., “in”‑justice? Then, finally as “Satan”, The Evil One is the Adversary, or opposer of the Saints; and this displays lack of love. “Get thee behind me, Adversary”—Matt. 16:23. Just as true love “provokes to good works” (Heb. 10:24), so the lack of it opposes such “good works” and attempts to promote evil works.

We have presented this analysis of the unholy attributes of the Evil One to demon­strate that any one who wrongfully accuses God's faithful people is displaying the “devil” quality of the Evil One – gross injustice; and we may accept it as proof positive that such must be in the hands of Azazel and in a very uncleansed condition, regardless of their loud claims to the contrary. Samuel directly accused King Saul (type of the crown-­lost leaders up to Armageddon) of “iniquity” (1 Sam. 15:23) – “iniquity” here meaning “disharmonious with justice” – E‑13‑247 (bottom). And once more we repeat the words of Jesus, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

On page 94 of this November‑December Present Truth, col. 1 (near bottom) is found another untruthful statement when R. G. Jolly says he has “thoroughly refuted the sophistry” re the reign of the Saints. Those who have read carefully our writings on this subject know of their own knowledge just how “thoroughly refuted” our position now appears. Later on, D.v., we shall demonstrate how “thoroughly refuted” R. G. Jolly's position has became ­— how he has been driven to a remote corner, just as was That Evil Servant, who failed to stoop (?) to mention Brother Johnson's name in his reference to the Present Truth pre­sentations; although Brother Johnson never lacked the honesty to designate him and others by name when he refuted their errors. In all instances Brother Johnson silenced the errorists – just as did Jesus; and in no instance did they ever silence him, the same as “no man durst ask Jesus any question” (Mark 12:34). To instance how “thoroughly refuted” is this “errorist”, R. G. Jolly said from the platform at the Chicago Convention that the reign of the Christ is the Mediatorial reign and coincides with Satan's binding – ­and this we shall analyze in due course. In this we have a cogent and sad illustration of his confusion when he offers the irresponsible comment that the Mediatorial reign started at 1874, when all faithful Bible Students know that the Mediatorial reign has as yet had no beginning in any way whatever.

And for 1958 we wish for one and all the fullness of God's Grace; and “Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health” (3 John 2); and this will surely be the portion of all who continue to serve Him in a “good and honest heart”.

Sincerely Your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim