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

NO. 29: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE CHICAGO CONVENTION

No. 29

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

The Chicago Convention October 25‑27 gave further evidence of the deplorable con­ditions among the brethren in general in the LHMM – and especially so of the uncleansed condition of the leaders. In addition to a number of rank falsehoods from the platform by R. G. Jolly, he exploded with the statement that the “sifters (viz., JJH and company) should know by now that they are not welcome.” It should be observed that this R. G. Jolly is the same person who had the brethren specifically vote in the Philadelphia disfellowshipment proceedings in 1955 of Brother and Sister Krewson, that they be per­mitted to attend meetings so long as they occupied the back seats and took no part in meetings. More and more is the truth impressed upon us – “A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways.” So often does he reverse himself as occasion seems to require; and in all this we are sadly reminded of C. A. Wise, Vice‑President of the Society under That Evil Servant: “Brethren, we don't believe this year what we believed last year; and we probably won't believe next year what we are believing this year.” – “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel”—Gen. 49:4.

The brethren who have known us intimately over the years know full well it was never our tendency to praise self; we are indeed a firm believer in the adage, “Self­praise has a bad odor.” But there comes occasion when close personal statements must be offered; and we believe this is one of them. At no time during Brother Johnson's life can any honestly say that we prated over the physical and financial energies we expended to build the LHMM to the place it occupied at Brother Johnson's death; and we do so now only to demonstrate the colossal gall of the statement by R. G. Jolly quoted above. In money alone, we contributed more than enough to purchase the entire Tabernacle which now houses this same R. G. Jolly – the same Tabernacle in which we “should know we are not welcome”. Of course, it is the age‑old spiritual `mayhem' being enacted once more ­“Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” The reproving finger of Truth has always been most unwelcome in the house of spiritual lepers, so we should “think it not strange” – although we observe that we have seen gutter bums with a better sense of ethics than R. G. Jolly has displayed in this instance. There was just the most passing notice taken of other “sifters”; the concentration was all on JJH and company; the “avoid them” was emphasized in all quarters in scurrilous depravity.

And in contrast to the courtesy voted to Brother and Sister Krewson, be it noted that JJH has never at any time before Brother Johnson's death, or since, attempted to grasp for himself powers that were not justly his through the Pilgrim appointment that was his from Brother Johnson's hand. At no time have we attempted to set ourselves up as Pastor and Teacher, or to question R. G. Jolly's right as Pilgrim to address the Gen­eral Church. Our opposition to him has come solely through his sins of teaching and prac­tise – a duty that “of necessity is laid upon me” 1 Cor. 9:16), a duty we would be most happy to have removed when the causes are removed.

It should be noted there was one brother at this Convention who does not even be­lieve Brother Johnson was one of the Saints; yet he was received into the Love Feast – ­Hail, Brother, glad to see you! And there were others there of whom even worse could be said; but we spare you and them! All of this is quite in keeping with the course of That Evil Servant who failed to correct erring and corrupt brethren so long as they were “in harmony with the channel” – meaning, of course, doing obeisance to JFR. It is little wonder that the LHMM has so rapidly deteriorated since the departure of our beloved Epiphany Messenger. “I am against them that cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness” (Jer. 23:32). And the stream of abusive invective against JJH and company is only sadly reminiscent of the treatment accorded to Martin Luther and Thomas Crammer by the errorists they exposed. As Brother Johnson has so well ex­plained – These two exalted brethren were the special targets of the Papacy because it was these two who hurt them most with the hard cutting truths they hurled against that monstrous citadel of error. We do indeed pity those who are motivated by such perverse inclinations; but we ourselves consider it a small matter as we consider those grand Protestants of the past who received similar treatment from their “brethren who cast them out” (Isa. 66:5).

It seems fitting here to compare and contrast the course of Brother Johnson, That Evil Servant – and R. G. Jolly. It should be remembered that Brother Johnson's faith­fulness to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren was never once questioned during the en­tire Parousia – (Just as has been true of JJH during the entire Epiphany when Brother Johnson was with us) – although That Evil Servant was often subject to criticism during the Parousia, just as R. G. Jolly was guilty of open Revolutianism during the Epiphany. But did Brother Johnson tell R. G. Jolly to get out of the meeting house? No, indeed; on the contrary, he gave him every brotherly help he could, that conditions would allow, in an effort to help him recover himself from the mire into which he had fallen – even allowing him to take limited parts in meetings, etc., and eventually recommending him before the brethren as Executive Trustee (believing he would cleanse himself in due time). R. G. Jolly has sadly betrayed that trust, and is now in much the same position as the “wicked servant” of Matt. 18:23‑35. He continually besmirches JJH with the “sift­er” opprobrium, although his contention could not be true even if all he claims about us is correct. At Chicago he offered quite some “profusion of words” about “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on Baptism” – although he himself stated publicly that this “out of harmony” is not fundamental. Of course, he hasn't been able to prove any of his contention here; but, even if he could, but it's not “fundamental”, why brand any one a “sifter” because of it? And much the same can be said for his loud talk on the 1,000‑year reign and the linen garments. His arguments on both these items were so weak they smacked of talk that is heard from derelicts – just yelling without saying anything. But, assuming he is right on all of it, he is still guilty of slanderous falsehood when he labels us as “sifters”.

We wish it known that R. G. Jolly and his most partisan supporters are indeed wel­come in any meetings at which we have charge, and we would welcome their questions in Question Meetings – just as we invited R. G. Jolly to ask us questions at the Crofts Hill, Jamaica meeting last January 10 when we occupied the platform. And we would coun­sel all in harmony with our views to grant such every civility and such brotherly help as their condition and attitude would permit – in an effort to help them if possible. And we do now offer a cordial invitation to such to attend any meetings at which we may officiate, and to come with such questions as they may have. We believe this is in har­mony with the course of Jesus, who never turned His back on a questioner. The Truth does not need to run away from questions – although we often see error run away from the Truth's answers.

Prompted by some statements made by R. G. Jolly in his discourses Friday and Sat­urday nights, some questions were put into the Question Meeting, one of which follows:

“Brother Russell teaches the Queen of Sheba and Solomon picture is our Lord and the Restitutionists – a Kingdom picture. In your discourse you claim it is an Epiphany picture, with Brother Johnson as Solomon. Is this your “advancing Truth”, or do you claim Brother Johnson himself taught this doctrine, revolu­tionizing against his own teachings as given in E‑4 “The Epiphany Elect”, and his teachings of the Epiphany Tabernacle?

As is his wont when he cannot answer a question, he proceeded to give a small discourse without answering the question; but he did say that even though it were a Kingdom picture, it could have other applications, so it would do no harm to preach it now. This is another trait of That Evil Servant, who said his “Millions” doctrine may belong to the next Age, but it is still proper to give the message now. And by such a course both of these pseudo Pastors and Teachers throw away another Scripture which “cramps their style” – Namely, 2 Tim. 2:15, “rightly dividing the word of truth”. We here em­phasize that any time a clear Bible text is ignored or vitiated it can work nothing but mischief; and the history of the Gospel Age certainly corroborates this statement. Just as sensible would it be to defend those errorists hundreds of years ago who preached “the spirit and the bride say come, and whosoever will let him come”. The message was out of setting, and it could do nothing but work the confusion it did – just as any mes­sage out of setting now will result only in confusion. In fact, it was apparent right in this Convention in the confused statements that R. G. Jolly himself made at various times – statements that directly contradicted each other. For instance, he told the two candidates for immersion that God now vievs them as justified; yet he stated on another occasion that there is no tentative justification since 1954 for Gospel‑Age pur­poses. Also, in his answer to a question bearing on the matter, he said his Consecrated Epiphany Campers would not receive the resurrection of the Just, such resurrection be­ing reserved only for the Ancient and Youthful Worthies. What kind of just(ification) does his Quasi‑elect (or Epiphany Campers “consecrated”) have if they are not counted in with the Just? And how can they walk the same narrow way with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies and still receive the resurrection of the Unjust(ified)? Of course, he may have some explanation for the difference in the justification now enjoyed by the Youthful Worthies and that accorded his Campers, and it would be very interesting to hear what it is, if he has one. We shall not offer here further comment on others of his foolish statements on this and other points; we wait for him to put them into print, at which time there will be much more to say. However, once more do we state that it was at the beginning of the Epiphany that a Great Company‑Youthful Worthy combination produced the incestuous sons of antitypical lot; so here in the waning of the Epiphany in its narrow sense we have another Great Company‑Youthful Worthy concoction in the Con­secrated Epiphany Campers – with both members of this duet now hurling invectives at each other. It's hardly likely they can both be right, so that – viewed by generous standards – at least one‑half of this team must have been in “spotted” garments when this new doctrine was given birth.

Inasmuch as this will probably be our last message for this year, we extend to one and all cordial good wishes for a blessed Holiday Season, and for the blessing that maketh rich and addeth no sorrow therewith to all who serve the Lord from a “good and honest heart.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General Interest

Question: – On page 38 of this last Krewson Volume there is this statement: “To state that RGJ or others were abandoned to Azazel when and because Brother Johnson died is just as nonsensical as stating that the Apostles were abandoned to Azazel when and because God removed our Lord as His special eye, hand and mouth from their midst.” What is your thought on this?

Answer: – The statement is superficially shallow and reveals clearly enough that Brother Krewson is incapable of rightly dividing the writings of the Star Members ­and demonstrates why an Evangelist rating was the best Brother Johnson could give him. It will be noted he says “the Apostles”. Presumably he means all twelve of them, although it is clearly stated of Judas, “Satan entered into him” (Luke 22:3), and that shortly thereafter “he went and hanged himself”. Of course, the remaining eleven were not aban­doned to Azazel, because they were the Fully Faithful – which class is never at any time abandoned to Azazel. Only Azazel's Goat is “for Azazel”. Naturally, Judas was not a member of that Goat, but the analogy is pertinent. Had he repented after his deflection ­before he had fully left the Household of Faith – he would have been received back into measurable grace, because the promise is without restriction, “He that cometh unto me I will in nowise cast out.” However, it probably was impossible for Judas to have that “godly sorrow” that worketh true repentance, because “he was a thief”, and no honesty was in him.

But just as the eleven were not delivered to Azazel at Jesus' removal, so the Fully Faithful (the Very Elect) in the Society were not abandoned to Azazel when Brother John­son left there – even though That Evil Servant and his cohorts were then fully abandoned; nor were the Fully Faithful in the LHMM abandoned to Azazel at October 22, 1950. Aban­donment divides Azazel's Goat into two classes – one part cleansing themselves of their sins; the other receiving the fate of Gehenna. Nor is it usually possible for us to know the exact time at which this latter class fully leaves the Household. But it should be noted that abandonment is accomplished by the “withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor” – which is just another way of saying they must be disfellowshiped. Now, we have R. G. Jolly's written statement that Brother Johnson “used him as formerly” after the 1938 episode; and we have Brother Johnson's written statement that he (R. G. Jolly) had not cleansed himself in 1943. And, since his cleansing could be brought about only by disfellowshipment (just as was true with the brother in 1 Cor. 5), we ask Evangelist Krewson, just as we have so often asked R. G. Jolly, to offer the proof for this event prior to 1950. If he was cleansed at 1950, as Evangelist Krewson apparently claims, he had to have the necessary experience to accomplish it – just as would be the case with other members of Azazel's Goat in the LHMM. Furthermore, if R. G. Jolly, et al, were cleansed at 1950 they have since become uncleansed a second time – as Evangelist Krew­son himself presently claims – and this poises a delicate question: If they have re­turned again to their “wallowing in the mire”, can they receive a second cleansing? It may be possible, of course; but we doubt it is probable.

During the past two years we have been repeatedly enjoined to make open exposure of Evangelist Krewson's many foolish statements, which we have steadfastly declined to do – having not the least desire to hold him up to ridicule – just as we lovingly, but with increasing severity; remonstrated with R. G. Jolly before making public exposure of him. Even when we treated of some of his nonsense on the Stewardship Doctrines on page 7 of our August 1 writing, we tried to set up the quotations from his letters in such fashion that our general readers could not know of whom we spoke. We did this in the hope of sobering him and winning him, if possible; but it seems he is determined to have it otherwise, which leaves us no alternative. Be it noted that he and R. G. Jolly embrace many of the same errors, which they concocted together during their palmy days their chief divergence now being a “contention among them, which of them should be thought the greatest” (luke 22:24—Dia.). Henceforth, we shall consider them both to­gether, in the same basket where they belong; and we state for the benefit of all that there will be plenty of this in future, D.v.

We have also had another compelling reason for concentrating our refutations against R. G. Jolly, this reason being the same as Brother Johnson gave for his con­centration upon That Evil Servent. The latter was in position to do more harm than any other person in the Epiphany – just as R. G. Jolly is now also in that same relative position. Brother Johnson reposed his trust in him, just as Brother Russell trusted JFR; and the betrayal of that trust should be a prime motivation with all who pray “God bless his memory”. Early in the Epiphany there was quite a plague of Toms, Dicks and Harries (as Brother Johnson styled them) who had never been authorized to address the General Church, but who were badly infested with the “writer's itch”. Many such Brother Johnson ignored completely; but on occasion he did analyze their errors if they became more than passing troublesome. However, with the Pilgrims of Brother Russell's appointment he felt quite differently when they presented errors to foist upon the Lord's unsuspecting sheep; he considered them a real menace — even as did our Lord with the Scribes and Pharisees – and as did also the faithful reformers who expended their strength and talents against the LEADERS of the Papal Hierarchy, rather than against those never having occupied the office of General Elder in the Church. This has been our policy and will continue to be so, except as set forth herein.

Question: – On page 38 of this Krewson circular there is this statement: “We may be opposed to ones, like we are to RGJ, if it is based solely upon Truth deviations, but not on character faults”. Is this sound doctrine?

Answer: – No, it certainly is not sound doctrine. Once more this brother shows that he – who aspires to the teaching position – cannot even read the teachings of others and understand what he has read after he reads them., We pointed this out in the foregoing question; and sometime back in connection with his contention about the crown‑lost leaders “developing” the Stewardship Doctrines. It is true here also – he has read something without understanding what he has read. When Jesus warned, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy”, was He referring to character or teach­ing? And when Brother Johnson classified JFR as one of the worst hypocrites of the en­tire Gospel Age, was he not referring to his character? In fact, when Evangelist Krew­son calls R. G. Jolly a liar, is he not assailing his character?

It should be borne in mind there is a difference between character blemishes due to Adamic depravity and character blemishes that are sins against light. Of course, our only course against the former should be one of benevolent remonstrance – especially so in the case of others – although we should be severe in the judgment of ourselves concern­ing such. But it should also be borne in mind that Brother Johnson pointed out what all of us know – That all of the Saints have believed and taught more or less error, but such “Truth deviations” did not cause them to lose their standing in Christ. Many of them believed and taught a most heinous doctrine – Eternal Torment – but they did this without guile or hypocrisy. But, when hypocrisy was joined with this monstrous error, then the character faults of such teachers should be attacked – just as the Great Com­pany sins of lying, slander, corrupt opinions, false accusers (such as accusing some of being “sifters” who are not), should be attacked. And Brother Johnson did attack them, using the very words – WHAT HORRIBLE CHARACTERS! (See E‑9‑141, top).

It will be recalled that R. G. Jolly has repeatedly said, “I'm not here to defend my character”; so it seems these two aspiring teachers also here embrace anothe per­version – much the same as That Evil Servant also advanced the thought, “Character de­velopment not necessary, so we don't discuss it any more.” Certainly, an intellectual hypocrite like JFR teaching Truth is more to be despised than a lowly Saint who is teach­ing error.

Question: – At Chicago the question was presented, Is Gideon's second battle ended? Brother Jolly said it is still in progress. Do you agree with this?

Answer: – Most certainly we do, although we are sorry to note that R. G. Jolly's acts are not in harmony with his words. It will be recalled that we remonstrated with him after the 1953 Chicago Convention because he said the very tracts that are pertinent to this second battle are “time‑worn and threadbare” – that we should have something more up‑to‑date and alive at this time (meaning his “Flying Saucer”). It should be noted Brother Johnson counselled perseverance in this battle until its full consummation; and he said on page 159 of Volume E‑5 that the Fully Faithful would continue in it to a com­pletion. If that battle is not yet over, then here is another proof that some of the Elect must still be with us. But R. G. Jolly is stressing his Flying Sauser and Israel's Return as the things to use at this time. In the case of the Saucer tract, it must be carded as speculation; there is just no definite proof that it is true. But none of us have the slightest doubt that the tracts on this second battle are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. For all who agree that this second battle is still in progress, and who still regard Brother Johnson as the Epiphany Messenger, we urge them to persevere in it – firm in “the things thou hast learned, and been assured of, know­ing of whom thou hast learned them.”

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

Letters of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace!

I know you are busy and so do not want to take too much of your time, but I would like to tell you that I was so happy to have the privilege of attending the Chicago Convention. However, my experiences there were not all pleasurable. There was much grief mingled with the joy. The grief was over the decline in spirituality among the brethren of the LHMM since last I met with them.

On the first day of the Convention, Brother Jolly came briskly forward and gave Sister ‑‑‑‑‑‑ and me a warm welcome, saying he was so glad to see us. After that the brethren in general gave us warm and cordial greetings until on Sunday morning Brother Jolly spoke so disparagingly of the “sifters” at the Question Meeting. Very few of the brethren would even look our way after that, although Brother Jolly had specifically said he did not consider us sifters – only “bewildered.”

I had looked forward with pleasure to the privilege of testifying at the Memorial Service for the two Messengers, but Brother Gavin did not allow one voluntary testimony. He called by name those whom he wished to testify and allowed them to talk as long as they liked – even encouraging them to do so. At last he seemed to have run out of names as he asked Brother Eschrich to come forward, which he did – using the remaining time. One can't help wondering if there were other brethren who wished to give their testi­mony at this special meeting and whether they, too, were sorely disappointed even as I was.

   Self‑evidently, the purpose of this method of calling individuals by name to testi­fy was to prohibit some from giving testimony – the same purpose as was reportedly ac­complished by using a list of names at the Philadelphia 1956 Convention.

It's just impossible to know where Brother Jolly stands or what he really thinks about anything if we consider his contradictions of himself, both in attitude and in word. When commenting an Gideon's Second Battle, he spoke of the “counterfeit 300”; then on another occasion he said those with priestly hopes were just bewildered and should be treated kindly. A few years back he was calling them second‑death sifters; so we certainly can't know his real heart's attitude here.

   It is my hope and prayer that the faithful brethren will wake up and resist these evils – not only for themselves but for the good of others.

I realize you know these things as you were there, but I wanted to give you my reaction and observations of this my first Convention for some time. You may publish this letter if you like.

Your Sister by His Grace __________ Oklahoma

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in the name of our dear Redeemer!

.............. also got another from Krewson, so I wouldn't be surprised if ....... His teachings are almost the same as RGJ's and we disfellowshiped him. Of course, I think he means this class when he says “some have a personal animosity toward RGJ”. Well, if a hatred for lying and slandering can be called personal animosity, then I guess we have it. By His Grace, Sister ___________ N.C

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

Comment on the counterfeit 300

We all know the last Star Members said the Papal Millennium was the great counter­feit – just about as low a rating as could be given them and still keep within Christian decorum. Therefore, R. G. Jolly's “treat them kindly” coupled with his name‑calling is just some more Great Company doubledealing (“a doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways”).

NO. 28: ZECHARIAH TYPE

No. 28

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

In this September Present Truth appear same Questions and Answers purporting to deal with some of our recent writings, the comments on Zechariah being an attempt to uphold R. G. Jolly's contention that Brother Johnson was the last Saint. As all Bible Students know, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both taught that a type must never be used to establish a doctrine; it can only be used to support a doctrine already es­tablished. But in this instance, R. G. Jolly not only does not prove a doctrine by his Zechariah type, he actually tries to set aside a doctrine already well established – ­and he makes this attempt by a fractured type at that!

In Brother Johnson's explanation of the Zachariah type he emphasized that he would be here until 1956, and that his end would be a violent one. Since neither the date of his death nor the manner of his death occurred according to expectation, we state it was a fractured type. But the doctrine was well established by both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that some Saints would remain an earth until the violent features of the Time of Trouble arrived. In our August 1 writing on The last Saint we offered a number of Scriptures and comments from the Star Members pertaining to this matter – ­enough certainly to establish the doctrine just set forth –; and we now offer others in support of it.

Brother Johnson's belief that his would be a violent end (if he were to be the last Saint) comes logically enough. The first “righteous blood” to be shed occurred in the violent death of Abel; and the last “righteous blood” – specifically described as such by Jesus – came through the violent death of Zechariah. The last righteous blood actually to be shed violently in pre‑Gospel‑Age times was that of John the Baptist; and Brother Russell accepted that as a concluding type of the Gospel‑Age priesthood in his belief that the last ones would come to a violent end. For Gospel‑Age purposes the first righteous blood to be shed was that of Jesus – also violently poured out – just as St. Paul's blood likewise was violently “poured out” (2 Tim. 4:6, Dia.). And the Scriptural teaching seems clear and indisputable that the last righteous blood of this Age would be violently poured out – as instance, 1 Thes. 4:17: “We which are alive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.” Brother Johnson's comment on this in E‑6‑581 follows:

“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'.”

The foregoing is exceptionally clear; and cannot be explained away by a mere fractured type. Let R. G. Jolly – and all others who claim the Saints are no more – give their explanation of the above, in harmony with their present position.

Companion to the foregoing is Brother Johnson's statement in E‑6‑630 on 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.”

Here again is some more doctrine that must be discarded if the fractured type of Zech­ariah is to prevail. It will be noted that all the types we presented in our August writing support the doctrine. In further support of our statement that Zechariah could type the last Star Member, but not the last Saint, we offer the Moses type – wherein he types the Star Members. Moses did not complete the march of Israel into Canaan, which shows clearly enough that it would not be a Star Member in the end of this Age who would complete the march of spiritual Israel into the heavenly Canaan.

At the Chicago Convention R. G. Jolly put quite some extended emphasis on his con­tention that we must certainly know the last Saint in his individual person, otherwise we cannot know when the last one is gone. This argument is in line with his reasoning in general. Suppose we ask him – Does he know in the individual person who was the last one to be spirit‑begotten? But we do know the date it happened! Certainly the last spirit‑begettal is no less important than the last glorification – we could not have the latter without the former. And be it noted that the last spirit‑begettal in the mere fact itself was not even known until 3 1/2 years after it occurred. Undoubtedly, the Lord will give us the right date for the last glorification “in due time” – and we may be sure we won't have to cling to a fractured type to prove it when the “due time” arrives.

There is also the prophecy of Gen. 3:15 – “Thou (Satan) shall bruise his heel (the last members of the Christ company on earth). Is there any physical evidence to show this “bruising” has yet occurred?

But, weak as the Zechariah type appears, it is reasonably solid compared to the nonsense offered in explanation on page 78 of “John hearing the Rev.19:6,7 message.” R. G. Jolly contends that John in this Scripture is transposed from the Little Flock to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. This contention is strikingly coincident to the claim of That Evil Servant that Elijah was transposed into Elisha – just by the death of Brother Russell. And the only argument given for the transformation in Rev. 19:6,7 is the death of Brother Johnson – and nothing more. Well, if there be any sound substance to this contention, we should be able to substitute “Great Company” for the pronoun “I” in verse 6. Let's try it and notice how it sounds: “The Great Company heard as it were the voice of the Great Company” (apparently talking to themselves). Does it sound sensible? Yes, indeed, definitely “non”‑sensible! As Brother Johnson so ably stated – When these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. And the contention in this instance of John being transformed from the Little Flock to the Great Company and Youthful Worthies – then talking to themselves – well nigh ap­proaches “perfection” in nonsense. And the sin here is doubly magnified when R. G. Jolly attempts to besmirch Brother Johnson's good name by attaching such nonsense to him, and claiming the Bible teaches it. Is the claim that “three times one equals one” any more ridiculous?

The foregoing remarks re John on Patmos representing God's people would be inap­propriate had R. G. Jolly properly qualified Brother Johnson's statement about John “representing the Lord's people.” John represents only “the Lord's faithful and obedi­ent people.” In no instance in the Bible do God's faithful and obedient people in their faithfulness represent unfaithful or measurably faithful and disobedient people. Every Great Company type has one or more reprehensible feature attached to it; and the reason is self‑evident – they portray those particular failings of various Great Com­pany members. Even in the case of Moses – great and good man that he was ‑ he pictures future unfaithful classes only when he was disobedient. And in the case of Cyrus, a heathen, he represented Christ only when he was doing God's will “my shepherd Cyrus,” Isa. 44:28. To say that faithful Apostle John represented the uncleansed Great Company since 1950 is sacrilege. There must indeed come a time when John on Patmos (Patmos means “suffering"”) will represent all God's people – but this cannot be so until the Great Company are cleansed, obedient and faithful. We have offered so much from Brother Johnson and otherwise – including R. G. Jolly's truthful admission at the Jacksonville Convention in Feb. 1955 that Brother Johnson had never withdrawn brotherly favor from him – which is certainly true, and is proof that R. G. Jolly couldn't possibly have been cleansed at October 22, 1950, because the final step had not been taken in his case to effect his full cleansing – viz., the withdrawal of all brotherly help and favor by the World's High Priest. Certainly none of the various groups were cleansed at October 22, 1950 as a class. None of this has been answered, because R. G. Jolly cannot answer it. Let him and his sectarian supporters continue to fight the Truth, if they will; they must eventually hear the Lord's word grating on their ears – “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5).

But that isn't all! He says JJH tries to make it “appear that Vol. E‑3‑133 is all there is to Brother Johnson's teaching on this matter.” For one who ignores and violates so much of Brother Johnson's teachings, this statement is Azazelian impudence supreme. In his comment on this very section of Scripture, why does he not state what Brother Johnson taught about it in E‑10‑113:

“Verse 9 contains a charge that will be given by the Epiphany Messenger to the Little Flock.”

He also ignores completely Brother Johnson's explanation of verse 10 on this same page 113, which explanation is further enlarged in E‑10‑656, as follows:

“The Little Flock... will express special reverence for, and subjection to J. whose continuance, according to Rev. 19:10, J. will refuse to permit..... Thereafter the report will be made to J. that the Little Flock will have been decreasing in numbers and strength.”

Clearly enough, Rev. 19:6 through 10 is a continuous narrative; therefore, if the Little Flock on earth is included in verse 10, they must self‑evidently be included in verse 6. And that Brother Johnson is right in concluding the Little Flock are referred to in verse 10 becomes clearer by reading from the Diaglott: “And he (Bro. J.) says to me (John – the Little Flock), See; No! I am a fellow‑servant with thee, and of those breth­ren with thee who have the testimony of Jesus.” Certainly, Brother Johnson never in­cluded himself in with the Great Company as “a fellow‑servant with thee and of those brethren with thee who have the testimony of Jesus.” Clearly enough, the Great Company have lost “the testimony of Jesus”, because they are no longer of the Jesus company (See Acts 9:5).

Furthermore, Brother Johnson states in E‑5‑420 that the message of Rev, 19:5 will be preached by the Great Company after they are cleansed. For the past two years we have offered many proofs from Brother Johnson's writings showing that no Levitical group was cleansed at October 1950 – though there were individuals among them who probably were cleansed. None of this has been refuted to date, so we shall not pursue it fur­ther here.

The suggestion has come to us through the mail that Rev. 19:6 makes no allowance for a false message – which would be the case if we are right and R. G. Jolly, et al, are wrong. To this we answer that the same premise would apply to Rev. 16:17 – “It is finished.” The message that the High Calling was closed was published first by the Great Company in the Society; and, while the message was correct, their date was wrong. They offered March 27, 1918, instead of September 16, 1914; and it offers a fitting parallel to the present contention about the Saints being no more on earth. As Brother Johnson so truly stated —Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Com­pany.

And repeatedly is the aspersion offered in those Answers that JJH is the “errorist”. Repeatedly does R. G. Jolly cast the stones at others that should be hurled at himself. Then he lifts the clause from JJH – “I may not be 100% versed in everything Brother Johnson has written.” Why didn't he offer a little more here? The real errorist and trickster is always manifested by such tactics, as all of us certainly know. We reproduce the paragraph which we ourselves published October 29, 1955 (copy free upon request).

“I may not be 100% versed in everything Brother Johnson has written; but when someone such as you tries to give me some instruction or correction, I expect you yourself to know what you are talking about. I am quite familiar with what Brother Johnson says in Vol. 10, P. 113; and I agree with his explanation of Rev. 19:1‑2. When the Bible states that work would be done by a “great crowd” I think that fits in pretty well with the “great crowd” in the Society giving Jordan its second smiting. But why didn't you go on and discuss Verse 6? That speaks also of a “great crowd” saying “The Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth.” Brother Johnson states in the very 1941 citation you give that fulfillment was future; and he stated often enough in other places that the “great crowd” would have a fruit­ful ministry “after the fires of Armageddon” (Rev‑ 7:14). Why didn't you say something about that? Are you contending that a “great crowd” has been proclaim­ing this message since October 1950? By generous count, could you possibly show a hundred? It is little wonder you repeatedly and loudly proclaim your “love for your dear Youthful Worthy brethren”! And do you consider that slanderers and scan­dalmongers have “cleansed” themselves in harmony with Rev. 7:14? Do you? I may as well quote your own words here, “Think it over, dear brother.” Also, you are conspicuously silent on Rev. 22:10 and Berean Comments. Why?”

R. G. Jolly says JJH “failed to admit he was in error” in the above quotation. Yes, JJH failed to admit it because there was no error to admit! The real error here clings to him; and he once more manifests his uncleansed condition by this untruthful twist. He will undoubtedly fool those of his readers who close their eyes, open their mouths, and swallow what he puts therein. This may all seem real cute to him; but “God is not mocked”, and the day of reckoning is slowly but surely approaching.

On pages 75, 76 and 77 there is presented some consideration of Vicegerency, The Crown, and Right to Rule, in which R. G. Jolly talks quite a bit, but says almost noth­ing – just as he talked for four hours at Crofts Hill, Jamaica last January 10 and had said so very, very little at the end of those four hours that he could not offer a single line about that meeting in the Present Truth. Present happenings make quite clear why Brother Johnson accused R. G. Jolly of being loquacious, effusive, repetitious, etc.

There is offered some comment on Matt. 28:18 – “All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth”, and the Greek word “exousia” is given to show the text should read – “All authority is given unto me in heaven and on earth.” Had R. G. Jolly clearly understood this matter, he would have analyzed “all power” and “all authority”. Of course, had he done this, his “profusion of words to no purpose” would have appeared ridiculous even to the most benighted of his sectarian readers. To illustrate: Mr. A in New York city gives to Mr. B a Power of Attorney (all authority) to purchase for him a property at public auction in San Francisco the following week. On his way to San Francisco Mr. B has an accident that puts him into the hospital at Chicago – so he cannot be on hand the day of sale. Thus, Mr. B failed in his mission; he had “all authority”, but he lacked the power to exercise his authority because he was not where he should have been on the day his authority designated. But, regardless of the Greek in Matt. 28:18, Jesus had “all authority” and “all power” at His resurrection, and was assured of His ability to use them “in due time” —as God's eternal purposes directed. Had Mr. B not been deterred at Chicago, his “All authority” permitted him to do only a certain thing at a certain place at a certain time. And Jesus was in much this same position at His resurrection as respects the Restitution process, the dethroning of the Gentiles, etc.

But the text must be read in the light of sanctified reason, or it becomes non­sense. He had “all authority” and “all power” to do only what is in harmony with God's character and God's eternal purposes. Thus, He had not authority or power to “defile the temple of God”; He had not authority or power to lie, because He is “the faithful and true witness.” At His resurrection he had “all authority“ and “all power” to accomplish restitution (it could not be effected without Him); but He could not begin it then – His authority and power could operate only in harmony with God's eternal purposes. The same is true of His authority and power over the nations. He could not evict them until their regime had run its course to 1914 – although He did have authority and power to intervene if those nations interfered in their actions with God's eternal purposes; and He probably did do so on various occasions — Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, etc. – when their success would have thwarted the grand march of the Plan of the Ages.

We have offered the foregoing detail to show why Brother Russell stated in Volume 2, pages 73‑83 that Jesus did not possess the crown in its full sense until 1914. And, if He did not have it until then, neither could the 144,000 “reign with Him” in the full sense until 1914, as the full number was not actually “with Him” until 1914. All of this was made clear in our October writing, we think. On page 80, par, 1, Brother Rus­sell says this:

“God will not take the dominion from them (the Gentiles), to give it to His anointed until that lease expires, `until the Times of the Gentiles be ful­filled.'”

R. G. Jolly says the “errorist” (JJH) “appeals to some statements from Brother John­son (which he thinks support his contention, though they actually do not do so).” It would seem a faithful Truth teacher – who yells “errorist” at JJH – would take some of those quotations and point out how and why and where “they actually do not do so.” For in­stance, let him offer his comments on the above quotation from Brother Russell. Also, on page 2, of our December 8, 1956 writing, and again in ours of November 1, 1957, we quoted the following from Brother Johnson re 1 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 of this must be destroyed utterly and forever, and this will be done at the end of the Little Season.”

Let R. G. Jolly point out how the above from Brother Johnson “actually does not do so.” Also, again we ask him to correlate it with his “faulty disc” for E‑17‑124. This quota­tion is from Brother Johnson just a year or so before he died; so why does R. G. Jolly keep harping about a quotation in 1938 – twelve years before he died? Is he offering an honest presentation to his readers when he ignores these latest quotations we are giv­ing? And while he is at it, let him consider his own published statement in the 1954 P.T., P. 5, col. 1, par, 1 as follows:

“The Millennial 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,”

Does R. G. Jolly still believe the above? If so, how does he reconcile it with his pres­ent position?

Coupled with our writing of November 1, we think these two articles will be about sufficient to fulfil our prediction that R. G. Jolly would in due course follow the ex­ample of That Evil Servant – assume an “abused” silence, and persuade his readers to do likewise. And we think the same prediction will prevail with respect to The Last Saint ­– also with his “consecrated Epiphany Campers.” In Brother Johnson's words (E‑5, P. 18) we also say: “When did our lord, our Pastor and other faithful servants of the Truth keep silent when their presentations were attacked and errors were introduced (Micah 5:5, 6)? Certainly they acted as we do in similar conditions, and not like the revolutionists.

“In all thy getting, get understanding.” And it is the prayer of the writer that each who reads these presentations “in sincerity and in truth” may grow in that under­standing that maketh wise unto salvation.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle ,Pilgrim