NO. 149: CONCERNING THE BIBLE STANDARD AND LUKE 16:1-13

NO. 149

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

On pages 42-45 of the June 1967 Bible Standard the Editor offers a discussion of the above Scripture, the same being a take-off of what Brother Russell wrote, much of it being word for word from his articles (pp. 2715 and 5436 of the Reprints). We have no criticism whatever to offer on Brother Russell’s interpretation, because it was PRESENT TRUTH for the Parousia period; and he was quite in order to conclude that the antitypical Scribes and Phari­sees, who figuratively ‘sat in Moses’ seat,’ were to be found in the leaders of various sections of Christendom – a position they openly claimed in word and deed.

But to take that interpretation for Parousia purposes, and apply it for Epiphany purposes, is just one more of the Editor’s Parousia-Truth perversions (Azazel means Perverter). When the Scripture states that the Scribes and Pharisees ‘sat in Moses’ seat,’ it is well to keep in mind the meaning of the word ‘sat.’ In those days the speaker at a service sat down, while the audi­ence stood – just the reverse of what it is today. Thus, it is stated in Matt. 5:1, “When He was set, His disciples came unto Him.” They immediately knew that His sitting down was an indication that He was ready to teach them something. This conclusion is so strong that one Bible footnote says, “In the Talmud ‘to sit’ is nearly synonymous with ‘to teach.’” Therefore, when Jesus said, “The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2), we are to understand this to mean “succeed Moses as teachers.”

The foregoing should be kept emphatically in mind if we are “rightly to divide the Word of Truth” – and not pervert it, as has now been done in the Bible Standard. As most of our readers know, Moses in his march from Egypt to Canaan types those Christian leaders during this Gospel Age who have led .spiritual Israel from Egypt (type of the world in sin) to the Heavenly Canaan. We refer to such men as the Apostles, Arius, John Waldo, John Wessel, John Wesley, Martin Luther, William Miller, Brother Russell, et al. Surely, it does not require a great stretch of the imagination to conclude that such men did in reality lead the spiritual Israel of this Age in their march toward goodly Canaan land. Consequently, when we had came into the Parousia period, with no outstanding man of previous time still remaining, it was a very logi­cal conclusion to determine that the various prominent ones then attempting to teach Christendom were claiming to “sit in the chair of Moses” (Diaglott) ­just as we now often say that such and such a man occupies “the chair” of Harvard, of Yale, etc. meaning that that man is now President of that insti­tution, or is perhaps the outstanding teacher of some particular science or professions.

Thus, when Brother Russell offered his interpretation of Luke 16:1-13, there was abundant logic to justify his conclusions. But, when he died, the mantle (mouthpieceship to Christendom) then dropped from antitypical Elijah to antitypical Elisha – the crown-losers in the Society (and subsequently to those in other Truth groups) assumed the teaching role toward Christendom. And now that the Epiphany Messenger has been gone since 1950, the only people at all who could logically be ascribed as “sitting in the chair of Moses” ­as teachers – would be the various crown-lost leaders of the many Truth groups – of which RGJ is self-admittedly one of them. This will not be difficult to understand if we keep in mind that Moses in some instances typed the Gospel-Age Star Members, of whom Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were parts. Thus those now attempting to “sit in Moses’ seat” would be those Truth-group leaders who claim for themselves a similar position as teachers in the Church – especially so since 1950. RGJ in particular makes such claim for himself – at the same time admitting that he is a levite, and not a Priest. The inconsistency of his claim is thus pointedly apparent to all not blinded by his flummery. And be it noted that he is the only one of the Truth-group leaders who claims adherence to both Parousia and Epiphany Truth. Of the leaders in Big Babylon – whom RGJ would now place “in Moses’ seat” ­not a one of them makes any claim to acceptance even of Parousia Truth, to say nothing of Epiphany Truth. But, just as the High Priest of Israel grossly perverted much of the inspired writings of Moses, so RGJ now also grossly per­verts much of the Scriptural teachings of the last two Star Members. This analogy should not be difficult to understand.

Therefore, the interpretation now – to be PRESENT TRUTH – must assuredly point out those leaders as the successors to the ones Brother Russell catalogued in the Parousia. And, to apply his interpretation for the Parousia now in this Epiphany period would be just as wrong as it would be to continue the Parousia call, “Come out of her, My people” when the Saints were there, and the High Call­ing was open. A little retrospection will make this vividly clear: The typi­cal Scribes and Pharisees were found among the very group of people from whom Jesus and the Apostles reaped the Elect – those who wholeheartedly accepted Christianity from among the Jews. And during the Parousia the antitypical Scribes and Pharisees were found among the very groups from whom the Harvest workers reaped the very Elect – those who responded to the call, “Come out of her, My people.” And once the Parousia ended another call went forth to the very Elect among the various Truth groups – altho, as the Epiphany Messenger himself stated, he did not have a charge over those people (as did Brother Russell during the Parousia), he did have a ministry toward them, which some of them accepted, although the majority did not. But of those who did not, we ourselves have heard quite a few of them voice strong disapproval of much that goes on there – just as quite a few also voice strong disapproval of RGJ’s present methods, although they do not openly and actively resist him – not yet anyway. But they “sigh and cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.” (Eze. 9:4)

And, as the Epiphany Messenger said, he believed there were more of the very Elect in the Society than there were with him – with some of them also in other Truth groups. Thus, it would be a very ready conclusion to recog­nize that the antitypical Scribes and Pharisees would now be seen in those various groups that contain the very Elect – just as was true at the First Advent – and the same also true during the Parousia. Thus, it should be readily clear that what was logically enough PRESENT TRUTH in the Parousia could not possibly be Present Truth now in the Epiphany. That is why the Present Truth prior to 1950 concerned itself so much more with the sins of teaching and practice in Little Babylon – a procedure which has been con­spicuously absent from the Present Truth since 1950. Nor should the reason for that be at all difficult to find. All of which forces us to the conclu­sion that the Editor of the Bible Standard is being pushed further and further into the “outer darkness” of Matt. 25:30 – which is the punishment meted out to the “unprofitable servant” – the Great Company here in the end of the Age (See Berean Comment). This situation would be most analogous to the Scribes and Pharisees in the Jewish Harvest becoming more and more blinded and solidified in their developed errors until their complete elimination at the dispersion in A. D. 70 – the same being exactly what will occur here in the end of the Age when Armageddon arrives.

All during the Parousia the antitypical Scribes and Pharisees demon­strated the same clericalism as did those typical ones against Jesus. Dur­ing the Parousia they were busy making public burnings of the Truth litera­ture, reviling and slandering That Servant, and forbidding their devotional slaves to converse or even give common courtesy to the colporteurs and others when they would approach them at home or on the street. And now during this Epiphany period those Antitypical Scribes and Pharisees in Little Babylon are doing exactly the same things. The Jehovah’s Witnesses warn their deluded ‘dedicated’ devotees to mark well the homes of those who have Present Truth, and to “avoid them” – don’t accept any literature from them – don’t even engage in conversation. And in identical fashion RGJ also advises his sec­tarian supporters: “You wouldn’t shake hands with the Devil, would you?” he rants from the platform; or you wouldn’t stop to talk with the Devil if you met him on the street. Of course, such conduct is a direct revolutionism of both Parousia and Epiphany Truth, because Brother Russell clearly teaches in Volume Six that disfellowshiped brethren should still receive common courtesy, a gracious greeting concerning their present spiritual state. Before RGJ had gone so far into “outer darkness,” he related on several occasions how Brother Johnson shook hands with Ed Williams: “For old time’s sake, Ed,” he had said to him. It is well to note here that in most cases in our encounters with the members of Big Babylon, they are very courteous and accept our literature with thanks. Some of them have reported that they have used our tract – ­Where Are the Dead – in their Sunday School Class; others have reported they found The Great Reformer most helpful in their Sunday Schools. Nor do we mean to indicate that many of them are ready for Present Truth – but at least their attitude toward it has changed considerably from what it was during the Parousia.

All of the foregoing brings us to the conclusion that the same kind of people show the same character traits. “By their fruits (their character qualities) you will discover them!” (Matt. 7:16, Dia.) Therefore, when we see the Witness leaders, RGJ and others following the exact footsteps, mani­festing the same “fruits” as did the antitypical Scribes and Pharisees dur­ing the Parousia, this one thing in itself should convince all of their real heart condition, and what manner of persons they really are. Thus, we offer a very fitting summation to this subject from Epiphany Volume 8, p. 349 (46):

“Among many Truth people clericalism (Baal worship – the “drunkards of Ephraim!—JJH) is one of the burning questions! It is almost everywhere rampant.... Trampled under the feet of these clericalists the democracy that in Brother Russell’s day exercised the autonomy and independence of the ecclesias.... is being destroyed. Some of the brethren have been aroused to appropriate action in this matter; some are very timidly resisting, and some have learned to wear slavest chains, ground down, oppressed, spoiled of their rights and liberties, and enslaved under a priestcraft more subtle, yet no less real, than that which flourishes in the papal, episcopal and presby­terian sects of Christendom. How long will those who enjoyed the liberty of Christ in our Pastor’s days tolerate this? Yet a few years and it will and forever; for the Epiphany movement in part (as it was conducted before October 1950—JJH) is a protest against clericalism (which protest we ourselves continue to proclaim in harmony with the teaching in Epiphany Volume Five, pp. 233-235—JJH) in the form of revolutionism, and it will prevail to the utter overthrow of such clericalism in due time.”

A WORD FROM THAT SERVANT

Close companion to the foregoing is Brother Russell’s answer to the Question: How should we greet those who have left the class and call us worse than Babylon? Shall we give them a hearty greeting when they come to our meetings?

Brother Russell’s answer: “I think not. Why should you? I am going to be specially hearty to those who are specially like my dear Redeemer, marked with the character likeness of my Redeemer. I would not be so hearty with those who have left the class, just to let them see there is a difference. Otherwise, they might think they were better than those in the class; because they had become obstreperous in some way. They should be greeted according to the Apostle’s words, ‘Mark those who cause divisions and offenses.’ Mark those who are tending toward division, and don’t make them your bosom companions; don’t elect them as elders, etc., for that is just the wrong thing. Don’t encourage anybody who has a strifeful condition. Lay him on the shelf and let him have strife to himself. let us be careful that we do not cultivate any­thing in our own hearts, of their spirit. Let us be gentle. but firm. If any such should approach me, I would shake hands with him (just as Brother Johnson did with Ed Williams—JJH). I would not say, No, I will not shake hands with you. But I would not make any of them my bosom companions. We want to remember what they said of the Apostles in the early Church, ‘They took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.’ We want to make our bosom companion our Lord Jesus. We want to be with Jesus; and those who have most of His character likeness will be most like Him. They are all those who have the spirit of Christ. He spent more of His time and chose those who should be near Him from among those who had most of His spirit – Peter, James and John. These three were with him in the Mount of Transfiguration, and they were nearest to Him in the Garden of Gethsemane. ‘Counsel with those who have the spirit of the Lord,”

What a wide difference between That Servant and the Editor of the Bible Standard! But then we should remember that Brother Russell had the TRUTH, and the spirit of the Truth – he was not a crown-loser – all of which does indeed make the wide difference.

“The eyes of the lord preserve knowledge, and He overthroweth the words of the transgressor. He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.” (Prov. 22:12; 17:27)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

Question: – Would you advise that we return religious literature we don’t care to read, and don’t agree with, marked, “Refused”?

Answer: – No, we do not advocate such a method. Some of these people send their writings because they believe they are doing us a favor. Our advice is to write them and request they remove the name from their mailing list, as you don’t agree with them, and you do not care to read what they send you. This would save them time and expense, and would be a proper Christian gesture. If they continue to send you literature after that, then just dispose of it along with other undesir­able advertising material – if you don’t care to read their views. In none of this should we indulge in vituperations, or railing, if we are to keep the Truth and its Spirit.

We occasionally receive envelopes with insulting notations written across them. The LHMM brethren are the most rabid sectarians of all the Truth groups – that is, toward us. We rarely receive such insults from other groups – not even from the Jehovah’s Witnesses to whom we send our papers – which is to their credit. We have a large mailing list of extra names from the various groups, to whom we send special papers, as the Epiphany Messenger also did. Just recently, however, we received a card from one of RGJ’s sectarian devotees, addressed to “Sifter.” This is not surprising, as RGJ has set the example in his railings from the Con­vention platforms and through his writings and advice. So the brother no doubt believed he was offering us ‘Christian’ courtesy. Ledlings rarely rise above their leaders.

A railing letter was sent to one of our group recently regarding two papers (our Nos. 147 and 148) he had received, in which he said:

“I have found Mr. Hoefle’s writings highly deceptive, false arrogant and in many instances mawkish.”

He is one of RGJ’s representatives and sectarian ledlings. Our Nos. 147 and 148 doubtless discomfited him, even as they did RGJ. JWK gives the same instruction to his ledlings – both “cousins” following in the foot­steps of JFR (instead of the footsteps of That Servant and the Epiphany Messenger) who gave the Epiphany Messenger and his papers much the same treatment. We can only conclude that the “cousins” are receiving their instructions from the same source as did JFR - AZAZEL! All three have done this because they could not meet the Truth presented against their errors. We have yet to meet one such person so lacking in common courtesy who has a good clear knowledge of Parousia Truth, to say nothing of Epiphany Truth. Once brethren become “established in the Present Truth” they also acquire enough of ordinary civility to restrain them from using the papal ways of the Adversary. “For the love of Christ constraineth us.” (2 Cor. 5:14)

When RGJ and his ledlings were under the benign influence and leadership of Brother Johnson they didn’t have to stoop to such tactics – and so far as we know they didn’t resort to such cowardly methods. In fact, RGJ received some of the same treatment from JFR and the Society then that he is giving us now,” He didn’t fear the errorists then – nor did he fear for the Epiphany-enlightened brethren to read their literature and their errors. He was on the side of Truth in those days – at least outwardly – and “Blessed were his untoward experiences” then!

To those of us who receive such treatment because of our faithfulness to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren – blessed are we! “It is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master, and the servant as his Lord. If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of His household?” (Matt. 10:25) “Persecution has taken the forms of reviling, slandering, hatred, despite, boycotting... excommunication,” etc. (See Epiphany Volume Eight, p. 641)

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Your paper No. 148 is certainly a MASTERPIECE! Thank you very much! During the past years I will admit I did not like the way you handled RGJ. With continued reading, etc., I then knew he had it coming to him. Then I read how he castigated you. So I wrote him, explaining it was not the Christian thing to do – that I felt I knew John Hoefle, and I believed you were sincere, and had the FAITH ONCE DELIVERED UNTO THE SAINTS. I concluded my subscription to his paper – and that was that!

Yesterday I phoned a friend (whose eyes are open), and she tells me the Watch Tower claims the Ten Commandments of God are a thing of the past – done with forever. Her husband is still a servant of one of the units (and stubborn as a mule). This morning I looked up in my huge Concordance for the word ‘forever.’ Could not find it... Seems to me I read God’s Commandments are to stand forever. Yes, I know about the New Commandment Jesus gave His followers.

Please comment on this....

One evening a nurse from across the street told me she had a Jehovah’s Witness call on her just any old time of the day for a study – when not expected. Says her husband drinks Saturday evenings, but he is good to her. The JW told her when he died (a drunkard) he would never receive a resurrection. I asked her if she would take the words of Jesus, which I quoted her: “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice. And shall come forth,” etc. I explained word for word what it meant – that God would give them a body as it pleased Him....

Now I am tired. Keep up the good work and give us more papers like #148. Excuse mistakes. I am just an Old Lady who keeps on studying and writing letters. Christian love to you and Sister Hoefle.

Sincerely, Sister ------- (MICHIGAN)

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

Dear Brother....... Greetings! Some misguided person sent my name and address to Mr. Hoefle. He has sent to me at my address two of his papers, which I instantly committed to the flames. I want it to be known that I have found Mr. Hoefle’s writings highly deceptive, false, arrogant and in many instances mawkish. Men and Brethren, be it known unto you, I will have nothing to do with Mr. Hoefle’s vomit. He and his kind cannot deceive me. As his representative, will you please, dear Brother, write and let him know that I don’t want his papers now, or hereafter.

I remain .------- (TRINIDAD)

NOTE: The leaders in Azazel’s clutches attract kindred spirits to themselves.

Indeed, “By their fruits you will discover them.” (Matt. 7:16, Dia.)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Christian greetings!

Was glad to get your letter... Should have answered sooner. We like all your papers very much. I have mailed two to Brother ------- The Bible Students have a Convention every year... We usually go to their Conventions.

Would like to have three more of your TWO DISTINCT SALVATIONS and the same of No. 140.

Sincerely your brother In Christ ------- (ARKANSAS)

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

Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n

Mount Dora, Florida - 32757

Dear Sirs: Please send us the following literature:

No. 1 - Where Are the Dead?

No. 2 - What Is the Soul?

No. 3 - The Resurrection of the Dead.

Sincerely,

Pastor ------- Baptist Church (NORTH CAROLINA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

I received the advance copy of October paper in answer to RGJ’s article in the JuIy-August Present Truth – which was very good! I see you are on your toes and always able to defend the Truth. R. G. Jolly’s folly is becoming more and more manifest as time goes on.

Was very sorry to hear of the death of your brother-in-law – and I wish to give you our heartfelt sympathy in your sorrow. It sure is hard to lay our loved ones to rest – but our hope is that it will not be long until we meet them again.

Wishing you all the Lord’s greatest blessings – and with

Much Christian love, Your Brother... (MICHIGAN)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied!

Yours of the 7th came to hand quite safe – with the October paper, for which I am most thankful. As to my health, thanks to our dear Heavenly Father for His mercies, I am much Improved.....

I noted in the Nov-Dec. PT where RGJ accuses you of being persistently in opposition to various teachings of the Scriptures as presented by Pastor Russell and Pastor Johnson – a thing that he himself frequently does – and, as a matter of fact, the 1 Cor. 15:24 is a case to the point. He opposes the teachings of the Scriptures – and in this case he surely can’t be mistaken, but a direct opposition to the teachings of the Scriptures...

I want to send the names and addresses of a few of the leaders in ------- so that you can send them literature direct.

Sister joins me in sending Christian love to you and Sister Hoefle and the dear sisters with you. The Lord make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee.

Yours in the One Hope, Brother ------- (TRINIDAD)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

Thank you very much for your letter of August 10. I do believe now that I can give a very definite reason for my belief on 1 Cor. 15:24 ­without saying “because Brother Hoefle says so.” The October paper does make it very clear – and I do appreciate your sending it to me early.

We are studying Tabernacle Shadows in class, and it has not been long since we studied the pages to which you refer. Therefore, I am familiar with them.

I suppose you are thinking about the Labor Day Convention, and I will certainly be thinking about the both of you.

Love from all of us, ------- (NORTH CAROLINA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

In answer to your letters...... and we do thank you! Your letters are so encouraging and helpful along our Christian way. We suppose you will be getting ready to leave for the Convention. We shall, dear Brother, await your report. Be assured we will be with you in spirit, and pray the Lord’s richest blessing be your portion as you minister to the dear brethren, and seek to guide them in the way of Truth and Righteousness. Sister and I thank our dear Heavenly Father daily for His blessings ­temporal, spiritual and for His Providential overruling from day to day. We really feel His deep interest in us. Praise His Holy Name! We are so thankful that the time is growing short, and soon all shall see and know – understand God’s great Plan of the Ages..... As you, dear Brother, have said previously, We all need the Kingdom!

Sister and I want to again say how much we enjoy receiving and read­ing – and studying – your monthly papers. Be assured that Sister and I ask God to bless you and keep you both in His loving care.

By His Grace, Brother & Sister ------- (NEW JERSEY)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace!

You will be happy to hear that we have served several Protestant churches with the No. 7 – The Great Reformer – and it was well received. The Sunday the Jehovah’s Witnesses were in..... we served a Baptist Church and then on to the JW Convention to serve them. Since the town had out the ‘red’ carpet for the JW’s (as they bring in a lot of money where their Conventions are held), it was an easy task to give out the tracts. It seems the church people were determined to be nice to the JW’s. The people at the church thought we were JW’s – and one man came out and said, “let me see that JW – I want to give them something.” He gave me a pamphlet from their church, and I gave him the No. 7 (which will prove quite a revelation to him when he reads it and discovers that we are very much NOT JW’s), with the understand­ing he would read mine if I would read his.

But it was quite different at the JW Convention! We were on the sidewalk handing out the papers. The ‘watchdogs’ saw us and were very nasty to us ­seized some of the tracts we had given the people, and in one instance stomped it on the street. But we got out quite a few anyway before the rain started.

The Lord bless you as you seek to serve Him and His Truth!

By His Grace  -------

NO. 148: 1 COR. 15:24 AGAIN

No. 148

On page 56 of the July‑August Present Truth R. G. Jolly (hereinafter for convenience referred to as RGJ – Just as Brother Johnson referred to J.F. Rutherford as JFR) attempts to answer our presentation on the above text in our paper No. 144, July 1967. And revealing once more his “bad conscience” (E‑10:585), he resorts to his usual name‑calling, slander and railing accusations. It may seem strange to some that he does not resort to such tactics when discussing the errors of Jehovah’s Witnesses; but there is sound explanation for this: Against the Witnesses he has the Truth and is refuting error, so he has no need for mud‑slinging – the Truth is more than sufficient for his purposes. But, in his altercations with us the situation is reversed – so much so that vilification is about the only weapon left to him, as he attempts to defend his errors.

All of our readers will readily admit that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were not infallible; but they both had the humility and nobility of character to admit mistakes when they made them – just as David and other outstanding Bible personages did with their failings. But do we find RGJ admitting any of his mistakes? Certainly he has made plenty of them since 1950, so that he comes well within the scope of Brother Johnson’s declaration that “Bungling is the usual and natural activity of the Great Company.” In proof of this we offer just one instance – the 1954 Attestatorial Service. This activity was begun with much fanfare, even producing Volumes 18 and 19 (mix‑numbering them 16 and 17 ahead of the order in which the Epiphany Messenger had arranged them) as special material for the occasion. It would be most interesting to know if he has sold enough of these two books even to pay for the original cost of setting the type. Will he answer this? It will be a pleasant surprise if he does’

But further – and more important – relating to the same is his own record for that Attestatorial Service: According to his Annual Report for 1954 (see page 11 of the January 1955 PT), he had 1422 subscribers to the Present Truth; and for 1966 (see page 10 of the January 1967 PT – the Annual Report) he had only 934 subscribers to his paper. So, for that “special effort” he lost ‘only’ 488 subscribers to the Present Truth, or almost 30% of his readers. It is probably in order here to say that we have gained much more than 30% in the readers of our paper that we have been issuing since that time. Is it any wonder that he has an inordinate urge to talk – to talk when he has just nothing to say? “Loquacious and repetitious” (E-10:591) – repeat, repeat, repeat! His Attestatorial Service since 1954 should cause him to hang his head in shame for “running ahead of the Lord” – if he has any shame in him.

SOME PROPER QUESTIONS

In his answer to our presentation on 1 Cor. 15:24, RGJ offers copious citations from Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, coupled with his usual name calling of us, and his own profuse comments to prove us wrong. Did he know all this in 1949, or is this something just new to him? And, if he did know it back there – and Brother Johnson knew it, too (as he now claims) – why did the both of them make such a tragic oversight when they proof-read the Herald of the Epiphany for November 15, 1949? Since Brother Johnson is not here, RGJ will have the privilege of speaking for himself on this query. Will he do it? And why is it that he was completely silent on our analysis of Rev. 20:13,14: “Death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire”? Can it possibly be that he Just overlooked it (although we allowed a copious paragraph for it on the first page of our paper No. 144); or is it that he has no answer, leaving silence as his only retreat? Here is a clear Scripture with a direct bearing on the discussion a Scripture necessary to the analysis if the whole truth on the item is to be obtained. Therefore, will we now hear from him on it?

FURTHER ANALYSIS

“Death and Hell cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” – Rev. 20:14. In a broad and accommodated sense it may properly be stated that the “lake of fire” has existed all during this Age, and that a certain specific few have been cast into it – beginning with Judas. The same situation will also prevail under the Kingdom reign with those “sinners a hundred years old, who shall be accursed.” (Isa. 65:20) But “the lake of fire prepared for the Devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41) is much more exclusive, having only one time setting – at the very extreme end of the Little Season. And the Scripture is very explicit that “death and Hell” are also cast therein at the same time. And, so far as we know, there is only one type, or other Old Testament reference, to this grand drama, the same being the destruction of Pharaoh and his Egyptian hosts in the Red Sea as they were pursuing Israel.

This is all very graphically and detailedly explained in E-11:245‑296; and at the bottom of page 252 there is this statement: “Satan will use this doctrine deceptively, by ignoring the fact that the thousand years will end lappingly just as they began lappingly, in various stages – 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1914, and by reiterating in his tempting suggestions that it ended in 2874” – Just as one now in Azazel’s clutches is also contending for 2874. On page 250 it is stated that Satan, the fallen angels and apostate restitutionists will enter the Little Season with perfect faculties, but not perfect characters. Before 2874 the “sheep” will not recognize the “goats” – just as was true during the Parousia for the Great Company as such. It was then not known which were Little Flock and which were Great Company so long as they conformed outwardly at least to the Harvest Truth; and this will be the identical situation between the good and bad restitutionists up to 2874. But the testings of the Little Season will make this revelation; and will gradually educate the faithful for the antitypical Red Sea experience which will annihilate the unfaithful at the full end of the Little Season.

But their destruction is not what is meant by “death and Hell” being cast into the lake of fire, the antitypical Red Sea – although these will occur simultaneously – at the full end of the Little Season. In this connection, Volume E‑8, pp. 603‑620 present an excellent analysis of the Gospel‑Age and Millennial‑Age Passovers, with their pertinent applications and meanings to the firstborns and the afterborns. The afterborns are classified as the “defiled” ones during this Gospel Age (Num. 9:9‑14), who must cleanse themselves during the next Age – must have this cleansing completed before the start of the Little Season – otherwise, they will fall in the Little Season test.

On page 608 is the following: “The defilement and its condemnation lasting seven days types the fact that one must undergo actual or reckoned cleansing of the Millennial Age, the antitypical seventh day, in order to be rid of the Adamic defilement and condemnation” – the Adamic death Process  (sin, error and selfishness). And further on page 616: “If he (the defiled one) leaves any of these – (Christ’s right to life and life rights) unappropriated, he enters the Little Season with an imperfect character and thus will fall in the final trial during the Little Season” – he will be cast into the lake of fire, the antitypical Red Sea, along with the Devil and his angels at the full end of the Little Season. Note, please, how clear it is from the foregoing quotation that Brother Johnson considered the “defiled” ones as entering the Little Season still contaminated with the Adamic death process (sin, error, selfishness) – which, therefore, cannot be destroyed until its possessor is also destroyed. ‘‘That final trial will be the last stand that Satan, sin and error and all in sympathy with them will ever make; for oppression (of Satan, sin and error, with their concomitants of dying and death – the Adamic death process – JJH) shall not rise again.” (E‑11:268)

Lest any misunderstand us, we emphasize that 1874 is clearly marked in the Bible, as is also 2874, and would properly be designated as the Kingdom day the time during which “all that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and come forth” (John 5:28, 29). It was Brother Russell’s surmise that the awakening of all the dead race might occur within the first five hundred years of that Day. This we do not attempt to dispute, but merely to observe that it will perforce have to be fully accomplished by 2774 (100 years ahead of 2874) if “the sinner a hundred years old” is to have his hundred‑year opportunity. However, at whatever time, when the last one leaves the tomb, that day will also mark the end of Adamic death state; no more will be contained in the Adamic death state, no more can ever enter it. That enemy will be destroyed that identical day – many years before 2874. That being true, and since it occurs at least a hundred Years before the start of the Little Season, it should be readily apparent to all that the tomb, the death state, cannot possibly be the “last enemy” to be destroyed. Thus, there is left only one other fleshly enemy – and that is the Adamic death process ‑ that last enemy to be destroyed.

On page 57, col. 2 (top), of the article under discussion, R. G. Jolly quotes from an early Present Truth by Brother Johnson:

“The Present Truth stands squarely and sincerely for the Parousia Truth, as basic for all further development of the Truth. Thus it heartily embraces the system of Truth which is presented in the writings of our beloved Pastor, as well as holds to its principles and spirit. Whenever he gives two or more harmonious views of a Scriptural passage or doctrine, we accept all; whenever, as in a few instances in the great system of Truth which he presented, these cannot be harmonized, we accept the latest expressions, unless they are manifestly not so harmonious with the Scriptures, reason and facts as earlier ones.”

Then R. G. Jolly says for himself, “This is still the policy of THE PRESENT TRUTH, and we apply the same rule to Brother Johnson’s writings.”

It will be noted that on the previous page we quoted from Epiphany Vol. 8, page 608; and we call attention to the fact that the first nine volumes of Epiphany Studies (including Vol. 8, of course) were first published in 1938. Would R. G. Jolly tell us now that this Vol. 8 is also a “later expression not harmonious with the Scriptures,” and that this is his reason for rejecting also this part of Vol. 8 – as he also now tries to do with the Herald of the Epiphany of Nov. 15, 1949?

MORE FROM THE MESSENGERS

First of all, we offer again the Nov. 15, 1949 Herald, identically as we gave it in our paper No. 144:

“He (Christ) shall have put down all rule and all authority and all power (every vestige of the governorship and of the Pretended authority and of the pretended might of Satan, all of this will be put down by the almighty hand of Christ, the head, and the Church, the Body, using God’s power as that almighty power in their hand). For He must reign until He hath put all enemies under His feet (thus we see that not only persons are these enemies, but also things. The Adamic death in the sense of the dying Process is this last great enemy; and, because of His faithfulness, Jesus became the One who will after the close of the Millennium finally destroy it.”

If we should now agree with RGJ about that ‘faulty’ disc, and change the “of” to “is” as he demands, just what difference would it make in the above statement of explanation by Brother Johnson? The only logical change to be made here – if indeed a change is required – would be to eliminate the entire statement we have just quoted, and declare that statement to be the real mistake. Clearly enough, he didn’t dare do that – even some of his sleeping readers might then have become aroused.

But we offer some more from E-11, Chap. IV, wherein is described the deliverance of the afterborn, the full accomplishment of which occurs at the full end of the Little Season. On page 274 Brother Johnson treats of Rev. 20:10, 14 and 15. We gave a detailed analysis of some of this in our paper No. 144, declaring that “death” in Rev. 20:13, 14 refers not to the Adamic death state, but the ADAMIC DEATH PROCESS; and on page 274 Brother Johnson offers exactly the same interpretation that we do. And let us keep in mind that this Revelation Scripture is probably the outstanding companion text of 1 Cor. 15:24, because the “death” in both texts is from the Greek ‘thanatos’; and means the same in both texts. Therefore, we now ask – is RGJ also now casting aside Rev. 20:13, 14, and branding Brother Johnson’s interpretation on that text wrong, too? Volume 11 was published in 1948 – at least a year before the Nov. 15, 1949 Herald; and we all know the material had to be prepared for publication sometime before 1948.

Next we offer another quotation from Brother Russell (Reprints 5293, col. 1, par. 2):

“While the sprinkling of the blood upon the Mercy Seat on behalf of all the people takes place before restitution begins, or before the right to live can be given to any of the Ancient Worthies, nevertheless, those who would get God’s blessing, His uplifting influence, must become Israelites – that is, become believers in God, by believing in the Mediator, who will be God’s representative. This law will be applicable to the whole world. If mankind would get everlasting life, they must accept Christ and join themselves to this earthly Kingdom class. Christ’s Kingdom must rule until all the wicked are destroyed. – 1 Cor. 15:24‑26”

Here is some more that RGJ is now ready to toss into the waste basket. Certainly, it needs no large amount of Present Truth to know that the “wicked” of the foregoing are the “goats” that will be destroyed at the end of the Little Season, along with their defilements of the Adamic death Process (sin, error and selfishness). And, since RGJ has branded our presentation in No. 144 as “sifting literature...from Satan,” it would seem he must now also do the same thing with large parts of Brother Russell’s and Brother Johnson’s writings. He should certainly make himself clear here.

Inasmuch as the Adamic death state will be eliminated by 2774 at the very latest, it should be clear to all that it cannot possibly be the “last enemy” of 1 Cor. 15:24. Israel’s escape across the Red Sea makes this all crystal clear: With Pharaoh typing Satan, the Egyptians type the “wicked” mentioned above by Bro. Russell; they are the typical “goats” of the parable, even as the fleeing Israelites are the typical “sheep” of the parable; and the Red Sea saving the “sheep,” and at the same time destroying the “goats” is the typical Lake of Fire of Rev. 20:14. Speaking of those “goats,” Brother Johnson says on page 125 of Vol. 17:

“By the trial during the Little Season at the Millennium’s close, their (the ‘goats’– JJH) unholy heart’s condition (the Adamic death process – JJH) will become manifest, and they will perish in the Second Death – everlasting destruction (Rev. 20:7‑9, 15).”

Inasmuch as those entering the Little Season do so with perfect faculties, it should require no great argument that the “unholy heart’s condition” of the “goats” is the Adamic death process still present with them. That is why the Adamic death Process is “the last enemy”: Those persons “defiled” with it must first be destroyed before the thing can be annihilated. Thus, Brother Johnson’s statement in the Nov. 15, 1949 Herald that “not only persons are these enemies, but also things” is correct, and must stand as he gave it. The “persons” in his statement are the same as “the wicked” in Brother Russell’s statement, the same as the “goats” in the parable – to be destroyed when “cometh the end” – the “end of the Little Season.”

It should also be evident from the foregoing that the “goats,” with their perfect faculties, could have rid themselves of their “unholy heart’s condition” which they were physically able to do, but simply willfully refused to do it. This is in strict keeping with the Harvest of the Jewish Age: the “wheat” accepted Christ, and were physically able to make their “calling and election sure,” even as the “chaff” of that nation were consumed in the fire of destruction by the Roman Army in the year 70 AD. The “wheat” were physically able to gain salvation; thus, the “chaff” also could have gained it had they willed to do so. And in the Harvest of this Age the “tares” are to be burned, as the “wheat” is gathered into the Heavenly barn. The “wheat” were physically able to do what was required of them to gain their objective; and, while the Great Company were also physically able to do the same thing (to do all that the Lord required of them), they refused through measurable “unholy heart’s condition, “and must also pass through the ‘fire’ of this Age – though not to their destruction, but to their cleansing. This they will also be physically able to do; and those who do not do it act from choice – just as will the “goats” who choose to go into the Lake of Fire at the full end of the Little Season.

In view of the foregoing, it should be evident to any ‘babe’ in the Truth that the pursuing Egyptians were the Jews’ enemies, and that those enemies are antityped by the wicked, the “goats” that go into the antitypical Red Sea – the Lake of Fire – the second death at the full end – of the Little Season. This then makes the Lake of Fire, the second death, the friend of the “sheep,” because it forever separates them from their enemies. It is well to remember, however, that, while Satan and his angels also go into the Lake of Fire, it may not be strictly correct to speak of them going into the second death, because they never came under the Adamic condemnation. The consummate result, however is the same – they go into eternal annihilation, just as do the “goats,” who may properly be described as going into the second death. Once more this analysis sets out the “last enemy” as the Adamic death process operating in the “goats” because of their unruly heart’s condition – impregnated with sin, error and selfishness, which would actually do violence to the “sheep,” and probably will really do so with the Worthies by perhaps murdering them. It would appear that the “goats” will perish in exact manner as did Nadad and Abihu when “there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them.” (Lev. 10:1‑2)

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, TOO

In the August 15 1967 Watch Tower the Witnesses also treat 1 Cor. 15:24, giving it the exact interpretation offered by RGJ in his August 1967 Present Truth although in this instance the Witnesses simply present their views without calling others “sifting errorists,” etc., who may differ with them. However, the Witnesses are emphatic that they are “The Channel” for the Truth – the same claim that is made also by “cousin” Krewson. Therefore, RGJ has two “Channels” in full agreement with him, and he should be able to answer our views with greater ease, now having the assistance of these two great “Mouthpieces.”

A SOBER APPRAISAL

In closing, we would say to our readers that we do not consider an incorrect understanding of 1 Cor. 15:24 to be a sifting error. Such a mistake will not cause any one to lose his Class standing – any more than would the improper date for the Memorial cause any one to lose his Class standing. A few years back, when we were diligently endeavoring to present the correct method to determine the Memorial date – to keep it as a Spring festival, as the Jews have always done with their Passover – the “cousins” (Jolly‑Krewson) offered much ridicule in their attacks against us. However, at no time did we suggest dire consequences for them – or for any one else – who did not agree with us; nor did we recommend disfellowshiping any one because of it. That is also our attitude on 1 Cor. 15:24. Not so, however, with RGJ. He, true to his past record – “loquacious, repetitious and false accusing” (E‑10:591) – is profuse in his name‑calling: “sifting errorist sifting literature – from Satan.” Brother Russell and Brother Johnson were never forced to stoop to such tactics. Almost invariably, during this Epiphany period, when intricate texts have come under examination, the real sifters never have the Truth on them – the Lord does not show them such favor. See 2 Thes. 2:11 Berean Comment.

Although we feel none of us are warranted in disfellowshiping others because of a differing opinion on either of the above subjects, nevertheless we, as Truth people, should seek to know the Truth on every Bible passage, and particularly on such teachings as prominent as are “the last enemy” and the correct Memorial date. It is for that reason we go into quite some detail to offer the Truth on these teachings, believing that by so doing it will enable our readers to grow in Grace and in the knowledge of our Beloved Lord Jesus. Our fond wish to all on these, and on all Truth matters, is that “thou mayest prosper, and be in health” Spiritually and physically – “even as thy soul prospereth.” (3 John 2)

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Brother Krewson gives 1975 as the beginning of Armageddon – and the end of the “hour” of Rev. 17:12, What is your opinion of that?

ANSWER: – As most of our readers know, we presented some figures, too, on that “hour” of Revelation – but we haven’t been dogmatic about it. We still adhere closely to the teaching of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson – that prophecy in its details cannot be understood until it has been fulfilled, or in the course of fulfilment. On this premise we could not unreservedly endorse, or categorically dispute, any attempt to interpret prophecy – unless, of course, it is completely out of line with Scripture, Reason and Fact.

However, we are here confronted with a very intriguing situation, because the Jehovah’s Witnesses are also giving the fall of 1975 for the beginning of Armageddon’ Just as does J. W. Krewson. So we have the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming to be “THE Channel” for advancing Truth since 1916 (after the demise of That Servant), and J. W. Krewson claiming to be “THE Channel” for advancing Truth since 1950 (after the demise of The Epiphany Messenger) with both “Channels” in agreement on the Armageddon date of 1975, even though they arrive at this date by widely divergent methods of calculation.

It would be seemly to observe here that “Great minds run in the same “channel.” And we also observe that the Witnesses have a million or more readers, and a worldwide propaganda “witness” work, compared to a mere handful of readers for J. W. Krewson. Should their (JW’s and JWK’s) prediction prove correct, it is not too difficult accurately to “predict” who would receive the general acclaim – it would be the JW’s not JWK! It will be most interesting to observe their future comments on this.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: We received your manuscripts and enjoyed reading them. We moved here 8 years ago from Milwaukee.... I lived in or near Milwaukee 65 years and went to the Milwaukee meetings since 1912 – saw Bro. Russell the first time in 1913 – and saw him two or three times each year until he died. He was in Milwaukee three weeks before he died. A wonderful man he was! I believe Brother Russell was right in all his teachings – except the trouble is traveling much slower than what he at one time thought it would. He saw by the end of 1913 that not everything could take place by 1914.

I went to the Bible House in the fall of 1919 and wanted to make that my life’s work – but I was fed up with the way Rutherford did things – fed up in a short time. I was there when he gave Bro. Fisher a tongue lashing right at the table for almost nothing. The Fishers left the Bible House, and I didn’t blame them. Later on the JUDGE threw the 7th Volume over – just because Geo. Fisher left the Watch Tower. (See note below – JJH)

If you want to know what worldly men say about J. F. Rutherford get Charles S. Braden’s book and others …. One writer calls Rutherford the CZAR of the Witnesses. The strange thing about these writers, they say what type JFR was, but do not say anything against Bro. Russell. Frank Mead said in his book that Rutherford was the HIERARCHY type. (It is remarkable how some of the worldly men come to a correct conclusion on some of these people – particularly That Evil Servant – JJH). It would be nice to have a booklet or manuscript to give to the Witnesses to show how often the Judge changed his views; it might get some of them to see their wrong way.

There are many things I could talk with you about. But it is hard for me to write. We do not say “I am of the Dawn or of the Herald”; we like all the Bible Students who believe in “to us the SCRIPTURES CLEARLY TEACH.” If you should ever get near us, do stop in.

I would like to have you mail your manuscripts to my brother – also to my wife’s sister, as follows...... I do thank you for mailing us your writings – and may GOD bless you! I am your brother in Christ, ------- (ARKANSAS)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied!

Brother thanks you for your letter of June 18 – and we are pleased about the favourable response you are having with the No. 7 (Great Reformer tract); and in His providences we trust it will awaken some of our British brethren and Protestants. We will do our best to distribute, and if we can use more, will be glad of your offer. It will be interesting to read the letter of the Evangelist who has his own Television and Radio programs in America..... We often feel we are unprofitable servants – especially now not physically able to do what we were able to do when younger. Sisters D and R had a day with us and Sr. D. said she would love to contribute something during this year. She asked if it was possible to send you a subscription.

Your monthly papers are appreciated and the tracts you have published. We are glad to be associated with you – and pray the Lord to continue to prosper you and all at the Bible House as you seek His Will and Purposes. Your prayers are much appreciated. Brother is improving – and he knows the Lord will give strength unto His people. Christian love to you, Sr. Hoefle and all from Brother and Sister ------- (ENGLAND)

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

NOTE: About 1926, after George Fisher had left the Society, he wrote us personally that any one who could not recognize J. F, Rutherford as That Evil Servant was Just that much out of Present Truth. And Brother Johnson told us personally that the Ezekiel section of Vol. 7 (compiled by Brother Fisher) was much superior to the Revelation section compiled by Clayton Woodworth.

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

I am writing for a friend of mine who is interested in receiving your writings. His name and address ------- Would you kindly send him the same as you send to me?

Yours in His service, Bro. ------- (NEW YORK)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in our dear Lord’s Name!

I am thankful for your good letter .... I received the tracts and the box was broken again. But the tracts were in good shape. I have put all out except about 22.....

I am very sorry to hear that your brother‑in‑law died so suddenly, but we are here today and gone tomorrow. I was thinking very much of you and Sister during this trouble in Detroit – and was hoping you would be in Florida at the time. I was also thinking of Brother and Sister ------- in New Jersey.

Please send me some more tracts – send some of all the numbers.

Your sister in the Truth, ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

In harmony with the arrangements the Epiphany Messenger made for the Epiphany, we suggest Sunday, October 15 through Sunday, November 12 for our Special Effort in Antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle. The Battle is not over – and we honor the memory of That Servant (who finished his course October 31, 1916) for his valiant fight against the two King Errors – Eternal Torment and Consciousness of the Dead – antitypical Zebah and antitypical Zalmunna (see Epiphany Vol. 5, pp, 236‑245); as we also honor the memory of the Epiphany Messenger (who finished his course October 22, 1950) for his faithful pursuit of these two King errors all during his faithful ministry. (Rev. 2:10)

It would be well to note here that there are many brethren in the various Truth groups who continue to “bear witness” to these basic Truths – Truths that will eventually annihilate the God‑dishonoring doctrines of Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead. And for this appreciation and faithful service we heartily commend them.

Our No. 1 tract (Where are the Dead), No. 2 (What is the Soul) and No. 3 (The Resurrection of the Dead), are especially adapted for this service – and we suggest that the literature be ordered in time if you wish to participate in this “good fight.” The tracts are free – postage prepaid.

Although our No. 7 tract – The Great Reformer – is not part of Antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle, we believe its distribution paves the way for the Gideon tracts, and other Truths, now at a time when Christendom and the world in general are acclaiming this great Reformer. The No. 7 has received favorable comment and aroused considerable interest in many quarters thus far – both from the Truth groups and Protestant quarters in Christendom. With the help of our faithful brethren we have accomplished a widespread witness work, both in the United States and quite a few foreign countries.

As we seek to “bear witness” to these timely Truths, we honor the Lord, as we honor those whom He honors (1 Sam. 2:30); therefore, we invite all our brethren of like mind to join with us in this Special Effort – and also to join with us in the prayer, God bless their memory!” (1 Tim. 5:17)

NO. 147: THE JUDGMENTS OF THE LORD

No. 147

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

“When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” (Isa. 26:9) Companion to this text in the New Testament is the statement of St. Paul: “He has established a day in which he is about to judge the habitable in righteousness, by a man whom He has appointed, having furnished a proof to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31, Dia.); and the words of Jesus: “An hour comes in which all those in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those having done good things, to a resurrection of life; and those having done evil things, to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28,29—Dia.) All of these texts are in the future tense; all of them refer substantially to the same time – to some distant future day at the time they were spoken. The word ‘Judgment’ in John 5:29 is from the Greek Krisis, improperly translated ‘damnation’ in the King James version; therefore, we use the Diaglott rendering, which correct­ly translates the word as ‘Judgment.’ In the courts of our land, judgment is properly defined as a determination conformable to law and justice; and we believe this could be an acceptable definition for the word in the text we now consider.

SUNDRY INTERIM JUDGMENTS

Christendom generally anticipates a great and awesome Judgment Day, most people holding to the thought that such will be a 24-hour day; but all will cer­tainly readily admit that 24 hours would be miserably inadequate for the inhabitants of the world to “learn righteousness,” because they must first ‘unlearn’ the unright­eousness and the erroneous teachings which they have been imbibing now for more than six thousand years. But St. Peter gives us a clear answer to the length of the Judg­ment Day when he declares, “The heavens (present ecclesiastical institutions) and the earth (the present social order) are reserved unto fire (certain destructive agencies) against the DAY OF JUDGMENT.... but be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Pet. 3:7,8)

Following this premise, we find there has already been one Judgment Day of one thousand years, the same having been applied to Father Adam: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (that is, “dying thou shalt die”). (Gen. 2:17) “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” (Gen. 5:5) Thus, if we consider Adam’s Day as one thous­and years, there is complete harmony in the threatened sentence, “In the day thou eatest thereof.” Before Adam’s day had run its course, he was in the tomb, fully dead; nor have any of his children (with perhaps one exception) ever lived out a thousand-year day – Methuselah, the longest-lived of all, having lived only 969 years. (Gen. 5:27)

But any judgment properly defined must also be preceded by a trial; and such a trial would logically involve a law. And so it was with Adam: “Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day thou eatest there­of thou shalt surely die.” Here is no involved, ponderous or nebulous detail: The restraining threat of punishment for failure in the trial is so brief and clear that a twelve-year-old child would easily comprehend it. We are now in the seventh seven-thousand-year day of the cosmogonic process, the first thousand of which was a judgment day for Adam, and the last thousand years of which will be a judgment involving the Second Adam, the Lord from Heaven, Who will judge the world in righteousness, which righteousness will be learned by Adam’s descendants when “the judgments of the lord are in the earth.” It should be remembered, how­ever, that the results of these two judgment days will be diametrically opposite: The first one brought Adam and his children into the tomb; the second day will bring them out of the tomb, delivering them from the power of death. “I will redeem them from death; I will ransom them from the power of the grave: 0 death, I will be thy plagues; 0 grave, I will be thy destruction.” (Hos. 13:14)

But in the interim between the first and the second thousand-year judgment days other sundry and incidental judgments have been operating, sometimes involv­ing individuals, groups of individuals, and on occasion entire nations. One such instance is the nation of Israel, to whom “the oracles of God had been committed” (Rom. 3:2), but from which they profited so little that they eventually crucified “the Lord of Glory.” And, when they shouted, “His blood be upon us, and upon our children,” the Lord took them at their word: In the year 70 A.D. the Roman army under Titus invaded Palestine, besieged Jerusalem; and, when they had finished their effort in true Roman fashion, a circle of crosses encompassed Jerusalem, with a dead Jew hanging from every one of them.  God had indeed ‘judged’ them by their own words: “His blood be upon us.”

SOME GOSPEL-AGE JUDGMENTS

Writing for Gospel-Age purposes, St. Paul treats further of certain judg­ments: “Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment (before the great thousand-year Judgment Day by “that man whom He hath ordained”); and some they follow after.” (1 Tim. 5:24) It is commonly stated that “Crime does not pay,” but the Bible has a different view of it: “Now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.” (Mal. 3:15) We need mention only a few: Nero, the many wicked popes, some of the Russian Czars, etc. Many of these God allowed to go their way of evil: they had made no promises or vows unto Him; He exacted nothing from them unless it became expedient for His own plans and purposes, especially on behalf of His cov­enant people. Thus, the mouths of the lions were stopped against Daniel the prophet (Dan. 6:4-28), and the furnace fires were harmless against the three Hebrew youths cast therein at Nebuchadnezzar’s command. (Dan. 3:8-30) St. Paul also says, “I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.” (2 Tim. 4:17)

But some men’s sins during this Gospel Day have been open beforehand: It is that class that has agreed, covenanted, to do God’s will, but who have failed to do so – through inability or carelessness. To such St. Paul writes: “My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of Him: For whom the Lord loveth, He chasteneth.” (Heb. 12:5,6) And Rev. 3:19 declares: “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent” (of those evils that require correction)—Rev. 3:19. Here, then, is a class whose sins are open beforehand (before the great Judgment Day that has been “appointed” for the great mass of the human race).  They are further classified as “the called” of this present time – who have responded to the Gospel call not because of force applied to them, but through love of good principles. “I delight to do thy  will,  0  my  God, thy law is within my heart.” (Psa. 40:8)

THE EPIPHANY JUDGEMENT DAY

Of those who answered the “call” during this Gospel Age, our Lord stated, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matt. 22;14) The many called, but not chosen, are described in detail in Rev. 7:9-17. Having promised to forsake the ways of evil, they failed to do it, and were subjected to “great tribulation” to rid then of their defilements. Such people have been with us all during the Age; but it is not until the end of the Age that they clearly become apparent as a class – a “great multitude” who have lost portions of the Truth which once sanc­tified them (some more, some less), and who now sit in “darkness and in the shadow of death.” (Psa. 107:10) And because they have lost the Truth, they would be clearly apparent to those who still retain “the spirit of understanding.”

One outstanding example of the leaders of such people is the Executive Trus­tee of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, who repeatedly reveals his true character by his “double mind, unstable in all his ways.” (Jas. 1:8) On Sept. 3, 1966, this Trustee introduced a notion to his Convention assembled in Philadelphia in which he asked that J. W. Krewson and John J. Hoefle be disfellowshiped – in support of something which he himself had previously done some years ago. And that resolution was “unanimously” (?) passed. Note now his own teaching on such proce­dure on page 13 of the Jan-Feb. 1963 Present Truth:

“Question: Is it scriptural for present-day ecclesias, or for individuals from different ecclesias, to convene to legislate in religious matters for the brethren as a whole?

“Answer: NO, despite that fact that in Big and Little Babylon this is quite frequently done .... Nowhere in the New Testament do we find the churches legislating for one another, or unitedly legislating in religious matters for the church through a corporation, board. committee or individual. To do this is pure Roman Catholicism.  Christ through the Apostles did all the necessary legislating for the general Church.” (Emphasis by the Trustee himself)

This matter is much elaborated on pages 13, 14 and 15 of the 1963 Present Truth; and the Trustee set forth this teaching in his effort to refute J. W. Krewson for wanting then to do exactly what the Executive Trustee has now him­self done against J. W. Krewson – the very same person whom he attempted to silence in 1963. Truly, “a double-minded man is unstable In all his ways”; and had not this Executive Trustee openly admitted that he was of the “great Multitude” of way­ward brethren before 1950 (at which time he became Executive Trustee of the LHMM), the Lord’s “Judgment” would now be clearly manifested to all of us who have retained the Truth and its spirit that he is verily double-minded – a member of the Great Mul­titude. Nor should we be accused of “judging” in this matter, because the Execu­tive Trustee has clearly demonstrated by his “fruits” what manner of person he is; we now merely observe the judgment that the Lord has revealed against him.

And, when he says that the resolution on Sept. 3, 1966 was passed “unani­mously,” we have the word of more than one that attended that meeting that they did not vote for it. Therefore, his statement is a negative truth at best. But of those who did vote for it, we can only say to them now that they have be­come partaker of his sins – in clear violation of St. Paul’s counsel to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:22): “Be not partaker in others’ sins; keep thyself pure.” And we feel that we ourselves would be “a partaker of his sins” should we fail to expose his “double mind” in his infamous performance. Let us not forget also that the Executive Trustee was elected such “for business reasons” only, and not as Pastor and Teacher (although he has arrogated to himself this title, as he attempts to “sit in Moses’ seat”) – attempting to place himself on a par with the Apostles and Bro.  Russell.

In corroboration of this, note his own words as recorded in the Nov. 1955 PT, P. 87, col. 1, pars. 1 & 2:

“Bro.  Russell controlled the Society fully until the day of his death, even as Bro.  Johnson similarly controlled the L.H.M.M. until the day of his death, and even as we (R.G. Jolly) so control it now.... Thus, we see that, except for being unincorporated, the L.H.M.M. stands in relation to the Lord’s work for His Epiphany-enlightened people in exactly the same relation as the W.T.B. & T. Society stood to the Lord’s work for the Truth people in Bro. Russell’s day.” (We believe it would be much more accurately stated that the “LHMM now stands in exactly the same relation as the W.T.B. & T. Society stands in its relation to the Truth people under its present management. The Society, too, ‘legislates’ for individuals and classes in violation of the Lord’s Arrange­ments—JJH)

Anent the foregoing, could we possibly find a closer “twin” to the popest claim of “Successor to St. Peter”? Just think of it – A self-admitted Levite, who acknowledges that he is no longer even in the Body of Christ, much less a Star Member, claiming to be “IN EXACTLY THE SAME RELATION .... TO THE LORD’S WORK FOR THE TRUTH PEOPLE” as was THAT SERVANT and the EPIPHANY MESSENGER! “Great swelling words,” do you say? – Have we ever heard worse from The Man of Sin? No one could eject Brother Russell or Brother Johnson from their positions, be­cause their Movements belonged to them; they were accountable ONLY to the Lord. Thus, no one could occupy a similar position unless he also established his own Movement. Whatever may be the Trustee’s limitations, there is certainly no limit to his gall! It is little wonder that all his efforts toward Levites in other Truth groups have resulted in dismal failure. A Levite – manifested as such in 1938, and forced out of the Holy (almost thirty years ago) – comes readily enough under the condemnation of St. Paul: “From such turn away.”

It would seem to us a very elemental deduction that, if the Trustee be not guilty of the sins of teaching and practice of which we charge him, he would gladly welcome any investigation to prove us wrong – just as an innocent politi­cian also welcomes full investigation of his accounts if there is nothing wrong with them – which would exonerate him and place him in a much more favorable light. But of the guilty ones, the almost universal shriek is: “Frame-up; don’t pay any attention whatever to what my accusers say about me.” Here in the United States ­and in the “free” world generally – good well-intentioned worldlings are emphati­cally advising the citizens to read both sides, make up your own mind. But not so from the DICTATORS of any country or any religion. Their reports to their people are dripping dishonesty, framed in deceit. They cannot possibly stand the search­light of impartial investigation. And for shame that the Trustee of the LHMM must stoop to the same tactics!

The question has been well put: Since he was elected by a general assembly, could he not also be deposed by a general assembly? Our answer to that is, No ­for the simple reason that when any one – such as John J. Hoefle – attempts to expose his sins of teaching and practice, or disagrees with his teaching and prac­tice, he immediately proceeds to have them disfellowshiped. He does not even allow such to attend his business meetings; only his Yes-men are welcome. He has re­peatedly stated that we are not even welcome at his religious services at his Con­ventions – despite the fact that we are always quiet and orderly, and that we have contributed perhaps a hundred times more in the way of finances to build the Move­ment than he himself ever has. Yes, this Epiphany period is the special Judgment­ Day of the Great Multitude – it is their “Little Season” of this Gospel Age, just as will also be true of the world in general after 2874 – when the sheep will be separated from the goats.  Had the Executive Trustee persisted in those revolution­isms under Brother Johnson (against which we have been protesting for now some twelve years) he would have been dismissed from the Pilgrim service – just as he was dismissed from the Pilgrim service during 1938 for infinitely less offense. As things stand now, the Trustee is “The Channel” – in even worse manner than was true of the Watch Tower some forty years ago. Then, at least, a group made that claim; Now it is a one-man performance.

And of such power-graspers Brother Johnson wrote in E-4:222: “Whenever religious errorists and frauds cannot meet the exposures of their false doctrines or evil practices by argument, Satan fills their mouths with false and malicious slanders against their exposers.” But in all this we rest calmly and securely in the assurance that this Epiphany period is for the very purpose of manifesting persons, principles and things; and it will accomplish this to a completion because “He is faithful that promised.”

In further evidence of this we quote from E-14:350: “God declares that the time is coming when He will punish all the measurably unfaithful consecrated – ­the crown-losers – (such as the Executive Trustee and those who are partakers of his sins—JJH) with the unconsecrated. Then, “An exhortation will go out to invade the teaching, spirit and service of the Great Company in the Truth as guilty of double rebellion, once in the nominal church, then in the Truth.” (E-14:472)

And, if such is to be the order of this Epiphany Judgment Day, then it is not only our privilege, but it is our duty to declare it – just as it was the privilege and the duty of Truth people to declare Cod’s judgment against Great Babylon in the Parousia Day. As Jesus stated, “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (John 12:48) Nor do we ourselves judge any man by what we publish: It is the WORD that does the judging; it is the WORD that reveals to us what the judgment is. “This is the time of the Lord’s vengeance; He will render unto Babylon (great and small) a recompense.... for her judgment reacheth unto Heaven... The Lord hath brought forth our righteousness; come, and let us declare in Zion the work of the Lord our God.” (Jer. 51:6,9,10)

The principle involved in the foregoing would also apply to Youthful Worthies who succumb to the same erroneous teachings and practices as involve their “lep­rous” leaders. They also must cleanse themselves of present-day defilements if they retain their Class standing, because they, too, are having an Epiphany Judg­ment Day, which will determine their eventual Kingdom standing. While they are not now on trial for life, they are certainly on trial for their Class standing; and there seems little doubt that among them also many will fail – just as has been true with new creatures all during the Gospel Age: “Many are called, but few are chosen” – the “many” lost their place in the Very Elect. But there is no secondary Elect among the Youthful Worthies – they either will gain a permanent place in that Class during this Epiphany Judgment Day, or they revert to the Resti­tution standing common to the general mass of humanity. Here is something from E-4:442 (Bottom):

“Before the Youthful Worthies will be worthy of association with the Ancient Worthies they will have to obtain a good report for faith and obedience, and to the extent that their cleaving to the Levitical divisions implies sympathy with Levitical ways, to that extent they will have to cleanse themselves, if they would be the Millennial associates of the Ancient Worthies. And this the ulti­mately faithful among them will do.”

THE “CHANNEL”

One of the most pertinent texts supporting this Epiphany Judgment Day is 2 Tim. 4:1 (Dia.): “I adjure thee before that God and Christ Jesus who is about to judge the living.... by His appearing” (His Epiphaneia). The “living” in this text would be all such humans as have “passed from death unto  life,” and those wayward spirit beings who have never been under the death sentence. Thus, dur­ing the Parousia Day it was not possible to discriminate between the crown-­retainers and the crown-losers so long as the latter remained in the Truth Move­ment, because the judgment of the Lord had not then been manifested; but the inference is plain enough that such recognition would come during the Epiphany Judgment Day. Otherwise, St. Paul’s statement would be without meaning to us now.  And, just as the final standing of the crown-losers – as a Class and as individuals will be finally determined now, so also will be true of the Youthful Worthies as a Class and as individuals. And one of the major pitfalls that now involves the latter is this “Channel” doctrine. Here is something on it from E-6:118:

“There are certain results flowing from this doctrine of the channel that should be considered in order properly to estimate what the doctrine involves. While it does not involve the thought of the channel’s infallibility, It does involve the thought that its adherents exercise a meekness toward it that should predispose them to receive its teachings with considerable trustfulness, that they be not suspicious of its teachings, but be inclined toward them; that they do not take toward them a critical but a believing attitude. In practice this theory manifestly results in a mental attitude like the credulity of the average Catholic. It does not put one sufficiently on one’s guard against the many admittedly erroneous teachings that have flown through this channel. Hence Society adherents have been finding themselves rejecting not a few things that, shortly before, they insisted were ‘meat In due season.’ This theory, therefore, in practice works against the principle of proving all things and holding fast that which is good (1 Thes. 5:17). This effect of the channel doctrine can make and has made its adherents subject to deceptions, and is, therefore, dangerous to their spiritual safety. Another result of this theory of the channel is that its adherents look upon its direction of affairs as of the Lord... This, of course, has the effect of making its thorough adherents unquestioningly fall into line with its policies and activities...

“Another effect of this theory is giving the channel the same official powers in the eyes of its adherents as our dear Pastor had (just as the Executive Trustee of the LHMM also attempts to establish for himself – as inheritor of Brother John­son’s business position—JJH).... Again this doctrine brings with it the thought that it is impious to criticize the policies and management of the Society. Even those who exercise the right of sober criticism are regarded as ‘murmurers’ (“chronic fault-finders;” according to R. G. Jolly—JJH).... Hence, criticism of the channel is considered as coming from an evil source, just as papists think of those who criticize the papacy. (And just as the Executive Trustee often declares regard­ing JJH) This effect of the doctrine can easily be and has been used to the dis­advantage of Truth and Righteousness.... Another of its effects on them is to make them refuse to read religious literature that does not come through the Society (The Executive Trustee has repeatedly warned against reading the writings of JJH as being “of the Devil” – a truly papal shenanigan if there ever was one—JJH).... A doctrine producing such effects as the foregoing cannot be true, but ought to be suspected as coming from an evil source (as coming from Azazel in whose hands such teachers are—JJH)....

“In practice this doctrine has made the bulk of the Society adherents as sub­ject to it as the adherents of the papacy are to it. The same line of argument is used in each case – ‘to be out of harmony with the channel is to be out of harmony with the Lord’.... Thus they fear properly to weigh its teachings and practices.... These considerations make them subject to a business corporation with a spirit of servile fear unbecoming to Priests of God. (The Executive Trustee was also voted only as a business manager, yet to describe JJH as a “chronic fault-finder” merely for using his own published figures in his Annual Reports reveals – his sorry inadequacies—JJH).”

THE “TRADEMARK” OF ALL ERRORISTS

The foregoing quotations are from Vol. E-6 from pages 118 through 164, and we suggest to all that it will be most profitable to read the entire analysis by Brother Johnson. So far as we can recall, we do not know of a single instance where either Brother Russell or Brother Johnson ever commanded their adherents not to read publications other than their own. Did Brother Russell advise his readers not to read the slander about him from the Brooklyn Eagle and elsewhere? “Now the Lord is that Spirit: And where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:17) The Constitution of the United States is founded upon this principle, the whole Parousia Movement was founded upon this principle, and the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement was also founded upon this principle – this foundation principle. Therefore, when the Executive Trustee openly and emphati­cally sets this principle aside, he is once more placing himself open to the judg­ments of this Epiphany Day as he violates the “trust” conferred upon him. And those who encourage him in his evil course will also incur the judgments of this Epiphany Day foretold of such. This day is indeed “making manifest the counsels of hearts, and bringing to light the hidden things of darkness” (1 Cor. 4:5) ­those character flaws that for a time were concealed from us, now made manifest by their revolutionisms against the Truth and its Arrangements.

It is a fitting appraisal of all errorists that they have a decided tendency to do violence to the Truth, and to malign, slander and disfellowship those whose Truth presentations they cannot meet.  This has been most definitely true of the Roman Church, the same being the worst system of error of all Ages. Burn the ‘heretics,’ and burn their literature, has been their battle cry for more than 1500 years. The latter part of this became also the shibboleth of J. F. Ruther­ford against the Present Truth papers, except that he had the lawyer’s cunning to improve somewhat upon it. When his truckling yes-men advised him they were burning Brother Johnson’s papers, he was shrewd enough to realize that they might thus have to open them first – just glance at some of it, that the glance might be fed by curiosity to read just a little to see what it was like. And that would be bad! So he and his partisan pilgrims advised all such not to open the maga­zines at all – just write on it “REFUSED” and return to sender. That would have the double effect of securely holding his adherents and of perhaps discouraging Brother Johnson.

And the present Trustee of the LHMM follows the identical footsteps of JFR: Don’t by any means read the writings of the ‘sifters’! You wouldn’t shake hands with the Devil, would you? Of course, in all of this, if his sleeping par­tisans would think Just a little bit, they might ask themselves why their leader should be so adamant against examination of his sayings and writings if they are indeed the Truth – If they do indeed stand “in exactly the same relation to the Lord’s work for the Truth people” as did the writings and sermons of THAT SERVANT. Let us not forget that the real Truth servants did not counsel their readers to avoid the writings of the errorists. They exhorted them to “grow in grace and Knowledge” of the Truth, that they might be able to stand in this “evil day,” as their adversaries would flee from them. Brother Johnson knew that we ourselves continued to read the Watch Tower for a number of years after we had openly and definitely allied ourselves with him; yet he never once even suggested that we discontinue reading it – although he know full well that we had to pay the subscrip­tion price in order to receive it. Nor have we ever advised our readers not to read the Present Truth – or the writings of J. W. Krewson (who also has been very determined that his partisans refuse our writings, even as was his “cousin” Jolly); rather we have often advised privately and in writing that those who have the time, strength and inclination to place our papers side by side with theirs, read them carefully – to be fully persuaded in their own minds. And this method has been a blessing to some who have done so from a “good and honest heart.”

Of course, all of this found a very fitting type in Israel about three thous­and years ago, as recorded in 1 Kgs. 12:25-33, in which Jeroboam built two golden calves – one in Bethel and one in Dan. “Behold thy gods, 0 Israel,” said he. Now it would no longer be necessary for them to make their usual pilgrimages to Jerusa­lem, where was located the Temple of the Lord containing the Golden Ark and the Tables of the Law. He would make life much easier for them. No longer would they need to make the wearisome pilgrimages to Jerusalem; no longer would  they need to do any thinking – Jeroboam would take care of all that for them. “And this thing became a sin.” (v. 30) In fact, it became such a sin that there are at least seventeen accusations against various kings in Israel in the following four hun­dred years that they “walked in the ways of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin.”

Such an important recording in the Old Testament writings must also certainly have a Gospel-Age antitype; and so it does. Those two golden calves type Cleri­calism and Sectarianism, the shibboleth of both being: Don’t read anything that exposes us; let us do your thinking for you, as you sleep quietly on. But the words of St. Paul have a most appropriate application in this Epiphany season: “Knowing the season, that it is already the hour for us to wake up from sleep.... The night is far advanced, and the day has approached; we should, therefore, lay aside the works of darkness (error, and the counsel and ways of errorists), and should put on the armor of light.” (Rom. 13:11,12—Dia.)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION  OF  GENERAL  INTEREST

QUESTION: – On page 89 of his May-June paper Bro. Krewson offers the opinion that the violent features of Armageddon may begin in October 1975 accord­ing to his figures on the hour of Rev. 17:12. What is your opinion of his prediction?

ANSWER: – We firmly adhere to the teaching of both Brothers Russell and Johnson on time prophecies – that no prophecy can be clearly understood until it has been fulfilled, or is in course of fulfillment. Any one who accepts that instruction will not be too positive about his own prediction of future events, or too critical of the forecasts of other – unless, of course, such forecasts are com­pletely out of harmony with Scripture, Reason and Fact. As most of our readers know, we offered a tentative prediction on the “hour” of Rev. 17:12 in our paper No. 133; and we know that time itself will be the unerring and indisputable judge of all attempts to interpret prophecy. However, we believe we can definitely rely upon the statement of Brother Johnson that Armageddon will have its inception in Italy, and may not reach the United States until a year or two later. Thus, we may “watch and be sober,” but not otherwise specially concern ourselves until we see its start in Italy. And, when that occurs, we expect to be among the first to declare It.

There is, however, another interesting item or happenstance on the Krewson tentative prediction; namely, the Jehovah’s Witnesses came out early this Spring offering a similar tentative Armageddon prediction for 1975 – based upon some special figures of their own. As most of us know, this organization, in true papistical fashion, has been most adamant for the past fifty years that they are “THE Channel”; and J. W. Krewson has now been claiming that same distinction for himself in like positive manner for the past twelve years. Thus, we now have before us TWO “Channels” converging upon the same Armageddon date – the year 1975 – their only difference being the method of calculation. Here, then, is one more proof of the proverb: Great minds run in the same “Channel.” Of course, we cannot know whether J. W. Krewson had knowledge of the Witnesses’  prediction before presenting his date – but it should be very apparent to all that, should the 1975 Armageddon prediction be correct, the Witnesses would mightily overshadow J. W. Krewson – having, as they do about one million devotees, with a large worldwide circulation of their magazines to Krewson’s little handful in comparison.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Gentlemen: A friend recently gave me a copy of your Herald Special Edition No. 7 – October 31, 1517–October 31, 1967 – The Great Reformer. As a member of the oldest Lutheran congregation in the Western Hemisphere, I found it more than ordinarily interesting to read. Could it be possible for you to send me 5 additional copies, and will you accept the small enclosure to partially repay the cost of same? Thanking you in advance for your considera­tion, I am

Sincerely yours ------- (NEW YORK)

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

Dear Sirs: I enjoyed your interesting views on the papacy and Luther. I have successfully knocked the crown off the pope’s head in my manual on Protestant-Catholic marriage. I quote three recent Roman Catholic Seminary Professors – now Protestant clergymen.

Sincerely yours ------- Pastor Lutheran Church (MICHIGAN)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace  and  peace  be  your  continued  portion!

                   Thanks for No. 145 as a Special Edition No. 7. Send me 300. In closing, Christian love to you and the other dear ones with you.

Sincerely your brother ------- (MICHIGAN)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied!

Your good letters received – also the April and May articles, and the No. 7 tract. Thank you very much! Your Special Edition No. 7, Brother Hoefle, is very good, and we have read it several times. We think it will be pleasing to the Lord if we serve the Protestant churches.... We shall not repeat here what you have said in your article, but be assured we are in full sympathy with your thoughts and suggestions. Would you please send us 500 of the No. 7 – The Great Reformer.....

We were sorry to hear of the death of Sister Hoefle’s brother-in-law.

Do express to her dear sister our deepest sympathy in her loss. (See Announce­ment below) Sister and I are quite well, I am glad to report. May we again express our deep appreciation to you, Brother and Sister Hoefle, in your con­stant efforts to serve the dear brethren – and we can assure you that we are glad to be identified with you – truly God’s people! And may the God of all Grace bless as only He can bless, and strengthen you all in your great service at Mount Dora.

Sister joins me in sending you and Sister Hoefle warmest Christian love ­and, as you have constantly said in your letters to us, you are often in our thought and prayers as we approach the throne of Heavenly Grace.

Yours in the one Hope of our calling, your brother and sister ------- (NEW JERSEY)

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

Brother Raleigh D. Campbell of North Carolina died suddenly and unexpectedly Sunday, June 4 and was buried Tuesday, June 6. He gladly and readily accepted the Truth when he first heard it as a young man. We conducted the service, which was well attended. He was able in death to present the Truth to some of his relatives and friends who wouldn’t listen to him in life. After the service at least one of his relatives expressed warm praise of it; and an unusually large number of autos and friends went to the cemetery. He had many friends and loved ones, as was attested by the large gathering there; to pay their last respects.

NO. 146: KING SAUL - TYPE AND ANTITYPE

No. 146

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

In Vol. E-14, middle of page 5, we are told that “Saul types the crown-­lost leaders from early in the third century to Armageddon.” And in E-13:181 it is stated that “Samuel types the Little Flock as a whole, especially in its more prominent members, and more especially in the star-members and their special helpers during the interim.” In 1 Sam. 10:1 it is recorded that “Sam­uel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head.... because the Lord hath anointed thee (Saul) to be captain over His inheritance.” Sober reflection impresses us with the strange procedure – the greater (Samuel) anointing the lesser (Saul) to be leader over God’s faithful Israel, even while the Judge and Prophet Samuel dwelt among them. This situation can only be reconciled by the knowledge that God was here making a type of the Gospel Age, a most impressive type which unmistakably reveals the course events would follow after the Apostles would be no more. In the comments which follow we are offering much from Brother Johnson as set forth In E-13 and E-14.

Typical Saul was a “choice young man, and goodly.... not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.” (1 Sam. 9:2) In all this he portrayed the admirable qualities of the Gospel-Age crown-lost leaders, many of whom were greater intel­lects than the star members who had “laid hands upon them.” And at the outset many of them waged valiant warfare victoriously against the antitypical Philis­tines (sectarians). Also, just as the typical Saul presented a compelling mag­netism for Israel, so the antitypes did likewise. Among them were to be found the greatest intellects (“higher than any of the people”), the greatest moralists, zealous for human uplift and social reform, although blinded to the real purpose of the “call” to “take out from among the Gentiles a people for His name,” who would during the Kingdom reign have the power and authority to accomplish to the full what has been impossible of accomplishment during the reign of evil. Also, most of them showed a commendable humility at the outset – just as did the typical Saul (“When thou was little in thine own eyes I made thee king over Israel”); but they also followed his wayward course of power-grasping and disobedience, setting aside the instructions of the Lord as given through antitypical Samuel (the star-members) they ignored the clear exhortation, “to obey is better than sacrifice.”

And the wayward course of these “children of disobedience” (Col. 3:6) always brought them into open conflict with the Star Members that were living at the time – “there was strife between the herdsmen of Abraham’s cattle and the herdsmen of Lot’s cattle;” (Gen. 13:7) Thus they obtained the present advantage (“the plain of Jordan .... well watered everywhere”), and became the mouthpieces to nom­inal spiritual Israel in most instances until the Harvest – although be it noted that in not a single instance did any of those crown-lost leaders become the Pastor and Teacher to the Fully Faithful, this being an office which the Lord alone could bestow. And in the picture presented in Numbers 7 by the offerings of the princes, in not a single instance did any of them offer a “cup” (symbolic of doctrines), the Lord there making clear to those who “have an ear to hear” that those crown-lost leaders (on up to Armageddon) would never occupy the seat of chief favor in His Household of Faith. In fact, every one of the Gospel-Age princes (crown-lost leaders) perverted the truths given them by the fully faith­ful antitypical Samuel (“asses – Teachings – were lost”).

The foregoing far-reaching truths did not become clear until the Epiphany Messenger made them clear; and this was undoubtedly for a purpose also. Had these truths been understood throughout the Age, the “blinded Samson” would then not have been blind; he would not have “ground wheat in the mill” for the anti­typical Philistines. Even in the case of That Servant who was “made ruler over all His goods” the same course of centuries past was trodden once more – he “anointed” crown-losers to carry on the Harvest work in the person of J. F. Ruther­ford and Company. But those crown-losers walked exactly in the footsteps of their kinsmen – they skillfully refuted the errors of the PBI on the chronology (defeated the Philistines), etc., while perverting the stewardship doctrine of Restitution that had been committed to their trust by the Parousia Messenger. And the Epiphany Messenger did likewise in anointing antitypical Saul, although we must make allowance for him, because he believed only crown-losers would remain after his demise, so he chose the logical person by asking the 1948 Detroit Convention to approve his choice of R. G. Jolly. Some may now be inclined to fault that action; but we should bear in mind that some of his adherents were very insistent that proper provision be made in case of his death (once more the children of Israel crying unto the Lord, “Give us a king”); and R. G. Jolly at that time was certainly “higher than any of the people” who might be selected to carry on after antitypical Samuel’s death. So we ourselves offer no criticism of the Epiphany Messenger in the action taken at Detroit.

But the “anointing” of this member of antitypical Saul resulted precisely in keeping with all the “anointings” of the past. He did valiantly in refuting the issue of the High Calling still open; and his booklet exposing Jehovah’s Witnesses is a capable work – he defeated the Philistines. Yet in those very victories he, too, was going astray with the stewardship doctrine entrusted to him – The Epiphany in its relation to the Epiphany Elect – by declaring no more saints among the Epi­phany Elect, and by other drastic and inexcusable perversions. For, just as Samuel continued in Israel after Saul’s anointing, so antitypical Samuel has continued in Israel after he anointed the last member of antitypical Saul – although the surviving members of the Samuel Class do not contain among them a star member. As Brother Johnson has expressed it in E-13:190 (8), “full qualifications for the pertinent leadership were given by antitypical Samuel to antitypical Saul,” so he also did in the case of R. G. Jolly – by letters and personal instruction before his death. In these endeavors he surely had the best interests of all Israel at heart to the day of his death, nor can he be blamed for the deflections that have appeared since 1950, even though it is now crystal clear to us that he gave us an exact blueprint of the actions of the centuries past that occurred in every sect in Christendom by the crown-lost leaders.

In this matter the supposedly enlightened adherents of the LHMM are the more to be blamed, and the words of Samuel to Israel apply with irresistible force to them: “I brought up Israel out of Egypt (from Satan’s evil order of affairs), and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all kingdoms, and of them that oppressed you (the evils of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness); And ye have this day rejected your God, who Himself saved you out of all your adversi­ties and your tribulations.” (1 Sam. 10:18,19) An excellent companion text is to be found in Psa. 77:20 – “Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses (the Lord) and Aaron (the Church).” We have the inspired warning in 1 Pet. 4:17: “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God” – the righteous (the fully faithful), the ungodly (the second-deathers), the sinner (the Great Company), each according to that which he has sown. And when we see those we once respected and loved now being “carried about by every wind of doctrine” we need no further testimony that they have left tragic flaws, erosions and rents in their past en­deavors to “put on the whole armor of God.” This has affected different ones in various and sundry manner. Some have withdrawn to themselves in spiritual anarchy, making their own decisions, establishing their own arrangements for the study, practice, and spread of the “good word of God,” and flaunting the direct inspired command, “Forsake not the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25) – a counterpart of Judges 17:6 – “In those days there was no king (star member) of Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

The Executive Trustee of the LHMM has also perverted another feature of the stewardship doctrine pertaining to the Epiphany Elect when he renounced the Epiphany Messenger’s teaching in E-10:672, that new Youthful Worthies would be won even after Armageddon. He now claims that work is all in the past – for­saking the truth that both Star Members taught regarding this Class (“flatly denying our dear Pastor’s thought that those who consecrating and proving faithful in the interval between the close of the General Call in 1881 and the Inauguration of the earthly phase of the Kingdom and finding no crowns available for themselves, will become associated in reward and service with the Ancient Worthies in the Kingdom”—E-4:337); he has substituted his spiritual hybrids (Campers Consecrated), which in turn has forced him to forsake the truth on Tentative Justification. Bear in mind that it was only after he began his perversions that he began to suffer his defeats – just as was true of King Saul. The typical “child of disobedience” went from one mistake to another worse one after he began his decline, culminating finally in his own death ­and the ignominious defeat of the entire nation of Israel. His experiences should be a solemn warning to all God’s people to “make straight paths for their feet.” Here was a man come from the smallest family in the smallest tribe of Israel (Benjamin), who rose to the highest office in Israel; then because of disobedience (“to obey is better than sacrifice”—l Sam. 15:22) he plummeted to an abject humiliation far below what he had been when he was a simple herdsman caring for his father’s cattle and sheep. It seems he learned just nothing from his mistakes, because “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul.”(1 Sam. 16:14) It has been well stated that experience is a dear teacher, but a fool will learn by no other. But, when a man will not learn even by adverse experiences, he is then impoverished beyond description. Be it remembered that it was the Gospel-Age Saul that built up Great Babylon, which in turn “made all the earth drunken” (Jer. 51:7); so that at this day “the earth is reeling to and fro like a drunkard” (Isa. 24:20) as a direct result of the bunglings of the “children of disobedience.” And, when the “drunkard” finally plunges over the precipice of destruction in Armageddon, then will antitypical Saul perish also (as such, though not necessarily as human beings, or even as New Creatures). This fate will be the direct result of their own sowing.

And, true to his kinsmen of the past, the Executive Trustee of the LHMM now follows meticulously in their steps, he also having learned just nothing from the past failures and mistakes of antitypical Saul. It was when he began to pervert the Truth on Tentative Justification that his defeats also began – the abject failure of his $5 correspondence course – the humiliation of those conglomerate conventions about which he was so loud and profuse for a time, but which are not even mentioned anymore – his defeats one after another in his various controversies on the Truth – his Flying Saucer tract, which by now has just about been relegated to the archives of Limbo – his bungling mistakes in the Present Truth, etc. (“Bungling is the usual and natural activity of the Great Company,” says Brother Johnson.) And his defeats will continue becoming more severe, until he drinks the cup of extreme humiliation and the defeat of that part of Israel under his leadership. Of this there shall be more comment “in due time.”

THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD DEPARTED FROM SAUL

In 1 Sam. 16:14 it is recorded that “The Spirit of the Lord Departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” From this we should not conclude that the Holy spirit departed from the members of antitypical Saul. Had this occurred, they would all have gone into the second death. Rather, they all lost the spirit of understanding (See Matt. 25:3-9 and 25:30 Berean Comment), so that they not only could not see the advancing Truth, but actually lost im­portant parts of the Truth they once possessed. This is especially evident in this Epiphany period, where the leaders of all the groups in Little Babylon have cast aside large segments of the Truth that once sanctified them. Note particu­larly the confusion in the leader of the LHMM on Tentative Justification, Campers Consecrated, the Saints all gone before the real Time of Trouble has started, his Campers’ names prospectively (?) written in the Book of Life before their book is even opened, etc.

The foregoing conclusion is clearly verified in 1 San. 28:14: “When Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.” The antitypical “dreams” we would understand to mean special revelations of advancing Truth from the Lord; the “Urim” meaning the doctrinal teachings of the Bible, which become unclear to those who lose the spirit of understanding (no longer understanding Tentative Justification, Consecration between the Ages while sin still prevails, etc.); the antitypical “prophets” are especially enlightened teachers, such as Brother Russell, Brother Johnson and others, whose teachings no longer motivate them. Especially here do we em­phasize the teachings of both these Little Flock teachers on Abandonment to Azazel of all Great Company members, and their clear presentations on those con­secrators between the Ages who can no longer enter the High Calling.

AN EVIL SPIRIT TROUBLED HIM

The “evil spirit” that came over Saul is said to have been “from the Lord.” An evil spirit being is not here meant; rather, it means an evil disposition ­resulting in God withdrawing His special help from them. Thus, God did not directly induce such a spirit; but it came about by allowing the Saul members to follow their own foolish devices – just as we are to understand the meaning of 2 Thes. 2:9-11, “God will send them strong delusion.” God is not the author of confusion, nor is He the disseminator of error. Note Brother Russell’s com­ments on some features of this text: “Because they received not the love of the Truth – But trifled with it to their injury”; “Strong delusion – That which, from certain standpoints, has the appearance of Truth” (such as Justification outside the righteousness of Christ, etc.) A self-confessed “trifling with the Truth” is to be found in R. G. Jolly’s letter published in the November 15, 1910 Watch Tower, a little of which we now quote:

“I sought to make pictures and draw types from nearly every chapter in the Bible (just as he has attempted to with the half Tribe of Manasseh on the west side of Jordan, etc.—JJH).... Instead of using it to supply my much-needed armor, I was enjoying it more as one would a picture book or ‘Grimm’s Fairy Tales’ .... Finally I came to the point where it became quite difficult for me to distinguish between truth and error.”

(Signed) R. G. Jolly

And the above still seems to be his sad condition!

THE MARK OF CAIN

“Cleanse thou me from secret faults. Keep back thy servant also from pre­sumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then I shall be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.” (Psa. 19:12,13) It is the usual procedure for one sin to beget other sins – for the offender to go from transgression to transgression – just as it is also true that one error begets other errors and one falsehood other falsehoods. This process is prompted by the necessity to alibi the wrongs or errors already committed; and David’s own experience is an outstanding Scriptural example of this. His moral offense with Bathsheba was a direct violation of the Seventh Commandment, which quickly led to violation of the Sixth Commandment in his murder of Uriah. thus, David could well speak from experience when he composed the 19th Psalm.

And so it has also been where the evil of envy is allowed to spawn and grow. “Joseph’s brethren envied him” (Gen. 37:11; Acts 7:9), which in turn prodded them to “conspire against him to slay him.” (v. 18) It was envy that caused Cain to murder his brother Abel; it was envy that prompted the ‘good’ religious people to crucify the lord of Glory. “Pilate knew that for envy they had deliv­ered Him.” (Matt. 27:18) And after King Saul’s offenses had led Samuel to inform him that the Kingdom of Israel would be taken from him, it was then that the spirit of envy urged him also to attempt the murder of David. And, while he was prevented from actual commission of the crime, he was yet fully guilty; so that in due course he paid for his evil intentions with his own life, just as though he had really murdered the Lord’s anointed.

Envy was undoubtedly the motivation of those princes and presidents in Babylon who conspired to have Daniel thrown into the lions’ den. King Darius had promoted this foreigner, this Jew, over all of them; and it was more than they could bear. However, he who digs a pit for another falls oftener therein himself; and so it was with those conspirators against Daniel. When morning came, and King Darius perceived that some sort of miracle had been performed to spare Daniel from the hungry lions, he then commanded that his conspirators, and all their families, be thrown to the lions; and all of them were consumed. “Wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy slayeth the silly one.” (Job 5:2) This picture had its fulfillment with those of our day who conspired to destroy Brother Russell; and it was re-enacted in a smaller way with those who tried to destroy Brother Johnson. On one occasion we asked him why the Society brethren had treated him so shamefully. His answer: IT WAS ENVY, Brother! Here was another despicable act of envy on the part of antitypical Saul right at our own doorstep!

A WORD FROM THAT SERVANT

Brother Russell has offered profuse comment on the typical Saul – his weak­nesses, his failures, his abandonment by the Lord, and his final abject failure. Two of these articles are to be found in Reprints 4206-4210, from which we offer very brief summations, although we believe all would do well to read carefully and consider the entire articles:

“Saul’s difficulty and tests may represent some of ours. (1) A selfish spirit... (2) A man-fearing spirit.... (3) Saul’s third difficulty was that he had too slack an appreciation of the Lord’s word; and this is the difficulty which specially besets nearly every one of the Lord’s followers who stray away into error of doctrine or of conduct.... The Scriptures clearly indicate a great trial and testing for the Church in the next few years. (Little did Brother Russell realize just how great that testing would be in 1917—JJH) It will determine with very many what Saul’s testing determined for him, whether or not God’s favor will continue, with its kingdom privileges and opportunities.... They will be answered as was Saul, ‘Obedience is better than sacrifice’; thou art rejected.”

It requires no great powers of discernment to perceive “too slack an appre­ciation of the Lord’s word” among the multitudes of Christendom. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.” (Amos 8:11) But this same situation is becoming increasingly so with many so-called Truth people. “Too slack an appreciation of the Lord’s word” starts at the top; and it is a sage observation that the disciple rarely rises above his Lord. Thus, the leaders in the various groups of Little Babylon who should be zealously stirring up a proper appreciation of the Lord’s word are unable to do so because of their own errors – errors which have become so appalling that it prevents then from giving a good defense of those truths which they still retain. That same situation prevailed in Big Babylon at the beginning of the century; and it provided many a spark for the controversialists of that time – until they realized that the Parousia David (That Servant) had a “Sharp two-edged sword” which they could neither gainsay nor resist. This led eventually to withdrawal from the battle on the part of the errorists – until today it matters very little what one believes so long as he creates no uproar about it.

And that same “lack of appreciation of the Lord’s word” is rapidly infil­trating the sects of Little Babylon. Let us dwell in peace, they say; the arguments are inconsequential anyway. Their appreciation of the Lord’s word is indeed becoming quite slack! Nor do they do very much about feeding the sheep. As Brother Johnson so aptly observed, these crown-lost leaders do much better in their efforts toward the worldlings. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson left us plenty of material to enlighten and fortify us in this Epiphany period when these Crown-lost leaders are so prominently manifested. “Therefore, by their fruits you will discover them.” (Matt. 7:20—Dia.) The crown-lost leaders largely ignore these truths as they seek gain for their own quarters.

As stated above, Saul’s blunders and transgressions became worse with each deflection, although the prophet of God was there to reprove and correct him each tine. His was a vivid example of the admonition, “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” (Prov. 29:1) His first gross deflection is recorded in 1 Sam. 13, where Saul himself offered sac­rifice in direct violation of what he knew full well was the Lord’s established ar­rangement. “Because they (the Great Company) contemned the counsel (arrangements) of the Most High”—Psa. 107:11. Immediately the Fully Faithful servant of the Lord was there to reprove him: “And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly”­ 1 Sam. 13:13. And because of this he was told, “Thy kingdom shall not continue.... because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee.” And other acts of disobedience soon manifested other flaws in his character, and revealed three out­standing sins common among men. He had been told to destroy utterly the Amalekites and their herds, but his cupidity was stronger than the clear command of the Lord. He did indeed completely destroy the Amalekites (excepting only Agag the King), but the sight of their fat cattle easily overcame Saul, so “Saul and the people spared the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and of the lambs, and all that was good ... but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.” (1 Sam. 15:9)

And once again the Fully Faithful Samuel was there to confront him; and once again Saul made display of the flaws in his character, the sins of hypocrisy and lying: “Blessed be thou of the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” Reproved by Samuel’s stern countenance and sharp questions, Saul then attempted to take refuge in another sin as old as the human race: “The people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God,” repeating this falsehood in verse 21, but finally forced to admit, “I have sinned.” And, Just as “Samuel came no more to see Saul” (v. 35), so the Lord God came no more to see Father Adam, after his impudent accusation following the transgression in Eden: “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me” (Gen. 3:12). As Adam was bold and impudent enough to accuse the Lord Himself for his deflection, so Saul was ready enough to blame “the people” for his sins. All of which is warning enough for him that “hath an ear to hear.”

Century after century during the Gospel Age, as antitypical Saul was “anointed” by antitypical Samuel, the great majority of the Saul class was goaded by unholy ambition to violate the teachings and arrangements of the Lord as presented through the Samuel class. Thus, they overshadowed the Fully Faithful and produced the “golden cup” which “made all the earth drunken: therefore, the nations are (now in 1967) mad”! And, in exact imitation of their kinsmen of the past, the Epi­phany Saul submerged the Fully Faithful, and presented a “cup” of rank intoxica­tion. All of us who were in “the good fight” some forty years ago remember only too vividly the treatment accorded the Epiphany Messenger by J. F. Rutherford Company – how they submerged the Samuel class by “bowing the knee to Baal” in unprincipled power-grasping, as they presented to the general public their “Millions Now Living” mirage, their 1925 fiasco, etc., which failing fully in every detail they then seized upon the old Papal anathema of the Dark Ages: No salvation outside of our organization – the same being their shibboleth even at this day.

And in similar fashion the crown-lost leader of the LHMM mimicked his Epiphany kinsmen that he and his are now the “Fully Faithful,” the “salt,” the “light,” the “good and faithful servant” class, etc.– that those claiming to be the Fully Faith­ful are second-deathers, the same being the identical verdict circulated by the Society some forty years ago against Brother Johnson and his adherents. So once again we observe antitypical Saul “anointed” by Samuel in crystal clear exhibition of the true picture given “for our admonition and learning” (1 Cor. 10:11) some three thousand years ago. The truth of this type will certainly impress all who have even a smattering of Epiphany Truth!

“Fear the Lord, and serve Him in truth with all your heart; for consider what a great thing He hath done for you. But if ye shall still do wickedly, ye shall be consumed, both ye and your kind.” (1 Sam. 12:24) This prophetic warning saw exact fulfillment at the death of Saul and his three sons, as Israel also was “consumed” in defeat by the Philistines. Thus, we close with Brother Johnson’s conclusion In E-13:251 – “Let us learn the lessons chiefly inculcated by Samuel and Saul, i.e., that by God’s grace we stand, as we abide faithful, taught us by antitypical Samuel’s life, and that, despite God’s grace, we fall, as we prove unfaithful, taught us by antitypical Saul’s life.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

Acting upon some suggestions that have come to us, we have produced our July paper No. 145 as a Special Edition No. 7 – to be used this year as an impetus, or supplement, before and during our Special Effort in Antitypical Gideon’s Second Battle. It seems to us a very unusual coincidence that Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the church door of Wittenberg on October 31, and that Brother Russell died October 31 – also, Brother Johnson, who was buried on October 27, wrote of himself as the little Martin Luther of this Epiphany period. (See E-10:428) It is noteworthy that these brethren are three Star Mem­bers, and two of them “Principal Men” (Micah 5:5).

We believe these tracts will be favorably received by many Protestants. They may be served at Protestant church doors – also from house to house in definite Protestant neighborhoods. We realize that “opportunities of service” will be varied with our brethren – according to their time, strength and means. We welcome the cooperation of our faithful brethren as opportunity permits. The tracts are free, postage prepaid – and we can supply whatever quantity you may desire, our limitation being that you order in keeping with what you antici­pate distributing. We serve and honor the Lord as we “bear witness” to the Truths He gave us through His honored Messengers. The Lord bless thee, and keep thee.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Mr. Hoefle:

It was my pleasure recently to come by your paper Number 145. It is one of the most interesting Bible studies I have ever come across. I would be very much interested in receiving whatever previous papers that would be available, as I believe that they would be very helpful in my own Bible studies. I am associated with -------. as an assistant to ------- and in our church fellowship I am a teacher of an adult class.

The gift enclosed is intended to defray costs Involved for whatever papers may be available, or to be used as you see fit in your ministry. Thanks so much for your kind attention.

Sincerely yours in Christ, ------- (NEW JERSEY)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Your letter of April 29 and Reprints of Nos. 121 and 88 are received; also the one entitled “Concerning Controversy.” I recognize that “contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints” may be called controversy by some who no longer hold to some of the Truths which make up that faith. However, we have the Apostle Jude’s admonition to do so (verse 3) – so that is sufficient for me. The Watch Tower Society has definitely departed from that faith in teaching that Adam was not redeemed – that natural Israel will have no restoration (They now teach their organization is the source of the blessing for the world instead of Natural Israel, as is taught in the Scriptures—JJH) – and the Great Multitude is an earthly class. They are presumptuous in claiming to be the One Channel Jehovah is using in the earth today – outside of (their organization) there is no salvation! – also in judging and condemning their brethren who dare to disagree with them. They have rejected the word of the Lord and the wisdom of that Word. (Jer. 8:9)

Some of the Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize these things also and are not in harmony with them – but seem to think the Lord is using them in their “wonderful work” of wit­nessing to the world today. They are not preaching the true Gospel of the Kingdom, as they claim – nor are they honoring the name of Jehovah. Rather Jesus’ words to the Jewish leaders of His day seem to describe very well their work today. (Matt. 23:15) Jesus also foretold that many would call attention to their wonderful works at His return, and that he would not recognize (approve) them. (Matt. 7:22)....

How blessed are we to be favored with a Knowledge of the Truth! Christian love to you and Sister Hoefle from both of us. In the glorious Kingdom Hope...

Brother ------- (INDIANA)

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and Peace be your continued portion!

Brother ------- thanks you for your letter. And I am glad to say he is very much improved..... Often has the Scripture come to my mind – In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God concerning you. The Lord has provided so much daily food (Manna and its Scriptures) which constantly gives comfort....The Epiphany Truth is just wonderful – built upon the Parousia Truth. And may God bless the memory of these faithful Star Members of The Laodicean Period.

Be sure, dear Brother Hoefle, that a visit from you both to us in England will be very welcome. In closing, love to you and Sister Hoefle and the other dear ones with you, with thanks for your thoughts and prayers.

Sincerely your sister, ------- (ENGLAND)

PS – Enclosed are names for your list.

NO. 145: JEZEBEL AT THE BEAUTY PARLOR

NO. 145

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

In 2 Kings 9:30-37 is related the final flamboyant exit of Jezebel, Queen ­mother in Israel (Israel being the ten tribes that revolted and separated from the other two tribes at the death of Solomon), widow of the reprehensible King Ahab, with the King James version stating it this way:

“When Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.”

This same Scripture Is translated by Doctor Rotherham as follows:

“When Jehu entered Jezreel and Jezebel heard of It she set her eyes in Stibium and ornamented her head, and looked forth through the lattice.” According to the Septuagint footnote, “She painted her eyebrows and eyelids with kohl, a compound of antimony used by women in the East then and now to add to the beauty of their eyes. Jezebel’s intention is, like Cleopatra’s, to die a queen.”

Before analyzing the above, it is first in order to state that Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal, priest-king of Tyre and Sidon. Being thus of heathen descent, Ahab had desecrated the Jewish religion by making her his wife; and, like all such renegades, he attempted to blame the Prophet Elijah for Israel’s difficulties:

“Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And Elijah answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” (1 Kings 18:17,18)

True to history – before and since – the real culprit Ahab was ready enough to fault the true reformer Elijah for the results of his own wayward acts, his deflec­tion aggravated and enlarged in that he made provision for Jezebel to worship her native God in Samaria when she became his queen. This was a direct affront to the true God of Israel.

Jezebel had a strong, domineering character, was self-willed and forceful; a fanatical, devotee of Melqart (the Tyrian Baal). She maintained 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of the Goddess Asherah at the regal Jewish court, and as ‘star boarders’ at the King’s table. She insisted that her God have at least equal rights with Israel’s God Yaveh, which could not go unnoticed by the Prophet Elijah. In 1 Kgs. 18:17-40 there is related the grand showdown, in which Elijah, triumphant in the test of strength between the true and the false, proceeded to slay all the prophets of Baal. This humiliating defeat enraged the domineering Jezebel, instead of silencing her. She had been schooled and raised in an absolute monarchy, which had actuated her in the murder of Naboth when he refused to sell his vineyard to her husband. (I Kgs. 21:1-19) For this latter act it had been prophesied of her that “dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel,” (1 Kgs. 21:23) Let us keep In mind, however, that nothing whatever is said in the record about her ‘beauty­parloring’ her face and ornamenting her head until she had arrived at the time of death.

THE ANTITYPE

In previous papers we have shown how Elijah was a type of the Gospel-Age true Church in its efforts to reform the world from its course of evil. Therefore, the things that he did, and the people with whom he did them, must represent characters and events in this Gospel Age. In the second and third chapters of Revelation the Apostle John records certain forecasts for the seven stages, or epochs, of the Gospel-Age Church from the days of the Apostles until the Age would reach its complete end. The fourth of such messages is “to the Church in Thyatira... I (God) know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience.... Notwith­standing I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants.” (Rev. 2:18-20) Inasmuch as Jezebel, Queen of Israel, had been many centuries dead, it is clear enough that this statement by the Apostle John is in the nature of an allegory ­a picture of something that would occur in the Thyatira period of the Gospel Church that had close resemblance to the wicked acts of the Old Testament Jezebel. And, at the time this would apply, the name had become a byword among Christians for apostasy.

The word Thyatira means “the sweet perfume of a sacrifice”; and it refers to the period of the Gospel Church which had its beginning in 799 and came to its end in 1309. That it has clear reference to the apostate Roman Catholic Church we believe the following explanations will verify. It was in 799 that Charlemagne, Emperor of France, practically ceded his dominion over to the Pope, which established the beginning of The Holy Roman Empire – a reign of the Popes which lasted for a thousand years – until 1799, when Napoleon broke the papal power. The Catholic record terms this thousand years as the thousand-year reign of Christ that is prophesied in Rev, 20:1-9; but which is in reality the counterfeit of such reign. During that time it is stated that the Roman Church became “drunken with the blood of the saints” in those merciless persecutions and inquisitions, with history so distorted and per­verted that the period is known as “The Dark Ages” – a period so corrupt that not even clear authentic records are available concerning it. Here are just a few out­standing individual atrocities that may be directly charged to the Roman Church dur­ing that thousand years:

In 1126 Peter de Brys was burned at the stake by a raging mob;

In 1155 Arnold of Brescia was strangled;

In 1415 John Huss was burned at the stake, and his ashes scattered on the Rhine River. His prosecutor had made this summation of his charge against him: “By destroying this heretic, thou shalt obtain an undying name to all ensuing generations”;

In 1416 Jerome of Prague (close friend of John Huss) was also burned at the stake;

In 1498 Jerome Savonarola was hung on the gallows, then burned by a raging mob;

In 1556 Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake at the command of “Bloody Mary,” then Queen of England, and a staunch defender of “the faith” (The Roman Church).

The foregoing is but a small fraction of the heinous atrocities committed dur­ing the “thousand-year (counterfeit) reign of Christ”; whereas, the true reign of Christ, when it finally is established, is to “wipe away all tears from their eyes.... no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.” (Rev. 21:4) But the counterfeit Roman Church is described by the Apostle Paul as “That Wicked One, the Man of Sin, the Mystery of Iniquity, the Son of Perdition.” The Prophet Daniel styles It “The Abomination that maketh desolate” (Dan. 11:31, 12:11). The Apostle John terms it “The Antichrist” (1 John 2:18,19), a name mean­ing “Instead of” – that is, a counterfeit. Of such Daniel had prophetically written (Dan. 7:8,25): “There was given unto him a mouth speaking great things. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle... And he shall speak great words against the Most High.” Some of the high-sounding titles assumed by the various popes are: “Overseer of the Christian religion; Chief pastor and teacher; Christ by unction; Moses in authority; Heir of the Apostles ­Peter in power; Vicar of Christ; Infallible pope.” Ferraris, a Roman Catholic authority, writes, “The pope is of such dignity and highness that he is not simply a man but, as it were, God, and the vicar of God.’’

MARTIN LUTHER

All of the foregoing was in its heyday when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the church door at Wittenberg in 1517; and, while this would seem more than enough for any man to start a reformation, there were other more repulsive causes that primarily motivated him, chief of which was the sale of indulgences, which had sunk to an all-time low when Luther arrived. The sale of indulgences stated in simple language meant securing a license to commit sin – if the sinner had the price to pay. Not only was this done after the offense, but the proper amount of money would secure license for a future offense – almost any kind of offense, even in rare instances the license to commit murder. This outrageous practice extended over a period of a few hundred years; and, as is usually the way with evil, it became ever worse with the passing of time. And just as the baser violations of morals, white slavery and nar­cotics traffic attract the basest of men, so this sale of indulgences had done by Luther’s day. Foremost among these unprincipled traffickers in crime at that time was one John Tetzel, who traveled the length and breadth of Germany dealing out license to almost any kind of sin – if the price was right. Following is a part of what one Church Historian records about it:

“The reckless and shameless sale of indulgences often made the exercise of church discipline impossible, and the discreditable conduct of the mendicant monks destroyed all respect for the confessional.... The scholastic theory of indulgences was authoritatively proclaimed by Clement VI in A.D. 1343.... Sixtus in A.D. 1477, declared that it was allowable to take money for indulgences for the dead.... The institution of the jubilee gave a great impulse to the sale of indulgences.., In A.D. 1300 Boniface VIII. at the bidding of an old man, proclaimed a complete indulgence for one hundred years to all Christians who would do penance for fifteen days in the churches of the apostles at Rome, and by this means gathered from day to day 200,000 pilgrims within the walls of the Holy City. later popes made a jubilee every fiftieth year, then every thirty-third, and finally every twenty-fifth. Instead of personally appearing at Rome, it was enough to pay the cost of such a journey. The nepotism and extravagance of the popes had left an empty exchequer, which this sale of indulgences was intended to fill....

“In 1517 the aesthetic and luxurious pope X, avowedly for the building of St. Peter’s, really to fill his own empty coffers, had proclaimed a general indul­gence. Germany was divided between three indulgence commissions.... The most shame­less of the traffickers in indulgences employed by him was the Leipzig Dominican prior, John Tetzel. This man had been sentenced at Innsbruck to be drowned for adultery, but on the intercession of the Elector of Saxony had his sentence com­muted to prison for life. He now was taken from his prison to do this piece of work for Albert. With great success he went from place to place, and offered his wares for sale, proclaiming their virtues in the public market with unparalleled audacity. He went to Juterbock, in the vicinity of Wittenberg, where he attracted crowds of purchasers from all around. Luther discovered in the confessional the corrupting influence of such procedure, and on the afternoon of All Saints’ Day, October 31, 1517, he nailed on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg ninety­-five theses, explaining the meaning of the indulgence.... They comprehended the real germ of the Reformation movement.... With incredible rapidity the theses spread over all Germany, indeed over all Europe.... Tetzel publicly burnt the theses at Juterbock, and with the help of Wimpina posted up and circulated at Frankfort and other places counter-theses. The Wittenberg students purchased quantities of these theses, and in retaliation burnt them, but Luther did not approve of their conduct.”

Now follows a quotation from another writer on the same subject: “So far as we know, Luther did not draw from these premises any conclusion against any papal doc­trine until the fall of 1517, when the Dominican monk, Tetzel, began in the vicinity of Wittenberg to hawk indulgences for sins at so much per..... Later sins were var­iously catalogued at so much per, depending on the means of those seeking indulgences. Thus the people got and lived out the thought from the indulgence hawkers that they could sin at will, if they paid for the privilege by way of indulgences. Not infrequently they would purchase indulgences for sins that they were contem­plating in the future. Such an indulgence Tetzel sold to a nobleman, and he him­self proved to be the one against whom the nobleman intended to sin in revenge for a wrong that Tetzel had done him. With this intent the nobleman asked how much an Indulgence would cost granting him remission for a contemplated act of physical injury on, and robbery of, an enemy. Tetzel’s price struck the nobleman as too high, so he bargained Tetzel down in the price. Finally the lowered price was acceptable to the nobleman, and paying for, and receiving the indulgence that supposedly pardoned him from the guilt and punishment of his contemplated sin, he left Tetzel. Sometime later he waylaid Tetzel, beat him up famously and robbed him of the contents of his treasury chest. Tetzel appealed to the courts, but con­fronted with his indulgence and pointed out by the nobleman as being the enemy meant by him when he bought the indulgence, Tetzel could obtain no redress...

“No wonder that Tetzel’s shameless trafficking in indulgences shocked Luther through and through, and led him at once to question the merchandising of them. Later an through a logical deduction from the doctrine of faith justification, the whole idea of indulgences became repugnant to him, and he rejected them entirely, as contrary to God’s gratuitous forgiveness through Christ’s merit received by faith.”

TRUE HISTORY JUST TOO MUCH

During the reign of The Holy Roman Empire the Papacy repeatedly ‘made’ history – made it exactly as they wanted others to believe it; and for four hundred years after Luther’s death all sorts of vilification and calumny were ‘manufactured’ about him. It is a sound observation that he, and Thomas Cranmer, of England, were by papists the most hated of all “protesters,” the reason being that these two did the Papacy the most damage in their attacks against the erroneous rubble that they had produced by the ‘infallible’ successors to St. Peter. In spite of all this, however, the name MARTIN LUTHER continues to grow in stature and respect by the finest intellects of all Protestant sects; and today almost one-third of the Protestant world adheres to some form of Lutheranism. The truth about Luther has been much stronger than the falsehoods manufactured about him; and the Papacy – ever ready to play either side of a case that expedience might indicate, is now openly joining the applause for this great reformer who did indeed change the course of human history. And in this they are revealing themselves as the true antitype of infamous Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, King of Israel - they are resorting to ‘beauty-parlor’ tactics, painting their faces in true Jezebel fashion. And what conclusion may we draw from this? Why, it means that her annihilation is nigh at hand! Jehu had witnessed the death of Queen Jezebel as she had been tossed into the street from the upper window, and some hours later he issued the command: “Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury her: for she is a king’s daughter.” (2 Kgs. 9:34) But the report came back to him: “They found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands.” Here, then, we have a clear typical statement of what will remain of the Roman Church once “the reward of unrighteousness” is fully meted out to her: All that will remain of her is the memory of her corrupt teachings (skull, intellect) – and the memory of her evil deeds (the palms of her hands) – and the memory of her infamous character (the soles of her feet).

POPES “STUPID” THEN – POPES REFORMERS (?) NOW

A lurid Illustration of this ‘face-lifting’ technique, a master stroke of cosmetic skill (beauty-parlor ingenuity) is to be found in a recent issue of a very popular magazine, in which five full illustrated pages are devoted to the praise of Martin Luther. Here is a clever move to climb aboard the band wagon well in advance of the 450th Anniversary of Luther’s Wittenberg defiance to be celebrated this coming October 31. Here is a small quote from that article:

“Today, the vast majority of Catholic theologians concedes that Luther was a profound spiritual thinker who was driven into open revolt by the corruption of the Renaissance church and the intransigent stupidity of its popes. Jesuit John Courtney Murray, for example, calls Luther a religious genius – compassionate, rhetorical and full of insights. An American theologian teaching in Rome allows that Luther was right on Indulgences and on most theological points, and his teachings on justification are more palatable than Thomas Aquinas.”

Let us note specifically from the above that Catholic prelates today are willing to brand the popes of the 16th century as “stupid” in order to curry favor with the Protest­ants of today – especially with those Protestants who no longer believe in “protesting.” But it is well for us to keep in mind that nobody back there called the popes stupid; and we believe it is a proper appraisal that many of them were among the shrewdest and most calculating minds of their time. Luther himself was strong and brilliant – considered by many as one of the 25 greatest intellects of the entire human race – yet ‘stupidity’ of the pope was not his reason for his “protest.” In fact, at the outset Luther had no thought of causing a schism in the Church; he was merely trying to correct some of the evils then prevalent – ­he would reform the irreformable Jezebel! His major complaint was against the spiritually repulsive indulgences; and it is to his everlasting praise – and to the sagacity of the popes of his century – that the very thing he failed to accom­plish during his life was formally admitted to be wrong at a later Catholic conference – the sale of indulgences was officially tabooed.

However, the prohibition of indulgence sales was not a reform; it was merely an act of expediency, as is clearly shown by heinous crimes in the name of religion in other respects – one specific incident being the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in France on August 24, 1572, only 26 years after Luther’s death in 1546. At that time the chiefs of the Huguenots were gathered together at Paris.... The castle bell tolled, the same being the signal for the destruction of all the Huguenots then in Paris. For four days the carnage was unweariedly carried on by the City Militia, the Swiss guards, and crowds of fanatical artisans. No Huguenot was spared, neither children, nor women, nor the aged. It is estimated that perhaps 100,000 Huguenots were mercilessly butchered at that time; the streets of Paris ran red with their blood. King Philip II of Spain (a good loyal Catholic), on hearing about it is said to have laughed for the first time in his life. Pope Gregory XIII had Rome illumi­nated, all the bells rung, the cannons fired, processions made. He instructed the French ambassador to inform his king that the performance was a hundred times more grateful to him than fifty victories over the Turks.

Perhaps the greatest mass murder in all history, the performance was cause for great rejoicing throughout the Catholic world. “In thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents” (Jer. 2:34) – “In her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints” (Rev. 18:24). With such a record of past performance staring them in the face – and undeniably true – it is merely elemental politics to want every one to forget it, to ignore the sins of the past as “stupid’ tactics, and to con­jure up some present virtue (real or manufactured) to detract attention from the wretched past. And for this purpose the magazine has this to say:

“A new Luther would almost certainly be as much of an unpredictable sur­prise to Christianity as the original was. There are Protestants as well as Catholics who believe that a modern reformer has already appeared in the per­son of Pope John XXIII. ‘If we think functionally of someone who opened up the Church to reform,’ contends Claremont’s Dean Trotter, ‘the closest to Martin Luther has been Pope John.’ Here is reprehensible Jezebel once again in the beauty parlor! The audacity of It! The long chain of popes, one after the other, who heaped impre­cations and excommunications upon Martin Luther were simply “stupid”; but the suc­cessors to those popes, the ones living today, are saintly reformers just as he was.

But “stupid” or not, the popes of Luther’s day all claimed Apostolic succession ­to sit in the chair of St. Peter in Rome – to be the Vicar of Christ on earth – to speak Infallibly on the Bible. Shall we just blithely forget all this? And have the present-day pope reformers (?) rejected those bombastic claims, even as they attempt to brush easily aside their monstrous crimes under the guise of “stupidity.” They just did not know any better, the dear boys! Shall we join in with them, and declare that Hitler also was just stupid, that his diabolical crimes should be for­gotten because he was just ignorant, an upstart paperhanger? Surely, any intelli­gent appraisals of such men would force us to conclude that they possessed superior Intelligence to concoct the crimes they did against “the poor Innocents” – against the “heretics” – just as we must also conclude that Satan himself is a wily superior intellect, regardless of the adverse opinion we entertain concerning him.

HUMAN THINKING STILL THE SAME

It is a sad commentary against the human race that each generation has had its despised ‘heretics,’ even as they laud the same kind of heretics of the past. Thus, the Jews were high in praise of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the time they were heap­ing abuse and torment upon the grand and noble Moses. Later generations spoke the name of Moses in awe, while they were stoning Zechariah to death in the Court of their Temple (2 Chr. 24:17-22). At the opening of the Christian era the Jews were lauding Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and other past martyrs, as they proceeded to crucify the Lord of Glory. Much the same may be charged against this present generation. They, too, are ready enough to sing Te Deums over the memory of past saints, even as they persecute the same kind of people today – and even as they embrace and attempt to place a halo over those who have “blood on their skirts.”

Nor was Jesus unaware of this condition. “He needed not that any should testify of man: for He knew what was in man.” (John 2:25) In Matt. 23:30,31 He said this to his listeners: “Ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.” And in Matt. 21:33-46 He presents the matter in fine and eloquent detail: “Hear another parable – There was a certain householder (God), which planted a vineyard (the Jewish nation, which in turn was typical of Christendom, especially here in the end of the Age), and hedged it about “,with the Divine Law, the inspired prophecies, the superb leadership of Moses and Aaron), and digged a winepress in it (representing the instruc­tion and worship of the true God), and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen (the scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses’ seat), and went into a far country; And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took His servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, He sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all He sent unto them His son (the Lord Jesus), saying, they will reverence My son. But when the husbandmen (the chief priest, rulers, etc.) saw the son, they said among themselves (privately, deceitfully and conspiratorially), This is the heir (the One claiming to be the Messiah); come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance (retain our power, our fat easy life, our high position in Israel). And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him (crucified him, because “he stirreth up the people”). When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will He do unto those husbandmen? And they say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out His vineyard unto other husbandmen (Lo, we turn to the Gentiles).... And, when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they perceived that He spake of them.”

It is well stated that Distance lends enchantment; distance also tends to miti­gate past crimes. Thus, it is so very easy to place upon a pedestal the faithful servants of the past – and perhaps also some that were not so faithful; just as it also is very easy to discount the same kind of faithful who now walk side by side with us. Thus, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own house, and among his own relatives.” This was tragically true of Jesus; His brothers and sisters would have none of Him, so that even as He hung on the cross it was necessary to commit the care of His mother to that Disciple whom He loved – the Apostle John ­rather than to one of her own sons.

THE LITTLE JEZEBEL

In our paper No. 121 we presented certain similarities between the Roman Church and its “Little Twin,” the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The same comparisons may be drawn between the latter and Jezebel, as they are indeed her “Little sister.” And, as such, they, too, have been resorting to some “beauty parlor” tactics in recent months. They once more refer in favorable terms to Pastor Russell, although for some twenty years after his death they made great effort to efface him from the memory of their adher­ents. But now the Six Volumes of Studies in the Scriptures, which he wrote, are becoming popular; they are once more warmly saluting each other as “Brother” – as did Pastor Russell when he was here – instead of just plain Jim, Joe or Mike. “Only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” (Isa. 4:1)

After the cleavage became complete between Luther and Rome – after the Diet of Worms in 1521 – Luther expanded his Indulgences attacks to include with them also his devastating attacks on the papal teaching of Justification by Works, as against the true Bible teaching of Justification by Faith for this “faith” Age. “By the deeds of the Law (works) there shall no flesh be justified in His sight... But now the right­eousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 3:20-22) Luther’s steward­ship doctrine was “Justification by faith”; and he used it with adroit skill, unfail­ing courage, and persuasive eloquence against the strong papal error of “Justification by works.” Words rolled from his tongue like oil from a spoon. In lesser manner than their Big Sister Jezebel, the Witnesses also advocate “Justification by works”; and it is very common to see their “dedicated” deluded devotees on the street corners of every city “working” their way into the Kingdom. They also would have us forget the monstrous sins of their past leaders against those who have upheld the truths taught by Pastor Russell, as they also change from year to year various of their teachings; yet ever pointing to themselves as “the Channel” from which to expect due truth – even as Jezebel also still claims to speak infallibly in the name of St. Peter.

And we might call attention to the condition of some of the Epiphany-enlightened brethren since the demise of Brother Johnson. Their leaders, in effect, tell their sectarian adherents to close their eyes, open their mouths and swallow all they teach, without question or investigation – especially directing them not to read the refu­tations of their errors (their revolutionism against the Truth), the exposures of their sins of practice (revolutionism against the Arrangements) lest their eyes might become open to their “path of error” (See James 5:19,20 – also 2 Pet. 2:18).

“But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctifi­cation of the Spirit and belief of the Truth. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” (2 Thes. 2:13,15)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

(Additional copies of this paper free upon request.)

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in Jesus Name!

I have been studying carefully your writing together with the Present Truth for several years now – and I have come to the conclusion that you surely are “in the Truth”! The arguments you bring up against Bro. Jolly’s teaching are irrefutable. I am amazed and shocked at Bro. Jolly’s deceitful hand­ling of the Parousia & Epiphany writings in support of his own theories.

Enclosed Is $ .... to help you with the Truth work – also request for tracts... Dear Brother, I appreciate what you are doing and I daily pray and thank God for a man faithful and courageous whom He could use at a time when the Truth messages appear to be such a small and weak influence in the earth. I’m sending you a name of a Truth brother.... Perhaps you could mail him some pertinent material.

With best wishes and prayers for you and yours, Brother ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)

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

Our dear Brother and Beloved of the Lord: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you!

Your letter arrived yesterday, with its comforting words taken from Joshua 23.

Verse 11 is a good exhortation for us to continue to love the Lord our God and to keep our first love for the Truth..... Since the end of November I have been far from well.... In spite of this, two young neighbours who come over to see if they can do shopping for us, have accepted tracts and are very much interested. With my stick on the Divine Plan Chart mat, I managed to point out various features. They want to keep the tracts – What is the Soul, Where are the Dead, Resurrection of the Dead – and God’s Great Sabbath Day....

Your March paper is excellent and we do thank you for all your services, and we are rejoicing in the knowledge that the Lord will reward you. Brother ------- ­brought us the Present Truth for Nov-Dec. 1966, and we noted the Resolution of the LHMM – but “no weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper” (Isa. 54:17). We send our love to you all with Hymn 15.

Sincerely your brother ------- (ENGLAND)

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

Epiphany Bible Students Ass’n

Mount Dora, Florida

Enclosed is a request for pamphlets checked. Also a donation enclosed to cover cost of mailing. Thank you. Mrs. ------- (CONNECTICUT)

What is the Soul? Where are the Dead?

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

My dear Brother Hoefle: Greetings in the Master’s Name!

We celebrated the Memorial of our dear Redeemer’s death the evening of the 23rd... In our prayers we invoked the lord’s blessing upon all the consecrated the world over and we trust that you and all the dear ones with you have received rich blessings. Sisters ------- and ------- both received your letters, and the way Sister ------- expressed her­self, it seems that it was a real tonic for her.

Thank you for referring me to the.... Present Truth.... After reading it, I can now see the sins of the Executive Trustee of the LHMM and his supporters as they openly manifest themselves in what proves to be another “Little” Roman Catholic Church procedure, in their bid to keep you out from attending their Conventions ­with such ‘legislation’ to prohibit you from having any present and future interest in the Movement! According to that Present Truth, R. G. Jolly was trying to ‘spit up in the air,’ but the spit has fallen back in his face.....

Your brother by His Grace ------- (TRINIDAD)