NO. 64: "PRESENT-DAY LEADERSHIP OF GOD'S PEOPLE" - REVIEWED

No. 64

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

This last July‑August Present Truth confines itself mainly with the article in question. This paper came to us in the July 12 mail, at which time our August No. 63 was already complete for mailing. While we consider our August number a reasonably good exposure of the Present Truth we now discuss, yet in view of the brazen attempt at self‑justifi­ca­tion by R. G. Jolly for his many sins of teaching and practise, and his impudent flaunting of the truth, we present here some further considera­tions. He repeats, repeats, repeats with the same gusto as the unprincipled politicians; and it is indeed a sad observation that the Truth has not taught him, after all these years, that politics means no more to the Truth than does the Truth to politicians –  ­“These are contrary, the one to though other.”

R. G. Jolly makes very detailed effort to prove his superiority over the Youth­ful Worthies; but....“What you are speaks so loudly we can't hear what you say!” At the outset, let us emphasize that we have never attempted to usurp his position; our only difference with him is because of his sins and gross revolutionisms against those very Truths he claims so loudly to be upholding. The veracity of his statements seems to concern him not at all! Take, for instance, his statement at top of p. 52 – “he has been greatly and unjustly faulted” –  for publishing Volumes 16 and 17. We direct our readers to the last page of Volume 15 (which was published in 1950, shortly before Brother Johnson's death), where it will be noted he clearly states the next volumes to be published would be: “Volume XVI – Genesis‑Leviticus‑Deuteronomy; Volume XVII ­Numbers, Vol. II.” At no time in any of his writings does Brother Johnson give the slightest hint that Volumes 16 and 17 would be The Chart and The Millennium, as one of his last acts was to declare them Volumes 18 and 19. So here again – as we have so often been forced to do – we must score another brazen falsehood against this “cleansed” Epiphany Levite.

On p. 55, col. 1, last lines of par. 2, he says we deny “a class of consecrated ones in the Epiphany Camp.” Brother Johnson also denied it! In E:11‑473 Brother Johnson says, “faith‑justification lapses...by October, 1954.” We have offered this quotation in previous writings; but it has always been ignored by R. G. Jolly. Why? Because he can't answer it! All of us know Brother Johnson taught just the opposite to what R. G. Jolly is now offering; namely, those forced out of the Court into the Camp automatically lose their tentative justification. He also taught tentative justi­fication operates to the end of the Gospel Age, at which time it will cease to operate.

SOME TYPES EXAMINED

He offers a number of types to compare the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, and once more displays his tragic inability “rightly to divide the word of Truth.” On p. 51, col. 1 (12) he discusses the “seed of Abraham.” Isaac and Jacob are out­standing members of that “seed.” Is he contending the Great Company are “higher” than they? Brother Johnson taught the Ancient Worthies would forever have a higher position than the Great Company (would be higher in position during the Kingdom, although lower in nature) – a teaching all can readily discern who have the spirit of a sound mind. (See E:4‑454 and E:1‑269) Of the Great Company Paul says in Heb. 2:15: “Through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (See Berean Comments) Of the Ancient Worthies the same Apostle writes in Heb. 11:37 – “They were stoned, sawn asunder, slain with the sword.” There is no evidence of “fear” in these grand characters – no comparison at all between them and the Great Company – no evidence at all that they sat behind desks, called names, and told one falsehood after another. Thus, Brother Johnson had excellent reason to rate them above the Great Company. And the Ancient Worthies are a part of “the earthly seed of Abraham” (sand of the seashore), which seed R. G. Jolly attempts to explain in the article under review. As Brother Johnson has aptly observed – when these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. And R. G. Jolly is a living corroboration of that sage obser­vation!

By the same token, when he tries to argue inferiority for the Youthful Worthies because they are not shown in the type of Lev. 12, we observe that the Ancient Worthies are not shown there either. Nor are the Youthful Worthy Class shown in with the Great Company Class in their abandonment to Azazel process, which is no reflection on the Youthful Worthy Class (although the measurably faithful Youthful Worthies will surely have to undergo similar untoward experiences to destroy their fleshly minds, while the fully faithful Youthful Worthies will remain dead to self‑will and alive to God's will). We are not here attempting to contrast the relative standings of the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies; we merely draw attention to the nonsensical deductions of one R. G. Jolly, who is attempting by these ethereal props to set up himself as a person­age in whose teachings others should rely. At no time have we ever attempted such self­exaltation, although the one (R. G. Jolly) who now attempts self‑exaltation for himself has repeatedly accused us of it. But, then, this is what we should expect of those who talk nonsense and who must rely upon “loquacious, repetitious, false‑accusing, foolish effusions” of Epiphany crown‑losers (See E:10‑591, par. 1) to inform others of their own importance.

On p. 54 (42) he speaks of “the exceedingly fruitful ministry of the Great Company when they as Jesus' agents gather the people into the camp condition of the Epiphany.” But Brother Johnson also teaches this would be “after they are cleansed” by the “fires of Armageddon”; and (44) on this same p. 54, Brother Johnson puts the clear contradiction to R. G. Jolly's present contentions when he says,

“building the Epiphany Camp, first, from among the nominal‑church believers after the nominal‑church is destroyed,”

Of course, this clear contradiction doesn't bother R. G. Jolly one bit; and he'll also keep right on falsely claiming he is upholding Brother Johnson's teachings, while he contradicts those teachings on the very same page. Yes, he certainly is a “noble” example of a ‘Pastor and Teacher,’ as he runs amuck and ahead of the Lord to do now what will correctly be done “after the nominal church is destroyed.”

We refer once more to Brother Johnson's teaching that only the Star Members of the Gospel Age have brought forth new doctrines, and we quote from E:10‑XXIV in the Appendix on Types:

“All the brethren, except the star‑members, are forbidden direct Biblical study on new doctrines, types and prophecy, which is ‘gazing’ for them.”

Campers Consecrated is not only a new doctrine, but it voids the teachings of the Star Member on that very doctrine. Brother Johnson taught the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the unconsecrated; and he never offered the slightest inference anytime anywhere of a consecrated Class in the Epiphany Camp. Thus, R. G. Jolly, who hurls at us the false charge of “sifter, usurper,” etc., proves himself guilty of those very things – proves himself guilty of “gazing,” the penalty for which, if persisted in, is D E A T H! Let all follow him in his heedless plunge who are likeminded; also, let him produce one instance where we have done any “gazing.” His revolutionism in this instance is even more serious than his revolutionism against the Star Member's doctrine that all of the Great Company must be fully abandoned to Azazel for their cleansing. He points to himself as a living “example” of a cleansed Levite without the necessity of being included in the clear teachings of the Epiphany Messenger:

“As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient fully to free their Holy Spirit from bondage of developed worldliness, selfishness, error and sin, and in a large number hardly fazes them at all .... Their delivery to Satan implies that they come into such a condition as the priests disfellowship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them. It also implies that God temporarily abandons them, and lets Satan buffet them” .... (See E:15‑525 and March 1949 Present Truth, p. 42, col. 2). R. G. Jolly is proclaiming that he was cleansed with­out that procedure (tells us this is Epiphany “error” instead of Epiphany Truth) –  ­that he was cleansed before October 1950! All must know that Brother Johnson did not at any time during his lifetime withdraw brotherly help from R. G. Jolly. Yet he has the audacity to claim he is _in harmony’ with the Epiphany Truth. We could cite many instances of his gross and persistent revolutionism, but these two instances should suffice for now.

The ironical feature of this “strange fire” (false doctrine) is that R. G. Jolly accepted it from J. W. Krewson, whom he is now reading right out of the Household of Faith. As always occurs in such instances, the acceptance of one error requires the abandonment of one or more previously held truths. In his desperation to find some support for his new class of spiritual hybrids (Campers consecrated), R. G. Jolly nominated the half tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan to type them – contrary to the truth he once accepted from the real Pastor and Teacher, Brother Johnson, to the effect that this half tribe was counted for the whole, the entire ten tribes west of Jordan typ­ing the Restitution class. He is also forced to abandon the following truth which he once accepted, this quote being from E:10‑209:

“The Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, BUT NOT CONSECRATED Jews and Gentiles ... a building of the Epiphany Temple for the Lord.”

R. G. Jolly must now change the construction of the Epiphany Temple – another truth he once accepted – to adapt it to his Campers consecrated. And in the face of this, he is still brazen enough to offer much loud talk about his “faithful adherence” to the Star Members' teachings; in fact, in the very Present Truth we are discussing he offers quite some detail about the Epiphany Temple – all the while he himself is the one who is desecrating that Temple.

Also, in view of R. G. Jolly's bombastic claims to being ‘Pastor and Teacher,’ we believe it very apropos here to quote from E:7‑277, where Brother Johnson is dis­cussing the seven Levites in charge of the Society specifically, and Great Company members in general:

“But with the organizational leaders of the Great Company, deadness to self and world and aliveness to God are not complete (Jas. 1:8). Their selfish propensities, especially exercised in self‑will, grasping for power, lording it over God's heritage, dividing the flock and desiring to shine before others as able teachers and executives are so uncurbed by themselves, that not one of them alone can be trusted by the Lord with an unrestricted General Ministry.”

His fourteen pages in the article under discussion are in large part a direct and subtle indirect attempt at self‑laudation, a trait which always produces a bad odor –  just the opposite of the holy Spirit which exudes a “sweet odor ... the fragrance of the knowledge of God in every place.” When Brother Russell, Brother Johnson, and St. Paul spoke and wrote of themselves they had the stature to support those expres­sions without resorting to trickery and one falsehood after another to make their statements hold. And, referring to his charge of power‑grasping by us, we answer in defense that we are doing now the same as we did during Brother Johnson's life –  ­although we now address the General Church in writing; whereas, we did it verbally from the platform in General Conventions prior to 1950. Nor did Brother Johnson ever pub­licly or privately accuse us of being a power‑grasper with a bad conscience, which charges he made in writing against R. G. Jolly – the same R. G. Jolly who still has the brass to yell “power‑grasper” at us. Our Pilgrim appointment specifically author­izes us to address the General Church in any country on earth; and that is all we are doing. Nor would we be doing that now if we had a faithful leader at the helm in the L.H.M.M. For about five years after Brother Johnson's death we made no public effort to disturb R. G. Jolly, although we did make many attempts privately to him per­sonally, and “in the spirit of meekness,” to correct his gross sins and persistent revolutionisms; and our public attacks upon him came only after long private efforts had failed to reform him.

In addition to his many errors and sins, he also in 1953‑55 was openly circulat­ing slander about us; so his present disadvantages and woes are the direct product of his own making. This is identically the same experience Brother Johnson had with him –  he also was eventually forced to declare to all the Church that R. G. Jolly had a “bad conscience, was unkind and unfair, was influenced by Azazel in his conduct, given to many misrepresentations.” And all this is recorded of him before he was fully abandoned to Azazel (before all Brotherly help and favor were withdrawn from him, and before all restraint was removed by the Lord through the demise of the last Star Member in 1950). It is indeed a sad and unsavory account of R. G. Jolly that Brother Johnson left us; and we would stand guilty before the Lord if we slighted the trust the Star Member reposed in us if we should keep silent in the face of what has transpired since 1950. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

OTHER TYPES EXAMINED

Once more does R. G. Jolly inject the Hiram type into his paper in a desperate face‑saving maneuver; and once more does he effuse his self‑evident nonsense. R. G. Jolly himself was among the first and the loudest to lay hold on the Scriptural history that Solomon built the house of the Lord and finished it; and this he repeated­ly quoted in his attempt to prove that Brother Johnson was the last Saint. If the Epiphany Solomon finished the Lord's house, then self‑evidently the Epiphany Hiram had to complete his part in that work at least as soon as Brother Johnson did his part. Thus, the Hiram type had to expire at least by October 1950. In the type Hiram not only passed completely out of the Scriptural record many years before Solomon died, but history tells us he actually died some years before Solomon died – indicating here in the antitype the full consummation of the Hiram type some years before 1950. There is the same evident nonsense in R. G. Jolly's comments here as we find in so many of his “new Truth” (?) presentations.

Nor should we fail to consider here the “lad who held Samson by the hand” (Judges 16:26), and the comments on p. 60 (60). in this type it is very probable that the lad did not die with Samson, and we are in hearty accord that the “lad” (R.G.Jolly) continued in the antitype after Brother Johnson's death. But we should not forget that the Philistines in this picture typed Sectarians, and the lad was one of them – that the lad had not the slightest idea he was aiding in destroying his own clan by what he did. If the antitype still continues – and we agree that it does – then R. G. Jolly is still the “little" sectarian boy.

But in all of this let us refer to That Evil Servant for analogy. Under That Servant (while JFR was still a Saint, and even after he had lost his crown because of unfaithfulness) he performed outstanding service of nation‑wide Prominence as antitypical Benaiah, “who was captain over the third thousand” (See E9‑271), “by his booklet issued during the Time of Trouble (winter), A Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens, refuting the nominal Church's slander against our Pastor (2 Sam. 23:20).” At that time JFR was among the “three of David's (Brother Russell's) four mighty men.” (See E:10‑121) But we find a desperately­­-fatal and sad ending to that once‑effective assistant to That Servant: “the Lord ... shall cut him off, and will appoint his posi­tion with the hypocrites.” (Matt. 24:51) And with this example of tragic retrogression before us –  a renegade who made shipwreck of sublime opportunity – are we to consider his former noble deeds or his eventual sad end (“the Lord cut him off”) in our present evaluation of him?

And by the same analogy we say now of R. G. Jolly that our chief concern is what he is now – today. Like That Evil Servant, he, too, was a Saint under Brother Russell, but lost his crown because of unfaithfulness. He, too, rendered effective service later as a Great Company member under both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson –  though JFR greatly outshone him in his good acts and prominence of position (altho, in fairness to R. G. Jolly, we offer the observation, too, that his evil deeds as “the evil Epiphany Solomon,” and since, have not been nearly as heinous as those of That Evil Servant). Therefore, his recitation of valiant and commendable deeds of days long past carries no more weight than those greater deeds of That Evil Servant – although the J.W.'s still loudly recite those good acts to “prove” their present errors. The labored attempt of R. G. Jolly to live in the past could be hilariously laughable were it not so very, very sad and serious in its present consequences. He was once “a son of God,” one of the Fully Faithful, a part of the “salt” and the “light”; and his determination to have himself yet in positions forever lost once they are lost should be viewed with acute suspicion by all God's fully faithful people. Such tactics are an age‑long trick of the Adversary – the Catholic Church exploiting the noble deeds of Saint Peter as a cover‑up for their revolting sins. And when R. G. Jolly refers to himself as “a faithful pilgrim under Brother Russell,” he is indeed taxing the credulity of his readers to the utmost. Had he been “faithful,” would he have lost his crown? In his letter published in Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower (Reprints 4716) he freely admitted there he was “gazing” – just as he's been “gazing” since Brother Johnson's death. And such “gazing,” through unfaithfulness, would cause him to lose his crown – just as it will cause him to lose his life if he persists in it. This warning is not our own conclusion; it is the teaching of the Star Member! “Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle? Who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.” (Psa. 15:1,2)

In all this elaborate effort at self‑exaltation, the real concealed motive of R. G. Jolly is a sophistical attempt to divert the mines of his readers from the crush­ing refutations we have so repeatedly given him – especially those in recent months. Clearly enough, he must relieve that pressure – just as present‑day worldly autocratic frauds stir up trouble somewhere somehow when conditions at home become unbearable. Therefore, we think it well here to consider John 16:8: “When the holy spirit (Com­forter) is come, it will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg­ment.” These words by Jesus certainly entertain no respect of persons. The Holy Spirit (God's disposition and power in His people) is a priceless gift; it is also a very personal possession – not something floating about in space. But, as it brings with it “the peace of God which passeth understanding,” so it also places an obligation upon each one individually to “reprove for sin, for righteousness and for judgment.” Those who avoid this obligation offer reasonable doubt that they have the Holy Spirit at all, or have “grieved” it so badly it is almost extinct in them. And this obligation rests upon the small and the great in God's Household – “each one according to his several ability.”

In keeping with this truth, “the Lord sent Nathan unto David” (2 Sam. 12:1). While the both of them were Ancient Worthies and prophets in Israel, Nathan had no jurisdictional standing at all in the Government of Israel when he told David, the King, “Thou hast despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil in His sight.” And in Gen. 20 we have the record of the heathen Abimelech reproving Abraham, although typically and antitypically Abimelech was inferior to Abraham. A similar situation is recorded in Gen. 12:14‑20.

Furthermore, didn't R. G. Jolly advise all – Saints, Great Company, Youthful Worthies, or even the tentatively justified –  to use every power at their disposal to resist the evil course of That Evil Servant? And, has he not offered such advice to all in the L.H.M.M. respecting the evil leaders, et al, in other Little Babylon sects since Brother Johnson's death? But, concerning himself, is he telling us now it's just wrong to reprove him for sin, righteousness and judgment? It will be recalled that the pet slogan of That Evil Servant was “out of harmony with the Society” toward Brother Johnson and all others who criticized him. Even R. G. Jolly himself was “out of harmony with the Society!” And, while That Evil Servant was hypocritical enough to use the Society as his “beard” (a front to conceal the real man), R. G. Jolly makes no such pretense. He's now telling his readers, “Shame on you if you're out of har­mony with me – even though I do talk mostly nonsense!” It will be recalled that Brother Johnson repeatedly invited JJH to address the General Church, including the Saints, during those years he did not invite R. G. Jolly to do it – those years in which many of the brethren objected to service by R. G. Jolly because of his uncleansed condition – after he had been exposed as a power‑grasping revolutionist who tried to gain control of Brother Johnson. There are certain Scriptures treating of these Great Company leaders, which we hope to elucidate when we consider it the Lord's will for us to do so; but we believe present comments will suffice to satisfy our readers about the relative status of R. G. Jolly and ourselves. If we were properly qualified to “preach the word ... confute, rebuke, exhort, with all long‑suffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2) the General Church in the presence of the Star Member himself (who gave us the appoint­ment) and other Saints, then we should now be equally qualified to address those who self‑admittedly claim a lesser status. If we had an obligation to “preach the word” to the General Church under the Star Member's approval, how much more would we be obliged to do so now when a Levite – an uncleansed Levite – is in charge! In the months before his death, Brother Johnson repeatedly insisted that Brother Hoefle should con­duct his funeral; and he made these requests when the one of a “higher class” (R.G. Jolly) was right in the same house with him at Philadelphia, and JJH was 600 miles away in Detroit. Once more we repeat the words of Brother Johnson – those in Azazel's hands talk all sorts of nonsense!

“The way of the Lord is strength to the upright: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity.” (Prov. 10:29) “They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Zion, which cannot be removed, but abideth forever.” Psa. 125:1

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Greetings in His Name!

I continue to read the Present Truth magazine, as it helps me better to under­stand your refutations and strengthens my faith in the Truth. I also read J.W. Krewson's writings, although realizing that his writings could not possibly do the harm that R. G. Jolly's can (his foolishness being so transparent). In J. W. Krew­son's June paper he tells his readers it is “dangerous” to read R. G. Jolly's writ­ings. I note you tell your readers the opposite – to read the Present Truth and compare with your writings. Of course, I realize the Present Truth could not help ‘babes’ –  and such might become entangled with the L.H.M.M. sectarian errors, just as many such have become bound in sectarian bondage with the Jehovah's Witnesses. But for those who have been grounded in Parousia and Epiphany Truth not to be able to read what R. G. Jolly has to say, at this late date – and discern between truth and error, good and evil – is unthinkable! Nor do we believe any such would be so led for any length of time, except the measurably faithful, or the unfaithful.

J. W. Krewson now at last admits R. G. Jolly was uncleansed at the outset (after Brother Johnson's demise in 1950) just as you have taught all along. This is in direct contradiction to what J. W. Krewson has taught heretofore, and is a new twist for him. In his previous writings he's said R. G. Jolly was ‘cleansed’ when he was collaborating with him – when he was publishing his advancing (?) Truth (actually his advancing errors), but became uncleansed when his ambitious power-­grasping tendencies to ‘unseat’ R. G. Jolly became apparent to him; that when J. W. Krewson was no longer preparing the ‘food’ in the Present Truth magazine R. G. Jolly was abandoned to Azazel (at the time losing the brotherly ‑?‑ help of J. W. Krewson!). We note you have simply pointed out the clear Scriptural Epiphany teaching on the _abandonment to Azazel’ process –  which teaches that none of the Great Company (including those who lost their crowns by the skin of their teeth) could be fully abandoned to Azazel until all brotherly help and favor of the Priests were removed from them – which, in the case of R. G. Jolly, was done for the first time when Brother Johnson was removed at his demise in 1950. None of them could be fully cleansed, as you point out, without this last step (even though some, as apparently R. G. Jolly was for a time, received a partial cleansing when partially in Azazel's hands – See E:15‑524 and top of p. 525). But R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson revolutionize against this clear Epiphany teaching, and are persisting therein, it seems.

As you refer to them, these “cousins” were quite a pair when they were “in harmony” with one another: each one patting the other on the back for his efforts (in revolutionizing against the Truth and its Arrangements), without any restraint from any one at the time (at least any public resistance) of their fleshly minds.

Both have the same characteristics – hesitate not (as you often say) to practise any kind of gymnastics on large or small issues, if it suits their purposes, or whims. J. W. Krewson has reiterated the statement several times that Truth needs no defense, yet he repeatedly tells us he has to defend his teachings (see his June paper, page 8, par. 4). Is that an admission that his ‘teaching’ is error? At the bottom of page 16 of J. W. Krewson's June paper (and top of page 17) he points out the fact (which certainly is the truth!) that what happened in the L.H.M.M. head­quarters after 1950 was an “exact facsimile” to what happened after Brother Russell's death. This is quite an admission! How true it is! One error after another was foisted on the Lord's people, with J. W. Krewson the chief writer (as he admits ­see bottom of p. 21 and top of p. 22), while R. G. Jolly was the “dummy” editor. Did the Watch Tower under J. F. Rutherford ever publish one item of error written by Brother Johnson after Brother Russell's death? These strained parallels simply stand out for the nonsense, as you say, that they are! It is now quite a spectacle to see them “refuting” one another to gain the chief seat in the synagogue! J. W. Krewson says he's the only one now claiming the “teaching” office (i.e. to be the Mouthpiece). It seems to me that R. G. Jolly has done a great deal of that in the past, and is doing a pretty good job of pointing to himself as the chief one in the July‑August Present Truth. Certainly, R. G. Jolly has more “credentials” to dis­play than does J. W. Krewson (who has simply nothing to offer). He claims Brother Russell wasn't given any official standing by any previous Star Member. Of course not! Brother Russell did not work with and under any previous Star Member as did J. W. Krewson. He can't point out one official act Brother Johnson performed that would indicate he had any special talent or prerogatives. Brother Johnson very frequently pointed out the Toms, Dicks and Harries of the Krewson variety (who had writer's itch), who were never appointed to the Pilgrim office by Brother Russell. Brother Russell certainly ‘put his hand’ upon Brother Johnson (although the Lord gave him his appointment as Epiphany Messenger). He was a faithful Pilgrim.

Brother Johnson surely did give R. G. Jolly some recognition, even though he had to expose his sins. We all know that R. G. Jolly had certain fine qualifi­cations, but none of us ever heard of anything outstanding about J. W. Krewson until after Brother Johnson's demise (when R. G. Jolly gave him so much prominence). His (J. W. Krewson's) inability and inadequacy for the position he claims are only too clearly manifest in his writings.

There's so much more that could be said about the both of them, but I will stop for now. If you care to use any part of this letter in the interest of the Truth, you may do so. May the Lord bless you as you Courageously keep up the “good fight.”

Your sister by His Grace -------

NOTE: –  And the same may be said for the “advancing Truth” these two “cousins” have presented on the pyramid (both claiming it to be “advancing Truth”). Repeat­edly have we referred to those 27 mathematical frauds in the Jan. 1947 Present Truth. After that revolting exposition of their “skill” on pyramid figures, it would seem to us that only such as have no shame in them could ever again have the unmitigated gall to mention that structure. Those who can produce such counterfeit figures are able to “prove” anything with figures. Here is a powerful proof of the truism –  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure! It should be kept in mind that the pyramid is a “witness”; it does not produce advancing Truth – it merely “witnesses” to Truth already deduced from the Bible, which is superior to the pyramid. Without the Bible, the pyramid would tell us just nothing at all. –  JJH

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Thank you very much for sending me the tracts. I shall mail them as I have time. I am at a new address here in.... May the Lord bless you richly!

Your sister ------- Colorado

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Greetings in His Name! May I hasten to ask you to forward about 50 of the Resurrection tracts. I'm completely out. For the most part I've distributed these at burial grounds, and they were accepted. I trust you may ultimately receive some response for other literature. And now with ardent Christian love to you and Sister Hoefle, and all the Blessedness in this His Service.

By His Grace, Your brother ------- NJ

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Grace and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ in appreciation of the good work you are doing! I would like for you to accept this Calendar of ‘Bonny Scotland.’ These places are near where Brother and Sister ... are living, and they took me to see them during my summer holidays ...... I think I have mentioned to you before that Brother ... is over 90, and still working. I have managed to give out your tracts to various people, and have met with three who are interested in the Truth. I very often get mistaken for a Jehovah's Witness, until I manage to explain the difference..... Your writings are a great help, as owing to health and weather conditions I am unable to meet with Brother --------- only on the last Sunday of the month. He lives some distance away from me. May God bless you both and give you strength to carry on the good work.

In Jesus' Name and Service, Sister ------- England

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

My dear Brother Hoefle:

Greetings of love and peace in our dear Redeemer's Name! Well, Brother, I have received your papers, which we were very glad to get. There are features in them that we never understood before, and in many of the others, too. The statements are clearly put so that any one who might be interested could gain the _knowledge of the Truth,’ and understand. Thank the Lord for you, Brother! He has always reserved some one to do His work. Just like our dear Sister Condell, who has done such a wonderful work by sending our names to you that we can be getting the papers direct from you now that she has passed away. But she has a record left behind for the good work she has done. Oh, Brother, I just can't express the grievous blow and personal loss that the death of our dear sister has been to us..... May the Lord help each one of us to do our part as dear Sister Condell did hers. Fondest love from the home circle for you, Sister Hoefle and the others. The Lord bless and increase your knowledge more and more...

Your sister and brother ------- Jamaica

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

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Grace and peace be multiplied unto you and Sister Hoefle as brave, faithful Gideonites...... I no longer take P.T. or Bro. K's writings. I feel there is no doubt as to their having misled many dear ones whom I have tried to help. The tracts came the 28th and were so welcome. I am enclosing $... for the postage of this lot and the next one.

With sincere love in the Lord, Sister ------- Mass.

NO. 63: RESPECTING 1954

No. 63

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

Questions have come to us from time to time with respect to the status of Youth­ful Worthies that have been misled by the date 1954, and to new ones also being mis­led by it through the Jolly-Krewson twosome. In an effort to clarify further this serious situation we quote once more from E:10-672 (published in 1941), where Brother Johnson says, "non-Truth .... Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed and others of them afterward." If this compelling statement is accepted, it is in itself enough to annihilate completely the doctrine of Campers Consecrated or Quasi-elect Consecrated, and brand it for the "strange fire" (false doctrine) that it is.

But we shall elaborate further in an effort to make this matter clear beyond fear of further contradiction. We are told in 1 Kings 6 that Solomon built the house of the Lord, and "in the eleventh year (of his reign) the house was finished." (v. 38) Brother Johnson has interpreted the building of the House of the Lord for Epiphany pur­poses as “Arranging God's people in their separate classes and in their Epiphany work." Certainly, we are still in the Epiphany; and if the Epiphany Solomon (Brother John­son) was to "finish the house," it would mean he had clearly seen and classified all the Epiphany elect classes before his death. All of us know full well that Campers Consecrated was not one of the classes he defined, because he clearly taught that the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture would contain the believing, but unconsecrated, Jews and Gentiles.

In further support of our contention that Campers Consecrated is "strange fire" ''false doctrine) we cite E:11-495 (bottom): "None of these brothers were the first to see new doctrines, which under Jesus is the exclusive privilege of the star-members." Certainly, Campers Consecrated is a new doctrine; no one ever heard of it before the Jolly-Krewson twosome foisted it upon the LHMM adherents after Brother Johnson's death: so we repeat our contention in the paragraph above: If this compelling statement by Brother Johnson is accepted, it is in itself enough to annihilate completely the new doctrine of Campers Consecrated, and to brand it as a piece of Levitical impudence.

There is a fourth line of thought which militates against this false doctrine, the same being found in the erection of the Gospel Age, the Epiphany and the Millen­nial Tabernacles. At Pentecost when the first Gospel-Age new creatures (Jesus ex­cepted) appeared, the entire Church of the Gospel Age was there tentatively and repre­sentatively set up. (See E-8-174) When that event occurred, another event occurred in that same instantaneous flash of time – Namely, the reception of any more Ancient Worthies was immediately and forever ended; no more human beings could ever again join that select company. They must then join the Christ Company, or remain on the "broad road" until another "day" arrived. While it is true the last of the Ancient Worthies in the person of John the Baptist walked the road of sacrifice unto death concurrently with Jesus, he had come into that Company six months before Jesus arrived at Jordan; but after Jordan his disciples in ever-increasing numbers left him to fol­low Jesus. "All the prophets instructed till John." (Matt. 11:13-Dia.) "He must in­crease, but I must decrease." (John 3:30) Thus, any attempt of John's disciples to continue among the prophets would avail them just nothing. An identical situation de­veloped at Sept. 16, 1914, when the last member of the Christ Company was garnered into the Gospel-Age Harvest, thus setting up tentatively and individually the Gospel-­Age Tabernacle... Any newcomers into the Household of Faith who would persist after that time to be of the High Calling would find themselves in exactly the same position of the disciples of John who may have in­sisted on continuing in the Jewish-Age prophets – they would be definitely out of order. And, seeing the exacting precision with which the Jewish-Age and Gospel-­Age elective arrangements have been consummated, we are logically justified in con­cluding that the ending of the Epiphany Tabernacle and setting up of the Millennial Tabernacles would follow the same pattern; and Brother Johnson shows from his words quoted above that this would not occur until sometime after Armageddon. Therefore, it is little wonder the Jolly-Krewson twosome has not been able to produce a single Scripture anywhere to support their "strange fire." This is a little more raw, even, than the aberrations of That Evil Servant, who did produce some semblance of a Scrip­ture on which to hang his figurative hat. Here is a 'spiritual hybrid' without father or mother, a 'new creation' as weird as it is new, the first ever to be pro­duced without a mother – all the elect classes having been decidedly mothered by the precious promises of the Scriptures, with no such promises, prophecies or types be­ing addressed to Epiphany Campers Consecrated, and not a hint of the same in any of the writings of the last two Star Members. None of us who had sat at the feet of Brother Johnson for any period of time before his death would have believed such a situation possible ten years ago. Without the nurturing of a mother (feeding on the promises) no Gospel-Age consecrators could walk "the" or "a" narrow way. The only promises the "cousins" can offer for their covenant by sacrifice are those ap­plicable to ALL Restitutionists – who do not now sacrifice.

All of the foregoing poises some serious questions: First, what about those Youthful Worthies who have so flagrantly forsaken the clear teachings of the last Star Member to follow now in the deception of uncleansed Levites? We answer that 1954 was a crucial date for them to the extent that they have fallen under the errors presented then and since. Those who recover themselves will, we believe, maintain their Youthful Worthy standing, with many others probably losing their standing com­pletely. It needs no argument from us that a well-grounded humility is required to admit mistakes for which we have strenuously striven. The Epiphany is a time for "making manifest the counsels of hearts," and it would be folly indeed to think those in the LHMM would escape this Epiphany manifestation.

The second question now in order  is  what  hope  to  present  to  new  consecrators: Should we encourage such with Youthful Worthy prospects as their hope? We would not try to improve upon Brother Johnson's answer to this very question many years ago, as recorded in E-4-420 (19): "We should now encourage believers to consecrate, because consecration is always in order. We should, however, not now encourage any one to consecrate in hope of the High Calling. Nor should we now encourage people to consecrate offering them as the incentive a reward for so doing, because conse­cration should never be made to get a reward. It should be out of faith in the Lord's word, out of grateful love for past mercies and out of appreciative love for God's good character .... We are not to encourage them to enter into business dealings with God. We are to encourage them to enter into consecration dealings with God. Yes, we should zealously encourage believers now to consecrate to God in this true spirit."

 The Question set out above, with its answer, is probably more important to us now than it was at the time Brother Johnson answered it. He wrote it at the time to refute mainly the Society, Dawn and PBI errorists, who denied such a class, while proclaiming their own errors on their specific class of spiritual hybrids; but since his death there has arisen a new set of errorists proclaiming a new class of hybrids-­namely, Consecrated Epiphany Campers and Quasi-elect Consecrated, classes which neither Brother Russell nor Brother Johnson even so much as hinted would appear to­ward the end of the Epiphany. Therefore, we now give a hearty Amen to Brother Johnson's answer as being just as pertinent now as it was when he wrote it; and we advise our readers to carry on with it in the same spirit and the same zeal as was done when he was still with us. Therefore, we urge upon our readers a careful study of the Question on page 420, with the full answer presented there.

Also, a word is in order here about "consecration being always in order." Jesus Himself said, "No man cometh unto me, except the Father which sent me draw him"; and it should be kept clearly in mind that there are two parts to every con­secration – that is, the presentation by the one wishing to consecrate, and the acceptance of that offering by our Lord. We cite the case of Cornelius – "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house .... and prayed to God alway." It is certainly no exaggeration of truth to conclude that Cornelius was the same man, with the same heart condition, for a matter of days, at least (and probably for months, maybe even years, as it is Brother Russell's observation that he was probably the centurion whose servant Christ healed, and possibly the one who supervised the cruci­fixion of Jesus – See Berean Comment on Acts 10:1 and Matt. 27:54), before his offer­ing was accepted and on him "was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." Yet he could not come into the Christ Company until the "due time"! And just as fixedly, none can come into the Millennial arrangement on the Highway of Holiness until the "due time." In the case of Cornelius a compelling demonstration was given – crystal clear to all those present – that the "due time" had arrived to admit Gentiles into the Christ Company. Let those contending for Campers Consecrated show even the remotest external indication of any kind whatever that any change of procedure occurred at 1954. When the "due time" comes for such a change, we may be sure God's faithful people will not be left wondering and doubting – any more than was true when the nar­row way was opened for the Gentiles,

Tentative Justification for Gospel-Age elective processes is exclusively a Gospel-Age condi­tion; and both Messengers said it would cease to operate when the Gospel Age ceases to operate.  Nor did either of them ever say it would end before the Gospel Age ceases. All the evidence shows we are still in the Gospel Age; there­fore, Tentative Justification is still operating, and that for elective purposes as a faith justification. Those who do not use it will lose it in the end of the Age, being remanded to the Epiphany Camp, as Brother Johnson has repeatedly stated. Such of these as adhere to righteousness and continue to accept Jesus as their Savior will be among the quasi-elect of the Millennial Kingdom, making their consecration for admission to the Highway of Holiness – and not before. Let those, then who wish to offer the "strange fire" (false doctrine) of a non-existent Consecrated Campers Class go their way. If they persist therein, those of the Great Company who do so will lose life completely; and the Youthful Worthies who persist therein will fully lose their Class standing. Let each determine for himself what his course shall be.

Sincerely your Brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – In your analysis of Sectarianism, did you mean that all in Big and Little Babylon are sectarian?

ANSWER: – Most certainly not! There are individuals everywhere who are not sectarian, although in sectarian groups – just as there have been individuals in Present Truth all during Laodicea who have been rabidly sectarian, despite the faithful teachings and continued warnings of the two Messengers against this evil. However, just accepting the opinions of the two Messengers in preference to our own would not constitute any one a sectarian. Our attitude in this matter, as was the case with Brother Johnson in respect to the opinions of Brother Russell, is to accept the opinions of the last two Star Members in preference to our own, except where those opinions have been proven pointedly wrong by clear Scriptures, or where time has demonstrated that those opinions could not possibly be correct – as, for instance, some of Brother Russell's opinions respecting 1914, and some of Brother Johnson's opinions respecting 1954, etc.

Nor should we consider it our duty to harass those set in prominent position by the Lord when we differ with them in their opinions (although the differing with their opinions is certainly our privilege, and in some instances may be more nearly correct than theirs). We should realize that whatever mistakes they may make, and have made, will be overruled by the Lord "for good" – for their good as well as for the best interests of all the Lord's people. If they are faithful under-Shepherds, we should realize that even their mistakes are overruled for good, for the 'trial of your faith' in many instances. We are indeed to 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints' (their faithful teachings based upon Scripture), but we are not to contend combatively for their opinions, nor our own – nor are we to be contentious regarding differences of opinions which are impossible of present positive proof. One might say that some of the brethren who had a different opinion from Brother Russell and Brother Johnson, should have 'contended' over their faulty expectations. But we don't believe this would have been the proper course (even though if given an opportunity they could have expressed their opinions vs. the Star Members to them). Many of the Star Members have made mistakes regarding time features, but most of us realize (especially the faithful Epiphany-enlightened brethren), too, that these mistakes were indeed overruled for our good. Some have said it was sectarian to accept Bro. Johnson's expectations and opinions based on the parallels regarding the Epiphany period, etc., at the time he gave such thoughts. But such is not the case, although when time has proved them to be wrong we are not to hold on to those opinions and try to force features into them that aren't there. It is as true today as ever that hindsight is better than foresight; and mistakes of time always seem so self-evident when time itself makes those mistakes manifest. The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble being one and the same is a Scriptural teaching, and we should not abandon this funda­mental teaching, or any other basic Epiphany teaching, just because Brother Johnson expected the parallels to continue to work, which, of course, ceased at his death in 1950. If we are to forsake the Mouthpieces of God because of their expectations and such mistakes, then we would have to forsake many – such as Brother Hiller, Brother Russell, Brother Johnson, et al.

Nor do we consider it sectarianism for any of the Lord's people to accept the opinions of those whom the Lord specially uses in preference to their own opinions, although their own thoughts may subsequently prove to be more nearly correct. We should be free to express an opinion as against any one's, whether the Lord's Mouthpiece or otherwise, although we certainly shouldn't contend for our opinions as though we were 'contending for the faith' once delivered to the Saints. Naturally, the Lord's Mouthpieces, if not fully convinced by the logic against their opinions, would be inclined to hold to their own opinions until proved wrong. No faithful brethren would reason otherwise.

We all know there were some immaturities and errors in the Parousia Vol. 4, which was widely distributed as a witness work to the world, but we also know the Lord overruled this matter, even the immaturities and errors "for good" – especially for the Lord's people, because the Truths in that book are mainly phenomenally cor­rect, considering that it was written about 75 years ago.

One might ask – Why can't the Great Company leaders' mistakes be 'overruled for good' in the same way? The difference is this: God did not authorize them to do more than be faithful to their stewardship Truths (which they have always per­verted, while performing valiant service with those features they did not pervert). He did not authorize them to "preach" any prophecy or doctrine which they themselves felt they received directly from the Lord (the Lord does not give advancing Truth, or new doctrines to the Great Company leaders except through His Star Members). The Lord did not approve their efforts in this respect; their teachings of false doc­trines would be "strange fire." But in the case of the Star Members, He did indeed give them the 'meat in due season' to disperse to the Household; and in this they have taught certain opinions and expectations which had no Scriptural proof. Should we fault them for that? No, indeed! As they were faithfully seeking to ful­fill their office functions their various human qualities oftentimes were manifested in their writings. They were not infallible men; they did not write, as did the Apostles, by inspiration in the sense that their writings were perfect. But their teachings were perfect in that they did teach and preach all the Lord gave them to do.

So there is a difference, and a great difference, in the leaders who have been given doctrines by the Star Members as their stewardship, and the Star Members who were given the enlightenment as 'meat in due season' for the Household – directly from the Lord. The Epiphany-enlightened brethren are fully aware of this difference. We are not to fault the Star Members for their human frailties, nor are we to fault the Great Company leaders for their inherited human frailties; however, we are to fault the Great Company leaders for their power-grasping efforts and tendencies, and such human frailties as they willfully allow to control them. These are traits not found in the faithful Star Members and crown-retainers (the Little Flock): None of them were power-graspers, and some of them were very obscure so far as concerned notice from this world (although all 49 Star Members were very great in intellect and in the sight of God).

In connection with individuals among the groups of Little Babylon, we all know that there have been Saints among them during the Epiphany. They are not sectarian in spirit, of course, even though in the midst of a sectarian system. This was true of the saints all during the Gospel Age, even though affiliated with the various sects, they themselves were not sectarian in spirit (although in conduct perhaps they might have appeared so, having been injected with many sectarian errors). And we believe this applies to the Youthful Worthies in Little and Big Babylon – many of them may not be sectarian in spirit, although contaminated with sectarian errors. Some of them will be won for the Truth before Babylon falls and some after; and the fully faith­ful among them will conquer sectarianism in themselves, as Brother Johnson has shown from the type of Oreb and Zeeb, explained in E-5:226-228.

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

QUESTION: – On page 55 of the July 1960 Bible Standard Brother Jolly says the Great Company are "the sons of God." Is this correct?

ANSWER: – First of all it should be kept in mind that most of the article that now prompts your question is from the writings of Brother Russell. The last paragraph on page 54, col. 1, is almost verbatim the July 12 Manna comment on John 8:36. This certainly has our hearty approval. Had he confined himself to the writings of the Star Members, he would not have exposed himself to the many criticisms that have been directed at him.

However, part of what appears on page 55 is so garbled that it would be highly misleading to new readers. Half truths are often more misleading than whole errors and R. G. Jolly is most prone to this fault almost any time he attempts to express any of his own opinions. For sometime now he has been putting himself in the "us," the "we," the "salt," the "light," the Fully Faithful, etc., so it should be no sur­prise to see him moving himself right into the Gospel-Age sons. Rom. 8:16 says, "We are the children of God," and v. 17 leaves not the slightest doubt that this refers exclusively to the Saints, and does not include the Great Company – "If chil­dren, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."

All Gospel-Age new creatures were at the outset "sons of God"; but those of them who eventually lost their saintly standing then assumed an entirely different status. Note Brother Johnson's comments in E4–98: "We have previously pointed out that the Little Flock is sometimes typed by a male child, and the Great Company by a female child, when the two classes are contrasted; even as Little Flock members are spoken of as Jehovah's sons (John 1:12; 1 John 1:1,2), while Great Company members are spoken of as Jehovah's daughters and as His maidservants (2 Cor. 6:18; Joel 2:29)". We know of no place anywhere that crown-losers are referred to in the Bible as "sons." They are often classified as "sinners," a special class of sinners apart from the general run of Adamic sinners – sinners to such a degree that their entire works are burned (as was the case with Lot), they themselves escaping only with their lives. It should be kept in mind that R. G. Jolly is the only leader of any of the sects in Little Babylon who openly admits he is of the Great Company; but many of his other statements confuse the situation so badly that it is only too manifest that Babel (confusion) has him sadly in its grasp. Also, at no time does the Bible de­scribe the Saints as sinners; and Brother Russell taught it would be wrong for any Saint to pray, "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner" – because "ye are washed; ye are sanctified" (1 Cor. 6:11 – See Berean Comment).

Lest we be misunderstood, both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson teach that the Great Company will eventually be among the "sons of God" – just as every human being who survives the Little Season will also be a son of God, just as ''Adam was the son of God;" but it certainly is not a correct statement to teach this in the present tense of manifested Great Company members. In the Leviticus 12 type the Great Company is definitely classified as the female child "in the Parousia and in the Epiphany" (See E:4-98). And, since we are still in the Epiphany, this is the correct present classification for them, regardless of what may become of them in the future. As we have so often pointed out in our writings, we need never expect a clear and comprehensive exposition on any subject from R. G. Jolly so long as he remains in his present uncleansed condition.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n –

Gentlemen:

I am interested in securing copies of the following:

The Resurrection of the Dead

The Three Babylons

What is the Soul

Sincerely --------- Mass.

Dear Brother Hoefle:

I was so glad to hear from you and to get the papers. Please forgive me for not writing sooner. I think of you and pray for you both as I know how hard it is to give of your time, money and study. But I know it is the love of the Lord and the brethren – that you are faithful and loving to all of us. I am such a poor writer...... I think of you and Sister and love you all. Let me hear from you. I haven't heard anything from --------- I wish the enclosed could be more to help..

 God bless you and pray for me..

Christian love --------- N. J.

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in His dear name. Grace and Peace!

Please send me the "Third Watch" of January 1, 1957. I only have the 1957 papers from July 1 to Dec. 1, 1957. If you have them, will you please send them to me? Thank you! ... I noted what you have to say about the name Jehovah. Is it wrong to use that name? Brother Russell in Parousia Vol. 5, 40-41 says name applied to ''Father of glory" – see pp. 72-65. I know Jehovah's Witnesses is a sect and out of Harmony with the Truth.  Enclosed is $ ... for the Lord's work.

Yours by His Grace, --------- Conn.

NO. 62: THE SPIRIT OF THE TRUTH VS. THE SPIRIT OF UNDERSTANDING

No. 62

My beloved Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Inasmuch as it has been correctly stated that the Holy Spirit in God’s people is His “disposition” and His power in His people, and, since the Holy Spirit is basic to understanding the Truth and conforming ourselves to that Truth, it has been concluded by some that the two parts of our subject resolve themselves into one and the same thing. That such conclusion is not the correct one will become apparent, we believe, from our further analysis. At the outset, let us recognize that the Spirit of Understanding is of the mind, and precedes the Spirit of the Truth, which is of the heart; and that these are lost in the reverse order in which they are gained. The Spirit of the Truth is first “grieved” before one be­gins to lose the understanding of that Truth which once sanctified him. Therefore, let us keep clearly in mind that the Spirit of Understanding never departs from any one instantaneously; it must first be undermined by “grieving” the Spirit of the Truth in the heart; hence, the significance of the admonition, “Keep thy heart with all diligence.”

In Isa. 11:2 “the spirit of understanding” is in apposition to the “spirit of the Lord,” which proves these two expressions are an inseparable part of each other. However, in v. 3 we are told that the “quick understanding” which Jesus possessed was a result of “the spirit of the Lord that shall rest upon him.” Even in v. 2 it would hardly be technically correct to say the “spirit of the Lord” and the “spirit of understanding” are one and the same, because the “spirit of understanding” is only one of many qualities of the “spirit of the Lord.” Fundamentally, the “spirit of understanding” is God’s disposition in His people that enables them to perceive and to reason correctly, especially as respects Present Truth.

St: Paul has given us the truth that “the greatest of these (character qualities) is love” (agape), and St. Peter establishes agape as the crowning virtue (2 Pet.1:5-8) –­ the which, if we attain it, “will not permit you to be inactive nor unfruitful in the knowledge” (Dia.) – the Spirit of Understanding (the ability to perceive and reason clearly and correctly) will not depart from such characters. Therefore, regardless of the strivings, the laudable ambitions, the yearnings in some for “the more emi­nent gifts,” yet “a much more excellent way I point out to you” (1 Cor. 12:31––Dia.) –­ the “more excellent way” being the attainment and retention of agape love in the heart – the Spirit of the Truth.

In seeming contradiction to the foregoing, Solomon writes that “wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Prov. 4:7). It should be apparent that “understanding” is necessary for us to at­tempt the development of agape love in the heart; we must first learn about it, learn what it is, and its method of operation. This situation is thus akin to the old question, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That knowledge – the Spirit of Understanding – is basic to the acceptance of Christianity and the development of all the graces is clearly defined by St. Paul in Gal. 3:2 – “Received ye the Spirit by works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?” “How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? .... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”—Rom. 10:14-17 (how could it be possible to establish a faith on which to build agape love without the Spirit of Understanding?). Therefore, “to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded (have the Spirit of Understanding) is life and peace” (Rom. 8:6); “the King­dom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in a holy spirit” (Rom. 14:17) – the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth – understanding the Truth and conforming ourselves to it.

That some do not persevere as above described is only too sadly apparent; in fact, the Scriptures point out a “great multitude” who fail to do so. Only those who “abide in my word” – those who develop and retain the Spirit of the Truth – continue to “know the Truth that makes free indeed.” Such do not lose the Spirit of Understanding. But once the Spirit of the Truth is lost in the heart, the Spirit of Understanding is not long in departing from such people; and it soon becomes manifest to those about them – ­especially to those who have the Spirit of Understanding. Of course, such loss be­comes more precipitate where the deflection from the Spirit of the Truth is most pro­nounced. Brother Russell said of such that they “dream strange, unreasonable things.” Brother Johnson was still more direct and sharp: When these people are abandoned to Azazel (as the Lord lets go of their hand) they talk all sorts of nonsense, he said. He spoke thus of the “great multitude”; and the wording would apply exclusively to them, although the principle would follow through with the measurably faithful Youthful Worthies as well. As the Truth always imparts to its possessor “the spirit of a sound mind,” so its loss brings a corresponding unsound mind – moreso, quite often, than before such people knew the Truth at all. Therefore, the Lord’s words, “If the light that is in thee be(come) darkness, how great is that darkness!” But, while the measurably faithful may often go into extreme confusion of mind on the things they had once “learned and been assured of,” they do not lose fully the Spirit of the Truth unless they leave completely the Household of Faith. Nevertheless, the explana­tion is aptly set forth in James 1:15: “Then when lust (evil desire – selfishness, worldliness ) hath conceived (in the mind), it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished (in the heart, thus destroying fully the Spirit of the Truth), bringeth forth death” – the second death to the Great Multitude, and loss of Worthy­ship to others.

Manifestly, the degree of the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth is not the same in all even of the fully faithful. Jesus Himself had the Holy Spirit “without measure,” and this made Him of “quick understanding,” gave to Him the “spirit of wisdom (of a ‘sound mind’), the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the reverence of Jehovah.” (Isa. 11:2-3) In the twelve Apostles the Holy Spirit was also abundant enough to enable them to write by inspiration and to impart the miraculous gifts of the Spirit to others. All of the other 37 Star Members of the Gospel Age were men of unusual intellect, which enabled them to have more of the Spirit of Under­standing than did their fellows. And, while this made them lights of superior glory, it did not elevate them above the Class in which the entire 144,000 Saints are found. From the least to the greatest in that elect company all have had sufficient of the Spirit of Understanding in mind and the Spirit of the Truth in heart to enable them to “make their calling and election sure.”

Brother Russell has this to say in Parousia Volume 3, p. 94: “The oil, or spirit of consecration, and its attendant light cannot be communicated from one virgin to another. Each for himself must be filled with the spirit; each must get his own supply of oil (the Truth, and its spirit of consecration and holiness); and the cost is considerable in the way of self-denial and misrepresentation and fiery trial.”

The Holy Spirit is a gift from God to His faithful people; and, regardless of their heredity or providential circumstances, it develops in all the Spirit of Under­standing and the Spirit of the Truth.  This comes to all in ever-increasing measure as they continue faithful, just as it gradually decreases in the unfaithful, eventu­ally vanishing completely in those who “grieve the Spirit” unto death. But, as it gradually increases in the faithful, it makes them figuratively fragrant, comely and fully qualified to fulfill “His good pleasure” for each in the Household of Faith. This is graphically and forcefully portrayed in the anointing oil with which Aaron and others were inducted into office in the Jewish Age. Exodus 30:22-38 recites the formula for making the anointing oil, and the rules pertinent to its use. Aside from olive oil as its base, that oil contained cassia, calamus (or sweet cane) cinnamon and flowing myrrh – all to be the best and rarest of their kind.

All of these products were highly scented, used in the manufacture of perfumes. “Thou shalt make an oil of holy ointment... compounded after the art of the apothecary,” says Ex. 30:25; and the marginal reading states it was to be made “after the art of the perfumer.” Note, then, the beautiful reference of St. Paul in 2 Cor. 2:14-17 (Dia,): “We triumph with the Anointed One, who diffuses by us the fragrance of the knowledge of Him in every place. Because we are a sweet odor of Christ to God, among those who are being saved... an odor of life unto life.... We are not like the many, trafficking the Word of God: but really from sincerity, and as from God, in the pres­ence of God, we speak concerning Christ,” Thus, just as a rare perfume refreshes, relaxes and pleases all who smell it, so the Holy anointing in God’s people should make them ever more appealing to all right-minded persons; and especially is this true among those who have this anointing in themselves. It tends to attract them to one another, and enables them to sing with sincerity and ardor, “Blessed be the tie that binds,”

Of those thus “perfumed” St. Paul thunders forth the challenge: “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” Those of “low degree” who have succeeded in attaining to “His resurrection” – who faithfully preserved their anointing in full “fragrance” – have all the questions answered for them; the evil ridicule, the abuse, the derision are indeed “light afflictions” – they may all join in that grand anthem of their Lord and Elder Brother: “They shall see of the travail of their souls, and they shall be satisfied,” (Isa. 53:11) “By His knowledge (His “quick understanding”) shall my righteous servant justify many”; and this principle applies in its fullness to all those who faithfully “follow in His steps.” Especially in this Harvest period do we have the assurance that all the fully faithful have received the due Truth for them; and we are equally assured that the measurably faithful lose the words which once made them clean (John 15:3), thus clearly revealing their uncleansed condition.

Nor should this surprise us! “This is life eternal that they may know thee,” said Jesus. At first glance this seems very simple and easy of understanding – until we ask what it means to “know” God.  St, John gives us the answer: “And everyone that loveth (has agape love, the Spirit of the Truth, in his heart) is born of God, and knoweth God, He that loveth not (who has either lost the Spirit of the Truth, or never had it at all) knoweth not God,” (1 John 4:7,8) To all the latter – whether Great Company or Youthful Worthies – the judgment is clearly pronounced: “Because they admitted not the love of the Truth (did not develop the Spirit of the Truth in Their hearts)... on this account God will send them an energy of delusion, to their believing the falsehood; in order that all those may be judged who believed not the Truth,” (2 Thes. 2:10-12) Timely indeed are the Berean Comments on this Scripture: “If we do not cultivate love for the truth until it outweighs all other things, we will not be fit for the Kingdom... All, in the end of the Gospel Age, who, having been favored with the Word of God, have failed to appreciate and use it... Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possess­ing the most light of Present Truth,” The comments in Reprints, p. 5095, are good companion to the foregoing:

“Whatever may be the imperfection of mind and body resulting from the fall, those who receive the spirit of a sound mind are thereby made purer, kinder, gentler, less selfish and more thoughtful in regard to others. Those who are thus rightly exercised will develop the spirit of love increasingly until that which is perfect shall have come and that which is in part shall have been done away – 1 Cor. 13:10.

“The spirit of a sound mind makes one’s judgment clearer, truer, more trust­worthy than before, for it impels him to accept the instructions of the Word of God in respect to what he should and should not do, and to reject his own faulty judgment.”

When St. Paul speaks of some “who admitted not the love of the Truth,” it should be borne in mind that all who have ever received “the sweet odor of Christ” had at the time “a good and honest heart”; otherwise, God would not have accepted their sacrifice. A contrary instance is recorded in Acts 8:18-21, where St. Peter told the avaricious Simon: “Thou has neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.” But of those who have received the “anointing” – these then developed into two classes – those who “admitted the love of the Truth,” and those who failed to do so. “The love of the Truth” carries with it two meanings: “Love of Truth until it outweighs all other thing” (Berean Comments on above), and the love (agape) which the Truth is designed to develop in the hearts. The very purpose of the Sarah Covenant is to perfect in love (agape) all who embrace it; and this prin­ciple would be pertinent to all during the reign of evil who have “made a covenant by sacrifice.”

How pertinent, then, are St. Paul’s words in Rom. 11:22—(Dia): “Behold, then, the kindness and the severity of God; severity, indeed, toward those having fallen (through failure to keep the spirit of the Law, and the letter of the Law to the extent of ability), but the kindness of God towards thee if thou continue in that kindness; for otherwise thou even shall be cut off,”

Therefore, we may conclude with Col. 2:6,7 (see also the Manna Comments for May 9): “As ye have received Christ Jesus, the Lord, so walk ye in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving,”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Will you please define Sectarianism, and give some explanation about it?

ANSWER: –  The dictionary defines sectarianism as “exclusive or narrow-minded attachment to a sect, denomination, party, school or the like”; and a sectarian is “one limited to denominational or partisan interests – a narrow-minded or bigoted denominationalist.” It has been clearly demonstrated over the centuries that political and religious sectarians want no criticism of their party or sect, regardless of how just and true and deserving such criticism may be. All of us know that the two major political parties here in the United States contain many thousands of rabid sectarians, many of whom are also even more sectarian in their religious beliefs. Such people often accept error and stop their ears to the truth. Those having such religious convictions have been among the worst enemies of our Bible, unintentionally so, of course. They are such as have burned their brethren at the stake – just as their Jewish forerunners crucified the Lord of Glory. They are the people who can bear no criticism, who are ever ready to crucify those they can­not effectively answer. They close their eyes, open their mouths, and swallow what is put therein.

The difference between a sectarian and an enlightened Truth person is that the former is steeped in error, whereas the latter is grounded in the Truth, and presents clear and unanswerable logical truth against the errorist sectarians. And it should be emphasized that defense of the Truth is not the label of a sectarian. We are specifically admonished in Jude 3 to “earnestly contend for the faith (the Truth) which was once delivered unto the saints. Inasmuch as the Bible exposes sectarianism as a great sin, it would under no circumstances offer instruction that would make one sectarian. If “contending for the Truth” brands one a sectarian, then Jesus was the worst sectarian the world has ever seen; and the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers would rate close to Him. Clearly, it is the bounden duty of all in the Household of Faith to “contend for the faith.” Some may call those “sectarian” who thus contend lawfully because they are unable to meet the Truths they present against their errors; name-calling is the only weapon left to such people – “they have ‘bad spirit’ and are too critical (of their errors, of course)”, they say. Nor should we view this from a limited standard. One of the four purposes of Divine inspiration is “for refuting” (2 Tim.. 3:16); and this would apply more to the sharp critical teachings than to the winsome corrections. It was not the Sermon on the Mount that brought Jesus to the cross; it was the unrelenting barbs of Matthew 23. Both Messengers repeatedly appealed to their readers to eliminate sectarianism from their characters; but it is clearly evident since their deaths that their appeal passed right over the heads of many of them – just as did also many of their other teachings. We, too, have attempted to wage a vigorous warfare against this great sin.

It has ever been a trait of sectarians to cry when they are hurt; thus, many of them in Little Babylon (the J.W.’s, Dawns, P. B. I., etc.) decried loudly their erroneous exposures by Brother Johnson.  “He’s always criticizing,” they said; but at no time did we ever hear of the last two Star Members whimpering because they were criticized, even though the criticism cast at them – was often rankly unjust.  They agreed with Solomon’s observation: “Rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.” And the Faithful expect criticism for the good they would do, if they would “follow in His steps.” There are many who want no controversy – want no “contending” for the Faith (they want the Truth with peace, but there is no such peace for those who wage a good warfare against error and the errorists, although there is “the peace of God which passeth understanding” that Jesus left with the fully faithful. But a cheap and indolent peace is the opposite to what St. Paul urges us to be – “endure hardness as a good soldier.” Manifestly, the career of a soldier is based upon controversy; and those who want none of it can possibly be a “good soldier” – nor need we expect such among the elect classes of the Kingdom, wherever else they may eventually find themselves).

In our day many are being “slain” by the slaughter weapon of Combinationism (Ezek. 9:1-7), which in some respects is the other extreme of Sectarianism – and is an expedient of Satan to hold together the present order. Big Babylon is now more guilty of this great sin than of Sectarianism, although they are still sectarian in spirit toward their sects combined. They inculcate the thought that one should be affiliated with some sect of their choice – in the “Combination” – any one of them is all right, just so they are a “member – of one of them, just “go to Church” on Sun­day. While sectarians contend for their sect right or wrong, true or false, the Combinationists embrace the position that “we are all heading for the same place – ­just on different roads.” This is clearly contradicted by Jesus: “narrow is the way that leadeth unto life” – not many ways, only the way (of Truth, for which we are to ‘contend’). Those who weary of the battle can do so only by forsaking their “narrow way.” The Lord’s true army is not composed of runners (away from the battle), even as the Captain of our Salvation never forsook the battle. “When the time was come that He should be received up, He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51); and “He left us an example that we should follow in His steps.” “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

Brother Russell has this to say about Big Babylon in Parousia Vol. 3, pp. 181 and 182, and we believe this has a similar application to Little Babylon today: “And since they will hold the errors at a sacrifice of truth, the latter is made void, and often worse than meaningless. This sin of holding and teaching error at the sacrifice of truth is one of which every sect of the Church nominal is guilty, without exception. Where is the sect that will assist you in diligently searching the Scriptures, to grow thereby in grace and in the knowledge of the truth? Where is the sect which will not hinder your growth, both by its doctrines and its usages? Where is the sect in which you can obey Jesus’ words and let your light shine? We know of none.”

Little Babylon in many of its sects is both Sectarian and Combinationist, except, of course, the Jehovah’s Witnesses who claim, even as their prototype, Big Papacy, that their “channel” is the only way ‘unto life.’ They, too, are only too willing to allow the real Truth people to go their way if they won’t bother them: They, too, are put to flight by those who have the Truth against their errors, as all faithful Truth people have witnessed when they have had opportunity to refute their errors.

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

A CORRECTION: – In our May 1960 No. 60, we set out a quotation near bottom of page 1, which was obtained from the Jan. 1920 Present Truth.

In our comments we stated “it would have been most appropriate had R. G. Jolly included” that in his March-April P.T. We are now reminded that he did use what we quoted; and we are sorry we offered even a mild criticism of him because of it. This was just an inadvertence on our part, not in the least intentional (to accuse him of anything at all of which he is not guilty), as we have tried scrup­ulously over the past five years to be painstakingly just in our remarks about him. Certainly, his many gross revolutionisms and sins of practice have afforded more than enough for our analysis, without resorting to guile, trickery or perversion respecting anything he has taught or done. We believe all will realize the truth of this even in our May No. 60, because we had there plenty of Truth against his self-evident errors without using the quotation we did. Therefore, we ask the kind indulgence of all in this instance, with the hope it may not happen again. We know, of course, that this is hoping for much too much, as we freely admit our human frailties and limitations, believing with St. Paul in our efforts thus far, that “I am what I am by the Grace of God!”

When we realize what R. G. Jolly is trying to do to the Lord’s people in his false doctrine of Epiphany Campers consecrated, we well know that we cannot overdo our criticism of his subtle errors and presentations of Brother Johnson’s unpub­lished literature if we are to be faithful to the fundamental teachings of the last Two Star Members regarding such false doctrines promulgated by uncleansed Great Company Leaders (who attempt to do so under the guise that they are built on the fundamental teachings of the Parousia and Epiphany doctrines). This may cause us to make technical mistakes at times in our zeal to enlighten, strengthen and pro­tect the Lord’s people.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Friends: –

My neighbor received an envelope containing 2 pamphlets of the Herald of the Epiphany, one What is the Soul and one Where are the Dead. I am enclosing $--. I would like to have about 20 or 30 copies to mail to acquaintances and friends, whom I believe would be as interested as I am in seeing light and learning the Truth, or True Gospel.

I have studied and still do all that I can to find out about Prophecy... and of the Lord’s soon return, and the true Gospel of “The Kingdom of God.”

If you will tell me the amount to send for this number of pamphlets I will mail you a check.  Thanking you in advance, I am sincerely --------- Kansas

NO. 61: THE FAITHFUL AND THE MEASURABLY FAITHFUL

No. 61

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

The last two Star Members were profuse in their writings of the two designated classes in our caption, the Epiphany Messenger moreso perhaps on the Measurably Faith­ful, prompted undoubtedly by his own intimate and very disagreeable experience with these “brethren that cast him out.” (Isa. 66:5) What we shall say herein is either directly quoted from him and Brother Russell, or based upon what they have written. “Love is not easily provoked,” says St. Paul in 1 Cor. 13:5, but the translation is misleading. It would be better stated, “Love (agape) is not easily enraged, or in­furiated,” because he specifically counsels in Heb. 10:24 that we should “consider one another to provoke unto love and good works: not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day approaching.” Thus, our purpose herein is to pro­voke to “love and good works,” for which “the assembling of yourselves together” is essential – the moreso since we “are in the evil day.”

During this Gospel Age the Truth has risen and been trampled under foot in each successive epoch of the Church. In the Jewish Harvest there was a specially bright shining, as “the light of life” brought “life and immortality to light through the Gospel,” which bright shining was continued by the inspired Apostles, although “the mystery of iniquity” was already manifesting itself in their day –  much the same sit­uation as was manifest during the life of the Parousia Messenger and the power­graspers associated with him. Once the restraining hand was gone, then a bedlam of turmoil and error arose in both instances, so that some features of the Truth were completely obliterated after the Apostles fell asleep, one instance being the doc­trine of Restitution. Much the same has occurred since Brother Russell's death with respect to the High Calling, so that the organization he left behind is in utter confusion on this doctrine and teachings related to it. Even the doctrine of Resti­tution has been perverted out of all semblance to the way That Servant taught it!

As many of us know, That Evil Servant flitted from one change to another under the deft defense of the Truth by the Epiphany Messenger – a defense which forced J. F. Rutherford to abandon one truth after another to support each new error he promulgated; so that the Jehovah's Witnesses are now so far from the sound and sober teachings of That Servant that he would be unable to recognize them were he to return now (except, i.e., of course, as he has observed their course from beyond the veil). But, having once determined that the High Calling is closed (even though they do not have the right date for it), they are forced to provide a place for their new converts. And where are they putting them? Why, in the “great crowd” of Rev. 19:1,6. As all Epiphany Truth people know, both Messengers correctly taught there is but “one calling” (Eph. 4:4), the same being the “high calling,” that the “great crowd” are the aftermath of that calling, those who failed to make the grade, lost their standing, but were graciously given a secondary position in the great Plan of Salvation.

Nowhere do the Scriptures designate a “call” to membership in the “great crowd.” Insofar as the High Calling is concerned, they are failures; and God never calls any one to be a failure. Brother Johnson designated these people as The Measurably Faithful, because it was lack of faithfulness that caused them to lose their posi­tion among the Fully Faithful – these are they who have allowed their robes to be­come “spotted,” some more, some less. In some the spots are so vague as to be al­most invisible (they lost the High Calling “by the skin of their teeth”); in others the spots are so numerous and black that the white is almost obliterated. Such miss the second death by “the skin of their teeth.” But to the entire “large crowd” do the words of St. Paul apply, “If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” (Heb. 10:38)

Once any one falls from the High Calling, no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will then avail to gain reinstatement therein. Once it is lost, the High Call­ing never opens a second time to such Measurably Faithful people. Like Esau, they find “no place for repentance,” (so far as the High Calling is concerned), though they may “seek it carefully with tears”; they have forever parted with title to their “birthright,” as did Esau –  even though he secured for it only a mess of pottage. It should be remembered that in those days of Isaac it was required of the eldest son that he fast on the birthday of a respected and prominent ancestor, while the young­est feasted on that same day. Thus Esau, with a sharp appetite prodding him, offered to trade (barter) places with Jacob – that he might feast while Jacob fasted in his place. His profligacy was considered an act of sacrilege in those days, and would arouse the contempt of all well‑disciplined and honorable men. This explains why “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (loved less). Such flagrant disregard for their covenant of sacrifice has ever drawn the sharp criticism, disapproval, and chastening rod of Jehovah against those thus guilty (although He does not “hate” them –  ­they are those “saved with fear,” making a difference) – and this observation will eventually be found to be as true concerning the measurably faithful Youthful Worthies as it has been true concerning the Great Company; the extreme end of this Age will make this acutely manifest.

It is truly a part of God's purpose to let some fall in this evil day – just as He also enables others to stand. He therefore permits the “strong delusion” to take possession of all who have pleasure in unrighteousness, and who therefore do not be­lieve the Truth. Such are unworthy of the Truth, and sooner or later fall from it and lose more or less of it. Such not only lose some Truth, but also accept some error, failing also to see the advancing Truth. But we emphasize that it is impossible to find membership in the “large crowd” without first having had membership among the Very Elect in the High Calling, from which, having fallen, their next opportunity for life is presented them through membership in the “large crowd,” with the opportunity gone forever of returning to the Elect Christ Company.

It is very pertinent to consider here that the present “large crowd” that the Jehovah's Witnesses are fostering is to be of the earth, earthy – a class without hope of a spiritual reward. It is the first time in history that such a class as this has ever been presented. However, That Servant correctly taught that the “large crowd” is a New Creation, a part of the “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23), whose ultimate standing will be as spirit beings “before the throne” (Not “in the throne” where the Elect Bride will be).

Further, in Vol. 6, p. 93, par. 1, he says this: “Neither is there a second call during this Gospel Age, though there is a second class of saved ones selected dur­ing this Age – the Great Company (Rev. 7:9‑14)” – the same as the “large crowd” of Rev. 19:1,6.

In furtherance of this position is the footnote on p. 707 of Vol. 6: “The great company although they cannot be counted in as participants of the First Resurrection, and sharers of its glory, honor and immortality, nor counted in with the ancient worthies, must, nevertheless, be counted as overcomers even though the overcoming be through great tribulation. And as overcomers, they must be esteemed to pass from death unto life, and, therefore, to be subjects of an instantaneous resurrection, and not a gradual one, as in the case of the world, whose trial is future.”

The Jehovah's Witnesses accepted fully the above teachings for a number of years after Brother Russell's death, claiming that many who left them after 1916 were the Great Company – a class fallen from the Truth, a class fallen from the High Calling (the “one calling” of the Gospel Age), who “went out from us because they were not all of us.” (1 Jno. 2:19)

Is it not very strange that so little is said about the Great Company in the various sects of Little Babylon, when we recall that Brother Russell had given such extensive elucidation about that Class? Even the organization he left at his death is talking about an entirely different Class, when they offer a “call” to their “large crowd”; but they are completely silent on the real “large crowd” which Brother Russell expounded so clearly from the Scriptures. The real “large crowd” are to be scourged by Armageddon for their cleansing; whereas, the “large crowd” of the Jehovah's Witnesses is to receive a shadowing protection during that time. There is not a single text to support their claim, of course.

While the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement takes some cognizance of the Great Company, this is due in part, at least, to the fact that their leader is the only leader of the sects in Little Babylon who self‑admittedly is one of the Great Company Class. But, even with him, he has perverted much of the Truth on this Class as pre­sented by the Star Members. Some of his public oral teachings concerning their humanity is sadly ridiculous. Also, he claims that he himself was cleansed without being abandoned to Azazel, which is a direct contradiction to the teaching to be found in E:15‑525: “As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove sufficient fully to free their Holy Spirit from bondage .... their delivery to Satan (Azazel) implies that they come into such a condition as the priests disfellow­ship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them.” R. G. Jolly has publicly admitted that “brotherly help and favor” was never withdrawn from him at any time – which is correct. This admission,however, by R. G. Jolly puts a direct denial to the Truth on the subject, as just quoted from Brother Johnson. There is further and more elaborate comment on this subject in E:4‑209,210.

Throughout the Age The Fully Faithful have gladly been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God” (Rev. 20:4), have “chosen rather to suffer afflic­tion with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteem­ing the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt” (Heb. 11:25,26); whereas, the Measurably Faithful have chosen rather the green plains of Sodom, “Well watered everywhere, as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt.” (Gen. 13:10). Many of them have labored under the “strong delusion” that they could be the “rich man” in this world and “Lazarus” in the next world in the parable our Lord spoke. (See Luke 16:19‑31)

A paragraph is probably in order here also with respect to the Fully Faithful and Measurably Faithful among the Youthful Worthies. To us, it would seem folly in the extreme not to entertain such a concept with respect to this Class, as they are much the same people as those who embraced the High Calling during its term, and some of them are actually the children of such people – some of those parents probably having “finished their course with Joy” among the Elect, with others be­ing found among the Measurably Faithful. Therefore, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that at least some of the children would be like their pro­genitors; it would seem a reasonable certainty to find fully faithful and measurably faithful ones among the Youthful Worthies. As all Epiphany Truth people know, the Epiphany is a special time for “making manifest the counsels of hearts”; and it would be folly extreme to believe this will not also occur with those in the L.H.M.M. at Brother Johnson's death. During his lifetime his restraining hand withheld many from a contrary course, just as was true with Brother Russell, and just as occurred when the restraint of the Apostles was removed from the early Church. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that many of the measurably faithful among them will be found among the quasi‑elect in later calculations, while those who become badly reprobate will receive nothing more than the “resurrection to shame and age‑lasting contempt.” (Dan. 12:2) “If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Just as the Measurably Faithful lost completely their standing in the Elect Class, so also can we expect the Measurably Faithful among the Youthful Worthies to lose fully their standing in their Class.

It is well that we keep always in mind the events of 1914. The date was right, but the previous expectations were very much wrong as respects the disposition of God's people. Although Brother Russell himself was telling the Household two years before that they had been expecting much too much for 1914, many of them stopped their ears to his warnings. And, when 1914 came and their hopes were dashed, many became offended –  their weaknesses became acutely apparent. “Judgment must begin at the house of God... And if the righteous (the Saints) scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly (second‑deathers) and the sinner (Great Company) appear?” (1 Pet. 4:17,18) “The Covenant by sacrifice” is unto death, and not to any special date; only the Lord Himself is to say “It is enough”; and those who serve the Lord “with all the heart, mind, soul and strength” are fully content to accept this arrangement.

And, with 1954 came a similar situation. The date was right insofar as the Great Company developing truths were concerned, but it was also very much wrong as regards other expectations – with things similar to 1914 occurring since that time. As the Measurably Faithful were given over to “strong delusions” various, sundry and accentuated after 1914, so we are now witness to the same again since 1950. Brother Johnson emphatically taught that the quasi‑elect would be the unconsecrated – that the unconsecrated would be the residents in the Epiphany Camp in the finished picture – that Tentative Justification would cease when the Gospel Age ceases. This latter Brother Russell also taught. Yet the Measurably Faithful are setting aside these clear and reasonable teachings to make way for Consecrated Epiphany Campers, or Quasi‑elect Consecrated –  just as others have done with their antitypical Ammonites and Moabites, the Jonadabs, and now a “large crowd,” which is not the culls from the High Calling, but a class all their own who are to live right through Armageddon and into the Kingdom – a repetition of “Millions Now Living Will Never Die” all over again, the only difference being a new label. “What fools we mortals be!” Because the Measurably Faithful “received not the love of the Truth ... God shall send them strong delusion.” (2 Thes. 2:10,11).. And, as might be expected, they are saying almost nothing about the “great tribulation” that lies ahead for this “large crowd.” (Rev. 7:14) But we may happily and wholeheartedly join with St. Paul in vs. 13‑17 (Dia.) in his warm encouragement to the Fully Faithful, “We are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God chose you a firstfruit for salvation, in sanctification of Spirit and belief of Truth ... so then,

Brethren, stand firm, and retain the instructions you were taught (by the Star Member teachers appointed by the Lord)... and Jesus Christ Himself will establish you in every good work and word.” “Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest.” (Josh. 3:l5) Not only have gross evils and injustice accentuated the curse since 1874, but we now also witness an overflowing scourge of abortive classes the likes of which was never before seen in human history. “As it was in the days of Noah” – ­The whole earth was then infested with physical hybrids; now it is infested with spiritual hybrids.

Occasionally we hear some remark that they could never have made the High Calling anyway, they are not good enough. This is simply foolish talk. Just as God never calls any one to be a failure, so He also never calls any to do anything they are not physically or mentally able to do. On one occasion we were discussing with Brother Johnson the words of Jesus, Matt. 6:8, “Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of”; and he told us the text carried the thought that God “sympathetically appreciates” our needs. Thus, He is able to put Himself fully and exactly in our position, and to evaluate perfectly the physical and mental capacity of any task we face. “Take my yoke upon you,” He told His Disciples. Here He was contrasting His yoke with the Law yoke under which they were laboring, and which they had found im­possible to bear; they were indeed unequal yokefellows in that Law yoke. Also, the Law had forbidden them to place an ox and an ass together in the same yoke, because the dissimiliarity of those animals placed an unequal and exhausting burden upon the one of them (Deu. 22:10 –  see Berean Comment). But, when Jesus supplanted the Law yoke with His yoke, He appreciated in perfection the strength of each one to bear his part of that yoke. Thus, if one could bear but ten per cent of that yoke, His Lord would bear the other ninety per cent, and so on. Therefore, He would never ask any to bear more than was his ability to do.

A word of caution would be pertinent here, too, lest hasty judgment be adminis­tered by ourselves or others with respect to the limitations of our weak and fallen human vessels. Brother Johnson has summarized this question in E:4‑132‑3 (13): “We earnestly caution against making character blemishes the ground of declaring brethren to be Levites (Great Company members, although the same truth would apply to the Youthful WorthiesJJH). It is revolutionism or its partisan support against the Truth and its arrangements, and only revolutionism or its partisan support and its arrangements, that manifests crown‑losers (or Youthful Worthies –  JJH) as such. The great touchstone of manifesting Leviteship is revolutionism or its partisan support, and nothing else. The reason that misconduct cannot be the touchstone for us is that we do not know how to decide what varying degrees of misconduct in various breth­ren forfeit their crowns. Therefore, such judging is forbidden.” In view of this clear and correct elucidation by the Epiphany Messenger, we urge that none – New Creatures, or Youthfuls –  become discouraged if overtaken in faults, even repeated faults, faults that may vex or shock others in high degree, so long as they have not persistently cast away that Truth (or its arrangements) which they have understood and which has made them “clean.” “Now are ye clean through the words (the Truth) which I have spoken unto you,” said Jesus in John 15:3, and only the casting away of that cleansing Truth can be trustworthy evidence that any have fallen from their Class. Nor should this send us to the other extreme that we need not fight all evil in our­selves to the extent of our full ability. We are never to float listlessly downstream, because those who do so must certainly lose their Class standing – although it is only the Lord who is to say when “sin is finished to bring forth death.” (James 1:15) Therefore, let us continue to “fight the good fight of faith” unto ultimate victory.

When God said unto Moses, “Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt,” (Ex.3:10) –  ­the beloved Man of God shrank back from such a seemingly impossible task. “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh,” said he; and he protested further, “They won't believe me.” In final protest Moses said, “I am not eloquent...but I am slow of speech, and slow tongue.” But, after exhausting all protest, Moses accomplished what God had told him to do. Indeed, it is a common trait among the meek of the earth to underestimate themselves, and often to overrate their adversaries out of all proportion to their intrinsic strength. Even the impulsive Peter was taken aback when Jesus told him “by what death he should glorify God,” (John 21:19) Perhaps all this is as it should be – that the Fully Faithful should ever realize that their strength rests not in “the arm of flesh” – “not by power, nor by might, but by my spirit, saith the Lord.” And in the very realization of their limitations they “can do all things through Christ Who strengtheneth them.” And may this “strength” be ever present with all who endeavor to serve Him “in good and honest hearts.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

Extra copies of this article free upon request.

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

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: –  Will you please explain what sort of persecution lays up for us “treasures in Heaven”?

ANSWER: –  St. Paul tells us, “All who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution,” and it is the persecution that comes from firmly and honestly “following in His steps” that enlarges and adds brilliance to the “star” of each of God's fully faithful people. “If ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled,” says St. Peter 3:14. The Diaglott emphasizes this text thus, “If you suffer on account of righteousness, you are blessed. And fear not with their fear, nor be alarmed.” Being blessed is much superior and much to be desired over being merely happy. We speak of happy married couples, of happy contest winners, etc., but such people may or may not be blessed of the Lord as the circumstances may be. On the other hand, many persons have suffered excruciating persecutions over the ages, yet the blessing of the Lord did not accom­pany them. As an example, the Jews during their 1845 years of their “double” have not endured their appalling persecutions for righteousness, but rather for their iniquities (against the Law of Moses) and their transgression (crucifying the Lord of Glory). Thus, theirs has not been a persecution to be compared with the persecu­tion of those who have “lived Godly in Christ Jesus,” even though such folks may have been their neighbors and suffering kindred persecutions.

Nor is it the preaching of past truths that always arouse antagonism. During the Dark Ages any one who questioned the infallibility of the Pope received severe persecution; whereas, today very little is even said about it, and no one in the more enlightened countries receives persecution for offering disbelief of this false­hood. Nor is any one persecuted today for preaching that “Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father,” although the Apostles and others were hounded and abused for preaching that truth in Jewry during the first century A.D. Disputing in our time the teaching that eternal torment is the wages of sin receives only passing notice, except in ex­treme cases; but it aroused great opposition during the Parousia. We should continue, of course, to “contend for the faith (the truth) once delivered unto the Saints,” whenever and wherever uncleansed Levites attempt to sully it with perversion. Such defense, however, would within certain limits then be considered a part of Present Truth. Therefore, we would conclude that teaching controversial Present Truth is what always arouses persecution, for which, if we suffer for it, blessed are we.

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

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

My dear Brother Hoefle: –  Grace and Peace!

Thanks for your writings on Some Thoughts on the Memorial; also on “John's Baptism Again.” It is very helpful and interesting indeed to those of us intent upon “proving all things and holding fast to that which is good.” These two writ­ings are sure to be a blessing to all those who read them and who are completely devoid of the spirit of partiality, relying upon that “wisdom from above,” and guided by the Holy Spirit.

You will be interested to know that recently Sister --------- and myself made a special study of your August 1959, No. 51 article on “Bad Levites –  Good Levites – Cleansed Levites,” and now what you have revealed to us in your article on “John's Baptism Again” is a further help to correctly understand matters prevailing amongst the Lord's “Truth” people – specially amongst our dear L.H.M.M. brethren who (on account of the greatly increased knowledge of Present Truth given them by the Lord through – the “Epiphany Messenger”) are placed in a much more responsible position before God (for their repudiation and perversions of His teachings and Arrangements) than any one of the other existing Levite Truth Groups, as time and events will abundantly manifest.

The Lord's Epiphany enlightened people cannot afford to ignore these vital truths re arrangements and teachings of God's Word without great loss spiritually to them­selves. Of course, we realize why it is that R. G. Jolly having become more and more confused on Epiphany, as well as some Parousia teachings, is so easily liable to con­fuse his partisan followers so that they too trustingly, and evidently without giving proper heed to the sacred teachings of God's Word, meet with sad results to themselves. See Manna Aug. 18 – Heb. 2:1; 1 Thess. 5:21. Would it not seem that the results of giv­ing too much heed to power‑grasping leaders and neglecting reverent, prayerful and diligent study of the Lord's teachings is graphically described by our beloved Bro. Johnson in E. Vol. 10, Foreword, Page VI? I believe, my dear Brother Hoefle, the brethren of all Truth Levite groups would do well, benefiting greatly spiritually if they would only read E. Vol. 4, page 92, to the top of page 93. May God grant them the wisdom to see the truth of these words as applying to each, whether Great Company or Youthful Worthy members, then these things acted upon faithfully, especially by Great Company brethren, who have and still are so grossly transgressing against the Lord's teachings and Arrangements, would result in a blessing to them.

Perhaps very soon now the Lord will bring all brethren so transgressing into the “Valley of Decision,” and thus help them considerably to see the necessity of cleans­ing themselves ... from their various defilements individually, and this in turn would quickly lead to the Class cleansings so longingly looked forward to by the Epiphany Messenger. Let us pray that such will be the case, relying upon conditions so shaping themselves to this end in the Lord's due time.

In your article on “John's Baptism Again,” you rightly draw our attention once more to R. G. Jolly's “loquacious” behaviour which is more and more manifesting his unreliability as Executive Trustee of the L.H.M.M.; also as a teacher of the Lord's people he is proving himself to be a very unprofitable servant. As you have pointed out, a loquacious person is one who is garrulous, i.e., too talkative. Such people, as you say, talk, talk, talk – and more often than not, such persons very often suc­ceed in confusing almost everything they talk or write about. It is revealing to note what Bro. Johnson says in E. Vol. 11, p. 687, about “loquacious” brethren, which seems to have a special application to R. G. Jolly. “An errorist is loquacious; one can neither foretell what will happen during his life or after his death.” Someday we shall know who these partially cleansed Great Company Levite Chiefs and subordinate leaders are, who have unfortunately become “redefiled” and stand in great danger of second death. See. E. Vol. 4, page 297, par. 52. Also Heb. 2:1, 2, 3; which still remains as a warning to all spirit‑begotten members of consecrated believers. Hav­ing in mind Gal. 3:1, I often find myself saying – “O foolish Bible Students! who hath deluded you into disregarding vital truths of God's word?”

May the blessings of the Lord rest upon you daily!

Your brother in the Lord's service ---------, England

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

My dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving Greetings in Jesus' dear name!

I have been enjoying your Three Babylons tract by reading it over and over; and that beautiful poem! Doesn't it just fit in even more now than when it was written in the crisis of years ago. “Truth forever on the scaffold.” Let us be glad that this forever lasts only to the end of this age. How could he write it without knowing the truth? But he did know it in his heart and lived by it. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. I think you do. The last verse in the first column – “We see dimly in the present, what is small and what is great” reminds me of something that happened here when Sister --------- was here with me......... I often think of it.

I remember the debate you had with Rev. --------- (a Babylonian), and his quoting some of the Scriptures that proved you right and him wrong. But he didn't notice it. I am very glad for others that you also reach to bless as you do me. May you find them all is my wish for them. God bless you and yours in your work for Him.

By His grace, Sister ---------, Ohio

NO. 60: ABRAHAM - SARAH - ABIMILECH

No. 60

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

In this March‑April 1960 Present Truth appears an article captioned as above, which is excellent in its generalities because it is mostly Brother Johnson's inter­pretation, and all of his details dovetail together in a symmetry which cannot fail to appeal to every one who is “of the Truth.” But, as we have pointed out in prev­ious writings, we need not expect a good clean exposition from R. G. Jolly on any­thing so long as he is in his present uncleansed condition; and this is borne out in the article we are now considering.

On page 21 (5) he says Sarah was Abraham's step‑sister, but Gen. 20:12 says “she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother.” This would make her Abraham's half‑sister, not his step‑sister. It is certainly not our wish to “strain at gnats”; such is definitely repulsive to us, and many such instances in R. G. Jolly's writings have we passed over in silence. But we draw attention to this mistake be­cause it has a vital bearing on the smooth continuity of the entire interpreta­tion. It should be remembered that step‑children are actually no relation to each other whatever, and the physical and civil laws of our day do not forbid them to marry, although our laws here in the United States do prohibit such a union between half‑brothers and half‑sisters. In Abraham's day, however, the race was still young, and it seems no evils resulted from his union with his sister of half‑blood.

However, as stated above, there is more to this union than meets the eye of the casual reader. In this type Abraham types God in His attribute of Love, and Sarah types the Sarah features of the Abrahamic Covenant; and this gives the two a “blood” relationship in the Gospel age, after a manner of speaking. The very purpose of the Sarah Covenant is to perfect in (agape) Love all who remain faithful to it; and it has accomplished this with every member of the completed Body of Christ. Thus, “like begets like,” and the Love of God has worked in full and unrestrained fashion in those “who follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth” – through the gripping affinity of God's love as it has operated in the Sarah Covenant. As in the natural human state the two become one in matrimony, so in the fusion of God's love with the Sarah Covenant, those under it become one with God – one in Divine Love this side the veil, and one in the Divine Nature the other side the veil – a glorious union, consummated in perfection. “I pray for them... that they may be one... that they may be made perfect in one... that the world may know that Thou hast... loved them as thou has loved me”...(see Manna Comments for John 17:20‑23, March 27). Therefore, the blood‑relationship in the type portrays a feature in the general picture, which could not have been done had Sarah been no relation whatever to Abraham, as would have been true had she been his step­sister only.

Also, while quoting from Brother Johnson's comments in the January 1920 Present Truth, it would have been most appropriate had R. G. Jolly included the following:

“These Philistines (sectarians) represent the Great Company in their capacity of making divisions among God's people, crying out by word or act “avoid them,” and then blaming those whom they drive out of their midst for making the divisions.”

All of us have been witness to this procedure, and some of us have had bitter per­sonal experience with it. When Brother Johnson was forcibly ejected from Bethel in 1917 the report went forth to the four corners of the earth, “Brother Johnson has gone out of the Truth.” He was “out of harmony with the Lord's arrangements” – ­just as those who have left the LHMM since 1950 are also described. The Jehovah's Witnesses still tenaciously pursue this policy – any one who dares question their erroneous teachings is soon pressured out of their assembly; then the report is cir­culated, “They have gone out of the Truth.” Truly, “Instruments of cruelty are in their habitation!”

“Charity ... the bond of perfectness”

Inasmuch as the Sarah Covenant is joined by “blood” and matrimony to God in His attribute of Love, some observations on this “principal thing” would seem pertinent. Col. 3:14 tells us, “Above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfect­ness.” And, having this “bond,” all such may rest secure in the precious promise of 1 Pet. 3:13, “Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?” Throughout the Gospel Age the antitypical Philistines have vigorously pursued the vagar­ious course so clearly defined in Isa. 66:5, “Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.” Throughout the Gospel Age we have had a “wheat” class, which has always been predominantly overshadowed by the “buck”‑wheat class. Seeing this condition so clearly from past and present experience, why should any be disturbed if it reaches out and touches him? “So persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

In private conversation with Brother Johnson, he impressed upon us the fact that it is not required of Youthful Worthies that they achieve “the bond of perfectness” – ­agape love in perfection – but they should certainly do so if they have the ability to do so. And his reason for this advice comes clearly enough from St. Paul's admonition – “it is the bond of perfectness.” Any one having this “bond” cannot be pushed out of God's Household by the clamor of Philistine multitudes. Thank God for this blessed assurance! The essence of Col. 3:12‑15 (Dia.) applies to all in the Household, although St. Paul was clearly enough addressing it to the Saints: “Be clothed therefore, as Chosen ones of God, beloved Saints, with bowels of mercy, kindness, humility, meekness, patient endurance; bearing with each other, and freely forgiving each other, if any for some things may have a cause of complaint; even as the Lord forgave you, so also do you forgive. And besides all these things, put on love; it is the bond of the com­pleteness. And let the peace of the Anointed preside in your hearts, for which you were also called in one body.” All of God's people who have conformed themselves to this appealing instruction, and who have not united themselves with sectarian leaders in a partisan manner, are not to be counted among the antitypical Philistine hordes. Let each, therefore, “stand fast in that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”; and “the peace of God” will rule in such hearts unto ultimate victory.

JOSHUA'S ALTAR IN JORDAN

As promised in our last issue, we now offer further comments on the altar Joshua constructed in the midst of the River Jordan. At that time we ridiculed J. W. Krew­son's interpretation of the twelve stones as being the twelve chief graces. We based our statement primarily upon Brother Johnson's interpretation of a similar situation – ­where Elijah also constructed an altar of twelve stones (see 1 Kings 18:30‑32). In E:3‑26 there is this in explanation of this Scripture: “Their appeal was to all the consecrated (twelve stones, the twelve tribes of Spiritual Israel) on the basis of the Bible as the sole source and rule of faith and practice ... Thus, they gathered together the true Church, the altar.”

The word translated “stones” in Kings and in Joshua 4 is the Hebrew “eben” – ­the same meaning anything from a small pebble to a huge rock. “David chose him five smooth stones (eben) out of the brook” (1 Sam. 17:40). It is the same word also to be found in Josh. 8:30, 31, “Joshua built an altar unto the Lord ... an altar of whole stones (eben), over which no man hath lift up any iron.” The stones (eben) of Josh. 4 also were uncut and unpolished – “over which no man hath lift up any iron” – thus force­fully depicting the words of Daniel 2:45, “the stone was cut out of the mountain without (human) hands.” The stones of the antitypical temple have been chiselled by God alone, allowing only such contributions from human beings as served His purpose; thus, it may be said of them, “Over which no man hath lift up any iron.” In contrast to this, the graces of the Bible are depicted by precious stones, which have been ground and polished to an excellent nicety by the iron tools of man – that they may display their inherent splendor – as the Saints also “show forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvelous light.” Therefore, using the uncut and unpolished stones from the bottom of the River Jordan to type such fineness is just some more of J. W. Krewson's nonsense – the same being apparent throughout all his writings.

It should be kept in mind that Elijah was a type of the Gospel‑Age Christ, as Joshua is a type of the Millennial‑Age Christ, so the construction of an altar by the both of them under similar circumstances (in the presence of their enemies) would have a close relationship. Also, all Bible types have a certain fundamental reason­ableness in relation to the actors therein; and it would be rather a far cry to be­lieve that Joshua would have a very intimate understanding of the principal grace of Divine (agape) love at a time when he was daily carving out the vitals of human beings with his sword. And, while Joshua in the largest antitype is the Millennial Christ, yet he also depicts a fully faithful leader of God's faithful Israel in the end of this Age for Epiphany purposes; and his altar in Jordan would therefore type all God's faithful Israel in the extreme end of this Age – one stone for each tribe to embrace the whole. (Note also E:13‑24, “The Little Flock was enriched by God through His giving it the Divine Truth as figurative silver and gold, the graces as precious stones.” Certainly, no similarity here with the muddy and moss‑covered boulders from the bottom of the River Jordan!)

MORE ON KREWSON TYPES

In his paper No. 28, pages 26‑27 he presents an interpretation of some Scripture in Matt. 22:34‑40 and Mark 12:28‑34, which is worse bedlam if possible than his in­terpretation of Joshua's altar, as analyzed above. He says JJH antitypes the lawyer who questioned Jesus, JWK himself being the “little Jesus” in this picture. Be it noted, first of all, that in the actuality the lawyer questioned Jesus directly, and not indirectly through uncleansed Levites. In our writings of 1955‑56 never once did we address a question to J. W. Krewson – either directly or indirectly; in fact, we left him tacitly alone until he began his attacks upon us, since which time we have exposed one after another of his interpretations as just so much nonsense – so much so, that he has not even dared mention many of them since our analysis was published. Nor did we address any questions to the uncleansed Levites themselves during the years in question, except perhaps as accusations against their unrighteous course and their errors of teaching and arrangements (revolution against the Epiphany Truth and Arrangements). And finally, in this last March Present Truth does R. G. Jolly offer approval of our contentions in one point at least, when he now finally admits that J. W. Krewson has no authority to address the General Church. (Of course, this is a complete reversal of his position immediately after Brother Johnson's death, when he gave J. W. Krewson the very opening that he was craving and which paved the way for the course which R. G. Jolly is now finally correctly condemning – a most force­ful example of “a doubleminded man unstable in all his ways.” (Jas. 1:8) It should be remembered that those who deflected under Brother Russell fell from a high position (four of them his companion helpers), for which they were qualified while faithful; whereas, J. W. Krewson was elevated by R. G. Jolly to a position that Star Member Brother Johnson had steadfastly refused to give him.) But, aside from this, our 1955‑56 papers were truthful and telling exposures of the sins of the uncleansed Levites involved, none of which the lawyer did to Jesus. At no time did we address a single question to J. W. Krewson, directly or indirectly, although he did address some to us in his letters then, which questions we answered in accordance with the Scriptures – just as we also did with respect to the uncleansed Levites that we were exposing back there. So his setting is nonsense at the outset; therefore, his superscructure should self‑evidently be more of the same. He says that Jesus' observa­tion, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God,” indicates we were not “far from es­pousing the due Truth” – meaning by this, we assume, that we were not far from accept­ing J. W. Krewson's teachings.

Nothing is further from the Truth! When Daniel Gavin gave us those first “three discourses” in Mount Dora in 1955 and urged us to go to Philadelphia to confer with J W. Krewson, we declined because we saw many errors in the presentations, and realized, too, that J. W. Krewson had no right to address the General Church, being only an Evangelist. Right after Brother Johnson's death R. G. Jolly apparently little dreamed that Evangelist Krewson was shrewdly scheming to outshine him when he prevailed upon him to publish in the Present Truth, under a Krewson by‑line, the flattering types and “Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels” – that, instead of looking up to him (to R. G. Jolly), he was “looking down his nose” at him. And once more we press the question: Was J. W. Krewson collaborator with R. G. Jolly in those 27 Pyramid compu­tations in 1947, which time has so clearly proven to be just a jumble of figures – ­a vile “confidence game” of computations? Neither of the two “cousins” have offered any comment or answer to this question. Why?

Being such bosom‑confidante “cousins,” R. G. Jolly knew J. W. Krewson “after the flesh” in blind gullibility, accepted him as his chief adviser and “ghost writer” (actually calling him out of the bed at early hours for his approval of his course in various ways) – “foolishly” ignoring his limited ability. (The Lord gives the Fully Faithful the “spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind,” as was so clearly manifested in Brother Johnson's appraisal of J. W. Krewson.) But, as we have observed on previous occasion, R. G. Jolly was decidedly more loyal to J. W. Krewson than was J. W. Krewson to him. However, had R. G. Jolly been faithful to the truths and arrange­ments he “had learned and been assured of” from the beloved Epiphany Messenger (know­ing full well the rating Brother Johnson had given to J. W. Krewson), he would then have been apprized of J. W. Krewson's power‑grasping tendencies, instead of feeding them as he also fed his own “approbativeness and bad conscience” – (see E:10‑585,top). When he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950, Azazel took full advantage of His opportunity – ­for which we have a certain deep sympathy for R. G. Jolly. Heaven forbid that we may ever be found guilty of “rejoicing in iniquity” – in the distress and humiliation of a brother, or any other human being.

Since he has made his own bed, he can but lie in it; and we are truly grateful that we in nowise contributed one iota to the making of that bed for him. And now he is left in the humiliating position of defending his “strange fire” (the false doctrine of Campers Consecrated, the “foster child” inherited from J. W. Krewson, etc.) – a task which is “bringing down his heart with labor” (Psa. 107:12) as “the Hornet” (the stinging truths) continues to “sting” him with unremitting thrusts at every turn. (Ex. 23:28)

And, while R. G. Jolly was unwittingly feeding J. W. Krewson delusions of grandeur, another of Brother Johnson's pilgrims who should have known better – Daniel Gavin ­was contributing to J. W. Krewson's delinquency by secretly placing those “three dis­courses” in the hands of all brethren who would receive them. The both of them ele­vated J. W. Krewson contrary to sound Epiphany doctrine; and the “sin still lieth at their door” for those brethren he has led astray. When Daniel Gavin was a guest in our home in Mount Dora in 1955 it was suggested to him that a lack of humility was apparent in those “three discourses,” to which he quickly replied: “Brother Krewson is the most humble brother I know!” (It was at this very time that Daniel Gavin told the Winter Park Ecclesia that R. G. Jolly could not give any kind of discourse except elemental, or that based on what he already had learned. In other words, he was not capable of giving “deep” present truths (?) as promulgated by J. W. Krewson.) And it seems he continued in that delusion into June 1955 at least, as he was the “pilgrim” present at the New England meeting where a plan of strategy was outlined to unseat R. G. Jolly – to force him to compromise and share honors with J. W. Krewson. But it would seem that our own sharp and telling attacks in August and September of 1955 prompted Daniel Gavin to a sudden reversal, and he speedily returned to “dear antitypical Baanah” at the Philadelphia Convention on Labor Day. Our prayer for both Daniel Gavin and R. G. Jolly is that they yet “turn back from their path of error” (James 5:20, Dia.), and once more espouse the solid truths given us by the beloved Epiphany Messenger.

It should be clear enough to all unbiased minds that all three of those herein discussed have flagrantly contributed to the aberration and humiliation of one another by their gross Revolutionism of Epiphany Truth and Arrangements – a sin which none can honestly charge to us. Our differences with any and all – and especially with these three – have been our defense of the Epiphany Truths and Arrangements which they have so grossly violated.

And, when J. W. Krewson says we were not “far from the Kingdom of God” in 1955, he is indulging in spiritual flummery. At that time we were either “in the kingdom of God” or we were not. Insofar as any flesh and blood could be in it, that is, we were either fully in God's Household, or we were out of it. Brother Johnson undoubt­edly thought we were in it, or he would not have given us a pilgrim appointment – ­with authority to address the General Church in any country in the world. Of course, J. W. Krewson may since have received a “message” from Brother Johnson from beyond the veil, telling him that his appointment of JJH to the pilgrim (not auxiliary pil­grim) office was all a mistake; and we may hear more about this from J. W. Krewson in due course. We realize, of course, that many people hold titles who are not en­“titled” to them; but we want more than just J. W. Krewson's word for it before we shall conclude that about ourselves. The “Kingdom of God” in Jesus' day could mean only one thing – to become His footstep follower and a member of the Christ Company. For Harvest purposes, since 1874, it would mean the faithful acceptance of the due Truth under That Servant. Even Brother Johnson said we must accept their professions with respect to the Little Flock and the Great Company until such time as gross Revolutionism against the Truth or Arrangements manifested the one from the other. And this principle was also true during Brother Johnson's life with respect to the Youthful Worthies.

The Lord set forth the related importance of the servants of the Church in Eph. 4:11‑13; and it is our obligation to abide by this until “their fruits” demon­strate that those servants have lost their rating. Over the years we have “coveted no man's silver or gold,” nor have we coveted or been envious of the position or honor of any of God's people; and it was with much regret that we were forced to wield the cudgel against J. W. Krewson; but we are obliged to rate down J. W. Krewson very decidedly when he speaks of “goodwill’ toward the brethren,” while he openly and brazenly tried to slander us by admitting to other brethren he was trying to cast suspicion upon our integrity with respect to our pilgrim appointment by Brother Johnson. At that time he said he had a “reliable witness” that we were parading as a fraud be­fore the Household; but it should be self‑evident to all that this was just a brazen falsehood on his part, as he has produced no such “reliable witness.” And, for such a person to orate about “goodwill’ toward the brethren,” while he attempts Murder against them (see Berean Comment on 1 John 3:15: “By this standard every slanderer is a murderer”) does not speak of the Truth being in him.

When Jesus told the inquiring lawyer, “thou art not far from the Kingdom,” what did He mean? Why, He meant that the lawyer was not far from accepting Him. When we exposed the uncleansed Levites, and gave them the correct answers to their wrong course, certainly we were not close to accepting them. Nor were they giving us the correct answers. We were giving them the correct answers. Even J. W. Krewson him­self admits we were honest in our writings of 1955‑56, so there was nothing then, at least, that would indicate we were not fully in God's favor; whereas, the lawyer who questioned Jesus made no profession of accepting the way of sacrifice, He had not become a disciple of Jesus up to that time; whereas we had given all outward evidence, at least, of a full acceptance of the Kingdom promises for elective pur­poses. We believe any babe in the Truth should know that any and all faithful Epiphany‑enlight­ened brethren are a part of the Epiphany Elect, as analyzed by Bro. Johnson in Volume 4; so the inconsistency and incongruity of his “interpretation” stamp it for what it is – “strong delusion”!

The writings of J. W. Krewson generally are on a par with what we have examined herein, but we have passed much of it by as not worthy of note. We have commented on the foregoing especially because it is a personal attack upon us.

We pray for all our readers the “spirit of understanding” that they may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of Him who hath called us to better things, and has shown us a better way.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Letter of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in the name of our Beloved Saviour!

This is to tell you that we as a class resent John W. Krewson's presumptions in his voluminous last issue and we know the Lord does not use a broadcaster of his surmisings, especially when they are as false as his statement that we disfellow­shiped R. G. Jolly because of your influencing us to do so.

We hope you will publish this letter so the dear brethren who love honesty and truth, may know that we alone are responsible for that act, and the only influence you exerted upon us was to advise us not to act hastily on a matter of such vital importance, which did cause us to wait longer than we would have.

You never once suggested that we disfellowship R. G. Jolly. Every member of this Class felt that it should be done for the ten reasons outlined in our letter to him.

It is still our hope and prayer that some time we may again have brotherly fellow­ship with R. G. Jolly; that he will renounce and correct the erroneous teachings fur­nished him by J. W. Krewson, as well as certain actions on his part not yet corrected.

May the Lord continue His blessing and keep you faithful to the end is our prayer.

With much Christian love,

The Winter Park, Florida, Ecclesia