by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 426

Once more we find it a privilege and pleasure to present a treatise on That Wise and Faithful Servant, whom the Lord made “ruler over all His goods.” (Matt. 24:45-47) The Scriptures give more on Brother Russell than of any other individual, except our Lord, in type and direct Scripture. It behooves all who have benefited from his faith­ful ministry to honor him, and more particularly to abide in the beautiful system of truth that he left us – and to study, spread and practice the Truth all the more as the “evil day” progresses. All who abide in “present truth” do not accept the many errors of our day – errors that set aside the fundamental truth in which we have been estab­lished.


That Servant entered into his reward October 31, 1916, and since that time the Ad­versary has done all in his power to distort the Truth in every way possible – by set­ting it aside for “new light” (?), by perverting the Truth, by revolutionizing against the Truth. All those who have “continued in the Truth” once delivered unto the faithful are much saddened to witness such distortions, etc. Some have gone from one group to another, hoping to find the pure faith – and some have come to the conclusion that they would separate themselves from all groups. We believe that is a mistake, because there are yet others of like mind who seek to “abide in His Word,” and who are keeping up the “good fight,” in upholding and defending the faith. Such a course is the only way we can “be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren.” We are to “lay down our lives for the brethren,” and we cannot do that if we isolate ourselves and refuse to hold up the standard because we do not want to “stand the heat of the day.”

The Truth received into “good and honest hearts” makes us “good soldiers” – it does not make cowards of us. If we have a cowardly spirit, the Lord did not give it to us. “For God did not give to us a Cowardly Spirit, but one of Power, and of Love, and of a sound mind.” (2 Tim. 1:7, Dia.) And the Apostle Paul tells us: “Retain an outline of Wholesome Words, which thou didst hear from me, in That Faith and Love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard the Good Entrusted charge, through that holy Spirit which dwells in US. Thou knowest this, That all those in Asia turned away from me: of whom are Phygel­lus and Hermogenes.” (2 Tim. 1:13–15, Dia.)


While we consider ourselves duty–bound to make the statements aforegoing, yet we are also most happy to note that none of the groups that have arisen from the Parousia Truth Movement have resorted to any slander of That Servant – nor have they attacked his character. However, in his day Babylon was grossly guilty of slander when they could not meet his clear Scriptural teachings that exposed so many of their errors.

And this Babylonish evil is still glaringly present with us. In just the past few months a book has come into our hands – written by a man of some considerable education and influential standing – who attempts to expound such subjects as “hermeneutical prin­ciples,” although he at the same time reveals a pathetic ignorance of some of the subjects he attempts to explain. He is a vehement expounder of the Trinity, eternal torment as the wages of sin, and his reliance on Satan’s great lie, “Thou shalt not surely die” ­even quotes that very text in support of his own perversions. In like manner he con­tends for the flesh and blood return of Jesus at His Second Advent.

In Jeremiah 1:5 it is noted, “I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations”; and this offers us a key to the typical relationship of that prophet Jeremiah to That Ser­vant here in the end of the Age, because the evidence is very strong that That Servant was also “ordained a prophet unto the nations.” In the 38th Chapter of the same prophet we are told how his enemies lowered him into a dungeon of mire, typical of the slander that was heaped upon antitypical Jeremiah, Brother Russell, by his enemies in Babylon. The book we mentioned carries on “the good work” (?) in the following manner: “Thus it was, that at the words of one colossally egotistical and unschooled haberdasher, the Times of the Gentiles ended.”

The same writer classes him with “the heretic Arius” in teaching that there is but “one God,” which is an honor to Brother Russell; and emphasizes that he justly lost two slander suits against The Brooklyn Eagle and an Ontario minister. It is our firm con­viction that he should have won both cases, but we shall not here recount the elements that entered into the reason for his loss of those suits. The Eagle had published that “Russell’s religious cult is nothing more than a money–making scheme, and the court’s decision vindicated the Eagle’s statement and proved its reliability.” Although we know that Brother Russell put more money into the organization than he ever received from that organization.

The same writer then sums up: “This then is the product of Charles T. Russell, who, because he would not seek instruction in the Word of God, dedicated his unschooled talents to a lone vain search without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” There is much more of the same we could quote, but we would sum it up in words applied to Babylon, which now have equal force with the writer of the book in question: “The chief leaders of Babylon put him [Brother Russell] into the foulest condition of slander that certain executives of the clergy could invent, and by their strongest arguments they lowered him into the pit of slander, resulting in his sinking deeper and deeper into the filth of misrepresentation.”

Our beloved Pastor has been dead now for seventy–five years; but the foregoing is the sort of calumny that is still being printed and circulated about him because they realize that his teachings are still with us, and enduring. But, “As He is, so are we in this world.” (1 John 4:17)


Our Pastor knew that he was the antitype of Daniel, as he indicated by two paint­ings prepared for, but not used as Photo–Drama slides. One of these slides interpreted the antitypical handwriting on the wall and one on Pastor Russell in the critics’ den, which was reproduced in plate cut on the back of a Bible Students’ Monthly and in the 1913 Convention Report. Daniel does not type our Pastor in all the latter’s relations, but only in his relations to the world as a teacher on subjects pertinent to the world and on some of the relations of the Church to the world. In this treatise we do not write in a spirit of “angel worship,” but in appreciation of his faithful ministry and .”labor of love” toward all God’s people.

In Chapter One the account of Daniel’s education for the position of statesman in Babylon is get forth. Here Nebuchadnezzar types the nominal people of God. Ashpenaz (Dan. 1:3) types the chief leaders in the nominal church, such as supervised the subor­dinate teachers of the nominal church, and such as particularly supervised the educa­tional arrangements of Christendom’s prospective teachers. It was the desire of the nominal people of God (vs. 3,4) that the most gifted and promising young men be selected for training as teachers of their views in symbolic Babylon. As Daniel (vs. 4,6) was one of those chosen for such educational opportunities in literal Babylon, so was Brother Russell chosen by those nominal Christians with whom he associated as a religiously and intellectually promising young man to teach in the nominal church.

And as the King (v. 5) provided that such students be fed from the royal table, so the nominal people of God arranged that the future teachers and leaders in symbolic Babylon be nourished on the religious diet that they themselves ate. As Daniel determined not to defile himself with the Levitically unclean meats (v. 8) of the King’s ta­ble, so Brother Russell determined that he would not defile himself with symbolic Baby­lon’s unclean doctrines. Since the story of how this happened is not generally known and should be preserved, we give it here in fair detail.

Brother Russell was born with a most exceptionally fine religious endowment. Be­fore he was born his mother consecrated him to the Lord, and afterward gave him the most careful religious training within her ability. As he often said, he could not remember a time from childhood’s first memories onward when he was not consecrated. Early he, showed his zeal in seeking to save people from Eternal Torment, among other ways, by his writing at the age of 14 Scripture passages on the sidewalks and walls of houses, urging people to repent and believe. In such evangelistic zeal, when 16 years old, he sought to convert an infidel acquaintance. The latter asked him if he believed God to be perfect in wisdom, justice, love and power. On his replying, “yes,” his acquaintance asked him how such  a God could have absolutely predestined the vast majority of the race to eternal torment. The boy answered that he could not understand it.

Up to this time he had not thought deeply on this feature of his (the Congregational) church’s creed. Troubled by the question, he raised it in the circles of his church. Unable to get any satisfying answer, he expressed his doubts on the matter. The report spread in the church that he was on the way to becoming an infidel. The pas­tor and elders of the church appointed a special meeting to solve his questions. But instead, they only increased his doubts. They told him that the Bible taught that doc­trine. He then said to them, “I believe God is perfect in wisdom, power, justice, and love, and I will not believe anything contrary to His character to be a revelation from Him. Therefore I do not believe He gave the Bible as His revelation; for, if He had given it as such, it would agree with His wisdom, power, justice and love.” It was at this stage wherein he decided he would never believe as a revelation of God anything contradictory to His character, that he, as antitypical Daniel (v. 8), determined not to defile himself with Levitically unclean meats; for he concluded that any doctrine con­trary to God’s character is false. It will be noted that the stand that Brother Russell took on the matter of God’s character as a test of revealed religion, when he was 16 years old, he retained until death ended his course.

His pastor and elders, as representatives of the highest church authorities (v. 9), thought highly of him; and his determination to accept only what harmonized with God’s character (pulse, v. 12) put them into considerable difficulty with the pertinent nomi­nal people of God who would cut them off from their positions (“endanger my head to the king,” v. 10), if they did not require of him to accept the Congregational creed in whole. But rather than lose so promising a young man, they conceded to him temporarily (ten days, v. 12) the privilege of subjecting all teachings to the rule of harmony with God’s character. Accordingly, we find Brother Russell as a youth of 16 a disbeliever, not actually, though ostensibly, in the Bible, but actually in the Calvinistic creed, which he was mistaught to be the right interpretation of the Bible.

He was of too religious and logical a mind to be content without a revealed reli­gion. He therefore set out to learn what the true religion was, and to this end decided to investigate all religions until he would find the true one. So he began with that of the Chinese, whose idea of the creation is this: In the beginning all was water, where it grew into our present earth. That was enough of the Chinese religion for him! Worse absurdities than this made him reject Hindooism and Buddhism. Because Mohammedanism was partly based on the Old and New Testaments, he rejected it. Thus his rejection of the non–Christian religions left him for a while stranded high and dry on the shores of un­belief, though all the while he devoutly held to God as perfect in wisdom, justice, love and power, and trusted Him as such.

But his religious disposition could not be content with no religion; and what to do troubled him. Finally he said to himself, I can at least believe so much of the Bi­ble as is contained in the Golden Rule Godward and manward: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy mind, with all thy soul and with all thy strength ... and thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matt. 22:37,39) Furthermore, he concluded that Je­sus’ explanation of the law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, as meaning: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them (Matt. 7:12) was correct. Thus he said, “I believe that much of the New Testament.” This prompted him to look up the context of Matt. 7:12, which he found to be a part of the Sermon on the Mount. He studied this in the light of God’s character and recognized it to be in harmony therewith. Therefore he accepted it. This moved him to desire to study more of Jesus’ teachings, which, accordingly, led him to study these as they are found elsewhere in the four Gospels.

Always he found them in harmony with God’s character. This moved him not only to accept all of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels as he understood them, but also greatly to appreciate Jesus as a teacher Divinely inspired. Such appreciation of Jesus’ teachings prompted him to want to know more of His life, which moved him to a study of the Gospels historically, resulting in his recognizing Jesus as a perfect human being and the Son of God. But up to then he rejected the New Testament, except the Gospels.

One day he noted the passage (John 16:12-14) wherein Jesus said that the Spirit would reveal to the Apostles such truths as Jesus would yet give them, and which they were as yet unable to bear. He desired to know what those teachings were. Hence he began to study the Acts, the Epistles and Revelation; and as he understood them he rec­ognized their harmony with God’s character. Thus gradually, and upon a right founda­tion he came to believe that the New Testament was the revelation of the God of wisdom, power, justice and love, in whom he had always believed.

But the Old Testament he continued to reject. The following things gradually led him to believe in the Old Testament: He noticed that not only did Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Old Testament, but used such quotations to prove their doctrines. Hence he concluded that whatever they quoted from the Old Testament was true. On later thought he decided to study the connections from which these quotations were made; and these he found to be in harmony with the quotations themselves and God’s character. Hence he ac­cepted the teachings of these contexts. This led him to study the connections of these contexts, and thus more and more of the Old Testament became clear to him until his faith was confirmed in the prophetic writings and in the historical writings which were closely interwoven with the prophetic writings. Still he suspected the books of Moses, except those parts quoted by Jesus and the Apostles; because he mistakenly was led to think that Moses made himself a dictator to Israel and established a priesthood that tyrannized over the people. But deeper study convinced him of his mistakes on these points; and he came to see that the Mosaic legislation was the most benevolent, and freedom, equality and fraternity-inspiring legislation ever inaugurated. Accordingly, he accepted also the Pentateuch as Divinely inspired; and thus his faith accepted the whole Bible.

He continued to study the Scriptures privately and in an independent Bible class at Alleghany, Pa.; and by 1872, four years after he started out in quest of the Divine revelation, he not only accepted the entire Bible as that revelation, but also the fol­lowing points as its main teachings: the unity of God; the Divine Sonship of Jesus; the Spirit as God’s power and disposition; man’s fall from perfection into sin; death as sin’s penalty (Rom. 6:23); the unconsciousness of the dead (Eccl. 9:5); the Ransom as guaranteeing an opportunity for the elect in this life and for the non-elect in the Millennium; the eternity of the physical universe (Ecc. 1:4); the destruction of the symbolic world at Christ’s Second Advent (2 Peter 3:10-12); the Second Advent for the restitution of all things (Acts 3:19-21); eternal life in heaven for the elect, and on earth for the saved non-elect; and eternal annihilation for the incorrigible.

It was in 1875 that the antitype of Nebuchadnezzar’s examining Daniel (vs. 18-20) began. From 1872 to 1875 Brother Russell continued to increase in grace, knowledge and fruitfulness in service. It was in October 1874, that he came to see that Jesus in His resurrection became a Spirit being, and that therefore He would not in His Second Advent come in the flesh, but as a glorious Divine Spirit, and necessarily then would be invis­ible to human natural sight. He embodied these thoughts as well as those on the object of our Lord’s return in a tract entitled, The Object and Manner of Our Lord’s Return. The misteachings of the Adventists on the object and manner of our Lord’s return had raised more or less doubts and questions in many minds, and this aroused Brother Russell to write and spread that tract, which was circulated to the extent of 50,000 copies.


The second chapter of Daniel treats of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the metallic image of a man with a golden head, silver shoulders and arms, brazen belly, iron thighs and legs, and feet and toes of a mixture of iron and clay, and of the stone which destroyed the image and then grew into a mountain, filling the entire earth. It is not our pur­pose in our study of Daniel – type and antitype – to point out the prophetic features of Daniel, since that is sufficiently done in Studies, Volumes One, Two and Three. Here we limit our attention to the typical features of this book. Nor will we rehearse the typ­ical features. Rather, we will merely indicate them by the citing of the verses in which they occur, asking our readers to have the book of Daniel open at the pertinent part for the sake of reference. In interpreting Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, our Pastor gave its prophetic teachings. At the same time, the entire story of Dan. 2 types something very interesting. Typically, this chapter sets forth the meaning of history under the rule of the nations during the Times of the Gentiles and the prophe­sied role of God’s Kingdom as the destroyer and successor of these.

In this chapter, as in the preceding one, Nebuchadnezzar types the Gospel-Age nom­inal people of God, who, as such, have been in existence since the Jewish Harvest. His having the dream represents the nominal people of God having a proper view of the mean­ing of history as exemplified in the four universal Gentile powers and in their ten suc­cessor powers, and of the role of the prophesied Kingdom of God as their destroyer and successor; for the Apostles properly taught the early Christians that, as represented by the deterioration of the metals from gold to silver, from silver to brass, from brass to iron and from iron to a mixture of iron and clay, under the Gentile rule the race and its governments would become more and more fallen and depraved – and that when depravity would reach its height the kingdoms of this world would be destroyed by God’s Kingdom, which would stand forever. This, in brief, is the philosophy of human history under Gentile rule and the prophetic role of the Kingdom of God. And this view, taught by the Apostles, remained with the real and nominal people of God for several centuries.

The papacy’s teaching another theory of God’s Kingdom in its time and other rela­tions to the kingdoms of this world darkened the subject; for it taught that it was God’s Kingdom commissioned to convert the world and rule over it for 1,000 years before Christ’s return, whereas it was the clay mingled with iron in the feet and toes. (The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach similarly about their organization in our day.) This view gradually caused the one given to the nominal people of God by the Apostles to be for­gotten by them (the thing is gone from them, v. 5). For many centuries the true view was forgotten; and it was only beginning with the illumination – in 1748 – that nominal Christians began to demand an explanation of the meaning of history from the clergy (Chaldeans), the professors (magi), the historians (astrologers) and the prophets (sor­cerers) of Christendom (v. 2). Their inability to tell what was the early view of Christians thereon, as well as its meaning, was typed by the inability of Nebuchadnez­zar’s wise men to tell the dream and its interpretation (vs. 4–11).

The decree to slay the wise men of Babylon types the determination of the thinking members of the nominal church to set aside as their teachers (a symbolic killing) the wise men of Christendom. Arioch (vs. 14,15) represents those who led the people in set­ting aside such teachers, i.e., the free thinkers, higher critics, etc., who beginning about 1785, worked to undermine popular confidence in Christendom’s wise men as teachers. Undoubtedly, the prestige of such wise men was greatly decreased with ever–increasing numbers of nominal people of God from that time onward. Arioch’s seeking Daniel (v. 13) represents that such free thinkers, higher critics, etc., sought to undermine Brother Russell as a teacher in Christendom. Daniel’s tact in dealing with Arioch (vs. 14,15) types Brother Russell’s tact in dealing with free thinkers, etc. Arioch’s telling Dan­iel the situation (v. 15) types the free thinkers, etc., telling the situation of the antitypical wise men to Brother Russell.

Daniel’s going to the king and obtaining time to consider and answer the matter (v. 16) represents Brother Russell’s standing before the nominal people of God as a teacher of religion and promising, if allowed due time, to solve the matter at hand. Daniel’s laying the matter before his three friends and asking their united prayers over the matter (vs. 17, 18) represents Brother Russell’s habit of asking suggestions from the brethren when in difficulty and asking their prayers for Divine enlightenment, e.g., when he was perplexed over the meaning of the voice of the three signs (Reprint 4057, last par.). Members of the Bethel family will recall such things as occurring. This course he followed in the present instance. God’s revealing this matter to Daniel (v. 19) types God’s making known to Brother Russell the view of the early Christians on the meaning of history as exemplified in the Gentile rule and the prophesied role of God’s Kingdom. Daniel’s thanksgiving (vs. 19-23) types Brother Russell’s thanksgiving at this mercy of God. Daniel’s desiring Arioch not to destroy Babylon’s wise men (v. 24) repre­sents Brother Russell’s refutation of the course of the free thinkers, etc., which was a hindrance to their object. Arioch’s bringing Daniel to the king as one who would tell and interpret the dream (v. 25) types the free thinkers, etc., more or less praising Brother Russell, whose kindly manner and logical teachings favorably impressed them.

Nebuchadnezzar’s asking Daniel if he could give and interpret the dream (v. 26) types the nominal people of God inquiring, i.e., searching Brother Russell’s teachings for an answer to the matter on hand. Daniel’s reminding Nebuchadnezzar that Babylon’s wise men could not answer his questions (v. 27) types Brother Russell’s statements that Christendom’s clergy, professors, learned ones, prophets and philosophers have been un­able to answer the matter. Daniel’s attributing the implied wisdom, not to himself, but to God (v. 28), types Brother Russell’s denying that he had his wisdom of himself, but that it was of God, who revealed the knowledge to him as due. Daniel’s telling and in­terpreting the dream (vs. 28-45) types Brother Russell’s showing the view of the early Christians on the increasing depravity accompanying the rule of the Gentiles and on the role of God’s Kingdom as the destroyer and successor of these. This view our Pastor gave in his writings, sermons and lectures. The king’s honoring and promoting Daniel (vs. 46-48) type how increasingly the people of Christendom honored Brother Russell, re­garding him as above all other religious teachers of Christendom. Daniel’s desiring promotion for his three friends (v. 49) types Brother Russell’s using his position to advance the Lord’s people as teachers in Christendom. Daniel’s sitting in the king’s gate (v. 49, place of chief prominence), types the great and favorable publicity that Brother Russell got especially from 1913 onward.

In the events of Daniel 3, Daniel took no part. It has often occasioned wonder as to where Daniel was while Shadrach, Meshach and Abed–nego were undergoing the trial of the golden image and the fiery furnace. While the record is silent on this point, one thing is certain about it, i.e., that Daniel was absent from the plain of Dura; for he certainly would have stood beside his three friends, had he been present. When we look at the antitype it becomes manifest that Daniel, who throughout his book types our Pas­tor, could not have been there; for had he been present it would have spoiled the anti­type; for Brother Russell died before either of the two fulfilments set in where he lived. Thus in the light of the antitype Daniel’s absence during the events described in Chapter 3 is entirely clear. Nevertheless, Daniel wrote this, as well as the rest of the book that bears his name. And what does his writing this chapter type? Brother Russell’s giving the two antitypes of this chapter, e.g., one in Reprints 2495, 2496, and the other in Reprints 4873, 4874. Thus in giving these two antitypes of this chap­ter our Pastor antityped Daniel in writing it.


The fifth chapter of Daniel treats of Belshazzar’s feast, the handwriting on the wall, its reading and interpretation. In one of the pictures used in the German Photo ­Drama the antitype of the interpretation is given. Therein Brother Russell is repre­sented as giving the right interpretation, while the clergy, etc., are pictured forth as in confusion thereover. In this picture Belshazzar types the nominal people of God in state, church and capital especially their leaders as a class. His 1,000 lords (v. 1) represent these leaders distributively as being many, i.e., in their totality. His wives represent the main organizations of the nominal people of God, and his concubines their lesser organizations.  The feast types the Parousia privileges and advantages that the nominal people of God appropriated to themselves – particularly so in the church unions during the Harvest period. The golden and silver vessels (vs. 2, 3) type the Di­vine truths that had been taken captive in the Dark Ages with God’s real people into symbolic Babylon. The sending of these vessels types the requirements that the teachings of God’s Word be made subservient to Babylon’s unclean uses. Putting Babylon’s wine in­to these vessels types the corruption of the Divine truth with Babylon’s errors. The banqueters’ drinking therefrom types the antitypical Babylonians’ partaking of a mixture of truth and error in their Parousia feast. The fingers of a man’s hand (v. 5) that wrote on the wall represent the exhibition of Divine power (hand) on symbolic Babylon’s walls (her political, financial, ecclesiastical, social and labor powers). The king’s seeing the part of the hand that wrote (v. 5) types the nominal people of God recogniz­ing in part that it was a manifestation of Divine power that they witnessed. And such power was manifest in the signs of the times occurring in Babylon’s political, finan­cial, ecclesiastical, labor and social powers.

The great perturbation of the king at the sight (v. 6) types Christendom’s fears at the events which proved to be the signs of the times – “men’s hearts failing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth.” (Luke 21:26) The king’s demand that the wise men of Babylon be brought before him (v. 7) types the demand of the nominal people of God that the wise men of Christendom be summoned to the fore on the subject at hand. His offer to give the purple robe, the golden chain and the third position in the kingdom to the one who would read and interpret the handwrit­ing, represents Christendom’s reward of making the true reader and interpreter the roy­ally accepted (purple robe), Divinely authorized (golden chain on the neck) chief teacher in the religious (the third) department of symbolic Babylon.

The failure of the king’s wise men to interpret the handwriting types the failure of Christendom’s learned men, clergy and prophets, to read and interpret the signs of the times. Belshazzar’s increased fears and that of his lords (v. 9) types the increased perplexity of the nominal people of God, particularly of its leaders, at the events which proved to be the signs of the times, etc. Daniel’s being brought in before the king (v. 13) types Brother Russell being brought in before the nominal people of God by his writings, sermons and lectures. Daniel’s first statement (v. 17), that the king keep his gifts or bestow his rewards upon another types Brother Russell’s disinterested­ness; for he gladly gave his service in the cause of Truth freely, declining to accept financial recompense therefor. “Seats free – No collections” was his shibboleth during his entire ministry.

First of all Daniel read the writing (v. 25), which the Babylonian wise men could not even read. Then, as Daniel explained the meaning of the words (vs. 26-28), so Broth­er Russell explained the meaning of the signs: MENE (v. 26) – “God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it.” This Brother Russell explained as the 2520 years of the Gen­tile Times, which would end in 1914. Very significant in this connection is the fact that the numeric value of those words on the wall is exactly 2520 – Mene, 1000; Mene, 1000; Tekel, 20; Peres 500, the gerah being the unit here meant. Thus Brother Russell boldly declared, many years before 1914, that the allotted years of Gentile rule were 2520, and that they would end in 1914 by a great world-wide war. The beginning of the war precipitated Christendom into two antagonistic camps – the Radicals and the Conservatives, with the breach between the two becoming ever wider with each passing year. This will presently eventuate in the complete destruction of the Conservative camp, with the resultant obliteration of the present forms of state, church and capital.

In addition, he related that these signs of pending doom also indicated the immi­nence of God’s Kingdom as the kingdom that would succeed the kingdoms of this world. Thus did he point out the three great things indicated by the signs of the times: (1) the end of the Gentile Times; (2) Babylon’s judgment going against her; and (3) the overthrow of Satan’s empire, to be succeeded by God’s two-phased Kingdom. Brother Rus­sell explained these things in crystal clarity, which none of Babylon’s wise men could do. They could not even recognize their significance. Events since 1914 amply corrob­orate the truth of his readings. Daniel’s being accepted as the third (the religious) ruler in Babylon types that Brother Russell was increasingly regarded as the greatest religious teacher in Christendom; and his renown was world-wide.


Much of the foregoing is taken from Brother Johnson’s writings; and from it we may properly draw the conclusion that he was fully persuaded that Brother Russell was “that servant” (Matt. 24:45-47). And such persuasion convinced Brother Johnson that the sys­tem of Truth Brother Russell presented, with all important doctrines of the Bible clearly and correctly explained, should be retained as he gave it. Thus, Brother Johnson was bold in defending all attempts to pervert the Truth as it is contained in Tabernacle Shadows and the Six Volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. This he did from the heart, and not by mere lip service.

Both of these Messengers died late in October, and we fondly pay homage to both of them at this season of the year. It is in order here to state that during Brother Rus­sell’s lifetime the Truth group he led was almost 100% solidly persuaded that he was That Servant, but quite a few denied the fact shortly after he was gone. And many others who laud Brother Russell reject large parts of the Truth he gave us – chief among these are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is strikingly similar to the Roman Catholics, who claim they originated with the Apostle Peter but also reject about every important teach­ing he gave. Thus, consistency in their words and in their acts is sadly absent.

Of both of these “men of God” (2 Tim. 3: 17) we offer the appropriate tribute: “Wealth and riches [rich in faith and in knowledge of the Lord, as well as rich in char­acter] shall be in his house: his righteousness endureth forever... A good man will guide his affairs with discretion... The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.” (Psa. 112:3-6)

(Brother Hoefle, Reprint 304, October 1980)



Dear Sister: Greetings in the Name of Jesus, our Beloved Savior!

Received your “CTR” book with the hardcover. Yes, I should have more than one on hand.

You, in your note that came with the hard-covered book said, “But the more people persecuted the Russellites and Brother Russell when he was here, the more people became interested to find out what he taught.”

You continued to say, “They even burned his books in the front of many churches, and that even helped – made people curious to know what it was about.” You must re­member they burned the Bibles at one time, but the Bible was preserved the same as Brother Russell’s books were preserved.

And you said, “The word was loud and clear, ‘Come out of her, my people.’ They came out! And the ones that came out were greatly blessed.”

With love ------- (CONNECTICUT)