by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 321

Comes again the observance of our Lord’s death, and particularly so as regards His last Passover observance the night before He died. We now follow the procedure He pre­scribed at that last Passover with His disciples, using the bread and wine in what is commonly termed The Lord’s Supper. When the typical lamb was gathered in on Nisan 10, as they were told to do that first time in Egypt – held until Nisan 14 – they were un­doubtedly soberly impressed with the serious performance at hand. In previous papers we have stressed the meticulous care each Jewish household portrayed when they removed all leaven from each house the day before eating the Passover. And so it should be with us also. As St. Paul stresses it: “Let a man examine himself.” (1 Cor. 11:28)

First of all, we stress that it is now exactly 3,596 years to the day from that awesome event in Egypt – that night in which every firstborn of man and beast in Egypt was slain. And that event is still indelibly impressed upon the mind of every orthodox Jew to this day – as well it should be. We are often inclined casually to read of this event without great serious thought; but let us consider the condition that prevailed in Egypt at that time: The firstborn of man and beast in every household! Thus, the land was literally filled with corpses; certainly not enough undertakers to care for all of them, which burdened the head of every house with burying his own son. In our day we consider it sad enough when children must bury their own parents in accepted manner; but it is indeed much sadder when parents must bury their own children – and especially so, if those children have been good children; thus, the death of such a child will add double grief upon the parent of that child.

And the Jews were emphatically told, “Ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and thy sons forever.” (Ex. 12:24) And their performance of this ritual every year is one of the strongest proofs that the Bible is indeed “the Word of Truth.”


The proper date for observing this sacred event is still a source of much confusion – although the Bible is very positive on the subject: “And ye shall keep it (the lamb) un­til the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.” (Ex. 12:6) From this clear statement it should be readily clear to every one that the condition of the moon is by no means a determining factor; yet it does influence quite a few in setting the time of observance. Some de­cide that the moon must be full; and it is substantially so by the 14th of Nisan, but not always so. Last year (1981) the full of the moon did not occur until about two days after the fourteenth of Nisan, so the Jewish Passover was two days later than it should have been had they used Nisan 14.

The only consideration of the moon in this matter is to determine Nisan 1; but once that is established, then it is just fourteen days until the observance should be held. And Nisan 1 is established by the moon which becomes new nearest the Spring Equinox ­unless that moon would date the “remembrance” before the Vernal Equinox – in which case the new moon of the following month should be used. Never before the Vernal Equinox is a hard and fast rule determined by both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson – based upon what we are told by the Jewish historian Josephus, who tells us that limitation was al­ways used by the Jews when Jesus established the Memorial the night before He died.

But in spite of the foregoing, two Truth groups have set aside this reckoning; and in the past few years (1981 being one of them) they have kept the Memorial a few days before the Vernal Equinox. As we have often stated in previous papers, the prop­er date should not be used to determine fellowship, because the very best of Christian leaders have used the wrong date in previous times. However, if we know the truth on the subject, then we, as Truth people, should use the truth because it is the truth; and we suggest that our readers be governed accordingly.

In this year 1982 the moon nearest the Vernal Equinox becomes new at 12:17 p.m. at the meridian nearest Jerusalem, which fixes Nisan 1 at 6 p.m. March 24, according to our calendar. And, counting fourteen daysfrom that, our observance should be any time after six p.m. of April 6. We use Jerusalem as the starting time for this because it was in that locality that the Bible was written. Greenwich, England, or anything west of that, was not known by the Jews, or civilized men at that time; thus, there is no justification for using any of our ‘modern’ locations for arriving at the proper date. The process may sound complicated, but it is really quite simple once it is clearly under­stood. Here in Mount Dora, Florida, we shall keep the Memorial at 7:30 p.m, April 6; and we welcome all of like mind who are in this vicinity to join with us at that time,


Over the meaning of no other Biblical words have there been more and sharper contro­versies waged than over those as recorded in Matthew and Mark concerning what Jesus said – and did. As on all other Scripture doctrines, so on this, Satan has spread much vi­cious and confusing error. One of these is the Mass, which requires as its basis the doc­trine of transubstantiation, the central feature of the desolating abomination – one of the great errors about the Lord’s Supper.

Broadly speaking, there are two general views, with varying shades of difference, on the meaning of the words, “This is my body; This is my blood.” No. 1 is that group of views that teaches the real presence of the body and blood of Christ actually in the Lord Supper; and second, that group of views that teaches the representative meaning of the bread and wine in that service. Great ingenuity has been used in the exposition and de­fense of the doctrine of the real presence. We ourselves believe that there is no actual presence of the real body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, as those hold who teach the doctrine of the real presence; for we regard the bread and wine as representa­tions of Christ’s body and blood. Briefly, we shall now examine both of these views.

First, the doctrine of the real presence, that is, that the words, “This is my body ­This is my blood,” teach that the actual flesh and blood of Jesus are present and are given to the communicants. Let us consider its three main views, the first of which is that of the Roman Catholic Church – transubstantiation – that is, the actual change of the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus during and through the priest’s uttering in the consecration service the words, “This is my body – This is my blood.” The Romanists concede that the bread and wine retain what they call “the ac­cidents,” i.e., the appearance, form, taste, color, weight, etc., of bread and wine – af­ter their consecration; but, they claim, actually they lose the essence of bread and wine and take on the essence of the body and blood of Christ. The body and blood of Christ, i.e., Christ, so created, the priest proceeds in the Mass to sacrifice afresh for the sins of the living and the dead. This indicates the basic relation of transubstantiation to the Mass. Against this view we offer the following objections:

The Romanist view implies a change in the words explanatory of the institution, so that, if their view were correct; the language should read, This has been changed into My body; this has been changed into My blood. The fact that they teach a doctrine whose sense requires a decided change in the wording of the language explanatory of the institution disproves that their claim that their interpretation is correct, because they interpret the language just as it reads, which is a false one.

Further, the Bible contradicts their view. If their view were correct, it would be incorrect, after the consecration of the elements, to speak of partaking of bread and wine, as the Bible does. It should then speak exclusively of partaking of the body and blood of Christ. But the Bible five times calls one of the elements bread after its consecration and during its eating. (1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:26-28); and in all of these passages, except the second, using the familiar figure of the container for the thing contained: It calls the other element the “cup,” and elsewhere defines the contents of the cup, after its consecration and during its drinking, as the fruit of the vine, i.e., wine. (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25) Hence, the Bible by calling the elements bread and wine after their consecration, contradicts the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Facts prove that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the consecration of the elements. The following are some of these facts: Blood does not make drunk, but wine does. Frequently, priests in their many masses must drink so much wine that they became drunk. It is now openly stated that about ten percent of the Catholic priests are alcoholics. Hence it is wine that they drink, not blood. Chemical analysis will demonstrate that there are exactly the same amount and same proportion of certain chemi­cal elements in a given amount of bread after consecration as there were before; while the same amount, proportion and kinds of chemical elements will not be found in a human body. Moreover, the amount, kinds and proportion of chemical elements will vary in the analysis of different consecrated breads exactly in proportion to the changes in the mill­ing of the flour, which causes them thus to vary in their proportion of carbonates, ni­trogen, phosphates and mineral salts. The chemical analysis of the wine proves the same truth. But the elements of Christ’s flesh and blood would remain the same. Hence, these facts prove that there has been no change in the substance of the bread and wine after the consecration by the Roman priests. Other arguments refute the doctrine of transubstan­tiation; but as they apply equally against the other two views of the “real presence” we will discuss them in connection with points against all three of these “real presence” views.


Some of the Oriental Christian sects teach consubstantiation – a mingling of the bread and body and wine and blood. The Lutheran Church and some Episcopalians teach what may be called instrumentalization, though they do not use that term; for they teach that by means of the bread and wine, which they teach remain bread and wine throughout the service, the actual body and blood of Jesus are given the communicants. Accordingly, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and instrumentalization have in common the thought of the “real presence.” The arguments that we will now advance apply equally against all of them.

The Bible account of the original supper proves that Jesus did not give His actual body and blood to His disciples: (a) His blood was not yet shed when He instituted the Supper, but was in His veins; therefore, it was not in the cup. (b) Jesus held the bread in His hand after He blessed it and used over it the explanatory words, “This is my body;” hence, what He gave was a different thing from His body. (c) He did not arise from His couch and put Himself into the hand of each of His disciples; for He remained reclining on the couch, while He handed them the bread. (d) The disciples did not handle His body and blood for they remained on the couch. (e) They did not put them into their mouths, which would have been too small to receive His body; for He remained on the couch speaking, while they put the bread into their mouths. (f) They did not eat His body and blood; for these remained on the couch. (g) There is not the slightest suggestion in the whole event that either Jesus or His disciples thought that there was an actual giving of His body and blood to the disciples. The expression of such a thought would have aroused questions, especially in Peter, requiring answers before the disciples could have proper­ly partaken in the service. Hence, the conclusion is unavoidable that in the original Lord’s Supper Jesus did not give His actual flesh and blood to His Apostles to eat and drink; and therefore, in none of the subsequent celebrations of that Supper which Jesus instituted were the celebrants given what the original Supper did not give its partici­pants. To claim that subsequent celebrations have given the communicants what the orig­inal Supper did not give its communicants implies that they are not the same thing as the original Supper, i.e., they are not the Lord’s Supper at all!

These three doctrines of the “real presence” contradict various Scriptural doctrines, especially the central doctrine of the Bible – the Ransom. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ laid down His humanity as the Ransom Price for mankind. (1 Tim. 2:6) For Him to take back His humanity implies the taking back of the Ransom Price, which would undo the Ransom. The doctrine of the real presence implies that Jesus took back His humanity; for it is claimed by its adherents that by virtue of its personal union with His Divinity it is present in the Lord’s Supper, and this doctrine implies His taking back the Ransom Price. Again, these doctrines of the real presence contradict our Lord’s resurrection as a spirit being (1 Cor. 15:45–49; 2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Pet 3:19); for they imply that He arose a human being. As a consequence of the unscriptural implications involved in the doctrine of the real presence the entire Plan of God as centering in the Ransom becomes inoperative, especially in its justification, High Calling and Restitution features.

The doctrine of the real presence contains other unscriptural implications. The first of these is that Jesus’ body and blood can be in many places at the same time, which is untrue; for according to this doctrine wherever the Lord’s Supper is celebrated the body and blood of Christ are present. But it is often celebrated at different places at the same time; hence, according to this doctrine Jesus’ Body and blood are at many places at the same time, an impossibility. Again, this doctrine implies that Jesus has millions of bodies and rivers of blood; for according to it each communicant receives the complete body of Jesus and some of His blood. According to this doctrine billions have received them and millions of them at the same time, implying that Jesus had millions of bodies and rivers of blood. Hence the “real presence” doctrine is an absurdity.

The doctrine of the real presence is contrary to facts. Not one fact in connec­tion with the original Supper or its subsequent celebrations implies it; but all the facts connected with them contradict it.

The doctrine of the real presence is contrary to reason. There is nothing reason­able about it; and reason must be suspended to believe it. It can therefore not be included among the Divine mysteries, whose breadth and length and height are comprehended by the saints. (Eph. 3:4, 18; Matt. 13:11) It belongs to the mystery of iniquity, not to the mystery of God.

It contradicts our five senses, especially in its forms of transubstantiation and consubstan­tiation; and since these five senses were given us to help us to ascertain facts (Luke 24:39,40), the “real presence” must be untrue. The doctrine of the real presence is unprovable; for since neither the Bible, Reason, or facts prove it; and since it contradicts the Bible, Reason and Facts, it is evidently unprovable.

It is used to palm off some of the greatest delusions ever presented; it is calcu­lated to exalt the clergy and degrade the laity; and by Satan has been used to accom­plish these ends in the most brazen of all priestcrafts. These doctrines foster super­stition and credulity unbecoming to saints of God; for the services that express them are really hocus pocus ceremonies and sleight of hand tricks, when viewed from the standpoint of the erroneousness of these doctrines. These doctrines, especially transub­stantiation and consubstantiation, bring inevitably in their train questions and strife of words subversive of piety and reverence, e.g., whether mice eating the consecrated bread eat the flesh of Christ, etc.’

For all three doctrines of the real presence above reviewed it is claimed by their advocates that they are based upon the literal interpretation of the words of our text. However, if any literal interpretation of these texts would imply any of these three views, the above given reasons would prove that the words should not be given such lit­eral interpretation; and, if there were but one literal interpretation, it would not, of course, yield three different views.


The error underlying their claim as to a literal interpretation is due in part to the fact that advocates of each view argue as though the word is has but one literal mean­ing. Our understanding as to the matter is that the word is like many other words, has several literal meanings. Those who teach the real presence take but one of these and stress it as though it is the only literal meaning that the word has, though their literal interpretation yields three varying views! In this they greatly err. There are espec­ially two literal meanings that the verb “to be” has: (1) it is the predicate to express actual existence; (2) it is the predicate to express actual representation; but in both cases the meaning is literal. Thus, if we should say, A dog is an animal, we make a lit­eral statement in which the word is would be literally used as the predicate of actual existence.” And if we should say of a parental photograph, This is my father, or This is my mother, we would be making a literal statement in which the word is would be liter­ally used as the predicate of actual representation. In both statements the word is is literally used, but is used in different literal senses – just as the word comprehend is both times used literally when in one sentence it means to understand (Eph. 3:18) and in another sentence it means to contain. (Rom. 13:9)

The verb “to be” in its various forms is used as the predicate of actual representa­tion, to give an explanation, an interpretation, of a thing that stands for some other thing. Thus in ordinary conversation, as above shown, we may say of a photo, This is my father, mother, husband, wife, son, daughter, friend, neighbor, employer, employee, etc., as the case may be. Every one would understand that we are explaining whom the photo represents, and would understand us to be predicating, not actual existence, but actual representation. Thus Gen. Fred Grant, in the company of some friends, pointing to a statue of his father in New York, said, “This is my father.” Here, too, actual rep­resentation was literally predicated by the word is. The statement was perfectly literal; for he was giving a literal interpretation of that statue. Again, at the Shakespearean play, Hamlet, it was often said of Booth as he impersonated, represented, Hamlet, He is Hamlet. The predication was literal, not, of course, of actual existence, but of actual representation. Of an effigy or image we would say, this is so and so, and thereby would predicate actual representation. These examples suffice to prove that the verb “to be” in its various forms may be used literally to predicate actual representation as well as actual existence. And this is always the case when it is the predicate in a sentence that interprets the meaning of a representative thing. And in such interpretation the word is literally means represents.

Let us turn to the Scriptures and see whether this is not also Biblical usage. Let us first look at its interpretations of parables, which, of course, are representative things. In Matt. 13:24-30 Jesus gives the parable of the wheat and tares, and in re­sponse to His disciples’ request (v. 36) He explained the parable, in verses 37–42. In His explanation He repeatedly used the verb “to be” in various of its forms, in the ex­planatory clauses to mean to represent. Thus He said, “He that sowed the seed (the sower) is (represents) the Son of Man; the field is (represents) the world; The good seed are (represent) the children of the Kingdom; but the tares are (represent) the chil­dren of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is (represents) the devil; the harvest is (represents) the end of the world; and the reapers are (represent) the angels. Un­doubtedly a parable by certain things represents other things; and in interpreting each of its representing parts when the verb “to be” is used in the interpretation to predi­cate the meaning it always means, to represent, which is one of its literal meanings.

Let us notice the Biblical interpretations of types, which, of course, are repre­sentative things, and ye would find the word is in the explanatory terms means repre­sents. “This (one, John the Baptist) is (represents) Elias (the Church) that is to come.” (Matt. 11:14, Rev. Ver. ) “That rock was (represented) Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4) “These (women, Sarah and Hagar) are (represent) two covenants.” (Gal. 4:24) In these three passages the Scriptures interpret three types. In the explanatory term it uses various forms of the verb “to be,” and in every case the verb “to be” is used to mean “to repre­sent,” because a representative thing is being interpreted.

Symbols are likewise used in the Bible as representative things; and in all such cases where an interpretation of the representative symbol is given and where one of the forms of the verb “to be” is used to predicate the explanation it always means to repre­sent. As an illustration of such an interpretation of symbols we might cite Rev. 17:9, 12, 15, 18: “The seven heads are (represent) seven mountains.” “The ten horn? ... are (represent) ten kings.” “The waters ... are (represent) peoples,” etc. “The woman is (represents) that great city.”

Visions are also representative things; and whenever the Bible explains the mean­ing of their parts and uses the forms of the verb “to be” to predicate the explanation it is always used to represent. As an example we might cite Ezek. 37:11: “These bones are (represent) the whole house of Israel.” Images or effigies are also representative things; and whenever the Bible explains them and uses the forms of the verb “to be” to predicate the interpretation it always means to represent, e. g., of the golden calf Aaron made this explanation: “These be (represent) thy gods.” (Ex. 32:4)

If the Bible had offered an interpretation of its two fables – the trees choosing their king (Judg. 9:8–15), and the encounter of the cedar of Lebanon and the thistle (2 Kings 14:9) – and had used the verb “to be” to predicate the explanation, it would have meant to represent. It could have no other meaning.

Some Biblical institutions are representative things; and whenever the Bible ex­plains them and uses the verb “to be” to predicate the interpretation, it always uses it to mean to represent. Circumcision is such an institution (Rom. 4:11): “He re­ceived the sign of circumcision” of which God speaks as follows: “This (circumcision) is (represents) My Covenant.” (Gen. 17:10) Actually God’s Covenant with Abraham and his Seed was the promised blessings which circumcision represented, in that it symbo­lized what God does to the Seed in bestowing the promised blessings. Therefore, God called circumcision “the token,” representation, of His Covenant (Gen. 17:11). The an­nual passover – the paschal lamb – and its sacrifice, constituted another such institu­tion. Of it the Lord commanded the Israelites, when they would be asked by their chil­dren in Canaan as to what the slaying of the annual lamb represented, to answer, “It is (represents) the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover” – the paschal lamb slain in Egypt.


According to these many illustrations and examples we see that it is the regular Biblical usage, whenever explaining representative things, and using the verb “to be” to predicate the explanation, this verb always means to represent, and that is its lit­eral meaning in such connections. The many reasons given above prove that the word is is not used in the texts, “This is my body – This is my blood,” to predicate actual ex­istence. It must therefore be used to predicate actual representation; and as such is used by Jesus as the predicate to explain the meaning of some representative thing – a thing standing for some other thing. With this thought the Scriptures are in thorough agreement. And when the relationship of the Lord’s Supper to the annual passover ser­vice is recognized as the antitype of the latter, this becomes a matter of demonstration. In the Old Testament there were two things each of which had a reality and a symbol. Thus there was a real circumcision – that of the heart – and a symbolic circumcision ­that of the flesh. (Rom. 2:28,29) Thus there was also a real Passover – that slain in Egypt – and a symbolic passover – that slain annually. In the Gospel Age we have the antitypes of these two sets of things – the real baptism, consecration – the antitypes the circumcision of the heart in the Ancient Worthies, and symbolic baptism – water immer­sion – that antitypes their circumcision in the flesh; and the real antitypical Passover – Christ (1 Cor. 5:7) that antitypes the passover slain in Egypt, and the symbolic antitypical Passover the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper – which antitypes the an­nual passover slain in Egypt. And the relation of these two symbolic institutions of the Israelites to their Old Testament realities; as the symbols of these realities, proves that water baptism and the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, the two Gospel Age institutions, typed by these two symbolic Israelitish institutions, sustain the same relations – symbols of them – to the two Gospel Age realities – consecration and Christ as the antitypical Passover – typed by the two Israelitish realities – heart circumcision and the paschal lamb in Egypt. When this relationship is seen, one at once recognizes that as the annual lamb was a representation and commemoration of the original lamb slain in Egypt, so the bread and wine, as the antitype of the annual lamb, are a representation and commemoration of Christ as our Passover slain in the world for us – the antitype of the passover lamb slain in Egypt. And this once seen, it follows that we must interpret the words, “This is my body – This is my blood,” to mean, This represents my body; this represents my blood; for Christ by this language was explaining for what the representa­tive things – the bread and wine – in the Lord’s Supper stand – they stand for, repre­sent, His body and blood. Another consideration proves that the word is in our text is used to predicate actual representation and not actual existence – the language that Jesus uses in connection with the cup, as given by Sts. Paul and Luke: “This cup is the New Testament.” (1 Cor. 11:25; Luke 22:20) Certainly in this text the word is cannot be the predicate of actual existence; for the New Testament, or Covenant, is not a cup at all – it will be a contract between God and man, mediated by the Christ during the Millennium. Hence the word is in these passages is used as the predicate of actual rep­resentation. This cup is (represents) the New Testament – the New Covenant. This be­ing true, it follows that the word is has the same meaning in all of the sentences in which Jesus explained the import of the bread and wine.


The Lord Jesus (Luke 22:20) and the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 10:16,17; 11:25) point out a still deeper meaning in these words. Briefly would we examine this deeper thought. In 1 Cor. 10:17, by the language, “We, being many, are one bread, one body,” the Apostle shows that the one bread to be broken represents the Church also, as well as Jesus; for the Church is the one Body of Christ (Rom. 12:4,5; 1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 27; Eph. 1:22,23; 4:4, 12, 13, 15, 16; Col. 1:24) St. Paul calls the Church both the one bread and the Body of Christ which in the preceding verse he said is represented by the bread of bless­ing. Hence the bread, in addition to representing the Body of Jesus, also represents the Church, as Christ’s Body. For a more detailed exposition of these verses we refer our readers to F 465–469. Indeed as a help in preparing for the Memorial we suggest that all of our readers read the entire chapter on The Passover of the New Creation in Volume VI.


When St. Paul tells us that “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Cor. 5:7), he is clearly stating that the Passover Lamb in Egypt was a type of our Gospel-Age Pass­over. And, since every antitype is greater than its type, so we recognize that “Our” Passover is infinitely greater than was the typical lamb that awesome night in Egypt. And all the minute details that were so scrupulously observed have antitypical setting; but we shall mention now just two of them. The lamb in Egypt served two very important purposes: Its blood preserved the life of every Jew that night; and the eating of its flesh gave them strength and courage to undertake the march to goodly Canaan land. These same things our Lamb does for us, but in much grander scale. “The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7); thus our life is preserved so long as we remain under that blood!

This is further corroborated by the two stacks of shewbread of six slices each that were always on the golden table in the Tabernacle Holy. That “bread of presence” was changed every Sabbath; and the old loaves were eaten by the priests in the Holy Place. That bread was also known as the “continual bread.” Placed side by side, the two stacks made 66, which is the number of the books in our Bible; they represented the twelve tribes of Israel. And being in the Holy Place, they represented Jehovah’s continual presence with His people so long as they remained faithful to Him. The Ko­hathites had the charge of it; and it represented the precious promises upon which the travelers to the heavenly Canaan feed continually in their wearisome journey.

“Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes if him with whom we have to do.” (Heb. 4:13) “Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” (1 Cor. 7:24)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



My dear Brother and Sister Hoefle:

I just got home and got your loving Christmas remembrance... When the Lord says He will supply all your needs He really means it! I don’t want to distress you, but this morning about 5:30 I heard a great crash. I jumped out of bed and there was a man in the corridor. He broke through the window at the top of the bathroom, and collided with a flower pot that was near the door. I just rushed at his throat and we had a wrestling match. I managed to push him into the kitchen and pushed him up against the door. He put his hand over my mouth and I bit him so he dragged off a silver chain I had around my neck. I pushed him against the door and told him to open it. I said, Open the door – why don’t you open the door? So he drew back the bolts, still holding on to me, he attempted to put his hand over my mouth again – and I bit him for all I was worth; and he escaped outside and I screamed for all I was worth.

The neighbors came running, but by that time he had fled. I went to the police and to our Health Centre and got an injection for the bruises and a lot of tablets. I am starting to ache all over. But what I am saying, is that I had to call in a man to grill up all the windows. So thank you, thank you very much for your very useful Christ­mas present! See the other wonderful thing: I wear one of these diabetic chains round my neck. The day before all the girls insisted to treat me to a silver chain for Christ­mas, because you see I had been running a thrift club for them – and they were grate­ful. If I had not switched chains the man would have strangled me when he held on to it, for it would not have given so easily... I know that you have a hard time keep­ing up with all your correspondence – what a heavy mail bag you must have to go through! I really don’t expect you to answer all my letters, but you will never know how nice it is to hear from you both...

Warm Christian greetings to you all during this Holiday Season. Blessed be the tie that binds us together in this family of faith. I promise not to write such a long letter for awhile. I don’t want to tax your strength, So press on and the Lord will be with the good.

Sincerely your sister ------- (JAMAICA)


Dear Brother: Grace and peace in the name of our Lord, Jesus!

I went to Lencyzk Drive, as you requested. Mr. Miles is no longer living at this address – and the people living there now have never heard of him. Therefore, I was unable to pursue this any further.

I read with great interest the material you and Sister gave us upon our recent visit with you; and I find that we agree with you completely. It is now clear to us that the LHMM has in the past (since Brother Johnson’s death), and is now, following the way of Balaam. Their mission of comforting the Jews, exposing Great Company er­rors, etc., his been abandoned, and their inventing a new Class – “Epiphany Campers” ­to comfort, instead of the Jews, is blasphemous to say the least.

For quite sometime now, I have been gravely concerned, as to why I did not discern the Spirit of the Lord, among the majority of the adherence of the LHMM, especially among the LHMM hierarchy. But after reading your paper No. 205, July 1, 1972, it is obvious that they have resorted to the antics of an ACTOR; and, as you pointed out, are well described in Prov. 6:12,13,14.

Please send me, dear Brother, a list of your publications, prices, etc., that I might obtain those that I do not now have.

Your brother in the Lord’s service, ------- (FLORIDA)


Dear Friends:

The threat of a strike in the Postal Department made me realize I’ve been pro­crastinating again. I hope this note finds you all well and coping with the unusually hot weather our TV reports indicate you are having.

We’ve had some lovely summer weather, but gardeners and farmers would like more rain. All storms seem to move south of us and let more rain fall where they seem to get more than they want. It is so good to know that the day will come when the good earth will get the moisture it needs when it needs it.

I wish the very best for you and yours.

Most sincerely ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)

(Enclosure for the Lord’s work)