by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 249

Comes again the Memorial of our Lord’s death, the correct time this year being after 6 p. m. April 12. The date is determined in this fashion: The 1976 Vernal Equinox arrives in Jerusalem at 1:50 p.m. March 20; and the moon following that comes new at 7:08 p.m. March 30, thus establishing Nisan 1 at 6 p.m. March 30. This brings Nisan 14 at 6 p.m. April 12; and any time that evening would be the proper time for what is commonly designated as The Lord’s Supper. We here at Mount Dora shall com­mence the service at 7:30 p.m.; and we extend a cordial invitation to any one who hap­pens to be in this vicinity to join with us who are of one mind on the matter.


While the absolute time for observance is not a requirement, we should certainly have the right time if we can determine it. This is in keeping with St. Paul’s coun­sel in 1 Cor. 14:30: “Let all things be done decently and in order.” However, as v. 38 says, “If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant” – on non-essential teachings. it is an established fact that most of the truest and best of the Household of Faith dur­ing the entire Gospel Age have kept the Memorial on the wrong date; and this was true for some years after 1874 – when the Harvest Truth began to clarify many of the mistakes in teaching and practice that had accumulated after the demise of the Apostles. There­fore, we would emphasize that observance on the wrong date should never be a test of fellowship. “Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.”

However, with those who are guided somewhat by the newing of the moon, once Nisan 1 is properly determined, the Bible is then emphatic that the observance should be an Nisan 14. “Ye shall keep the lamb up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening” – between the two evenings (see margin of Ex. 12:6). The Jews – as well as some Truth groups – usually try to hold the service when the moon comes full; but the moon this year does not come full until 1:49 p. m. April 14, making such participants a day or two late with the service.

Also, some groups use a location other than Jerusalem as their starting time ­some using Greenwich, England, and others Philadelphia, Pa., etc. However, this is simply an arbitrary conclusion. The Bible was all written in Palestine; and the lo­cations just mentioned had not yet been named until hundreds of years later. Therefore, it would be exactly proper to use Jerusalem as the correct place for reckoning the time. The moon may have been at the full on the evening that Jesus and the Apostles ate the Passover together for the last time, because the moon is typical of the Jewish nation; and their polity began immediately to wane after they crucified Jesus, and it passed completely out of existence in the year 70 AD. when the Romans destroyed the temple and either killed or dispersed all Jews from Jerusalem.

It might be well here to explain how the confusion for reckoning this date had its beginning. Innocently enough, the Christians under the Apostles began to assem­ble on the first day of the week to break bread and fellowship together – in memory of the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the week. This eventually made a dis­tinct cleavage between Jew and Gentile on the Sabbath. Thus, Sunday eventually be­came firmly estab­lished as the Christian Sabbath, and some countries even at this time are very rigid in holding to Sunday, although there is no Biblical support for it other than what we have just mentioned. And, as the early Christians were breaking bread together, they in no sense were attempting to commemorate the death of Jesus (the cup is not mentioned on those Sundays); and it is His death that is the crux of the Memo­rial, and not His resurrection.

Along this line, we might digress somewhat, and state that similar confusion has arisen on the date of Jesus’ birth. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to celebrate His birth, although much ado is made over Christmas in Christian countries. The correct date of His birth is the tenth day of the seventh month (Tishri), which corresponds approx­imately to our October 10 – more than two months before December 25. How came this situation to exist? We answer that as the Papal system grew in numbers and influence and with the “wandering Jew” universally in disrepute – the observance of Christmas on the same date as the Jewish Day of Atonement became decidedly objectionable, so the Papal system produced a cunningly devised fable for December 25 by a reasoning devious and intricate: They began with the premise that the Vernal Equinox is the time for all vegetable life to spring forth – about March 25 – therefore, that must be the time the life in Mary’s womb had its animation. And, counting nine months from March 25 we have December 25. Here again was given a blow to Jewish prestige – although there is just noth­ing in the Bible to support the theory.

It will be readily recognized that great respect would accrue to the Jews if we now celebrated the birth of Jesus on the very day when they sit in sackcloth and ashes, fasting and repentant for the sins of the year on the Day of Atonement. Such action would certainly incite much comment and inquiry to determine this phenomenal coincidence – even as it now goes by unnoticed under present arrangements. On this point also there is no command to make special celebration of Jesus’ birthday; in fact, we are not told even to notice it at all, so we have no particular quarrel with those who choose to do so on December 25. As the Manna says, “Upon this day, so generally celebrated, we may properly enough join with all whose hearts are in the attitude of love and appreciation toward God and toward the Savior.”

How, then, is the date for Good Friday determined? Here again the Papal system produced an arbitrary decision which would always have Good Friday on Friday. Good Friday would be the first Friday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox ­with Easter the following Sunday. There is also no Bible support for this; and it not only has the effect of having Good Friday on Friday, but it also tends to sever all relationship between Good Friday and the Passover, so that these two dates are some­times separated by almost a full month. Rarely do they occur on the same date. With this arrangement Easter could come as late as April 23; but it would never be possible for the Passover to come as late as that.

The institution of the Passover as given in Exodus 12 emphatically states that the lamb must be killed and eaten on Nisan 14, and that the “memorial throughout your genera­tions” should be kept on the same date – that Nisan should begin when the moon comes new – nearest the Vernal Equinox. This would always make the Passover festival a cere­mony in the Spring, with the Day of Atonement a festival in the Fall. Thus, the Jewish Encyclopedia clearly states that the Passover is a Spring festival.


As there was but one Passover in type, so there is but one “Lamb of God” in anti­type. But, just as the Jews were told to keep the Passover each year “as a memorial throughout your generations,” so we are told to observe the feast each year “in remem­brance of Me.” And the service for the occasion is unique; there is no other service like it in Christian ritual throughout the earth. When our Lord gave command that we ob­serve it, He did so in simplicity of speech, and with few words. “He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which is given for you: THIS DO in remembrance of Me. Likewise, also the cup after supper, saying, this cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:19,20) Yet, upon these two forthright and uncomplicated sentences great rituals have been erected by the various sects of Christendom – some more, some less, so there are now about 200 different ideas of when, how and why the service should be conducted. Fundamentally, no more would be required of us than our Lord’s statement; although it is certainly in keeping with decorum and orderly procedure that a preparatory foundation be laid for partaking of the bread and the wine by reading and explaining the various elements involved - when more than one person keeps the feast. However, it is equally good decorum and orderly procedure that we avoid the pompous play upon words and “stage” performance, which is to be found in some quarters.

The solemnity of the occasion should be stressed, however, that all be done “de­cently and in order” – not shabbily, nonchalantly, as of some “common thing.” It is commendable that the Christian world overem­phasize the feast with impressive service, and sedate and select speech, rather than by the other extreme of no propriety at all. The Roman Catholic system requires each participant to attend ‘confession’ – usually the previous afternoon or evening – before receiving the emblems; and, until recently, nothing was to be eaten or drunk on the morning of the service. While this in itself stresses the great regard the system attempts to display for the service, it also over-­awes those present in a manner never intended by Jesus when He instituted it.

Here we need not discuss the errors that have been superimposed over the centuries by such nicety of display and demand, as that feature has been well set forth by both Messengers. Blessed are we if we may arrive at that balance of mind and heart that does not overdo or underdo the service – greatness in simplicity, inspiration in solem­nity, uplift and virtue in a “good and honest” participation.


They who approach the service as aforementioned are they of whom St. Paul writes – they who judge themselves that they be not judged and chastened of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:31) – the fully faithful in whatever Elect Class they may abide. Such are “more than conquerors” – “buried with Him” – “dead unto sin, but alive toward God.” (Rom. 6:11) To such obedient and watchful, as “little children,” the promise is sure, “I will guide thee with mine eye.” “Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.” And to these the promise is sure, “No good thing will He with­hold from them that walk uprightly.” (Psa. 84:11). Strengthened by such assurances, each worthy participant may confidently review the year past and anticipate the year ahead” in newness of life.”

Quite often, immediately before or after doing this “in remembrance,” the Fully Faithful are made specially mindful, through having to drink of His cup, that the bread and the wine carry weighty implications for them. As our Lord “poured out His soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors,” so have His faithful followers done during the Age. “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand” (2 Tim. 4:6), wrote St. Paul to his ‘son’ Timothy; and the Diaglott makes this even more emphatic, “I am already being poured out, and the time of my dissolution has come near.” Thus, this “good soldier” realized with full clarity and calm anticipation that his own life would soon be “poured out” – when the Roman executioner would chop off his head, just as one might pour water from a pitcher – as he drank to the full that “cup” which the Lord had given him. And in this we find not the slightest evidence of whining or reviling of his persecutors – no scheming to escape. “Theirs not to make reply; theirs not to question why; theirs but to do and die.” And having reached that grand pinnacle of victory, he could say with all confidence, “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day.” (2 Tim. 4:8)


In all of this – particularly at this Memorial season – the words of St. Paul are most timely: “Consider Him that endured such contradiction of sinners against Himself, lest ye he wearied and faint in your minds... faint not when thou art rebuked of Him.” (Heb. 12:3) In that eloquent and touching discourse which He gave His disciples on the same night in which He instituted the Memorial of His death, He had said among other things, “They hated Me without a cause.” (John 15:25) And let us never forget that “they” who thus hated Him were the so-called ‘good people’ of that day – those who claimed to be longing for the appearance of their Messiah – Him whom they hated ‘with­out a cause’ when “He came to His own,” but His own received Him not. “He (the Jewish High Priest Caiphas) that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin.” (John 19:11) And be it remembered that He whose speech was “full of grace and truth,” so that never man spake like this man, said exactly the right thing, in the right place and at the right time; so that there was in truth no cause for any to hate Him. Yet, hate Him they did, as He wept over their undone hypocritical condition.

And in all this “He left us an example that we should follow in His steps,” (1 Pet. 2:21), bearing ever in mind that it is often the Measurably Faithful who add to the af­flictions of the righteous – “your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for My name’s sake.” (Isa. 66:5) Concerning such the Scriptures exhort us: “Let not thine heart envy sinners, but be thou in the fear of the Lord all the day long.” Comments on this text are to be found in E-11:655 – “He (the Epiphany Messenger) charges them (the fully faithful) not to be envious of Great Company members, who are violating their cov­enant of sacrifice, however much they may seem to prosper.” And to this we would add the words of Prov. 17:1: “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than an house full of sacrifices with strife.” Therefore, “Let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (1 Cor. 5:8)


The institution of the ‘Lord’s Supper’ is succinctly stated in Matt. 26:26-28, in Mark 14:22-24, and in Luke 22:19,20, the first of which verses we now quote: “As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disci­ples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new Testa­ment, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Over the meaning of no other Biblical words have there been more and sharper con­troversies than over those just quoted above. As on all other Scriptural doctrines, so on this, Satan has produced cunning error – from one extreme to the other. The Ro­man Catholic Church is among the foremost of such perverters in its creation of the Mass, the basis of which is transubstantiation, the performance of which by the offi­ciating priest supposedly actually turns the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Jesus.

Although there are about 200 different views on various features of the Lord’s Sup­per, broadly speaking, there are two general views on the meaning of the words, “This is my body – this is my blood”: (1) that group of views that teach the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the Supper; and (2) that group which teach the rep­resentative meaning of the bread and wine. The Roman Catholic Church has had some of the ablest minds of the Age in their organization; and they have presented very inge­nious arguments in their support of the Mass – in transubstantiation.

As most of our readers know, we ourselves do not believe that there is any real presence in the body and blood of Christ; but we regard them as representations of those items. Let us take a brief look at both views: Those who accept the Mass con­tend that the actual presence of Christ is contained in the bread and the wine; in fact, they contend that the emblems are no longer bread and wine at all. The Roman Church concedes however, that the bread and the wine retain what they term “the accidents” ­the appearance, form, taste, color, weight, etc. of bread and wine after the supposed transubstantiation; but, say they, the elements actually 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 – so created, the priest proceeds in the Mass to sacrifice afresh for the sins of the living and the dead. Thus we have the basic relation of transubstantiation to the Mass. Against this view we offer the following refutation:

The Romanist view implies a change in the words of Jesus, which means the language should read – if their view is correct – “This has been changed into my body; this has been changed into my blood.” The fact that they must make a change in the wording to make their view acceptable is in itself an admission of error.

Further, the Bible contradicts their view. If they are correct, it would then be wrong – after the consecration of the elements – to speak of partaking of bread and wine, as the Bible does. They should then speak 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). Therefore, the Bible, by calling the elements bread and wine after their consecration, and during their appropriation, contradicts the doctrine of transubstanti­ation and proves it to be false.

Again, facts prove that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after the conse­cration of the elements – some of which are as follows: Blood does not make drunk, but wine does. Frequently, priests in their frequent masses must drink so much wine that they become drunk. No amount of blood would do this; therefore, it must be wine they drink. Further, 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. The chemical analysis of the wine proves the same thing. Hence these facts prove that there has been no change in the substance of the bread and wine after consecration by the priest.


Somewhat akin to the transubstantiation error is the one held by some Oriental Christian sects, which hold to the view of consubstantiation – a mingling of the bread and body and the wine and blood. The Lutheran Church and some Episcopalians teach what may be defined as instrumentalization, although they do not use that exact wording. Their idea is that by means of the bread and wine – which they believe remain bread and wine throughout the service – the actual body and blood of Jesus are administered to the communicant. Thus it will be seen that all three of these views have the mutual error of “real presence.” Therefore, the following applies equally against all of them:

The Bible account of the original supper the night before Jesus died proves that He did not give His actual body and blood, because His blood was yet in His veins, so it could not be in the cup which He offered the disciples. The same applies to the bread. When He blessed it and said, “This is My body,” He was not yet dead; His body was intact. He did not go around the table and put Himself into the hand of each dis­ciple; rather, He remained reclining on the couch, with the Apostle John reclining in His bosom. Thus, the disciples did not handle His body and blood, for all of them re­mained in their respective places about the table. Therefore, it is very clear that they did not receive His actual body and blood.

There is not the slightest suggestion in the entire ceremony that night that any of the disciples or Jesus thought there was an actual giving of His body and blood to them. Had they entertained such a thought we may be sure that some of them – especially Peter – would have presented questions to be answered before they could have intelli­gently participated in the service. Hence the conclusion is unavoidable that in the original Lord’s Supper Jesus did not give His actual body and blood to the Apostles to eat and drink. Therefore, it properly follows that this was not done in any of the sub­sequent observations – only what was given them that night did they receive in the years that followed. And to claim that they did receive actual body and blood in later years implies that they are not the same as the original – they are not the Lord’s Supper at all.

These three views of the “real presence” contradict certain Scriptural doctrines ­especially the central doctrine of the Ransom. “The Son of Man came not to be minis­tered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6) The doctrine of the “real presence” would imply that Jesus had taken back His body and blood (His humanity), thus voiding the ransom price. Also, these doctrines of the real presence dispute our Lord’s resurrection as a spirit being (1 Cor. 15:45-49; 2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Pet. 3:18), for they imply He arose a human being. Since the ransom is the hub – the central foundation – of the great Plan of the Ages, that great Plan would be nullified by elimination of the Ransom. Hence the idea of real presence is rank error.

Belief in the real presence contains other unscriptural implications. First, it places Jesus’ body and blood in many places at the same time – every place on earth where the Mass, etc., are performed at the same time of day. Wherever the Lord’s Sup­per would be observed the actual body and blood of Jesus would necessarily have to be present. This is self-evident impossibility. Also, 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. Thus, billions have received them – millions of them at the same time – implying that Jesus had millions of bodies and rivers of blood. Hence the “real presence” is self-evident 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. Also, it is contrary to reason: There is nothing reasonable about it; there is nothing reasonable that favors it; reason must be suspended to believe it. It therefore belongs to the “mystery of iniquity” (2 Thes. 2:7), not to the mystery of God; and is a counterfeit.

Further, it contradicts our five senses – especially in transubstantiation and con­substantiation. And, since these five senses were given us to help us ascertain cer­tain facts (Isa. 1:18; Luke 24:39,40), the “real presence” must be untrue, and should be rejected.


All who claim the real presence in the body and the blood base their conclusion ­they say – upon a literal acceptance of Jesus’ words; but they fail to recognize that the word “is” – like many other words – has more than one meaning. The verb “to be” has especially two literal meanings: (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. So, if we should say, A dog is an animal, the word “is” would be literal, designating actual existence. And, if we would say of a photograph, This is my father, that statement also would he literal, but meaning actual representation. In both statements “is” may be taken literally.

Therefore, when Jesus said, “This is my body; this is my blood,” He certainly did not mean actual existence; but He meant those things represented His body and blood. The Scriptures are in full agreement with this conclusion; and, when we understand that the Lord’s Supper is the antitype of the annual Passover, we have Biblical proof of the matter. If we keep in mind that there was only one Passover – the one slain in Egypt – with all subsequent ones being symbolic, we can readily see the beauty and symmetry of the antitype. There was but one antitypical Passover Lamb – “Christ our Passover” (1 Cor. 5:7) – with our partaking of the bread and the wine being simply a re­membrance of that one Passover: “This do in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19) The Jews have never been confused in their observance of the annual Passover; they know it is merely “a memorial... throughout your generations.” (Ex. 12:14)

Another emphatic proof that the above is correct is to be found in the statements of Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor. 11:25: “This cup (the wine) is the new testament in my blood.” In these texts the word “is” cannot mean actual existence; for the New Testament is not a cup at all. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that the cup was merely a rep­resentation: “This cup represents the new testament in my blood.”

In this connection we do well to consider St. Paul’s explanation of the service as given in 1 Cor. 11:26. Immediately after quoting our Lord’s language in explana­tion of the bread and wine, he relates our participation in it with these words: “For as often as (whenever) ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord’s death.” The Greek word here translated “shew” means to announce, as for ex­ample, to announce the Lord’s word. (Acts 13:5; 15:36; 1 Cor. 9:14, etc.) Announce­ments are made in two ways – in words and in acts. When we partake of the bread and the wine we do not speak at all; therefore the “announcement” must be in the acts them­selves – in pantomime – which we do in the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine – a representation of something else. Since the breaking of the bread and the pouring of the wine “shew forth His death,” they must represent His body and blood.


There is also much difference of opinion on who may partake. The Roman Catholic Church is most rigid that one must be a member in good standing; must make confession before partaking, and usually a member of that particular church in which the service is being held. At the other extreme, some sects make no exactions at all. Often do we see the sign before some church: The Lord’s Supper – All welcome. Thus the man in the street may come in and partake if he wishes. We do not subscribe to either of these positions. We take rather St. Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 11:27,28: “Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” We believe this is a most commendable and just requirement. We need not pass judgment upon the person sitting next to us. There are only two rea­sons why we should object to any one partaking: They are gross immorality, or gross doctrinal deflection. Either of these – but only these – are grounds for disfellow­shiping any one. In all other things we may accept St. Paul’s statement: “Let a man examine himself.” This places the responsibility squarely where it belongs – on each individual participant.


Much confusion also exists on the proper time for observing the Lord’s Supper. Some churches say once a week – on Sunday – which, they say, is the way the early church observed it. Others have once a month, or once every three or four months. The Roman Catholic Church says it should be done when any one of their seven sacra­ments is performed. Thus, when people are married in the church, the Mass is always performed. This means it might be used two, three, perhaps four times in one day. And, since they contend that the Mass contains the actual body and blood of Jesus, the participants are forbidden to masticate the wafer; and they do not partake of the wine at all – lest in passing the cup from one to the other something might occur to spill some of it – now actually the “precious blood” – which would he a major calamity. Therefore, the priest drinks the entire goblet of wine himself, which accounts for many of them becoming intoxicated. In fact, the report is current that about ten per cent of the priests in the United States are pretty much alcoholics.

When we remember that the Lord’s Supper is the antitype of the Jewish Passover, then we have no difficulty at all in seeing that the service should be but once each year. “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord’s death till He come.” (1 Cor. 11:26) The Lord’s death occurred on a certain day of the year; and it should be “remembered” by the special service but once each year on that particular day. The Lord left no instructions at all for remembering His birthday; but Christendom generally makes no effort to commemorate His birth more than once a year; therefore, it should logically follow that His death – which we are specifical­ly told to remember – should be observed but once each year; and this is our practice.

THE WINE – There is considerable divergence of thought respecting “the cup” also. In the annual commemoration of the Passover the Jews used intoxicating wine of excel­lent quality, beginning with a cup before any food was taken, continuing with two more cups during the meal; then a fourth cup “after supper” (Luke 22:20). This fourth cup was the one the Lord used to establish the Memorial. Most of the Christian churches today – and especially so the Roman Catholic Church – use intoxicating wine of excel­lent quality; but some, being opposed to alcohol in every way, use simply “the fruit of the vine” without fermentation. Should any resent this latter custom – as contrary to what Jesus and the Apostles did – we would say that a teaspoonful of alcoholic wine could be poured into the cup. This should satisfy every one, as there is no Scriptural law on the amount of alcohol the cup should contain.

What has been written herein is in no sense to be taken as a substitute for “The Passover of the New Creation” (Study Xl) as found in Parousia Volume Six. Rather, we would urge all our readers to give sober reading to that chapter; and we thus wish all the Lord’s rich blessing in the preparation for and participation in this Memorial on the evening of April 12. “The God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting coven­ant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.” (Heb. 13:20,21)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



Dear Brother: Grace and peace!

I have just read #246 and got a new viewpoint on Jesus Christ as prophet, priest, king and “Judge.” Somehow I never included “judge” as one of His offices..... Your article broadens my vision and clinched the idea by quoting 1 Cor. 6:2. Then you clear­ly delineated the difference between outward and inner appearance. At the end all will appear perfect before the Father gives the final test (for graduation). Thank you! I enjoyed the article... Enclosed is a check for the Lord’s work.

With Christian love, ------- (FLORIDA)


Dear Brother Hoefle: Loving Christian greetings!

First of all, thank you for the greetings and encouragement when I was depressed recently – which did help lift my spirits. God must want me here on earth yet, as I still enjoy life. Bro. and Sr. ------- visited us Sunday. He asked if I read your last letter. He is so pleased the way you explain the articles. He is a wonderful brother. Praying God will continue to watch over you and yours.... Please keep up the good work. ..... Enclosed is a contribution for your work.

Christian love ------- (FLORIDA)