by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 183

The May-June Present Truth contains some excellent articles. The one on p. 34 – “The Christian’s Warfare” – is by Brother Russell, so we should logically expect it to be superb. Then another article on p. 42 – “Reason – Its Import and Proper Func­tion” – likewise by Brother Russell; as is also one on p. 44 – “Secret and Beneficial Societies.” All three of these articles are commendable and profitable reading. Then there is one on p. 39 – “Antitypical Jannes and Jambres” – which is basically by Brother Johnson, although RGJ injects some of his pet errors into it; so it is with this part of the Present Truth that we shall now concern ourselves.

The names Jannes and Jambres occur only once in the entire Bible – 2 Tim. 3:8 in which text St. Paul says they “withstood Moses” before Pharaoh. There is no indi­cation whatever as to where the Apostle learned these names – which are Hebrew in their construction; he either spoke by inspiration, or he had learned of them through some writing or tradition that had come down to his day. But this information is rela­tively unimportant, as we are concerned mainly with the evils ascribed to these rene­gades, as shown in the meanings of their respective names. Jannes means “he deceives”; and Jambres means “he rebels,” or revolutionizes. The article under review properly ascribes the Jannes clique to the Parousia sifters from 1874 to 1916; and the Jambres group to the Epiphany sifters from 1916 onward to the present, and yet continuing.


On p. 41, col. 2, RGJ presents “procedure for Loyal Believers” in their treatment of those that have been excommunicated, part of which we now quote:

“How should faithful believers act toward false brethren in their midst? Should they take them by the hand, as formerly, and bid them Godspeed? Should they recognize them as brethren?.... Should we indeed walk with them and expect to be counted guilt­less?”

While RGJ is here dealing in generalities, he was much more specific in his ver­bal comments from Convention platforms in the past, at one time indicating unmistakably that he was referring to JJH and wife, when he asked the question, “Would you shake hands with the Devil?” Well, we note now his “double mind” – because in Jamaica in January 1957 RGJ came well out of his way, without any encouragement from us, to shake hands with the both of us – almost a year after he himself had personally disfellow­shiped us. Indeed a doubleminded man is “unstable in all his ways”! (Jas. 1:8) We graciously received and returned his greetings, although we were well alerted to Psalms 55:21: “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart.” This was later confirmed by his conduct at that Jamaica Convention where he shouted from the platform to the brethren assembled there, NOT TO GREET US, NOT TO SHAKE HANDS WITH US, AS WE WERE DEVILS – or the Devil’s emissaries. So vicious and vituperative was his diatribe that beloved Sister Condell wrote us subsequently, “If it had been possible, he would have burned you at the stake.” In consequence, she refused to en­gage in the Love Feast with him.

However, the statement we have offered from p. 41 is certainly correct as it stands, even though his own course since Brother Johnson’s demise is far from harmony with that teaching. Thus RGJ has come a long way since his experiences with the Soci­etyites as described in his letter in the June l924 Present Truth, p. 104. At that time his conduct and attitude toward the errorists were the same as ours today, while today his conduct and attitude are the same as the Societyites were then – and the same as the Jehovah’s Witnesses are today. He now joins hands with them in revolutionism against Parousia Truth on treatment of disfellowshiped brethren.

Neither Brother Russell nor Brother Johnson counseled that we should greet disfel­lowshiped brethren “as formerly”; but they both did advise that we extend to them the common courtesies of every-day life. We offer here a comment by Brother Johnson con­cerning the Mushite-Merarites:

“The history of Standfastism is full of cruel disfellowship proceedings, which are instituted on trivial charges. On flimsy evidence disfellowshipment is decreed, and is enforced by refusal of even the common amenities of life, such as an ordinary greeting, or a friendly look, or handshake. Along this line they are copying the Society poli­cies – ‘avoid them.’ ‘The instruments of cruelty are in their habitation.’ Another un­scriptural procedure of Standfastism is the use of Matt. 18:15-18 by Conventions. Matt. 18:15-18 applies to individuals within an ecclesia and to individual ecclesias, but not to sins that affect the entire church. The old Catholic error that what applies to an individual applies to the General Church has crept in among Truth people, and is mani­fest in the actions of both branches of the antitypical Gershonites and both branches of the antitypical Merarites.”

Thus, RGJ is now placing himself in a most pitiable condition as he follows in the footsteps of the Societyites and with the Mushites, and departs from the faithful teach­ings of the Star Members on the Scriptural conduct toward disfellowshiped brethren. And be it noted, too, that he also brought disfellowshipment proceedings against us in a Philadelphia General Convention a few years back in direct violation of the foregoing, and in direct contradiction to his own teachings of the matter in previous Present Truths – when the truth on the subject served his then present purposes. And we may note well here that in the June 1, 1970 Watch Tower, p. 351, the Societyites have this to say:

“The basic position of a faithful Christian toward a disfellowshiped one – have no fellowship at all with him, not even speaking with him.”

Compare now the truth teaching by the “wise and faithful” ‘founder’ of the Witnesses’ organization concerning a disfellowshiped person: “He should not be passed by on the street unnoticed by the brethren, but be treated courteously. The exclusion should be merely from the privileges of the assembly and from any special brotherly associa­tions, etc., peculiar to the faithful; This is implied also in our Lord’s words, ‘Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.’ Our Lord did not mean that we should do injury to a heathen man, nor treat either in any manner unkindly; but merely that we should not fellowship such as brethren, nor seek-their confidences, nor as New Creatures give them ours.” (Studies 6, p. 303) What a contrast between the two atti­tudes!

In this very Present Truth we are discussing, RGJ says the Tower Editors are a part of the Epiphany Jambres. Thus, when he now joins hands with them in error – revo­lutionizing against clear Parousia Truth – he offers abundant proof that he himself is still a member in “good standing” of the Epiphany Club of the Jambres Order. He is now revolutionizing against both Parousia and Epiphany Truth on this matter.

In this connection, we would instruct our readers that it would be our duty to tender aid to disfellowshiped brethren if we saw them in dire difficulty. This is in keeping with St. Paul’s counsel: “As we have opportunity, let us do good unto all men.” Note here the gracious Berean Comment on Gal. 6:10: “Unto all men – Temporally and spiritually, including our enemies, including those who have been disfellowshiped by the Church.” Of course, when we consider the record of RGJ, as given by the Epiphany Messenger, it may be generous for us to grant that such conduct is just a little be­yond his understand­ing and capacity – especially in his present condition. Note here just some of the record:

“An incident illustrative of unfair and unkind criticisms of J. occurred in connec­tion with J.’s advocating the ecclesias giving financial help to an aged Youthful Worthy widow who was both sick and penniless. Certain ones not pleased with her (although she had not then been disfellowshiped—JJH) carried on a whispering campaign against her and against J. for advocating her being helped by the ecclesia, resulting in such a feeling being aroused as almost made a division in the ecclesia; and R. G. Jolly again was J.’s main opponent before the church on the subject. Actually the sister by a combination of starving and cancer died; and the hospital blamed the ecclesia to J.’s face therefor.” (E-10:585) In this episode we have a clear example in RGJ’s conduct of a member of the Epiphany Jambres, as he “withstood Moses” (the Lord’s Mouthpiece).

And this same member of the Epiphany Jambres is now advising his sectarian devotees to avoid disfellowshiped brethren as we would avoid the Devil. “You wouldn’t shake hands with the Devil, would you?” is the way he put it from the Convention platform in Phila­delphia. “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”

It is well to note here the difference in attitude of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson from that of RGJ. The two Messengers were in the Truth, while the sifters were in error, so they had nothing to fear from the errorists; whereas RGJ himself is in error, and he well knows that any of his adherents that may speak to us may attempt to discuss same of his errors with us – and that could result disastrously for him. His present teaching is in exact accord with many of the preachers in Big Babylon, who also counseled their deluded supporters concerning those hated Russellites, “I wouldn’t even give one of them the time of day.”

On p. 42 RGJ sets out very well the qualities of a true Truth leader, which comments are commendable and easily accepted by all well-instructed Truth brethren; and it would seem RGJ includes himself in the category of a Truth teacher; whereas, he himself has proven himself to be a member of the Epiphany Jambres, applying in some instances the cunning of the Parousia Jannes (He deceives), as we shall presently prove. His technique here is identical with that of the Popes over the centuries, and the Little Pope here in the Epiphany, who applied the complimentary terms of the Scriptures to themselves, as they applied the criticisms to the real Truth teachers who opposed their errors. This “sleight-of-hand” can readily lead astray “the unstable and the unlearned.”

While the real sifters of the Parousia did leave the Harvest Truth movement, as they also did in the Jewish Harvest, but just the reverse was true throughout the Interim and during the Epiphany. It was the Popes during the Gospel Age – and JFR especially during this Epiphany – who were the real sifters, even as they shrieked to high Heaven that it was the ‘sifters’ who were the troublemakers – those who left the Popes on account of their sins of teaching and practice. Unless this is kept clearly in mind, one may easily become confused over present conditions. RGJ himself admits that he was a part of the Epiphany Jambres during the 1938 debacle – when he was manifested to the entire Church as a revolutionistic crown-loser. The whole record is to be found in Volume 10; and we can but assume that RGJ approves of that record, because he still offers that book for sale to all as the truth; often quotes from it when it suits his purposes. Of course, he never quotes the record of his revolutionism.


In 1 Tim. 4:12 St. Paul appeals to Timothy to be “an example of the believers,” with the Diaglott stating it this way: “Become a pattern of the believers.” At the time of Paul’s writing Timothy almost certainly was one of the Very Elect, working as an Evangelist. Thus, his good pattern of life and teaching would the more readily win Jews and Gentiles into the Christian unity during the Jewish Harvest. As most of our readers know, RGJ has been applying to himself and to his followers many of the titles that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson applied only to the Little Flock; so it should not surprise us to note in this same Present Truth that he publishes a statement regarding one of his kinsmen, “What an example of the believers!” Therefore, it would now seem in order to quote some expressions from Brother Johnson concerning this class:

“Their failing to gain the prize has not been due to the Lord’s not loving and helping them sufficiently; but it has been due to the fact-that they forgot their ‘first love’ by which they for awhile kept the Lord’s word. (John 14:15; Rev. 2:4) The Lord sent them, as well as the Faithful, abundant instructions, encouragements, exhortations, warnings, rebukes, disciplines and corrections to deter them from a wrong course (Heb. 12:5-13; Rev. 3:19); and their taking the wrong course was entirely due to their fail­ing to watch, to pray and keep themselves in the love of God sufficiently to carry out their consecration. There have been such measurably unfaithful brethren throughout the entire Gospel Age.

“Their course toward the Lord, the Truth and the remainder of the Lord’s people has not been a praiseworthy one (has not been an “example of the believers”—JJH). But not all of them have been equally guilty of wrong-doing. Some of them have been nearly faithful enough to be of the Bride; and some of them have been nearly unfaithful enough to be of the second-death class (Jude 22, 23). Between these two extremes of character in these brethren there have been and are now all sorts of variations of double-minded­ness. With some of these bound brethren of God the trouble has not been so much a turning to sin as a failure to sacrifice unto death, through fear of the sacrificial death (Heb. 2:15). Unlike the Master, they do not endure the cross and despise the shame. Others of them, in addition to failing to sacrifice self and the world, give themselves up to various sins, and serve the adversary through spreading errors of doctrine and prac­tice in religious matters (such as those we now examine at the door of RGJ—JJH), there­by spotting their garments. Altogether as a class they are more or less wayward and self-willed. Thus they fall with respect to their justification and consecration privi­leges and duties.

“This condition, of course, unfits them for the position of Kings and Priests, their characters not being of so good a quality as that required for Kings and Priests. How could God give the Divine nature to those who rebel and support rebels against His ways! (Psa. 107:10,11) How could He make them of the Bride of His Son when they defile the bridal garments of holy characters? How could He proclaim them ‘more than conquer­ors’ (examples of the believers—JJH) when they compromise with the enemy through fear of the sacrificial death? How could He make them of the Christ-Body, from which the rivers of living waters will flow, in view of the fact that through false teachings they corrupted the wells of Truth? The Faithful are guided by His eye, i.e., they are directed in their life by His Word of Wisdom, the Truth; while the measurably Faithful must be repeatedly chastised, and finally have their fleshly mind entirely destroyed by punishments received at Satan’s hands.

“In our times there are more such people than ever before. They must pass through ‘the great tribulation,’ amid which they will cleanse their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb. (Rev. 7:14)”

At no place in the Bible are such people described as “examples of the believers”; nor are they so described anywhere in the Parousia or Epiphany writings. It remains for RGJ to present this ‘advancing Truth.’ Note the Parousia Messenger’s comment about it in Reprints 5232:

“All these circumstances (such as outlined above by Brother Johnson—JJH) attest that this great company before the throne and with palm branches are a wholly different company from the elect, the bride.... For this reason, they cannot be accepted by the Lord as copies (“examples of the believers”—JJH) of His dear Son.... They have built improperly with wood, hay and stubble, and the fire of that day (in the Epiphany day in which we are now living—JJH) shall completely destroy all such structures . “

The outstanding typical example of such crown-losers is King Saul of Israel, who types their leaders from shortly after the Jewish Harvest up to Armageddon. And, since Jambres types their leaders during the Epiphany, we emphasize that for Epiphany purposes antitypical Saul and antitypical Jambres are synonymous. We cannot have one without the other. This is strikingly revealed in 1 Sam. 15:23: “Rebellion (revolutionism) is the sin of witchcraft.” The meaning of Jambres is “He rebels”; and the specific charge against Saul for his disobedience is also the sin of rebellion – wording very closely related. The sin of witchcraft is especially deceptive false teachings; and more of such false deceptions have appeared during this Epiphany period in one year than what appeared in a whole century during the Gospel Age. Most of the Book of 1 Samuel is concerned with a detail of Saul’s dismal and willful failures; at no place is he set forth as an example for the Lord’s people to follow. Rather, the recitation of his “re­bellion and stubbornness” is a warning to all not to do likewise if we would not come to the same end he did – ignominious defeat and death at the hands of the wretched Phili­stines. Here is an excellent summation of this matter in E-13:251: “Let us learn the lesson inculcated by Samuel and Saul, i.e., that by God’s grace we stand, as we abide faithful, taught by antitypical Samuel’s life, and that, despite God’s grace, we fall, as we prove unfaithful, taught us by antitypical Saul’s life.”


At the bottom of p. 40, col. 2, of this same Present Truth, is this statement:

“The word days in 2 Tim. 3:1 refers to the Parousia day and the Epiphany, or Apocalypse, day, the two days or period with which the Gospel Age ends. In the narrow, or restricted, sense, the first day was from 1874 to 1914, and the second from 1914 to 1954 respective­ly... But in wider sense the lapping of the Parousia and Epiphany period into one another continued and continues after Oct. 31, 1916 (see, e. g., E-4, p. 18). Likewise in wider senses the lapping of the Epiphany and Basileia periods into one another continues since 1956.”

In making such a statement RGJ demonstrates that he either has a very hazy concept of the subject, or he is attempting spiritual witchcraft (especially deceptive false teachings) upon his readers; and it may be a little of both. We make this charitable appraisal because we know only too well that the errors presented by the Epiphany Jambres leaders must necessarily tend to color their thinking – they must bend the Truth at every turn to give some plausibility to their revolutionistic perversions, as one error usually begets other errors. Let us analyze this present topic:

There is a large Parousia Day and a small Parousia Day, the small day being a part of the large one, starting at the same time in 1874, and continuing concurrently with it until its end. That end came October 31, 1916; and nowhere in the Epiphany writings do we find the slightest hint that it continued one day after that. Of course, the large Parousia day did continue, and will do so until 2874. Much the same analysis may be given for the Epiphany as the last special period of the Gospel Age. It began in September 1914, and will continue unto the complete end of the Time of Trouble, being lapped upon, and running concurrently with the large Parousia Day; but in no sense of the word having any identity with the small Parousia Day after October 31, 1916. This is well established throughout the Epiphany writings – especially in the very citation he gives in E-4:18 to prove his point. As Brother Johnson has said, Why do these crown-­losers cite references that directly contradict their contentions? The Epiphany as the last special period of the Gospel Age also will not continue for one day after the Time of Trouble is fully ended.

RGJ says there was a similarity in the ending of the small Parousia Day on Oct. 31, 1916, and his ‘restricted’ ending of the Epiphany Day in October 1956. Let him tell us what the ‘similarity’ is. In no place in the Epiphany writings is the Epiphany given a ‘restricted’ ending in 1956. We all know there was an event at October 31, 1916, which all of the Truth people then recognized. Can RGJ point to any event at all – even an infinitesimal dot of any kind on the time table – that points out October 1956? If he cannot, then we repeat that he is simply practicing spiritual witchcraft here in a very lame effort to bolster temporally his “house built upon the sand.” And once again he reveals that he is still a member ‘in good standing’ in the Epiphany Club of the Jambres Order – with a little of the Parousia Jannes added.

And his contention finds direct contradiction in the words of Jesus in Luke 17: 22, Dia.: “You will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.” The “day to be desired is the small Parousia Day; and, if it continued after October 31, 1916, we should be able to see it. But Jesus said we won’t be able to see it, although RGJ can now see it – by his hallucinating witchcraft only. And in this very connection, we have again the words of Jesus: “They will say to you ‘Behold there!... follow not.” That is, ‘follow not’ unless you wish to be entrapped by the es­pecially deceptive false teachings of the Epiphany Jambres.

Some may think that we stress this matter too much, but we remind our readers that RGJ is an old hand in the art of Jambresian witchcraft, as note the record Brother Johnson left us about him in E-10:645: “R. G. Jolly, a pilgrim.... tried to put through a bus­iness meeting of the Philadelphia Ecclesia a motion that was a revolutionism (Jambres means He rebels – revolts—JJH) against proper methods of voting against candidates for elders and deacons. This led to J’s exposing them as attempting to gain control of J., the Lord’s mouthpiece. Not a few in the ecclesia sympathized with them; and had not J. been present and vigorously opposed their resolution, so Azazelianly constructed (a real piece of spiritual witchcraft—JJH) as, if possible, to have deceived the very Elec­t would doubtless have passed.” Of course, Brother Johnson is not here to oppose him now in the LHMM; thus, he attempts one piece of spiritual witchcraft after another since his abandonment to Azazel (Azazel means Perverter as the teacher of the Epiphany Jambres) in October 1950.

All who are well informed in Harvest Truth will readily realize that this presenta­tion is chiefly from Present Truth writings, with appropriate Scripture in corrobora­tion. Certainly it is not our wish to be unduly harsh, but exposure of error and un­christian conduct is always interpreted as vicious by “the sinner in his path of error” (Jas. 5:20, Dia.) – prototype of the Scribes and Pharisees. The Truth voiced by Jesus in Matthew 23 hurt the errorists so badly that they resorted to murder – the cross – to rid themselves of it. Because he attacked the sins of teaching and practice of the “gentlemen of the cloth,” Brother Russell became “the most hated man on earth.” But un­pleasant duties are not to be avoided if they require us to “earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3) “It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” – faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren – re­gardless of whom it may please or displease. Using the words of St. Paul, we can whole­heartedly say of ourselves: “They which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things... necessity is laid upon me... I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all.” (1 Cor. 9:14-19) “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

“Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face. Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, 0 Lord, in the light of thy countenance.” (Psa. 89:14,15)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, pilgrim




QUESTION: – What is the difference between the death of the “dead in Christ” and those who experience the constrained death?

ANSWER: – The “dead in Christ” are those mentioned in Psa. 50:5 – “Those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice”; and who have kept that covenant to the end in “a good and honest heart.” They are the “good and faithful servants” of Matt. 25:21-23 – the 144,000 of Rev. 7:4-8 – the “blessed which die in the Lord from henceforth... Yea, saith the Spirit, they may rest from their labors; for their works follow after them” of Rev. 14:13, Dia. These are “the dead in Christ that shall rise first” (1 Thes. 4:16) – “The first resurrection, over these the second death has no authority.” (Rev. 20:6, Dia.) As with Jesus, these also “have poured out their souls unto death” (Isa. 53:12) for the “joy that was set before them” (Heb. 12:2) – have “suf­fered the loss of all things, and consider them to be vile refuse... to know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death” (Phil. 3:8-10, Dia.) Thus, the “dead in Christ” are those who have been fully faithful in “dying daily,” even as He died daily from Jordan to Calvary. Theirs is the “sacrificial death.”

There has been another Class during this Age who have agreed to do all the forego­ing, but who forgot their first love – they are “the seed that was sown among thorns... in whom the cares of the Age and the deceptiveness of riches choke the word, and render it unproductive.” (Matt. 13:22, Dia.) Thus, they are forced – constrained – to do what the first class did voluntarily; they are those whose works are “burned” (1 Cor. 3:15 – See Berean Comment) instead of their “works following after them.” (Rev. 14:13) They suffer the loss of all things, escaping only with their lives, as typified by Lot’s flight from burning Sodom. It will be recalled that Lot “sat in the gate of Sodom” – the place of prominence – and the “deceptiveness of riches” in his case was much the same as influenced the “chief rulers” of John 12:42,43, Dia.: “Who believed into Him, but did not confess Him... For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God.” Much of what they have done was “to be seen of men” – and “they have their reward”; and such a course could not possibly win for them the “first resurrection.” They are the goat “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8, margin), which is eventually delivered unto a fit man, sent into the wilderness “for the destruction of the flesh (fleshly mind), that the spir­it may be saved in the day of the Lord” (I Cor. 5:5, Dia.) – death by constraint. They fail faithfully to sacrifice – “die daily” – and after “great tribulation” they die the “constrained death” and are privileged to be “before the throne.” (Rev. 7:14,15)



Dear Bro. John J. Hoefle: Greetings in our Master’s name!

I have had an urge to write to you for some time. I have been receiving some of your literature, and I find the articles quite interesting. I notice that you must have had some experience with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ activities and their literature – not that you are one of its members, but I gather that you are a firm supporter of Brother Russell’s views and his Six Volumes of Scripture Studies. I am happy to know that you are a firm believer in the things that he wrote. I have been a subscriber to the Watch Tower since about 1903, I believe. About 1942 I refused to accept it any more – although I was not in harmony with its teachings for five or six years before.

Much water has passed over the dam since I first started reading the Tower and the Six Volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. I have learned that the Six Volumes have been the means of keeping me on the right road. I don’t think that there is anything better or more satisfying; at least, that is my thought. I have been at my present address since 1966 among strangers, and it is not too pleasant I can assure you. There are quite a few JW’s here, and they have been trying to interest me, but I don’t see anything in it that will induce me to change my course. I have kept most of the literature that you sent me, and after reading some over again today I am more convinced than ever that what I learned under Brother Russell is the Truth, which I gather that you also believe. The JW’s teaching is not a bit convincing to me in the least. They indulge in writing many books with a different title, but as far as giving one the fundamental principles of the truth they are lacking a great deal. It is as you have stated, they do not recognize the Tabernacle Shadows, and also they teach the Church is under the New Cov­enant. I have been taught that the Church is under a Covenant by sacrifice, which was the thought of Brother Russell – and also the teaching of the Bible.

From what I gather they do not manifest the love of God. Why I say so is that they have hardly any hope for those that will die during the final trouble that shall engulf the world. I cannot agree with that. They seem to have quite a following, but that doesn’t prove that they have the Truth. From all indication of the signs of the times we are very close to the establishment of the Kingdom, and that means that we can ex­pect a “time of trouble” such as the earth has never known; and it appears that all will soon be in readiness for its final fulfillment. Yes, the storm clouds are gather­ing at a rapid speed, and how thankful mankind will be when sin, sickness and sorrow will be forever a thing of the past, and death being abolished forever! I am sure that there will be great rejoicing when the people will awaken to that fact – when all will be restored to perfection – and every one loving their neighbor as themselves.

I had the privilege of meeting Brother Russell in Appleton, Wis., in 1907. He gave a talk at the Park on “To Hell and Back” to a nice crowd. And after the talk he went to a Brother’s home who was his first Colporteur, and that is where I had the opportunity to shake hands with him. He said, Now brother, don’t look down on us – and, of course, everybody had a good laugh. I am a bit taller than the average person. In the evening he gave a talk on the first four verses of John 14. This was at Brother ........ home – his first Colporteur. So you see I have many, pleasant memories. I have never had a desire to change to another teaching – because the sound of the Truth is absent no matter what one picks up to read, it seems. I will soon be 88 years of age, and quite able to be about – although I would like very much to be back among my old friends in Wisconsin, and its surrounding country. I am hoping that the Lord may open the way for me so as to be with those of like faith.

Well, dear Brother, I have written more than I thought I would. Please excuse me for taking up so much of your time. May the Lord bless and keep you in His loving care!

Your brother by His kind favor, ------- (CANADA)


Dear Brother Hoefle: Grace and peace be multiplied!

Your good letter received and as always we were glad to hear from you – and also pleased that you liked the photo........ It was truly wonderful how Sister ------- was so self-sufficient almost to the very end. What a good age!. We are very glad to hear that she was truly a good friend and a dear Sister. Truly you will miss her very much!

We also want to be especially remembered to Sister Dunnagan – and tell her we do petition our dear Heavenly Father to continue to bless her ....... We trust that you and dear Sr. Hoefle are well, and we know you are rejoicing in the Lord and His rich bless­ing to us all. We deeply appreciate your labor of love for the brethren......

Warm Christian love to all –

Your brother and sister, ------- (NEW  JERSEY)


Dear Sir:

Please send me the following pamphlets: Where Are The Dead? What Is the Soul? The Resurrection of the Dead, The Three Babylons, Two Distinct Salva­tions, God’s Great Sabbath Day, The Great Reformer, Permission of Evil. Thanks so much for your trouble!

Sincerely yours ------- (VIRGINIA)


Dear Brother Hoefle:

Will you please send me some more of the tracts. I am about out of The Resurrec­tion of the Dead. Still in the Master’s service,

Your Sister ------- (CONNECTICUT)