THE CLEANSING OF THE GOSPEL-AGE LEVITES. THE CONSECRATION OF THE GOSPEL-AGE LEVITES. THE FACTS OF THE CLEANSING AND CONSECRATION OF THE GOSPEL-AGE LEVITES. THE SERVICE OF THE GOSPEL-AGE LEVITES. BEREAN QUESTIONS.
IT IS AN undeniable fact that during the Gospel-Age there have been three classes among God's professed people: (1) the consecrated, (2) the justified and (3) the sinners, corresponding respectively to the holy, the court and the camp, or to the Priests, the Levites and the Israelites (of the twelve non-sacred tribes). The fact that God's people of these three classes were in the Jewish Age fleshly Israel implies that spiritual Israel as the antitype of fleshly Israel would consist of three classes—those mentioned above (Is. 8:14; Gal. 6:15; Matt. 21:43; Luke 13:33; Phil. 3:3; 1 Cor. 10:18). We have shown various phases of these three parts of God's two Israels, especially in this book. In this chapter we will study, type and antitype, the cleansing and consecration of the Gospel-Age Levites, as this is typically set forth in Num. 8:5-26. And may the Lord bless to all of our dear readers this study as a part of the advancing Epiphany Truth, which to understand is one of the privileges of the Epiphany-enlightened saints.
(2) Toward the end of the preceding chapter we set forth the Gospel-Age Moses and Aaron as Truth Receiver and Giver, as typed in Num. 7:89—8:4. That study brought us up to the present study. Let us remember that we are not in this chapter studying the cleansing and consecration of the Epiphany and Millennial Levites; for as to the former we have not yet proceeded through their cleansing and as to the latter
we have not yet even come to their cleansing; hence we do not understand either sufficiently to set them forth aright, which proves that they are not yet due to be understood sufficiently to make them satisfactorily clear. Accordingly, as not due, we shelve their consideration for the present and limit in this study our attention to the Gospel-Age antitype of Num. 8:5-26; for it is now evidently due, as the following discussion, we trust, will factually prove. This discussion, we trust, will satisfy all of us as to the truthfulness of our Pastor's thought on the faith-justified of the Gospel-Age as being the Gospel-Age Levites—the viewpoint set forth by him in Tabernacle Shadows—the other viewpoints being set forth in others of his writings, all of which we believe to be correct.
(3) In former chapters of this book the factual and typical proof was given that the faith-justified have been the Gospel-Age Levites. As such, of course, they are only tentative Levites. The Levites of the finished Gospel-Age picture are those of the Epiphany—the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. But the facts of the case abundantly prove the faith-justified to be the (tentative) Gospel-Age Levites. In our study we will first direct our attention to their cleansing and then to their consecration. The cleansing as a thing commanded is set forth from v. 6 to the middle of v. 10 and in v. 12; and their consecration as a thing commanded is set forth in the second half of v. 10, in v. 11 and from vs. 13 to 19, and the fact of their cleansing and consecration, with their service thereafter, is set forth from v. 20 to v. 26. A careful study of these vs. will show a most remarkable correspondence between the cleansing and consecration of the typical Levites and the cleansing and consecration of their Gospel-Age antitypes. V. 5 shows us that the whole procedure with the Levites, as set forth in the rest of the chapter originated in God. It was not Moses nor Aaron nor any other human who originated this service. God was
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
its sole Originator. And this evidently is true, because this chapter, like the others of Numbers so far studied, is typical and therefore prophetical; hence it was a matter of inspiration, which proves it to have originated in God as a part of His inspired revelation, for v. 5 reads, "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying."
(4) V. 6 contains two charges given by God to Moses: (1) to sever the non-priestly descendants of Levi from the rest of Israel and (2) to cleanse them. In this type God, of course, represents Himself in His Gospel-Age activity toward those who are to become antitypical Levites, charging that they be distinguished from the antitypical Camp and be cleansed as such. In this transaction Moses, as usually in the book of Numbers, represents our Lord Jesus as Jehovah's Gospel-Age Executive for the matter at hand. Our Lord severed the prospective faith-justified from the rest of the antitypical Camp by a series of providences that frequently implied prenatal influences, giving them a responsive heredity for antitypical Leviteship, that sometimes implied more or less of untoward experiences with the sinners in the antitypical Camp, that always implied more or less suffering that was calculated to impress them with the unsatisfactoriness of sin and with a hunger for righteousness, and that often made on them a favorable impression toward God and righteousness, all four sets of these experiences being more or less accompanied by another set—experiences with certain religious teachings adapted to the antitypical Camp—those seeking more or less relations with God, but not advancing from the Camp condition of sinners to the condition of repentance typed by the open space between the camp and the tabernacle. It was by these five sets of experiences—four providential and one educational—that our Lord, as distinct from their cleansing and consecration, severed the prospective faith-justified from other sinners. In the widest sense, not only these five sets of experiences,
but also their cleansing and consecrating may be spoken of as a severing of them from the antitypical Israelites. But in v. 6 the words, "take the Levites from among the children of Israel," refers exclusively to the five sets of separating experiences given above.
(5) The word, cleansing, in reference to the Gospel-Age, is used in the Bible in a narrow and in a wide sense. In the wide sense it refers to one's being washed (1) from the condemnation of sin, which occurs through the blood of Christ, and (2) from the power of sin, which occurs through the Word backed by the providences of God. But in vs. 6 and 7 the word cleanse is not used in the wide, but in a narrow sense—cleansing from the power of sin—as is evident from v. 7, while the other narrow sense of the cleansing is set forth under the atonement figure in v. 12. In v. 21 both of the narrow senses are combined, i.e., the word is used in its wide sense—"to cleanse them." In v. 7 we are directly told that the processes whereby the typical Levites were cleansed were to type the first of the above-mentioned two narrow senses—cleansing from the power of sin—"Thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them." Looking at these processes as they are set forth in the pertinent part of v. 7, we find that they are three in number: (1) sprinkling waters of purifying on the Levites, (2) the shaving of all their flesh and (3) washing their clothes. These three things severally done to or by the Levites in the type completed the cleansing part of the service in the first narrow sense of that word. These were the types and a consideration of their antitypes brings some very remarkable things to our knowledge. We now proceed to such a consideration.
(6) First, then, we will study the antitype of the sprinkling of the water of purifying upon the Levites. The waters of purifying of v. 7 are the same as the waters of separation in Num. 19:9, 17. In the Hebrew of v. 7 the expression is, waters of chatath. The Hebrew
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
word chatath primarily means sin, secondly, sin-offering (v. 8), just as the Greek word hamartia also has these two meanings, which we have elsewhere shown, and, thirdly, sin purification (Num. 19:9, 17). It also means punishment for sin (Zech. 14:19) and condition of sin, i.e., guilt of sin (Gen. 18:20; Num. 16:26; 32:23; Ezek. 18:24). Of these five meanings we are here concerned with the third only, as the one in which v. 7 uses the word. The antitype of the waters of purifying our Pastor has given us in Tabernacle Shadows, when explaining the waters in which the ashes of the red heifer were mingled, i.e., truths gathered from the record of the Ancient Worthies' suffering for righteousness as helpful in cleansing from the powers of Adamic sin, partially in the Gospel-Age and more particularly in the Millennial Age. In Num. 19:11-22 the typical waters of purification are set forth as used to cleanse from the defilement incidental to being in the presence of, or touching the dead. The dead here represent Adam and his race under the death sentence in sin. To be in the presence of the dead types one's having the hereditary defilement of the Adamic sin, and to touch the dead types one's actively practicing Adamic sins as a result of inheriting its depravity. The ashes of the red heifer themselves represent the memories—histories—of the Ancient Worthies as these are contained in the Old Testament. The living [running] waters (Num. 19:17) represent the progressive truths in the antitypes. E.g., the history [memory, i.e., that which is now left of these acts of the two prophets] of the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha is some of the antitypical ashes, while the true antitypical teachings of this history are some of the antitypical living waters; the true setting forth of the type and antitype is the antitype of the mingling of some of the ashes and water; and the vessel that contained the waters of purifying represents in the case under consideration the doctrine of
mouthpieceship toward the public in relation to the Little Flock and Great Company. These same general principles apply to the other types and antitypes. Such teachings cleanse from sin's power, not from sin's condemnation (which Christ's blood alone does), antitypical of the waters of purifying cleansing from the defilement incurred by contact with the dead those in Israel who used it.
(7) These considerations prepare us to see the antitype of the sprinkling of the waters of purification upon the Levites as the first step in their cleansing. We, accordingly, understand the charge of God to Moses to sprinkle the waters of purifying upon the Levites to represent God's charging our Lord to see to it that truths connected with the histories of the Ancient Worthies should be taught to the prospective faith-justified. These truths would be of two kinds: those in the types (ashes) and those in the antitypes (running water). The types themselves, as a rule, contain three kinds of truths: (1) historical (the stories, memories, as such, of the Ancient Worthies); (2) ethical (the lessons for imitation contained in the types); and (3) correctional (frequently these stories contain warnings against sin, e.g., the story of Joseph's brethren, of David and Bathsheba, etc). And, of course, the antitypes as progressive truths have these same three lines of teachings. Thus both the types and the antitypes would serve to cleanse from the power of sin in the antitypical sprinkling—teaching. And certainly our Lord throughout the Gospel-Age, in obedience to the Father's antitypical charge, has seen to it that historical, ethical and correctional truths connected with some types and antitypes of the Ancient Worthies were taught those who were being worked upon to influence them toward justification.
(8) To this end the stories of the fall, Cain and Abel, the flood, the tower of Babel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, his brethren, Moses, Pharaoh, the
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
Judges, Saul, David, Solomon, the other kings of Israel, the prophets, etc., and as much of their antitypes as were known, from time to time were told these, e.g., Ishmael and Isaac as types of Jews and Christians, Joseph as a type of Christ, Israel's battles with the inhabitants of Canaan as types of Christians' battles with sin and error, the journey to Canaan as a type of the Lord's people journeying to the kingdom, etc., etc., etc. To the prospective faith-justified these teachings were given at home, in school, in catechetical classes, Sunday schools, sermons, conversations, papers, magazines and books. The Lord, therefore, used as His agents to sprinkle the antitypical waters of purifying on these parents, teachers, catechists, preachers, writers, etc. And certainly as a result considerable historical, ethical and correctional teachings, type and antitype, were given to them; and these served as a good standard whereby faults could be seen and corrected, virtues could be seen and practiced and truths could be seen and believed. All of this, of course, served to help the prospective Levites to cleanse themselves, as they helped them to hate and put away sin and practice righteousness. This, of course, helped them to perform the antitypical cleansing from the contamination of inherited and practiced Adamic sin. Accordingly, we see that the sprinkling of the antitypical waters of purification on the prospective Gospel-Age Levites helped them to, and on the way of repentance; because it gave them a knowledge of sin and righteousness and stirred up in them a partial hatred of, and partial desire to be free from sin's contamination, and a partial love for, and desire to practice righteousness, all of which constitute a part of repentance, the first step of an approach toward God.
(9) The second process for cleansing the Levites is set forth in the following language of v. 7: "let them shave all their flesh," literally, as in the margin, "let them cause a razor to pass over all their flesh." We
understand this razor to represent the sharp exposures of the Law. The expression law as involved in the antitypical razor implies two things: (1) God's justice, righteousness (Deut. 4:13; Ex. 34:28; Rom. 2:14, 15, 27; 7:7-14); and (2) a contract between God and man in which God offered life to the obedient and required death of the disobedient (Deut. 30:15-20; Hos. 6:7; see R. V.; Gal. 2:16; 3:10-12). Its two forms so far are the natural Law and the Mosaic Law. In the Millennium it will take on a third form, the New Law or Covenant. The Scriptures teach us that the Law teaches the responsive, first, the knowledge of their sins (Rom. 3:20). This it does, first by showing what is right in motive, thought, word and deed, and what is wrong in motive, thought, word and deed, and, secondly, by showing each one that he has failed repeatedly to do right in motive, thought, word and deed, and has repeatedly done wrong in motive, thought, word and deed, thus convincing him of being guilty of sins of omission and commission (Rom. 3:19). The first of these two functions of the Law it performs by setting forth general principles as to thoughts, motives, words and acts, e.g., its statement of the ten commandments (Ex. 20:1-17) and various explanations of them (Matt. 23:27-40; Rom. 7:1-25) and its detailing of various thoughts, motives, words and acts in harmony with, and contrary to these. The second of these two functions it performs by applying this knowledge to the thoughts, motives, words and acts of those whose attention it attracts by its teachings and accusations. Thus it educates such as to a knowledge of righteousness and sin in general and of their own in particular; and by proving them guilty of sins of omission and commission, in motive, thought, word and deed, it convinces them that they are sinners (Rom. 7:1-25). Not only does the revealed Law of God do these things, but also the natural Law, remnants of which are written in men's minds and hearts,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
with the co-witnessing of conscience works such knowledge and conviction (Rom. 2:14, 15). By these offices of the Law it convinces the honest-hearted that they are weak, fallen and faultful, and thus cannot please God and thus are completely unable to justify themselves (Rom. 3:10-20; Gal. 2:16).
(10) But the Law does more than exposing men's sins; it brings upon them God's condemnation with its outworking in the various features of the curse (Rom. 4:15; Gal. 3:10). At the same time, it convinces the responsive that they are under God's condemnation and are undergoing its effects (Rom. 7:1-24). This arouses in their hearts fear toward God, whom they recognize as being displeased with them (Rom. 1:18). At the same time it also arouses sorrow for, and hatred of sin in their hearts and a hearty desire to be free from its condemnation and power (Rom. 7:15-24; 2 Cor. 7:9, 10). By the influence of such knowledge, conviction, sorrow, hatred and desire for deliverance, the Law further works the conviction of man's inability to merit deliverance from the condemnation of the Law (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 2:16) and his lack of strength to deliver himself from the power and dominion of sin (Rom. 7:14, 18, 23). This results in his utter despair of himself to save himself from the condemnation of the Law, and stirs up in him the most earnest desire to gain deliverance from its condemnation and from the power of sin. Here the Law stops; for it can go no further than to show man his lost and undone condition and make him desire a Savior outside of himself; but it cannot give him that Savior, whom to give is the function, not of the Law, but of the Gospel (Gal. 3:24). Thus far the symbolic razor—the Law's exposures—worked, but could do no more.
(11) Let us now look at antitypical Moses' part in the use of this antitypical razor. He, of course, did not use it personally, nor did he personally hand it to the prospective antitypical Levites. For this he used
agents, some of them being animate and others being inanimate, the latter, however, being prepared by some of the former. These animate agents were sometimes officials among the priests—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, i.e., teachers, and deacons—and sometimes priestly brethren who had no office in the real Church. Sometimes these animate agents were antitypical Levites, especially antitypical Gershonite Levites, and that of the Libni branch, acting as evangelists, revivalists, pastors, catechists, local preachers, Sunday school teachers, parents, older brethren and other "lay workers." The inanimate agents usually were books, like the Bible, Pilgrim's Progress, catechisms, pertinent hymns, tracts, magazines, etc., treating on subjects connected with the Law and repentance. Broadly speaking, these Levites belonged to two sets of denominations—the ritualistic and non-ritualistic. Among the former have been the Greek and Roman Catholic, the Lutheran and the Episcopal churches. Among the latter have been the Calvinistic, Baptist, Unitarian, Congregational, Quaker, Methodist, Christian and Adventist churches. The former, as a rule, used the catechetical method of handling the symbolic razor to the prospective faith-justified, and the latter, as a rule, used the revival or evangelistic method for that purpose, though the Calvinistic church has used both of these methods. It is, of course, not our thought that all who underwent catechetical instruction accepted this razor and used it for its intended purpose; nor that all who attended revival and evangelistic services did this. But undoubtedly those who were rightly disposed by these two methods of handling the antitypical razor—the Law's exposures—to them, did make a proper use of it. In some cases such received this razor in the more private ways of conversation and reading.
(12) This brings up the interesting question: How did these animate and inanimate agencies hand this
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
razor to the prospective antitypical Levites? By teaching, preaching and describing to them the Law. This means that they explained to them the nature, the principles, the demands, the promised rewards and the threatened punishments of the Law. Thereby they acquainted them with the Law and their relations to it. They did this in such a way as revealed to them a picture of themselves reflected by the Law as a figurative mirror. Thereby they came to see that they were sinful, both in a hereditary and in an active way. They thereby saw their many faults, weaknesses and lacks. They saw themselves defiled by the disgraces, very weak in all of the graces and lacking in some degree in all of them and entirely in some of them. Thus they gave them a knowledge and conviction of their sins and sinfulness. The agents, by handing them the razor of the Law's exposures, also announced their condemnation by the Law, which many of them mistakenly magnified into an eternal torture sentence, to the injury of those who imbibed this error and its consequent effects. But the Lord quietly ignored this error and in spite of it properly disposed many to the shaving of their symbolic hair. These agents further handed the prospective faith-justified this razor by cutting off from them every hope of their being able by its use to please God, remove His sentence from them and work out their own justification. Thus their handing the razor to these gave them a knowledge of right and wrong, of their sins, a recognition of their sinfulness, a saddening consciousness of their condemnation, a conviction of their inability to right matters between them and God and escape sin's condemnation. Thus upon the anvil of the Law their hearts were crushed, figuratively speaking, to pieces, which is what contrition means.
(13) These agents did not do the shaving. Each one of the prospective faith-justified had to do this himself. Preliminary to this shaving he had to accept the razor at the hands of those who held it up to him. This
means that each one had to look at the razor and see it in its details and uses, i.e., each one had attentively to study the nature, principles, demands, promised rewards and threatened punishments of the Law. Furthermore, he had to reach out his figurative hand—belief—and accept this razor, which means that he had to believe the Law's delineation of him, i.e., accept the knowledge of sin that it wrought, and as a result become convinced that he was a sinner. Moreover, his accepting this razor implied that he acknowledged that he was justly condemned by the Law's exposures and was unable by any of his powers to escape its penalties and right himself with God. And, finally, his accepting it implies his willingness to receive it for shaving purposes. That hair in Biblical symbols means powers, is evident from Samson's hair and the hairs like women's hairs in Rev. 9:8—powers like those of churches. Sins are powers of a certain kind—the sinners' expressed powers of having the right to violate justice. But such powers—sins—must be removed. Repentance puts one into a state of heart and mind in which he no longer desires to have and use such powers, and it is the exposures of the Law—the symbolic razor—that the contrite sinner applies to himself as the means of severing from himself such powers. The symbolic act of shaving, therefore, means that the sinner severs from himself his sins as powers formerly had and used. For one of the ingredients of repentance is putting aside the love, the habits and practice of sins as powers of the sinner. Thus we see that both the antitypical waters of separation and the antitypical razor used in shaving all of the sinner's flesh—every part of his heart and mind, in which sins as powers were—combined to work repentance, which consists of knowledge of right and wrong in general and of one's own wrongs in particular, a conviction of one's sinfulness, a recognition of one's condemnation and his inability to save himself, a hatred of sin, a determination to sever sin from oneself,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
an honest and measurably successful effort at such severance, and, finally, a love for, and an honest and measurably successful effort in the practice of righteousness. The antitypical waters of separation and the razor accomplish all of the foregoing features of repentance, except the last one that we mentioned.
(14) This last part of repentance is accomplished by the third and final cleansing process—the washing of the clothes. In Biblical symbols clothes or garments are used to represent the graces. Just as our natural clothes are, among other things, used to cover our nakedness, so are symbolic clothes worn to cover our symbolic nakedness, which represents our faults-the disgraces (Rev. 16:15). St. Peter shows that the graces are symbolized by garments when he exhorts us to be clothed with humility (1 Pet. 5:5), and the sisters to be adorned with meekness and gentleness (1 Pet. 3:3, 4). St. Paul gives a similar exhortation (1 Tim. 2:9, 10). He also speaks of our clothing ourselves with sympathy, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering, forbearance and forgiveness, which therefore, are symbolic clothes. But just as our literal clothes become spotted and dirty, so our symbolic clothes sometimes become spotted and dirty (Jude 23; 2; Cor. 7:1). When our faults—disgraces—are removed, we are spoken of as unspotted (Cant. 4:7; Eph. 5:27; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Pet. 3:14). Christ's symbolic garments never had any spots (Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:19). Furthermore, in Biblical symbols, in its office of cleansing from the power of sin the Word of God is spoken of as symbolic water (Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22; John 15:3; Tit. 3:5). These considerations enable us to see what is typed by the prospective Levites' washing their clothes—it symbolizes that the prospective antitypical Levites remove from their graces whatever faults of their depraved nature cleave to them, by an application to them of the pertinent cleansing parts of God's Word. Those who have been candidates for
faith-justification have had more or less of vestiges of God's image in them naturally; but these were more or less contaminated—spotted—by depravity—faults. These faults must be removed that the qualities of righteousness that they contaminate might become free from such contamination, and this occurs through applying such parts of the cleansing Word as remove these faults from those graces; and this usually is done by those parts of the Word that make those graces work oppositionally to those faults, which thereby are removed. This implies love for, and the practice of the graces of righteousness, whereby through the cleansing Word the prospective faith-justified cleanse away from their symbolic garments the spots and dirt of sin that have accumulated thereon. By the repentant sinner doing what he can to cleanse by the Word his good qualities from the faults that adhere to them, he completes the repentance process—the Gospel-Age antitype of the cleansing of the Levites as set forth in the type given in Num. 8:6, 7.
(15) Dropping the figure, it would be in place for us to explain in literal language the step of repentance, which, in the general type, was represented by the Levites' starting out from the camp and making their way toward the door of the tabernacle. In the specific type under study it shows what both the Lord and the repentant sinner do as to the three cleansing processes of v. 7. The Greek noun translated repentance is metanoia and the corresponding Greek verb translated to repent is metanoein. Literally, the verb means to change the mind or disposition, and, literally, the noun means a change of mind or disposition. It, therefore, imports a change in the mental, moral and religious attitude toward sin and righteousness as respects God and man. The change in the mental attitude implies giving up errors as to sin and accepting truths thereon and giving up errors as to righteousness and accepting truths thereon. The change in the moral attitude implies
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
the giving up of the love and practice of sin and the hatred, omission and violation of righteousness manward and the acceptance of hatred and avoidance of sin and the love and practice of righteousness manward. The change in the religious attitude implies the giving up of the love and practice of sin Godward and the hatred, omission and violation of righteousness Godward and the acceptance of hatred and avoidance of sin Godward and the love and practice of righteousness Godward. Sorrow for sin, contrition, is inseparably implied in such hatred for sin and love for righteousness, because from both of these feelings one must sorrow over having loved and practiced sin and hatred, avoided and violated righteousness. Yea, the keenest sorrow experienced by man is remorse—real contrition for sin. It is for this reason that true repentance is so heavily freighted with grief, as is shown, e.g., in the penitential Psalms: 6; 32; 38; 51; 102; 130; 143. Such a grief is Biblically called a godly sorrow and sorrow unto repentance (2 Cor. 7:9-11).
(16) The following is an analysis of the things that constitute the Scriptural parts of repentance as to sin: intellectual conviction of sin (John 8:9); heart's sorrow for sin (Matt. 11:21; 2 Cor. 7:9-11; Rom. 7:24); hatred of sin (Deut. 7:26; Rom. 7:15); abandonment of sin (Prov. 28:13; Matt. 3:8); confession of sin (Ezra 10:1; Neh. 9:2; Prov. 28:13; Matt. 3:6; Acts 19:18); restitution for sin (Lev. 6:4, 5; Ezek. 33:15; Luke 19:8); and opposition to sin (Rom. 7:15, 19, 23). The following are the ideas that constitute the Biblical parts of repentance as to righteousness: (1) love for righteousness (Rom. 12:9; 7:22); practice of righteousness (Rom. 6:19-21; Acts 26:20); and warfare for righteousness. (2 Cor. 7:11; 10:5; Heb. 12:4). Thus repentance has two features: one as to sin, the other as to righteousness. In its feature as to sin it has seven distinct parts, and in its feature as to righteousness it has three parts. Thus
in both features it has ten parts. This we know—both from the Bible and from our experiences, as well as from those of others who have exercised repentance. It might be further added that repentance is the first great step toward justification, the other step toward justification being faith (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). When both of these steps are taken one attains justification by faith.
(17) The following is an analysis of the New Testament passages in which the verb metanoein (to repent) and the noun metanoia (repentance) occur, the verb occurrences coming first: People should repent because of the nearness of the kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15); John preached to repent (Acts 2:38; 17:30); not to repent is disapproved and to repent is approved (Matt. 11:20, 21; Luke 10:13; 11:32); preaching is to effect it (Matt. 12:41; Mark 6:12); some do not repent (Luke 13:3, 5; 16:30; 2 Cor. 12:21; Rev. 2:5, 21, 22; 9:20, 21; 16:9, 11); it is commanded (Acts 3:19; 8:22; 26:20; Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:3, 19); it causes joy in heaven (Luke 15:7, 10); and we are to forgive the repentant (Luke 17:3, 4). Now follows an analysis of the passages in which the noun metanoia occurs: John's baptism was for repentance (Matt. 3:11; 9 13; Mark 1:4; 2:17; Luke 3:3; 5:32; Acts 13:24; 19:4); God's goodness leads to it (Rom. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9); it is to be preached (Luke 24:47; Heb. 6:1); sorrow is a feature of it (2 Cor. 7:9, 10; Heb. 6:6); sometimes sorrow cannot effect it in the sense of a change of mind in others (Heb. 12:17); it is a gift of God (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25); the sinless do not need it (Luke 15:7); fruits worthy of it should follow (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20); and it is to be exercised toward God (Acts 20:21). According to this analysis of the Biblical use of these two words, repentance is a very important part of man's coming into a proper relationship with God and man.
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
(18) Above we discussed the Gospel-Age antitype of Num. 8:5-7 and found therein a remarkable typical description of how our Lord throughout the Age has brought sinners to repentance, as the first part of the cleansing of Gospel-Age Levites, for which they had to be prepared by certain providential and instructional experiences (v. 6). We found in harmony with v. 7 that three distinct processes bring sinners to repentance: (1) the application to them of the types and antitypes of the Ancient Worthies; (2) the use of God's Law as to their sins and sinfulness; and (3) the use of the cleansing parts of God's Word on their natural good qualities. By these being ministered to them through suitable agents and by their subjecting themselves to the influence of these three things, repentance toward God is wrought in them unto a completion. Neither can we think of any other ways that can be employed to accomplish this effect; nor do these two things need reinforcement by any other thing to secure this result. The above-mentioned three processes alone are requisite to work a full and real repentance in properly disposed hearts. This, of course, is what we should expect; because the all-wise God, who charged our Lord Jesus to accomplish this work, is to be presupposed to know just with what such a work was to be accomplished. With respect to all of His works, and therefore with respect to this one, we can well say: He hath done all things well!
(19) But repentance is not sufficient for more than a measure of cleansing from the power of sin. It cannot cleanse from the guilt or condemnation of sin. This Christ's blood alone can do, as the poet has so well put it in one of the finest of our hymns.
"Could my tears forever flow,
Could my zeal no languor know,
These for sin could not atone;
Thou hast saved and Thou alone.
In my hand no price I bring;
Simply to Thy cross I cling."
If the work of our cleansing would stop with repentance, we would never have been completely cleansed so as to be regarded as clean by God. The three processes above referred to, indeed, have their part to accomplish in our cleansing, but their part is only a part of that cleansing. The Law is helpless to complete this cleansing; for in the cleansing work it goes no further than giving us a will not to sin and a will to do right; but it does not justify us. It has come to the full end of its purpose when it has made us know that we cannot save ourselves, and, therefore, stand in need of a Savior apart from ourselves. But, blessed be the grace and mercy of our God, that there is a Helper who is able to save unto the uttermost them that come to God by Him, seeing that He ever liveth and maketh intercession for them. But the Law does not offer Him to us. The Law cannot work such a faith in our hearts that accepts Him as our Savior. Herein the Law is helpless, not that it in itself is weak, but because of our weakness (Rom. 8:3). But what the Law cannot, on account of our weakness accomplish, the Gospel can and does accomplish (Rom. 8:14). And this ability of the Gospel is brought to our attention in v. 8. As we have seen, the Law feature of God's Word is active in all three processes set forth in v. 7. Its having been preached and applied unto repentance, the next feature of the cleansing process—the preaching of the Gospel—should be brought to our attention, and this is done in v. 8, where the message—the Gospel of reconciliation to God—that works a justifying faith is brought to our consideration in a typical way, so concealed that unless the three typical sacrifices therein set forth are understood, the connection of Law and Gospel, as set forth in vs. 7 and 8, and how the preaching of the Gospel is set forth in v. 8, cannot be seen.
(20) Three typical sacrifices are brought to view in v. 8: (1) a burnt-offering; (2) a meat-offering mingled
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
with oil; and (3) a sin-offering. The first bullock is not in this verse called a burnt-offering; but it is called such in v. 12. It will be further noted that the second bullock is not called a trespass-offering; for that would imply our Lord to have been a sinner; but it is specifically called a sin-offering. From this we can see that it relates to our Lord in connection with His personal sinless sacrifice as the first sin-offering of the antitypical Atonement Day. The Scriptures certainly assure us that He is the antitypical Bullock (Heb. 7:27; 10:5-9; 13:11, 12). Hence the allusion contained in the bullock for the sin-offering in v. 8 is to our Lord's death as a sin-offering (2 Cor. 5:21, 18, 19; Rom. 5:6, 8; 8:3; Heb. 2:9; 9:28). This, as we know, has been very ably set before us in the first part of chapter 4 of Tabernacle Shadows. We, therefore, note that Christ's death as a sin-offering is alluded to in the bullock of the sin-offering in v. 8. Let us keep this thought in mind and after other explanations have been made we will prove it to be so.
(21) Additionally, a bullock for a burnt-offering is also brought to our attention in v. 8. We are not to understand that this types another sacrifice that our Lord would make of Himself personally. He made one and only one sacrifice of Himself individually (Heb. 7:27; 10:14; Rom. 6:8, 9); and it needs no repetition, as did that of the typical bullock. If, then, the burnt-offering does not typify another sacrifice of Himself that our Lord would bring, what does it represent? We reply, it represents God's manifested acceptance of our Lord's sacrifice (T 72, par. 3; 81, par. 2). How do we know that the burnt-offering represents God's manifested acceptance of the sacrifice of which it was the burnt-offering? We reply, that it was only with burnt-offerings that God ever connected a special sign of acceptance, as can be seen in the case of Abraham's offering Isaac as a burnt-offering, being manifested as acceptable by the giving of the oathbound
covenant (Gen. 22:2, 7, 8, 13, 16-18), the burnt-offering of Aaron (Lev. 9:23, 24), that of David (1 Chro. 21:26, 27), those of Solomon (2 Chro. 7:1-3) and that of Elijah (1 Kings 18:36-39), being manifested in acceptance by fire.
(22) In the antitype God manifests His acceptance of the sacrifice in a variety of ways for the various classes, e.g., in the Millennium He will manifest His acceptance of the sacrifice of the Christ for the world by the restitution blessings that the Christ will minister, typed by Aaron offering the burnt-offering. During the Gospel-Age He manifests His acceptance of our Lord's sacrifice for the Church by bestowing, through Jesus' ministry, upon the Church His Holy Spirit, the Truth and the privileges of ministering to, and suffering for the Truth. Neither of these manifestations of God's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice is referred to in v. 8; for the burnt-offering here referred to applies for the tentatively justified, i.e., the Gospel-Age Levites. And how did God manifest His acceptance of Christ's sacrifice on behalf of these? If we can answer this question aright, we will be prepared better to understand the office of the burnt-offering referred to in v. 8. God has manifested His acceptance of Christ's sacrifice for the tentatively justified: first, by tentatively forgiving them their sins; second, by tentatively imputing to them Christ's righteousness; third, by taking them into friendship with Himself; fourth, by preparing them for the Gospel-Age Levitical service; fifth, by giving them opportunities to grow in Levitical knowledge, character and service; sixth, by advancing them toward consecration; and, seventh, by inviting them to consecrate, all of these ministered to them by our Lord. The last three manifestations were not really preparations for Leviteship as such, but preparations for the priesthood offered tentative Levites who were loyal in their tentative justification. From the facts of the case, as preparatory for justification,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
we gather that the bullock of the burnt-offering was connected especially with the first three of the above-expressed manifestations of God's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice in relation to the faith justified.
(23) But the exact part that the two bullocks play for the antitype of v. 8 cannot be seen until we come to recognize the antitype of the meat-offering. In T 98, par. 4, the significance of the meat-offerings is brought to our attention. There our dear Pastor says that they represented praises and worship offered to Jehovah. When we speak of praising God, we mean saying and doing what reflects credit upon Him in His person, character, plan and works, just as, e.g., we would praise Mr. Edison when we say of him things that reflect credit upon him in his works of invention. We worship God, not only, as many think, exclusively by prayer and song, but we also do it by whole-heartedly serving Him and His cause. That worship means also such service is evident from the parallelism of Matt. 4:10; and by what Satan wanted our Lord to do to him, i.e., become fully subject to Satan in service. The following passages prove that to worship also means to serve: Ps. 45:11; Matt. 15:9; Acts 18:13; 24:14; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 11:1; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 20:4. How, then, is the antitypical meat-offering made? By serving God's cause through the faithful proclamation of His Truth, which reflects credit upon His person, character, plan and works. Thus the meat-offering is presented by ministering the Lord's Truth in a proper spirit. This is implied in the meat-offering as consisting of fine flour, typing spiritual food, mingled with oil, typing the spirit of understanding. Thus the meat-offering shows how the sacrifice is carried out, i.e., by faithful service on behalf of God in the form of proclaiming the Truth.
(24) In view of the fact that three forms of the typical sacrifices are in v. 8 brought to our attention, it might be well for us to look briefly by way of comparison
and contrast at all of the forms of the typical sacrifices and at what they type. We remark that each different form of typical sacrifice does not represent a different antitypical sacrifice; but different phases of the antitypical sacrifice, e.g., our Lord offered an antitypical sin-offering, burnt-offering, meat-offering, peace-offering, free-will offering, thank-offering and praise-offering. This does not mean that He offered seven different sacrifices. Of His own person He offered only one. Yet He offered the antitypes of the above-mentioned seven sacrifices. What do they mean? Seven different aspects of His one sacrifice, as follows: His sin-offering brings out the sin atoning character of His sacrifice. His burnt-offering brings out the effect of that sacrifice on God, i.e., it effects a manifested acceptance of that sacrifice on God's part. His meat-offering brings out the thought that He carried out His sacrifice by a ministry of the Truth which reflected credit on the Father in His person, character, plan and work. His offering His peace-offering brings out the thought that His sacrifice was a fulfillment of His vows and covenant of sacrifice, made by Him to the Lord. His free-will offering brings out the thought of His carrying out His sacrifice most voluntarily and willingly. His thank-offering brings out the thought that Christ's sacrifice was in harmony with duty-love, justice, which, exercised Godward, always includes gratitude as due to God, and which never was enacted out of harmony with such duty-love. And, finally, the praise-offering brings out the thought that Christ's sacrifice flowed out of, and was filled with disinterested love. The same phases of the Church's one sacrifice are alluded to by the types. Accordingly, the seven typical sacrifices do not type seven antitypical sacrifices, but seven different phases of the one sacrifice of Christ and the one sacrifice of the Church. Certain of such like phases will find their antitypes in the world's consecrated services during the next Age.
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
(25) With the above explanations we are prepared to understand the antitype of v. 8; and by that understanding we can see the wonderful connection brought out antitypically between vs. 7 and 8. The meat-offering of v. 8 suggests that its antitype is preaching a truth or truths that reflect credit on God; while the sin-offering referred to in connection with the meat-offering suggests the thought that this preaching is that of the atoning death of Christ; and the burnt-offering referred to in connection with the meat-offering suggests the thought that the involved preaching is that which explains how God manifests His acceptance of Christ's atoning death. This He does in connection with the stage to which matters have attained so far as v. 8 is concerned by promising through the pertinent preaching to forgive the repentant and believing sinner, to impute to him Christ's righteousness and to take him into friendship, fellowship, peace with God. The connection between v. 8, which symbolizes the preaching of the grace and mercy of God to the repentant, and v. 7, is this: While v. 7 brings out how the application of the Law to responsive sinners brings them to repentance, the next step is to preach the elements of the Gospel—those fundamental to working a justifying faith—to the repentant sinners, which is brought out in v. 8. Thus the antitype shows a most marvelous theoretical and practical connection to prevail between vs. 7 and 8. For was this not the order of the pertinent events in our own experiences, while we were on the way toward justification? Every consecrated person, looking back at the way in which he was drawn out of the antitypical Camp toward the Gate of the antitypical Court, recognizes that his experiences were along the line of the antitypes that we have suggested for vs. 7 and 8, which, of course, corroborates the exposition as factual. Our proof passages show it to be Scriptural.
(26) But let us look a little more closely at the antitype of v. 8, so as to bring into clearer view its antitypical
teachings. It is certainly true that after God's agents in fulfilling the antitypes of v. 7 brought us to repentance, they [these are the them of v. 8] certainly preached [the meat-offering] the fundamentals of the Gospel message connected with justification as the sole remedy for the lost undone condition, of which as repentant sinners we were made so grievously aware (Rom. 8:3, 4; 5:6; Acts 4:12). Such preaching set forth God's love for the lost and condemned race for its salvation from the curse (Deut. 23:5; Is. 38:17; Jer. 31:3; Eph. 2:4, 5; Titus 2:11; 3:4; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10). It further set forth the fact that His love for the lost race was so great that He gave up His only begotten Son to death to become a sin-offering for the race (Is. 53:4-12; John 3:16, 17; Rom. 5:6, 8; 8:32; 2 Cor. 5:18, 21; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 4:9, 10). Such preaching also made known that Christ was sinless (Ps. 45:7; Is. 42:21; 53:9; Zech. 9:9; Luke 1:35; John 8:46; Acts 3:14; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet. 1:19; 2:22; 1 John 3:5). It then set forth the thought that He was suitable for a sin-offering (Is. 53:10-12; Rom. 8:3). Such preaching as to Christ as a sin-offering showed that He actually did die for our sins as a sin-offering on our behalf (Matt. 20:28; John 1:29; 3:14-17; 6:51; 10:11, 17; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 5:7; 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; Gal. 1:4; 3:13; 4:4, 5; Heb. 2:9; 9:26, 28; 10:12; 13:11, 12; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 2:21, 24; 3:18). And, finally, it set forth the thought that His sacrifice as a sin-offering was effective for propitiation (Is. 53:4-12; Dan. 9:24, 26; Rom. 3:24-26; 2 Cor. 5:19, 21; Col. 1:20; Heb. 1:3; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10). Without any doubt, from Pentecost on to the present time, such preaching was made to the penitent by the agents that Christ has used toward them, and that we mentioned above.
(27) In setting forth the antitype of the sin-offering, the acts of God resulting from its presentation to Him are not included; and for this reason they are not
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
set forth in the preceding paragraph, which is limited to the things preached as the antitype of bringing forth the bullock of the sin-offering. These acts of God are set forth as the antitype of the bringing forth of the burnt-offering, which, as we have seen, types God's manifested acceptance of the sin-offering. These acts of God, as related to the faith-justified, and as stated above, are three: (1) the forgiveness of sins; (2) the imputation of Christ's righteousness and (3) the acceptance of the repentant and believing sinner into friendship. All three of these acts are the Father's exclusively; for He alone is the originating cause of justification (Rom. 8:33), which consists of the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, as a result of which two things peace—friendship—is established between God and those just justified. We are not to understand that v. 8, in telling of the bringing of the sin-offering, types Christ's death; for that death occurred before the antitype of v. 8 set in. If, then, it does not type that death, what does it type? We reply, it types the preaching [the meat-offering] of Christ's death (Luke 24:47) from Pentecost on unto the end of the Gospel-Age; for let us remember that v. 8 types things done after ["then," v. 8] repentance has, according to v. 7, been wrought in the prospective Gospel-Age Levites. Hence the sin-offering of Christ was completed before the things of v. 8 could occur in the antitype. Nor does the bringing of the burnt-offering of v. 8 type God's manifestation of His acceptance of Christ's sin-offering, but the preaching of the thoughts descriptive of that act. But in the nature of the case the preaching of the thoughts that God works out in the acts of manifesting His acceptance of Christ's sin-offering must for each individual on the way to justification precede those manifesting acts themselves; for that preaching is the means of awakening a justifying faith, which must be awakened before justification sets in; and, as we know,
it is in the two parts-acts-of justification and its resultant peace that the manifestation of God's acceptance of Christ's sin-offering consists, so far as that act is related to the stage of matters treated of in v. 8. Hence v. 8 refers exclusively to the preaching of the truths on the antitypical sin-offering and burnt-offering, and not to the enacting of the sin-offering and burnt-offering. And this is typically shown by v. 8 connecting the meat-offering with the other two.
(28) Having seen that it is a fact of our and others' experiences, as well as a Scriptural teaching, that to the repentant sinner God caused the truths related to Christ as a sin-offering to be preached, we now proceed to show that it is also a fact that throughout the Age, according to our and others' experiences and the Scriptural teaching, the truths relating to God's manifested acceptance of the sin-offering, i.e., the antitypical burnt-offering, have been preached to the repentant at God's command. Such preaching we understand to be represented by the language of v. 8: "Then [after doing what is stated in v. 7] let them take a young bullock [for a burnt-offering; see v. 12] with his meat-offering, even fine flour mingled with oil." This fine flour represents the thoroughly detailed features of the pertinent truths presented and the oil represents the spirit of understanding with which these truths should be set forth. The first of these truths implied in the burnt-offering and meat-offering from the standpoint of v. 8 is that God as the first manifestation of His acceptance of Christ's sin-offering forgives the sins of the repentant and believing sinner; and the second of these truths is that to such sinners God imputes Christ's righteousness. These two truths describe God's act of justification; for God justifies one by forgiving him his sins and by imputing to him Christ's righteousness. By these two things the believer is brought into harmony with God's Law; for by forgiving him his sins God removes the condemnation of the Law for his past sins
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
(Rom. 3:25, 26), and by imputing Christ's righteousness to him He makes him imputatively fulfill its demands that he be righteous henceforth (Rom. 8:3, 4; 10:4). Naturally as an outflow from such justification friendship (peace) sets in between God and him, as the third feature of God's manifesting the acceptableness of Christ's sacrifice for sinners (Rom. 5:1). Accordingly, by justifying the believing sinner and receiving him into friendship, God plainly manifests that He has accepted Christ's sacrifice for sinners. How could it be manifested more clearly?
(29) That the Bible teaches that God's forgiveness of the repentant and believing sinner is a proof of God's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice for sin, is manifest from many Scriptures. The following are some of these: Is. 53:10-12; Zech. 9:10; 12:10—13:1; Matt. 26:28; Acts 5:30; 13:38; Rom. 3:24-26; 4:7, 8, 25; 5:9-12; Eph. 1:7; 2:13-16; 4:32; 5:2; Col. 1:14, 20-22; 2:14; 1 Thes. 1:10; Heb. 9:14, 22, 24-28; 10:18; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:1, 2, 12. That to declare such forgiveness of sins as a part of the Gospel message that God has commanded to be preached is a Scriptural teaching, is evident from the following Scriptures: Luke 24:47; John 20:23; Acts 1:8; 2:38, 39; 3:19, 26; 4:17-22; 5:31, 32; 13:38; 26:16-18. Certainly such a message was by the Apostles preached, as many of the above Scriptures prove; and this same preaching was done throughout the Age. We who have passed through the experience of justification know that, after the Law had completed its work of effecting repentance in us, not only our Lord's death was preached to us as a sin-offering, but it was also preached to us that for the merit of that death God would forgive us our sins, if we exercised the necessary faith. Hence from experience we know that the preaching of forgiveness for the merit of Christ has been done, i.e., that this feature of Christ's burnt-offering has been preached (coupled with the meat-offering).
(30) We further know from the Scriptures and our and others' experiences that the second phase of Christ's burnt-offering has been preached (coupled with the meat-offering) throughout the Gospel-Age. That second feature of Christ's burnt-offering is God's imputing Christ's righteousness to the repentant and believing sinners. That God does impute Christ's righteousness to such, the Bible certainly teaches. Such a thing would have to be done in order to keep us in a justified condition; for the natural and Mosaic Law does not only demand the death of a sinner, but it also demands perfect obedience from all under it; and such an obedience we can render only imputatively, i.e., through the imputed righteousness of Christ. This is what those passages mean that teach that He is our righteousness and perfection (Rom. 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 2:10; 2 Cor. 12:9). This, too, is what those passages mean which tell us that we are justified by the faith [faithfulness, righteousness] of Christ (Rom. 3:21, 22; Gal. 2:16; 3:22; Phil. 3:9). Of course, such a righteousness could not be made ours instantaneously in any other way than by imputation. We can see how it could be made another's by the Millennial works, i.e., actually; for a thousand years of effort assisted by Christ's ministry could make it become his by works (Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:14-17); but it is impossible to become another's instantaneously, except by imputation; and since it does become ours the instant we exercise the pertinent faith, it must become ours by imputation. So the Apostles preached it to the penitent, as the above citations prove. So have others since that time preached it to repentant sinners. All of us by experience know that while we were in the condition of repentance the Lord caused this message to be proclaimed to us: God has accepted the sacrifice of Christ and will prove to you that He has, by imputing Christ's righteousness to you, if you heartily believe His promise so to do. Thus we know that the
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
antitype of the second feature of Christ's burnt-offering has been preached throughout the Gospel-Age.
(31) So, too, has the third feature of that burnt-offering (peace with God) been preached throughout the Gospel-Age. Sin in ultimate analysis is a repudiation and defiance of, and a rebellion against God. It by act removes one from subjection to God and makes one subject to God's enemy, Satan. As a result, it makes God an enemy of the sinner and it separates him from God so thoroughly that God no more has fellowship and friendship with the sinner. He is thus estranged from the sinner, holding Himself aloof from him. On the thought that sinners are abhorrent to the Lord the Bible gives us much testimony (Num. 22:32; Deut. 25:16; 32:19; 2 Sam. 11:27; 1 Kings 14:22; Ps. 5:4-6; 10:3; 11:5; 78:59; 106:40; Prov. 3:32; 16:16-19; 15:8, 9, 26; 21:27; Is. 43:24; Jer. 25:7; Hab. 1:13; Zech. 8:17; Luke 16:15; Rev. 2:6, 15). So, too, does it abundantly teach that God is by sin separated from the sinner, and holds Himself aloof from him (Deut. 31:17; Josh. 7:12; 2 Chron. 24:20; Job 13:24; 23:3, 8, 9; Ps. 78:59-61; Is. 59:1, 2; 64:7; Ezek. 23:18; Hos. 9:12; Amos 3:2, 3; Mic. 3:4; Luke 13:27). One of the keenest griefs of the truly penitent is their consciousness of resting under God's displeasure and abhorrence, kept away from Him by His hiding His face, favor, from them (2 Sam. 24:10; Ps. 38:3, 4; Is. 64:5-7). And one of the ways that God has of manifesting His acceptance of Christ's sin-offering, is the setting aside of His displeasure with the repentant and believing sinner and receiving him into friendship and fellowship. The following are some Scriptures that teach this thought: Is. 12:1; 27:5; 48:18; 53:5; Luke 1:79; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 1:20. And this fact has been preached [the meat-offering] by the Apostles (Acts 10:36; Rom. 10:15; Eph. 2:17). This has been done by the Lord's agents ever since; and we know from
our own experience that while we were in the throes of remorse there was preached to us the comforting message that Christ's death avails for the taking away of God's displeasure from us and for making God a friend of ours. Thus we see that the antitypical meat-offering brought to us the assurance of this feature of the antitypical burnt-offering. Thus the Bible and our and others' experiences prove that every feature of the antitypical burnt-offering was preached to the prospective faith justified during the Gospel-Age.
(32) We again stress the thought that v. 8 refers antitypically exclusively to the preaching of those features of the Gospel that are adapted to draw the truly repentant into faith. It does not describe the effect of that preaching on them, i.e., its working faith in them and their exercising such a faith unto justification. It simply describes the part that God's animate and inanimate agents have to perform upon the repentant preparatory to their exercising faith. The effect intended to be wrought by their preaching, while not set forth in v. 8, is set forth in v. 12, as we will see when we come to the exposition of that verse. But as we consider the typical severing work of v. 6, the typical cleansing work of v. 7 and the typical taking in hand of the three kinds of sacrifices of v. 8, and then consider what has been set forth above as the antitypes of these, and furthermore compare these suggested antitypes with the pertinent Biblical teachings and the experiences of others and of ourselves, the harmony of all these things demonstrates to our hearts and minds that the Lord has given us the true understanding of the type. This adds to the demonstration of our Pastor's teaching on tentative justification as a favor that the Gospel-Age Levites have had from the Lord through faith in God's promises in view of Christ's sacrificial death for the world and, therefore, for them. We trust that our feast on the four verses so far studied in this chapter will serve further to whet our appetites for the
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
other good things of Divinely provided food that Num. 8:9-26 puts on our well laden table. And our citing so many Scriptures above is to impress deeply upon our hearts and minds the great stress that the Bible lays on the truths associated with making responsive people Gospel-Age Levites; for while faith justification is not the main purpose of the Gospel-Age, as many mistakenly suppose, it is certainly fundamental to God's Gospel-Age work. Hence the great stress that the Bible in its typical and non-typical teachings thereon lays on it and all its associated, especially its precedingly associated, doctrines.
(33) We would naturally expect that the things recorded in v. 12 would follow immediately in this chapter the things recorded in v. 8; but for good reasons the things described in vs. 9-11 are introduced before those discussed in v. 12. The reasons are these: Some of the things in vs. 9-11 chronologically precede the things set forth in v. 12; yea, some of them even precede the things performed in vs. 7 and 8. Nevertheless, had they been presented entirely in their chronological order the antitype would not be so easily traced as from the actual order of their presentation, while the presentation in the order in which they are given does make the run of the antitypical thoughts more easily discerned. One of the thoughts that vs. 9-11 brings out is the publicity of the dealings with the prospective Levites in the type and antitype. V. 9 shows that all of the dealings with those who were about to be made Levites, who were about to be put under preparation for Levitical service, and who were about to be inducted into the Levitical service, were to be done publicly. When v. 9, in its first clause, says that Moses should bring the Levites before the tabernacle of the congregation, it charges that the entire service with the antitypical Levites should be done publicly, in the presence of the true Church, typed by the tabernacle (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev. 11:1, 2;
15:5; Heb. 8:2; 9:11; Rev. 13:6; 21:3). Again, when the second clause of v. 9 says that Moses was to gather the whole assembly of the children of Israel, it types the fact that the things done to and for the antitypical Levites should be publicly performed before the whole nominal people of God in the antitypical camp. Publicity, therefore, was to mark both the typical and antitypical transactions with the Levites, as a Divine requirement.
(34) To make this clearer we remark that in the type and antitype there were three distinct things done with the Levites before they were ready to serve as Levites. Here, of the type, we use the word Levite, not to denote the non-sacred standing of Levi's non-priestly descendants before they assumed the standing of the sacred tribe; but we use it in the sense of their becoming and being this sacred tribe. To accomplish their transition from their standing as a non-sacred tribe to their standing as servants of the tabernacle, "My holy Levites," especially three sets of things had to be done to them: (1) the series of acts described in vs. 6-8, 12; (2) their being waved as a wave-offering, as described in v. 11; and (3) their being directly offered before Aaron and his sons to the Lord, as set forth in v. 13. All of these acts had to be done publicly. The type plainly brings out the publicity of all three of these acts. And each one of these typical transactions has had its antitype and in each case the antitype has been publicly enacted. Furthermore, according to the typical teachings of v. 9, these three things had to be done before the new creatures, typed by the tabernacle, and before the world, i.e., the nominal spiritual Israel, typed by the whole assembly of Israel. And this certainly was done publicly before these two classes both in the ritualistic and non-ritualistic churches, members of which were not only the nominal-church people, but also new creatures, until
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
during the Harvest, when God has been calling them out of Babylon to symbolic Palestine.
(35) As we saw above, in the ritualistic churches, mainly by home teaching and by catechetical instruction, responsive sinners were brought to repentance and faith and thus to justification. And in such churches those who by the above methods were brought to justification were introduced to the attention of the entire church membership in their particular ecclesias, as undergoing such experiences as catechumen. But this was done in a still more impressive and public way by a solemn public rite that all of the ritualistic churches have practiced, i.e., confirmation. Practically every member of such ecclesias would be present at a confirmation service. We are not to be understood as meaning that all that underwent this rite were justified. Rather, only those who submitted themselves to their home and catechetical instruction in the way of repentance and faith attained to justification. Accordingly, such in their catechetical instruction and confirmation publicly were regarded as exercising repentance and faith by the new-creaturely and non-new-creaturely members of their ecclesias. And in their confirmation service they publicly confessed repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And these antitypically as such were brought by our Lord before the antitypical Tabernacle and the whole congregation of antitypical Israel. This is true of all of them in the sense that each one in all ecclesias was individually brought before all the members of his local ecclesia. Furthermore, the same procedure in principle, but in a different form, was carried out by those who in non-ritualistic churches were brought through repentance and faith to justification. Here the main forms of influencing them to justification were home training and preaching. Other methods than these were, of course, used in both ritualistic and non-ritualistic churches, as pointed out above, but
above we have indicated the main ones used in both sets of churches, both relying on home teaching and each differing in the official method that their pertinent churches as such used, catechetical instruction prevailing in the one set, and preaching prevailing in the other set. The preaching was usually done by evangelists, revivalists and pastors. And such services were given wide publicity and were, as a rule, attended by the full church membership; and those who through such services professed to have been brought to justification, which would, of course, include those who really did repent and believe, were publicly noted as such by the new-creaturely and non-new-creaturely members of the pertinent ecclesias. Accordingly, in both sets of churches publicity before all church members was given to the repentance, faith and justification of those who really underwent these experiences. Thus they were brought before both the antitypical Tabernacle and whole congregation of antitypical Israel. When in more private ways people were brought to justification, they always made a public confession of it before their local churches. We will defer stressing the publicity of the other two acts typed in vs. 11 and 13 until we come to them in the discussion of these verses; but we here remark that they also were very publicly performed in both the type and antitype.
(36) Two important items are brought to our attention in v. 10. The first of these tells us that Moses was charged to bring, present, the Levites before the Lord. There are some who use the expression, "to present one before the Lord," to mean, to bring one into such a presence of God as is in heaven, where God is, and, as it were, into the throne room of Jehovah. This is the view that The Tower advocated on Job 1:6; 2:1, in an attempt to prove that Satan remained in heaven as a member of Jehovah's Court until 1914, when he was said to have been cast out of heaven. Since God sees everything and everyone, all things are
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
in His presence, no matter where they are; and, therefore, one need not be in Jehovah's throne room, in heaven itself, to be in His presence. That the expression does not have such a meaning in these passages of Job is evident from Lev. 16:7; 1 Sam. 10:19; Lev. 4:15, 18; 8:27; 14:11; Num. 7:3; 14:37; 17:7; Deut. 1:45; 4:10; Josh. 6:8; 1 Sam. 1:12; 2 Sam. 6:5; etc., etc. In the foregoing passages and very many others the expression, to do this or that before the Lord, means to do something pertaining to Divine matters, under the Lord's special notice. And certainly that is the thought in v. 10. Certainly the Levites in the type were not brought before the Lord in the sense of being taken to heaven, even into Jehovah's throne room; but it was (v. 10) in connection with doing certain matters pertaining to God, under His special notice. And this certainly is true of the antitypical Levites. In their being brought to justification they were not taken to heaven into God's throne room; but they entered into doing certain things pertaining to God, under His direct notice. In their undergoing preparation for Levitical service after their faith justification they were also engaged in certain things pertaining to God, under His direct notice. In their being installed into their official work as Gospel-Age Levites, they certainly have been engaged in matters pertaining to God, under His direct attention. And, finally, in the performance of their Levitical service for God's Priests and people of the Gospel-Age, they certainly have been engaged in Divine matters, under God's direct notice. Accordingly, we understand that the charge that Moses bring the Levites before the Lord, types God's charge to our Lord to bring the faith-justified forward in a service pertinent to Divine matters, under the Lord's direct notice.
(37) The second item of which v. 10 treats is the Israelites' putting their hands on the Levites. In the Bible, the symbolic use of the expression, to lay hands
on a person or thing has three meanings: One of these is representation. Thus when Aaron and his sons laid their hands on the bullock in the consecration service (Lev. 8:14), the act symbolized that the bullock stood for them, typical of how at the consecration of Jesus and the Church, their humanity stood for them. Again, when Aaron laid his hands on Azazel's goat (Lev. 16:21), he thereby symbolized how that goat was a representation of him from a certain standpoint, typical of how when the World's High Priest began to deal with the antitypical Goat of Azazel, the humanity of the crown-losers was still part of the World's High Priest. These two illustrations sufficiently prove that to lay hands on a person or thing, among other things symbolizes representation. Furthermore, this expression symbolizes the bestowal of a power or gift. This is apparent from the fact that the gifts of the Spirit were symbolically bestowed by the laying on of the Apostles' hands, as can be seen from the acts of Peter and John at Samaria (Acts 8:15-24), of the company of the Apostles with Timothy (1 Tim. 4:14), of Paul with Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6) and of the doctrine as such (Heb. 6:2). Then, too, this expression is Biblically used to represent sanction, endorsement, recommendation, vouching for, standing good for, as can be seen from 1 Tim. 5:22.
(38) In which of these three senses does v. 10 use this expression as descriptive of the Israelites' acts with the Levites, as these acts are set forth in this verse? Evidently not in the first sense, because the Levites were not made the representatives or substitutes for the Israelites, though in a sense Aaron's bullock was such in the day of atonement service. But this is not anywhere set forth by the symbolic act of laying on of hands, nor could that act have been performed in harmony with the atonement-day picture. Again, this expression cannot mean the act of conferring the gifts of the Spirit; for nobody, apart from God and Christ,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
except an Apostle, could confer those gifts; and the time for the conferring of them could not come until, after His resurrection, Christ had first ascended into heaven (Acts 1:7; 2:4, 12, 16, 33; Eph. 4:7, 8). This leaves the third meaning for application here—sanction, recommendation, vouching for, endorsement, standing good for. Accordingly, by laying (literally, leaning) their hands on the Levites, the Israelites symbolized their endorsement of the Levites for their official work. This types how during the Gospel-Age the nominal people of God have endorsed the prospective and real faith-justified in the antitypical cleansing and consecrating for antitypical Leviteship. Thus the nominal people of God have endorsed the prospective faith-justified, when they exercised faith unto justification. They did the same when they made their public confession, whether this was by confirmation or by the less formal way of informing the assembled congregation of their experience or of joining the church as practiced among non-ritualistic churches. All of us recall how our course in the above stages was approved by the church members, who showed their endorsement by handshaking, by offering congratulations and by smiles and other looks, words and acts of approval, as well as often by voting the pertinent persons into church membership, in the local ecclesia.
(39) Furthermore, such endorsement was shown in subsequent stages of the antitypical Levite's consecration for Levite work. One of the stages was the preparatory or training stage. As we have learned, the Gershonite Levites represent those antitypical Levites (1) who helped people to justification (Libnites) and (2) who helped some to consecration (Shimites). To perform the first of such works, one would do evangelistic work, which was done by professional evangelists or evangelically working pastors or catechists, or lay workers, like Sunday-school teachers and superintendents, lay preachers, elders, class leaders or unofficial
church members. But to do such work properly one would have to undergo preparation. Sometimes this would be at theological seminaries, sometimes at missionary and evangelistic training schools, sometimes in the "school of experience." And the nominal people of God endorsed them in such preparation. Sometimes this was done by their financial support of such schools and of their students, sometimes by their praising and encouraging them during their period of preparation, and sometimes by holding them up as examples worthy of others' imitation. And, finally, they gave their endorsement by their electing and arranging for such antitypical Levites to be inducted into their office as such. This, e.g., can plainly be seen in the election and installation of Levites as pastors, evangelists, missionaries, catechists, Sunday School teachers, superintendents, lay preachers, etc., etc. The nominal church members, as a rule, voted their approval on such and in various other ways showed that they endorsed them for the antitypical Libnite Gershonite work to which they were chosen. They did the same to the Shimite Gershonites. These occupied themselves with leading people to consecrate, and thus they supplied new priests. As this work was done usually by pastors through special services, individual pastoral ministries and books, we see the antitypical Israelites endorsing these in such work by attendance on and financial support of such meetings, by financial support of such pastors in such work, in circulating the pertinent books and helping their writers in ways similar to those ways of supporting the antitypical Kohathite writers mentioned below. In all this they laid their hands on them.
(40) Above we illustrated how nominal antitypical Israel laid their hands on the Gershonite Levites. They did the same with the antitypical Merarite Levites. Their Mushite branch consisted of publishers of Bibles, and books, magazines and tracts on the Bible, together with their helpers. Their Mahlite branch consisted of
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
the editors and proofreaders of such literature, i.e., those who saw such publications through the press and supplied notes, prefaces, made corrections, etc., for them. The publishers of such literature, and their helpers were endorsed for such activities by word of mouth, by financial patronage and contributions and, in the case of denominational publishers, by election or appointment through the nominal people of God. Similarly did the nominal people of God act toward the Mahlite Merarites, the editors and their helpers. Nominal antitypical Israel endorsed the Kohathite Levites also. These are the scholars who have written: linguistic (Amramite), exegetical (Izeharite), historical (Hebronite) and systematic (Uzzielite) treatises on Biblical and Church and pertinent secular matters, or delivered lectures on such matters from the four standpoints just mentioned. These in their activities have also been endorsed by the antitypical Israelites, sometimes by financial help enabling them to support themselves while prosecuting the pertinent studies, favoring them with library facilities, buying, selling and recommending their books, supporting their lectures, etc., and in general encouraging them in their work. Thus we see how the antitypical Israelites laid their hands on the antitypical Levites at all stages of their Leviteship and how they did this with the eight main subdivisions of them. The facts corroborate our thought.
(41) The matters discussed in the preceding eight paragraphs put us in a position to note that what comes between vs. 8 and 12 is properly placed; because while some of the features of each of these verses reach forward to happenings coming beyond v. 12, in all of them there is a reaching backward to things in v. 8. It is doubtless this preponderance of things in vs. 9 and 10 referring to matters related to things discussed in v. 8 that prompted the Lord to put vs. 9 and 10 where He did in relation to the other matters discussed in this chapter. Doubtless another reason for so ordering the
subject matter of vs. 9 and 10 is that, placed where they are, they help to clearness of understanding of the antitypes. Certainly the study of Num. 8:5-10 enhances in our estimation the pertinent types as prophecies "of good things to come," which is doubtless one of the reasons why God graciously blesses us with this enlightenment.
(42) We now come to the consideration of v. 11. As the margin indicates, the translation should be "And Aaron shall wave the Levites as a wave-offering before the Lord from the children of Israel, that they may be [fitted] to execute the service of the Lord." In paragraph (24) we should have brought out the significance of the wave-and heave-offerings; we will, therefore, do it here. In T 45, par. 2, the wave-offering of the priests' consecration is shown to represent the continuity of the sacrifice of the Christ, in that they persevere in consecration to keep their affections and powers uplifted even unto death in the Lord's service. The heave-offering of the Christ represents that the sacrifice of the Christ is given to God to exalt His holy name. In this verse, not the wave-offering of the Christ is typed, but that which Jesus makes of the Gospel-Age Levites as from the antitypical children of Israel. It will be noticed that in v. 13 Moses is said to make a wave-offering of the Levites. This shows that at least two wavings were made in the type, and we are to look for at least two distinct things as corresponding to them in the antitype. Careful consideration shows that there are at least two such wavings. In the type the first of these is set forth before the justification of the Levites is set forth, which, as we shall see, is shown in v. 12. We have seen that vs. 9-11 were inserted between vs. 8 and 12 in order to bring out some things which, in part at least, occur in the antitype before certain things in the antitype of v. 8 occur, though some of these things also come antitypically after the antitype of v. 12 sets in. Most of the things referred to in v. 11
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
occur antitypically after the antitype of v. 12 occurs. Yet some of them occur before this; hence the entire subject is, as in the case of the subject matter of vs. 9 and 10, introduced before the type of v. 12 is set forth. This will appear when the antitype of v. 11 is made clear to us.
(43) What, then, is the antitype of Aaron's waving the Levites as a wave-offering from the children of Israel before the Lord? In this type, of course, Aaron represents our Lord as High Priest. The waving of the Levites seems to type the long-drawn-out preparation that is intended to fit the antitypical Levites for the service of the Lord. Its being done "before the Lord" indicates that the service was connected with Divine matters under Jehovah's direct attention. The purpose of this wave-offering is stated as follows: "that they may be [fitted] to execute the service of the Lord." This is evidently a different thing from that which Moses (v. 13) did in waving the Levites, as the last feature of their consecration. The fact that the purpose of it is stated as follows: "that they may be to execute the service of the Lord," the fact that a long-drawn-out preparation has been needed to fit the antitypical Levites for their service, and the final fact that nowhere would this be referred to in the type unless in v. 11, moves us to understand that Aaron's waving them types the long preparation that our Lord gives the antitypical Levites for their service. That they are waved by our Lord as a wave-offering of the antitypical children of Israel, implies that the nominal people of God in the Gospel-Age have been active continually in helping them in their preparation for the Levitical work of the Gospel-Age, a thing shown above.
(44) A consideration of the pertinent facts will make the various features of v. 11 antitypically clear. The preparation of the Gospel-Age Levites has been one of head and heart; and it had its beginning in both respects in the antitypes of v. 8; for the Truth explanations
and promises, typed by the three sacrifices of v. 8, gave them intellectual equipment for their later work. So, too, those truths wrought something of hope and love, and more particularly of faith, in them, which was also a partial heart preparation for their later Levitical service. It is because of the preparatory force of the antitypes of v. 8 that we remarked above that part of the preparation typed by v. 11 was implied as beginning in v. 8; and for this reason v. 11, like vs. 9 and 10, is put before v. 12, where the exercising of faith and the justification of the repentant and believing sinner are set forth typically. Some more of such preparatory work is implied in the publicity of the antitypical acts as typed in v. 9. And still more of such preparatory work is implied in the antitypes of v. 10; for their being made participants in Divine matters under God's direct attention and under the approval of the nominal people of God, prepared them still further for their future Levitical work. Accordingly, we find that, like the thoughts of vs. 9 and 10, those of v. 11 are rightly placed in the chapter under study.
(45) But the main preparation of the antitypical Levites comes to them, both in head and heart, after the antitype of v. 12 sets in, i.e., after a justifying faith is wrought and, as a consequence, justification by faith is effected. This preparation differs somewhat in the three groups of Gospel-Age Levites and also in their eight subdivisions. In all of them the heart's preparation includes their increasingly overcoming human faults, i.e., the human depravities, sins, and their increasingly developing the virtues of the natural man. And we rejoice to recognize that some considerable progress was made by them in a righteous life adorned with human virtues. This phase of their development continued in them for the years of their Leviteship and, of course, made their ministry more acceptable and fruitful in all the phases of their service. And when it became the chief concern of any one of them, it led him
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
to consecrate himself, thus introducing him into priesthood. But in so far as this feature of the preparation was Levitical it did not imply giving up natural selfishness and worldliness and developing disinterested love, in itself and in its relation to the other graces; it only implied giving up sinful selfishness and worldliness and cultivating duty-love Godward and manward, in itself and in its relation to the other natural virtues. The higher the form of the Levitical service, the higher was the pertinent preparation in the conjoined Levitical virtues. We can see this as we contemplate the various Levites in these varying services: Sunday-school workers, lay preachers, catechists, evangelists, preachers, pastors, publishers, editors of works and scholarly writers and lecturers.
(46) The foregoing preparation was mainly an internal one and, therefore, was not very palpable to outward sense as a process, but quite palpable as a result and attainment. The clearest expression of the Levitical preparation is that which applied to the head—the intellectual preparation. As to that of the antitypical Gershonites who became pastors, as a rule it implied quite a long-drawn-out matter. As a rule, both the antitypical Libnite and Shimite Gershonites went through a careful college and seminary training. As a rule, in the college this implied the classical course, in which usually Latin, Greek and Hebrew, as well as the native tongue of the student, were cultivated, and other more or less related secular branches were studied. In the seminary the various branches of linguistic, systematic, exegetical, historical and practical theology were studied. Thus they there studied the Scriptures in the Greek and Hebrew (linguistic theology); dogmatics, apologetics and ethics in systematic theology; isogogics, interpretation and harmonetics in exegetical theology; Bible history and biography, church history and biography, sacred archeology, geography and chronology in historical theology, and liturgics, evangelistics,
homiletics, catechetics, hermeneutics and poimetics in practical theology, with opportunities of exercising themselves in the application of their knowledge in practice as evangelists, preachers, catechists and pastors, especially during their vacations before entering the ministry. In countries where there were no seminaries, e.g., during the earlier Colonial period in America, prospective preachers would study under the supervision of some competent minister. Frequently missionaries would be additionally trained in special missionary schools after completing their seminary course, while in other cases they were sent directly from the seminary to the mission field, and in some cases their seminary course was limited to the mission schools. In the case of Sunday-school workers, lay preachers and evangelists, usually individual effort in the school of experience was their preparation. Usually local conferences and synods, as well as individual training, were the schools where pastors were educated in the ways of antitypical Shimite Gershonites, i.e., leaders of others into consecration. But whether by one method or another, a long-drawn-out preparation was undergone by the antitypical Gershonites, and the continuity of this preparation is typed by Aaron waving the Levites as a wave-offering before the Lord; and the nominal people of God giving such for, and supporting them in this work, is indicated in the Levites being given as a wave-offering from the children of Israel for God and the Priesthood.
(47) The antitypical Merarites likewise were by our Lord waved as a wave-offering from antitypical Israel. For the publishers this implied a careful business training in general and in publishing work in particular. They had to learn much of the art of printing and planning the publication and circulation of Bibles and other religious books, as well as of magazines and tracts. This required, as a rule, at least a long-drawn-out clerkship in a publishing house; often it implied
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
the learning of the printer's trade and a position in the office of a publishing firm. Thus were the antitypical Mushite Merarites waved by our Lord as a wave-offering from antitypical Israel before the Lord. Similarly were the antitypical Mahlite Merarites given preparatory training for their editing work. Their editing the writings of various authors sometimes required a high degree of scholarship in them. Hence, as a rule, these were college and university graduates. Some of them as such have prepared notes that are as valuable as the books in which they appear as notes. Sometimes their introductions and appendices to, and indices of the works that they edited, give special value to such works. And, of course, a long period of training was necessary to fit them to do such work. Even those antitypical Mahlites who have been only proofreaders have frequently had a good education to do their work properly, and their being given such education was their waving by our Lord as a wave-offering from antitypical Israel before the Lord.
(48) The Gospel-Age Kohathites had to undergo the most careful training of all its Levites because of the character of their work. In most cases the Gospel-Age Kohathites have been Gospel-Age Gershonites as well, and in a few cases Gospel-Age Merarites, especially of the Mahlite branch. Noted exceptions to these usually having been Gospel-Age Gershonites were Edward Robinson, one of the ablest Kohathites of the 19th century, and James Strong, only a little less fruitful as a Kohathite, both of whom were laymen, and both of whom, however, were theological professors. Accordingly, the Gospel-Age Kohathites, as a rule, had the training mentioned above as undergone by the Gershonites. Additionally they underwent a very specialized training, enabling them to qualify for their specific Gospel-Age Kohathite work. Those who furnished linguistic helps in the way of Greek and Hebrew recensions of the New and Old Testaments, or Greek and
Hebrew dictionaries, grammars or concordances, or Bible translations and vernacular concordances, had to undergo a very intricate and detailed training to fit them for their work. The same thing is true of the scientific exegetes on Biblical matters. Careful, specialized and learned training did the Biblical and ecclesiastical historians, biographers, archeologians, geographers and chronologians have to undergo, as also did the systematic theologians in their dogmatical, apologetical and ethical works. In the preparation that the Gospel-Age Kohathites had to undergo we witness the most individual preparatory work manifested; for evidently their work was too technical and minute to be given in schools. It could come only by individual study, partly originally undertaken and partly done from books of other Kohathites and of priests, crown-losers, etc. Accordingly, the Gospel-Age Kohathites have been the specialists, the experts and the scholars among the Levites. Their long-drawn-out preparation for their work was the antitype of the Kohathites being made wave-offerings. Our Lord's part in such preparation was typed by Aaron waving the Kohathite Levites and the nominal people of God furnishing them and helping them for this purpose was typed by the Kohathites being furnished and helped by the Israelites. And this being done in Divine matters, under Jehovah's direct attention, was typed by the waving of the Kohathites before the Lord. And all this antitypical waving for all three groups of the antitypical Levites was "that they might be to execute the service of the Lord."
(49) We now come to the discussion of v. 12, which is perhaps the richest in contents of all the verses of Num. 8; for in very few words it gives us a wonderful typical description of all of the features of the acts embraced in justification by faith. We have already sufficiently proved that it is properly placed in the chapter, showing how vs. 9-11 properly come between it and v. 8, which at first thought we would naturally
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
conclude it should follow. The first clause of this verse reads: "And the Levites shall lean their hands upon the heads of the bullocks." This action represents, so far as the bullock of the sin-offering is concerned, faith leaning on, relying upon, reposing upon, Jesus as the substitute of believing sinners in death as a sin-offering. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus became the sinner's substitute in death (Is. 53:4-12; Dan. 9:26; Matt. 26:28; John 1:29; 6:51; 10:11, 15; 11:50-52; Rom. 3:24-26; 4:25; 5:6-21; 8:3, 4; 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14, 18-21; Gal. 1:4; 4:4, 5; Eph. 1:7; 2:13-16; 5:2, 25; Col. 1:20-22; 1 Thes. 5:9, 10; 1 Tim. 2:5, 6; Heb. 2:6-9; 9:12-15, 28; 10:4-9, 12; 13:12; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 2:21, 24; 3:18; 4:1; 1 John 2:2; 3:5, 16; 4:10; Rev. 5:9). In the foregoing citations two kinds of passages are quoted: those that directly teach that Jesus as a human being became our substitute, and those that impliedly teach it by showing that He died for us. How He died for us, i.e., in our interests, is shown in those passages that tell us that He suffered in our stead, i.e., as our substitute. Hence by dying as our substitute He died for us, in our interests. And in v. 12 the idea of His substitution for us is brought out typically by the Levites' leaning their hands on the bullock of the sin-offering.
(50) But their leaning their hands on the bullock of the sin-offering types faith relying on Christ as such a substitute. We have seen how laying on of hands symbolizes representation, standing for another. The idea of substitution is a phase of representation and is the one here indicated; for according to the Scriptures it is in the sense of substitution that Christ is our representative in death. This being so, laying hands on a substitute implies acceptance of him as such; hence the Levites' laying hands on the bullock of the sin-offering types that the faith-justified accept Jesus' humanity, the sin-offering, as their substitute as such, i.e., rely upon His death for sin as substituted for their death for sin.
The exercise of faith in Christ's death as an acceptable sacrifice before God for the believer's sins is, therefore, the thing typified by the Levites' leaning their hands on the bullock of the sin-offering. Their leaning their hands on the bullock of the burnt-offering types the faith-justified as exercising faith, reliance, on God's manifested acceptance of Christ's sacrifice as a substitute for them in death. This means that they believe that God accepts the Substitute's death for the forgiveness of their sins, the Substitute's fulfillment of the Law as their righteousness and that peace between them and God results from their forgiveness and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to them. These are the antitypes of the Levites' leaning their hands on the bullock of the sin-offering and the bullock of the burnt-offering.
(51) The expression, shall lean, which is the literal meaning of the word translated, shall lay, is meaningful in this connection. Faith is, more than any other quality, the hand of the heart, because of its supreme energizing power in a faith dispensation. While love is and forever will be greater than faith; faith, in a faith dispensation, is more important than love; because it is the foundation of all our relations toward the Lord in wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and deliverance. And in justification, especially its leaning, relying, character is prominent. Properly has our Pastor defined it as mental appreciation and heart's reliance (Heb. 11:1; Hab. 2:4; Matt. 6:25-34). As typed by v. 8, it comes from hearing God's Word (Acts 15:7; Rom. 10:13-17; 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 3:1, 2; 1 Thes. 2:13; John 1:7; 3:11, 12; Acts 2:40-42). Its basis is mental appreciation, whereby one has knowledge, understanding and belief with respect to matters of faith; and its superstructure is heart's reliance, whereby one trusts, appropriates and acts responsively as to matters of faith (John 3:36; Rom. 10:14; 4:18-21; Heb. 11:1, 13). A justifying faith exercises these two
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
features—mental appreciation and heart's reliance—in Christ as an acceptable sin-offering (John 3:14-18; Rom. 1:16; 10:6-10; 1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 3:13, 22; Heb. 9:14, 15; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 1 John 2:1, 2; 4:10). It also exercises these two features toward God as the Forgiver of one's sins for the sake of Christ's merit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:36; 13:38, 39; Rom. 3:24-26; Rom. 4:3-8; Eph. 4:32; Heb. 9:22; 1 John 1:7, 9; Rev. 1:5). It likewise exercises these two features toward God as the Imputer of Christ's righteousness to the believer (Rom. 3:20-26; 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; Gal. 2:16; 3:22; Phil. 3:9; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 John 2:1). And, finally, it exercises these two features as to peace with God (Acts 10:36; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:14-17; Phil. 4:9; Col. 1:20). Therefore faith not only exercises mental appreciation and heart's reliance in Christ as an acceptable sin-offering, but also in God as being, for Christ's merit, the Forgiver of the believer's sins, the Imputer to him of Christ's righteousness and the Peace-Giver to, and Peace-Receiver from the believer. All of this is typed by the Levites' leaning their hands on the two bullocks, as set forth in v. 12.
(52) The next thought brought to our attention is the charge that Moses should offer one of the bullocks as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering to God, in order to make atonement for the Levites. We would naturally expect that Aaron, as high priest, would have been charged to offer the sin-and burnt-offerings, to make an atonement for the Levites. Yet the text tells us that Moses was the one so charged. But we notice that in v. 21 Aaron is said to have made the atonement for them. How are we to harmonize these things? So far as the type is concerned, we would say that both acted together in offering the sin-and burnt-offerings; and, so far as the antitype is concerned, our Lord as the antitype of both acted as God's Executive (antitypical Moses) and as High Priest (antitype of Aaron). The reason, therefore, in the
antitype is to bring out both the executive and high-priestly actions involved in the antitype, i.e., Jesus in the antitype acted as God's Executive in so far as what He did served to carry forward God's plan, and as High Priest in so far as what He did worked reconciliation in God toward the believer. These considerations are a further proof of the thought that Moses in Numbers, as a rule, types our Lord as Jehovah's Executive, while Aaron there, as a rule, types Him as High Priest. They also show that these two official capacities of our Lord not infrequently unitedly work in some features of God's plan.
(53) We are not to understand that the offering of the bullock of the sin-offering as set forth in v. 12 types our Lord's sacrificing Himself from Jordan to Calvary; because the offering of the sin-offering in v. 12 is, both in the type and in the antitype, subsequent to the typical and antitypical Levites' laying their hands respectively upon the typical and antitypical bullocks, which means, so far as the antitype is concerned, after the repentant sinner exercises faith in Christ as an acceptable sin-offering—substitute—for the sinner. Furthermore, we know that Christ's sacrifice from Jordan to Calvary preceded the sinner's exercise both of repentance and faith; hence it cannot be typed in the statement of v. 12. What, then, does Moses' and Aaron's offering of the sin-offering to God type? We reply, it types Christ's reckonedly imputing His perfect humanity, His human right to life and its conjoined life-rights, on behalf of repentant and believing sinners. This use of the word offering occurs in Heb. 10:14 in relation to our Lord's actually imputing His merit, effecting vitalized justification in part. This offering of v. 12, then, types, not acts done on earth, but acts done in heaven (Heb. 9:24). The reasons just given prove this view of the matter to be correct. This fact enables us to see all the more clearly the truthfulness of our dear Pastor's later distinctions as to the
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
pertinent matters. In his earlier ministry he taught that the ransom was paid, the atonement Godward was completed, at Calvary; but later on he correctly taught that at Calvary the ransom price was only deposited (Luke 23:46), and that only after Jesus appeared in heaven (Heb. 9:24) did He use the price for an actual imputative purchase—a credit loan—of the Church; and so far as the faith-justified are concerned, as a reckoned imputative purchase of them. It is of this reckoned imputative purchase that our texts treats; and it is another strong typical proof of the Biblical teaching of a tentative justification as operative during the Gospel-Age. How beautifully in the typology of this verse, in so far as it treats of the offering of the bullock of the sin-offering to God, is this truth hidden! We thank God for this and every other assurance of the correctness of our faith, as taught by that Servant.
(54) Certainly, the Bible teaches tentative justification (Rom. 4:1-12). The Ancient Worthies (Heb. 11:7; Rom. 4:18-22), the Youthful Worthies, the immature children of the consecrated (1 Cor. 7:14) and Gospel-Age unconsecrated believers (Rom. 10:4; 4:5; Acts 13:38, 39), certainly are illustrations of tentatively justified persons; for the tentatively justified are such as do not have an actual imputation of Christ's merit made on their behalf, though God temporarily treats them as though such was done on their behalf. Certainly, the merit of Christ could not have been actually imputed before it was deposited at Calvary. Hence the Ancient Worthies could not have had more than a reckoned imputation of that merit. Of course, the Youthful Worthies must fare like them. Very evidently, the same is true of the immature children of the consecrated. In Rom. 4:3-8 St. Paul gives Abraham and David as illustrations of a justification operative during the Gospel-Age; and as their justification was without an actual imputation of Christ's merit, of necessity those of the Gospel-Age who have had exactly
the same kind of a justification as the Ancient Worthies, must have had a tentative justification—one wrought, not by an actual, but by a reckoned imputation of Christ's merit; for be it remembered that the difference between tentative and vitalized justification, so far as God's and Christ's activities therein are concerned, consists in this: that in tentative justification God and Christ do not actually, but only reckonedly impute Jesus' merit on behalf of the believer, while in vitalized justification they actually impute Jesus' merit on behalf of the consecrated believer. But the Bible just as emphatically teaches a vitalized justification—that which was experienced when a justified believer so thoroughly believed as to consecrate himself, and when God was about to give him the Spirit-begettal (1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 10:14; 9:24; 1 John 2:2; Jas. 2:17-26). Such a consecrating faith is brought out in the Greek by the expression, Pisteuein eis, i.e., to believe into (John 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 7:5, 31, 38, 39, 48; Acts 10:43; 14:23; 19:4; Rom. 10:14; Gal. 2:16; 1 Pet. 1:21; 1 John 5:10, 13); while a justifying faith as distinct from a consecrating faith is brought out in the Greek by the expression, pisteuein epi, to believe on, or upon (Luke 24:25; Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19; Rom. 4:5, 24; 1 Tim. 1:16).
(55) Both tentative justification and vitalized justification are acts performed in heaven (Heb. 9:24). While the passage just cited, strictly speaking, refers to vitalized and not to tentative justification, it teaches that in heaven is the place where justification is performed; and it therefore implies that there is where tentative justification is performed. And that which is implied in Heb. 9:24 is directly taught in Rom. 3:25, 22. In v. 25 Christ in His being righteousness for the believer is called the antitypical Mercy Seat—a thing that is in the antitypical Holy of Holies—heaven—whereas in v. 22 He is set forth as the righteousness of all believers—hence for justified, as well as for consecrated
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
believers. Accordingly, both kinds of justification are performed in heaven. According to Heb. 1:3 our Lord made a general imputation of His merit for the entire Church as a class on His ascending to heaven, as a thing making operative the Gospel-Age salvation. But this did not affect individuals as such until individually they availed themselves of it tentatively, by a justifying faith, when Jesus made a reckoned imputation of His merit for them as individuals, and vitalizedly by a consecrating faith, when Jesus made an actual imputation of His merit for them as individuals. In other words, the general imputation at Pentecost was made for the class, while the individual imputations were made for each one as he exercised the pertinent faith (Rom. 3:22-26; 10:4, 10). The distinction here is somewhat like the one in election: Before the world was created the class was elected (Eph. 1:4), but the individuals have been selected during the Gospel-Age at their Spirit-begetting (2 Thes. 2:13). Additionally, whenever we sin after our tentative justification or vitalized justification and make proper request for forgiveness Jesus tentatively or vitalizedly makes the pertinent imputation for our forgiveness and covers us with His righteousness (1 John 2:1, 2). This phase of the imputations for the Gospel-Age Levites is likewise implied typically by Moses' offering the bullock of the sin-offering, in v. 12.
(56) How has the antitypical Moses made these reckoned imputations? We understand the matter as follows: It was, of course, Jesus who wrought repentance through the preaching of the Law, and faith through the preaching of the justification features of the Gospel, in the Gospel-Age Levites. These began to long for forgiveness while they were in the process of repentance and asked for it; but it was only by heartily accepting the preaching of the justification features of the Gospel that they came to a justifying faith—a faith that believes heartily that God for the
merit of Christ forgives the sinner his sins, imputes to him Christ's righteousness and enters into peace with him. The moment such a faith was wrought in the heart of a repentant sinner, Jesus indicated to the Father that He was reckonedly (not actually) imputing His merit on his behalf; and therefore God reckonedly (not actually) forgave him his sins and reckonedly (not actually) imputed to him Christ's righteousness, and on that account entered into a reckoned peace with him. It is because all four of these acts were reckoned and not actual that the faith-justified are tentatively, not vitalizedly, justified. Again, when after their original experience of tentative justification, the Gospel-Age Levites have sinned and then repented and believed that Christ imputed His merit to cover that sin and that God accepted it for him, Jesus made the necessary reckoned imputation for such repentant believers and God made the necessary reckoned imputation to them. Thus He has been the continued Preserver of their tentative justification, as God has been its continued Maker.
(57) How has our Lord been making the actual imputations during the Gospel-Age, i.e., how has He, in distinction from tentative justification, been vitalizing the justification of believers? We answer that after He by the Word had wrought in responsive hearts a consecrating faith and love, and thereby had enabled them to make an entire consecration of themselves to God, when God was ready to accept their consecration, our Lord appeared before the Father (Heb. 9:24) and made an actual imputation of His merit with the Father on their behalf. According to an understanding between the Father and Him He let go, so far as tentatively reckoning is concerned, of all further hold on the amount of His merit needed to bring the consecrated believer up to perfection by actually imputing it before God for that believer; and that actually enabled the Father, in harmony with His plan, to forgive this
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
pertinent consecrated believer, actually to impute to him Christ's righteousness and actually to enter into peace with him. This actually forever freed the pertinent believer from the Adamic sentence, as well as from the condemnation of his own actual Adamic sins, and actually counted him perfect in righteousness (Heb. 10:14). Henceforth, it is impossible for him to die in Adam, i.e., die the Adamic death. Moreover, any sins of weakness or ignorance that he may thereafter commit are forgiven and covered with righteousness on his exercising repentance and faith as to it; for thereupon our blessed Advocate (1 John 2:1, 2) actually imputes on his behalf before the Father the required merit for his forgiveness and perfection in righteousness; and as a consequence God actually imputes this to him, whereby he is forgiven, is reckonedly brought up to human perfection and is at peace with God as respects those sins. If it were not for this gracious provision of the Lord on our behalf, we would all long ago have irretrievably fallen; but by it we can stand and win out in the high calling by grace Divine. Praise Jehovah for such a Savior! While vitalized justification is not referred to in v. 12, for it is not experienced by the Gospel-Age Levites, it is yet well for the sake of clearness and completeness to consider it in this connection, which accounts for our introducing it here.
(58) But v. 12 not only charges Moses to offer the sin-offering. It also charges him to offer the burnt-offering. This types, in His offering of the sin-offering, that our Lord was charged to impute His merit reckonedly on behalf of the repentant believer; and it types, in His offering of the burnt-offering, something that our Lord does connected with God's forgiving the believer, imputes to him Christ's righteousness and takes him into peace with Him. In paragraph (53) we saw that Moses' (v. 12) offering the sin-offering does not type our Lord's sacrificing Himself from Jordan
to Calvary, but His reckonedly imputing the merit of that sacrifice in heaven for the Gospel-Age Levites. So, also, we recognize that His offering the burnt-offering does not type God's personally manifesting His acceptance of Christ's sacrifice; for God acts in that manifestation, i.e., by forgiveness, by imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner and by drawing him into peace with Him. While the burnt-offering represents these acts as God's manifested acceptance of the sin-offering, the offering of the burnt-offering by Moses types a work that our Lord does as to that manifested acceptance before, during and after the repentant sinner comes to faith. What, then, does Moses' offering the burnt-offering type? It would seem to be those services of Jesus on working a justifying faith in the repentant sinner, peace with God, an increase of knowledge and righteousness and incitements toward consecration in the justified, as evidences that God has accepted His sacrifice for each individual who experiences faith-justification. And He works these things in them as often as their experiences call for them. All of these acts He performed through the Word, backed by suitable providences. And thereby He has been offering the burnt-offering for the Gospel-Age Levites.
(59) As we who are consecrated look back at our experiences with Christ's offering His burnt-offering (understood as just explained) in relation to us as justified believers, we can all testify that He did perform such a ministry on us by the pertinent teachings of the Lord's Word and by varied experiences into which He brought us. These teachings He ministered to us by pastors, by Sunday-school teachers and superintendents, by more or less other mature believers, by testimonies of others, by conversations and by reading pertinent books, especially the Bible. Doubtless all of us can recall such teachings; and our memories dwell with more or less fondness upon them. And, doubtless, we can all recall how by these our faith in the pertinent
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
pre-justification acts of God and Christ was developed; our faith in the justification acts of God and Christ, i.e., in our being forgiven, in our being clothed in Christ's righteousness and in our having peace with God, was sustained, increased, confirmed and completed; as also thereby our peace, joy and righteousness were increased. Doubtless all of us can recall various experiences that contributed to the same result. Sometimes our meeting with a fine Christian character or worker providentially proved refreshing. Sometimes an opportunity of helping a sinner toward repentance and faith strengthened our faith. Sometimes the fellowship of kindred souls, especially after "rubbing up" with the world, gave us a boost in our justified life. Sometimes a successful effort in service proved a stimulus to our confidence. Sometimes a rebuke or correction or encouragement was providentially used to strengthen a faltering faith. Sometimes a sore affliction or disappointment or loss or fault proved to be the providential experience needed to bring us closer to the Lord in our justification blessings. Whatever the experience was, whether toward or untoward, it was our faithful, loving Lord who manipulated it into our lives in order to preserve, increase, confirm and complete our faith in our forgiveness and possession of Christ's righteousness and peace with God. Thus our dear Savior in His faithfulness and untiring devotion to us while we were proceeding toward justification and while we were no more advanced than Gospel-Age Levites, ministered on our behalf and by so doing offered the burnt-offering for us as Gospel-Age Levites, even as He has done for all the others of the same class.
(60) The last clause of v. 12 tells of the effect to be wrought by Moses' offering the sin-offering and the burnt-offering. They were to effect an atonement for the Levites. This types the atoning effect of our Lord's sin-offering and burnt-offering with respect to the Gospel-Age Levites. Our Lord is the Agent who works
reconciliation (Rom. 5:10, 11; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20, 21). But God is the source of the work of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Col. 1:20). The word reconciliation presupposes that two individuals or parties are at variance with one another; and it means that both are made pleased with one another, are made one with each other, at-one-ed. In this case it is God and the sinner who are at variance with one another, God being displeased with the sinner because of his sin, and the sinner being displeased with God for His justice and for His punishing sins against that justice. God as the source of atonement or reconciliation provided for every step of its outworking: (1) by carnating His Son; (2) by enabling Him to sacrifice unto death; (3) by raising Him from the dead; (4) by having Him impute tentatively for the justified, vitalizedly for the Church, His merit for pleasing God with them during the Gospel-Age; (5) by making the justified pleased with God's righteousness and the Church with His righteousness and holiness; (6) by having Him apply His merit for the world for pleasing God with them; and (7) by making the obedient of the world pleased with God. It will be seen that the points marked (1), (2) and (3) are the preparatory parts of the reconciliation work, while the points marked (4), (5), (6) and (7) are the actual parts of the reconciliation work; and point (2) is the meritorious foundation of pleasing God with all, shown in (4) and (6).
(61) Christ's death is the meritorious cause of reconciliation, at-one-ment (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20, 21). He cooperated in every one of the seven parts of the atonement above mentioned, passively in parts (1) and (3) and actively in the other five parts. In all seven of them He is God's Agent to effect the atonement. God and our Lord have been using human instruments to assist them in this work. These have been the apostles, prophets,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
evangelists, pastors or teachers and non-official members of the true Church, as well as official and nonofficial members of the nominal church (2 Cor. 5:18, 20). These remarks prepare us to see more clearly the antitype of the atonement work referred to in v. 12. By offering the antitypical bullock of the sin-offering of v. 12, i.e., reckonedly imputing His merit on behalf of the Gospel-Age Levites, our Lord performed the pertinent work of part (4), i.e., made God pleased with the Gospel-Age Levites; and by offering the bullock of the burnt-offering, i.e., ministering to the Gospel-Age Levites by the Word and providence, a creation, sustenance, increase, confirmation and completion of their faith in God's having forgiven them, reckonedly imputed to them Christ's righteousness and drawn them into peace with Him and working in them more pertinent knowledge and righteousness, our Lord performed the pertinent work of part (5), i.e., made the Gospel-Age Levites pleased with God. These two things, then, are the intended effects—the making of atonement—of our Lord's offering the antitypes of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering of v. 12. Surely our study of v. 12 has brought some wonderful truths to our attention. It completes the charges given to Moses covering the cleansing of the Levites.
(62) V. 13 gives the charges laid upon Moses for the consecration of the Levites. They consist of two things: (1) The one commanding Moses to cause them to stand before Aaron and his sons and (2) the one commanding Moses to wave them as a wave-offering before the Lord. The expression, to stand before one as an official, which is the use of the term here, means to make them serve him in an office (Num. 16:9; Deut. 10:8; Judges 20:28; 1 Sam. 16:22; 1 Kings 10:8; 12:6, 8; Prov. 22:20; Jer. 35:19; Dan. 1:5, 19; Rev. 7:9; 8:2). Accordingly, the charge to Moses here is to induct the Levites into their office as servants of Aaron and his sons. This, of course, means a consecration
of them to serve the priesthood. The other charge, to wave them as a wave-offering unto or before the Lord, means a consecration of them to a continuous service of the Lord in which their powers were to be uplifted unto a completion for the Lord's service to His glory. No mention is here made of a charge to make them stand before the congregation of Israel (Num. 16:9), because in so far as this involved a work on their behalf it is implied in the other two charges, and because they were not to be made subordinate to the congregation of Israel, as they were to God and the priesthood. In other words, their service of Israel was a form that their service of God and the priesthood assumed and was not as such an independent service of the congregation. And it was only after the consecration of the Levites to the Lord and to the Aaronic priesthood was completed that the Levites were fully constituted the sacred tribe; and hence only thereafter was it lawful in the type for the Levites to enter into the tabernacle to perform their service therein. Thus were the Levites separated, as described in vs. 6-13, from the children of Israel, and became the Lord's Levites, according to v. 14.
(63) The types of v. 13 have some remarkable antitypes, which we will now study. In v. 13, as elsewhere, Aaron represents our Lord as High Priest and Aaron's sons represent the Church as the under-priesthood, while Moses here, as in the rest of this chapter, represents our Lord as Jehovah's Executive. Moses, therefore, causing the Levites to stand before Aaron and his sons, types our Lord as Jehovah's Executive putting the Gospel-Age Levites into the Levitical office as official servants of the Gospel-Age Priesthood—Head and Body. This means that their office was to serve the Priesthood, and that they were by God given that office through executive acts of our Lord. Their service as such was typed (1) by the various services of the Gershonite Levites. Therefore they were as
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
Gospel-Age Gershonites to serve Jesus and the Church as Libnites by leading sinners to repentance and faith unto justification, and as Shimites by leading justified ones onward to consecration. Thereby they served the Priesthood in two ways: winning new Levites and also new Priests for the Christ class. Thus their being set before Jesus and the Church put them into the Gospel-Age Gershonite Levitical office, wherein they were made available to Jesus and the Church for these two services, wherein they stood ready to perform such services and wherein they stood ready to respond to the Priesthood's calling on them for such services.
(64) The Gospel-Age Levites' service as such was typed (2) by the various services of the Merarite Levites. Therefore they were as Gospel-Age Merarites to serve Jesus and the Church: as Mushites in publishing Bibles and other religious books and religious magazines and tracts, as well as pertinent secular publications, and as Mahlites in editing and correcting such literature. Thereby they served the Priesthood in two ways, putting at their convenient disposal pertinent literature, which was properly manufactured and edited. Thus their being set before Jesus and the Church put them into the Gospel-Age Merarite Levitical office, wherein they were made available to Jesus and the Church for these two services, wherein they stood ready to perform these two services and wherein they stood ready to respond to the calls of Jesus and the Church for these two services. The Gospel-Age Levites' service as such was typed (3) by the various services of the Kohathite Levites. Therefore they were as Gospel-Age Kohathites to serve Jesus and the Church with linguistical, exegetical, historical and systematic helps. They served, the Priesthood in four ways: by preparing for it learned lectures and works of the four kinds just mentioned. Thus their being set before Jesus and the Church put them into the Gospel-Age Kohathite Levitical service, wherein they were
made available to Jesus and the Church for these four services, wherein they stood ready to perform these four services and wherein they stood ready to respond to the calls of Jesus and the Church for these four services. Hence, setting the Levites before Aaron and his sons types the installation of the Gospel-Age Levites into their office before the Christ.
(65) The acts whereby this was done were various. In the case of ministers, evangelists and missionaries, as Gospel-Age Gershonites, it usually took the form of their being graduated from their theological studies, their election and call to a pastorate, to an evangelical service or to a mission field, their being ordained (in some denominations) or appointed (in others) and their being settled in their charges. All these acts set them before our Lord and the Church as Gospel-Age Libnite and Shimite Gershonites, the latter undergoing, additionally, special calls and appointments to service in leading people to consecrate. Less formal was the installation of Sunday-school superintendents and teachers, lay preachers and evangelists and catechists: their recognition as having the proper training for their work by the pertinent bodies, their nomination and election to their respective offices and their being put into the positions to function in them. Almost no formality occurred in inducting into humanly usually unnoticed position zealous laymen, who on their own zealous initiative have done Gospel-Age Libnite or Shimite work. Nor was there much form used in inducting Gospel-Age Merarites into their office as such. But they nevertheless were recognized as being qualified (the equivalent of graduation) for their pertinent positions, were chosen (the equivalent to the election and call) for their positions, and were instated in them, as can be seen from the experiences of pertinent publishers and their assistants and the literary editors and their assistants in religious publishing concerns. Usually with Gospel-Age Kohathites
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
the equivalents of graduation, election, call and appointment were made by Jesus alone, without co-operating human agencies, since theirs was an individual, as distinct from an organizational work (the Kohathites bore the furniture and vessels of the tabernacle on their shoulders, not in wagons).
(66) Moses' waving the Levites as a wave-offering unto or before the Lord is the final act of the Levites' consecration. This act gave them to God for continued service, in which they were to elevate and keep elevated their best powers and qualities for the service of God. This types how our Lord has given the Gospel-Age Levites to God as His own Levites, to serve Him continually as the last clause of v. 14 shows: "So shall the Levites be[come] Mine." Accordingly, the Gospel-Age Levites have been consecrated to God, not indeed to sacrifice, as were the Priests, but to serve God by serving the true Priests and the nominal people of God. This act of our Lord was invisible to us and was performed on the Levites by our Lord to God directly. We have learned of its having been done, not by the sight of it, but by our learning to understand the Word thereon and by beholding the subsequent works of the Levites implying such a consecration. The typical wave-offering further implies that the Gospel-Age Levites, as long as they remained such, were in their highest and best powers and qualities to be used for the Lord's service. This means that they were to serve in this way unto death, either as persons, or as Levites, i.e., when they were, by consecration to sacrifice, graduated into the Priesthood, which occurred with all Levites who proved thoroughly faithful, and which made them cease to be Levites, and thus made them die as Levites. This waving of them implies that they were not to backslide; nor were they consecrated for a little while, after which they would be justified in giving up their service. It was, therefore, intended to last until their death as persons, or as Levites by becoming
Priests. Any Gospel-Age Levite who would go back to the camp by casting aside repentance and faith would be grossly violating his Levitical consecration. V. 14 simply gives us a summary of vs. 5 to 13: "Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel; thus shall the Levites become Mine." Therefore, as sufficiently explained, it will call for no further comment.
(67) So far in this chapter we have studied vs. 5-14 of Num. 8. It will be noticed that these verses were commands directing what should be done in the cleansing and consecration of the Levites. The rest of the chapter, except v. 15, consists mainly of explanations and narrations on the cleansing, consecration and service of the Levites. The antitypes of these narrations have almost entirely been given above while commenting on the charges whose execution the narrations give. Accordingly, our study of the second part of this chapter will not be so long-drawn-out as was that of the first. Nevertheless, there are not a few things antitypical of the explanations found in vs. 16-26 that call for comment; and these we will now study.
(68) Several interesting items are found in v. 15. Its opening sentence shows that the typical Levites were not to serve in the tabernacle until the completion of their consecration. This, too, has been true of the antitype. The faith-justified had to await their being set before the Priesthood and waved unto the Lord by Jesus before they could begin their work of leading people to justification and consecration and of acting as publishers and editors and as authors of linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic helps for the Priesthood and nominal people of God in the Gospel-Age. This is indicated in the first clause of v. 15: "And after that [their consecration] shall the Levites go in to the service of the tabernacle of the congregation." At first sight the second and third clauses of this verse may be thought to be repeating the summary of
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
vs. 5-14 given in v. 14. But this would scarcely be necessary so soon after the same summary, differently worded, given in v. 14. Nor would it well fit in after the charge of the first clause of v. 15. And when we consider the antitypes that set in along with the antitype of that first clause, we are the more led to the thought that the cleansing and waving typed in v. 15 are such as set in after the Gospel-Age Levitical service has been entered into by the pertinent Levites. In other words, we understand the cleansing and waving of v. 15 to type such cleansing and waving as follow the consecration of the Gospel-Age Levites and as accompany their subsequent service until that service ends. Let us notice this more particularly.
(69) We are not to understand the cleansing of the Gospel-Age Levites that preceded their consecration to have been a completed cleansing in the sense of making them actually perfect and flawless. If this is not true of the cleansing of the Gospel-Age Priests (1 John 1:8), it certainly could not be true of the Gospel-Age Levites. So far as this cleansing concerned their justification it was a reckoned perfection; and so far as it concerned their actual condition it delivered them from the dominion of sin, which henceforth they could conquer, but not without more or less wounds incidental to the warfare against it. In other words, they were still more or less actually contaminated by sin, even if it was no more their lord. This made them frequently guilty of sins of weakness and ignorance, and sometimes of mixed sins—sins that had a measure of willfulness along with ignorance and weakness. Thus like, and, generally speaking, more than the Gospel-Age Priesthood, they have had filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit (2 Cor. 7:1), from which it was necessary to cleanse themselves; and in this cleansing work our Lord assisted them daily as their need was; and in so doing He fulfilled throughout their justification standing the charge of v. 15 to cleanse them.
This we have doubtless observed in others and experienced ourselves. As we look back at our justification experiences we can doubtless recall many a fight that we had with sin and our Lord's faithful help of us by the Word and providence. In executing this part of His charge as given in the second clause of v. 15 our dear Lord showed us much kindness, mercy, longsuffering, forbearance, patience and love, as He helped us from victory to victory, and as he lifted us up from defeat after defeat, ever encouraging, supporting, comforting, warning, correcting, uplifting us as our varied cases required. Had it not been for this gracious ministry of His, we would have fallen by the wayside and never have attained to consecration; but by His pertinent activities He brought us on to consecration. Thanks be to God, who so graciously arranged for such a ministry, and to Christ, who so faithfully exercised it to our profit.
(70) The charge to wave the Levites as a wave-offering (v. 15), given for execution after their consecration, implied that Moses was to continue furnishing opportunities of service to the Levites, encouraging and influencing them faithfully to use them; otherwise they doubtless would have failed to serve as such many a time. In the antitype this would mean that after faith-justified ones had become serving Gershonites, the Lord Jesus was charged to furnish them opportunities of bringing people to justification and consecration, which He did as abundantly as their loyalty and the need warranted. So, too, after faith-justified ones had become serving Merarites, our Lord Jesus was charged to furnish them opportunities to engage in the work of publishing and editing Bibles and other religious books and religious magazines and tracts and pertinent secular books, which He did as much as their faithfulness and the conditions required. It also means that after faith-justified ones had become serving Kohathites, our Lord Jesus was charged to furnish
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
them with opportunities of writing linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic books, magazines and tracts, which He did as largely as their zeal and the pertinent calls for them occasioned. Not only so, but He encouraged them to go on in their work amid the obstacles that confronted them therein. He saw to it that all needful helps for their service were placed at their disposal. Nor did He do this for a little while and then, wearying, give it up. He persevered in it unto a completion, as is implied in the word waved. Not only so, but He assisted them to keep their highest powers elevated to God in their service, which also is implied in the waving. We have observed this as His dealings with the Gospel-Age Levites; and when we were such ourselves we experienced it ourselves in the Levite group to which we belonged. Thus Jesus not only received the charge to wave the Gospel-Age Levites unto the Lord after their consecration; but also faithfully fulfilled the charge.
(71) The following is Rotherham's rendering of v. 16, based on a better reading of the Hebrew text than the one used as the basis for the translation of the Authorized Version: "For given, given they are unto me out of the midst of the sons of Israel instead of every firstborn that a mother beareth; from among the sons of Israel have I taken them unto me.'' In the type the firstborn were one set of persons, and the tribe of Levi, except the firstborn among them, were another set of persons. But in the antitype the firstborn and antitypical Levi (including both Priests and "Levites") are the same persons. The two sets of persons in the type were used to represent, not two sets of persons, but one set of persons having two relations. As firstborns their higher position than that of the afterborns is brought to our attention; and as antitypical Levi their religious office (Priests and Levites) is emphasized. Other offices of the Gospel-Age new creatures are brought out by other names, like: chosen generation,
holy nation, peculiar people, etc. From the standpoint of their relation to the finished picture the Gospel-Age firstborn may be classified into two kinds: (1) tentative and (2) final. All the justified and all the new creatures, the latter until their calling and election is made sure, i.e., until the death of the Faithful, are the tentative firstborn. By this is meant that they are conditionally of the firstborn; for, so far as the finished picture is concerned, those of the faith-justified who fail to consecrate cease to be Levites in the finished picture; and those of the new creatures who fail to win out cease to be Priests in the finished picture. From the new creatures in the finished picture in the end of the Age emerge the actual firstborn: those crown-losers who, cleansed, remain loyal as antitypical Levites and those crown-retainers who remain faithful as antitypical Priests. The Youthful Worthies, accordingly, are of the tentative firstborn now, as they and the Ancient Worthies will also be such during the next Age. But in its finished picture both of these classes as final overcomers will be of the final Levites and firstborn. The above distinctions should be kept in mind in order to be able to see how the Gospel-Age Levites—the faith-justified—could have been of the firstborn. They are of the tentative, not the final firstborn.
(72) The expression, "given, given," is a Hebraism, like, "holy of holies." It is used to indicate the superlative degree in which the giving was done. The A. V. by the expression, "wholly given," renders the sense properly, for it means given in the highest, fullest sense of the word. The Levites' being chosen in the place of the firstborn is described in Num. 3:40-51, which we expounded while treating of that section in Chap. II. It will be noted that Rotherham's rendering of parts of this verse is quite different from that of the A.V. Rotherham follows a better reading of the original than did the A.V. Dr. Ginsburg, who has given us the
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
best edition of the Hebrew Old Testament, offers the reading followed by Rotherham as the correct one, while that followed by the A. V. is scarcely intelligible in the Hebrew. The literal rendering of the correct reading as Rotherham gives it in his notes is: "Every firstborn bursting open a matrix." His text rendering given above is more euphemistic, giving the sense aright.
(73) The character of Levites, as being devoted to God exclusively, is taught with emphasis in this verse. Not only is this emphasis indicated by the expression, "given, given," but also by the twofold mention of their being taken out from among the rest of Israel and the twofold statement that they were God's. Emphasis on this thought is further implied by the fact that as such Divine possession they were taken instead of the firstborn. This emphasis stresses the importance of the antitypical tribe of Levi, the Gospel-Age Priests and Levites. These are God's in a peculiar sense, the Gospel-Age Priests as sacrificers who work at-one-ment between God and men, and the Gospel-Age Levites as servants who render needed assistance to the people as their religious teachers and to the Priests as leaders of people to justification and consecration, as lecturers and as writers of learned linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic works and as the editors and publishers of these, as well as of Bibles. This emphasis, doubtless, is intended to be a very solemn lesson and exhortation to the Gospel-Age Priests and Levites to remember the purpose of their calling to their respective offices and to fulfill these carefully and faithfully as persons who do not own themselves, but who are owned by God (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). Accordingly, unfaithfulness therein would be unfaithfulness to God, who would require a full accounting for it; and faithfulness therein would be faithfulness to God, who would give a full reward for it. Therefore, faithfulness on the part of the Gospel-Age Levites
therein led to promotion to the Priesthood; and, when this was no longer possible, to Youthful-Worthiship, while unfaithfulness therein would result in their being remanded to the Camp. And faithfulness on the part of the Priests would lead to promotion to the Kingdom, while measurable unfaithfulness therein would result in their forfeiting their crowns, and full unfaithfulness would result in their loss of life altogether.
(74) V. 17 explains how the firstborn became the Lord's. It was in connection with the Passover in Egypt (Ex. 12:3-13, 21-23, 29, 30). Wherever the lamb's blood was sprinkled on the lintels and door posts the firstborn of man and beast remained alive. Wherever no lamb's blood was sprinkled on the lintels and door posts the firstborn of man and beast died. By having their lintels and door posts sprinkled the Israelites were passed over by the destruction; hence their firstborn of man and beast were spared from death. But the Egyptians having no lamb's blood sprinkled on their lintels and door posts, their firstborn of man and beast were destroyed in death. Each Israelite's house represented God's household in its tentative and vitalized aspect. The door represented Christ, the door posts represented Divine Justice and the lintels the ones to whom the merit is tentatively and vitalizedly imputed. The lamb represented our Lord's humanity (John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7, 8); its blood, His right to life and His life-rights. The sprinkling of the blood represented: (1) Christ's imputing to justice His right to life and life-rights for believers and (2) God's imputing these to believers. As the Israelites who remained in their houses, and thus under the blood's protection, were passed over; so those who remain in God's household during the Gospel-Age, and thus under the protection of Christ's blood, escape the second death. This picture is tentative for the tentative firstborn of the justified class, of course. Those
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
who will become of the final firstborn, of course, have the real danger and the real deliverance, while the tentative firstborn of the justified, losing their tentative standing, drop back among the afterborn. The firstborn of man represented the New Creatures in the finished picture, and the firstborn of beast represented their humanity. Israel's firstborn of man represented in the finished picture, therefore, the New Creatures of the final Little Flock and Great Company, while Israel's firstborn of beast represented in the finished picture their humanity. Egypt's firstborn of man represented in the finished picture the New Creatures of the second death class, while Egypt's firstborn of beast represented their humanity. It will be noted that it was by the blood that the firstborn were spared. The blood as typical of the ransom-price typically purchased them for God, and by their abiding in God's household He retained them. Thus God became their owner, and that on the day of God's smiting the firstborn of Egypt, when He separated Israel's firstborn to Himself. This is the thought stated in v. 17. The firstborn being owned by God, and He exchanging them for the tribe of Levi, of course that tribe became His, even as vs. 16-18 teach it to be the case.
(75) Leaving vs. 16-18 as sufficiently discussed by the above, we now take up the discussion of v. 19. In this verse are a number of matters that call for explanation, both in type and antitype. Literally translated, as the margin shows, the first clause reads: "And I have given the Levites, given to Aaron and his sons." The italicized word given serves to emphasize the gift as fully made. In the type the Levites were fully given to Aaron and his sons to take down, put up and carry the tabernacle and its appurtenances, also to teach the people their duties and privileges as to the tabernacle and its services. In the antitype, not only have the Gospel-Age Levites had the service of helping the people in their relations toward Christ and the
Church and their services, but especially did they have the work of serving Jesus and the Church as leaders of people to justification and consecration by speech and writings, as writers of learned linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic works and as editors and publishers of the same writings. This was more especially their work than the work that they did in teaching the people, though both were their service. This twofold service is called in the literal translation of the Hebrew a laborious service, and it doubtless was laborious. The Levites in this verse are first of all spoken of as having been given, given to Aaron and then to his sons. This implies that they were primarily Aaron's as the high priest and secondarily his sons' as under-priests, for their help. In the antitype, accordingly, the faith-justified as Levites are primarily given wholly to our Lord Jesus as High Priest and are secondarily given wholly to His Under-priests. Accordingly, they help our Lord to execute His office as High Priest. We can readily see how they have done this; for the Gershonites have certainly furthered His work by serving Him in bringing people through repentance and faith to justification and consecration; for by so doing they have assisted Him in winning new Gospel-Age Levites and Priests. The Kohathites have certainly helped Him by their writings to give the antitypical Camp needed information to keep them from error and to make them, generally speaking, more believing in Christianity's general Truth. And they have certainly helped Him by giving the Under-priesthood scholarly writings that furnished them help, making them more available to our Lord for His service in various ways. So, too, the Merarites, by acting as publishers and editors of Bibles and of Gershonite writings helpful to justification and consecration and of Kohathite writings helpful on linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic subjects, assisted our Lord to help both the people and the Under-priesthood. In all these things
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
these Gospel-Age Levites assisted our Lord to carry out the above features of His work as High Priest toward the Under-priests and the people.
(76) We will now study how they have assisted the Under-priests as wholly given to them. In several ways the Gershonites helped the Under-priests. It will be recalled that to the Church was given the commission to preach throughout the Gospel-Age repentance and remission of sins (Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47; John 16:8-11; 20:22-23; Acts 13:38; Is. 61:1, 2). And this was a part of her special mission up to the Harvest, when her attention was given to the reaping as her special work. Accordingly, beginning with Pentecost, throughout the Age the Elijah class has sought to turn sinners to God (Mal. 4:6). This being the case, we are prepared to see how the antitypical Libnite Gershonites, whose work was to bring people through repentance and faith to justification, assisted the Church in winning such as might become candidates for consecration. For thus they helped the faithful Church in the first part of the work of taking out of the nations a people for His name (Acts 15:14). The first part of that work, of course, was to bring people to justification. The second part of that work was to bring people to consecration. In this second part of the work the faithful Church also had to engage, as we can see from St. Paul's exhortation in Rom. 12:1. And naturally as the antitypical Shimite Gershonites influenced people to consecrate, they assisted the Church in winning certain ones for the high calling. Therefore in doing their respective works these Libnites and Shimites served the Under-priests.
(77) But the Gospel-Age Kohathites helped the Church more than did the Gershonites and Merarites. This is indicated both by the typical Kohathites' nearer blood relationship to the typical under-priesthood and by their work of bearing the tabernacle's furniture and vessels, the most sacred things of the tabernacle. And
in the antitypical Kohathites' service they have helped the whole Under-priesthood, but more especially such of these as have been the Lord's special mouthpieces. All of us can readily recall how many helps we have got, especially from the antitypical Amramite Kohathites, whose work has been to render the Priests helps on linguistic matters. By bringing various readings, interpolations, etc., to our attention in their recensions of critical texts of the Greek and Hebrew—as antitypical Gershonite Amramites—they have helped us out of many a difficulty as to what is the proper reading of the original, e.g., how many of us have been helped to recognize as fallacious the proof that the orthodox offer for the creedal trinity, based on 1 John 5:7, in which, by the investigations of antitypical Gershonite Amramites, like Drs. Tischendorf, Westcott, Hort, Weiss, etc., we have learned that the pertinent words are interpolations. Time and again these in the New Testament, and Dr. Ginsburg in the Old Testament, have offered us better readings of the original that enabled us to see clearly the Scripturalness of certain phases of Truth obscured by false readings on which some of our translations are based.
(78) The antitypical Eliezerite Amramites have also greatly assisted us by their word studies and helps. Many are the helps that we have thus gotten from various translations, some helping us along lines from which we could get no help from others, the latter in turn giving us shades of thought required by the Truth, that we could not get from the former. The makers of concordances have helped us to gain a better Scriptural insight into the meanings of Bible words. How many of the Priests have, therefore, been helped by Dr. Cruden's Concordance! Still more help, especially on the various shades of meanings in the original words, have we gotten from Dr. Young's Analytical Concordance. And Dr. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance has given us even more help than the
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
others, since by its Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries it combines all the excellencies of Dr. Young's Concordance, plus others that the latter does not have, and minus several deficiencies that the latter does have. For general use as a passage finder, Dr. Walker's Comprehensive Concordance, which does not refer to the Greek and Hebrew, but which contains about 250,000 references, about 60,000 less than Dr. Young and 50,000 more than Dr. Cruden, is very convenient. For convenience and time saving it is preferable to the last two mentioned. If one can have only one concordance, Dr. Strong is much to be preferred. Not only as helps on the meaning of Bible words, but as passage finders and helps for general Bible study and for preparation of elders' and pilgrims' discourses and other lessons, these concordance-makers have been very helpful to the general Priesthood. So, too, have Greek and Hebrew concordances helped the Priesthood on the meanings and uses of Greek and Hebrew words in the Bible. Our Pastor often expressed his appreciation of the great help that he derived from the Englishmen's Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek Concordances of the Bible. Many another Priest who did not understand these languages got splendid help from them, because they cite in English under the pertinent original words all of the verses in which they occur. Thence the name Englishmen's Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek Concordances. Then, there are concordances, like Bruder's and Moulton's and Giden's, that cite under every New Testament Greek word all of the verses in which it occurs in Greek. Davidson's and Mandelkern's Concordances do the same for the Old Testament in Hebrew. Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and grammars likewise have given their need of help to various of the Priests in the various meanings and forms of Greek and Hebrew words and the various uses of the forms and constructions of Greek and Hebrew.
(79) While the antitypical Amramites have given
the Under-priests more and better help than the other antitypical Kohathites, yet the other branches of the antitypical Kohathites have also rendered them welcome assistance. The introductionists, as antitypical Zichrite Izeharites, have rendered them good help in the way of proving what books belong, and what books do not belong, to the Bible, by giving an account of the development of the canon of the Bible, and in the way of giving histories, settings, descriptions and analyses of each of its separate books. The exegetes, as antitypical Nephegite Izeharites, have brought to the attention of the Priesthood many a fact, many a linguistic, historical, geographical and archeological hint, that helped to a better understanding of Bible verses. And, surely, the antitypical Korahite Izeharites, by their harmonies of the Gospels and parallel Old Testament histories, by their indices of Bible topics, by their collections of passages topically arranged and by their reference Bibles, have helped the Priesthood to compare Scripture with Scripture and to get quickly together goodly lists of passages under their pertinent topics. Especially helpful on lines of antitypical Korahite works to some of the Priests have been Robinson's Harmony of the Gospels, the American Tract Society's Bible Text Book, Nave's Topical Bible, and The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge. The latter, in connection with the pertinent words or phrases of the Bible verses, which are given in the order of their Biblical occurrence, contains 500,000 Scriptural references to parallel passages, beside many notes, some of which are quite valuable. These have proven helpful to the Priests who use them, as the writer knows.
(80) So, too, have the writings of the antitypical Hebronite Kohathites ministered assistance to the Priests. In their Biblical histories and biographies many a fine archeological, chronological and geographical fact, many a contemporary heathen and Jewish event and many a rabbinical side light, have they
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
brought out, shedding light or corroboration on the Biblical account. On this phase the pertinent writings of Edersheim, Prideaux, the earlier Lightfoot and Ramsay have been very helpful. The writings of the Church historians and biographers are indispensable to the Priests for tracing the prophetic and typical fulfillments of Biblical prophecies and facts during the Gospel-Age. On these points the pertinent writings of John Foxe, Mosheim, Neander, Fisher and Kurtz have been and will yet be very useful, and, additionally, the pertinent writings of Giesseler, Schaff, Milman, Lea, etc., will yet doubtless prove very helpful. Books treating of the geography, archeology and sociology of the Bible lands, especially of Palestine, not only have lent clarification and corroboration to Biblical matters, but are especially helpful in construing such typology as is connected with the Biblical lands and their places. For this reason the pertinent writings of Robinson, Thompson, Ramsay, Palmer, Conder, Van-Lemmep, Trumbull, Sayce, etc., have proven very assistful. The same remark applies to the writings of some of the Biblical and secular chronologians; for these have helped the Priests in their study of the times and seasons of the Word, especially in construing chronological prophecy. Here men like Priestly, Hengstenberg, Tregelles, etc., have done good work
(81) From the systematic theologians the Priests have gotten the least help obtainable from the four groups of the antitypical Kohathites. Especially is this true of the dogmaticians, the antitypical Elzaphanite Uzzielites. Apart from when these explain, prove and defend from attacks the stewardship doctrines of their respective denominations, these have usually been in such darkness and error as to be hindrances, rather than helps to the Priests. But in their stewardship doctrines many a helpful hint will be found, e.g., Dr. Hodges the famous Presbyterian divine, will be found to give splendid arguments in favor of the bread and
wine as representing the body and blood of Christ, against the doctrine of the real presence in its forms of transubstantiation (the Romish view) and instrumentalization (the Lutheran view); and Dr. Philippi, the famous Lutheran theologian, gives excellent points in explanation, proof and defense of justification by faith alone. And so we could go on referring to dogmaticians of all twelve of the denominational groups of Christendom. These have doubtless been helpful to the Priests in their respective denominations; and the aggregate of them on the twelve stewardship doctrines of Christendom's twelve denominational groups would give even present Priests some good helps on points involving these stewardship doctrines. About the same remarks, but more widely favorable, may be made on the ethicians, the antitypical Mishaelite Uzzielites, in so far as their corrections and instructions in righteousness as to their denominations' stewardship doctrines are concerned. These, e.g., Martinsen, Harless and Weidener, give excellent points on correction of misconduct and on instruction in righteousness in the relations of these to justification by faith; so, also, Smyth in his book, Christian Ethics, will be found very serviceable in corrections and instructions in righteousness in respect to matters related to the Lord's Supper. But the ethicians are more reliable than the dogmaticians, because on most questions of ethics there is fair harmony among those of different denominations, while such is not the case with dogmaticians of the different denominations.
(82) The apologists, antitypical Zithrite Uzzielites, have been the most helpful to the Priests of all the antitypical Uzzielites. Indeed, there is much less of error in their writings than in those of the other two groups of systematic writers. This is due to the fact that their work is to prove the Bible to be God's revelation and to defend it from infidelistic attacks. Therefore, their writings give many arguments to prove the
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
Bible to be from God and worthy of acceptance. This makes them refute false ideas of God, such as Atheism, Materialism, Evolutionism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Deism, Rationalism, Polytheism, etc. Next, it has been their work to prove the Bible to be credible from the standpoints of contemporary history, prophecy, miracles, contents (especially Christ, as its center) and its effects. Accordingly, they have defended it against all attacks from infidelism and higher criticism. The writings of Butler, Paley, Keith, Rawlinson, Bruce, Green, Orr, Urquhart, Zahn, Koenig, etc., have been very helpful to various Priests and are still so whenever used on the pertinent questions. These scholars, as well as a host of others, have well defended the outward works of the citadel of faith against myriads of so-called philosophical, higher-critical and scientific attacks, and have beaten these off, to the security of the citadel of Christianity itself. These attacks have not only been numerous, but as varied and learned in character and tactics as the ingenuity of devils and men could make them; and for Christian scholars to have driven them back is one of the proofs of the Divine source of the Bible, which under assault has been an impregnable fortress.
(83) It has been the work of representatives of all four groups of antitypical Kohathites, the antitypical Amramites, Izeharites, Hebronites and Uzzielites, to produce the numerous Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias, as well as ecclesiastical and theological and pertinent secular encyclopedias, in which for ready reference the main features of antitypical Kohathite helps are to be found. Of course these do not give the many details that can be found in other forms of antitypical Kohathite works; nevertheless for purposes of reference they give their information in convenient form. The chiefly helpful works of this kind in English among Bible dictionaries are Smith's Bible Dictionary, which has appeared in many editions of
varying sizes, dependent on the amount of their abridgement, Hasting's Dictionaries of the whole Bible (which in the Old Testament is much tinctured with higher criticism) and of the Gospels and of the Apostolic Church. Chiefly helpful among Bible encyclopedias are the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia and the pertinent part of McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia. Chiefly helpful among theological encyclopedias are the last mentioned work, Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Smith's Dictionaries of Christian Biography and Antiquities and Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. The above are Protestant works. To these may be added the Catholic and Jewish encyclopedias as more or less helpful. Among English secular encyclopedias that have proven most helpful to the Priests may be mentioned Chambers', the Britannica and the Americana. Of course, in other languages, there have been works similar to the above-mentioned. Since such works have been compendious depositories of antitypical Kohathite learning for quick help for Priests, they have been very advantageous. But one must not look to these for great details on antitypical Kohathite subjects; these must be sought in antitypical Kohathite works especially devoted to the pertinent subjects. Our readers have in many cases the large abridged Smith's Bible Dictionary and from experience with it know the above remarks to be true.
(84) While various antitypical Kohathite works have been helpful to all the Priests, they have been especially helpful to the mouthpiece Priests all during the Age after the Ephesian period, especially since the Thyatira period. We will instance several recent illustrations of these. Our Pastor is a case to the point, as he frequently witnessed to this fact. As is well known; he was not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, a fact of which nominal-church mouthpieces frequently sought to make capital, to his disparagement. But this fact,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
coupled with the further fact that he understood the Bible, which his detractors who knew Greek and Hebrew greatly misunderstood, puts them to shame, for it shows that God has hidden the Truth from the wise and prudent of this world and has revealed it to babes—the humble and meek. How did our Pastor make up for his deficiencies in Greek and Hebrew? By using antitypical Amramite writings on these subjects. In hundreds of cases nominal-church errors were entrenched in mistranslations and inapplicable correct translations, while the Truth lay in the correct and applicable translations. How was it possible that our Pastor, not knowing the Greek and Hebrew, grounded the Truth on the corrected translations? First, the Lord, working on his mind, suggested the correct thought to him. Then, going to his Greek and Hebrew dictionaries he found that, among the various meanings that the pertinent words had, such as gave the right thought occurred. Then, going to his Greek and Hebrew concordances and various translations, e.g., the Diaglott, he searched out the passages in which that particular meaning occurred and thus he saw in the pertinent Hebrew and Greek words the thoughts that the Truth required to be in those words. We might instance the Hebrew words Jehovah and Adon, ruach and nephesh, sheol and qeber and the Greek words krino, krisis and krima, egersis and anastasis, hades, mneion and gehenna. When we first studied through the six volumes we counted several hundred instances in which the Truth lay in the correct and appropriate translations, as our Pastor gave them, while in those cases the errors rested on mistranslations or inapplicable meanings. This fact was very reassuring to us, who at that time knew that our Pastor was not a Greek or Hebrew scholar; and it helped us to recognize that the Lord was using him as that Servant. In a similar way he got helps from the antitypical Gershonite Amramites on interpolations and variant readings,
e.g., Tischendorf's renderings of the Sinaitic, Vatican and Alexandrian MSS, wherever they varied from the A. V., as these were given at the bottom of the pages of Tauchnitz's edition of the New Testament.
(85) Other antitypical Kohathites gave him pertinent help. Some of the exegetical notes quoted in the Diaglott from various commentators assisted him. How could he have written the chronological parts of Vols. 2 and 3 without assistance from the chronologians? How could he have written the anti-Christ chapter of Vol. 2 and the first parts of Vol. 3 without the help of Church historians, e.g., that long quotation that he makes in that chapter, wherein the pope boasts of his title, prerogatives, riches, servants and territories, he quoted and abridged from Foxe's Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs? The chapter gives direct evidence that in its preparation he consulted Mosheim, Lord, White and other writers on Church history. How could he have written the Pyramid chapter of Vol. 3 without assistance from antitypical Hebronites in the field of archeology? Vol. 4 contains multitudes of quotations from antitypical Hebronite Kohathites. Vol. 5 contains much lexical and grammatical information that he got from antitypical Eliezerite Amramites. So, too, very often in the Tower does our Pastor quote or use matter from antitypical Kohathites of all four of their groups. Thus we see the special help that he as a special mouthpiece Priest received from the antitypical Kohathites; and he also, on suitable occasions, acknowledged his indebtedness to these for such help.
(86) The Epiphany messenger likewise acknowledges his indebtedness for help derived from Gospel-Age Levites. We will instance this in several cases. Without the facts that he gathered from Church historians and biographers he would have been unable to write articles like: Elijah—Type and Antitype, Ahab and Ben-Hadad—Type and Antitype, Ahaziah—Type and Antitype, Jehoram of Judah—Type and Antitype,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
the Gospel-Age Israelites, the Gospel-Age Levites, the Gospel-Age Sinners, the Gospel-Age Nazarites, the Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes, etc., etc. In preparing the parallel passages in our Helps For Devotional Service, he saved much time by the assistance of the antitypical Korahite Izeharites, as these have also saved him much time in other articles by furnishing him collections of passages topically arranged. In the Robisono-Universalism series he quoted from the best grammars of the Greek New Testament, thus using helps from one of the branches of the antitypical Eliezerite Amramites. In discussing separate words like parousia, epiphaneia, apokalypsis, aion, aionios, nephesh, ruach, psyche, pneuma, etc., etc., he made as time savers much use of Bruder's Concordance to the Greek New Testament and Davidson's Concordance to the Hebrew Old Testament, as well as the Englishmen's Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek Concordances. Dr. Strong's and Dr. Young's concordances were also laid under contribution. Various translations and Greek and Hebrew dictionaries were used on pertinent questions. In his work he very frequently has occasion to refer to the writings of Gospel-Age Kohathites. For this reason his library consists largely of the best works that the Gospel-Age Kohathites have produced; and it has been built up largely from the standpoint of the Gospel-Age Priestly and Levitical picture. We are not from the above acknowledgment of the indebtedness of the mouthpiece Priests to the Gospel-Age Levites to understand that they get their teachings (the antitypical vessels) from such Levites; for these carry the antitypical vessels covered, ununderstood; but we are rather to understand from the above that such Priests get from such Levites helps that greatly save their time and furnish them with facts and items that clarify or prove various features of the teachings, e.g., what great time savers to a mouthpiece Priest is a Greek or Hebrew concordance that gives every word
everywhere it occurs. A Priest who knows Greek and Hebrew could get all of the occurrences of various Greek and Hebrew words by reading the Hebrew and Greek Testaments through in a search for them; but he has no time for that. Instead he takes Bruder's, etc., or Davidson's, etc., Concordances, and thus quickly he can study each passage in which the pertinent Greek or Hebrew word occurs, as we did in the case of the Greek and Hebrew words mentioned in this paragraph, and as our Pastor did with the words mentioned in paragraph 84. How much light, e.g., is thrown on the story of Jacob and Esau and the birthright by the knowledge that archeologists have given us on the duty of a firstborn to fast and the afterborn to feast on the birthday of a notable ancestor, according to which Esau asked Jacob on Abraham's birthday to fast in his place, while Esau feasted in Jacob's place, thus forfeiting the birthright! It is to minister such services as these that God has given the Gospel-Age Levites to the Priests, but not to give them the Priestly teachings themselves.
(87) So, too, were the Gospel-Age Merarites given to the Under-priests for their help, but, of course, in different ways from the Gospel-Age Gershonites and Kohathites. The Gospel-Age Merarites stand as a connecting link between the other two sets of Levites, especially of the Kohathites, and the Priests. They do not stand free from them in their service of the Priests. In their publishing and editing vernacular Bibles they do a work for the Priests, but as intermediaries of those Gospel-Age Eliezerite Amramites, who acted as translators of the pertinent versions; and in their editing and publishing Greek or Hebrew Bibles, they do a work for the Priests as intermediaries of the Gospel-Age Gershonite Amramites, who acted as the Greek or Hebrew text recensionists. Again, as editors and publishers of dictionaries, grammars and concordances of the Greek and Hebrew or of the vernaculars, they do a
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
service for the Priests, but as intermediaries of the antitypical Eliezerite Amramites who wrote those books. These same remarks apply to the publishing and editing of the various Gospel-Age Izeharite, Hebronite and Uzzielite works. In other words, how could the Priests avail themselves of the writings of the Gospel-Age Kohathites, unless they were edited, printed and published, which is the work of the Gospel-Age Merarites? If this were not done to them they would be written in vain. Accordingly, the Gospel-Age Merarites are the connecting link between the Gospel-Age Kohathites and the Priests to make available to the latter's use the literary works of the former. The Gospel-Age Gershonites have also produced some writings, such as lead people through repentance and faith to justification and from justification onward to consecration. These works the Gospel-Age Merarites edit and publish and thereby co-operate with the Gospel-Age Gershonites in serving the antitypical Camp, Levites and Priests, and the Camp by such cooperation with the Gershonites in helping them as to their Camp relations to God, the Levites by such co-operation with the Gershonites in bringing them to justification and in helping some of them onward to consecration, and the Priests by such cooperation with the Gershonites in furnishing them with antitypical Levites and Priests. Accordingly, we see, from the part of v. 19 that we have studied, that all of the Gospel-Age Levites have assisted the Priests, and for this reason have been given wholly to them.
(88) We will now consider the second half of v. 19, the part treating of the Levites' making an atonement for the Israelites and thus preventing plagues coming upon Israel in their approach to the tabernacle. At first thought we might be surprised at the expression that the Levites were to make an atonement for the people; but if so, this surprise vanishes when we remember that the atonement comprises two
features: (1) making God pleased with the people; and (2) making the people pleased with God. The Levites had nothing to do with making atonement for the people in the first sense of the word; for that was done by the priests, represented in Aaron, by the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement. Nor did the Levites effect the more important part of the second feature of the atonement; for this, too, was effected by the priests; but they did perform a subordinate part in the second feature of the atonement work; for by their teachings and example they encouraged the Israelites to become pleased with Jehovah in His Word and Ways; for they taught the people the various privileges, beliefs, heart qualities and works connected with their relation to the Lord and His service, as these centered in the tabernacle, and thereby encouraged them to live and act in harmony therewith. Their appreciating and obeying these arrangements, etc., likewise encouraged the people to do the same; and by these various things the Israelites were helped more and more to become pleased with the Lord. Thus in this sense the Levites made an atonement for the people of the Lord.
(89) Looking at the antitype it is easy to recognize how the antitypical Levites made atonement for the antitypical Camp, the unjustified nominal people of God. Certainly, it was not in the sense of sharing in the sin-offerings, and thus effecting the first part of the atonement; for this work is that of the Christ, Head and Body, alone (Heb. 7:26, 27; 10:1-10; Heb. 13:10-13). Nor has it been as the chief workers of the second feature of the atonement work; for this, too, was the exclusive work of the Priesthood, the crown-retainers and crown-losers of the Gospel-Age, since it was the special work of these as possessors of the Spirit to reprove the world—the antitypical Camp—for sin, righteousness and judgment to come (John 16:8-11). But the faith-justified in their three groups
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
were privileged to be the assistants of the new creatures in this work, and they succeeded in working in the people a measure of pleasement with God, that much as they would allow compatibly with their being parts of the antitypical Camp; for those in the antitypical Camp were not in quantity or quality so much pleased with God as the Levites were and certainly much less so than the Priests were. Nor did God expect that degree of pleasement with Him from the unjustified antitypical Camp as He did from the Levites or the Priests. Any degree of being pleased with God and His ways short of real repentance and faith was sufficient to keep one in "good standing" in the antitypical Camp. This would include their having a measure of knowledge of God, of Christ and of His death for sin, of the Bible, of sin, of righteousness and of their having some of God's favor and a measure of love for God, Christ and the Bible and of a desire to live at least with a degree of harmony with these things as God's professed people. But their development in these respects would stop short of repentance and faith, which are the transitional steps out of the antitypical Camp into the antitypical Court. And these things were in part ministered to them by the Gospel-Age Levites, who thereby effected in them the above-described measure of the second feature of the atonement work, which measure was necessary for them in order to have such a degree of pleasement with God as was indispensable to their being of the antitypical Camp.
(90) Nor is it hard to see how the various groups and sub-groups of the Gospel-Age Levites effected such an atonement. Of course, the Libnite Gershonites, in preaching, writing on, etc., the general features of the Law and the Gospel, gave them some of the knowledge above described, as well as stirred up in them the desire to have some of God's favor, to reverence the Bible and to live measurably against sin and
for righteousness. Such knowledge, love and desire increased in them by their attendance on the preached and written ministries of the Shimite Gershonites on right living and consecration. Some little help would they get from the recensional work of the Gershonite Amramite Kohathites, especially as this would be reflected in translations, though a few learned Camp members have gotten some larger help from the Greek, Hebrew and ancient translation recensions of such Kohathites. Such help would be promotive of the knowledge and heart's attitude above described for members of the antitypical Camp. The Gospel-Age Eliezerite Amramites have been more assistful to the Camp in gaining the above things, especially by their translations and concordances, while the more learned in the antitypical Camp have gotten some helps to that pertinent knowledge and heart's attitude from these and also from Grammars and Dictionaries of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek. The Zichrite Izeharites, by introductory thoughts on the Bible have helped the Camp better to corresponding knowledge and to cherish a measure of reverence for the Bible. The Nephegite Izeharites, as exegetes, have helped the antitypical Camp to understand some Bible verses or parts of them; and the Korahite Izeharites have, by their digests, harmonies, references and indices to the Bible, given them a better idea of some Bible subjects, with a corresponding better heart's attitude. The Hebronites, especially by their Bible Histories, Biographies, Geographies and Antiquities, have helped them to the pertinent knowledge and heart's attitude. The Elzaphanite Uzzielites by their doctrinal teachings, and the Mishaelite Uzzielites by their ethical teachings, have contributed a great deal to these ends. Especially helpful against various forms of unbelief and in favor of believing the Bible from "kiver to kiver," as some from the Camp have expressed it, have the Zithrite Uzzielites been, through their attacks on unbelieving theories,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
through their proofs of the Bible's veracity and through their defenses of it against infidelistic attacks. Of course, the antitypical Mahlite Merarites, by their editorial work, and the antitypical Mushite Merarites, by their publishing work, with reference to the books on the above-indicated lines of antitypical Gershonite and Kohathite service, also assisted in this phase of the atonement work for the Gospel-Age Camp.
(91) The purpose of making such an atonement is stated in v. 19, as follows: "that there be no plague among the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary." In the type a literal plague or calamity is referred to and this statement was in harmony with the Lord's covenant arrangements with Israel: to give them physical blessings and to shield them from physical evils, if they were obedient to their covenant obligations, but to bring upon, and not shield them from physical ills, if they were disobedient thereto. The Levites faithfully performing their part in the pertinent atonement work toward Israel were instrumental in keeping them in a condition in which plagues did not afflict them, while their unfaithfulness in performing their part in such atonement work resulted in Israel's violating their covenant obligations, becoming more or less displeased with God and His ways, which was followed by literal plagues of various kinds coming upon them. Thus the times of Israel's prosperity were marked by faithfulness in the Levites to their work, as can be seen in a general way in the reigns of David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Jehoshaphat, while their unfaithfulness therein can be well seen, among other ways, in the great plague that came upon Israel in connection with the rebellion of Korah and his company of 250 Levite leaders, who were doubtless aided and abetted by less influential Levites in the rank and file.
(92) Turning to the antitype, we can see that when the Gospel-Age Libnite and Shimite Gershonites faith
fully preached and wrote on repentance, faith, justification and consecration, when the Gospel-Age Gershonite and Eliezerite Amramites wrote and lectured faithfully on Biblical recensions and other linguistic helps, when the Gospel-Age Zichrite, Nephegite and Korahite Izeharites wrote and lectured faithfully on introductional, interpretational and harmonetical phases of the Bible respectively, when the Gospel-Age Hebronites faithfully wrote and lectured on Biblical history and biography, on Church history and biography and on Biblical geography, archeology and chronology, and when as systematic theologians the Gospel-Age Elzaphanite Uzzielites as dogmaticians, the Mishaelite Uzzielites as ethicians and the Zithrite Uzzielites as apologists, faithfully wrote and lectured on their pertinent subjects, the antitypical Camp was shielded from the pestilences of error that infested it when the above-mentioned writing, preaching and lecturing were not faithfully performed. England from about 1740 to 1840 gives us a splendid illustration of how pestilences of error were kept away from the antitypical Camp during that time. The bulk of that century felt the powerful effect of the Wesleyan priestly movement, which mightily aroused the antitypical Levites to do their work faithfully, with the consequence that many preachers, evangelists and lay workers, as antitypical Gershonites, preached and wrote fruitfully for the antitypical Camp, working in it more interest in God, Christ, the Bible and right living. This effect was not much felt among English antitypical Gershonite Amramites, but was fairly well felt among English Eliezerite Amramites in the way of Bible translation and concordance making (Cruden's and the Englishman's Hebrew and Greek concordances, etc.), among the English Izeharites (Home's Introduction, Patrick, Lowth, Whitby and Arnold's Commentary, William's Cottage Bible, Macknight's and Townsend's Harmonies, etc.), among English Hebronites (Milner's Church History,
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
etc.) and among the English Uzzielites (Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, Butler's Analogy, Paley's Evidences, etc.). They were by their service able to turn away from the English section of the antitypical Camp the pestilence of Deism and keep England in the religiousness of England's nominal-church members.
(93) At the same time in Germany the unfaithfulness of the Levites under the lead of Semler was responsible for the plague of Deism in the form of Rationalism, which for a while almost entirely destroyed the faith of the majority of German people in the Bible and in the Christian religion. But it has been reserved for the Parousia and Epiphany time to furnish the most impressive examples of how the unfaithfulness of the Levites to their work has resulted during the six siftings in the six accompanying plagues devastating the antitypical Camp. During these times increasingly, as Gospel-Age Gershonites, the preachers, evangelists and lay workers have left off preaching, teaching and writing on subjects connected with justification and consecration and have increasingly given their efforts to promote sensationalism, worldliness, reform, social uplift and fighting the Truth. During this time the Gospel-Age Kohathites have increasingly ceased to lecture and write on linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic subjects helpful to the antitypical Camp, mainly leaving such work to the antitypical 12 spies to do. And, consequently, during this time the Gospel-Age Merarites, forced thereto by the comparative unproductiveness of books, etc., by the other two classes of the Levites, have increasingly ceased to edit and print pertinent productions, and have increasingly been either editing and printing the works of the antitypical 12 spies or secular books, mostly novels and other works bereft of, and often inimical to the Christian phase of matters. As a consequence increasingly has the antitypical Camp been plagued by no-ransomism, infidelism, combinationism, reformism,
contradictionism and revolutionism, in the many forms of each of these plagues as they have been afflicting that Camp as God's nominal people.
(94) The last clause of v. 19, "when the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary," refers to the Israelites' taking part in services connected with the Lord, centering in the tabernacle. It brings out the thought of their being in covenant relations with God that required them to use His sanctuary in connection with their approaching to serve Him as their Covenant God. In the antitype this clause suggests the thought of the Camp in its activities toward God, Christ, the Bible, sin, righteousness, repentance and faith; for it is in these respects that the unjustified ones have some slight dealings with these persons and things. And while engaged in such activities they have been helped to keep themselves pleased with God in the sense above described, by the faithful ministries of the Gospel-Age Levites, as when the latter have been unfaithful in their ministries in these activities symbolic plagues have infected the antitypical Camp. Vs. 20-22 simply state as matters of fact how the Lord's charges as to the Levites in the preceding parts of this chapter were carried out. And since we have explained the antitypes in connection with the charges themselves, it would be unnecessary repetition again to go over them.
(95) In the rest of this chapter the period of the Levites' laborious service is set forth. They were to begin the laborious part of the Levite service at the age of 25 (v. 24) and cease from it at the age of 50. The word translated "service" in vs. 24, 25 and 26, and the word translated "serve" in v. 25, refer to the laborious work connected with the tabernacle. The performance of the harder parts of the Levite work, like carrying heavy parts of the tabernacle, etc., is thereby meant. While the Levites beyond 50 years were not to take part in such laborious service, they could do lighter works connected with the tabernacle, as well as teach
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
the people of the camp their duties and privileges connected with the tabernacle, which lighter works are what are meant by the expression, "shall minister with their brethren in the tabernacle of the congregation, to keep the charge." At first sight there seems to be a contradiction between the age 25 years—that v. 24 gives, and the age—30 years—that Num. 4:3, 23, 30, 35, 39, 43, 47 give, as that at which Levites were to begin their "service." We harmonize the apparent discrepancy as follows: At 25 years the Levites started to be trained as helpers, or apprentices, of the full serving Levites, and at 30 years their apprenticeship ceased and they became full-fledged laborious Levites. Vs. 24 and 25 give the full period of the apprenticeship and laborious service, while the verses in Num. 4 give only the period of the laborious service.
(96) There are some interesting antitypes of vs. 24-26. The fact that no Levite could begin the Levite tabernacle service in any sense before 25 years of age types the fact that the immature faith-justified should not be given work to do in the Lord's service in an official way before entering into the necessary preliminary training required by the pertinent office. This applies to the Gospel-Age Gershonites as preachers, evangelists and lay workers, to the Gospel-Age Kohathites as scholars writing and lecturing on linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic lines, and to the Gospel-Age Merarites as editors and publishers of the writings of Gospel-Age Gershonites and Kohathites. Otherwise they would commit serious blunders, hurtful to all concerned. That the Levites had to undergo a five-year training as apprentices and helpers of the full-fledged laboring Levites before they could become of the latter kind of Levites, types the fact that a generous amount of time, fully sufficient for their proper training, had to be devoted by the justified to their preparation for the heavy service required officially from the justified preachers, evangelists and lay workers,
as Gospel-Age Gershonites, from the justified writers and lecturers on linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic subjects, as Gospel-Age Kohathites, and from the justified editors and publishers of the works of the other Levites, as Gospel-Age Merarites. Usually a man's powers are at their best between 30 and 50 years of age, for which reason God fixed those years as the years for the laborious work of the Levites. Their beginning to be full-fledged laboring Levites at 30 years of age, at which age one's powers come to their best, when they finished their training, types the fact that the responsible official service of all three classes of Gospel-Age Levites should be undertaken by them only when their powers come to their best, after their preliminary training is complete for their respective forms of service. Their continuing to serve for the 20 years in which a man's powers ordinarily are at their best types the fact that the heavy work of the Gospel-Age Levites is to be done by those only who are at their best, not in natural age, of course, but in the needed abilities and attainments.
(97) The Levites' ceasing from the laborious service at 50 years of age types the fact that none of the Gospel-Age Levites should attempt to do, or be encouraged to do, work that is beyond their abilities and attainments. Their still performing lighter work about the tabernacle and teaching the people after they were beyond 50 years of age types the fact that, though the abilities of the Gospel-Age Levites are for certain official Levitical work decaying, they are nevertheless to do such service for the Priests and people as they are able to do in their declining condition. The increasing disabilities of the Levites as they continued to advance in years beyond 50 requiring an ever lightening of their work in order to "fit the burdens to the backs," types the fact that as the abilities of the three classes of Gospel-Age Levites decrease with time, sickness, poverty, etc., etc., their responsibilities in the service of the
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
Lord are to decrease. A Levite becoming totally disabled from service by disease or senility would type those Gospel-Age Levites whose talents have become unavailable for any form of service—one who ceased being a Gospel-Age Levite altogether, by reason of sin or error. The variations of abilities in the Levites to serve either the tabernacle or the people, would type the fact that individuals in all classes of Gospel-Age Levites have differed greatly in their abilities for Gospel-Age Levite work. Of these some have been more able and efficient preachers, evangelists and lay workers than others; some have been more able and efficient writers and lecturers on Biblical linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic subjects than others; and some have been more able editors and publishers of the formers' writings than others. And it is for this reason that, just as the Lord makes different uses of various Priests, dependent on their varying talents, providential situation and their spirit of consecration, so has He made different uses of the various Gospel-Age Levites in their various groups, dependent on their various talents, providential situations and spirit of faith and righteousness.
(98) The last sentence of v. 26, "Thus shalt thou do unto the Levites touching their charge," emphasizes by repetition the charges given in vs. 24-26. It served to impress upon Moses the duty of doing these things toward the Levites as to the time of their beginning the training for their laborious service, the time of actual entrance into it, during its duration and the time of cessation from that laborious service and entering into easier work. Such emphasis served to make Moses all the more careful to see to the enactment of the pertinent matters just as God commanded, and such fulfillment of the Lord's charge by Moses served to the best interests of the Priests and the people, as well as to the Levites themselves. This types the fact that Jehovah impressed it upon our Lord to see to it that the anti
types were carried out in all the above-indicated details. Moses' performing the type properly types our Lord's properly putting the details of the antitype into fulfilment, which has resulted in blessing to the antitypical Priests and Camp, as well as to the Gospel-Age Levites themselves.
(1) Of how many classes have God's professed people consisted during the Gospel-Age? What are these? What two sets of types figured this forth in these classes? What does the type of a fleshly Israel imply? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? Whereby, especially, has this been shown in these columns? To what studies do we return in this article? What is the subject of this article? On what Scripture is this study based? How should we approach it? Why?
(2) Where were our last studies in Numbers? What were their subjects? How far in our study of Numbers did they bring us? Which sets of Levites are we not studying in this chapter? Why not? What does this move us to do with them? To what set of Levites will we limit this study? Why study these? Of what is this study intended to assure us? How many sets of Levitical antitypes are there?
(3) What kind of proof has been given before on the Gospel-Age Levites? As such, what kind of Levites are they? Who in the finished Gospel-Age picture are the Levites? In the meantime what do the facts prove? Into how many parts will our study be divided? What are they? In what part of Num. 8 is the command of their cleansing set forth? Of their consecration? Of the carrying out of these commands? What will a careful study of Num. 8:5-26 bring to light? What does v. 5 show? Who did-not originate this service? Who was its sole originator? What two things prove this?
(4) What two charges does God give Moses in v. 6? Whom do God and Moses therein represent? What do they respectively type in the pertinent activities? In general, by what did antitypical Moses sever the antitypes? In what five ways did He do this? What kind of persons does the Camp, represent? What three acts are implied in the widest sense of the word sever? To what sense of this word do the words of v. 6 apply?
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
(5) In what senses is the word cleansing Biblically used? What does it include in its wide sense combinedly? In its narrow sense distributedly? Under what term is the second narrow sense covered in v. 12? Where are these senses combined in the wide sense? What does v. 7 directly describe? How manifold is the cleansing process? What is the first? Second? Third? What do these three complete? What is the character of these three things?
(6) What is the relation of the waters of purifying and separation? How is this Scripturally proven? What is the Hebrew word translated purification in v. 7? What are its five meanings in Hebrew? What Scriptures prove this? Which of these five meanings apply in Num. 8:7; 19:9, 17? Where does our Pastor treat of these waters? What do they type? For what is the antitype useful? What does Num. 19:11-22 teach was the typical use of these waters? Whom do the dead of these verses type? What is represented by being in their presence? By touching them? By the ashes of the red heifer? By the living water? What illustrates this? What does the mingling of the ashes and water represent? The vessel that contained them, as applied to the above example? To what else do these definitions apply? From what in sin do such teachings cleanse? From what in sin do not they, but something else cleanse?
(7) For what do these considerations prepare us? What does God's charge to Moses as to the sprinkling of the Levites type? How many forms of truths are implied in the antitypical sprinkling? What are these kinds? How many kinds are the typical truths? What are they? What does each one imply? What are some examples of those furnishing such truths? How many kinds are the antitypical truths? What are they? What does each one imply? For what would both kinds serve in the antitype? What does the sprinkling type? What has our Lord seen to on this head throughout the Gospel-Age? Why?
(8) What stories were, accordingly, told the prospective faith-justified? What was given in connection with them? Give illustrations of such. In what were these things taught the prospective faith-justified? What agents did our Lord use to do this work? What resulted therefrom? What
three ends did such instruction serve? What did these three purposes serve? What resulted therefrom? What general work did the sprinkling further? Why? What are parts of repentance? What is the function of repentance?
(9) By what language of v. 7 is the second cleansing process set forth? What is the literal translation of this part of v. 7? What does the razor represent? In what two senses does the razor imply the Law? Prove this. How many forms has the Law had? What will its other form have? What is a Scriptural function of the Law? Prove it Scripturally. What does it first do to accomplish this? What does it secondly do to accomplish this? In what two ways does it accomplish the first of these? The second of these? What, besides the revealed Law, assists in such works? What does the Law thus do with honest hearts?
(10) What other thing does the Law do? On this what does it do with responsive hearts? What does this first arouse in their hearts? Why? What does it next arouse in them? What desire does it raise in them? What two things does it work in them as a result of the foregoing effects? In what does this result? What does it stir up in them? What does the Law then do? Why? What can it not give man? What must do this? What, then, is the Law's limitation in the process of bringing people to Christ?
(11) What is not antitypical Moses' part with the razor? What does He do with it? Of what two kinds are His agents therein? What are the priestly agents so used? What are the Levitical agents so used? What are the inanimate agents so used? What books have specially helped therein? To what two kinds of denominations have the pertinent Levites belonged? What are the examples of each of these two kinds of denominations? What, as a rule, was the means by which the ritualistic denominations gave the razor? The non-ritualistic denominations? What conclusion should not be drawn from these facts? Who did make a proper use of one or the other of these methods? Under what other circumstance did some receive the razor?
(12) How did these agents hand the razor to the prospective faith-justified? What does this imply? With what did they thereby acquaint them? What did this reveal to them? What was a mirror in this transaction? What two forms of sinfulness did this reveal to them? What did they
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
thereby see? In a few words, what did this give them? What did they thereby announce to them? Into what did some of these agents exaggerate the penalty of sin? With what result to many? What did our Lord do about this? What further effects did the handing of the razor work out? Summarize the effects of handing the razor. What condition of heart did these things effect?
(13) What did these agents not do? Who did this? What was preliminary to the shaving? What does seeing the antitypical razor represent? What does reaching out the symbolic hand and receiving the razor represent? What else did receiving it represent? What, finally, did it type? What does hair symbolize? How is this proved? What are sins in this connection? What must be done with such powers? What on this head does repentance effect? By what means does the sinner sever from himself such powers? What does shaving represent? What is the pertinent part of repentance? What is typed by the expression, "all his flesh"? What combination works repentance? What are the ingredients of repentance? How many of these are effected by the antitypical waters of separation and the razor?
(14) By what is the last of these ingredients worked? What do clothes type? For what especially are natural and symbolic clothes worn? Prove this of the latter. Explain St. Peter's thoughts on this figure? St. Paul's? What are spots and dirt on these garments? Prove this. How are we when these are removed from our symbolic garments? Explain the pertinent Scriptures. How were our Lord's symbolic garments? Prove this Scripturally. What is the symbolic water for cleansing symbolic garments? Prove this to be Biblical. What do these figures enable us to understand? What is symbolized by the Levites' washing their clothes? What vestiges do prospective Gospel-Age Levites have? By what are these contaminated? By what must they be removed? How is this accomplished? What parts of the Word are generally used therein? What does this mean? What is completed by a right washing of these symbolic clothes?
(15) From what two typical standpoints is repentance set forth? What are the Greek words for repentance and to repent? What are their literal meanings? What do these literal meanings import? What does its mental change import?
Its moral change? Its religious change? What is inseparably implied in it? Why? With what is true repentance freighted? What does the Bible call such a grief?
(16) What are the parts of repentance as to sin? Give Scripture proof for each. What are the parts of repentance as to righteousness? Give Scripture proof for each. What are the two features of repentance? How many parts does its sin feature have? Its righteousness feature? From what two sources do we know this? How is it related to justification? What must be added to it to reach justification?
(17) Give an analysis of the Scriptures in which the verb metanoein, to repent, occurs. Give an analysis of the Scriptures in which the noun metanoia, repentance, occurs.
(18) Wherewith was this chapter begun? What part of Num. 8 was studied above? What do these three verses bring to light? What special work was therein described? By what were the pertinent persons prepared therefore? How many processes does v. 7 show to bring sinners to repentance? What are they? By the co-operation of what two sets of activities is repentance brought to a completion? What else is necessary to accomplish repentance? What kind of persons are needed, if the three processes of v. 7 are to effect repentance? Why should we expect these processes to be sufficient for their purpose? What may we say with respect to all His works?
(19) What is the cleansing limit of repentance? From what can it not cleanse? What only can do this? How is this put in one of our finest hymns? Of what would one fall short, if one goes no further than repentance? What cannot work our complete cleansing? Why not? What is the limit of its work in cleansing? What helps us out of our otherwise helpless condition? What have these provided? What does the Law not offer us? What can it not work in us? Why not? What can and does accomplish this? Where in Num. 8 is its ability brought to our attention? Wherein is the Law feature of God's Word active, according to v. 7? For what does God have it preached and applied? What is the next thing to be expected as a thing to be taught and applied? Where is this done? As what is the Gospel typically brought to our attention in v. 8? In what way is it put in v. 8? What is needed to understand the connection between vs. 7 and 8 and how Truth preaching is shown in v. 8?
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
(20) How many typical sacrifices are set forth in v. 8? What are they? Where is the first-mentioned bullock not called a burnt-offering? Where is it so called? What is the second bullock not called? Why not? What is it called? Why so? What Scriptures prove our Lord the antitypical Bullock? How do they do this? What conclusion is to be drawn from these proofs? Show how certain other Scriptures corroborate this proof? Where has this been ably presented? What conclusion may we, therefore, draw from v. 8? Why should we from this connection keep this thought in mind?
(21) What other kind of a bullock is brought to our attention in v. 8? From this what are we not to understand? How many sacrifices did our Lord make of Himself? Prove it. How in this did the typical and antitypical bullocks differ? If not another sacrifice, what does this burnt-offering typify? Read the corroboration from Tabernacle Shadows. How do we know that the burnt-offering represents God's manifested acceptance of the sacrifice? What five examples prove this? What about four of them manifested the acceptance?
(22) What is the character of the manifested acceptance in the antitype? Why is this? How will it be in the Millennium? How is it done in connection with the Church during the Gospel-Age? To which of these does v. 8 refer antitypically? To what does it refer? How is it done in connection with the justified during the Gospel-Age? For what will the right answer be helpful? In how many ways was it manifested? What was the first of these? The second? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? The seventh? For what purpose did the last three not serve? For what purpose did they serve? For what purpose did the first three of these serve? How do we know this?
(23) To understand the exact force of the sin- and burnt-offerings in v. 8, what must be understood? Where do we find the nature of the meat-offering set forth? What is it there said to represent? What does praising Jehovah mean? What illustrates this? What two meanings does the word worship have? Which one of these is usually not recognized to be meant by worship? What notable words of Christ prove one of its meanings? What other passages prove the same thing? How does each one of them do so?
How, then, is the antitypical meat-offering made? How may this be more briefly stated? How does the type imply this meaning in the antitype? What aspect of the antitypical sacrifice is brought to our attention by the meat-offering?
(24) What might here be profitably discussed? How so? What is not represented by each different form of the typical sacrifices? What is thereby represented? What antitypical forms of sacrifice were in our Lord's sacrifice? What does this not mean? Why not? In general how are they related to His one sacrifice? What aspect of it is brought out by His sin-offering? By His burnt-offering? His meat-offering? His peace-offering? His free-will offering? His thank-offering? His praise-offering? Whose one sacrifice has the same seven phases? By what are these brought out? In a summary, what do they not, and what do they type? With what other antitypes are certain of them associated?
(25) For what do the above remarks prepare us? What will such an understanding bring to us? What antitype does the meat-offering of v. 8 suggest? What limitation to such preaching is suggested by the meat-offering being associated with the sin-offering? With the burnt-offering How does God manifest His acceptance of Christ's sacrifice connected with the stage of matters set forth in v. 8? What preaching is symbolized in v. 8? What is the connection between vs. 7 and 8? What does the antitype thus show? What have the experiences of the justified to say on this view of events? Those of the reminiscent consecrated? What does this do to our exposition of vs. 7 and 8? What do the cited Scriptures do with it?
(26) Why should we examine this matter more closely? What did God's agents do after the antitypes of v. 7 were enacted? What was the first thing that such preaching set forth? Read and explain the Scriptures proving this. What great sacrifice did God's love prompt Him to make for the world, according to such preaching? Read and explain the Scriptures that prove this. What fact pertinent to Christ's character did such preaching declare? Read and explain the corroborative Scriptures. What fitness was there in Christ, according to such preaching? Read and expound the pertinent passages. What related fact did such preaching set forth? Read and explain the probative passages
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
thereon. What did such preaching set forth as the working of such a sin-offering? Prove this by each of the pertinent cited Scriptures. What do Pentecostal and post-Pentecostal facts show as to such preaching?
(27) What are not included in our foregoing description of the sin-offering? Why not? Wherein are they typed? Why so? How many and what are these acts? Whose acts exclusively are they? Why? Of what acts does justification consist? What follows on God's doing these two things? What are we not to understand the taking of the sin-offering in v. 8 to type? Why not? What does it type? What else prove this? What does the bringing of the burnt-offering in v. 8 not mean? What does it mean? What must the preaching of the thoughts of the antitypical burnt-offering precede in each individual case? Why? To what, therefore, does v. 8 exclusively refer? Of what does it not treat? How is this typically shown?
(28) What matter of fact and Scripture have we seen above? What other thing is susceptible of the same kind of proofs? What language of v. 8 proves this typically? Of what did the meat-offering consist? What does its fine flour type? Its oil? What are the first and second truths presented in the presentation of the antitypical burnt-and meat-offerings? What acts of God's do these two truths describe? What do these two things do for the sinner as to God's Law? How is this so? What third thing flows naturally from these two things? What do these three acts prove as to God's attitude toward Christ's sacrifice?
(29) What does the Bible teach that God's forgiving sins proves? Read and show this from the cited Scriptures. How is the declaration of the forgiveness of sins related to the Gospel message? What Scriptures prove this and how? Who at first preached this message? Who since? What do our experiences teach on this point? What conclusion may we draw from these considerations?
(30) What further thing in this connection do we know from Scripture and experience? What does the Bible teach as to this further thing? Why must we have Christ's righteousness imputed to us? What fact proves this? How only can we fulfill the Law's demands as to obedience? What line of passages gives the first proof of this? Show this in each passage. What line of passages gives the second proof
of this? Show this in each passage. How could Christ's righteousness not be made ours instantly? How instantly? How will it be made the world's in the Millennium? How is this proved? How does it become ours in justification? Who first preached it to the penitent? Who since? How do we know it? What conclusion should we draw from this?
(31) What is the third feature of the antitypical burnt-offering connected with justification? What has been done with it throughout the Gospel-Age? What is sin as to God? What does it effect in one as to God and Satan? What results therefrom in God? How does God act as a result? How then does the sinner become to God? Read the pertinent Scriptures and prove this thought. What is one of the keenest sorrows of remorse? Read the pertinent Scriptures and show this from them. What is one of the ways—the third—whereby God shows that He accepts Christ's sacrifice? Read the pertinent Scriptures and show this thought from them. By whom was this first preached? What passages prove this? How do they do it? By whom has it since been done? What else proves it? What do we from the above discussion, accordingly, see on this point? On all the pertinent points?
(32) What thoughts should again be stressed as to v. 8? What does it not describe? To what thoughts does it limit itself? Where is the working of faith stressed in this chapter? What conviction is wrought on our minds and hearts by our present study? What considerations work it? What does this do with our Pastor's teaching on tentative justification? What should our feasting on vs. 5-8 effect in us? Why have so many Scriptures been quoted in this chapter? How are faith justification and its related truths to be regarded as to subsequent truths? What is the relation of these truths to the Biblical stress laid on them?
(33) What would the thought connection between vs. 8 and 12 naturally make us expect? For what reasons is this natural expectation not satisfied? What is one of the thoughts brought out in vs. 9-11? What does v. 9 especially show? How is this shown in the first clause of v. 9? Show from the cited Scriptures that the true Church is the antitypical Temple and Tabernacle. How is the thought of publicity brought out in the second clause of v. 9? What, therefore, did God desire to mark the transactions with the Levites?
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
(34) How many things are done in the type and antitype of Num. 8 to the Levites? How do we not, and how do we use the word Levites in this connection? What three things had to be done to carry out the transaction of making the non-priestly descendants of Levi a sacred tribe? How did all three of these acts have to be done? How does the type bring out this feature of the three acts? How must the antitypes of these three acts be done? Before what two classes did both type and antitype have to be performed? In what kinds of churches were these antitypes enacted? How? Of whom did they consist? Until when did this continue before the real Church?
(35) By what two methods of training mainly were responsive sinners won in the ritualistic churches? In what did this result for the catechumen? Why was this? By what was this more impressively done? How many ecclesia members were present at such a service? What did not all confirmants experience? Who only of them experienced it? How were these in their confirmation regarded? By what two classes in the ecclesias? What did they in this service publicly confess? Who thereby really brought them into publicity before the real and nominal Church? In what other churches was the same thing done in principle? With what difference? In such churches what were the main forms of persuasion? What other things were thereto used in both kinds of churches? Which were the main ones used there? Wherein did they agree and differ as to main methods of training? By whom was the preaching mainly done? How were such preaching services attended? Who were publicly seen as such? By whom? What does this prove? How was publicity given those who came in a private way to justification? What will we do with the publicity of the acts typed in vs. 11 and 13? What is all that need here be mentioned?
(36) How many important items are brought to our attention in v. 10? What is the first of these? How do some misunderstand the expression, to bring or present one before the Lord? On what passages was this meaning foisted by The Tower? For what purpose? What is not necessary for being in God's presence? Why not? Prove from the cited passages that the expressions, to bring and to present one before God, or to be before God, do not mean, to be in God's throne room, so to speak. What do these expressions
mean? How does this meaning apply in v. 10? How does it apply to the antitypical Levites? How is this seen in each one of the four stages of Leviteship? Accordingly, what does the first charge of v. 10 antitypically mean?
(37) What is the second item of v. 10? How many symbolic meanings does the Bible give to the expression, laying on of hands? What is the first of these? What is the first fact that proves it? What is the second fact that proves this? What is the second symbolic meaning of the expression? Prove this from four Scriptures. What is the third symbolic meaning of this expression?
(38) Why is the first of these meanings not applicable in v. 10? How is Aaron's atonement bullock related to the thought of representation? By what, however, is this not symbolized in connection with the bullock? Why not? Why can the second definition not be applied in v. 10? Prove this Biblically. Which definition must, therefore, apply? What is it? What, accordingly, is symbolized by the Israelites' laying hands on the Levites What does it type? What does it type in the experience of the Levites as to their faith and justification? As to their public confession in any form? What was our experience in these three respects? Amid what acts was it undergone?
(39) In what other stages was this endorsement shown? What was one of these? Whom do the Gershonites as Libnites and as Shimites represent? As what was antitypical Libnite Gershonite work done? What was necessary to do such work? By what was such preparation given? How did the nominal Christians endorse the antitypical Libnites' undergoing such preparation? How did they finally lay hands on the antitypical Libnites? What illustrations clarify this? How, as a rule, did they do this? How was their laying hands on the Shimites done, comparatively considered? What was the antitypical Shimites' work? By whom and how was this work usually done? How did the antitypical Israelites "lay hands on them"?
(40) What on this head has been so far shown? On whom else did they lay hands? Whom did the Mushite Merarites represent? Whom did the Mahlite Merarites represent? How did the antitypical Israelites lay hands on the antitypical Mushites? On the Mahlites? What other family of antitypical Levites did they so treat? What
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
kind of lectures and writings did the antitypical Amramites furnish? The antitypical Izeharites? The antitypical Hebronites? The antitypical Uzzielites? How did the antitypical Israelites lay hands on these? What is a summary of the antitype of the second clause of v. 10?
(41) What can we now properly recognize? What is the first reason for putting vs. 9-11 where they are? What fact does not set this aside? What is the second reason for it? How does the study of Num. 8:5-10 effect us? Why?
(42) How far has our study of Num. 8 brought us? What, according to the margin, is the proper translation of v. 11? The explanation of what two kinds of sacrifices was overlooked in par. (24) of our present chapter? What did the wave-offering at the priests' consecration type? What does the heave-offering type? What does the wave-offering of v. 11 not type? Whose is it? By whom is it made? Who in v. 13 makes a wave-offering? What should the two wave-offerings suggest as to the antitype? How many of them are in the antitype? How is the account placed in relation to the account of the Levites' justification? Where is the latter treated? Why are vs. 9-11 set between vs. 8 and 12? How are the things typed by v. 11 related to the things typed in v. 12? What effect does this have on placing v. 11 where it is? By what will this appear?
(43) What is the antitype of Aaron's waving the Levites as a wave-offering? What does Aaron here type? What does the waving of the Levites type? What is typed by its being done unto or before the Lord? How is the purpose of this wave-offering set forth in v. 11? From what, treated of in v. 13, does it differ? What three facts enable us to see the antitype? What is implied in Christ's waving them as a wave-offering from the antitypical children of Israel?
(44) What will clarify the antitypes of v. 11? In what respects were the Gospel-Age Levites prepared? Where did this preparation antitypically begin? How did the preaching typed in v. 8 affect it? What previous remark was based on the preparatory work implied in v. 8? How does this affect the relative position of v. 11? What are set forth in v. 12? In what other verses is this preparatory
work set forth? Why so? What bearing have these facts on the position of v. 11?
(45) When does this preparation mainly take place? Wherein does this preparation differ? Wherein does their heart's preparation consist? In what did they thereby progress? How long did they develop in heart qualities? In what did it result? When it became all-controlling what resulted? What did their Levitical preparation not imply? What did it imply? What conditioned the degree of such preparation? How does this become apparent? What example illustrates this?
(46) What kind was the foregoing preparation? What resulted therefrom? What was the clearest expression of Levitical preparation? What was the duration, e.g., of that of the pastoral Gospel-Age Gershonites? What institutions did they usually attend? In college what course did they usually take? What languages especially did they study? What other branches? What four departments of theology did they usually study? What were the branches of systematic theology studied by them? Of exegetical theology? Of historical theology? Of practical theology? How were they helped to apply their knowledge in practice before entering the ministry? How was this preparation given where there were no colleges and seminaries? How were missionaries prepared? How were lay Gershonites prepared for their work? How were the antitypical Shimites prepared usually? What almost always characterized the preparation of the Gospel-Age Gershonites? How was this typed in the twofold participants in their preparation?
(47) What second class of Levites was also waved? What are the two classes of the antitypical Merarites? What was the antitypical waving for the publishers? What features did it imply? Through what spheres of work, as a rule, did they pass? What branch of the antitypical Merarites was covered thereby? What other branch of them underwent this preparation? What did it presuppose of them, especially of some of them? Where were they prepared? What was the character of some of their notes? What other things did they sometimes supply? What was the value of some of these? What was a necessary preliminary to such work? What other
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
group of antitypical Mahlites had to undergo preparation? How was our Lord related to it?
(48) Which of the Gospel-Age Levites had to undergo the most careful preparation? Why? What had they usually been? What had some of them exceptionally been? Who were noted exceptions to this rule? What training, as a rule, did they undergo? What four kinds of works did they produce? What did this imply? How did they undergo it? Why was this? In what two ways did they work? What have the Gospel-Age Kohathites been among the Levites? To whom have their pen products been most helpful? Of what was their long-drawn-out preparation the antitype? How was our Lord's part therein typed? The nominal people's part? And God's part? How was this shown in the type?
(49) What comes next in our study? How does v. 12 compare in contents with the other verses of Num. 8? Why? What has already been sufficiently proved as to v. 12? How does its first clause read? As respects the bullock of the sin-offering, what do these words type? What does the Bible teach as to Jesus and substitution? Read the passages cited and prove this from them. In what two ways do these passages prove substitution? By those directly teaching substitution what is proven of the others? How so? How is such substitution typed?
(50) What is typed by the Levites' leaning their hands on the bullock of the sin-offering? What is the relation between representation and substitution? What proves this? What is implied in laying hands on a substitute? What is, therefore, typed in general by the Levites' laying hands on the sin-offering? What is in particular thereby typed? What is in general typed by their laying hands on the burnt-offering? What in particular is thereby typed? Please sum up the antitypes.
(51) What is the literal rendering of the word translated, shall lay? Why should it be here emphasized? What may faith symbolically be called? Why? What is the greatest grace? What is now the most important grace? Why? In what action is its leaning character especially marked? What is our Pastor's definition of it? How do the cited Scriptures prove this definition? How is it wrought? How do the Scriptures prove this? What are
faith's basis and superstructure? What are the ingredients of this foundation? Superstructure? Read and explain the Scriptures proving these things. What does a justifying faith do with these two features of faith? Toward whom? Read and show this from the cited passages. Toward whom does faith also exercise these two features in justification? In what three ways? Read and show this from the cited passages? Sum up faith's activity in these two features Christward and Godward. Whereby is all of this typed?
(52) What next is in v. 12 brought to our attention? Who would we naturally think would receive this charge? Who actually received it? What is shown on this point in v. 21? How is this matter harmonized in the type? In the antitype? Why are Aaron and Moses joined in these offerings? What three facts are proved by these considerations?
(53) What are we not to understand to be typed by the offering of the sin-offering in v. 12? Why not? How is Christ's sacrifice of Himself chronologically related to the repentant sinner's exercising faith? What, then, is typed by Moses and Aaron offering the sin-offering to God in v. 12? What kind of acts are not typed thereby? What kind are typed thereby? What proves this view? What does it enable us to see? What was our Pastor's earlier view as to when the ransom was paid, reconciliation Godward was made? His later full view on the pertinent matters? What Scriptures prove the later view to be correct? What does this type do with tentative justification? What should we think and do as to this type?
(54) What four classes prove tentative justification? Who are the tentatively justified? For whom could not the merit of Christ have been actually imputed? Why? Whose tentative justification does this imply? Who else must have a tentative justification? How does Rom. 4:3-8 prove this doctrine? What is the difference between tentative and vitalized justification? Read and show how the cited passages prove vitalized justification. Read and prove this by the cited passages treating of believing into. Read and prove from the cited passages treating of believing on, or upon, that the Bible treats of tentative justification.
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
(55) Where are these justifications performed? To which of these does Heb. 9:24 refer? Why? What does it imply without directly teaching it? How do Rom. 3:25 and 22 prove tentative justification to take place in heaven also? Where are both performed? According to Heb. 1:3, what kind of an imputation was made on Christ's ascension? Whom did this not affect? When have individual imputations been made? Of what two kinds? Like what other distinction is the one here made? By what is that other distinction proved? At what other times are reckoned or actual imputations made for individuals? What does v. 12 imply on this subject?
(56) How has Christ made these imputations? What preliminary work did He do thereto? What is a justifying faith? What does Jesus do as soon as it is wrought? What does God thereupon do? Why is one only tentatively justified? Under what other circumstances does Jesus only reckonedly impute His merit? What does God then do? What do these things make God and Christ as to tentative justification?
(57) How has our Lord been actually imputing His merit? What kind of a justification does this effect? What are Jesus' acts in vitalizing one's justification? What are God's acts in vitalizing one's justification? What does vitalizing justification accomplish? What results therefrom as to the Adamic death? What happens with later sins repented of? Why, from Christ's and God's pertinent activities? What does this prevent and effect? Why is vitalized justification not referred to in v. 12? Why has it been briefly discussed here?
(58) What two things does v 12 charge Moses to do? What does his doing the first of these type? In general, what does his doing the second of these type? What in paragraph (12) did we see was not, and what was, typed by Moses' offering the sin-offering? What works of Jesus are the antitypes of Moses' offering the burnt-offering? What did He thereby accomplish?
(59) On this subject what can we as consecrated believers testify? By whom and what did Jesus minister the pertinent teachings to us? What can we recall thereon? How do we think of them? What effects therein wrought can we recall? What else in this connection can
we recall? What forms did these providences take? Who was active in all of them? Why so? What type did He thereby fulfill? For whom else did He do the same things?
(60) What does the last clause of v. 12 teach? What does this type? Who is the agent of the atonement? How is this proved by the cited passages? Who is the source of the atonement? How is this proved by the cited passages? What does the word reconciliation presuppose? What does it mean? In the present case, who are the parties at variance? How are they so? As the source of the atonement, what seven things has the Father undertaken? What kind of a work do parts (1), (2) and (3) perform in the atonement proper? How are parts (4) to (7) related to the atonement? How is part (2) related to the atonement? What parts show this?
(61) How is Christ's death related to the atonement? How do the cited passages prove this? What did He do with the seven parts of the atonement work? In which of them passively? Actively? What has He been in all seven of them? What have been assistants therein? What were the persons acting as such, among two classes of God's people? What part in the atonement work did the offering of the sin-offering in v. 12 have? What part did the offering of the bullock of the burnt-offering in v. 12 have? What part of v. 12 brings this out typically? What has our study of v. 12 effected? What does this verse do with the charges of Num. 8:6-12?
(62) What does v. 13 give? How many were these charges? What was the first? The second? What does the expression, to stand before one, when used of an official, mean? How do the cited passages prove this? What does the first charge mean? What does the second charge mean? Why is no mention made of a charge to place the Levites before Israel? How did their service of the Israelites stand related to their service of God and the Aaronic priesthood? What did the completion of the cleansing and consecration of the Levites complete? What was thereafter lawful for them to do? According to v. 14, what accomplished the separation of the Levites from the Israelites and made them the Lord's Levites?
(63) What do Aaron, his sons and Moses type in v. 13?
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
What is typed by Moses' setting the Levites before Aaron and his sons? Why was the Gospel-Age Levitical office created? How were the Gospel-Age Gershonites to serve the Priesthood? In how many ways did they serve it? What were these? What three things did their setting before the Priesthood imply?
(64) How were the Gospel-Age Merarites to serve the Priesthood? In how many ways did they serve it? What were these? What three things did their setting before the Priesthood imply? How were the Gospel-Age Kohathites to serve the Priesthood? In how many ways? What were they? What three things did their setting before the Priesthood imply? In a word, what did the setting of the Levites before Aaron and his sons type?
(65) What marks the acts whereby this was done? What acts usually constituted the setting before Aaron and his sons of those Gershonites who became ministers, evangelists and missionaries? How did the Shimites differ in this from the Libnites? How were those Libnites thus set who were Sunday-school superintendents and teachers, lay preachers and evangelists and catechists? How was this done as to unofficial lay workers among the antitypical Libnites and Shimites? How were Gospel-Age Merarites inducted into their office in their two classes? How were the four classes of Gospel-Age Kohathites inducted into their office? Why so?
(66) What was the final typical act in the cleansing and consecration of the Levites? What did this act do with them as to God? What is thereby typed? For what were not, and for what were Gospel-Age Levites consecrated? How has this act been performed so far as our sight has been concerned? How have we learned of it? What does the waving of the Gospel-Age Levites further imply? What does this mean? In what two ways could this rightly be done? What two things were still further implied in this waving? What does this imply as to the former implication? What would a backsliding Levite do with his consecration? Of what is v. 14 a summary? As a result, how do we treat it?
(67) What have we in the preceding sections of this chapter studied? Of what did vs. 5-14 consist? Of what do vs. 16-26 mainly consist? In what connection were the
antitypes of the narratives in vs. 16-26 given? What effect will this have on our study of the second half of Num. 8? Whose antitypes will be considered in the rest of the chapter?
(68) What does the opening clause of v. 15 show? How was it in the antitype of this? For what did the Gospel-Age Levites have to wait before serving? As what did they serve? By what is this typed? What might be the first impression as to the meaning of the second and third clauses of v. 15? What three considerations suggest another thought? To what cleansing and waving do these two clauses of v. 15 refer? What are their antitypes?
(69) What are we not to understand to be the character of the cleansing preceding the consecration of the Gospel-Age Levites? What reasoning implies this? In what two forms did this cleansing manifest itself? What did their actual cleansing not accomplish? What did it accomplish? With what was it accompanied? Of what kinds of sins did this make them guilty? From what has it been necessary to cleanse them? Who assisted them therein? How long did He do this? By what two things can this be proved? What does our experience testify thereon? Of what was our Lord's pertinent work the antitypical fulfillment? How did He perform this work? What did He thereby do and accomplish? What would have resulted if He had not so acted? What final result came from these acts of His? What should this move us to do? To whom? In what respects?
(70) What did the charge of v. 15, to wave the Levites, imply as to Moses? What would otherwise have occurred? What did this antitype? As to the antitypical Gershonites? Merarites? Kohathites? What has our Lord additionally done to them? How long did He not do this? How long did He do this? What else did He assist them to do? By what two methods of proof do we know this? How did Jesus act toward the last charge of v. 16?
(71) On what is Rotherham's translation of v. 16 based? How did he render it? In the type how many sets of persons were there constituting the firstborn and the tribe of Levi? The antitypical firstborn and tribe of Levi? How were the two typical sets not used? How were they used? What is brought out in the typical firstborns of the antitypical
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
firstborn? What antitypically is brought out by the typical tribe of Levi? How are other offices brought out in the antitype by types? From the standpoint of the finished picture, how many relations do the Gospel-Age firstborn sustain? What are they? How many classes of firstborns are in both of these relations? What are they? What is meant by the tentative firstborn? In each class? What is meant by the final firstborn? How are the Youthful Worthies to be regarded from this standpoint now? Both classes of Worthies in the next Age? When will they be final Levites? When do they come into existence? Why is it necessary to keep the above distinctions in mind?
(72) What kind of an expression is, "given, given?" What is another similar one? Why are such expressions used? In whose place were the Levites chosen? Where is this narrated and explained? What correction should here be made? What should be said of Rotherham's rendering of parts of v. 16? Why is he here to be preferred to the A. V.? How do his notes render it? His text? Why the change?
(73) What is taught by the emphasis of this verse? What are all the ways of emphasis given this thought in this verse? What does this mean in the antitype? What does this emphasis imply for the antitype? What would faithfulness in the Gospel-Age Levites bring them? In the Priests? What would unfaithfulness in the Gospel-Age Levites bring them? In the Priests?
(74) What does v. 17 explain? In what connection did this occur? Explain the pertinent typical events? What did each Israelite's house represent? The door? The lintels and posts? The lamb? The blood? Its sprinkling? The remaining in the blood-protected houses? How was this related to the tentative firstborn? To the final firstborn? What resulted finally with the tentative firstborn? What do the firstborn of man in the finished picture represent? Of beast? What do Israel's firstborn of man represent in the finished picture? Of beast? Egypt's firstborn of man? Of beast? By what were the firstborn spared? What did this blood do for them? In what did this result Godward? When? How could God justly exchange the firstborn for the Levites?
(75) What is the literal translation of the first clause of
v. 19? For what does the second word given serve? To whom on earth were the Levites given? For what works? What twofold antitypical service have the Gospel-Age Levites performed? In what capacities? Which of these two was the more especial work of the Levites? What is the twofold work in the type called? To whom on earth first of all were the Levites given? To whom next? What does this imply? What does this type? What have the Gospel-Age Levites, accordingly, done? How have the Gershonites assisted our Lord? Why? How have the Kohathites assisted Him toward the people? Toward the Priests? How have the Merarites assisted Him toward the people and the Priests?
(76) Whom else than the High Priest have been helped by them? What was a part of the Church's Gospel-Age commission? How is this shown by the cited Scriptures? How long was this a part of her special work? What did the Elijah class, accordingly, do? What connection with that mission did the antitypical Libnite Gershonites have? How did they assist in the first part of the Church's mission? What was the second part of the Church's mission? How does St. Paul show this feature of her work? What branch of the Gershonites helped her therein? How?
(77) What group of the antitypical Levites were of most assistance to the Priests? In what two ways was this typed? What two kinds of Priests have they helped? Which of these more especially? Which class of antitypical Kohathites have rendered them the most effective service? In what kind of helps? What work have the antitypical Gershonite Amramites done? How have they therein helped the Priests? What is an example of such help? Who were some of the leading antitypical Gershonite Amramites in New Testament text work? Who is the greatest of these in Old Testament text work? How do the labors of these assist the Priests?
(78) Who are the other antitypical Amramites? In what forms have they helped the Priests? By what do they first help the Priests? How so? What is the advantage of having a number of Bible translations? What is the next form of helps offered by the antitypical Eliezerite Amramites? What are the names of the four chief English concordances? What are their excellencies? How do they
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
compare with one another? How have they been helpful to the Priests? What are the three chief concordances to the Greek and Hebrew texts? What characterizes each? Which one was especially helpful to our Pastor? What other two classes of helps have the antitypical Eliezerite Amramites furnished the Priests? Wherein do these assist them?
(79) What is the relative value of the antitypical Amramite helps, compared with those of the other antitypical Kohathite helps? What kind of antitypical Levites are the introductionists? In what two ways especially have the antitypical Zichrite Izeharites been helpful to the Priests? What kind of antitypical Levites are the exegetes? How have they helped the Priests? What kind of antitypical Levites are the harmoneticians? What are the four main kinds of helps that they have given the Priests? How have these assisted the Priests? What are the names of four especially helpful antitypical Korahite Izeharite works?
(80) What others' writings have ministered to the Priests? In what ways in Biblical history and biography have they done this? Who are some of the writers on these matters? In what ways in Church history and biography have they done this? What writers have been or will be helpful on these matters? What other class of books of antitypical Hebronites have been helpful? In what respects? Who are prominent as writers of such books? To what other kind of works do these thoughts apply? Who were some of the pertinent writers?
(81) How relatively have the Gospel-Age Uzzielites stood as helpers of the Priests? Of whom is this especially true? Generally speaking, on what subjects have they been of almost no help, rather of hindrance, to the Priests? What were the exceptions to this general rule? What two men illustrate this for the Presbyterian and Lutheran stewardship doctrines? What did such antitypical Elzaphanite Uzzielites do as to their stewardship doctrine toward the Priests in their respective denomination? In all other denominations? Who were the Gospel-Age Mishaelite Uzzielites? How does our estimate of them compare with that of the Gospel-Age Elzaphanite Uzzielites? What have they done ethically with the stewardship doctrines of their denominations? Give illustrations of this from Lutheran
and Presbyterian ethicians? How are ethicians and dogmaticians comparable from the standpoint of reliability? Why so?
(82) What were the Gospel-Age Zithrite Uzzielites? How has their help of the Priests compared with that of the other Uzzielites? Why? For what have they written? What, in the first place, has this purpose moved them to do? What was their second work? From what standpoints? What did they seek to meet by this? Who have been some of the main Gospel-Age Zithrite Uzzielites? What did they accomplish? What has been the nature of the attacks they met? What did their success therein prove?
(83) What kind of works have representatives of all Gospel-Age Kohathite groups produced? For what purpose do such works serve? What do such works lack? For what good are they? What are among the most helpful Bible dictionaries? Bible encyclopedias? Theological and ecclesiastical encyclopedias and dictionaries? What kind of works are these? What other similar works may be added? What are among the most helpful secular encyclopedias in English? Where are other similar works to be found? Why are these advantageous to Priests? What do they lack? Where must one look for these? What Bible dictionary do many Priests have?
(84) For whom have the Gospel-Age Kohathites' works been especially helpful? What case will well illustrate this? What kind of a scholar was our Pastor not? What did enemies of his seek to make of this fact? What does this fact serve to bring out? Why? How did he make up for the implied deficiencies? How have errors been entrenched in translations? The Truth? How could our Pastor ground the Truth on the correct and applicable translations? What Hebrew words, among others, were so treated? Greek words? How many cases to the point were noted in the six volumes by one who knew Greek and Hebrew? What impression was made by this fact? How did the Gospel-Age Gershonite Amramites help our Pastor? What Gospel: Age Gershonite Amramite's work serves as an illustration of this fact?
(85) How did he get help from commentators? Chronologians in Vols. 2 and 3? Church historians in the Antichrist
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
chapter and parts of Vol. 3? What are some illustrations of this? Who helped him on the Pyramid chapter of Vol. 3? On many facts in Vol. 4? What kind of helps did he get on Vol. 5? In what other publication of his is this fact manifest? What did he make on suitable occasions as to such help?
(86) Who else is likewise indebted to the Gospel-Age Kohathites? In preparing what articles did he get help from Gospel-Age Hebronites? From Gospel-Age Korahite Izeharites? From what kind of grammars did he get help in the Robisono-Universalism article? From whose concordances did he get help on various Greek and Hebrew words? What other antitypical Amramite works were therein used? How often does he need antitypical Kohathite writings? Where are these works found? On what principle was his library built up? What must not be inferred from the above acknowledgments? Why not? What is thereby to be understood? How do these helps save the time of mouthpiece Priests? How do they shed light on obscure customs and allusions? What are some illustrations of these ways of help? Why were the Gospel-Age Kohathites given to the Priests?
(87) What other class of Gospel-Age Levites have helped the Priests? How comparatively with the other Levites? How do they stand in relation to the other Levites and the Priests? What are they not, as to this relation? How is this shown in their editing and publishing vernacular Bibles? Bibles in the original languages? In editing and publishing Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, grammars and concordances, as well as vernacular ones? How does this principle apply as to Gospel-Age Izeharite, Hebronite and Uzzielite works? For what is their work indispensable for the Priests? Without their work what would be the effect of the Kohathite works? What, then, is the relation of their work to that of the Priests' use of the Kohathites' work? What writings have Gospel-Age Gershonites prepared? What have these accomplished for those in the Camp and the Gospel-Age Levites and Priests? How have the Gospel-Age Merarites served the Priests by editing and publishing these works? What has our study so far of v. 19 shown?
(88) With what did our last paragraph close? With
what does this one begin? With what thoughts of v. 19 does this one begin? What is the first effect on our minds of the thought that the Levites made atonement? What will dissolve this surprise? What are the two parts of the atonement process? With what part did the Levites have nothing to do? Who had a more important part in its second feature to do than the Levites? Wherein did the latters' part therein consist? How did they perform it? Just what did they effect in the people in performing it?
(89) Who are the Gospel-Age Camp? In what way did the Gospel-Age Levites not work atonement for the Camp? Whose work was this? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What role in the second part of the Gospel-Age atonement work did the Levites not play? Whose work was this? How does the cited Scripture prove this answer? In what capacity did the Gospel-Age Levites serve therein? In what did they succeed? In how much of it? What is the difference between the Gospel-Age Camp's Levites and Priests' pleasement with God? What different expectations does God cherish of these three classes as to this matter? What was the limit of the Gospel-Age Camp's pleasement with God? What would it include? At what would it stop short? How do repentance and faith stand related to the Gospel-Age Camp and Court? Who subordinately worked these things in them, as a part of the atonement work's second feature? Why was such a measure of atonement necessary for them?
(90) How did the Libnite Gershonites effect this in the Gospel-Age Camp? How did the Shimite Gershonites work in this matter? How did the Gershonite Amramites help along in this matter with the Camp in general, and with certain ones in it in particular? How did the Eliezerite Amramites effect these two Camp classes? The Zichrite Izeharites? The Nephegite Izeharites? The Korahite Izeharites? The Hebronites? Through what kind of works especially? The Elzaphanite Uzzielites? The Mishaelite Uzzielites? The Zithrite Uzzielites? The Mahlite Merarites? The Mushite Merarites?
(91) What was the purpose of the Levites' making an atonement for the Israelites? To what kind of a plague does the type refer? In harmony with what was this? What did that covenant promise the obedient? Threaten
Cleansing, etc., of Gospel-Age Levites.
the disobedient? What did the Levites' faithfulness in their work effect for the Israelites in this respect? Their unfaithfulness? What resulted therefrom? What are examples of the keeping away of plagues? Their sending?
(92) How did each sub-group of the Gospel-Age Gershonites, Kohathites and Merarites keep the Camp from being plagued? How did they fail to avert plagues therefrom? How does the example of England illustrate the former experience from 1740 to 1840? What priestly movement led in this? How did the various Levite groups assist therein? Through what works did the Gershonites do this? Through what special books did Kohathites do this?
(93) At the same time what country exhibits the opposite experience? Who was the leader of the unfaithful Levites there in this course? What form did the pertinent plague assume? What did it effect? During what periods do we find the most noted examples of the operation of symbolic plagues? What occasioned them? How was this done among the Gershonites? Among the Kohathites? To whom did they lazily abandon their work? Among the Merarites? What resulted from this?
(94) What is meant by the last clause of v. 19? What thought does it bring out? What does it suggest in the antitype? What did the faithfulness or unfaithfulness of the Gospel-Age Levites work for them in these respects? What do vs. 20-22 tell us as matters of fact? What will not be done with these verses here? Why not?
(95) What is set forth in the rest of the chapter? At what ages were the Levites to begin and end their laborious service? To what do the word translated "service" in vs. 24, 25 and 26, and the word translated "serve" in v. 25 refer? In what was it performed? What Levites were exempt from such labor? In what could they work? By what word is this form of work expressed? What at first sight seems contradictory between v. 24 and seven verses in Num. 4? How are these passages harmonized?
(96) What is typed by a Levite's not being permitted to serve at all before 25 years of age? How does this apply to the Gospel-Age Gershonites? Kohathites? Merarites? Why was this? What is typed by the Levites' undergoing the five-year apprenticeship, in the three classes of Gospel-Age
Levites? When are a man's powers usually at their best? How did God deal with this fact in the type under consideration? What does this type? What is typed by the laborious service continuing for the involved 20 years?
(97) What is typed by the Levites' ceasing from their laborious service at 50? What is typed by the Levites' performing the lighter work of the tabernacle after 50? Teaching the people? What is typed by the decreasing disabilities of the Levites with advanced age? In what ways could such become totally disabled? What is typed by a Levite past 50 becoming totally disabled? What is typed by the difference in the abilities of the Levites to serve between 30 and 50? How is this manifest in the preachers, evangelists and lay workers? In four kinds of scholarly writers and lecturers? In editors and publishers? What three things move God to make different uses of the Priests? Of the Levites?
(98) What is implied in the last sentence of v. 26? For whom was this intended in the type? How did it affect him? In what did the effect in Moses result? What does this type? What is typed by Moses' performing the type properly? In what did performing the antitype result?
In the presence of the Glory,
What no mortal sees he saw,
And from hand that no man touches
Brought the tables of the Law;
Law that bound them with observance,
Lest untutored wit might stray,
Each man where his private fancy
Led him in a wanton way;
Law that from the life redeemed them
Of loose Arabs wandering wild,
And to fruitful acres bound them
Where ancestral virtue toiled;
Law that dowered the chosen people
With a creed Divinely true,
Which subtle Greek and lordly Roman
Stooped to borrow from the Jew.