Epiphany Truth Examiner


View All ChaptersBooks Page


Dan. 1-12 


AS FORMERLY stated, it is our intention to bring out the Scripturally forecast features of our Pastor's life and activities. And with this thought in mind we are in this chapter bringing out the pertinent features as typed in Daniel. That our Pastor knew that he was the antitype of Daniel is indicated by two paintings prepared for, but not used as, Photo-Drama slides, one on his interpreting the antitypical handwriting on the wall and one on Pastor Russell in the critics' den, which was reproduced in plate cut on the back of a Bible Students' Monthly and in the 1913 Convention Report. Daniel does not type our Pastor in all the latter's relations, but only in his relations to the world as a teacher on subjects pertinent to the world and on some of the relations of the Church to the world. Had it not been for many personal items that he gave us on himself, more particularly a detailed description of his religious development from his 17th to his 30th year, i.e., from 1868 to 1881, in a six-hour recital elicited by our asking him in 1903 how he came to the understanding of the Bible set forth in his writings, we would be unable to expound a number of items in Daniel relating to him. Some of these items are not generally known, yet are so important that a record of them should be made. This will account for many of them that are to appear in this chapter, one of the series giving the Divinely forecast account of his life and work. Not in the spirit of an hero or angel worshiper, but in that of an appreciative biographer, do we write this book on that wise and faithful Servant. To save space we will, without quoting the passages, indicate those on

The Parousia Messenger. 


which we are commenting by giving the number of the involved verses. 

(2) In Chapter I the account of Daniel's education for the position of a statesman in Babylon is set forth. Here Nebuchadnezzar types the nominal people of God. Ashpenaz (v. 3) types the chief leaders in the nominal church, such as supervised the subordinate teachers of the nominal church, and such as particularly supervised the educational arrangements of Christendom's prospective teachers. It was the desire of the nominal people of God (vs. 3, 4) that the most gifted and promising young men be selected for training as teachers of their views in symbolic Babylon. As Daniel (v. 6) was one of those chosen for such educational opportunities in literal Babylon, so was Bro. Russell chosen by those nominal Christians with whom he associated as a religiously and intellectually promising young man to teach in the nominal church. And as the king (v. 5) provided that such students be fed from the royal table, so the nominal people of God arranged that the future teachers and leaders in symbolic Babylon be nourished on the religious diet that they themselves ate. As Daniel determined not to defile himself with the Levitically unclean meats (v. 8) of the king's table, so Bro. Russell determined that he would not defile himself with symbolic Babylon's unclean doctrines. Since the story of how this happened is not generally known and should be preserved, we give it here in fair detail. 

(3) Bro. Russell was born with a most exceptionally fine religious endowment. Before he was born his mother consecrated him to the Lord, and afterward gave him the most careful religious training within her ability. As he often said, he could not remember a time from childhood's first memories onward when he was not consecrated. Early he showed his zeal in seeking to save people from eternal torment, among other ways, by his writing at the age of 14 Scripture passages

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


on the sidewalks and walls of houses, urging people to repent and believe. In such evangelistic zeal, when 16 years old, he sought to convert an infidel acquaintance. The latter asked him if he believed God to be perfect in wisdom, justice, love and power. On his replying, "yes," his acquaintance asked him how such a God could have absolutely predestinated the vast majority of the race to eternal torment. The boy answered that he could not understand it. Up to this time he had not thought deeply on this feature of his (the Congregational) church's creed. Troubled by the question, he raised it in the circles of his church. Unable to get any satisfying answer, he expressed his doubts on the matter. The report spread in the church that he was on the way to becoming an infidel. The pastor and elders of the church appointed a special meeting to solve his questions. But instead, they only increased his doubts. They told him that the Bible taught the absolute predestination of the bulk of the race to eternal torment, quoting such passages as they thought so taught. They convinced him that the Bible taught that doctrine. He then said to them, "I believe God is perfect in wisdom, power, justice and love, and I will not believe anything contrary to His character to be a revelation from Him. Therefore I do not believe He gave the Bible as His revelation; for if He had given it as such, it would agree with His wisdom, power, justice and love." It was at this stage wherein he decided he would never believe as a revelation of God anything contradictory to His character, that he antityped Daniel (v. 8), determining not to defile himself with Levitically unclean meats; for he concluded that any doctrine contrary to God's character is false. It will be noted that the stand that Bro. Russell took on this matter of God's character as a test of revealed religion, when he was 16 years old, he retained until death ended his course. 

(4) His pastor and elders, as representatives of the highest church authorities (v. 9) thought highly of 

The Parousia Messenger. 


him; and his determination to accept only what harmonized with God's character (pulse—v. 12) put them into considerable difficulty with the pertinent nominal people of God who would cut them off from their positions ("endanger my head to the king," v. 10), if they did not require of him to accept the Congregational creed in whole. But rather than lose so promising a young man, they conceded to him temporarily (ten days, v. 12) the privilege of subjecting all teachings to the rule of harmony with God's character. Accordingly, we find Bro. Russell as a youth of 16 a disbeliever, not actually, though ostensibly, in the Bible, but actually in the Calvinistic creed, which he was mistaught to be the right interpretation of the Bible. He was of too religious and logical a mind to be content without a revealed religion. He therefore set out to learn what the true religion was, and to this end decided to investigate all religions until he would find out the true one. So he began with that of the Chinese, whose idea of the creation is this: In the beginning all was water. Then a god with a handful of earth boarded a boat and threw this earth into the water, where it grew into our present earth. That was enough of the Chinese religion for him! Worse absurdities than this made him reject Hinduism and Buddhism. The fact that Mohammedanism was partly based on the Old and New Testaments impelled him to reject it. And because Judaism was based in part on the Old Testament, he rejected it. Thus his rejection of the non-Christian religions left him for a while stranded high and dry on the shores of unbelief, though all the while he devoutly held to God as perfect in wisdom, justice, love and power and trusted Him as such. 

(5) But his religious disposition could not be content with no religion; and what to do troubled him. Finally he said to himself, I can at least believe so much of the Bible as is contained in the Golden Rule Godward and manward: Thou shalt love the Lord thy 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul and with all thy strength; … and thy neighbor as thyself (Matt. 22:37, 39). Furthermore, he concluded that Jesus' explanation of the law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, as meaning: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them (Matt. 7:12), was correct. Thus he said, "I believe that much of the New Testament." This prompted him to look up the context of Matt. 7:12, which he found to be a part of the Sermon on the Mount. He studied this in the light of God's character and recognized it to be in harmony therewith. Therefore he accepted it. This moved him to desire to study more of Jesus' teachings, which, accordingly, led him to study these as they are found elsewhere in the four Gospels. Always he found them in harmony with God's character. This moved him not only to accept all of Jesus' teachings in the Gospels as he understood them, but also greatly to appreciate Jesus as a teacher Divinely inspired. Such appreciation of Jesus' teachings prompted him to want to know more of His life, which moved him to a study of the Gospels historically, resulting in his recognizing Jesus as a perfect human being and the Son of God. But up to then he rejected the New Testament, except the Gospels. 

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

The Parousia Messenger. 


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

(7) He continued to study the Scriptures privately and in an independent Bible class at Allegheny, Pa.; and by 1872, four years after he started out in quest of the Divine revelation, he not only accepted the entire Bible as that revelation, but also the following points as its main teachings: the unity of God; the Divine sonship of Jesus; the Spirit as God's power and disposition; man's fall from perfection into sin; death as sin's penalty; the unconsciousness of the dead; the Ransom as guaranteeing an opportunity for the elect in this life and for the non-elect in the Millennium; the eternity of the physical universe; the destruction of the symbolic world at Christ's Second Advent; the 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


Second Advent for the restitution of all things; eternal life in heaven for the elect, and on earth for the saved non-elect; and eternal annihilation for the incorrigible. Without stating the matter as such, in writing Chapters I, II and III of Studies, Vol. I, he traced the steps whereby he came out of infidelity into faith in the Bible as God's revelation. His four years of quest for the Divine revelation and its main contents are the antitypical ten days of vs. 12, 14, 15. As Daniel's face (v. 15) was fairer and fuller at the end of the ten days of pulse eating; so Bro. Russell's symbolic face (knowledge of the Truth, 2 Cor. 4:6) was more beautiful and fuller in holiness than the symbolic faces of those trained in symbolic Babylon's teachings. The steward's (Melzar means steward) permitting Daniel to continue on pulse as a diet (v. 16) types how Bro. Russell's teachers in Babylon conceded to him the privilege of continuing to study the Bible in the light of God's character. Daniel's becoming proficient in knowledge and in dreams and visions (v. 17), types Bro. Russell's development in the Truth in the deep and surface things of the Bible, as sketched above. 

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

The Parousia Messenger. 


50,000 copies. Such doubts and questions calling for an answer antitype Nebuchadnezzar's asking (v. 18) for the graduates to be brought before him for examination. The young men coming in before him represent the various religious teachers coming forward before the nominal people of God to give their views on pertinent religious matters. Daniel's answers (vs. 19, 20) were antitypically given in Bro. Russell's general teachings and particularly in the above-mentioned tract, and these were found ("none like Daniel," v. 19) better than those of the Christian workers trained in Babylon's teachings. Daniel's standing before the king (v. 19), i.e., being made an official in Babylon, types Bro. Russell's subsequent position as a religious teacher before the nominal people of God, whose teachings, on all subjects inquired for by the nominal people of God, were found better (ten times—fully, completely, v. 20) than those of the learned and the prophets of Babylon. 

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

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


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

(10) The papacy's teaching another theory of God's Kingdom in its time and other relations to the kingdoms of this world darkened the subject; for it taught that it was God's Kingdom commissioned to convert the world and rule over it for 1,000 years before Christ's return, whereas it was the clay mingled with the iron in the feet and toes. This view gradually caused the one given to the nominal people of God by the Apostles to be forgotten by them (the thing is gone from me, v. 5). For many centuries the true view was forgotten; and it was only beginning with the Illumination, 1748, that nominal Christians began to demand an explanation of the meaning of history from the clergy (Chaldeans), the professors (magi), the historians (astrologers) and the prophets (sorcerers)

The Parousia Messenger. 


of Christendom (v. 2). Their inability to tell what was the early view of Christians thereon, as well as its meaning, was typed by the inability of Nebuchadnezzar's wise men to tell the dream and its interpretation (vs. 4-11). The decree to slay the wise men of Babylon types the determination of the thinking members of the nominal church to set aside as their teachers, a symbolic killing, the wise men of Christendom. Arioch (vs. 14, 15) represents those who led the people in setting aside such teachers, i.e., the free thinkers, higher critics, etc., who, beginning about 1785, worked to undermine popular confidence in Christendom's wise men as teachers. Undoubtedly, the prestige of such wise men was greatly decreased with ever-increasing numbers of nominal people of God from that time onward. Arioch's seeking Daniel (v. 13) represents that such free thinkers, higher critics, etc., sought to undermine Bro. Russell as a teacher in Christendom. Daniel's tact in dealing with Arioch (vs. 14, 15) types Bro. Russell's tact in dealing with free thinkers, etc. Arioch's telling Daniel the situation (v. 15) types the free thinkers, etc., telling the situation of the antitypical wise men to Bro. Russell. 

(11) Daniel's going to the king and obtaining time to consider and answer the matter (v. 16) represents Bro. Russell's standing before the nominal people of God as a teacher of religion and promising, if allowed due time, to solve the matter at hand. Daniel's laying the matter before his three friends and asking their united prayers over the matter (vs. 17, 18) represents Bro. Russell's habit of asking suggestions from the brethren when in difficulty and asking their prayers for Divine enlightenment, e.g., when he was perplexed over the meaning of the voice of the three signs (Z '07, 276, last par.). Members of the Bethel family will recall such things as occurring. This course he followed in the present instance. God's revealing this matter to Daniel (v. 19) types God's making known 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


to Bro. Russell the view of the early Christians on the meaning of history as exemplified in the Gentile rule and the prophesied role of God's Kingdom. Daniel's thanksgiving (vs. 19-23) types Bro. Russell's thanksgiving at this mercy of God. Daniel's desiring Arioch not to destroy Babylon's wise men (v. 24) represents Bro. Russell's refutation of the course of the free thinkers, etc., which was a hindrance to their object. Arioch's bringing Daniel to the king as one who would tell and interpret the dream (v. 25) types the free thinkers', etc., more or less praising Bro. Russell, whose kindly manner and logical teachings favorably impressed them. Nebuchadnezzar's asking Daniel if he could give and interpret the dream (v. 26) types the nominal people of God inquiring, i.e., searching Bro. Russell's teachings for an answer to the matter on hand. Daniel's reminding Nebuchadnezzar that Babylon's wise men could not answer his questions (v. 27) types Bro. Russell's statements that Christendom's clergy, professors, learned ones, prophets and philosophers have been unable to answer the matter. Daniel's attributing the implied wisdom, not to himself, but to God (v. 28), types Bro. Russell's denying that he had his wisdom of himself, but that it was of God, who as due revealed the knowledge to him. Daniel's telling and interpreting the dream (vs. 28-45) types Bro. Russell's showing the view of the early Christians on the increasing depravity accompanying the rule of the Gentiles and on the role of God's Kingdom as the destroyer and successor of these. This view our Pastor gave in his writings, sermons and lectures. The king's honoring and promoting Daniel (vs. 46-48) type how increasingly the people of Christendom honored Bro. Russell and regarded him as above all other religious teachers of Christendom. Daniel's desiring promotion for his three friends (v. 49) types Bro. Russell's using his position to advance the Lord's people as teachers in Christendom. Daniel's sitting in the king's gate 

The Parousia Messenger. 


(v. 49) types the great and favorable publicity that Bro. Russell got especially from 1913 onward. 

(12) In the events of Dan. 3, Daniel took no part. It has often occasioned wonder as to where Daniel was while Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego were undergoing the trial of the golden image and the fiery furnace. While the record is silent on this point, one thing is certain about it, i.e., that Daniel was absent from the plain of Dura; for he certainly would have stood beside his three friends, had he been present. When we look at the antitype it becomes manifest that Daniel, who throughout his book types our Pastor, could not have been there; for had he been present it would have spoiled the antitype; for Bro. Russell died before either of the two fulfillments set in where he lived. Thus in the light of the antitype Daniel's absence during the events described in chapter 3 is entirely clear. Nevertheless, Daniel wrote this, as well as the rest of the book that bears his name. And what does his writing this chapter type? Bro. Russell's giving the two antitypes of this chapter, e.g., one in Z '99, 168-172, and the other in Z '15, 259-261. Thus in giving these two antitypes of this chapter our Pastor antityped Daniel in writing it. 

(13) We now come to Dan. 4. In this chapter Nebuchadnezzar gives an account of a prophetic dream that he had, its interpretation by Daniel and its fulfillment. Daniel interpreted the dream only from the standpoint of its application to King Nebuchadnezzar. In Studies, Vol. II, in the chapter on the Times of the Gentiles, gives us the antitype of the dream; but while giving us the antitype of the dream, he did not give us the antitype of Daniel as interpreting the dream. It is unnecessary for us here to give the antitype of the dream itself, either as to the tree and the wild man or as to Nebuchadnezzar, since it is sufficiently given in Studies, Vol. II in the chapter on the Times of the Gentiles. We will now give the antitypes of

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


the chapter not given by our Pastor. As he shows, Nebuchadnezzar in this chapter represents the human family. In his first honorable position he represents the race before the fall. His sinning in pride represents the race's fall into sin. The sentence against him, that against the race. His being driven out from his associates, man's being cut off from fellowship with God and the good angels. His experiences before the seven times, man's experience of evil before the Times of the Gentiles set in. His experience during the seven times, the race's greater evils under the curse during the Times of the Gentiles. His coming back to his senses, man's restoration during the times of restitution. His coming back to his kingdom with added honors, the increased glories for the obedient of mankind in the Ages following the Millennium. His ascribing glory, honor and praise to God, restored man's praise of God forever. These are the generalities of the antitype. The specialities of those things not interpreted by our Pastor will now engage our attention. 

(14) Nebuchadnezzar's dream (v. 5) represents the view that mankind in general has had: a past golden age, a present experience of evil and a coming golden age. This view has had representatives in all nations. Among heathen Plato and Virgil have set it forth rather remarkably. Nebuchadnezzar's asking for its interpretation from the magi, the astrologers, the Chaldeans and the soothsayers (vs. 6, 7), types mankind's inquiring, particularly in Christendom, of the learned, the historians, the clergy and the prophets, for an explanation of the vague views of a past and future golden age and a present experience with evil. The failure of Nebuchadnezzar's magi, astrologers, Chaldeans and soothsayers, to interpret his dream (v. 7), types the failure of the learned, the historians, the clergy and the prophets, particularly in Christendom, to interpret the antitype. Daniel's coming at the last (v. 8) types that at the end of the Age (Luke 12:42; 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Matt. 24:45) would arise his antitype, Bro. Russell. Nebuchadnezzar's telling him the dream (vs. 8-18) types men telling our Pastor their indefinite views on a past and future golden age and a present experience with evil, and asking his thought thereon. Daniel's being troubled over the matter one hour (v. 19) types Bro. Russell's temporary perplexity until about 1880 over certain features of the antitype, particularly on the purpose of the experience with evil and its relation to the one following it with good. Daniel's assuring the king that the dream and its interpretation were such as his haters and enemies desired (v. 19) types Bro. Russell's teaching that only haters of the human family, i.e., the devil and his followers among spirits and men, could have any pleasure in man's experience with evil. Daniel's interpretation of the dream types our Pastor's giving the following lines of thought: man's creation in the image and likeness of God and happy life in Eden; man's trial and fall through sin into death amid an ever degrading experience with evil, first in a milder form, then during the Times of the Gentiles in a severer form; his progressively elevating experience with righteousness; his final trial and the everlasting bliss of the obedient in honoring and serving God. Without any doubt our dear Pastor did give such an explanation of the antitypical dream, and in his writings, sermons and lectures, apart from explaining Dan. 4, he gave such thoughts on the Divine Plan with respect to the human family. 

(15) Dan. 5 treats of Belshazzar's feast, the handwriting on the wall and its reading and interpretation. In one of the pictures used in the German Photo-Drama the antitype of the interpretation is given. Therein our Pastor is represented as giving the right interpretation, while the clergy, etc., are pictured forth as in confusion worse confounded thereover. In the following we will not give the story as contained in Dan. 5, but only the interpretation of the type. In 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


this chapter Belshazzar types the nominal people of God in state, church and capital, especially their leaders as a class. His 1,000 lords (v. 1) represent these leaders distributively as being many, i.e., in their totality. His wives represent the main organizations of the nominal people of God, and his concubines their lesser organizations. The feast (v. 1) types the Parousia privileges and advantages that the nominal people of God appropriated to themselves, particularly such as they appropriated to themselves in the church unions of the Parousia. The golden and silver vessels (vs. 2, 3) type the Divine truths that had been taken captive in the Dark Ages with God's real people into symbolic Babylon. The sending of these vessels types the requirements that the teachings of God's Word be made subservient to Babylon's unclean uses. Putting Babylon's wine into these vessels types the corruption of the Divine truth with Babylon's errors. The banqueters' drinking there from types the antitypical Babylonians' partaking of a mixture of Truth and error in their Parousia feast. The fingers of a man's hand (v. 5) that wrote on the wall represent the exhibition of Divine power (hand) on symbolic Babylon's walls (her political, financial, ecclesiastical, social and labor powers). The king's seeing the part of the hand that wrote (v. 5) types the nominal people of God recognizing in part that it was a manifestation of Divine power that they witnessed. And such power was manifest in the signs of the times occurring in Babylon's political, financial, ecclesiastical, labor and social powers. 

(16) The great perturbation of the king at the sight (v. 6) types Christendom's fears at the events which proved to be the signs of the times—"men's hearts failing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth" (Luke 21:26). The king's demand that the wise men of Babylon be brought before him (v. 7) types the demand of the nominal people of God that the wise men of Christendom

The Parousia Messenger. 


be summoned to the fore on the subject at hand. His offer to give the purple robe, the golden chain and the third position in the kingdom to the one who would read and interpret the handwriting, represents Christendom's reward of making the true reader and interpreter the royally accepted (purple robe), Divinely authorized (golden chain on the neck) chief teacher in the religious (the third) department of symbolic Babylon. The failure of the astrologers, Chaldeans and soothsayers to read or interpret the handwriting types the failure of Christendom's learned men, clergy and prophets, to read and interpret the signs of the times. Belshazzar's increased fears and that of his lords (v. 9) types the increased perplexity of the nominal people of God, particularly of its leaders, at the events which proved to be signs of the times, when their trusted teachers were unable to decipher these; for the higher critics and evolutionists, the creedists and philosophers, the students of church, state, capital, labor and society and reformers, were all alike at sea in their attempts to read and explain the events as signs of the times, so contradictory of their theories. Their boasted learning, theories, cures and programs foundered on the rock of Truth embodied in these events as signs of the times. 

(17) The queen (v. 10) types friendly readers of Pastor Russell's writings, who, while not consecrating and coming into the Truth, nevertheless regarded him as a wonderfully enlightened man of God (v. 11), whose true and reasonable solutions of the most difficult religious problems, particularly those antityped by the interpretations given by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar's two dreams (vs. 11, 12), satisfied them that Pastor Russell could read and interpret the antitypical handwriting on the wall. These were attracted (v. 10) to the symbolic feast by the report of Christendom's, particularly her leaders', expressed perplexity over the involved events. Their suggestion that Pastor Russell

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


be sent for to solve the difficulty antitypes the queen's suggestion that Daniel be sent for to decipher the handwriting on the wall (v. 12). The sending for Daniel, implied in vs. 12, 13, types the summoning of Bro. Russell in his writings, sermons and lectures, to solve the difficulty. Daniel's being brought in before the king (v. 13) types Bro. Russell's being brought in before the nominal people of God, particularly their leaders, in the sense that his writings, sermons and lectures were introduced before these. The king's telling Daniel what he had heard of him (vs. 13-16) represents the thoughts of the nominal people of God with respect to him, as they took our Pastor's literature and words in hand to get his views on the pertinent events. In type and antitype inquiries were made (v. 13), compliments were passed on the one asked to explain (v. 14), the inability of the wise men to solve the difficulty was acknowledged (v. 15), the ability of the one asked was acknowledged (v. 16) and the above-mentioned reward was offered (v. 16). Daniel's first statement (v. 17), that the king keep his gifts or bestow his rewards on another types Bro. Russell's disinterestedness; for he gladly gave his service in the cause of Truth freely, declining to accept remuneration therefore. Daniel's willingness to read and interpret the handwriting (v. 17) types Bro. Russell's willingness to read and explain the peculiar events as signs of the times to the nominal people of God. 

(18) But Daniel preceded his reading and interpretation of the writing by a penitential sermon to the king (vs. 18-23), which types our Pastor's reading a penitential discourse to Christendom for its sins. Daniel's allusions to Nebuchadnezzar's exaltation, sin, degradation, repentance and restoration (vs. 18-21), types our Pastor's various presentations on man's original perfection, his sin, his experience with evil with its consequent degradation, and man's future repentance and restoration as a warning to the Parousia 

The Parousia Messenger. 


generation against its sinful course—a generation which knew all these things (v. 22), but which, despite such knowledge, exalted (v. 23), instead of humbling, itself, even to the degree of defiling God's Truth, each individually in general, and in particular through the leaders and their organizations (v. 23), and honored their creeds as god, but failed to glorify the true God. Certainly our Pastor's pertinent writings, sermons and lectures are replete with such teachings. As Daniel showed (v. 24) that God's sign was given in view of such sins on the part of Belshazzar, his lords, wives and concubines, so Bro. Russell showed that, among other reasons, it was in view of Christendom's sins that the pertinent events as signs of the times were sent by God. In both the type and the antitype it was most fitting that the pertinent sinfulness should have been pointed out before the typical and antitypical handwriting was read and interpreted. Then in each case came the reading and interpretation of the mystic handwriting on the wall. 

(19) First Daniel read the writing (v. 25), which the Babylonian wise men could not even read. This represents that first our Pastor showed that the perplexing events, which as such Christendom's wise men could not clearly see, were signs of the times and must be seen as such. Then as Daniel explained the meaning of the words (vs. 26-28), so Bro. Russell explained the meaning of the signs. What is the antitype of Daniel's explaining that MENE (v. 26) means "God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it" (v. 26)? It is this: Our Pastor, in his writings, lectures and sermons, pointed out that God had limited the kingdoms of the world to a definite number of years—the seven times of the Gentiles, 2520 years—and that these times would end in 1914, which finished the period of the lease of power to Gentile kingdoms. Very significant in this connection is the fact that the numeric value of those words on the wall is exactly 2520— 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


Mene = 1000; Mene = 1000; Tekel = 20; Peres = 500, the gerah being the unit here meant (Num. 3:47). This—that the Gentile times were numbered—2520 years—and were coming to an end in 1914, is the first thing that the events as signs of the times indicated, for among other things they indicated that the kingdoms were tottering unto a fall; hence that their time of reigning was at an end. What is the antitype of the explanation of TEKEL?—"Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting" (v. 27)? Our Pastor's pointing out in his writings, e.g., in the Views From The Watch Tower and in Studies, Vol. IV, in his lectures and in his sermons, that Christendom political, financial, ecclesiastical, labor and social, was on trial before the bar of Divine Justice, charged in numerous specifications with failure to fulfill its real and alleged mission. All will recall with what thoroughness of proof from Scripture, reason and fact these details were given, especially in Studies, Vol. IV. These specifications with their proofs in the events were the weighing in the balances. This weighing demonstrated, in spite of the contentions of Christendom's advocates, that it was found lacking as a result of the trial. Justice in the one side of the scales tipped the side of the scale in which Christendom lay up against the beam, almost perpendicularly above the justice side of the scale. Truly, as a result of this weighing Christendom was found wanting. This was the second great thing that the events as signs of the times indicated. 

(20) What is the antitype of the explanation of PERES of which UPHARSIN is a form (v. 25)—"Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians" (v. 28)? Our Pastor pointed out that the signs of the times indicated that Christendom was divided into two hostile camps: a conservative camp, consisting of church, state and capital, and a radical camp, consisting of farmers, trade unionists, socialists, communists and anarchists. Furthermore, he pointed

The Parousia Messenger. 


out that the ever-increasing friction between these two camps would burst out into a fire of destruction in Armageddon, which would destroy the conservative camp, obliterating the present forms of state, church and capital. Moreover, he pointed out that these signs indicated the imminence of God's Kingdom in its two phases (Medes and Persians), as the kingdom that would succeed the kingdoms of this world. Thus did he point out the three great things indicated in the signs of the times: (1) the end of the Gentile times; (2) Babylon's judgment going against her and (3) the overthrow of Satan's empire, to be succeeded by God's two-phased Kingdom. Without any doubt this is the interpretation of the signs of the times that our Pastor gave, which none of Babylon's wise men could give. They could not even read the events, i.e., recognize them to be significant. And the events demonstrate especially since 1914 onward that his reading and interpreting were correct. Daniel clothed in the purple robe represents that Bro. Russell was royally received as the true reader and interpreter of the signs of the times. Daniel's having the chain of gold put about his neck types that Bro. Russell was accepted as the Divinely authorized reader and interpreter of the signs of the times. And Daniel's being accepted as the third (the religious) ruler in Babylon types that Bro. Russell was increasingly regarded as the greatest religious teacher in Christendom, the ecclesiastical division being during the Parousia considered in influence the third division of Christendom. Belshazzar's death (v. 30) types the nominal kingdom passing away in the trouble. Darius taking the kingdom represents our Lord taking the Kingdom. 

(21) We now come to the sixth chapter of Daniel, which treats of Daniel in the lions' den. As with the matters of the preceding chapter so with those of this chapter, our Pastor in a half-page People's Pulpit picture used to advertise public meetings, which picture 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


can be seen in the 1913 convention report, indicated his thought that he was the one typed by Daniel in Dan. 6. In this chapter Darius represents our Lord, sometimes acting directly, and sometimes indirectly in His people. The kingdom (v. 1) here represents the Laodicean Church—the real and nominal church, as the nominal and real embryo Kingdom. The 120 princes (v. 1) type the leaders in the nominal church. The three presidents (v. 2) correspond to the three leaders of the three divisions of the Laodicean Church: the pope as leader of Catholicism, the head of the Federation of Churches as the leader of united Protestantism, and Bro. Russell as leader of the Truth people. Of these three (v. 2) Bro. Russell was chief, being the leader of the real people of God. The antitypical 120 as leaders of the nominal church were to render an account to these three leaders so that no damage accrue to the Lord Jesus. This arrangement had its start very early in the Parousia, reaching the Federation of Churches later. As Daniel was preferred by Darius above the other presidents and the 120 princes, because of his superior talents and character (v. 3), so antitypically Bro. Russell was preferred by our Lord for the same reasons above the pope, the Federation's head and the other leaders of the nominal church. The king's thinking to set Daniel over the whole kingdom (v. 3) represents our Lord's thinking to put Bro. Russell into that antitypical position, which, however, was never done. It has been said that envy is the tribute that inferiority gives to superiority. So was it in this case. As at first the two presidents and 120 princes sought to fault Daniel in his administration, but failed therein (v. 4), so did the pope, the Federation's head and the other leaders of the nominal church seek to do with our Pastor, but failed therein. As the former then decided that only on his religion could they get an advantage over Daniel (v. 3), so the latter decided that only on his religion could they entrap Bro. Russell.

The Parousia Messenger. 


(22) As the two presidents and 120 princes, etc., drew up a law forbidding anyone to make a petition to God or man for 30 days, except to the king (vs. 6, 7), so the leaders of Christendom and their representatives drew up progressively a decree that from 1881 to 1911 only the trinity, which in practice, though not in theory, usually means Jesus only, should be prayed to. It has always been the custom, though not the theory, to pray to Jesus almost exclusively in the nominal church. The nominal-church view of the Father as being enraged at the race and being intensely desirous of casting it into eternal torment, from which Jesus' intercession alone is thought to save them, has resulted in the practice that the Father is dreaded and is held afar from men, while Jesus is by them loved, trusted and sought in prayer. As a result, the custom, though not the theory, has arisen that in their prayers and affections most nominal-church members come to Jesus and not to the Father. Bro. Russell's anti-trinitarianism became the occasion for the votaries of the trinity stressing their doctrine to an extreme. The two presidents and the 120 princes, etc., coming to Darius to have the decree signed and sealed by the king, type the above-mentioned leaders coming to Jesus with their trinitarian agitation for His sanction. Jesus' permitting them to go on their course and allowing it to be prospered without attempting to hinder it, occasioned their getting the thought that He had sanctioned their purpose. With them silence, non-hindrance and success meant sanction! Of course, Jesus neither directly nor indirectly sanctioned such a thing. His dis-sanction of it is found in His giving the Truth on the subject through that Servant, especially in Studies, Vol. V. 

(23) It should not strike us as unusual that Darius permitted himself to be worshiped. This was usual with ancient oriental monarchs, as it was the case in China until their empire was recently overthrown, and as it is still the case in Japan; for the heathen theory is 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


that their kings and emperors were of Divine begettal, hence were Divine and infallible, and as such should be worshiped. Hence the Persians and Medes so regarded their kings, and therefore considered their decrees infallible, and hence as unalterable—"the laws of the Medes and Persians alter not." As Daniel did not permit the erroneous decree to keep him back from worshiping the true God nor to make him do it in secret (v. 10), so Bro. Russell would not allow the Trinitarians to prevent him from worshiping, i.e., serving God. The open window represents the non-secrecy, i.e., the publicity, of the service. Its being open toward Jerusalem represents that our Pastor served God in the interests of the true Church. Daniel's doing this on his knees symbolizes Bro. Russell's spirit of consecration in his service of God, and doing it three times a day symbolizes that our Pastor did the antitypical service continually. As Daniel's enemies spied on him, so did our Pastor's enemies spy on him. As the former caught Daniel in the act (v. 11), so did our Pastor's enemies catch him in the act, as they thought. Their subtly securing the king's admission (v. 12) of the validity and unchangeability of the law types the crafty manner in which their antitypes sought to commit the Lord Jesus to a course that consistently, they thought, would force Him to realize their plot against our Pastor. Jesus by silence and the seeming prospering of their plot antitypes Darius' admission of the validity and unchangeability of the law, which they greatly desired. 

(24) In Biblical symbols a pit symbolizes a condition of slander. This appears from Joseph's being put into the pit, as typing: (1) Jesus, (2) the star-members of the Church and (3) the entire Church, being slandered by the nominal church leaders. It also appears from the type of Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, slaying a lion in a pit, on a snowy day, wherein is pictured forth J. F. Rutherford, by his booklet issued

The Parousia Messenger. 


during the Time of Trouble (winter), A Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens, refuting the nominal church's slander against our Pastor (2 Sam. 23:20). Hence to be put into a pit, which the lions' den was ("ere they came to the bottom of the den"; v. 24), means to be put into a condition of slander, the lions typing the slanders involved here. The plotters' informing Darius that Daniel was the decree-violator and the king-disregarder (v. 13) types the antitypical plotters' informing Jesus against Bro. Russell by the acts of their seeking slanderous stories against our Pastor. Darius' seeking to deliver Daniel from the lions' den (v. 14) types Jesus' by His Spirit, acting in the loyal Truth people, seeking to defend our Pastor against the slanderous course of his traducers. The insistence of the typical plotters (v. 15) types the persistence of their antitypes in their determination to slander our Pastor, despite the Spirit of Jesus in His people striving against it. Their claim of unchanging legality types the stress laid on the seeming providence of the Lord as sanctioning the purpose at hand and on its being an infallible, unchangeable thing. The king's yielding to the demands (v. 16) types Jesus' permitting the conspiracy to run its course and His seeming prospering of it. Daniel's being cast into the lions' den (v. 16) types Bro. Russell's being put into the condition of slander. The king's assuring Daniel that the God whom he served continually would deliver him (v. 16) types Jesus' assurance through His people that God would deliver our Pastor. The stone that was laid at the den's mouth (v. 17) types the providences that prevented Bro. Russell's escape from the condition of slander. It included adverse court decisions and a hostile press that would not allow vindication to be given him in its columns. The king's sealing the stone with his and his lords' signets (v. 17) types Jesus' allowing unhindered the experience to be our Pastor's. 

(25) And certainly the slanderers were given full 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


play with their loose tongues. First of all, at the manipulation of nominal church leaders, the 1891-1894 sifters were allowed free course with their slanders against our Pastors' conduct of the work. These set him forth as a designing, cheating business man who sought to use religion and business to reap a harvest of wealth for himself at the cost of others. Secondly, at the manipulation of the nominal church leaders Bro. Russell's wife, after threatening to ruin him before the world (she became set against him because he would not allow her to dictate the contents of the Tower and the policies of the harvest work), brought suit for divorce against him, insinuating sexual improprieties against him, despite the fact that on the witness stand she was forced to admit that she did not have any ground for charging him with adultery, which charge her instigators spread broadcast against him as though made by her. Thirdly, they charged him with claiming to be a thorough Greek and Hebrew scholar, a claim he never made, and then got a court ruling that he was no Greek and Hebrew scholar, and then spread world-wide the slander that his alleged pretentions to Greek and Hebrew scholarship were by a court declared to be unfounded. Fourthly, through the misrepresentations of the 1908-1911 sifters his business transactions were represented world-wide as being permeated wholly with fraud and deceit, to the alleged impoverishment of his dupes and to his own enrichment. And, finally, in 1911, through the Brooklyn Eagle, they slandered him as selling at fabulous profits a wheat to which he was alleged to ascribe miraculous properties. Beside these major slanders, they added minor ones, as many as their minds, fertile in inventing falsehoods, imagined would seem plausible. These slanders were the lions, antitypical of those that glared, growled and crouched, as ready to leap, at Daniel. In both type and antitype the experience must have been heart and mind testing of the most extreme kind. 

The Parousia Messenger. 


(26) The king's fasting, mourning and sleeplessness (v. 18) type the distress of Jesus in His faithful people, at the sad experiences of Bro. Russell in the antitypical lions' den. It seems that the 30 days of v. 12 types the 30 years' period from 1881, when the trinitarian doctrine started to be especially stressed, to 1911, when the last great slander—that on the miracle wheat—started. The early morning of v. 19 seems to type a time shortly after 1911, when the Lord Jesus arose to a stopping of the slanders against His faithful steward, typed by Darius hastening to the lions' den. Darius' asking Daniel whether his God had been able to deliver him (v. 20) types Jesus' Spirit in His people asking Bro. Russell whether God's grace was strong enough to sustain him in his sore trial. At the same time they feared for his maintaining his new-creaturely bearing amid the experience. Time and again the brethren during those long-drawn-out, slanderous experiences feared that he would become bitter, angry, hating, vindictive, unforgiving, revengeful, slanderous, etc., at the great injustices heaped upon him by his ecclesiastical enemies. These were the antitypes of Darius' fears. Daniel's first response (v. 21), "O king, live forever," types Bro. Russell's spirit as one that did not blame Jesus for permitting the slanders, but wished Him eternal prosperity. Next, Daniel's ascribing his preservation to the grace of God, ministered through an angel (v. 22), types Bro. Russell's ascribing, not to his own new-creaturely strength, but to God's goodness through His Spirit, Word and providence, his deliverance. Our Pastor's deliverance was not a physical one; it was one of his New Creature. It consisted in this, that God's grace was so faithfully used by him as to disarm the slanders from injuring his holy qualities of heart and mind. Instead of rancor, meekness; instead of anger, longsuffering; instead of hatred, forbearance; instead of implacability, forgiveness; instead of malice, sweetness; instead of revenge, well-doing; 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


instead of slander, blessing filled him. Hence his New Creature received no damage from the symbolic lions, as fierce, savage, malicious and violent as they were. Truly, they did not hurt him (v. 22). In both the type and the antitype, the reason was the same—"innocency" (v. 22). Daniel's consciousness that he did not wrong the king (v. 22) types Bro. Russell's consciousness that in putting God first and serving Him alone, he did Jesus no wrong, since he was also faithful to Jesus in all matters pertaining to Him. 

(27) The king's rejoicing (v. 23) types that of Jesus both personally and in His people at Bro. Russell's spiritual victory. The charge to bring Daniel forth from the lions' den (v. 23) types Jesus' charge that the slanders cease, as the bringing of Daniel out of the lions' den types the deliverance of Bro. Russell from the condition of slander. From 1913 onward a great change of public sentiment and utterance set in as to our Pastor. A D.C. court's decision, valid therefore throughout the United States, except in Florida, against a publisher of a string of about thirty very prominent newspapers for his publishing these slanders, became the occasion of those papers publishing an apology, and as a penitential act these papers published Bro. Russell's sermons. This decision, shown to the other slandering editors, produced similar effects. Statesmen, educators and legislators vied with one another for the privilege of introducing him to audiences that filled to overflowing the largest auditoriums of America and other countries. Everywhere he was regarded as the greatest religious teacher of his times. At the Panama-Pacific Exposition its managers set aside a special Pastor Russell's Day as a part of the Exposition program, and the chairman of its board at a very largely attended meeting, after a laudatory address, presented him with a large bronze medal, on one side of which was embossed a figure of his face. Everywhere he went he was received with public manifestations

The Parousia Messenger. 


of favor and applause. Thus as Daniel's faith (v. 23) stopped the mouths of lions (Heb. 11:33), so did our Pastor's faith stop the power of slanders from opening their mouths against him to his hurt. And as Daniel was given greater honors (v. 28), so was our Pastor—extending not only over the Parousia proper (Darius' time), but also into the third year of its lapping into the Epiphany (Cyrus' time). 

(28) The king's commanding the designing presidents and princes, and their children and wives, to be thrown into the lions' den (v. 24) types Jesus' removing hindrances to slanders from opening their mouths against the leaders of the nominal church and their partisan supporters and organizations. The throwing of the former into the lions' den (v. 24) types the putting of them into the condition of slander; and thus in both cases was fulfilled the saying that he that diggeth a pit for his neighbor's feet shall himself fall therein. The lions' having the mastery over the two presidents and the 120 princes and their children and wives, types the slanders' mastering the leaders, their followers and their organizations. Their tearing these to pieces types how the characters of their victims were torn, in that anger, resentment, hatred, malice, vindictiveness, implacability, revenge and cursing, were aroused in them by the slanders. The tearing to pieces occurring before the victims fell even to the bottom of the den types the speed with which the pertinent characters were torn to pieces in their trial in the den of slander. Thus our Pastor's strength of character shines out in striking contrast with the weakness of their characters. Darius' decree types our Lord's proclamations of the supremacy of the Heavenly Father and of His benign reign forever and forever. This decree will forever manifest our Pastor's glorious victory in his sore trial. A part of that manifestation will be the making known that this antitypical Daniel has been found worthy to be the Lord's special representative

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


toward the Little Flock (Num. 4:16) and the Ancient Worthies (Num. 3:32) during the Millennium, as the individual Millennial Eleazar. 

(29) As a line of distinction between Dan. 1—6 and Dan. 7—12, the following may be given: Dan. 1—6 is mainly historical and Dan. 7—12 is mainly prophetical. However there are a few prophetical matters in Dan. 1—6 and a few historical matters in Dan. 7—12. We must remember that it is not our design in this chapter to expound the book of Daniel prophetically, which our Pastor has done sufficiently, but to expound the book from the standpoint of type and antitype. This design will be adhered to in our explaining the second part of Daniel, as it was in our explaining its first part; and this is possible, because interspersed among the prophecies of its second part there are a number of historical facts and allusions. In Dan. 7 prophecy is mainly found, with but two historical allusions connected therewith; for this chapter contains the vision of the four beasts, which therein are expounded as representing the four universal empires of the Gentile times. Additionally, the horns, more particularly one of them, of the fourth beast come in for exposition. It also pictures forth the Ancient of days, and the One like the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven and with His associated saints, obtaining the Kingdom. Daniel's seeing this vision represents Bro. Russell's getting an indefinite idea of the course of history under the Gentile powers and of God's Kingdom to follow their overthrow as the result of God's judgment. This indefinite view he got partly from Scripture and partly from history. His indefinite view of these matters was not an understanding of them, even as Daniel's seeing the vision was not an understanding of it (vs. 15, 16). As Daniel asked and received the explanation of the vision from one who stood by (vs. 16-27), so Bro. Russell asked of, and received an explanation of the antitypical vision from Bro. N. H. Barbour, who later 

The Parousia Messenger. 


denied the Ransom and became among the Truth people the first harvest-sifting leader. As Daniel was troubled over the vision and explanation (v. 28), so was Bro. Russell over the antitypes. Daniel's countenance being changed (v. 28) types the change of knowledge (2 Cor. 4:6—face) that came to Bro. Russell on the pertinent subject. And Daniel's keeping the matter in his heart types Bro. Russell's abiding and loving interest in the subject. 

(30) At this place there may well be introduced a record of the events connected with which the explanation of the antitypical vision was given. As we saw above, the misuse that the Adventists had made of prophetic time in forecasting the date of Jesus' allegedly fleshly Second Advent and its alleged annihilation of the physical universe had greatly prejudiced Bro. Russell against the use of prophetic chronology. Knowing that Jesus as a Divine Spirit would be invisible in His Second Advent, that the physical universe would last forever and that Jesus' Second Advent would annihilate the symbolic heavens and earth, preparatory to the establishing of His Kingdom to effect the restitution of all things, Bro. Russell laughed at their erroneous claims and ridiculed their unreasonable teachings. But he went further: he allowed their going into one extreme in the misuse of prophetic chronology to drive him into the other extreme of denying the use of prophetic chronology altogether. This, of course, was an error on his part. It was partly to combat the Adventist pertinent errors that he published and circulated his tract on The Object and Manner of our Lord's Second Advent. And he maintained his unbelief in, and ridiculing of prophetic chronology until into 1876, when the Lord helped him out of this error into the opposite Truth. This occurred as follows: In Jan., 1876, he received a magazine through the mails. Opening it, he saw from its frontispiece that it was an Adventist publication. Ridiculingly he said to himself, 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


"I wonder what date they are now fixing for Christ's coming in flesh and annihilating the universe!" In this attitude he began to read an article in the magazine. He saw that its writer was beginning to get his eyes slightly open on the object and manner of our Lord's return. The article told of how its author, a Bro. Barbour, disappointed at Christ's not coming in the flesh and annihilating the universe in 1874, had carefully reviewed many times the chronology to see whether there were not some flaw therein, and, unable to find one, was greatly perplexed over the resultant situation. 

(31) While in such perplexity he received a letter from a Bro. B. W. Keith, of Danville, N. Y., an Adventist subscriber to Bro. Barbour's Herald Of The Morning. The former's pre- and post-1874 experiences with the chronology were like those of Bro. Barbour. After telling of these in his letter, he went on to say that he had lately been studying Matt. 24 through the Diaglott, which, he noticed, translated the word parousia by the word presence, whereas it was in the A.V. rendered by the word coming. He further stated in his letter that Matt. 24:38, 39, compared with Luke 17:26, 27, seemed to teach that during the presence of the Son of Man people would, in ignorance thereof, go on in their customary way of living: eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, etc. Then the letter asked Bro. Barbour whether, the chronology being proven to be flawless, our Lord had not since Oct., 1874, been invisibly present in His Second Advent (Reprints, 188, 6-10). Having in the article stated these matters, Bro. Barbour cautiously advanced the thought that probably our Lord was present invisibly in His Second Advent. As Bro. Russell read this article he for the first time saw that probably, after all, prophetic chronology had a place in revealed religion; for believing for over 15 months now that our Lord as a Divine Spirit would have to be invisible in His Second Advent, the question arose in his mind, How 

The Parousia Messenger. 


apart from prophetic chronology, could we know that He was present? He could think of no other way of knowing it except through prophetic chronology. Hence for the first time he was willing with almost no prejudice to investigate as to whether prophetic chronology had a place in God's plan. Accordingly, he entered into a correspondence with Bro. Barbour over the matter, and arranged for a meeting to take place between them at Philadelphia, where for the period of the Centennial Exposition (May 10-Nov. 10, 1876) he had a store, in addition to two in Pittsburgh. His sending for Bro. Barbour was his first executive act as that Servant, according to the David type; for as David reigned 40½ years, so it was 40½ years from April 30, 1876, until the toga scene, Oct. 30, 1916. 

(32) During the evenings of that summer these two studied the Bible together, since the store kept Bro. Russell busy during the day. Bro. Barbour enlightened Bro. Russell on the chronology and Daniel; and Bro. Russell enlightened him on the Ransom, the object and manner of our Lord's Second Advent, the eternity of the physical universe, the nature and destruction of the symbolic universe, the spirit existence of Christ since His resurrection, the Gospel Age as the time of the selection of the Church as Christ's Millennial Bride and Associate in blessing the non-elect, dead and alive, the nature of the Judgment Day, etc., etc. Thus it will be seen that Bro. Russell gave Bro. Barbour decidedly more Truth than the latter gave him. Moreover, what Bro. Barbour gave him he got from others, especially from Bro. William Miller and later Adventists, among whom was Bro. Keith, from whom he got the thought that Jesus was probably present invisibly since 1874. These facts help us to see the flimsiness of the claim that because Bro. Barbour showed our Pastor certain Truth on prophetic chronology and on Daniel he was the first one to hold the office of that Servant. When they met, Bro. Russell had decidedly more, and 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


more important Truth than Bro. Barbour, much of which he was the first to see in the end of the Age; and he gave Bro. Barbour more, and more important Truth than Bro. Barbour gave him. But even this fact did not prove Bro. Russell then to have been full-fledged as that Servant, a thing that he did not fully become until in 1879, during the struggle that he had on the matter of the sin-offerings, when they were made clear to him, though he in April, 1876, had the executive feature of that office (Chapter VI.). Of the two, Bro. Russell was decidedly more aggressive as a servant of the Lord even at that time, as witnessed by Bro. Barbour's readiness to give up, and his having to be encouraged and helped by Bro. Russell to go on with the work (Z '16, 171, pars. 11, 12). While this is true, our Pastor always felt grateful for the help that Bro. Barbour gave him on prophetic chronology and on Daniel's prophecies. We have here introduced these facts, because they are necessary to understand antitypically a number of facts in Dan. 7—12. 

(33) In Dan. 8 we again meet a number of facts in Daniel's experiences that find their antitypes in some of Bro. Russell's experiences. We, for reasons already given, will not study this chapter prophetically, giving attention here only to its typical features. It will be noted that the vision of Dan. 8 does not deal with things connected with the Babylonian Empire. It commences with things connected with the Medo-Persian Empire (vs. 3, 4, 20). This fact proves that the 2300 days (v. 14), as well as their first 490 days (Dan. 9:24), start during the time of the Medo-Persian Empire; for when the interpolated word "concerning" after the word "vision" in v. 13 is omitted, it will be seen that the question asks for the length of the time of the vision, as well as the duration of its most important parts. And the answer is given, until 2300 days. This fact unanswerably proves that the 2300 days are not literal days, that they began sometime during 

The Parousia Messenger. 


the Medo-Persian Empire and that their beginning coincides with the beginning of the 490 days, or 70 weeks, i.e., Oct. 455 B.C., when Nehemiah put Artaxerxes' command into execution; for the 490 days of Dan. 9:24, coinciding with the first 490 of the 2300 days, "seal the vision and the prophet (demonstrate the truthfulness of the vision and prophet of the 2300 days by certain fulfillments in their first 490 days)" (Dan. 9:24). Since there was no vision in Dan. 9, and since the 490 days cannot refer to Daniel's 1260, 1290 and 1335 days, regardless of whether we refer them to literal years or days, because the 490 days end in 36 A.D., and since there is no other vision of days in Daniel except that of the 2300 days, these 490 days must be "cut off," determined, from the 2300 days of the vision given in Dan. 8. Hence the vision and prophet that are referred to as sealed in Dan. 9:24 by the fulfillment of the 490 days' prophecy must be the vision of Dan. 8 and Daniel as the agent of that prophecy. This, of course, destroys J.F.R.'s view of the 2300 days as being literal days and as being connected with his work. Daniel's being at the time of the vision in Shushan, the capital (here the meaning of the word is palace) of Elam (v. 2), types our Pastor's dwelling in his consecrated life with our Lord among His people in the early Parousia time. The River Ulai (v. 2—pure water) here types the Truth that our Pastor had received up to Jan., 1876. Daniel's seeing the vision (vs. 3-12) at Ulai types our Pastor's getting indistinct views of the relation of the Medo-Persian, the Grecian and the Romano-Papal Empires to God's people and plan, while he was standing by the Truth (Ulai). 

(34) Daniel's hearing one saint speaking (v. 13) types Bro. Russell's hearing William Miller in his writings explain certain things referred to in this vision. The other saint (v. 13) types Bro. Barbour, whom Bro. Miller taught almost everything on prophetic time that Bro. Barbour knew. Daniel's hearing the second

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


saint ask the first the duration of the vision and its main features (v. 13), types Bro. Russell's coming to understand that Bro. Barbour inquired of Bro. Miller, by searching his writings, the duration of the antitypical vision, etc., and received therefrom the answer that it would last 2300 years, i.e., up to the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary from its mass-connected defilements. The fact that the speaking saint (the first one) gave Daniel the answer (v. 14), and not the saint that asked him, types the fact that, while it was Bro. Barbour who seemingly explained the antitypical vision to Bro. Russell, it was in reality Bro. Miller who did it, inasmuch as the thoughts that Bro. Barbour expressed to him were such as he got from Bro. Miller. Daniel's seeking an explanation of the vision (v. 15) types Bro. Russell's seeking clearness on the indistinct ideas that he had on the subject matter typed by Daniel's vision in this chapter. The appearance of a man (v. 15) is the same as Gabriel of v. 16. In this chapter Gabriel types the brethren who made clear to Bro. Russell the antitypical vision, i.e., Bros. Miller, Keith and Barbour. The man's voice (v. 16) was doubtless that of the Logos, who commandingly spoke out from between the banks of the Ulai and who here types our Lord in the Second Advent. Speaking out of the Parousia Truth, Jesus arranged for the pertinent teachings to be explained to Bro. Russell. 

(35) Gabriel's coming near to Daniel (v. 17) types Bros. Miller, Keith and Barbour by their teachings drawing near to Bro. Russell to explain them. This began in the article in The Herald Of The Morning above described; for that involved article showed that its writer was getting his eyes open on the object and manner of our Lord's return (Z '16, 171, par. 4). Daniel's standing place (v. 17) types Bro. Russell's doctrinal standpoint at the time that copy of The Herald Of The Morning reached him. But as Daniel feared Gabriel's approach, so Bro. Russell feared 

The Parousia Messenger. 


(distrusted) the approach of these three brothers in the first mention of prophetic time in that article. Daniel's falling on his face (v. 17) types Bro. Russell's spiritually abject position as a reviler and ridiculer of prophetic time; for the feelings of revulsion thereat filled his mind as he read the first part of that article wherein Bro. Barbour narrated his experience of disappointment in 1874 and his re-examination of the chronology. Gabriel's saying that the vision was intended for help in the time of the end types Bros. Miller, Keith and Barbour showing by the chronology in that article that the antitypical fulfillment was for the benefit of the Lord's people during the time of the end. Daniel's being in a deep sleep on the ground when Gabriel was amid the first part of his speech (v. 18) types Bro. Russell as being asleep on prophetic time and its involved prophecies, while he was in a ridiculing attitude on the subject, and while reading the first part of that article in which Bros. Miller, Keith and Barbour were speaking to him. Gabriel's touching Daniel (v. 18) types these three brothers' in the pertinent article (Bro. Miller by his use of time prophecy, and Bros. Barbour and Keith by the article itself) connecting it with the real object and manner of our Lord's return, though indefinitely seen, and thus arousing the interest of Bro. Russell in prophetic time. Gabriel's making Daniel stand upright (v. 18) represents these three brothers', by their thoughts expressed in that article, taking away Bro. Russell's prejudice against, and arousing his favorable attitude toward prophetic time. Gabriel's promising Daniel to make him know what would be in the end of the indignation (v. 19) types Bro. Barbour's promise, given in his correspondence with Bro. Russell, which led up to their meeting and studying together in Philadelphia, that he would expound the involved matters, particularly as they referred to the time of the end. The explanation that Gabriel gave (vs. 20-26) types the explanation 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


that Bro. Miller through Bro. Barbour, and Bro. Barbour himself, gave Bro. Russell of the involved matters. Daniel's being sick (v. 27) seems to type the consciousness of his own weakness and of the distress that Bro. Russell must have felt over his rejection and ridicule of prophetic time, after he came to see its real and proper use. Daniel's afterward arising and doing work for the king (Belshazzar) types Bro. Russell's later activity that proved beneficial to the nominal people of God. Daniel's astonishment at the vision types Bro. Russell's astonishment at its antitype. None understanding the vision types the fact that at the time Bro. Russell first came to see it and was in astonishment over it, none, of course apart from the involved brethren, at that time understood it in its latest unfoldings. 

(36) Dan. 9 contains Daniel's confession of Israel's sins leading up to the Babylonian captivity and the desolations wrought on Jerusalem, his petition for forgiveness and for the restoration of the people, temple and city and Gabriel's revelation of the 70 weeks in answer to Daniel's prayer. Daniel's being in Babylon, though under Darius' rulership (vs. 1, 2), types Bro. Russell's being in Christendom, though Jesus was in His Parousia reign. Daniel's learning (v. 2) from books (Lev. 26:31-35; Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10) that Jerusalem's wastings in the royal and sacred houses would be 70 years, types Bro. Russell's learning from various Scriptures that the true Church as God's embryo Kingdom and Temple was to be wasted by symbolic Babylon during the bulk of the Gospel Age. As Daniel in the beginning of the 70th year found out that the time of the deliverance of the people and the restoration of the temple and the city was at hand, so did Bro. Russell find out that the time of the deliverance of Spiritual Israel and the erection of the Church as God's embryo Kingdom and Temple were about due. As such knowledge led Daniel to seek the Lord's face, to confess Israel's sins as the cause of their captivity

The Parousia Messenger. 


and Jerusalem's wastes, to justify God for his judgments on Israel and to plead for Israel's restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple, so did Bro. Russell seek for himself and all Spiritual Israelites God's favor, confess their sins as the cause for the wastes of the true Church as God's embryo Kingdom and Temple, justify God for sending the punishments and entreat Him to restore the Church as God's embryo Kingdom and Temple. And as God sent Gabriel to Daniel to give him the assurance of his prayer's answer in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, and their preceding and subsequent implications, so God sent antitypical Gabriel to Bro. Russell to give him the assurance of his prayer's answer in the antitypical 70 weeks' prophecy and preceding and subsequent implications. 

(37) All of us know that the 70 weeks' prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27) is involved in the parallel dispensations and in the harvest parallels, and that hence it is in the Gospel-Age and Gospel-harvest parallels that we find its antitype. Hence these 70 weeks type the period from 1391 to 1881. Moreover, as the troubles (vs. 26, 27) that desolated Israel at the end of the Jewish Age, even up to 73 A.D., are in this prophecy given as the result of the sins of Israel committed during the last week, and thus as subsequent implications of the 70 weeks, so the events involved in wrath upon Christendom following its sins of 1874-1881, even up to 1918, are involved in the parallel as subsequent implications of the antitypical 70 weeks. Still further, as the events involved in the answer to Daniel's prayer up to the beginning of the 70 weeks form with the 70 weeks God's answer to his prayer, these also belong to the parallel, as preceding implications of the 70 weeks, i.e., the parallel from 536 B.C. to 455 B.C., or to put it more exactly, as the Edgar brothers put it, with Bro. Russell's approval, from 537 B.C. to 455 B.C., finds its parallel antitype from 1309 to 1391 A.D. as a preceding implication of the antitypical 70 weeks. Accordingly, a

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


series of events from 537 B.C. to 73 A.D. finds its antitype in the form of parallels from 1309 to 1918 A.D. And, finally, as the 70 weeks with their preceding and subsequent associated times and events are typical in the parallel dispensation and Jewish Harvest of times and events of the Gospel Age and its Harvest, so do we properly infer that Gabriel in giving the 70 weeks' prophecy and its preceding and subsequent associated times and events to the typical Daniel is also typical in this transaction, even as we have already found in Dan. 8 and will yet find in Dan. 10 to 12. 

(38) Of whom is Gabriel in vs. 21-26 typical? We answer, evidently of those brothers—five in number—who gave Bro. Russell the parallels in times and events during the Gospel Age and its Harvest, corresponding to those of the Jewish Age and its Harvest. The first of these five brothers was Bro. Barbour, who gave Bro. Russell five of these parallel dates and events. The second was probably either Bro. Paton or Bro. Keith, but we have not yet been able to locate him with certainty. The third and fourth were Bros. John and Morton Edgar, who gave him the bulk of the parallels from 1309 to 1914. And the fifth was another brother who in Dec., 1903, pointed out to Bro. Russell that 69 A.D., not 70 A.D., ended the reaping time of the Jewish Age and that hence 1914, not 1910, which Bro. Russell then thought, would end even the garnering, would finish the reaping of the Gospel Harvest, even as he then (in 1903) thought that 1914 would end the wrath time, as the mistaken parallel of Jerusalem's destruction in 70 A.D. This fifth brother also pointed out to Bro. Russell that he was the parallel of the Apostles in time and events, indicated in the Acts of the Apostles, and finally pointed out to him in 1915 the details of the parallels involved in the siege of Jerusalem, the falls of Herodion, Macherus and Masada and the Alexandrian and Cyrenian massacres, events occurring between the Spring of 70 and the Summer of 73 A.D., 

The Parousia Messenger. 


the parallels finding their counterparts in the World War from April, 1915, to July, 1918. Gabriel's coming to Daniel swiftly (v. 21) types that speedy answers to Bro. Russell's prayers for pertinent light were given him by the Lord through the various members of antitypical Gabriel. Gabriel's coming to Daniel about the time of the evening oblation types these five brethren serving Bro. Russell during the reaping and gleaning time, the time of offering the last part of the Gospel-Age sacrifice. Gabriel's touching Daniel types these five brethren beginning to serve Bro. Russell in the pertinent matters. Gabriel's telling Daniel that he was going to make him skillful in understanding (v. 22), types, not the words, but the enlightening acts of these brethren as telling, without words, Bro. Russell that they were going to give him helps on the parallels. 

(39) The speedy answer that God arranged to be given to Daniel's prayer (v. 23) types the quick answers to Bro. Russell's prayers for pertinent light that God arranged for him to receive. Three times Gabriel tells Daniel that he was greatly beloved (v. 23; Dan. 10:11, 19). This types the assurances given to our Pastor that God greatly loved him. This is indicated in the name of Eldad (Beloved of God), given him typically in his capacity as a pilgrim (Num. 11:26, 27), as it is also indicated in the name David (Beloved), given him typically as the ruler over the household. He was indeed beloved by God and the brethren. In the Fall of 1903 we said to him, "Bro. Russell, the brethren love you greatly; you are the most loved man on earth." Bro. Russell, whose humility eschewed praise, quickly replied, "Yes, and the most hated," and then added that to be so loved by the brethren "is a reward that the Lord gives me for serving the brethren." Gabriel (v. 23) encourages Daniel to understand and consider the vision, which is the one given in Dan. 8, as is also gathered from v. 21, there being no vision in Dan. 9. This proves that what 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


Gabriel here tells of the 70 weeks is involved in, and supplementary to the vision of the 2300 days. Again we remark, this unanswerably proves that the 2300 days are 2300 years, and thus disproves J.F.R.'s applying them as 2300 literal days connected with his movement. Gabriel's so encouraging Daniel types the five involved brothers' encouraging Bro. Russell to study what they were about to present to him. 

(40) We will now set forth briefly the parallels in the time order as these five brothers brought them to our Pastor's attention. It was Bro. Barbour who first, in the Summer of 1876, brought the parallel dispensations to Bro. Russell's attention, giving him five of the parallels. He paralleled the preliminary too early First Advent movement with the preliminary too early Second Advent movement under William Miller from 1829 to 1843, when the brethren first expected Jesus' Second Advent. Then he paralleled Gabriel's announcement of Jesus' begettal and birth to Mary, Jan., 2 B.C., which was misunderstood to be that of the First Advent, with Bro. Miller's getting the thought in Jan., 1844, that the Second Advent would occur the coming Fall. Then Bro. Barbour paralleled the premature First Advent, Jesus' birth, Oct., 2 B.C., with the premature Second Advent, Oct., 1844. The reasons that first Oct., 1843, and then Oct., 1844, were the dates suggested by Bro. Miller for the Second Advent were: (1) that he was uncertain as to whether to begin the 1260 days with the Ostrogroths' being compelled to raise the siege of Rome, 538, or with the overthrow of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy in 539; and (2) that he began the 1290 and 1335 days thirty years earlier than the 1260 days. Fourthly, Bro. Barbour paralleled the real First Advent, Oct. 29 A.D., Jesus' anointing at Jordan—"Messiah (anointed), the Prince" (v. 25)—with the real Second Advent, 1874. Then, finally, Bro. Barbour gave the parallels of Jesus' resurrection, 33 A.D., and the Church's resurrection in

The Parousia Messenger. 


1878. A second brother, not yet certainly known to us, gave Bro. Russell the thought that, as until Oct., 36 A.D., special favor was limited to Israelites, but from then on it went out also to Gentiles, so until Oct., 1881, special favor was limited to Church members, but from then on would go out also to some outside the nominal Church. 

(41) The next important and most detailed additions given to the parallels came through Bros. John and Morton Edgar, especially through the former. Some of these were first published in Z '05, 179, etc., and then in the 1906 Convention Reports, and about all of them in Vol. II of The Great Pyramid Passages. They gave Bro. Russell (and the Church) more on the parallels, including the Parallel Dispensations, than did any other part of antitypical Gabriel. The following are a few of the more important of these; the others can be gotten from the publications just referred to. They paralleled Zerubbabel's laying the temple's foundation in 537 B.C. with Marsiglio's laying down certain truths for the foundation for the Church in 1309 A.D.; Zerubbabel's renewing the work on the temple in 522 B.C. with Marsiglio's writing his famous book, Defensor Pacis (Defender of the Peace), which to this day is the strongest refutation of the papal theory of Church government, and is a remarkable setting forth of the Truth on Church government; Zerubbabel's four years' work in completing the temple, 522-518 B.C., with Marsiglio's four years' activity, 1324-1328 A.D., along the lines laid down in his Defensor Pacis. Next, they paralleled Ezra's reformatory work in Israel, begun in 468 B.C., with Wyclif's reformatory work, begun in 1378 A.D. This they followed with the paralleling of Nehemiah's building Jerusalem's walls, 455 B.C., with John Huss' strengthening the powers of the Church in 1391. These are only a few among many of the parallels that they brought out. Their charts, including those treating of the various 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


parallels, may be found in the Berean Bible, as well as in the writings above referred to. All these they brought to Bro. Russell, who approved of them. 

(42) The fifth brother, beginning with the Fall of 1903, brought out a number of parallels. The first of these was in the form of a correction and of an addition. Earlier than 1904 the editions of Studies, Vol. II gave 70 as the Jewish reaping's end; but as this would have made the Jewish reaping last 41 years (70-29 = 41) this matter was corrected to dating its end as of 69 A.D. While all the figures thereon were not corrected in Studies, Vol. II, par. 2 was added to page 245, making the correction. This correction led to fixing Oct., 1914, as the parallel to 69 A.D., as the end of the reaping, whereas previously Bro. Russell held, on the basis of a paper measurement in the Pyramid, that the Church would leave the earth in 1910. However, a clearcut distinction between the end of the reaping and the end of the garnering did not begin to set in until 1912, when Bro. Russell began to get his eyes open through this distinction to the fact that the Church would not leave the world by 1914. Additionally, the correction from 70 to 69 A.D. became the occasion for Bro. Russell's in 1904 seeing that the trouble would not end, but would begin in 1914 (Z '04, 197-199; 229, 230). In 1910 this fifth brother brought to Bro. Russell's attention the fact that he was the parallel of the Apostles, and that in the parallel Harvests their activities and his paralleled. Some of these parallels were brought out in Studies, Vol. III, 404-410; D.v., others of them will be brought out later, perhaps in another volume of this work on our Pastor. In Sept., 1915, this fifth brother brought to our Pastor a very large number (at least 25) of wrath parallels that occurred that year in the campaign of Von Makenzen against the Russians, which in its preparatory stages began in April, 1915, and as a campaign ended in Sept., 1915. At the same time he pointed out to 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Bro. Russell five future parallel events, all of which were duly fulfilled, three of them in 1918. See Studies, Vol. II, 382-394. As to those of 1915, as paralleling those of 70 connected with the siege of Jerusalem: Taking the lunar dates and their connected events from Josephus as these were connected with the siege of Jerusalem, he found parallels, and that by anticipation, in the fightings on the eastern front in the Spring and Summer of 1915, exactly to a day lunar time, 1845 years after the parallel fightings at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. In these events the Romans and the Central Powers were parallels and the Jews and the Allies were parallels. Whenever the Romans received checks from the Jews in their Jerusalem siege the Central Powers received setbacks from the Allies exactly 1845 years later to a day lunar time; and whenever the Romans gained victories over the Jews the Central Powers gained victories over the Allies exactly 1845 years later to a day lunar time. All of the above-stated facts on the parallels prove that in the pertinent activities of the five above-mentioned brothers we find the antitypes of Gabriel's activities as set forth in Dan. 9:21-27. 

(43) We now come, in Dan. 10-12, to Daniel's last and greatest vision. As heretofore, we will pass by their prophetic parts and limit our attention to their typical parts, in harmony with the purpose of this chapter to set forth Daniel typically and antitypically. To understand the antitypes of Daniel's prostrations in Dan. 10, it is necessary for us to keep in mind Bro. Russell's early hostile attitude toward time prophecy. Daniel's three weeks' mourning (v. 2) types, we believe, the seven years' (1868-1875) distress of Bro. Russell through not appropriating to himself the joys coming from an understanding of prophetic time; for here the facts prove that three days stand for a year, since Daniel's abstinence from food during those three weeks (v. 3) types Bro. Russell's abstinence during the involved seven years from appropriating the Scriptural

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


teachings on prophetic time, especially as it relates to our Lord's Second Advent. Daniel's not anointing himself during these three weeks (v. 3) types Bro. Russell's not receiving the particular features of the graces developed by such prophetic time truths. We are not to infer this to mean that during those seven years our Pastor received no truths; for we have already seen that he received much new Truth during those times. Rather, as the connection shows, Daniel is here used to type him only in relation to prophetic time and prophecy connected with prophetic time. That he was during that time receiving certain secular truths is evident from the antitypical teachings of v. 4; for the river Hiddekel (sharp, stern voice, or sound), as a comparison of Dan. 12:5-7 and C 64, par. 5—68, par. 1 shows, types the sharp, stern truths that came out of the serpent's mouth. Satan poured them out through men like Montesquieu, Helvetius, Voltaire, Rousseau, D'Alambert and Diderot, the Encyclopedia of the last two mentioned, for which all six and others wrote, and the individual publications of the first four, being the main literary expressions of these sharp stern truths. In their writings the rights of man, which were later forcibly expressed during the French Revolution, were maintained with super-human ability and eloquence, as the Divine right of kings, clergy and aristocracy were attacked with unanswerable power. Against the Romanist Church Voltaire cried out, "Crush the infamous wretch!" and Diderot shouted, "The world's deliverance can only come when the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest!" Bro. Russell thoroughly believed and stood for the truths set forth by these six men; and this is typed by Daniel's standing beside the Hiddekel at the time the vision was vouchsafed him. Moreover, during those seven years, as shown above, he received many religious truths; but during that time he did not receive any prophetic time truths. Dan. 10:4-19 shows typically

The Parousia Messenger. 


in what condition he was as he was about to receive and was beginning to receive them, which condition we showed above, apart from this type. 

(44) Daniel's lifting up his eyes in this vision and beholding a certain man (v. 5) represents Bro. Russell's giving his attention in study to an antitypical "certain man." The "certain man" who appeared to Daniel seems to be Gabriel, though this is not expressly stated; yet, the latter's being used to give former revelations to Daniel, coupled with the fact that he is distinct from, and inferior to Michael (vs. 13, 21; Dan. 12:1), seem to make this practically certain. This "certain man" types Jesus in this chapter, while Michael in this chapter types God, who is Christ's superior, even as Michael was Gabriel's superior (v. 13, margin). That Gabriel here types our Lord appears from the similarity of the symbolic description of Gabriel in vs. 5, 6, and that of our Lord in Rev. 1:13-15. The linen garment (v. 5) represents our Lord's righteousness and priestly office. The loins girded with fine gold of Uphaz (a corruption of the word Ophir, meaning fruitful, abundant) symbolizes our Lord's preparedness to perform the Divine service fruitfully. His body (v. 6) being like beryl (a mistranslation of a word that means chrysolite) represents the clarity of the Truth that Jesus gives. His face being like lightning (v. 6) symbolizes the brightness of the Truth (2 Cor. 4:6) that Jesus brings. His eyes being like lamps of fire (v. 6) symbolizes the brilliance of Jesus' insight into the Truth. His arms and feet being in color like polished brass (v. 6) represents that Jesus' ability to serve and his conduct, character, were crucially tested and perfected by sufferings. And the voice of his words being like the voice of a multitude (v. 6) symbolizes the fact that Jesus' messages are given through His people, who are many. Daniel's alone seeing the vision (v. 7) types Bro. Russell alone of his then associates seeing the particular truths 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


involved; for Bro. Russell's becoming interested in prophetic time had the effect of frightening away from him members of the Bible class to which he then (in 1876) belonged, they thinking that he was going wrong. They had even looked askance at his view of Jesus' being since His resurrection a Spirit, and that He was in His Second Advent to come invisibly; and when he added interest in prophetic time to these, fearing that he was going to an extreme into error they forsook him, as typed by Daniel's companions (v. 7) in fear fleeing from him. 

(45) Daniel's being left alone (v. 8) types Bro. Russell, forsaken by his former associates, being compelled to be the only beholder of the antitypical vision and temporarily the only understander of its meaning. Daniel's being at the vision's beginning with no strength (v. 8) types Bro. Russell's being strengthless on prophetic time at the time the Lord took him in hand to reveal it to him. Daniel's comeliness (hadar here is the same word as is rendered comeliness in Is. 53:2; hauteur) being turned into corruption—decay—types Bro. Russell's despising spirit toward prophetic time passing away. This had its beginning while he was reading the article in The Herald Of The Morning in Jan., 1876, as mentioned above. Daniel's retaining no strength (v. 8) types Bro. Russell's not retaining the strength that he thought he had had against prophetic time. Daniel's hearing Gabriel's voice (v. 9) at this stage of the vision represents Bro. Russell's reading the prophetic time teachings of the above-mentioned article. Daniel's being in a deep sleep (v. 9) types Bro. Russell's being in a deep sleep on prophetic time at the beginning of the reading of that article. Daniel's face being toward the ground at the time (v. 9) types the earthly-mindedness of Bro. Russell's pertinent view on prophetic time at that time. The hand that touched Daniel (v. 10) types Bro. Barbour's, by that article, being used by Jesus for arousing Bro. 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Russell's interest in prophetic time. Daniel's being raised by that hand and being set on his knees and the palms of his hands (v. 10) types Bro. Russell's being given enough strength of faith toward prophetic time by Jesus through Bro. Barbour's article to take a half proper stand toward it. Gabriel's telling Daniel that he was greatly beloved (v. 11) represents Jesus giving Bro. Russell the assurance that he was greatly loved by God. Gabriel's encouraging Daniel to understand his words (v. 11) types Jesus' encouraging Bro. Russell to understand the time features and other prophetic features that were about to be revealed to him. Gabriel's encouraging Daniel to stand upright (v. 11) types Jesus' encouraging Bro. Russell to take a proper stand toward prophetic time as against the improper position (face toward the ground) that he had hitherto been maintaining toward it. Daniel's taking tremblingly an upright position (v. 11) types our Pastor, amid misgivings, taking a proper stand toward time prophecy, i.e., taking a convincible interest in the subject—one open to conviction under sufficient proof—though this was tremblingly done, in the fear of being misled into mistakes, as he recognized that prophetic time had been erroneously used. 

(46) Gabriel's further encouraging Daniel against fearfulness (v. 12) types Jesus' further encouraging our Pastor not to fear a proper use of prophetic time. Gabriel's telling Daniel that God had heard his heart's desire to know the Lord's ways from the beginning of his 21 days' fasting and prayer, and had then set forth Gabriel to instruct Daniel in the pertinent matters (v. 12) types the assurance that already in 1868, when Bro. Russell took the firm stand not to believe anything to be a part of the Divine revelation, if it contradicted God's character, God had taken a responsive attitude toward his prayer for Truth and had commissioned Jesus to come to his assistance. And as Gabriel had come forth (v. 12) to that end, so Jesus had come 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


forth to help Bro. Russell in the pertinent matter. The prince of the kingdom of Persia here (v. 13) types Satan. As this prince resisted Gabriel's coming to Daniel's assistance 21 days, so had Satan resisted Jesus' efforts to give Bro. Russell the needed help on prophetic time for the seven years: 1868-1875. This raises the question, How could Satan have resisted our Lord so long in this matter? This will become clear when we remember that the Lord does not give the Truth coercively and irresistibly to His servants, but personally, educationally and persuasively, as is befitting to be done to free moral agents. By what means could Satan so long resist Jesus' giving Bro. Russell the pertinent light? Especially through two things: (1) Bro. Russell's deep-seated prejudice against time prophecy and (2) the mistakes that the Adventists had made in their use of time prophecy. As pointed out above, such mistakes were made as to the destruction of the universe in 1843, 1844, 1873 and 1874, as well as in making the forecasts for those years that Christ would come in the flesh. It was through these two things that Satan could for so many years resist our Lord's efforts to enlighten Bro. Russell on prophetic time. But Jesus, as a Master Tactician, made His approach gradually to the citadel of Bro. Russell's unbelief, taking by stratagems its outposts, one after another, through gradually enlightening him on preparatory truths until by Jan., 1876, Bro. Russell had received enough of such preparatory truths as resulted in Jesus having in His possession every outpost of this symbolic citadel; and thus Jesus was ready to make the final assault, which He did during the first nine months of 1876, and which resulted in complete victory in the capture and razing of the citadel of unbelief in prophetic time in Bro. Russell's heart. 

(47) The clause (v. 13), "Michael, one of the chief princes," should be rendered, "Michael, the first of the chief princes," as the margin, Young, etc., show. This 

The Parousia Messenger. 


is evidently correct, for Michael was the Logos, our pre-human Lord, who was the chief and firstborn of all God's creatures (Col. 1:15-17). Since here Gabriel types our Lord, Michael, Gabriel's superior, evidently here types God, who is the only being superior to our Lord in His pre-human and post-human existences. Michael's being the only one supporting Gabriel (v. 13) types God as the only being who helped our Lord against Satan in Bro. Russell's favor at the time antitypical of the 21 days, i.e., from 1868 to 1875. Gabriel's remaining with the king (the Syriac and Septuagint read king here) of Persia in resistance types our Lord's seven years' resistance of Satan's effort to keep Bro. Russell blind on prophetic time. Another reading that Ginsburg says is the correct one for the last clause of v. 13 is: "I left him (Michael) there with the king of Persia." This would seem to type that Jesus left off resisting Satan and left God to handle Satan with pertinent matter, while Jesus came to Bro. Russell's help. But such a thought does not seem to fit the antitypical setting; for Satan's resistance had already been overcome except in its last stage, which Jesus overcame during the first 9 months of 1876. As Gabriel assured Daniel (v. 14) that he had come forth to acquaint Daniel with what would happen to his (i.e., God's real, not nominal) people in the latter (literally, last one of the) days (the Gospel Age, as the last day or Age of the second world, is meant) (Heb. 1:2—Diaglott, A.R.V.), so Jesus assured Bro. Russell that He had to come to him to show him what happened to the Lord's people during that same Age and what would happen to them at its end. People who are ashamed turn their faces toward the ground and maintain silence. Thus Daniel felt a sense of shame coming over him and, accordingly, hung his head and was silent. It was a sense of shame at his unworthy attitude for years toward prophetic time that antitypically came over Bro. Russell after he had thought considerably over the contents 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


of the article that aroused for the first time his interest in prophetic time. Thus, so far, Dan. 10 describes antitypically Bro. Russell's experiences on prophetic time up to some time after he had read and studied the article in The Herald Of The Morning on the Second Advent probably being then present. 

(48) V. 16 introduces another step in his progress on prophetic time. It will be recalled that we stated above that as a result of his study of the pertinent article Bro. Russell entered into correspondence with Bro. Barbour on Truth matters, particularly with reference to prophetic time in its relation to the Second Advent. It is to this episode that vs. 16, 17 refer typically; for it was through this correspondence that the Lord helped him, as is described typically in these verses. The one like unto the sons of men (v. 16) here types Bro. Barbour. It was his teachings through his correspondence with Bro. Russell that showed the latter that Bro. Barbour was, from his viewpoint of the Lord's presence, more and more coming into harmony with Bro. Russell's teachings on the object and manner of our Lord's return. And by so doing he touched (v. 16)—came into helpful harmony with Bro. Russell's verbal and written teachings—symbolic lips. And it was this thing, typed by the touching of Daniel's lips, whereby Daniel was made to speak (v. 16), that Bro. Russell was so far recovered from his sense of shame as to be able to speak out the truth on his feelings of sorrow and weakness (v. 16) due to his wrong position on prophetic time, even as in the type Daniel by the touch was enabled to speak forth his feelings of sorrow and weakness by reason of the vision. As Daniel felt and expressed (v. 17) his sense of weakness and unworthiness to the degree that he could hardly speak or breathe in the presence of Gabriel, so as our Pastor considered his pertinent course and the Lord's goodness in helping him out of his error, it 

The Parousia Messenger. 


made him feel too weak and unworthy to speak to Jesus for his wrong position on prophetic time. 

(49) But as for a third time one looking like a man touched Daniel and strengthened him (v. 18), so, as the third stage of the Lord's helping Bro. Russell on the pertinent subject, He arranged that during the Philadelphia studies of Bro. Russell and Bro. Barbour the latter should give the former, through a thorough exposition of prophetic time, the final help that straightened him out on that subject. Thus the three stages of progress that Bro. Russell made on this subject are typed in this chapter: the first stage in v. 10, which was the arousing of Bro. Russell's interest by the article on the subject in The Herald Of The Morning, Jan., 1876; the second stage in v. 16, being the increase of that interest, with concomitant knowledge through the correspondence of the two; and the third stage in v. 18, through the study of the implied subjects together in Philadelphia during the Summer of 1876. Gabriel's again encouraging him (v. 19) types our Lord's continuing to encourage Bro. Russell. By heredity our Pastor, lacking self-esteem, was dissatisfied with himself and had almost no self-reliance; and this is well typed by the answers that Daniel gives in vs. 16, 17. This fact, combined with the fact that he recognized that his position on prophetic time had been an erroneous one, naturally tended to discourage him, hence the need of the encouragement typed by that given Daniel in v. 19. As it must have greatly encouraged Daniel to be reassured by Gabriel that he was greatly loved by God; so, too, it must have been very refreshing to the discouraged heart of Bro. Russell at that time to receive the assurance from Jesus that God greatly loved him. Perhaps John 16:27 and like Scriptures were brought to his attention. 

(50) Refreshing must have been to him the encouragement typed by the words of v. 19: "Fear not! Peace be unto thee! Be strong; yea, be strong!" 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


Doubtless in addition to the Scriptures that our Lord brought to his attention, providential acts must have been combined with these words, whereby comfort was poured into Bro. Russell's heart. As Daniel was comforted and strengthened by the pertinent typical words (v. 19), so was Bro. Russell by their antitypes—Scriptures and providences. Like a plant that is drooping for want of moisture and sunshine, and that is revived by receiving these, so his drooping heart was comforted and strengthened by these Divine assurances. And as Daniel gratefully recognized the help and was by it enabled to ask Gabriel to speak on, so Bro. Russell gratefully acknowledged the help and was strong enough to desire the Lord to go on with the manifestation of the Truth to him. Gabriel's asking Daniel whether he understood why he had come to Daniel (v. 20) seems to be intended to deepen in Daniel's mind the sense of the importance of the revelation about to be made. So, antitypically, the Lord sought to deepen in our Pastor's mind the sense of the importance to be attached to the Truth about to be communicated. It will be noted that from here on (v. 20 to Dan. 12:5) Gabriel is the revealer of prophecy. We believe, antitypically, Jesus, and not others as in the cases of Dan. 8 and 9, is typed by Gabriel, to bring out by contrast the following thought: that whereas in those chapters all the antitypical light was given by the Lord through fellow servants only to Bro. Russell, in chapters 10-12 the Lord gave some of it to him through fellow servants and the rest of it through enlightening his mind directly without human instrumentality. Since, as it will be noted, Dan. 10:20—12:4 is prophecy unmingled with any type, we will pass these parts by as sufficiently explained in Studies, Vol. III and begin our typical study where the type again begins to work—Dan. 12:5; for from there on the narrative more or less connected with prophecy is again resumed. 

(51) In Dan. 12:5, 6, Daniel sees two men, one on 

The Parousia Messenger. 


each side of the river Hiddekel, one of these asking a man clothed in linen, standing over the waters of the river, how long the wondrous things would last. Thus four men (Daniel and three others) are brought to our view. Antitypically, Bro. Russell saw three men corresponding to three of these. Who was the one on the side of the antitypical river other than that on which the antitypical Daniel stood? To have stood on that side of the river of Truth that came out of the serpent's mouth, his pertinent activities must have been before 1748, when that Truth began to be poured forth, its beginning occurring through Montesquieu's book, The Spirit Of The Law, which appeared in 1748. The first man after the Reformation and before 1748 to make a careful examination in the spirit of inquiry (How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?) of prophetic time, was Bro. (Prof.) J.A. Bengel, of Germany, who was a thoroughly consecrated man. As a foremost Christian scholar of his day, he is especially noted for three very important works: (1) his critical text of the Greek New Testament, with critical apparatus (1734), which became the starting point of modern text-criticism, he being thus the father of modern critical recensionists of the Greek New Testament; (2) his commentary on the New Testament (1742), which is even today recognized as one of the best of the brief commentaries on the New Testament; and (3) his three prophetic time works: (a) John's Revelation Clarified (1740), (b) The Order of Times (1741) and (c) Cycle, or Discussion on the Great (Jubilee) Year (1745). It is the three works under (3) that concern our present discussion. In them Bro. Bengel earnestly sought, unaided by the studies of others (for he was the pioneer in this line of Bible study) to find out how long Antichrist would continue his reign of evil, and when the Millennium would begin. His investigations, the first of their kind and conducted just a few years before Montesquieu wrote

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


his book, The Spirit Of The Law, sought an answer to the question of the duration of Antichrist's reign and the time when Christ's reign would begin. Through his studies on prophetic time he raised the question of v. 5, "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" His writings, lectures and sermons aroused much interest in these matters in Germany, and these writings were instrumental in arousing Bro. Wolf, Bro. William Miller's companion helper in Europe and Asia, to preach the Advent message between 1829 and 1844. Thus Bro. J.A. Bengel is the man whom our Pastor saw to have asked the question of v. 6 (C 84, par. 2) on the other bank of the river. 

(52) Who was the man on his bank of the river, i.e., on the same side as Bro. Russell occupied? We understand him to be Bro. Barbour. That the latter was not the one who raised the question is evident from the facts of the case: (1) It was asked before 1748, i.e., before the river or flood was poured out; and (2) it was answered before Bro. Russell and Bro. Barbour stood on this side of the flood. The reason why Bro. Barbour is introduced into the scene is that it was through him that the answer of the one clothed in linen and standing above the flood was given to Bro. Russell. Who is the one clothed in linen, standing over the flood? We understand him to be Bro. William Miller, through whom for the first time the correct answer to the question raised by Bro. Bengel was given (v. 7), i.e., that the period of the papal reign (v. 7) began in 539 and ended in 1799, and therefore would last the 1260 years between these two dates. His standing over the flood seems to type that as God's messenger he was in his teachings superior to, uninjured by, and a proper dispenser of the truths symbolized by the flood. The man's being clothed in linen represents Bro. Miller's justification and priesthood. His lifting up both hands to heaven represents the whole-hearted consecrated service that

The Parousia Messenger. 


he rendered with the Truth that God committed to his care: The chronology points out God's Kingdom as imminent for the destruction of evil and the establishment of righteousness in the earth. His swearing by God represents his solemn assertion of the pertinent Truth as Scripturally, i.e., Divinely taught. Daniel's seeing the typical scene described in vs. 5-7 represents Bro. Russell's mentally seeing the antitypes just described. 

(53) As Daniel did not understand various details related to Gabriel's explanations (v. 8), so in that stage of his studies, i.e., with Bro. Barbour in the summer of 1876 at Philadelphia, Bro. Russell did not understand various details related to the former's explanations. These details he asked for; but as typed by Gabriel's answer to Daniel, that the matter asked for was not due for him to understand (v. 8), so the Lord gave Bro. Russell to understand that the details for which he asked were not yet due. It was very important, in order to avoid speculations harmful to himself and others, for Bro. Russell to learn the lesson that Truth cannot be understood until due, that any attempt to open the Truth before due is fruitless and harmful, like one's attempts to open a closed chestnut bur, and that when due the Truth opens through the Lord of itself without a human being's speculations, even as the frosts of fall open the chestnut bur, without man's busybodying efforts, to give without evil results its riches to a man on his simply picking out the ripe chestnuts. In v. 10 antitypically the Lord gave Bro. Russell a good lesson as to who would reject and who would accept his work of expounding the Truth. It would not be clear to the wicked, but as due it would be received by the wise (virgins), the faithful Little Flock. It was well for him to learn this lesson, lest he worry over the unbelief at, and rejection of his teachings on the part of some—the wicked would reject it; and no matter how tactfully and kindly he would present it, they would 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


reject it. By the wicked, of course, the unfaithful, the Second Deathers, are meant—those in the nominal church, and those once in the Truth. Furthermore, the fact that one would receive the Truth would be a proof that at that time he was one of the righteous and should be heartily received as such, no matter what he was in the flesh. These were two very important lessons, which also our Pastor learned, and to which he conformed himself. 

(54) While Daniel was not given to understand undue details, he was given to understand certain time features, brought to his attention as described in vs. 11, 12. The connection between v. 10, on the one hand, and vs. 11, 12, on the other, shows that the wise would be given to understand in varying degrees, dependent on the two time periods in which they would live after the end of Antichrist's reign, i.e., during the time of the end. If no punctuation is inserted between vs. 10 and 11, and the word ve (variously translated by and, even, or also) is rendered by the word even, and if the pertinent words are given in the following order, the sense will at once appear: The wise shall understand even 1290 days after the continual sacrifice is set aside (which setting aside is) even by the setting up of the abomination of desolation. According to this, the first period for the wise to understand would begin in 1829, at which date Bro. Miller after eleven years' study attained to clearness on prophetic time as related to the end of Antichrist's reign, i.e., the 1260 days, ending in 1799. Then Daniel was given to see that a second and more blessed period of fuller understanding would begin with the wise at the end of 1335 years from the date of the setting aside of the continual sacrifice at the setting up of the abomination of desolation (v. 12). In Gabriel's making these facts known to Daniel he typed our Lord's giving Bro. Russell mainly through Bro. Miller's teachings expounded to him by 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Bro. Barbour, the understanding of the time periods which would be during the time of the end, and at whose beginnings the wise were due to understand the unfolding Truth as due. Hence, antitypically, the Lord caused Bro. Russell to see that in 1829 (the end of the 1290 years) would begin the first of these periods, lasting to 1874, and that from that date onward, until the Church would leave the world, a brighter and more blessed period of enlightenment would come for the wise—the wise virgins. That the Lord gave this to our Pastor his writings, particularly his expositions of the days and weeks of Daniel, given especially in Studies, Vols. II and III, prove without any doubt. 

(55) Gabriel's charge to Daniel (v. 13) to go his way to the end does not mean that Daniel was thereby encouraged to be faithful until the time of the end; but that he was to be faithful until the end of his life—he was thereby encouraged to go on in faithfulness unto death. Antitypically, the exhortation of our Lord to Bro. Russell was that he be faithful unto death. To Daniel the statement, "thou shalt rest," meant that he would after this life sleep in death until the time for the Ancient Worthies to return. To our Pastor this would seem to mean that he would have the rest of faith during the time that his humanity was reckonedly dead (Rom. 6:3-11)—during the period of its sacrifice. Daniel's receiving the reward in the resurrection as a prince on earth in the Millennium is prophesied in the words, "thou shalt stand in thy lot," inheritance. The expression, "at the end of the days," does not mean the end of the 1260, 1290 or 1335 days, as is evidenced by the fact that these ends are in the distant past and Daniel has not yet returned. But as is suggested by the whole line of thought of this book, which treats mainly of the reign of sin, it means the end of the reign of sin, which is stopped by the beginning of the reign of righteousness, the establishment 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


of the Ancient Worthies as princes in the earth being the beginning of the reign of righteousness in the earth. For Bro. Russell this would mean that at the beginning of that reign he would have his full Millennial office as his reward. 

(56) What this will be the following will explain: Above we showed that as the Millennial individual Eleazar he will, as Jesus' special representative, have charge of the entire Little Flock (Num. 4:16) and all the Ancient Worthies (Num. 3:32), i.e., he will as the Lord's special representative have charge of the two phases of the Kingdom. As during the Gospel Age there have been two Eleazars—a composite one, the 12 Apostles, as the Jewish-harvest Eleazar, and an individual one, Bro. Russell, as the Gospel-harvest Eleazar, so will there be two Millennial Eleazars—a composite one, the 12 Apostles, and an individual one, Bro. Russell, both of these Eleazars to have charge of the Little Flock and the Ancient Worthies as the Kingdom's two phases; and as such they will have charge of the human family in so far as it will be given Priestly and Kohathite Levite help. But there will be this difference: Whereas the 12 Apostles will each one individually have charge of one of the tribes of Spiritual Israel (Rev. 7:4-8) and of its pertinent number of representing Ancient Worthies, and through these two will have charge of a tribe of Millennial Israel—a twelfth division of the human family in so far as it will receive Priestly and Kohathite Levite help (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30); the individual Eleazar, as the Lord's special representative, will have charge of the whole Little Flock and all the Ancient Worthies and, through these two, of all 12 tribes of Millennial Israel, in so far as they will receive Priestly and Kohathite Levite help. Having such an office, it is self-evident that he is the one for whom the Father prepared the place at Jesus' right hand in the Kingdom (Matt. 20:23). It is this fact that helps us to

The Parousia Messenger. 


understand why, next to Jesus, Bro. Russell's work is commendably mentioned in the prophecies and types of the Bible more than that of any other servant of God. Whole books, as well as many other parts of the Bible, complimentarily describe his work in prophecy or type, e.g., most of 1 and 2 Samuel, in describing David's life and works, all of Jeremiah and Daniel and all of The Acts of the Apostles, type his life and work. Most of the prophecies of the Bible, all of the Apostolic epistles and many of the ordinances of Moses in their harvest applications, find their teaching fulfillment in his writings. And seeing that the Large Jesus—the Parousia and Epiphany Church in its public mouthpieceship, considered in its capacity of being treated as such by the civil authorities—had been laid away in the tomb, it was fitting that the above thoughts on Daniel—Type and Antitype—were in the Spring and Summer of 1934 given orally and in the Fall given in print to the brethren, describing the Large Jesus' earthly Parousia leader in his ministry toward the world. God bless his memory! 


(1) What has been our custom as to our Pastor's death anniversary? What is the intention in the study of this chapter on our Pastor? From what standpoint will this be done with this chapter? Who knew that he was Daniel's antitype? How is this proven? What in Pastor Russell does Daniel not type? Only in what respect is he his type? But for what would the Editor not be able to set forth many of the items of Daniel, type and antitype? What is true of some of these items? What should be made of their important ones? For what will this account? How is this book not written? How is it written? What will herein be done as a space-saver? 

(2) What is set forth in Dan. 1? Whom does Nebuchadnezzar here type? Ashpenaz? What is typed by Nebuchadnezzar's selecting young men to be trained in statescraft? By Daniel's choice therefore? By the king's providing for the students food from the royal table? By Daniel's determination not to defile himself with the

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


Levitically unclean meats of the king's table? Why is the story of this antitype given here? 

(3) With what kind of an endowment was Bro. Russell born? When did his mother consecrate him, and when train him? What particular could he not recall? Wherein was his zeal early shown? How on one occasion, when he was 16 years old, did this zeal show itself? What two questions did his infidel acquaintance ask him? How did he answer the first? The second? Of what had he not previously thought seriously? What did he do with the second question among his church associates? What report of him spread? To what did this lead? What was the result of the answer given him? What book did they claim taught the absolute predestination of the bulk of the race to eternal torment? Of what did they convince him? To what conclusion did this conviction lead him? How did he express his faith to them? How is this expression related to Daniel's purposing not to defile himself with the portion of the king's meat? How is this true? How long did Bro. Russell maintain his pertinent stand as to God's character being a true test as to revealed religion? 

(4) How did his pastor and the elders think of him? How did his viewpoint affect them? Why? What moved them to favor him? What position did he attain when 16 years old? Why was he not content with unbelief in a revealed religion? To what did this move him? With which religion did he commence his search? What story of creation repelled him from the Chinese religion? Why did he reject Hinduism and Buddhism? Mohammedanism? Judaism? What was the effect of the preceding investigations on him temporarily? 

(5) With what did his religious disposition not leave him content? What troubled him? What partial solution came to him? What explanation of the neighbor part of the Golden Rule satisfied him? In what did this primarily result? To what did this primarily lead him? Secondarily lead him? To what two things did these studies lead him? What were the results of these? What up to this time was his attitude toward the rest of the New Testament? 

(6) What passage became the bridge for him from the 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Gospels to the rest of the New Testament? How so? What was the result? To what did this result lead? How? What was the gain of his studies so far? Why? What did he continue to reject? What three things gradually confirmed his faith in the prophets? What was his attitude to the Pentateuch? Why did he take it? How did he overcome this prejudice? What was the result? 

(7) What did he continue to do? How? What by 1872 was the general result of his investigations? The 12 particular results? Wherein did he, without mentioning the fact, trace the steps whereby he came out of infidelity into faith in the Bible as God's revelation? Of what are these four years' quest the antitype? What is typed by Daniel's face being fairer and fuller than those of the youths fed from the king's table? What is typed by the steward's permitting Daniel to continue on the pulse diet? What is typed by Daniel's proficiency as a student? 

(8) When did the antitypical examination begin? What did Bro. Russell continue to do from 1872 to 1875? What truth became clear to him in October, 1874? To what other truth did this lead him? Wherein did he embody these thoughts? What other thought did he therein embody? What did he call the tract? Why did he write and circulate this tract? How large was its circulation? What is the antitype of Nebuchadnezzar's calling and examining the students? What is typed by the students coming before Nebuchadnezzar? Wherein were Daniel's answers antitypically given? How did these compare with the answers of others? What is typed by Daniel's standing before Nebuchadnezzar? By his answers to questions being ten times better than those given by the students who were nourished from the king's table? 

(9) Of what does Dan. 2 treat? What is not our purpose in this article? Why not? What is our purpose? In doing this, what will we omit for space-saving reasons? What should the reader do as to this point? How did our Pastor give the prophetic features of the dream? What do the historical features of Dan. 2 give us additionally? What is the antitypical teaching of this entire chapter? What does Nebuchadnezzar type in this chapter? What is typed by his having the dream? Since when have there been nominal Christians? How did they come to 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


have this correct view? What is symbolized by the progressive deterioration of the metals in the image? During what was this to last? What would end it? How? Of what is this a brief summary? How long did this Apostles-taught view remain with the people of God? 

(10) How did papacy, generally speaking, darken this subject? Particularly speaking, how did it do so? What was the papacy actually in the dream? What was the result on the nominal Christians? Until when did this last? During what period did they begin to antitype Nebuchadnezzar's desiring to know the dream and its interpretation? Who are the antitypical magi? Astrologers? Chaldeans? Soothsayers? What is typed by Nebuchadnezzar's asking these to tell the dream and its interpretation? What is typed by their inability to give the dream and its interpretation? What is typed by the decree to slay Babylon's wise men? By Arioch? By Arioch's starting to kill Babylon's wise men? What was the antitypical result? What is typed by Arioch's seeking Daniel? What is typed by Daniel's tact? By Arioch's telling Daniel of the wise men's situation? 

(11) What is typed by Daniel's going to, and obtaining from the king time to consider and answer the matter? By his telling his three friends the situation and asking them to join with him in prayer on the subject? What thing will serve as an illustration of this course in Bro. Russell? Who will recall similar things? What is typed by God's revealing the matter to Daniel? By Daniel's thanksgiving? What is typed by Daniel's desiring Arioch not to continue to kill the wise men? By Arioch's bringing Daniel to the king? Why this in the antitype? What is typed by Nebuchadnezzar's asking Daniel if he could give and interpret the dream? By Daniel's reminding the king of the wise men's inability to answer him? By Daniel's attributing the implied wisdom, not to himself, but to God? By Daniel's telling and interpreting the dream? Wherein did Bro. Russell give the antitypical view? What is typed by the king's promoting Daniel? By Daniel's requesting promotion for his three friends? By his sitting in the king's gate? Especially from what time onward did the antitype set in? 

(12) In what events did Daniel not take part? What 

The Parousia Messenger. 


has this fact occasioned? Despite the record's silence on the subject, of what may we be certain as to Daniel? Why? What does the antitype prove on this point? Why so? Why is this reason true? What, accordingly, does the antitype make clear? What, among other parts of the book, did Daniel write? What does this type? 

(13) What does Nebuchadnezzar do in Dan. 4? How only did Daniel interpret the dream? Where does our Pastor give the antitype of the dream? Of what did he therein not give the antitype? Why is it unnecessary to give the antitype of the dream or of Daniel's interpretation of it? What only will we here give? What does our Pastor give on the antitype? What will in this article engage our attention? 

(14) What general view of mankind does the dream represent? Where do we find this view? What two heathen writers have remarkably described it? What is typed by Nebuchadnezzar's asking the wise men for the interpretation? By their failure? By Daniel's coming at the last? By Nebuchadnezzar's telling him his dream? By Daniel's being troubled thereon one hour? By Daniel's saying that the dream was favorable to the king's haters and enemies? By Daniel's interpreting the dream? Wherein did our Pastor give the antitypical meaning? 

(15) Of what does Dan. 5 treat? Whereby did our Pastor show that he understood that in this chapter Daniel typed him? How so? What only will be given in the following? Whom does Belshazzar here type? His 1,000 lords? His wives? His concubines? The feast? The golden and silver vessels being in Babylon? The sending for them? Putting Babylon's unclean wine into them? The banqueters drinking the wine therefrom? The finger of a man's hand writing on the wall? The king's seeing it? Wherein was the Divine power manifested? 

(16) What is typed by the king's perturbation? By the king's call for the wise men? By his offer of rewards to the interpreter? By his wise men's failure to read and interpret? By the king's and lords' increased fears? Why were symbolic Babylon's wise men unable to read and interpret the signs of the times? 

(17) Who were typed by the queen? Why did they have confidence in Bro. Russell as a religious teacher?

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


How came they to be at the symbolic feast? What did they suggest as antitypical of the queen's suggestion? What is typed by the sending for Daniel? By Daniel's being brought to the king? By the king's telling Daniel of his having heard of his ability to interpret hard things? What was said in type and antitype? What is typed by Daniel's statement as to the promised rewards? By Daniel's readiness to read and interpret the handwriting? 

(18) What is typed by Daniel's penitential sermon? By Daniel's allusions to Nebuchadnezzar? As what did these serve in type and antitype? What justified both the typical and antitypical rebuke? With what on this point were our Pastor's writings, sermons and lectures replete? What is typed by Daniel's showing that God's sign was given on account of Belshazzar's, his lords', his wives' and his concubines' sins? What was most fitting as to the sins of the types and antitypes before the reading and interpreting began? What followed in type and antitype? 

(19) What is represented by first reading the writing in type and antitype? What is typed by Daniel's giving the interpretation? What is typed by Daniel's explanation of the meaning of MENE? By the kingdom being numbered? Finished? What number is given in the words' numeric value? What does this mean? What is the antitype of the explanation of TEKEL? In what two sets of publications was the antitypical explanation given? Where else? Where especially is this judging process explained? What did this symbolic weighing demonstrate as to Babylon? How was this figuratively shown? What was the result? 

(20) What is the antitype of the explanation of PERES? Of what form is this the word? What, accordingly, did this sign first imply? What are the two parts of the division? What was implied in the ever-increasing friction between these two classes? In what would this result? What was the second thing implied in UPHARSIN? In the double successor kingdom of the type? Summarily, what were the three things antitypically implied in these three words? Who without any doubt gave these antitypical explanations? Who failed both to read and interpret them? What is typed by Daniel's being clothed in the purple robe? Receiving the

The Parousia Messenger. 


golden chain about his neck? Being made the third ruler in the kingdom? What is typed by Belshazzar's death that night? By Darius the Mede taking the kingdom? 

(21) Of what does Dan. 6 treat? How did our Pastor indicate his thought of the antitype of it? What does Darius in this chapter represent? What does the kingdom here represent? The 120 princes? The three presidents? The 120 princes' rendering account to the three presidents? Why was this required? What was typed by Daniel's being preferred above the other two presidents? Why so in type and antitype? What is typed by Darius' thinking to put Daniel over the whole kingdom? What saying applies in the type and antitype here? What is typed by the two presidents' and 120 princes' trying to fault Daniel in his work and their inability to do so? By their deciding that only on religion could fault be found with Daniel? 

(22) What is typed by their drawing up the law of vs. 6, 7? What in practice did such an antitypical law mean? What errors have produced this practice? How so? In what did this result? What became the occasion of our Pastor's enemies' stressing their theory to an extreme? What is typed by the two presidents and the 120 princes coming to Darius to have the decree signed and sealed? What is typed by Darius' signing and sealing it? How was this so with the antitypes? What was Jesus' actual course in the matter? 

(23) What oriental theory makes Darius' permitting himself to be worshiped understandable? Where have remnants of this practice appeared in modern times? What effect did this theory produce on the laws of such kingdoms? For what will this account as to the laws of the Medes and Persians? What is typed by Daniel's not permitting the law to change his worshiping customs? By the open window? Its being open toward Jerusalem? By Daniel's doing this on his knees? By his doing this three times a day? By his enemies' spying on him? By their subtly securing the king's admission on the existence and unchangeability of the pertinent law? By Darius' admission? 

(24) What does a pit in Biblical symbols mean? How is this exemplified in the cases of Joseph and Benaiah? What, accordingly, is typed by being put into a lion's 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


den, or pit? What is typed by the plotters' charging Daniel with disobeying the law and disregarding the king? By Darius' seeking to deliver Daniel? What is typed by the insistence of the typical plotters? By their claims of the unchanging legality of the laws? By the king's yielding? By Daniel's being cast into the lions' den? By the king's assuring Daniel that his God would deliver him? By the stone laid on the den's mouth? By the king's sealing the stone? 

(25) What were the tongues of the slanderers given? What slanders were spread against Bro. Russell by the 1891-1894 sifters? By Mrs. Russell? Why did she turn against him? Who encouraged her? With what did a third class of slanderers falsely charge him? What did the 1908-1911 sifters charge falsely against him? What did the Brooklyn Eagle charge against him? What other kinds of slanders were set afloat against him? Of what were these slanders the antitypes? What must have been the character of the trial in type and antitype? 

(26) What is typed by the king's fasting, mourning and sleeplessness? What do the 30 days' duration of the typical law seem to type? What seems to indicate the beginning and end of this period? What is typed by Darius' hastening to the lion's den? By his asking Daniel whether his God had been able to deliver him? How did the brethren feel during the long-drawn-out slanderous experiences? What did they fear? Of what was this the antitype? What is typed by Daniel's first answer? What types Bro. Russell's ascribing his deliverance, not to his own new-creaturely strength, but to God's grace? Of what did his deliverance not consist? Of what did it consist? What bad qualities were in this trial overcome by their opposite good qualities? What resulted negatively therefrom to his New Creature? What was the reason for the deliverance in type and antitype? What does Daniel's consciousness that he had done the king on harm type? 

(27) What is typed by the king's rejoicing? By the charge to bring Daniel forth from the den? The bringing of Daniel therefrom? When did a change of public sentiment set in with reference to Bro. Russell? What was in part instrumental thereto? To what did this court decision first lead? Afterwards? Who vied with one 

The Parousia Messenger. 


another to introduce him to his public audiences? What were the sizes of his public audiences? How was he everywhere regarded? How was he honored by the Panama-Pacific Exhibition directors? How was he everywhere received? What is typed by Daniel's faith stopping the mouths of lions? By Daniel's further promotions? What periods are typed by the rest of the days of Darius', and till the third year of Cyrus' reign? 

(28) What is typed by Darius' commanding the plotters, their children and wives, to be thrown into the lions' den? By their being thrown into it? What Scripture had an exemplification in this? What is typed by the lions' having the mastery over these plotters, etc.? By their tearing them to pieces? Before their reaching the bottom of the pit? What does the difference in the way in which Daniel and these fared in the lions' den type? What is typed by Darius' decree following the experiences described in Dan. 6? What will this decree forever manifest? What will be a part of that manifestation? How is this proved? What do the cited passages prove of our Pastor's Millennial position? 

(29) What is the difference in contents between Dan. 1—6 and Dan. 7—12? Despite what fact? What is not the design of this chapter? What is its design? How was, and will the design be adhered to? How is this possible? Of what does Dan. 7 mainly consist? How many non-prophetic things does it contain? Of what does it treat? What is typed by Daniel's seeing this vision? Where did Bro. Russell get this indefinite view? What in type and antitype was lacking as to the vision? What is typed by Daniel's asking for and getting an explanation of it from a bystander? What afterdeeds did the antitypical bystander commit? What is typed by Daniel's being troubled by the vision and its explanation? By Daniel's countenance being changed? Keeping the matter in his heart? 

(30) What might be profitably introduced here? How did the Adventists abuse the prophetic time? What effect did this have on Bro. Russell? What teachings did he hold against the Adventists' view? From this vantage point, what did he do as to their teachings? Into what extreme did he permit their misuse of prophetic time to drive him? What was the character of his pertinent view?

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


What did he do against their pertinent errors? How long did he maintain his unbelief and ridicule of prophetic time? What did the Lord in 1876 do to him on this subject? In what form did this help come to him? How did he learn that it was an Adventist publication? What did this knowledge prompt him to do? What did he then do with the magazine? What did he see in the article's writer? What did the article tell of Bro. Barbour's investigations after the 1874 disappointment? 

(31) Who wrote to him amid his perplexity? What was the thought on the word Parousia that he presented in his letter? On Matt. 24:38, compared with Luke 17:26, 27? What question did the letter ask? What thought did Bro. Barbour thereupon cautiously put forth in his article? What was the thought that the reading of the article aroused in Bro. Russell's mind? What made this thought seem probable to him? Of what other way of finding out the setting in of the Second Advent could he not think? What did this do with his prejudice against prophetic time? What did it make him willing to do? What two things did this induce him to do? Where and when was the meeting to be? Why then in Philadelphia? What was his first executive act as that Servant? How is this proved? 

(32) What did these two do in Philadelphia? In what part of the day? Why then? On what did Bro. Barbour enlighten Bro. Russell? On what did Bro. Russell enlighten Bro. Barbour? Who gave the other decidedly the more help? Whence did Bro. Barbour get the thoughts that he gave to Bro. Russell? What error do these facts enable us to recognize? Comparatively and contrastedly, how were their respective views to be accounted? What did this fact not prove? When and in connection with what struggle did Bro. Russell fully become that Servant? When partially so? Which was the more aggressive as a servant of God? What shows this as against Bro. Barbour? What was Bro. Russell's attitude toward Bro. Barbour for his help? Why have these facts been given in this chapter? 

(33) What is the character of the experiences set forth in Dan. 8? Whose typical experiences are there given? Of what antitype are they given? What features of

The Parousia Messenger. 


Dan. 8 will we not study? What features of it will we study? Of what nation does Dan. 8 not treat? With what nation's experiences does it begin? What does this fact prove? The removal of what interpolation proves this? What does this prove of the 2300 days? Of their beginning? With whose beginning were they contemporaneous? When and with what did the 490 days, or 70 weeks, begin? What considerations prove this? What results as to J.F.R.'s view of the 2300 days? What is typed by Daniel's then being in Shushan? What does Ulai mean and type? What is typed by Daniel's seeing the vision beside the Ulai? 

(34) What is typed by Daniel's hearing one saint speak? Who is typed by the other saint? What is typed by Daniel's hearing the second saint ask the first saint the duration of the vision, etc., and receive an answer? What is typed by the first saint, and not the inquiring saint, answering Daniel? By Daniel's seeking an explanation of the vision? What was the appearance of a man? Whom does Gabriel in this chapter type? Whose was the man's voice between Ulai's banks? What is typed by his command? 

(35) What is typed by Gabriel's coming near to Daniel? When did this begin? What is typed by Daniel's standing place? By his fearing Gabriel's approach? By Daniel's falling on his face? Why is this so? What is typed by Gabriel's saying that the vision was for profit in the time of the end? By Daniel's being in a deep sleep in the first part of Gabriel's speech? By Gabriel's touching him? By his making him stand upright? By his promise to make Daniel understand? By his explanation in vs. 20-26? By Daniel's sickness? By Daniel's serving the king? By his astonishment? By none understanding the vision? 

(36) What four things does Dan. 9 contain? What is typed by Daniel's then being in Babylon under Darius' rulership? By his learning from books that Jerusalem's wastings in palace and temple would be 70 years? By his finding out the end of this state in the beginning of the 70th year? By such knowledge leading Daniel to acknowledge Israel's sins and God's justice in punishing them and to pray for the pertinent restoration? By God's assuring

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


Daniel through Gabriel of his prayer's answer in the prophecy of the 70 weeks? 

(37) What are involved in the 70 weeks' prophecy? What period do the 70 weeks type? What shows that the trouble following the 70 weeks is also involved in the parallel? What is the antitype of this period? What shows that the period before the beginning of the 70 weeks up to the beginning of the answer of Daniel's prayer is also involved in the parallel? What is the exact date of the beginning of this period? What is the antitype of this period? Why do we infer that Gabriel in giving this prophecy is typical? 

(38) Of whom is Gabriel here typical? Why? Who was the first of these five brothers? Who was probably the second of these five brothers? The third and fourth? What did they give to Bro. Russell? What did the fifth brother give to him as to 69 as against 70 A.D., and 1914 as against 1910? As to the Apostles and Bro. Russell? As to the wrath events from 1915 to 1918? What is typed by Gabriel's coming quickly to Daniel? By his coming to Daniel about the time of the evening oblation? By his touching Daniel? By his promising Daniel skill in understanding? 

(39) What is typed by God's quick answer to Daniel's prayer? How many times did Gabriel tell Daniel that he was greatly beloved? What does this type? What other two types are in line with this? What did Bro. Russell say when told that he was the most loved man on earth? What did he add to this remark? What did Gabriel encourage Daniel to study? Which vision is thereby meant? What does this prove of the 70 weeks? Of the 2300 days? What theory is thereby overthrown? What is typed by Gabriel's encouraging Daniel to study the vision? 

(40) What will we now study? Who first brought the parallels to Bro. Russell's attention? How many of them did he show him? What was the first of these? The second? The third? The fourth? Why did Bro. Miller falter as between the dates 1843 and 1844? What was the fifth of these? Who gave Bro. Russell the 36 A.D. and 1881 parallels? What were their parallel events? 

(41) Through whom were the next important additions to the parallels brought to Bro. Russell? Who was 

The Parousia Messenger. 


the main one of the two? In what three publications are these parallels found? How in magnitude did their work compare with that of their fellow members of antitypical Gabriel? What were their first parallel dates and events? Their second? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Where are their charts found? What did they do with them? What did he do with them? 

(42) What did the fifth brother do as to certain parallels? What was the first of these? To what important corrections did this correction lead? When did a clear-cut distinction first begin to come between the end of the reaping and of the garnering of the Church? To what other correction did this correction lead? When and in what did this correction appear? What parallels were brought to Bro. Russell's attention in 1910? Where are some of them given? In 1915? About how many of them? How many other parallels were at the same time brought to his attention? Wherein did the 70 A.D. and 1915 parallels consist? How closely did these parallels work out? Who were the parallel parties in these 70-73 and 1915-1918 parallels? What does this investigation as to the activities of these five brothers prove of them? 

(43) With what does our study now proceed? What in these chapters will we here omit? Why? What is necessary for an understanding of the antitypes of Daniel's prostrations in Dan. 10? What is typed by Daniel's three weeks' mourning? Fasting? Abstinence from anointing himself? What are we not from this to infer? Why not? What does the connection prove of the thought? What proves that during these seven years he was receiving other truths? What does the word Hiddekel mean? What does Hiddekel type? What proves this, apart from the word's meaning? Through what six men especially did Satan give these sharp, stern truths (voice, or sound)? Wherein were they expressed literarily? What were the main truths enunciated by these six men? What characteristic expression did Voltaire use? Diderot? What was Bro. Russell's attitude toward these truths? By what is this typed? What other kind of truths did Bro. Russell receive during those seven years? What kind did he not then receive? What do vs. 4-19 show 

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


of him typically? What was previously done in this chapter, without connecting it with this type? 

(44) What does Daniel's fixing his eyes on a certain man (v. 5) type? Who does this certain man seem to be? Why? Whom does this certain man type? Whom does Michael in this chapter type? Why? What proves that here Gabriel types our Lord? What is typed by Gabriel's linen garment? By his loins girded with gold of Ophir (here displaced by Uphaz)? By his body being like chrysolite? By his face looking like lightning? By his eyes being like lamps of fire? By his arms and feet being like polished brass? By his voice being like a multitude's? By Daniel's alone seeing the vision? Why was this true in the antitype? At what even had his associates looked askance? What finally separated them from him? 

(45) What is typed by Daniel's being left alone? By his being without strength at the vision's beginning? By his countenance being turned into corruption? When did its antitype begin? What is typed by Daniel's retaining no strength? By his hearing Gabriel's voice at the time? By his deep sleep? By his face being toward the ground? By the hand that touched Daniel? By his being thereby raised on all fours? By Gabriel's telling Daniel that he was greatly beloved? By his encouraging Daniel to understand his words? By his encouraging Daniel to stand upright? By Daniel's tremblingly standing upright? 

(46) What is typed by Gabriel's further encouraging Daniel? By Gabriel's assuring Daniel that God had heard and acted upon his prayer from the outstart of his 21 days' fast? By Gabriel's coming forth to help Daniel? By the prince of Persia? By his resisting Gabriel's purpose 21 days? How could Satan have resisted Jesus' efforts to help Bro. Russell in this matter? By what facts was the resisting done? How did Jesus in this situation show Himself to be a Master Tactician in the preparatory stages of His work? In the final stage of it? 

(47) How should the phrase, "Michael, one of the chief princes," be rendered? Why is this change to be made Scripturally? Whom does Michael here type? Why? What is typed by Michael's being Gabriel's only supporter? What is typed by Gabriel's remaining resistingly with the king of Persia? What reading does Ginsburg suggest? 

The Parousia Messenger. 


What would it antitype? Why does it seem incorrect? By his assuring Daniel that he had come to instruct him as to his people in the last of the days? What do people do who are ashamed? What is typed by Daniel's looking down and keeping silent? What does Dan. 10 up to v. 15 describe? What does v. 16 introduce? 

(48) What did the reading of the above-mentioned article move Bro. Russell to do? What is the relation of vs. 16 and 17 to this? Why so? Who is typed by the one like unto the sons of men? What did his teachings in his letters reveal to Bro. Russell? In what did this result? What were Bro. Russell's symbolic lips? What was typed by touching Daniel's lips and making him speak? By Daniel's feeling and speaking of his weakness? 

(49) What is typed by touching Daniel for the third time? How was this arranged for at Philadelphia? How are the three stages of help received at this time by Bro. Russell typed? The first? The second? The third? What is typed by Gabriel's again encouraging Daniel? Why did Bro. Russell's natural disposition under the circumstances require such encouragement? Of what did the typical and antitypical encouragement consist? What Scripture was probably brought to Bro. Russell's mind? 

(50) What words must have been refreshing in type and antitype? What other means did the Lord use to encourage Bro. Russell? What is typed by Daniel's being encouraged? By Daniel's grateful recognition of the help and his request that Gabriel speak on? Why did Gabriel ask Daniel whether he knew why he was coming to him? What is thereby typed? Who is the prophecy revealer from here on until Dan. 12:5? Why is Gabriel as the type of Jesus the speaker in this section? Why is Dan. 10:20—12:4 not expounded in this chapter? With what will we continue our typical study? 

(51) What are the contents of Dan. 12:5, 6? How many men are brought therein to our view? What is the 

antitype of this? Who corresponds antitypically to the one on the other side of the flood? Before when must he have been active? Why? What was this man's name? What was his standing as a Christian? As a scholar? For what was he noted? What was his first great work and

Daniel—Type and Antitype. 


when was it published? His second great work and its date of publication? His three prophetic time writings, as his third great work and the dates of their publication? Which of the foregoing works belong to the point under discussion? What questions did he try to find out? When in relation to the beginning of "the flood" did he ask these questions? How did he raise the antitypical question? What did he arouse? Whose interest was much later aroused by his writings? Where did this one spread the Second Advent work? Who, accordingly, was the man that our Pastor heard ask the question of v. 6? 

(52) Who was the man on our Pastor's side of the river? What two facts prove that he was not the man on the other side of the flood? Why is Bro. Barbour introduced into this scene? Who is the linen-clothed man standing over the river? What did he do, according to v. 7? What is typed by his standing over the river? By his linen clothes? By his lifting up both hands? By his oath? By Daniel's seeing the scene of vs. 5-7? 

(53) What is typed by Daniel's not understanding (v. 8)? By Daniel's question? By Gabriel's answer? Why was it important for Bro. Russell to learn that undue things cannot be understood? That when due, Truth would become clear? What illustration pictures both sides of this quality of Truth? What good lesson was given Bro. Russell in v. 10? Why should he learn this lesson? Who were the wicked of v. 10? The righteous? What good would it be for a servant of the Truth to recognize this principle as applicable to the righteous? What can be said of these two lessons as related to our Pastor? 

(54) What was Daniel not given to understand? What was he given to understand? Where is this brought out? What does the connection between v. 10 and vs. 11, 12 show? What three changes of the A.V. will show this? According to vs. 10, 11, when did the first period for clarifying the Truth in the time of the end begin? By what was that year symbolized? What was Daniel thereafter given to see? What did Gabriel type in making these facts known to Daniel? Accordingly, what did the Lord cause Bro. Russell to see? What proves that he was given to see these things?

The Parousia Messenger. 


(55) What is not meant by Gabriel's charge, "Go thy way to the end"? What does it mean, typically and antitypically? What does the expression, "thou shalt rest," mean, typically and antitypically? What does the expression, "thou shalt stand in thy lot," mean, typically and antitypically? What does the expression, "at the end of the days," not mean? What does it mean antitypically? 

(56) What will this reward be? How many Eleazars have there been during the Gospel Age? What kind of an Eleazar was the first? Who was he? What kind of an Eleazar was the second one? Who was he? How many of them will there be in the Millennium? Of what kinds will they be? Who will they be? What will the charge of each of them be? What will be the difference between their charges? What position does such an office prove that Bro. Russell will then have? How do the cited Scriptures prove the answers given to the foregoing questions? What does this fact help us to understand of Bro. Russell's being referred to in the Bible? What whole books give typical prophecies of him? How is he otherwise referred to in the Bible? Of what are his writings a teaching fulfillment? What about the Large Jesus made this study of Daniel—Type and Antitype, especially timely in 1934? What is a fitting prayer as to antitypical Daniel? 

Imperial Persia bowed to his wise sway— 

A hundred provinces his daily care; 

A queenly city with its gardens fair 

Smiled round him; but his heart was far away. 

Forsaking pomp and power "three times a day" 

For chamber lone, he seeks his solace there; 

Through windows opening westward floats his prayer 

Toward the dear distance where Jerusalem lay. 

So let me morn, noon, evening, steal aside; 

And shutting my heart's door to earth's vain pleasure 

And manifold solicitudes, find leisure 

The windows of my soul to open wide 

Toward that blest city and that heavenly treasure, 

Which past these visible horizons hide.