LEPROSY'S TWO TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCES. BRINGING THE LEPER TO THE PRIEST. SYMPTOMS OF LEPROSY. JUDGING. SIX FORMS OF LEPROSY. FIRST FORM, TYPICAL OF SIN. SECOND FORM, TYPICAL OF SELFISHNESS. THIRD FORM, TYPICAL OF WORLDLINESS. FOURTH FORM, TYPICAL OF ERROR. GENERAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO ALL FOUR FORMS. FIFTH FORM, TYPICAL OF POWER-GRASPING AND LORDING. SIXTH FORM, TYPICAL OF SECTARIANISM. BEREAN QUESTIONS. 

IN THIS chapter it is purposed to study the details on leprosy as these are given in Lev. 13 and 14. Leprosy is one of the most dreaded of diseases, not the least dreadful feature of which is its almost incurableness. It is largely an Asiatic disease, though it is sometimes found outside of Asia. When it covered the entire person it typed the Adamic depravity (Lev. 13:12, 13), but when it covered but part of the body it typed Great Company uncleanness. Apart from vs. 12, 13, Lev. 13 and 14 treat of leprosy as being only in parts of the body, or of a garment, or of a house. We could not understand why one entirely covered by leprosy should be counted clean from the standpoint of Lev. 13 and 14 and one be counted unclean, if he had leprosy only in a part of his person, unless the Lord intended to bring out two kinds of leprosy in the antitype, one in the type having it universally being considered as typing a person or class having a different kind of antitypical leprosy from that typed by one who had it only in parts of his body. As we look at the specific kinds of leprosy mentioned in Lev. 13 and 14, apart from the case mentioned in Lev. 13:12, 13, we find that they always refer to specifically located forms of it: the swelling (Lev. 13:9-11, 14-17), the boil (vs. 18-23), the fevered spot (vs. 24-28), leprosy in the head (vs. 29-44), leprosy in a garment (vs. 47-59) and leprosy 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

244 

in a house (Lev. 14:33-53). While leprosy covering the whole body fittingly types the Adamic corruption, which depraves all men in every one of their faculties and qualities, a localized form of leprosy would not represent such a condition as is common to all men. It must type the uncleanness that is localized in one class. This class, for various reasons that will come out as we proceed with our study, is the Great Company. Hence, localized leprosy types Great Company uncleanness. 

(2) Leprous Miriam (Num. 12) is the classic type of the Great Company in their uncleanness. As unleprous Aaron in Num. 12 types faultfinding, busybodying Little Flock members feebly interfering with and contradicting Jesus as He speaks through His special mouthpieces, so leprous Miriam represents faultfinding and busybodying Great Company members grossly interfering with and contradicting Jesus as He speaks through His special mouthpieces. Her becoming leprous represents how such Great Company members become unclean in doctrine (1 Tim. 1:19, 20) and life (1 Cor. 5:1-4), as her being driven without the camp represents the disfellowshipment that falls to the lot of the unclean Great Company (1 Tim. 1:20; 1 Cor. 5:5, 9-13). Naaman, the Syrian (2 Kings 5), is a type of radical Society leaders in 1919, 1920. Gehazi and his house made leprous (2 Kings 5:27) type J.F.R. and his special supporters as having Great Company uncleanness put upon them perpetually. Uzziah (2 Chro. 26:19-23) types J.F.R. becoming manifest as in Great Company uncleanness in 1917 in connection with his busybodying as the executive of a corporation in a certain priestly work in England. Please see Vol. III, Chapter VI, for details of the antitypes of Naaman's and Gehazi's leprosy. Uzziah's we will discuss sometime later. We merely cite them here as types of Great Company uncleanness. While these cases will help us to see that localized

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

245 

leprosy types Great Company uncleanness, the specific proofs will appear as we give the details of Lev. 13 and 14. With these generalities given we are ready to take up the details of these chapters. 

(3) Jehovah speaking to Moses and Aaron (v. 1), types God in the Gospel Age, especially in the Jewish and Gospel Harvests, and more particularly in the Epiphany, speaking to Jesus, as His Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for Spiritual Israel (Moses) and as the Church's High Priest (Aaron). V. 2 gives some symptoms that may indicate leprosy, though they do not necessarily do so, as the sequel shows. However, they were sufficient to arouse the fear that their possessors might have leprosy. Hence the charge that the person with these symptoms be brought to Aaron or to one of his sons. As only generalities are given on these symptoms in vs. 2-8 and the details are given from v. 9 onward, we will not here explain the antitypes of the rising (swelling), scab or bright spot, but will leave them for discussion when we come to the details; for as we proceed we will see that vs. 2-8 give a general, not specific discussion of leprosy. Aaron here types our Lord as our High Priest. Bringing the leprosy-suspect to Aaron represents bringing to our Lord as High Priest as He acts through His special eye, mouth and hand, one suspected of Great Company uncleanness for investigation of the case. That the leprosy here typed cannot mean the Adamic depravity is evident from the fact that there is no need of an investigation as to whether one has it or not, since all men have it by heredity, and all priests are fully aware of this fact. Hence the suspected leprosy here types suspected Great Company uncleanness, which must be investigated in order to determine whether Great Company uncleanness is present or not. Here, then, is our first specific reason for claiming that, apart from that of vs. 12, 13, the leprosy of Lev. 13 and 14 types Great Company uncleanness. A

The Epiphany's Elect. 

246 

second reason is this: We do not bring to the Priesthood Adamic depravity for an investigation of its presence or absence, since the Priesthood's work is now, in the Gospel Age, not specifically with the Adamic sin, but with God's people and only exceptionally with the sins of God's people, in so far as they deal with sin as priests. How is the antitypical bringing done? By the Lord's people opposing the uncleanness of the Great Company, i.e., opposing their revolutionistic teachings and practices. So do we bring such to the antitypical Aaron or to one of the antitypical priests. 

(4) Some details on the antitype are necessary to be given here, if it is to be properly understood. How are such antitypical lepers brought by us now to our High Priest's notice for investigation? Certainly not to Him as such to investigate; for He knows the case before any of us suspect it; for He knew when each crown-loser lost his crown, which in all cases happened before October, 1914. How, then, are they brought to Him for investigation? We answer: They are brought to Him for investigation as He acts through His special eye, mouth and hand. That this is true we can see from the case presented in 1 Cor. 5—the Corinthian brother who, marrying his stepmother, became guilty of incest. The Lord Jesus knew of this incest as it was committed, and knew of the involved willfulness as it was being exercised. But His special eye, mouth and hand on that occasion, Paul, did not know the details; and as he therein acted as Jesus' eye, mouth and hand (in the name of our Lord Jesus, with the power of our Lord Jesus—v. 4), he had to investigate the case in order to pronounce a proper decision on it. Hence we understand that Aaron here types our Lord as He acts in His special eye, mouth and hand. Since inspiration ceased, Jesus did not act through an eye, mouth and hand for such purposes until the Epiphany, for it required Inspiration 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

247 

to know who belonged to the Great Company, before God began to deal with it as with a class during the Epiphany. Hence to bring a Great Company suspect to the antitypical Aaron now means for such a one to be brought to the investigating and judgment-pronouncing activity of our Lord as He acts through the Epiphany messenger. No other individual as such is used by our Lord for such activity. 

(5) But one may object, Does not v. 2 say that the suspect may be brought to an under-priest? We answer, Yes. But that under-priest does not type an individual priest, which would have been the case had his name been given as typing an individual in the end of the Age. But as no name is given he does not type an individual in the end of the Age or any other time, though if for another time, such a named priest, if Eleazar, would have typed the Twelve, not an individual, if Ithamar, the 35 star members (not an individual) between the two Harvests. What, then, is typed by the leprosy-investigating and decision-pronouncing underpriest? Fortunately, as in the case of the eye, mouth and hand of antitypical Aaron, we have a New Testament Scripture (1 Cor. 5:4) to give us the answer to our pertinent inquiry, so have we a New Testament Scripture to give us the answer to our present inquiry. It is also 1 Cor. 5:4, 5. Here we are told that in addition to our Lord acting through Paul as His eye, mouth and hand, the Corinthian ecclesia acted, and in v. 13 is commanded so to act. Accordingly, we understand that an under-priest investigating and deciding on a leper suspect types an ecclesia investigating and deciding on a Great Company suspect. Accordingly, we conclude that no ecclesia member as an individual has the right to investigate and pass on a Great Company suspect. This, apart from the High Priest acting through His special eye, mouth and hand, can be done only by an ecclesia, and that alone in the case of members of that ecclesia. No ecclesia can do

The Epiphany's Elect. 

248 

this as to members of another ecclesia, because an ecclesia does not have its sphere of activity in other ecclesias. The General Church is cared for in this matter by our Lord alone, acting through His eye, mouth and hand toward the General Church. 

(6) The first clause of v. 3 tells of the examination of the leper-suspect. This types that the antitypical priest will examine the Great Company suspect, which proves that the Lord does not desire the priest to shut his eyes to the facts of the case, as certain ones have decried the antitypical examination as uncovering one of the robe, but desires a careful inspection of the actual condition of the Great Company suspect to be made. The middle clauses of v. 3 give the two unfailing symptoms of real leprosy; the sore must (1) make the hair within it turn white, and (2) must be deeper than the surface of the skin, deeper than skin deep. What is wrong with the hair turned white in such a case? It has deteriorated, has become depraved. What does this type? Hair in Bible symbols types the powers of God's people, real or nominal, as can be seen from the hair of Samson (Judges 16:17, 19, 22, 30) and of those who had hair like women (nominal churches, Rev. 9:8). The primary power of the real people of God is the Truth (Dan. 8:12; 12:7); and their secondary power is the Divine arrangements for doing the Lord's work. With these two things on their side they are invincible. For their symbolic hair to turn white means a corruption of the Truth and its arrangements setting in. Hence one of the symptoms of Great Company uncleanness is their corrupting the Truth and its arrangements—revolutionism against the Truth and the Truth arrangements, or to put it another way, to set aside the Truth and to put error in its place and to set aside the Lord's arrangements and to put others in their place. In other words, the hair turning white in the sore represents what is told us in literal language in Ps. 107:10, 11, 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

249 

which for years we have recognized to give the mark or indication of Great Company uncleanness. 

(7) But v. 3 gives a second symptom that must be present before one could with certainty be declared to be a leper. The sore must not be merely a superficial one, only skin deep. It must be deeper than the skin, "in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh." In other words, it had to be a deep-seated evil. This represents the fact that the revolutionism must be persistently willful. Hence, as we have repeatedly pointed out, the revolutionism must be persistent, refusing to yield to loving dissuasion, exhortation and expostulation, before one is to be considered in the Great Company, one of the symbolic lepers. Why must such willfulness be added to the revolutionism? Because all priests, except Jesus, have made mistakes on matters of teaching and arrangement, which would mean, if only the symbolic hair turning white would be a sure proof of Great Company uncleanness, that all priests, except Jesus, would drop into the Great Company; hence there would be no Little Flock; for in many things we all err. E.g., how often in our Berean studies we give mistaken answers! In our services we often use wrong methods for doing the Lord's work. But these of themselves alone would not cause us to have Great Company uncleanness. It is only when persistency therein against loving dissuasion, exhortation and expostulation sets in that the case is one of Great Company uncleanness; for the faithful under such dissuasion, exhortation and expostulation give up their errors and wrong arrangements. This shows that their aberrations were of weakness and not of willfulness. Hence only then can we be sure that we are dealing with Great Company uncleanness, when in a new creature we see a corruption of the Truth and its arrangements (the hair turned white) and a steadfast persistence therein (deeper than the skin). Thus, 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

250 

in the type and antitype infallible symptoms of typical and antitypical leprosy prevail. 

(8) In the type when a priest would see the two typical symptoms—the hair turned white and the plague deeper than the skin—he was to declare the patient leprous—unclean (v. 3). In the antitype, when the investigating priest sees in a new creature persistent revolutionism against the Truth and its arrangements, he is to declare the guilty one to be antitypically leprous, to have Great Company uncleanness. This has been going on ever since 1917, and that despite the protests of the antitypical lepers and sometimes of uninformed priests, who cry out against this Divinely commanded work as "judging." It is true that after the Apostles fell asleep until the Epiphany, it was a forbidden thing to pronounce one guilty of Great Company uncleanness, because until the Epiphany set in, it required inspiration to diagnose a case of Great Company uncleanness, and such inspiration ceased with the death of the last Apostle. It is only since the Epiphany set in that the Lord has revealed to us the token of Great Companyship. Hence, apart from inspiration, none could, before learning this token, know who was in the Great Company. For this reason, that token not being known before the Epiphany, our Pastor repeatedly warned the brethren not to judge as to who are in the Great Company, a proper warning for the time before the Epiphany; though he clearly taught that this judgment would come in "the end of the Age"—the Epiphany (See Z '10, 243-245; Z '11, 120-122, 349; Z '14, 38, 79; Z '16, 264; 1916 Convention Report, 191, Question 10; etc.). The Epiphany (2 Tim. 4:1) being the time for the separation of the Little Flock and the Great Company, who are included in the expression "quick," of course those who would cooperate with the Lord intelligently in that separating work would have to know the token of Great Companyship—persistent revolutionism 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

251 

against the Truth and its arrangements. Hence our Pastor taught (Convention Report 1916, page 191, Question 10) that when the separation between the Little Flock and the Great Company would set in, it would be proper to point out who is in the Great Company. This judging after the time is commanded in 1 Cor. 4:5 and in Lev. 13:3, 8, 15, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 36, 44; and those who denounce it are denouncing what God commands, and of course they will have to make amends for such a course, which in some is a matter of ignorance, in many is more or less of arrogance, and in some is more or less willful. Just as the chief objection in the great nominal church to the Parousia Truth expressed itself in the words, "A second chance"! so the chief objection in the little nominal church to the Epiphany Truth and work expresses itself in the word, "Judging"! 

(9) Vs. 4-6 treat of cases that are not advanced sufficiently to receive a final judgment, but are still of the leprosy-suspect kind and therefore should be held under scrutiny, under surveillance. The bright spot turning white, i.e., becoming like the well skin, types the revolutionism being displaced by the Truth and Truth arrangement in the suspect, under pertinent teachings. Its not being deeper than the skin types the lack of persistency in the revolutionism. Its not turning the hair white types the revolutionism being but very slight or on an unweighty matter. Still the one who was thus conditioned became a leprosy-suspect in the type and had to be treated accordingly—shut up seven days, put under sufficient observation. This types the fact that if one hovers dangerously near Great Company uncleanness, he is to be put under surveillance, under observation, the seven days typing that it is to be done fully and sufficiently, i.e., the investigating priest, the Lord's special eye, mouth and hand, or an ecclesia, is not to be hasty in arriving at a decision in the case; he or it is not to take snap judgment 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

252 

in the case. He or it is to take plenty of time and make very careful observations before coming to a decision; for a wrong decision means much of evil to all concerned. Hence the Lord arranged the type to show that He would give the antitypical instruction on the mode and spirit of procedure as just outlined. The shutting up implied more or less of restraint in the type, and typifies that the suspect is to endure more or less restraint from the investigating priest, whose investigating activities of themselves put him under more or less of restraint. 

(10) As v. 4 shows that the priest is not to be too quick to pronounce a person leprous, so v. 5 shows that he is not to be too quick to pronounce him clean. This is indicated by the statement that even if the plague has not in the first seven days increased, the suspect is not to be pronounced clean, but to be shut up seven days more; because a sufficiency of time may not have been allowed for the disease to manifest its real nature yet. So in the antitype the investigating priest is not to be in a hurry. If the second investigation does not suffice, a third should be undertaken and the case be treated as under observation, until a full, proper decision can be reached, when, if no persistent revolutionism appears, the brother should be declared as not guilty of Great Company uncleanness (v. 6). In the type if the plague was but a scab, which of course would not be leprosy, the suspect should be declared clean. In the antitype the fault would be one of weakness or ignorance, a thing which of course all under-priests have; hence the suspect should be declared free of Great Company uncleanness. The suspect washing his clothes types the brother ridding himself by the Word of the weakness or ignorance, which leaves him antitypically clean (v. 6). But if after the first seven days when the suspect was seen by the priest for his cleansing, the scab spread, the priest should see him again. Antitypically 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

253 

this would mean that if after the first period of observation the antitypical priest should find the suspect developing unfavorable symptoms, he should still wait a while longer in hopes that the brother might yet recover himself, in the meantime exhorting the suspect to reformation (v. 7). But if after these three attempts to bring such an one to repentance the revolutionism spreads, then the investigating priest is to pronounce him guilty of Great Company uncleanness, which implies that he will withdraw priestly fellowship from him. Our study of vs. 1-8 results in our recognizing that they give us only generalities, not particularities, on leprosy—type and antitype. The details will come out in the rest of the chapter. The whole procedure given in vs. 1-8 proves that no reference here is made to leprosy as typing the Adamic depravity, which without any investigation we all know exists in all, while the kind here referred to antitypically is limited only to certain ones and needs investigation to discover; hence these verses deal typically with Great Company uncleanness. 

(11) Five details on leprosy are brought out in the rest of Lev. 13, which treats of five kinds of leprosy: vs. 9-17, of a rising or swelling; vs. 18-23, of a boil; vs. 24-28, of a burning; vs. 29-44, of the head; vs. 45, 46, of their patient's treatment and vs. 47-59, of a garment. Four of these forms of leprosy attached themselves to persons, and one to things—garments; and in Lev. 14:33-53 a sixth form of leprosy is brought to our attention—leprosy in a house. The four kinds of leprosy that afflict humans will first receive our attention. These four forms of literal leprosy correspond to the four forms of Great Company uncleanness. The swelling or rising kind of leprosy represents Great Company sin as a kind of its uncleanness. The boil kind of leprosy types Great Company selfishness as a kind of its uncleanness. The burning kind of leprosy types Great Company worldliness

The Epiphany's Elect. 

254 

as a kind of its uncleanness. The head kind of leprosy symbolizes Great Company error as a kind of its uncleanness. The Bible teaches that Great Companyship shows itself in any one of these four forms of evil, even as leprosy showed itself in the four above-mentioned forms. We are often accused of using types to teach doctrines. This is a misrepresentation. Like our Pastor we use them to illustrate doctrines taught in clear Scripture. Let us first, therefore, note how the Bible in literal passages teaches that sin has caused the loss of one's crown and has caused his manifestation as such. It was the sin of the worst form of unchastity, incest, that caused the Corinthian brother to forfeit his crown and be manifested as a Great Company brother (1 Cor. 5:1-13). It is sin that spots one's robe and Jude shows that the robes of some of the Great Company brethren are spotted (Jude 23). Accordingly, we see that literal Scriptures prove that sin has caused the loss of crowns and has manifested that loss. We will now take up the study of vs. 9-17, which type sin as a phase of Great Company uncleanness. 

(12) Swelling leprosy (v. 10) certainly fittingly represents Great Company sin as a form of its uncleanness; for what is sin in ultimate analysis but a swelling of self against God and His will? Certainly sin is an arrogant swelling of self-will as against God's order and authority. From this standpoint, if Great Company sin is at all represented by a form of leprosy it is most fittingly represented by its swelling form. Hence we conclude that the swelling form of leprosy types Great Company sin as a form of its uncleanness. The swelling's color, white, suggests the disease of sin. Its turning the hair white types that it is accompanied with error in teaching and arrangement. Indeed, if it were a case of sin only, apart from inspiration we could not know whether the sin had caused the forfeiture of the crown, since we are incapable of judging 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

255 

the degree of allowance that God makes in sin apart from weakness and ignorance. But if one is guilty of some gross sin and we find him going blind on the Truth and drunk with error in teaching and arrangement ("if it have turned the hair white"—v. 10), we have a partial, though not full proof of his having forfeited his crown. We say partial, not full proof, because another thing must be present to make the proof full; the error must be persisted in (quick [living, red] raw flesh in the rising, which proves the disease deeper than the skin—not simply a superficial matter). When these two things follow a more or less gross sin, we know that the sin caused the brother or sister to forfeit his crown and is manifesting him as a crown-loser. The force of the adjective in the expression, "an old leprosy" (v. 11), seems to be that of the word former in the expression, "former lusts," in 1 Pet. 1:14, even as in 2 Pet. 2:20 we read of pollutions formerly overcome and later yielded to. When the investigating priest finds these conditions present, he is to do what Paul and the Corinthian ecclesia did in a like case—pronounce the evil-doer guilty of Great Company uncleanness in the form of sin (v. 11). The summary dealing with such an one is proven to be the right course, as indicated not only at the end of v. 11, "shall not shut him up," but also by Paul's and the Corinthian ecclesia's summary dealing with the incestuous brother. 

(13) At first sight the thought expressed in vs. 12, 13, that if one is covered over entirely with leprosy, he is to be called clean, strikes one as most unusual and unnatural. The question naturally arises, Why should he not be considered the most unclean of the unclean? This natural thought can be reasonably answered only as follows: Leprosy, if covering the whole body, is by God used to type the Adamic depravity, because it defiles all our sentiments and qualities, and because all humans have it—the Little Flock, the Great Company, 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

256 

the Second Death class, the Youthful Worthies, the justified and the unjustified—while partial leprosy is by God used to type the superadded Great Company uncleanness, because it occurs on the body in spots only. And since in this and the next chapter the Lord is furnishing types of Great Company uncleanness alone, one whose body is entirely covered with leprosy could not be used to type Great Company uncleanness; hence he would type one clean of the particular antitypical uncleanness described in these two chapters. Hence vs. 12, 13 describe a form of leprosy of which these two chapters, as a whole, do not treat typically or antitypically; and, therefore, it is ruled out of consideration, when the forms of leprosy treated in these chapters, typically or antitypically, are kept in mind. We can see at once that if God uses the form of leprosy that covers the whole body to type the Adamic depravity, which depraves all the faculties and qualities of all classes, that form of leprosy could not be used to type Great Company uncleanness; for all other classes, including, e.g., the Little Flock, which does not have Great Company uncleanness, have that kind of antitypical leprosy. The fact, therefore, that vs. 12, 13 bring to our attention is a conclusive proof that Great Company uncleanness, and not the Adamic depravity, is typed by the forms of leprosy detailed in Lev. 13 and 14. The statements of vs. 12, 13 apply to one whose leprosy is white over all his flesh; but if (v. 14) raw flesh should appear on such an one, this being localized in a spot or spots, he was to be declared unclean from the standpoint of Lev. 13 and 14, and thus would be a type of an unclean Great Company member, not because his whole body is white with leprosy, but because in spots the raw flesh was visible. In such a case two things would be purposed: (1) it was desired by God to type the pertinent person's Adamic depravity; and (2) it was desired by God to type his Great Company uncleanness. Accordingly, 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

257 

in type and antitype the priest was to pronounce the suspect unclean as viewed in these two chapters (v. 15). 

(14) Vs. 16, 17 treat of the cases of healed lepers; for at times in Israel lepers became clean, not only by a miracle, as in the cases of Naaman and the many lepers that Christ healed, but also by natural causes. In all cases, the healed leper (v. 16) was to show himself to the priest, who was to attest his cleansing and admit him again into the fellowship of Israel as a cleansed leper, as Lev. 14:1-32 shows in detail. The healing of the leper who had a swelling leprosy is described in v. 16, in the words, "If the raw flesh turn again and be changed unto white." This types the fact that in some cases Great Company uncleanness due to gross sin can be and does become cleansed; the evil action can be and does become repented of; and the evil characteristics can be and do become purged out of the character. This is illustrated in the case of the incestuous Corinthian brother (1 Cor. 5:1-13) who, according to 2 Cor. 2:5-10, repented and amended his character ("raw flesh turn again and be changed unto white"). The charge that he come to the priest (v. 16) types the fact that a cleansed Great Company brother should come to the antitypical priest—to our Lord, if He by His special eye, mouth and hand pronounced the brother to be in Great Company uncleanness, as He acts through that eye, mouth and hand, or to the ecclesia, if the ecclesia pronounced him to be in Great Company uncleanness—and make matters good with him or it. As in the type the priest examined ("shall see"—v. 17) the one who claimed to be healed, in order to determine if he be actually clean (for some lepers may have misrepresented the condition in order to get back into the fellowship of Israel), so in the antitype the investigating priest must examine the professedly repentant Great Company brother to determine whether he is actually repentant 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

258 

and has made amends. Some might profess repentance—some have actually done so—who are not repentant; hence care should be exercised in this matter; for a premature pronouncing of such an one as clean is sure to work mischief—has already worked mischief. But if the repentance is sincere, the penitent one should be received into brotherly, not priestly, fellowship, as Paul charged in 2 Cor. 2:5-10. This will be shown in detail in Lev. 14:1-32. 

(15) The second form of leprosy, that of a boil, is treated in vs. 18-23. It will be noted that the boil was healed (v. 18), and that in it appeared a rising, i.e., another boil (v. 19). We understand that in vs. 18-23 the form of leprosy manifesting itself in a renewed boil represents selfishness as a form of Great Company uncleanness. That selfishness is a form of Great Company uncleanness is evident from a number of literal Scriptures. That their humanity does not remain dead to the selfish sentiments, Heb. 2:15 shows us, for it speaks of them as those "who through fear of [the sacrificial] death are all their lifetime subject to bondage." Thus they dread the weariness, the painfulness, the unpopularity, etc., of the sacrificial death to such a degree as to avoid it in a slavish fear that puts them into the spirit of bondage all their life. Matt. 10:39 tells us that he that findeth his life [after consecrating it to death seeks to recover it] shall lose it. Matt. 16:25 tells us that whoever wills to save his [consecrated] life shall lose it. Luke 14:26 assures us that whoever does not hate [deny himself of] his [consecrated] life cannot be Christ's disciple. V. 33 tells us that the consecrated one who does not forsake his human all cannot remain in the Little Flock. John 12:25 assures us that he who loves [indulges selfishly] his life shall lose it. Selfish lusts so war against the soul as to cause one to lose his crown, if he gives himself over to them (1 Pet. 2:11). And 1 Pet. 1:14 exhorts us to avoid the former lusts—selfishness—as

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

259 

opposed to holiness. Also 1 Cor. 9:27 shows that selfishness causes the loss of the crown. These and many other Scriptures show us that selfishness is a form of Great Company uncleanness. What is typed by the boil's healing and then later breaking out again? When we consecrated we put natural, proper, human selfishness to death; for one of the features of consecration is deadness to self. Such becoming dead to self healed the antitypical boil; but if one turns again to a life of selfishness the antitypical boil breaks out again as symbolic leprosy. 

(16) The development of leprosy in the renewed breaking out of the boil is described in the language of v. 19, which tells of a white rising, or a bright white spot somewhat reddish. This represents the selfish sentiments exalting themselves and grasping for the powers of selfish indulgence, to which the consecrated are to remain dead. It must in type and antitype be shown to the investigating priest (v. 19). In both type and antitype the priest must examine the disease (v. 20). Particularly in the antitype must the priest give it diligent attention. But he must look further than the exercised selfishness; for the one through whom the antitypical Aaron examines the case or the under-priest, ecclesia, not being able to tell the degree of selfishness involved, must seek corroborative evidences of the selfish life, typed by the priest looking at certain attendants of the renewed boil—the depth below the skin and the hair turned white. These two particulars in the type have the same antitypical significance as we saw them to have in vs. 3 and 10—the latter referring to corruption of the Lord's Truth or arrangements—revolutionism—and the former to persistency therein. Whenever one lives a selfish life, avoiding sacrifice for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, and it is coupled with his perseveringly revolutionizing against the Lord's Truth and arrangements, the examining priest may be sure that he is dealing

The Epiphany's Elect. 

260 

with an antitypical leper. Therefore he is to pronounce him unclean with Great Company uncleanness, even as in the type (v. 20) the typical priest pronounced the leper unclean; for in the former case it is antitypical leprosy broken out of the healed antitypical boil and in the latter case it is the typical leprosy broken out of the healed typical boil. 

(17) The conditions (v. 21) that did not in the type warrant a sentence of uncleanness are: the absence of white hair in the boil and the sore not being lower than the skin. Antitypically, this would mean that even if there is some selfishness present (the renewed boil), if there is no accompanying persistent revolutionism present, the sentence of Great Company uncleanness is not to be passed. The reason for this is very evident; for we cannot of the selfishness alone determine whether it is a matter wholly belonging to Great Companyship or not; for all Little Flock members, except our Lord, have been guilty of more or less selfishness, and that without losing their crowns; since it requires a considerable exercise and development in selfishness to require the forfeiture of one's crown. Hence, first, without the two above-mentioned accompaniments of selfishness we cannot tell when it is that of Great Company uncleanness and, accordingly, are incapable of pronouncing finally on the case. Hence we see that, secondly, in all cases of the suspicion of the loss of a crown there must always be persistent revolutionism against the teachings and arrangements of the Lord. It is for this reason, thirdly, that we have not stressed sin, selfishness and worldliness unaccompanied by persistent revolutionism as manifesting Great Companyship. We have, fourthly, stressed them only when there has been persistent revolutionism present with them; and this is the case because, unknown to us, at the time the Lord was using us to give the teachings antitypical of the typical ones in the chapters that we are studying. 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

261 

(18) When the spot on the boil was somewhat dark (v. 21) the person under examination was as a suspect to be shut up seven days. This dark color of the boil types that there is such a condition in the selfishness under observation as to warrant the fear that the pertinent person is perhaps an antitypical leper, hence must be kept under such restraint as the surveillance at hand warrants. The seven days represent a full time for the matter at hand to develop. The investigating priest, therefore, is to continue holding the person under observation and put on him the pertinent restraints, until a full time for his case to develop has been given to him. If, after the typical seven days, the bright spot in the boil had spread much in the skin (v. 22), the priest was to pronounce the person a leper, because such spreading abroad implied that the leprosy was more than skin deep and that it turned the hair white. So in the antitype, if under the further observation of the examining priest persistent revolution against the Lord's teachings and arrangements manifests itself, the antitypical priest is to declare the one examined to have Great Company uncleanness (v. 22). But, if during the period of observation, the bright spot did not spread and thus did not go deeper than the skin nor turn the hair white (v. 23), the examining priest was to pronounce the person clean. In the antitype, if the selfishness under seasonable observation shows no increase of a kind that produces persistent revolutionism against the Truth and its arrangements, the brother or sister under observation should be regarded free from Great Company uncleanness. In the type the boil was to be considered a burning, but not a leprous one. In the antitype the case should be considered as a form of selfishness that does not bring with it the loss of the crown. 

(19) The third form of leprosy is brought to our attention in vs. 24-28—a hot burning. We understand that in these verses worldliness as a form of Great

The Epiphany's Elect. 

262 

Company uncleanness is typed. That worldliness is also a form of Great Company uncleanness literal passages of the Scriptures teach. We will refer to some of these in proof of this fact, which will also corroborate our thought that the four forms of Great Company uncleanness are set forth in Lev. 13 and 14, so far as the antitypes of leprosy in persons are concerned. This is proved in Matt. 13:22. The four kinds of soil (Matt. 13:3-8, 18-23) represent the heart condition of the four classes who hear the Word: the hypocrites (vs. 4, 19), the tentatively justified (vs. 5, 20, 21), the Great Company (vs. 7, 22) and the Little Flock (vs. 8, 23). Please note how worldliness is said in v. 22 to be characteristic of the Great Company—the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches. Mark 4:19 adds, lusts of other things, and Luke 8:14 adds, pleasures of this life. All four of these particulars are worldliness as a characteristic of Great Company uncleanness. Luke 21:34 enumerates the following forms of worldliness: surfeiting, drunkenness and cares of this life, as characteristics of crown-losers, especially of those of them who are foolish virgins. Jas. 4:4 points out that worldliness makes symbolic virgins, symbolic adulteresses—Great Company members. These Scriptures are sufficient to prove that worldliness is a form of Great Company uncleanness. We, therefore, understand that it as such is typed in vs. 24-28. Certainly, worldliness in a new creature is a burning fire, the literal rendering of the expression rendered hot burning (v. 24). It often manifests willfulness (quick flesh that burneth). It certainly often has the antitypical white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white, which colors prove it to be properly leprosy-suspect—the appearance of Great Company uncleanness. In the type such a case had to be brought to the priest for examination (v. 25). So such a degree of worldliness in a new creature as properly arouses in a true priest the fear that its possessor

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

263 

may be in the Great Company must be brought to the attention of an antitypical priest, who must give it a thorough inspection. If he find in it the antitypical hair turneth white (v. 25), revolutionism against the Lord's Truth and arrangements, and if he find it is to be persistent—deeper than the skin (v. 25), he is to pronounce its possessor (v. 25) guilty of Great Company uncleanness; for he has the unmistakable marks of Great Companyship, antitypical leprosy (v. 25). He thus decided the case. 

(20) V. 26 suggests carefulness in the typical and antitypical examination. Such carefulness in this and the other forms, typically and antitypically, is needed both in justice and charity. For in the type to have decided wrongly of one unclean would have endangered others, which both justice and charity forbade, or wrongly of one clean would have subjected an innocent one to great hardships and sufferings—cutting him off from fellowship and association with fellow non-leprous Israelites, and condemning him to association with leprous ones only. In the antitype to palm off a Great Company brother as a Little Flock brother would endanger Little Flock brethren to the unholy contagion of sin, selfishness, worldliness and error, or to treat a Little Flock brother as a Great Company member would cut him off from fellowship with his class and condemn him to the contamination of uncleansed Great Company members. Of course, both justice and charity forbid this. Hence, in all the cases brought to our attention in these two chapters, we note the great carefulness inculcated to make a correct diagnosis of the cases presented for examination. As in the other cases so far studied, where the certainty-giving characteristics were absent (hair turned white and the sore deeper than the skin) judgment was to be suspended (v. 26). So in the antitype, where there is no persistent revolutionism, judgment must be suspended. If in the type the place was somewhat dark 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

264 

(v. 26), as a leprosy suspect the person had to be shut up seven days. So in the antitype, if there is good reason to fear that the pertinent worldliness may have led to the loss of the crown, the brother concerned is to be restrained by obstacles being placed in the way of his worldliness, by his receiving less cordiality, etc., from those who have good reason to fear that something is wrong with the brother. If, as in the type, it should later appear, after these restraints are put on him, that he is a persistent revolutionist against the Lord's Word and arrangements (if it be spread much abroad in the skin—v. 27), the antitypical priest should declare him to have Great Company uncleanness. But, if such revolutionism does not appear (if the bright spot stay in his place, hence no hair turning white and the evil not going deeper than the skin—v. 28), despite the manifest worldliness (somewhat dark—v. 28), the antitypical priest shall pronounce him free of Great Company uncleanness, since priests also give more or less manifestations of worldliness (it is an inflammation of the burning—v. 28). 

(21) So far we have studied three of the four forms of personal leprosy—type and antitype. We come in vs. 29-44 to the study of its fourth form—leprosy in the head, typing error in teaching and arrangement. As in the case of the other three forms of Great Company uncleanness, we will again quote literal passages, this time to prove that such error is a mark of Great Company uncleanness. Perhaps the classic passage on this subject is 1 Tim. 1:19, 20, in which certain ones are spoken of as having made shipwreck of the high calling on matters of faith, especially on the resurrection (2 Tim. 2:17, 18), for which, among others, Hymenaeus and Alexander were delivered to Azazel, as contaminated with Great Company uncleanness. Ps. 107:10, 11 shows that some have become imprisoned (shut up) in a symbolic dungeon for revolutionizing against the Lord's Truth

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

265 

and arrangements. Jas. 5:19, 20 shows that crown-losers err from the Truth. Accordingly, we see that error is one of the forms of Great Company uncleanness. The symbolism of leprosy in the head (the hairy part) or the beard (v. 29) is very instructive, since hair especially represents the Truth, as well as its arrangements. Throughout this section the infection is almost always shown to be in the hair, or where the hair normally is. This form of leprosy is called a scall (vs. 30, 31). One having a scall must, in type and antitype, be examined by the priest. If deeper than the skin and having yellow hair (yellow, not white, because age usually makes the hair white), it was a case of leprosy in the type, picturing persistently held error in the antitype, and is, accordingly, to be dealt with, in type and antitype, as the similar symptoms in the other three forms of leprosy, typical and antitypical, as shown above. 

(22) V. 31 shows that if the suspect had not developed in the type or antitype, in the two condemning symptoms, he is not to be pronounced unclean, but is to be shut up, restrained, while undergoing a sufficient scrutiny. If black hair had been in the scall, it would have proved the person to be free of leprosy. But if none were in it, and it was not deeper than the skin, he was to be a leprosy-suspect. The absence of black hair would type that the view held by the antitypical suspect was not a part of the Truth so far developed or due. The skin depth of the scall has the same antitypical meaning as we have already seen in the other forms of leprosy, as also the seven days' shutting up has the same antitypical meaning as has already been pointed out. The examination on the seventh day (v. 32) had the same antitypical significance as was before pointed out. So do the other items of v. 32. The shaving of all but the scall (v. 33) seems to type the thought that the antitypical priest should sever from the "new view" every feature of the known 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

266 

Truth so that the new view may be closely examined in itself, so that it may, of its own implications, unfold its exact character and be carefully studied from this standpoint during the second set of antitypical seven days. If, under sufficient study (the seventh day—v. 34), the view is found to have no erroneous implications (not spread) and is not stubbornly held (not deeper than the skin), the priest is to pronounce the suspect free of Great Company uncleanness. This shows that unimportant mistakes made are not to be held as proving one to have Great Company uncleanness, e.g., often a brother or sister makes a mistake in a study, but gives an answer that is against no known Truth; he is not therefore to be considered unclean. If the mistake is a very minor, negligible one, after being analyzed sufficiently, it should not be held against the brother. Again, a matter presented as a probability should be considered from the same standpoint. Many a priest makes mistakes on arrangement and teaching matters—yea, all of them except those who spoke under inspiration. The mistake, however, betrays an imperfection against which the suspect must guard himself and of which he should rid himself, typed by the suspect washing his garments (v. 34). 

(23) In v. 35 the case is presented from the standpoint of one actually later becoming leprous, typing a case proven under examination to contain Great Company uncleanness after a cleansing had set in; for as in the type, so in the antitype, a mistake that had no erroneous implications is later developed into lines that do have such implications, and not only so, but also becomes persistent revolutionism (spread much). In such a case the suspect is to be re-examined (v. 36). Willfulness is present, as typed by the scall spreading abroad in the skin, and without looking for other forms of error (not seek for yellow hair), the priest is to declare the suspect to be contaminated with Great Company uncleanness. V. 37 types the fact that when 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

267 

the mistake or the new view on its repetition has no erroneous implications and is held with no contradiction of, but in harmony with the Truth (black hair grown up therein), and is held without stubbornness and aggressiveness, the suspect is to be considered as healed, and is to be pronounced clean by the priest. Vs. 38 and 39 caution against declaring a freckled person, as such, a leper; for certainly freckles are not leprosy, even though they be as numerous as the over 7,000 counted on the face of a boy a few years ago in the U. S. It has been learned that freckles are due to the skin absorbing more light than it can take care of. This suggests an antitype that all of us will agree is not a sign of Great Company uncleanness. As we know, light is used to represent the Truth (Prov. 4:18). Some of our brethren, yea, all of us, doubtless, at some time or other, have been offered more Truth than we could absorb. It was too strong meat for us at the time; e.g., the chronology has been too hard for some of the brethren; so have other things. But who having a sober mind would think of consigning such to the Great Company? Such a rule would have consigned every Little Flock member to the Great Company. Vs. 40 and 41 contain another caution against diagnosing as leprosy a case of baldness, which, of course, one could have without having leprosy. Baldness would represent absence of much of the Truth. A baldness on the head toward the forehead ("forehead bald"), which symbolizes the intellect or its contents, would represent a lack of some one element or more elements of the Truth. But in neither case is one to be consigned to the Great Company; for it is not the amount of the Truth that one has that determines his place, but his heart's attitude toward the Truth that he has. If the largeness of the amount of the Truth that one has would determine his place in the Little Flock, there would have been no Little Flock members during most of the interim between the Harvests. 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

268 

The fact that most of the Little Flock does not have the Epiphany Truth, which is very great in bulk, does not at all prove them to be of the Great Company. 

(24) Vs. 42-44 indicate under what circumstances baldness would show leprosy: if a leprous sore (a white reddish sore—v. 42) would be in his baldhead or bald forehead. Such a sore would type the fact that in the lack of Truth that one would have, error would arise. The fact that it was such a sore in the bald spot implies that it was deeper than the skin. Hence, thereby persistent adherence to error is symbolized. But every sore on the baldhead or bald forehead would not be leprosy. To determine the actual condition the typical priest had to be called to look into the case (v. 43). He had to determine it in the same way that other cases of leprosy were determined (as the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh), i.e., deeper than the skin, with the added feature of the sore being white reddish, which color betrayed the disease as perhaps leprosy. The fact of baldness precluded the presence of yellow hair, which did not need to be present, since the malady's being in the baldhead (leprosy is in his head—v. 42) suggests the erroneousness implied in the antitype. If it were genuine leprosy it always would make the hair, if present, yellow. Hence if it were a genuine case of leprosy (v. 44), the priest had to pronounce him a leper, typing the fact that the antitypical priest would have to declare a persistent errorist in teaching and arrangement, contaminated with Great Company uncleanness. If it were an ordinary sore of non-leprous character, the priest would pronounce the suspect clean, typing the fact that if the antitypical priest on examining the suspect find that he is not persistent in error, he is to declare him free of Great Company uncleanness. 

(25) In vs. 45 and 46 some general instructions that apply to all kinds of leprosy are set forth. The first thing that a typical leper, convicted as such by the 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

269 

examining priest, had to do was to rend his clothes (v. 45). We have already seen that one's clothes symbolize one's graces or official powers, or both. To rend one's garments does gross violence to them. Therefore, to rend one's garments types to do gross violence to one's graces or to his official powers, or to both of them, i.e., he will greatly mar his faith, hope, self-control, patience, piety, brotherly love, charity, etc., by wrong thoughts, motives, words and acts; and he will greatly mar his official knowledge and the official duties and privileges that he has had in the Lord's service. It is usually done in increased power-grasping and lording it over brethren, working against fellow servants and increasingly polluting the Truth and misleading others. We recall that at the separation of Elijah and Elisha, the latter rent his garments from top to bottom, and that this found its antitype in the gross wrongs committed by the Society leaders and their partisan supporters and in their violating their official powers as crown-losers and in their grasping for priestly powers, all of which were very grossly misused. The similarity of this action in the leper and in Elisha is another proof that the leper afflicted as in Lev. 13 and 14 represents those afflicted with Great Company uncleanness, even as we saw to be the case with Elisha (Vol. III, Chapter II). The second item connected with a priest-convicted leper is that he had to bare his head and keep it bare. We recall that while the high priest could go bare headed, to represent that as a priest he was not subject to another priest, the underpriests had to have their heads covered by wearing bonnets to indicate their subjection to the high priest. In antitype of this our High Priest, Jesus, serves with a symbolically uncovered head, i.e., He functions as a Priest without any subordination to any other priest; for He is the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body (Eph. 1:22). His under-priests, however, do not function with a symbolically uncovered head, 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

270 

unsubordinated to another priest; for as under-priests they are subordinate to the High Priest as their Head. For a typical under-priest to uncover his head implied his casting off subordination to the typical high priest. Hence the lepers in uncovering their heads type the manifested crown-losers repudiating Jesus' headship and taking back their own heads—they cease to be beheaded for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Jesus is no more their Head; for He is the Head of His body members only, which Great Company members no more are, and which Youthful Worthies never were. 

(26) What is typed by covering the upper lip (v. 45)? In Bible symbols the mouth represents mouthpieceship, e.g., God's mouth is the Bible (Is. 1:20; 40:5; 45:23). Lips in Bible symbols represent Truth (Ps. 63:5; Zeph. 3:9—the word translated language is the Hebrew word for lip; see margin). There are especially two great symbolic lips: the Song of Moses, the burden of the Old Testament, and the Song of the Lamb, the burden of the New Testament. Hence these two parts of the Bible are God's lips, the upper of which is the New Testament and the lower of which is the Old Testament. Thus, the lips of God's people as His mouth are the New Testament and the Old Testament. To cover one's upper lip would make one speak very unclearly, as one can see if he covers it and then speaks. Hence, for God's people symbolically to cover their upper lip would make them speak forth the things of the New Testament—the Truth especially of and related to the high calling—unclearly, erroneously. And as to cover the upper lip makes the lower one function unclearly, so the symbolically covered upper lip will make the lower one—the Old Testament teaching, related to the fall, permission of evil and restitution—speak unclearly. What is represented by the cry, Unclean, unclean? Usually speech in the type is antityped in pantomime, not in speech. Accordingly, we are 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

271 

to look for the cry, Unclean, unclean, to be fulfilled in acts. It occurs as follows: While the Great Company is in an unclean condition it not only defiles its acts and character, but also more or less of its teachings—it teaches errors. Its living wrong and teaching error are its cry, Unclean, i.e., in God's and the Church's sight its acts and teachings by their nature cry out, "I am unclean; I am unclean." Of course the unclean Great Company does not in so many words say that they are unclean. But acts speak louder than words and their teachings and acts declare them to be unclean. 

(27) The first thing that v. 46 says of the leper is that as long as the plague is in him he shall be defiled—unclean. Remembering that the plague was a swelling, a boil, a hot burning, or a scall, we know how long the typical leprosy would be in a leper. Antitypically as long as there is persistent sin accompanied by persistent error, as long as there is persistent selfishness accompanied by persistent error, as long as there is persistent worldliness accompanied by persistent error, and as long as there is persistent error, even if one does not seem to betray persistent sin, selfishness or worldliness, the Great Company is defiled, and they will as long as they are in that condition continue to defile themselves, the Truth and all who will expose themselves to their influence. There is no cleansing for them as long as they so continue. Hence, until they repent and make amends they are to be held unclean (he is unclean—v. 46). The second item mentioned in v. 46 is that he, the leper, shall dwell alone. What does this mean in the antitype? Priestly fellowship should be withdrawn from him! The priests should not study with such, i.e., attempt to exercise the sight of the Lampstand with them; for they are cut off therefrom. The priests should not seek to cultivate the graces of the spirit in fellowship with them, in which graces (feeding at the antitypical Table of Shewbread) they are strengthened for their journey to the Divine 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

272 

nature; for these Great Company brethren have been by the Lord cut off from that Table. The priests are not to sacrifice with them at the antitypical Golden Altar, serve the Lord's cause sacrificially with them; for they have been cut off from the sacrifices offered at that Altar. Priestly fellowship consists in their privileges at the antitypical Golden Candlestick, Table and Altar. Here is their fellowship (Ps. 133:1, 2); here is their dwelling (Ps. 91:1). They are to put the Great Company "alone," by themselves, so far as concerns these priestly privileges. This is for the good of all.

(28) The final item that v. 46 states of the leper is that his habitation is to be without the camp. Hence, at the time Israel was in the wilderness the leper could not live in the camp with other Israelites. After Israel in Canaan dwelt in cities the lepers were kept outside the cities, in the country, in uninhabited places, in the wilderness—here, again, the allusion to Azazel's Goat shows that the leper represents the Great Company. Thus they were cut off from the fellowship and the habitation of God's people as long as they remained lepers. They could, of course, associate with fellow lepers, but not with the clean Israelites, who were warned of their presence by the muffled cry, Unclean. Antitypically are the symbolic lepers to be cast out from association with the Little Flock and good Youthful Worthies, who are to take warning of their presence by their muffled teachings—errors. They are to go out into the antitypical wilderness, there to suffer buffeting experiences at Azazel's hands until they have suffered the destruction of their fleshly minds. They should not be encouraged to come in among the Little Flock and good Youthful Worthies, rather they are to be discouraged therefrom until they have cleansed themselves from their defilements of teaching and practice. They may, of course, associate with those of their own kind, dwelling together and defiling one another 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

273 

more and more; but they are not to dwell (be made to feel at home) among the priests and good Youthful Worthies until they repent and amend their ways—until they wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb and their garments in the water of the Word. We thank God that they will sometime do this. For this let us also hope and pray; and when it comes, we will welcome them to our bosoms, comfort them with God's Word and instruct them how to serve the Lord in spirit and Truth, which they will also learn to do. Thanks be to God for this prospect which in due time will be realized. 

(29) Our foregoing study of Lev. 13 covers the four forms of typical and antitypical leprosy as related to persons; but there are two forms of it related to things, as distinct from persons—leprosy in a garment (Lev. 13:47-59) and leprosy in a house (Lev. 14:33-53). We desire, additionally, to study these impersonal forms of leprosy; for without an understanding of them we will fail to obtain a well-rounded view of Great Company uncleanness. We will take them up in the order of their appearance in Lev. 13 and 14. For the present we will pass by the study of Lev. 14:1-32, 49-53, reserving its study for a later time. We do this so as to get a full view of antitypical leprosy, before we consider its cleansing. Doubtless the cleansing of the leper is presented between the last two forms of it, because the first five forms of it are in the antitype connected with individuals who as such must undergo cleansing, while its sixth form is antitypically connected with groups, whose cleansing is described after their uncleanness is described. We will therefore begin our study in this connection with leprosy in a garment, as this is set forth in Lev. 13:47-59. 

(30) In Bible symbols, as often indicated in these columns, garments symbolize: (1) the graces of the Holy Spirit (Col. 3:10-14; Is. 61:3; 1 Pet. 3:4; 5:5; Jude 23; Rev. 3:4; 16:15); (2) their opposites, the

The Epiphany's Elect. 

274 

disgraces (Ps. 69:11; 73:6; 132:18; Col. 3:8, 9); and (3) official powers (Ex. 28:2-39; 2 Kings 2:8, 14; Is. 22:21; Rev. 12:1). In Lev. 13:47-59 they evidently do not have the first and second meanings; for in both of these forms—graces and disgraces—they are implied in Lev. 13:1-44. Accordingly, we understand the garments of Lev. 13:47-59 to represent official powers, and a leprous garment would represent official powers defiled with Great Company uncleanness. This particular form of Great Company uncleanness exists as power-grasping and lording it over God's heritage on the part of leaders. That such a form of Great Company uncleanness exists we can see from a number of literal Scriptures. Perhaps the classic example of this form of Great Company uncleanness is Diotrephes (3 John 9, 10). His unholy power-grasping and lording appear in his loving the preeminence and in his rejecting John and others as the Lord's messengers, forbidding the others to receive them and casting out of the church those who would receive them. These acts also show lording it over God's heritage. John's saying that on his coming he would remember his deeds and prating words implies his dealing with him as with a crown-loser. 1 Pet. 5:3, 4 cautions against lording it over God's heritage, as a quality that debars from receiving the crown of glory that fadeth not away, i.e., as a crown-losing quality. Our Lord's warnings against the Nicolaitanes (Rev. 2:6, 15) as the overcomers, lords over, God's people, implies that such are not saintly overcomers, but are Satanic overcomers of saints and others. What Paul says (1 Cor. 9:27) of teachers who fail to keep under the body and bring it into subjection, which would include failing to overcome power-grasping and lording it over God's heritage—that they would be castaways from the high calling, implies that these evils are Great Company uncleanness (see Berean Comments). Thus we see that these have symbolic leprosy in their symbolic

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

275 

garments, official powers. Accordingly, literal passages teach the thought that we have suggested to be typed by leprosy in a garment. Our view is, therefore, not a human fancy. 

(31) It will be noted that in vs. 47 and 48 three kinds of garments are brought to our attention: garments of linen, wool and skin. It will also be noted that these correspond with three of the four kinds of curtains in the tabernacle. At first sight one might object to the garments of wool as corresponding to one of the materials in one of the tabernacle's curtains, since one of these was made of goats' hair, which curtain represents us as justified and its section doubled in the front of the tabernacle, our justification; but on closer thought this objection will fall to the ground, for wool is also used to picture our justification (Is. 1:18). Moreover God expressly says in the Hebrew that the pascal lamb could be taken from the sheep or the goats (Ex. 12:3-5). In English we restrict the use of the word lamb to the young of sheep; but in Hebrew the word seh, here translated lamb, as v. 5 shows, may be used of the young of the sheep or the goats, though in English we call the latter animal a kid. Hence the curtain that was between the tabernacle's linen curtain and the one of rams' skin dyed red could have been woven from wool. Hence we think that the correspondence in our text as against the tabernacles curtains covers the three items mentioned above. Apparently the curtain of rams' skin dyed red is not here referred to, because it represents, not our justification, but Christ's ransom, which remains forever undefiled, and hence is not used in the symbols of Lev. 13:47, 48. Accordingly, we understand the linen garment to be related to leaders as to new creatures in certain respects, the woolen garment to be related to leaders as to the justified in certain respects, and the garments of skin to be related to leaders as to the world in certain respects. These respects are connected with 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

276 

their official powers. The linen garments type their official powers as exercised toward new creatures; the woolen garments type their official powers as these are exercised toward the justified; and the garments of skin type their official powers as these are exercised toward the world. The warp (v. 48) seems to refer to official powers as to teaching and the woof to official powers as to arrangement. 

(32) The plague of leprosy in a garment types Great Company uncleanness in the exercise of official powers. These official powers refer to those of local elders and deacons and general elders. Leprosy in a garment represents the Great Company uncleanness in these two classes of elders and in deacons, and therefore refers to these as leaders grasping for power and lording it over others. If the leprous garment is linen it represents their grasping for power and lording it over new creatures in new-creaturely respects, either in using their office as teachers of error (leprosy in the warp), or as corrupters of the arrangements (leprosy in the woof) for serving the new creatures. If the leprous garment is woolen it represents their grasping for power and lording it over the justified in justified respects, either in using their office as teachers of error (leprosy in the warp), or as corrupters of the arrangements (leprosy in the woof) for serving the justified. If the leprous garment is skin or made of skin it represents their grasping for power and lording it over the world in matters pertaining to the world, either in using their office powers as teachers of error (leprosy of the skin, v. 48), or as corrupters of the arrangements (leprosy in the thing made of skin, v. 48) for serving the world. Thus we see that every kind of persons toward whom they can serve—new creatures, the justified and the world—and every kind of service that they can perform—in teaching and arrangement are set forth in the types of vs. 47, 48. Every kind of usurpation that they can commit—power-grasping and 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

277 

lording as manifest Satanic twins—is set forth in v. 49. 

(33) In v. 49 the symptoms of leprosy in a garment are described. If the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment it is a case of leprosy in a garment. These two colors, green and red, represent the two forms of usurpation that constitute Great Company uncleanness in leaders. The green color, as mentioned first here and in Lev. 14:37, stands for the first form of usurpation, its power-grasping form, in leaders as a form of their Great Company uncleanness, while the color red, as mentioned second, stands for lording, the second form of usurpation in leaders as a form of Great Company uncleanness. Leaders have certain office powers. Thus local elders have those office powers for those services that in harmony with the Lord's Word the ecclesia votes them, as to doctrine, refutation, correction, instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) and comfort (Rom. 15:4) in and out of the ecclesia's meetings. They may also on invitation serve other ecclesias. General elders have those office powers for those services that the Lord in harmony with His Word gives them in and out of any ecclesia where they are by these ecclesias invited to serve in the same five respects. To perform these services in harmony with the Lord's Spirit, Word and providences is their privilege. But Satan constantly seeks to stir them up to become some great ones, with more powers than the Lord has appointed as their official powers. And, unfortunately, he has succeeded in causing many of them to arise (Acts 20:30), to grasp for and exercise more powers than the Lord has given them. The leaders are the special targets of Satan, who seeks to stir them up to pride. Our Pastor once remarked that according to his observation 95% of the leaders who have fallen fell through pride. In every case of Great Company leaders they have been guilty of power-grasping and lording. When we pass them one after the other in review 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

278 

we will see this to be the case. From first to last they want more than the Lord gives them; hence under Satanic temptation they grasp for power and lord it over God's heritage, which makes them fall under God's disfavor. 

(34) It will be noted that the words, garment, skin, anything of skin, warp and woof, in v. 49 type the same things as we suggested in par. 32. Hence we need not repeat these details. But it would be well for us to note how greatly the Levite leaders have contaminated their official powers. J.F.R. has corrupted almost every feature of the high-calling truths; and before he has run his full course he will have done this with every feature of them, his right eye utterly darkened. There is, so far as we know, not one arrangement for doing the Lord's work as He gave them to us through that Servant used any more by him. His was a garment leprous through and through. The same is more or less true of other Great Company leaders, e.g., H.J. Shearn, Wm. Crawford, Jesse Hemery, Carl Olson, Menta Sturgeon, F.H. Robison, I.F. Hoskins, W.F. Hudgings, W.E. Van Amburgh, A.H. MacMillan, E.G. Bolger, etc., etc. Pitiably unprofitable has their course proven. For a little prominence, for a little honor of men, for a little glitter of preeminence, they have forfeited the privileges of service in the high calling! How poor is the judgment, how unsound is the mind, and how dangerous is the course of such! "The Lord gave them the desire of their heart, but sent leanness into their soul." All over their garments, whether of linen, or wool, or skin or any thing of skin, whether in the warp or the woof, the greenness of power-grasping and the redness of lording it over God's heritage are visible. Plague-stricken, leprosy-stricken, is written all over them. Not only such as for the most part were general elders in the Church, but very many of the local elders, though on a smaller scale, have been colored with the same symbolic green 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

279 

and red in their garments—power-grasping and lording. 

(35) And surely the Lord's Word has been antitypically fulfilled—"and shall be showed unto the priest" (v. 49). Those whose power-grasping and lording involved the general Church were brought to Jesus as He worked through His special eye, mouth and hand. Alexander, Hymenaeus and Philetus (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17) were brought to Him as He acted through Paul, and Diotrephes (3 John 9, 10) as He acted through John. It is most emphatically so now, in the Epiphany, when it is due to deal with the Great Company as such as a whole and in its 60 divisions, that the leprous garments of these Great Company leaders, both general and local, are brought to the Lord Jesus as He acts with the former through the Epiphany messenger supported by fellow priests, and with the latter through local ecclesias. A very large part of our time since our Pastor's death has been devoted to the examination of such power-grasping and lording general elders. Many of these, yea, most of these examinations have been made in The Present Truth. Some of them were made before it was published, but their processes and results have in large part been presented in Epiphany publications. It was not only necessary that the examinations be made in public, because the power-grasping and lording has been public, but also to enable the priesthood to co-operate with the Lord acting through the Epiphany messenger in dealing with such. Many blame us as a slanderer for publishing such examinations, but such we are not; for the offenses, being public, must be publicly rebuked, not only to equip the priesthood in the flesh to co-operate in the matter, but also to shield brethren endangered by the leprous garment. The Lord's course in this matter is best, and in the end will be recognized by all worthy of life as being such. The expression, "shall be showed unto the priest," also implies 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

280 

that any priest or Youthful Worthy seeing cases of real power-grasping, especially in a general elder, should bring it to Jesus' attention as He acts in these matters through His eye, mouth and hand in such cases. Nor should they count such as tale-bearing. 

(36) V. 50 treats of the typical examination and of the shutting up of the garment seven days. It will be noted that in the examination of the typical garment in no case was judgment pronounced at the first examination, as was in extreme cases done with leprosy in a person. This was designedly done, because in the type no symptoms were given that would at the first examination warrant a complete decision. In the respects mentioned in this paragraph the antitype is interesting and meaningful. In cases of power-grasping and lording there must be an examination made either by the High Priest acting through His eye, mouth and hand, when the power-grasping and lording are done by a general elder, or by an ecclesia, when the power-grasping and lording are done by a local elder or deacon. This is a duty that must not be shirked, because wherever there is power-grasping and lording Satan has special designs: on the general Church, when a general elder is the offender, or on a local Church, if the offender be a local elder or deacon. Courageously must the case be grappled with, as our Pastor advised in the Nov. 1, 1916, Tower, in the article on, The Hour Of Temptation. But for obvious reasons snap judgment must be avoided ("shut up seven days"). In the nature of the case the offender must be dealt with in examination and restraint (shut up) so that the case may be rightly decided. If a premature decision were made, the examining priest would not have data of a convincing kind to present to the Church, general or local, as the case may be. Hence enough time must be allowed to elapse so that the case may show itself, in its real character. But if there are grounds for fear that there is power-grasping and lording present, the examining 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

281 

priest, general or local, should subject the suspect to restraints of resistance, expostulation, warning, limiting of service, etc., which the guilty will resist. 

(37) As in the type the priest re-examined the garment on the seventh day (v. 51), so after giving what ordinarily would be a sufficient time to elapse for the antitypical leprosy to show itself, the examining priest should again investigate the case, to see if there has been a further development of the power-grasping and lording in the use of the official powers under suspicion. If in the type the plague spread in the garment, either in the warp or the woof, or in a skin, or in any work of skin, the plague was to be diagnosed as a fretting leprosy and the garment was to be pronounced unclean (v. 51). In the antitype the following is suggested by the type: The plague spreading represents that the power-grasping and lording would during the time of symbolic restraint be increasing, which could be in several respects, i.e., more of power-grasping and lording acts of the same kind as first made the symbolic garment a leprosy-suspect, or an extension of such acts into a different direction, or a combination of both. E.g., J.F.R.'s course in 1917 consisted of these two things and a combination of both, and that in many directions. Among such cases we might cite his conspiring to get executive and managerial powers in the Society, and after getting them trying to get controllership power over the Board in various ways, even to the degree of ousting its majority contrary to human and Divine law. The spreading could also take the form of usurping teaching powers (in the warp) or arrangement powers (in the woof) toward new creatures (linen garment) or toward the justified (woolen garment) or toward the world in teaching powers (in a skin) or in arrangement powers (in any work that is made of skin). Thus it can manifest itself variously. 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

282 

(38) In the type (v. 51) such a plague in a garment is called a fretting leprosy. This peculiar name was given to it, because it brings out the character of the antitypical leprosy. Fretting is just the word to designate the unrest that unholy ambition, grasping for power and lording it over God's heritage, gives its victims. Their scheming disposition gives them no peace, but urges them on to all sorts of further arousing fretfulness. Again will we illustrate this by the case of J.F.R. He fretted to make by-laws. These made, he fretted to arrange the details of the voting shareholders' meeting to pass them, fretted when the resolutions committee delayed reporting them to the degree that he intruded into that committee's deliberation room, fretted into threatening them, influencing them, to report the by-laws unamended, fretted to have them voted on by the shareholders' meeting, fretted to have the Board pass them, rushing a special meeting of the Board to spread them on the Board's minutes, fretted then to get controllership of the Board, fretted into busybodying in the English situation, fretted into many sorts of mistakes on that matter and the Board matters, fretted into besmirching our British work, fretted into obtaining an illegal opinion on alleged vacancies in the Board, fretted into ousting the Board's majority, fretted into plunging the controversy on the Church, fretted into publishing Vol. VII without the Board's knowledge and consent, fretted into writing Harvest Siftings while we were acting as mediator between him and the Board's majority, fretted into waging the political campaign to blacken the Board's majority and us and secure his re-election. What shall we say more of his fretting course in the big drive, the military question, the bonds' buying matter, arranging to publish 2,000,000 copies of Vol. VII while he was imprisoned, thereby going over the heads of the acting executive committee, which foiled that power-grasping act just in time to prevent the government from 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

283 

pouncing upon the Society again, causing the by-laws to be passed contrary to law on electing officers and directors, first for 3 years and 10 months, thereafter for 3 years, etc., etc.? Certainly fretting is a finely-fitting descriptive word for the unclean use of official powers in power-grasping and lording in his case. And the same thing in principle holds in the cases of others, like H. J. Shearn, Wm. Crawford, Jesse Hemery, Isaac Hoskins, etc., etc. Of course, in such cases a declaration of uncleanness by the examining priest had to be made (it is unclean, v. 51) and must be made in similar cases whenever proven to have the same qualities in principle. 

(39) V. 52 tells what the examining priest should in the type do with such a garment—it had to be burnt. Regardless of whether the garment was linen, woolen, or of skin, or whether the plague was in the warp or woof of the linen or woolen garment, or in the skin or thing made of skin—it had to be burnt. What does this type? The abused office powers must be taken away from the offender—they must be made non-existent so far as he is concerned. Let us see how this occurs, first in the case of usurping general elders, then of local elders. In the case of general elders Jesus does this and announces the fact through His mouthpiece, as we can see in the case of Diotrephes (3 John 9, 10). In the Epiphany Jesus has been doing this and has been announcing it through the Epiphany messenger. How are the office powers vacated? By dismissing the offender from membership in the Little Flock, whereby one loses his office of general elder in the Little Flock; for certainly a general elder who loses membership in the Little Flock loses the office of general eldership in the Little Flock, since, to hold such an office, one must be a member in that company, just as anyone losing citizenship in a country thereby loses any office he may have had in that country. Such a dismissal does not imply losing an office in a business 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

284 

corporation, e.g., J.F.R.'s dismissal from the Little Flock did not imply his loss of the presidency of the Society. He committed usurpations against the Church as general elder and in his office as president of the Society, but the loss of official powers that his power-grasping and lording brought upon him were those that he had as general elder in the Little Flock; for the initial uncleanness that characterizes the Great Company is the uncleanness that deprives one of membership in the Little Flock. The same principles apply to other power-grasping and lording usurpers among general elders in the Little Flock. In an ecclesia, its validly pronouncing a local elder a usurper in power-grasping and lording likewise manifests him as having been cut off from the Little Flock by our Lord previously, which cutting off deprives him of his right to his office as a local elder in the Little Flock. If the entire ecclesia sanctions his usurping power-grasping and lording, it is cut off from being a Little Flock ecclesia, just as a group whose members were in the Little Flock movement, partisanly supporting a power-grasping and lording general elder, becomes a Great Company group or movement. "It shall be burnt with fire." This types the complete annihilation of such persons' official powers (v. 52). 

(40) Vs. 47-52 describe an undoubted case of a leprous garment. Vs. 53-58 describe cases in which for awhile there is a measure of doubt, and how certainty in one way or the other is reached. If at the end of the seven days' shutting up the priest's examination manifests that the plague has not spread in the garment in warp or woof or in anything of skin (v. 53), the priest shall command it to be washed and then shut up seven days more (v. 54). Antitypically if the examining priest finds that the power-grasping has not continued in its former unfolding, nor in new directions, nor in a combination of them, neither toward the Church (linen), nor toward the justified

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

285 

(wool), along the lines of teaching usurpations (warp), nor of arrangement usurpations (woof), nor toward the world (skin), along the two just mentioned lines (v. 53), the antitypical examining priest shall exhort the priests and others to apply to the offender the water of the Word (Eph. 5:26) to cleanse him from the uncleanness of his former usurpations (v. 54). Such usurpations were not in themselves extreme enough to manifest the offender as a persistent usurper in power-grasping and lording. But after this antitypical washing the offender must be antitypically shut up (v. 54) for the antitypical seven days, i.e., he must be put under restraint, circumscribed in his official activity, not shown so much respect, esteem and cordiality, etc., as formerly. This must be done by our High Priest through His special eye, mouth and hand, when the offender is a general elder, and by the local ecclesia, if the offender is a local elder. Sometimes the restraint consists of debarring the offender for awhile from all official activity. This should be done, if the offence is more or less public, and if it is more or less exaggerated, as a safeguard to all concerned. With a local elder this may be done by letting him remain unelected at the next election, or giving him less important services as his duties. 

(41) V. 55 shows the case of the suspected garment after being washed not showing any improvement (not changed its color, even if the plague did not spread). In such a case the garment should be destroyed (burnt in the fire), because it is unclean. It is an inward fret regardless of whether the leprosy shows itself on the interior or exterior of the garment. After a sufficient time has elapsed in the antitype, following the priest's exhorting the offender to amend, his case should be re-examined. The typical garment not changing its color from green and red types impenitence, refusal to confess the wrong and to promise amendment, on the part 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

286 

of the offender. His office powers should be taken from him, even if he has not continued to exercise his former usurpations, nor usurped in other directions, nor combined the two forms of usurpation (be not spread). By his impenitence, etc., he proves that his office powers are defiled with Great Company uncleanness—power-grasping and lording—hence he must be dismissed from his office: his office powers must cease to exist. If he be a general elder, Jesus will do the dismissing, both from the Little Flock and from his office, and manifest it through His special mouth making the pertinent announcement. If the offender be a local elder, the Lord Jesus will dismiss him from his place in the Little Flock and by the ecclesia from his office as local elder in that ecclesia ("Thou shalt burn it in the fire") (v. 55). In the garment it was a fret inward, i.e., in the interior of the garment, regardless of whether it showed itself externally (without); i.e., on the outside surface of the garment, or internally (within), i.e., on the inner surface of the garment. Antitypically there is unholy ambition in the heart of such an one (fret internally), which expressed itself in former power-grasping and lording. That it still exists in his heart is evident from his impenitence, regardless of whether he let it appear externally, i.e., publicly to many (bare without), or internally, i.e., privately to a few (bare within). The impenitence is the thing that manifests the real trouble. Bro. Shearn is an example of this form of power-grasping and lording. After our washing him with the water of the Word he promised amendment, but thereafter when Wm. Crawford learned of this he persuaded him to withdraw his repentance, which he did. Hence the old colors of antitypical green and red appeared. Hence his office powers were severed from him (burnt). 

(42) V. 56 discusses the case of the washed leprous garment that loses its green and red colors, but is somewhat dark after the washing and shutting up seven 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

287 

days. The discolored part was to be torn out of the garment. This represents the case of official powers that were used usurpatorially, but that under the washing through the Word and sufficient restraint were cleansed partly from power-grasping (green) and lording (red). Accordingly, the offender partly repented and partly gave up his usurpations. What is typed by the rending of the dark spot out of the garment? It seems to type the removal of those features of service wherein the power-grasping and lording partly persist. E.g., if a pilgrim would usurp powers connected with public meetings, he should, even if he repent partly, be retired awhile from giving public meetings, though continuing to give parlor meetings, or be removed from pilgrim work, but allowed to do evangelistic work or colporteur work. If a local elder be given the opportunity of giving discourses to the Church (linen), to the justified (wool) and to the world (skin), and use these to grasp for powers not implied in giving such discourses, whether in teaching (warp) or arrangement (woof), even if he partially repent, he should be refused the privilege of giving discourses and be limited to leading Berean studies or testimony meetings. 

(43) V. 57 treats of a garment wherefrom the dark part was rent and wherein afterward the plague appeared again. This case types official powers once misused, in the unholy ambition of power-grasping and lording, and under some repentance partially withdrawn from such misuse, and later on being again fully misused, toward the Church (linen), the justified (wool) or the world (skin), in teaching (warp) or in arrangement (woof). There have been such cases; and doubtless there will still be such cases. The type indicates what is to be done with such. It calls such a case a spreading plague. This types the fact that one who once was partially healed of power-grasping and lording and then falls again into them has an unholy ambition 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

288 

spreading from one act of power-grasping and lording into another, that his cleansing was not fully undergone, and that not watching and praying against it, he fell again into this evil. It shows that the matter of power-grasping and lording is not simply a weakness, but is a matter of a large degree of willfulness against which he has not properly set himself. Moreover, it indicates that the evil is deep-seated, yea, so deep-seated as to require his official powers to be taken entirely away from him (thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire). How is this done? In the case of a general elder Jesus cuts him off from the high calling which, of course, deprives him of his office as a general elder, and then causes his Great Companyship to be announced through His special mouth. Thus his manifestation as a Great Company member demonstrates his loss of his official powers as a general elder. In the case of a local elder Jesus cuts him out of the Little Flock and causes this to be announced through the vote of the ecclesia which declares him guilty of power-grasping and lording, and thereby deprives him of his office as elder. 

(44) V. 58 gives us the case of a garment that becomes free of the plague by the washing in the water—free from it in linen, in wool, either in warp or woof, in skin or in work of skin. This would indicate that the leprosy was not deep-seated in the garment and that after obtaining its cleansing it could readily be used as before it became leprosy-stricken, the only condition being that it must again be washed in water. This represents a case, either in a general or local elder, who grasped for power and lorded it over others, either the Little Flock (linen), the justified (woolen) or the world (skin), either in teaching (warp) or arrangement (woof) respects. But as the water of the Word was applied to him he recognized his wrong, bewailed it, acknowledged it and put it effectually aside, regardless of whether it was against the Church (linen), the 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

289 

justified (wool) or the world (skin), or whether it was done in teaching (warp) or arrangement (woof) respects. His was a genuine repentance which worked a reformation that need not be repented of. The case, therefore, was one largely of ignorance, or of weakness, or of both. Hence it did not lead to his loss of his official powers in the general Church, if he were a general elder, or in a local church, if he were a local elder. In the type a second washing in water was necessary. This represents the fact that such a misuse of one's official powers, though properly amended, implies natural weakness toward unholy ambition, and this must be cleansed away by a second washing of the water, i.e., through the Word an energetic and successful effort was made to purge out of the character the weakness toward unholy ambition. V. 59 sums up the subject as given in vs. 47-58. 

(45) We now come to the study of Lev. 14, but will deviate from the order there given, because we think we can better present our subject, if we study the sixth form of Great Company uncleanness as presented in vs. 33-48—leprosy in a house—before studying the cleansing of leprous persons and houses. Doubtless the Lord presented the cleansing of individual Great Company persons in vs. 1-32 first because in vs. 33-48 the Lord treats of the leprosy in a house. We hesitated for some time before deciding to change the order of this chapter's discussion, but finally made it, because the brethren will likely understand it better after our previous studies, if the sixth form of Great Company uncleanness is presented before the cleansing of the individuals and sects is studied. The antitype of the persons and the act of v. 33 are the same as we found in Lev. 13:1, even as the language of the two verses is the same. Hence our former explanation will suffice. Vs. 34-53 give instructions that apply not to the wilderness sojourn of Israel, but to their living in Canaan (v. 34). The reason is apparent; for Israel did not

The Epiphany's Elect. 

290 

build houses during their wilderness sojourn, but then dwelt in tents; and because of the antitype the Lord arranged the type to suit the conditions of Israel dwelling in Canaan, where they ordinarily lived in houses. These houses wherein leprosy was God designed to represent Great Company groups, subdivisions, i.e., their sectarian bodies. Hence the leprous houses of Canaan are used to represent the Great Company sects; and these suggest to us the sixth form of Great Company uncleanness—their sectarianism, their partisan support of power-grasping and lording leaders. We have frequently in these columns called attention to the fact that partisan support of power-grasping leaders is one of the marks of Great Companyship, since both the usurpations of such leaders and their partisan support are revolutionism against the Lord's arrangements. 

(46) As we proved from literal Scriptures of each of the other five forms of antitypical leprosy that they are forms of Great Company uncleanness, so we desire to prove this of this sixth form of antitypical leprosy by literal Scriptures. Ps. 107:11 in its last clause is such a proof: "And contemned the counsel of the Most High." We have already shown that God's "counsel" or plan consists of the various series of arrangements whereby He brings various classes to eternal life. He who revolutionizes against these arrangements, i.e., sets them aside and puts others in their place, condemns, considers negligible, of no importance, the counsel of the Most High. One of God's arrangements for His Church is its unity under Christ alone (Ps. 133:1-3; Eph. 4:3-7). Partisan support of power-grasping leaders is sectarianism in opposition to this unity (1 Cor. 1:11-13; 3:1-23). Hence, according to Ps. 107:10, 11, it is an evidence of Great Company uncleanness. St. Paul by his application of 1 Kings 19:18 in Rom. 11:4, 5, to the Gospel-Age Elect, has given us a clue to understand 1 Kings 19:18 from its connection as applicable during the Epiphany, when 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

291 

we have the 7,000 of the very Elect who overcame Baal worshiping and kissing, all others then living being more or less guilty of one or the other of these. Baal means lord and refers to Satan as the usurper, the power-grasper and lord over others. To worship Baal means to serve him in his power-grasping, which is done by imitating his power-grasping to bring people under control, and thus ultimately under Satan's control. Hence all power-graspers are Baal-worshipers. Accordingly, the power-grasping leaders among God's people are afflicted with the Great Company uncleanness of Baal worship. In ancient times loyalty was pledged by a kiss, as now it is pledged by a handshake. Hence for any of God's people to kiss Baal means to give partisan support to power-grasping leaders in their devotion to what is actually Satan's power-grasping course. 

(47) Hence the Baal-kissers among God's real people are the partisan, sectarian, supporters of power-grasping leaders. These are, therefore, afflicted with Great Company uncleanness, since none of the 7,000 bow the knee to Baal nor kiss him. Acts 20:30 is another passage that is in line with the thought we are expounding—"to draw disciples after them." These Scriptures are sufficient to prove that partisan supporters of power-grasping leaders—sectarians—are crown-losers. Hence we understand the house of v. 34 to represent the Great Company as a sect or a combination of sects. And the leprosy in such a house we understand to be partisan support by the sect of its leaders—sectarianism. Sectarianism is a great sin; for it does not act from devotion to the Truth, the Truth arrangements and the Spirit of the Truth, but from devotion to partisanship. The Truth, its arrangements and its Spirit are by it neglected or antagonized whenever this is in the interests of the sect. Their actual, though not verbal motto is: "My party—I stand for it, right or wrong." Therefore they support 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

292 

their sect and leaders regardless of how wrong they are. Among Truth people the partisan support that the Societyites have given "the channel" and "the present management" in their gross wrongs and errors ever since 1917 is a classic example of the partisanship, sectarianism, that is a part of Great Company uncleanness. This partisanship is at least as extreme as that which the most bigoted of Romanists give the papacy and their church. In what sense can God be spoken of as putting the plague of antitypical leprosy into such a sect? Somewhat after the manner of His sending strong delusions upon reprobates (2 Thes. 2:9-11). He withdraws hindrance from Satan's efforts to make them partisans, sectarians. 

(48) In the type (v. 35) the owner of the house was to tell the priest of his fears that the house was plague-stricken. We understand the owner of the house to represent the leaders of the Great Company sects; for the sectarian support that they are given comes from those symbolically owned by them, since these in a sense give themselves to the leaders. Hence these Baal-kissers surely belong to the Baal-worshipers. But how do these owners come to the priest, the Lord Jesus in this case, as acting through His special eye, mouth and hand, since the matter is not one of a local, but of the general Church? Or to put it concretely, How did J.F.R. and his subordinate leaders tell our Lord as He acted through His eye, mouth and hand, that symbolic leprosy, Great Company uncleanness, afflicted the Societyites as a sect? Certainly they did not do it by word, for they do not believe they are leaders of a sect, nor that their following is a Great Company group, nor that it is afflicted with Great Company uncleanness. As often stated in these columns, typical speeches are usually antityped by acts. And surely by their acts they have told the Lord that the Society is a sect, that their following is a Great Company group, and that it is afflicted with Great

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

293 

Company uncleanness. Their revolutionary acts in teaching, arrangement, power-grasping, lording and sectarianism, as very multitudinous as they are, are crying out in deafening loudness that the Society is a sect, that their following is a Great Company group, and that it is afflicted with Great Company uncleanness. And their followers by yielding them partisan support are giving a loud amen to the loudly sounding acts of their leaders. ("It seemeth to me there is, as it were, a plague in the house.") Similar acts on the part of the P.B.I., the Dawn, the Bolgerite, the B.S.C., etc., leaders cry out loudly with reference to their respective houses, "It seemeth to me, there is, as it were, a plague in the house." This is clear and factual. 

(49) Since the leprous house types a Great Company sect, the priest to whom its examination in the type was referred must represent our Lord as High Priest, hence must have been the typical high priest, which is also implied in the word the before the word priest in v. 35. That Jesus is typed by the examining priest is evident from the fact that a Great Company sect is formed of crown-losers, not from one, but from many ecclesias, and of some belonging to no ecclesia. Hence it grew out of a movement affecting the general Church, which implies that its examination is a thing that our High Priest handles, since a local ecclesia has no jurisdiction outside of its own sphere. Accordingly, both the language, the priest, and the nature of the case imply that Jesus is the antitypical examining priest, which implies, as already shown, that He does it through His special eye, mouth and hand for the time. Since there were no Great Company sects until the Epiphany, it follows that He does the pertinent examination through the Epiphany messenger. With this the facts of the Epiphany happenings are in harmony. The charge to empty the house of things not yet contaminated by the leprosy (v. 36), types the 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

294 

fact that our Lord requires all things of teachings and arrangements in a Great Company sect not yet contaminated with Great Company uncleanness to be separated in mind from that sect, so that these might be preserved from corruption and so that the things distinctive of that sect (house) may be examined in themselves. After making this mental separation then the priest is to examine the pertinent sect. This implies that the antitypical priest must limit himself to fault-seeking in his examination when faults factually exist. This is one of the objections that Levites make to the pertinent course of The Present Truth. They charge that it is devoted to criticism and knocking only. While asserting that the bulk of the matter appearing in The Present Truth is in exposition of the Word free from criticism of Great Company uncleanness, as our readers know, we admit the charge in so far as our examinations of Great Company sects are concerned, declaring that this is the Divine will in respect to this matter, even as v. 36 teaches. Under the circumstances it would be only unnecessary work to mention their agreements with Truth teachings and arrangements, since according to the charge of v. 36 these are to be passed by. Hence the omission of the mention of these implies that they are present in the pertinent Great Company sect. In other words, God wants the antitypical priest to attend strictly to the matter at hand—see whether there is any Great Company uncleanness in the sect or not. Perhaps one reason why the average Levite thinks that The Present Truth contains nothing but criticisms and "knockings" is that, apart from subscribers, we send to the members of each group those issues only that examine the uncleanness of that group. The priest going in to see the house (v. 36) types our Lord directing His attention, in His eye, to the pertinent Great Company sect. It is a mental going. 

(50) V. 37 shows the typical examination and its 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

295 

finding of the typical leprosy. This types how the Lord Jesus through His eye makes the antitypical examination of a Great Company sect and finds signs, symptoms, of antitypical leprosy. The walls of a house, like the walls of a city, Biblically symbolize powers. Hence the walls of the leprous house symbolize the powers of a Great Company sect. The word strakes is the old English word for streaks. These hollow streaks are somewhat like the streaks of mold that one sees in a damp, musty house. They represent the Great Company uncleanness found in their sects. The colors green and red, as we saw in our study of Lev. 13:49, type power-grasping and lording respectively—evils that are always present in uncleansed Great Company sects; for their leaders in their unholy ambition (Acts 20:30) are always guilty of these and their followers support them therein. And it is particularly, though not exclusively, their followers' support of their power-grasping and lording that is typed by the green and red color of the hollow streaks. These latter being deeper than the surface of the walls, like the leprosy of the person being deeper than the skin, types the willfulness of the partisan support of power-grasping and lording. The priest leaving the house (v. 38) types the Lord in His eye directing for the time His attention away from the examination, after He has sufficiently done it for the purpose at hand and preparatory to His putting the pertinent sect under restraint. His so doing is typed by the priest shutting up the house. It consists in His curbing its activities and privileges, usually by untoward experiences, e.g., the Society in our exposures of its leaders in 1917, the P.B.I. by our 1918 and 1919 exposures of their evil doings of the immediate past, etc. The seven days have the same antitypical meaning as we have shown in this article before—a sufficient time to elapse to allow for further development of the pertinent uncleanness, which is a reasonable thing. 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

296 

(51) The priest returning and examining the house (v. 39) after the seven days types our Lord through His eye re-directing His attention to the Great Company sect in question and re-examining its sectarian powers (walls). In the type, if the plague had during the seven days spread in the walls (v. 39), the priest was required to command that they take away the stones which the plague was and throw them into an unclean place outside the city. The spreading of the plague types the increase of the power-grasping and lording in teaching and arrangement respects. If this takes place, the antitypical High Priest through His eye, mouth and hand commands that the symbolic stones—power-grasping and lording leaders (1 Pet. 2:5)—be disowned and cast out from among the Lord's people (city) as evil (unclean place). Several examples will clarify this. When the Society's uncleanness through its supporting J.F.R.'s revolutionism in teaching and arrangements became strongly manifest, after previous examinations, the Lord through The Present Truth sent word to its board of judgment to deprive him of all his office powers. At other times He sent them word to disown and cast off his illegal directors from among God's people, as being evil. Similar things were done with the P.B.I., Olsonites, Adam-Rutherfordites, etc., etc., etc. The dust on the walls within the house throughout it (v. 41) symbolizes the false teachings and arrangements of the Great Company sects. The scraping of the dust down from off the walls and gathering it represents The Present Truth refutatively gathering together the erroneous teachings and arrangements of the Levite sects. This was done in the articles reviewing and examining them, e.g., Olsonism Examined; P.B.I. Chronology Examined; Views and Reviews; Behold the Bridegroom, Examined; the Right-Eye Darkening articles; Riemerism on the New Creature Examined; Bolgerism examined; Brickerism Examined, etc., etc., 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

297 

etc. Certainly there was a thorough scraping down of the pertinent symbolic dust! This was poured outside of the symbolic city into an unclean place—cast out from among God's people as evil. 

(52) Putting other stones (v. 42) in the place of the removed ones types supplanting the unclean teachers by clean ones, and putting other mortar in the place of that scraped off means to put true teachings and arrangements in the place of the wrong teachings and arrangements. In time this will be done in every case in which the group remains a Great Company group. Vs. 43-45 show what was to be done in case a house was cleansed from leprosy and the leprosy returned and spread abroad in the house. This would type what was to be done with a Great Company group that became unreformably defiled after a measurable cleansing. The return of the plague and the spreading of the plague abroad in the house types the re-defilement of the group, that the group as such, but not necessarily all the individuals, has become uncleansible. Such a thing could be the case only if it turns out to be an antitypical fretting leprosy, i.e., Great Company defilement in incurable partisan support of power grasping and lording leaders. V. 45 shows how the destruction of the house takes place. The breaking down of the house types the group as such being made to cease being a Great Company group. This occurs through our Lord casting entirely off such a body organized as it is from being a Great Company movement. This has occurred in the case of the original antitypical Uzzielites, Sturgeonites, as a group, the original antitypical Hebronites, the Ritchieites, as a group, and the original antitypical Izeharites, Olsonites, as a group. It has also in a certain sense occurred with the Society as a corporational group. This happened in 1920 when antitypical Boaz (Ruth 4:9-11) "bought" from the Society editors, directors and management all the rights that they had in antitypical 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

298 

Elimelech (Great Company leaders), Mahlon (the leaders of the more faithful justified). Chilion (the leaders of the less faithful justified) and antitypical Ruth (the Youthful Worthies). 

(53) What does this mean? Not that God has cast off antitypical Elisha, the good Societyites, from being a Great Company movement. Rather that He no longer from 1920 onward recognizes the Society, as a corporation working through its board, editorial and managerial officials, as managing the work of antitypical Elisha, the good Societyites. The work, therefore, that that corporation as such has been doing since 1920 God no longer recognizes as a Great Company and Youthful Worthy work; but He does recognize the proper work that individual members of antitypical Elisha as such do as a Great Company (and Youthful Worthy) work. The work that that corporation as such has been doing since 1920 as organized in its directors, editors and management is unqualifiedly Azazelian, i.e., Satanic, hence in no sense God's work. Stones (leaders), like Menta Sturgeon (now dead), and A.I. Ritchie, have been utterly removed from the group movement that they formerly controlled. There were two things that led to the casting off of the Society as a corporation in its officers—their denial of the existence of, and service to the Youthful Worthies (as set forth in the Ruth type) and their acting the hypocrite in getting from antitypical Naaman a prolongation of powers for the directors and officers of the Society (Gehazi hypocritically asking for and getting money and two changes of garments from Naaman). The breaking down of the timber of the typical house (v. 45) represents the disassociating of the members of such a Great Company group from membership in it and from their support, as a group, of its leaders, teaching and arrangements. The breaking down of the mortar represents the overthrow of the evil teachings and arrangements of such

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

299 

a group as such. As illustrations of such we may refer to our final refutations of Olsonism, whereby the former Olsonites gave up their faith therein. The refutation of Society errors of teaching and arrangement after 1920 are further examples to the same effect. The Bible types the destruction of the P.B.I. as organized in their charter (Judg. 8:17), which is to take place after antitypical Gideon's Second Battle. It will be noted that the priest does this breaking-down work (vs. 44-45), typing that it will be our Lord who will do the destructive work in the antitype (through His eye, mouth and hand). The carrying of all the house's materials outside the city types the casting out from among God's people the three above-mentioned items of the antitypical house. Casting them into an unclean place types that these antitypical things will be repudiated as unclean by God's people. 

(54) V. 46 brings to our attention the contaminating effects of partisan support of a Great Company sect on those associated with it. To enter a leprous house during the time it was shut up was a forbidden thing in Israel and could only then be done, if revolutionism against God's typical arrangements was committed. A partisan attitude toward that house was shown to exist in the one who entered it while it was shut up. Such an intruder was to be unclean until evening. His entering such an house types association with that sect and implies a revolutionistic attitude on the part of the antitype; and that revolutionism consists in a partisan support of that sect. Such a support is bound to make one unclean; for the works of sectarianism are wrath, strife, envy, prejudice, partiality, enmity, persecution and misrepresentation of the faithful, approval of certain evils and disapproval of certain good things of the Truth and its arrangements. Sometime these friends will recognize these evils as committed by them, but the priesthood recognizes them already. And this uncleanness will more or less remain

The Epiphany's Elect. 

300 

in them until the end of the Epiphany (until the even). We are not to think that the cleansing of these will be instantaneous. So far as the cleansing that comes to them by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:14) is concerned, it will be instantaneous, but so far as the cleansing that comes to them by the water of the Word (Num. 8:7) is concerned, it is a gradual matter, completed by the end of the Epiphany (even). 

(55) V. 47 tells us of the defiling effects of sleeping and eating in a leprous house. In Bible symbols a bed represents one's faith, creed (Ps. 4:4; 36:4; 41:3; 63:6; Is. 28:20). To sleep in a symbolic bed would signify to find rest in one's faith or creed. To sleep in a leprous house would, therefore, signify to feel at ease, rest in the beliefs of a Great Company sect while it is unclean. This would imply that such an one is content with the false teachings and wrong practices of that unclean Great Company sect. Of course, such a course would make his qualities (garments) unclean, defiling them with the disgraces and errors of that sect. This would require for their cleansing a washing in the water of the Word, as well as in the blood of the Lamb. To eat in Bible symbols means to appropriate to one's self the things symbolically eaten (Ps. 22:26, 29; 78:24, 25; Cant. 4:16; 5:1; Is. 3:10; 4:1; 7:15; 30:24; 55:1, 2; 61:6; 65:4, 13). To eat in a leprous house, therefore, types to accept the false teachings and the wrong arrangements of an unclean Great Company sect as one's own. Such believing and practicing are bound to defile the symbolic eater. His qualities of heart and mind become defiled, his doctrines become defiled and his services become defiled. He becomes quite unclean, and this will manifest itself by his seeking to curb the progress of the Truth and to advance the interests of error. Hence his garments in all three senses of the word become defiled, and for him to become clean he must thoroughly 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

301 

wash out the spots and filth from his garments, until they are clean. 

(56) From vs. 39 to 47 the things connected with a fretting leprosy in a house are set forth. V. 48 shows what is to be done with a house not stricken with a fretting leprosy. The priest's coming to the house (in v. 48) was after the removal of the infected stones, the scraping of the walls, the substituting of new stones in the walls for the removed ones and the plastering with other mortar. This represents that after a Great Company sect has been freed from power-grasping and lording leaders and partisan support of these and gotten better leaders and proper teaching and arrangements, the examining priest is to direct to it his attention for examining purposes. If the typical priest found that the leprosy had not spread in the house, he was to declare it to be clean, which types that if the examination, after replacing the infected symbolic stones and mortar by clean symbolic stones and mortar, discloses that there has been not only no increase of partisan support of power-grasping and lording, but also a setting aside of this evil, a real reformation, He, Jesus, is to declare the Great Company sect clean; for it has been healed of its stroke of antitypical leprosy along the lines of power-grasping and lording in false teaching and wrong arrangement. The bulk of the rest of the chapter (vs. 49-53) treats of the cleansing ceremony in the case of a cleansed leprous house. As this ceremony is somewhat akin to the first part of the cleansing of a leprous person (vs. 1-7), we will examine these verses later. Thus we have brought to a close our study of the six forms of leprosy as typical of the six forms of Great Company uncleanness; and in this study we have found a very fine description of typical and antitypical leprosy, and a marvelous and Divinely inspired description and vindication of the priesthood's Epiphany 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

302 

work. "How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!" 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) What will we study before studying Num. 12? Why? What is the character of leprosy? In what continent does it mainly exist? What did it, according to Lev. 13:12, 13, type when covering the entire body? When affecting only parts of the body? Apart from vs. 12, 13, of what do Lev. 13 and 14 treat? Only how could we understand the facts brought out by these two verses and these two chapters aside from these two verses? What are the two kinds of antitypical leprosy thus brought to light? As distinct from the kind of leprosy of vs. 12, 13, what kinds of leprosy are referred to in the rest of Lev. 13 and 14? What are their six typical forms? Why does leprosy covering the whole person fittingly type the Adamic depravity? Why do the kinds of leprosy localized in parts of the person fittingly type Great Company uncleanness? 

(2) Who is the classic type of the Great Company from the standpoint of leprosy? How is this proved by her pertinent contrast with Aaron? What, in the first place, in Miriam's experience shows that she types Great Company members? How is this proved by the cited passages? What, secondly, in her experience proves that she types Great Company members? How is this proved by the cited passages? How is Naaman such a type? Whom, therefore, does he type? How are Gehazi and his house such a type? Uzziah? When will details on him be brought out? Why are they here cited? For what will these cases here serve? How will the pertinent detailed proofs be given? For what do the generalities so far given prepare us? 

(3) Whom does Jehovah speaking to Moses and Aaron in v. 1 type? What does v. 2 give as to leprosy? What do these symptoms not necessarily prove? What are they sufficient to arouse? What did such a fear require? What only are given in vs. 2-8? Where are the details given? Where will these be studied? What will the study of vs. 2-8 show? Whom does Aaron here type? What is typed by bringing a leprosy-suspect to Aaron? What proves that the antitypical leprosy here typed cannot be the Adamic depravity? What kind of antitypical leprosy is, accordingly, here typed? What does this fact constitute? What

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

303 

second fact proves the same thing? How is the antitypical bringing done? 

(4) What details are needed here to make the antitype intelligible? How are antitypical lepers not, and how are they now by us brought to the High Priest for investigation? What case proves this? Give the proof negatively and positively. What do these facts prove? Since inspiration ceased and until the Epiphany, what did Jesus not use as to Great Company matters? Why not? What results therefrom in the Epiphany as to bringing a leper-suspect to Jesus? 

(5) What objection may be used to this thought? How is this objection to be answered? What would the naming of Eleazar or Ithamar for other than the end of this Age have indicated, so far as the antitypes are concerned? What is typed by the investigating and decision-pronouncing under-priest? How does 1 Cor. 5:4, 5 prove this answer? How does v. 13 also prove it? What, accordingly, is typed by the pertinent under-priest? What conclusion is to be drawn from this fact? Apart from cases brought to antitypical Aaron, who only can properly do this work? To what brethren must such activities of an ecclesia be limited? What results from this? Why? How is the General Church taken care of on this point? 

(6) What does the first clause of v. 3 tell? What does this type? What does the antitype prove? What do the middle clauses of v. 3 give? What is wrong with hair thus turned white? What does this type? How do we Biblically arrive at this thought? What are the two things that constitute the power of God's people? What do these make them? What is typed by the leper's hair turned white in the sore? What is one of the symptoms of Great Company uncleanness? How may the matter be otherwise expressed? How is this thought literally expressed in Ps. 107:10, 11? What do these verses give? 

(7) What second symptom of leprosy does v. 3 give? What does it type? What kind of revolutionism manifests Great Company uncleanness? Why must persistency be added to revolutionism to make the latter Great Company uncleanness? What would result from such a condition? What illustrations are to the point? What must be present to manifest Great Company uncleanness? In whom is it not present? Why not? When only can we be sure that 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

304 

We are dealing with Great Company uncleanness? What kind of symptoms prevail in typical and antitypical leprosy? 

(8) What, in the type, was the priest to do, if he saw the two pertinent symptoms prevail? In the antitype? Since when has this been going on? Despite what? Between what times was it wrong to declare one to be in the Great Company? Why? Since when has the token of Great Companyship become due to be understood? What results from these facts? Why did our Pastor for the Parousia and before speak against judging as to who are in the Great Company? When, according to him, would such judging be in order? What separation takes place during the Epiphany? What would those have to know who would co-operate with Jesus in that separation work? What did our Pastor say as to judging when the separation would come? Where? How does 1 Cor. 4:5 prove this? How do Lev. 13:3, 8, 15, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 36 and 44 prove this? What will those have to do who denounce this work? What characteristics does such denouncing have? What parallel actions show themselves in this connection? 

(9) Of what do vs. 4-6 treat? How must such cases be treated? What is typed by the bright spot being turned white? By its not being deeper than the skin? By its not turning the hair white? Despite these conditions, how must the pertinent person be regarded and treated? What does this type? What is typed by the seven days? What does this mean for the investigating priest or ecclesia? What must he do before coming to a decision? Why? What did these principles move the Lord to do with the type? What is implied by the shutting up in the type? In the antitype? 

(10) What does v. 4 show—type and antitype? How is this indicated? Why is the decision, type and antitype, to be delayed? What was done, type and antitype, if the second investigation justified no decision? How long was the investigation to go on in each case? What should be done in each case when a decision was reached? If in the type the evil was only a scab, what was the decision? What does this mean in the antitype? What is typed by the suspect's washing his clothes? What was to be done if, after the first seven days, the plague spread? What does 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

305 

this type? If no repentance sets in after the third investigation, what is the antitypical priest to do? What is therein implied? What does our study of vs. 1-8 do with our understanding of their contents? Where will the details come out? What does our study of vs. 1-8 prove of it negatively? Why? 

(11) How many details on leprosy are brought out in the rest of Lev. 13? What is each of these and where is it described? How many of these attach to the person? How many to garments? What form of leprosy is set forth in Lev. 14:33-53? To which of these will we give our attention first? To what do these four forms of leprosy correspond? What are these four forms? What does each type? What does the Bible teach of these four forms, type and antitype? What false charge is made against Epiphany friends? What is the truth on the subject? What should we first note? How is this shown in 1 Cor. 5? In Jude 23? What conclusions should be drawn from these two facts and two sets of passages? What will we now study? 

(12) How does the swelling form of leprosy type Great Company sin? What do we conclude from these facts? What does the whiteness of the swelling suggest? The hair turning white? If only gross sin were involved, what could we not do? Why? What is furnished, if error is added to the gross sin? Why is this proof only partial? What is the condition if persistency in error follows on gross sin? What is the force of the adjective old in the expression, "an old leprosy"? To what does it correspond? What is the investigating priest to do when he finds these conditions present? By what three Scriptures is the summary course proved to be the right one to follow? 

(13) What is the first impression made on one by the teachings of vs. 12, 13? Why? How only can this natural thought be reasonably answered? Why from the standpoint of Lev. 13 and 14 could the Lord not use the leprosy that covers the entire body to type Great Company uncleanness? What would such an one type in contrast with the uncleanness typed in these two chapters? By contrast with the forms of antitypical leprosy treated of in these chapters as a whole, what must be done with the kind of antitypical leprosy treated of in vs. 12, 13? What, therefore, can we at once see? Why? What follows from the fact that vs. 12, 13 type the Adamic depravity, as to Great 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

306 

Company uncleanness? To whom do the statements of vs. 12, 13 apply? What is the case, type and antitype, if raw flesh appears in such an one? Why? As what is he to be declared, in type and antitype? Why is he not, and why is he to be so declared? In such a case what two things would be typed? What, accordingly, was the priest to do from the standpoint of these two chapters? 

(14) Of what do vs. 16, 17 treat? What occurred at times in Israel with lepers? In what two ways did this occur? What was the healed leper to do? Why? Where is this shown in detail? What words describe the healing? What does this type? What case illustrates this? How do the cited passages show these points? What is typed by the charge that the cleansed leper show himself to the priest? To which antitypical priest should the cleansed one come? Why? Why was an accurate examination needed, in type and antitype? What, in type and antitype, would a premature pronouncing of one as clean effect? If the repentance is sincere what should not, and what should be done? Where in type is this whole transaction shown? 

(15) What is the second form of leprosy? Where is this treated? What two things are stated of the boil in v. 18? What is typed by the renewed boil, as described in vs. 18-23? How does Heb. 2:15 show selfishness to be a kind of Great Company uncleanness? Matt. 10:39? Matt. 16:25? Luke 14:26, 33? John 12:25? 1 Pet. 2:11? 1 Pet. 1:14? What do these and many other Scriptures show? What is typed by the boil's healing and breaking out again? 

(16) In what language of v. 19 is the development of leprosy in the boil described? What does this type? What must be done in type and antitype with such a case? What must the priest do with the disease? In what particularly? For what else must he look? Why? What are these, in type and antitype? What will make the priest's diagnosis certain? After reaching such certainty what should he do, in both type and antitype? Why? 

(17) What are the conditions that do not warrant a sentence of Great Company uncleanness, in type and antitype? Why in the antitype? What first results therefrom? Secondly? Thirdly? Fourthly? Why was stress laid on persistent revolutionism? 

(18) What determines the shutting up of the suspect, in 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

307 

type and antitype? What do the seven days of the restraint type? What, therefore, is the investigating priest to do? What was the priest to do after the seven days, if the bright spot had spread? What would such spreading imply? Under the antitypical conditions, what is the examining priest to do? If there is no typical or antitypical spreading, what is the examining priest to do? In such circumstances, how is the typical and antitypical boil to be considered? 

(19) Where is the third form of leprosy brought to our attention? What does it type? What other kind of Scriptures proves that worldliness is a form of Great Company uncleanness? To what do they lend corroboration? How is this proved by Matt. 13:22, combined with its context? How do Mark 4:19 and Luke 8:14 add to this proof? How is this proved by Luke 21:34? Jas. 4:4? For what are these Scriptures sufficient? What is worldliness in a new creature? What two things does it often manifest? What should be done to such a suspect, in type and antitype? What should the antitypical priest do about it? If he finds persistent revolutionism what is he to do? Why? 

(20) What does v. 26 suggest? Why should carefulness be exercised by the examining priest, in the type and antitype? What do we, accordingly, note in all the cases mentioned in Lev. 13 and 14? Under what circumstances is judgment to be suspended, in type and antitype? One to be shut up? What should be done, if it should later appear that the suspect is a leper, type and antitype? If he is not one, type and antitype? What corroborates such a decision? 

(21) What have we so far studied? What is presented in vs. 29-44? What will first be done as to the thought of vs. 29-44? How does 1 Tim. 1:19, 20 prove that error is a part of Great Company uncleanness? How does 2 Tim. 2:17, 18 corroborate the thought of 1 Tim. 1:19, 20? How does Ps. 107:10, 11 prove this thought? Jas. 5:19, 20? What do we conclude from these passages? How does the symbolism of leprosy in the head and beard apply here? What is the fourth form of leprosy called? What must the priest do with one having a scall, type and antitype? What two things would prove the uncleanness, type and antitype? What should be the resultant course? 

(22) What does v. 31 show should be done with the 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

308 

suspect? What should be done, if black hair were in the scall? What if not, and the scall was not deeper than the skin? What is typed by the absence of black hair? Skin depth of the scall? The seven days' restraint? The examination on the seventh day? The shaving of all but the scall? What should the priest do, if no unfavorable symptoms appear in the antitype? What does this show as to unimportant mistakes? What are some examples? What have all uninspired priests made? What should be done with the mistake? 

(23) From what standpoint is the matter stated in v. 35? What does it type? What is to be done, type and antitype, in such a case? What is present, typed by the spreading of the scall? What should then be done? Without what? What does v. 37 teach, type and antitype? Against what do vs. 38, 39 caution, type and antitype? What causes freckles? What is typed by them? Why? What has the experience of all of us been on this point? What should not be done therefore? What do vs. 40 and 41 contain? What does baldness represent? Baldness toward the forehead? What is not to be done to such, type and antitype? What three reasons prove this? 

(24) What do vs. 42-44 indicate? What would such a sore type? What would it imply? What would this implication type? What would every sore not necessarily imply? How was the case determined? What was precluded by the baldness? Apart from yellow hair, what was alone sufficient to establish leprosy? What in the antitype? If hair were present, what would establish the fact of leprosy being present? What would the priest have to do, if leprosy were present? What did this type? If no leprosy were present, what would the priest have to do? What does this type? 

(25) What is given in vs. 45, 46? What was the first thing for the convicted leper to do? On what symbolism is the antitype based? What is it? How are the two forms of the antitype performed? How does Elisha's rending his garments apply here? What does the similarity prove as to the leper's antitype? What is the second thing that the convicted leper had to do? On what symbolisms is the antitype based? What is the antitype? 

(26) On what symbols is the antitype of the covered lip based? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

309 

does the covered lip type? What does a covered upper lip do with the lower lip? What is the antitype? How is typical speech usually antityped? And how not? Accordingly, in what are we to expect the cry, Unclean, to be antityped? How does it occur? What in this connection does the Great Company not say in words? How does it speak? 

(27) What is the first thing that v. 46 says of the leper? How long would the typical leprosy be in a leper? The antitypical leper in sin? Selfishness? Worldliness? Error? What will the Great Company continue to do in their defilement? What must be done in order to their cleansing? What is the second item mentioned in v. 46? What does it type? In what three activities will the priests refuse to fellowship with the Great Company? Why? 

(28) What is the final item that v. 46 gives on the convicted leper? What does this prove of lepers while Israel was in the wilderness? While in Canaan? To what is the allusion here? From what were they cut off? How long? With whom could they associate? By what were clean Israelites warned against them? What are the antitypes of these things? Where were the lepers to go? What is the antitype? Why are they to go there? What encouragement should not be given the Great Company? With whom may they associate? Among whom are they not to dwell? Until what happens? For what should we thank God, hope and pray? What will the priests do when it comes? In view of this prospect, what do the priests now do? 

(29) What did our former study of Lev. 13; 14 cover? What other kinds of leprosy are referred to in these chapters? To what is the present study devoted? Why? In what order will they be studied? What will we pass by in this study? Why? Why is the cleansing of the lepers presented between the presentation of its fifth and sixth forms? With what will we begin this study? 

(30) What three things are Biblically symbolized by garments? How do the cited Scriptures prove this of each sense? Why does Lev. 13:47-58 not use the word garment in the first two senses? In what sense do we understand it to use this word? A leprous garment? How does this form of Great Company uncleanness exist? What other kind of Scriptures also proves it? What is the classic example in proof of this? In what four things did 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

310 

his power-grasping manifest itself? What do these acts show? What is implied in John's words on dealing with him? How does 1 Pet. 5:3, 4 prove the same thing? Our Lord's warnings in Rev. 2:6, 15? Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 9:27? What may we conclude from our study of these passages? 

(31) How many and what kinds of garments are brought to our attention in vs. 47, 48? To what do these correspond? What objection may at first thought be offered to this claim? What overcomes this objection? From what might the pascal lamb be taken? How does this answer strike one accustomed to English only? What overcomes the objection, despite our pertinent English idiom? Of what might the curtain between the linen and rams' skin curtains have been woven? What conclusion may, accordingly, be drawn in harmony with Biblical symbols? Why is no correspondence to the curtain of rams' skin dyed red given in Lev. 13? What do we understand as to the relation of the linen garment? The woolen garment? The skin garment? With what are these respects related? What do the linen garments type? The woolen garments? The skin garments? The warp? The woof? 

(32) What does leprosy in a garment type? What two classes have these powers? To whom and what does leprosy in a garment refer? If in linen, what does it type? In what two respects? If in wool, what does it type? In what two respects? If in skin or in things of skin, what does it type? In what two respects? What is, accordingly, typed in vs. 47, 48? What else in v. 48? 

(33) What is described in v. 49? What would prove leprosy to be in a garment? How many forms of antitypical leprosy do green and red type? What does each of them type? What do leaders have? Local elders? General elders? What is the privilege of these? What does Satan seek to do to them? What has he succeeded in doing to many? Who are Satan's special targets? Why? What did our Pastor say of fallen leaders' fall? What is true in every case of Great Company leaders? What will prove this remark? What do all of them want? What does Satan do with them accordingly? 

(34) What should be noted of the words, garment, etc., in v. 49? What should we here note? Of J.F.R.? Of whom may the same things in principle be said? What 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

311 

has their course proven to be? For what have they forfeited the privileges of service in the high calling? What is a proper judgment thereon? What did God do as a recompense? What permeates their symbolic garments? What is written over them? Whose else symbolic garments are symbolically green and red? 

(35) What has been fulfilled as to these? How is this done with power-grasping and lording general elders? Give some illustrations of such in the Apostolic times? When is this work especially in order? With whom? Through whom in the general Church? In local churches? Since when have large amounts of time been devoted to this work? In what mainly? What has been done with examinations conducted before that magazine was published? Why did this have to be done publicly? Why and as what is the Editor therefore blamed? What other reason requires this publicity? What must be the best course? How will it eventually be recognized? What is also implied in the expression, "It shall be showed to the priest"? 

(36) Of what does v. 50 treat? What did not occur at the first examination of a plague-stricken garment? Why was this done? By whom must the examining be done? What makes the difference? Why must this duty not be shirked? How must it be done? What is our Pastor's advice in dealing with power-grasping local and general elders? What should be avoided? What does the case require? Why? Why should a premature decision be avoided? What results from this? What should be done, if grounds exist for suspecting the presence of power-grasping and lording? 

(37) What is typed by the priest's waiting until the seventh day and then examining the garment? Why should the second examination be made? What was to be done, if the plague was found to spread in the garment? What is the antitype? In what three ways may this usurping manifest itself? How does J.F.R.'s course in 1917 illustrate this? In what particulars? What forms could this symbolic spreading take? 

(38) What is such a plague typically called? Why this name? How does it define the mental state involved? How do the details of J.F.R.'s "fretting" illustrate this up to the time of his re-election in 1918? Thereafter until the election of the Society's officers and board for 3 years and

The Epiphany's Elect. 

312 

10 months, etc.? How does the word fretting describe his pertinent actions? Whose cases betray the same spirit of fretting? What must be done in all such cases by the examining priest? 

(39) What does v. 52 charge as to such a garment? Regardless of what? What does this type? Through whom does it occur with usurping general elders? What case shows this? How does Jesus do this during the Epiphany? How are such office powers vacated? What act illustrates this fact? What does such dismissal not imply? What example shows this? How did he usurp? Why should it have cost him membership in the Church? To whom else does this principle apply? How does this principle apply to a usurping local elder or deacon? What happens to an ecclesia that partisanly supports a usurping elder or deacon? What comparison shows this? What type does such cutting off fulfill? 

(40) What is the difference between the case presented in vs. 47-52 and those in vs. 53-58? What was to be done, if after the second examination no certainty was reached as to the typical garment? What does this type? What is the character of the pertinent usurpations? What was to be done after the washing? What does this imply? How must it be done as to a general elder? As to a local elder? How is the restraint sometimes to be effected? Under what circumstances? Why? How may it be done as to a local elder? 

(41) What phase of a leprous garment does v. 55 discuss? What should be done with such a garment? Why? What is such a leprosy called? Regardless of what? After what should the offender be re-examined? What is typed by the colors not changing? What should result on such becoming manifest? Even under what circumstances? What does his impenitence, etc., prove? What must result after these are manifested? If the offender be a general elder, who will do the twofold dismissing? Through whom will He manifest it? Who will do it, if the offender be a local elder? Through whom will He manifest it? Describe a garment with a fret inward. Regardless of what? What do these terms "without" and "within" mean? What is typed by the fret inward? What proves its continued existence in the heart? Regardless of what? How did Bro. Shearn manifest this principle? With what result?

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

313 

(42) What phase of a leprous garment does v. 56 discuss? What was to be done with the dark part of the garment? What does this case represent? What did the offender do in part? What is typed by rending the dark part out of the garment? What illustrates the operation of this principle in a pilgrim? In a local elder? 

(43) Of what phase of a leprous garment does v. 57 treat? What does it type? Why is this arrangement necessary? What does the type call such a plague? What does it type? What does this disprove as to the fault? And prove? What else does it prove? What is required in this case? How is it done in the case of a general elder? What does the manifestation of his Great Companyship demonstrate? How is this done in the case of a local elder? 

(44) Of what phase of a leprous garment does v. 58 treat? What would this indicate of the leprosy? On what condition could it be used again? What cases would this phase of a leprous garment type? What did they at first do? What effect did the washing of the Word have on them? Of what did their offenses mainly consist? What did not have to be lost in such a case? What is typed by the second washing? What does v. 59 do? 

(45) With what will our study proceed? What will be done as to the order of our study of Lev. 14? Why? Why did the Lord first present the cleansing process in vs. 1-32? Why, again, was it decided to change the order of studying the two sections of Lev. 14? Where have we in reality studied v. 33, type and antitype? What does this make unnecessary? To what do not, and to what do the instructions of vs. 33-53 apply? Why was this done? What did God design as to leprous houses? What, accordingly, do leprous houses type? What do they type of these sects? To what in this respect has attention been repeatedly called? Why? 

(46) What parallel course as to literal Scriptures will be used here? How does the last clause of Ps. 107:11 prove this? What is God's arrangement for the unity of the Church? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What is in opposition to this unity? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What conclusion do we, accordingly, draw? How does Paul in Rom. 11:4, 5 apply 1 Kings 19:18? What clue does this give us as to the antitypical 7, 000 in the Epiphany? What is typed by Baal 

The Epiphany's Elect. 

314 

worship? How is this made clear? What does this prove as to power-graspers among God's people? What is typed by Baal kissing? What facts clarify this? 

(47) Who are the Baal-kissers among God's real people? With what are they afflicted? What implies this? How does Acts 20:30 accord with the thought of partisan support of power-grasping leaders? For what are the Scriptures cited in this connection sufficient? What, accordingly, do we understand such a house to type? It's being leprous? Why is sectarianism a great sin? How does it treat the Truth, its arrangements and spirit? What actually, though not verbally, is the sectarian's motto? What results from the practice of such a motto? What is the classic example of such sectarianism among Truth people? How does it compare with that of the most bigoted Romanists? In what sense can God be spoken of as putting antitypical leprosy into such a sect? 

(48) In the type what was the owner of the plague-stricken house to do? Whom does he type? Why? Who is the antitypical priest in such a case? Why? How do the partisan leaders come to Him complaining of the plague-stricken condition of their houses? How did J.F.R. and his subordinate leaders not do so? Why not? How did they do so? What proves this to be true? What are some details thereon? How do their followers give the amen to their act speeches? By whom are similar things said by acts? 

(49) Who is the examining priest for a Great Company sect? Why? Who, therefore, was the examining typical priest? What proves this? What fact proves Jesus to be the examining priest? Why can a local ecclesia not be such an examining priest? What two arguments prove that Jesus is the examining priest? How does He do it? Before what period were there no Great Company sects? What follows from this as to the subject under study? What are in harmony with this? What is typed by the charge to empty the house? Why was it given in type and antitype? What is typed by the priest then examining the house distinct from what was emptied out of it? What is implied thereby in the antitype? How do the Levites act toward this feature of The Present Truth? On the contrary, of what does the bulk of the matter appearing in The Present Truth consist? To what extent do we admit 

Leprosy—Type and Antitype. 

315 

the charge? Why is the charge without merit? What proves that the Lord wants such criticism made? With what unnecessary work do the criticizing articles dispense? What is implied in omitting mention of good points in the Great Company sects? What does God want done in the examination? What conduces to the Levites' thinking that The Present Truth is devoted to criticism alone? What is typed by the priest going into the house? 

(50) What does v. 37 show? What does this type? What do walls represent? What do the walls of a leprous house represent? For what word does the word strakes stand? Like what did they look? What do they represent? What do the green and red colors here represent? Why are these antitypical evils present in uncleansed Great Company sects? What is more particularly typed by the green and red streaks? What is typed by their being deeper than the wall's surface? By the priest leaving the house? By his shutting up the house? Of what does this restraint consist? What does the shutting up for seven days type? 

(51) What is typed by the priest returning after seven days and re-examining the house's walls? If the plague was found to have spread during the seven days, what was the priest to do? What does the spreading of the plague type? What do the stones, city and unclean place type? How is this harmonious with Bible usage? What in such an antitype does the High Priest do? What facts in Society matters prove this? Among what other Great Company sects was this in principle done? What is typed by the dust of the house? By scraping it down and together? In what kind of articles was this done? What are the titles of some of these? What did these reviews and examinations do? What is typed by the dust's being carried out of the city and cast into an unclean place? 

(52) What is typed by putting other stones in the place of the removed ones? Other mortar in the place of that scraped off? In time how extensively will this be done? What do vs. 43-45 show? What does this type? What does the return of the plague type? It's spreading abroad? When only could such an antitype set in? What does v. 45 show? What is typed by the breaking down of the house? How does it occur? In what three cases has this occurred?

The Epiphany's Elect. 

316 

In what sense has it also occurred to the Society? How and when? 

(53) What does this mean, negatively and positively? What results from this as to antitypical Elisha? The Society as a corporation in its officials? What has occurred with the antitypical stones of the Sturgeonites, Ritchieites and Olsonites? What two things led to the casting off of the Society as a corporation in its officers? What, is represented by the breaking down of the timber? Of the mortar? What are some illustrations of these things? What does the Bible type as to the P.B.I. in its charter? When is it to take place? Who does this breaking-down work? What does it type? What is typed by the priest's carrying the debris outside the city and casting it into an unclean place? 

(54) What does v. 46 tell us? What things did entering a shut-up leprous house betray? How long was such an intruder to remain unclean? What does entering such a house type? What would be the antitypical effects? Why? What is the time-contrasted recognition of these evils? How long will this uncleanness in part remain? How long will their cleansing by the Lamb's blood take? By the washing of the Word? 

(55) Of what does v. 47 treat? What does a bed symbolically represent? How do the cited passages prove this? What is represented by sleeping in such a bed? In a leprous bed? What does this imply? What effect would such contentment have? What would cleansing therefrom require? What is the symbolic meaning of eating, in, the Bible? How do the cited passages prove this? What is typed by eating in a leprous house? What effects will this have? In what respects? How will this uncleanness manifest itself? What happens to his garments? What must he do with them? 

(56) What is the contrast between the thoughts of vs. 39-47 and v. 48? After what was the priest to come to the house? What does this represent? What was the typical priest to do, if he found that the leprosy had not spread? What does this type, negatively and positively? Why? What is treated of in vs. 49-53? What relation is there between the cleansing of these verses and that of vs. 1-7? What will, accordingly, be done with the study of vs. 49-53? With this what do we bring to a close? What two things have we found in this study? What may we say? 

‍