Epiphany Truth Examiner


View All ChaptersBooks Page


Num. 12:1-16 


ANTITYPICALLY, the subject matter of the book of Numbers can be summed up as a history of the Word and People of God. Our last study in Numbers was on Num. 11, under the subject, The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. There is a very close connection between the antitype of Num. 12:1-16 and the antitype of the preceding parts of Numbers from 9:15 to 11:35; for Num. 9:15-23 treats antitypically of the Truth as due on the Old Testament (fiery pillar) and on the New Testament (the cloudy pillar) and of whom these led; Num. 10:1-10 treats antitypically of the Truth message of the high calling (one of the silver trumpets) and of the Truth message of reckoned and actual restitution (the other silver trumpet) and their announcers; vs. 11-28 treat antitypically of how these messages in various parts of their parts effected the progress of the twelve denominations of Christendom; vs. 29-32 treat of Fleshly Israel sought as a Gospel-Age helper of the Church for the Truth; vs. 33-36 show antitypically that the course of God's people was marked out by God's plan (the ark), the Truth as due (the cloudy pillar) and Christ (Moses); and Num. 11 treats antitypically of the three No-Ransomism siftings in themselves and in their relations to Christ (Moses), partly as acting through the Twelve, and to "the Secondarily Prophets" (the Seventy), as the teachers of

The Parousia Messenger. 


the general Church. Num. 12 treats of Christ as He acts through the star members of the seven churches, particularly through the star members of the Laodicean Church, as His mouthpieces, in contrast with all other general teachers in the Church. 

(2) Thus through this entire section the Lord's Word and People from a variety of standpoints are the subject. This general line of thought will also be seen to be the subject of Num. 13 and 14. Indeed, the parts of Numbers preceding Num. 9:15 are more or less related to this general line of thought, as the Lord's people from various standpoints are there set forth in their relation to the Lord's Word. This can be seen from the antitypes of those chapters: Num. 1 and 2 treat antitypically of the twelve denominations of Christendom as gathered by the Word; Num. 3 and 4 treat antitypically of the priests briefly and of the Levites more detailedly, as ministering to the Word; Num. 5 treats antitypically of Gospel-Age sinners against the Word; Num. 6 treats antitypically of the Gospel-Age special priestly ministers of the Word; Num. 7 treats antitypically of the crown-lost princes ministering the Word; Num. 8 treats antitypically of the Levitical ministers of the Word in their cleansing, consecration and services; and Num. 9:1-14 treats antitypically of the two sets of Passovers' celebrants produced by the Word. Thus we see that antitypically Num. 1-14 treats of the Word and People of God in various of their related aspects. In other words, viewed from the standpoint of the antitype, those chapters hold very logically together under one subject—the Word and the People of God. And as we continue our study of Numbers, as we have already seen this in part from our study of the antitypes of Num. 26, we will find that the antitypical subject matter of the entire book may be summed up as a history of the Truth (the Word of God) and the People of the Truth (God's People) in their mutual relations and in their

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


relations to others. Thus there is a wonderfully logical connection in the antitypes of this book, which we are studying in such great detail. Surely when we have finished the study of it and its companion book, Deuteronomy, as symbolized by the two corner boards of the Most Holy on the side of the pillar typing our Lord as a New Creature and the Author of the book of Revelation, we will be in a splendid position to study the last-named book. With these words of introduction we are ready to begin our study of Num. 12. The Lord bless its study to all! 

(3) The typical story of Num. 12 is easy to understand, but there is a depth of meaning in its antitype that requires more or less deep study, which will by the rich nuggets of symbolic gold and silver that it contains more than repay the efforts expended in its study. The three characters that this chapter brings especially to our attention were three of the four (Joshua being the fourth) most prominent persons noted among the Israelites mentioned so far in the history of the Exodus. Miriam (rebellion of the people, in allusion to her typing the Great Company as revolutionists against God's teaching and arrangements) was the most prominent of the Hebrew women of the Exodus, and next to Moses, Aaron (enlightened, in allusion to the Little Flock's having the Truth) was the most prominent Hebrew man of the Exodus. But in this chapter Miriam and Aaron, particularly Miriam, do not stand in a favorable light. They become guilty of two evils: of pride, resulting in murmuring, and of self-exaltation. Their pride of family and nation made them resent Moses' having a Cushite wife. Perhaps Zipporah's displacing Miriam as the first lady in Israel may have aroused the latter's envy, also. Moses (drawn out of the water, in allusion, first, to our Lord, and, second, to the Church, as selected from among the people, Deut. 18:15, 18), at any rate, was faulted for having taken Zipporah as his wife, whose 

The Parousia Messenger. 


coming to Moses and Israel with her father, Jethro, and her two sons, occurred about a year before, at Sinai (Ex. 18:2, 5, 6); and her remaining with him since then proved to be a sore trial, especially to Miriam, but also to Aaron. Zipporah (little bird) is called an Ethiopian, literally a Cushite. There were two kinds of Cushites: those who were negroes, and who lived in Africa a thousand miles south of the territory of the Midianites of Horeb, and those who were brownish-white, and who lived in Sinaitic Arabia (2 Chro. 21:16). Seemingly, she belonged to the latter kind of Cushites. Her father, who is usually called Jethro (Ex. 4:18; 18:1-24), sometimes Reuel (Ex. 2:18) and sometimes Raguel (Num. 10:29), is called the priest of Midian (Ex. 2:16-21; 3:1; 18:1), and is once called a Midianite (Num. 10:29). In Judg. 1:16 he is called the Kenite. (In Judg. 4:11 the proper reading is chathan (brother-in-law), not chothen (father-in-law).) These passages may well be reconciled by understanding the former to refer to the nation among whom he lived as an official, and the latter to refer to the nation of his origin. The Kenites seem to have been Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:6). They differed from the rest of the Amalekites in that they were friendly to Israel, when the latter came out of Egypt, i.e., in the wilderness. The Amalekites, as the first of the nations (Num. 24:20), were evidently organized as such by Nimrod, the first ruler, who was a Cushite (Gen. 10:8-10), which would seem to imply that they were Cushites, though this is not expressly stated anywhere in the Bible, but is fairly implied in the facts just stated and to be stated in the next sentence. Except in the case of the children of his brother, Raamah (v. 7), Nimrod seemingly founded a kingdom for each of the four sets of his nephews—by his other four brothers—(vs. 7, 10), among others Amalek being in one of these sets. This being true, we can see that, though the priest and (naturalized) citizen of

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


Midian, Jethro was a brownish-white Cushite, one of those Cushites who dwelt near the Arabians, in the Sinaitic Peninsula, as the Amalekites did (Ex. 17:8-16; Gen. 14:7). But even as a brownish-white Cushite Zipporah was by Miriam and Aaron considered inferior to a Hebrew woman. Hence they murmured against Moses for having taken her as his wife (v. 1). Thus pride started them on the wrong way and resulted in their murmuring against their and Israel's Divinely appointed leader. 

(4) While the antitype of Num. 12 may in a general way be properly applied to the Jewish Harvest and the interim between the two Harvests, its special application undoubtedly is to the Parousia and the Epiphany, as is evident from the sending of Miriam outside the camp, which is a statement synonymous with sending Azazel's Goat as a class into the wilderness, the special Epiphany work, though undoubtedly with individuals among the crown-losers in the former three periods there was a delivering to Azazel in the wilderness (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20). Miriam, accordingly, as is indicated by the meaning of her name, by the facts of the fulfillment, and by her being sent outside the camp as partly synonymous with sending Azazel's Goat out into the wilderness, evidently in this story, represents certain ones of the Great Company, especially its abler and more prominent members, who have found much fault with some of the Lord's selections as members of the Bride, and who have actually stoutly aspired to equality with our Lord as mouthpieces of God. Aaron in this chapter represents certain Little Flock members, especially abler and more prominent ones, who found a little fault with some of the Lord's selections as members of the Bride and in a faint manner aspired to equality with our Lord as mouthpieces of God. Moses in this chapter types our Lord (v. 7; Heb. 3:1-6) as the Church's Bridegroom and as God's special Mouthpiece and Executive. Zipporah 

The Parousia Messenger. 


in this chapter represents the Little Flock, especially in its less able and prominent members. This general typical setting of the four characters treated of in v. 1 will assist us to open up this verse rather easily. When the antitypical murmuring began antitypical Miriam was doubtless in the Little Flock; for their punishment for their wrong-doings was partly relegation to the Great Company. The antitypical Aaron of this chapter remained in the Little Flock. As pride of family, nation and position led Miriam and Aaron into the typical wrong mentioned in v. 1, so pride influenced not a few new creatures, whose real or fancied talents, stations, possessions, influence, etc., led them to think too much of themselves and to despise their Little Flock brethren whom they deemed inferior to themselves in talents, station, possessions, influence, etc., especially the more backward of these, typed by Zipporah, and as a result they set them more or less at naught. 

(5) Not a few of us have heard members of antitypical Miriam and Aaron speak of such as follows: "I cannot see what the Lord saw in this one and that one that He should have invited them to be of the Bride. Their education, manners and appearance are so inferior that I am more or less ashamed to associate with them. They are certainly no ornament to the Truth." We have seen such more or less avoid their company, and if thrown into it, they have gotten out of it as soon as possible, feeling they should waste neither time nor words on such. They reserved their time, words, smiles and fellowship for the more gifted and to them more congenial brethren. Some of them may not by their language have spoken despairingly to or of such, but they certainly did by their acts and attitudes. What does such a course, whether by word, attitude or act, mean? It means despising some of the Lord's little ones; it means to reject some that the Lord has accepted as His own; it means to impugn God's choice of fitness

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


for the Bride of Christ. It therefore means meddlesome busybodying, self-assertion and arrogance. Surely anyone whom Jehovah selects for Christ's Bride and anyone whom Christ accepts as a part of His Bride ought to be satisfactory to everyone else that God has chosen and Christ has accepted therefore. To act contrary to such an attitude certainly is entirely out of harmony with propriety. Yet pride often so acts. 

(6) Thus in this matter both typical and antitypical Miriam and Aaron sinned. The former evidently went, in both the type and the antitype, much further wrong than the latter in type and antitype. But sin is not an unprogressive thing. It ever goes from bad to worse, as can be seen in the case before us. It began with sinning against Zipporah as Moses' wife and Moses as Zipporah's husband. This sin was more or less one limited to a family affair. But the pride of Miriam and Aaron developed to worse proportions. It advanced from busybodying in Moses' family affairs to claiming equality with him as God's mouthpiece (v. 2). Antitypically this would mean that antitypical Miriam and Aaron claimed equality with our Lord as mouthpieces of God, i.e., that certain more or less prominent new-creaturely members of Christ's Body claimed equality with our Lord as mouthpieces of God. How could such a thing be possible? Could any member of Christ's Body, yea, even one who was on the way of losing his crown, make such a claim verbally? Certainly none such would verbally utter so blasphemous and arrogant a claim. We doubt that even a Second Deather would verbally do so, unless he were among the worst possible of that class. How, then, are we to understand it? We think that the antitype has been and is being fulfilled by attitudes and acts, rather than by verbal claims. 

(7) This answer, however, raises another question, How could any new creature by attitude and act do so? Here again we will have to answer qualifiedly—not directly, but indirectly, and of course not with full 

The Parousia Messenger. 


intention of claiming by act and attitude such equality with our Lord Himself personally. To claim so directly by attitude and act would mean to conduct oneself immediately toward our Lord, i.e., personally, as His equal as a mouthpiece for God. This neither antitypical Miriam nor Aaron have done. But they have done it indirectly, which, however, is none the less really doing so. What does this mean? They have arrogated equality with our Lord as mouthpieces of God as He has exercised His mouthpieceship throughout the Gospel Age in the star-members of the seven churches. We have given enough details on the star-members in our discussion of Num. 11 to make unnecessary here a lengthier discussion of that subject than to say that they have been Jesus' special mouthpieces throughout the Age, held in His hand (Rev. 1:16, 20; 2:1), and that whatever is thought, said or done to them while they act as such Jesus considers in an emphatic sense as thought, said or done to Him (Luke 10:16). The reason is this: It is He, not really they, who speaks in them while they act as His mouthpieces. So really is He the Speaker in such cases that usually in the types of such transactions, not they, but He is represented as the Speaker, they being represented therein as His mouth. 

(8) E.g., Moses' speaking to Dathan and Abiram (Num. 16:12) types our Lord's speaking to the Papacy and the Federation of Churches in the Creed Smashing Sermons spoken through Bro. Russell as His mouth. Again, Moses' telling Korah and his company of 250 Levites to offer incense (vs. 5-7, 16, 17) types our Lord's telling, through Bro. Russell in the Tower and in certain sermons, the 1908-1911 sifters in and out of the Truth to present their views, if they thought that they had anything better than He was presenting, i.e., through Bro. Russell as His mouth. If this thought of the star-members being the mouth, hand and eye of Jesus in what He says, does and sees through them, is 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


not kept in mind, they, and not our Lord, would seem to be the antitype of Moses in the above-mentioned and numerous other acts and speeches. Another example will help us to see this: Moses' in the mountain asking to see God's face and being refused on the ground that no man can see His face and live, types our Lord's asking and being refused on the ground that He could not see it and live. How, we ask, can this be true of our Lord personally, who does now in the time of the antitype see God's face and lives? We answer, It does not refer to Him directly and personally. It refers to Him as He has spoken by acts through His Parousia and Epiphany messengers. How so? These two brothers as Jesus' special eye and mouth in their study of God have sought to penetrate deeper into the knowledge of God Himself than was given them to go, which means to speculate on the subject, and were warned as Jesus' eye and mouth that they could not do so and live. See Ex. 19:21-24 for a somewhat similar thought expressed as to other antitypes along somewhat different lines, wherein the same antitypical lines of thought studied by these two brothers would not be speculation (v. 24, Aaron). 

(9) These remarks will enable us to see the antitype of Miriam and Aaron claiming to be Moses' equal in mouthpieceship for God. They type certain prominent new creatures, all of them being at this stage of the transaction still Little Flock members, teaching things contrary to and contradictory of the things that Jesus was giving through the star-members while these have acted as His eye, mouth and hand. Their attitudes in, and acts of so contradicting, and not their words, were assertions of equality with Him as a mouthpiece of God. Of course they did not realize that such contradictions were factual assertions of their equality with Jesus as God's mouthpieces. All they realized was that they were contradicting certain prominent servants of God. In most cases they did not realize that they were

The Parousia Messenger. 


contradicting star-members. But when they were so doing they were actually contradicting Jesus, who was using such as His mouthpieces; and such contradiction by attitude and act, not, of course, by express word, is an assertion of equality in mouthpieceship for God with our Lord. Such contradictions occurred in the five siftings of the two Harvests and in the interim between them, and have been occurring perhaps most venomously of all times in the two sets of the five siftings, a set in the small and a set in the large miniature Gospel Age of the Epiphany. E.g., St. Paul underwent such contradiction from the Jewish Harvest's combinationist sifters (Acts 15:1, 2) and from Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus (1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 2 Tim. 2:17, 18), etc.; and St. John experienced it at the hand of Diotrephes (3 John 9, 10). By contradicting such star-members (who only are included in the statement of Luke 10:16 and of whom, therefore, is it true that hearing them is hearing our Lord and that despising them is despising our Lord) is not meant a meek presentation of our difficulties and doubts to them for the purpose of learning from them and a meek pointing out of things in their teachings that do not seem correct to the questioner, but a wilful, heady disputatious contention against their true teachings. A proper bringing to them of our doubts and difficulties belongs to the Divinely commanded duty of the entire Priesthood, to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good only (1 Thes. 5:21). But such a course is entirely different in spirit, in purpose, manner and contents, from the bold, heady and self-opinionated contradiction typed more emphatically by Miriam's and more mildly by Aaron's course as given in v. 2. The statement (v. 2), "And the Lord heard it," does not mean merely that Miriam's and Aaron's words came to God's audition. It means in both type and antitype that God gave to their claims a disapproving attention and reckoning, that He was so displeased as to call them to account,

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


(10) V. 3 is one with which higher critics have employed their supposed ingenuity, as a proof that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. If their claim as to the alleged reprehensibility of the statement that Moses was the meekest man in all the earth, if written by himself, were true, at most he should be said not to have written that verse. They should not conclude from their claim that therefore he could not have written the Pentateuch. Their claim is that Moses could not have written these words of himself without sinning in pride thereby, that no man could be justified in making such a statement of himself; for self-praise, they say, is a sin. The basis of their proposition is that no one can without sin speak so complimentarily of himself. We deny the truth of their proposition. We assert that if good things are true of one, and it becomes necessary in justice and love to speak of one's good, and if one can do it without pride, it is no sin to speak complimentarily of oneself. Because it is true and for our good, God speaks of Himself in the Bible in superlative terms of complimentariness. He in the Bible calls Himself supreme in goodness, power, wisdom, justice, love and in every other good quality. He speaks of Himself as being in a class by Himself, above and better than all others. But He does this without the least pride or other evil, because it is true and is for our good to know. Again, under God Jesus refers to Himself in highest terms of complimentariness. He speaks of Himself as good, as the Way, the Truth, the Life, as the only avenue of approach to the Father. He inspired Paul to say of Him that His is the name above every other name and inspired other writers of the Bible to say most complimentary things of Him. Why was this not wrong in Him? Because these things were true, He said or caused them to be said in all humility and did it for our good. Again, in his epistles, especially in 2 Corinthians, St. Paul spoke complimentarily of his own person, character and office. He did it 

The Parousia Messenger. 


because it was true and necessary for the brethren, and he did it without the least pride. Our Pastor spoke of an office of his, which under, and next to our Lord's was the most responsible office ever held by a human being, the office of that Servant, and mentioned his qualities in having that office as wise and faithful. He did not speak of these things in pride, but because they were true and necessary for the Lord's people to know. Moses, without pride and because they were true and necessary for Israel to know, wrote the words of v. 3. Hence he could and did write these words of himself without pride. Hence they neither prove that he did not write the Pentateuch nor these words themselves. 

(11) There was a deeper reason for these words being written, though Moses did not understand it. They were to type the fact that our Lord as the Antitype of Moses (Heb. 3:1-6; please note that the typical allusion to Him as Moses' antitype is taken from the chapter under study—Num. 12:7) is the meekest Being Godward in the entire universe. Meekness means submissiveness of mind and heart. In the mind it makes one teachable and in the heart leadable. God found Moses for His purposes the most teachable and leadable man on earth, and inspired him to state this fact of himself, because God desired thereby to type the fact that our blessed Lord Jesus is Godward the meekest—most teachable and leadable—Being in the universe. And has not our dear Lord always proven Himself to be so? Was not His prehuman course such? Did He not exemplify this fact while He was on earth, and that amid the most crucial trials? And has He not since His resurrection and glorification been proving it to be true? To all eternity He will demonstrate this to be true of Himself. Yea, He is worthy, not only of having the highest place under God in character from this standpoint, but also from the standpoint of every other good quality. He is altogether lovely in this and all other graces. Worthy is the Lamb! 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


(12) Among other things, God's noting with disapproval the course of Miriam and Aaron is set forth in v. 2; and in v. 4 His beginning to act on the matter is set forth. His starting to act on the matter consisted of a command to all three of them to go forth to the tabernacle. The charge was given suddenly. The Lord did not allow such a wrong act to continue long, though He did permit it to go on long enough for the Israelites in general to learn of it; otherwise God, who commands that private sins be not made public, would have settled the matter privately and not publicly as He did, which is implied in its being adjusted before the tabernacle. So in the antitype, whenever God notes that Jesus speaking through the star-members has been contradicted with any degree of publicity, He sees to it that the matter is adjusted publicly. How is such contradiction made? Not privately, but publicly, at least before the Church and often before outsiders. Such contradiction becomes the talk of those who hear, as Miriam's and Aaron's talk was heard by others than Moses and Zipporah. Such talk always stirs up more or less excitement and usually has resulted in a sifting, first among Truth people, whence it frequently spreads to outsiders. God manipulates such events in such ways as to bring the three parties to the shaking in their activities before the whole Church at least, if not before outsiders. It is by such manipulating of the pertinent events that God gives the antitypical command to the three antitypical parties to go forth to the antitypical Tabernacle, i.e., to appear before the Church. 

(13) This course of events we find to take place in connection with all the siftings that unfavorably affect Great Company leaders and some Little Flock leaders. It can be observed in our, the Epiphany day, to the best advantage. The Levite leaders in all cases of the Epiphany contradictions have acted like Miriam; for their contradicting the Epiphany messenger as he in mouthpieceship for our Lord gives the Epiphany 

The Parousia Messenger. 


message is a factual, not verbal, telling to our Lord that they are as much a mouthpiece of God as He is. If they continue this any length of time God, by the course of the pertinent events, forces them and our Lord in His mouthpiece to appear before the whole Church in discussion of the matters at hand; and when in a more or less mild manner antitypical Aaron joins in the contradiction they too are forced by God through the resultant circumstances to appear before the entire Church in this matter. Thus it comes to pass that all such actors are forced to appear on the matter before the entire Church. Please note how this has occurred in our controversies with the British managers, Society leaders, the P.B.I. leaders and with leaders of various other groups, like Adam Rutherford, Wm. Crawford, F. Lardent, M. Riemer, Menta Sturgeon, A. I. Ritchie, Carl Olson, R. H. Hirsh, G. K. Bolger, R. H. Bricker, C. Kasprzykowski, M. Kostyn, etc. Looking back to the Parousia times we find this same phenomenon, but in a less prominent form. We have instanced in Vols. VI and VII how this contradiction of our Pastor as the Parousia messenger was done by A.H. MacMillan, Clayton J. Woodworth, W.E. Van Amburgh, Jesse Hemery, J.F. Rutherford and by other members of antitypical Elisha, though for the most part God did not bring them before the antitypical Tabernacle until the Epiphany, but when He did so He did it very suddenly, e.g., note how suddenly the siftings at Bethel and in the Fort Pitt Committee were brought to the attention of the whole Church. It was like a clap of thunder out of a clear sky. 

(14) We are to keep the features and workers of such siftings separate and distinct from the features and workers of Second Death siftings. The five Reaping siftings were mainly the latter, though somewhat connected with them and more in the background this feature of antitypical Miriam and Aaron also appeared. E.g., those who sided with antitypical Korah—the antitypical

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


sons of Korah—in the 1908-1911 sifting. These were by antitypical Korah deceived into believing that the doctrine of the Church's share in the sin-offering implied that the merit of the Church made up for an alleged deficiency in Christ's merit to satisfy justice. Under this false impression, and in loyalty to the ransom merit, as provided by Jesus' sacrifice alone, they contradicted Jesus' teaching through that Servant, that the Church shares in the sin-offering. In this they antityped their part in antitypical Miriam's factual claim of equality with our Lord in mouthpieceship for God. There were also in that sifting some members of antitypical Aaron who more mildly and less perseveringly contradicted the Lord as He spoke in that Servant, especially on the New Covenant as operating only in and after the Millennium. E.g., Bro. John Edgar for awhile was somewhat shaken thereon, but soon recovered his equilibrium. Thus antitypical Miriam and Aaron hung about the fringes, so to speak, of the Second Death siftings of the Parousia, and, because overshadowed by the Second Death sifters, do not appear therein so distinctly as they do in the Epiphany siftings. Doubtless, too, in the Parousia and the Epiphany antitypical Miriam and Aaron appeared also in less general shakings, especially in such as were limited to one ecclesia or to several ecclesias. In the slight shaking of 1914 on the 1914 date A.H. MacMillan had a large, and the writer a small part, as we will show later. When local shakings occur, the local bodies would correspond to the tabernacle. But in general siftings of this kind the tabernacle types the entire Church. Nor are we to understand from the above that there are no Second Death siftings and sifters in the Epiphany. There are such, as typed by Abihu and his offering strange fire (see footnote in T 119, in editions from 1909 onward), by Aaron and his acting with Moses at the smiting of the rock and by Jambres and his casting down his rod before Pharaoh. 

The Parousia Messenger. 


(15) V. 5 tells us of the second, third and fourth steps that the Lord took in the matter of Miriam's and Aaron's assertion of equality with Moses in mouthpieceship for God. The first of these was His coming down in the cloudy pillar. We are not to understand that God did this personally; for He did not leave Alcyone in person and come to the desert of Israel's wandering. He doubtless did this as He did other acts in giving the various arrangements of the Law Covenant—through an agent, the Logos most likely (Acts 7:38), though it could have been by another angel (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19). We say most likely it was the Logos because He was the angel who appeared to Moses in the bush, who delivered Israel from Egypt (Ex. 13:20-22; 14:19, 20; Acts 7:30, 35), who gave the Law Covenant at Sinai (v. 38) and who was with Israel throughout the 40 years of the Exodus (vs. 36, 38). In the antitype, especially as it belongs to the Parousia and Epiphany, it has been undoubtedly our Lord who came down in the antitypical cloudy pillar; for, present in the Second Advent, it is His mission to come down in the antitypical cloudy pillar—the Truth. As we have seen, the cloudy pillar represents the New Testament Truth as due during the two reaping periods, and the fiery pillar represents the Old Testament Truth as due in the interim between them and in the Epiphany. When the antitypical pillar applies to the entire four periods, as in the case under study, it would ordinarily be typed by the cloudy pillar, as the more important of the two. Accordingly, the reference to the cloudy pillar in v. 5 should not be understood as excluding the Old Testament Truth as due, nor the Interim and the Epiphany. Just what is meant by God's coming down in the cloudy pillar? We understand it to mean God, by our Lord's bringing out the pertinent Truth as due, manifesting His presence and taking cognizance of the matter at hand, in this case of antitypical Miriam's and Aaron's aspiring to equality with our Lord as a mouthpiece 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


for God. Always in such experiences before giving His judgments, but while proceeding to do so, the Lord makes pertinent Truth due. His so making the Truth due while proceeding to the pertinent judgment is the antitype of the cloudy pillar in v. 5. 

(16) God's standing at the door of the tabernacle types God in Christ bringing the course of antitypical Miriam and Aaron to the attention of the Church in a public way as a matter that requires public treatment. He does this by bringing out in a public way the character of what they have been doing. He reveals this by bringing as many or as few circumstances and teachings as the case may require to the notice of the Church. Usually the Lord does this through the pertinent star-member's refuting before the Church the false teachings of antitypical Miriam and Aaron whereby they have contradicted Jesus as He speaks through His mouthpiece and thus by act presumed to be our Lord's equal as a mouthpiece for God. E.g., He has time and again been allowing one Levite after another, and that more markedly, and in some cases some Priests, and that less markedly, to teach that the invitations to the high calling are still being issued, and increasingly, as point after point thereon becomes due, He has been publicly giving the Truth with its proofs that such invitations ceased by Oct., 1914. This Truth as due in its various parts the Lord Jesus has been giving through the Epiphany messenger; and as the latter, as Jesus' eye, mouth and hand, set them forth, the Levites and some priests have contradicted the teaching, but have been quite unable to meet the proofs. And at each stage of their contradiction they are refuted (the Lord coming down in the cloudy pillar), and consequently the Lord brings their case before the whole Church (His standing in the door of the tabernacle). He calls antitypical Miriam and Aaron to stand forth as separate and distinct from the antitypical Moses as He speaks through His eye, hand 

The Parousia Messenger. 


and mouth, by manipulating the circumstances of the sifting in such a way as to bring them into prominence as such contradictors and to cause the friends to see that they are in a movement separate and distinct from our Lord as He speaks through the pertinent officiating star-member. Their coming into such a separate and distinct position is typed by Miriam and Aaron stepping forth, away from Moses (and they both came forth, v. 5). 

(17) In vs. 6-8 God shows the difference that existed between the ordinary prophets and Moses. V. 6 shows the privileges and limitations of the ordinary prophets. Their privileges and limitations and the distinction between them and Moses God asks Miriam and Aaron to note carefully (Hear now My words, v. 6), since they are the Divine Truth on the subject. Antitypically, God in connection with the Truth as due on the pertinent subject gives the Scriptural proof for the Truth on the privileges and limitations of the antitypical prophets—the pilgrims, auxiliary pilgrims and some of the abler local elders—and the privileges of our Lord as He speaks through His special mouth, eye and hand. These God has exhorted antitypical Miriam and Aaron carefully to note (Hear now My words). He has done this by pertinent exhortations that have come to them through our Lord's speaking through the officiating star-members and by the Scripture proofs that He offers through them. The privileges of ordinary prophets in Israel as mouthpieces of the Lord are in v. 6 given as two: (1) the Lord would make Himself known to them in a vision and speak to them in a dream. This statement suggests that there is a distinction between a vision and a dream, both typical and antitypical. A vision is an external scene that was made to pass before a prophet's physical eyes while he was awake. The book of Revelation is the most noted example of a vision found in the Bible. All prophets saw them.

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


(18) A prophetic dream was a mental operation that saw things with the mental eyes while the prophet slept. Joseph's dreams of his future greatness are examples of prophetic dreams. Antitypically there seems also to be a distinction between a dream and a vision. According to Joel 2:28 the Ancient Worthies will be favored with dreams as their Millennial revelations; and the Youthful Worthies will be favored with visions as their Millennial revelations. We think that the distinction here brought out is the same as that brought out typically in the distinction between the parts of the tabernacle that the Kohathites bore, who, from the standpoint of the Millennial picture, type the Millennial Ancient Worthies, and the parts of the tabernacle that the Gershonites bore, who, from the standpoint of the Millennial picture, type the Millennial Youthful Worthies. The things borne by the Kohathites were all invisible to the people, while most of the things borne by the Gershonites were visible to the people. Moreover, the things borne by the Kohathites were more detailed and sacred than those borne by the Gershonites. Hence the thought of the deeper and less deep is implied in the contrasts thereby suggested for the two sets of antitypes. In general the distinction in the antitype may be given as this: the Ancient Worthies will by Divine inspiration give the deeper features of the Millennial truths, while the Youthful Worthies will by Divine inspiration give the less deep features of the Millennial truths. So we understand the expression, "Your old men shall dream dreams; and your young men shall see visions." The idea of deeper truths seems also to lie in the thought that to dream a dream is a mental operation, while the idea of less deep truths seems to lie in the thought that to see a vision is a physical operation. 

(19) What we have just said on the difference between an antitypical vision and an antitypical dream does not tell us precisely what such antitypical visions 

The Parousia Messenger. 


and dreams are; for there are also deep and less deep truths in the Bible that are neither antitypical visions nor dreams; for as we look at the antitypical dreams and visions that the Lord has revealed to the antitypical prophets—the pilgrims, auxiliary pilgrims and the more prominent elders—we find in every case that they are things stated either in symbolic language or in dark sayings. Hence the visions and dreams that the Lord has during the Gospel Age been making known to the general teachers and certain local elders of the Church who have not been star-members have in every case been Biblical things expressed in symbolic language or in dark sayings. Such things are types, figures, parables, hidden prophecies, tableaus, representations and enigmatical sayings. The Bible abounds in such things, which is one reason why it is so ambiguous a book. In this verse (v. 6) God promises that He would favor the Gospel-Age general elders who are not star-members and certain local elders with an understanding of some, not all, visions and dreams, the less deep of types, figures, parables, hidden prophecies, tableaus, representations and enigmatical sayings being the visions, and the deeper of them being the dreams. This promise of v. 6 our Lord also tells us He will fulfill in every scribe instructed unto the kingdom, when He says that He will make known to him "things new" (Matt. 13:52). Accordingly, the Lord has promised each one of the general elders, including the non-star-members, and the more prominent local elders, that they would see something in the way of an antitypical vision or dream before any others of His people would see it—"things new." This promise has had its fulfillment all through the Gospel Age, particularly during the Jewish Harvest, and most particularly during the Gospel Harvest. The columns of The Tower in the Parousia show many cases wherein God fulfilled this promise. 

(20) Nor are we to understand from the fact that 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


v. 6 promises such visions and dreams to the non-star-members among the general elders and the more prominent among the local elders and from the fact that vs. 7, 8 do not mention such visions and dreams as given to our Lord as He speaks through the star-members, that such star-members would not have such visions and dreams; for the facts prove, e.g., as in the case of that Servant, that they have more of these by far than all of their contemporary non-star-membered general elders and prominent local elders combined. Rather, we are to understand that the omission of their mention in connection with our Lord's speaking through the star-members is due to the fact that their differing privileges are given, not such as they have in common, and also to the fact that their differing privileges are so much greater than those of the pertinent non-star-member elders, that what they have individually in common is small indeed, so small that their mention is omitted. In other words, there is an ocean-wide difference between the pertinent privileges of the non-star-membered general elders and certain local elders on the one hand and of the star-members on the other hand as to mouthpieceship. Again, we know that such star-members have greater privileges in seeing first antitypical visions and dreams than the non-star-membered general elders and certain prominent local elders have, from the fact that they ordinarily and generally, as the special mouthpieces of Jesus, who in ultimate analysis is the sole Interpreter of the Bible (1 Cor. 1:30; Rev. 5-10), are His agents in interpreting the Scriptures as due. Again, in an emphatic sense the non-star-membered general elders and certain prominent local elders are by their subordination to the star-members obligated first to present their understanding of "things new" to the star members for sanction before presenting them to the brethren in general; for since Satan often gives counterfeit new light to such non-star-membered elders for genuine 

The Parousia Messenger. 


new light, the safety of such non-star-membered elders and of the flock requires that such real and alleged "things new" be first referred to the officiating star-member by the pertinent non-star-membered elders for examination as to whether they are genuine or counterfeit new things. 

(21) Above we mentioned the fact that The Tower during the Parousia furnishes us evidence that some antitypical visions and dreams as new things were given to non-star-membered elders—the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims and prominent local elders. Yea, there are not a few instances of such that never appeared in The Tower. We will now give a number of illustrations which prove that God did fulfill the antitype of His statement in v. 6—did give pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims and certain elders such antitypical visions and dreams. Sometimes He did this to them while they were on the way of becoming, but before they became pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims, but so far as we know the facts of fulfillment the scribes of Matt. 13:52 seem to be almost entirely limited to such brothers; for, so far as we know the facts, local elders who never became general elders were with some exceptions not favored with seeing "things new"—the antitypical visions and dreams. These exceptions were especially prominent and zealous elders. Bro. Barton was favored with a number of such dreams and visions. An account of one of these—one on Is. 18:1, 2, 7—is given in Z '04, 230-232. See also the comments. In that article Bro. Barton showed how in vs. 1, 2 and 7 the Harvest work as furthered by the Truth literature is described. What he saw in these verses and wrote out was an antitypical dream. Please note the highly figurative language in which this dream is clothed in Is. 18:1, 2, 7. We might instance another antitypical dream (in the form of a dark saying) that Bro. Barton had on Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21, 22. It is published in Z '10, 315, 316. In this 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


article, which contains the antitypical dream written out, Bro. Barton shows that Satan, the strong man, was bound by our Lord, the stronger man, between Oct., 1874, and April, 1878, because in April, 1878, the spoiling of his house began, which the passage tells us could not take place, unless first the strong man was bound. 

(22) Another illustration of such non-star-membered general elders having antitypical visions and dreams is that of Bros. John and Morton Edgar. In 1904 a Swiss brother went wrong on the Chronology, especially on the 19 years on which the P.B.I. later went wrong, and worked out such a sophistical new view of it that it puzzled Bro. Russell (antitypical David) very much and he was at a loss to refute it thoroughly (2 Sam. 21:15-17). This view of the Chronology was presented to Bro. John Edgar, and it led him, with Bro. Morton Edgar co-operating, to make a very searching investigation of the Chronology as presented in Vol. II. His study of the subject on the basis of Bro. Russell's chronology led him to see very many confirmations of that chronology and to bring out many details not before seen, whereby he completely refuted the position of the Swiss brother (Abishai smote the Philistine and killed him). His investigations led him to see many Pyramid confirmations of the Plan and the Chronology not previously seen. All of these have been published in the two-volumed work entitled, The Great Pyramid Passages, by John and Morton Edgar, though articles on these subjects from Bro. John Edgar's pen previously appeared in Z '05, 179-185, and in the 1906 Convention Report. In these investigations and discoveries of new confirmations to the Chronology and to the Plan in the Pyramid Bro. John Edgar, while the leader in that work, was ably assisted by his Brother, Morton Edgar, who, because Bro. John Edgar died shortly after Vol. I of The Great Pyramid Passages was finished, became the sole 

The Parousia Messenger. 


author of its second volume, though Bro. John Edgar was of the two brothers the main finder of its "things new." Thus we see how both of the Edgar brothers were in this matter favored with the seeing of some visions and dreams as antitypical prophets. We heartily recommend their work, The Great Pyramid Passages, especially in its first edition. We made a careful study of it in its first edition, but apart from small parts of Vol. 2 have not read the second edition, which we understand, especially in Vol. 2, has undergone some changes. We understand that Bro. Morton Edgar repudiates what he inserted into the second edition of Vol. 2 on the millions-now-living proposition. He revised and published the work as the second edition while still with the Society and sought to justify its millions proposition. The Society's president still holds to the millions proposition, apart from a date, and claims that these millions are his (new) Great Company, who, he claims, are not a spiritual class, but his so-called Jonadabs, unconsecrated people who are interested in the Society's message, and who are given as their ambition the hope of surviving Armageddon. 

(23) Walter Bundy was given an antitypical vision—the understanding of the parable of the lost piece of silver—as a thing new. We will give here a brief summary of it. According to his understanding, the woman of the parable (Luke 15:8-10) represents the Church, the ten pieces of silver the ten main Biblical doctrines (the ten strings of the harp of God). Nine of these doctrines were never wholly lost to the Church, though there accumulated much symbolic tarnish on them. But one of them, restitution, was wholly lost for centuries to the Church. The sweeping of the house and the search for the lost piece of silver (truth on restitution) represents the cleansing of the Bible teachings from errors of the Dark Ages and the search of the Bible, the dwelling place of the Church, for a better future than eternal torment for those who died without ever 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


having come into Christ. This search resulted in the finding of the Truth (silver coin) on restitution, as in the parable the woman's search for her lost piece of silver resulted in her finding it. Her joy over finding it symbolizes the Church's joy over finding that restitution was the hope for the world, instead of its future being eternal torment. Her telling her friends and neighbors of her find and her inviting them to rejoice with her represents the Church preaching restitution as the rediscovered Bible truth, giving hope for the world, and inviting those to whom she preached to join with her in rejoicing thereover. The idea of restitution implies the repentance of this class, the "one sinner" of v. 10, whose repentance will cause joy in heaven. If we may be permitted to set forth, among others, three privileges that we have had along this line during the Parousia, we will give the following: The day after we had our debate (2 Sam. 21:20, 21) with M.L. McPhail on the covenants, April 19, 1909, in the presence of about 150 members of the Chicago Ecclesia, after most of the audience had left, following the end of the afternoon service, the Lord opened up to us the five calls of the Penny parable (Matt. 20:1-16), their dates, character and agencies, and the steward of that parable. All of the other parts of the parable remained sealed to us until June, 1914, when the first of these, its evening, became clear to us as teaching the Church's remaining in the world for some time after 1914. In 1917 the Lord opened up the murmuring of the parable to us. He gave Bro. Russell in 1915 the privilege of seeing what the penny was and what its twofold distribution was—the privilege of smiting Jordan, and that in its two times. Doubtless the Lord gave it to him, so as to give that thought greater prestige during the subsequent sifting than had He given it first to us. From a brother in Chicago we got a hint that the day of the parable might be the reaping period (1874-1914) and that, accordingly, each 

The Parousia Messenger. 


of its hours might be a twelfth of 40 years. We presented the view of the parable to Bro. Russell, who endorsed it. The next year the Lord gave us to see the five calls set forth as one general work and the five siftings set forth as separate and distinct in 1 Cor. 10:1-14. We wrote this matter out, the fifth sifting in considerable detail, and handed it to our Pastor, who published an abstract of it in Z '13, 198-200. The Lord, among other things, gave us, as an antitypical dark saying, to understand the prophets of Eph. 2:20, as a part of the antitypical Temple, to mean the Church's general elders, particularly the star-members. This that Servant endorsed. 

(24) In pars. 21-23 we gave a number of illustrations of how God gave antitypical visions and dreams to some of the pilgrims. He gave some of these to each of them, even though we have given only a limited number of illustrations of these. It would be in place also to cite some cases in which He gave such dreams and visions to auxiliary pilgrims. The three cases we will give, as a matter of fact, received these while they were on the way to become such. One of these is Milton Riemer, whom the Lord, on the basis of Ex. 30:22-33; 31:2-5; Is. 11:2, 3; Eccl. 9:10; Col. 1:9-11, gave an understanding of the antitypical meaning of the spices and their proportions used in the oil whereby the priests were anointed. He properly sent his understanding of this antitypical dream to our Pastor, who published it in Z '07, 349, 350. He was given this antitypical dream before he was appointed an auxiliary pilgrim, but was evidently on the way to become one. Our readers will profit from a study of his letter. Another brother, likewise while on the way to become an auxiliary pilgrim and before he became such, was also given a number of antitypical visions and dreams. We refer to C. B. Shull, of Columbus, Ohio. The Lord gave him to understand a number of things in the book of Revelation. The most important of these was that

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


the seven vials (bowls) of Rev. 15 and 16 represent the Seven Volumes. He wrote out his understanding of these and sent it to our Pastor. The latter never published Bro. Shull's letter, but in a private conversation with us he expressed approval of the general thought of that view, i.e., that the seven vials represent the Seven Volumes. Whether Bro. Shull saw it or not, we do not know, but the seven vials do not represent the Seven Volumes in all their aspects, but only as symbolic bowls, i.e., as controversial writings, those features of the Scripture teachings that are covered by the word reproof (refutation of error) in 2 Tim. 3:15-17. Thus these volumes as refutations of errors are Divinely approved. Many have considered Vol. VII as impossible to be Divinely approved in any sense, because of its many errors. We agree that from many standpoints it is certainly not to be approved; but from the standpoint of its being an antitypical bowl, i.e., in so far as it refuted Babylon's errors, it certainly is a symbolic bowl, and it certainly did plague the antitypical air—the ruling powers in state, church, aristocracy and capital. In this respect it is Divinely approved, but not, e.g., as a symbolic cup—doctrinal teaching. A dark saying that the Lord opened to Bro. Shull was the word torment as used in Rev. 20:10; 14:10, 11, in the sense of try, test. Bro. Russell also approved of this; and we gave the interpretation in L-D-H, in the note on pages 86, 87. Bro. Fowler, a prominent elder of the Washington, D.C., ecclesia, was given an antitypical vision: Elijah's twofold feeding (1 Kings 19:5-8), and journeying 40 days to the mount of God, as typical of the feeding on the Miller and Harvest messages and coming in the 40 years (1874-1914) to the Kingdom, which we have learned means coming to the condition that assures the Church from 1914 onward that all faithful till then will overcome. 

(25) Looking back over the part of the chapter that 

The Parousia Messenger. 


we have so far studied, and keeping in mind the suggested antitypes of its various parts, we must be struck by the factualness of the interpretation. From Heb. 3:1-6 (the expression, Apostle … of our profession, in v. 1, refers to the Lord Jesus as God's Mouthpiece and Executive, even as the two functions of the office of the Twelve Apostles were executive and interpretative) we see, from the fact that vs. 2, 5 are an allusion to v. 7 of Num. 12, that in this Chapter Moses types our Lord as God's Mouthpiece and Executive. From a multitude of facts, particularly from the fact that Miriam became leprous (vs. 10-16), and from what Lev. 13 and 14 show of her kind of leprosy, i.e., that it represents Great Company uncleanliness, we are warranted in regarding her as a type of leading Great Company members. See Vol. III, Chap. IV. From the fact of Aaron's lesser participation in the sins described in vs. 1, 2 ("And Miriam speaketh—Aaron also—against Moses, etc."—Young's translation) and from the fact of his not becoming leprous and from certain fulfilled facts, we are warranted in understanding him here to type certain leading Little Flock members. From Zipporah's relation to Moses (v. 1) and the fact that many of the more obscure members of Christ have by certain new creatures been considered unfit for the Bride, we are warranted in regarding her here as a type of such. Facts further show that our Lord has been faulted by the course of certain new creatures for some of the selections for His Bride, and that He has been much contradicted by such new creatures as He has spoken through the star-members, particularly during the Parousia and Epiphany (v. 2). 

(26) Furthermore, it is apparent that the Lord has given disapproving attention to such antitypical murmuring and contradictions (v. 2). It is also factual that as Moses was toward God the meekest man on earth, so our Lord has been toward God the meekest Being in the universe (v. 3). It is also a fact that God

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


has brought the antitypical three forward before the entire Church when taking the matter up for His public disposal of the case (v. 4). It is also a fact that God by our Lord has shown Himself active in connection with the advancing pertinent Truth, has done this before the entire Church and in so doing has caused the involved new creatures to take a stand separate and distinct from our Lord as He has spoken through star-members (v. 5). It is also a fact that God has caused the truth to be proclaimed that the privileges of the non-star-membered general and certain local teachers as to discovering new truths have been limited to certain parables, types, figures, hidden prophecies, tableaus, representations and enigmatical sayings. And not only is it a fact that such teachings have been given by the Lord, especially during the Parousia and Epiphany, but it is also a fact that the Lord has in fulfillment of the statements of Num. 12:6 and Matt. 13:52 given such new truths to the non-star-membered general elders and to some especially prominent elders who never became general elders. Accordingly, we see that in every detail of the exposition of Num. 12 so far given, our interpretation is proven to be Scriptural, reasonable and factual. Hence it has the qualities that prove it to be the proper exposition of the chapter so far studied. And as we go on with our study, we will find the rest of the exposition Scriptural and factual. 

(27) We have seen that in v. 6 God set forth the limits within which He would make Himself known and would speak to prophets—He would make Himself known to them by visions and speak to them in dreams. Beyond these limits He would not reveal matters to them. According to v. 7 God did not limit His revelations to Moses to visions and dreams. We have seen that v. 7 does not mean that God would not make Himself known to Moses by visions and speak to him in dreams; rather, as the contrast suggests, He did not limit these revelations made to Moses to visions and

The Parousia Messenger. 


dreams. Additionally He favored Moses with revelations communicated in more familiar ways. Antitypically, this means that God would not limit His revelations imparted to our Lord as acting in the star-members to visions and dreams. Hence v. 7 does not mean that God would not give our Lord acting in the star-members visions and dreams; for we know that in ultimate analysis Jesus is the only Interpreter of God's Word from God to us, and that whatever of visions and dreams are truly interpreted to the Church from God come through Jesus, the Teacher to the Church (Matt. 23:8; 1 Cor. 1:30). This fact, as well as the contrast between v. 6 on the one hand, and vs. 7 and 8 on the other hand, prove that revelations to Christ acting in the star-members do not exclude, but are not limited to visions and dreams. The fact that Jesus by St. Paul and our Pastor as star-members gave the Church true interpretations of more visions and dreams than all the non-star-membered teachers of the Church combined gave, factually proves the thought to be true that Jesus speaking in the star-members is neither limited to, nor excluded from, revelations in the form of visions and dreams. This, then, is the force of the words, "My servant Moses is not so [limited]." 

(28) The fact that in Num. 12 Moses types our Lord as God's Mouthpiece, Executive and Leader for Spiritual Israel, acting in the star-members, gives a deeper antitypical meaning to the words, "who is faithful in all My house," than the words would have, if he were not here so typed. If He were here typed as God's Mouthpiece, Executive and Leader for Spiritual Israel apart from His activities by the star-members, the passage would limit the faithfulness here described to our Lord alone. Undoubtedly He is included in the expression, and that in the highest sense of the word possible; but the viewpoint of this chapter connects His faithfulness with the star-members as working through them; and therefore it also implies their faithfulness as

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


star-members, while they act officially as such. When we speak of their faithfulness we do not mean that theirs has been flawless, as our Lord's has been and is, but such faithfulness as is needed for overcoming on the part of star-members, which means faithfulness of a larger than ordinary measure—one that increases the one pound to ten pounds. Accordingly, from the standpoint of this chapter we understand this passage to teach that all 49 star-members are set forth as faithful (see Chap. 1). We have direct statements in the Bible that this is true of 13 of them—the twelve Apostles and that Servant. (Rev. 21:14; Matt. 24:45; Luke 12:42 [faithful].) And the way this chapter presents our Lord as to the star-members, combined with the antitypical statement of v. 7 and the antitypical facts of v. 8, proves, though in a less clear way, that this is true of the other 36 star-members. By this, of course, we do not mean that these 49 brothers could not have fallen, but that they have been so faithful that they have not fallen. The antitypical house—the house of God—St. Paul directly tells us is the Church (Heb. 3:2, 6). Hence in Christ's ministry exercised in the star-members He and they have been faithful. Hence we conclude that only such new creatures were chosen to be star-members as God foreknew would be faithful—a thing that is not only directly implied by Christ's statements of 13 of them—of 12 of them in Matt. 19:28 and John 17:12, in the case of John and James (Mark 10:39), in the case of John (Rev. 21:14) and in the case of that Servant (Matt. 24:45; Luke 12:42), but is also implied of all 49 in vs. 7 and 8. 

(29) Having seen that Jesus exercises in the star-members the privileges of visions and dreams, and that in a higher measure than He does in any non-star-membered servants of the Church, general or local, we are now prepared to see what His unique privileges are as He acts through the star-members. These are set forth in v. 8 typically. Moses was privileged to have 

The Parousia Messenger. 


God speak to him (1) mouth to mouth, (2) even plainly and not enigmatically, and (3) to see the similitude of God. These three privileges God says He would not give to a prophet, but would limit them to Moses. Let us look at each of these three privileges antitypically in turn and therein we will see the special privileges of our Lord as He acts as God's Mouthpiece in the star-members. First, then, what is meant by the expression, "With him I will speak mouth to mouth"? To make clear this expression certain explanations will have to be made. Primarily Jesus as Logos was, and as Christ has been and is, God's mouth. The term Logos, Word, implies this as to His pre-human condition (John 1:1), and the term Christ (Is. 61:1, 2) implies this for His post-Logos condition. The Bible in many ways shows that He is God's mouthpiece, i.e., mouth (Rev. 1:1; 5:7-9, 12; Matt. 23:8; John 1:9, 18; 3:32; 13:3; 1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 2:3; Deut. 18:18, 19; Is. 11:2, 3; 50:4). Hence God revealed His thoughts usually through Jesus in the Old Testament times, and exclusively through Him in the New Testament times (Rev. 5:5-9, 12). What God revealed through Him God reduced to writing as the Bible. Hence, secondarily, being the depository of the revelations that God made through Him, the Bible is God's mouth (Deut. 8:3; Ps. 45:1; 105:5; 119:13, 72, 88; 138:4; Is. 1:20; 30:2; 45:23; 48:3; 55:11; 62:2; Matt. 4:4; 2 Thes. 2:8). Hence we understand the first use of the word mouth in v. 8 antitypically to mean the Bible as God's mouth. The second use of the word mouth in v. 8 antitypically refers to Jesus' mouth. To the world Jesus' mouth was up to 1917 the Church, and since 1917 the Great Company; but to the General Church Jesus' mouth specifically has been the star-members, even as they have also been up to 1917 the leading part of the Church as Christ's mouth to the world. This is the thought implied in the seven letters to the seven churches as written for [the proper translation] the angels of these 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


seven churches (Rev. 2, 3). It is the thought implied in the seven stars' being held in Jesus' right hand (Rev. 1:16, 20), and it is the thought implied in Aholiab's being the special and only named assistant of Bezaleel (Ex. 31:2, 6). This is especially, though not exclusively, the thought implied in the expression prophets in Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11. 

(30) We are now prepared to see what is meant antitypically by God's speaking mouth to mouth, with Moses. It means that Jesus by the star-members as His mouth would speak to God, who speaks in the Bible as His mouth, and that God in the Bible would speak to Jesus in the star-members as His mouth. What is meant by the statement that Jesus by the star-members as His mouth would speak to God, who speaks to Him in them by the Bible as His mouth? First, that Jesus has stirred up in their minds the questions pertinent to those truths that are about due, and, second, that they have searched the Scriptures for the answer to these questions; for such a searching is a speaking in question form to God in His mouth, the Bible. Thus Jesus by His mouth (the star-members) speaks to God's mouth (the Bible). And what is meant by God speaking through the Bible, His mouth, to Jesus in His mouth, the star-members? God speaking through Jesus, His Interpreter, by the Bible (God's mouth) to Jesus in His mouth (the star-members), i.e., God giving by Jesus, through the Bible, His answers to the questions on the Truth as due, which questions Jesus has stirred up in the minds of the star-members, as His mouth, to put to the Bible, as God's mouth. In other words, it has been their privilege as Jesus' mouth to study the Bible directly and to get from such study the Divinely due Truth from the Bible, as God's mouth, directly. This is a privilege not given to the non-star-membered servants of the Truth, who whenever they get something new get it not by direct Bible study, but by sudden Divine illumination. It is as though they had 

The Parousia Messenger. 


stumbled upon such new things; for it suddenly flashes through their minds, as though by accident. For them to attempt to speak mouth to mouth with God would be the solemnly forbidden gazing, speculation, of Ex. 19:21. We can readily see why they cannot speak mouth to mouth with God: Jesus being the sole Interpreter of the Bible, and God forbidding such gazing, He does not directly from the Bible answer the queries with which they approach it. But He does answer through the Bible the questions of the star-members as due, put by them to Him in the Bible as His mouth. This is one of the three unique privileges of such star-members while acting as such, i.e., as Jesus' mouth. 

(31) It is a widely held view, both among some Truth people and among Protestants, that it is the privilege of all Christians to do direct Bible study, i.e., to use the Bible as a text-book, both privately and publicly, and from such study to learn the Truth. Thus they treat the Bible as a text-book, and not as a book of texts. The Bible certainly is not a text-book, and therefore should not be treated as such. A little consideration will show this. A text-book is a logical progressive and orderly treatise on some branch of learning. Any arithmetic will serve as an illustration. In it the subjects are presented as they logically belong together; each line of thought is kept separate and distinct. The subjects are presented so as to progress in each one from the simpler to the more complex, and in their relations so that one leads up to the next. They are never mixed up, but each one follows in its proper order. In these ways the entire subject of arithmetic is presented in such a text-book. The same general course is followed in every other rightly prepared textbook. But the Bible is not so arranged. In no one place in the Bible is everything on any given subject found, let alone discussed in its logical and progressive order. Rather it is treated "here a little, there a little." Take any one of its subjects, like faith, repentance, justification, 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, man, the ransom, etc., and it will be found that its thoughts are scattered all about the Bible in connection with other subjects whose subject matter also is given in many scattered places in connection with still other subjects, also presented piecemeal, etc., etc. It is for this reason that the Bible to the non-star-helped student is the most complicated, mixed-up book in existence. It is more of a puzzle than a thousand Chinese puzzles combined into one. And Chinese puzzles are generally considered the most complicated of human inventions. We say this of the Bible reverently. Hence it is certainly not a text-book; it is a book of scattered, disjointed, crazy-quilted and often enigmatical texts. 

(32) Both from the facts of experience and from the Bible this is seen to be true. Is not the fact that there are hundreds of sects, all basing their creeds on the Bible, yet contradicting one another, a proof that the Bible is not a text-book, but a book of more or less scattered, disjointed, crazy-quilted and enigmatical texts? Does not the fact that those classes that take up a Bible book and study it verse by verse and chapter by chapter often come to as many opinions on the meaning of many verses as there are members in these classes, prove that the Bible is not a text-book, but a book of more or less scattered, disjointed, crazy-quilted and enigmatical texts? And is not the same thing evident from private text-bookistic study of the Bible? Do not the contradictory results of the studies of Levite leaders prove the same thing? And do not the mistakes of star-members in presenting things before due prove this same proposition? These facts certainly prove that the Bible is not so plain that the wayfaring man though a fool will not err therein (Is. 35:8). And this is what the Bible itself teaches on the subject. St. Paul (1 Cor. 13:12) says of Christians as to the Bible: "We now see through a glass, darkly," literally, enigmatically. Again, he says in 1 Cor. 2:7: "We speak the

The Parousia Messenger. 


wisdom of God in a mystery." Jesus speaks to the same effect in Matt. 13:35: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret [in the Old Testament] from the foundation of the world." Is. 28:10-13 tells us the same. The Bible has indeed been given as follows: "Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." Vs. 9, 10 show that this structure of the Bible is made so as to give the faithful the kind of teaching calculated to help them trialfully, while v. 13 shows that it is also intended to stumble the unworthy. St. Paul and David give this same testimony (Rom. 11:9, 10). There is a good reason why this should be true of the structure of the Bible: God knew that the Bible would come into the hands of billions, whom, for the most part, He did not wish to understand it. His reasons for this are gracious: It would be good for the Church as a test of character, especially along the lines of faith, meekness, humility, reverence and obedience; and it would be good for the world, the unbelief class; for if they were now, in a faith dispensation, to understand the Bible, they would inevitably misuse it, which might ultimately result in their losing everlasting life when put on trial therefore in the Millennium. Hence God has constructed the Bible enigmatically, so that they might not understand it, and thus be reserved for a trial for life with better prospects for success in a dispensation in which they can be saved, if they will. "He hath done all things well!" Hence the Bible is not a text-book; but it is a book of texts. 

(33) If the Bible is not a text-book it should not be studied as such. Such study of it must result in evil; for it is a misuse of it; and to misuse it, of course, brings evil results. If the text-bookistic study of the Bible is harmful to the Lord's people, should they study the Bible at all? That they should study it is evident from the fact that its study is commanded in, 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


and approved by the Bible (John 5:39; Is. 8:20; 30:21; Deut. 29:29; 31:10-13; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Acts 8:28, 30; 17:11; Ps. 1:2; 119:96-100, 103, 105, 140; 147:19; Jer. 15:16; Ezek. 3:10; Luke 11:28; Rom. 15:4; 2 Pet. 3:2; Rev. 1:3). These Scriptures show that it should be regarded and studied as the source and rule of faith and practice. But how should it be studied? We answer: It should be studied as it is—as a book of texts. If one asks, What is meant by studying it as a book of texts? we reply: Studying it like the Bereans of old. This is seen in Acts 17:11, where the Bereans are commended as more noble than the Thessalonians, because they listened with all readiness of mind to the things preached to them by Paul and daily searched in the Scriptures to see whether the things that he declared to them were true. Here we have the Divinely approved method of Bible study: (1) a star-member of Jesus' mouth explains the Divine message, the Word of God; (2) good attention with a ready mind is given to his presentations, and (3) daily search is made in the Scriptures to see whether these teachings come from, and are in harmony with the Bible. Why is this the correct method? Because Jesus, the only true Interpreter of God's Word, almost always, and almost entirely, in the first instance gives the Truth as due through the star-members. Hence the first thing necessary in Bible study is to put oneself in contact with the star-member officiating in his time. This is done sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously. In the latter instance Jesus manipulates the true-hearted in a way to bring such in contact with the officiating star-member, either personally or in some of those who recognize him as such, or in his writings. Even when direct or indirect personal contact is established, usually the main contact is in the star-member's writings. 

(34) These three methods can be seen operating especially in the Parousia and in the Epiphany. Hence, 

The Parousia Messenger. 


usually, the Parousia messenger's and the Epiphany messenger's writings, as main points of contact, are to be used as the text books for Bible study. These writings abound in Scriptural passages cited or quoted as proofs. Hence what they say should be subjected to the test of the Bible as a book of texts; and their teachings and those of the other star-members, who ministered before their times, must be studied with all readiness of mind, with the object in view of determining whether their teachings originate from, and are in harmony with the Scriptures. Such is real Bible study; and as such is fruitful unto increase in knowledge, grace and service. Hence the Berean method of Bible study is the ideal one, and that is the one that the noble Bereans of old practiced. But why, additional to the reason given above, is that not fruitful Bible study which studies it as a text-book? Because God will not talk to all mouth to mouth; He talks that way to Jesus only, as the latter speaks through His mouth, the star-members. Consequently, Jesus does not directly interpret the Word in such study, and consequently instead of such study yielding Truth it produces error. Only to the star-members will direct Bible study result in blessing, for He is the One who does it in them with the Truth, and that as it is due. Hence all non-star-membered brethren, regardless of whether they are teachers in the Church or not, if they pursue text-bookism, the study of the Bible as a text-book, will thereby go into error. Their study of the Bible should be to investigate with readiness of mind the teachings of the star-members to learn if they are true, and when they find them true to seek further corroboration of them from Scriptures not cited or quoted by them for proof, which is particularly the privilege of the non-star-membered teachers in the Church. It is because of pursuing text-bookism that false teachers and sifters have arisen in the Church, as e.g., the Parousia and Epiphany experiences so abundantly prove. This 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


accounts for the many errors of the Levite leaders of the present, not a few of whom advocate text-bookism—the study of the Bible by the brethren as a text-book. For our Pastor's thought on this subject please see Z '10, 298, pars. 3-5, 8. 

(35) It is most necessary that students of the Bible as a book of texts study the star-members' writings, like the noble Bereans, with all readiness of mind, else they will get no lasting blessing from their study. There are especially six qualities necessary to constitute all readiness of mind: Humility (Matt. 11:25), meekness (Ps. 25:9), hunger (Matt. 5:6), honesty and goodness (Luke 8:15), and reverence (Ps. 25:14). Humility is needed, because with it one feels his lacks and his need of God, Christ, the Bible and the star-member's teaching. Meekness is necessary, because it furnishes the teachableness of mind and submissiveness of heart that will make him open and responsive to the proper teachings. Hunger for Truth and righteousness—strong yearning for them—is needed to make one's love for these strong enough to overcome the obstacles in the way of his attaining the Truth. Honesty of mind and heart are needed to accept as true the Truth, since a dishonest heart naturally impinges against the Truth, while an honest heart has affinity to the Truth. Reverence is needed, because without it one is not, and with it is rewarded by God with the Truth. And, finally, goodness of heart is needed, because, as like likes like, the Truth being an expression of goodness, a good heart naturally appreciates it. Such are the heart qualities necessary for one to have to receive blessing from the Divinely approved method of Bible study. And not only is such a heart needed to get the Truth initially, but it is also necessary to get it progressively, as it is the one needed to retain the Truth received. The reason why people who once had the Truth lose it is that they have lost these

The Parousia Messenger. 


heart qualities. But with these heart qualities retained one becomes a real Berean student of the Bible. 

(36) We know that not a few Truth people and almost all Protestants will deny the view of Bible study that we have just expounded, insisting on studying the Bible as a text-book. But while our view of it is the Scriptural one (Acts 8:27-35; 17:11), their view is condemned by the Bible; for their view makes one inevitably a speculator, and whoever speculates does a Divinely forbidden thing. God, foreknowing that there would be much speculation during the Parousia and the Epiphany, gives us a special warning against it in Ex. 19:21-25. The typical setting and chronology of this event is immediately before the giving of the Law Covenant; and St. Paul's reference to it—type and antitype—in Heb. 12:18-29, shows that the antitype refers to the end of the Age—the Parousia and the Epiphany. This is also typically shown by the expression of v. 16: "On the third day in the morning." That the Epiphany is also included antitypically in this expression is evident from the fact of the thick cloud (v. 16) and the mountain's being on fire (the great tribulation, 1914-1954), the earthquake (Armageddon; v. 18) and the trumpet (the seventh; v. 19) sounding long (covering at least the Parousia and the Epiphany; v. 13). In fact, the seventh trumpet began to sound in 1874 and will continue to sound until 2874. Hence, we know that the scene here is Parousiac and Epiphaniac. The bounds that Moses set (vs. 12, 23) correspond to (1) the antitypical Curtain, that shuts off the view of the antitypical Court from those in the antitypical Camp; (2) the antitypical First Vail, that shuts off the view of the Holy from those in the antitypical Court; and (3) the antitypical Second Vail, that shuts off the antitypical Most Holy from those in the antitypical Holy. V. 21 types God's Parousia and Epiphany charge against any attempt to break through these antitypical bounds and gaze, i.e., speculate. The

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


Latin word speculare, from which our word speculate is derived, means to gaze with one's mental eyes; and to speculate in a religious sense means to gaze into the unknown and forbidden with the mental eyes. The antitype of this charge is easily recognized in the warnings given the Lord's people, both in the Parousia and in the Epiphany, not to speculate. God, Himself, has been giving this charge to Jesus, who has especially announced it through the Parousia and Epiphany messengers, others taking up the cry from them, and also sounding it. 

(37) V. 21 also shows the penalty of such gazing—"many of them perish." In the antitype this does not mean literal death, but a ceasing to exist in their former standing. E.g., Mr. Darwin, who was in the antitypical Camp, tried to gaze into the Most Holy and learn what method God used in creation. This caused him and "many" others to go into serious error and resultantly to perish as antitypical Camp members, by becoming infidels, whose place is outside the antitypical Camp. Many justified ones have speculated on matters pertinent to the Spirit-begotten and Spirit-born conditions (the antitypical Holy and Most Holy), which resulted in their and many others going into serious error, and which made them "perish," lose their justified condition and go back into the antitypical Camp. Many a Priest, speculating on matters not yet due in the Holy and on things in the Most Holy, and by such speculation seeking to set aside things due in the Holy, have lost their crowns and occasioned "many" others to do the same, and thus they perished as Priests and thus became of the Great Company. This we see exemplified on all sides in the Epiphany. Some of these have continued their speculations to such a degree as to cause themselves and others to perish as Great Company members, and thus became Second Deathers. Youthful Worthies have speculated themselves into perishing as such, have fallen back into the antitypical 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Camp, died as Youthful Worthies. Vs. 21, 22, 24 show that all these classes can do this evil thing—speculate—and reap its consequences—perish. V. 22 urges that especially the priests sanctify themselves, separate themselves from this evil of gazing. This corresponds to the many warnings given the antitypical Priests in the Parousia and the Epiphany not to speculate lest the Lord unpriest them. 

(38) Moses' saying (v. 23) to the Lord that the set bounds would prevent the people from dishallowing the mountain by coming up to it, types the fact that our Lord Jesus assured the Father that those in the antitypical Camp cannot see into the antitypical Court, that those in the antitypical Court cannot see into the antitypical Holy and that those in the antitypical Holy cannot see its matters before due, nor see into the antitypical Most Holy, all of which we recognize as true. But while this is true, Jehovah, nevertheless, knows that the attempt so to do would be made and that that attempt would bring the threatened punishment. Hence, He charged our Lord (v. 24) to go down and prevent the attempt (by moral suasion, of course). Then, in v. 24, God shows who might approach Him and who might not approach Him. Those who might approach Him were Moses and Aaron. Here Moses represents our Lord. Whom does Aaron type? Because the setting is both Parousiac and Epiphaniac, and because in these two periods two different star-members have officiated, the Parousia messenger and the Epiphany messenger, Aaron types both of these. What is typed by Moses' coming up to God? Our Lord's approaching the Father for the messages due in the Parousia and the Epiphany preparatory to His giving them to the people. Please note the different way Moses is represented as coming to God from that of Aaron's approach: "Thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee." This shows the subordinate position of Aaron relatively to that of Moses; and it types the subordination 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


of the Parousia and Epiphany messengers to Jesus in their approaching God. 

(39) But how have they done this? The contrast between Aaron and all the others, priests and people, what is forbidden the antitypes of the priests and people, and the office powers of these two messengers, suggest the answer. The antitypical Priests and people do their forbidden speculation mainly by a text-bookistic study of the Bible, while God, speaking mouth to mouth with Jesus as the latter speaks in the star-members, suggests that these two messengers (and all other star-members in their days had the same privilege, as their stewardship truths were due) could, in their direct Bible study, come to God as Jesus' subordinates to study in the Bible the features of Bible Truth about to become due. Thus, we see that these two and all other star-members have had privileges as to Bible study, denied all other brethren. We may be sure that this was not for their sakes. Rather, it was for the sake of the others, in whose interests they have gladly done the labor and endured the toil of their office. All through the Age the star-members have been the special targets of the devil, the world and the flesh. As their privilege of being Jesus' mouth, hand and eye has been great, so have their labors, suffering and dangers been great. They should not be envied for their office; for it is a most difficult and exacting one; but they should be all the more loved, prayed for and cooperated with, therefore; for they have delighted to bless the brethren and have used their office for that purpose, regardless of their resultant sufferings. None of them have felt proud of their position, nor disdainful of their less prominent brethren. All of them have felt that they were elder brothers who gladly exercised a loving watchcare over their younger brethren. And the faithful have always recognized this, have held them highly in love for their works' sake, and have supported them amid their toils and battles for the

The Parousia Messenger. 


Lord, the Truth and the brethren. Some will say that the Epiphany messenger is conceited for writing as he has just done. Nay, beloved, we so write, not for our, but for your sakes; for, as in the Parousia, the many attacks on our Pastor made the knowledge that he was that Servant, the Parousia messenger, helpful for the brethren to stand, so now in the Epiphany the many attacks on the Epiphany messenger make the knowledge that he is such helpful for the brethren to stand. We truthfully can say of ourself what a greater than we said of himself, "By the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). We feel deeply our own personal unworthiness. Our trust is in the grace of God, the High-Priestly ministry of Jesus and the participation of the Holy Spirit for fitness for our work. It is all of grace, for which God be praised! 

(40) The fact that these star-members have been our Lord's eye, mouth and hand makes them sustain a closer official and personal relation to Him than any other contemporary members of the Little Flock; and this is due both to their office under the Lord and to their greater faithfulness than the rest of the members of the Little Flock living in their individual times; for these have been preeminently the brethren who have increased their one pound to ten pounds and their five talents to ten talents. And it is because they are the eye, hand and mouth of the Lord Jesus that to them in the most particular sense the thought of Luke 10:16 applies: "He that heareth you heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me." This office, however, does not make them lords over God's heritage, even as St. Paul, the next most eminent of these 49 brothers, whose most eminent one was that Servant, says (2 Cor. 1:24): "Not that we lord it [the literal translation] over your faith, but we are co-workers of your joy." It is, among other reasons, because they lack the lording spirit and are as tender nurses to the babes, 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


and elder brothers to the adolescent and full-grown in the Little Flock, and are willing lovingly to serve all, that the Lord has promoted them to this office. Their faithfulness to Truth and righteousness has made them uncompromising in opposition to those who would injure the Church; but to the faithful they have been most loving and self-sacrificing; and thus, despite their natural infirmities, have under the Head given the Body members an example for imitation. And amid all their privileges they have recognized that they have not been lords, but that at most they have been His hand, eye and mouth. God and Him it has been their highest ambition to honor, serve and obey in the service of His body, for which they have taken pleasure in laying down life. Hence, the Lord has been able, for the interests of all concerned, to use them as His hand, eye and mouth. 

(41) In v. 8 the second unique privilege of Jesus acting in the star-members is also set forth, "I will speak … even plainly, and not enigmatically [literal translation]." Such was not the way (v. 6) that God says that He would speak to the typical prophets, but the reverse. But to Moses He did speak "even plainly, and not enigmatically." What does this mean antitypically? We reply: God would reveal to our Lord acting in the star-members the truths as due in understandable and reasonable ways, and not in ways that would baffle their reason or their understanding, i.e., not in incomprehensible ways. This means that these would so get the Truth by personal Bible study and that none others would so get it by personal Bible study. The nominal-church teachers claim that the Bible teaches many "mysteries" as incomprehensible things, e.g., the trinity, human immortality, eternal torment, absolute predestination and reprobation of individuals, the God-man theory, the real presence of Jesus' body and blood in the Lord's Supper, in which they are received by the communicants' literal mouths,

The Parousia Messenger. 


the omnipresence of Christ's humanity, the visibility of Christ's second advent during a 24-hour day to all of earth's inhabitants, a 24-hour judgment day, the resuscitation of the body that goes into the grave, etc. They use the word mystery to mean an incomprehensible, self-contradictory thing, which is not a Bible mystery, but is a Satanic mixuptery, Babylon, confusion, while the Bible uses the word to mean a secret not understood until revealed, and then comprehended. Hence, St. Paul speaks of one's understanding all mysteries (1 Cor. 13:2) and of the Ephesians' perceiving his understanding in the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3:3, 4, A. R. V.). Jesus tells the disciples that it was given to them to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13:11; Luke 8:10); and His explanations (Matt. 13:18-23, 37-43) of the parables of the four kinds of soil and of the wheat and tares as among such mysteries proves them to be comprehensible after they were explained. The mysteries of Israel's blindness (Rom. 11:25-32), of the Parousia saints as dying, but not sleeping (1 Cor. 15:51), of the oneness of Adam and Eve (Eph. 5:32), of the Christ as a company (Col. 1:26, 27), of God and Christ (2:2, 3), of the Christ (made manifest—4:3, 4), of iniquity (2 Thes. 2:7), of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16), of the seven stars and the seven candlesticks (Rev. 1:20) and of the woman (Rev. 17:5, 7), when explained, are all comprehensible. Hence, the nominal church definition of a Bible mystery is wrong. The Bible view of its mysteries is that they are secrets that, when explained, are reasonable. 

(42) From this we can see what is meant by the expression, "With him I will speak … even plainly, and not enigmatically." It means that Jehovah, when speaking to Jesus in the star-members, will not tell Him in them incomprehensible things, nor things of which He in them will have vague, indefinite notions, but will make them plain and comprehensible to Him in them. 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


How finely this is illustrated in the teachings of our Lord in these star-members. This we can see in Arius' teachings on the person of Christ, before, during and after His carnation, in opposition to the God-man theory; in Zwingli's teaching on the Lord's Supper, as against transubstantiationism; in Marsiglio's teaching on the headship of Jesus, as against that of the pope; in Servetus' doctrine of the unity of God, as against the trinity; in Hubmaier's teaching on exclusive believers' baptism, as against infant baptism; and, above all, in that Servant's whole setting of the doctrines of God's Plan. How beautifully plain they are! How free from the enigmas of "subtle theologians," whose "mixupteries" are supposed to be so deep! Yes, deep with the depths of Satan (Rev. 2:24)! And the Epiphany doctrines and its explanations of the pertinent Bible mysteries are also plain, clear and free from enigmas. If one comes to us teaching incomprehensible doctrines we may forthwith reject him as a messenger of Satan, presenting darkness for light. The Truth commends itself as such by its clarity and comprehensibility, while error, like the mole, always dodges into the hole of "mystery" at the approach of the Truth, which always commends itself to sound reason (Is. 1:18). Thus God speaks to Jesus in the star-members plainly, not enigmatically, i.e., whenever due the Truth is given plainly, comprehensibly, not enigmatically, incomprehensibly. 

(43) The third unique privilege of Jesus acting in the star-members is set forth in these words: "And the image of Jehovah shall he attentively behold [literal translation]." In the type this would mean that God would manifest Himself to Moses by a representation of Himself, a privilege that neither Aaron, as a prophet, nor any other prophet, could have, but that as high priest Aaron could have. This seems to refer to the Shekinah in the Most Holy as the medium of information. This privilege Aaron could have only when acting

The Parousia Messenger. 


as the type of the Church's and the World's High Priest. What is meant by Jesus acting in the star-members as attentively beholding the image of Jehovah? Certainly, this does not mean that they would see an image of God's body (John 5:37). Rather, by the antitypical image of Jehovah we are to understand His character to be meant, even as Christ's character is called Christ's image (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4; Col. 3:10). How does He do this? By making in them direct Bible study, through which the Bible doctrines, which manifest God's character as perfect in wisdom, power, justice and love, become clear to them as due. It will be noted that while God has given the non-star-membered teachers of the General Church and the more prominent local elders visions and dreams, He has never given them to see as a thing new a doctrine. This privilege is limited exclusively to our Lord acting in the star-members. Any attempt on the part of a non-star-membered teacher or of a non-teacher as the first one to work out a doctrine would be speculation, and would, therefore, not result in uncovering a new truth, but would result in error. But the star-members from the first to the last have been given this privilege, and by attentively studying the Bible on new doctrines as these became due, they have gotten to see them, and from them are given an ever increasing insight, and that, first of all God's people, into the Divine character, Jehovah's image, as revealed in those doctrines. That this is a privilege of our Lord acting in the star-members can be seen especially in St. Paul and in our Pastor. The former's study of the Old Testament types resulted in his working out, e.g., practically all the doctrines presented in the epistle to the Hebrews; and the latter's study of both the Old and the New Testaments has resulted in his working out almost all Truth doctrines, except some pertinent to the Great Company, the Youthful Worthies, the Epiphany world and to the Priesthood in their relations

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


to these three classes. The working out of these excepted doctrines is the privilege of the Epiphany messenger. 

(44) Having shown (vs. 6-8) Moses' incomparable superiority as a mouthpiece of His, in contrast with the subordinate mouthpieceship that Aaron and Miriam had as prophets for God, Jehovah pointedly asks the latter, "Why did ye not fear to speak against My [special] servant, against Moses" (v. 8)? Antitypically this means that God caused the question, through various pertinent rebukes, remonstrances and contradictions, given antitypical Aaron and Miriam by faithful brethren, to be brought to their attention: Why did they not have more reverence for our Lord speaking in the star-members than to have contradicted Him speaking in them, and thus by act claiming equality with Him in mouthpieceship for God? This question implies that both in the type and the antitype there was a lack of reverence toward the Lord Jesus in the star-members. Had there been proper reverence present, neither the typical nor the antitypical gainsayers would have factually claimed equality with Jesus in the star-members in mouthpieceship for God. Their lack of reverence in both type and antitype made them too bold, yea, more or less arrogant and impudent. This is true more emphatically of typical and antitypical Miriam than of typical and antitypical Aaron. And certainly their course and God's rebuke of them should also be an earnest warning to us to refrain from murmuring against any of God's choice for membership in Christ's Bride and from contradicting Jesus speaking in the star-members. 

(45) Jehovah's disapproval of typical and antitypical Miriam and Aaron is sufficiently shown in vs. 2-8, but v. 9 advances beyond a description of His disapproval and expresses His displeasure. Surely, in type and antitype it is a terrible thing to have fallen into Jehovah's displeasure; for as it is of the greatest blessing

The Parousia Messenger. 


to have God's pleasure, so is it of the greatest evil to have His displeasure. Particularly is this true of the antitype. The expression, "And He departed" (v. 9), types the thought that God had finished His dealing with that phase of the matters hitherto discussed. This is further emphasized in v. 10, by the expression, "And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle," which antitypically signifies that all the pertinent Truth due on the matter at hand having been given, any further Truth on that subject, of course, could not be due and was, therefore, not forthcoming. Now comes an emphasized thing in the type, as the literal translation shows, "Behold, Miriam leprous, as snow [is white]." There is nothing in the type to indicate that she was leprous all over her body. In fact, the only parts of her body that would normally be visible would be her head, neck, hands and feet. The Hebrew reading, "behold," like the English, implies that not more than part or all of her visible members were affected, for the attention of sight is called upon, in the expression, behold, to act. The fact that she is used as a type of the Great Company proves that her leprosy did not cover her entire body, which would type the Adamic depravity (Lev. 13:12, 13), but was only found in spots, here and there (Lev. 13:1-11, 14-46; Vol. IV, Chap. IV). The expression, "Aaron turned to Miriam, and, behold, leprous!" (literal translation), implies that previously he had not been watching her, that his mind was so intent on his part in the murmuring and factual claiming of equality to Moses as mouthpiece for God as not to have paid much attention to her, which had he done diligently, he might have seen the impropriety of the whole action. But now turning his attention to her, he sees in her condition a sure evidence of the sin and folly of their procedure. 

(46) Antitypically, while the scene of the second, third and fourth clauses of v. 10 had a minor fulfillment in the Jewish Harvest, as the cases of Alexander,

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


Hymenaeus, Philetus and Diotrephes prove; for Apostles by inspiration gave the knowledge to the brethren that these four, and perhaps others, were afflicted with Great Company uncleanness (1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3 John 9, 10), yet during the time between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany God and Jesus alone knew the Great Company members as such in their uncleanness; for God during that time concealed from the brethren the knowledge as to who was afflicted with Great Company uncleanness. This moves us to conclude that the special and major time for the antitype of vs. 10-16 is the Epiphany; for this is the special period during which the Lord reveals to the priesthood the Great Company as such in their uncleanness. Now no longer, as was the case in the Apostle's days, is inspiration necessary to a Priest in order to his seeing and pointing out an antitypical spotted leper. During the Epiphany the Lord has made known to us the sure symptoms of antitypical leprosy—revolutionism against the Lord's teachings and arrangements and persistency therein on the part of a new creature (hair turned white or yellow and the sore deeper than the skin; Lev. 13). Hence all a Priest now needs in order to see and point out a Great Company member is the pertinent illumination. As between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany such illumination was not given any Priest, apart from the minor fulfillment of vs. 10-16 in the Jewish Harvest, these verses had no full antitype until the Epiphany, though there was an antityping of vs. 1-9 and the first clause of v. 10 throughout the Age, particularly in the Jewish Harvest, the Parousia and the Epiphany. Hence the special application of Aaron's turning to Miriam belongs to the Epiphany. His turning to her represents the more prominent non-star-membered contradicting Priests, both in and out of the Epiphany Truth, giving their special attention to the uncleansed Great Company. Those in the Epiphany Truth give this 

The Parousia Messenger. 


attention understandingly; those not in the Epiphany Truth without real understanding of the situation, which when they come into the Epiphany Truth they will comprehend. Of course, after the Jewish Harvest and before the Epiphany antitypical Aaron saw the actual Great Company uncleanness without recognizing it as such; for these have done much evil. 

(47) And what a horrifying sight! It was horrifying to Aaron to see his own beloved sister in such a terrible plight! But it has been even more horrifying to antitypical Aaron to see the uncleanness of the Great Company, and that from two standpoints: (1) Between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany, as he saw the evils that antitypical Miriam did as expressions of crown-losers' uncleanness, though not recognized by him as such; and (2) in the Jewish Harvest and in the Epiphany. While it is not sure that they were pictured in Aaron, Timothy and Gaius, to whom Paul and John revealed the Great Company uncleanness of Alexander, Hymenaeus, Philetus and Diotrephes, must have felt horror thereat. Certainly, without understanding that they were actually beholding Great Company uncleanness, antitypical Aaron was horror-struck at the evils and errors of certain popes and Greek hierarchs, error-inventing Greek and Romanist theologians, Calvin's errors and persecuting and securing the burning of Servetus, as well as the errors, etc., of other crown-lost leaders. Some of us recall the horror that we felt at certain brethren in the Parousia manifesting what we later learned was Great Company uncleanness. The cases of Pilgrim Bros. MacMillan, (Clayton) Woodworth, Hemery, Hoskins (the father) and other less prominent leaders who temporarily went wrong in the Covenants controversy, were Parousia examples of brethren who actually had Great Company uncleanness. Though we did not then understand it as such, yet we were horrified at their course. But the special time of horror experienced by antitypical 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


Aaron came during the Epiphany. All members of antitypical Aaron, despite their being partly guilty, have greatly bewailed and have been horrified by the uncleanness of Great Company brethren in the Epiphany. This is true even of those members of antitypical Aaron who are not yet Epiphany-enlightened, who do not see the real condition of antitypical Miriam, and who yet recognize errors of doctrine and wrongs of conduct in her, so manifest on all sides. 

(48) But this is emphatically true of such of antitypical Aaron who are Epiphany-enlightened. How horrified have they been at the persistent revolutionisms in doctrine and practice seen in the Society section of antitypical Miriam. The same is true of them as to antitypical Miriam in the P.B.I., B.S.C. and the leaders in the rest of the nearly 60 groups of Levites. Their Truth repudiations and error advocacies and their repudiations of the Lord's arrangements and their institution of others in their stead, have certainly horrified antitypical Aaron, even though he has not been entirely blameless throughout the Parousia and Epiphany in these respects. This part of antitypical Aaron recognizes the actual situation. Though during the Epiphany the writer and some other Priests are not involved in antitypical Aaron, all of such have been horrified at the course of antitypical Miriam. The revolutionisms of the British managers, the Society leaders, the P.B.I., B.S.C. and numerous other Levite leaders, certainly filled us with horror. We were dumb-struck at some of their evils; for, esteeming these leading brothers above ourself, we were astounded that such brethren could be guilty of such perfidy as we discovered in them; and this horror contributed much to our severe handling of some of them, e.g., H.J. Shearn, Wm. Crawford, J. Hemery, J.F. Rutherford, I. Hoskins, I.L. Margeson, C. Kasprzykowski, M. Kostyn, etc. Our thinking of and loving them as "Christ in you," as part of Jehovah's anointed, 

The Parousia Messenger. 


certainly made us feel severe shocks when their gross and persistent revolutionism stood stark-naked before our eyes. E.g., how could we have felt otherwise at H.J. Shearn's and Wm. Crawford's gross disregard of the Lord's arrangements given through our Pastor, when we became well aware of their course shortly after his death, with our hearts filled with appreciation for his faithfulness and wisdom, with deep mourning at our loss of him, with the knowledge that their course had greatly troubled him, especially during his last six weeks, and with the determination to preserve him in loving remembrance as faithful while in the flesh and since leaving the flesh among the greatest of overcomers in glory? Naturally we were horrified. 

(49) And what a horrible condition was that in which antitypical Miriam found herself! While all through the Age the uncleanness of the crown-losers could be seen, apart from those specially pointed out as such by inspiration during the Jewish Harvest, this uncleanness was not recognized as that of crown-losers until the Epiphany; but in the Epiphany this uncleanness has not only been seen, but it has also been seen as Great Company uncleanness. In all cases it has manifested itself in persistent revolutionism against either the Lord's teachings or arrangements, or against both, with power-grasping, lording and sectarianism, in very arbitrary usurpations, as the case of J.F.R. shows the most plainly of all. The list of unholy characteristics set forth in 2 Tim. 3:1-9 is seen more or less in all of the leaders of the Levite groups—self-lovers, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers (lying slanderers), disobedient to (spiritual) parents, unthankful, inhuman, implacable, false accusers, without self-control, fierce, haters of good men, traitors, heady, highminded, pleasure-lovers rather than God-lovers, formalistic, without religion's power, deceivers of weak-minded, corrupt-hearted and fickle-willed women, unfruitfully studious, corrupted in opinions, apostates from the Truth, 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


liars, hypocrites. What horrible characters! Yet whoever knows thoroughly men like Wm. Crawford, J. Hemery, J.F. Rutherford, A.H. MacMillan, C. Kasprzykowski, M. Kostyn, etc., cannot doubt that this description fits them, some more, some less, yet more or less fitting all of them. Yes, and some of them have been proven to be thieves! Leprous, indeed! And what shall be said of their partisan followers? Not a few of them are spotted with similar leprous sores, though, of course, not so badly. Yea, antitypical Miriam can now be seen as such—leprous. Truly, antitypical Miriam is a sight to grieve angels and distress saints! And she does it! 

(50) Typical Aaron recognized from Miriam's sad plight the actual state of affairs—that both of them were guilty and that the Lord was expressing His disapproval of the course of both of them, at Miriam's course more than at his, yet at the course of both. So in the antitype, the more conscientious and less sinning non-star-membered teachers as Little Flock members quickly from the evil characteristics of the unclean crown-losing leaders recognized that the leaders in both classes had sinned and committed folly (v. 11). We will give several examples of these. It will be noted that our dear Bro. Barton once had a share in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in this chapter. He went wrong on the matter of accepting and teaching that in addition to the papacy's being Antichrist, there would be an individual personal Antichrist at the end of the Age (Z '16, 76-78). He made the mistake of teaching this thought to the brethren before submitting it to Bro. Russell, which act made him share in antitypical Aaron's claiming by act equality with our Lord in the officiating star-member (that Servant) as a mouthpiece for God. The public, though gentle, rebuke that he got by God's reply through our Pastor moved him to recognize and acknowledge the wrong and folly of his course, which was his share in the 

The Parousia Messenger. 


antitype of Aaron's acknowledging his sin and folly (v. 11). Bro. John Edgar, in the opening part of the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants controversy (1908-1911), offered a mild dissent from the view of the New Covenant that Jesus was giving through the officiating star-member, and thereby became involved in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in Num. 12, claiming by the act equality with our Lord in the officiating star-member as a mouthpiece for God. But he soon saw the unholy spirit manifested by the Truth's opponents in that sifting, and, recognizing the wrong, acknowledged and confessed it, and then took the side of the Truth thereon, which course was his share in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in v. 11. In contrast, Jesse Hemery sharply attacked that Servant's pertinent view, preaching against it, not only at Glasgow, but elsewhere, and thereby involved himself in antitypical Miriam, proven by his later course. 

(51) We had an experience that should be set forth here as partaking in the antitype of Aaron as given in this chapter, since it helps to clarify the subject. It was as follows: While in 1912 our Pastor began to doubt that the Church would leave the world by Oct., 1914, apart from several guarded expressions before the Bethel family, he kept silent on the subject until late in 1913, when he faintly, in a Tower article, indicated his doubts on the subject, i.e., to the effect that while it was possible that the Church leave by Oct., 1914, it hardly seemed probable. Our mental comment on the subject, on reading the article, was: Faith can trust the Lord to fulfill this matter despite its seeming not very probable. In March, 1914, in a question meeting in the Washington, D.C., ecclesia, a question was asked on whether we were to expect the Church to leave by the coming October. We answered, Yes, and then gave somewhat oppositionally and dogmatically the arguments in favor thereof, as presented in the Studies and in Bros. John and Morton Edgar's writings,

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


whose findings were given in the Berean Manual, and had been approved by our Pastor. A stenographer present took notes on our answers, and, without submitting the notes to us for our approval, circulated them widely. In the May, 1914, Tower our Pastor came out plainly, denying that the Church would leave the world the following October. This plain statement of his caused us to decide to refrain from advocating the former thought any more, since we felt that it was not for us to contradict him when speaking plainly; for we would not have answered the question asked us at Washington as we did, had he in the Dec., 1913, Tower come out plainly on the subject, as he did in May, 1914. However, the notes on our answer were arousing not a few to reject our Pastor's clear statement of his changed view. We were troubled exceedingly to find ourself not in sympathy with this changed view, but kept our doubts out of our pilgrim teaching. It was very torturesome to us to find ourself out of harmony with our Pastor; for we knew that he was that Servant, and was, therefore, more probably right than ourself, though so far we could not see his view to be Biblical. 

(52) Earnestly did we seek the throne of grace for help in the matter, asking the Lord, if the changed view were true, graciously to open our eyes thereto, but if it were untrue, to show it to us as such. A number of circumstances came wherein we were tested by questions, etc., as to whether we would oppose our Pastor's plainly expressed changed view, from which we still dissented. We answered the questions to the following effect: Our Pastor has set forth his reason for changing his view; and the brethren should study his reasons. Then we gave them. We were much troubled for nearly two months. This came to a crisis at the Columbus, Ohio, Convention, during the latter part of June, 1914. At this convention there was considerable dissent from the changed view. A number of 

The Parousia Messenger. 


brethren who had read the notes on our answer to the question mentioned above came to us at that convention and expressed themselves to the following effect: Bro. Johnson, we are glad to see your stand in favor of the Church leaving by next October. Keep up that stand firmly, and we will back you; for we are on your side against the changed view. The effect of this remark was the opposite to the intended one; for we saw Satan back of that remark. Knowing that the brethren who made it were evidently in an unclean condition, we immediately rebuked the spirit that prompted a remark calculated to arouse us into opposing the Lord's eye, hand and mouth, and became very fearful that perhaps after all Satan was seeking to use us to sift the brethren. Of course, we would not lend ourself knowingly to such a thing. We went to the Lord, telling Him that none of the reasons that our Pastor gave for the changed views seemed conclusive to us, while the arguments for the old view seemed to be cogent, especially the one on Elijah coming to the mount of God after 40 days. But we also told the Lord that we would in nowise oppose Jesus' eye, mouth and hand, and pled with Him to open our eyes to see the new view, if it were true. Quickly that prayer was answered, by the Lord's calling to our mind that the penny was not given until the evening, i.e., after Oct. 1914—a view not previously seen by anyone. But we did not wish to trust the thought before submitting it to our Pastor, whom we met by appointment the next day to discuss the subject. We then told him of our trouble over the question, and of our deep regret that after he had expressed his doubts on the subject we had somewhat dogmatically and oppositionally set forth the old view in the Washington question meeting, assuring him, however, that we had used only such arguments as we knew he had sanctioned. Then we stressed our doubts and emphasized especially Elijah's 40 days' journey to the mount of God. We told

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


him how the remarks of the brethren, mentioned above and made the day before, had affected us. Then we told him what seemed to be the first ray of light to come to us in favor of his changed view—the distribution of the penny after the end of the twelfth hour. Several days later, at the Clinton Convention, he told us that he approved this view. This settled our mind on the subject; and our heart was glad. 

(53) In contrast with the way we acted on the subject, when sharing in antitypical Aaron's part, we should show A.H. MacMillan's pertinent course, when sharing in antitypical Miriam's part. Instead of our Pastor's plain statement in the May, 1914, Tower on the subject, from which he sharply dissented, moving him to silence and to waiting on the Lord, he waged a regular campaign on the subject, arguing against the changed view on various occasions during that spring, summer and early autumn up to about Oct. 1. As three-and-a-half years later, i.e., March 27, 1918, he solemnly told an audience at the Society's Brooklyn Convention that the door to the high calling was closing that day, so at the Saratoga Springs Convention (Sept. 27-Oct. 4, 1914), a day or so before Oct. 1, 1914, he preached quite sharply against our Pastor's changed view and in favor of the Church leaving by about Oct. 1. We were informed that he declared that it was as true that it was to occur about that date as anything else in the Bible was true. We were further informed that against the objection that there were evidently thousands of members in Christ's Body then in the earth, he insisted that to fulfill His Word on the subject God would cause a great calamity to occur about that day, by which He would deliver the Church by the fixed time. He even said he was buying a ticket to the Pleiades—and that it was no return ticket, when he left Bethel after said Convention, and he was later located at his birthplace in W. Va., quite despondent. But Oct. 1, 1914, came and went, and parts of the 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Church are still here 24 years later, and a part of it will perhaps remain here nearly 20 years more! After the separation occurred in the Society, A.H. MacMillan, to disparage us before the Church, referred to a letter on which we will comment in the next paragraph, and which we on our own initiative offered to write and then did write to steady the brethren on the subject, as a thing that proved how our Pastor so greatly disapproved of our pertinent course as to require it of us as a public retraction, whereas so far as we know our Pastor never heard of the matter until we spoke of it to him toward the end of June, 1914, at the Columbus Convention, and never uttered one word of rebuke to us on it, since he knew that our reasons were identical with those that he had used, and that he at the time had given no Scriptural reason for the changed view, merely basing it on the seeming improbability that so many brethren would leave the world in the next ten months. While slurring us on the subject, A.H. MacMillan, who, so far as we know, never expressed repentance over his long-drawn-out oppositional course, was silent on his long-continued opposition to clearly demonstrated Biblical reasons given to justify the changed view. J.F.R.'s fighting our Pastor for years on tentative justification, etc., to his face at Bethel and elsewhere is another illustration of one involving himself in antitypical Miriam. 

(54) At Columbus, during the above-described interview, we told our Pastor that we wanted to counteract the effect of those notes on our answer given to the question, and on our own initiative suggested to him that we write a letter for him to publish in The Tower, with this end in view, which letter, though written immediately thereafter, appeared two months later in Z '14, 271. It will be remembered that above we showed that as a thing new the Lord in 1909 gave us the understanding of the penny parable up to the end of the twelfth hour, and also of who the steward was. It was

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


not until later, and that piecemeal, that the Lord gave us as "things new" to understand the rest of the parable's details, except its penny, which as a thing new He gave to that Servant. After 1909 the first new understanding that we got on the parable came to us on the evening of the parable coming after Oct., 1914, and that late in June, 1914, as described above. It should be noted that the Lord held back that item until due time, and that He gave it to us only after we had come to regret our course in that Washington question meeting, which we now recognize as a partaking in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in Num. 12, and after we firmly and successfully resisted Satan's efforts to arouse us to oppose our Pastor's plainly-stated changed view in the May, 1914, Tower. We have given Bros. Barton's and John Edgar's and our own experience in the antitypical Aaron of this chapter, as illustrations of experiences that were and are yet quite general among the non-star-membered leaders of the general Church and of local elders. The Parousia experiences of J. Hemery, A.H. MacMillan, etc., we have given as samples of antitypical Miriam's pertinent Parousia experiences. We can recall no experience of ours in which we may have shared in the antitype of Aaron's complaining against Moses for having Zipporah as his wife. It would be profitable, we believe, if the Epiphany-enlightened leaders would examine themselves to see whether they shared in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in this chapter. Doubtless later many of the Priestly leaders among the Levite groups will realize in their opposition to Jesus speaking in the Epiphany messenger that they have partaken in the antitype of Aaron in this chapter and will take their part in the antitype of Aaron's action in v. 11. It will be noted that Miriam took no part in the acknowledgment of sin and folly in the petition for forgiveness of v. 11. This was because of her uncleanness at the time, typical

The Parousia Messenger. 


of antitypical Miriam's impenitence before delivery to Azazel for her wilderness stay. 

(55) Not only does Aaron appear in true humility in v. 11, but he appears in true charity in v. 12, where he prays for the life and healing of Miriam. What he prays for is that she die not, especially not like one born dead, with his flesh half-rotted away. His contrasting, in a petition for forgiveness, his and Miriam's folly and sinfulness with Moses' leadership ("my lord"), shows that he was cured of the disease of factually claiming to be Moses' equal as mouthpiece for God, even as in the antitype the same things were done and shown, as the three brothers' experiences given above manifest. And by the antitypical Aaron there has been an earnest prayer offered to our Lord that antitypical Miriam be saved from the Second Death and be healed from her symbolic leprosy, Great Company uncleanness. As suggested by Aaron's prayer, the Second Deathers are expelled from the womb of the Sarah Covenant as dead, and so rotted as to have their new creature irretrievably corrupted; for one born dead, with his flesh half-rotted away, has been dead for some time. The expulsion of such an one from the womb of the Sarah Covenant occurs ordinarily in Second Death siftings; and as Miriam here stands for a class, the expulsion of the Second Deathers as a class from the womb of the Sarah Covenant is here, as a thing to be prayed for, brought to our attention. It was from such a terrible fate that antitypical Aaron has prayed, prays and will pray that antitypical Miriam be delivered; for antitypical Miriam is in great danger of going into the Second Death, even as we read of this class in Ps. 107:10: "Such as sit in darkness (error) and in the shadow of death (danger of the Second Death)." It is antitypical Aaron's knowledge of such a danger surrounding antitypical Miriam that has made, continues to make and will make him intercede for antitypical Miriam's life

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


and cure. This prayer, as in the type (I pray thee), is made with all the more earnestness, inasmuch as antitypical Aaron realizes that he gave antitypical Miriam more or less encouragement in the wrong, e.g., the Little Flock leaders scattered among the Levite groups have given the Levites more or less encouragement in their revolutionism against Jesus in the star-member now officiating; and when they come to see the real condition, as they even now recognize more or less of antitypical Miriam's revolutionism, they will all the more earnestly, for that encouragement, pray for her forgiveness and healing. 

(56) Moses heeded Aaron's humble, loving and earnest prayer (v. 12). The fact that he offered the prayer of v. 13 in answer to the pertinent petition of Aaron given in v. 12, proves that he had already forgiven Aaron's and Miriam's folly and sin, as Aaron prayed for this in v. 11, even though there is no verbal mention made of his expressing such forgiveness. Moses' prayer, even as given in v. 13 of the A. V., is a very earnest intercession, but its Hebrew is still more emphatic, as the following literal translation shows: "And Moses cried out unto the Lord, saying, O God! I pray, heal, I pray, her!" This prayer out-does the prayer of Aaron given in v. 12, and shows Moses' forgiveness and love toward Miriam, the worse of the two sinners. Antitypically, this prayer represents our Lord's intercession with His star-members to God on behalf of antitypical Miriam. It was an earnest prayer, most heartfelt, as typed by the very earnest prayer of Moses for Miriam. It will be noted that the typical prayer was offered before the repentance and healing of Miriam, as proved by the facts given in vs. 14-16 and by the fact that it was offered for the healing itself. So, antitypically, before the Great Company repents and before it is healed, our Lord in the pertinent star-members has felt a forgiving spirit toward antitypical Miriam and has prayed for her healing. The 

The Parousia Messenger. 


prayer itself implies that God is besought by Jesus in the pertinent star-members to forgive the Great Company its sins as the antecedent of its cleansing; and that forgiveness implies repentance on antitypical Miriam's part. 

(57) God does not forgive the impenitent, since such a course would encourage sin. But His readiness to forgive by providing the conditions conducive to repentance is shown by the arrangements that He makes (vs. 14, 15) for bringing this class to repentance. Thus God and Jesus show their graciousness, even before repentance sets in. It has always been so in God's Plan: He graciously sets arrangements into operation to help the sinner to come back to God. Had He waited for the world or the Church to repent before He sent His Son to die for the world and Church, He never would have sent His Son into the world to become our Redeemer. But, praised be our God, who "commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us," as "in due time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 3:8, 6)! This great grace our dear heavenly Father exercises toward His rebellious Great Company children also, for which they will yet glorify Him. Hence we see His readiness to make it possible for Him to forgive antitypical Miriam, even as He typed this in vs. 14-16. For Him to forgive and heal the Great Company without repentance on their part would encourage their continued sin; and His graciousness in willingness to forgive and heal them moved Him to arrange the experiences necessary for their repenting and cleansing. He types this by the arrangement that in vs. 14, 15, He made for Miriam's repentance and cleansing. Of course, He who waits to be gracious was glad to hear the earnest prayer of Jesus in the pertinent star-members and to arrange for its answer. Brethren, let us praise His grace, that He is so ready to forgive, heal and again receive into fellowship His rebellious children of the Great Company! 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


And let us cooperate with Him in executing His arrangement whereby the unclean Great Company can be rescued out of its terrible condition. We are now ready to look at this arrangement. 

(58) First God justified His course in making the arrangement whereby Miriam might be forgiven and healed of her leprosy. He justifies it by a comparison: If a daughter were so to misbehave as to disgust her father into spitting into her face, should she not be ashamed for a full season—seven days? Among occidental people, spitting in the face is a thing never indulged in, except among the lower grades of society. But in oriental countries such a thing is indulged in regularly by all classes of society, as the proper thing to express great disgust. And the Bible in this case presents the matter from the standpoint of oriental customs. For an oriental father to be so disgusted with a daughter as to spit in her face is almost as disgraceful a thing as a daughter could be made to endure. It would force her to be put out of her family's society until the thing could be wiped measurably out of the feelings of the family—seven days. This is the figure here used, whereby God justifies His course toward Miriam. From the standpoint of Israel's being God's typical children ("Ye are [represent, type] the children of the Lord your God," Deut. 14:1), Miriam, a typical daughter of God, had so misbehaved as to disgust her typical Father into treating her as a literal father treats a daughter into whose face his disgust of her compelled him to spit—put her to such shame as to drive her out of the family circle until His feelings of disgust and her sense of shame had largely abated—for seven days. During these seven days she was to feel the shame and disgrace that her conduct had deservedly brought upon her. And after she had experienced it sufficiently to bring her to genuine repentance and amendment she could be brought back again into the family circle. After this manner and for this purpose God as a typical Father would treat Miriam: 

The Parousia Messenger. 


drive her, disgraced and ashamed, out of the family circle of Israel, His typical family, outside the camp into the wilderness for seven days. This, then, was the arrangement for healing and forgiveness that God revealed to Moses as that to which Miriam must submit herself. 

(59) In studying Ruth (Vol. IV, Chap. VI) we explained the antitypical spitting, when done by God through His people. God's people have from certain standpoints been His mouthpiece—His mouth (Rev. 3:16; John 9:6; please see comment). The secretions of them as His Mouth are the Word of God—its truths as due. Sometimes they must use this Word in God's disgust and severe rebuke of wrong-doers. When they do so, God symbolically spits in the face of the wrong-doers. The revolutionisms of the Great Company, accompanied with more or less of the unholy qualities mentioned in 2 Tim. 3:1-9, set forth above, have provoked the disgust of God, who, therefore, through His Priesthood has spit in their faces—by the word of God rebuked their gross wrongs of teachings and arrangements. This spitting is done by God, through the Priesthood as His mouth resisting the revolutionisms of Azazel's Goat. Thus, as the Father of antitypical Miriam, He has spit in her face. This spitting has been done verbally and through the printed page, also by letters from Truth friends, sermon notes, etc. In the first case it is and has been done in discourses, lessons and conversations. In the second case it has occurred and is occurring through The Present Truth and through The Herald Of The Epiphany, also through other Priestly publications, Light After Darkness, Harvest Siftings Reviewed, Vol. VII Errors Booklet, etc., God, mainly through the first magazine doing it to the Truth section of antitypical Miriam and mainly through the second magazine doing it to the nominal-church section of antitypical Miriam. This work has been going on ever since Nov. 25, 1917, having its beginning with our questioning of H.J. Shearn and 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


Wm. Crawford on their plan for the elders' control of the London Tabernacle arrangements. It has been progressing through the various resistances that God has been making, through His Priesthood as His mouth, to the revolutionisms of one Levite group after another, as they have come one after another into existence, and to the revolutionisms of the Protestant and Catholic sections of Azazel's Goat. Thus it is primarily through the Epiphany movement that this spitting has been done to Truth Levites; and secondarily through the Priests scattered among the Truth Levites it has in a milder form been done to the Truth Levites. And both sets of Priests have been doing it to the nominal-church Levites. Thus we see that God, through the antitypical Priests, is doing the spitting typically referred to in v. 14. 

(60) The sense of shame was to be borne seven days in the case of a natural daughter into whose face her father spat. So God declared that the typical shame, the expulsion from the camp and being shut out therefrom, must be borne seven days. So in the antitype, God has arranged that the antitypical shame must be borne the antitypical seven days—an expulsion from among the clean people of God and a keeping of the expelled ones shut out from the clean ones until a sufficient time has elapsed to effect the cleansing of antitypical Miriam, when they would as clean ones be forgiven and restored to the fellowship of God's clean people (v. 15). In other words, God here shows that antitypical Miriam is to go into the antitypical wilderness and undergo the experiences that by another type He shows that the antitypical Goat of Azazel must undergo (Lev. 16:20-22); for the same experiences are typed by these two different transactions, the difference being not in the experiences themselves, but in the effects, and the things effected, the one showing the destruction of the flesh, the other showing the cleansing of the New Creature, the flesh being typed by the goat and the New Creature by Miriam. This, then, is God's 

The Parousia Messenger. 


will with reference to the healing and consequent forgiveness of antitypical Miriam. And when some object to, and criticize our cooperating with the Lord in the antitypical spitting and delivery of these revolutionists to the fit man and Azazel for their wilderness experience, let this neither dismay nor deter us from the good work. We know that their objection and criticism is really against God, whose purpose in the matter is punitive, corrective and salutary—hence just and loving; for if this process were not wrought on this class every one of them would become a Second Deather. Let us see to it that there is mingled with our feelings of horror at antitypical Miriam's wrongs, a deep pity for them as individuals, and a loving desire for their delivery from their antitypical leprosy; and with these motives let us zealously cooperate with and under the Head of the World's High Priest as body members in dealing with this class according to Num. 12:14, 15, and Lev. 16:20-22. If we do this in the spirit just described, when cleansed antitypical Miriam will bless us for the work done on her, as being the only possible method of securing her healing from her antitypical leprosy and will thank us! 

(61) But let us remember that the Miriam figure does not cover the whole Great Company class, as the Azazel's Goat figure does. She represents, not all the Great Company, but those leaders among them who, without losing life, have factually, not verbally, claimed equality with our Lord speaking through the star-members as mouthpieces for God. As such antitypical Miriam in part has gone outside the Camp, excluded therefrom, in part is on the way of going there, and yet in some of her parts is still to go there—into an unclean condition and work, away from association with God's clean people. While thus in Azazel's hands they have exceedingly untoward experiences. Their leprosy at first increases there, into horrible conditions: new swellings (sins), new boils (selfishness), new hot burnings (worldliness), new scalls (errors), new 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


leprous spots on their garments (power-graspings and lordings) and new leprous outbreaks (sectarianisms) in their houses (Lev. 13; 14). Truly horrible is this; yet it must be their experience, until finally, like some drunkards who, experiencing delirium tremens, are by the consciousness of their unutterable degradation brought to their senses and give up drink, awakening as from a nightmare and recognizing the horror of their conditions by the wild rampage of folly and wrong into which they have come, they see into what a state their wrong heart's and head's condition has led them, when, broken up, cast down and in despair of their supposed abilities in leadership, "they cry unto the Lord in their trouble; and He delivereth them out of their distresses." He will by the Epiphany Truth deliver them out of darkness (error) and the shadow of death (danger of the Second Death) and will break their bands of sin, selfishness, worldliness, power-grasping, lording and sectarianism in sunder (Ps. 107:12-14). Then, as Ps. 107:15 says, they will praise the Lord for His goodness and for His wonderful works for the children of men! O glad day! We hail it as the day when our bound and Azazel-controlled brethren will come to the liberty of God's daughters (2 Cor. 6:18)! How we long for it, pray for it and labor for it! And it surely will come. Though the winter has been ever so severe, spring must finally come. Only let us labor and wait for it; for it will as surely come as God's Word is sure. And then we will again have goodly fellowship with our brethren whose wilful revolutionisms forced us to withdraw it from them! 

(62) The second sentence of v. 15 is meaningful in the antitype. In the type it is simple enough to understand: "And the people journeyed not until Miriam was brought in again [literally, gathered]." We have already from Israel's marches learned that the journeys of Israel in the wilderness represent new sets of experiences as to growth in grace, knowledge and service. The thought, therefore, antitypical of Israel's not 

The Parousia Messenger. 


journeying until Miriam was gathered into the camp again, seems to be the following: The Lord's clean people in the Epiphany will have no other new set of experiences for growth in grace, knowledge and service connected with another form of work than that of dealing with Azazel's Goat, until that work is finished and the Great Company takes up its proper place and work among God's people; for Miriam's joining the people in journeying types the Great Company, especially in its leaders, doing the clean work that will be theirs after their cleansing—building the Epiphany Camp, first, from among the nominal-church believers after the nominal church is destroyed and, second, from among Fleshly Israel after they look upon Him whom they pierced and mourn for it (Zech. 12:10). The literal translation, gathered, instead of brought in, is not to be overlooked; for it suggests the thought that antitypical Miriam is not an individual, but a company of individuals, a part of a great company. While we do not use the word gathered of an individual, it does fit a company. And so far as even Miriam is concerned, it implies that a work was done on her to bring her into the attitude to return to the camp. It seems to imply that she had to be reasoned with and instructed as to her return to the camp. This doubtless will have its antitype in the reasonings and instructions given the cleansed antitypical Miriam to fit her to return to the antitypical Camp. 

(63) That our conclusion is right, that Miriam journeyed with the people, is not only evident from the nature of the case in the type, but is certainly true from the standpoint of the antitype; for that journey was taken to Paran, which we already have seen represents the Kingdom (Num. 10:12; Vol. VIII, Chap. X). Hence in the antitype Miriam will be in the antitypical journey, among other things, engaging in her work of gathering Gentile and Jewish believers into the Epiphany Camp, the service performed as a part of the final journey, which is the final Gospel-Age growth in 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


grace, knowledge and service. It will be noted that the encampment where the episode of Num. 12 occurred was at Hazeroth. We have already seen that this word means villages and represents sects singly and combinedly (Num. 11:35; Chap. 1, par. 27). Certainly the Epiphany experiences with antitypical Miriam have been connected with trials on matters of sectarianism, for the Levite leaders have formed many Epiphany sects; and amid and with these have some of our peculiar Epiphany trials been. This was also true in the Jewish Harvest and between it and the Epiphany. While not known as a class, the crown-lost princes and other sectarian leaders and their new-creaturely partisan followers gave the Priesthood many trials amid and with the sectarian systems and movements. But the severity of these trials will give way by and by, for they will be milder after antitypical Miriam is cleansed, but as the cleansing and the encamping at Hazeroth a little while at least show, they will be present, nevertheless, though in a milder form than now, and that because the cleansed Levites will be decidedly less sectarian than they now are. This type of their dwelling in Hazeroth awhile after Miriam's return to the camp proves that, generally speaking, the Great Company divisions as forming while antitypical Miriam is unclean will remain after she is cleansed; for each group will doubtless have its special work after the cleansing and before leaving this world, while the beginning of the cleansed work will set in while they are at antitypical Hazeroth. Because of the trialsomeness of its first part that cleansed work will go on during the journey to antitypical Paran; for that journey represents the final experiences of growth in grace, knowledge, and service before the Kingdom is reached—antitypical Paran. How glorious is the thought that the Kingdom is near! Well may the nearness of it encourage us to be faithful in the last stages of the career of the Church; for after labor comes rest; after storm comes calm.

The Parousia Messenger. 



(1) How may the subject matter of the book of Numbers be summed up? What chapter of Numbers did we last study? Under what subject? What kind of a connection subsists between the antitypes of Num. 12 and Num. 9:15-11:35? Of what does Num. 9:15-23 treat antitypically? Num. 10:1-10? 10:11-28? 10:29-32? 10:33-36? 11? 12:1-16? 

(2) What, accordingly, is the subject running through this entire section? Of what two chapters also is this the subject matter? In this connection what may be said of Num. 1:1-9:14? How does this appear in Num. 1, 2? 3, 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? 9:1-14? What, then, is a summary of Num. 1-14? How may this be stated in other words? How are Num. 26 and 31 related to this subject? The rest of the book? What kind of a connection is there in the antitypes of this book? For what will an understanding of the antitypes of Numbers and Deuteronomy be helpful? How is this symbolized in the Most Holy? 

(3) So far as understanding them is concerned, what contrast exists between the type and the antitype of Num. 12? What profit can be gotten from the effort to understand its antitype? How do the three characters treated of in Num. 12 stand out in the history of the Exodus? How does Miriam stand among the women of the Exodus? What does the word Miriam mean and what does she type? How do Moses and Aaron compare with each other and the other Israelites of the Exodus? What does the word Aaron mean? What does he here type? In what kind of a light do Aaron and Miriam, particularly Miriam, not stand in this chapter? Of what two evils did they become guilty? What made them resent Moses' having a Cushite wife? How may envy have influenced Miriam? What does the word Moses mean? What does he here type? For what was he faulted? When and where did Zipporah finally join Moses and Israel? To whom did her remaining with Moses become a trial? What does the word Zipporah mean? What was her ancestral origin? How many and what kinds of Ethiopians (Cushites) were there? To which branch did she belong? What were her father's three names? What was his office? How may we reconcile Num. 10:29 and Judges 1:16 as to his nationality? What considerations make it reasonable to conclude that Jethro was a Cushite,

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


though an official and citizen of Midian? Even though Zipporah was a brownish-white Cushite, how did Miriam and Aaron yet regard her? What did this move them to do? To what degree of wrong did pride lead them? 

(4) How in a general way may Num. 12 be applied antitypically? In a particular way? Why are both of these applications right? What three considerations prove Miriam to represent certain Great Company members? Especially which ones? What two great evils have they done? Whom does Aaron in this chapter type? Especially which ones? What two milder evils have they done? Whom does Moses in this chapter type? Zipporah? To what will the understanding of these four antitypes assist? What was antitypical Miriam's standing when the antitypical murmuring began? What later development proves this? In what did the antitypical Aaron remain? What is the antitype of pride leading Miriam and Aaron into wrong-doing? What was antityped by their wrong-doing? 

(5) What have not a few of us heard some new creatures say of our humbler brethren? What proud acts have we observed in them as against such brethren? Whose society did they prefer? In what did some of these not express themselves? How, then, did they do it? What does either course mean? In ultimate analysis what does it mean? Who ought to be satisfactory to us as a part of the Bride? What would contrary conduct be? What often so acts? 

(6) What did Miriam and Aaron, type and antitype, do in this matter? Which one sinned the more? What is the course of sin? From what and to what did this progress in vs. 1 and 2? What is typed by Miriam and Aaron claiming equality with Moses as a mouthpiece of God? How could such a thing not be true of a new creature? Even of whom is it doubtful? With the possible exception of whom? How has the antitype been fulfilling? 

(7) What question does this answer raise? What kind of an answer must this question receive? How must the answer further be qualified? What would such a direct claim by act or attitude toward our Lord mean? Who have not done this? How have they done it? What was it really? What does this mean? What is not necessary to explain further as to star-members? What is here necessary to explain of them? What bearing has Luke 

The Parousia Messenger. 


10:16 on this statement? Why could Jesus truly say of them what He says of them in Luke 10:16? How is this principle shown in the pertinent types? 

(8) How does the case of Moses' speaking to Dathan and Abiram show this? The case of Korah and his Levitical company? If this principle is not kept in mind, who, and who not, would seem to antitype Moses in these and many other acts? What very marked Mosaic antitype is solvable only on this principle? How is it not, and how is it to be explained harmoniously with facts and Scripture? How are certain lines of study condemned in others as speculation not considered such in these two brothers? 

(9) For what will the foregoing remarks be helpful? Whom in the typical transaction do Miriam and Aaron type? Wherein did their assertions of equality with our Lord as a mouthpiece for God consist? In what events of the Harvests did these assertions manifest themselves? Of the Interim? Of the two miniature Gospel Ages of the Epiphany? In which of these were they perhaps the most venomous? What were some of St. Paul's experiences along these lines? St. John's? To whom is exclusive reference made in Luke 10:16? What things are not to be considered such contradictions? What are? To what proper thing does bringing our doubts and difficulties to them belong? What differentiates it from the contradicting course of antitypical Miriam and Aaron? What is not simply, and what is meant by the statement, "And the Lord heard it"? 

(10) How have higher critics used v. 3? If the basis of their objection were true, to what conclusion should it not, and should it have led them? What are their claims as to the Mosaic authorship of v. 3? What is the basis of their claim? What is the relation of this proposition to truth? Under what circumstances may one say good things of himself? How does the example of God's self-praise disprove their proposition? What are some examples of His self-praise? What justifies His so doing? How does the example of Jesus' self-praise disprove their proposition? What are some examples of His self-praise? What justified His so doing? How does the example of St. Paul's self-praise disprove their proposition? What are some examples of his self-praise? What justified his so doing? How does the example of our Pastor disprove 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


their proposition? What are some examples of such self-praise? What justified his so doing? How could Moses properly write v. 3? What two things claimed in their pertinent view of Num. 12:3 by higher critics are not true? 

(11) What is the deeper reason for Moses' writing these words? Of whom in this connection was our Lord the antitype? How does Heb. 3:1-6 prove this? What do these words applied antitypically to Him teach? What is meekness? What did God find Moses to be? To write what did God inspire him? Why? What in this matter has our Lord always shown Himself to be? In His pre-human condition? In His human condition? In His present Divine condition? In the future to all eternity? From what standpoints is He worthy of the highest place under God? 

(12) What, among other things, is set forth in v. 2? In v. 4? How did God begin to act in this matter? How was the charge given? How long did He allow the wrong to go on? What proves this? How does God act antitypically with a public sin? Type and antitype, what does such contradiction occasion? What does it stir up? In what has it resulted? How does God manipulate such events? How does God give the antitypical command to the three parties to appear before the Church? 

(13) In connection with what kind of siftings do we find these events especially? Wherein can it be seen to the best advantage? Who in the Epiphany have acted like Miriam? Of what is their contradicting the Epiphany messenger a factual example? What does God do with them, if they continue a long while their contradicting course? What happens in this connection with antitypical Aaron, contradicting more mildly? How many of such actors are so treated? What are some examples of these? What did Parousia conditions exemplify in this matter? For the most part when were they reserved for public examples of antitypical Miriam? What examples show that God has done this thing very suddenly? Like what was it in each case? 

(14) What are we in this connection to do with such siftings and the Second Death siftings? What kind of siftings were the Reaping siftings mainly? In which of these especially do we find the antitypical Miriam feature

The Parousia Messenger. 


appearing? How did it there appear? How may we characterize antitypical Miriam's and Aaron's course as to Second Death siftings? How does this compare with the same classes in the Epiphany siftings? In what other shakings do antitypical Miriam and Aaron appear? Especially where? What are two examples in the slight shaking of 1914 on the 1914 date for the Church's deliverance? What corresponds with the tabernacle in more or less local shakings? In general siftings? What are we not to understand from the above on Second Death siftings and the Epiphany? What Bible examples prove such to take place in the Epiphany? 

(15) Which pertinent steps of the Lord are described in v. 5? What is the first of these? By this what are we not, and what are we to understand? Through whom did He very likely "come down"? What bearing has Acts 7:38 on this? Through whom less probably did He do this? What bearing do Acts 7:53 and Gal. 3:19 probably have on this phase of the matter? Why do We say that this agent was most likely the Logos? What is the Scriptural evidence proving this strong probability? Through whom was it done in the antitype, especially in the Parousia and Epiphany? Why so? What is the antitypical difference between the cloudy and the fiery pillars? Why, ordinarily, would the cloudy pillar be used in the type when the antitype refers to all four periods, as in the present case? As excluding what should not the reference to the cloudy pillar be understood? What is meant by God's coming down in the pillar, type and antitype? On the occasion of our study? In such cases what does the Lord always do? What is the antitype of the cloudy pillar entering the picture? 

(16) What is typed by God's standing at the door of the tabernacle? How does He do this? How does He reveal the character of contradictors' deeds? How does He usually do this? What example to illustrate this is given? What have the Levites and some Priests done to this truth as it has been unfolding? In the meantime what has the Lord been doing? In so doing what types has He been fulfilling? How does He call antitypical Miriam and Aaron to stand forth separate from antitypical Moses speaking through the star-members? What types their coming into such separateness? 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


(17) What does God show in vs. 6-8? What does v. 6 show? As God was about to show this what did He require of Miriam and Aaron? Why? How is this done antitypically? On this what does God require of antitypical Miriam and Aaron? How has He done this? How many privileges does v. 6 set forth as those of ordinary prophets in Israel? What are they? What does the statement of v. 6 on visions and dreams imply? What is a prophetic vision? What is the most noted example of a vision in the Bible? 

(18) What is a prophetic dream? What is a noted example of such? What exists as to visions and dreams antitypically? What passage bears on this subject? By what contrast? How does the distinction compare with a certain type of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies? In this type Millennially whom do the Kohathites type? The Gershonites? What do the tabernacle articles borne by the Kohathites type Millennially? Those borne by the Gershonites? How in general did the articles borne by the Kohathites differ from those borne by the Gershonites? What thoughts are thus implied to be in the antitypes? In general how may the antitype be brought out? What force, then, do the distinguishing words bear in Joel 2:28? In what other way does the idea of deeper and less deep truths lie in the words dream and vision? 

(19) What does this distinction not precisely tell us? What first reason suggests this? Second reason? What does this second reason prove? What are these visions and dreams? How do they exist in the Bible? What kind of a book does this make the Bible? What does God in v. 6 promise the non-star-membered general elders in the Church? What are the less deep of these? The more deep? What does our Lord promise on this subject in Matt. 13:52? What has He, accordingly, promised the general elders, including the non-star-members, and some local elders? When in general did this promise have a fulfillment? In particular? Wherein are many of such fulfillments recorded? 

(20) What are we not to understand from the special promise of v. 6? Nor from the omissions on this head in vs. 7, 8? What first fact proves this? What second fact? What third fact? What kind of a difference is there in the privileges of the star-members and the non-star-members

The Parousia Messenger. 


as to mouthpieceship? What fourth fact proves this? Why does it prove this? What duty of these non-star-members as to the officiating star-member on new truths is a fifth fact proving this? Why is this duty imposed upon them? 

(21) What was above stated as to The Tower on this subject? What other instances have occurred? What will be here given? What apparent, but not real exceptions to the rule as to this privilege being seemingly mainly limited to general elders have occurred? What do the fulfilled facts seem to prove of the scribes of Matt. 13:52 as to most of those who never arose above local elders? How was this promise fulfilled in Bro. Barton in connection with Is. 18:1, 2, 7? In what two places can this line of thought be found? What did he show in this article? What was the antitypical character of what he saw and wrote out? In what kind of language is Is. 18:1, 2, 7 clothed? Into what dark saying was Bro. Barton privileged to see, as an antitypical dream? Where was this antitypical dream published? What did he therein show? 

(22) What other (two) brothers had such antitypical dreams and visions? What became the occasion thereof? How did it affect Bro. Russell? Who principally and who assistantly studied deeply this error in a deeper investigation of the Chronology as given in Vol. II? In what did this result firstly? Secondly? How are these facts typed in 2 Sam. 21:15-17? What else did their (especially John Edgar's) investigations lead them to see? Wherein have all of these findings been published? Where were many of them previously published? What was Bro. Morton Edgar's part compared with his brother's in these matters? What do these facts prove? How should we view their work, The Great Pyramid Passages? What error advocated in the second edition has Bro. Morton Edgar repudiated? How did this error creep into that volume? With what limitation does the Society's president still hold to the millions proposition? Who are his millions now? The existence of what spiritual class does he now deny? What is the hope that he sets before his millions, his Great Company? 

(23) What antitypical vision was Walter Bundy given? What was never done with it? What of it will be given here? According to his view, what is represented

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


by the parable's woman? The ten pieces of silver? What did not, and what did happen to nine of them? What happened to one of them? What is represented by the woman's house? Her sweeping the house? Her searching for the lost coin? Its finding? Her joy? Her inviting her neighbors to rejoice with her over finding her coin? What does the idea of restitution imply as to the restitution class? How is it designated in the parable? What debate was held April 19, 1909? Under what circumstances? What parts of a dream were made clear to another brother, April 20, 1909? What part of it was made clear in June, 1914? In 1917? To whom in 1915 was the penny and its twofold distribution made clear? To whom did the length of the day and its hours not first occur? What was done with the understanding of this parable? What did the Lord give to the same brother as an antitypical dream the next year? On what was it based? What was done with this matter, especially with the fifth sifting? Wherein and when was it published? What dark saying was also made clear to the same brother? Who endorsed it? 

(24) What is given in pars. 21-23? Whom else did the Lord so treat, though they are not particularized in these pars.? What else would be in place? When did they, as a matter of fact, receive them? Who was the first of these? What was this antitypical dream? How do the involved passages prove his thought? What did he do with the antitypical dream? Where and when was it published? In what time of his experience was it given to him? What can profitably be done with his letter? What other brother in a similar period of his experience was given some antitypical visions and dreams? In what book? What was the most important of these? What did he do with it? What was not done with his letter? Who in a private conversation with the writer expressed approval of it? In what aspects do the seven bowls not represent the Seven Volumes? Only as what? As what are these volumes Divinely approved? How do these remarks apply to Vol. VII? As what is it not Divinely approved? What dark saying in Rev. 20:10; 14:10, 11, did the Lord likewise open to him? Who approved of it? Where is it detailed in the language of another? What vision was opened to a local elder on Elijah? 

The Parousia Messenger. 


(25) What strikes the mind as to the interpretation above given to Num. 12:1-6? What does Heb. 3:1-6, compared with Num. 12:7, prove as to Moses in this chapter? The expression, Apostle … of our profession? What things warrant our regarding Miriam here as a type of certain leading Great Company members? Aaron here as a type of certain leading Little Flock brethren? Zipporah here as a type of more or less obscure Little Flock brethren? What do facts prove of our Lord's being treated as typed in vs. 1, 2? In what activity in v. 2? 

(26) What do facts prove as to Jehovah's doing to the two involved acts of pride? What do facts prove as to Jesus' meekness toward God? What do the facts prove as to God's drawing the three involved antitypes into public notice? Why so? What set of facts proves the antitypes of v. 5 as given above? What truth has God factually caused to be proclaimed as to the privileges of the non-star-membered general elders and some local elders? What are the two final facts as to the pertinent Parousia and Epiphany teachings and as to the Lord's giving such new teachings to such general elders and some local elders? What conclusion may we therefore draw as to the suggested antitypes of Num. 12 so far studied? What results from these qualities as to the character of these suggested antitypes? As we go on in our study of this chapter, what will we find to be the character of the rest of our exposition of Num. 12? 

(27) What did God set forth in v. 6? What will He not do beyond these limits? To what, according to v. 7, did God not limit Moses? What does v. 7 not mean? What does it mean? In what other ways did God reveal Himself to Moses? What does this mean antitypically? What does it not mean antitypically? Why do we know this of Jesus personally? What does this fact and the contrast between v. 6 and vs. 7 and 8 prove? What fact as to St. Paul and our Pastor proves this also? What words prove it? 

(28) In Num. 12 in what relations is our Lord typed? And that acting in whom? What kind of a meaning does this fact give the words, "Who is faithful in all My house," that they would not otherwise have? Under what circumstances would these words not have this 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


meaning? In what sense is He included in these words? What does the viewpoint of this chapter imply as to His faithfulness in His relation to the star-members? Why? What kind of a faithfulness is that of the star-members not in itself and relatively to His? What kind is it? What does this passage, from the standpoint of this chapter, teach of the pertinent 49 brothers? Of what 13 of them is this directly stated? How is this less clearly proven of the other 36? What is not meant by this? What is? What does Heb. 3:2, 6 say and prove of the antitypical house of v. 7? What conclusion follows from this? What do we conclude from this conclusion? How do the cited passages prove this? How do vs. 7 and 8 prove this? 

(29) What do the vision and dream privileges of the star-members prepare us to see? Where are these set forth typically? What three privileges were accorded Moses by God, according to v. 8? To whom were they exclusively limited? To whom were they not extended? What will a consideration of these privileges antitypically help us to see? What is necessary in order for us to see the antitypical meaning of the words, "I will speak with him mouth to mouth"? In what two ways has Jesus been God's mouth? What is this thought as to the Logos? As to Christ? How do the cited Scriptures prove that Christ is God's mouth? Accordingly, what did God usually do through Him as to the Old Testament? Always as to the New Testament? What, secondarily, is God's mouth? Why? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What is meant by the first use of the word mouth in v. 8? To whose mouth does the second use of that word in v. 8 refer? What was Jesus' mouth to the world up to 1917? Since 1917? What has been Jesus' mouth to the General Church? What part of His mouth to the world up to 1917 have they been? How is this proved in the seven letters of Rev. 2, 3? How is this implied in Rev. 1:16, 20? In Aholiab? How do Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 apply here? 

(30) What are we now prepared to see? What does it mean? What two things are meant by the first part of this answer? Why is this true? What is a summary of this thought? What is meant by God's speaking through the Bible, His mouth, to Jesus' mouth? What does this mean? In other words, what does this mean? Who are 

The Parousia Messenger. 


excluded from this privilege? How do the non-star-membered servants of the Truth get their "things new"? What would their attempting to talk "mouth to mouth" with God be? Why can they not speak "mouth to mouth" with God? Why can Jesus' mouth so do? What is this as to them? 

(31) What is a widely held view? Among whom? How do they thus treat the Bible? And how not? Why should the Bible not be treated as a text book? What is a text book? How does, e.g., an arithmetic illustrate this thought? Like what is the Bible not arranged? What is nowhere found in the Bible? Rather, how does it treat its materials? What subjects will serve to prove this? How are their thoughts found in the Bible? What does this peculiarity of the Bible make it to the non-star-helped student? How is it, compared with a thousand Chinese puzzles made into one? Why is this comparison suggested? How is this characteristic of the Bible mentioned? From this discussion, what may we conclude? 

(32) From what two sources is this proved? What first fact proves it? Second fact? Third fact? Fourth fact? Fifth fact? What do these five facts prove of the claim, that the Bible is so plain that the wayfaring man though a fool shall not err therein? By what means other than facts can the same thing be proved? How is this proved by 1 Cor. 13:12? 1 Cor. 2:7? Matt. 13:35? Is. 28:10-13? For what two reasons, according to vs. 9, 10, 13, is the Bible so constructed? How does Rom. 11:9, 10 prove it? Why, in general, is the Bible so constructed? Why for the Church? For the world, or unbelief class? What do these considerations prove of God's pertinent works? What two conclusions should we draw from this discussion? 

(33) Why should the Bible not be studied as a textbook? If so used, what will be the result? Why? From the fact that text-bookism is harmful, what conclusion should we not draw? What two Bible considerations prove that it should be studied? How do the cited passages prove this? As what, according to these passages, should the Bible be regarded and studied? As what should it be studied? What is meant by studying it as a book of texts? In what two ways did the Bereans study it? What three things are present in the Divinely approved Berean study of the Bible? Why is this the correct method? What is 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


the first thing necessary in Bible study? In what two ways may this be done? How does the second way operate? In what three ways? By what is the main contact usually maintained? 

(34) In what periods can these three ways be recognized? What have the main points of such contact been during these periods? As what are their writings to be used? In what do their writings abound? To what are their writings to be subjected? How should their and other star-members' writings be studied? With what object in view? What kind is such study? What fruit will it yield? What conclusion should be drawn from these considerations? What other reasons can be given against text-bookism? To whom only is direct Bible study a blessing? Why? What will follow from text-bookism to all others? How should they study the Bible? Through text-bookism who have arisen in the Church? What experiences prove it? For what, at present, does this account? 

(35) What is necessary for students of the Bible to do? How? What will result, if it is not so done? What six qualities constitute all readiness of mind? How do the cited passages prove this? Why is humility necessary for fruitful Bible study? Meekness? Hunger? Honesty? Goodness? Reverence? What do these give one initially? Progressively? Perseveringly? Why, do people lose the Truth? What will the retention of these qualities enable one to do? 

(36) What will some Truth people and almost all Protestants do as to this view of Bible study? On what will they insist? What does the Bible do as to these two opposing views? Why does it condemn their view? What was God's foreknowledge as to speculation during the Parousia and the Epiphany? What did it lead Him to do? Where is this warning given? What was the typical and chronological setting of this event? What does St. Paul's reference to it (Heb. 12:18-29) prove of it? How is this also typically shown? What features of the typical connection prove that it covers the Epiphany? How long, in fact, will the seventh trumpet blow? What conclusion should we draw as to the time for the events antitypical of Ex. 19:21-25? To what do the bounds set by Moses correspond? What does God's charge of v. 21 type? What does the Latin word speculare, from which our 

The Parousia Messenger. 


word speculate is derived, mean? What is meant by religious speculation? In what do we recognize the antitypical charge? How has this warning been given? 

(37) What does v. 21 further show? What in the antitype does it not, and what does it mean? How is this illustrated in Mr. Darwin's case, as of one in the Camp? How does it work in those in the Court—the justified? With those in the Holy—Priests? With Great Company members? Youthful Worthies? What in this respect do vs. 21, 22, 24 show? Who especially are urged in v. 22 to separate themselves from gazing? To what does this correspond? 

(38) What does Moses' statement (v. 23) on the bounds type? What does the truthfulness of the typical and antitypical statements not prevent? What, therefore, did God command (v. 24) in both type and antitype? Who, according to v. 24, might approach God? What does Moses here type? Whom does Aaron type? Why? What is typed by Moses' coming up to God? What difference in Moses' and Aaron's approach is indicated? What does this type? 

(39) How have the Parousia and Epiphany messengers approached God in this subordinate way? What three things suggest the answer? What privilege is here shown these two brothers (and all other star-members), denied all other brethren? Why is this not done? Why is it done? How have they done it for others? As what have they been used all through the Age? By whom? How do their advantages and disadvantages correspond? How should they not, and how should they be regarded and treated? Why? How have they not felt? How have they felt and acted? How have the faithful responded to this? What will some say of the Epiphany messenger's writing, among others, of himself as above? What answer should be given to this charge? How does he feel about it? 

(40) What results from the star-members' being Jesus' eye, hand and mouth? Why is this? What makes this true? What does their office show as to Luke 10:16? What does this office not make of them? What Scripture proves this? Why has the Lord promoted them to this office? What has faithfulness to Truth and righteousness made them? How are they toward the faithful? What

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


have they given these? What have they always recognized, negatively and positively? What has been their highest ambition? In what has this resulted, as to the Lord? 

(41) In what words is the second unique privilege of Christ in the star-members set forth? With what do they stand in contrast? How do they show that God spoke to Moses? What do these words teach antitypically? How will He not speak to Him in them? What does this mean, positively and negatively? What, in this matter, do nominal-church teachers claim? What are some examples of such teachings? What sense do they give to the word mystery? Who is its author? How does the Bible use it? How do 1 Cor. 13:2; Eph. 3:3, 4; Matt. 13:11 and Luke 8:10 present this matter? How do the Scriptures cited in the rest of this paragraph present it? Show this as to Rom. 11:25-32; 1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 5:32; Col. 1:26, 27; 2:2, 3; 4:3, 4; 2 Thes. 2:7; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 1:20; Rev. 17:5, 7. What conclusion is to be drawn from these uses of the word mystery, as to nominal-church mysteries? What is the Bible view of its mysteries? 

(42) What sense, negatively and positively, does our discussion of the understandableness of Bible mysteries give to the words, "With him I will speak … even plainly, not enigmatically"? In what is this illustrated? How is this seen in Arius? Zwingli? Marsiglio? Servetus? Hubmaier? That Servant? The Epiphany teachings? With what do they contrast favorably? What should we do with a teacher who would teach us incomprehensible things? As what? In what contrast do Truth and error stand in this particular? What, then, is the thought of the words under study? 

(43) In what words is the third unique privilege set forth? What was the typical privilege? To what kind of servants of the Lord was this not vouchsafed? In what capacity did Aaron have a similar privilege? What is meant by these words antitypically, negatively and positively? How do the cited passages apply here? How does Jesus in the star-members see Jehovah's image? In contrast with the privileges of non-star-membered servants of the Truth, what third privilege is never accorded them? 

The Parousia Messenger. 


To whom is it exclusively limited? To what would others' attempting this inevitably lead? How many of the star-members have had this privilege? By using this privilege what have they gotten? In whom is our Lord especially seen as using this privilege? What is an illustration of this in St. Paul? In our Pastor? What are some of the Epiphany messenger's privileges in this particular? 

(44) What did God show in vs. 6-8? What did God thereupon do? What does this type? What does God's question, type and antitype, imply? What would becoming reverence have prevented in type and antitype? What resulted from this lack of reverence? In whom was this lack more prominent? What warning do their course and the Lord's rebuke of them give? 

(45) What do vs. 2-8 express sufficiently? What does v. 9 express? What, accordingly, is a terrible thing? How does experiencing God's approval and His disapproval contrast? In what particular especially? What is typed by the words, "And He departed"? By what is this thought emphasized? What does this antitype mean? What emphasized thing occurred in the type? How is it shown? What is not indicated in Miriam's leprosy? What parts of her body would ordinarily be seen? What does the word behold here imply on this point? Why is this true? What does the fact that her leprosy is used to type Great Company uncleanness prove, negatively and positively? How is this proved in the citations given thereon? What is implied in the expression, "Aaron turned to Miriam," as to the immediate past? Had he done so previously, what might have resulted? What does turning his attention to her enable him to see? 

(46) When did the events of the last three clauses of v. 10 have a minor fulfillment? What cases prove it? How do the cited passages prove this? What pertinent things were not known between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany? Who alone knew them? Why was this? What conclusion is to be drawn therefrom? What fact bears this out? What, in contrast with the Apostolic days, is no longer necessary for recognition of Great Company brethren—antitypical spotted lepers—as such? What has the Lord on this point made known to us? What are these symptoms, type and antitype? To see and point these out, 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


what alone is now necessary? What follows from the fact that there was no such illumination between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany? Of what verses was there a fulfillment throughout the Age? When particularly? To what does the special antitypical application of Aaron's turning to Miriam belong? What is represented by Aaron's turning to Miriam? With what difference do the members of antitypical Aaron do this? When will the non-Epiphany-enlightened Priests comprehend the real condition? What has antitypical Aaron seen all through the Age? Without what? 

(47) How did the sight of leprous-spotted Miriam affect Aaron? What has been still more horrifying? From what two standpoints? What must have been the feelings of Timothy and Gaius at the Great Company uncleanness of Alexander, etc.? Though not recognized as Great Company uncleanness, whose evils must have horrified the antitypical Aaron between the Jewish Harvest and the Epiphany? What Parousia uncleanness so affected the then antitypical Aaron? Who are some examples having then such uncleanness? Despite what how did their uncleanness affect us? When is the special time of such horror? Despite what does the Epiphany Aaron feel such horror? Of whom of this class has this been true? 

(48) Of whom is it emphatically true? As to the Society adherents? As to whom else? In what generalities? Despite what? What do they recognize? What Priests not now parts of antitypical Aaron have during the Epiphany felt it? How did antitypical Miriam's uncleanness affect the Editor? Why was this? What did it move him to do? What view and attitude of his made him feel severe shocks because of their uncleanness? How did this affect him as to H.J. Shearn and Wm. Crawford? What considerations added thereto? 

(49) In what kind of a condition was antitypical Miriam? What could be seen all through the Age? As what was it not recognized? With what exception? What is the contrast with the pertinent Epiphany conditions? How has it been manifesting itself in all cases? Who is the classic example of this? What characteristics does 2 Tim. 3:1-9 show, as belonging to the Levite leaders? What is the character of such characteristics? In whom are these characteristics especially exemplified? With

The Parousia Messenger. 


what differences in these individuals? What, even, have some of them been proven to be? What is to be said of their partisan followers? Who can now be seen as such? How does her uncleanness affect angels and saints? 

(50) What did typical Aaron recognize from Miriam's plight? What does this type? What brother's experience shows this? What are the leading features of that experience? How was he brought to see the evil of his course? How does the case of Bro. John Edgar show this? How was he brought to a recognition of the wrong? Whose case is contrasted with his? 

(51) Who else had a similar experience in the Parousia? When did our Pastor begin to doubt the Church's leaving the world by Oct., 1914? Before whom did he guardedly state these doubts? When and how did he first intimate it to the brethren in general? How did this affect the writer? How did this matter come up during his pilgrim visit at Washington? How and what did he answer? What was done with his answer? When and in what did our Pastor come out plainly on the subject? How did his plainly stated view affect the writer? Why? How would the plain discussion in the May, 1914, Tower, if made in Dec. 1913, have affected his Washington answer? In the meantime what was done to the notes on his answer? What was it effecting in not a few? What other effect on him did the clear statement in the May, 1914, Tower have? Why? 

(52) To what did this lead him? For what did he pray? What came to him thereafter? How did he meet these tests? How long after the May, 1914, Tower appeared was he troubled over the question? When, where and how did the crisis of the trial come? What was said to him on the notes? How did these remarks at once affect him? Why? What did they move him to do to those who made them? Why? Of what did they make him fearful? What, in consequence, did he tell the Lord in prayer and ask Him? How did the Lord answer that prayer? By what? What did he not wish to do with the new thought? What was accordingly done? What two things did he tell the Pastor? What point in the discussion did he specially stress? What did he then tell on the incident of the day before? What point did he then present as the first ray of light that seemed to favor the changed view? When 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


and where did the Pastor express to him agreement on this point? How did this affect him? 

(53) Whose pertinent course is contrasted with that of the writer? To what was he not moved by the clear expression of the changed view in the May, 1914, Tower? Instead, what did he do? What dogmatic stand did he express 3½ years later? At the end of Sept., 1914, what did he do? Where? What were some of his reported declarations at that convention and a little later? What has time shown on the subject? And will yet likely show? After the separation in the Society, what use did he make of the writer's pertinent activity? How did he misrepresent the writing of a certain letter? What is the true contrast between the pertinent course of the two? Who else showed the same spirit? 

(54) What did the writer tell our Pastor that he desired to counteract? Of his own initiative what did he suggest as a way of doing it? When was the letter written and when and where did it appear? What was stated above as to a thing new given the writer in 1909? How and when was the rest of that parable made clear to him as things new? With what exception? When did the first one of the rest of the things new become clear to him? What two things should here be noted? As what are the experiences of Bros. Barton, John Edgar and the writer given? Those of J. Hemery, A.H. MacMillan, etc.? What can the writer not recall? What would be profitable for Epiphany-enlightened leaders? What will Priestly leaders among the Levite groups later realize? In what acts described in v. 11 did Miriam take no part? Why was this, type and antitype? 

(55) In what two graces does Aaron appear in vs. 11, 12? For what did he pray? What contrast is suggested in Aaron's use of the term, "my lord," as to Moses? What does it prove? What is the antitype? What illustrates it? What petitions has antitypical Aaron offered for antitypical Miriam? What two things are suggested in Aaron's second petition, in v. 12, as to the Second Deathers? Why is this suggestion true? How does the described expulsion ordinarily occur? What proves that the expulsion of the Second Deathers as a class is referred to here? For what has antitypical Aaron prayed and will pray in this connection? What danger makes such a prayer necessary? How

The Parousia Messenger. 


is this shown in Ps. 107:10? What effect has had, has and will have this knowledge of this danger on antitypical Aaron? What makes antitypical Aaron all the more earnest in this prayer? Who now illustrate such encouragement? What will this influence them to do, when they recognize the true state of affairs? 

(56) What was Moses' response to Aaron's petition? What does the fact of his praying for Miriam prove? Despite what? What was the character of Moses' prayer, even as it is stated in the A. V.? What is still more emphatic on this point? What is the literal translation of Moses' prayer? How does it compare with Aaron's prayer? What does it show? What does Moses' prayer type? How do we know that the antitypical prayer was very earnest? When was the typical prayer offered in time relation to Miriam's repentance and healing? What does this type? What does the antitypical prayer imply? 

(57) Whom does God not forgive? Why not? What proves His readiness to forgive? What do God and Christ show, even before repentance? How long has this willingness shown itself? If this were not so, what would God not have done? What bearing has Rom. 5:8, 6 on this subject? Toward whom also does God exercise this great grace? With what future results? What, accordingly, is typed in vs. 14, 15? What two things moved God to make the arrangement antitypical of vs. 14, 15? How did God regard Jesus' prayer in the star-members? What did it move Him to do? What should this move us to do? Why? How may we cooperate with Him in this matter? For what are we now ready? 

(58) What does God first do as to this arrangement? By what? What is the comparison? Among what peoples is spitting in the face never indulged in? Except in what cases? Among what peoples is it regularly indulged in? Why? From what standpoint does the Bible present this matter? How is a father's spitting in a daughter's face there regarded? What kind of an ignominy would it be? In what would it result? For how long? How does God use this custom? How is this justification Scripturally based? How does it apply to the case at hand? Why was it done for seven days in the illustration? What was the daughter to feel during the seven days? How would God 

Moses, Aaron, Miriam—Type, Antitype. 


act toward Miriam accordingly? To whom did God reveal this procedure with Miriam? 

(59) Where has the antitypical spitting been explained, when done by God through His people? From certain standpoints what have God's people been for Him? How do Rev. 3:16; John 9; 6 apply here? What are the secretions of them as God's mouth? How must they at times use this Word? What does God thereby do? What have the revolutionisms of the Great Company, backed by evil qualities, provoked? In what has this resulted? How is this spitting done? As what has God spit into antitypical Miriam's face? In what two ways has it been done? In what ways when done verbally? How is it done verbally? By the printed or written page? To whom does God do it through The Present Truth? The Herald of the Epiphany? Since when has this work been going on? In what? How has it progressed? Through what movement has it been primarily done? Secondarily? Through whom is it done to the nominal-church Levites? How may we summarize as to the agent of the spitting? 

(60) How long was the sense of shame to be borne by a daughter into whose face her father spat? What did God, accordingly, declare of Miriam? In the antitype of Miriam? What does this mean? What would thereafter happen? In other words, what does God here show? What other type refers to the same thing? Wherein do the antitypes agree? Differ? What difference does the wilderness experience of Azazel's Goat show? That of antitypical Miriam outside the Camp? What shows the difference? What is God's will in this matter as to antitypical Miriam? How should we not allow the objections to, and criticisms of our pertinent course to affect us? Against whom are their objections and criticisms really made? What are His purposes in his pertinent dealings with antitypical Miriam? What would result if this process were not operated on the Great Company? In what motives should we co-operate with God in this matter? How should we co-operate with and under our Head in the work of Num. 12:14, 15 and Lev. 16:20-22? If this be done in this spirit, what will be the result? 

(61) What is a difference between antitypical Miriam and the Great Company? What does Miriam not type? What does she type? How in time order is antitypical

The Parousia Messenger. 


Miriam dealt with? To what do they go in the wilderness? What do they experience there? How is this shown by the six forms of leprosy? What is a correct characterization of this experience? What comparison pictures their experience to a finality? Until what must this be their experience? What will their condition then be? What will they then do? By what will God deliver them? From what? How do Ps. 107:12-14 here apply? What will they then do, according to Ps. 107:15? What should be our attitude toward that day? What should our faith and hope be as to it? Despite what? What should we do in this faith and hope? Why? What will then be restored that is now broken? 

(62) What is the second sentence of v. 15? Its character as to meaning and antitype? What do Israel's wilderness journeys type? What is typed by Israel's not journeying until Miriam's return to the camp? By Miriam's being with Israel during the next journey? What will the work be during the journey? In what two parts? What is not to be overlooked as to translation here? What does the translation gathered suggest? How do we not use the word gathered? Of what do we use it? What does this word imply as to Miriam? What is the antitype? 

(63) What two reasons favor our conclusion that Miriam went along when Israel journeyed to Paran? How do the cited references show this? What is typed by Miriam's being in the camp awhile before the march to Paran? What is typed by the journey to Paran? Where did the episode described in Num. 12 occur? What does Hazeroth mean and type? With what were the Epiphany experiences connected with antitypical Miriam associated? What facts prove this? What was associated therewith for the Priests? Of what other two periods was this true? With what difference? What will change in the Priests' trials later? Why? What two things show this? What change in the Levites will effect this? What is also shown as to the Great Company divisions by the camping at Hazeroth awhile after Miriam's cleansing? Why are they to remain? Though begun at antitypical Hazeroth, until when will the cleansing work go on? Why this? What thought is glorious? What effect should its nearness have upon us? Why?