Epiphany Truth Examiner


View All ChaptersBooks Page




DAVID [beloved] is typically used in a variety of significances. Primarily, in the Psalms, he represents our Lord Jesus as Jehovah's Beloved (Matt. 3:16; Eph. 1:6), warring holy warfare on behalf of Jehovah, the Truth and Jehovah's people, and administering the matters of God's embryo or militant kingdom. Secondarily, in the Psalms, he is used to type the entire Christ class as Jehovah's Beloved warring holy warfare for Jehovah, the Truth and Jehovah's people and administering the affairs of God's embryo or militant kingdom (Is. 55:3). And, thirdly, in the Psalms, he is used to type the Church alone (Rom. 1:7; Col. 3:12; 2 Thes. 2:13). The things said in the pertinent Psalms prove this. He is used in the histories to type that Servant as executive and warrior. We understand our Pastor in his warrior pilgrim activities to be the antitype of Jashobeam, David's mightiest warrior (2 Sam. 23:8, 13-17; 1 Chron. 11:11, 15-19). 

(2) It is reasonable to assume, since David was a typical character, that all who dealt with him were also typical characters. Hence we understand that Jashobeam, who furthered him more than any other individual warrior, was a typical character. His doing his mighty works in the harvest time and while David was in Adullam (Adullam, vengeance or justice of the people is the Hebrew equivalent of Laodicea, 2 Sam. 23:13) implies that his antitype would be the greatest warrior of the reaping and Laodicean period; and this, of course, immediately identifies him typically with our beloved Pastor, who undoubtedly was the greatest 

The Parousia Messenger. 


individual warrior for Truth and against error in the harvest and Laodicean period. Moreover, the descriptive terms applied to Jashobeam serve further to identify him as a type of our Pastor. In 2 Sam. 23:8 he is called the Tachmonite and in 1 Chro. 11:11 he is called the Hachmonite, literally, the son of the Hachmonite. These terms, derived from the same Hebrew root, mean the wise one in allusion to the quality of wisdom expressly applied by our Lord prophetically to that Servant (Matt. 24:45-47; Luke 12:42-45). In 2 Sam. 23:8 he is spoken of as sitting in the seat, which is an allusion to that Servant's office power of rulership over the Lord's household as Jesus' special representative. The term occurring in both passages, "chief among the captains," shows Jashobeam as the highest of the warriors of David, typical of how in the end of this Age that Servant would be the ranking one of all the Church's warriors. He is wrongly called an Eznite in the A.V., for the proper reading is, his spear, i.e., the spear of Jashobeam. Again, by another mistranslation, Jashobeam [the people will return, i.e., from the curse to restitution] is in 2 Sam. 23:8 called Adino. This term means he swung it, i.e., his spear, and should have been so translated. These two corrections in translation would make this verse contain, and that rightly, no interpolated sentence. This rendering harmonizes this verse with its semi-parallel passage, 1 Chro. 11:11. We might therefore render 2 Sam. 23:8 as follows: These are the fames [famous ones] of the warriors which belonged to David—the wise one who sat in the seat [as] chief of the three [chiefs]. He swung it, his spear, against eight hundred [whom] he slew at one time. 

(3) It will be noted that in the Samuel passage eight hundred and in the Chronicles passage three hundred are spoken of as being slain by Jashobeam. Both statements are to be taken as facts, as the antitype indicates. We understand spears to type refutative teachings 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


put forth in writings when the military figure is used. In the priest figure the same teachings are symbolized by bowls, as has been shown in Chap. II. If we consult the facts of the case at hand we will readily conclude that our Pastor's chief individual literary battle was against eternal torment and that his next greatest individual literary battle was against the doctrine of the consciousness of the dead. The havoc that he wrought through his writings on eternal torment sectarians is typed by Jashobeam's slaying the eight hundred Philistines with his spear at one time, while the havoc that he wrought through his writings on sectarians who taught the consciousness of the dead is typed by Jashobeam slaying the three hundred Philistines with his spear at one time. It will be noted that Abishai also slew three hundred (2 Sam. 23:18, 19; 1 Chro. 11:20, 21) with a spear. He represents, we believe, our beloved and sainted Brother John Edgar, and his spear types the latter's booklet on "Where Are the Dead," which thoroughly refutes the teachers of the consciousness of the dead. It was from this work of Bro. Edgar that we were in part enabled to see that Jashobeam's lifting up his spear against the three hundred types our Pastor's literary activity against the consciousness of the dead as distinct from his literary fight against eternal torment, a thing that by association we were thus enabled to see was represented by Jashobeam's slaying by his spear the eight hundred Philistines. 

(4) When we look at the titles of our Pastor's controversial writings on eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead and peruse their contents we will readily see that on these two subjects he wrought more havoc on the sectarians [antitypical Philistines] than on any other subjects defended by them. His chief writings on these subjects are the following: The two booklets on Hell and Spiritism, a large section in Studies, Vol. V, Chap. XII, treating on the soul and 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Hell, the tract on the "Wages of Sin Is Death—Not Eternal Torment," the B. S. M.'s on "Thieves in Paradise," "The Rich Man in Hell," "In the Belly of Hell," "Immortal Worms and Unquenchable Fires," "The Lake of Fire," "What Is the Soul?" "Do you Believe in the Resurrection of the Dead?" "Preaching to the Spirits in Prison," "The Great Parable of the Sheep and Goats," "To Hell and Back," "Life, Death and Hereafter," "The Great Hereafter," "Heaven, Hell and Purgatory," "Where Are the Dead?" etc., etc. Additionally, his public addresses on all suitable occasions smote hip and thigh with the sword of the Spirit these two great errors of the antitypical Philistines, though this phase of his work is not shown in the two pictures now under study; for the spear types controversial writings, not lectures. Surely his labors on these subjects have been great and effective, and certainly they make our fight against antitypical Zebah and Zalmunna much easier in the way of attaining the capture of the king errors of antitypical Midianites. 

(5) Ever since 1910 we have understood Jashobeam in his two exploits outlined in 2 Sam. 23:8 and 1 Chron. 11:11 as typing our Pastor heroically and successfully warring against the great errors of eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead. The typical achievements under consideration are among the greatest deeds of military valor set forth in sacred or profane history. Only certain of Samson's exploits exceed them; but in Samson's case we are expressly taught that miraculous powers from God gave him his powers, while such is not the record as to Jashobeam, though he likely was supernaturally strengthened in these exploits. The constant battling of our Pastor against the fortresses of eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead made great rents in their walls and paved the way to the easy victory we are gaining over antitypical Zebah and Zalmunna, in which his pertinent writings form our chief literary arsenal for

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


this fight. It is our knowledge of his prominence in these conflicts that has prompted us for the past few years to suggest that in a fitting manner we may celebrate the period from his last leaving Bethel to his burial—Oct. 16 to Nov. 7, by making a special effort in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle. It is not at all our thought that only in that time should we wage this battle, though some seem by their acts to think so. Rather, we think that during that period we should make a special effort therein, and generally throughout the year seek and use opportunities to engage therein. Certainly, the exploits of our beloved Jashobeam in these two respects are a clarion call to us to engage generally throughout the year in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, and particularly during the time of our special annual effort—Oct. 16 to Nov. 7. Certainly, under God and Christ such an annual special effort is a fitting tribute to the memory of our incomparable Jashobeam, and as such let us engage therein heartily and faithfully. 

(6) Above we showed that Jashobeam, David's Mightiest Warrior, in killing first 800 and then 300 with a spear, typed our Pastor's literary work against the defenders of the eternal torment doctrine and the consciousness of the dead doctrine, respectively. The third great deed of Jashobeam we now proceed to discuss in its typical and antitypical significance. We will give in parallel columns the two accounts of Jashobeam's third deed as recorded in 2 Sam. and in 1 Chron.: 

2 Sam. 23:13-17 

(13) And three of the thirty chief went down, and came to David 

in the harvest time unto the cave of Adullam; and the troop of the Philistines were encamped in the valley of Rephaim. (14) And David was then in the hold, 

1 Chron. 11:15-19 

(15) And three of the thirty chief went down 

to the rock to David 

into the 

cave of Adullam; and the host of the Philistines were encamped in the valley of the Rephaim. (16) And David was then in the hold, 

The Parousia Messenger. 


and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. 

(15) And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! 

(16) And the three mighty men break through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. 

(17) And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: shall I drink the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? 

Therefore he 

would not drink of it. These things did the three mighty men. 

and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. 

(17) And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! 

(18) And the three 

break through the host 

of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord, and said, (19) My God forbid it me, that I 

should do this: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did the three mighty men. 

(7) The three chiefs of David's thirty mighty men were Jashobeam, Eleazar and Shammah (2 Sam. 23:8, 9, 11; 1 Chro. 11:11, 12). Our interest in this study centers in Jashobeam; and therefore we will pass by the other two in silence. The rock (1 Chro. 11:15) types the Christ, Head and Body (1 Cor. 10:4; the Christ in the Greek), also typed by the rock that Moses and Aaron smote twice (Num. 20:2-13). David [Beloved] here types Bro. Russell as that Servant, not as a pilgrim, as which he is here typed by Jashobeam in the reaping time, "harvest" (2 Sam. 23:13). This is further confirmed by the fact that David was in the cave of Adullam (the Hebrew equivalent of Laodicea, i.e., justice or vengeance of the people), which types the Laodicean condition of that Servant as one in 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


which he was hidden from the understanding of the world (Is. 26:20). David's being then in the hold (2 Sam. 23:14; 1 Chro. 11:16)—apparently a fortified place in the cave of Adullam—types him as dwelling in God as his refuge and fortress (Ps. 91:1, 2). The Philistines [villagers—sectarians] here, so far as Jashobeam's relation to them is concerned, type the no-ransomistic sifters in 1878 and 1879 who were moving heaven and earth to get rid of the Truth on the corresponding price and the satisfaction of justice by a sacrifice. The word Rephaim means giants and types the fallen angels; while the valley of Rephaim seems to type the sphere of the fallen angels' activities. Therein certainly the no-ransomistic sifters were encamped in an unholy alliance with the demons and in wicked cooperation with them in warfare against the Ransom and Sin-offering. In such a warfare Bro. Russell, as antitypical David, found safety in Jehovah his refuge, fortress and dwelling place (Ps. 91:2, 9, 10). Bethlehem [house of bread] represents Bible teachings as food for heart and mind. The Philistine garrison at Bethlehem represents Mr. Barbour and his confederate no-ransomistic teachers invading, holding and misusing their office on Bible teaching in an effort to corrupt the Truth on the ransom and the satisfaction of justice by the Sin-offering. Jashobeam's coming to David under the circumstances described in the passages under consideration represents our Pastor as a pilgrim coming in 1878 and 1879 to our Pastor as that Servant, as a helper under the antitypical conditions just described. 

(8) The well at the gate of Bethlehem represents the Bible—the depository of the Truth—from which the Truth teachers—antitypical Bethlehemites—are privileged to dip and bring to others to drink. David's longing for a drink of water from that well, as related to Jashobeam, represents the longing of that Servant for the Truth on the details of the ransom and of the satisfaction of justice connected with the controversy on the 

The Parousia Messenger. 


ransom, which was begun by Mr. Barbour in the Spring of 1878. Mr. Barbour's deeply laid sophistries made this longing all the greater, especially his perversion of Lev. 16, to rid it of the idea of the satisfaction of justice by the Sin-offering. As David's longing for the water prompted Jashobeam to break through the camp of the Philistines and get the water from the well for David; so the longing of that Servant for the pertinent Scriptural Truth prompted our Pastor in a struggle of about a year and a half to break through all the arguments of the no-ransomers and the opposition of demons in order to get what proved to be the truth on the two sin-offerings of Lev. 16 as typing the two antitypical Sin-offerings—the humanity of Jesus and that of the Church used in the antitypical atonement, the Church's share therein having been lost sight of since shortly after the Jewish Harvest. David's refusal to drink the water gotten under such dangerous conditions types the natural reluctance of that Servant at first to accept the doctrine of the Church's sharing in the Sin-offering, which to him seemed dangerous to its bringer, as a pilgrim, for it was as a pilgrim that he came into the pertinent controversy. David's pouring out the water as a drink-offering proves that later such hesitating reluctance on Bro. Russell's part was overcome, and types the fact that he thereafter preached it as a truth of the Lord—poured it out as an antitypical drink-offering to the Lord. 

(9) It will surely interest our readers to learn the historical facts, lasting a period of nearly a year and a half, connected with the antitype of Jashobeam's third exploit, especially the last phase of that antitype. While on a visit at the Bible House in Allegheny in the Fall of 1903 during the Russell-Eaton Debates, we asked our Pastor how he had come to his understanding of the Lord's Word; and in response to our question he gave us an account, lasting six hours and spread over two evenings, of his growth in the Truth from his 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


seventeenth to his thirtieth year; and in this lengthy narrative, among other things, he gave us an account of the facts antitypical of Jashobeam's third exploit, without either of us at that time understanding that those events were the antitype of that exploit. We will give a condensed statement of these facts: When the expectations of the brethren to experience their taking away from the earth in fleshy bodies on Nisan 16, 1878, were not fulfilled, Mr. Barbour, who had first for 1873, then for 1874, and then later for 1878, dogmatically prophesied the Church's so-called "rapture," concluded that if he did not by a figurative explosion divert the Church's attention from his failures at predicting, he would lose his influence as a Biblical interpreter; and he furnished in the Spring of 1878 the diverting explosion by a renunciation of the ransom—the corresponding price—in his periodical, The Herald of the Morning, of which Bros. Russell and Paton were assistant editors. The two assistant editors repeatedly published in this periodical answers defending the ransom; and The Herald of the Morning became for about a year a house divided against itself. Our Pastor in the Spring of 1879, seeing that Mr. Barbour was going further into darkness, and was proving irreclaimable, decided to sever his relations with him and his periodical, and to publish The Tower, whose first number appeared in July, 1879. Very shortly thereafter he lectured (pilgrim work) in New England from charts on certain features of Lev. 16 to prove the corresponding price, without however understanding its details, particularly the distinction between the antitypes of the bullock, Lord's goat and Azazel's goat. Mr. Barbour, hearing of his lectures on Lev. 16, and alluding to his haberdashery business, sarcastically remarked: "What! That shirt seller explaining the tabernacle! He does not understand the tabernacle. I will show you what the tabernacle, and particularly what Lev. 16 mean, and how they are free from the ransom thought." In

The Parousia Messenger. 


the early Fall of 1879 appeared Mr. Barbour's exposition of Lev. 16 denying the corresponding price as being taught in this chapter and giving such a subtile and plausible exposition of the chapter in an anti-ransom sense as to deceive, if possible, the very elect. 

(10) Since the Tower and the Herald were going to the same list of addresses, Bro. Russell became greatly perturbed at the subtility and plausibility of Mr. Barbour's views on Lev. 16; for over a year had he been longing for clearness on the details, including Lev. 16, connected with the ransom controversy [David's longing for the water]; and the subtility and plausibility of the article in question made him greatly fear for the safety of the sheep, as well as long to satisfy their craving for the pertinent Truth details. He told us that never in his life had he experienced such worry (struggles with the demons—Rephaim), which was so great as to drive sleep from his eyes. He saw at once that Mr. Barbour's explanation of Lev. 16 must be wrong; for it was pivoted on the denial of the Bible's central Truth; but he did not have a satisfactory explanation of the antitypes of the bullock, Lord's goat and Azazel's goat to set forth in opposition to the erroneous explanations of them advanced by Mr. Barbour; and he knew that it would not do simply to deny Mr. Barbour's explanations without offering satisfactory ones in their place. Hence he feared that the article in question would work havoc among the sheep. This sent him to the Lord in a prayer that pled for the proper understanding of Lev. 16, giving as the reason for the petition that since the error on the subject had now in the Harvest appeared, evidently the time was due for the Truth thereon to become clear, and that promised to minister the Truth on the subject to the brethren faithfully, if the Lord would deign to make it clear to him. 

(11) He sent word to the foreman of his Pittsburgh store that he would not come that day, and for him to 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


conduct the business as usual in his absence. Thereafter he offered the above-mentioned prayer. Then, knowing that Hebrews discusses more than any other Biblical book the tabernacle types, he spent the whole day in its study and in prayer; but late that night his mind was as blank on the subject as it was early that morning. The whole of the next day until late at night he spent in the same way, but without gaining any clearness on the subject. The third day he renewed his study of Hebrews, when about noon he came to Heb. 13:10-16, and noticed that these verses treated of two sets of tables, altars, high priests and sacrifices, one set belonging to the Jewish and the other to the Gospel Age. He further noticed that v. 11 was a clear allusion to Lev. 16 as to the two sin-offerings of the atonement day, as to the high priest's activities with their blood, and as to their bodies being burned outside the camp. He further noticed that in v. 12 the Apostle refers, as a conclusion from the type, to Jesus' suffering without the gate as the antitype of the bullock's being burned without the camp; and that in v. 13 the Apostle refers, as a conclusion from the type, to the Church going forth to the Lord without the camp bearing His reproach, i.e., the same kind of sufferings as His—Sin-offering sufferings. Immediately he saw that St. Paul was explaining that the bullock typed Jesus as a Sin-offering, and that the Lord's goat typed the Church as a Sin-offering. Filled with joy at the thought that his prayers and studies had been blessed with an answer by the Lord, he jumped up, exclaiming to his wife: "I have it! I have it!" Conservatively she answered, "Do not be too sure!" Going over the verses again he reaffirmed his conviction and proved it to her and to his complete satisfaction. 

(12) His worries left him at once; and the sweetest peace imaginable filled his heart; for now he had the Apostle's own inspired explanation of the main features of Lev. 16, which parallel passages clarified still

The Parousia Messenger. 


more to his mind. What should he do with his newfound treasure? The feverish hurry that he before felt left him; and instead of publishing his findings immediately, or letting the brethren in general know of them, he called a conference of leading brethren and during an eight-day discussion imparted to them what in summary he later wrote out as Tabernacle Shadows. He told the conference his experience of anxiety, his struggles with demons, his prayers and his studies, as he strove to break through what proved to be the camp of the antitypical Philistines fighting against the ransom under demonic instigation. The leading brethren were, except Mr. Paton, convinced of the Truth of this matter; and they began to preach it to others, while Mr. Paton, seemingly envious that the Lord had favored Bro. Russell instead of himself with this large amount of advancing Truth, became disgruntled, and that increasingly, until about two years later—in the Fall of 1881—he renounced in the infidelism sifting the ransom, advocating a perversion of the ransom and the error of Universalism very much like what Concordant Versionism now teaches. 

(13) After the conference with the leading brethren Bro. Russell preached on the subject before the Allegheny ecclesia, where first also reluctance to accept it was shown, later a hearty acceptance with a spreading of this truth set in. In the February, 1880, Tower (See Tower Reprints, pp. 72, 73) appeared the first article with the clarified light on the tabernacle under the title The Law Shadows. Almost always during the Harvest was there at first a reluctance on the part of the faithful to accept the thought that the Church shared in the privilege of being a part of the Sin-offering; but this reluctance always gave way in them to a hearty acceptance of this high calling privilege and the subsequent presenting of it to others. 

(14) Our Pastor told us that the Lord doubtless kept him waiting for three days before his prayers and

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


studies bore fruit the better to prepare him to receive and administer the stewardship of such great and wide embracing truths as are contained in Tabernacle Shadows. Without his then knowing of it, he was as that Servant at that time given the charge of the storehouse; and the Truth on the tabernacle, particularly on Lev. 16, was the first part of the meat in due season that he as such brought forth therefrom. And loyally did he keep the promise that he made in his prayer—to minister the Truth on Lev. 16 faithfully to the brethren, if the Lord would deign to make it plain to him! Surely it was a goodly portion of symbolic water that he dipped out of the well at antitypical Bethlehem's gate! And certainly his year and a half's battle in connection therewith, culminating in his getting the Truth on Lev. 16, was the greatest conflict of all engaged in by antitypical David's Mightiest Warrior! And how inexpressibly richly blessed was its booty to the whole Church! Well may we in gratitude and appreciation cry out, God bless His memory! 

(15) We take pleasure in furnishing the brethren with an exposition of a Scriptural description on another phase of our Pastor's work, wherein especially the teaching and executive character of his official work as a Priest is brought to our attention. In Chap. II we called attention to the fact that Eleazar, Aaron's son, represents for the Jewish Harvest the twelve Apostles and for the Gospel Harvest Bro. Russell. It is what Jesus said to the Apostles, as to their official powers (Matt. 18:18), and what He said of our Pastor, as to his official powers (Matt. 24:45-47; Luke 12:43-46), that convinces us that what is said of Eleazar in Num. 4:16 types the powers ascribed to the Apostles in Matt. 18:18 and to our Pastor in Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:43-46. The latter fact will appear as we apply the typical statements of Num. 4:16 to the activities and powers of our Pastor as an executive and teacher. Here we will not expound this 

The Parousia Messenger. 


passage as applying to the Twelve, as the Eleazar of the Jewish Harvest, since it is not pertinent to our subject; but will expound this passage of our Pastor, the Eleazar of the Gospel Harvest. 

(16) In Num. 4:16 seven executive and teaching functions of his are brought to our attention. The first of these is typed by Eleazar's having charge of the oil for the lampstand. Among other things, oil represents the spirit of understanding (Matt. 25:3, 4, 8-10). The thing understood, of course, is the Truth. For Eleazar to have had charge of the oil for the lampstand would, therefore, type the thoughts: that it would be a privilege of our Pastor as teacher to understand the Truth not only for himself, but also for the brethren as enlighteners of one another, that he would shed this light on the teaching brethren, and that as an executive he would arrange for that understanding of the Truth to be made clear to the brethren in their capacity of enlightening the Church and to put into their hands helps that would enable them to learn and teach these truths. This teaching work he did by oral and written instructions and by providing Berean lessons on the pertinent literature, helpful in teaching these truths; and this executive work he did by publishing and distributing books, etc., that explained these truths, and by arranging for meetings and other class order wherein these truths might be taught. Certainly he did every one of these things and in so doing acted as teacher and executive in antitype of Eleazar's having charge of the oil for the lampstand. 

(17) The second function ascribed in our text to Eleazar was his charge of the sweet incense. As Tabernacle Shadows shows (pp. 56, par. 2 and 62, par. 2), the unburnt sweet incense represents the actually perfect choice human powers of Jesus and the reckonedly perfect choice human powers of the Church, offered in sacrifice during the Gospel Age. Jesus' incense having long before been offered, our Pastor's charge could not 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


have included anything executive as to His actually perfect choice human powers in their being offered up from Jordan to Calvary. But it was a function of his to teach the pertinent facts on our Lord's human perfections offered by Him on the antitypical golden Altar. This he did, as his oral and written teachings prove. As executive he, of course, arranged for such teachings to reach the living brethren without acting as an executive toward them in their being offered up. He likewise taught orally and in writings all the pertinent matters respecting the reckonedly perfect human powers of the Church offered up before his time, though he as executive arranged for such teachings to reach the living brethren. But as to the Church of his day, he acted directly both as the teacher and executive with respect to its sweet incense. His teaching function in this respect he fulfilled by explaining justification by faith as reckoning perfection to our human all through Jesus' imputed merit, consecration as our consequent privilege and reasonable service, and the various things implied in, related to, and flowing from the sacrifice of our human all even unto death. Thus he discharged the teaching function of his charge with respect to the antitypical sweet incense. As executive he discharged his pertinent function by arranging for forms of service adapted to the exercise of the brethren's choice human powers—their various human abilities, influence, positions, reputations, time, strength, health, means, etc. Thus, the various forms of service—pilgrim, colporteur, volunteer, bereaved, sharpshooter, photodrama, Bible House, etc., work severally gave opportunities for the use of the brethren's divers talents, influence, positions, reputation, time, strength, etc. His use of the money that they entrusted to his administration in publishing and circulating literature, supporting various agencies of the work, providing advertisements for the public meetings and other expenses connected with meetings, securing space in newspapers

The Parousia Messenger. 


and magazines and meeting expenses for correspondence and other features of the work, is another illustration of his acting as an executive as to his charge of the antitypical sweet incense; for thereby the brethren's incense was offered. 

(18) The third charge of Eleazar as our text sets it forth concerned the continual meat-offering, or according to a better translation, the meal-offering. See A.R.V. When, as in our text, the drink-offering is not mentioned, it is to be understood as included in the meal-offering. The meat- or meal-offering, as we have seen, represents that phase of our sacrifices which shows with what they occupy themselves, i.e., the setting forth of the Truth, like lecturing on and preaching the Truth by the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims, preaching and teaching the Truth by elders, colporteuring and lending the Truth literature by colporteurs, sharpshooters, etc., volunteering the Truth by volunteers and bereaved workers, publishing the Truth in newspapers and magazines, as well as circulating them, answering Truth questions, giving individuals oral testimonies conversationally on the Truth, furthering the photodrama work, serving as members of the Bible House and Bethel, doing the office and home work associated with the spread of the Truth, and supporting and encouraging others in the above forms of spreading the Truth. In discharging the teaching function of this phase of his office our Pastor had to write the Truth literature and teach the Truth to the above-described kinds of workers orally as well as with the printed page, by lectures, sermons, question meetings, conversation and letter writing. As executive he discharged this phase of his office by arranging for the various above-described forms of service whereby the Truth was spread, as well as by appointing the various persons to their pertinent forms of service in Truth spreading, doing this in some cases directly, e.g., pilgrims, colporteurs, etc., in others indirectly through

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


others, e.g., elders, volunteers, volunteer captains, by pruning out unfit persons among these workers and by arranging for them to have all the needed helps in the way of literature, fields of service, finances, encouragement, counsel, etc. The fulfilled facts prove that he executed both of his powers in this phase of his work. 

(19) Eleazar's fourth duty as described in our text was to care for the anointing oil. The anointing oil types the Holy Spirit from the standpoint of its qualifying us for the Christ class service. The ingredients of the antitypical anointing oil as qualifiers for service are succinctly described in Is. 11:2. The contents of this description may be stated as follows: the qualities of wisdom, justice, love and power each developed individually, each developed in balance with the others and in this balance all of them controlling all our other qualities (2 Peter 1:5-8), fit us for our ministry as the Christ. As the Gospel-harvest Eleazar our Pastor's charge in this respect as teacher was to instruct the Church as to the nature of the anointing, of the anointed class, of their duties, privileges in knowledge, service, development and sufferings, and of their prospects. This he abundantly did in the Volumes and Towers especially, as well as by his oral ministry. Everything that he taught on the development of the graces as to their uses in service belonged to his teaching charge as respects the antitypical anointing oil. His teachings on the quickening, development, strengthening and balance of the Spirit, so far as they concerned qualification for service, also belong under this head. His charge as executive on this head required him to supervise the work of appointing qualified persons to the various forms of service. He did this directly in the case of pilgrims, colporteurs, photodrama workers, Bible House and Bethel workers, managers of the foreign branches and newspaper workers. He did this indirectly in the case of elders, deacons, volunteer captains, volunteers, sharpshooters and photodrama 

The Parousia Messenger. 


ushers, by advising as to their qualifications and against accepting and continuing the disqualified in the pertinent service. He also exercised this function of his office as executive directly and indirectly by keeping, and advising against keeping persons from entering services for which they were not qualified and by dismissing, or advising dismissing from such services those who later proved themselves as having become unfit therefore. On this, his fourth official function, the facts prove that he fulfilled the type in his work as that Servant, as he did in other respects. 

(20) The fifth charge of Eleazar was the Tabernacle itself, i.e., the whole structure, while it was standing, was under his superintendency. The tabernacle, of course, in its holy and most holy, types the Church militant and triumphant, as new creatures, and in its court, the humanity of the new creatures and the household of faith. For the Gospel-harvest Eleazar this would mean that our pastor had in a teaching and executive way charge of the new creatures during the reaping and gleaning time, yea, until Oct. 30, 1916, when in the toga scene he resigned his office as having been completely fulfilled. It would likewise mean that he had the teaching and executive charge of their justified humanity undergoing sacrifice, as represented by the court, as well as that he was the proper one to teach, and to point out the work of the tentatively justified during that period. He fulfilled his charge of the antitypical Holy by teaching and directing the Church as God's habitation in its mission as such. His charge of the antitypical Most Holy during the Parousia was to teach with respect to it the Truth then due to be known by the Church this side of the veil, and to act on this side of the veil as the executive hand of God and the Christ beyond the veil; but during the Millennium this charge will imply his teaching and directing the glorified Church as Jesus' special representative in its Millennial work. Each of the twelve Apostles 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


will act under his direction as a teacher and a director of one of the twelve tribes of Spiritual Israel and through them of the twelve tribes of Millennial Israel—the world. Thus the twelve brethren who were the Jewish Harvest Eleazar will be on twelve thrones judging [directing; ruling] the twelve tribes of [Spiritual and Millennial] Israel (Luke 22:30), in his charge as Jesus' special representative. Thus this type teaches that our Pastor will be the one on our Lord's right in the Kingdom. Thus we see that both antitypical Eleazar will be in charge of the Most Holy, each of the Apostles, under our Lord, over a tribe of it, and the Parousia Messenger, under Him, over the whole of it, including the twelve Apostles. 

(21) The sixth charge of Eleazar was the holy furniture. This is implied in part by the expression, "and all that is therein," and by what is meant by the expression translated, "in the sanctuary." We understand the translation of the last two phrases of our text, as the explanation of the preceding phrase, "and all that therein is," to be the following: in respect to the holy [furniture] and in respect to its vessels. The word kodesh here cannot be the holy or most holy, for these are implied in the term tabernacle previously used. The term, its vessels, is implied in part by, as it is also a part of the apposition to the expression, "and all that therein is." What was the rest of that which was among "all that therein" was? The holy furniture, of course. Hence we see that the last two phrases of v. 16 are appositional to the expression, "all that therein is," and therefore is explanatory of it. Hence the furniture's vessels being meant by the last phrase, the furniture must be meant by the next last phrase. Therefore Eleazar's sixth charge was the holy furniture—the two altars, the laver, the lampstand, the table and the ark. Therefore, the antitypical Eleazar's (our Pastor's) charge was their antitypes. The antitypical Brazen Altar being the Christ's humanity in its work 

The Parousia Messenger. 


of comforting, encouraging, strengthening, correcting and restraining, as each case may require, the humanity of the anointed brethren as it was and is being sacrificed, our Pastor's charge as to this Altar was as teacher to teach the brethren their privileges as to using their human all in such a way as to comfort, encourage, strengthen, correct, warn and restrain the humanity of one another as each case required, while it was being sacrificed for the Lord's cause. This he often did in his oral and written teachings, as well as by his example. His charge of this Altar as executive was exercised in supervising such comforting, strengthening, encouraging, correcting, warning and restraining work, which he did by encouraging and directing the brethren in the use of their human all in this way and by hindering a contrary course on their part. His teaching charge of the antitypical Golden Altar, the New Creatures in their capacity of encouraging, comforting, strengthening, correcting, warning and restraining the sacrificing and suffering New Creatures (Heb. 10:32-39), was exercised by his explaining, proving, illustrating, etc., the privileges of the brethren to use their new-creaturely powers, etc., encourage, strengthen, correct, warn and restrain, as each case required, their new-creaturely brethren amid their sacrificial sufferings; while his executive charge of the antitypical Golden Altar was fulfilled by his encouraging the new creatures to, and directing them in such work. 

(22) As we have seen, the laver types the Bible—God's inspired Word. Its base and shaft type the Old Testament as the foundation of the New Testament and its bowl types the New Testament as the superstructure of the Old Testament. The water in the bowl types the truths of the Bible in their cleansing respects. Our Pastor's executive charge of the antitypical Laver, therefore, means that the Bible was placed in his care in order that he might preserve it, commend it and make it influential and see to it that 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


it was used for its Divinely intended purpose of furnishing the proper doctrinal, refutative, correctional and ethical teachings, and to direct the use of pertinent Scriptures to this purpose. This charge implied that, under the Lord, he was the one who should direct the time, occasion, work and agents of using the Bible in the above-indicated ways. His teaching charge of the antitypical Laver implied that he was to declare the doctrine of the Scripture, as well as its various teachings in doctrinal, refutational, correctional and ethical respects. Certainly his work of executive and teacher proves that he carried out these two functions of his office in this respect. While on this point we desire to apply this teaching to an error that has circulated among some of the Lord's people, that there are other books, e.g., Pseudepigraphs like the book of Enoch, the Old Testament Apocrypha, etc., that are inspired writings, i.e., are a part of the Bible. If they were, then our Pastor, who had charge of the antitypical Laver, would have accepted them as such, and would have acted as executive and teacher of them; for the Lord would have given them to him for this purpose, and as the wise and faithful steward he would have wisely and faithfully performed his teaching and executive functions toward them. But the Lord never gave them to him as such; he never accepted them as such; and he never fulfilled either of his two functions as antitypical Eleazar toward them. This is, to Truth people, a complete proof that they are not part of God's inspired Revelation. 

(23) The lampstand represents the New Creatures as enlighteners of one another. It teaches them the Truth. Our Pastor acted out his office as teacher with respect to the antitypical Lampstand in that he explained the nature, character, privileges, duties, etc., of the Church as enlightener of the brethren, as well as taught the Church what and how to do in enlightening the brethren. As executive he fulfilled his office toward

The Parousia Messenger. 


the antitypical Lampstand by encouraging New Creatures to enlighten one another, putting into their hands the instrumentalities whereby they did this enlightening work, and by directing them in the application of the means, methods and ways of giving such enlightenment. The table of shewbread types the New Creatures in their capacity of strengthening one another with the bread of life unto every good word and work, i.e., unto the graces of the Spirit and the service of the Truth, for their journey to the antitypical Holy of Holies. Our Pastor's charge of this table would, therefore, imply that as teacher he would instruct New Creatures on the privileges, duties, spirit, manner, means and methods connected with their strengthening one another in every good word and work. His writings and oral teachings were replete with such instructions and thus they prove that he fulfilled this function of his teaching office. As executive he fulfilled his charge of the antitypical Table by making arrangements for his pertinent, oral and written instructions to reach the brethren in their capacity of strengthening one another in every good word and work, by making such pilgrim, elder, etc., arrangements whereby this could be done and furthered and by arranging for meetings, conventions, etc., wherein it could be done and furthered. 

(24) The chest part of the ark types the Christ class beyond the veil and the mercy seat, cherubim and the radiated light of the shekinah represent God's four chief attributes and the shekinah itself represents Him in His person. Our Pastor's teaching charge with respect to the chest of the ark was his work of making the pertinent explanations, proofs and illustrations necessary to clarify to the Church this side of the veil the Christ beyond the veil. His executive charge as to it was to do the things that belonged to his being the special representative of the Christ class, particularly of its Head, in matters this side of the veil, i.e., to be 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


the hand on this side of the veil of the Christ class on the other side of the veil. So, too, his teaching charge with respect to the top of the ark, that which represents God and His attributes, was to explain Him and them with concordant proofs and illustrations; while his executive charge as to these was to be God's hand this side of the veil to carry out the pertinent work. 

(25) The seventh and final charge of Eleazar was the vessels of the tabernacle. It was his sixth and seventh charge that made him have charge of the Kohathites in their service of the tabernacle (Num. 3:32). This was carrying the furniture and vessels after they were covered by the priests. So the charge of the Kohathites was not an eighth charge of Eleazar, but was implied with his sixth and seventh charges. From a comparison of Num. 3:32 ["the chief of the Levites" are evidently the Kohathites, who were higher ("the chief") in honor of service than the Merarites and Gershonites] and of Num. 4:28, 33, we conclude that our Pastor was also particularly charged with the oversight of the Parousia, Epiphany and Millennial Kohathites' work. He discharged this work toward the Parousia and Epiphany Kohathites by his giving the proper teachings as to the antitypical Altars, Laver, Lampstand, Table, Ark and the Vessels, i.e., Bible passages (censers), doctrines (cups), refutations (bowls), corrections (chargers, platters) and ethics (spoons); while as executive he arranged that these teachings reached them. Thereby he in part also discharged his office toward the Millennial Kohathites—the Ancient Worthies. The rest of it he will do in the Millennium. We proved (Vol. VIII, Chap. II) that the censers type Bible passages; the chargers, platters, the corrective teachings; the cups, the doctrinal teachings; the bowls, the refutative teachings, and the spoons, the ethical teachings that the antitypical Priesthood would use in its ministries. Our Pastor's executive charge of the Bible passages that should be used by the Priesthood 

The Parousia Messenger. 


implied that he was the one through whom the Lord gave the decision as to which passages were to be presented as due on the pertinent subjects, as well as to furnish suitable vehicles—articles, books, discourses, etc., wherein they would be explained—and manage the distribution of these to the Priesthood; while his teaching charge in this respect was to explain, prove and illustrate the contents of such passages for the use of the sacrificing Priesthood. His teaching charge as to the corrective, doctrinal, refutational and ethical teachings was to expound, prove, illustrate, etc., such teachings; while his executive charge as to these was to arrange for the ways, means, methods, agents and conditions for such teaching to be administered to and by the ministering Priesthood. His written and oral instructions and his administrative acts abundantly prove that he fulfilled both parts of his seventh charge, and that faithfully. 

(26) In the above we have tersely set forth the seven ways (as typed in Num. 4:16) in which the two functions—teaching and executive—of the office of that Servant, as described in Luke 12:42-45 and Matt. 24:45-47, were fulfilled in his ministry. Beyond all contradiction, he did these seven things in a teaching and executive way. Therefore he is the Gospel-harvest Eleazar. No other individual at the end of the Age did them, and that in these two ways. Hence he alone was that Servant and the Gospel-harvest antitype of Eleazar. Therefore that Servant was not a class, as also the figure of a steward over the other servants of a household proves. Hence those brethren who deny that he was exclusively that Servant contradict fulfilled prophecy and, therefore, must be blind on that subject and are in that blindness because of unfaithfulness or immaturity (2 Pet. 1:9; Heb. 5:11-14); while to deny it after once having seen it is a certain evidence of unfaithfulness, and leaves its deniers open to being blown about by every wind of doctrine, as facts amply prove. 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


Our regarding him as the Gospel-harvest Eleazar is not to be construed as exalting him to the belittlement of our Lord. Rather, it is in harmony with our Lord's pre-eminence that He have a special representative. That a king speaks and acts through a prime minister by no means belittles a king. Rather, it honors him as such and is to be expected of him. So, too, our Lord's using our Pastor as His special eye, mouth and hand, does not belittle, but honors Him. As a Spirit Being invisible to man, it was, of course, necessary and practical that He should have had such a special representative. Undoubtedly the type of Eleazar, as set forth in our text, shows that someone different from our Lord (antitypical Aaron) would have the seven charges set forth in this text. Hence he would, for the end of the Age, be some individual this side of the veil; for whenever Eleazar and Ithamar are expressly named in relation to the end of the Age, they always type two individuals, not two classes, which Priests cannot be. 

(27) The close thought relation between Num. 4:16, on the one hand, and Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:42-45, on the other hand, suggests the interesting conclusion that our Lord, knowing that the two Harvests were parallel, quite likely got from Num. 4:16 the thought that there would be a "that Servant" with pertinent powers in the Gospel Harvest and therefore gave the prophetic delineation of him contained in Matt. 24:35-37 and Luke 12:42-45. We, of course, would not deny that He could have gotten this thought by direct Divine inspiration or from some other types, like 2 Sam. 23:8; Num. 16:37-40 and 25:7-13, or from some prophecies, like Is: 21:5-10 and Hab. 2:1, 2. But each of these passages singly, and all of them combinedly, lack the fullness of the ideas on this line of thought given in Num. 4:16, while our text parallels very closely the thoughts given in Matt. 24 and Luke 12 on this subject. Therefore, very likely it was to our

The Parousia Messenger. 


Lord the main, if not the exclusive, source of the prophecies given in Matt. 24 and Luke 12. 

(28) A practical reflection we may profitably draw from this study, i.e., to exercise a meek—teachable and leadable—attitude of mind and heart toward the teachings and arrangements given through that Servant. This does not mean that he was infallible; for he was not, even as his words and some of his teachings prove; nor that his teachings should be accepted with blank and unquestioning minds; for this would be an unpriestly attitude; but it does mean that we should approach his teachings as those coming from the Divinely authorized special eye and mouth of the Lord to the Church in the Parousia, as also foundational for the Epiphany; and that we should approach his arrangements as those of the Divinely ordained executive for the Lord for the Parousia, as also foundational for the Epiphany. This attitude would safeguard us against revolutionism, keep us in the Parousia Truth and make us receptive to the Epiphany Truth. Moreover, it would also enable us to accept the position that his teachings on the truths needed for the Church's development, as they were left in 1914, are throughout true. It would not mean that every detail of his teachings on matters of developing the Great Company by 1914 was true; for the Great Company developing truths are not to be free from error entirely until 1954—the mother of a daughter was not entirely purified until the 80th day; but on this feature of thought it must be held that by the time of his death, Oct. 31, 1916, all the foundations of the Great Company truths had been laid, though here and there small adjustments in the foundations must thereafter be made. Properly to adjust ourselves to his teachings and arrangements would keep us from the Levitical and other errors of this Epiphany and would keep us in the right attitude toward the Priests' Epiphany teachings and work. A brief casting of the eyes of our 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


understanding about us will give us conclusive evidence as to the truthfulness of these statements. Therefore, dear brethren, let us rightly and heartily hold to him as that Servant, the Gospel-harvest Eleazar, who will also be the Millennial Eleazar, the one at our Lord's right hand forevermore. 

(29) We now proceed to study Eleazar as a type of our Pastor, as he is set forth in Num. 16:36-40. The main subject matter of these verses antitypically is not entirely new, since we have under the fifth sifting (Calls—Siftings—Slaughter Weapons; Vol. V, Chap. II) briefly expounded it. Here we will give more details. The setting of the story being given in the above-mentioned chapter, it will not be necessary to go into detail thereon. Suffice it to say that from Feb., 1908, to June, 1911, we had the fifth harvest call, sifting and slaughter weapon working contemporaneously. Among the Truth people the sifting was initiated through objections to the vow, which proved to be the antitypical fringe on the corners of antitypical Israelites' symbolic garments—graces. Korah types the 1908-1911 sifters among the Truth people and the associated 250 Levites represent that many groups of crown-losers in the nominal church. During that period, in gross contradiction of, and in usurpatory competition with the true Priesthood—Head and Body—the apostate new creatures in and out of the Truth antityped Korah and his band in offering incense as against Aaron. As fire from the Lord (v. 35) destroyed Korah and his band, so destruction went out from the Lord to the New Creatures of antitypical Korah and his band. 

(30) At that time among Truth people the controversy was over the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants. The Ransom was drawn somewhat into the controversy, not because of either side denying the corresponding-price, but because the sifters misrepresented our view of the Sin-offerings, as though we taught that the Church's share in the Sin-offering made

The Parousia Messenger. 


the Church produce a part of the Ransom merit, alleging that we necessarily thereby taught that Jesus alone did not produce the entire Ransom merit. Not a few were deceived into believing the sifting leaders' misrepresentations on these two points, and fought us as though we really taught as we were misrepresented to teach. Such deceived ones fought an error, which, however, we did not hold. Those who deceived them—antitypical Korah—knew better, but were conscienceless enough to spread the deception to draw disciples after themselves, and thereby perished as New Creatures. But the new creatures deceived by them, fighting a real error, though beating the air so far as the Priesthood's pertinent teachings were concerned, did not die as New Creatures, typed by the preservation of Korah's sons (Num. 26:11), though by becoming sons of antitypical Korah they lost their crowns, and are now one of the 60 groups of Epiphany Levites. Antitypical Korah's and his band's censers were the Scripture passages that they used against our understanding of the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants. Aaron got the fire for his censer from the altar of burnt offerings, while the others evidently used strange fire. The coals of the altar type true teachings and their heat types the fiery trials that result for the offerer from ministering such teachings (Is. 6:5-7; 1 Pet. 4:12-14). The incense, as spices, type Jesus' actually perfect human powers and our reckonedly perfect human powers; and, as perfume arising from the service, it represented the graces, especially faith, love, longsuffering, forbearance and patience. The strange fire of Korah and his band type the false doctrines that their antitypes put into the Bible passages that they used. The heat coming from this strange fire types the trials their offering brought to them. Their incense, as spices, type their choice justified human powers; and the perfume from the incense represents their graces. But as they progressed, their human powers lost their justification

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


and the scent of their incense became increasingly foul, as disgraces, they dying as New Creatures before the eleventh hour ended. 

(31) The charge to Eleazar to take up the censers types God's command to our Pastor, given through antitypical Moses, Jesus, as God's Executive, to discuss the passages that the sifters used. They certainly used—rather, misused—many passages. E.g., a certain Mr. Read, of the Pittsburgh Ecclesia, sent us, in Feb., 1909, about a dozen single-spaced, typewritten pages, 8½" by 11", of which perhaps a half of the space was occupied by Bible passages, alleged to teach the sifters' view of the burning questions at issue. The same is true of the articles appearing in Mr. Henninges' New Covenant Advocate, of Mr. McPhail's large booklet, Sin-offering, Mediator and Covenants, as well as of the numerous pamphlets and tracts that others produced during that sifting. These passages our Pastor certainly took up and discussed in detail. The charge to scatter the fire—the burning coals of strange fire—types God's charge to our Pastor to refute and destroy the sifters' errors on the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants, as well as to overthrow the misrepresentation of our teachings as implying that Jesus produced part, and the Church the rest of the Ransom merit. Eleazar's scattering the fire types our Pastor's refuting the involved errors and misrepresentation. Bro. Russell did as thorough a job of this work as he perhaps ever did of any work. Beginning with the Jan. 1, 1909, Tower and running well into the 1911 Towers, in practically every number articles refutatory of the sifters' errors and discussing in detail the involved passages, appeared. In most of these Towers the bulk of the space was devoted to these burning questions. The taking of the censers out of the burning—burning coals of strange fire—represents how our Pastor separated the involved Scriptures from the errors that they were quoted to prove, by showing that they implied no 

The Parousia Messenger. 


such senses as the sifters attributed to them. His main articles on these questions have been gathered together in a small book, entitled, "What Pastor Russell Taught." 

(32) Twice are these censers spoken of as being hallowed, in the A. V. of our text (vs. 37, 38). In both places we believe there is a mistranslation. In each verse the verb kadash is active in the Hebrew, but is rendered as a passive in the A. V. The words translated, "for they are hallowed," in v. 37, should be connected with the first part of v. 38, and the translation should read as follows: "but let them hallow the censers of these sinners against their own souls [Second Deathers]; and let them make them beaten plates for a covering of the altar; for they shall offer them before the Lord and hallow them and let them be a sign to the children of Israel." The A. V. beclouds the meaning; for it makes Korah's and his band's misusing the censers the hallowing of them! It was Eleazar's and his assistants' work that hallowed them after they were defiled by Korah and his band. Antitypically, the correct translation shows that it was the cleansing of these passages from the sifters' errors and expounding them truthfully that made them holy in that they thus, free from erroneous interpretations, gave holy thoughts of Truth on the subjects at controversy between the combatants of 1908-1911. In addition to v. 35 proving the sifters to be in the Second Death, v. 38 proves it, by the expression, "these sinners against their own souls." It will be noticed that not only Eleazar was charged to hallow, offer and make the censers beaten [better translation than broad] plates for a covering of the altar, but others were charged to assist him therein—let them hallow … and offer … and make them into beaten plates. The same thing is stated in v. 39, where the fulfillment of the charge is stated—they made them beaten plates [literally, they beat them into plates] for a covering of the

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


altar ("for they shall offer them before the Lord and hallow them"). According to this, others assisted our Pastor in making such beaten plates for a covering of the altar, though the connection shows that his part therein by far overshadowed theirs. 

(33) Before going further into this feature, it would be well to note what is typed by making beaten plates for a covering of the altar. The brazen altar types the actually perfect humanity of Jesus and the reckonedly perfect humanity of the Church, in their capacity of supporting, strengthening, helping the humanity of the Christ class, as it is being sacrificed—the altar held up the sacrifice as it was being consumed. Accordingly, beating the censers into plates for a covering of the brazen altar would type the exposition of the involved passages in such a way as to construct from them doctrines that would defend the Sin-offering sacrifice of Jesus and the Church. Early in the controversy it was recognized that the key to all the questions involved in debate was the Church's share in the Sin-offering. If this point could be proven, of course, as a matter of self-evidence, it would follow that the Mediator was a composite one, which the sifters denied, and that the New Covenant was operative exclusively Millennially and post-Millennially, which the sifters also denied. Accordingly, the Sin-offerings were the crux of the controversy and were so emphasized by those who stood for the two Sin-offerings; and this is brought out in the type by the Divine charge to beat the censers, used by the Levites, into plates as a covering of the altar, i.e., the passages were to be given such an interpretation and setting as would defend the Sin-offerings as being the humanity of Jesus and the Church, the antitypical Altar. 

(34) The hallowing of the censers, of course, types the cleansing of the passages from the defilements of error put into them by the sifters and so setting them forth as to show them to contain the Truth. Their 

The Parousia Messenger. 


offering these to the Lord types their devotion of them to the Lord in His service. As the text indicates, such hallowing of the censers and beating of them into plates for a covering of the altar, while being especially Eleazar's work, was not exclusively his. This is proven by the words, "let them hallow," "let them make" and "they offered," "they hallowed," and "they made." Our Pastor, as antitypical Eleazar, did by far the most of the involved work. Bro. Barton, by his sermon on God's Covenants (1909 Convention Report, 143), as the antitype of Shammah, David's third mightiest warrior, defending against, and delivering the field full of lentils, from the Philistines, was one of those who antitypically helped offer and hallow these passages and make them defend the two Sin-offerings (2 Sam. 23:11, 12). Another brother, as the antitype of Eleazar, the son of Dodo, David's second mightiest warrior, working in close cooperation with that Servant, as the antitype of David, was also active in the offering, hallowing and beating of these plates (1 Chro. 11:12-14). (David's two wars where he most disastrously defeated the Philistines type the two greatest controversies of the reaping time—the Ransom controversy and the Sin-offerings controversy). This brother's encounter with M.L. McPhail before part of the Chicago Church on the same subjects is set forth under another type in 1 Chro. 20:6, 7. Bro. MacMillan's controversy with, and defeat of, A. E. Williamson before the Altoona, Pa., Church on the same questions, is set forth in 1 Chro. 20:4. Bro. Crawford's controversy by a tract with E. C. Henninges' view as put forth in The New Covenant Advocate, is set forth in 2 Sam. 21:19. While these four assisting brothers are thus expressly pointed out, Bro. Russell's part in this matter far out-shadowed theirs, as indicated by his special mention in our text, while they are not there named. Still others, not expressly set forth as such in the Bible, so far as we know, also assisted in this work.

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


We believe that, everything considered, Bro. Russell appeared at his best as a controversialist in the 1908-1911 sifting, and at the same time produced perhaps the most able and voluminous writings of his career on controversial matters, though he had to struggle harder internally when, as antitypical Jashobeam, he broke through the ranks of demons and sifters in his endeavor to get the Truth on the Sin-offerings in 1879, and though he wrought more havoc, as antitypical Jashobeam, in the controversy on eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead. His prowess as that Servant in the capacity of a brave and efficient warrior in the controversy of 1908-1911 (our present study sets him forth as a Priest—the chief Under-priest at the time) is represented by the prowess of David, with whom Eleazar, the Dodoite, was associated in the fight at Pas-dammim [field of bloods, i.e., sphere of the Sin-offerings], when both of them drove away a large band of Philistines (1 Chro. 11:13, 14). 

(35) Vs. 38 and 40 antitypically show that the true teachings of the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants were to be a sign (evidence) and a memorial (a reminder) to the Lord's people of the fact that only appointed members of the Priesthood should offer incense (present teachings before the Church), to the intent that no non-member of the Priesthood should endeavor to set forth new teachings. These could properly be set forth, as a rule, only by the special mouthpiece Priest in office at the time, and exceptionally by other Truth servants, in fulfillment of the Lord's word pertinent to them, when He said that every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven (thoroughly competent and authorized teacher) would bring forth from the storehouse things new and old (Matt. 13:52). Others attempting to do so, whether Priest or Non-priest, would be speculating and thus be bringing forth error to their and others' ruin (Ex. 19:21-25). This raises the question, How should the "scribes instructed

The Parousia Messenger. 


unto the kingdom of heaven" do when they get a new truth or think they get one? We reply, Let them do as we did in Bro. Russell's day: Present it to the mouthpiece Priest for examination; and only if he approves give it out to others. This course we found safe in his day; and others will also find it safe now, when the utmost danger exists, if a contrary course is entered upon. This "sign and memorial" are now being grossly violated by the Levites, who in not a few cases rashly and without the proper authorization as teachers obtrude their notions either on a local church or on the general Church. The present sifting leaders are fearful examples of violating this sign and reminder. Hence they have been spreading "the pestilence that walketh in darkness," now so disastrously infecting the hearts and minds of the majority of the Lord's people. Surely now "ten thousand foes arise." 

(36) When we consider how finely that Servant, as the antitype of Eleazar, of Num. 16:36-40, conducted himself amid the involved controversy, in which he was not only personally attacked with much bitterness and misrepresentations, but in which his views were also attacked with keener subtlety than in any other sifting of the reaping time, we learn to appreciate and love him more and more; for he was certainly, from many standpoints, put into the furnace of affliction in that sifting, from which he emerged much refined and purified. And his loyalty therein was rewarded by the Lord's greatly extending the scope and fruitfulness of his already widespread and fertile ministry. Yea, we thank God for every remembrance of him! God bless his memory! 

(37) We now will set forth our Pastor's work against the combinationists, whose activities constituted the sifting of the sixth-hour call (Matt. 20:5). This sifting is typically set forth in Num. 25, as the Apostle Paul tells us (1 Cor. 10:8; Vol. V, Chap. II). Localities mentioned in the Bible are usually typical, as some 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


of our previous studies have shown, e.g., Mt. Sinai, Mt. Zion, Mt. Pisgah, Bethlehem, Bethany, Jerusalem, Jericho, Samaria, Jezreel, etc. Accordingly, we are by the general typical setting of Num. 25 to conclude that Shittim is typical. The word means acacia trees. Trees are symbolic of great ones, either good (Is. 61:3), or bad (Rev. 7:1-3). The acacia trees, we gather from this connection, represent the great ones of Christendom in church, state and capital. Israel's abiding in Shittim we would therefore understand to mean God's people, real and nominal, having contacts and experiences with such great ones. And while the bulk of God's nominal people and some of His real people had such contacts and experiences they became more or less guilty of combinationism (the people began to commit fornication with the daughters of Moab and Midian). 

(38) By combinationism we mean an illicit union of God's people with evil persons, principles, things and practices. The consecrated practice combinationism when they mix their principles and practices with great or little Babylon's erroneous principles and practices, e.g., introducing clericalistic principles and practices among the consecrated, uniting with them in their studies, services and characteristics. The justified practice combinationism when they mix their principles and practices with those of the camp. The camp practice combinationism when they cooperate with non-Christian religious movements. Then all of these can combine with one another and with non-Christian persons, etc. Examples of combinationism are evident in the union of church and state, of denominations with denominations, of Levite movements with Levite movements, of Christian people with religio-secret-societies, of churchianity with Judaism, Mohammedanism, and heathenism. From the standpoint of the Gospel Harvest, Israel's fornication while encamped at Shittim types such combinationistic acts between June, 1891, 

The Parousia Messenger. 


and October, 1894; for during those years, especially in connection with the Parliament of Religions at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893, by its preparations, proceedings and aftermath, did many antitypical Israelites commit symbolic fornication. Among Truth people this was done in the sense of seeking to introduce among them not a few of Babylon's practices on the part of Messrs. Zech, Adamson, Bryan and Rogers. These led the third sifting of the Harvest among Truth people, while Drs. Barrows, Bonney, etc., led the movement to make one religion of all religions, one of whose activities was the assembling of the Chicago Parliament of Religions of 1893. The formation of the Federal Council of the Brotherhood of Andrew and Philip in 1893, as an interdenominational body, by the Rev. Rufus W. Miller, and of the Open and Institutional Church League in March, 1894, championed by Drs. Thompson and Sanford, directly, within 12 years, led to the formation of the National Federation of Churches in 1905, while the Open and Institutional Church League by 1895, ten years before the national organization was formed, had succeeded in forming the first local federation of churches in New York City. These facts show us how through the symbolic fornication from June, 1891, to Oct., 1904, combinationism had its beginnings and has since progressed. These movements in the main are typed by the Israelitish men fornicating with the daughters of Moab and Midian. 

(39) Since the daughters of Moab type various false doctrines that constitute the theories and practices of combinationism—unionism—their calling on the men of Israel to sacrifice to their gods (v. 2) types the appeals of these unionistic doctrines and practices on the Lord's people, real and nominal, to work for combinationism. Among these false doctrines are the following: all [professed] Christian people are one; all denominations combined are the Church; Christ in

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


John 17 prayed for the unity of these; these by federation should work to fulfill His prayer; their differences are non-essential matters; they should be ignored and their agreements emphasized; it makes no difference what one believes, if only he is sincere; forget faith and be busy in good works. These false doctrines invited antitypical Israel to offer sacrifices to the creed of combinationism [their gods]. The Israelites eating at the sacrificial feasts type apostate consecrated, justified and worldly ones accepting such false theories; and the former bowing down to the false gods type the latter serving by their influence, talents, means, etc., the interests of combinationism. Israel's being bound (v. 3) to Baal-peor [lord of the penis, in whose worship Moabitish women prostituted themselves] types the apostate antitypical Israelites being combined in an illicit union—symbolic fornication. As in the type God was angry (v. 3) at Israel, so in the antitype He became highly indignant at antitypical Israel's symbolic fornication, as was most meet. 

(40) Of course, the leaders of Israel [leaders of the people—v. 4] were more guilty than the ordinary Israelites whom they misled, just as the leaders in combinationism's various forms were more guilty than the multitudes that they misled. Hence in both type and antitype these were by God given over to the worse punishment. To be hanged in Biblical symbols means that one is actually or allegedly proven to be an evil-doer. Our Lord's hanging on the cross was demanded by the Sanhedrin as an alleged proof that He was an evil-doer; even as is suggested by the act of exposing one very publicly, in the light of the sun, as is done in the kind of hanging here commanded. God's charge therefore to Moses to hang for the Lord before the sun the leaders of the sinning people, types His charge to Jesus to demonstrate very publicly as a service (before the Lord) to God that the leaders of the combinationists were evil-doers. Our Lord did this partly 

The Parousia Messenger. 


through some of His people, like Prof. Wilkinson, of Chicago University; Joseph Cook, a Boston lecturer; Rev. Devine, of New York; Count Bernstorff, of Germany, and Mr. Grant, a Canadian, who in Babylon protested against their leaders taking part in such combinationism as being condemned in the Bible; but He did it mainly through the Truth people, particularly through our Pastor. That the leaders of combinationism were especially publicly proven to be evil-doers can be seen in Z '93, 323-349 and in Vol. IV, 157-268, where the following leaders are mentioned by name and are very publicly proven guilty of combinationism in matters pertinent to the Divine service ["before the Lord"]: Dr. J. H. Barrows, chief organizer of the Parliament of Religions; Mr. W. T. Stead, editor of the "Review of Reviews"; Rev. Theo. E. Steward, of the Brotherhood of Christian Unity; C. C. Bonney, originator of the Association for Promotion of Religious Unity and President of the Parliament of Religions; Rev. T. Chalmers, of the Disciple Church; Dr. Chas. A. Briggs, higher-critical theological professor; Rev. Theodore Munger; Dr. Rexford, prominent Universalist; Dr. Lyman Abbot, Beecher's successor; Lady Somerset (English noblewoman), Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, Universalist; Romanist Bishop Keane, Prof. Henry Drummond, author of "The Natural Law in the Spiritual World"; Dr. Candlin, missionary to China; Dr. Bristol, Methodist minister; Rev. Augusta Chapin, Rev. King, Methodist Church; Cardinal Gibbons, Chancellor Vincent, Chautauqua Literary Circle; Dr. T. J. Conarty, Romanist educator; Rev. S. F. Scovel, Presbyterian; Rev. F. H. Hopkins, Episcopalian, etc. By the refutation of their errors and practices and their being very publicly [against the sun] proven to be wrongdoers in matters pertinent to the Divine service [before the Lord], God's wrath was measurably appeased (v. 4). 

(41) The charge that Moses gave to the judges of 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


Israel to kill every man within their jurisdictions who was joined to Baal-peor (v. 5) types our Lord's charge given to Bro. Russell and the pilgrims to refute the errorists with whom they came into contact who held the teachings of combinationism. How Bro. Russell did his part can be seen especially in the Tower of Nov. 1, 15, 1893, and in Chap. VI of Studies, Vol. IV treating of Babylon's Confusion—Ecclesiastical. In this work he was also joined by the pilgrims through the pertinent refutative teachings of their discourses and conversations. Bro. Russell's part in it, which was decidedly far larger than that of all the pilgrims combined, is particularly described typically in vs. 6-15. And it is because of his pertinent work being typed in these verses that we have chosen Num. 25 as the basis of this part of our chapter. The man of the children of Israel (v. 6) who caused a Midianitish woman to come near to his brethren types the class, representatives of which were mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which introduced among their fellow Christians the greatest error of combinationism's errors, to the effect that it makes no difference to God what one believes, if only he is sincere in it. This error sweeps away, as it were at one stroke of a broom, the distinctive claim of the Bible as between Christianity and all other religions, that it alone is true, and to the extent that the others differ from it they are false. This peculiar claim of true Christianity is pivoted on the fact that Christ alone is made of God Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Deliverance to those who would approach God, and that apart from Him is no salvation or approach to God (Matt. 1:21; John 1:9; 4:14; 6:27, 33, 35, 53; 8:12; 10:7-9; 14:6; 17:2; Acts 4:12; Rom. 5:18, 19; 1 Cor. 3:11; 2 Cor. 5:19; Eph. 1:10; 2:13, 18; Heb. 2:3; Rev. 5:3, 4). This, of course, is contradicted by that part of combinationism's errors which claims that it makes no difference to God what one believes, if only he is sincere; for this

The Parousia Messenger. 


error implies that a sincere Jew, Mohammedan or heathen is as acceptable to God now and in the hereafter as is a true Christian, which means that Christ is not the only Savior; rather His claims to be the only Savior prove Him a deceiver, according to this error. 

(42) This man's bringing the Midianitish woman to his brethren publicly [in the sight of Moses, etc.—v. 6] types the great publicity which the leaders of the combinationists gave to this most un-Christian error. As the sins of the Israelitish men at Baal-peor distressed Moses and all loyal Israelites, causing them to weep before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, so the great sin of combinationism pained Jesus and all loyal Christians in their relation to the Divine service. Phinehas (mouth of brass, i.e., strong mouth) was the oldest living son of the high priest Eleazar; therefore typically he sustained to Eleazar as the then high priest the same relation that the latter had held toward the former high priest Aaron, while he was his oldest living son, i.e., for the Gospel-harvest Phinehas types our Pastor as the chief Under-priest on earth, and in this scene Phinehas (brazen mouth) types our Pastor from the standpoint of the strength of the latter's pertinent utterances, teachings (Jer. 1:18; 15:20). Phinehas perceiving the wicked act and purpose of the Israelitish man and arising from among the mourning congregation types our Pastor perceiving the unholy course and purpose of the combinationistic leaders, and arising from among the mourners over combinationism to take practical measures against it. Phinehas taking a javelin—a small spear that is thrust at an antagonist—types our Pastor taking his article in the double Tower of Nov. 1, 15, 1893, into hand (powerfully), preparatory to thrusting it at the combinationistic leaders, for their taking part in the Chicago Parliament of Religions, where the antitypical fornication had especially taken place. Phinehas following the man into his tent types our Pastor pursuing after the combinationistic 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


leaders into their innermost theories, which were their dwelling place. Phinehas thrusting both through with the javelin, apparently while they were in the act of fornication, types our Pastor by the above-mentioned article, completely refuting the combinationistic leaders and the particular error, that it makes no difference to God what one believes, if only he is sincere. Phinehas thrusting the javelin through the woman's belly (literally, genital organ) types our Pastor refuting the pertinent error and its unholy generative powers. Above we enumerated a list of the errors that support the particular one under consideration. All of these as the unholy generative powers of this one error were refuted thoroughly by our Pastor's pertinent article. As in Israel Phinehas' deed stayed the plague, so our Pastor's article stayed the pestilential effects of the involved error. First this effect was felt among Truth people and gradually it spread in such effect toward antitypical Israelites outside the Truth movement. 

(43) Our Pastor's attacks on combinationism in the Nov. 1, 15, 1893, Tower, as it was manifest in the Parliament of Religions; and in the booklet, A Conspiracy Exposed, and the Extra Tower of June 11, 1894, as it was manifest among the Truth people by the conspirators, were marked examples of exalted courage. Practically all Christendom either sanctioned, or was silent as to disapproval of, the Parliament of Religions. The idea became increasingly popular. Those advocating interdenominational union or federation in almost every case favored the purposes of the Parliament of Religions. Its protagonists put the stigma of bigots and old fogies upon those who in any way showed disapproval. Church and secular papers were jubilant over that Parliament. Even the few who disapproved of it, whose leaders were mentioned above, did it with more or less timidity and misgivings. Who would dare attack so popular and widely supported a movement?—was the challenge of its promoters. Our 

The Parousia Messenger. 


Lord's special representative, the chief Under-priest on earth at that time, that Servant, by God's grace would do it, and that with a courage that hesitated not a moment, nor refrained from speaking the Truth unvarnished and unambiguous! He certainly did not handle the combinationists with kid gloves; rather he figuratively pounded them with brazen knuckles, just as we should expect of antitypical Phinehas (brazen mouth). These remarks also characterize his intrepidity and courage in handling the Truth combinationists, Messrs. Zech, Adamson, Rogers and Bryan, in his booklet, A Conspiracy Exposed, and in the Extra Tower of June 11, 1894. Like their kindred-minded Levite leaders in the sixth sifting, these conspirators made the air blue with their shrieks against his supposed "uncharitable criticism," "bitter slander" and "judging." But he, undismayed, continued the attack until they were driven completely out from among Truth people, among other things, announcing in the Tower Extra of June 11, 1894, that the four above-named sifters were Second Deathers and that he had withdrawn all fellowship from them. 

(44) The number of those who perished by the plague for the sin at Baal-peor (24,000—v. 9) being greater than that of those who perished at any other of Israel's wilderness plagues, types the fact that combinationism smote with a symbolic plague—a frenzy of delusion (Ps. 91:5; 2 Thes. 2:9-12)—more victims than any of the other harvest-sifting plagues did. God's appreciation of Phinehas' zeal for Him in staying the plague by killing the Israelitish man and the Midianitish woman (vs. 10, 11) types God's appreciation of our Pastor's pertinent zeal for Him in staying the combinationism plague by thoroughly refuting the combinationistic leaders and their main error. Among the Truth people the plague was stayed by our Pastor's booklet entitled, A Conspiracy Exposed, combined with a later publication (Z '94, 163-208) which gave further 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


exposures of that conspiracy (that of Messrs. Zech, Adamson, Rogers and Bryan), and which, in addition to those exposures, contained a great number of letters of brethren, expressing their sympathy with our Pastor, and further exposing and denouncing the conspirators. We conclude from God's statement (v. 11) that had Phinehas not acted as he did, the plague would have completely destroyed Israel—that had not our Pastor stayed the plague, it would have contaminated all antitypical Israel. 

(45) As God rewarded Phinehas with His covenant of peace, i.e., His promise of prosperity (v. 12), so God rewarded our Pastor with His pledge of prosperity in His Priesthood; and certainly the latter's ministry from that time forward increased in prosperity by leaps and bounds. Up to that time the harvest work was comparatively small. From then onward it abounded more and more until his death, a day before which he could truly state, as to his part in the reapers' report, that he had carried out the Lord's charge committed to him (Ezek. 9:11). In what way Phinehas would have God's promise of prosperity is indicated in v. 13. It was to be in the form of an age-lasting covenant of the priesthood for himself and his sons, prosperously conducted by them. Antitypically, this means that God announced in Spiritual Israel that Bro. Russell and all Priests loyal with him (the sons of antitypical Phinehas) would have a continuing and fruitful priesthood. How was this announcement made? We reply that shortly after our Pastor had refuted combinationism as manifest in the Parliament of Religions and as represented by the Truth conspirators (combinationists), God made known for the first time that "that Servant" of Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:42-44 was not a class, as had previously been held, but was an individual—Bro. Russell. In calling him wise—efficient—God indicated the prosperity of his work, and in calling him faithful God indicated 

The Parousia Messenger. 


that he would be a Priest unto the end; for one is not faithful unless he is loyal unto death. This public announcement in the case of the type and antitype was a reward of zeal for the Lord and for bringing the people into atonement with the Lord on the subject at hand ("zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel"—v. 13). 

(46) Sr. Russell was very zealous in defending her husband against the slanderous attacks of the conspirators and thereby defended the Truth cause against them (Z '94, 167-174); and the Lord therefore rewarded her somewhat after the manner in which He exceptionally used other women (Acts 21:9), with the privilege of being His mouthpiece in announcing the antitypical reward, i.e., of making known to the Lord's people that Bro. Russell as an individual servant of God was that Servant. This was first made known to her in the late summer of 1894. She first told it to Bro. Russell, who for a long time sought to refute the thought, until finally he was unable longer to oppose it, since the arguments in its favor are unanswerable. After talking of it to various individuals, after awhile he published the thought, first in a Tower article—Z '96, 47, and then later in Vol. IV, 613, 614. Thus, neither Jesus nor he considered it wrong for themselves to "see themselves in the Scriptures." We are not from the above to construe that our Pastor was first made that Servant after his battles with the combinationists in 1893 and 1894; for at the time, in 1879, that he struggled for 3 days with demons and demonized men, over the sin-offerings (antitypical Jashobeam battling with the antitypical Philistines in the vale of demons, while seeking the water from the well of antitypical Bethlehem), he was made that Servant as interpreter of the Word, though since the Spring of 1876 he was such as executive, he serving as such for years without his or anyone else knowing that he was such. The reward given him in 1894 was the acquainting of

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


him and of the Church with the fact, whereby his influence was very greatly enlarged, and thereby his fruitfulness as a Truth servant was greatly increased, even until he had faithfully completed his fruitful ministry. 

(47) Zimri (sung), the Israelitish man who was slain with the Midianitish woman, as suggested by his name, types the combinationistic leaders from the standpoint of their being praised, sung, by their dupes; and certainly such leaders were highly praised by the deceived combinationists. That Zimri represents leaders is evident from the fact that he is called a prince of a chief house of his tribe. The combinationists' being tested and found wanting is typically implied in the name of Zimri's father, Salu (weighed). Cozbi, the name of the slain Midianitish woman, means liar, and thus she fittingly types the lying doctrine, that it makes no difference what one believes, if only he is sincere. Her father's name, Zur, means rock, and refers to the thought of the combinationists that "in union [combinationism] there is strength." It will be noted that Zur is mentioned (Num. 31:8) as one of the five Midianitish kings slain. The story of Num. 31 is a picture of the Harvest from the standpoint of its refuting error, especially in the five siftings. The five slain kings of Midian type the five sifting errors. Zur, it will be noticed, is the third mentioned, and he types the third harvest-sifting error—combinationism, one of whose daughters is antitypical Cozbi. His being slain types the refutation of combinationism. God's charge to Moses to vex the Midianites (vs. 16-18) types God's charge to Christ to war against errorists. In the Harvest this was antityped. For details please see Chap. IV. 

(48) The generalities of the antitype of Judg. 7:9-15 we have set forth in Vol. V, Chap. IV, which may profitably be reviewed. In that chapter, in harmony with both its subject and the treatment that this Scripture

The Parousia Messenger. 


gives of the matter, our Lord's part is stressed. Here we will stress our Pastor's part, which, of course, was subordinate to our Lord's part, in the scouting expedition engaged in by him with our Lord, as typed in Judg. 7:9-15. We will not here give the generalities set forth in the above-mentioned chapter, but will at once discuss our subject as proposed above. It will be remembered that we gave bough as the meaning of the word Phurah, or Purah. This is the definition that a number of lexicographers give for the word, which is formed from the verb paar, or phaar. It is true that this word has as one of its meanings, to branch, from which the noun Phurah (bough) is derived; but it also has as one of its meanings, to expound; and from this definition the word Phurah, or Purah, means expounder, interpreter. Though in Vol. V, Chap. IV, we gave the definition bough to Phurah, we now think, in view of the fact that one of our Pastor's two special works was to expound the Lord's Word ("give the meat in due season"), that the definition, expounder, explainer, interpreter, is the one meant in Judg. 7:9-15. A scout's special office is by investigation to gain information on the enemy for the army that he represents. And this was the case with the typical and antitypical Phurah, as the facts prove. 

(49) The antitypical enemy under review were the Parousia errorists (Midianites), sinners (Amalekites), and self-seekers and worldlings (Children of the East), among God's nominal people. Jehovah, of course, knew, yea, foreknew, their doings; but He desired our Lord and our Pastor as real spiritual scouts to investigate their doings and the conditions that their doings revealed, in order to report these to the army that they represented. Hence Jehovah sent these out on the scouting tour antitypical of that of Gideon and Phurah. On this tour our Pastor acted as an eye for our Lord Jesus, i.e., our Lord Jesus for the Church looked at these things through our Pastor as His 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


eye that in turn through him as His mouth He might report them to the antitypical Gideonites. The report of the things observed during this scouting tour, generally speaking, was given by the Lord through the pen of our Pastor in the Tower articles entitled, Views From The Watch Tower, which appeared in most of its issues. Some of them were also given in Studies, Vols. II-IV, and some of them in tracts and B.S.M.'s. These Views From The Watch Tower are not only referred to in our text, but other Scriptures also refer to our Pastor's activities therein, e.g., Is. 21:5-10; Hab. 2:1, 2. While all of them did not expressly refer to the fallen conditions of the nominal church, all of them did imply, either directly or indirectly, these fallen conditions, the signs of good things indirectly implying these conditions in Babylon and the signs of evil things directly implying them. Hence all of the signs of the times were observed by our Lord and our Pastor during their 40 years' scouting tour in Christendom. The main things that our Pastor saw during this tour we will now briefly set forth under the two heads—secular signs and religious signs. 

(50) One of the secular signs seen by him was the great increase of travel. This, as forecast in Dan. 12:4, he sketched in various details of progress in its vehicles: steamboats, submarines, railroad trains, trolleys, autos, buses, airships, airplanes, etc., and showed how almost everybody travels more or less. Closely related to this sign is that of the increase of knowledge (Dan. 12:4), on which he gave details as another sign of the times. This increase in knowledge was along general encyclopediac lines, embracing great details on the greatest variety of topics, and comprehending the spheres of theoretical and practical subjects. Especially did it exhibit itself in inventions of useful appliances and destructive implements and agencies. He pointed out frequently how these two signs were closely related to the overthrow of the present order 

The Parousia Messenger. 


and the introduction of the new order. Very closely related to the foregoing signs was another on which he reported very many details that he observed throughout Christendom—the exposure of evils in all phases of society. He brought out details on the vices and crimes of Christendom, as proving its effeteness. He bared the conditions of poverty with their attendant tendencies of suffering, crime and disease. The slums and sweatshops came in for their exposure. He pointed out the abuses of the educational world, with its infidelity, higher criticism and materialistic philosophy. Statecraft in Christendom met with his exposures of its hunger for land, market and riches, its protection of the privileged classes as against the masses, its corruption of lawmakers, executives and judges, its election frauds, spoils system, boss rule, graft and land frauds, its squandering of state funds, its imposing of oppressive taxation, its statesmen using office for personal gain, its militarism and navalism, its dishonest diplomacy, its selfish, vengeful and plundering wars, its breaking of solemn treaties for national advantage, its oppression of the weak, its making might right, its national fears, envies, hatreds, rivalries and grudges, its selfish and unjust policies, etc. These signs presaged ruin to Christendom in state, to which he frequently called attention. 

(51) Many, too, were his exposures, as signs of the times, of Christendom's financial, commercial and industrial world. On this line he exposed its stock gambling, stock watering, stock manipulation and stock frauds, its legal delays, technicalities, evasions and partialities, its price fixing and profiteering, its monopolizing the products of nature, its destroying competition, its dishonest and ruthless competition, its substitution of inferior for superior materials, its adulterations, its subsidizing of the press, its landlordism, the dishonesty of many of its bank and trust officials and of much of their bookkeeping, its bribery and special privileges,

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


its tax dodging and frauds, its frequent clearing of the rich, and almost unfailing punishment of the poor criminals caught in the toils of the law, its unauthorized use of trust funds, its insurance scandals, its railroad crookedness, its trusts' abuses, its destructive battles of financial giants, its buying of elections, its manufacture of panics and wars, its fattening on wars while imposing unsupportable burdens on the people, its reckless use of money in luxury and wrong, its bequeathing of vast estates and titles frequently to incompetents, its frequent disregard of the needs of the submerged, its pride, ostentation, cruelty and heartlessness of its money and pleasure madness. These signs presage Christendom's financial ruin and were set forth by him as such. He frequently quoted from the Scriptures to show that the exposures of Christendom's evils forecast its destruction in the Time of Trouble (1 Thes. 5:1-4; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:5; Ps. 50:1-22; 82:15, etc.). 

(52) Among other signs indicating Christendom's speedy overthrow, he called attention to its appalling calamities in the form of great famines, pestilences, earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, wars, revolutions, etc., showing that while many of them were stripings for wrong, they presaged Christendom's overthrow, as many of them were connected with climatic changes introductory of Millennial conditions, which, of course, implied Christendom's overthrow. With special emphasis and pleasure did he point out as a sign of Christendom's near destruction and of the Kingdom's near establishment Israel's return to God's favor, as evidenced by the gradual removing of blindness from their eyes and prejudice from their hearts as respects Jesus Christ and as evidenced by their gradual return to their land. He showed that powerful inducements—religious, patriotic, persecuting, rational, agricultural, financial, political and legal—were making their return to Palestine

The Parousia Messenger. 


desirable. He cited the political, financial, organizational and agitational conditions that made their return to their home land feasible. Repeatedly he reported companies and individuals of them returning to Zion, and showed that this was a prophetic sign (Jer. 16:14-16; Ezek. 37:21, 22, 25; Amos 9:14, 15; etc.). Another sign of the times that he stressed was the gigantic war preparations of Christendom. Herein he stressed the large armies, navies, submarine and air fleets of Christendom. He stressed the immense dreadnaughts and destructive explosives, cannons, torpedoes, gases, bombs and pestilential germs. He emphasized their forts and fortresses, their military training, conscription and army camps, their enlisting inventive genius to create new destructive weapons and ammunitions and their reducing war to scientific destruction. He found these things forecast in Joel 3:9-11 and showed how they forecast the World War as the first stage in Christendom's destruction, which forecast was fulfilled. 

(53) Another set of somewhat related secular signs that our Pastor, as antitypical Phurah, observed on his scouting tour and brought in report to us were those associated with social strife, leading to great unrest. Prominent among these were those events connected with the conflict between capital and labor. At times it is a conflict of words; at times it is a conflict of blows. On capital's part, at times, he showed how it seeks to impose lower wages, longer hours, poorer working conditions, organized capitalists dealing with labor, yet rejecting union labor and its representatives. On labor's part he showed that it seeks to raise wages, shorten hours, improve working conditions, form unions, secure recognition of unions and its official representatives, unionize shops, etc., secure collective bargaining and settlement of individual grievances. He showed how in the worst forms of these conflicts capital resorted to lockouts, securing injunctions,

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


hiring strike breakers, using a police and militia of its own and fomenting pitched battles between these and labor; while he showed how that on labor's part it has resorted to strikes, picketing, manhandling strike breakers, boycotts, riots and pitched battles. He showed how to capital's aid as a rule state and church have rallied, with the result that society has been divided into two classes: the conservatives, consisting of capital, state and church, and the radicals, consisting of farmers, trade unionists, socialists, communists and anarchists. Antitypical Phurah referred, among others, to such passages as Jas. 5:1-5 and Amos 8:3-7 as forecasting this conflict, and he pointed out that this conflict presaged Christendom's fall. Partly involved in this sign of the times is another broader one—the bundling of the tares, which, on the basis of Matt. 13:29, 30, 40, 41 and Rev. 14:17-20, he showed, likewise presages the overthrow of Christendom. He pointed out the secular bundling process in the trusts and corporations of the business and financial world, in the trade unions, farmers' granges, etc., and socialist, communist, and anarchist organizations of the labor world, in the secret societies, insurance societies and clubs of the social world, in the teachers' and professors' organizations of the educational world, in the political parties and international alliances of the political world, and in the society uplift movements and benevolent organizations of the reform world. These he likewise pointed out as presaging Christendom's ruin. 

(54) As belonging to the same group as the two foregoing signs, antitypical Phurah watched and pointed out the general unrest among all classes and conditions of men in Christendom, finding this condition forecast in Luke 21:25. He showed how in the world of the statesmen and politicians unrest, uncertainty and perplexity were general. He also recognized and reported this as being true in the business world of manufacture, commerce and finance. The 

The Parousia Messenger. 


unrest in the labor world with its varied agitations, dissatisfactions, revolts and conflicts, varying in trade unionism, grangerism, socialism, communism and anarchism, he watched and reported. The great unrest in the reform world and in the sociological and educational worlds were also observed by him and reported. The unrest in family life, seen in troubles between husbands and wives, parents and children and near and far relations, also came under his observation and received its appropriate report. On all hands he witnessed the unrest of the Parousia times and pointed out that this sign was directly connected with the preparation of the elements for the Time of Trouble. And, finally, among the secular signs of the times he observed the fact that thinking people in general recognized the presence of an unmanageable crisis in human affairs. Studying various crises in human history, he recognized the presence in his day of similar, but more magnified conditions than those that marked such crises. E.g., the unmanageable crisis that introduced the French Revolution he found exhibited conditions similar to, but on a smaller scale than those which he saw about him; for he noted that just before the French Revolution religion was disparaged, authority was disobeyed, strife marked the relations of capital and labor, class hatred abounded, bread riots occurred, deep-seated dissatisfaction prevailed, great social inequalities were in vogue, agitations for radical changes were carried on, safety in flight was sought by close observers of the trend of things, reformers offered their panaceas and optimists saw everything evolving to better conditions. These very things that indicated the crisis leading up to the storm of the French Revolution, which broke with devastating effect, he saw on all hands, but in greatly magnified forms. He therefore reported these and showed that they foreshadowed the Time of Trouble. Such passages as Luke 21:26; Is. 29:14; etc., he recognized as forecasting

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


this crisis. Thus he saw many secular signs presaging the coming trouble and faithfully reported the matter as ruinous to the antitypical Midianites, Amalekites and Children of the East, as all of us know. 

(55) But in antitypical Phurah's scouting tour with antitypical Gideon he also saw many religious signs of the times, all of which likewise presaged ruin for the antitypical Midianites, Amalekites and Children of the East. One of these was the Gospel witness having been by 1861 given to all nations, as a precursor of the end of the Age, the Parousia (Matt. 24:14), observing which, he reported it to the antitypical Gideonites. As a thing showing Babylon's fallen condition he observed and reported to the Faithful the wide spread of error. This he observed in the formation of new sects, sectlets and cults of many kinds, in the rapid advance of super-naturalistic sects, such as Spiritism, Christian Science, fanatical movements, faith-curism, and in the advocacy of materialism, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism, rationalism, evolution, higher criticism and in the spread of various Hindoo and other heathen cults in Christendom. Having seen these he made faithful report thereon, even as he saw these alluded to in Matt. 24:24. Widespread wickedness was another sign of the times that he witnessed and reported. In its Godward form such wickedness was covered in the preceding point. Manward he saw and reported it as he witnessed the evils in the family life and sex relations. In social life he saw and reported it in the cheapening of human life and its destruction by public wars and private crime, in the putting of property rights above human rights, in the dishonesties of finance, business and industry, in the corruptions of public life, in the slanders and reputation-slaying and in the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of private and public life, and in the money and pleasure madness of our 

The Parousia Messenger. 


times. As a sign of the times he recognized it as taught in Matt. 24:12; 2 Tim. 3:13. 

(56) Other signs he observed that showed the fallen condition of the nominal church. Among these was the predicted mocking at our Lord's secret invisible presence. No conscientious and fairly intelligent nominal church member would deny that the Bible teaches our Lord's return, but that He was to return invisibly and secretly was unknown to them. Hence when it was announced as having set in that manner, the predicted scoffing took place: "Where is the promise of His presence?" By such scoffing they fulfilled the predicted scoffing, and this was reported by antitypical Phurah after he observed it. Again, the great falling away from Christian faith and practice among clergy and laity, as set forth in 2 Tim. 3:1-9, he diligently watched and faithfully reported to the Church. He pointed out that the clergy were by facts being proven to be self-lovers, money-lovers, popularity-lovers, pleasure-lovers, unbelievers, dishonest, moral cowards and other things mentioned in the passage just cited. He observed and pointed out the laity as being generally ignorant of the Bible, zealless, worldly, inimical to Truth and friendly to error and largely held in the churches by things appealing to their fleshly mind. Furthermore, he pointed out the federating of the churches as forecast in Is. 8:9-11; Rev. 6:14. This he traced in its embryo state in the uniting of the various sects of each denomination, then the denominations' flirting with one another, and finally the forming of an incorporated federation, which he recognized as getting life in 1908, when the house of bishops and the house of deputies, representing the Episcopal Church, gave a blanket, as distinct from an individual, ordination to the ministers of the Federation, by sanctioning their appearance in Episcopal pulpits, which act gave life to the image. These things he spied out for, and reported to the Church. 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


(57) Then he observed and reported some movements that were good for the true Church, but that foreboded evil to the nominal church. One of these was the general expectation of the nearness of the Kingdom on the part of all the consecrated. This he saw as a fulfillment of Matt. 25:1-12; for not only the wise virgins, who have been favored with the Truth, were, as he pointed out, in such expectation, but also the foolish virgins, who were not in the Truth, also expected it. And this sign he faithfully observed and reported to the Church. The clarifying of the Truth and its becoming due on an ever-widening scale he diligently observed and reported. He based this sign on passages like Dan. 12:10; Is. 60:1, 2; 52:6, 7; Luke 12:37; 1 Cor. 10:11. On this point he did not only act as a scout, but as the agent through whom the Truth was expounded. Again, he watched and reported the harvest work as going on. He found it forecast in such passages as: Ps. 50:5; Matt. 13:29, 30, 41-43; Rev. 14:14-20. He called our attention to the meaning of that work, described its message, pointed out its reapers, explained its methods and indicated its results. Thus he did faithful scouting work thereon and reported what he saw to the Church. He also closely observed the testing of the consecrated as a sign of the times (Mal. 3:1-4; Matt. 7:24-27; 1 Cor. 3:12-15). He pointed out what this testing was, through what it was accomplished, how it worked and how it affected the consecrated. All of this class of signs foreboded good to the true Church and by that very fact foreboded ill to the nominal church. Then, connected with these testings of the consecrated, were the siftings which separated the unfaithful from the faithful. He diligently observed these and pointed out their number, means, victims, errors and results. He found these referred to in passages like 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 1 Cor. 10:5-14, etc. Other matters like Antichrist's increased exposure and the later experiences of

The Parousia Messenger. 


antitypical Elijah he observed and reported. He made faithful use of his privileges of going down to the camp of the antitypical Midianites, Amalekites and Children of the East with antitypical Gideon, and also of returning with Him and reporting the observations of his scouting tour to the Faithful on secular and religious matters. 

(58) Many of these matters were also observed by the foolish virgins in the nominal church, as typed by the dream that the Midianite in the outskirts of the camp had (v. 13). They saw that these events and conditions foreboded ill for the nominal church, as pictured forth by the overthrowing of the Midianite tent in the dream. They saw that in some manner the Lord was connected with the means used in the overthrow of the antitypical Midianitish tent. But the meaning of these events was not clear to them. They therefore asked their foolish-virgin teachers, who expounded these matters as showing that our Lord was at work to overthrow the nominal church, her teachings and practices, even as the Midianite explained to his fellow the dream (v. 14). These things our Pastor also observed and reported with the thought, encouraging to the brethren, that what they saw clearly their foolish-virgin brethren were seeing in a measure, and that this was a reason for encouragement, since it showed that even in the ranks of the enemy the fear of antitypical Gideon and His little army had entered. Hence our study shows that in our dear Pastor's pertinent acts we find a splendid fulfillment of the Phurah type, as proven by the facts of the case. 


(1) What three things does David in the Psalms type? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does he type in the histories? Why are details thereon not given? As a warrior pilgrim by whom is he typed? 

(2) Why is it reasonable to assume that all who dealt with David were types? What results from this as to Jashobeam? What other consideration corroborates this? What five terms applied to him strengthen this thought? 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


What two mistranslations mar the thought of 2 Sam. 23:8? Corrected how does it stand related to 1 Chro. 11:11? What is the proper translation? 

(3) How do the pertinent Samuel and Chronicles passages differ from one another? What proves both to be true? What do spears type? What is the parallel in the priest figure? What do facts prove to be the greatest and next greatest symbolic battle of our Pastor? What does Jashobeam's slaying 800 Philistines type? His slaying 300 Philistines? Who else slew 300 Philistines with his spear? What does he type? What two things did this fact help to clarify? 

(4) What will show that our Pastor's writings wrought havoc with the doctrines of eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead? What are the titles of some of his pertinent writings? How otherwise did he smite these two errors? Why is this work not shown in our texts? What did his pertinent activities do for us? 

(5) Since when were these types understood? What is the character of the typical deeds? Whose exploits only surpass them? What is the difference as to the two? What effects did our Pastor's pertinent battlings against these errors have? What did the knowledge of this influence the writer to suggest? What is not, and what is the thought as to participation in this service? How do our Pastor's pertinent exploits serve? For what is such an annual special service fitting? 

(6) What is now to be discussed? How are the two accounts presented? As indicated by the blank spaces in the parallel accounts, how do these accounts differ? 

(7) Who were the three chiefs of David's mighty men? In whom in this study does our interest center? What does the rock here type? How do the cited passages show this? Whom does David here type? What confirms this? What is typed by David's being in the cave of Adullam? By his being in the hold? How does Ps. 91:1, 2 suggest this? What do the Philistines in relation to Jashobeam type? What does Rephaim mean? What is typed by the valley of Rephaim? What was the relation between the demons and the no-ransomers? In the pertinent warfare where did Bro. Russell find safety? What does Bethlehem mean and type? Whom does the Philistine 

The Parousia Messenger. 


garrison at Bethlehem type? What does Jashobeam's coming to David type? 

(8) What does Bethlehem's well represent? David's longing to drink from it, as related to Jashobeam? What made the antitypical longing greater? What is typed by Jashobeam's breaking through the Philistines' ranks to get the water? By David's refusing to drink the water? His pouring it out as a drink-offering to the Lord? 

(9) What in this connection will interest the readers? How came this experience to be related to the writer? What did Mr. Barbour in 1878 do to preserve his influence? Why did he deem this necessary? What was the diverting explosion? Wherein was it set off? What resulted in the magazine? What did our Pastor do in the Spring of 1879? What did he shortly thereafter do? What was Mr. Barbour's reaction? What appeared in the early Fall of 1879? What was its character? 

(10) What was the effect of this article on our Pastor? Why? Of what was this the antitype? For what did he fear? How did this fear affect him? What did he at once see? Why? What did he not have? Of what was he conscious? What was the effect of these things on him? To whom did he go? For what? What reason did he give for the petition? What pertinent promise did he make? 

(11) What word did he send to his Pittsburgh foreman? What did he then do? What did he then do with the book of Hebrews? Why? What was the result by late that night? What did he do the whole of the next day? With what results? What struck his attention at noon of the third day? What did he note about v. 11? About v. 12? About v. 13? What did he immediately see? How did this discovery affect him? What did he do as to his wife's caution? 

(12) What resulted? Why? What did parallel passages do? What course did he pursue? What did he tell the conference? Except Mr. Paton, what did the leading brethren do about it? What did Mr. Paton do about it? Why? What did he do two years later? 

(13) What did Bro. Russell do after the conference? With what effect? When and where was the subject first

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


treated in print? What marked the attitude of the friends during the Harvest on this subject? 

(14) What did our Pastor say was the reason of the three days' delay in the answer to his prayer? Without being aware of it, what was in these experiences given to him? As such what was the first meat that he brought out of the storehouse? What did he do with the promise made in his prayer? How? What kind of a portion did he then dip out of the well? What kind was the pertinent battle? What did it do to the Church? To what should gratitude and appreciation move us? 

(15) How should we not, and how should we observe the annual Memorial services of our Pastor? What is not repeated in this chapter as to his Memorial? What is the general character of this chapter? What two phases of his work as a Priest are emphasized in this chapter? What has already been done in this volume as to Eleazar's typical relations? What conclusion does a comparison of Num. 4:16 and Matt. 18:18 warrant? And Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:43-46? Wherefrom does this latter thought appear? What application will we here not elaborate? What one will we elaborate? 

(16) What were the two modes of our Pastor's activity as the Gospel-harvest Eleazar? In how many duties did these two work? What was Eleazar's first duty as given in our text? What does the oil represent? What did its antitype imply? What did this imply of our Pastor? What one of the brethren's ministering capacities did his teaching and executive functions on this point concern? How did he exercise his teaching function on this point? His executive function? What do pertinent facts prove? 

(17) What was Eleazar's second charge according to our text? What does the unburnt incense type in Jesus? In the Church? What kind of a charge could our Pastor not have had as to Jesus' incense? Why not? What kind of an executive charge could he have toward it? What kind of a charge did he have in this respect? What proves that he performed this charge? What work did he, and what work did he not perform toward the incense of the Church before his days? Toward what part of the Church in this charge did he act fully as teacher

The Parousia Messenger. 


and executive? In what ways did he therein act as teacher? What are the main things represented by the unburnt incense? How did he act therein as executive? 

(18) What was Eleazar's third charge according to our text? What does the meat or meal-offering type? Under what circumstances did it include the drink-offering? In what forms and by what agents was the Truth as the meal-offering set forth? How did our Pastor perform the teaching part of this charge? The executive part of this charge? What do the facts prove as to this charge? 

(19) What was Eleazar's fourth duty according to our text? What does the anointing oil type? Where are the ingredients of this antitypical oil set forth? How may this antitypical oil be stated? As teacher what was our Pastor to do as to this charge? How did he perform it? In what ways did he do this? What features of character development did this teaching include? As executive what was our Pastor to do as to this charge? How did he do this directly? Indirectly? How negatively did he as executive act in this charge, both directly and indirectly? What do facts prove as to this charge? 

(20) What was Eleazar's fifth charge? What did this imply? What does the tabernacle type? In its holy? In its most holy? In its court? What would this antitypically mean for the Gospel Harvests? When and by what act did he cease to function as the Gospel-harvest Eleazar? What would it mean for him as to the justified humanity of the sacrificers and of Levites? What did his Parousia teaching and executive charge imply as to the Holy? As to the Most Holy? What does this imply of him when he is beyond the vail? What will be his and the Apostles' positions? How will he and they be related in these positions? 

(21) What was Eleazar's sixth charge? By what two expressions is this proved? How is this proved by the grammatical construction of the last three parts of verse 16? What, therefore, was Eleazar's sixth charge? What follows from this as to our Pastor's sixth charge? What is the antitype of the brazen altar? In what activities? What is the difference between the antitypical Brazen Altar and the sacrifice on it? What was our Pastor's teaching charge as to this Altar? In what three ways

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


did he perform this? How was his charge as to this Altar exercised by him, positively and negatively, as an executive? What did the golden altar represent? What did the priest offering the incense represent? How did our Pastor as teacher exercise his charge of the antitypical Golden Altar? How as executive? 

(22) What does the laver type? Its base and shaft? Its bowl? What does its water type? What is meant by our Pastor's executive charge of the Bible? What did this charge require that he direct? What did his teaching charge of it imply? What do facts prove respecting these two activities of his toward it? How can his pertinent acts be used in disproof of the claims that the Pseudepigraphs like book of Enoch, and the Apocrypha are inspired? If they were inspired what would he have done with them? What three things on this head disprove their inspiration? 

(23) What does the lampstand type? How did our Pastor discharge his teaching office as to the antitypical Lampstand? How did he fulfill his executive charge toward it? What does the table of shewbread type? What does this mean? What did our Pastor's teaching charge as to it imply? In what ways did he fulfill this charge? In what ways did he fulfill his executive charge toward it? 

(24) What did the chest part of the ark type? What did its propitiatory, cherubim and the light radiating from the shekinah type? What did the shekinah type? What did our Pastor's teaching charge as to the chest of the ark require him to do? His executive charge of it? What did his teaching charge as to the rest of the ark require him to do? His executive charge of it? 

(25) What was Eleazar's seventh and final charge? What did this imply as to his relations to the Kohathites? Why was such a relation not an eighth charge of Eleazar? What does a comparison of Num. 3:32 and 4:28, 33 prove of Eleazar's charge toward the Kohathites? How does it prove this? What does this imply as to his Gospel-harvest antitype in that Harvest and in the Millennium? How did the latter discharge his pertinent teaching and executive functions? What did the censers, chargers, cups, bowls and spoons type? How did our Pastor fulfill his executive charge toward the antitypical

The Parousia Messenger. 


censers? His teaching charge? His teaching charge as to the antitypical chargers, cups, bowls and spoons? His executive charge toward them? 

(26) What two office functions did our Pastor, according to Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:42-46, have? In what seven respects did he exercise them as the Gospel-harvest Eleazar? What does his exercise of these two functions in these seven respects conclusively prove of him? What exclusiveness is thus proven of his office? What else proves this? What do deniers of this do with fulfilled prophecy? What must, therefore, be the condition of their symbolic eyes? What does such denial prove of those who once saw this truth? To what does such denial expose them? How should the proper view of him not be regarded? Why not? What illustrates this? Why did our Lord have to have some one in the Parousia as such a hand, eye and mouth? How does the Eleazar type show that our Lord would have such a special representative? What results from this? 

(27) What interesting conclusion is suggested by the thought relation of Num: 4:16 and Matt. 24:45-47; Luke 12:42-46? In what second way could He have gotten this thought? In what third and fourth ways could He have gotten it? Why is it more probable that He got it from Num. 4:16? 

(28) What practical reflection should we draw from this study? What two conclusions should not be drawn from this lesson? Why not? What does this reflection imply as to our approach to his teachings and arrangements? Against what evil would this safeguard us? To what good would it lead us? To what other good would it lead us? What would this not mean as to Great-Company-developing truths? Why not? How much of such truths had he given by Oct. 31, 1916? From what evil and into what good would such an attitude further lead us? What will attest the truthfulness of this thought? What exhortation springs out of this study? What should re-enforce it for each of us? 

(29) What will be our next study? Where have its main items been presented? What briefly is the setting of this story? How was the fifth sifting started? Whom does Korah type? His 250 associated Levites? What did

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


these do during that sifting? What is typed by the fire destroying Korah and his band? 

(30) Over what was the involved controversy? What was drawn into it? Why not? Why? What were the effects of these two misrepresentations? What actually did the deceived ones do? How did their deceivers stand and do therein? What were the results to the deceivers and the deceived? What are the New Creatures of these deceived ones now? How does Num. 26:11 prove this? What did the deceivers' censers type? Whence came Aaron's and the deceivers' fire? What do coals from the altar type? Their heat? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does the unburnt incense type? Its burning and resultant perfume? The strange fire of Korah and his band? Its heat? Their incense as spices and perfume? After awhile what did they type? Why? 

(31) What is typed by Moses' charge to Eleazar to take up the censers? What did the sifters use, or misuse? What case illustrates this? What other two cases? What did our Pastor do with these passages? What is typed by the charge to scatter the fire? By Eleazar's scattering the fire? How did Bro. Russell respond to the antitypical charge? What is typed by Eleazar's taking up the censers out of the burning? What was done with his main pertinent articles? 

(32) How often does the A. V. speak of these censers as being hallowed? What should be said on this and the proper translation? What is the proper translation of parts of v. 37 and the whole of v. 38? What two facts disprove the A. V.'s rendering of the pertinent word? What was the antitypical hallowing? Why is this true? Additional to the proof that v. 35 gives that the sifters were Second Deather, how does v. 38 prove it? Not only who, but who else were charged to hallow, offer and make the censers beaten plates? What does this type? In what two verses is the typical proof given? How? Accordingly, what did our Pastor receive from certain brothers? How did his and their work therein compare? 

(33) What would be well before going further into this feature of our subject? What does the brazen altar type? In what capacity? How is this typed? What, accordingly, is typed by beating the censers into plates for a covering 

The Parousia Messenger. 


of the altar? What was early in the controversy recognized? What would result from a proof of this point? What was the crux of the controversy? What was, accordingly, done with it? How is this emphasized in the type? What, again, was the antitype of beating the censers into plates for a covering of the altar? 

(34) What does the hallowing of the censers type? Their offering to the Lord? According to the text, who chiefly, though not alone, acted therein? What does this type? How is it proved? What was Bro. Barton's part therein? How is this typed in 2 Sam. 23:11, 12? What was another brother's part therein, as typed in 1 Chro. 11:1214? What do David's two wars with the Philistines type? How is this other brother's encounter with M.A. McPhail before part of the Chicago Church typed in 1 Chro. 20:6, 7? Bro. MacMillan's with A. E. Williamson before the Altoona Church in 1 Chro. 20:4? Bro. Crawford's with E. C. Henninges in 1 Chro. 20:5? Whose part far overshadowed the part of these four brothers? How is this shown? Who else, not expressly pointed out, shared in making the antitypical beaten plates? As a controversialist how does Bro. Russell appear in this controversy? Despite what in his anti-typing Jashobeam's feats? How is his prowess as that Servant in the 1908-1911 controversy in his capacity as a warrior typed in 1 Chro. 11:13, 14? Who was associated with him therein? How does the meaning of the word Pasdammim show that the Sin-offerings controversy is typed in this passage? 

(35) What do vs. 38, 40 type positively and negatively? Who only, as a rule, could properly set forth new truths? Exceptionally, who else could do so? How is this proven? What would be the character and result of others' attempting it? What question does this raise? How should it be answered? What should be said of this course? Of the contrary course? What is now being widely done with the antitypical "sign and memorial"? By whom? In what way? What in this connection may be said of the pertinent sifting leaders' course on this matter? 

(36) How did our Pastor conduct himself in this controversy? Amid what circumstances? What effect on us as to him will a proper consideration of his involved course have? Why? With what was his loyalty therein

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


rewarded by the Lord? What may we do at every memory of him? 

(37) How many years has it been since our Pastor went beyond the vail? What has been the author's custom for his anniversary? On what will our present study be based? What were the sixth-hour sifters? Where is this sifting typically set forth? What proves this? What use does the Bible make of its localities? What are some examples of these? What are we to conclude of Shittim from the typical setting of Num. 25? What does Shittim mean? Of what are trees symbolic? What do the acacia trees here symbolize? What is typed by Israel's abiding in Shittim? Of what did some of God's people become guilty at antitypical Shittim? What types this? 

(38) What does combinationism mean? By what do the consecrated become guilty of it? Give some illustrations of this. By what do the justified become guilty of it? By what does the camp become guilty of it? How else may they become guilty of it? What are some further examples of combinationism? From the Gospel Harvest's standpoint what does Israel's fornication at Shittim type? In connection with what Parliament did this occur? How was this evil committed among Truth people? Who were the leaders of it among Truth people? What sifting did they lead? Who were the organizing leaders of a world religion movement? What was one of their products? What was a second combinationistic movement (in 1893)? What was a third combinationistic movement (in 1894)? Who were the respective leaders? To what did their activities lead in 12 years? To what did the Open and Institutional Church League lead by 1895? What do the foregoing facts prove? By what are these movements typed? 

(39) What do the daughters of Moab in this story type? What does their calling upon the Israelitish men to sacrifice type? What are the main teachings that constitute the antitypical daughters of Moab? How did these doctrines invite the men of antitypical Israel to serve combinationism? What is typed by Israel's being joined to Baal-peor? What was the effect of this on God, type and antitype? 

(40) In type and antitype who were the more guilty? 

The Parousia Messenger. 


How did God accordingly deal with them? What does hanging type? What two illustrations suggest this thought? What is typed by God's charge to Moses to have the leaders hanged before Him against the sun? How did our Lord do this through some of His people who were in the nominal church? What are the names of some of the foremost of these? Through whom did He mainly do it? Through whom did He especially do it? Where especially were the leaders of combinationism typically hanged? What are the names of these leaders so hanged? What resulted from their hanging? 

(41) What is typed by Moses' charging each of the judges to kill all the guilty in his jurisdiction? By what pen products did Bro. Russell especially do his part of such refuting? How did the pilgrims do their part therein? Where is Bro. Russell's part therein typically set forth? How does this fact stand related to the basis of our present study? Who are typed by the Israelite who brought the Midianitish woman before his brethren? What is typed by his bringing her before his brethren? What does she type? What does this error effect? How does the Bible set forth Christianity in relation to other religions? Upon what is this teaching pivoted? How do the cited Scriptures show this? How does this teaching stand related to the chief error of combinationism's errors? Why so? What does this error do with Christ's sole Saviorhood? With Him in His pertinent claims? 

(42) What is typed by the Israelite's publicly bringing the Midianitish woman? What is typed by the sin of Baal-peor distressing Moses and the real Israelites? What does the name Phinehas mean? How do we get the thought that he types for the Gospel Harvest that Servant as the chief Underpriest on earth? From what standpoint does Phinehas (brazen mouth) type our Pastor? What is typed by his seeing the pertinent wrong and by his arising? What is typed by his taking a javelin? Where was the antitypical fornication especially committed? What is typed by Phinehas following the man into his tent? What is typed by Phinehas thrusting both through? During what act of theirs? What is typed by Phinehas thrusting her through her genitals? What did our Pastor's article do with these errors? What is typed 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


by Phinehas' deed staying the plague? How did the antitypical staying of the plague progress? 

(43) In what three publications especially did our Pastor attack combinationism? Against what two manifestations of it were his attacks chiefly directed? Of what character were these attacks? What conditions made it so? With what kind of a courage did our Pastor attack combinationism? How did he handle it? How do these remarks stand related to his attacks on the 1894 conspirators? How did the conspirators disparage these attacks? Like whom did they thereby act? What effect did these charges have on him? What did he say and do as to the conspiring leaders? 

(44) How many perished in the plague for the sin at Baal-peor? How does this number compare with those who perished in the other Israelitish plagues in the wilderness? What does this type? What is a symbolic plague? What did God express for Phinehas' act? What does this type? By what was the plague stayed among Truth people? Describe these two pen products further. Who were the sifting leaders among Truth people in connection with combinationism? What conclusion may we draw from the statement that Phinehas' zeal prevented all Israel's dying from plague? 

(45) How was Phinehas, type and antitype, rewarded? What shows this reward in antitypical Phinehas' case? What report did he make the day before his death? What form of fulfilment did the promise of prosperity take in type and antitype? How and when was the pertinent announcement made? How are the prosperity and continuity of his ministry promised? What was the character of the public announcement, type and antitype? 

(46) Who else fought the combinationists? How did God reward her therefore? What exceptional use did He thereby make of her? To whom did she first tell this? How did he at first react to it? Later? What did he then do about it privately? Publicly? Where are these public statements found? In what did Jesus and he not see any wrong? What are we not to conclude from the above? Why not? When and for what was he made that Servant? How long was its knowledge withheld from him? What is the difference between what was given him in 1879 and 

The Parousia Messenger. 


in 1894 on this matter? What resulted from the publication of this office? 

(47) What does the word Zimri mean? What is the antitypical significance of him and his name? What proves that he represents the combinationistic leaders? What name and relation types their test and failure? What does the word Cozbi mean? What does she, accordingly, type? What does the word Zur mean? What is its antitypical bearing? What is said of him in Num. 31:8? Of what is the story of Num. 31 a type? What do the five slain Midianite kings type? In what order does Zur occur among them? Why is he the third? What does his fatherhood of Cozbi type? What is typed by his being slain? What is typed by God's charging Moses to vex the Midianites? Where was it fulfilled, type and antitype? 

(48) Where have the generalities of our text been set forth? Whose part in the antitype is stressed in that chapter? For what is this study intended? What will it, accordingly, stress in the antitype of this type? What will be omitted here? What will be treated here? What meaning was given for the word Phurah, or Purah, in Vol. V, Chap. IV? Who give this definition? From what verb is this word derived? What two meanings, among others, does the verb paar, or phaar, have? Which of these two meanings is preferable here for the sense of the derived word 

Phurah, or Purah? Why? What is a scout's main work? How does this fit our Pastor's activities? 

(49) Who were the antitypical enemy? What did Jehovah desire for our Lord and our Pastor as to these? What did this move Him to do? Of what was this the antitype? As what did our Pastor act on this tour? What does this mean? Why was he so used? Wherein were these reports specially given? Where else also? How are these related to our text? Quote and explain other pertinent Scriptures. How do these views apply to Babylon's fallen condition? How do even the signs of good apply to them? During what period were these observed? What does this article propose to do as to these? Under what two heads? 

(50) What was one of these secular signs of the times? What are some of the vehicles of modern travel? In what does their possession result? What sign is closely related to the preceding one? Along what lines and varieties was this increase of knowledge? In what way did it especially 

Some Shorter Types of Parousia Messenger. 


show itself? What did antitypical Phurah show to be the meaning of these two signs? To what third sign did he frequently refer? What did he do as to Christendom's vices? Poverty? Its poor living and working conditions? Its educational conditions? Its statecraft? What are some of the details of these? What did he give as the meaning of this sign? 

(51) What did he do as to Christendom's business? In what three forms? What were some of the abuses that he pointed out? What did antitypical Phurah give as the meaning of this sign? Quote and explain the cited passages. 

(52) What was the next sign? In what did it consist? What did these presage? What was the next sign to which he referred? In what two ways did he show favor to be returning to Israel? What motives did he cite for their return? What instrumentalities? What did he frequently report? Quote and explain the Scriptures that he applied to this sign. What other sign did he stress? What particulars did he give thereon? Quote and explain the Scripture that he used for this sign. What significance did he attach to it? 

(53) What was the next sign that antitypical Phurah saw and brought to our attention? What great conflict was involved therein? What two forms did it assume? To what did capital resort in this fight? Labor? Who rallied to capital's side? What two social divisions resulted? Who were on each side? To what Scriptures did he refer for this sign? What do they mean? What sign was partly involved in the foregoing? Quote and explain the pertinent passage. What were the forms of this bundling among capitalists? Labor? The social world? Educational world? Political world? In the reform world? What did antitypical Phurah do about this secular sign of the times? 

(54) What was the next sign that antitypical Phurah watched and reported? What Scripture led him to look for it? What did he show to exist in the political world? How was this? In the business world? How was this? In the labor world? How was this? In the reform world? In the sociological and educational worlds? In family life? What did antitypical Phurah do with this phenomenon? What final sign did he observe and report? What did this sign imply? In what degree? What were the things that marked the crisis of the French Revolution? What did they 

The Parousia Messenger. 


forebode? How do they compare with those observed and reported by antitypical Phurah? What did they presage? 

(55) What beside secular signs did antitypical Phurah observe and report? What did these presage? What was the first of these? What Scripture indicated it? What was the next sign indicating Babylon's fall that he observed and reported? What were the forms of its super-naturalistic manifestation? Infidelistic manifestation? Heathen manifestation? What did he do about them? What Scripture bears on this subject? What was the next unfavorable sign seen and reported by him? Wherein were its Godward forms manifest? Manward forms in family and sex life? Social life? Property respects? In matters of reputation? What Scriptures forecast this? How? 

(56) What was the next sign seen and reported by antitypical Phurah? How was it made possible? What did its occurrence fulfill? What sign occurred in fulfillment of 2 Tim. 3:1-9? In what ways did this sign indicate the falling away among the clergy? Among the laity? What sign did he see and report as involving all the Protestant churches? What Scriptures forecast this? How? How did he trace its start? Its full formation? Its receiving life? 

(57) What other set of signs did he observe and report? What was the first of these? What Scripture forecast it? What was the next sign? Cite and explain the Scriptures on which he based this sign. What was his twofold relation to this sign? What was the next sign? Quote and explain the Scriptures on which it was based. What features of it did he watch and report? What was the next sign that he watched and reported? Quote and explain the pertinent Scriptures. What about it did he watch and report? What did this sign forebode to the nominal church? Why? What other sign did he watch and report? Quote and explain the pertinent Scripture. What other signs did he so treat? 

(58) Who else observed these things? How was this typed? What did they see in these signs? To whom did they go for a clearer explanation? What was the explanation given? What did our Pastor do on this head? What effect did his report have on the Faithful? Why? What does our study prove by the facts that it adduces?