A SPIRITUAL CAMPAIGN. ITS ANTECEDENTS. ITS BATTLE. ITS VICTORY. THE DISPOSAL OF UNWORTHY AND WORTHY CAPTIVES. OF ANIMAL PREY. OF OTHER SPOIL. 

‍

WE ARE now approaching the anniversary of our Pastor's going beyond the veil, October 31. The coming one [1938] will be the twenty-second, and as before the Epiphany friends will celebrate it by special services, Oct. 31, in addition to engaging in an extra effort along the lines of antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, in lecture, colporteur, sharpshooting and volunteer work, from Oct. 16 to Nov. 7, the period between our Pastor's leaving Bethel the last time and his burial, which occurred just after 6 P.M., Nov. 6th, i.e., according to God's reckoning, Nov. 7. This chapter will serve as an annual memorial article for him. That it will be appropriate as such is evident from two facts: 

(1) A certain phase of his part in the reaping work is set forth under the type of Phinehas' carrying the two trumpets on which he blew the alarm in the war described in vs. 1-24; and (2) under the Lord he supervised the warfare described in these verses. Accordingly, the friends may look upon this and others of this book's chapters as annual memorial articles for him. 

(2) In Num. 31 we have a typical history of the Parousia and Epiphany, set forth under the imagery of a war, in its antecedents, nature and results. In vs. 1-24, 48-54, the Parousia work is described under the military figure, wherein the chosen warriors of Israel won a most unique victory, destroying every one of the opposing soldiers without the loss of a single Israelitish soldier, taking a great number of captives and a large amount of booty, all of which they brought home with 

The Parousia Messenger. 

252 

them out of the war. Vs. 25-47 give a typical description of the Epiphany work of dividing God's people into the Little Flock and Great Company, under the military figure, wherein the captives and booty were divided into two parts, consigned equally to the warriors and the congregation of Israel. Even the Parousia siftings and its cleansings from the filthiness of the flesh and spirit are described, as well as the activities of the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims, the first and second of these features being described in vs. 13-24 and the third in vs. 48-54. The fact that this story occurs in the Law, regardless of whether we take that term to mean the five books of Moses (Gal. 4:21), or to mean the Law Covenant arrangements (Heb. 10:1), the fact that certain of the Law arrangements enter into the story (vs. 6, 19-24) and the fact that the story is connected with Israel's journey from Egypt to Canaan, one and all prove it to be typical. That it is typical of something at the end of the Gospel Age is evident on its surface from three facts: (1) the reference (v. 2) to the fact that after this war Moses would die; (2) the reference to Phinehas (v. 6), the eldest son of the high priest; and (3) the fact that Israel at the time was encamped in the last station of its wilderness journey, i.e., just before it entered Canaan. 

(3) These three facts, as proving the time setting of the antitype to be at the end of the Gospel Age, deserve closer study. How does the death of Moses (v. 2) forecast as coming soon after this war prove that Num. 31 types things at the end of this Age? As follows: In this story and in fact throughout the book of Numbers, except in the story of smiting the rock twice (Num. 20:7-13), wherein he represents the Parousia Ransom and Church-sin-offering deniers, Moses represents our Lord as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God toward antitypical Israel. Moses' death at the end of Israel's wilderness journey cannot represent our Lord's dying at 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

253 

the end of this Age, since from His resurrection onward He is immortal (Rom. 6:9; 1 Tim. 6:16). The antitype of a high priest's death gives us the clue to the antitype of Moses' death. The high priest's death types for the Church's High Priest our Lord's ceasing to function in His Gospel-Age office as High Priest to the Church, preparatory to His entering into the exercise of His Millennial-Age functions as Head of the World's High Priest. Accordingly, Moses' death types our Lord's ceasing to function in His Gospel-Age office as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God toward the Gospel-Age Israel, preparatory to His functioning as such toward the Millennial Israel. But the first of these two features our Lord gives up at the extreme end of the Gospel-Age; and His last general work of this kind to the Gospel-Age Israel is the work of the Harvest, understood as covering the Parousia and the Epiphany, i.e., in the wide sense of that term, and not in its narrow sense, the reaping. Hence the death of Moses as shortly following the war of Num. 31 proves that the time of that war types the time of the Harvest—the Parousia and the Epiphany. The pertinent activity of Phinehas (v. 6) as the chief under-priest at such a time and event would prove typically the corresponding activity of our Pastor as the chief Under-priest on earth, which also proves that the antitype of Num. 31 belongs to the Harvest of the Gospel Age. Israel's last encampment of its wilderness journey at that time and its being near the Jordan and just before Israel's crossing it into Canaan fittingly type the extreme end of the Age, the Harvest (Matt. 13:39). Accordingly, these three considerations prove that the antitype of Num. 31 belongs to the end of the Gospel Age. 

(4) We are now ready to expound the chapter—type and antitype. Since Moses types our Lord as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God toward the Gospel-Age Israel, and since in

The Parousia Messenger. 

254 

v. 1 God charges Moses as His appointed leader, executive and mouthpiece toward the Jewish-Age Israel, God in v. 1 must type the Heavenly Father giving directions, etc., to Jesus at the end of this Age. The charge of v. 2 as it reads in the A. V. ("Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites") is evidently an unhappy translation, for in the antitype it would have commanded Jesus to charge us to do what God forbids us to do, take revenge (Rom. 12:19-21). While the Hebrew word nakam has as one of its meanings, to avenge, another of its meanings, to vindicate, evidently fits better here. Here antitypically the charge was given by God to our Lord to see to it that Spiritual Israel be vindicated during the Harvest. The appropriateness of this is apparent from the fact that throughout the Dark Ages and even in the Reformation Period the Lord's faithful people have been greatly misrepresented and vilified as blasphemers against the Lord, His Word and His Church, and as rebels against the civil powers, whereas they stood for the little of Truth that then was due and against the errors, wrong organization and practices of the nominal church, especially against its unholy alliance with the state. The great theologians of the Dark Ages, like Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Duns Scotus, etc., and the great statesmen of that period with their lawyers, seemed to prove the Faithful to be blasphemous heretics and wilful rebels. This caused the latter to be branded as heretics with the excommunication of the "Church" and as rebels with the ban of the kingdoms and the Holy Roman Empire. Thus they were apparently overcome by these theologians and lawyers in argument and were by almost everybody so regarded and treated. Hence they were grossly misrepresented and vilified. It is against these misrepresentations and vilifications that God desired His people to be vindicated, and hence in v. 2 antitypically charges our Lord with the work of seeing it done. 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

255 

(5) Moses' (v. 3) telling the people this types our Lord's telling the Gospel-Age Israel in the end of the Age through the Church as His mouthpiece the antitypical charge. As in the type not all Fleshly Israel was commanded to arm themselves for the contemplated war, but only certain select warriors from among them were to arm themselves for the war ("Arm some of yourselves," v. 3), so not all of the antitypical Israelites were charged to arm themselves for the antitypical war, but only certain select warriors (the Little Flock) from among them were so charged. The antitypical charge was carried out in several acts: (1) in the candidates for war coming into the Parousia Truth and its Spirit and (2) in their training themselves to use the Truth and its Spirit for defensive and offensive warfare against the controversialists for error and against the Truth (Midian—strife). This charge was carried out, therefore, in pantomime; and it was given by our Lord through such servants of the Truth as brought by their teachings and exhortations the pertinent ones into the Truth and its Spirit and encouraged them afterwards to put on the whole armor of God (Eph. 6:10-18; 2 Cor. 6:7; 10:3-5; Rom. 13:12; 1 Thes. 5:8). As implied above, the Midianite warriors represent controversialists who defend error and attack Truth. Those under study (vs. 2, 3, 7-11) were mainly but not exclusively the nominal-church controversialists; since they also included all the sifters (slaughter weapon men) of the Parousia, those among the Truth and the Nominal people of God, as well as those apart from these, e.g., unbelieving, spiritistic, etc., controversialists. The Little Flock so armed and trained were in the Parousia to go forth to war for Truth and righteousness against the antitypical Midianite warriors ("let them go against the Midianites"). 

(6) The object of the typical warfare is given as follows: "Let them … avenge the Lord of Midian" (v. 3). The same remark as was made on the Hebrew

The Parousia Messenger. 

256 

word nakam above (v. 2) applies here to the word translated avenge, except that here the verb avenge is a free translation of a verb and noun literally to be rendered, to give, or render, vindication, the noun for vindication here being nikmat, derived from nakam. Accordingly, the clause should be rendered, "Let them … render the Lord's vindication on Midian." In the type the vindication of the Lord was for the evil done Him at Peor (Num. 25:1-18; 31:16). We are not to understand that there is a contradiction between vs. 2 and 3 in the charge to vindicate Israel and in the charge to vindicate the Lord; for the harmony between the two statements is to be found in the interrelation of God and His people, since the Midianites sinned against both God and Israel in the matter of Baal Peor; hence both were to be vindicated in the proposed war. These same considerations apply to God and antitypical Israel. Both of them were sinned against by antitypical Midian. Above we saw how this was done against antitypical Israel. We now proceed to show how this was done against God. The defenders of the creeds and the attackers of the Truth in the nominal church have vilified, blasphemed, traduced, slandered, vituperated and misrepresented God in His person, character, plan and works, by their false teachings, organizations, and practices. Through the nominal church doctrines of the trinity, human immortality, eternal torment, the consciousness of the dead, the bliss of the righteous dead, the misery of the unrighteous dead, no future probation, post-Millennialism, the object and manner of Christ's Second Advent, the resurrection, the judgment day and the eternal state of the saved and lost, the union of church and state, the organization of various of the denominations and many of their usages and practices, the nominal church controversialists have greatly vilified, blasphemed, traduced, slandered, vituperated and misrepresented God's person, character, plan and works. The 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

257 

sifters among the Truth people have done more or less of these things through their forms of no-ransomism, infidelism, combinationism, reformism and contradictionism. So, too, have aggressive atheists, materialists, evolutionists, agnostics, pantheists, secularists, rationalists, deists, higher critics and polytheists, done more or less of these things to God. And all of such antitypical Midianites have done these things in opposition to the stand that God's people have taken on them in the exposition and defense of God's person, character, plan and works, as due for them to see these, and therein have vilified, blasphemed, traduced, slandered, vituperated and misrepresented God and His people. 

(7) And certainly the Parousia time was a time in which God and His people were vindicated. The widespread attacks on the errors of these three classes of controversialists, the far-flung successful exposition and defense of God's Word and the world-wide refutation of all attacks upon it from all sources, during the Parousia effected these two vindications. Thus God's people throughout the Age as they stood for what of Truth was in their time due were vindicated as the exponent of the Truth, while the expounders and defenders of error and the attackers of the Truth were refuted and set forth as errorists. And the magnificent presentation of the Truth in the Parousia on God's person, character, plan and works was a wonderful vindication of God in these four respects. The vindication was, of course, a spiritual one, spiritual as to its weapons, disposition, methods and manner. Thus it was a vindication conformable to God and His people. The Society in following its president is now setting forth a vindication that is unworthy of God and of His people, in that it is done in large part with false weapons, bad spirit, faulty methods and inappropriate manner. It is also an evil vindication, since in blood-thirstiness it calls for the killing of almost the entire human race in Armageddon as the act of vindication 

The Parousia Messenger. 

258 

itself, while God's people's vindication is alleged to be their not dying in Armageddon! Such is the counterfeit vindication that the little pope of little Babylon teaches for the real one that occurred during the Parousia. In comparison, the counterfeit is as the darkness of the Arctic circle, while the true vindication is as the brightness of balmy May in the temperate zone. 

(8) The thousand (vs. 4, 5) delivered for the war from each of the twelve secular tribes (the sacred tribe of Levi was exempt from participation in Israel's wars), constituted a select army of 12,000, while the census given in Num. 26 shows that there were in Israel at that time over 600,000 warriors. This suggests the thought that these 12,000 warriors represent the faithful Little Flock in the flesh during the Parousia. This thought is corroborated by several considerations: (1) According to v. 49 not one of these 12,000 fell in the war with the Midianites, which is in line with the thought that none of the Faithful fall in the antitypical war (Ps. 91:7; Mal. 3:2). (2) According to v. 7 they slew all the Midianite warriors, who presumably outnumbered them, which is in line with the thought that the Faithful overthrew the Parousia enemies of the Truth, who are more numerous than they (Is. 54:17; Luke 21:15). (3) The number 12 and its multiples stand in symbolic passages for the faithful Little Flock and Little Flock matters, e.g., the 12 antitypical tribes, 12,000 in each tribe (Rev. 7:4-8), the 144,000 (Rev. 7:4; 14:1), the 12,000 furlongs and the 144 cubits (Rev. 21:16, 17), the 12 gates, 12 angels, 12 apostles, 12 stones, 12 pearls and the 12 fruits yielded in each one of the 12 months (Rev. 21:12, 14, 19, 20, 21; 22:2). And (4) the facts of the antitype which will later be brought out fully corroborate this thought. The fact that there were 12,000 soldiers chosen for the typical war, and not 144,000, is in line with the thought that the Parousia yielded not all, but a part of the Little Flock. Nor

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

259 

does it seem reasonable to take the 12,000 typical warriors to type just that many antitypical warriors as constituting the number of the Parousia Little Flock. In great likelihood more than 12,000 of the Little Flock were developed during the Parousia. Rather, we believe that the 12,000 typical warriors were used because that number, as a multiple of 12, serves well to show that the faithful Parousia Little Flock is meant in the antitype. Jesus gave the charge of v. 4 in pantomime, i.e., by calling out of the twelve denominations through the Harvest work the Little Flock there, the comparatively few coming into the Little Flock from the field, the world, being ignored in this picture. V. 5 was fulfilled antitypically in that there came out of the nominal church the Little Flock members in it, and were thereafter fitted to become its warriors. 

(9) V. 6 tells of Moses' sending forth to the war with Midian these 12,000 warriors and Phinehas, who was the eldest son of the high priest Eleazar, and who bore in his hand as the holy instruments the two silver trumpets (Num. 10:1-10). The word ve, rendered and in the last clause of v. 6, should have been rendered even, one of the three meanings of that word, because the only instruments of the tabernacle designed for war uses were the two silver trumpets, which were blown by the priests alone (Num. 10:9). Let us keep in mind that the work of the Parousia is set forth not only in literal statements, but also from the standpoint of a variety of figures, e.g., the harvest (Matt. 13:24-33, 37-43; Rev. 14:14-17), fishing (Matt. 4:19; 13:47-50), a war (Rev. 19:11-21), etc. Each of these figures brings out a different viewpoint of the Parousia work. Our study presents the matter from the standpoint of the war figure. Moses' sending forth the 12,000 represents our Lord's sending forth His Parousia Faithful to war for Truth and righteousness against the error and unrighteousness of antitypical Midian. Moses' sending forth Phinehas, the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

260 

chief under-priest, with the soldiers to the war, as the chief commander, which his possession of the trumpets made him, types our Lord's sending forth Brother Russell, the chief Under-priest in the flesh with the rest of the Parousia Faithful, as the chief commander, which his possession of the antitypical trumpets made him. We have already shown from Num. 10:1-10 that the two great Gospel-Age messages: (1) the reckoned and actual human salvation, and (2) the Divine salvation, are the two antitypical trumpets. (Vol. VIII, Chap. X.) We have also shown there that Num. 10:8 proves that it was more especially the prerogative of the mouthpiece Priests to blow these trumpets and that alarms were to be blown in time of war. These thoughts enable us better to understand that Phinehas' bearing these trumpets in his hands types our Pastor's ministering with the messages of the two great salvations. And Phinehas' taking these with him to the war, combined with the charge that they should be blown by the priests in war times (Num. 10:9), and the fact that the Hebrew word translated to blow in v. 6 means blow an alarm, proves that our Pastor is here typed from the standpoint of his controversial activities during the Parousia war. 

(10) Symbolic war is waged in three ways: (1) a setting forth of the Truth constructively as contrasted with error; (2) a defense of the Truth against the attacks of error; and (3) an attack on error. When we examine our Pastor's writings or call to mind his sermons, lectures, conversations, debates and answers to questions, we find that they abound in these three forms of warfare. He almost never touched upon a subject on which special error was taught unless, before he had finished with it, he engaged in controversy on it in one or two or three of the forms of fighting error set forth in the first sentence of this paragraph. Sometimes the controversial element was more, sometimes less prominent in his writings and speech; but it was almost

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

261 

always present whenever a controversial subject was under discussion. This can be seen in his Studies, Towers, sermons, tracts, magazine and newspaper articles, booklets and letters. And those who conversed with him on controversial subjects or who heard him on such subjects in sermons, lectures, debates, conversations, and question meetings, will recall that this statement is a fact. Hence a large part of his ministry was devoted to controversy with the three sets of antitypical Midianites mentioned above. It is this warring feature of his ministry that is typed by Phinehas' bearing in his hands the two silver trumpets for alarm-blowing purposes. While the following as such is not directly pictured in the type, it is nevertheless a fact that for the most part our controversial weapons during the Parousia warfare were gotten almost exclusively from what we gathered from his writings and oral teachings. It is because of his great prominence as a controversialist and of his leading the Faithful in their controversies against the antitypical Midianites that he is typed as an individual by Phinehas in the story of Num. 31. This fact occasions our calling this chapter an annual memorial article for him. God bless his memory, among other things as it appears in the fights for Truth and righteousness that he waged and helped others to wage, as well as in leading them therein. 

(11) V. 7 briefly describes the fighting of this war. This is perhaps the most remarkable war ever waged; for in it every warrior on the one side was slain ("slew all the males") and on the other side not even one soldier fell (v. 49). That the Midianites were a numerous nation is evident from the fact that, despite the losses of this war in slain and prisoners, less than 100 years later their warriors constituted the majority of the host of 135,000 invaders of Canaan, in Gideon's day (Judges 6:1-7; 8:10). From the latter fact we can see that all the males of v. 7 mean all the Midianitish warriors, not the other males of the nation, 

The Parousia Messenger. 

262 

another part of whom—boys—were later slain (v. 17). But these warriors must have been more numerous than the 12,000 Israelites. The antitype suggests the same thought; for the three classes of Truth opponents and error exponents of the Parousia were very much more numerous than the Parousia Little Flock. The only way that we can account for every soldier of the more numerous and not one of the less numerous side falling is that God wrought a miracle in this war, doubtless using angels to paralyze the Midianites with fear and weakness in order to furnish a type that would picture forth the planned antitype. What is typed by this war? The controversies between the Little Flock (hence not between all Truth people; for some of these fell in the Parousia, while none of the antitypical 12,000 fell) on the one side and the three classes of erroneous Parousia controversialists on the other side. The slaying of the Midianites types the refutation of the erroneous Parousia controversialists, not of course a literal slaying, as no such a thing occurred on either side during the Parousia. All the Midianitish soldiers being slain types the fact that in every conflict that the faithful Parousia brethren entered they refuted their adversaries, which God Himself promised as their portion (Is. 54:17; Luke 21:15). The Israelites' warring, as the Lord commanded Moses, implies two things in the type and antitype: (1) The war was carried out in obedience to the Lord; and (2) was carried out in His Spirit. These two facts are another proof that in this picture the Parousia Little Flock is typed by the 12,000. 

(12) When we look back at the Parousia controversies, we see that the above-suggested antitypes are true. Certainly, of all times of the Gospel Age the Parousia was a time of controversy. Not only is this seen in the attacks made on the Truth and the Bible in that time by the three classes of antitypical Midianite warriors; and not only is this seen in our Pastor's part

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

263 

in the controversies of that time; but it is also seen in the parts taken in those controversies by other Little Flock members, especially by the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims typed by the captains of thousands and captains of hundreds (vs. 14, 48-54). The pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims in their lectures, sermons, answers to questions, conversations, lecture reports in the newspapers, debates and letters, gave evidence of the controversial element as present in their ministry. The elders in their lessons, answers to questions, letters and conversations, manifested the controversial side as being in evidence in their ministry. The unofficial parts of the faithful Little Flock exemplified in their conversations and letters the same feature in their ministries. The colporteurs did the same more or less in their canvass and related conversations, and self-evidently in their sale of books and booklets. The volunteers incident to their work distributed controversial literature. So did the faithful brethren who engaged in other branches of the work, like the faithful Bible House workers, extension workers, photo-drama workers, newspaper workers, sharpshooters, etc. On all sides these controversies were carried on. The zeal of both sides in this warfare occasioned it, particularly that of the faithful Little Flock. All Parousia Little Flock members can recall more or less arguments along the lines of Truth and error into which they were drawn with attackers of Truth or defenders of error in the Parousia. Yes, it was a time of symbolic warfare in which the defenders of error and the attackers of Truth went down into defeat, and in which every Little Flock member was victorious. 

(13) Beside all the rest of the slain warriors the 12,000 slew the five kings of Midian (v. 8): Evi (luster), Rekem (variformed; variegated), Zur (combination), Hur (noble) and Reba (four-sided), and Balaam (swallower of the people or glutton) the son of Beor (torch). We understand the five kings of Midian to 

The Parousia Messenger. 

264 

type the same as the five Parousia slaughter-weapon men. These evidently were chief error-advocates of the Parousia. Not only the facts of the case are in line with this thought, but the meanings of their names also suggest it. Evi, as meaning luster, is in line with what St. Paul (1 Cor. 10:6) and Moses (Num. 11:4, 34) say of them. Rekem, as meaning variformed, or variegated, suggests the many sub-groups in each of the three sets of the infidelistic sifters (those in the sanctuary, those in the courts and those in the city or camp), e.g., those in the city or camp consist of atheists, agnostics, materialists, evolutionists, pantheists, secularists, rationalists, deists, higher critics and polytheists. Surely the infidelistic sifters in their third subdivision were variformed, variegated. There were more parties to this than to any other of the sifting classes. Zur, as meaning combination, i.e., things pressed together into one whole, at once suggests the sifters who stood for combinationism. Hur, as meaning noble, suggests the nobility of the reformers' objects in seeking to set aside evil conditions and in seeking to inaugurate good ones among mankind. Reba, as meaning four-sided, suggests the four-sided attack they made on the Truth; for they attacked various phases of the Truth on the four subjects: Mediator, Covenants, Sin-offerings and the Ransom. And Balaam (swallower of the people, glutton) the son of Beor (torch), types the clergy as being more or less of Truth teachers (torch) who in their lording consumed the people and in their greediness swallowed (appropriated to themselves) all the rewards of unrighteousness, like riches, honor, power, influence and ease, that they could get (2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11). The antitypical 12,000 slew these in the sense that by the Truth (the sword, v. 8) they refuted their errors and convicted them of wrong-doing. All of the remaining faithful Parousia Little Flock members will recall that this was then fulfilled by them in their many controversies.

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

265 

(14) In v. 9 it will be noted that the word all in the first clause is in italics, which means that it is interpolated. The interpolation is an unhappy one. If the statement were true, and if the thought that the A. V. suggests in v. 7 of all males were true, the whole nation as such would have perished, since the captive boys were all slain and all women not slain (vs. 17, 18) were incorporated into Israel. The many Midianites with whom Gideon had to cope prove that the whole nation as such did not perish. The literal translation of v. 9 is: "The sons of Israel took captive women and children of Midian and they made spoil of all their cattle, of all their sheep and of all their goods." In other words, while they slew all the warriors of Midian and took all their moveable property as spoil and captured many of their women and children, the civilian men and some of the women and children escaped, which is proved by the fact that a large host of Midianites invaded Canaan in the times of Gideon. Who were the captured antitypical Midianitish women and children? The Midianitish women were more or less developed errorists who did not continue to fight or who never fought for the errors of the Parousia times, while the Midianitish children were undeveloped errorists who passed through the same experiences. How in the antitype were Midianitish women and children made captives? By being convinced through the Little Flock's refutations of antitypical Midian's errors of their erroneousness and by being convinced through the Little Flock's Truth presentations that these were genuinely Scriptural. In other words, by such antitypical Midianites being delivered from error and being brought into the Truth by the Little Flock's Truth presentations they were made the antitypical captives of the antitypical 12,000. 

(15) The antitypical Midianitish captive women and children were a mixed multitude. Some were new creatures, which is true of all the antitypes of the virgins

The Parousia Messenger. 

266 

among them, and which was true of part of the rest of the antitypical women captives, while the rest of them never had been new creatures. The antitypical Midianitish captive boys were also mixed, some being new creatures, others not. By the sheep we understand the humanity of the new creatures to be typed and by the cattle there was typed the fact that their humanity was justified, even as these animals in the tabernacle were used to represent these things. In Bible symbols asses are in general used to represent Truth teachings, as can be seen from the ass that Balaam rode, representing the Truth teachings that bore his antitype (Num. 21:21-33; 2 Pet. 2:16), as can be seen from the fact that our Lord's being true to the Truth is symbolized by Shiloh binding the ass' colt to the choice vine (Gen. 49:11), and by our Lord's riding into Jerusalem upon an ass and its colt (Matt. 21:5, 7; John 12:15) as typing His coming in kingly power into Christendom, riding on the doctrines of the Ransom and the Second Advent, in 1878, more especially as these were set forth in the tract, Manner and Object of Our Lord's Return, and the book, The Three Worlds. Many other references in the types and symbols corroborate this thought. The 12,000 capturing the asses would type the Parousia Little Flock appropriating to themselves the truths that are in Babylon's creeds, e.g., the twelve stewardship doctrines, etc. The asses here would also type the truths that the Little Flock in the Parousia appropriated from other nominal church writings. And the other goods that the 12,000 captured would type the various Levitical writings which the antitypical 12,000 have appropriated to themselves and from which they have gotten various linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic helps on Biblical matters. The inanimate things, "the goods," that the 12,000 and their officers captured seem to type two other things: the graces, e.g., as appears from the antitypes of the jewels and garments that the Israelites got by asking from 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

267 

the Egyptians, and certain Truth presentations like discourses, writings, lessons and conversation material, as will be seen when we examine vs. 50-54. The efforts of the antitypical 12,000 as they sought to show forth the Lord's Spirit in their controversies with antitypical Midianites gave them these graces and Truths as spoils of battle. Certainly in the campaign waged during the Parousia the Little Flock took the above-described captives, prey and spoil; and by taking such booty they left the antitypical Midianites that escaped death and captivity diminished in numbers and impoverished of wealth in teaching and graces. 

(16) V. 10 tells us that Israel burned all their cities and goodly castles. Thus they devastated the land of Midian, which further impoverished the escaped of the nation. In Biblical symbols a city represents a religious government, as can be seen from the instances of Babylon (Rev. 17:5, 18), New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 10—22:3) and the five cities of symbolic Egypt, the five denominations that in Europe are united with state (Is. 19:18). To burn with fire these symbolic cities would mean by the Truth to destroy them as alleged Divinely authorized religious governments, i.e., completely expose the fraudulence of their claims to be God's Church. Castles or palaces, as fortresses, in Bible symbols represent chief teachings as the strong dwelling places of believers in them (Ps. 48:3, 13; 78:69; 122:7). Antitypical Midian's goodly castles were her various main erroneous teachings. In the nominal church part of antitypical Midian such castles or fortresses were the doctrines of the trinity, human immortality, the consciousness of the dead, the dead being in bliss or torment, eternal torment, probation limited to this life, post-Millennialism, doomsday, etc. Others' errors, like the five siftings' errors, are others of these goodly castles. For Israel's 12,000 to burn by fire typical Midian's goodly castles would type the Parousia Little Flock utterly destroying as tenable teachings, by 

The Parousia Messenger. 

268 

the Word of God as a symbolic fire, which it is in relation to error (2 Kings 1:10-14), the above-mentioned and other errors, in which, as in fortresses or castles, the antitypical Midianites were entrenched. We know, some of us from participation, some of us from observation and some of us from information, that such a symbolic destruction took place through the Parousia Little Flock's warfare. Thus were God and God's Gospel-Age Israel vindicated by the Little Flock's Parousia campaign against the errorists, and thereby was the Parousia warfare on error and errorists ended, even as the typical 12,000 by their campaign against Midian vindicated God and Israel as against Midian and brought to an end their campaign. 

(17) In vs. 11, 12, what was done with the captives and spoil is set forth. By the prey the living things captured seem to be meant (vs. 11, 12, 26, 27; in v. 12 the expression, "and the prey," after the word, "captives," should be rendered, "even the prey"); and by the spoil the inanimate things captured seem to be meant (vs. 11, 12, 53). The taking of these, mentioned in v. 11, seems to mean, not their initial capture, which is described in v. 9, but the better securing of them preparatory to bringing them to Israel's camp. Antitypically this would mean the Little Flock's getting a firmer hold on their symbolic prey and spoil. This was done by their more thoroughly indoctrinating the captives, as to their new-creaturely and human privileges, by their getting a better hold on the truths that they took away from the antitypical Midianites, and by their getting a stronger development of the captured graces and special teaching features that their engaging in this warfare gave them. The typical Israelitish army bringing the prey and spoil (v. 12) to Moses types the Parousia Little Flock bringing the persons that they won for the Truth, the truths that they took away from the creeds and Levite writings, the Levite works themselves and the graces and their discourses, writings, lessons and

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

269 

conversation material, to Jesus as booty won especially for Him as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God to antitypical Israel. 

(18) The Israelites' bringing these to Eleazar types the Parousia Little Flock's bringing similar things to Jesus as their High Priest. The 12,000 Israelites' bringing the prey and spoil to the congregation types the Parousia Little Flock's bringing similar things among God's Parousia people, e.g., whenever any of us won someone for the Truth we brought him as soon as we could among the brethren; and happy indeed were we to be privileged so to do. The Israelites' bringing these to the camp at the plains of Moab types the fact that the antitype was performed while God's Gospel-Age people were at their last wilderness station, wherein they dwelt in territory, the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit, that once was in possession of the Roman Catholic Church, which usually Moab types, while usually Ammon types Protestantism. The reason that the last Parousia camp was located in the former, Roman Catholic, territory, is that Romanism is a complete counterfeit of the Truth and its Spirit, whereas Protestantism is not; hence in getting the Truth and its Spirit as its Parousia and Epiphany camping place, the Little Flock wrested these spheres out of the hands of Romanism, i.e., turned these into the genuine by the needed changes from the counterfeit to the true. The expression, "which was beside the Jericho Jordan," types the fact that the Church's last Gospel-Age station was outside but near the nominal church (Jericho) when about to leave this earth for the Kingdom by death (Jordan), a thing that was not true of any pre-harvest stage of the Church. 

(19) Moses, Eleazar and all the princes of the congregation (v. 13) going forth to meet the returning army types our Lord Jesus, as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God to antitypical Israel (Moses), Himself as the Church's High

The Parousia Messenger. 

270 

Priest (Eleazar) and all the leaders among God's people (all the princes), welcoming the Little Flock as from each stage of the war its individual members would return with their prey and spoil. While in the type such a return was done once for all, in the antitype each time some prey or spoil was won these were brought in among the Lord's people. All of us know, whether by experience, observation or information, that such welcoming occurred as one by one at various times the Little Flock brethren brought back prey and spoil gained in their warfare with antitypical Midian. The welcoming of the 12,000 without the camp represents that the antitype was performed while the victors were yet in the flesh and thus in more or less disharmony and unpopularity with the camp condition. Moses' and Eleazar's share in such welcoming finds a somewhat parallel act with the same general antitypical meaning in Melchizedek's going forth to meet Abraham returning from slaughtering the four (not five) kings (Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1, 2), the four kings representing the sifters of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth siftings, the no-ransomistic and infidelistic sifters not being represented in this picture, because antitypical Lot (the Great Company) was not captured by any phase of no-ransomism and infidelism, but he was captured by more or less attenuated phases of the other four sifting errors, e.g., the sons of antitypical Korah, who antitype certain Kohathite Levites (Num. 26:9-11), were captured by the fifth set of sifters. But according to v. 14, Moses was angry at the captains of thousands and of hundreds, while the reverse of anger, pleasure, is implied in the attitude of Melchizedek. But this would not imply a contradiction in the antitype. Both antitypes were factual, one bringing out Jesus' pleasure in the victors for the good they did, the other implying His displeasure for certain evils that they did, as a further study of the types and antitypes will prove. This is only another illustration of the fact that not

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

271 

everything on a given subject is given in any one Scripture, rather "here a little, there a little," is the way the Bible gives its thoughts on each of its topics. 

(20) Though the record (v. 14) does not show it, Moses very likely expressed the pleasure that as a patriotic Israelite he felt over the glorious victory won and the prey and spoil taken. But the Lord did not design to express this phase of Moses' feeling, since He designed through Moses in this place to show that our Lord, as Leader and Executive, was displeased with things not done aright in the Parousia warfare. This anger was directed against the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds. These officers type the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims. The twelve pilgrims who were the most active and efficient toward the public, i.e., in public meetings, are the antitypes of the twelve captains over thousands. At present we are unable positively to identify all twelve of these, but we are, from the captains that David placed monthly over the monthly 24,000, able with certainty to identify seven of them (1 Chro. 27:1-15). Jashobeam (v. 2; 11:11) types our Pastor as a pilgrim, not as that Servant, who was the captain over the first thousand; Eleazar the Dodaian (v. 4; 11:12) types another brother, who was the captain over the second thousand; Benaiah (vs. 5, 6; 11:22) types J.F. Rutherford, who was the captain over the third thousand. It will be noticed that Shammah (2 Sam. 23:11), who types Bro. Barton, was not among the captains of a monthly 24,000. This was doubtless due to the fact that he was not specially prominent in the public work. Abishai, type of Bro. John Edgar, who did not do much public work, is likewise not mentioned among the captains of a monthly 24,000. While we are not yet able to identify them with their typical mighty men in the lists of David's mighty men (2 Sam. 23:8-31; 1 Chro. 11:11-47), we conclude from the uses that Bro. Russell made of 

The Parousia Messenger. 

272 

them in the public work, that Bros. Hemery, MacMillan, Sturgeon and Raymond quite certainly, and Bros. Sexton, Bundy and Rockwell less certainly, are the antitypes of seven other captains of the monthly 24,000 in 1 Chro. 27:1-15, as well as of the other seven captains of seven of the thousands of our study. We are still less certain of the other two. Perhaps they were Bros. Lundborg of Sweden and Koetitz of Germany. The rest of the 132 captains, 120, represent the rest of the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims. The Lord was wroth with these as they were returning from the campaign of the war; because they had preserved the lives, not of some, but of all the women that they had captured (vs. 14, 15). Moses considered that those who through Balaam's counsel had enticed the Israelites at Baal-peor to sin, and who had, accordingly, brought a plague upon Israel, should have been slain by the captains' orders before the return (v. 16; see Chap. VI). 

(21) The following facts will make this episode of our study clear in the antitype. The 12,000, capturing and preserving the non-virgins and boys (v. 17), brought as captives to the camp such as did not deserve to be brought there. In this they type how the antitypical 12,000 won for the Truth people more than they should have won, some that did not deserve to be associated with the Truth people—some that were never consecrated, as all of us know, some whose consecration had been unfaithfully kept, the non-virgins, and some (the boys) who, while accepting some of the Truth, fought for some of antitypical Midian's errors. The antitypical soldiers were too anxious to win numbers, as suggested by the type, and thus were not particular enough to indoctrinate thoroughly on consecration those whom they attracted with the Truth and to require of them that they meet that high standard, which, if those attracted were not willing to meet, should have prompted the soldiers to keep them away from the association of Truth people. The Lord Jesus 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

273 

held the leaders mainly accountable for this neglect, for they should have influenced the others not to "capture" such unfit ones and bring them in among the Lord's Truth people. Hence He was especially displeased with the leaders for their over anxiety to win numbers and for their neglect to restrain the others from the same course. The killing (v. 17) of the non-virgins and boys types the cutting off of their antitypes from among the Lord's people, which usually occurred through the refutatory teachings and acts of the leaders and others during the siftings large and small, though it often occurred in the cases of individuals apart from siftings. The charge to preserve alive (v. 18) the virgins, who type the truly consecrated (Rev. 14:1-5; Matt. 25:1-12; Ps. 45:14, 15; Cant. 6:8, 9; Prov. 31:29), as well as the charge to slay the non-virgins and boys, was given by our Lord in both cases through the pertinent Truth teachings and providences. The antitypical virgins were preserved alive for God's people by the loving care and thorough teachings that they received at the hands of the brethren. In both the cuttings off and the preservings it was the leaders who were most active, and whose course toward both realized the Divine intention as to them. 

(22) We now proceed with our study of Num. 31, beginning with v. 19. From v. 15 to v. 20 Moses is the speaker, and as such types here our Lord as God's appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for antitypical Israel during the Gospel-Age Harvest. As in vs. 19, 20, Moses gave directions for the cleansing of the typical warriors and captives, so our Lord during the reaping time gave the antitypical instructions for the cleansing of the antitypical warriors and their captives. The charge (v. 19) that these remain outside the camp of Israel indicates that these were unclean and that their antitypes would be unclean. Remaining without the camp seven days types the antitypes' remaining outside of the antitypical camp (here the Kingdom) until 

The Parousia Messenger. 

274 

their full cleansing has been effected. The camp here evidently does not mean the assembly of God's people yet in the flesh; for the antitypical captains and captives were during the reaping time in, and parts of that assembly. Killing a soul (so the Hebrew) types active Adamic weaknesses against our consecration, i.e., selfishness and worldliness, and touching the slain types the contamination of the depravity inherited from Adam. In both of these senses we must cleanse ourselves from the domination of the Adamic disposition, if we are to enter the Kingdom as overcomers. The cleansing on the third day types the cleansing that we receive in justification, i.e., from sin, which is accomplished by our suppressing it to the extent of our ability. This fight commenced at our tentative justification and will continue until death. 

(23) The third-day cleansing suggests that which belongs to justification, as follows: Abraham was the first person to whom tentative justification, with its implications of righteous living to the extent of ability, was offered in anticipation of his coming into the Abrahamic Covenant relations with God. Abraham received this cleansing during the third 1,000-year day of human history. Hence the third-day cleansing is the one pertinent to the justified condition. Of course, the cleansing here meant is not that from the penalty of the Adamic sin, which is effected by Jesus' merit alone through faith; but is that from the power of the Adamic sin, which is effected by the co-operation of Jesus and the believer by works. The seventh-day cleansing types the overcoming of natural selfishness and worldliness pertinent to the consecration condition. We know from experience that we undergo both of these forms of cleansing. Did Jesus as the antitype of Moses' giving the directions for the typical cleansings give the directions for the antitypical cleansings? We answer, yes. Throughout the reaping period exhortations went out from Him to all Truth people, the leaders and the led,

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

275 

to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit and from all forms of selfishness and worldliness. He spoke these through the Volumes, especially Vols. 1, 5 and 6, particularly the last, through Tabernacle Shadows, the Towers, the Hymns and Poems of Dawn, the Sermons, the pilgrims' talks, the elders' lessons and the pertinent conversations of the Lord's people. Thus the pertinent facts prove that the antitypes of v. 19 were fulfilled during the time of our Pastor's ministry, the Parousia. 

(24) The details as to what were to be cleansed are given in v. 20—garments, things of skin, works of goats' hair and every wooden thing, as well as the persons themselves. Garments type qualities of the new creaturely heart and official powers (Col. 3:12; Ex. 28:2, 40). The leaders and the led were to cleanse their new-creaturely heart qualities and their office powers from all contamination from natural, as distinct from sinful selfishness and worldliness. The allusion to the things of skin covers the same thoughts as those typed by the curtains of the tabernacle of rams' skins dyed red and of badgers' skins. The former curtains represent our covering of Christ's merit and the latter our appearance as despicable to the world. To cleanse the things of skin, therefore, types two things: to cleanse away any spots on our robes and to put aside faultful qualities that would make the Lord's people have a bad appearance to the world. The curtain of goats' hair covering the tabernacle represents our justified humanity. To cleanse every work of goats' hair would therefore type our cleansing our good human qualities, covered as they are by our Lord's righteousness, from human faults that attach to them. Wood in the tabernacle represents corruptible humanity. We have faults in our humanity that are not attached to our natural good qualities but are their opposites. These are represented by the things of wood in v. 20. Hence to cleanse the things of wood types our ridding ourselves 

The Parousia Messenger. 

276 

of such faults. The exhortation to cleanse themselves types Jesus' exhortation to the New Creatures to overcome their new-creaturely lacks by developing them, the New Creature being typed by the linen curtain. Thus the five typical things that were cleansed type five distinct things that are cleansed in the antitype. 

(25) In vs. 21-24 Eleazar as high priest gives some instruction on the cleansing work. The distinction between Moses' and Eleazar's giving the pertinent instruction is the following: Moses gave it as the Divinely appointed executive, mouthpiece and leader for Israel, while Eleazar gave it as the high priest reconciling the warriors and their captives with the good will of God, making them pleased with the Divine will. In the antitype four functions of our Lord's work in connection with our cleansing ourselves are typed by Moses' and Eleazar's pertinent activities. As Executive Jesus gives us the experiences needed for our cleansing; as Mouthpiece, the teachings needed for our cleansing; as Leader, the direction of our course needed for our cleansing, while as High Priest He does the reconciling work in us, makes us pleased with the good will of God. Experience proves that during the reaping time, as called for in this type, Jesus officially functioned toward the leaders and the led in these four ways. Eleazar's telling (v. 21) the warriors that he was explaining to them the things that God commanded through Moses, types the fact that our Lord as High Priest in the reaping time told us that He was expounding to the antitypical warriors the things that as God's appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for antitypical Israel He had received from God as God's pertinent will for such cleansings as are described above. The expression, ordinance of the law, types the thought of the teachings of God's Word (Ps. 1:2; 119:18, 97, 113, 142, 163, 165). Experience proves that in His work of making us pleased with the good will of God, the second feature of His reconciling (High-Priestly) work,

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

277 

Jesus as High Priest during the Parousia explained the pertinent teachings of God's Word, as having been given Him as the Divinely appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for antitypical Israel for that time. 

(26) It will be noted that there is a twofold method of cleansing set forth in vs. 22, 23. The metals, because they could withstand fire, were to be cleansed by a different process from that used with materials that could not withstand fire. The former—the gold, silver, copper, iron, tin and lead—were to be made clean by being made to pass through the fire and by the sprinkling of the water of separation, and the latter by being made to pass through the water and by sprinkling with the water of separation. The distinction in the typical process of cleansing these two kinds of implements was, of course, to bring out an important distinction in the things that must undergo the antitypical cleansing. Both Scriptures and experience show that we are cleansed from some of our faults by submission to the influence of the Word alone (Ps. 119:9; John 15:3; Is. 4:4; 1 Cor. 5:7; 6:11; Eph. 5:26). And this is typed by the cleansing done by washing in water and by sprinkling with the water of separation. Scriptures and experience also show that we are cleansed from others of our faults by submission to the influences of the Word and providences, disciplines of the Lord (Ps. 94:12; 119:67; Hos. 5:15; Rom. 5:3; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; 2 Cor. 4:17; Heb. 12:4-14; Jas. 1:4, 12; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:14). This form of cleansing is typed by the way the metals were cleansed. The distinction between the antitypical washing with water and sprinkling with the water of separation is this: The former is a cleansing made by any part of the Word apart from the antitypes of the Ancient Worthies' experiences, while the latter is the cleansing effected by the antitypes of the Ancient Worthies' experiences. When the cleansing is effected by the Word alone it is accomplished by the new will laying such faithful hold on the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

278 

pertinent truths and obediently holding them so firmly on the faults as to cast them out entirely. This occurs, however, only in the cases in which these faults are more or less surface, not deep-seated, faults. Where deep-seated faults exist the cleansing is not accomplished by such a process alone, though it must cooperate with the other process. In such cases disciplinary experiences must be added to the first process, and amid such disciplines one must submit himself obediently to the influence of the pertinent parts of the Word. Such a course amid such disciplines will result in the cleansing. In some cases this second process works comparatively quick results, in others slow results, depending partly on the degree of faithfulness exercised and partly on the hold the faults have. In some cases it lasts for years and in many to the end of life. We know by the Bible and experience the above described methods of the antitypical cleansing. We also know that antitypical of Eleazar's pointing out their types our Lord during the Parousia, the reaping time, pointed out their antitypes through the writings of our Pastor, the discourses of the pilgrims, oral, printed and abbreviated in notes, the talks and lessons of elders and the conversations, exhortations and testimonies of the brethren. 

(27) Eleazar's directions given in v. 24 also find their antitypes in Jesus' High-Priestly directions given during the Parousia. The antitypical "clothes" are the Faithfuls' graces and official powers. As the uncleanness of the typical clothes required their being washed in water, so did the antitypical garments have to be washed in the antitypical water from uncleanness of the flesh and spirit. Any fault attaching to our graces must be washed out with the water of the Word; and any uncleanness of the flesh and spirit attaching to our official powers as priests, regardless of whether as such we had an office in the local or general Church or not, must be washed out by the water of the Word, which the 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

279 

type shows occurred during the Parousia. If this was not done we cannot enter the Kingdom. If it was done, and we remain Priests, we will enter the Kingdom—come into the camp (v. 24). The washing of the clothes on the seventh day types the fact that the antitypical washing related to us in our consecration aspects as distinct from our justification aspects. The antitype of v. 24 so understood found its factual fulfillment in the many exhortations that our High Priest as such caused to be given us through that Servant's writings, through the pilgrim's discourses, the elders' teachings and the other brethren's conversations, exhortations and testimonies. 

(28) This is a good place to make a general remark on Num. 31:1-24—the factualness of its antitypical fulfillment when understood as applying to the Parousia considered from the standpoint of a military campaign. In the second paragraph of this chapter we stated that Num. 31:1-24, 48-54, gave us a type of the Parousia under the figure of a military-campaign. Our study of Num. 31:1-24 proves that the pertinent part of this statement is true; for we have found for every detail of these 24 verses factual antitypes. The presented antitypes are not stretched, whittled, tortured, but most naturally are in harmony with known Biblical teachings elsewhere given, and convey the thoughts suggested by their types. It will also be noted that all the main movements and activities of the Parousia as they come under the figure of a military campaign are brought out clearly: the pertinent time feature (v. 2), the reasons for the antitypical war (vs. 2, 3), the antitypical preparation, numbers and mustering of the warriors with their commander (vs. 4-6), the antitypical fighting (vs. 7, 8), the antitypical spoils and destructions of the war (vs. 9, 10), the return of the antitypical victors with their captives (vs. 11, 12), the antitypical Executive, Mouthpiece, Leader and High-Priest and leading brethren meeting the returning host and their captives 

The Parousia Messenger. 

280 

(v. 13), our Lord's displeasure in the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims for attracting unworthy ones (vs. 14-16), His requiring through the Parousia controversies the unworthy to be cut off from among the Lord's people (v. 17) and the retention among them of the worthy (v. 18), His exhorting to purification from faults connected with their justification and sanctification regarded from certain standpoints (vs. 19, 20), His indicating the two ways by which the cleansing occurs and the reason for the difference between them (vs. 20-23), and the things that need cleansing in the consecrated condition (v. 24). Everyone conversant with the Parousia viewed from the standpoint of a campaign of war recognizes that in the above-mentioned particulars there is complete harmony between the type and the main Parousia happenings from a military viewpoint as antitype. Facts prove the correctness of the suggested antitype; and more facts to the same effect will appear when the antitypes of vs. 48-54 are presented. Therefore we may with confidence say that the right antitypes for the pertinent verses have been suggested. 

(29) As stated in paragraph (2) vs. 25-47 will be found to give us the main Epiphany events under the picture of the division of the spoil as representing the division of the Lord's people into the Little Flock and the Great Company. We now proceed to the study of vs. 25-47. As the Source of the Truth and of the carrying out of God's plan, entrusting their stewardship to Jesus as His appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for antitypical Israel, God is typed by His action in v. 25: "The Lord spake unto Moses, saying.'' God's commanding Moses, and through him Eleazar and the chief fathers of the congregation, to number (take the sum of) the prey, both of humans and beasts, types His charging Jesus as God's Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for antitypical Israel, and through Him as such antitypical Eleazar and the chief fathers of the 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

281 

congregation, to describe the antitypical prey. Whenever in Biblical types and symbols a numbering of persons or things is required or done it signifies that the antitypes are required to be described or are described. This is manifest from Ps. 48:12—"Walk about Zion … tell the towers thereof." The word "tell" in old English meant count, number, which also is the meaning of the Hebrew word saphar, here used. Zion, of course, is the Church. The charge to walk about her, if addressed to new creatures, means a mental, not a physical journey. It means, therefore, to meditate on her. Her walls are her powers, which are the Truth and the Truth arrangements. Her towers are her main truths, e.g., the ten main Biblical doctrines. To number her towers, accordingly, means to describe her main doctrines. Thus to number in Biblical symbols represents to describe, to explain, to show what the pertinent things are, in the understanding of the expounder. 

(30) Accordingly, the charge of v. 26 antitypically is that there should be given a description of the spoil taken during the reaping time. This spoil consisted of antitypical virgins (of man), the consecrated new creatures, and of things connected with their and others' justified humanity (of beast). Accordingly, a description of these was charged by the Lord. Moses' counting the spoil types our Lord, as the Divinely appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader of antitypical Israel, giving a description of the antitypical spoil, the antitypical virgins and things pertaining to their and others' justification. Eleazar's counting the spoil types not only Jesus, but Jesus, the Head, and the Church, the Body, as the World's High-Priest, giving a description of the antitypical spoil, the new creatures and things connected with their and others' justification; for in matters pertinent to dealing with the Great Company in its separation from the Little Flock, the World's, and not simply the Church's High-Priest functions, as per

The Parousia Messenger. 

282 

the day of atonement type, which so far as the Great Company's sufferings are concerned, is for the world's wilful sin, and so far as the Church's co-suffering with Jesus is concerned, is for the world's Adamic sin. It is because of the twofold nature of the world's sins that in the antitype the World's High-Priest, and not simply the Church's High-Priest, functions toward the Great Company as Azazel's Goat. The chief fathers of the congregation counting the spoil types the crown-lost leaders of the Epiphany among the Truth people giving a description of the antitypical virgins and the things pertinent to their and others' justification. This fact further corroborates the fact that Eleazar here represents the World's High-Priest; otherwise the Little Flock would have no share in this description, while the Great Company leaders would. 

(31) Jesus as Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader has given this description with the pertinent works, first from Sept. 20, 1914, to Oct. 30, 1916, through that Servant, and thereafter through the Epiphany messenger. Accordingly, our Pastor during those over two years had so much to say and do pertinent to the Little Flock and Great Company in their mutual relations and prospectively in their separation. And since that time the Epiphany messenger has been active in teaching and acting in the same respects. Jesus and the Church as High-Priest have given this description in so far as it relates to their work of bringing the Great Company brethren into increasing oneness with the Lord: (1) along the lines of dealing with Azazel's Goat, which is a preliminary to bringing its members into such a oneness, and (2) along the lines of dealing with the antitypical Levites in their cleansing and consecration, which work is mainly future. Just as we saw that in the Gospel-Age picture the chiefs of the congregation were the crown-lost leaders of the Gospel Age, so during the miniature Gospel Ages of the Epiphany their crown-lost leaders are the antitypical chiefs of the 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

283 

congregation. These, too, offer a description of what they think are the antitypical spoil: the new creatures and things pertinent to their and others' justification. But their description, like that of the crown-lost leaders of the Gospel Age, is more or less faulty, particularly as to their claims that their ledlings are the Little Flock. Their description in due time will be corrected. Facts that we have observed since 1914 prove that the things suggested above as the antitypes of the counting of the spoil of Israel's war with the Midianites have been occurring, which corroborates our understanding as true. 

(32) In vs. 27-47 the special Epiphany work of separating the Little Flock and the Great Company is typically set forth. This is indicated by dividing the spoil into two parts or halves, giving one part to the warriors and the other part to the congregation (v. 27). (1) Not only is this separation shown by the fact that all the virgins, typical of the new creatures, were divided into two companies, which we know antitypically are the Little Flock and the Great Company, but also from several other facts: (2) The one part was given to the warriors, who represent the Little Flock, as standing for it. (3) To show that such virgins represent the Little Flock, representatives of these (one of each 500) were given to Eleazar as a heave-offering (v. 29), showing that in the antitype these represent the entire Little Flock as a heave-offering, since these virgins in the type stand as representatives of the whole half-number of the virgins. (4) Then, so far as the other half of the virgins are concerned, their being given to the congregation shows that they stand representatively for the Great Company, who serve, not toward God and the altar, as the Little Flock do (Ezek. 44:15, 16), but toward the people (Ezek. 44:10-14). (5) Again, the one out of fifty that was given from the people's part to the Levites (v. 30) indicates that since such were representatives of the whole half given to the congregation, that entire half represents the Great

The Parousia Messenger. 

284 

Company. (6) Further, the fact that the same relative proportion as was given to the altar from the warrior's part and as was given to the Levites from the congregation's part, obtains, as was the proportion given to the priests from the Levites' tithes (Num. 18:26-28); for from the tithes of the people's offering to the Levites one-tenth was given the priests, thus giving the Levites ten times the amount given the priests, just as one out of fifty is ten times as much as one out of five hundred. As in v. 29 Eleazar types the Christ, Head and Body, so in Num. 18:28 Aaron stands for the Christ, Head and Body. (7) Moreover, the symbolic meanings of the numbers of the two halves of the spoil prove the same lines of thought. This point we will give in some detail a little further on in our discussion. We would remark in passing that the equal halves into which the spoil was divided do not signify an equal number in the two antitypical companies, any more than the equal number of the wise and foolish virgins of Matt. 25:1-12 do. 

(33) Since half of the virgins represent the Little Flock as New Creatures and the other half the Great Company as New Creatures, what is represented by the cattle and the sheep? We answer: the sheep represent the humanity of these new creatures from the standpoint of tentative justification and the cattle represent the humanity of these new creatures from the standpoint of vitalized justification. What, then, do the asses represent? Such true teachings and books containing true teachings as the Little Flock won as spoil from the antitypical Midianites. That asses represent true teachings and books containing such teachings, is evident from the antitype of our Lord's riding into Jerusalem upon an ass and its colt, and of the kings of Israel riding upon asses rather than on horses, which when contrasted with asses represent false teachings; though when there is no such contrast they represent a teaching, regardless of whether it is true or false. The

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

285 

facts of the antitype will make this manifest: Everything in the creeds is not false. In addition to the twelve stewardship doctrines that we in the Parousia took away from the antitypical Midianites, we captured other true teachings from their creeds, spotted, however, with errors associated with them, e.g., certain of God's attributes of being and character and certain ethical, hortatory and prophetical teachings. These in part are typed by the asses that Israel captured from the Midianites. Again, there are various books that contained more or less truths, covered indeed, that we captured from the antitypical Midianites during the Parousia, e.g., (1) various Greek and Hebrew Bible recensions, editions, translations, Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, concordances and grammars; (2) Bible commentaries, introductions, harmonies, indexes; (3) Bible and Church histories, biographies, chronologies, geographies, antiquities; (4) doctrinal, ethical and apologetical works, Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries, giving more or less of the four above-named lines of helps. All of these amid many errors contain nuggets of symbolic gold and silver. Both the Little Flock and the Great Company have such spoil while divided from one another. Accordingly, we see that what was suggested as the antitypical spoil of man and beast has actually been taken during the Parousia and is now in the Epiphany being divided according to the Word and facts. 

(34) Above we mentioned the fact that the symbolic meaning of certain Biblical numbers related to the figures occurring in both divisions of the spoil proves that the numbers given the warriors and heaved by them through Eleazar and the numbers given the congregation and by them given to the Levites demonstrate the view of the antitypical division as we have explained it to be correct. All of us are familiar with the fact that the number 7 and its multiples stand for things Divine and therefore, among other things, for God. We are 

The Parousia Messenger. 

286 

also familiar with the fact that the number 12 and its multiples stand for the Little Flock and Little Flock matters, which we showed in the preceding installment of this article. We are also familiar with the fact that the number 10 and its multiples stand for natures lower than the Divine, hence, among others, for the Great Company. Thus the 10,000 of Ps. 91:7 and Deut. 32:30 are the Great Company. With the symbolic meanings of these numbers let us do some figuring with the numbers given in connection with the twofold division of the spoil mentioned in vs. 32-46. We will do some dividing by 7, 12 and 10 of the total separate units of the booty. 

(35) There were taken 

675,000 sheep (v. 32) 

72,000 beeves (v. 33) 

61,000 asses (v. 34) 

32,000 virgins (v. 35) 

7) 840,000 total units of spoil 

12) 120,000 

10) 10,000 

10) 1,000 

10) 100 

10) 10 

1 

What does the symbolism of these divisors teach? This: God (7) in separating the Little Flock (12) and the Great Company (10) divided the latter into three (10, 10, 10) general divisions, corresponding to the three Levitical groups: Gershonites (10), Merarites (10) and Kohathites (10), leaving none of either class in the other, (1) not being a number of either. This corresponds to the lines of thought as to both elect classes. 

(36) A half of the total units of the booty was given the warriors. A half of 840,000 is 420,000, which we will divide by 7, 12 and 10, dividing by 7 first, then by 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

287 

12 before dividing by 10, since this set of figures stands for the part typing the Little Flock. 

7) 420,000 

12) 60,000 

10) 5,000 

10) 500 

10) 50 

5 

What does the symbolism of these divisors teach? This: God (7) in separating the Little Flock (12) from the Great Company in its three groups (10, 10, 10) left not one (5 is not equal to, nor a multiple of, 10) Great Company member in the Little Flock. This fits the condition as respects the Little Flock. 

(37) The other half of the spoil, that given to the congregation, also totals 420,000 units. Since this concerns the Great Company we will divide by our three pertinent figures in the order of 7, 10 and 12. 

7) 420,000 

10) 60,000 

10) 6,000 

10) 600 

12) 60 

5 

What does the symbolism of these divisors teach? This: God (7) in separating the three (10, 10, 10) Great Company groups from the Little Flock (12) left among them no Little Flock member (5 is neither equal to, nor a multiple of, 12). This fits the case as to the Great Company. 

(38) According to vs. 37-40, the Lord's tribute of the units, typing Little Flock matters were 

675 sheep (v. 37) 

72 beeves (v. 38) 

61 asses (v. 59) 

32 virgins (v. 40) 

840 total 

The Parousia Messenger. 

288 

This total we will divide by 7 and 12 and 10, in the order given, because they concern Little Flock matters. 

7) 840 

12) 120 

10) 10 

1 

What does the symbolism of these divisors mean? This: God (7) in separating the Little Flock (12) from the Great Company (10) left no Great Company member (1 not being 10 or a multiple of it) in it. This fits the facts as to the Little Flock. 

(39) The Levites, getting ten times as many units of each kind as the priests (vs. 28, 30), got 

6,750 sheep 

720 beeves 

610 assess 

320 virgins 

8,400 total units 

This total as being related to the Great Company we will divide by 7, 10 and 12, in the order named, thus: 

7) 8,400 

10) 1,200 

10) 120 

12) 12 

1 

What does the symbolism of these divisors mean? God (7) in separating the Great Company (10) from the Little Flock (12) put the Great Company (10) into such a condition as left no Little Flock member (1 is not equal to, nor a multiple of, 12) in it. This fits the facts as to the Great Company, as we know them to be. 

(40) As 420,000 units were given to the warriors and 840 of these were given to the priesthood, the units left in the warriors' hands were 419,160 (420,000—840=419,160). This last number is significant, as can be seen from dividing it by 7, 12 and 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

289 

10, in the order given, since it concerns Little Flock matters. Thus: 

7) 419,160 

12) 59,880 

10) 4,990 

499 

What does the symbolism of these divisors mean? This: God (7) in separating the Little Flock (12) from the Great Company (10) left no Great Company member (499 is not equal to, nor a multiple of, 10) in it. This fits the facts as to the Little Flock. 

(41) As 420,000 units were also given to the congregation, from which it gave the Levites 8,400, this left in the hands of the congregation 411,600 units (420,000—8,400=411,600). This last number is significant, as can be seen from dividing it by 7, 10 and 12, in the order given, since it relates to Great Company matters. Thus: 

7) 411,600 

10) 58,800 

12) 5,880 

10) 490 

49 

What is the symbolism of these divisors? This: God (7) in separating the Great Company (10) from the Little Flock (12) put the Great Company (10) into such a condition as left no Little Flock member (49 is not equal to, nor a multiple of, 12) in it. Since 49, the last quotient of this reckoning, is the square of 7 (7 x 7 = 49), it suggests to our minds that God (7) by this work manifested Himself as infinitely perfect (7 x 7 = 49). It will also be noted that above we have worked out 7 different problems, in which the antitypical numbering was symbolized. One of these seven covered both classes and three covered one, and three covered the other class. This seven-foldness again is symbolic, declaring that God was the actor in it all. 

The Parousia Messenger. 

290 

(42) This raises the question, Could these symbolic meanings of the divisors of the various sums be a matter of accident? Merely to ask the question suggests the impossibility of the theory of accident as an explanation of such a phenomenon; for from the standpoint of probability the case against an accident is as one against a set of figures of inconceivable quantity; since the matter is one of greatly compounded probability, as the following will show: if we were to limit the probability as to 7 as equal to the probability of any one of the digits between 1 and 7, though we would be as justified to make the probability lie between the digit 1 and any number as much higher than 7 as the involved dividend is, since it would be as probable for any such number to be the divisor to be used as 7. The same remark would apply to the numbers 12 and 10, each taken separately, first with the former as the first divisor, then with the latter being the first divisor. Then these results would have to be compounded with one another. Then this compound result would have to be compounded with the compound result of the second problem's probability. Then this result would have to be compounded with the compound probability of the third problem, and so on until it has gone through all seven of them. The final product would be as one to an inconceivably large number, which, of course, would reduce the theory of an accident to the proportions of the utmost absurdity. Hence this matter is unexplainable on the theory of accident. 

(43) How did it, then, occur that these figures teach these meanings? We answer: God is the greatest of mathematicians; and He, seeing what thoughts He desired to symbolize by the seven involved problems, ordered matters so that there would be only so many units in each form of the seven problems—not one more, not one less—and thus secured the desired number of units in each one of the seven problems. To work out such a compounded problem would be beyond 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

291 

the ability of a mind short of omniscient. Hence this matter under study proves God's omniscience and the inspiration of the entire story, as well as of the whole Bible, of which this story is a part. Doubtless God used angels to see to it that the exact number of units in each of the four kinds of spoil was captured. We saw as to the fact that every Midianitish warrior was slain (v. 7), and will see as to the fact that no Israelite warrior was slain (v. 49), that the angels must have intervened against the Midianites and for the Israelites, so in securing the exact number of units in each of the four kinds of spoil they must at God's direction have seen to it that the exact number of the four involved kinds of units were represented in the spoil. In other words, the battle itself resulted as it did by a miracle, and the total amount of the four kinds of spoil and the number of each kind came as a result of a miracle. A third consideration is involved in this matter: The Epiphany teachings alone of the teachings held among the various groups of the Lord's people claim that the Epiphany work is one involving among other things, the separation between the Little Flock and the Great Company; and here is a type that facts prove divides the Harvest into its two periods, assigning its gathering part to the Parousia and its separating part to the Epiphany, which proves that the Epiphany movement is the Priestly one at this time. Well might we say, "How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!" 

(44) It will be noted that v. 31 states that Moses and Eleazar made the divisions as God commanded. While they and the chief fathers of the congregation were commanded to take the sum, count the spoil, which all of them did in the type, whose antitype we have already explained, yet only Moses and Eleazar were commanded to make the various involved divisions. The chief fathers did not do this. Why not? Because in the antitype the crown-lost leaders of the groups, during, 

The Parousia Messenger. 

292 

the Epiphany being Azazel led, could not participate intelligently in such a work. They are so confused that they are incapable of cooperating in such a separation. The fact that they claim that their divisions are Little Flock movements and in many cases claim that the Priestly movement is a second death movement proves that they could not supervise the division. Aaron's dealing with Azazel's goat is in harmony with the same thought. That our Lord as the Divinely appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader of antitypical Israel, as Moses' antitype, and that the World's High Priest, Head and Body, as Reconciler, antitypical of Eleazar (see also Aaron dealing with Azazel's goat), supervise this division of the two classes, is evident from the nature of their official functions. Accordingly, the facts of the fulfillment are in harmony with the type. Accordingly, the Epiphany Under-priests may rejoicingly take the sneers, taunts and upbraidings of the Levites that they are dividing the Lord's people; for they truly cooperate with and under their Head in such work, as properly belonging to their Epiphany service. Thus our study of vs. 1-24 proves that they type the main Parousia works, under the figure of Israel's war with Midian; so our study of vs. 25-47 proves that they type the main Epiphany works, under the figure of dividing the spoils of that war. Certainly this study should be most refreshing to our faith, hope, love, and obedience! The Lord be praised therefore. 

(45) There is a final episode connected with this war, given in vs. 48-54, that which refers to the captains' report and offerings. The facts of the case prove that this episode types certain Parousia matters involving the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims. Above we showed that the captains of thousands type the twelve leading pilgrims in their capacity of working toward the public, and that the captains of the hundreds type the rest of the pilgrims and the auxiliary pilgrims in their capacity of working toward the public. Doubtless 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

293 

the Lord did not cause the episode to occur and then be recorded immediately after the events and record of vs. 1-24, because He desired the more important Parousia and Epiphany matters to be typed in closer connection with one another than the insertion of this episode between them would allow. Hence He followed the logical, rather than the chronological order in the antitype of this matter, though the types followed in the order given. The captains are set forth in vs. 48, 49, as giving their report to Moses, typing the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims reporting the antitypical matter to Jesus as God's appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for antitypical Israel. The report was that they had counted the warriors (v. 49) and that not one of Israel's twelve thousand warriors had fallen. This types the fact that the antitypical captains by describing in their teachings the antitypical 12,000, the Little Flock, in the Parousia time, reported that not one of them had been refuted (symbolically slain). Let us note well how the antitypical counting was done. It consisted of an accurate description of the faithful Little Flock. A part of such a description would be teaching that they fought in the Lord's Spirit the good fight of the Truth to its complete vindication as against the opposing error, and that in that fight they were victors over sin, selfishness and worldliness, and thus over error. Thus none of them fell. In the type, as already suggested, this was due to a miracle; and certainly in the antitype it was a miracle of grace that these overcame. 

(46) We are told (v. 50) that the captains brought an oblation to the Lord. In the type this consisted of gold jewels—chains and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets [perfume boxes]. If we can determine what the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims brought to the Lord that others did not bring to Him, we will recognize what the captains' oblation types, since none but these brought such an oblation (v. 53). These were 

The Parousia Messenger. 

294 

the discourses of the Parousia general elders delivered before the General Church. Only these pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims brought such at that time. Hence we understand that the jewels of gold brought by the captains type these discourses. It will be noted that the jewels of gold were of five different kinds; chains [necklaces], bracelets, rings, earrings and perfume boxes. These type the five different kinds of discourses that the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims brought to the Lord. Chains or necklaces represent the ornaments of the new will. In the Bible the neck is used to represent the will. Hence a stubborn-willed person is Scripturally spoken of as stiffnecked (Ps. 75:5; Prov. 29:1; Acts 7:51). A will renewed into oneness with the Lord's will is set forth as a neck decked with figurative chains or necklaces, which are its ornaments (Prov. 1:9; 3:3, 22; 6:20, 21; Cant. 1:10; 4:4; 7:4). Accordingly, the necklaces of v. 50 represent the discourses on the new will and its ornaments, prepared and delivered by the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims before the General Church. The bracelets that the captains brought represent the Parousia pilgrims' and auxiliary pilgrims' discourses on service and conduct. The following considerations will clarify this: Bracelets in Palestine were worn on the wrists and ankles. In Biblical symbols the hands represent service (Rev. 13:16; 14:9; 20:4); and the feet represent conduct (Ps. 116:8; 119:59, 101, 105; Prov. 1:16; 4:26). Since bracelets were in Palestine hands and feet ornaments, they would represent good services for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, when worn on the wrists, and good conduct when worn on the ankles. Hence the discourses of the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims before the General Church on matters of service and conduct are represented by the bracelets that the captains offered. 

(47) In Bible symbols rings represent new-creatureship as God's pentecostal blessing to His Gospel-Age

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

295 

consecrated (Luke 15:22, see comment; Ex. 35:22, where, except the necklace, the same jewels as are mentioned in v. 50 are enumerated). Accordingly, we understand these rings to represent the Parousia pilgrims' and auxiliary pilgrims' discourses before the General Church on the New Creature, which, having many aspects, furnished them with a wide range of subjects for discussion. Earrings are ornaments of the ears. Ears in Bible symbols represent understanding, especially of the things of faith (Matt. 11:15; 13:15, 16; Luke 4:21; 9:44). Accordingly, we understand earrings to represent the ornament of a believing understanding, and thus the faith. Hence the captains bringing the earrings as an oblation for the Lord type the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims bringing for the Lord's service their discourses on the matters of the Truth before the General Church. Here again a great variety of subjects were open to their use, and they made use of them. The last ornament mentioned in the A. V. of v. 50 is tablets. The Hebrew word here translated tablets [old English for pendants] is chumaz, perfume box. When we consider the antitype we think that the rendering perfume boxes makes the needed sense. In Bible symbols perfume represents that which is very acceptable and appreciable—the graces. (Ex. 30:35, 37; 35:8, 15, 28; Cant. 3:6; 2 Cor. 2:15—Diaglott; Eph. 5:2). The perfume arising from the incense represents the graces, especially the higher primary graces. These perfume boxes, therefore, represent the Parousia pilgrims' and auxiliary pilgrims' discourses before the General Church on the graces. On the graces as sweet perfume to the Lord and all having His Spirit, there is much material, and this the antitypical captains laid hold of for many discourses. Without any doubt the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims did offer as oblations for the Lord discourses on the new will, on service and conduct, on the New Creature, on the things of faith and their understanding and on 

The Parousia Messenger. 

296 

the graces. Thus our understanding is in harmony with the Bible, reason and facts. Hence we believe that it is the true one. 

(48) At the end of v. 50 the statement is made that the captains were bringing the oblation to make an atonement for their souls. As the speech of the captains hitherto examined, like almost all other typical speeches, was fulfilled antitypically in pantomime, so this part of it was fulfilled in pantomime. On first thought the statement seems strange, that the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims were by preparing and delivering their discourses (capturing the jewels and offering them) making an atonement for themselves before the Lord; for does not our Lord's merit atone for all our Adamic imperfections? Assuredly so. But this seeming strangeness fades away when we remember that to make atonement or reconciliation involves two works: (1) making God pleased with everything in us, and (2) making us pleased with everything in God; for in reconciliation each party at variance must be made pleased with the other. It is the work of Jesus alone, and that through His merit, to make atonement in the first sense of the word—to satisfy God with everything in us; for it was for this that He died and rose again (Rom. 4:25; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, 21). But atonement in its second part is not the work of Jesus alone, though ministerially He takes the initial step in each of its acts to effect it. We must co-operate with Him in effecting it, by a faithful use of God's Spirit, Word and providences, ridding ourselves of everything of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in us that hinders our becoming pleased with everything in God, and by developing everything of justice, Truth, love and heavenly-mindedness that is pleased with everything in God. It is the part of this second work of atonement or reconciliation, effected through our Lord's ministry in and by the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims, that is in v. 50 typed by the captains through 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

297 

their oblations making an atonement for their souls (themselves) before the Lord. 

(49) How was this done? A few examples will clarify this process for all cases. We will refer first to a pertinent experience of our Pastor wherein he overcame an overweening fear for the sheep, and wherein he did not sufficiently trust the Lord's Word that no man could take His sheep out of His hands (John 10:28). This experience of our Pastor was connected with the antitype of Jashobeam's breaking through the ranks of the Philistine host at Bethlehem and getting water from the well at its gate for David (1 Chro. 11:11, 18). When Mr. Barbour, in attempted justification of his no-ransomism, gave in his magazine a plausible, but sophistical interpretation of the sin-offerings of Lev. 16, conscious that his and Mr. Barbour's magazines were going into practically the same hands, our Pastor feared greatly for the true sheep, that the error on the subject might lead them into a fatal denial of the ransom. This fear reached an extreme height. What our Pastor did in this connection we will give in Chap. VI, where it will fit better than here. It was this fear in our Pastor for the Flock that gave the demons the approach to him whereby they greatly plagued him. And he strenuously fought them in their attacks on him through this fear, until he so thoroughly overcame them that by the time he got to the antitypical well and dipped out the pertinent portion, the Truth on the sin-offerings, typed in Lev. 16, his fear was overcome. Instead of hastening to spread this message before the Church, he saw that the Truth therein contained was so great as to justify his first calling together in a conference the leading brethren in the Truth, who spent eight days in earnest study of the involved matters, and at the end of that time were all convinced that it was true. Then he preached on the subject before the Allegheny Church. Then, perhaps three or four months after first coming to the understanding 

The Parousia Messenger. 

298 

of Lev. 16, he prepared for, and published in the Feb., 1880, Tower the first article on the tabernacle after he came to see the Truth on Lev. 16. In the March, 1880, Tower appeared the first article on Lev. 16, after the pertinent experience. His inordinate fear was overcome. He had the fulness of peace in the assurance that no man was able to take the sheep out of the good Shepherd's hand. In this great struggle that he had with demons who tried to block his way to the antitypical well, he made an atonement for his soul before the Lord, i.e., he brought himself into harmony with the Lord in the faith that the good Shepherd is to be trusted by each under-shepherd, as keeping His sheep safely. It was at the end of this experience of victory over fear that the Lord gave him the second and chief function of his office of that Servant, charge of the storehouse, he having had since the Spring of 1876 its first function, charge of the household. For the proper functioning of this office it was indispensable for him to come into factual harmony with the Lord's arrangement that the good Shepherd had the responsibility for the sheep and would be faithful and efficient in discharging that responsibility, otherwise he would have been constantly busybodying with our Lord's work. 

(50) We will now give Bro. Barton's pertinent experience as the antitype of Shammah, David's third most powerful captain (2 Sam. 23:11, 16), getting his water from that well. Bro. Barton's pertinent weakness was that of fault-finding wherein he was not concerned—he took umbrage at the course of Bro. Russell with A. E. Williamson in 1908 and 1909, when the latter in his attempting to oust the former from the leadership of the work publicly attacked him, was dismissed first from private-secretaryship and later from the pilgrim work, and then later for his continued sifting work was written against by Bro. Russell. In his pertinent course Bro. Russell was thoroughly justified; but Bro. Barton felt that Bro. Russell had not 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

299 

tried hard enough to recover A. E. Williamson, and therefore took umbrage at his pertinent course. The demons worked on this weakness of Bro. Barton; but he struggled hard against them and gained the victory in the battle: he came to see that his course was one of fault-finding and busybodying and put it aside. After that he gained access to the well and brought out of it the truth that between 1874 and 1878 Jesus by personal encounters with Satan bound him, preparatory to spoiling his house—the demons in their empire over earth (Z '10, 315, 316). But this battle of his had to be fought in order to make an atonement before the Lord—make himself pleased with God's way of ordering the Harvest's management through that Servant. 

(51) The antitype of Eleazar (2 Sam. 23:9, 16) is another brother, who had the weakness of not being properly adjusted in his relations to that Servant as the primary dispenser of the meat in due season. E.g., when brethren would ask him questions on Scriptures that had not been explained by that Servant, instead of declining to answer, on the ground that the Lord had not yet made the matter clear through that Servant, he would venture his own understanding, all the while, however, believing that, not he, but our Pastor was that Servant. In 1910 the Lord brought him face to face with the condition. The question assumed this form: As a teacher of the General Church in relation to that Servant's functions as the Lord's special mouthpiece, what course should he pursue, to avoid, on the one hand, the bowing down and drinking prone in the worship of the messenger, and, on the other hand, giving thoughts to the brethren on Scriptures not first interpreted by that Servant; for he had previously come to see that the latter course was not a right one, as he also had seen that it was wrong to worship the messenger. On this question he had a long-drawn-out internal debate in which the keenest kinds of sophistries, 

The Parousia Messenger. 

300 

first from one extreme, then from the other extreme, then from not such distant extremes, were presented to his mind. It was by all odds the sharpest debate, either internal or external, that he ever had. By the Lord's grace he was enabled to beat back every attack made on him in the debate; all the time his will on the matter was laid down in the Lord's hand. Finally he emerged as victor in the battle when he came to see, and subjected himself to the thought, that our Pastor's office functions as that Servant forebade that he should give the brethren any new doctrinal, typical or prophetical thoughts until he had first presented them to that Servant and gotten his approval thereon, and that if they were matters of any importance he should not give them out until after that Servant had first given them to the Church. Thus through this struggle he learned the principles that should govern his office work as a general elder in his relations to that Servant's office prerogatives. Thus he made the atonement for his soul before the Lord, i.e., became pleased with the Lord in His arrangements as to the office prerogatives of that Servant and his relations to them. Immediately thereafter he arrived at the well and dipped from it, on the basis of 1 Cor. 10:1-14, the Truth on the five harvest siftings in themselves and in their relation to the five harvest calls, and then brought it in writing to that Servant, who in Z '13, 198-200, poured out an outline of the pertinent Truth as a drink-offering before the Lord. As at his well experience the Lord gave our Pastor the final function of the office of that Servant, so He seems in connection with this well experience to have set this brother apart for the office of the Epiphany messenger; for much of the Epiphany Truth is based on what he got at the well, even as much of the Parousia Truth was based on what Bro. Russell got at his visit at that well. So does the Lord prepare His servants. 

(52) Nor are we to think that the privilege of getting 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

301 

something new or old out of the storehouse was limited to the three above-described brothers, who are here mentioned merely as striking examples of this kind of an experience. Our Lord assures us that every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven would be privileged so to do (Matt. 13:52). In their case the new thing should always have been submitted to that Servant for approval and disposal before it was by them handed out to the household, on the principle that if any servant would find anything in the storehouse of which the steward had no knowledge he should bring it to him and let it be disposed of according to the steward's directions, and not, without his knowledge, approval and disposal, put it on the table for the household's fare. Nor does Matt. 13:52 limit this privilege to the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims. Many of the elders (see Chap. II) have had the privilege of getting something new out of the storehouse. We may be sure that in all cases they did not get "things new" out of the storehouse until they had made an atonement for their souls before the Lord, i.e., ridded themselves of certain faults, and thus brought themselves into being pleased with certain things in the Lord, with which they were not formerly in accord. That this was in all cases done by the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims in connection with their taking things new and old from the storehouse and their working them up into discourses that they delivered before the General Church, we may be certain, since that is the thing typed of them in v. 50. Thus the Lord required as a preliminary to their getting things new and old out of the storehouse and working them up into discourses, that they make such a kind of an atonement before the Lord, rid themselves of some evil and become pleased with its opposite. Each Parousia pilgrim and auxiliary pilgrim who will make a study of his pertinent experiences will find that it so happened to him. And it was just like the dear Lord in His desire for their profit in

The Parousia Messenger. 

302 

sanctification to put such a requirement on them and help them get blessings as they were loyal. 

(53) We are assured in v. 51 that Moses and Eleazar received the jewels of gold at the hands of the captains. This types that the antitypical Moses, as the Divinely appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader, and the antitypical Eleazar, as the Church's High Priest (for this was a Parousia matter), received these discourses for the Divine service and used them there for the good of the Church. According to v. 52 the Lord's tribute was a heave-offering, which would type the fact that these discourses were offered to God to exalt Him in the estimation of the hearers, ascribing praise to His holy name. It will be noted that the shekel weight, 16,750, of the jewels is not a multiple of 7; hence they are not to be understood as a work of God. It is not a multiple of 12; hence they are not a work of the Little Flock. While it is a multiple of 10, the quotient, 1,675, not being such a multiple, they are not a work of the Great Company. The facts also prove this; for these discourses were the work of 132 brothers, who are therefore neither the Little Flock, which is in this type represented by 12,000, nor the Great Company, since the Great Company would consist of more brethren yet than 132. Possibly the shekel weight, 16,750, is given to indicate the number of the pertinent discourses that were prepared and delivered by the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims. The statement of v. 53, that the men of war had taken spoil every one for himself, types the fact that the brethren apart from the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims did not prepare and deliver discourses for the General Church, which the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims did, as is implied in the expression, "before the Lord," in v. 50. Their lessons or discourses or conversations, etc., were of a more private character—"for [or by] themselves," not before the General Church. 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

303 

(54) Moses and Eleazar (v. 54) taking the jewels of the captains and bringing them into the tabernacle of the congregation for a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, types our Lord as the Divinely appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader (Moses) and Church's High Priest (Eleazar) making such discourses memorials in the interests of antitypical Israel in public service as to things related to God (before the Lord). How was this done? By seeing to it that these discourses were in whole or part reduced to writing when as such they were publicly preserved in the Church as memorials. Some of these appeared as articles in the Tower, as sermons or lectures in the Convention Reports, whose official names are Souvenirs, so-called because of being memorials of the conventions; some of them appeared as sermons in various papers; some of them appeared as newspaper reports of lectures; some of them appeared as printed booklets (e.g., Bro. Barton's Discourses, Pastor Russell's Sermons) and some of them appeared as more or less elaborated notes or more or less complete stenographic reports. Thus in one form or another they were given permanency as memorials in the Church. Their chief merit as monuments is that they are so many memorials of the victories of the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims over their own sins, errors, selfishness and worldliness. Could they speak of these victories they would give testimonies of delivering grace that would make one of the finest sets of testimonies in the world. But it is enough for the Church that it has them as memorials of such victories of delivering grace! And here we bring to a close our study of Num. 31, which has greatly refreshed our faith in the Lord's Parousia and Epiphany works, typed under the figure of a military campaign and its results. 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) Whose death anniversary comes October 31? Which one is it? What will we do with it? What else will we do connected with it? During what period? Why 

The Parousia Messenger. 

304 

during that period? For what will this chapter of this book serve? Why? How may this chapter of this book be regarded? 

(2) What does Num. 31 contain? Under what imagery? In what respects is this imagery set forth? What is set forth in Num. 31:1-24, 48-54? Under what picture? What features of the war are set forth therein? What is set forth in vs. 25-47? In what of its features? Under what figure? What else of the Parousia are set forth in vs. 13-24? In vs. 48-54? What follows from the fact that the involved story is recorded in the Law? Regardless of what senses that may be given to the word Law? How do Gal. 4:21, Heb. 10:1 prove this? What second fact, set forth in vs. 6, 19, 24, proves the story to be typical? What third fact? What first fact proves that it types things in the end of the Age? What second fact? What third fact? 

(3) What do these three facts deserve? How does Moses' death coming soon after this war prove that Num. 31 types things occurring at the end of the Age? What fact forms the antecedent of this thought? What is the only exception to this fact in Numbers? What does Moses in this exception type? What cannot be typed by Moses' death at the end of Israel's wilderness journey? Why not? How do the cited passages prove this? What gives us the clue to this? What is typed for the Church's High Priest by the death of Israel's high priest? What would this suggest as to the antitype of Moses' death as the Divinely appointed leader, executive and mouthpiece? When does our Lord give up these functions? What is the last general feature of His Gospel-Age work? What two periods does the harvest work cover? In what sense of the word? In what sense is this not so? What conclusion results from the foregoing? What would the pertinent activity of Phinehas at such a time prove? Why? What would Israel's last wilderness-journey encampment in itself and at such a time and place prove? Why? What, therefore, do these three facts prove? 

(4) What two facts prove that Jehovah's charging Jesus is typed by God's charging Moses in v. 1? As what was Moses given the typical charge? As what was Jesus given the antitypical charge? Why in each case? What

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

305 

unhappy translation occurs in v. 2? What proves the translation to be unhappy? Among others, what two translations does the Hebrew word nakam have? Which fits better in v. 2? What charge is therein antitypically given our Lord? Why was such a charge appropriate? As what were they so vilified and misrepresented? What brought these evil charges on them? Especially what? Who were the leading Dark-Age theologians? What did they and certain statesmen and lawyers seem to prove against the Faithful? To what did this lead? How did they appear at the hands of theologians and lawyers? What resulted? Why did God give the charge of v. 2? 

(5) What is typed by Moses' telling this charge to the people? Through whom did Jesus give the pertinent charge? Not how many were given the charge to arm themselves for the war? Who were? What proves these answers? What does this prove as to the antitype? In what two ways was the antitypical charge carried out? In what form was it carried out? Through whom did our Lord give it? What things did they do in giving it? What do the Midianitish warriors represent? Of whom did they mainly consist? Subordinately consist? Of what two classes did these consist? What were the Faithful to do? 

(6) What in v. 3 is given as the object of the war? What remark already made on the Hebrew word nakam also belongs here? With what modification? How, accordingly, should the clause be rendered? Why in the type was vindication to be rendered? How do the cited passages prove this? What are we not to understand to exist between the twofold way of giving the charges of vs. 2 and 3? How are they to be harmonized? Whom else do these considerations involve? Why was God in the antitype to be vindicated? How was God in His person, character, plan and works treated by the creed defenders and Truth attackers? By what doctrines was this done? By what other things was this done? Who did these things in the nominal church? What second class have more or less done this? Through what? What third class did more or less of this? Against whom have these three classes of controversialists done this? For what did the Faithful stand? What did these controversialists do to God and His people by their controversies? 

The Parousia Messenger. 

306 

(7) What, among other things, did the Parousia witness? In what three ways was this done? Who were, in the first place, thereby vindicated? Who else was in the Parousia vindicated? Doing what things vindicated Him? What kind of a vindication was this? In what respects was it so? What kind of a character did this quality give the vindication? Unworthy of whom is the vindication that the Society's president is leading his followers to advocate? In what respects? Why additionally is it an evil vindication? In what two ways does it fall short, compared with the Parousia's real vindication? 

(8) What tribe was exempt from bearing arms in Israel? How many did each of the other tribes deliver for the war? How large was this army? Of whom did it consist? From how many soldiers were they selected? What does such a selection suggest? By how many considerations is this corroborated? What is the first? The second? The third? What particulars are given under the third consideration? How do the cited passages prove this? What is suggested by the fact that 12,000, not 144,000, soldiers were selected? What is not, and what is implied by the number 12,000 as respects the Parousia? How did Jesus give the charge of v. 4? By what did He do it? By what was v. 5 fulfilled? 

(9) What does v. 6 tell? What were the holy instruments? What translation proves it? What facts prove it? In what kind of ways is the work of the Parousia symbolically set forth? How many are these? What are they? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does each of these figures bring out? Which of these figures does our study bring to our attention? What does Moses' sending out the 12,000 type? His sending out Phinehas, the chief under-priest, as commander? What has been shown from Num. 10:1-10? What has been shown from Num. 10:8? From Num. 10:9? To what will these thoughts prove helpful in this connection? What types prove that our Pastor is by them set forth in his capacity as a controversialist during the Parousia? 

(10) In how many ways is symbolic war waged? What are these? How was this exemplified by our Pastor in writing and speech? What was his custom in this respect? How did he vary this controversial feature? When was 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

307 

it always present? In what of his writings is this manifest? In what kind of his oral expressions is this manifest? What does this prove of a part of his activities? How was this warring feature typed in our study? What did he furnish the antitypical 12,000, not indicated in the type? Why does Phinehas type him in these activities? What does this fact occasion as to this chapter? In the prayer, "God bless his memory," what is also involved? 

(11) What does v. 7 describe? How? What singular quality did this war have? For what two reasons was this so? What kind of a nation as to population was Midian? What fact proves this? What does this fact make us conclude as to who are meant by all the males in v. 7? What other fact is in line with this? How did the Midianite and Israelite warriors compare as to numbers? How does the antitype suggest this? Why? On what basis alone can we account for all falling on one side and none on the other? Through whose instrumentality was this done? In what way was it probably done? Why was it done? What is typed by this war? Whose part only is typed by the 12,000? What proves this? What is typed by the slaying of the Midianites? And what not? What is typed by all the Midianite warriors being slain? What has God promised in this respect? How do the cited passages prove this? What two things are implied in the type and antitype by the Israelites' warring as the Lord commanded? What do these two things in the antitype prove? 

(12) What does a retrospect of the Parousia controversies show as to the suggested antitype? How did it compare as to controversy with other parts of the Gospel Age? In the activities of what four sets of persons is this manifest? Who typed the last of these four sets of persons? How did the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims take part in this warfare? The elders? The unofficial parts of the Little Flock? The colporteurs? The volunteers? The Bible House family? The extension workers? Photo drama workers? Newspaper workers? Sharpshooters? Where were these controversies carried on? What animated both sides to the conflict, particularly the Little Flock? What can all recall? What kind of a time from the standpoint of our study was the Parousia? What was the result of these controversies for their participants?

The Parousia Messenger. 

308 

(13) What six persons additionally did the Israelites slay in the Midianitish war? What do their names mean? What does Beor mean? Whom do the five kings type? What two reasons prove the answer? How in each case is the meaning of his name in line with this? In what sense did the antitypical 12,000 slay these? Who will recall the fulfillments of v. 8? 

(14) What is to be noted as to the word all in the first clause of v. 9? What do italics in the A. V. mean? What two reasons prove the interpolation here unhappy? What is the literal translation of v. 9? What does this imply as to the warriors and movable property and some women and children and as to civilian men and other women and children? How is this thought proven true? Who were the captured antitypical Midianitish women and children? How in the antitype were these made captives? What two things does this imply? 

(15) Of what did the antitypical Midianitish women consist? The boys? What do the captive sheep type? Beeves? What in general do asses symbolize? What examples prove this? How do the cited passages prove this? What corroborates this thought? What do the asses of our study type in the first place? In the second place? What, in the first place, would the captured goods—inanimate objects—type? What four classes of helps did the 12,000 get from these? What two other classes of things did the 12,000 get as antitypical goods? What is true of the Little Flock's Parousia prey and spoil? In what condition did this leave the uncaptured Midianites? 

(16) What does v. 10 tell us? What does this imply as to the land and the uncaptured Midianites? What does a city in Bible symbols represent? What three examples prove this? How do the cited passages prove this? What is typed by burning the Midianitish cities by fire? What do castles or palaces in Bible symbols represent? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What in general were antitypical Midian's goodly castles? What were they in particular in the nominal church's part of antitypical Midian? Whose else errors were part of such castles? What is typed by the 12,000 burning by fire Midian's castles? What is the Truth in relation to error? How does the cited passage prove this? In what three ways 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

309 

do we know this to have happened? In what did this typical and antitypical war result as to God and Israel? 

(17) What is set forth in vs. 11, 12? What is meant by the prey? How is this proven by the cited passages? What is meant by the spoil? How is this proven by the cited passages? What is not, and what is meant by the taking of these in v. 11? What in general does this type? In what three ways was this done? What is typed by the 12,000 bringing the prey and spoil to Moses? 

(18) What is typed by their bringing these to Eleazar? To the congregation? What example is an illustration of such bringing to the congregation? What two things are typed by the 12,000 bringing these to the camp at the plains of Moab? What do Moab and Ammon usually type? Why is antitypical Israel's last encampment in former Roman Catholic, and not Protestant territory? What is typed by the camp's being at the Jericho Jordan? 

(19) What is typed by Moses going forth to meet the returning army? Eleazar? All the princes of the congregation? What in the fulfillment is not indicated in the type? By what do all of us varyingly know that such welcoming occurred? What is typed by welcoming them without the camp? What parallels Moses' and Eleazar's giving such a welcome? How are the antitypical welcomings related? What is the difference as to the number of typical kings defeated in each case? Why this difference? What typical example proves this? What difference is indicated in the after attitude of welcomers—type and antitype? What would this not imply? Why not? What Scriptural principle underlies these two different attitudes? 

(20) Why, despite the record's silence, did Moses doubtless express pleasure at the victory? Why was this not recorded of Moses? What rather was recorded? Why? Against whom was this anger directed? Who were their antitypes? Whom do the twelve most active and effective of these antitype? Whom of the antitypical twelve are we at present not able positively to identify? What enables us to identify three of them with certainty? Four others with a good degree of certainty? Three others with a fair degree of certainty? The remaining two with less certainty? Whom do the other 120 officers 

The Parousia Messenger. 

310 

type? With what are we unable to identify nine of them? Why was Jesus displeased with the captains? 

(21) What did the non-virgins and boys not deserve? What was to blame for bringing them to the camp? What does this type? Whom do the non-virgins type? The boys? What evil desire was in the antitypical soldiers? By what was this suggested? What did this evil desire lead the antitypical soldiers to neglect? What should they have done with those not meeting these conditions? Whom did the Lord Jesus hold mainly responsible for this neglect? Why was this just? Against whom did these facts arouse His anger mainly? What is typed by the killing of the non-virgins and boys? Through whom did it usually occur? Amid what circumstances did it usually occur? Exceptionally? Whom do the virgins type? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? By whom was the charge given to preserve these and cut off the non-virgins and boys? How? How was it executed toward the virgins? By whom were these charges executed? What was realized thereby? 

(22) What will next be expounded? What verses of Num. 31 give a speech of Moses? In giving such a speech what does he type as to our Lord? What do his directions in vs. 19, 20 type? What is implied by the charge of v. 19, to remain without the camp? What does it type? What is typed by their remaining without the camp seven days? What does the camp here not type? Why? What is typed by killing a soul? By touching the slain? What must be done in these respects if we are to enter the Kingdom? What is typed by the third-day cleansing? When did this fight begin? When will it end? 

(23) What considerations connect the third-day cleansing with that of justification? From what does this not cleanse us? Why not? From what does it cleanse us? How is it effected? What does the seventh-day cleansing type? In these respects who do we know by experience? How did Jesus fulfill the antitype of Moses' directions as to the cleansing? Through what means did he speak these exhortations? What do the pertinent facts prove? 

(24) What is given in v. 20? What do garments symbolize? What did the charge as to cleansing the garments type? Like what curtains in typical thought are the 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

311 

allusions to the things of skin? What is typed by the tabernacle curtains of rams' skins dyed red? By the badger skins? What is typed by cleansing the things of skin? What does the tabernacle curtain of goats' hair type? What is typed by the cleansing of every work of goats' hair? What does the wood in the tabernacle type? What is typed by the cleansing of the things of wood? What is typed by Moses' exhortation to the warriors to cleanse themselves? What in general is typed by the exhortation to cleanse the five things mentioned in v. 20? 

(25) What does Eleazar give in vs. 21-24? What is the distinction between Moses' and Eleazar's giving pertinent instructions? Antitypically, what four functions of our Lord's work are thereby indicated? How does Jesus fulfill the first of these? The second? The third? The fourth? What does experience show on these four works of Jesus? What is typed by Eleazar's statement in v. 21? What is typed by the expression, ordinance of the law, in v. 21? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does experience teach us in this respect? 

(26) How many methods of cleansing are set forth in vs. 22, 23? What are they? On what was each one respectively to be applied? Why was this typical distinction made? Antitypically thereof what do Scriptures and experience teach is one of the methods of cleansing? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? By what method is this typed? What other method do Scriptures and experience show is used? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? By what is this method typed? What is the distinction between the antitypical washing with water and sprinkling with the water of separation? How is the cleansing by the antitypical water alone effected? In what cases only does this method suffice? For what is it alone not sufficient? What is necessary to remove these? What must one do to secure their removal? What variety in duration in securing the desired results prevails? Why this in each case? How long does it last in some cases? In some even until what? By what means do we know these things? What do we know as antitypical of Eleazar's pointing out the types? Through what did He do this? 

(27) In what do Eleazar's directions given in v. 24 find 

The Parousia Messenger. 

312 

their antitypes? What are the antitypical clothes? What does their cleansing mean? What must be done as to such garments? In what two respects? At what time does this type show the antitype occurred? What results from the failure to do this? From success therein maintained? What is typed by washing the clothes on the seventh day? How was the antitype of v. 24 fulfilled? 

(28) What remark is appropriate here? What remark was made in paragraph (2) on Num. 31:1-24, 48-54? What does our study of vs. 1-24 prove on this point? Why so? What is not, and what is, the character of the suggested antitypes? What things of the Parousia are brought out clearly in the type? What antitypical feature is brought out in v. 2? In vs. 2, 3? Vs. 4-6? Vs. 7, 8? Vs. 9, 10? Vs. 11, 12? V. 13? Vs. 14-16? V. 17? V. 18? Vs. 19, 20? Vs. 20-23? V. 24? What will everyone conversant with the pertinent matters recognize? What do the pertinent facts prove? Where will more facts be found to the same effect? What conclusion may be well drawn from this study? 

(29) What as to vs. 25-47 was stated in the second paragraph of the chapter now under consideration? Who is the source of the Truth and of carrying out God's plan? To whose stewardship did He entrust them? How is this typically shown? What is typed by His commanding Moses, and through him Eleazar and the chief fathers of the congregation, to count the prey? What is symbolized by numbering or counting, in the Bible? What Scripture proves this? Explain the details of Ps. 48:12 so as to prove this. What conclusion do we draw from this passage? 

(30) What, accordingly, is the charge antitypical of the one in v. 26? Of what did the antitypical spoil consist? What was charged as to it by the Lord? What does Moses' counting the spoil type? Eleazar's counting it? Why do we say that the Head and Body is typed by Eleazar here? What is typed by the chief fathers of the congregation counting the spoil? What further confirmation is given by this fact? 

(31) As antitypical of Moses, how did Jesus begin to give this description? When? Since then how has He been giving it? For what will the start of this description account? For what will its continuance account? How

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

313 

do the Head and Body as the World's High Priest do this numbering? What comparison between crown-lost leaders helps to clarify matters on this point? What do the Epiphany crown-lost leaders offer? What is its character? What in due time will be done to it? What do the observed facts since 1914 prove? What does this corroborate? 

(32) What is typically set forth in vs. 27-47? How is it indicated? What two other facts corroborate this? What two other facts prove it as to the Little Flock? What two other similar facts prove it as to the Great Company? From the standpoint of comparative proportion, what other fact proves it as to both classes? Quote and explain Num. 18:26-28 as the proof on this last point. How do Eleazar and Aaron figure in this comparison? What further point proves this? What will be done with this point later? What point is in harmony with this? 

(33) What is represented by the cattle and sheep? What do the asses represent? What first fact proves that asses represent these things? What second fact? When asses and horses are used contrastedly in the symbols, what does each represent? When not contrasted? What will the antitypical facts prove as to the asses? What in the creeds is especially true? What other things therein are true? In general, what is the character of the creeds? What types the truths in the creeds? What else do these asses type? What are examples of these under four heads? What give more or less of these four heads combinedly? Amid errors what do these contain? What two classes, according to the type, have gotten such symbolic asses? What, accordingly, do the pertinent facts show? 

(34) What statement was made above? For what does the number 7 and its multiples stand? The number 12 and its multiples? Where was this shown? For what does the number 10 and its multiples stand? Quote and explain the cited passages as proofs. What use is to be made of these symbolic numerics? 

(35) How many sheep were captured? Beeves? Asses? Virgins? What is the total of these? What is the division? What is the symbolism of the divisions made as to this total? To what does this symbolic language correspond? 

The Parousia Messenger. 

314 

(36) How much of the total units was given the warriors? What was its number? In what order should 7, 12 and 10 be divided into it? Why this order with this part of the spoil? What is the division? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit? 

(37) What was the total of the spoil units given the congregation? In what order are 7, 10 and 12 to be divided into it? Why? What is the division? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit? 

(38) What, according to vs. 37-40, were the units of the Lord's tribute, and their total? In what order are 7, 12 and 10 divided into the total? Why? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? Why? What does this fit? 

(39) How many units, compared to the Lord's tribute, were given to the Levites? What were the units of each kind and the total? In what order will 7, 10 and 12 be divided into this total? Why? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit? 

(40) How much of the warriors' total units remained in their hands? What is peculiar about this remainder? In what order are 7, 12 and 10 divided into it? Why? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit? 

(41) How many units of the spoil remained in the congregation's hands? What is peculiar about this remainder? In what order are 7, 10 and 12 divided into it? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit? What is to be said of the remainder, 49? How many problems have been worked out above? Of what is this number symbolic? 

(42) What question does this raise? What answer should this question receive? Why? How will the probability be counted? How might it justifiably be counted? To what other numbers does this remark apply? What would have to be done with the results of all of them? What would then have to be done with this result compounded with the similarly compounded result of the second problem? With this compounded result and the similarly compounded result of the third problem? Etc?

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

315 

What would the final result be? To what would this reduce the claim of accident? What is the result of this? 

(43) How did it occur that these figures teach these meanings? What quality only could work out so involved a matter? What does the matter under study prove? Through what agency did God work these results? What other two things in the story of Num. 31 suggest miraculous intervention of angels? What third thing in this account suggests the miraculous? How may the results, therefore, be summarized? What third consideration is involved in this matter? How is it proven? What does this prove? What might we well say? 

(44) What does v. 31 say? What is commanded Moses, Eleazar and the chief fathers of the congregation? Despite this, who only were commanded to make the divisions of the spoil? Who did not participate therein? Why not? What other two facts prove their unfitness therefore? What proves that our Lord as antitype of Moses, and the World's High Priest, Head and Body, as antitype of Eleazar, supervise the division of the antitypical spoil? Between what two things, accordingly, is there harmony? What may, therefore, the Epiphany Under-priests do? Despite what? Why? What did our study of vs. 1-24 prove? What does our study of vs. 25-47 prove? What effect should this study have? 

(45) What is recorded in vs. 48-54? What do the facts of the case prove? Whom do the twelve captains of thousands type? The 120 captains of hundreds type? Why did the Lord not allow this episode to occur and to be recorded before the events of vs. 25-47? What order did He therein follow in the antitype? And not what order? What order was followed in the type? What according to vs. 48 and 49, did the captains do? What does this type? What was the report, type and antitype? How in general was the antitypical report made? How in particular was it made? What was the character of the typical and antitypical preservation? 

(46) What did the captains bring to the Lord? Of what did it consist? What will enable us to see the antitypes? What were the antitypes? Of how many kinds were the typical jewels? In a general way, what do these five kinds of jewels type? What do necklaces type?

The Parousia Messenger. 

316 

What two Biblical facts prove this? How does each Scripture of the two sets of passages cited prove this? What do the necklaces here type? What do the bracelets type? What will clarify this? What do the hands symbolize? How do the cited passages prove this? What do the feet symbolize? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? On what were bracelets worn in Palestine? What do they represent when worn on the wrists or hands? On the ankles or feet? What, accordingly, did the captains' bracelet oblation represent? 

(47) In Bible symbols what do rings represent? How do the cited passages prove this? What, accordingly, did the ring oblation of v. 50 represent? Why did the antitypical captains prepare many discourses on the New Creature? In Bible symbols what do ears represent? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What do earrings, accordingly, symbolize? Why? What did the captains' earring oblation represent? Why did the antitypical captains have many discourses on matters of faith? What was the last kind of jewels mentioned in the A. V. of v. 50? What is the modern word for tablets? What is the Hebrew word so translated? How is it rendered in the R. V. of Is. 3:20? What does the antitype suggest as the right translation? What does perfume in Bible symbols represent? How do the cited passages prove this? What does incense perfume represent? What, accordingly, do these perfume boxes represent? How did the antitypical captains come to prepare so many discourses on the graces? Of what fact is there no doubt? With what is the explanation on the captains' oblation in harmony? What quality, accordingly, does it have? 

(48) What is stated at the end of v. 50? How, in common with almost all other typical speeches, was the captains' speech antityped? What statement at first seems strange? Why? How does this strangeness fade away? What are the two parts of the atonement? Whose work solely is it to make atonement in the first sense? Why? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? Whose work alone is not the atonement in its second part? Whose work is it initially? Whose combined work is it thereafter? How do we do our part in it? Which of these two parts in the atonement work is typed in v. 50? 

Gospel-Age Harvest in Type and Antitype. 

317 

(49) How was this done? To whose experience is reference first made as an illustration of the process? What qualities of his were overcome in the experience? With what was it connected? What was the occasion of the antitype? What fact made our Pastor especially apprehensive? Where has this experience been given in some detail? Who took advantage of his fear? What did they do? What did he in turn do? Where did he arrive by the time he beat down their attacks? What did he do there? What did his victory make him abstain from doing immediately? Instead, what did he first do? What did this conference do? What did he then do? What thereafter? How long after seeing the light on the subject? In what two Towers was this first done? What did his victory give him? What did his great struggle effect? What does this mean? What did the Lord give him after the victory? When did he get the first function of his office as that Servant? Why was it necessary for him to win the pertinent victory? What would otherwise have occurred? 

(50) Whose pertinent experience will next be given? Whose antitype was he in it? What was the pertinent fault? Under what circumstances did it work? Whose course in this matter was justified? How did Bro. Barton feel about it? Who worked on his pertinent weakness? What did he do against them? What followed immediately? What was the truth that he brought forth from the antitypical well? Why did he have to fight this battle? 

(51) What was the fault of Eleazar's (2 Sam. 23:9, 16) antitype? How did this fault show itself? What did the Lord do on this matter in 1910? How did the question present itself? Why in this form? What occurred in his mind on this question? What was the character of the debate? What was he enabled to do? What was his will's attitude therein? In what did his victory consist? What did he learn through this struggle? What was this in reality? What happened immediately thereafter? What did he do with it? What did that Servant do with it? What at the well experience did the Lord give that Servant? What did the Lord seem to do at the well experience with the pertinent brother? Why is this true in each case?

The Parousia Messenger. 

318 

(52) What conclusion is not to be drawn from these three cases? As what only should they serve? What does Jesus say on it? How should these "scribes" have acted as to the "things new"? On what principles? To whom does Matt. 13:52 not limit this privilege? Of what may we be sure in general? In particular? Why? What was required of them by the Lord in this particular? What will, on study, each Parousia pilgrim and auxiliary pilgrim find on this subject? How was this just like the Lord? 

(53) Of what does v. 51 assure us? What does this fact type? Why does Eleazar here type the Church's High Priest? What, according to v. 52, was the character of the Lord's tribute? What would it as such type? Of what is the shekel weight, 16,750, not a multiple? What results therefrom? Of what else is it not a multiple? What results therefrom? What two reasons prove that the shekel weight does not designate Great Company matters? What does this number possibly indicate? What is typed by the fact that the men of war (the captains excepted) took spoil everyone for or by himself? What further expression shows that the antitype concerns general elders? For whom were the lessons of others? 

(54) What is typed by Moses and Eleazar bringing the jewels into the tabernacle for a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord? How was the antitype done? As what did these appear? What resulted therefrom? What is their chief merit? What should therein suffice the Church? What has this study effected? In what? How was this typed?