FIVE SIFTINGS IN VARIOUS PERIODS. ANTECEDENTS OF THE GOSPEL-AGE NO-RANSOMISM SIFTING. CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN GOD AND CHRIST. THE SEVENTY. THE SIFTING PROPER. 

‍

UNDER the title, Calls-Siftings-Slaughter Weapons, in Vol. V, Chap. II, among other things, we treated on the siftings of the Gospel Harvest, basing our thought on 1 Cor. 10:5-14. According to St. Paul's statement (vs. 6, 11), the siftings of the Jewish Harvest also are referred to in this passage. Of these we treated briefly in Studies, Vol. III, 404-410. We also stated in Vol. V, Chap. II that the five siftings 1 Cor. 10:5-14 applied to five large siftings during the Gospel Age. Experience proves that the five siftings occurred during the Epiphany's small Miniature Gospel Age on a very small scale and that they have ready occurred on a somewhat larger scale in Epiphany's larger Miniature Gospel Age. These also appear in the Harvests of these Miniatures. We pointed out in P '33, 72-77 that in the Little Season there would be another application of these five siftings. And there seems to be good ground for believing that during the Millennium there will be still another application of them. If so, there will be at least eleven fulfillments of the five siftings referred to in 1 Cor. 10:5-14. It is the Gospel-Age Harvest application the five types mentioned by St. Paul in 1 Cor. 10:5-10 that we treated in Vol. V, Chap. II. St. Paul in this Scripture does not give us their Gospel-Age application for he there distinctly limits his application of the five pertinent types to the two Harvests. But in Heb. 3:7—4:3 St. Paul makes his Gospel-Age application Israel's wilderness typical siftings. It is true that there does not analyze these into their five component parts as in 1 Cor. 10:5-7; rather he there sums them up as a whole without distributing them. 

The Parousia Messenger. 

8 

(2) In this section the Apostle speaks of the day of provocation in the wilderness, when the Israelites provoked God for 40 years by their unbelief and disobedience (vs. 16-19), for which God excluded them from the Canaan rest (vs. 10, 11, 17-19; 4:2). He further shows that this period was a type of the today, the Gospel Age—"today if ye hear my voice [have done it with the faith and obedience of the high calling] harden not your hearts AS [antitypical of] in the day of provocation in the wilderness." Not only does the passage show that the Today, the Gospel Age, is antitypical of Israel's 40 years wilderness stay; but that the ye and the we of this section, Nominal and Real Spiritual Israel (vs. 7, 12-15; 4:1-3) are antitypical of Nominal and Real Fleshly Israel in their wilderness experience (vs. 8-11, 16-19; 4:2). Thus we see that without detailing these experiences into five separate siftings, as in 1 Cor. 10:5-11, he bunches them in both type and antitype. And since in this section the Apostle by the term "Today" covers the entire Gospel Age including both of its Harvests; and since he in 1 Cor. 10:5-14 points out five siftings as taking place during each reaping period, we are warranted in concluding that there are five siftings during the period between the Harvests, since in an emphatic sense that is the Gospel Age, as distinct from its Harvests. 

(3) This conclusion is supported especially by three fulfilled facts: (1) In the smallest Miniature Gospel Age the period between its Harvests, as well as these Harvests, had five siftings on a very small scale. (2) In the smaller Miniature Gospel Age the five siftings have occurred. (3) The period of over 1800 years between the two Harvests had five epochs: Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Philadelphia, in each of which there was on a large scale a sifting covering several centuries. These correspond in character and kind to the five siftings of the Harvests: No-Ransomism, Infidelism, Combinationism, Reformism and 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

9 

Murmursome Contradictionism. These considerations prepare us to understand our subject. The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting, which, like the first of the Harvest's siftings, appropriately was the one that occurred in the first Church epoch between the Harvests, in the Smyrna period. This sifting, like its counterparts in the Harvests and in the Epiphany, is typed in Num. 11:1-35, which, in this article, we will expound, type and antitype, with constant reference to its Gospel-Harvest counterpart, whose larger familiarity with our readers will make our interpretation of the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism easier for them to understand. 

(4) This chapter does not only type the No-Ransomism siftings proper, but their antecedent events-those more or less causally connected with this sifting. This is true in all its applications. Indeed, minor siftings that immediately preceded and led up to the No-Ransomism Siftings is typed in vs. 1-3. As said above, we will in our expositions give the Gospel-Harvest application of this type to clarify its Gospel-Age applications, which is our special subject. "The people as murmurers were evil in the ears of Yaveh, etc.," (Imp. Ver.). These three verses type for the Gospel Harvest a sifting that set in at Passover, 1875, paralleled by Jesus' first cleansing of the temple (John 2:13-25). Certain disgruntled Second Adventists were at that time sifted out from among the cleansed sanctuary class. These murmured because of their disappointment at Christ's not coming in the flesh in 1874. We recall that on account of Bro. Miller's beginning the 1290 and 1335 days 30 years before beginning the 1260 days, and that on account of his uncertainty as to whether to begin the 1260 days with the Ostrogoth's raising the siege of Rome, 538, or with the overthrow of their empire, 539, he first set 1843 for Christ's Second Advent in the flesh, which failing, he then set 1844 for that event. When after 1846 some of the sanctuary class got the right thought on the beginning of the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

10 

three sets of days, i.e., that they all began at the same time, but retained Bro. Miller's uncertainty as to whether they began in 538 or 539, they were not sure whether Oct., 1873, or 1874, was the date for our Lord's return. 

(5) Accordingly, they first fixed it at Oct., 1873, which failing, they set it for Oct., 1874, expecting Him to come in the flesh. This failing, some Adventists, remembering the four Adventist disappointments, became disgruntled—they "were murmurers." They became quite disgusted; and as a result an agitation was made against time prophecy. The Lord was displeased with them (His anger was kindled, v. 1) and gave such up to this agitation (the fire of the Lord burnt among them, v. 1), which resulted in many, some new creatures, others justified, and still others unjustified campers (in the uttermost parts of the camp) as being more or less rejected by the Nominal people, giving up the Truth that they had on Chronology. Thus as the parallels of those whom Jesus at the first cleansing drove out of the temple and of those who disapproved of His pertinent course (John 2:13-25), these were driven out of the sanctuary, court and camp, losing their previous standings as typed by these three places. These siftings caused distress among the more faithful who besought the Lord Jesus to stop this symbolic burning (v. 2). These are those who earnestly sought to find out the cause of the disappointment in the spirit of believers and not murmurers. Among these were Bros. Keith, Barbour, Paton, Mann, etc., to whom Bro. Russell later joined himself. Moses' praying (v. 2) to the Lord against the fire types our Lord Jesus' asking the Father to stop the sifting from injuring the non-murmurers. The Lord's answer came in giving the Truth—to some on the object and manner, to others on the time of our Lord's Return. This then stopped new ravages of the sifting. The people's calling the place Taberah (v. 3) types the Lord's people 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

11 

recognizing the destructive effect of the sifting on the siftlings. The sifting as a means of destruction is to be understood as coming from the Lord permissively (2 Thes. 2:9-12). 

(6) As indicated above, the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting occurred during the Smyrna period, which was from the end of the Jewish Harvest, 69 A. D., to Constantine's edict of toleration issued at Milan, 313, whereby the last great, the ten-years-long (Rev. 2:10), persecution of Christians by Pagan Rome ended. The great No-Ransomism sifting of this period was preceded by a connected sifting antitypical of the experience described in vs. 1-3, just as we saw that the Gospel-Harvest No-Ransomism sifting antecedently was preceded by the one described above beginning at the Passover of 1875. And, true enough, it was very much like the one that antecedently preceded the Gospel-Harvest No-Ransomism sifting. The brethren in the Jewish Harvest hoped for the Lord's soon return to establish the Kingdom. This hope with the uncertainty on the time of the auspicious event let the brethren of those days stand open to deception on the subject, as we know that the Thessalonian brethren were thus deceived (2 Thes. 2:1-9). Confounding the Second Advent overthrow of Christendom, which in His great prophecy (Matt. 24:1-44; Luke 21:1-36), in some particulars He connected in an antitypical way with the overthrow of the Jewish state in the Romano-Jewish War, 66-73, many Christians, particularly Jewish Christians, expected the Kingdom to be established right after that war. The less sober among the brethren (those in the uttermost parts of the camp) allowed themselves to be aroused to more or less fanatical frenzies of uncontrollable enthusiasm over the prospects of a soon establishment of the Kingdom. 

(7) Raised to the heights of expectancy, when their hopes failed to materialize, they fell from these heights to depths of disappointment and despondency. Nor did 

The Parousia Messenger. 

12 

some of these recover their equipoise, which others only with great difficulty succeeded in doing. The former, like their Gospel-Harvest like-spirited brethren, became greatly disgruntled and murmured unto the Lord's displeasure (v. 1). Some of these as Gentiles went back to Paganism; and some of these as Jews went back to Judaism, and some of them as Gentiles and Jews remained nominal Christians who gave up hoping for the Lord's return. There were agitations in which Jesus and the Apostles were accused of error on the matter of the Second Advent by those who ascribed their misunderstandings to these as their teachings; and of course those who submitted to such agitations as siftlings lost their standing before the Lord. Thus rejecting the Second Advent message and hope, these manifested that the fire of the Lord, the sifting error and consequent sifting, permissively coming from the Lord, burnt them. But the Lord's people who had maintained a more sober stand in these circumstances, though more or less disappointed, resisting the sifting errors and movement pleaded with our Lord for relief (v. 2), and by His intercession the Lord sent the needed Truth, i.e., that the events connected with Israel's disasters from 66 to 73 merely foreshadowed the trouble on the world accompanying the Second Advent (v. 2). This destroyed the sifting effects on those who stood (v. 2). Those, therefore, who stood in the sifting trial were by this clarification of the pertinent Truth led to recognize the experiences of the siftlings in the sifting as evidences of a destructive work upon such from the Lord (v. 3). This experience was a remote antecedent of the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting, as is apparent. 

(8) The nearer antecedents of the Gospel Harvest and the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting are described in vs. 4-31. These were quite varied: some of them were more or less direct bridges leading the unworthy into the No-Ransomism sifting (vs. 4-10); and 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

13 

others were helps that the Lord provided to safeguard the faithful (vs. 16, 17, 25-30); and intermingled among these were antitypical conversations on the part of God and Christ (vs. 10-23). The rock-bottom cause of all of the No-Ransomism siftings, and therefore of the Harvests', was weariness with the Lord's Truth (manna, v. 6) and desire for other food for heart and mind than the Lord's Word (vs. 4-6). Israel's mixed multitude, the riffraff, a word whose syllables end in a sound somewhat like the corresponding Hebrew word, asafsuf, consisted of people of various nations, which had been conquered by the Egyptians, and whose citizens, captured in expeditions of war and plunder, had been reduced to Egyptian slavery. When Israel as slaves were liberated by the humiliated Pharaoh and his Egyptian subjects, those non-Israelitish slaves went forth from slavery into freedom with them, the Egyptians being too greatly broken down to restrain these slaves from departing from their midst with the Israelites. These, accompanying Israel, naturally were the first to begin the outcries against the manna and for the foods of Egypt (v. 4). So in the Gospel Harvest many who were not real Spiritual Israelites first of all wearied of the Lord's Word (manna, v. 6) that they had been having as it was due (fell a lusting and said, Who will give us flesh? v. 4). And, as in the type, the spirit of these, like an unholy contagion, began to infect those who were real Spiritual Israelites, until like the others they, too, became weary of the Lord's Word as due and began to long for other food for heart and mind (the children of Israel also wept and said, Who will give us flesh to eat? v. 4). Certainly these showed bad taste in wearying of the good Word of God (Heb. 6:5). This becomes manifest when we come to see what they began to long for, as typically set forth in v. 5: The nominal church and heathen creeds (fish), history (cucumbers), science (melons), philosophy (leeks), art (onions) and literature (garlic). The

The Parousia Messenger. 

14 

further they proceeded the more degenerate became their tastes. Certainly this was true in the Harvest time, beginning just after the shaking of 1875, antecedent to the Harvest's No-Ransom sifting. 

(9) This same thing was enacted on a larger scale shortly after the false Second Advent sifting which set in when the Kingdom was not established subsequent to the Jewish war of 66-73. As there was a literal mixed multitude that followed Israel out of Egyptian slavery, so there was an antitypical mixed multitude that associated itself with Spiritual Israel coming out of the slavery of sin and error. This was true of that part of Spiritual Israel that consisted of Jewish and of that part of Spiritual Israel that consisted of Gentile believers. Shortly after Pentecost, yea, even before, this antitypical mixed multitude began to make its appearance in antitypical Israel. The five Jewish-Harvest siftings each furnished a supply of these. This is readily discernible in four of these siftings, alluded to in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts. The fifth of these, like its counterpart in the Gospel Harvest, being on the largest scale of all five, must have manifested a goodly number of these among the Lord's people. Then, too, the result of the Jewish war and the subsequent false Second Advent sifting was to manifest from both the Jewish and Gentile world a still larger number belonging to this mixed multitude; so that toward the close of John's life he could with reason speak in his epistles of many false teachers and deceivers and forsakers of the real Truth and introducers of errors among the brethren as misleading many from the right way (1 John 2:18, 19; 4:1-3; 2 John 7; 3 John 9, 10). Of course, such were the first to weary of the heavenly Manna, and to long for the Jewish or heathen food for heart and mind, from which but shortly before they had been weaned. 

(10) Their example and agitation ere long misled not a few who had been real Spiritual Israelites (v. 4).

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

15 

These symbolically wearied of the heavenly Manna and, symbolically weeping grievously, longed for the flesh pots of symbolic Egypt, the present evil world. Accordingly, as they were Jews or Gentiles, they began to hanker after Jewish or pagan traditional religion (fish), Jewish or pagan history (cucumbers), Jewish or pagan science (melons), Jewish or pagan philosophy (leeks), Jewish or pagan art (onions), and Jewish or pagan literature (garlic); and for these beggarly elements they were willing to neglect, despise and abhor the good Word of God! A terrible deterioration in mental, moral and religious tastes is typed by the lusting of vs. 4-6. This is emphasized in the Hebrew where in v. 4 it reads "made themselves lust a lust." Like Lot's wife, they longed for the things left behind (we remember … which we ate freely in Egypt, v. 5). How ungrateful toward the Lord, who had given them angels' food (Ps. 78:25), that they should by their thoughts, motives, words and acts have expressed contempt of it (there is nothing at all beside this manna before our eyes, v. 6). Their complaint, now our soul is dry (appetiteless as to the manna and listless, v. 6), received a terrible recompense; for it is written of them that though the Lord gave them their hearts' request, He sent leanness into their soul (Ps. 106:15). Surely we who had been given the sumptuous repasts of the Parousia and Epiphany Truth should guard well our symbolic appetites, lest we, wearying of the finest of the heavenly Manna, draw down upon ourselves the evil of the antitypical lusters (1 Cor. 10:6). 

(11) Vs. 7-9 treat of the manna and the people's activities with it. V. 7 gives a brief description of the manna, which brings to our attention four qualities of the heavenly Manna. We understand that the manna Israel had as its food represents the Truth, God's Word. Or to put it in another form, Christ is our spiritual food, even as He Himself has interpreted the typical manna to represent Himself (John 6:32-58). 

The Parousia Messenger. 

16 

Some might think that our first definition of the antitypical Manna contradicts our second definition of it; but a little thought will readily show their harmony. Jesus Himself tells us that he is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). How is this so? From the fact that the Bible is Christocentric. The whole Word, Plan, of God involves Him and revolves about Him, who of God is made to us now and to the world in the Millennium, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and deliverance (1 Cor. 1:30). It is for this, among other reasons, that He is called the Word of Life and the Word of God (1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). Indeed, His prehuman title, the Logos, Word, among other things, is related to this thought, inasmuch as it presents Him to us as God's mouth (John 1:1-3, 14), which is one of the Bible's titles (Ps. 45:1; Is. 1:20). Accordingly, the Truth is but a description of Him in His person, character, teachings, work and relations, as He is also its Revealer. Accordingly, the twofold definition above given of the antitypical Manna is correct. 

(12) Above we said that four of the Truth's qualities are set forth typically in v. 7: "The manna was as coriander seed; and the color [appearance] thereof as the color of bdellium." Coriander seed is aromatic as to scent and is preservative as against corruption—the appreciableness and the salutariness of the Word of God are thereby brought out. The Truth, in the first place, is in its nature and in its effects appreciable. This is because it is Divinely inspired (1 Cor. 2:4, 5, 13; Gal. 1:11, 12; 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21), pure (Ps. 12:6; 119:140; Prov. 30:5), perfect and reliable (2 Sam. 22:31; Ps. 19:7, 9; 119:128, 138, 151, 160; Prov. 22:20, 21; Is. 25:1; John 17:17; Rev. 21:5; 22:6); effective (Is. 55:10, 11; Jer. 22:29; Heb. 4:12), soul-satisfying (Job 23:12; Ps. 19:10; 119:47, 72, 103; 1 Pet. 2:2) and permanent (Ps. 119:144, 152, Is. 40:8; Luke 16:17; 21:33; 1 Pet. 1:25). It is also, as typed by 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

17 

the second quality of coriander seed, in its nature and effect salutary. This is because it makes wise unto salvation (Ps. 119:98-100; 2 Tim. 3:15; Mark 12:24), it works the graces (Rom. 15:4; 1 John 1:4; John 20:31; Rom. 10:17; 2 Pet. 1:4-7) and it saves (Rom. 1:16; Jas. 1:18, 21; 1 Pet. 1:5-9). These are the qualities of the Truth as suggested by the manna being as coriander seed, which is a fine type. 

(13) Bdellium, according to the best authorities, is among the clearest of the precious stones—the diamond. The qualities of the Truth typed by the color of the manna being like bdellium are clarity and brilliance. And certainly the Truth is when due clear and brilliant like a diamond. By this we are not to be understood to mean that the Bible is clear—purposely it was by God made the obscurest of books, as we have more than once emphasized in these columns (Is. 28:9-13; Matt. 13:11-15, 35). But the Truth as due is wonderfully clear to the saints (Col. 1:27) and will be so to the world (Rev. 22:1). This clarity is due to the reasonableness of God's thoughts (Is. 1:18). Its brilliance makes it enlightening—it reflects light from the Lord. The following passages bring out the diamond qualities of the Truth: Ps. 19:8; 119:105, 130; Prov. 6:23; 2 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 2:8; John 1:9; Rev. 22:1; Is. 30:26; 29:18, 25. Thus we see that by the manna being like coriander seed and diamond the Lord has brought to our attention four splendid qualities of the Truth. Let us note well the wisdom expressing itself in poetic form brought to our attention by God's use of these objects of nature to enforce spiritual lessons. Lusters wearied of this, desiring the beggarly elements of this present evil world in Jewish and pagan creeds, history, science, philosophy, art and literature. 

(14) The Israelites' activities as to the manna type spiritual Israel's activities as to the Truth, whose mind and heart processes on the Lord's Word are typically set forth in v. 8. Israelites' going about as to dealing 

The Parousia Messenger. 

18 

with the manna represents the antitypical Israelites' giving their attention to the Lord's Word privately and in fellowship by conversation and class study. The Israelites' gathering the manna types the Spiritual Israelites' getting an understanding of the meaning of the Truth. Their grinding it in mills or beating it in mortars types the analytical processes whereby one divides, subdivides, subsubdivides, etc., it into its main parts, which are doctrine, precept, promise, exhortation, prophecy, history and type, and into its smaller parts, i.e., as to the subjects coming under each of these general heads and as to the contents of each of these subjects. E.g., on the general division of the Truth's subject matter we might instance the subject of God as a subdivision of doctrine. The subject of God may be subdivided into the following parts: His being, His character, His teachings and His works. Each of these in turn may be subsubdivided, e.g., His being may be divided into its existence, its nature, its faculties, its attributes. Each of these in turn may then be divided, etc., etc., etc. This same process can be applied to any other doctrine or to any of the other main divisions of Truth thoughts given above. The Israelites' baking, or, as it might be rendered, boiling, it represents the Truth-proving processes, whereby by proofs from Scripture, reason and facts one demonstrates it as true to his own satisfaction. The Israelites' making cakes of the manna types the adapting of the Truth for fitness to one's heart appropriation unto character development and character correction for oneself and others, individually or in groups, as well as for one's development in doctrine and refutation (2 Tim. 3:15, 17). His eating these cakes types such appropriations of the Lord's Truth to one's development in the Lord's Word, Spirit and work. We know that just these things were done in the Harvests, have been and are being done in the Epiphany, and they 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

19 

were certainly done in the Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Philadelphia periods of the Church. 

(15) The taste (v. 8) of these cakes was like fresh oil. After people have tasted olive oil that is old and thus somewhat rancid, fresh oil tastes very good. This suggests the fine taste of the good Word of God. It tastes very good to the mind and heart, inasmuch as its abounding verity, harmony, reasonableness, beauty, sublimity, sufficiency and practicability satisfy both head and heart. O, how its "taste" enlightens, satisfies, delights and uplifts in the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit of it (oil) makes it taste so good to our Holy Spirit. So it has been throughout the whole Age from Jordan until now and will until the Epiphany is past be to real Spiritual Israelites. V. 9 tells us under what circumstances the manna fell: Upon the night's dew it fell. It did not fall directly upon the desert earth, which doubtless would have made it sandy and muddy, but upon the sand- and earth-covering dew. In Bible symbols the dew sometimes represents the Truth (Gen. 27:28, 39; Deut. 32:2; Judg. 6:37-40; 1 Kings 17:1; Ps. 110:3, 133:3) and sometimes God's providences (Prov. 19:12; Is. 18:4; Dan. 4:15, 23, 25, 33; 5:21). Both of these thoughts apply here. Upon Truth already had the Lord superimposes more Truth, adding line upon line, precept upon precept (Is. 28:10, 13). The night-long falling of the manna upon the dew suggests the progressive development of the Truth (Prov. 4:18), ever reminding us of the thought expressed in a hymn. "Still there's more to follow." This is also suggested by the manna's continuing to fall throughout Israel's wilderness journey, even as in the antitype from Jordan to the present the Truth as due came upon the Truth that had already been due among God's people, the antitypical camp. The advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth formerly received, as some deceivers teach. Those of us who during the Parousia watched this peculiarity of the Truth, its dueness, i.e.,

The Parousia Messenger. 

20 

its coming as the needs, circumstances and experiences of God's people require, and who during the Epiphany are watching its dueness, know that this is a true principle in practice. The same peculiarity of the Truth was in evidence throughout all the five Church epochs between the Harvests (Ps. 23:5; 81:16; 100:3; 103:5). 

(16) The same remarks hold with reference to the manna's falling upon the dew as symbolizing the providences of God toward His people throughout the entire Age. The Truth as due came to God's people adapted to their varying providential needs, circumstances and experiences; for the Word of God was so framed by God that it is not only adapted to the needs of God's people in general, but it is also adapted to their individual needs amid their varying circumstances and experiences. This shows the practicability of God and of God's Truth. That God arranged His Word so as to be adaptable to the general needs of His people is apparent from Amos 3:7: "Surely the Lord your God will do nothing [in the outworking of His plan] except He revealed it as His secret unto His servants the prophets." These acts are sometimes revealed in the prophecies and sometimes in the types of the Word, which detail all the unfoldings of God's plan as due. And that God adapted His Word to the particular needs of the individual members of His people in their varying circumstances and experiences is evident from many Scriptures (Gen. 49:24; Ex. 23:22; Deut. 10:18; Ps. 23:4; 34:7, 10; 37:25, 34; 40:5; 44:1-3; 68:6; 105:16-22; 146:7-9; etc.). The manna's falling at night (v. 9) suggests that the Truth is due particularly in the nights of controversies for the Truth against error, in the nights of fighting against sin, selfishness and worldliness. It was due in the night of nominal Fleshly Israel in its Harvest, in the night from 1799 to 1954, in the night between the Harvests, in the Epiphany night, and in the individual Christian's night of affliction. Thus the advancing light rests upon, is 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

21 

built upon the past-given Truth, and rests upon the providences of God's people in the sense of being adapted to their providences in their needs, circumstances and experiences (upon the dew). No wonder the Word, having such qualities and peculiarities as are typed in vs. 7-9, the Apostle Paul calls it the good Word of God (Heb. 6:5). How great, therefore, must be in God's people the sin of distaste for that Word and turning from an appetite for it to an appetite for Jewish and pagan religious beliefs, history, science, philosophy, art and literature. 

(17) Such dissatisfaction with the Truth and lusting after secular religion, history, science, philosophy, art and literature, came to our Lord's attention as the antitypical Moses (v. 10) in the Gospel Harvest. In each church of all denominations and in each ecclesia of the Parousia Truth people (throughout their families, v. 10) this dissatisfaction with the Truth and hankering after secular knowledge had one or more representative. Not only so, but this dissatisfaction and lusting were expressed publicly, often by the ministers and elders as the leaders in those churches and in Truth ecclesias (every man in the door of his tent). Accordingly, this was a very general happening. So widespread did it become that it had to receive the special cognizance of the Lord, who was greatly displeased thereat (the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly, v. 10), knowing that one of His choice favors was despised and greatly inferior things were preferred to it by His people, since this betrayed their ingratitude, in appreciation and corruption. Moreover, this course of the people was by our Lord seen to be evil (evil in the eyes of Moses). We know that such things have happened in the Parousia and Epiphany times. But the same phenomenon occurred in the Smyrna period and continued to happen in the following four Church epochs, especially in the first three of these four. During the Smyrna period especially did our Lord note 

The Parousia Messenger. 

22 

both in the Jewish and in the Gentile section of the nominal and real people of God that there was increasingly among them dissatisfaction with, and weariness of the spiritual Manna that God provided for His people, and this lusting after Jewish and pagan religions, history, science, philosophy, art and literature. He saw it occurring in every ecclesia of both sections of His people in that period. He saw it occurring not only in a private way, but also in a public way, and that often expressed by the leaders themselves, whose influence over the others made these feelings all the more evil in their nature and effects. No wonder that God at such base ingratitude, in appreciation and corruption was greatly displeased; and no wonder our Lord recognized these things as evil. 

(18) Moses, the overworked servant of God, makes plaint, not complaint, at this situation and His office as respects it (v. 11). To him as God's servant his situation as to this condition was an affliction (Why hast Thou afflicted Thy servant?). To Him it was not an expression of God's favor (Why have I not found favor in Thy sight?). To him it was as though an excessive burden was laid upon him (literally, for the laying of the burden of all the people upon me). We may be sure that in the antitype our Lord did not by words utter such a plaint to God. Rather we think His sense of an oppressive burden in view of the situation, and not His words, told God the antitypical plaint. For people in the antitypical attitude toward the Truth and toward secular things above described so to act toward His ministry was an affliction and an infliction to Him; for Him to have to supply such desires as the antitypical Israelites in all the antitypical applications had and expressed was indeed an intolerable burden to Him. It was not a favor of the Lord to Him that the conditions were so. This will become apparent when we remember that our Lord's Gospel-Age ministry has two features: (1) supervising the work of selecting, 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

23 

developing and delivering the Church (1 Cor. 1:30; Acts 15:14); and (2) supervising the work of reproving the world for sin, righteousness and the coming judgment (John 16:8-11). It did not belong to His mission to bear the burden of the second death class, nor of the unjustified, particularly those whose justification lapsed as such, a condition forced upon Him. And it certainly did not belong to His mission to provide the six secular forms of mental food for which the antitypical lusters hankered. Nor had God laid such a burden upon Him, except in a permissive sense, but certainly not in a positive sense. The burden had, so to speak, developed in the natural run of events, due to so many nominal people of God springing up among the real people of God, and due to some of the latter becoming wholly or partially unfaithful. These facts show us how our Lord's oppressed feelings under a burden that was not a part of His mission as the Leader of God's people spoke to the Father by the condition and not by word. Our Lord's plaint was for information; it was not a complaint even in feeling. 

(19) But one may ask, Was not our Lord omniscient and therefore needed no information, having all knowledge? The Bible implies that He knows all things that He needs to know to carry out His vicegerency for God (Matt. 28:18), which means that He knows everything about the physical universe so far created, and as much, at least, as is needed for operating matters connected with the process of creating new universes at and for their making. But for several reasons his knowledge, though nearly omniscient, is short of omniscience. In the first place, God would deny Himself, which He morally cannot do (2 Tim. 2:13), if He should make any creature His equal in any particular; for that would in that particular be surrendering His supremacy, a thing He will never do. In the second place, in types in which the Bible teaches that certain persons represent Him, e.g., Moses, Gideon,

The Parousia Messenger. 

24 

etc., He is set forth as needing and asking for information after His exaltation. In the chapter that we are interpreting (vs. 11, 21, 22) and in other places (15:32-36, particularly v. 32; etc.), in His glorified condition, Jesus is represented as needing information, which is implied in all the revelations made by God to Moses while the latter represents our Lord in His glorified condition. Thirdly, not only in types but in non-typical Scriptures this is shown, e.g., in Acts 1:7 just before His ascension Jesus shows that at that time only the Father knew the time when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel, i.e., in great David's greater Son, just as before His death He did not know when the judgment day would come (Mark 13:32). 

(20) Fourthly, Jesus being in Is. 60:20 called the glorified Church's Moon and the Father her Sun proves that Jesus will continually get new light from the Father and reflect it upon the Church, even as the natural moon continually gets its light from the natural sun, and then reflects its borrowed light upon the earth. Fifthly, there are hints scattered here and there in the Scriptures that while Jesus' knowledge after His ascension was greatly increased on all general and most detailed features of the plan, e.g., being given the revelations of the book of Revelation after His ascension (Rev. 1:1), some details, especially on methods of procedure, are given to Him only just before they are due to be given to, or worked toward the Lord's people or others. We saw this typed by Boaz' eating (Ruth 3:7) as representing Jesus' receiving certain new features of Truth on the Youthful Worthies, in the type of what should be done with the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36), etc. Sixthly, the covenant arrangements shown Moses in the Mountain, typing those shown Jesus partly shortly after His ascension and partly during His Second Advent, prove it. Seventh, antitypical Gideon's getting information in the antitypical Midianites' camp (Judg. 7:9-15)

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

25 

and Jesus' partaking of the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9), which, among other things, means appropriating knowledge for His Millennial husbandship toward His Bride and His fatherhood of His Millennial children, with what is implied as to duties, etc., in these relations, prove that our Lord was not omniscient. This is suggested in the moon picture commented on above as an eternal condition, the moon constantly reflecting new light on the earth after receiving it from the sun. The principle contained in the passage, "all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you" (John 15:15), will prove eternally true. The Father will eternally reveal new things to the Son, who will eternally make them known to the Church. 

(21) Jesus knows progressively as much as a creature can know; and He is as great in physical, artistic, mental, moral and religious qualities as is possible for a creature to be; but is in all of these the Father's inferior (John 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:28). God would do what is impossible even for Him, ungod Himself, if He made even our Lord His equal in any particular; for that would be denying Himself (2 Tim. 2:13), which He cannot do. If the matter of our Lord's inferiority to the Father in all things, hence also in knowledge, is kept in mind, it will not stumble us when, as in the case of the passage under consideration, and many others, our Lord in His glorified condition is represented as seeking information from the Father. As on the subject of human immortality on which its exponents cannot find even one Scripture to prove their view, the proponents of our Lord's omniscience cannot find even one inspired Scripture that teaches or implies it; for the Scriptures teach quite to the contrary. We, of course, do not say the above to our Lord's disparagement; for it is no disparagement of Him to hold with the Scriptures, that in all things the Father is greater than He. To over-exalt our Lord is

The Parousia Messenger. 

26 

distasteful to Him, as it is distasteful to the Father to belittle our Lord, or to belittle the Father by over-exalting our Lord to equality with the Father in any detail. The passage in which Jesus says, "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), is eternally true in all respects, hence in knowledge. The Truth on the subject is this: God is the Source of all true knowledge and He gives true knowledge to our Lord as is due for Him to receive it; and therefore the Latter is eternally dependent on the Father for new light, as it is due for Him to receive it from the Father. How evident is this principle is apparent when we note that in every application of this type, and there have been eight of them already fulfilled, Jesus asked for the pertinent information, as typed by Moses' questions. 

(22) Moses' plaint (vs. 11-15) takes another form in v. 12. It will be recognized as just throughout. He did not have a mother's relation and consequent duties to the whole people (have I conceived all this people? v. 12). He did not have a father's relation and consequent duties to the whole people (have I begotten them?). This language is especially meaningful in the antitype, because the Bible attributes father functions to those brethren who have been used to bring justified ones into consecration and Spirit-begettal; for in this act they represent the Father directly (1 Cor. 4:15; Phile. 10). Hence, as the two passages just cited show, they are spoken of as begetting such, and that in the sense just explained, as the Father's direct representatives in this act. Again, as we showed in detail in Vol. VI, Chap. VI, the Truth servants in their capacity of ministering the promises, their institutions, arrangements, elaborations, etc., to the brethren are the mother, who conceives (have I conceived?) the New Creature fetus. The language of Moses, therefore, types our Lord's state of mind over the oppressive burden that He was carrying as suggesting to the Father the following thought: Have I by the Truth fathered all who

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

27 

profess to be Thy people, by begetting of the Spirit through the Truth all of them? Have I mothered all of them by developing all of them as new creatures after they were begotten of the Spirit through the Truth? To both questions the answer of course must be a negative one, though He did thus father and mother the new creatures among them. These works He did in both Harvests and in the intervening period. This alludes to the first of Jesus' Gospel-Age missions, gathering from among the nations a people for God's name. And certainly Jesus had assumed the burden of these; but it was not this that oppressed Him; nor was it the burden of the justified, nor of bringing unjustified ones through repentance and faith to justification, by reproving for sin, righteousness, judgment. 

(23) It was bearing responsibility for the unjustified and the second death class and providing for them the kind of food for head and heart desired by them, that was oppressive. These He did not want to bear as a parent (in Thy bosom, as a nursing father does a suckling), to the heavenly Canaan, sworn as theirs in the Oath-bound Covenant to the Faithful only (v. 12). And in this His attitude was right. The words, "that Thou shouldst say" were better rendered "That Thou mightest say." This rendering wards off the idea that God had required the typical oppressive thing of Moses or the antitypical oppressive thing of Jesus; for to act as a leader and teacher does not imply fatherhood and motherhood to all the led and taught, with their consequent duties. Our Lord had such duties to new creatures only, which, as said before, He did not consider oppressive. As Moses did not know whence he could supply flesh for the 2,000,000 Israelites, neither did our Lord in the Harvests and in the intervening period know whence He could supply other than the Divinely arranged mental food for all nominal and real Spiritual Israel (whence should I have? v. 13). This 

The Parousia Messenger. 

28 

verse and vs. 21-23 not only prove that our Lord did not know whence He could get even enough food for nominal and real Spiritual Israel, but that He did not know of what it would consist, which disproves the thought of His being omniscient. Both Moses' and our Lord's kind hearts were distressed at the situation. In both cases their sympathies were deeply wrought upon by the weepings of the people for their respectively desired food and their inability to supply it (for they weep, etc., v. 13). In Jesus' case this inability was of course true in all the applications of the antitype, and that throughout all their various periods. 

(24) The inability of Moses alone and Jesus alone to do all that their increasing burdens required in harmony with their respective missions, with the addition of satisfying the dissatisfied and lusting people, in Jesus' case in all applications of the text, is set forth in v. 14 (I am not able; it is too heavy for me). Moses said that if God desired him alone to do not only the work of leading and teaching the people which, within certain limits and as variously as were the classes of the people, he had undertaken, but also to satisfy the dissatisfied and lusting people with provisions that were not his to furnish (if Thou deal thus with me, v. 15), he requested death immediately (kill me … out of hand) as an act of favor (if I have found favor in Thy sight), and thus be prevented from experiencing (a frequent Biblical meaning of the word see) an unbearable affliction (let me not see my wretchedness). Antitypically, Jesus' distressed feelings, not words, in all applications of the antitype told God that if He must bear so heavy a burden, He would prefer, not a literal death, which is impossible for immortals, but a symbolic death, a cutting off from His office as Leader and Teacher of the nominal and real people of God, variously to be led and taught, dependent on their class standing before the Lord. This phenomenon appeared throughout the harvest periods and the five Church epochs with the 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

29 

increase of people. He is so conscientious that rather than be unable to fulfill a mission, He would give it up. This cutting off from such an office He desired to take place immediately (out of hand). As such He would consider it a favor from the Father (if I have found favor) and a deliverance from evil (my wretchedness). A thoughtful consideration of what Moses in the type said and of what Jesus acted out in the antitype, all the circumstances being considered, makes us recognize the justice of their plaint—they did not complain. 

(25) God's answer, as given in vs. 16, 17, proves the justice of the typical and antitypical plaint. And God's answer as to how He would send relief to an overworked Servant of His, in both type and antitype, so that the real duty, which had increased greatly with the people's increase, especially in the antitype, might be effectively performed, and not be required of Moses and Jesus alone respectively in the type and antitype, is given in vs. 16, 17; and His answer as to how Moses in the type and Jesus in the antitype would be relieved entirely of the burden of satisfying the dissatisfied and lusting people is given in vs. 18-20. God's instructions as to the appointment of the 70 elders in vs. 16, 17, and His appointment of officers and judges in Ex. 18:25-26 have been seized upon by higher critics as contradictory recitals of the same episode. But this identification is entirely wrong, as a little thought will prove. There were in the one case only 70, in the other many thousands selected; their service was largely different: the 70 were to assist Moses to teach and lead the people, the others were to answer difficult questions and settle controversies. The 70 were selected after leaving Sinai, hence at another place, the others shortly after reaching Sinai, and that at Sinai. The 70 were selected from among, and as the ablest among, the others (whom thou knowest to be elders and officers). Those selected at Sinai represent those elders, auxiliary pilgrims and pilgrims only who functioned during the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

30 

Parousia, and whose office persists in the Epiphany, only if they maintain their Little Flock standing, since their types were selected after Israel reached Sinai, which antitypically was reached in 1874; while the 70, representing in a general way all elders and leaders among God's people, specifically type, St. John excepted, the secondarily prophets of the two Harvests and the inter-harvest period. Specifically viewed for the two Harvests and for the intervening period, the 70 have typed literally 70 brothers, as the 70 evangelists (Luke 10:1) in the Jewish Harvest prove, and as the facts in the other two cases prove. The fact that the twelve wells type 12 individuals (the Apostles) implies that the 70 palm trees type 70 individuals in the three applications of the type, the Apostles acting in two of the applications in their recorded words (Ex. 15:24). 

(26) The charge (v. 16) for Moses to gather the 70 to himself types for the Gospel Harvest God's charge to Jesus to associate with Himself in the general ministry the pilgrims who as such were general Elders. These 70 do not include auxiliary pilgrims, who as such went out only on occasional trips and at week ends; but the 70 were such as gave practically their entire time to the pilgrim service or in connection with it gave the rest or almost all the rest of their time to some other branch of the work, like members of the Parousia Bible House and Bethel family, although the less prominent of the latter were only auxiliary pilgrims. To be of the 70 pilgrims one would have had to enter that service at least a year, a symbolic day, before Oct. 1914. All of them as well as the auxiliary pilgrims were appointed by the Lord through Bro. Russell. These were such as our Lord knew to have qualifications for the general eldership and not simply for local eldership (whom thou knowest, v. 16). They were to be selected from among the elders of the Lord's people in the sense of such being specially developed, as well as from among the leaders, even as

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

31 

the typical 70 were to be selected from among those made judges, even officers, at Sinai (elders of the people, even their officers, v. 16). Moses' taking such up with him to the tabernacle and their standing there with him (v. 16) type that our Lord brought those who were to become pilgrims in among the brethren and gave them among the brethren a special standing with Him as General Elders. It will be noted that the increase of the burden with the increase of the people and the selection of the pilgrims did not occur alone in connection with the No-Ransomism sifting, but from time to time until about 1913. Indeed, Bro. Russell's anointing in the antitypical camp as the Parousia Eldad (vs. 26, 27) began in 1870, even before the Parousia began, and he did not come up to the antitypical Tabernacle, the separated and cleansed sanctuary, until 1876. Why, then, are these matters in the type associated with the type of the No-Ransomism sifting? We reply that, as so often occurs in Scripture types and symbolic prophecy, things introduced at a certain period are given so as to furnish a completed picture, without necessarily limiting them to the period in which they are typically introduced, though, generally speaking, they there had their beginning. Bro. Russell's being selected as one of the 70 before the Parousia began finds its counterpart in John's being selected before Pentecost, not only to be an Apostle, but also to be the principal man of the Smyrna epoch, even as some of the dissatisfaction and lusting set in before 1874 and 69. This time phenomenon, therefore, we find covers the whole Gospel-Age application of the type, as well as its whole Harvests' applications. 

(27) As was the case in the Jewish Harvest, the 70 were sent out in pairs (Luke 10:1), so was it the case in the Gospel Harvest. Some of these are clearly discernible. We will indicate this in the case of ten, including the nine who constituted the three sets of threes among antitypical David's mightiest men. As that

The Parousia Messenger. 

32 

Servant, Bro. Russell, the parallel of the Twelve, had no companion helper, unless the whole 70 be so considered, as the Jewish Harvest 70 in a sense were counted the companion helper of the 12, but as a pilgrim he did. Indeed he had five of such successively, the first four making total shipwreck: Messrs. Barbour and Paton, Mrs. Russell and Mr. M.L. McPhail, whose fall in 1908 occasioned another brother to take his place, who kept it to the end of Bro. Russell's pilgrim work. The second set seems to be Bro. Barton and Jesse Hemery; the third set, Bros. John and Morton Edgar, the fourth set, Menta Sturgeon and Bro. Raymond, and the fifth set, J.F. Rutherford and A.H. McMillan. The rest of the 70 were doubtless also paired, even if we are unable to trace all of them as such. The principle that whoever would fall out of a set of two would not be counted of the 70 in the finished picture, another taking his place, may be seen as true in the case of the companion helpers of Bro. Russell as a pilgrim. In each set above mentioned the leader of the two was mentioned first. During the period between the Harvests our heavenly Father sought to ease from our Lord the too large burden that came from the increase in the numbers of nominal and real Spiritual Israel as epoch after epoch increased the numbers of nominal and real Spiritual Israel, beginning it with the Smyrna period. This God did by charging Jesus for the five epochs between the Harvests to gather to Himself the 70, i.e., draw these to Him as assistants. As indicated above, this began in the case of St. John even before Pentecost, when, as the result shows, His call to the apostleship was a preparation, anointing, for his place as the principal man of the Smyrna Church, i.e., the main teacher among the star members of that Church, the one who gave its fundamental teachings. During each one of these Church periods a varying number of these 70 was called to be Jesus' associates in the work as secondarily prophets, general Elders, whose ministry

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

33 

was one toward the general Church and the public. 

(28) Just as it was in the two Harvests, these 70, distributed variously among the five inter-harvest Churches, were sent forth two by two, which is, however, not the case with St. John who, before and during the Smyrna period, was an Apostle and who never was a secondarily prophet, as an Apostle had no secondarily prophet as a companion helper, though all of the Smyrna secondarily prophets may be considered as a class of such. How these 70 were sent forth two and two will be recognized from the examples of the Philadelphia Church's members of these 70. Wessel and Rudolph Agricola were a set of two of whom Wessel was the leader, as he was also the principal man of the Philadelphia star. Savonarola and (Fra.) Domenico were a set of two of whom Savonarola was leader. Luther and Melanchthon were a set of two of whom Luther was leader. Zwingli and Oecolampadius were a set of two of whom Zwingli was the leader. Hubmaier and Blaurock were a set of two of whom Hubmaier was the leader. Servetus and Laelius Socinus were a set of two of whom Servetus was the leader. Cranmer and Latimer were a set of two of whom Cranmer was the leader. Browne and Harrison were a set of two of whom Browne was the leader. Fox and Barclay were a set of two of whom Fox was the leader. John and Charles Wesley were a set of two of whom John Wesley was the leader. Stone and (Thomas) Campbell were a set of two of whom Stone was the leader, and Miller and Wolf were a set of two of whom Miller was the leader. 

(29) Thus we see that of the 70 there were 24 who belonged to the Philadelphia; and the 46 others were unevenly distributed among the Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira and Sardis Churches, the Pergamos period having the least number of them. Of these 70, the leader of each of the 35 sets alone belonged to the five stars of these five Churches. In all there were 49

The Parousia Messenger. 

34 

members of the seven stars, twelve belonging to the Ephesian and two to the Laodicean star. Each of these stars had one principal man, except the last, to which two were assigned (Mic. 5:5). These inter-harvest 70 were to be well developed in head and heart (from the elders, v. 16). Not only so, but they must be attested men, not only by the brethren, but by Jesus also, (whom thou knowest). This attestation was not to be of them as of obscure men, but as of recognized leaders (elders of the people, even their officers). The charge that the 70 be by Moses brought to the tabernacle types this that Jesus bring such among those who were God's Tabernacle, the general Church. The 70 standing with Moses about the tabernacle represents the thought that after being made by Jesus such secondarily prophets, the 70 inter-harvest leaders should take their places as general teachers of the Church publicly before the entire Church (they shall stand, v. 16). 

(30) God's coming down to Moses occurring in the cloudy pillar (vs. 17, 25) represents Jehovah's giving Jesus the pertinent Truth on the subjects needed by the 70 as due in their various times; and this Jesus gave them as a part of their qualification for their various ministries. God's taking from Moses of His spirit and putting it on the 70 (v. 17) types God's imparting from and through Jesus the rest of the power necessary to qualify the 70 for their special work, the spirit of counsel, might and reverence of the Lord in sufficient amounts additional to the already received spirit of wisdom and understanding and knowledge, imparted to them through the Truth given before as the first part of their qualification. This would fit each one to do that particular part of the general work that Jesus needed him to perform in each application of the antitype (v. 17). Thus they would with Jesus bear the burden of the proper service on behalf of the nominal and real people of God (v. 17). This would relieve our Lord of some of the burden, resulting in His

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

35 

not bearing it alone. This certainly had its fulfillment during both Harvests and during the inter-harvest period. We have observed this as done during the Parousia and Epiphany. And the histories of brethren like St. John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Arius, Claudius of Turin, Berengar of Tours, Peter Abelard, Arnold of Brescia, Peter Waldo, Marsiglio, Occam, John Tauler, John Wyclif, John Huss, Jerome of Prague, John Wessel, etc., etc., prove that the same thing was done in the inter-harvest period. 

(31) After the Lord had told Moses what to do as to the appointment of the 70 elders, He instructed him as to what to say to the people, i.e., to sanctify [to separate] themselves for the morrow, when they would have and eat flesh. Antitypically, God instructed our Lord to tell the people who lusted for other subjects than the Truth to separate themselves unto their partaking of the errors that the Lord would permit the adversary to introduce among them. Our Lord in the Gospel Harvest did this telling, not by words, but by acts whereby He drove away from the faithful the lusters, which occurred in a sifting whereby the separation was made. This sifting was the Gospel-Harvest No-Ransomism sifting. The same was true in the Jewish Harvest No-Ransomism sifting. Similarly did our Lord by act tell the Smyrna, etc., epochs' lusters for Jewish traditionalism, heathen mythology, science, philosophy, art, history and literature, to separate themselves from the faithful, which separation was the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting. As in all siftings, this one first worked a conduct separation, then later a theory or error separation. It was the error separation that more particularly is typed by the people's eating quail flesh, while the pertinent conduct separation occurred by their misconduct with reference to the Truth. In the antitype the dissatisfaction of the people ("ye have wept in the ears of the Lord," v. 18) with the food that the Lord had provided became the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

36 

occasion of the Lord's withdrawing restraints from Satan's bringing forth deceptions among the Lord's people. And with these restraints withdrawn Satan introduced No-Ransomism errors. Just as God resented Israel's untruthfully saying that it was well with them in Egypt (v. 18), so was He displeased, in the threefold applications of the type, with the people's false act-statement that it was well with them when they were in harmony with antitypical Egypt, the present evil world, while they were therein. And as God told Fleshly Israel that He, permissively, would send them flesh, so by His acts He told antitypical Israel that He would, permissively, send (2 Thes. 2:9-11) them the errors connected with No-Ransomism in the three No-Ransomism siftings through which the Gospel Church would pass—those in the two Harvests and in the Interim between them: "ye shall eat" (v. 18). And they did. 

(32) In vs. 19, 20, the duration of such eating is stated, i.e., "a month of days," or 30 days. (See the margin.) It will be noted that six different time periods are mentioned in these verses, five of them negatively: "Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days" (v. 19), and one positively: "even a whole month," or thirty days. Antitypically, No-Ransomism would be partaken of in all of the Harvests' five siftings, the first two beginning in 33 and 1878 and the last two beginning in 63 and 1908, for in both Harvests No-Ransomism was partaken of from the first Harvests' siftings up to and throughout the Harvests' fifth sifting. This same thing appears in the partaking of the Gospel-Age's No-Ransomism errors. We are not to think that the partaking of such errors was confined to the Smyrna period. It appears in all five epochs of the Church, and this is indicated in the expression, "a whole month" (v. 20), i.e., 30 days. Let us now see how this is indicated in all three applications. Thirty is the product of 5 x 6. 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

37 

As we know, 6 is the number of evil or imperfection. In this case, error and sin, evil, are indicated. The five siftings were, each and all, evils, hence their duration may well be represented symbolically by a number symbolizing a fivefold evil. Thus the symbolic thought of the 30 days in the Harvests and in the Interim is that the evil food, error, would continue to be partaken of during five evil periods, the five sifting periods. The number 30 as touching all five of the sifting periods is by a Hebrew idiom made to include the whole of the five sifting periods in all applications. 

(33) This fact of the No-Ransomism sifting continuing in all three applications throughout the five sifting periods and not terminating with the sifting period in which it began, is something that is frequently paralleled in Biblical matters, as the following facts show. The Infidelism sifting did not cease to operate as soon as the period—hour—of its beginning ended; but it continued to operate among susceptible people throughout the following three sifting periods, as the facts of the case prove. Then, too, the Combinationism sifting did not cease to work when the period—hour—of its beginning ended; but it continued to work during the two following periods. The Reformism sifting did not cease when the hour of its beginning ended, but continued throughout the period of the following sifting. The same thing holds of the siftings of the Gospel-Age's epochs; each continued to work during the periods following its beginning period. The same principle is manifest in the working of the seven plagues of Rev. 16: each one continued to work while the following ones worked and did not cease to work when the next one began to work, i.e., each of the previous Volumes continued its plaguing work throughout the periods of the plaguing work of its succeeding Volumes. This enables us to see the fallacy of W.E. Van Amburgh, who objected to our view of the 70 of Num. 11 typing for the Gospel Harvest the 70 pilgrims,

The Parousia Messenger. 

38 

claiming that our view required the appointment of all of them during the first sifting hour, whereas facts prove that they were not all appointed during that hour, most of them coming later. Our reply is that we never said that they were then appointed, nor does our view indicate that they would then be appointed. Rather, the beginning of the appointment of pilgrims is shown in Num. 11:24-30 to precede the first sifting, and nothing in the passage indicates that they were all appointed before the first sifting's hour of beginning ended; rather, as that sifting continued after that hour ended, so, as needed, the appointment of the 70 pilgrims continued with that sifting's continuance. This disposes of his objection. 

(34) V. 20 indicates that the people would eat the flesh until they would have a most copious vomiting spell, in which the mouth would not be sufficient as an avenue of evacuation of the vomit, its exit crowding also through the nostrils. This verse also indicates that the food would become loathsome to them. It will be noted that the time of such vomiting would begin with the end of the 30 days, "month of days." Certainly with the No-Church-Sin-Offering's sifting, the revulsion at No-Ransomism's theories set in, evidenced by the fact that from that time onward until the reaping ceased these theories increasingly ceased to appeal to Truth and Nominal Church people. So, too, was it from the standpoint of the Gospel-Age picture. The vomiting of the theories contradictory of the Ransom began in the Reformation period, the Philadelphia period, and increasingly continued until 1846, when the sanctuary class was cleansed from the last of these No-Ransomism theories—human immortality. What a violent and great vomiting time the Reformation period was along all lines that impinged against the Ransom! This began first with Wessel's and then with Luther's repudiating works-justification, penances, indulgences, the merit of the saints applicable to believers,

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

39 

transubstantiation and the mass as a sacrifice for the sins of dead and living people, intercession of saints and of the Virgin for sinners, purgatorial fires and Rome's "good works" as expiatory. It was continued by Servetus' repudiation of the trinity, the God-man and the eternal torment theories, which are contradictory to the Ransom. And it was completed by the cleansed sanctuary in 1846 repudiating human immortality. But the vomiting included other than No-Ransomism theories: it included the other main errors of the papacy, the last of such vomiting spells coming in 1869 and 1870 in connection with the infallibility of the pope. In addition to its many oral discussions the vast anti-papal literature of the Reformation shows even to this day the large scale of this vomiting spell—it came up so rapidly and in such large quantities as to require as avenues of exit both the symbolic mouth and nose. 

(35) And these errors were during the Reformation period bad to the symbolic taste and smell ("until … it be loathsome unto you," v. 20). And certainly these theories, particularly those out of harmony with the Ransom, were bad to the spiritual scent; for these teachings were corrupt food, which emitted a foul smell, just as rotten natural food does. What foul odors came from the doctrines and practices of penances, confessions, indulgences, pilgrimages, expiations, masses, purgatorial fires, hell fires, etc.! How unappetizing, yea, revolting, to the spiritual palate were these and other more or less related teachings! Surely they became "loathsome" to those who were revived Spiritual Israelites in the Reformation period. No wonder that to escape these foul tastes and smells the Spiritual Israelites of those times and even Christendom's honest justified and unjustified ones were willing to endure all sorts of inconveniences, difficulties and sufferings to avoid their taste and odor! From this we may readily infer how great were the sins of the lusters in God's sight, if they moved God to give them up to such foul 

The Parousia Messenger. 

40 

symbolic foods. This sinfulness is exactly what v. 20 says ("ye have despised the Lord … have wept … saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?") is the reason why God sent during these five epochs between the Harvests the strong delusions more or less connected with Anti-Ransomism. What lessons this brings to us against inappreciation and in favor of appreciation of the Truth. We should learn these. 

(36) In vs. 21 and 22 Moses, thinking that as the Lord's executive toward Israel the food was likely to be provided by him, asks in general for information as to where he could get flesh to feed Israel's 600,000 footmen and their probably 1,400,000 others a whole month. He asks in particular whether he should slay all Israel's flocks and herds or whether all the fish of the Red Sea, near which they then were, should be gathered together. Moses' statement, especially as to the fish, implies that he doubted his, not God's ability to provide all of such food. Moses' asking for the pertinent information types our Lord's asking for the pertinent antitypical information; for He did not know where to get such a great amount of symbolic food to satisfy the appetites of the lusters during the Harvests and their Interim, which implies that our Lord is not omniscient. Seemingly, the flesh of the flocks and herds would represent religious truths, and the fish of the sea secular truths, which Jesus thought He might have to provide. Up to the involved antitypical time apparently our Lord did not know that God meant more or less error as the antitypical meat for the lusters. Hence also His particularizing things that represent religious and secular Truth. The slaying of the flocks and herds and the gathering of the fish would represent the preparing of such symbolic food for Israel. Moses' asking for information implies Jesus' lack of omniscience, which only the Father has. Of course our Lord did not doubt the Father's ability to provide such vast amounts of food; it was His own ability therefore that He

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

41 

doubted. God's asking Moses whether God's hand was shortened, i.e., whether God was limited in the exercise of His power to Moses alone as an agent (v. 23), gave Moses an intimation that God without Moses' instrumentality would see to it that His unlimited power without its usual form, Moses' executorship, would be used to arrange for meat for the lusters. Antitypically, by this question God intimates that His power was not limited to Jesus alone, His usual Arm, power Agent, but apart from Him was sufficient and would be used to arrange for the antitypical food for the antitypical lusters, and that without Jesus' instrumentality as its Agent. The following is the literal translation of the last clause of v. 23: Now shalt thou see thy experiencing [the fulfillment of] My word, though not [by thee]. The A. V. implies that Moses doubted God's power in this matter, which is not true of Moses, as the context proves, i.e., his questions of vs. 21 and 22, and of course antitypically could not be true of Jesus. Antitypically, thereby God assured Jesus that without the latter's cooperation He would see the matter done by His experiencing of God's fulfilling His pertinent promise, which He would fulfill, without Jesus' instrumentality, by removing restraints from Satan's purpose to spread errors against the Ransom. Thus He would arrange permissively through Satan's agency for the antitypical lusters to receive the mental food more or less related to No-Ransomism. Let us not forget that such Divine arranging was permissive and negative, not causal and positive. It simply removed restraints from "Satan, the old deceiver," whereby the latter obtained a measure of tolerated liberty to spread anti-Ransom theories. God, the Author of Truth, in whom is no darkness (1 John 1:5), could have had no more than a passive and non-restraining part in such a transaction. These considerations show that morally Jesus, the Truth, could not ("shortened," "though not") be the Agent to spread

The Parousia Messenger. 

42 

the involved errors as suitable mental food for the antitypical lusters, whose feeder is Satan. 

(37) The antitype of Moses' telling the people these things (v. 24) was performed by our Lord, not by words, but by acts, i.e., He let them know by the events and food of the sifting itself that they displeased God and were by Him given up to such a terrible frenzy and feast, as the No-Ransomistic and pertinent errors were. His dealing with the 70 was positive and causal, and not negative and permissive, as was His telling the above things to the antitypical people. As we saw above, the calling of the pilgrims to positions of general eldership for the Parousia occurred throughout the reaping time almost to its end; perhaps the last of these was instated into this office at least a full year before the reaping ended, Sept. 16, 1914. Moses' gathering the elders (v. 24) seems to type Jesus' manipulating providentially the experiences of the prospective pilgrims favorably for their entering the pilgrim work. His placing them about the tabernacle types our Lord's instating the pilgrims into their office as general elders, "secondarily prophets," throughout the Church. The expression, "the 70 men of the elders of the people," implies typically that there were other elders of the people, and that the 70 were promoted to be the chief elders of the people by being made their general elders, the elders of all of them, not simply of a few of them; for the successors of these 70 were later called the Sanhedrin, the elders of all the people. Antitypically, this means that the pilgrims were, generally speaking, selected from among those who had already been local elders in the ecclesias, and were promoted to general eldership, i.e., were made teachers to serve in any one of the ecclesias, and thus were not in their ministry limited to but one ecclesia, as local elders are. Thus they were elders of the general Church, and not simply of a local Church. In the Jewish Harvest the time order of the seventy's 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

43 

call was in one respect slightly different from that of the other two applications of the antitype. The 70 were provisionally selected before even the first sifting set in; but as some of these fell out others were called to fill in their places, e.g., Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Luke, Mark, etc. The reason for this difference is the following: the original 70 of the Jewish Harvest as a whole were used only as types of the Interim's and the Parousia's 70, while such of them as proved faithful and the faithful ones later called to take the unfaithful ones' places are not only types of the later two sets of 70, but are also the parallels of the second, the Parousia's, set of 70; and to work out the involved types, not parallel types, it was necessary that the original 70 be all called at once, while in the two sets of their antitypes, apart from the parallels, it was not to be a selection all at once, as the facts of these cases prove. That in all three applications there were in the finished picture 70 individuals we construe from the fact that as the 12 wells represent 12 individuals in the finished picture, Paul taking Judas' place, so the 70 palm trees would represent 70 individuals in the finished picture (Ex. 15:27). 

(38) The cloud in which the Lord came down (v. 25), as we saw in Chap. IX of Vol. VIII, represents the Truth as due. The Lord's coming down means God's pertinent activity through the Logos, through whom generally, though not exclusively, God revealed the Mosaic arrangements (Ex. 3:2; Acts 7:38, 53; Gal. 3:19). The Lord's coming down and speaking to Moses in the cloud, therefore, types Jehovah's making plain to Jesus through the Truth as due teachings with reference to the three sets of 70, i.e., those in the Harvests and in the Interim. Jehovah's taking of the spirit that was in Moses and putting it on the 70 does not mean that God lessened Moses' power by giving of that spirit, power, to the 70. Rather, it means that God gave the 70 the same kind of a power, though not the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

44 

same degree of power, as was in Moses, i.e., gave them the same kind of a general oversight over Israel as Moses had, but in a less degree, without thereby decreasing Moses' authority and power in Israel, but by the distribution easing Moses' burdens, without a power and authority decrease. The antitype, as well as the type, evidently proves this view of the matter to be correct; for Jehovah by the appointment of the three antitypical sets of 70 did not decrease Jesus' power and authority, much less take any of His holy disposition from Him. What He did was to give to them an oversight similar, not equal to that of Jesus. He gave them the office of general elders, or shepherds, of whom Jesus is the Chief (1 Pet. 5:1-4). As a part of such power were the qualifications that these three sets of 70 received, endowing them with the necessary mental, moral and religious abilities and qualities properly to discharge the functions of their office. All of this was given them as new creatures without in the least diminishing the Holy Spirit, or the holy authority and power, that Jesus had as Chief Elder or Shepherd in the Church. They did not and do not share His office; they simply shared and share His burdens in the ministry to the General Church, real and nominal (v. 17; Mic. 5:4-6). 

(39) Nor does this imply that all shared equally the Lord Jesus' burdens. In the Jewish Harvest some of the 70 labored more abundantly, widely and fruitfully than others. Among such were Apollos, Timothy and Silas, who certainly were used more by the Lord than Titus or Judas (Acts 15:22, 32). Most of us know by experience and observation that the Parousia 70 did not all share equally in the service, e.g., Bros. Benjamin Barton and John Edgar served more fruitfully than most other pilgrims. And certainly there was a difference among the 70 of the period between the Harvests. The 35 star members of that period served better than their 35 companion helpers; and among 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

45 

these 35 star-members the principal man of each of the five Interim Churches (Mic. 5:5) did a more responsible work than any of the other star members of his respective star. Again, among those who were not their five principal men some served more fruitfully than others. Certainly Luther, Zwingli and Wesley served more fruitfully than Browne, Fox or Stone. And among the 35 companion helpers there were differences in use and fruitfulness. Melanchthon, Oecolampadius and Charles Wesley, the respective companion helpers of Luther, Zwingli and John Wesley, served more widely and fruitfully than Harrison, Barclay and Thomas Campbell, the respective companion helpers of Browne, Fox and Stone. The 35 star members, and more especially the five principal men, in the Interim Churches were the special mouth, eye and hand of the Lord for their time and service, things in which their companion helpers did not share. 

(40) That the Lord gave them the position of general elders in the real Church is typed by Moses' placing the 70 around about the tabernacle (v. 24). That He made them general elders for the Church nominal is evident from the things set forth in vs. 17, 30: "they shall bear the burden of the people with thee," and "Moses gat him into the camp, he and the elders of Israel"; for, additionally to serving the real Church as typed by the last part of v. 24, these passages show that Moses and the 70 had a ministry toward the people as a whole, which types that the ministry of Jesus and the 70 was also that of a general eldership to the nominal people of God. For the finished picture, the statement of v. 25: "they prophesied, and did not cease," is especially significant. It shows that there would be 70 who would be faithful in each of the three sets of 70. This would not mean for the two Harvests that all who were ever nominated for the 70 would be faithful unto death; for the fact that in the Jewish Harvest some became of its ultimate 70 who were not called until long 

The Parousia Messenger. 

46 

after Pentecost, e.g., Timothy, Apollos, Luke, Titus, etc., while 70 were nominated to the office before Pentecost, proves that some of the original 70 lost their positions and others were later installed into their office. Again, not only the fact that there were more than 70 who were pilgrims during the Parousia, but also the fact that some of these, e.g., as Ransom and Church-Sin-offering deniers, dropped out of the Little Flock and thus lost their office among the 70, proves that not all of the pilgrims, as distinct from auxiliary pilgrims, were in the finished picture of the Parousia 70. But the statement, "and did not cease," proves that in the finished picture there would be 70 in each of the Harvests who would prove true. This proves that in each Harvest more than 70 held the office designated by the words, "secondarily prophets," though ultimately only 70 in each Harvest held the office to the end faithfully. But the facts prove that none of those nominated as the 70 of the Interim lost his place, but continued therein unto the end. If the history of the brothers that we named (most of the 35 and their companion helpers) above be examined, it will be found that every one of them was faithful, and this is likewise true of the rest of them; for none of these 70 had his place taken by another, but all of them continued therein unto death. 

(41) In vs. 26-29 a very interesting episode is introduced, that of the anointing of Eldad and Medad while they were in the camp, where they prophesied before coming up to the tabernacle to Moses and the 70, and that of an effort made to stop them, which Moses' magnanimity foiled. The camp representing the nominal people of God, the anointing of Eldad (beloved by God) and Medad (loving) in the camp, and not at the tabernacle, types the fact that their threefold antitypes would not yet be mingling among the real people of God, but among the nominal people of God, when their choice and anointing as of the general elders would 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

47 

have taken place, and that only after their anointing and prophesying for a while would they come to, and mingle among the real people of God. In The Present Truth, No. 1, we pointed out the Parousia Eldad and Medad; and in sufficient details we pointed out the latter's anointing for general eldership before he came to study the Parousia literature or mingle among the Parousia Church; so we need say no more here on the subject than to point out how Bro. Russell was anointed before he came among the brethren of the cleansed sanctuary. His anointing was a longer-drawn-out affair than that of the Parousia Medad, which lasted about 2½ months before he began to prophesy in the camp for a few months, while that of the Parousia Eldad lasted about two years before he began to prophesy in the camp. The explanation that we will give further on of how Bro. Russell got the Truth from about the Fall of 1870 to that of 1874 will in reality be an explanation of his anointing while in the camp. The last part of that anointing occurred in Oct., 1874, when the Lord clarified to him the manner of our Lord's return. But before it was completed he began to prophesy in the camp—among the nominal people of God, first orally, then by his tract on, The Object And Manner of Our Lord's Return, which he published in 1875, while it was in 1876 that he as antitypical Eldad came up to the antitypical Tabernacle—the cleansed sanctuary. Thus the latter's pertinent anointing and prophesying in the camp were much longer drawn out than those of the former. Bro. Russell's whole course as a pilgrim proves that he was Eldad, beloved by God for his loyalty. 

(42) But who were the Eldad and Medad of the Jewish Harvest? We understand they were Paul and Apollos. Paul was converted before he came in among the real people of God (Acts 9:1-6); and Jesus' statement (Acts 9:11, 12) that Paul was praying and that he was by God granted a second vision imply, in 

The Parousia Messenger. 

48 

connection with his zealous and frank character, both his anointing and prophesying in the camp; for how after such experiences stated in vs. 3-12 could he with his zeal and candor have kept from telling of the Lord Jesus' dealings with him? His coming up to the antitypical Tabernacle is shown in vs. 17-19. His whole life proves that he was beloved by God—Eldad. Apollos' anointing in the camp is expressly implied in his preaching while yet among Nominal Israel; and it directly proves his prophesying in the camp (Acts 18:24-26), as vs. 26-28 prove his afterward coming up to the antitypical Tabernacle, i.e., coming among the real people of God. And his being a loving brother (Medad—loving) is evidenced not only by Acts 18:24-28, but by his subsequent ministry, for in spirit, word and work, he was doubtless St. Paul's most efficient helper, according to the references made to him in the epistles. Indeed, he was so proficient and efficient that against his will some of the carnally weak brethren placed him sectarianly above Paul as a servant of the Truth (1 Cor. 1:12, 13; 3:3-9, 22, 23). Both of these worthy brothers were without envy of one another, in spite of the sectarianism of some dividing them as between these, Apollos always regarding Paul as his superior in the Lord; and Paul's attitude toward Apollos is beautifully set forth in 1 Cor. 4:1-15, where he couples Apollos with himself in describing their joint services of the Corinthian brethren. See also in 1 Cor. 3:4-10 a testimony pointing out their similar and different services. St. Paul's subsequent references to Apollos are all complimentary and show their oneness of spirit (1 Cor. 16:12; Tit. 3:13), as is shown in 1 Cor. 3:8. 

(43) Who were the Eldad and Medad of the Interim—the time between the two Harvests? John, the Apostle, was its Eldad; and John Wessel, the principal man of the Philadelphia Church, was its Medad. A number of facts prove of John that he was the Eldad of the period between the Harvests: (1) His separation

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

49 

to, and empowerment with, the apostolate before Pentecost, before he could have been brought to the Church, is in line with this thought (Matt. 10:1, 5-8; Mark 3:13-15; Luke 6:12, 13; 9:1, 2). While this consideration would no more prove that John was the Eldad of the Interim than it would that any other Apostle was, it proves of him that he, as well as they, received the anointing before they came up to the Tabernacle, since there was no antitypical Tabernacle as yet. But the following reasons, connected with the one just given, do prove it: (2) He was the only Apostle, so far as we know, who lived after 70 A. D., i.e., who lived during the Interim. (3) As an Apostle, of course, he, like the two Harvests' Eldads, of necessity was the most important man of his special period, the Interim. (4) His writings, as inspired and as especially fundamental for the Smyrna and Pergamos periods; all produced after 70 A. D., prove him to be the principal man of the Smyrna period. (5) He was the beloved disciple, a title given in his writings, which prove him to be beloved of God (Eldad). (6) The extra-Biblical accounts of him, handed down to us, like his conflicts with Cerinthus and other Gnostics, are in line with this thought. (7) His Biblical writings are not only a protest against the main errors of the entire Gospel Age and an inculcation of truths pertinent to the entire Gospel Age, but in the book of Revelation a history of the Church in its relations to itself and its conflicts with the world is given, which proves him to be the chief teacher of the Interim, hence its Eldad. Of course, it is self-evident that John, as the only Apostle living in the Interim, would be its Eldad. Hence we may be confident that we stand on Truth grounds when we hold him to be the Interim's Eldad. 

(44) While the evidence is not so strong that John Wessel is the Medad of the Interim, it is still strong enough for an intelligent faith, for: (1) Undoubtedly, next to St. John, John Wessel was used by the Lord to 

The Parousia Messenger. 

50 

give the most important truths of the Interim, the foundation truths of the Philadelphia Church: (a) The Bible is the sole source and rule of faith and practice; (b) Jesus is the sole Head of the Church; (c) Justification is by faith alone; (d) Only the truly consecrated, and all of them, are priests of God; (e) The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper symbolize the humanity and life of the Christ, Head and Body, given up unto death for the world; (f) Future probation awaits the non-elect world of mankind; and (g) Joint-heirship in the Kingdom with Christ is the hope of the Church. (2) He was the principal man of the most important epoch of the Interim, the Philadelphia Church. (3) His character was of a most loving (Medad) and humble kind. (4) He was one of the ablest scholars and most accurate reasoners of all the star members of the Interim. (5) His ability at harmonizing apparent contradictions in the Bible was so superior to that of others as to make his contemporaries call him the master of contradictions, and his intimates call him the light of the world. (6) His great humility, e.g., it was so great that when Pope Sixtus IV, who had been a pupil of his, and who invited him as his teacher to visit him at the Vatican, offered to give him anything that he desired, he asked for a manuscript of the Hebrew Old Testament and of the Greek New Testament and persisted in his request to the pope's disgust, who urged him to ask to be made a cardinal, as the greatest gift within the pope's power to bestow, but he could not persuade him to accept even an ordination to the priesthood. (7) His ministry through his writings, preachings, teachings and conversations fully measure up to those to be expected of an antitypical Medad. Luther, who did not become acquainted with his writings until after he, himself, had become world-renowned as a reformer, remarked that had he read Wessel's writings before he became a reformer, so much was he (Wessel) like him (Luther) in spirit, that the world would have 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

51 

said that he had gotten his views from Wessel. Luther was the first one to publish a miscellany of Wessel's writings, from which he excluded Wessel's treatise on the Lord's Supper, because it rejected not only transubstantiation, which Luther also rejected, but also instrumentalization, which Luther accepted, and all other forms of the so-called real presence in the Lord's Supper. It was before Wessel came among the real people of God and while he was yet a professor in the Heidelberg University that he received his share in the anointing, preached in the antitypical camp, and later came among the real people of God in the Netherlands, to which he fled from the persecuting Inquisition at Heidelberg. 

(45) From the fact that the 70 prophets that Jesus sent out were different men altogether from the 12 Apostles (Luke 10:1), and from the fact that Sts. Paul and John, two of the three Eldads, were of the Twelve, we are not to infer that they are in the antitypes to be considered among the Jewish Harvest's and the Interim's 70. In the type there were only 70 elders taken, Eldad and Medad being two of the 70 typical elders (vs. 16, 24-26). These did not number 72, as Jewish and Romanist writers varyingly claim, the former calling these the Sanhedrin, of which they claim Moses and Aaron were ex-officio members, and of which Israel's high priests were always members; and the latter calling them the college of cardinals, which, when full, numbers 72. But we are to understand that in the Jewish Harvest, beside St. Paul, and in the interim, beside St. John, there were 70 "secondarily prophets," respectively. But from this fact we are not to infer that in addition to Bro. Russell as a pilgrim there were 70 other pilgrims in the finished picture of the Gospel Harvest 70; for as a pilgrim he was the antitype of Eldad and one of the 70, but was not as Eldad that Servant. Bro. Russell, as that Servant (antitypical Eleazar), was the parallel of the 12 Apostles

The Parousia Messenger. 

52 

and not of St. Paul alone, and therefore as that Servant is not paralleled with St. Paul as an antitypical Eldad, nor did he as such correspond with St. John as an antitypical Eldad. From the fact that the 70 were sent out by twos (Luke 10:1), and from the fact that Sts. Paul and John as antitypical Eldads of their special times did not belong to the respective 70 of their pertinent times, we infer that they did not have companion helpers, else there would have been 71 secondarily prophets among these respective prophets. 

(46) The fact that Bro. Russell, as one person, functioned as that Servant and also as one of the 70 pilgrims ("secondarily prophets") effected it that in the Gospel Harvest it was not necessary to have 70 pilgrims beside Bro. Russell, as was the case in the Jewish Harvest beside St. Paul and in the Interim beside St. John. However, we do not arrive at these conclusions as Jewish and Romanist writers do theirs on 72 sanhedrists and cardinals; for they have known nothing about the threefold antitypes of the 70 and the relations of the three antitypical Eldads to these. The silence of the Scriptures on Moses and Aaron being of the 70, the fact that the 70 were chosen to be Moses' assistants and not members of a body with him as a member, and the fact that Joshua, as Moses' successor, was mentioned as separate and distinct from the 70 elders (Jud. 2:7), sufficiently disprove the Jewish and Romanist view. Their use of v. 25 ("set the 70 about the tabernacle") as a proof that Eldad and Medad were two beside the 70, is refuted by the following considerations: (1) In the finished picture Eldad and Medad were later set there; (2) God expressly limited the number to 70 (v. 16); (3) In the first of the antitypes the Bible proves that there were only 70 "secondarily prophets" (Luke 10:1); (4) In the Interim antitype facts prove that there were only 70 "secondarily prophets"; (5) While in every case we cannot yet point out the 70 "secondarily prophets" of the Gospel Harvest as

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

53 

exclusive of auxiliary pilgrims, we believe that this will yet be the case; (6) The fact that in the Millennium there will be 70 elders as distinct from the two spiritual classes and the Millennial Eleazars and Ithamars (Ex. 24:1, 9) is in line with this fact, as well as the 70 palm trees as separate from the 12 wells of Ex. 15:27; and (7) The number 70 in vs. 24, 25, can well be regarded as referring to the official body of elders as a whole without necessarily meaning every member of it, even as St. Paul says that Jesus appeared to the official body, as of the 12, but 11 were present (1 Cor. 15:5). 

(47) Vs. 27-29 give us an interesting episode full of human nature and of Divinely wrought magnanimity. The young man that ran to Moses with the intelligence of Eldad's and Medad's prophesying in the camp would have made a first-rate reporter of a modern newspaper in his quick news-gathering, reporting activity and gossipy eagerness. Joshua's busybodying and envy are characteristic of young, aspiring and advancing leaders, while Moses' magnanimity manifests the beauty, nobility and graciousness of the godly character in a Divinely pleasing and mature leader. These three find their antitypes in the three applications of the type being made in this chapter. In the Jewish Harvest's application the antitype is more clearly seen in the case of Paul than in that of Apollos. By what is written in, and by what the type warrants us to read between, the lines of Acts 9:19-27, we can discern that some of the brethren were quick to spread the news of his preaching to the Jews, and that not only the fear of all actually mentioned, but the busybodying and envy of others can readily be imagined as most natural under the circumstances. Our Lord's beautiful, noble and gracious answer given providentially through His blessing St. Paul's concurrent ministry and verbally through Barnabas' and the Apostles' noble reception of him, is full of Jesus' spirit of magnanimity. In the sectarian partisanship of some Ephesian and Corinthian brethren we are 

The Parousia Messenger. 

54 

doubtless to look for the news gathering and spreading of some and the busybodying of others; and in St. Paul's inspired magnanimous discussion of the pertinent situation at Corinth we are to recognize Jesus' pertinent magnanimity as typed by that of Moses (1 Cor. 1:11-13; 3:1-4:21). In the case of St. John as the Interim's Eldad, as we found his pertinent anointing and prophesying to have occurred between Jordan and Pentecost, we are to see the antitype of vs. 27-29 in the same period. We are warranted in believing that the news gatherer and spreader were some gossipy half-disciples of Jesus who brought to Him and to the antitypical Joshua of that time the news of John's preaching on the tour referred to in Matt. 10:1-4, and described in Luke 9:1-6, 10. Who was the antitypical Joshua of the St. John antitype? If we remember that until the vail of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom at Jesus' death (Matt. 27:51) in symbolization of the end of the Divine sanction on the Mosaic priesthood, temple service and 70 elders as sitting in Moses' seat, and that up to that time the scribes and Pharisees did sit in Moses' seat, unto whom Jesus commanded obedience as such (Matt. 23:2, 3), we will find in them the Joshua that, among other disciples, busybodied and envied against the Interim Eldad; for repeatedly did they do this against the 12, thus against John. 

(48) Jesus' magnanimity thereat, in wishing all the Lord's people to be prophets, showed itself not only in defending the disciples and thus John, but in sending out 70 others (Luke 10:1-6) and in commissioning the entire Church to herald the Gospel (Matt. 28:18-20). Moreover, the question, "Enviest thou for my sake?" is at the same time an accusation of the guilt of envy in each pertinent antitypical Joshua, which the above illustrations abundantly confirm. The antitypical lad that was the gossipy news gatherer and spreader was the Inquisition at Heidelberg, which, while he was a 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

55 

professor at the Heidelberg University, late in 1478 began to collect evidence against John Wessel as a heretic and moved to apprehend him. Learning of this in time, he wrote to Bishop David, of Utrecht, Holland, asking for refuge and defense from him against the Inquisition, who, as a pupil of Wessel, heartily granted his request. This estopped the bloody plan of the Heidelberg Inquisition, which could function in a diocese only at its bishop's sanction. Wessel, early in April, 1479, escaped in secret from Heidelberg, spending the rest of his life in Holland. Learning of his escape, the Inquisition reported the matter to the Romanist clergy, who sat in Christ's seat until 1878, and thus was for Wessel the busybodying and envious Joshua; but by emphasizing, first through Wessel and then through the other Reformers, etc., the priesthood of all the consecrated, as one of the four chief doctrines of the Reformation (1 Pet. 2:5, 9), and, secondly, in rebuking the clergy's envy, Jesus gave His answer antitypical of that of Moses. The Gospel-Harvest's Eldad began to prophesy in the camp at the earliest as early as Oct., 1872; and at the latest as late as in 1876. Especially on account of the circulation of his tract on, The Object and Manner of our Lord's Return, gossipy laymen (the lad) reported this to the envious clergy (Joshua), who, sitting in Christ's seat until April, 1878, sought to secure the Lord's stopping of his pertinent activity. Frequently, this envy was by our Lord rebuked and His magnanimity was evidenced not only by continuing and increasing the ministry of the Gospel Harvest's Eldad, but by emphasizing through one of the Truth's teachings the priesthood of all the consecrated and sending all of these into the Harvest work, and by making as many of them as possible orators (prophets) proclaiming in discourses the Lord's gracious Harvest Message. 

(49) Before the Gospel Harvest's Medad had begun to study the Dawns and while he was yet a minister in 

The Parousia Messenger. 

56 

the Lutheran Church, he began, in the Spring of 1903, to proclaim some of the truths that he had received in his anointing. This fact and his expulsion from his pulpit for such preaching was given wide publicity in the American press all over the U.S. His resuming his public preaching just five weeks later than this expulsion and that at the vote of the Columbus, Ohio, Ecclesia, was again given wide newspaper publicity. This and some member of the Columbus Ecclesia reporting such activity to the Allegheny Bible House, while Bro. Russell was absent on an European pilgrim trip, occasioned some of the responsible brethren there to write a rebuking letter to the Columbus Ecclesia, asking them to discontinue encouraging and cooperating with such a novice in such a work. Thus the Associated Press and at least one member of the Columbus, Ohio, Ecclesia proved to be the Gospel-Harvest's gossipy lad for its Medad; and some of the leading brethren at the Bible House who in Bro. Russell's absence represented him, the special one that sat in Christ's seat, proved to be the Joshua for the Gospel-Harvest's Medad. Jesus rebuked this Joshua's busybodying and envy through emboldening the Columbus Ecclesia to refuse to follow the advice of that Joshua, and not only in continuing this Medad in unofficial pilgrim service right along, but in bringing him into the official pilgrim service just a year to a day (May 1, 1904) from the day he renounced the Lutheran Church, May 1, 1903. Moreover, that year witnessed a large increase in the Harvest workers, who from that time forward ever continued to increase until the climax of the reaping work was reached in 1914. Thus our Lord rebuked the Gospel Harvest's Joshua as to its Medad and showed His magnanimity antitypical of that of Moses' expressed in v. 29. 

(50) The statement of v. 30 is certainly remarkable as a terse type of events of large antitypical application. Such betaking of themselves, on the part of Jesus 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

57 

and the 70, into the camp of the Jewish Harvest occurred in the work toward the public throughout the Jewish Harvest: Jesus doing His part therein in His personal ministry and in that of the 12 Apostles from Jordan onward, and the 70 doing their part in their ministry beginning from the time of Luke 10:1-6, 9, such ministry lasting until 69 A.D. The records of part of these ministries are in part given in the New Testament. The antitype of v. 30 for the Interim occurred in the public activities of Jesus in all His real people of that period and in the public activities of the 35 star members and in those of their companion helpers; and this was by far a larger work than that done in the Jewish Harvest; for it covered all the public work of the five Interim Churches, which combined did a much larger work than the other two Churches did, though in proportion to the 80 years allotted to the reaping work of these two Churches and the 1805 years allotted to the work of the other five Churches, the latter did much less than the former. The antitype of v. 30 for the Gospel Harvest showed itself in the reaping done from 1874 to 1914. During those 40 years there was a larger and more fruitful public work done by Jesus acting in all the Parousia Priesthood and by the 70 pilgrims than was ever done during any other 40 years of the Gospel Age. When we consider the number of the workers and of the agencies therein employed and the numbers reached and helped thereby, we believe the truthfulness of this statement will be manifest to all. There were over 75,000 different consecrated people who took part in this work, over 2,500 of whom were public speakers. In all, perhaps 10,000 persons took part in the colporteur and sharp-shooting work. In all, probably 65,000 took part, more or less, in the volunteer work. In all, between 4,000 and 5,000 newspapers published Bro. Russell's sermons and reports of Pilgrim talks. In the conversational part of the work not only the 75,000 above-mentioned persons 

The Parousia Messenger. 

58 

shared, but many thousands of other interested persons. Thousands shared in the newspaper, photodrama and correspondence work; other thousands in the Tower and Dawn circulating, the follow-up work and the public meeting advertising work. All of this was the antitype of Moses' and the elders' going into the camp (v. 30). 

(51) Foregoing we have studied the preliminaries of the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting, whose description proper comes in vs. 31-35. This we will now briefly study in its chief aspects, and that comparatively. The wind spoken of in v. 31 represents a controversy—a verbal war—resulting from the Truth proclamation going forth and Satan setting up opposition to it. It can therefore be appropriately spoken of as coming from the Lord. As a result of, and amid this controversy, the Lord removed the barriers that hitherto prevented Satan from presenting anti-Ransom theories (the quails) among the Lord's people, real and nominal. We saw in Chap. II of Vol. V what forms these antitypical quails took in the No-Ransomism of the Gospel Harvest. In the Jewish Harvest they assumed the betraying forms of Judas' activities, the murderous and doctrinal forms of the Jewish clergy, the crucifixion forms of the Romans and the philosophical forms of the Greeks. A little later on we will describe those of the Interim's No-Ransomism. The very great numbers of the quails (within and about 15 miles on each side of the camp) type the very numerous forms of No-Ransomism during all three pertinent periods. Their flying only two cubits above the earth [the rendering of al (v. 31) should here be above, not upon, as in the A. V.] types the easy reach within which these No-Ransom theories would come to the people. These No-Ransom theories affected the consecrated, the justified and the unjustified of God's people in all three applications of the sifting; and even those beyond the camp. As in the two Harvests, so in

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

59 

the Interim, beginning in the Smyrna period, some of these theories were a direct straightforward denial that we are bought by the precious blood of Christ; for some of both Jewish and Gentile consecrated, justified and unjustified professors of Christianity ("the people stood up, etc.,"—v. 32) directly renounced the Ransom, denying totally that Jesus' humanity and life were a purchase price, a substitute, for Adam and his race. Then, too, this was done indirectly, i.e., while professing to hold to the Ransom, doctrines that logically contradict it were set forth as Scriptural teachings and were very widely received by consecrated justified and unjustified professors of Christianity. Then, too, systems of doctrines almost totally alien and throughout contradictory to the Ransom were set up as the real teachings of Christ and were received by multitudes of consecrated, justified and unjustified professors of Christianity. As the following four Interim periods came successively, errors as against the Ransom grew more and more. What such were we need not give here, as a long list of them was given above in its proper place. 

(52) We will now give a few details on some of these No-Ransom doctrines and movements. No-Ransomism as a direct denial that we are bought with the precious blood of Christ arose, first of all, among many Jewish Christians who were called Elkesaites, and who not only directly denied the purchase of all by Christ's sacrifice, but who looked upon Jesus as a sinner, descendent through both Joseph and Mary from Adam and making great endeavors to overcome His sinfulness, whereby He furnished an example to all on overcoming. They became in their later representatives doubtful if He was the Messiah, even in their diluted sense of the word. Finally, they insisted on the obligatoriness of the Law upon all who would be saved. Thus they ceased to be Christians at all. Another group of Jewish Christians, called the Ebionites, the poor, 

The Parousia Messenger. 

60 

the pious, indirectly denied the Ransom, i.e., while they continued to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and as such was the Son of God as well as the Son of man, they nevertheless held the thought that to be saved a Jew must keep the Law of Moses. Again, not a few of Gentile professed Christians from various heathen philosophical standpoints, especially that of Neo-platonism, directly denied the Ransom—as "to the Greeks, foolishness." Then, consecrated, justified and unjustified professed Christians introduced and accepted during this period the three chief anti-Ransom doctrines of professed Orthodoxy: trinity, human immortality and eternal torment—all of which logically deny the Ransom. Justin Martyr, a Platonic philosopher converted to Christianity, seems first to have introduced from his Platonism into Christianity the ideas of human immortality and eternal torment and the first tendencies toward the trinity. Later in the Smyrna period these errors were deepened and broadened, and in the following four Church epochs were elaborated into various details and embellished by concordant errors, like purgatory, mass, etc. Origenes gave the first clear impetus to the trinity in that he taught the God-man theory as implying the eternal generation of the Logos. Dionesius of Rome, 267 A.D. (a pope), invented the theory of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father, and Athanasius of Alexandria, that of the Son's equality with the Father. During the Smyrna period some began to stress the Holy Spirit as a third person in God, though the doctrine was not officially proclaimed until at the Constantinople Council in 381, i.e., in the Pergamos period. As the Interim wore on more and more were these three and other related anti-Ransom doctrines elaborated and embellished, until they received their completion during the Philadelphia period. 

(53) Early during the Smyrna period, Gnosticism and, somewhat later in this period, Manichaeism, a 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

61 

child of Gnosticism, as anti-Ransom theories, prevailed. These in the early Interim played a part similar to Evolutionism in the Gospel Harvest, though they did not continue to the end of the Interim as did Evolutionism as to the Gospel Harvest. Gnosticism is a compound of the heathen doctrines of India, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, of Jewish and of Christian ideas. It taught that the supreme God was unknown and unknowable, that He caused to emanate from Himself good qualities that developed into personal spirit beings, of whom there were thirty, and whom they called Aeons. Christ, they claimed, was one of the highest of these. Yet, lower than these was one who was not a pure spirit, but who was what they called soulical also, and who was the so-called Demiurg, whom Gnostics identified with the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Creator of the heavens and earth. This Demiurg, they say, made the mistake of creating the universe out of matter which, according to them, is essentially evil. He further made the mistake of taking some of the light substance or spirit and uniting it with earth matter, from which he made man. According to Gnosticism, both spirit and matter are from eternity, and thus they taught the eternal existence of good and evil. Demiurg's mistake they taught resulted in the necessity of delivering the spirits from their natural bodies, which Gnosticism undertakes to do by its science (gnosis, Greek for science), so called (1 Tim. 6:20), and asceticism. They claim that humans are of three kinds: spiritual, soulical and fleshly. For the latter there is no hope; hence they must be annihilated. For the soulical (psychical) there is a partial hope—they may attain a position just outside of the pleroma (literally, fullness) which is the abode of the Supreme God and the 30 Aeons, while the pneumatics (spirituals), who alone are capable of real gnosis, will be admitted into the pleroma. The great task, then, is to overcome matter—the body. In addition to the help 

The Parousia Messenger. 

62 

that they got from gnosis, they got rid of matter by avoiding, as far as possible, all contacts with it, i.e., mortified it by celibate lives and abstinence from meats, wines, coarser foods, and by partaking of the finer vegetables and vegetable oils only, though some of the Gnostics claimed that the best way to mortify the flesh was to indulge in all its propensities until one was utterly disgusted with it and would have no more of it. Thus they indulged in the worst debauchery, gluttony, drunkenness, etc. There were many sects among them; and almost everywhere there was a Gnostic Church alongside of a Christian Church. 

(54) Their doctrine of salvation was therefore one of works and of necessity denied the Ransom, for which such a system could have no use. Their doctrine of Christ and Jesus was a peculiar one and was subversive of the Ransom. With their soulical Demiurg gnosis was impossible, so he, thinking himself to be the Supreme God, thought out a way of helping Israel, who also were only soulical. They taught a heavenly Christ, one of the highest Aeons, and a heavenly Jesus, who was not so high as an Aeon. They also taught an earthly Christ and an earthly Jesus, who was the one born of Mary. At Jesus' baptism the heavenly Jesus united Himself with the earthly Jesus, whereby arose Jesus Christ, who was to be the Savior of the pneumatical (spiritual), as well as the psychical (soulical) among men. But since matter is the seat of evil, they taught that Jesus actually did not assume a real body, but a make-believe body. Nor did He really die; for they taught that the heavenly Jesus forsook the earthly Jesus as He came to the cross, and that it was only a make-believe body that was nailed to the cross, and that its death was only a make-believe death. Jesus Christ, therefore, is not a Ransomer, but a teacher who reveals gnosis to the pneumatical as the power of salvation, and is an example to them in the way of asceticism, whereby they will be saved. Demiurg, and not 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

63 

so much Jesus Christ, does his best to save the psychical (soulical) and brings the obedient of them to the frontiers of the pleroma, where he also must remain with them. This is the scheme of salvation according to Gnosticism, which was an extreme danger to the Smyrna Church; and it took the strong efforts of Irenaeus, a star member of the Smyrna Church, of Tertullian, his companion helper, and of Hippolytus, a very learned Christian scholar, through voice and pen, with the cooperation of many others, to destroy its influence in the Christian Church. During the third century under these hard blows it died a deserved death, and was resuscitated in Manichaeism, which in the fifth century was destroyed, especially through Augustine's mighty arguments; but, of course, other forms of No-Ransomism arose, not the least of which was Mohammedanism, which appeared in the Pergamos period. 

(55) The arising of the people (v. 32) represents their antitypes in the three applications turning their eager and responsive attention to No-Ransomistic theories. Their gathering the quails for 36 hours (all that day, all that night and all the next day), 36 being the product of six multiplied by itself, types the utter, the complete evil of the No-Ransomistic course of their antitypes while it lasted. Certainly, the great evil of the No-Ransomers in all three applications is evident from the facts of the case, even if we had not the time duration of 36 hours in the type to suggest it. The people's gathering the quails types in all three applications their collecting the No-Ransomistic theories and arguments, i.e., giving their mental efforts to a grasping and alleged proving of these theories. This doubtless required much time and mental effort, e.g., the mastery of the philosophical theories of the Greeks in their anti-Ransomistic aspects, or of the theories of the Jewish scribes, in the Jewish Harvest, must have taken considerable of zealous effort and mental strength. The same is true of the various No-Ransomistic theories set

The Parousia Messenger. 

64 

afloat during the Gospel Harvest, like its various universalistic, infidelistic, evolutionistic and materialistic theories, and other No-Ransomistic theories, like Christian Science, New Thought, Unity, Spiritism, Hindooism, etc., to all of which various and large numbers gave much eager and careful study. The same is true of the people's study of the Interim's Hebraistic, Gnostic, Manichaeistic, Neo-platonistic, Greco-Romanistic, Mohammedanistic, Unitario-Universalistic No-Ransomistic theories. The least gathering ten homers, 860 gallons, is symbolic. The Hebrew homer was their largest dry and liquid measure; the number 10 is that of full human and spiritual (not Divine) capacity. The thought is that the No-Ransomers gathered as many No-Ransomistic theories and as much of each of them as human and demonic ingenuity could invent pertinent to the three applications under study. Especially is this true of the Interim's and the Gospel Harvest's No-Ransomistic theories, as can be seen from a consideration of their chief forms given above. The people's spreading the quails (v. 32) all abroad round about the camp types the vast widespread and thorough propaganda work in favor of No-Ransomism, whereby they sought to entrap everybody in the antitypical camp in each of the three applications. Their doing this for themselves (v. 32) types the selfishness and self-seeking of the No-Ransomers. 

(56) The fact that before the flesh was bitten, while it was yet between the people's teeth, the Lord's wrath expressed itself by a plague, types the fact that before the No-Ransomistic theories were masticated the Lord's wrath gave up the antitypical people of all three applications to the loss of the Truth and its spirit and to the evil mind and heart characteristic of No-Ransomism (a very great plague). As a literal plague effects bodily pains and wastings and bad feelings in the natural heart and faulty reasoning and flighty imaginations in the natural mind, so God uses plagues to

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

65 

symbolize the sorrows and the loss of the Truth and its spirit and the evil mental and heart conditions that arise in sifters and siftlings. Just as plague-stricken people are in pain and waste away in their bodies and imagine, think and utter the most nonsensical and illogical thoughts, so do plague-stricken sifters and siftlings experience serious loss of the Truth and its spirit and imagine and think the most foolish and nonsensical things. How manifest this is as to the nonsensical and illogical thoughts of such sifters and siftlings in all three applications of this No-Ransomism type, the mere mention of the above systems of error pertinent to their respective applications would suggest to us. E.g., what we said on Gnosticism above certainly shows the wild and flighty imaginations and foolish and illogical reasonings of the Gnostic sifters and siftlings; and what we said on the matters of their conduct proves the sorrows and loss of the Truth and its spirit and the bad heart condition to which Gnosticism as a symbolic plague led its votaries. Doubtless most of us have had contacts with Gospel-Harvest No-Ransomism sifters and siftlings and from them have recognized their sorrows, loss of the Truth and its spirit and imaginational and reasoning aberrations. And those who have had much personal contact with them know something of their blasphemous sentiments, their ungrateful and inappreciative hearts, their treasonable conduct and their self-centered designs. While 2 Tim. 3:1-9 describes all five classes of the respective Parousia and Epiphany sifters, the worst of these in head and heart are the No-Ransomism sifters. The unholy head and heart qualities that St. Paul in this Scripture ascribes to them not only describe them accurately as sifters in head and heart, but give us an accurate description of the antitypical five plagues, in all of which more or less of these evil head and heart qualities appear. How unutterably terrible is such an antitypical plague: self-lovers, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,

The Parousia Messenger. 

66 

unpersuaded as their parents, unthankful, unholy, unnaturally affectioned, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, harsh, unappreciative, traitors, heady, high minded, pleasure-lovers, hypocritical, formalists, cunning, fruitlessly studious, Truth-opponents, corrupt in their minds, Truth-repudiators and Truth-repudiated teachers of folly, and publicly exposed errorists! "O my soul, come thou not into their secret; unto their assembly, my honor, be thou not united" (Gen. 49:6). Truly, "He gave them the desire of their hearts, but sent leanness into their soul" (Ps. 106:15). 

(57) The calling of the place where they buried the lusters Kibroth-hattaavah (graves of the lust) types naming the condition into which the antitypical lusters were mentally put by those who overcame the sifting and its plaguesome mind and heart. That condition was a grave to the standing that the lusters once had before the Lord. Some of them died as crown-retainers and were symbolically buried in the condition of crown-losers. Some of the latter died as crown-losers and were symbolically buried in the Second Death condition. Some of the sifters and siftlings (in the Gospel Harvest) died as Youthful Worthies and were buried in the tentatively justified condition. Some of them died as tentatively justified and were buried in the antitypical camp conditions. And some of the campers died as such and were buried in the condition of the heathen world. Yea, so was antitypical Kibroth-hattaavah in all three applications. The process of symbolically burying such was to the survivors a most painful thing, even as the surviving relatives, particularly the family relatives, in the earthly relations mourn at the death and funeral of their earthly relations. By experience many of us know of these sorrows. But, as indicated in Lev. 10:6, 7, this mourning in the Priesthood should not take on the forms antitypically forbidden: (1) uncovering the heads—Jesus

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

67 

must not therein cast off God's headship and the Church therein must not cast off Jesus' headship; (2) rending the garments—Jesus and the Church therein must not do injury to their official powers and spiritual graces; and (3) leaving the Tabernacle—Jesus and the Church therein must not give up their Priestly service and follow the castaways in their evil course. The end of the antitypical lusting experience is typed by the people's journeying away from Kibroth-hattaavah; and the progress of their journey onward to Hazeroth represents progress in grace, knowledge and service, preparatory for the trying experiences typed by their abiding at Hazeroth, which, as our study of Num. 12 will show, types the trialsome experiences of the Lord's people with sectarianism, large and small—Hazeroth (villages) typing such, since many villages combined make a city, a sectarian religious government, and each one separately a small sect. 

(58) We have now finished our study of Num. 11. By this study we have learned, among other things, that God in the Biblical types has, among other things, given us a prophetic forecast of matters of Church history. Further typical studies will show us that God in the types has given us a complete history of the true Church, of the nominal Church and of their varied contacts with one another and with other institutions in the world. For the most part, Church history as set forth by Church historians traces the history of the nominal Church and gives us relatively little of that of the true Church. But when we understand the Church historical types, we learn to look for events in Church history that touch on the real, as well as the nominal Church; and thus we get an accurate understanding of the history of the real people of God. This knowledge enables us to set aside the many misrepresentations that the real people and servants of God have suffered at the hands of the nominal people of God, and to recover the true history of God's people from among the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

68 

accumulations of the nominal church's historians on Church history, as well as to trace the real course of events of God's people. To learn these three things is one of our purposes in our typical studies, especially of Numbers, and we will be proportionately blessed by such study properly made, especially as a needed preparation for the proper understanding of the book of Revelation. The Lord bless to us the study of His Word in all its parts, and thus in its typical parts. 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) Among other things, what was treated in the chapter, Calls-Siftings-Slaughter-Weapons? To what other harvest siftings does 1 Cor. 10:5-14 refer, according to St. Paul? What other application was made of these siftings in our treatise? What has experience shown as to their Epiphany occurrences? Their Harvests? In what other two periods may they be expected to occur? What application of them does St. Paul give, and what application of them does he not give us in 1 Cor. 10:5-14? How do we know this? Where does he give the Gospel-Age application? How does his treatment of them in Heb. 3:7-4:3 differ from that in 1 Cor. 10:5-14? 

(2) What basis does St. Paul in Heb. 3 lay for this Gospel-Age application? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? Of what does he show that the 40-years day of temptation was a type? What does he there show as to the type and antitype of the involved Israels? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? How does St. Paul treat these, type and antitype, in this section? In contrast with what? What facts warrant the conclusion that there were five siftings between the Harvests? What confirms this conclusion? 

(3) What three things corroborate it? What are the five siftings' errors? For what do these considerations prepare us? When did the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting occur? Where, like its counterfeit, is it typed? What will be done with Num. 11:1-35? As to what? Why? 

(4) Of what else, beside the No-Ransomism siftings, does Num. 11 treat? Why? Of what is this true? What is typed in vs. 1-3? Why will the pertinent Harvest sifting also be given in this study? How does the Imp. Ver. give the opening clause of v. 1? For the Gospel-Age

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

69 

Harvest what do these three verses type? By what was it paralleled? Who were at that time sifted out of the cleansed sanctuary? Why did they murmur? What Chronological disappointments became the occasion thereto? What made uncertainty as to 1843 or 1844 in the Second Advent movement? What mistake of Bro. Miller's did later brethren correct? Why were they uncertain as between 1873 and 1874? 

(5) What failed to set in in 1873 and in 1874? What effect did these four disappointments have on some Adventists? What did this prompt some to do thereover? How did this affect God? What, accordingly, did He do? In what did this result? To whom? How is this shown in the type? What three classes did it affect? How? What two effects did this have on the more faithful? As to action, who were these faithful? In person who were some of them? What is typed by Moses' praying to the Lord to quench the fire? How did the Lord's answer come, in type and antitype? What did it effect? What is typed by the people's calling the place Taberah? How are we to understand the typical and antitypical sifting as coming? 

(6) What was the period of the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting? When and by what events did that period begin and end? By what was that sifting preceded? In conformity with, and likeness to what? For what did the brethren in the Jewish Harvest wish? To what did this hope, combined with its time uncertainty, expose those brethren? What brethren are an example of this? What two things did many of these brethren confound? What sayings of our Lord, not understood, became the occasion thereto? When did many look for the Kingdom's establishment? Who among them particularly did so? To what did the less sober of them allow themselves to be aroused? 

(7) What resulted when they were disappointed? Into what two classes did these divide? What was the effect on the former? What did some of these as Jews, and some of these as Gentiles do? What did others of these as such do? What was charged against Jesus and the Apostles during the ensuing agitations? Under what misunderstandings? What proves that such were antitypically burned? What other kind of believers were there then?

The Parousia Messenger. 

70 

Though disappointed, what two things did they do? What did Jesus do? What did God give in answer? What effect did this have on the sifting for the faithful? What did these truths enable them to recognize? What relation did this sifting have to the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting? 

(8) Where are the nearer antecedents of this sifting described? What was the character of these? To what did the first kind of these lead? Please read the verses that describe them. The second kind? Please read the verses that describe them. What were intermingled therewith? Please read the verses that describe these. What was the rock-bottom cause of the No-Ransomism sifting in all its applications? Hence of which one of them? To what did that make those guilty of this open? What types this? What kind of people started this weariness of God's Truth and lusting for other mental food? Who were they? What did they do at Israel's deliverance from Egypt? Why was this permitted by their masters? What in the nature of the case could they be expected to start? What is the antitype of this in the Gospel-Age Harvest? What effect did their wearying of the Truth and hungering for other mental food have upon Spiritual Israelites? What two things prove their bad taste? What is typed by the fish? The cucumbers? The melons? The leeks? The onions? The garlic? What degeneracy is shown in this matter? How did these things stand related to facts? 

(9) What occurred on a larger scale? After what? What was the antitypical mixed multitude in the larger-scaled event? Of what two parts of Spiritual Israel was this true? When did this antitypical mixed multitude begin to form? Where is this discernible? How in magnitude in both the Harvests did the fifth sifting compare with their other four? What resulted therefrom in the Jewish Harvest's fifth sifting as to the mixed multitude? What two other things manifested many of these? As a result what could St. John late in his life say as pertaining to the mixed multitude? What, that did occur, could be expected of these? 

(10) What did their example and agitation shortly do? What two things did some Spiritual Israelites thereupon do? What is symbolic Egypt? What in each case is the

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

71 

antitype of the foods typically longed for? Of what two kinds in each case? For these what were they willing to neglect, despise and abhor? What in taste did this manifest? How is it in the Hebrew manifested? Like whom were the typical lusters? What quality marked their course? What recompense did their dissatisfaction and lusting bring? What should we learn from them? Why all the more so than others? 

(11) Of what do vs. 7-9 treat? What is the description of the manna in v. 7? How many qualities of the heavenly Manna does this suggest? What does Israel's manna type? In what other way may it be put? Why so? What might some at first sight think of the relation of these two definitions? What will reveal their harmony? What does John 14:6 contribute toward harmonizing them? How is this so? What is meant by the Bible's being Christocentric? How does 1 Cor. 1:30 prove this? What title given Him in 1 John 1:1 shows this? In Rev. 19:13? According to John 1:1-3, 14, what pre-human title of our Lord is related to this thought? Why? What, accordingly, is the Truth from this standpoint? What follows from this as to our twofold definition of the antitypical Manna? 

(12) How many qualities of the Truth were above said to be typed in v. 7? How does v. 7 read? What two special qualities has coriander seed? What do these type? In the first place, what quality does the Truth have? In what two ways? What is the first reason for this? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? The second reason? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? The third and fourth reasons? How do the cited verses prove this? The fifth reason? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? The sixth reason? How do the cited passages prove this? The seventh reason? How do the cited verses prove this? What is the second quality of the Truth as suggested by coriander seed? In what two respects? What is the first reason for this? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? The second reason? How do the cited passages prove this? The third reason? How do the cited verses prove this? By what are these two Truth qualities brought out in the type under study? 

(13) What is bdellium? What two qualities of the

The Parousia Messenger. 

72 

Truth are suggested by the color of the manna being like that of bdellium? How are these suggested by bdellium? What are we not to understand by this of the Bible? Why not? How do the cited passages prove this? When is the Truth clear? To what two classes? In what periods respectively? To what is its clarity due? What does its brilliance accomplish? Prove from the cited passages these two diamond qualities of the Word. What conclusion does our study on coriander seed and bdellium prove? What in this connection should we note well? In this connection what did the dissatisfied and lustful do? 

(14) What is set forth in v. 8? What is typed by Israel's going about as to dealing with the manna? Their gathering it? Their grinding and beating it? Their baking and boiling it? Their making cakes of it? Eating these? 

(15) Like what was the taste of manna? Under what conditions is fresh olive oil very good? What does this suggest? To what does it taste very good? What seven qualities of it makes it satisfy head and heart? What three things does the Truth's taste do in our holy spirits? Why is this? How long does this last? To whom? When and upon what did the manna fall? Upon what did it not directly fall? Why not? Upon what did it fall? In Bible symbols what does dew sometimes represent? How do the cited passages prove this? At other times? How do the cited passages prove this? What is the meaning of the dew in v. 9? How is this to be understood as to Truth already had? How does the cited Scripture prove this? What is typed by the night-long falling of the manna? Of what does this ever remind us? By what is this fact further typed? How long does this antitype work? What is meant by the dueness of the Truth? Who by observation know the Truth to have this quality? When also was this same Truth quality operative? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? 

(16) In what other respect does the manna's falling on the dew apply? What does this type? To what end was God's Word formed? In what two ways is it so adapted? What does this show? How does Amos 3:7 show the Word to be adapted to the general needs of God's people? In what two forms of the Word do these acts appear? What do these do? How do the cited passages

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

73 

prove that the Word is adapted to the individual needs of God's people? What five things are suggested by the manna's falling in the night? What does this mean in each of the five cases? What two conclusions are by the above discussion proven by the manna's falling on the dew? In view of the things typed of the Truth in vs. 7-9, over what should we not wonder? From this what judgment must be cast as to wearying of the Truth and hankering after secular mental food? 

(17) To whose attention did the Gospel-Age Harvest's antitypical dissatisfaction and lusting come? Where did these then manifest themselves? Antitypical of what? In what two ways were they expressed? Even by whom? Antitypical of what? What did its widespreadedness require? How did this affect Him? Why? Antitypical of what? By whom was it seen to be evil? What is our knowledge as to this? When also did our Lord note this dissatisfaction and lusting? In what sections of the people of God? In what of these? In what ways did He see them manifesting themselves? Even among whom? Why was their participation therein all the worse? At what should we not wonder? Why not? 

(18) What did Moses not do, and do? Why? What was this situation to Him as God's servant? What was it not to him? How did it seem to him? Of what may we be sure in the antitype? How was the antitype shown? How did the pertinent conduct of the people affect our Lord? Why? Of what were these conditions no expression? What two features of our Lord's Gospel-Age ministry will prove this? How do the cited verses prove this? Whose care was not a part of His Gospel-Age ministry? What certainly did not belong to His ministry? In what sense only could God have laid such a burden upon Him? How had this burden come to exist? To what was this due? What do these facts clarify? For what was our Lord's plaint? What was it not? 

(19) What objection may be offered to the thought of our Lord's asking information of the Father? What is the first reason which proves that our Lord's knowledge is short of omniscience? What reasons make this reason true? What second reason proves this proposition? Who is such a typical example? How do the cited verses in 

The Parousia Messenger. 

74 

Num. 11 prove this of Him after His exaltation? In what set of Mosaic types is this shown? In what other kinds of Scriptures is this shown? How is this proven in the cited passages that refer to His pre-ascension knowledge? 

(20) His Millennial and post-Millennial knowledge? When was Jesus' knowledge greatly increased? What fact proves this? From scattered Biblical hints, what seems to be proven as to Jesus' getting information on some details of God's Truth? How does this appear in Ruth 3:7; Num. 15:32-36; Ex. 31:18; 33:12, 18? How does this appear from the covenant arrangements 

given Moses in the mountain? By what is this pictured forth as an eternal condition in our Lord's knowledge relations to the Father? Accordingly, what principle underlying John 15:15 is an eternal principle? 

(21) How much does Jesus know? How great is He in His physical, mental, artistic, moral and religious faculties? What, however, must He eternally remain? How is this proven in the cited passages? What thing impossible to Himself would God do to Himself, if He made Jesus His equal in any respect? What is this? What will keeping in mind our Lord's inferiority in all things to the Father prevent happening from the thought that even in His glorified condition our Lord seeks and gets needed information from the Father? On what two subjects as generally taught is inspired Scripture silent as to teaching or implying them and vocal in teaching against them? On the contrary, how do such Scriptures teach on them? To whose disparagement is this matter not presented? Why not? To whom is over-exalting Jesus distasteful? Belittling Him? Belittling the Father by over-exalting our Lord to equality with the Father in any particular? How long will John 14:28 prove true? What does it imply as to Jesus' knowledge in comparison with the Father's? How may the Truth on this subject be summed up? What fact as to the various applications of this type proves this principle? 

(22) What does Moses' plaint in v. 12 take on? What characteristic did it have? What proves that he did not have a mother's and father's relations and duties to all the people? Why is this language meaningful antitypically 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

75 

as to the spiritual father? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? Why can such be attributed to the pertinent persons? Why is this language meaningful as to the spiritual mother? Where was the Scriptural proof given for this? On what basis? What does Moses' pertinent language suggest antitypically as to Jesus? What must be the answer to both questions? Whom did Jesus in this sense father and mother? In what periods did He do these things? To what Gospel-Age mission of Jesus does this allude? What did Jesus assume as to these? What Gospel-Age work did not burden Jesus? 

(23) What work did burden Him? What did He not desire as to these? Why not? What must be said of His pertinent attitude? How should the language rendered, that Thou shouldst say, be translated? Why? What position and duties are not implied in a leader and teacher? Toward whom alone did Jesus have such duties? What did Moses in this connection not know? What does this mean antitypically? What two things do vs. 13, 21-23, imply antitypically? What thought do these two facts disprove? How did the situation affect Moses' and Jesus' hearts? What in them were deeply worked upon? What, were the conditions that so wrought upon them? Under what circumstances was this true in Jesus' case? 

(24) What is set forth in v. 14, type and antitype, as to Moses' and Jesus' inability? What was their real work? What two things make impossible to do everything that was suggested to them? What is meant, typically and antitypically, by the request, "kill me out of hand"? What would this effect in both cases? How did Jesus make His plaint known? In what applications of the antitype? What kind was the death that Jesus requested? Why is this true? When did this thing occur? Why did Jesus desire such a thing? For when did He desire it? As what would He regard it? What proves that Moses and Jesus were justified in the plaint? 

(25) Wherein was God's answer given? What answers are given in vs. 16, 17? To whom? What answer was given in vs. 18-20? What two episodes have been confounded and misrepresented by higher critics? What four typical differences were there in the two sets of men? What great antitypical differences have there been? In

The Parousia Messenger. 

76 

what Harvests and inter-harvest periods and their parallel applications were the 70 types? What proves this? 

(26) What does the charge that Moses gather to himself the 70 type for the Gospel-Age Harvest? By whom were the Parousia and Epiphany auxiliary pilgrims not typed? What is the difference between pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims? Before what date would one have to be in the pilgrim service to be one of the 70? Through whom did the Lord appoint them? What grade of qualification did they have to possess? From among whom were they to be selected? As having what? What is typed by Moses' taking such with him up to the tabernacle and their standing there with him? To what period of the Harvest was not the selection of the pilgrims limited? Why not? About what was its time limit? When did Bro. Russell's anointing as a pilgrim set in? Until when did he not come up to the antitypical Tabernacle? Why is the type of the selection of the pilgrims connected with the No-Ransomism sifting? Why was this not, and why was that done? What is the counterpart of Bro. Russell's selection as a pilgrim before the Harvest? Why was this so in both cases? In what two capacities did St. John serve? How long did the selection of the entire 70 last? 

(27) What parallel between the sending out of the 70 in both Harvests exists? In what cases in the Gospel-Age Harvest is this clearly indicated? As what did Bro. Russell have no companion helper? As what did he have successively five? Who were they? Which of these retained the place to the end? Who seemed to constitute the second set of two? The third? The fourth? The fifth? What principle prevailed in one's being counted among the 70? Who was the leader in each set? What did God seek to do in the inter-harvest period as to Jesus' too heavy burden? What increased this burden? With what period did this increase begin? How did God send Jesus the relief? Who was chosen for such relief before the Smyrna period, yea, even before Pentecost? Of what was he the principal man? What is meant by a principal man? During how many of the inter-harvest periods were general elders, secondarily prophets, selected? How in numbers during these periods did they compare? What is the sphere of service for the 70? 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

77 

(28) What parallel do we find as to the 70 in the Harvests and the inter-harvest period? Even in whose case was this so? In what capacity of his was this not the case? In what was it? From what Church epoch is this principle illustrated? Who were the twelve pairs during the Philadelphia period? Who in each case was the leader? What additional function did John Wessel have? How many others were distributed among the other inter-Harvests' epochs? What were these four epochs called? How were the remaining 46 so distributed as to number? 

(29) How many of the inter-Harvests' 70 belonged to the Philadelphia period? How were the 70 divided? Who alone of these were star members? In all seven epochs how many brothers were star members? In addition to the 35 inter-harvest star members, how many other star members were there? How were these distributed? How many principal men were there among the star members? How were they distributed? How does the cited passage show the 7 stars and the 8 principal men? What development were the inter-Harvests' 70 to have? Additionally, what were they also to have? How was this attestation to be, negatively and positively? What did the charge to Moses to bring the 70 up to the tabernacle type with reference to these? Their standing there with Moses? 

(30) What is typed by God's coming down to Moses in the cloudy pillar? What did such truths in part constitute? What is typed by God's taking from Moses of his spirit and putting it upon the 70? Of what did this feature of the qualification consist? Of what did their full anointing consist in all applications of the antitype? What as a result would they bear? How would this affect our Lord? When? When was this a matter of our observation? How do we become aware of it as to the inter-Harvests' period? Who were some of these inter-Harvests' special helpers in bearing the burden with our Lord? 

(31) After telling Moses of the 70 elders, as to what did God tell him to say to the people? What did this mean antitypically? How did our Lord in the Gospel-Harvest do this telling? What was this sifting? How did He tell it to the Smyrna, etc., epochs' lusters? What kind of a separation do all siftings first effect? What kind later? Which one of these is typed by the eating of the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

78 

quail flesh? How did the pertinent conduct sifting occur? In the antitype what moved God to withdraw restraints from Satan? What result therefrom? What did God resent in both type and antitype? What did God passively send in both type and antitype? In what applications of the latter? 

(32) What is stated in vs. 19, 20? How many time periods are mentioned in the type? What and how many negatively? Positively? In the Harvests how long did the antitypical month of days last? What were these periods? Where does this principle apply? What are we in this connection to conclude? How does the number 30 imply this? What, accordingly, is the symbolic thought of the 30 days in the two Harvests and their Interim? What Hebrew idiom operates here and how? 

(33) What fact as to the duration, and not termination, of the Gospel Harvest's No-Ransomism sifting is paralleled in other siftings? Which are these? How is this true of each of them? In what other application does this hold good? How so? How is this principle seen in the operation of the seven last plagues of Rev. 16? What does this principle enable us to see of an objection to our view of the Gospel Harvest 70? What was this objection? What fourfold reply should be given thereto? What fifth reply should be given thereto? What do these five considerations do with the objection? 

(34) What does v. 20 indicate? How copious would the vomit be? What else does v. 20 indicate as to the flesh? When does v. 20 indicate that the vomiting would begin? With what sifting did the vomiting begin? What fact proves this? In what other application is this true? With what did it begin and end? Why so? What qualities did the Reformation vomiting have? With whose activity did it first begin? With whose next did it begin? What were the main Romish things vomited in the movements begun by these? With what did it continue in the Servetus movement? By what was it completed, so far as Rome's anti-Ransomism is concerned? What else did the Reformation vomiting include? When did the last of such vomiting occur? Of what "flesh"? In what two

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

79 

forms did the antitypical vomiting manifest itself? As antitype of what? 

(35) To what were these errors repulsive? How is this stated typically? How was this as respects spiritual smell? How is this seen in detail on this point? How was this as respects spiritual taste? As a result, how did such "flesh" become? To whom especially? To whom of other classes? To what did this influence them? What may we infer from this as to the sins of the lusters? What words of v. 20 prove this? To what did such sinfulness move God? What lessons does this inculcate? 

(36) What do vs. 21 and 22 suggest as to Moses' thoughts? For what in general did this move him to ask? In particular? What doubt did, and what doubt did not Moses' question as to the fish suggest? What does Moses' asking these questions type? Why did he ask these questions? What does his asking God for information imply as to Jesus' knowledge? What does the flesh of the flocks and herds type? The flesh of the sea's fish? What did our Lord not know up to the involved antitypical time? From what does this appear? What is typed by slaying the herds and flocks? Gathering the fish? Of what may we be sure as to our Lord's doubts? What did God's question as to whether His hand was shortened intimate to Moses? What does this type? Without whose agency? How should the last clause of v. 23 be rendered and complemented? What does the A. V. rendering imply, typically and antitypically? Why could this not be true? What does the right translation imply in type and antitype? How antitypically would the Lord permissively arrange for the "flesh"? What should we not forget as to such arranging? How did it operate? What kind of a part only could God have had therein? Why so? What do these considerations show as to Jesus in this connection? What fact proves the 70 to represent 70 individuals in the finished picture of all three applications? 

(37) How was the antitype of Moses' telling these things to the people performed? How, on the contrary, were, and were not, Jesus' dealings with the 70? How long drawn out was the calling and installation of the Parousia pilgrims as such? How long at least is it 

The Parousia Messenger. 

80 

reasonable to believe that the last of these reaped? What seems to be typed by Moses' gathering the 70? His placing them about the tabernacle? What is implied typically by the expression, "70 men of the elders of the people"? What proves this in the type? Antitypically, how was this? What difference is there in the time order of the call of the Jewish Harvest's 70 and that of the other two applications? Why was this difference made? How were the matters in the finished picture? 

(38) What is typed by the cloud of v. 25? Where has this been shown? What is meant by God's coming down in the cloud? Through whom did God usually give the Law Covenant's arrangements? Through whom else sometimes? How do the quoted passages prove this? What is typed by God's coming down in the cloud and speaking to Moses? What is not meant by God's taking of the spirit that was on Moses and giving it to the 70? What is meant by it? What did this not do to Moses' power and authority? What did it do for him? How do we know this especially? What was a part of such power in the three sets of the 70? With what was such qualification not accompanied as respects Jesus? What does this not imply as to His office? What does it imply as to His burden? 

(39) What as to Jesus' burdens does this not imply? How is this seen as among the Jewish Harvest's 70? What examples prove it? How is this seen as among the Parousia's 70? What examples prove it? How is this as among the Interim's 70? As to the 35 star members and their 35 companion helpers? As to the Interim's five principal men relatively to each one's fellow star members? As to the non-principal star members? What are some contrasting examples? As to the 35 companion helpers of the star members? What are some contrasting examples? What office did the 35 star members, especially their five principal men, hold? Who, even, did not share in such an office? 

(40) What proves that the Lord gave the three sets of 70 general eldership in the real Church? The nominal church? What Scriptures prove this latter thought? How 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

81 

do they do so? For the finished picture, what is especially significant? What does this prove of the three sets of 70? What would this not prove of all who were in the two Harvests nominated as "secondarily prophets"? What facts of the Jewish Harvest prove the answer? What facts of the Gospel Harvest prove this answer? What does the statement, "and did not cease," prove of the 70 as of the finished picture in both Harvests? What two conclusions may we draw from these considerations? What do facts prove as to the Interim's 70? What facts will corroborate this thought? What other fact proves this of the Interim's entire 70? 

(41) What episode is introduced in vs. 26-29? What does the camp type? Eldad's and Medad's anointing and prophesying in the camp, and not at the tabernacle? What has already been pointed out in these columns? What about the Parousia Medad has been in sufficient details pointed out there? What does this make unnecessary and necessary here? What in duration is the contrast between the anointing of these two? What was in reality our explanation of Bro. Russell's anointing in the camp? When and wherein did the last part of his camp anointing take place? What did he thereupon do? In what two ways? How much later did he come up to the antitypical Tabernacle? What do these facts prove as to the durations of these two anointings and prophesyings in the camp? What does Bro. Russell's course as a pilgrim prove of him in this connection? 

(42) Who were the Eldad and Medad of the Jewish Harvest? What Scriptural facts and personal qualities prove St. Paul to have been anointed and to have prophesied while yet in the camp? How is his coming up to the antitypical Tabernacle shown in Acts 9:17-19? What proves that he was especially beloved by God (Eldad)? What is proven of Apollos as the Jewish Harvest's Medad in Acts 18:24-26? What is proven of him as such in vs. 26-28? In what two ways is he proven to be the Jewish Harvest's Medad? Why so? How did his proficiency and efficiency affect some carnally weak brethren? How do the cited passages prove this? What was the personal attitude of Paul and Apollos toward one another, in spite of the sectarianism of some of their weak brethren? How does 1 Cor. 4:1-15 show their relations and sentiments to

The Parousia Messenger. 

82 

one another? 1 Cor. 3:4-10? What do St. Paul's subsequent references to himself and Apollos show of their relations? How is this summed up in 1 Cor. 3:8? 

(43) Who were the Eldad and Medad of the Interim? What is the first proof that St. John was the Interim's Eldad? The second? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Sixth? Seventh? What fact self-evidently proves St. John to have been the Interim's Eldad? Of what may we therefore be confident as to his being the Interim's Eldad? 

(44) How does the evidence of John Wessel's being the Interim's Medad compare with that of St. John's being the Interim's Eldad? For what is it strong enough? What is the first proof for his being the Interim's Medad? What are the seven truths implied in this first proof? What is the second proof thereof? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? What episode shows his great humility and love for God's Word? The seventh proof? What did Luther say of him and his writings? What did Luther do with some of his writings? Why did he not publish his treatise on the Lord's Supper? Where was he and what position did he hold when he received his anointing and began to prophesy? When and where did he come in among the real people of God? Under what circumstances did he flee from Heidelberg to the Netherlands? 

(45) What two facts prove that Sts. Paul and John as two of the antitypical Eldads were not respectively of the Jewish Harvest's and Interim's 70? How many elders, including Eldad and Medad, were there in the type? What are the pertinent Jewish and Romanist views? What are we to understand the Jewish Harvest's and Interim's number of these to be? What are we not from this to understand as to the Gospel Harvest's 70? How can this be explained harmoniously with the other two conditions? As that Servant with whom was, and with whom was not Bro. Russell paralleled or made to correspond? From what two facts do we infer that Sts. Paul and John did not have companion helpers? What would result if they were of the "secondarily prophets" of their respective times? 

(46) What resulted from the fact that in one person Bro. Russell was both that Servant and a pilgrim also? Wherein did this differ from the 70 in the Jewish 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

83 

Harvest and in the Interim? What is the contrast between this view and the pertinent Jewish and Romanist views? Why this difference? What three facts disprove the Jewish and Romanist views? What seven reasons refute their view that there were 70 elders beside Eldad and Medad? 

(47) What kind of an episode do vs. 27-29 bring to our attention? Of what does the young man who reported to Moses Eldad's and Medad's prophesying in the camp remind us? In what respects? Of what was Joshua's pertinent course characteristic? Moses' course? In what do these three find antitypes? In the Jewish Harvest's application, how is this relatively seen as between Paul and Apollos? Who were the antitypical lad, Joshua and Moses, as to St. Paul? How do we see the antitypical lad's, Joshua's and Moses' pertinent activity as to St. Paul? Who were they as to Apollos? What was their activity as to Apollos? Who were they as to St. John, the Interim's Eldad? How do we see this of the first two's activity as to him? 

(48) That of Jesus? Of what is the question, "Enviest thou for my sake?" an accusation? Who were the antitypical lad, Joshua and Moses, as to John Wessel, the Interim's Medad? In what were their pertinent activities shown as to John Wessel? Who were the antitypical lad, Joshua and Moses, as to the Parousia's Eldad? In what were their pertinent activities shown as to Bro. Russell? 

(49) What facts as to the Parousia's Medad were given wide publicity? Who were the pertinent lad, Joshua and Moses? Wherein is their pertinent activity seen? 

(50) What is, then, antitypically remarkable as to v. 30? How did its antitype fulfill in the Jewish Harvest as to Jesus? As to the 70? Where are the records of part of these ministries found? How was v. 30 antityped in the Interim as to Jesus? As to the 35 star members and their 35 companion helpers? How did the Interim's pertinent activity compare and contrast with that of the two Harvests? What did v. 30 antitype as to Jesus in the Parousia? As to the 70? What were the magnitude and ramifications of the pertinent work in themselves and relatively to any other 40 years of the Gospel Age? What are the pertinent statistics of the different kinds of workers? Of what were the above matters the antitype? 

(51) What have been studied foregoing? Where is this

The Parousia Messenger. 

84 

sifting proper typed? How will this be treated here? What does the wind of v. 31 represent? How did this controversy start? How may it be appropriately described? What did the Lord do as a result of, and amid this verbal war? What did the quails type? What did we see in Chap. II of Vol. V as to forms of the Parousia's quails? What forms did they assume in the Jewish Harvest? What is typed for all three applications by the very great numbers of the quails? What is the right translation of the word al here? What is typed by their flying about two cubits above the ground? What three groups of the Lord's people in all three applications were affected by the antitypical quails? In all three applications, especially in that of the Interim, how did some of these theories deny the Ransom? On the part of whom? How else was the Ransom denied? What does this mean? By whom were these indirect Ransom denials accepted? In what third way was the Ransom then denied? By whom were these received? What occurred on this head in the following four epochs of the Interim? Where was a large list of these given? 

(52) What will be now given? Among whom did direct Ransom denials arise, first of all? What other doctrine subversive of the Ransom did they accept? How did they regard Jesus' work for men? What other errors did they later accept? In what did this result? Who were the Ebionites? How did they deny the Ransom? By what teaching? What other group of professed Christians directly denied the Ransom at that time? On what grounds? What class of people introduced another indirect Ransom denial? Through what three doctrines? Who led the way as to two of these doctrines? How so? What in later epochs was done with these two doctrines? Who gave the first impetus to trinitarianism? How? Who invented the theory of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father? Who that of their equality? How were matters carried forward as to the Holy Spirit as the third person of the trinity? What was done with these three and related doctrines later in the Interim? When did they receive their completion? 

(53) What two anti-Ransom systems arose during the Smyrna period? In what time order? What kind of a 

The Gospel-Age No-Ransomism Sifting. 

85 

part in the early Interim did these play? Of what was Gnosticism compounded? What did it teach as to the being and work of the Supreme God? What did they teach of Demiurg? What mistake did he make? What, according to Gnosticism, is the character of matter? Of what did he make man? Since when did spirit and matter exist, according to Gnosticism? What teaching resulted therefrom? In what does Demiurg's mistake result? By what, according to Gnosticism, is the deliverance of man's spirit from the matter of his body to be effected? How does it group mankind? What is its teachings as to the destiny of these classes of men? What is its great task? How in addition to gnosis does it teach that matter is to be gotten rid of? What were some of the methods thereto? What did some Gnostics teach was the way to overcome matter? What existed among them? How widely were they distributed? 

(54) What was the character of their salvation doctrine? What necessarily followed therefrom? Of what was also their doctrine of Christ subversive? To whom was gnosis impossible? Why? What did he, accordingly, do? What kinds of Christs and Jesuses did Gnostics have? What was their doctrine of the heavenly and earthly Jesus? How were they combined? What resulted therefrom? What was His mission? What kind of a body did they teach Jesus took? Why? What did they teach of His death? What kind of a Savior did they make of Him? What kind did they not make of Him? Who, according to them, saves the soulical? What does He therein affect? How did Gnosticism affect the Smyrna Church? By whom was it given death blows? When did it die? In what was it resuscitated? Who overthrew its resuscitated form? 

(55) What is typed in v. 32 by the people's arising? Their gathering the quails 36 hours? How does the number 36 type this? What else suggests the great evil of the No-Ransomers? What is typed by the people's gathering the quails? In what application? What did this require? How was this done in the Jewish Harvest? The Gospel Harvest? What illustrations prove this? How was this done in the Interim? What illustrations prove this? What is symbolized by the least gathering 10 homers? What did the 10 homers symbolize? What does this mean for all three applications, especially for the Interim's and

The Parousia Messenger. 

86 

the Parousia's? What is typed by the people's spreading the quails round about the camp? For themselves? 

(56) What is typed by the Lord's wrath striking in a plague before the flesh was chewed, but while in the mouth? What things does a literal plague effect in its victims? What do these four things type? How do Gnosticism's errors suggest this as to the mental conditions? Its conduct as to heart conditions? What has the observation of most of us as to these effects of No Ransom's plague been? What has personal contact with No-Ransomers revealed on this head? What sifters does 2 Tim. 3:1-9 describe? Whom, among others, does it describe, and that most emphatically? What two things does 2 Tim. 3:1-9 give us of the No-Ransomer sifters? What qualities does this Scripture ascribe to them? What prayer could fittingly be uttered thereover? 

(57) What is typed by the plague survivors calling the burial place of the plague-destroyed lusters Kibroth-hattaavah? What was in reality that condition of the lusters? How was this the case with No-Ransomer crown-possessors? Losers? Youthful Worthies (in the Parousia)? Tentatively justified? Campers? How did these burials affect the survivors, type and antitype? How do many of us know both kinds of such sorrows? According to Lev. 10:6, 7, what three things are forbidden the typical and antitypical priesthood? What is the first of these, type and antitype? The second? The third? What is typed by the people's journeying away from Kibroth-hattaavah? By their progress toward Hazeroth? What is typed by their abiding at Hazeroth? What will show this? How is this thought gotten from the word Hazeroth? 

(58) What does our present study end? What, among other things, have we thereby learned? What will further typical studies show us? What, for the most part, does Church history as written by ordinary Church historians record? Of what do they give us but little? To what do the types refer in this respect? In what does an understanding of them lead? What three things does this knowledge enable us to do? How does the learning of these three things stand related to the purpose of our typical studies, especially those of Numbers? What will be our blessing from such studies? What prayer would be appropriate in this connection?