THE TWO GOSPEL-AGE TRUMPETS. THEIR USES. THEIR USERS. GOSPEL-AGE MARCHES. BEREAN QUESTIONS.
THE thought-connection between this and the last chapter is this: Both the antitypical cloudy, fiery pillar and the two trumpets of Num. 10:1-10 refer to the Word of God, though the viewpoints are somewhat different. The former presents God's Word and Spirit from the standpoint of leading God's people, the latter from the standpoint of its proclamations arousing them to certain actions. But each of them refers to the good Word of God. In Bible symbols a trumpet is used to type a message; and blowing a trumpet in Bible symbols represents the proclamation of a message. That the two trumpets of Num. 10:1-10 are typical is evident from their being a part of the law and tabernacle arrangements, all of which were typical (Heb. 9:1-28; 10:1). Quite a number of Scriptures suggest that a trumpet symbolizes a message, and its sounding symbolizes the proclamation of a message. Thus the trumpet that sounded long (Ex. 19:13, 16, 19) at the inauguration of the Law Covenant represents the Truth proclamations of the seventh trumpet, connected with the inauguration of the New Covenant. The sounding of the Jubilee trumpet (Lev. 25:9), proclaiming liberty to the land and to the inhabitants thereof, beautifully types the proclamation of the restitution message made by the Priests from 1874 to 1914. The seven priests who sounded the trumpets while Jericho was being encircled (Joshua 6:4-9, 13, 16, 20) represent the same as the seven angels with the trumpets of Rev. 8:2-6, and their sounding them represents the same as these
seven angels' blowing their trumpets, which, we know, represents the proclamations of the seven angels' messages. Gideon blowing his trumpet (Judg. 6:34) types our Lord proclaiming the Gospel message throughout this Age, while he and the 300 blowing their trumpets at the first battle (Judg. 7:16, 18-22) represent our Lord and the faithful Little Flock giving out the message against the Divine right of rulers, clergy and aristocrats, from 1914 to 1916. The following passages are a few others, from among many, that give the same thought: Ps. 47:4-6; 81:1-4; 150:3; Is. 18:3, compare with vs. 2-7; 27:12, 13; Jer. 6:16, 17; 51:27; Ezek. 7:14; Hos. 8:1; Joel 2:1, 15; Zeph. 1:14-18; Zech. 9:14; Matt. 24:31; 1 Cor. 15:52; Rev. 1:10; 4:1. Hymn No. 24 sings this symbolic thought with a beautiful explanation of the type. It might be well to sing it here in order to impress the thought better on our hearts and minds.
(2) It will be noted (v. 2) that Moses was commanded to make the two trumpets. Here, as almost everywhere else in Numbers, Moses represents our Lord as God's Executive. His making these two trumpets types our Lord's developing two Gospel-Age messages. Doubtless Moses made these trumpets through Bezaleel (in the shadow of God) and Aholiab (his father's tent), assisted by their companions (Ex. 31:2-6). Bezaleel types our Lord in His capacity of developing the Church and all its pertinent teachings. Aholiab represents the members of the seven stars, used by the Lord as special assistants in developing the Church and its teachings, while their assistants represent the scribes instructed unto the kingdom, bringing forth things new and old, consisting of general and special helpers of the members of the seven stars (Matt. 13:52). The trumpets' being made of silver represents the fact that the antitypical proclaimed messages would be true. Their being made of but one whole piece represents several things: (1) that they are
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
taken from but one source, the Bible as God's Word (John 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:15-17); and (2) that they are in harmony with each other as parts of a harmonious whole (Is. 8:20; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). This raises the question, What are these two messages proclaimed during the Gospel Age? We are safe in inferring that they are the two most important messages given during the Gospel Age, because of the emphasis laid upon them by the fact that they are referred to in the first part of Numbers, which sets forth typically the chief things in the arrangements of God's nominal and real spiritual Israel during the Gospel Age. And what are the two most important themes of the Gospel Age? They may be said to be the message of the human salvation and the message of the Divine salvation. Or we may put it in another form having the same meaning: restitution (reckoned and actual) and the high calling. It is these that are referred to as the wonderful songs—the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb (Rev. 15:3, 4).
(3) As a matter of fact, the human salvation (restitution, actual or reckoned) is, generally speaking, a summary of the Old Testament message, which is, generally speaking, the song of Moses; for in its wide sense it includes as its presuppositions, nature and consequences, most of what is in the Old Testament. Most of what is revealed in the Old Testament is more or less directly connected with it. Thus it implies man's original creation in perfection, his trial for life and his fall into sin and death. It likewise implies his experience with evil; and it implies the experimental proof, furnished by the Gentiles, left to their unaided selves, and by the Jews, assisted by the Law Covenant and favoring providences, that fallen man cannot save himself, and therefore is dependent on Divine power for salvation. It further implies the propriety of man's exercising repentance as an evidence that he earnestly desires, and does what he can to obtain salvation. It
also implies that God's grace provided a Redeemer who is able to satisfy the demands of Justice against the repentant and believing sinner, and make him reckonedly just during the Gospel Age and actually just during the next Age. It also implies that during the Gospel Age man may exercise reformation toward God to the best of his ability and heartily trust, appropriate and act upon the promise of God for the sake of the merit of Jesus to forgive him his sins, to impute Christ's righteousness to him and to receive him into fellowship as a friend. Thereby one obtains reckoned justification or reckoned restitution. And, finally, the human salvation implies actual justification, or restitution to all that was lost in Adam and redeemed in Christ. These things, it will be readily recognized, are a general summary of most of the Old Testament teachings. It is this message, and its implications, that are typed by the first of the two trumpets of Num. 10.
(4) Again, as a matter of fact, the Divine salvation, or the high calling, is, generally speaking, a summary of the New Testament, which is, generally speaking, the song of the Lamb. Like the human salvation, it has many implications and inseparable accompaniments, which must be considered as belonging indirectly to it. Thus it implies that Christ is made to its recipients wisdom, in that He teaches them all that is presupposed and implied in, belongs to and flows out of the high calling. It implies that He vitalizes their reckoned justification in order to make them fit candidates for the high calling. It concentrates itself in the sanctification of the humanity and the New Creature of those in the high calling. On account of this, it shows and works itself out in maintaining deadness to self and the world and aliveness to God while putting the humanity to death sacrificially on behalf of God's cause. As to the New Creature, it begins with the begettal of the Spirit, proceeds through its quickening, growth, strengthening, balancing, crystallization and birth.
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
Then, too, in deliverance He rescues the New Creature from sin, error, selfishness, worldliness, Satan and death. The high calling includes the New Creation's predestination, organization, order, discipline, law, rest, trial, baptism, passover, obligations toward man socially and toward the brethren, its foes and besetments and its present and future inheritance. These things, it will also be at once recognized, are a summary of the main New Testament teachings. And this message, and its implications, are symbolized by the second trumpet of Num. 10.
(5) Then there are certain other lines of thought in the Old and New Testaments that belong to either of these messages, dependent on the application made of them. E.g., the kingdom, if considered from the standpoint of reigning over and blessing mankind, belongs to the song of Moses; if considered from the standpoint of the glorious privileges of the Christ, it belongs to the song of the Lamb. Again, the Second Advent considered in its relation to the overthrow of Satan's empire and the blessing of mankind with restitution belongs to the song of Moses; but considered in its relation to the reaping of the saints, their deliverance and glorification, it belongs to the song of the Lamb. So, too, the resurrection in so far as it is unto human perfection belongs to the song of Moses; but in so far as it is unto the Divine nature it belongs to the song of the Lamb. Then there are very many types and prophecies in the Old Testament pertinent to Christ and the Church, both while in the flesh and while in the spirit, which belong to the song of the Lamb (1 Cor. 10:1-14; Heb. 3:10; 1 Pet. 1:10-13). But these are often presented from the standpoint of their relations to the human salvation, though not a few of them are not so presented. Again, there are some things in the New Testament that concern the human salvation both in its reckoned and in its actual aspects, i.e., not only reckoned restitution (justification by faith) but
also actual restitution. It is because these two parts of the Bible, so far as subject matter is concerned, lap into each other, as just shown, that we remarked above that generally speaking the Old Testament is the song of Moses and that generally speaking the New Testament is the song of the Lamb. But these two trumpets do not respectively typically cover these exceptions; they respectively exclude them. They are, therefore, not absolutely synonymous, one with the Old, and the other with the New Testament. But antitypically one of these does exclude high calling matters not applied in restitution respects and the other does exclude restitution matters not applied in high calling respects. Thus, while the Old and New Testaments do not exclude things that, strictly speaking, do not specifically belong to their respective general themes, the antitypical two trumpets do, strictly speaking, exclude such things. But these two messages so twine and intertwine into each other as to be in perfect harmony. They are, in fact, the two greatest features practically realized in the Divine plan. It is these mutual relations between them that prove them to be of a whole piece of antitypical silver.
(6) Vs. 2-7 also show the uses to which they were put. These we find to be two: (1) calling the assembly, and (2) journeying of the camps, i.e., the blowing of the trumpets would call the people or the princes to Moses at the door of the tabernacle (vs. 3, 4) and the blowing of the trumpets would signal the four encampments of Israel to start out on their journeys. What is meant by calling the assembly to the door of the tabernacle? In the type it was to gather them before the Lord to the end that they give their attention to something pertinent to the Lord. It will be noted that the assembly was called by the blowing of both trumpets, not by that of one (v. 3); while the princes were gathered to Moses at the door of the tabernacle by the blowing of but one of them. The assembly, of course,
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
types the nominal people of God, while the princes represent the crown-lost leaders among God's nominal people. We think that the difference between the blowing of both antitypical trumpets and the blowing of one antitypical trumpet is this: the blowing of both trumpets represents giving God's nominal people generalities only on the two parts of God's plan, while the blowing of one trumpet represents the giving of details on a particularized feature of God's plan. The reason why we believe that the above distinction is true is that the facts of the involved conditions in these two classes seem to require it. The nominal people of God at best know but little of the things of God; hence they need the generalities, if they are to be helped; while, if given the details, they would be unable to take them in, and would thus be stumbled. Experience shows this: e.g., in our public meetings we do not attempt to give details to those of the public who attend them. We give them only generalities. This, e.g., is the case in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle.
(7) Still more do we see this to have been the case while the Church during the Parousia had the mouthpieceship toward the world. We gave them simple talks, like chart talks and others, in which we sought to make the general features of the plan (the human and the Divine salvations) plain to them. This also showed itself in the volunteer, colporteur, photo-drama, newspaper and pastoral work, as well as in our conversations with the nominal people of God. It was only when some of them were drawn into the Truth that we would go into detail with them on any particular subject. But in the type when the princes of the thousands (v. 4), which would include not only the twelve princes over the tribes, but also those of their subordinates who were captains over the thousands (Num. 31:14 [the word here translated captains is the word usually translated princes and is the same word as is used in Num. 7 for the twelve leaders of the twelve
tribes]), met Moses in a private, not a public way, they typed the new-creaturely leaders among the nominal people of God being gathered to our Lord by a more particularized treatment, which would imply that only one general subject would be discussed, i.e., blowing on but one trumpet. And the facts of experience prove that this is just what happened in our contacts as the Lord's mouthpieces with such leaders. Their mentality required going into details so as to meet their mental needs and their difficulties; and giving details precludes covering many subjects, rather it requires lengthy discussions of certain features of but one subject—blowing on one trumpet. Some of us during the Parousia had considerable opportunities to discuss details of certain features of the plan with such new-creaturely leaders among the nominal people of God, and know that we had to limit our discussions to particularities in order to meet their difficulties.
(8) These two kinds of gatherings served various purposes. With the nominal people of God they partook, in the first place, of a witness to the kingdom, which made us stress general high calling and restitution truths (Matt. 24:14). Then we had also before them to reprove for sin and righteousness, as well as for the kingdom [judgment] (John 16:8-11). This implied the preaching of repentance and the rebuking of the errors of the nominal church; and as these errors were against both the Divine and the human salvations, we had to mention things pertinent to these. These same things, though with less clearness, were likewise witnessed to by our dear priestly brethren who lived in the Jewish Harvest and in the time between the Jewish and Gospel Harvests. Thus such calling of general assemblies occurred throughout the Gospel Age. It is even yet occurring in our work as conversationalists, volunteers, sharpshooters, colporteurs, elders, evangelists, extension workers, and pilgrims, as we engage in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, in John's Rebuke,
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
in Elijah's Letter and in the Double Herald work. And, finally, so far as the nominal people of God have been concerned, this work of assembling them before the Lord had the purpose of drawing such of them as were amenable to repentance and faith to justification and with those so drawn the effort was later made to lead them to consecration. Then, there were various purposes connected with the private assemblings of the antitypical princes. They almost invariably occurred by methods of conversation, reading of the literature and correspondence, especially the first and second of these. One of these purposes was to draw amenable ones to the Truth, which in some cases proved successful; another was an educational one, to help them to measurably clearer views, which they in turn would give to others. E.g., before 1874 almost all crown-lost princes were post-Millennialists. But during the reaping time a goodly part of them became pre-Millennialists. However, as such, almost none of them accepted the thought that the Millennium was to benefit the non-elect dead. To them an opportunity for the non-elect dead seemed to be a "dangerous doctrine." However, even their brand of Millennialism is better than that of post-Millennialism; for they helped not a few to love the Second Coming who formerly feared it; and they helped a few among them toward the Truth on the subject of the Millennium. And, doubtless, a third purpose in such private assembling to the Lord was to prepare such crown-lost ones for the opening of their eyes after their fleshly minds would be destroyed. A final purpose therein was undoubtedly to warn such of them as were becoming more and more oppositional to the Truth against the danger of their course, a warning that some of them doubtless have taken, and that others of them have refused to take—with fatal results to themselves.
(9) It will be noted that vs. 5-7 show that there were two kinds of blowing on the trumpets. One of
these is described negatively, but is not defined. The other is defined as an alarm. An alarm blown on a trumpet represents the proclamation of a controversial message. That this is true can be seen in a passage that we have already briefly explained (Num. 31:6). The Hebrew noun here translated alarm is teruah; and the Hebrew verb translated to blow an alarm is rua, from which teruah is derived; while the Hebrew verb used here as meaning to blow, apart from an alarm, is taka. Besides vs. 3, 4 and 7, we find in Ps. 81:3 a good illustration of the use of the latter word as contrasted with rua and its noun derivative, teruah. One of the best examples that the latter two words mean blowing an alarm typing the proclaiming of a controversial message, is found in v. 9, later to be explained, when we come to it in this chapter. Another very fine example proving that teruah means an alarm in the sense of controversy in the type and antitype is found in Num. 31:6, where our Pastor's controversial messages toward the nominal-church errorists during the reaping time are typed. The following are some passages in which the verb rua in the typical sense of proclaiming a controversial message is used: Joshua 6:10, 16, 20; Joel 2:1; 1 Sam. 4:5; while the following passages use the noun teruah typically in the sense of the proclamation of a controversial message: Joshua 6:5, 20; 1 Sam. 4:5; Zeph. 1:16; 2 Sam. 6:15; Amos 1:14; Jer. 4:19; 49:2. Not only do these Scriptures prove such to be the thought underlying the martial use of these words, but the facts of the antitype of the camp's starting to march proves it. In studying the Gospel-Age cloudy, fiery pillar, we saw that the marching of Israel represents, among other things, advance in knowledge, as the advance of the pillar types the progressive unfolding of the Truth. But ordinarily, under what circumstances is it that the Truth progresses? As our Pastor has frequently pointed out it usually is amid controversies.
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
(10) We might point out some illustrations in proof of this. It was amid the Ransom controversy that Lev. 16 became clear to our Pastor, and thus almost the whole tabernacle. Indeed, during that controversy the Ransom doctrine became wonderfully clarified. It was during the Sin-offerings, Covenants and Mediator controversy that these subjects became wonderfully clarified. It was during the Infidelism controversy that the Ransom in relation to Adam and Jesus became clearer, and the universal salvation from the Adamic condemnation, as distinct from eternal universal salvation, became clear. It was during the Second Advent controversy that the Second Advent's time, object and manner became wondrously clear. This opening of Truth amid controversy, e.g., is typically shown, among other places, by the Lord's glory (His wisdom, justice, love and power, as manifest in the Truth is His antitypical glory) suddenly blazing forth on the tabernacle (Num. 11:25; 12:5, 10; 14:10; 16:19, etc.). It is also evident in the unfolding of the Epiphany Truth. It was during the controversies of the 1917 separation that Elijah's and Elisha's last related acts became clear. The sixth sifting and the slaughter weapons were at that time clarified and the murmuring of the penny parable also became clear. In our annual report we pointed out how the circumstances of the controversy on Ruth, type and antitype, led to Ruth 3 and 4 becoming clear to us in generality and detail, as well as the details of Ruth 1 and 2, whose generalities had for several years before been clear to us. In our controversy with J.F.R. vast parts of Scriptures hitherto not clear to us became clear. We might instance the main parts of Zech. 11, Matt. 24:48-51 and many other things. Our controversy with Adam Rutherford occasioned the midnight of the ten virgins parable and numerous things about the firstfruit types becoming clear. How vast is the amount of Epiphany Truth that has become clarified through the Great Company and Youthful Worthies
controversy! We do not recall a single controversy into which we have become involved, amid which our need of further light set in, that some advancing light did not come. This has been the experience of God's people all through the Age. Yea, God made the Bible so that it would shed its advancing light through our Lord's ministry as the circumstances, needs and experiences of God's people required.
(11) Accordingly, the trumpet alarm was sounded to cause the camps to move forward. The first of such trumpet alarms (v. 5) was to signal the advance of the camps to the front of the tabernacle—Judah, Issachar and Zebulun. This alarm types the proclamation of a controversial message on God's Power as it affected the teachings of the Calvinistic, Campbellite and Second Adventist Churches; and these camps' marching represents these denominations controverting on the special aspect of power, often as centered in their stewardship doctrines. At the second trumpet alarm the camps to the tabernacle's south advanced, viz., Reuben, Simeon and Gad. This alarm represents the proclamation of a controversial message centering in God's Wisdom as it affected the teachings of the Greek, Roman and Anglican Churches. And these camps' advancing represents these denominations controverting, usually on the special aspects of wisdom in their stewardship doctrines. While Num. 10 does not specifically speak of the soundings of the third and fourth alarms, apart from the general summary at the end of v. 6, this was not due to their not sounding, but to the fact that their recording was not necessary, seeing these soundings were self-evident. That the third and fourth encampments marched is recorded in vs. 22-27. Hence we know from this and other recordings of Israel's journeys that the third and fourth trumpet alarms were sounded. Accordingly, the third blast aroused the third encampment, that to the west, to march, viz., Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin. This blast typed the proclamation
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
of a controversial message along the lines of God's Justice, often on the special aspects of the stewardship doctrines of the Lutheran, Congregational and Quaker, etc., Churches; and the marching of the pertinent typical tribes typed these denominations entering into a controversy along the lines of justice, often as this affected their stewardship doctrines. And, finally, the fourth trumpet alarm started the camps to the north to march, viz., Dan, Asher and Naphtali. These three tribes type the Baptist, Methodist and Unitarian Churches. The fourth trumpet alarm represents the proclamation of a controversial message, often along the lines of Divine Love as it affected their stewardship doctrines; and the three pertinent tribes marching types these three denominations entering into a controversy in defense of their stewardship doctrines and a refutation of attacks thereon. And the advance that the twelve tribes made represents the growth of these denominations in the truths implied in their stewardship doctrines. Thus their advancing in the truths of their stewardship doctrines amid controversies is typed in vs. 5 and 6.
(12) V. 7 brings out the contrast between growth in advancing Truth amid controversy and increasing in the knowledge of the Truth already had from previous unfoldings. The thought of not blowing an alarm, but of simply blowing ordinarily on the trumpet in gathering the assemblies, is emphasized by way of contrast in v. 7. In a typical way it teaches how ordinarily the Truth should be presented to the non-combative nominal people of God. We are to resort to controversy when opponents fight the Truth with error, but in the ordinary circumstances of life a controversial presentation of the Truth interferes with its acceptance. It arouses contentiousness in the hearer, and is liable to make him an opponent of the Truth, rather than its friend. If our design is to win hearers, we should avoid controversy as much as possible. If we are seeking
to repel, then controversy is to be resorted to. The positive non-combative presentation of the Truth normally is the best and most winsome method for its spread, even as shown in pp. i and ii of the Foreword to Studies, Vol. I. Controversy has its place in Christianity—to repel attacks and to attack errors during theological wars, but its place is not so much in the field of winning for the Truth. Here the non-combative method used in Vol. I is decidedly better. "You can catch more flies with sugar than with vinegar." Therefore in public and in parlor meetings, and in our conversations, when our object is to win, let us avoid blowing an alarm on our trumpet, but use it for constructive teaching. But in such public meetings, in such class meetings and in such conversations as antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, John's Rebuke and Elijah's Letter and leading the Truth section of Azazel's Goat to the Gate furnish the subject matter, the object being controversial, we will have to blow the alarm on our trumpet. Thus vs. 5, 6 show the controversial side of our work in destroying error; and v. 7 shows the upbuilding side of our work in spreading Truth.
(13) V. 8 shows whose was the privilege of sounding the trumpets. The sons of Aaron here, of course, represent the Gospel-Age Under-priesthood. The antitypical sounding was always, in each epoch of the Church, begun by its angel, and that, with the single exception of the Ephesian Church, by the principal man in the star. St. Paul, the principal man of the Ephesian Church, is the one exception. He not yet being in the Church, St. Peter was given the privilege of beginning to sound that trumpet first, which he did in opening the door of access to the Church for Jewish believers at Pentecost and for Gentile believers nearly 3½ years later. In every other case the principal man of each star led off the rest of the members of each star. This is true historically, as can be seen in the
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
case of John in the Smyrna Church, Arius in the Pergamos Church, Claudius of Turin in the Thyatira Church, Marsiglio in the Sardis Church, Wessel in the Philadelphia Church and Russell in the Laodicean Church. In the five churches between the two Harvest churches apparently the special helper of each member of each star followed shortly with the symbolic blowing, in support of his leader companion (these seventy, antitypical of the seventy in the Jewish Harvest, as antitypes went out two by two). Thereafter the rest of the Priesthood then functioning, according to Spirit, talents and opportunities joined in the symbolic blowing-proclaiming the message then due to the real and nominal Church.
(14) Let us illustrate by the Philadelphia star-members. John Wessel began to sound forth the Reformation message in its four main features: justification by faith, the Bible as the sole source and rule of faith, the priesthood of all the consecrated and Christ's sole headship in the Church. Thereupon he was followed by his companion and these then by others. Thereafter arose another star member, but not as a principal man—Jerome Savonarola. He in turn was followed by his companion, Fra Domenico, then by other members of the Priesthood additional to the companion, and of course not members of the star, in giving out the pertinent message. Later on Luther, as a member of this star, began to trumpet forth his part of the message—a re-emphasis of the four parts of Wessel's message; and soon Melanchthon, his assistant (two by two), joined him in it; then others of the priests joined it. On justification by faith alone, the Bible as the sole source and rule of faith, the sole priesthood of the consecrated and Christ's sole headship in the Church, these went into great detail and thus by the trumpets on the human and Divine salvation appealed to the crown-lost leaders. But whenever they appeared before the public in general, they gave generalities on
justification by faith (human salvation) and the priesthood of all the consecrated (the Divine salvation), also on the sole source and rule of faith and practice for humans and the sole headship of Jesus to the Church. So, too, like Wessel and Savonarola, their right-hand helpers and other assistants, they made couples of these four doctrines, giving only generalities to the public. A little later Zwingli appeared as a part of the Philadelphia star, joined soon by his special helper, Oecolampadius, and later by other Priests, blowing on the silver trumpet the justification and high-calling features of the Lord's Supper, in generalities to the people and particulars on one subject at a time to the crown-lost leaders. They also stressed the four general reformation truths above-mentioned, as the case might require, before the public and before the crown-lost leaders. Throughout the whole Age the Truth or truths that were due were treated in this same general way ("They shall be to you for an ordinance for the Age throughout your generations"). We have seen it witnessed in this way throughout the Parousia and the Epiphany, and believe that more illustrations for clarifying this subject are not necessary.
(15) V. 9 treats of the controversial use of these antitypical trumpets ("if ye go to war"). The Christian warfare is waged against sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, as these are led against us by Satan, the world and our flesh. Against all four of these principles in all their forms of manifestations as they are led against us by Satan, the world and the flesh, the Christian has to wage warfare. These certainly oppress ("the enemy that oppresseth") the New Creature in their multiplied forms; for many indeed are the forms of sin, many indeed are the forms of error, many indeed are the forms of selfishness and many indeed are the forms of worldliness. Every one of these forms of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness oppresses the New Creature; and against all the forms
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
of these four principles of evil must the New Creature fight. Our readers' familiarity with the forms of these makes it unnecessary for us here to enumerate them. These enemies oppress us in the Gospel-Age Canaan ("in your land"), which is the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit, out of which we must dispossess these evils. The inhabitants of Canaan, whom Israel was to dispossess, type the various forms of these four principles of evil. Our hearts and minds are the sphere for the operation of Truth and its Spirit. So much of them as is under the sway of the New Creature corresponds to so much of Canaan as Israel wrested from the inhabitants of the land; while so much of them as is not under the sway of the New Creature corresponds to so much of Canaan as the inhabitants of the land possessed. Hence it is, as shown in Studies, Vol. V, that the hearts and minds of the Lord's people are the battle ground of the Spirit, the New Creature. And Satan, the world and the flesh are continually seeking through the inhabitants of antitypical Canaan to drive back out of this antitypical land its antitypical Israelitish inhabitants, the various forms of the Truth, of Justice, of Love, of Power, of Heavenlimindedness. These, then, are the armies involved. In command of the antitypical Israelitish armies are Jesus, the Truth and its Spirit. The issue at stake in this warfare is the antitypical land—shall it be the possession of the inhabitants of antitypical Canaan or of antitypical Israel? That will depend on who will prove conquerors in this warfare.
(16) It will be noted that the blowing of the alarm was given (v. 9) to Israel as the pledge from God of victory ("shall blow an alarm … shall be remembered before the Lord"). In Israel's typical battles this was the case. A good example of this is found in Israel's warfare with the Midianites (Num. 31); for Phinehas sounded the trumpets while the warriors fought (Num. 31:6); and a wonderful victory was won.
Num. 31 types the harvest work, considered as a war against error; and Phinehas in that chapter types our Pastor. Phinehas' blowing the alarm types our Pastor throughout the reaping time proclaiming the controversial aspects of the Truth against the pertinent errors. And by these the antitypical 12,000 (the faithful brethren as they shared in the controversies of that time) completely and without loss on their part refuted the errors of the errorist (the antitypical Midianites). By our dear Pastor's pertinent activities we may also illustrate the phases of this subject as they concern the warfare against sin, selfishness and worldliness. He proclaimed the Truth against the various forms of sin, as well as exposed the evils that characterize the many forms of sin. This he did especially in his character-development articles and in his articles on cleansing from filthiness of the flesh and spirit. He certainly wrote much on these two phases of Truth against sin. And it was by the appropriating to themselves of these truths that the faithful brethren waged a good warfare against sin in their members, and helped other brethren in their battles against sin to do the same. He also proclaimed the truths against the various forms of selfishness, whereby the flesh sought to save itself from being sacrificed. These truths especially pertained to consecration, to the development of sacrificing love and the hope of victory over the flesh, as they also referred to keeping dead the human will and putting to death the human body as the warfare against the flesh. And the faithful brethren, appropriating such truths to themselves, fought by their power against the efforts of the dead will to become alive and its efforts to spare the human body the sufferings of the sacrificial death. In so far, therefore, as such truths were put and used controversially, they were the antitypical blowing of the alarm in the warfare against the flesh. And, finally, in the warfare against the world, which fought the faithful
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
in the family, in the state, in the nominal church, in business, in employment and in ordinary social contacts, our dear Pastor proclaimed the truths that pertained to the heavenly family, Kingdom, Church and the study, spread and practice of the Truth, as our business and employment and fellowship with the brethren, and that in contrast with the variety and transitoriness of even the best the world could give, and thus he blew the alarm on the antitypical trumpet in the warfare against the world. As the faithful brethren appropriated these truths to their development against the worldliness that was attacking them, they fought the war against the world.
(17) It will be noted that God pledged (v. 9) to remember Israel and give them victory in their wars, if the trumpet alarm was blown. So, too, God has remembered antitypical Israel in their wars who heeded the alarm sounded on the antitypical trumpet. The expression here translated, "before the Lord," may just as well be rendered, "in the face [favor] of the Lord." The word remember might be used either for a favorable or for an unfavorable recollection, but the words, in the face [favor] of the Lord, imply that it would be a favorable remembrance. Hence we prefer here this translation to that of the A. V. So understood we find a promise of victory given in v. 9. This promise can safely be made, because Spiritual Israel is fighting a good fight, and that for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren. Hence God naturally would regard their fighting favorably. As a result He gives the Faithful victory ("saved from your enemies"). This He does against sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, in any and every form that they assume. The fact that the 144,000 prove more than overcomers proves this. The history of the Church in the war against error is replete with examples of such victories. Especially do we see this in the Parousia and Epiphany battles against error. And to the degree of
the pertinent faithfulness will the Lord grant the commensurate degree of victory, as defeat in each fight sets in wherein unfaithfulness is manifested. This accounts for some defeats of Little Flock members, e.g., Peter's compromise at Antioch, Mark's forsaking Paul and Barnabus on returning from Cyprus, the compromise of James, Paul, etc., as to the temple service, in connection with which Paul was captured, etc. This accounts for such repeated defeats of New Creatures as make them lose their crowns—Great Company brethren. Their later properly disposing themselves to the alarms of the antitypical trumpet makes them become eventual victors. The same principles are illustrated in the experiences of Youthful Worthies. And in the case of Second Deathers and fully lapsed Youthful Worthies, the alarms of the antitypical trumpet were grossly and with full willfulness disregarded in the time of their warfare, which resulted disastrously.
(18) From our preceding discussion of the two antitypical trumpets, we readily recognize that the blowing of the trumpets represents the Priesthood's proclaiming God's Word—preaching, teaching, speaking the Truth—on the human and Divine salvations, ordinary blowing representing the constructive proclamation of the Truth, alarm blowing representing the refutational and correctional proclamation of the Truth. Hence when we sing Hymn No. 24, "Blow ye the trumpet, blow the gladly solemn sound," we encourage one another to spread God's Word on the two salvations. This becomes all the more apparent when we understand the antitype of v. 10. In the type there were three kinds of occasions, apart from war, the marches and the assemblings, when, and that in connection with the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, the trumpets were to have their ordinary (not alarm) blowings: days of gladness, festivals (solemn days) and new moons. The festivals are enumerated
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
in Num. 28 and 29 and in Lev. 23. The new moons, of course, came monthly and only the annual seventh new moon was a festival (Num. 28:11). The days of gladness would be any period of special national rejoicing, such as the removal of the ark (1 Chro. 15:24; 16:6); the dedication of the temple (2 Chro. 5:12; 7:6); the laying of the second temple's foundation (Ezra 3:10); the dedication of Nehemiah's walls (Neh. 12:35, 41); and the celebration of the renewed temple service (2 Chro. 29:27). As we know, the burnt-offerings represent God's manifested acceptance of the sin-offerings, while the peace-offerings represent our consecration vows made and performed. During the Gospel Age God manifests His acceptance of Jesus' sin-offering by Jesus' ministering instruction, justification, sanctification (in both the humanity and the New Creature) and deliverance on our behalf.
(19) The Sabbath types our justification rest of faith, as the Millennial blessings reckoned to us by faith. The Passover of Nisan 14 represents Christ's death, our appropriating its benefits in justification and our sharing with Him in the sin-offering; while the seven days of the Passover festival represent the various, especially joyous, experiences of the Christian life during the seven epochs of the Gospel Age, its first and last days of holy convocation representing its two reaping periods. Pentecost represents for the Gospel Age our privilege in the Holy Spirit (its begettal, quickening, growth, strengthening, balancing, crystallizing and birth). The new moon day of the seventh month for the Gospel Age seems to represent our privileges as to charity, the seventh grace in St. Peter's addition problem (2 Pet. 1:5-7) and as the seventh in logical but not written order of the twelve graces represented in the precious stones in the highpriest's breastplate and in those in New Jerusalem's walls. The day of atonement represents for the Gospel Age the sin-offering experience of the Christ, Head
and Body, not their Millennial atonement work. The festival of tabernacles (dwelling in booths) represents for the Gospel Age the various members of antitypical Israel dwelling each in his own class, the first and last days of solemn convocation representing the two reaping periods. The twelve new moons for the Gospel Age seem to represent the twelve times devoted to the experiences connected with the development, etc., of the twelve chief graces; while the observance of these seems to type the pertinent experiences in the development, etc., of these twelve graces. The days of gladness for the Gospel Age seem to represent all of our experiences, works, privileges and attainments, that give us joy in the Lord.
(20) Accordingly, these festivals, new moons and days of joy represent every feature of the Christian life in all its presuppositions, foundations, enfoldings, privileges, blessings, instruments, helps, attainments, experiences, graces, duties, providences, stages, etc. It is in connection with these that the burnt-offering of Jesus is by Him ministered to us as the manifest evidence that God has accepted His sacrifice on our behalf, as it is also in connection with these that He offers our peace-offerings, our vows made and kept to God, as acceptable sacrifices through His merit. And the blowing of the trumpets over these two forms of sacrifice on the antitypical festivals, new moons and days of gladness, types the proclamation of the message of Truth on the antitypical burnt-offering and peace-offering in its application to the thoughts of these antitypical festivals, new moons and days of gladness. Thus on antitypical Sabbath, in connection with Jesus' ministering the manifest acceptance of His sacrifice to God and our consecration made and performed, the antitypical Priests proclaim the message of the justifying grace of God through Jesus' merit, accepted by faith in God's promise. Thus at antitypical Passover, in connection with Jesus' ministering the
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
pertinent privileges of the antitypical burnt-offering and peace-offering, the Priests are to proclaim the connected truths: Christ's death, justification and consecration unto death. At antitypical Pentecost, in connection with Jesus' offering the two mentioned sacrifices, the various features of the Spirit are to be proclaimed by the Priests as the message of Truth from God's Word as appropriate to the condition.
(21) At the antitypical annual seventh new moon, in connection with the same two offerings, disinterested love in its various features is to be proclaimed as the message of Truth. At the antitypical Atonement Day, in connection with the two mentioned sacrifices, the Priests are to proclaim the message of atonement through the two sin-offerings and the service of the cleansed Great Company. At the antitypical festival of Tabernacles, in connection with the same two sacrifices, the Priests are to proclaim the message of Truth on the various classes connected with the Lord's plan. On the antitypical twelve new moons, in connection with the same two sacrifices, the Priests are to proclaim the message of Truth on the twelve greatest graces, each one in its antitypical month, its period of development. And on all times of gladness, in connection with the same two sacrifices, the pertinent truths are to be the message proclaimed. Doing these things in connection always with the two antitypical sacrifices shows how Jesus' ministry and our consecration made and carried out are active throughout the Gospel Age and are to permeate all our Truth proclamations. In a word, v. 10 teaches that we are to preach the Word, only the Word, all of the Word as due, in season and out of season, pertinent to the conditions of each opportunity. The lesson is: Spread the Word! Blow ye the trumpet, blow the gladly solemn sound! Let us both sing and live Hymn No. 24!
(22) The journeyings of the twelve tribes as narrated in vs. 11-36 have relations to a number of other Scriptures.
They are related to what is stated in vs. 2, 5-9; for these verses show how the tribes were started out on their journeys and wars, as well as how they were attended in their wars by the priests' blowing alarms on their trumpets. There is even a closer connection between the journeyings of vs. 11-28 and the offerings of the Gospel-Age princes as these are recorded in Num. 7:10-88, as can be seen from the relations of each prince and his offering to his respective tribe. And unless these two sets of Scripture are understood in their antitypical significance as to their relation to the journeying of vs. 11-36, these journeyings cannot be understood in their antitypical aspects. So, with the background of the antitypical significance of Num. 10:2, 5-9 and 7:10-88 as a foundation for the antitypes of vs. 11-36, the latter becomes rather easily intelligible. Accordingly, unless one understands the antitypes of the two former sets of Scripture, he will not be able to appreciate the propriety of the antitypical applications that we shall offer as those typed in vs. 11-28. But with an understanding of these, particularly those of Num. 7:10-88, which in turn becomes more intelligible as Num. 10:1-10 is antitypically understood, one is well prepared to understand and appreciate the antitypical applications that will be suggested in this chapter. What we have pointed out in the relations of these three Scriptures to one another is a splendid example of the principle that we have seen so often illustrated in the Parousia and the Epiphany. The Bible never gives all it teaches on any given subject in any one place, but scatters its thoughts on every subject hither and thither in the Scriptures. This is set forth very definitely in Is. 28:10, 13, while vs. 11 and 12 show that in their witnessings on the Truth the Lord's people would illustrate the same principle.
(23) V. 11 states the date that the departure from Sinai took place: the twentieth day of the second
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
month of the second year since leaving Egypt. It will be recalled that this was not quite a full month after the end of their first wilderness Passover festival, which ended with the 21st day of the first month, in their second year after departing from Egypt. A comparison of v. 11 with Num. 9:11 seemingly proves that the charge to keep the Passover festival from Nisan 15 to Nisan 21, with holy convocations marking the first and seventh days (Lev. 23:6-8) was not given to those who, defiled on Nisan 14, were given an opportunity to keep the Passover the 14th day of the second month; since if it had, God would have made it impossible for them to keep it, by requiring them to journey on the 21st; for the first journey from Sinai, beginning on the 20th of the second month, continued into the 22nd day of that month, since it was a three days' journey (v. 33), which made them journey on the 21st, and which prevented a holy convocation being kept during that day. This seems to imply that either the added Passover festival (of 15-21 of the second month) does not type Millennial conditions, or that God chose not to type them in connection with the first annual Passover of the unclean. Very likely the former alternative is incorrect, because we know that there will be five Millennial sifting periods, and a holy convocation during the Little Season, which suggests the thought that the first phase of the Millennium, i.e., the hundred years of opportunity before any of the infants of days will die (Is. 65:20), is quite likely the holy convocation of the Millennial 15th of the second month, as the Little Season is that of the Millennial 21st of the second month. In v. 12 we understand the expression, "the wilderness of Sinai," to represent the sphere of Judaism. And out of it as borne by the antitypical Priests the antitypical Ark (v. 33) led antitypical Israel, which began its Gospel-Age journeys in the Jewish Harvest. It will be noted that it was the ark that led the whole host on this particular
journey. And since the Kohathites marched between the second and third camps (v. 21), not they, as was their ordinary charge (Num. 3:31; 4:15) but the priests on this occasion bore the ark, over which the cloudy, fiery pillar hovered (v. 34), even as they did on certain other special occasions (Joshua 3:3-17; 4:5-18; 6:4-13; 8:33; 1 Kings 8:1-7). The priests' bearing the ark types the antitypical Priesthood's forwarding Jehovah's full arrangement. The ark representing God, His attributes and the Christ and His attributes, functions, etc., is an epitome of God's full arrangement. Hence the priests' bearing the ark types the antitypes' forwarding God's Plan or Word as due.
(24) From the fact that the Gospel Age touches on three one-thousand-year days and from the further fact that it was during parts of three one-thousand-year days that the antitypical journey is taken, i.e., from the start of the Priests on their Gospel-Age journey, during the Jewish Harvest, until the Miller movement was entirely perverted into the Advent sect, just after 1874 (and hence it was after 1874 that the last part of the last antitypical tribe began to journey), we infer that the three days (v. 33) of the journey described in vs. 11-36 type the three one-thousand-year periods touched by the Gospel-Age; for this Gospel-Age journey began within 158 years after the fifth one-thousand-year day began, continued throughout the sixth one-thousand-year day and lasts over 80 years into the seventh one-thousand-year day. This time feature enables us to put the journeyings of all antitypical twelve tribes within the period in which facts show their journeyings were begun. In other words, this first journey of three days types the Gospel-Age antitypes for the involved story as covering the whole Gospel Age. This is not the case with all the journey types of the book of Numbers, though it is with some of them. Some of them give particularized pictures, e.g., the five sifting types refer typically, each one,
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
from the standpoint of the Gospel-Age picture, to its respective epoch of the five Church epochs between the Harvests. The incident of the twelve spies refers antitypically to the two Harvests exclusively, while the subsequent wanderings of Israel refer respectively to the large Gospel-Age wanderings and to the three miniature Gospel-Age wanderings of antitypical Israel; and the story of Num. 31 types the battles against error in the two Harvests. Other illustrations could also be adduced, but these are sufficient to illustrate the varied applications of the types of Numbers. The considerations disclosed by the fact referred to in this paragraph enable us to get the setting of the antitype as to time. Confirmation is lent to this by the fact that it was the cloud, not the pillar of fire (vs. 11, 34), that was taken up from the tabernacle at the start of the journeying, which proves that it started in one of the days—one of the Harvests; and the other facts above suggested prove that it was in the Jewish Harvest. This is directly stated of the typical start in vs. 11, 34. Accordingly, the time setting of the antitype is clear as beginning in the Jewish Harvest; and the fact that the marching was joined in by the last Adventist sect in the antitypical third day, combined also with the fact that the surviving members of that sect and of all others will be merged into the corresponding Epiphany sects before the Epiphany ends, proves that the end of this particular march will be reached at the end of the Gospel Age as it enters the Millennial conditions.
(25) In v. 12 the journey from one station to another is given: from Sinai (thorny) to the Wilderness of Paran (cavernous). According to v. 33 this journey was one of three days. By direct course it was about 55 miles from Horeb or Sinai to the Wilderness of Paran—a journey that could be taken in three days by fairly good travelers. We understand that the three days measure the time that it took the vanguard to make the journey. No mention is made of stops for
the night in the account of this journey. They were likely made; but as they do not figure in the antitype, the type passes over them without mention, if they were made. The word Sinai means thorny, which well describes the troublous contentious experiences of the Church while in Jewry. The word Paran means abounding in foliage, or in caverns. It represents the Millennial conditions as being shelterful. In a hot country like Paran, the abundance of foliage or of caverns would provide shelter from the fierce heat of the desert sun, which fact types the abundance of shelter from the heat of temptation (Matt. 13:5, 6, 20, 21) that will be given the race during the Millennium, the third day after the Gospel-Age journey was begun. The cloud resting in Paran represents the advancing Truth progressing until it becomes the light on Millennial conditions. The statement of v. 13, that the children of Israel first took their journey according to the commandment [literally, mouth] of the Lord, shows that the Lord approved of those acts of the twelve denominations that antitype the starting of the Israelitish tribes on this journey. This becomes evident when we recognize what is typed by the Israelitish tribes starting on this journey. They represent the twelve denominations beginning to use their stewardship truths amid controversies against error, sin, selfishness and worldliness, which they did by using those parts of the Bible teachings in their stewardship doctrines that pertained to rebuke (refutation) and correction (2 Tim. 3:15-17). So to progress in the Truth is certainly according to the Lord's Word (commandment, mouth). It was because of this good activity that Ps. 45:9 speaks of these twelve denominations, the kings' daughters, as being among our Lord's honorable women, servant attendants. They are called kings' daughters because they were directly or indirectly developed from the union of church and state. The expression "by the hand of Moses," types the fact that
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
the going forth of these denominations in the journey antitypical of that here discussed was by the Son, though of the Father (at the Lord's mouth).
(26) It is well that we here pause for another explanation, necessary for the proper understanding of vs. 14-28. Reading the account of the order in which the four camps journeyed, one would naturally draw the conclusion that the time order of the antitypical camps' journeying is thereby given; but understanding the tribes to type the denominations as set forth in these columns, we recognize that such cannot be the thought. E.g., Judah types the Calvinistic Church, while Reuben, Simeon and Ephraim type respectively the Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches. But the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches preceded the Calvinistic Church, in time by many centuries, and the Lutheran Church preceded it by several years, though Judah, the type of the Calvinistic Church, in the type set out on the march before the types of these other three Churches did. Accordingly, the time order of the antitypes is not indicated by the time order in which the four typical camps started out on their journey. This holds true only as between the four camps, but in each tribe of each camp the time order is also that of the antitypical tribes. To this rule Unitario-Universalism (Naphtali) is not a real exception, for while the Unitarian feature of it was developed before Methodism (Asher), the Universalistic feature of it was developed after Methodism was developed, and it is to present the matter from the standpoint of the finished picture that antitypical Naphtali is represented as coming last and after antitypical Asher. But if the time order of the antitypes is not given in the time order of the marching of the four typical camps, then what order is here given? We answer: the logical order of power, wisdom, justice and love. It will be recalled that we pointed out that the camp of Judah, embracing the three tribes to the east
of the tabernacle, had on its standard the figure of a lion, which we know represents power, prefiguring that the central thought in the stewardship doctrines of the camp of antitypical Judah would be power; that the standard of the camp of Reuben, embracing the three tribes to the south of the tabernacle, had on its standard the figure of an eagle, which we know represents wisdom, prefiguring that the central thought in the stewardship doctrines of the camp of antitypical Reuben would be wisdom; that the standard of the camp of Ephraim, embracing the three tribes to the west of the tabernacle, had on its standard the figure of an ox, which we know represents justice (from the fact that a bullock was used to represent our Lord's humanity as the satisfaction of Divine justice), prefiguring that the central thought in the stewardship doctrines of the camp of antitypical Ephraim would be justice; and that the camp of Dan, embracing the three tribes to the north of the tabernacle, had on its standard the figure of a man's face, which, having in the normal man a lovelit expression, we know represents love, prefiguring that the central thought in the stewardship doctrines of the camp of antitypical Dan would be love.
(27) As we recognize that these four camps typed in their standards the four great attributes of God, we are prepared to see how in the order of their journeyings these four camps type the thought, or logical, as distinct from the time order, in the journeyings of the antitypical four camps. A closer view of the antitype will show this. Judah represents the Calvinistic Church, whose stewardship doctrine is the Lord's Supper as representing Christ's death, faith-appropriating justification and the fellowship of the faithful in suffering. What is the thought central to this doctrine? Is it not Christ crucified, the power of God unto justification and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:23, 25)? Yea, verily. Issachar represents the Campbellite Church, whose
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
stewardship doctrine is: The Bible as the Christian's creed is the center of unity for God's people. But what is God's Word if not power, even as it is written: "The Word of God is quick [energetic] and powerful, etc." (Heb. 4:12). Zebulun types the Adventists, whose stewardship doctrine is: Chronology points out the time of the Kingdom, which will overthrow evil and enthrone righteousness. But the central thought of the time-designated-all-conquering Kingdom is that of power (2 Pet. 1:16). Thus we see that power is the central thought in the stewardship doctrines of the antitypical camp to the antitypical east of the tabernacle. An examination of the antitypical camp to the antitypical south of the tabernacle will show that the central thought of the stewardship doctrines of the three denominations in that camp is wisdom. Reuben types the Greek Catholic Church, whose stewardship doctrine is: Christ in His pre-human, human and post-human conditions is God's Special Representative, the Agent of all His plans and purposes. But Christ in these very particulars is God's wisdom in carrying out God's purposes (1 Cor. 1:23, 24; Col. 2:3). Simeon types the Roman Catholic Church, whose stewardship doctrine is: The one Church is the depository and administrator of the Truth and its Spirit. The Church in this particular is the Divinely appointed guardian and agent of the Truth, which is God's wisdom (1 Cor. 2:6-8). Gad types the Anglican or Episcopal Church, whose stewardship doctrine is: While in the flesh Jesus and the Church are subject to the civil powers, and not vice versa. But what is this other than a feature of the mystery hidden from ages and generations, which is Christ in you, first revealed to suffer at the hands of the world (Col. 1:27)? Thus the thought central to the three stewardship doctrines of this antitypical camp is the hidden wisdom of God, lodging in the Christ, Head and Body.
(28) Ephraim types the Lutheran Church, whose
stewardship doctrine is Justification by faith, wherein is revealed the righteousness (justice) of God in justifying the believing sinner (Rom. 3:20-26). Manasseh types the Congregational Church, whose stewardship doctrine is: Christians as brethren are all equal before the bar of Divine justice, and therefore have equal rights with one another in Church polity. Here, again, is the idea of justice, not only Godward, but also manward, as expressed in the golden rule (Matt. 22:35-40). Benjamin types the fanatical sects, which had their start in Quakerism, all of which have as their stewardship doctrine the thought: True religion is supreme love for God and equal love for the neighbor (Matt. 22:35-40). This, too, centers in justice. Accordingly, we see that the thought central to the stewardship doctrines of the antitypical camp to the antitypical east of the tabernacle is justice. Dan types the Baptist Church, whose stewardship doctrine is: Only the truly justified and consecrated are God's real people. But the heart of consecration is love (Col. 3:14; 1 Cor. 13:1-3; 1 Tim. 1:5). Asher types the Methodist Church, whose stewardship doctrine is: The Divine love is God's ideal for His people (1 John 3:16; 4:7, 12, 16, 21; 5:2, 3). Naphtali types the Unitario-Universalist Church, whose stewardship doctrine is: There is but one God, whose highest attribute is love (John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 John 4:7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17). Accordingly, we see that in the camp of antitypical Dan the three stewardship doctrines of its three respective denominations have as their central thought that of love. Our examination, accordingly, proves that the time order of the going forth of the antitypical four camps is not represented by the time order of the going forth of their respective typical camps. It rather proves that the logical or thought order in their relation to the four great Divine attributes is the thing of order observed in the order of the antitypical camps' going forward in the journeyings. But our examination does
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
prove that in each camp the antitypical three tribes went forth in the time order of the typical tribes of the respective typical camps. And for the reason above given, that of the completed going forth of antitypical Naphtali (Unitario-Universalism) is no exception to this rule, when viewed from the standpoint of its time of journeying, compared with that of the Methodist Church as antitypical Asher, whose type in birth is later than Naphtali.
(29) V. 14 specifically states that the standard of Judah journeyed first. This types the fact that God's power as it appears in the three doctrines: (1) The Christ Class crucified, represented in the Lord's Supper; (2) The Bible as the Christian's only creed, the center of Christian unity; and (3) The chronology pointing out the Kingdom as the over thrower of evil and establisher of good, logically comes first in the Christian warfare. And without any doubt, the Cross, the Word and the chronologically designated Kingdom, working in power, logically come first in Christianity. And in the logical order of development, as well as in the time order of their development, these three doctrines follow one another in the demonstration of power in the time order in which they were made the stewardship doctrines of their respective denominations. The first of these is the Christ, Head and Body, crucified, as pictured in the Lord's Supper. It comes in logical order first of all Christian doctrines and in time order was properly made the first of the three stewardship doctrines of the antitypical camp to the east. Our study of the offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes (Num. 7:10-89) and of the priests' blowing the trumpets with alarms for the camps' marching (Num. 10:5-8) enables us to see the time relations between such offerings and blowings and the tribal journeyings. In explaining the tribal journeyings we will in each case point out these three separate sets of acts, which will enable us to have a full view of the antitype in its three
salient features as they developed during the Gospel Age. We begin with typical and antitypical Judah. As we have seen, the tribe of Judah (praised) types the Calvinistic Church, which in non-English-language nations is called the Reformed Church and in English language nations the Presbyterian Church. It was Zwingli who in 1521 began to blow forth the silver trumpets, i.e., proclaim the message that the Lord's Supper represents (1) the death of Jesus, (2) faith appropriating justification from the merit of His humanity and life laid down unto death, and (3) the fellowship of the consecrated in suffering (though he did not understand this as implying the Church's share in the sin-offering, which it actually does). His proclaiming this message quickly brought to his side Oecolampadius as his special companion helper and others who joined him in the proclamation, and this resulted in a widespread Little Flock movement having the pertinent doctrine as its keynote. For a number of years this movement remained a Little Flock movement.
(30) But presently, under the lead of John Calvin a sectarianizing of this movement began about 1538. To him a number of other able men, like Beza, Bullinger, Farel and Knox joined themselves and before many years turned the Little Flock movement started by Zwingli into the denomination called the Reformed or the Presbyterian Church. For details please see Chapter IV. The work of these crown-lost leaders resulted in gathering about them an aggressive denomination, which, next to the Lutheran Church, is the largest of the Protestant denominations. It is at this point, i.e., starting the sectarianizing of this Little Flock movement, resulting in a large sectarian following gathering about these leaders, attracted by these leaders' offering their antitypical bowl, charger and spoon, that the antitype of the journeying of the children of Judah set in (v. 14). Thus the crown-lost leaders led the vanguard of antitypical Judah. Judah's journeying under
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
the leadership of Nahshon (subtle), the son of Amminadab (my people is willful), types the members of the Calvinistic Church, under the direction of the above-mentioned crown-losers, starting to engage in controversy on the Lord's Supper, both from a refutational and a correctional standpoint, though less markedly they presented this teaching from a doctrinal and ethical standpoint. They controversially defended their doctrine of the Lord's Supper against the Romanists' attacks on it, from the standpoint of transubstantiation, and against the Lutherans' attacks on it, from the standpoint of instrumentalization. And they vindicated the representative and commemorative view of it. Not only did they thus refute the attacks coming from the defenders of the two above-mentioned errors, but they attacked these errors with telling effect, which demonstrated their erroneousness. In waging a defensive and aggressive warfare against these two errors, they made good use of the Bible as profitable for reproof, refutation (2 Tim. 3:16). But they used their doctrine of the Lord's Supper also correctively (2 Tim. 3:16), to cleanse themselves thereby from sin, for which this doctrine, as inciting to self-examination and purging out the old leaven, very nicely lent itself. They, of course, used the doctrine also constructively, i.e., to inculcate an understanding of its various phases (doctrine) and to develop a pertinent character (instruction in righteousness). All four of these features, but more particularly the first and second above mentioned, are typed by their journeying. The armed men of Judah going forth on this journeying at the sound of the alarm more particularly represent the controversial aspects of the case as to error and sin, while the other Judahites represent more particularly their teaching as to the constructive features, in indoctrination and ethical conduct. Yet all of them, generally speaking, in their journeying picture all four aspects of these uses of God's Word on the Lord's Supper.
In this activity they vindicated God's power as working in both salvations, as symbolized by the three features of the Lord's Supper.
(31) The second tribe of the camp of Judah was Issachar (hire), whose leader was Nethaneel (gift of God), the son of Zuar (little, humble). The Little Flock leader who began the Little Flock movement which was later sectarianized into the Campbellite Church was Barton Stone, who in 1804, in Tenn. and Ky., began to preach the doctrine that the Bible alone as the creed of God's people is the center of their unity. In 1809 Thomas Campbell, the father of Alexander Campbell, in southwestern Pennsylvania began a similar movement and thus became the second of the two of whom Barton Stone, as the star-member of the two, was the first. These were soon joined by other Priests, all blowing on the two trumpets as related to the teaching that the Bible as the Christian's sole creed is the center of unity for God's people. As a result a lively Little Flock movement was set into operation by these Priests, under the lead of Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell. Presently Alexander Campbell joined this movement and began to sectarianize it. In such sectarianizing work he was joined by Samuel Rogers, John Smith, Thomas Allen, Walter Scott, Isaac Errett, etc. As an outcome of their efforts the Campbellite, or Christian, or Disciple denomination arose. For details please see Chapter IV. It was at this point of their sectarianizing this movement, that antitypical Issachar (the Campbellite Church, the crown-lost leaders being in the vanguard) started out on his Gospel-Age journey. It was the Priests' blowing of the antitypical alarm on the doctrine that became the Campbellites' stewardship doctrine that started their crown-lost leaders out as the vanguard of antitypical Issachar; and they started the march by offering their antitypical bowl, charger and spoon (v. 15). Soon they were joined by sectarian followers who were not consecrated.
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
The non-leaders of typical Issachar beginning their journeying represent these Campbellites entering controversially into a progressive growth in the knowledge of this denomination's stewardship doctrine refutatively against the opposing teachings of others, and using it to cleanse themselves and others from the sectarian evils against which that stewardship doctrine was a protest, as well as advancing constructively in the knowledge of this doctrine and in heart qualities in harmony therewith. So doing they made a proper use as unbegotten people of their stewardship doctrine. By such a course they shook the confidence of many in the sectarian creeds and advanced the idea of true Christian unity, despite their sectarian denial of it in act. By the foregoing course they advanced power as an attribute of God, working by the Bible in its relation to unity among God's people.
(32) The third tribe in the camp of Judah was Zebulun (habitation), whose prince was Eliab (my God is father), the son of Helon (strong). This tribe types the sect called the Adventists. The Little Flock member who began the movement that was later sectarianized into the Advent Church was William Miller, who in 1829 began to advance the thought of the chronology as proving the nearness of Christ's Second Advent and the Kingdom of God for the overthrow of evil and the establishment of righteousness. This doctrine likewise emphasized the idea of Divine power, centering it in the object of Christ's Second Advent and Kingdom. Thus William Miller blew the alarm on his symbolic trumpet, and continued to do so for about 20 years. He was constantly involved in controversy with the post-Millennialists and this proves the alarm character of his blowing, though, of course, he also on proper occasions sounded the non-alarm, the constructive teachings, doctrinally and ethically, of this doctrine. Bro. Miller's special Little Flock companion was Bro. Wolf, these two constituting the two companions sent
forth, Bro. Miller the star-member of the two and Bro. Wolf his non-star special helper. Other Priests joined these in sending forth the message on chronology designating Christ's Second Advent and Kingdom, which resulted in the development of a very vigorous Little Flock movement. But presently crown-lost leaders, Joshua Hines, James and Ellen White, Uriah Smith, Miles Grant, etc., associating themselves with these, began after the 1844 disappointment a sectarianizing movement, which culminated in the Adventist Church. For details please see Chapter IV. These crown-lost leaders were antitypical Eliab. In the antitype their sectarian emphasis on the chronology as pointing out the nearness of the Second Advent and Kingdom given in their antitypical bowl, charger and spoon started off antitypical Zebulun on his march (v. 16). In this sectarian emphasis they stressed the bowl, charger and spoon use of the doctrine that became the stewardship teaching of the Adventist Church. So doing, they started out as the vanguard of antitypical Zebulun. Those unbegotten persons who, attracted by these crown-lost leaders, joined their sect and began to use this stewardship teaching controversially, correctionally, doctrinally and ethically, progressing in these four respects especially amid controversy, formed the rest of antitypical Zebulun and by such activities started out in the journeying of antitypical Zebulun. In standing for this doctrine refutatively, correctively, doctrinally and ethically, they advanced and vindicated God's power as it is associated with the chronologically-indicated Kingdom.
(33) V. 17 shows that the Gershonites and Merarites journeyed between the camp of Judah and the camp of Reuben. This is not accidental, but Divinely designed. This can be recognized when we consider, on the one hand, that the camps between which they traveled typed—that of Judah, Divine power operating, and that of Reuben, Divine wisdom operating, and, on
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
the other hand, that the work of the Gershonites typed the faith-justified bringing sinners to justification and justified ones to consecration, and that the work of the Merarites typed the work of editors, publishers, etc., preparing for the press, printing and circulating Bibles, books, magazines and tracts on the Bible, and of colporteurs and justified bookstore owners and clerks handling Biblical literature, justified scribes and printers of religious literature being reckoned among the antitypical Merarites; for we have seen, Chapter III, that such were the works of these two sets of justified workers. Accordingly, the evangelistic efforts of the justified, both by word of mouth and by writing pertinent literature, as well as the support of such in this work by justified believers, are the antitype of the Libnite Gershonites' carrying their part of the tabernacle; and the efforts of justified believers to induce justified ones to consecrate are the antitypes of the Shimite Gershonites' bearing their part of the tabernacle. But in so doing they stood for the justification and consecration features of the Gospel; and as their serving the justification features made them emphasize the main surface things of the human salvation centering in Jesus, they of necessity emphasized Him crucified, the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:23, 24). So, in typing this fact, the Libnite Gershonites traveled in their logical place by journeying between the camps of Judah and Reuben. In the Shimite Gershonites' stressing consecration and thus seeking to help justified ones to consecration, they emphasized the surface features of the high calling, and thus completed their part in preaching the Christ crucified as, unconsciously to them, the Church sharing with our Lord in crucifixion; and thus they presented these as being, with Jesus, the Christ crucified, the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:23, 24). Accordingly, in typing this the Shimite Gershonites traveled in their logical place by journeying between the camps of Judah and Reuben.
(34) On further study we will also recognize the propriety of the Merarites' journeying between these two camps. The antitypical Merarites were the literary agents to establish the literary contacts of the antitypical Gershonites and Kohathites with the people, the Levites and the Priests. They, of course, did not minister through the oral services of the Gershonites (preaching and teaching by word of mouth) and Kohathites (lecturing and teaching by word of mouth). Rather, their service was to put the pen products of the antitypical Gershonites on repentance, faith, justification and consecration, and of the antitypical Kohathites on the linguistical, exegetical, historical and systematic Bible helps, into print and circulate them among the antitypical camp, Levites and Priests. From what was shown in the preceding paragraph on how the Gershonites journeyed in their logical place between the camps of Judah and Reuben for typical purposes, it follows that whatever the antitypical Merarites did for the help of the antitypical Gershonites in their work by putting their pen products into print and by circulating them furthered the Lord's matters along the line of His power and wisdom. And whatever they did that furthered the antitypical Kohathites for their literary products in ministering to Divine wisdom and power was, of course, on their part a ministering to Divine wisdom and power. Thus we see that both the typical Gershonites and typical Merarites were put in their logical place for the antitype when they were required to journey between the camps of Judah and Reuben. The taking down (v. 17) of their parts of the tabernacle by the Gershonites seems to type the preparatory work that the antitypical Gershonites would make for the furthering of their progress in knowledge, grace and service, as related to the pertinent antitypical journey, e.g., the antitypical Libnites in preparing their evangelistic campaigns, pertinent sermons and writings, the antitypical Shimites in preparing their
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
campaigns, pertinent sermons and writings for leading justified ones to consecration, the antitypical Mahlite Merarites in preparing their materials, plans, etc., for editing Bibles and other religious books, magazines and tracts, and the antitypical Mushite Merarites in preparing for the printing and circulation of Bibles and other religious books, magazines and tracts. These two groups of Levites' bearing the tabernacle (v. 17) types the respective services of the antitypical Gershonites in furthering justificational and consecrational work and of the antitypical Merarites in editing, publishing and circulating the Bible and other Christian literature. The Gershonites' and Merarites' setting forth (v. 17) types their antitypes' beginning such services. The formers' progress, the latters' progress and the formers' arrival at Paran, the latters' coming to the kingdom's conditions in the Epiphany Levites.
(35) V. 18 introduces the journeying of the second camp, that of Reuben (behold a son). As already shown, the standard of this camp had an eagle embroidered on it. We have already shown that this figure types the Divine wisdom; and we have already shown how wisdom is the central thought in the stewardship doctrines of the three denominations typed by the three tribes in the camp to the south of the tabernacle. According to Num. 2:2, in addition to each camp having one standard, which did not serve as the ensign of the tribe at the head of the pertinent camp, each of the twelve tribes had an ensign. It is these twelve ensigns that stood for the twelve tribes, as did the twelve precious stones in the high priest's breastplate; and they typed the same as these twelve stones—the twelve chief graces of the Christian character, corresponding to the twelve precious stones in the foundations of New Jerusalem's walls (Rev. 21:19-21) and the twelve fruits of the tree of life (Rev. 22:2). Accordingly, Reuben was the first tribe of the camp to the south of the tabernacle, and as such typed
the Greek Catholic Church, whose stewardship doctrine was: Christ was God's special representative in all His creative, revelatory and providential works in His prehuman condition, and in all His redemptive works in His human condition, and as such in His instructional, justifying, sanctifying and delivering works toward the Church and the world, and in vicegerental works in His post-human nature throughout the universe forever; for this undoubtedly was the stewardship doctrine of the Greek Catholic Church.
(36) The Little Flock member who started the Little Flock movement on Christ's pre-human, human and post-human office was the Apostle John, who presented this doctrine in opposition to Gnosticism of the type sponsored by Cerinthus. According to Polycarp, John, accidentally meeting Cerinthus in one of the public baths, ran quickly out of the building, lest it fall upon the heretic. St. John in his Gospel, Epistles and Apocalypse treats of the pre-human, human and posthuman office of Christ, his pertinent thoughts being that the Logos, God's only begotten, was His agent in creation, revelation and providence before He became human, became human to be God's agent in redemption and became Divine in His resurrection to act as God's agent in instruction, justification, sanctification and deliverance for the Church and the world and in vicegerental rulership throughout the universe. Being an Apostle, though also a member of the Smyrna star, St. John did not have a special helper companion (not being one of the antitypical 70 between the Harvests), as the other star members between the two Harvests did. But Polycarp, who died either 155 or 166 A. D., as the first one of the 70 between the two Harvests and as the star-member of the first two of these 70, the other being Polycrates of Ephesus, joined after John's death in sounding out this message, as well as that of the proper Paschal date. Other priestly brethren took up this message of Christ's office, proclaiming it. Thus
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
the sons of antitypical Aaron (v. 8), as typed, blew out this message on their symbolic trumpets. Thus a Little Flock movement advanced along the line of this doctrine. Next the crown-lost leaders appeared on the scene, who, while they woefully perverted the teaching of Christ's pre-human, human and post-human person by trinitarianism and God-manism, nevertheless held to the teaching of His pre-human, human and post-human office work as being that of God's special representative in creation, revelation, providence, redemption, instruction, justification, sanctification, deliverance and universe-rulership. Such crown-lost leaders began to offer as follows: Origen (225 A. D.), Dionesius of Rome (260 A. D.), Athanasius (320 A. D.), Basil (350 A. D.), Gregory of Nazianzen (370 A. D.) and Gregory of Nyssa (380 A. D.). Their work resulted in perverting the Little Flock movement that John started into a sect, the Greek Catholic Church. Their offering their bowl, charger and spoon started antitypical Reuben's journeying in his prince. They attracted great numbers to themselves as members of antitypical Reuben who joined in the journeying of this antitypical tribe by entering heartily into the so-called Christological controversies and applied the stewardship teaching of the Greek Catholic Church doctrinally, refutatively, correctively and ethically. Thus they waged an aggressive and defensive warfare for this teaching, as well as spread it constructively in doctrinal and ethical respects, and thereby they advanced various features of Divine wisdom. And in so doing they marched after their leaders—antitypical Elizur (my God is a rock), the son of Shedeur (lightspreader). This resulted in their advancing and vindicating God's Wisdom. Details will be found on this matter in Chapter V.
(37) V. 19 brings to our attention the journeying of the tribe of Simeon (student), which was the second tribe of the second camp, that of Reuben. The prince
of Simeon was Shelumiel (peace of God), the son of Zurishaddai (my rock is almighty). As set forth in Chapter V, we understand the tribe of Simeon to type the Roman Catholic Church. Like all other antitypical tribes, antitypical Simeon's journeying was preceded by the priesthood's blowing an alarm (v. 8) on its symbolic trumpets. The Little Flock member who started to blow this alarm was Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp. His sounding this alarm was occasioned by Gnosticism, both within and without the Church seeking to destroy the Truth and the Church by sectarianizing both out of existence. To their claim for their new doctrine to be the teaching of the Church, he opposed the thoughts that only that which was universally believed among Christians from the times of the Apostles could be the Truth, and only that could be the Church which held this faith immaculate everywhere since the days of the Apostles. This teaching, stated then, at a time so near the days of the Apostles, was undoubtedly true; it could not now be made in truth because in the long centuries intervening the true faith was largely lost by everybody; and in its place many corruptions have been accepted by all Christians up to well within the Gospel Harvest. Hence this clincher of the Truth in Irenaeus' day would be a fallacy now. From these conditions Irenaeus set forth the following truth: The one Church of God is the one custodian and administrator of the saving Truth. This was the message that, as an alarm, he blew out. Tertullian of Carthage, Africa, became his special helper companion, as the non-star-member of the two of whom Irenaeus was the star-member. To these a number of Priests rallied, all of whom blew the alarm on the trumpets; and as an accompaniment these constituted and aroused a considerable Little Flock movement, whose watchword was, There is but one Church of God, which is the custodian and administrator of the Truth. Presently crown-lost brethren, beginning about
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
251 A. D. with Cyprian, of Carthage, Africa, a disciple of Tertullian, perverted this movement into a sect. The chief other promoters of this sectarian movement were most of the successive popes of Rome, beginning with Cornelius (251) and culminating in Gregory the Great (590), Damasus (360), Innocent (402) and Leo the Great (440) being the chief ones between these two. But still more influential were Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome, who, with Gregory the Great, constitute the four Roman Catholic Church Fathers, in sectarianizing the Romanist Church. Chief among all these were Cyprian and Augustine, the latter more than the former, in perverting the Little Flock movement on the one Church being the custodian and administrator of the Truth. As these crown-lost leaders offered their bowl, charger and spoon, they antityped Shelumiel, the son of Zurishaddai, starting out on the journeying of v. 19. To these an ever increasing number of followers attached themselves as members of the Roman Catholic Church, who, controverting on this subject grew in knowledge, grace and service on it as they discussed the subject doctrinally, refutatively, correctionally and ethically; and in so doing they performed their part in the journeying of v. 19. This whole sectarian aggregation made the mistake of holding that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church. Details on this subject will be found in Chapter V. In standing for this teaching antitypical Simeon advanced and vindicated Divine wisdom in relation to this doctrine.
(38) v. 20 treats of Gad's part in the journeying, the tribe of Gad being the third tribe in the camp of Reuben, whose station was to the tabernacle's south, his prince being Eliasaph, the son of Deuel. Gad means company; Eliasaph, my God adds; and Deuel, recognition of power. Gad types the Episcopal, or Anglican Church; Eliasaph, its crown-lost leaders, Elizabeth, Parker, Grindal, Whitgift, Hooker, Taylor, Barrow, Laud, etc. The Little Flock member who began
the movement later perverted into the Episcopal Church was Thomas Cranmer, about 1533, who in a controversy with the pope blew on his trumpets the alarm, Jesus and the Church, while in the flesh, in secular matters were by God made subject to the civil powers. This Biblical principle gives the state no power over the Christ in His spiritual rights, duties and possessions, nor authority to rule the Church as a body, but it does subject its members in their persons in secular matters to the civil powers. Cranmer was soon joined in this movement by Latimer, his helper companion, the non-star-member of the two of whom Cranmer was the star-member. Other Priests joined in this trumpet-alarm blowing and a vigorous Little Flock movement set in, which was in part sectarianized by its Little Flock leaders, under a mistaken view of the power of the king to direct religious, ecclesiastical affairs; for they taught that he was, under God, the head of the Anglican Church. But the real sectarianizing of this movement was in its beginning directed by Elizabeth, Cecil and Parker, in their pertinent agitations and works. Then, later, other crown-lost leaders joined in this sectarianizing work. All of such crown-lost leaders by offering their bowl, charger and spoon, started to journey, in antitype of Eliasaph, the son of Deuel, starting to march (v. 20). Details on this subject may be found in Chapter V. These were joined in by a large following gathered into the Episcopal Church as members. As these entered sectarianly into the pertinent controversy, they antityped the tribe of Gad setting out on its journey as stated in v. 20. Gad's progress in this journey typed their growth in knowledge, grace and service, by a defensive and aggressive controversy on the stewardship doctrine of the Episcopal Church, i.e., in secular matters Jesus and the Church are as individuals subject to the powers that be. And by their using this doctrine correctionally and ethically, they continued to progress in knowledge,
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
grace and service along the line of their stewardship doctrine. As they so did, they advanced and vindicated the Divine wisdom in subjecting Jesus and the Church as individuals to the powers that be, for thereby the Divine wisdom manifested itself in the development of the Christ amid sufferings, which in a large measure came upon them through their sufferings caused by the state of persecution, etc. The foregoing discussion on the three tribes to the tabernacle's south (Reuben, Simeon and Gad) demonstrates how in the antitype the three involved stewardship doctrines centered in the Christ class as the manifest expression of God's wisdom working in His plan.
(39) In continuing our study of Num. 10:11-36, it would be well to remember that the three days' march there described types the Gospel-Age progress of the Real and Nominal Church from their coming out from Judaism until the Kingdom. In that march the antitypical Priests, bearing the antitypical Ark, led the march (v. 33). The next to join, considered logically and not chronologically, were the crown-lost leaders of antitypical Judah, then antitypical Judah as the followers. These in turn were followed by the crown-lost leaders of antitypical Issachar, then by their ledlings. Next came the crown-lost leaders of antitypical Zebulun, followed in turn by its ledlings, etc., etc., as one camp after another joined in the antitypical march in its logical order and divisions. In every case of a camp's marching the antitypical Priests blew the alarm on their trumpets for the antitypical camps to start (vs. 5, 6). Viewed from the chronological standpoint, we know that each antitypical tribe started out after the pertinent Priestly movement was begun; for in its crown-lost leaders it started out as they began to offer their antitypical bowl, charger and spoon. Thereupon in each case the pertinent denomination set forth on its antitypical journey. Hence the march of Num. 10:11-36 is a very remarkable type, whose study
should be both informing and refreshing. We are in the antitype now nearly at the end of the Gospel-Age march. Soon the last Priests will have successfully carried the antitypical Ark to the resting place (v. 33) that it will have searched out for the Priests, the Levites and the people. The end of the Epiphany will end the Priestly part of the journey; shortly thereafter will the Great Company and Youthful Worthy Levites finish their journey; and shortly thereafter the antitypical twelve tribes will do the same. It will be noted that the Gospel Age being accompanied by the miniature Gospel Age at its end, the tribal picture of the Gospel Age is transferred to the Little Gospel-Age tribes, the larger tribes passing away during Armageddon and their place in the picture being taken until the finished picture by the little tribes of the miniature Gospel Age. The merging of the large tribes into the smaller ones is not shown in this type, perhaps because the survivors of the large tribes will become the small tribes in the transition time. It is necessary to keep this thought in mind in order to harmonize with the picture the facts of the fulfillment during the time from Armageddon onward.
(40) In paragraph (38) we finished the section under study up to and including v. 20. V. 21 describes the Kohathites' part in the march. It will be noted that they marched in the middle of the host—six tribes marching ahead of them and six tribes marching behind them; or, to put it into another form, two camps marched ahead of them and two behind them. This position was not at all accidental. Rather it was specifically designed. This will appear from the following: The Kohathites' service was the carrying of the covered furniture and vessels of the sanctuary, and this gave to them the most sacred service that Levites could perform; and to give the intended helps to the priests, tribal leaders, other Levites and the people, it was fitting that they occupy the center of the host.
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
Again, the tabernacle was to be ready for the placing of the furniture and vessels therein by the time the Kohathites arrived at the newly erected tabernacle ("against [the time] they came"—v. 21). This required them to march separately and later than the Merarites and Gershonites, who had the work of erecting the tabernacle and court, as the account shows, (vs. 17, 21). Thus there was a reason for the marching position of the Kohathites from the standpoint of the Levites. There was also a reason for it from the standpoint of the Priests; for the Priests were the chief leaders of the whole host, which was indicated by their marching on this journey ahead of the host, and the tribal heads were the secondary leaders, each marching at the head of his tribe, and the tertiary group leaders, the Kohathites, had to be placed in a relation to the host to show their tertiary position—hence the center of the host was selected for this, where, accordingly, they marched. Then, too, their relations to the Israelites as such required that, as they bore the most sacred things of the sanctuary, from which the people got the most good, they should be placed in their very midst. Accordingly, the typical Kohathites were rightly situated in the host's march.
(41) When we look at the antitype, the position of the antitypical Kohathites is in its logical place; for their work is the most responsible of all Levitical work. It will be recalled that the antitypical Kohathites' work is to provide the learned lectures and books on religious, linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic subjects. Thereby they furnish matter helpful for the furthering of the Christ as the antitypical Brazen and Golden Altars, as the antitypical Lampstand and Table and as part of the antitypical Ark, and of God's attributes as the rest of it, and helpful for furthering the Bible as the antitypical Laver. Moreover such linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic helps further for the Priests the antitypical
vessels as doctrines, refutations, corrections and instructions in righteousness. In doing this work they help not only the Priests, but also the crown-lost leaders, their Levite brethren and the antitypical camp. Thus the typical Kohathites' being in the center of the camp types that the antitypical Kohathites would minister to all logically traveling before and all logically traveling after them in the antitypical march. In Chapter II we described the work of the Gospel-Age Kohathites. It was in the doing of the work there described that they did the work typed by the Kohathites' marching as described in v. 21. The Gershonites' work on the tabernacle in its erecting against the time of the Kohathites' arrival with the covered sacred furniture and vessels, types that the work of the antitypical Gershonites—justificational and consecrational—logically precedes the learned work of the antitypical Kohathites to help such justified and consecrated ones. The Merarites' work on the tabernacle in its erecting against the time of the Kohathites' arrival with the covered sacred furniture and vessels, types (1) that the publishers and editors of Gershonite writings on justification and sanctification work together with the antitypical Gershonites to bring people to justification and consecration and (2) that through previous antitypical Merarites' work of editing, printing and publishing Bibles and other religious books, magazines and tracts, helps for further advances would be made in Kohathite knowledge given orally or in print, as the case might be.
(42) E.g., the prior printed Hebrew and Greek recensions of the Bible furnished to later antitypical Gershonite Amramite Kohathites helps that enabled them to issue still more improved recensions. Thus Griesbach's Greek Testament, whose text is used by the Diaglott, helped Lachmann to get out his Greek recension. And this in turn assisted Tischendorf in making a number of improvements on Lachmann's
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
recension. And in turn Westcott and Hort were by Tischendorf enabled to progress further than the latter; and, finally, by the help furnished by Westcott and Hort's recension, and as a basis for his work, Mr. Panin has been able to publish his long promised Numeric Greek Testament, which in the changes not based on his use of neighborhood numerics should give us the correct readings of the New Testament in Greek. How extensively his emendations are based on neighborhood numerics, which God placed in the Bible as a warning against errors that some would regard as correct, we do not know, so will have to wait until he has published his large Introduction to his Numeric Greek Testament, where, we understand, he purposes to show the process through which each reading of Westcott and Hort's recension has been corrected or justified. By using neighborhood numerics to stand as a proof of a reading, Mr. Panin has misplaced the comma in Luke 23:43. Thus we see that each succeeding recensionist stood on the shoulders of his predecessor. The same course appears in the work of the successive Kohathite Greek and Hebrew lexicographers, grammarians, translators, concordance-makers, introductionists, exegetes, harmoneticians, historians, biographers, archeologists, chronologians, geographers, dogmaticians, apologists and ethicians. In other words, as the Priestly Truth advanced, each succeeding part of the seven angels advanced on the basis laid down by his predecessor; and similarly, in giving to these, the crown-lost princes, their Levite brethren and the antitypical camp, Kohathite helps related to such advancing Truth, the antitypical Kohathites advanced on their predecessors. And in order to type that the antitypical Merarites would make preparations for such advance work by editing, printing and circulating previously their predecessors' work, the typical Merarites erected their parts of the tabernacle before the Kohathites arrived there.
(43) So far as the antitypical Priests have been concerned, the logical position of the antitypical Kohathites has been one in which they could help them. This is typed by the Kohathites' being in the center of the host, reaching forward and backward. By that antitypical position they offered the Priests the various helps that the above-indicated activities of the antitypical Kohathites put in their way; and thus they bore the antitypical furniture and vessels for the Priests covered. In a similar way they ministered to the crown-lost leaders, who in their individuals until 1917 were by God from another standpoint looked upon as Priests, since until 1917 there was no Great Company, though all through the Age from shortly after Pentecost there have been crown-losers. Generally speaking, the helps that the antitypical Kohathites have been giving to the antitypical Israelites as distinct from Priests and Levites have, of course, not been of the deeply scholarly kind. Rather they have been of the popular kind, simplified matters, generalities of scholarship rather than its particularities, such as general translations, less learned concordances, like Cruden's, Walker's, Hazard's and Englishman's, and simple introductory, exegetical, harmonetic, historical, apologetical, doctrinal, ethical, archeological, chronological and geographic matters, such, e.g., as is found in certain special editions of the Bible, like the Oxford, Baxter, Holman, Schofield, and Winston teachers' Bibles and other popular publications, including the easier Bible dictionaries and religious encyclopedias. The central position of the typical Kohathites was arranged for by God also to type the logical relation of the antitypical Kohathites to the central thought of all four antitypical camps and to each stewardship doctrine in each of these four antitypical camps. In other words, their Old and New Testament recensional, and their lexical, grammatical, translational, concordantial, introductory, interpretational, harmonetical, historical,
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
biographical, archeological, chronological, geo-graphical, apologetic, dogmatic and ethical works, ministered as to the Divine Power as exhibited in the camp of antitypical Judah, as to the Divine Wisdom as seen in the camp of antitypical Reuben, as to the Divine Justice as present in the camp of antitypical Ephraim and as to the Divine Love as manifest in the camp of antitypical Dan. Not only so, but these four attributes were by them singly emphasized as apparent in each one of the three stewardship doctrines in each of the four antitypical camps. And it was also to type this emphasis on the four attributes in themselves and upon each of them singly related to its respective three stewardship doctrines that the Kohathites were placed in the exact center of the host, as it marched.
(44) We are now in a position in which we can give added proof that the camps in their marching order do not give so much the time as the thought or logical order of the antitypical host. Not only the facts given above prove the logical more than the chronological order as applying in the order of the antitypical march, but also the positions of the Priests and the three groups of the Levites in the antitypical march prove this. As a matter of time order the marching was as to each denomination preceded first by the Priests' blowing an alarm that began a Priestly movement; this in every case was later by the crown-lost leaders perverted into a sect by their offering their symbolic bowl, charger and spoon, whereby they began to march; thereafter the pertinent antitypical tribe would begin its march. If the viewpoint of the typical march were to show this of the priests in their relation to each tribe, instead of some of the priests being represented as bearing the ark ahead of the host and others of them as blowing an alarm for the four camps, the priests, apart from those bearing the ark, would have been divided into twelve groups, one of which would in each case have marched ahead of the
pertinent prince, blowing the alarm. This is avoided in the type, partly doubtless because there were not enough priests available for it, and more especially because God wanted to picture forth other viewpoints from the standpoint of the antitype: (1) the oneness of the entire Priesthood; (2) their furthering the antitypical Ark; (3) their special relationship to the four Divine attributes by using them to sound the antitypical alarm for the starting of each of the antitypical camps; and (4) God brings out the work of the Priests in starting out each antitypical tribe by another type, viz., Jacob begetting his sons. But the fact of the priests' marching ahead of the host bearing the ark shows that both the logical and part of the chronological order are at work in the antitype considered as one picture, but it does not give the details of the time order for the four camps and the twelve tribes. As a matter of fact, in the antitype the alarm-blowing is a part of the Ark bearing. And the alarm-blowing proves that the logical more than the time order prevails in the antitype.
(45) Again, in the antitype the Levites associated with each antitypical tribe do their work in the time order of that particular tribe. Thus in each denomination the Gershonites do their justification and sanctification work while that antitypical tribe starts out on, proceeds with and ends its part of the march. Similarly, the antitypical Merarites do their editorial and printing and publishing work during the same stages of their pertinent tribal marches. The same is true as to the work of the antitypical Kohathites. But just as it was not the purpose of this type to bring out all the time order of the Priests' work in trumpeting an alarm, nor of the journeying of the Priests with their pertinent tribes; so it was not the purpose of this type to bring out all the time relations of the antitypical Levites in their journeying, nor their relations to the denominations with which they have been associated. Rather the purpose of their part in the type was to
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
bring out their logical relation to the antitypical camps and tribes as distinct from their chronological order and tribal association. Thus the relations of both the Priests and the Levites to their pertinent antitypical tribes are ignored in this type in order to bring out, so far as the Priests are concerned, the thought that they led the antitypical host as a whole logically and chronologically and as consisting of four camps; while, so far as the antitypical Levites are concerned, the typical purpose is to bring out simply their logical relations to the Priests, to crown-lost leaders, to one another and, so far as concerns the antitypical Gershonites and Merarites, to the antitypical first and second camps, and, so far as the antitypical Kohathites are concerned, to all four of the camps. Consequently the relation of the Levites to the marching is entirely logical and not at all chronological. Thus we see that the whole picture leans much more strongly to the logical than to the chronological order, which however is not entirely ignored, as can be seen in the priests' marching ahead of the whole, in their sounding the alarms for the four camps, in the time order of all three tribes in all four antitypical camps in journeying and in the time order of the Levites toward one another: first the Gershonites, second the Merarites and last the Kohathites.
(46) V. 22 brings to our attention the journeying of the third camp—that of Ephraim, to the west of the tabernacle. As already shown, the camp of Ephraim typed the antitypical camp that stands for the attribute of Divine Justice. How this is true of the antitypical camp as a whole and of each of the three stewardship doctrines of its tribes, we have shown above. It will now be in order to describe the antitypical journeying of antitypical Ephraim, the Lutheran Church. As with the march of every other denomination, it was preceded by the alarm blown by the antitypical Priests (v. 8). As we have seen, all the Reformation leaders proclaimed
the four fundamental truths of the Reformation: (1) justification by faith alone; (2) the Bible alone, the source and rule of faith and practice; (3) the sole headship of Christ to the Church, and (4) the sole priesthood of consecrated believers. Accordingly, Wessel, Savonarola and Luther, who began as star-members of the Philadelphia Church to blow the antitypical alarm preceding the journeying of the Lutheran Church, proclaimed all four of these messages controversially against Rome's contrary claims on each of the four involved points; but while Luther proclaimed all four of these messages, he laid much more stress on the first than on any of the others. His experiences, the needs of the times and the greater annihilative power of this doctrine than of the other three as against the Romanist system made him give the main stress to this doctrine. But unknown to him God had designed it so for very practical reasons. It certainly, as he presented it, was an alarm-blowing. Very few controversialists have wrought greater havoc on their opponents' positions than Luther. This accounts for Rome's counting him the greatest and most mischievous of heretics. The immense commotion that his preaching raised in the religious and political world shows that it was meat in due season. And he preached it in season and out of season for himself. He greatly loved this doctrine; for it rescued him from the torments of conscience, unappeasable through works' righteousness, into peace with God (Rom. 5:1). His ablest and most detailed exposition of this doctrine is found in his larger commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, which commentary is one of the greatest classics of the Age.
(47) His announcing this doctrine in the 95 theses that he nailed to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, Saxony, Germany, immediately aroused a storm. Romanist theologians, sensing the mortality of the blow to their entire theory of salvation, girded
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
on their armor to measure swords with Luther; and from that time onward Luther's life was largely filled with controversy. And on the four principles of the Reformation, particularly on that of justification by faith alone, he proved an invincible warrior. Throwing the methods of the schools to the winds, he fought as a champion of the people, understood, trusted and loved by them for his rugged honesty, simplicity, candor, charity and courage. Undoubtedly he was one of the greatest heroes and geniuses of the race. But he was more: He was a man of God. His controversy with Eck, Rome's ablest controversialist of those times, enlisted on his side his Divinely provided companion helper, Philip Melanchthon, as gentle as Luther was rugged, as scholarly as Luther was popular, as timid as Luther was brave. Thus they were complements of one another. The Lord's wisdom in making Luther the star-member and Melanchthon the companion in this pair is thus manifest. Soon other Priests were enlisted on their side, blowing away on the silver trumpets the alarm, especially on justification by faith. Shortly, crown-lost leaders joined them. Among these were Frederick the Wise and John the Steadfast, both electors of Saxony, thus Luther's rulers. A large number of theologians gathered to them; and shortly the offering of their bowl, charger and spoon began to pervert the Lutheran movement into a sect, a work in which Luther and Melanchthon, sad to say, joined. Such offering of these antitypical vessels started antitypical Elishama (my God hears), the son of Ammihud (my people is honorable), on his march as the leader of antitypical Ephraim, the Lutheran Church as a sect. These were soon joined by other zealous sectarians, who controversially entered the discussions on the stewardship doctrine of the Lutheran Church, justification by faith alone, especially on its cleansing and refutative aspects, but also in its doctrinal and ethical features. As thus the first of the Lutheran ledlings began
such activities, they antityped the tribe of Ephraim entering its journey; and as they continued therein and others kept joining and continuing with them therein, they antityped the continuance of the tribe of Ephraim in its journeying. And when they come to a halt preparatory to their entering into the earthly features of the Kingdom as a part of the Millennial camp, they will consist of those Ex-Lutherans who as a part of the Epiphany camp will come up to the Millennial camp. This activity of the alarm-blowing Priests and of the crown-lost leaders and members of the Lutheran Church furthered and vindicated Divine Justice, which was the intention of the work.
(48) Next in the type (v. 23) marched the tribe of Manasseh (forgotten) under the leadership of Gamaliel (recompense, or reward, of God), the son of Pedahzur (the deliverer is a rock). The tribe of Manasseh types the Congregational Church. Their stewardship doctrine is: the equality of the brethren as Priests before God and their fellows as to justice. The Congregational form of church government arose in revulsion against episcopacy, which made some lords over the flock, instead of making all brethren under Christ's lordship (Matt. 20:24-28; 23:8-10). Thus this stewardship doctrine emphasized justice as between the brethren. Lordship as against brotherhood was very marked in the Church of England, in which the bishops and archbishops are addressed as, My lord, in direct contradiction of Jesus' words cited above. Their lording it over the household was quite obnoxious to Robert Browne, who clearly saw the contradiction between their titles and prerogatives and the teachings of Christ announced in the above-cited passages. The episcopal form of church government was a gross corruption of the original congregational church polity. And against it Robert Browne appeared. He pointed out the Priesthood of all believers as making them equal before the bar of God and the bar of
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
church law. According to him, there was no distinction before the bar of the congregation's polity between the so-called clergy and laity. The former were not lords, but servants, though abler brethren, yet serving brethren to all the consecrated brethren in the ecclesia. Justice as between brethren before the bar of church polity he insisted upon. This involved him into controversy against the Church-State, England. Repeatedly it led to his imprisonment. But he continued to stand for his position; and even when he rejoined the Church of England as a minister, it was on condition of his refusing to be episcopally ordained and lorded over. Thus he sounded the alarm on congregational church government grounded on the Priesthood, hence brotherhood, and equality before the bar of justice for all consecrated brethren.
(49) The companion helper, the non-star part of the two of whom Robert Browne was the star part, seems to have been Robert Harrison, with whom he was closely associated for a number of years in the study and advocacy of the doctrine that as an alarm they blew forth on the priestly trumpets. He was also the assistant pastor of the ecclesia at Norwich, wherein Robert Browne was pastor. They both went with their congregation to Holland when persecution drove them out of England; and Harrison became the pastor of that ecclesia when Browne with a number of its members returned to England. Harrison wrote some on the subject of their common teaching, though in such activity Browne greatly excelled him. Thus these two Priests began to blow out this message on their silver trumpets. Other Priests joined them and a priestly movement resulted. In Chapter VI we described Browne's activities, but had not by that time learned who was his companion helper, hence have here given something on him as such. It was not long after Browne, Harrison and their colaborers started to advocate this doctrine in the way of a controversy, alarm,
that crown-lost leaders joined the movement, perverting it into a sect. They offered their bowl, charger and spoon; and shortly after beginning that activity, perverted the priestly movement into a sect. Their offering the antitypical vessels started them out on the journey, antitypical of the start of Gamaliel, the son of Pedahzur, who led the journeying of the tribe of Manasseh. Their offering these antitypical vessels resulted in attracting to them as sectarian leaders an ever increasing number of Congregationalists, who controversially marched with them, refuting Presbyterianism, Episcopalism and higher hierarchical forms culminating in papacy. They controverted these both refutatively and correctionally, as they also set forth their view on the pertinent stewardship teaching doctrinally and ethically. These continued to attract an ever increasing number of like-minded sectarians. Their beginning such a course antitypes the start of the tribe of Manasseh on the march. Their continuing such a course antitypes this tribe's progress on its march. And the arrival of such believers at the Millennial camp antitypes the Manassehites' ending their journey to Paran. Their doing these things furthered and vindicated Justice. For details on the Priests and crown-lost leaders of the Congregational Church, kindly refer to Chapter VI.
(50) We now come (v. 24) to the discussion of the last tribe of the third camp, viz., Benjamin (son of the right hand). Its prince was Abidan (my father is judge), the son of Gideoni (my mighty warrior). Details on antitypical Benjamin are given in Chapter VI. As there shown, the tribe of Benjamin about the tabernacle types the fanatical sects: Quakers, Irvingerites, Mormons, Holiness people, Free Methodists and the various faith-curist cults, such as the Dowieites, Christian Missionary Alliancists, etc. Their stewardship doctrine is: True religion is love to God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength, and to the neighbor
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
as self. This is but a summary of the law (Matt. 22:36-40), and therefore is the essence of justice, which in some form or other must appear in the stewardship doctrine of each of the three denominations to the antitypical Tabernacle's west. Just as the false polity of the Church of England occasioned the Browne movement, which was later perverted into the Congregational denomination, so the dry formalism and largely worldly life of the bulk of the Anglican Church members occasioned the Little Flock movement that was later perverted into the mother sect of the fanatical sects, Quakerism. The Little Flock brother who was raised up to become the leader of the movement that was later perverted into the fanatical sects, especially Quakerism, was George Fox, whom we must keep separate and distinct from John Foxe, the author of the great work, Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs, which among the English-speaking people has done the papacy more injury than any other Protestant work. George Fox could find no satisfaction for his hunger for true religion in the Church of England, nor in the Calvinistic (Presbyterian and Congregational) and Baptist Churches in England. After years of searching for true religion in these four denominations, he sought it in the Bible, in self examinations and in fellowship with others of a like mind. He found it in the teaching and practice of supreme love to God and equal love to the neighbor, i.e., in the theory and practice of justice, proper duty love Godward and manward. He then began to present this thought controversially, in opposition to the teachings and practices of the above-mentioned denominations. Thus, as a part of the Philadelphia star, he began to blow an alarm.
(51) Fox's special companion helper was Robert Barclay, the author of the Apology For The People Called Quakers, which with Fox's Journal and his Gospel Truth Demonstrated is the most famous of
Quaker writings. Barclay was a scholarly man, which Fox was not, and thus he in a literary way furthered the movement more than Fox, whose preaching more than made up for his literary inferiority. These two were soon joined in the antitypical alarm-trumpeting by other Little Flock brethren; and soon a vigorous reform movement was in active sway in England which spread to the English colonies in the West Indies and America. To this movement rallied some brethren who as crown-lost leaders (Penn, Fisher, Pennington, etc.) perverted the movement into the Quaker sect. From time to time other crown-lost leaders arose as the heads of other fanatical sects, as children of Quakerism, like Irving, (Joseph) Smith, (Brigham) Young, Murray, Dowie, Simpson, etc. All of these with varying fanatical bents joined in offering the antitypical bowl, charger and spoon on the stewardship doctrine of the whole movement and perverted it into the various fanatical sects. In making those offerings, the prince of antitypical Benjamin—Abidan—started out on the march typed in v. 24. Soon to these crown-lost leaders were gathered sectarian members, who controversially set forth their stewardship doctrine of true religion as consisting of supreme love for God and equal love for the neighbor. They controverted especially, but not exclusively, against the four denominations mentioned in the preceding paragraph. They did this mainly both refutatively and correctionally, though also doctrinally and ethically. And more or less the spirit of their stewardship doctrine is seen in their lives, which is the reason, e.g., for the Quakers and Holiness people leading such upright lives. As they entered into the pertinent controversies, they antityped the Benjamites' starting out on their journey from Sinai (v. 24); their proceeding therein antitypes the Benjamites' proceeding on the journey to Paran; and as they, swallowed up by their successors of the Epiphany camp, come to the Millennial conditions, they
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
will antitype the Benjamites' reaching Paran. In so doing they furthered and vindicated Divine Justice. We will now make a remark most fitting here, because this antitypical tribe is the fanatical sects, though in principle the remark is applicable to all of the sects of each denomination, viz., As the various sects of this antitypical tribe journeyed and will come to the journey's end, they antitype the chief families of the Benjamites, journeying from Sinai and coming to Paran.
(52) V. 25 introduces the journeying of the fourth camp, that of Dan (judge), whose prince was Ahiezer (my brother is a helper), the son of Ammishaddai (my people is almighty). As previously shown, the thought common to the three antitypical tribes to the north of the antitypical Tabernacle is Divine Love, the highest of all the Divine attributes. Two of the tribes to the north of the tabernacle were Dan and Naphtali, sons of Rachel's maid, Bilhah; while the third, Asher, was the younger son of Leah's maid, Zilpah. In the antitype, therefore, the three denominations typed respectively by these (the Baptists, the Unitario-Universalists and Methodists) have been in spirit nearer to the Little Flock than any of the other nine denominations. It is doubtless for this reason that their stewardship doctrines are an expression of disinterested love in some form or other. This remark applies to their earlier journeyings more than to their later journeyings; for now, e.g., the Unitario-Universalists are probably farther away from Bible standards than any other Protestant denomination. But at the outstart and for a considerable part of their journeying, they were the most honorable of honorable women, denominations (Ps. 45:9). That teaching which afterward became the stewardship doctrine of the Baptists was as an antitypical alarm first symbolically trumpeted by Balthazar Hubmaier, viz., Only the truly justified and consecrated are God's real people. Hence he was a member of the Philadelphia star. He did his work
thoroughly and ably; for while yet in the papacy he was, next to Eck (Luther's ablest opponent), counted the ablest of Romanist controversialists. His able controversies on this doctrine are just what we should expect of the Little Flock leader of the firstborn of antitypical Rachel's maid, antitypical Bilhah. He was involved in controversy continually, with Eck, Luther and Zwingli, as well as with sectarian leaders among his adherents. Thus he certainly blew an alarm on the antitypical trumpet, starting one of the most spiritual of the Little Flock movements between the Harvests.
(53) Hubmaier's companion helper was a Swiss called Blaurock (blue coat), because of his wearing a coat of that color. Indeed, in the beginning the movement was largely a Swiss movement, until by Hubmaier's banishment and the ruthless persecution stirred up by Zwingli himself against the involved brethren in Switzerland, Hubmaier and many others emigrated to Moravia. With zeal and perseverance Blaurock supported Hubmaier; and for some time after Hubmaier's banishment Blaurock kept up the work in Switzerland amid many privations and tortures, finally ending his ministry, like Hubmaier's, in a martyr's death. There rallied to these two leaders many other capable brethren and many who were not very capable. These kept up the blowing of the alarm, especially against infant baptism as disorderly, seeing infants could not really experience personal justification and consecration, and hence could not be God's real people and, accordingly, could not be fit candidates for water baptism. Satan was present to pervert this movement by socialistic and fanatical schemes which gave a great black eye to the movement, despite the fact that such evils were fought by the movement's Little Flock leaders, etc. Then appeared the crown-lost leaders, among them, Simon Menno, the chief among these. By offering their bowl, charger and spoon on the chief doctrine of the movement—only the truly justified and consecrated are
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
God's real people—they started out on their part in antitypical Dan's journeying. We would here parenthetically remark that since the heart of true consecration is disinterested love, the stewardship doctrine of the Baptist Church is an expression of Divine Love. After the crown-lost leaders had begun to offer their antitypical bowl, charger and spoon on the pertinent doctrine, they were soon joined by an ever-increasing number of followers, who took up the controversy in support of their leaders, inveighing against the nominal Christianity, churchianity of the adherents of the state churches in various European countries; for to be a nominal Christian in those days meant external membership in a state church. They joined the controversy both refutationally and correctionally, though they also presented their stewardship teaching doctrinally and ethically. So doing, they antityped the journeying of the tribe of Dan. Their beginning such a course antitypes Dan's starting his journeying. Their proceeding in such a course antitypes Dan's continuing his journeying. And their ending this course in their successors of the Epiphany camp coming to the Kingdom conditions antitypes Dan's reaching Paran. This course of theirs furthered and vindicated the Divine attribute of love. We might remark that the fearful persecutions that the Baptists received from the Reformed, Lutheran, Romanist, Greek and Episcopal churches and their hounding by the Methodist, Campbellite and Adventist churches, antitypes the distress that Rachel and her maid's children felt at Leah's and her maid's hands. Details on antitypical Dan are given in Chapter VII.
(54) V. 26 brings to our attention the journeying of Asher (happy, fortunate), whose prince was Pagiel (interventions of God), the son of Okran (trouble-some). As we have seen, in Chapter VII, the tribe of Asher types the Methodist Church. Asher was the second son of Leah's maid. This fact typically implies their being less remote to the Little Flock spirit than
any others of antitypical Leah's children and antitypical Zilpah's older son, whose older age shows him to have more of the Leah spirit than Asher. Hence this Church received a stewardship doctrine very closely related to the spirit of the Little Flock; and its type was stationed about the tabernacle in a position between the two tribes nearest related to Rachel's legal children as distinct from her personal children. That this remark be not misunderstood, we would say that in the tabernacle picture Rachel's direct descendants type different things from Joseph and Benjamin in the Jacob figure. The stewardship doctrine of the Methodist Church is: Perfect love is the Divine ideal for God's people. The Methodists sometimes called it entire sanctification, and sometimes perfection. Their view of it has sometimes been represented by opponents as sinlessness. Indeed, this was due, in part, to unguarded expressions thereon by some of the Methodist leaders themselves, including even John Wesley, and, in part, to the direct claim of fanatical Methodist sectarians (Free Methodists especially) who claimed to live sinlessly, some of them claiming to have lived so for 30 and even 40 years. The Little Flock member whom God raised up to trumpet as an alarm the doctrine of Divine love as God's ideal for His people was John Wesley. A Church of England minister, the dead formalism and worldly life of the bulk of the Anglican clergy and laity repelled him; and he earnestly sought a heart and life religion, as contrasted with the head and dead religion in the Church of England. To gain this for himself and others, he stressed justification and sanctification, culminating in perfect love, as the way to attain it. His methods of bringing people to such a life moved the clergy to shut their church doors in his face; and when to attain his purpose he resorted to field preaching, they fought him as unchurchly. Undaunted, he continued to trumpet his alarm message all over Great Britain and Ireland by word and pen,
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
which resulted in a vigorous Priestly movement coming into existence. Wesley was indefatigable. For nearly 53 years, from his 36th until ⅔ through his 89th year, he labored by voice and pen as few others have done, for his stewardship truth—justification and sanctification as steps to attain the Divine love, God's ideal for His people. The only longer serving members of the seven stars seem to have been St. John and Polycarp, the former having served about 70 and the latter about 65 years as star-members. Wesley was both a most loving and lovable man. And controversy for his stewardship doctrine did not at all mar his holy spirit of goodness, to which he was undoubtedly aided by the character of that doctrine, which naturally tended to mellow one.
(55) Soon John Wesley was joined in his alarm-trumpeting by his brother, Charles. So far as we know, while there were three pairs of brothers in the Apostolic band (Peter and Andrew, James and John, and James and Jude), John and Charles Wesley were the only brothers in flesh that became one of the pairs of the seventy general elders, secondarily prophets, sent out as 35 pairs between the two Harvests. Charles, in addition to being John's companion helper, became the greatest and perhaps most prolific hymn-writer of all times. He gave to his and succeeding generations about 6,000 hymns, some of which, like, Jesus, Lover of My Soul, are among the finest hymns in existence. In holy union with his brother, Charles took lusty hold of the trumpet and blew out the alarm thereon, as long as he lived. And these were joined speedily by as fine a set of faithful Priests as can be found in any Little Flock movement of the period between the two Harvests; for the Wesleyan movement was as spiritual a movement as arose between the Harvests. These devoted Priests blew the alarm faithfully. Soon there mingled among them crown-lost leaders, like Whitefield, Coke, Clark, etc., etc. Later others, like Watson,
Whedon, Simpson, Hurst, Buckley, etc., joined the Methodists, and as crown-lost leaders all of these joined in offering the antitypical bowl, charger and spoon. In so doing, as the antitype of Pagiel, they set out as the prince of antitypical Asher on the march antitypical of v. 26. To these rallied in ever-increasing numbers sectarian Methodists who were not Spirit-begotten. Bravely they entered the fray, contending controversially for their stewardship doctrine: The Divine love attained through justification and sanctification is God's ideal for His people. They used this doctrine refutatively and correctionally as against dead formalism and worldly mindedness; and they also set forth this teaching doctrinally and ethically, doctrinally with more or less corruptions introduced by their crown-lost leaders. In starting out in such a course they antityped Asher's starting out on his journey (v. 26). As they proceeded therein they antityped Asher's continuing on that three days' journey. And as they in their Epiphany camp representatives reach the Millennial conditions, they will antitype Asher's reaching Paran. So doing, they have furthered and vindicated Divine Love. We have given details on matters connected with antitypical Asher in Chapter VII.
(56) V. 27 brings us to the journeying of Naphtali (wrestling), the last tribe of the fourth camp. The prince of this tribe was Ahira (my brother is great), the son of Enan (springy, fountainlike). The antitype of the tribe of Naphtali is the Unitario-Universalist Church. Their stewardship doctrine is: There is but one God, whose chief attribute is love. Originally this Church had a very large quantity of truth, i.e., the unity of God as against the trinity, man's mortality as against the inherent immortality of the soul, death, the wages of sin, as against eternal torment, and future probation as against this life ending all probation. Naphtali's being a son of Rachel's maid accounts for his antitype's having so much Truth, revelatory of his
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
near relation to the Little Flock. But, sad to say, Unitario-Universalists have fallen greatly away from early priestly teachings. They even deny the ransom as the corresponding price; and in their higher criticism they are in the forefront of the infidelistic movements as a denomination. To most of them the Bible is an uninspired collection of books, largely erroneous. Most of them deny our Lord's Immaculate Conception. In their Universalistic section they believe in the salvation of all men and devils, including Satan. As a Protestant denomination they are now, perhaps, the farthest away from the Truth of any Protestant denomination. The Little Flock brother who trumpeted the alarm on the unity of the one God of Love, as against the trinity, was Michael Servetus. He was born a Spaniard, but spent most of his adult life in France. He was a member of the suite of Charles V during the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, where and when the Lutherans presented their (Augsburg) confession of faith. Servetus, an imperial courtier, had to practice a great deal of diplomacy in his contacts with Romanists and Protestants. He took a lively interest in the controversies of that time; but, apart from sharing them with a few intimate friends, he kept his views largely to himself; for they were as much opposed to those of other Protestants as to those of the Romanists; for four of his teachings, as above given, were the antitheses of the four doctrines that are "their resemblance through all the earth" (Zech. 5:6)—trinity, immortality, eternal torment and probation limited to this life. In these four great errors most Protestants and all Greek and Roman Catholics resemble one another—they are "their resemblance through all the earth." In 1531, at the age of 20, he published his book, On the Errors of the Trinity. The next year he sent forth a revised edition of this book, meeting therein the objections urged against its first edition. Then, because almost nobody responded to his views, he forsook the Emperor's suite and went to
France. He was rather quiet there on his teaching as to the four above-mentioned errors, because of the extreme danger in that Romanist country. His appointment to debate with Calvin in 1536 at Paris on the subject of the trinity was not kept by him for his well-grounded fear of the latter's betraying him to the Romanists. With almost no one else did he discuss the subject for ten years. Then, in 1546, he opened up his controversy on the subject by letter with Calvin. In 1553 he sent Calvin a copy of his latest book on, The Restoration of True Christianity, which was, of course, anti-trinitarian, and which ultimately led to his burning at the stake through Calvin's instigation, at Geneva, after Calvin had stirred up the French Inquisition to seek to burn him at Lyon, France. But in argument Servetus was mighty on the unity of the God of Love as against the trinity. Thus he blew the alarm on his trumpet, which the Trinitarians much dreaded.
(57) As was the case with Thomas Campbell in relation to Barton Stone as his companion helper, and with J. Wolf in relation to William Miller as his companion helper, so Laelius Socinus never came into direct personal contact with Servetus—he helped the latter unconsciously and at a distance. Laelius Socinus started to sound the trumpet alarm in Italy, but the Inquisition's designs on his life compelled him to flee to Switzerland; and there he worked quietly and privately through various publications. So hard did antitypical Leah's children make it for the second son of antitypical Rachel's maid! Nevertheless, he did well for the cause. Servetus and Socinus found priestly helpers here and there, as widely separated voices crying out in the dark night of trinitarianism, human immortality, eternal torment and no-future-probationism. Thus a Priestly movement, small indeed and lacking local touch, was here and there represented by a lone Priest, blowing an alarm on his symbolic trumpet. One of Laelius Socinus' disciples was a nephew of his,
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
Faustus Socinus, who, as the first one of the crown-lost leaders connected with this priestly movement, took an active part in the pertinent controversy, first in Italy, then in Switzerland and finally in Poland. Other crown-lost leaders joined the movement and sectarianized it, for instance, Davidis, and in later centuries, Priestley, Coleridge, Channing, Norton, Abbott, etc. These offered their bowl, charger and spoon, and thus as antitypical Ahira started out in the march antitypical of the one described in v. 27. These were joined by unconsecrated partisans, sectarians, out of whom these crown-lost leaders built up the Unitario-Universalist denomination. These joined controversially in the discussion of the stewardship doctrine of this growing denomination: The one God is perfect in love, as his chief attribute. They presented it refutationally and correctionally as against trinity, inherent immortality, no-future-probation and eternal torment. They also presented it doctrinally and ethically. In so doing, they antityped Naphtali's journeying according to v. 27. Their starting out on this course antityped Naphtali's starting the journeying of v. 27. Their proceeding thereon antityped his continuing thereon. And their ending it in their Epiphany aspect at antitypical Paran antitypes Naphtali's reaching Paran. By so doing they furthered and vindicated Divine Love. Details on this subject will be found in Chapter VII. It will be noted that v. 28 summarizes the details given in vs. 11-27, even as Num. 7:84-88 summarizes the offerings of the princes of the 12 tribes, given in detail before.
(58) In vs. 29-32 is given an episode that took place just as the departure from Sinai was occurring. That it occurred just as the departure from Sinai was taking place is apparent: (1) from the location that it was given in the narrative—between the two parts of the description of the journeying (vs. 11-28 and vs. 33-36); (2) from Moses' statements ("we are journeying
… come thou with us"); (3) from Hobab's answer (v. 30); and (4) from Moses' entreaties ("Leave us not … if thou wilt go with us … what goodness … will we do unto thee"). Since the departure from antitypical Sinai occurred during the Jewish Harvest, the wilderness of Sinai typing Jewry, this episode types something that occurred during the Jewish Harvest. We understand it to type our Lord's entreaties to fleshly Israel to accompany spiritual Israel on its Gospel-Age journeyings, thus becoming a part of spiritual Israel, and fleshly Israel's refusal to do so. The details will show this view of the antitype to be correct. Hobab (beloved; Rom. 11:28) was Moses' brother-in-law (Judg. 1:16; 4:11, A.R.V.), since he was the son of Moses' father-in-law (v. 29), the confusion of calling him Moses' father-in-law (Judg. 1:16; 4:11) in the A.V. arising from the fact that the word chothen means father-in-law, son-in-law and bridegroom. A comparison of v. 29 and Ex. 18:1-12 identifies Jethro and Raguel, or Reuel (Ex. 2:18). In passing, it will be noted that while Hobab did not accompany Moses and Israel, some of his descendants as Kenites either did so or later went to Palestine (Judg. 1:16; 4:11). In this picture Moses' asking Hobab to accompany Israel represents our Lord's either directly seeking Israel's conversion while He was in the flesh, or indirectly seeking their conversion through the Apostles and other brethren, like Stephen, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, etc., after He had become a glorified Spirit. Israel, as a son of God—Raguel—(Hos. 11:1), was thus a brother-in-law of our Lord as a New Creature, even as our Lord as such is the Bridegroom of Jehovah's daughter (Ps. 45:10, 13). Of course, by this we are not to understand that Jesus is not directly a Son of God. The viewpoint of the son and daughter in Hos. 11:1 and Ps. 45:10, 13 is that of class respects rather than of an individual respect. And Jesus, not being a class under this class
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
type, is represented as a son-in-law of God from the standpoint of Jethro (Reuel, Raguel) and his family (Ex. 2:16-23). Please compare this with P '31, 169, par. 18 to 170, par. 19. That our Lord while in the flesh directly sought Israel's conversion is evident from His entire ministry, which activity He pathetically and with tears sums up in the words, "How oft would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not" (Matt. 23:37-39; Luke 19:41-44). In seeking their conversion ("come with us"), He set before them the offer of the high calling of the Seed to the Divine nature and heirship of God ("we are journeying to the place of which the Lord said, I will give it to you," Gen. 22:16-18). Seeking to gather the Seed and knowing that the blessing was first to be offered to Israel (John 1:11-13; Rom. 1:16), He confined His ministry to Israel, seeking its lost sheep (Matt. 15:24). Often our Lord directly promised Israel great blessings ("we will do thee good," Matt. 22:1-4; John 6:26-58, etc.). Similarly he sought to win them through the Apostles and others; and by these He offered them great blessings (Matt. 10:6; Luke 10:1-16; Acts 1:8; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 13:16-49). His and their elaborations of the glorious things of the high calling before Israel is typed by the words, "For the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel."
(59) Hobab's refusal to accept Moses' invitation to accompany him and Israel from Sinai to Canaan (v. 30), types Israel's refusal to come into the sphere of the Truth and of the Spirit of the Truth even unto the Kingdom. This refusal was made in word and act. Their rejections of it in word were made in that they contradicted the offer of Jesus and His mouthpieces throughout the Jewish Harvest. Their rejecting it in deed was made in that they persecuted and put Jesus to death and persecuted His mouthpieces, torturing many of them and other disciples and putting some of
them and other disciples to death (Matt. 22:5, 6). St. Paul describes the matter in great detail in Rom. 9, 10 and 11. Thus the facts of the case are in full harmony with the viewpoint of the type as given above. Hobab's saying that he would depart to his own land and to his own kindred types the Jews' saying by word and act that they would keep to the sphere of the Law and its spirit and to the people who held to the sphere of the Law and its spirit. The facts of the Jewish Harvest and of the Gospel Age, so far as they concern Israel as a nation, show that they have done this. In this they have experienced the disfavor and tribulations typed by the experiences of Hagar and Ishmael in the desert, banished from Abraham's home.
(60) But they were not allowed to take such an unprofitable course without remonstrance and entreaties to the contrary from our Lord, directly made to them while He was in the flesh, and indirectly made by Him to them after He was in the spirit through His mouthpieces. These remonstrances and entreaties are set forth typically in vs. 31 and 32. Notice the remonstrance and entreaty in the words, "Leave us not, I pray thee!" How these words remind us of Jesus' loving exhortations to the Jews, especially as we find these in John 6-8 and 10! How they remind us of the remonstrances and entreaties of Peter and Paul as recorded in the Acts! Moses' making it an honorable thing, as an inducement for Hobab to go along, that he might act as a competent guide (v. 31), was done in an effort to win him over to going along with Israel. This types the fact that Jesus and His mouthpieces honored Israel with the offer of the first place as leaders of the others, if they would go along with Spiritual Israel. As Hobab knew the wilderness stations well ("thou knowest how we are to encamp"), he fittingly typed Israel, whose studies of the Law and the Prophets gave them much of Truth. They also had other helps for the Truth, similar to those that the
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
antitypical Kohathites in their linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic works furnish the Priesthood ("thou mayest be to us instead of eyes"). This persuasive invitation was offered to Israel as an inducement highly complimentary to them and as quite likely, if possible, to secure their favorable response; for such an appeal with a good heart would win, when almost every other appeal would fail. The appeal is made all the stronger in v. 32. Notice the repetition, "It shall be … yea it shall be," which, as a specially earnest entreaty, shows Moses' intense desire for Hobab to accompany them. This types the especially earnest appeals that Jesus and His mouthpieces made to Israel, to win them over after they seemed bent on rejecting the gracious and frequent offers of the high calling. It was to avert from Israel this loss and their consequent troubles, that Jesus and His mouthpieces re-repeated with loving intensity the offer of the Gospel-Age blessings and privileges to Israel. Moses added to the offer of doing Hobab good, made in v. 29, the promise to give him whatever God gave to Israel, in spite of his having rejected the first offer. This types the fact that Jesus and His mouthpieces promised to Fleshly Israel that if they would change their purpose they would be incorporated into Spiritual Israel, with all the blessings and privileges of Spiritual Israel (Rom. 11:23, 24), their first rejection not being allowed to result in any prejudice against them. Certainly in repeatedly offering the Gospel-Age blessings and privileges to Israel after their first rejecting them, Jesus and His mouthpieces in the Jewish Harvest antityped the offers of v. 32. Hobab kept to his first refusal, doubtless to Moses' keen grief. So Israel as a people maintained its first refusal, and we know that it was to the keen grief of Jesus and His mouthpieces (Matt. 23:37-29; Luke 19:41-44; Rom. 9:2, 3). While they stumbled in the Jewish Harvest (Rom. 11:7-12), we thank God that they are arising to more and
more favor, which will soon reach its full fruition (Rom. 11:25-36). The Hobab episode is another confirmation that we have understood aright Israel's journey from Sinai to Paran in its antitype.
(61) We gave the antitype of v. 33 above while giving the proofs that the journey from Sinai to Paran represented the Gospel-Age journey of God's real and nominal Spiritual Israel. This and the other references to this passage in this article have added to its exposition a sufficiency of explanation to make its antitype clear. Therefore we will not here repeat these explanations. These same remarks apply to v. 34, whose statement that it was the cloud, not the pillar of fire, that was upon them the day they went out of the camp at Sinai, proves that the journey began, not between the Harvests, when it was night, but in one of the Harvests, which were days as distinct from the night between them and the Epiphany night after the Parousia day. The day time of their departure, combined with the facts given throughout this chapter, proves that in the antitype it was made during the Jewish Harvest. Moses' prayers as recorded in vs. 35 and 36 are in line with the thought that progress is grace, knowledge and service in the Christian life is typed by the marching (when the ark set forward) and that the encampings type the endurances of trials, sufferings and persecution in the Christian life (when it, the ark, rested). As we have seen, progress in knowledge, grace and service is made mainly amid controversy. It is for this reason that our Lord, as the antitypical Moses, prays for us as we are battling with error, sin, selfishness and worldliness as our enemies, which, as such, are also our Father's enemies. And Jesus also prays for defeat against these enemies of God and God's people: "Rise up [in battle against Thy and Thy people's enemies], Lord, and let Thine enemies [let sin, error, selfishness and worldliness with their leaders, Satan, the world and the flesh] be scattered [completely defeated]; and
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
let them that hate Thee flee before Thee." Jesus in the antitype offers this prayer as an intercession for us and as an act of His that He greatly desires (prays) to be realized by Spiritual Israel's battling for its fulfillment. Thus the journeying of Israel types the aggressive part of the Christian warfare, which is growth in grace, knowledge and service amid struggle. The defensive part of the Christian warfare is endurance of attacks amid trials, sufferings and persecution. While therein temporarily new advancement is not made, yet tests are applied on previous attainments (when it, the ark, rested). The Lord Jesus prays that Jehovah should return from the aggressive fighting to the defense of His people: "Return [from pursuing the scattered enemies] unto [to defend] the many thousands of Israel." In this connection, where the journey from Sinai to Paran is especially described, there is special pertinency for this prayer; for the return will be to Millennial conditions (Paran), where God will especially defend against spiritual enemies the many thousands—the world of mankind—of Millennial Israel. It will be such a return as will spell restitution (Ps. 90:3). With this we end our study of Num. 10 and of the first large division of Numbers (chapter 1-10), during the course of which we also, as we studied chapters 1 and 2, made a study of Num. 26. Thus with some detail we have studied nearly a third of the chapters and over a third of the subject matter of the book of Numbers. As the types so far studied show the organization of Israel into a settled nation, so the antitypes show nominal and spiritual Israel as organized into a settled symbolic nation. We praise God for the light that He has given us on this book so far, and pray Him to give us its further antitypical truths as due.
(1) What was studied in our last chapter? What is to be studied in this chapter? What kind of a connection is there between these two chapters? What is it? How do the two figures differ as to their antitypes? To what do both of them refer? What is the Biblical symbolic use of
a trumpet? Of its blowing? Why are the trumpets of Num. 10:1-10 typical? How do the cited passages prove this? How as to quantity do the Scripture passages show this? Ex. 19:13, 16, 19? Lev. 25:9? Joshua 6:4-9, 13, 16, 20; Rev. 8:2-6? Judges 6:34? 7:16, 18-22? How do the other cited passages prove these thoughts of trumpets and their sounding? How does Hymn No. 24 show this? Sing it.
(2) Who was commanded to make the two trumpets? Whom does he here type? In what respect? Through whom did he make them? Whom do Bezaleel, Aholiab and their companions type? In what respects? What is pictured by the trumpets' being made of silver? Their being made of one whole piece? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What kind of things are typed by these two trumpets? Why is this true? What do they type? In what different forms may we express this thought? What does Rev. 15:3 call these?
(3) Of what part of the Bible is the human salvation a general summary? What, generally speaking, is the Old Testament? What is it called in Rev. 15:3? Why? Why is this reason true? What is the first line of thought implied in the song of Moses? The second? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? The final and seventh? Of what are these seven a general summary? How does one of the trumpets stand related to these seven?
(4) What other thing in this connection is a fact? What is it called in Rev. 15:3? Like the human salvation, is it related to various things? How must they be regarded in relation to it? What is its first implication as to Christ? Second? Third? Fourth? What lines of thought does the high calling include? Of what are these teachings a general summary? How does this message stand related to the second trumpet of Num. 10:1-10?
(5) What other kinds of thoughts are found in the Old and New Testaments? What decides to which of these two messages they belong? How is this seen in the Kingdom message? The Second Advent? The resurrection? What in this respect is the character of many Old Testament types and prophecies? How do the cited passages prove this? How are some of these often presented? How not? What kinds of thought's are also presented in the
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
New Testament? What remark was occasioned by such overlapping? What do the two trumpets not do typically on this head? With what are they not absolutely synonymous? What do they do as respects each other antitypically? What is the contrast between the two Testaments and the two antitypical trumpets in this respect? How are these two messages related? In fact, what are they? What does this relation between them prove?
(6) What do vs. 2-7 show? How many fold are they? What are they? What is meant by calling the people to assemble at the door of the tabernacle? By how many trumpets were they there assembled? By how many were the princes assembled? What is typed by the assembling? The princes? What is the difference between blowing two antitypical trumpets and blowing one? Why is this the true distinction? Why is it a mistake to give details of the deep things to the nominal people of God? What shows this view to be correct? Even in what is this true?
(7) At what time and under what circumstances is this especially to be seen? What illustrations show this? In what other branches of the work does this appear? When did we begin to give details on any particular subject? Who are included in the princes of v. 4? What proves this? How did they meet Moses? What does this type? What proves this to be true? Why was it necessary? What does giving details exclude? What did it require? Who had such experience in the Parousia? What did they find necessary to do at such occasions?
(8) What did these two kinds of gatherings serve? Of what three things did they partake with the nominal people of God? What is implied in the second of them? By what brethren were these things also done? How relatively? In what did such activity result throughout the Age? Even at what other time? With what instrumentalities? What purpose, finally, did such assembling of the nominal people of God have? What other kind of assembling was held? In what forms was it usually done? What were the first and second purposes of this activity? What facts illustrate the second of these? What was the third purpose? The fourth and final one?
(9) What do vs. 5-7 show? How is one described but not defined? How is the other defined? What does the
latter type? What does the Hebrew noun teruah mean? What does the Hebrew verb rua, from which teruah is derived, mean? The Hebrew word taka? What does the use of the latter word in Ps. 81:4 show by contrast with the other two words? How is this contrast shown in vs. 3, 4, 7? What does v. 9 show as to rua and teruah? What does Num. 31:6 show on this subject? What do the other passages in which rua is used teach on this head? Those in which teruah is used? What other consideration proves this thought? How does the Truth usually progress? What two sets of writings prove this?
(10) How is this illustrated in our Pastor's case as to Lev. 16 and much of the Tabernacle Shadows? The Ransom? The Sin-offering, Covenants and Mediator? The contrasts between Adam and Christ? Universal salvation from the curse and eternal universalism? The Second Advent controversy? Explain the types of such cited unfoldings? In the opening of what other form of Truth is this apparent? How does this appear in the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha? The sixth sifting? The slaughter weapons? The penny murmuring? Ruth, type and antitype? In many Scriptures in the controversy with J. F. R.? With Adam Rutherford? The Great Company and Youthful Worthies controversy? What seems to have marked all Epiphany controversies? Why is this so?
(11) Why were the trumpet alarms sounded? Why was the first alarm sounded? What resulted? What are typed by the three tribes to the east of the tabernacle? What was the antitype of the first alarm? How did it affect the three involved denominations? Why was the second alarm blown? What resulted? What are typed by the three tribes to the south of the tabernacle? What is the antitype of the second alarm? How did it affect the three pertinent tribes? What is not specifically mentioned as to the third and fourth alarms? Why was this not done? What directly implies their sounding? Indirectly? Why was the third alarm blown? What resulted? What are typed by the three tribes to the west of the tabernacle? What is the antitype of the third alarm? How did it affect the involved tribes? Why was the fourth alarm blown? What resulted? What are typed by the three tribes to the north of the tabernacle? What is the antitype of the fourth alarm?
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
How did it affect the pertinent tribes? What is a summary of these antitypes for these tribes? What is the antitypical thought of vs. 5 and 6?
(12) What contrast is brought to our attention in v. 7? What is emphasized in v. 7, positively and negatively? What is typically presented in v. 7? When are we, and when are we not to resort to controversy? Why should controversy not ordinarily be used? What are we to avoid, if we are to win others? If we wish to repel, what should we use? What is normally the best way to spread the Truth? Where is this testified by our Pastor? What is the proper use of controversy? For what is it not so good? What method is there more successful? What homely proverb embodies this truth? In what forms of service should we avoid controversy? What should we use therein? In what forms of service should we use controversy? Why? How may we summarize the antitypical teachings of v. 7?
(13) Whose was the privilege of blowing the trumpets, type and antitype? By whom was the antitypical blowing begun in each epoch of the Church? Which member of each star began it? What exception is there to this rule? Who began it in the Church of Ephesus? Why was this exception made? How did St. Peter do this? Who were seven of the principal men of the seven churches? What are the seven churches? What did the last six of these principal men do as to the symbolic blowing? How many were there in the stars between the Harvests? How many special helpers did they have? How many were there of these two kinds of servants? How can we prove this number of them to be true? Who followed each of these sets of two in the trumpeting?
(14) What set of brethren well illustrate this? How was it with John Wessel, his special helper and others? Savonarola, etc.? Luther, etc.? Zwingli, etc.? What differences in the message of each of these? What in common did all of them stress? Their different work toward the crown-lost leaders and the people? How long did such trumpeting continue? Where have we seen this thing work?
(15) Of what does v. 9 treat? Against what is the Christian warfare waged? Against whose leadership? In what particulars? What do these enemies do to the New
Creature? What are they numerically? What does their oppression of the New Creature make it do? Where do these enemies oppress us? What is the Gospel-Age Canaan? What are the antitypes of the inhabitants of Canaan? Where do the Truth and its Spirit dwell? What part of these is inhabited by antitypical Israelites? Antitypical Canaanites? What, accordingly, is the battle ground of the Spirit? What are Satan, the flesh and the world seeking to do through the antitypical inhabitants of Canaan? What are the involved armies? Who are in command of the antitypical Israelites? What are the issues at stake? On what is the outcome dependent?
(16) As what was the alarm-blowing a pledge? What is a good example of this? Of what is Num. 31 a type? Phinehas? Phinehas' alarm-blowing? What did the antitypical alarm-blowing effect? What were our Pastor's activities in the other phases of the reaping's warfare? What did he do as to the warfare against sin? By what means did he do this? How did the brethren thereby obtain the victory? What did he do as to the warfare against selfishness? By what means? How did the brethren thereby gain the victory? How were the pertinent truths put, in order to make them the antitypical trumpet alarms? What did our Pastor do as to the warfare against worldliness? By what means did he do it? How did the brethren thereby gain the victory?
(17) What pledge did God give Israel in v. 9? On what condition? What does this type? How may the Hebrew expression translated, "before the Lord," also be rendered? How may the former expression be understood? The latter? Why can the thought of the second rendering be realized? In what does this result? In what aspects of the fight? What fact proves this? What is replete with such examples? When especially? What conditions the proportions of the victory? The defeats? For whose defeats as Little Flock members will this account? For whose else defeats? How will they later dispose themselves? In whose else experience is this illustrated? For whose utter defeat will this principle account?
(18) What is readily concluded from the preceding discussion? What do we do in singing Hymn No. 24? From what will this become all the more apparent? Apart from
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
war, marches and assemblies, how many other occasions were there for trumpet blowing? What were they? In connection with what sacrifices? What were the festivals mentioned? How many new moons were there? Which one of them was a festival? What were the days of gladness? What are some examples of these? What did the burnt-offerings represent? The peace-offerings? How during the Gospel Age has God manifested His acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice?
(19) What does the Sabbath type? What does the Passover of Nisan 14 type for the Gospel Age? The seven days of the Passover festival? Pentecost? The new moon day of the seventh month? The atonement day? The festival of tabernacles? The new moons? The days of gladness?
(20) Accordingly, what do the typical festivals, new moons and days of gladness represent? What does Jesus minister in connection with their antitypes? What does blowing the trumpets over these two kinds of sacrifice type? Over the burnt-and peace-offerings of the Sabbath? Of the Passover of Nisan 14? Of the seven days' Passover festival? Of Pentecost?
(21) Of the annual seventh new moon? Of the day of atonement? Of the festival of tabernacles? Of the new moons? Of the days of gladness? What does doing this blowing always in the antitype in connection with the antitypical burnt-and peace-offerings mean? How may it otherwise be worded? What is the intended lesson? What should we do as to the sentiment of Hymn No. 24?
(22) What is recorded in Num. 10:11-36? With what two other Scriptures especially is this account related? How is it related to these? What shows this? What is required for an understanding of the antitypes of vs. 11-36? What will follow from that requirement's being understood? Of what are these three Scriptures a good illustration? How does Is. 28:10, 13 show this of the Bible? Is. 28:11, 12, of the Lord's people?
(23) On what date did the departure from Sinai occur? When did it occur relatively to the end of the first annual Passover festival? When did the latter end? What does a comparison of v. 11 with Num. 9:11 prove? Why? If not, what would it have required God to have done? How
long in time was the first journey from Sinai? What is alternatively implied by journeying the 21st of the second month? Which alternative seems very likely incorrect? Why? What is typed by the expression, "the wilderness of Sinai"? What led antitypical Israel out of it? Who in the type on this occasion bore the ark? Who ordinarily bore it? How do the cited passages prove this? What disproves their doing it on this occasion? Since both the ark and the cloud then led the host, how were they related? How do the cited passages prove that extraordinarily priests bore the ark? So doing, what do they type? How does their bearing it type this?
(24) On how many one-thousand-year days does the Gospel Age touch? What two facts prove that the three days of the first journey type the Gospel Age? Why? What does this time feature enable us to do? What, in other words, does this first journey type? How does this fact stand related, negatively and positively, with Numbers' other Gospel-Age antitypes? What are some examples of particularized Gospel-Age antitypes? General Gospel-Age antitypes? What do the facts shown in this paragraph enable us to do? What two things lend confirmation to this as to the start of the antitype? How does v. 34 directly state this of the typical start? What two facts prove this for the end of this antitypical first journey?
(25) What is given in v. 12? How long did this journey last? How far was it from Sinai to Paran? What does this distance suggest as its being a three-days' journey? What did these three days measure? What is not, and what is to be inferred from no mention of stops in this journey? What does the word Sinai mean and here type? Paran? What is typed by the cloud resting in Paran on the third day? According to what did Israel take this first march? What does this type? Why did God approve of the antitypical tribes' taking their journey? What bearing has Ps. 45:9 on this thought? What does this passage mean? Why are the denominations called kings' daughters? What is typed by Israel's making this journey at the hand of Moses?
(26) Why must another matter be discussed before vs. 14-28 be studied? What thought naturally arises on reading the time order of the typical tribes' starting on their
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
journeyings? What understanding prevents such a view being entertained? How is this shown from the examples of the Calvinistic, Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches in relation to the tribes typing them? What, accordingly, is not the order herein shown? Wherein does this hold and wherein does it not hold true? What antitypical tribe is no exception to the second rule? Why not? What, then, is the order maintained in the antitype? What was the figure on the standard of Judah's camp? What does this figure prefigure? On that of Reuben's camp? What does this prefigure? On that of Ephraim's camp? What does this prefigure? On that of Dan's camp? What does this prefigure? Why in each case did the figure prefigure the respective attribute?
(27) Accordingly, what did the figures type? What does this prepare us to see? What will show this? What did Judah represent? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the thought central to that doctrine? How do the cited Scriptures show this? What does Issachar type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How does the cited Scripture show this? What does Zebulun type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How does this cited Scripture prove this? What, therefore, is the central thought of the antitypical camp to the east? What will an examination of the antitypical camp to the south reveal on this point? What does Reuben type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How does the cited passage prove this? What does Simeon type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How do the cited verses prove it? What does Gad type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How does the cited passage prove this? What conclusion is to be drawn from this discussion as to the antitypical camp to the south?
(28) What does Ephraim type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How does the cited Scripture prove it? What does Manasseh type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How does the cited Scripture prove this? What does Benjamin type?
What it its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How does the cited Scripture prove it? What follows as to the central thought of the antitypical camp to the west? What does Dan type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How do the cited passages prove this? What does Asher type? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How do the cited verses prove this? What is typed by Naphtali? What is its stewardship doctrine? What is the central thought of that doctrine? How do the cited verses prove this? What follows as to the central thought of the antitypical camp to the north? What does our examination prove, negatively and positively? As to the three tribes in each camp as to time? Which antitypical tribe is no real exception to this rule?
(29) What journeyed first, according to v. 14? What does this type? Why is this true? How in order of development do the three pertinent doctrines stand related? Why does the Lord's Supper doctrine come the first of the three? In what two ways does it come first? What enables us to see the relations of the crown-lost leaders', the Little Flock members' and the sectarian church activities to the antitypical marching? What will be done in explaining each tribal journeying? Why? With what antitypical tribe does our study begin? What does Judah mean and type? What are the two names of the Calvinistic Church? Who began to announce the Reformation Truth on the Lord's Supper? Of what did this truth consist? What not understood implication lay in the third feature of the Lord's Supper? What was the effect of Zwingli's proclamation of this truth? How long did it remain a Little Flock movement?
(30) What happened to this movement? Under whose leadership? When? Who became his associates? What did they produce? Where is this work detailedly described? Relatively, what is the size of the Calvinistic Church? At what point did the journeying of antitypical Judah set in? What does Judah's starting out under Nahshon's leadership type? Against what two errors on the Lord's Supper did they wage controversy? What was its defensive part? Offensive part? In this controversy
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
what two uses of the Bible did they employ? What was the effect of this? What constructive uses of the Lord's Supper did they make? How, each in itself and all relatively, did they employ these four uses of the Bible? How are these typed? How do the warriors and the other Judahites stand typically related to these four uses of the Bible by the members of the Calvinistic Church? In this activity what did they vindicate?
(31) What was the second tribe of Judah's camp? What does its name mean? Who was its leader? What does his name mean? His father's name? What was the antitype of this tribe? Who was the Little Flock member who started the movement later perverted into the Campbellite Church? What was his special teaching? When and where did he begin it? Of what was he a member? Who was his special helper companion? Where and when did he start his special work? Who joined them in proclaiming their message? In what did this result? Of what was this work a fulfillment? Who began to sectarianize this movement? Who supported him in this sectarian work? What was the outcome of their work? What was it that started out the crown-lost leaders on their work of offering? As what did they march? How did they start in antitypical Issachar's march? What followed their offering? What is typed by the non-leaders of Issachar starting their journeying? What four things in these is implied in the Issacharites' marching? What degree of use did they thereby make of their stewardship doctrine? What effect did this have on others? What did they thereby do as to God's power?
(32) What was the third tribe in Judah's camp? What does this name mean? Who was its prince? What do his and his father's names mean? What does this tribe type? Who initiated the movement later perverted into the Adventist Church? When? What was his special teaching? What did this doctrine emphasize? What was the character of his message? How long did he minister it? Why did he blow an alarm? By what other method did he sound his trumpet? Who was the second member of the two of whom William Miller was the star-member? Who joined them in their pertinent message? In what did this result? Who joined them as crown-lost leaders? When?
What did they do with the Miller movement? Where are details thereon given? Of whom were they the antitype? What did their use of the pertinent doctrine do? In what ways did they offer this teaching? What resulted? How did their followers use this stewardship doctrine? How especially? What did this antitype? By their fourfold use of this doctrine what did they advance and vindicate?
(33) What does v. 17 show? How did they come to journey there? What two things make this the logical place for them? Who partook in the antitypical Gershonites' work? In that of the antitypical Merarites? Where is this shown in detail? What was the antitypical Libnite Gershonites' work? That of the antitypical Shimite Gershonites? In doing so, for what did they stand? What did their serving the justification features of God's plan make them do? What does this prove of their position as symbolic marchers? What did the Shimite Gershonites' work make them do? What does this prove of their position as symbolic marchers?
(34) What will manifest the logical order of the Merarites' march? What in general were the antitypical Merarites in their office work? For what purpose were they such agents? Through what services of the antitypical Gershonites and Kohathites did they not minister? What were such services of the Gershonites? Kohathites? What were the antitypical Merarites' service to the antitypical Gershonites? Antitypical Kohathites? What do the facts in the preceding paragraph showing the antitypical Gershonites' logical place in the journeying prove as to the related works of the antitypical Merarites? How did they minister to the Kohathites as to furthering Divine power and wisdom? What do these considerations prove as to the antitypical Gershonites and Merarites? What is typed by the Gershonites' taking down their parts of the tabernacle? The antitypical Libnites? The antitypical Shimites? The antitypical Mahlites? The antitypical Mushites? What is typed by the Gershonites' bearing their parts of the tabernacle? The Merarites'? What is typed by their setting forth on their journeying?
(35) What does v. 18 introduce? What was the second camp called? What did its standard bear? What does
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
the eagle type? How was its antitype related to the second antitypical camp? What, according to Num. 2:2, did each tribe have in addition to what each camp had? As what did the four standards not serve? As what did they serve? The twelve ensigns? To what did they stand related? What did both of these type? How are these twelve graces further symbolized? How was the tribe of Reuben related to the second camp? What did this tribe type? What is its stewardship doctrine?
(36) Who started the movement that was perverted into the Greek Catholic Church? What teaching started this movement? In opposition to what, and what phase of it? What does Polycarp say of John and Cerinthus? Wherein does St. John set forth the pertinent doctrine? What were his thoughts thereon? As an Apostle, despite being also a member of the Smyrna star, what did St. John not have that the other star-members of the five churches between the Harvests did have? Why? Who was Polycarp? What were some of his privileges? With whom, and in what was he joined? When? Who was his special helper companion? On what other subject also? Who else joined these in this message? What did their united efforts effect? Who next appeared on the scene? What did they woefully pervert? What did they uphold? Who were these and what was the time that each flourished? In what did their work result? What did their offering their antitypical bowl, charger and spoon start, according to the type under study? Whom did they attract? Into what? How did these join in antitypical Reuben's journeying? By what four uses of the stewardship doctrine? What kind of a warfare did they thereby wage? What kind of a constructive work did they do? What did they thereby accomplish? Where will details on the offering of the crown-lost leaders of the Greek Catholic Church be found?
(37) Of what does v. 19 treat? What does the word Simeon mean? What was his camp and his place in it? Who was his prince? What do the names Shelumiel and Zurishaddai mean? What does the tribe of Simeon type? By what was his journeying preceded? Who started to blow this symbolic alarm? Whose disciple was he? What occasioned his alarm-sounding? What thoughts did he
oppose to their teachings? What can be said of his teaching at that time? What cannot be said of it now? Why? What truth did the conditions lead Irenaeus to set forth? What did he do with this truth? Who was Irenaeus' helper companion? What did he do? Who joined these two in the antitypical trumpeting? What accompanied and resulted from such trumpeting? What was the truth that they proclaimed? Who were the crown-lost leaders who perverted this Little Flock movement? What was the relative prominence of these various leaders in their perverting work? Into what did they pervert this Little Flock movement? Who were the two greatest chiefs in this work? Which of these was the chief therein? By what did these as the antitype of Shelumiel, the son of Zurishaddai, start out in the journeying of antitypical Simeon? Who attached themselves to these as members of the Roman Catholic Church? How did they start out in the antitypical journeying? Continue therein? What mistake did this whole sectarian aggregation make? Where are details on this subject? What did antitypical Simeon advance and vindicate by his journeying? In what respect?
(38) Of what does v. 20 treat? What was Gad's order in the camp of Reuben? Who was his prince? What do the words Gad, Eliasaph and Deuel mean? What does Gad type? Eliasaph? Who were the main crown-lost leaders of antitypical Gad? Who was the Little Flock leader who initiated the pertinent movement? About when? What was his alarm? Who was Cranmer's helper companion? How were they as a set of twos related to each other? Who joined these in the trumpet blowing? What accompanied and resulted in such activity? By whom was this Little Flock movement in part sectarianized? Under what mistaken impression? By whom was the real sectarianizing primarily wrought? Secondarily? How did they as antitypical Eliasaph start out on the antitypical journeying? Where are details thereon found? Who joined these in the antitypical march? How did they do this? What is typed by Gad's progress in his journeying? What by these activities did they advance and vindicate? In what respect? What does the foregoing discussion demonstrate as to the three tribes to the antitypical Tabernacle's south?
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
(39) What did the three days' journey of Num. 10:11-36 type? Who led the antitypical march? How? Who logically, but not chronologically, followed them? Who followed these? Who came next? After them? How about the rest? What preceded every camp's journeying? Viewed chronologically, what preceded each tribe's journeying? Why in each case did the tribal journey follow the priestly movement? What was the order in each tribal journey? What character do these considerations give the type of Num. 10:11-36? Where are we now as to the antitypical march? What will the Priests soon have done as to this march? What will have searched out this resting place? For whom? What period will end the Priests' march? Who will shortly thereafter end their part in this march? Who shortly thereafter? With what will the end of the Gospel Age be accompanied? What occurs in the tribal picture during this miniature Gospel Age? When will the larger tribes pass away? What will take their place? What in this connection is not shown in the type? Why? Why should this point be kept in mind?
(40) What part of the section under study was ended in paragraph (38)? What does v. 21 describe? What was their position in the marching host? What was the negative and positive character of this position? What proves this in a general way? As to the Priests, tribal leaders, Levites and Israelites? What conclusion results from these considerations?
(41) How does this affect the position of the antitypical Kohathites? What is the fourfold work of the Gospel-Age Kohathites? What, accordingly, do they furnish the antitypical Priests? As what? How was their service to these rendered as to the upper part of the Ark? As to the Laver? How did their service further the Priests as to the antitypical vessels? Beside the Priests, whom else did they thereby help? What is typed by the Kohathites' marching in the center of the host? Where is the work of the Gospel-Age Kohathites explained? How did they antitype the Kohathites' marching as described in v. 21? What is typed by the Gershonites' doing their part of erecting the tabernacle before the Kohathites' arrival? The Merarites' doing their part in it?
(42) What did prior printed Greek and Hebrew recensions
help later Gershonite Amramite Kohathites to do? What examples as to Greek recensions prove this? What remarks as to Mr. Panin's Numeric Testament should here be made? To what mistakes has neighborhood numerics betrayed him? What do these examples prove? In whose else work does this same principle manifest itself? Whose work from the standpoint of this principle is somewhat alike? How are these matters related? How is the operation of this principle shown in connection with the antitypical Merarites' erecting their parts of the antitypical Tabernacle?
(43) What is typed by the Kohathites' being in the center of the host? How does this antitype show their work relations toward the Priests? What did they thereby offer them? What else showed this? How were their relations to the crown-lost leaders shown in the type? How were the latter until 1917 regarded by God? What proves this? Despite what? Generally speaking, of what nature did their help for the antitypical Israelites not consist? Of what did it consist? What works illustrate this? For what other reason were the typical Kohathites placed in the center of the host? What were the antitypical Kohathites' various works? From the viewpoint of the second reason for their logical position, to what did they minister? How were they represented? In what respects? How can the second reason be summarized?
(44) Into what position does the foregoing discussion put us? What facts already given prove the logical more than the time order as applying in the antitypical march? What other set of facts are in line with this? As to time order, by what was each denominational journeying preceded? To what did such alarms lead? What later set in? What followed still later? If the time order of the pertinent events were intended to have been typed, how would the priests have been represented? How were they actually represented? What negative reason prevented the former representation? What four positive reasons did God have in adjusting the type as He did? How did the priests bearing the ark show the time relation, as viewed from the standpoint of the picture viewed as a whole? What details does it not give? What does the alarm-blowing for the four camps prove?
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
(45) In what relative time order do the antitypical Levites in each denomination do their work? The antitypical Gershonites? The antitypical Merarites? The antitypical Kohathites? What time relations in their work are not purposed to be brought out in this type? What is the purpose in these respects? As distinct from what? What is ignored in this type? Why, as to the antitypical Priests? As to the antitypical Levites? What, accordingly, is the order as respects the antitypical Levites? To what order does the entire picture more largely lean? What, however, is not entirely ignored? In what respects?
(46) What does v. 22 bring to our attention? What Divine attribute is typed in the camp of Ephraim? Where was this shown as to the camp as a whole and the three involved stewardship doctrines? What will now be in order? By what was the start of the Lutheran Church preceded? What were the four fundamental doctrines of the Reformation? Who was the one who trumpeted the stewardship doctrine of the Lutheran Church? What other three doctrines did he trumpet? What was his chiefly stressed doctrine? Against what did he stress all four, especially his chiefly stressed one? Why did he chiefly stress it? What was the ultimate reason for it? How was it trumpeted? How as to controversial effectiveness does Luther rank? What effect did this have on Rome's estimate of him? What proves that his trumpeting was seasonable? Why did he greatly love the doctrine of justification by faith alone? What is his ablest and most detailed exposition of this doctrine? What is its rank?
(47) What was the effect of Luther's nailing the 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg? For what four principles did he wage invincible warfare? What methods did he reject? As what did he fight? For what was he loved? How does he rank as a genius? Who was his ablest antagonist? Who was his chief assistant? How were Luther and he in character contrasted? What is displayed in their being made complements of one another? Who shortly rallied to their side? What was their special message? Who a little later joined them? What did they do and effect? What did their offerings antitype? Who were gathered to these crown-lost leaders? What did they do? What did their pertinent activities antitype?
What did their continuing them antitype? What will their ending them antitype? What did these activities further and vindicate?
(48) What tribe marched next in the type? Who was its leader? What do the words, Manasseh, Gamaliel and Pedahzur, mean? What does this tribe type? What is its stewardship doctrine? Against what did it revolt? What Divine attribute did it emphasize? Against what church's lordship did it contend? How was such lording manifested? Who revolted against it? Of what is the episcopacy a gross corruption? With what views did Robert Browne combat it? Into what did this plunge him? Upon what condition was he received again into the Church of England? What was his antitypical alarm?
(49) Who seems to have been his companion helper? What things did they together do? What were Harrison's main sole activities? Of what was their joint activity the antitype? Who shortly joined their agitation? What is given and what is omitted in No. 100? Who then shortly joined them? What did they do and effect? On what did their offering their bowl, charger and spoon start them? In what did this result? What did these Congregationalists do? What did they draw to themselves? In beginning their controversies, what did they antitype? What, in continuing them? What will their ending them antitype? What did their course accomplish as to Justice? Where are details given on the pertinent priestly and crown-lost leaders' activities?
(50) What was the last tribe of the third camp? Who was its prince? What do the words, Benjamin, Abidan and Gideoni, mean? Where are details on typical and antitypical Benjamin given? Whom does Benjamin as a tribe about the tabernacle type? What is their stewardship doctrine? Of what is it a summary? What is its essence? How is this related to the camp on the antitypical west of the Tabernacle? What evils in the Church of England occasioned the Little Flock movement later perverted into Quakerism? Who was the Little Flock brother who began to sound the pertinent alarm? From whom must he be distinguished? What position among English books does Foxe's Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs hold? Where could George Fox find no religious
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
satisfaction? Wherein did he search for it for years? Wherein did he find it? Thereupon what did he do?
(51) Who was his companion helper? What are the two most famous Quaker writings? How did Fox and Barclay complement one another as two secondarily prophets? Who soon joined them in alarm-trumpeting? What were their fields of labor? Who were the chiefs of the crown-lost leaders that associated themselves with these Priests among the Quakers? Among other fanatical sects? In what did they join? What did this effect? In making their offerings, what did they antitype? Who were gathered to them? What did they do? In what was the spirit of their stewardship doctrine manifest? With what results? What is typed by their entering this course? Proceeding therewith? Ending it? What did they further and vindicate thereby? What remark made in this connection as to this tribe's families fits those of all the tribes?
(52) What does v. 25 introduce? What do the names, Dan, Ahiezer and Ammishaddai, mean? What is the thought common to the camp to the antitypical north? Whose sons were the progenitors of the three tribes on the tabernacle's north? How did these three antitypical tribes stand toward the Little Flock, relatively to the other nine? How does this fact stand related to their stewardship doctrines? To what does this remark particularly apply? Why not to the later journeying of the Unitario-Universalists? How was it as related to their earlier journeyings? Who began to issue as an alarm what became the Baptists' stewardship doctrine? What was that doctrine? Of what star was Hubmaier a member? What was the character of his abilities and works? With whom did he as a star-member become involved in controversy? What did his work effect?
(53) Who was his companion helper? Why was he so called? Where did the Hubmaier movement mainly center at first? What scattered it? Who stirred up their persecution? Where then did the movement largely move? Where did Blaurock thereafter work? Under what circumstances? Who joined these two in sounding the alarm? Against what error did they contend? Why? How did Satan seek to discredit the movement? Who then appeared among them? Who was their chief? What did they offer
and thereby antitype and accomplish? How is the stewardship doctrine of the Baptists an expression of disinterested love? By whom were the crown-lost leaders joined? How did they participate in the pertinent controversy? What else did they do with this stewardship doctrine? What did their beginning this course antitype? Their continuance therein? What will their ending it antitype? What was the relation of their course to God's attribute of Love? What do their persecutions at the hands of other sectarians antitype? Where are these matters given in detail?
(54) Of what does v. 26 treat? Who was Asher's prince? What do the words, Asher, Pagiel and Okran, mean? What does Asher type? How was Asher related to Leah? What is therein implied antitypically? What two things resulted therefrom? What caution against error is here given? What is the stewardship doctrine of the Methodist Church? What do they sometimes call it? How has their view frequently been misrepresented by opponents? What two things in part occasioned this? Who was the Little Flock member who began to trumpet this true doctrine? What two things occasioned his blowing this alarm? To develop such a condition and life, what did he stress? In what did his early efforts result, as to the ministers and the laity? What was his field of labor? In what did his tireless activities result? How long and by what methods did he labor as a star-member? Who of the star-members seem to have served longer as such? How long was their respective service? How did Wesley's character fit his stewardship doctrine?
(55) Who was his companion helper? How often do we meet fleshly brothers as star-members? Among whom were John and Charles Wesley as brothers unique? How does Charles rank as a hymn-writer? How numerous were his hymns? Which is one of his best? What did he do as to the alarm? Who joined John and Charles therein? How do they compare with the Priests of other Little Flock movements? How is this inferred? Who joined them at first? Later? In what did they join? What did they thereby antitype? Who were attracted by these? What did they do? How did they use their stewardship doctrine? What did they thereby antitype in the outstart?
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
Progress? Completion? What did they accomplish thereby? Where are details hereon given?
(56) Of what does v. 27 treat? Who was its prince? What do the words, Naphtali, Ahira and Enan, mean? What is the antitype of Naphtali? What was their stewardship doctrine? What truths did they hold against the four greatest nominal-church errors? What typical relation accounts for antitypical Naphtali having so much Truth? What must be said of its later doctrinal positions? What four great errors do they now hold? What evil eminence do these errors give them as a denomination? Who was the Little Flock leader that gave the alarm on the above-mentioned stewardship doctrine? What are some of the main events of his life before he was a star-member? Why did he have to exercise much secrecy as to his connection with his stewardship teaching? What did he do in 1531? In 1532? What reception did his book receive? What as a result did he do? What were the chief events in his life in France? What attitude did he have to take? When did he renew his controversy with Calvin? What did he do to Calvin in 1553? What things did this lead Calvin to do? What can be said of Servetus' use of his stewardship doctrine?
(57) Who was his companion helper? After the likeness of Thomas Campbell's relation to Barton Stone, and of J. Wolf's relation to William Miller, what were his relations and helps toward Servetus? Where did he begin to sound the alarm? What compelled him to change his field of labor to Switzerland? How did he there work? In antitype of what was his, Servetus' and their fellow Priests' hard course? What kind of a Priestly movement resulted? Who was Faustus Socinus? What were his chief pertinent acts? Where? What great contemporary joined him? Who were the greatest of such leaders in the last two centuries? What did all this do? In so doing, what did they antitype? Whom did they attract as followers? Into what? What did they then do? How did they do it? What did they thereby antitype in their outstart? Progress? Completion? What did they thereby accomplish as to Divine Love? Where are details on this matter found? What does v. 28 do as to vs. 11-27? Like as in what related set of acts is this done?
(58) When did the episode of vs. 29-32 occur? What four things prove this time feature? When did the departure from antitypical Sinai occur? What is typed by departing from Sinai? When, accordingly, must the antitype of the episode of vs. 29-32 have occurred? What is in harmony with this view? What does the word Hobab mean? What antitypically? What was his relationship to Moses? How do the cited Scriptures show this? How has the A. V. made confusion on this subject? How are Jethro, Reuel and Raguel identified? What remark should here be made? What does Moses' requesting Hobab to accompany Israel to Palestine type? In what two ways was the antitypical request made? How antitypically is Israel our Lord's brother-in-law? How does the Church as Jehovah's (class) daughter figure in this? Where is this in part set forth? What did our Lord seek through His ministry toward Israel while in the flesh? How did He sum up His pertinent ministry? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? By what did He seek their conversion? Why did He confine His ministry to Israel? What good did he directly do? How do the cited passages prove this? How else did He seek their conversion? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What types His and their elaborations of the high calling before Israel?
(59) What does Hobab's refusal type? In what two ways was the antitypical refusal given? How was it done in word? In act? Where are details thereon given by St. Paul? How do the facts of the case stand related to the type? What is typed by Hobab's saying that he would depart to his own land? To his own people? What facts prove this to have been done? During this course what have they experienced?
(60) Without what were they not allowed to take this course? In what two ways were these entreaties and remonstrances made? At what two times? Wherein are these set forth typically? How were they first expressed typically? Of what words does this typical expression remind us? More particularly? Of whose others? Where given? Why did Moses offer Hobab the honorable role of guide? What does this type? What does Hobab in his knowledge of the wilderness type? Like whose helps for the Church were those that Israel could have given
The Gospel-Age Trumpets and Marches.
Spiritual Israel? Why was such an invitation offered? What proves the answer? Where is the emphasized typical appeal found? How is the strong emphasis shown in the appeal? What does this type? Why did Jesus and His mouthpieces make such appeals? What is typed by Moses' offering Hobab the same treatment as Israel would receive, after Hobab's refusal? What is surely an antitype of the offer of v. 32? What is typed by Hobab's refusal grieving Moses? Despite their fall, over what should we rejoice? Of what is the Hobab episode another confirmation?
(61) What has already been done with v. 33? In what connections? What does this warrant at this place? How do these remarks apply as to v. 34? What is proven by the fact that it was the pillar of cloud, not of fire, that started the journey out of the wilderness of Sinai? What other considerations strengthen this proof? What views of the antitypical marching and camping are corroborated by Moses' prayers in vs. 35 and 36? Amid what is progress mainly made? How is this related antitypically to Moses' prayer in v. 35? For what two things is the prayer antitypically? What two things does Jesus seek in the antitypical prayer of v. 35? What is the defensive part of the Christian warfare? What temporarily is not made during our endurances? For what does Jesus, then, pray? Why is there special pertinency to such a prayer at antitypical Paran? What kind of a return will it be? What two things do we end with this study? During the course of this, what other chapter of Num. did we study? In what connection? What have we thereby accomplished? What is a brief summary of this involved part of Numbers, type and antitype? What should we do Godward in view of these studies?
Onward, Christian soldiers! Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus, going on before;
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle, see His banner go!
Onward, then, ye people, join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song;
Glory, laud and honor unto Christ, the King,
This through countless ages men and angels sing.