Epiphany Truth Examiner


View All ChaptersBooks Page


Num. 7:1-29 


ONE OF the most lengthy chapters of the Bible is Num. 7, which we desire to expound in this and in the following two chapters. We have already pointed out in a general way whom the twelve princes of Israel type—those who turned the twelve Little Flock movements into the twelve denominations of Christendom. The sectarian leaders are, therefore, in a general way, the antitypes of the twelve princes of Numbers 1 and 7. But further study, blessed by the Lord's enlightening grace, has enabled us to see more precisely just what kind of persons these antitypical princes were. From what Numbers 7 says of them from the standpoint of each one of them bringing a kid of the goats for a sin offering (vs. 16, 22, 28, etc.), we conclude (1) that they were of such as were of the Christ class, and (2) that they were of such as had lost their crowns, and thus in Num. 1, etc., are distinguished from Aaron, the type of the Christ class. 

(2) But one may ask, If they were of those who had lost their crowns, how could they be represented at all as sharing in the Gospel-Age sin-offering? To this very natural question we give the following answer: All New Creatures whether crown-retainers or crown-losers, up to the time of dealing with the Great Company as a class, i.e., up to 1917, when the New Creatures of crown-losers began to be put out of the antitypical Holy, were in the antitypical Holy as a part of the priesthood, and are so represented in the 



tabernacle picture, when there is no reason for distinguishing them from the crown-retainers. It is only when there is some special reason for distinguishing them from the priesthood as crown-retainers that they are represented as out of the antitypical Holy and by others than the priesthood, as is done in this chapter with the twelve princes. We all recall how our Pastor repeatedly called our attention to the fact that there was in his days no Great Company as such, and that all New Creatures were in the Holy as a part of antitypical Aaron. The antitypical teachings of this chapter on the twelve Gospel-Age princes' bringing the antitypical kid of the goats for a sin-offering prove our Pastor's thought on this point to be correct. Why? Because during the Gospel-Age the Lord's Goat and what later became Azazel's Goat are typically called kids of the goats for sin-offerings (Lev. 16:5); while from the standpoint of the finished picture only the Lord's Goat actually has been fully offered as a sin-offering. Hence before 1917 all crown-losers shared in sacrificing it, and hence as New Creatures were a part of antitypical Aaron, who alone sacrifices the Lord's Goat. Therefore we see that crown-losers were a part of antitypical Aaron, until from 1917 onward, when they began to be cast out of the antitypical Holy as New Creatures into the antitypical Court; while their humanity was being led out of the Court and delivered to the fit man. Accordingly, from the standpoint of the Gospel-Age picture, we see that the twelve princes, in bringing the kids of the goats for a sin-offering, represent (1) Gospel-Age persons, (2) who share in the Sin-offering, (3) who are viewed as distinct from the Christ class, and (4) who must be New Creatures, as such only bring the sin-offering. In other words, the twelve princes for Gospel-Age purposes represent twelve sets of individuals who lost their crowns, who actually are, therefore, certain ones

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


of the Great Company, i.e., those who perverted Little Flock movements into sectarian denominations. 

(3) Several typical and antitypical illustrations will help us better to understand this thought. We have already pointed out the fact that when Abraham and Lot acted together in any Scriptural transaction, the former represents the Little Flock and the latter, the Great Company. We recall that Abraham's and Lot's herdsmen quarreled until a separation between their masters was necessary (Gen. 13:5-12). Abraham's herdsmen represent Little Flock teachers and Lot's herdsmen represent Great Company teachers. The quarrel represents the controversies on the Truth between Little Flock and Great Company teachers. Similarly, Isaac represents the Little Flock and the Philistines represent sectarians (Gen. 26:14-21). Isaac's herdsmen and the Philistine herdsmen also quarreled. This represents that the Little Flock teachers and the sectarian leaders, who were mainly Great Company members, would have controversies over the Truth. These controversies resulted in perverting Little Flock movements into sects; even as Abraham's and Isaac's herdsmen left the field to Lot's and the Philistine herdsmen respectively. Very many facts of Church history show the antitypical fulfillment. This we will show from some noted examples. Arius, a Little Flock teacher, with his colaborers, and Athanasius, a Great Company teacher, with his colaborers, strove together on the doctrine of Christ's person and relation to the Father, and as a result Greek Catholic sectarianism took immense strides forward on the trinity. Berengar of Tours, a Little Flock teacher, and his colaborers, and Lanfranc, a Great Company teacher, and his colaborers, strove together on the Lord's supper, and as a result Roman Catholic sectarianism leaped forward on transubstantiation. A little later Abelard, a Little Flock teacher, and his colaborers, and Bernard, a Great Company teacher, and his colaborers,



strove on the relation of faith and knowledge, and as a result Roman Catholicism became the advocate of deeper sectarianism in a superstitious faith as distinct from an intelligent faith. In each case the Little Flock herdsmen were driven back, and the Great Company herdsmen retained what seemed to them the prize of battle: Abraham and his herdsmen had the rocky high lands, Lot and his herdsmen had the green plains—but they pitched toward Sodom; and Isaac's herdsmen left the wells Esek [strife] and Sitnah [hatred] in the hands of the Philistine herdsmen. In these pictures, as in Num. 1 and 7, those who represent the Great Company teachers are not included among Abraham's and Isaac's herdsmen, but in certain ones foreign to them. This is because the design is to distinguish between them. If no such design had been intended, the distinction would not have been made; even as in the Aaron picture, when no distinction is intended, the crown-retainers and losers are represented in Aaron. 

(4) While on this point we desire to give some examples—Calvin, Menno and Socinus—to show that they were not Little Flock members in the Jacob and Aaron types, but in the twelve-princes type. This was true; for each of these helped to make sects of their respective denominations. Thus Calvin sectarianized the Zwinglian movement into the Reformed or Presbyterian Church; Menno sectarianized the Hubmaier movement into the Baptist Church; and Socinus sectarianized the Servetus movement into the Unitarian Church. Thus these three are typed in three of the twelve princes of Israel, and not in Jacob in begetting his sons and in Aaron at the numbering of the Israelites. Hence we are to think of them as Great Company members at most; and in Socinus' case, he having renounced the ransom, we may doubt his being even in the Great Company. 

(5) Above we have set forth our reasons for believing that certain of the crown-lost new creatures

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


(actually Great Company persons) in twelve groups are the antitypes of the twelve princes of the twelve tribes of Israel described in Num. 1 and 7. Accordingly, the antitypes of the offerings of the twelve princes, as described in Num. 7, are the things offered the Lord by twelve groups of Great Company leaders, one group for each of the twelve denominations of Christendom. With these preliminaries we now proceed to discuss the details brought out in this lengthy and interesting chapter, remembering that we are not studying the Epiphany, nor Millennial, but Gospel-Age antitypes of this chapter, even as our preceding consecutive studies in Numbers have had respect to the Gospel-Age antitypes. 

(6) It will be recalled that we applied v. 1 to the Epiphany as a proof that, before the Epiphany chariots would be given to the Epiphany Levites (Vol. V, Chap. III), all the Little Flock would be sealed in the forehead, using the expression, "on the day that Moses had fully set up the tabernacle … the princes … offered, etc.," as the probative words. This proof we regard as correct. But that fact raises several questions: (1) If the day of the verse is the Epiphany, how can the passage be applied to the Gospel-Age? and (2) if applied to the Gospel-Age, how can the expression, fully set up the tabernacle, be true of the Gospel-Age prior to the Epiphany? In view of our method of proof above referred to, these questions naturally arise, but they are susceptible of satisfactory answers in harmony with our above-indicated thought. In answer to the first question we would say that as our former studies, covering Numbers 1-6 and 26, prove the threefold application—the Gospel Day, the Epiphany Day and the Millennial Day application—of the things there studied, so with the rest of the book of Numbers the same principle holds: it is a typical history of these three periods. The tabernacle setting of matters requires these three application to be true,



and the fulfilled facts of two of them prove the same thing; for not only, as will be shown in this chapter, have the Gospel-Age antitypes of this chapter been fulfilled; but part of their Epiphany applications have also occurred. Thus the tabernacle picture is by the fulfillments of the one entirely, and of the other partly, proven to be correct. But it is precisely this fact that emphasizes the second question; for on the surface its Epiphany application seems to deny the possibility of applying the words to the Gospel-Age, in view of the expression, "fully set up the tabernacle, etc." 

(7) Here it behooves us to remember the proverb, "Who distinguishes well teaches well," if he rightly divides the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15). The following distinction will clarify the matter: (1) At Pentecost the entire Church of the Gospel-Age was set up tentatively and representatively; (2) By Sept. 16, 1914, the whole Church had been set up tentatively and individually; and (3) By the Millennium the entire Church will have been set up unchangeably and individually. A few explanations will help clarify these considerations. By the term tentatively we mean probationarily. At Pentecost, of course, the Church was set up probationarily. It was a conditional thing as to whether those who were there made parts of the Church would remain parts of the Church. Therefore, the Church in them was then set up tentatively. The same principle applies to the Church since Sept. 16, 1914, when the Epiphany first began to lap into the Parousia: Those then received into and those already in the Church embryo were on probation—they were only tentatively and not unchangeably a part of the Church. Not only was the Church set up tentatively at Pentecost, but also representatively, i.e., the brethren in the upper room through the begettal of the Spirit were not only made the Church tentatively, but representatively; for from the Divine standpoint they stood at that time for the whole 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


Church. It is for this reason that the atonement type of the high priest sacrificing the Lord's goat pictures our Lord on Pentecost offering the whole Church to God (Heb. 7:27). It is for this reason that St. Paul says of Him after His ascension that He purged our [the entire Church's] sins before He sat down at the right hand of God (Heb. 1:3; 10:14). Thus the entire Church is represented by the brethren in the upper room at Pentecost. For these reasons we said above that the entire Church was tentatively and representatively set up at Pentecost. 

(8) But while the entire Church was set up tentatively and representatively at Pentecost, and tentatively but not representatively in the beginning of the Epiphany, it was set up individually as well as tentatively at the beginning of the Epiphany, i.e., the full 144,000 who constitute and will forever constitute the Body of Christ were found by Sept. 16, 1914. Thus by that date all the individuals who will ever be of the 144,000 were in the Body. But some might ask: If by that date the entire Body of Christ was won, and none of them this side of the vail will thenceforth fall, how could they any more be spoken of as tentatively in the Body? We answer: God's foresight of their proving faithful did not make them unable to fall; for just as Christ Jesus who was foreseen by the Father as faithful unto death, and who was not thereby made unfallable, could have fallen, but was so faithful that He did not fall; so with those this side of the vail in the Body of Christ, since Sept. 16, 1914. They could be unfaithful, and thus fall, if they would; but they so faithfully do and will conduct themselves that they will not fall. Their not falling is not caused by God's foreknowing it, but God's foreknowledge of it is occasioned by their not falling; for if any of them would fall, God would have foreknown it as a result of what they would do. Thus by the beginning of the Epiphany the entire Church was won; and because



those this side of the vail added to those beyond the vail filled up the elect number, it is proper to speak of the entire Church as having been set up individually by the Epiphany. Of course, when the entire Church is beyond the vail it will be set up unchangeably as well as individually. 

(9) Hence, from the standpoint of the three distinctions above made, we see the propriety of applying antitypically the expression, "on the day that Moses had fully set up the tabernacle," among other applications, to the Gospel-Age or Day. Applying this statement to its Gospel-Age antitype we would interpret it as follows: The Church as the antitypical tabernacle was fully set up tentatively and representatively at Pentecost, the first part of the Gospel Day or Age, by Christ as Jehovah's Executive, antitypical of Moses. During, and sometime after the beginning of, this day, which began at Jordan and first ended with Sept. 16, 1914, in the beginning of its lapping into the Epiphany, an offering was made by those New Creatures who lost their crowns, and who became sectarian leaders. The Church thus tentatively and representatively set up, had been anointed and sanctified both in itself as God's dwelling, revealing and blessing place [tabernacle], and in its various uses [instruments] and in its teachings [vessels] before the antitypical princes brought their offerings. To anoint the tentative and representative Church as the antitypical sanctuary means to develop the brethren who became the tentative and representative Church at Pentecost in the qualities and abilities of the Holy Spirit for the Church's mission as God's dwelling, revealing and blessing place in the Spirit (Is. 11:2, 3; Eph. 2:21, 22). To sanctify it as such means to separate it from selfishness and worldliness, especially as these were manifest in Judaism and heathenism, unto the purposes of God's dwelling, revealing and blessing place. The instruments of v. 1 seem to have special reference to the furniture of the

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


Most Holy and the Holy. Jesus as the only part of the Christ in the antitypical Ark at Pentecost, had, while in the flesh, undergone the antitypical anointing and sanctifying; and thus when He became the Ark He could have been spoken of as anointed. The tentative and representative Church on Pentecost became the lampstand in its capacity of enlightening the brethren, the table in its capacity of strengthening the brethren, and the altar in its capacity of comforting, encouraging, etc., the brethren. Its anointing in these three respects would mean its being given the qualities and capabilities of the Spirit to act efficiently in these three capacities; while its sanctification in these three respects would type its separation in them from self and the world, and its use in them for the Lord. 

(10) The altar of v. 1 seems to refer to the brazen altar, and thus would typify the justified humanity of the Christ. This is anointed in the sense that the Christ is given the qualities and capacities of the Spirit for His sacrificial work as respects His humanity in making it act as a proper sacrifice should—energized for the Lord (Rom. 8:10, 11). The sanctification of the altar would type the separation of the sacrificed humanity of the Christ from self and the world as well as from sin and error, unto sacrificial work for the Lord. The altar's vessels—five kinds in all—type the doctrines, refutations, corrections, instructions in righteousness and Bible passages, used in connection with the sacrifice of the Christ's humanity. The anointing of these vessels would type a use of them in harmony with the Spirit's qualities and capabilities and interpreting and using them in such harmony; while their sanctification would type their separation from self, the world, sin and error and their use for the Lord in deed and in truth. 

(11) The connection between vs. 1 and 2 shows that all the acts of v. 1 precede the acts of the rest, of the chapter. In other words, it was to be after the 



anointing and sanctification of the Pentecostal Church that the princes of antitypical Israel would bring their offerings. And this is exactly what the antitype shows to be the case, even as was the case with the type. In Chaps. I and III we have explained the antitypes of the princes. In the former reference we explained what is typed by their participation with Moses and Aaron in numbering the people, i.e., describe, limit, define the sects and the appurtenances of each sect, each antitypical prince doing this to his antitypical tribe only. The present chapter, under the type of the offering of Israel's princes, shows how they did at least a part of the numbering antitypical of Num. 1 and 2. When v. 2 says that the typical princes offered, we are to understand it to type that the crown-lost leaders of the various sects performed a religious service for the Lord that was good and commendable. We are not to understand such offerings to be Azazelian in character, because as such they would not be offering unto the Lord, but unto Satan, whom Azazel's Goat actually serves. That the same class can render both kinds of service is due to their double-mindedness—the good part of their minds has served God in a measure, and the bad part of their minds has served Satan. In this chapter the good part of their service is set forth typically. 

(12) V. 3 describes the first set of offerings that the typical princes brought—six wagons and twelve oxen. The statement that they brought them before the Lord types the fact that a service of God in religious respects is implied. And their bringing them before the tabernacle shows that it would be a public work in the domain of religion recognized as such by Christians, nominal and real, especially by the latter. Wagons or chariots (Ps. 46:9) in the symbols of the Bible type organizations (2 Kings 8:21; Is. 31:1, see Berean comments; 66:15; Rev. 18:13). Hence the antitypes of the chariots here referred to must be certain organizations or classes of organizations that

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


leading Great Company members have developed during the Gospel-Age, and that have been serviceable to the Church. The wagons' being covered types the fact of their being protected or guarded by legal or other rights. In Biblical symbols draft animals as such represent teachings, principles and laws. Thus in the above-cited passages the horses type teachings, as is also manifest from other Scriptures (Rev. 6:2, 4, 5, 8; 19:11, 14, 21). Like horses, asses and oxen as beasts of draft, not oxen as sacrifices, seem to type teachings, principles and laws, e.g., constitutions, or charters, and by-laws (Ps. 144:14; Is. 30:24; Jer. 51:23). The fact that two princes brought a wagon types the thought that the various denominational leaders would have the same kinds of organizations for their differing denominations. And the fact that each prince brought his own ox and that no two united in bringing an ox, types the fact that the constitutions, or charters, and by-laws differ in each denomination from those in other denominations, the sectarian leaders accommodating them to the sectarian ideas of each separate denomination. 

(13) In the preceding paragraph we defined the antitypical wagons as organizations. While this is true, it is not sufficiently specific in this instance, because there are many different kinds of organizations—many more than six. Nor is it sufficiently specific to say that they are religious organizations, since there are more than six kinds of these, e.g., every one of the twelve denominations of Christendom is a religious organization; and it is very evident that these are not typed by the wagons, both from the disparity of the numbers, 6 and 12, and from the fact that the twelve tribes of Israel represent these twelve denominations in the tabernacle picture. From what is said in vs. 7 and 8 as to the disposal of the wagons—two of them given to the Gershonites, and four of them given to the Merarites for their services—and from the nature of the services of the Gospel-Age Gershonites and



Merarites (Chap. II), we conclude that these six wagons type (1) Missionary Societies, both home and foreign; (2) Clerical Societies, like ministerial conferences, synods, assemblies, etc., (3) Bible Societies, (4) Tract Societies, (5) Book-publishing Societies and (6) Periodical-publishing Societies. From this standpoint it becomes manifest that the oxen represent the constitutions, or charters in case of corporational Societies, and by-laws of these six mentioned kinds of societies; for constitutions, or charters, and by-laws do to such societies what the twelve oxen did to the six chariots—draw them on to carry out their functions, to forward their mission. 

(14) We are not to understand that the six wagons here type six individual organizations, but six kinds of organizations, as is implied in the fact that all the denominations have the same six kinds of organizations. Thus there are many Missionary Societies, at least one general one and several special ones in each denomination. So, too, there are many Bible Societies, like the British and Foreign Bible Society, the American Bible Society, Prussian Bible Society, etc. The same remark applies to the other four kinds of societies above mentioned. It is these facts that lead us to think that the six wagons here type six kinds of organizations, not six individual organizations merely. So, too, the oxen here do not represent merely six constitutions, or charters, and six sets of by-laws; but six kinds of constitutions, or charters, each kind adapted to the pertinent kind of organization, and six kinds of sets of by-laws, each kind adapted to the pertinent organization. According to this the two oxen drawing each wagon would represent one kind of constitutions, or charters, and one kind of by-laws. 

(15) When we speak of these six kinds of societies, we are to be understood as having the finished picture in mind. Actually such societies as are mentioned above have not existed from shortly after the Apostolic times.

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


They have, apart from the Clerical Societies, all come into existence within modern times. But bodies doing a similar work have been in existence since early in this Age; and these are included in this picture, though the finished picture exhibits the antitypical wagons in somewhat different forms. Thus for example various national Churches, like the Irish and British Churches, in sending out and supporting missionaries in the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries, were in effect Missionary Societies. Thus, too, various monastic orders that saw to the transcribing of Bibles, other Christian books and Christian tracts, were in this respect in effect Bible Societies, Book-publishing Societies and Tract Societies. In fact, business companies and even individuals that published such literature, like Samuel Bagster and Sons, Harper Brothers, Scribner's Sons, Tauchnitz, etc., very properly are included in these antitypical wagons, the viewpoint of the Lord being that all who engaged in such activities form groups which the Lord reckons as societies. Periodical-publishing Societies, of course, did not come into existence until about two centuries ago, and they, like the Bible, tract and book publishers, include as an antitypical wagon, not only publishing societies, but non-priestly firms and individuals who publish periodicals. A Priest, like our Pastor, publishing his priestly writings would not be considered as a part of this antitype; for it refers to Levite work. 

(16) Vs. 4—8 show the disposal made of the wagons. Jehovah was pleased (vs. 4, 5) to charge Moses to accept the wagons from the princes for the service of the tabernacle, typing the fact that Jehovah accepted for the service of the antitypical Tabernacle—the Church—the offering of the antitypical wagons from the sectarian Great Company leaders in the various denominations, and charged our Lord Jesus to receive such antitypical wagons for such service. His charging Moses to give them to the Levites, types Jehovah's 



charging our Lord to give the six kinds of organizations to the antitypical Levites—the faith-justified ones—who could avail themselves of such organizations for their particular work. His charging Moses to give them to the Levites according to their service (v. 5) restricted the wagons to the Gershonite and Merarite Levites; for the weight and bulk of the parts of the tabernacle which they had to bear made it impossible for them to carry them on their shoulders. Hence the wagons and oxen were given to these Levitical subdivisions only, as vs. 6-8 show: two wagons and four oxen going to the Gershonites (the weight and bulk of their part of the service—the curtains, cords and their appurtenances—required no more than two wagons and four oxen), and four wagons and eight oxen going to the Merarites (the weight and bulk of their part of the service—boards, bars, pillars, posts and their appurtenances, being especially heavy, required no less than four wagons and eight oxen). These wagons and oxen were given these Levitical subdivisions by Moses through the agency of Ithamar (v. 8), who had charge of the Gershonite and Merarite Levites (Num. 4:28, 33). 

(17) Remembering that the Gershonite part of the service in the tabernacle typed (Chap. II) the work of bringing people to justification and consecration, we can very readily see in what the antitypical Gershonites needed help—they needed help (1) in their home missionary (evangelistic) and foreign missionary work. Hence they needed the help of home and foreign Missionary Societies, or their equivalents as shown above. Therefore, the Lord saw to it that they received the help of such organizations. Hence we understand that one of the wagons given to the Gershonites (the Libnite Gershonites) typed the Missionary Societies; and the oxen of that wagon typed the pertinent constitutions, or charters if they were incorporated, and the pertinent sets of by-laws. This, the first antitypical wagon, served them in their work of bringing 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


people to justification. But the antitypical Gershonites needed help (2) in their work of developing people from justification to consecration—the work of the antitypical Shimite Gershonites. Hence the antitypical Gershonites need a second antitypical wagon—Pastoral or Clerical Societies: ministerial conferences, synods, assemblies, etc., supporting them in their pastoral and congregational labors whereby they sought to lead the justified unto consecration. The pertinent antitypical oxen were the constitutions, or charters if these societies were incorporated, and by-laws of these societies. Without the help of these two antitypical wagons, the two groups of antitypical Gershonites could not have done their Divinely authorized work. 

(18) The antitypical Mushite Merarites had the work of publishing; and the antitypical Mahlite Merarites had the work of editing, (1) Bibles, (2) tracts, (3) Christian books and (4) periodicals. This we saw in detail in Chap. II. Thus they have had a fourfold work to do for the antitypical Tabernacle. And this fourfold activity of theirs suggests to us the antitype of the four wagons given to the Merarites. The Bible Societies have been necessary to produce the millions of Bibles needed for the Lord's work. The Tract Societies have been needed to produce the billions of tracts needed for the Lord's work. The Book-publishing Societies have been needed to produce the millions of books needed for the Lord's work; and the Periodical-publishing Societies have been needed to produce the millions of magazines and papers needed for the Lord's work. The constitutions, or charters if incorporation was necessary, and by-laws for each of these four antitypical wagons, were the antitypes of the eight oxen given to the Merarites. Each set of these antitypical oxen was adapted to the needs of its particular symbolic wagon. 

(19) We understand that for the Gospel-Age Ithamar [isle or land of palms, i.e., the one who has to do with the palm bearing (Great Company) class (Rev. 7:9)]



types the stars of the five stages of the Church between the Harvests—those "secondarily prophets" whom the Lord used as His special eye, hand and mouth to the rest of the brethren during the Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis and Philadelphia stages of the Church, Eleazar representing the stars of the two reaping periods. Moses' giving the wagons and oxen to the Gershonites and Merarites through Ithamar, represents our Lord's paving the way for the antitypical Gershonites and Merarites to receive, and encouraging and arousing them through the above-described five stars to avail themselves of the use of, the above-mentioned societies or their equivalents in the work that the Lord gave them to do. E.g., the twelve great reformers, Luther, etc., arranged for and encouraged and aroused them to use these antitypical wagons. 

(20) V. 9 assures us that the Kohathites did not receive any wagons and oxen, because their part of the sanctuary's service was to be carried on their shoulders. Thus they typed that, as distinct from the other antitypical Levites, the antitypical Kohathite work was a personal one; and, by several of the typical Kohathites' carrying one piece of furniture or one set of vessels on their shoulders between them, they showed a co-operation of individuals; and thereby they typed the fact that antitypical Kohathites would act co-operatively as well as individually. When we look at the nature of the antitypical Kohathite work (Chap. II)—producing the (1) linguistical (Amramites), (2) interpretational (Izeharites), (3) historical (Hebronites) and (4) systematical (Uzzielites) lectures and works with reference to the Bible and the Christian Religion as a service of the antitypical tabernacle, we see at once that they do not need organizations to do their work. How could an organization directly write books and deliver lectures? Manifestly this is personal work, and this personal feature of the work is typed by the Kohathites' carrying their burden on their shoulders. But in writing books and preparing 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


lectures, the antitypical Kohathites get help from one another—from one another's oral or written instructions. And, again, they sometimes work together in writing separate parts of the same books, e.g., in writing the articles of Bible Dictionaries and Religious Encyclopedias. Such assistance of, and co-operations with, one another are typed by two or more Kohathites' bearing between them on rods the tabernacle furniture and vessels. 

(21) The above study manifests a factual and reasonable interpretation—type and antitype—of Num. 7:1-9. It adds probative and corroborative force to our previous interpretations of the pertinent parts of Num. 1, 3 and 4. It and they show a harmony and correspondence in the principles of the Scriptures and the facts of Church History such as we should expect to find between types and antitypes. Throughout these studies we have strictly adhered to our Pastor's definitions; and by paralleling as type and antitype these definitions with the facts adduced we have found a complete correspondence between them, such as are characteristic of Jehovah's types and antitypes. Accordingly, we have the assurance of faith that in this the Lord has given us a further development of the Epiphany Truth on the Gospel-Age picture—some more light from the moon, shining now in the night time of trouble (Ps. 121:6). For this we thank, worship and praise the Father of Lights, from whom cometh down every good gift and every perfect gift. 

(22) We now desire to continue the study of this chapter, beginning with v. 10. But we believe that a brief review of our study of Num. 1-6 and 26 will help us better to gain a more connected view of the antitypical setting of the book, and thus better to see how the general features of the Gospel-Age people of God are typed in the general features of Numbers. Therefore we will first give a brief review of our former studies: Num. 1:1-17 shows us typically the agents that the Lord has used in marking, defining, limiting, 



etc., the twelve denominations of Christendom. Then, the marking, defining, limiting, etc., of these denominations are set forth typically in vs. 18-46, while in vs. 47-54 the faith-justified ones in these denominations are typically described as distinct from these denominations in the antitypical camp. Chap. II describes typically the denominations from the standpoints: (1) of their central creedal thought as respects God's attributes: those on the antitypical East centering their creedal thought on God's Power, those on the antitypical South, on His Wisdom, those on the antitypical West, on His Justice, and those on the antitypical North, on His Love; and (2) the time and logical order of their development in so far as this is compatible with the basal creedal thought of the four groups. These two chapters thus set forth typically the development of the Nominal Church in twelve denominations as distinct from the Real Church, while Num. 26 shows typically the main subdivisions and sub-subdivisions of these twelve denominations. 

(23) Num. 3:1-4 sets forth typically the Real Church, while Num. 3:5—4:49 sets forth typically the Gospel-Age Levites in three groups and eight subdivisions, and their services, as well as the relations of the Priests to these. Thus these four chapters set forth the Real and Nominal Churches during the Gospel-Age in so far as there is a Divine approval of their relations. Num. 5:1-10 sets forth the three classes of Gospel-Age sinners: the Great Company, the Second Death class and Nominal Christians, while vs. 11-31 show Christ's relation to the Real Church and the Nominal Churches from the standpoint of their relations to symbolic chastity. Thus this chapter brings out certain relations between the Real Church and the Nominal Church further than those indicated in the first four chapters of this book, typically giving the reason for the difference between them. Num. 6:1-27 sets forth typically the teachers in the Church, more particularly the Apostles and those of the secondarily 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


prophets who have been used as the Lord's special eye, mouth and hand. Then Num. 7 brings out typically the good services of the crown-lost leaders during the Gospel-Age, as helpful to the Levites (vs. 1-9) and to the Priests (vs. 10-89). All these features bring out in greater detail certain features mentioned in Revelation, especially in chapters 1-3, 7 and 17. Thus Israel's organization, parts and works type corresponding Gospel-Age matters. With this brief review of matters hitherto given in some detail in these columns, we now proceed to discuss further features of Num. 7, beginning with v. 10, remembering that the entire chapter treats typically of the good services of Gospel-Age crown-lost leaders: (1) for the Levites (vs. 1-9), and (2) for the Priests (vs. 10-89). 

(24) V. 10: The altar of this verse is the golden altar, because the vessels offered by the princes were of gold and silver, while, if the brazen (copper) altar were meant, the vessels would have been of copper. The expression, "before the altar," with which v. 10 ends, should read, "for [i.e., in the interests of] the altar." The Hebrew word liphne, here translated before, frequently means for in the sense of in the interests of (Ps. 116:14), its primary literal meaning being, for the face of. Our suggested translation is necessary; for the princes did not go into the Holy before the golden altar. The altar, of course, types the Christ as He appears to God and new creatures, in His capacity of comforting, encouraging, correcting and warning the Priesthood while it is sacrificing. The anointing of the golden altar would type the qualifying of the Christ for this work in the requisite abilities and graces. This anointing occurred in the Gospel-Age—"the day"—and in particular respectively after each period of the Gospel-Age in which the Little Flock leaders gave the impulses to the movements that later the crown-lost leaders perverted into sects. Hence in each case it was sometime after each movement was inaugurated, as is implied by its 



taking place during the anointing of the antitypical Altar; for the Christ gets His anointing gradually through faithfulness in sacrificing and helping fellow sacrificers. Hence in each set of Little Flock representatives so anointed, the completing of the anointing was a considerable time after that part of the Church would initiate the pertinent movement later perverted into a sect by the crown-lost leaders. Thus, for example, after Zwingli, and then later his colaborers, Oecolampadius, Haller, etc., had started the Little Flock movement on the Lord's Supper as a symbolic service, and had by the Word and providence of the Lord received their anointing as the then standing Altar, Bullinger, Calvin, Beza, Knox, etc., offered the antitypical vessels, etc., as the princes (leaders) of antitypical Judah. These antitypical vessels, etc., were presented for the dedication of the antitypical Altar—to support, defend and justify the faithful in their bringing forth and supporting the truth underlying the pertinent movement, showing and proving that they and their service in this respect were dedicated (presented) to God in a proper manner and were accepted by Him as having been properly done. Thus they brought their offering for the benefit of the antitypical Altar. 

(25) V. 11 shows typically Jehovah's willingness to accept the offerings of the crown-lost princes of antitypical Israel. This is typically implied in Jehovah's charge to Moses to arrange a separate day for each of the princes to bring the typical offerings, representing how Jehovah charged our Lord as His Executive to arrange for distinct and separate periods for the twelve antitypical princes to make their offerings. These antitypical periods in some cases were far apart, and in other cases were very near one another. In some cases they are not given in the type in the chronological order of the antitype; for the type presents the twelve princes as offering in the order that Num. 2 presents the tribes in their stations about the tabernacle,

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


so as to bring out the order of the four Divine attributes in their relation to the four groups or camps in antitypical Israel. These points will be brought out in the individual cases as we proceed. Thus the order in which the four camps and the tribes in each of them marched (Num. 10:14-28) being the same as that in which they are enumerated in Num. 2, and in which their princes offered (Num. 7:12-89), we should search for the underlying reasons for this. There are several reasons for this, some of which we will not discuss until we study Num. 10:14-28. But the reason that we above gave—the order of the operation of the four Divine attributes from the standpoint of man's perceiving them—will suffice for the purposes of Num. 7:12-89. 

(26) Israel in its organization and tabernacle was to be a picture of God's antitypical purposes. One of such purposes was to reveal Himself operating perfectly in power, wisdom, justice and love, and that in the time order just enumerated, as we note from His works (Rev. 4:6-11). These attributes were for the Priests symbolized in the uncovered mercy seat, in the two cherubim and partly in the Shekinah light in the Holy of Holies. For the Levites they were symbolized by these covered; and for the Israelites, by the standards of the four camps. While we are not able clearly to prove it from the Bible, the rabbinical claim that the standard of Judah's camp had as its emblem a lion, that of Reuben's camp, an eagle, that of Ephraim's camp, an ox, and that of Dan's camp, a man's face, seems reasonable; for these are the symbols used in Rev. 4 and Ezek. 1 for the four great Divine attributes; and it is certain that the basal creedal thoughts of the four camps of antitypical Israel are these four attributes—one for each camp. Undoubtedly the idea of God's Power is the underlying creedal thought of Calvinism, Campbellism and Adventism, the three denominationalisms on the East of the antitypical Tabernacle. The idea of God's Wisdom



is certainly the underlying creedal thought of Greek, Roman and Anglican Catholicism, the three denominationalisms on the South of the antitypical Tabernacle. The idea of Justice is unquestionably the underlying creedal thought of Lutheranism, Congregationalism and Fanaticism, the three isms on the West of the antitypical Tabernacle. So, too, the idea of Love is unquestionably the underlying creedal thought of the Baptist, Methodist and Unitario-Universalist Churches, the three denominations on the North of the antitypical Tabernacle. And as the creeds are the denominational standards, and as these four denominational groups have each a different one of these attributes underlying its standard, it is quite reasonable to believe that in the typical standards were the symbols of these four attributes, as the rabbis claim. We do not, however, present this thought as absolutely demonstrable from the Bible, but as reasonably inferred from its data, considered from the standpoint of the creedal bases of the four antitypical camps; for we do know it to be a fact that a separate one of the four Divine attributes underlies the creedal thought of each one of the four antitypical camps. The natural man by his environment is first of all struck by the idea of God's Power. This is likely the reason why the princes of the camp standing symbolically for power, are represented as offering, in their threefold tribal order, first. With these preliminary remarks we now proceed to particulars, and will first consider—type and antitype—the vessels and the other offerings of the prince of Judah. 

(27) V. 12: Nahshon (enchanter), the son of Amminadab (my people is willful), as the prince of Judah (praise), types the crown-lost leaders who perverted into a sect the Zwinglian movement, which advocated that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper represent Jesus' body and blood, and that eating and drinking these represent faith appropriating Christ's merit for justification, and also the Christians' fellowship with

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


one another. This doctrine, so far as it went, was true. Its advocacy was started by Zwingli, to whose support Oecolampadius, Haller, Myconius and a large number of other Priests rallied. Henry Bullinger, Zwingli's successor as chief pastor of Zurich, Switzerland, seems to have started the work of perverting this movement into a sect; but he was shortly greatly overshadowed by John Calvin, who was one of the sharpest thinkers of all times, and who is generally recognized as "the theologian of the Reformation." Next to Calvin stood Theodore Beza, Calvin's chief colaborer, his chief lieutenant and his successor; and next to him stood John Knox, Scotland's Reformer. There were, of course, many lesser lights than these, like the two Spanheims, Chanier, etc. 

(28) The mental acuteness of the chief Calvinistic theologians is generally recognized as at least equal to that of any other set of denominational theologians. This is implied in the name Nahshon, enchanter; for by their subtile teaching they have enchanted many. The Hebrew word from which Nahshon is derived means serpent—that which charms—and power to charm—symbolizing subtility; and the stubbornness (Amminadab) of the Calvinistic theologians is proverbial. Thus these theologians are in the type properly characterized by the meaning of the names, Nahshon and Amminadab. On the European continent the Calvinistic Churches are usually called Reformed, like the Dutch Reformed, the German Reformed, etc.; and in the British Empire and in America they are usually called Presbyterian. These, as previously shown, are antitypical Judah (praise), a name that properly applies to this denomination from its intellectual, moral and religious qualities and works. The ground principle of their theological system is Power, which they imply in their shibboleth, "Divine Sovereignty." Antitypical Judah, being historically and from about every other standpoint the first of the three tribes on the East of the antitypical Tabernacle, occupies 



the first place in that camp; and, therefore, its crown-lost leaders are represented as bringing the sacrifice on the first antitypical day, as the first of all. 

(29) V. 13: According to this verse Nahshon brought three vessels for the altar—a silver charger or platter, a silver bowl and a golden spoon. Each of the other princes brought the same kinds of vessels, as they also all brought the same three kinds of sacrifices, each kind consisting of the same numbers and kinds of beasts. In fact, the words describing the service of all these princes are identical, excepting, of course, their names, the names of their fathers and the names of their tribes. We have seen that chargers type corrective teachings, bowls, refutative teachings, and spoons, ethical teachings (Chap. II). We will find added confirmations of these thoughts in vs. 13 and 14. It will be noted that there was no offering of cups for the altar by any of the princes. This is exactly in harmony with the antitype, because it was the crown-retaining leaders—antitypical Jacob—who gave the doctrinal teachings that started each Little Flock movement later perverted into a sect by the crown-lost leaders. There is another reason in the antitype for this typical omission: the crown-lost leaders in all cases perverted some doctrinal feature in the teachings given by the Little Flock crown-retaining leaders. E.g., Calvin perverted in a large measure Zwingli's teaching on the purpose of the Lord's Supper; for Calvin's teaching on this feature of the subject leaned toward Luther's doctrine of the real presence. Though he held against Luther with Zwingli on the symbolic view of the bread and wine, and their eating and drinking, yet he claimed that Christ's body and blood were received in the Lord's Supper, not by Christ's being on earth, as Luther taught, but by the communicant's faith ascending to heaven, and there partaking of a mystic power emanating from Christ's body; and, though Calvin held to the thought that the bread and wine symbolized Christ's body and blood, he did not 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


hesitate to call Zwingli's view on the purpose of the Lord's Supper, as merely symbolic and commemorative, "a profane opinion." In this perversion the other crown-lost leaders like Bullinger, Beza, Knox, etc., agreed with Calvin. It is because of such doctrinal perversions that cups, the types of doctrinal truths, were not offered in the type. Thus the Scriptures are frequently significant in their silence, as they always are in their speech. Later on a reaction set in, leading, in the Presbyterian Church, to a general acceptance of Zwingli's view on the purpose of the Lord's Supper as against Calvin's view. 

(30) Remembering that the vessels were offered by the princes for the golden altar, and that this was to type some service that the crown-lost leaders were to perform for the faithful sacrificers in their ministry, and remembering that chargers represent corrective teachings, bowls refutative teachings and spoons ethical teachings, we will readily see that Nahshon's bringing these three vessels for the altar types the services that the Calvinistic crown-lost theologians contributed to the Little Flock servants in Scripturally defending the thought that the bread and wine and their eating and drinking were symbolic. Let us see first how this was done in the case of the antitypical charger, which, as stated above, is corrective teachings, i.e., as to wrong conduct. Since Zwingli, etc., taught that partaking of the bread and wine symbolized faith appropriating Christ's righteousness, and also the fellowship of Christians with one another, though they did not see that this fellowship was a joint participation in the Sin-offering; in bringing the antitypical charger, the Calvinistic crown-lost theologians had to show: (1) that such a doctrine implied setting aside sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in all their forms; for to symbolize such things implies the symbolizers' hostility of heart to sin, error, selfishness and worldliness. Again, (2) that this symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper required the purging of evil from the 



heart (1 Cor. 5:7, 8), as indicated by its type, which had to be celebrated with unleavened bread, after all leaven was removed from the Israelites' homes and burned. Further, (3) they showed it by proving that such symbolization required the heart's reformation to give the feast its sacred setting as distinct from an ordinary meal. Also, in line with this was the thought (4) of the supper being a commemorative feast, and (5) of its requirement of self-examination; (6) the stress that they laid on the warning not to eat and drink unworthily, and the proof which they gave that such unworthy participation made one guilty of the body and blood (sin against them), and (7) the rehearsal of the evils of spiritual weakness, sickness and sleep as a result of unworthy participation in the symbolic feast—one and all proved to be teachings corrective of misconduct. On these particulars they stressed 1 Cor. 11:26-34, as the Biblical basis for their teaching that the symbolic partaking of the bread and wine implied and enforced reformation of conduct. Thus they offered the antitypical charger. 

(31) The bowl of antitypical Nahshon was the refutative teachings 'that the Calvinistic crown-lost leaders used against attacks made on the teaching that the bread and wine represent Christ's body and blood, and' that partaking of them represents the Christians' partaking of Christ's merit and also their fellowshipping with one another. Against this teaching the Catholics by transubstantiation and the Lutherans by instrumentalization, both holding that the actual body and blood were eaten by the mouth of all communicants, contended with the greatest subtility. But antitypical Nahshon was able to refute every argument that transubstantiationists and instrumentalizationists offered. Some of the refutative arguments that we used against these two wrong views of the nature of the Lord's Supper in P 22, 52-56 are identical with those that antitypical Nahshon used; though not having the full light on the Lord's Supper, antitypical Nahshon could

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


not use all of them, nor in some cases could he put them so clearly. We suggest a re-reading of the article just cited, as illustrative of some of the refutative arguments that antitypical Nahshon used, as well as helpful to a proper appreciation of the Lord's Supper. Some of this class made most crushing refutations of the Catholic and Lutheran views as against the symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper. E.g., Beza more than worsted the Cardinal of Lorraine in a great debate on the Lord's Supper, before the French royalty and aristocracy in 1561 at Poissy. Similar results attended his debate on the same subject with the ablest Lutheran theologians at Montbeliard, 1586. The controversial writings of antitypical Nahshon on the Lord's Supper are a triumphant overthrowal of objections to the symbolic character of the Lord's Supper offered by Catholics and Lutherans. Thus antitypical Nahshon offered his bowl. 

(32) The spoon that Nahshon offered types his antitype's instructions in righteousness that flow from the symbolic understanding of the bread and wine and their eating and drinking in the Lord's Supper. Catholic and Lutheran theologians respectively claimed that such a view would not develop the communicants in righteousness as would the view of transubstantiation and instrumentalization. Refutatively, antitypical Nahshon showed that transubstantiation and instrumentalization fostered superstition, priestcraft and perversion of good qualities, and then positively showed that the commemorative and symbolic view of the Lord's Supper deepens love for God, who gave His Son to death for the lost race, and for Christ, who died for the world, and for all fellow participants, because it symbolizes Christ's death, their appropriating His merit and their fellowship with one another; deepens, increases and elevates faith in justifying and sanctifying aspects; fosters hope in the glorious consummation for the entire family of God in suggesting the new wine; strengthens obedience by the act of 



complying with the exhortations germane to the Lord's Supper; strengthens humility by solemnly refreshing heart and mind on the grace of God underlying the service; and stimulates zeal and self-sacrifice by holding God's and Christ's sacrifices before our mind for devout commemoration and symbolization. In these and many other ways they showed how the commemorative and symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper promoted proper characteristics and conduct. Thus antitypical Nahshon brought the golden spoon. 

(33) V. 13 and corresponding verses in this chapter show that the chargers and bowls were silver; and v. 14 and corresponding verses in this chapter show that the spoons of all the princes were gold. As we have long since learned, in Biblical symbols silver represents truth, and gold represents that which is Divine. The thought with reference to the charger and the bowl is, therefore, that truth characterized the corrections of wrong qualities and conduct and the refutations of errors, made by the teachings of antitypical Nahshon in his views on the Lord's Supper; while the thought with reference to the golden spoon is that antitypical Nahshon's ethical teachings derived from the Lord's Supper were Divine in that they came from God; in that they inured to developing a Divine character; in that they tended to glory, honor and immortality; and in that they enhanced the Divine glory. The weight of these three vessels—the charger 130, the bowl 70, and the spoon 10 shekels of the sanctuary—totaled 210 shekels. It will be noted that each vessel's weight in shekels was in the denomination of ten or its multiples—130, 70, 10. This symbolizes the fact that they were the offerings of those who would ultimately be of a nature lower than the Divine, ten and its multiples symbolizing natures lower than the Divine. But their sum, 210, being a multiple of both 7 and 10, suggests the thought that though their offerers will ultimately be of a nature lower than the Divine, they once were

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


begotten to the Divine nature as new creatures, having had crowns assigned to them. The weight of the spoon—10 shekels—suggests typically the reckonedly perfect human powers of its offerer; the weight of the bowl 70 shekels, the product of 7 and 10—suggests typically that Divine New Creatures in reckonedly perfect human bodies were its offerers; and the weight of the charger—130 shekels, 130 being the sum of 70 and 60, the latter a multiple of 6, the symbol of evil and imperfection, and of 10 the symbol here of human nature, 60 thus representing corrupt human nature, typically represents that it would be double minded (Jas. 1:8), Spirit-begotten persons who would offer the antitypical charger. Thus embedded in the weights of these vessels are typical allusions to various outstanding features of the Great Company. Thus in another way than that of their sharing in the sin offering, does the Lord show us that Nahshon and the other princes type crown-lost leaders. The silver charger and the bowl in contrast with the golden spoon seems also to represent the thought that the value of the corrective and refutative teachings was inferior to that of the ethical teachings for Divine purposes. 

(34) We are further told that the charger and bowl were full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat offering (v. 13). As elsewhere shown, the meat (meal) offering represents praise—the proclamation of Jehovah's plan as reflecting credit upon Him by displaying His glorious power, wisdom, justice and love—and worship—service of His plan. Thus the meat offering of Nahshon in the charger and bowl types the fact that by antitypical Nahshon's corrective and refutative teachings, oral and written, there would be credit reflected upon God through their serving Him in furthering their pertinent feature of the Plan—the Lord's Supper. The fine flour represents the minuteness of antitypical Nahshon's teachings; and the oil represents that it was the offering of New Creatures



who put at least a measure of the Lord's Spirit into the service. We are told that the golden spoon was filled with incense. This incense represents the choice human powers of antitypical Nahshon, which were reckoned perfect by Jesus' merit, and which were used in their service of vindicating the symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper as promotive of godliness, and in that use developed into Divinely pleasing graces; for from God's viewpoint, that crown-lost New Creatures up to 1917 were in antitypical Aaron, it is manifest that their sacrificing in Spirit and in Truth was 'acceptable to Jehovah in Christ, and produced in them some degree of the graces, even as they taught on the graces and the conduct harmonious with them. The fact that Nahshon brought these vessels for the golden altar proves that his antitype must have been New Creatures ministering new-creaturely matters; but his not being a priest proves his antitype to have consisted of crown-losers—another proof that the princes type crown-losers, the fact that the vessels were not copper, but were silver and gold also proving the same thing. 

(35) Vs. 15-17 show the animal sacrifices in three forms: the burnt offering, the sin offering and the peace offering. As our dear Pastor has shown us, the burnt offering represents the manifested acceptance of the sacrifice to Jehovah; the sin offering, the atoning character of the sacrifice; and the peace offering, the covenant obligations which were assumed, and which were fulfilled by the sacrifice. We understand the young bullock in the burnt offering to type our Lord as the one whose merit makes the sacrifice acceptable; the ram to type the Church as the one whose sacrifice includes that of the crown-losers before 1917, and thus is instrumental in making the crown-losers' sacrifice available as a part of its own; and the lamb to type the crown-losers as being acceptable to Jehovah through Christ's merit and their inclusion in the

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


Church. Above we explained the antitypical significance of the kid of the goats for a sin offering (v. 16). V. 17 names a number of the beasts sacrificed in the peace offering. We understand the antitype to be: Through Christ's merit (the two oxen) and on account of their inclusion in the Church (the five rams) as a part of the Sin-offering (the five he goats), the sacrifices of the crown-losers are a fulfillment of their consecration vows (the five lambs). The fact that the lamb in the burnt offering and in the peace offering was of one year in each case, types the maturity of the crown-losers for the sacrificial work that they performed. We have already used the fact of the princes bringing the sin offering as proving that certain Gospel-Age sacrificers, and hence crown-lost New Creatures, are typed by them. The same thought flows from the fact that they bring a burnt offering; for the only sacrifice acceptable to Jehovah, and made during the Gospel-Age, is that of the Christ. So, too, the same conclusion follows from the fact that they brought the peace offering; for the only sacrificial covenant made and fulfilled during the Gospel-Age is that of the Christ. The same thought flows from the fact that a special animal in the burnt and peace offerings types them as distinct from Jesus and the Church. Thus we have found seven arguments which prove that the princes represent the crown-lost sectarian leaders in the Gospel-Age picture: (1) they offered a sin offering; (2) they offered vessels whose shekel weight was of ten or its multiples, and whose total shekel weight was 210 shekels, and whose separate weights and combinations typed reckonedly perfect human beings, Spirit-begotten human beings and double minded new creatures; (3) they offered gold and silver vessels: (4) these vessels belonged to the golden altar; (5) they brought a burnt offering; (6) they brought a peace offering; and (7) they are typed in the burnt and peace offerings by an animal separate from the animals that type Jesus and the Church. 



(36) So far in this chapter we studied Num. 7:1-18, type and antitype, where we entered into details on the chargers, bowls, spoons, their contents and the various animal sacrifices, brought to our attention in vs. 12-17, and connected with Nahshon's offerings. In considering the offerings of the other eleven princes it will not be necessary to enter into their general details, because in the type they are expressed in exactly the same language, and because they are, generally speaking, the same in the antitypical offerings. The difference in the antitype consists in the difference between the twelve doctrines on which the antitypical princes respectively made presentations. Each one of these presented corrections (chargers), refutations (bowls) and instructions in righteousness (spoons), differing from those of the other eleven, inasmuch as the pertinent general truth presented by each one of the antitypical princes was on a different subject. For this reason we will, in discussing the offerings of the other eleven princes, omit the general details on the chargers, bowls, spoons and various animal sacrifices, referring our readers to the previous discussion for these. 

(37) V. 18: It will be noted that each of the typical princes offered on a different day. These days anti-typically are successive in time order only among the three antitypical tribes of which each of the four groups consist, except in the case of antitypical Naphtali, and this perhaps because the Universalists were developed after the Methodists. If we should attempt to make them follow one another in time succession, in all twelve antitypical tribes, we would soon come into irreconcilable difficulty. E.g., Nahshon, who offered on the first day, as we have already seen, types the crown-lost leaders of the Presbyterian Church, while Elizur (v. 30) types the crown-lost leaders of the Greek Catholic Church. Antitypical Nahshon began to offer about 1535 A.D., while antitypical Elizur began to offer before 250 A.D., despite the fact that the type makes Nahshon and Elizur offer on the first and fourth days respectively. Again, Nethaniel (v. 18) and 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


Eliab (v. 24) type the crown-lost leaders of the Christian and Second Advent Churches respectively, while Shelumiel (v. 36) and Eliasaph (v. 42) type the crown-lost leaders of the Roman Catholic and the Episcopal Churches respectively. Antitypical Nethaniel and Eliab began to offer about 1815 and 1850 respectively, while antitypical Shelumiel and Eliasaph began to offer about 250 and 1550 respectively. Thus we see that the time order of the offering is given within each antitypical camp, but not as between each camp. These remarks must be kept in mind when considering the order of the days in the type and antitype. Antitypical Nahshon, Nethaniel and Eliab beginning to offer about 1535, 1815 and 1850 respectively, we recognize the time order as successive in this antitypical camp; as it will also be seen to be in the other three antitypical camps, except as noted above. 

(38) The doctrine that God gave to the denominations which we call the Christian or Disciple Church as its stewardship teaching through the Faithful is this: The Unity of the Lord's people is founded on the Bible as their only creed. This teaching was first announced by Barton W. Stone in 1804 in Kentucky. Just as the Lord began to give through Zwingli the truth on the Lord's Supper, in defense of which antitypical Nahshon offered the corrections, refutations and instructions in righteousness, as on the special truth of the Reformed or Presbyterian Church, typed by the pertinent charger, bowl and spoon; so did He begin to give through Barton W. Stone the special truth on the basis for the unity of God's people, in defense of which antitypical Nethaniel offered the pertinent corrections, refutations and instructions typed by the pertinent charger, bowl and spoon. But just as Zwingli was joined by other priests in presenting the truth on the Lord's Supper, so was Bro. Stone joined by other Priests in presenting the truth of the unity of God's people as being based on the Bible as their only creed. 



(39) Most prominent among these was Thomas Campbell, the father of Alexander Campbell, who was the chief figure in antitypical Nethaniel, as Calvin was the chief one of antitypical Nahshon. Thomas Campbell in 1809 began in Western Pennsylvania a movement with the same teaching as that presented five years before by Barton W. Stone. But for years each labored in ignorance of what the other did and taught, and only later did they find out that the Lord's Spirit led them into the same truth. Each protested by pen and mouth against sectarianism; each began as Presbyterians, but soon repudiated its sectarianism and doctrine of absolute predestination. Each stood out for a Biblical union of all Christians free from all the elements of sectarianism; each became immersionists; and each labored long and successfully as non-sectarianists. 

(40) It was Alexander Campbell who turned this Little Flock movement into a sect, called the Christian or Disciple Church. As Calvin corrupted the Zwinglian movement, so Alexander Campbell corrupted in many ways the Stone-Campbell movement. He introduced immersion for the forgiveness of sins—the baptism of John—and the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper, just as Calvin introduced the doctrines of absolute predestination and of Presbyterianism into the Zwinglian movement. Thus Alexander Campbell stands out as the chief one of the crown-lost leaders typed by Nethaniel (gift of God) the son of Zuar (little). There were others who were in antitypical Nethaniel, e.g., Samuel Rogers, John Smith, Thomas Allen, Walter Scott and Isaac Errett. These were ever ready to advocate the doctrine that God's people are one and should unite on the Bible alone as their creed. They were ever ready to enter formal debates in defense of this proposition. Alexander Campbell was one of the ablest religious debaters and orators of the nineteenth century. He never came out of a debate second best. His chief debates were with Mr. Owen, 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


a skeptic, on the evidences of Christianity, with Bishop Purcell, a Roman Catholic, on the Roman Catholic religion, and with Rev. Rice, a Presbyterian, on Baptism and Church Unity. After his example, Christian or Disciple preachers court the opportunity of entering a debate, especially on Christian unity, and always win the debates on this question. 

(41) Keeping in mind that the special truth that the Lord committed to the denomination called the Christian or Disciple Church is the unity of God's people as being based on the Scriptures as their only creed, we will be in a position to understand how the crown-lost leaders of that Church—antitypical Nethaniel—presented their antitypical charger (corrections), bowl (refutations) and spoon (instructions in righteousness). Their being called typically Nethaniel—gift of God—seems to imply that they offer peace to divided Christendom as a gift from God. Their being typically called Zuar (little) seems to refer to the fact that their demands for unity among God's people are not based on large, but on little conditions—the acceptance of Jesus as Savior and obedience to Him as Lord, and the acceptance of the Bible as the only creed. Contrasted with the exacting demands that, for example, the Papacy makes as conditions of union among God's people, these are little—Zuar—indeed. 

(42) The antitypical charger (corrections) that they brought corrected misconduct against true unity among God's people. It showed what were the evils of sectarianism, and how they could be put aside by true unity among God's people. It showed that sectarianism divided God's people, made them hostile, envious, partisan, mean, despicable, selfishly ambitious, only partially fruitful in goodness, servile to leaders and denomination and objects of hostile attacks from outsiders. These evils it showed could all be corrected by unity among God's people. It further showed that human creeds are the product of much ignorance, superstition and perversion, that they lead to strife,



vain-glory, error, division, partisanship, disfellowshipment of true brethren, shutting out of advancing light and settling in the bog of reactionism. These evils it pointed out would all be set aside by adopting the Bible as the only creed, in trust that the Lord by His Spirit would open up its mysteries as they would become due to those walking in the advancing light. In these and other ways antitypical Nethaniel offered his charger, and we are sure that God at Jesus' hands accepted this charger. 

(43) So did the crown-lost leaders of the Christian or Disciple Church also offer the antitypical bowl—refutative teachings. Their position on the unity of God's people as being based upon their acceptance of the Scriptures as their only creed, was contrary to the creedal views of all other denominations. It additionally antagonized the views of the Greek and Roman Catholics on tradition as a source of rule and faith. It antagonized the creed views and practices of all the f denominations; for almost all of them had written creeds, confessions and disciplines. These, therefore, attacked the Christian or Disciple view. In turn the crown-lost leaders of this denomination attacked the arguments used in defense of creeds, showing that they are nothing less than corporational rules and regulations and human chains binding their accepters to spiritual slavery, stunting their growth and cutting them off from all advancing truth contradictory to their creeds. Additionally they pointed out the fact that all of them taught error and separated in hostile camps God's dear children, who should be united in head and heart in the oneness of the Divine family. In defense of their own position they argued that their creed was the Divinely revealed one, inerrant, sufficient, perfect and practical. It excludes those only whom God excludes; and it includes all whom God includes. It gives liberty to each in non-essentials, and makes none the dictators and lords over other's faith. It allows for differences in degrees of knowledge 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


in all. These crown-lost leaders used as their shibboleth the saying, "Where the Scriptures speak we speak; where the Scriptures are silent we are silent." Certainly this is a safe course, and the only one capable of making for union among God's people. The strength of this position lies in its Scripturalness; and this accounts for the Christian or Disciple controvertialists coming out of their frequent debates as victors. 

(44) Antitypical Nethaniel also brought as his offering the golden spoon—the instructions in righteousness flowing from the Scriptural teaching that the union of God's people is based upon the Bible as their only creed. They pointed out that the union of God's people was necessary to yield God the most glory, inasmuch as it showed that a united people was an honor to their God, and that a united family was an honor to their Father. They showed how this would honor and please the Savior, one of whose last prayers was for the unity of God's people. It was especially along the lines of the graces operative in the Christian brotherhood that they made telling points along the lines of instructions in righteousness. They showed how this teaching helped the brethren to love one another with increasing fervency. They pointed out that it conduced to long-suffering and patience in connection with non-essential differences. They emphasized how it made one tolerant where tolerance was a virtue, and unbending where firmness was required. They proved that it was a strong support to gentleness, humility, meekness, consideration and politeness; and above all they affirmed that this position enabled each and all to be real brethren in the Lord and to act as such, inasmuch as they could view one another as New Creatures and ignore fleshly differences. In these ways antitypical Nethaniel offered the golden spoon. 

(45) We will not here enter into a discussion of the fine flour mingled with oil, contained in the charger and the bowl, nor into a discussion of the sweet incense



in the spoon, since their significance is the same in all twelve cases, and is therefore here the same as in the case of that presented by Nahshon, as explained above, to which we refer our readers for these particulars. For the same reason we will not enter into a discussion of the gold and silver metals in the three vessels that Nethaniel brought, nor of their weights, nor of the burnt offering, the sin offering and the peace offering, in themselves and in the various animals of which they consisted. The accommodation to Nethaniel's offerings of the remarks made on these matters in connection with Nahshon's offerings will suffice to make these points clear without repetition here. 

(46) In order better to appreciate Eliab's offering, let us recall that he types the crown-lost leaders of the Adventists; for the tribe of Zebulun (habitation) types the Second Adventists, or Adventists as they are called for short. They are antitypical Zebulun (habitation), because, it will be recalled, in Adventism antitypical Elijah and Elisha became the cleansed sanctuary separate from Great Babylon, and the expectation was that the faithful teachers, as antitypical Jacob (Gen. 30:19, 20) would find a habitation unto the end with the Adventists; for in Adventism they became a sanctuary henceforth separated from Babylon. Eliab means God is father—life-giver, and Helon means strong. Their crown-lost leaders as advocates of God as the life-giver who will display His strength in connection with Christ's Second Advent, when believers would be given life by God's strength, are thus indicated by the name of the prince who types them. Thus Adventism as a sect stresses God's power in the resurrection, even as Calvinism stresses it by its shibboleth, the sovereignty of God, in election, and as Campbellism stresses it in the Bible as the power of God to unite God's people in one and unto salvation. Thus we see that the three tribes to the east of the tabernacle, type the three denominations that specially stress power as a Divine attribute in their creeds.

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


(47) The Advent movement was begun (Jacob begetting Zebulun) by William Miller, who originally was an infidel, but who by the study of the Bible became a believer. About 1818 he began to study prophecy and chronology. By 1829 he had developed his system of prophetic chronology and doctrine quite fully, when he began to converse on it to individuals. But he did not make much of it in the way of witnessing publicly until 1831. His first public lecture on The Second Advent was delivered on the first Sunday in August, 1831. (White's, Life Of Miller, page 80.) Bro. Miller stressed a number of things, especially (1) prophetic chronology, (2) Christ's Second Advent and (3) the saints' Millennial reign with Christ after the Second Advent. To the day of his death (Dec. 20, 1849) he continued to believe in the immortality of man, in his consciousness in death, in eternal bliss entered at death by the righteous and in eternal torment entered at death by the wicked. He first expected the Lord's return, and that visibly in the flesh, sometime between March and October, 1843, and then, this failing, Oct. 22, 1844. After his second disappointment, he humbly and publicly confessed his mistake, but could not point out wherein he had made a mistake in his prophetic periods, which were in the main from March, 1844, properly understood; but he began his 1290 and 1335 years' periods 30 years before his 1260 years' period, which from about March, 1844, on were rightly begun in 539 A. D. Previous to March, 1844, he began them at 538. He began and ended the 2300 days at 457 B. C. and 1843 A. D. respectively. Certainly he did not understand correctly the Lord's Second Advent in its time, object and manner. Yet his chronological periods in the main were correct, though he applied some parts of them incorrectly. His was indeed a movement in God's order, corresponding in the parallel dispensation to the "Israelites indeed" and the Magi before and just after our Lord's birth going forth to meet the Messiah. 

(48) What special doctrine did the Lord give through 



him in connection with which antitypical Eliab offered his antitypical charger, bowl and spoon, with their appurtenances and attendant sin, meat and peace offerings? The crown-lost leaders of Adventism have variously' stressed some doctrines. Most of them have stressed man's mortality, the unconsciousness of the dead and the destruction of the wicked. These could not have been the doctrines in connection with which antitypical Eliab offered the antitypical charger, bowl and spoon, because Bro. Miller—the part of antitypical Jacob who started the movement that was turned by the crown-lost leaders of Adventism into a sect—disbelieved them, therefore could not have used them to beget the Advent movement. Nor could Christ's pre-Millennial advent have been that doctrine, because the Baptists centuries before Miller made that a point of their faith. Nor was it Seventh-Dayism, which a majority of Adventists now accept, for Bro. Miller never taught it, nor did any of his followers until after 1846. Of the three things that he specially stressed there is only one which no previous movement specially stressed, and which the crown-lost Adventist leaders did stress, i.e., the prophetic chronology. So prophetic chronology is the thing by which Bro. Miller began his movement—Jacob begetting Zebulun. And the facts undeniably prove this. Prophetic time was the special point that he emphasized, that drew many to his movement, and that was the main target of his opponents' arrows. Thus the facts show what was the Biblical teaching committed to the Adventists as their special stewardship doctrine, in connection with which, accordingly, antitypical Eliab offered the antitypical charger, bowl and spoon—prophetic time. 

(49) A wrong chronology prevalent in Miller's day moved him to start the 490 and 2300 days at Ezra's commission, given in this wrong chronology as 457 B. C. Hence he made it end in 1843. This date (1843) moved him first to start his 1260 and 1290 days with 538 A. D., and then from March, 1844, onward with 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


539 A. D., which was correct. But trying to make the periods end in 1843 (later in 1844), he made the 1335 days begin 30 years earlier than they should have been made to begin. The Lord gave him in a general way to see about correctly in his time periods, except that of the 1335 days. This was not due to be seen more clearly at that time. And instead of censuring him for inexactness, we are warranted in admiring the general correctness of his time prophetic views. He was undoubtedly a Divinely used and approved vessel for the Truth due in his time, and his evident humility in view of his mistake, and his unabated zeal in proclaiming after 1844 the nearness of the Lord's return, show him to have been a genuine member of antitypical Jacob and Elijah. The fact that he did not see clearly all the details of the doctrine that he used in starting the movement that was later perverted into Adventism is no more against him than the parallel facts that all other non-apostolic brethren of antitypical Jacob as beginners of Little Flock movements that were later perverted into denominations failed to see all the details of the respective doctrines that they used to begin their respective movements, e.g., Luther did not see the distinction between tentative and vitalized justification; Zwingli failed to see that the bread and wine also represent the Church's life-rights and right to life, etc., etc. Surely the path of the just has been as a shining light, shining more and more unto the perfect day. 

(50) Having seen what the doctrine is that God entrusted to the Adventists as their special stewardship teaching—time prophecy connected with the Second Advent, let us look at the prince of antitypical Zebulun and his offerings a little more closely. Adventism divided into about a half-dozen sects, all of which have held more or less firmly to Bro. Miller's time prophetic views, though perforce admitting his mistake. Moreover, Little Flock brethren, vacillating as to 1843 and 1844, about 1859 forecast 1873 and, that failing, 1874 as the time of our Lord's return, basing their views on 



those of Bro. Miller, except that they started the 1335 days at the same point as the 1260 and the 1290 days, first at 538, then 539 A. D. Usually those who continued after 1874 to expect Christ to come visibly in the flesh have, while holding to the time periods, deprecated fixing the date of that event. The main crown-lost leaders—antitypical Eliab—who have held the time setting of Bro. Miller are Joshua Hines, Bro. Miller's ablest personal helper for years before the latter's death, James and Ellen White, Uriah Smith and Miles Grant. These, then, are the most important members of antitypical Eliab. The use that they have made since 1874 of Bro. Miller's time prophecy is not to fix the date of the Lord's return, but to stress its imminence, since they say that the time periods have run their full course and that we are now in the waiting time, of whose duration they concede their ignorance. 

(51) Like all other crown-lost leaders, they offered a charger, a bowl and a spoon, i.e., corrective, refutative and ethical teachings. As the doctrine in connection with which they offer these teachings is time prophecy, we are to look for them to show that time prophecy connected with the hope of our Lord's return corrects wrong conduct and qualities, refutes attacks upon the general time prophetic setting of things given by Bro. Miller, and helps toward right living. Thus their antitypical charger was their precepts, exhortations, etc., connected with time prophetic teachings that corrected wrong living. "That blessed hope" of our Lord's return, kept in mind, has always helped to godliness, while its being forgotten has always been conducive to worldliness. When the great apostacy at the beginning of the Age set aside the hope of the Church in our Lord's return as the time of the Church's union and reign with Him over the earth, for the hope of converting the world and reigning over it a thousand years before our Lord's return, it paved the way for a flood of worldliness to spread over the Church. That perverted hope made its advocates lower the standard of

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


real consecration, which during the reign of sin and selfishness has found only a comparatively few responsive souls, and resort to methods and teachings that would appeal to the world. Hence arose many false doctrines, a hierarchial organization, an elaborate and gorgeous ritual and an easy life adapted to win the unregenerated. Stress was laid on external rites, acts and rewards that appealed to the world. Multitudes found the Church the surest and quickest door to popularity, wealth, position, promotion and power. Whence arose a selfish, worldly, erroneous and sinful set of qualities and practices in the Church. Worldly ambition, numbers, power, popularity, prestige, wealth and position, with their concomitants of pride, self-exaltation, strife, envy, hatred, malice, revenge, etc., everywhere took the place of the world-denying, self-renouncing, self-sacrificing and Spirit-filled life of the early disciples. 

(52) Such an un-Christian spirit has always marked the life of the bulk of those who have given up "that blessed hope," while wherever "that blessed hope" sets aside the perverted hope of the Church reigning without her Lord and before His return, these evils are set aside. Who will continue trying to convert the multitude by lowering the Christian standard to their level, if he believes that the present time is set aside, not for the conversion of the world, but for the selection of the Church with an incidental testimony of the coming kingdom to the world? Who, realizing that it is his great task to follow in Jesus' steps in preparing himself for his real work in the Millennium, will make worldly popularity, wealth, position, honor, influence, etc.' the objects of his ambition? Will he not see that these are in the way of his overcoming, and that he that hath his hope in him purifieth himself of these and all other evils even as Christ is pure? Will not the desire to be an overcomer enable him to put aside the spirit of anger, pride, self-exaltation, malice, envy, strife, hatred, revenge, etc., engendered by conditions created by 



the false hope? Yea, verily! And this is exactly the use that antitypical Eliab has made of the hope of our Lord's return as imminent, derived from Bro. Miller's teaching on time prophecy connected with our Lord's return. And who will say that this corrective use of this teaching has not been effective in enabling its faithful accepters to cleanse themselves from the evils that Post-Millennialism has brought in its wake? If we look at the life of faithful Adventists, we see much that reminds us of the primitive Church in its world-renouncing spirit, and this is undoubtedly due to the stress that antitypical Eliab has laid on the cleansing influence of the imminence of that blessed hope. And in stressing the cleansing power of the thought of the Second Advent's nearness, and that in various details and in a right spirit, antitypical Eliab has offered his antitypical charger filled with antitypical fine flour mingled with antitypical oil. 

(53) Likewise, these crown-lost leaders of the Adventists have offered the antitypical bowl—refutations of attacks on the time prophetic periods as given by Bro. Miller. The Miller movement attracted an immense amount of attention in its day, and many and able were its oral and literary opponents. Among Bro. Miller's opponents were Profs. Stowe, Pond, Bush, Stuart and Chase, and Drs. Dowling, Jarvis, Hinton, Hamilton, Shimeal and Kendrick. Differing in their views, these sought variously to refute his views of the time prophecies connected with the Second Advent. Some of them denied that the 2300, the 1260, the 1290 and the 1335 days represented years. Antitypical Eliab refuted them especially by the 70 weeks, or 490 days, until the completion of exclusive favor on Israel, and by proving that the Hebrew word chatach, translated "determined" in Dan. 9:24, means "cut off," i.e., from the 2300 days. Some of them claimed that Daniel's fourth kingdom (Dan. 7 and 8) meant the divided Grecian Empire. That antitypical Eliab refuted by showing that most of the facts prophesied in Dan. 7 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


and 8 of the fourth kingdom could not be found fulfilled in the divided Grecian Empire, but were all found in the Roman Empire and its divisions. Some of his opponents applied the "little horn" to Antiochus Epiphanes, others to the Mohammedan power. Antitypical Eliab disproved these views, proving that it referred to the papacy. Some of his opponents dated the 1260 and the 1290 days as being so many literal days in the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the corresponding 1260 days in Revelation as applying to as many literal days in the history of Nero; others of them refused to fix a time for their beginning, for which others took 606 A. D., the date of Phocus' decree. On this point antitypical Eliab was nearest the truth in defending 538 A. D., when in endeavoring to make effective Justinian's decree Belisarius, his general, forced the Ostrogoths to abandon the siege of Rome. But 539 A. D. is the right date, when Belisarius destroyed the Ostrogothic kingdom, and thus freed the pope from being cramped by them, leaving him liberty to set up his own power in Italy. On the date of Christ's advent Bro. Miller, of course, was wrong, and antitypical Eliab has had to admit this, and has been unable to give a satisfactory explanation of the 1844 date. On the pre-Millennial advent of our Lord many of his opponents fought him in the interests of Post-Millennialism; but antitypical Eliab has ably shown their error and proved the scripturalness of Pre-Millennialism. Thus successful in controversy against the opponents of the Truth that Bro. Miller gave in the Miller movement has antitypical Eliab been—he offered the antitypical bowl filled antitypically with its oil mingled with fine flour. 

(54) Antitypical Eliab also offered his spoon filled with sweet incense. This spoon represents the instructions in righteousness, the ethical teachings, that the crown-lost leaders of the Adventists presented in connection with the time prophecies associated with our Lord's return as given by Bro. Miller. As the doctrine of the speedy return of the Lord tended to purify its 



accepters from sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, so it also tended to develop its believers in the graces of the Spirit. On this account antitypical Eliab held it out as the blessed hope whose realization meant the deliverance and glorification of the Church and her eternal association with the Lord and with one another. This, of course, stimulated hope. They stressed the necessity of love to God, the Lord Jesus, the brethren, the world of mankind, including enemies, as indispensable for fitness to share in the realization of that hope; and, of course, this tended to develop love in the Faithful. They stressed the necessity of keeping this hope in the heart as a means of enabling the brethren to exercise patience amid the obstacles to godliness; and this helped to develop patience in the responsive. They held up this hope before the brethren to enable them to cultivate heavenly-mindedness. By stressing the littleness of our present suffering, self-denials and sacrifices in comparison with "the glory that shall be revealed," antitypical Eliab gave teachings that assisted the brethren to exercise the spirit of obedience. By contrasting the hope with our littleness they gave teachings tending to humility. In stressing the thought of Jesus' coming as King and Lord they gave teachings calculated to produce meekness. By contrasting the vanity of present earthly things with the substantiality of the present privileges of service and the prospects of glory they gave teachings conducive to developing zeal. Thus the message of the Second Advent's imminence as antitypical Eliab stressed its various phases, became in his hands a means of instruction in righteousness—ethical teachings—of first class importance. Much antitypical sweet incense was in this antitypical spoon, and it was surely offered by antitypical Eliab. 


(1) What characteristic has Num. 7? What does it necessitate in our article on it? What do the twelve princes represent generally and particularly? What fact repeatedly stated in the chapter proves the precise definition of 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


the antitype? What two conclusions result from that fact and their not being priests? 

(2) How can we explain the fact of the antitypical princes being crown-losers and yet sharing in the Sin-offering? Under what circumstances only are such distinguished from the antitypical Aaron? What thought, from the Gospel-Age picture, is proven correct by the princes' bringing the sin offering? Why? Until when were crown-losers parts of antitypical Aaron? What then began to take place? In connection with what work? What four conclusions result from these considerations? Briefly give a precise definition of the twelve antitypical princes. 

(3) Give several illustrations—type and antitype—of this line of thought. Explain, the episode of the trouble between Abraham and Lot and their herdsmen, type and antitype, in line with this thought. Also that between Isaac's and the Philistines' herdsmen as to the wells, in line with this thought. Give some examples from Church History elucidating the antitype. Why do these types distinguish the Faithful from the others? Under what circumstances would types not make the distinction? Give an example of such a type. 

(4) What examples are given as illustrations of crown-lost leaders? What did each do with a Little Flock movement? In whom were they typed?' How are we to think of these persons as to their standing? 

(5) What have we shown in the preceding part of this chapter? In a general way what is represented by the things offered by the twelve princes? For what do these generalities prepare us? What aspects of the antitypes of Numbers have we not and what aspect of them have we been studying? 

(6) What application have we (Vol. V, Chap. III) made of Num. 7:1? What words were stressed to prove the application? What two questions are raised by this application? To what three antitypical periods do the events of Numbers apply? What necessitates these three applications? What proves two of these applications? Why? Why does the Epiphany application raise the second of our two questions? 

(7) What must be done to see the harmony here? What are the three distinctions? Explain each of these distinctions. Prove the first one Scripturally. 



(8) Explain the second distinction. State and answer an objection to the tentative part of this distinction. Give a parallel case in proof. Does God's foreknowledge force the thing foreknown to happen? What is the relation between His foreknowledge and the foreknown events? Why is it proper to speak of the Church in the Epiphany as set up individually? When will the Church be set up unchangeably and individually? Why? 

(9) What does this threefold distinction make possible with the words, "on the day that Moses had fully set up the tabernacle"? How are these words to be interpreted with reference to the Gospel-Age? When did it begin and end? What had been done on this day before the antitypical princes offered? What is the antitype of anointing the tabernacle, and sanctifying it? How were these two antitypes done? What is the antitype of anointing each instrument and vessel? Sanctifying each instrument and vessel? 

(10) What is meant by the altar? What is the antitype of its anointing? Its sanctification? The anointing of its vessels? And their sanctification? 

(11) What does the connection between vs. 1 and 2 show? How did the antitype of this occur? What is the antitypical relation of the offering of this chapter to the antitypical numbering of Num. 1? What is typed by the princes' offering? Of what character did this offering not partake? Why not? Of what character did it partake? How could the same class offer to Azazel and to Jehovah? What part of their service is set forth in this chapter? 

(12) What does v. 3 describe? What is typed by the fact that they brought their offerings before the Lord? Before the tabernacle? What do wagons type? Prove this Scripturally. What, in a general way, are the antitypes of the wagons of Num. 7:3-8? What is typed by the wagons' being covered? What do draft animals—horses, asses and oxen—type? Prove the answer. What is typed by two princes' bringing one wagon? By each prince's bringing one ox? 

(13) Why is the definition of organizations, or even of religious organizations, not precise enough for the antitypical wagons? What are the exact antitypes of the six wagons? Why? What are the exact antitypes of the oxen? Why? 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


(14) Against what mistake should we be on our guard as respects the antitypical wagons? Why? Give examples proving that six kinds of organizations and not six organizations are typed by the six wagons? Against what mistake should we be on our guard as respects the six pairs of oxen? Why? Give examples proving that six kinds of constitutions, or charters, and six kinds of sets of by-laws, are typed by the six pairs of oxen. What would each pair of oxen type? 

(15) In understanding the antitype what must we keep in mind? When did not, and since when did, such societies exist? How were their functions performed before they came into existence? How does the finished picture treat the matter? Give some illustrations on this line. What kind of publishers that are not societies are included in the antitype? Give some examples. When did Periodical Societies come into existence without any others before doing their work? Who are included in this antitypical wagon? 

(16) What do vs. 4-8 show? What did Jehovah do with the wagons to Moses—type and antitype? What is represented by His charging Moses to give them to the Levites? and that according to their service? To what Levites did this restrict them—type and antitype? Why? How many went to the Gershonites and how many to the Merarites—type and antitype? Why the difference in number? 

(17) What two things have the antitypical Gershonites had as their work? What resulted from this as regards the antitypical wagons? Why did they need only two antitypical wagons? Name the respective antitypical wagons. Which went to the Libnites and which to the Shimites? When did these societies have constitutions and when charters? What precisely did the two oxen for each wagon represent? Of what use were these antitypical wagons? 

(18) What are the two classes of antitypical Merarites, and what were their respective works? How manifold was their work? How many antitypical wagons became thereby necessary for them? Why was each one necessary? What conditioned the character of the two antitypical oxen for each of these wagons? 

(19) What does the word Ithamar mean? What antitype is suggested by this meaning? Who constituted the Gospel-Age Ithamar? Who typed the stars of the reaping periods? What is typed by Moses' giving the wagons to 



the Levites through Ithamar? Cite examples of God's by antitypical Ithamar doing this. 

(20) What did the Kohathites not receive? Why not? What does this type? In what two ways do the antitypical Kohathites serve as implied in the type? Why can they not do their work through antitypical wagons? Of what four classes are they? What is the work of each of these classes? How do they antitypically carry their burden on the shoulder? How is their co-operation typed? In what two ways do they help one another? Cite examples. 

(21) What is the character of the interpretation above given? What do these qualities give to our understanding of the Gospel-Age antitypes of Numbers? What do they show? What has been followed in these studies? What has been the primary result? The secondary result? To what should this move us? 

(22) What would be profitable at this juncture? Why? What does Num. 1:1-17 type? Num. 1:18-46? Num. 1:47-54? From what two standpoints are the twelve denominations of Christendom typed in Num. 2? Summarize the antitypes of Num. 1, 2 and 26. 

(23) What is typically set forth in Num. 3:1-4? Num. 3:5-4:49? In how many groups and subdivisions? Summarize the antitype of Num. 1-4. What does Num. 5:1-10 type? Num. 5:11-31? Num. 6:1-27? Num. 7:1-9? Num. 7:10-89? In what other book and chapters is similar ground covered? Summarize the review. What is our next task? 

(24) What is the altar of v. 10? Why? Why not the other altar? What is the right translation for the words rendered, "before the altar," in v. 10? Why? In what respect and capacities does this altar type the Christ? What does its anointing type? When did its antitype occur, from the standpoints of this chapter? How, in point of time and agencies, did the antitypical anointing and offering from the standpoint of this chapter occur? Give an illustrative example. For what were the vessels presented—type and antitype? How were they for the altar—type and antitype? 

(25) What does v. 11 show? What does this type? What is typed by a day set aside for each prince to offer? How do these periods of the Gospel-Age compare with one another? In what order is there sometimes a time difference between the time order of type and antitype? In what passages is the typical order given? How do we account for the difference? 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


(26) Of what is Israel in its organization and tabernacle typical? What is one of Jehovah's purposes? How were His attributes typed for the Priests, Levites and Israelites? What Biblical symbols are used for Jehovah's four chief attributes? What do the rabbis claim for these in relation to the four standards of Israel's four camps? Can this claim be clearly demonstrated Scripturally? What is a reasonable proof of it? What is the basal creedal thought for each of the four camps of antitypical Israel? Name the three denominations in each of the four antitypical camps. Prove the basal creedal thought of each of these camps. Of what are the creeds the antitype? Why? What is reasonable to infer from this? What Divine attribute first attracts the natural man's attention? For what is this the probable reason? Whose vessels and offerings, type and antitype, are given first in this chapter? 

(27) What do the names, Nahshon, Amminadab and Judah, mean? Whom does Nahshon type? What was Zwingli's view of the Lord's Supper? How was it related to truth? Who first started it, and who shortly joined in teaching it? Who were the chief perverters of the Zwinglian movement into a sect? Who was the main one among these perverters? Describe two others and mention still three others. 

(28) What is the mental quality of Calvinistic theologians? In what is this implied? How so? What is a heart quality of Calvinistic theologians? How is this indicated? What is the continental name of the Calvinistic Churches? the British and American name? Who types them? What does the word Judah mean? Explain its antitypical application. What shibboleth of theirs shows the ground principle of their doctrinal system? Why are the Calvinistic Churches given first place in their camp? How does the type show this? 

(29) How many and what vessels did Nahshon and the other princes bring for the altar? What other similarity was there in their offering? How do the accounts compare with, and differ from, one another? What do chargers, bowls and spoons type? Where is added confirmatory proof given for these antitypes? What did they not offer that were used in the Holy? What two antitypical reasons account for this omission? Give an example of this. How did Calvin and his followers, while retaining Zwingli's symbolic and commemorative interpretation of the Lord's 



Supper, pervert its purpose and effect? What set in later? 

(30) What two lines of thought must be kept in mind which will help us to understand the antitype of Nahshon's offering the vessels? What is the antitype? To what do we first apply this thought? What does the charger type? What was Zwingli's view of the Lord's Supper? What did he not see as implied in the fellowship symbol? What did the crown-lost Calvinistic theologians do in offering the antitypical charger? By what seven teachings did they do this? 

(31) What did Nahshon's bowl represent? What Churches especially attacked antitypical Nahshon's teaching on the Lord's Supper? By what two doctrines? What did antitypical Nahshon do with these attacks? Where are some of these arguments given? Compare The Present Truth's statement on the subject with antitypical Nahshon's. What did some of this class do with Catholic and Lutheran attacks? Cite the cases in Beza's experiences. 

(32) What does Nahshon's spoon type? What did Catholics and Lutherans claim as to the ethical effects of antitypical Nahshon's teaching on the Lord's Supper? In what two ways did he meet their claim? How did its teachings tend to develop love, faith, hope, obedience, humility, zeal and self-sacrifice? What did this, so doing, effect? 

(33) Of what materials were the chargers, bowls and spoons of all the princes made? What do silver and gold symbolize? What does this imply as to the antitypical chargers, bowls and spoons? What does this imply as to antitypical Nahshon's charger, bowl and spoon? What was the weight of each charger, bowl and spoon? What is the total of the weight of each charger, bowl and spoon? What thoughts are typed by the weight of each vessel and the three vessels? Why? What is typed by the fact that their total weight is a multiple of both seven and ten? What is typed by the weight of each vessel? What is the antitype in the contrast between silver and gold vessels? 

(34) Of what were the charger and bowl full? For what was this offered? What is typed by this? What does this imply as to antitypical Nahshon's meat offering? What does the fineness of the flour represent? What does mingling it with oil type? With what was the golden spoon filled? What does this incense represent? Why was it acceptable to the Lord until 1917? What did it do for the ethical effects of the symbolic understanding of the Lord's 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


Supper and for antitypical Nahshon? What is proved by Nahshon's bringing the three vessels to the altar? By their gold and silver? 

(35) What do vs. 15-17 show? In how many forms were the animal sacrifices brought? What do the burnt offerings type? The sin offerings? The peace offerings? What do the bullock, the ram and the lamb type in the burnt offering? The kid of the goats in the sin offering? The oxen, the rams, the he goats and the lambs in the peace offering? What is typed by the lamb in the burnt offering and in the peace offering being one year old? What seven things prove that the crown-lost leaders of the twelve denominations are typed by the twelve princes? How do they prove this? 

(36) What has been treated of so far in this chapter? What will not be necessary as to certain details from verse 19 on? Why not? Wherein does the difference in the twelve sets of offerings consist? What will this move us to do with the similar details? 

(37) What was the time difference in the offering of the typical princes? How does this appear in the antitype? How does it not appear in the antitype? Give examples of the time succession in an antitypical camp. Give examples implying no time succession as in the different camps. Why must we retain these facts? 

(38) What was the special doctrinal stewardship of the Christian or Disciple denomination? Who first announced it? When? Compare his work with Zwingli's, and antitypical Nethaniel's with antitypical Nahshon's. Who joined in this work with him? 

(39) Who was the most prominent one to join in this work? Who was his son? Like whom did the latter in this movement act? When did his father enter the movement? What were the father's relations with Bro. Stone? What were their points of similarity? 

(40) Who turned this movement into a sect? What names did this sect take? What did Calvin do with the Zwinglian movement? In what respects did Calvin and Alexander Campbell wrongly do alike? Who was—the chief member of antitypical Nethaniel? Who were his chief colaborers? For what were they ever ready? In what ways was Alexander Campbell pre-eminent? What were the subjects of his chief debates? With whom were they held? How did they result?



(41) What was the special truth committed to the Christian or Disciple denomination? Who was antitypical Nethaniel? What three things did they present? What were the types of these? Explain the application of the meaning of Nethaniel and Zuar to the crown-lost leaders of this denomination. 

(42) What did antitypical Nethaniel's charger do? What were two evils against which it witnessed? What were the evils of sectarianism against which it witnessed? What were the evils of creedism against which it witnessed? How did this antitypical charger point out the removal of these evils? How did God treat this antitypical charger? 

(43) How did antitypical Nethaniel offer his bowl? How did it stand related to the denominational views on creedism? To what two creeds did it give additional opposition? In what forms were the denominational views drawn up? What did these denominations do with the position of antitypical Nethaniel? How did he refute the evils of creedism? How did he defend the correctness of his view of this subject? What was the shibboleth of antitypical Nethaniel? What should be our judgment as to its truthfulness? Wherein lies its strength? What did it give its advocates in debate? 

(44) What was antitypical Nethaniel's golden spoon? How did he show its conduciveness to righteousness so far as concerns: God? Christ? The Brethren? What graces especially is it calculated to develop? 

(45) What things will not here be treated? Why not? Where should we look for these details? 

(46) Whom does Eliab, the son of Helon, type? What denomination is the antitype of the tribe of Zebulun? How does the name Zebulun suggest the Adventists? What is meant by the words, Eliab and Helon? What do these names suggest in the crown-lost leaders of the Adventists? How is power shown as the central thought in the teachings of the three denominations antitypically East of the Tabernacle? 

(47) Who started the Second Advent movement? By whom was he typed in this? Give a brief account of his earlier life. When did he begin to witness conversationally and in lectures on the Second Advent? What three lines of thought did he especially stress? What great errors did he hold until death? What did he do about his mistake? While so doing, what did he not give up? When did he 

The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. 


first expect our Lord's return? What date did he later fix for it? What were his views on the 1260, 1290, 1335 and 2300 days? On what three items respecting the Second Advent was he not clear? What is a proper judgment on his main time periods? How is his movement to be estimated? 

(48) What four doctrines stressed by various Adventists did God not give through Bro. Miller? Why could two others of them not be the special teaching of the Miller movement? Which one of the three things stressed by him had not been stressed by any previous movement? What does this make that teaching in the Advent system? What facts prove this? Who offered in connection with this special teaching? 

(49) With what event did Bro. Miller commence the 70 weeks and the 2300 days? What influenced him to do this? When did he make the 2300 days end? When did he begin his 1260, 1290 and 1335 days? What moved him so to do? What quality did his general position have? What was evidently incorrect in this position? Why could he not see all the points clearly? What should not and what should be our attitude toward him? How should we estimate his mission and his character as a servant of the Lord? In common with the teachings of all other reformers, what was the character of his views of his special teaching? Give two illustrations. How should we regard these? 

(50) What doctrine was especially entrusted to the Adventists? About how many sects of Adventists are there? What have they done with Bro. Miller's time periods? What did Little Flock brethren among them learn about 1859? What accounts for the varying dates, 1873 and 1874? How did they come to this thought? What have Adventists usually done with date fixing since 1874? Why are they blind to the Lord's return as having set in during 1874? Who were the main members of antitypical Eliab? What use did they not, and what use did they make of Bro. Miller's time periods since 1874? What reason do they give for this? How do they describe the time since 1844? What do they concede of the Advent's date? 

(51) What three things has Eliab—type and antitype—offered? According to this, what were they to show regarding time prophecy connected with the Lord's return? What was their antitypical charger? What have remembering



and forgetting the Lord's return occasioned? What was one of the first perversions of the great apostacy? What did its acceptance effect in the practice of Church leaders? What did this introduce into the Church? Henceforth on what was stress mainly laid? What did the Church become to multitudes? In what did this result? What are some of the wrong ideals and bad qualities that came from this result? What qualities in the primitive Church did these ideals displace in the Church? 

(52) From what have these evil qualities always resulted? What has always fostered good qualities and set aside the false hope? Why is this? What does the true hope do in its holder? What does it purge out of him? What use did antitypical Eliab make of the imminence of this hope as an antitypical charger? What was the result of such teaching? In whose lives do we see this result? In effecting this result by his teaching; what did antitypical Eliab do? 

(53) What does Eliab's bowl type? What did the Miller movement attract? What did this influence some scholars to do? Who were the main opponents of the Miller movement? Did all attack the same things in Bro. Miller's views? Why not? What did some of them teach as to the character of the days in the time periods? In what two ways did antitypical Eliab refute this view? What were the views of some of them on the fourth kingdom of Dan. 7 and 8? How did antitypical Eliab refute them? How did some of them apply the little horn? How did antitypical Eliab refute them? How did some of them apply the 1260 and the 1290 days? How did antitypical Eliab refute them? What is the real date at which they began? Why? What has antitypical Eliab been compelled to do as to the hope connected with the date 1844, and what has he failed to give respecting it? What error on the Lord's return has he disproven, and what truth thereon has he proven? In all these refutations what has he accomplished? 

(54) What else has antitypical Eliab offered? Of what is it the antitype? In connection with what doctrine was it offered? In addition to a cleansing work, what does "that blessed hope" also effect? Explain in detail in each case how antitypical Eliab used this teaching to incite to hope, love, patience, heavenly-mindedness, obedience, humility, meekness and zeal. What did antitypical Eliab thus offer?