Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13




THE BIBLE contains seven distinct lines of thought; and everything in it belongs to one or another of these seven lines of thought. They are the following: doctrines, precepts, promises, exhortations, prophecies, histories and types. It is of the last named of these seven groups of thought that this article treats—types. Our English word type is derived from the Greek word typos (singular), typoi (plural). This word occurs 15 times in the Greek New Testament; and if a poorly attested reading of 1 Cor. 10: 11 should be accepted, it would occur 16 times there; but the word typikos, an adverb, derived from the noun typos and translated typically, is supported by Biblical numerics and the best MSS., e.g., by the three oldest and best of our MSS: the Vatican, Sinaitic and Alexandrine; hence it is doubtless the proper reading in 1 Cor. 10: 11. A careful study of the 15 New Testament occurrences of the word typos results in the conclusion that it is used there in four distinct senses, under which we will group all 15 of its occurrences: (1) print, used twice in John 20: 25 (it is from this sense of the word that we derive our use of the word type in the sense of the mechanical form or forms from which printing is done); (2) example (Phil. 3: 17; 1 Thes. 1: 17; 2 Thes. 3: 9; 1 Tim. 4: 12; Tit. 2: 7; 1 Pet. 5: 3); (3) pattern (Acts 7: 43, 44; 23: 25; Rom. 6: 17; Heb. 8: 5); and (4) type in the sense in which we ordinarily use the word, i.e., to mean one of the seven lines of Biblical thought as given above (Rom. 5: 14; 1 Cor. 10: 6, and verse 11, if the reading typoi be here accepted instead of typikos, which, if accepted as the proper reading here, would derive its meaning from the fourth sense of the word typos). This word's fourth sense is the subject of this introduction.


In this fourth sense of the word types are Old Testament institutions, persons, principles, things and events and New Testament persons, things and events shadowing forth




future things. A few examples will serve to clarify this definition. Under Old Testament institutions circumcision may be cited as typing the real baptism, and its annual passover supper as typing the Lord's Supper. Under Old Testament persons may be cited Sarah as typing the Divine features of the Oath-bound Covenant and Hagar as typing the Law Covenant; while Isaac (Sarah's son) and Ishmael (Hagar's son) may be cited as typing the Christ and Fleshly Israel. Under Old Testament principles the ten commandments may be cited as typing the Millennial law of duty-love to God and man. Under this head come the legal features of the Law Covenant. Under Old Testament things the city of Jerusalem may be cited as typing, sometimes the Church militant, sometimes the Church triumphant, sometimes the Ancient Worthies, sometimes Christendom and sometimes the nominal church; and Jordan may be cited as typing, sometimes the curse, sometimes the race under the curse and sometimes the peoples of Christendom. Under Old Testament events the giving of the Law Covenant may be cited as typing the giving of the New Covenant, and Abraham's dismissing Hagar and Ishmael at Sarah's insistence as typing God's casting off the Law Covenant and Fleshly Israel from His special favor, because the sufferings of the High Calling servants, as the personal parts of the Sarah Covenant, at the hands of the Law's servants, as the personal parts of the Hagar Covenant, and at the hands of the Law's children, appealed to Him to deliver His Little Flock from Fleshly Israel's persecutions.


Under New Testament persons Jesus may be cited as a type of the Parousia and Epiphany Little Flock; and the twelve Apostles (in the parallel Harvests) may be cited as typing Bro. Russell. Under New Testament things Jerusalem may be cited as a type of the Millennial religious government ("is [represents] the city of the Great King"), and of the nominal people of God ("it is impossible for a prophet to perish out of [apart from] Jerusalem"), Jesus' and the Apostles' miracles as typing various future things




and acts, especially in the Millennium; and Jordan may be cited as typing the sacrificial death. As New Testament events Jesus' betrayal by Judas may be cited as typing the Parousia and Epiphany Little Flock's betrayal by the Second Deathers; and the Jewish clergy's condemning Jesus to death can be cited as typing the clergy of Christendom as condemning the Little Flock to a cutting off of their rights as God's mouthpiece. Thus these few examples explain our definition, and passages like Rom. 5: 14; 1 Cor. 10: 6, 11; Gal. 4: 24; Col. 2: 16, 17; Heb. 9: 9, 23, 24; 10: 1 and numerous others prove our definition to be true, the first three cited passages expressly using the word type and the others using synonymous terms, while the Greek of Heb. 9: 24 uses the word antitypes (translated figures), and of 1 Pet. 3: 21 uses the word antitype (translated, like figure) in the sense in which we ordinarily use the word type. The following expressions: "figure," literally, parable (Heb. 9: 9), "mystery" (Eph. 5: 32), "according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6: 20; 7: 11, 17), "made like" (Heb. 7: 3), "similitude" (v. 15) and "signs" (John 2: 11; Mark 16: 17; Heb. 2: 4) are used as synonymous with the word type, as is also the case with the words "before whom" in Rom. 4: 17.


There is much diversity of opinion among Bible students as to what is included under the word type. Some deny that there are types at all in the Bible. Others claim that only those things that are expressly (according to their circumscribed view of the word "expressly") spoken of as types are to be considered to be such. These reduce types to a very small compass. Others arbitrarily take some things as typical, and as arbitrarily deny other things as being typical. Still others claim that everything in the Pentateuch and in the histories of the Old Testament and New Testament is typical; and still others claim that every history and biography in the Bible is typical. Amid such diversity how can we arrive at Biblical truth as to what is typical? We answer, Bible statements, Bible facts and




and Bible principles will enable the humble, meek, hungry, honest, reverential, loyal and holy child of God to reach clearness on what is Biblical truth on this subject as it becomes due. During the Epiphany the Truth on this subject becomes fully due; and therefore the humble, meek, hungry, honest, reverential, loyal and holy child of God may in the Epiphany expect to reach certainty as to the Truth on what in the Bible is typical. Accordingly, we present the following as aids to such children of God. We cannot hope that misdeveloped children of God—unclean Levites—as long as they remain unclean, will reach (see) such truth; but we have the confidence that when they will have begun a real cleansing of themselves, the Lord will on this point also bless them. According to our Pastor's expressed thought and constant practice there are at least seven ways by which the typical character of a Biblical statement may be recognized; and we will here set forth these seven ways, with three others not due to be seen in his day.


(1) Whenever the Bible expressly states that anything is typical we may be sure that it is so. Thus we know that Sarah, Hagar, Isaac and Ishmael are types; for St. Paul directly asserts this to be the case of them (Gal. 4: 21-31). Thus the many events of 1 Cor. 10: 1-10 are types, because St. Paul directly says so of them in vs. 6, 11. The making of the Law Covenant is directly stated by St. Paul to be typical, in Heb. 9: 14-23, especially in v. 23. The tabernacle and the high-priestly service directly connected therewith is expressly called typical by the Apostle in Heb. 9: 9, 24. Adam and Eve in their state of innocence are expressly called types, by a synonym of the word type, by the Apostle in Eph. 5: 31, 32; hence we know that they are types. For the same reason we know from Rom. 5: 14 that sinless Adam types Jesus. By the expression, "a cloud of witnesses" (Heb. 12: 1), i.e., by metonymy, shadowy witnesses, since a cloud reflects a shadow when the sun sinks back of it, all the heroes of faith in their acts referred to in




Heb. 11 are types. Other occurrences of such express mention of types could be cited, especially in the epistle to the Hebrews; but the above are sufficient to demonstrate this first principle.


(2) A second way in which the Bible indicates a type is that of comparing things of one dispensation with things of another dispensation. This is a thing done very frequently in the Prophets, especially in Isaiah. Thus in Is. 28: 21 Israel's overthrow of the Philistines (2 Sam. 5: 20; 1 Chro. 14: 11) is shown to type God's Parousia people's overthrowing no-ransomists, and Joshua's and Israel's defeat of the five kings and the Amorites at Gibeon (Josh. 10: 10) is shown to type our Lord's and His people's defeating fully the five sifting errors and classes of the two Harvests (1 Cor. 10: 5-14). Thus in Is. 9: 4; 10: 26 the overthrow of the Midianites by Gideon is compared to that of the gross errorists of the nominal church in the Harvest, which proves the history of Gideon to be typical. These few examples from the Old Testament prove this point. The New Testament contains such comparisons, which proves the typical character of the Old Testament matters referred to, e.g., the comparison between Isaac and the Christ class and Ishmael and Fleshly Israel (Gal. 4: 28-31); the days of Noah before and during the flood and the people of his days, and the days of the Son of Man before and during the great tribulation and the worldly at these times (Matt. 24: 37-39; Luke 17: 26, 27). The same is seen as to Lot and Sodom and the Great Company and the nominal church (Luke 17: 28-30). Jesus by comparison shows that He was typed by the brazen serpent in the wilderness (John 3: 14, 15). Especially in Isaiah, Jeremiah and the Psalms do we find many of these comparisons, and, of course, they prove that a type and an antitype exist in the things compared.


(3) At times a type is shown to exist by contrasting a type and an antitype, and in some cases by contrasting a type with a thing not its antitype, but containing the same principle as the type's antitype does. Notable cases on the




first point are found in the contrast between Heb. 12: 18-21 and vs. 22-29, in 9: 1-10 and 11-14 and in 25. A notable case on the second point is found in Heb. 10: 28, 29. The antitype of the Law of Moses is, of course, the New Covenant, which does not operate until the next Age, when wilful sinners against its law will perish without mercy at the mouth of two or three witnesses. Yet the same principle operates in connection with the covenant of sacrifice, as Heb. 10: 28, 29 proves. Totally wilful sinners against it will die the sorer death than that inflicted by the Mosaic Covenant, i.e., will die the second death. But the contrast suggests the thought of the typical character of the death penalties of the Mosaic Law. Is 1: 9 and Rom. 5: 15-19 from a slightly different point of view are other illustrations of this principle. This proves this point to be Biblical.


(4) One of the most frequent references to types is found in prophetic allusions made to historical persons, places and events which happened long in the past, and yet are prophecies of future things. This is a frequent phenomenon in the Psalms and Isaiah, e.g., Ps. 83: 6-11 (note also the comparisons in vs. 9-11). Ps. 72, addressed to Solomon in his reign as a type of Christ in His Millennial reign, is also an example to the point. Is. 10: 5-34 contains prophetic allusions to many historical events, persons, nations, cities, etc., and yet all these are prophecies of future things in the second fulfillments, which proves that all those events, persons, places, cities, etc., are typical; for, as we know, these prophecies have a double fulfillment: (1) upon the literal things involved and (2) upon their antitypes in the Gospel Age. This principle our Pastor used very often. All of the Prophets abound with the use of this principle, prophesying literal things of Old Testament fulfillments, which God used as types of antitypical fulfillments of the Gospel Age, e.g., Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Moab, Ammon, Philistia, Arabia, Syria, etc., and their pertinences in this connection. Rev. 2: 20-23; 17: 5; 21: 2 illustrate this point, all of which proves it.




(5) Another way that the Bible uses to point out types is explaining Old Testament matters as allusions, without direct statements that they are types, along doctrinal, ethical and hortatory lines, as the following will prove: Without directly calling circumcision and the lamb of Egypt types, St. Paul's allusion to the former in Col. 2: 11, 12 proves it to type the real baptism, and his allusion to the latter in 1 Cor. 5: 7, 8 proves the latter to type Jesus as our Paschal Lamb and the Israelites' eating the passover in Egypt to type the Gospel Church's appropriating justification and consecration blessings, and also shows how we are to purge out all evil by its reference to Israelites' casting out the leaven from their dwellings. Other cases to the point are Heb. 6: 18 (referring to the cities of refuge, typing Christ our Refuge and hope for life in Him); Jas. 5: 10, 11; Ezek. 14: 14-20 (prophets as types of various Gospel-Age worthies); John 1: 51 (Jacob's ladder typing Christ), etc. The prophetic writings of the Old Testament and the Apostolic writings, as well as Jesus' sayings, of the New Testament swarm with such allusions, pointing out types.


(6) The Scriptures imply that whoever acts in connection with a clearly expressed type and whatever is connected with a clearly expressed type are likewise typical. As an illustration of this rule let us cite Elijah, who is a clearly expressed type of the Christ as God's mouthpiece to the public (Matt. 11: 14 [literally, "is—represents—Elias, that was—literally, is—to come"]; Luke 1: 17; Matt. 3: 3; Mal. 4: 5, 6). Accordingly, Ahab, and his sons, Obadiah, Jezebel, Elisha, Jehu, Hazael, the priests of Baal and Ashtaroth, hence Baal and Ashtaroth, the widow of Zarephath and her son, etc., are typical. Accordingly, Elisha being a type, all persons, places, events, etc., coming into his life are typical. This principle, applied to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph, Pharaoh, Moses, Aaron, his sons, Joshua, the judges, Israel's kings, prophets, priests, Ezra, Nehemiah, Zerubbabel, John the Baptist, Jesus and the Apostles, shows us that practically




every historical person and event of the Old and New Testaments are typical. This, a very far-reaching principle on typology, is thus Biblical.


(7) There is a factual proof as to what in the Bible is typical—a method that our Pastor frequently applied, and expressly at the Bible House table stated that he used in many cases, i.e., wherever Biblical persons, teachings, events, etc., have exact correspondencies with persons, teachings, events, etc., of, or related to, the Christian Church, even if none of the preceding six principles apply thereto, these Biblical persons, teachings, events, etc., are to be considered types of such persons, teachings, events, etc. The Bible teaches this in Amos 3: 7, which teaches that there is nothing connected with the unfolding of God's plan, even in the minutest detail, but God pointed it out by His prophets; and since this was not in all cases done by the prophets' writing what we call the fifth line of Biblical thought—prophecies, at least the rest of these cases must have been indicated in the writings of the prophets, like Samuel, etc., who gave their prophecies exclusively as types. Our Pastor testifies to this way of proving the existence of types in B 204, e.g., no express Biblical statement says in so many words that the characters and events connected with the espousal and marriage of Isaac and Rebekah type those connected with the espousal and marriage of Jesus and the Church, yet our Pastor so applied them in detail. Why? Because the pertinent characters and events correspond. This principle, in the light of facts and Amos 3: 7, proves that what God's people of the Gospel Age, in leaders and led, did and accomplished and what was done to them in the outworking of God's plan is typed in the Bible. It was for this reason that Bro. Russell believed that he was the antitype of Daniel, as he showed by the pictures, Pastor Russell in the Critics' Den, and the handwriting on the wall, etc. It was also for this reason that he believed, as J. Hemery, A.H. MacMillan and the writer know, that he was the small antitype of David in the historical books, but not in




the Psalms. It is for this reason we know that the book of Esther as well as many other Bible books are typical.


(8) Whenever the Bible refers to a set of books as typical or to a set of historical books as prophetic, we are to understand everything in those books to be typical. The entire Law, which term Biblically includes the entire Pentateuch (Gal. 4: 21, 22), for God Himself calls it the Law in the name that He gave in the Hebrew Bible to the five books of Moses, is expressly called typical by St. Paul in Heb. 10: 1. Accordingly, St. Paul's argument here (Gal. 4: 21, 22) proves that Genesis, as well as the other four books of Moses, belongs to the Law; hence, according to Heb. 10: 1, everything in the first five books of the Old Testament is typical. It is for this reason that our Pastor referred to many stories as typical in Genesis to which no express statement, comparison, allusion, etc., of the Bible refer as typical, since these details are all included in a general statement like Heb. 10: 1, compared with Gal. 4: 21, 22, as it was for this same reason that he referred to many details of the other four books of Moses, as typical, even if the separate details are not otherwise proven to be types; for if these five books are called types, of course all their details are such. Thus the entire Pentateuch is typical in its details. Furthermore God in the Hebrew, as Luke also witnesses (Luke 24: 27), calls the second division of the Old Testament, the Prophets. He further divides the second part of the Old Testament, the Prophets, in the Hebrew into two parts: (1) the "Earlier Prophets" and (2) the "Later Prophets." The latter consists of the following books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel and the twelve minor Prophets, while the former consists of the following seven books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. The English reader who does not understand Hebrew can verify the threefold division of the Hebrew Old Testament from Leeser's translation. Luke 24: 27 indicates the third division of the Hebrew Old Testament, not by the translation of its title Kitubim, Writings, but by its




first book, Psalms. Now please note the fact that the first part of the second division of the Hebrew Old Testament, the "Earlier Prophets," consists of the seven historical books, those mentioned above: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. How does God come to call these books Prophets, which on their surface seem to be purely historical? We reply, It is because they consist wholly of histories shadowing forth future things, i.e., types, and thus are prophetic. This means that everything in them is typical. The inspired Peter (Acts 3: 24) tells us that Samuel, the first of the Prophets, hence the author of Joshua, Judges, Ruth and a part of 1 Samuel (1 Chro. 29: 29) prophesied of the Millennium. But he did this in the types of the above-mentioned books, and in no other way, as a part of the Divine revelation, for only therein is found his part of that revelation ministered. And because 1 and 2 Chro., apart from the genealogies of 1 Chro., cover some of the ground of 1 Sam. and practically all the ground of 2 Sam. and 1 and 2 Kings in so far as they treat of the united kingdom and, after the division, of the kingdom of Judah, 1 and 2 Chro., which belong to the third division of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Kitubim, Writings, are also typical. The 2520 years' parallel proves the same thing of all contained in 1 and 2 Kings and in 2 Chro., apart from their parts treating of Solomon, who in other ways, given above, is proven to be typical. The parallel dispensations also prove that Ezra and Nehemiah are typical. Above we have shown that the historical parts of Daniel, which in the Hebrew is placed, not among the Prophets, but among the Kitubim, Writings, are typical. Above we also proved that the books of Job and Esther are typical. Thus all Old Testament historical books are typical.


(9) Every historical person, thing and event in the Bible must be revelatory, hence typical, because the Bible in entirety, and not simply in part, is a Divine revelation. Higher critics tell us that the Bible is not a Divine revelation, that at best it contains a Divine revelation, which they




usually limit to a certain few religious and ethical teachings. To these they ascribe an inspiration such as, they claim, all great religious leaders, like Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, etc., have enjoyed. But the truly instructed child of God believes that the Bible is in its entirety a Divine revelation, and is Divinely inspired in the full sense of the word. If the Bible in its entirety is a Divine revelation, then all its histories must be revelatory, which cannot be the case, if its histories are not typical. Some things and some stories would be out of place in the Bible, if they were not typical of future things, e.g., most of the genealogies in 1 Chro., i.e., of the non-sacred tribes, which type Christendom's sects and denominations, the stories in Judges 17–21, i.e., of Micah and the Levite and his concubine, David's eldest son, Ammon, raping his sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13: 1-20), etc., etc. To say that they are revelatory in the sense that they all teach us good lessons is not sufficient to entitle them to a place in a Divine revelation, since some events of church history teach us better lessons than some Biblical events (they do this because they are the antitypes of certain Biblical types), and since to be a part of a Divine revelation, they must reveal things that we cannot learn from any other than a Biblical source; and this is true of its histories, only if they are types. The whole Bible, not simply parts of it, is a Divine revelation. This proposition being true, the histories of the Bible are a part of the Divine revelation and all of them reveal Divine truths, which implies, among other things, that they are typical, which proves this point.


(10) A tenth way of finding out what is typical in the Bible is the fact that if anything is typical of a Gospel-Age person, event, movement, etc., it is thereby proven to be typical of corresponding things in the three Gospel-Age Miniatures, i.e., the small, medium and large Miniatures: for during the Epiphany the Gospel Age is duplicated on a small scale in three Miniatures. The Bible proves this of the large Miniature; and fulfilled facts prove it of the small and medium Miniatures; for the bad Levites under bad




leadership have been manifested as such in the small Miniature; the good Levites under good leadership in the medium Miniature; and the nominal-church Levites are being manifested in the large Miniature. The Scriptural proof for the large Miniature is the following: The history of the spying out of the Land, the spies' report, the murmuring of the people at this report and their being therefore compelled to wander forty years in the wilderness type (1) the Jewish Harvest spying out of the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit, the report of the antitypical spies thereon, the murmuring of Jewish brethren at the report and the consequent Gospel-Age wandering of God's people in the symbolic wilderness; and (2) the Parousia spying out of the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit, the report of the antitypical spies thereon, the Parousia people of God murmuring thereat, and the consequent wandering in the symbolic wilderness during the Epiphany, which is thus proven to be a small scale duplication of the Gospel Age. Hence whatever types find their antitypes in the Gospel Age also find threefold antitypes during the Epiphany.


Having seen what the typical element in the Bible is, we will now turn to another phase of our subject, i.e., the Bible's types in some cases pointing out individuals in the antitype. At times we hear brethren say that no individual, except Jesus, is typed in the Bible. Those who so speak do not agree with the Scriptures nor with our Pastor's interpretation of certain Scriptures. In some cases we fear that the wish is father to this thought, because certain individuals are pointed out in Biblical types to their disparagement; and these are the ones who started the outcry against individual antitypes' being pointed out in the Bible. Others seemingly join in their outcry, because they do not like to think of some of their fellows being so indicated. These accept the thought that individuals are pointed out in Bible prophecies, as distinct from Bible types. We can see no consistency in the attitude which believes that the Bible




prophecies point out individuals, and which denies that Bible types point out individuals. Let them show logical consistency in these two attitudes, if they can. We very much doubt their ability so to do. But in case any Truth people deny that Bible prophecy points out individuals apart from Jesus, they thereby show their disagreement with God, Jesus and our Pastor; for God Himself hundreds of years in advance pointed out, and even named Josiah and Cyrus (1 Kings 13: 2; Is. 44: 28; 45: 1-5). Or will such Truth person to maintain his position join the higher-critic infidels in saying that the pertinent passages were written after Josiah's and Cyrus' times? Jesus tells us that the Scriptures hundreds of years beforehand pointed out Judas as the betrayer of our Lord (John 13: 18, 21-30; Ps. 41: 9; Zech. 11: 12, 13).


Dan. 11 points out many individuals in its remarkable prophecy, as the following list will show: Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes (v. 2), Alexander the Great (v. 4), his four successors: Cassander, Seleucus, Ptolemy and Lysimachus (v. 4; 8: 8), Ptolemy Philadelphos (v. 5), Antiochus Theos, Bernice and Ptolemy Philadelphia (v. 6), Ptolemy Energetes and Seleucus Callinicus (v. 7), the latter's sons and Antiochus Magnus (v. 10), the latter and Ptolemy Philopater (v. 11), Antiochus Epiphanes (v. 12), Scopas (v. 15), Mark Anthony, and Cleopatra (vs. 1719), Augustus (v. 20), Tiberius (vs. 21-24), Aurelian and Zenobia (vs. 25, 26, 28) and Napoleon (vs. 29, 30, 3645). Moreover, other individuals are by Bible prophecy pointed out: John the Baptist is referred to in Is. 40: 3-5; Mal. 3: 1, compared with Matt. 3: 3; 11: 10. In Zech. 11: 8 Messrs. Barbour, Paton and Henninges are foretold; and in vs. 1517 J.F.R. is forecast. Bro. Russell is pointed out in Is. 21: 610; Ezek. 40: 1–47: 12; Hab. 2: 1-3; Matt. 20: 8; 24: 45-47; Luke 12: 42-46; and J.F.R. is again foretold in Matt. 24: 48-51. Another brother is pointed out in Rev. 19: 9; and the eight principal men of the seven groups of star-members are pointed out in Mic. 5: 5, which also under the words, "seven




shepherds," points out the 49 star-members who constitute the seven angels of the seven churches. The Parousia and Epiphany Messengers are foretold in Deut. 32: 30. Accordingly, these passages prove that the Bible in prophecies forecasts other individuals than our Lord. And if it thus forecasts by prophecy certain individuals, why should it not also forecast certain individuals by type?


We will now proceed to prove that the Bible does type individuals other than the Lord, and that our Pastor so believed and taught. The twelve Apostles are typed by the twelve wells at Elim and the seventy subordinate general teachers of the Church in the two Harvests and in the Interim between them are typed by its seventy palm trees (Ex. 15: 27). These three sets of seventy subordinate general teachers of the Church are also typed by the seventy elders of Israel (Num. 11: 24), while Eldad and Medad type Paul and Apollos in the Jewish Harvest, John and John Wessel in the Interim and the two Messengers in the end of the Age. Among others, the twelve Apostles are typed by Jacob's twelve sons at the time of his death (Gen. 49: 1, 2), even as, among others, our Lord is there typed by Jacob. The twelve Apostles, and especially St. Paul (T 110), are typed by Eleazar (Num. 3: 32; 4: 16; 16: 35-39; 19: 4). The parallel Harvests prove that Eleazar in these passages also types our Pastor. St. Paul with the epistle to the Hebrews and our Pastor with the Nov., 1893, Tower article on the Congress of Religions, reproduced and enlarged in D 157-268, are typed by Phinehas with his spear (Num. 25: 6-15). Phurah (Judg. 7: 10, 11) in accompanying Gideon on a scouting trip to the Midianitish camp types our Pastor accompanying Jesus on a scouting trip to the camp of the Gospel Harvest's errorists. Indeed, whole books and parts of others type our Pastor and his work. Thus under the type of David and his works he and his works are typed in the second half of 1 Sam. and in the whole of 2 Sam. Jeremiah and Daniel type him in their books, as do the Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles. Additionally he and




his works are typed in Gen., Ex., Lev., Num., Josh., Judg., Ruth and Lam.


The nine chief Parousia pilgrims are typed in the following order in 2 Sam. 23: 8-23: Bros. Russell, Johnson, Barton, (J.) Edgar, Hemery, (M.) Edgar, Rutherford, Sturgeon and MacMillan; and, barring the three just mentioned British pilgrims, the 34 pilgrims whose pictures appear in a picture of pilgrims on the last page of the Jan., 1910, People's Pulpit are antitypes of 34 mighty men of David mentioned in 2 Sam. 23: 8-39; and the names of the 34 (once more the three British pilgrims are omitted) are mentioned in the B. S. M. of 1911, No. 13, page 2, col. 3, par. 8 (enclosed), who are the antitypes of 34 of David's mightiest men mentioned in 2 Sam. 23: 8-39. These examples are sufficient to prove that Bible types at times point out individuals. In the Epiphany, and just because it is the Epiphany, many more individuals are pointed out in Bible types than at any other period of God's plan. The leaders of the Levite groups and some of their helpers are typed individually, and that, for the purpose of identifying them, their main supporters and their groups, of which there are 60 in all, according to the Bible's mentioning 60 posts about the tabernacle, the 60 heads of the Levite groups in the pertinent genealogies of Ex., Num. and 1 Chro., the 60 queens of Solomon (Cant. 6: 8) and his 60 mighty men (Cant. 3: 7); for to veil the Epiphany purposes, agents and events until due time, God put these in the Bible, mainly in the form of types.


The true exposition of types is among the most difficult works of true interpreters of the Word. Therefore God, apart from Jesus, who is His Mouthpiece to them, ordinarily has limited the interpretation of types to the star-members, of these more particularly to those living in the Ephesian phase of the Church, i.e., to the Apostles, and to those living in the Laodicean phase of the Church, i.e., the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. The Apostolic writings, with their direct statements, comparisons,




contrasts, allusions, etc., prove this statement to be true of them; and God's statement in Ex. 19: 21-25, particularly v. 24, proves this with reference to these two Messengers, who are typed by Aaron, Moses there typing our Lord; for St. Paul's reference to Ex. 19: 11-20 in Heb. 12: 18-21 and his calling attention to the antitype in vs. 22-29 prove that Ex. 19: 11-25 applies to the Parousia and Epiphany. Hence Ex. 19: 21-25 shows that the Parousia's and Epiphany's antitypical Israelites and their priests (Christ's and the two Messengers' direct Bible study not being speculation) are not to speculate, which is mainly done with types. Hence this Scripture proves that, generally speaking, Jesus as God's Mouthpiece, and thus the exclusive Interpreter of the Word, would use in the end of this Age the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers as antitypical Aaron, generally speaking, to interpret to the brethren the Word as due, especially on new doctrines, prophecies and types. And any attempt of others to unravel these three things as new matters would be the prohibited gazing—speculation—of Ex. 19: 21-25, and would meet with a cutting off from their standing, if not stopped. Had this matter been heeded, the Lord's people in the Parousia, and especially in the Epiphany, would have been spared much confusion and many a fall from their class standing before the Lord. We said above, and that designedly, that, generally speaking, typical truth in its first reception is limited to the star-members. Yet others than these, i.e., other scribes instructed in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13: 52), have from time to time been privileged to bring forth something new from the storehouse, the Bible; but this never occurred by their violating the injunction not to speculate—"gaze not"—i.e., by their studying out types, etc.; but whenever they were favored with something new, they, as it were, stumbled upon it without study, God suddenly illuminating their minds thereon, and thus they got something new on types, parables, prophecies and other dark sayings, without engaging in forbidden speculation; for all the brethren, except the star-members, are forbidden direct




Biblical study on new doctrines, types and prophecy, which is "gazing" for them. We have given details on this matter in the article entitled, Moses, Aaron and Miriam (Num. 12), in P. '36, 172, 192; '37, 5, to which we refer our readers as given in EI, Chap. II.


This brings us to a brief discussion of the abuse of typing. Of the seven forms of Biblical thought, the doctrinal, prophetical and typical forms have doubtless been the most misused for the inculcation of error. Of these three the doctrinal and typical forms of Bible thought have been the most misused. Of these two the Bible's doctrinal thoughts have been the most abused, and the Bible's typical thoughts have been a close second. But we are sure that during the Parousia and Epiphany, particularly during the latter, among Truth people typing has been the most abused of all seven lines of Bible thought. Satan, knowing that by typing he could introduce error perhaps more effectively than by other means, has made this his favorite way of spreading error among the nominal and real people of God. The effective agent whom most of all he used to introduce typing to darken the Bible was the exceedingly able theologian, Origen, who died a martyr's death in 254 A.D.; and from him mainly the apostacy took over this thing, to the invention and spread of much error during the Dark Ages. We will cite but one illustration on this head: Boniface VIII, during his controversy with Philip the Fair, of France, in the most infamous of his infamous bulls, Unam Sanctam, set forth the doctrine that the two swords that the Apostles had among them at the Last Supper typed the powers of the two Divine institutions: church and state; and by the sun and moon referred to in the description of their shining in Gen. 1 he claimed these two institutions to be typed, and the subjection of the state to the church to be typed by the sun, in ruling by day, as being a greater light than the moon, in ruling by night, alleging that the spiritual sword was to be used exclusively by the church, i.e., the hierarchy headed by the pope, and that the temporal sword was to be used by the state for, and




under the orders of, the church; and by such reasoning he drew the conclusion that it was altogether necessary for salvation that every human being be subject to the pope, this monstrous doctrine being thus deduced from these two alleged antitypes. Very much of papal error has been built upon typing as foolish as the above.


And what shall we say of typing by the Toms, Dicks and Harries among the Truth people during the Parousia and Epiphany? Nonsense upon nonsense has been produced by their typing during these times. What our Pastor had to suffer in the way of loss of time in wading through brethren's speculations, and how his longsuffering and forbearance were sorely tried by these speculations only the Lord and he knew! We could tell many a story of our experiences on these two points, if we wished to waste time and printer's ink thereon. We have had to put several notices in The Present Truth reiterating the thought that we were not a doctrinal clearing house for the examination of speculations, especially in the form of types, in order to discourage speculators from sending us, especially their typical hallucinations, to the wasting of our time and the trying of our longsuffering and forbearance! Bro. Russell repeatedly warned against the mischievous practice of speculation, especially in form of types! And, like him, time and again by voice and pen, we have issued the same warning, cautioning the speculators that they were jeopardizing their standing before the Lord by this practice so emphatically disapproved of, and warned against by God in Ex. 19: 21-25. And how necessary such warnings are we can see from the follies and hallucinations of a J.F.R., a T.B. Clemons, a T. Chapman, etc. And again we raise our voice as a pertinent mouthpiece of the Lord thereon, exhorting the brethren everywhere, as imperiling their class standing before the Lord, to refrain from speculating, especially in its worst present form—typing.


But one may say that Bro. Russell and we have been inconsistent in warning the brethren against speculating, especially in the form of typing, and yet engaging in typing




ourselves, despite these warnings. To this we reply: (1) by the proverbs, "If two do the same thing, it is not always the same"; and "Circumstances alter cases"; and (2) the Lord condemns typing in all non-star-members; and He approves of it, as due, in star-members, especially in the two star-members whose ministry was to be exercised in the end of the Age: one during the Parousia, the other during the Epiphany; for undoubtedly, as proven above, the scenes of Ex. 19: 11-25 are Parousiac and Epiphaniac. Hence, as in Ex. 19: 24 by Moses Jesus is typed and by Aaron the two above-indicated Messengers are typed, they are approved as doing what vs. 21-25 disapprove of all the rest of God's people, be they antitypical priests, Levites or Israelites. Bro. Russell's practice of typing, while disapproving of, and warning against typing in others, proves that he knew that it was the Lord's will for him to do it as due, but that it was against His will for others so to do; and our practice of typing, while disapproving of, and warning against it in others, proves that we believe that it is the Lord's will for us to do it as due, but that it is against His will for others so to do. And if we do it on a more extensive scale than our Pastor, it is for two reasons: (1) that more extensive types are now, in the Epiphany, due to be given to the Lord's people than were in the Parousia due to be given them; and (2) because, while during the Parousia, as the day (Ps. 91: 5, 6), the New Testament, as the symbolic sun, was due to do the main shining, now, in the Epiphany, as the night (Ps. 91: 5, 6), the Old Testament, as the symbolic moon, is due to do the main shining; because what was left uninterpreted by our Pastor is to be interpreted before the Church leaves the world (Rom. 15: 4); and because the bulk of the Old Testament types were not interpreted by him and must, therefore, be interpreted in the Epiphany. And as the faithful of the Parousia did not stumble over the symbolic sun's shining, so neither will the faithful of the Epiphany stumble over the symbolic moon's shining (Ps. 121: 6), even if much of it is typical in character. Hence we say to one and all, Leave off typing as highly




unsafe, and be content with studying the typing of the two Divinely-authorized Messengers at the end of the Age, whose writings will give all the typical and other interpretations needed by the brethren.


This introduction was originally occasioned by a brother's sending us for our opinion a tract entitled, Types—Their Relation to Sound Doctrine, apparently published by the Dawn, since it advertises the Dawn, since its title is the same as an article in the Feb., 1940, Dawn, and since it is almost word for word a reproduction of that article, though adding to, and omitting from, that article a few things. We agree with many things in the article, and with many we do not agree! We agree that no doctrine of the Plan should be based solely upon a type; but we affirm that doctrines clearly taught in the Bible are illustrated by types and in some less important details are supplemented by types, even as our Pastor's treatment, e.g., of various of the sacrifices subsequent to the atonement day, proves he held. The main point stressed by the article is that only such Biblical events, persons, etc., are to be considered types as are expressly referred to as types. Its writer almost eschews the word types, and seeks to supplant it by the word models. His whole discussion indicates that he explains his thesis to mean partly what we explained as the first of our ten ways of knowing when a passage is typical. Against this too narrow view we present the nine other ways and part of a tenth way of so doing pointed out above. He expressly denies, without offering the slightest Bible proof therefore against our view, that all Biblical histories are typical. Above we refuted his view, from the Bible. The impression that his article and tract leaves on the reader is that the types of the Bible are a rather unimportant part of it, instead of being one of its seven main lines of thought. Hence his article and tract seek to reduce the typology of the Bible to the minimum that would result, if of the ten ways of arriving at the typical in the Bible only part of the first is to be used. Hence he rejects much that is typical as unsound. We think that our




discussion above overthrows his general point of view, and will therefore review some of his details only. His sophistries on the meanings of the word types are refuted by what we said above on the subject. His comments on Rom. 5: 14, as being claimed by some to teach that everything in the Old Testament is typical, are sophistical and set up a man of straw; for we have never heard anyone say that this passage is the basis of teaching that everything in the Old Testament is typical. We have never used that passage to prove anything more on Old Testament typology than that Adam in his state of innocence types Jesus, which is the case. The foolish conclusions that the writer draws from his pertinent straw man we will pass by as unworthy of a reply. His pertinent sophistries and his general attitude on types belittle the typical element in the Bible.


This last remark applies to his claims on 1 Cor. 10: 6, 11. Here the clear statement is made that the actors in experiences of good and in those of evil in 1 Cor. 10: 1-10 are types of us, i.e., professed Christians, who consist of antitypical priests, Levites and campers, in the ends of the Ages, i.e., in the Jewish Harvest, the end of the Jewish Age, and in the Gospel Harvest, the end of the Gospel Age. Their being written for our (antitypical priests, Levites and Israelites) admonition, does not in the slightest, as the article falsely implies, which contends for their being warning models, not types, undo their typical character. The sophistry that the article contains, as an effort to belittle the typical teachings of this passage, to the effect that it is used by some to prove that everything in the Old Testament is typical (a claim which before reading the article under review we never heard, and doubt that it was ever made by a responsible teacher among God's people), does not affect the fact that the passage expressly states that all of the good experiences of vs. 1-5 and the evil ones of vs. 7-10 are typical, as well as hortatory. The dust that is raised on Heb. 11, as allegedly only admonitory, cannot undo the fact that Heb. 12: 1, as shown above, proves that the events and persons mentioned




in Heb. 11 are typical. Nor can the dust that it raises on Heb. 9: 26 alter the fact that the consummation (in the A. V. mistranslated end) of the Ages (of Heb. 9: 26) means the entire Gospel Age, not the Jewish Harvest only; for the connection shows that the high priest here is the World's High Priest, Head and Body, and that the Ages here are the three Ages of the Second World—the Patriarchal and Jewish and Gospel Ages, the Gospel Age summing up (consummation) the Second World. Of course, 1 Cor. 10: 11 refers to both Harvests; and Heb. 3 proves that the events and persons of 1 Cor. 10: 1-11, though not so set forth in 1 Cor. 10: 11, like some others during the wilderness wandering of Israel, refer to the entire Gospel Age. The mud splashed about as to Gal. 4: 21-31, to the effect that some are alleged to draw from it the conclusion that every Old Testament story is typical (a thing we never heard before reading the article under review), cannot obviate the fact that it proves God to be typed by Abraham, the Divine features of the Oathbound Covenant by Sarah, the Law Covenant by Hagar, the Christ by Isaac and Fleshly Israel by Ishmael, and their pertinent experiences.


After belittling types the writer shows his woeful ignorance of them under the heading, "Difficulties in the 'Interpretation' of Details" of types. Under such alleged "difficulties in 'interpretation' of details," by the examples that he gives, he creates the difficulties by assuming that an Old Testament character can have only one typical significance; and after setting up this strawman, he attempts to kick it over by citing accounts that are inconsistent with his alleged sole typical use of the pertinent person, thus ignoring the fact that typical characters often represent different antitypes, e.g., Esau at times types Fleshly Israel (Rom. 9: 10-13, 22-24), at others, the Great Company (Heb. 12: 16, 17). Thus he cites Abraham, under the assumption that his only typical meaning is God, and then asks, What would Abraham's father, two brothers and Lot type? We answer that Abraham is used in various typical ways: in his journey to Haran he types certain ones (those of them who




would gain tentative justification, consecrate and win out as the Little Flock) progressing toward tentative justification; in his stay at Haran he types their stay in tentative justification before progressing toward consecration; in his journey to Canaan, their progressing toward consecration and Spirit-begettal; in his entering Canaan, their experiencing consecration, vitalized justification and Spirit-begetting; for then only did the promises become theirs. In his relations to Sarah and Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael and Keturah and her six children, he types God as the symbolic husband of the three great Covenants and as the Father of the children of these three Covenants. From the standpoint of the former sets of viewpoints, Abraham's father at Haran represents the whole class of the tentatively justified, and his two brothers represent the two classes of the tentatively justified who never consecrate, i.e., (1) the measurably faithful and (2) the unfaithful of these, the former continuing to believe in Christ and to practice righteousness, who Millennially, as our Pastor taught, will be rewarded, like the believing Jews; and the latter, turning back to sin, will Millennially be treated like the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. Lot types those who eventually will be of the Great Company; for he took all the steps that Abraham took, including entering Canaan, where, however, he left Abraham (the Little Flock) and cleaved to Sodom (the nominal church). Clearly, in being blessed by Melchizedek, the type of Jesus, Abraham does not type God, but the Little Flock, since the blesser is superior to the blessed (Heb. 7: 6, 7).


The writer of the article, in his belittling types, attempts again to kick his straw-man over by asking, What does Abraham type in leaving Canaan for Egypt, to escape a grievous famine? The following will answer his objection. In Abraham's pertinent acts he represents God's procedure in the outworking of His plan from conditions of the Truth and its Spirit (Canaan) marking the early Church to the conditions of worldliness marking the nominal church of the Dark Ages, because later in the




primitive Church the Truth began to darken. Again, the writer, in belittling types, asks, What could be typed by "his [Abraham's] spineless compromise of Sarah with Pharaoh and Abimelech and their rebuke of Abraham after God's instruction?" We reply: God in His attribute of love acted in such a way toward the Sarah Covenant in its personal parts, its servants, by permitting their persecution, etc., in the Dark Ages as gave Satan (Pharaoh) and the hierarchy (Abimelech) the thought that He did not own them as His symbolic wife (Is. 54), and allowed Satan and the hierarchy to get them into their power to use them for their purposes. God in His power by His Word later made known to Satan and the hierarchy His relation to antitypical Sarah in its personal parts, its servants; and, of course, Satan and the hierarchy blamed God for their intentions toward antitypical Sarah, and by their evil practices excluded God from their spheres of activity. Again the writer, in belittling types in details, asks, "What would be taught by his [Abraham's] . . . Sarah's or Isaac's death?" We answer, God's ceasing at its fulfillment from further work on His Plan, the Oath-bound Covenant's ceasing to operate after its fulfillment and the Christ class' ceasing from further work on the Plan after it is completed, as, e.g., the high priest's death giving the refugees liberty to go home from the city of refuge types, not Christ's death after this Age and the Millennium, but His ceasing from further pertinent atonement work after the pertinent atonement is complete—see comments on Num. 35: 25. If the writer of the article had studied Bro. Russell's writings on several of the above-cited points, or if after studying them thereon he had not rejected his pertinent teachings, he would not have asked his pertinent questions as difficulties unless, which we trust is not the case, he deliberately capitalized on some not knowing our Pastor's pertinent thoughts, to deceive them with his sophistries.


He uses, in his belittling types, the same sophistry, i.e., the assumption that a typical character is limited to but one antitypical significance, to rule out from being types those




parts of Moses', Aaron's, David's and Solomon's lives wherein they do not type Jesus. He ought to know that our Pastor taught that Moses types: (1) Jesus, e.g., in his experiences in Egypt, in the journey to Sinai, Palestine, etc.; (2) the Christ, e.g., in mediating the Covenant; (3) the Law, e.g., at the consecration of the priesthood (Lev. 8-10; T 41, 3); and (4) the Parousia Second Deathers, the Ransom and Church-Sin-offering deniers (smiting the rock twice). To his types-belittling question, "What about his [Moses'] unavailing prayers to enter the promised land?" we reply: He was sentenced to exclusion from the promised land because of smiting the rock, and his pertinent prayers were, therefore, denied, typing that the Ransom-and-Church-Sinoffering-denying new creatures are Second Deathers; and that no amount of prayers of theirs will avail for their inheriting the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit beyond the vail. As for his limiting Aaron to but one typical meaning—Jesus—we reply: He types: (1) the Church this side the vail during the Parousia and Epiphany as Christ's mouthpiece to Satan and his servants (Aaron acting as Moses' mouthpiece in Egypt); (2) the Ancient Worthies (at the Red Sea); (3) the infidelistic sifters (in the golden calf affair); (4) Jesus as High Priest (at the consecration of the priesthood and at numerous other times); (5) Jesus and the Church as the World's High Priest (in the atonement-day service, Lev. 16, and in many other places); (6) the Epiphany Second Deathers as Ransom and Church-Sinoffering deniers (at the smiting of the rock twice and at his exclusion from Canaan); and (7) the two Messengers (Ex. 19: 24).


As for his limiting David to but one typical meaning, we reply: In the Psalms David types: (1) Jesus; (2) the Church; and (3) Jesus and the Church as Head and Body; and in the histories he types: (1) the Church during the Gospel Age; (2) Bro. Russell. Our Pastor's writings show the first four of these typical meanings; and he held the fifth, but never wrote on it; but at least J. Hemery, A.H. MacMillan and ourself, from personal conversation with




him, know that he believed the fifth. As to his denying the typical character of David's domestic experiences, we would say David's sin connected with Bath-sheba and Uriah types, for Bro. Russell, his defiling the Sarah Covenant by drawing temporarily into the Gospel Age the New Covenant, and exposing the defenders of the Sarah Covenant against this view temporarily to refutative teachings; and, for the Church, its defiling certain truths with Babylonian errors during the Interim and exposing their defenders to refutative teachings. This point refutes the reviewed writer on his limiting David to but one typical meaning. Finally, as to his limiting Solomon to but one typical meaning, we reply; (1) In the large picture Solomon in his good acts types the Millennial Christ in the good acts of their reign, and (2) in his evil acts he types the papacy before the Reformation; for the division of the kingdom from Solomon's son is blamed upon his wicked deeds, and certainly papacy's pre-Reformation evils caused the division in the Church, as the 2520 years' parallels show. This sufficiently refutes his pertinent sophistry on these points. As to what he says on only the senses of those Biblical names having typical significance which Jehovah is expressly said to have given for symbolic meanings, we would reply: God is not expressly said to have given the pertinent character names to Abram, Sarai, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Joshua, and most of the judges, kings and prophets of Israel, and yet their name meanings suggest their antitypes. Hence his pertinent claim is untrue. Furthermore, since all Biblical characters, as being parts of God's revelation, are typical and the meanings of their names, so far as the antitypes are due to be understood, imply something as to their antitypes, we are warranted in concluding that God providentially intervened to their receiving the names indicative of their antitypes.


Citing for proof of his statement 1 Cor. 10: 11 and Rom. 15: 4, he says: "Twice [italics ours] the Word of God says that 'the things written aforetime' were written for our admonition"; and he uses the assumption to belittle types




and puts admonitions in their place, as required by his "models." In the first place, only one of these passages uses types as admonitions, i.e., 1 Cor. 10: 11, and that without belittling nor ruling them out as types, as the writer does by making them models instead of types. Secondly, he does not quote aright the pertinent statements of these passages; and his use of the garbled words tends towards the inculcation of his belittling types. The pertinent part of 1 Cor. 10: 11 reads in the A. V. as follows: "They [the typical events] were written," which words are followed by the words: "for our admonition"; and the pertinent part of Rom. 15: 4 reads: "Whatsoever [not 'the,' as he quotes] things were [he omits the word were] written aforetime"; but instead of Rom. 15: 4 saying that they were written for our admonition, it says, for our learning; and this implies that all types as due, as well as other parts of the Word, should be studied by the Lord's people. The passage says nothing about admonishing; but it does say that whatsoever things were written aforetime, i.e., in the Old Testament, were intended for our learning, that through the patience and comfort that the Scriptures inculcate we might have hope. And, certainly, to the faithful, among other things, the types of the Church do impart hope and exhort to good, while the types of evil admonish against evil. Rom. 15: 4 proves that eventually some of the "us" class will understand everything written in the Bible. Again the writer has failed by his pertinent allegations on 1 Cor. 10: 11 and Rom. 15: 4 to rule types out, or at least to accomplish their belittlement into "models" (the evils of vs. 6-10 certainly are not models), to which he reduces practically all types.


Only once in his Dawn article does he refer as alleged excessive typing to one of the types that we use, and that Bro. Russell's view of the tabernacle for the end of the Age implies; but his tract omits the point altogether. He refers garblingly to our teaching that the 60 posts about the tabernacle for the Epiphany type 60 divisions among the Epiphany Levites, his pertinent expression being "divisions




among the Lord's people"; for he does not use the expression "the Epiphany Levites." Bro. Russell gives us Scripturally three sets of tabernacle antitypes: (1) that given in Tabernacle Shadows and covering the Gospel-Age picture, in which he shows that the faith-justified condition is typed by the court, and that the 60 posts about the tabernacle type the faith-justified as Gospel-Age Levites; (2) that given in the Towers, especially from 1907 onward, and covering the picture in the extreme end of the Age, i.e., the Epiphany, in which he shows that the new-creaturely condition of the Great Company at that time would be represented by the court, which implies that its posts represent its new creatures as Levites; and (3) that given in Studies, Vol. VI, and its picture covering the Ages to come, including the Millennium, in which the condition of the Ancient Worthies, the Great Company, etc., is represented by the court, which implies that they as Levites are represented by its posts; for above in this introduction we gave four Bible proofs on there being 60 groups of Levites. Certainly, as Bro. Russell puts it, the tabernacle picture covers the entire Gospel Age, to which the article impliedly limits it. But its writer overlooks the fact that, also as Bro. Russell puts it, it covers the extreme end of the Age, the transitional period, the Epiphany, between the Gospel and Millennial Ages, as well as the Millennial Age, etc. Above we are not to be understood as saying that Bro. Russell expressly, stated that for the end of the Age and for the Millennium the 60 posts represent the Great Company and the Ancient Worthies, Great Company, etc., respectively; for we do not recall such an expression, though he may have used it as fitting his general setting of pertinent matters; but we do say that his threefold view of the tabernacle, combined with his view of the Levites of the three periods, taking into consideration that he applies the 60 posts to the Gospel-Age Levites, implies what we teach as to the 60 posts for the Epiphany and the Millennium. God bless these thoughts to all!