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


about 15% more. So much on the half-baked thought of the letter on this point.


(45) We now come to the only specification that the letter's writer has made on his solemnly grandiose charges that we "teach contrary to our Pastor," and that as badly as the Tower and the P.B.I. Herald; and it is indeed an illustration of the proverb, "Behold, mountains travail, and bear an insignificant mouse!" We quote the two paragraphs that the letter particularizes for us to read (Z '09, 266, col. 2, pars. 2, 3):


(46) "The two ages and their blessings are distinguished, therefore, by the expressions, 'In those days,' as signifying the Gospel Age, and 'After those days,' as signifying the Millennial Age. We are still in the Gospel Age, styled 'In those days.' And we still have the blessings promised in this Age, namely, the bestowment of the Holy Spirit upon God's servants and handmaidens regardless of age, sex or national distinction. This blessing began at Pentecost and will close with the anointing of the last member of the Body of Christ. Then will begin the other part of the blessed promise, namely, 'After those days I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.' This blessing surely does not apply to the present time; and just as surely it will have fulfillment under the ministration of the Millennial Kingdom. Then will come the time when 'Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,' shall teach. That will not be a teaching in the Church, nor of the Church, but a teaching of the world by the world, under the supervision of the glorified Christ and the perfected Ancient Worthies as the earthly representatives of the heavenly Kingdom.


(47) "Now notice the expression, 'Your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions.' We prefer a different translation, which, we believe, gives the intended thought, namely, 'Your young men will see the glorious visions (of restitution blessings, etc., in process of fulfillment) of which your



ancient men dreamed (the things respecting which they vaguely hoped and dimly understood and greatly longed for)."


(48) Evidently the writer thinks that par. 3 of Z '09, 266, col. 2, is the one to which we (supposedly) teach contrary. Our readers know that we apply the words, "Your old men shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions," to the Millennial inspirational activities of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies. We are warranted in applying them to the Millennium, because in both of the above-quoted paragraphs our Pastor rightly applies Joel 2: 28 to the Millennium. Our Pastor's explanation of the special words here referred to is very brief, so brief in fact that we are not sure just what he meant by it, for his explanation is quite susceptible of several meanings. He does not explain whom he understood by the young men, nor by the old men. Since he applies the passage to the Millennium, he may have meant that some restitution things that the aged at first would see dimly would later be seen clearly by the young people. Or he may have meant that what old people in this life longed for as coming in the Millennium, the young folks then would clearly see. Or, again, he may have meant that what Old Testament people saw dimly would be clearly seen by the young in the Millennium. Any of these three thoughts and all of them are true, so far as they are concerned in themselves; but the explanation he gives  is too indefinite for us clearly to see his thought, hence is no proper basis for the charge brought against us. The reason our Pastor did not have the full light on this verse is that it is Epiphaniac. Has it ever struck our dear readers that while our Pastor said that those whom we call Youthful Worthies will be the Millennial associates of the Ancient Worthies as princes, he never once cited a Scripture to prove it. He simply drew the conclusion from the fact that there were more



consecrations than available crowns since the general call ceased in 1881, and from God's general methods of dealing in the way of rewards with similar characters. So far as we can recall, he treated of the Youthful Worthies in but three places in his writings—F 156, 157; Z '11, 181, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, col. 2, pars. 6, 7. Additionally he treated of them at Convention Question meetings (What P.R. Said, 151, 152, 154). In none of them does he cite a Scripture dealing with the Youthful Worthies as distinct from the Ancient Worthies. Why this from one who so strenuously insisted on Scripture as the source and rule of faith? The answer can only be that the subject being an Epiphaniac one, no Scripture on the subject was due to be understood before! But the Epiphany being the time for dealing with this class as such, Scriptures not previously understandable began to open up on the subject. Our Pastor's comment on the pertinent words of Joel 2: 28 is as fine an illustration of the truth that it is impossible clearly to explain a passage before it is due as we could give. We are not at all blaming or disparaging him on this head; for no one can understand a passage before it is due; for even our Lord could not understand when the judgment Day and Israel's having the Kingdom restored to them would come, until that truth was due; but whenever a passage was due our Pastor always, as "that Servant," interpreted it correctly.


(49) Please mark, dear brethren, we do not contradict our Pastor on this verse. We do not deny that any one of the above three understandings of his explanation will be factual, for doubtless those three things will have taken place by the time the Millennium will have advanced some time, though we do not think that any of them is the Divinely intended thought of the pertinent clause. Some one gave a mistranslation to our Pastor, which suggested the explanation that he gave. Not understanding the



proper translation and not being a Hebrew scholar, he accepted the mistranslation on the mistranslator's authority, since it gave an undoubtedly true thought. In our library we have twenty-four translations of the Old Testament, every one of which renders the pertinent words as the A.V. renders them. Then we have a Bible that gives variant renderings of 150 of the ablest Hebrew translators whenever their renderings differ from the English Bible, and none of them translate like the mistranslation that someone gave our Pastor. Only one of these 150 changes the words (but does not change the thought) thus: Your old men shall have dreams. We know that the translation under review is wrong because the tenses of the Hebrew words translated in the A.V. "shall see" and "shall dream", are the same in the Hebrew of this verse—they are both the future tense, not one future and the other past as the mistranslation under review gives them. Moreover, there are no words in the Hebrew corresponding to the words "of which" in the clause "of which your ancient men dreamed." Hence the suggested translation, which gives an indefinite though a true thought, is wrong. The A.V. is thoroughly correct here, and our explanation of it is strictly in harmony with it. That this language of Joel 2: 28 on the old and young men was not due to be understood in our Pastor's day is positively proved by the fact that he could not interpret the proper translation, but while giving a true thought on a suggested mistranslation, he expressly preferred the mistranslation to the correct one. We ask, How could it be better proven that the passage was not due to our Pastor to interpret than by these facts? On the other hand, we are satisfied that no one could, before the passage was due, have given so good an interpretation as our Pastor did, whose interpretation, though not the Divinely intended one for these clauses, contained no doctrinal, reasonable or factual error. We are satisfied that if our Pastor



were giving the Epiphany Truth, he would explain the pertinent words as we do, seeing that they so clearly substantiate from the Bible his teachings on the Millennial activities of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies in their teaching office.


(50) We repeat it, we do not contradict, as not factual, the three meanings that our Pastor's explanation can carry, for we believe all three of them are true. We do not contradict his doctrine on the Ancient or Youthful Worthies. We simply give the explanation that the correct translation suggests as better than the one which a false translation suggested to our Pastor, who was made to believe it was the true translation. Therefore, in view of the indefiniteness of his explanation of the false part of the translation on which it was based, of the undueness of the light on the pertinent clause in his day, of the evident desire of the letter's writer to convict us of teaching contrary to our Pastor, of his classifying us with our Pastor's real repudiators, and of his seemingly having nothing else to advance to prove his claim against us, is it not appropriate that we should quote as descriptive of his acts the proverb, "Behold, mountains travail, and bear an insignificant mouse"? We should be congratulated, if this is all our enemies can advance as proof of their claim that we "teach contrary to our Pastor." Such self-styled defenders of the Truth harm it; for to be a real Truth defender requires poise and the ability properly and soberly to appraise matters— things that the letter's writer seems to lack, if we may judge from our correspondence with him. We pass by without further comment on his insinuations against our candor and fair dealing with our readers than that this article proves that we have no fear to write on the paragraph alleged as against us. Nor will we accept his suggestion, based on his mountain-travailing and mouse-bearing proclivities, that we never mention our Pastor's name. We will, praise  God, keep right



on faithfully defending his teachings in all good confidence, honest purpose and transparent candor as hitherto, despite such accusatory letters written against one who has suffered and toiled much for the maintenance of "that Servant's" teachings and arrangements against real repudiators of them. Having above repelled our accuser's charge, and proven him guilty of repudiating our Pastor's view on the advancing light after his death, we are reminded of the proverb on glass-house dwellers throwing stones, and especially of Rom. 2: 1, "thou that judgest another, etc."


(51) Our discussion raises another question: Does the statement of Prov. 4: 18, on the light shining more and more unto the perfect day, mean, as the Apr., 1936, Dawn, page 17, par. 4, claims, not the unfolding of the advancing truths of the Bible as due going on until the perfect day, but the illumination of the Christian's pathway by an increased ability to apply the principles of the Lord's Word to the problems of his conduct in his daily life? To this we answer: We note that Dawn's answer is not in harmony with our Pastor's thought from the beginning to the end of his ministry, as can be seen, e.g., from the explanation that he gives Prov. 4: 18 in A 20-28, in which, among other things, while not ignoring the lesser truth that Dawn one- sidedly emphasizes as the truth on the subject, our Pastor emphasizes the greater truth, saying, "While it is true that the path of each individual believer is a shining one, yet the special application of this statement is to the just [justified] as a class" (A 20, par. 2). That our Pastor held to this greater truth as the special sense of Prov. 4: 18 throughout life no one conversant with his teachings will in honesty deny, e.g., Vols. I-VI use Prov. 4: 18 as the motto passage of the series, on their title pages, in the sense of his explanation given in A 20-28; and he would have so used this passage on the title page of Vol. VII, had he written that volume, since, as the motto of the entire



series, he thus indicated that it gave the advancing Truth as due. We note, secondly, that Dawn gives as the truth its thought in contradictory contrast with the thought that increasing knowledge on God's plan accompanies God's people as a class unto the end of their path, even unto the perfect day. Hence Dawn's one-sided emphasis of an indirect application of the passage in contradictory contrast with its special application is a contradiction of our Pastor's thought, and is some of that deceptive alleged new light, against which Dawn inveighs (in others). Thus "the Lord taketh the wise in their own craftiness." But what do the pertinent facts prove? Three things: Firstly, and especially, our Pastor's explanation of the special application of the passage is certainly true, as e.g., the history of the unfolding of God's plan in the Parousia and the Epiphany proves, yea, even from the beginning of the Reformation by individuals through Marsiglio in 1309 A.D.; secondly, that Dawn's one sided and contradicting contrasted emphasis sets aside the main truth on the subject; and, thirdly, Dawn champions an error on the subject. Dawn came to this error in an effort to evade (1) the Society's gross error on the subject that their contradictions of our Pastor's true teachings are advancing light, and (2) the true advancing light—the Epiphany Truth—that is based upon, elaborated out of, and in harmony with our Pastor's view of the Lord's Word; this second evasion Dawn commits in an attempt to escape the conclusion that the Parousia and the Epiphany Truth teaches, that the Epiphany is devoted especially to the manifestation and cleansing of the Great Company (2 Tim. 4: 1; Rev. 7: 14), a combination of which Truth proves the Dawn to be an unclean Levitical movement, in which its active, participating crown losers, as antitypical Lot, and its active, participating Youthful Worthies and faith-justified, as antitypical Lot's two daughters, are committing antitypical incest,



and producing symbolic bastards, antitypical Moabites and Ammonites, who will Millennially find themselves among the restitution class (Gen. 19: 30-38; Deut. 23: 2-6). Dawn's strictures (in the same article as contains the above-refuted error) against us (without naming us) as "seeing himself in the Scriptures" the Lord Himself will shortly answer in a way that will unanswerably show it, in making such strictures and teaching various errors, to be a mouthpiece of Azazel


(52) During the year 1916 at the Bethel table we asked our dear Pastor whether the forty days from Jesus' resurrection to His ascension typed the Parousia Period (1874-1914), and whether the ten days from His ascension to Pentecost typed the following ten years as the time that must intervene from the end of the reaping until the Spirit would begin to be poured out upon all flesh (1914-1924). His answer was that he hoped to give his thought on those forty days and their following ten days in the Tower sometime, and therefore would defer his answer until that time. His manner in giving this answer, as well as the answer itself, gave the impression that he held these periods to be typical. But he never gave his thought on them to us through the Tower, his death doubtless preventing it. Since the manifestation of the Levites has been going on, we have frequently thought of the typical significance of these two periods. From the fact that so frequently in the Scriptures periods of forty days are used typically of the reaping period (1874-1914) we feel satisfied that the forty days of our Lord's resurrection history type the forty years of the Harvest, particularly from the standpoint of the period in which our returned Lord gave instructions to the Church respecting the Kingdom—the Parousia Truth (Acts 1: 3). But if we were now to ask our dear Pastor as to the typical significance of Jesus' Pentecostal work of presenting the Church to God ten days after His ascension, we would not



connect the antitype's end in 1924 with the outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh; for there remains only three years [this was written in 1921] until the fall of 1924, and the prophetic program to be enacted between now and the beginning of the Spirit's outpouring upon all flesh is of too gigantic proportions to be enacted within three years. Rather, if now asking him what should be expected from the fall of 1923 to that of 1924 as the antitype of Jesus' Pentecostal presentation of the Church to God, we would inquire whether it would not mark chronologically the beginning of the offering of the Levites to Jehovah by our Lord, and by contrast the presentation of the Priests to God separate and distinct from the Levites (Num. 8: 11, 13, 21). We will now proceed to explain our reasons for such thoughts.


(53) The types of the firstfruits connected with Passover and Pentecost are recorded in Lev. 23: 9-14, 15-21. As our Pastor explained, the first ripe sheaf represents our Lord as a New Creature, and its presentation before Jehovah on Nisan 16 represents our Lord's resurrection on the third day, as the First fruits of them that slept (1 Cor. 15: 4, 20; Z '98, 68). The expression firstfruits seems always to refer to the New Creature, and never to the humanity of the Lord's people (Rom. 8: 23; 11: 16; 16: 5; 1 Cor. 15: 20, 23; 16: 15; Jas. 1: 18; Rev. 14: 4). Therefore the high priest presenting and waving the first ripe sheaf before the Lord on Nisan 16 types our Lord presenting Himself to Jehovah as a New Creature at His resurrection, and from then on continually as such serving Jehovah. The presentation of the two firstfruit loaves baked with leaven (Lev. 23: 17), and their waving before the Lord, cannot represent some thing done beyond the veil, else leaven would not have been put into the loaves. It must, therefore, represent something done with New Creatures this side of the veil; for, while in the flesh, our New Creatures are



associated with the corruption (leaven) that is in our flesh, and are by it more or less hampered in their activities.


(54) Our dear Pastor has shown that these loaves baked out of the firstfruits flour type the Little Flock and the  Great Company (Z '98, 68)—expressions that are equivalent to the expression, the Church of the Firstborn (Heb. 12: 23). Accordingly not as human beings, but as New Creatures, are these two classes typed by these two loaves made from the flour of the firstfruits. It would seem that the presentation of the loaf that typed the Little Flock has the same typical significance as the presentation of Aaron's sons to the Lord—their consecration to the priesthood (Lev. 8: 13, 24-27, 30-36). Furthermore in that picture, in a tentative sense, the presentation of all new creatures is typed, though in the finished picture only those who retain the antitypical Priesthood are included. Hence in a tentative sense the presentation of those who later become of the Great Company, and who are typed by that loaf which types the Great Company as new creatures, is also typed in Lev. 8: 13, 24-27, 30-36; but they, of course, are not there typed in the finished picture. On the contrary, in the finished picture their presentation as Great Company members, as such, is typed by the presentation of the Levites in Num. 8: 1121. Hence in the finished picture the presentation of the second loaf, i.e., the one that types the Great Company, types the presentation of the cleansed Great Company as such—a thing that is yet future [to 1921]. Such a presentation of them by our Lord to Jehovah will be their consecration to their Levitical service as such. The antitype of the waving of the loaf, in the finished picture, could not take place until the Great Company as such were active—not in Azazel's service, but—in the Lord's service. That this event is future is manifest from the fact that their purification, their shaving themselves, and their washing their garments,



which precede their offer to God, is not finished (Num. 8: 21, 7-11).


(55) As we have seen that our Lord's initial Pentecostal presentation of the entire Church antitypes the presentation of the two loaves by the typical high priest on Pentecost (Lev. 23: 16-21); and as we have seen that our Lord's teaching His disciples of the Kingdom during the forty days' of His resurrection experience types our returned Lord teaching His new creatures in the flesh the Parousia Truth, so it would seem that our Lord's delay of ten days after his ascension before presenting the Church to God types how during the ten years from 1914 to 1924 our Lord delays to present the Church in its two parts as such, separate and distinct, to the Father. Then as  Jesus presented the whole Church of the Firstborn to God at Pentecost, so it would seem that He thereby types how during the end of the antitypical ten days, i.e., between Oct., 1923, and 1924, He will at the consecration of the Levites present the Little Flock as such and the Great Company as such to God for their future distinct services, the presentation of the Little Flock and Great Company being in the finished picture the antitype of the presentation of the loaves typing the Little Flock and Great Company. This would seem to imply that by the fall of 1924 the Truth Levites and the Priests will begin to be individually manifest as separate and distinct; and that by the complete presentation of the antitypical Truth Levites as such to the Father for their Levitical service all other New Creatures in the Truth would be openly acknowledged by Jesus before God and His New Creatures as His Under-priests. Hence somewhat before the fall of 1924 we may expect [in 1921] a work to begin that will lead to each New Creature recognizing himself and all other New Creatures as antitypical Priests or antitypical Levites, as the case may be, in view of being publicly demonstrated



as such before God and the Church by Christ, our Lord. This is typed by Moses' setting the Levites before Aaron and his sons—the priests and Levites, of course, recognizing one another as such (Num. 8: 13). In the meantime the Lord gives the Epiphany-enlightened saints, who are only a part of the Priesthood, in their conscious dealing with Azazel's Goat to recognize the more markedly revolutionistic and sectarian Levites as such (Lev. 16: 21). The work of the World's High Priest in dealing with Azazel's antitypical Goat does not cover so wide a sphere of activity as that covered by Num. 8: 7-21. His work of leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate and to the fit man, as described in Lev. 16: 21, is covered by the work of sprinkling the water of separation upon the Levites, and of giving them the razor with which they are to shave themselves—sever themselves from their claims to, and their exercise of, powers that do not belong to them (Num. 8: 7) While Lev. 16: 20-22 does not include nearly so wide a range of the things pertaining to the Great Company as Num. 8: 7-21, yet there seems to be no reference to the confession of sins and the fit man and Azazel experiences set forth in the latter passage. The chief difference in these passages is this: the former passage treats of the humanity, the latter of the new creatures of the Great Company.


(56) It is our expectation that the presentation of the Epiphany Levites as a class will have begun by [written 1922] the fall of 1924. It is very certain that this will not include every individual Great Company member in the flesh: for many of them, e.g., the last ones to come into the Truth who are now in the nominal church, will not be so presented until after most of the Little Flock leave the earth; for the true Church will still be in the flesh after 1924. Nor is it reasonable to expect that every Truth Levite will be by that time presented to the Lord for true Levitical work. It is more in harmony with the time types



that have so far been fulfilled on certain predicted dates to expect that by Oct., 1924, the beginning of their presentation will have set in—that of a class in certain of its members rather than of every individual of that class. Thus in fulfillment of a part of the time type (Lev. 23: 11, 15-17) of the firstfruit loaves at Pentecost only a part of the Little Flock, as representatives of the whole, was then presented to the Lord, the rest of them being presented at their consecration throughout the Gospel Age. Thus, too, the ends of the 1290 and 1335 days did not mark the completion but only the beginning of the revelation of certain pertinent truths. Again, as seen in the 2520 years' parallel, the tenth day of the fifth month (Aug. 1, 1914)— 2520 years after the burning of the temple (Jer. 52: 12)— did not mark the completion, but the beginning of the destruction of Christendom. It seems to be a general Scriptural rule that when many individuals of a class are involved and when time types or prophecies are due to be fulfilled in them, the prophetic time marks the beginning, and not the completion, of the predicted event. It is for this reason that it seems to us more reasonable to expect that by Oct., 1924, the beginning of the presentation of certain cleansed Levites will be witnessed rather than the beginning and completion of the presentation of all of them, as it is also unreasonable to expect all of them at the same time to come into the right heart attitude. We should therefore rather expect to see, then, not all, but some of them, as representatives of the whole class, presented to the Lord for His service, even as we see that this was done at Pentecost in the parallel case of the Little Flock, covered in the first feature of the same type (Lev. 23: 15-17). However, as this is a prophecy whose fulfillment is yet future, we cannot be certain about its details until the fulfillment comes. Then we will know more about it than we do now.


(57) Do we look for a thorough and clear separation



of the Priests and Levites by this fall (written Aug., 1924)? The question arises in view of our forecast (P '21, 151, 152) for the fiftieth year since 1874, based on the presentation of the two antitypical wave loaves at Pentecost (Lev. 23: 15- 21; Acts 2: 1-4). The antitypical fifty days—fifty years— are from Oct. 1874, to Oct. 1924. The fiftieth day began Oct. 1923, and ends Oct. 1924. We have, therefore, been for nearly eleven months in this antitypical day. Has the forecast been fulfilling? We answer, Yes. For about the last ten months we have been observing certain acts which show that the Lord is manifesting good Levites as such. Our readers will recall how we have shown that the Levite movements have been working out on time, e.g., on the anniversary of a Levite leader of one group committing revolutionary acts, a Levite leader of another group did a similar thing (P '20, 98-100). Beginning with Nov. 11, 1923, we have been observing a series of similar revolutionisms against Epiphany arrangements on the same dates. The good non-Epiphany Levites, of course, do not revolutionize against Parousia teachings and arrangements; for that is characteristic of bad Levites. Nor is it reasonable to expect the Epiphany-enlightened section of them to revolutionize against Epiphany truths; rather as we understand the matter, their revolutionism is and will be against Epiphany arrangements. From this standpoint we see evidences showing that certain priests and good Levites are mutually becoming active, and are thus becoming manifest as such. Their acts are just seven years to the day later than similar acts began to be enacted, when a certain priest and leaders in the Gershonite and Merarite groups began their separate acts. We do not expect this work to be complete by Oct. 1924. Perhaps the following year—Oct. 1924, to Oct. 1925—will witness similar revolutionisms among the good Levites who are now mingling with the Levitical groups under



bad Levite leadership. Probably very few will recognize the work going on until the Lord will make clearer manifestations through the Small Jesus after the end of the small eighth wonderful day—toward the end of 1925 and afterward. All the cases that have already come under our notice have been marked with a recognition of the wrong- doing and a humbling of themselves on the part of the wrong-doers. This would be in line with their cleansing themselves; and as they have been doing this they have doubtless been presented to Jehovah by Jesus, their High Priest, as parts of the Great Company, in antitype of what our Lord did at Pentecost with that class. This fact would imply that the faithful priests are undergoing the antitype of the presentation of the Little Flock at Pentecost. [Good Levites' coming into manifestation since the foregoing was written becomes more and more pronounced—year after year since Oct. 1924.]


(58) It will be recalled that in 1906 Jesse Hemery wrote a letter to our Pastor on the antitype of the Flood year, and that this letter was published in Z '06, 111. It was Jesse Hemery's thought that the Flood year typed one year, i.e., the year from Oct., 1914, to Oct., 1915, as the year in which the Time of Trouble would begin, progress and end. While it is true that the Great Tribulation began in 1914, facts, of course, prove that it has not by any means yet ended. Accordingly, the Flood year could not type the year period suggested by Jesse Hemery. The Scriptures, as our Pastor interpreted them, evidently give us two distinct sets of types connected with Noah's Flood experiences (1) The days before the Flood (Matt. 24: 37-39; Luke 17: 26, 27) typing the period preceding the tribulation in its various stages; and (2) the days of the Flood, typing the period in which certain ones are delivered from the destruction which involves others (1 Pet. 3: 20, 21). In Vol. IV our Pastor in great detail traced the antitype of the days before the Flood, and we will



treat of them no further in this article, desiring to give some details on what seems to us to be the antitype of the Flood year.


(59) It will be remembered that our dear Pastor explained the Ark as typing "Christ and the power in Him which will replenish and reorganize Society" (A 318). Christ and that replenishing and reorganizing power are summarized in the Abrahamic Covenant, which we all know was made in April, 2045 B.C., i.e., 2044¾ years before Jan. 1, 1 A.D. Therefore it would be in harmony with our Pastor's definition of the Ark's antitype to define its antitype as the Abrahamic Covenant, the embodiment of God's counsel; whose central feature is the Seed of Abraham, The Christ, and whose glorious work of replenishing and reorganizing power is to bless all the nations of the earth (Gal. 3: 8, 16, 29). The relation  between these two sets of thoughts is that of container to the things contained, and as such give the two sets of antitypes, that on the Ark typing the Covenant being the one explained in this chapter. Thus both sets of antitypes are harmonious. It will also be noticed that there were four human pairs who went into the Ark, as well as at least one pair of every clean and unclean kind of animals. We know that there are four elective classes who in this life obtain a good report through faith in the Abrahamic Covenant: (1) The Christ, (2) the Ancient Worthies, (3) the Great Company, and (4) the Youthful Worthies. Noah undoubtedly types our Lord, who is the Heir of the righteousness which comes to us by faith (Heb. 11: 7). These classes we understand to be typed in their respective order by Noah and his wife, Shem and his wife, Japheth and his wife and Ham and his wife, the males apart from Noah representing all the leaders of their respective classes and the females the rest of these classes. We understand the animals in the Ark to represent the non-elect who will ultimately be saved. We understand



the clean animals to represent the Jews, as typically clean, who will be saved, and the Tentatively Justified, as tentatively clean, who will be saved. The unclean animals we understand represent those of the present unclean world who will be saved; while those who perished in the Flood we understand to represent from one viewpoint those who have perished under the Adamic curse, and from another standpoint, the movements and systems of Satan's Empire and the Second Death class. Just as in the type the clean and the unclean animals occupied altogether different positions in the Ark from those of Noah and his family, so in the antitype the Jews and the Tentatively Justified on the one hand, and the prospectively saved of the rest of mankind on the other hand, are quite differently related to the Abrahamic Covenant from antitypical Noah and his family. These animals were placed in the Ark to type that anticipatorily their antitypes would be included in the Abrahamic Covenant. As the Ark in the type was the means of rescue from the Flood, so God's eternal purpose—the Abrahamic Covenant—is the means of safety from destruction. These general remarks will prepare us better to see the antitype of the Flood year.


(60) Apart from those Ancient Worthies who lived before the Covenant, but who were by God anticipatorily considered as in that Covenant, the first ones actually to enter the antitypical Ark—the Covenant—were Abraham and Sarah. Hence the antitypical Ark was first entered by the Ancient Worthies as a class in the persons of Abraham and Sarah in 2045 B.C. The last of all the classes to enter the antitypical Ark consists of the Youthful Worthies. They as a class first entered the antitypical Ark in 1881, when the General Call ceased, and as a result the surplus consecrators became a class different from any other class. Thus between April, 2045 B.C., and Oct., 1881 A.D., the four elective classes actually and the rest



anticipatorily entered the Covenant; and consequently this period is, we believe, the antitypical Flood year, on the principle that types in their time features give us the beginnings of the antitypes. This will become all the more apparent if we consider the Flood year as a leap lunar year plus ten days (Gen. 7: 11; 8: 14), i.e., an ordinary year of 365 days, which was its actual duration. Ordinary lunar years consist of 354 calendar days, leap lunar years of 355. The lunar year of the Flood was a leap year. Hence we should consider in the antitype that the time from April, 2045 B.C., to Oct. 1881 A.D. was a symbolic year consisting of 365 symbolic days. It was just about 3925.50 years from the Covenant until Oct. 1881. This time, then, would be the antitypical Flood year. A day of such a year would be 1/365 of 3925.50 years, which is 10.7547945 years. From the standpoint of such a year containing such days we give below a table indicating the exact periods and the years B.C. and A.D. marked typically by the various Flood days mentioned in Gen. 7 and 8, beginning the calculation with the date of the Covenant with Abraham, April, 2045 B.C.

(61) In this table we have given the exact time from the end of each stage of the Flood year to the



end of the next stage mentioned in days and years as type and antitype, as well as the date B.C. and A.D. when each antitypical stage ended. In each case we are to remember that the date given marks the end of the pertinent antitypical day. Each antitypical day began 10.7547945+ years before its end. Hence the antitypical events are to be found within a period beginning 10.7547945 years before the above dates. The total of the years as added— 3925.49999980+—is decimally very slightly shorter than the 3925.50 given above. This almost infinitesimal difference is due to the fact that we stopped with our dividing operation, in finding the length of a symbolic day in the antitypical Flood year, after we reached the eighth decimal, knowing that a difference of only a few seconds would result—a period that is so very short that it could make no difference in our calculations. As in the type the end of each day-period specifically mentioned brought some relief from preceding disadvantages, and was the promise of further relief, so in the antitype the end of each antitypical day, typically indicated, brought a relief from preceding disadvantages suffered by those in the antitypical Ark, and was a promise of further relief. Having made these general remarks we now proceed to give some details.


(62) The first Flood period—the downpour of rain— lasted forty days; and on the theory that a day typed 10.7547945 years of the symbolic year of 3925.50 years, these forty days would represent 430.19178080+ years. With April, 2045 B.C. as the starting point, 430.19178080 years later would bring us to July, 1615 B.C., as the end of the fortieth antitypical day. This antitypical day began 10.7547945 years before. What striking event occurred between Oct. 1626 B.C., and July, 1615 B.C.? We answer, the Law Covenant was made with Israel, beginning exactly 430 years from the Abrahamic Covenant, hence in April, 1615 B.C. During these 430.19178080 years all outside of the



Covenant—the antitypical Ark—were suffering from lack of its shelter; and only those in it were protected from the deluge of the curse pouring down its woes. By entering into the Law Covenant the faithful in Israel received added blessings—otherwise not theirs—though none of them could gain life by the Law. As symbolized by the pertinent ascending passage of the Pyramid they by entering the Law Covenant were lifted up in many ways above those who were not so favored. Thus during the symbolized time—the antitypical fortieth day—relief from past disadvantages and promise of future relief were given those in the antitypical Ark. All of us are sufficiently familiar with the history of the first forty symbolic days of the antitypical Flood year to recognize both the woes of those who were without, and  the blessings of those who were within, the antitypical Ark, and to recognize the relief that came toward the end of those forty days to Israel delivered from Egyptian bondage, and the blessings that their Law Covenant brought them.


(63) Five actual lunar months, if they begin as the Flood did, from a date in the second lunar month (Gen. 7: 11), consist of exactly 147 days, not 150 days, as the P.B.I. Editors and Directors claim. Hence these five months of the Flood ended 107 days after the forty days' downpour of  rain ended. Each one representing 10.7547945+ years, 107 typical days symbolize 1150.76301364+ years, which number of years from July, 1615 B.C. would bring us to April, 464 B.C., the end of the 107th antitypical day. This antitypical day, therefore, began 10.7547945+ years before, i.e., July, 475 B.C. In the type it will be noticed that the  Ark rested on the mountains of Ararat at the end of the fifth month

(Gen. 8: 4). What event occurring within the years 475 to 464 B.C. would antitype the Ark resting on Ararat's mountains? We answer that in 468 B.C. the Persian empire through the