GOLIATH'S ARMOR. HIS CHALLENGE. DAVID'S FITNESS. ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHALLENGE. PRE-COMBAT REMARKS. DAVID'S VICTORY. DAVID BEFORE SAUL. 

‍

AS WE KNOW, that Servant's office as such had two functions: executive (ruler over the household) and interpretive (to give the meat in due season). David does not represent him in the latter function, though when both of these functions mingle he does represent him in both, and that only because of their mingling. Such a mingling occurs when the executive acts as a warrior, because the warrior partakes of both functions. There is a mingling of these two functions in the antitype of David in his relation to Goliath, as the facts of the case will bring out. In 1 Sam. 17 the Philistines (villagers), as elsewhere, type sectarians. What kind of sectarians they type will be determined by the separate antitypes. In this chapter they type the infidel sectarians—Atheists, Agnostics, Materialists, Pantheists, Deists, Rationalists, Evolutionists, Higher Critics, unbelieving scientists not coming under any of the foregoing categories, etc. Elsewhere the Philistines represent other kinds of sectarians, e.g., the sectarians of Great and Little Babylon, modernists, etc. 

(2) In 1 Sam. 17 the men of Judah represent Truth people, the Israelites, Bible believers outside of the Truth, Saul, the crown-lost princes of the twelve denominations, as a whole or as represented by an individual, and the war, the conflict between the unbelievers and believers as to the Bible during the Parousia. Shochoh (hedge) of Judah (praised) types the limits that separate the Truth from the

The Parousia Messenger. 

542 

border land of error. Azekah (dug over) types the fields of investigation as the sphere that has been critically examined by the investigations, especially scientific, of the Time of the End. The battle line, therefore, of the infidelistic hosts of the Parousia extended from the most infidelistic views (atheism) up to the limits of the Truth as they border on the sphere of error. Ephes (field)—dammim (bloods) types the sphere of the atonement as represented in the two Sin-offerings (bloods), the central point of infidel attack. The crown-lost princes (Saul) and the men of Israel (Bible believers outside the Truth) assembled (gathered together, v. 2) for the Bible as the Divine revelation, as a company of strong warriors (elah, oak), and thus prepared their defenses against, and attacks on unbelievers (Philistines). The infidels (Philistines) stood for the kingdom of error (mountain on the one side, v. 3) and the Israelites stood in a general way for the kingdom of Truth (mountain on the other side) in so far as it was opposed to the infidelistic errors. The valley between was the condition that separated the attackers from the defenders of the Bible. Thus in vs. 1-3 the typical hosts represent the two camps of opposing warriors in the Parousia as to the truthfulness of the Bible as the Divine revelation. 

(3) Goliath (conspicuous, v. 4) of Gath (winepress), the champion of the Philistines, represents evolution, which during the Parousia was undoubtedly the outstanding champion of the infidel hosts. His immense height, 9 feet and 8 inches, according to the secular cubit, which doubtless is here meant, since he was a secular man, and since the sacred cubit (25 inches) would make him too tall, represents the great intellectual achievement powers of the leading evolutionists, like Darwin, Wallace, Spencer, Huxley, Haeckel, etc. Considered from the standpoint of intellectual power and practical achievement, Darwin

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

543 

is considered one of the 25 greatest humans of all times. Goliath's armor types the defensive and aggressive arguments of evolution as very powerful. The helmet of brass types the strong intellectual (head, v. 5) defenses that this theory offered as such, the head representing the theory itself. The coat of mail (v. 5) of brass (strength) represents evolution's defensive arguments for its vital features, like its arguments for the survival of the fittest, natural selection, etc. Its immense weight of brass (5,000 shekels = 2,500 ozs. avoirdupois = 145 lbs.) represents the immense strength and multiplicity of its arguments in defense of its vital features. The greaves (v. 6) of brass represent the strong arguments that evolution offered for its idea of development, progress. The target of brass between Goliath's shoulders represents evolution's strong defenses against its weaker points (back). His great spear (v. 7) represents evolution's controversial writings as numerous and strong. The spear's head seems to represent Mr. Darwin's two chief works on evolution, The Origin of Species, and The Descent of Man. The immense weight of his spear's head (600 shekels = 300 ozs. = 18.775 lbs.) represents the great intellectual power manifest in these two books. The shield types the main defenses of evolution; and the one who bore it represents the chief writers and debaters of evolution, those named above, etc. Additionally, as other places show (vs. 45, 51; 1 Sam. 21:9), Goliath had a sword encased in a sheath, which typed evolution's controversial discourses. The weight of the helmet, greaves, target, spear, staff, shield and sword are not mentioned. Combined they likely outweighed his coat of mail, so that his entire armor likely weighed well over 300 lbs., typing the immense strength of evolution. The numbers given as to his height and the weight of parts of his armor are doubtless significant. The six cubits of his height indicate an evil use of the typed intellectual

The Parousia Messenger. 

544 

powers and the span here types the limit of alleged perfect human capacity. Hence his height in numbers types that evolution's intellectual powers were used to the utmost limit of its advocates' alleged perfect capacity, and that for evil, i.e., for error. So the involved number of shekels in the weight of Goliath's coat of mail, 5000 (5 X 10 X 10 X 10) shows that the alleged perfections of the three alleged spheres of evolution, the vegetable, brute and human worlds (10 X 10 X 10), while powerfully contended for, were erroneous, as the product of imperfect human ability (5), i.e., evolution's defenses of its vital features in its three spheres were as powerful as imperfect men could make them. The 600 (6 X 10 X 10) shekels weight of the spear-head seems to represent the evil (6, here erroneous) use made of the alleged perfection of the two alleged spheres (10 X 10) of Darwinian evolution, brute and human, as Mr. Darwin viewed it in his two above-mentioned books, which limited evolution to animal life in brute and man alone. 

(4) Goliath's challenge of any Israelitish champion to duel is recorded in vs. 8-10. We are not to understand that the antitypical challenge was verbal; for speeches in types are usually antityped by acts or attitudes, even as we say that acts and attitudes speak louder than words. Hence we understand that the attitude, propaganda and other activities of evolution's advocates were a challenge to Bible believers to enter into a controversy with it. Evolution as the strongest single infidel theory felt in its advocates that it was unnecessary in the conflict between infidels and Christians for the latter to fight all forms of unbelief (Why are ye come out, etc.? v. 8). Even if but one form of infidelity (I, a Philistine) could prevail against the ablest view of Christianity (choose you a man for you), the whole question as to whether Christianity is true or not could be determined (he … kill me … 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

545 

your servants … I kill him … our servants, v. 9). Goliath's defiance (v. 10) types the despiteful attitude and activities that proud and overbearing evolution assumed in its advocates toward Christianity, which called louder and louder for a final debate between Christianity and evolution. The effect of Goliath's challenge on Saul and Israel's warriors is indicated in v. 11—great fear and dismay. Antitypically evolution's challenge had the effect of greatly frightening and dismaying the defenders of Christianity, who, while able, were not very familiar with facts refutative of evolution, their studies not being along the lines of nature to any considerable extent, while those of evolution's chief advocates were certainly very wide and deep therein. Hence the fear of Christian apologists as to evolution's challenge. 

(5) In vs. 12-20 Israel's champion is introduced and described. The word David (beloved, v. 12) suggests that Bro. Russell was beloved by God (Eldad, beloved by God, Num. 11:26, 27) and the brethren. His fruitfulness as an executive is indicated by the term Ephrathite (a fruitful one). His being a Bible student is implied in the word Bethlehem (house of bread, which the Bible is). His being among the Truth people is implied in the word Judah, and his being one of God's people is implied in the words "son of Jesse." The eight sons of Jesse represent seven groups and one individual among God's people. In Bible symbols age represents wisdom (Zech. 8:4). Jesse's being counted for an old man in Saul's days (v. 12) types the fact that in the days of the crown-lost princes God's people were counted wise. The three oldest sons of Jesse (v. 13) correspond to the three groups of the Gospel-Age Levites. The oldest of these, Eliab (my God is father), types the Gospel-Age Gershonites, whose work has been to bring people to justification and consecration, and whose chief members have been the clergy. The next, Abinadab 

The Parousia Messenger. 

546 

(my father is noble), represents the Gospel-Age Merarites, the editors and publishers of Christian literature—Bibles, theological books, magazines and tracts. The third son, Shammah (wonder), represents the Gospel-Age Kohathites, the linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic theologians, as lecturers and authors. The next three sons correspond in the order just given to the three groups of the crown-losers, the future Great Company, Levites, who are here viewed anticipatorily by God, who counts those things which be not as though they were, in view of what they will become (Rom. 4:17), as in connection with the fifth Harvest sifting antitypical Korah and the 250 antitypical Levites are typed as crown-losers by Levites, before the Epiphany, when as such the Great Company is first dealt with as a class. The seventh son of Jesse types the Little Flock, and the eighth, David (v. 14), types that Servant as executive—the ruler over the household. The three eldest sons' following Saul in this war (vs. 13, 14) represents the fact that the three groups of Gospel-Age Levites fought under the crown-lost leaders for the Bible. 

(6) In 1 Sam. 16:18-23 David's characteristics and his earliest activities in connection with Saul represent Bro. Russell's characteristics from 1872 to 1874 and his activities from 1874 to 1876. In the first set of two years his characteristics connected with his growth (v. 18) in the Truth of the ransom and restitution and his using them to overthrow the doctrines of the trinity, human immortality, consciousness of the dead and eternal torment, were active. In vs. 21-23 his public propaganda activities from Oct., 1874, to April, 1876, especially those connected with his oral and written presentations on The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return, are typed. 1 Sam. 17:15 refers antitypically to the temporary ending of these in 1876 and to his giving his attention to matters pertinent

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

547 

to the Little Flock, the latter especially from April, 1877, to June, 1881. During that time he sought out and fed the sheep (v. 15) of the Little Flock in Bible matters (Bethlehem), in the work of declaring the Bridegroom's presence (Matt. 25:6). In David's case the return occurred sometime before his encounter with Goliath, perhaps just after the outbreak of the war with the Philistines. In Bro. Russell's case the return to antitypical Bethlehem set in during the first five-sixths of the year 1876, in his correspondence and later personal study of the chronology with Bro. Barbour. While the conflict with evolution had its first faint beginnings in Oct., 1874, it did not amount to much before the Summer of 1878, and it reached a critical point in the Fall of 1881. Hence it scarcely attracted our Pastor's attention before 1878-1881. The 40 days of v. 16 represent the 40 years of the reaping time, 1874-1914. In the type the fight occurred on the 40th day of Goliath's twofold daily challenge (v. 16). From this we are not to understand that the antitypical fight between Bro. Russell and evolution did not begin until 1914; for some of the early issues of the Watch Tower, which first appeared in July, 1879, contained attacks on evolution, and his main attack on it (The Bible vs. the Evolution Theory) occurred in the nineties of the last century. For several reasons the typical fight was set forth as occurring on the 40th day of Goliath's twofold daily challenge. It is presented as occurring on the 40th day so as to type the time of the final blow given by Bro. Russell to evolution. This occurred after the World War broke out, which he used with unanswerable power to prove that man has been deteriorating, not evoluting. Then, again, the type of evolution being a man, his killing could not have been stretched out over a period of from 33 to 35 days, as Bro. Russell's refutation of evolution, the antitype of David's killing Goliath, was stretched 

The Parousia Messenger. 

548 

out over a period of from 33 to 35 years. Hence the typical fight gives the matter from the standpoint of a finished antitype—the end of the antitypical fight, not from the standpoint of the long-drawn-out antitypical fight. The challenge occurring morning and evening for the 40 days represents that in the Falls and Springs of those 40 years evolution was especially polemical. 

(7) The antitypes of vs. 17-19 occurred in 1881. By the ephah of parched corn special articles in the Tower in 1881, printed as tracts and later issued in one Tower, calculated to interest people in the Truth, are typed. The ten loaves of bread represent the same as the ten strings of God's harp, the ten chief doctrines of the Bible, as set forth in the booklet published in 1881 and entitled, Food For Thinking Christians. And by the ten cheeses the same ten doctrines, set forth in a deeper way in Tabernacle Shadows, are typed. Bro. Russell's course was first to send out the Tower articles, which were really propaganda tracts, to interest Christian (justified [David's three eldest brethren]) people; then later to send them Food For Thinking Christians, and then, if their interest moved them to write to him, or if there were special leaders reachable (the captain of their thousand), to send them Tabernacle Shadows. Jesse encouraging David to take these three articles of food to his brethren and to the main leader of their thousand types God's people encouraging Bro. Russell to take the three antitypical articles of food to his justified brethren and to special leaders for them and others—to those engaged in the conflict for the Bible against infidel attacks. The charge of Jesse that David inquire for the welfare of his three brothers types the charge that God's people gave to Bro. Russell to interest himself in the welfare of the justified who were fighting for the Bible against infidel attacks. The charge of Jesse (v. 18) that David obtain his three brothers' pledge types the charge of God's people that Bro. Russell

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

549 

seek to encourage those justified ones who were defenders of the Bible against infidel attacks to consecrate themselves to God as living sacrifices. The time of this charge in the antitype is fixed by the facts of the antitype as setting in in the Spring, Summer and Fall of 1881; for it was in that Fall that the above-mentioned three writings were circulated. Moreover, it was in that Spring, Summer and Fall that the intensified fight between Bible believers and defenders and Bible disbelievers and attackers set in. Hence the facts of the antitypes show us the time setting of vs. 17-19. The fight was indeed one in which mighty men (Elah, v. 19) were engaged. We might mention as chief leaders in this fight for the Bible the names of Rupprecht, Koenig, Zahn, Weiss and Moeller of Germany; Robertson, Westcott, Orr, Urquhart and Finn of Britain; and Green, McCosh, Dawson and Cook of America. 

(8) It was in Sept., 1881, (early in the morning, v. 20) that Bro. Russell began to circulate the above-mentioned Tower articles as tracts and Food For Thinking Christians. The sheep (v. 20) represent the Truth people. The keeper in whose charge the antitypical David left them (v. 20) while he gave his special attention to the public work consisted of the pilgrims and elders. Bro. Russell's doing what antitypical Jesse told him to do represents his circulating the three above-mentioned pieces of literature far and wide. This activity brought him to the place of the supplies (carriages, the things carried as provisions, v. 20—see margin), into the midst of the host of Bible defenders, and that at the time they were eagerly going forth to fight against the attackers of the Bible (shouted for the battle, v. 20). By 1881 both symbolic armies (v. 21) had drawn themselves up in line of battle against each other: Believers in God against atheists; Bible gnostics (knowers) against agnostics; believers in the world of spirit against materialists; 

The Parousia Messenger. 

550 

believers in a personal God against pantheists; theists (those believing that God is separate from, yet working in and with the world) against deists (those who believe that God is separate from the world, since creating it leaves it alone, as a tailor after making and selling a suit concerns himself no more with it); super-humanists against rationalists; believers in the Bible's inspiration against higher critics; special creationists against evolutionists; Biblical scientists against the hosts of infidelistic scientists. Thus were in 1881 the lines of conflict sharply drawn as between believers and unbelievers, and they continued so more or less for years later, even throughout the reaping time. David's leaving his carriage—the things that he carried, i.e., the three above-mentioned articles of food—with the keeper of the army's supplies (v. 22) types Bro. Russell's committing the three pieces of literature above-mentioned into the hands of the literature distributors: volunteers, colporteurs, other Truth agencies and district messenger boys, who at church doors, as the worshipers left the churches after the Sunday morning services, distributed a large part of the circulated 1,400,000 copies of Food For Thinking Christians. David's running (v. 22) into the army represents Bro. Russell's zeal to be among the defenders of the Bible. Amid these warriors he greeted his justified brethren there in a brotherly, loving manner, as a fellow soldier for the Truth of the Bible, even as David saluted his brethren in the type. 

(9) As while David talked with his brothers, Goliath came forth as the champion of the Philistines to challenge any Israelitish warrior to a duel, so while Bro. Russell mingled among the justified and conversed with them, evolution strutted forth to challenge any Christian warrior to single combat. Its attitude and activities as seen in its chief proponents were both boastful and challengesome as before (v. 23). These boastful attitudes and activities in their challengesomeness

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

551 

attracted Bro. Russell's attention (David heard them, v. 23). As before and for the same reasons, the Christian warriors drew back in fear (v. 24). We are not to understand that the whole Israelitish army fled; rather that those that were near Goliath drew back. The entire army undoubtedly stretched out over a line of several miles. So in the antitype we are not to understand that all Christian apologists fled from the antitypical Philistines; rather that this occurred only in the case of those who stood over against evolution. As the Israelitish warriors discussed Goliath, so Christian warriors discussed evolution: Have you studied and understood evolution (have you seen this man? v. 25)? Surely, it has put in its appearance to defy the defenders of the Bible (to defy Israel, v. 25). Whoever among us can refute evolution (killeth him, v. 25) will certainly obtain a great reward from our chief denominational leaders (the king, v. 25): "riches" of influence, reputation, position and authority our chiefs will give him; special powers (daughter) will be his from our chiefs; and to his brethren will special privileges (his father's house free in Israel, v. 25) among Bible believers be granted by our chiefs. 

(10) Bro. Russell was both a humble and a reticent man. He certainly lacked self-push. These facts made him all the more sensitive to the fact that he and his faithful supporters were so unpopular among professed Christians. He felt the condition to be a severe handicap to his and their usefulness; and he naturally thought that if this handicap could be removed, he and they could do more effective work for the Lord among professed Christians. These feelings of his on these matters made him assume an attitude that impressed Bible defenders that he desired to know what reward would be given to one who would meet and defeat evolution and thus take away the reproach from Bible defenders heaped upon them by challengesome evolution. These are the things that antitype David's inquiry 

The Parousia Messenger. 

552 

in the first question of v. 26. Bro. Russell's confident attitude that the Truth wielded by him would refute the doctrine of the unconsecrated persons who defiantly championed evolution as against God's warriors (this uncircumcised Philistine, v. 26), is the antitype of David's second question in v. 26. As the people answered David in the same way as they spoke in v. 25, so the response that the Christian warriors gave to Bro. Russell's inquiring attitude (he did not perform the antitype by words, but by his attitude) contained the same thoughts as were given above (v. 25), as the antitype of the people's statement on the rewards that Saul would give to Goliath's conqueror. The discussion so far impresses the attentive hearer as a factual presentation of an antitype that certainly corresponds in detail with the facts of the type. 

(11) The facts underlying the antitype of v. 28 are quite convincing that when we suggested that Eliab types the Gospel-Age Gershonites, those who have sought to bring people to justification and consecration, more particularly the clergy, we suggested a true antitype; for certainly the clergy's attitude toward Bro. Russell is truly portrayed in the attitude and words of Eliab, David's oldest brother. The clergy observed Bro. Russell's attitude on infidelity and particularly on evolution, as indicated typically in v. 26 (Eliab … heard, v. 28). His very presence among Bible defenders angered the clergy (anger was kindled, v. 28), who thought him more an infidel than a Bible believer and defender. Eliab's first question (Why camest thou down hither? v. 28) implies antitypically that Bro. Russell was, according to the clergy's view, an intruder among Bible defenders, away from whom he should immediately betake himself. His second question (With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? v. 28) shows that the clergy despised him, his work and those whom he shepherded. They despised him as a so-called sheep thief, who allegedly stole their best 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

553 

sheep. They therefore despised his work as that of unlawful proselyting of their sheep; and they despised his brethren as few and inconsequential. These symbolic sheep they recognized as not being in what was actually that great city, Babylon, but in the wilderness—a condition of isolation as to Babylon (Rev. 12:6; 17:3). They certainly accused him of pride and wickedness of heart, as Eliab did David (v. 28), and charged him with an evil and unjust curiosity such as would want to see them worsted at the hands of infidels (v. 28). 

(12) David's answer (v. 29) was to the point; for he demanded to be told what he had done wrong, a thing that Eliab could not tell. As a patriotic Israelite whose father had sent him on an errand of love he had done nothing wrong in coming to the army. So Bro. Russell had done nothing wrong in appearing among the warriors for the Bible as a Divine Revelation, and the clergy who blamed him for appearing among such could point out no wrong in his so doing, though asked to do so after they had made their false accusation. David's other question (Is there not a cause—reason?) was also to the point; for surely the fact that the strife was one that involved every able-bodied patriotic Israelite justified his coming to the army. Similarly, our Pastor as a real defender of the Bible was justified in appearing among such when the Bible was so fiercely attacked as it was by the infidels. If he, the ablest of all Bible defenders, had no right to be there, who else did? Certainly, his answer silenced the opposing, envious clergy. David's turning from Eliab (v. 30) types our Pastor's turning away from the opposing and envious clergy to more responsive hearers. His attitude (spake) continued to be the same as that typed in v. 26, and the people's answer was the same as that typed in v. 26. David's assurance gave the people the thought that he would fight Goliath; and it became the talk of the camp (v. 31), until finally it reached Saul's ears;

The Parousia Messenger. 

554 

and Saul then sent for David. So, too, Bro. Russell's claims that the Truth which he held from the Bible would overthrow evolution became the talk among Bible defenders, until it reached the ears of antitypical Saul, the crown-lost princes of Christendom's twelve denominations, who were in desperate straits to find a champion to meet antitypical Goliath, and who, accordingly, eagerly sought such a champion and sought to see Bro. Russell when they heard of his attitude on the subject. 

(13) We will now rehearse the story that proved to be the antitype of the conversation between David and Saul, and that we heard from our Pastor's lips in one of the many private conversations with which he favored us; for usually when we were alone together we exchanged personal experiences. His story was as follows: He felt himself not able to present the Truth acceptably to the American people and therefore for years sought to find someone whom he considered able so to do. Finally, he decided that the fit person was Dr. Joseph Cook, of Boston, Mass., who was an exceedingly able lecturer and author in defense of the Bible and who was generally recognized as such an oracle on Bible matters as even theological professors looked to him for instruction. After Bro. Russell came to the conclusion that Dr. Cook, who undoubtedly was a part of antitypical Saul, was just the man for the work, the latter came to Pittsburgh to lecture. Armed with copies of Food For Thinking Christians and Tabernacle Shadows, Bro. Russell called on him, and that at the time when Dr. Cook was seeking to refute evolution and felt the need of help therein. Bro. Russell told him of his own experience, narrating how the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute predestination and reprobation had turned him into an infidel and how after several dreary years of investigating various religions he came back to the Bible and gradually there from drew forth a faith that enabled him to meet the arguments 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

555 

of infidelity in general and of evolution in particular (v. 32); hence no Bible believer should be afraid of evolution's boasts (Let no man's heart fail because of him, v. 32). Dr. Cook listened to our Pastor's narrative attentively and from his conversation recognized that he was not a learned man as the world regards learned men. Hence he told him that he who was but a beginner in Christian learning could not cope with evolution, which was developed by some of the world's ablest scholars and debaters (v. 33). This led our Pastor to tell him that his views of the Bible had enabled him to refute (slew, vs. 34, 35) the papacy's (lion) doctrines and sectarian Protestant (bear) doctrines and deliver the Lord's people (lamb) from their mouth (mouth-pieces, vs. 34-36), where they had been as prey taken out of God's flock (took a lamb out of the flock, v. 34). His doctrines had enabled him to lay hold on the papacy's teachings (beard) when the papacy arose against him and utterly to refute them (slew him, v. 35). 

(14) Not boastfully, but humbly and modestly did our Pastor state these things to the eagerly listening Dr. Cook, who well knew the inconsistencies of both Romanism and Protestantism. He further assured Dr. Cook that if his view of the Bible could overthrow the views of sectarian churchianity, which were elaborated, as a rule, by Spirit-begotten men (the crown-lost princes), and which were therefore by far more subtle than views elaborated by non-new-creatures, how much more could they refute the views of evolution, which were developed by unconsecrated men (this uncircumcised Philistine, v. 36), all the more so since it had in the harvest time dared to defy (v. 36) the defenders of the Bible, whom the Lord Himself was at this time victoriously leading (Ex. 32:26-28; Josh. 10:10-14; Is. 28:21) against the Bible's attackers. Then Bro. Russell assured him (v. 37) that the Lord, who had delivered him victoriously in his battle with sectarian

The Parousia Messenger. 

556 

Romanism and Protestantism, would certainly deliver him victoriously out of the power (hand, v. 37) of evolution (this Philistine). Convinced, Dr. Cook encouraged him to do his best and prayed the Lord's blessing on his effort (v. 37). But Dr. Cook thought Bro. Russell's equipment not sufficient for the encounter with evolution and therefore offered him some of his arguments, as these were contained in his numerous books (Saul armed David with his armor, but, Saul being nearly seven feet tall, it was entirely too large for David, and he therefore dispensed with it, vs. 38, 39). But Bro. Russell, as he studied these, felt them not adaptable to his use, and therefore dispensed with them. So far the story as we got it from Bro. Russell's own lips, and as it is the antitype of vs. 32-39. 

(15) Though the rest of the story does not belong to the antitype under study, nevertheless, we will give it here as a matter of record. After the conversation above-outlined occurred, our Pastor offered Dr. Cook the above-mentioned two booklets, with the request that he read them and then give him his thoughts thereon. This Dr. Cook promised to do. Years later he again visited Pittsburgh to lecture; and again Bro. Russell called on him. On coming into Dr. Cook's presence Bro. Russell asked, "Do you remember me, Dr. Cook?" The latter, fastening upon him his large, magnetic eyes, that Bro. Russell declared seemed to look through him, said after a pause, "Oh, yes! You are the man with the New Theology." Then Bro. Russell asked him what he thought of those two booklets. He replied, "They contain some wonderful views, but are too advanced for the acceptance now of the American church people." We can learn several lessons from this story: (1) We often seek to do one thing for the Lord and He works something entirely different through our efforts. (2) The best of us are not qualified to select God's special servants, as such reject God's choice and choose otherwise. In this case, our 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

557 

Pastor's choice of Dr. Cook was not God's choice for what really proved to be the office of that Servant. God Himself chose Bro. Russell thereto, and he certainly presented the Truth better to the public than even Dr. Cook could have done. 

(16) We now return to our special study: David's taking his staff (v. 40) in his hand represents Bro. Russell's taking with power (hand) the Bible as his support in his conflict with evolution. The brook (v. 40) from which David took the five stones represents the Truth, while the five stones represent the following five Bible doctrines: (1) man's creation in perfection as the image and likeness of God; (2) man's fall into sin and ever-increasing degradation; (3) the ransom; (4) the high calling; and (5) restitution. The smoothness of the stones, caused by the water's running for a long time over them, represents the highly developed form that these doctrines took in Bro. Russell's mind as he continually applied the various Bible truths to them. The shepherd's bag (v. 40) represents the pastoral capacity that our Pastor had; and the scrip (v. 40) represents his mind, in which these truths were stored. A sling (v. 40) represents the question and answer method of argumentation. It was this method of argumentation that our Pastor chiefly used in his main writing against evolution, entitled, The Bible Versus the Evolution Theory. Having above defined the antitypes of spears and swords, we might here add that archers type those who in conversations use sharp sayings controversially against their opponents. Thus we see the antitypes of the four branches of service in King David's army. The sling being in David's hand (v. 40) represents his full control of the method of controversy by questions and answers. David's drawing near (v. 40) to Goliath represents our Pastor's advancing toward evolution for combat therewith. Evolution, in its writings, propaganda and effects (the Philistine came on and drew near, v. 41), 

The Parousia Messenger. 

558 

came closer and closer to Bro. Russell in his work. Especially was this the case through the main writers and lecturers of evolution, who were ever encroaching on the domains of the Truth by their activity (that bare the shield went before him, v. 41). 

(17) As Goliath, looking around, espied little David (v. 42) coming against him as an opponent, so evolution in its advocates espied Bro. Russell as advancing against it as an opponent. As Goliath disdained David as an opponent unworthy of his metal, because of his youth and his ruddy and fair countenance, so evolution disdained Bro. Russell as unworthy of its metal, David's youth representing Bro. Russell's lacks in secular training and his mental immaturity, and his ruddy and fair countenance representing Bro. Russell's clearness in the Truth and gentle and kindly manner of controversy, so different from that of the usual controversialist. In Bible symbols a dog (v. 43) represents a sectarian, because as dogs unreasoningly will bark and snarl, snap and bite at anyone doing or attempting to do an injury to their masters, however richly their masters deserve the threats or infliction of stripes, so sectarians unreasoningly spring to the defense of their sect and its leaders, despite their wrongs. Christian sects all appeal to the Bible (misunderstood, of course) in defense of their wrong positions. These considerations will enable us to understand the antitype of Goliath's disdainful question, "Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves?" (v. 43), i.e., You may meet with the Bible a Christian sectarian (dog), who claims to believe the Bible; but we evolutionists have progressed (evoluted) beyond that mouldy book, now out of date and behind the times. "Do not come to me with the Bible as argument, as though I were a sectarian. You must meet me with arguments based on nature, reason and logic! That is how my chief defenders and exponents Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, Spencer, Haeckel, Crosby, etc., argue, who are so much 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

559 

superior to you, Mr. Russell, in their use of reason, nature, logic and facts (he cursed [spoke evil to and of] him by his gods [mighty ones, Darwin, etc.]," v. 43). Then evolution, by its exponents, threatened Bro. Russell, if he would enter into combat with it (the Philistine said unto David, etc., v. 44), to leave him as symbolic carrion on the field of battle, i.e., refute him so thoroughly that no one would respect him enough to bury him as a debater (I will give thy flesh, etc., v. 44). The antitypical speech was, of course, pantomimed. 

(18) The speech of David, so full of fearlessness of Goliath's armor (thou comest to me with a sword, etc., v. 45), so full of faith in the Lord and the Lord's cause (vs. 45-47) and so full of devotion to the Lord's glory (that all the earth may know, etc. … that all this assembly may know, etc., vs. 46, 47), was antityped in pantomime. In his entering into the preparatory stages of his fight with evolution Bro. Russell feared not its controversial discourses (sword), its controversial writings (spear) and its defensive arguments (shield, v. 45). He had full faith that he stood in the conflict as the Lord's representative (I come to thee in the name of the Lord, v. 45) and as the champion of the living God's army, which evolution had defied (v. 45). Knowing that in the harvest time (this day) the Truth would triumph over all its opponents (Is. 54:17), he knew that he would emerge from the battle a victor by God's favor (the Lord will deliver thee into my hand, v. 46) and that he would strike it a stunning blow and take the whole theory (head, v. 46) of evolution out of its hands as his trophy, and would leave the carcass of all infidelity as carrion (to the fowls … to the wild beasts, v. 46), unfit for a decent burial. Not to his own praise would he do this, but that the whole human family might know that there is a mighty, yea, an almighty, one, who is on the side of antitypical Israel, and that He might be glorified as a result (a God in Israel, v. 46). Not only so, but both Christians and infidels 

The Parousia Messenger. 

560 

(this whole assembly, v. 47) would know that the Lord would not deliver by the ponderous controversial lectures and books (sword and spear, v. 47) of evolution; for this was a battle of the God of Truth against the god of error (Satan); hence the battle unto victory would be the Lord's and He would give the friends of the Bible the infidels as captives (give you into our hands, v. 47). 

(19) V. 48 shows how both of the duelists approached one another, the ponderous giant walking rather leisurely and David running eagerly to the fray, toward the Philistine army. So, too, evolution in its ponderous writings and discourses rather leisurely approached our Pastor, who in turn, eager for the fray, hastened toward the army of infidels to meet evolution. David's putting his hand into his bag (v. 49) represents our Pastor powerfully laying hold on the contents of his mind for the purpose at hand. David's taking from the bag a stone represents our Pastor laying hold of the ransom doctrine as the strongest and most fit argument against evolution. David's slinging the stone represents our Pastor using the ransom argument by the question and answer method of debating. David's smiting the Philistine (v. 49) in the forehead represents our Pastor striking evolution with the ransom argument in the very crucial part of its theory, Goliath's head representing the theory itself and is forehead the main feature of the theory, i.e., that the first man was but one step removed from a monkey. In the booklet, The Bible Versus the Evolution Theory, by questions and answers Bro. Russell used the ransom argument as follows: Divine Justice, which required an exact corresponding price for a debt, on the principle of "a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" (Deut. 19:21), hence a perfect life for a perfect life, required the perfect body, life, right to life and life-rights of Jesus for the debt of the first man. Hence the first man could

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

561 

not have been but a step above a monkey, but must have had a perfect human body, life, right to life and life-rights, else God's Justice would have unjustly exacted much more than an exact equivalent of the first man. But God's Justice never acts unjustly. Hence the first man must have been perfect in body, life, right to life and life-rights, since God justly required for him as a corresponding price the perfect human body, life, right to life and life-rights of Jesus. 

(20) This argument struck evolution in its forehead—the main feature of its theory, man's descent from a monkey. As the blow of David's stone was so forceful as to sink into Goliath's forehead, thus irreparably injuring it, so Bro. Russell's question and answer method of argument on the ransom as against evolution struck its main feature so forceful a blow as irreparably to have wounded and consequently killed it. And as David's blow stunned and then killed Goliath so that he fell face forward upon the earth unconscious, so Bro. Russell's blow with the ransom, argument stunned and refuted evolution into unconsciousness whereby it fell disgraced (face forward and down) to the earth in utter defeat. V. 50 sums up the statements of v. 49 by way of emphasis through repetition, adding the statement that by the sling and stone David slew Goliath. Hence special emphasis should be laid on the manner—the question and answer method of argumentation—by which Bro. Russell defeated in complete refutation (slew, v. 50) evolution. The things that David did afterward (v. 51) were indignities added to the slaying and heaped upon a boastful but fallen foe deservedly. The statement (v. 50) that there was no sword in David's hand types the fact that Bro. Russell's utter refutation of evolution was not by a controversial discourse. It was by the question and answer method of reasoning. David's running and standing upon Goliath (v. 51) represents Bro. Russell's speedy and further triumph over evolution; for in ancient times one's 

The Parousia Messenger. 

562 

triumphing over a foe was symbolized by his tramping upon him, even as the Church's victory over its four institutional foes—the papacy (the lion), the Satan system (the adder), the Federation of Churches (the young lion) and the civil power (the dragon)—is described in Ps. 91:13 as a treading upon, a trampling under feet. See also Gen. 3:15 and Rom. 16:20 (margin). He did this standing upon refuted evolution by his use against it of the other four doctrines mentioned above as the other four symbolic stones (truths). 

(21) He used the first of these—man's creation in perfection as God's image and likeness—against evolution as follows: If man was created in God's image perfect, man must then have been in a higher state than his present one. Hence the first man was not but one step removed from a monkey, nor has man since the first man been evoluting—progressing in gradual development—for he is now far removed from perfection physical, mental, moral and religious. He used the second of these five doctrines—man's fall into sin and degradation physical, mental, moral and religious—as follows: If the first man was one step removed from a monkey, and if he has been developing upward ever since, there could have been no fall into sin nor increasing degradation physical, mental, moral and religious. But human history is replete with evidences of man's increasing degradation. He used the fourth of the five involved doctrines—the high calling—against evolution as follows: The only exception to the rule of mankind's progressive degradation is the experience of the saints who overcome by God's grace the corruption (degradation) that is upon the world through lust (2 Pet. 1:4). These, at the sacrifice—not evolution—of their humanity, are undergoing a development toward perfection mental, moral and religious, not, however, in the sense of evolution's survival of the fittest and natural selection, but by the operation of spiritual laws, to which God's grace enables saints to render obedience, which, of course, also is refutative of 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

563 

evolution. And, finally, he used the fifth—restitution—of the five above-mentioned truths (the five symbolic stones) against evolution as follows: The Bible holds out restitution as man's glorious hope for the future. If the original man was but one step removed from a monkey restitution would be, instead of a great favor, one of the greatest possible curses and evils for man; for it would make him become but one step removed from a monkey, if evolution on man's original state were true. But the Bible holds out restitution as the greatest possible blessing for mankind. Hence evolution must be false. Thus by the use of these four of the five involved doctrines Bro. Russell stood upon evolution in triumph. 

(22) Goliath's sword types evolution's discourses in which it stressed its main arguments for man's supposed development. These were evidences of progress in knowledge, invention, works of mercy and utility, discovery, means of communication, etc., that marked the nineteenth century above all preceding ones. To these evolution pointed in its lectures (sword) as the most positive proof that mankind was evoluting physically, mentally, morally and religiously. These very arguments Bro. Russell turned against evolution and thus took its theory away from it with its own discourse points (cut off Goliath's head with his own sword, v. 51). He showed that these inventions, etc., were not due to man's evoluting, but to superhuman causes—Millennial foregleams whereby God was preparing to overthrow Satan's empire and establish God's kingdom. He pointed out that these things proved, not an increase of man's capacity, but an increase of the use of diminished capacities and an increase of opportunity, that only a few of the race were great inventors, thinkers, reformers, etc., and that these did not impart such qualities to their offspring, as the history of great inventors, reformers and thinkers proves. If evolution were true, the offspring of Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, Spencer, Haeckel, Shakespeare, Milton, Luther, Lincoln, 

The Parousia Messenger. 

564 

etc., should have excelled them, which certainly is not the case; for the offspring of geniuses are almost invariably mediocre in caliber. He used the facts that, apart from the superhuman causes for the progress since 1799, when the day of the Lord's preparation set in, the accomplishments of the preceding centuries in architecture, poetry, prose, painting, sculpture, eloquence and inductive and deductive reasoning were superior to any examples of which the 19th and 20th centuries could boast. Thus with evolution's own main lecture arguments Bro. Russell cut off its head—took its theory away from it by its own points. 

(23) As in the case of David's victory (v. 51) the Philistine host was disheartened and fled and the typical Israelites and Judahites were encouraged and pursued the fleeing Philistines, so all branches of infidelity, when they recognized that the champion of infidelity was overthrown by Bro. Russell, became disheartened and retreated from the field of debate, while the antitypical Israelites (defenders of the Bible outside the Truth) and the antitypical Judahites (defenders of the Bible in the Truth) were greatly encouraged and pursued in debate the retreating hosts of infidelity. In these debates the warriors for the Bible took the aggressive (shouted, etc.), crushed the infidel arguments and put their supporters to flight (v. 52). Ekron means extinction and Gath means winepress. Shaaraim means two gates. The pursuit was northward as far as Ekron, eastward as far as Gath and southward as far as Shaaraim. The thought in the antitype seems to be that the pursuit was to some unto extinction of their arguments (Ekron), to others to a crushing to their arguments (Gath, winepress, where grapes are crushed) and to still others to a double overthrow of their arguments (Shaaraim, two gates). The antitypical pursuit was manifest in the production of an immense number of anti-infidel books, lectures, debates, sermons and conversations. The fourteen above-mentioned authors—five from Germany, five from England

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

565 

and four from America—are only a few of the outstanding pursuers of the hosts of infidels who were certainly either utterly defeated or crushed or doubly overthrown in the ensuing controversy. Certainly, as the second sifting shows, infidelity received an irremedial defeat at the hands of Christian apologists. Not only so, but all their points were taken away from them and turned on them in this fight, as the books and lectures on the pertinent subjects show (the children of Israel … spoiled their tents, v. 53). We are not to understand that David immediately took Goliath's head (v. 54) to Jerusalem; for it was not taken from the Jebusites until many years later. Rather we are to understand that he kept Goliath's head, perhaps embalmed or reduced to a bare set of bones until after Jerusalem was taken, when he deposited it there, perhaps with some other trophies of his numerous victories. Antitypically, Bro. Russell kept the theory of evolution in his power and deposited it among his trophies in his sphere of rulership. David's keeping Goliath's armor in his tent seems to represent that Bro. Russell kept the defensive and offensive weapons of evolution among his debating equipment for refutative uses from time to time. Let us remember that such refutative uses lasted until after the outbreak of the World War in 1914. 

(24) The story of David and Goliath, so far as the chapter under study is concerned, ends with a triumphant presentation of Israel's champion to Israel's king by the commander-in-chief of Israel's army, Abner (father of light). Abner seems to represent the polemical theological professors, who certainly have been the controversial leaders of the Bible's defenders. The fourteen whom we mentioned before were such. Saul's question to Abner (v. 55), Whose son is this youth? types the inquiry of certain of the crown-lost princes, among them Dr. Cook, as to from what theological university Bro. Russell was a graduate. Abner's answer (v. 55) types the solemn assurance that the polemical

The Parousia Messenger. 

566 

theological professors gave of the fact that none of them knew from what theological university he graduated, which implies that he was not such a graduate, though in the type so far studied this thought was not yet given. Saul's request that Abner should find out whose son the young champion was (v. 56) types the fact that the crown-lost princes desired, and therefore requested of the polemical theological professors, to find out from which theological university Bro. Russell was a graduate. David's returning from the slaughter of Goliath (v. 57) types Bro. Russell's return from the battle with evolution. While he was so doing the theological professors took him, not personally, but representatively, i.e., as he was found in his writings, to the crown-lost princes, even as Abner took David to and before Saul (v. 57). The scene at the meeting of David and Saul was a memorable one. There stood the giant Saul, who was about seven feet tall, while David appears to have been only of an average height, five feet nine inches, perhaps. There stood little David looking up with greatly upturned head into Saul's inquiring and wondering eyes. And in David's hand, dangling by its hair, was the enormous head of Goliath, a most impressive though gruesome trophy of bravery and victory. In the antitype we are not to understand that there was a personal meeting between the crown-lost princes and Bro. Russell, mediated by the polemical theological professors. Rather, the last brought Bro. Russell's pertinent writings to the crown-lost princes' attention and these from them recognized that the theory of evolution (Goliath's head) was in Bro. Russell's power. 

(25) As Saul asked David, Whose son art thou? (v. 58), so the crown-lost princes asked Bro. Russell in his writings this question. As they studied his pertinent writings, especially his Bible versus the Evolution Theory, they got from them the thought antitypical of David's answer to Saul's question—I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite, i.e., from his writings they got the answer that he was the graduate of 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

567 

no theological school, but was a member of God's people, and that an undenominational Bible student—a Bethlehemite—a Bibleite; for in the School of Christ, in which the Bible is the book of texts, he found the Bible and the Bible alone to be the source and rule of doctrine, practice and organization for God's faithful people. What a fitting close in its humility and force to both the type and the antitype the answers of God's Beloved were! 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) How many functions were there in the office of that Servant? What proves each of these? As what does David not represent that Servant? What exception is there to this rule? Why? In what event is there such a mingling? What proves this? Whom do the Philistines represent in general? What will determine the kind of sectarians meant? What kind of sectarians do they represent in 1 Sam. 17? What are the chief sects among infidels? What kind of sectarians do the Philistines represent elsewhere? For example whom? 

(2) What do the men of Judah represent in 1 Sam. 17? The men of Israel? Saul? This war between Israel and the Philistines? What does Shochoh of Judah mean and type? Azekah? The battle line from Shochoh to Azekah? Ephes-dammim? Saul's and the men of Israel's being gathered together in the valley of Elah? The Philistines arrayed on one mountain? The Israelites on the other? The valley between? Summed up, what does v. 3 teach antitypically? 

(3) What do the words Goliath and Gath mean? What did Goliath stand forth as, and represent? According to the secular cubit what was his height? Why does the secular and not the sacred cubit here apply? What is represented by his great height? How does Mr. Darwin rank among the world's great men? What does Goliath's armor represent? His helmet? His coat of mail? Its weight? Its greaves? His target? His spear? His spear's head? Its weight? His shield? The one who bore it? His sword? What likely outweighed his coat of mail? What was the probable weight of his whole armor? What did its weight type? What is typed by the numbers in Goliath's height? By the numbers in the weight of his coat of mail and his spear-head?

The Parousia Messenger. 

568 

(4) What is the subject of vs. 8-10? How was the antitypical challenge not given? Why not? How was it given? How did evolution in its advocates feel, and not feel, as to the necessary extent of the pertinent discussion? Why so? What does Goliath's challenge type? What was the effect, type and antitype, of the challenge? Why did it have this effect in the antitype? 

(5) What is the subject of vs. 12-20? What does the word David mean? What is typed by its meaning? What do the words Ephrathite, Bethlehem and Judah mean? What is typed by the meaning of Ephrathite? Of Bethlehem? Of Judah? What is implied antitypically by David's being a son of Jesse? In general, what is typed by the eight sons of Jesse? What does age represent in Bible figures? How does Zech. 8:4 prove this? What is typed by Jesse being counted an old man in Saul's days? Whom do the three oldest sons of Jesse, generally speaking, type? What does the word Eliab mean? Whom does he type? What does the word Abinadab mean? Whom does he type? What does the word Shammah mean? Whom does he type? To whom do the fourth, fifth and sixth sons correspond? How do we get this thought as to the pre-Epiphany crown-losers, despite the fact that there was no Great Company as such before the Epiphany? Whom does the seventh son of Jesse type? The eighth? What is typed by the three eldest following Saul? 

(6) What is taught and then typed in 1 Sam. 16:18-23? What as typed in v. 18 marked Bro. Russell from 1872 to 1874? What as typed in vs. 21-23 marked him from 1874 to 1876? To what does 1 Sam. 17:15 antitypically refer? To what time especially? What did he then especially do? In David's case when did his return to Bethlehem occur? In Bro. Russell's case when did the return to antitypical Bethlehem occur? How was the progress of evolution's aggressiveness marked chronologically? When did it first attract our Pastor's attention? What do the 40 days of v. 16 type? On what day did the typical fight occur? How is this not to be understood antitypically? Why not? For what reasons is the typical fight referred to as occurring on the 40th day? How does the type, accordingly, present the picture? What is typed by the challenge being given morning and evening during the 40 days? 

(7) When did the antitype of vs. 17-19 occur? What 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

569 

is typed by the ephah of parched corn? By the ten loaves? By the ten cheeses? What was Bro. Russell's course as to these three pieces of literature? What is typed by Jesse encouraging David to take the food to his brethren? By his charging David to inquire for his brothers' welfare? By his charging David to take their pledge? What fixes the time of the antitypical charge? When was it? Why then? What other fact fixes this time? When, accordingly, did the antitype of vs. 17-19 set in? What kind of persons engaged in this fight? Name five of these in Germany, five of these in Britain and four of these in America. 

(8) When did Bro. Russell in antitype of v. 20 begin to circulate the special Tower articles as tracts and Food For Thinking Christians? What are typed by the sheep of v. 20? The keeper of v. 20? David's doing what Jesse charged him to do? To what did this activity bring him? At what juncture? What had the two opposing hosts done by 1881? How did the separate divisions of the two armies face each other? In what did this result? How long? What is meant by David's carriage? What is typed by his leaving it with the keeper of the carriage? What did these do with it? What is represented by David's running into the army? By his greeting his brethren there? 

(9) What is typed by Goliath's coming forth while David talked with his brothers? What was the character of evolution's attitude and activities? What is typed by David's hearing Goliath's challenge? What effect did this challenge have, type and antitype? How are the type and antitype not, and how are they to be understood? Why? What is typed by the Israelitish soldiers discussing Goliath? What was the contents of the discussion in type and antitype? What did they say, type and antitype, as to the reward of Goliath's slayer? 

(10) What, among others, were two of Bro. Russell's qualities? What resulted therefrom? How did he regard the resultant condition? What did this lead him to think? What attitude did these feelings lead him to assume? How did that attitude impress Bible defenders? Of what are these considerations the antitype? What is the antitype of David's second question in v. 26? How comparatively did the people answer David? What is the antitype of this? How does the preceding discussion impress us? 

(11) What is the character of the facts underlying the 

The Parousia Messenger. 

570 

suggested antitype of Eliab? Why so? What is typed by Eliab's hearing David's questions? How did Bro. Russell's presence among Bible defenders impress the clergy? Why? What is antitypically implied in Eliab's first question? In his second question? Why, among other reasons, did the clergy despise Bro. Russell? As what did they despise the symbolic sheep? What is the antitypical significance of the wilderness here? Of what did the clergy accuse Bro. Russell? How did they regard his purpose as to the battle? 

(12) Why was David's answer to the point? Why had he done no wrong in coming to the army? What are the antitypes of these points? What was David's other question? Why was it to the point? What is the antitype of these things? What justified Bro. Russell's presence to the army? And that comparatively? What did the typical and antitypical answers do to the accuser? What is typed by David's turning away from Eliab to another? How did his attitude continue? And the people's answer? What thought did David's assurance give the people? What resulted therefrom? What is the antitype of these things? What was the condition of the typical and antitypical Saul? What resulted therefrom? 

(13) What will here be related as the antitype of the conversation between David and Saul? From whom and under what circumstances did the writer hear this bit of history? What did these two brothers often tell each other in private? According to the story, what did Bro. Russell seek? On whom did he finally decide as the fitting person? Why? Of whom was Dr. Cook doubtless a part? After Bro. Russell decided on him, where did the latter go to lecture? With what did Bro. Russell call upon him? What was Dr. Cook then seeking? What experiences did Bro. Russell tell Dr. Cook? How did Bro. Russell (unconsciously) fulfill the antitype of v. 32? How did Dr. Cook listen to Bro. Russell's narrative? What conclusion did he draw therefrom? What did this lead him to remark? How did this antitype Saul's remarks of v. 33? What did this lead our Pastor to say? How did his answer antitype vs. 34-36? 

(14) How did not and how did our Pastor tell these things? How was he heard by Dr. Cook? What other assurance did he give Dr. Cook? How did this antitype the statements of v. 36? Why so? What facts gave Bro.

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

571 

Russell all the more assurance on this head? How do Ex. 32:26-28; Josh. 10:10-14 and Is. 28:21 prove the fact that the harvest time was the time of the Lord's presence to overthrow all error? What assurance in antitype of v. 37 did Bro. Russell further give Dr. Cook? What is the antitype of Saul's charge and wish in v. 37? What is the antitype of Saul's arming David with his own armor? Of David's putting it off as unsuited to him? 

(15) Though not a part of the antitype, why are the rest of the dealings of Bro. Russell and Dr. Cook with each other here given? What did Bro. Russell give Dr. Cook after the conversation above outlined as the antitype of vs. 32-39? With what request? What did Dr. Cook promise to do? What did he do years later? What did Bro. Russell again do to him? What did Bro. Russell ask him on their meeting again? How did Bro. Russell describe Dr. Cook's eyes? What did Dr. Cook then do and say? What did Bro. Russell ask him? What was Dr. Cook's reply? What is the first lesson that we can learn from this bit of history? The second? How is this second lesson shown in this experience? Whose choice was vindicated by the outcome? 

(16) What is typed by David's taking his staff in his hand? What is typed by the brook of v. 40? What does each of the five stones that David selected represent? What does their smoothness represent? The shepherd's bag? The scrip? What does a sling represent in Bible symbols? In what did our Pastor chiefly use this method of debating? What do archers type? What are, therefore, the typical significances of the weapons of the four branches of David's army? What is typed by the sling being in David's hand? By David's drawing near Goliath? What is typed in v. 41 by Goliath's coming ever closer to David? How was this especially done? 

(17) What is typed by Goliath's espying little David coming to fight him? By Goliath's disdaining David for his youth and his ruddy and fair countenance? What do dogs signify in Bible symbols? Why? To what do all professed Christian sects appeal as authority for their views? What will these considerations help us to understand in Goliath's question, Am I a dog, etc.? In the light of the foregoing, what does his question imply as to his opinion 

The Parousia Messenger. 

572 

of the Bible? What is typed by Goliath's cursing David by his gods? What threat did evolution make in antitype of Goliath's threat to David? How was the speech of Goliath antityped? 

(18) What three qualities filled David's answer? How in general were they antityped? How in particular did each of these three qualities show itself in antitype? 

(19) What does v. 48 show, type and antitype? What is typed by David's putting his hand into his bag? By his taking therefrom a stone? By David's smiting Goliath in the forehead as distinct from the other part of his head? How does Bro. Russell use the ransom argument in the booklet, The Bible Versus the Evolution Theory? 

(20) What did this argument do to evolution? What is typed by David's stone sinking into Goliath's forehead? By its stunning and killing him? By his falling on his face to the earth? Why does v. 50 sum up the thoughts of v. 49? What does it add to the statements of v. 49? What does this imply as to the antitype? What is the nature of David's acts given in v. 51? What is typed by the statement of v. 50, that there was no sword in David's hand, but that he slew Goliath by a sling and a stone? What is typed by David's running and standing upon Goliath? What was the ancient way of symbolizing a victory over a foe? What four institutional foes of the Church are symbolized in Ps. 91:13? What do these symbols severally represent? By what language is the Church's victory over these symbolized? How do Gen. 3:15 and Rom. 16:20 show this thought as to the victory over Satan? What do these passages help us to see as to the type of David's standing on Goliath? How did Bro. Russell do this symbolic standing on evolution? 

(21) What is the first of these doctrines? How did he use it against evolution? What was the second of these? How did he use it against evolution? What was the fourth of these? How did he use it against evolution? What was the fifth of these? How did he use it against evolution? What did his so using these four doctrines enable him to do? 

(22) What does Goliath's sword represent? What kind of an argument of evolution did its antitype give? Of what did this argument consist? What did evolution claim for these facts? What is the antitype of David's cutting 

Antitypical David and Goliath. 

573 

off Goliath's head with his own sword? How did Bro. Russell use the involved facts against evolution? What did he claim that they proved of man's capacity? Were there many great inventors, thinkers and reformers? What did these not do with their qualities as to their offspring? What effect did this have on the theory of evolution? What did he show as to former centuries' achievements, compared with those of the 19th and 20th centuries? In what did his use of these points result? 

(23) What is the antitype of the dismay and flight of the Philistines at Goliath's death, and the encouragement and pursuit of the Israelites and Judahites? What, as a result, did the antitypical Israelites and Judahites do to the hosts of infidelity? What do the words Ekron, Shaaraim and Gath mean? What is typed by the discomfiture of the Philistines unto these three places? Wherein was the antitypical pursuit manifested? How did the fourteen men mentioned above compare with other antitypical Israelitish pursuers? What was the effect on the infidel hosts? What does the second sifting show on this point? What is the antitype of the Israelites' returning and spoiling the Philistines' tents? What are we not to understand as to David's taking Goliath's head to Jerusalem? Why not? What is the antitype of this? What is typed by David's keeping Goliath's armor in his tent? How long were such uses employed? 

(24) With what episode does the story of David and Goliath end? What does the word Abner mean? Whom does he type? Who are examples of Abner? What is typed by Saul's question, Whose son is this youth? What is typed by Abner's answer? What is typed by Saul's charge that Abner inquire as to whose son David was? What is typed by David's returning from the slaughter of Goliath? How did the theological professors not introduce Bro. Russell to the crown-lost princes? How did they do so? Describe the scene of David before Saul. What is the antitype of these things? 

(25) What is typed by Saul's asking David, Whose son art thou? How did antitypical Saul get the answer? What is typed by the answer, the son of Jesse? The Bethlehemite? What may be said of the typical and the antitypical David's answer?