PRENATAL EXPERIENCES. BIRTH AND BOYHOOD. EVIL PRIESTS. EARLY ACTIVITIES AS PROPHET. THE FIRST BATTLE. THE SECOND BATTLE. 

‍

WE WILL, as the first part of this book, study the first 15 chapters of 1 Sam., and that under the following two titles: (1) Samuel—Type and Antitype (1 Sam. 1—8), and (2) Samuel and Saul—type and Antitype (1 Sam. 9—15). Accordingly, in this and the following chapter we will study the first subject, and, after finishing it, we will study the second subject in the third chapter, God willing and prospering our study. As elsewhere indicated, our typical expositions will be made terser than those usually hitherto given. Otherwise we will be unable to accomplish the Lord's will for the Epiphany messenger, that he explain everything in the Bible not explained by the Parousia messenger. We will not find the Samuel antitype to follow throughout a progressive, chronological sequence of events. Rather, the first 15 chapters of the book give us, especially in its first eight chapters, a series of Gospel-Age pictures of certain events more or less disconnected chronologically from one another, though more or less connected in general lines of thought. Thus the events of 1 Sam. 1 and 2 give us a chronological picture of certain related events, more or less separate and distinct from those that follow. As we go on we will point out in each case the changes from one to the other set of pictures. The general setting of 1 Sam. 1 and 2 will first be given. It treats of the elect classes, especially of the Little Flock, in the end of the Age. The antitype in general outlines is like that of Jacob, his wives and his children, with certain differences to bring out thoughts not found in the Jacob 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

8 

picture. In this story, generally speaking, Elkanah corresponds to Jacob, Peninnah to Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah, and Hannah to Rachel, with certain elaborations not found in the Rachel picture. We have seen that in his family matters Jacob types the Gospel-Age star-members and their special helpers; Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah certain truths and the servants who applied them to the members of the ten denominational groups of Christendom; Rachel the elective truths and the servants who applied them to the Little Flock and the Great Company in the end of the Age—the Parousia and the Epiphany; Joseph the Little Flock in the Parousia movement and Benjamin the Great Company in the Epiphany movement. In the Hannah picture Samuel is made to correspond with Joseph in the Rachel picture, Hannah's other three sons (1 Sam. 2:21) to the Great Company in its three divisions and Hannah's two daughters to the Youthful Worthies in their two groups, those in the Epiphany movement, who will, if faithful, be the Millennial Shimite Gershonites, and those among the Levite Truth movements, who will, if they cleanse themselves and then prove faithful, be the Millennial Libnite Gershonites. Thus we see that while Rachel types the spiritual elective truths and the servants that apply them to the two spiritual elect classes in the end of the Age, Hannah additionally types the earthly elective truths and the servants that apply them to the earthly elect class, the Youthful Worthies developed in the end of the Age, i.e., from 1881 onward. The Jacob, etc., and the Elkanah, etc., types are a splendid example of how God gives His truths, here a little and there a little, thus making various Scriptures, while giving certain lines of Truth in common, supplement one another by giving varying details, which, of course, are not contradictions. So far an outline of the antitypes of 1 Sam. 1 and 2. Now to general, not particular details. 

(2) The star-members and their special assistants (Elkanah, God-acquired, 1) throughout the Gospel 

Samuel. 

9 

Age from early in the Smyrna period (70-313 A.D.) onward, have been prominent in both the real and the nominal church (Ramathaim, two, heights) as watchmen (Zophim, watchers) in both Zions (mount Ephraim, doubly fruitful), in the interest of God's real and nominal people. They had the qualities (son … son … son … son) of being shown love, i.e., experienced God's love in providence, redemption, instruction, justification, sanctification and deliverance (Jeroham, he is loved), of being strong in grace, knowledge and service (Elihu, he is strong, or he is a god), of being humble (Tohu, lowly), of being the bearer of good tidings (Zuph, honeycomb) and of especial efficiency (Ephrathite, one doubly fruitful). They were made the steward of two sets of truths and of the servants who applied them to their respective subjects (he had two wives, 2). The character and nature (name) of the first of these sets of truths and its appliers were grace (Hannah, grace, favor). The character and nature (name) of the second of these sets of truths and its appliers were strength and brilliance (Peninnah, coral, pearl). The second set of truths and its appliers had produced and developed from the Smyrna period unto the end of the Philadelphia period the ten, or twelve, denominational groups (had children) of Christendom: the Greek Catholic, the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran, the Calvinistic, the Baptist, the Unitario-Universalist, the Episcopal, the Methodist, the Christian (Campbellite) and the Adventist Church. It will be noted that under the Jacob picture the Congregational Church is included in the Calvinistic Church, while the Fanatical Sects are regarded not as sects, but as individuals fanatically disposed in all of the ten denominational groups of Christendom, though in the tabernacle's camp picture these two as denominational groups are set forth as the antitypes of the Manasseh and Benjamin tribes respectively. While thus antitypical Peninnah had as children the ten, or twelve, denominational groups (it will be noted that 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

10 

their number is not indicated, except suggestively or indirectly in 2, 4, 8, hence they may be viewed from either of the above viewpoints), antitypical Hannah had produced and developed neither a denomination nor a permanent movement (had no children). 

(3) The star-members, as God's special servants, started, and they and their special assistants developed (this man went up, 3) all twelve movements, that were later perverted into sects, by their services (worship) and sacrifices (sacrifice) among God's nominal people (Shiloh, quiet, not active or zealous). Their services and sacrifices were in connection with the ten (or twelve) stewardship doctrines, by which they started and developed the ten (or twelve) movements that were later by the crown-lost leaders perverted into the above-mentioned ten (or twelve) denominational groups. These they did not start or originate in certain equal, regular, periods of time, as the facts prove, but from time to time at irregular intervals (yearly, year by year, 3, 7). And to do these things they had to leave the movement or denomination in which they previously were (out of his city). Their services and sacrifices were not in the interests of sectarianism, as were those of the crown-lost princes, but unto the Lord directly (unto the Lord). The period covered by such services and sacrifices was that in which the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches in their clergy (Hophni, fighter, in allusion to the contentiousness of the Greek and Roman clergy) and the Protestant Churches in their clergy (Phinehas, brazen mouth, in allusion to their strong teachings) functioned as the subordinates of the crown-lost princes (Eli, high, in allusion to the exalted position of the crown-lost princes in each of the denominations). Hence this period of service and sacrifice started in the Smyrna period, during which the Greek Catholic Church started and began its further development, and extends up to the present. The sacrifices and services that developed the Parousia Little Flock movement 

Samuel. 

11 

and the Epiphany Great Company and Youthful Worthy movements take place toward the end of the functioning of the Catholic and Protestant clergy, as will be brought out later. These clergy classes are called priests of the Lord (priests of the Lord), more particularly as referring to their services as the denominational mouthpieces of the nominal church, as God's mouthpiece, before 1878, when with the nominal church they ceased being such. 

(4) At each of these periods of service and sacrifice (when the time was that Elkanah offered, 4), i.e., at the time after the starting and developing of the ten (or twelve) Little Flock movements set in, as each was perverted into a denomination the star-members and their special assistants gave to the truths and to the servants that applied these to the pertinent sectarians (Peninnah) the doctrine (portions) that became the stewardship doctrine of the pertinent denominational group, and thus in all gave such to all the ten (or twelve) denominational groups, both to the greater and stronger (sons) and to the lesser and weaker (daughters). But to the truths that developed the ten (or twelve) Little Flock movements of the Gospel Age and the servants who applied and apply these to the participants in these movements (antitypical Hannah), the star-members and their special assistants gave at each time of such services and sacrifices more than to antitypical Peninnah (a worthy portion, 5; literally, one of two faces, favors, i.e., while more or less perversions set in the stewardship doctrine, as each denomination received and used its own, the Little Flock movements' developing truths and their servants got not only what the denomination received, but more—all ten [or twelve] truths free from the denominational perversions, and such additional truths as were confined to the ten [or twelve] Little Flock movements). But throughout the Age, until the Parousia, antitypical Hannah was not given by God the power to produce a permanent Little Flock movement 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

12 

(Jehovah had shut up her womb). Antitypical Peninnah (her adversary), by her persecutions of every Little Flock movement which preceded its perversion into a denomination, by her scorning the day of little things, characteristic of every Little Flock movement, by her mocking the Little Flock brethren associated with the Little Flock movements and by her perverting such movements into sectarian systems, sorely distressed antitypical Hannah (provoked her sore, 6), and thus accomplished her design to make antitypical Hannah fret (fret; literally, tremble), which certainly occurred (Is. 54:11, 15-17), because the Lord did not in the interim between the Harvests prosper antitypical Hannah's movements with permanence (because the Lord had shut up her womb). 

(5) As the star-members, their special helpers cooperating, served and sacrificed among the nominal people of God (he did so, 7), in one Little Flock movement after another (year by year) the Little Flock servants other than the 70 [35 star-members and 35 special helpers] co-operated with the latter in such movements (she went up to the house of the Lord). But in each of such movements antitypical Peninnah exercised her opposition to antitypical Hannah (provoked her). This oppositional course caused antitypical Hannah much grief (therefore she wept); and she did not appropriate the blessings that her privileges in those Little Flock movements offered her (did not eat). The star-members and their special helpers (Elkanah, 8), noting this grief and abstinence from appropriating such blessings on antitypical Hannah's part, inquired the reason. This occurred as troubles involved each of the ten (or twelve) Little Flock movements; for the star-members and their special helpers saw their faithful co-operators' grief, disappointment and failure to count their blessings (why … why … why). Then they suggested a blessing (am not I better to thee) that was by antitypical Hannah overlooked and that was more valuable than the 

Samuel. 

13 

possession of all ten denominational groups combined (ten sons), possessed by antitypical Peninnah. After the last truth, the one on Chronology given in the Miller movement, had in its easier and harder parts been appropriated (eaten … and … drunk, 9) by the tenth (or twelfth) denomination (in Shiloh), the Adventists, antitypical Hannah arose from the dust of Babylon (Is. 52:2), and as a cleansed sanctuary class stood apart from Babylon, yet mingled more or less among the nominal people of God (in Shiloh). Her more or less severed stand was during the exercise of the rule (seat; literally, throne) of the crown-lost princes (Eli, high), who as the crown-lost leaders of the various denominations were in prominence as such at the entrance (post; literally, door post) of the nominal church (temple of the Lord; the temple proper was not built until about 145 years later, in the times of Solomon; and the temple here referred to was a structure that had been erected in such a way as completely to enclose and cover the tabernacle and hide its exterior from view, even as the true Church was within, and its normal visible parts were hidden from view through its being within, the nominal church up until the Parousia). 

(6) The Little Flock's Truth servants, apart from its then star-member (Bro. Miller) and his special helper (Bro. Wolf of England, or Bro. Hines of America, we are not sure which), in the cleansed sanctuary suffered much distress because their efforts seemed fruitless (she was in bitterness of soul, 10). And what else should they have done than to have repaired to the Throne of Grace (prayed unto the Lord), and poured out in tears and sighs their plaint to the Father of all mercies (wept sore). These in their prayers gave God a solemn promise (vowed a vow, 11), in most intense, most humble and repeated pleadings for pitying consideration (if Thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of Thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget Thine handmaid), asking to 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

14 

be favored with bringing into being a permanent Little Flock movement (wilt give Thine handmaid a man child), and promising to devote it perpetually to the Lord (I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life) and to regard and treat it as an antitypical Nazarite (there shall no razor come upon his head), in allusion to the fact that the movement would be like an antitypical Nazarite, in that in no way would it through unfaithfulness deprive itself or permit itself to be deprived of its special powers as the mouthpiece of the Lord. This prayer was one of act, as well as desire and words, these faithful ones ardently working (which is a prayer of act, as distinct from one of words) to arouse such a movement. This made them also set forth the character that they thought such a movement should have. These ardent prayers, yearnings and teachings (continued praying; literally, multiplied praying, 12) occasioned the crown-lost leaders to direct special attention to their teachings (Eli marked her mouth). Their speech was most hearty (Hannah, she spake in her heart, 13); and they uttered only doctrines (only her lips moved), but their pertinent doctrines were not understood by the crown-lost princes (voice was not heard); and as a result the latter thought the former were drunken with error (Eli thought she had been drunken). The crown-lost leaders denounced them as errorists (Eli said … How long wilt thou be drunken? 14), and exhorted them to give up their errors (put away thy wine from thee). They alluded to their being long drunken, because these yearning souls were recognized by the crown-lost leaders as having been in the Miller movement, which then, between 1846 and 1874, was universally considered by the nominal church as an erroneous movement of fools and fanatics. 

(7) These faithful souls very respectfully denied the charge of being long in error, or of being in error at all (Hannah answered … No, my lord, 15). Then they opened their hearts to the crown-lost leaders,

Samuel. 

15 

as hearts sharply pained by sorrow (I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit). Again, they denied that they were cherishing any error (I have drunk neither), small (wine) or great (strong drink). They said that their heart's desires and works were poured out as a prayer before the Lord (but I have poured out my soul before the Lord). They did not desire the crown-lost princes to regard them as evil or worthless, and therefore asked that they do not so regard them (count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial [wickedness, or worthlessness], 16), and therefore gave a picture of the real condition of their full hearts and words (out of the abundance of my complaint and grief [literally, provocation] have I spoken), as one in deep need of the Lord's favor and help. We are not to forget that the crown-lost leaders, despite the fact of their loss of their crowns, were earnest, zealous and kindly-disposed consecrated men of God, as this is pictured forth in the reply of Eli, their type (said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition, 17). Indeed, it was quite creditable of their piety and tolerance that they could wish the sorely distressed faithful ones their petition, whose exact nature was unknown to them. They would not perhaps have been so kindly disposed in the matter, had they understood the nature of the prayer; for its answer implied something against them, as recognized leaders of God's people. Their kindly-disposed exhortation (Go in peace) and their good wish (the God of Israel grant thee thy petition) heartened the Little Flock servants (Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight, 18) since the latter highly respected the former, and thus desired their favor; for it is most natural to desire the favor of great ones whom one respects. After these assurances these longing ones (Ps. 107:5, 9) felt more of resignation, comfort, assurance and peace (went her way, 18). They appropriated to themselves the promises that at that time the Lord was opening up to His Faithful, as they were nearing 1874 (See Antitypical 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

16 

David's First Appearance, EI, 507-540), and became full of expectant joy (did eat, and her countenance was no more sad). Hope makes the heart joyous. 

(8) The star-member (Bro. Russell) and his special helpers (the five pilgrims who successively became his special helpers: Bros. Barbour and Paton, Sr. Russell, Bro. McPhail and J.) and the rest of the Little Flock servants entered into the Harvest activity early in the Harvest day (they rose up in the morning early, and worshiped before the Lord, 19). Then they began to give their attention to the Little Flock especially (came to their house to Ramah [height; not here Ramathaim, double height, because the antitypes had by now left Babylon, the second of the two heights]). So occupied, Bro. Russell and the five in their succession, on the one hand, and the rest of the Little Flock, on the other hand, became of one heart and mind in the work of producing the Parousia Little Flock movement (Elkanah knew Hannah, his wife), and God remembered their heart's longing prayer, work and vow and granted it in preparing the way for such a movement (the Lord remembered her). In due time, through God's interposition, this movement was brought into being (wherefore … she bare a son, 20) and developed into the greatest and only permanent Little Flock movement of the Age. No wonder that antitypical Hannah regarded it as standing for the character and honor of God (called his name Samuel, name of God, not as many mistakenly render it, heard of God). It could be so regarded, because it came into being in answer to a prayer that it might exemplify the character of God, and reflect honor upon him (because I have asked him of the Lord). During the Parousia Bro. Russell and the five above-mentioned pilgrims successively (Elkanah, 21) and the rest of God's people in the Truth (and all his house) appeared before the real and nominal people to carry out their consecration and their sacrifice unto the Lord in the Harvest work (went up to offer unto the Lord … sacrifice and his vow) in a 

Samuel. 

17 

more or less public manner, i.e., engaged in work toward the public. But some of the Little Flock devoted their attention to the care of the new ones coming into the Truth for their development unto fitness for the public work (Hannah went not up … said … not go up, until the child be weaned, 22). After these would develop such unto fitness for public work, they would with such partake in that form of service (I will bring him … before the Lord, and there abide for ever, continually). Thus the two sides of the Harvest work are brought to our attention: (1) that toward the public; and (2) that toward the brethren. Bro. Russell and the five above-mentioned pilgrims successively were agreed to this course on antitypical Hannah's part (Elkanah … said … Do what seemeth thee good … the Lord establish His word, 23). 

(9) Thus the Little Flock servants in their capacity of ministering to the babes nourished these with the sincere milk of the Word, that they might grow thereby unto fitness of entering the sphere of work toward the public as a part of the Parousia Little Flock movement (gave her son suck), and continued to prepare them for such work until they were fit for it (until she weaned him, which in Oriental countries does not occur with a first-born until the child is five years old). After such servants of the Truth had well prepared the Little Flock members for the public Harvest work (had weaned him, 24), they brought those whom they had prepared for such a service (took him up with her … unto the house of the Lord in Shiloh) before the public, for these to engage in that service. They brought them in faith in the merit of Christ as sufficient to satisfy God's justice (one of the bullocks), as that which manifested God's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice on behalf of the Church (the second bullock) and as that which makes the Church's sacrifice and vows acceptable to God (the third bullock). They appeared, preaching the harder things of the Truth (one ephah of flour) and the simpler things 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

18 

of the Truth (bottle of wine) to the public. They did it while their protégés were more or less immature, being desirous of arousing their zeal for service as early as possible (the child was young). They offered the sacrifice of faith in the merit of Christ as sufficient for the three things typed by the three bullocks (slew a bullock, 25). And by their advancing their protégés into public service, some as pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims, sometimes aptly referred to as "pilgrim-ettes," some as colporteurs and sharpshooters, some as volunteers, some as newspaper workers, some as Bible House workers, some as extension workers, some as Photo-Drama workers, they brought these to the attention of the crown-lost leaders by leading them into the public work (brought the child to Eli, 25). 

(10) In the stress of opposition, which, however, is not here indicated, but of which the Harvest history is full, and which came to the Little Flock as servants of the Truth, it became necessary that they should own antitypical Samuel as their protégés, as they brought them forward to the service. The same class, though not necessarily the same individuals, that prayed for antitypical Samuel presented them before the Lord and acknowledged them as their protégés before the crown-lost princes. This acknowledgment was very politely and very emphatically made (Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, 26). Then they identified themselves as of the same class as from 1846 to 1874 ardently pleaded with God (praying unto the Lord) for the production and development of a permanent Little Flock Movement, and as having done so while in more or less fellowship with the crown-lost princes (I am the woman that stood by thee). They openly acknowledged that they had prayed for the Samuel movement, which was now an accomplished fact (For this child I prayed, 27). In the presence of the fact that the Samuel movement was in existence and active, they could confidently affirm that the Lord had graciously granted the petition (the Lord hath given me my petition). 

Samuel. 

19 

This they told as a testimony to the fact that God grants the prayers of His faithful people (which I asked of Him). They then stated the fact of the vow which they had made in connection with the said petition, and the fact that they were now fulfilling that vow (I have lent him to the Lord, 28—a wrong translation; Dr. Young renders it better: Also I have caused him to be asked for Jehovah ['s use] i.e., my heart impelled me to pray for him, not in my own interests, but in those of the Lord). They likewise stated that the vow was not one binding him to the Lord for a little while, but perpetually (as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord; literally, all the days that he shall be he was prayed for in the Lord's interests). V. 28 shows that the Samuel class heartily joined in co-operation to realize antitypical Hannah's intentions when she made the vow; for he entered into the service of the Lord before the nominal people of God, i.e., served in the work toward the public, as that part of the harvest history abundantly proves (And he [Samuel, not Eli, is the one here spoken of] worshiped the Lord there). 

(11) It would be in place in discussing 1 Sam. 1 and 2 to set forth a comparison and a contrast between antitypical Sarah, Rachel and Hannah: As to the truths of which they are the expression, antitypical Sarah refers to those only that develop The Christ; antitypical Rachel, those that develop the Christ and the Great Company; and antitypical Hannah, those that develop the Christ, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies, as we will prove of her when explaining 1 Sam. 2:21. As to the personal parts of these three antitypes, the appliers of these truths, antitypical Sarah includes the Ancient Worthies from Abraham to John the Baptist (yea, we may from an anticipatorial standpoint begin them with Abel) and the Christ class in their capacities of developing the Christ class; antitypical Rachel, the Ancient Worthies, the Christ class in its capacity of developing the Christ, and the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

20 

Ancient Worthies, the Christ class and the Great Company in their capacity of developing the Great Company; and antitypical Hannah, the Ancient Worthies, the Christ in their capacity of developing the Christ, the Ancient Worthies, the Christ and the Great Company in their capacities of developing the Great Company, and the Ancient Worthies, the Christ, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies in their capacities of developing the Youthful Worthies. In point of time of operation, antitypical Sarah is active from Abel on until the Little Flock leaves the world; antitypical Rachel from Abel's time until the Great Company leaves the world; and antitypical Hannah, from Abel's time until the Youthful Worthies leave the world. In time of producing their children, antitypical Sarah was active from Jordan until the Church leaves the world; antitypical Rachel, the same period for The Christ, and for the Great Company as individuals, from shortly after Pentecost onward, and as a class from Nov. 25, 1916—Jan. 14, 1917, onward until the Great Company leaves the world; antitypical Hannah, the same periods for The Christ and the Great Company respectively and for the Youthful Worthies as individuals, from Oct., 1881, onward to Sept. 16, 1914, and as a class from Sept. 16, 1914, onward until they leave the world finally. In point of ceasing to operate, antitypical Sarah operates until the last member of The Christ leaves the world; antitypical Rachel, the same plus until the last Great Company member leaves the world; and antitypical Hannah, the same plus until the last of the Youthful Worthies leaves the world. Antitypical Sarah is the least inclusive, antitypical Rachel is more so, and antitypical Hannah is the most so of these three. What great truths are here seen! 

(12) Having finished the discussion of 1 Sam. 1, we will proceed to study 1 Sam. 2. It continues the viewpoint set forth in Chapter I. Let us remember that Hannah as the mother of Samuel types the Christ features of the Oath-bound Covenant in its personal 

Samuel. 

21 

parts, i.e., the Little Flock brethren in ministering the Oath-bound promises in the development of their less mature Little Flock brethren into the Harvest Movement. Their success in such work and its accompanying and resulting privileges made them declare, with ardent yearnings (prayed, and said, 1), the antitype of vs. 1-10, which, analysis will show, features salient parts of the Harvest message from the standpoint of antitypical Hannah's relations to them. With this thought in mind, we will now study the antitypes of vs. 1-10, which are very helpfully rendered by Rotherham, whom, with a few exceptions, we will quote for this section. Certainly these Little Flock developers of their less mature brethren unto participation in the Harvest work were by their success therein brought to the very heights of joy at the privilege that they had in their consecrated course (My heart hath leaped for joy in Yahveh, 1); because to arouse such a (permanent) movement had been the desire of such from early in the Smyrna period, at whose start the Little Flock movement of the Jewish Harvest ceased. They exulted in the fact that the Truth and its arrangements as the power (horn) of God's people, restored during the Harvest, had been set on high by God (is exalted by Yahveh) before the nations, through their being rescued from their creedal corruptions and set forth with unanswerable power, transparent clearness and glorious victory over error. This was so because the utterances (mouth) of such servants of the Oath-bound Covenant were so greatly enlarged (is opened wide), since their minds comprehended the heights and depths, the lengths and breadths of the Divine Plan of the Ages, and this enabled them to overthrow in argument all of their adversaries (Is. 54:17; Luke 21:15; over my foes), who, though many, wise, mighty and noble (1 Cor. 1:26-28), were unable to meet the Truth servants' attacks on their errors and their defenses of the Truth. Truly, the joy of the Lord proved to be their strength (Neh. 8:10); for the Truth, which

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

22 

sets forth the plan of salvation (in Thy salvation) from various standpoints: the high calling, restitution, future probation, the first and second hells, the ransom, God's perfect character, etc., gave these such joy as strengthened them in their fight for the Truth and against the error. No wonder that they were so joyful! 

(13) As the most important feature of the Harvest message, they set forth the perfection of God's Person, Character, Word and Works, as being superior to the corresponding things in all others (There is none holy like Yahveh, 2). They stressed the sole Deity of the Father against the doctrine of the trinity (Nay, there is none except Thee!). And in so doing they stressed His superiority in these four, as well as in all other good respects, even over those of His Only Begotten, let alone over those of all who are that Son's inferiors (nor is there a rock like our God). Then turning to antitypical Peninnah and her children (the nominal-church leaders and denominations), these Truth servants, as the mother of the Little Flock Parousia movement, reminding them of their many and proud teachings, exhorted against their continuance therein (Do not multiply words, so loftily, loftily, 3), as they had done in their past teaching and persecuting course. Moreover, they rebuked their Parousia boasting and arrogance (Rev. 3:17), and exhorted them to desist therefrom, especially in their mouthpieces (nor let arrogance proceed from your mouth). The reasons for such exhortations are plain—God alone is the God of true knowledge (for a God of knowledge is Yahveh) and is powerfully accomplishing His plans and purposes for His own glory alone, and certainly not for that of the arrogant and haughty antitypical Peninnah and her children (and for Himself are great doings made firm). Another feature of the Harvest message did the developers of the Little Flock into the Harvest Movement proclaim: the breaking up of the creeds (bows … are broken, 4) as the means whereby the great theologians (mighty) of the nominal church shot 

Samuel. 

23 

forth their sharp sayings and teachings, as figurative arrows, at their enemies. It was the Truth, as a mighty sword (Eph. 6:17), that broke up these bows of the mighty, and it did this after the Harvest warriors girded it on, and used it as their weapon of offense, though before so doing they were, and were regarded as the stumbling and fainting ones (while the fainting ones are girded with strength). Yea, the Harvest Truth was their strong, sharp and powerful sword (Heb. 4:12), whereby they utterly over-threw the creeds. 

(14) Another part of the Harvest message proclaimed by the developers of the Little Flock into the Parousia Movement was this: Members of the nominal church who had boasted that they were rich and increased in goods and had need of nothing (Rev. 3:17; thus were "the sated" full, 5) had to hire themselves out to the Truth people to obtain the Truth as the life-sustaining bread (have for bread taken hire), while the Little Flock, which before the Harvest had been hungry for the Truth and fainted at its lack (Ps. 107:5), were during the Harvest made to cease from their hunger and faintness (but the famished have left off [their hunger and weakness]), and become satisfied with the goodness of the Truth (Ps. 107:9). As a result antitypical Hannah became the mother of the perfect (seven) Parousia Movement (the barren hath borne seven). On the contrary, antitypical Peninnah, the nominal-church developers, who produced the ten [or twelve] denominations (many sons) of Christendom, waxed fainter and fainter during the Parousia (languisheth). Additional parts of antitypical Hannah's Parousia message were the curse, the death state and the resurrection (Yahveh killeth, exacts the death penalty, as the curse, through the dying process), but in the Millennial morning will bring back the dead, some to the life resurrection, others to the judgment resurrection (Yahveh doth kill and make alive; causeth to go down to sheol [the death state] and bringeth up, 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

24 

6). Still another part of the Harvest message did antitypical Hannah proclaim, according to v. 7: Yahveh certainly made the nominal people of God poor during the Parousia (Yahveh maketh poor, 7); for He divested them of mouthpieceship for Him to the world, divested them more and more of the little Truth and Truth arrangements that they had had, took away the tentative robe of righteousness that they had had, bereaved them of the little peace, joy and other graces that they had had, stripped them of their various prerogatives that they once had as His nominal people, thus leaving them wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked (Rev. 3:17). On the other hand, antitypical Hannah proclaimed that the Little Flock was enriched (and enricheth) by God through His giving it the Divine Truth as figurative silver and gold, the graces as precious stones, the white raiment of Christ's righteousness as her glorious dress and the qualities of humility, meekness, Truth-hunger, honesty and holiness as an eye-salve for anointing her eyes (Rev. 3:18). Yea, theirs were the true riches! 

(15) Moreover, antitypical Hannah then proclaimed the fact that Yahveh abased the proud and exalted the humble (1 Pet. 5:5, 6; Jas. 4:6; layeth low, yea, exalteth). How manifest this is in the abasement of the great in the nominal church during the Parousia, and will be yet more so in the Epiphany, especially in Armageddon, and mostly so in the Kingdom; and in the exaltations of the Little Flock in the Parousia, which will yet be more manifest in the Epiphany, and mostly so in the Basileia, the Kingdom. The exposition of both clauses of v. 7 shows this of both classes in the Parousia and the Epiphany. Yea, hath not God raised up the poor, the humble, from the dust of error (Is. 52:2), (raiseth from the dust) in which beside Babylon's rivers they sat down and wept when they remembered Zion (Ps. 137:1), to become enriched Little Flock members (8)? Yea, hath not God uplifted the needy, from the dunghill of sin, to become Little Flock

Samuel. 

25 

members? And by so doing, hath He not give them a dwelling with nobles, among God's real people? And did He not do this to prepare them to be seated with our Lord upon His Millennial throne (Rev. 3:21), as saith v. 8, as joint-heirs of His (Rom. 8:17; 2 Tim. 2:12)? These will be made God's pillars of the new earth (to Yahveh belong the pillars of the earth), and as such they will be the foundations of the world to come, made such by God Himself (He setteth thereon the world—symbolic heavens and earth). V. 8 beautifully prophesies in typical form the Parousia preaching of antitypical Hannah with respect to the thought that the gracious Father condescends to uplift the poor and needy Little Flock to the highest spiritual privileges during their stay in the flesh, and thus prepares them to become His Kingdom, whereby He will establish among the children of men a new earth in which will dwell righteousness (2 Pet. 3:13) unsullied by evil. 

(16) V. 9 contains another part of the Parousia message of antitypical Hannah, and that in three parts: (1) that she would proclaim God's watchcare over the feet-member saints, which word is in the A. V. used to translate a word that means loving ones—most exact description of saints, whose highest quality, like God's highest quality, is disinterested love. Ps. 91 most beautifully describes this quality as theirs and God's provisions for their watchcare during the Parousia and Epiphany (the feet of His loving ones He doth guard); (2) that she would proclaim God's judgment on the wicked, the Second Deathers, as one that remands them in this life into outer darkness and after this life into the perpetual darkness of Gehenna (Jude 13; but the wicked in darkness shall be silent); and (3) that she would proclaim the Truth that not by human but by Divine strength will one prove to be an overcomer (Zech. 4:6; for by strength shall no man prevail). Finally, as indicated in v. 10, antitypical Hannah proclaimed five other parts in God's great

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

26 

Parousia works: (1) that God would defeat and shatter in utmost confusion those who oppose Him, who are Satan and his legions of fallen angels, the kings and judges of the earth in church; state, aristocracy and labor and their supporters and the sifters and siftlings (as for Yahveh, they shall be shattered who contend with Him); (2) that through the arising New Heavens (the Christ during the Parousia beyond the vail, taking their great power and reigning) against those who contend with Him will He stir up controversies that will end disastrously for such opposers (against them by the heavens will He thunder); (3) that He through the great tribulation will sorely stripe the human family, which must undergo this striping to prepare them to receive meekly the Kingdom of God, which they had refused to receive meekly at the ministry of moral suasion (Yahveh will judge the ends of the earth); (4) that God would give The Christ all power and authority as His Vice-gerental King to reign Millennially over mankind and the earth (and giveth strength to His King); and (5) that God would exalt the power of His Christ by giving Him the highest success and honor 'through His reign as King and ministry as Priest (and exalt the horn of His Anointed One). If now in the light of the foregoing interpretation we review vs. 1-10, we will all easily recognize that Hannah's prayer and speech types, as we said at the outstart of the exposition of this section, the proclamations, with ardent yearnings, made by the Little Flock developers of antitypical Samuel during the Parousia. Praised be the Lord! 

(17) After introducing the Little Flock brethren as the Parousia Movement in its various members into the public service (1:26-28) Bro. Russell and the said five pilgrims successively gave their attention to the higher features of the Truth service in helping the brethren, as well as themselves, to attain higher character development (Elkanah went to Ramah to his house, 11). And the Little Flock Movement, the 

Samuel. 

27 

Parousia Movement, attended to the public service of the Truth in pilgrim, colporteur, volunteer, etc., work, in such a manner as was in the presence of, and as brought them to the attention of, the crown-lost leaders (and the child [better here, the youth] did minister unto the Lord before Eli, the priest). The Catholic and the Protestant denominations in their clergy (sons of Eli, 12), as classes, with individual exceptions, were to the Lord during the Parousia unprofitable, worthless and wicked (sons of Belial, worthlessness, wickedness, unprofitableness). They did not appreciate (know) the Lord in His person, character, word and works. Instead of seeking to serve the Lord whole-heartedly, they used their positions for their personal advantages, for the following was their manner of procedure (the priests' [not priest's] custom with the people was that, etc., 13): They by their agents (the priest's servant) used the teachings as to doctrine, organization and practice (fleshhook of three teeth) as a means of their work (hand) to draw out of the true priesthood's doctrinal (pan), refutative (kettle), correctional (caldron) and ethical (pot) teachings many and large parts of the consecrators' privileges as sacrificers connected with these four forms of teachings for their own personal, selfish aggrandizement, i.e., the very benefits that the consecrators should have drawn out of their services to themselves the clergy appropriated to themselves exclusively. This they did, e.g., by exclusively appropriating to themselves the office of being priests, which all the consecrators were, and all the priestly privileges, which all the consecrators should have had; for they claimed them as their own exclusively. In the Catholic churches this "custom" of exacting the "benefit of the clergy" has been reduced to a business of vast classifications, every department drawing to the clergy from the consecrators what is the latter's. Thus the Catholic and Protestant denominations in their clergy have robbed God's people, whom "the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

28 

clergy" have been pleased to call "the laity," of their sacrificial privileges and have enriched themselves thereby, as to prerogatives belonging to the true priesthood (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). This was the universal custom throughout Catholicism and in most of Protestantism (So they did in Shiloh unto all Israelites that came thither). This is a sad state of things. 

(18) But the Catholic and Protestant clergy's "custom" contained in it something worse than robbing God's priesthood of their privileges connected with their sacrifices: They have robbed God of His part of the sacrifice. The choice part of a real sacrifice is the love (fat, 15) that should prompt and accompany the sacrifice. This is the particular thing offered as a sweet savor to God in the services of an antitypical sacrifice (burnt; literally, make perfume with). This precedes the privileges (sodden flesh) that the sacrificers receive as consecrators, even as in the type the fat was burned before the flesh was sodden. But through their agencies (priest's servant) the Catholic and Protestant denominations in their clergy demanded what they considered their part in the sacrifice before (raw flesh; not sodden flesh) the sacrificer as such would get his privileges, and also before God would get the portions of the sacrifices belonging to Him. That is, these clerics took to themselves, for themselves, honors, riches, powers, influence, etc., that the sacrificers should bring to God. Hence they have become money-lovers, popularity-lovers, honor-lovers, influence-lovers, etc., using the opportunities of their offices for self-aggrandizement instead of to the glory of God. To them their office is a business, out of which every earthly advantage that they can get they seek to draw to themselves. Thus instead of God's getting the benefits of the consecrators' sacrifices the denominations in their clergy have drawn these to themselves. This has made them lovers of ease, luxury, fame, etc. The prophets severely denounce them for this course (Mal. 1:6—2:10; Is. 56:10-12). And

Samuel. 

29 

when the consecrators would desire and work otherwise (If any man said … Let them not fail to burn the fat presently [now], 16) they were persecuted by the clergy, who used force to exact for their own personal gain what through the sacrifices of God's people should have gone to the advancement of God's cause (If not, I will take it by force). Thus they forced the faithful to give up the Divinely profitable parts of their sacrifices, by imprisonment, restraint, slander, riots, arrests, boycottings, etc. Yea, earlier than the Parousia they used all sorts of means of torture and death in what actually was taking away from God the fruits of the sacrifices of God's people. And the Parousia clergy, acting out the same principles, though in more attenuated forms, are partakers of their earlier living persecuting brethren's sins. By these courses they greatly sinned against the real priesthood and against God in matters pertaining to God (Wherefore the sin of the young men [Hophni and Phinehas] was very great before the Lord, 17). For their pertinent evils, exposed to the public, turned many into atheists, agnostics, heathen, infidels, worldlings, etc., all of whom despised the religious life, deeming it hypocrisy; especially did they do this with the more prominent of the people (therefore men [literally, the men,—the prominent ones] abhorred the offering of the Lord). Thus it is true that Churchianity and the clergy have become a stench in the nostrils of ever-increasing multitudes, especially of the more prominent people throughout Christendom. 

(19) The translation child (Samuel … a child, 18) is unhappy. The Hebrew word naar, here translated child, is used to designate males of almost any age from childhood to full manhood, e.g., Hophni and Phinehas (17), their servant (13, 15), Gehazi and the Shunammite's servant (2 Kings 5:14, 20; 8:4) are all called by the word naar, here translated child. It had better here be rendered young man. The Little Flock as the Parousia Movement, i.e., the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

30 

Little Flock (Samuel) engaged in the special Parousia work, was very actively engaged (ministered) in the Parousia work of the Lord (before the Lord). They stood girded with the Truth, centered in the Abrahamic and New Covenants, i.e., they had the Truth and were devoted to its service (Eph. 6:14; girded with a linen ephod). The ephod was worn only by priests (18, 28) or by those who had a priestly character, like David (2 Sam. 6:14), typing a priest. Samuel was not of the priestly family, but belonged to the tribe of Ephraim (1:1). But being a Nazarite, and devoted for his whole life to God's service (1:11), he had a priestly character, typing the Little Flock, at times as a whole, and at times in its special leaders. The Little Flock Truth servants (his mother, 19), in their capacity of developing their Little Flock brethren, gave the latter (him) official powers (little coat), by giving them added truths and the ability and opportunities to serve them, especially amid the various Parousia call and sifting periods (brought it to him from year to year), at which times such Truth servants specially served in connection with Bro. Russell and the pertinent one of the said five pilgrims (when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice). As all these servants of the Truth were thus ministering in such Parousia call and sifting periods, the crown-lost leaders did them much good (Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, 20), not by word but by deed, and that as a return for their devotion in giving antitypical Samuel to the Lord; for these ministered to antitypical Elkanah and Hannah (the Lord give thee seed of this woman) in that they brought people to consecration, some of whom became new creatures, others of whom became Youthful Worthies; and of the former the bulk apparently became crown-losers. We say this because the said seed given Elkanah by Hannah types the Great Company in its three main divisions and the Youthful Worthies in their two main divisions (21). This blessing was partly by antitypical 

Samuel. 

31 

Eli brought into being as symbolic begettals, in part during the Parousia, but the births take place during the Epiphany, not during the Parousia, so far as these two as classes are concerned, though there were individual crown-losers and Youthful Worthies during the Parousia. After each call and sifting period of service, Bro. Russell, the pertinent one of the said five pilgrims and the rest of the Truth servants betook themselves to the special high calling matters (they went to their own home). 

(20) After the Little Flock Movement—the Parousia Movement—was completed, in 1914, the Lord blessed in the Epiphany antitypical Elkanah (who was first, for 2-1/12 years, the Parousia messenger and the last of the five said pilgrims, thereafter the Epiphany messenger) and antitypical Hannah (now the Parousia and Epiphany Truth and the other servants of the Parousia and Epiphany Truth) with fruitfulness (the Lord visited Hannah, so that she conceived, 21). By the time this fruitfulness will become the antitype of the finished picture there will be born three clean general Great Company and two clean general Youthful Worthy groups (and bare three sons and two daughters). Thus here we learn that Hannah in the widest sense of the type of the Gospel-Age elects' mother pictures forth all of the Gospel-Age applications of the Oath-bound Covenant (Gen. 22:16-18), with their implied truths and arrangements, and the servants who have applied them to the development of the three general classes of the Gospel-Age elect. It will be noted that, as the mother of the Christ class, antitypical Hannah is the same as antitypical Sarah and Rachel as mother of antitypical Joseph, that as the mother of the Great Company she is the same as antitypical Rachel as mother of antitypical Benjamin, the cleansed Great Company as a whole, while Hannah's three sons in contrast with Samuel represent the cleansed Great Company in its three main groups, corresponding to the Gershonite, Merarite and Kohathite 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

32 

Levites. Hannah alone of these three mothers types the mother of the Youthful Worthies, and that in their two divisions, (two daughters) corresponding to the Libnite and Shimite Gershonites. As yet we do not know it; but there may be a mother of four sons used in the Bible to type the Oath-bound Covenant as the mother of the four special elect-classes—the Ancient Worthies, the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. If so, in due time the Lord will reveal this to us. And since in a certain sense (Rom. 11:29) Fleshly Israel is an elect people of God and is a part of the seed in the Oath-bound Covenant, as also are the persevering of the tentatively justified, there may be a mother of five or six used in the Bible to picture these together with the four special elect classes, as the five or six class-children of the Oath-bound Covenant. If there, the Lord will reveal it to us. 

(21) The time of the first Samuel antitypes (the Parousia) was late in the long ministry of the crown-lost leaders (Now Eli was very old, 22). These during the Parousia mainly and partly in the Epiphany have learned of the great wickedness of the Catholic and Protestant churches in their clergy (and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel) in the two forms of robbing God's consecrators of their privileges as such, and God of the benefits of the sacrifices of His people. Another evil they also learned of these clerics: that they were living in unclean, defiling relations with the twelve large denominations and with their almost innumerable sects (lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation). These unclean and defiling relations on the clergy's part consisted of the false doctrines, organizations, ethics, discipline and other arrangements that they foisted upon these denominations and sects, as well as the sifting errors and arrangements of the Parousia and Epiphany, with which these defiled such denominations and sects. It was primarily from the Parousia and Epiphany Truth servants' exposures 

Samuel. 

33 

that antitypical Eli first learned of them; then from their observations and the complaints of denominational and sectarian members who also protested against these symbolic fornications and adulteries. These crown-lost leaders protested to the clergy against such evils, as can be seen in the protests against such evils made by evangelists, like Moody, Small, Jones, Booth, Sunday, Gipsy Smith, Biederwolf, Gaebelein, Torrey, Grey, etc., and pastors, like Pearson, Gregory, Meyer, Gordon, Spurgeon, Parker, Farrar, Morgan, etc., etc. (He said unto them, Why do you such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people, 23); but the remonstrance was feeble. 

(22) Those of our readers who attended, e.g., the meetings of Billy Sunday, will recall how to their faces he excoriated for their evils the ministers who were seated on the platform from which he was speaking! This is an illustration of the antitype of vs. 23-25. Certainly the pertinent reports against the clergy were no good thing (It is no good report that I hear, 24). Certainly the clergy by these deeds caused the Lord's people to transgress (ye make the Lord's people to transgress). They showed these recalcitrant clerics that for humans' sin against fellow humans, they might be entreated for (not judged, as the A. V. gives it) by the judge; but if one sin deliberately against the Lord, none could entreat successfully for him (if one man sin …; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him? 25). So far as the rebukes that these crown-lost leaders administered to the wicked clergy are concerned, this must be said: They were neither vigorous enough (my sons, 24) nor were they accompanied with as strenuous methods at suppression as the evils deserved, even as Eli in the type was neither severe enough in his rebukes nor strenuous enough in his measures to suppress the evils and evil-doers in their evils. Both in type and antitype the matter was allowed to go on with nothing more than feeble remonstrances. And, of course, these 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

34 

hardened sinners, not subjected to the suppressive measures for which their misconduct called, but let go with too tender rebukes, which their hardened consciences quietly shed, as a duck would shed water from its back, went on in their evil ways, in both the type and the antitype. Too much leniency with evildoers in one in an executive position encourages them in their wrong ways. But in both the type and the antitype their impenitence was arousing the Lord to execute retribution upon them—a cutting off of life in the type, and in the antitype a cutting off from their office and of life, combined with the destruction of Catholicism and Protestantism as institutions in Armageddon (therefore [not because] the Lord would slay them). In contrast with the course of the Catholic and Protestant clergy, antitypical Samuel progressed and developed very well (And the youth [not child] grew on,—literally, went and became large, i.e., grew to full stature) and was recognized as good, both by the Lord and by men (Luke 2:52; and was in favor [literally, was good] both with the Lord and also with men, 26). We saw this fulfilled. 

(23) Bros. Storrs, Stetson and Russell and the said five pilgrims in their succession (there came a man of God unto Eli, 27) appeared before these crown-lost leaders with a message denouncing the clergy for the above-mentioned wickedness, and the crown-lost leaders for tolerating them, and forecasting condign punishment, as those who heard these and read their writings know that they frequently spoke and wrote in this vein. They came as a messenger of God, i.e., with Bible passages as giving them the contents of their rebukes, etc. (Thus saith the Lord). They raised the question in the crown-lost leaders' minds by their pertinent speeches and writings: Did God reveal Himself to the Jewish Harvest Christians as to members of Christ's house while they were involved in Satan's empire in its Roman-empire phase (Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father when they were in

Samuel. 

35 

Egypt in Pharaoh's house)? The answer, of course, is, Yes; for God did then manifest Himself to His Jewish Harvest priests as these were made underpriests in the Christ priesthood. Then these brothers' speeches and writings raised another question in the minds of the crown-lost leaders: Did God choose Jesus Christ (choose him, typical Aaron, 28) from among all God's people (out of all the tribes of Israel) to be the Church's High Priest (to be My priest), to bring the antitypical Bullock and Goat as the true sin-offerings (to offer upon Mine altar), to yield the odor of a sweet smell in the graces of the Spirit (to burn incense), to administer the Truth, especially on the two great covenants, as God's Representative (to wear an ephod)? Again the answer is, Yes. Then, through their speeches and writings, they raised a third question in the minds of the crown-lost leaders: Did God arrange for the Gospel-Age priesthood as the house of Christ to get a sufficiency for their earthly needs from certain features of the sacrifices of the consecrators (Did I give unto the house of thy father [Aaron] all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel)? Again the answer is, Yes; for the Lord ordained that they that preach the Gospel should also live by the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:14). Thus without their robbing the consecrated of their privileges and God of His parts in the sacrifice and thus His honor, the "clergy" were sufficiently provided for as to their earthly needs; and therefore there was no call for them to do the evils above-mentioned. Therefore, through Bros. Storrs', Stetson's and Russell's and the five others' speeches and writings God demanded of the Catholic and Protestant denominations in their clergy why they opposed the plain intent of the sin-offerings (kick ye at My sacrifice, 29) and the preachings (offering; literally, meat offering), that God had charged in His Temple (which I have commanded in My habitation), by their perversions, misuses, errors, attacks on the Truth and self-aggrandizements (make

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

36 

yourselves fat), in putting their interests above those of the consecrators and of God (with the chiefest of all the offerings [meat offerings] of Israel My people). Not only did God through these brothers make this demand; but He also blamed the crown-lost leaders for tolerating the situation, which was an actual honoring of denominations in their clergy above God (and honorest thy sons above Me). 

(24) Having through these brothers' speeches and writings pointed out the sins of the clergy and the wrong of the easy-going attitude of the crown-lost leaders toward these sins and sinners, God by the same agents and means proceeds to announce from the quoted Scripture passages (Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, 30) the retribution that is to come upon all the guilty. The first of these pieces of retribution was the revocation of a promise long kept (forever, age-lasting), despite the wrongs done by the beneficiaries of the promise: the office of being the leaders of God's people would not be continued with the clergy and the crown-lost leaders (Be it far from Me). This was announced by the above-mentioned brothers, in telling how antitypical Saul would be rejected as leader of God's people, and by Bro. Russell and the said five pilgrims in their succession, announcing that Babylon was cast off from mouthpieceship in 1878. The second piece of retribution would be that the clergy and the crown-lost leaders who failed to honor God would fall into disrepute. This has been increasingly going into fulfilment, and will finally eventuate in their becoming a stench in everybody's nostrils (they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed). On the other hand, God has been honoring His Parousia and Epiphany priesthood, because they have honored Him (them that honor Me I will honor). The third piece of retribution would be that the strength (arm, 31) of the crown-lost leaders and that of Christ's nominal church and its clergy (the arm of thy father's house) would be taken away.

Samuel. 

37 

This was fulfilled when God forsook antitypical Saul (crown-lost princes) and cast off Babylon and her clergy (will cut off). The fourth piece of retribution would be that the clergy would soon be cut off in the great tribulation, especially in its Armageddon feature (there shall not be an old man in thine house). The fifth piece of retribution would be that the crown-lost leaders would see an enemy, Bro. Russell as their successor, antitypical of David, whom Saul counted an enemy, as Saul's successor (thou shalt see an enemy in My habitation, 32), enjoying the Truth and its Spirit as the real wealth of God's people (in all the wealth which God shall give Israel). This would spell the speedy overthrow of the clergy (there shall not be an old man in thine house forever, for long). The sixth piece of retribution would be that those who would remain in the true priesthood would depart (man of thine whom I shall not cut off from Mine altar, 33) from among the clergy; and this would be by their coming into, and ministering with the Parousia Truth; they would by their refutation of the errors of the crown-lost leaders and the unfaithful clergy gradually blind the insight of the crown-lost leaders to what Truth they had (to consume thine eyes), and would by turning away ever-increasing numbers from the crown-lost leaders and the unfaithful clergy greatly grieve them (to grieve thine heart). This is also given as a sign of the near approach of the overthrow of the crown-lost leaders and the unfaithful clergy (and all the increase … shall die in the flower of their age). 

(25) Then the Lord through the above-mentioned brothers pointed out a sign to the crown-lost leaders: that as classes the Catholic and Protestant denominations in their clergy would die as mouthpieces of the Lord, which was from 1878 onward (Is. 65:11-15; Jer. 25:36-38); and as individuals the unfaithful clergy would all be slain (Is. 65:12; Jer. 25:34, 35), especially during Armageddon (this … sign unto thee … thy two sons … in one day … die, 34). To the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

38 

crown-losers this would be a sign in two senses, corresponding to the two senses in which the sentence would fulfill: (1) The clergy going into increasing error and making increasing attacks on various phases of Bible Truth from 1878 onward would be giving evidence to the crown-lost leaders that they were cut off from all mouthpieceship for the Lord. This is a secondary application of the passage. (2) As the primary application of the passage, the clergy would be literally slain in their non-Spirit-begotten members, their Spirit-begotten members being counted either among the crown-lost leaders, whose cleansed members will later be slain, or the hierarchy and uncleansed clerics who will be slain and be Second Deathers. But all of these new creatures who will survive as such until Armageddon will live long enough to see at least the bulk of the rest of the clergy slain in Armageddon, as Eli in the type lived to learn of the death of Hophni and Phinehas (4:12-18). Then God proceeded to tell, through the above-mentioned brothers, that He would in Bro. Russell establish a wise and faithful stewardly priest (Matt. 24:45-47; Luke 12:42-44; Num. 25:10-13; I will raise Me up a faithful priest, 35), who would fulfill all the Lord's good pleasure in the exercise of his stewardly priestly office (that shall do according to that which is in Mine heart and mind). To that faithful and wise servant God would build up a faithful priesthood—the Parousia priesthood—as the household over which he would be placed as their leader under Christ in the Parousia priestly work (Num. 25:13; and I will build him a sure [faithful] house). He as that servant would be faithful as Jesus' special eye, hand and mouth unto the end of his ministry (and he shall walk before Mine Anointed [Jesus] forever, [unto a completion]). And, finally, God affirmed that every true priest (every one that is left in thine house, 36) of those under the charge of the crown-lost leaders, leaving the nominal church, and coming into the Truth, would humbly (come and crouch to him) 

Samuel. 

39 

apply to that wise and faithful servant (1) for each piece of Truth (a piece of silver) and food for heart and mind (a morsel of bread), and (2) for opportunities and positions of service (Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests' offices), that they might appropriate the privileges of these to their sustenance (that I may eat a piece of bread). This ends the forecasts of the Lord through the above-mentioned brothers; and we are witnesses of the fulfillments of most of them, whose fulfillments are a proof to us that the rest will fulfill in due time, which our God guarantees. 

(26) Our study of Samuel, type and antitype, now brings us to 1 Sam. 3 and 4. It will be recalled that we remarked in the opening part of our previous study that the antitypes of 1 Sam. 1—8 do not follow one another in chronological succession, as the development of one subject. While there was such a chronological sequence in 1 Sam. 1 and 2, our study of these two chapters brought us to a full conclusion of the line of thought in the antitype of those two chapters. Our study of 1 Sam. 3 and 4 will take up a somewhat different phase of the activities of the Little Flock in relation to certain events forecast in 1 Sam. 2:27-36; for in 1 Sam. 3 and 4 Samuel does not represent the Little Flock Parousia movement, but the Little Flock itself in part as in Babylon from after 1846 until after 1897, and then as the Little Flock in the rest of the Parousia and in part of the Epiphany in the Truth movement as such. Thus the viewpoint as to antitypical Samuel, though somewhat related to, is somewhat different in 1 Sam. 3 and 4 from that of him as presented in 1 Sam. 1 and 2. As we study the Samuel picture further, we will find still other viewpoints of antitypical Samuel presented to us; for in most of the later pictures of him we will find him typing Little Flock leaders mainly, as we have already seen this in our study of 1 Sam. 16, as he there acts in connection with antitypical David's first appearance.

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

40 

We make these remarks the better to enable our dear readers to see clearness in our study. 

(27) The opening statement of 1 Sam. 3 proves that the class and time of the antitype of v. 1 could not be the Truth section of the Little Flock in the Parousia and the Epiphany, because to it during the Parousia and the Epiphany the Word of the Lord was not rare, scarce (precious, 1); for never, not even in the Jewish Harvest, was the Truth (the Word of the Lord) more abundant to the Little Flock than during the Gospel Harvest. Nor can we say that among those of the brethren who were in the part of the cleansed Sanctuary separate from Babylon the Truth was rare or scarce, though, of course, it was not so abundant with the Little Flock in the Truth as during the Parousia and Epiphany. The language of v. 1 rather seems to fit the Little Flock's condition in its members who remained in Babylon during the time between 1846 and 1897; for during that time very little Truth came to that part of the Little Flock. The condition of the Little Flock during that time could properly be described as one in which it served (ministered unto, 1) the Lord before Eli, and that before the Truth (lamp of God, 3) went out in the temple (the nominal church), where from 1878 onward it began gradually to go out finally. Samuel's lying down in the temple to sleep is in harmony with this thought; for not only the foolish, but also the wise virgins fell asleep between 1846 and 1877 (Matt. 25:5); and, as the following episode shows, the part of the Little Flock that remained in Babylon until 1896, typed here, as we understand it, by Samuel, continued to sleep onward from 1846 to 1897. Some of the Little Flock slept even until 1914. Not only the above lines of Truth show that Samuel in 1 Sam. 3:1-3 represents the Little Flock in Babylon from 1846 to 1878, but thoughts that later parts of the chapter bring out will be found in harmony with this thought. Hence the above-given considerations enable us to see the time

Samuel. 

41 

setting of vs. 1-3, and also prove that the viewpoint of the Samuel antitype now under study differs somewhat from that given in 1 Sam. 1 and 2. 

(28) In v. 1 the word, naar, should not be given as child, rather as youth. Certainly, this class did serve the Lord in conversionist work, between 1846 and 1878, even as we saw that its leaders did this, as typed by Samuel's sacrifice at Bethlehem (16:2-10). They did this under the eyes and approval of the crown-lost leaders (before Eli). Little, indeed, was the new Truth given the Church in Babylon during 1846-1878 (the word of the Lord was precious in those days). Not only so, but this is true of the entire nominal church (no open [public] vision), despite the fact that the nominal church was God's mouthpiece then. It will be noted that the thing meant by the words, it came to pass (v. 2), is not mentioned in vs. 2 and 3. It is first mentioned in v. 4, i.e., the Lord called Samuel. The other things noted in vs. 2 and 3 are set forth to give us the circumstances amid which God called Samuel in type and antitype. The condition of the crown-lost leaders (Eli, 2) was a sad one for persons in their office. They betook themselves to rest at their post of duty (laid down in his place); for they were among the foolish virgins who slumbered and slept (Matt. 25:5), while they should have been wide-awake at their post of duty in the nominal church. As a rule, these had fought the Miller movement, and when its 1844 expectations were not fulfilled, the crown-lost leaders as a class largely gave up special consideration of prophecy, and gave up almost altogether the study of prophetic time, even in an oppositional sense. Hence so far as the old truths were concerned, they became increasingly unclear thereon (his eyes began to dim), and so far as the advancing Truth in its blessing the part of the cleansed Sanctuary that was separate from Babylon was concerned, they were entirely blind (he was not able to see). Thus the crown-lost leaders were in a sad plight indeed, 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

42 

furnishing a marked example of the blind leaders to whose lot it had fallen to be leaders of the blind. 

(29) By the lamp of God antitypical of v. 3 we understand the Truth to be meant, even the Bible (John 17:17). We do not understand the typical lamp of God here to mean the lampstand in the Holy, for that never went out, either in the tabernacle or in the temple; but it was some lamp that burned in the evening in that structure which is called here the temple, and which enclosed the tabernacle. This lamp was allowed to become dimmer and dimmer, until finally it went out entirely. Apparently, the temple attendants laid down to sleep before the lamp went out entirely. In the antitype the Bible to the nominal people of God began to grow dim in 1835, when, as shown under another figure, the symbolic sun (New Testament) and moon (Old Testament) began to darken to the nominal people of God (Joel 2:30, 31). The dimming of this symbolic lamp (Ps. 119:105; 132:17; Prov. 6:23; 13:9; 20:20) was from 1835 to 1878, when its gradual going out set in and became complete for the nominal-church members in 1955. Hence, antitypical Samuel laid down after 1835 and before 1878. From the fulfilment in the parable of the ten virgins we know that it began in 1846. Thus it was the Little Flock among the nominal people of God (in the temple of the Lord) who are represented here as lying down to sleep from 1846 onward. The twelve stewardship truths (the ark) were then with the nominal people of God (where the ark of God was) at that time. We say this, because the ark is the depository of God's full arrangement as due at any time with which the ark is associated. This view clarifies the antitypes of the ark in 1 Sam. 4-7. 

(30) While vs. 1-3 treat antitypically of things from 1846 to 1878, the rest of the chapter treats of things subsequent to 1878. V. 4 has its antitype's beginning from 1886 onward. The call antitypical of that indicated in v. 4 was voiced through Studies, Vol. I, which, as we know, was issued in 1886. This was 

Samuel. 

43 

circulated in a variety of ways, the most important and fruitful being by colporteuring. As it was circulated it came in touch with many Little Flock brethren, and its message was so attractive, clear and winsome that Little Flock brethren made a ready response, as having been called by it, with the antitype of the words, Here am I (4). As they thought over its contents they wondered who the author was, and concluded that he was one of the leading Christian writers in the world; hence they concluded that he was one of the Church leaders. This led them to go (he ran, 5) and to inquire of their pastors and still more prominent Church leaders (Eli) what they meant by giving them such a call (Here am I; for thou calledst me), since they felt such a call could come from one alone who was of their class. But these crown-lost leaders lost no time is disabusing the minds of such inquiring Little Flock brethren of the thought that Studies, Vol. I, could have emanated from one of their class (I called thee not). Do not bother your head about things that you read in that book. Disabuse your mind of its thoughts (lie down [literally, return]), i.e., go back to your former tranquil state of mind and rest yourself from worry or study on the subjects of that book, which did not originate with one of us Church leaders. The section of the Little Flock here typed followed the suggestion of the crown-lost leaders and composed themselves to rest content with the sleep of Babylon (and he went and lay down). 

(31) Then when Studies, Vol. II, was circulated from 1889 onward, it reached the Samuel class in the nominal church (and the Lord called yet again, 6), and it reached an attentive ear, because, like Studies, Vol. I, its message was attuned to the ear of the class that was like God in character (Samuel, name of God). To them it had the ring of a message coming from God; and, accordingly, this class concluded that such a book must have come from a member of the crown-lost leaders. Hence, they betook themselves to such

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

44 

(Samuel arose and went to Eli), assuring them that this message must have come from their midst (thou didst call me), and expressed readiness to respond to this message (Here am I). The crown-lost leaders denied that they originated the contents of Studies, Vol. II (he answered, I called not, my son), affirming that the message came from another source. And not only so, but the crown-lost leaders again charged the Samuel class to give no heed to a message that did not proceed from them, nor to let it disturb their peace of mind (literally, return, lie down). They spoke kindly (my son), which influenced the Samuel class to heed their exhortation. These two calls came to the Samuel class before they had come to an appreciation of the Lord as He really is (Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, 7). This was due to the fact that they had not yet come into the Truth, and that what they had previously heard of it was not clearly grasped (neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him). Again, Studies, Vol. III, appearing in 1891, came to the Samuel class, while it was yet in the nominal church (the Lord called Samuel again a third time, 8), and its message also had to this class the ring of a Divine origin, which they, therefore, concluded must have come through the agency of the crown-lost leaders. To these they, therefore, went to confer further on its subject matter (he arose and went to Eli), telling them that they were responding to their message (Here am I; for thou didst call me). 

(32) Doubtless, in the meantime, some of the crown-lost leaders had been thinking seriously over the messages of Studies, Vols. I, II and III. Some of its light was dimly dawning upon some of them, at least enough of it to make some of them think that there was considerable of Truth in many of their positions; for not a few of them were taking things from the Studies for their lectures, sermons and writings, without, however, letting the source of their views become known to those who regarded them as their leaders

Samuel. 

45 

(Eli perceived that the Lord had called the youth). Accordingly, these crown-lost leaders assured (Eli said unto Samuel, 9) the Samuel class in Babylon that there were some truths in the Studies, but that they should not be disturbed over what they had already read in the three Volumes (Go, lie down), but if another message calling them should come (if He call thee), they should not only give to it an attentive ear, but should exercise to it a responsive heart (thou shalt say, Speak, Lord, for Thy servant heareth). Accordingly, the Samuel class dismissed serious thought on the contents of the first three Volumes of the Studies for the time being (So Samuel went); and without further distraction of thought went about their ordinary service (lay down in his place). In Studies, Vol. IV, appearing in 1897, the Lord, and that for the fourth time, came to the Samuel class in Babylon (the Lord came, 10). This time He took a firmer and stronger hold on the attention of the Samuel class in Babylon (and stood; literally, caused Himself to stand, set Himself). This riveted their attention all the more on the contents of the fourth call (and called). Yet, the fourth call was made in a way similar to the other three calls, i.e., by the printed page, especially reinforced by conversations in most cases (as at other times). Yet, it was more emphatically impressive to Samuel, as is indicated by the repetition of the name (Samuel, Samuel). And the fourth time the Samuel class not only recognized that the messenger was not the crown-lost leaders, but the Lord's Truth itself as the representative of God, and, therefore, lent it not only an attentive and responsive, but also an obedient ear (answered, Speak, for Thy servant heareth). 

(33) The message of Studies, Vol. IV, in so far as it concerns Babylon in its two ecclesiastical divisions, Romanism and Protestantism, is certainly finely summarized typically in vs. 11-14. It is this typical summary of that feature of Studies, Vol. IV, that enabled us to see the entire run of thought of 1 Sam. 3 and 4, as also helps to that end came from the statements of

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

46 

vs. 1-3. Since the message of vs. 11-14 suggested Studies, Vol. IV, the other three calls naturally suggest the calls of the preceding three Volumes. The message of vs. 11-14 receiving its fulfilment in the events of 1 Sam. 4, the latter's events are naturally suggestive of certain Parousia and Epiphany battles with, and defeats of Nominal Spiritual Israel at the hands of the antitypical Philistines, certain sifting sectarians of the Parousia and the Epiphany in church, state, capital and, especially, labor; for through these the predicted wrath is poured out on Romanism and Protestantism. These considerations give us solid ground upon which we tread as we unfold the antitypical teachings of 1 Sam. 3 and 4. Now for some details on vs. 11-14. As we read these verses we are reminded by them of the prophecy in 1 Sam. 2:27-36; for vs. 12-14 directly refer to 1 Sam. 2:27-36, declaring that God would fulfill the prophecy there declared against Eli and his house. Above we showed that the man of God referred to in 1 Sam. 2:27 is Bro. Russell and his five successive special helpers. It was from these, especially from the first of these, speaking in Studies, Vol. IV, that the Samuel class while yet in Babylon received the message of Studies, Vol. IV; and it came to that class, in so far as it concerned Romanism and Protestantism, as typically epitomized in vs. 11-14. The many Scriptures on which Studies, Vol. IV, bases its descriptions and denunciations of ecclesiastical Babylon make its teaching of the pertinent matters the teachings of the Word of God (the Lord said, v. 11). To the Samuel class this was the Truth on the subject, coming from the Lord to Him (to Samuel), and was, therefore, final. 

(34) The Lord, through Studies, Vol. IV, declared that He would perform an astounding act, a dumbfounding act and an unexemplified act in Christendom (I will do a thing in Israel, etc.). He stresses the declaration (Behold). And, certainly, the wordy battles of the Parousia and Epiphany against ecclesiastical Babylon and the violent battle against her in the World

Samuel. 

47 

War, phases I and II, and, especially, in the revolutionary feature of the Time of Trouble, have, so far as they have developed, been an astounding, a dumbfounding and an unexemplified act, and what is yet to come will be even more so. In the symbols of Rev. 14:10, 11 the antitypical tingling of both ears, not merely one, is described in some of its details. Yes, it will be in the Time of Wrath (in that day, 12) that the Lord will fulfill all the forecasts of the six abovementioned brothers, especially those of Bro. Russell uttered in Studies, Vol. IV, against the crown-lost leaders of Romanism and Protestantism (against Eli), as these concern them, the Romanist and Protestant clergy and the principal of their flocks (which I have spoken concerning his house). This is no mere threat. Nor will it be commenced and then after a while be allowed to cease before a completion. It was to begin—it already has begun—proceed and come to a full completion in Armageddon. A fairly full description of the destruction begun, continued and completed, is given us in Rev. 18, as well as in numerous other places in Holy Writ. That the coming punishment does not come unheralded and unwarned against, the Lord emphatically declares (I have told him that I will judge his house, 13). 

(35) Through the prophets of both Testaments this judgment was revealed and was expounded by the six above-mentioned brothers, especially by that Servant, who mentions it in Studies, Vols. I, II, III, comparatively briefly, and in very great detail in Vol. IV (1 have told him that I will judge his house). It will be a final judgment (forever). It is due to its sin, known and unrestrained by the crown-lost leaders. This iniquity has been particularly in the Romanist and Protestant clergy (his sons made themselves vile), despite which the crown-lost leaders did not use sufficiently stringent measures to restrain it (he restrained them not). The matter is one of such overshadowing consequence that God has even bound Himself by an 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

48 

oath (therefore I have sworn, 14) never to forgive the iniquity of ecclesiastical Babylon (unto the house of Eli). The sacrifice of Christ will not atone for it, because it is for Adamic sins, while ecclesiastical Babylon's sins are wilful. Nor will the sufferings of the repentant Great Company avail for more than the cancellation of the wilfulness of individual Babylonians; since it does not suffer for the wilfulness of the condemned systems of Babylon (shall not be purged by sacrifice). Nor will any effort of man or devils avail to save Babylon from utter and eternal ruin. And the wilful guilt of its non-Spirit-begotten members will require them to go through harrowing experiences in the Trouble Time to cleanse themselves of part of their uncleanness (Zeph. 3:8, 9; Is. 59:18, 19), and for the rest to pass through the resurrection by judgment in the Millennium (Zech. 13:9; John 5:29). 

(36) The Samuel class was astonished by the phases of the Lord's Truth antitypical of what is contained in vs. 11-14, and refrained from telling of it to the crown-lost leaders for fear of hurting them overmuch, as well as from a natural respect that they cherished for such (lay until the morning … feared to show Eli the vision, 15). His next activity (in the morning) was to help the evangelistically working justified and crown-lost workers (opened the doors of the house of the Lord) as they sought to win the penitent to faith in Christ. By now the Samuel class was about to leave Babylon, of whose necessity they first heard while reading Studies, Vol. III, and of which they became convinced by their reading and understanding Studies, Vol. IV, especially in its descriptions and condemnation of ecclesiastical Babylon. This step they took in connection with their announcing to the crown-lost leaders the contents of the "vision." Its fallen condition and imminent destruction, with the Lord's concordant charge, were given as the reason for their leaving ecclesiastical Babylon. Proper was the deference that restrained the Samuel class from

Samuel. 

49 

announcing the disagreeable tidings to the Eli class until asked about it by the latter itself. Still affectionally disposed (my son, 16) to the antitypical youth, whom they recognized to be zealous for God's glory (Samuel), the crown-lost leaders were curious to learn what they were satisfied was a message from the Lord in Studies, Vol. IV; hence they inquired of the former to give their attention to the latter's call (called). Filially, the Samuel class gave an attentive response to the call (Here am I). Instead of the crown-lost leaders expressly conceding that the message was from the Lord, a thing that they doubtless thought might have a to them undesirable effect on antitypical Samuel, they asked what they had learned from Studies, Vol. IV (literally, What is the thing which he [or it] said to thee, 17; the words, the LORD, are in italics, implying that they were interpolated into the text without corresponding words in the Hebrew). They desired no concealment to be made by antitypical Samuel in the matter (I pray thee hide it not from me). The earnestness of this feature of the antitypical request on a frank and full statement on the subject is typed by Eli's statement in v. 17: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide anything from me of all the things that he [the writer of Studies, Vol. IV] said unto thee. They were thus at least earnest. 

(37) The Little Flock is candid in declaring God's message as due to be given, not holding back any real feature of it. Accordingly, the Samuel part of the Little Flock told the matter in its entirety (Samuel told him every whit, and hid nothing from him, 18). They emphasized every feature of the antitype of vs. 11-14, not holding back the crown-lost leaders' guilty part therein. Since the contents of the antitype of vs. 11-14 had in the writings and lectures of the six brethren mentioned above been already made known to the crown-lost leaders, who were only too well aware of the facts charged in the antitype against the guilty ones concerned, the Eli class accepted submissively

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

50 

the message, believing it to be true; for in the Parousia writings and addresses of many of the crown-lost leaders such charges against the fallen condition of the nominal church and wrongs of its clergy are to be found (It is the Lord: let Him do what seemeth Him good). The Samuel class continued to grow in grace, knowledge and service (Samuel grew, 19), which fact, among other things, moved him to leave Babylon, and to come among the Truth people, for whom in the rest of this chapter Samuel stands as type. Surely, the Lord was with them in leading them out of Babylon, and in blessing them with all their privileges after coming into the Truth (the Lord was with him). After becoming of the Truth people their teachings as the advancing Truth unfolded factually, reasonably and Scripturally, and as such fulfilled without failing as due to be fulfilled (and [God] let none of his words fall to the ground). As the Harvest advanced all Christendom (from Dan [judge: those not in the Truth in any sense] to Beer-sheba [well of the oath: the Little Flock, Great Company, Youthful Worthies, the tentatively justified and Israelites, as those to whom various features of the Oath-bound Covenant belonged], 20) recognized that the Parousia Little Flock in the Truth was by God made a mouthpiece of His as the publishers of the Truth and righteousness (knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord). Nor did the Truth cease to advance with the giving of the antitype of vs. 11-14 to antitypical Samuel (the Lord appeared again; literally, continued to appear, 21); rather it unfolded on the nominal church (in Shiloh) and this continued unfolding of Truth on the nominal church (in Shiloh) was granted by the Lord to antitypical Samuel by the Truth (word of the Lord) coming to them through the Parousia Messenger. The first clause of 1 Sam. 4:1 should have been made the last clause of 1 Sam. 3:21; for putting that clause into Chap. IV, as in some other cases, is an unhappy cutting off of what belongs to the 

Samuel. 

51 

end of one chapter from it, and an unhappy adding of it to a chapter to which it does not belong. It gives the reason for Samuel's having been recognized as a prophet of the Lord by all Israel, i.e., because his speaking as the Lord's mouth came to the hearing of all Israel. In an antitypical way the Little Flock's witnessing the Parousia Truth throughout Christendom during the Parousia made its preaching as the prophet came to antitypical Israel's attention. 

(38) 1 Sam. 4 types the fulfilment of the Lord's forecasts through the six above-mentioned brethren, as typed in 1 Sam. 2:27-36, and of the Little Flock, as typed in 1 Sam. 3:11-14. Part of these forecasts have already been fulfilled, part of them are now fulfilling and the climax of them is to be fulfilled a little later, in Armageddon. These we will now proceed to trace, as fulfilled, or fulfilling, or to be fulfilled, as the case of each may be. As already said, the battles antitypical of the two set forth in 1 Sam. 4 are different in the antitype from one another in their nature. The first antitypical battle was a wordy one and the second in part has been, and its yet remaining part will be, one of words and of physical violence. The wordy battle continued throughout the Parousia as a wordy fight only. The antitypical battle of both words and violence began as such in World War, Phase I, and has continued in both features in World War, Phase II. The second battle began with the revolution sifting in the nominal church in its wordy feature and will take on its violent feature in Armageddon, which will complete the antitypical second battle. The type does not clearly indicate the two features of the second antitypical battle. It is from the fulfilled facts of the wordy feature that we recognize these as the way the antitype will fulfill. This type says nothing of the anarchy feature of the Time of Trouble, because in Armageddon Babylon, civil, ecclesiastical and aristocratic, will be annihilated, and this chapter treats of the defeat and destruction of Babylon ecclesiastical. In

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

52 

many places in the Bible the conflict of the radicals against the nominal church in the Parousia and in the Epiphany is set forth under the figure of a war or battle. The following are some of the passages that use this figure of the wordy battle: Is. 29:1-8; Jer. 51:1-4, 11, 12, 20-58; Ezek. 33:26-29; Hos. 10:13-15. The part that Jesus and the Church take in the wordy battles of the Lord's Word against the nominal church (Rev. 19:11-16) is not typed in 1 Sam. 4, though whatever of secular and religious Truth the antitypical Philistines use in their wordy battle has been, is and will be from the Lord Jesus (Rev. 19:17-21; Joel 2:1-11). 

(39) The purely wordy battle, consisting of partisan (Philistines) attacks on Babylon's creeds in their doctrines, organizations and practices, and of her attempted defenses of these against the partisans who attack her, is set forth in vs. 1, 2. The antitypical Israelites took their stand on their creeds (pitched beside Ebenezer, stone of help, 1), on which as a whole they relied for vindicating their beliefs; and their partisan opponents took their stand on facts, reason and some Scriptures (the Philistines pitched in Aphek, fortress). The defenders of each denomination sought to vindicate its creed in its entirety, and because each one was contradictory of itself, as well as of Scripture, reason and facts in various respects, and because all of them contradicted one another from the standpoint of Scripture, reason and facts, their defense individually and in entirety was an impossible thing from the standpoint of their attackers, i.e., from the standpoint of Scripture, reason and facts. Moreover, their contradicting one another divided the defenders of each creed against those of the rest of the creeds, which again weakened their defense. Their attackers consisted of all five sets of the Parousia sifters, from the threefold standpoint of each set of sifters—those in the sanctuary, court and city or camp. Each of these attacked every weak point in each creed, but 

Samuel. 

53 

in general passed by the stewardship doctrine of each one without much of an attack. Thus the three sets of no-ransomers attacked Babylon's doctrines that contradicted the ransom doctrine, showing their inconsistency, like the ransom's being brought by a member of the Trinity, while the satisfaction of justice in each member of the Trinity is required by the Trinity theory; human immortality, and eternal torment as the penalty of sin as opposing death as the ransom process, etc., etc. The infidelistic sifters attacked especially the Trinity and the Bible as the alleged support of Babylon's doctrines, showing their inconsistency. The combinationists attacked the denominational differences, in defense of which Babylonians were very weak. The reformers in the name of progress, etc., attacked the creeds' conservatism and thereby undermined their influence. And the contradictionists fought many vital things in Babylon's creeds and thus stirred up doubts, etc., against them. Labor especially, and the state in certain cases also belong to the antitypical Philistines, for they attack various theories of the nominal church, by which they are leading multitudes against her and causing other multitudes to forsake her. The result is a divided, confused and ineffectual defense, resulting in a sore defeat for the Babylonians (they joined battle, Israel was smitten … they slew … about 4,000 men, 2). Certain features of this wordy battle, with the Little Flock's part coming thereafter, are typed by the battle between the four and five kings of Gen. 14, with Abraham's part therein coming thereafter. 

(40) The ark of the covenant types God's plan in God and the Christ—Jehovah's full arrangement. Hence it may represent all the features of the plan as due at any time, and as it concerns any section of God's real or nominal people. As God's nominal people are treated of in 1 Sam. 4, only those parts of God's plan as seen by the nominal church in the Parousia and Epiphany before Armageddon are there typed. And this, of course, would mean the twelve stewardship doctrines

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

54 

and such other Truth features seen by any denomination. Hence the ark, as in the possession of Eli and his two sons, represents the truths in possession of the crown-lost leader and the Romanist and Protestant clergy during the Parousia and Epiphany up to Armageddon. With these truths exclusively the nominal church did not engage in the first, the exclusively wordy battle, antitypical of that of vs. 1, 2. Yea, very little use of them did she make, because she devoted her energies mainly to defend the attacked creedal errors, which in each denominational creed its adherents took to be the Truth. E.g., the Calvinists sought to defend absolute predestination of the saved and the lost, and met such a sore defeat thereon as to lead to their largely repudiating it, as can be seen in the revision of the Westminster confession. But for the wordy part of the second battle the leaders (elders, 3) after the defeated nominal-church apologists retired from the first battle to their fortified positions (the people were come into the camp) advised to use only their undoubted truths (Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of Shiloh unto us) and leave their creedal errors unused. For, as they reasoned over the wherefores of their defeat at the hands of hostile partisans (Wherefore hath the Lord smitten us today before the Philistines?), they concluded that it was due to their creedal errors; hence they felt certain of victory, if they would fight against the hostile partisans with their truths (that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies). Therefore the nominal-church warriors began to revamp their long-neglected stewardship and other truths, refurbishing them to fitness for battle (So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubim [who acts in harmony with His wisdom, pictured by the light that comes out of the Shekinah, His power and love, pictured by the cherubim, and His justice, the antitypical Mercy Seat], 4). But as the

Samuel. 

55 

sequel will show, these stewardship and other truths were not well studied; nor did their wielders understand well how to use them effectively against the arguments of their enemies. Again, the Romanist (Hophni) and Protestant (Phinehas) clergy, who were the main custodians of these truths (were there with the ark of the covenant of God), had a very poor hold thereon. These things put the over-confident, nominal-church warriors to a great disadvantage. 

(41) On all hands the nominal-church warriors expected victory because of their taking their stand on the denominational stewardship and other truths, and gloried in an anticipated sure victory (when the ark … came … shouted with a great shout, 5). And this confidence extended to various phases of society—state and aristocracy (so that the earth rang [moved]); for be it remembered that for the most part state and aristocracy sided with the nominal church. The boastful exultation of the nominal-church warriors came to the ears of their antagonists, e.g., Mr. Bryan's boast of a sure victory over Mr. Darrow before their encounter at Dayton, Tenn., on Modernism and Fundamentalism (the Philistines heard … the shout, 6). These soon learned the cause of the boasting of the so-called orthodox (they understood … the ark … was come into the camp). This first aroused fear in the enemies of the nominal church, and such fear moved them to exhort one another to the courage of, desperation (were afraid … God is come into the camp; Woe is us … not … such … heretofore, 7; who will deliver us out of the hand of … Gods that smote the Egyptians, 8; Be strong … be not servants unto the Hebrews … quit yourselves like men, 9). The enemies, therefore, knew that they would have to exert themselves to their utmost not to be defeated. Little did they know that God, who they feared was on the nominal church's side, had forsaken her. These antitypical Philistines consisted: first, of the religious revolutionists in the nominal church, the so-called

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

56 

modernists, who use various phases of the five sifting errors of the Parousia and other errors of the Epiphany; then, of conservative and radical labor, including the trade-unionists, radical socialists, communists, syndicalists and anarchists; then, of inimical statesmen, like Calles of Mexico, Azana of Spain, Hitler of Germany, Lenin and Stalin of Russia, etc., with the backing of the countries that they represent. It will later take in all the ten language-nations of Europe, after the violent revolutionists get control of them. Also antitypical Elisha has been doing his share in the damage. These are the antitypical Philistines during the second battle, i.e., in the Epiphany. During World War, Phase I, i.e., the late part of the first battle, both a wordy and a violent battle set in against the nominal church as part of the first battle. The wordy battle of that time especially attacked its doctrine of the Divine rights of kings, clergy and aristocrats. The armies inflicted much physical violence on the nominal church, by killing millions of its adherents, destroying much of its property and greatly injuring its prestige as that of the institution whose failure to fulfill its mission was more than any other institution responsible for the spirit that led up to the World War. In Russia both the Greek and Roman Churches were almost annihilated by the physical violence exercised during the World War, Phase I. Therein in the second battle will come the complete verbal and violent defeat of the nominal church (the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, v. 10). 

(42) And since the end of World War, Phase I, the wordy and the physical violence war has been going on. The conflict between the Modernists and the Fundamentalists continues with the Fundamentalists ever going down to defeat after defeat, both in the arguments and in the practical measures adopted. The classic example for this period is the encounter between Messrs. Bryan and Darrow at Dayton, Tenn., where Mr. Bryan made a most dismal failure of defending 

Samuel. 

57 

the Bible against Mr. Darrow's infidelistic attacks. In most Protestant denominations the Modernists are now in the chariot driving the organizations executively onward, e.g., the Presbyterian Church in its general assembly and in most of its synods is controlled by the Modernists, who have even succeeded in getting the courts to give them the church buildings of Fundamentalist congregations! Rome and what it is pleased to call the Reds, i.e., practically everything anti-Romanist, are waging a world-wide wordy and physical violence battle. First antitypical Ben-hadad and later antitypical Hazael joined the fray, with Rome getting by far the worst of it. Against both Protestantism and Romanism the sword of Elisha has been bared, with heavy losses inflicted upon both of the former. In both a wordy and a physical violence fight are various states in conflict with Rome. Certainly Calles in Mexico most disastrously struck Rome in such a conflict. Czecho-Slovakia made Rome retreat in their wordy conflict. Even Romanist Poland struck Rome a hard blow over the Romanist Cardinal of Cracow refusing to allow Carol of Roumania to view the body of Pilsudski in the Cracow Cathedral. Rome met another defeat over the concordat conflict in Serbia. In 1932 in the verbal battle between the Fascisti and the Vatican, the pope learned to keep his hands, burnt in that battle, out of Italy's political fires. Mr. Hitler struck Rome and Protestantism most disastrous blows both verbally and physically. In Spain both the verbal and physical violence conflict went on in a major catastrophe for Rome, which through the rebels, Germany, Italy and the Moors, and even its own priests, monks, etc., struck back with physical violence, while everywhere Rome waged a verbal warfare on Republican, Spain. In every Protestant country the Modernists have driven the Fundamentalists more or less into the background, and all phases of Modernism reign in Protestantism. The future will give the Fundamentalists more and more defeats at the hands of the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

58 

Modernists, while in every European country before Armageddon the nations have plundered and will devastate Rome of her privileges, powers and prerogatives. All this is a part of the antitype of the battle and the defeat of Israel described in v. 10. 

(43) But the worst of the defeat is yet to be inflicted on Nominal Spiritual Israel. While it will be decidedly worsted in the yet remaining part of the second verbal fight and in the pre-Armageddon physical violence part of the battle antitypical of that of v. 10, the climax of its defeat is reserved to Armageddon, which, while there will doubtless be in it some of the verbal fight waged, will consist mainly of the physical violence part of the second battle. As the ally of both state and capital (though to stay off the coming revolution, Rome and Protestantism pretend to favor conservative labor, having been driven to take that pretended stand somewhat by the logic of argument and events and mainly by fear for their future safety) they will become a target for antitypical Jehu when antitypical Jezebel reviles him for his attack on the state (2 Kings 9:30-37), and will certainly go down into utter destruction. There will, as 2 Kings 9:35 shows, be nothing left of Protestantism and Catholicism, except the memory of their theories (skull), conduct (feet) and deeds (palms of her hands). It will, indeed, be a disastrous rout and destruction that mark and will mark their part in both features of this battle. The complete destruction of a large part of their following will mark their defeat (a great slaughter … fell … 30,000 footmen) and the disorganized retreat of their surviving warriors (they fled every man into his own tent, habitation). The clergy and the most prominent church members will be cut off in death in Armageddon, after being soundly refuted in the wordy battle (2 Kings 10:18-25; Is. 65:11, 12; Jer. 25:32-38). This is expressly shown of the clergy in our study (the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain, 11). And, worst of all for Nominal Spiritual 

Samuel. 

59 

Israel, the custodianship of the stewardship doctrines and other truths that the nominal church has, will fall into the hands of antitypical Elisha and Jehu, both of whom will take these as their charge; for while the Little Flock will not be a part of the antitypical Philistines, antitypical Elisha, Jehu and Hazael are of them (1 Kings 19:16, 17), antitypical Elisha taking part in the verbal battle only, even as the sword of all three of them refers to their theories used in the verbal battle (the ark of God has taken); for after Armageddon the Epiphany Levites will be the religious teachers of Christendom and will therein be supported by antitypical Jehu. 

(44) All throughout these two battles, particularly throughout the second battle, news-bearers have carried intelligence of the progress of the conflict to the nominal people of God (ran a man … to Shiloh, 12). These were especially crown-losers (a man of Benjamin) who were very much grieved at the continued ill success of the nominal-church warriors in the second battle (clothes rent … earth upon his head). Their grief continually increased until it will reach a climax in the Armageddon stage of the battle, which seals the refutation and slaughter of the clergy, a thing that will occur before the nominal church is utterly destroyed in Armageddon, the crown-lost leaders still occupying the place of leadership in the nominal church at the place of access to, and egress from it (when he came, lo, Eli sat upon a seat [literally, throne] by the wayside, 13). These were intently on the lookout for tidings from the field of battle (watching). Knowing the ill preparation of the defenders of the nominal church's truths, they trembled for their safety in the conflict (trembled for the ark of God). The tidings of the verbal defeat of the antitypical Israelites in their battle with the antitypical Philistines, particularly of the taking of the ark and of the physical death of the Romanist and Protestant clergy, distressed unspeakably the nominal-church people (told it, all the city cried

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

60 

out; Rev. 14:10, 11; 18:9-11, 15-19; Jer. 25:34-36). The cries of distress of the nominal-church members have been, are coming and will come to the attention of the crown-lost leaders increasingly (Eli heard the noise of the crying, 14). And they ask its meaning (he said, What meaneth the noise of this tumult?). They were not long left without an explanation (the man came in hastily, and told Eli). Old, indeed, in leadership are now the crown-lost leaders, who began to take the place of leadership about the beginning and middle of the second century, when Ignatius began to exalt bishops and Justin Martyr began the sectarianizing of the Little Flock movement begun by St. John and nourished by Polycarp, working onward gradually toward the sectarianizing of that movement into the Greek Catholic Church (Now Eli was ninety and eight years old, 15). But their spiritual vision had become dim, especially since 1846; and by the time the Parousia was over they could see nothing of God's Truth in its connection as a plan (his eyes were dim, that he could not see). The news-bearers, who gave their reports verbally and in writings, e.g., in newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, books, etc., gave evidence of having been in the thick of the fray (I am he that came out of the army [literally, ranks], and I fled today out of the army [ranks], 16). From eye witnesses the crown-lost leaders desire to know the news (he said, What is there done?). His question was put with the kindliness of a leader to a subordinate (my son), as it was fitting so to be. 

(45) In the rest of the chapter the effects of the tidings of misfortune upon the crown-lost leaders and upon united Protestantism (the image) as a whole are described, and that first upon the crown-lost leaders. The news-bringers briefly sum up the evil tidings in four parts: (1) the flight of antitypical Israel before the antitypical Philistines (Israel is fled before the Philistines, 17); (2) a fearful refutation of many antitypical Israelites in the wordy part of the battle and 

Samuel. 

61 

a fearful amount of deaths in the physical violence part of the battle (there is also a great slaughter among the people); (3) The Romanist and Protestant clergy, the new creatures among them, including the crown-lost leaders, excepted, are all slain (thy two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead); and (4) the nominal-church stewardship and other truths are taken by the "Russellites" and conservative labor as of their guardianship (the ark of God is taken). We note both in the type and the antitype how to Eli and the crown-lost leaders each succeeding calamity is greater than the preceding one until the climax of evil is reached in the fourth and last one. And it was the last calamity that brought fatal effects on typical and antitypical Eli. The tidings that the antitypical Philistines had taken away from antitypical Israel the stewardship and other truths and then used them against antitypical Israel (made mention of the ark of God, 18) caused the crown-lost leaders to fall from their symbolic throne, i.e., to give up their place and authority as leaders (fell off the seat [literally, throne]), in despair (backward), thus declaring publicly their giving up the leadership (by the side of the gate). They will lose all will power for leadership (and his neck brake), and thus will cease acting as crown-lost leaders (and he died). This they will do at the dictates of wisdom (old man) and gravity (heavy), after having as a class been the leaders in Christendom throughout nearly the entire Gospel Age (he had judged Israel forty years). We are not to understand that Eli's death represents the actual physical death of the crown-lost leaders; for they, as well as the bulk of the rest of the Great Company in Babylon, will survive Armageddon, and come into the Truth, as other Scriptures show, and serve it (Rev. 7:14; Num. 8:5-26). Rather, Eli's death represents the crown-lost leaders' ceasing in Armageddon to be such; for at that time or shortly afterwards they will own that the Lord had cast off Babylon in 1878, and had been using the Priesthood especially as his mouthpiece 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

62 

since that time, as well as the Great Company since 1917 as mouthpiece toward the public. 

(46) In the Divine law both the Romanist Church and the Protestant Church have been daughters-in-law to the crown-lost leaders. Nothing in this type is said of the Romanist daughter-in-law of antitypical Eli; but something very marked is typed of his Protestant daughter-in-law, the symbolic wife of the Protestant clergy, antitypical Phinehas (his daughter-in-law, Phinehas' wife, 19). The Protestant section of the nominal church had in her midst her section of the Great Company, who, by the Truth preaching and writings and by the signs of the times, particularly those of the Epiphany, and most particularly those connected with Armageddon, will be about prepared to leave Babylon, only waiting until the Protestant section of nominal Zion will be in travail in Armageddon (was with child, near to be delivered; Is. 66:8). The Protestant nominal church loves her stewardship and other truths, and is and has been most deeply pained at the news that the "Russellites" and conservative labor had these truths in their possession and used them against antitypical Israel (heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken), that the crown-lost leaders had publicly renounced their office and authority as such and that the Protestant clergy had been refuted and literally slain (that her father-in-law and her husband were dead). United Protestantism thereupon will bow down to the travail of her Armageddon sufferings (bowed herself and travailed, for her pains came upon her), and these (Is. 66:8) will be so intense that she will be unable to survive them. The Societyites will not only have stirred up antitypical Jehu to bring the Roman and Greek Catholic Churches gradually to their destruction in Armageddon, but will have done the same with him as to the Protestant Churches. And it is these sufferings of Protestantism as a whole that are the antitypical pains of v. 19. And because it will be as she goes into destruction and thus experiences its pains 

Samuel. 

63 

that her part of the Great Company will leave her as a movement, separate and distinct from her, the Bible represents her as travailing in birth, in v. 19 and in Is. 66:8. 

(47) It will be at the time of the death of Protestantism as a whole (about the time of her death, 20; as soon as Zion travailed, Is. 66:8) that the remnants of the Protestant denominations (the women that stood by her) will seek to keep her in life with the prospect of a symbolic son being born, i.e., of the Great Company as a whole leaving Protestantism to become a separate movement, to continue the name and office of antitypical Phinehas (Fear not, for thou hast borne a son). But expiring Protestantism as a whole will make no fitting response (she answered not), nor will she be heartened thereby (neither did she regard it; literally, set her heart [to it]). Summing up her little remaining strength she will give a name to the Great Company movement as it is being born, a name that will indicate the three unutterable losses that she will have experienced, especially the greatest of the three—that from her the stewardship and other truths (the ark) have been taken and have fallen into the hands of her enemies—Ichabod (Where is the glory? 21). What of Truth she had with her leaders and clergy was the glory of Protestantism in her better days; but they will now have been lost to her and hers forever. Yea, she will have lost the glory! It will have departed from her and gone to her enemies, the overthrowers of herself, her clergy and her crown-lost leaders (The glory is departed from Israel, because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father-in-law and her husband)! The unutterableness of her woe will almost surpass human power of thought to perceive and appreciate, which appears from the repetition of the statement: The glory is departed (22). The chief part of her sorrow will consist in the consciousness that her stewardship and other truths will have been yielded up by their defenders to their and her enemies (for 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

64 

the ark of God is taken). Yea, Romanists and Protestants will be most sorely tested (tormented, i.e., tested, Rev. 14:10) by the destruction (fire and brimstone) of their respective cherished institutions: the beast and Catholic Church, and its image and the Protestant Church, which they believe are Divine institutions, in full view of the Church (holy angels) and Christ (the Lamb). The memory of this sore trial will not only never be forgotten; but it will come up in the minds of men forever (the smoke of their torment [testing by the destruction of their revered and supposedly Divine institutions] ascendeth up for ever and ever, Rev. 14:11). If we should take the view of the Biblically unenlightened natural man, the destruction of these powerful institutions would be one of the last things in the world to expect, especially in so short a time as the Bible indicates; but, Biblically enlightened, we can see the day of Babylon's destruction hastening rapidly on. Surely, the next few years will have witnessed the most stupendous events of history. And our study of 1 Sam. 3 and 4 helps us the more thoroughly to see this rapidly approaching destruction coming on apace. How glad we should be that the institutions that have so grossly caricatured God's holy person, character, plan and works are soon to be sunk irretrievably into the sea of destruction, and that the true Zion will shortly begin her grand and glorious reign (Rev. 18:20). Halleluiah! For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth (Rev. 19:6)! 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) Under what two subjects will we undertake the study of 1 Sam. 1—15? Which of these will we study in this chapter? When the second subject? Under what condition? How in comparison to the usual run of our former expositions will these studies be made? Why so? What will not be found in the Samuel antitype? How will it be found in its first fifteen, especially its first eight chapters? E.g., how does this principle apply to 1 Sam. 1 and 2 and the antitype of the following chapters? When will these changes of antitypes be brought out? What is the general setting of 1 Sam. 1 and 2? In general outlines like what 

Samuel. 

65 

other antitype is that of 1 Sam. 1 and 2? To whom, in general, in this picture does Elkanah correspond? Peninnah? Hannah? With what differences? What is typed by Jacob in his family matters? Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah? Rachel? Joseph? Benjamin? Samuel in the Hannah picture? Hannah's other three sons? Hannah's two daughters? What are the correspondencies and differences in the Rachel and Hannah pictures? Of what Scriptural principle are the Jacob and Elkanah pictures a splendid illustration? Without what? 

(2) How were the star-members and their special helpers during the entire Gospel Age before the real and the nominal Church? As what? How are these two things typed? Where? How is this typed? As such, what were their qualities? How is this typed? Of how many sets of truths were they made stewards? How was this typed? What were the nature and character of the first set of these truths and its appliers? How was this typed? Of the second set of these truths and its appliers? How was it typed? During what periods did the second set of truths and its appliers produce and develop ten (or twelve) denominational groups? How is this typed? What are these ten denominations? Under what picture are two denominations included in other denominations? Which two are these? In what denominations were they included in that picture? How are these two set forth in the tabernacle's camp picture? How may they be indifferently viewed? Why? How did antitypical Hannah stand, from the standpoint of antitypical children? 

(3) Who started Little Flock movements? Who developed them? How many did they start and develop? What was later done with these? By what were these movements started and developed? Among whom? How are these things typed? In connection with what were these sacrifices made? In what did these result? Who later perverted them into denominations? In what kind of periods were they not started? In what kind were they started? To do this, what did they have to do? In whose interests were these services and sacrifices not made? In whose? Who ministered during the periods of these services and sacrifices? How is this typed? Who chiefly functioned then? Over what periods did these sacrifices extend? When, relatively to the functioning of 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

66 

the Catholic and Protestant clergy, do the three elective movements operate? Why are the clergy typed by priests? 

(4) What did the star-members give to one of the sets of truths and their appliers? When? What did these truths become? How are the greater and stronger denominations typed? The lesser and weaker? What did they give to the other set of truths and their appliers? How do these compare and contrast with those given antitypical Peninnah? What throughout the Age, until the Parousia, was antitypical Hannah not given by the Lord? How did antitypical Peninnah act toward her? How is this typed? How did this affect antitypical Hannah? How is this shown in Is. 54:11, 15-17? What is God's part in this? 

(5) Who cooperated with the 35 star-members and their 35 special helpers in each of the ten (or twelve) Little Flock movements? What did antitypical Peninnah do in connection with each one of these Little Flock movements? How did this affect antitypical Hannah? As a result, what did she omit doing? How did her course affect antitypical Elkanah? In connection with what did this occur? What did antitypical Elkanah see and say? What did he suggest? How was this suggestion true? What was the last of the ten (or twelve) stewardship truths? What did antitypical Hannah thereupon do? How is this typed? Under what conditions? During whose rule did this occur? What was the position of antitypical Eli? How are these things typed? How is the word temple not used in this connection? How is it used? How was this temple built? What does it type? 

(6) Who was the star-member and his special helper in the cleansed sanctuary? How did this class feel? Why? How is this typed? To whom did they go in their distress? What did they do to Him? How is this typed? What did they in their prayer vow? How? How is this typed? For what did they pray? How is this typed? What was the vow? How was it typed? How was it to be like a Nazarite? In what way was the antitypical prayer offered? What as to the movement did this move them to set forth? What did this prayer attract? How is this typed? What kind was their speech? What only did it utter? How is this typed? How did it affect the minds of the crown-lost princes? How is this typed? What did they judge the faithful to be? How is this typed? What 

Samuel. 

67 

two things did they do to the faithful? How is this typed? What did they accuse them of being long drunken? How is this typed? How were the participants in the Miller movement regarded from 1846 to 1874? How is this typed? 

(7) What did the accused faithful do as to the accusation? How is this typed? What did they then do? How is this typed? What did they again do? How is this typed? What two things were denied? How is this typed? What did they say that they did? How is this typed? What kind of an opinion of them did they not desire the crown-lost princes to have? How is this typed? What did this move them to give? How is this typed? What are we not to forget of the crown-lost princes? Despite what? How is this pictured forth? Of what was their course creditable? Wherein was it exercised? How is this typed? Had they been better informed, what would they perhaps not have done? Why? How is this typed? What effect did their exhortation and wish have on antitypical Hannah? How is this typed? Why did it so affect them? Why was this natural? How did these assurances affect the faithful, longing Little Flock? What did they do, as they neared 1874? How is this typed? 

(8) What did Bro. Russell, the new star-member, and the five mentioned successive pilgrims, each in turn as his special helper, and the rest of the Little Flock as Truth appliers do? How is this typed? To what did they then give their special attention? How is this typed? So doing, what did Bro. Russell and these pilgrims do? How is this typed? What did God in this connection remember? How is this typed? What then occurred through God's interposition? How is this typed? How did antitypical Hannah regard the Little Flock Parousia movement? How is this typed? Why may it be so regarded? How is this typed? What did Bro. Russell, the five special pilgrims and the rest of God's people do during the Parousia? How is this typed? In what manner? What does this mean? How is it typed? To what did antitypical Hannah devote her attention? How is this typed? What would they afterwards do? How is this typed? What is thereby brought to our attention? How did Bro. Russell and the five pilgrims stand as to this work? How is this typed?

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

68 

(9) What activities thus occupied Little Flock brethren? How is this typed? How long did they continue such work? How is this typed? After preparing such for public work, what did such Little Flock servants do? How is this typed? Why did they do this? In faith what three things did they do in this service? How is this typed by the three bullocks? What kinds of Truth did they appear preaching? How is this typed? While doing this, in what condition were their proteges? How is this typed? What is typed by Hannah's and Samuel's offering one bullock? In what ways did antitypical Hannah advance their proteges in public service? By so doing, to whose attention did they bring them? How is this typed? 

(10) Why did it become necessary for antitypical Hannah to acknowledge antitypical Samuel? How is this typed? What is the relation of the praying and vow-fulfilling antitypical Hannah? How is this typed? What did they identify? How is this typed? What did they openly acknowledge as an accomplished fact? How is this typed? What could they confidently affirm? Why? How is this typed? As what did they tell this? How is this typed? What two facts did they state? How is this typed? What is the correct pertinent translation? How did they describe the nature of the vow? How is this typed? What is the correct translation of this thought? What does v. 28 show antitypically and typically? What proves the answer to be correct? Who is, and who is not, the "he" of v. 28? 

(11) With what will the discussion of 1 Sam. 1 be concluded? What are the three involved types and antitypes? How do antitypical Sarah, Rachel and Hannah differ as to the truths of which they consist? As to the appliers of these truths? As to the time of operation? As to the time of bearing their children? As to the time of ceasing to operate? Which is the least inclusive of these types? The more inclusive? The most inclusive? 

(12) Why is the study of 1 Sam. 2 joined to the study of 1 Sam. 1? What does Hannah type, as the mother of Samuel? What made them declare, with ardent yearnings, the antitypes of vs. 1-10? What do vs. 1-10 feature? From what standpoint? With what in mind will vs. 1-10 be studied? Who very helpfully translates this section? What will be done with this translation in the main on 

Samuel. 

69 

these verses? What effect on antitypical Hannah did their success in developing antitypical Samuel have? How is this typed? Why such very great joy? In what fact did they exult? How is this typed? How were the Truth and its arrangements Parousially set forth? Why were they so set forth? How is this typed? What did such a setting of them forth enable antitypical Hannah to do? How is this typed? Despite what advantages, what were their foes unable to do? What proved to be their strength? Why? How is this typed? 

(13) What did they set forth as the most important feature of the Harvest message? As having what characteristic? How is this typed? Against what did they stress God's sole Deity? How is this typed? As respects these four things, even over whose corresponding excellencies did they stress God's superiority? Let alone those of whom else? How is this typed? What did they exhort as to antitypical Peninnah and her children? How is this typed? What had been their past course? How is this typed? What did they rebuke? To what did they pertinently exhort? How are these two things typed? What two reasons are given for this rebuke and exhortation? How are they typed? What is the next Harvest feature proclaimed here typically by Hannah? How is it typed? What were the Parousia means of breaking up the creeds? How is this typed? How were the Truth warriors qualified thereto? How is this typed? According to Heb. 4:12 what was the Harvest Truth to antitypical Hannah? 

(14) What were the next parts of the Harvest message proclaimed by antitypical Hannah? How are these typed? What resulted to antitypical Hannah? How is this typed? What resulted to antitypical Peninnah? How is this typed? What were additional parts of antitypical Hannah's Parousia message? How is this typed? What is still another part of the Harvest message proclaimed by antitypical Hannah, as to the nominal people of God? How is this typed in v. 7? In what particulars did God make His nominal people poor in the Harvest time? How is this described in Rev. 3:17? On the other hand, what did antitypical Hannah proclaim as the contrasted blessings of the Little Flock? How is this typed? In what did this enrichment consist, according to Rev. 3:18?

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

70 

(15) What was antitypical Hannah's proclamation as to the proud and the humble? How is this typed? Wherein are these contrasts seen? What does the exposition of the two clauses of v. 7 show? From what did God raise up the poor (humble)? How do Is. 52:2 and Ps. 137:1 show this? How is this typed? From what and to what did God uplift the needy? How is this typed? With whom has He thereby given them to dwell? How is this typed? Why did He do this? How is this typed? How do the cited Scriptures teach this? Of what will they become pillars? How is this typed? As such pillars what will they also be made? How is this typed? What is the next proclamation? How is this typed? 

(16) What verse types another proclamation of antitypical Hannah? Of how many parts does it consist? What is the first of these? How is it typed? What is the proper translation of the word translated saints in v. 9? How does the literal translation describe the feet members? What relevancy has Ps. 91 to the thought of the first feature of v. 9's proclamation? What is the second feature of this proclamation? How is it typed? What is the third feature of this proclamation? How is this typed? What verse types a final proclamation of antitypical Hannah? In how many parts? What is the first of these? Who are the foes to be shattered? How is the first point typed? What is the second of these? When did the New Heavens begin to be set in their place? By what acts? How will the pertinent controversies end? How is the second point typed? What is the third of these? Why will this striping be inflicted? How is the third point typed? What is the fourth of these? How is it typed? What is the fifth of these? How is it typed? With the light of this exposition cast upon 1 Sam. 2:1-10, what will a review of these verses enable us to recognize. 

(17) What did Bro Russell, etc., do after introducing antitypical Samuel to his public work? How is this typed? In what way did antitypical Samuel do his work? How is this typed? Whom do Hophni and Phinehas type? In what sense were these sons of Belial, in type and antitype? How did they not know the Lord, type and antitype? How did they not, and how did they use their positions, type and antitype? What was the typical and the antitypical hook with three teeth? What were the antitypical pan,

Samuel. 

71 

kettle, caldron and pot? What is typed by putting the hook with three teeth into these and drawing out much sodden flesh? How did they do this in the antitype? How was this custom conducted, especially by the Catholic churches? In a word, what did the Catholic and Protestant clergy do to God's people as sacrificers? Where was this custom universal? Where nearly universal? 

(18) What worse thing was contained in the "custom" of the Catholic and Protestant clergy? How is this typed? What is the choice part of a real sacrifice? By what is this typed? As what particular thing is this offered? How is it typed? What does this precede? How is this typed? What demand against this condition was made by the clergy? Through what? How are these things typed? What did these clerics take to themselves for themselves? How is this typed? As a result, what did they become? How did they use the opportunities of their office? How not? How is this typed? How does their office seem to be to them? What results from this practice? What did this make of the clergy? How did the prophets speak of this course of the clergy? How do the cited passages show this? What happened when the consecrators desired and worked against such a course of the clergy? How is this typed? What did they force the consecrators to give up? By what means? What did their kindred-minded clerical brethren do before the Parousia? By living out the same principle in what did the Parousia clergy partake? How and against whom did they thereby sin? How is this typed? What result did their course effect on the more prominent people as to the religious life? Upon the clergy? 

(19) What is the character of the translation child in v. 18? What is the word naar used to designate? What are some examples in proof of this, How should the word be rendered in v. 18? What is meant by the expression, the Little Flock as the Parousia Movement? How was it engaged in service? How is this typed? What is meant by being girded with the Truth? How is this shown by Eph. 6:14? How is it typed? For what does the ephod stand? For whom alone in the type was it to be had? What passages prove these answers? Of what tribe was Samuel not a member? Of what tribe was he a member? As what was he perpetually devoted to

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

72 

God's service? What character did this give him? Typical of whom? How? What did the Little Flock Truth servants give antitypical Samuel? How is this typed? How did they give them these? During what times? How is this typed? With whom did such Truth servants especially serve? How is this typed? While they were so serving what did antitypical Eli do to them? How is this typed? How not? How did they do it? In return for what? How is this typed? Into what two classes did such consecrators fall? Into what class later did the bulk of the new creatures fall? Why is this said? What types this? When did antitypical Eli in part bring part of this seed into existence? When do, and when do not the births take place? In what sense? Despite what? What did all the Truth servants do after each call and sifting period? How is this typed? 

(20) What did God, according to v. 21, do after 1914? How is this typed? Who then were antitypical Elkanah and Hannah? When this fruitfulness will be complete, what will have emerged therefrom? How is this typed? What do we learn from this eventuality as to the Hannah type in its widest sense? How do the antitypes of Sarah, Rachel and Hannah compare and contrast? What as yet do we not see? What may we see on this head? Even what else? Why are these two or three things possible and in harmony with the Oath-bound Covenant? 

(21) In what time in the ministry of the crown-lost leaders do the first Samuel antitypes fall? How is this typed? What have these in the Parousia and the Epiphany learned? How is this typed? In what two forms did the pertinent wickedness exist? Of what other evil of the clergy did the crown-lost leaders learn? How is this evil typed? Of what did this evil consist? Whence did this knowledge primarily come? Secondarily? Thirdly? What did this knowledge prompt the crown-lost leaders to do? Wherein do we see these protests in part exemplified? Who were these protesting evangelists? Pastors? How is this typed? 

(22) What will some of the readers recall of Billy Sunday's speeches pertinent to this subject? What antitype did he illustrate thereby? What can be said of the character of the reports on the clergy? How is this typed? What did the clergy cause the Lord's people to do? How 

Samuel. 

73 

is this typed? What did they show the clergy? How is this typed? What must be said of the pertinent rebukes? How is this typed? With what, in type and antitype, was the matter allowed to go on? How did the evil-doers act as to these too gentle rebukes? How is this typed? What is the natural effect of an executive's too much leniency? What did their impenitence arouse in the Lord? How is this typed? In contrast with the clergy's course, what marked that of antitypical Samuel? How is this typed? To whose course was Samuel's similar? 

(23) Who appeared before the crown-lost leaders with a denunciatory and sentencing message? Who know this? How is this typed? As what did these come? How is this typed? What question did their message raise in the crown-losers' minds? How is this typed? Why is the answer true, in type and antitype? What is the sense of the question following the first question that the pertinent speeches and writings raised in the crown-losers' minds? How are the questions of this set of questions typed? Why are the answers true, in type and antitype? What other question was thus raised in the crown-losers' minds? How is this typed? Why is the answer true, in type and antitype? How as to excuses do these questions leave the sinning clergy? What demand did God then make on the clergy through the said speeches and writings? How is this typed? How did these oppose God's pertinent ordinances? How is this typed? Why did God pertinently blame the crown-lost leaders? How is this typed? 

(24) After pointing out the pertinent wrong-doings, what did God then proceed to do? How is this typed? What was the first piece of retribution forecast? How has it been fulfilling? How was it typed? The second? How has it been fulfilling? How was it typed? The third? How has it been fulfilling? How was it typed? How has God dealt with His Parousia and Epiphany priesthood? How was it typed? The fourth piece of retribution? How was it typed? The fifth? How was it fulfilled? How was it typed? What did it mean to the clergy? The sixth? How was it fulfilled? How was it typed? Of what type and antitype would the pertinent things be a sign? 

(25) What sign did the Lord give the crown-lost leaders? What are its two parts? How is this typed? How

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

74 

do the cited Scriptures prove both parts? How would this be a sign to them in its two parts? How is this typed? What will happen in Armageddon to the cleansed crown-lost leaders? What will all the rest of the surviving crown-lost leaders see? How is this typed? What did God then proceed through these brothers to forecast? How is this typed? How do the cited passages prove this thought? How would that wise and faithful servant administer his office? How is this typed? What did God promise to raise up to him? How is this typed? How does the cited passage show this? As what would he function for Jesus? How is this typed? What did God on this subject finally affirm, in the first place, of every true priest who in Babylon had been under the crown-lost leaders? How is this typed? In the second place? How is this typed? What do we witness as to these forecasts? 

(26) What will we now study? What remark will be recalled as made in the opening part of this article? Of what was there in the Samuel antitype a chronological succession of events? To what did the study of 1 Sam. 1 and 2 bring us? How does the antitype of 1 Sam. 3 and 4 stand on this point as to the antitype of 1 Sam. 1 and 2 as a whole? As to that of 1 Sam. 2:27-36? How do the antitypes of 1 Sam. 1 and 2 and 1 Sam. 3 and 4 differ? How may this be summed up? How does this line of thought manifest itself in the Samuel antitype in the following chapters? Where have we seen this line of thought presented? Why are these matters stressed? 

(27) What does the opening statement of 1 Sam. 3 prove as to the Little Flock movement and the time involved in it? Why is this true? Not even what part of the Little Flock does it type? Why not? Whom does the language of v. 1 fit antitypically? What first point proves this? Second? How long did some of these sleep? Others? And the last sleepers? What other facts prove that Samuel in vs. 1-3 types the Little Flock from 1846 to 1878? What two things does this prove? 

(28) How should the word, naar, be translated in v. 1? In what kind of work did the Samuel class serve the Lord in Babylon from 1846 to 1874? By what is this shown? Under whose eyes and approval did they do this? How much Truth came to this Samuel class in Babylon from 1846 to 1878? Of whom else is this true?

Samuel. 

75 

Despite what fact? What are the types of these two antitypes? Where is the thing that is said to come to pass in v. 2 mentioned? What is that thing? Why are the things set forth in vs. 2, 3 mentioned? What kind of a condition was that of the crown-lost leaders mentioned in v. 2? What was the first thing in this sad condition that made it bad? Why was this so? What put them into this condition? What was the second thing that made their condition bad? Of what did they thus furnish a marked example? 

(29) What is the antitypical lamp of God? Otherwise expressed? How does the cited passage prove this? For what is this typical lamp not to be taken? Why not? What was it? Where did it burn? How did it seem to go out? What did the temple attendants do before it went out? What is the antitype of this lamp's growing dim? Under another figure how does Joel 2:30, 31 prove this? How do the cited passages prove that the Bible is a lamp? When was the dim-growing time of the Bible to the nominal church? When did its going out begin and end? What conclusion follows from this as to the period of the Little Flock's falling asleep? What section of them? What is the antitypical ark for the pertinent time? Why is this said? In what will this view help? 

(30) What is the time difference antitypically between vs. 1-3 and the rest of this chapter? How was the call antitypical of that in v. 4 voiced? When was Studies, Vol. 1, issued? How was it circulated? What was the special method of its circulation? What occurred through its circulation? How did its message appear to the Little Flock? What did they conclude as to its authorship? What did this lead them to do? Why so? What was the crown-lost leaders' answer? What did it mean? What effect did it produce in antitypical Samuel? 

(31) When was Studies, Vol. II, first circulated? To whom did it come? Where? How is this typed? What kind of a hearing did antitypical Samuel give it? Why? How is this typed? What did its character suggest to antitypical Samuel as to its writer? What did this prompt them to do? How are these things typed? What readiness did they express? What did the crown-lost leaders disavow? How is this typed? What did they charge antitypical Samuel to do? How is this typed? How did they 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

76 

speak to antitypical Samuel? How is this typed? What effect did their charge have? How is this typed? In what condition did the two calls so far described find the Samuel class? How is this typed? To what fact was that condition due? How is this typed? What else came to the Samuel class while yet in Babylon? How is this typed? What kind of a ring did the message have in their ears? What conclusion did this prompt them to draw? What did this prompt them to do? How is this typed? What was told antitypical Eli? How typed? 

(32) What had some of the crown-lost leaders been doing in the meantime? What resulted therefrom? What facts prove this? What did they conceal about this course of theirs? How are these things typed? What two things did the Eli class say thereon to the Samuel class? How is this typed? What third thing did the Eli class say to the Samuel class? How is this typed? What did antitypical Samuel thereupon do? How is this typed? By what did the Lord coma to the Samuel class, and that for the fourth time? How is this typed? What kind of a hold did the Lord this time take on antitypical Samuel? How is this typed? How did this affect antitypical Samuel? How is this typed? How, comparatively with the other calls, was the fourth made? How is this typed? How did it differ from the others? How is this typed? As what, and as what not, did the Samuel class recognize the fourth message? What did this prompt them to do? How is this typed? 

(33) Of what is the message of vs. 11-14 a fine typical summary? What did this typical summary have to do with the understanding of the antitypes of 1 Sam. 3 and 4? Whence also did helps therein come? How did it help to see the antitypes of the three other calls? How did it help to open up the antitypes of 1 Sam. 4? As what did it show the antitypes? Why? What do these considerations give us? Of what do vs. 11-14 remind their reader? Why so? What was shown in our April issue as to the antitype of the man of God in 1 Sam. 2:27? Especially which of the antitypical six constituting this man of God brought the message to the Samuel class? Through what? How did this message come to them? What fact makes the pertinent message of Studies, Vol. IV, the word of the Lord to antitypical Samuel? How is this typed? 

Samuel. 

77 

(34) What did God through Studies, Vol. IV, declare that He would do in Christendom? How is this typed? By what is this stressed? What do the facts so far fulfilled show as to the fulfilment? How is this indicated in the symbols of Rev. 14:10, 11? When is the fulfilment to be completed? How is this typed? Through whom has He made these forecasts? Especially through whom? Where? Against whom? What is it not? To what will it progress? By what will it be ended? Where is this especially shown? How does this punishment not come? How is this typed? 

(35) Through whom was this judgment revealed? Where? Explained? Especially through whom? Where briefly? Where detailedly? How is this typed? What kind of a judgment will it be? How is this typed? To what is it due? In whom is this iniquity especially? How is this typed? Despite this wickedness, what did the crown-lost leaders fail to apply to the situation? What did the gravity of the situation impel God to do? How is this typed? To what did God swear? How is this typed? What will not atone for it? Why not? How is this typed? Whose sufferings will not atone for it? Why not? How is this typed? What cannot prevent the forecast judgment? Through what twofold suffering experiences will the unbegotten Babylonians have to pass to purge themselves from their defilements due to their support of Babylon and indulgence in her practices? 

(36) What was the first effect, type and antitype, of the vision of vs. 11-14? The second effect? What did antitypical Samuel then do? How is this typed? What was by now the attitude of the Samuel class? How was this brought about progressively? When did they leave Babylon? What reason did they give for taking this step? What prompted them to refrain from telling antitypical Eli of the vision? In what spirit did antitypical Eli ask as to the antitypical vision? What did this move them to ask of antitypical Samuel? How did he respond in spirit and fact? In what did the crown-lost leaders show a lack of generous candor? Why this? What did they ask? How is this typed? How is this hidden from the A. V. readers? What kind of a statement did they desire? How was this emphasized? How typed? 

(37) What is a Little Flock quality? How did antitypical Samuel do? How is this typed? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

78 

How much of the antitype of vs. 11-14 did they emphasize? Even to what extent? What helped antitypical Eli to be prepared to receive antitypical Samuel's message? Of what were they thereby made aware? How, accordingly, did they regard antitypical Samuel's message? What in their own course made them recognize much of Samuel's statement as true? In what ways did the Samuel class continue to grow? What was he moved thereby to do? Henceforth with whom did he become identical? How did the Lord indicate His favor on antitypical Samuel? How is this typed? What did his teachings not do? What does this mean? How is it typed? By whom was he recognized as the Lord's mouthpiece to the world? When? How are these things typed? With what did God's revelations to him not cease? With respect to what? How are these things typed? Through whom did these revelations come to him? Where does the first clause of 1 Sam. 4:1 belong? Is such a phenomenon unique? How did the fact of Samuel's becoming set as the Lord's prophet to Israel become recognized? What is the antitype of this? 

(38) What antitypical forecasts did 1 Sam. 4 type? What threefold time stage does the antitype show? How will they be traced here? How are the two antitypical battles of 1 Sam. 4 comparatively related? When did the exclusively wordy battle occur? When does the battle of words and violence take place in its two parts? What does the type omit as to the second battle? How do we know of these omitted things? Why is this type silent on the anarchy feature of the Time of Trouble? Under what figure are the battles set forth in the Bible? How do the cited passages indicate this? What is also not typed in the wordy battle of 1 Sam. 4? Despite what fact? 

(39) Of what did the wordy battle consist? Where is this typed? On what does antitypical Israel take its stand? How is this typed? Why? On what did the antitypical Philistines take their stand? How is this typed? What did each denomination's defenders seek to do? For what three reasons was the defense of each creed and of all of them an impossible thing? From what standpoints? What did the creeds' contradicting one another effect? Of whom in part do the attackers consist? In what three aspects? At what especially did the attackers strike? What in general did they pass by with 

Samuel. 

79 

out especial attack? How did the no-ransomers conduct their attacks? The infidelists? The combinationists? The reformers? The contradictionists? What has labor and the state done in this attack? With what effect? What was the result of the battle? How is this typed? 

(40) What does the ark of the covenant type? What, accordingly, has it always represented? How does this affect its relation to the real and the nominal church? What does the ark in 1 Sam. 4 type? Why? What would this include as the ark to the nominal church at the involved time? What, accordingly, does the ark represent as in the guardianship of Eli and his sons? With what exclusively did the nominal church not engage in the battle of vs. 1, 2? Why did she use these very little then? How does the course of the Calvinists illustrate this matter? What did the leaders counsel for the wordy part of the second battle? When? Why? What did they expect to result therefrom? How are these things typed? Of what did they feel certain? How is this typed? What resulted from the acceptance of this counsel? How is this typed? What is typed by God's dwelling between the Cherubim? What two things did the sequel show? What effect did antitypical Hophni's and Phinehas' custodianship of the antitypical ark have on the battle? What was the result of these conditions? 

(41) What was the universal expectation among nominal-church warriors? What did this lead them to do? To whom did this over-confidence extend? How are these three things typed? To whose ears did this boasting confidence come? What example illustrates this? How is this typed? What effect did this have on the antitypical Philistines? How is this typed? With what spirit did they encourage one another? How is this typed? What as a result did they know that they would have to do? How is this typed? Of what were they ignorant? Who were the first class of the antitypical Philistines in the second battle? The second? The third? The fourth? What are examples coming under these? Who else nationally will become antitypical Philistines? In what period are these the antitypical Philistines? How was the wordy conflict waged during World War, Phase I? What inflicted physical violence then? How did they injure the nominal church? What did this feature of the battle effect in

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

80 

Russia? What will then take place? With what result? How are these things typed? 

(42) What has been going on since World War, Phase I? Between whom is the conflict? With what effect? What is the classic example on this head? How is this phase of the conflict going on in the Protestant denominations? What example illustrates this? With whom is Rome now waging a world-wide warfare? What radicals have been joining in the fray? Who is being worsted? Who else is wielding his sword against Romanism and Protestantism? Who else is fighting them verbally and physically? What countries have struck Rome hard unto eating her flesh? In what way did each hurt her? In Spain through whom is Rome striking back with physical violence? What is she everywhere waging against Republican Spain? What have the Modernists done to the Fundamentalists in every Protestant country? What has the future in store for the latter? What will be done in every European country to Rome before Armageddon? Of what is all this the antitype? 

(43) What yet is in store for Nominal Spiritual Israel? How do the two stages of the second battle contrast with one another as to injury on it? How will the two phases of that battle be comparatively manifest then? Whose ally is the nominal church? Despite what? Why do Romanism and Protestantism pretend to be the friends of conservative labor? Whose target will they become? When? In what will they end? What three things alone will then be left of Romanism and Protestantism? How is this typed in 2 Kings 9:35? What will be the character of their rout and destruction in both features of the battle? What will mark their defeat and retreat? How is this typed? Who will be cut off in death? How is this typed in 2 Kings 10:18-25? Prophesied in Is. 65:11, 12 and Jer. 25:28-32? Typed in v. 11? What will be the nominal church's supreme evil in this battle? How is this typed? Who of the Lord's real people does not and will not, and who of them does and will participate in this battle? Who else, as typed in 1 Kings 19:16, 17? In what only does and will antitypical Elisha share in this battle? What is typed by the sword of all three? How is their verbal victory typed? Who will be the religious teachers in Christendom after Armageddon? As such by whom will they be supported? 

Samuel. 

81 

(44) What have news-bearers been doing throughout both battles? How is this typed? Who especially have these been? How is this typed? How did they regard the ill success of the nominal church's apologists? How is this typed? What characteristic did their grief exhibit as the second battle went on? When did it reach a climax? What did Armageddon seal? When relatively will this occur? Where will the crown-lost leaders occupy the place of leadership? How is this typed? What made them tremble for fear of the stewardship and other truths of the nominal church? What distressed unspeakably the nominal-church people? How is this typed? Prophesied in Jer. 25:34, 35 and Rev. 14:10, 11? To whom do the signs of their distress come? How is this typed? What do they ask? How is this typed? How long did they have to wait for an explanation? How is this typed? How long have crown-losers been leaders among God's people? What did Ignatius and Justin Martyr do with the movement begun by St. John and furthered by Polycarp? How is this long period of leadership typed? Since when did their spiritual vision become dim? From when on could they see nothing? How are these two things typed? In what forms did the news-bearers give their tidings? For example? Of what did such reports give evidence? How is this typed? From what kind of witnesses did antitypical Eli desire news? How did he request it? How are these things typed? 

(45) What two things are described in the rest of the chapter? In what order? What is the first piece of news declared to antitypical Eli? How typed? The second? How typed? The third? How typed? The fourth? How typed? How in the type and antitype was the order of the news given? What worst affected Eli, type and antitype? The mention of what proved fatal to typical and antitypical Eli? How is this typed? What did it cause, type and antitype? With what feeling? What is typed by this happening at the side of the gate? What will the crown-lost leaders lose? How typed? What will they cease doing? How typed? Why will they do this? How typed? How long will they have been leaders? How typed? What are we not to understand Eli's death to type? Why not? How is this Biblically shown in Rev. 7:14 and Num. 8:5-26? What does Eli's death type? Why? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

82 

(46) By Divine law what have the Romanist and Protestant churches become to the crown-lost leaders? What in this respect is not here typed as to the Romanist Church? Of whom is something here markedly typed by Eli's daughter-in-law. Phinehas' wife? What has the Protestant Church had in her midst? By what were they affected unto preparedness to leaving Babylon? For what had they been kept waiting? How is this typed? What has Is. 66:8 to say on this line of thought? What does the Protestant section of the nominal church feel as to her stewardship and other truths? How have their capture and turning against her apologists by the "Russellites" and conservative labor affected united Protestantism? How is this typed? The crown-lost leaders' giving up their leadership? How typed? The refutation and destruction of the Protestant clergy? How typed? What did United Protestantism thereupon do? How typed? How intense will they be? How typed? What light does Is. 66:8 throw on this line of thought? What will the Societyites have stirred up? Of what are the Armageddon sufferings of Protestantism the antitype? What will she be undergoing when her part of the Great Company will be leaving her? As what? How is this typed? Prophesied? 

(47) When will the remnants of the Protestant denominations stand about her? How is this typed? Prophesied? What will they seek to do with her? By what tidings? How typed? What will be her reaction? What will she do? The loss of what three things will the name indicate? Especially which one? What does the name Ichabod mean? What does the giving of the name here type? What does her lamentation imply? How typed? How intense will her woe be? From what does this appear? How typed? What will be the chief part of her grief? How typed? How does Rev. 14:10 here apply? Before whom will this sore trial be experienced? How does Rev. 14:11 here apply? How does the unenlightened natural man take to these forecasts? Especially as to their near fulfilment? The Biblically enlightened? What will be the character of the pertinent events within the next few years? What does our study of 1 Sam. 3, 4 help us to do in this respect? How should we feel on these matters and their succeeding events?