Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
as self. This is but a summary of the law (Matt. 22: 36-40), and therefore is the essence of justice, which in some form or other must appear in the stewardship doctrine of each of the three denominations to the antitypical Tabernacle's west. Just as the false polity of the Church of England occasioned the Browne movement, which was later perverted into the Congregational denomination, so the dry formalism and largely worldly life of the bulk of the Anglican Church members occasioned the Little Flock movement that was later perverted into the mother sect of the fanatical sects, Quakerism. The Little Flock brother who was raised up to become the leader of the movement that was later perverted into the fanatical sects, especially Quakerism, was George Fox, whom we must keep separate and distinct from John Foxe, the author of the great work, Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs, which among the English-speaking people has done the papacy more injury than any other Protestant work. George Fox could find no satisfaction for his hunger for true religion in the Church of England, nor in the Calvinistic (Presbyterian and Congregational) and Baptist Churches in England. After years of searching for true religion in these four denominations, he sought it in the Bible, in self examinations and in fellowship with others of a like mind. He found it in the teaching and practice of supreme love to God and equal love to the neighbor, i.e., in the theory and practice of justice, proper duty love Godward and manward. He then began to present this thought controversially, in opposition to the teachings and practices of the above-mentioned denominations. Thus, as a part of the Philadelphia star, he began to blow an alarm.
(51) Fox's special companion helper was Robert Barclay, the author of the Apology For The People Called Quakers, which with Fox's Journal and his Gospel Truth Demonstrated is the most famous of
Quaker writings. Barclay was a scholarly man, which Fox was not, and thus he in a literary way furthered the movement more than Fox, whose preaching more than made up for his literary inferiority. These two were soon joined in the antitypical alarm-trumpeting by other Little Flock brethren; and soon a vigorous reform movement was in active sway in England which spread to the English colonies in the West Indies and America. To this movement rallied some brethren who as crown-lost leaders (Penn, Fisher, Pennington, etc.) perverted the movement into the Quaker sect. From time to time other crown-lost leaders arose as the heads of other fanatical sects, as children of Quakerism, like Irving, (Joseph) Smith, (Brigham) Young, Murray, Dowie, Simpson, etc. All of these with varying fanatical bents joined in offering the antitypical bowl, charger and spoon on the stewardship doctrine of the whole movement and perverted it into the various fanatical sects. In making those offerings, the prince of antitypical Benjamin—Abidan—started out on the march typed in v. 24. Soon to these crown-lost leaders were gathered sectarian members, who controversially set forth their stewardship doctrine of true religion as consisting of supreme love for God and equal love for the neighbor. They controverted especially, but not exclusively, against the four denominations mentioned in the preceding paragraph. They did this mainly both refutatively and correctionally, though also doctrinally and ethically. And more or less the spirit of their stewardship doctrine is seen in their lives, which is the reason, e.g., for the Quakers and Holiness people leading such upright lives. As they entered into the pertinent controversies, they antityped the Benjamites' starting out on their journey from Sinai (v. 24); their proceeding therein antitypes the Benjamites' proceeding on the journey to Paran; and as they, swallowed up by their successors of the Epiphany camp, come to the Millennial conditions, they
will antitype the Benjamites' reaching Paran. In so doing they furthered and vindicated Divine Justice. We will now make a remark most fitting here, because this antitypical tribe is the fanatical sects, though in principle the remark is applicable to all of the sects of each denomination, viz., As the various sects of this antitypical tribe journeyed and will come to the journey's end, they antitype the chief families of the Benjamites, journeying from Sinai and coming to Paran.
(52) V. 25 introduces the journeying of the fourth camp, that of Dan (judge), whose prince was Ahiezer (my brother is a helper), the son of Ammishaddai (my people is almighty). As previously shown, the thought common to the three antitypical tribes to the north of the antitypical Tabernacle is Divine Love, the highest of all the Divine attributes. Two of the tribes to the north of the tabernacle were Dan and Naphtali, sons of Rachel's maid, Bilhah; while the third, Asher, was the younger son of Leah's maid, Zilpah. In the antitype, therefore, the three denominations typed respectively by these (the Baptists, the Unitario-Universalists and Methodists) have been in spirit nearer to the Little Flock than any of the other nine denominations. It is doubtless for this reason that their stewardship doctrines are an expression of disinterested love in some form or other. This remark applies to their earlier journeyings more than to their later journeyings; for now, e.g., the Unitario-Universalists are probably farther away from Bible standards than any other Protestant denomination. But at the outstart and for a considerable part of their journeying, they were the most honorable of honorable women, denominations (Ps. 45: 9). That teaching which afterward became the stewardship doctrine of the Baptists was as an antitypical alarm first symbolically trumpeted by Balthazar Hubmaier, viz., Only the truly justified and consecrated are God's real people. Hence he was a member of the Philadelphia star. He did his work
thoroughly and ably; for while yet in the papacy he was, next to Eck (Luther's ablest opponent), counted the ablest of Romanist controversialists. His able controversies on this doctrine are just what we should expect of the Little Flock leader of the firstborn of antitypical Rachel's maid, antitypical Bilhah. He was involved in controversy continually, with Eck, Luther and Zwingli, as well as with sectarian leaders among his adherents. Thus he certainly blew an alarm on the antitypical trumpet, starting one of the most spiritual of the Little Flock movements between the Harvests.
(53) Hubmaier's companion helper was a Swiss called Blaurock (blue coat), because of his wearing a coat of that color. Indeed, in the beginning the movement was largely a Swiss movement, until by Hubmaier's banishment and the ruthless persecution stirred up by Zwingli himself against the involved brethren in Switzerland, Hubmaier and many others emigrated to Moravia. With zeal and perseverance Blaurock supported Hubmaier; and for some time after Hubmaier's banishment Blaurock kept up the work in Switzerland amid many privations and tortures, finally ending his ministry, like Hubmaier's, in a martyr's death. There rallied to these two leaders many other capable brethren and many who were not very capable. These kept up the blowing of the alarm, especially against infant baptism as disorderly, seeing infants could not really experience personal justification and consecration, and hence could not be God's real people and, accordingly, could not be fit candidates for water baptism. Satan was present to pervert this movement by socialistic and fanatical schemes which gave a great black eye to the movement, despite the fact that such evils were fought by the movement's Little Flock leaders, etc. Then appeared the crown-lost leaders, among them, Simon Menno, the chief among these. By offering their bowl, charger and spoon on the chief doctrine of the movement—only the truly justified and consecrated are
God's real people—they started out on their part in antitypical Dan's journeying. We would here parenthetically remark that since the heart of true consecration is disinterested love, the stewardship doctrine of the Baptist Church is an expression of Divine Love. After the crown-lost leaders had begun to offer their antitypical bowl, charger and spoon on the pertinent doctrine, they were soon joined by an ever-increasing number of followers, who took up the controversy in support of their leaders, inveighing against the nominal Christianity, churchianity of the adherents of the state churches in various European countries; for to be a nominal Christian in those days meant external membership in a state church. They joined the controversy both refutationally and correctionally, though they also presented their stewardship teaching doctrinally and ethically. So doing, they antityped the journeying of the tribe of Dan. Their beginning such a course antitypes Dan's starting his journeying. Their proceeding in such a course antitypes Dan's continuing his journeying. And their ending this course in their successors of the Epiphany camp coming to the Kingdom conditions antitypes Dan's reaching Paran. This course of theirs furthered and vindicated the Divine attribute of love. We might remark that the fearful persecutions that the Baptists received from the Reformed, Lutheran, Romanist, Greek and Episcopal churches and their hounding by the Methodist, Campbellite and Adventist churches, antitypes the distress that Rachel and her maid's children felt at Leah's and her maid's hands. Details on antitypical Dan are given in Chapter VII.
(54) V. 26 brings to our attention the journeying of Asher (happy, fortunate), whose prince was Pagiel (interventions of God), the son of Okran (trouble-some). As we have seen, in Chapter VII, the tribe of Asher types the Methodist Church. Asher was the second son of Leah's maid. This fact typically implies their being less remote to the Little Flock spirit than
any others of antitypical Leah's children and antitypical Zilpah's older son, whose older age shows him to have more of the Leah spirit than Asher. Hence this Church received a stewardship doctrine very closely related to the spirit of the Little Flock; and its type was stationed about the tabernacle in a position between the two tribes nearest related to Rachel's legal children as distinct from her personal children. That this remark be not misunderstood, we would say that in the tabernacle picture Rachel's direct descendants type different things from Joseph and Benjamin in the Jacob figure. The stewardship doctrine of the Methodist Church is: Perfect love is the Divine ideal for God's people. The Methodists sometimes called it entire sanctification, and sometimes perfection. Their view of it has sometimes been represented by opponents as sinlessness. Indeed, this was due, in part, to unguarded expressions thereon by some of the Methodist leaders themselves, including even John Wesley, and, in part, to the direct claim of fanatical Methodist sectarians (Free Methodists especially) who claimed to live sinlessly, some of them claiming to have lived so for 30 and even 40 years. The Little Flock member whom God raised up to trumpet as an alarm the doctrine of Divine love as God's ideal for His people was John Wesley. A Church of England minister, the dead formalism and worldly life of the bulk of the Anglican clergy and laity repelled him; and he earnestly sought a heart and life religion, as contrasted with the head and dead religion in the Church of England. To gain this for himself and others, he stressed justification and sanctification, culminating in perfect love, as the way to attain it. His methods of bringing people to such a life moved the clergy to shut their church doors in his face; and when to attain his purpose he resorted to field preaching, they fought him as unchurchly. Undaunted, he continued to trumpet his alarm message all over Great Britain and Ireland by word and pen,
which resulted in a vigorous Priestly movement coming into existence. Wesley was indefatigable. For nearly 53 years, from his 36th until ⅔ through his 89th year, he labored by voice and pen as few others have done, for his stewardship truth—justification and sanctification as steps to attain the Divine love, God's ideal for His people. The only longer serving members of the seven stars seem to have been St. John and Polycarp, the former having served about 70 and the latter about 65 years as star-members. Wesley was both a most loving and lovable man. And controversy for his stewardship doctrine did not at all mar his holy spirit of goodness, to which he was undoubtedly aided by the character of that doctrine, which naturally tended to mellow one.
(55) Soon John Wesley was joined in his alarm-trumpeting by his brother, Charles. So far as we know, while there were three pairs of brothers in the Apostolic band (Peter and Andrew, James and John, and James and Jude), John and Charles Wesley were the only brothers in flesh that became one of the pairs of the seventy general elders, secondarily prophets, sent out as 35 pairs between the two Harvests. Charles, in addition to being John's companion helper, became the greatest and perhaps most prolific hymn-writer of all times. He gave to his and succeeding generations about 6,000 hymns, some of which, like, Jesus, Lover of My Soul, are among the finest hymns in existence. In holy union with his brother, Charles took lusty hold of the trumpet and blew out the alarm thereon, as long as he lived. And these were joined speedily by as fine a set of faithful Priests as can be found in any Little Flock movement of the period between the two Harvests; for the Wesleyan movement was as spiritual a movement as arose between the Harvests. These devoted Priests blew the alarm faithfully. Soon there mingled among them crown-lost leaders, like Whitefield, Coke, Clark, etc., etc. Later others, like Watson,
Whedon, Simpson, Hurst, Buckley, etc., joined the Methodists, and as crown-lost leaders all of these joined in offering the antitypical bowl, charger and spoon. In so doing, as the antitype of Pagiel, they set out as the prince of antitypical Asher on the march antitypical of v. 26. To these rallied in ever-increasing numbers sectarian Methodists who were not Spirit-begotten. Bravely they entered the fray, contending controversially for their stewardship doctrine: The Divine love attained through justification and sanctification is God's ideal for His people. They used this doctrine refutatively and correctionally as against dead formalism and worldly mindedness; and they also set forth this teaching doctrinally and ethically, doctrinally with more or less corruptions introduced by their crown-lost leaders. In starting out in such a course they antityped Asher's starting out on his journey (v. 26). As they proceeded therein they antityped Asher's continuing on that three days' journey. And as they in their Epiphany camp representatives reach the Millennial conditions, they will antitype Asher's reaching Paran. So doing, they have furthered and vindicated Divine Love. We have given details on matters connected with antitypical Asher in Chapter VII.
(56) V. 27 brings us to the journeying of Naphtali (wrestling), the last tribe of the fourth camp. The prince of this tribe was Ahira (my brother is great), the son of Enan (springy, fountainlike). The antitype of the tribe of Naphtali is the Unitario-Universalist Church. Their stewardship doctrine is: There is but one God, whose chief attribute is love. Originally this Church had a very large quantity of truth, i.e., the unity of God as against the trinity, man's mortality as against the inherent immortality of the soul, death, the wages of sin, as against eternal torment, and future probation as against this life ending all probation. Naphtali's being a son of Rachel's maid accounts for his antitype's having so much Truth, revelatory of his
near relation to the Little Flock. But, sad to say, Unitario-Universalists have fallen greatly away from early priestly teachings. They even deny the ransom as the corresponding price; and in their higher criticism they are in the forefront of the infidelistic movements as a denomination. To most of them the Bible is an uninspired collection of books, largely erroneous. Most of them deny our Lord's Immaculate Conception. In their Universalistic section they believe in the salvation of all men and devils, including Satan. As a Protestant denomination they are now, perhaps, the farthest away from the Truth of any Protestant denomination. The Little Flock brother who trumpeted the alarm on the unity of the one God of Love, as against the trinity, was Michael Servetus. He was born a Spaniard, but spent most of his adult life in France. He was a member of the suite of Charles V during the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, where and when the Lutherans presented their (Augsburg) confession of faith. Servetus, an imperial courtier, had to practice a great deal of diplomacy in his contacts with Romanists and Protestants. He took a lively interest in the controversies of that time; but, apart from sharing them with a few intimate friends, he kept his views largely to himself; for they were as much opposed to those of other Protestants as to those of the Romanists; for four of his teachings, as above given, were the antitheses of the four doctrines that are "their resemblance through all the earth" (Zech. 5: 6)—trinity, immortality, eternal torment and probation limited to this life. In these four great errors most Protestants and all Greek and Roman Catholics resemble one another—they are "their resemblance through all the earth." In 1531, at the age of 20, he published his book, On the Errors of the Trinity. The next year he sent forth a revised edition of this book, meeting therein the objections urged against its first edition. Then, because almost nobody responded to his views, he forsook the Emperor's suite and went to
France. He was rather quiet there on his teaching as to the four above-mentioned errors, because of the extreme danger in that Romanist country. His appointment to debate with Calvin in 1536 at Paris on the subject of the trinity was not kept by him for his well-grounded fear of the latter's betraying him to the Romanists. With almost no one else did he discuss the subject for ten years. Then, in 1546, he opened up his controversy on the subject by letter with Calvin. In 1553 he sent Calvin a copy of his latest book on, The Restoration of True Christianity, which was, of course, anti-trinitarian, and which ultimately led to his burning at the stake through Calvin's instigation, at Geneva, after Calvin had stirred up the French Inquisition to seek to burn him at Lyon, France. But in argument Servetus was mighty on the unity of the God of Love as against the trinity. Thus he blew the alarm on his trumpet, which the Trinitarians much dreaded.
(57) As was the case with Thomas Campbell in relation to Barton Stone as his companion helper, and with J. Wolf in relation to William Miller as his companion helper, so Laelius Socinus never came into direct personal contact with Servetus—he helped the latter unconsciously and at a distance. Laelius Socinus started to sound the trumpet alarm in Italy, but the Inquisition's designs on his life compelled him to flee to Switzerland; and there he worked quietly and privately through various publications. So hard did antitypical Leah's children make it for the second son of antitypical Rachel's maid! Nevertheless, he did well for the cause. Servetus and Socinus found priestly helpers here and there, as widely separated voices crying out in the dark night of trinitarianism, human immortality, eternal torment and no-future-probationism. Thus a Priestly movement, small indeed and lacking local touch, was here and there represented by a lone Priest, blowing an alarm on his symbolic trumpet. One of Laelius Socinus' disciples was a nephew of his,
Faustus Socinus, who, as the first one of the crown-lost leaders connected with this priestly movement, took an active part in the pertinent controversy, first in Italy, then in Switzerland and finally in Poland. Other crown-lost leaders joined the movement and sectarianized it, for instance, Davidis, and in later centuries, Priestley, Coleridge, Channing, Norton, Abbott, etc. These offered their bowl, charger and spoon, and thus as antitypical Ahira started out in the march antitypical of the one described in v. 27. These were joined by unconsecrated partisans, sectarians, out of whom these crown-lost leaders built up the Unitario-Universalist denomination. These joined controversially in the discussion of the stewardship doctrine of this growing denomination: The one God is perfect in love, as his chief attribute. They presented it refutationally and correctionally as against trinity, inherent immortality, no-future-probation and eternal torment. They also presented it doctrinally and ethically. In so doing, they antityped Naphtali's journeying according to v. 27. Their starting out on this course antityped Naphtali's starting the journeying of v. 27. Their proceeding thereon antityped his continuing thereon. And their ending it in their Epiphany aspect at antitypical Paran antitypes Naphtali's reaching Paran. By so doing they furthered and vindicated Divine Love. Details on this subject will be found in Chapter VII. It will be noted that v. 28 summarizes the details given in vs. 11-27, even as Num. 7: 84-88 summarizes the offerings of the princes of the 12 tribes, given in detail before.
(58) In vs. 29-32 is given an episode that took place just as the departure from Sinai was occurring. That it occurred just as the departure from Sinai was taking place is apparent: (1) from the location that it was given in the narrative—between the two parts of the description of the journeying (vs. 11-28 and vs. 33-36); (2) from Moses' statements ("we are journeying
… come thou with us"); (3) from Hobab's answer (v. 30); and (4) from Moses' entreaties ("Leave us not … if thou wilt go with us … what goodness … will we do unto thee"). Since the departure from antitypical Sinai occurred during the Jewish Harvest, the wilderness of Sinai typing Jewry, this episode types something that occurred during the Jewish Harvest. We understand it to type our Lord's entreaties to fleshly Israel to accompany spiritual Israel on its Gospel-Age journeyings, thus becoming a part of spiritual Israel, and fleshly Israel's refusal to do so. The details will show this view of the antitype to be correct. Hobab (beloved; Rom. 11: 28) was Moses' brother-in-law (Judg. 1: 16; 4: 11, A.R.V.), since he was the son of Moses' father-in-law (v. 29), the confusion of calling him Moses' father-in-law (Judg. 1: 16; 4: 11) in the A.V. arising from the fact that the word chothen means father-in-law, son-in-law and bridegroom. A comparison of v. 29 and Ex. 18: 1-12 identifies Jethro and Raguel, or Reuel (Ex. 2: 18). In passing, it will be noted that while Hobab did not accompany Moses and Israel, some of his descendants as Kenites either did so or later went to Palestine (Judg. 1: 16; 4: 11). In this picture Moses' asking Hobab to accompany Israel represents our Lord's either directly seeking Israel's conversion while He was in the flesh, or indirectly seeking their conversion through the Apostles and other brethren, like Stephen, Barnabas, Apollos, Timothy, etc., after He had become a glorified Spirit. Israel, as a son of God— Raguel—(Hos. 11: 1), was thus a brother-in-law of our Lord as a New Creature, even as our Lord as such is the Bridegroom of Jehovah's daughter (Ps. 45: 10, 13). Of course, by this we are not to understand that Jesus is not directly a Son of God. The viewpoint of the son and daughter in Hos. 11: 1 and Ps. 45: 10, 13 is that of class respects rather than of an individual respect. And Jesus, not being a class under this class
type, is represented as a son-in-law of God from the standpoint of Jethro (Reuel, Raguel) and his family (Ex. 2: 16-23). Please compare this with P '31, 169, par. 18 to 170, par. 19. That our Lord while in the flesh directly sought Israel's conversion is evident from His entire ministry, which activity He pathetically and with tears sums up in the words, "How oft would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not" (Matt. 23: 37-39; Luke 19: 41-44). In seeking their conversion ("come with us"), He set before them the offer of the high calling of the Seed to the Divine nature and heirship of God ("we are journeying to the place of which the Lord said, I will give it to you," Gen. 22: 16-18). Seeking to gather the Seed and knowing that the blessing was first to be offered to Israel (John 1: 11-13; Rom. 1: 16), He confined His ministry to Israel, seeking its lost sheep (Matt. 15: 24). Often our Lord directly promised Israel great blessings ("we will do thee good," Matt. 22: 1-4; John 6: 26-58, etc.). Similarly he sought to win them through the Apostles and others; and by these He offered them great blessings (Matt. 10: 6; Luke 10: 1-16; Acts 1: 8; 2: 14-40; 3: 12-26; 13: 16-49). His and their elaborations of the glorious things of the high calling before Israel is typed by the words, "For the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel."
(59) Hobab's refusal to accept Moses' invitation to accompany him and Israel from Sinai to Canaan (v. 30), types Israel's refusal to come into the sphere of the Truth and of the Spirit of the Truth even unto the Kingdom. This refusal was made in word and act. Their rejections of it in word were made in that they contradicted the offer of Jesus and His mouthpieces throughout the Jewish Harvest. Their rejecting it in deed was made in that they persecuted and put Jesus to death and persecuted His mouthpieces, torturing many of them and other disciples and putting some of
them and other disciples to death (Matt. 22: 5, 6). St. Paul describes the matter in great detail in Rom. 9, 10 and 11. Thus the facts of the case are in full harmony with the viewpoint of the type as given above. Hobab's saying that he would depart to his own land and to his own kindred types the Jews' saying by word and act that they would keep to the sphere of the Law and its spirit and to the people who held to the sphere of the Law and its spirit. The facts of the Jewish Harvest and of the Gospel Age, so far as they concern Israel as a nation, show that they have done this. In this they have experienced the disfavor and tribulations typed by the experiences of Hagar and Ishmael in the desert, banished from Abraham's home.
(60) But they were not allowed to take such an unprofitable course without remonstrance and entreaties to the contrary from our Lord, directly made to them while He was in the flesh, and indirectly made by Him to them after He was in the spirit through His mouthpieces. These remonstrances and entreaties are set forth typically in vs. 31 and 32. Notice the remonstrance and entreaty in the words, "Leave us not, I pray thee!" How these words remind us of Jesus' loving exhortations to the Jews, especially as we find these in John 6-8 and 10! How they remind us of the remonstrances and entreaties of Peter and Paul as recorded in the Acts! Moses' making it an honorable thing, as an inducement for Hobab to go along, that he might act as a competent guide (v. 31), was done in an effort to win him over to going along with Israel. This types the fact that Jesus and His mouthpieces honored Israel with the offer of the first place as leaders of the others, if they would go along with Spiritual Israel. As Hobab knew the wilderness stations well ("thou knowest how we are to encamp"), he fittingly typed Israel, whose studies of the Law and the Prophets gave them much of Truth. They also had other helps for the Truth, similar to those that the
antitypical Kohathites in their linguistic, exegetical, historical and systematic works furnish the Priesthood ("thou mayest be to us instead of eyes"). This persuasive invitation was offered to Israel as an inducement highly complimentary to them and as quite likely, if possible, to secure their favorable response; for such an appeal with a good heart would win, when almost every other appeal would fail. The appeal is made all the stronger in v. 32. Notice the repetition, "It shall be … yea it shall be," which, as a specially earnest entreaty, shows Moses' intense desire for Hobab to accompany them. This types the especially earnest appeals that Jesus and His mouthpieces made to Israel, to win them over after they seemed bent on rejecting the gracious and frequent offers of the high calling. It was to avert from Israel this loss and their consequent troubles, that Jesus and His mouthpieces re-repeated with loving intensity the offer of the Gospel-Age blessings and privileges to Israel. Moses added to the offer of doing Hobab good, made in v. 29, the promise to give him whatever God gave to Israel, in spite of his having rejected the first offer. This types the fact that Jesus and His mouthpieces promised to Fleshly Israel that if they would change their purpose they would be incorporated into Spiritual Israel, with all the blessings and privileges of Spiritual Israel (Rom. 11: 23, 24), their first rejection not being allowed to result in any prejudice against them. Certainly in repeatedly offering the Gospel-Age blessings and privileges to Israel after their first rejecting them, Jesus and His mouthpieces in the Jewish Harvest antityped the offers of v. 32. Hobab kept to his first refusal, doubtless to Moses' keen grief. So Israel as a people maintained its first refusal, and we know that it was to the keen grief of Jesus and His mouthpieces (Matt. 23: 37-29; Luke 19: 41-44; Rom. 9: 2, 3). While they stumbled in the Jewish Harvest (Rom. 11: 7-12), we thank God that they are arising to more and
more favor, which will soon reach its full fruition (Rom. 11: 25-36). The Hobab episode is another confirmation that we have understood aright Israel's journey from Sinai to Paran in its antitype.
(61) We gave the antitype of v. 33 above while giving the proofs that the journey from Sinai to Paran represented the Gospel-Age journey of God's real and nominal Spiritual Israel. This and the other references to this passage in this article have added to its exposition a sufficiency of explanation to make its antitype clear. Therefore we will not here repeat these explanations. These same remarks apply to v. 34, whose statement that it was the cloud, not the pillar of fire, that was upon them the day they went out of the camp at Sinai, proves that the journey began, not between the Harvests, when it was night, but in one of the Harvests, which were days as distinct from the night between them and the Epiphany night after the Parousia day. The day time of their departure, combined with the facts given throughout this chapter, proves that in the antitype it was made during the Jewish Harvest. Moses' prayers as recorded in vs. 35 and 36 are in line with the thought that progress is grace, knowledge and service in the Christian life is typed by the marching (when the ark set forward) and that the encampings type the endurances of trials, sufferings and persecution in the Christian life (when it, the ark, rested). As we have seen, progress in knowledge, grace and service is made mainly amid controversy. It is for this reason that our Lord, as the antitypical Moses, prays for us as we are battling with error, sin, selfishness and worldliness as our enemies, which, as such, are also our Father's enemies. And Jesus also prays for defeat against these enemies of God and God's people: "Rise up [in battle against Thy and Thy people's enemies], Lord, and let Thine enemies [let sin, error, selfishness and worldliness with their leaders, Satan, the world and the flesh] be scattered [completely defeated]; and
let them that hate Thee flee before Thee." Jesus in the antitype offers this prayer as an intercession for us and as an act of His that He greatly desires (prays) to be realized by Spiritual Israel's battling for its fulfillment. Thus the journeying of Israel types the aggressive part of the Christian warfare, which is growth in grace, knowledge and service amid struggle. The defensive part of the Christian warfare is endurance of attacks amid trials, sufferings and persecution. While therein temporarily new advancement is not made, yet tests are applied on previous attainments (when it, the ark, rested). The Lord Jesus prays that Jehovah should return from the aggressive fighting to the defense of His people: "Return [from pursuing the scattered enemies] unto [to defend] the many thousands of Israel." In this connection, where the journey from Sinai to Paran is especially described, there is special pertinency for this prayer; for the return will be to Millennial conditions (Paran), where God will especially defend against spiritual enemies the many thousands—the world of mankind—of Millennial Israel. It will be such a return as will spell restitution (Ps. 90: 3). With this we end our study of Num. 10 and of the first large division of Numbers (chapter 1-10), during the course of which we also, as we studied chapters 1 and 2, made a study of Num. 26. Thus with some detail we have studied nearly a third of the chapters and over a third of the subject matter of the book of Numbers. As the types so far studied show the organization of Israel into a settled nation, so the antitypes show nominal and spiritual Israel as organized into a settled symbolic nation. We praise God for the light that He has given us on this book so far, and pray Him to give us its further antitypical truths as due.
(1) What was studied in our last chapter? What is to be studied in this chapter? What kind of a connection is there between these two chapters? What is it? How do the two figures differ as to their antitypes? To what do both of them refer? What is the Biblical symbolic use of
a trumpet? Of its blowing? Why are the trumpets of Num. 10: 1-10 typical? How do the cited passages prove this? How as to quantity do the Scripture passages show this? Ex. 19: 13, 16, 19? Lev. 25: 9? Joshua 6: 4-9, 13, 16, 20; Rev. 8: 2-6? Judges 6: 34? 7: 16, 18-22? How do the other cited passages prove these thoughts of trumpets and their sounding? How does Hymn No. 24 show this? Sing it.
(2) Who was commanded to make the two trumpets? Whom does he here type? In what respect? Through whom did he make them? Whom do Bezaleel, Aholiab and their companions type? In what respects? What is pictured by the trumpets' being made of silver? Their being made of one whole piece? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What kind of things are typed by these two trumpets? Why is this true? What do they type? In what different forms may we express this thought? What does Rev. 15: 3 call these?
(3) Of what part of the Bible is the human salvation a general summary? What, generally speaking, is the Old Testament? What is it called in Rev. 15: 3? Why? Why is this reason true? What is the first line of thought implied in the song of Moses? The second? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? The final and seventh? Of what are these seven a general summary? How does one of the trumpets stand related to these seven?
(4) What other thing in this connection is a fact? What is it called in Rev. 15: 3? Like the human salvation, is it related to various things? How must they be regarded in relation to it? What is its first implication as to Christ? Second? Third? Fourth? What lines of thought does the high calling include? Of what are these teachings a general summary? How does this message stand related to the second trumpet of Num. 10: 1-10?
(5) What other kinds of thoughts are found in the Old and New Testaments? What decides to which of these two messages they belong? How is this seen in the Kingdom message? The Second Advent? The resurrection? What in this respect is the character of many Old Testament types and prophecies? How do the cited passages prove this? How are some of these often presented? How not? What kinds of thought's are also presented in the
New Testament? What remark was occasioned by such overlapping? What do the two trumpets not do typically on this head? With what are they not absolutely synonymous? What do they do as respects each other antitypically? What is the contrast between the two Testaments and the two antitypical trumpets in this respect? How are these two messages related? In fact, what are they? What does this relation between them prove?
(6) What do vs. 2-7 show? How many fold are they? What are they? What is meant by calling the people to assemble at the door of the tabernacle? By how many trumpets were they there assembled? By how many were the princes assembled? What is typed by the assembling? The princes? What is the difference between blowing two antitypical trumpets and blowing one? Why is this the true distinction? Why is it a mistake to give details of the deep things to the nominal people of God? What shows this view to be correct? Even in what is this true?
(7) At what time and under what circumstances is this especially to be seen? What illustrations show this? In what other branches of the work does this appear? When did we begin to give details on any particular subject? Who are included in the princes of v. 4? What proves this? How did they meet Moses? What does this type? What proves this to be true? Why was it necessary? What does giving details exclude? What did it require? Who had such experience in the Parousia? What did they find necessary to do at such occasions?
(8) What did these two kinds of gatherings serve? Of what three things did they partake with the nominal people of God? What is implied in the second of them? By what brethren were these things also done? How relatively? In what did such activity result throughout the Age? Even at what other time? With what instrumentalities? What purpose, finally, did such assembling of the nominal people of God have? What other kind of assembling was held? In what forms was it usually done? What were the first and second purposes of this activity? What facts illustrate the second of these? What was the third purpose? The fourth and final one?
(9) What do vs. 5-7 show? How is one described but not defined? How is the other defined? What does the
latter type? What does the Hebrew noun teruah mean? What does the Hebrew verb rua, from which teruah is derived, mean? The Hebrew word taka? What does the use of the latter word in Ps. 81: 4 show by contrast with the other two words? How is this contrast shown in vs. 3, 4, 7? What does v. 9 show as to rua and teruah? What does Num. 31: 6 show on this subject? What do the other passages in which rua is used teach on this head? Those in which teruah is used? What other consideration proves this thought? How does the Truth usually progress? What two sets of writings prove this?
(10) How is this illustrated in our Pastor's case as to Lev. 16 and much of the Tabernacle Shadows? The Ransom? The Sin-offering, Covenants and Mediator? The contrasts between Adam and Christ? Universal salvation from the curse and eternal universalism? The Second Advent controversy? Explain the types of such cited unfoldings? In the opening of what other form of Truth is this apparent? How does this appear in the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha? The sixth sifting? The slaughter weapons? The penny murmuring? Ruth, type and antitype? In many Scriptures in the controversy with J. F. R.? With Adam Rutherford? The Great Company and Youthful Worthies controversy? What seems to have marked all Epiphany controversies? Why is this so?
(11) Why were the trumpet alarms sounded? Why was the first alarm sounded? What resulted? What are typed by the three tribes to the east of the tabernacle? What was the antitype of the first alarm? How did it affect the three involved denominations? Why was the second alarm blown? What resulted? What are typed by the three tribes to the south of the tabernacle? What is the antitype of the second alarm? How did it affect the three pertinent tribes? What is not specifically mentioned as to the third and fourth alarms? Why was this not done? What directly implies their sounding? Indirectly? Why was the third alarm blown? What resulted? What are typed by the three tribes to the west of the tabernacle? What is the antitype of the third alarm? How did it affect the involved tribes? Why was the fourth alarm blown? What resulted? What are typed by the three tribes to the north of the tabernacle? What is the antitype of the fourth alarm?