Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
so as to bring out the order of the four Divine attributes in their relation to the four groups or camps in antitypical Israel. These points will be brought out in the individual cases as we proceed. Thus the order in which the four camps and the tribes in each of them marched (Num. 10: 14-28) being the same as that in which they are enumerated in Num. 2, and in which their princes offered (Num. 7: 12-89), we should search for the underlying reasons for this. There are several reasons for this, some of which we will not discuss until we study Num. 10: 14-28. But the reason that we above gave—the order of the operation of the four Divine attributes from the standpoint of man's perceiving them—will suffice for the purposes of Num. 7: 12-89.
(26) Israel in its organization and tabernacle was to be a picture of God's antitypical purposes. One of such purposes was to reveal Himself operating perfectly in power, wisdom, justice and love, and that in the time order just enumerated, as we note from His works (Rev. 4: 6-11). These attributes were for the Priests symbolized in the uncovered mercy seat, in the two cherubim and partly in the Shekinah light in the Holy of Holies. For the Levites they were symbolized by these covered; and for the Israelites, by the standards of the four camps. While we are not able clearly to prove it from the Bible, the rabbinical claim that the standard of Judah's camp had as its emblem a lion, that of Reuben's camp, an eagle, that of Ephraim's camp, an ox, and that of Dan's camp, a man's face, seems reasonable; for these are the symbols used in Rev. 4 and Ezek. 1 for the four great Divine attributes; and it is certain that the basal creedal thoughts of the four camps of antitypical Israel are these four attributes—one for each camp. Undoubtedly the idea of God's Power is the underlying creedal thought of Calvinism, Campbellism and Adventism, the three denominationalisms on the East of the antitypical Tabernacle. The idea of God's Wisdom
is certainly the underlying creedal thought of Greek, Roman and Anglican Catholicism, the three denominationalisms on the South of the antitypical Tabernacle. The idea of Justice is unquestionably the underlying creedal thought of Lutheranism, Congregationalism and Fanaticism, the three isms on the West of the antitypical Tabernacle. So, too, the idea of Love is unquestionably the underlying creedal thought of the Baptist, Methodist and Unitario-Universalist Churches, the three denominations on the North of the antitypical Tabernacle. And as the creeds are the denominational standards, and as these four denominational groups have each a different one of these attributes underlying its standard, it is quite reasonable to believe that in the typical standards were the symbols of these four attributes, as the rabbis claim. We do not, however, present this thought as absolutely demonstrable from the Bible, but as reasonably inferred from its data, considered from the standpoint of the creedal bases of the four antitypical camps; for we do know it to be a fact that a separate one of the four Divine attributes underlies the creedal thought of each one of the four antitypical camps. The natural man by his environment is first of all struck by the idea of God's Power. This is likely the reason why the princes of the camp standing symbolically for power, are represented as offering, in their threefold tribal order, first. With these preliminary remarks we now proceed to particulars, and will first consider— type and antitype—the vessels and the other offerings of the prince of Judah.
(27) V. 12: Nahshon (enchanter), the son of Amminadab (my people is willful), as the prince of Judah (praise), types the crown-lost leaders who perverted into a sect the Zwinglian movement, which advocated that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper represent Jesus' body and blood, and that eating and drinking these represent faith appropriating Christ's merit for justification, and also the Christians' fellowship with
one another. This doctrine, so far as it went, was true. Its advocacy was started by Zwingli, to whose support Oecolampadius, Haller, Myconius and a large number of other Priests rallied. Henry Bullinger, Zwingli's successor as chief pastor of Zurich, Switzerland, seems to have started the work of perverting this movement into a sect; but he was shortly greatly overshadowed by John Calvin, who was one of the sharpest thinkers of all times, and who is generally recognized as "the theologian of the Reformation." Next to Calvin stood Theodore Beza, Calvin's chief colaborer, his chief lieutenant and his successor; and next to him stood John Knox, Scotland's Reformer. There were, of course, many lesser lights than these, like the two Spanheims, Chanier, etc.
(28) The mental acuteness of the chief Calvinistic theologians is generally recognized as at least equal to that of any other set of denominational theologians. This is implied in the name Nahshon, enchanter; for by their subtile teaching they have enchanted many. The Hebrew word from which Nahshon is derived means serpent—that which charms—and power to charm—symbolizing subtility; and the stubbornness (Amminadab) of the Calvinistic theologians is proverbial. Thus these theologians are in the type properly characterized by the meaning of the names, Nahshon and Amminadab. On the European continent the Calvinistic Churches are usually called Reformed, like the Dutch Reformed, the German Reformed, etc.; and in the British Empire and in America they are usually called Presbyterian. These, as previously shown, are antitypical Judah (praise), a name that properly applies to this denomination from its intellectual, moral and religious qualities and works. The ground principle of their theological system is Power, which they imply in their shibboleth, "Divine Sovereignty." Antitypical Judah, being historically and from about every other standpoint the first of the three tribes on the East of the antitypical Tabernacle, occupies
the first place in that camp; and, therefore, its crown-lost leaders are represented as bringing the sacrifice on the first antitypical day, as the first of all.
(29) V. 13: According to this verse Nahshon brought three vessels for the altar—a silver charger or platter, a silver bowl and a golden spoon. Each of the other princes brought the same kinds of vessels, as they also all brought the same three kinds of sacrifices, each kind consisting of the same numbers and kinds of beasts. In fact, the words describing the service of all these princes are identical, excepting, of course, their names, the names of their fathers and the names of their tribes. We have seen that chargers type corrective teachings, bowls, refutative teachings, and spoons, ethical teachings (Chap. II). We will find added confirmations of these thoughts in vs. 13 and 14. It will be noted that there was no offering of cups for the altar by any of the princes. This is exactly in harmony with the antitype, because it was the crown-retaining leaders—antitypical Jacob—who gave the doctrinal teachings that started each Little Flock movement later perverted into a sect by the crown-lost leaders. There is another reason in the antitype for this typical omission: the crown-lost leaders in all cases perverted some doctrinal feature in the teachings given by the Little Flock crown-retaining leaders. E.g., Calvin perverted in a large measure Zwingli's teaching on the purpose of the Lord's Supper; for Calvin's teaching on this feature of the subject leaned toward Luther's doctrine of the real presence. Though he held against Luther with Zwingli on the symbolic view of the bread and wine, and their eating and drinking, yet he claimed that Christ's body and blood were received in the Lord's Supper, not by Christ's being on earth, as Luther taught, but by the communicant's faith ascending to heaven, and there partaking of a mystic power emanating from Christ's body; and, though Calvin held to the thought that the bread and wine symbolized Christ's body and blood, he did not
hesitate to call Zwingli's view on the purpose of the Lord's Supper, as merely symbolic and commemorative, "a profane opinion." In this perversion the other crown-lost leaders like Bullinger, Beza, Knox, etc., agreed with Calvin. It is because of such doctrinal perversions that cups, the types of doctrinal truths, were not offered in the type. Thus the Scriptures are frequently significant in their silence, as they always are in their speech. Later on a reaction set in, leading, in the Presbyterian Church, to a general acceptance of Zwingli's view on the purpose of the Lord's Supper as against Calvin's view.
(30) Remembering that the vessels were offered by the princes for the golden altar, and that this was to type some service that the crown-lost leaders were to perform for the faithful sacrificers in their ministry, and remembering that chargers represent corrective teachings, bowls refutative teachings and spoons ethical teachings, we will readily see that Nahshon's bringing these three vessels for the altar types the services that the Calvinistic crown-lost theologians contributed to the Little Flock servants in Scripturally defending the thought that the bread and wine and their eating and drinking were symbolic. Let us see first how this was done in the case of the antitypical charger, which, as stated above, is corrective teachings, i.e., as to wrong conduct. Since Zwingli, etc., taught that partaking of the bread and wine symbolized faith appropriating Christ's righteousness, and also the fellowship of Christians with one another, though they did not see that this fellowship was a joint participation in the Sin-offering; in bringing the antitypical charger, the Calvinistic crown-lost theologians had to show: (1) that such a doctrine implied setting aside sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in all their forms; for to symbolize such things implies the symbolizers' hostility of heart to sin, error, selfishness and worldliness. Again, (2) that this symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper required the purging of evil from the
heart (1 Cor. 5: 7, 8), as indicated by its type, which had to be celebrated with unleavened bread, after all leaven was removed from the Israelites' homes and burned. Further, (3) they showed it by proving that such symbolization required the heart's reformation to give the feast its sacred setting as distinct from an ordinary meal. Also, in line with this was the thought (4) of the supper being a commemorative feast, and (5) of its requirement of self-examination; (6) the stress that they laid on the warning not to eat and drink unworthily, and the proof which they gave that such unworthy participation made one guilty of the body and blood (sin against them), and (7) the rehearsal of the evils of spiritual weakness, sickness and sleep as a result of unworthy participation in the symbolic feast—one and all proved to be teachings corrective of misconduct. On these particulars they stressed 1 Cor. 11: 26-34, as the Biblical basis for their teaching that the symbolic partaking of the bread and wine implied and enforced reformation of conduct. Thus they offered the antitypical charger.
(31) The bowl of antitypical Nahshon was the refutative teachings 'that the Calvinistic crown-lost leaders used against attacks made on the teaching that the bread and wine represent Christ's body and blood, and' that partaking of them represents the Christians' partaking of Christ's merit and also their fellowshipping with one another. Against this teaching the Catholics by transubstantiation and the Lutherans by instrumentalization, both holding that the actual body and blood were eaten by the mouth of all communicants, contended with the greatest subtility. But antitypical Nahshon was able to refute every argument that transubstantiationists and instrumentalizationists offered. Some of the refutative arguments that we used against these two wrong views of the nature of the Lord's Supper in P 22, 52-56 are identical with those that antitypical Nahshon used; though not having the full light on the Lord's Supper, antitypical Nahshon could
not use all of them, nor in some cases could he put them so clearly. We suggest a re-reading of the article just cited, as illustrative of some of the refutative arguments that antitypical Nahshon used, as well as helpful to a proper appreciation of the Lord's Supper. Some of this class made most crushing refutations of the Catholic and Lutheran views as against the symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper. E.g., Beza more than worsted the Cardinal of Lorraine in a great debate on the Lord's Supper, before the French royalty and aristocracy in 1561 at Poissy. Similar results attended his debate on the same subject with the ablest Lutheran theologians at Montbeliard, 1586. The controversial writings of antitypical Nahshon on the Lord's Supper are a triumphant overthrowal of objections to the symbolic character of the Lord's Supper offered by Catholics and Lutherans. Thus antitypical Nahshon offered his bowl.
(32) The spoon that Nahshon offered types his antitype's instructions in righteousness that flow from the symbolic understanding of the bread and wine and their eating and drinking in the Lord's Supper. Catholic and Lutheran theologians respectively claimed that such a view would not develop the communicants in righteousness as would the view of transubstantiation and instrumentalization. Refutatively, antitypical Nahshon showed that transubstantiation and instrumentalization fostered superstition, priestcraft and perversion of good qualities, and then positively showed that the commemorative and symbolic view of the Lord's Supper deepens love for God, who gave His Son to death for the lost race, and for Christ, who died for the world, and for all fellow participants, because it symbolizes Christ's death, their appropriating His merit and their fellowship with one another; deepens, increases and elevates faith in justifying and sanctifying aspects; fosters hope in the glorious consummation for the entire family of God in suggesting the new wine; strengthens obedience by the act of
complying with the exhortations germane to the Lord's Supper; strengthens humility by solemnly refreshing heart and mind on the grace of God underlying the service; and stimulates zeal and self-sacrifice by holding God's and Christ's sacrifices before our mind for devout commemoration and symbolization. In these and many other ways they showed how the commemorative and symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper promoted proper characteristics and conduct. Thus antitypical Nahshon brought the golden spoon.
(33) V. 13 and corresponding verses in this chapter show that the chargers and bowls were silver; and v. 14 and corresponding verses in this chapter show that the spoons of all the princes were gold. As we have long since learned, in Biblical symbols silver represents truth, and gold represents that which is Divine. The thought with reference to the charger and the bowl is, therefore, that truth characterized the corrections of wrong qualities and conduct and the refutations of errors, made by the teachings of antitypical Nahshon in his views on the Lord's Supper; while the thought with reference to the golden spoon is that antitypical Nahshon's ethical teachings derived from the Lord's Supper were Divine in that they came from God; in that they inured to developing a Divine character; in that they tended to glory, honor and immortality; and in that they enhanced the Divine glory. The weight of these three vessels—the charger 130, the bowl 70, and the spoon 10 shekels of the sanctuary—totaled 210 shekels. It will be noted that each vessel's weight in shekels was in the denomination of ten or its multiples—130, 70, 10. This symbolizes the fact that they were the offerings of those who would ultimately be of a nature lower than the Divine, ten and its multiples symbolizing natures lower than the Divine. But their sum, 210, being a multiple of both 7 and 10, suggests the thought that though their offerers will ultimately be of a nature lower than the Divine, they once were
begotten to the Divine nature as new creatures, having had crowns assigned to them. The weight of the spoon—10 shekels—suggests typically the reckonedly perfect human powers of its offerer; the weight of the bowl 70 shekels, the product of 7 and 10—suggests typically that Divine New Creatures in reckonedly perfect human bodies were its offerers; and the weight of the charger—130 shekels, 130 being the sum of 70 and 60, the latter a multiple of 6, the symbol of evil and imperfection, and of 10 the symbol here of human nature, 60 thus representing corrupt human nature, typically represents that it would be double minded (Jas. 1: 8), Spirit-begotten persons who would offer the antitypical charger. Thus embedded in the weights of these vessels are typical allusions to various outstanding features of the Great Company. Thus in another way than that of their sharing in the sin offering, does the Lord show us that Nahshon and the other princes type crown-lost leaders. The silver charger and the bowl in contrast with the golden spoon seems also to represent the thought that the value of the corrective and refutative teachings was inferior to that of the ethical teachings for Divine purposes.
(34) We are further told that the charger and bowl were full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meat offering (v. 13). As elsewhere shown, the meat (meal) offering represents praise—the proclamation of Jehovah's plan as reflecting credit upon Him by displaying His glorious power, wisdom, justice and love—and worship—service of His plan. Thus the meat offering of Nahshon in the charger and bowl types the fact that by antitypical Nahshon's corrective and refutative teachings, oral and written, there would be credit reflected upon God through their serving Him in furthering their pertinent feature of the Plan—the Lord's Supper. The fine flour represents the minuteness of antitypical Nahshon's teachings; and the oil represents that it was the offering of New Creatures
who put at least a measure of the Lord's Spirit into the service. We are told that the golden spoon was filled with incense. This incense represents the choice human powers of antitypical Nahshon, which were reckoned perfect by Jesus' merit, and which were used in their service of vindicating the symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper as promotive of godliness, and in that use developed into Divinely pleasing graces; for from God's viewpoint, that crown-lost New Creatures up to 1917 were in antitypical Aaron, it is manifest that their sacrificing in Spirit and in Truth was 'acceptable to Jehovah in Christ, and produced in them some degree of the graces, even as they taught on the graces and the conduct harmonious with them. The fact that Nahshon brought these vessels for the golden altar proves that his antitype must have been New Creatures ministering new-creaturely matters; but his not being a priest proves his antitype to have consisted of crown-losers—another proof that the princes type crown-losers, the fact that the vessels were not copper, but were silver and gold also proving the same thing.
(35) Vs. 15-17 show the animal sacrifices in three forms: the burnt offering, the sin offering and the peace offering. As our dear Pastor has shown us, the burnt offering represents the manifested acceptance of the sacrifice to Jehovah; the sin offering, the atoning character of the sacrifice; and the peace offering, the covenant obligations which were assumed, and which were fulfilled by the sacrifice. We understand the young bullock in the burnt offering to type our Lord as the one whose merit makes the sacrifice acceptable; the ram to type the Church as the one whose sacrifice includes that of the crown-losers before 1917, and thus is instrumental in making the crown-losers' sacrifice available as a part of its own; and the lamb to type the crown-losers as being acceptable to Jehovah through Christ's merit and their inclusion in the
Church. Above we explained the antitypical significance of the kid of the goats for a sin offering (v. 16). V. 17 names a number of the beasts sacrificed in the peace offering. We understand the antitype to be: Through Christ's merit (the two oxen) and on account of their inclusion in the Church (the five rams) as a part of the Sin-offering (the five he goats), the sacrifices of the crown-losers are a fulfillment of their consecration vows (the five lambs). The fact that the lamb in the burnt offering and in the peace offering was of one year in each case, types the maturity of the crown-losers for the sacrificial work that they performed. We have already used the fact of the princes bringing the sin offering as proving that certain Gospel-Age sacrificers, and hence crown-lost New Creatures, are typed by them. The same thought flows from the fact that they bring a burnt offering; for the only sacrifice acceptable to Jehovah, and made during the Gospel-Age, is that of the Christ. So, too, the same conclusion follows from the fact that they brought the peace offering; for the only sacrificial covenant made and fulfilled during the Gospel-Age is that of the Christ. The same thought flows from the fact that a special animal in the burnt and peace offerings types them as distinct from Jesus and the Church. Thus we have found seven arguments which prove that the princes represent the crown-lost sectarian leaders in the Gospel-Age picture: (1) they offered a sin offering; (2) they offered vessels whose shekel weight was of ten or its multiples, and whose total shekel weight was 210 shekels, and whose separate weights and combinations typed reckonedly perfect human beings, Spirit-begotten human beings and double minded new creatures; (3) they offered gold and silver vessels: (4) these vessels belonged to the golden altar; (5) they brought a burnt offering; (6) they brought a peace offering; and (7) they are typed in the burnt and peace offerings by an animal separate from the animals that type Jesus and the Church.
(36) So far in this chapter we studied Num. 7: 1-18, type and antitype, where we entered into details on the chargers, bowls, spoons, their contents and the various animal sacrifices, brought to our attention in vs. 12-17, and connected with Nahshon's offerings. In considering the offerings of the other eleven princes it will not be necessary to enter into their general details, because in the type they are expressed in exactly the same language, and because they are, generally speaking, the same in the antitypical offerings. The difference in the antitype consists in the difference between the twelve doctrines on which the antitypical princes respectively made presentations. Each one of these presented corrections (chargers), refutations (bowls) and instructions in righteousness (spoons), differing from those of the other eleven, inasmuch as the pertinent general truth presented by each one of the antitypical princes was on a different subject. For this reason we will, in discussing the offerings of the other eleven princes, omit the general details on the chargers, bowls, spoons and various animal sacrifices, referring our readers to the previous discussion for these.
(37) V. 18: It will be noted that each of the typical princes offered on a different day. These days anti-typically are successive in time order only among the three antitypical tribes of which each of the four groups consist, except in the case of antitypical Naphtali, and this perhaps because the Universalists were developed after the Methodists. If we should attempt to make them follow one another in time succession, in all twelve antitypical tribes, we would soon come into irreconcilable difficulty. E.g., Nahshon, who offered on the first day, as we have already seen, types the crown-lost leaders of the Presbyterian Church, while Elizur (v. 30) types the crown-lost leaders of the Greek Catholic Church. Antitypical Nahshon began to offer about 1535 A.D., while antitypical Elizur began to offer before 250 A.D., despite the fact that the type makes Nahshon and Elizur offer on the first and fourth days respectively. Again, Nethaniel (v. 18) and
Eliab (v. 24) type the crown-lost leaders of the Christian and Second Advent Churches respectively, while Shelumiel (v. 36) and Eliasaph (v. 42) type the crown-lost leaders of the Roman Catholic and the Episcopal Churches respectively. Antitypical Nethaniel and Eliab began to offer about 1815 and 1850 respectively, while antitypical Shelumiel and Eliasaph began to offer about 250 and 1550 respectively. Thus we see that the time order of the offering is given within each antitypical camp, but not as between each camp. These remarks must be kept in mind when considering the order of the days in the type and antitype. Antitypical Nahshon, Nethaniel and Eliab beginning to offer about 1535, 1815 and 1850 respectively, we recognize the time order as successive in this antitypical camp; as it will also be seen to be in the other three antitypical camps, except as noted above.
(38) The doctrine that God gave to the denominations which we call the Christian or Disciple Church as its stewardship teaching through the Faithful is this: The Unity of the Lord's people is founded on the Bible as their only creed. This teaching was first announced by Barton W. Stone in 1804 in Kentucky. Just as the Lord began to give through Zwingli the truth on the Lord's Supper, in defense of which antitypical Nahshon offered the corrections, refutations and instructions in righteousness, as on the special truth of the Reformed or Presbyterian Church, typed by the pertinent charger, bowl and spoon; so did He begin to give through Barton W. Stone the special truth on the basis for the unity of God's people, in defense of which antitypical Nethaniel offered the pertinent corrections, refutations and instructions typed by the pertinent charger, bowl and spoon. But just as Zwingli was joined by other priests in presenting the truth on the Lord's Supper, so was Bro. Stone joined by other Priests in presenting the truth of the unity of God's people as being based on the Bible as their only creed.
(39) Most prominent among these was Thomas Campbell, the father of Alexander Campbell, who was the chief figure in antitypical Nethaniel, as Calvin was the chief one of antitypical Nahshon. Thomas Campbell in 1809 began in Western Pennsylvania a movement with the same teaching as that presented five years before by Barton W. Stone. But for years each labored in ignorance of what the other did and taught, and only later did they find out that the Lord's Spirit led them into the same truth. Each protested by pen and mouth against sectarianism; each began as Presbyterians, but soon repudiated its sectarianism and doctrine of absolute predestination. Each stood out for a Biblical union of all Christians free from all the elements of sectarianism; each became immersionists; and each labored long and successfully as non-sectarianists.
(40) It was Alexander Campbell who turned this Little Flock movement into a sect, called the Christian or Disciple Church. As Calvin corrupted the Zwinglian movement, so Alexander Campbell corrupted in many ways the Stone-Campbell movement. He introduced immersion for the forgiveness of sins—the baptism of John—and the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper, just as Calvin introduced the doctrines of absolute predestination and of Presbyterianism into the Zwinglian movement. Thus Alexander Campbell stands out as the chief one of the crown-lost leaders typed by Nethaniel (gift of God) the son of Zuar (little). There were others who were in antitypical Nethaniel, e.g., Samuel Rogers, John Smith, Thomas Allen, Walter Scott and Isaac Errett. These were ever ready to advocate the doctrine that God's people are one and should unite on the Bible alone as their creed. They were ever ready to enter formal debates in defense of this proposition. Alexander Campbell was one of the ablest religious debaters and orators of the nineteenth century. He never came out of a debate second best. His chief debates were with Mr. Owen,
a skeptic, on the evidences of Christianity, with Bishop Purcell, a Roman Catholic, on the Roman Catholic religion, and with Rev. Rice, a Presbyterian, on Baptism and Church Unity. After his example, Christian or Disciple preachers court the opportunity of entering a debate, especially on Christian unity, and always win the debates on this question.
(41) Keeping in mind that the special truth that the Lord committed to the denomination called the Christian or Disciple Church is the unity of God's people as being based on the Scriptures as their only creed, we will be in a position to understand how the crown-lost leaders of that Church—antitypical Nethaniel—presented their antitypical charger (corrections), bowl (refutations) and spoon (instructions in righteousness). Their being called typically Nethaniel—gift of God—seems to imply that they offer peace to divided Christendom as a gift from God. Their being typically called Zuar (little) seems to refer to the fact that their demands for unity among God's people are not based on large, but on little conditions—the acceptance of Jesus as Savior and obedience to Him as Lord, and the acceptance of the Bible as the only creed. Contrasted with the exacting demands that, for example, the Papacy makes as conditions of union among God's people, these are little—Zuar—indeed.
(42) The antitypical charger (corrections) that they brought corrected misconduct against true unity among God's people. It showed what were the evils of sectarianism, and how they could be put aside by true unity among God's people. It showed that sectarianism divided God's people, made them hostile, envious, partisan, mean, despicable, selfishly ambitious, only partially fruitful in goodness, servile to leaders and denomination and objects of hostile attacks from outsiders. These evils it showed could all be corrected by unity among God's people. It further showed that human creeds are the product of much ignorance, superstition and perversion, that they lead to strife,
vain-glory, error, division, partisanship, disfellowshipment of true brethren, shutting out of advancing light and settling in the bog of reactionism. These evils it pointed out would all be set aside by adopting the Bible as the only creed, in trust that the Lord by His Spirit would open up its mysteries as they would become due to those walking in the advancing light. In these and other ways antitypical Nethaniel offered his charger, and we are sure that God at Jesus' hands accepted this charger.
(43) So did the crown-lost leaders of the Christian or Disciple Church also offer the antitypical bowl—refutative teachings. Their position on the unity of God's people as being based upon their acceptance of the Scriptures as their only creed, was contrary to the creedal views of all other denominations. It additionally antagonized the views of the Greek and Roman Catholics on tradition as a source of rule and faith. It antagonized the creed views and practices of all the f denominations; for almost all of them had written creeds, confessions and disciplines. These, therefore, attacked the Christian or Disciple view. In turn the crown-lost leaders of this denomination attacked the arguments used in defense of creeds, showing that they are nothing less than corporational rules and regulations and human chains binding their accepters to spiritual slavery, stunting their growth and cutting them off from all advancing truth contradictory to their creeds. Additionally they pointed out the fact that all of them taught error and separated in hostile camps God's dear children, who should be united in head and heart in the oneness of the Divine family. In defense of their own position they argued that their creed was the Divinely revealed one, inerrant, sufficient, perfect and practical. It excludes those only whom God excludes; and it includes all whom God includes. It gives liberty to each in non-essentials, and makes none the dictators and lords over other's faith. It allows for differences in degrees of knowledge
in all. These crown-lost leaders used as their shibboleth the saying, "Where the Scriptures speak we speak; where the Scriptures are silent we are silent." Certainly this is a safe course, and the only one capable of making for union among God's people. The strength of this position lies in its Scripturalness; and this accounts for the Christian or Disciple controvertialists coming out of their frequent debates as victors.
(44) Antitypical Nethaniel also brought as his offering the golden spoon—the instructions in righteousness flowing from the Scriptural teaching that the union of God's people is based upon the Bible as their only creed. They pointed out that the union of God's people was necessary to yield God the most glory, inasmuch as it showed that a united people was an honor to their God, and that a united family was an honor to their Father. They showed how this would honor and please the Savior, one of whose last prayers was for the unity of God's people. It was especially along the lines of the graces operative in the Christian brotherhood that they made telling points along the lines of instructions in righteousness. They showed how this teaching helped the brethren to love one another with increasing fervency. They pointed out that it conduced to long-suffering and patience in connection with non-essential differences. They emphasized how it made one tolerant where tolerance was a virtue, and unbending where firmness was required. They proved that it was a strong support to gentleness, humility, meekness, consideration and politeness; and above all they affirmed that this position enabled each and all to be real brethren in the Lord and to act as such, inasmuch as they could view one another as New Creatures and ignore fleshly differences. In these ways antitypical Nethaniel offered the golden spoon.
(45) We will not here enter into a discussion of the fine flour mingled with oil, contained in the charger and the bowl, nor into a discussion of the sweet incense
in the spoon, since their significance is the same in all twelve cases, and is therefore here the same as in the case of that presented by Nahshon, as explained above, to which we refer our readers for these particulars. For the same reason we will not enter into a discussion of the gold and silver metals in the three vessels that Nethaniel brought, nor of their weights, nor of the burnt offering, the sin offering and the peace offering, in themselves and in the various animals of which they consisted. The accommodation to Nethaniel's offerings of the remarks made on these matters in connection with Nahshon's offerings will suffice to make these points clear without repetition here.
(46) In order better to appreciate Eliab's offering, let us recall that he types the crown-lost leaders of the Adventists; for the tribe of Zebulun (habitation) types the Second Adventists, or Adventists as they are called for short. They are antitypical Zebulun (habitation), because, it will be recalled, in Adventism antitypical Elijah and Elisha became the cleansed sanctuary separate from Great Babylon, and the expectation was that the faithful teachers, as antitypical Jacob (Gen. 30: 19, 20) would find a habitation unto the end with the Adventists; for in Adventism they became a sanctuary henceforth separated from Babylon. Eliab means God is father—life-giver, and Helon means strong. Their crown-lost leaders as advocates of God as the life-giver who will display His strength in connection with Christ's Second Advent, when believers would be given life by God's strength, are thus indicated by the name of the prince who types them. Thus Adventism as a sect stresses God's power in the resurrection, even as Calvinism stresses it by its shibboleth, the sovereignty of God, in election, and as Campbellism stresses it in the Bible as the power of God to unite God's people in one and unto salvation. Thus we see that the three tribes to the east of the tabernacle, type the three denominations that specially stress power as a Divine attribute in their creeds.
(47) The Advent movement was begun (Jacob begetting Zebulun) by William Miller, who originally was an infidel, but who by the study of the Bible became a believer. About 1818 he began to study prophecy and chronology. By 1829 he had developed his system of prophetic chronology and doctrine quite fully, when he began to converse on it to individuals. But he did not make much of it in the way of witnessing publicly until 1831. His first public lecture on The Second Advent was delivered on the first Sunday in August, 1831. (White's, Life Of Miller, page 80.) Bro. Miller stressed a number of things, especially (1) prophetic chronology, (2) Christ's Second Advent and (3) the saints' Millennial reign with Christ after the Second Advent. To the day of his death (Dec. 20, 1849) he continued to believe in the immortality of man, in his consciousness in death, in eternal bliss entered at death by the righteous and in eternal torment entered at death by the wicked. He first expected the Lord's return, and that visibly in the flesh, sometime between March and October, 1843, and then, this failing, Oct. 22, 1844. After his second disappointment, he humbly and publicly confessed his mistake, but could not point out wherein he had made a mistake in his prophetic periods, which were in the main from March, 1844, properly understood; but he began his 1290 and 1335 years' periods 30 years before his 1260 years' period, which from about March, 1844, on were rightly begun in 539 A. D. Previous to March, 1844, he began them at 538. He began and ended the 2300 days at 457 B. C. and 1843 A. D. respectively. Certainly he did not understand correctly the Lord's Second Advent in its time, object and manner. Yet his chronological periods in the main were correct, though he applied some parts of them incorrectly. His was indeed a movement in God's order, corresponding in the parallel dispensation to the "Israelites indeed" and the Magi before and just after our Lord's birth going forth to meet the Messiah.
(48) What special doctrine did the Lord give through
him in connection with which antitypical Eliab offered his antitypical charger, bowl and spoon, with their appurtenances and attendant sin, meat and peace offerings? The crown-lost leaders of Adventism have variously' stressed some doctrines. Most of them have stressed man's mortality, the unconsciousness of the dead and the destruction of the wicked. These could not have been the doctrines in connection with which antitypical Eliab offered the antitypical charger, bowl and spoon, because Bro. Miller—the part of antitypical Jacob who started the movement that was turned by the crown-lost leaders of Adventism into a sect—disbelieved them, therefore could not have used them to beget the Advent movement. Nor could Christ's pre-Millennial advent have been that doctrine, because the Baptists centuries before Miller made that a point of their faith. Nor was it Seventh-Dayism, which a majority of Adventists now accept, for Bro. Miller never taught it, nor did any of his followers until after 1846. Of the three things that he specially stressed there is only one which no previous movement specially stressed, and which the crown-lost Adventist leaders did stress, i.e., the prophetic chronology. So prophetic chronology is the thing by which Bro. Miller began his movement—Jacob begetting Zebulun. And the facts undeniably prove this. Prophetic time was the special point that he emphasized, that drew many to his movement, and that was the main target of his opponents' arrows. Thus the facts show what was the Biblical teaching committed to the Adventists as their special stewardship doctrine, in connection with which, accordingly, antitypical Eliab offered the antitypical charger, bowl and spoon—prophetic time.
(49) A wrong chronology prevalent in Miller's day moved him to start the 490 and 2300 days at Ezra's commission, given in this wrong chronology as 457 B. C. Hence he made it end in 1843. This date (1843) moved him first to start his 1260 and 1290 days with 538 A. D., and then from March, 1844, onward with