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


profess to be Thy people, by begetting of the Spirit through the Truth all of them? Have I mothered all of them by developing all of them as new creatures after they were begotten of the Spirit through the Truth? To both questions the answer of course must be a negative one, though He did thus father and mother the new creatures among them. These works He did in both Harvests and in the intervening period. This alludes to the first of Jesus' Gospel-Age missions, gathering from among the nations a people for God's name. And certainly Jesus had assumed the burden of these; but it was not this that oppressed Him; nor was it the burden of the justified, nor of bringing unjustified ones through repentance and faith to justification, by reproving for sin, righteousness, judgment.


(23) It was bearing responsibility for the unjustified and the second death class and providing for them the kind of food for head and heart desired by them, that was oppressive. These He did not want to bear as a parent (in Thy bosom, as a nursing father does a suckling), to the heavenly Canaan, sworn as theirs in the Oath-bound Covenant to the Faithful only (v. 12). And in this His attitude was right. The words, "that Thou shouldst say" were better rendered "That Thou mightest say." This rendering wards off the idea that God had required the typical oppressive thing of Moses or the antitypical oppressive thing of Jesus; for to act as a leader and teacher does not imply fatherhood and motherhood to all the led and taught, with their consequent duties. Our Lord had such duties to new creatures only, which, as said before, He did not consider oppressive. As Moses did not know whence he could supply flesh for the 2,000,000 Israelites, neither did our Lord in the Harvests and in the intervening period know whence He could supply other than the Divinely arranged mental food for all nominal and real Spiritual Israel (whence should I have? v. 13). This



verse and vs. 21-23 not only prove that our Lord did not know whence He could get even enough food for nominal and real Spiritual Israel, but that He did not know of what it would consist, which disproves the thought of His being omniscient. Both Moses' and our Lord's kind hearts were distressed at the situation. In both cases their sympathies were deeply wrought upon by the weepings of the people for their respectively desired food and their inability to supply it (for they weep, etc., v. 13). In Jesus' case this inability was of course true in all the applications of the antitype, and that throughout all their various periods.


(24) The inability of Moses alone and Jesus alone to do all that their increasing burdens required in harmony with their respective missions, with the addition of satisfying the dissatisfied and lusting people, in Jesus' case in all applications of the text, is set forth in v. 14 (I am not able; it is too heavy for me). Moses said that if God desired him alone to do not only the work of leading and teaching the people which, within certain limits and as variously as were the classes of the people, he had undertaken, but also to satisfy the dissatisfied and lusting people with provisions that were not his to furnish (if Thou deal thus with me, v. 15), he requested death immediately (kill me … out of hand) as an act of favor (if I have found favor in Thy sight), and thus be prevented from experiencing (a frequent Biblical meaning of the word see) an unbearable affliction (let me not see my wretchedness). Antitypically, Jesus' distressed feelings, not words, in all applications of the antitype told God that if He must bear so heavy a burden, He would prefer, not a literal death, which is impossible for immortals, but a symbolic death, a cutting off from His office as Leader and Teacher of the nominal and real people of God, variously to be led and taught, dependent on their class standing before the Lord. This phenomenon appeared throughout the harvest periods and the five Church epochs with the



increase of people. He is so conscientious that rather than be unable to fulfill a mission, He would give it up. This cutting off from such an office He desired to take place immediately (out of hand). As such He would consider it a favor from the Father (if I have found favor) and a deliverance from evil (my wretchedness). A thoughtful consideration of what Moses in the type said and of what Jesus acted out in the antitype, all the circumstances being considered, makes us recognize the justice of their plaint— they did not complain.


(25) God's answer, as given in vs. 16, 17, proves the justice of the typical and antitypical plaint. And God's answer as to how He would send relief to an overworked Servant of His, in both type and antitype, so that the real duty, which had increased greatly with the people's increase, especially in the antitype, might be effectively performed, and not be required of Moses and Jesus alone respectively in the type and antitype, is given in vs. 16, 17; and His answer as to how Moses in the type and Jesus in the antitype would be relieved entirely of the burden of satisfying the dissatisfied and lusting people is given in vs. 18-20. God's instructions as to the appointment of the 70 elders in vs. 16, 17, and His appointment of officers and judges in Ex. 18: 25-26 have been seized upon by higher critics as contradictory recitals of the same episode. But this identification is entirely wrong, as a little thought will prove. There were in the one case only 70, in the other many thousands selected; their service was largely different: the 70 were to assist Moses to teach and lead the people, the others were to answer difficult questions and settle controversies. The 70 were selected after leaving Sinai, hence at another place, the others shortly after reaching Sinai, and that at Sinai. The 70 were selected from among, and as the ablest among, the others (whom thou knowest to be elders and officers). Those selected at Sinai represent those elders, auxiliary pilgrims and pilgrims only who functioned during the



Parousia, and whose office persists in the Epiphany, only if they maintain their Little Flock standing, since their types were selected after Israel reached Sinai, which antitypically was reached in 1874; while the 70, representing in a general way all elders and leaders among God's people, specifically type, St. John excepted, the secondarily prophets of the two Harvests and the inter-harvest period. Specifically viewed for the two Harvests and for the intervening period, the 70 have typed literally 70 brothers, as the 70 evangelists (Luke 10: 1) in the Jewish Harvest prove, and as the facts in the other two cases prove. The fact that the twelve wells type 12 individuals (the Apostles) implies that the 70 palm trees type 70 individuals in the three applications of the type, the Apostles acting in two of the applications in their recorded words (Ex. 15: 24).


(26) The charge (v. 16) for Moses to gather the 70 to himself types for the Gospel Harvest God's charge to Jesus to associate with Himself in the general ministry the pilgrims who as such were general Elders. These 70 do not include auxiliary pilgrims, who as such went out only on occasional trips and at week ends; but the 70 were such as gave practically their entire time to the pilgrim service or in connection with it gave the rest or almost all the rest of their time to some other branch of the work, like members of the Parousia Bible House and Bethel family, although the less prominent of the latter were only auxiliary pilgrims. To be of the 70 pilgrims one would have had to enter that service at least a year, a symbolic day, before Oct. 1914. All of them as well as the auxiliary pilgrims were appointed by the Lord through Bro. Russell. These were such as our Lord knew to have qualifications for the general eldership and not simply for local eldership (whom thou knowest, v. 16). They were to be selected from among the elders of the Lord's people in the sense of such being specially developed, as well as from among the leaders, even as



the typical 70 were to be selected from among those made judges, even officers, at Sinai (elders of the people, even their officers, v. 16). Moses' taking such up with him to the tabernacle and their standing there with him (v. 16) type that our Lord brought those who were to become pilgrims in among the brethren and gave them among the brethren a special standing with Him as General Elders. It will be noted that the increase of the burden with the increase of the people and the selection of the pilgrims did not occur alone in connection with the No-Ransomism sifting, but from time to time until about 1913. Indeed, Bro. Russell's anointing in the antitypical camp as the Parousia Eldad (vs. 26, 27) began in 1870, even before the Parousia began, and he did not come up to the antitypical Tabernacle, the separated and cleansed sanctuary, until 1876. Why, then, are these matters in the type associated with the type of the No-Ransomism sifting? We reply that, as so often occurs in Scripture types and symbolic prophecy, things introduced at a certain period are given so as to furnish a completed picture, without necessarily limiting them to the period in which they are typically introduced, though, generally speaking, they there had their beginning. Bro. Russell's being selected as one of the 70 before the Parousia began finds its counterpart in John's being selected before Pentecost, not only to be an Apostle, but also to be the principal man of the Smyrna epoch, even as some of the dissatisfaction and lusting set in before 1874 and 69. This time phenomenon, therefore, we find covers the whole Gospel-Age application of the type, as well as its whole Harvests' applications.


(27) As was the case in the Jewish Harvest, the 70 were sent out in pairs (Luke 10: 1), so was it the case in the Gospel Harvest. Some of these are clearly discernible. We will indicate this in the case of ten, including the nine who constituted the three sets of threes among antitypical David's mightiest men. As that



Servant, Bro. Russell, the parallel of the Twelve, had no companion helper, unless the whole 70 be so considered, as the Jewish Harvest 70 in a sense were counted the companion helper of the 12, but as a pilgrim he did. Indeed he had five of such successively, the first four making total shipwreck: Messrs. Barbour and Paton, Mrs. Russell and Mr. M.L. McPhail, whose fall in 1908 occasioned another brother to take his place, who kept it to the end of Bro. Russell's pilgrim work. The second set seems to be Bro. Barton and Jesse Hemery; the third set, Bros. John and Morton Edgar, the fourth set, Menta Sturgeon and Bro. Raymond, and the fifth set, J.F. Rutherford and A.H. McMillan. The rest of the 70 were doubtless also paired, even if we are unable to trace all of them as such. The principle that whoever would fall out of a set of two would not be counted of the 70 in the finished picture, another taking his place, may be seen as true in the case of the companion helpers of Bro. Russell as a pilgrim. In each set above mentioned the leader of the two was mentioned first. During the period between the Harvests our heavenly Father sought to ease from our Lord the too large burden that came from the increase in the numbers of nominal and real Spiritual Israel as epoch after epoch increased the numbers of nominal and real Spiritual Israel, beginning it with the Smyrna period. This God did by charging Jesus for the five epochs between the Harvests to gather to Himself the 70, i.e., draw these to Him as assistants. As indicated above, this began in the case of St. John even before Pentecost, when, as the result shows, His call to the apostleship was a preparation, anointing, for his place as the principal man of the Smyrna Church, i.e., the main teacher among the star members of that Church, the one who gave its fundamental teachings. During each one of these Church periods a varying number of these 70 was called to be Jesus' associates in the work as secondarily prophets, general Elders, whose ministry



was one toward the general Church and the public.


(28) Just as it was in the two Harvests, these 70, distributed variously among the five inter-harvest Churches, were sent forth two by two, which is, how-ever, not the case with St. John who, before and during the Smyrna period, was an Apostle and who never was a secondarily prophet, as an Apostle had no secondarily prophet as a companion helper, though all of the Smyrna secondarily prophets may be considered as a class of such. How these 70 were sent forth two and two will be recognized from the examples of the Philadelphia Church's members of these 70. Wessel and Rudolph Agricola were a set of two of whom Wessel was the leader, as he was also the principal man of the Philadelphia star. Savonarola and (Fra.) Domenico were a set of two of whom Savonarola was leader. Luther and Melanchthon were a set of two of whom Luther was leader. Zwingli and Oecolampadius were a set of two of whom Zwingli was the leader. Hubmaier and Blaurock were a set of two of whom Hubmaier was the leader. Servetus and Laehus Socinus were a set of two of whom Servetus was the leader. Cranmer and Latimer were a set of two of whom Cranmer was the leader. Browne and Harrison were a set of two of whom Browne was the leader. Fox and Barclay were a set of two of whom Fox was the leader. John and Charles Wesley were a set of two of whom John Wesley was the leader. Stone and (Thomas) Campbell were a set of two of whom Stone was the leader, and Miller and Wolf were a set of two of whom Miller was the leader.


(29) Thus we see that of the 70 there were 24 who belonged to the Philadelphia; and the 46 others were unevenly distributed among the Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira and Sardis Churches, the Pergamos period having the least number of them. Of these 70, the leader of each of the 35 sets alone belonged to the five stars of these five Churches. In all there were 49



members of the seven stars, twelve belonging to the Ephesian and two to the Laodicean star. Each of these stars had one principal man, except the last, to which two were assigned (Mic. 5: 5). These inter-harvest 70 were to be well developed in head and heart (from the elders, v. 16). Not only so, but they must be attested men, not only by the brethren, but by Jesus also, (whom thou knowest). This attestation was not to be of them as of obscure men, but as of recognized leaders (elders of the people, even their officers). The charge that the 70 be by Moses brought to the tabernacle types this that Jesus bring such among those who were God's Tabernacle, the general Church. The 70 standing with Moses about the tabernacle represents the thought that after being made by Jesus such secondarily prophets, the 70 inter-harvest leaders should take their places as general teachers of the Church publicly before the entire Church (they shall stand, v. 16).


(30) God's coming down to Moses occurring in the cloudy pillar (vs. 17, 25) represents Jehovah's giving Jesus the pertinent Truth on the subjects needed by the 70 as due in their various times; and this Jesus gave them as a part of their qualification for their various ministries. God's taking from Moses of His spirit and putting it on the 70 (v. 17) types God's imparting from and through Jesus the rest of the power necessary to qualify the 70 for their special work, the spirit of counsel, might and reverence of the Lord in sufficient amounts additional to the already received spirit of wisdom and understanding and knowledge, imparted to them through the Truth given before as the first part of their qualification. This would fit each one to do that particular part of the general work that Jesus needed him to perform in each application of the antitype (v. 17). Thus they would with Jesus bear the burden of the proper service on behalf of the nominal and real people of God (v. 17). This would relieve our Lord of some of the burden, resulting in His



not bearing it alone. This certainly had its fulfillment during both Harvests and during the inter-harvest period. We have observed this as done during the Parousia and Epiphany. And the histories of brethren like St. John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Arius, Claudius of Turin, Berengar of Tours, Peter Abelard, Arnold of Brescia, Peter Waldo, Marsiglio, Occam, John Tauler, John Wyclif, John Huss, Jerome of Prague, John Wessel, etc., etc., prove that the same thing was done in the inter-harvest period.


(31) After the Lord had told Moses what to do as to the appointment of the 70 elders, He instructed him as to what to say to the people, i.e., to sanctify [to separate] themselves for the morrow, when they would have and eat flesh. Antitypically, God instructed our Lord to tell the people who lusted for other subjects than the Truth to separate themselves unto their partaking of the errors that the Lord would permit the adversary to introduce among them. Our Lord in the Gospel Harvest did this telling, not by words, but by acts whereby He drove away from the faithful the lusters, which occurred in a sifting whereby the separation was made. This sifting was the Gospel-Harvest No-Ransomism sifting. The same was true in the Jewish Harvest No-Ransomism sifting. Similarly did our Lord by act tell the Smyrna, etc., epochs' lusters for Jewish traditionalism, heathen mythology, science, philosophy, art, history and literature, to separate themselves from the faithful, which separation was the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting. As in all siftings, this one first worked a conduct separation, then later a theory or error separation. It was the error separation that more particularly is typed by the people's eating quail flesh, while the pertinent conduct separation occurred by their misconduct with reference to the Truth. In the antitype the dissatisfaction of the people ("ye have wept in the ears of the Lord," v. 18) with the food that the Lord had provided became the



occasion of the Lord's withdrawing restraints from Satan's bringing forth deceptions among the Lord's people. And with these restraints withdrawn Satan introduced No-Ransomism errors. Just as God resented Israel's untruthfully saying that it was well with them in Egypt (v. 18), so was He displeased, in the threefold applications of the type, with the people's false act-statement that it was well with them when they were in harmony with antitypical Egypt, the present evil world, while they were therein. And as God told Fleshly Israel that He, permissively, would send them flesh, so by His acts He told antitypical Israel that He would, permissively, send (2 Thes. 2: 9-11) them the errors connected with No-Ransomism in the three No-Ransomism siftings through which the Gospel Church would pass-those in the two Harvests and in the Interim between them: "ye shall eat" (v. 18). And they did.


(32) In vs. 19, 20, the duration of such eating is stated, i.e., "a month of days," or 30 days. (See the margin.) It will be noted that six different time periods are mentioned in these verses, five of them negatively: "Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days" (v. 19), and one positively: "even a whole month," or thirty days. Antitypically, No-Ransomism would be partaken of in all of the Harvests' five siftings, the first two beginning in 33 and 1878 and the last two beginning in 63 and 1908, for in both Harvests No-Ransomism was partaken of from the first Harvests' siftings up to and throughout the Harvests' fifth sifting. This same thing appears in the partaking of the Gospel-Age's No-Ransomism errors. We are not to think that the partaking of such errors was confined to the Smyrna period. It appears in all five epochs of the Church, and this is indicated in the expression, "a whole month" (v. 20), i.e., 30 days. Let us now see how this is indicated in all three applications. Thirty is the product of 5 x 6.



As we know, 6 is the number of evil or imperfection. In this case, error and sin, evil, are indicated. The five siftings were, each and all, evils, hence their duration may well be represented symbolically by a number symbolizing a fivefold evil. Thus the symbolic thought of the 30 days in the Harvests and in the Interim is that the evil food, error, would continue to be partaken of during five evil periods, the five sifting periods. The number 30 as touching all five of the sifting periods is by a Hebrew idiom made to include the whole of the five sifting periods in all applications.


(33) This fact of the No-Ransomism sifting continuing in all three applications throughout the five sifting periods and not terminating with the sifting period in which it began, is something that is frequently paralleled in Biblical matters, as the following facts show. The Infidelism sifting did not cease to operate as soon as the period—hour—of its beginning ended; but it continued to operate among susceptible people throughout the following three sifting periods, as the facts of the case prove. Then, too, the Combinationism sifting did not cease to work when the period—hour—of its beginning ended; but it continued to work during the two following periods. The Reformism sifting did not cease when the hour of its beginning ended, but continued throughout the period of the following sifting. The same thing holds of the siftings of the Gospel-Age's epochs; each continued to work during the periods following its beginning period. The same principle is manifest in the working of the seven plagues of Rev. 16: each one continued to work while the following ones worked and did not cease to work when the next one began to work, i.e., each of the previous Volumes continued its plaguing work throughout the periods of the plaguing work of its succeeding Volumes. This enables us to see the fallacy of W.E. Van Amburgh, who objected to our view of the 70 of Num. 11 typing for the Gospel Harvest the 70 pilgrims,



claiming that our view required the appointment of all of them during the first sifting hour, whereas facts prove that they were not all appointed during that hour, most of them coming later. Our reply is that we never said that they were then appointed, nor does our view indicate that they would then be appointed. Rather, the beginning of the appointment of pilgrims is shown in Num. 11: 24-30 to precede the first sifting, and nothing in the passage indicates that they were all appointed before the first sifting's hour of beginning ended; rather, as that sifting continued after that hour ended, so, as needed, the appointment of the 70 pilgrims continued with that sifting's continuance. This disposes of his objection.


(34) V. 20 indicates that the people would eat the flesh until they would have a most copious vomiting spell, in which the mouth would not be sufficient as an avenue of evacuation of the vomit, its exit crowding also through the nostrils. This verse also indicates that the food would become loathsome to them. It will be noted that the time of such vomiting would begin with the end of the 30 days, "month of days." Certainly with the No-Church-SinOffering's sifting, the revulsion at No-Ransomism's theories set in, evidenced by the fact that from that time onward until the reaping ceased these theories increasingly ceased to appeal to Truth and Nominal Church people. So, too, was it from the standpoint of the Gospel-Age picture. The vomiting of the theories contradictory of the Ransom began in the Reformation period, the Philadelphia period, and increasingly continued until 1846, when the sanctuary class was cleansed from the last of these No-Ransomism theories—human immortality. What a violent and great vomiting time the Reformation period was along all lines that impinged against the Ransom! This began first with Wessel's and then with Luther's repudiating works-justification, penances, indulgences, the merit of the saints applicable to believers,



transubstantiation and the mass as a sacrifice for the sins of dead and living people, intercession of saints and of the Virgin for sinners, purgatorial fires and Rome's "good works" as expiatory. It was continued by Servetus' repudiation of the trinity, the God-man and the eternal torment theories, which are contradictory to the Ransom. And it was completed by the cleansed sanctuary in 1846 repudiating human immortality. But the vomiting included other than No-Ransomism theories: it included the other main errors of the papacy, the last of such vomiting spells coming in 1869 and 1870 in connection with the infallibility of the pope. In addition to its many oral discussions the vast anti-papal literature of the Reformation shows even to this day the large scale of this vomiting spell—it came up so rapidly and in such large quantities as to require as avenues of exit both the symbolic mouth and nose.


(35) And these errors were during the Reformation period bad to the symbolic taste and smell ("until … it be loathsome unto you," v. 20). And certainly these theories, particularly those out of harmony with the Ransom, were bad to the spiritual scent; for these teachings were corrupt food, which emitted a foul smell, just as rotten natural food does. What foul odors came from the doctrines and practices of penances, confessions, indulgences, pilgrimages, expiations, masses, purgatorial fires, hell fires, etc.! How unappetizing, yea, revolting, to the spiritual palate were these and other more or less related teachings! Surely they became "loathsome" to those who were revived Spiritual Israelites in the Reformation period. No wonder that to escape these foul tastes and smells the Spiritual Israelites of those times and even Christendom's honest justified and unjustified ones were willing to endure all sorts of inconveniences, difficulties and sufferings to avoid their taste and odor! From this we may readily infer how great were the sins of the lusters in God's sight, if they moved God to give them up to such foul



symbolic foods. This sinfulness is exactly what v. 20 says ("ye have despised the Lord … have wept … saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?") is the reason why God sent during these five epochs between the Harvests the strong delusions more or less connected with Anti-Ransomism. What lessons this brings to us against inappreciation and in favor of appreciation of the Truth. We should learn these.


(36) In vs. 21 and 22 Moses, thinking that as the Lord's executive toward Israel the food was likely to be provided by him, asks in general for information as to where he could get flesh to feed Israel's 600,000 footmen and their probably 1,400,000 others a whole month. He asks in particular whether he should slay all Israel's flocks and herds or whether all the fish of the Red Sea, near which they then were, should be gathered together. Moses' statement, especially as to the fish, implies that he doubted his, not God's ability to provide all of such food. Moses' asking for the pertinent information types our Lord's asking for the pertinent antitypical information; for He did not know where to get such a great amount of symbolic food to satisfy the appetites of the lusters during the Harvests and their Interim, which implies that our Lord is not omniscient. Seemingly, the flesh of the flocks and herds would represent religious truths, and the fish of the sea secular truths, which Jesus thought He might have to provide. Up to the involved antitypical time apparently our Lord did not know that God meant more or less error as the antitypical meat for the lusters. Hence also His particularizing things that represent religious and secular Truth. The slaying of the flocks and herds and the gathering of the fish would represent the preparing of such symbolic food for Israel. Moses' asking for information implies Jesus' lack of omniscience, which only the Father has. Of course our Lord did not doubt the Father's ability to provide such vast amounts of food; it was His own ability therefore that He



doubted. God's asking Moses whether God's hand was shortened, i.e., whether God was limited in the exercise of His power to Moses alone as an agent (v. 23), gave Moses an intimation that God without Moses' instrumentality would see to it that His unlimited power without its usual form, Moses' executorship, would be used to arrange for meat for the lusters. Antitypically, by this question God intimates that His power was not limited to Jesus alone, His usual Arm, power Agent, but apart from Him was sufficient and would be used to arrange for the antitypical food for the antitypical lusters, and that without Jesus' instrumentality as its Agent. The following is the literal translation of the last clause of v. 23: Now shalt thou see thy experiencing [the fulfillment of] My word, though not [by thee]. The A. V. implies that Moses doubted God's power in this matter, which is not true of Moses, as the context proves, i.e., his questions of vs. 21 and 22, and of course antitypically could not be true of Jesus. Antitypically, thereby God assured Jesus that without the latter's cooperation He would see the matter done by His experiencing of God's fulfilling His pertinent promise, which He would fulfill, without Jesus' instrumentality, by removing restraints from Satan's purpose to spread errors against the Ransom. Thus He would arrange permissively through Satan's agency for the antitypical lusters to receive the mental food more or less related to No-Ransomism. Let us not forget that such Divine arranging was permissive and negative, not causal and positive. It simply removed restraints from "Satan, the old deceiver," whereby the latter obtained a measure of tolerated liberty to spread anti-Ransom theories. God, the Author of Truth, in whom is no darkness (1 John 1: 5), could have had no more than a passive and non-restraining part in such a transaction. These considerations show that morally Jesus, the Truth, could not ("shortened," "though not") be the Agent to spread



the involved errors as suitable mental food for the antitypical lusters, whose feeder is Satan.


(37) The antitype of Moses' telling the people these things (v. 24) was performed by our Lord, not by words, but by acts, i.e., He let them know by the events and food of the sifting itself that they displeased God and were by Him given up to such a terrible frenzy and feast, as the No-Ransomistic and pertinent errors were. His dealing with the 70 was positive and causal, and not negative and permissive, as was His telling the above things to the antitypical people. As we saw above, the calling of the pilgrims to positions of general eldership for the Parousia occurred throughout the reaping time almost to its end; perhaps the last of these was instated into this office at least a full year before the reaping ended, Sept. 16, 1914. Moses' gathering the elders (v. 24) seems to type Jesus' manipulating providentially the experiences of the prospective pilgrims favorably for their entering the pilgrim work. His placing them about the tabernacle types our Lord's instating the pilgrims into their office as general elders, "secondarily prophets," throughout the Church. The expression, "the 70 men of the elders of the people," implies typically that there were other elders of the people, and that the 70 were promoted to be the chief elders of the people by being made their general elders, the elders of all of them, not simply of a few of them; for the successors of these 70 were later called the Sanhedrin, the elders of all the people. Antitypically, this means that the pilgrims were, generally speaking, selected from among those who had already been local elders in the ecclesias, and were promoted to general eldership, i.e., were made teachers to serve in any one of the ecclesias, and thus were not in their ministry limited to but one ecclesia, as local elders are. Thus they were elders of the general Church, and not simply of a local Church. In the Jewish Harvest the time order of the seventy's



call was in one respect slightly different from that of the other two applications of the antitype. The 70 were provisionally selected before even the first sifting set in; but as some of these fell out others were called to fill in their places, e.g., Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Luke, Mark, etc. The reason for this difference is the following: the original 70 of the Jewish Harvest as a whole were used only as types of the Interim's and the Parousia's 70, while such of them as proved faithful and the faithful ones later called to take the unfaithful ones' places are not only types of the later two sets of 70, but are also the parallels of the second, the Parousia's, set of 70; and to work out the involved types, not parallel types, it was necessary that the original 70 be all called at once, while in the two sets of their antitypes, apart from the parallels, it was not to be a selection all at once, as the facts of these cases prove. That in all three applications there were in the finished picture 70 individuals we construe from the fact that as the 12 wells represent 12 individuals in the finished picture, Paul taking Judas' place, so the 70 palm trees would represent 70 individuals in the finished picture (Ex. 15: 27).


(38) The cloud in which the Lord came down (v. 25), as we saw in Chap. IX of Vol. VIII, represents the Truth as due. The Lord's coming down means God's pertinent activity through the Logos, through whom generally, though not exclusively, God revealed the Mosaic arrangements (Ex. 3: 2; Acts 7: 38, 53; Gal. 3: 19). The Lord's coming down and speaking to Moses in the cloud, therefore, types Jehovah's making plain to Jesus through the Truth as due teachings with reference to the three sets of 70, i.e., those in the Harvests and in the Interim. Jehovah's taking of the spirit that was in Moses and putting it on the 70 does not mean that God lessened Moses' power by giving of that spirit, power, to the 70. Rather, it means that God gave the 70 the same kind of a power, though not the



same degree of power, as was in Moses, i.e., gave them the same kind of a general oversight over Israel as Moses had, but in a less degree, without thereby decreasing Moses' authority and power in Israel, but by the distribution easing Moses' burdens, without a power and authority decrease. The antitype, as well as the type, evidently proves this view of the matter to be correct; for Jehovah by the appointment of the three antitypical sets of 70 did not decrease Jesus' power and authority, much less take any of His holy disposition from Him. What He did was to give to them an oversight similar, not equal to that of Jesus. He gave them the office of general elders, or shepherds, of whom Jesus is the Chief (1 Pet. 5: 1-4). As a part of such power were the qualifications that these three sets of 70 received, endowing them with the necessary mental, moral and religious abilities and qualities properly to discharge the functions of their office. All of this was given them as new creatures without in the least diminishing the Holy Spirit, or the holy authority and power, that Jesus had as Chief Elder or Shepherd in the Church. They did not and do not share His office; they simply shared and share His burdens in the ministry to the General Church, real and nominal (v. 17; Mic. 5: 4-6).


(39) Nor does this imply that all shared equally the Lord Jesus' burdens. In the Jewish Harvest some of the 70 labored more abundantly, widely and fruitfully than others. Among such were Apollos, Timothy and Silas, who certainly were used more by the Lord than Titus or Judas (Acts 15: 22, 32). Most of us know by experience and observation that the Parousia 70 did not all share equally in the service, e.g., Bros. Benjamin Barton and John Edgar served more fruitfully than most other pilgrims. And certainly there was a difference among the 70 of the period between the Harvests. The 35 star members of that period served better than their 35 companion helpers; and among



these 35 star-members the principal man of each of the five Interim Churches (Mic. 5: 5) did a more responsible work than any of the other star members of his respective star. Again, among those who were not their five principal men some served more fruitfully than others. Certainly Luther, Zwingli and Wesley served more fruitfully than Browne, Fox or Stone. And among the 35 companion helpers there were differences in use and fruitfulness. Melanchthon, Oecolampadius and Charles Wesley, the respective companion helpers of Luther, Zwingli and John Wesley, served more widely and fruitfully than Harrison, Barclay and Thomas Campbell, the respective companion helpers of Browne, Fox and Stone. The 35 star members, and more especially the five principal men, in the Interim Churches were the special mouth, eye and hand of the Lord for their time and service, things in which their companion helpers did not share.


(40) That the Lord gave them the position of general elders in the real Church is typed by Moses' placing the 70 around about the tabernacle (v. 24). That He made them general elders for the Church nominal is evident from the things set forth in vs. 17, 30: "they shall bear the burden of the people with thee," and "Moses gat him into the camp, he and the elders of Israel"; for, additionally to serving the real Church as typed by the last part of v. 24, these passages show that Moses and the 70 had a ministry toward the people as a whole, which types that the ministry of Jesus and the 70 was also that of a general eldership to the nominal people of God. For the finished picture, the statement of v. 25: "they prophesied, and did not cease," is especially significant. It shows that there would be 70 who would be faithful in each of the three sets of 70. This would not mean for the two Harvests that all who were ever nominated for the 70 would be faithful unto death; for the fact that in the Jewish Harvest some became of its ultimate 70 who were not called until long



after Pentecost, e.g., Timothy, Apollos, Luke, Titus, etc., while 70 were nominated to the office before Pentecost, proves that some of the original 70 lost their positions and others were later installed into their office. Again, not only the fact that there were more than 70 who were pilgrims during the Parousia, but also the fact that some of these, e.g., as Ransom and Church-Sin-offering deniers, dropped out of the Little Flock and thus lost their office among the 70, proves that not all of the pilgrims, as distinct from auxiliary pilgrims, were in the finished picture of the Parousia 70. But the statement, "and did not cease," proves that in the finished picture there would be 70 in each of the Harvests who would prove true. This proves that in each Harvest more than 70 held the office designated by the words, "secondarily prophets," though ultimately only 70 in each Harvest held the office to the end faithfully. But the facts prove that none of those nominated as the 70 of the Interim lost his place, but continued therein unto the end. If the history of the brothers that we named (most of the 35 and their companion helpers) above be examined, it will be found that every one of them was faithful, and this is likewise true of the rest of them; for none of these 70 had his place taken by another, but all of them continued therein unto death.


(41) In vs. 26-29 a very interesting episode is introduced, that of the anointing of Eldad and Medad while they were in the camp, where they prophesied before coming up to the tabernacle to Moses and the 70, and that of an effort made to stop them, which Moses' magnanimity foiled. The camp representing the nominal people of God, the anointing of Eldad (beloved by God) and Medad (Loving) in the camp, and not at the tabernacle, types the fact that their threefold antitypes would not yet be mingling among the real people of God, but among the nominal people of God, when their choice and anointing as of the general elders would