Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
have taken place, and that only after their anointing and prophesying for a while would they come to, and mingle among the real people of God. In The Present Truth, No. 1, we pointed out the Parousia Eldad and Medad; and in sufficient details we pointed out the latter's anointing for general eldership before he came to study the Parousia literature or mingle among the Parousia Church; so we need say no more here on the subject than to point out how Bro. Russell was anointed before he came among the brethren of the cleansed sanctuary. His anointing was a longer-drawn-out affair than that of the Parousia Medad, which lasted about 2½ months before he began to prophesy in the camp for a few months, while that of the Parousia Eldad lasted about two years before he began to prophesy in the camp. The explanation that we will give further on of how Bro. Russell got the Truth from about the Fall of 1870 to that of 1874 will in reality be an explanation of his anointing while in the camp. The last part of that anointing occurred in Oct., 1874, when the Lord clarified to him the manner of our Lord's return. But before it was completed he began to prophesy in the camp—among the nominal people of God, first orally, then by his tract on, The Object And Manner of Our Lord's Return, which he published in 1875, while it was in 1876 that he as antitypical Eldad came up to the antitypical Tabernacle—the cleansed sanctuary. Thus the latter's pertinent anointing and prophesying in the camp were much longer drawn out than those of the former. Bro. Russell's whole course as a pilgrim proves that he was Eldad, beloved by God for his loyalty.
(42) But who were the Eldad and Medad of the Jewish Harvest? We understand they were Paul and Apollos. Paul was converted before he came in among the real people of God (Acts 9: 1-6); and Jesus' statement (Acts 9: 11, 12) that Paul was praying and that he was by God granted a second vision imply, in
connection with his zealous and frank character, both his anointing and prophesying in the camp; for how after such experiences stated in vs. 3-12 could he with his zeal and candor have kept from telling of the Lord Jesus' dealings with him? His coming up to the antitypical Tabernacle is shown in vs. 17-19. His whole life proves that he was beloved by God—Eldad. Apollos' anointing in the camp is expressly implied in his preaching while yet among Nominal Israel; and it directly proves his prophesying in the camp (Acts 18: 24-26), as vs. 26-28 prove his afterward coming up to the antitypical Tabernacle, i.e., coming among the real people of God. And his being a loving brother (Medad—loving) is evidenced not only by Acts 18: 24-28, but by his subsequent ministry, for in spirit, word and work, he was doubtless St. Paul's most efficient helper, according to the references made to him in the epistles. Indeed, he was so proficient and efficient that against his will some of the carnally weak brethren placed him sectarianly above Paul as a servant of the Truth (1 Cor. 1: 12, 13; 3: 3-9, 22, 23). Both of these worthy brothers were without envy of one another, in spite of the sectarianism of some dividing them as between these, Apollos always regarding Paul as his superior in the Lord; and Paul's attitude toward Apollos is beautifully set forth in 1 Cor. 4: 1-15, where he couples Apollos with himself in describing their joint services of the Corinthian brethren. See also in 1 Cor. 3: 4-10 a testimony pointing out their similar and different services. St. Paul's subsequent references to Apollos are all complimentary and show their oneness of spirit (1 Cor. 16: 12; Tit. 3: 13), as is shown in 1 Cor. 3: 8.
(43) Who were the Eldad and Medad of the Interim—the time between the two Harvests? John, the Apostle, was its Eldad; and John Wessel, the principal man of the Philadelphia Church, was its Medad. A number of facts prove of John that he was the Eldad of the period between the Harvests: (1) His separation
to, and empowerment with, the apostolate before Pentecost, before he could have been brought to the Church, is in line with this thought (Matt. 10: 1, 5-8; Mark 3: 13-15; Luke 6: 12, 13; 9: 1, 2). While this consideration would no more prove that John was the Eldad of the Interim than it would that any other Apostle was, it proves of him that he, as well as they, received the anointing before they came up to the Tabernacle, since there was no antitypical Tabernacle as yet. But the following reasons, connected with the one just given, do prove it: (2) He was the only Apostle, so far as we know, who lived after 70 A. D., i.e., who lived during the Interim. (3) As an Apostle, of course, he, like the two Harvests' Eldads, of necessity was the most important man of his special period, the Interim. (4) His writings, as inspired and as especially fundamental for the Smyrna and Pergamos periods; all produced after 70 A. D., prove him to be the principal man of the Smyrna period. (5) He was the beloved disciple, a title given in his writings, which prove him to be beloved of God (Eldad). (6) The extra-Biblical accounts of him, handed down to us, like his conflicts with Cerinthus and other Gnostics, are in line with this thought. (7) His Biblical writings are not only a protest against the main errors of the entire Gospel Age and an inculcation of truths pertinent to the entire Gospel Age, but in the book of Revelation a history of the Church in its relations to itself and its conflicts with the world is given, which proves him to be the chief teacher of the Interim, hence its Eldad. Of course, it is self-evident that John, as the only Apostle living in the Interim, would be its Eldad. Hence we may be confident that we stand on Truth grounds when we hold him to be the Interim's Eldad.
(44) While the evidence is not so strong that John Wessel is the Medad of the Interim, it is still strong enough for an intelligent faith, for: (1) Undoubtedly, next to St. John, John Wessel was used by the Lord to
give the most important truths of the Interim, the foundation truths of the Philadelphia Church: (a) The Bible is the sole source and rule of faith and practice; (b) Jesus is the sole Head of the Church; (c) Justification is by faith alone; (d) Only the truly consecrated, and all of them, are priests of God; (e) The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper symbolize the humanity and life of the Christ, Head and Body, given up unto death for the world; (f) Future probation awaits the non-elect world of mankind; and (g) Joint-heirship in the Kingdom with Christ is the hope of the Church. (2) He was the principal man of the most important epoch of the Interim, the Philadelphia Church. (3) His character was of a most loving (Medad) and humble kind. (4) He was one of the ablest scholars and most accurate reasoners of all the star members of the Interim. (5) His ability at harmonizing apparent contradictions in the Bible was so superior to that of others as to make his contemporaries call him the master of contradictions, and his intimates call him the light of the world. (6) His great humility, e.g., it was so great that when Pope Sixtus IV, who had been a pupil of his, and who invited him as his teacher to visit him at the Vatican, offered to give him anything that he desired, he asked for a manuscript of the Hebrew Old Testament and of the Greek New Testament and persisted in his request to the pope's disgust, who urged him to ask to be made a cardinal, as the greatest gift within the pope's power to bestow, but he could not persuade him to accept even an ordination to the priesthood. (7) His ministry through his Writings, preachings, teachings and conversations fully measure up to those to be expected of an antitypical Medad. Luther, who did not become acquainted with his writings until after he, himself, had become world-renowned as a reformer, remarked that had he read Wessel's writings before he became a reformer, so much was he (Wessel) like him (Luther) in spirit, that the world would have
said that he had gotten his views from Wessel. Luther was the first one to publish a miscellany of Wessel's writings, from which he excluded Wessel's treatise on the Lord's Supper, because it rejected not only transubstantiation, which Luther also rejected, but also instrumentalization, which Luther accepted, and all other forms of the so-called real presence in the Lord's Supper. It was before Wessel came among the real people of God and while he was yet a professor in the Heidelberg University that he received his share in the anointing, preached in the antitypical camp, and later came among the real people of God in the Netherlands, to which he fled from the persecuting Inquisition at Heidelberg.
(45) From the fact that the 70 prophets that Jesus sent out were different men altogether from the 12 Apostles (Luke 10: 1), and from the fact that Sts. Paul and John, two of the three Eldads, were of the Twelve, we are not to infer that they are in the antitypes to be considered among the Jewish Harvest's and the Interim's 70. In the type there were only 70 elders taken, Eldad and Medad being two of the 70 typical elders (vs. 16, 24-26). These did not number 72, as Jewish and Romanist writers varyingly claim, the former calling these the Sanhedrin, of which they claim Moses and Aaron were ex-officio members, and of which Israel's high priests were always members; and the latter calling them the college of cardinals, which, when full, numbers 72. But we are to understand that in the Jewish Harvest, beside St. Paul, and in the interim, beside St. John, there were 70 "secondarily prophets," respectively. But from this fact we are not to infer that in addition to Bro. Russell as a pilgrim there were 70 other pilgrims in the finished picture of the Gospel Harvest 70; for as a pilgrim he was the antitype of Eldad and one of the 70, but was not as Eldad that Servant. Bro. Russell, as that Servant (antitypical Eleazar), was the parallel of the 12 Apostles
and not of St. Paul alone, and therefore as that Servant is not paralleled with St. Paul as an antitypical Eldad, nor did he as such correspond with St. John as an antitypical Eldad. From the fact that the 70 were sent out by twos (Luke 10: 1), and from the fact that Sts. Paul and John as antitypical Eldads of their special times did not belong to the respective 70 of their pertinent times, we infer that they did not have companion helpers, else there would have been 71 secondarily prophets among these respective prophets.
(46) The fact that Bro. Russell, as one person, functioned as that Servant and also as one of the 70 pilgrims ("secondarily prophets") effected it that in the Gospel Harvest it was not necessary to have 70 pilgrims beside Bro. Russell, as was the case in the Jewish Harvest beside St. Paul and in the Interim beside St. John. However, we do not arrive at these conclusions as Jewish and Romanist writers do theirs on 72 sanhedrists and cardinals; for they have known nothing about the threefold antitypes of the 70 and the relations of the three antitypical Eldads to these. The silence of the Scriptures on Moses and Aaron being of the 70, the fact that the 70 were chosen to be Moses' assistants and not members of a body with him as a member, and the fact that Joshua, as Moses' successor, was mentioned as separate and distinct from the 70 elders (Jud. 2: 7), sufficiently disprove the Jewish and Romanist view. Their use of v. 25 ("set the 70 about the tabernacle") as a proof that Eldad and Medad were two beside the 70, is refuted by the following considerations: (1) In the finished picture Eldad and Medad were later set there; (2) God expressly limited the number to 70 (v. 16); (3) In the first of the antitypes the Bible proves that there were only 70 "secondarily prophets" (Luke 10: 1); (4) In the Interim antitype facts prove that there were only 70 "secondarily prophets"; (5) While in every case we cannot yet point out the 70 "secondarily prophets" of the Gospel Harvest as
exclusive of auxiliary pilgrims, we believe that this will yet be the case; (6) The fact that in the Millennium there will be 70 elders as distinct from the two spiritual classes and the Millennial Eleazars and Ithamars (Ex. 24: 1, 9) is in line with this fact, as well as the 70 palm trees as separate from the 12 wells of Ex. 15: 27; and (7) The number 70 in vs. 24, 25, can well be regarded as referring to the official body of elders as a whole without necessarily meaning every member of it, even as St. Paul says that Jesus appeared to the official body, as of the 12, but 11 were present (1 Cor. 15: 5).
(47) Vs. 27-29 give us an interesting episode full of human nature and of Divinely wrought magnanimity. The young man that ran to Moses with the intelligence of Eldad's and Medad's prophesying in the camp would have made a first-rate reporter of a modern newspaper in his quick news-gathering, reporting activity and gossipy eagerness. Joshua's busybodying and envy are characteristic of young, aspiring and advancing leaders, while Moses' magnanimity manifests the beauty, nobility and graciousness of the godly character in a Divinely pleasing and mature leader. These three find their antitypes in the three applications of the type being made in this chapter. In the Jewish Harvest's application the antitype is more clearly seen in the case of Paul than in that of Apollos. By what is written in, and by what the type warrants us to read between, the lines of Acts 9: 19-27, we can discern that some of the brethren were quick to spread the news of his preaching to the Jews, and that not only the fear of all actually mentioned, but the busybodying and envy of others can readily be imagined as most natural under the circumstances. Our Lord's beautiful, noble and gracious answer given providentially through His blessing St. Paul's concurrent ministry and verbally through Barnabas' and the Apostles' noble reception of him, is full of Jesus' spirit of magnanimity. In the sectarian partisanship of some Ephesian and Corinthian brethren we are
doubtless to look for the news gathering and spreading of some and the busybodying of others; and in St. Paul's inspired magnanimous discussion of the pertinent situation at Corinth we are to recognize Jesus' pertinent magnanimity as typed by that of Moses (1 Cor. 1: 11-13; 3: 1-4: 21). In the case of St. John as the Interim's Eldad, as we found his pertinent anointing and prophesying to have occurred between Jordan and Pentecost, we are to see the antitype of vs. 27-29 in the same period. We are warranted in believing that the news gatherer and spreader were some gossipy half-disciples of Jesus who brought to Him and to the antitypical Joshua of that time the news of John's preaching on the tour referred to in Matt. 10: 1-4, and described in Luke 9: 1-6, 10. Who was the antitypical Joshua of the St. John antitype? If we remember that until the vail of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom at Jesus' death (Matt. 27: 51) in symbolization of the end of the Divine sanction on the Mosaic priesthood, temple service and 70 elders as sitting in Moses' seat, and that up to that time the scribes and Pharisees did sit in Moses' seat, unto whom Jesus commanded obedience as such (Matt. 23: 2, 3), we will find in them the Joshua that, among other disciples, busybodied and envied against the Interim Eldad; for repeatedly did they do this against the 12, thus against John.
(48) Jesus' magnanimity thereat, in wishing all the Lord's people to be prophets, showed itself not only in defending the disciples and thus John, but in sending out 70 others (Luke 10: 1-6) and in commissioning the entire Church to herald the Gospel (Matt. 28: 18-20). Moreover, the question, "Enviest thou for my sake?" is at the same time an accusation of the guilt of envy in each pertinent antitypical Joshua, which the above illustrations abundantly confirm. The antitypical lad that was the gossipy news gatherer and spreader was the Inquisition at Heidelberg, which, while he was a
professor at the Heidelberg University, late in 1478 began to collect evidence against John Wessel as a heretic and moved to apprehend him. Learning of this in time, he wrote to Bishop David, of Utrecht, Holland, asking for refuge and defense from him against the Inquisition, who, as a pupil of Wessel, heartily granted his request. This estopped the bloody plan of the Heidelberg Inquisition, which could function in a diocese only at its bishop's sanction. Wessel, early in April, 1479, escaped in secret from Heidelberg, spending the rest of his life in Holland. Learning of his escape, the Inquisition reported the matter to the Romanist clergy, who sat in Christ's seat until 1878, and thus was for Wessel the busybodying and envious Joshua; but by emphasizing, first through Wessel and then through the other Reformers, etc., the priesthood of all the consecrated, as one of the four chief doctrines of the Reformation (1 Pet. 2: 5, 9), and, secondly, in rebuking the clergy's envy, Jesus gave His answer antitypical of that of Moses. The GospelHarvest's Eldad began to prophesy in the camp at the earliest as early as Oct., 1872; and at the latest as late as in 1876. Especially on account of the circulation of his tract on, The Object and Manner of our Lord's Return, gossipy laymen (the lad) reported this to the envious clergy (Joshua), who, sitting in Christ's seat until April, 1878, sought to secure the Lord's stopping of his pertinent activity. Frequently, this envy was by our Lord rebuked and His magnanimity was evidenced not only by continuing and increasing the ministry of the Gospel Harvest's Eldad, but by emphasizing through one of the Truth's teachings the priesthood of all the consecrated and sending all of these into the Harvest work, and by making as many of them as possible orators (prophets) proclaiming in discourses the Lord's gracious Harvest Message.
(49) Before the Gospel Harvest's Medad had begun to study the Dawns and while he was yet a minister in
the Lutheran Church, he began, in the Spring of 1903, to proclaim some of the truths that he had received in his anointing. This fact and his expulsion from his pulpit for such preaching was given wide publicity in the American press all over the U.S. His resuming his public preaching just five weeks later than this expulsion and that at the vote of the Columbus, Ohio, Ecclesia, was again given wide newspaper publicity. This and some member of the Columbus Ecclesia reporting such activity to the Allegheny Bible House, while Bro. Russell was absent on an European pilgrim trip, occasioned some of the responsible brethren there to write a rebuking letter to the Columbus Ecclesia, asking them to discontinue encouraging and cooperating with such a novice in such a work. Thus the Associated Press and at least one member of the Columbus, Ohio, Ecclesia proved to be the Gospel-Harvest's gossipy lad for its Medad; and some of the leading brethren at the Bible House who in Bro. Russell's absence represented him, the special one that sat in Christ's seat, proved to be the Joshua for the Gospel-Harvest's Medad. Jesus rebuked this Joshua's busybodying and envy through emboldening the Columbus Ecclesia to refuse to follow the advice of that Joshua, and not only in continuing this Medad in unofficial pilgrim service right along, but in bringing him into the official pilgrim service just a year to a day (May 1, 1904) from the day he renounced the Lutheran Church, May 1, 1903. Moreover, that year witnessed a large increase in the Harvest workers, who from that time forward ever continued to increase until the climax of the reaping work was reached in 1914. Thus our Lord rebuked the Gospel Harvest's Joshua as to its Medad and showed His magnanimity antitypical of that of Moses' expressed in v. 29.
(50) The statement of v. 30 is certainly remarkable as a terse type of events of large antitypical application. Such betaking of themselves, on the part of Jesus
and the 70, into the camp of the Jewish Harvest occurred in the work toward the public throughout the Jewish Harvest: Jesus doing His part therein in His personal ministry and in that of the 12 Apostles from Jordan onward, and the 70 doing their part in their ministry beginning from the time of Luke 10: 1-6, 9, such ministry lasting until 69 A.D. The records of part of these ministries are in part given in the New Testament. The antitype of v. 30 for the Interim occurred in the public activities of Jesus in all His real people of that period and in the public activities of the 35 star members and in those of their companion helpers; and this was by far a larger work than that done in the Jewish Harvest; for it covered all the public work of the five Interim Churches, which combined did a much larger work than the other two Churches did, though in proportion to the 80 years allotted to the reaping work of these two Churches and the 1805 years allotted to the work of the other five Churches, the latter did much less than the former. The antitype of v. 30 for the Gospel Harvest showed itself in the reaping done from 1874 to 1914. During those 40 years there was a larger and more fruitful public work done by Jesus acting in all the Parousia Priesthood and by the 70 pilgrims than was ever done during any other 40 years of the Gospel Age. When we consider the number of the workers and of the agencies therein employed and the numbers reached and helped thereby, we believe the truthfulness of this statement will be manifest to all. There were over 75,000 different consecrated people who took part in this work, over 2,500 of whom were public speakers. In all, perhaps 10,000 persons took part in the colporteur and sharp-shooting work. In all, probably 65,000 took part, more or less, in the volunteer work. In all, between 4,000 and 5,000 newspapers published Bro. Russell's sermons and reports of Pilgrim talks. In the conversational part of the work not only the 75,000 above-mentioned persons
shared, but many thousands of other interested persons. Thousands shared in the newspaper, photodrama and correspondence work; other thousands in the Tower and Dawn circulating, the follow-up work and the public meeting advertising work. All of this was the antitype of Moses' and the elders' going into the camp (v. 30).
(51) Foregoing we have studied the preliminaries of the Gospel-Age No-Ransomism sifting, whose description proper comes in vs. 31-35. This we will now briefly study in its chief aspects, and that comparatively. The wind spoken of in v. 31 represents a controversy-a verbal war-resulting from the Truth proclamation going forth and Satan setting up opposition to it. It can therefore be appropriately spoken of as coming from the Lord. As a result of, and amid this controversy, the Lord removed the barriers that hitherto prevented Satan from presenting anti-Ransom theories (the quails) among the Lord's people, real and nominal. We saw in Chap. II of Vol. V what forms these antitypical quails took in the No-Ransomism of the Gospel Harvest. In the Jewish Harvest they assumed the betraying forms of Judas' activities, the murderous and doctrinal forms of the Jewish clergy, the crucifixion forms of the Romans and the philosophical forms of the Greeks. A little later on we will describe those of the Interim's No-Ransomism. The very great numbers of the quails (within and about 15 miles on each side of the camp) type the very numerous forms of No-Ransomism during all three pertinent periods. Their flying only two cubits above the earth [the rendering of al (v. 31) should here be above, not upon, as in the A. V.] types the easy reach within which these No-Ransom theories would come to the people. These No-Ransom theories affected the consecrated, the justified and the unjustified of God's people in all three applications of the sifting; and even those beyond the camp. As in the two Harvests, so in
the Interim, beginning in the Smyrna period, some of these theories were a direct straightforward denial that we are bought by the precious blood of Christ; for some of both Jewish and Gentile consecrated, justified and unjustified professors of Christianity ("the people stood up, etc.,"—v. 32) directly renounced the Ransom, denying totally that Jesus' humanity and life were a purchase price, a substitute, for Adam and his race. Then, too, this was done indirectly, i.e., while professing to hold to the Ransom, doctrines that logically contradict it were set forth as Scriptural teachings and were very widely received by consecrated justified and unjustified professors of Christianity. Then, too, systems of doctrines almost totally alien and throughout contradictory to the Ransom were set up as the real teachings of Christ and were received by multitudes of consecrated, justified and unjustified professors of Christianity. As the following four Interim periods came successively, errors as against the Ransom grew more and more. What such were we need not give here, as a long list of them was given above in its proper place.
(52) We will now give a few details on some of these No-Ransom doctrines and movements. No-Ransomism as a direct denial that we are bought with the precious blood of Christ arose, first of all, among many Jewish Christians who were called Elkesaites, and who not only directly denied the purchase of all by Christ's sacrifice, but who looked upon Jesus as a sinner, descendent through both Joseph and Mary from Adam and making great endeavors to overcome His sinfulness, whereby He furnished an example to all on overcoming. They became in their later representatives doubtful if He was the Messiah, even in their diluted sense of the word. Finally, they insisted on the obligatoriness of the Law upon all who would be saved. Thus they ceased to be Christians at all. Another group of Jewish Christians, called the Ebionites, the poor,
the pious, indirectly denied the Ransom, i.e., while they continued to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and as such was the Son of God as well as the Son of man, they nevertheless held the thought that to be saved a Jew must keep the Law of Moses. Again, not a few of Gentile professed Christians from various heathen philosophical standpoints, especially that of Neo-platonism, directly denied the Ransom—as "to the Greeks, foolishness." Then, consecrated, justified and unjustified professed Christians introduced and accepted during this period the three chief anti-Ransom doctrines of professed Orthodoxy: trinity, human immortality and eternal torment—all of which logically deny the Ransom. Justin Martyr, a Platonic philosopher converted to Christianity, seems first to have introduced from his Platonism into Christianity the ideas of human immortality and eternal torment and the first tendencies toward the trinity. Later in the Smyrna period these errors were deepened and broadened, and in the following four Church epochs were elaborated into various details and embellished by concordant errors, like purgatory, mass, etc. Origenes gave the first clear impetus to the trinity in that he taught the God-man theory as implying the eternal generation of the Logos. Dionesius of Rome, 267 A.D. (a pope), invented the theory of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father, and Athanasius of Alexandria, that of the Son's equality with the Father. During the Smyrna period some began to stress the Holy Spirit as a third person in God, though the doctrine was not officially proclaimed until at the Constantinople Council in 381, i.e., in the Pergamos period. As the Interim wore on more and more were these three and other related anti-Ransom doctrines elaborated and embellished, until they received their completion during the Philadelphia period.
(53) Early during the Smyrna period, Gnosticism and, somewhat later in this period, Manichaeism, a
child of Gnosticism, as anti-Ransom theories, prevailed. These in the early Interim played a part similar to Evolutionism in the Gospel Harvest, though they did not continue to the end of the Interim as did Evolutionism as to the Gospel Harvest. Gnosticism is a compound of the heathen doctrines of India, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, of Jewish and of Christian ideas. It taught that the supreme God was unknown and unknowable, that He caused to emanate from Himself good qualities that developed into personal spirit beings, of whom there were thirty, and whom they called Aeons. Christ, they claimed, was one of the highest of these. Yet, lower than these was one who was not a pure spirit, but who was what they called soulical also, and who was the so-called Demiurg, whom Gnostics identified with the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Creator of the heavens and earth. This Demiurg, they say, made the mistake of creating the universe out of matter which, according to them, is essentially evil. He further made the mistake of taking some of the light substance or spirit and uniting it with earth matter, from which he made man. According to Gnosticism, both spirit and matter are from eternity, and thus they taught the eternal existence of good and evil. Demiurg's mistake they taught resulted in the necessity of delivering the spirits from their natural bodies, which Gnosticism undertakes to do by its science (gnosis, Greek for science), so called (1 Tim. 6: 20), and asceticism. They claim that humans are of three kinds: spiritual, soulical and fleshly. For the latter there is no hope; hence they must be annihilated. For the soulical (psychical) there is a partial hope—they may attain a position just outside of the pleroma (literally, fullness) which is the abode of the Supreme God and the 30 Aeons, while the pneumatics (spirituals), who alone are capable of real gnosis, will be admitted into the pleroma. The great task, then, is to overcome matter—the body. In addition to the help
that they got from gnosis, they got rid of matter by avoiding, as far as possible, all contacts with it, i.e., mortified it by celibate lives and abstinence from meats, wines, coarser foods, and by partaking of the finer vegetables and vegetable oils only, though some of the Gnostics claimed that the best way to mortify the flesh was to indulge in all its propensities until one was utterly disgusted with it and would have no more of it. Thus they indulged in the worst debauchery, gluttony, drunkenness, etc. There were many sects among them; and almost everywhere there was a Gnostic Church alongside of a Christian Church.
(54) Their doctrine of salvation was therefore one of works and of necessity denied the Ransom, for which such a system could have no use. Their doctrine of Christ and Jesus was a peculiar one and was subversive of the Ransom. With their soulical Demiurg gnosis was impossible, so he, thinking himself to be the Supreme God, thought out a way of helping Israel, who also were only soulical. They taught a heavenly Christ, one of the highest Aeons, and a heavenly Jesus, who was not so high as an Aeon. They also taught an earthly Christ and an earthly Jesus, who was the one born of Mary. At Jesus' baptism the heavenly Jesus united Himself with the earthly Jesus, whereby arose Jesus Christ, who was to be the Savior of the pneumatical (spiritual), as well as the psychical (soulical) among men. But since matter is the seat of evil, they taught that Jesus actually did not assume a real body, but a make-believe body. Nor did He really die; for they taught that the heavenly Jesus forsook the earthly Jesus as He came to the cross, and that it was only a make-believe body that was nailed to the cross, and that its death was only a make-believe death. Jesus Christ, therefore, is not a Ransomer, but a teacher who reveals gnosis to the pneumatical as the power of salvation, and is an example to them in the way of asceticism, whereby they will be saved. Demiurg, and not
so much Jesus Christ, does his best to save the psychical (soulical) and brings the obedient of them to the frontiers of the pleroma, where he also must remain with them. This is the scheme of salvation according to Gnosticism, which was an extreme danger to the Smyrna Church; and it took the strong efforts of Irenaeus, a star member of the Smyrna Church, of Tertullian, his companion helper, and of Hippolytus, a very learned Christian scholar, through voice and pen, with the cooperation of many others, to destroy its influence in the Christian Church. During the third century under these hard blows it died a deserved death, and was resuscitated in Manichaeism, which in the fifth century was destroyed, especially through Augustine's mighty arguments; but, of course, other forms of No-Ransomism arose, not the least of which was Mohammedanism, which appeared in the Pergamos period.
(55) The arising of the people (v. 32) represents their antitypes in the three applications turning their eager and responsive attention to No-Ransomistic theories. Their gathering the quails for 36 hours (all that day, all that night and all the next day), 36 being the product of six multiplied by itself, types the utter, the complete evil of the No-Ransomistic course of their antitypes while it lasted. Certainly, the great evil of the No-Ransomers in all three applications is evident from the facts of the case, even if we had not the time duration of 36 hours in the type to suggest it. The people's gathering the quails types in all three applications their collecting the No-Ransomistic theories and arguments, i.e., giving their mental efforts to a grasping and alleged proving of these theories. This doubtless required much time and mental effort, e.g., the mastery of the philosophical theories of the Greeks in their anti-Ransomistic aspects, or of the theories of the Jewish scribes, in the Jewish Harvest, must have taken considerable of zealous effort and mental strength. The same is true of the various No-Ransomistic theories set
afloat during the Gospel Harvest, like its various universalistic, infidelistic, evolutionistic and materialistic theories, and other No-Ransomistic theories, like Christian Science, New Thought, Unity, Spiritism, Hindooism, etc., to all of which various and large numbers gave much eager and careful study. The same is true of the people's study of the Interim's Hebraistic, Gnostic, Manichaeistic, Neoplatonistic, Greco-Romanistic, Mohammedanistic, Unitario-Universalistic No-Ransomistic theories. The least gathering ten homers, 860 gallons, is symbolic. The Hebrew homer was their largest dry and liquid measure; the number 10 is that of full human and spiritual (not Divine) capacity. The thought is that the No-Ransomers gathered as many No-Ransomistic theories and as much of each of them as human and demonic ingenuity could invent pertinent to the three applications under study. Especially is this true of the Interim's and the Gospel Harvest's No-Ransomistic theories, as can be seen from a consideration of their chief forms given above. The people's spreading the quails, (v. 32) all abroad round about the camp types the vast widespread and thorough propaganda work in favor of No-Ransomism, whereby they sought to entrap everybody in the antitypical camp in each of the three applications. Their doing this for themselves (v. 32) types the selfishness and self-seeking of the No-Ransomers.
(56) The fact that before the flesh was bitten, while it was yet between the people's teeth, the Lord's wrath expressed itself by a plague, types the fact that before the No-Ransomistic theories were masticated the Lord's wrath gave up the antitypical people of all three applications to the loss of the Truth and its spirit and to the evil mind and heart characteristic of No-Ransomism (a very great plague). As a literal plague effects bodily pains and wastings and bad feelings in the natural heart and faulty reasoning and flighty imaginations in the natural mind, so God uses plagues to
symbolize the sorrows and the loss of the Truth and its spirit and the evil mental and heart conditions that arise in sifters and siftlings. Just as plague-stricken people are in pain and waste away in their bodies and imagine, think and utter the most nonsensical and illogical thoughts, so do plague-stricken sifters and siftlings experience serious loss of the Truth and its spirit and imagine and think the most foolish and nonsensical things. How manifest this is as to the nonsensical and illogical thoughts of such sifters and siftlings in all three applications of this No-Ransomism type, the mere mention of the above systems of error pertinent to their respective applications would suggest to us. E.g., what we said on Gnosticism above certainly shows the wild and flighty imaginations and foolish and illogical reasonings of the Gnostic sifters and siftlings; and what we said on the matters of their conduct proves the sorrows and loss of the Truth and its spirit and the bad heart condition to which Gnosticism as a symbolic plague led its votaries. Doubtless most of us have had contacts with Gospel-Harvest No-Ransomism sifters and siftlings and from them have recognized their sorrows, loss of the Truth and its spirit and imaginational and reasoning aberrations. And those who have had much personal contact with them know something of their blasphemous sentiments, their ungrateful and inappreciative hearts, their treasonable conduct and their self-centered designs. While 2 Tim. 3: 19 describes all five classes of the respective Parousia and Epiphany sifters, the worst of these in head and heart are the No-Ransomism sifters. The unholy head and heart qualities that St. Paul in this Scripture ascribes to them not only describe them accurately as sifters in head and heart, but give us an accurate description of the antitypical five plagues, in all of which more or less of these evil head and heart qualities appear. How unutterably terrible is such an antitypical plague: self-lovers, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,
unpersuaded as their parents, unthankful, unholy, unnaturally affectioned, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, harsh, unappreciative, traitors, heady, high minded, pleasure-lovers, hypocritical, formalists, cunning, fruitlessly studious, Truth-opponents, corrupt in their minds, Truth-repudiators and Truth-repudiated teachers of folly, and publicly exposed errorists! "O my soul, come thou not into their secret; unto their assembly, my honor, be thou not united" (Gen. 49: 6). Truly, "He gave them the desire of their hearts, but sent leanness into their soul" (Ps. 106: 15).
(57) The calling of the place where they buried the lusters Kibroth-hattaavah (graves of the lust) types naming the condition into which the antitypical lusters were mentally put by those who overcame the sifting and its plaguesome mind and heart. That condition was a grave to the standing that the lusters once had before the Lord. Some of them died as crown-retainers and were symbolically buried in the condition of crown-losers. Some of the latter died as crown-losers and were symbolically buried in the Second Death condition. Some of the sifters and siftlings (in the Gospel Harvest) died as Youthful Worthies and were buried in the tentatively justified condition. Some of them died as tentatively justified and were buried in the antitypical camp conditions. And some of the campers died as such and were buried in the condition of the heathen world. Yea, so was antitypical Kibroth-hattaavah in all three applications. The process of symbolically burying such was to the survivors a most painful thing, even as the surviving relatives, particularly the family relatives, in the earthly relations mourn at the death and funeral of their earthly relations. By experience many of us know of these sorrows. But, as indicated in Lev. 10: 6, 7, this mourning in the Priesthood should not take on the forms antitypically forbidden: (1) uncovering the heads—Jesus