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

147

not until later, and that piecemeal, that the Lord gave us as "things new" to understand the rest of the parable's details, except its penny, which as a thing new He gave to that Servant. After 1909 the first new understanding that we got on the parable came to us on the evening of the parable coming after Oct., 1914, and that late in June, 1914, as described above. It should be noted that the Lord held back that item until due time, and that He gave it to us only after we had come to regret our course in that Washington question meeting, which we now recognize as a partaking in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in Num. 12, and after we firmly and successfully resisted Satan's efforts to arouse us to oppose our Pastor's plainly-stated changed view in the May, 1914, Tower. We have given Bros. Barton's and John Edgar's and our own experience in the antitypical Aaron of this chapter, as illustrations of experiences that were and are yet quite general among the non-star-membered leaders of the general Church and of local elders. The Parousia experiences of J. Hemery, A.H. MacMillan, etc., we have given as samples of antitypical Miriam's pertinent Parousia experiences. We can recall no experience of ours in which we may have shared in the antitype of Aaron's complaining against Moses for having Zipporah as his wife. It would be profitable, we believe, if the Epiphany-enlightened leaders would examine themselves to see whether they shared in the antitype of Aaron as set forth in this chapter. Doubtless later many of the Priestly leaders among the Levite groups will realize in their opposition to Jesus speaking in the Epiphany messenger that they have partaken in the antitype of Aaron in this chapter and will take their part in the antitype of Aaron's action in v. 11. It will be noted that Miriam took no part in the acknowledgment of sin and folly in the petition for forgiveness of v. 11. This was because of her uncleanness at the time, typical

 

148

of antitypical Miriam's impenitence before delivery to Azazel for her wilderness stay.

 

(55) Not only does Aaron appear in true humility in v. 11, but he appears in true charity in v. 12, where he prays for the life and healing of Miriam. What he prays for is that she die not, especially not like one born dead, with his flesh half-rotted away. His contrasting, in a petition for forgiveness, his and Miriam's folly and sinfulness with Moses' leadership ("my lord"), shows that he was cured of the disease of factually claiming to be Moses' equal as mouthpiece for God, even as in the antitype the same things were done and shown, as the three brothers' experiences given above manifest. And by the antitypical Aaron there has been an earnest prayer offered to our Lord that antitypical Miriam be saved from the Second Death and be healed from her symbolic leprosy, Great Company uncleanness. As suggested by Aaron's prayer, the Second Deathers are expelled from the womb of the Sarah Covenant as dead, and so rotted as to have their new creature irretrievably corrupted; for one born dead, with his flesh half-rotted away, has been dead for some time. The expulsion of such an one from the womb of the Sarah Covenant occurs ordinarily in Second Death siftings; and as Miriam here stands for a class, the expulsion of the Second Deathers as a class from the womb of the Sarah Covenant is here, as a thing to be prayed for, brought to our attention. It was from such a terrible fate that antitypical Aaron has prayed, prays and will pray that antitypical Miriam be delivered; for antitypical Miriam is in great danger of going into the Second Death, even as we read of this class in Ps. 107: 10: "Such as sit in darkness (error) and in the shadow of death (danger of the Second Death)." It is antitypical Aaron's knowledge of such a danger surrounding antitypical Miriam that has made, continues to make and will make him intercede for antitypical Miriam's life

 

149

and cure. This prayer, as in the type (I pray thee), is made with all the more earnestness, inasmuch as antitypical Aaron realizes that he gave antitypical Miriam more or less encouragement in the wrong, e.g., the Little Flock leaders scattered among the Levite groups have given the Levites more or less encouragement in their revolutionism against Jesus in the star-member now officiating; and when they come to see the real condition, as they even now recognize more or less of antitypical Miriam's revolutionism, they will all the more earnestly, for that encouragement, pray for her forgiveness and healing.

 

(56) Moses heeded Aaron's humble, loving and earnest prayer (v. 12). The fact that he offered the prayer of v. 13 in answer to the pertinent petition of Aaron given in v. 12, proves that he had already forgiven Aaron's and Miriam's folly and sin, as Aaron prayed for this in v. 11, even though there is no verbal mention made of his expressing such forgiveness. Moses' prayer, even as given in v. 13 of the A. V., is a very earnest intercession, but its Hebrew is still more emphatic, as the following literal translation shows "And Moses cried out unto the Lord, saying, O God! I pray, heal, I pray, her!" This prayer out-does the prayer of Aaron given in v. 12, and shows Moses' forgiveness and love toward Miriam, the worse of the two sinners. Antitypically, this prayer represents our Lord's intercession with His star-members to God on behalf of antitypical Miriam. It was an earnest prayer, most heartfelt, as typed by the very earnest prayer of Moses for Miriam. It will be noted that the typical prayer was offered before the repentance and healing of Miriam, as proved by the facts given in vs. 14-16 and by the fact that it was offered for the healing itself. So, antitypically, before the Great Company repents and before it is healed, our Lord in the pertinent star-members has felt a forgiving spirit toward antitypical Miriam and has prayed for her healing. The

 

150

prayer itself implies that God is besought by Jesus in the pertinent star-members to forgive the Great Company its sins as the antecedent of its cleansing; and that forgiveness implies repentance on antitypical Miriam's part.

 

(57) God does not forgive the impenitent, since such a course would encourage sin. But His readiness to forgive by providing the conditions conducive to repentance is shown by the arrangements that He makes (vs. 14, 15) for bringing this class to repentance. Thus God and Jesus show their graciousness, even before repentance sets in. It has always been so in God's Plan; He graciously sets arrangements into operation to help the sinner to come back to God. Had He waited for the world or the Church to repent before He sent His Son to die for the world and Church, He never would have sent His Son into the world to become our Redeemer. But, praised be our God, who "commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us," as "in due time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 3: 8, 6)! This great grace our dear heavenly Father exercises toward His rebellious Great Company children also, for which they will yet glorify Him. Hence we see His readiness to make it possible for Him to forgive antitypical Miriam, even as He typed this in vs. 14-16. For Him to forgive and heal the Great Company without repentance on their part would encourage their continued sin; and His graciousness in willingness to forgive and heal them moved Him to arrange the experiences necessary for their repenting and cleansing. He types this by the arrangement that in vs. 14, 15, He made for Miriam's repentance and cleansing. Of course, He who waits to be gracious was glad to hear the earnest prayer of Jesus in the pertinent star-members and to arrange for its answer. Brethren, let us praise His grace, that He is so ready to forgive, heal and again receive into fellowship His rebellious children of the Great Company!

 

151

And let us cooperate with Him in executing His arrangement whereby the unclean Great Company can be rescued out of its terrible condition. We are now ready to look at this arrangement.

 

(58) First God justified His course in making the arrangement whereby Miriam might be forgiven and healed of her leprosy. He justifies it by a comparison: If a daughter were so to misbehave as to disgust her father into spitting into her face, should she not be ashamed for a full season— seven days? Among occidental people, spitting in the face is a thing never indulged in, except among the lower grades of society. But in oriental countries such a thing is indulged in regularly by all classes of society, as the proper thing to express great disgust. And the Bible in this case presents the matter from the standpoint of oriental customs. For an oriental father to be so disgusted with a daughter as to spit in her face is almost as disgraceful a thing as a daughter could be made to endure. It would force her to be put out of her family's society until the thing could be wiped measurably out of the feelings of the family—seven days. This is the figure here used, whereby God justifies His course toward Miriam. From the standpoint of Israel's being God's typical children ("Ye are [represent, type] the children of the Lord your God," Deut. 14: 1), Miriam, a typical daughter of God, had so misbehaved as to disgust her typical Father into treating her as a literal father treats a daughter into whose face his disgust of her compelled him to spit—put her to such shame as to drive her out of the family circle until His feelings of disgust and her sense of shame had largely abated—for seven days. During these seven days she was to feel the shame and disgrace that her conduct had deservedly brought upon her. And after she had experienced it sufficiently to bring her to genuine repentance and amendment she could be brought back again into the family circle. After this manner and for this purpose God as a typical Father would treat Miriam:

 

152

drive her, disgraced and ashamed, out of the family circle of Israel, His typical family, outside the camp into the wilderness for seven days. This, then, was the arrangement for healing and forgiveness that God revealed to Moses as that to which Miriam must submit herself.

 

(59) In studying Ruth (Vol. IV, Chap. VI) we explained the antitypical spitting, when done by God through His people. God's people have from certain standpoints been His mouthpiece—His mouth (Rev. 3: 16; John 9: 6; please see comment). The secretions of them as His Mouth are the Word of God—its truths as due. Sometimes they must use this Word in God's disgust and severe rebuke of wrongdoers. When they do so, God symbolically spits in the face of the wrongdoers. The revolutionisms of the Great Company, accompanied with more or less of the unholy qualities mentioned in 2 Tim. 3: 1-9, set forth above, have provoked the disgust of God, who, therefore, through His Priesthood has spit in their faces—by the word of God rebuked their gross wrongs of teachings and arrangements. This spitting is done by God, through the Priesthood as His mouth resisting the revolutionisms of Azazel's Goat. Thus, as the Father of antitypical Miriam, He has spit in her face. This spitting has been done verbally and through the printed page, also by letters from Truth friends, sermon notes, etc. In the first case it is and has been done in discourses, lessons and conversations. In the second case it has occurred and is occurring through The Present Truth and through The Herald Of The Epiphany, also through other Priestly publication, Light After Darkness, Harvest Siftings Reviewed, Vol. VII Errors Booklet, etc., God, mainly through the first magazine doing it to the Truth section of antitypical Miriam and mainly through the second magazine doing it to the nominal-church section of antitypical Miriam. This work has been going on ever since Nov. 25, 1917, having its beginning with our questioning of

H.J. Shearn and

 

153

Wm. Crawford on their plan for the elders' control of the London Tabernacle arrangements. It has been progressing through the various resistances that God has been making, through His Priesthood as His mouth, to the revolutionisms of one Levite group after another, as they have come one after another into existence, and to the revolutionisms of the Protestant and Catholic sections of Azazel's Goat. Thus it is primarily through the Epiphany movement that this spitting has been done to Truth Levites; and secondarily through the Priests scattered among the Truth Levites it has in a milder form been done to the Truth Levites. And both sets of Priests have been doing it to the nominal-church Levites. Thus we see that God, through the antitypical Priests, is doing the spitting typically referred to in v. 14.

 

(60) The sense of shame was to be borne seven days in the case of a natural daughter into whose face her father spat. So God declared that the typical shame, the expulsion from the camp and being shut out therefrom, must be borne seven days. So in the antitype, God has arranged that the antitypical shame must be borne the antitypical seven days—an expulsion from among the clean people of God and a keeping of the expelled ones shut out from the clean ones until a sufficient time has elapsed to effect the cleansing of antitypical Miriam, when they would as clean ones be forgiven and restored to the fellowship of God's clean people (v. 15). In other words, God here shows that antitypical Miriam is to go into the antitypical wilderness and undergo the experiences that by another type He shows that the antitypical Goat of Azazel must undergo (Lev. 16: 20-22); for the same experiences are typed by these two different transactions, the difference being not in the experiences themselves, but in the effects, and the things effected, the one showing the destruction of the flesh, the other showing the cleansing of the New Creature, the flesh being typed by the goat and the New Creature by Miriam. This, then, is God's

 

154

will with reference to the healing and consequent forgiveness of antitypical Miriam. And when some object to, and criticize our cooperating with the Lord in the antitypical spitting and delivery of these revolutionists to the fit man and Azazel for their wilderness experience, let this neither dismay nor deter us from the good work. We know that their objection and criticism is really against God, whose purpose in the matter is punitive, corrective and salutary—hence just and loving; for if this process were not wrought on this class every one of them would become a Second Deather. Let us see to it that there is mingled with our feelings of horror at antitypical Miriam's wrongs, a deep pity for them as individuals, and a loving desire for their delivery from their antitypical leprosy; and with these motives let us zealously cooperate with and under the Head of the World's High Priest as body members in dealing with this class according to Num. 12: 14, 15, and Lev. 16: 20-22. If we do this in the spirit just described, when cleansed antitypical Miriam will bless us for the work done on her, as being the only possible method of securing her healing from her antitypical leprosy and will thank us!

 

(61) But let us remember that the Miriam figure does not cover the whole Great Company class, as the Azazel's Goat figure does. She represents, not all the Great Company, but those leaders among them who, without losing life, have factually, not verbally, claimed equality with our Lord speaking through the star-members as mouthpieces for God. As such antitypical Miriam in part has gone outside the Camp, excluded therefrom, in part is on the way of going there, and yet in some of her parts is still to go there—into an unclean condition and work, away from association with God's clean people. While thus in Azazel's hands they have exceedingly untoward experiences. Their leprosy at first increases there, into horrible conditions: new swellings (sins), new boils (selfishness), new hot burnings (worldliness), new scalls (errors), new

 

155

leprous spots on their garments (power-graspings and lordings) and new leprous outbreaks (sectarianisms) in their houses (Lev. 13; 14). Truly horrible is this; yet it must be their experience, until finally, like some drunkards who, experiencing delirium tremens, are by the consciousness of their unutterable degradation brought to their senses and give up drink, awakening as from a nightmare and recognizing the horror of their conditions by the wild rampage of folly and wrong into which they have come, they see into what a state their wrong heart's and head's condition has led them, when, broken up, cast down and in despair of their supposed abilities in leadership, "they cry unto the Lord in their trouble; and He delivereth them out of their distresses." He will by the Epiphany Truth deliver them out of darkness (error) and the shadow of death (danger of the Second Death) and will break their bands of sin, selfishness, worldliness, power-grasping, lording and sectarianism in sunder (Ps. 107: 12-14). Then, as Ps. 107: 15 says, they will praise the Lord for His goodness and for His wonderful works for the children of men! O glad day! We hail it as the day when our bound and Azazel-controlled brethren will come to the liberty of God's daughters (2 Cor. 6: 18)! How we long for it, pray for it and labor for it! And it surely will come. Though the winter has been ever so severe, spring must finally come. Only let us labor and wait for it; for it will as surely come as God's Word is sure. And then we will again have goodly fellowship with our brethren whose wilful revolutionisms forced us to withdraw it from them

 

(62) The second sentence of v. 15 is meaningful in the antitype. In the type it is simple enough to understand: "And the people journeyed not until Miriam was brought in again [literally, gathered]." We have already from Israel's marches learned that the journeys of Israel in the wilderness represent new sets of experiences as to growth in grace, knowledge and service. The thought, therefore, antitypical of Israel's not

 

156

journeying until Miriam was gathered into the camp again, seems to be the following: The Lord's clean people in the Epiphany will have no other new set of experiences for growth in grace, knowledge and service connected with another form of work than that of dealing with Azazel's Goat, until that work is finished and the Great Company takes up its proper place and work among God's people; for Miriam's joining the people in journeying types the Great Company, especially in its leaders, doing the clean work that will be theirs after their cleansing—building the Epiphany Camp, first, from among the nominal-church believers after the nominal church is destroyed and, second, from among Fleshly Israel after they look upon Him whom they pierced and mourn for it (Zech. 12: 10). The literal translation, gathered, instead of brought in, is not to be overlooked; for it suggests the thought that antitypical Miriam is not an individual, but a company of individuals, a part of a great company. While we do not use the word gathered of an individual, it does fit a company. And so far as even Miriam is concerned, it implies that a work was done on her to bring her into the attitude to return to the camp. It seems to imply that she had to be reasoned with and instructed as to her return to the camp. This doubtless will have its antitype in the reasonings and instructions given the cleansed antitypical Miriam to fit her to return to the antitypical Camp.

 

(63) That our conclusion is right, that Miriam journeyed with the people, is not only evident from the nature of the case in the type, but is certainly true from the standpoint of the antitype; for that journey was taken to Paran, which we already have seen represents the Kingdom (Num. 10: 12; Vol. VIII, Chap. X). Hence in the antitype Miriam will be in the antitypical journey, among other things, engaging in her work of gathering Gentile and Jewish believers into the Epiphany Camp, the service performed as a part of the final journey, which is the final Gospel-Age growth in

 

157

grace, knowledge and service. It will be noted that the encampment where the episode of Num. 12 occurred was at Hazeroth. We have already seen that this word means villages and represents sects singly and combinedly (Num. 11: 35; Chap. 1, par. 27). Certainly the Epiphany experiences with antitypical Miriam have been connected with trials on matters of sectarianism, for the Levite leaders have formed many Epiphany sects; and amid and with these have some of our peculiar Epiphany trials been. This was also true in the Jewish Harvest and between it and the Epiphany. While not known as a class, the crown-lost princes and other sectarian leaders and their new-creaturely partisan followers gave the Priesthood many trials amid and with the sectarian systems and movements. But the severity of these trials will give way by and by, for they will be milder after antitypical Miriam is cleansed, but as the cleansing and the encamping at Hazeroth a little while at least show, they will be present, nevertheless, though in a milder form than now, and that because the cleansed Levites will be decidedly less sectarian than they now are. This type of their dwelling in Hazeroth awhile after Miriam's return to the camp proves that, generally speaking, the Great Company divisions as forming while antitypical Miriam is unclean will remain after she is cleansed; for each group will doubtless have its special work after the cleansing and before leaving this world, while the beginning of the cleansed work will set in while they are at antitypical Hazeroth. Because of the trialsomeness of its first part that cleansed work will go on during the journey to antitypical Paran; for that journey represents the final experiences of growth in grace, knowledge, and service before the Kingdom is reached— antitypical Paran. How glorious is the thought that the Kingdom is near! Well may the nearness of it encourage us to be faithful in the last stages of the career of the Church; for after labor comes rest; after storm comes calm.

 

158

(1) How may the subject matter of the book of Numbers be summed up? What chapter of Numbers did we last study? Under what subject? What kind of a connection subsists between the antitypes of Num. 12 and Num. 9: 1511: 35? Of what does Num. 9: 15-23 treat antitypically? Num. 10: 1-10? 10: 11-28? 10: 29-32? 10: 33-36? 11? 12: 1-16?

 

(2) What, accordingly, is the subject running through this entire section? Of what two chapters also is this the subject matter? In this connection what may be said of Num. 1: 1-9: 14? How does this appear in Num. 1, 2? 3, 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? 9: 1-14? What, then, is a summary of Num. 114? How may this be stated in other words? How are Num. 26 and 31 related to this subject? The rest of the book? What kind of a connection is there in the antitypes of this book? For what will an understanding of the antitypes of Numbers and Deuteronomy be helpful? How is this symbolized in the Most Holy?

 

(3) So far as understanding them is concerned, what contrast exists between the type and the antitype of Num. 12? What profit can be gotten from the effort to understand its antitype? How do the three characters treated of in Num. 12 stand out in the history of the Exodus? How does Miriam stand among the women of the Exodus? What does the word Miriam mean and what does she type? How do Moses and Aaron compare with each other and the other Israelites of the Exodus? What does the word Aaron mean? What does he here type? In what kind of a light do Aaron and Miriam, particularly Miriam, not stand in this chapter? Of what two evils did they become guilty? What made them resent Moses' having a Cushite wife? How may envy have influenced Miriam? What does the word Moses mean? What does he here type? For what was he faulted? When and where did Zipporah finally join Moses and Israel? To whom did her remaining with Moses become a trial? What does the word Zipporah mean? What was her ancestral origin? How many and what kinds of Ethiopians (Cushites) were there? To which branch did she belong? What were her father's three names? What was his office? How may we reconcile Num. 10: 29 and Judges 1: 16 as to his nationality? What considerations make it reasonable to conclude that Jethro was a Cushite,

 

159

though an official and citizen of Midian? Even though Zipporah was a brownish-white Cushite, how did Miriam and Aaron yet regard her? What did this move them to do? To what degree of wrong did pride lead them?

 

(4) How in a general way may Num. 12 be applied antitypically? In a particular way? Why are both of these applications right? What three considerations prove Miriam to represent certain Great Company members? Especially which ones? What two great evils have they done? Whom does Aaron in this chapter type? Especially which ones? What two milder evils have they done? Whom does Moses in this chapter type? Zipporah? To what will the understanding of these four antitypes assist? What was antitypical Miriam's standing when the antitypical murmuring began? What later development proves this? In what did the antitypical Aaron remain? What is the antitype of pride leading Miriam and Aaron into wrong-doing? What was antityped by their wrong-doing?

 

(5) What have not a few of us heard some new creatures say of our humbler brethren? What proud acts have we observed in them as against such brethren? Whose society did they prefer? In what did some of these not express themselves? How, then, did they do it? What does either course mean? In ultimate analysis what does it mean? Who ought to be satisfactory to us as a part of the Bride? What would contrary conduct be? What often so acts?

 

(6) What did Miriam and Aaron, type and antitype, do in this matter? Which one sinned the more? What is the course of sin? From what and to what did this progress in vs. 1 and 2? What is typed by Miriam and Aaron claiming equality with Moses as a mouthpiece of God? How could such a thing not be true of a new creature? Even of whom is it doubtful? With the possible exception of whom? How has the antitype been fulfilling?

 

(7) What question does this answer raise? What kind of an answer must this question receive? How must the answer further be qualified? What would such a direct claim by act or attitude toward our Lord mean? Who have not done this? How have they done it? What was it really? What does this mean? What is not necessary to explain further as to star-members? What is here necessary to explain of them? What bearing has

 

160

Luke 10: 16 on this statement? Why could Jesus truly say of them what He says of them in Luke 10: 16? How is this principle shown in the pertinent types?

 

(8) How does the case of Moses' speaking to Dathan and Abiram show this? The case of Korah and his Levitical company? If this principle is not kept in mind, who, and who not, would seem to antitype Moses in these and many other acts? What very marked Mosaic antitype is solvable only on this principle? How is it not, and how is it to be explained harmoniously with facts and Scripture? How are certain lines of study condemned in others as speculation not considered such in these two brothers?

 

(9) For what will the foregoing remarks be helpful? Whom in the typical transaction do Miriam and Aaron type? Wherein did their assertions of equality with our Lord as a mouthpiece for God consist? In what events of the Harvests did these assertions manifest themselves? Of the Interim? Of the two miniature Gospel Ages of the Epiphany? In which of these were they perhaps the most venomous? What were some of St. Paul's experiences along these lines? St. John's? To whom is exclusive reference made in Luke 10: 16? What things are not to be considered such contradictions? What are? To what proper thing does bringing our doubts and difficulties to them belong? What differentiates it from the contradicting course of antitypical Miriam and Aaron? What is not simply, and what is meant by the statement, "And the Lord heard it"?

 

(10) How have higher critics used v. 3? If the basis of their objection were true, to what conclusion should it not, and should it have led them? What are their claims as to the Mosaic authorship of v. 3? What is the basis of their claim? What is the relation of this proposition to truth? Under what circumstances may one say good things of himself? How does the example of God's self-praise disprove their proposition? What are some examples of His self-praise? What justifies His so doing? How does the example of Jesus' self-praise disprove their proposition? What are some examples of His self-praise? What justified His so doing? How does the example of St. Paul's self-praise disprove their proposition? What are some examples of his self-praise? What justified his so doing? How does the example of our Pastor disprove

 

161

their proposition? What are some examples of such self-praise? What justified his so doing? How could Moses properly write v. 3? What two things claimed in their pertinent view of Num. 12: 3 by higher critics are not true?

 

(11) What is the deeper reason for Moses' writing these words? Of whom in this connection was our Lord the antitype? How does Heb. 3: 1-6 prove this? What do these words applied antitypically to Him teach? What is meekness? What did God find Moses to be? To write what did God inspire him? Why? What in this matter has our Lord always shown Himself to be? In His pre-human condition? In His human condition? In His present Divine condition? In the future to all eternity? From what standpoints is He worthy of the highest place under God?

 

(12) What, among other things, is set forth in v. 2? In v. 4? How did God begin to act in this matter? How was the charge given? How long did He allow the wrong to go on? What proves this? How does God act antitypically with a public sin? Type and antitype, what does such contradiction occasion? What does it stir up? In what has it resulted? How does God manipulate such events? How does God give the antitypical command to the three parties to appear before the Church?

 

(13) In connection with what kind of siftings do we find these events especially? Wherein can it be seen to the best advantage? Who in the Epiphany have acted like Miriam? Of what is their contradicting the Epiphany messenger a factual example? What does God do with them, if they continue a long while their contradicting course? What happens in this connection with antitypical Aaron, contradicting more mildly? How many of such actors are so treated? What are some examples of these? What did Parousia conditions exemplify in this matter? For the most part when were they reserved for public examples of antitypical Miriam? What examples show that God has done this thing very suddenly? Like what was it in each case?

 

(14) What are we in this connection to do with such siftings and the Second Death siftings? What kind of siftings were the Reaping siftings mainly? In which of these especially do we find the antitypical Miriam feature

 

162

appearing? How did it there appear? How may we characterize antitypical Miriam's and Aaron's course as to Second Death siftings? How does this compare with the same classes in the Epiphany siftings? In what other shakings do antitypical Miriam and Aaron appear? Especially where? What are two examples in the slight shaking of 1914 on the 1914 date for the Church's deliverance? What corresponds with the tabernacle in more or less local shakings? In general siftings? What are we not to understand from the above on Second Death siftings and the Epiphany? What Bible examples prove such to take place in the Epiphany?

 

(15) Which pertinent steps of the Lord are described in v. 5? What is the first of these? By this what are we not, and what are we to understand? Through whom did He very likely "come down"? What bearing has Acts 7: 38 on this? Through whom less probably did He do this? What bearing do Acts 7: 53 and Gal. 3: 19 probably have on this phase of the matter? Why do We say that this agent was most likely the Logos? What is the Scriptural evidence proving this strong probability? Through whom was it done in the antitype, especially in the Parousia and Epiphany? Why so? What is the antitypical difference between the cloudy and the fiery pillars? Why, ordinarily, would the cloudy pillar be used in the type when the antitype refers to all four periods, as in the present case? As excluding what should not the reference to the cloudy pillar be understood? What is meant by God's coming down in the pillar, type and antitype? On the occasion of our study? In such cases what does the Lord always do? What is the antitype of the cloudy pillar entering the picture?

 

(16) What is typed by God's standing at the door of the tabernacle? How does He do this? How does He reveal the character of contradictors' deeds? How does He usually do this? What example to illustrate this is given? What have the Levites and some Priests done to this truth as it has been unfolding? In the meantime what has the Lord been doing? In so doing what types has He been fulfilling? How does He call antitypical Miriam and Aaron to stand forth separate from antitypical Moses speaking through the star-members? What types their coming into such separateness?

 

163

(17) What does God show in vs. 6-8? What does v. 6 show? As God was about to show this what did He require of Miriam and Aaron? Why? How is this done antitypically? On this what does God require of antitypical Miriam and Aaron? How has He done this? How many privileges does v. 6 set forth as those of ordinary prophets in Israel? What are they? What does the statement of v. 6 on visions and dreams imply? What is a prophetic vision? What is the most noted example of a vision in the Bible?

 

(18) What is a prophetic dream? What is a noted example of such? What exists as to visions and dreams antitypically? What passage bears on this subject? By what contrast? How does the distinction compare with a certain type of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies? In this type Millennially whom do the Kohathites type? The Gershonites? What do the tabernacle articles borne by the Kohathites type Millennially? Those borne by the Gershonites? How in general did the articles borne by the Kohathites differ from those borne by the Gershonites? What thoughts are thus implied to be in the antitypes? In general how may the antitype be brought out? What force, then, do the distinguishing words bear in Joel 2: 28? In what other way does the idea of deeper and less deep truths lie in the words dream and vision?

 

(19) What does this distinction not precisely tell us? What first reason suggests this? Second reason? What does this second reason prove? What are these visions and dreams? How do they exist in the Bible? What kind of a book does this make the Bible? What does God in v. 6 promise the non-star-membered general elders in the Church? What are the less deep of these? The more deep? What does our Lord promise on this subject in Matt. 13: 52? What has He, accordingly, promised the general elders, including the non-star-members, and some local elders? When in general did this promise have a fulfillment? In particular? Wherein are many of such fulfillments recorded?

 

(20) What are we not to understand from the special promise of v. 6? Nor from the omissions on this head in vs. 7, 8? What first fact proves this? What second fact? What third fact? What kind of a difference is there in the privileges of the star-members and the non-star-members

 

164

as to mouthpieceship? What fourth fact proves this? Why does it prove this? What duty of these non-star-members as to the officiating star-member on new truths is a fifth fact proving this? Why is this duty imposed upon them?

 

(21) What was above stated as to The Tower on this subject? What other instances have occurred? What will be here given? What apparent, but not real exceptions to the rule as to this privilege being seemingly mainly limited to general elders have occurred? What do the fulfilled facts seem to prove of the scribes of Matt. 13: 52 as to most of those who never arose above local elders? How was this promise fulfilled in Bro. Barton in connection with Is. 18: 1, 2, 7? In what two places can this line of thought be found? What did he show in this article? What was the antitypical character of what he saw and wrote out? In what kind of language is Is. 18: 1, 2, 7 clothed? Into what dark saying was Bro. Barton privileged to see, as an antitypical dream? Where was this antitypical dream published? What did he therein show?

 

(22) What other (two) brothers had such antitypical dreams and visions? What became the occasion thereof? How did it affect Bro. Russell? Who principally and who assistantly studied deeply this error in a deeper investigation of the Chronology as given in Vol. II? In what did this result firstly? Secondly? How are these facts typed in 2 Sam. 21: 15-17? What else did their (especially John Edgar's) investigations lead them to see? Wherein have all of these findings been published? Where were many of them previously published? What was Bro. Morton Edgar's part compared with his brother's in these matters? What do these facts prove? How should we view their work, The Great Pyramid Passages? What error advocated in the second edition has Bro. Morton Edgar repudiated? How did this error creep into that volume? With what limitation does the Society's president still hold to the millions proposition? Who are his millions now? The existence of what spiritual class does he now deny? What is the hope that he sets before his millions, his Great Company?

 

(23) What antitypical vision was Walter Bundy given? What was never done with it? What of it will be given here? According to his view, what is represented

 

165

by the parable's woman? The ten pieces of silver? What did not, and what did happen to nine of them? What happened to one of them? What is represented by the woman's house? Her sweeping the house? Her searching for the lost coin? Its finding? Her joy? Her inviting her neighbors to rejoice with her over finding her coin? What does the idea of restitution imply as to the restitution class? How is it designated in the parable? What debate was held April 19, 1909? Under what circumstances? What parts of a dream were made clear to another brother, April 20, 1909? What part of it was made clear in June, 1914? In 1917? To whom in 1915 was the penny and its twofold distribution made clear? To whom did the length of the day and its hours not first occur? What was done with the understanding of this parable? What did the Lord give to the same brother as an antitypical dream the next year? On what was it based? What was done with this matter, especially with the fifth sifting? Wherein and when was it published? What dark saying was also made clear to the same brother? Who endorsed it?

 

(24) What is given in pars. 21-23? Whom else did the Lord so treat, though they are not particularized in these pars.? What else would be in place? When did they, as a matter of fact, receive them? Who was the first of these? What was this antitypical dream? How do the involved passages prove his thought? What did he do with the antitypical dream? Where and when was it published? In what time of his experience was it given to him? What can profitably be done with his letter? What other brother in a similar period of his experience was given some antitypical visions and dreams? In what book? What was the most important of these? What did he do with it? What was not done with his letter? Who in a private conversation with the writer expressed approval of it? In what aspects do the seven bowls not represent the Seven Volumes? Only as what? As what are these volumes Divinely approved? How do these remarks apply to Vol. VII? As what is it not Divinely approved? What dark saying in Rev. 20: 10; 14: 10, 11, did the Lord likewise open to him? Who approved of it? Where is it detailed in the language of another? What vision was opened to a local elder on Elijah?

 

166

(25) What strikes the mind as to the interpretation above given to Num. 12: 1-6? What does Heb. 3: 1-6, compared with Num. 12: 7, prove as to Moses in this chapter? The expression, Apostle … of our profession? What things warrant our regarding Miriam here as a type of certain leading Great Company members? Aaron here as a type of certain leading Little Flock brethren? Zipporah here as a type of more or less obscure Little Flock brethren? What do facts prove of our Lord's being treated as typed in vs. 1, 2? In what activity in v. 2?

 

(26) What do facts prove as to Jehovah's doing to the two involved acts of pride? What do facts prove as to Jesus' meekness toward God? What do the facts prove as to God's drawing the three involved antitypes into public notice? Why so? What set of facts proves the antitypes of v. 5 as given above? What truth has God factually caused to be proclaimed as to the privileges of the non-star-membered general elders and some local elders? What are the two final facts as to the pertinent Parousia and Epiphany teachings and as to the Lord's giving such new teachings to such general elders and some local elders? What conclusion may we therefore draw as to the suggested antitypes of Num. 12 so far studied? What results from these qualities as to the character of these suggested antitypes? As we go on in our study of this chapter, what will we find to be the character of the rest of our exposition of Num. 12?

 

(27) What did God set forth in v. 6? What will He not do beyond these limits? To what, according to v. 7, did God not limit Moses? What does v. 7 not mean? What does it mean? In what other ways did God reveal Himself to Moses? What does this mean antitypically? What does it not mean antitypically? Why do we know this of Jesus personally? What does this fact and the contrast between v. 6 and vs. 7 and 8 prove? What fact as to St. Paul and our Pastor proves this also? What words prove it?

 

(28) In Num. 12 in what relations is our Lord typed? And that acting in whom? What kind of a meaning does this fact give the words, "Who is faithful in all My house," that they would not otherwise have? Under what circumstances would these words not have this