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


toward antitypical Israel from the time of their first exercising repentance and faith even unto and during their undergoing sanctification (hast forgiven … until now). Surely, our Lord is a faithful and merciful Intercessor (Heb. 2: 17, 18), as the entire typical prayer shows. Of His intercession we should gladly and quickly avail ourselves in every time of need; and His faithfulness as an intercessor will help us.


(39) Our Lord's intercession was successful. Had it not been made, God would have executed His preference as stated in v. 12; but it prevailed unto sparing the guilty from a complete cutting off from God's favor. That it prevailed unto averting a complete cutting off from God's favor, is evident from God's answer (the Lord said, I have pardoned [forgiven] according to Thy word, v. 20). That the forgiveness was only of that degree of guilt which deserved a complete cutting off from God's favor, is evident, not only from the fact that God punished them only short of a complete cutting off from His favor, but also from the fact that His answer proves that the forgiveness was only partial (I have forgiven according to Thy word). Our Lord did not ask for a complete forgiveness, but only for such a forgiveness as would prevent their entire cutting off from God's grace. For the forgiveness was according to Christ's intercession; and He interceded only against such a cutting off (vs. 13-16) and expressly asked that the forgiveness be one of power, i.e., efficacy (v. 17), in harmony with not clearing [entirely] the guilty, but visiting their iniquity on them and their descendants to the third and fourth generation (v. 18). V. 19 also shows that the forgiveness did not leave the antitypical nation free from condign punishment (as Thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now).


(40) Hitherto God had forgiven antitypical Israel's sins of weakness and ignorance, even from the time of their repentance and faith at the beginning of the Age onward into the Parousia; but their wilfulness or



partial wilfulness He certainly punished, even as He had done with Fleshly Israel from Egypt unto Kadesh-barnea; for the latter's wilfulness He repeatedly punished (Num. 11: 1-3, 4-6, 10, 33, 34; Ex. 32: 1-14, 25-35). Hence at our Lord's prayer the Lord forgave antitypical Israel in the Parousia enough to allow them to remain as such, but inflicted severe punishment upon them by making them undergo some Parousia and much Epiphany punishment. Thus we see the forgiveness was according to our Lord's intercession: only that much of grace was exercised as was not against justice. In other words, our Lord interceded with God for antitypical Israel in harmony with God's wisdom, justice and love, and not contrary to His wisdom and justice in an effort to make love override these. Not only does God so deal with the unjustified, justified, Youthful Worthies and Great Company, but also with the Little Flock, whose measurable wilfulness He stripes out. In speaking above of God's forgiving the unjustified we are not to be understood as implying that He gave them justification by faith, in which case they would no more be unjustified, but that He forgave them to the degree that they could still remain the unjustified camp and thus not lose all favor.


(41) The greatest objection that the antitypical ten spies, the other (nominal-church) crown-losers, justified and unjustified ones had to the sphere of the Truth was the doctrine of probation for the unsaved dead in the Millennium—restitution to be offered to all. Their slogan against this teaching was: a second chance! To them that objection seemed to be the end of all controversy on that subject. And this objection is the occasion of God's confirming this doctrine by an oath (as truly as I live, v. 21) This assurance God gave by the Truth witness during the Parousia on this subject, backed by numerous Scriptures, particularly the Oath-bound Covenant, which is especially alluded to in the oath of v. 21; for the restoration of the obedient to human perfection and holiness and the turning



of the earth into a Paradise for them is what is meant by the expression, "all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord." This teaching is a proof that the scene in Num. 13 and 14 had its antitype in the Jewish and Gospel Harvests; for it was during these times that restitution was purely taught; for shortly after the Jewish Harvest this doctrine was lost and was not clearly discovered again until the Parousia, though just shortly before the Parousia some light began to come on it, as we will see in the chapter on David's First Appearance.


(42) That antitypical Israel's sins were not entirely forgiven is shown typically in vs. 22-25. God charges them with the guilt of sinning presumptuously (tempted Me, v. 22), and that despite their having seen His character and works (seen My glory and My miracles) displayed against Satan's order of affairs (Egypt) and in their condition of isolation therefrom (wilderness), from the beginning of the Gospel Age. The ten times' (these ten times) tempting of God refers to their provoking God in each one of the ten denominational groups of Christendom, as pictured forth by Jacob's ten sons (see Chapter 1), exclusive of Joseph and Benjamin; for the course of these ten denominational groups, beginning with the Greek Catholic Church and ending with the Adventist Church, was very evil as to rejecting and persecuting the true Church and as to sins against doctrine, organization, discipline and practice, which, of course, provoked God. But, one may ask, why does God blame the Parousia ten tribes for these Gospel-Age provocations of these denominations? We answer: (1) These continued during the Parousia in the same evils as these denominations committed during the Gospel Age; and (2) they knew of these evils and in committing them made themselves share in the guilt heaped up by the pertinent Gospel-Age sins of these denominations. Hence God in the Parousia could justly accuse them as guilty of the Gospel-Age sins of their respective denominations, on



the same principles as He exacted of the generation of Jesus' time the sins committed against His Truth and His faithful people from Abel to Zacharias (Matt. 23: 35). The charge is concentrated in these words: Have seen My glory and My miracles … and have not harkened to My voice. In other words, God accuses the antitypical Israelites of sinning against light and knowledge, which proves wilfulness to have permeated their sins. Hence, Christ's merit not canceling wilful sins, they were not forgiven, but had to be expiated.


(43) Hence God solemnly (surely, v. 23) affirmed that such would not enter into the inheritance granted and sworn to the faithful Little Flock, the heavenly Canaan (shall not see the land, Deut. 1: 35). But this passage solemnly affirms more than this: it solemnly affirms that they will not even see it, i.e., perceive the rewards of the faithful Little Flock. Accordingly, to the truths on the high calling, particularly to those on its rewards, they in some cases became blind and in the others were left in their blindness. The last clause of v. 23 should be rendered as follows: Even all who provoked Me shall not see it. This clause defines who these blinded and blind ones were, and why they would not inherit the high calling rewards. By their unbelief, fear and disobedience they could not enter in (Heb. 3: 4). This clause serves to define the wrong-doers and by repetition of the word "see" emphasizes the two things implied in it—not enter nor perceive the heavenly inheritance. v. 24 assures us who of the Parousia antitypical Israel would enter the heavenly Canaan—antitypical Caleb, the faithful Little Flock (Deut. 1: 26). The reasons for this are also stated in v. 24: (1) they have a spirit other than the rest of antitypical Israelites; and (2) they have fully followed God. That spirit was the Divine disposition developed and crystallized; and that full following of God consisted of deadness to self and the world and aliveness to God unto death, whereby they practiced self-denial and world-denial, study, spread and practice of the



Truth in character development, watchfulness, prayer and a faithful endurance of the incidental experiences. Antitypical Caleb's seed (his seed) consists of all who imitate his course of faithfulness. Here they are the Little Flock from the standpoint of being developed by their faithful brethren, while antitypical Caleb is the Little Flock from the standpoint of their developing their Little Flock brethren, as servants of the Truth.


(44) It will be noted that nothing is here said of Joshua as entering the land. This is well left unsaid, because our Lord, whom Joshua types, from the standpoint of both Harvests' fulfillments was already in heavenly Canaan. It will also be noted that God promises to bring the Little Flock into heavenly Canaan (I will bring him into the land). This God promised through the Parousia preaching on the Sarah Covenant. Antitypical Caleb went into heavenly Canaan (where into he went) in the sense that by faith he explored it, i.e., searched out its teachings and spirit, and by hope he looked forward to inheriting its glories. Nigh in spirit and act to the provoking antitypical Israel were the spirit and acts of sinners (Amalekites) and the worldly (Canaanites; the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwelt in the valley); for the first mentioned did sin; and they did practice worldliness in their provoking the Lord. Now comes the sentence—one to a wandering in the wilderness (Tomorrow … to the wilderness, v. 25, Deut. 1: 40). The first failure to enter in led to the long Gospel-Age wandering; and the second failure to enter in has led to the Epiphany wandering; and only the antitypical Caleb of the Parousia generation enters the heavenly Canaan, all others of that generation failing so to do, as typed by the death of all of the Israelitish men of 20 years and upward. And what a wilderness experience has been ours during the first 24 years and more of the Epiphany! The "tomorrow" of v. 25 for us represents the period following the Parousia, even the Epiphany, even as the tomorrow of the Jewish Harvest was the interim



between the Harvests. Yea, the wandering in both cases is "by the way of the Red Sea" (Deut. 1: 40)—near the condition of the curse of both the Adamic and the second death, as this sea types both.


(45) That our Heavenly Father was provoked by the Parousia murmuring is set forth typically in vs. 26-37. This provocation He first expressed to our Lord as His Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader (Moses, v. 26) and to the World's High Priest (Aaron) for antitypical Israel. He indicates that He will no longer bear with the iniquity of antitypical Israel (How long … evil congregation? v. 27). He had directed a highly disapproving attention to their murmurings, which, while in word were expressed against the sphere of the Truth and of its Spirit, were in deed and in truth directed against Jehovah Himself (they murmur against Me). Now God charges our Lord, as His appointed Executive, Mouthpiece, Leader and High Priest for antitypical Israel, to tell them in all solemnity (as truly as I live, v. 28) that He would do to them (so will I) as they had wished and said (Would God we had died in the wilderness, v. 2) in the dissatisfied hearing of God (spoken in My ears). They would fall from their standing before the Lord outside of antitypical Canaan (fall in the wilderness, v. 29), either in one of the general siftings (plagues, as typed in Num. 16: 46-49; 21: 5-9; 25: 3-9; see 1 Cor. 10: 514), or in their individual sins (Num. 27: 1-3). Those who would thus fall were the ones who had reached a developed condition for their standing before the Lord (twenty years old and upward). This would include everyone of the developed ones not in the Little Flock (whole number, … murmured against Me). There would be no doubt as to its turning out as God said (doubtless ye shall not come into the land, v. 30; Deut. 1: 34, 35), despite the fact of the Oath-bound Covenant (which I sware to make you dwell therein). They having fallen out from the conditional Seed, not being any longer of it, because of their unfaithfulness



(for the Seed consists of the faithful alone), and the oath-bound promise being given to the Seed alone, despite their having had a conditional share in that promise, it is taken from them, because of their losing seedship (v. 29; Deut. 1: 36-38). The only ones that enter are antitypical Caleb (dog, the Little Flock has appeared contentious and unclean to the nominal people of God), the son of Jephunneh (he shall be turned, i.e., to the Divine nature), and antitypical Joshua (Deliverer), the son of Nun (fish, our Lord was once of an earthly nature). The mention of Joshua here, as distinct from its omission from v. 24, and that as the son of Nun (fish), applies to Jesus as a prophecy for the Jewish Harvest, to assure Him while in the flesh that He would overcome, and as history to Him in the Parousia, while the application to Caleb is for both Harvests.


(46) The immature ones (those recently begotten, especially, though not exclusively, those begotten in the eleventh hour: Feb., 1908, to June, 1911) would, as a rule, win out in the high calling (your little ones, v. 31; Deut. 1: 39). Many of the older Parousia new creatures and others not new creatures feared for these that they would not be able to fight well enough to overcome the enemies that infested antitypical Canaan, and thus would fall a prey to these enemies (ye said should be a prey, Deut. 1: 39). They complained very much against the standard for overcoming that the Little Flock (Caleb; Num. 13: 30) set forth. All except the Parousia Little Flock (the faithful Youthful Worthies everywhere in this chapter being ignored in the picture), especially the antitypical ten spies, complained that this standard was too high, and would crush and defeat the beginners in the way (little ones; literally, infants). These very babes and sucklings (Ps. 8: 2) God declared, by our Lord through the ministry of the Little Flock, speaking as our Lord's Parousia mouthpiece (v. 39), would be the ones whom God would make overcomers (they shall know the



land, v. 31) and who would inherit heavenly Canaan, which God, by our Lord speaking through the Parousia Little Flock, declared all except the latter had despised—in the sense of rejecting, through unbelief, fear and murmuring— the opportunity of winning it. As we look back to the Parousia times we will recall that more than once the rejected ones in and out of the Truth were rebuked for despising the Parousia Little Flock as weak And good for nothing for the conquest of heavenly Canaan, in contrast with the despisers. These rejectors of the Truth and its ways of entire consecration, made and carried out, were by God, through Christ speaking in the Little Flock, told that, because of their unbelief, fear and murmuring, they would die (your carcasses … shall fall in the wilderness, v. 32) from their standing before the Lord: the despising new creatures dying from the high calling and dropping into the Great Company, the despising Youthful Worthies dying as such and falling back into the justified class, the tentatively justified ones dying as such and falling back into the world of the camp, and the despising campers dying as such and becoming heathen—wholly cut off from God's people.


(47) The Parousia sentence was that these murmurers would give the immature ones (little ones) the evil heredity of wandering the antitypical 40 years of the Epiphany in the wilderness (shall wander … 40 years, v. 33; Deut. 1: 40). We have already wandered in this Epiphany wilderness, condition of isolation, over half of this period and have found it to be a most trialsome experience. How thirsty, weary and footsore have we been therein! What symbolic wastes of desert sand, symbolic storms and clouds, symbolic sun heat and cold have we therein experienced! How often have our hearts turned back in yearning to the good old days of the Parousia! In these experiences we are suffering for the wickedness of the unfaithful in the Parousia (bear your whoredoms). Yet it is the Divine will that these little ones do this wandering,



and continue it until all the Parousia murmurers, unbelievers and cowards become manifest as fallen from their Parousia standing enjoyed before they sinned against the Lord (until your carcasses be wasted in the wilderness). And are we not now witnesses of these fallings? Among the Truth people we see it in the Great Company manifestations through revolutionisms against the Truth and its arrangements, in Youthful Worthies falling back among the justified, and in tentatively justified ones just nibbling at the Truth and then falling away to the world, and in the campers falling into the condition of actual heathen. Yea, this falling away (carcasses falling in the wilderness) began during the Parousia, manifested both in the siftings and in a more private way in daily life apart from siftings. And did we not in the Parousia, and do we not now in the Epiphany witness these fallings of the symbolic carcasses, the dead who died from their Parousia standings before the Lord? The six sifting classes as they have slaughtered in the sanctuary, in the courts and in the city, have caused these carcasses to be thickly strewn everywhere and often in heaps. In more private ways we see this in the fallings about us in everyday life. The resultant havoc in doctrine, organization, discipline and practice is appalling! Contrast the indifference to religion and the overspreading of secularism everywhere in Christendom in our times with the early Parousia and the fallen carcasses now become apparent most impressively. This will continue until all the unbelieving fearful and murmurers become manifest as fallen carcasses.


(48) In Bible symbols 40 days and 40 years are often used to represent trialsome periods for God's people. This we can see from the typical uses of the 40 years in the wilderness, the typical uses of the 40 years in the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon, the 40 years of the Jewish, Gospel and Millennial Harvests, and the 40 years of the Epiphany—all trialsome periods. The many 40 typical days typing some



of these 40-year periods in their trialsomeness give us the same thought. Vs. 33 and 34 bring this thought to mind and also give us a key helpful in opening many time prophecies in which a day is used to represent a year. In both Harvests there was a 40-years' searching of the sphere of the Truth and of its Spirit, followed by a symbolic 40-years' wandering of 40 symbolic years, the interim between the Harvests being the first of these, lasting 1845 years, and the Epiphany being the second of these. The question arises, Why was the first of these wandering periods 1845 years and the second not one of 1845 years, seeing both were antitypes of the 40 years' wandering in the literal wilderness? Why is the second period one of 40 years? The following answers seem to be satisfactory so far as the first question is concerned: (1) The parallel dispensations, the Jubilee, the Times of the Gentiles, the 6,000 years of evil, the 1335 days of Daniel and the Pyramid required the first antitypical wilderness to last 1845 years. (2) To have made the second one last 1845 years would have put the Millennium too far into the future. (3) It would have destroyed the time symmetries of the plan. (4) It would have given us many generations after the first and second phases of our Lord's Second Advent were completed before its third phase would set in for Kingdom purposes.


(49) As to the second question the following answers seem sufficient: (1) The intensification of the Epiphany trials in contrast with those in the interim between the Harvests is sufficient to bring about the full falling of the symbolic carcasses in the Epiphany wilderness. (2) In the Epiphany we have been living over the interim between the Harvests on a small scale. (3) The five siftings that marked the interim (the same in kind as the five siftings of each Harvest) are all being enacted in the Epiphany on three small scales: (a) in the smallest miniature Gospel Age (a day of it standing for a year in the Gospel Age proper), (b) in the smaller miniature Gospel Age (a year in its standing



for a century in the Gospel Age proper), and (c) the small miniature Gospel Age (25 months in it standing for a century in the Gospel Age proper). For each of these three cases the Gospel Age proper begins with the birth of our Lord. And in each of these three miniatures we have the five siftings (the large revolutionism sifting divided into five smaller revolutionism siftings) corresponding to the five Gospel-Age interim siftings, the latter as distinct from the five of each Harvest, all of which siftings following the same five general lines. These three reasons satisfactorily explain why the second antitypical wilderness wandering is not so long in duration as the first. Thus, in the second wilderness wandering—that of the Epiphany—the wandering is on the scale of a year for each of the 40 years of the Parousia searching out of the sphere of the Truth and of its Spirit. In the Hebrew of v. 34 the expression for, "each day for a year," is repeated: "a day for a year, a day for a year." Do we have in this repetition a hint that there would be two periods of wandering respectively following the two periods of searching out the sphere of the Truth and of its Spirit? We think not, since two spyings of the land would then have to apply to the type; for the repeated expression undoubtedly primarily refers to the type. Rather, we would understand the repetition to make both the typical and the antitypical sentence as to time emphatic. Truly, we in the Epiphany have experienced God's breaking off (literal translation for the A.V. mistranslation, "My breach of promise") from giving us our inheritance by 1914 as we had expected. This experience has been one of much sorrow; for the Epiphany experiences have been largely those of sorrow, while the Parousia experiences were largely those of joy. Beloved, have we not "known'" [experienced] this—the sorrows of God's breaking off from giving us our inheritance in 1914 and consequently causing us to live over the Gospel Age from three standpoints, as so many wilderness experiences,



during the Epiphany? Thus have we and the fallen ones been bearing their iniquity (your children … ye bear your iniquities), amid distressing experiences.


(50) In v. 35 the Lord repeats the sentence without adding its length. He does this to emphasize His typical and antitypical earnestness and determination. "I, the Lord, have said," is the A.V.'s rendering of v. 35's first clause. Dr. Young's translation seems better: "I am Jehovah; I have spoken." This translation distinctly adds emphasis to the typical and antitypical sentence. The AV. gives the thought, though not the literal translation of the next clause: "I will surely do it." We see that He did it in the type. We see that He did it in the first antitype to both Fleshly and Spiritual Israel; and now we see by experience and observation that He is now doing it in the second antitype to both Fleshly and Spiritual Israel. The Parousia congregation, with the exception of the Little Flock, was an evil congregation (v. 35), the faithful Youthful Worthies here as everywhere else being ignored in this picture. It certainly did gather together against the Lord as He spoke by our Lord through the Church in the Parousia. Hence it, except the persistent Little Flock, must be consumed—it must die in the sense above pointed out—by the time the Epiphany is over—in the antitypical wilderness. Then, God caused His Word to be spoken during the Parousia by Christ through the Little Flock as respects the ten antitypical spies, who in their rejection of the Parousia Truth and its Spirit brought a slander against it, many of them writing against it, some of them entering into formal debates against, and all of them speaking and preaching against more or less of its phases (v. 36). Their high privileges as antitypical spies made them all the more responsible as to themselves and as to antitypical Israel. Despite the responsibility, they turned the bulk of the people against the Truth and its Spirit, causing them to murmur against that goodly land (made all the congregation to murmur against Him). These would,



during the wilderness condition, beginning in the Parousia and reaching into the Epiphany, fall from their standing in the Little Flock, and become manifest as Great Company members, by their revolutionisms against the Truth, its Spirit and its arrangements in their ministries in religious matters (died by the plague before the Lord, v. 37). It will be noted that in v. 37 a repetition of the charge brought against the ten spies in v. 36 is made. Certainly in the antitype there was an emphasis placed on this sentence by its repetition, which emphasis was made in the Parousia and repeated in the Epiphany. Note, e.g., how often some Parousia spy-members are spoken of as having died from the high calling. The antitypical plague is in all cases error connected with the six great siftings—five in the Parousia and one in the Epiphany. And it was in and by these that the antitypical ten spies symbolically died. The two spies antitypical of Joshua (our Lord) and Caleb (the persevering Little Flock) survived this plague unscathed (v. 38).


(51) After getting the messages of vs. 20-25 and 26-38 from Jehovah, our Lord made them known unto the people of the classes to whom they referred (v. 39). Whether God told our Lord these things directly, or indirectly by opening His mind to understand vs. 20-25 and 26-38, or in both ways, we are not informed; nor is it necessary that we be curious on the subject. Enough it is for us to know that, whether directly or indirectly, God made it known to Him. This is only another among many instances proving that our Lord, since His resurrection, ascension and glorification, is still dependent upon the Father for knowledge. Certain it is that Jesus did not tell these things to the involved classes directly, but used the Church, more particularly its leaders, and most particularly the Parousia messenger mainly and the Epiphany messenger subordinately, to tell these things to the people. The declaration of these things began, and that in a small way, in the Parousia, during the first sifting (1878-1881).



It grew in volume as the antitypical ten spies enlarged their attacks and slanders on the sphere of the Truth and of its Spirit. It increased more as others than the antitypical ten spies, especially the non-spying clergy, attacked and slandered the promised antitypical land. It abounded as the laity increasingly joined in these slanderous attacks, and was made to reach a climactic end in the Epiphany work toward Azazel's Goat in the Truth and in the nominal church.


(52) At first sight it seems not harmonious with the picture to put some of the telling of the antitype of these messages into the Epiphany, which is the special wilderness wandering time of the second application, and, as it were, not to place all of it into the Parousia, the special time of such telling. But the facts of the case are decisive in the matter. And we harmonize this as follows: The 40 years of each period, as a rule, was the respective time for its particular feature, but just as in each of the five siftings of the Parousia certain ones died from their standing to a lower standing before the Lord, which proved that they were already in their wilderness wandering, so during the Epiphany some have begun their murmuring and then did their antitypical dying, e.g., many crown-losers (all having lost their crowns by Sept. 16, 1914) took no exceptions to the Truth and its Spirit until in the Epiphany, and when these exceptions were taken they fell from the Priesthood into the Great Company. The same in principle is true of some of the Youthful Worthies, tentatively justified and mere campers. Following their murmuring in the Epiphany the antitypical messages were delivered to such. As there was an ever-increasing going forth of these messages, so was there an ever-increasing mourning (and the people mourned greatly) as they became understood by the fallen ones. This, too, began in the Parousia in the first sifting and increased until it will reach its climax in the mourning of the Great Company, reprobate Youthful Worthies, tentatively justified and campers when they recognize



their real standing later on in the Epiphany. But all of the fallen ones in their sentenced and fallen condition have had or will have other features of sorrow in the antitypical mourning, which includes in addition to sorrow more or less of fears, conscience upbraidings, chagrin and the discouragements and despairs as to their standings experienced during the Parousia by many of the classes just mentioned as coming to the climax of their mourning when fully manifested and convinced of their fall later in the Epiphany, for this mourning includes every kind of sorrow, fear, restraint, discouragement, etc., experienced by these fallen ones, at the time of the sentence and in their wandering times. Surely this is woeful indeed!


(53) The scene described in vs. 40-45, though in small ways shadowed forth by some of the fallen ones' Parousia course, finds its antitype during the Epiphany. It started September 21, 1914, with the trench warfare, whereby some nations sought to make the Divine Right prevail and other nations sought to make Democracy and the world safe for Democracy prevail, all hoping thus to enter into their ideas of the promised land. With their ideas practically the whole world joined, including capital and the nominal church. Then it started among the Truth Levites in England in the Fall of 1915 and spread from them to the other Levites (including the unclean Youthful Worthies) worldwide. All of these started out in their own way, unsanctioned and unfavored by God, to realize their own notions as to gaining their supposed promised land. Practically all worldly and religious movements of the Epiphany, seeking to attain the alleged ideals of their alleged promised land, are expressions of the antitype of the people's endeavors and words of v. 40. Yea, "they rose up early in the morning" (the beginning of the Epiphany, v. 40). They mounted Satan's empire, even to its top (into the top of the mountain). They made themselves conspicuous in these deeds



(Behold us,—literal translation; not, Lo, we are here; Deut. 1: 41). In all the involved classes of fallen ones they were determined to force through their ideas of attaining the promised land (we will go up unto the place). They are and have been sure that the Lord wills that they execute their own plans (which the Lord hath promised). They pursue this course, even though they recognize their previous wrongs (though [not for] we have sinned). All the, while they embark on realizing, apart from the Lord's sanction and favor, their notions of the promised land, our Lord Jesus through the Church remonstrates with them (Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the Lord, v. 41). These protests were sounded out against the World War and its purposes by the Church, especially by Bro. Russell, the pilgrims, colporteurs with Vol. IV, the Volunteers, and the conscientious objectors, and against the Truth Levites and nominal-church Levites by the Epiphany Priesthood, all of whom disapproved of the involved courses. Similar protests have gone forth from these against other movements in state, church, capital, aristocracy, labor and private life, undertaken to realize various notions of conquering their alleged promised lands. In all cases the Lord's Priesthood, as antitypical Moses' mouthpiece, forecast disaster instead of prosperity for these undertakings (it shall not prosper).


(54) Their cry to the fallen ones, intent on carrying out their own notions of reaching their alleged promised land, was, "Go not up, for the Lord is not among you" (v. 42), i.e., God does not sanction nor favor your endeavors, hence will not prosper your undertakings; therefore desist therefrom (Deut. 1: 42). Furthermore, they warned these presumptuous ones that they should not go up lest they be smitten by their enemies (smitten before your enemies, … the Amalekites [sins], the Canaanites [worldlinesses], vs. 42, 43, and the Amorites [errors], Deut. 1: 42, 44). The sword (v. 43) of sin, worldliness and error would



smite all who would presume to follow their own notions in this matter, because they were sinning in turning away from the Lord, who would not prosper them in a sinful course (v. 43). The antitypical sword of sin, worldliness and error, differs from the Amalekites (sins), Canaanites (worldlinesses), and Amorites (errors), as follows: the sword of each of these is the tempting arguments offered by each of these classes of evils to succumb to these evils, while the evils themselves wield these arguments. And when one yields to these arguments he falls by the swords of these evils. But despite these remonstrances, in state, church, capital, aristocracy, labor and private life and among Truth and nominal-church Levites, these daring ones presumed (they presumed, v. 44; Deut. 1: 43) to overcome Satan's empire, as each group viewed it (go up unto the hill top). But God's plan as due (the ark of the covenant) and our Lord (Moses) did not lead them; they remained in and with the Priesthood (departed not out of the camp, i.e., out of the tabernacle). The result of this presumption was and is an utter defeat (Hormah— destruction, v. 45) for the presumptuous; for they were defeated and are being defeated by sins (Amalekites), worldlinesses (Canaanites) and errors (Amorites, Deut. 1: 44). These sting the one who fondles them, even as a host of pursuing bees sting their victim, hurting and poisoning him. Everywhere we look in state, church, capital, aristocracy, labor, private life and Levitism, we witness these terrible defeats on the fallen, but presumptuous ones at the hands of sin, worldliness and error, even as their course is one of selfishness, which makes one amenable to such defeats. And the end is not yet: for during the remainder of the Epiphany such defeats will be the lot of the presumptuous. And no matter how greatly they grieve when they learn of their fallen condition, they will not be able to induce the Lord to change His mind into restoring them to their former standing before Him (Deut. 1: 45; Heb. 12: 16, 17).



(1) What parts of the Bible will we study in this chapter? Of what do they treat? In what respects? What was one of the antitypical applications of this story made by our Pastor? What other application did he give the story? On what Scripture did he base the second application? How may these two antitypes in the Jewish Harvest be contrasted? What Biblical consideration warrants such contrasted antitypes in the Gospel Harvest? What is the connecting point in the double application of the Jewish Harvest? Into what did the real and nominal church of the early Gospel Age merge as the Gospel Age advanced?


(2) How would we construe the larger antitype in the Jewish Harvest? What justified this viewpoint? How were they viewed? When did the march toward antitypical Canaan have its beginning? What is antitypical Canaan? Who were drawn out of these antitypical twelve tribes? When? To what class did they belong? Especially which ones of them? How does Matt. 13: 52 prove this? What at Jesus' command did these do? What do the 40 days of spying type? What are we not from these 40 days to conclude? Why not? How are we to understand this? What case parallels this? What do Jewish Harvest facts prove on this point? What example proves this?


(3) What took place when the antitypical report had been delivered? How was the report proper given? What occurred thereafter? What effect did this have in the Jewish Harvest? What resulted with ten of the antitypical spy classes? What proves this? What is typed by Joshua's and Caleb's encouraging the people to go up against Canaan's inhabitants? Whom do the Israelites represent for that Harvest? What is represented by their discouragement? Murmuring? Rebellion? Desire to stone Joshua and Caleb? God's glory appearing? Its effect? His decision? The Israelites' efforts to enter the land before the completion of the 40 years? How have not, and how have these matters been presented above? Why this answer for each course?


(4) What is the main antitype of Israel's 40 years' wandering? Its secondary antitype? The secondary antitype's second set of spies? Their report? Their murmuring? Their second wilderness wandering? What will we not do further with this phase of matters? Why not? Why are we warranted in making a second main application



to Spiritual Israel of the events of Num. 13 and 14? What statement has often appeared in our writings? What has never been shown on this matter? On what Scriptural application, among others, has this thought been based? How do we draw the conclusion based on this application? What is the reasoning that proves it? What is the conclusion? For what does this account?


(5) What are we to keep in mind during this study? What is typed by the people requesting that spies search out the land? Why was the antitypical request made? What did the typical request precede? What does this type? What were God's and Jesus' response to the request? What does Canaan type? What is it primarily? Secondarily? How so? What is typed by Canaan's being infested with inhabitants and cities inimical to Israel? What results from this? How is this typed? What is typed by Moses' sending out the twelve spies? What is implied in type and antitype in v. 2 by the Hebrew words "for thee," omitted in the A. V.?


(6) What is represented by their selection, one from each tribe? What is typed by the fact that not all Israel, but only twelve individuals as princes, one from each tribe, were chosen as spies? What is typed by the fact that ten of them, bringing up a slander against the land, died of plague? What does this prove? What fact further confirms this thought? Why? What conclusion is to be drawn from these facts? What occurred just after the report was made? What was this change as to Joshua, Caleb, the other ten?


(7) What is typed by Moses' sending out the twelve spies at the mouth of the Lord? What is the involved part of the Bible? How was this made known to our Lord? How additionally may the charge have been made? Whose charge would it in any case have been? What is typed by the spies' being sent out from Kadesh-barnea in Paran? What is Kadesh-barnea also called? Why? What proves this? Why is the fact of the spies being leaders repeated, type and antitype? What is typed by there being no mention made of a spy coming from the tribe of Levi or the house of Aaron? What is a summary of the teaching of this paragraph? Into what did some of the members



of the twelve antitypical spies come? Where did the others remain?


(8) For what is here the appropriate place? What is embraced under the expression, the sphere of the Truth and of its Spirit? Where and under what type were the main forms of this knowledge set forth? What was the difference between the antitypical spies and the antitypical Kohathites as to their insight into such knowledge? Why this difference? What mistake was formerly made on some as being Gospel-Age Kohathites? What will serve to correct this mistake? What is further said as a safeguard against another natural mistake? What kind of crown-losers also wrote on such branches of knowledge? Who were some of them? What in this respect did Little Flock leaders do? Who are some of these and what was some of their pertinent work? Accordingly, what is not to be regarded as the work of the Gospel-Age Kohathites alone? What class has done the finest work in these four departments of work? E.g., who?


(9) What proves that the Parousia was marked by the most searching investigations and most fruitful results as to the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit? In what three ways does this appear? In how many and what branches of Bible knowledge did they work? How is this proved as to recensions of the Hebrew Scriptures? How do Ginsburg's and Kittel's Old Testament recensions differ? How is this proved as to recensions of the Greek New Testament? How long did Westcott and Hort work on their recension? Von Soden? What is the character of his recension? Who else did good work on this subject?


(10) What was then done as to Biblical Hebrew and Greek lexicons? How many extra fine Hebrew lexicons appeared then? Greek lexicons? Hebrew and Greek grammars? Hebrew concordances? What may be said of Rabbi Mandelkern's concordance? How many superfine concordances to the Greek New Testament? The Greek Old Testament? The English Bible? English Bible translations? How may we sum up the quality and quantity of linguistic Bible helps of this time?


(11) Of what other branch of Bible knowledge may a similar remark be made? What are its three divisions? Of what subjects and from what standpoint does introduction treat? How many are the finest of these works on the canon of the Old and the New Testaments? On