Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
THE GOSPEL-AGE HARVEST IN TYPE
Num. 31: 1-54.
A SPIRITUAL CAMPAIGN. ITS ANTECEDENTS. ITS BATTLE. ITS VICTORY. THE DISPOSAL OF UNWORTHY AND WORTHY CAPTIVES. OF ANIMAL PREY. OF OTHER SPOIL.
WE ARE now approaching the anniversary of our Pastor's going beyond the veil, October 31. The coming one  will be the twenty-second, and as before the Epiphany friends will celebrate it by special services, Oct. 31, in addition to engaging in an extra effort along the lines of antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, in lecture, colporteur, sharp shooting and volunteer work, from Oct. 16 to Nov. 7, the period between our Pastor's leaving Bethel the last time and his burial, which occurred just after 6 P.M., Nov. 6th, i.e., according to God's reckoning, Nov. 7. This chapter will serve as an annual memorial article for him. That it will be appropriate as such is evident from two facts:
(1) A certain phase of his part in the reaping work is set forth under the type of Phinehas' carrying the two trumpets on which he blew the alarm in the war described in vs. 124; and (2) under the Lord he supervised the warfare described in these verses. Accordingly, the friends may look upon this and others of this book's chapters as annual memorial articles for him.
(2) In Num. 31 we have a typical history of the Parousia and Epiphany, set forth under the imagery of a war, in its antecedents, nature and results. In vs. 1-24, 48-54, the Parousia work is described under the military figure, wherein the chosen warriors of Israel won a most unique victory, destroying every one of the opposing soldiers without the loss of a single Israelitish soldier, taking a great number of captives and a large amount of booty, all of which they brought home with
them out of the war. Vs. 25-47 give a typical description of the Epiphany work of dividing God's people into the Little Flock and Great Company, under the military figure, wherein the captives and booty were divided into two parts, consigned equally to the warriors and the congregation of Israel. Even the Parousia siftings and its cleansings from the filthiness of the flesh and spirit are described, as well as the activities of the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims, the first and second of these features being described in vs. 13-24 and the third in vs. 48-54. The fact that this story occurs in the Law, regardless of whether we take that term to mean the five books of Moses (Gal. 4: 21), or to mean the Law Covenant arrangements (Heb. 10: 1), the fact that certain of the Law arrangements enter into the story (vs. 6, 19-24) and the fact that the story is connected with Israel's journey from Egypt to Canaan, one and all prove it to be typical. That it is typical of something at the end of the Gospel Age is evident on its surface from three facts: (1) the reference (v. 2) to the fact that after this war Moses would die; (2) the reference to Phinehas (v. 6), the eldest son of the high priest; and (3) the fact that Israel at the time was encamped in the last station of its wilderness journey, i.e., just before it entered Canaan.
(3) These three facts, as proving the time setting of the antitype to be at the end of the Gospel Age, deserve closer study. How does the death of Moses (v. 2) forecast as coming soon after this war prove that Num. 31 types things at the end of this Age? As follows: In this story and in fact throughout the book of Numbers, except in the story of smiting the rock twice (Num. 20: 7-13), wherein he represents the Parousia Ransom and Church-sin-offering deniers, Moses represents our Lord as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God toward antitypical Israel. Moses' death at the end of Israel's wilderness journey cannot represent our Lord's dying at
the end of this Age, since from His resurrection onward He is immortal (Rom. 6: 9; 1 Tim. 6: 16). The antitype of a high priest's death gives us the clue to the antitype of Moses' death. The high priest's death types for the Church's High Priest our Lord's ceasing to function in His Gospel-Age office as High Priest to the Church, preparatory to His entering into the exercise of His Millennial-Age functions as Head of the World's High Priest. Accordingly, Moses' death types our Lord's ceasing to function in His Gospel-Age office as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God toward the Gospel-Age Israel, preparatory to His functioning as such toward the Millennial Israel. But the first of these two features our Lord gives up at the extreme end of the Gospel-Age; and His last general work of this kind to the Gospel-Age Israel is the work of the Harvest, understood as covering the Parousia and the Epiphany, i.e., in the wide sense of that term, and not in its narrow sense, the reaping. Hence the death of Moses as shortly following the war of Num. 31 proves that the time of that war types the time of the Harvest—the Parousia and the Epiphany. The pertinent activity of Phinehas (v. 6) as the chief under-priest at such a time and event would prove typically the corresponding activity of our Pastor as the chief Under-priest on earth, which also proves that the antitype of Num. 31 belongs to the Harvest of the Gospel Age. Israel's last encampment of its wilderness journey at that time and its being near the Jordan and just before Israel's crossing it into Canaan fittingly type the extreme end of the Age, the Harvest (Matt. 13: 39). Accordingly, these three considerations prove that the antitype of Num. 31 belongs to the end of the Gospel Age.
(4) We are now ready to expound the chapter—type and antitype. Since Moses types our Lord as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God toward the Gospel-Age Israel, and since in
v. 1 God charges Moses as His appointed leader, executive and mouthpiece toward the Jewish-Age Israel, God in v. 1 must type the Heavenly Father giving directions, etc., to Jesus at the end of this Age. The charge of v. 2 as it reads in the A. V. ("Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites") is evidently an unhappy translation, for in the antitype it would have commanded Jesus to charge us to do what God forbids us to do, take revenge (Rom. 12: 19-21). While the Hebrew word nakam has as one of its meanings, to avenge, another of its meanings, to vindicate, evidently fits better here. Here antitypically the charge was given by God to our Lord to see to it that Spiritual Israel be vindicated during the Harvest. The appropriateness of this is apparent from the fact that throughout the Dark Ages and even in the Reformation Period the Lord's faithful people have been greatly and misrepresented and vilified as blasphemers against the Lord, His Word and His Church, and as rebels against the civil powers, whereas they stood for the little of Truth that then was due and against the errors, wrong organization and practices of the nominal church, especially against its unholy alliance with the state. The great theologians of the Dark Ages, like Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, Duns Scotus, etc., and the great statesmen of that period with their lawyers, seemed to prove the Faithful to be blasphemous heretics and wilful rebels. This caused the latter to be branded as heretics with the excommunication of the "Church" and as rebels with the ban of the kingdoms and the Holy Roman Empire. Thus they were apparently overcome by these theologians and lawyers in argument and were by almost everybody so regarded and treated. Hence they were grossly misrepresented and vilified. It is against these misrepresentations and vilifications that God desired His people to be vindicated, and hence in v. 2 antitypically charges our Lord with the work of seeing it done.
(5) Moses' (v. 3) telling the people this types our Lord's telling the Gospel-Age Israel in the end of the Age through the Church as His mouthpiece the antitypical charge. As in the type not all Fleshly Israel was commanded to arm themselves for the contemplated war, but only certain select warriors from among them were to arm themselves for the war ("Arm some of yourselves," v. 3), so not all of the antitypical Israelites were charged to arm themselves for the antitypical war, but only certain select warriors (the Little Flock) from among them were so charged. The antitypical charge was carried out in several acts: (1) in the candidates for war coming into the Parousia Truth and its Spirit and (2) in their training themselves to use the Truth and its Spirit for defensive and offensive warfare against the controversialists for error and against the Truth (Midian—strife). This charge was carried out, therefore, in pantomime; and it was given by our Lord through such servants of the Truth as brought by their teachings and exhortations the pertinent ones into the Truth and its Spirit and encouraged them afterwards to put on the whole armor of God (Eph. 6: 10-18; 2 Cor. 6: 7; 10: 3-5; Rom. 13: 12; 1 Thes. 5: 8). As implied above, the Midianite warriors represent controversialists who defend error and attack Truth. Those under study (vs. 2, 3, 7-11) were mainly but not exclusively the nominal-church controversialists; since they also included all the sifters (slaughter weapon men) of the Parousia, those among the Truth and the Nominal people of God, as well as those apart from these, e.g., unbelieving, spiritistic, etc., controversialists. The Little Flock so armed and trained were in the Parousia to go forth to war for Truth and righteousness against the antitypical Midianite warriors ("let them go against the Midianites").
(6) The object of the typical warfare is given as follows: "Let them … avenge the Lord of Midian" (v. 3). The same remark as was made on the Hebrew
word nakam above (v. 2) applies here to the word translated avenge, except that here the verb avenge is a free translation of a verb and noun literally to be rendered, to give, or render, vindication, the noun for vindication here being nikmat, derived from nakam. Accordingly, the clause should be rendered, "Let them … render the Lord's vindication on Midian." In the type the vindication of the Lord was for the evil done Him at Peor (Num. 25: 1-18; 31: 16). We are not to understand that there is a contradiction between vs. 2 and 3 in the charge to vindicate Israel and in the charge to vindicate the Lord; for the harmony between the two statements is to be found in the interrelation of God and His people, since the Midianites sinned against both God and Israel in the matter of Baal Peor; hence both were to be vindicated in the proposed war. These same considerations apply to God and antitypical Israel. Both of them were sinned against by antitypical Midian. Above we saw how this was done against antitypical Israel. We now proceed to show how this was done against God. The defenders of the creeds and the attackers of the Truth in the nominal church have vilified, blasphemed, traduced, slandered, vituperated and misrepresented God in His person, character, plan and works, by their false teachings, organizations, and practices. Through the nominal church doctrines of the trinity, human immortality, eternal torment, the consciousness of the dead, the bliss of the righteous dead, the misery of the unrighteous dead, no future probation, post-Millennialism, the object and manner of Christ's Second Advent, the resurrection, the judgment day and the eternal state of the saved and lost, the union of church and state, the organization of various of the denominations and many of their usages and practices, the nominal church controversialists have greatly vilified, blasphemed, traduced, slandered, vituperated and misrepresented God's person, character, plan and works. The
sifters among the Truth people have done more or less of these things through their forms of no-ransomism infidelism, combinationism, reformism and contradictionism. So, too, have aggressive atheists, materialists, evolutionists, agnostics, pantheists, secularists, rationalists, deists, higher critics and polytheists, done more or less of these things to God. And all of such antitypical Midianites have done these things in opposition to the stand that God's people have taken on them in the exposition and defense of God's person, character, plan and works, as due for them to see these, and therein have vilified, blasphemed, traduced, slandered, vituperated and misrepresented God and His people.
(7) And certainly the Parousia time was a time in which God and His people were vindicated. The widespread attacks on the errors of these three classes of controversialists, the far-flung successful exposition and defense of God's Word and the world-wide refutation of all attacks upon it from all sources, during the Parousia effected these two vindications. Thus God's people throughout the Age as they stood for what of Truth was in their time due were vindicated as the exponent of the Truth, while the expounders and defenders of error and the attackers of the Truth were refuted and set forth as errorists. And the magnificent presentation of the Truth in the Parousia on God's person, character, plan and works was a wonderful vindication of God in these four respects. The vindication was, of course, a spiritual one, spiritual as to its weapons, disposition, methods and manner. Thus it was a vindication conformable to God and His people. The Society in following its president is now setting forth a vindication that is unworthy of God and of His people, in that it is done in large part with false weapons, bad spirit, faulty methods and inappropriate manner. It is also an evil vindication, since in bloodthirstiness it calls for the killing of almost the entire human race in Armageddon as the act of vindication
itself, while God's people's vindication is alleged to be their not dying in Armageddon! Such is the counterfeit vindication that the little pope of little Babylon teaches for the real one that occurred during the Parousia. In comparison, the counterfeit is as the darkness of the Arctic circle, while the true vindication is as the brightness of balmy May in the temperate zone.
(8) The thousand (vs. 4, 5) delivered for the war from each of the twelve secular tribes (the sacred tribe of Levi was exempt from participation in Israel's wars), constituted a select army of 12,000, while the census given in Num. 26 shows that there were in Israel at that time over 600,000 warriors. This suggests the thought that these 12,000 warriors represent the faithful Little Flock in the flesh during the Parousia. This thought is corroborated by several considerations: (1) According to v. 49 not one of these 12,000 fell in the war with the Midianites, which is in line with the thought that none of the Faithful fall in the antitypical war (Ps. 91: 7; Mal. 3: 2). (2) According to v. 7 they slew all the Midianite warriors, who presumably outnumbered them, which is in line with the thought that the Faithful overthrew the Parousia enemies of the Truth, who are more numerous than they (Is. 54: 17; Luke 21: 15). (3) The number 12 and its multiples stand in symbolic passages for the faithful Little Flock and Little Flock matters, e.g., the 12 antitypical tribes, 12,000 in each tribe (Rev. 7: 4-8), the 144,000 (Rev. 7: 4; 14: 1), the 12,000 furlongs and the 144 cubits (Rev. 21: 16, 17), the 12 gates, 12 angels, 12 apostles, 12 stones, 12 pearls and the 12 fruits yielded in each one of the 12 months (Rev. 21: 12, 14, 19, 20, 21; 22: 2). And (4) the facts of the antitype which will later be brought out fully corroborate this thought. The fact that there were 12,000 soldiers chosen for the typical war, and not 144,000, is in line with the thought that the Parousia yielded not all, but a part of the Little Flock. Nor
does it seem reasonable to take the 12,000 typical warriors to type just that many antitypical warriors as constituting the number of the Parousia Little Flock. In great likelihood more than 12,000 of the Little Flock were developed during the Parousia. Rather, we believe that the 12,000 typical warriors were used because that number, as a multiple of 12, serves well to show that the faithful Parousia Little Flock is meant in the antitype. Jesus gave the charge of v. 4 in pantomime, i.e., by calling out of the twelve denominations through the Harvest work the Little Flock there, the comparatively few coming into the Little Flock from the field, the world, being ignored in this picture. V. 5 was fulfilled antitypically in that there came out of the nominal church the Little Flock members in it, and were thereafter fitted to become its warriors.
(9) V. 6 tells of Moses' sending forth to the war with Midian these 12,000 warriors and Phinehas, who was the eldest son of the high priest Eleazar, and who bore in his hand as the holy instruments the two silver trumpets (Num. 10: 1-10). The word ve, rendered and in the last clause of v. 6, should have been rendered even, one of the three meanings of that word, because the only instruments of the tabernacle designed for war uses were the two silver trumpets, which were blown by the priests alone (Num. 10: 9). Let us keep in mind that the work of the Parousia is set forth not only in literal statements, but also from the standpoint of a variety of figures, e.g., the harvest (Matt. 13: 24-33, 37-43; Rev. 14: 14-17), fishing (Matt. 4: 19; 13: 47-50), a war (Rev. 19: 11-21), etc. Each of these figures brings out a different viewpoint of the Parousia work. Our study presents the matter from the standpoint of the war figure. Moses' sending forth the 12,000 represents our Lord's sending forth His Parousia Faithful to war for Truth and righteousness against the error and unrighteousness of antitypical Midian. Moses' sending forth Phinehas, the
chief under-priest, with the soldiers to the war, as the chief commander, which his possession of the trumpets made him, types our Lord's sending forth Brother Russell, the chief Under-priest in the flesh with the rest of the Parousia Faithful, as the chief commander, which his possession of the antitypical trumpets made him. We have already shown from Num. 10: 1-10 that the two great Gospel-Age messages: (1) the reckoned and actual human salvation, and (2) the Divine salvation, are the two antitypical trumpets. (Vol. VIII, Chap. X.) We have also shown there that Num. 10: 8 proves that it was more especially the prerogative of the mouthpiece Priests to blow these trumpets and that alarms were to be blown in time of war. These thoughts enable us better to understand that Phinehas' bearing these trumpets in his hands types our Pastor's ministering with the messages of the two great salvations. And Phinehas' taking these with him to the war, combined with the charge that they should be blown by the priests in war times (Num. 10: 9), and the fact that the Hebrew word translated to blow in v. 6 means blow an alarm, proves that our Pastor is here typed from the standpoint of his controversial activities during the Parousia war.
(10) Symbolic war is waged in three ways: (1) a setting forth of the Truth constructively as contrasted with error; (2) a defense of the Truth against the attacks of error; and (3) an attack on error. When we examine our Pastor's writings or call to mind his sermons, lectures, conversations, debates and answers to questions, we find that they abound in these three forms of warfare. He almost never touched upon a subject on which special error was taught unless, before he had finished with it, he engaged in controversy on it in one or two or three of the forms of fighting error set forth in the first sentence of this paragraph. Sometimes the controversial element was more, sometimes less prominent in his writings and speech; but it was almost
always present whenever a controversial subject was under discussion. This can be seen in his Studies, Towers, sermons, tracts, magazine and newspaper articles, booklets and letters. And those who conversed with him on controversial subjects or who heard him on such subjects in sermons, lectures, debates, conversations, and question meetings, will recall that this statement is a fact. Hence a large part of his ministry was devoted to controversy with the three sets of antitypical Midianites mentioned above. It is this warring feature of his ministry that is typed by Phinehas' bearing in his hands the two silver trumpets for alarm-blowing purposes. While the following as such is not directly pictured in the type, it is nevertheless a fact that for the most part our controversial weapons during the Parousia warfare were gotten almost exclusively from what we gathered from his writings and oral teachings. It is because of his great prominence as a controversialist and of his leading the Faithful in their controversies against the antitypical Midianites that he is typed as an individual by Phinehas in the story of Num. 31. This fact occasions our calling this chapter an annual memorial article for him. God bless his memory, among other things as it appears in the fights for Truth and righteousness that he waged and helped others to wage, as well as in leading them therein.
(11) V. 7 briefly describes the fighting of this war. This is perhaps the most remarkable war ever waged; for in it every warrior on the one side was slain ("slew all the males") and on the other side not even one soldier fell (v. 49). That the Midianites were a numerous nation is evident from the fact that, despite the losses of this war in slain and prisoners, less than 100 years later their warriors constituted the majority of the host of 135,000 invaders of Canaan, in Gideon's day (Judges 6: 1-7; 8: 10). From the latter fact we can see that all the males of v. 7 mean all the Midianitish warriors, not the other males of the nation,
another part of whom—boys—were later slain (v. 17). But these warriors must have been more numerous than the 12,000 Israelites. The antitype suggests the same thought; for the three classes of Truth opponents and error exponents of the Parousia were very much more numerous than the Parousia Little Flock. The only way that we can account for every soldier of the more numerous and not one of the less numerous side falling is that God wrought a miracle in this war, doubtless using angels to paralyze the Midianites with fear and weakness in order to furnish a type that would picture forth the planned antitype. What is typed by this war? The controversies between the Little Flock (hence not between all Truth people; for some of these fell in the Parousia, while none of the antitypical 12,000 fell) on the one side and the three classes of erroneous Parousia controversialists on the other side. The slaying of the Midianites types the refutation of the erroneous Parousia controversialists, not of course a literal slaying, as no such a thing occurred on either side during the Parousia. All the Midianitish soldiers being slain types the fact that in every conflict that the faithful Parousia brethren entered they refuted their adversaries, which God Himself promised as their portion (Is. 54: 17; Luke 21: 15). The Israelites' warring, as the Lord commanded Moses, implies two things in the type and antitype: (1) The war was carried out in obedience to the Lord; and (2) was carried out in His Spirit. These two facts are another proof that in this picture the Parousia Little Flock is typed by the 12,000.
(12) When we look back at the Parousia controversies, we see that the above-suggested antitypes are true. Certainly, of all times of the Gospel Age the Parousia was a time of controversy. Not only is this seen in the attacks made on the Truth and the Bible in that time by the three classes of antitypical Midianite warriors; and not only is this seen in our Pastor's part
in the controversies of that time; but it is also seen in the parts taken in those controversies by other Little Flock members, especially by the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims typed by the captains of thousands and captains of hundreds (vs. 14, 48-54). The pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims in their lectures, sermons, answers to questions, conversations, lecture reports in the newspapers, debates and letters, gave evidence of the controversial element as present in their ministry. The elders in their lessons, answers to questions, letters and conversations, manifested the controversial side as being in evidence in their ministry. The unofficial parts of the faithful Little Flock exemplified in their conversations and letters the same feature in their ministries. The colporteurs did the same more or less in their canvass and related conversations, and self-evidently in their sale of books and booklets. The volunteers incident to their work distributed controversial literature. So did the faithful brethren who engaged in other branches of the work, like the faithful Bible House workers, extension workers, photo-drama workers, newspaper workers, sharpshooters, etc. On all sides these controversies were carried on. The zeal of both sides in this warfare occasioned it, particularly that of the faithful Little Flock. All Parousia Little Flock members can recall more or less arguments along the lines of Truth and error into which they were drawn with attackers of Truth or defenders of error in the Parousia. Yes, it was a time of symbolic warfare in which the defenders of error and the attackers of Truth went down into defeat, and in which every Little Flock member was victorious.
(13) Beside all the rest of the slain warriors the 12,000 slew the five kings of Midian (v. 8): Evi (luster), Rekem (variformed; variegated), Zur (combination), Hur (noble) and Reba (four-sided), and Balaam (swallower of the people or glutton) the son of Beor (torch). We understand the five kings of Midian to
type the same as the five Parousia slaughter-weapon men. These evidently were chief error-advocates of the Parousia. Not only the facts of the case are in line with this thought, but the meanings of their names also suggest it. Evi, as meaning luster, is in line with what St. Paul (1 Cor. 10: 6) and Moses (Num. 11: 4, 34) say of them. Rekem, as meaning variformed, or variegated, suggests the many subgroups in each of the three sets of the infidelistic sifters (those in the sanctuary, those in the courts and those in the city or camp), e.g., those in the city or camp consist of atheists, agnostics, materialists, evolutionists, pantheists, secularists, rationalists, deists, higher critics and polytheists. Surely the infidelistic sifters in their third subdivision were variformed, variegated. There were more parties to this than to any other of the sifting classes. Zur, as meaning combination, i.e., things pressed together into one whole, at once suggests the sifters who stood for combinationism. Hur, as meaning noble, suggests the nobility of the reformers' objects in seeking to set aside evil conditions and in seeking to inaugurate good ones among mankind. Reba, as meaning four-sided, suggests the four-sided attack they made on the Truth; for they attacked various phases of the Truth on the four subjects: Mediator, Covenants, Sin-offerings and the Ransom. And Balaam (swallower of the people, glutton) the son of Beor (torch), types the clergy as being more or less of Truth teachers (torch) who in their lording consumed the people and in their greediness swallowed (appropriated to themselves) all the rewards of unrighteousness, like riches, honor, power, influence and ease, that they could get (2 Pet. 2: 15; Jude 11). The antitypical 12,000 slew these in the sense that by the Truth (the sword, v. 8) they refuted their errors and convicted them of wrong-doing. All of the remaining faithful Parousia Little Flock members will recall that this was then fulfilled by them in their many controversies.
(14) In v. 9 it will be noted that the word all in the first clause is in italics, which means that it is interpolated. The interpolation is an unhappy one. If the statement were true, and if the thought that the A. V. suggests in v. 7 of all males were true, the whole nation as such would have perished, since the captive boys were all slain and all women not slain (vs. 17, 18) were incorporated into Israel. The many Midianites with whom Gideon had to cope prove that the whole nation as such did not perish. The literal translation of v. 9 is: "The sons of Israel took captive women and children of Midian and they made spoil of all their cattle, of all their sheep and of all their goods." In other words, while they slew all the warriors of Midian and took all their moveable property as spoil and captured many of their women and children, the civilian men and some of the women and children escaped, which is proved by the fact that a large host of Midianites invaded Canaan in the times of Gideon. Who were the captured antitypical Midianitish women and children? The Midianitish women were more or less developed errorists who did not continue to fight or who never fought for the errors of the Parousia times, while the Midianitish children were undeveloped errorists who passed through the same experiences. How in the antitype were Midianitish women and children made captives? By being convinced through the Little Flock's refutations of antitypical Midian's errors of their erroneousness and by being convinced through the Little Flock's Truth presentations that these were genuinely Scriptural. In other words, by such antitypical Midianites being delivered from error and being brought into the Truth by the Little Flock's Truth presentations they were made the antitypical captives of the antitypical 12,000.
(15) The antitypical Midianitish captive women and children were a mixed multitude. Some were new creatures, which is true of all the antitypes of the virgins
among them, and which was true of part of the rest of the antitypical women captives, while the rest of them never had been new creatures. The antitypical Midianitish captive boys were also mixed, some being new creatures, others not. By the sheep we understand the humanity of the new creatures to be typed and by the cattle there was typed the fact that their humanity was justified, even as these animals in the tabernacle were used to represent these things. In Bible symbols asses are in general used to represent Truth teachings, as can be seen from the ass that Balaam rode, representing the Truth teachings that bore his antitype (Num. 21: 21-33; 2 Pet. 2: 16), as can be seen from the fact that our Lord's being true to the Truth is symbolized by Shiloh binding the ass' colt to the choice vine (Gen. 49: 11), and by our Lord's riding into Jerusalem upon an ass and its colt (Matt. 21: 5, 7; John 12: 15) as typing His coming in kingly power into Christendom, riding on the doctrines of the Ransom and the Second Advent, in 1878, more especially as these were set forth in the tract, Manner and Object of Our Lord's Return, and the book, The Three Worlds. Many other references in the types and symbols corroborate this thought. The 12,000 capturing the asses would type the Parousia Little Flock appropriating to themselves the truths that are in Babylon's creeds, e.g., the twelve stewardship doctrines, etc. The asses here would also type the truths that the Little Flock in the Parousia appropriated from other nominal church writings. And the other goods that the 12,000 captured would type the various Levitical writings which the antitypical 12,000 have appropriated to themselves and from which they have gotten various linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic helps on Biblical matters. The inanimate things, "the goods," that the 12,000 and their officers captured seem to type two other things: the graces, e.g., as appears from the antitypes of the jewels and garments that the Israelites got by asking from
the Egyptians, and certain Truth presentations like discourses, writings, lessons and conversation material, as will be seen when we examine vs. 50-54. The efforts of the antitypical 12,000 as they sought to show forth the Lord's Spirit in their controversies with antitypical Midianites gave them these graces and Truths as spoils of battle. Certainly in the campaign waged during the Parousia the Little Flock took the above-described captives, prey and spoil; and by taking such booty they left the antitypical Midianites that escaped death and captivity diminished in numbers and impoverished of wealth in teaching and graces.
(16) V. 10 tells us that Israel burned all their cities and goodly castles. Thus they devastated the land of Midian, which further impoverished the escaped of the nation. In Biblical symbols a city represents a religious government, as can be seen from the instances of Babylon (Rev. 17: 5, 18), New Jerusalem (Rev. 21: 2, 10—22: 3) and the five cities of symbolic Egypt, the five denominations that in Europe are united with state (Is. 19: 18). To burn with fire these symbolic cities would mean by the Truth to destroy them as alleged Divinely authorized religious governments, i.e., completely expose the fraudulence of their claims to be God's Church. Castles or palaces, as fortresses, in Bible symbols represent chief teachings as the strong dwelling places of believers in them (Ps. 48: 3, 13; 78: 69; 122: 7). Antitypical Midian's goodly castles were her various main erroneous teachings. In the nominal church part of antitypical Midian such castles or fortresses were the doctrines of the trinity, human immortality, the consciousness of the dead, the dead being in bliss or torment, eternal torment, probation limited to this life, post-Millennialism, doomsday, etc. Others' errors, like the five siftings' errors, are others of these goodly castles. For Israel's 12,000 to burn by fire typical Midian's goodly castles would type the Parousia Little Flock utterly destroying as tenable teachings, by
the Word of God as a symbolic fire, which it is in relation to error (2 Kings 1: 10-14), the above-mentioned and other errors, in which, as in fortresses or castles, the antitypical Midianites were entrenched. We know, some of us from participation, some of us from observation and some of us from information, that such a symbolic destruction took place through the Parousia Little Flock's warfare. Thus were God and God's Gospel-Age Israel vindicated by the Little Flock's Parousia campaign against the errorists, and thereby was the Parousia warfare on error and errorists ended, even as the typical 12,000 by their campaign against Midian vindicated God and Israel as against Midian and brought to an end their campaign.
(17) In vs. 11, 12, what was done with the captives and spoil is set forth. By the prey the living things captured seem to be meant (vs. 11, 12, 26, 27; in v. 12 the expression, "and the prey," after the word, "captives," should be rendered, "even the prey"); and by the spoil the inanimate things captured seem to be meant (vs. 11, 12, 53). The taking of these, mentioned in v. 11, seems to mean, not their initial capture, which is described in v. 9, but the better securing of them preparatory to bringing them to Israel's camp. Antitypically this would mean the Little Flock's getting a firmer hold on their symbolic prey and spoil. This was done by their more thoroughly indoctrinating the captives, as to their new-creaturely and human privileges, by their getting a better hold on the truths that they took away from the antitypical Midianites, and by their getting a stronger development of the captured graces and special teaching features that their engaging in this warfare gave them. The typical Israelitish army bringing the prey and spoil (v. 12) to Moses types the Parousia Little Flock bringing the persons that they won for the Truth, the truths that they took away from the creeds and Levite writings, the Levite works themselves and the graces and their discourses, writings, lessons and
conversation material, to Jesus as booty won especially for Him as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God to antitypical Israel.
(18) The Israelites' bringing these to Eleazar types the Parousia Little Flock's bring similar things to Jesus as their High Priest. The 12,000 Israelites' bringing the prey and spoil to the congregation types the Parousia Little Flock's bringing similar things among God's Parousia people, e.g., whenever any of us won someone for the Truth we brought him as soon as we could among the brethren; and happy indeed were we to be privileged so to do. The Israelites' bringing these to the camp at the plains of Moab types the fact that the antitype was performed while God's Gospel-Age people were at their last wilderness station, wherein they dwelt in territory, the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit, that once was in possession of the Roman Catholic Church, which usually Moab types, while usually Ammon types Protestantism. The reason that the last Parousia camp was located in the former, Roman Catholic, territory, is that Romanism is a complete counterfeit of the Truth and its Spirit, whereas Protestantism is not; hence in getting the Truth and its Spirit as its Parousia and Epiphany camping place, the Little Flock wrested these spheres out of the hands of Romanism, i.e., turned these into the genuine by the needed changes from the counterfeit to the true. The expression, "which was beside the Jericho Jordan," types the fact that the Church's last Gospel-Age station was outside but near the nominal church (Jericho) when about to leave this earth for the Kingdom by death (Jordan), a thing that was not true of any pre-harvest stage of the Church.
(19) Moses, Eleazar and all the princes of the congregation (v. 13) going forth to meet the returning army types our Lord Jesus, as the Divinely appointed Leader, Executive and Mouthpiece for God to antitypical Israel (Moses), Himself as the Church's High
Priest (Eleazar) and all the leaders among God's people (all the princes), welcoming the Little Flock as from each stage of the war its individual members would return with their prey and spoil. While in the type such a return was done once for all, in the antitype each time some prey or spoil was won these were brought in among the Lord's people. All of us know, whether by experience, observation or information, that such welcoming occurred as one by one at various times the Little Flock brethren brought back prey and spoil gained in their warfare with antitypical Midian. The welcoming of the 12,000 without the camp represents that the antitype was performed while the victors were yet in the flesh and thus in more or less disharmony and unpopularity with the camp condition. Moses' and Eleazar's share in such welcoming finds a somewhat parallel act with the same general antitypical meaning in Melchizedeck's going forth to meet Abraham returning from slaughtering the four (not five) kings (Gen. 14: 18; Heb. 7: 1, 2), the four kings representing the sifters of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth siftings, the no-ransomistic and infidelistic sifters not being represented in this picture, because antitypical Lot (the Great Company) was not captured by any phase of no-ransomism and infidelism, but he was captured by more or less attenuated phases of the other four sifting errors, e.g., the sons of antitypical Korah, who antitype certain Kohathite Levites (Num. 26: 9-11), were captured by the fifth set of sifters. But according to v. 14, Moses was angry at the captains of thousands and of hundreds, while the reverse of anger, pleasure, is implied in the attitude of Melchizedek. But this would not imply a contradiction in the antitype. Both antitypes were factual, one bringing out Jesus' pleasure in the victors for the good they did, the other implying His displeasure for certain evils that they did, as a further study of the types and antitypes will prove. This is only another illustration of the fact that