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


the ability of a mind short of omniscient. Hence this matter under study proves God's omniscience and the inspiration of the entire story, as well as of the whole Bible, of which this story is a part. Doubtless God used angels to see to it that the exact number of units in each of the four kinds of spoil was captured. We saw as to the fact that every Midianitish warrior was slain (v. 7), and will see as to the fact that no Israelite warrior was slain (v. 49), that the angels must have intervened against the Midianites and for the Israelites, so in securing the exact number of units in each of the four kinds of spoil they must at God's direction have seen to it that the exact number of the four involved kinds of units were represented in the spoil. In other words, the battle itself resulted as it did by a miracle, and the total amount of the four kinds of spoil and the number of each kind came as a result of a miracle. A third consideration is involved in this matter: The Epiphany teachings alone of the teachings held among the various groups of the Lord's people claim that the Epiphany work is one involving among other things, the separation between the Little Flock and the Great Company; and here is a type that facts prove divides the Harvest into its two periods, assigning its gathering part to the Parousia and its separating part to the Epiphany, which proves that the Epiphany movement is the Priestly one at this time. Well might we say, "How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!"


(44) It will be noted that v. 31 states that Moses and Eleazar made the divisions as God commanded. While they and the chief fathers of the congregation were commanded to take the sum, count the spoil, which all of them did in the type, whose antitype we have already explained, yet only Moses and Eleazar were commanded to make the various involved divisions. The chief fathers did not do this. Why not? Because in the antitype the crown-lost leaders of the groups, during,



the Epiphany being Azazel led, could not participate intelligently in such a work. They are so confused that they are incapable of cooperating in such a separation. The fact that they claim that their divisions are Little Flock movements and in many cases claim that the Priestly movement is a second death movement proves that they could not supervise the division. Aaron's dealing with Azazel's goat is in harmony with the same thought. That our Lord as the Divinely appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader of antitypical Israel, as Moses' antitype, and that the World's High Priest, Head and Body, as Reconciler, antitypical of Eleazar (see also Aaron dealing with Azazel's goat), supervise this division of the two classes, is evident from the nature of their official functions. Accordingly, the facts of the fulfillment are in harmony with the type. Accordingly, the Epiphany Under-priests may rejoicingly take the sneers, taunts and upbraidings of the Levites that they are dividing the Lord's people; for they truly cooperate with and under their Head in such work, as properly belonging to their Epiphany service. Thus our study of vs. 1-24 proves that they type the main Parousia works, under the figure of Israel's war with Midian; so our study of vs. 25-47 proves that they type the main Epiphany works, under the figure of dividing the spoils of that war. Certainly this study should be most refreshing to our faith, hope, love, and obedience! The Lord be praised therefore.


(45) There is a final episode connected with this war, given in vs. 48-54, that which refers to the captains' report and offerings. The facts of the case prove that this episode types certain Parousia matters involving the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims. Above we showed that the captains of thousands type the twelve leading pilgrims in their capacity of working toward the public, and that the captains of the hundreds type the rest of the pilgrims and the auxiliary pilgrims in their capacity of working toward the public. Doubtless



the Lord did not cause the episode to occur and then be recorded immediately after the events and record of vs. 124, because He desired the more important Parousia and Epiphany matters to be typed in closer connection with one another than the insertion of this episode between them would allow. Hence He followed the logical, rather than the chronological order in the antitype of this matter, though the types followed in the order given. The captains are set forth in vs. 48, 49, as giving their report to Moses, typing the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims reporting the antitypical matter to Jesus as God's appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for antitypical Israel. The report was that they had counted the warriors (v. 49) and that not one of Israel's twelve thousand warriors had fallen. This types the fact that the antitypical captains by describing in their teachings the antitypical 12,000, the Little Flock, in the Parousia time, reported that not one of them had been refuted (symbolically slain). Let us note well how the antitypical counting was done. It consisted of an accurate description of the faithful Little Flock. A part of such a description would be teaching that they fought in the Lord's Spirit the good fight of the Truth to its complete vindication as against the opposing error, and that in that fight they were victors over sin, selfishness and worldliness, and thus over error. Thus none of them fell. In the type, as already suggested, this was due to a miracle; and certainly in the antitype it was a miracle of grace that these overcame.


(46) We are told (v. 50) that the captains brought an oblation to the Lord. In the type this consisted of gold jewels—chains and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets [perfume boxes]. If we can determine what the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims brought to the Lord that others did not bring to Him, we will recognize what the captains' oblation types, since none but these brought such an oblation (v. 53). These were



the discourses of the Parousia general elders delivered before the General Church. Only these pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims brought such at that time. Hence we understand that the jewels of gold brought by the captains type these discourses. It will be noted that the jewels of gold were of five different kinds; chains [necklaces], bracelets, rings, earrings and perfume boxes. These type the five different kinds of discourses that the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims brought to the Lord. Chains or necklaces represent the ornaments of the new will. In the Bible the neck is used to represent the will. Hence a stubborn-willed person is Scripturally spoken of as stiffnecked (Ps. 75: 5; Prov. 29: 1; Acts 7: 51). A will renewed into oneness with the Lord's will is set forth as a neck decked with figurative chains or necklaces, which are its ornaments (Prov. 1: 9; 3: 3, 22; 6: 20, 21; Cant. 1: 10; 4: 4; 7: 4). Accordingly, the necklaces of v. 50 represent the discourses on the new will and its ornaments, prepared and delivered by the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims before the General Church. The bracelets that the captains brought represent the Parousia pilgrims' and auxiliary pilgrims' discourses on service and conduct. The following considerations will clarify this: Bracelets in Palestine were worn on the wrists and ankles. In Biblical symbols the hands represent service (Rev. 13: 16; 14: 9; 20: 4); and the feet represent conduct (Ps. 116: 8; 119: 59, 101, 105; Prov. 1: 16; 4: 26). Since bracelets were in Palestine hands and feet ornaments, they would represent good services for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, when worn on the wrists, and good conduct when worn on the ankles. Hence the discourses of the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims before the General Church on matters of service and conduct are represented by the bracelets that the captains offered.


(47) In Bible symbols rings represent new-creatureship as God's pentecostal blessing to His Gospel-Age



consecrated (Luke 15: 22, see comment; Ex. 35: 22, where, except the necklace, the same jewels as are mentioned in v. 50 are enumerated). Accordingly, we understand these rings to represent the Parousia pilgrims' and auxiliary pilgrims' discourses before the General Church on the New Creature, which, having many aspects, furnished them with a wide range of subjects for discussion. Earrings are ornaments of the ears. Ears in Bible symbols represent understanding, especially of the things of faith (Matt. 11: 15; 13: 15, 16; Luke 4: 21; 9: 44). Accordingly, we understand earrings to represent the ornament of a believing understanding, and thus the faith. Hence the captains bringing the earrings as an oblation for the Lord type the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims bringing for the Lord's service their discourses on the matters of the Truth before the General Church. Here again a great variety of subjects were open to their use, and they made use of them. The last ornament mentioned in the A. V. of v. 50 is tablets. The Hebrew word here translated tablets [old English for pendants] is chumaz, perfume box. When we consider the antitype we think that the rendering perfume boxes makes the needed sense. In Bible symbols perfume represents that which is very acceptable and appreciable— the graces. (Ex. 30: 35, 37; 35: 8, 15, 28; Cant. 3: 6; 2 Cor. 2: 15—Diaglott; Eph. 5: 2). The perfume arising from the incense represents the graces, especially the higher primary graces. These perfume boxes, therefore, represent the Parousia pilgrims' and auxiliary pilgrims' discourses before the General Church on the graces. On the graces as sweet perfume to the Lord and all having His Spirit, there is much material, and this the antitypical captains laid hold of for many discourses. Without any doubt the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims did offer as oblations for the Lord discourses on the new will, on service and conduct, on the New Creature, on the things of faith and their understanding and on



the graces. Thus our understanding is in harmony with the Bible, reason and facts. Hence we believe that it is the true one.


(48) At the end of v. 50 the statement is made that the captains were bringing the oblation to make an atonement for their souls. As the speech of the captains hitherto examined, like almost all other typical speeches, was fulfilled antitypically in pantomime, so this part of it was fulfilled in pantomime. On first thought the statement seems strange, that the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims were by preparing and delivering their discourses (capturing the jewels and offering them) making an atonement for themselves before the Lord; for does not our Lord's merit atone for all our Adamic imperfections? Assuredly so. But this seeming strangeness fades away when we remember that to make atonement or reconciliation involves two works: (1) making God pleased with everything in us, and (2) making us pleased with everything in God; for in reconciliation each party at variance must be made pleased with the other. It is the work of Jesus alone, and that through His merit, to make atonement in the first sense of the word—to satisfy God with everything in us; for it was for this that He died and rose again (Rom. 4: 25; 2 Cor. 5: 18, 19, 21). But atonement in its second part is not the work of Jesus alone, though ministerially He takes the initial step in each of its acts to effect it. We must co-operate with Him in effecting it, by a faithful use of God's Spirit, Word and providences, ridding ourselves of every thing of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in us that hinders our becoming pleased with everything in God, and by developing everything of justice, Truth, love and heavenly-mindedness that is pleased with everything in God. It is the part of this second work of atonement or reconciliation, effected through our Lord's ministry in and by the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims, that is in v. 50 typed by the captains through



their oblations making an atonement for their souls (themselves) before the Lord.


(49) How was this done? A few examples will clarify this process for all cases. We will refer first to a pertinent experience of our Pastor wherein he overcame an overweening fear for the sheep, and wherein he did not sufficiently trust the Lord's Word that no man could take His sheep out of His hands (John 10: 28). This experience of our Pastor was connected with the antitype of Jashobeam's breaking through the ranks of the Philistine host at Bethlehem and getting water from the well at its gate for David (1 Chro. 11: 11, 18). When Mr. Barbour, in attempted justification of his no-ransomism, gave in his magazine a plausible, but sophistical interpretation of the sin-offerings of Lev. 16, conscious that his and Mr. Barbour's magazines were going into practically the same hands, our Pastor feared greatly for the true sheep, that the error on the subject might lead them into a fatal denial of the ransom. This fear reached an extreme height. What our Pastor did in this connection we will give in Chap. VI, where it will fit better than here. It was this fear in our Pastor for the Flock that gave the demons the approach to him whereby they greatly plagued him. And he strenuously fought them in their attacks on him through this fear, until he so thoroughly overcame them that by the time he got to the antitypical well and dipped out the pertinent portion, the Truth on the sin-offerings, typed in Lev. 16, his fear was overcome. Instead of hastening to spread this message before the Church, he saw that the Truth therein contained was so great as to justify his first calling together in a conference the leading brethren in the Truth, who spent eight days in earnest study of the involved matters, and at the end of that time were all convinced that it was true. Then he preached on the subject before the Allegheny Church. Then, perhaps three or four months after first coming to the understanding



of Lev. 16, he prepared for, and published in the Feb., 1880, Tower the first article on the tabernacle after he came to see the Truth on Lev. 16. In the March, 1880, Tower appeared the first article on Lev. 16, after the pertinent experience. His inordinate fear was overcome. He had the fulness of peace in the assurance that no man was able to take the sheep out of the good Shepherd's hand. In this great struggle that he had with demons who tried to block his way to the antitypical well, he made an atonement for his soul before the Lord, i.e., he brought himself into harmony with the Lord in the faith that the good Shepherd is to be trusted by each under-shepherd, as keeping His sheep safely. It was at the end of this experience of victory over fear that the Lord gave him the second and chief function of his office of that Servant, charge of the storehouse, he having had since the Spring of 1876 its first function, charge of the household. For the proper functioning of this office it was indispensable for him to come into factual harmony with the Lord's arrangement that the good Shepherd had the responsibility for the sheep and would be faithful and efficient in discharging that responsibility, otherwise he would have been constantly busybodying with our Lord's work.


(50) We will now give Bro. Barton's pertinent experience as the antitype of Shammah, David's third most powerful captain (2 Sam. 23: 11, 16), getting his water from that well. Bro. Barton's pertinent weakness was that of fault-finding wherein he was not concerned—he took umbrage at the course of Bro. Russell with A. E. Williamson in 1908 and 1909, when the latter in his attempting to oust the former from the leadership of the work publicly attacked him, was dismissed first from private-secretaryship and later from the pilgrim work, and then later for his continued sifting work was written against by Bro. Russell. In his pertinent course Bro. Russell was thoroughly justified; but Bro. Barton felt that Bro. Russell had not



tried hard enough to recover A. E. Williamson, and therefore took umbrage at his pertinent course. The demons worked on this weakness of Bro. Barton; but he struggled hard against them and gained the victory in the battle: he came to see that his course was one of fault-finding and busybodying and put it aside. After that he gained access to the well and brought out of it the truth that between 1874 and 1878 Jesus by personal encounters with Satan bound him, preparatory to spoiling his house—the demons in their empire over earth (Z '10, 315, 316). But this battle of his had to be fought in order to make an atonement before the Lord—make himself pleased with God's way of ordering the Harvest's management through that Servant.


(51) The antitype of Eleazar (2 Sam. 23: 9, 16) is another brother, who had the weakness of not being properly adjusted in his relations to that Servant as the primary dispenser of the meat in due season. E.g., when brethren would ask him questions on Scriptures that had not been explained by that Servant, instead of declining to answer, on the ground that the Lord had not yet made the matter clear through that Servant, he would venture his own understanding, all the while, however, believing that, not he, but our Pastor was that Servant. In 1910 the Lord brought him face to face with the condition. The question assumed this form: As a teacher of the General Church in relation to that Servant's functions as the Lord's special mouthpiece, what course should he pursue, to avoid, on the one hand, the bowing down and drinking prone in the worship of the messenger, and, on the other hand, giving thoughts to the brethren on Scriptures not first interpreted by that Servant; for he had previously come to see that the latter course was not a right one, as he also had seen that it was wrong to worship the messenger. On this question he had a long-drawn-out internal debate in which the keenest kinds of sophistries,



first from one extreme, then from the other extreme, then from not such distant extremes, were presented to his mind. It was by all odds the sharpest debate, either internal or external, that he ever had. By the Lord's grace he was enabled to beat back every attack made on him in the debate; all the time his will on the matter was laid down in the Lord's hand. Finally he emerged as victor in the battle when he came to see, and subjected himself to the thought, that our Pastor's office functions as that Servant forebade that he should give the brethren any new doctrinal, typical or prophetical thoughts until he had first presented them to that Servant and gotten his approval thereon, and that if they were matters of any importance he should not give them out until after that Servant had first given them to the Church. Thus through this struggle he learned the principles that should govern his office work as a general elder in his relations to that Servant's office prerogatives. Thus he made the atonement for his soul before the Lord, i.e., became pleased with the Lord in His arrangements as to the office prerogatives of that Servant and his relations to them. Immediately thereafter he arrived at the well and dipped from it, on the basis of 1 Cor. 10: 1-14, the Truth on the five harvest siftings in themselves and in their relation to the five harvest calls, and then brought it in writing to that Servant, who in Z '13, 198-200, poured out an outline of the pertinent Truth as a drink-offering before the Lord. As at his well experience the Lord gave our Pastor the final function of the office of that Servant, so He seems in connection with this well experience to have set this brother apart for the office of the Epiphany messenger; for much of the Epiphany Truth is based on what he got at the well, even as much of the Parousia Truth was based on what Bro. Russell got at his visit at that well. So does the Lord prepare His servants.


(52) Nor are we to think that the privilege of getting



something new or old out of the storehouse was limited to the three above-described brothers, who are here mentioned merely as striking examples of this kind of an experience. Our Lord assures us that every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven would be privileged so to do (Matt. 13: 52). In their case the new thing should always have been submitted to that Servant for approval and disposal before it was by them handed out to the household, on the principle that if any servant would find anything in the storehouse of which the steward had no knowledge he should bring it to him and let it be disposed of according to the steward's directions, and not, without his knowledge, approval and disposal, put it on the table for the household's fare. Nor does Matt. 13: 52 limit this privilege to the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims. Many of the elders (see Chap. II) have had the privilege of getting something new out of the storehouse. We may be sure that in all cases they did not get "things new" out of the storehouse until they had made an atonement for their souls before the Lord, i.e., ridded themselves of certain faults, and thus brought themselves into being pleased with certain things in the Lord, with which they were not formerly in accord. That this was in all cases done by the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims in connection with their taking things new and old from the storehouse and their working them up into discourses that they delivered before the General Church, we may be certain, since that is the thing typed of them in v. 50. Thus the Lord required as a preliminary to their getting things new and old out of the storehouse and working them up into discourses, that they make such a kind of an atonement before the Lord, rid themselves of some evil and become pleased with its opposite. Each Parousia pilgrim and auxiliary pilgrim who will make a study of his pertinent experiences will find that it so happened to him. And it was just like the dear Lord in His desire for their profit in



sanctification to put such a requirement on them and help them get blessings as they were loyal.


(53) We are assured in v. 51 that Moses and Eleazar received the jewels of gold at the hands of the captains. This types that the antitypical Moses, as the Divinely appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader, and the antitypical Eleazar, as the Church's High Priest (for this was a Parousia matter), received these discourses for the Divine service and used them there for the good of the Church. According to v. 52 the Lord's tribute was a heave-offering, which would type the fact that these discourses were offered to God to exalt Him in the estimation of the hearers, ascribing praise to His holy name. It will be noted that the shekel weight, 1650, of the jewels is not a multiple of 7; hence they are not to be understood as a work of God. It is not a multiple of 12; hence they are not a work of the Little Flock. While it is a multiple of 10, the quotient, 1,675, not being such a multiple, they are not a work of the Great Company. The facts also prove this; for these discourses were the work of 132 brothers, who are therefore neither the Little Flock, which is in this type represented by 12,000, nor the Great Company, since the Great Company would consist of more brethren yet than 132. Possibly the shekel weight, 16,750, is given to indicate the number of the pertinent discourses that were prepared and delivered by the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims. The statement of v. 53, that the men of war had taken spoil every one for himself, types the fact that the brethren apart from the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims did not prepare and deliver discourses for the General Church, which the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims did, as is implied in the expression, "before the Lord, "in v. 50. Their lessons or discourses or conversations, etc., were of a more private character—"for [or by] themselves," not before the General Church.



(54) Moses and Eleazar (v. 54) taking the jewels of the captains and bringing them into the tabernacle of the congregation for a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, types our Lord as the Divinely appointed Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader (Moses) and Church's High Priest (Eleazar) making such discourses memorials in the interests of antitypical Israel in public service as to things related to God (before the Lord). How was this done? By seeing to it that these discourses were in whole or part reduced to writing when as such they were publicly preserved in the Church as memorials. Some of these appeared as articles in the Tower, as sermons or lectures in the Convention Reports, whose official names are Souvenirs, so-called because of being memorials of the conventions; some of them appeared as sermons in various papers; some of them appeared as newspaper reports of lectures; some of them appeared as printed booklets (e.g., Bro. Barton's Discourses, Pastor Russell's Sermons) and some of them appeared as more or less elaborated notes or more or less complete stenographic reports. Thus in one form or another they were given permanency as memorials in the Church. Their chief merit as monuments is that they are so many memorials of the victories of the Parousia pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims over their own sins, errors, selfishness and worldliness. Could they speak of these victories they would give testimonies of delivering grace that would make one of the finest sets of testimonies in the world. But it is enough for the Church that it has them as memorials of such victories of delivering grace! And here we bring to a close our study of Num. 31, which has greatly refreshed our faith in the Lord's Parousia and Epiphany works, typed under the figure of a military campaign and its results.


(1) Whose death anniversary comes October 31? Which one is it? What will we do with it? What else will we do connected with it? During what period? Why



during that period? For what will this chapter of this book serve? Why? How may this chapter of this book be regarded?


(2) What does Num. 31 contain? Under what imagery? In what respects is this imagery set forth? What is set forth in Num. 31: 1-24, 48-54? Under what picture? What features of the war are set forth therein? What is set forth in vs. 25-47? In what of its features? Under what figure? What else of the Parousia are set forth in vs. 13-24? In vs. 48-54? What follows from the fact that the involved story is recorded in the Law? Regardless of what senses that may be given to the word Law? How do Gal. 4: 21, Heb. 10: 1 prove this? What second fact, set forth in vs. 6, 19, 24, proves the story to be typical? What third fact? What first fact proves that it types things in the end of the Age? What second fact? What third fact?


(3) What do these three facts deserve? How does Moses' death coming soon after this war prove that Num. 31 types things occurring at the end of the Age? What fact forms the antecedent of this thought? What is the only exception to this fact in Numbers? What does Moses in this exception type? What cannot be typed by Moses' death at the end of Israel's wilderness journey? Why not? How do the cited passages prove this? What gives us the clue to this? What is typed for the Church's High Priest by the death of Israel's high priest? What would this suggest as to the antitype of Moses' death as the Divinely appointed leader, executive and mouthpiece? When does our Lord give up these functions? What is the last general feature of His Gospel-Age work? What two periods does the harvest work cover? In what sense of the word? In what sense is this not so? What conclusion results from the foregoing? What would the pertinent activity of Phinehas at such a time prove? Why? What would Israel's last wilderness-journey encampment in itself and at such a time and place prove? Why? What, therefore, do these three facts prove?


(4) What two facts prove that Jehovah's charging Jesus is typed by God's charging Moses in v. 1? As what was Moses given the typical charge? As what was Jesus given the antitypical charge? Why in each case? What



unhappy translation occurs in v. 2? What proves the translation to be unhappy? Among others, what two translations does the Hebrew word nakam have? Which fits better in v. 2? What charge is therein antitypically given our Lord? Why was such a charge appropriate? As what were they so vilified and misrepresented? What brought these evil charges on them? Especially what? Who were the leading Dark-Age theologians? What did they and certain statesmen and lawyers seem to prove against the Faithful? To what did this lead? How did they appear at the hands of theologians and lawyers? What resulted? Why did God give the charge of v. 2?


(5) What is typed by Moses' telling this charge to the people? Through whom did Jesus give the pertinent charge? Not how many were given the charge to arm themselves for the war? Who were? What proves these answers? What does this prove as to the antitype? In what two ways was the antitypical charge carried out? In what form was it carried out? Through whom did our Lord give it? What things did they do in giving it? What do the Midianitish warriors represent? Of whom did they mainly consist? Subordinately consist? Of what two classes did these consist? What were the Faithful to do?


(6) What in v. 3 is given as the object of the war? What remark already made on the Hebrew word nakam also belongs here? With what modification? How, accordingly, should the clause be rendered? Why in the type was vindication to be rendered? How do the cited passages prove this? What are we not to understand to exist between the twofold way of giving the charges of vs. 2 and 3? How are they to be harmonized? Whom else do these considerations involve? Why was God in the antitype to be vindicated? How was God in His person, character, plan and works treated by the creed defenders and Truth attackers? By what doctrines was this done? By what other things was this done? Who did these things in the nominal church? What second class have more or less done this? Through what? What third class did more or less of this? Against whom have these three classes of controversialists done this? For what did the Faithful stand? What did these controversialists do to God and His people by their controversies?



(7) What, among other things, did the Parousia witness? In what three ways was this done? Who were, in the first place, thereby vindicated? Who else was in the Parousia vindicated? Doing what things vindicated Him? What kind of a vindication was this? In what respects was it so? What kind of a character did this quality give the vindication? Unworthy of whom is the vindication that the Society's president is leading his followers to advocate? In what respects? Why additionally is it an evil vindication? In what two ways does it fall short, compared with the Parousia's real vindication?


(8) What tribe was exempt from bearing arms in Israel? How many did each of the other tribes deliver for the war? How large was this army? Of whom did it consist? From how many soldiers were they selected? What does such a selection suggest? By how many considerations is this corroborated? What is the first? The second? The third? What particulars are given under the third consideration? How do the cited passages prove this? What is suggested by the fact that 12,000, not 144,000, soldiers were selected? What is not, and what is implied by the number 12,000 as respects the Parousia? How did Jesus give the charge of v. 4? By what did He do it? By what was v. 5 fulfilled?


(9) What does v. 6 tell? What were the holy instruments? What translation proves it? What facts prove it? In what kind of ways is the work of the Parousia symbolically set forth? How many are these? What are they? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does each of these figures bring out? Which of these figures does our study bring to our attention? What does Moses' sending out the 12,000 type? His sending out Phinehas, the chief under-priest, as commander? What has been shown from Num. 10: 1-10? What has been shown from Num. 10: 8? From Num. 10: 9? To what will these thoughts prove helpful in this connection? What types prove that our Pastor is by them set forth in his capacity as a controversialist during the Parousia?


(10) In how many ways is symbolic war waged? What are these? How was this exemplified by our Pastor in writing and speech? What was his custom in this respect? How did he vary this controversial feature? When was



it always present? In what of his writings is this manifest? In what kind of his oral expressions is this manifest? What does this prove of a part of his activities? How was this warring feature typed in our study? What did he furnish the antitypical 12,000, not indicated in the type? Why does Phinehas type him in these activities? What does this fact occasion as to this chapter? In the prayer, "God bless his memory," what is also involved?


(11) What does v. 7 describe? How? What singular quality did this war have? For what two reasons was this so? What kind of a nation as to population was Midian? What fact proves this? What does this fact make us conclude as to who are meant by all the males in v. 7? What other fact is in line with this? How did the Midianite and Israelite warriors compare as to numbers? How does the antitype suggest this? Why? On what basis alone can we account for all falling on one side and none on the other? Through whose instrumentality was this done? In what way was it probably done? Why was it done? What is typed by this war? Whose part only is typed by the 12,000? What proves this? What is typed by the slaying of the Midianites? And what not? What is typed by all the Midianite warriors being slain? What has God promised in this respect? How do the cited passages prove this? What two things are implied in the type and antitype by the Israelites' warring as the Lord commanded? What do these two things in the antitype prove?


(12) What does a retrospect of the Parousia controversies show as to the suggested antitype? How did it compare as to controversy with other parts of the Gospel Age? In the activities of what four sets of persons is this manifest? Who typed the last of these four sets of persons? How did the pilgrims and auxiliary pilgrims take part in this warfare? The elders? The unofficial parts of the Little Flock? The colporteurs? The volunteers? The Bible House family? The extension workers? Photo drama workers? Newspaper workers? Sharpshooters? Where were these controversies carried on? What animated both sides to the conflict, particularly the Little Flock? What can all recall? What kind of a time from the standpoint of our study was the Parousia? What was the result of these controversies for their participants?



(13) What six persons additionally did the Israelites slay in the Midianitish war? What do their names mean? What does Beor mean? Whom do the five kings type? What two reasons prove the answer? How in each case is the meaning of his name in line with this? In what sense did the antitypical 12,000 slay these? Who will recall the fulfillments of v. 8?


(14) What is to be noted as to the word all in the first clause of v. 9? What do italics in the A. V. mean? What two reasons prove the interpolation here unhappy? What is the literal translation of v. 9? What does this imply as to the warriors and movable property and some women and children and as to civilian men and other women and children? How is this thought proven true? Who were the captured antitypical Midianitish women and children? How in the antitype were these made captives? What two things does this imply?


(15) Of what did the antitypical Midianitish women consist? The boys? What do the captive sheep type? Beeves? What in general do asses symbolize? What examples prove this? How do the cited passages prove this? What corroborates this thought? What do the asses of our study type in the first place? In the second place? What, in the first place, would the captured goods—inanimate objects—type? What four classes of helps did the 12,000 get from these? What two other classes of things did the 12,000 get as antitypical goods? What is true of the Little Flock's Parousia prey and spoil? In what condition did this leave the uncaptured Midianites?


(16) What does v. 10 tell us? What does this imply as to the land and the uncaptured Midianites? What does a city in Bible symbols represent? What three examples prove this? How do the cited passages prove this? What is typed by burning the Midianitish cities by fire? What do castles or palaces in Bible symbols represent? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What in general were antitypical Midian's goodly castles? What were they in particular in the nominal church's part of antitypical Midian? Whose else errors were part of such castles? What is typed by the 12,000 burning by fire Midian's castles? What is the Truth in relation to error? How does the cited passage prove this? In what three ways



do we know this to have happened? In what did this typical and antitypical war result as to God and Israel?


(17) What is set forth in vs. 11, 12? What is meant by the prey? How is this proven by the cited passages? What is meant by the spoil? How is this proven by the cited passages? What is not, and what is meant by the taking of these in v. 11? What in general does this type? In what three ways was this done? What is typed by the 12,000 bringing the prey and spoil to Moses?


(18) What is typed by their bringing these to Eleazar? To the congregation? What example is an illustration of such bringing to the congregation? What two things are typed by the 12,000 bringing these to the camp at the plains of Moab? What do Moab and Ammon usually type? Why is antitypical Israel's last encampment in former Roman Catholic, and not Protestant territory? What is typed by the camp's being at the Jericho Jordan?


(19) What is typed by Moses going forth to meet the returning army? Eleazar? All the princes of the congregation? What in the fulfillment is not indicated in the type? By what do all of us varyingly know that such welcoming occurred? What is typed by welcoming them without the camp? What parallels Moses' and Eleazar's giving such a welcome? How are the antitypical welcomings related? What is the difference as to the number of typical kings defeated in each case? Why this difference? What typical example proves this? What difference is indicated in the after attitude of welcomers— type and antitype? What would this not imply? Why not? What Scriptural principle underlies these two different attitudes?


(20) Why, despite the record's silence, did Moses doubtless express pleasure at the victory? Why was this not recorded of Moses? What rather was recorded? Why? Against whom was this anger directed? Who were their antitypes? Whom do the twelve most active and effective of these antitype? Whom of the antitypical twelve are we at present not able positively to identify? What enables us to identify three of them with certainty? Four others with a good degree of certainty? Three others with a fair degree of certainty? The remaining two with less certainty? Whom do the other 120 officers



type? With what are we unable to identify nine of them? Why was Jesus displeased with the captains?


(21) What did the non-virgins and boys not deserve? What was to blame for bringing them to the camp? What does this type? Whom do the non-virgins type? The boys? What evil desire was in the antitypical soldiers? By what was this suggested? What did this evil desire lead the antitypical soldiers to neglect? What should they have done with those not meeting these conditions? Whom did the Lord Jesus hold mainly responsible for this neglect? Why was this just? Against whom did these facts arouse His anger mainly? What is typed by the killing of the non-virgins and boys? Through whom did it usually occur? Amid what circumstances did it usually occur? Exceptionally? Whom do the virgins type? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? By whom was the charge given to preserve these and cut off the non-virgins and boys? How? How was it executed toward the virgins? By whom were these charges executed? What was realized thereby?


(22) What will next be expounded? What verses of Num. 31 give a speech of Moses? In giving such a speech what does he type as to our Lord? What do his directions in vs. 19, 20 type? What is implied by the charge of v. 19, to remain without the camp? What does it type? What is typed by their remaining without the camp seven days? What does the camp here not type? Why? What is typed by killing a soul? By touching the slain? What must be done in these respects if we are to enter the Kingdom? What is typed by the third-day cleansing? When did this fight begin? When will it end?


(23) What considerations connect the third-day cleansing with that of justification? From what does this not cleanse us? Why not? From what does it cleanse us? How is it effected? What does the seventh-day cleansing type? In these respects who do we know by experience? How did Jesus fulfill the antitype of Moses' directions as to the cleansing? Through what means did he speak these exhortations? What do the pertinent facts prove?


(24) What is given in v. 20? What do garments symbolize? What did the charge as to cleansing the garments type? Like what curtains in typical thought are the



allusions to the things of skin? What is typed by the tabernacle curtains of rams' skins dyed red? By the badger skins? What is typed by cleansing the things of skin? What does the tabernacle curtain of goats' hair type? What is typed by the cleansing of every work of goats' hair? What does the wood in the tabernacle type? What is typed by the cleansing of the things of wood? What is typed by Moses' exhortation to the warriors to cleanse themselves? What in general is typed by the exhortation to cleanse the five things mentioned in v. 20?


(25) What does Eleazar give in vs. 21-24? What is the distinction between Moses' and Eleazar's giving pertinent instructions? Antitypically, what four functions of our Lord's work are thereby indicated? How does Jesus fulfill the first of these? The second? The third? The fourth? What does experience show on these four works of Jesus? What is typed by Eleazar's statement in v. 21? What is typed by the expression, ordinance of the law, in v. 21? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does experience teach us in this respect?


(26) How many methods of cleansing are set forth in vs. 22, 23? What are they? On what was each one respectively to be applied? Why was this typical distinction made? Antitypically thereof what do Scriptures and experience teach is one of the methods of cleansing? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? By what method is this typed? What other method do Scriptures and experience show is used? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? By what is this method typed? What is the distinction between the antitypical washing with water and sprinkling with the water of separation? How is the cleansing by the antitypical water alone effected? In what cases only does this method suffice? For what is it alone not sufficient? What is necessary to remove these? What must one do to secure their removal? What variety in duration in securing the desired results prevails? Why this in each case? How long does it last in some cases? In some even until what? By what means do we know these things? What do we know as antitypical of Eleazar's pointing out the types? Through what did He do this?


(27) In what do Eleazar's directions given in v. 24 find



their antitypes? What are the antitypical clothes? What does their cleansing mean? What must be done as to such garments? In what two respects? At what time does this type show the antitype occurred? What results from the failure to do this? From success therein maintained? What is typed by washing the clothes on the seventh day? How was the antitype of v. 24 fulfilled?


(28) What remark is appropriate here? What remark was made in paragraph (2) on Num. 31: 1-24, 48-54? What does our study of vs. 1-24 prove on this point? Why so? What is not, and what is, the character of the suggested antitypes? What things of the Parousia are brought out clearly in the type? What antitypical feature is brought out in v. 2? In vs. 2, 3? Vs. 4-6? Vs. 7, 8? Vs. 9, 10? Vs. 11, 12? V. 13? Vs. 14-16? V. 17? V. 18? Vs. 19, 20? Vs. 20-23? V. 24? What will everyone conversant with the pertinent matters recognize? What do the pertinent facts prove? Where will more facts be found to the same effect? What conclusion may be well drawn from this study?


(29) What as to vs. 25-47 was stated in the second paragraph of the chapter now under consideration? Who is the source of the Truth and of carrying out God's plan? To whose stewardship did He entrust them? How is this typically shown? What is typed by His commanding Moses, and through him Eleazar and the chief fathers of the congregation, to count the prey? What is symbolized by numbering or counting, in the Bible? What Scripture proves this? Explain the details of Ps. 48: 12 so as to prove this. What conclusion do we draw from this passage?


(30) What, accordingly, is the charge antitypical of the one in v. 26? Of what did the antitypical spoil consist? What was charged as to it by the Lord? What does Moses' counting the spoil type? Eleazar's counting it? Why do we say that the Head and Body is typed by Eleazar here? What is typed by the chief fathers of the congregation counting the spoil? What further confirmation is given by this fact?


(31) As antitypical of Moses, how did Jesus begin to give this description? When? Since then how has He been giving it? For what will the start of this description account? For what will its continuance account? How



do the Head and Body as the World's High Priest do this numbering? What comparison between crown-lost leaders helps to clarify matters on this point? What do the Epiphany crown-lost leaders offer? What is its character? What in due time will be done to it? What do the observed facts since 1914 prove? What does this corroborate?


(32) What is typically set forth in vs. 27-47? How is it indicated? What two other facts corroborate this? What two other facts prove it as to the Little Flock? What two other similar facts prove it as to the Great Company? From the standpoint of comparative proportion, what other fact proves it as to both classes? Quote and explain Num. 18: 26-28 as the proof on this last point. How do Eleazar and Aaron figure in this comparison? What further point proves this? What will be done with this point later? What point is in harmony with this?


(33) What is represented by the cattle and sheep? What do the asses represent? What first fact proves that asses represent these things? What second fact? When asses and horses are used contrastedly in the symbols, what does each represent? When not contrasted? What will the antitypical facts prove as to the asses? What in the creeds is especially true? What other things therein are true? In general, what is the character of the creeds? What types the truths in the creeds? What else do these asses type? What are examples of these under four heads? What give more or less of these four heads combinedly? Amid errors what do these contain? What two classes, according to the type, have gotten such symbolic asses? What, accordingly, do the pertinent facts show?


(34) What statement was made above? For what does the number 7 and its multiples stand? The number 12 and its multiples? Where was this shown? For what does the number 10 and its multiples stand? Quote and explain the cited passages as proofs. What use is to be made of these symbolic numerics?


(35) How many sheep were captured? Beeves? Asses? Virgins? What is the total of these? What is the division? What is the symbolism of the divisions made as to this total? To what does this symbolic language correspond?



(36) How much of the total units was given the warriors? What was its number? In what order should 7, 12 and 10 be divided into it? Why this order with this part of the spoil? What is the division? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit?


(37) What was the total of the spoil units given the congregation? In what order are 7, 10 and 12 to be divided into it? Why? What is the division? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit?


(38) What, according to vs. 37-40, were the units of the Lord's tribute, and their total? In what order are 7, 12 and 10 divided into the total? Why? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? Why? What does this fit?


(39) How many units, compared to the Lord's tribute, were given to the Levites? What were the units of each kind and the total? In what order will 7, 10 and 12 be divided into this total? Why? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit?


(40) How much of the warriors' total units remained in their hands? What is peculiar about this remainder? In what order are 7, 12 and 10 divided into it? Why? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit?


(41) How many units of the spoil remained in the congregation's hands? What is peculiar about this remainder? In what order are 7, 10 and 12 divided into it? What does the symbolism of these divisors here teach? What does this fit? What is to be said of the remainder, 49? How many problems have been worked out above? Of what is this number symbolic?


(42) What question does this raise? What answer should this question receive? Why? How will the probability be counted? How might it justifiably be counted? To what other numbers does this remark apply? What would have to be done with the results of all of them? What would then have to be done with this result compounded with the similarly compounded result of the second problem? With this compounded result and the similarly compounded result of the third problem? Etc?



What would the final result be? To what would this reduce the claim of accident? What is the result of this?


(43) How did it occur that these figures teach these meanings? What quality only could work out so involved a matter? What does the matter under study prove? Through what agency did God work these results? What other two things in the story of Num. 31 suggest miraculous intervention of angels? What third thing in this account suggests the miraculous? How may the results, therefore, be summarized? What third consideration is involved in this matter? How is it proven? What does this prove? What might we well say?


(44) What does v. 31 say? What is commanded Moses, Eleazar and the chief fathers of the congregation? Despite this, who only were commanded to make the divisions of the spoil? Who did not participate therein? Why not? What other two facts prove their unfitness therefore? What proves that our Lord as antitype of Moses, and the World's High Priest, Head and Body, as antitype of Eleazar, supervise the division of the antitypical spoil? Between what two things, accordingly, is there harmony? What may, therefore, the Epiphany Under-priests do? Despite what? Why? What did our study of vs. 1-24 prove? What does our study of vs. 25-47 prove? What effect should this study have?


(45) What is recorded in vs. 48-54? What do the facts of the case prove? Whom do the twelve captains of thousands type? The 120 captains of hundreds type? Why did the Lord not allow this episode to occur and to be recorded before the events of vs. 25-47? What order did He therein follow in the antitype? And not what order? What order was followed in the type? What according to vs. 48 and 49, did the captains do? What does this type? What was the report, type and antitype? How in general was the antitypical report made? How in particular was it made? What was the character of the typical and antitypical preservation?


(46) What did the captains bring to the Lord? Of what did it consist? What will enable us to see the antitypes? What were the antitypes? Of how many kinds were the typical jewels? In a general way, what do these five kinds of jewels type? What do necklaces type?



What two Biblical facts prove this? How does each Scripture of the two sets of passages cited prove this? What do the necklaces here type? What do the bracelets type? What will clarify this? What do the hands symbolize? How do the cited passages prove this? What do the feet symbolize? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? On what were bracelets worn in Palestine? What do they represent when worn on the wrists or hands? On the ankles or feet? What, accordingly, did the captains' bracelet oblation represent?


(47) In Bible symbols what do rings represent? How do the cited passages prove this? What, accordingly, did the ring oblation of v. 50 represent? Why did the antitypical captains prepare many discourses on the New Creature? In Bible symbols what do ears represent? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What do earrings, accordingly, symbolize? Why? What did the captains' earring oblation represent? Why did the antitypical captains have many discourses on matters of faith? What was the last kind of jewels mentioned in the A. V. of v. 50? What is the modern word for tablets? What is the Hebrew word so translated? How is it rendered in the R. V. of Is. 3: 20? What does the antitype suggest as the right translation? What does perfume in Bible symbols represent? How do the cited passages prove this? What does incense perfume represent? What, accordingly, do these perfume boxes represent? How did the antitypical captains come to prepare so many discourses on the graces? Of what fact is there no doubt? With what is the explanation on the captains' oblation in harmony? What quality, accordingly, does it have?


(48) What is stated at the end of v. 50? How, in common with almost all other typical speeches, was the captains' speech antityped? What statement at first seems strange? Why? How does this strangeness fade away? What are the two parts of the atonement? Whose work solely is it to make atonement in the first sense? Why? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? Whose work alone is not the atonement in its second part? Whose work is it initially? Whose combined work is it thereafter? How do we do our part in it? Which of these two parts in the atonement work is typed in v. 50?



(49) How was this done? To whose experience is reference first made as an illustration of the process? What qualities of his were overcome in the experience? With what was it connected? What was the occasion of the antitype? What fact made our Pastor especially apprehensive? Where has this experience been given in some detail? Who took advantage of his fear? What did they do? What did he in turn do? Where did he arrive by the time he beat down their attacks? What did he do there? What did his victory make him abstain from doing immediately? Instead, what did he first do? What did this conference do? What did he then do? What thereafter? How long after seeing the light on the subject? In what two Towers was this first done? What did his victory give him? What did his great struggle effect? What does this mean? What did the Lord give him after the victory? When did he get the first function of his office as that Servant? Why was it necessary for him to win the pertinent victory? What would otherwise have occurred?


(50) Whose pertinent experience will next be given? Whose antitype was he in it? What was the pertinent fault? Under what circumstances did it work? Whose course in this matter was justified? How did Bro. Barton feel about it? Who worked on his pertinent weakness? What did he do against them? What followed immediately? What was the truth that he brought forth from the antitypical well? Why did he have to fight this battle?


(51) What was the fault of Eleazar's (2 Sam. 23: 9, 16) antitype? How did this fault show itself? What did the Lord do on this matter in 1910? How did the question present itself? Why in this form? What occurred in his mind on this question? What was the character of the debate? What was he enabled to do? What was his will's attitude therein? In what did his victory consist? What did he learn through this struggle? What was this in reality? What happened immediately thereafter? What did he do with it? What did that Servant do with it? What at the well experience did the Lord give that Servant? What did the Lord seem to do at the well experience with the pertinent brother? Why is this true in each case?



(52) What conclusion is not to be drawn from these three cases? As what only should they serve? What does Jesus say on it? How should these "scribes" have acted as to the "things new"? On what principles? To whom does Matt. 13: 52 not limit this privilege? Of what may we be sure in general? In particular? Why? What was required of them by the Lord in this particular? What will, on study, each Parousia pilgrim and auxiliary pilgrim find on this subject? How was this just like the Lord?


(53) Of what does v. 51 assure us? What does this fact type? Why does Eleazar here type the Church's High Priest? What, according to v. 52, was the character of the Lord's tribute? What would it as such type? Of what is the shekel weight, 16,750, not a multiple? What results therefrom? Of what else is it not a multiple? What results therefrom? What two reasons prove that the shekel weight does not designate Great Company matters? What does this number possibly indicate? What is typed by the fact that the men of war (the captains excepted) took spoil everyone for or by himself? What further expression shows that the antitype concerns general elders? For whom were the lessons of others?


(54) What is typed by Moses and Eleazar bringing the jewels into the tabernacle for a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord? How was the antitype done? As what did these appear? What resulted therefrom? What is their chief merit? What should therein suffice the Church? What has this study effected? In what? How was this typed?


Soldiers of Christ, arise,

And put your armor on,

Strong in the strength which God


Through His eternal Son.


That having all things done,

And all your conflicts past,

Ye may o'ercome, through Christ


And stand entire at last.