Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
it was used for its Divinely intended purpose of furnishing the proper doctrinal, refutative, correctional and ethical teachings, and to direct the use of pertinent Scriptures to this purpose. This charge implied that, under the Lord, he was the one who should direct the time, occasion, work and agents of using the Bible in the above-indicated ways. His teaching charge of the antitypical Laver implied that he was to declare the doctrine of the Scripture, as well as its various teachings in doctrinal, refutational, correctional and ethical respects. Certainly his work of executive and teacher proves that he carried out these two functions of his office in this respect. While on this point we desire to apply this teaching to an error that has circulated among some of the Lord's people, that there are other books, e.g., Pseudepigraphs like the book of Enoch, the Old Testament Apocrypha, etc., that are inspired writings, i.e., are a part of the Bible. If they were, then our Pastor, who had charge of the antitypical Laver, would have accepted them as such, and would have acted as executive and teacher of them; for the Lord would have given them to him for this purpose, and as the wise and faithful steward he would have wisely and faithfully performed his teaching and executive functions toward them. But the Lord never gave them to him as such; he never accepted them as such; and he never fulfilled either of his two functions as antitypical Eleazar toward them. This is, to Truth people, a complete proof that they are not part of God's inspired Revelation.
(23) The lampstand represents the New Creatures as enlighteners of one another. It teaches them the Truth. Our Pastor acted out his office as teacher with respect to the antitypical Lampstand in that he explained the nature, character, privileges, duties, etc., of the Church as enlightener of the brethren, as well as taught the Church what and how to do in enlightening the brethren. As executive he fulfilled his office toward
the antitypical Lampstand by encouraging New Creatures to enlighten one another, putting into their hands the instrumentalities whereby they did this enlightening work, and by directing them in the application of the means, methods and ways of giving such enlightenment. The table of shewbread types the New Creatures in their capacity of strengthening one another with the bread of life unto every good word and work, i.e., unto the graces of the Spirit and the service of the Truth, for their journey to the antitypical Holy of Holies. Our Pastor's charge of this table would, therefore, imply that as teacher he would instruct New Creatures on the privileges, duties, spirit, manner, means and methods connected with their strengthening one another in every good word and work. His writings and oral teachings were replete with such instructions and thus they prove that he fulfilled this function of his teaching office. As executive he fulfilled his charge of the antitypical Table by making arrangements for his pertinent, oral and written instructions to reach the brethren in their capacity of strengthening one another in every good word and work, by making such pilgrim, elder, etc., arrangements whereby this could be done and furthered and by arranging for meetings, conventions, etc., wherein it could be done and furthered.
(24) The chest part of the ark types the Christ class beyond the veil and the mercy seat, cherubim and the radiated light of the shekinah represent God's four chief attributes and the shekinah itself represents Him in His person. Our Pastor's teaching charge with respect to the chest of the ark was his work of making the pertinent explanations, proofs and illustrations necessary to clarify to the Church this side of the veil the Christ beyond the veil. His executive charge as to it was to do the things that belonged to his being the special representative of the Christ class, particularly of its Head, in matters this side of the veil, i.e., to be
the hand on this side of the veil of the Christ class on the other side of the veil. So, too, his teaching charge with respect to the top of the ark, that which represents God and His attributes, was to explain Him and them with concordant proofs and illustrations; while his executive charge as to these was to be God's hand this side of the veil to carry out the pertinent work.
(25) The seventh and final charge of Eleazar was the vessels of the tabernacle. It was his sixth and seventh charge that made him have charge of the Kohathites in their service of the tabernacle (Num. 3: 32). This was carrying the furniture and vessels after they were covered by the priests. So the charge of the Kohathites was not an eighth charge of Eleazar, but was implied with his sixth and seventh charges. From a comparison of Num. 3: 32 ["the chief of the Levites" are evidently the Kohathites, who were higher ("the chief") in honor of service than the Merarites and Gershonites] and of Num. 4: 28, 33, we conclude that our Pastor was also particularly charged with the oversight of the Parousia, Epiphany and Millennial Kohathites' work. He discharged this work toward the Parousia and Epiphany Kohathites by his giving the proper teachings as to the antitypical Altars, Laver, Lampstand, Table, Ark and the Vessels, i.e., Bible passages (censers), doctrines (cups), refutations (bowls), corrections (chargers, platters) and ethics (spoons); while as executive he arranged that these teachings reached them. Thereby he in part also discharged his office toward the Millennial Kohathites—the Ancient Worthies. The rest of it he will do in the Millennium. We proved (Vol. VIII, Chap. II) that the censers type Bible passages; the chargers, platters, the corrective teachings; the cups, the doctrinal teachings; the bowls, the refutative teachings, and the spoons, the ethical teachings that the antitypical Priesthood would use in its ministries. Our Pastor's executive charge of the Bible passages that should be used by the Priesthood
implied that he was the one through whom the Lord gave the decision as to which passages were to be presented as due on the pertinent subjects, as well as to furnish suitable vehicles—articles, books, discourses, etc., wherein they would be explained—and manage the distribution of these to the Priesthood; while his teaching charge in this respect was to explain, prove and illustrate the contents of such passages for the use of the sacrificing Priesthood. His teaching charge as to the corrective, doctrinal, refutational and ethical teachings was to expound, prove, illustrate, etc., such teachings; while his executive charge as to these was to arrange for the ways, means, methods, agents and conditions for such teaching to be administered to and by the ministering Priesthood. His written and oral instructions and his administrative acts abundantly prove that he fulfilled both parts of his seventh charge, and that faithfully.
(26) In the above we have tersely set forth the seven ways (as typed in Num. 4: 16) in which the two functions— teaching and executive—of the office of that Servant, as described in Luke 12: 42-45 and Matt. 24: 45-47, were fulfilled in his ministry. Beyond all contradiction, he did these seven things in a teaching and executive way. Therefore he is the Gospel-harvest Eleazar. No other individual at the end of the Age did them, and that in these two ways. Hence he alone was that Servant and the Gospel-harvest antitype of Eleazar. Therefore that Servant was not a class, as also the figure of a steward over the other servants of a household proves. Hence those brethren who deny that he was exclusively that Servant contradict fulfilled prophecy and, therefore, must be blind on that subject and are in that blindness because of unfaithfulness or immaturity (2 Pet. 1: 9; Heb. 5: 11-14); while to deny it after once having seen it is a certain evidence of unfaithfulness, and leaves its deniers open to being blown about by every wind of doctrine, as facts amply prove.
Our regarding him as the Gospel-harvest Eleazar is not to be construed as exalting him to the belittlement of our Lord. Rather, it is in harmony with our Lord's preeminence that He have a special representative. That a king speaks and acts through a prime minister by no means belittles a king. Rather, it honors him as such and is to be expected of him. So, too, our Lord's using our Pastor as His special eye, mouth and hand, does not belittle, but honors Him. As a Spirit Being invisible to man, it was, of course, necessary and practical that He should have had such a special representative. Undoubtedly the type of Eleazar, as set forth in our text, shows that someone different from our Lord (antitypical Aaron) would have the seven charges set forth in this text. Hence he would, for the end of the Age, be some individual this side of the veil; for whenever Eleazar and Ithamar are expressly named in relation to the end of the Age, they always type two individuals, not two classes, which Priests cannot be.
(27) The close thought relation between Num. 4: 16, on the one hand, and Matt. 24: 45-47 and Luke 12: 42-45, on the other hand, suggests the interesting conclusion that our Lord, knowing that the two Harvests were parallel, quite likely got from Num. 4: 16 the thought that there would be a "that Servant" with pertinent powers in the Gospel Harvest and therefore gave the prophetic delineation of him contained in Matt. 24: 35-37 and Luke 12: 42-45. We, of course, would not deny that He could have gotten this thought by direct Divine inspiration or from some other types, like 2 Sam. 23: 8; Num. 16: 37-40 and 25: 7-13, or from some prophecies, like Is: 21: 5-10 and Hab. 2: 1, 2. But each of these passages singly, and all of them combinedly, lack the fullness of the ideas on this line of thought given in Num. 4: 16, while our text parallels very closely the thoughts given in Matt. 24 and Luke 12 on this subject. Therefore, very likely it was to our
Lord the main, if not the exclusive, source of the prophecies given in Matt. 24 and Luke 12.
(28) A practical reflection we may profitably draw from this study, i.e., to exercise a meek—teachable and leadable—attitude of mind and heart toward the teachings and arrangements given through that Servant. This does not mean that he was infallible; for he was not, even as his words and some of his teachings prove; nor that his teachings should be accepted with blank and unquestioning minds; for this would be an unpriestly attitude; but it does mean that we should approach his teachings as those coming from the Divinely authorized special eye and mouth of the Lord to the Church in the Parousia, as also foundational for the Epiphany; and that we should approach his arrangements as those of the Divinely ordained executive for the Lord for the Parousia, as also foundational for the Epiphany. This attitude would safeguard us against revolutionism, keep us in the Parousia Truth and make us receptive to the Epiphany Truth. Moreover, it would also enable us to accept the position that his teachings on the truths needed for the Church's development, as they were left in 1914, are throughout true. It would not mean that every detail of his teachings on matters of developing the Great Company by 1914 was true; for the Great Company developing truths are not to be free from error entirely until 1954—the mother of a daughter was not entirely purified until the 80th day; but on this feature of thought it must be held that by the time of his death, Oct. 31, 1916, all the foundations of the Great Company truths had been laid, though here and there small adjustments in the foundations must thereafter be made. Properly to adjust ourselves to his teachings and arrangements would keep us from the Levitical and other errors of this Epiphany and would keep us in the right attitude toward the Priests' Epiphany teachings and work. A brief casting of the eyes of our
understanding about us will give us conclusive evidence as to the truthfulness of these statements. Therefore, dear brethren, let us rightly and heartily hold to him as that Servant, the Gospel-harvest Eleazar, who will also be the Millennial Eleazar, the one at our Lord's right hand forevermore.
(29) We now proceed to study Eleazar as a type of our Pastor, as he is set forth in Num. 16: 36-40. The main subject matter of these verses antitypically is not entirely new, since we have under the fifth sifting (Calls— Siftings—Slaughter Weapons; Vol. V, Chap. II) briefly expounded it. Here we will give more details. The setting of the story being given in the abovementioned chapter, it will not be necessary to go into detail thereon. Suffice it to say that from Feb., 1908, to June, 1911, we had the fifth harvest call, sifting and slaughter weapon working contemporaneously. Among the Truth people the sifting was initiated through objections to the vow, which proved to be the antitypical fringe on the corners of antitypical Israelites' symbolic garments—graces. Korah types the 1908-1911 sifters among the Truth people and the associated 250 Levites represent that many groups of crown-losers in the nominal church. During that period, in gross contradiction of, and in usurpatory competition with the true Priesthood—Head and Body—the apostate new creatures in and out of the Truth antityped Korah and his band in offering incense as against Aaron. As fire from the Lord (v. 35) destroyed Korah and his band, so destruction went out from the Lord to the New Creatures of antitypical Korah and his band.
(30) At that time among Truth people the controversy was over the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants. The Ransom was drawn somewhat into the controversy, not because of either side denying the corresponding-price, but because the sifters misrepresented our view of the Sin-offerings, as though we taught that the Church's share in the Sin-offering made
the Church produce a part of the Ransom merit, alleging that we necessarily thereby taught that Jesus alone did not produce the entire Ransom merit. Not a few were deceived into believing the sifting leaders' misrepresentations on these two points, and fought us as though we really taught as we were misrepresented to teach. Such deceived ones fought an error, which, however, we did not hold. Those who deceived them—antitypical Korah—knew better, but were conscienceless enough to spread the deception to draw disciples after themselves, and thereby perished as New Creatures. But the new creatures deceived by them, fighting a real error, though beating the air so far as the Priesthood's pertinent teachings were concerned, did not die as New Creatures, typed by the preservation of Korah's sons (Num. 26: 11), though by becoming sons of antitypical Korah they lost their crowns, and are now one of the 60 groups of Epiphany Levites. Antitypical Korah's and his band's censers were the Scripture passages that they used against our understanding of the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants. Aaron got the fire for his censer from the altar of burnt offerings, while the others evidently used strange fire. The coals of the altar type true teachings and their heat types the fiery trials that result for the offerer from ministering such teachings (Is. 6: 57; 1 Pet. 4: 12-14). The incense, as spices, type Jesus' actually perfect human powers and our reckonedly perfect human powers; and, as perfume arising from the service, it represented the graces, especially faith, love, longsuffering, forbearance and patience. The strange fire of Korah and his band type the false doctrines that their antitypes put into the Bible passages that they used. The heat coming from this strange fire types the trials their offering brought to them. Their incense, as spices, type their choice justified human powers; and the perfume from the incense represents their graces. But as they progressed, their human powers lost their justification
and the scent of their incense became increasingly foul, as disgraces, they dying as New Creatures before the eleventh hour ended.
(31) The charge to Eleazar to take up the censers types God's command to our Pastor, given through antitypical Moses, Jesus, as God's Executive, to discuss the passages that the sifters used. They certainly used—rather, misused—many passages. E.g., a certain Mr. Read, of the Pittsburgh Ecclesia, sent us, in Feb., 1909, about a dozen single-spaced, typewritten pages, 8½" by 11", of which perhaps a half of the space was occupied by Bible passages, alleged to teach the sifters' view of the burning questions at issue. The same is true of the articles appearing in Mr. Henninges' New Covenant Advocate, of Mr. McPhail's large booklet, Sin-offering, Mediator and Covenants, as well as of the numerous pamphlets and tracts that others produced during that sifting. These passages our Pastor certainly took up and discussed in detail. The charge to scatter the fire—the burning coals of strange fire—types God's charge to our Pastor to refute and destroy the sifters' errors on the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants, as well as to overthrow the misrepresentation of our teachings as implying that Jesus produced part, and the Church the rest of the Ransom merit. Eleazar's scattering the fire types our Pastor's refuting the involved errors and misrepresentation. Bro. Russell did as thorough a job of this work as he perhaps ever did of any work. Beginning with the Jan. 1, 1909, Tower and running well into the 1911 Towers, in practically every number articles refutatory of the sifters' errors and discussing in detail the involved passages, appeared. In most of these Towers the bulk of the space was devoted to these burning questions. The taking of the censers out of the burning—burning coals of strange fire—represents how our Pastor separated the involved Scriptures from the errors that they were quoted to prove, by showing that they implied no
such senses as the sifters attributed to them. His main articles on these questions have been gathered together in a small book, entitled, "What Pastor Russell Taught."
(32) Twice are these censers spoken of as being hallowed, in the A. V. of our text (vs. 37, 38). In both places we believe there is a mistranslation. In each verse the verb kadash is active in the Hebrew, but is rendered as a passive in the A. V. The words translated, "for they are hallowed," in v. 37, should be connected with the first part of v. 38, and the translation should read as follows: "but let them hallow the censers of these sinners against their own souls [Second Deathers]; and let them make them beaten plates for a covering of the altar; for they shall offer them before the Lord and hallow them and let them be a sign to the children of Israel." The A. V. beclouds the meaning; for it makes Korah's and his band's misusing the censers the hallowing of them! It was Eleazar's and his assistants' work that hallowed them after they were defiled by Korah and his band. Antitypically, the correct translation shows that it was the cleansing of these passages from the sifters' errors and expounding them truthfully that made them holy in that they thus, free from erroneous interpretations, gave holy thoughts of Truth on the subjects at controversy between the combatants of 1908-1911. In addition to v. 35 proving the sifters to be in the Second Death, v. 38 proves it, by the expression, "these sinners against their own souls." It will be noticed that not only Eleazar was charged to hallow, offer and make the censers beaten [better translation than broad] plates for a covering of the altar, but others were charged to assist him therein—let them hallow … and offer … and make them into beaten plates. The same thing is stated in v. 39, where the fulfillment of the charge is stated—they made them beaten plates [literally, they beat them into plates] for a covering of the
altar ("for they shall offer them before the Lord and hallow them"). According to this, others assisted our Pastor in making such beaten plates for a covering of the altar, though the connection shows that his part therein by far overshadowed theirs.
(33) Before going further into this feature, it would be well to note what is typed by making beaten plates for a covering of the altar. The brazen altar types the actually perfect humanity of Jesus and the reckonedly perfect humanity of the Church, in their capacity of supporting, strengthening, helping the humanity of the Christ class, as it is being sacrificed—the altar held up the sacrifice as it was being consumed. Accordingly, beating the censers into plates for a covering of the brazen altar would type the exposition of the involved passages in such a way as to construct from them doctrines that would defend the Sin-offering sacrifice of Jesus and the Church. Early in the controversy it was recognized that the key to all the questions involved in debate was the Church's share in the Sin-offering. If this point could be proven, of course, as a matter of self-evidence, it would follow that the Mediator was a composite one, which the sifters denied, and that the New Covenant was operative exclusively Millennially and post-Millennially, which the sifters also denied. Accordingly, the Sin-offerings were the crux of the controversy and were so emphasized by those who stood for the two Sin-offerings; and this is brought out in the type by the Divine charge to beat the censers, used by the Levites, into plates as a covering of the altar, i.e., the passages were to be given such an interpretation and setting as would defend the Sin-offerings as being the humanity of Jesus and the Church, the antitypical Altar.
(34) The hallowing of the censers, of course, types the cleansing of the passages from the defilements of error put into them by the sifters and so setting them forth as to show them to contain the Truth. Their
offering these to the Lord types their devotion of them to the Lord in His service. As the text indicates, such hallowing of the censers and beating of them into plates for a covering of the altar, while being especially Eleazar's work, was not exclusively his. This is proven by the words, "let them hallow," "let them make" and "they offered," "they hallowed," and "they made." Our Pastor, as antitypical Eleazar, did by far the most of the involved work. Bro. Barton, by his sermon on God's Covenants (1909 Convention Report, 143), as the antitype of Shammah, David's third mightiest warrior, defending against, and delivering the field full of lentils, from the Philistines, was one of those who antitypically helped offer and hallow these passages and make them defend the two Sin-offerings (2 Sam. 23: 11, 12). Another brother, as the antitype of Eleazar, the son of Dodo, David's second mightiest warrior, working in close cooperation with that Servant, as the antitype of David, was also active in the offering, hallowing and beating of these plates (1 Chro. 11: 12-14). (David's two wars where he most disastrously defeated the Philistines type the two greatest controversies of the reaping time—the Ransom controversy and the Sin-offerings controversy). This brother's encounter with M.L. McPhail before part of the Chicago Church on the same subjects is set forth under another type in 1 Chron. 20: 6, 7. Bro. MacMillan's controversy with, and defeat of, A. E. Williamson before the Altoona, Pa., Church on the same questions, is set forth in 1 Chro. 20: 4. Bro. Crawford's controversy by a tract with E. C. Henninges' view as put forth in The New Covenant Advocate, is set forth in 2 Sam. 21: 19. While these four assisting brothers are thus expressly pointed out, Bro. Russell's part in this matter far out-shadowed theirs, as indicated by his special mention in our text, while they are not there named. Still others, not expressly set forth as such in the Bible, so far as we know, also assisted in this work.
We believe that, everything considered, Bro. Russell appeared at his best as a controversialist in the 19081911 sifting, and at the same time produced perhaps the most able and voluminous writings of his career on controversial matters, though he had to struggle harder internally when, as antitypical Jashobeam, he broke through the ranks of demons and sifters in his endeavor to get the Truth on the Sin-offerings in 1879, and though he wrought more havoc, as antitypical Jashobeam, in the controversy on eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead. His prowess as that Servant in the capacity of a brave and efficient warrior in the controversy of 1908-1911 (our present study sets him forth as a Priest—the chief Under-priest at the time) is represented by the prowess of David, with whom Eleazar, the Dodoite, was associated in the fight at Pasdammim [field of bloods, i.e., sphere of the Sin-offerings], when both of them drove away a large band of Philistines (1 Chron. 11: 13, 14).
(35) Vs. 38 and 40 antitypically show that the true teachings of the Sin-offerings, Mediator and Covenants were to be a sign (evidence) and a memorial (a reminder) to the Lord's people of the fact that only appointed members of the Priesthood should offer incense (present teachings before the Church), to the intent that no nonmember of the Priesthood should endeavor to set forth new teachings. These could properly be set forth, as a rule, only by the special mouthpiece Priest in office at the time, and exceptionally by other Truth servants, in fulfillment of the Lord's word pertinent to them, when He said that every scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven (thoroughly competent and authorized teacher) would bring forth from the storehouse things new and old (Matt. 13: 52). Others attempting to do so, whether Priest or Non-priest, would be speculating and thus be bringing forth error to their and others' ruin (Ex. 19: 21-25). This raises the question, How should the "scribes instructed
unto the kingdom of heaven" do when they get a new truth or think they get one? We reply, Let them do as we did in Bro. Russell's day: Present it to the mouthpiece Priest for examination; and only if he approves give it out to others. This course we found safe in his day; and others will also find it safe now, when the utmost danger exists, if a contrary course is entered upon. This "sign and memorial" are now being grossly violated by the Levites, who in not a few cases rashly and without the proper authorization as teachers obtrude their notions either on a local church or on the general Church. The present sifting leaders are fearful examples of violating this sign and reminder. Hence they have been spreading "the pestilence that walketh in darkness," now so disastrously infecting the hearts and minds of the majority of the Lord's people. Surely now "ten thousand foes arise."
(36) When we consider how finely that Servant, as the antitype of Eleazar, of Num. 16: 36-40, conducted himself amid the involved controversy, in which he was not only personally attacked with much bitterness and misrepresentations, but in which his views were also attacked with keener subtlety than in any other sifting of the reaping time, we learn to appreciate and love him more and more; for he was certainly, from many standpoints, put into the furnace of affliction in that sifting, from which he emerged much refined and purified. And his loyalty therein was rewarded by the Lord's greatly extending the scope and fruitfulness of his already widespread and fertile ministry. Yea, we thank God for every remembrance of him! God bless his memory!
(37) We now will set forth our Pastor's work against the combinationists, whose activities constituted the sifting of the sixth hour call (Matt. 20: 5). This sifting is typically set forth in Num. 25, as the Apostle Paul tells us (1 Cor. 10: 8; Vol. V, Chap. II). Localities mentioned in the Bible are usually typical, as some
of our previous studies have shown, e.g., Mt. Sinai, Mt. Zion, Mt. Pisgah, Bethlehem, Bethany, Jerusalem, Jericho, Samaria, Jezreel, etc. Accordingly, we are by the general typical setting of Num. 25 to conclude that Shittim is typical. The word means acacia trees. Trees are symbolic of great ones, either good (Is. 61: 3), or bad (Rev. 7: 13). The acacia trees, we gather from this connection, represent the great ones of Christendom in church, state and capital. Israel's abiding in Shittim we would therefore understand to mean God's people, real and nominal, having contacts and experiences with such great ones. And while the bulk of God's nominal people and some of His real people had such contacts and experiences they became more or less guilty of combinationism (the people began to commit fornication with the daughters of Moab and Midian).
(38) By combinationism we mean an illicit union of God's people with evil persons, principles, things and practices. The consecrated practice combinationism when they mix their principles and practices with great or little Babylon's erroneous principles and practices, e.g., introducing clericalistic principles and practices among the consecrated, uniting with them in their studies, services and characteristics. The justified practice combinationism when they mix their principles and practices with those of the camp. The camp practice combinationism when they cooperate with non-Christian religious movements. Then all of these can combine with one another and with non-Christian persons, etc. Examples of combinationism are evident in the union of church and state, of denominations with denominations, of Levite movements with Levite movements, of Christian people with religio-secretsocieties, of churchianity with Judaism, Mohammedanism, and heathenism. From the standpoint of the Gospel Harvest, Israel's fornication while encamped at Shittim types such combinationistic acts between June, 1891,
and October, 1894; for during those years, especially in connection with the Parliament of Religions at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893, by its preparations, proceedings and aftermath, did many antitypical Israelites commit symbolic fornication. Among Truth people this was done in the sense of seeking to introduce among them not a few of Babylon's practices on the part of Messrs. Zech, Adamson, Bryan and Rogers. These led the third sifting of the Harvest among Truth people, while Drs. Barrows, Bonney, etc., led the movement to make one religion of all religions, one of whose activities was the assembling of the Chicago Parliament of Religions of 1893. The formation of the Federal Council of the Brotherhood of Andrew and Philip in 1893, as an interdenominational body, by the Rev. Rufus W. Miller, and of the Open and Institutional Church League in March, 1894, championed by Drs. Thompson and Sanford, directly, within 12 years, led to the formation of the National Federation of Churches in 1905, while the Open and Institutional Church League by 1895, ten years before the national organization was formed, had succeeded in forming the first local federation of churches in New York City. These facts show us how through the symbolic fornication from June, 1891, to Oct., 1904, combinationism had its beginnings and has since progressed. These movements in the main are typed by the Israelitish men fornicating with the daughters of Moab and Midian.
(39) Since the daughters of Moab type various false doctrines that constitute the theories and practices of combinationism—unionism—their calling on the men of Israel to sacrifice to their gods (v. 2) types the appeals of these unionistic doctrines and practices on the Lord's people, real and nominal, to work for combinationism. Among these false doctrines are the following: all [professed] Christian people are one; all denominations combined are the Church; Christ in
John 17 prayed for the unity of these; these by federation should work to fulfill His prayer; their differences are nonessential matters; they should be ignored and their agreements emphasized; it makes no difference what one believes, if only he is sincere; forget faith and be busy in good works. These false doctrines invited antitypical Israel to offer sacrifices to the creed of combinationism [their gods]. The Israelites eating at the sacrificial feasts type apostate consecrated, justified and worldly ones accepting such false theories; and the former bowing down to the false gods type the latter serving by their influence, talents, means, etc., the interests of combinationism. Israel's being bound (v. 3) to Baal-peor [lord of the penis, in whose worship Moabitish women prostituted themselves] types the apostate antitypical Israelites being combined in an illicit union—symbolic fornication. As in the type God was angry (v. 3) at Israel, so in the antitype He became highly indignant at antitypical Israel's symbolic fornication, as was most meet.
(40) Of course, the leaders of Israel [leaders of the people—v. 4] were more guilty than the ordinary Israelites whom they misled, just as the leaders in combinationism's various forms were more guilty than the multitudes that they misled. Hence in both type and antitype these were by God given over to the worse punishment. To be hanged in Biblical symbols means that one is actually or allegedly proven to be an evildoer. Our Lord's hanging on the cross was demanded by the Sanhedrin as an alleged proof that He was an evildoer; even as is suggested by the act of exposing one very publicly, in the light of the sun, as is done in the kind of hanging here commanded. God's charge therefore to Moses to hang for the Lord before the sun the leaders of the sinning people, types His charge to Jesus to demonstrate very publicly as a service (before the Lord) to God that the leaders of the combinationists were evildoers. Our Lord did this partly
through some of His people, like Prof. Wilkinson, of Chicago University; Joseph Cook, a Boston lecturer; Rev. Devine, of New York; Count Bernstorff, of Germany, and Mr. Grant, a Canadian, who in Babylon protested against their leaders taking part in such combinationism as being condemned in the Bible; but He did it mainly through the Truth people, particularly through our Pastor. That the leaders of combinationism were especially publicly proven to be evildoers can be seen in Z '93, 323-349 and in Vol. IV, 157-268, where the following leaders are mentioned by name and are very publicly proven guilty of combinationism in matters pertinent to the Divine service ["before the Lord"]: Dr. J.H. Barrows, chief organizer of the Parliament of Religions; Mr. W.T. Stead, editor of the "Review of Reviews"; Rev. Theo. E. Steward, of the Brotherhood of Christian Unity; C.C. Bonney, originator of the Association for Promotion of Religious Unity and President of the Parliament of Religions; Rev. T. Chalmers, of the Disciple Church; Dr. Chas. A. Briggs, higher-critical theological professor; Rev. Theodore Munger; Dr. Rexford, prominent Universalist; Dr. Lyman Abbot, Beecher's successor; Lady Somerset (English noblewoman), Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, Universalist; Romanist Bishop Keane, Prof. Henry Drummond, author of "The Natural Law in the Spiritual World"; Dr. Candlin, missionary to China; Dr. Bristol, Methodist minister; Rev. Augusta Chapin, Rev. King, Methodist Church; Cardinal Gibbons, Chancellor Vincent, Chautauqua Literary Circle; Dr. T.J. Conarty, Romanist educator; Rev. S.F. Scovel, Presbyterian; Rev. F.H. Hopkins, Episcopalian, etc. By the refutation of their errors and practices and their being very publicly [against the sun] proven to be wrongdoers in matters pertinent to the Divine service [before the Lord], God's wrath was measurably appeased (v. 4).
(41) The charge that Moses gave to the judges of
Israel to kill every man within their jurisdictions who was joined to Baal-peor (v. 5) types our Lord's charge given to Bro. Russell and the pilgrims to refute the errorists with whom they came into contact who held the teachings of combinationism. How Bro. Russell did his part can be seen especially in the Tower of Nov. 1, 15, 1893, and in Chap. VI of Studies, Vol. IV treating of Babylon's Confusion— Ecclesiastical. In this work he was also joined by the pilgrims through the pertinent refutative teachings of their discourses and conversations. Bro. Russell's part in it, which was decidedly far larger than that of all the pilgrims combined, is particularly described typically in vs. 6-15. And it is because of his pertinent work being typed in these verses that we have chosen Num. 25 as the basis of this part of our chapter. The man of the children of Israel (v. 6) who caused a Midianitish woman to come near to his brethren types the class, representatives of which were mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which introduced among their fellow Christians the greatest error of combinationism's errors, to the effect that it makes no difference to God what one believes, if only he is sincere in it. This error sweeps away, as it were at one stroke of a broom, the distinctive claim of the Bible as between Christianity and all other religions, that it alone is true, and to the extent that the others differ from it they are false. This peculiar claim of true Christianity is pivoted on the fact that Christ alone is made of God Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Deliverance to those who would approach God, and that apart from Him is no salvation or approach to God (Matt. 1: 21; John 1: 9; 4: 14; 6: 27, 33, 35, 53; 8: 12; 10: 7-9; 14: 6; 17: 2; Acts 4: 12; Rom. 5: 18, 19; 1 Cor. 3: 11; 2 Cor. 5: 19; Eph. 1: 10; 2: 13, 18; Heb. 2: 3; Rev. 5: 3, 4). This, of course, is contradicted by that part of combinationism's errors which claims that it makes no difference to God what one believes, if only he is sincere; for this
error implies that a sincere Jew, Mohammedan or heathen is as acceptable to God now and in the hereafter as is a true Christian, which means that Christ is not the only Savior; rather His claims to be the only Savior prove Him a deceiver, according to this error.
(42) This man's bringing the Midianitish woman to his brethren publicly [in the sight of Moses, etc.—v. 6.] types the great publicity which the leaders of the combinationists gave to this most un-Christian error. As the sins of the Israelitish men at Baal-peor distressed Moses and all loyal Israelites, causing them to weep before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, so the great sin of combinationism pained Jesus and all loyal Christians in their relation to the Divine service. Phinehas (mouth of brass, i.e., strong mouth) was the oldest living son of the high priest Eleazar; therefore typically he sustained to Eleazar as the then high priest the same relation that the latter had held toward the former high priest Aaron, while he was his oldest living son, i.e., for the Gospel-harvest Phinehas types our Pastor as the chief Under-priest on earth, and in this scene Phinehas (brazen mouth) types our Pastor from the standpoint of the strength of the latter's pertinent utterances, teachings (Jer. 1: 18; 15: 20). Phinehas perceiving the wicked act and purpose of the Israelitish man and arising from among the mourning congregation types our Pastor perceiving the unholy course and purpose of the combinationistic leaders, and arising from among the mourners over combinationism to take practical measures against it. Phinehas taking a javelin—a small spear that is thrust at an antagonist—types our Pastor taking his article in the double Tower of Nov. 1, 15, 1893, into hand (powerfully), preparatory to thrusting it at the combinationistic leaders, for their taking part in the Chicago Parliament of Religions, where the antitypical fornication had especially taken place. Phinehas following the man into his tent types our Pastor pursuing after the combinationistic