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


leaders into their innermost theories, which were their dwelling place. Phinehas thrusting both through with the javelin, apparently while they were in the act of fornication, types our Pastor by the abovementioned article, completely refuting the combinationistic leaders and the particular error, that it makes no difference to God what one believes, if only he is sincere. Phinehas thrusting the javelin through the woman's belly (literally, genital organ) types our Pastor refuting the pertinent error and its unholy generative powers. Above we enumerated a list of the errors that support the particular one under consideration. All of these as the unholy generative powers of this one error were refuted thoroughly by our Pastor's pertinent article. As in Israel Phinehas' deed stayed the plague, so our Pastor's article stayed the pestilential effects of the involved error. First this effect was felt among Truth people and gradually it spread in such effect toward antitypical Israelites outside the Truth movement.


(43) Our Pastor's attacks on combinationism in the Nov. 1, 15, 1893, Tower, as it was manifest in the Parliament of Religions; and in the booklet, A Conspiracy Exposed, and the Extra Tower of June 11, 1894, as it was manifest among the Truth people by the conspirators, were marked examples of exalted courage. Practically all Christendom either sanctioned, or was silent as to disapproval of, the Parliament of Religions. The idea became increasingly popular. Those advocating interdenominational union or federation in almost every case favored the purposes of the Parliament of Religions. Its protagonists put the stigma of bigots and old fogies upon those who in any way showed disapproval. Church and secular papers were jubilant over that Parliament. Even the few who disapproved of it, whose leaders were mentioned above, did it with more or less timidity and misgivings. Who would dare attack so popular and widely supported a movement?—was the challenge of its promoters. Our



Lord's special representative, the chief Under-priest on earth at that time, that Servant, by God's grace would do it, and that with a courage that hesitated not a moment, nor refrained from speaking the Truth unvarnished and unambiguous! He certainly did not handle the combinationists with kid gloves; rather he figuratively pounded them with brazen knuckles, just as we should expect of antitypical Phinehas (brazen mouth). These remarks also characterize his intrepidity and courage in handling the Truth combinationists, Messrs. Zech, Adamson, Rogers and Bryan, in his booklet, A Conspiracy Exposed, and in the Extra Tower of June 11, 1894. Like their kindred-minded Levite leaders in the sixth sifting, these conspirators made the air blue with their shrieks against his supposed "uncharitable criticism," "bitter slander" and "judging." But he, undismayed, continued the attack until they were driven completely out from among Truth people, among other things, announcing in the Tower Extra of June 11, 1894, that the four above-named sifters were Second Deathers and that he had withdrawn all fellowship from them.


(44) The number of those who perished by the plague for the sin at Baal-peor (24,000—v. 9) being greater than that of those who perished at any other of Israel's wilderness plagues, types the fact that combinationism smote with a symbolic plague—a frenzy of delusion (Ps. 91: 5; 2 Thes. 2: 9-12)—more victims than any of the other harvest-sifting plagues did. God's appreciation of Phinehas' zeal for Him in staying the plague by killing the Israelitish man and the Midianitish woman (vs. 10, 11) types God's appreciation of our Pastor's pertinent zeal for Him in staying the combinationism plague by thoroughly refuting the combinationistic leaders and their main error. Among the Truth people the plague was stayed by our Pastor's booklet entitled, A Conspiracy Exposed, combined with a later publication (Z '94, 163-208) which gave further



exposures of that conspiracy (that of Messrs. Zech, Adamson, Rogers and Bryan), and which, in addition to those exposures, contained a great number of letters of brethren, expressing their sympathy with our Pastor, and further exposing and denouncing the conspirators. We conclude from God's statement (v. 11) that had Phinehas not acted as he did, the plague would have completely destroyed Israel—that had not our Pastor stayed the plague, it would have contaminated all antitypical Israel.


(45) As God rewarded Phinehas with His covenant of peace, i.e., His promise of prosperity (v. 12), so God rewarded our Pastor with His pledge of prosperity in His Priesthood; and certainly the latter's ministry from that time forward increased in prosperity by leaps and bounds. Up to that time the harvest work was comparatively small. From then onward it abounded more and more until his death, a day before which he could truly state, as to his part in the reapers' report, that he had carried out the Lord's charge committed to him (Ezek. 9: 11). In what way Phinehas would have God's promise of prosperity is indicated in v. 13. It was to be in the form of an age-lasting covenant of the priesthood for himself and his sons, prosperously conducted by them. Antitypically, this means that God announced in Spiritual Israel that Bro. Russell and all Priests loyal with him (the sons of antitypical Phinehas) would have a continuing and fruitful priesthood. How was this announcement made? We reply that shortly after our Pastor had refuted combinationism as manifest in the Parliament of Religions and as represented by the Truth conspirators (combinationists), God made known for the first time that "that Servant" of Matt. 24: 45-47 and Luke 12: 42-44 was not a class, as had previously been held, but was an individual—Bro. Russell. In calling him wise— efficient—God indicated the prosperity of his work, and in calling him faithful God indicated



that he would be a Priest unto the end; for one is not faithful unless he is loyal unto death. This public announcement in the case of the type and antitype was a reward of zeal for the Lord and for bringing the people into atonement with the Lord on the subject at hand ("zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel"—v. 13).


(46) Sr. Russell was very zealous in defending her husband against the slanderous attacks of the conspirators and thereby defended the Truth cause against them (Z '94, 167-174); and the Lord therefore rewarded her somewhat after the manner in which He exceptionally used other women (Acts 21: 9), with the privilege of being His mouthpiece in announcing the antitypical reward, i.e., of making known to the Lord's people that Bro. Russell as an individual servant of God was that Servant. This was first made known to her in the late summer of 1894. She first told it to Bro. Russell, who for a long time sought to refute the thought, until finally he was unable longer to oppose it, since the arguments in its favor are unanswerable. After talking of it to various individuals, after awhile he published the thought, first in a Tower article—Z '96, 47, and then later in Vol. IV, 613, 614. Thus, neither Jesus nor he considered it wrong for themselves to "see themselves in the Scriptures." We are not from the above to construe that our Pastor was first made that Servant after his battles with the combinationists in 1893 and 1894; for at the time, in 1879, that he struggled for 3 days with demons and demonized men, over the sin-offerings (antitypical Jashobeam battling with the antitypical Philistines in the vale of demons, while seeking the water from the well of antitypical Bethlehem), he was made that Servant as interpreter of the Word, though since the Spring of 1876 he was such as executive, he serving as such for years without his or anyone else knowing that he was such. The reward given him in 1894 was the acquainting of



him and of the Church with the fact, whereby his influence was very greatly enlarged, and thereby his fruitfulness as a Truth servant was greatly increased, even until he had faithfully completed his fruitful ministry.


(47) Zimri (sung), the Israelitish man who was slain with the Midianitish woman, as suggested by his name, types the combinationistic leaders from the standpoint of their being praised, sung, by their dupes; and certainly such leaders were highly praised by the deceived combinationists. That Zimri represents leaders is evident from the fact that he is called a prince of a chief house of his tribe. The combinationists' being tested and found wanting is typically implied in the name of Zimri's father, Salu (weighed). Cozbi, the name of the slain Midianitish woman, means liar, and thus she fittingly types the lying doctrine, that it makes no difference what one believes, if only he is sincere. Her father's name, Zur, means rock, and refers to the thought of the combinationists that "in union [combinationism] there is strength." It will be noted that Zur is mentioned (Num. 31: 8) as one of the five Midianitish kings slain. The story of Num. 31 is a picture of the Harvest from the standpoint of its refuting error, especially in the five siftings. The five slain kings of Midian type the five sifting errors. Zur, it will be noticed, is the third mentioned, and he types the third harvest-sifting error—combinationism, one of whose daughters is antitypical Cozbi. His being slain types the refutation of combinationism. God's charge to Moses to vex the Midianites (vs. 16-18) types God's charge to Christ to war against errorists. In the Harvest this was antityped. For details please see Chap. IV.


(48) The generalities of the antitype of Judg. 7: 9-15 we have set forth in Vol. V, Chap. IV, which may profitably be reviewed. In that chapter, in harmony with both its subject and the treatment that this Scripture



gives of the matter, our Lord's part is stressed. Here we will stress our Pastor's part, which, of course, was subordinate to our Lord's part, in the scouting expedition engaged in by him with our Lord, as typed in Judg. 7: 9-15. We will not here give the generalities set forth in the abovementioned chapter, but will at once discuss our subject as proposed above. It will be remembered that we gave bough as the meaning of the word Phurah, or Purah. This is the definition that a number of lexicographers give for the word, which is formed from the verb paar, or phaar. It is true that this word has as one of its meanings, to branch, from which the noun Phurah (bough) is derived; but it also has as one of its meanings, to expound; and from this definition the word Phurah, or Purah, means expounder, interpreter. Though in Vol. V, Chap. IV, we gave the definition bough to Phurah, we now think, in view of the fact that one of our Pastor's two special works was to expound the Lord's Word ("give the meat in due season"), that the definition, expounder, explainer, interpreter, is the one meant in Judg. 7: 9-15. A scout's special office is by investigation to gain information on the enemy for the army that he represents. And this was the case with the typical and antitypical Phurah, as the facts prove.


(49) The antitypical enemy under review were the Parousia errorists (Midianites), sinners (Amalekites), and self-seekers and worldlings (Children of the East), among God's nominal people. Jehovah, of course, knew, yea, foreknew, their doings; but He desired our Lord and our Pastor as real spiritual scouts to investigate their doings and the conditions that their doings revealed, in order to report these to the army that they represented. Hence Jehovah sent these out on the scouting tour antitypical of that of Gideon and Phurah. On this tour our Pastor acted as an eye for our Lord Jesus, i.e., our Lord Jesus for the Church looked at these things through our Pastor as His



eye that in turn through him as His mouth He might report them to the antitypical Gideonites. The report of the things observed during this scouting tour, generally speaking, was given by the Lord through the pen of our Pastor in the Tower articles entitled, Views From The Watch Tower, which appeared in most of its issues. Some of them were also given in Studies, Vols. II-IV, and some of them in tracts and B.S.M.'s. These Views From The Watch Tower are not only referred to in our text, but other Scriptures also refer to our Pastor's activities therein, e.g., Is. 21: 5-10; Hab. 2: 1, 2. While all of them did not expressly refer to the fallen conditions of the nominal church, all of them did imply, either directly or indirectly, these fallen conditions, the signs of good things indirectly implying these conditions in Babylon and the signs of evil things directly implying them. Hence all of the signs of the times were observed by our Lord and our Pastor during their 40 years' scouting tour in Christendom. The main things that our Pastor saw during this tour we will now briefly set forth under the two heads—secular signs and religious signs.


(50) One of the secular signs seen by him was the great increase of travel. This, as forecast in Dan. 12: 4, he sketched in various details of progress in its vehicles: steamboats, submarines, railroad trains, trolleys, autos, buses, airships, airplanes, etc., and showed how almost everybody travels more or less. Closely related to this sign is that of the increase of knowledge (Dan. 12: 4), on which he gave details as another sign of the times. This increase in knowledge was along general encyclopediac lines, embracing great details on the greatest variety of topics, and comprehending the spheres of theoretical and practical subjects. Especially did it exhibit itself in inventions of useful appliances and destructive implements and agencies. He pointed out frequently how these two signs were closely related to the overthrow of the present order



and the introduction of the new order. Very closely related to the foregoing signs was another on which he reported very many details that he observed throughout Christendom—the exposure of evils in all phases of society. He brought out details on the vices and crimes of Christendom, as proving its effeteness. He bared the conditions of poverty with their attendant tendencies of suffering, crime and disease. The slums and sweatshops came in for their exposure. He pointed out the abuses of the educational world, with its infidelity, higher criticism and materialistic philosophy. Statecraft in Christendom met with his exposures of its hunger for land, market and riches, its protection of the privileged classes as against the masses, its corruption of lawmakers, executives and judges, its election frauds, spoils system, boss rule, graft and land frauds, its squandering of state funds, its imposing of oppressive taxation, its statesmen using office for personal gain, its militarism and navalism, its dishonest diplomacy, its selfish, vengeful and plundering wars, its breaking of solemn treaties for national advantage, its oppression of the weak, its making might right, its national fears, envies, hatreds, rivalries and grudges, its selfish and unjust policies, etc. These signs presaged ruin to Christendom in state, to which he frequently called attention.


(51) Many, too, were his exposures, as signs of the times, of Christendom's financial, commercial and industrial world. On this line he exposed its stock gambling, stock watering, stock manipulation and stock frauds, its legal delays, technicalities, evasions and partialities, its price fixing and profiteering, its monopolizing the products of nature, its destroying competition, its dishonest and ruthless competition, its substitution of inferior for superior materials, its adulterations, its subsidizing of the press, its landlordism, the dishonesty of many of its bank and trust officials and of much of their bookkeeping, its bribery and special privileges,



its tax dodging and frauds, its frequent clearing of the rich, and almost unfailing punishment of the poor criminals caught in the toils of the law, its unauthorized use of trust funds, its insurance scandals, its railroad crookedness, its trusts' abuses, its destructive battles of financial giants, its buying of elections, its manufacture of panics and wars, its fattening on wars while imposing unsupportable burdens on the people, its reckless use of money in luxury and wrong, its bequeathing of vast estates and titles frequently to incompetents, its frequent disregard of the needs of the submerged, its pride, ostentation, cruelty and heartlessness of its money and pleasure madness. These signs presage Christendom's financial ruin and were set forth by him as such. He frequently quoted from the Scriptures to show that the exposures of Christendom's evils forecast its destruction in the Time of Trouble (1 Thes. 5: 14; 2 Pet. 3: 10; Rev. 16: 15; 1 Cor. 4: 5; Ps. 50: 1-22; 82: 15, etc.).


(52) Among other signs indicating Christendom's speedy overthrow, he called attention to its appalling calamities in the form of great famines, pestilences, earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, wars, revolutions, etc., showing that while many of them were stripings for wrong, they presaged Christendom's overthrow, as many of them were connected with climatic changes introductory of Millennial conditions, which, of course, implied Christendom's overthrow. With special emphasis and pleasure did he point out as a sign of Christendom's near destruction and of the Kingdom's near establishment Israel's return to God's favor, as evidenced by the gradual removing of blindness from their eyes and prejudice from their hearts as respects Jesus Christ and as evidenced by their gradual return to their land. He showed that powerful inducements—religious, patriotic, persecuting, rational, agricultural, financial, political and legal—were making their return to Palestine



desirable. He cited the political, financial, organizational and agitational conditions that made their return to their home land feasible. Repeatedly he reported companies and individuals of them returning to Zion, and showed that this was a prophetic sign (Jer. 16: 14-16; Ezek. 37: 21, 22, 25; Amos 9: 14, 15; etc.). Another sign of the times that he stressed was the gigantic war preparations of Christendom. Herein he stressed the large armies, navies, submarine and air fleets of Christendom. He stressed the immense dreadnaughts and destructive explosives, cannons, torpedoes, gases, bombs and pestilential germs. He emphasized their forts and fortresses, their military training, conscription and army camps, their enlisting inventive genius to create new destructive weapons and ammunitions and their reducing war to scientific destruction. He found these things forecast in Joel 3: 9-11 and showed how they forecast the World War as the first stage in Christendom's destruction, which forecast was fulfilled.


(53) Another set of somewhat related secular signs that our Pastor, as antitypical Phurah, observed on his scouting tour and brought in report to us were those associated with social strife, leading to great unrest. Prominent among these were those events connected with the conflict between capital and labor. At times it is a conflict of words; at times it is a conflict of blows. On capital's part, at times, he showed how it seeks to impose lower wages, longer hours, poorer working conditions, organized capitalists dealing with labor, yet rejecting union labor and its representatives. On labor's part he showed that it seeks to raise wages, shorten hours, improve working conditions, form unions, secure recognition of unions and its official representatives, unionize shops, etc., secure collective bargaining and settlement of individual grievances. He showed how in the worst forms of these conflicts capital resorted to lockouts, securing injunctions,



hiring strike breakers, using a police and militia of its own and fomenting pitched battles between these and labor; while he showed how that on labor's part it has resorted to strikes, picketing, manhandling strike breakers, boycotts, riots and pitched battles. He showed how to capital's aid as a rule state and church have rallied, with the result that society has been divided into two classes: the conservatives, consisting of capital, state and church, and the radicals, consisting of farmers, trade unionists, socialists, communists and anarchists. Antitypical Phurah referred, among others, to such passages as Jas. 5: 15 and Amos 8: 37 as forecasting this conflict, and he pointed out that this conflict presaged Christendom's fall. Partly involved in this sign of the times is another broader one— the bundling of the tares, which, on the basis of Matt. 13: 29, 30, 40, 41 and Rev. 14: 17-20, he showed, likewise presages the overthrow of Christendom. He pointed out the secular bundling process in the trusts and corporations of the business and financial world, in the trade unions, farmers' granges, etc., and socialist, communist, and anarchist organizations of the labor world, in the secret societies, insurance societies and clubs of the social world, in the teachers' and professors' organizations of the educational world, in the political parties and international alliances of the political world, and in the society uplift movements and benevolent organizations of the reform world. These he likewise pointed out as presaging Christendom's ruin.


(54) As belonging to the same group as the two foregoing signs, antitypical Phurah watched and pointed out the general unrest among all classes and conditions of men in Christendom, finding this condition forecast in Luke 21: 25. He showed how in the world of the statesmen and politicians unrest, uncertainty and perplexity were general. He also recognized and reported this as being true in the business world of manufacture, commerce and finance. The



unrest in the labor world with its varied agitations, dissatisfactions, revolts and conflicts, varying in trade unionism, grangerism, socialism, communism and anarchism, he watched and reported. The great unrest in the reform world and in the sociological and educational worlds were also observed by him and reported. The unrest in family life, seen in troubles between husbands and wives, parents and children and near and far relations, also came under his observation and received its appropriate report. On all hands he witnessed the unrest of the Parousia times and pointed out that this sign was directly connected with the preparation of the elements for the Time of Trouble. And, finally, among the secular signs of the times he observed the fact that thinking people in general recognized the presence of an unmanageable crisis in human affairs. Studying various crises in human history, he recognized the presence in his day of similar, but more magnified conditions than those that marked such crises. E.g., the unmanageable crisis that introduced the French Revolution he found exhibited conditions similar to, but on a smaller scale than those which he saw about him; for he noted that just before the French Revolution religion was disparaged, authority was disobeyed, strife marked the relations of capital and labor, class hatred abounded, bread riots occurred, deep-seated dissatisfaction prevailed, great social inequalities were in vogue, agitations for radical changes were carried on, safety in flight was sought by close observers of the trend of things, reformers offered their panaceas and optimists saw everything evolving to better conditions. These very things that indicated the crisis leading up to the storm of the French Revolution, which broke with devastating effect, he saw on all hands, but in greatly magnified forms. He therefore reported these and showed that they foreshadowed the Time of Trouble. Such passages as Luke 21: 26; Is. 29: 14; etc., he recognized as forecasting



this crisis. Thus he saw many secular signs presaging the coming trouble and faithfully reported the matter as ruinous to the antitypical Midianites, Amalekites and Children of the East, as all of us know.


(55) But in antitypical Phurah's scouting tour with antitypical Gideon he also saw many religious signs of the times, all of which likewise presaged ruin for the antitypical Midianites, Amalekites and Children of the East. One of these was the Gospel witness having been by 1861 given to all nations, as a precursor of the end of the Age, the Parousia (Matt. 24: 14), observing which, he reported it to the antitypical Gideonites. As a thing showing Babylon's fallen condition he observed and reported to the Faithful the wide spread of error. This he observed in the formation of new sects, sectlets and cults of many kinds, in the rapid advance of super-naturalistic sects, such as Spiritism, Christian Science, fanatical movements, faithcurism, and in the advocacy of materialism, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism, rationalism, evolution, higher criticism and in the spread of various Hindoo and other heathen cults in Christendom. Having seen these he made faithful report thereon, even as he saw these alluded to in Matt. 24: 24. Widespread wickedness was another sign of the times that he witnessed and reported. In its Godward form such wickedness was covered in the preceding point. Manward he saw and reported it as he witnessed the evils in the family life and sex relations. In social life he saw and reported it in the cheapening of human life and its destruction by public wars and private crime, in the putting of property rights above human rights, in the dishonesties of finance, business and industry, in the corruptions of public life, in the slanders and reputation-slaying and in the deceitfulness and hypocrisy of private and public life, and in the money and pleasure madness of our



times. As a sign of the times he recognized it as taught in Matt. 24: 12; 2 Tim. 3: 13.


(56) Other signs he observed that showed the fallen condition of the nominal church. Among these was the predicted mocking at our Lord's secret invisible presence. No conscientious and fairly intelligent nominal church member would deny that the Bible teaches our Lord's return, but that He was to return invisibly and secretly was unknown to them. Hence when it was announced as having set in that manner, the predicted scoffing took place: "Where is the promise of His presence?" By such scoffing they fulfilled the predicted scoffing, and this was reported by antitypical Phurah after he observed it. Again, the great falling away from Christian faith and practice among clergy and laity, as set forth in 2 Tim. 3: 19, he diligently watched and faithfully reported to the Church. He pointed out that the clergy were by facts being proven to be self-lovers, money-lovers, popularity-lovers, pleasure-lovers, unbelievers, dishonest, moral cowards and other things mentioned in the passage just cited. He observed and pointed out the laity as being generally ignorant of the Bible, zealless, worldly, inimical to Truth and friendly to error and largely held in the churches by things appealing to their fleshly mind. Furthermore, he pointed out the federating of the churches as forecast in Is. 8: 9-11; Rev. 6: 14. This he traced in its embryo state in the uniting of the various sects of each denomination, then the denominations' flirting with one another, and finally the forming of an incorporated federation, which he recognized as getting life in 1908, when the house of bishops and the house of deputies, representing the Episcopal Church, gave a blanket, as distinct from an individual, ordination to the ministers of the Federation, by sanctioning their appearance in Episcopal pulpits, which act gave life to the image. These things he spied out for, and reported to the Church.



(57) Then he observed and reported some movements that were good for the true Church, but that foreboded evil to the nominal church. One of these was the general expectation of the nearness of the Kingdom on the part of all the consecrated. This he saw as a fulfillment of Matt. 25: 1-12; for not only the wise virgins, who have been favored with the Truth, were, as he pointed out, in such expectation, but also the foolish virgins, who were not in the Truth, also expected it. And this sign he faithfully observed and reported to the Church. The clarifying of the Truth and its becoming due on an ever-widening scale he diligently observed and reported. He based this sign on passages like Dan. 12: 10; Is. 60: 1, 2; 52: 6, 7; Luke 12: 37; 1 Cor. 10: 11. On this point he did not only act as a scout, but as the agent through whom the Truth was expounded. Again, he watched and reported the harvest work as going on. He found it forecast in such passages as: Ps. 50: 5; Matt. 13: 29, 30, 41-43; Rev. 14: 14-20. He called our attention to the meaning of that work, described its message, pointed out its reapers, explained its methods and indicated its results. Thus he did faithful scouting work thereon and reported what he saw to the Church. He also closely observed the testing of the consecrated as a sign of the times (Mal. 3: 1-4; Matt. 7: 24-27; 1 Cor. 3: 12-15). He pointed out what this testing was, through what it was accomplished, how it worked and how it affected the consecrated. All of this class of signs foreboded good to the true Church and by that very fact foreboded ill to the nominal church. Then, connected with these testings of the consecrated, were the siftings which separated the unfaithful from the faithful. He diligently observed these and pointed out their number, means, victims, errors and results. He found these referred to in passages like 2 Tim. 3: 1-9; 1 Cor. 10: 5-14, etc. Other matters like Antichrist's increased exposure and the later experiences of



antitypical Elijah he observed and reported. He made faithful use of his privileges of going down to the camp of the antitypical Midianites, Amalekites and Children of the East with antitypical Gideon, and also of returning with Him and reporting the observations of his scouting tour to the Faithful on secular and religious matters.


(58) Many of these matters were also observed by the foolish virgins in the nominal church, as typed by the dream that the Midianite in the outskirts of the camp had

(v. 13). They saw that these events and conditions foreboded ill for the nominal church, as pictured forth by the overthrowing of the Midianite tent in the dream. They saw that in some manner the Lord was connected with the means used in the overthrow of the antitypical Midianitish tent. But the meaning of these events was not clear to them. They therefore asked their foolish-virgin teachers, who expounded these matters as showing that our Lord was at work to overthrow the nominal church, her teachings and practices, even as the Midianite explained to his fellow the dream (v. 14). These things our Pastor also observed and reported with the thought, encouraging to the brethren, that what they saw clearly their foolish-virgin brethren were seeing in a measure, and that this was a reason for encouragement, since it showed that even in the ranks of the enemy the fear of antitypical Gideon and His little army had entered. Hence our study shows that in our dear Pastor's pertinent acts we find a splendid fulfillment of the Phurah type, as proven by the facts of the case.


(1) What three things does David in the Psalms type? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does he type in the histories? Why are details thereon not given? As a warrior pilgrim by whom is he typed?


(2) Why is it reasonable to assume that all who dealt with David were types? What results from this as to Jashobeam? What other consideration corroborates this? What five terms applied to him strengthen this thought?



What two mistranslations mar the thought of 2 Sam. 23: 8? Corrected how does it stand related to 1 Chron. 11: 11? What is the proper translation?


(3) How do the pertinent Samuel and Chronicles passages differ from one another? What proves both to be true? What do spears type? What is the parallel in the priest figure? What do facts prove to be the greatest and next greatest symbolic battle of our Pastor? What does Jashobeam's slaying 800 Philistines type? His slaying 300 Philistines? Who else slew 300 Philistines with his spear? What does he type? What two things did this fact help to clarify?


(4) What will show that our Pastor's writings wrought havoc with the doctrines of eternal torment and the consciousness of the dead? What are the titles of some of his pertinent writings? How otherwise did he smite these two errors? Why is this work not shown in our texts? What did his pertinent activities do for us?


(5) Since when were these types understood? What is the character of the typical deeds? Whose exploits only surpass them? What is the difference as to the two? What effects did our Pastor's pertinent battlings against these errors have? What did the knowledge of this influence the writer to suggest? What is not, and what is the thought as to participation in this service? How do our Pastor's pertinent exploits serve? For what is such an annual special service fitting?


(6) What is now to be discussed? How are the two accounts presented? As indicated by the blank spaces in the parallel accounts, how do these accounts differ?


(7) Who were the three chiefs of David's mighty men? In whom in this study does our interest center? What does the rock here type? How do the cited passages show this? Whom does David here type? What confirms this? What is typed by David's being in the cave of Adullam? By his being in the hold? How does Ps. 91: 1, 2 suggest this? What do the Philistines in relation to Jashobeam type? What does Rephaim mean? What is typed by the valley of Rephaim? What was the relation between the demons and the no-ransomers? In the pertinent warfare where did Bro. Russell find safety? What does Bethlehem mean and type? Whom does the Philistine



garrison at Bethlehem type? What does Jashobeam's coming to David type?


(8) What does Bethlehem's well represent? David's longing to drink from it, as related to Jashobeam? What made the antitypical longing greater? What is typed by Jashobeam's breaking through the Philistines' ranks to get the water? By David's refusing to drink the water? His pouring it out as a drink-offering to the Lord?


(9) What in this connection will interest the readers? How came this experience to be related to the writer? What did Mr. Barbour in 1878 do to preserve his influence? Why did he deem this necessary? What was the diverting explosion? Wherein was it set off? What resulted in the magazine? What did our Pastor do in the Spring of 1879? What did he shortly thereafter do? What was Mr. Barbour's reaction? What appeared in the early Fall of 1879? What was its character?


(10) What was the effect of this article on our Pastor? Why? Of what was this the antitype? For what did he fear? How did this fear affect him? What did he at once see? Why? What did he not have? Of what was he conscious? What was the effect of these things on him? To whom did he go? For what? What reason did he give for the petition? What pertinent promise did he make?


(11) What word did he send to his Pittsburgh foreman? What did he then do? What did he then do with the book of Hebrews? Why? What was the result by late that night? What did he do the whole of the next day? With what results? What struck his attention at noon of the third day? What did he note about v. 11? About v. 12? About v. 13? What did he immediately see? How did this discovery affect him? What did he do as to his wife's caution?


(12) What resulted? Why? What did parallel passages do? What course did he pursue? What did he tell the conference? Except Mr. Paton, what did the leading brethren do about it? What did Mr. Paton do about it? Why? What did he do two years later?


(13) What did Bro. Russell do after the conference? With what effect? When and where was the subject first



treated in print? What marked the attitude of the friends during the Harvest on this subject?


(14) What did our Pastor say was the reason of the three days' delay in the answer to his prayer? Without being aware of it, what was in these experiences given to him? As such what was the first meat that he brought out of the storehouse? What did he do with the promise made in his prayer? How? What kind of a portion did he then dip out of the well? What kind was the pertinent battle? What did it do to the Church? To what should gratitude and appreciation move us?


(15) How should we not, and how should we observe the annual Memorial services of our Pastor? What is not repeated in this chapter as to his Memorial? What is the general character of this chapter? What two phases of his work as a Priest are emphasized in this chapter? What has already been done in this volume as to Eleazar's typical relations? What conclusion does a comparison of Num. 4: 16 and Matt. 18: 18 warrant? And Matt. 24: 45-47 and Luke 12: 43-46? Wherefrom does this latter thought appear? What application will we here not elaborate? What one will we elaborate?


(16) What were the two modes of our Pastor's activity as the Gospel-harvest Eleazar? In how many duties did these two work? What was Eleazar's first duty as given in our text? What does the oil represent? What did its antitype imply? What did this imply of our Pastor? What one of the brethren's ministering capacities did his teaching and executive functions on this point concern? How did he exercise his teaching function on this point? His executive function? What do pertinent facts prove?


(17) What was Eleazar's second charge according to our text? What does the unburnt incense type in Jesus? In the Church? What kind of a charge could our Pastor not have had as to Jesus' incense? Why not? What kind of an executive charge could he have toward it? What kind of a charge did he have in this respect? What proves that he performed this charge? What work did he, and what work did he not perform toward the incense of the Church before his days? Toward what part of the Church in this charge did he act fully as teacher



and executive? In what ways did he therein act as teacher? What are the main things represented by the unburnt incense? How did he act therein as executive?


(18) What was Eleazar's third charge according to our text? What does the meat or meal-offering type? Under what circumstances did it include the drink-offering? In what forms and by what agents was the Truth as the meal-offering set forth? How did our Pastor perform the teaching part of this charge? The executive part of this charge? What do the facts prove as to this charge?


(19) What was Eleazar's fourth duty according to our text? What does the anointing oil type? Where are the ingredients of this antitypical oil set forth? How may this antitypical oil be stated? As teacher what was our Pastor to do as to this charge? How did he perform it? In what ways did he do this? What features of character development did this teaching include? As executive what was our Pastor to do as to this charge? How did he do this directly? Indirectly? How negatively did he as executive act in this charge, both directly and indirectly? What do facts prove as to this charge?


(20) What was Eleazar's fifth charge? What did this imply? What does the tabernacle type? In its holy? In its most holy? In its court? What would this antitypically mean for the Gospel Harvests? When and by what act did he cease to function as the Gospel-harvest Eleazar? What would it mean for him as to the justified humanity of the sacrificers and of Levites? What did his Parousia teaching and executive charge imply as to the Holy? As to the Most Holy? What does this imply of him when he is beyond the vail? What will be his and the Apostles' positions? How will he and they be related in these positions?


(21) What was Eleazar's sixth charge? By what two expressions is this proved? How is this proved by the grammatical construction of the last three parts of verse 16? What, therefore, was Eleazar's sixth charge? What follows from this as to our Pastor's sixth charge? What is the antitype of the brazen altar? In what activities? What is the difference between the antitypical Brazen Altar and the sacrifice on it? What was our Pastor's teaching charge as to this Altar? In what three ways