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


not have been but a step above a monkey, but must have had a perfect human body, life, right to life and life-rights, else God's Justice would have unjustly exacted much more than an exact equivalent of the first man. But God's Justice never acts unjustly. Hence the first man must have been perfect in body, life, right to life and life-rights, since God justly required for him as a corresponding price the perfect human body, life, right to life and life-rights of Jesus.


(20) This argument struck evolution in its forehead—the main feature of its theory, man's descent from a monkey. As the blow of David's stone was so forceful as to sink into Goliath's forehead, thus irreparably injuring it, so Bro. Russell's question and answer method of argument on the ransom as against evolution struck its main feature so forceful a blow as irreparably to have wounded and consequently killed it. And as David's blow stunned and then killed Goliath so that he fell face forward upon the earth unconscious, so Bro. Russell's blow with the ransom, argument stunned and refuted evolution into unconsciousness whereby it fell disgraced (face forward and down) to the earth in utter defeat. V. 50 sums up the statements of v. 49 by way of emphasis through repetition, adding the statement that by the sling and stone David slew Goliath. Hence special emphasis should be laid on the manner—the question and answer method of argumentation—by which Bro. Russell defeated in complete refutation (slew, v. 50) evolution. The things that David did afterward (v. 51) were indignities added to the slaying and heaped upon a boastful but fallen foe deservedly. The statement (v. 50) that there was no sword in David's hand types the fact that Bro. Russell's utter refutation of evolution was not by a controversial discourse. It was by the question and answer method of reasoning. David's running and standing upon Goliath (v. 51) represents Bro. Russell's speedy and further triumph over evolution; for in ancient times one's



triumphing over a foe was symbolized by his tramping upon him, even as the Church's victory over its four institutional foes—the papacy (the lion), the Satan system (the adder), the Federation of Churches (the young lion) and the civil power (the dragon)—is described in Ps. 91: 13 as a treading upon, a trampling under feet. See also Gen. 3: 15 and Rom. 16: 20 (margin). He did this standing upon refuted evolution by his use against it of the other four doctrines mentioned above as the other four symbolic stones (truths).


(21) He used the first of these—man's creation in perfection as God's image and likeness—against evolution as follows: If man was created in God's image perfect, man must then have been in a higher state than his present one. Hence the first man was not but one step removed from a monkey, nor has man since the first man been evoluting— progressing in gradual development—for he is now far removed from perfection physical, mental, moral and religious. He used the second of these five doctrines— man's fall into sin and degradation physical, mental, moral and religious—as follows: If the first man was one step removed from a monkey, and if he has been developing upward ever since, there could have been no fall into sin nor increasing degradation physical, mental, moral and religious. But human history is replete with evidences of man's increasing degradation. He used the fourth of the five involved doctrines—the high calling—against evolution as follows: The only exception to the rule of mankind's progressive degradation is the experience of the saints who overcome by God's grace the corruption (degradation) that is upon the world through lust (2 Pet. 1: 4). These, at the sacrifice—not evolution—of their humanity, are undergoing a development toward perfection mental, moral and religious, not, however, in the sense of evolution's survival of the fittest and natural selection, but by the operation of spiritual laws, to which God's grace enables saints to render obedience, which, of course, also is refutative of



evolution. And, finally, he used the fifth—restitution—of the five above-mentioned truths (the five symbolic stones) against evolution as follows: The Bible holds out restitution as man's glorious hope for the future. If the original man was but one step removed from a monkey restitution would be, instead of a great favor, one of the greatest possible curses and evils for man; for it would make him become but one step removed from a monkey, if evolution on man's original state were true. But the Bible holds out restitution as the greatest possible blessing for mankind. Hence evolution must be false. Thus by the use of these four of the five involved doctrines Bro. Russell stood upon evolution in triumph.


(22) Goliath's sword types evolution's discourses in which it stressed its main arguments for man's supposed development. These were evidences of progress in knowledge, invention, works of mercy and utility, discovery, means of communication, etc., that marked the nineteenth century above all preceding ones. To these evolution pointed in its lectures (sword) as the most positive proof that mankind was evoluting physically, mentally, morally and religiously. These very arguments Bro. Russell turned against evolution and thus took its theory away from it with its own discourse points (cut off Goliath's head with his own sword, v. 51). He showed that these inventions, etc., were not due to man's evoluting, but to superhuman causes—Millennial fore gleams whereby God was preparing to overthrow Satan's empire and establish God's kingdom. He pointed out that these things proved, not an increase of man's capacity, but an increase of the use of diminished capacities and an increase of opportunity, that only a few of the race were great inventors, thinkers, reformers, etc., and that these did not impart such qualities to their offspring, as the history of great inventors, reformers and thinkers proves. If evolution were true, the offspring of Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, Spencer, Haeckel, Shakespeare, Milton, Luther, Lincoln,



etc., should have excelled them, which certainly is not the case; for the offspring of geniuses are almost invariably mediocre in caliber. He used the facts that, apart from the superhuman causes for the progress since 1799, when the day of the Lord's preparation set in, the accomplishments of the preceding centuries in architecture, poetry, prose, painting, sculpture, eloquence and inductive and deductive reasoning were superior to any examples of which the 19th and 20th centuries could boast. Thus with evolution's own main lecture arguments Bro. Russell cut off its head—took its theory away from it by its own points.


(23) As in the case of David's victory (v. 51) the Philistine host was disheartened and fled and the typical Israelites and Judahites were encouraged and pursued the fleeing Philistines, so all branches of infidelity, when they recognized that the champion of infidelity was overthrown by Bro. Russell, became disheartened and retreated from the field of debate, while the antitypical Israelites (defenders of the Bible outside the Truth) and the antitypical Judahites (defenders of the Bible in the Truth) were greatly encouraged and pursued in debate the retreating hosts of infidelity. In these debates the warriors for the Bible took the aggressive (shouted, etc.), crushed the infidel arguments and put their supporters to flight (v. 52). Ekron means extinction and Gath means winepress. Shaaraim means two gates. The pursuit was northward as far as Ekron, eastward as far as Gath and southward as far as Shaaraim. The thought in the antitype seems to be that the pursuit was to some unto extinction of their arguments (Ekron), to others to a crushing to their arguments (Gath, winepress, where grapes are crushed) and to still others to a double overthrow of their arguments (Shaaraim, two gates). The antitypical pursuit was manifest in the production of an immense number of anti-infidel books, lectures, debates, sermons and conversations. The fourteen above-mentioned authors—five from Germany, five from England



and four from America—are only a few of the outstanding pursuers of the hosts of infidels who were certainly either utterly defeated or crushed or doubly overthrown in the ensuing controversy. Certainly, as the second sifting shows, infidelity received an irremedial defeat at the hands of Christian apologists. Not only so, but all their points were taken away from them and turned on them in this fight, as the books and lectures on the pertinent subjects show (the children of Israel … spoiled their tents, v. 53). We are not to understand that David immediately took Goliath's head (v. 54) to Jerusalem; for it was not taken from the Jebusites until many years later. Rather we are to understand that he kept Goliath's head, perhaps embalmed or reduced to a bare set of bones until after Jerusalem was taken, when he deposited it there, perhaps with some other trophies of his numerous victories. Antitypically, Bro. Russell kept the theory of evolution in his power and deposited it among his trophies in his sphere of rulership. David's keeping Goliath's armor in his tent seems to represent that Bro. Russell kept the defensive and offensive weapons of evolution among his debating equipment for refutative uses from time to time. Let us remember that such refutative uses lasted until after the outbreak of the World War in 1914.


(24) The story of David and Goliath, so far as the chapter under study is concerned, ends with a triumphant presentation of Israel's champion to Israel's king by the commander-in-chief of Israel's army, Abner (father of light). Abner seems to represent the polemical theological professors, who certainly have been the controversial leaders of the Bible's defenders. The fourteen whom we mentioned before were such. Saul's question to Abner (v. 55), Whose son is this youth? types the inquiry of certain of the crown-lost princes, among, them Dr. Cook, as to from what theological university Bro. Russell was a graduate. Abner's answer (v. 55) types the solemn assurance that the polemical



theological professors gave of the fact that none of them knew from what theological university he graduated, which implies that he was not such a graduate, though in the type so far studied this thought was not yet given. Saul's request that Abner should find out whose son the young champion was (v. 56) types the fact that the crown-lost princes desired, and therefore requested of the polemical theological professors, to find out from which theological university Bro. Russell was a graduate. David's returning from the slaughter of Goliath (v. 57) types Bro. Russell's return from the battle with evolution. While he was so doing the theological professors took him, not personally, but representatively, i.e., as he was found in his writings, to the crown-lost princes, even as Abner took David to and before Saul (v. 57). The scene at the meeting of David and Saul was a memorable one. There stood the giant Saul, who was about seven feet tall, while David appears to have been only of an average height, five feet nine inches, perhaps. There stood little David looking up with greatly upturned head into Saul's inquiring and wondering eyes. And in David's hand, dangling by its hair, was the enormous head of Goliath, a most impressive though gruesome trophy of bravery and victory. In the antitype we are not to understand that there was a personal meeting between the crown-lost princes and Bro. Russell, mediated by the polemical theological professors. Rather, the last brought Bro. Russell's pertinent writings to the crown lost princes' attention and these from them recognized that the theory of evolution (Goliath's head) was in Bro. Russell's power.


(25) As Saul asked David, Whose son art thou? (v. 58), so the crown-lost princes asked Bro. Russell in his writings this question. As they studied his pertinent writings, especially his Bible versus the Evolution Theory, they got from them the thought antitypical of David's answer to Saul's question—I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite, i.e., from his writings they got the answer that he was the graduate of



no theological school, but was a member of God's people, and that an undenominational Bible student—a Bethlehemite—a Bibleite; for in the School of Christ, in which the Bible is the book of texts, he found the Bible and the Bible alone to be the source and rule of doctrine, practice and organization for God's faithful people. What a fitting close in its humility and force to both the type and the antitype the answers of God's Beloved were!


(1) How many functions were there in the office of that Servant? What proves each of these? As what does David not represent that Servant? What exception is there to this rule? Why? In what event is there such a mingling? What proves this? Whom do the Philistines represent in general? What will determine the kind of sectarians meant? What kind of sectarians do they represent in 1 Sam. 17? What are the chief sects among infidels? What kind of sectarians do the Philistines represent elsewhere? For example whom?


(2) What do the men of Judah represent in 1 Sam. 17? The men of Israel? Saul? This war between Israel and the Philistines? What does Shochoh of Judah mean and type? Azekah? The battle line from Shochoh to Azekah? Ephesdammim? Saul's and the men of Israel's being gathered together in the valley of Elah? The Philistines arrayed on one mountain? The Israelites on the other? The valley between? Summed up, what does v. 3 teach antitypically?


(3) What do the words Goliath and Gath mean? What did Goliath stand forth as, and represent? According to the secular cubit what was his height? Why does the secular and not the sacred cubit here apply? What is represented by his great height? How does Mr. Darwin rank among the world's great men? What does Goliath's armor represent? His helmet? His coat of mail? Its weight? Its greaves? His target? His spear? His spear's head? Its weight? His shield? The one who bore it? His sword? What likely outweighed his coat of mail? What was the probable weight of his whole armor? What did its weight type? What is typed by the numbers in Goliath's height? By the numbers in the weight of his coat of mail and his spear-head?

568 The Parousia Messenger.


(4) What is the subject of vs. 8-10? How was the antitypical challenge not given? Why not? How was it given? How did evolution in its advocates feel, and not feel, as to the necessary extent of the pertinent discussion? Why so? What does Goliath's challenge type? What was the effect, type and antitype, of the challenge? Why did it have this effect in the antitype?


(5) What is the subject of vs. 12-20? What does the word David mean? What is typed by its meaning? What do the words Ephrathite, Bethlehem and Judah mean? What is typed by the meaning of Ephrathite? Of Bethlehem? Of Judah? What is implied antitypically by David's being a son of Jesse? In general, what is typed by the eight sons of Jesse? What does age represent in Bible figures? How does Zech. 8: 4 prove this? What is typed by Jesse being counted an old man in Saul's days? Whom do the three oldest sons of Jesse, generally speaking, type? What does the word Eliab mean? Whom does he type? What does the word Abinadab mean? Whom does he type? What does the word Shammah mean? Whom does he type? To whom do the fourth, fifth and sixth sons correspond? How do we get this thought as to the pre-Epiphany crown-losers, despite the fact that there was no Great Company as such before the Epiphany? Whom does the seventh son of Jesse type? The eighth? What is typed by the three eldest following Saul?


(6) What is taught and then typed in 1 Sam. 16: 18-23? What as typed in v. 18 marked Bro. Russell from 1872 to 1874? What as typed in vs. 21-23 marked him from 1874 to 1876? To what does 1 Sam. 17: 15 antitypically refer? To what time especially? What did he then especially do? In David's case when did his return to Bethlehem occur? In Bro. Russell's case when did the return to antitypical Bethlehem occur? How was the progress of evolution's aggressiveness marked chronologically? When did it first attract our Pastor's attention? What do the 40 days of v. 16 type? On what day did the typical fight occur? How is this not to be understood antitypically? Why not? For what reasons is the typical fight referred to as occurring on the 40th day? How does the type, accordingly, present the picture? What is typed by the challenge being given morning and evening during the 40 days?


(7) When did the antitype of vs. 17-19 occur? What



is typed by the ephah of parched corn? By the ten loaves? By the ten cheeses? What was Bro. Russell's course as to these three pieces of literature? What is typed by Jesse encouraging David to take the food to his brethren? By his charging David to inquire for his brothers' welfare? By his charging David to take their pledge? What fixes the time of the antitypical charge? When was it? Why then? What other fact fixes this time? When, accordingly, did the antitype of vs. 17-19 set in? What kind of persons engaged in this fight? Name five of these in Germany, five of these in Britain and four of these in America.


(8) When did Bro. Russell in antitype of v. 20 begin to circulate the special Tower articles as tracts and Food For Thinking Christians? What are typed by the sheep of v. 20? The keeper of v. 20? David's doing what Jesse charged him to do? To what did this activity bring him? At what juncture? What had the two opposing hosts done by 1881? How did the separate divisions of the two armies face each other? In what did this result? How long? What is meant by David's carriage? What is typed by his leaving it with the keeper of the carriage? What did these do with it? What is represented by David's running into the army? By his greeting his brethren there?


(9) What is typed by Goliath's coming forth while David talked with his brothers? What was the character of evolution's attitude and activities? What is typed by David's hearing Goliath's challenge? What effect did this challenge have, type and antitype? How are the type and antitype not, and how are they to be understood? Why? What is typed by the Israelitish soldiers discussing Goliath? What was the contents of the discussion in type and antitype? What did they say, type and antitype, as to the reward of Goliath's slayer?


(10) What, among others, were two of Bro. Russell's qualities? What resulted therefrom? How did he regard the resultant condition? What did this lead him to think? What attitude did these feelings lead him to assume? How did that attitude impress Bible defenders? Of what are these considerations the antitype? What is the antitype of David's second question in v. 26? How comparatively did the people answer David? What is the antitype of this? How does the preceding discussion impress us?


(11) What is the character of the facts underlying the



suggested antitype of Eliab? Why so? What is typed by Eliab's hearing David's questions? How did Bro. Russell's presence among Bible defenders impress the clergy? Why? What is antitypically implied in Eliab's first question? In his second question? Why, among other reasons, did the clergy despise Bro. Russell? As what did they despise the symbolic sheep? What is the antitypical significance of the wilderness here? Of what did the clergy accuse Bro. Russell? How did they regard his purpose as to the battle?


(12) Why was David's answer to the point? Why had he done no wrong in coming to the army? What are the antitypes of these points? What was David's other question? Why was it to the point? What is the antitype of these things? What justified Bro. Russell's presence to the army? And that comparatively? What did the typical and antitypical answers do to the accuser? What is typed by David's turning away from Eliab to another? How did his attitude continue? And the people's answer? What thought did David's assurance give the people? What resulted therefrom? What is the antitype of these things? What was the condition of the typical and antitypical Saul? What resulted therefrom?


(13) What will here be related as the antitype of the conversation between David and Saul? From whom and under what circumstances did the writer hear this bit of history? What did these two brothers often tell each other in private? According to the story, what did Bro. Russell seek? On whom did he finally decide as the fitting person? Why? Of whom was Dr. Cook doubtless a part? After Bro. Russell decided on him, where did the latter go to lecture? With what did Bro. Russell call upon him? What was Dr. Cook then seeking? What experiences did Bro. Russell tell Dr. Cook? How did Bro. Russell (unconsciously) fulfill the antitype of v. 32? How did Dr. Cook listen to Bro. Russell's narrative? What conclusion did he draw therefrom? What did this lead him to remark? How did this antitype Saul's remarks of v. 33? What did this lead our Pastor to say? How did his answer antitype vs. 34-36?


(14) How did not and how did our Pastor tell these things? How was he heard by Dr. Cook? What other assurance did he give Dr. Cook? How did this antitype the statements of v. 36? Why so? What facts gave Bro.



Russell all the more assurance on this head? How do Ex. 32: 26-28; Josh. 10: 10-14 and Is. 28: 21 prove the fact that the harvest time was the time of the Lord's presence to overthrow all error? What assurance in antitype of v. 37 did Bro. Russell further give Dr. Cook? What is the antitype of Saul's charge and wish in v. 37? What is the antitype of Saul's arming David with his own armor? Of David's putting it off as unsuited to him?


(15) Though not a part of the antitype, why are the rest of the dealings of Bro. Russell and Dr. Cook with each other here given? What did Bro. Russell give Dr. Cook after the conversation above outlined as the antitype of vs. 32-39? With what request? What did Dr. Cook promise to do? What did he do years later? What did Bro. Russell again do to him? What did Bro. Russell ask him on their meeting again? How did Bro. Russell describe Dr. Cook's eyes? What did Dr. Cook then do and say? What did Bro. Russell ask him? What was Dr. Cook's reply? What is the first lesson that we can learn from this bit of history? The second? How is this second lesson shown in this experience? Whose choice was vindicated by the outcome?


(16) What is typed by David's taking his staff in his hand? What is typed by the brook of v. 40? What does each of the five stones that David selected represent? What does their smoothness represent? The shepherd's bag? The scrip? What does a sling represent in Bible symbols? In what did our Pastor chiefly use this method of debating? What do archers type? What are, therefore, the typical significances of the weapons of the four branches of David's army? What is typed by the sling being in David's hand? By David's drawing near Goliath? What is typed in v. 41 by Goliath's coming ever closer to David? How was this especially done?


(17) What is typed by Goliath's espying little David coming to fight him? By Goliath's disdaining David for his youth and his ruddy and fair countenance? What do dogs signify in Bible symbols? Why? To what do all professed Christian sects appeal as authority for their views? What will these considerations help us to understand in Goliath's question, Am I a dog, etc.? In the light of the foregoing, what does his question imply as to his opinion



of the Bible? What is typed by Goliath's cursing David by his gods? What threat did evolution make in antitype of Goliath's threat to David? How was the speech of Goliath antityped?


(18) What three qualities filled David's answer? How in general were they antityped? How in particular did each of these three qualities show itself in antitype?


(19) What does v. 48 show, type and antitype? What is typed by David's putting his hand into his bag? By his taking therefrom a stone? By David's smiting Goliath in the forehead as distinct from the other part of his head? How does Bro. Russell use the ransom argument in the booklet, The Bible Versus the Evolution Theory?


(20) What did this argument do to evolution? What is typed by David's stone sinking into Goliath's forehead? By its stunning and killing him? By his falling on his face to the earth? Why does v. 50 sum up the thoughts of v. 49? What does it add to the statements of v. 49? What does this imply as to the antitype? What is the nature of David's acts given in v. 51? What is typed by the statement of v. 50, that there was no sword in David's hand, but that he slew Goliath by a sling and a stone? What is typed by David's running and standing upon Goliath? What was the ancient way of symbolizing a victory over a foe? What four institutional foes of the Church are symbolized in Ps. 91: 13? What do these symbols severally represent? By what language is the Church's victory over these symbolized? How do Gen. 3: 15 and Rom. 16: 20 show this thought as to the victory over Satan? What do these passages help us to see as to the type of David's standing on Goliath? How did Bro. Russell do this symbolic standing on evolution?


(21) What is the first of these doctrines? How did he use it against evolution? What was the second of these? How did he use it against evolution? What was the fourth of these? How did he use it against evolution? What was the fifth of these? How did he use it against evolution? What did his so using these four doctrines enable him to do?


(22) What does Goliath's sword represent? What kind of an argument of evolution did its antitype give? Of what did this argument consist? What did evolution claim for these facts? What is the antitype of David's cutting



off Goliath's head with his own sword? How did Bro. Russell use the involved facts against evolution? What did he claim that they proved of man's capacity? Were there many great inventors, thinkers and reformers? What did these not do with their qualities as to their offspring? What effect did this have on the theory of evolution? What did he show as to former centuries' achievements, compared with those of the 19th and 20th centuries? In what did his use of these points result?


(23) What is the antitype of the dismay and flight of the Philistines at Goliath's death, and the encouragement and pursuit of the Israelites and Judahites? What, as a result, did the antitypical Israelites and Judahites do to the hosts of infidelity? What do the words Ekron, Shaaraim and Gath mean? What is typed by the discomfiture of the Philistines unto these three places? Wherein was the antitypical pursuit manifested? How did the fourteen men mentioned above compare with other antitypical Israelitish pursuers? What was the effect on the infidel hosts? What does the second sifting show on this point? What is the antitype of the Israelites' returning and spoiling the Philistines' tents? What are we not to understand as to David's taking Goliath's head to Jerusalem? Why not? What is the antitype of this? What is typed by David's keeping Goliath's armor in his tent? How long were such uses employed?


(24) With what episode does the story of David and Goliath end? What does the word Abner mean? Whom does he type? Who are examples of Abner? What is typed by Saul's question, Whose son is this youth? What is typed by Abner's answer? What is typed by Saul's charge that Abner inquire as to whose son David was? What is typed by David's returning from the slaughter of Goliath? How did the theological professors not introduce Bro. Russell to the crown-lost princes? How did they do so? Describe the scene of David before Saul. What is the antitype of these things?


(25)What is typed by Saul's asking David, Whose son art thou? How did antitypical Saul get the answer? What is typed by the answer, the son of Jesse? The Bethlehemite? What may be said of the typical and the antitypical David's answer?




I will sing the son of Jesse,

Whom the prophet's voice did call,

Not by haughty-hearted bearing,

Lofty looks and stature tall;


But by eyes of arrowy brightness,

And by locks of golden hue,

And by limbs of agile lightness,

Fair and comely to the view;


And by earnest demeanor,

And by heart that knew no fear,

And a quick-discerning spirit

When a danger might be near.


And he used them when the giant

Philistine of haughty Gath,

With a boastful, proud defiance,

Mailed and insolent, crossed his path.


Quailed the armies of the people,

Quailed King Saul upon his throne,

Quailed the marshalled heads of battle;

Strength in David lived alone.


And he took nor spear nor harness;

But with calm, composed look,

In his hand he took a sling,

Five smooth pebbles from the brook;


And he prayed the God of battles,

And amid the host alone

Prostrate laid the boastful champion

With a sling and with a stone.


Now his road was paved to greatness

On the right hand of the throne

High he sat beside his monarch

A warrior all alone.