“The sacrifices offered by the people (Israel—the world) on their own individual account, after the Day of Atonement sacrifices, typified by the general offerings of Israel, belong to the next age, and will then be presented to the glorified royal priesthood. Nevertheless, this has a very slight beginning now; thus the worldly man possessed of wealth is in that sense a steward of God’s things, and may now use that ‘mammon’ and with it make for himself friends, that when this age of Satan’s domination is ended, and the reign of Christ commences (in which he shall no longer be a steward), then those whom he thus favored will bless him. If the worldly stewards of wealth (the mammon or god of this age) were wise, they would use more of their means thus. For whosoever shall give even a cup of cold water unto one of the least of these priests, because he is such, shall by no means lose his reward when the Kingdom of Christ is organized and its rule begins.—Luke 16:1-8; Matt. 10:42” (T93)

Bro. Russell has sometimes applied the lesson of the unjust steward to the Scribes and Pharisees (R2716) and their modern counterpart—elders, Sunday School teachers, ministers, etc. (R2716); and sometimes to the Church itself (R5750). But here, in this quote of Luke 16:1-8 and Matt. 10:42, he has applied it more particularly to worldly stewards of wealth. Thus, we may reason in harmony with Luke 16:9, that these stewards, by using their wealth in the blessing of some of the Lord’s “little ones” now, are making friends, not merely of those whom they thus favor, but also of our Heavenly Father, and his Son, our Lord, who in the coming age will bless them, when they no longer are such stewards. What a precious thought is this.

“Those sacrifices which do not belong to the class we denominate the ‘Day of Atonement sacrifices,’ illustrated offerings and sacrifices which belong to the Millennial age.

“As, in the type, the ‘Day of Atonement’ sacrifices preceded all others, and were a basis for the general forgiveness and acceptance with God of all Israel, but were followed by other sacrifices by individuals after that day, termed ‘sin-offerings,’ ‘trespass-offerings,’ ‘peace-offerings,’ etc., so will be the antitype. After the sacrifices of this Gospel age have brought ‘the people,’ the world, into a justified condition, there will still be sins and trespasses committed which will require confession and reconciliation, making these after-sacrifices necessary.

“The Atonement Day sacrifices represented the cancellation of Adamic sin by the sacrifice of the Christ; but during the Millennium, while the benefits of the atonement are being applied to the world, while they are being gradually restored to actual perfection and life and harmony with God, errors will be committed for which they will be in some measure responsible. For such they must make some amends, accompanied by repentance, before they can be again in harmony with God through Christ, their Mediator. …

“As the basis for all forgiveness of sins in the next age will be the ‘Day of Atonement’ sacrifices, it would be appropriate in the type for the sinner to bring some sacrifice which would indicate a recognition of the ‘Day of Atonement’ sacrifices, as the ground of forgiveness anew. And so we find that all offerings of the people after the ‘Day of Atonement’ were of a kind which pointed back to or recognized the sacrifices of that day. These offerings might be of cattle or sheep or fowl (turtle doves or young pigeons) or of fine flour—the article offered depending upon the ability of the offerer.” (T93-95)

“It is possible that in the beginning of the Millennial age the Lord’s dealing with the world of mankind, then in process of restitution and trial, will resemble his dealing with the house of servants—Israel. He may restore laws respecting the Sabbath and various festivals, and even sacrifices, to teach the world by these as object lessons. Some Scriptures seem so to hint. (Jer. 33:18; Ezek. 46:19-24; 47:12; 48:10,11)” (R1732:6-1733:1)

“The ‘better sacrifices’ of the Gospel age having taken place beforehand, we think it unlikely that typical sacrifices will be restored. We consider it more probable that antitypical sacrifices are referred to—the broken and contrite hearts of the people, and their consecration to the Lord’s service being thus represented. However, we are to remember that God considered these typical sacrifices of bulls and goats a good method of presenting important truths to the attention of fleshly Israel, and we can see that if such sacrifices were restored now, they would have much more force and meaning to similar classes than they had before their antitypes had come. We may not, therefore, be sure that the Lord will not adopt such a plan as this of instructing the ignorant masses of mankind, as preparatory to higher lessons—as illustrations of spiritual things.” (R2488:6)

“For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” (Heb. 5:1)

“From the Scriptures it is evident that during the Millennial age the world of mankind will be privileged to offer themselves to God as gifts, but not as sacrifices. Hence, during the Millennial age, part of the work of the great High Priest will be to accept these gifts and to make them acceptable to God through his own merit and rights as the Melchizedek Priest. We can, however, apply this text [Heb. 5:1] very properly to the present time. The Apostle puts the word gifts first. We may, therefore, look to see whether there is not some way in which the High Priest offers gifts now. Surely our Lord’s consecration of his own life was a gift on His part. The Father accepted that gift and ultimately permitted our Lord’s gift to constitute a sin-offering for others. Likewise, throughout this Gospel age, the ‘brethren’ are invited to present their bodies living sacrifices—to give themselves to God.—Rom. 12:1,2

“When we thus make a present of ourselves to God, we are not making a sin-offering to God; for this we could not do. But the divine arrangement for accepting our gift is that each gift will be acceptable through the merit of Christ; and that then, later on, these gifts will, according to the same divine arrangement, constitute the great sin-offering which the High Priest gives for the world. Thus the High Priest is ordained to make the ultimate offering of that gift as the sin-offering for the world.

“Amongst those who served in the office of typical high priest, says the Apostle, the uniform custom was that they should offer both gifts and sacrifices to God. Hence, he proceeds to point out that Jesus, as the Antitype of those priests, must have something to offer. He also must offer both gifts and sacrifices, in order to fulfil his priesthood. He presented himself without spot unto God; and, by virtue of that presentation, he is a sin-offering unto God; and, through his merit, he makes the same true of his church, who voluntarily give themselves to God.” (R4915:1,4)

“Consecration will also be in order in the next age, though, owing to the changed government of the world, consecration will no longer, as now, mean unto death, but on the contrary, it will be unto life; for with the close of the reign of evil comes the end of pain, sorrow and death, except upon evil doers. Consecration must always be a voluntary presentation of one’s pow- ers, and hence this is represented in some of the sacrifices after the Atonement Day. …

“During the Millennial age all men will ‘come to a knowledge of the truth,’ and thus to the fullest opportunity of salvation from the curse (condemnation or sentence) of Adamic death. (1 Tim. 2:4) When we remember that this death includes all sickness, pain and imperfection to which humanity is now subject, we see that God’s plan includes a full restoration to human perfection; only those who deliberately refuse or neglect the opportunities then put within the reach of all will die the Second Death. But perfection will come gradually, and it will require the cooperation of the sinner’s will ever to reach it. He must do what he can to climb up again to perfection, and will have all the assistance necessary. This is shown by these sacrifices in general: they were to be according to every man’s ability. However degraded by sin and imperfect, each must, when he comes to a knowledge of the truth, present himself to God, the offering indicating his condition. The dove or pigeon brought by the poorest in the type represented the justified all of the morally poor and degraded; the goat offered by others more able, represented the all of some less degraded; while the bullock represented the all of those who had attained perfection of human nature. Just as the bullock was used to typify the perfect humanity (much fat) of Jesus’ sacrifice, and the goat (wayward and lean) was used to represent the imperfect human nature of the saints, in the sacrifices of this Atonement Day, so those animals similarly represented the offerers (Israel—typical of the believing world in the Millennium) in their consecrations. But it should be remembered that these burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of the future represent the people as consecrating—giving themselves to the Lord. They do not represent sin-offerings to secure atonement, as do the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement. There were indeed trespass-offerings which were in a sense sin-offerings for individuals; but these, as we shall see presently, were wholly different from the national sin-offerings of the Atonement Day.

“When those of the world of mankind, willing to accept God’s grace, shall have been brought to perfection, at the close of the Millennium, there will be no longer any poor in the sense of inability to offer a bullock;—in the sense of deficiency of mental, moral or physical ability. All will be perfect men, and their offerings will be their perfect selves typified by bullocks. David, speaking of this, says: ‘Then shalt thou be pleased with sacrifices of righteousness (of right doing) with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then shall they offer bullocks (perfect sacrifices) upon thine altar.’ (Psalm 51:19) Yet that David’s language should not be understood to teach the restoration of the literal, bloody, typical sacrifices, is evident, for in the same connection he says, ‘Thou desirest not sacrifice (either typical or antitypical—full atonement for sin having been accomplished by that time ‘once for all’) … The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.’ All these sacrifices must be of the free will and desire of the offerer.—Lev. 1:3” (T94-96)¹

“Of the world God will require a full consecration to do his will. It must include their entire selves, their wills, their bodies—their whole-hearted allegiance. It will not be a consecration unto sacrifice, unto death, as is now the case with the church; but they must become wholly devoted to God and must realize and recognize that they belong to God, that they have been bought, purchased back from death, and may, if obedient, live forever. We shall see how reasonable is this requirement. Adam, who was created in God’s likeness, should have said, ‘I belong to God. He gave me my life and all I have.’ But he had not fully learned to trust the wisdom and love of his Maker. He had a perfect brain, a perfect organism; but he lacked full knowledge of the character of the Lord and of the justice of all his requirements. His incomplete knowledge, therefore, rendered him to some extent excusable in God’s sight. If he had taken the stand in opposition to the Lord with clear knowledge and experience, apparently he would not have been accounted worthy of redemption. The whole world will, then, when they reach perfection, realize that they owe everything to God, and, if loyal at heart, will wish to render all to him in glad service—to the praise of his name.” (R5949:4)

First “Millennial Day” Ritual

“And ye shall have on the tenth day of this seventh month an holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls: ye shall not do any work therein: but ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD for a sweet savour; one young bullock, one ram, and seven lambs of the first year; they shall be unto you without blemish. And their meat offering shall be of flour mingled with oil, three tenth deals to a bullock, and two tenth deals to one ram. A several tenth deal for one lamb, throughout the seven lambs: one kid of the goats for a sin offering; beside the sin offering of atonement, and the continual burnt offering, and the meat offering of it, and their drink offerings.” (Num. 29:7-11)

The Gospel age is the antitypical “Day of Atonement” for antitypical Israel—the world of mankind in the Millennial age. It so happens that the ritual of Num. 29:7-11 which in the type followed the “Day of Atonement” sacrifices, thus finds itself antitypically also in the Millennial age.

If this be a correct deduction, then it might, as the first ritual of the new era, represent more particularly the exuberance of the ancient worthies— the very first to be blessed under the terms of the New Covenant, and whose “better resurrection” (Heb. 11:35) will be their having been brought forth in human perfection.

“Abraham manifested his faith in God although there was no redemption yet accomplished in the world. Christ had not yet come. And although Abraham was not on trial for life or for death God granted Abraham his favor and declared that he pleased him; and his word tells us that ‘a better resurrection’ is to be not only to Abraham, but to all these Ancient Worthies—a resurrection to human perfection. But since human perfection will come only under the mediatorial reign of Christ, the ancient worthies will not be introduced to the Father in the complete sense until the close of the Millennium.

“Hence, they will not have life, in the fullest sense, until that time when, at the close of the Millennial age, the kingdom shall be delivered over to the Father. What they will have in the meantime will be the perfection of human nature and all the blessings God provides for mankind, through the great Mediator.” (R4598:3,6)

1. Unchanged by any subsequent revision made by Bro. Russell to as late a date as 1916.

Since these “burnt offerings” (Num. 29:8) represent the consecrations of the “firstfruits” (so to speak) of the Millennial Kingdom, they also represent them as consecrating—“giving themselves to the Lord.” (T96)

It ought to be noted that the order of these sacrifices is here reversed, i.e., the “burnt offerings” are offered before the “sin offerings,” whereas before the “Atonement Day” the sin offerings always preceded the burnt offerings, as for example in the rituals of Leviticus 8, 9, and 16. Before this “day” none was in a position where he could offer unto God a “freewill” offering until his sins had first been atoned for. The “bullock” here represented the very first of the world of mankind to be able to offer a “perfect humanity.” In fact the ancient worthies will be the only ones at this early time to possess such a perfect humanity. Eventually, of course, all man- kind will be able to present themselves to God, not merely as “doves” or “pigeons,” or “goats,” but as “bullocks.” (T95) Is this not what the Psalmist David prophesied when speaking of the Millennial age he said:

“Then shalt thou be pleased with sacrifices of righteousness [of right doing] with burnt offering and whole burnt offering; then shall they offer bullocks [perfect sacrifices] upon thine altar.” (Psa. 51:19; see also T96)

Of course this consecration of mankind in the Millennial age will not be “unto death” as it has been for the Church of the Gospel age, but rather “unto life.” And thus it is that Bro. Russell says:

“The completeness of consecration was shown by the death of the animal— that is, each member of the race must consecrate his will; but it will be followed neither by the destruction of the human nature (the burning of the flesh outside the camp) nor by the taking of the life into a new nature—into the ‘Most Holy.’ … The consecrations represent an appreciation of the ransom, and the acquiescence of the offerers to the Law of God as the condition upon which they may continue to live everlastingly, in harmony and favor with him.” (T96, 97)

Perhaps the remaining animals of this “burnt offering”—the “ram” and “the seven lambs”—were intended to indicate the ancient worthies’ appreciation of the “better sacrifices” of this Gospel age—Christ Jesus being represented by the “ram” and the Church (the body members) being represented by the “seven lambs.” This is what seems to be suggested in Bro. Russell’s remarks in Tabernacle Shadows:

“The burnt offerings of the priests were to be kept up continually on the altar, and the fire never suffered to die out. ‘This is the law of the burnt offering: it is the burnt offering because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning. … [It] shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out.’—Lev. 6:9,12,13

“Thus was represented to the mind of each offerer the fact that the altar was already sanctified or set apart, and that their offerings would be acceptable because of God’s acceptance of the Atonement Day sacrifices. To this altar the Israelite brought his free will offering, as narrated in Lev. 1. It was made in the usual way: the animal, cut in pieces and washed, was laid, the pieces to the head, on the altar, and wholly burnt, a sacrifice of sweet savor unto the Lord. This would serve to typify a thankful prayer to Jehovah—an acknowledgment of his mercy, wisdom and love, as manifested in the broken Body of the Christ—their ransom.” (T97)

“If we think of the church in connection with the presentation of their bodies to God, we would say that they are not participators in the ransom, for they have nothing that they could give as a share in the ransom—they are imperfect. If we view the question from the other standpoint—that the church are spirit beings and as spirit beings are members of the body of Christ, one with him who is their head—they would as members of The Christ share with him in everything he does, just as the hand shares with the head; for the human body is the figure that the Bible gives us, in speaking of The Christ. The merit by which the ransom-price is effective with God was in Jesus alone. It was that merit which we did not possess when we presented ourselves to God in consecration. But when we were accepted by Jesus as disciples, he imputed his own merit to us, and made us a part of his own sacrifice. He was at the same time making us a part of that which he is to give to God for the sins of the whole world, at the close of this age when the church, his body, is complete and glorified with him.

“We are to remember … that none of the human remains; for at the time we were made members of the body of Christ we had become dead as human beings, by the surrender of our wills. Because we are new creatures, old things have passed away and all things have become new. (2 Cor. 5:17) We are to remember, also, that it is not the spiritual body of Christ that is sacrificed, even as it was not the spiritual Head that was crucified. The sin-offering was the flesh. And it was Jesus’ flesh that constituted the ransom—not our flesh. But now that this ransom-price has been placed in the hands of justice as a deposit, whose title is possessed by Jesus, we are joint-sharers with him in this possession by reason of our relationship to him and our interest in everything that he possesses. Thus the church becomes a sharer in this ransom-price, because as his bride we are his joint-heirs; and we are associated with him1 in giving to the world the benefits of that ransom-price.” (R5881:6-5882:1)

As for the “meat-offerings” (meal-offerings) which accompanied these “burnt offerings”:

“These, of fine flour, unleavened cakes, with oil, etc., were presented to the Lord through the Priest. They probably represented praises and worship offered to the Lord by the world through his Church. ‘Unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages.’ (Eph. 3:21) A sample being offered on the altar showed that it was approved by, acceptable to, Jehovah.” (T98)

1. None will share in this work, save those who have been broken together with him, as a sin-offering for the people! (2 Tim. 2:12; Rom. 8:17)

Thus do these particular offerings of Num. 29:9,10 represent the “praises” and “worship” of the ancient worthies, offered to the Lord by them through the Church, their “priesthood”—their appreciation of those who, only, of all the world of mankind, were privileged to drink with Christ Jesus, the “cup” which the Father had poured for him. (Matt. 20:22,23; 26:26-28) The Church of this Gospel age, are the only ones who both “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,” i.e., become identified as his “body members,” and are privileged to share in the “sin offering” with him!

“The world, when dealt with in the next age, by Jesus, will indeed have the opportunity to eat his flesh—to appropriate the merits of his sacrifice; but they will have no opportunity of sharing in his cup—of drinking his blood. Symbolically, the cup signifies the sacrificed life. The world will have no share in the sufferings of Christ, represented in the cup.” (R5342:2)

There was but one “sin offering” in this ritual and it was a “goat” not a “bullock” (Num. 29:11); and with it, of course, the “burnt offering” with the required meat offering and drink offering. It may be recalled that in Lev. 4:22,23 it is specifically stated that the sin-offering for the “ruler” was to be “a kid of the goats, a male without blemish.” The typical “rulers” in ancient Israel were probably “princes”—those of the Millennial age are probably the ancient worthies (see Psa. 45:16). These ancient worthies, as partakers of a “better resurrection” (Heb. 11:35) will be restored to the earth in perfect human bodies, yet without the right to everlasting life; for while they have had a trial of faith, they never could have had a trial for life. For them, then, the everlasting life promised will be something which they during that age will have to prove themselves worthy of. Speaking of them, Bro. Russell had this to say:

“It is not probable that they would make mistakes; but if upon their awakening, they should at once be turned over to Jehovah, and, as in Adam’s case, the slightest deflection would mean death, we can see that their position would be much less favorable than it will be under the New Covenant arrangement during the Millennial reign of Christ. This is a very gracious arrangement for their best interests, for any possible mistake would be covered by Christ’s mediation and not bring them under sentence of death.

“The history of some of these ancient worthies is very meager and does not always imply that they were ‘overcomers’ in the sense in which the church is to be. Take, for example, the case of Samson, who is mentioned as one of the ancient worthies. The last we read of Samson, still in the hands of the Philistines, is that he was still loyal to God and prayed for the opportunity of serving God’s cause; the Lord granted his prayer, permitting [him] to push down the pillars of the building in which he was making sport for the Philistines; they were the middle pillars upon which the house stood, and in its fall more than three thousand of the enemies of Israel were killed along with himself.

“Faith seems to have been the chief element of character that was developed under Samson’s experiences. We do not know how much patience, long suffering, brotherly kindness, gentleness, meekness, etc., were developed in his character; nothing is stated in regard to the matter and we have no reason to suppose that Samson was a very gentle man. Indeed, we have never thought of gentleness and meekness as being amongst his characteristics. The slaying of one thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, as well as other experiences of his, would not seem to indicate this.

“We may reasonably suppose, therefore, that although Samson will be brought back in an absolutely perfect condition, and under the favorable environment of the Millennial age, there will probably be experiences in life that he never encountered and that will be so new that he might be in dan- ger of making mistakes. Assuredly he will have much to learn respecting the things of the Spirit of God in the days of the blessing of ‘all flesh.’ ” (R5074:5,6)

We have another reason that the “sin offering” for the ancient worthies should be “a kid of the goats.” It should be remembered that all the redemptive merit centered in the sacrifice of the man Christ Jesus—the ransom-sacrifice for the sin of the world (John 1:29; 1 Tim. 2:6)! It is the one and only price which Jesus paid by way of Calvary’s cross. However, its application is something else and is clearly represented in the sin-offerings of the “Day of Atonement” as set forth in Leviticus 16. There it will be noted that there were two sin-offerings offered by one and the same High Priest one of which, the “bullock,” was applicable for “Aaron and his house” (Lev. 16:11) and the other, the “Lord’s goat,” was applicable “for the people” (Lev. 16:15). The first of these—the “bullock”—was supplied by Aaron him- self; the second—the “Lord’s goat”—was supplied by the people. (See Lev. 16:5,9) Antitypically, the “bullock” represented the flesh of the man Christ Jesus and the “Lord’s goat” the justified humanity of the Church of the Gospel age. Thus did Jesus by his death on the cross, supply all the merit required for the salvation of all mankind; nor was the sacrifice of the Church really necessary. We read:

“This type illustrated the fact that our Lord Jesus (the bullock sacrifice for sin) was sufficient to redeem both ‘his body,’ the ‘little flock,’ and also the whole world of mankind. The Church’s share in the sin-offering could have been dispensed with entirely: we might have been spared the special trials of our ‘narrow way,’ spared the sacrificial sufferings, and could have been restored to perfection of human nature, just as all mankind will be. But it pleased Jehovah not only to choose Jesus to this work of sacrifice, but also to make him the Captain or Head of ‘the Church which is his Body,’ and that these, as well as their Captain, should be made perfect as spiritual beings, by sufferings in the flesh as sin-offerings.—Heb. 2:10; Col. 1:24” (T79, 80)

However, God ordained that both Jesus and the Church should become channels of the ransom merit to all the world of mankind—Jesus to the Church of the Gospel age, and the Church to the world of mankind in the Millennial age. The acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice on behalf of the Church was indicated by the outpouring of the holy Spirit upon the Church at Pentecost; so will he also indicate his acceptance of the Church’s sacrifice on behalf of the world by the outpouring of his holy Spirit during the Millennial age upon all flesh. (Joel 2:28) The redemptive merit will, of course, in both instances be that of Christ Jesus! And since the ancient worthies are a part of the world of mankind and not a part of the Church which is the “body” of Christ Jesus, their redemption, while it is through the merit of Christ Jesus, it nevertheless does not reach them save through the Church which was represented by the secondary sin-offering of the antitypical “Day of Atonement”—the “goat.”

“It is the merit of Jesus … which must be sacrificed again by us as his ‘members’—that is to constitute eventually the ransom-price of the whole world of mankind, who are to be blest during the Millennium.” (R4536:4)

Offering of First Fruits

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the LORD. And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a stat- ute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD. Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD. And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the LORD. Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest.” (Lev. 23:9-20)

“No meal offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire. As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savour.” (Lev. 2:11,12, Jewish Publication Society)

The rendering of the KJV is somewhat faulty here, as it gives an erroneous impression that there were aside from the regular offerings, “oblations.” This, however, is not so, as is quite evident from the renderings of most other versions:

“No meal offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven, for ye shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the LORD. As an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them unto the LORD; but they shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar.” (Lev. 2:11,12)

From the foregoing, it appears there were two kinds of meal-offerings— those which could be brought upon the altar to yield a “sweet savour” unto the Lord, and those which could not be so offered, because of the leaven or the honey they contained.

A meal-offering made with flour and oil, and with frankincense could be offered (Lev. 2:1); or it might consist of firstfruits (green ears of corn—i.e., wheat, barley, spelt, rye, millet, etc.) with oil and frankincense, (Lev. 2:14,15). The memorial of either of these, with all the frankincense, could be offered upon the altar of Jehovah, for a “sweet savour.”

But there was also the meal-offering made with flour, mixed with leaven or honey, which could not be offered for a “sweet savour” unto the Lord, upon his altar, even though it was an offering of firstfruits. (Lev. 2:11,12)

So there were offerings of firstfruits, which like the green ears (Lev. 2:14), or the wave sheaf (barley? Lev. 23:10,11) were acceptable unto the Lord upon the altar as a “sweet savour;” but also those which like of the flour mixed with leaven or honey, were acceptable, but not upon the altar of the Lord for a “sweet savour.” (Lev. 2:11,12; 23:17)

The wave sheaf offered on the “morrow after the sabbath” (Lev. 23:11) was evidently intended to typify Christ Jesus, who in his resurrection on the morrow after the sabbath (Mark 16:1,2) became the first fruits of “them that slept.” (1 Cor. 15:20; see also R2271:1)

In him there was no sin (leaven); for he was “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” (Heb. 7:26) He was in himself a meal-offering of a “sweet savour” unto the Lord.

In the type, it will be noted, only one animal was sacrificed in connection with the wave sheaf. This was a lamb for a burnt-offering; and with it was offered the usual meal-offering and drink-offering. (Lev. 23:12,13) Note also, that this wave sheaf was to be accepted for the people Israel. (Lev. 23:11)

While the wave sheaf typified the risen Lord, Christ Jesus himself; the burnt-offering, with its attendant meal- and drink-offerings, reflected back to Jesus, who in his consecration to the heavenly Father’s will, died so that he might become the life-giver to the whole human race. The wave sheaf itself sets forth this basic truth inasmuch as it resulted from some grain (seed) which fell into the ground and died; and then, since its grave could not hold it, issued forth, becoming a food, or life-sustainer, to whomsoever might partake of it. (See John 12:23,24)

Fifty days thereafter—i.e., after the offering of the wave sheaf, Israel was to offer a second offering of first fruits (Lev. 23:15,16). However, instead of this being a sheaf of grain, this was to consist of two loaves made with flour, but with leaven added. (Lev. 23:17) Leaven is a type of sin. Undoubtedly, these two loaves were intended to typify the whole Church (the Little Flock and the Great Company).

“The two loaves offered on the fiftieth day, Pentecost, represented the presenting of the church before God and its acceptance through the merit of the great High Priest, indicated by the anointing of the holy Spirit at Pentecost. The church really is but ‘one loaf’ (1 Cor. 10:17), the two loaves representing the same thing as the two goats presented on the Day of Atonement. It indicates that, altho all presented were acceptable to God through Christ Jesus, he yet knew that all presented would not come up to the condition of faith- fulness to the end. The two loaves represented, therefore, the two classes of the consecrated—the overcoming little flock and the ‘great company’ of the consecrated servants of God who do not make the high calling theirs, by overcoming the world as they might and should do.” (R2271:1)

Perhaps the leaven here signified (since both loaves were involved) that not any of those constituting the “church of the firstborns” (including, of course, the “church which is his body”) are in themselves sinless, as was Jesus.

The original wave sheaf, as a firstfruit of the firstfruits, was of itself, (i.e., even without the burnt-offering which was associated with it) acceptable as a “sweet savour” unto the Lord (Lev. 2:14-16; 23:11); but it was not so with the second offering of the firstfruits fifty days thereafter. Being with leaven, it could not be burnt upon the altar (Lev. 2:11,12, Jewish Publication Society); yet it was “acceptable for the people, because of the concomitant burnt-offering, sin-offering and peace-offering, duly sacrificed upon the altar. (Lev. 23:18,19) The burnt-offering consisted of ten animals: seven lambs; one bullock; and two rams. The sin-offering was a he-goat (Jewish Publication Society) and the peace-offering was two rams. (Lev. 23:18-20)

Ten seems to be the symbol denoting a cycle of completeness. (There were 10 commandments constituting the full and complete Law of God [Deut. 4:12ff.]; there were ten temptations in the wilderness—all that God could allow [Num. 14:22,23]; there were ten virgins to represent all of the consecrated, spirit-begotten ones living at the time of our Lord’s second coming [Matt. 25:1-13]. We conclude, therefore, that the ten here is to set forth that all of the Church class are here represented in their consecration unto death.) These ten animals were all burnt-offerings.

The seven lambs suggest the divine requisite of all firstborns to develop a disposition of meekness, lowliness and humility, like unto that of Jesus— the Lamb of God.

The one bullock, seems to imply that their (the Church’s) consecration, and its subsequent acceptance by God is predicated upon the human perfection of the man Christ Jesus accounted to them: they are accepted, not because of what they are in themselves, but in him—the beloved. (Eph. 1:6)

The two rams (sheep) probably are intended to set forth that fact that there are two classes here represented, all “called in the one hope of their calling” (Eph. 4:4), the same two classes represented in the two loaves. It will be remembered that in the type of the sin-offerings of the Atonement Day, two goats were brought for a single purpose—“for a sin-offering” (Lev. 16:5); yet only one of these was offered for a sin-offering (Lev. 16:9); the other became the scape-goat (Lev. 16:8,10), showing forth the same two classes. The bullock already referred to reflects, perhaps, what we are in him; whereas these goats, what we are in ourselves. The rams showed that both classes were accepted in the one hope of their calling.

There was also a sin-offering, a he-goat (Lev. 23:19), identified with this ritual of the firstfruits. We are inclined to see here the fact that the Church is privileged to become, by way of its faithfulness unto death, the channel through which the ransom merit of Christ will pass to the world.

Jealousy Trial

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance. And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD: And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water: And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter. Then the priest shall take the jealousy offer- ing out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar: And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water. And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law. Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.” (Num. 5:11-31)

“Our Lord … represents himself as the Bridegroom, and his faithful Church as his espoused waiting for the marriage, that she may become the Bride.” (F363)

Actually, the Hebrew ‘ishshah, rendered “wife” in Num. 5:12,14,15,29,30 (like the Greek gyne) means merely “woman” (see Gen. 2:22; Exod. 2:9; Matt. 11:11; Luke 10:38), which would make the application correct here, whether the woman be the wife or merely the espoused.

In endeavoring to understand this ritual, it is important to keep in mind the fact that it is the fidelity of the woman that is called into question. There was never such a trial for a man. Evidently, the reason for this is that God intended the woman here to represent the Church, the espoused virgin who was one day to become the Lamb’s wife. The man, accordingly, who manifested jealousy concerning the woman who was to become his wife, represents none other than the heavenly Bridegroom-to-be, Christ Jesus.

It is true, in the text under consideration, the term used is “wife,” and not “espoused virgin” as we are here suggesting. However, the ancient Hebrew marriage custom with its betrothal period, is broad enough to take in both:

“Betrothal with the ancient Hebrews was a more formal and far more binding nature than the ‘engagement’ is with us. Indeed it was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage, and the most binding part … Among the Jews the betrothal was so far regarded as binding that, if the marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breach of contract on his part, the young woman could not be married to another man until she was liberated by a due process and papers of divorce.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, “Marriage”)

“Among the Jews this was the ceremony of betrothal or coming under obligation for the purpose of marriage, and was a mutual agreement between the parties which usually preceded marriage some time. The espousal frequently took place years before the parties were married.” (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia, “Espousal”)

“A man and woman were betrothed or espoused, each to the other, when they were engaged to be married … The betrothing was performed a twelve-month or more before the marriage, either in writing, or by a piece of silver given to the espoused before witnesses, as a pledge of their mutual engagements. Sometimes a regular contract was made in which the bridegroom always bound himself to give a certain sum as a portion to his bride. From the time of espousal the woman was considered as the lawful wife of the man to whom she was betrothed: the engagement could not be ended by the man without a bill of divorce; nor could she be unfaithful without being considered an adulteress.” (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia, “Betrothal”)

Before considering this section of the Divine Word, it may be well to note that there is an ambiguity in the rendering of the KJV of verse 13, which reads: “neither she be taken in the manner.” This might lead one to wonder how the husband, without witnesses, could know of his wife’s infidelity. The Revised Standard Version is much clearer when it says: “since she was not taken in the act.” Moffatt renders it: “since she was not caught in the act.” Thus, only upon the woman becoming pregnant, could he thus become aware of her wrong act; and this, of course, would be sufficient reason for him to take whatever action he deemed necessary. (See Matt. 1:18,19) The important thing to note is that the woman’s act was committed in secret; for had it been otherwise, there would have been a witness. It is on this account that we are reasonably sure that we are not justified in making application here to the great “harlot,” nor to her “daughters” (Rev. 17:1,2, 5), both of whom made their bids, and committed their fornications with the powers that be, openly and unabashed.

Even had there been no sign of any pregnancy whatsoever, nor any witnesses to the woman’s infidelity, the man had a right to be jealous concerning the purity and chastity of the woman that was, or was to be, his wife, and so we read: “or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled.” (Num. 5:14) There is a righteous jealousy, even as there is a righteous indignation. In fact, God declared himself to be a jealous God (Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Deut. 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; Josh. 24:19); but surely no one would dare say that God’s jealousy is an unrighteous one. So, too, his Son is entitled to be righteously jealous concerning the purity and chastity of the woman that is to become his wife. Paul manifested this same kind of jealousy with regard to the saints at Corinth, when he said: “I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:2)

Therefore does the heavenly bridegroom-to-be subject his “espoused” Church to this great “jealousy trial.” Of course, one may feel that if a man really loved a woman, why cannot he trust her, and take her word for it in the matter. Perhaps—and we say, perhaps—in certain human relationships this might work out; but with the things of the Spirit, there is far too much at stake. When the heavenly Father inaugurated this jealousy trial for the typical Israelite, he had a far weightier matter in mind—the character of a “daughter-in-law” that was one day to grace His heavenly courts.

In the typical ceremony, the man brought his wife to the priest; he did not go to the king, or the ruler, or his neighbors, or even to a marriage counselor; for it wasn’t human judgment he sought, but rather, the divine. Nor is it any different with the spiritual counterpart. The Lord Jesus seeks the divine judgment and approval in the matter of his bride-to-be—the Church. And, let it be carefully noted, the typical Israelite brought “her offering for her.” (Num. 5:15) What a sweet and precious thought.

This offering was really a meal-offering (Hebrew: minchah), though because of its association with the jealousy trial, it could not be accompanied with the usual oil and frankincense (Num. 5:15). It consisted of the “tenth part of an ephah” (the quantity ordained for a lamb, when a lamb was to be offered for either a peace-offering or burnt-offering—Num. 15:4,5), of barley meal, not of wheat flour. Of course, in this instance no bloody sacrifices of any kind were to be brought. This meal-offering is here called the “jealousy-offering” and this, too, is beautifully significant.

Let us examine this feature of the trial a little more closely, so that its anti-typical significance may be the better apprehended. As already stated, there was no bloody sacrifice offered at this trial; but the fact that there was a barley meal-offering, seems quite significant. It suggests, we believe, as a firstfruits offering, the resurrection of the “Lamb of God” from the dead. (See Lev. 23:10,11; R2271) Thus does “the man”—the heavenly bride- groom-to-be, Christ Jesus (who would prove the purity and chastity of his “espoused” Church—furnish her with (i.e., places within her hands, as it were) the power of his resurrection (Phil. 3:10), so that by means of it, she should be able to offer unto the Lord, an acceptable sacrifice. It is worthy of note that the priest in the type, who eventually takes this offering out of the woman’s hands, to wave it before the Lord (Num. 5:25), also ultimately places it upon the altar.

Before this is done, the priest had some other important duties to perform. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been too much unanimity of thought on the part of the translators in connection with verse 18. The KJV says that the priest shall “uncover the woman’s head,” and Rabbi Leeser agrees. But the Jewish Publication Society says that he shall “let the hair of the woman’s head go loose.” The Revised Standard Version is quite in accord with this rendering. Perhaps what is really meant is that her hair was to be dishevelled. Whichever thought is correct, it seems to signify that her “glory” was lessened. If the woman was guilty, she now appeared like what she really was; if not—i.e., if she was innocent—then surely an evil had overtaken her. The effect in either case would be psychological. However, the innocent woman might have the assurance that God would vindicate her in due time. Thus will it also be with the “espoused virgin,” though for a time she be called upon to suffer indignities. Surely, the God of all grace will “perfect, establish, strengthen and settle” her (1 Pet. 5:10), in the glory, honor and immortality of the Kingdom.

The priest in the type also prepared “the bitter water that causeth the curse.” (Num. 5:17,18) The priest then proceeded to charge the woman, telling her the effect which the water would have upon her if guilty. If guilty she could never again bear seed; but if innocent, she could go free and bear seed. (Num. 5:22,28)

But just who is the “priest,” the counterpart of the typical priest? In the type, the priest was not the same person as the husband. Accordingly we were at first inclined to think that the ancient priest might represent the holy Spirit. Nor would this have been illogical; for we do remember that we have regarded the 24 elders of the Revelation, not to represent the prophets themselves, but rather as the personification of their testimonies concerning the Kingdom. However, after much diligent thought and prayer, we concluded that antitypically, there was really no good reason why our blessed Lord could not be both: the husband-to-be, to whom we, the Church, are espoused; and also our High Priest, who is “able to keep us from falling” and to present us “faultless” before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24), but this latter, after we have suffered and been tried awhile.

The priest administered the “holy water” (symbolic of the Truth), with which there had been mixed, as it were, dust from the floor of the Tabernacle (symbolic of divinely ordained earthly providences). To accomplish this, he used an “earthen vessel.” (Num. 5:17; see also 2 Cor. 4:7)

From this we gather that our Lord administers the elements of the Truth by which our innermost beings are searched, tested and tried (Rev. 2:23), using, as it were, human instrumentalities—the brethren—to accomplish it.

The trial, which will determine our worthiness of becoming, eventually, the Bride of the Lamb—the Lamb’s wife—is a trial of our faithfulness. It is one in which we shall have to prove that we really love him above all others. Of course, in the ultimate, it will not be Jesus’ decision in the matter, but the heavenly Father’s; and this is clearly set forth in the type. In the “jealousy trial” it was God, that by way of the manner in which the “holy water” affected the woman, indicated that she was either guilty or innocent; and thus, as to whether or not she was worthy of her husband. In all things, it must ever be God’s decisions that are to be regarded with finality.

Do you recall the case of Isaac and Rebecca? Though father Abraham sent his servant Eliezer forth to select a bride for Isaac (Gen. 24:1-9), was it not God who really selected Rebecca for Eliezer to bring to Isaac? Let us see. First of all, let us note as to where she was eventually found—by the wells of water. Ah, yes, there were other women there too, and this made it the more difficult for Eliezer to decide. But it is interesting to observe that there were differences in disposition and character among these women, too. Perhaps it would be this, by way of which the servant would make his selection. However, he was not going to let a matter of such great importance rest upon his own judgment; and thus we read that he prayed that God would himself manifest His judgment in the matter (Gen. 24:12-14); and this God did. The wells of water symbolize the Truth. The fact that she drew water from the well and refreshed not only Eliezer, but his camels as well (Gen. 24:19) is highly significant. The Church called the Bride of Christ will be found by the wells of water (the Truth), and ever ready and willing to refresh and serve others by the way of it, and, of course, this at some expense to herself. Note how that we are told that she was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her. (Gen. 24:16) The Bride of Christ must also be “fair to look upon”—beautiful in disposition and character; and what is of even more importance, she, too, must be a virgin.

From what we have seen, the “woman” in the type was either guilty or not guilty of an illicit relationship, which she surely must have enjoyed in some measure. In the Revelation we have brought to our attention the fact that the worldly church, by the judgment of God will also be proven guilty of illicit relationships with the world. I doubt that any of us is being involved in earthly politics, such as voting in the elections, holding offices of public trust, etc., but this matter is very much more subtle than at first appears. “Carnal” fellowship with the world can be carried on surreptitiously and secretly. Let me ask you, “Do you at times enjoy the fellowship of the worldly people more than that of the consecrated saints of God?” “How much time do you spend in connection with civic functions like the PTA, etc.?” Oh, now, please don’t misunderstand me, these things may at times be quite necessary and in order; but I feel we ought to begrudge any time we are called upon to spend thus. Yes, it is necessary to contact the world here and there in order to provide what is decent and in order for our own individual households, those near and dear to us. But let us make sure that when we sail out on those waters, that we do not allow the waters to come into the ship. We are to be in the world, yet not of it. The danger seems to lie in the fact of our taking an unhealthy pleasure in these things. This could be the fostering of an illicit relationship with the world, making us guilty, after a fashion, of spiritual fornication. Changing the metaphor for a moment, let it be remembered that the mark of covenant relationship with God for the ancient Israelites, was circumcision of the flesh (Gen. 17:10,11); for spiritual Israelites the mark of covenant relationship with God is likewise “circumcision”—a cutting-off of the “flesh.” (Phil. 3:3; Rom. 2:29)

Since, we believe, we have established the fact that this section of holy writ has really no direct bearing, nor application to the “mother of harlots” nor her “daughters,” just whom might the “unfaithful woman” here represent?

There is, of course, but one “call” and but one “hope” identified with it. However, as is quite evident from many other types, there are two classes developed under this “call,” (1) the faithful and chaste virgin—the Church, which proves itself worthy to become the Lamb’s wife; and (2) the class which though called and accepted, and therefore eligible, compromises itself—proves itself unworthy—the Great Company.

In the type, the unfaithful woman, on being judged of the Lord—as is implied—was no longer able to bear seed. This was reflected in the swelling of her belly, and the shrinking of her thigh (Num. 5:21,22,24,27). This was, of course, a very severe physical punishment, which stigmatized or marked her among her people. In looking for the antitypical counterpart of this, we must bear in mind that what occurred in the type, physically, was but a figure of something that would correspondingly take place on the spiritual level, unto the “woman” who had proved herself unworthy to become the Lamb’s wife. The severity of the punishment upon the unfaithful woman was great, for, not only did she lose her husband, but she was stigmatized by being ever thereafter unable to bear any seed. Nor is the punishment of the Great Company any less severe, for she too loses a “husband,” and is likewise stigmatized, for thereafter she also will be unable to bear any “seed.” How different it will be with the faithful and chaste virgin—the Church; not only will she win her husband, the Lamb, but as his wife, she will become the mother to earth’s restored millions.

Notice that the unfaithfulness of the Great Company is not so great an evil as is the sin of the so-called nominal church which commits her adulteries (Rev. 2:22) and her fornications (Rev. 14:8; 17:2; 18:3) openly and unashamedly. It is to her a much desired relationship, and she is quite willing to be overtaken for the momentary monetary pleasures, honors, etc. The Great Company, on the other hand, is not guilty in the same way; rather, she is overtaken by an evil which she in heart hates and despises. She repents while there is still room to repent and perhaps is to be more pitied than censored. Concerning “Jezebel,” we read, “I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.” (Rev. 2:21)

“And the man that committeth adultery with another’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Lev. 20:10)

Those guilty of this sin were to suffer death. However, in the jealousy trial, the woman, though guilty, was not put to death, but merely stigmatized, nor could she ever thereafter bear seed. Perhaps this is because the guilty woman here represents the Great Company, for whom, despite their failure, Jesus, the High Priest, is still an Advocate. We read: “Through the favor of the High Priest, this great company are to go into ‘great tribulation’ and have the flesh destroyed.” (T70) Let it be noted that, though the charges were recorded against her (Num. 5:19-22), they were also blotted out by the priest. (Num. 5:23)

Some may feel it is not very consistent to take the unfaithful woman of Numbers 5 to represent the Great Company when in Matthew 25 that same Great Company is represented by a virgin class. But don’t we also have Moses of old representing Christ Jesus, and then also the second death class? The pictures ought not to be superimposed upon each other. Each has its own particular lesson to show forth. They must, therefore, never be confounded.

Nazarite Vow

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body. He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head. All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD. And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it. And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day. And he shall consecrate unto the LORD the days of his separation, and shall bring a lamb of the first year for a trespass offering: but the days that were before shall be lost, because his separation was defiled.” (Num. 6:1-12)

“The law concerning the Nazarite vow seems to imply that it had been an institution already existing at the time of Moses, which was only further defined and regulated by him. The name, as well as its special obligations, indicate its higher bearing. For the term Nazir is evidently derived from nazar, to separate, and ‘the vow of a Nazarite’ was to separate himself unto Jehovah. Hence the Nazarite was ‘holy unto Jehovah.’ In the sense of separation the term Nazir was applied to Joseph (Gen. 49:26; compare Deut. 32:16), and so the root is frequently used. But, besides separation and holiness, we have also here the idea of royal priesthood, since the word Nezer is applied to ‘the holy crown upon the mitre’ of the high-priest (Exod. 29:6; 39:30; Lev. 8:9), and ‘the crown of the anointing oil’ (Lev. 21:12), as also, in a secondary sense, to the royal crown (2 Sam. 1:10; 2 Kings 11:12; Zech. 9:16)” (Edersheim, The Temple, “Vows,” p. 326)

“In the circumstances of an ordinary vow, men consecrated some material possession, but the Nazarite consecrated himself or herself, and took a vow of separation and self-imposed discipline for the purpose of some special ser- vice, and the fact of the vow was indicated by special signs of abstinence.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

“[This term signifies] to bind, and thence to separate. Hence we have the cognate (nêzer) denoting a crown or diadem, which binds the head; the hair (Jer. 7:29), which forms a natural crown; and consecration to God as a nazîr, which is separation from certain things that symbolize all that separates or hinders from union with God …

“According to others the word [rendered] a diadem, contains the original idea of [nêzer] which will then radically signify to crown, and the hair is regarded as a crown to the person. The Nazarite in that view is the crowned one, because, as we are told in Num. 6:7, he has ‘the crown of God upon his head,’ evidently referring to his distinguishing badge of the freely growing and profuse mass of hair, which was considered an ornament (2 Sam. 14:25, 26), and which he was not allowed to cut off (Num. 6:5), because, therein his vow chiefly consisted (Judg. 12:5); and this is confirmed by Num. 6:9, where it is said, ‘If he defiled his head diadem, he is to shave his head.’ Hence also the signification of [nêzer] ornamental hair, long hair (Jer. 7:29 with Num. 6:19); while the vine again, laden with fruit, is called Nazirite, or more probably Nazir, i.e., the crowned (Lev. 25:5,11); because in its uncut state, when its head is covered with grapes and foliage, it is as much adorned with a diadem as the head of the Nazarite with the abundant hair, just as we call the foliage of a tree its crown.” (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia, v. 6, p. 879)

“The law of the Nazarite is full of instruction, because he is a type of the child of God who is separated from evil, that he may be wholly surrendered and given over to the divine service. Three rules were enjoined: Not to touch any product of the vine. If we must have exhilaration and stimulus, let us seek it in the Holy Spirit, not in worldly excitement. (Eph. 5:18,19) Not to cut the hair. The unshorn locks signified the dedication of the natural powers to God’s service. Let us beware of Delilah. Many are the razors waiting to deprive us of our crown. (Judges 16:19) Not to touch the dead, however dear. Teaching that the kingdom of God must supersede all earthly ties.

“If our separation breaks down, vs. 9-12, we must seek forgiveness and restoration; but the former days will not count. One sin may mar the power of a whole life of saintly testimony.” (Meyer, Through the Bible Day by Day, Num. 6:1-12)

Like some other sections of God’s Word, this section seems to have application in both the Gospel and the Millennial ages. Verses 1-12 readily lend themselves to an application for those who, during the Gospel age, having been justified by faith, hear and respond to the call to consecrate, thus separating themselves from the world and unto God. Verses 13-21 evidently concern themselves with those who in the Millennial age will recognize the privilege extended to them, of dedicating themselves to the will of God; and, having done this, will eventually be brought “unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation” (Num. 6:13), there to offer, as it were, a ewe lamb for a sin-offering; a lamb for a burnt-offering; and a ram for a peace-offering (Num. 6:14) together with the requisite meal and drink-offerings. (Num. 6:17) Perhaps there is a sense in which Adam (representing the whole human race) was originally dedicated by God to be a “Nazarite.” Like the Nazarite of old he was to separate himself from something (himself) and devote or dedicate himself unto the will of God. He was not to partake of the fruit of a certain grove of trees which grew in the garden. Evidently this was merely an expedient, for in due time, as the Nazarite might after his period of separation partake of wine (Num. 6:20) so God would have permitted Adam to partake of even these trees.

“Among the trees of life good for food was one forbidden. While for a time for- bidden to eat of the tree of knowledge, he was permitted to eat freely of trees which sustained life perfectly; and he was separated from them only after transgression, that thereby the death-penalty might go into effect. (Gen. 3:22)” (A205)

It is our purpose here to consider more particularly the Gospel age “Nazarite.” However, before doing so it will be necessary for us to note that Jesus was not a Nazarite according to the standards of the ancient law. He undoubtedly did drink wine, at least on every occasion on which he with all Israel celebrated the Passover, with which the cup had by this time become a part. Nor is it necessarily unreasonable to suppose that he himself was a partaker with his disciples of the wine at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. (John 2:1-11) Nor did Jesus restrain himself from making contact with death: for did he not raise up Jairus’ daughter (Matt. 9:18,24,25; Mark 5:35,39-42); and did he not purposely delay himself until his friend Lazarus had died, before going to the tomb to awaken him out of death? (John 11:6,14,34,39,41-44)

We also know that Jesus, being of the tribe of Judah, could never have been a priest (Heb. 8:4,7,14); yet, we also know that he was a far greater priest than was Aaron or any of his seed after him. (Heb. 5:10; 7:21; 8:6) He was, and is, a priest of a far nobler order. Just so, Jesus could not have been a Nazarite according to the ancient law; yet he was the only true and perfect “Nazarite” that ever lived—the only one who did not defile himself by “contact with death,” and therefore needed never to start all over again (Num. 6:9-12), for he was ever “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” (Heb. 7:26)

But Jesus was not the only “Nazarite” of this order. The invitation has been extended to all the justified believers of the Gospel dispensation to “separate themselves unto the Lord.” (Num. 6:2) So we, too, are “Nazarites,” but unfortunately we do become defiled because of our contact with (Adamic) death. (Num. 6:6,7)

No one was ever compelled to become a Nazarite; nor was there any reward offered for becoming one, or for faithfully discharging the vow. It would seem that the reason for making such a vow of separation unto God, was sheer love for God, and the enjoyment one might receive in the doing of His precious will. Was this not so with Jesus? Surely the “joy that was set before him” (Heb. 12:2) was not any reward that his faithfulness might gain for him, but that which became his in the doing of his heavenly Father’s will. Hear him, if you will as in the spirit of his consecration he declares, “I [have] come to do thy will, O God” (Heb. 10:7,9); and, as it was for Jesus, so should it also be for us—a delight to do the Father’s will. (Psa. 1:2)

The Father’s will for the “Nazarite” is his sanctification (1 Thess. 4:3); that he separate himself from the things which defile, to the doing of the things which sanctify. For the ancient Nazarite this meant that he was to “separate himself from wine and strong drink.” (Num. 6:3) For the Gospel age “Nazarite,” this means a separation from all that savors of a worldly spirit. Some of the natural effects of spirituous liquors are the sensations of warmth they afford; the tendency to make one talkative and sociable; then, too, after a while the vision becomes blurred, and there is great lack of coordination and the individual is unable to walk a straight course—in fact he can no longer even stand erect, but falls down in a stupor like unto death. There is much here that corresponds to the effects produced upon the spiritual Nazarite who allows himself to become partaker of a worldly spirit, be it in the world or the Church. Sooner or later, the vision regard- ing spiritual matters becomes blurred; the narrow way becomes far too narrow; to stand upright becomes impossible; and the eventual stupor is the Second Death.

Then, too, let it be noted that it wasn’t merely from wine and strong drink that the ancient Nazarite was to separate himself; but also from “moist grapes or dried,” yea, even from the “kernels … to the husk.” (Num. 6:3,4) One asks as to what is wrong about eating grapes or raisins, or chewing the kernels or husks of grapes. It is true, there is nothing really intoxicating about these, yet it would seem that God intended to put as much as he possibly could between that which would defile and that which would not. The lesson for the Gospel age “Nazarite” seems to be this: there are things, pleasures, etc., which are legitimate enough for the world, but from which the Nazarite of God does well to separate himself. Perhaps there is nothing wrong about dancing, card-playing, drinking, etc., except that God would have his “Nazarite” separate himself from these. There may be nothing really contrary to God in them, yet there is nothing of God, nor for God, in them, either.

“There may be no gross evil; there may even be a great show of good works and religious activity; beautiful words may be uttered, the very words of Scripture, but there is nothing for God. Now it is a solemn reality that one who is himself amongst the living—who is even separated to God by a special vow—may be defiled by contact with a condition in which there is nothing for God. Viewed spiritually, that is not only unclean of itself but it is contaminating to the living. So that if any are separated to God they must beware of touching—of course, in a moral sense—what is really dead.” (Coates, Notes On Numbers)

The ancient Nazarite was also to allow the hairs of his head to grow long— no razor was to come nigh these for the period of his separation. (Num. 6:5) Paul said, “Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him.” (1 Cor. 11:14, RSV) This suggests that the Nazarite was “peculiar,” “queer,” living, as it were, in a manner contrary to the dictates of nature, when he wore his hair long. His long hair, however, was a “crown” or “diadem”—a badge, which indicated him to be one separated “unto the Lord.”

A crown doesn’t make a king: it depends upon who wears it. But for the right person, the crown is the symbol identifying the king. Much hair does not necessarily mean that one is strong; but strong men—like the black-smiths of another day, were often quite hairy; their chests and arms being especially so marked. For at least one of the ancient Nazarites—Samson— long locks of hair were identified with his strength. (Judges 16:17) To be shorn of his hair was to be shorn of his strength.

The secret of our strength is our covenant relationship with God; and, while one’s knowledge of the Lord and his glorious plan of the ages doesn’t necessarily imply strength of character nor of a covenant relationship with God, we do also know that those who have strength of character and who are in covenant relationship with God are generally marked with a growth in the grace and the knowledge of the Lord. (2 Pet. 3:18) We are suggesting that our knowledge of the Truth—particularly of such basic doctrines as the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus, and the Church’s share in the sin offering, etc., which have much to do with our spiritual status—is what is represented by the hair of the Nazarite. Let someone beguile us, so that these truths become less precious to us, and we are shorn not only of the truth along these lines, but of that which has much to do with our “strength” in the Lord, and in the power of his might in us. (Eph. 6:10)

Like Samson, we can be tempted by those whom we love too well, but not too wisely, into betraying this secret to them, only to have our “locks” shorn, and our “strength” depleted. We can be promiscuous in our fellowship with others, who, because of our reluctance to do as they would have us do, will taunt us without hesitation, by telling us that we do not love them. (Judges 16:15) They will remind us that we are admonished not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25); and they would have us forget that our fellowship must be in the Lord, and based upon the Truth itself. If we succumb to their subtlety, we will soon find ourselves relaxing and falling asleep in “Delilah’s lap.” Remember, it was not Samson that cut his hair. Others did it for him.

“It was when Samson rested his head upon the lap of Delilah that he was shorn of his hair and of his strength—a condition of his vow being broken.

Similarly those who are strong in the Lord and in the power of his might through their faithfulness to the vows of consecration as followers of the Lord Jesus are in danger of going to sleep in the lap of the modern Delilah … A spirit of drowsiness is their spirit, of rest from activities and self-sacrifices of their vow, a spirit of slumber; and with that spirit goes their strength.” (R4088:6)

“ ‘Be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might.’ Here we have an exhortation applicable to the people of God of all times and under all conditions and under all circumstances. It would have applied to Samson as a natural man, a servant, and it applies to us of today who are new creatures in Christ Jesus, servant-sons of the Most High. If we look back to Samson and all the ancient worthies recounted by the Apostle, we note that the secret of their strength of character, by which they endured and overcame, resided in their faith in God and in the promises. And so it must be with us.” (R4089:4)

As the violation of the first feature of this Nazarite vow regarding wine, strong drinks, etc., reflects wilful sin, eventuating in the Second Death; so the violation of its second feature regarding the locks of hair, reflects carelessness and indifference in connection with the Lord’s admonition—to “Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41) and eventuates in membership in the Great Company class.

“True Nazariteship calls for great watchfulness and circumspection; defilements would not occur ‘unexpectedly’ to the man or woman who had pondered ‘the law of the Nazarite.’ Such would be aware of danger; they would be ever vigilant lest the thing they had been warned against should happen… Defilements are almost invariably contracted through unwatchfulness, and we are fully responsible for this. I may say that I was taken unawares, but this is no excuse; it is a humbling confession that I have not heeded the Lord’s words, ‘Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation.’ ” (Coates, Notes On Numbers)

The third requirement of the Nazarite was that he must not expose himself to any contact with death. Though this was most difficult, it wasn’t really impossible. However, it did call for such extreme separatedness that he dare not meet with, talk with, sleep with, anyone else; for “if any man die very suddenly by him … he hath defiled the head of his consecration.” (Num. 6:9) This, we believe, implies that a “Nazarite” must ever walk alone with God; no other creature, no matter how dear, nor how well loved, must be permitted to jeopardize his covenant-relationship with his God.

Unlike Jesus, we all were born in sin, “shapen in iniquity” (Psa. 51:5; Rom. 5:12), and avoidance at all times of contact with “death” is practically impossible. Yet it is just here that the grace of God our Father steps in, making provision for the rededication of the “Nazarite” who “accidentally” defiled himself. (Num. 6:9-12) In the type, this took place on a seventh and eighth day, respectively. The cleansing was on the seventh day, and the rededication on the eighth day. For the Gospel age “Nazarite,” the seventh and eighth “days” are not the seventh and eighth “thousand year days” but periods within the Gospel age, wherein God has ordained that certain things are and may be accomplished. The seventh day is the period of grace allowed by God, in which the “Nazarite” is privileged, not only to recognize his defilement; but also to show sincere repentance for the same. The ancient Nazarite did this by shaving off the locks of his hair (Num. 6:9) which had been for him a crown or badge identifying him as one of God’s Nazarites.

There are people who, because of our knowledge of the Truth—which knowledge we wear as a diadem or crown, much as the Nazarite of old wore his long locks of hair—have identified us as God’s, and consider us to be an holy people. If, then, instead of recognizing this knowledge of the Truth as a God-given grace, we pride ourselves on it as though much credit belonged to us for it, we have contacted death—the “old man”—and have thus become defiled. Nor is this the only way in which we may contact “death,” for the body of corruption—“the body of this death” (Rom. 7:24)—is ever present with us. Hear the Apostle Paul as he admonishes the saints at Colossae (Col. 1:2) to guard against these defiling contacts with the “old man.”

“In so far, then as you have to live upon this earth, consider yourselves dead to worldly contacts: have nothing to do with sexual immorality, dirty-mindedness, uncontrolled passion, evil desire, and the lust for other people’s goods, which last, remember, is as serious a sin as idolatry. It is because of these very things that the holy anger of God falls upon those who refuse to obey him. And never forget that you had your part in those dreadful things when you lived that old life. But now, put all these things behind you. No more evil temper or furious rage: no more evil thoughts or words about others, no more evil thoughts or words about God, and no more filthy conversation. Don’t tell one another lies any more, for you have finished with the old man and all he did and have begun life as a new man, who is out to learn what he ought to be, according to the plan of God.” (Col. 3:5-10, Phillips’ translation.)

Such defilements will bring our knowledge of the Truth into question, and even into disrespect. People will say, “Well, if that’s your religion, I want none of it.” Then, too, some of the Lord’s little ones also may be stumbled. We must, therefore, “confess our sins” (Psa. 32:5; Jas. 5:16; 1 John 1:9) in this an acceptable time for us—however humbling this experience may be. Thus shall we be “shaving” our heads of what had become “nature’s unbecoming growth”—on the “seventh day.” Thereafter, on the “eighth day,” as it were, we are privileged to rededicate ourselves unto the Lord, though not without reaffirming our own moral weakness and unworthiness, and confirming our utter dependence upon Christ Jesus our Advocate, whose sacrifice on our behalf makes this rededication possible. In the type, the Nazarite brought two turtledoves or pigeons to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation—to be offered for him by the priest; one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering. This was then followed by a lamb of the first year, for a trespass-offering. (Num. 6:10-12) This seems to suggest how utterly poor—morally poor—these defilements leave us (turtle-doves or pigeons, not goats, sheep, nor even bullocks for sin- and burnt-offerings); and that more than a mere sin-offering is required on our behalf, for we have trespassed. O, how serious is this matter of our consecration unto God to be regarded!

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned in this direction from the picture of the ancient Nazarite is this, that even though he was privileged to start all over again, “the days which were before … shall be lost, because his separation was defiled.” (Num. 6:12) Our consecration is not something to be regarded lightly.

Of interest, also, is the fact that no provision for rededication was made for the Nazarite who failed by way of wine, strong drink, moist grapes or dried kernels or husk; or who allowed the locks of the hair of his head to be cut. Rededication was permitted only when one had accidentally become defiled through contact with death.

All of this bears out very beautifully the fact that those Gospel age “Nazarites” who, losing their membership in the Church which is “his body,” have attained a status in the Second Death, or the Great Company class, are no longer in the running for the “prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” (Phil. 3:14) Other “Nazarites” may continue to strive, be- cause a loving God and Father is yet willing to bear with their accidental defilements.

“There has been but one true and perfect Nazarite in this world—but one who maintained, from first to last, the most complete separation from all mere earthly joy. From the moment he entered upon his public work, he kept himself apart from all that was of this world. His heart was fixed upon God and his work, with a devotion that nothing could shake. No claims of earth or nature were allowed, for a single moment, to come in between his heart and that work which he came to do … He had one thing to do, and to that he separated himself perfectly.” (C.H.M., Notes on the Book of Numbers)

Silver Trumpets

“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. And when they shall blow with them, all the assembly shall assemble themselves to thee at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And if they blow but with one trumpet, then the princes, which are heads of the thousands of Israel, shall gather themselves unto thee. When ye blow an alarm, then the camps that lie on the east parts shall go forward. When ye blow an alarm the second time, then the camps that lie on the south side shall take their journeys. And when ye blow a third alarm or signal, the camps on the west side shall march: and when ye blow a fourth alarm, the camps on the north shall march.¹ But when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow, but ye shall not sound an alarm. And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with the trumpets; and they shall be to you for an ordinance for ever throughout your generations. And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies. Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the LORD your God.” (Num. 10:1-10)

These trumpets were evidently made while the Israelites were still encamped at Sinai (see Num. 10:12); though probably not at the time when the Tabernacle and its furnishings were being made—perhaps at some little time thereafter. It may be that they were made of some of the silver that constituted the “free-will” offering of the people; but we cannot be certain of this, since the Scriptures themselves are silent on this point.

1. The words in bold are quoted from the Septuagint and do not appear in the Hebrew text.

The KJV and Leeser (and perhaps no others) have rendered the Hebrew word in this text “of a whole piece,” and “out of one piece,” respectively. Bunsen rendered it “embossed”; Zunz rendered it “solid”; Lange rendered it “twisted”; and so on. As is the case with many of the ancient Hebrew words, their exact meaning, if not completely lost, is extremely doubtful. Our more modern translators seem to favor the thought of “beaten” (Rotherham, Moffatt, the Revised Catholic, etc.), and the Revised Standard Version renders it “hammered.”

Whether made of one piece, embossed, solid, twisted, beaten or hammered, they were made of silver; and silver is the symbol of the Truth and, in this instance, the testimony of God’s Word.

“The sound of the trumpet was familiar to every circumcised ear. It was the communication of the mind of God, in a form distinct and simple enough to be understood by every member of the congregation, however distant he might be from the source whence the testimony emanated …

“Every movement in the camp was to be the result of the sound of the trumpet. Was the congregation to be gathered in festive joy and worship? It was by a certain sound of the trumpet. Were the tribes to be gathered in hostile array? It was by a blast of the trumpet—in a word, the solemn assembly and the warlike host, the instruments of music and the weapons of war. All, ALL, was regulated by the silver trumpet. Any movement, whether festive, religious, or hostile, that was not the result of that familiar sound, could be but the fruit of a restless and unsubdued will, which Jehovah could by no means sanction. The pilgrim host in the wilderness was as dependent upon the sound of the trumpet as upon the movement of the cloud. The testimony of God, communicated in that particular manner, was to govern every movement throughout the many thousands of Israel. …

“All had to wait upon the divine testimony, and walk in the light thereof the very moment it was given. To move without the testimony would be to move in the dark; to refuse to move, when the testimony was given, would be to remain in the dark …

“The silver trumpet settled and ordered every movement of Israel of old: the testimony of God ought to settle and order every thing for the church now … A Christian has no right to move or act apart from divine testimony: he must wait upon the Lord. Till he gets that, he must stand still: when he has gotten it, he must go forward. God can and does communicate his mind to his militant people now, just as distinctly as he did to his people of old. True, it is not now by the sound of a trumpet or the movement of a cloud, but by his Word and Spirit. It is not by aught that strikes the senses that our Father guides us; but by that which acts on the heart, the conscience, and the understanding. It is not by that which is natural, but by that which is spiritual, that he communicates his mind.” (C.H.M., Notes on Numbers)

Red Heifer

“And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.” (Num. 19:1,2)

“In view of what we have seen respecting the Day of Atonement sacrifices, which foreshadowed the better sacrifices of this Gospel age (accomplished by the Royal Priesthood, Christ, Head and Body) this heifer was in no sense related to these, and evidently did not typify any of the sacrifices of this present time. So, likewise, it is different from any of the sacrifices that were accepted on behalf of the people of Israel after the Day of Atonement, and which … signified their repentance and sorrow for sins during the Millennium, and their full consecration of themselves to the Lord. The burning of the heifer was not related to any of these sacrifices, all of which were made by priests, and in the Court. We look elsewhere for an antitype to this red heifer, for had it in any sense of the word represented the priests, it would of necessity have been killed by one of them as indicating that fact.

“What, then, did this sacrifice of the red heifer signify? What class of persons were represented by it, as having suffered outside the ‘Camp,’ and in what sense of the word would their sufferings have to do with the cleansing or purification of the people of God,—including those who shall yet become his people during the Millennial age?

“We answer that a class of God’s people not of the ‘Royal Priesthood’ did suffer for righteousness’ sake outside the ‘Camp:’ a brief history of these, and of the fiery trials which they endured, is given us by the Apostle in Hebrews 11. Of these he says, after recounting the faith exploits of a number, ‘What shall I say more? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and of Samuel and of the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: and others had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain by the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy.’—Heb. 11:32-38

“Here we have a class fitting to the account of the Red Heifer—a class which laid down their lives outside the ‘Camp’; a class in every way honorable, and yet not a priestly class. This class being no part of the body of the High Priest could have no part or share in the sin-offerings of the Atonement Day—nor could it be admitted into spiritual conditions typified by the Holy and Most Holy. It may seem to some remarkable that we should, with so much positiveness, declare that these ancient worthies were not members of the ‘Royal Priesthood,’ while with equal positiveness we declare that the no more faithful servants of God of this Gospel age are members of this ‘Royal Priesthood.’ Our positiveness is the positiveness of the Word of God, which in the very connection with the narrative of the faithfulness of these patriarchs declares in so many words, ‘These all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise (received not the chief blessing), God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.’ (Heb. 11:39,40)” (T106-108)

“Without spot … or blemish” evidently refers to the tentative justification—their accounted righteousness, as anticipated by God, even though they were sinners, born in sin and “shapen in iniquity” as others.

“That it must be a red cow would seem to teach that those ancient worthies were not sinless and therefore accepted of God before the great Atonement Day sacrifice, but that they were ‘sinners even as others.’ The fact of their cleansing or justification by faith, was otherwise indicated.” (T111)

“Upon which never came yoke”—

“In that the red heifer never wore a yoke, it represented a class of justified persons—made free from the Law Covenant. Although most of the ancient worthies were born under the Law Covenant, and therefore legally subject to its conditions and to its condemnation through imperfection of the flesh, nevertheless, we see that God justified them through faith, as the children of faithful Abraham. This is fully attested and corroborated by the Apostle, when he says that ‘all these obtained a good report of God through faith’—a verdict of, Well done, a testimony that they pleased God, and that he had provided for them blessings in harmony with his promise—although these blessings could not be given to them at the time, but must be waited for and be received through the spiritual Seed of Abraham—the Christ.” (T110)

“And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her before his face.” (Num. 19:3)

“The burning of the heifer was witnessed by a priest … The under-priest (not Aaron, who typified the Lord Jesus) who saw, recognized and approved the burning of the heifer and who took of its blood and sprinkled it in the direction of the Tabernacle door, would seem well antityped in that great underpriest, the Apostle Paul, who, by the help of God (the name Eleazar signifies ‘Helped by God’) has not only identified for us the sin-offerings of the Atonement Day, but also in his writings points out to us (Heb. 11) that which en- ables us to identify the Red Heifer sacrifice of the ancient worthies.” (T109, 110)

“Possibly the Apostle Paul, one of the underpriests of the ‘royal priesthood,’ was typified by Eleazer; for he it is that, by his testimony in Hebrews 11, points out the harmony of their faith and sufferings (burning) with ours, and casts into it the hyssop, scarlet and cedar, by assuring us that they were purged, that Christ’s blood made them acceptable and that they are sharers of the gift of everlasting life, although ‘they without us should not be made perfect.’—Heb. 11:40” (R1897:4)

“And Eleazar the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly before [“in the direction of the front of”—Leeser] the Tabernacle of the Congregation seven times.” (Num. 19:4)

“And thus he sprinkles their blood toward the Tabernacle, showing that their lives were in full, complete harmony with the Tabernacle conditions— although, not living in the time of this high calling, it was not their privilege to become members of the body of the great High Priest, the royal priesthood.” (T110)

Not only does the sprinkling of the blood in the direction of the front of the Tabernacle (see Leeser) indicate that their lives were lived in harmony with what was set forth in the Tabernacle, and that we are duly to consider these; but also that we are to look beyond them to that basic sacrifice—the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus—so beautifully represented in the bullock offered in the Court of the Tabernacle. This, undoubtedly, is the import of the Apostle’s words in Heb. 12:1,2.

“Seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses [the ancient worthies], let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.” (Heb. 12:1,2)

“And one shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn: And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer.” (Num. 19:5,6)

“[The priest then] took cedar wood and a sprig of hyssop and a scarlet string and cast them into the midst of the burning cow. The hyssop would represent purging or cleansing, the cedar wood or evergreen would represent everlasting life, and the scarlet string would represent the blood of Christ. The casting of these three into the midst of the burning would imply that the ignominy heaped upon the ancient worthies who were stoned, sawn asunder, etc., and of whom the world was not worthy, permitted the merit of the precious blood, the cleansing of the truth, and the gift of everlasting life to be accounted to them through faith; and that subsequent to their death they would be recognized as cleansed, justified, accepted.” (T109, 110)

Concerning this we read:

“Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others before the Law Covenant were not bound by it, yet were not in the fullest sense justified to life until the Abrahamic Covenant had been established at Calvary. Their faith, then, entitled them to a share in the merits of that sacrifice. Likewise throughout the period of the Law Covenant, before it was annulled at the cross, there were ancient worthies who lived above the masses of their time, and who, although bound by the Law, had above it a living faith in the original OathBound (Sarah) Covenant of Grace. These in the divine records were entitled to their share of that grace, as soon as the merit of Calvary’s sacrifice had been presented on behalf of believers, when Jesus ‘ascended up on high, there to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.’ Although they lived while the Law Covenant was alive, they foresaw its death and trusted not in it, but in the superior Covenant of Grace. Hence these in due time will come forth to a life resurrection, not because of their relationship to the Law Covenant, under which they lived, nor because of their relationship to the New Covenant of which some of them knew nothing, but because of their relationship to and faith in the original (Sarah) Covenant of Grace.” (R4320:2)

“Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until even.” (Num. 19:7)

For the typical priest, as for all Israelites, contact with death, be it of man or beast, brought defilement. Thus, those underpriests, who like Eleazar were called upon to sprinkle the red heifer’s blood in the direction of the Tabernacle, needed every one of them to be washed, yet despite their washing remained unclean “until even.”

Antitypically, the Apostle Paul, because of just such a defilement—contact with Adamic death—despite his washing with the waters of Truth, continued unclean “until even.” It should be understood, however, that this un- cleanness attached not to the new creature, but rather to that body in which it temporarily resided. Hence, the Apostle looked forward to that time when his vile body of corruption (Rom. 7:20) would give way to that glorious spirit body in the first resurrection (Phil. 3:21)

In a sense, an age or dispensation, like the great “days” of Creation, begins with an “evening.” (See Gen. 1:5,8,13,19,23) So did the Millennial “day” begin with an “evening” in the year 1874. It was quite early in this “evening” of the Millennial “day” (i.e., in 1878) that Paul, together with all the saints who had fallen asleep in Christ were awakened and given their clean, new, spiritual bodies—their resurrection bodies, as it pleased the heavenly Father to give them. (See 1 Cor. 15:38,42) Thus it was that Paul, as the antitypical Eleazar, remained “unclean” until “even.”

“The sins are not blotted out; they are merely reckonedly covered. In the case of the church’s sins: they will not be blotted out until death shall destroy these mortal bodies, and until the Lord, in the first resurrection, shall grant us glorious, spiritual, perfect bodies.” (R2677:4)

“And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even. And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin. And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever.” (Num. 19:8- 10)

As in other types, here too, the sacrifice (victim) and the offerer bear but a single identity; for did not these ancient worthies offer themselves in their faithfulness to God.

But while these Ancient Worthies were thus represented in both the “red heifer” and in the “man” who slew her before Eleazar, the priest, it would seem that this very same class was also represented in the “man that is clean” who gathered the ashes (the knowledge and remembrance of their faithfulness unto death—T108) together into a clean place. The “clean place” assuredly is none other than the Bible itself, for it is there that we find recorded the record of their lives, and their faithfulness unto death. And who was it that did this recording for us? Ah, the Scriptures tell us the “holy men [clean because tentatively justified] of God [i.e., the prophets— see Heb. 11:32] spake as they were moved by the holy spirit.” (2 Pet. 1:21)

There are three classes who share a “better resurrection.” These are: 1) the Little Flock; 2) the Great Company; and 3) the Ancient Worthies.

The “Little Flock” experiences what the Scriptures designate “the first resurrection.” (Rev. 20:4,5) They are raised in spirit bodies, immortal— possessing the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:12; 1 Cor. 15:40-44,53) and on these the Second Death hath no power. (Rev. 20:6)

Neither the Great Company nor the Ancient Worthies have a part in the “first resurrection,” for they are not raised up immortal creatures possessing the divine nature. Hence, over these the Second Death still has power, for it is possible, though not necessarily probable, that they may prove themselves unworthy of everlasting (not immortal) life. The Great Company class will be raised up in spirit bodies and the Ancient Worthies in perfect human bodies.

“The only thing which hindered their acceptance as sons was the necessity that first atonement blood should be presented on their behalf. In the ‘better resurrection’ which the ancient worthies will experience, they will, we understand, come forth perfect men. …

“From the moment of their resurrection, these perfect men would have the same right to come to God as had Adam, and would be as fully entitled to be called sons of God as was Adam, except for one thing. And that is, that the Ancient Worthies, as well as the rest of mankind, will be in the hands of the great Mediator of the New Covenant for the thousand years of his Messianic kingdom. And, according to the Scriptures, not until the end of that period will he deliver up the kingdom to the Father.

“Hence we understand that the Ancient Worthies will have no direct dealing with the Father as sons, and no direct recognition from him as such, until the end of Christ’s reign, when he will deliver over to the Father all things, that he may be ‘all in all,’ and that all may be directly subject to him.” (R5317:4)

“Even when Abraham’s tests were all passed satisfactorily he could not still be actually justified or made actually perfect; because he needed to be redeemed with the precious blood of Christ. …

“Abraham and all the ancient worthies will constitute the first-fruits on the earthly plane. Their justification will be made actual, vital, by a ‘better resurrection’ than the remainder of mankind will enjoy. … the ancient worthies, like the remainder of mankind, reaching human perfection (actual justification) will be the children of Messiah … They without us cannot be made perfect (actually justified to life), God having provided a superior thing for us first.—Heb. 11:38-40” (R4574:2,5)

“They must wait until the due time, after Jesus has made ‘reconciliation for iniquity,’ before they will get the benefit of their justification, and reach the full perfection of being in the resurrection.” (Q398)

“[The red heifer] represents a class of people not of the Gospel church, but who in God’s sight were justified, and by faith, as is represented by the fact that the heifer was without blemish and completely red—the color which represents the blood of Christ. All this well represents the worthies of Heb. 11:32-38. By faith they looked forward to the atonement for sin which God had promised; they caught a glimpse of Christ’s day and were glad; they ‘endured as seeing him who is invisible,’ and ‘pleased God’ (Heb. 11:5,27,39), and hence must have been justified, even though (the sin-offering not yet having been made) they could not be received into the liberties of sons of God.—Gal. 4:4-7; Heb. 3:5,6” (R1872:1)

“When our Lord Jesus at his first advent died some one might have said, Now Abraham and all the ancient worthies are justified. But that would not have been strictly true. It would have been true only in the sense that an unconscious, half-drowned child had been caught by its rescuer. An onlooker might shout, Hurrah, the child is saved. Yet really the rescuer must get the child into the boat and the work of resuscitation must be accomplished before the child would be fully saved.

“Even when our Lord Jesus ‘ascended up on high, there to appear in the presence of God for us,’ and made satisfaction for our sins, as did the typical priest, sprinkling the blood of Atonement on the Mercy Seat—even then Abraham and the other ancient worthies were not saved—not actually justified or made actually right—not legally right. Why not? Because the precious blood was not then applied on behalf of Abraham and the other Ancient Worthies, nor on behalf of the world in general. The Apostle declares, ‘He appeared in the presence of God for us.’ …

“When the time shall come for our Lord to make application of his merit on behalf of the world of mankind in general—for all not included in the household of faith, ‘us’—Abraham and all the ancient worthies will constitute the first-fruits on the earthly plane. Their justification will be made actual, vital, by a ‘better resurrection’ than the remainder of mankind will enjoy. Having been approved of the Lord in the past they will be granted restitution instantly; whereas the world will come up to that plane of actual justification or human perfection by the slower processes of the Millennial age. But the ancient worthies, like the remainder of mankind reaching human perfection (actual justification) will be the children of Messiah. ‘Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.’ (Psa. 45:16) Hearken to the Apostle, They without us cannot be made perfect (actually justified to life), God having provided a superior thing for us first.— Heb. 11:38-40” (R4574:2,3,5)

The “better” resurrection of these three classes, logically must precede the general resurrection of all the world of mankind; and, since the latter is always identified with the “morning” (Psa. 30:5; SM789), it is suggested that the “better resurrection” of the three aforementioned classes which belongs to the same Millennial “day,” takes place in the “evening” which precedes the “morning.”

If this suggestion is in order, then it will be readily seen why it is that the “one” who slew the red heifer before Eleazar’s face (Num. 19:5), and the “man that is clean” who gathered the ashes into a clean place (Num. 19:9)—both of whom represented the “Ancient Worthy” class—and the under- priest who was called upon to witness the slaying of the red heifer and to sprinkle of her blood in the direction of the Tabernacle (Num. 19:4)—who represented the Apostle Paul—being defiled by contact with death, despite their washing, remained unclean until “even.”

Bro. Russell wrote: “That it must be a red cow would seem to teach that these ancient worthies were not sinless.” (T111, published in 1881). He also wrote: “[the heifer was] completely red—the color which represents the blood of Christ.” (R1872:1, published in 1895)

Perhaps the reason why Bro. Russell never changed the original reading in any subsequent reprinting of Tabernacle Shadows is that there is a basis for reconciling the two, apparently different, thoughts in the fact that the red might readily be understood to represent these ancient worthies as sinners, justified by faith in the blood, i.e., the atonement, then, subsequently to be accomplished. Thus:

“By faith they looked forward to the atonement for sin which God had promised; they caught a glimpse of Christ’s day and were glad; they ‘endured as seeing him who is invisible,’ and ‘pleased God’ (Heb. 11:5,27,39), and hence must have been justified, even though (the sin-offering not yet having been made) they could not be received into the liberties of sons of God.—Gal. 4:4- 7; Heb. 3:5,6.” (R1872:1)

In 1895 Bro. Russell wrote an article entitled “The Typical Red Heifer” in which he expressed some thoughts seemingly at variance with those he had presented in Tabernacle Shadows. He says:

“The Apostle Paul, in Heb. 9:13, speaking of the typical cleansing, mentions the blood of both the bulls and goats (the Atonement Day sacrifices) and the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer with water, etc., but, when applying the antitype, he stops with the blood of Christ, and makes no mention of the antitype of the ashes of the red heifer—because it has nothing to do with our cleansing, but relates to the world’s cleansing in the Millennium … Had the red heifer and its ashes been connected with the Gospel age cleansings, the Apostle surely would have shown the fact here; for he did not shun to declare the whole counsel of God then ‘meat in due season.’ ” (R1897:4)

This is not quite the thought he expressed in Tabernacle Shadows, page 108. Though Bro. Russell had ample opportunity to revise the language to the time of copyrighting (1899) and since (i.e., up until October, 1916) so that Tabernacle Shadows and the Tower would be in accord, he never did. This leads us to believe that he felt there was much merit to the thoughts as originally expressed in the 1881 manuscript.

Accordingly, while recognizing that the “ashes of the red heifer” have no power to cleanse from moral sin, they do have, for the Church now, and for the world in the Millennium, the power to purge from the effects of Adamic defilement. For the Church, this defilement often manifests itself in discouragement and doubt; and how helpful at such times in overcoming these, is the knowledge of the faithfulness unto death, of these Ancient Worthies.

“Chapter twelve still addresses this consecrated priestly class. It suggests that these servants and handmaids, specially begotten of the holy Spirit, specially called, having the ‘high calling,’ specially devoted to sacrifice, should think of the ancient worthies and the faithful witness for God and the truth which they bore—to which they witnessed by their martyrdom, that these may strengthen us and encourage us to run faithfully in the race that is set before us.” (R4513:3)

“These ancient worthies are not in any sense part of the sin-offering, they are nevertheless connected with the cleansing from sin: their ashes (the knowledge and remembrance of their faithfulness unto death), mingled with the water of truth, and applied with the purgative, cleansing hyssop, is valuable, purifying, sanctifying all who desire to come into full harmony with God—and ‘sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purification of the flesh.’ [Heb. 9:13] Not, however, of themselves would these lessons of faithfulness in the past be valuable to us, but only by, through and associated with the sin-offerings of the Day of Atonement, to which the Apostle refers in the same connection—‘the blood of bulls and goats.’ And not only are the remembrance and lessons of the faithfulness of the ancient worthies (typified by the ashes of the red heifer) of sanctifying power to us now, but in a much larger sense they will be applicable and a blessing to the world of mankind in general during the Millennial age. For, as we have elsewhere seen, the divine arrangement is that these ancient worthies, the greatest of whom is less in honor than the least one in the Kingdom, will nevertheless occupy a place of higher honor and distinction under that Kingdom of God—as its agents and representatives. For they shall be ‘princes in all the earth,’ the agents of the Kingdom’s judgments, and the channels of its blessings, to ‘all the families of the earth.’ Thus the faithfulness of these ancient worthies was represented in the gathered ashes of the heifer as laid up in store for future use, valuable lessons of experience, faith, obedience, trust, etc., which, applied to the world of mankind, seeking cleansing in the coming age, will sanctify them and purify them—not without the Day of Atonement sacrifices, but in connection with and based upon those.—Psa. 45:16” (T108, 109)

“He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.” (Num. 19:11)

Here we come to another type, one which must not be confused nor confounded with the one already given. It concerns itself with the application of the ashes for cleansing from defilement.

“The cleansings for which these red cow ashes were prescribed, were of a peculiar kind; namely, specially for those who came in contact with death. This would seem to indicate that these ashes of the heifer were not designed to remove the individual’s guilt—no, his moral guilt could be cleansed away only through the merit of the Atonement Day sacrifices. The cleansing of defilement through contact with the dead would seem to teach that this cleansing, affected by and through the experiences of the ancient worthies, will specially apply to the world of mankind during the Millennial age, while they are seeking to get rid of all the defilements of Adamic death—seeking to attain human perfection. All the blemishes of the fallen condition are so much of contact with death; all constitutional weaknesses and blemishes through heredity are contacts with death; and from all of these the ashes of the red heifer are to be used for the cleansing of all who will become the people of God. Like the ashes of the red heifer, laid up in a clean place, so the results of the painful experiences of the ancient worthies will be a store of blessings, instruction and help, by which they, when made subordinate ‘princes’ in the Kingdom, will assist in the restitution work. (Psa. 45:16) Each pardoned sinner, desiring to be cleansed perfectly, must not only wash himself with water (truth), but must also have applied to him the instructions of these ‘princes’—said instructions being typified by the sprinkled ashes of the heifer, representing the valuable lessons of faith and obedience learned through experience by this class.—Exod. 12:22; Lev. 14:4,49; Psa. 51:7; Heb. 9:19” (T111, 112)

In the type, the ordinary Israelite, who because of his contact with death became defiled, was unclean for seven days. Perhaps this was intended to represent the whole human race, which because of its defilement through contact with Adamic death remains under its effects for seven (thousand year) days.

“He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean; but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.” (Num. 19:12,13)

It was on the third day after an Israelite’s defilement that he might use the ashes of the red heifer, though even despite their use he remained unclean until sometime during the seventh day. It is remarkable that this type was established in the third thousand-year “day” after Adam’s transgression. Symbolically, the third day is evidently the day on which the ashes of the red heifer are made available for cleansing. For the Church, this would be the Gospel age, and for the world of mankind, the Millennial age. (T109) Sometime during the seventh day—the Millennial age—both the Church and the world of mankind will stand clean before God: the Church in its beginning, and the world at its close.

It should be noted, however, that being clean on a “seventh day” is contingent upon one having used the “red heifer ashes” when these were made available for cleansing from defilement on some “third day.”

For the Church, therefore, it is needful for its members to make use of these “ashes” during this Gospel dispensation—a “third day”—if they would be clean to stand with the Israel of God in the Millennium—a “seventh day.”

For the world of mankind, failure to use these “ashes” when they are made available unto them during the Millennial age—a “third day” for them— will by its close see them still unclean because of defilement by death, and merit for them in the “seventh day” their cutting off from the common wealth of Israel.

Even, as for the Church, the Gospel age antitypically corresponds to:

1. A third day (as in this Numbers 19 type);
2. The first seven days of the first month (as in the Leviticus 8 type, where the “call” and consecration of the Church is set forth);
3. An eighth day (as in the Leviticus 9 type, where the working out of the Church’s consecration is set forth);
4. A seventh day (as in numerous Old Testament types);
5. A tenth day of the seventh month (as in the Leviticus 16 type, where this same consecration is set forth as working out in the interests of all mankind).

Just so is it that antitypically the Millennial age corresponds to a third day (as in this Numbers 19 type) and a seventh day (of blessing and favor, as set forth in so many of the Old Testament types).

Cities of Refuge

“The LORD also spake unto Joshua, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Appoint out for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses: That the slayer that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly may flee thither: and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. And when he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause in the ears of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city unto them, and give him a place, that he may dwell among them. And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer up into his hand; because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime. And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled. And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjath-arba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah. And on the other side Jordan by Jericho eastward, they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh. These were the cities appointed for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth any person at unawares might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood, until he stood before the congregation.” (Josh. 20:1-9)

“Very wise indeed was the divine arrangement of cities of refuge for the Isra- elites. Six of these were designated, so scattered throughout the length and breadth of Palestine that they were convenient for the whole people. They were of divine appointment and had already been referred to through Moses (Num. 35:9-34; Deut. 4:41-43; 19:1-9), and by him their purpose had been fully set forth. Now that Israel had entered the land of promise and taken possession of it, the time had come for the putting of this measure into effect. The six cities chosen were all of them cities of the Levites which would all the more insure their being free from all tribal bias or prejudice. The tribe of Levi stood separate and distinct from all the other tribes and was specially interested in all; as the religious representatives of the nation it was fitting, therefore, that these refuges from justice should be of the Levite wards— under their protection.

“From the earliest times and in almost all countries, the taking of life has been a capital offense calling for the death of the slayer. In almost all countries, too, particularly in the East, it is considered the bounden duty of the person next of kin to the one slain, to avenge his death; with some it is permissible to take money as a compensation for the loss of life, but with the Jews it was not so; the law ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ held with special rigidity in respect to a life for a life. We can see the wisdom of this general law recognized by the whole human family—that human life must be considered sacred and that he who would slay another must be shown no pity. Life was originally a divine gift, although forfeited through sin, and whatever remnant of it is transmitted from parent to child is still to be esteemed as so much of the original divine gift, and no one is at liberty to treat it lightly.

“The cities of refuge were a step in advance along the line of tempering justice with mercy; they were established, not for the protection of wilful murderers but for those who unintentionally, through error or accident took the life of another; anyone who even thus committed manslaughter was really worthy of death under the decree, ‘He that sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed’—regardless of any excuse which he might be able to offer, either of aggravation or passion or self-defense or accident. The arrangement was that any one believing himself to be free of malice, wilful, intentional murder, might flee to one of these cities of refuge and there be protected from the full demands of the law against his life—he might thus have a measure of mercy extended to him without the condoning of his offense. It was a further regulation that the routes leading to these cities of refuge should be built and kept in thorough order, free from stumbling stones, with bridges over water-courses, etc., so as to afford the guilty ones full opportunity for a rapid flight to secure safety. Moreover, at frequent intervals sign boards were erected pointing in the direction of the city of refuge and bear- ing the word ‘Refuge.’ It was also a custom among Jews that two scribes should accompany the refugee with the special object of persuading the avenger, should he overtake the culprit, to permit him to reach the city of refuge and there have a proper trial of his cause to hear what could be said on his behalf. This was a recognition of the justice of vengeance, but it was also an inculcation of mercy. Apparently the whole people felt a sympathy for every person fleeing from the avenger to a city of refuge, as each one realized his own liability at some time to commit a similar offense and thus likewise need to seek refuge and mercy.

“Arrived at the city of refuge, the culprit was not free, but was obliged to stand trial before the elders of the city representing the congregation of Israel. He was received into the city and protected until such time as the trial could take place. His cause was carefully investigated. Prof. Beecher remarks respecting these trials: ‘Much stress is laid upon the previous conduct of the slayer, and the relations between him and his victim, whether he lay in wait for the slain man (Deut. 19:11), whether he ‘hunted’ for him or not (Exod. 21:13; Num. 35:20,22), whether he smote him ‘in secret.’ (Deut. 27:24) Was it presumptuous—that is to say, malicious? (Ex. 21:14) Was it with guile? (Exod. 21:14) Especially, was their enmity previously between the two men? (Num. 35:21,22) Was there hatred of the slain on the part of the slayer? (Num. 35:21,23; Deut. 19:4,6,11; Joshua 20:5).’

“The fact that so many particulars were enumerated shows that the trial contemplated was to be a careful one; it was not therefore the intention of these cities of refuge to defeat the ends of justice, but that while serving the ends of justice, mercy might be extended to those who were proper subjects for it. If the man were found guilty of deliberate murder, intentional, pre-meditated, the city of refuge did not save him from the death penalty; and if he were acquitted of any malice, he, nevertheless, was obliged to remain in the city of refuge or within its suburbs of 1,000 cubits beyond the walls (Num. 35:26,28), for the remainder of his life, or until the death of the high priest. This was putting a heavy penalty upon carelessness, passion, etc., a penalty of separation from family, a restriction of liberty which, undoubtedly, would be beneficial, not only to the individual under restriction but, in its influence beneficial upon the whole people. The careless man is culpable and when his carelessness results in serious injury to another it is but right that the matter should result in his own inconvenience—that it should cost him something.

“The high priest was in some respects the most prominent individual in the nation, and his death, therefore, would be such a notable event as to be known throughout all the tribes, and on that occasion all refugees in all cities of refuge would be at liberty to return to their homes free from danger from the avenger, the avenger’s opportunity expiring with the death of the high priest; and were he to avenge after that, he would be the murderer and be obliged to flee to a city of refuge. This unique arrangement, it will be observed, is the very reverse of our present day arrangements of jails, penitentiaries, etc., and in some respects, at least, it represents advantages. The culprit himself was the one who sought the prison and who desired to stay therein for his own protection during the appointed time. This certainly avoided the necessity of building massive, walled, iron-barred jails from which prisoners continually seek to escape. And instead of inciting the people to the pursuit of the offender under the presumption of his guilt even be- fore his trial, it rather conduced to a reverse condition of sentiment—the supposition of the culprit’s innocence and the desire and sympathy on the part of the people to assist him to safety and protection and mercy.

“An antitypical significance of these cities of refuge: ‘God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble.’ [Psa. 46:1] From the time we become acquainted with the real facts of our case, we realize that a death sentence has been issued which involves each of us. We realize, too, that justice has a full right to pursue us unto death because we have ‘all sinned and come short of the glory of God’; and because the ‘wages of sin is death.’ The Apostle points out this matter distinctly (Rom. 5:12), saying ‘By one man[‘s disobedience] sin entered into the world and death by sin and so [thus] death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.’ From the moment, therefore, that we recognize that we are sinners—that we could not stand approved in the divine presence—from that moment we realize that the avenger, Justice, is upon our trail, and that it is only a question of time when we will be over- taken and destroyed unless we reach some place of refuge. As we flee, we see finger-posts which God has set for our instruction, pointing us to Christ as the only place of refuge, and to him we have to flee.

“We are abiding now within the hallowed precincts of this salvation, deliver- ance, refuge, which God himself has provided for us; even as it is written, ‘It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth?’ And yet it is with us even as it is shown in the type, a place of refuge not from wilful and intentional violation of the divine Law, but a refuge to cover our weaknesses and igno- rance—the results of the fall. As a thorough investigation was made in the type, so we may be sure that in our case a thorough investigation of motives, intention, etc., will be instituted.

“Fortunately for us, this refuge in Christ is specially intended for those who are ‘new creatures in Christ Jesus,’ whose sinful course prior to coming to a knowledge of the Lord is accounted, not as intentional or wilful, but, as of ignorance. Our responsibilities for wilful sin may, therefore, be said to begin with and keep pace with our knowledge of the divine Law. Although acquit- ted as respects wilful sin whose penalty would be the second death, it is necessary that we continue to ‘abide in him’—that we do not put off the robe of Christ’s righteousness. If we leave the city of refuge—if we abandon our trust in the precious blood which cleanseth us from all sin, we become liable again to the demands of justice and that without mercy. Divine justice is represented in the avenger, as divine mercy is represented in the city of refuge, and he who would leave the city of refuge necessarily falls into the hands of Justice; as again the Apostle explains, ‘It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God’—to depart from Christ, to abandon the mercy and forgiveness which the Father has extended toward us, as culprits —through the Beloved One. …

“The entire arrangement is of God—Justice is the avenger of sin, and Christ is the refuge and deliverance; therefore, while acknowledging the Lord Jesus and appreciating very highly his work for us, the redemption accomplished through his sacrifice and all the blessings which come from the Father through him, and thus honoring the Son as we honor the Father also, it is nevertheless appropriate that we should remember that all these blessings are of the Father through the Son. ‘God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble.’ ” (R3092:2-3093:5)

The lesson of the Cities of Refuge has also an application to the whole world of mankind:

“This feature of the typical Mosaic law strongly foreshadowed the refuge which the sinner may find in Christ. He is our shield and hiding place from the penalty of all sin, save that which is wilful. He is no shelter for obstinate, unrepentant sinners; but for every one born in sin and shapen in iniquity— and thus sinners by the accident of birth or heritage, yet earnestly desirous of escaping from sin and its just consequences, and seeking refuge in him by faith—there is protection. We are all under the sentence of death; justice is the avenger; and only those in Christ are shielded.

“But mark you, the sinner must continue to abide in this city of refuge as long as the high priest liveth—i.e., as long as Christ continues in the priestly office, which will be until he is able to present all the redeemed who abide in him under the New Covenant conditions faultless before the throne of God, at the end of his Millennial reign as King and Priest. Then, being made actually perfect by the great Redeemer-Physician, they will be able to stand, not in the imputed or reckoned righteousness of another, but in their own glorious perfection, yet never forgetful of the great atoning sacrifice, and the patient work of restitution which made possible such a glorious consummation.” (R4079:6-4080:4)

“God knew that Christ would be slain, and that all men would come under blood-guiltiness in respect of his death. So in this remarkable type he made known how his grace would act even under such circumstances. It is deeply touching to think that God would in his grace take account of the slaying of Christ as done ‘without intent.’ (Num. 35:11,15) But the Lord’s own words upon the cross, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do’ (Luke 23:34), and Peter’s words later, ‘And now, brethren, I know that ye did it in ignorance, as also your rulers’ (Acts 3:17), show that he did so account of it. On this ground the city of refuge was available and thousands fled to it.

“But ‘refuge’ had a wondrous character in the newly formed assembly, for all that was truly levitical was there. Every acceptable service, every divine and heavenly influence, were there. Never before had men occupied such an elevated place; never before had such holy things been known and cherished in the hearts of men. But all the privilege of the assembly was available to be known as a refuge by the slayers of Christ. And in the thought of God this remains true. If men fear as they realize their sinfulness, and particularly their sinful hatred of Christ, they can flee to a ‘city’ where Christ is loved and honored. They are welcome to live in that ‘city,’ to share the place where God’s Levites dwell, to have their part where all are committed to the service of God. Normally everyone who turns to God should have a deep sense that the only true city of refuge is to be found where God is served in the way of His appointment …

“The cities of refuge in the land were in ‘the hill country.’ (Josh. 2:7) It is in going up into the elevation of what is spiritual and heavenly that a refuge from all those things which have brought so much guilt upon the Christian profession …

“To go outside the walls of the ‘city’ is to expose themselves to danger. There must be no relaxation of the principle of separation; no faltering in the pursuit of righteousness, faith, love, peace; no weakening of pure heart dependence; no want of loyalty to the bond in which we walk with our like-minded brethren.” (Coates, An Outline of the Book of Numbers, chap. 35)

While it is true that Israel was called upon to expiate, as it were, its sinfor rejecting the Messiah (R4172), they were not relegated to the Second Death; and, therefore, they will have an opportunity in the Millennium to flee from the “avenger” to this “city of refuge.” And there is perhaps also a sense (as Coates has suggested) in which any Israelite might even now avail himself of the “city of refuge” by becoming identified with the Gospel age Church, wherein Christ Jesus is the everlasting High Priest.

“The cities of refuge were situated, three on the eastern and three on the western side of Jordan. Whether Reuben and Gad were right or wrong in settling east of that significant boundary, God in his mercy would not leave the slayer without a refuge from the avenger of blood. On the contrary, like himself he ordained that those cities which were designed as a merciful pro-vision for the slayer should be so situated that wherever there was need of a shelter that shelter might be near at hand. There was always a city within reach of any who might be exposed to the sword of the avenger. This was worthy of our God. If any slayer happened to fall into the hands of the avenger of blood, it was not for want of a refuge near at hand, but because he had failed to avail himself of it. All necessary provision was made; the cities were named, and well defined, and publicly known. Everything was made as plain, as simple, and as easy as possible. Such was God’s gracious way.” (MacIntosh, The Book of Numbers, chapter 35)

Jordan sometimes represents “consecration”; though it is also frequently used as a symbol for “death.” Perhaps it is here used in the dual sense, as representing the “consecration unto death.” (R4063)

It will have been observed that three of the cities of refuge were on the east side of the Jordan; and the other three on the west side. We like to think that those on the west side represented the “cities of refuge” for the Church—those who consecrate unto death; while those on the east side would represent the “cities of refuge” for the consecrated of the Millennial age. Both we now, and the world of mankind in the Millennium, need the “cities of refuge.” For us, we might consider it to be the position we are privileged to occupy “in him,” and that our High Priest, who will never die, is Christ Jesus himself. To leave this “city of refuge” is but to expose one’s self to the “avenger of blood” (justice); and could very well result in one’s passing into the Second Death.

For the world of mankind in the Millennium, perhaps, the “city of refuge” will be “the Christ,” whose High Priest is also none other than Christ Jesus. It will be necessary for them all to be found “in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:22; F698,699; R3927); lest they be exposed to the “avenger of blood” (justice) and die the Second Death.

The Jordan, for those who cross over, represents the Church in its consecration unto death. The world will approach the “Jordan”—i.e., they will consecrate—but since they will not “cross over” the stream, their consecration will not be unto death, but unto life.

“Consecration will also be in order in the next age, though, owing to the changed government of the world, consecration will no longer, as now, mean unto death, but on the contrary, it will be unto life Consecration must always be a voluntary presentation of one’s powers, and hence this is represented in some of the sacrifices after the Atonement Day.” (T94)

“The completeness of consecration was shown by the death of the animal— that is, each member of the race must consecrate his will; but it will be followed neither by the destruction of the human nature (the burning of the flesh outside the camp) nor by taking the life into a new nature—into the ‘Most Holy.’ ” (T96)

“Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” (Psa. 2:11, RSV)