CLOSE X

Epiphany Truth Examiner

DELIVERANCE OF THE FIRSTBORN

View All ChaptersBooks Page
EXODUS
CHAPTER III

DELIVERANCE OF THE FIRSTBORN

Ex. 11:1—13:22 

THREAT OF THE TENTH PLAGUE. PASSOVER LAMB AND SUPPER CHARGED. CERTAIN PASSOVER DETAILS CHARGED. THE FIRSTBORN. PARTING GIFTS. OTHER PASSOVER DETAILS CHARGED. THE DEPARTURE. 

THE INTERVIEW between Moses and Pharaoh begun in Ex. 10:24 is continued in Ex. 11:4-8, with vs. 1-3 thrown in as a parenthesis. The first clause of v. 1 should be rendered: "For the Lord had said unto Moses, Yet will I bring one more plague upon Pharaoh, etc." Our reasons for suggesting this translation are: (1) Vs. 4-8 clearly give a continuation of the conversation of Ex. 10:24-29; otherwise we would have to say that Moses broke his word given in v. 29, and this would imply our Lord's breaking His word in the antitype—an impossibility. (2) Grammatically the above suggested translation is as accurate as that of the A. V. (3) The fact of the continuance in vs. 4-8 of the interview of Ex. 10:24-29 necessitates regarding vs. 1-3 as a parenthesis; and (4), it being a parenthesis, the above suggested translation is necessitated instead of that of the A. V. Accordingly, vs. 1-3 are inserted as a parenthesis to connect the first with the second part of the interview; for they furnish the reason for the statements that Moses makes in vs. 4-8. God told Moses in Ex. 3:19-22; 4:23; 7:1-5, the things stated in vs. 1-3, for these three verses allude to the statements made in these citations. The most ancient Hebrew manuscript extant gives the following reading for the first clause of v. 3: "For I will give the favor of the people in the sight of the Egyptians." This reading seems preferable because it is the continuation of what God was saying in vs. 1, 2, in the first person. The word was, which is in italics, showing that it has no corresponding Hebrew word in 

Exodus

146 

the original, has been supplied in the second sentence of v. 3. It might better be supplanted by the words, shall be. In other words, all three verses contain restatements of things which God had previously said, and which were Moses' Divinely-given charge for telling Pharaoh what he said in vs. 4-8. 

(2) The plague referred to in v. 1 is, therefore, the tenth—the death of the firstborn of man and beast, typical of the death of the unfaithful and Satan-controlled new creatures and of their humanity. This antitypical plague is inflicted through the great tribulation. The death of the typical firstborn hurt Pharaoh and the Egyptians ("upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt"—v. 1 [the Hebrew word Mitzraim means either Egypt or the Egyptians; here it refers to the people rather than to the land]). And the death of the antitypical firstborn will hurt Satan, whose firstborn, the Romanist hierarchy, which at least by November, 1916, consisted of new creatures, in going to pieces in the death of every one of its members, will certainly pain Satan; and it will also hurt his servants [the Egyptians], whose firstborn—other renegade new creatures—passing forever away, will be a deep grief to them. As in the type God forecast that the tenth plague would force Pharaoh to send Israel away, so in the antitype has He forecast ("He will let you go hence"—v. 1) that the antitypical tenth plague would force Satan to send antitypical Israel away free. Furthermore, God's forecast that Pharaoh in sending Israel away would thrust them out, very urgently require their leaving, types His forecast that antitypical Israel would be driven out urgently from Satan's empire. This indicates the persecutions, ostracisms, boycottings, symbolic beheadings, etc., that would fall to the lot of God's people when thrust out of Satan's empire. These refer, of course, to injustices done and yet to be done God's people by the antitypical Egyptians during the tribulation, from 1914 onward. The fact of deliverance from antitypical Egypt, as implied in such injustices, should take away 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

147 

the sting from such mistreatment and make us rejoice. 

(3) As we have given a general interpretation—type and antitype—to the thought of v. 2, insofar as it refers to the Israelitish and Egyptian women, while treating of Ex. 3:21, 22 [Chap. I, (36), (37)], and as v. 2 is but an allusion to Ex. 3:21, 22, we need not here go into details on that feature of v. 2. A linguistic remark would here be in order. The second word of v. 2, rendered now, should have been rendered please, or I pray, as the mistranslation now, contradicts the connection and the fact that the speaking was not done until Ex. 12:35. One item, however, is added in v. 2 that is not to be found in Ex. 3:21, 22, which tells only of Israelitish women as asking their female neighbors for the jewels and raiment, but does not say anything of Israelitish men asking their (male) neighbors for jewels of gold and silver, while v. 2 adds this item. From the standpoint of the Israelitish mothers representing the Truth and its servants—the covenant—and the Israelitish children representing the household of faith, as shown in Chap. I, (36), (37), we would understand the Israelitish men of v. 2, as heads of the families, to represent God, particularly as He would act through our Lord and the latter's special mouthpieces, in extracting the Divine Truth, jewels of silver and gold, from the teachings of the various false-christ and false-prophet systems at the end of the Age. It will be recalled that our Pastor calls our attention to the fact, when interpreting Matt. 24:24 in Vol. IV, 580, 581, that the false christs and false prophets were symbolic men, systems. It is these whom we understand to be typed by the (male) neighbors of the Israelitish men, and certainly from the teachings of these our Lord through His special mouthpieces, extracted Divine Truth, the jewels of gold and silver of v. 2. E.g., out of the Presbyterian false-prophet system much of Truth on election and the Lord's Supper was extracted, and out of the Methodist false-prophet system much of Truth on free grace 

Exodus

148 

and Divine love was extracted, as out of the Greek and Roman false-christ systems much Truth on Christ's pre-human, human and post-human offices and on the one Church as being God's depository and dispenser of saving Truth was taken. 

(4) In its amended form as suggested above we have likewise expounded, type and antitype, the first sentence in v. 3 in Chap. I, (36), (37). But we believe that a remark is here to be made on the literal translation of the expression rendered, "I will give the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians." As can be seen from Dr. Young's rendering, this clause should be rendered, "I will give the favor of [peculiar to] the people in the eyes of the Egyptians." The expression in Ex. 3:21 is very similar: "I will give the favor of [peculiar to] this people in the eyes of the Egyptians." At first sound this expression seems odd, but it is most fitting when we consider the antitype. At first sight the persecutions, wrongs and other evils heaped upon God's people by the antitypical Egyptians seem not to be favors. To the natural man they are the reverse of favors. But when we recognize that the Lord works out character good from them in us they are seen to be favors indeed (Rom 8:28; 2 Cor. 4:17, 18). They are called the favor of God's people, not because the antitypical Egyptians mean them as such. The reverse is the case from their standpoint. But they are the favor of God's people through God's overruling and through His people accepting them as such, from an appreciation of the spiritual purpose of their bestowal. Certainly such persecutions, wrongs, etc., if inflicted upon antitypical Egyptians, would not be considered by them as the favor of [peculiar to] the Egyptians; for they resent any evil done them and as a rule are thereby embittered and thus damaged in character. Let us, dearly beloved, who have spiritual discernment, learn to love the evils that we undergo, as the favor of [peculiar to] God's people, even as St. Peter puts it while speaking of our suffering 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

149 

wrongs for righteousness, "This is thankworthy … acceptable [literally, grace, favor, in both verses] with God."—1 Pet. 2:19, 20. 

(5) We have already suggested that in the second sentence of v. 3 the italicized word was should be replaced by the words shall be; for the thought here expressed is an allusion to Ex. 7:1-6, particularly to v. 1, as the place where it was said. While each of the plagues added its cumulative weight of greatness to Moses in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Egyptians and Israelites (v. 3), the tenth plague brought him to the climax of his greatness there, before both of these peoples. Antitypically, increasingly did our Lord's prestige rise before the people of the world and the Lord's people as plague followed plague, but as Moses became very great in the eyes of the Egyptians and Israelites as a consequence of the tenth plague, so will our Lord become very great, as a result of the third woe, before the world and before the Lord's people. It is with a consideration of the thoughts of vs. 1-3 on his mind that Moses could utter to Pharaoh the fearful threat contained in vs. 4-8. Antitypically, our Lord, conscious of the promises of the Father toward Him and His own, and the threats of God toward Satan's empire and its supporters, clarified to His understanding by God's pertinent statements, could proclaim and cause to be proclaimed by His mouthpieces the antitypes of the woes to Pharaoh and his subjects set forth in vs. 4-8. These thoughts, then, prepare us for, and introduce us to a consideration of the second part of Moses' interview with Pharaoh, as given in vs. 4-8. 

(6) In v. 4 the continuance of Moses' remarks of Ex. 10:29, interrupted by the parenthesis of vs. 1-3, is taken up. Moses' asserting that his words were God's message ("Thus saith the Lord") types our Lord's taking the antitypical message from the Bible and speaking it publicly through His mouthpiece, the Church, as coming from the Bible as God's Word. In two places is God's going forth and slaying the firstborn

Exodus

150 

associated with the midnight (v. 4 and Ex. 12:29). It will be noted that the expressions differ slightly, v. 4 saying, "about midnight" and Ex. 12:29 saying, "at midnight." Why this difference? We believe it is to indicate antitypically two distinct stages of the World War, which, being the beginning of the tribulation, is the beginning of that which inflicts the tenth plague, or the third woe. We know that the World War began to work as ordinary wars do, August 1, 1914, and that by September 21, when the Times of the Gentiles ended, it entered into its trench warfare stage, which began to weaken the nations and ultimately greatly weakened them, thus preparing them for Armageddon. We understand that the going forth "about midnight" (v. 4) types God's starting out (in order to inflict the antitypical tenth plague) in and through the beginning of the World War, August 1, 1914; and the actual beginning of inflicting the antitypical tenth plague, September 21, 1914, antitypes the actual beginning of the typical tenth plague "at midnight" (Ex. 12:29). In another connection we have pointed out the beginnings of these two stages of the World War (P '32, 23, pars. 3, 5, 6), without there associating these dates with the tenth plague. 

(7) In these passages the antitypical night referred to consists of the Parousia and the Epiphany periods, which total 80 years. Its midnight would be exactly the middle of these 80 years, i.e., 40 years from the beginning and 40 years from the ending of this night. In other words, the part of this night preceding its midnight was the Parousia and the part following its midnight is the Epiphany. Since the tenth plague in type and antitype began exactly in the middle of their respective nights, we have here another proof that the Parousia and the Epiphany each last 40 years. This consideration also proves that the time of trouble began in 1914 with the World War as the antitypical wind of Rev. 7:1 ("that the wind [not winds] blow not, etc.") and does not begin with Armageddon, as most 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

151 

Levites hold, since the whole of the trouble itself is the means whereby the tenth plague, or the third woe, is inflicted. This consideration also proves that one of the Bible's symbolic hours is a period of 6⅔ years, for one-twelfth of an 80 years' night is 6⅔ years. If the hour of Rev. 17:12 should not prove to be a period of 3⅓ years, as we believe it is, we might have to fall back on an hour of 6⅔ years, unless in the meantime the Lord should reveal to us an hour between these. 

(8) God's going out into the midst of Egypt types His proceeding through the August 1-September 21, 1914, stage of the World War toward the work of inflicting the tenth plague on Christendom in its very midst—throughout Europe, which is the center of Christendom. Our Lord expressly spoke the antitype of Moses' statement on this point by forecasting through His people that the great tribulation would begin at the end of the Times of the Gentiles, about October, 1914; and from the double of 2,520 years given by the Edgar Brothers in their charts and writings on the lapping ending of the first member of this double during the period from the beginning of Jerusalem's destruction until the blinding of Zedekiah (Jer. 52:12; 39:4-7)—a period of seven weeks, from the 10th day of the fifth month to the 1st day of the seventh month—corresponding with the period from August 1, 1914, to September 21, 1914, He impliedly taught through His people that the beginning of the trouble would come about August 1, 1914, since the Times of the Gentiles lappingly ended from August 1 to September 21, 1914. From both standpoints the expression, "about midnight," was antityped by the forecasts made by our Lord through the Church that the trouble would come in 1914. Thus did our Lord as the antitypical Moses forecast before Satan the tenth plague as beginning in 1914. 

(9) V. 5 tells just what the tenth plague would be—the death of every Egyptian firstborn of man and beast. Antitypically the tenth plague is the death of 

Exodus

152 

the new creatures and the humanity of the Second Death class. As the messenger that inflicted the death of the Egyptian firstborn of man and beast was not the typical tenth plague, which was the death of these, neither is the great tribulation the tenth plague—it is simply the means whereby the annihilation of the Second Death class is accomplished, while their annihilation is the antitypical tenth plague. Originally, all new creatures are antitypical firstborn Israelites—the Church—and are therefore called the Church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23). Those new creatures who commit the sin unto death die as antitypical firstborn Israelites, typed by such Israelites as left the cover of the houses safe-guarded to all within by their sprinkled doorposts and lintels (Ex. 12:22). As such died as antitypical firstborn Israelites, i.e., as the sentence of the second death was passed upon them, not its execution, they were born as antitypical firstborn Egyptians. The reason that they become firstborn Egyptians is this: Satan and the antitypical Egyptians find them more able and useful for their pseudo-religious purposes; for, generally speaking, the brain organs of fallen new creatures are sharper and their hearts are more depraved than those of the unbegotten. Hence they can serve the purposes of Satan (Pharaoh) and his representatives (Pharaoh's servants) more effectively than can the unbegotten. It is, among others, this reason that makes Satan especially desirous to gain control of all new creatures, and he establishes it either in that partial and temporary control that he obtains over the Great Company in their unclean condition, or in that complete and perpetual control that he obtains over the Second Death class. 

(10) Just as in the type Moses forecast that every living Egyptian firstborn would die the night of Nisan 14 (vs. 4, 5; Ex. 12:6, 29), so our Lord through His Church forecast that none of the Second Death class then living would survive the great tribulation, but would during it pass away. This was done in the 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

153 

B.S.M., in the published sermons and in public lectures of the pilgrims from before 1914 to 1916; and it was repeatedly emphasized in America from the fall of 1914 to that of 1916, especially in the denunciations against those of the clergy who had been begotten of the Spirit, and who wickedly misrepresented and opposed the Truth. The firstborn of Pharaoh, who as king occupied Egypt's throne, typed the papacy as the firstborn of Satan, the god or ruler of the present evil world; for the papacy is Satan's chief product on earth. From at least shortly before 1914 up to the fall of 1916, when this forecast was antitypically made, every member of the Roman hierarchy, which does not consist of Romanist priests, but only of Romanist bishops, archbishops and cardinals as body and of the pope as head, was a new creature. Jesus in Matt. 24:15 and St. Paul in 2 Thes. 2:4 show that the man of sin would be in the Holy and God's temple—the Church, in which none others than new creatures are; hence it would consist of new creatures, in every case crown-losers who later became of the Second Death class; and those of such who would at least from shortly before 1914 up to November, 1916, be parts of Antichrist would without exception, as antitypical Pharaoh's firstborn, be destroyed during and as a part of the destruction of the system. Their total extirpation will not only destroy the system, which consists of them; but will leave the Romanist church without any one capable of ordaining new priests or members of the hierarchy, which, if the trouble would not destroy that church, would destroy it in a natural way within a generation, from the Romanist standpoint. 

(11) The lowliest of Egypt's maidservants were those who would grind out the grain. We, therefore, understand that "the maidservant that is behind the mill" types the lowliest of the sects of Christendom. Her firstborn would therefore type the Second Death members belonging to the lowliest sect of Christendom. The antitypical meaning of the expression, "from the

Exodus

154 

firstborn of Pharaoh … to the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill" (v. 6), therefore, is from the greatest to the least of antitypical Egypt's firstborn. None of these would be spared; but all would be annihilated through the tribulation of the time of trouble. Not one of these would survive into the Millennial Kingdom. Egypt's firstborn of beast type the humanity of these. This feature of the firstborn of beasts is added to show that nothing will be left of antitypical Egypt's firstborn—that they will be totally annihilated. It is by the general setting of the typical events and by contrasted association of the involved typical persons that we conclude that Egypt's firstborn of man type the new creatures of the Second Death class and that Egypt's firstborn of beast type their humanity. That Israel's firstborn of man type the new creatures who constitute the Church of the firstborn is evident from Heb. 12:23. From the fact that Israel's firstborn of clean beasts were to be sacrificed on God's altar we conclude that they type the humanity of "the Church of the firstborn whose names [characters] are written in heaven [spiritual]," since it is not the latter's new creatures, but their humanity that is sacrificed on God's altar (Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19). Both their new creatures and their humanity are saved—passed over by the antitypical tenth plague. The fate that befalls those that are not passed over by the inflictor of the antitypical tenth plague therefore must be that from which those passed over are spared; hence it is the Second Death that antitypical Egypt's firstborn of men suffer—that which antitypical Israel's firstborn of men escape. This implies that antitypical Egypt's firstborn of men are the unfaithful new creatures that lose life; while antitypical Israel's firstborn of men are the faithful, the new creatures who gain life. If Israel's firstborn of beast represent the humanity of those new creatures who obtain life, Egypt's firstborn of beast 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

155 

must represent the humanity of those new creatures who will lose life—the humanity of the Lost. 

(12) The threat of Moses on the great cry that the Egyptians would utter on finding their firstborn dead (v. 6) types the threat that our Lord through the Church from shortly before 1914 to November, 1916, made on the bitter grief that antitypical Egyptians would experience on learning that their main religious leaders—clerical and lay, shepherds and principals of the flock—had gone into the Second Death. This grief is accentuated by the world-wide sufferings of the great tribulation. Notice how much similar is the expression, "such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more" (v. 6), to that which Daniel (12:1) and our Lord (Matt. 24:21) use of the great tribulation. This similarity serves to associate, though it does not identify the two experiences, and suggests that it is through the tribulation that the antitypical tenth plague is poured out. A somewhat related Scripture implying, among other things, the second death of the members of the man of sin and of the new creature officers of the image of the beast and the resultant grief of their followers on learning of their fate, is Rev. 14:9-11. These considerations show that it is during and by the wind, earthquake and fire features of the tribulation, and during and by their accompanying famines and pestilences, and not so much by and during the pauses between these great birth pangs, that the antitypical tenth plague is poured out. The dogs of v. 7 type the growling, barking, snapping and biting sectarians. Their tongues type the theories of these. Literal dogs, when they know that their masters are dead, lose their savagery and mourn deeply therefore, as doubtless all of us know from observation or information. Egypt's dogs mourning over the death of their masters or masters' firstborn did not growl, bark and snap at, nor bite Israelitish men or beasts (v. 7) that memorable night. They were too sad therefore, as Moses forecast. This forecast types our Lord

Exodus

156 

declaring through His people that the sectarian adherents of the beast and the image, when they would learn the fate of the new-creaturely shepherds and the principals of the flock in these systems, would be too greatly depressed, woebegone, also confounded in their views, to use their theories pugnaciously against God's real people. In their grief and confusion, and in the peace and joy of God's real people at that time, they would be forced to recognize that God has made a clear-cut difference (v. 7) between antitypical Israelites and antitypical Egyptians. 

(13) As Moses forecast the humiliation of Pharaoh's nobles and their subserviency to him (Come and bow down—v. 8), as a result of the tenth plague, so our Lord forecast the humiliation of Satan's special representatives in church, state, capital and society, through the loss of their new-creaturely associates and through the troubles that would cause their loss, and their subserviency to our Lord as forced upon them by the same causes. The B.S.M., the sermons in the newspapers and the lectures of those days repeatedly forecast such humiliation and subserviency coming as punishments upon the unbegotten clergy, politicians, financiers, industrialists, military officers and other influential unbegotten leaders in Satan's order of affairs, before the trouble consumes them. Moses' forecast that Pharaoh's officials would beg relief from their distresses through Moses' and Israel's departure types that the prominent ones of Satan's empire in their multiplied griefs and losses, which they will recognize as punishments for oppressing God's people, will by persecuting acts desire our Lord's expediting His people's departure from what is actually oppression. Such a forecast was made in the Truth messages of the pertinent period to the effect that by persecutions the great ones would drive God's people out of their midst. But how would this be a matter of subserviency? We answer, this will make them minister to the execution of our Lord's demand, and 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

157 

that most abjectly, because of the wicked conduct (moral debasement) through which they will force them out of antitypical Egypt. Moses' statement that after this he would go out (v. 8) types our Lord's statement made through His people that by the evils of the great tribulation He would forever free His people from Satan's empire. Moses' departure from Pharaoh's presence in great anger types our Lord's ceasing in great displeasure public work on new lines with His final announcement of the great tribulation, from just before 1914 to November, 1916, before the war came here, where mainly the forecast was made. 

(14) After Jesus and the Church in Europe and America began to announce the great trouble as coming with its incidental destruction of the antitypical firstborn, antitypical of Moses' and Aaron's like announcement, Jehovah told our Lord (v. 9) that Satan would not heed the messages, just as in the type He told Moses that Pharaoh would not heed his message. As in the type this inured to the increase ("multiplied"—v. 9) of the plagues by adding to them the tenth, so also in the antitype. As Moses and Aaron performed all the wonders (the nine plagues and many miracles) in Egypt (v. 10), so did our Lord and the Church perform their antitypes. It will be noted that Moses and Aaron did not work the tenth plague, nor does this tenth verse imply it, since it speaks only of the first nine plagues. So it is not our Lord and the Church that inflict the second death, but it is the great tribulation that does this on antitypical Egypt's firstborn, though they certainly have wrought the first nine antitypical plagues, and that by a teaching ministry, by which ministry they also forecast the tenth antitypical plague. As Moses and Aaron worked the typical plagues "before Pharaoh" (v. 10) in opposition to him, so have our Lord and the Church done in the antitype in public work against Satan. The statement at the end of v. 10 on God's hardening Pharaoh's heart at the end of the ninth plague has the 

Exodus

158 

same significance in the type and antitype as we have explained in previous uses of the expression, so we will not here repeat the explanation. 

(15) We now come in our study of Israel's Enslavement and Deliverance to the institution of the Passover, whose command to keep must have been given before Nisan 10, since the command to keep it involved the setting aside of the lamb on Nisan 10 (Ex. 12:3). As a matter of fact, the charge to set aside the lamb on Nisan 10 implies that the charge to keep the Passover preceded Nisan 10 by a few days, so as to allow time for the charge to reach all Israelites, who were scattered abroad over a considerable territory, and who lacked means of quick communications. Again, making Nisan the first month (v. 2) seems to imply its giving on Nisan 1st, at the latest. But, according to Ex. 11:4 (about the middle of the night), it was in the day preceding the night that the death of Egypt's firstborn of man and beast occurred when Moses had his last interview with Pharaoh, after the ninth plague. This consideration, coupled with the fact that the institution of the Passover was commanded before Nisan 10, and not likely later than Nisan 1, implies that Ex. 12:1 should be rendered as follows: "For Jehovah had spoken, etc." This is exactly what the antitype requires; for while Moses' forecasts of Ex. 11:4-8 cover the period from somewhat before October, 1914, to November, 1916, in the denunciations of woe upon antitypical Egypt, which reached their climax in confessing the sins over Azazel's Goat, the smiting of Jordan, antitypical Gideon's First Battle, and executing [pronouncing] the judgment written, the command to institute antitypical Passover preceded Nisan 10, 33 A. D., when our Lord, as the antitypical Lamb, was set aside for death. This, then, turns the antitype, in so far as it concerns the institution and operation of antitypical Passover, back to the beginning of the Gospel Age. 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

159 

(16) Accordingly, in v. 1 (and also in the following verses while speaking of the things preceding and including the killing of our Lamb) Moses represents our Lord while He was yet in the flesh. Jesus' forecasting and speaking of His death and faithfully executing His ministry, and thereby arousing the Jews to determine on Nisan 10, and to secure on Nisan 14, His death (Matt. 12:40; 16:4, 21; 17:12, 22, 23; 20:17-19, 28; 21:37-39; 26:2, 18, 24, 28, 39, 42, 53, 54; Luke 9:22, 44; 12:50; 17; 22:15, 37; John 3:4-17; 6:51; 10:11, 15, 17, 18; 12:7, 24, 32, 33; 13:18, 19, 21; 14:19; 15:13; 18:11; 19:11), antitypes Moses' charging the institution of the original Passover. God's revealing to Jesus the thought that He was the antitypical Lamb (John 1:29, 36) that was to be set aside on Nisan 10 and slain Nisan 14, which He did through opening His mind to understand the pertinent prophecies in the Law and the Prophets, antityped Jehovah's speaking to Moses in the pertinent verses. In v. 1 Aaron represents, first, the Apostles while Jesus was in the flesh, for the pertinent verses, and, later, the Apostles and the others of God's people since Pentecost receiving the pertinent truths on the antitypical Passover, for the purpose of giving them to their brethren. God's speaking to Aaron these things represents, first, God's making clear to the Apostles Jesus' pertinent teachings and then, afterwards, the pertinent words of Jesus and the Apostles being by God made clear to the other Christians who would expound them to their brethren. God's doing this speaking in Egypt types Jehovah's revealing these things to Jesus and the Church while they have been amid Satan's empire. 

(17) Nisan being set aside (v. 2) as the first month of the year involved a change in the calendar; for hitherto the first month of the Fall (Tishri) had been the first month of the year. The Israelites accordingly had thenceforth a twofold year—a secular year beginning in the Fall with the seventh month, Tishri, and the ecclesiastical year beginning in the Spring with

Exodus

160 

the first month, Nisan, first called Abib. There was an antitype in this change, which antitype is suggested in the name given to these two kinds of years, the secular year suggesting the earthly character of the dispensations before the present one, and the ecclesiastical year suggesting the spiritual character of the present dispensation. Accordingly, we understand the change from the secular to the ecclesiastical year to type the change from the previous dealings, especially from the Law dealings during the Jewish Age, with God's people, to His grace dealings during the Gospel Age with His people. God's giving such a charge for the change of His dispensational dealings with His people, antitypical of the change of the year's beginning (v. 1), is indicated by such passages as John 1:7; Matt. 4:17; 5:17, 18; 11:11-13; Luke 16:16; Heb. 1:1, 2, and the contents of the typical charge are antityped by the contents of these citations. And, true enough, God's dealings with His people previous to the Gospel Age were along earthly—secular—lines, while during the Gospel Age such dealings have been along ecclesia—church, spiritual—lines. The fact that God made the change in the beginning of the year in connection with His institution of the Paschal Lamb, its feast and the entire Passover festival, likewise suggests that the change of the beginning of the year is typical of the Lord's dispensational dealings changing at the beginning of the Gospel Age; for the change in the type was made because of the Passover Lamb, its feast and its following festival, and these typing Christ our Lamb, our privileges as to our Lamb and the blessings of the Christian life respectively, the change of the beginning of the year to Nisan would appropriately type the change to the beginning of the Gospel Age. 

(18) The charge (v. 3) to tell entire Israel to set aside the typical lamb on Nisan 10, which charge was given before that date, would type a charge given before Nisan 10, 33 A. D.; because, this type being an institutional type fixed to a definite date, when the antitype 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

161 

would come it would have to come on the date for the type. This we see is a general rule for institutional types fixed to a definite date, evidenced, e.g., by our Lord as the antitypical Lamb dying on Nisan 14, by Christ, the antitypical first ripe Firstfruit entering the antitypical Most Holy Nisan 16, by the antitypical two wave loaves being offered on Pentecost (Lev. 23:16-21; Acts 2:1-4, 38, 41), by our Lord as the antitypical Bullock being consecrated on Tishri 10 (Lev. 16:29, 30-34; 23:27-32) and by His begettal on Tishri 14 so as to be able to dwell in the antitypical booth on Tishri 15 (Lev. 23:34-43). Accordingly, before Nisan 10, 33 A. D., God charged that Jesus be set aside as the Lamb on Nisan 10 and be sacrificed on Nisan 14. This charge, like many another one, was given not by words, but by acts. How was it done? By our Heavenly Father arranging such a course of acts for our Lord, and by the Latter's performing them, as to arouse the Sanhedrin and other Israelitish leaders, as the representatives of all Israel, to set Jesus aside for death the day He entered Jerusalem riding on the ass amid the acclamations of the multitude. That day was Monday, Nisan 10, not Sunday, as the nominal church teaches, as is evident by counting back from His death day, Friday, Nisan 14. The decision to put Him to death was made the day He thus entered Jerusalem (Luke 19:47; compare Matt. 21:12, 13 with Mark 11:15-18). Therefore it was made Nisan 10, 33 A. D. Thus was He as our Passover (1 Cor. 5:7, 8) set aside on Nisan 10, 33 A. D., for death by Israel, acting through their leaders; and their leaders stood here as the heads of the Israelitish nation, hence as its representatives. Israel in them therefore acted as an entirety in this transaction. 

(19) It would be well to note by what Jesus charged His setting aside as the antitypical Lamb, antitypical of Moses' charging the setting aside of the typical lamb Nisan 10. Jesus did this by those words and acts of His through which the scribes and Pharisees

Exodus

162 

were aroused to opposition against Him. Among such words and acts were His preaching and teaching without their authorization, His preaching and teaching authoritatively and attractively as against their servile and dry ways, His preaching and teaching contrary to their traditions, His working miracles on the Sabbath, His refuting and denouncing their false teachings and practices, His refusal to truck to them and their ways, His drawing immense numbers after Him and away from them, His using new methods of propaganda so different from theirs, His kindly receiving and companying with publicans and sinners, whom they despised and avoided, His being considerate of Samaritans and paying taxes to Caesar, His calling Himself the Son of God, whose Fatherhood of them He denied, His claiming to be God's special Messenger and sinless, His making and baptizing disciples, His leading a religious movement not subject to the Jewish hierarchy, His outspokenness which refrained not from denouncing their sins, errors and selfishness, His performing miracles that condemned their opposition to Him as an alleged deceiver, His triumphal entrance into Jerusalem, His cleansing of the temple and denouncing them for defiling it, etc., etc., etc. The above listed teachings and acts up to the last three mentioned aroused their deadly opposition, and the last three influenced them to set Him aside on Nisan 10 for death. By these teachings and acts He charged them to set Him aside as the antitypical Lamb on Nisan 10, 33 A. D. 

(20) In the type ("a lamb for an house," v. 3) a lamb was to serve for each house—family. Each family was thus used to type the entire household of faith and each lamb was used to type Jesus our Lamb. If a family was too small (v. 4) reasonably to eat a lamb, it should join another similar one near by, so that both together for the Passover time might form one family reasonably large enough to eat an entire lamb, typing that the household of faith would not be 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

163 

small, but large, and that to partake of the antitypical Lamb without an unreasonable waste in the non-use of its imputed merit. There is also in this the suggestion that Christ's merit would be almost entirely availed of imputatively, which implies that many of those for whom it would be imputed would be so fallen from perfection as to require almost all of the merit to bring them up to perfection—not many wise, mighty, noble and great among them, but mainly the foolish, weak, base, despised and nothings (1 Cor. 1:26-29). A lamb or kid (v. 5) was to be taken, in order to type Jesus' innocence, purity and harmlessness. Hence He is called the Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36), our Passover, Paschal Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7), unresisting Lamb (Is. 53:7), unblemished and spotless Lamb (1 Pet. 1:19), slain Lamb (Rev. 5:6, 12; 13:8) and the Lamb whose blood makes white (Rev. 7:14) and enables to overcome (Rev. 12:11). The unblemished condition of the lamb (v. 5) was required to type our Lord as perfect in His physical, mental, artistic, moral and religious faculties, as well as in His human character. Thus the freedom of His humanity from sin and error, and His perfection in every good thing were typed (Ps. 45:2, 7; Is. 7:14-16; 53:9; Acts 13:28; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 John 3:5). The lamb's being a male was to type Christ's perfect character strength as a human being; and its being a yearling was to guarantee its being a lamb, so that not as a sheep, but as a genuine lamb it might represent our Lord as the Lamb of God, not as the sheep of God. The stipulation that it might be the young of the sheep or goats was for the convenience of the Israelites, some having only the young of sheep, others having only the young of goats, the provision being made broad enough to accommodate the actual possession of every Israelitish family. Hence we think there is nothing specially typical in this liberty of choice allowed the Israelites. 

(21) The provision to keep the lamb (v. 6) separate from Nisan 10 to Nisan 14 was made to type that, 

Exodus

164 

though our Lord on Nisan 10, 33 A. D., was set aside for death, He was actually not to be put to death until Nisan 14. The charge that the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel should kill it not before, but on Nisan 14, types Christ's so acting from Nisan 10 to Nisan 14 in His contacts with the Israelites as to give them no opportunity to lay hold on Him to put Him to death before Nisan 14, while His willingly surrendering Himself to them, His forbidding the disciples to deliver Him from their hands in the garden, His unresisting endurance of the trial before, and death sentence from, the Sanhedrin and His permitting the Jews to gain from Pilate His sentence to crucifixion, were the ways in which He at God's command charged the whole house of Israel to put Him as the antitypical Lamb to death Nisan 14. The whole house of Nominal Fleshly Israel partook in it representatively through the great number of them and their leaders asking for it and being willing to have it done. The lamb was slain between the two evenings, the first of which began from about 3 P. M. and lasted until about 6 P. M. and the second of which then began and lasted until about 9 P. M., when night would, according to the Jewish viewpoint, set in. These two evenings are clearly seen as separate and distinct in Matt. 14:15, 23, when the intervening verses are taken into consideration. Accordingly, the end of the first and the beginning of the second evening, i.e., generally speaking, 6 P. M., or sunset, strictly speaking, would be between the evenings. The lamb being slain at that time, which would be at the beginning of Nisan 14, types not only that our Lord would be slain on Nisan 14, but it was more especially to show that it would be exactly at the end of the Jewish Age—1845 years from Jacob's death—and at the beginning of the Gospel Age. From this viewpoint the night of Nisan 14 would represent the entire Gospel Age, as our Pastor shows in Vol. VI, 460, par. 1, and the beginning of its evening would represent the Lord's death day. 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

165 

(22) The house (v. 7) where the Israelites ate the lamb (as well as the Israelites within it) types God's family from the standpoint of the container being put for the thing contained, somewhat after the example of the temple and the priests ministering therein. It is also from this standpoint that the word house is used in this chapter interchangeably for the family and for the dwelling where the family lived. The blood of the lamb types our Lord's life laid down—death—hence His human merit, which consists of a perfect humanity, with its right to life and its conjoined life-rights, because of His perfect righteousness (1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9). The sprinkling of the lamb's blood represents the imputation of our Lord's merit (Lev. 16:14; Rom. 3:25, 26; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Rev. 1:5). It will be noted that there is a twofold imputation of our Lord's merit: (1) an imputation for us on the mercy seat by our Lord (Heb. 9:24; 1 John 2:2; 4:10); and (2) an imputation to us by God after our Lord imputed it for us, which imputation to us of Christ's merit makes it become ours as a robe of righteousness (Rom. 3:21-25; 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Is. 61:10). The difference between these two imputations is this: The first satisfies God's justice for the Adamic sin and sentence and its resultant imperfections in us; and the second reckons to us a righteousness demanded by God's law from all over whom it extends; for God is not content that we be merely sinless, but that we have a positive righteousness, which, we being unable to furnish, God graciously provides for us. A second difference is this: Jesus makes the first imputation; God makes the second. A third difference is this: The first works forgiveness of sins; the second reckons us satisfactory to the Law in its demands for our obedience. A fourth difference is this: The first frees from the Adamic sentence; the second reckonedly makes us righteous in acts and character as Adam would have been had he not sinned, but continued in faithful practice of righteousness and holiness. 

Exodus

166 

(23) Both imputations are set forth in the type, and that as follows: The two door posts in general type the two parts of justice, or the Law. The first part of the Law, or justice, is duty-love to God, which is the thankful good-will that by right we owe to God, with all our hearts, minds, souls and strength (Matt. 22:37, 38). The other part of the Law, or justice, is duty-love to the neighbor, which is the good-will that we owe him, a good-will that goes out to him to the same degree as we would have him exercise toward us in thought, motive, word and act (Matt. 22:39; 7:12). One of these door posts represents that part of justice which is duty-love to God; and the other door post represents that part of justice which is duty-love to the neighbor. The sprinkling of the first door post, therefore, would represent Christ's imputing His merit to that part of Divine Justice which demands the sinner's death for violations of duty-love to God; and the sprinkling of the second door post, therefore, would represent Christ's imputing His merit to that part of Divine Justice which demands the sinner's death for violations of duty-love to man. 

(24) But it is not enough that there is no death sentence against us; additionally we must have an actual or a reckoned righteousness—obedience to the Law's requirements to live out its charges, even as the sprinkling of the two side door posts was not sufficient in the type. Additionally the upper door post (v. 7), the lintel, had to be sprinkled. The lintel represents us in our humanity, physically, mentally, morally and religiously; and that it may have a positive righteousness, a fulfilling of the righteousness of the Law (Rom. 8:3, 4), it is necessary that God impute to us Christ's righteousness, since we can work out none of ourselves satisfactory to God. This imputation of Christ's righteousness, which is called God's righteousness (Rom. 3:21, 22), because God through Christ provided it and accepts and imputes it as our righteousness, is typed by the sprinkling of the upper door post, 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

167 

or lintel, with the lamb's blood. Accordingly the head of each house in sprinkling the two side door posts represents God's having Christ impute His merit to Divine Justice for us; and in sprinkling the lintel he represents God imputing Christ's merit or righteousness to us. Thus the whole work of God and Christ in justifying us is pictured in the sprinkling of the lamb's blood on the lintel and door posts. The fact that the door posts and lintels of those houses alone were to be sprinkled (v. 7) where the lamb was eaten types the fact that only on behalf of those would the merit be imputed who by faith appropriated the antitypical Lamb. Praised be our God and our Lamb for this great favor to the household of faith! 

(25) The charge to eat the lamb's flesh the night of Nisan 14 (this night—v. 8) types the charge throughout the Gospel Age to partake by faith of Christ's perfect humanity, His right to life and His life-rights; for appropriating by faith is one of the significances of symbolic eating (John 6:40, 47; compare with vs. 50, 51, 53-57). In the references just made to John 6 we find that symbolic eating is paralleled with believing and the figures differ only in the things eaten. In the one case it is the antitypical Lamb; in the other case the antitypical Manna; and in both cases it is our Lord's human merit. As the lamb in Egypt could be eaten on Nisan 14, 1615 B. C. only, so only during the Gospel Age can our Lord's merit be appropriated by faith alone. In the Millennium it will be appropriated by faith and works. The charge to eat the lamb fire-roasted (vs. 8, 9) contains several ideas. The roasting of the lamb seems to represent, first, that the antitypical Lamb must pass through fiery trials to the utmost extremity, and, second, its symbolic nourishing qualities would not thereby be diminished. Flesh, being largely nitrogenous, if boiled, loses much of its nitrogen; hence boiled flesh is imperfect flesh and hence lacks more or less in nourishing qualities. To have boiled the typical lamb (v. 9) would, therefore,

Exodus

168 

type the thought that our Lord lost some of His human perfection amid His sufferings. Hence to eat the lamb boiled would represent that the partaker would believe Jesus' humanity imperfect, as those do who believe that He was Joseph's real son and that He was a sinner. The prohibition to eat the flesh boiled types our being charged not to believe that Jesus was begotten of a human father, that He was thus sinful and remained sinful, or that, while before perfect, yet amid His trial He failed to maintain His perfection. The charge not to eat the flesh raw types the thought that we should not believe that our Lord was not tried at all, i.e., did not under trial suffer as our ransom; for neither an antitypical boiled nor an antitypical raw Lamb would nourish us unto life everlasting. To type that we should not believe in such an antitypical Lamb, the type prohibited the lamb's being eaten raw or boiled (v. 9). 

(26) Two other things should be eaten at the Passover supper: unleavened bread and bitter herbs (v. 8). These likewise are typical. Because of its corruption and corrupting effects leaven is a type of mental, moral and religious corruption—sin, error, selfishness and worldliness (Matt. 13:33; 16:6-12; Mark 8:15; 1 Cor. 6:6-8; Gal. 5:8, 9). Leavened bread, therefore, would represent a condition of corruption by sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, and freedom from Truth, justice, love and heavenly-mindedness. Hence unleavened bread would represent a condition uncorrupted by sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, and full of Truth, justice, love and heavenly-mindedness. To eat the unleavened bread also types one's appropriating to himself, and practicing Truth, justice, love and heavenly-mindedness (1 Cor. 6:8). This, therefore, implies that we study the Truth, spread the Truth and practice the Truth. To eat the unleavened bread with the flesh of the lamb types the fact that we are to study, spread and practice the Truth while appropriating Christ's merit as ours unto eternal life. The bitter herbs (literally— 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

169 

bitters or bitter things), which modern Jews understand to be horseradish, an exceedingly bitter thing, were also typical. Of what? They must represent something connected with the Christian life. Since eating the lamb types appropriation of faith justification, and since eating the unleavened bread covers almost everything else of the consecrated Christian life, they must represent something connected with our justified and consecrated Christian life. Indeed, apart from the things represented by eating the lamb's flesh and the unleavened bread, there is but one other set of things connected with the Christian life—its passive features—trials, sufferings and persecutions, incidental to our appropriating Christ unto justification and consecration and to our study, spread and practice of the Truth. It is these bitter—trials, sufferings and persecutions, incidental to our justified and consecrated life—that are typed by the bitters of the type. Therefore, the Israelites eating the bitters type us undergoing and accepting the trials, sufferings and persecutions incidental to the justified and consecrated life. Thus viewed, the things eaten at the Passover supper type the entirety of Christian living. 

(27) The charge to roast—not to eat, as some misunderstand the last part of v. 9—the lamb entire (v. 9), implied in the words, his head, legs and purtenance thereof, types that our Lord had to be tested at every point and proven faithful and sinless therein (Heb. 2:10, 17, 18; 4:15). Only so could He be the appropriate food nourishing us unto eternal life. The charge (v. 10) to leave nothing of the eating of the lamb over until morning types the teaching that we should not leave our justification and consecration feasting unfinished until the Millennium; for there will be no more faith justification working during the Millennium, no more Gospel-Age study, spread and practice of the Truth then, nor will there be any more suffering for righteousness and Truth during the Millennium. It must, therefore, be completed before the 

Exodus

170 

Millennium begins, i.e., we must finish our faith justification and consecration feast while it is yet the Gospel Age; for those who begin this antitypical feast of the Gospel Age, and then do not finish it before this Age ends must pass into the Second Death (Heb. 3:13; 10:25, 26-29). Thus our full part of the feast must be finished during this Age, if we would gain life. But why is the charge given that what is left over until the morning must be burned? Is there a contradiction between the first and second charges of v. 10? We think not. This will be seen, if the antitype is permitted to throw light on the type. The thing that was forbidden was the prolonging of the feast into the morning, as the antitype shows. The charge was not that they should eat everything of the lamb before morning came. Each one was rather to eat as much of the lamb as he could and to do that before the morning. But if they were unable to eat the entire lamb by morning the parts left over were to be burned. The following considerations will clarify this subject: During the Gospel Age all of Christ's merit is not imputed; for that could be required only for those totally depraved—the Second Death class or those in the Adamic death state. But as in the Gospel Age no imputations are made for these classes, it follows that imputations are made for those only who have some fraction of perfection, i.e., for those only who retain some vestiges of God's image. Hence the entirety of Christ's merit is not used to justify those who during the Gospel Age come unto God. Hence some imputable merit will be left unimputed and unappropriated during the Gospel Age. This is that which is left of our Lamb's flesh uneaten. What is typed by burning those parts of the lamb that remained uneaten? We reply: making it cease to exist as an imputable thing; for when this Age ends Christ's merit will cease to be an imputable thing. The entire merit, then freed from the former outstanding imputations, through the death of all for whom imputations 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

171 

of it were made, will then cease to be used for further imputations, that it may be used as an entirety for one general application for the restitution class: for its entirety will be needed to purchase dead Adam and the dead race in him, since those in the Adamic death state are totally depraved, and therefore all of Christ's merit will be needed for their redemption. Thus making the imputed merit cease longer to operate and exist as such is typed by burning the uneaten parts of the lamb. 

(28) V. 11 describes the manner in which the Passover was to be eaten (thus shall ye eat it). In the type they were to eat it hastily and as ready to make an immediate departure as travelers from Egypt to Canaan. This types our energetic and rapid appropriation of our Lamb, unleavened bread and bitters, and to do so as such as are prepared for instant departure as strangers in antitypical Egypt and as pilgrims traveling to heavenly Canaan (1 Pet. 2:11). The girded loins type that part of our preparation which is involved in our readiness to serve; the staff represents that part of our preparation which is involved in our using the Word of God as our support for the journey; the sandaled feet represent that part of our preparation that is involved in our cultivating the Lord's Spirit. All of these things show our fitness, our preparedness, for our journey out of antitypical Egypt to antitypical Canaan. The expression, It is the Lord's Passover, was to impress a most careful participation in the feast, since it was attended with dangers and difficulties, which difficulties from the above description we can see to be present in type and antitype, and which dangers we can see from the following verse. While the antitypical dangers and difficulties have existed throughout the Age, and the firstborn of Egyptian man and beast have been smitten with the Second Death throughout the Age, the picture now takes its transition from the entire Gospel Age and concentrates itself upon the Parousia and Epiphany night, during the first half of which 

Exodus

172 

night the special feasting went on before the tenth plague began to be poured out at the middle of that night—1914. The dangers to which the firstborn of antitypical Israel's man and beast are exposed are the Second Death and the great tribulation which will punish antitypical Egypt's rulers, as are typed in v. 12. These dangers are the reasons ("for") for antitypical Israel's keeping the feast "thus," i.e., in the way antityped by the girded loins, sandaled feet and grasped staffs, and with energy, as typed by the haste of the typical feast. The first items of v. 12 having been already explained in connection with Ex. 11:4, 5 above, it remains for us to study its last clause: "I will execute judgment on all the rulers of Egypt." These rulers represent the invisible and visible great ones of Satan's empire—the fallen angels and the civil, ecclesiastical, capitalistic, educational and social great ones of the present order of affairs. All of these will be cast out of their positions of power and influence and will be otherwise punished, as the antitype of Jehovah's judgments executed upon Egypt's rulers. Jehovah, being the God of perfect wisdom, justice, love and power, is the guarantee of this—"I am Jehovah!" The part of "this night" in which Jehovah is performing this is from 1914 to 1954. V. 13 shows what secures the Lord's firstborns: As the blood of the typical lamb was the sign whereby God passed over the houses of Israel where it was sprinkled, and spared their firstborn, so the imputed merit upon Divine Justice and upon antitypical Israel's firstborn is the token whereby God passes over God's family and spares its firstborn from the antitypical tenth plague, while He is by the great tribulation destroying the Second Death class, antitypical Egypt's firstborn of man and beast. Thus abiding in God's family, secured by the Lamb's blood, we are safe and secure from the destroyer. Praise God for this! 

(29) Having given charge to Israel to keep the Passover in Egypt, the Lord now proceeds to command 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

173 

(Ex. 12:14) an annual commemoration (memorial) of the original Passover in Egypt and an annual feast that should be kept throughout the Jewish Age—for ever—literally: an age-lasting ordinance. As the original Passover in Egypt types our Lamb and the night of its celebration the Gospel Age, so the annual Passover, generally speaking, types the Lord's Supper, and the night of its observance—Nisan 14—types the anniversary on which the Lord's Supper is kept. As the annual Passover was to be celebrated throughout the Jewish Age, so the annual Lord's Supper is to be kept throughout the Gospel Age—even "till He come" (1 Cor. 11:26) in the sense of being the Deliverer of all His own, even of the last member of the Church of the Firstborn; for as new creatures are to feast on the antitypical Lamb as long as they are on earth, so long, of course,' should they symbolize this at its anniversary. This consideration overthrows the thought of those who claim that after our Lord's Second Advent set in, it has been no longer necessary to celebrate the annual Lord's Supper. As in the annual Passover the feast was one to the Lord, so is our annual Supper a feast to the Lord—a solemn religious service celebrated to and for the Lord. But v. 15 shows that not only the one day (the Passover feast, Nisan 14) was to be celebrated, but thereafter a whole week was to be set aside as the festival of the Passover. This Passover festival of seven days represents the entirety of the Christian life with its joy and peace coming from a sense of freedom from the slavery of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in any and all their forms, and of a participation in the privileges of truth, righteousness, love and heavenly-mindedness (1 Cor. 5:8; Rom. 14:17, 18). Thus do we celebrate our deliverance from the empire of Satan as a matter of our whole life's duration. 

(30) While the feasting on the lamb was the chief thing in the type on Nisan 14 and the feasting on the unleavened bread and bitters was the secondary thing, 

Exodus

174 

throughout the festival's week following Nisan 14 the feasting on unleavened bread was the main thing, and this is brought out in v. 15—"Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread." Above we pointed out that Israel's eating of unleavened bread types our appropriating truth, righteousness, love and heavenly-mindedness. So the week's feasting of unleavened bread types our lifelong participation in truth, righteousness, love and heavenly-mindedness, even as St. Paul suggests in 1 Cor. 5:8. The charge to put away leaven from their houses types God's charge that we put out of our humanity sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in all their details. To put away leaven in the first day types our individually starting to put away the antitypical leaven at the very beginning of our Christian lives, and for the Church as a whole, to start to do this in the beginning of its Ephesian period. The Jews ever since before Christ's day have had a regular ceremony whereby the leaven is searched for, gathered and destroyed and thus the houses made free of leaven. A piece of cloth, usually of linen, is in the late afternoon of Nisan 14 placed on the table and the leaven is collected and placed on this cloth. The gathering is as follows: The head of the family lights a candle, which throughout the search he holds in his left hand, using it to lighten every nook and corner of the house, especially where leaven would likely be found. In his other hand he carries a brush, usually a goose wing full of its feathers, with which he sweeps together all the leaven that the candle light brings to sight. He carefully takes it to the cloth and places it thereon. After he has completed a very thorough and careful search of every place in the house, even under beds, and deposited the last crumb or piece of leaven on the cloth, he gathers together its four corners and then ties them securely so that none of the leaven can fall out of the tied bag so made. This done, he throws the bag of leaven into the fire, where it is entirely burned. 

(31) We are not sure whence this ceremony originated, 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

175 

whether it is of Divine origin or not, the Scriptures being silent on the form, though commanding the thing itself that is accomplished by this ceremony, even as vs. 15 and 19 and Ex. 13:7 show, i.e., removing and destroying leaven from their houses. But from the fitness of the symbols we are quite within the bounds of truth and reason when we suggest that very likely God supervised the use of this ceremony, since its every detail, viewed from the standpoint of Scriptural symbology, pictures forth a set of things that antitypical Israelites do continually, especially in connection with the Lord's Supper. In this picture the Israelites' house types the humanity of the spiritual Israelites (2 Cor. 4:16—5:10). His searching for leaven types the spiritual Israelite examining himself for antitypical leaven (1 Cor. 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5). The lighted candle well represents the Bible giving the light that reveals our antitypical leaven (Ps. 18:28; Prov. 24:20; Jer. 25:10; Luke 15:8; Rev. 18:23; 22:5). 

Using the brush well represents our minds gathering within their grasp the antitypical leaven. The hands seizing the leaven well represents our wills gaining control of our antitypical leaven. Securing the gathered leaven so that none is lost well represents our keeping in an inescapable grasp and firm purpose the discovered leaven. Destroying the leaven represents our subduing, destroying, the antitypical leaven (1 Cor. 5:7; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 5:16-24; Eph. 4:22, 25-31; Col. 3:5-9). The fire by which the leaven was destroyed types the Holy Spirit, by which our antitypical leaven is destroyed (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 5:16, 17; 1 Pet. 1:22). The main quality of the Spirit by which this is done is holy love (1 Cor. 13:4-6; 1 John 4:18). Faith and hope also cooperate therein (Eph. 6:16; 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 John 3:3). Accordingly, we see that the symbology of this ceremony is entirely Biblical. If it was Divinely originated, its not being recorded in the Old Testament and yet preserved is somewhat akin to the Divine preservation of the names

Exodus

176 

of Jannes and Jambres, the Egyptian sorcerers who opposed Moses, but are not mentioned by name in the Old Testament (2 Tim. 3:8). 

(32) V. 15 prescribes a very severe penalty on the Israelite who would eat anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, namely, death—"that soul shall be cut off." On first sight this penalty is likely to strike one as too severe; but its reasonableness becomes clear when we consider Israel as already being under the death sentence and God's purpose in the antitype. It is certainly true that if one continues to live after the flesh until he has undermined the new creature, he will die as a new creature, and that only as he through the Spirit mortifies the deeds—leaven—of the body will he live (Rom. 8:13, 14). The Lord inflicted the death penalty on those who ate leaven during the seven days, and who were already under the death sentence in order to warn us against partaking of the antitypical leaven. Of course, eating of leaven during the Passover feast does not type one's sins, errors, selfishness and worldliness committed in weakness, such as all of us inevitably do; but it types his full and willful participation in these (Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-29; 1 John 5:19). These must die as new creatures, or youthfuls, or justified. It is to warn the new creatures against the sin unto death and to foreshadow its infliction on fully willful new-creaturely sinners that God arranged that death should be inflicted upon those Israelites who ate leaven during the feast of the Passover. These considerations make this severe penalty appear not too severe, but reasonable, especially when we remember that such an Israelite by virtue of the Ransom has an opportunity for life coming to him in the Millennium. Hence his death for eating leaven during the seven days was not a final one. The penalty inflictable for such offense regardless of when committed during those seven days types the fact that no matter when during the Christian life the

Deliverance of the Firstborn

177 

sin unto death is committed, whether early or late in it, the Second Death will be exacted therefore. 

(33) According to the type there were to be holy convocations, gatherings, and specia1 solemnity throughout the first and seventh days, without any secular work whatsoever taking place, the only work allowable being that necessarily connected with their meals (v. 16). Here a double antitype seems to be intended: one referring to antitypical Israel as a whole throughout the Gospel Age and the other to each individual antitypical Israelite's whole life. Viewed from the standpoint of antitypical Israel as a whole, the seven days would correspond to the seven stages of the Church. So viewed, the first and seventh days would correspond to the Ephesian period, or the Jewish Harvest, and the Laodicean period, or Gospel Harvest, in both of which there have been holy convocations, holy gatherings—harvestings—of God's people and special solemnities, such as have marked no other periods of the Gospel Church. In comparison with these the other stages of the Church have been rather commonplace. This is one of the Scripture indications that far more were won for the high calling during the Harvests than during the other stages of the Church, and that in much shorter periods of time. Viewed from the standpoint of the individual antitypical Israelite, the first and seventh days of the Passover feast seem to type his earlier and later years in the high calling, the seed time and harvest of the individual Christian's life. Undoubtedly during these periods the most important gatherings and solemn privileges in grace, knowledge and service existed. 

(34) The charge to perform no work in these two days, except what was necessary for matters connected with food, represents the Gospel-Age exhortation to a cessation from all unnecessary secular matters, except providing for things decent and honest, which was more generally taught and practiced in the Harvests than in the intervening times, as is also usually the case

Exodus

178 

in the earlier and later years of the individual Christian's life than in the intervening times. A prohibition to do other work in the other five days is not mentioned in this passage, but the direct prohibition of it on the first and last days being alone mentioned is perhaps due to the fact that God knew that in both applications of the type as a rule there would be less abstention from unnecessary secular things by His people in the intervening times than in the times expressly mentioned for the antitypes. Certainly, in the antitypical times from the standpoint of both applications there has been, as a rule, less of holy living, study and service and more mixing up with the world in the intervening times than in the antitypical first and seventh days, e.g., if we look at the reformers, Marsiglio, Wyclif, Huss, Wessel, Luther, Zwingli, Hubmaier, Cranmer, Wesley, etc., we will find more of a mixing up with secular things than appears in the lives of the prominent servants of the Truth in both Harvests. This was undoubtedly due to a decidedly less clear cut distinction in teaching and practice between the use and abuse of this world in those times than in the Harvests. Indeed, in those times the distinction between the real and nominal peoples of God was not usually clearly made; and God's real people ordinarily mingled with the nominal people as members of the same congregations in almost all cases and, of course, were correspondingly more or less thereby influenced toward using time, strength and talent for unnecessary secular matters. So, too, do the bulk of the Lord's people individually allow themselves to become less vigilant and faithful during the times intervening between the earlier and later days of their Christian life. It is almost entirely due to this fact that we have a Great Company; for if these in this intervening time had been loyal they would not have lost their crowns. The fact that the Great Company will in its individuals become loyal eventually is also indicated by the holy convocation of the antitypical seventh day. 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

179 

(35) The repetition of the exhortation to use unleavened bread, both at the Passover in Egypt and at subsequent Passovers throughout the Age (v. 17), represents the fact that repeatedly would the exhortation be given to keep the real antitypical feast and the annual Memorial Supper with the antitypical unleavened bread—that of sincerity (pure living) and Truth (1 Cor. 5:8). Certainly in the antitype there has been a very frequent exhortation to this thing. The reason given for the typical feast of the unleavened bread in Egypt and annually ("for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt") applies for the original and the annual use of that feast; for such a deliverance deserved the original and annual celebration. The same is true of our two feasts, the real and the symbolic. Our deliverance from antitypical Egypt deserves to be honored by our Christian life, as the anniversary of the slaying of our Lamb justly deserves an annual symbolic commemoration of it, of our appropriation of it and of our Christian life according to it. Hence in both the type and the antitype a repeated exhortation to keep the respective feasts has been in order throughout the original feast and during the Jewish Age the annual Passover, and throughout the Gospel Age the real and symbolic feasts (in your generations for an Age-lasting ordinance—v. 17). "Exhorting one another daily!" 

(36) V. 18 tells when the Passover should begin and end and how long it should last. To understand this matter aright we must recognize that the day of the feast on paschal lamb was the 14th of the month and was distinct from the seven days of the festival of Passover which followed it, from the 15th to the 21st inclusive. When the seven days of the Passover are referred to, the Passover festival, from the 15th to the 21st inclusive, is the subject, as distinct from the 14th, when the lamb was slain and eaten. Actually the entire celebration covered 8 days. While at the Paschal supper unleavened bread was eaten, leavened bread might 

Exodus

180 

at the, day-time meals of the 14th be eaten, but not from the beginning of the 15th until the end of the 21st. It is for this reason that leavened bread was prohibited during seven days, but not during eight days. This is in harmony with the antitype. It was only the night, not the day, part of Nisan 14th that represents the Gospel Age. Hence during the day part of Nisan 14 leavened bread could be eaten, but with the beginning of Nisan 15 until the end of Nisan 21 (the seven days) leavened bread might not be eaten. These seven days represent from another standpoint the entire Gospel Age, while the day time of Nisan 14 does not. V. 18 shows that unleavened bread had to be eaten the night of Nisan 14, and vs. 15 and 19 show that during seven days no leaven might be eaten. Thus the antitype enables us to harmonize the eight and seven days in their relation to unleavened bread. The leaven was, accordingly, put away during the late afternoon of Nisan 14 (v. 15). We have already seen the antitypical significance of vs. 18-20, which repeat the exhortations given in vs. 8, 15, 16. Only one item not pointed out in those verses occurs in vs. 18-20. It is the stranger and the one born in the land (of Israel). As we have already seen, the land of Israel types the sphere of the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth. To be born in the land types that one is a consecrated person who is begotten of the Spirit, while to dwell in the land as a circumcised person, but not to be born there—the [circumcised] stranger—types one who is in the Truth and dwells in its spirit, i.e., he is consecrated, but has not been begotten of the Spirit. In other words, the Youthful Worthies are referred to by the stranger of v. 19, who are understood according to vs. 48 and 49 to have undergone circumcision. That the Youthful Worthies are typed by these is evident from their circumcision—vs. 48, 49 (Lev. 6:29; 17:12, 15; 19:10, 33, 34; 22:10; 23:22; 24:16, 22; 25:6, 35; Num. 9:14; 15:14-16, 26, 29, 30; etc.). Thus willful sin makes a new creature

Deliverance of the Firstborn

181 

and a Youthful Worthy die as such. V. 20 repeats the exhortation both negatively and positively and means antitypically what we explained above. 

(37) Ex. 12:1-20 consists of the charges that the Lord gave to Moses to deliver in His name to Israel. Vs. 21-25 set forth a brief summary of Moses' delivering to the elders of the people the above-given charges. It is only the more important items of the charges that are mentioned in Moses' statement to the elders. From this we are not to construe that Moses did not deliver all of the charges, rather this is to be presupposed in him, who was as a servant faithful in all his house (Heb. 3:5). Simply as a space saver are only the main items mentioned in the statements of vs. 21-25. That he told everything commanded him is evident from the fact that the Israelites that night observed everything that God commanded Moses to tell them. Moses' telling the elders (v. 21) of the people to draw out and take a lamb and then kill it types what we have shown above—our Lord's course that influenced the leaders of the Jews to set Him aside for death Nisan 10 and to slay him Nisan 14. For the details we refer to our explanations of vs. 3-6. Almost everything in v. 22 we already explained when interpreting v. 7. But there are three items in v. 22 that are new. These are the bunch of hyssop, the basin and the prohibiting of the Israelites to leave their houses until the morning. As our Pastor explains (T. 109, 1), the bunch or sprig of hyssop types purging. The basin types the doctrine of the ransom. Dipping the hyssop into the blood would type a mingling of God's cleansing power with the ransom merit for the purpose at hand, while the act of sprinkling types, as we have shown before, the act of imputing the merit either Godward or usward, according as to whether the sprinkling was applied to the door posts or the lintel respectively. 

(38) To appreciate the prohibition of leaving the house until morning we must understand the general setting of the antitypes. We recall that, as shown before, 

Exodus

182 

both the dwelling of the Israelitish family as well as the family itself types God's family. The door, of course, represents Christ, the means of access into God's family (John 10:1, 7, 9). The typical door stands between its posts and lintel. So Christ stands between us and God's justice. His merit imputed for us to God's justice and to us by God's love keeps us in our place, borne up by God's justice and Christ, our door. Hence the whole situation as to the door, its posts and lintel, pictures our justification by faith in the promise of God to forgive our sins and reckon Christ's righteousness to us. This makes all subjects of that faith-justification—all who are in God's family—safe as long as they remain in that family, just as the Israelites were safe as long as they remained in the house, whose door was surrounded above and at the sides by the blood-sprinkled door posts and lintel. Thus we must abide in God's family, into which we entered through Christ, the door, by consecration, in virtue of a satisfied justice and our justification. 

(39) But if any Israelite that night left the house so protected, he went out from under the protection of the blood and as a result perished; so antitypically if any of God's people now leave God's family by a repudiation of their consecration and justification they will also perish: the new creatures among them perishing as such (the Second Death), and the Youthful Worthies among them perishing as such (falling back among the unjustified sinners of the world), and the tentatively justified among them perishing as such (falling back among the unjustified sinners of the world). These trample under foot the blood of the Son of God and those of them who have entered the sacrificial covenant count its blood an unholy thing (Heb. 10:28). To us the exhortation comes with peculiar force: Leave not God's family, and come not out from under the protecting blood of the Lamb of God who beareth the sin of the world. The charge not to leave the house until morning means that 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

183 

entirely throughout the Gospel Age, until this Age completely ends, i.e., so long as there is yet a faith justification operating, God's people must remain under the imputed merit; and only after that merit ceases to operate toward each individual and he is safe in the possession of his inheritance may he give up trusting in the imputed merit for protection. May we all, whether of the Little Flock, Great Company, Youthful Worthies or faith-justified, as the case may be, abide vitalizedly or tentatively under that precious blood, our only safety during the night of antitypical Nisan 14. 

(40) Already—above—have the thoughts of v. 23 been expounded, when we explained vs. 12, 13. So we will not here repeat our explanation there given. Also while expounding v. 14 we explained the thought of v. 24, though we might add that by the term, "this thing," in v. 24 the deliverance of the firstborn through the lamb's blood and partaking of its flesh is meant, even as the connection with v. 23 shows. This was to be celebrated annually by the death of, and feasting on the annual lamb, just as the annual Lord's Supper is an annual commemoration of our deliverance through our Lamb's death and of our feeding on Him (1 Cor. 11:26). That the expression, "this thing," evidently does not refer to everything connected with the original Passover is manifest from several things in the typical and antitypical annual feasts. In the annual celebrations the lamb was not chosen on the tenth day, even as we do not choose the bread and wine on Nisan 10 for our annual Memorial. Again, in the later celebrations the lamb's blood was not sprinkled on the lintels and door posts, even as in the Lord's Supper there is nothing corresponding to this. Finally, in the annual Passover the lamb was not eaten with haste, just as we do not celebrate the Lord's Supper in haste. Accordingly, the thing referred to by the expression, "this thing," was the deliverance of the firstborn through the slain lamb and the partaking of his flesh. Hence the death of the lamb, the feasting on its flesh and the 

Exodus

184 

deliverance of the firstborn, were the things to celebrate annually by the typical feast, and the antitypes of these by the antitypical annual feast. Additionally, our share with our Lord and with one another in suffering for sin is pictured forth in the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:16, 17)—a thing not typed in the annual Passover lamb or in its eating, though implied in part by the eating of the bitters in the original and subsequent Passovers. This proves that the lamb typed Jesus only, not Jesus and the Church. He only is the Lamb of God. Not only was Israel to observe the annual Passover in the wilderness (Num. 9:1-15), but they were to observe it after entering Canaan (v. 25), both of which combined are typical of two sets of our conditions in this life, as travelers from antitypical Egypt to antitypical Canaan, and as enjoying our present inheritance as new creatures, while fighting and conquering our enemies preparatory to our gaining our future inheritance. These two kinds of possessing our inheritance our Pastor discusses in two separate chapters of Vol. VI, calling them our present, and our future inheritance respectively. These two forms of inheritance God gives His new-creaturely people (the land which the Lord will give you). The expression, "this service" (v. 25), refers to the slaying and eating of the annual Passover; and the charge for Israel to observe it types God's charge to us to observe the Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:26, 27; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-29), since the annual Passover supper types our annual Lord's Supper. 

(41) The last clause of v. 26 should be rendered, "What is [represents] this service to you?" The connection and the question imply that the inquirers were asking for an explanation of a symbolic ceremony. That the annual Passover ceremony, including the sacrifice of the lamb and the eating of its flesh, was a symbolic ceremony, is evident from the Lord's charge to Israel to celebrate annually the original slain lamb, its eating and the deliverance wrought by it for 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

185 

the firstborn from death and of all from Egypt (vs. 14, 24, 42). God desired the Israelitish children as they watched the ceremony and took part in it to understand its symbolic meaning. Therefore in vs. 26, 27, He instructs the Israelitish fathers how to answer their children's query as to the symbolic meaning of the ceremony. Hence in the explanation of the symbolic ceremony, given in v. 27, the word "is" does not stand as the predicate of actual existence, but as the predicate of actual representation, and therefore is to be understood to mean represents. We have given details on this use of the word is as the predicate of actual representation in P'43, 35-39. We should not say that the word "is" is in this sentence is used figuratively. It is used literally in one of the several literal meanings of the word; for the word is used literally as the predicate of both actual existence and actual representation. The word is, accordingly, like many another word, has several literal meanings. In controversy with real-presencists (transubstantiationists, consubstantiationists and instrumen-talizationists) on the Lord's Supper, advocates of the symbolic significance of the bread and wine have made the mistake of saying that the word is in the sentences, "This is My body … This is My blood," is used figuratively. It is not so used. It is literally used in its second literal meaning, i.e., as the predicate of actual representation, even as is always done when it is used to explain the meaning of a symbolic or representative thing. See examples of this in the article cited above. 

(42) The Israelitish children asking their fathers to explain the meaning of the symbolic service of slaying and eating the annual lamb types babes in the Truth asking those who symbolically father them—their teachers—what the Lord's Supper means, what it symbolizes. If its type is a service symbolic of something else, certainly, as the antitype of the typical service, the Lord's Supper must also be a service symbolic of something else. It was largely by suppressing the fact

Exodus

186 

that the Lord's Supper is the antitype of the annual Passover, the first step toward which was detaching the Lord's Supper from Nisan 14, that Satan succeeded in palming off transubstantiation, consubstantiation and instrumentalization. Let it be kept in its relation to the annual Passover as antitype to type, even as our Lamb is related to the original lamb in Egypt and our feeding on our Lamb is related to Israel's feeding on the original lamb in Egypt, as antitype to type, and then there will be no room left for transubstantiation (the Grecian and Romanist doctrine of a change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ), consubstantiation (the oriental sects' doctrine of a mingling of bread and body, and wine and blood, into the forming of a third substance from each of the two), or instrumentalization (the Lutheran and High Anglican doctrine of giving the body and blood of Christ through the means of bread and wine), to have a foothold as Biblical. Now let us note the answer that God put into the mouths of Israelitish fathers, to give to their inquiring children: "It is [represents, because the word, is, here predicates the actual meaning of a symbolic service] the sacrifice of the Passover [lamb in Egypt] of the Lord [God arranged for it; hence it was His], who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses." V. 27, referring to the God whose special Paschal lamb was slain when He "passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when He smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses", identifies the Passover of this verse as the lamb slain in Egypt, and not, as the festival of Passover (an unslayable thing!), which, to evade this argument, the real presencists affirm. Thus God told the Israelitish fathers to explain to their children that their annual service of killing (and eating) the annual lamb represented the killing (and eating) of the original lamb in Egypt. Certainly, the killing of the annual lamb was not actually the killing of the original lamb

Deliverance of the Firstborn

187 

in Egypt, but the killing of the annual lamb actually represented the killing of the original lamb in Egypt. What was the antitype of God's explaining that the killing of the annual lamb represented the killing of the original lamb? Primarily His explaining through Christ and St. Paul that the annual Lord's Supper represents our Lamb in His body and blood (Matt. 26:26, 27; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-29), and secondarily, His explaining through His uninspired special mouthpieces, like Berengar of Tours, John Wyclif, Huldreich Zwingli, Pastor Russell, etc., this same thought. The people's bowing and worshiping (v. 27) type the acceptance of the antitypical teachings and the consequent worship by antitypical Israel; and their doing what Moses and Aaron told them to do (v. 28) types antitypical Israel performing the antitypes of what Israel did in Egypt, antitypical Israel doing what Jesus and the Church in its teaching aspects charged them as to the antitypical Lamb and feast. 

(43) The Lord, according to v. 29, finally resorted to the climax of His pressure upon Pharaoh to effect Israel's deliverance, by inflicting the tenth plague upon every Egyptian home, even the death of the firstborn of man and beast. Certainly the Lord manifested longsuffering toward the deceitful king, patience in seeking His purpose and, under opposition, appropriate severity in attaining it. Properly to appreciate what the tenth plague meant to the Egyptians we must recall that to oriental people the firstborn is regarded more highly than all the other members of the family combined. To destroy the firstborn was, therefore, a blow of utmost severity to a family. Hence the dreadfulness of the tenth plague, which we may be sure was more painful on the Egyptians than all the other nine plagues combined. As in the type it started at exact midnight, so in the antitype it began in the exact midnight of the Parousia-Epiphany night, which began in the fall of 1874 and will end in that of 1954. Sept. 21, 1914, is the day on which trench warfare began; and it was by

Exodus

188 

trench warfare that the nations weakened one another unto their being powerless to withstand Armageddon's blow when it comes. Thus specifically the wrath—the great tribulation—began Sept. 21, 1914, the first day of the seventh month and therefore exactly 40 years from the beginning and ending of the 80 years' night under consideration. Thus the Lord at the forecast time began to slay antitypical Egypt's firstborn of man and beast. We have already explained the antitypes of Egypt's firstborn of man and beast, the former as representing the new creatures, the latter the humanity of the Second Death class, not one of whom will be alive in their new creatures nor in their humanity after the wrath is over past, even as not one of their types (" all the firstborn in the land of Egypt"; "and the firstborn of beast"—v. 29) was spared in that typical night. 

(44) It will be noticed that there is a change in the expression giving the social extremes of those whose firstborn were smitten in the fulfillment, as given in v. 29, from that mentioned in the forecast, as given in Ex. 11:5. In the forecast the social extremes are mentioned as the firstborn of Pharaoh on the throne and the firstborn of the maid servant that is behind the mill—the king's firstborn and the lowliest female slave's firstborn; but in the fulfillment the contrast is between the king's firstborn and the convict's firstborn (the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon—v. 29). Is there a contradiction here? Surely not. Why then the change? The antitype requires it. As we saw when studying the antitype of Ex. 11:5, our Lord spoke the fearful threats of Ex. 11:4-8 through antitypical Aaron from late in 1913 into the fall of 1916; and therefore He gave only such a forecast as the Church at that time understood. We at that time did not understand that during the Tribulation time we would live over on three small scales the Gospel Age and that a little Satan's empire—a little antitypical Egypt—would be erected during that time, in which God's people would be enslaved, and from which they 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

189 

are to be delivered through a little tenth plague after nine other little plagues would be poured out. Hence we could not between 1913 and 1916 make any forecast with reference to the firstborn of the little empire of Satan suffering under the little tenth-plague (a part of the large tenth plague) which involves the firstborn of little Egypt. Hence when we made the forecast of the tenth plague from just before 1914 to the fall of 1916 we forecast the tenth plague as involving the firstborn of all in and between the social extremes covered by the expression, the firstborn of Pharaoh and of the maidservant that followed the mill. 

(45) But in recording the typical fulfillment of the tenth plague God gave it to type how His people would witness antitypical Egypt's firstborn undergoing destruction; and God's people increasingly are coming to witness that antitypical Egypt's firstborn include the firstborn of the little empire of Satan, of antitypical little Egypt, which since 1917 has been operating increasingly among the Truth people, enslaving them there under. It is little Egypt's firstborn who are meant by the expression, "the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon." Let us see how this is so, and how it is to be understood. Among other Biblical symbols the Great Company are represented as manacled prisoners in a dark dungeon (Ps. 107:10, 14, 16). Ps. 79:11, as rightly translated by Dr. Young, suggests the same thought: "Let the groaning of the prisoner [Great Company] come before Thee … leave Thou the sons of death [Second Death class]." When Ps. 102:20 in its second clause is properly translated as, "to open [for an entering of the gates of death] to the sons of death," it will be seen that six classes are treated of in vs. 20-22: the Great Company ["the prisoner"], the Second Death class ["the sons of death"], the Little Flock ["Zion"], the Ancient and Youthful Worthies [Jerusalem] and the restitution class ["the people, even the kingdoms"]. V. 20, therefore, proves that the Great Company are referred to as

Exodus

190 

prisoners. This is also implied in Heb. 2:15—"who all their lifetime were subject to bondage" (Ps. 69:33). 

(46) The Great Company, therefore, is meant by the expression, the captive that was in the dungeon (v. 29). Keeping in mind that while all through the Gospel Age there have been crown-losers, but that the Great Company as a class comes into existence only during the Tribulation period—the Epiphany—(Rev. 7:9; 2 Tim. 4:1), we see that only since 1917 could there be a "captive that was in the dungeon"—the Great Company. Who are this captive's firstborn? The Great Company's new-creature leaders who have misled them into error—those false teachers who are typed by Abihu (T 119; see footnote in editions from 1910 on until several years after our Pastor's death); the new-creature members of antitypical Jambres (2 Tim. 3:1-9) and the new-creature members of the sixth slaughter-weapon man (Ezek. 9:6, 7; 1 Cor. 3:17). These are the firstborn of Little Egypt and they perish with the firstborn of Large (antitypical) Egypt, as the antitype of the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon. During this period, 1914 to 1954, therefore, all new-creaturely surviving sifters in the five siftings and all new-creaturely sifters of the sixth sifting will forever pass out of existence; hence not only surviving spirit-begotten ransom and sin-offering sifters, but surviving spirit-begotten sifters in the other four siftings, the new creatures who in the Parousia—antitypical Nadab—offered strange fire before the Lord and survived into the Epiphany and also the new creatures who in the Epiphany—antitypical Abihu—have been offering strange fire before the Lord. This is a fearful condition into which these new-creaturely offerers of strange fire have gotten themselves. It should make us fear and tremble lest we presumptuously, while drunken with error (Lev. 10:1, 2, 8-11), should appear before the Lord, engage in matters of the Lord, with strange fire—false doctrine—in our censers—Bible passages; for to persist in such a course means

Deliverance of the Firstborn

191 

the death of the new creature and of the humanity, which amid such a course is divested of Christ's righteousness; for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31). Let us, like Aaron and his faithful sons, withhold and sever ourselves from such and remain in the Holy (Lev. 10:6, 7). 

(47) The smiting of the firstborn having set in at midnight, when normally people are asleep, the rising of Pharaoh and his officers (servants, and all the Egyptians, v. 30) apparently refers to their getting up from their beds—and to what a terrible thing did they rise: to see all their firstborn dead! This types Satan, the spiritual and human officers of his empire and all the other people in harmony with Satan's empire first becoming aware of the antitypical firstborn having been put to death, and, secondly, of their later learning that that death is an eternal one. As part of the antitype of the great cry of Pharaoh, his officers and the other Egyptians, great mourning has been already in Christendom at the partial smiting of the antitypical firstborn through the war and subsequent untoward events. As an illustration we might cite the death of pope Pius IX, who occupied the papal throne when the World War Phase I broke out. The slaying of so many members of his church so greatly grieved him that it actually killed him. Papists mourned at this; but their mourning will be greatly intensified when they learn that he as part of antitypical Pharaoh's firstborn has passed away forever. Other examples of this may be seen in the wholesale slaughter of members of the Greek and Roman hierarchy at the hands of the Soviets, occasioning much mourning among their respective fellow believers. An illustration of such mourning may be seen in the pertinent laments of the present pope and his fellow believers in the Roman hierarchy, priesthood and laity. The strenuousness of the life of the higher Romanist, Greek and Anglican hierarchy, largely induced by war and post-war conditions, has been killing an ever increasing number of 

Exodus

192 

these. This is true to a certain extent of the leaders of all the other denominations, among whom are many firstborn. All such cases lead to the grief of Satan, the officers of his empire and the other antitypical Egyptians, and will lead to greater grief as they come to learn that such are dead forever. Thus so far we see a beginning of the infliction of the antitypical tenth plague with its consequent mourning. 

(48) But this has been merely a beginning. Its being less impressive than it will shortly become is due to our not having advanced to the more marked operation of the antitypical tenth plague. It will be decidedly more marked in the earthquake when there will be no escape for the shepherds and the principals of the flock (Jer. 25:31-38). All the new creatures among these who are of the antitypical Egyptian firstborn will enter the Second Death when they are slaughtered (Is. 65:11-15). In the Jehu picture of the symbolic earthquake this is in several ways pointed out, e.g., Jezebel's overthrow involves the destruction of the papal hierarchy and the spirit-begotten leaders of the image (2 Kings 9:30-37; Rev. 14:9-11). The latter passage also implies, among other things, the great cry of the antitypical Egyptians at their firstborn's death. Another example is seen in 2 Kings 10. Those referred to in this chapter as being slain type various groups among whom are many of antitypical Egypt's firstborn, though of course there are among these groups many who are not among such firstborn. Most of antitypical Egypt's firstborn will be destroyed in the symbolic earthquake, because it is to destroy Satan's empire as it now exists in State, Church and Capital, and such a destruction necessarily will involve the bulk of antitypical Egypt's firstborn; for these constitute a goodly portion of the shepherds and principals of the flock of Jer. 25:34-38. That the mourning over these firstborn will be great we can gather, not only from v. 30, but from Rev. 18, where much of the mourning there described is over these firstborn. It will be universal—in

Deliverance of the Firstborn

193 

every country and denomination of Great and Little Babylon and in all its aristocracies; "for there was not a house where there was not one dead" (v. 30). 

(49) V. 31 shows the abject surrender of Pharaoh. Stubborn to an unprecedented degree had he been in opposing Israel's deliverance. But whoever presumes, though it be ever so stubbornly and powerfully, to resist Jehovah's wise, just and loving commands and purposes, must ultimately go down under His power. Jehovah is One with whom one should quickly render himself compliant, else he must bow down under His irresistible power, as Pharaoh to his and his people's unspeakable grief learned. How craven was his surrender, how hurriedly after the tenth plague struck—that very night (v. 31)—did he seek an interview with God's messengers whom he had treated with such disdain, duplicity and defiance! His surrender was complete—all the Israelites and all their belongings might go, yea, anything might be theirs, they might serve Jehovah as Moses and Aaron had demanded, if only they would go away from among his people! By so doing they would do him good. ("So shall ye bless me also," v. 32; see Young and Rotherham.) Antitypically, Satan during this night time, i.e., from 1914 to 1954, as his empire goes to ruin and his firstborn, the papal hierarchy, and the firstborn in every other antitypical Egyptian house, die, will surrender his hold on God's people, both as touching their humanity and their new creatures, submitting to their using these to God's glory, and will drive them out from among His people. This had its start in the persecution of the Lord's people in Europe who would not submit to militarism and were by persecution driven out from among the antitypical Egyptians. It came to America in 1918, while striking conscientious objectors here. It has continued in the restraint of antitypical John, in the crucifixion of the large Jesus and the penitent thief, and will shortly, just before and especially during the earthquake come to a head; for the present refusal of God's 

Exodus

194 

people to bow down to churchianity and during the earthquake to support by arms the empire of Satan, tottering under antitypical Jehu's blows, will lead Satan to instigate persecution against them to drive them away. 

(50) Thus Satan's part in persecuting and thus driving them out from among the antitypical Egyptians will actually be a delivering of God's people from antitypical Egypt, antityping Pharaoh's charge to Moses and Aaron, "Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, and serve the Lord, as ye have said. Also take your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; so shall ye bless me also." Satan will feel himself blessed on being ridded of subjects who have occasioned and will yet occasion him and his empire so much grief and loss. As the persecutions in Europe in 1915 to 1918 and in America in 1918 and since 1939 have been quite severe, so may we, according to vs. 31-33, expect yet a more severe outburst of persecution after Armageddon's fighting begins. It will be seen from v. 33 ("the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste") that the citizens of Satan's empire follow the example of their king in persecution. This has been very manifest in 1915-1918 and since 1939. It has been also in our work with John's Rebuke, Elijah's Letter, the Gideon work and Zechariah's. More on this will shortly come, cutting us off from public mouthpieceship before Armageddon's fighting will begin in America. Some of our priestly brethren associated with Levite groups have shared in this. So, too, have other Truth people in the Levite movements undergone persecution, particularly some of those Levites connected with the Society's propaganda, as pictured forth by the penitent thief. They, too, will be cut off from public mouthpieceship shortly (the death of the penitent thief). But when Armageddon's fighting comes in America, the antitypical Egyptians, stung sharply by 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

195 

the death of their leaders and finding that the Lord's people will not support Satan's empire, will persecute them with even greater fury perhaps than they did during the two phases of the war. The expressions, "urgent" and "send them out of the land in haste," imply this. Over this we need not worry. It will be a blessing in disguise; for it will be the freeing of us from antitypical Egypt. The Egyptians saying, "We be all dead men," types the antitypical Egyptians, plagued by the death of their leaders in the trouble, fearing that the Lord's people by their activities and principles are stirring up destruction for all of them, as many of them, additional to the antitypical firstborn, go down into death, though not into the Second Death. 

(51) V. 34 shows the plain nourishment that the Israelites took with them as they left Egypt. They did not have time even to bake their bread. The dough had not been leavened (leaven apparently was then not inserted until the flour had been kneaded), but was yet in their kneading troughs, and these were wrapped in their clothes and borne on their shoulders, as they went forth to their rendezvous at Rameses (v. 37). To understand the antitype of this we must recall a twofold coming forth from antitypical Egypt: (1) That which we did when we left the nominal church and came into the Truth, which made us free from the slavery of error (Col. 1:13). In this coming out we are represented in Aaron as the mouthpiece of Moses, both of whom Satan sought to reduce to slavery of sin and error (Ex. 5:4). (2) That which we do at our deliverance from every vestige of Satan's empire, not simply from its ecclesiastical part. In both of these deliverances God's people perform the antitype of v. 34, as an explanation of the antitype will show. The dough represents the Truth. The kneading troughs represent the minds of God's people. Kneading the dough in the troughs represents making the Truth understandable in our minds. The wrapping of the dough within the troughs in the Israelites' garments 

Exodus

196 

types our graces laying hold on these and making the Truth our own, especially by our faith, hope, love and obedience. Carrying the dough and kneading troughs so enclosed on the Israelites' shoulders types the Lord's people furthering the Truth as their stewardship. This we did in our coming out of Satan's empire in the first sense suggested above; and this we are now doing in our coming out of Satan's empire in the second sense suggested above. 

(52) The A. V. translation of v. 35 is incorrect: the word rendered borrowed should be rendered asked, as the Hebrew word shaal means ask, not borrow. See R. V., A.R.V., Young, Rotherham, etc. Twice had God charged that Israel should ask for (not borrow) articles (literally, vessels) of silver and gold and raiment (Ex. 3:22; 11:2). The way the A. V. renders the verse, one could readily infer, as infidels have inferred, that God charged the Israelites to borrow these things without purposing to return them. Certainly God is no partner in the course of those who would rather owe people their borrowings forever than to cheat them out of them! The difficulty is easily overcome when the word shaal is given its regular meaning—to ask. The whole circumstance is clarified if pertinent oriental customs are understood. In the orient it is customary at a servant's leaving a master's employ for him to ask whatever he desires as a parting boon (2 Kings 2:9, 10); and custom binds the master to give whatever is asked, if it is possible. For a master to refuse such a request is a legal offense and is subject to a suit for damages, which is always decided in favor of the servant, if he can prove that he was reasonably faithful. This shows that the refusal of the boon is there regarded as tantamount to a discrediting and defaming of the servant. Hence the law above set forth. Since Israel certainly deserved some compensation for their many years of unrequited service, God charged them to ask for their just parting boon. So seen, the charge of Ex. 3:22; 11:2, 3, and its fulfillment 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

197 

in vs. 35, 36, were entirely just and reasonable. This disposes of a frequently made infidel charge against the moral teachings of the Bible. 

(53) Let us look at the antitype of vs. 35, 36. This will not have to be as of something entirely new, since we gave the generalities in them while commenting on Ex. 3:22; 11:2, 3, the fulfillment of whose charges are here set forth as historical facts, even as vs. 35, 36 show ("and the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses," etc.; i.e., as stated in Ex. 3:22; 11:2, 3). As we there saw, the articles (literally, vessels) of silver and gold represent Divine truths (1 Cor. 3:12) which from the creeds, writings, discourses and conversations of the antitypical Egyptians the antitypical Israelites extracted by casting away the involved errors and harmonizing the truths with themselves and one another. The main truths so extracted were the twelve stewardship doctrines of the twelve denominations of Christendom. Some others of these were partial truths taught and then by various denominations antithetically set against one another; like the Armenian free-grace and the Calvanistic election doctrines, which were harmonized by dropping from them the sectarian errors associated with them and by assigning their operation to different dispensations and showing their real mutual relationship; like the doctrine of the Universalists on eternal salvation for all and of the Evangelicals' eternal salvation for heathen, infants and imbeciles, by ignorance, which doctrines were harmonized by rejecting their errors and assigning the first to universal salvation from the Adamic condemnation and the second to probation for all the non-elect in the Millennium; like the Unitarian mere-man theory of Jesus' person and the "orthodox" God-man theory of Jesus' person, which were harmonized by dropping the errors of both and by assigning natures separate and distinct to the prehuman, human and posthuman Jesus. Many another jewel of Divine truth through the controversies of Truth people with antitypical 

Exodus

198 

Egyptians have the former extracted from the latter's religious, political, social, financial, etc., views. The Truth people asked for these by their engaging in controversies as against the antitypical Egyptians. Not a few of these were gotten during Jordan's first smiting; more of them have been gotten since that time, as is evidenced in the columns of this magazine, e.g., from the standpoint of another type, in uncovering the antitypical vessels on linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic lines, carried covered by the Levites. It will be noticed that the antitype is concentrated on the finished picture on this matter, as also on that of the request for the antitypical garments. This is the usual course of Bible types, though often it concentrates the thought on the beginnings of an antitype. As a matter of fact, the asking for articles of silver and gold and garments began in the antitype with the Reaping time; but the type here concentrates the thought on the finished picture, which belongs to the Epiphany, though it includes also what was done in this matter during the Parousia, at leaving ecclesiasticism's part of symbolic Egypt—the first leaving. 

(54) Asking for the garments represents the course of the antitypical Israelites in earnestly seeking to show forth the graces of the Spirit in their contacts with the antitypical Egyptians, especially when these contacts were more or less trying. The antitypical Egyptians have disapproved the course that faithfulness to the Truth requires the antitypical Israelites to take. They have shown this disapproval by thoughts, motives, looks, words and acts of a more or less hostile and persecuting kind. Sometimes this has been in family, in friendly, in social, in political, in business, in employer and employee and in church relations. In these varied relations the antitypical Egyptians have by censures, contentions, recriminations, revilings, mockings, hatred, excommunications, slanders, misrepresentations, boy-cottings, social ostracisms, persecutions, sins, errors, selfishnesses, worldlinesses, oppressions and violence,

Deliverance of the Firstborn

199 

more or less opposed the antitypical Israelites. By very desirously seeking to manifest the Lord's Spirit amid these and other wrongs and by taking them patiently, kindly, meekly, longsufferingly, forbearingly, forgivingly and gently, they have been asking the Egyptians for symbolic garments—the graces (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5; Is. 61:10; Rev. 3:18). As the antitypical Israelites have been faithful in very desirously seeking to show forth the Lord's Spirit amid such wrongs and have practiced such faithfulness, they have gained, refined, strengthened, balanced and crystallized these graces in themselves. Such desirously seeking to show forth the Lord's Spirit is the antitype of the Israelites' asking the Egyptians for garments. Their gaining these graces is typed in the Israelites' receiving the garments from the Egyptians, while the antitypical Egyptians' inflicting these wrongs upon the antitypical Israelites is the antitype of the Egyptians' giving them. 

(55) Dear brethren, if we will consider our trialsome experiences with Satan's deluded servants as opportunities of attaining Divine Truth and the graces from them, we will be helped ardently to desire such acquirements from such experiences and will be helped to receive them in the Lord's Spirit and thus will receive the symbolic articles of gold and silver and garments. Let us view these experiences from this standpoint and act accordingly amid them; and we will emerge from them greatly enriched spiritually. This consideration will keep us from murmuring and complaining amid such experiences and will enable us to take them joyfully (1 Pet. 4:12-14) and in so doing we will do (v. 35) "according to the word of [antitypical] Moses," our Lord! But did our Lord Jesus give us such a charge during the Parousia and so far in the Epiphany? He did. We find it in the articles in the Tower and THE PRESENT TRUTH treating on character development amid trialsome experiences from the world, in pertinent sermons, in the Volumes, especially Vol. VI, in the pilgrim talks, in the elders' teachings 

Exodus

200 

and in the conversations of the Lord's people with one another. Did we request such symbolic gold and silver and garments from the antitypical Egyptians? Yes, as all of us know by many an experience. Did we receive this symbolic gold, silver and garments? Yes, in the exact proportion in which we were desirous of cultivating and manifesting the Lord's Spirit and carried this out in practice in our untoward experiences with the antitypical Egyptians. In addition to our receiving these valuables during the Parousia, have we in the Epiphany since 1915, as the type indicates, been especially receiving these from the large and small antitypical Egyptians? Certainly we have, and this will continue to be the case as the Epiphany goes on, especially in the experiences just ahead of us and in those coming during Armageddon's fighting. Thus we see a factual fulfillment of this type, and that on time. 

(56) While treating of Ex. 11:3 we gave as a forecast the antitype of the first clause of v. 36, and will therefore refrain from further comment on it. The next clause (see Dr. Young's translation) should be rendered as follows: "They [the Egyptians] caused [the Israelites] to ask [for the articles]." In the type so anxious were the Egyptians to be rid of the Israelites that they willingly encouraged the Israelites to ask for all they desired, and characteristically Israelitish in acquisitiveness, they asked for very much—the more the better! Antitypically, we would understand this to mean that the great dislike of the antitypical Israelites on the part of the antitypical Egyptians has moved the latter to afflict the former so willingly and largely as to incite in the former all the greater desire for much Divine Truth and many graces in order that they might meet the involved experiences aright in the Lord's Spirit. In this way did the antitypical Egyptians arouse the antitypical Israelites to ask for the symbolic gold, silver and garments, and for this reason did the latter's desires wax great unto asking for very much of the symbolic gold, silver and garments. For so much of 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

201 

the typical valuables did the Israelites ask that they spoiled (v. 36) the Egyptians. That it was a very great amount that they received from the Egyptians we can readily see, among other things, from the great abundance of gold, silver and clothes that the Israelites, who while slaves were poverty stricken, gave that same year for the tabernacle, its furniture, its vessels and its other appurtenances … and certainly in the antitype there has been a spoiling of the antitypical Egyptians of the symbolic gold, silver and garments. What is left of the creeds, writings, discourses and conversations of antitypical Egyptians after God's people have removed therefrom the Divine Truth? Nothing but dross and refuse. The only thing of value being removed from them, they are left valueless and this is a spoiling of the minds of the antitypical Egyptians, who by their creed repudiations, etc., under Truth attacks in the six siftings prove this to be a fact. 

(57) In their hearts naturally good qualities have been mixed with bad qualities, even as in the natural man some vestiges of God's image have remained. As their creeds, writings, discourses and conversations had in them Truth and error mixed, before these were separated by the Lord's people, which process was followed by the antitypical Egyptians' losing their Truth and retaining their error, as can be seen from the way the siftings have affected them in the sanctuary, in the court and in the city (Ezek. 9); so as they act, think, feel and speak sinfully, selfishly, worldly mindedly, against God's people they lose from their hearts, little by little and more and more, one good quality after another, until finally they are spoiled of the natural graces that once made them more or less "noble worldlings." The antitypical Israelites by being faithful to principle and the Lord's Spirit act in such a way as to arouse the hearts of the antitypical Egyptians to act abominably toward us, as all of us from experience have felt. Now many a husband or wife, friend or acquaintance, minister or layman, public official or private

Exodus

202 

citizen, employer or employee, have in their evil opposition to the faithful course of God's saints so undermined the natural goodness that has been in them as almost entirely to have obliterated it! Thereby they have given evidence that they have been "spoiled"; while the faithful antitypical Israelite has by the pertinent experiences been greatly enriched in character through his having been rightly exercised by them. This consideration should move us to pity for, and not to resentment at the antitypical Egyptians, and this we, enriched by these untoward experiences, can well afford to do, as they, impoverished by their course, are poor indeed. The lesson that we should learn from vs. 35, 36, is to ask very large amounts of symbolic gold, silver and raiment from the antitypical Egyptians, which their evil spirit toward us will anxiously give us in order to get rid of us, whose presence among them is at once a danger and an abomination to them. Praise God, from whom all blessings flow, and whose wisdom, love, power and justice thus work out for us so much good. 

(58) The exodus of Israel now sets in (Ex. 12:37). It will be noted that Israel's exodus journey out of Egypt is given by stages (v. 37; Ex. 13:20), and that they did not finally leave the country until they entered the wilderness on leaving Etham. Their assembling at Rameses [sun-born] belonged to their first leaving, while the departure therefrom to Succoth and then to Etham belonged to their second leaving. It will be recalled that above, par. (51), we distinguished between a twofold leaving of antitypical Egypt: (1) our leaving the nominal church or the world and coming into the Truth during the Reaping and Gleaning time; and (2) our leaving every vestige of Satan's empire, which began to set in Britain in 1915 and in America in 1918 and will be complete just after the end of Jacob's trouble. The assembling at Rameses (sun-born: the condition of being developed by the Parousia, the Little Flock developing, Truth) types 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

203 

our Parousia coming out of the nominal church (the city) or the world (the field) into the Parousia Truth. Thus the assembling at Rameses types our Parousia deliverance from certain phases of Satan's empire, more particularly its religious phases, and our coming into the Reaping Truth. Accordingly, as Rameses in the type was only a rendezvous for fleshly Israel, so coming into the Parousia Truth was only a rendezvous in our deliverance from Satan's empire, freeing us especially from the error-oppression of that empire, but not from its other oppressions. 

(59) Succoth [tents] types the Society condition (Judges 8:5-7, 13-16), toward which we all marched from Passover, 1916, after the last one was gleaned, reaching it Oct. 16, 1916, when our Pastor left Bethel for the last time. Of course, it was the vanguard that reached it that day, as it was the rearguard that reached antitypical Rameses April 18, 1916. Others reached Succoth from time to time later. The journey to Rameses types our development in knowledge, grace and service as we were coming toward and among the Harvest Truth people; and the journey toward Succoth represents our growth in knowledge, grace and service while advancing toward Society conditions; while our abidings in these two places type the trials that we experienced while in these two conditions, e.g., the trials connected with the five siftings marking our stay at antitypical Rameses, and the trials connected with Bro. Russell's death and subsequent troubles leading to leaving the Society antityping the stay at Succoth. From this it is manifest that as long as some who are not of antitypical Succoth, i.e., Mahlite Merarites, still remain there, all will not have journeyed therefrom. But this journey will perhaps have been entered into by all before Armageddon's fighting, except the partisan Societyites who will remain there until antitypical Elisha dies, when we expect the 60 Levite groups will have been completely fixed; while the first one to leave it departed on June 27, 1917. The journey 

Exodus

204 

from Succoth to Etham is not described in v. 37; but for the sake of completeness we will discuss it here as it is given in Ex. 13:20. The journey from Succoth to Etham [boundary of the sea] represents the progress in grace, knowledge and service, necessary for each one to find his place in the Epiphany. Antitypical Etham, reached by all but the partisan Societyites by the time the race will be a symbolic roaring sea—the revolution—types the completed divided condition of the Lord's people as one group of priests and 60 groups of Levites, each group settled in its place, the dividing thus being completed. Abiding at Etham represents the trials that each one undergoes to maintain his respective place in the priesthood or in one of the 60 groups of Levites. Hence the condition of antitypical Etham will continue until the Little Flock, the Great Company and Youthful Worthies will leave this world. Etham being on the border of the wilderness types that the antitypical Etham condition immediately precedes the restitution condition of 1,000 years, typed by the wilderness through which Israel journeyed until they came to the Red Sea. The Israelites' journeying through this wilderness types mankind's progress up the highway of holiness (Is. 35:8), while their coming to the Red Sea represents mankind's coming to the final trial in the Little Season (Rev. 20:7-9). 

(60) The large number of Israelitish adult males (600,000; v. 37) types the large number of developed Little Flock, Great Company and Youthful Worthy brethren that are leaving and will yet leave antitypical Egypt, while the Israelitish children type the undeveloped of these three classes. The mixed multitude (v. 38) in the type were non-Israelitish captives, slaves and discontents in Egypt who desired to leave it for freedom elsewhere. These type those who have been or yet will be weary of the oppressions in Satan's empire, and who have associated or will yet associate themselves more or less with the Lord's people, from the standpoint of their believing and practicing more 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

205 

or less of the Truth, but not consecrating themselves. The flocks and herds (v. 38) of the Israelites type the humanity of the three consecrated classes, while those of the mixed multitude represent the depraved features of their humanity. The multitudes of these type the very many who will be such consecrated and unconsecrated people in the developing and finished picture, i.e., from 1874 till some years after 1956. The Israelites' baking unleavened cakes of the dough that they brought out of Egypt (v. 39) types God's people from 1874 till some years after 1956 using the truths that they extracted from antitypical Egypt's teachings, to develop in them the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth (1 Cor. 5:7, 8). The fact that these cakes were not leavened types the purity of the Truth and its Spirit that is the portion of those who truly leave symbolic Egypt. The involved typical acts coming about by the Israelites' being thrust out and not being able to tarry (v. 39) type our being helped to purity of faith and life by persecution ("thrust out") and not being allowed to tarry among—remain in harmony with—the antitypical Egyptians; for if we should be well treated in fellowship (tarry, abide with) with them we would be contaminated in our faith and life. The Israelites' preparing no victuals types the fact that real antitypical Israelites prepare no other spiritual food than the Truth and its spirit. 

(61) In v. 40 the relative clause, "who dwelt in Egypt," is not introduced as an explanatory relative clause, and hence does not indicate the length of Israel's sojourn in Egypt, for this would make the passage contradict Gal. 3:17, where God tells us that until the Law it was 430 years from the confirming of the Abrahamic Covenant, which was confirmed when Abraham fulfilled its last condition, entering the land (Gen. 12:1), but it is introduced as a restrictive relative clause, showing that no Israelites living subsequently to Israel's abiding in Egypt had any part in the sojourning here referred to. Part of these 430 years of Israel's 

Exodus

206 

sojourning was while they were in the loins (Heb. 7:4, 5) of sojourning Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Heb. 11:9), hence before they were born and, of course, before they began to abide in Egypt. These 430 years of sojourning type unto its final completion the entire period from 2045 B. C., the date Abraham entered the land, until some years after Nov., 1956, after the last Youthful Worthy will finish his course in death. These 430 years of sojourning therefore represent the entire period of the development of the four faith classes, from the time that waiting in faith for the fulfillment of the promises began until such waiting ends. According to v. 41, on the anniversary of the entrance of the land by Abraham the Israelites left Egypt for their rendezvous at Rameses. Hence Abraham entered the land Nisan 15, 2045 B. C. According to vs. 22, 42, the Israelites shortly after dawn, on Pharaoh's and his people's insistence, began to pack up their belongings so as to be ready to travel by the night of Nisan 15, since they were not to leave their houses the night of Nisan 14. Their beginning (at night—v. 42) to leave is counted as the start of their exodus, for which reason that night of their deliverance is spoken of as a night much to be observed. The statement of v. 41 that all the host of Israel left Egypt Nisan 15, i.e., started to leave, types the fact that all the four faith classes as well as the prospective restitutionists will have left antitypical Egypt by the time the faith dispensations are completely over. V. 41 shows in its chronological allusions how exact a timekeeper God has been and is. 

(62) V. 42 calls attention to the memorableness of the night of Nisan 15 for those delivered from literal Egypt, and for their generations. It is literally, as the margin shows, a night of observations, i.e., one to be observed, commemorated annually for very many years throughout Israel's generations; and as such it is still observed. Antitypically, the large night, the entire Gospel Age, and the small night, the Parousia and Epiphany night, are indeed more memorable yet, and will 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

207 

be commemorated eternally, as the deliverance time of God's Israel of this and the next Age from Satan's empire. As Israel commemorated the typical deliverance in honor of God (unto the Lord—v. 42), so antitypical Israel in its spiritual, heavenly, classes and in its human, earthly, classes, restored Jews and Gentiles, will eternally celebrate this deliverance unto the Lord (Rev. 5:13). As fleshly Israel were by Moses and Aaron given an ordinance directing who might not and who might eat of the annual lamb (vs. 43-49), so have Jesus and the Parousia and Epiphany Little Flock taught who may not and who may partake of the annual Lord's Supper. The general rule for non-participants is given in v. 43, where the words translated stranger (ben nechar) are, in both of them, different from that translated stranger (ger) in vs. 48 and 49. The R. V. and the A. R. V. translate the former, alien and foreigner respectively, either of which gives the correct thought. No foreigner might partake of the annual lamb. V. 47 gives the rule for participants—"all the congregation of Israel." Then v. 45 gives particulars as to who should not eat of the annual lamb—the [foreign] settler [the word here is toshav, a (foreign) settler, not ben nechar, nor ger] and the hired servant. Vs. 44, 48 and 49 give the particulars as to who might partake of the annual lamb—the circumcised purchased servant, the stranger who is not an alien and the natural born Israelite. 

(63) V. 48 gives a negative description of who the foreign settler and the hired servant, i.e., the alien, are—the uncircumcised. Since circumcision types consecration (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-13), the circumcised represent all the consecrated, who are in vs. 44, 48, 49, given in three classes. Accordingly, we understand the circumcised purchased servant to represent the cleansed Great Company members, their cleansing implying their reconsecration [circumcision] (the Epiphany application of Num. 8:5-22); the circumcised stranger [ger] to represent the Youthful Worthies and those born in 

Exodus

208 

the land, natural Israelites, to represent the Little Flock. The expression in v. 44 translated, "servant that is bought for money," applies in this sense in the antitype: the Great Multitude are by Christ's ransoming merit cleansed from the spots on their garments (Jude 23; Rev. 7:14; Num. 8:12, 21 [Epiphany Levites]). The aliens, as shown above, are of two classes: the foreign settlers and the hired servants. These are again described as the uncircumcised (v. 48). It is readily seen who constitute the two unconsecrated classes dwelling among antitypical Israel—the justified [the hired servant] and the unjustified hangers-on among professing Christians [the (foreign) settler]. In other words, these two classes are represented by The Chart of the Ages in the parts of the Pyramid resting (1) on the plane of justification, and (2) below the plane of justification. Thus we have the general rules given. But there are certain rules implied by the thought that the Great Company after their cleansing are represented by the money-purchased servant. While they are in their uncleansed condition—impenitent—they should not keep the annual Lord's Supper; and for this reason the Epiphany-enlightened saints should not memorialize with them, nor welcome them to their own celebrations. This also implies that those disfellowshipped for misconduct should not memorialize until they have made matters right, nor should those who disfellowshipped them permit them to join in their Memorials until they have reconciled themselves with the ecclesia. Finally, it implies that the Second Death class and all other ransom and sin-offerings deniers should neither memorialize, nor be memorialized with, by the faithful. 

(64) The Israelite family, or two small families acting as one (v. 4), that night being charged (v. 46) to eat the lamb in one house, types the fact that antitypical Israel is but one family of God (each house in the type standing for the whole family of God) and as such are to partake of Christ, our Lamb. The 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

209 

prohibition of taking anything out of the house (v. 46) types that we should not perform any service against the blood-sprinkled class—God's family—as ransom deniers and total apostates do, who thereby perform services against God's family. Taking the lamb's flesh out of the house types the thought of accepting and serving another than the Truth view of the ransom. To break a bone of the typical lamb would be doing it violence and this types the crucifying of the Son of God afresh (Heb. 6:4-8). V. 47, in the charge that all Israel should observe the annual supper, suggests the thought that all antitypical Israel—the Little Flock, the cleansed Great Company and the Youthful Worthies, should partake of the annual Memorial. The charge that all of the males of the stranger who would partake of the typical lamb must be circumcised, types that every member of the Youthful Worthies, as a [reckoned] family of God, must be consecrated. As every circumcised stranger had the same privileges as to appropriating the typical lamb as the native Israelites had (v. 49), so, too, have the Youthful Worthies the same privileges as to appropriating our Lamb as the Little Flock have: they, too, appropriate forgiveness, Christ's righteousness and fellowship with God. The type here, however, does not bring out the distinction as to how God and Christ act in this matter—tentatively and vitalizedly; it only describes the privileges of the partakers and not the efficient and meritorious Actors in justification. V. 50 does not refer to the annual Passovers, but to the original one only. Hence it types our performing only the actual, not the symbolic feast on our Lamb. V. 51 gives the same thought as we found in v. 41, and means that they completed their final work for leaving Egypt the same day as their deliverance, which in the antitype we have already explained. Hence it needs no repetition here. Thus we have finished our study of Ex. 12. 

(65) Next to engage our study of our subject is Ex. 13, since Ex. 12 was studied above. Quite a few of 

Exodus

210 

the things in Ex. 13 have been explained, type and antitype, in our previous study of our subject and will, accordingly, be merely touched on as we come to them, the new things of the chapter receiving closer study. God's charging Moses to sanctify, set apart (v. 2), to the Lord the firstborn of man and beast, types God's charging our Lord Jesus during the Gospel Age to sanctify the new creatures (firstborn of man) and the humanity (firstborn of beast) of the Church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23). In the type these firstborn became God's ("mine") by the fact of His delivering Israel's firstborn of man and beast in Egypt, while Egypt's firstborn of man and beast went into destruction (v. 15). Accordingly, antitypical Israel's firstborn of man and beast have become the Lord's by reason of His having delivered them while smiting antitypical Egypt's firstborn of man and beast. In the type the charge involved all of the firstborn of all Israelite human or beastly mothers ("all … both of man and of beast," v. 2), showing that without exception every antitypical Israelite firstborn in spirit and flesh is the Lord's. In fulfilling the antitype of the charge in v. 2, our Lord Jesus has fulfilled His office of the Church's Sanctifier (1 Cor. 1:30; Heb. 2:11). This implies a threefold work: (1) His making them the firstborn by bringing them to consecration and Spirit-begettal; (2) His sacrificing their humanity unto death; and (3) His developing their new creatures unto perfection. All of this He has been doing through the use on them of the Lord's Spirit, Word and providence. Their part in these three works is not brought out in v. 2. 

(66) Moses' charging Israel to remember Nisan 15 (v. 3) as the day that they went forth from Egypt from the house of servants (margin), types our Lord's charging the Gospel Church in general, and the Parousia and Epiphany Church in particular, to remember antitypical Nisan 15 as their deliverance time from the house of servants to sin, error, selfishness and worldliness. This implies a remembering of our justification, 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

211 

sanctification and deliverance, as well as of our Truth instruction (1 Cor. 1:30; Rom. 8:29, 30). As Israel in general remembered the typical deliverance at all times and in particular at the Passover, so are we as antitypical Israel to remember our deliverance at any and every time, but especially in connection with our Memorial service. We do the antitypical remembering, not only in thought, but also by living out the principles implied in our instruction, justification, sanctification and deliverance. As God's mighty delivering power (strength of hand) exercised on Israel's behalf deserved their remembering their deliverance day, so the power of God exercised in our deliverance from our taskmasters of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, through our instruction, justification, sanctification and deliverance, and in our coming out of Satan's empire, is worthy of our remembrance in motive, thought, word and deed. One way in which Israel was to remember the typical deliverance was to abstain from leaven (there shall no leavened bread be eaten, v. 3). Accordingly, we are to commemorate our deliverance, among other ways, by abstaining from antitypical leaven—sin, error, selfishness and worldliness. V. 4, by repetition, emphasizes the day to be remembered—the day of your going forth in the month of Abib—the 15th of the first month, typical of the emphasis placed on the Gospel Age and the Parousia-Epiphany time. In Hebrew there are two names given to the first month. The earlier of these is Abib (sprout or ear [of grain]; then time of ripened ears) and the later of these is Nisan (blossom; then blossoming time, Neh. 2:1). Both of these names fit the first month in nature and antitypically in grace, as the Gospel Age, as we showed above, while commenting on Ex. 12:2. There is nothing typical in the change of name given the first month, as this is merely a linguistic change, and not a change in sense as typically significant. 

(67) We have already explained, type and antitype, the Lord's promise (Ex. 3:7) to bring Israel into

Exodus

212 

Canaan (v. 5) and its implications, hence will not here repeat the pertinent explanations. Only five of Canaan's seven nations are named here, the Perizzites and Girgashites being here omitted. Perhaps the five are here mentioned, 5 being a half of 10, the number of human completeness, to represent that the antitypical Canaan of the Gospel Age is one of faith, not actual, justification, and that the antitypical Canaan of the Millennial Age will also not yet be an actually perfect condition. The charge to keep Nisan, or Abib 14, when in Canaan, would therefore type the charge that we keep the Memorial Supper during the Gospel Age as a representation of our Gospel-Age deliverance, and that the world in and perhaps after the Millennium do the same as a representation of the world's Millennial-Age deliverance. The contents of vs. 6 and 7 we interpreted above, when interpreting Ex. 12:15, 16, and will not repeat the thoughts here; but will remark that the omission of mentioning the first day as a holy convocation and the mentioning of the seventh day as such, types that the Harvest (Parousia and Epiphany) of the Gospel Age is more important than the Harvest of the Jewish Age. The Israelite fathers' explaining (v. 8) to their sons why they kept the annual Passover types the Lord explaining to His spiritual sons why they keep the annual Lord's Supper. Thus in both the annual Passover and the Memorial Supper their symbolic and commemorative relation to their originals is suggested: the first typically and the second antitypically. 

(68) And what is typically suggested in v. 8 is expressly stated typically in v. 9; for the statement, "It shall be for a sign [symbol] unto thee upon [by] thy hand [act]," shows the symbolic relation of the observance of the annual lamb, etc., to the observance of the original lamb, etc., in Egypt. Thus is the symbolic relation between the annual Passover feast and the original Passover feast proven. This then, proves the symbolic relation of the Lord's Supper to the 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

213 

antitypical Lamb and our feasting upon Him. This, therefore, proves that the words, "This is My body … My blood," mean, this represents My body … My blood. Also the commemorative thought that lay in the annual Passover is taught in v. 9 by the words, "and for a memorial between thine eyes." Not only does the word memorial prove this, but the word eyes [insight, understanding, knowledge] proves the same thing, showing that an activity of the intellect is meant; and, as limited by the word memorial, the intellect in its remembering activity is here meant. Thus the symbolic and memorial idea of the annual Passover is proven. From this fact follows the conclusion that the antitype of the annual Passover—the Lord's Supper—is a symbolization and memorial of the antitypical Lamb. This, then, adds further evidence in disproof of transubstantiation, consubstantiation and instrumentalization, and in proof of the Truth view of the Lord's Supper. In v. 9, as in v. 3, and as we will find in vs. 14 and 16, emphasis is laid on the fact that God used power to deliver Israel from Egypt, just as, antitypically, God has been using strength by Christ, His Hand, to deliver us from symbolic Egypt. His, not ours, is the glory for this great deliverance. V. 10 re-emphasizes the thought of Israel's keeping the Passover annually, just as God has repeatedly, in the two Harvests especially, charged the annual keeping of the Lord's Supper, e.g., each year The Tower and THE TRUTH, by special announcement and special articles, have emphasized it, as Vol. VI, pilgrims and elders have done. 

(69) In vs. 11-16 the Lord reverts to the subject of sanctifying to Him the firstborn of man and beast, referred to in v. 2. As said above, in discussing v. 5, having explained the thought of v. 11, we will not comment on it further here, though in v. 5 the allusion is to the annual Passover, and here in v. 11 it is made to the land with reference to the firstborn, as v. 12 shows. V. 12 treats of the same thought as v. 2, the sanctification of the firstborn of man and beast; but 

Exodus

214 

it emphasizes a specification not expressly emphasized, though implied, in v. 2—only the firstborn males were thus to be sanctified. This is not to be understood as a contradiction, as though v. 2 meant all firstborn males and females; for in v. 2 the noun firstborn (bechor) is masculine; hence it means firstborn males, exclusive of females. The statement of v. 12 on the males is, therefore, made only for emphasis' sake. The antitype shows why this is; for the antitypical firstborn as such are all males by the begettal of the Spirit. This is not to be understood as a contradiction between the facts (1) that the crown-losers are of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23) and (2) that they are in 2 Cor. 6:18 called daughters and handmaids in Joel 2:29. Rather the figure is different. Firstborns are not contrasted in 2 Cor. 6:18, but the children of God's family are set forth from a general standpoint as illustrated by the sons and daughters of a natural family; for from the standpoint of 2 Cor. 6:18, only Jesus is the Firstborn (Rom. 8:29); while from the standpoint of Heb. 12:23, which gives the antitype of the firstborn as treated in the Exodus history, all new creatures are firstborn, while the non-new creatures of God's plan, the restitutionists after the end of the Little Season, will be the afterborn, inasmuch as then the spirit-born Ancient and Youthful Worthies will also be of the firstborn. In other words, the firstborn of the Exodus history antitypically are viewed from the standpoint of their being the most important ones of those who from the human race attain to salvation, and not from the standpoint of children in God's family. Under the related figure of firstfruits, James brings this thought out as to the firstborn (Jas. 1:18). 

(70) The firstborn of beasts were sacrificed upon the altar (v. 13), if they were of sacrificeable animals, e.g., of the flocks and herds; but the firstborn of asses as examples of the firstborn of every unclean beast were not sacrificeable, because the ass was an unclean animal. It had to be redeemed (v. 13), by substituting 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

215 

a lamb on the altar in its stead, if it was to live at all. Such a redeemed ass types the Great Company's humanity, whose place on the altar as parts of the sin-offering is lost and the humanity of another consecrator must be substituted in the place of that of the Great Company member, whose humanity is removed from the altar. As his place on the altar was lost, so his crown was lost, which went to the new creature whose humanity was substituted in the place of that of the Great Company member on the altar. It is these facts that are implied by the lamb's being offered in the place of the firstborn ass, since the former's offering was substituted for the redemption of the firstborn ass. Hence, in case it was redeemed, the firstborn ass types the humanity of a Great Company member, from the standpoint that such humanity does not partake in the sin-offering, represented by the offering sacrificed on the altar; while the substituted lamb types the humanity of the new creature that received the lost crown and its sacrifice on the altar represents the sin-offering sacrifice of the Little Flock member who received the involved crown. In case, however, the ass was not redeemed by a lamb, it had to be slain by its neck being broken. This would represent the disposal of a crown-loser for whom, to save from destruction, God was not willing to make a saving arrangement, typed by the concerned Israelite being unwilling to arrange to save the firstborn ass's life, by substituting a lamb for it. Whom would this represent? A member of the Second Death class. Hence we understand that the firstborn ass that was not saved from destruction, by not being counted among those whose life was saved by redemption through a substituted lamb, represents the humanity of a firstborn not found meet to be of the Great Company, i.e., it represents the humanity of a member of the Second Death class. 

(71) It will be noted that in the preceding paragraph we did not use the word redeem in the sense of purchase, but in the sense of deliver. Had we used it in

Exodus

216 

the former sense we would have had to interpret the lamb to type our Lord's humanity, its substitution for the ass as typing His ransoming the Great Company, and the withholding of a substitutionary lamb as typing our Lord's sacrifice as no more availing for the Second Death class (Heb. 10:26). Why did we not offer this as the antitypical teaching? We answer that such a sense given to the word redeem here would not fit the act of redeeming the firstborn Israelites (v. 13); for these type the new creatures, not the humanity. Of course, our new creatures are not purchased, though our humanity is bought by our Lord's ransom. Accordingly, the lamb offered on the altar for the firstborn Israelite does not type our Lord's ransom sacrifice, which was not offered for our new creatures, though it was for our humanity. The lamb offered for the firstborn Israelite represented the latter on the altar, as the bullock represented Aaron on the altar (Lev. 16:6; T 55, par. 2), and this therefore proves that the new creature is represented on the altar by his humanity, since we do not sacrifice our new creature and its privileges, but our humanity and its privileges (Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5 [where the word spiritual is in the best MSS. omitted before the word sacrifices]). It is because the idea of the word redeem in the matter of the firstborn Israelite is not that of purchase, but purely of a representative as a substitution apart from a purchase, that we give it that same idea in its use connected with the redemption and nonredemption of the firstborn ass for the antitype. 

(72) The Israelite son asking (v. 14) his father for an explanation of the service as to the firstborn's redemption, the sacrifice of the firstborn of clean animals, the substitution of a lamb for the firstborn ass and the breaking of the neck of an unredeemed firstborn ass, was to be told that these services symbolized (token, sign; v. 16) and continued (frontlets; v. 16) the sparing of the firstborn of Israelite man and beast and the destruction of the Egyptian firstborn. This, then, gives 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

217 

a double significance to the service. It symbolized what was done in Egypt and continued it. It is readily seen how dealing with the firstborn in Canaan (described in vs. 11-13) would symbolize the things done in Egypt with Israel's and Egypt's firstborn. But how about the continuance of those extraordinary events? It will be noted that in v. 16 the expression of v. 9, "a memorial between thine eyes," does not occur, but the expression, "frontlets [beautiful ornaments, coming down the forehead from the turban, and ending between the eyes] between thine eyes," is used. This is a figurative expression to indicate a belief studied and acted out, as one continually kept before the mind's eye, thus typical of good acts in the antitypical firstborn (Prov. 1:9; 4:9; 3:3; 6:20-22). Therefore we understand the expression to mean a continuance of the preservation of Israel's firstborn and destruction of Egypt's firstborn. The sons' asking the meaning of the symbolic part of service would, therefore, represent the Lord's people asking Jehovah, their Father, through the Truth servants, of course, how the worthy participation in the Lord's Supper symbolizes the preservation of antitypical Israel's firstborn and the unworthy participation therein symbolizes the bad firstborn's repudiation of our Lamb and the consequent destruction of such firstborn repudiators, while the question as to the frontlets represents the questions on the real preservations and destructions in the antitype. The answer that explains the continuance in the passing over of Israel's firstborn and destruction of Egypt's firstborn types the explanation of the deliverance of antitypical Israel's firstborn of man and beast and the destruction of antitypical Egypt's firstborn of man and beast. 

(73) It will be noticed that in v. 14 for the third time and in v. 16 for the fourth time in this chapter (vs. 3 and 9 containing the first and second of these), the might of God is brought to our attention as that which works deliverance. This shows antitypically the emphasis that is placed upon the fact that we are kept

Exodus

218 

by God's power in our deliverance (1 Pet. 1:5) from Satan's taskmasters and empire, wherein we once were of the house of slaves to these (vs. 3, 14). As Pharaoh's hardening his heart against Israel's deliverance brought about the death of Egypt's firstborn of man and beast (v. 15), so Satan's hardening his heart against antitypical Israel's deliverance is bringing about the death of antitypical Egypt's firstborn in new creature and humanity. It was because of the sparing of Israel's firstborn, through the lamb's blood, while Egypt's firstborn went to destruction, that the firstborn of Israel became the Lord's—those of clean animals to be offered on the altar and those of man to be redeemed (v. 15), typical of how antitypical Israel's firstborn became the Lord's, their humanity to be offered on the altar and their new creatures to be delivered from being sacrificed. 

(74) The ordinance features of Israel's deliverance as set forth in Ex. 12 and 13, having been completely discussed up to v. 16, with historical features interspersed, v. 17 takes up the history of the deliverance onward from Succoth, where it was left off in Ex. 12:37-42, and continues it unto a completion from v. 17 to 15:21. In v. 17 we see God's mercifulness toward Israel in sparing them too severe experiences. Remembering that they had long been slaves and thus rendered fearful, having as a result "an inferiority complex," God did not expose them to the severity of warfare with a warlike nation, such as the Philistines were, lest they, affrighted, should return to Egypt, even though the way to Canaan through Philistia was a short one compared with the one Israel actually took. The forty years in the wilderness transformed a nation of fearful slaves into a hardy nation of warriors, capable of achieving the conquest of Palestine. Antitypically, as God delivers us from antitypical Egypt He does not let us at the beginning engage in too hard warfare, lest we become discouraged and fall away; but He leads us through a round-about way of avoidance 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

219 

of hard warfare, until we have gained the requisite strength and courage thereto. As each one of us looks back to his previous experiences from the time he began to break away from antitypical Egypt until the present, he recognizes the operation of this principle, even as the Apostle states it in 1 Cor. 10:13. Thus here in the end of the Age at our deliverance from antitypical Egypt we have not had to face the severe conflicts that our brethren sustained from the beginning of the Gospel Age until the Gospel Harvest. At most we have only a small Gospel-Age set of experiences to meet, which are, of course, not so severe as those met by our brethren of the pre-Harvest times, especially before 1799. God has been turning us in the direction of the antitypical Red Sea wilderness (v. 18), toward the Millennial conditions, which, in their approach, are easier to endure than those that our brethren experienced from 69 to 1799. How good and easing to our journey is the thought that we are headed directly to the not distant kingdom. Israel's going up from Egypt in battle array (v. 18) shows that they were nevertheless prepared for war. The word chamushim (battle array; A. V.—harnessed), is derived from the Hebrew chameshim, meaning fifty, and suggests the thought that in battle array the warriors were divided into company units of 50 soldiers. Thus to go in battle array is to march by fifties. This types the fact that especially in the Epiphany the Lord's people are marching forward toward the Millennial conditions in divided warrior companies or groups. 

(75) Moses' taking Joseph's bones along (v. 19) was in fulfillment of the oath that Joseph had required of the Israelites (Gen. 50:25). Joseph is used typically in several senses. First, he types our Lord; then, the Church; then, again, he types the seven messengers of the seven churches, finally the Epiphany Messenger, for the Gospel-Age picture. For the Millennial picture he types the Christ, Head and Body, as God's vicegerent. As we are here studying the Gospel-Age picture,

Exodus

220 

it is proper for us to use all four Gospel-Age applications here. The bones are one's remains—that which one leaves behind him when he departs this life. They, therefore, represent what from another standpoint is represented by the ashes of a sacrificial animal. Thus, e.g., as the ashes of the red heifer represent what is left of the Ancient Worthies, their deeds, histories—so the bones of Joseph represent the histories of Jesus, the Church, the seven angels and the Epiphany Messenger. The book of Revelation contains these histories under symbols. Part of these have already been expounded to the Church. They will be completely set forth in our promised exposition of that book. These will not only be for the learning of the then living brethren, but will be for an everlasting memorial of them in the Ages to come. As Joseph had forecast the deliverance of Israel (v. 19), so antitypical Joseph has been forecasting the complete deliverance of antitypical Israel from Satan's empire. Let us, dear brethren, take—learn, spread and imitate—with us out of symbolic Egypt these histories for our refreshment and for that of the Millennial and post-Millennial Israel of God. Above we expounded v. 20, so as to complete the discussion of the stages of Israel's journey to the Red Sea, therefore we will not explain the verse again here. 

(76) V. 21 says that the Lord went before Israel in a pillar of cloud and in a pillar of fire. Ex. 14:19 shows how He did so. He did it, not in person, but in a representative, the Logos, as the Angel of the Lord. Accordingly, it was the prehuman Logos who led Israel forth, as the Lord's Agent therein. This types God's leading us forth from antitypical Egypt through our glorified Lord, the antitype here of the Logos. Of course, the Logos was in His person invisible; hence He gave, in the pillars of cloud and of fire, a visible representation of Himself as Israel's leader. So, too, antitypically, our Lord as our present leader out of antitypical Egypt is invisible, but gives us a representation

Deliverance of the Firstborn

221 

of Himself present as our leader, by the antitypical pillar of cloud and fire. We understand that this pillar represents the Truth as due, which certainly is the thing that points out the way we are to go. The pillar of cloud represents the New Testament Truth, which was the Truth due more especially during the Jewish Harvest and the Parousia, the day time (Ps. 91:5, 6); and the pillar of fire represents the Old Testament Truth, which is the Truth due during the Interim and the Epiphany, the night time (Ps. 91:5, 6). There are three symbolical days and three symbolical nights for antitypical Israel. These three symbolical days are the Jewish and Gospel Harvests and the Millennium. These three symbolical nights are the Interims, the period between the two Harvests, the Epiphany and the Little Season. As the pillar of cloud gave light, instruction, as to Israel's way in the day, so the New Testament Truth as due especially gives the direction for antitypical Israel's daytime journeys. As the pillar of fire gave light for the way of Israel's night journeys, so the Old Testament Truth as due especially gives the light—direction—for antitypical Israel's night journeys. As these pillars led Israel all the way to Canaan, so these truths have been leading antitypical Israel all the way to antitypical Canaan. As the typical pillars were not removed until typical Canaan was reached by typical Israel, so will the antitypical pillars not be removed until antitypical Canaan will be reached by antitypical Israel. We gave details on these pillars when expounding Num. 9. 

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) Where is the interview begun in Ex. 10:24 continued? How is Ex. 11:1-3 to be regarded? How should the first clause of Ex. 11:1 be rendered? What four reasons require this rendering? Why are vs. 1-3 thrown in parenthetically? Where did God tell Moses the things stated in vs. 1-3? What does the most ancient Hebrew manuscript give as the reading of the first clause of v. 3? Why is this the preferable reading? With what should the italicized word was be replaced, in the second clause

Exodus

222 

of v. 3? What do vs. 1-3 contain? How do they stand related to vs. 4-8? 

(2) What plague is referred to in v. 1? What is the nature of the tenth plague? Of what was it in its two parts typical? Through what is the antitypical tenth plague inflicted? Whom did the typical tenth plague hurt? What are the meanings of the Hebrew word Mitzraim? What is its meaning in v. 1? Whom does the death of the antitypical firstborn hurt? What did God forecast would be the effect of the death of the typical and antitypical firstborn? What is typed by the urgency of Pharaoh's sending Israel away? What does the antitypical urgency imply? When are they inflicted? What should take away from God's people the sting of such urgency? 

(3) Where has a general interpretation been given of v. 2, insofar as the Israelitish mothers are concerned? To what is v. 2 an allusion? How should the word translated now be rendered? Why? What is added in v. 2 not found in Ex. 3:21, 22? To what Israelites only does Ex. 3:21, 22 refer? What was not there said that is said in v. 2? Who are typed in this connection by the Israelitish mothers and their children? Who is here represented by the Israelitish fathers? In what respect here? Who are here represented by the Egyptian male neighbors? What clarifies this application? How was the asking done? Give illustrations from the four examples cited. 

(4) Where has been explained, type and antitype, the amended form of the first sentence of v. 3? What is the literal translation of the clause rendered, "I will give the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians"? How does this expression at first sound? What suggests its fitness? What at first do not seem to be favors? What proves them to be favors indeed? How do the cited Scriptures show this? Why are they called by the world the favor of God's people? Why are they really so? What would the antitypical Egyptians not consider them, if inflicted upon them? Why not? How should we regard them? How does St. Peter call them so? 

(5) By what should the italicized word was in the second sentence of v. 3 be supplanted? Why? How did each plague react on Moses' prestige? Wherein did his prestige reach its climax? What is the antitype of these two prestige features? How did Moses come to utter the

Deliverance of the Firstborn

223 

threats of vs. 4-8? What is the antitype of this? What is the office of vs. 1-3 in relation to vs. 4-8? 

(6) How is v. 4 related to Ex. 10:29? What does Moses' assertion that his utterance was Jehovah's message type? In how many places is God's going forth and slaying Egypt's firstborn associated with the midnight of Nisan 14? What are these passages? How do the related expressions differ? Why this difference? What differences are seen in the part of the War preceding and following trench warfare? What is antitypically indicated by the expression "about midnight"? "At midnight"? How have these two facts been pointed out without applying them to the tenth plague? 

(7) What is the antitypical night here referred to? How many years do the Parousia and Epiphany periods total? How was this period's midnight in time related to the Parousia's beginning and the Epiphany's end? What does this fact prove as to the length of each of these periods? What else does this fact prove? What Levite teaching does it disprove? What does this consideration prove as to the length of one of the Bible's symbolic hours? If an hour of 3⅓ years should not prove to be the one meant in Rev. 17:12, what may we have to do with the hour of 63⅔ years? Under what circumstance? 

(8) What is typed by God's going out into the midst of Egypt? How did our Lord expressly, as to about October, 1914, fulfill the antitype of Moses making this statement? How did He impliedly fulfill it as to August 1, 1914? During what period did the first member of the 2520 years' double lappingly end? How is this related to the point under discussion? How from both standpoints was the antitypical forecast made? Before whom did our Lord make the antitypical forecast? 

(9) What does v. 5 precisely state? What is the antitypical tenth plague? What was not the typical tenth plague? What is not the antitypical tenth plague? What were all new creatures originally? How does Heb. 12:23 prove this? What happens to those antitypical Israelites who sin the sin unto death? By what Israelites are they typed? As what were they then born? Why do they become antitypical firstborn Egyptians? Whom does Satan especially seek to enlist in his special service? Whom

Exodus

224 

of these does he partially and temporarily control? Perpetually and wholly until death? 

(10) What did Moses forecast of every living Egyptian firstborn? When was it to occur? What is the antitype of this forecast? Of the date of its fulfillment? Through what means was the antitypical forecast made? When was it made? Especially in connection with what part of the antitypical Egyptian firstborn? Who is the firstborn of antitypical Pharaoh? What facts show this? What was every member of the Roman hierarchy from 1914 to 1916? Who are not, and who are members of the Romanist hierarchy? Who are the body? Who is the head? How does 2 Thes. 2:4 prove that the man of sin consists of new creatures? What kind of crown-losers were they first? Afterwards? What is their fate without exception? How will it be accomplished? What will their destruction primarily effect? What from the Romanist standpoint would it effect, even if the Romanist Church were not destroyed in the tribulation? How long would this take? Why? 

(11) What was the social standing of the mill-grinding Egyptian maidservants? What does such an one type? Whom would her firstborn type? What is the antitypical meaning of the expression, "from the firstborn of Pharaoh … to the firstborn of the maidservant, etc."? What will these not experience? What will they experience? By what means? By when will they be no more? What do Egypt's firstborn of beast type? Why is the firstborn of beast here introduced as dying? How do we reach our understanding as to the antitype of Egypt's firstborn of man and beast? How do we prove that Israel's firstborn of man represent the Church as new creatures? Israel's firstborn of beast the Church humanity? As to the tenth plague, what happens to their new creatures and humanity? What parallel things of antitypical Egypt are not passed over? What does this prove as to the antitypes of Egypt's firstborn of man and beast? What reasoning proves this? 

(12) What is typed by Moses' forecast of Egypt's mourning for the death of their firstborn? What will accentuate this grief? How is the form of this grief's expression related to Daniel's and Jesus' description of the time of trouble? What does this similarity of

Deliverance of the Firstborn

225 

expression suggest and prove? Among other things, what does Rev. 14:9-11 suggest in this connection? What do these considerations suggest positively and negatively, as to the means of inflicting the tenth plague? What do the dogs here symbolically represent? Their tongues? How do literal dogs act at the death of their masters or members of their masters' families? What were Egypt's mourning dogs not to do to Israelitish people or beasts? Why not? What does Moses' forecast in this particular type? What will the contrast between their and spiritual Israelites' feelings suggest to them? 

(13) What does Moses' forecast of the humiliation and subserviency of Pharaoh's officials before him type? Whereby did our Lord make these forecasts? Who are these officials in the antitype? What is typed by Moses' forecast of Pharaoh's officers begging relief by Israel's departure? How was the antitypical forecast made? How could such driving out of antitypical Israel be subserviency on the part of Satan's officials? When according to Moses' forecast would he go out of Egypt? What is its antitype? What does Moses' departure from Pharaoh's presence in great anger type? Where were the antitypical forecasts mainly made? 

(14) After these forecasts, type and antitype, what did Jehovah say? What did Pharaoh's stubbornness occasion? What did this type? What is typed by Moses and Aaron performing the wonders in Egypt? Who did not work the tenth plague? What does this type? Which antitypical plagues have Christ and the Church wrought? By what kind of a ministry? What did they do by such a ministry? Against and before whom did Moses and Aaron work the typical plagues? What does this type? Why are details not here given on God's hardening Pharaoh's heart? 

(15) To what has our present study brought us? Later than what date could the command to institute the Passover not have come? What two reasons prove this? About how long before Nisan 10 does this charge seem to have been given? Why? Even later than what date could it not come? Why not? On what day was the threat of the death of the firstborn made? What proves this? How accordingly must the first part of Ex. 12:1 be rendered? Why? By what is this also required? Why? 

Exodus

226 

When was the antitypical lamb set aside for death? What are we forced to do with the antitype of v. 1 by this consideration? 

(16) At what time does Moses in the opening vs. of Ex. 12 type our Lord? How did Jesus fulfill the antitype of Moses' charging the institution of the Passover? How do the cited passages prove this? What antitypes God's speaking the things of these verses to Moses? Whom, first of all, does Aaron in v. 1 represent? At what time of their experiences? Whom does he later type? What is first and later typed by God's speaking these things to Aaron? What is typed by God's doing this speaking in Egypt? 

(17) What was involved in making Nisan the first month of the year? What had been the first month of the year? When did it come? How manyfold years did Israel have thereafter? What are their names? What did this change type? What is the first thing to suggest this antitype? What, accordingly, do we understand the change to type? Especially what? How do the quoted Scriptures prove and give the fulfillment antitypically of the change? What in the type makes reasonable the suggested antitype? What other consideration suggests this antitype? Why? 

(18) What would the charge of setting aside the lamb on Nisan 10 coming before that date type? Why? What facts suggest this thought as to typical institutions fixed to a date? What does this imply as to the charge on setting aside the antitypical Lamb before Nisan 10? How was this charge not given? How was it given? What events occurred on Nisan 10, A. D. 33? What day of the week was it? What refutes the nominal church's view as to the day of the week? How do the cited Scriptures prove that Jesus was set aside for death the day of His triumphal entrance into Jerusalem? How was Jesus set aside for death that day by all Israel? 

(19) By what two things did Jesus charge His setting aside as the antitypical Lamb on Nisan 10, 33 A. D.? What are the main teachings by which He did this? What are the main acts by which He did this? What phase of His setting aside for death was accomplished by all the teachings and acts previous to the last three? By these last three?

Deliverance of the Firstborn

227 

(20) What was to serve for each family in the type? What did each house type? Each lamb? What was done, if a family was too small to eat a lamb? What three things were typed by this? How is this suggested in 1 Cor. 1:26-29? Why was a lamb or kid chosen for this type? Explain the cited Scriptures on our Lamb as being the antitype of the lambs slain in Egypt. Why was the lamb to be unblemished? Explain the Scriptures cited on Jesus' sinlessness. What was typed by the lamb's being a male? A yearling? Why was the choice left optional as to whether a lamb or kid was used? What is not to be sought in this freedom of choice? 

(21) Why was the lamb kept from Nisan 10 to Nisan 14? What is the antitype of giving the charge that the whole congregation slay it Nisan 14? How did Jesus give the antitypical charge? By what acts? How did the antitypical whole house of Israel slay the antitypical Lamb? When was the lamb slain? What were the two evenings? What New Testament Scriptures prove two evenings to be held in Israel? When as to the two evenings was the lamb slain? What two things does this type? From the second viewpoint what would the night of Nisan 14 type? What would the beginning of its evening be? 

(22) What do both the Israelitish house and the family in this story represent? On what principle? How is the word house used in this chapter? What does the lamb's blood type? Of what does our Lord's human merit consist? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does sprinkling the lamb's blood represent? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? How many imputations of our Lord's merit is made? What is the first of these? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What is the second of these? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What are the four main differences between these two imputations? 

(23) Wherein are both imputations set forth? What in general do the two door posts type? What is the first part of the Law, or Justice? The second part? How do the cited Scriptures prove these to be the two parts of the Law, or Justice? What does one of the door posts represent? The other? What is typed by sprinkling the first door post? The second?

Exodus

228 

(24) What is needed besides the cancellation of the Adamic sentence? The sprinkling of what was not enough in the type? What besides the (side) door posts had to be sprinkled? What does the lintel type? What is necessary for our humanity additional to the cancellation of the Adamic sentence? Why is this necessary? Why is Christ's righteousness called God's righteousness? By what is its imputation to us typed? What does the head of each Israelitish house in sprinkling the door posts type? In sprinkling the lintel? What entire work is thus typed by the sprinkling of the door posts and lintel? What is typed by sprinkling on those houses alone where the lamb was eaten? 

(25) What is typed by the charge to eat the lamb's flesh the night of Nisan 14? How do the cited Scriptures show this in a parallel way? What is the difference in the form and substance of the figures? When only could the lamb in Egypt be eaten? What does this type? How will Christ's merit be appropriated in the Millennium? What two things are typed by roasting the lamb? Why was it not boiled? What is typed by this? What is typed by not eating the lamb raw? Why cannot the antitypical Lamb be eaten raw or boiled? Why antitypically was it prohibited to eat the Lamb raw or boiled? 

(26) What other two things were to be eaten with the lamb? Of what is leaven a type? Why so? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does the leavened bread type? What does unleavened bread type? What is typed by eating unleavened bread? What does the antitype imply? What is the literal translation of the word rendered bitter herbs? What do Jews use now as the bitters? Of what were they typical? How is this proved by a process of elimination? What is typed by Israel's eating the bitters? By eating the Passover? 

(27) What does v. 9 not charge and what does it charge in its last part? What does this charge type? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? Why must He have been so? What is typed by the charge to leave nothing of the eating of the lamb over until morning? What are the two reasons for this antitype? What will happen to those who do not end their feast before the Millennium? Why should we finish the feast before the Millennium? Is there a contradiction between the two

Deliverance of the Firstborn

229 

charges of v. 9? What helps us to harmonize them? How are they to be harmonized? What is typed by the uneaten parts of the lamb? What considerations will clarify this antitype of the uneaten parts of the lamb? What is typed by burning the parts of the lamb uneaten before morning? What is the reason for the antitype? For what will all the merit of Christ have to be applied in the Millennium? What is a summary of the antitype of burning the uneaten parts of the lamb? 

(28) What does v. 11 describe? How were they to eat the typical Passover? While doing it for what were they to be prepared? What does this type? What are typed by the girded loins, sandaled feet and held staff? Combinedly what do they type? Why is the expression, It is the Lord's Passover, used? What transition does the picture here make? What went on in the first part of this 80 years' night? Before what began to be poured out? When was the middle of this night? What are the dangers to which the antitypical firstborn of Israel are exposed? To what did these dangers arouse the antitypical Israelites? Why will we pass over the first items of v. 12 without comment? Whom do Egypt's rulers type? Of what will the judgment of the antitypical rulers consist? What guarantees this? When will be the judgment part of "the night"? What was the sign for passing over the Israelite's houses and sparing their firstborn. What is its antitype and its effect? What does God do while sparing antitypical Israel's firstborn? How may we be passed over? To what should this prompt us? 

(29) What two things does God command in Ex. 12:14? Throughout what period were they to be kept? What do the original lamb and the night of its feast type? What do the annual Passover and the night of its celebration type? What does the fact that the annual Passover was to be celebrated annually throughout the Jewish Age type? How does the cited passage prove this antitypically? What does the expression, "till He come," not mean? What does it mean? What proves this to be its meaning? What does this consideration overthrow? To whom have the two annual Passovers been feasts? What does this mean? How long was the Passover feast? The Passover festival? What does this seven days' festival type? How long do we celebrate our deliverance? 

Exodus

230 

(30) What was the chief thing in the feast of Nisan 14? The secondary things? What was the main thing throughout the following seven days' festival? Where is this brought out? What is typed by Israel's eating unleavened bread Nisan 14? What is typed by Israel's eating it throughout the seven days following? How does 1 Cor. 5:8 prove this? What does the charge to put leaven away from the houses type? On the first day? What is the ceremony used by the Jews since before Christ's day in putting away leaven from their houses? 

(31) What is not certain as to the origin of this ceremony? What view of it is within the bounds of truth and reason? Why is this so? What does the house here type? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What is typed by the Israelite hunting for leaven? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does the candle giving light type? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What does the fire type? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What is the main quality that destroys the antitypical leaven? The other two main qualities? How do the cited Scriptures prove this of the three? What has the foregoing proved as to the symbology of the ceremony of casting out the leaven? What would we have to say of it, if Divinely arranged, and not recorded in the Bible? Like what would it be in this respect? 

(32) What does v. 15 prescribe as to the penalty for leaving leaven in the house during the Passover festival? How at first sight does this penalty seem? How can its reasonableness be vindicated? What happens to the new creature, if one continually lives after the flesh? How only will it survive? Why did God inflict the death penalty for disobedience to His charge on leaven during the Passover festival? What kind of offenses are not typed by eating of leaven during the Passover? What kind are thereby typed? In summary, why were the typical prohibition and inflicting of its penalty made? What do these reflections make reasonable? What adds to its reasonableness? What is typed by the infliction of the penalty at anytime during the seven days? 

(33) What were there to be on the first and seventh days of the Passover festival? What was not to be done on them? What exception was made? How many antitypes are thereby suggested? Whom does the first concern?

Deliverance of the Firstborn

231 

When? The second? When? What is the first antitype? The second? What facts justify the first application as to antitypical convocations? The second? What indication is implied in these antitypical convocations of the first kind? The second kind? 

(34) What is typed by the charge to avoid all unnecessary work? At what periods was this antitypically more generally taught and practiced than at other times, in both applications? What is not given as to other work in the other five days? Why this, coupled with the prohibition expressed for the two days? When in both antitypes was there more loyalty? When less? Who are some examples in proof of this? In what facts do we find these things exemplified in the first of these applications? In the second? What has resulted from this as to Great Company membership? When do these later reform unto loyalty? How is this typed? 

(35) What is typed by the repetition of the charge to use unleavened bread in the original and annual Passovers? How did this fulfill antitypically? Why were the original and annual feasts deservedly required? How do these considerations apply to the two antitypical feasts? What do these considerations prove? 

(36) What does v. 18 tell? What distinction must be kept in mind to understand this matter? Actually how long did the entire celebration last? On what part of Nisan 14 could only unleavened bread be eaten? What could be done in the rest of it? During what other period could only unleavened bread be eaten? At what times was leavened bread prohibited? How does the antitype clarify these matters as to the 14th? As to the 15th to the 21st? When was leaven put away in the type? Except one item, what do vs. 18-20 do? What is the one item? What does the land of Israel type? The Israelite born in it? The stranger living in it? What did such strangers as are here meant have to undergo, according to vs. 48, 49? Whom do they type? What Scriptures in the first place prove it? How do the other cited ones prove it? What does the passage type as to these two classes eating leaven at the Passover? 

(37) Of what does Ex. 12:1-20 consist? What do vs. 21-25 set forth? Comparing these two Scriptures, how do they differ? What does this not imply as to Moses?

Exodus

232 

Why not? As what did this condensing serve? How do we know that he actually delivered to the elders all of the charges? What is typed by Moses' telling the elders to draw out and take and slay the lamb? Where are the details of the antitype given? What has already been given on almost everything in v. 22? How many items does it contain not hitherto explained? What are they? What does the hyssop type? The basin? What is typed by dipping the hyssop into the blood? Sprinkling the blood on the door posts and lintel? 

(38) What is necessary in order to appreciate the meaning of leaving the house the night of Nisan 14? What does the Israelitish house type? The door? What is typed by its standing between the door posts and lintel? How are we kept related to God's justice and Christ as our door? What does the whole situation picture? What does this do to all members of God's family? How was this typed? What does the antitype imply? 

(39) What happened to an Israelite who left his house that night? What does this type? For new creatures? Youthful Worthies? Tentatively justified ones? What do all of these do with the blood of Christ? The consecrated of them with the blood of the sacrificial covenant? What pertinent exhortations come to us with peculiar force? What does the charge not to leave the house until morning type? When only can we safely give up trusting in the imputed merit? What is our wish in this respect for all concerned? 

(40) Where and in connection with what Scriptures have the thoughts of v. 23 been explained? The thoughts of v. 24? What is meant by the term, "this thing," in v. 24? What proves this? What proves this of the antitype of the annual Passover? To what does the expression, "this thing," not refer? What three things lacking in the annual Passover were present in the original Passover? What are the three parallel lacks in the Lord's Supper as the antitype of the annual Passover? What follows from these considerations as to the expression, "this thing"? What things were to be celebrated in the annual Passover? In our annual Passover? What is also symbolized by eating the bread and drinking the wine, not pictured in Israel's eating the lamb? What does this prove as to the identity of the antitypical Lamb? 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

233 

In what two conditions was Israel to keep the annual Passover? What does this type? What are the two inheritances antitypical of Israel's inheriting the land? Where are they discussed by our Pastor? What is meant by the expression, "this service," in v. 25? What is typed by the charge to keep it? How do the Scriptures prove this? 

(41) How should the last clause of v. 26 be rendered? What do the connection and the question show was desired? What proves that the annual slaying and eating of the lamb was a symbolic service? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What did God desire for the Israelitish children, witnessing and sharing in the annual Paschal service? What does He accordingly do in vs. 26, 27? What does the explanation of the symbolic service, given in v. 27, require us to understand the word is there not to be? To be? What does it therefore mean in v. 27? Where are details to be found on this subject? What should we not say of the word is as used in v. 27? How is it there used? How may this word be used as a predicate? What parallel uses of other words make this reasonable? What three views are held by real-presencists? What mistake in their favor has in controversy been made by those who hold the true view of the bread and wine in their justification feature? How is the word is used in the Lord's Supper? What distinction proves this? Hove is the word is used as a predicate in all explanations of symbolic things? 

(42) Whom do the Israelitish children asking for an explanation of the Passover's service type? What consideration proves that the Lord's Supper is a service symbolic of something else? How did Satan proceed to palm off transubstantiation, consubstantiation and instrumentalization? What is transubstantiation? What sects hold it? What is consubstantiation? What sects hold it? What is instrumentalization? What sects hold it? How can the Truth on the Lord's Supper be easily maintained and refute the real-presencists? What related type and antitype will give a proper basis for the relation between the annual Passover Supper and the Lord's Supper? What answer did God put into the mouths of the Israelitish fathers to their children's pertinent question? Why do we give the word is in the answer the force of represents? Why is the lamb slain in Egypt called the Lord's Passover?

Exodus

234 

What does v. 27 do with the word Passover in this verse? What does it not mean in this verse? Why not? What does this do with the evasion of the real-presencists as to the word Passover in this verse? What was the explanation that God gave Israelitish fathers to give to their children? What fact proves this explanation to be true? What was the primary antitype of God's giving this explanation? Its secondary one? What is typed by the Israelites' responsiveness? 

(43) To what did God, according to Ex. 12:29, finally resort? What did God previously manifest? What will enable us properly to appreciate the meaning of the tenth plague to the Egyptians? What in comparison with the other nine plagues was the character of the tenth? When did it start in type and antitype? What period did the antitypical night cover? When was its midnight? What made it set in? What did the Lord begin to do at the antitypical midnight? What did Egypt's firstborn of man and beast type? When will neither of the antitypes be any more? How was this typically shown? 

(44) What is the change in the expression of the social extremes in Ex. 11:5 and 12:29? What is the real point in the typical contrasts? Is there a contradiction here? Why in Ex. 11:5 was the forecast worded as it was? What at the time of the antitypical forecast did we not understand on this subject now understood by us? What did such lack of understanding prevent? Hence only what forecast as to the firstborn could we then make? 

(45) In giving the typical fulfillment how did God state it? What during the infliction of the antitypical tenth plague are God's people increasingly seeing? What has been in operation since 1917? Who are meant by the expression, "firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon"? Among other Biblical symbols for the Great Company, how are the latter set forth? How does Ps. 107:10, 14, 16 show this? Ps. 79:11? Ps. 102:20, connected with vs. 21, 22? Heb. 2:15? Ps. 69:33? 

(46) Who are meant by the captives, etc., in v. 29? How long have there been crown-losers? When did the Great Company as such come into existence? Since when only can there be "the captive, etc.," class? Who are this captive's firstborn? How does Abihu type these? Jambres, certain ones of these? The sixth slaughter-weapon man,

Deliverance of the Firstborn

235 

certain of these? How do the cited proofs demonstrate these antitypical meanings? What kind of firstborn are they? With what kind of firstborn do they perish? As the antitype of what do they perish? When will all new-creaturely surviving sifters have passed into the Second Death? Under what types are these set forth? Why are they in this fearful condition? How should this affect us? What is meant by burning strange fire before the Lord? What will result from a persistent burning of strange fire before the Lord? Why? How does St. Paul in Heb. 10:31 characterize the effect of this course? What should we learn from the exhortation to Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar in Lev. 10:6, 7? 

(47) What proves that Pharaoh, his officers and the other Egyptians had gone to bed before midnight of Nisan 14, 1615 B. C.? To what did they rise? What does their rising, first, type? Secondly? What partial fulfillment of the great cry has already set in? How does the death of, and mourning for Pius IX illustrate the first of the above thoughts? Their later information the second of the above thoughts? What second set of events illustrates the first of the above thoughts? The second? What third set of things illustrates the same thing? Fourth set of things? What three classes are grieved by these and similar cases? What only have we in this particular so far seen? 

(48) What only has this been? Why has it so far been less impressive than it will yet be? What will make it become more marked? Why? How does Jer. 25:31-38 show this? What will, according to this, happen to all of the new-creature members of the shepherds and principals of the flock who are antitypical Egyptian firstborn? How does Is. 65:11-15 prove this of the firstborn Egyptians among those there mentioned? How does the Jehu picture involve this thought in connection with Jezebel? How does 2 Kings 9:30-37 show this? Rev. 11:9-11? What additionally does this passage show? How does 2 Kings 10, among other things, also imply this? When will most of antitypical Egypt's firstborn be slain? Why? What two Scriptures prove that the antitypical mourning will be great? In what three estates will it be universal? What in the type proves this? 

(49) What does v. 30 show? How was he in opposing Israel's deliverance? What must be the result of resisting

Exodus

236 

Jehovah's commands and purposes? What is the proper course of Jehovah's will? Who learned that resistance to it must come to defeat? What were the characteristics and acts of Pharaoh's surrender? What did he in it concede? What would Israel's leaving with all their belongings bring to Pharaoh? What is the antitype of Pharaoh's surrender? What will cause it? To what all will he yield? What is the antitype of Pharaoh's bidding the departure? Where and in what did it have its start? When? For what acts of the Lord's people? When did it begin in America? Whom did it strike? In what has it continued? When will it come to a head? What is now causing it? What will shortly increasingly cause it? 

(50) What will really be the effect of such persecution and expulsion? Of what are these acts the antitype? Why will their expulsion be a blessing to Satan? What does the severity of the wartime persecution suggest as to the one ahead of us? What verses suggest this? What is suggested antitypically in v. 33? Where and when was this manifest first? Later? In connection with what work? What is to be expected shortly? Among what other Truth people has this been occurring? By what is this typed? What effect on their public ministry will this have? When will the climax of this persecution and expulsion set in? Why? What expressions in v. 33 imply this? What should we not do over this? Why? What is typed by the Egyptian saying, "We be all dead men"? Why do they fear this? 

(51) What does v. 34 show? For what did they not have time? What did the Israelites do, according to v. 34? What will help to an understanding of the antitype? How many goings forth from antitypical Egypt are there? What is the first? How does Col. 1:13 show this? What type implies the first? What is the second? What do God's people do as to v. 34 in both of these deliverances? What shows this? What does the dough type? The kneading troughs? Kneading the dough in the troughs? The wrapping of the dough within the troughs in the Israelites' garments? Carrying them on their shoulders? In what experiences have God's people fulfilled the antitypes? 

(52) What false translation occurs in the A. V. of v. 35? What is the pertinent Hebrew word? What does it mean? What translations give the correct rendering?

Deliverance of the Firstborn

237 

How many times had God previously charged the asking of v. 35? What does the A. V. translation of v. 35 suggest as to God? What evil would this translation lay to God's door? How is the difficulty overcome? What will clarify the whole transaction? On what oriental custom is the story of vs. 35, 36 based? What Scriptural example illustrates it? To what may the custom lead in case of violation? Who always wins such a suit, if he can prove himself faithful? What actually was the refusal of the boon? Why did God charge Israel on this subject? What characteristics did this charge have? Of what objection to the Bible's moral teachings does this custom dispose? 

(53) What has already been done with the main antitypes of vs. 35, 36? In what connections? How do these two passages stand related to vs. 35, 36? How do our expositions of the first and second stand related to that of the third? What do the articles of gold and silver type? How does 1 Cor. 3:12 show this? When have the antitypical gold and silver been extracted? How have the extractions been made? What were the main truths so extracted? What have others of these been? How were they gotten? What truths illustrate this, antithetically set forth by Arminians and Calvinists? How were they extracted and harmonized? What truths illustrate this partly gotten from the Universalists and the Evangelicals? How were they extracted and harmonized? What truths illustrate this partly gotten from the Unitarians and the alleged orthodox churches? How were they extracted and harmonized? In brief, what can be said on this point as to many other teachings of antitypical Egyptians? Along what lines? How did the Truth people "ask" for these? When? What other type illustrates this? On what do the present antitype and that of the asking for the antitypical garments concentrate themselves? What is the usual course in the fulfillments of Biblical types? The exceptional course? As a matter of fact, when was the beginning of the antitypical asking and receiving? What is shown in this respect in the present type? 

(54) What does the asking for the garments represent? Under what circumstances is it usually made? How have the antitypical Egyptians felt and acted toward the antitypical Israelites? What in the latter has occasioned this? How have the former acted out this attitude? In

Exodus

238 

what relations? In what forms have they expressed their attitude? How have the antitypical Israelites made the request? What are the garments? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? What has this antitypical asking gained for the graces? What does their gaining these graces and the latter's development unto perfection antitype? By what do the antitypical Egyptians give them? 

(55) What view of our tribulations from the antitypical Egyptians will help us to desire and gain the typed benefits from them, as well as undergo them in the right spirit? From what will this viewpoint deliver us? What will it give us amid them? In so doing, whose pertinent charge will we be obeying? When did He give it? How did He give us this charge? What do we know as to our requesting the symbolic gold, silver and garments? Our receiving them? In what proportion do we receive them? In what two periods have we been receiving them? In which will the more have come to us? Why? What may we expect as the Epiphany advances? What are we to conclude from these facts? 

(56) What was done as a forecast when Ex. 11:3 was treated? What does this fact effect as to a study here of the first clause of v. 36? What is the proper rendering of the second clause of v. 36? How did the typical Egyptians act toward Israel's asking for parting gifts? Why this? How did the Israelites respond? In what degree? What is the antitype of the Egyptians' encouraging the Israelites to ask parting gifts? What has been moving them thereto? How has this affected antitypical Israel? What did the Israelites' receiving so much do to the Egyptians? What later liberality of the Israelites proves the vast amount of "spoil" they got from the Egyptians? What as to the antitypical Egyptians does this prove the Israelites to have done? How is this the case as to the antitypical Egyptians' minds? What was the exact working of this effect? What other Scripture shows this? 

(57) What else in the antitypical Egyptians was spoiled? After what likeness? By what kind of motives, thoughts, words and acts are their hearts spoiled? How does the process go on? What in the antitypical Israelites arouse these evil qualities to act? In what relations has this been exemplified? What has resulted therefrom to the antitypical Egyptians? Of what do they thereby give evidence? 

Deliverance of the Firstborn

239 

What has resulted from such treatment to the antitypical Israelites? Why? What feeling should we, and what feeling should we not, as a result, cherish toward the antitypical Egyptians? Why so? What lesson should we learn from vs. 35, 36? Why may we expect our requests to be fulfilled? How do they regard us? What should we do Godward for these benefits? 

(58) By what was Israel's exodus taken? What were the three stages of this journey before they were completely out of Egypt? Where did they assemble? What kind of a leaving was this? To what place did they then travel? Whither from there? What are the two leavings of antitypical Egypt? How do they differ? When did the second leaving set in "in" Britain? In America? What does the word Rameses mean? What does it type? What does assembling at Rameses type? From where did the antitypical Israelites assemble to antitypical Rameses? In particular, what is typed by Israel's traveling to Rameses? As what, accordingly, did typical and antitypical Rameses serve? 

(59) What does the word Succoth mean? What does it type? When was the march from antitypical Rameses to antitypical Succoth begun? When did it end for the vanguard? What two notable events mark these two limits? When did the rearguard reach antitypical Rameses? What is typed by the journey to Rameses? To Succoth? What is the antitypical abiding in Rameses? Succoth? What particular trial connections belong to each antitypical place? How long must the antitypical leaving of Succoth go on? What event will not set in until antitypical Succoth will be entirely left? At what date was it begun to be left? Where is not, and where is the journey from Succoth to Etham described? What does it represent? What does the word Etham mean? How does this meaning suggest that antitypical Etham will be reached by Armageddon's fighting? What does Etham type? What is typed by abiding in Etham? How long will the Lord's people remain in antitypical Etham? What is typed by Etham's situation at the edge of the wilderness? What does this wilderness type? The journey through it? Israel's coming to the Red Sea? 

(60) What is typed by the large number of Israelite adult males? The Israelite children? Who were the

Exodus

240 

mixed multitude? Whom do they type? What is typed by the Israelites' flocks and herds? Those of the mixed multitude? What is the distinction between the antitypical mixed multitude and their cattle? What is typed by the great number of Egypt's freedmen in the finished picture? What is typed by Israel's baking unleavened cakes from the dough kneaded in Egypt? What is typed by the cakes not being leavened? What produced these involved typical acts? What is typed by these? Why this result? What is typed by the Israelites' preparing no victuals for their journey? 

(61) Why is the clause, "who dwelt in Egypt," not an explanatory relative clause? Why is it a restrictive relative clause? How was the first part of Israel's sojourning done? The second part? What is typed by the 430 years' sojourning? When did Abraham enter the land? After what date will the antitypical sojourning come to an end? With what event? What in general do these 430 years of sojourning type? According to v. 41, what was the date of Abraham's entrance into the land? When did Israel pack up preparatory to leaving? When did they begin to travel? When not? How is their packing up to be considered, in view of the expression on their observing the night of their departure? What is typed by all the hosts of the Lord leaving Egypt the selfsame day? 

(62) To what does v. 42 call attention? What does the literal translation call that night? How long has it been observed? By whom especially? What are the two antitypical nights? How do they compare with the typical night? How long will they be commemorated? By whom? As what? In whose honor was the typical night, and will the antitypical nights be celebrated? In what two spheres and by what two classes will the antitypical nights be celebrated? Who gave the typical ordinance as to the Passover feasting? As to the antitypical ones? What is the general rule given in v. 43 on who should not eat of the annual lamb? What Hebrew words are used to designate them? What is their real meaning, according to the R. V. and the A. R. V.? What other Hebrew word is, in vs. 48 and 49, translated stranger? Who, then, was prohibited from partaking of the annual lamb? Who, according to v. 47, might partake of it? In particular, who, according to v. 45, were the two classes who might

Deliverance of the Firstborn

241 

not partake of it? According to vs. 44, 48 and 49, what were the three classes who might eat of the annual lamb? 

(63) What kind of a description does v. 48 give as to the non-partakers? What was the hindering thing? What does circumcision type? How do Rom. 2:29 and Col. 2:11-13 show this? Into what three classes are the circumcised divided in vs. 44, 48, 49? Whom does the purchased servant type? The stranger [ger]? Those born in the land? What application of Num. 8:5-22 proves this of the first of these? In what sense antitypically are we to understand the expression, "the servant that is bought for money"? How do the cited Scriptures prove this? Of how many classes did the aliens, or foreigners, consist? How are they described in v. 48? Who are the antitypes of these two classes? How are they symbolized in The Chart of the Ages? What further three classes are to be excluded from the Memorial Supper? What thought implies this? How does it do so? 

(64) Where was each Israelitish family, or each reckoned family, to eat the lamb? What does this type? What was prohibited in this connection? What does leaving the house type? What is typed by carrying the lamb's flesh out of the house? What is typed by breaking a bone of the lamb? What thought suggests this antitype? What does the charge of v. 47, that all Israel should eat of the lamb, imply in the antitype? What is implied in the antitype by the fact that the circumcised stranger had the same paschal privileges as those born in the land? How are we to understand the sameness of the privileges? While the difference was not in these, in whom were the differences toward them? Why? What does the type do as to this difference? To what does not v. 50 refer? To what does it refer? To what does its antitype not refer? To what does it refer? What other verse gives the same thought as v. 51? What do they state? Having explained the antitype already, what do we not need to do with v. 51? 

(65) What do we now begin to study? What have we already done with many things in Ex. 13? How shall we proceed? What does the word sanctify mean? What is typed by God's charging Moses to sanctify the firstborn? How in the type did the firstborn become God's? In the antitype? How many of the firstborn were involved in the type? In the antitype? How did our Lord fulfill the antitype of Moses' sanctifying the firstborn? What three 

Exodus

242 

works of His does this imply? How has He done this? Whose part in the three works is not shown in the type? 

(66) What is typed by Moses' charging Israel to remember Nisan, or Abib, 15 as their deliverance day? What does remembering the antitypical deliverance imply? How in general and in particular did Israel remember their deliverance? How antitypical Israel? In what forms do we do the antitypical remembering? What deserves such remembrance in the type and the antitype? Why? What was one way for Israel to remember the typical deliverance? What was one way for antitypical Israel to do it? What does v. 4 by repetition do? What does this type? What are the earlier and later names for the first month? What do these words mean? What is their typical and antitypical fitness? What does the change of names for the first month not imply? Why not? 

(67) Why is not an explanation of the antitype of v. 5 here given? In what particular does v. 5 differ from Ex. 3:7? Why are five of Canaan's nations likely here mentioned? What does the charge to keep the Passover in Canaan type? Why are not the contents of vs. 6 and 7 here given, type and antitype? What is typed by omitting to mention the first day's convocation and by mentioning the seventh's? What is typed by the Israelite fathers' teaching their sons the significance of the Passover? What are suggested in v. 8? 

(68) What is expressly stated in v. 9? How is this done as to the symbolic thought? What is implied by this fact as to the antitype? What follows from this proof as to the words, "This is My body … My blood"? What other thought of the annual Passover is proven by v. 9? How is this proven by v. 9? What follows from this proof? Why? What follows from this as to transubstantiation, consubstantiation and instrumentalization and as to the Truth view? What in v. 9 is common to vs. 3, 14 and 16? Why these repetitions as to type and antitype? Whose is the glory for our deliverance? What does v. 10 emphasize for the type and the antitype? What proves this emphasis to be made in the antitype? 

(69) Of what do vs. 11-16 treat? How will we treat v. 11? After what likeness? How do the allusions of vs. 5 and 11 differ? What are the similarities and dissimilarities in vs. 2 and 12? What is there not between them? Why not? Why is the statement on males made in v. 12?

Deliverance of the Firstborn

243 

How does the antitype show why this is? How are Heb. 12:23 and 2 Cor. 6:18 to be harmonized as to the latter's use of the word daughters for crown-losers? What bearing has Rom. 8:29 on this thought? Wherein do the distinctions exactly lie that prove that there is no contradiction here? How does the related figure of firstfruits in Jas. 1:18 corroborate this distinction as to the firstborn? 

(70) What was done with the firstborn of clean beasts? What was not done with a firstborn ass? Why not? If its life was to be spared what had to be done? What does a redeemed ass type? The substituted lamb? What happened to the crown of a crown-forfeiter? What antitypical facts are implied in this type? What does the redeemed ass type, and the substituted lamb offered in its stead? From what standpoint is this true? What happened, if the firstborn ass was not redeemed? What does this type? What is typed by the Israelite's being unwilling to redeem the firstborn ass? What does this transaction type? To sum up, what is typed by the unredeemed ass? 

(71) What meaning was not, and what meaning was given to the word redeem in v. 13? If the sense of purchasing had been given it, how would the lamb of v. 13 have to be understood antitypically? Its substitution for the ass? The withholding of a substitutionary lamb? Why were these things not presented as the antitypical teachings of v. 13? How does the antitype of the firstborn Israelite prove this answer? What would be a proper summary of the Truth on this point? 

(72) What answer was to be given the Israelite son asking for an explanation of the firstborn ordinance enacted in Canaan? How many parts did the answer have? What was the first part and its antitypical import? The second part and its import? What were the frontlets? What kind of an expression is the one on frontlets? What did it symbolize? How do the cited passages prove this? What does the expression mean in the type? What is typed by the sons' asking the import of the firstborn service in Canaan and its first answer? Its second answer? 

(73) How many times is God's power exerted in Israel's deliverance, emphasized in Ex. 13? What does this show antitypically? What occasioned the death of the typical and antitypical firstborn of Egypt? What occasioned the ordinance for use in Canaan? What is the antitype?

Exodus

244 

(74) While interspersed with historical records, what is discussed in Ex. 12—3:16? What is taken up unto a completion from v. 17 to Ex. 15:21? What is brought to our attention in v. 17? What moved God to such a course? In what did the mercy consist? What did the forty years' wilderness experience effect in Israel? What is the antitype of these things? How does 1 Cor. 10:13 show this? How is this manifest in present experiences? What character did the experience of our brethren have, especially from 69 to 1799? What more limited, though similar, experience do we now have? How has God been turning our journey? What does this effect in the character of our journey? How did Israel go up from Egypt? What do the Hebrew words chamushim and chameshim mean? How is the former related to the latter? What does this relation suggest as to the battle array of Israel? What does this type? 

(75) Why did Moses take Joseph's bones along? In how many and in what typical senses is Joseph used? Which of these belong to the Gospel-Age picture? What do bones represent? What parallel type suggests this? What do Joseph's bones for the Gospel-Age antitypes represent? Wherein are these antitypes symbolized? What has already been done with some of these? Where will this be done with the rest of them? For whose learning will these be? What does Joseph's forecasting Israel's deliverance from Egypt type? What should we do with antitypical Joseph's bones? Why? 

(76) How did God, generally speaking, go before Israel in their journeys? Particularly speaking? Who was His representative therein? What does this type? How did the Logos not appear to Israel? How did He appear to them? What is the antitype of these? In general, what is represented in the two pillars? In particular, by that of the cloud? By that of fire? How does Ps. 91:5, 6, suggest this? How many symbolic days belong to antitypical Israel? Nights? What especially shines in these days? Nights? How are these things severally typed in vs. 21 and 22? How long, type and antitype, do these pillars accompany God's Israels? Until how long will they not cease? Wherein will details on these pillars be given?