Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
Father. Reuel's giving Zipporah (bird) to Moses as wife types God's giving Jesus the Church as His Bride (Ps. 45: 10, 11). Gershom (stranger there or refugee, v. 22) types the faithful justified, who have cleaved to the Church. His being born by Zipporah to Moses in Midian represents the fact that by the co-operation of Jesus and the Church a faithful justified class has been developed, while our Lord was away from the earth, the home of the justified, in heaven, a country strange to the human Jesus. It is this combination of facts that makes the name of Gershom typical as just explained.
(19) V. 23 proves that the Pharaoh of the oppression is a different one from the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Of course the death of the former does not type Satan's death; nor does the rise of the latter prove two Satans. We understand the death of the former Pharaoh to type Satan's ceasing to play the role required by a formerly used policy in the rule of his empire, and the rise of the latter to type his appearing in a totally different role in such rulership. Up to 1748 A. D., when the period of the so-called illumination began, Satan had been ruling his empire, in so far as enslaving the race to it is concerned, especially by the following three doctrines: (1) the Divine right of kings (i.e., the kings are God's vicegerents, who do exactly what God wants; therefore God sanctions all their acts, e.g., the divine rightists' maxim, "the king can do no wrong"); (2) the Divine right of the clergy (i.e., the clergy are God's mouthpieces, through whom God speaks to the people; therefore the latter are to believe and practice, without question, what the clergy teach them); and (3) the Divine right of the aristocracy (i.e., it is the Divine good pleasure that the bulk of earth's property and wealth be in the hands of the few—aristocrats—and that the rest of the race is to be subject to these as slaves, serfs or employees, content with what their lords give them of earthly goods). These three doctrines
gave Satan a strangle hold on the race, because through the effects of these three claims on the race he made it to the advantage of the kings, clergy and aristocrats to stand for that which he wanted. Hence, through these three classes he controlled the bulk of the race and controlled these three classes by making it advantageous to them to carry out the policies that he wanted executed. Satan's playing the role of oppressor of the deceived race through these three errors is typed by the Pharaoh of the oppression tyrannizing over Israel. But from the start of the period of the illumination, 1748, Satan stopped playing this role, and, as symbolized by the serpent casting the flood of water out of his mouth to overwhelm the protesting woman (the protesting Church), he started to play another role—that of a light-giver, a Truth-giver, especially the stern truths against the three doctrines of the Divine right. As he so acted he antitypes the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Our readers can read the details on this line of thought in C 65-68, and P '30, 121, pars. 5, 6. Certainly, as up to 1748, Satan played the part of the tyrant over the race through the three doctrines above mentioned, he changed his course as above described from 1748 on. The dropping of the former course is typed by Pharaoh's death; the adopting of the latter course by the rise of the next Pharaoh.
(20) But as the Israelites suffered under both Pharaohs (v. 23), so has mankind suffered under both aspects of Satan's involved policies. Indeed, under the second, with increased enlightenment they have felt their oppression by Satan all the more; hence the greatly increased cries for freedom from the evils of the curse since 1748. The Israelites' cries coming up to God type the race's groaning and travailing appealing to the sympathy of God and His turning His attention to relieve man's suffering under the curse and to deliver him therefrom. The first beginnings of God's exercising relieving influences came in the reformation through individuals during more than 150
years from 1309 onward. This is symbolized by the Well's shaft in the Pyramid reaching the Descending Passage. Next, relieving measures came through the reformation by sects, beginning after the former relief was spent, symbolized by the Descending Passage being horizontal in its last part. The reformation by force through the American and the French revolutions gave still some more relief, symbolized by the widening of the pertinent part of the horizontal part of the Descending Passage. All of this is involved in the antitype of the cries of Israel coming up unto God and God's hearing their groanings (vs. 23, 24), and this phase of the relief came to its climax in the humiliation of the papacy at Napoleon's hands. God's remembering His covenant in the type (v. 24) corresponds in the antitype with God's starting in 1799 to set into motion the increase of knowledge and inventiveness, marking the day of His preparation; for through the effects of these two things He will not only destroy Satan's empire and thus deliver the suffering, oppressed world from his clutches, but through them He also makes the needed preparations for the Kingdom. God's looking upon Israel and inclining sympathetically toward them (v. 25) types God's giving His special attention to suffering, downtrodden mankind from 1799 onward and turning, in sympathy with them in their sufferings at Satan's hands, toward their delivery.
(21) Foregoing part of this chapter was a discussion, type and antitype, of Ex. 1: 6—2: 25. Accordingly, we proceed with Ex. 3. Moses' keeping Jethro's flock until God's revealing Himself to him (v. 1) types our Lord's Gospel-Age shepherdizing of the Lord's people along the lines of Divine wisdom and justice (Jethro) from the end of the Jewish Harvest until sometime during the day of Jehovah's preparation, a little before the Miller movement began (Ex. 4: 14); for this reference shows the Miller movement (1829-1844) to be going on during the later part of the conversation.
Moreover, as the antitypes of the episodes of Ex. 4: 20, 24-26 set in, the first one from 1844 to 1846 and the second one from 1846 to 1874, the conversations between God and Moses type conversations between God and Christ begun long before 1844, as facts later to be brought out will show. Moses' (v. 1) leading the flock to the back side of the wilderness, i.e., to the southern, and thus the lower end of the plateau of Sinai's Peninsula, types our Lord's bringing God's people into the part of the day of preparation preceding the beginning of the Miller movement in 1829. Moses' (v. 1) leading them to the mountain of God, Horeb (desert), types Jesus' leading God's people to the time and activities of the Miller movement, 1829-1844, when Second Advent and Kingdom matters (the mount of God, Horeb, desert) were not yet due to set in, but were very much discussed as about to set in, their disappointed expectations proving it to be yet a part of their desert journey.
(22) The Angel of the Lord (v. 2) was our Lord in His prehuman existence as God's special Messenger (Acts 7: 30, 35, 38). Had another than our Lord been meant, the expression would have been: an angel of the Lord (Luke 1: 11, 19). In this and the next chapter He spoke as God's mouth, in the first person, and thus types Jehovah. The burning bush types the Church in affliction. Its not being consumed by the fire amid which it was types the Church being preserved amid its persecutions, sufferings and trials. The Angel of the Lord appearing to Moses in the burning bush types Jehovah manifesting Himself to our Lord amid His suffering Church, in which, as His Temple, He dwelt by His Spirit (Eph. 2: 19-22). Moses' first viewing these phenomena types our Lord's contemplating between 1799 and 1829 the Church in her sufferings, trials and persecutions, as facts seen, but not as things detailedly considered at that period, which the next verse describes with a fuller view.
(23) Moses' (v. 3) turning aside to examine the marvel being enacted before his eyes types our Lord's giving, sometime before 1829, more diligent heed to the Church's sufferings as not consuming her. As the type was a great sight (v. 3), the antitype was even a greater sight; for it is truly marvelous that the Church's sufferings did not destroy, but rather preserved her. "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." The incident testifies to close powers of observation in the typical and antitypical Moses. The whole conversation following in the antitype is more or less an explanation from Jehovah to our Lord as to the Church's preservation and development amid her sufferings, trials and persecution. God's calling (v. 4) to attract Moses' attention types Jehovah's calling to Christ to attract His attention. Repeating Moses' name, serving as an emphasis, types the great emphasis that God made in His arousing Jesus' attention. And certainly, dear brethren, the conversation between God and Moses set forth in this and the next chapter is marvelous to contemplate typically, and especially antitypically; for antitypically it sets forth an extended conversation between God and Christ from just before 1829 to 1844, wherein God gave Him instructions as to how to proceed in delivering the Church and the world from Satan's empire and slavery. Nothing approaching to its dimensions as a conversation between them is anywhere else in the Word typically or factually set forth. Surely, as we enter into a study of it, it behooves us antitypically to take off our shoes; for the ground whereon we stand in such a study is holy. Moses' answer (v. 4) to the call ("Here am I") types our Lord's readiness to be at the attention and service of Jehovah. Therein both of them give us a very fine example for our imitation.
(24) God's telling Moses (v. 5) to take off his shepherd sandals, preparatory to his getting the revelation on Israel's deliverance from Pharaoh's empire, types Jehovah's telling His Son to change from His
shepherd conduct (feet and their coverings standing for conduct in Biblical symbols), so far exercised by Him, preparatory to His getting the revelation on the deliverance of the Church and the World from Satan's empire, to conduct conforming to such an executive activity. The prohibition of Moses drawing near before this was done types God's charging our Lord not to enter the revelatory sphere of overthrowing Satan's empire and delivering God's people until He had set into operation another set of qualities than those belonging to His shepherdizing work. The necessity of this course for Moses and our Lord is apparent. The ground where Moses stood being holy types the fact that the sphere into which our Lord's ministry was bringing Him was severed from that of the former part of His ministry and was dedicated to God for a wholly different purpose and work. There is also in the prohibition, "draw not nigh hither,' the thought of a reverential attitude required toward God in the new sphere of work from Moses and Jesus, calling upon each to remember God's supremacy and their subordination to Him, with consequent deference and reverence toward Him from Them. The statement (v. 6), "I am the God of thy father," is an allusion to Amram as typing God as the Father of Jesus, the antitype here of Moses. God's statement to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, being an allusion to the Oath-bound Covenant in its Israelitish aspects, types God's reminding Jesus that He is the Maker of the Oath-bound Covenant in its fuller aspects. That patriarchal covenant's being the ground for God's delivering their descendants from Egypt types its fuller implications' being the ground for God's delivering the real actual seed and prospective seed from symbolic Egypt. Abraham here as the covenant receiver typing God, especially in His love, Isaac typing Christ as the covenant receiver and Jacob typing the Church as the covenant receiver, suggest God and the, Seed, Head and Body, as the
promises' receivers, for and by whom the nations of the earth are to be blessed. Thus God in His wisdom, justice and power reveals Himself here to the typical and antitypical Moses as the One who will fulfill the Covenant to God as love and His special Seed in the interests of all. Moses' reverentially turning his head so as not to look toward God types our Lord's deep reverence that made Him not steadfastly behold God while the Latter was making Himself known to Christ as the Fulfiller of the promises of the Oath-bound Covenant.
(25) God's emphatically seeing (v. 7) Israel's affliction in Egypt as that of His people types the certain sympathetic cognizance on God's part of the affliction of antitypical Israel as His people in symbolic Egypt, the present evil world. His hearing their cries due to the taskmasters' oppression types His sympathetic understanding of the outcries of antitypical Israel at the exactions and cruelties of sin, error and death. And His appreciating (knowing) their sorrows types His sympathetic appreciation of His people's sorrows under the curse. Here, both in the type and the antitype, the great mind and heart of God are opened to the typical and antitypical Moses, in God's knowledge of, and sympathy with His afflicted people. Surely, as to both Israels, "in all their affliction He was afflicted," and, therefore, planned to send the typical and antitypical messengers of His favor to deliver them (Is. 63: 9). The expression, "I go down [the literal translation, v. 8] to deliver them," showing Moses that God was setting into operation through Moses a series of acts that would result in Israel's deliverance from the power of the Egyptians, types God's statement to Jesus that He was by the preparation for, and actuality of Jesus' Second Advent setting into operation a series of acts and events that would result in the deliverance of God's people from the power of Satan and his servants. God's use of the present tense shows that He was already engaging is the pertinent
work, as His revealing Himself to Moses, type and antitype, in the events under consideration, and as the past activities of Jehovah's day of preparation prove.
(26) Not only did God start the typical and antitypical work of deliverance by commissioning the deliverer in each case to deliver His people from the respective Egyptians and Egypts, but also commissioned them to bring His people to typical and antitypical Canaan (v. 8). Canaan types the domain of the Truth and of the Spirit of the Truth, first in the present life of conflict, and later in the future life of unending bliss and holiness. Its being inhabited by others than Israelites, as in the type, represents that aspect of the domain of the Truth and its Spirit, as being down-trodden, as well as possessed, by various evils in the form of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness. The six nations here mentioned, six being the number of complete evil and imperfection, type the fulness of evil. When the seven nations of Canaan are mentioned (the Girgashites are here omitted; Josh. 3: 10; 24: 11) we may understand the seven primary disgraces to be meant, embracing within themselves all the disgraces, as the opposites of the seven higher primary graces, which embrace within themselves all the other graces, as well as the errors that these disgraces produce and promote. However, in spite of these intruders, both Canaans are good and abundant lands, the typical one in secular respects, the antitypical one in physical, mental, artistic, moral and religious respects: the abundant (flowing) milk of the former typing the abundance of the Truth, and its honey typing the abundance of the joys and other rewards of the Truth in this life and in the life to come. In type and antitype the goodly and large land would become that of God's people by right of promise of its Donor and of conquest in His name. During the Gospel Age the faithful elect battle for this domain of Truth and its, Spirit and will inherit it everlastingly after the conquest on the Spirit plane in heaven; while
in the Millennial Age the non-elect will battle for it, and the faithful therein will at the end of the Little Season inherit it on the human plane in the new earth.
(27) V. 9 is an emphatic repetition of the things expressed in the type and antitype of v. 7 (as well as in Ex. 2: 23-25), which repetition God made in both the type and the antitype to emphasize His attitude on the promises and to impress upon the typical and antitypical Messengers that attitude. God's encouraging Moses (v. 10) in view of Israel's sufferings to accept the commission from God to go to Pharaoh as His ambassador and to bring forth His people, Israel, from Egypt types God's encouraging Christ, in view of mankind's suffering, to come in the Second Advent with the commission from God to go to Satan as His Ambassador and to bring forth God's antitypical people from the present evil world. Moses' humble answer (v. 11), so unlike in spirit to those who rush in where angels fear to tread, types our Lord's humility that shrank back from undertaking the Second Advent commission to be God's Ambassador to Satan's empire and to deliver God's people from the empire of darkness. This attitude on our Lord's part is all the more striking, because He as Logos had already been Lucifer's superior and was since His resurrection, ascension and glorification very much more his superior. In His case it would have been entirely proper at God's suggestion without further ado to have accepted promptly God's pertinent offer. Humility is certainly a jewel; and here in our Lord it shines with brightest luster. The humility that in the days of His flesh He wove into His character did not forsake Him in His glorified condition. Surely He is therein an example to us at this time to abase ourselves as well as a dissuasion from the course of power-grasping among God's people! God's sure promise (v. 12) to be with Moses in the mission, implying His favor, support, cooperation and direction, types God's sure promise to be with Christ in the mission, implying His
favor, support, cooperation and direction. As the proof (sign and seal) that Moses' commission was from God would be the success that he would achieve after delivering Israel from Egypt, in that he would bring Israel to serve God at Sinai; so God gave Jesus, as a promissory proof that His commission was from God, the assurance of success therein, in that, after delivering God's people from Satan's empire, He would through the Kingdom bring God's people into an everlasting service of God in perfect righteousness.
(28) Moses' inquiry as to what name for God he should give the inquiring Israelites does not have reference to God's appellation; for God was known by the appellation, Jehovah, by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; yea, before the flood the people called Him by that appellation; hence God could not have meant in Ex. 6: 3 by the name, Jehovah, His appellation. As we have shown in these columns, the word name, among other things, also means: (a) character (Ex. 33: 18, 19; 34: 5-7, 14; Ps. 34: 3; 91: 14; 111: 9); and (b) nature (Ps. 83: 18; 99: 3; Is. 42: 8; 62: 2; 63: 16; Rev. 2: 12). In God's answer (v. 14), "I am who I am," and, "I am," an appellation is not given, but His character and nature are indicated. It is from a varying form of the verb here translated, "I am," that God's appellation which we now pronounce Jehovah is derived. The pronunciation Jehovah for God's appellation is not correct. God's appellation very likely should be pronounced Yahveh. Out of a false reverence the elders and scribes refused to pronounce God's name; and whenever they and their disciples came to this word they used instead of it the word adonay (Lord). As a reminder not to pronounce the name they added to the consonants of this word J-h-v-h, the vowels of the word adonay, whence we get the pronunciation Jehovah. Thus deliberately, out of a false reverence, the right way of pronouncing God's appellation was lost. Of course, the Hebrew words translated, I am who I am, and, I am, do not give us
God's appellation; for these words in Hebrew are: ehyeh asher eheh, and ehyeh. They suggest God's character and nature; i.e., they indicate certain of His attributes of character and being.
(29) The expression, I am who I am, is a Hebrew idiom that repeats the main verb used in the sentence, and means: I am whoever I please to be. We will quote a few examples of this Hebrew idiomatic repetition of the main verb such as occurs here; and these will make this form of idiom plain: "Send by the hand of him whom Thou wilt send" (Ex. 4: 13), i.e., send by the hand of him whomever Thou wilt choose, or be pleased to choose. Again, "They went whithersoever they went" (1 Sam. 23: 13), i.e., they went whithersoever they chose, or pleased. Again, "Seeing I go whither I go" (2 Sam. 15: 20), i.e., Seeing I go whither I choose, or please. Still another, "Sojourn where thou wilt sojourn" (2 Kings 8: 1), i.e., Sojourn where thou choosest, or pleasest. The repetition of the verb as it occurs in the above four examples is illustrative of its use in Ex. 3: 14, which accordingly means the following: I am whoever I please to be. The expression, "I am," in the last clause of: v. 14, refers to God's attributes of being; and the expression, "I am whoever I choose, or please to be," in the first clause of v. 14, refers to His attributes of character. V. 14 therefore expresses, so far as attributes of being are concerned, God's self-existence, eternity, immortality, supremacy, absoluteness, independence; etc., and, so far as attributes of character are concerned, God's wisdom, justice, love and power; for these form the character that He chooses to act out, or is pleased with acting out.
(30) Therefore Moses' question in v. 13 types our Lord's question on what He should declare to God's people as to what God's attributes of being and character are. And, certainly, during the Parousia and Epiphany He has had such questions to answer, which He has done in the Towers, Volumes, Booklets, Tracts,
Sermons, THE TRUTH, The Herald and the Epiphany Studies In The Scriptures. Moses' being charged (v. 15) to declare that Israel's Covenant God had sent him with such a declaration of His attributes of being and character, as His eternally for the remembrance of all generations, types God's charging our Lord, through the exhibition of the eternal purpose of God—the Plan—in the Covenant, to declare His attributes of being' and character, as His eternally for the remembrance of all generations, which He has done during the Parousia and Epiphany through the spread of the Truth as due; for the chief manifestation made by the Parousia and Epiphany Truth is God's holy character and wonderful person. And these subjects as questions have been uppermost in the minds of God's people, which facts Jesus knew and hence His question, typed by the question of v. 13.
(31) In v. 15 God's appellation, Yahveh, occurs in its regular form. As such it is derived from the verb havah, which occurs in all only nine times in the Hebrew Old Testament, as a variation of the regular form hayah of the verb to be, which occurs thousands of times in the Hebrew Old Testament. In v. 14 the Hebrew expressions quoted above in par. 28 are from regular form hayah. In the form Yahveh the word means, He is, i.e., it is in the third person, while the expressions in v. 14 are put into the first person, "I am who I am," and, "I am." This is because God is there the speaker and speaks of Himself in His attributes of being and character. It is, of course, as proper for God to designate Himself in the first person as it is for us to designate Him in the third person, though He ordinarily uses the form of the third person when speaking of Himself. God's speaking of Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has the same typical and antitypical significance in v. 15 as in v. 6 explained above. God's again charging Moses to refer to his commission from God when speaking to Israel serves for emphasis and types God's repeated
emphasis to our Lord to refer to Himself through His Laodicean Messenger during His Second Advent when speaking to God's people as God's Messenger to them. God's telling Moses to assure Israel of His attributes of being and character as eternal and as things for all generations to remember types God's telling Jesus to represent to antitypical Israel His attributes of being and character as eternal and for the remembrance of all generations.
(32) God's charge (v. 16) to Moses to gather first the elders of Israel (see Ex. 4: 29 and 30, first part) types God's charge to Jesus in His Second-Advent work first to make the Truth on His mission clear to the leaders among God's people; afterward it was to be made clear to the people (Ex. 4: 30, second part). Again, the reference to God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has the same typical significance as in vs. 6 and 15. The charge to Moses to assure the elders, as representatives of Israel, of God's sympathetically viewing them and the things done to them in Egypt, and that for the encouragement of the elders and through them of the people, types God's charge to Jesus to assure in His star-members in His Second Advent the leaders, as representatives of God's people, of God's sympathetically viewing them and the things done to them in the present evil world, and that for the encouragement of the leaders and through them of God's people. The thoughts of v. 17, in type and antitype, are like those given in v. 8, but are here repeated as a message to be given to the elders and people. God's assuring Moses that the elders and people would accept his message types God's assurance that the leaders of God's people, as well as God's people themselves, would believe the message on the deliverance of the Church and world from Satan's empire. Ex. 4: 31 shows the fulfilment of this prophecy in the type; and the facts since 1874 prove it in the antitype. The charge given in vs. 16, 17, and prophetically promised in the first part of v. 18 as to be fulfilled, implies in the antitype
the private work done among the Lord's people on the pertinent subjects from 1874 onward; and the charge to Moses and the elders to appear before Pharaoh was antitypically fulfilled by the public work of Jesus and the leaders of God's people since 1874. Thus both the work toward the brethren and the work toward the public from 1874 onward are set forth typically in vs. 16-18 as commanded by God. Thus the public message in the Truth magazines, volumes, booklets, tracts, sermons, lectures, conversations, etc., was addressed also to Satan as the antitype of Pharaoh.
(33) The contents of the message to Pharaoh, type and antitype, are set -forth in the second part of v. 18. Jehovah's being spoken of as, "Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews," which connects them with Abraham, the Hebrew [he who has come over, i.e., Abram came from east of the Euphrates and Jordan], and thus with Isaac and Jacob, being a less than ordinarily clear allusion to the Oath-bound Covenant, types how in the public work the message on the deliverance of the Church and the world from Satan's empire was given as coming from God as the Maker and prospective Fulfiller of that Covenant, though less clearly than given to the Lord's people as such, even as this course is the natural and proper one in the circumstance. The statement that He had met with Moses and the elders types the public teachings on God's having commissioned Christ and the leaders of God's people to speak for Him as Jehovah, the Covenant God of His people. Thus, after referring to their authorization they were to tell Jehovah's request, both in the type and antitype. It will be noted that the request was to be politely worded, both in type and antitype—"we beseech thee." And, true enough, both in the type and antitype the request was at first made politely and without any threats—the latter coming, both in type and antitype, only after the typical and antitypical Pharaoh insolently refused the request, upbraided its agents and increased the oppression of God's people (Ex. 5:1-23).
The heart of the request was, "let us go," "let My release us as God's people from your oppression and your domain. Their being commissioned to ask to go a three days' journey types Christ and the leaders of God's people during the Parousia and Epiphany being commissioned to ask permission to perform a symbolic journey from Satan's empire to the Kingdom conditions fully prevailing. The three days of the type represent (1) the Gospel Day in that part of it covering the Parousia and Epiphany, (2) the Millennial Day, and (3) the Day—Age—following the Millennium, in that part of it called the Little Season.
(34) Among the Hebrews the expression, three days, does not usually mean three periods each of 24 full hours, but usually any length of time that will touch three days each of 24 hours. Thus Christ's being spoken of as being in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights does not mean a period of 72 hours, but a period of time touching, but not entirely covering the Friday, Saturday and Sunday in which He was in the heart of the earth. As a matter of fact, He was there from 18 to 21 hours less than 72 hours, i.e., from His capture in Gethsemane to His resurrection. But just so the three days and nights were touched by the actual time involved, it would according to Hebrew idiom be properly expressed by the term, three days and three nights. Just so is it in the case of the three days under consideration. The antitypical journey—the course of the consecrated life—was therefore (1) during the period of the Gospel Age's end covering the years from 1874 until the Little Flock, Great Company and Youthful Worthies actually leave Satan's empire and its bondage and be ready for their part of the Kingdom, forever serving Jehovah, and during which the world will actually be delivered from Satan's empire and bondage, but not yet from their effects, and will arrive at the Kingdom's readiness to rule over them for deliverance from such effects; (2) during the time of
blotting out the curse as the race ascends the highway of holiness to perfection; and (3) during the Little Season when by consecrating to Jehovah directly, and when by carrying it out faithfully amid the final trial of that period the antitypical Israelites will perform the sacrifice typed as a prophetic request in v. 18.
(35) The journey is called typically a wilderness one, because in each of its three parts it—consecration—implies separation from Satan's empire in fact and spirit. The commission to request permission to sacrifice at the end of the journey on the third day types Jehovah's charge to Christ that He and the leaders of God's people during the Second Advent present in public ministries the request that God's people be permitted to take such a course as will bring all of them to an entirely consecrated life faithfully carried out, which will be completed in all of them by the time of the Little Season's end. The request antitypically was not made by words, but by the act of preaching the message with the heart desiring the preached deliverance. It will be noticed that some complete such a course in the first of these days—the Little Flock and Great Company; some, as far as their humanity is concerned—the Ancient Worthies and Youthful Worthies—during and that early in the second; and, as far as the latters' new creatures are concerned, and in their humanity all, some reckonedly, the rest actually, during the third. The expression, three days, therefore, does not mean that none really sacrifice to God until the third day, but that by that time all of them will do so, i.e., the matter is presented from the standpoint of the completed picture, as often is the Biblical usage.
(36) God's stating (v. 19) to Moses that He knew that Pharaoh would not let the people go except under the compulsion of mighty power types God's foretelling to Jesus from before 1829 to 1844 that Satan would not let God's people go unless forced thereto by power Divine. God's telling (v. 20) Moses that He would exercise His power and smite Egypt with many wonders
that He would there perform—the ten plagues, as well as others of Moses' and Aaron's acts, e.g., their encounter with Jannes and Jambres—types God's telling our Lord of His using many wonders in the present evil world—the three woes, the seven last plagues and other encounters of Jesus and the Church with false teachers in and out of the Truth. In both the type and the antitype the pertinent acts would liberate God's people (v. 20). The promise (v. 21) that God would grant favor to the people with the Egyptians so that at their exodus they would not go out empty of earthly jewels and raiment types God's promise that He would so favorably work matters for His people with the servants of Satan that at their exodus they would not go out empty of antitypical jewels and raiment, as we will shortly see.
(37) God's foretelling to Moses that every housewife would ask of her Egyptian neighboress and from any Egyptian woman sojourning in such a neighboress' house jewels of silver and gold and raiment types God's foretelling to Jesus that the Truth and its servants [each Israelite house representing the household of faith (F 460, par. 2), the wife (Is. 54) typing Jehovah's symbolic wife, the Truth and its servants] by their character, work and attitude would get from the nominal church [neighboress] and its sojourning women [denominations] Divine truths [jewels of silver and gold (1 Cor. 3: 12-15)], extracted from their creeds and graces [garments] extracted from their pertinent experiences with these symbolic women. God's foretelling to Moses that the Israelite mothers would put these upon their sons and daughters types how God foretold to Christ that the Truth and its servants would by their teachings, examples, etc., adorn those whom they would mother—the sons standing for the Parousia and Epiphany consecrated and the daughters standing for those becoming God's people in the next Age but now showing friendliness to the Truth—sons of the prophets. God's foretelling
to Moses that the Israelites would thus spoil the Egyptians types how God foretold to Christ that by the above-described course, the Truth and its servants would despoil Satan's servants of the Divine Truth and good qualities that they would have, leaving them their errors and faults. Twice again in the Exodus history is this matter referred to (11: 2; 12: 35, 36), once as a charge and once as a historical act. We will treat these details under Ex. 12: 35, 36.
(38) We now begin the discussion of Ex. 4. The translation (v. 1): they will not believe me; they will not hearken; they will say, the Lord was not manifested to thee, evidently does not fit in this connection, though in itself it is grammatically correct enough. It is also, grammatically, just as correct to use the word may instead of the word will. The reason the word may fits better here is because we cannot imagine our Lord, after God's assurance that spiritual Israel would respond favorably (Ex. 3: 18), telling Jehovah that they would not do so. The word may suggests the possibility of their doubting until given sufficient proof, when they would believe; and, as such was actually the case, the word may evidently is the proper translation in this instance, in view of the connection, this translation also casting a more favorable light on Moses, who should not be supposed to contradict the Lord, unless expressly said to do so. God's answer show that both in type and antitype the messenger desired to be furnished with such strong credentials as to convince the people of the Divinity of His mission, otherwise they could with some reason doubt. Hence we suggest that the word may be used as the auxiliary of the three involved verbs, instead of the word will.
(39) It will be noted that God in response gave three signs. At the end of the first and second signs God said that if the Israelites would not believe at the first sign, the second would be given, and that if that would not convince them, the third would be given, which would convince. This reiterated purpose of the
signs further confirms the thought that the word may is to be supplied as the auxiliary instead of the word will with the involved verbs of v. 1. When we look at the antitype we find that some were convinced by the voice of the first sign, but others were not; of these latter some were convinced by the voice of the second sign and others were not; and the rest of the unconvinced were persuaded by the voice of the third. This was also true in the type, as implied in the wording of v. 8: "If they will not believe thee, nor harken to the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the latter sign." It will be unnecessary for us to interpret vs. 2-9, because our Pastor has given us an interpretation of the voice of the three signs so beautifully and detailedly as to make it a superfluous work on our part to give it as briefly as our space would dictate it to be given, if it were here given. Please read it in Z '07, 276-281. A brief summary of it is given in the comments on Ex. 4: 2-9, which may also be read with profit. Please note again the reference to the Abrahamic Covenant in v. 5, which is the seventh made to it from Ex. 2: 24 on to the end of chapter 4.
(40) As Moses' humility (v. 10) furnished him a reason for thinking himself unsuitable for the mission, based on three facts—his lack of eloquence, i.e., his not being an orator, his difficulty (incorrectly rendered slow) in utterance, and his difficulty in thinking (tongue in the sense of teaching, thought); so our Lord's humility in Bro. Russell, who was the star-member especially used for the deliverance of antitypical Israel, who, especially at first, lacked pertinent attainments of education, oratory, speech and thought, and who at first pushed others ahead of himself in the work, furnished Him a reason for regarding Himself in Bro. Russell anticipatorily unfit to undertake the mission. Additionally, based upon three facts, made such by His being a Spirit being—His lack of facility as a Spirit to be an orator to men, His difficulty in speaking to men and His difficulty, in thinking out, of
Himself, Divine things for men. The expression translated heretofore in Hebrew, as can be seen in the margin, is, since yesterday, nor since the third day. Stephen's saying that Moses was learned and also mighty in word and deed (Acts 7: 22) shows that before his flight Moses' condition was not that described in v. 10; he had evidently become so from the time of his escape from Egypt and flight into Midian. Hence as a human being our Lord did not have the three handicaps typed in this verse. Moses' "third day" was probably the period of his escape from Pharaoh and flight to Midian, corresponding to the time of our Lord's resurrection and ascension experiences. Moses' "yesterday" was probably the period of his stay in Midian previous to the Lord's appearing to him, corresponding to our Lord's time of stay in heaven from Pentecost to 1799; and the time of God's appearance to Moses ("since Thou hast spoken to Thy servant") corresponds to the early part of the day of preparation, perhaps up to 1844. During these three periods our Lord as a Spirit being had the three handicaps as to intercourse with humans typically referred to in this verse; hence He needed star-member mouthpieces during these three periods.
(41) God's answer to Moses, reminding him by a question and answer of His power to give eloquence, speechlessness or deafness, sight or blindness, types Jehovah's answer to Jesus, that He had all the power needed to qualify Him in Bro. Russell for the mission or to disqualify Him in him therefrom. God's promise to Moses that He would give him the needed utterances and thoughts (v. 11) types God's assurance to Jesus that He would give Him in Bro. Russell the words to say and the thoughts to utter. This statement proves that even in His glorified condition Jesus does not understand the hitherto unrevealed things until God lets them go out of His secret keeping power (Acts 1: 7; Rev. 1: 1); which He showed to be the case also while He was in the flesh (Mark 13: 32).