Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
on the first nine plagues. All that we here need say on the first plague is that it is neither in type nor in antitype the third sign given to convince Israel; for that sign was worked by Aaron almost immediately on his and Moses' arrival in Egypt, and that in private only before Israel (Ex. 4: 30), while the first plague was worked on all Egyptians, and that in a public manner. We make this remark because the more or less similarity between the third sign and the first plague should not lead us to identify them, even as we should not identify the first sign, turning the rod into a serpent, with Aaron's encounter with the Egyptian magicians, though they are of course similar; for the first, like the second and third signs, was given to convince Israelites alone, while the encounter with the Egyptian sorcerers (Ex. 7: 8-13) was to controvert Pharaoh. The reason that we make the above remark is so that our readers will not identify the two by getting the thought that our Pastor, by explaining the third sign as applying to the Truth, given through the tract service by the volunteers, as becoming bloody, repulsive, to the Egyptians, and by holding that the first typical plague was fulfilled by the refutative Truth given in Volume II, identified both (Rev. 16: 3). This last remark will show that the numerical order of the woes and plagues of Revelation is not the same as that of the ten plagues as recorded in Exodus.
(36) In Ex. 7: 1-7 Jehovah gives further powers, encouragement and instruction to Moses for himself and for Aaron, to qualify them for their enlarged work, typical of His giving Jesus and the Church further powers, encouragement and instruction for the enlarged work into which they were to enter in September, 1881, and in which they were to continue as the Parousia and Epiphany would advance. Hitherto Moses had not been given more power than Pharaoh. Indeed he had exercised power inferior to Pharaoh's hitherto. But in his being empowered to be a god to Pharaoh (v. 1), he was given power both superior to
Pharaoh's and over Pharaoh; and Aaron was to share in this enlargement of power, inasmuch as he was to be the mouthpiece (v. 1) of one greatly enlarged in power. So, antitypically, from October, 1874, to September, 1881, our Lord did not in His pertinent works use more power than Satan. Up to that time, like His type Moses, His exercise of power adversely to Satan, in respect to mankind's enslavement and deliverance, had been limited almost exclusively to moral suasion—a thing that was comparatively influenceless so far as Pharaoh's and Satan's courses were concerned, who accordingly despised and spurned it. But Jehovah changed this matter from 1881 onward; for in that year He began to use our Lord to exercise a power superior to Satan's and over him. Already He had received this increase of power, though not immediately exercising it toward Satan (Ex. 6: 10-13, 2830). Indeed God had cast out hints to this effect already in 1878, seeing that Christ is God's arm (Is. 53: 1; Ex. 6: 1, 6). But it was not until September, 1881, that this added power began to be exercised by our Lord against and over Satan. The charge (v. 2) to Moses to speak all which Jehovah commanded him implied that He was to do this to Aaron as His mouthpiece, who should then declare it to Pharaoh and Israel, as the case would require (v. 2). The thing that Aaron was to say to Pharaoh was a charge, no longer a request deferrable to Pharaoh's whims, that Pharaoh should send Israel away from Egypt. So, antitypically, the charge to Jesus was that He should make known everything that the Father revealed to Him on the matter of the Church's and the world's deliverance from Satan's tyranny and empire; but He was to do all this speaking privately to the Church, which in turn through the public work would make it known to Satan. And the thing that the Church would say was to be, not a request meekly presented to Satan and dependent on his whim as to whether he would comply, but a demand backed by such a degree of
Divine power as to force its granting. This demand was to release God's people from the oppression and tyranny of the curse.
(37) God's statement to Moses (v. 3) that He would harden Pharaoh's heart, as effected by God's kindness in releasing plague after plague on Pharaoh's request, backed by a promise to release Israel, has already been explained. Here the result of the hardening is set forth: "And I will increase My signs and wonders in the land of Egypt." So, antitypically, Jehovah by 1881 assured Jesus that by His kindness in setting aside plague after plague, on Satan's request; accompanied by promises to release antitypical Israel, He would harden Satan's heart. Jehovah assured Jesus that Satan's dishonest and dishonorable course therein would result in only more severe plagues coming upon him and his servants. Jehovah's statement to Moses (v. 4), that Pharaoh would not obey and that He would lay His hand on Egypt and bring forth His hosts, His people, the children of Israel, from Egypt with great punishments upon it, types Jehovah's telling our Lord that Satan would not obey the demand, and that consequently Jehovah would use Christ as His power exercised on Egypt so forcibly in punishing judgments as to work the deliverance of God's army, His people, even antitypical Israel, from Satan's empire. God's assuring Moses (v. 5) that His exercised power in such judgments would teach the Egyptians to recognize Him as Jehovah, the self-existent God of perfect character, types Jehovah's assuring our Lord by 1881 that God's power exercised by Christ in such punishments as Jehovah intended to send to the servants of Satan would force them to recognize Jehovah as the self-existent One, perfect in wisdom, power, justice and love. Moses' and Aaron's doing what the Lord commanded them (v. 6) types Jesus' and the Church's keeping the antitypical charge in the public work connected with the circulation of Food For Thinking Christians, of which 1,400,000 copies were
distributed in Tower and booklet form among English-speaking peoples, usually through their delivery at Protestant church doors to the congregations as they left after the Sunday morning or evening services, by telegram delivery boys (Z '16, 174, par. 14). Two brothers furnished the $40,000.00 needed to publish and circulate it. Of this that Servant gave $35,000.00, hearing which, the other brother, chagrined at being so much outdone in liberality, shortly afterward left the Truth movement. Of course, pilgrim lectures, elder teaching, correspondence and conversations further shared in this public work. The private work among the brethren was in the private circulation of Food For Thinking Christians and Tabernacle Shadows, reinforced by the other methods just stated. The chronological statements of v. 7 are intended to show antitypically that Jesus was perfectly mature for His work from 1881 on and that Aaron was so only in a progressive and not complete sense, reckonedly only, 80 years, the double of 40 years, the period of perfect trial and approval of the Faithful, and the 83 years, not a perfect double of 40 years, suggesting these two lines of thought.
(38) Vs. 8 and 9 contain a further charge by God to Moses and Aaron as to what they should do when they would appear before Pharaoh and he would demand a sign as a credential of their ambassadorship from Jehovah. Moses was to tell Aaron to cast his rod down and it would become a tanin, not a nachash. Nachash means serpent and is the word used in Ex. 4: 3; and this change of the rod into a serpent was performed by Aaron in his performing the first of the three signs before Israel (Ex. 4: 30), as charged by Jehovah in Ex. 4: 1-5. But in v. 9 the rod was changed into a tanin. The plural of this word (taninim) is mistranslated whales in Gen. 1: 21. Rotherham translates it sea-serpent; and Young translates it monster. It is the Bible word used to cover the whole aggregation of monstrous animals of the earth
before man's advent on earth, like the dinosaur, diplodocus, stegosaurus, megantisaurus, gigantisaurus, and immense land or water lizards, crocodiles and serpents and amphibians, etc. The most general term applicable to them is reptile, though the one mainly used in the A. V. is dragon. Rationalists a hundred and a hundred and fifty years ago ridiculed the Bible for mentioning dragons. They, strutting about in their imagined superior wisdom, alleged that these were mere myths, conjured up by the childish imagination of primitive man, which they, the heroes of the Illumination, had out-grown. But now the spade of the geologist and the archeologist has dug up many of these monsters from earth's strata, and one of them (the gigantisaurus, shown in the Photo Drama of Creation) measures about 165 feet in length. Dragon or reptile, perhaps in the sense of a crocodile, is likely the right translation in Ex. 7: 9, 10, 12. But if a serpent is here meant, it was not a small but a very large one, larger than a large boa constrictor; for such like only were included among the prehuman taninim. The other Biblical occurrences of the word tanin are Gen. 1: 21; Ezek. 29: 3; 32: 2; Deut. 32: 33; Ps. 91: 13; Jer. 51: 34; Neh. 2:13; Job 7:12; Ps. 74:13; 148: 7; Is. 27: 1; 51: 9. In a number of these references it applies figuratively to Satan, as this is the case with its corresponding Greek word drachon, in several of the Revelation uses of this Greek word, which also is used there of the civil power, especially Rome. The civil power is also meant in Ps. 91: 13. This usage is true, because the civil powers referred to in these passages have been devilish as Satan's tools. The crocodile is more than likely meant by tanin in vs. 9, 10, 12, because it was especially sacred to the Egyptians as divine, i.e., really Satanic, like Satan, sin and evil. On this account what would likely have been more disconcerting and convincing to Pharaoh than for Aaron to change his rod into a crocodile?
(39) Antitypically the charge meant that Jesus and the Aaron class, when required by Satan through his mouthpieces to give convincing credentials for their being Divine messengers, were to set forth the Truth on why evil (which came from, and is like Satan, the dragon) was permitted. This required the Church to exercise her power as teacher (rod), which, so exercised, gave the true explanation. The explanation given for mankind's evil in general was that evil was permitted in order to educate the race by experience as to the exceeding sinfulness of sin and the terribleness of its effects, so that the reverse experience with good may teach the reverse lesson as to righteousness, both these experiences being calculated to turn men against sin and in favor of righteousness; and for the Church's evil was, (1) sacrificial; (2) destructive of bad; and (3) constructive of good qualities. This charge was fulfilled antitypically (v. 10) by the public circulation of the booklet, Food For Thinking Christians, and pertinent public lectures, correspondences and conversations. Privately the Lord's people got the benefit of it through that booklet and the booklet, Tabernacle Shadows, as well as by pilgrim lectures, elders' lessons, letters and conversations. Pharaoh's (v. 11) calling his wise men and his sorcerers types Satan's gathering his learned and error-teaching leaders, as his mouthpieces, to present refutations on the same subject. The magicians, Jannes and Jambres, casting down their rods type learned and error-teaching leaders offering false or insufficient explanations on the subject. Aaron's tanin swallowing their taninim types how the Church's explanation of the subject completely refuted those of the antitypical magicians. The only real effect that was accomplished, type and antitype, by this scene, so far as the typical and antitypical Pharaohs were concerned, was to harden their hearts, a proof that Truth and error both exercise a hardening effect on a wicked, self-centered heart and mind. In type and antitype God forecast this effect.
(40) Moses is silent on the names of those Israelites who curried favor with Pharaoh as against Moses and Aaron on this occasion, as he is also silent as to their nationality being Israelitish. But St. Paul supplies these two lacks, by naming and, in so doing, giving them Hebrew names, as suggesting their Israelitish nationality; for influential Egyptians would not bear names of slaves' language (2 Tim. 3: 8, 9). This account is another proof that the account of Israel's enslavement and deliverance has a Parousia and Epiphany fulfilment: Jannes (he deceives) being used to set forth the Parousia spiritual Israelitish apostate errorists, currying favor with what is really Satan on the subject; and Jambres (he revolutionizes) being used to set forth the Epiphany spiritual Israelitish apostate errorists, currying favor with what is really Satan on the subject. Our Pastor applied these two sorcerers as types of apostate Truth teaching leaders and apostate nominal-church teaching leaders. In his time it was not due to see the Epiphany feature; hence he never called attention to it. But St. Paul, by the plural, last days, the Parousia Day and the Epiphany Day, points out both, and the fulfillments prove both. We see the same phenomena in part in Nadab and Abihu, in offering strange fire, and in Moses and Aaron, in smiting the rock. Nadab represents Truth leaders of the Jewish Harvest and the Parousia who later presented error before the Lord, i.e., to the Church. Abihu types Truth leaders of the times between the Harvests and of the Epiphany who later presented error before the Lord, i.e., to the Church. Moses' smiting the rock the first time represents new-creature leaders in the Jewish Harvest and in the Parousia renouncing the ransom; and his smiting the rock the second time represents such new-creature leaders in the Jewish Harvest and in the Parousia renouncing the Church's share in the sin-offering; while Aaron represents such like persons doing these two things between the two Harvests and in the Epiphany.
The Jannes and Jambres picture, more restricted in time, since it is exclusively Parousiac and Epiphaniac, is wider than the related Moses and Aaron picture; for the latter's teachings have been with reference only to why God has permitted the sufferings of Head and Body throughout the Age, denying their sin sacrificial character, while the Jannes and Jambres picture not only includes these two errors at the end of the Age, but errors on why evil is permitted among all other classes connected with God's plan. The Nadab and Abihu picture, as to persons represents only Truth leaders who later became false teachers in the Church, and thus before Jehovah; and so far as the extent of their errors is concerned, they cover a wider ground than the other two groups, whose errors cover in the Moses and Aaron picture the question of why evil afflicts the Christ, and in the Jannes and Jambres picture the question of why evils afflict all classes; but in the Nadab and Abihu picture not only the foregoing phases of the question of the permission of evil, but all other errors taught among God's people, are included, as typed by Lev. 10: 1-7 for the whole Age, and by Ex. 6: 23 for the Parousia and Epiphany.
(41) It will be recalled that it was stated that there would be omitted in this chapter a discussion of Ex. 7: 14—10: 20, which contains the history of the first eight plagues, because we believe it to be the Lord's will for us to omit a close consideration of these until we come to a discussion of the first two woes and the seven last plagues of Revelation, when, as treating of the same subjects, we will study them. Our intention to discuss the tenth plague is due to two considerations: (1) unlike his course with the first nine plagues and their equivalents in Revelation, our Pastor has given us considerable on the tenth plague; and (2) though announcing the third woe, which is the same as the tenth plague, as coming shortly after the end of the second woe (Rev. 11: 14), the book of Revelation does not expressly, describe it by name, though it describes the
events that inflict it without calling them the third woe; and on this part of the book our Pastor gave us not a few thoughts. These considerations move us, therefore, to omit for the present a study of Ex. 7: 14—10: 20 and to take up anew our study of Israel's enslavement and deliverance with Ex. 10: 21, where the events following the eighth plague are begun to be presented.
(42) Darkness (Ex. 10: 21-23) was the ninth plague, which corresponds to the fifth of the seven last plagues of Revelation, as the reference to darkness in each case proves (Rev. 16: 10, 11). It will from this and several other cases be noted that the time order of the presentation of the ten plagues, and the three woes and seven last plagues is not in most cases the same. We believe the reason for this difference, so far as the time order of the seven last plagues and their equivalents among the ten plagues is concerned, is this: The seven last plagues give the time order in which the seven volumes would appear, parts of whose contents consisted of plaguesome thoughts, while the numerical order of the corresponding plagues in Egypt gives the time order in which the plaguing thoughts first began to make themselves felt, whether expressed in or apart from the seven volumes. Thus anti-trinitarianism, the main thought of Vol. V, began to make itself felt late in the Harvest (as pictured in the ninth Egyptian plague), when for the first time it began to be presented to the public, e.g., in the B.S.M., Emperor Constantine was Trinity Maker (B.S.M., Vol. 6, No. 4, i.e., April, 1914). Vol. 7 made the mistake of making most of the seven plagues of Revelation correspond in the time of their outpouring with the numerical order of certain ones among the ten plagues in Egypt, but in some cases made no parallel between these two sets of plagues, where it should have been made.
(43) A page out of experience as clarifying the reason for the difference in the order among most of the ten plagues in Egypt and the order of the seven last
plagues as given in Rev. 16 is as follows: In the early spring of 1904, while we were spending a month at the Bible House at Allegheny preparatory to our entering the pilgrim work, we had many talks with our Pastor. Among others he offered us some suggestions as warnings against mistaken ways of presenting Truth as against error. He said that he never before the public used the expressions, trinity and immortality of the soul, in refuting those doctrines, because if he would so do, he knew that he would array the prejudices of church members against his efforts to help them. He said he would speak in favor of there being but one God and against there being more than one, that God could not be His own Father and at the same time be His own Son, and that a father and son could not be of the same age, etc. Then, instead of his expressly by name denying the doctrine of the soul's immortality, he would refute the idea that the dead were alive and conscious and prove that they were dead and unconscious. And, he added, by such methods he would, without raising the antagonisms of convincible orthodox hearers, give them the Truth, which in due time displaced the errors masking under the names of trinity and immortality of the soul. We profited by these suggestions, never expressly by name using the pertinent terms when, in our pilgrim work, refuting in public the errors involved in those terms. This suggestion of his also prompted us in the matter of antitypical Gideon's Second Battle to advise the brethren not to fight the term, immortality of the soul, but to refute the doctrine of the consciousness of the dead; and the understanding of the type also showed us the same thing as to one of the two things that should be attacked: Zalmunna—shade, or rest denied. It was, therefore, the Pastor's course on the subjects of the trinity and the soul's immortality, so far as public treatment of them was concerned, until quite late in the Harvest, to avoid attacking the trinitarian and human immortality doctrines in express term. But his later
open use of these terms in refuting their errors resulted in the plaguing of antitypical Egyptians, in the ninth plague, which came in the soul's immortality in 1911 (see B.S.M., Vol. 3, No. 4) and in the trinity early in 1914 (see B.S.M., Vol. 6, No. 4), though the fifth vial was poured out in 1899. Mr. Edison's remarks on the soul's immortality became the occasion of the former B.S.M. and the latter discussed Constantine as Trinity Maker. Thus from these examples it can be seen how the ten plagues of Egypt give the time order in which the plagues began to make themselves felt, while the time order of the seven last plagues corresponds to the time order in which they were poured out, regardless of when they began to make themselves felt. These explanations are offered as a transitional thought from Ex. 10: 20 to Ex. 10: 21, with which we take up the subject anew.
(44) The stubborn Pharaoh, reeling under the impacts of the first nine plagues, finally offered a compromise to Moses (see v. 24). This types Satan's being beaten into willingness to compromise matters with our Lord. As Pharaoh was willing to let all the Israelites go and serve the Lord ("Go ye … your little ones also"), but desired to keep back for himself all that they needed (the flocks and herds) for sacrifice; so Satan, beginning to offer the compromise, just after April, 1911, was willing to let all new creatures, even the most immature ("ye … your little ones") go free, only he wanted their humanity ("flocks" and "herds") left under his control. Both typical and antitypical Pharaoh wanted to make a compromise on the matter in dispute, viz., Israel's being permitted to go away into freedom from slavery and to serve the Lord, but being required to leave behind, in Pharaoh's control, the things indispensable to sacrifice. This compromise, however, was a dishonest subterfuge, because in type and antitype it nullified the proposal to serve Jehovah; for in the type the sacrifices required parts of the flocks and herds, and in the antitype the humanity
of the new creatures; for neither the humanity of the fleshly Israelites nor the new creatures of the spiritual Israelites could be sacrificed acceptably to Jehovah. Hence no real offer of freedom to serve the Lord was made in either case. This, then, reveals the dishonesty back of the proposals of both Pharaohs. From this incident we should thoroughly learn that there always lurks something deceitful in every proposal of Satan, and that his offers of compromise always in the end are calculated to leave him in full control, though at first their appearances seem fair enough on the surface. Neither of the Pharaohs had the right to offer the pertinent proposals, because the flocks and herds belonged to the Israelites, not to Pharaoh, and the humanity of the new creatures under God belonged to the new creatures, not to Satan, the oppressor.
(45) As in the cases of the previous conversations between Pharaoh and Moses, conversations between Satan and Christ are not typed, so in the antitypes of vs. 24-26 there were no conversations between Satan and our Lord. Here, too, the proverb holds, Actions speak louder than words. Hence by the various pertinent acts of Satan and the counter-pertinent acts of our Lord the conversation of Pharaoh and Moses recorded in vs. 24-26 was antityped. The antitypical ninth plague began to work just before April, 1911, when the intensified public work set in, and that largely against eternal torment and the soul's immortality, and later was increased by attacks on trinitarianism—the second and third of these subjects being the main plaguing subjects of Vol. 5—reinforced by the restitution message. Satan answered this antitypical ninth plague by creating a set of conditions conducive to slackness in carrying out of consecration and inimical to the making of new consecrations. This he did by ceasing for a while to place special obstacles in the way of consecration and by providing many diversions from consecrated living. We had as a rule less direct opposition to our public work during the twelfth hour than
during any of the other hours of the Harvest day. This favored indulgence in the flesh. Then with the ever increasing numbers coming into the Truth—largely of the Lot-and-his-two-daughters classes, a social— "fellowship"—spirit, as distinct from the sacrificial spirit, began to spread among the brethren under Satanic manipulation, which thing was calculated further to work against consecration. Then, too, he created worldly conditions—increase of opportunities of indulging in riches, pleasure, ease, etc.—which further tended to slacken the spirit of consecration. By his doing such things he made his offer of compromise to our Lord—antitypical of Pharaoh's offer of compromise to Moses as it is set forth in v. 24.
(46) Nor was this the first offer of compromise that Satan has ever made. Indeed, it is a favorite method that he has used from time immemorial in order to work out his ends. This can be seen, e.g., from the way he has given papacy its great power; for papacy's power grew step by step, first in the ecclesiastical, then in the political domain, through a continual encroachment on others' power by an ever continued series of agreements, based on bargaining, dickering. Modern diplomacy very largely has to do with such bargaining, dickering; and it was the papacy that introduced diplomacy. In ancient times it was not the custom of nations to have permanent embassies at the courts of the kings of other nations. Ancient Roman and Greek ambassadors would be sent out on a short mission to treat of one or two or three questions, which being disposed of, they would return to their own country; and only when other questions of interest would arise would another ambassador be sent out to negotiate on them. With the papacy matters went differently. Being on the alert to grasp continually for more ecclesiastical and civil power, the papacy sent out nuncios to various countries, where they would remain often for years and where they were to spy out conditions and use all opportunities to further papacy's ever growing
powers. Papacy was too shrewd to attempt to grasp for all power at one stroke. It gradually, and that largely by diplomatic compromises, increased its powers, never surrendering any once gained, and using each gain as a stepping-stone by diplomatic compromise to attain more gains, until it gradually drew to itself the supremacy, first in the ecclesiastical, then later in the civil domain. It was by this course that the papacy first invented, then made perpetual the art of diplomacy. And now through the accumulated experiences of nearly 17 centuries of diplomacy the papacy has at its beck and call the shrewdest diplomats—compromisers—in the world. Thus papacy fulfilled in part Dan. 8: 25 on its making its policy prosper by craft.
(47) Pharaoh's proposal was rejected by Moses (vs. 25, 26), typing our Lord's rejecting Satan's offer by his pertinent acts to compromise on the matter of consecration. Moses' positiveness ("Thou must give us, etc."; "Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind," vs. 25, 26) in refusing Pharaoh's offer to compromise types our Lord's positiveness in refusing to compromise in the matter. If Satan was shrewd in offering a compromise that actually would take back with one hand what had been offered by the other, our Lord was too wise to agree to compromise in the question in the slightest degree; for He saw through Satan's purpose in offering the compromise. Notice how Moses' refusal to compromise developed in greater positiveness as he continued to express the thought: "Thou must give us sacrifices and burnt offerings … our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind." This types our Lord's growing positiveness, by his acts, in rejecting Satan's offer to compromise in the premises. The herds were required by Israel because from them were to be taken the bullocks typical of our Lord's sacrifice. Satan's offer of compromise on their antitype involves the thoughts that the Ransom teachings and the resultant works of Christ on our behalf and our relations
to that sacrifice be left in Satan's power. The flocks were required by Israel for sacrifices typical of the Church's sacrifice. Satan's offer of compromise on the antitypes involves the thought that he would control the consecration and the consequent sacrificial acts of the Church. Of course, to concede to such a proposal would make useless the Ransom and the Church's share in the sin-offering; and, of course, such a compromise would have annulled Christ's whole Second-Advent work. Hence He rejected it with a positiveness that left no room to Satan for further argument on that line of thought and action. But the particular thing that Satan aimed at by his offer was the destruction of both the elective and grace-free features of God's plan; for if the elective feature of the plan, centering in the Christ, would go by the board, as the setting aside of the Ransom and the Sin-offerings would make it do, the free-grace feature of that plan would also go by the board. Moses' refusal to permit himself and Israel to be put into a position in which he and they might not be able to sacrifice ("thereof we must take to serve the Lord; and we know not with what we must serve the Lord until we come thither") types our Lord's not allowing Himself or Spiritual Israel to be put into positions that might prevent them from serving the Lord with their consecrated humanity.
(48) Having seen the acts and conditions whereby Satan made the offer to compromise the matter of Spiritual Israel's deliverance, we now desire to set forth the acts and conditions whereby the Lord Jesus made His answer. Of course, as above indicated, His answer was not made by words spoken directly to Satan, but by counteractive acts. And this was done by His occasioning an added emphasis to be given to the nature and requirements of Christ's and the Church's consecration, by the teachers of the Truth— the Lord's people, especially our Pastor, the pilgrims and elders. E.g., our Pastor's sermons of that time, 1911-1914, as they are given in the B.S.M. show the
great stress that then was laid on the nature and requirement of entire consecration, as the following subjects therein treated will show: A Holy [consecrated] Nation Pictured (Vol. 3, No. 6, June, 1911); Your Reasonable Service (Vol. 3, No. 7); Christ's Sacrifice Ignored (Vol. 3, No. 8); Love Not the World (Vol. 3, No. 10); Character Of Love Required Of Heavenly Aspirants, and, Ransom and Atonement (Vol. 3, No. 12); Saner Views On Baptism (Vol. 3, No. 13); Greatest Thing In the Universe, and, Making a Covenant With the Lord (Vol. 4, No. 2); Lovers Of Pleasure More Than Lovers Of God, and Faithfulness, The Great Character Test (Vol. 4, No. 5); Unfit for the Kingdom (Vol. 4, No. 6); Counting the Cost (Vol. 4, No. 8); Decline Of Faith and Godliness (Vol. 4, No. 9); Christ Died for Sinners, and, Fiery Experiences Necessary (Vol. 4, No. 11); Faith Salvation and Works (Vol. 4, No. 12); One Redeemer For World's Sin (Vol. 5, No. 6); The Best of Crowns and What They Cost (Vol. 5, No. 7); What Is Baptism? (Vol. 5, No. 9); So Run That Ye May Obtain, and, Laborers Together With God (Vol. 5, No. 12); Winning Christ—Losing All Else (Vol. 6, No. 1); Our Duty Toward The Truth (Vol. 6, No. 1); Why Jesus Died For Sinners, and, Good Seed In Good Soil (Vol. 6, No. 3); Sin Atonement (Vol. 6, No. 6). Thus did our Lord answer through our Pastor in the B.S.M. of the pertinent years Satan's offer of compromise.
(49) Certainly the pilgrims' talks of that period prove the same thing. We might on this point instance the courses of four lectures given by seven groups of four pilgrims in each group during 1913, called the serial lectures or meetings. These groups covered practically the whole country. The first lecturer of each group opened the series by a talk on Beyond The Grave. A week later the second one spoke on The Resurrection Of The Dead. The third one a week later spoke on Thy Kingdom Come; and the fourth a week later closed the series by a talk on Cross Bearing
—Consecration, made and carried out. And this, be it remembered, was not in parlor, but in public meetings; for very seldom before this period would the pilgrims in public meetings talk on consecration. Of course in parlor meetings the pilgrims and elders during that time spoke on consecration, even as at all other times. Thus, as the facts of this and the preceding paragraph show, at that period, 1911 to 1914, there was special emphasis placed on consecration before the public, which is the way our Lord made His answer, positively and emphatically refusing to compromise with Satan on the matter of sacrifice and sacrificing—on consecration and on the carrying out of consecration. In so doing He acted out the antitype of Ex. 10: 25, 26.
(50) God's kindness in removing the ninth plague hardened Pharaoh's heart (v. 27), as His kindness at Pharaoh's requests, accompanied with the offers to let Israel go, if the requests were granted, occasioned the hardening of Pharaoh's heart at the end of each of the first eight plagues. But in addition to God's kindness in removing the ninth plague occasioning the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, we believe that Moses' refusal to compromise with Pharaoh on the matter of leaving Israel's flocks and herds with Pharaoh, if the people would be liberated, also contributed to the heart-hardening of Pharaoh after the ninth plague. A selfish and stubborn heart like Pharaoh's would be just the kind to become more stubborn, if a selfish and designing compromise wrung out of it by punishments should be rejected, as was the case in the present instance. Antitypically our Lord's refusal to accept the offer of compromise made by Satan made Satan all the more stubborn and bent on having his own way. He, therefore, strove all the more to keep Spiritual Israel in his control, by multiplying temptations, sins and sufferings for God's people from the time of our Lord's first refusal acts onward until they were completed and the tenth plague began to make itself felt for awhile.
(51) Unable to effect any compromise at all, Pharaoh resorted to threats (v. 28). The following is
the literal translation of Pharaoh's threat and Moses' reply: "And Pharaoh said unto him, Go away from me; take care for thyself; do not cause [thyself] again to see my face; for in the day of thy seeing my face thou shalt die. And Moses said, Thou didst say so; I will not again cause [myself] to see thy face any more." It will be noted that Moses did not say that he would not again see Pharaoh; for he did later see him again. By this remark we do not refer to Moses' conversation with Pharaoh as recorded in Ex. 11; for that chapter gives an account of the continuation of the interview between the two begun in Ex. 10: 24; but we refer to their last meeting, which was sought by Pharaoh and not by Moses, as recorded in Ex. 12: 31, 32. What Moses said, as indicated by the grammatical form of the verb used by him, was that he would not seek (cause [myself] again to see thy face) another interview with Pharaoh. And he kept his word. The tenth plague forced Pharaoh, contrary to his threat to kill Moses, if he would again set his eyes on Pharaoh, to ask Moses to come to see him again, without Moses' seeking it; and Moses went, not as a petitioner, but as God's agent to receive Pharaoh's unconditional surrender to God's demand for Israel relief. At their final meeting Moses said not a word; for he received Pharaoh's surrender in silence. Mark the difference between the brazen effrontery and boasting of Pharaoh's first response to Moses (Ex. 5: 2) and the abject servility and abasement of his last remarks to Moses (Ex. 12: 31, 32). Such must be the outcome with all who stoutly resist God's will and counsel. So let all Thy wilful enemies be abased, O Lord!
(52) What is the antitype of Pharaoh's threat? Of course the threat in the antitype was not verbally made. As in all the cases of the conversations between Pharaoh and Moses, the antitypes were fulfilled by acts, not by words. There must, therefore, have been certain acts performed by Satan conveying a threat of cutting off from a continuance in a public ministry shortly after it would commence, if such a public
ministry were again entered into by our Lord through His people. The ninth plague began to make itself felt shortly before April, 1911; for the sermon on the immortality of the soul that began that plague, and that appeared in the April, 1911, B.S.M. was preached and published in the newspapers shortly before that date and then subsequently published (i.e., April, 1911) in the B.S.M. Satan thereupon began to make his offer of compromise; for Jesus began to reject it in the June, 1911, B.S.M., in the sermon on The Holy Nation Pictured, as shown above. To make this thought clear we desire to remind our readers of a difference between the time succession in the enacting of serial types and in the enacting of their antitypes. In a type that runs through a series of acts each act in the series must be completed before its successor act begins. E.g., Elijah and Elisha had to cross Jordan before they began to converse beyond Jordan, as Elijah had to smite Jordan before they crossed it. But in the antitype, the pertinent acts covering periods of time, at times during that period antitypical Elijah could be smiting and at other times during that period he and antitypical Elisha could be crossing the Jordan and at still other times during that period they could be walking and talking beyond Jordan, as we have shown in P '32, 127, (23). The beginnings of the antitypical acts usually come in the same order as that given for the typical acts.
(53) So in this antitype, the darkness began shortly before April, 1911, and its last distinct feature set in with the preaching and publishing (in the newspapers) of the sermon, Emperor Constantine was The Trinity Maker, which was a little later published in the April, 1914, B.S.M., exactly three full years later than the beginning of the darkness, antitypical of the three full days of darkness (v. 22). Some time during the three days Pharaoh made his offer to Moses typical of Satan's compromising offer. The latter was begun quite shortly after the immortality sermon was published, because in B.S.M., Vol. 3, No. 6 (June, 1911), two months later, Jesus, in the sermon on The Holy Nation
Pictured, began to give His refusal to the offer of compromise. And, sure enough, but shortly afterward the threat of Satan was begun, about the middle of Sept., 1911 (B.S.M., Vol. 3, No. 11), in the Brooklyn Eagle's libeling our dear Pastor, which reached a climax in their cartoon published Sept. 23, 1911. Of course, this threat continued antitypically until Nov., 1916. Hence all of the persecutions, oppositions, misrepresentations and slanders brought against God's people between 1911 and 1916, calculated to annul their continuing new phases of public work that they might purpose to enter, are the antitypes of Pharaoh's threat to kill Moses if he would seek another interview with him. These four antitypes (the three years' darkness, Satan's offer of compromise, Jesus' rejection of it and Satan's threat) prove that serial antitypes do not, like types, have to wait for preceding ones to be completed before they can begin. It is important to keep this principle in mind with antitypes in general and with those under study in particular, if we are clearly to see their serial relationship to one another.
(54) Moses' answer (v. 29), "So didst thou speak," is equivalent to the expression, Yes, I agree. This is confirmed by what he added, "I will cause [myself] to see thy face again no more." Above we have shown the truthfulness of this statement, especially in harmonizing it with Pharaoh's and Moses' final interview, if Pharaoh's speaking and Moses not answering may be called an interview (Ex. 12: 31, 32). It, therefore, remains for us to show the antitypical answer given by our Lord to Satan's threat. The answer of our Lord was made, not by words, but by His not instituting public meetings with new lines of thought after He would finish with those typed by the rest of this same interview with Pharaoh, which rest of this same interview is given in Ex. 11: 4-8. Briefly, we would say that what Moses said in Ex. 11:4-8, as a continuance of his conversation with Pharaoh begun in Ex. 10: 24, Ex. 11: 1-3 being a parenthetical repetition