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


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



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



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



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



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



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,



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



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



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



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



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



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



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. 1113) 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



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



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,



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



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.


(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



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



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



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