Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
LEPROSY—TYPE AND ANTITYPE.
LEPROSY'S TWO TYPICAL SIGNIFICANCES. BRINGING THE LEPER TO THE PRIEST. SYMPTOMS OF LEPROSY. JUDGING. SIX FORMS OF LEPROSY. FIRST FORM, TYPICAL OF SIN. SECOND FORM, TYPICAL OF SELFISHNESS. THIRD FORM, TYPICAL OF WORLDLINESS. FOURTH FORM, TYPICAL OF ERROR. GENERAL PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO ALL FOUR FORMS. FIFTH FORM, TYPICAL OF POWER-GRASPING AND LORDING. SIXTH FORM, TYPICAL OF SECTARIANISM. BEREAN QUESTIONS.
IN THIS chapter it is purposed to study the details on leprosy as these are given in Lev. 13 and 14. Leprosy is one of the most dreaded of diseases, not the least dreadful feature of which is its almost incurableness. It is largely an Asiatic disease, though it is sometimes found outside of Asia. When it covered the entire person it typed the Adamic depravity (Lev. 13: 12, 13), but when it covered but part of the body it typed Great Company uncleanness. Apart from vs. 12, 13, Lev. 13 and 14 treat of leprosy as being only in parts of the body, or of a garment, or of a house. We could not understand why one entirely covered by leprosy should be counted clean from the standpoint of Lev. 13 and 14 and one be counted unclean, if he had leprosy only in a part of his person, unless the Lord intended to bring out two kinds of leprosy in the antitype, one in the type having it universally being considered as typing a person or class having a different kind of antitypical leprosy from that typed by one who had it only in parts of his body. As we look at the specific kinds of leprosy mentioned in Lev. 13 and 14, apart from the case mentioned in Lev. 13: 12, 13, we find that they always refer to specifically located forms of it: the swelling (Lev. 13: 9-11, 14-17), the boil (vs. 18-23), the fevered spot (vs. 24-28), leprosy in the head (vs. 29-44), leprosy in a garment (vs. 47-59) and leprosy
in a house (Lev. 14: 33-53). While leprosy covering the whole body fittingly types the Adamic corruption, which depraves all men in every one of their faculties and qualities, a localized form of leprosy would not represent such a condition as is common to all men. It must type the uncleanness that is localized in one class. This class, for various reasons that will come out as we proceed with our study, is the Great Company. Hence, localized leprosy types Great Company uncleanness.
(2) Leprous Miriam (Num. 12) is the classic type of the Great Company in their uncleanness. As unleprous Aaron in Num. 12 types faultfinding, busybodying Little Flock members feebly interfering with and contradicting Jesus as He speaks through His special mouthpieces, so leprous Miriam represents faultfinding and busybodying Great Company members grossly interfering with and contradicting Jesus as He speaks through His special mouthpieces. Her becoming leprous represents how such Great Company members become unclean in doctrine (1 Tim. 1: 19, 20) and life (1 Cor. 5: 1-4), as her being driven without the camp represents the disfellowshipment that falls to the lot of the unclean Great Company (1 Tim. 1: 20; 1 Cor. 5: 5, 9-13). Naaman, the Syrian (2 Kings 5), is a type of radical Society leaders in 1919, 1920. Gehazi and his house made leprous (2 Kings 5: 27) type J.F.R. and his special supporters as having Great Company uncleanness put upon them perpetually. Uzziah (2 Chro. 26: 19-23) types J.F.R. becoming manifest as in Great Company uncleanness in 1917 in connection with his busybodying as the executive of a corporation in a certain priestly work in England. Please see Vol. III, Chapter VI, for details of the antitypes of Naaman's and Gehazi's leprosy. Uzziah's we will discuss sometime later. We merely cite them here as types of Great Company uncleanness. While these cases will help us to see that localized
leprosy types Great Company uncleanness, the specific proofs will appear as we give the details of Lev. 13 and 14. With these generalities given we are ready to take up the details of these chapters.
(3) Jehovah speaking to Moses and Aaron (v. 1), types God in the Gospel Age, especially in the Jewish and Gospel Harvests, and more particularly in the Epiphany, speaking to Jesus, as His Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for Spiritual Israel (Moses) and as the Church's High Priest (Aaron). V. 2 gives some symptoms that may indicate leprosy, though they do not necessarily do so, as the sequel shows. However, they were sufficient to arouse the fear that their possessors might have leprosy. Hence the charge that the person with these symptoms be brought to Aaron or to one of his sons. As only generalities are given on these symptoms in vs. 2-8 and the details are given from v. 9 onward, we will not here explain the antitypes of the rising (swelling), scab or bright spot, but will leave them for discussion when we come to the details; for as we proceed we will see that vs. 2-8 give a general, not specific discussion of leprosy. Aaron here types our Lord as our High Priest. Bringing the leprosy-suspect to Aaron represents bringing to our Lord as High Priest as He acts through His special eye, mouth and hand, one suspected of Great Company uncleanness for investigation of the case. That the leprosy here typed cannot mean the Adamic depravity is evident from the fact that there is no need of an investigation as to whether one has it or not, since all men have it by heredity, and all priests are fully aware of this fact. Hence the suspected leprosy here types suspected Great Company uncleanness, which must be investigated in order to determine whether Great Company uncleanness is present or not. Here, then, is our first specific reason for claiming that, apart from that of vs. 12, 13, the leprosy of Lev. 13 and 14 types Great Company uncleanness. A
second reason is this: We do not bring to the Priesthood Adamic depravity for an investigation of its presence or absence, since the Priesthood's work is now, in the Gospel Age, not specifically with the Adamic sin, but with God's people and only exceptionally with the sins of God's people, in so far as they deal with sin as priests. How is the antitypical bringing done? By the Lord's people opposing the uncleanness of the Great Company, i.e., opposing their revolutionistic teachings and practices. So do we bring such to the antitypical Aaron or to one of the antitypical priests.
(4) Some details on the antitype are necessary to be given here, if it is to be properly understood. How are such antitypical lepers brought by us now to our High Priest's notice for investigation? Certainly not to Him as such to investigate; for He knows the case before any of us suspect it; for He knew when each crown-loser lost his crown, which in all cases happened before October, 1914. How, then, are they brought to Him for investigation? We answer: They are brought to Him for investigation as He acts through His special eye, mouth and hand. That this is true we can see from the case presented in 1 Cor. 5—the Corinthian brother who, marrying his stepmother, became guilty of incest. The Lord Jesus knew of this incest as it was committed, and knew of the involved willfulness as it was being exercised. But His special eye, mouth and hand on that occasion, Paul, did not know the details; and as he therein acted as Jesus' eye, mouth and hand (in the name of our Lord Jesus, with the power of our Lord Jesus—v. 4), he had to investigate the case in order to pronounce a proper decision on it. Hence we understand that Aaron here types our Lord as He acts in His special eye, mouth and hand. Since inspiration ceased, Jesus did not act through an eye, mouth and hand for such purposes until the Epiphany, for it required Inspiration
to know who belonged to the Great Company, before God began to deal with it as with a class during the Epiphany. Hence to bring a Great Company suspect to the antitypical Aaron now means for such a one to be brought to the investigating and judgment-pronouncing activity of our Lord as He acts through the Epiphany messenger. No other individual as such is used by our Lord for such activity.
(5) But one may object, Does not v. 2 say that the suspect may be brought to an under-priest? We answer, Yes. But that under-priest does not type an individual priest, which would have been the case had his name been given as typing an individual in the end of the Age. But as no name is given he does not type an individual in the end of the Age or any other time, though if for another time, such a named priest, if Eleazar, would have typed the Twelve, not an individual, if Ithamar, the 35 star members (not an individual) between the two Harvests. What, then, is typed by the leprosy-investigating and decision-pronouncing underpriest? Fortunately, as in the case of the eye, mouth and hand of antitypical Aaron, we have a New Testament Scripture (1 Cor. 5: 4) to give us the answer to our pertinent inquiry, so have we a New Testament Scripture to give us the answer to our present inquiry. It is also 1 Cor. 5: 4, 5. Here we are told that in addition to our Lord acting through Paul as His eye, mouth and hand, the Corinthian ecclesia acted, and in v. 13 is commanded so to act. Accordingly, we understand that an under-priest investigating and deciding on a leper suspect types an ecclesia investigating and deciding on a Great Company suspect. Accordingly, we conclude that no ecclesia member as an individual has the right to investigate and pass on a Great Company suspect. This, apart from the High Priest acting through His special eye, mouth and hand, can be done only by an ecclesia, and that alone in the case of members of that ecclesia. No ecclesia can do
this as to members of another ecclesia, because an ecclesia does not have its sphere of activity in other ecclesias. The General Church is cared for in this matter by our Lord alone, acting through His eye, mouth and hand toward the General Church.
(6) The first clause of v. 3 tells of the examination of the leper-suspect. This types that the antitypical priest will examine the Great Company suspect, which proves that the Lord does not desire the priest to shut his eyes to the facts of the case, as certain ones have decried the antitypical examination as uncovering one of the robe, but desires a careful inspection of the actual condition of the Great Company suspect to be made. The middle clauses of v. 3 give the two unfailing symptoms of real leprosy; the sore must (1) make the hair within it turn white, and (2) must be deeper than the surface of the skin, deeper than skin deep. What is wrong with the hair turned white in such a case? It has deteriorated, has become depraved. What does this type? Hair in Bible symbols types the powers of God's people, real or nominal, as can be seen from the hair of Samson (Judges 16: 17, 19, 22, 30) and of those who had hair like women (nominal churches, Rev. 9: 8). The primary power of the real people of God is the Truth (Dan. 8: 12; 12: 7); and their secondary power is the Divine arrangements for doing the Lord's work. With these two things on their side they are invincible. For their symbolic hair to turn white means a corruption of the Truth and its arrangements setting in. Hence one of the symptoms of Great Company uncleanness is their corrupting the Truth and its arrangements—revolutionism against the Truth and the Truth arrangements, or to put it another way, to set aside the Truth and to put error in its place and to set aside the Lord's arrangements and to put others in their place. In other words, the hair turning white in the sore represents what is told us in literal language in Ps. 107: 10, 11,
which for years we have recognized to give the mark or indication of Great Company uncleanness.
(7) But v. 3 gives a second symptom that must be present before one could with certainty be declared to be a leper. The sore must not be merely a superficial one, only skin deep. It must be deeper than the skin, "in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh." In other words, it had to be a deep-seated evil. This represents the fact that the revolutionism must be persistently willful. Hence, as we have repeatedly pointed out, the revolutionism must be persistent, refusing to yield to loving dissuasion, exhortation and expostulation, before one is to be considered in the Great Company, one of the symbolic lepers. Why must such willfulness be added to the revolutionism? Because all priests, except Jesus, have made mistakes on matters of teaching and arrangement, which would mean, if only the symbolic hair turning white would be a sure proof of Great Company uncleanness, that all priests, except Jesus, would drop into the Great Company; hence there would be no Little Flock; for in many things we all err. E.g., how often in our Berean studies we give mistaken answers! In our services we often use wrong methods for doing the Lord's work. But these of themselves alone would not cause us to have Great Company uncleanness. It is only when persistency therein against loving dissuasion, exhortation and expostulation sets in that the case is one of Great Company uncleanness; for the faithful under such dissuasion, exhortation and expostulation give up their errors and wrong arrangements. This shows that their aberrations were of weakness and not of willfulness. Hence only then can we be sure that we are dealing with Great Company uncleanness, when in a new creature we see a corruption of the Truth and its arrangements (the hair turned white) and a steadfast persistence therein (deeper than the skin). Thus,
in the type and antitype infallible symptoms of typical and antitypical leprosy prevail.
(8) In the type when a priest would see the two typical symptoms—the hair turned white and the plague deeper than the skin—he was to declare the patient leprous— unclean (v. 3). In the antitype, when the investigating priest sees in a new creature persistent revolutionism against the Truth and its arrangements, he is to declare the guilty one to be antitypically leprous, to have Great Company uncleanness. This has been going on ever since 1917, and that despite the protests of the antitypical lepers and sometimes of uninformed priests, who cry out against this Divinely commanded work as "judging." It is true that after the Apostles fell asleep until the Epiphany, it was a forbidden thing to pronounce one guilty of Great Company uncleanness, because until the Epiphany set in, it required inspiration to diagnose a case of Great Company uncleanness, and such inspiration ceased with the death of the last Apostle. It is only since the Epiphany set in that the Lord has revealed to us the token of Great Companyship. Hence, apart from inspiration, none could, before learning this token, know who was in the Great Company. For this reason, that token not being known before the Epiphany, our Pastor repeatedly warned the brethren not to judge as to who are in the Great Company, a proper warning for the time before the Epiphany; though he clearly taught that this judgment would come in "the end of the Age"—the Epiphany (See Z '10, 243-245; Z '11, 120-122, 349; Z '14, 38, 79; Z '16, 264; 1916 Convention Report, 191, Question 10; etc.). The Epiphany (2 Tim. 4: 1) being the time for the separation of the Little Flock and the Great Company, who are included in the expression "quick," of course those who would cooperate with the Lord intelligently in that separating work would have to know the token of Great Companyship—persistent revolutionism
against the Truth and its arrangements. Hence our Pastor taught (Convention Report 1916, page 191, Question 10) that when the separation between the Little Flock and the Great Company would set in, it would be proper to point out who is in the Great Company. This judging after the time is commanded in 1 Cor. 4: 5 and in Lev. 13: 3, 8, 15, 20, 22, 25, 27, 30, 36, 44; and those who denounce it are denouncing what God commands, and of course they will have to make amends for such a course, which in some is a matter of ignorance, in many is more or less of arrogance, and in some is more or less willful. Just as the chief objection in the great nominal church to the Parousia Truth expressed itself in the words, "A second chance"! so the chief objection in the little nominal church to the Epiphany Truth and work expresses itself in the word, "Judging"!
(9) Vs. 4-6 treat of cases that are not advanced sufficiently to receive a final judgment, but are still of the leprosy-suspect kind and therefore should be held under scrutiny, under surveillance. The bright spot turning white, i.e., becoming like the well skin, types the revolutionism being displaced by the Truth and Truth arrangement in the suspect, under pertinent teachings. Its not being deeper than the skin types the lack of persistency in the revolutionism. Its not turning the hair white types the revolutionism being but very slight or on an unweighty matter. Still the one who was thus conditioned became a leprosy-suspect in the type and had to be treated accordingly—shut up seven days, put under sufficient observation. This types the fact that if one hovers dangerously near Great Company uncleanness, he is to be put under surveillance, under observation, the seven days typing that it is to be done fully and sufficiently, i.e., the investigating priest, the Lord's special eye, mouth and hand, or an ecclesia, is not to be hasty in arriving at a decision in the case; he or it is not to take snap judgment
in the case. He or it is to take plenty of time and make very careful observations before coming to a decision; for a wrong decision means much of evil to all concerned. Hence the Lord arranged the type to show that He would give the antitypical instruction on the mode and spirit of procedure as just outlined. The shutting up implied more or less of restraint in the type, and typifies that the suspect is to endure more or less restraint from the investigating priest, whose investigating activities of themselves put him under more or less of restraint.
(10) As v. 4 shows that the priest is not to be too quick to pronounce a person leprous, so v. 5 shows that he is not to be too quick to pronounce him clean. This is indicated by the statement that even if the plague has not in the first seven days increased, the suspect is not to be pronounced clean, but to be shut up seven days more; because a sufficiency of time may not have been allowed for the disease to manifest its real nature yet. So in the antitype the investigating priest is not to be in a hurry. If the second investigation does not suffice, a third should be undertaken and the case be treated as under observation, until a full, proper decision can be reached, when, if no persistent revolutionism appears, the brother should be declared as not guilty of Great Company uncleanness (v. 6). In the type if the plague was but a scab, which of course would not be leprosy, the suspect should be declared clean. In the antitype the fault would be one of weakness or ignorance, a thing which of course all under-priests have; hence the suspect should be declared free of Great Company uncleanness. The suspect washing his clothes types the brother ridding himself by the Word of the weakness or ignorance, which leaves him antitypically clean (v. 6). But if after the first seven days when the suspect was seen by the priest for his cleansing, the scab spread, the priest should see him again. Antitypically
this would mean that if after the first period of observation the antitypical priest should find the suspect developing unfavorable symptoms, he should still wait a while longer in hopes that the brother might yet recover himself, in the meantime exhorting the suspect to reformation (v. 7). But if after these three attempts to bring such an one to repentance the revolutionism spreads, then the investigating priest is to pronounce him guilty of Great Company uncleanness, which implies that he will withdraw priestly fellowship from him. Our study of vs. 1-8 results in our recognizing that they give us only generalities, not particularities, on leprosy—type and antitype. The details will come out in the rest of the chapter. The whole procedure given in vs. 1-8 proves that no reference here is made to leprosy as typing the Adamic depravity, which without any investigation we all know exists in all, while the kind here referred to antitypically is limited only to certain ones and needs investigation to discover; hence these verses deal typically with Great Company uncleanness.
(11) Five details on leprosy are brought out in the rest of Lev. 13, which treats of five kinds of leprosy: vs. 9-17, of a rising or swelling; vs. 18-23, of a boil; vs. 24-28, of a burning; vs. 29-44, of the head; vs. 45, 46, of their patient's treatment and vs. 47-59, of a garment. Four of these forms of leprosy attached themselves to persons, and one to things—garments; and in Lev. 14: 33-53 a sixth form of leprosy is brought to our attention—leprosy in a house. The four kinds of leprosy that afflict humans will first receive our attention. These four forms of literal leprosy correspond to the four forms of Great Company uncleanness. The swelling or rising kind of leprosy represents Great Company sin as a kind of its uncleanness. The boil kind of leprosy types Great Company selfishness as a kind of its uncleanness. The burning kind of leprosy types Great Company worldliness
as a kind of its uncleanness. The head kind of leprosy symbolizes Great Company error as a kind of its uncleanness. The Bible teaches that Great Companyship shows itself in any one of these four forms of evil, even as leprosy showed itself in the four above-mentioned forms. We are often accused of using types to teach doctrines. This is a misrepresentation. Like our Pastor we use them to illustrate doctrines taught in clear Scripture. Let us first, therefore, note how the Bible in literal passages teaches that sin has caused the loss of one's crown and has caused his manifestation as such. It was the sin of the worst form of unchastity, incest, that caused the Corinthian brother to forfeit his crown and be manifested as a Great Company brother (1 Cor. 5: 1-13). It is sin that spots one's robe and Jude shows that the robes of some of the Great Company brethren are spotted (Jude 23). Accordingly, we see that literal Scriptures prove that sin has caused the loss of crowns and has manifested that loss. We will now take up the study of vs. 9-17, which type sin as a phase of Great Company uncleanness.
(12) Swelling leprosy (v. 10) certainly fittingly represents Great Company sin as a form of its uncleanness; for what is sin in ultimate analysis but a swelling of self against God and His will? Certainly sin is an arrogant swelling of self-will as against God's order and authority. From this standpoint, if Great Company sin is at all represented by a form of leprosy it is most fittingly represented by its swelling form. Hence we conclude that the swelling form of leprosy types Great Company sin as a form of its uncleanness. The swelling's color, white, suggests the disease of sin. Its turning the hair white types that it is accompanied with error in teaching and arrangement. Indeed, if it were a case of sin only, apart from inspiration we could not know whether the sin had caused the forfeiture of the crown, since we are incapable of judging
the degree of allowance that God makes in sin apart from weakness and ignorance. But if one is guilty of some gross sin and we find him going blind on the Truth and drunk with error in teaching and arrangement ("if it have turned the hair white"—v. 10), we have a partial, though not full proof of his having forfeited his crown. We say partial, not full proof, because another thing must be present to make the proof full; the error must be persisted in (quick [living, red] raw flesh in the rising, which proves the disease deeper than the skin—not simply a superficial matter). When these two things follow a more or less gross sin, we know that the sin caused the brother or sister to forfeit his crown and is manifesting him as a crown-loser. The force of the adjective in the expression, "an old leprosy" (v. 11), seems to be that of the word former in the expression, "former lusts," in 1 Pet. 1: 14, even as in 2 Pet. 2: 20 we read of pollutions formerly overcome and later yielded to. When the investigating priest finds these conditions present, he is to do what Paul and the Corinthian ecclesia did in a like case—pronounce the evil-doer guilty of Great Company uncleanness in the form of sin (v. 11). The summary dealing with such an one is proven to be the right course, as indicated not only at the end of v. 11, "shall not shut him up," but also by Paul's and the Corinthian ecclesia's summary dealing with the incestuous brother.
(13) At first sight the thought expressed in vs. 12, 13, that if one is covered over entirely with leprosy, he is to be called clean, strikes one as most unusual and unnatural. The question naturally arises, Why should he not be considered the most unclean of the unclean? This natural thought can be reasonably answered only as follows: Leprosy, if covering the whole body, is by God used to type the Adamic depravity, because it defiles all our sentiments and qualities, and because all humans have it—the Little Flock, the Great Company,
the Second Death class, the Youthful Worthies, the justified and the unjustified—while partial leprosy is by God used to type the superadded Great Company uncleanness, because it occurs on the body in spots only. And since in this and the next chapter the Lord is furnishing types of Great Company uncleanness alone, one whose body is entirely covered with leprosy could not be used to type Great Company uncleanness; hence he would type one clean of the particular antitypical uncleanness described in these two chapters. Hence vs. 12, 13 describe a form of leprosy of which these two chapters, as a whole, do not treat typically or antitypically; and, therefore, it is ruled out of consideration, when the forms of leprosy treated in these chapters, typically or antitypically, are kept in mind. We can see at once that if God uses the form of leprosy that covers the whole body to type the Adamic depravity, which depraves all the faculties and qualities of all classes, that form of leprosy could not be used to type Great Company uncleanness; for all other classes, including, e.g., the Little Flock, which does not have Great Company uncleanness, have that kind of antitypical leprosy. The fact, therefore, that vs. 12, 13 bring to our attention is a conclusive proof that Great Company uncleanness, and not the Adamic depravity, is typed by the forms of leprosy detailed in Lev. 13 and 14. The statements of vs. 12, 13 apply to one whose leprosy is white over all his flesh; but if (v. 14) raw flesh should appear on such an one, this being localized in a spot or spots, he was to be declared unclean from the standpoint of Lev. 13 and 14, and thus would be a type of an unclean Great Company member, not because his whole body is white with leprosy, but because in spots the raw flesh was visible. In such a case two things would be purposed: (1) it was desired by God to type the pertinent person's Adamic depravity; and (2) it was desired by God to type his Great Company uncleanness. Accordingly,
in type and antitype the priest was to pronounce the suspect unclean as viewed in these two chapters (v. 15).
(14) Vs. 16, 17 treat of the cases of healed lepers; for at times in Israel lepers became clean, not only by a miracle, as in the cases of Naaman and the many lepers that Christ healed, but also by natural causes. In all cases, the healed leper (v. 16) was to show himself to the priest, who was to attest his cleansing and admit him again into the fellowship of Israel as a cleansed leper, as Lev. 14: 1-32 shows in detail. The healing of the leper who had a swelling leprosy is described in v. 16, in the words, "If the raw flesh turn again and be changed unto white." This types the fact that in some cases Great Company uncleanness due to gross sin can be and does become cleansed; the evil action can be and does become repented of; and the evil characteristics can be and do become purged out of the character. This is illustrated in the case of the incestuous Corinthian brother (1 Cor. 5: 1-13) who, according to 2 Cor. 2: 5-10, repented and amended his character ("raw flesh turn again and be changed unto white"). The charge that he come to the priest (v. 16) types the fact that a cleansed Great Company brother should come to the antitypical priest—to our Lord, if He by His special eye, mouth and hand pronounced the brother to be in Great Company uncleanness, as He acts through that eye, mouth and hand, or to the ecclesia, if the ecclesia pronounced him to be in Great Company uncleanness—and make matters good with him or it. As in the type the priest examined ("shall see"—v. 17) the one who claimed to be healed, in order to determine if he be actually clean (for some lepers may have misrepresented the condition in order to get back into the fellowship of Israel), so in the antitype the investigating priest must examine the professedly repentant Great Company brother to determine whether he is actually repentant
and has made amends. Some might profess repentance— some have actually done so—who are not repentant; hence care should be exercised in this matter; for a premature pronouncing of such an one as clean is sure to work mischief—has already worked mischief. But if the repentance is sincere, the penitent one should be received into brotherly, not priestly, fellowship, as Paul charged in 2 Cor. 2: 5-10. This will be shown in detail in Lev. 14: 1- 32.
(15) The second form of leprosy, that of a boil, is treated in vs. 18-23. It will be noted that the boil was healed (v. 18), and that in it appeared a rising, i.e., another boil (v. 19). We understand that in vs. 18-23 the form of leprosy manifesting itself in a renewed boil represents selfishness as a form of Great Company uncleanness. That selfishness is a form of Great Company uncleanness is evident from a number of literal Scriptures. That their humanity does not remain dead to the selfish sentiments, Heb. 2: 15 shows us, for it speaks of them as those "who through fear of [the sacrificial] death are all their lifetime subject to bondage." Thus they dread the weariness, the painfulness, the unpopularity, etc., of the sacrificial death to such a degree as to avoid it in a slavish fear that puts them into the spirit of bondage all their life. Matt. 10: 39 tells us that he that findeth his life [after consecrating it to death seeks to recover it] shall lose it. Matt. 16: 25 tells us that whoever wills to save his [consecrated] life shall lose it. Luke 14: 26 assures us that whoever does not hate [deny himself of] his [consecrated] life cannot be Christ's disciple. V. 33 tells us that the consecrated one who does not forsake his human all cannot remain in the Little Flock. John 12: 25 assures us that he who loves [indulges selfishly] his life shall lose it. Selfish lusts so war against the soul as to cause one to lose his crown, if he gives himself over to them (1 Pet. 2: 11). And 1 Pet. 1: 14 exhorts us to avoid the former lusts— selfishness—as
opposed to holiness. Also 1 Cor. 9: 27 shows that selfishness causes the loss of the crown. These and many other Scriptures show us that selfishness is a form of Great Company uncleanness. What is typed by the boil's healing and then later breaking out again? When we consecrated we put natural, proper, human selfishness to death; for one of the features of consecration is deadness to self. Such becoming dead to self healed the antitypical boil; but if one turns again to a life of selfishness the antitypical boil breaks out again as symbolic leprosy.
(16) The development of leprosy in the renewed breaking out of the boil is described in the language of v. 19, which tells of a white rising, or a bright white spot somewhat reddish. This represents the selfish sentiments exalting themselves and grasping for the powers of selfish indulgence, to which the consecrated are to remain dead. It must in type and antitype be shown to the investigating priest (v. 19). In both type and antitype the priest must examine the disease (v. 20). Particularly in the antitype must the priest give it diligent attention. But he must look further than the exercised selfishness; for the one through whom the antitypical Aaron examines the case or the under-priest, ecclesia, not being able to tell the degree of selfishness involved, must seek corroborative evidences of the selfish life, typed by the priest looking at certain attendants of the renewed boil—the depth below the skin and the hair turned white. These two particulars in the type have the same antitypical significance as we saw them to have in vs. 3 and 10—the latter referring to corruption of the Lord's Truth or arrangements—revolutionism—and the former to persistency therein. Whenever one lives a selfish life, avoiding sacrifice for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, and it is coupled with his perseveringly revolutionizing against the Lord's Truth and arrangements, the examining priest may be sure that he is dealing
with an antitypical leper. Therefore he is to pronounce him unclean with Great Company uncleanness, even as in the type (v. 20) the typical priest pronounced the leper unclean; for in the former case it is antitypical leprosy broken out of the healed antitypical boil and in the latter case it is the typical leprosy broken out of the healed typical boil.
(17) The conditions (v. 21) that did not in the type warrant a sentence of uncleanness are: the absence of white hair in the boil and the sore not being lower than the skin. Antitypically, this would mean that even if there is some selfishness present (the renewed boil), if there is no accompanying persistent revolutionism present, the sentence of Great Company uncleanness is not to be passed. The reason for this is very evident; for we cannot of the selfishness alone determine whether it is a matter wholly belonging to Great Companyship or not; for all Little Flock members, except our Lord, have been guilty of more or less selfishness, and that without losing their crowns; since it requires a considerable exercise and development in selfishness to require the forfeiture of one's crown. Hence, first, without the two above-mentioned accompaniments of selfishness we cannot tell when it is that of Great Company uncleanness and, accordingly, are incapable of pronouncing finally on the case. Hence we see that, secondly, in all cases of the suspicion of the loss of a crown there must always be persistent revolutionism against the teachings and arrangements of the Lord. It is for this reason, thirdly, that we have not stressed sin, selfishness and worldliness unaccompanied by persistent revolutionism as manifesting Great Companyship. We have, fourthly, stressed them only when there has been persistent revolutionism present with them; and this is the case because, unknown to us, at the time the Lord was using us to give the teachings antitypical of the typical ones in the chapters that we are studying.
(18) When the spot on the boil was somewhat dark (v. 21) the person under examination was as a suspect to be shut up seven days. This dark color of the boil types that there is such a condition in the selfishness under observation as to warrant the fear that the pertinent person is perhaps an antitypical leper, hence must be kept under such restraint as the surveillance at hand warrants. The seven days represent a full time for the matter at hand to develop. The investigating priest, therefore, is to continue holding the person under observation and put on him the pertinent restraints, until a full time for his case to develop has been given to him. If, after the typical seven days, the bright spot in the boil had spread much in the skin (v. 22), the priest was to pronounce the person a leper, because such spreading abroad implied that the leprosy was more than skin deep and that it turned the hair white. So in the antitype, if under the further observation of the examining priest persistent revolution against the Lord's teachings and arrangements manifests itself, the antitypical priest is to declare the one examined to have Great Company uncleanness (v. 22). But, if during the period of observation, the bright spot did not spread and thus did not go deeper than the skin nor turn the hair white (v. 23), the examining priest was to pronounce the person clean. In the antitype, if the selfishness under seasonable observation shows no increase of a kind that produces persistent revolutionism against the Truth and its arrangements, the brother or sister under observation should be regarded free from Great Company uncleanness. In the type the boil was to be considered a burning, but not a leprous one. In the antitype the case should be considered as a form of selfishness that does not bring with it the loss of the crown.
(19) The third form of leprosy is brought to our attention in vs. 24-28—a hot burning. We understand that in these verses worldliness as a form of Great
Company uncleanness is typed. That worldliness is also a form of Great Company uncleanness literal passages of the Scriptures teach. We will refer to some of these in proof of this fact, which will also corroborate our thought that the four forms of Great Company uncleanness are set forth in Lev. 13 and 14, so far as the antitypes of leprosy in persons are concerned. This is proved in Matt. 13: 22. The four kinds of soil (Matt. 13: 3-8, 18-23) represent the heart condition of the four classes who hear the Word: the hypocrites (vs. 4, 19), the tentatively justified (vs. 5, 20, 21), the Great Company (vs. 7, 22) and the Little Flock (vs. 8, 23). Please note how worldliness is said in v. 22 to be characteristic of the Great Company—the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches. Mark 4: 19 adds, lusts of other things, and Luke 8: 14 adds, pleasures of this life. All four of these particulars are worldliness as a characteristic of Great Company uncleanness. Luke 21: 34 enumerates the following forms of worldliness: surfeiting, drunkenness and cares of this life, as characteristics of crown-losers, especially of those of them who are foolish virgins. Jas. 4: 4 points out that worldliness makes symbolic virgins, symbolic adulteresses—Great Company members. These Scriptures are sufficient to prove that worldliness is a form of Great Company uncleanness. We, therefore, understand that it as such is typed in vs. 24-28. Certainly, worldliness in a new creature is a burning fire, the literal rendering of the expression rendered hot burning (v. 24). It often manifests willfulness (quick flesh that burneth). It certainly often has the antitypical white bright spot, somewhat reddish, or white, which colors prove it to be properly leprosy-suspect—the appearance of Great Company uncleanness. In the type such a case had to be brought to the priest for examination (v. 25). So such a degree of worldliness in a new creature as properly arouses in a true priest the fear that its possessor