DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (3)
[p. 184] DIVINE SYSTEM IN EXODUS (3)
Exodus 7: 14 - 25; Exodus 8: 16 - 24
JT No doubt the brethren will bear in mind the remarks made in our previous reading with regard to chapters 5 and 6, and how the idea of a system is confirmed and seen operating effectively. We finished yesterday by reading chapter 7, verse 1, “And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”. This passage is a striking confirmation of what has been said about the system that God had inaugurated in type in Egypt, the antitype being His present operations through the gospel for the deliverance of His people out of the world. He keeps Himself before us representatively here in the type. He said to Moses, “I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”. Moses would thus be representative of God, not made ‘a god’, but made “God to Pharaoh”. Thus God can be represented. The evidence of this in the antitype refers to Christ being God, being a divine Person, being Deity in Himself, not merely by appointment (Moses’ place is by appointment), but in actual fact; He is a divine Person who has part in the Godhead, but is known as Man down here. In Colossians it is said, “For in him all the fulness of the Godhead was pleased to dwell” (Colossians 1: 19). Then in chapter 2 it says, “For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2: 9). So that what was in type in Egypt gives a complete representation of God, and this is seen operatively in the verses read: “And Jehovah said to Moses, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened: he refuseth to let the people go. Go unto Pharaoh in the morning — behold, he will go out unto the water — and take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him; and take in thy hand the staff [p. 185] that was turned into a serpent. And say unto him, Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness; but behold, hitherto thou hast not hearkened. Thus saith Jehovah: In this shalt thou [p. 199] know that I am Jehovah — behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water which is in the river, and it shall be turned into blood”. The staff which Jehovah says is in His hand is the staff that had been turned into a serpent; it is seen here in Jehovah’s hand, though actually in Moses’, showing how perfectly the idea of representation is there. It was seen in effect in Moses’ hand, in Jehovah’s hand, and in Aaron’s hand.
LES Would chapter 7 be a further thought than chapter 4 in regard to Moses being God to Pharaoh? In chapter 4 it refers to Moses being God to Aaron.
JT Well, I suppose Moses’ position in chapter 4 is typical, being representative of Jehovah. “And he shall speak for thee unto the people; and it shall come to pass that he shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him for God”. There it would be ‘instead of’ or ‘for’, more qualifying the God set out in Moses; but in chapter 7 it is, “I have made thee God”, not simply ‘for’ or ‘instead of’, but God Himself. The full thought would be there, and what Moses would do would be, as it were, final. It would be God operating. The former is somewhat modified and yet the same idea runs through both. Colossians is the antitype, the full idea that Christ is God. He said, “He that has seen me has seen the Father”, John 14: 9. That did not mean that the Father was there, save as one divine Person seen representatively in Another, and therefore the Son’s position would be mediatorial. But in Colossians it is “all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”; that is not mediatorial, it is really Deity in Christ. In the first chapter it is “the fulness” without saying [p. 186] what fulness it is, as if the word “fulness” carried the thought of Deity. But in Colossians 2 it is more definite and personal to Christ as Man down here when the word “bodily” is added. I think that here in chapter 7 Moses is a type of Christ as having part in Deity, not simply having a mediatorial position, but God being there. “I have made thee God”, not ‘a god’, or ‘for God’, or ‘instead of’ God, but ‘God’. God is verily there; Pharaoh is made to feel that.
WL Does that mean that God would do nothing in regard of Pharaoh or the Egyptians apart from Moses?
JT That is the way it worked out. The very rod that Moses held, according to verse 17, was God’s, indeed the very hand of Moses was God’s hand. “In this shalt thou know that I am Jehovah — behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water which is in the river”; such is the completeness of the representation that God is there.
AEH Would you connect this in any way with what is current in the last few years — that the matter of the Person of Christ has been clarified for us so that we know His part in the Deity as we did not know it before? So that we may look at what transpires on the earth now in that light as connected with the judgment here upon Egypt.
JT Well, hymn 181 became a sort of crucial part of the hymn book on the point. Hymn 1 [in the 1932 edition] was intended to represent the deity of Christ in Fatherhood, but it has since been shown by analysis to be somewhat defective, whereas hymn 181 [in the 1932 edition] is more accurate, conveying what is now in mind. It says in verse one: ‘Wonderful the Godhead glory Shining, Saviour, in Thy face!’ [p. 187] Then in the last verse we have: ‘Thou art greater, glorious Saviour, Than the glory Thou hast won; Thee — the great “I AM” — we worship, Mighty God, Eternal One!’ (181:3).
It is not ‘Eternal Son’, but ‘Eternal One’, that is the change made. ‘Eternal Son’ did not represent rightly the deity of Christ, but carried with it, as in the creed, the thought of inferiority in the term ‘Son’, whereas in truth He is in the Deity. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, John 1: 1. That is how the Scripture presents the truth. I think that it is, at least in figure, seen here in the word “I have made thee God to Pharaoh”, not ‘a god’, but God Himself provisionally. “I have made thee God to Pharaoh”; so that the very rod that Moses held in his hand, (verse 17) was in the hand of Jehovah.
AEH I was wondering if this statement coming just where it does in chapter 7, preceding the divine dealings with Egypt and the extricating of the people, might suggest that we might look at what is going on in the earth now in a different light. God would not take one step until this matter was cleared up. Now that it has been clarified, we may see something of what transpires in the judgment of Egypt.
JT I think it has explained the difference between chapter 4 and chapter 7. Moses was to be “for God” to Aaron in chapter 4, but in chapter 7 he is made God to Pharaoh.
SMcC Would there be a link with Luke’s gospel? In Luke 9 the Lord healed the child and handed it back to the father, and it says, “And all were astonished at the glorious greatness of God”. Do you think there is something similar there?
JT Yes, God is there. God has visited His people, so that Matthew says, “They shall call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, ‘God with us’”. It was nothing less than “God with us”.
HGH Do the operations of Moses in chapter 7 suggest authority in connection with this system?
JT That should be impressed upon us, that God had come into Egypt. He reveals His name to Moses according to chapter 3: “And Moses said to God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM. And he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you”. Now there is a plain statement of who was there. Moses would have it brought out. It is not now a mediatorial thought, it is not God in someone, it is He, Himself. It is not simply “I AM”, but “God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM”, that is what He calls Himself. The phrase, “THAT I AM”, would bring out what was happening, what Moses might see or would see, but the “I AM” by itself is, we might say, like the title of Jah, it is abstract, the essential idea of Deity.
SMcC What is the difference between the idea of “the Word” as in John 1 and God speaking “in... Son” in Hebrews 1?
JT That latter statement alludes to Christ incarnate. John 1: 1 - 3 does not allude to Christ incarnate, it is Christ in Deity before incarnation. In verse 14 He is seen as become flesh, and verse 4 touches on that when it says, “In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. That involves that Christ had become Man amongst men. Verses 1 to 3 involve what He was before incarnation; whereas Hebrews 1: 1 alludes to Him in incarnation. It is a question of God speaking: “God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these [p. 189] days has spoken to us in (the person of the) Son”. It is not ‘by’ the Son, but ‘in Son’. The truth is conveyed in the best way that translation can convey it; we must look at the Darby Translation to get the sense. In the original it is, “God... at the end of these days has spoken to us in Son”. That alludes to Christ in incarnation, but “the person of the” is inserted in brackets to give the full sense; it alludes to Him as Man, and that God is speaking in Him (the Son being a divine Person); the speaker is God Himself. (See notes in Darby Translation).
JB Would the beginning in John 1 be the same as the beginning in Genesis 1?
JT Well, it is the same beginning; John 1 might be somewhat greater.
Ques Does this enhance the system?
JT It does. That is why I thought we might begin with the first verse of Exodus 7, transferring our thoughts to the antitype, where the New Testament brings in a divine Person actually here, not only in a mediatorial sense, but actually here.
JRH Why does God bring forward the deity of Christ in this great appeal to the world’s system to free His people?
JT I think it is to carry weight into the gospel. It is a wonderful thing that God should take the position of appeal in the gospel.
FC In John 8 the Lord says, “Before Abraham was, I am”; and then in the end of the gospel, when they seek to take Him, He says, “I am he”, and they went away backward and fell to the ground. Would they rightly understand that God was there?
JT We can hardly say they understood it, but we can understand that what affected them was the presence of God. He was there.
AHP The same thought is in 2 Corinthians 4, “Because it is the God who spoke that out of darkness light should shine who has shone in our [p. 190] hearts for the shining forth of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”.
JT Quite so. God shines in our hearts.
LK Would what follows in Exodus 7, “and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet”, enhance the divine speaking?
JT I think so. Of course, what is seen here is largely typical, although, as we said, God was there. The mediatorial position is seen more in Aaron, especially if you refer back to chapter 4. Aaron is able to do the same things as Moses did; he is able to use the rod of Moses, but nevertheless Jehovah, alluding to Moses’ staff, said, “The staff that is in my hand”. It was really God operating and Moses was to understand that; so that when we come to the “gnats” the magicians said, “This is the finger of God!” (Exodus 8: 19). Truly it was, the literal action was God’s. He had said to Moses, “Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy staff, and smite the dust of the earth, and it shall become gnats throughout the land of Egypt”. It came from God, through Moses to Aaron. The mediatorial position was very definite there, but it was nevertheless the finger of God that was operating.
AEH Your suggestion of bringing the deity of Christ into the gospel, giving weight to it, is interesting. I wonder if Peter had that in mind in chapter 4 of his first epistle: “For the time of having the judgment begin from the house of God is come; but if first from us, what shall be the end of those who obey not the glad tidings of God?” I suppose that is the idea there, that it is God, or the finger of God, and it must be weighty if that is so.
JT Well, it is important for any of us who are qualified to represent God in ministry to keep before us the ground on which we are.
LES All this would be basic in regard to the complete overthrow of the world’s system. In Luke 11: 20 the Lord brings it in, “But if by the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you”.
JT I think that is right. It is the index finger that is in mind in such an operation; to use a commonplace phrase, He put His finger on the real issue. The mind is involved in the index finger. God is operating to show He is taking account of the thing; He is dealing with a particular thing just as it is.
SMcC In regard to the two lines of thought you have been stressing concerning the Person of Christ, this matter of representation and then the thought of Deity in Him, do you view in the Person in the gospels these two lines of thought going together, or do you view them at distinct times?
JT I think chapter 4 is more mediatorial, that is, Aaron acting. Moses acts for God to him and Aaron understands, and the end of the chapter shows that the position was very effective because the people believed. I believe the mediatorial thought runs through the Acts in Paul’s ministry, “how that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself”, 2 Corinthians 5: 19. It is not simply that God was reconciling the world to Himself, but was in Christ doing it. That is mediatorial, bringing the Person of Christ into evidence, so that He is representative of grace in the system.
Rem The apostle continues in that scripture, “We are ambassadors therefore for Christ, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God”.
JT It is not stated so strongly as to infer that God is doing it directly through us. The mediator-ship is in Christ. It is more manifest in Him than it is in any servant, even Paul. When the thought comes down to the actual servant, Paul is a servant of Christ, but he is still the minister of reconciliation.
[p. 192] As the statement in Exodus 4 is somewhat modified as compared with that in chapter 7, so we come to this, that it is God Himself we are dealing with, only in “Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever”. It is Christ, God Himself, with whom we are dealing, “He is the true God and eternal life”.
MO Is that the thought in 1 Corinthians 14 where an unbeliever is brought to say, “God is indeed amongst you”?
JT Just so; “and thus, falling upon his face, he will do homage to God”.
JRH Would you liken the staff to the prophetic word bringing God in?
JT Yes. The staff is a symbol. This specific one that had been turned into a serpent is the very one that was in God’s hand, and the very one that was in Moses’ hand, and the very one that was in Aaron’s hand, too, suggesting the Trinity you may say. Each One of the Deity is God; They are not gods, but God may be represented in any of Them. Aaron used his own staff also.
AHP Do you regard Pharaoh here as suggesting the god of this world, and Moses standing before him as the thought of God operating to liberate His people from him?
JT Just so. Satan is an imitator, that is what the magicians represent here. Paul takes them up and names them in 2 Timothy, though they are not named here; indeed they are not mentioned by name anywhere except by Paul, to bring out that they were just imitators; he says, “Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses” (chapter 3: 8). Satan is an imitator, he observes what God does and imitates it, but adds his own foul character to what he does.
SMcC Are you viewing the thought of the mediatorial service in chapter 4 as something in which we might have part; but the thought of “I have made thee God to Pharaoh” in chapter 7 as exclusive to Christ in the antitype?
JT Yes; “whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall annul by the appearing of his coming”, 2 Thessalonians 2: 8. That is God, God Himself.
SMcC Peter says, “If any one speak — as oracles of God”. Would that be more in line with chapter 4?
JT It would be. I am glad you brought that out. Chapter 4 says, “And he shall speak for thee unto the people; and it shall come to pass that he shall be to thee for a mouth, and thou shalt be to him for God”. That lay between Moses and Aaron; Aaron would speak to the people. But in chapter 7 it is, “I have made thee God to Pharaoh”, so that Pharaoh is having to do with God Himself, and Aaron is the spokesman or prophet.
WL Is that why we do not see any failure in Moses’ dealings with Pharaoh?
JT Just so. All that goes through here in regard to the plagues and dealings with Egypt is remarkably accurate; it is God’s operation for the deliverance of His people, so that He ultimately says, “I have borne you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (chapter 19: 4). Moses and Aaron were used in all that.
Ques David says in 2 Samuel 7: 23, “And who is like thy people, like Israel, the one nation in the earth that God went to redeem to be a people to himself?”. The word “went” there is plural. Would that be in connection with the mediatorial side?
JT We have the plural in a similar sense in Genesis 1: 26: “Let us make man in our image”. We might put the Trinity into it. The plural, however, is a matter of emphasis in some instances. Clearly we are entitled to put Deity into [p. 194] Genesis 1: 26,
because we know the truth, God being now revealed.
ASB Is all this to bring out the superiority of God’s system as over against Pharaoh and his system?
JT Quite so. “Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world”, 1 John 4: 4. It is the Spirit of God in detail, but it is God, and it is greater than he that is in the world, so that we are victorious from the start.
Rem It says in chapter 11 that Moses was very great.
JT It actually reads, “the man Moses”. I refer to that because God would keep the man before us; and so in Numbers 12 where he is rivalled by his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam. “But the man Moses was very meek”, it says. God would bring in these thoughts to keep our eyes on the real Man whom He is using.
HGH In chapter 7: 16 God is referred to as “Jehovah the God of the Hebrews”; whereas in verse 1 it is, “I have made thee God to Pharaoh”. Would you say a word about that?
JT It does not seem that God wished to convey that Moses was God in any general sense; he was God to Pharaoh, but there is no suggestion that he was God to the Hebrews. He was for God to Aaron, which is a more limited thought, to make the thing effective; but God Himself in the absolute sense is the God of His people. So He says, “I am... the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (chapter 3: 6) In verse 16 it says, “Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness”. God is now putting Himself forward in regard of His people, they are precious in His sight. He had previously been telling Moses what [p. 195] He thinks of them, how He is coming down to deliver them, and how He intends to be worshipped by them, and hence He had sent to Pharaoh saying, “Let my son go, that he may serve me. And if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill thy son, thy firstborn” (Exodus 4: 23). That is, God keeping Himself before Pharaoh, He is telling Pharaoh in the strongest terms that He has before Him an object in the relationship of son. All this is very precious, but you could not apply that to Moses. The application of the thought of God to Moses is very limited, just for a provisional purpose. In the abstract it is God Himself. “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6: 4) and again, “In that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one”, Zechariah 14: 9. That is kept before Israel always; so that it is the service of God by His son that is in mind, and the crucial point was to get Israel out of Egypt in view of this. God is saying, so to speak, to make the position as effective as possible, I will make the mediator God; I will invest him with divine prerogatives so as to express power.
AEH In our contact with the authorities in these days, do you think the full position requires that there should be conveyed to them in some sense that they are having to do with God as well as with us? In addition to our being able to say, He is our God, they should have the sense in their own consciences that they are having to do with God.
JT That is so. God is brought to them in the saints, in the young men who go before the Boards. On the other hand, the Boards represent God, but that keeps you humble and lowly, for they are God’s ministers for good. So the position is remarkable, how God presents Himself in the person of the young brother who is before the Board; and on the other hand, in that tribunal he has himself to do with God in his conscience as a believer in Jesus.
[p. 196] That gives him a moral greatness the Board could not have.
Ques What about “the God of the Hebrews”?
JT That means that the people are under reproach, yet God is there and is Himself their Leader.
FM They are not looked at as Moses’ people, but as God’s people.
JT Moses was an Israelite, and they were Israelites. But this matter of clothing persons with authority is important in Scripture. In Acts 10: 38 it speaks of “Jesus who was of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power; who went through all quarters doing good”. He went about doing good, for God was with Him; the anointing represents the authority of God. It was not simply God Himself doing good, but God was with Him as He was doing good; that is another matter, a mediatorial matter.
FC Why is Moses’ attitude, the stand that he is to take, emphasized here? “Go unto Pharaoh in the morning — behold, he will go out unto the water — and take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him”.
JT “Go unto Pharaoh in the morning”. There are a good many mornings spoken of in Exodus. “Behold, he will go out unto the water”. He has just risen on this morning in the sense of his own greatness; the river is his, he is the big man in Egypt. The river is the support of Egypt and, according to his thought, it is his river. The prophets tell us that that would be the language of his heart, that the river is his, whereas truly it is God’s. Egypt represents the resources of this world, man having them under his hand, and Pharaoh is seen here in his own greatness. God is telling Moses to make due allowance for that. “And take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him”: ‘Moses, you are not to be servile now; you are not a god,
[p. 197] but God. I am qualifying you with that, I am making you all-powerful. You stand with that in your mind, and if you do you will be victorious. What can he do against you?’ “And take thy stand by the bank of the river in front of him; and take in thy hand the staff that was turned into a serpent”. That is the weapon he carried, that staff of Moses’, which in another sense, represented his experience. He was not just any Israelite chosen to do this work; his staff represents his experience. It has been turned into a serpent and turned back into a staff. God has secured a Man in Christ; He has secured a Man in this way and He is all-powerful.
AEH Does it work out in my experience that I learn what it is to come under the control of God, and thus know something of the features of manhood as seen in Christ, man taken up in Christ?
JT Just so. You are full of the thought when preaching the gospel. So that Romans begins: “Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to God’s glad tidings, (which he had before promised by his prophets in holy writings) concerning his Son (come of David’s seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead) Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 1: 1 - 4). Your mind is immediately directed to Christ in the gospel, it is the gospel of God concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
AAT It says (verse 16), “And say unto him, Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness”. May we think of that service as the service of God eventually?
JT Certainly; it enhances all that He had been saying to Moses. Aaron coming into it represents the humanity of Christ more in His compassion and grace in the system thus set up, but what God has in mind is to have sons. At the Jordan He announced from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son” (Luke 3: 22), and then again, “This is my beloved Son”, Matthew 3: 17. He is God’s beloved Son, known to Himself, but known to others also. God is going to carry on in Him, and in carrying on in Him He is going to have sons, the service of sons; and that enters into God’s delight in Christ. God is taking up humanity in sons. He has delivered them out of Egypt to serve Him.
Rem These sons must be brought into liberty.
JT That is the idea. He is going to take them out of the world, He is going to deliver them out of Egypt.
RA You mentioned that Pharaoh had just risen. What had you in mind?
JT A man would be at his best in vigour after his night’s rest. “My river is mine”, he would say, according to Ezekiel. What a man he was! How inflated he would be! He had already said to Moses, according to chapter 5: 2, “Who is Jehovah, to whose voice I am to hearken to let Israel go? I do not know Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go”. That is the inflated character of the man, the god of this world. Satan is not only called the god of this world, he is called the prince of it. I suppose Pharaoh would be like a prince here; Egypt is his kingdom, the Nile is his river. He cared nothing for God, that is the position. Moses had to meet that, and this is how he is to do it. He is to stand in front of him with the staff in his hand that had been turned into a serpent, and the word is again, “And say unto him, Jehovah the God of the Hebrews has sent me to thee”. Moses is not calling attention to himself as God, he is calling attention to God, but he has it in his soul that he is made God to Pharaoh, and that he is for God to Aaron. “Let my people go”, the word is, “that they may serve me in the wilderness; but behold, hitherto thou hast not hearkened. Thus saith Jehovah: In this shalt thou know that I am Jehovah — behold, I will smite with the staff that is in my hand upon the water which is in the river, and it shall be turned into blood”. That is to say, the real power is going out through Moses’ hand, but it is God’s hand.
Rem God says to Moses, “Say unto Aaron, Take thy staff, and stretch out thy hand upon the waters of the Egyptians”; it is Aaron who used the staff.
JT That is what we have been talking about. There are three ideas: God Himself is using the staff, but Moses’ hand is the actual hand, that is the second thing; the third thing is that Aaron is the immediate vessel or instrument for the use of the staff. He is the priest, as if God is modifying things. This is not the final judgment, it is not like the book of Revelation, it is grace. Christianity is grace towards men — kings, or whatever they may be. It is Aaron that is lifting up the staff: “and Moses and Aaron did so, as Jehovah had commanded; and he lifted up the staff”. That is Aaron. The point is that in figure the Trinity is in the operation. The “he” you have to follow; who is the “he”? Well, abstractly it is God, but concretely it is Aaron, because the actual vessel is to be gracious, and Aaron represents that side. He is a modifier; so the word of God comes through Moses in chapter 4, but it comes out in grace through Aaron. Grace comes through the priest, which thought would attach to Aaron in principle, and of course that is of great importance in our service. The more we come into contact with men, the more we realize the skill that is needed. We are to carry the sense of God’s authority, but you consider the character of the man you have to deal with. The gospels and the epistles show how the service is to be carried oh. Take a man like Cornelius, see how graciously he was dealt with; while Simon Magus was dealt with harshly, no grace at all. “Thy money go with thee to destruction”,
[p. 200] Peter said. So with Bar-jesus — he was dealt with in the harshest possible way: “O full of all deceit and all craft: son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness; wilt thou not cease perverting the right paths of the Lord?”. So that we are to learn how to deal with men. That is why we have Moses and Aaron; sometimes Aaron is mentioned first, sometimes God speaks directly to him. It is a question of levitical understanding, how we are to deal with men, to know what is there, to know what to say to them, how to speak to them.
RA This would be man in his bigness. You were speaking of Pharaoh in his full vigour rising up in his full power. I was thinking how the Lord overcame the Pharisees, the strength of the enemy in the religious man directed against the strength of God.
JT What has been said should be borne in mind. We are now here in the last days seeking to serve men; it is the gospel period yet, and we are to carry on the gospel service, however feebly. We are to bring into it the original principles that were inaugurated. Things come out in a modified way in a priest. Luke is the great priestly gospel and also the great evangelical gospel.
WL Would you say that God’s dealings in Egypt are governmental rather than judicial, in view of what He has before Him in the extrication of the people?
JT Well, it is mingled with grace, as already remarked. The gospel is the approach by God to men; He approaches men in priestly grace. As I was saying, we get many examples in the New Testament of how men are met in grace.
LES Will you say a word as to Isaiah 19: 25? “Whom Jehovah of hosts will bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance!” That chapter seems to deal with Egypt in [p. 201] the future.
JT Well, that would be a matter of understanding the passage. According to the quotation you made, God then had Egypt in mind as in favour. He was not going to destroy it then, and earlier He warned His people not to be ungracious to the Egyptians; they had been bondmen there. He had a gracious bearing towards them. So you find here that as the plagues proceeded the Egyptians themselves began to fear, showing that the plagues are accompanied by the administration of grace as well as of judgment.
LES I was wondering whether that would not work out in relation to the preaching of the gospel?
JT I believe it does. We must be historical in considering levitical principles; so that whilst the commission was to “Go into all the world, and preach the glad tidings to all the creation”, we must observe principles that came in subsequently as governing the service. The East was not much in mind, and yet it was part of the creation, but we have no record that the twelve journeyed towards the East. They laboured amongst the Jews and proselytes that came from there, but Paul went directly to the West; so that other principles came in and the gospel has been, we may say, entirely restricted to the western nations and their outgoings. But God has not forgotten the eastern nations; presently there will be a gospel to them, as we may see in Revelation 14.
WR Stephen had history in mind in Acts 7.
JT He had indeed, he proceeded on this line. He says, “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham”. What a fine start in a spiritual historical account!
AEH It is in God’s mind that the knowledge of Himself should become general in the world; God is taking these people out of Egypt in view of that. Do [p. 202] we in a historical sense get light on these plagues as linking on with the book of Revelation?
JT There is no doubt that the book of Revelation helps in the illustration of the signs, because they were effective. The Egyptians, that is, their leaders, were destroyed. The book of Revelation contemplates finality in judgment. The earlier plagues are more modified, applying to the present time. So that we have the plague of lice or gnats, representing life; they are not withdrawn. The flies and the frogs and the others are, but not the plague of lice, the plague that is called by the scribes of Egypt “the finger of God”. They are living, they are not withdrawn, I believe they run right on to the end. It is a gracious thing that God has put a living people, only under reproach, right in the midst of the people of the world at the present time. I believe the rulers are all modified in their conduct by the presence of the gnats, who are not only despised but also very uncomfortable people to have around; yet their influence is good.
AAT A brother who has a conscience, you mean, is a gnat?
JT I think so; we are very uncomfortable people for worldlings to deal with, but they would not be without us. I do not believe the leaders would be without the brethren though they may make them uncomfortable.
JRH What does this turning of the water into blood indicate?
JT We cannot go into all the plagues, we have not time. But as seen here blood is a gruesome thing, a terrible thing; it is death as God allows it to come among men in this way. The book of Revelation alludes to it in this sense in chapter 16: 3.
SMcC Would these plagues carry a certain form of teaching in regard to the truth and the operation [p. 203] of the system, teaching that bears upon us, God’s people, and our deliverance from Egypt?
JT They would. The waters are seen turned into blood. Water is refreshing in itself; Christianity is refreshing, but it is turned into blood according to the book of Revelation. The refreshing power of water is taken away from men and turned into a foul thing. I believe it alludes to apostasy. The Lord says, “Her children will I kill with death”, Revelation 2: 23. That is not physical death, it is moral death.
Ques “And has insulted the Spirit of grace”, (Hebrews 10: 29), would that be this idea? The blood instead of expressing vitality in men is turned into death.
JT It is something like that. What is refreshing and preservative and satisfying is changed. Possibly you might apply it to Christianity, refreshing to the whole earth, as it is now in measure, but to be turned into a state of moral death. It would be an apostate condition. The question of life is most interesting; God is continuing the idea of life throughout this whole dispensation, be it a gnat, or whatever it may be; but people are made to feel it as disquieting. It is not the finger of the devil; it is “the finger of God”. People do not care about us; they do not care for the Christians, they are ashamed to be identified with them and yet at times they cannot help speaking well about them, in some cases very well.
RH Would Pilate’s wife be representative of this? She suffered many things on account of Christ. She said, “Have thou nothing to do with that righteous man; for I have suffered today many things in a dream because of him”.
JT Quite so. She was in accord with the Holy Sufferer; He was suffering, and she suffered many things on account of Him. I do not think people [p. 204] today are suffering for that same reason, they are suffering because the gnats make them suffer. They are suffering from what the gnats do. They are on the people; the preposition is “on”. “All the dust of the land became gnats” (chapter 8: 17). Think how many there were!
VHC Is there any sequence in these judgments? First of all the staff is turned into a serpent, and then there is blood, which, as you say, is moral death; and then live frogs and gnats. Is there any connection?
JT The staff was turned into a serpent before Moses; that gave it its character. It did not remain a serpent. Moses took it back by the tail under divine direction and it became a staff again in his hand, and that is what it is now. It is man recovered, and Moses is operating on that principle with the Egyptians, that man is to be recovered. The Egyptians as a whole were not recovered, but some of them were, and many of them will be in a later day, as the passage read in Isaiah 19 shows. The rod Moses and Aaron are using represents man taken out of Satan’s power. The Egyptians are not yet taken out of Satan’s power, but some of them will be. That is the principle of our dispensation. What I am saying is in chapter 4. The rod was turned into a serpent on the ground before Moses; it is that which is in his hand now and he smites the waters with it and turns them to blood.
VHC What is in mind in chapter 7: 10, “And Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and did so, as Jehovah had commanded; and Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh, and before his bondmen, and it became a serpent”?
JT That was for a sign, but it had previously been turned into a serpent and turned back into a staff. It was a recovered man God was using, who [p. 205] was His instrument. This sign here, the staff being turned into a serpent, was for Pharaoh’s eyes. That is not a plague. The first plague was the blood.
VHC That is what I want made clear: the blood comes in as moral death, and then come in the frogs and gnats — life.
JT Frogs are repulsive things. It is suggestive of the condition in which man is. See how they go into their very rooms, into their ovens, how God could bring home to them what sin effects in a man. The rod had been a serpent, but as Moses carried it, it was representative of man recovered. So the frogs are number two of the plagues, the gnats are number three. Gnats represent life in the midst of the Egyptians, that is, the Israelites were really living, abstractly anyway; so in chapter 8, that plague is said to be “the finger of God”. There is no preamble before the introduction of that plague. “And Jehovah said to Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy staff, and smite the dust of the earth, and it shall become gnats throughout the land of Egypt. And they did so; and Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff, and smote the dust of the earth, and there arose gnats on man and on beast: all the dust of the land became gnats throughout the land of Egypt. And the scribes did so with their sorceries, to bring forth gnats; but they could not. And the gnats were on man and on beast” (chapter 8: 16 - 18). It is a very big idea, as if God would say, I will keep life before men’s eyes. These are men, they are living people, not only physically living — in a sense the frogs were that — but gnats represent life in a moral and spiritual sense, they are called “the finger of God”. There is no suggestion of the finger of God in the frogs.
JRH Anything on the side of moral death and uncleanness, as seen in the water turned into blood, and the frogs, could be imitated by the scribes; but [p. 206] when it comes to life it was beyond them, they could not do anything.
JT They told Pharaoh that. And there is no removal of this plague, the gnats are left; that is grace. In the antitype God leaves living people among dead people, among apostates, or at least people who do not believe. Then in the next paragraph — “And Jehovah said to Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh — behold, he will go out to the water — and say to him, Thus saith Jehovah, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For, if thou do not let my people go, behold, I will send dog-flies upon thee, and upon thy bondmen, and upon thy people, and into thy houses; and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of dog-flies, and also the ground on which they are. And I will distinguish in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no dog-flies shall be there; that thou mayest know that I Jehovah am in the midst of the land”. He does not say, There shall be no lice there — that plague is living, and the Egyptians know it; they called it “the finger of God”. It is really a mercy that there are such people as this type suggests at the present time.
It is a testimony that there are living people moving about amongst those who are not believers, or only half-believers. We have real people in the gnats, so God says, I am making a difference, “And I will put a separation between my people and thy people; to-morrow shall this sign be”. Notice that word “separation”, as if to say, The gnats are not to be withdrawn. Why should they not be separate? And why should we not be so? Why should we not have fellowship meetings among ourselves? We want to be separate, we are not of them. “Wherefore come out from the midst of them, and be separated, saith the Lord”, 2 Corinthians 6: 17. God says, I am putting a distinction upon them by [p. 207] redemption;
He is identifying Himself with a living people.
LES There is constant testimony from God’s people over against the world.
JT That is most important. They are not literally removed from the world, but God is identifying Himself with them.
LES So that the young men themselves, as having stood, maintaining a good conscience, become a constant source of concern to the authorities.
Rem A young brother kneels down in prayer in the camp and others are disturbed.
JT Yet someone might get light and help through that. I am sure that is the actual position.
FM It is something like the wheat and tares growing together?
JT Well, yes, as being together in the world, only that here God’s people are separated in Goshen; there is no death there, the plagues did not touch them.
Rem Stephen’s testimony to the Israelites made Saul uncomfortable. It was hard for him to kick against the pricks.
JT Just so.