#4. Types of the Usurpation.


When we read the blessed words, “The Lord God omnipotent reigneth” we know that they refer to Christ; He Who was born at Bethlehem, Who lived as man, and Who died and rose again. When Satan is said to be worshipped in Rev. xiii. 4, his agent, the Beast, who was slain and who had been raised again, is, according to verse 12, worshipped too. Throughout the unfolding of the ages there have been men who were outstanding types and foreshadowings of this final “Man of Sin and Son of Perdition”. The Pharaoh of the Oppression and of the Exodus is one such character. He “knew not” Joseph (Exod. i. 8), and he “knew not” the Lord (Exod. v. 2). When the Lord visited Pharaoh with judgment, He at the same time executed judgment “against all the gods of Egypt”. Egypt not only was an oppressor of Israel, but became a snare, and, in more than one sense usurped the place of God. It snared Abraham and involved him in deceit and loss (Gen. xii.). After the Exodus the people of Israel turned back in heart to the land of bondage; they thought of the “leeks, the onions and the garlick”, and said one to another: “Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt” (Numb. xiv. 4).

In later days their children trusted in Egypt. Isaiah cried,

“Woe to the rebellious children . . . . . that walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked counsel at My mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt” (Isa. xxx. 1, 2).
“Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help . . . . . the Egyptians are men, and not God: and their horses flesh, and not spirit” (Isa. xxxi. 1, 3).

It will be seen that Egypt is presented in the two very different guises of Oppressor and Refuge. These represent not a change of heart or purpose on the part of the enemy, but only of tactics, leaving unchanged the strategy or main purpose of the conflict.

When Israel were redeemed from Egypt and settled in their land, they were still the object of Satan’s attack, and, in the book of Judges, we find this exemplified by another instance of his methods. To anyone acquainted with the significance of number in Scripture, the fact that there were twelve judges of divine appointment and one, making the total thirteen, who usurped this authority over Israel, will suggest a type of evil. The parable which Jotham uttered as a warning to Israel sheds light upon Abimelech’s action. In the parable

“the trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us . . . . . they said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us . . . . . then . . . . . to the vine, Come thou, and reign over us . . . . . Then said all the trees unto the bramble, (or thistle, see margin) Come thou, and reign us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then comeSaul, the first king of Israel, provides another lesson on the same subject. Israel said to Samuel: “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (I Sam. viii. 5). The heart of the matter is revealed in the reply which the Lord made to Samuel’s prayer: and put your trust in my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon” (Judges ix. 8-16).

Under the figure of the Olive, the Fig and the Vine, Israel’s religious privileges, national privileges and spiritual privileges are relinquished in favour of the apostate nation under Antichrist, which will bring destruction in its train.

In the two cases of Pharaoh and Abimelech, the means used differ, but the end is the same.

Saul, the first king of Israel, provides another lesson on the same subject. Israel said to Samuel: “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (I Sam. viii. 5). The heart of the matter is revealed in the reply which the Lord made to Samuel’s prayer:

“Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them” (I Sam. viii. 7).

The reader can supplement this brief analysis by his own study, and will also find the matter extended and developed in the series entitled “FUNDAMENTALS OF DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH”. He will find that the additional details thus accumulated will but intensify the impression left by the opening words on the subject, “They have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them”.

The reader will already have noted the words referring to Egypt, that though they were “men” and not “God” yet Israel went down to them for help, and “trusted in the shadow of Egypt”. So with Abimelech, he made the test of Israel’s allegiance just this one thing, “If in truth ye have anointed me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow”.

When the time came for Israel’s kingdom to pass away and the Gentile to be elevated to the throne, we see in Nebuchadnezzar, a further foreshadowing of Satan’s final bid for universal dominion. After his accession to the throne, we read that he set up an image in the plain of Dura and sent out a proclamation, bidding all men gather together to its dedication. The essence of Satan’s attack through Gentile dominion will be found in the word “dedicate”. Nebuchadnezzar dreamed a dream in which the whole of the Gentile dominion had been set forth under the figure of an image, commencing with a head of gold, degenerating through silver, brass, and iron to potter’s clay, and which was finally destroyed at the setting up of the kingdom of the Lord. This is recorded in Dan. ii. In Dan. iii., we find this king setting up an image made entirely of gold, and calling upon all men to attend its dedication, which involved the “falling down and worshipping” of the image under penalty of destruction in a fiery furnace. Here is the dedication in the worship of “The State” forced upon the world, a worship which takes the place of the worship of God. It was rejected by the faithful three, as it must ever be by such, until the Lord Himself reigns in righteousness.

In connection with what we have already seen, it is not without significance that in Dan. iv. Nebuchadnezzar’s dominion is likened to that of a tree, which, among other things, provided for the beasts of the field, “shadow”, so bringing Nebuchadnezzar into line with Pharaoh and Abimelech in their assumption of the divine prerogative.

In all these characters there is one thing that is constant. The working upon the mind of man to “choose” (as he blindly imagines) his own ruler, which ruler actually usurps the place that God alone should occupy. This will be fully demonstrated when the Beast, the False Prophet and the Antichrist bring Satanic rebellion to its dreadful end.

(From The Berean Expositor, Volume 32, page 240).

------------------------