Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
and thus had not seen him proven before the whole Tabernacle congregation a gross wrong-doer, were deceived into taking his part, which led to not a few, but by no means a majority, siding with him against J.H. and J. The latter was absent from London for a three days pilgrim trip at Edinburgh and Darlington, from which he returned to London Feb. 13. That day W.C. with his wife left Bethel, disgusted after failing to persuade J. to alter his decision on his leaving Bethel. The next day, because J. would not alter his decision that H.J.S. and his family leave Bethel, H.J.S. became quite saucy to J. The latter, seeing the uses that H.J.S. and W.C. were making of his severity with the former before the Tabernacle congregation on Jan. 28, determined by God's grace to deliver the brethren from their deceitful propaganda. And the Lord raised him up as a savior by whom He delivered the bulk of the brethren from their deception.
On Feb. 4 the London Tabernacle congregation, some of whose members were more or less disturbed by J.'s course against H.J.S. on Jan. 28, passed a resolution asking J. to appear before it on Feb. 18 and give it the details on the situation that mistakenly he had supposed J.H. had given it on Jan. 21, and, therefore, on Jan. 28 had proceeded on the assumption that the ecclesia understood the details, which resulted in his giving them facts for which their previous imperfect knowledge left many of them unprepared to digest fully. After returning from Darlington to London on Feb. 13, J. devoted part of his time to preparing the seven charges against H.J.S. and W.C. on which he was to speak before the business meeting of the Tabernacle congregation. This speech and its effects were described toward the end of the preceding chapter. It effected the deliverance of the real little Israelites from the oppression of the little Syrians (2 K. 13: 3-5), even as J.H. had ardently hoped. But there remained yet some evils among the British brethren: clericalism, sectarianism, textbookism
and some other nominal-church connected practices, all of which weakened J.H. in his Jehoahaz phase. These things prepared him for his fall into the evil of turning against J. the night of Feb. 25 (God's time, Feb. 26), when he wrote a condemnatory postscript to his favorable letter to J., after J.F.R.'s "absolutely without authority" cable reached him, which course ended his Jehoahaz phase and began his Jehoash phase, which lasted from Feb. 26 to Mar. 13, 1917, whose type is found in 2 K. 13: 10-19, 25.
Like H.J.S. in all his little parallel phases, J.H., as in all his little parallel phases of Israel's kings, was in the Jehoash phase guilty of sectarianism and clericalism, but more concealedly than H.J.S. was in these evils. While treating of J.F.R. as the little parallel of Amaziah, the conflict of the latter with J.H. in his Jehoash of Israel phase was described. Therefore here will be described the other features alone of the little Jehoash. The last episode of J. as the little Elisha parallel occurred here. J. received J.F.R.'s recall cable at Manchester, Feb. 28, and, under the mistaken impression that J.F.R. had the right to recall him, immediately ceased functioning as special representative, and returned from Manchester, whose church he served as pilgrim, Feb. 27, 28, to London, Mar. 1. The scene of 2 Kings 13: 14-19 occurred during the sessions of the Investigative Commission, Mar. 3-5, 1917. Thus this was within the week that J. considered himself no longer special representative, and ceased from his pilgrim activities, Feb. 28 to March 6, the latter being the date that, recognizing that he was the Board's, not J.F.R.'s special representative, he came to see that J.F.R.'s recalling him without the Board's knowledge, let alone its consent, was itself "absolutely without authority." Therefore J. resumed his duties as special representative. But it was between Feb. 28 and Mar. 6, i.e., Mar. 3-5, that J. fulfilled the little parallel of Elisha in vs. 14-19. Hence he was in a symbolically sick condition and actually dying in the Elisha phase
of his British work; for to have allowed himself for a week to believe that J.F.R. without the Board's authorization could recall him was a sick condition.
Sunday morning, March 4, J.H. and J. were together speaking of the work of the Investigative Commission. At that time J.H., in the better part of his double mind, deeply sorrowed over J.'s plight as the Society's recalled and thus discredited special representative, who had fathered J.H., who had been a deliverer of the British Church and J.H. in sore trials, and whose recall made J.H. worry over the Society and the Society leaders then being in special trial (v. 14), and expressed to J. his sympathy with him. Then it was that J. handed to J.H. a paper on which he had listed a number of sharp points against H.J.S. and his party. One of these sharp points J. told J.H. to shoot, with the help of his party, out of privacy into the publicity of the Investigative Commission, as especially destructive of the position of H.J.S.'s party, J. assuring him that thereby he would gain victory over the H.J.S. party. This J.H. did. J. then told him to strike with the other points the foundations of H.J.S.'s whole position; but J.H. used only three of these points against that position. Learning of this, J. was displeased, for he saw that the total defeat of the H.J.S. party would not ensue as a result of J.H.'s partial effort. J. died as the little Elisha toward the end of the sessions of the Investigative Commission. There were some British brethren who stood not for J.H. as against H.J.S., but were strongly inclined toward the latter. Among these was Gilbert Mackenzie, of Glasgow, one of the five members of J.F.R.'s Investigative Commission, who sharply disapproved J.'s dismissal of his friend, H.J.S. This party sought to do J.H.'s cause some mischief through the investigation by the Commission. As the evidence piled up against H.J.S., Gilbert Mackenzie gave up his sympathy with the H.J.S. party, and was by his former partisans cast off. Thus he gained a
proper focus as to J.'s acts as special representative, which put him solidly upon his feet aright; and he decided that the facts warranted the dismissal of H.J.S. and W.C. as managers and their non-election as elders. He with the other four members of the Commission signed the report that vindicated J.'s course of opposing the resolutions movement and the re-election of H.J.S. and W.C. as Tabernacle elders, and that approved of his course of dismissing the two as managers. This course of events caused H.J.S. to die from his strong position as the little Hazael and to take up a decidedly weaker position as the little Benhadad, who as such was thoroughly defeated in three fields of battle by J.H. as the little Jehoash, i.e., in Bethel, in the Tabernacle and in the extra-London churches, which resulted in J.H.'s recovering from H.J.S. the advantage that the latter got in the churches as the little Hazael (2 Kings 13: 24, 25).
With Jeroboam II the doubling of the little type sets in, in order to bring out the evil part of J.H.'s mind more prominently. Accordingly, the little Jeroboam II covers the same periods as those covered by the little Jehu and Jehoahaz, except the last three days of the latter's 17 days, i.e., the periods of Jan. 14-Feb. 10, and of Feb. 10-23. During the little Jehu's period (Jan. 14-Feb. 10) two features were prominent: J.H.'s victory over H.J.S. as the little Jehoram and the extreme power-grasping of the latter's party, and J.H.'s setbacks by H.J.S. as the little Hazael in radicalism's conflicts with J.H.'s clericalism, resulting in some in the Tabernacle and in other ecclesias falling away from J.H. to H.J.S. On Feb. 3 H.J.S. and W.C. also attempted to take the first and second steps of Matt. 18: 15-18 with J., for official acts as the Society's special representative, even arranging for the second step before taking the first step which consisted of short notes written by each and as per plan separately handed to J., by the second as soon as the first left him. After reading each one J. was asked if he were ready to apologize. He
replied that he would answer in writing. Each one immediately withdrew, after delivering his note and hearing J.'s reply, not making the least effort to "win" the supposed offender. These acts of theirs, done but a few minutes apart, and by them prearranged, were a mere pretense at the first step, so that they could take the second step, which consisted of each bringing separately to Bethel two groups of the signatory elders and at least one elder of the Forest Gate Church, W.C.'s father-in-law, F.G. Guard, Sr. (little Geshem), now an advocate of the 1908-1911 sifters' errors. J.H. was also included in the "first" and "second step," the second step being taken with J.H. and J. at the same time and place.
J. replied to H.J.S.'s witnesses that his course was that of the Society's commissioner and an official act and, therefore, did not come under the scope of Matt. 18: 15-18, that as J. was not a member of the church of which H.J.S. was a member, the case could not be covered by the expression, Tell it to the church, and that the only one who could review his pertinent acts was the Board. He then read his credentials to the witnesses, who, recognizing the propriety of J.'s position, gave up being witnesses. J.H. answered to the following effect: that the whole procedure was farcical, for neither the spirit nor the letter of Matt. 18: 15-18 had been followed by their so-called first step and by their arranging for the so-called second step before taking the so-called first step. Then J. turned to H.J.S. and called attention to the fact that he had added another blunder to the many that he had already committed, and asked him whether his succession of blunders were not a sure evidence that the Lord was taking him in his own craftiness. H.J.S. turned to his witnesses and said, "You see, brethren, the spirit that he shows." But his witnesses by act, apart from little Geshem, gave up the job. For quite a while W.C. and his witnesses stood in the doorway listening and waiting their turn, but they seemed to have heard
enough; for they did not come to J.H. and J., but left with the other witnesses. J. kept his promise of answering their notes in writing, which consisted of a notice of their dismissal as managers. J.H., with whom J. counseled over the subject, and to whom J. read his dictated note of dismissal, suggested the addition of a clause ordering them to surrender all implements of their office and with their families leave Bethel at once. The events set forth in this paragraph occurred Feb. 3, 1917. Thus ended H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s authority in Bethel and in the Tabernacle.
On Feb. 23 the little Jeroboam II ceased to act as such, the arrival of J.F.R.'s cable appointing the Investigative Commission that day gave J.H. a slight change of attitude, which lasted about a half-day and in which he acted out the little parallel of Zachariah (2 Kings 15: 8-12). This half-day was, like the days of his preceding four aspects, one which, in general, was evil, since it was characterized with some clericalism and sectarianism. Thus in all five of these aspects of J.H. we see his double-mindedness exhibited. Feb. 23 was a fateful day for J.H., for not only was he then acting out the end of the little parallel of Jeroboam II and of Zachariah, but for a couple of hours that of Shallum, and began to act out that of Menahem (2 Kings 15: 13-22). He had learned about that time that J.F.R. had cabled J., Feb. 19, to restore H.J.S. and W.C. as managers. J. received this cable perhaps Feb. 21, and J.'s pertinent letter reached J.H. probably Feb. 23; and these things probably made J.H. experience the mental states figured forth by the four kings' pertinent experiences. In the little parallel of Menahem (Feb. 23-March 4) J.H. continued to act out the evils of clericalism and sectarianism. The most noteworthy event of this phase of his work was the matters connected with the Investigative Commission, appointed Feb. 23, through which Azazel as Pul, king of Assyria, made a preliminary attempt to seize J.H. To straighten himself out with this Commission, under the pressure of
its questionings, he made immense drains on the help, cooperation and influence of his ablest supporters, which resulted in Azazel through that Commission ceasing to press him hard (March 4). This made him come to the end of his being the little parallel of Menahem. Thence he took on the Pekahiah aspect, March 4, 5 (2 Kings 15: 22-26). During these two days he continued his clericalistic and sectarian activities, in maneuvering his partisans to testify in his favor before the Investigative Commission, whose sessions ended the night of March 5. And it was late that day that he altered his course into a fiercer fight before the Commission against H.J.S.'s party.
This started his part in the little parallel of Pekah, March 5-24 (2 Kings 15: 27-31, 37; 2 Chron. 28: 5-15), in which J.H. continued his clericalistic and sectarian course. In this period came the main parts of his opposition to J. During the week (Feb. 28-March 6) that J. believed that J.F.R. had the right to recall him and cancel his credentials, he refrained from all acts as special representative; but, coming about midday of March 6 to the conclusion that his being sent by the Board excluded him from J.F.R.'s authority, and hence from his power to recall him without the Board's authorizing it, he also concluded that without the Board's authorization J.F.R. could not cancel his credentials. That night J. discussed these two matters with J.H., who at the time made no objections to the argument. Hence J. informed him that he was taking charge again, and would take his former place at the head of the table at meals as long as the Board did not recall him. Within a few days tension set in between J.H. and J. because of the latter's reassumption of his powers as special representative. It was during this time that the Bethel Family divided into two parts: 11 who stood with J. and 4 who stood with J.H., his wife and his stenographer being 2 of these 4, that the injunction suit was started, its second hearing held and the case postponed, that J.H. through
H.C. Thackway denounced J. as a fraud before the Tabernacle congregation and, that J.H. appointed guards in the Bethel, who used force against E. Housden and J., locking up the former in his room, forcibly searching him and taking his keys from him, and barricading J. in his room, J. leaving Bethel March 22. After this he stopped at a hotel until March 31, when he left London for Liverpool, whence he sailed for America, April 1. Details on this are found in EF, Chapter I, pp. 42-48, 50-65. The culmination of J.H.'s evil-doings as the little parallel of Pekah is found in the small antitype of 2 Chron. 28: 5-15. Contrary to his fighting the H.J.S. party in the little parallels of Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II and Zachariah, he joined in with them in fighting J. as the Society's special representative, and hence in fighting J.F.R. as the little Ahaz; for since from March 6 to March 24 J, was defending the Society's interests, what J.H. and H.J.S. and their parties did against J. was done against the Society and J.F.R. as a Board member and the Board's executive, despite the fact that J.F.R., with J.H. and H.J.S., was fighting J. And the setbacks given J. by the two sets of British leaders backed by J.F.R. were such to the Society and him.
If the reader will turn to J.F.R.'s Harvest Siftings I, pp. 5-8, he will find there a letter of J.H., dated March 24, the day that he came to the culmination of his Pekah aspect. This letter together with the summary of his April 1 address before the Tabernacle congregation, given in J.F.R.'s Harvest Siftings, pp. 20-22, contain 71 falsehoods. This letter, combined with the letters of H.J.S.'s party, in their attacks on the real interests of the Society, represented by J., and of J.F.R., are the small parallel's antitype of the attacks of Pekah of Israel and Resin of Syria upon Jerusalem and Ahaz (Is. 7: 1). The fearful slaughter of the 120,000 men of Judah in one day by Pekah corresponds to the many Society adherents who were by that letter cut off from standing for its real interests against the little Pekah
and Resin, and the 200,000 captives that Pekah carried away from Judah correspond to the crown-losers who, deceived by J.H.'s letter of March 24, heartily espoused the side advocated by J.H. against the Society's real interests espoused by J. But many British brethren acquainted with the facts, knowing that J.H.'s letter of March 24 literally swarmed with falsehoods, opposed him so sharply that J.H. threatened to resign unless the Tabernacle congregation gave him a vote of confidence; but his desired majority thereby was so slim that he got little comfort from it, and was forced to take a course that released his captives from his control; but their liberation meant their going back to the Society now turned into little Jericho, a Great Company institution, even as J.F.R. during the time that H.J.S. was in the Ahab aspect (Dec. 12-Jan. 2) began to rebuild this little Jericho, little Babylon, as shown above. Jericho (city of palms) primarily represents the nominal church as built up by crown-losers (Matt. 7: 26, 27; Rev. 7: 9), and J.F.R. rebuilt it in the sense of building another, a little Romanist Church, a little Babylon (1 Kings 16: 34). J.H.'s Pekah aspect was so far his most evil aspect. J.H. in his acts against J. thought that he triumphed over him; and externally he seemed so to do; but the price that he paid for it was a falling of many of his supporters and of much of his sphere of influence into Azazel's hands, even as Pekah lost many of his Israelitish subjects and much of Israel's territory to Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria (2 Kings 15: 29).
J.H. was by Divine foreknowledge marked as having but one more aspect as a little parallel of Israel's kings, that of Hoshea, March 24-April 1. In the Hoshea aspect (2 Kings 17: 1-7; 18: 9-12) J.H. did evil, yet not so much of it as in his former kingly aspects, nor as H.J.S. in his kingly aspects. But he fell during this time progressively into Azazel's hands, beginning in a partial way early in this aspect, as the type shows that while Hoshea year by year until the sixth or seventh year had paid tribute to the
Assyrians, and then ceased, he had been serving Azazel partially, and then ceased to do so, for which, during March 30, Azazel made a special attack on him and for three (Hebrew) days (two of ours), March 30-April 1, pressed him sorely and at the end of that time took him into his full control, April 1. The circumstances of this were twofold:
(1) those connected with J.'s leaving England and (2) J.H.'s preparing and delivering his attack on J., his benefactor, before the Tabernacle congregation, before which J. had very self-sacrificingly delivered him from the greatest trial of his life, as he told that congregation on Feb. 18, after J. had finished his long address of that afternoon, described above. J. made his final preparations to leave England, March 30; he left London March 31 for his boat at Liverpool, and left Liverpool about 7 A.M., April 1. J.H. began to work on his denunciatory speech probably March 30, continued with it March 31 and delivered it April 1, about 3 hours after J. sailed out of Liverpool's harbor. We say that he began to work on it probably March 30, because that is the date corresponding to the beginning of Samaria's siege and it was in connection with that speech's delivery that J.H. fell fully into Azazel's hands. This speech is given in a synopsis in J.F.R.'s Harvest Siftings, pp. 20-22. It is full of misrepresentations and its delivery marks J.H.'s complete falling into Azazel's hands, as J.'s leaving England was his final abandoning of J.H. unto Azazel, just as the Board's majority's leaving Bethel (Aug. 8, 1917) marked the priesthood's abandoning J.F.R. to Azazel, a point briefly shown above and to be shown fuller later.
But J.'s leaving Britain April 1 meant more than the priesthood, in him, abandoning J.H. to Azazel; it also meant its abandonment of all his new-creaturely partisan supporters to Azazel; for as the bulk of the American new creatures have been proven to be crown-losers, so have the bulk of the British new creatures been proven to be such.
The crown-lost British brethren have, like the captive Israelites in Assyria, been scattered into three main groups, i.e., the Shearnites, Crawfordites and Hemeryites, and into many subordinate groups and independent ecclesias, because during their preceding trial time they had violated in many ways the Lord's Word given by Jesus through that Servant, as the ten-tribed kingdom of Israel had done as to the Mosaic covenant, and walked in many evils of the nominal churches. A summary of the evils of the British brethren is given in type in 2 K. 17: 9-18, which will be briefly given with verse reference to the type. In their crown-lost hearts they misdeveloped their characters and built their classes into little nominal churches, in harmony with their elders and the general British Church (v. 9). They formed various wrong combinations of Truth and nominal-church arrangements, like elders practically controlling the ecclesias, thus practicing clericalism, and textbookism (v. 10). They used their choice human powers, that should have built up Zion, in the sectarian service of parties (v. 11). They devoted their consecrated powers to the furtherance of their speculations, a thing that God forbids (v. 12; Ex. 19: 21-25). Yet the Lord remonstrated with them, particularly through J.'s ministry among them from Nov. 19, 1916, to April 1, 1917, who everywhere encouraged them to repent and be faithful to the Truth teachings, i.e., throughout the reigns of the little kings, beginning with the little Baasha and ending with the little Hoshea (v. 13). But they refused to mend their ways, and in the phase of each little king set themselves in evil ways (v. 14). They were disloyal to God's teachings and arrangements given through that Servant, and followed various errors, conforming in many ways to the nominal church, contrary to the Lord's charges (v. 15). Among their chief sins was clericalism and sectarianism, which they set up contrary to God's Word. They made illicit combinations of Truth and nominal-church matters, bowed
down to the clericalists in worship of angels and, worst of all, practiced power-grasping and lording ways (v. 16). The leaders used fear of the Second Death to control their supporters: preached error and enslaved themselves for symbolic hire to practice wrong in relation to God's matters, unto provoking Him to displeasure (v. 17), all of which moved God to deliver them up to Azazel, before doing it to American crown-losers (v. 18).
But the American crown-lost brethren, especially the pilgrims and elders, as can be seen by our Pastor's article in Z '16, 327-331, on The Hour of Temptation, did not faithfully practice God's Word, but did more or less like their British crown-lost brethren (v. 19). This moved the Lord in a sense to reject from special favor all of them, the British and American crown-lost brethren, the day Bro. Russell left Brooklyn the last time, Oct. 16, 1916, at which date the partial rejection was evident by the division of the little kingdom into its two parts. The leaders of both parts made spoil of their followers for their own aggrandizement, even until they and their crown-lost followers were delivered over to Azazel. God's displeasure occasioned the rending asunder of the Lord's people as shepherdized by Bro. Russell into two parts, so that there began with a small start a real division between the American and the British crown-lost leaders and their followers, Oct. 16, 1916, which widened, until on April 1, 1917, the British crown-losers fell into Azazel's hands and on Aug. 8, 1917, the American crown-losers experienced the same evil (v. 20). In this separation the Lord allowed H.J.S. to become the British leader of crown-losers; and he led them away from the Lord into great sin (v. 21). The British crown-losers walked in the evil of clericalism and sectarianism and did not give them up (v. 22), not even by April 1, 1917, when God delivered them to Azazel, as God repeatedly warned, especially through J.'s ministry in Britain.
Hence they were delivered to Azazel, in whose hands
they have remained until the present (v. 23). Azazel has since brought into the British ecclesias five sets of sifters who severally have sifted them with the five harvest errors: no-ransomism, infidelism, combinationism, reformism and contradictionism (v. 24). These did not reverence God, who sent, permissively, among them devouring errors, which destroyed them (v. 25). This led them to seek, really of Azazel, a reformation of their errors through teachers better informed on the Truth (v. 26). Azazel raised up such teachers for them (v. 27), who in clericalism taught them a corruption of the Truth (v. 28). The five sifter classes retained their errors, as well as added to them the above-mentioned corruption of the Truth (vs. 29-31). They have continued this doubly-compounded confusion until the present time, forgetful of all the Lord's favors to them and the Biblical truths that He gave them, and despite admonitions given them even unto the present (vs. 32-41). As J. writes this and recalls his loving and strenuous efforts on behalf of the British brethren, his heart bleeds for them as buffeted by Satan, but he rejoices that ere long the Lord will deliver them, penitent, out of Azazel's hands for their cleansing and reinstatement into His favor.
We now return to J.F.R. and study him, first, as the little parallel of Uzziah of 2 C. and Azariah of 2 K., as which he acted the 52 days from Jan. 6 to Feb. 26. Here, as the first date shows, the better side of the doubling set in. We say, the better side of the doubling set in, because, as a rule, while the evil doubling was during Jan. 6-March 27, there was more good than evil done by J.F.R. in the better side of the doubling period, even as there was more evil than good done by J.F.R. in the worse side of the doubling period. Note the dates Jan. 6, 1917, the day of J.F.R.'s first election as president of the Society, and Feb. 26, the day his "absolutely without authority" cable, sent Feb. 24 to London, where J.H. got it the night of Feb. 25, reached J. at Liverpool Feb. 26, and the day that he presumed without the Board's knowledge, let alone its consent, to recall J., its
special representative. Fateful period for J.F.R., these 52 days of the little parallel of the 52 years of Uzziah's reign! After his election by the large majority of shares, his election by acclamation was made unanimous (2 Kings 14: 21; 2 Chron. 26: 1). He worked to make the Society a one-man affair, by having his resolutions passed by the voting shareholders (2 Kings 14: 22; 2 Chron. 26: 2); but therein he was mothered by his self-pushing thought that it was God's will so to have it (2 Kings 15: 2; 2 Chron. 26: 3). In the Uzziah phase, generally speaking, and apart from his busybodying with J.'s priestly work in Britain, he did well (2 Kings 15: 3; 2 Chron. 26: 4), though he did not overthrow little sectarianism and its service among the Lord's people (2 Kings 15: 4). Through J.'s letters, which in some ways expounded the Bible, he was encouraged to greater zeal for God, in which God prospered him (2 Chron. 26: 5). By J. he fought the three groups of sectarians in Britain, and thus established the churches there in harmony with Bro. Russell's arrangements (v. 6). Thus the Lord helped him against the British sectarians and traitors (v. 7). The American and British clericalists were subdued under him; and he made himself felt among worldlings in the trial in which he beat the lawyer who sought to increase the Society's taxes in Brooklyn (v. 8). He strengthened the chief powers of the Society, in its pilgrim, colporteur and volunteer features (v. 9). He fortified the brethren, wrote Truth articles, and made the work fruitful, especially toward the public (v. 10). By the assistance of W.E.V., A.H.M. and M. Sturgeon he developed the pilgrims and elders into a fighting force of large numbers and power (vs. 11-13). He furnished them with Truth equipment for defense and offense, unto making nominal-church people fear him (vs. 14, 15).
But alas! these achievements aroused his pride; and in his pride he presumed to exalt himself above the Board, which was controller of the Society's business and affairs, whereas he was its subordinate as its executive, by busybodying in, and attempting to control J. in his priestly work as the Board's, not his, special representative in Britain; for
this busybodying and attempting to control J.'s priestly work as the Board's special representative was a usurpation of, and a busybodying in an office that did not belong to him, since his pertinent course implied that he was the Board's superior and controller, not its inferior and subordinate, and that he had the right to busybody in J.'s priestly office, which it was not J.F.R.'s office to do, since he as a crown-loser was by God no longer regarded as a priest (v. 16). His busybodying in J.'s priestly work is typed by the incense offering in v. 16. His busybodying began when, as a result of a Shearno-Crawford engineered campaign of letters and cables sent him from England, he on Feb. 19 ordered J. to reinstate the two managers, which both J. and J.H., after discussing the matter thoroughly, agreed should not be done. His next busybodying act was his appointment of an Investigative Commission to examine and report on the Bethel and Tabernacle trouble, a lawless thing, since J.'s solution of it was made by one having powers of attorney in all the Society's business and affairs in every country to which he was sent. His third great act of busybodying in J.'s priestly work was his "absolutely without authority" cable; and his culminating act of such busybodying was his presuming without the Board's authorization and even knowledge to recall J., who was the Board's, not his, special representative. This culminating act of busybodying was additionally a gross usurpation, since it implied that he had the power to annul an act of the Board. The busybodying features of his acts are the small parallel of Uzziah's presuming to exercise an exclusively priestly function, offering incense (v. 16). The wicked character of this act from the Divine standpoint becomes manifest when we remember that it was committed against the Divinely-arranged act of the Epiphany messenger acting as Jesus' special representative in leading certain crown-losers from the door of the Tabernacle to the gate of the Court, delivering them to the fit man and abandoning them to Azazel. Even though none of the participants understood it to be such, the principles applicable to the situation
required J. to do what he did to H.J.S. and W.C. in the Bethel and Tabernacle matter; and had J.F.R. not exalted himself in pride (v. 16), he would have been kept back from his usurpation over the Board and his busybodying in J.'s priestly work in these matters. But "vaunting ambition, overleaping itself," brought him into this evil course.
Our High Priest and His cooperating underpriests protested against and resisted this busybodying and usurpation. This resistance, of course, began with our Lord, by obstacles put in J.F.R.'s way, by J.'s reports, which rebuked his course as unsuitable, then by the direct protests that He made, first through J. as His mouth and hand in the matter, then by other priestly brethren who ordered him away from his course, charging him with sin and consequent shame (vs. 17, 18). This made J.F.R. angry, amid which busybodying he showed this anger; and in this anger his Great Company uncleanness, partial leprosy in a spot or spots typing such uncleanness, broke out in manifestation on him. It was during this time of busybodying, Feb. 19-26, that J.F.R.'s acts manifested him as a Great Company member, coming to a head on Feb. 26, which is the day that to J.'s attention his act revelatory of Great Companyship became manifest, the day J. received his "absolutely without authority" cable. He performed these busybodying acts and his act of usurpation in anger (Jas. 1: 20), and the day J. received that cable is the day that J.F.R. presumed in gross usurpation to recall J., without the knowledge and consent of the Board, whose, and not J.F.R.'s, special representative he was. The marked appearance of J.F.R.'s uncleanness is represented by the leprosy coming out on Uzziah's forehead, rather, e.g., than breaking out in a part of his body hidden by his garments. Also the erroneousness of his whole pertinent course is thereby typed (v. 19). Our Lord and His underpriests observed his (Great Company) uncleanness, e.g., J. recognized this early in March, 1917, as also did E. Housden, while the Investigative Commission, in contradiction
of his "absolutely without authority" cable, bluntly reported to him that J. had acted in harmony with his credential powers and fruitfully. Increasingly other priests did this as time went on. Here, as in many other cases, things beginning in one phase progress into many subsequent phases, without express mention under subsequent phases.
J. as Jesus' mouthpiece, beginning March 3, 1917, when he drew up his first written protest against J.F.R.'s course of meddling in, and muddling the British situation, which shortly he came to see was busybodying and usurpation, continued to oppose J.F.R.'s revolutionisms, so much so, that on July 31, 1917, in a meeting of the People's Pulpit Association, after a protest of J. against J.F.R.'s gross injustice in using proxies sent only for the annual meeting held early in the year, to oust I.F. Hoskins and R.H. Hirsh from that Association, J.F.R. said to J., "About the only thing you have been doing since your return from England is to say, 'I protest.'" Now we will tell the friends why J. protested after every revolutionism of J.F.R. It was because this type required him as the High Priest's mouth to voice Jesus' protest thereat; and J.F.R., ignoring such protests, was ignoring Jesus' protests! These protests and their pertinent priestly acts were Jesus' and His cooperating priests' driving J.F.R. out of the Holy into the Court as a manifested Levite; and by his continued revolutionisms, springing from his Great Company uncleanness, he hastened his exit from the former into the latter; yea, even before the end of this phase, Feb. 26, 1917, he co-reigned with the qualities of his next phase, the Jotham phase (2 Kings 15: 5-7; 2 Chron. 26: 20-23). As described above, the facts of the type and the 52 years of Uzziah's reign, corresponding so exactly to the facts of the first 52 days of J.F.R.'s presidency (Jan. 6-Feb. 26), gave J. the start of enlightenment on the little parallel of the kings of Judah and Israel. It was early in March, 1917, that J. saw this little antitype. Hence this made him all the more resolute in resisting J.F.R. as an antitypical leper, whom he continually regarded and treated as such, until in
1920 J. saw J.F.R.'s gross power-grasping and hypocrisy at the 1920 voting shareholders' meeting to be the antitype of Gehazi's course with Naaman (2 K. 5: 20-24) and his and his special helpers' (W.E.V., A.H.M., J.H., C.J. Woodworth, W.F. Hudgings and R.J. Martin) perpetual uncleanness to be the antitype of that of Gehazi and his seed. Hence since 1920 J. has been much more severe with him and them than during the three former years, when he still hoped for his and their cleansing, a hope that since Jan., 1920, is unrealizable (2 Kings 5: 25-27; Heb. 6: 4-8).
J.F.R. next lived out the little parallel of Jotham, Feb. 26-Mar. 13 (2 Kings 15: 7, 32, 33; 2 Chron. 26: 23; 27: 1). His course in this phase is mainly like that of the good part of Uzziah's course; and he did not interfere by new general acts with the priestly work during this period, though corruption was found in many brethren, with which he did not interfere; and he still appointed special helpers in the work and fortified his powers (2 Kings 15: 34, 35; 2 Chron. 27: 2, 3). He developed churches and strong teachings in the main parts of America (2 Chron. 27: 4), opposed clericalistic leaders and made them and their followers subject to his arrangements (v. 5); and in this phase he prospered to March 13 (2 Kings 15: 36-38: 2 Chron. 27: 7-9).
Next came his Ahaz phase, one of his wicked phases, March 13-28; and unlike Bro. Russell he was therein (2 Kings 16: 1, 2; 2 Chron. 27: 9; 28: 1). In it he acted out the evil spirit of H.J.S. and J.H., roasting J. and his supporters and certain ones in America, and acted autocratically and sectarianly (2 Kings 16: 3, 4; 2 Chron. 28: 2-4). On March 13 he received J.H.'s cable announcing J.'s resumption of control of the British work on March 7 and J.'s convincing the bulk of the Bethel family on March 12, in his pertinent debate with J.H., and thus moving them to accept J. as the Society's special representative. This made J.F.R. return to his evil ways, and started him out as the little Ahaz. The next day, March 14, he sent J.H. the following roasting cable: "Johnson insane. Proof forthcoming. Spending money recklessly cabling. Do
not temporize further. Deprive him of all money and authority. Arrest and incarcerate him. Cable action." On March 27, the day before he symbolically died as the little Ahaz, he sent the following roasting cable to J.H.: "Greenup oppose injunction. Johnson does not represent Society in any capacity. Sealed revocation of his credentials mailed 15th. Insane usurper. Restrain him by law." All italicized parts in these two cables were omitted by J.F.R. when he quoted them in his Harvest Siftings. Without the Board's knowledge and consent he presumed to cancel J.'s credentials, March 15, according to the second cable. In roasting his main helper he did many other acts of autocracy, clericalism, sectarianism, serving them in the British matter. As a punishment from the Lord there came upon him the defeats that he suffered at the hands of J.H. as the little Pekah and H.J.S. as the little Rezin, as described under the Pekah phase of J.H., explained above on 2 Chron. 28: 5-15. H.J.S. and W.C. took from him office powers in the London Bethel and displaced J.'s appointed assistant managers, E. Housden and A. Kirkwood, and their supporters, from Bethel (2 K. 16: 6). He summoned what was actually Azazel to help him against J.H.'s and H.J.S.'s advantages over him, giving him therefore Church and executive powers; and Azazel made H.J.S. a captive (2 Kings 16: 7-9; 2 Chron. 28: 16, 20-23). The Lord punished him still more for his wickedness, arousing the nominal-church conscientious objectors and sectarians against him. The latter got as a result control of six British churches (2 Chron. 28: 17-19).
J.F.R. took the radical stand of H.J.S., which was a compromise with Azazel. In that stand he saw the radicals, a false-religion-serving group, and decided to pattern the Society's religion-serving group accordingly (2 Kings 16: 10). He persuaded A.H.M. to mould American Bethel brethren after the same pattern by the time he could attend to Society matters (v. 11). Supported by these pseudo-brethren of Bethel in America and with the partial displacement of true brethren
in the American Bethel as sacrificers, he served part of the time radicalism and part of the time the Truth (vs. 12-15). A.H.M. carried out his charge (v. 16). J.F.R. withdrew Truth supports from the Bible (v. 17). He perverted the restraints on speculation, and the course that he should take as to the Church, because of Azazel (v. 18). He perverted various Truth teachings and arrangements, and by his evil prevented an entrance into the justified state (denial of tentative justification); he set up classes as independent of the Lord's arrangements as to the Pastoral work (2 Chron. 28: 24). In all the churches he used the brethren to pass out his written tracts (printed and circulated contrary to Bro. Russell's will, which restricted Society tracts to his publications); and thus he provoked the Lord (v. 25). The Ahaz phase was one of the worst of his phases. Throughout its entire period he fought J. in the latter's power and mission; and because J. did a Divinely-ordered and sanctioned work that J.F.R. opposed, one of his worst wickednesses was his course against J. from March 13 to March 28. So dishonorable was his Ahaz phase that the Lord did not allow it to be respected with the others (2 Kings 16: 19, 20; 2 Chron. 28: 26, 27).
His next phase, March 28-April 25, was the little parallel of Hezekiah, and was one of his best phases (2 Kings 18: 1-3; 2 Chron. 29: 1, 2). He began immediately to reform the church evils that he had committed in his Ahaz phase (2 Chron. 29: 3), called the main and subordinate leaders to separate themselves for the work of cleansing the sanctuary (vs. 4, 5), acknowledged the past evils (v. 6), especially those of stopping bringing new ones into the Truth and ceasing teaching one another and sacrificing to the Lord (v. 7), recited how this led to the Lord's punishing the American brethren and the Society with spoliation, defeat and captivity in various errors (vs. 8, 9), proposed to renew his consecration in order to avert the Lord's threatening wrath (v. 10), and affectionately admonished the main and subordinate leaders to be faithful in the Lord's service (v. 11). The subordinate leaders of the three Bethel groups, into which the crown-losers