ELIJAH and ELISHA
ELIJAH AND JEHORAM
2 Chron. 21:1-20
AMERICA AND EUROPE AS TYPED IN KINGS AND CHRONICLES. JEHOSHAPHAT AND JEHORAM IN 2 CHRO. 21. JEHOSHAPHAT'S SIX SONS. JEHORAM'S WICKED COURSE TOWARD THESE. JEH0RAM'S FURTHER WICKED COURSE. THE RESPONSIBLE CAUSE. EDOM'S RELATIONS TO JEHORAM. LIBNAH'S RELATIONS TO JEHORAM. JEHORAM'S WORST SIN. ELIJAH'S LETTER. ITS FORECASTS. THE FULFILLMENT FORECAST AND REALIZED. ELIJAH'S LETTER REPRODUCED. BEREAN QUESTIONS.
IN THE first chapter we called attention to the fact that in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles Judah's kings who come in contact with the kings of Israel, if Elijah or Elisha take part in such contact, type America from the standpoint of certain policies, while the kings of Israel type Europe from the standpoint of certain policies. Thus, while in 1 Kings 22:4-40, Jehoshaphat types Britain as an Aristocracy, in 1 Kings 22:41-53 and 2 Kings 1:17; 3:6-27, Jehoshaphat types America from the standpoint of maintaining the policies of freedom according to the law, of equality before the law, of the Monroe doctrine and of benevolent help of allied Europe, while Ahaziah of Israel types Europe consisting of various states acting more or less independently of one another, and Jehoram of Israel represents Europe allied in a concert of powers. From the fact that in 2 Kings and 2 Chro. Judah represents America and Israel represents Europe when Elijah deals with either of them and when Elisha deals with both of them (Elisha dealing with Israel alone, without Judah being in the picture, represents the Society adherents dealing with Christendom, either American or European as the connection would show), we conclude that as God favored Judah above Israel because of the former's great loyalty
Elijah and Elisha.
196
to Him, so God has favored America above Europe because the former has held and practiced more Divinely pleasing political principles than Europe has. The political principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution of the United States are, apart from Divine inspiration, the nearest approach to the Divine ideals of governmental axioms for the human family organized nationally. Indeed, apart from the constitution that God gave through Moses to Israel, the governmental principles of the United States are the greatest and best ever held by any nation. And because America has been in the main true to these principles, she has been God's favorite among modern nations. Her whole history demonstrates God's favor to have rested upon her. Indeed the Bible speaks of America as being under the shadow, protection, of God's wings (Is. 18:1).
(2) Our reason for believing that Jehoshaphat in 1 Kings 22:41-53 and 2 Kings 1:17; 3:6-27 and Jehoram in 2 Chro. 21 are typical, is due to their being presented in connection with Elijah and Elisha, two undoubted types. We have repeatedly pointed out that Elijah types the faithful Church, both from Jesus' direct statement (Matt. 11:14; see both Revised Versions) and from His identifying as type and antitype Jezebel, the persecutor of Elijah, with the Roman Catholic Church, the persecutor of the Faithful Church (Rev. 2:20-23). We have also shown in the preceding chapter that Elisha is a type of that part of the Great Company which adheres to the Society. These typical persons, acting toward Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, are therefore in these acts typical; hence Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, being connected with these typical acts, must in them have taken a typical part. The fulfillment of 2 Kings 3 having taken place, as we will show later, we can see from the fulfilled facts that in that chapter Jehoshaphat types America; Jehoram of Israel, the European Allies; Edom, Conservative
Elijah and Jehoram.
197
Labor; Moab, the Central Powers; Elisha, the Society Adherents; the war between the typical powers, the World War; the distress of the opponents of Moab, the distress of the Allies, especially in the first half of 1918; Elisha's prophesying of victory against Moab, the Society adherents' forecasting, especially during their 1918 Passover Convention at Brooklyn, the Allied victory over the Central Powers. The facts of the case proved that Jehoshaphat in these events types the United States as benevolently and unselfishly helping the Allies against the Central Powers. From these facts we construe that the kings of Judah connected with Elijah and Elisha type America from various standpoints.
(3) In 2 Chro. 21:12-15, the fact of Elijah's sending a letter to Jehoram of Judah and the letter itself are set forth. Because Elijah is a typical person we construe that the letter is typical, and that Jehoram is also typical; and that in harmony with the principles set forth above, he types the American Government, from a different aspect, however, from Jehoshaphat. From this letter we also infer that typical allusions are made to Ahab and his sons. These from their relations to Jezebel we also construe must be typical (see Chapter I, Elijah—Type and Antitype, on Ahab and Ben-hadad, etc.). Asa and Jehoshaphat for the former reason must likewise be considered typical. As we have already shown in the articles just referred to, Ahab types autocratic Europe; Ahaziah, nationally independent Europe; and Jehoram of Israel, allianced Europe. While Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram reigned in Israel, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah reigned in Judah. Having already seen that the three kings of Israel just mentioned respectively represent autocratic Europe, nationally independent Europe, and allied Europe, it would be in order to state
Elijah and Elisha.
198
the typical significance of Asa, Jehoshaphat and Jehoram of Judah.
(4) We understand that Asa represents America in isolation from alliances and associations with Europe, standing for liberty according to, and equality before, the law and for the Monroe doctrine, Latin America from this viewpoint antityping Benjamin, the consort of Judah; that Jehoshaphat types America standing for liberty according to, and equality before, the law and for the Monroe doctrine in benevolent association with Europe from 1861 onward; and that Jehoram represents America reactionary, following, in attenuated ways, the policies of Europe, autocratic, nationally independent and allianced. Ahaziah of Judah types America autocratic, pursuing a self-centered and co-operative policy toward Europe. The Asa aspect of America covers the period from the beginning of the Revolution until that of the Civil War. From the latter time until just before the Armistice, Nov. 11, 1918, the Jehoshaphat aspect was predominant; and from just before the Armistice, the Jehoram aspect of America became predominant, this policy ending with the Hoover administration. But as Jehoram was his father's coregent (see Chapter II of this book) for about seven years; so the Jehoram policies began to work while the Jehoshaphat aspect was predominant, i.e., during Mr. Cleveland's administration. In 1894 for the first time agitations were here begun for America to join Europe in a peace organization, which during Mr. McKinley's administration came into being at the Hague Conference of nations in 1899, and which functioned as the Hague Court for Arbitration of International Differences. This spirit of mixing in European affairs increased apace under the Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson administrations until, just shortly before the Armistice, it became the dominant American policy toward Europe. This is plainly to be seen in Mr. Wilson's involving America in many ways in
Elijah and Jehoram.
199
European affairs. And while his most extreme policies failed of realization, unquestionably America was by him, and since his second administration has continued to be, very greatly involved in European affairs and, sad to say, in more or less of Europe's spirit.
(5) The above gives briefly the general setting, type and antitype, of certain kings of Israel and Judah. We desire now to enter into the typical particulars set forth in 2 Chro. 21:1-20 and to see their antitypes.
(6) In the first verse the death of Jehoshaphat is set forth. His death represents, not the thought that equality before, and liberty according to, the law, the Monroe doctrine and benevolent intervention in European affairs have ceased to exist; but rather that they have ceased to be America's predominating policies. Jehoram's accession to the throne (v. 1) represents reactionary America's selfishly and unwisely intervening in Europe's affairs and attenuatedly acting out European policies unto their becoming the predominant American policy toward Europe. David (v. 1), also here, represents the Christ class, the city of David being the Church as a religious government. Funerals and burials are held to honor the dead. Therefore Jehoshaphat's burial in the city of David types the fact that the Jehoshaphat aspect of America after having ceased to be the predominant American policy was nevertheless honored by the true Church as standing for policies of which the Kingdom embryo can, generally speaking, approve for human affairs under the curse. For Jehoshaphat to sleep and to be buried with his fathers (v. 1) types the fact that such policies are honored with those exemplified in antitypical Asa, etc.
(7) In verse 2 the six brothers of Jehoram, the sons of Jehoshaphat, are mentioned. It will be noticed that two of them had the same name—Azariah. It will also be recalled that Mary, our Lord's mother, had a sister by the name of Mary (John 19:25). From these
Elijah and Elisha.
200
facts we note that, unlike our Christian usage, among the Hebrews they sometimes gave two children in a family the same name. It will be also noted that v. 2 calls Jehoshaphat the king of Israel, whereas he was Judah's king, Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram occupying the throne of Israel during Jehoshaphat's reign in Judah. How then may the latter be called the king of Israel? We reply, in an accommodated sense—because during the time of his alliances with Ahab and Jehoram he had more power in Israel than the above-named kings of Israel had. And why is this peculiar title given him in this verse? We opine that it was done to point to the antitype—that there would come a time in the Jehoshaphat aspect of America when America would have more influence in Europe than European governments themselves. This began just before America entered the World War and lasted up to the Armistice. The Allies would do almost anything America desired in order to get America into the war on their side. And after America entered the war her word both with the Allies and with the Central Powers counted more than that of all the others. It is this fact that made the Jehoshaphat aspect of America a symbolic king—a powerful ruler—in Europe, antitypical of Jehoshaphat being called the king of Israel.
(8) But what do the six brothers of Jehoram (v. 2) represent? We reply, the six language groups of the European Allies. There are just ten language groups in Europe—Greek, Turkish, Slavic, Magyar, Scandinavian, English, Hispanic, French, Germanic and Italian. These ten language groups are prophetically referred to as ten symbolic men in Zech. 8:23: "Ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the [European] nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, etc." This prophecy we understand began to be fulfilled when all the European peoples at the Berlin Congress of nations in 1878 accepted
Elijah and Jehoram.
201
the Palestinian policies and powers advocated by Disraeli, a Christian Jew and the Premier of Britain, and has since continued to be fulfilled. There were over twenty nations that took part in that conference; but they all belonged to the above-mentioned ten language groups. The expression, "ten men … out of all languages of the [European] nations," we, therefore, understand to mean the ten language groups of European peoples. On the allied side there were just six language groups of Europeans; English, Hispanic (Portugal as Britain's ally), French (France and Belgium), Italian, Greek and Slavic (Russia, Rumania, Serbia and Montenegro). These six language groups we understand to be represented by Jehoram's six brothers. In the Jehoshaphat aspect America could be called their father; for in that aspect America fathered—cared for, in part provided for, and rendered support to, the six allied language groups; while in the Jehoram aspect, sad to say, it has, doubtless unwittingly, acted the part, not of a helpful father, but of a selfish and injurious brother.
(9) V. 3 gives more details of what America as antitypical Jehoshaphat did to the European Allies. In the symbols of the Bible gold represents that which is Divine; silver, the Truth; and precious things, characteristics in harmony with Divine Truth (1 Cor. 3:11-15). The Divine truths on international relations that America gave the Allies are typed by the gold and silver that Jehoshaphat gave his six sons—such truths as international justice, trust, friendship and beneficence as against the injustice, suspicion, enmity and rivalry which characterized the international relations of Europe; while the good characteristics that the Allies acquired as a result of these truths are represented by the precious things that Jehoshaphat gave his six sons. E.g., it was America's insistence that moved Britain to exercise the humility toward, and confidence in, France necessary to accept a French
Elijah and Elisha.
202
Field Marshal as commander-in-chief of the Allied armies, and moved all the Allies to show more of the milk of human kindness in place of implacability toward their foes. By the fenced cities (v. 3) governmental powers exercised by the Allies in America seem to be typed. E.g., the Allies were permitted to establish recruiting stations in America—a governmental privilege never before granted a foreign nation by America. Various of the Allied Commissions—purchasing commission, propaganda commissions, etc.—were also officially stationed in, and recognized by, America. These seem to be the antitypical fenced cities—American sanctioned governmental powers exercised in America by the Allied Powers. The giving of the kingdom, not to any of the six brothers, but to Jehoram, types the fact that America did not commit her dominant policies to all or any of the Allied European nations, but to herself, and that in a course differing from what was typed by Jehoshaphat.
(10) V. 4: The rising up of antitypical Jehoram to the kingdom, i.e., to dominancy of the policies—reactionism—typed by Jehoram, set in with the advocacy of President Wilson's Fourteen Points and his advocacy of a League of Nations, which things he immediately sought to foist on a more or less unwilling Europe. The principles of these Fourteen Points were essentially good; but they were far too idealistic for Europe's political ideals, training and situation. Because of their more or less hypocritical pretentions of standing for Democracy, the Allies prepared in part the way for President Wilson, who accepted their democratic professions as thoroughly honest, to formulate and to seek to foist the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations on reluctant Europe. His Fourteen Points and his consequent ideals on a League of Nations—theories, the sword of v. 4—were based upon the assumption that the ideal institutions of Democracy operating so well in the American states individually,
Elijah and Jehoram.
203
and collectively as the United States, are adapted to all nations individually, and collectively in a League of Nations. These were most serious and costly errors, not only contradictory of reason and facts, but also of Scripture. God, who has arranged for each nation (Rom. 13:1-7) that form of government best adapted to its political ideals, development and condition, wisely did not arrange for all nations, individually or collectively to have so highly a developed form of government as America in its individual states and as a whole, i.e., as the United States; because to backward nations such democratic institutions would be fatal. Therefore He arranged that some nations, because of their extreme backwardness in political ideals, development and condition, should have an absolute monarchial form of government, as Russia, Turkey, etc., had; that some nations, because not quite so backward in these respects, should have a limited monarchy, as Germany, Austria, etc., had; that other nations, rather progressive in their political ideals, development and condition, should have a semi-democratic government, as Britain, Japan, etc., have; that more progressive nations in these respects should have an almost pure democracy, as France, Switzerland, etc., have; and that the most progressive nations in these respects should have a pure democracy, as America has. It is proper, therefore, from the standpoint of God's "ordinance"—arrangement—in this matter, if moral suasion fails, for a nation that has outgrown the form of government once well adapted to its (at present) outgrown condition, to institute a revolution against that outgrown form of government. Hence it was not only right before man, but also before God, for our forefathers to revolutionize against Britain and to establish here a government of, for and by the people.
(11) It is a Divinely, as well as a humanly true principle that governments derive their powers from the
Elijah and Elisha.
204
consent of the governed; for a nation is a mutual political association of many kindred people for their common political interests. God, therefore, arranged that those who consent to an absolute monarchy should have it, that those who consent to a limited monarchy should have it, that those who consent to a semi-democracy should have it, that those who consent to an almost pure democracy should have it, and that those who consent to a pure democracy should have it. And whoever attempts to set aside this very wise governmental arrangement of the Almighty heaps, to the degree that his influence in this particular extends, not only guilt upon himself, but also evil consequences upon himself and others. There is no doubt that the application of the Fourteen Points to all nations or even to all European nations grossly infringed against this ordinance of God. There is also no doubt that the idea of a League of Nations, not simply the form that the League of Nations has taken, militates against this ordinance of God; and therefore both are condemnable as against Scripture, Reason and Facts.
(12) While President Wilson fathered the Fourteen Points and the idea of a League of Nations, he was undoubtedly supported in these two particulars by the vast majority of the American people. None will deny that America as a nation upheld him in his theories on these matters before the Peace Conference assembled. Nor will anyone deny that his advocacy of these theories in Europe, in disparagement of European governmental arrangements and against the views of European statesmen, and that the popular European approval given to certain of his political doctrines on these matters, met the approval of the bulk of the American people. The latter's revolt against the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations, developed by European chicanery, does not alter the fact that Americans generally advocated for the world the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations. Such advocacy has
Elijah and Jehoram.
205
from a number of standpoints had fatal consequences for Europe. It greatly dissatisfied the masses in most European countries with their forms of government, leading to the frequent and general overthrow of all European ministries and to frequent and ineffective revolutions and governmental experiments not adapted to the European needs and conditions. These conditions have indirectly resulted in dictatorships in some countries; and such advocacy has indirectly produced a League of Nations that, when not impotent, is usually mischievous, and is to blame in part for Europe's unsettled condition, time and again rending asunder its member nations, and has very much cooled America's friendliness toward Europe. This advocacy has directly and indirectly produced such unrest, dissatisfaction, distrust, unsatisfiable aspirations, friction and tension as to have slowly been killing the European nations. To this advocacy, therefore, the chaos now reigning in Europe is in part due. The bulk of the American people, supporting these two things, which are reactionary as to American principles and policies, e.g., the principle of consent of the governed and the policy of our national isolation, are, therefore, responsible for Europe's bleeding to death, to the extent that, their course in this matter contributes to this result. And Jehoram's killing his six brothers and certain princes of Israel (not Judah) with a sword types America Reactionary, with the theories of the Fourteen Points and of a League of Nations, bringing the above-mentioned fatal results upon the Allies, consisting of the six language groups, and upon other European nations-the antitypical Israelitish princes of v. 4—e.g., Spain, Holland, etc.
(13) V. 5: If there is anything typical in Jehoram's age at the time of his ascension to the throne of Judah and at the time of his death and in the length of his co-reign of seven years and of his sole reign of
Elijah and Elisha.
206
eight years, it is not known to the writer, though these reigns type what was said above.
(14) V. 6: This and v. 12 show that Jehoram forsook the example of his grandfather Asa and of his father Jehoshaphat, who did not walk in the ways of the Ahabic kings of Israel. The chief wrongs of the house of Ahab were, in Ahab and Ahaziah, Baal worship, exploitation and oppression of the common people in the interests of royalty, aristocracy and a heathen priesthood, Ahab's Divinely prohibited marriage and submissiveness to the heathen Jezebel, his persecuting the true religion and its mouthpieces at his wife's instigation, and upholding imperialism and rivalrous nationalism with their involved evils. In these wrongs Jehoram of Israel did not imitate his father and brother (2 Kings 3:2); yet in some of their wrongs he walked—worshiped the two golden calves that Jeroboam had set up (2 Kings 3:3; 1 Kings 12:28-33). We are told that Jehoram of Judah followed after the wrongs of all three of these kings of Israel (v. 6). He did these things, however, in more attenuated forms than did the house of Ahab. In these matters he was typical of Reactionary America, even as Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram, (of Israel) in these matters type Europe from the above-mentioned three standpoints. As we have already explained, the worship of Baal (lord, i.e., Satan) represents serving—a conscious or unconscious advancing of the interests of—Satan by imitating him in grasping for power and lording it over others, i.e., usurpatory autocracy. Certainly Europe as a whole (antitypical Ahab) and in her independent states individually (antitypical Ahaziah) has been guilty of usurpatory autocracy times without number. So, too, has Europe from these two standpoints exploited and oppressed the common people in the interests of royalty, aristocracy and a heathenized priesthood; for the Greek and Roman Catholic priesthoods are heathen counterfeits of the
Elijah and Jehoram.
207
true priesthood. So, too, from both of these standpoints has there been a Divinely prohibited union of Church and State in Europe, accompanied with a Divinely prohibited submission of the State to the Church. So, too, from both standpoints at the behest of the Church has Europe persecuted the Lord's Truth, His faithful mouthpieces and their supporters. Likewise, from both standpoints has Europe been guilty of imperialism, rivalrous nationalism and all the wrongs that spring out of these evils, such as wars, unjust annexations, hypocritical diplomacy, financial cut-throatery, dog-in-the-manger tactics, envious overreaching, conquest, oppression of the vanquished, revenge, etc. The worship of the two golden calves of Jeroboam types Europe's submission to Sectarianism and Clericalism—based on two sets of supposedly Divine (golden) principles (creedal idols)—with all the wrongs springing out of such evils—wars, unjust annexations, hypocritical diplomacy, financial cut-throatery, dog-in-the-manger tactics, envious overreaching, conquest, oppression of the vanquished, revenge, etc. These are the main sins of Europe from the three standpoints typed by the three kings of the Ahab dynasty.
(15) We are not to think that Reactionism in America ever showed or ever will show the extremes of wrong in the above-mentioned particulars of Europe's wrong-doing; for Jehoram of Judah did not go to the extremes of Ahab's house, neither will America Reactionary, the antitype, go to the extremes of Europe, the antitype of Ahab's house. But there has been more or less of wrongs in these respects. There was considerable of autocracy in some of Mr. Roosevelt's and Mr. Taft's executive orders against which as un-American many raised their voices at the time. But it was especially Mr. Wilson who was autocratic in not a few respects. Even his best friends bewailed the fact that he lived apart from others, that he would
Elijah and Elisha.
208
not accept suggestions, and that he frequently refused to even entertain them; but self-opinionatedly sought to carry out his own will. His frequent coercive pressure upon Congress, a co-ordinate branch of our government machinery, smacked of the same quality. His snubbing and dictatorial course toward the Senate as to the League of Nations and the peace treaty, as well as his dictatorial demands in the peace negotiations, were autocratic. One of the main reasons for the overwhelming defeat of his party at the polls was his autocracy. Some of the executive orders of the kindly Mr. Harding and Mr. Hoover were somewhat autocratic, e.g., their ousting contrary to the civil service rules large numbers of Democratic government employees "for the good of the service" is a symptom of the same disease. Such autocracy is antitypical Baal worship. There is no doubt but that Reactionary America has favored Big Politicians, Big Business and Churchianity (in matters of taxation, etc.) as against the common people and the poor—a thing that is in spirit related to, though not so bad as, Europe's exploiting and oppressing the poor and the common people in the interests of royalty, aristocracy and priestcraft.
(16) During the World War Christian conscientious objectors were frequently imprisoned and tortured, resulting in death to a number of persons, to force them against their religious convictions to engage in combatant service, from which the law expressly exempted such conscientious objectors. This was done against not a few Mennonites, Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Bible Students, etc., and the Clergy as a rule put the weight of their influence against these conscientious Christians by their war advocacy and their denunciation of all who opposed combatant service, and thus encouraged in their evil course those who tortured and sent to prison these saintly men. In this the Clergy acted in a measure of
Elijah and Jehoram.
209
Papacy's spirit as an instigator and supporter of persecution, and those officials who ordered those imprisonments and those tortures acted in the spirit of European officials who imprisoned, tortured and put saints to death. There is no doubt that since the war with Spain, America has imitated in an attenuated form "Europe's imperialism," which accounts for America, the land of the free, now having "possessions." There is also no doubt that Mr. Wilson involved America in European national rivalries, which even yet prompt America more or less to take sides on various European questions with the Allies, even when she disapproves of their extreme and grinding measures against their vanquished foes, though we rejoice that she has sought to modify their severity. The working cooperation between statesmen and politicians on the one hand and of the Catholic Clergy on the other begun under Cleveland, furthered increasingly under Roosevelt and Taft, and brought to a climax under Wilson, strongly smacks of a union of Church and State, and is contrary to the United States' Constitution.
(17) So, too, has America Reactionary—antitypical Jehoram of Judah—in an attenuated form walked in the ways of antitypical Jehoram of Israel—Allianced Europe, especially in its allied aspect, is antitypical Jehoram, as the fulfilled facts of 2 Kings 3 prove. America's co-operating through her peace commissioners with the Allies in making the various peace treaties after the war, has made her in part responsible for those peace treaties, despite the fact that she has rejected these treaties and has negotiated somewhat different ones. She almost always threw her influence on the side of the Allies' demands as against the Central Powers, even though disapproving of the galling measures of the Allies. This made her participate more or less in Europe's rivalries, and co-operate with the Allies in many of their injustices toward the vanquished. She frequently protested against their
Elijah and Elisha.
210
injustices, but later accepted them as accomplished facts, and worked along with the Allies in accepting them as accomplished facts, as can be seen from her co-operating with them as to conditions resulting from the partition of Eastern and Western Germany under French manipulations. As long as America works on the side of antitypical Jehoram of Israel, so long will she walk in his ways—in the ways of antitypical Ahab's house, and participate in its spirit and guilt.
(18) But one may ask, how did Jehoram of Judah come to walk in the ways of Ahab's house? V. 6 tells us that it was due to his having the daughter of Ahab, Athaliah, as his wife. Whenever any of Napoleon's officers would go wrong, he would immediately inquire, "Who was the woman in the case?" While this was an unjust slap at every good woman whose husband or friend had gone wrong, there was much pertinence in the remark as respects bad women. The evil that bad women have induced men to commit makes up a large amount of the wrongs committed in history. Jezebel, Athaliah, Ahab's daughter and Jehoram's wife, Herodias and Salome are striking examples of evil women who have induced their husbands and others to go wrong. Athaliah, according to v. 6, stirred up Jehoram to walk in her father's and brothers' ways. All of this is also typical. We understand that Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, types the American Roman Catholic Church. In harmony with Biblical usage the American Roman Catholic Church can be called the daughter of antitypical Ahab, because as a national church of the Roman Catholic persuasion she is a daughter—a part—of antitypical Jezebel, antitypical Ahab's wife, even as the national branches of the Catholic Church are typed by the various sons of Simeon, while Simeon was used to type Roman Catholics and their Church, as we will show in another connection. She may also be called the daughter of antitypical Ahab because she is the product of
Elijah and Jehoram.
211
the Divinely prohibited union of State and Church in Europe—the offspring of antitypical Ahab and Jezebel. From Cleveland's, increasingly from Roosevelt's and Taft's, and culminatively from Wilson's administration on, the American Catholic Church was favored by statesmen and politicians in America. The expression, "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion," used in an address by a minister at a reception given Mr. Blaine during his campaign against Mr. Cleveland, turned the Catholics into voting in Mr. Cleveland's favor, which resulted in his election to the presidency. Since that time politicians and statesmen have bowed to the Catholic Church. They have co-operated in many ways and have vied with one another in winning her favor and support. In return for such favors and in expectation of others, she had given support to her helpers. While there is not a legal union of this Church and America, there is a working understanding, between statesmen and politicians on the one hand and the American Catholic Church on the other hand, amounting to a symbolic marriage, antitypical of the union and co-operation of Jehoram and Athaliah.
(19) But one may ask, How has the American Catholic Church made America reactionary and imitative of Europe's bad ways? The answer lies on the surface. The Roman Catholic Church is in spirit un-American; it is in spirit European in the bad sense of the term, reactionary, autocratic, sectarian and rivalrous in the extreme. It is Rome's history, doctrines, practices and organization that make Rome un-American. They breathe the spirit of reactionism, autocracy, sectarianism and rivalism; hence their votaries are impregnated with reactionism, autocracy, sectarianism and rivalism, and impregnate others with their spirit. In many ways Rome has been seeking to "get America." She has taught her children the doctrine of the union of Church and State, to profess a hypocritical appreciation of American institutions, to vote
Elijah and Elisha.
212
for whom and what the Church favors; she puts her dependables into public office, and at all strategic points, works through her orders, clubs, etc., to win converts and to advance her policies, enters political bargains, compels recognition on the part of public officials, exacts favors from officials, works for the overthrow of all opposition, dominates news and information-dispensing agencies, secures financial support from the civil authorities for certain of her works, encourages Roman Catholic immigration and seeks domination of educational agencies. By these means she has introduced a spirit into America far removed from that for which our country stood during the first hundred years after the Declaration of Independence.
(20) In the above-mentioned ways Rome has impregnated vast numbers with reactionism, autocracy, sectarianism (which she seeks to break up in Protestantism as inimical to her) and rivalism. With the majority of civil offices in her hands she has, through dominating her children who hold these offices, virtually united Church and State; and she "makes" the politicians and statesmen respond to her demands. We, therefore, charge the American Roman Catholic Church (acting, of course, on orders from the Roman Pontiff) with having made America reactionary, autocratic, sectarian and rivalrous. It is this spirit begotten, born, nursed and grown large and strong by Rome, that has made America apostatize from those righteous phases of policy typed by righteous Asa and Jehoshaphat, and espouse and practice the policies typed by the wicked Jehoram in his imitating the ways of Ahab's house, led thereto by Athaliah, the wicked daughter of the wicked Ahab and Jezebel, the wicked sister of the wicked Ahaziah and Jehoram of Israel, the wicked wife of the wicked Jehoram of Judah and the wicked murderess of all but one of his and her grandchildren. This is the reason why this noble
Elijah and Jehoram.
213
country with its noble institutions has drifted into wrong ways against its cherished ideals.
(21) V. 7: It is wholly owing to the fact that many Divinely favored principles are still operative in America, principles of which the antitypical "David"—God's Faithful—can approve, and which still occasion them better opportunities to serve the Lord here than in any other land on earth, that in harmony with God's covenant with them God has refrained from destroying America Reactionary. It would already have been put aside by the Lord—"destroy the house [America] of David," if it were not for God's covenant with the David class to give them the Truth ("the light") and conditions in which to hold it up unto a completion ("forever") of their ministry—their work toward Azazel's Goat. As v. 7 teaches, God's covenant to these to enable them to complete their Divinely ordained work is the reason for His holding back from America Reactionary wrath that will come in the symbolic earthquake. Thus the Little Flock here proves to be the salt of the earth and the stayer of the second phase of the Great Tribulation in order to the completion of her work toward Azazel's Goat—her last general work on earth—just as the first phase of the trouble—the World War—was kept from each pertinent country until all the Elect were there first sealed in their foreheads (Rev. 7:1-3).
So far we have covered the first seven verses of 2 Chro. 21. We therefore continue our study of the rest of 2 Chro. 21 on Jehoram of Judah, beginning with v. 8. The fulfilled facts of 2 Kings 3 prove that Edom represents Conservative Labor, as will be shown later. There can be no doubt that during the war Conservative Labor in the allied and associated countries strongly supported the latter against the Central Powers. We recall how after the Central Powers were failing in 1918, they unsuccessfully sought, and that in antitype of 2 Kings 3:26, through a Labor
Elijah and Elisha.
214
conference that they staged at Stockholm, Sweden, to undermine by pacifistic and socialistic theories the steadfastness of Conservative Labor toward the allied side. But Conservative Labor, led by Mr. Gompers in America and Mr. MacDonald in Britain, with likeminded and like-acting associates in other allied countries, seeing through the scheme, successfully opposed the purpose of the Central Powers. Not only did Conservative Labor support the allied side during the war, but in America for nearly four years after the war, as can be seen from Mr. Gompers' activity as its head. But the course of the American government in the summer of 1922 in connection with the American railroad shopmen's and the miners' strikes, especially in securing the injunction against Labor's illegal acts in the railroad shopmen's strikes and in those of their supporters, changed American Conservative Labor's attitude toward America Reactionary from a friendly into a hostile one. This change of attitude is typed by the Edomites revolting against Jehoram (v. 8). The King of Edom in 2 Kings 3:9-12 types Conservative Labor as friendly and helpful to the allied and associated Powers; but the king that they elected when they revolted (v. 8) types American Conservative Labor as oppositional to America Reactionary. The memory of American Conservative Labor's resentment especially at the government's applying for and getting the injunction, which broke the backbone of the strike, is fresh in everybody's mind; and like all other genuine antitypes the above-given events most clearly correspond with their picture in v. 8. Certainly this symbolic revolt has occurred "in his [antitypical Jehoram's] days" in which we were from 1918 to 1933.
(23) V. 9 types the course of the American government during this strike. The parallel passage in 2 Kings 8:21 adds two particulars, not mentioned in this verse, which throw additional light on the antitype.
Elijah and Jehoram.
215
It adds the thoughts (1) that Jehoram "passed over to Zair" and (2) that "the people fled to their tents." We will find that these additions give increased scope for the antitype. Zair means littleness, insignificance, and is used to type the comparatively trivial acts complained of in the injunction suit as justifying the issuance of that injunction. The shopmen, refusing to accept the reduction in wages ordered by the government Labor Board, went on a strike. The miners, unable to agree with the operators on wages, etc., likewise went on a strike. Our national President sought by conferences to mediate between the pertinent leaders of Capital and Labor, but failed in his efforts, because of the non-conciliatory attitude of these leaders. For awhile events and conditions were strongly favorable to a Labor victory over the reactionary policy of the government and its representatives ["the Edomites … compassed him about and the captains of his chariots"] but as often happens in such strikes, a number of illegal acts were committed by the strikers, such as obstructing the transportation of mails and the necessities of life and committing acts of violence. These estranged from Labor a reactionary President, his cabinet officers and other influential advisors [the antitypical "captains"], the governmental commissions and departments—the Interstate Commerce Commission, as well as the Labor Board, the Cabinet, etc. [the antitypical "chariots"]. Jehoram's delivering a night attack ["he rose up by night and smote the Edomites"] types the secret working of anti-labor maneuvers on the part of the government. No one outside of inner government circles dreamed that the President, who with so much appearance of impartiality and conciliatoriness was seeking by many conferences to arbitrate between the contending parties, was having his Attorney General prepare such injunction petitions as, if granted, could not do otherwise than give the strike a death blow. The
Elijah and Elisha.
216
application for an injunction with such sweeping petitions as the one in question contained was like a bolt of lightning out of a clear sky. And additionally, it certainly "smote" the antitypical Edomites—the Laborers—and certainly the latter were beaten and fled from the field of combat, submitting to the capitalists' terms ["and the people fled to their tents," 2 Kings 8:21].
(24) V. 10 indicates the result of this historical episode. Judah was successful in escaping defeat at Edom's hands, but lost rulership henceforth over Edom, never again to regain it. So in the antitype, Conservative American Labor is implacably set against governmental reactionism. No more did one hear Mr. Gompers and his associates loudly advocating support of our government as he and they did so effectively from 1917 to 1922. On the contrary, Labor became sullen, oppositional, bitter and on the alert to smite governmental reactionism. Nor will this attitude change before the symbolic earthquake. On the contrary, Conservative Labor will continue in this frame of mind with corresponding actions until that symbolic earthquake in which as the antitypical Jehu it will throw its whole strength against the government. "So the Edomites revolted from under the hand [power] of Judah unto this day"—the time of Ezra, hundreds of years later.
(25) Additionally, v. 10 and 2 Kings 8:22 speak of another revolt: "Then Libnah revolted at the same time" "from under his hand [power]; because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers." Libnah was a city of Judah and was assigned to the priests as a dwelling place (Josh. 21:13; 1 Chro. 6:57). Its being the abode of priests types the fact that its antitype is an abode of antitypical priests. The word Libnah means whiteness, brightness, transparency, and is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word epiphaneia, which we frequently use in its English form, Epiphany.
Elijah and Jehoram.
217
Libnah represents the Epiphany-Enlightened Saints as a religious government or community. As such, their work has the characteristic of manifesting clearly certain persons, principles and things that are revolutionary against God's teachings and arrangements, whether these persons, principles and things are connected with Truth Levites or Nominal Church Levites in their religious or political activities. These saints have continually resented and opposed such revolutionisms; and just as their types, the priests of Libnah, revolted against Jehoram of Judah, because he had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers, so have the Epiphany-Enlightened Saints resented and opposed governmental reactionism in America, because it has in practice forsaken certain Divinely approved principles of government: Liberty according to, and equality before, the law, isolation from Europe's politics, and help of European need, and has on the contrary followed certain Divinely disapproved principles. To give up Divinely approved principles and to practice Divinely disapproved principles are, of necessity, apostasy from God. The facts that we cited above proving that these two things have been done by governmental reactionism in America demonstrate that America Reactionary has apostatized from the Lord in these respects—and that contrary to the historic policies of the country since 1775. Hence, faithful antitypical Libnah's revolt.
(26) The Epiphany-Enlightened Saints have felt this resentment for a number of years, and began to exercise opposition to governmental reactionism here since September, 1922, when antitypical John's Rebuke was first begun to be given. Such opposition has been continued in Elijah's Letter. Not only did John rebuke Herod for his sinful union with Herodias (first part of Luke 3:19), but also for all his other wrongs (last part of Luke 3:19). The antitype of the former activity is what we usually designate as antitypical John's Rebuke, and the antitype of both activities is what
Elijah and Elisha.
218
we usually call antitypical Elijah's Letter. As corroborating the correctness of our setting of these things please note the correspondence of the time coincidences of the types and of the antitypes. Libnah's revolt is in 2 Kings 8:22 by the two time expressions, "then" and "at the same time," shown to have occurred while Edom's revolt was going on. The two strikes symptomatic of antitypical Edom's revolt began in the Spring and culminated in the Fall of 1922. Antitypical John's Rebuke began to go forth late in the Summer of 1922—"then," "at the same time" or period. This time agreement, like every thing else in Jehoram of Judah—type and antitype—as we view it, proves that our view of the subject is correct. Surely the Lord has given us the understanding of this matter, as He has also done with the other features of the Epiphany Truth.
(27) V. 11 gives what seems to be the worst wrong of Jehoram—type and antitype. High places were shrines with altars for sacrifice, built upon hills and mountains, and in Israel were of two kinds: those which were erected for sacrifice to Jehovah, apart from the tabernacle and later the temple, and those that were erected for sacrifices to heathen gods. Both kinds were forbidden, especially the latter, God requiring the people to sacrifice to Him only, through the priests at the tabernacle and, after its building, at the temple. The high places devoted to heathen gods usually had obscene and unchaste acts connected with their use as an integral part of their religious services. This made them all the more depraving in their influence on those who worshiped at these shrines, and led to their being all the more vehemently denounced by the Lord through His prophets. In times and places of apostasy, of oppression by foreign nations and of the division of Israel into two kingdoms true Israelites as a general experience were hindered from bringing their sacrifice to the tabernacle or the temple; and in their
Elijah and Jehoram.
219
cases and those of individual prophets under Divine inspiration, the Lord permitted the use of altars and high places for sacrifice to Him, and accepted the sacrifices offered thereon, apart from the Levitical priesthood and the tabernacle or temple, as appears from Gideon's, Manoah's, Elijah's, Samuel's, David's, etc., sacrifices. But these were on account of exceptional cases, circumstances, times and places, i.e., it being impossible to reach the Levitical priesthood and altar, or these men being inspired by the Lord to these exceptional acts, typical of the course of the Faithful during the days of the Gospel-Age apostasy when the Church was scattered among the various denominations. All other cases came under the prohibition of the Mosaic law on this subject.
(28) The high places mentioned in v. 11 were evidently such as were used for worship of, and sacrifice to, heathen gods; because obscene and unchaste acts were committed in connection with them ["he caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication and compelled Judah thereto"]. As the tabernacle and the temple type the true Church, and the Lord's altar represents the Lord's people, so the heathen altars represent the nominal people of God and the high places represent the denominations of Christendom. Jehoram's building the high places types reactionary officials and their adherents officially rendering support, help and furtherance to the various denominations. As private citizens there can be no question as to their privilege to do or not to do such things; but to do these things officially is reactionary to the Divinely approved American principle of the complete separation of Church and State. It is a frequent thing for American national, state and municipal officials officially to take part in denominational services, celebrations and conventions, their presence being desired and given to lend prestige, influence and dignity to the occasion and cause. Thus, the Romanist Mayor of New York, as
Elijah and Elisha.
220
such, marched with the local Catholic archbishop in a procession to, and took part in, the service of corner stone laying for a convent. A Protestant Mayor of Philadelphia, with the City Council, magistrates, etc., in a celebration of unprecedented size, represented the city officially, with hundreds of extra policemen, in welcoming the local prelate in his return from the papal consistory which made him a cardinal. A Protestant Governor of Pennsylvania, the next night, officially addressed a huge audience at a reception given to the same cardinal. A Protestant President, with his cabinet and a huge delegation of senators, representatives and other officials, attended officially the funeral of a cardinal at Baltimore. Almost every important denominational convention, general assembly, etc., finds a prominent national, state or municipal official as a drawing card of their most important sessions. Such participations inuring to the prestige, influence and furtherance of such denominations, these officials thereby build the antitypical high places.
(29) In v. 11, as elsewhere in connection with the reigns of Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah, Judah represents the United States. We understand "the mountains of Judah," Judah being very largely a mountainous country, to represent the separate States of which the United States consists, the territories not being considered as symbolic mountains. In all of these States, the reactionary officials and their supporters were officially building these antitypical high places. This Jehovah disapproved, especially since sectarianism has been cast off from mouthpieceship and all other Divine favor. But in these high places antitypical fornication—a working alliance between prominent statesmen and politicians, on the one hand, and the Catholic and Protestant Churches, on the other hand—is being committed and has been committed for some time. That Rome can secure friendly courts to entertain her charges against, and can gain conviction
Elijah and Jehoram.
221
to prison of, her opponents, that she has stirred up politicians and statesmen to seek, as such, by legislation the overthrow of the K.K.K. and to seek the unseating of a K.K.K. senator, that she can secure immunity from legal punishment for perpetrators of mob outrages against anti-Catholic lecturers and orders, and that statesmen shut their eyes to Rome's un-Americanism and go out of their way to curry favor with, and grant favors to, Rome, sufficiently attest that there is a working alliance between prominent statesmen and politicians—antitypical Jehoram—on the one hand, and the American Catholic Church—antitypical Athaliah—on the other hand.
(30) But v. 11 points out another wrong: Jehoram "caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication" in connection with the unchaste rites of the high places, "and compelled Judah thereto." What is the difference in the antitype between the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the inhabitants of the rest of Judah? The following will clarify this subject: Jerusalem was the capital of Judah—Judah's officialdom centered there. Therefore, Jerusalem would represent the government of America, as such, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem would represent the officials—national, state and municipal—of America, while Judah would represent unofficial America and its inhabitants would represent unofficial Americans. Keeping in mind that symbolic fornication (Rev. 2:20-23; 17:2-4; 18:3, 9; 19:2) is either a union of State and Church or a working understanding—an actual or tacit alliance—between governmental officials, etc., and a Church, we are prepared better to understand what the forcing of symbolic fornication means. It is a compelling of people to co-operate in and further the schemes or works or purposes of a verbal or tacit alliance between statesmen, etc., and a Church. Rome seeks by legislative, judicial and executive action to overthrow anti-Catholic policies and movements. Her securing Editor
Elijah and Elisha.
222
Gordon's conviction to prison for reproducing from the Congressional Record and criticizing the alleged oath of the Knights of Columbus, her causing the New York legislature to enact a law intended to destroy the New York K.K.K. and her arousing the Governor of Oklahoma to extirpate the Oklahoma K.K.K., are examples, among others, of her use of legislative, judicial and executive action to suppress her opponents. By exercising such acts the officials were not only themselves associated with the symbolic fornication between the State and the Roman Catholic Church, but in requiring one another legislatively to enact, judicially to apply and executively to enforce such laws, and in requiring their subordinates to act in harmony, like policemen to arrest, prosecutors and juries to convict, penal officers to punish, and police, militia, etc., to quell anti-Catholic movements and opposition, they force the inhabitants—officials—of antitypical Jerusalem to support and thus participate in this symbolic fornication; and when they force private citizens to cooperate in the advancement of such purposes of Rome through the officials, they compel the inhabitants of antitypical Judah to commit symbolic fornication. This forcing of symbolic fornication has been going on for some time in America. It began especially as a result of the papally organized newspaper propaganda against the K.K.K. But we rejoice to note the increased growth of the movements that are opposing this symbolic fornication and the compulsory acts thereto. Surely the evils committed by Jehoram and recounted in vs. 4-11 were very ominous and of particularly grave guilt.
(31) Vs. 12-15 describe the episode of Elijah's sending Jehoram a letter and give the letter itself. Jehovah did not look with indifferent eyes upon the wicked course of Jehoram of Judah. He sent a remonstrance to Jehoram through the prophet Elijah, of whose activities after his whirlwind ascent the Scriptures
Elijah and Jehoram.
223
say nothing until in vs. 12-15 they describe his sending to Jehoram a writing that epitomized the latter's chief wrongs, and that pronounced the Divine judgment upon him because of them. In the preceding chapter we discussed certain chronological features connected with this letter, which, among other things, prove that it was written and sent by Elijah, and which will repay review at this stage of this chapter. Not repeating these particulars here, we will now proceed to describe the "writing," type and antitype.
(32) The fact that this letter was written and sent by Elijah some time after Elijah's and Elisha's separation, and also after Jehoshaphat's death, but before Jehoram's death, proves that it would antitypically be written and sent after antitypical Elijah's and Elisha's separation and the end of the World War, but before the World Revolution, since the latter will not come until after antitypical Jehoram's death, Ahaziah being the type of the phase of dominant American policies at the time of the great Revolution. Therefore, sometime between the War and the Revolution—the period in which we are now living—the antitypical letter was to be expected to put in its appearance. Furthermore, since God no more by inspiration gives an understanding of future things, an understanding of future events now can come only from a Divinely given understanding of Biblical prophetic and typical passages treating of future events. The antitypical understanding of every detail in 2 Chron. 21:1-11 would, therefore, have to be had before the antitypical "writing from Elijah" could have been produced; for as the typical "writing" presupposes the events of 2 Chro. 21:1-11 as having already transpired, and as being understood by Elijah, and that in the near past so far as those of vs. 8-11 are concerned; so the antitypical letter presupposes the events antitypical of 2 Chron. 21:1-11 as having already transpired and as understood by the member of antitypical Elijah writing the letter, and that in the
Elijah and Elisha.
224
immediate past so far as concerns those events antitypical of vs. 8-11. And since the events antitypical of vs. 8-11 began to come to pass in their various stages from the Spring of 1922 to that of 1923, the antitypical letter was due to come not before the Spring of 1923; for its writer would have to witness at least some of the events typed by Jehoram's forcing symbolic fornication on the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah before he could particularize them as having taken place. For about five years he had been carefully watching the gradual fulfillment one after another of the antitypes of 2 Chron. 21:1-11, well knowing that the antitypical letter could not be written until at least a beginning of all the antitypes of those vs. had set in. By about May 1, 1923, the last set of these antitypes—those typed by v. 11—were sufficiently in evidence to furnish all the facts necessary to the composition of the antitypical "writing." Accordingly, it was then composed, and its first copies were in circulation May 16, 1923.
(33) V. 12 states the fact of the writing coming from Elijah the prophet to Jehoram; and as a message from Jehovah [Thus saith the Lord God of thy father David] it rebukes him for not imitating the conduct of his godly father and grandfather. The expression, "There came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet," proves that the letter left Elijah when it started on its journey to Jehoram. This, then, proves that Elijah lived for years after his whirlwind ascent following his separation from Elisha, and that he likely wrote the letter shortly after the middle of Jehoram's reign (vs. 18, 19). The typical letter begins with the claim that it is a message from Jehovah to Jehoram, and that because of His covenant relations with David [the God of David thy father]. Does antitypical Elijah's letter begin with these express words? We answer, No. How, then, are we to understand the antitype of the expression, "Thus saith the Lord?" We
Elijah and Jehoram.
225
reply, by antitypical Elijah's Letter basing its contents on 2 Chro. 21:1-21 and other Biblical prophecies and types, and by presenting the events that it gives as the antitypes of those types and the fulfillments of those prophecies, it in pantomime sets forth the claim that it is a message from Jehovah to America Reactionary. And how does the antitypical letter claim to come from God because of His covenant relations with antitypical David—the Elect Church? By its showing that America is God's favorite among modern nations, because its fundamental principles are in such close harmony with the Divine ideals and the teachings of the Elect Church. But how can the verse antitypically imply that antitypical Jehoram is a son [David thy father] of this antitypical David? Because certain principles for which the Elect Church stands and has advocated have been accepted by America and have developed in America the good that is in her. For these reasons America is called the house of antitypical David (v. 7).
Having already explained—type and antitype—the acts of Jehoram recapitulated in the letter, to complete our study of the letter we only need show the correspondencies of these acts set forth in the typical and antitypical letters; and then show the correspondencies of the threatened punishments in them. [The reader will find the antitypical Letter before the Berean Questions on this chapter.]
(34) The typical letter proceeds to give the reasons why punishment was to be meted out upon Jehoram. These reasons are twofold—as manifold as the general kinds of sins are: (1) sins of omission ("Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah."—v. 12); and (2) sins of commission ("But hast walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and hast made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring, like to the whoredoms of the house of Ahab, and also hast
Elijah and Elisha.
226
slain thy brethren of thy father's house, which were better than thyself," v. 13). The antitypical letter alleges the same two forms of sins—those of omission and those of commission—as the grounds of retribution coming upon antitypical Jehoram. Toward the end of the second column of the first page and in the bulk of the first column of the second page of the antitypical Elijah's letter, Jehoshaphat and Asa—type and antitype—are described. There antitypical Asa is shown to be America, Free, Equal and Isolate (as to Europe) in her policies and practices, and antitypical Jehoshaphat is shown to be America, Free, Equal and Benevolently Interventionary (as to Europe) in her policies and practices. For both these kinds of policies and practices she is, in the above-mentioned parts of the antitypical Elijah's letter, shown to have enjoyed God's special favor nationally. In the same connection antitypical Jehoram is defined to be America Reactionary in policies and practices, and further on represented as not following ("thou hast not walked") in the policies and practices of America, Free, Equal and Isolate, or Benevolently Interventionary (as to Europe). This is shown in the last paragraph of column one and in the first two-thirds of column two of the second page of antitypical Elijah's letter. The failure of America faithfully to adhere to the policies and practices typed by Asa and Jehoshaphat is the antitype of Jehoram's sins of omission. These policies and practices should have been observed with most jealous care and zeal as being specifically what is meant by the widely used term, "100% Americanism."
(35) Then, in harmony with what we have shown them to be, in the preceding portion of this chapter, the sins of the house of Ahab, type and antitype, with the similar policies and acts of Jehoram of Judah, type and antitype, were set forth in antitypical Elijah's Letter, from the last third of column two on page two to the top of the fourth page, column one. These sins,
Elijah and Jehoram.
227
type and antitype, were there shown to be autocracy, favoritism toward Aristocracy and Priestcraft as against the common people, persecution of religious dissenters, yielding to the wrong influences of the spouse, type and antitype, to suppress opposition, an alliance of a false Religion and State, forcing officials and non-officials to support and further this misalliance, and becoming a party to ultra-nationalistic and alliancistic policies and practices. Then about two-thirds of the first column of the fourth page of antitypical Elijah's letter described antitypical Jehoram slaying with the theories of the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations the six language groups of the European Allies; and the rest of that column, except its last four lines, summarizes antitypical Jehoram's sins of omission and commission. When v. 13 speaks of Jehoram's brethren as better than Jehoram, we are to understand this language in the antitype to mean that America's course as to the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations was less righteous than the course of the six language groups of the Allies as to the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations.
(36) Having compared the two letters in a way that brings out their relationship to one another as type and antitype in their parts pertinent to the rehearsal of sins of omission and commission, we will now proceed to give—not antitypical details, which cannot be understood before their fulfillment, but—antitypical generalities on the predicted punishment, being enabled to forecast these generalities from the nature of the typical language used, upon which also other Scriptures throw some parallel light. V. 14 tells of the punishment that came upon Jehoram from his enemies; and v. 15 tells of the punishment that he would suffer from his own person. Jehovah (v. 14) is mentioned as the source of both agencies of punishment. In the antitypical letter the antitypical punishments are set forth in the part of page four following
Elijah and Elisha.
228
the heading, "The Overthrow Of Reactionism." It will be noticed that the first part of this section points out God as the source of the antitypical punishments which are shown to come from enemies of Reactionism and from within the ranks of Reactionism itself. The first punishment in the type was the smiting with a great plague which vs. 16 and 17 show was a destructive invasion by the Philistines and certain Arabians. This stroke was to fall upon Jehoram's people, wives, children and possessions. The antitypical letter points out how the antitypical possessions [prestige, influence, profit, credits, friendships and God's special favor], policies [sons], wives [arrangements for the support and cooperation of the churches] and people [supporters] would be taken away by the enemies of Reactionism. The typical letter forecast (v. 15) that Jehoram would be smitten "by many sicknesses through a disease of thy bowels" (literal translation), which would result in his bowels dropping out after a long period of illness. The antitypical letter points out how an internal disease would make Reactionism suffer in all its organizations, theories and acts, until all these would drop out of Reactionism after much and long suffering. Thus, we have shown the correspondences between typical Elijah's and antitypical Elijah's letters, giving such antitypical generalities as are necessary to see these correspondences.
(37) We will now, in discussing vs. 16-20, give what we think to be the antitypical generalities, again remarking that the details cannot be given until fulfilled. We are to avoid seeking, i.e., speculating, for future details. We have by our words, writings and example, repeatedly cautioned the brethren against attempting to pry into the details of future events referred to in the Scriptures. At most, only generalities can be seen beforehand, as can be seen from our Pastor's general forecasts as to the time of trouble, the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, etc., and
Elijah and Jehoram.
229
from the antitypical fulfillments. And such forecasts the Lord usually gives through that particular part of antitypical Aaron whom He is using as such at the time, others attempting such forecasts almost always doing so to their injury and often to the injury of others, as can be seen from many examples from Parousia and Epiphany times (Ex. 19:24). V. 16 again shows that Jehovah was the source of [stirred up] Jehoram's punishment, first through stirring up the spirit of the Philistines and those Arabians who dwelt beside the Ethiopians, i.e., not the African Cushites, but those Cushites who dwelt in Eastern Arabia (Gen. 10:7; 1 Chron. 1:9; Ezek. 27:20-22; Num. 12:1; Hab. 3:7). We have repeatedly pointed out that the Philistines [villagers, inhabitants of a miniature city, typing the adherents of a miniature religious government, a sect, hence sectarians] represent sectarians, partisans. Our experience in Britain with the person whom we consider to be antitypical Geshem the Arabian (Neh. 2:19; 6:1, 2, 6) convinces us that Arabians [travelers, wanderers, i.e., unstable ones] represent treacherous, unstable friends. We, therefore, understand the Philistines to represent such partisan politicians, capitalists, clergy, etc., as are enemies of Reactionism, and the Arabians to represent such corrupt politicians, capitalists, clergy, etc., as are treacherous, unstable friends of Reactionism, who, as the antitypical Arabians who dwell beside the antitypical Ethiopians, represent such politicians, etc., as are especially corrupt, treacherous, unstable friends—those politicians, etc., who are in politics for corrupt purposes, the Cushites typing the most depraved sinners. Quite probably Reactionism's disastrous mistakes and wrongs will prove to be the means that Jehovah will use to stir up antitypical Philistines; and perhaps the instinct of self-preservation will be
Elijah and Elisha.
230
the Divinely used means of stirring up antitypical Arabians.
(38) V. 17 shows the violent invasion of Judah by the Philistines and the Arabians and their plundering and destructive course. Their carrying away all the substance in the king's house seems to type the fact that partisan and corrupt politicians, etc., will take from Reactionism and as far as possible appropriate to themselves every valuable thing belonging to it, such as its prestige, influence, profit, credits, friendships and remaining favor of the Lord. The Philistines and the Arabians taking away Jehoram's sons seems to type partisan and treacherous politicians, etc., stealing Reactionism's policies. Their killing all of Jehoram's sons, except one, Jehoahaz, i.e., Ahaziah (2 Chron. 22:1), seems to type that the partisan and treacherous politicians, etc., will destroy all of Reactionism's policies except one—antitypical Ahaziah. The Philistines and the Arabians taking away Jehoram's wives, except one, Athaliah, seems to type the partisan and treacherous politicians, etc., putting aside the arrangements for the cooperation of Protestant sects with Reactionism by alienating these sects from Reactionism. But the American Catholic Church as antitypical Athaliah will not be so alienated. She will stand by Reactionism to the end and then will support its successor—antitypical Ahaziah (2 Chron. 22:2, 3).
(39) Vs. 18-20 show God's further punishment of Jehoram. The former punishment was from outside agents. But this one was from and involving himself, and seems to type internal [bowels] troubles—troubles that Reactionism will have within and from its own self and its own loyal adherents. Its theories, movements, aims, organizations, etc., will fall into many disorders, which will cause division, disruption and gradual loss of vitality until Reactionism will lose one movement after another, one aim after another, one organization after another, one theory after another,
Elijah and Jehoram.
231
etc., and with these all its supporters will drop out of it and leave it dead as a dominating American policy. Perhaps the two years of suffering by Jehoram type two time stages of Reactionism's internal troubles. The fulfillment will give us the certainty on the subject. The people's making no burning for Jehoram seems to type the fact that there will not be profound regret among real Americans at the exit of Reactionism's dominancy as there has been in connection with the cessation of the dominancy of antitypical Asa and Jehoshaphat. As stated above, we do not of a certainty know of any antitypes of the age of Jehoram at his accession to the throne and the length of his reign. The eight years of his reign may represent eight stages marking the dominancy of his antitype. His departing without being desired would seem to type the fact that Americans generally will not love or long for the policies and practices of Reactionism once it has ceased to be the dominant American policy. The statement in 2 Kings 8:24 that Joram (an abbreviation for Jehoram) slept with his fathers seems to type the fact that Reactionism will take its place with the other, but better, American policies, e.g., antitypical Asa and Jehoshaphat, as no longer the dominant American policy. Jehoram's burial in the city of David seems to type the fact that God's Faithful will nevertheless esteem some of the things that antitypical Jehoram did, e.g., affording them favorable opportunities for their priestly work, rejecting the Peace treaty and the League of Nations, avoiding gross participation in European internal affairs, etc. And Jehoram's not being buried in the sepulchers of the kings types the fact that Reactionism will never by real Americans be regarded as a true American policy.
(40) We have thus completed our study of Elijah and Jehoram of Judah. As far as the antitypical events have come into fulfillment there has been a thoroughly harmonious agreement in the type with
Elijah and Elisha.
232
what we have presented as the antitype. When Biblical types are antitypically fulfilled, there is to be found a most remarkable and soul-satisfying agreement between the type and the antitype; and this agreement leads to increased faith and good works. We trust that such will be the effect of our resent study. May we thereby be mightily energized as to our faith, and may our zeal in circulating antitypical Elijah's Letter be increased and ennobled; for surely a clear understanding of the Lord's mind respecting current events and our privileges connected with them should have a faith-increasing, and an enzealing and an otherwise ennobling effect on us.
(41) Postscript written December 29, 1937—The preceding part of this chapter, including its Berean Questions, except the last two questions, was written in two installments: (1) January 30-February 5, 1924, and (2) March 1-5, 1924. Hence it treated on 2 Chro. 21:13 of things already fulfilled; the rest of the chapter being not due to be fulfilled yet; for antitypical Elijah's Letter, which we will reproduce as the end of this chapter, was written April 28, 29, 1923; and hence everything treated on in vs. 14-20 went into fulfillment after the preceding part of this chapter was originally written. Therefore, the comments on vs. 14-20 had to be given as above, in the form of forecasts. These forecasts had all gone into fulfillment by the end of Mr. Hoover's administration, March 4, 1933. Our forecasts on vs. 14-20 were most remarkably fulfilled, as the following will show: During the rest of Mr. Coolidge's first, and the whole of his second administration, and during the first eight months of Mr. Hoover's administration, Reactionism continued on its evil course, unhindered by the punishments forecast in vs. 14, 15. These punishments set in with the stock market collapse, which began October 29, 1929, and which started the depression of the years 1929-1933. Amid and mainly through that depression
Elijah and Jehoram.
233
the forecast punishments came. As indicated in the forecasts, the punishment came from two general sources: (1) From Reactionism's external foes; and (2) from Reactionism's internal condition. The external foes were the antitypical Philistines and Arabians (vs. 16, 17). As suggested in paragraphs (36) and (37), the antitypical Philistines were to be partisan politicians, capitalists, clergy, organized laborers, etc., and the antitypical Arabians were to be treacherous politicians, capitalists, clergy, organized laborers, etc.
(42) Did the suggested forecasts thus fulfill? We answer, yes; for partisan Democrats and treacherous Republicans (the so-called Progressives) in Congress, backed by capitalists, like the Duponts, Rascob, etc., the Romanist clergy, and organized laborers, opposed Reactionism, regnant from 1918 to 1933, especially as it acted in Hooverism, and devastated it in all its policies (thy sons), except autocracy, which survives as the present regnant American policy (antitypical Ahaziah). This combination of partisan Democrats and treacherous Republicans (Progressives), backed by capitalists, clergy and organized laborers, frustrated and defeated almost every policy that Reactionism, acting through Mr. Hoover, offered for healing the depression. All will recall how in Congress the Democrats, supported by the Progressives, out of mere partisanship blocked as reactionary almost every measure (sons) that Mr. Hoover suggested. Indeed, the autocratic features of Reactionism's policies were the only ones that they did not block. They did the same with every one of its arrangements, whereby they alienated the support and cooperation of the churches (thy wives), except the American Romanist Church (Athaliah). They made Reactionism so unpopular as to alienate from it the vast majority of the American voters (thy people), who consequently administered the worst defeat on it, as represented in Hooverism,
Elijah and Elisha.
234
in the 1932 campaign, ever hitherto administered on a major party in American history. They destroyed Reactionism's possessions (all thy goods) [the prestige, influence, profit, credits, friendships and God's special national favor], so that Reactionism is now poverty-stricken in America. Moreover, through these oppositions and the distresses of the depression, its death was brought about. This happened through internal troubles (literally, by many sicknesses through a disease of thy bowels; see also vs. 18, 19). The Republicans who were the especial reactionaries fell into internal dissensions which made them internally (bowels) sick, as a party. The Republican Progressives among them caused all sorts of diseases in the party, whereby many were driven out of it into other parties. Some of these, like Senators Norris, La Follette, etc., openly campaigned against Mr. Hoover and for Mr. Roosevelt in the 1932 campaign. Mr. Borah and others sulked in their tents. Thus Reactionism was torn internally by many dissensions and great loss of supporters, and was thus fatally smitten in its movements, theories, practices, aims and organizations, and then it fell asunder in disintegration (bowels fell out) in the great defeat administered to it in the 1932 campaign, resulting in Mr. Hoover's defeat by the largest majority ever up to that time administered to a major-party's unsuccessful presidential candidate. And with the Hoover administration Reactionism, which had been America's supreme policy from 1918 to 1933, died as such (v. 19). And it died unloved, unwept and unmourned by the bulk of the American people (the people made no burning for him … and he departed undesired,—vs. 19, 20). It is to be remembered as a one-time policy regnant in America, but dishonored as such (they buried him, … but not in the sepulchers of the kings). The above postscript proves that our forecasts of 1923 (in Elijah's Letter)
Elijah and Jehoram.
235
and 1924 (in this chapter) were very closely fulfilled.
Here follows the antitype of Elijah's writing, usually called Elijah's Letter. It will be seen that it is drawn up in the form of questions beginning with the words, Do you know:
Do you know that, next to Israel during the Jewish Age, America has been the object of Jehovah's favor more than any other nation?
Do you know that the Bible in one of its prophecies addresses America—We quote the Improved Version's rendering of the verse: "Ho [not "woe" as the A. V. renders it], land of shadowing wings [land of God's special providential protection], which is beyond [west of] the rivers of Ethiopia [the then most westerly known country]"—in language that indicates its being a special object of Divine care and blessing? Is. 18:1.
Do you know that America's history demonstrates that of all modern nations, it has been the one most favored by God in material, social, international, civil, political and religious respects?
Do you know that the special favor of God upon America has been due to the fact that America's principles of human liberty in harmony with the law and of human equality before the law, believed in and acted out by Americans generally as the fundamental principles of Democracy, more nearly than the principles underlying any other form of government express God's highest ideal of the principles that should underlie government, as can be clearly seen in God's making these principles the expression of Israel's government between man and man under the Mosaic law; and as was exemplified in Israel's history until, rejecting God's highest ideal of government for them, they insistently demanded from, and were reluctantly given by, God a monarchical form of government?
Do you know that God has, not only in the Biblical prophecies, but also in the Biblical types, described
Elijah and Elisha.
236
various qualities, acts and policies of the European nations and of America?
Do you know that in these types He has more especially represented the European nations as such by certain features of the kingdom of Israel, and America as such by certain features of the kingdom of Judah, when representing them as separate and distant from one another?
Do you know that in these particular types, He represented the European nations, in general, from the standpoints of three special forms of policy, by the House of Ahab—i.e., Ahab and his two sons, Ahaziah and Jehoram, whose histories are given with those of Elijah and Elisha in 1 Kings 16:29—2 Kings 10:28?
Do you know that Ahab represents Europe collectively acting out for many centuries the principles of Autocracy in co-operation with Aristocracy and Priestcraft?
Do you know that this is apparent, among other things, from the fact that Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, and the persecutor of Elijah and the Lord's other prophets, and the seducer of Israel to idolatry and other sins, is expressly named as a type of the Catholic Church, in union with the Autocratic States of Europe, persecuting the antitypical Elijah, the faithful servants and people of God, during the Gospel Age and misleading Christendom into various gross evils? (Rev. 2:20-23; 17:1-6; 18:3, 9, 23; 19:2, 3; Matt. 11:14. See the English and the American Revised Versions).
Do you know that antitypical Ahab is now dead—European Autocracy is a thing of the past, dying through revolutions in Europe from 1789-1918, and by Autocrats being compelled to give the European peoples constitutions, the franchise, legislative assemblies, etc., in every European country? (1 Kings 22:29-40).
Do you know that Ahaziah, Ahab's son and successor,
Elijah and Jehoram.
237
types the European nations individually acting in independence of one another, and consequently in national rivalries, envies, grudges, hatreds, suspicions, imperialisms, etc., etc., and that the conditions created by the World War have put an end to the separate independent action of European nations in international European affairs—that antitypical Ahaziah is also now dead? (2 Kings 1:1-18).
Do you know that Jehoram, Ahab's son and Ahaziah's successor, types Europe acting as a concert of nations apart from Autocracy, and thus represents the European Concert, which has intermittently for more than a century been existing in many forms, among others, the Entente? (2 Kings 3:1-27; 8:25—9:24).
Do you know that the fact that Elijah's activities affected almost the whole of Ahab's reign, covered the whole of the short reign of Ahaziah and reached at least into a part of Jehoram's reign, proves that antitypical Ahaziah's and Jehoram's activities were to occur toward the later part of antitypical Elijah's—the Church's—stay on earth, i.e., toward the end of the Gospel Age, in which the sign and time prophecies of the Bible prove we now are? (1 Kings 17:1—2 Kings 2:11).
Do you know that Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram (sometimes called Joram) and Ahaziah, four of the kings of Judah, were successively on Judah's throne during the Ahab dynasty, in the ten-tribe Kingdom of Israel, and that as such, from certain standpoints, they typed the fact that four distinct lines of policy would be active in America toward Europe while the three lines of policy typed by Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram would be active in Europe? (1 Kings 16:29; 22:41; 2 Kings 8:16, 25).
Do you know that the righteous Asa types America as a Democracy, acting free from all foreign, especially European, entanglements, while Autocracy was yet generally active in Europe, hence from about the
Elijah and Elisha.
238
beginning of America's independence until the Civil War?
Do you know that the righteous Jehoshaphat, as active in 1 Kings 22:41-53; 2 Kings 3:7-27 (but not in 1 Kings 22:1-40, where he types the late eighteenth and the nineteenth century Great Britain as an Aristocracy) types America as a Democracy benevolently intervening in European affairs in the World War, to make the World safe for Democracy and the Monroe Doctrine?
Do you know that in 2 Kings 3 Edom's king represents Conservative Labor; Moab's king, the Central Powers; his firstborn, Germany; Elisha, a secondary class of God's people; and his prophesying Israel's victory over Moab, their predicting under governmental inspection in 1918 the Allied victory?
Do you know that Jehoram of Judah types America as reactionary, measurably going back on the policies and activities typed by the righteous Asa and Jehoshaphat and taking up more or less of the ways of Europe as typed by the house of Ahab? (2 Kings 8:18).
Do you know that we are Scripturally warranted in viewing Jehoram of Judah as typical, because his activities are connected with certain acts of Elijah, a Scripturally mentioned type of the Church—God's faithful people? (Rev. 2:20; Matt. 11:14; 2 Chron. 21:12-15).
Do you know that America, as represented by Asa types, apart from the government in Israel before the Israelitish monarchy, the noblest, most righteous, most beneficent, and most glorious government ever instituted among men—a government of the people, for the people and by the people?
Do you know that the principles of human liberty in harmony with the law and of human equality before the law, cherished, defended and practiced in America, made America, as antitypical Asa, the nearest approach to God's ideal of human government ever
Elijah and Jehoram.
239
reached among men, apart from the Divinely-given ideal of Mosaic government in Israel?
Do you know that it was because America lived truer to these ideals than any other modern nation, that God made her His special ward among the modern nations, even as He did Judah under Asa, and that this accounts for His giving her independence from Britain, His freeing her from the destruction of the Napoleonic wars and from Europe's racial and national envies, rivalries, grudges, hatreds, revenges, suspicions, self-aggrandizements, imperialisms, etc. His bringing her safely as a nation, made wholly free, out of the trying experiences of the Civil War, His making her a beacon light to the nations, a refuge of the oppressed, a helper of the helpless, and a cornucopia to the industrious, and His favoring her with the headquarters and as the main field of activity for the greatest religious work ever carried on in this earth since the days of Christ? (Is. 18:1-7).
Do you know that America, as a real Democracy, true to its principles—antitypical Jehosaphat—went into the World War to help the Allies, not as an ally, but as an associate, and to make the World safe for Democracy, humanly speaking, with clean hands and unselfish motives, which she maintained until about the end of the War; and that it was due to these facts that victory—snatched out of defeat—came to the Allies, who for their wickedness, would certainly have been defeated, and who would have been entirely disregarded by God and His Messenger, antitypical Elisha, except for God's favor upon America—antitypical Jehoshaphat? (2 Kings 3:10-27).
Do you know that America, in some of her policies has of late years measurably and increasingly abandoned the practice of some of those principles of human liberty in harmony with, and of human equality before the law, with her consequent policy of isolation from Europe's peculiar affairs, policies and
Elijah and Elisha.
240
spirit—principles and practices that characterized the first hundred years of America's policies following the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of America—two documents that easily rank first among all statements of human wisdom on governmental affairs for political welfare?
Do you know that additionally America has measurably and increasingly abandoned the practice, especially toward Europe, of those principles that moved her to enter the World War, i.e., to make the World safe for Democracy and to deal with Europe from a helpful and unselfish standpoint?
Do you know that it is evident that some present American policies—contrary to historic Americanism—have become Europeanized, from the fact that American governmental mouthpieces and representatives officially claim that as a result of the War, America has gained certain "rights and interests in certain European questions," and that therefore she must and does intervene in certain European affairs whenever these "rights and interests" are affected by Europe's policies, acts, conferences, treaties, commissions, etc., etc.?
Do you know that this measurably selfish, wrong and un-American course of intervening in European affairs was given a strong impetus when President Wilson formulated and advocated his fourteen points, helped formulate and advocated the League of Nations, participated in and sanctioned the "deals" written into the peace treaties, and in some ways involved America into participation in certain European affairs, which participation our changed administration, in spite of America's repudiation of what may be specifically called "Wilsonism," has not only not set aside, but insists both covertly and overtly America's interest require?
Do you know that such acts and claims were enough
Elijah and Jehoram.
241
to make Washington, Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln turn in their graves, if this were possible?
Do you know that such a course means the abandonment of certain Divinely pleasing American principles, for the advocacy and practice of which America has in multitudes of ways received as Divine rewards marvelous blessings from God?
Do you know that such a course implies America's measurable endorsement and acceptance of certain evil European policies, for the practice of which Europe's wickedness has been typed by the wicked practices of the house of Ahab?
Do you know that it would have been Divinely pleasing, had America at the end of the War abandoned all claims of "special interests and rights in certain European affairs," even including Europe's debt to us, rather than lose her standing of favor with God and go back on her honorable history and principles by compromising her Divinely approved principles and imbibing and practicing more or less of Europe's Divinely cursed policies, acts, and spirit—those of the antitypical House of Ahab—as a Divinely sent partial punishment, for which Europe is in her present plight, and as a Divinely sent full punishment, for which complete destruction shortly will overtake her, as she is now constituted, in the fast approaching great Revolution of prophecy? (1 Kings 21:17-29; 2 Kings 9:22—10:11; Jer. 25:29-33; Rev. 16:18-20).
Do you know that the chief sins of Europe as the antitypical House of Ahab, center in and result from her Autocracy, in co-operation with Aristocracy and Priestcraft, her consequent persecution of God's Saints and exploitation and oppression of the Common People, her Imperialism and rivalrous Nationalism and Allianceism?
Do you know that most unfortunately, and inconsistently with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and
Elijah and Elisha.
242
the honorable and Divinely pleasing policy of our national Isolation, America has in certain acts followed the course of Europe in these respects?
Do you know that some of the acts of the previous Administration were so extremely autocratic that their thorough un-Americanism became intolerable and ended in complete repudiation at the polls by the largest majority ever cast in a national election, which proves that not Americans as such, but America's dominant statesmen, in not a few cases, are disloyal to "Americanism," which has had God's approval manifested in multitudinous ways.
Do you know that some of the acts of the present Administration, e.g., discharging non-Republican governmental employees, "for the good of the service," in gross disregard for the Civil Service rules, are likewise autocratic, and therefore smack of the ways of Europe—the antitypical House of Ahab?
Do you know that in America we have an Aristocracy—not of nobility, but—of wealth, whose members act toward their employees more or less as the feudal lords did to their vassals, yeomen, serfs, etc.?
Do you know that just as European Autocracy sided with the Aristocracy as against the Common People, so our Government frequently favors its Aristocracy of wealth as against the Common People, as can be seen from some war contracts, court decisions, e.g., on child labor laws, women's minimum wage and maximum hour laws, trade union cases, injunctions, also some Interstate Commerce Court and Labor Board decisions, governmental intervention in disputes between Capital and Labor, sometimes ending in injunctions against Labor, causing it to lose out, favoritism in some cases to the Interests in tariff schedules, supporting over-weeningly Americans' foreign investment enterprises, like those of oil and mining corporations, "the flag follows oil," etc., in most cases yielding only under constraint to the needs of the Common People
Elijah and Jehoram.
243
when these conflict with "the Interests," etc., etc., and that in these things our Government has acted out the spirit of Autocracy's policy toward the Aristocracy as against the Common People?
Do you know that as a result of our Government's yielding in part to the denunciations of some of the "Clergy," against whose war-justifying activities some conscientious objectors, because of their convictions on religious grounds, protested as misrepresenting the teachings and spirit of Christ, and contrary to which clerical teachings they, as the law gave them the right to do, refused combatant service, and also as a result of our Government's yielding in part to its own supposed military exigencies, it actually, though illegally, through its military representatives, inflicted various forms of torture, resulting in certain cases in death, to compel participation in the war, in combatant service, on the part of Christians whose conscientious convictions forbade such a thing, as can be seen in the way various Baptists, Mennonites, Adventists, Bible Students, etc., were treated, and thereby our Government imitated in part some of Europe's course in yielding to sectarian influence to torture dissenters?
Do you know that the Catholic Church has obtained such influence in American civil affairs that she can frequently secure judicial, legislative and administrative support against those who attack her, as can be seen (1) from the fact that she lately secured against Mr. D. J. Gordon, of San Francisco (the Editor of the Crusader, a paper that stands for "Americanism," as against Europeanism in State, Aristocracy and Priestcraft), a sentence to prison on the charge of criminal slander, not for the alleged slander of an individual, but for the alleged slander of a Catholic secret order, because he quoted from the Congressional Record and published with disapproval the alleged oath of the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic Secret Order; (2) from the fact that courts in various parts
Elijah and Elisha.
244
of the country are entertaining suits for criminal libel for the identical alleged slander; (3) from the fact that administrative, legislative and judicial officials are yielding partial support to Rome's newspaper and other propaganda against, and Rome's other efforts at the overthrow of, the K.K.K., which Rome fears to be against her, as can be seen in what is being or has been done by national, state or municipal officials in Louisiana, Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, New York, etc., against the K.K.K. with the partial support of the national Administration in at least one of these cases; (4) from the fact of what is being sought, in part by Rome, to be done with Senator-elect Mayfield of Texas; (5) from the fact that Catholic men mobbing and in some cases bruising and in a few cases even killing anti-Catholic lecturers in America, escape the law's punishment through more or less Catholic influence with civil officials; and (6) from the fact that civil officials not only do nothing against Catholicism's undemocratic and un-American agitations, political activities and Orders when asked to move against them by American patriots, but frequently go out of their way to curry favor with, to do honor to, and promote the interests of, the Roman Catholic Church, than which a more evil system of deception, fraud, error and mischief has never put its withering blight upon the human family?
Do you know that such a course proves that there is an illicit working understanding, a quasi alliance, between State and Church in America—a thing that is in spirit akin to the relation of State and Church in Europe, which is one of the sins of Europe as the antitypical House of Ahab, represented by the Divinely prohibited marriage between Ahab and Jezebel? (1 Kings 16:31).
Do you know that such favoring of the Roman Catholic Church by judicial, administrative and legislative officers, enabling her, partly through the acquiescence
Elijah and Jehoram.
245
and partly through the help of governmental agencies to fight her opponents' anti-Catholic activities, by laws, judicial sentences and administrative acts, compels some judicial, administrative and legislative officials and some non-official Americans, in obeying and administrating such laws and in enforcing such sentences, to support a working understanding between Church and State, which is in the Bible symbolically called fornication—an illicit co-operation of State and Church? (Rev. 2:20-23; 17:2-4, 5; 18:3, 9; 19:2).
Do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is under God's special curse (Rev. 2:20-23; compare 1 Kings 21:23; 2 Kings 9:30-37; Rev. 18:3-24; 19 2, 3), which will shortly be consummated in her complete destruction, and that all who support and further her against the opponents of her peculiar principles and practices are heaping guilt upon themselves before the Lord, which must bring retribution? (Rev. 2:20-23).
Do you know that this means that the Lord will especially reckon in punishment with those administrative, judicial and legislative agents who support her officially against those who oppose her peculiar principles and practices?
Do you know that America, by her co-operation with the Allies after the War, up to the present time [1923], as against the Central Powers, e.g., some of her reservations in her peace treaty with Germany, her co-operation on various of the commissions appointed by the European treaties and in conferences to adjust European affairs, as against the Central Powers, her actual, if not verbal, sanction of the European peace terms (through her ultimate support of the Allies in their selfish, galling, cruel and impossible treaty claims) as against the Central Powers, is supporting Europe's Imperialism, rivalrous Nationalism and Allianceism, and thus is guilty of these wrongs to the extent of her active or passive support of them?
Elijah and Elisha.
246
Do you know that such a course is un-American?
Do you know that by President Wilson's and Americans', generally, advocating as America's cure for the European situation, the theory of the fourteen points as against Europe's governmental theories and the political development of the peoples of each language group of the European Allies—English, French, Slavic, Italian, Hispanic and Greek, six language groups in all—and by America's foisting upon Europe, almost against the latter's convictions, a League of Nations as the supposed outworking of the fourteen points, America betrayed and sentenced to the death that they are now dying, these six language groups of governments, and in thus deserting her own policies and in foisting alien policies, with their—for Europe—destructive consequences upon reluctant Europe, which consented to them only in hope of America's material help, our country unfortunately emerged from the situation thus created, less righteous for her part in creating this situation than the six language groups of people that comprised the European Allies?
Do you know that it was wrong for American officials or their representatives to seek to shape European Governments after our theory of Government, among other reasons, because all nations, not having the same standards of and for mental and moral attainment and procedure, cannot profitably be made over the same political last, God in His providence arranging for each people to have the kind of a government that their ideals, acting in harmony with their environments and needs, will establish and maintain, and He arranging for very few pure Democracies, because very few nations can, morally and intellectually, measure up to the standards of thought and action that a pure Democracy requires? (Rom. 13:1-7).
Do you know that America's abandonment of her policy of Isolation from European entanglements, and of her policy of unselfish help for Europe in defense
Elijah and Jehoram.
247
of Democracy while remaining true to her traditional American policies, her intervening through her representatives, etc., in Europe's affairs, and her imitating Europe in certain policy ramifications, in which are active some features of Europe's Autocracy, Aristocracy, Priestcraft, persecution of conscientious objectors, exploitation of the Common People as against the interests of Aristocracy and Priestcraft, co-operation of Church and State, Imperialism, rivalrous Nationalism and Allianceism, are not only offences against pure Americanism, but are offences against God Himself, because of their violating various applications of the Golden Rule?
Do you know that God, holding nations as well as individuals responsible for their conduct, must punish our national apostacy from certain policy features that we have accepted, and that He approved and blessed to us in their keeping in the respects indicated above, and must punish our national practice of certain features of European policies and acts which God has typed in the Bible by the reprehensible course of the house of Ahab?
Do you know that God's usual way of punishment is to bring to naught the wrong itself, as well as the things sought to be gained by the wrong, and to make these things revert in loss to the wrong-doer?
Do you know that this means that America, for having practiced, though in more attenuated forms than Europe, the above-described wrong policies of Europe—the antitypical house of Ahab—will fail to realize what she sought to gain by this wrong course, and instead will thereby lose prestige, influence, markets, financial gain, Europe's friendship, almost all of Europe's debt to her and, most valuable of all, God's special favor for her?
Do you know that this also means more, i.e., that
Elijah and Elisha.
248
the European policies that America has made even partially her own on a selfish basis will be repudiated?
Do you know that this also means that every American movement and arrangement that are identified with and support such un-American policies, will come to naught?
Do you know that this also means that every theory and principle that America has received in following these un-American policies, will be rejected?
Do you know that in these losses all who have furthered America's embarking on the career of reactionism (as these European policies have certainly made America reactionary) will suffer loss as a consequence of the havoc that their course has already wrought and will yet work?
Do you know that the enemies of Reactionism will wage unrelenting and unremitting war against it, and that, emerging victorious from the fray, they will deprive it of all it has, and will make it thoroughly discreditable as un-American and wrong?
Do you know that a little later, reactionary America will be seized upon by an internal disease and die as such—all supporters, arrangements and movements of Reactionism becoming politically sick, and making reactionary America politically sick with a lingering disease, America reactionary, but not America itself, will die by all Reactionism's politically sick movements, arrangements and supporters coming out from it?
Do you know that there will be no mourning over the death of Reactionism in America, and that as a policy it will not be honored as policies of pure Americanism have been honored?
Do you know that America should sit in sack cloth and ashes in mourning over these national sins, and quickly set them aside?
Do you know that every American, thoroughly permeated
Elijah and Jehoram.
249
with the Americanism of antitypical Asa and Jehoshaphat, will so do?
BEREAN QUESTIONS
(1) To what thought pertinent to our subject has attention been called in THE TRUTH? Where and by what persons are these thoughts typed? What conclusions follow from America and Europe being typed by Judah and Israel respectively? Why is this difference made by God? How do American governmental principles stand related to the Mosaic and to all other human governmental principles? What two things prove God's favor to have been with America?
(2) Why should we regard Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram as typical? What is the Biblical proof for this? What proves Elisha to be typical? In what kind of acts did all these share? Why? What fact proves 2 Kings 3 to be typical in its details? What are these details—type and antitype? What conclusions flow from these things?
(3) What are set forth in 2 Chron. 21:12-15? What conclusions should be drawn from the fact that Elijah sent a letter to Jehoram: as to the letter, Jehoram, Asa and Jehoshaphat, Ahab and his sons, Ahaziah and Jehoram? What three Israelitish and four Judean kings were contemporary? What do Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram of Israel type?
(4) What do Asa, Jehosphaphat and Jehoram of Judah type? What should be said of Ahaziah of Judah typically? What are the general periods of antitypical Asa, Jehosphaphat and Jehoram? How did the Jehoshaphat and Jehoram aspects lap into one another? Trace briefly the development of the Jehoram aspect.
(5) What has the study so far traced? What is to be studied henceforth?
(6) What is not, and what is, typed by Jehoshaphat's death? What does Jehoram's accession to the throne type? What are typed by David, David's city, a burial, Jehoshaphat's burial in the city of David and his sleeping and burial with his fathers?
(7) Who are mentioned in verse 2? What peculiarity is there as to the name of two of them? What case parallels this? What do these two facts show? What peculiar
Elijah and Elisha.
250
title is given to Jehoshaphat in verse 2? Explain the reasonableness of this—type and antitype.
(8) What do Jehoshaphat's six sons represent? Of how many language groups do the European peoples consist? Name them. What Scripture proves this? Explain this Scripture. What fact in the number of nations represented at the Berlin Congress proves that they are covered in the "ten men" of this Scripture? How many of these language groups were on the allied side? What were they? Of how many nations did they consist? How were they antitypical Jehoshaphat's sons? How did antitypical Jehoram act toward them?
(9) What does verse 3 teach antitypically? What do gold, silver and precious things symbolize? What Divine truths and corresponding characteristics did America give the Allies? What did the fenced cities type? State the details of the antitypes? What is typed by the kingdom being given to Jehoram?
(10) What is typed by Jehoram's rising to the kingdom? By what did it set in? What were the characteristics of the Fourteen Points? By whom and by what was the way prepared for the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations? Who fathered them? Of what are they the antitypes? Why? On what errors were they based? Why was their basis an error? What is God's rule for forms of governments? What variation of governmental forms had this principle prompted Him to make? Why? If moral suasion fails to produce a change of an outgrown form of government, what may a nation properly do to effect the needed change? Give an example of this?
(11) Whence do governments derive their proper powers? Why? In view of this what forms of government has God "ordained"—arranged for—among men? Why is there such a difference among these? What results follow from a disregard of the involved principle? How did the Fourteen Points and a League of Nations harmonize with this principle? How are they to be regarded?
(12) Who fathered and supported these two things? How was their advocacy and Europe's popular approval of certain aspects of them regarded by America? What action does not disprove this fact? What evil effects followed
Elijah and Jehoram.
251
from such advocacy? What was the general effect on the six allied language groups and other European nations? Who is responsible for this and to what extent? What types these things?
(13) What should be said of the chronological data of verse 5?
(14) What do verses 6 and 12 show? What were the wrongs of Ahab and Ahaziah? What wrongs did Jehoram of Israel not commit? What wrongs did he commit? What wrongs did Jehoram of Judah commit? How did his sins compare with those of the Ahabic house? Of what was he typical? Explain and prove the nature of antitypical Baal worship. What six sins has Europe as the antitype of Ahab and Ahaziah committed? Additionally what sins have antitypical Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram committed in common?
(15) To what extent would antitypical Jehoram of Judah not sin? How does his type suggest this? In whose executive orders was there some of the spirit of autocracy? Whose acts were especially autocratic? Give six particulars of such acts. To what did they contribute? In what particular did a kindly President show the same spirit? What does such autocracy antitype? What have here been favored as against the common and poor people? Like what is this?
(16) Describe four other evils of reactionism in America similar to those of Europe. How do they compare with Europe's similar acts?
(17) In what other phase of Europe's wrong-doings has antitypical Jehoram of Judah shared? What is anti-typical Jehoram of Israel? Prove this answer from Scripture and facts. Explain the two particulars in which antitypical Jehoram of Judah participates in the acts of anti-typical Jehoram of Israel. What two ameliorating acts do not wholly undo this twofold participation? How do these two lines of action make America share in Europe's evils? How does she act toward accomplished acts and facts of which she disapproved? Give an illustration. In what does this course make her participate?
(18) How has antitypical Jehoram of Judah come to do such things? Where and how is this typically stated? For what are evil women often responsible? State some
Elijah and Elisha.
252
examples of such women and their evil influence. Who was Jehoram's wife? Whose daughter was she? What does she type? What two facts are in harmony with this? State the antitypical development of the union and co-operation of Jehoram and Athaliah. How and among whom has it worked?
(19) How has the American Catholic Church made America reactionary? In what fourteen ways has Rome been seeking to "get America?" In what have these fourteen courses of action resulted? How does America's present spirit compare with that inherited from the Declaration of Independence for 100 years?
(20) With what four evil characteristics has the American Catholic Church infected vast numbers of Americans? What proportion of civil offices are under her dominating influence? In what two evils has this resulted? With what should she be charged? What two things has her influence induced antitypical Jehoram to do? Show from the type the whole wicked procedure.
(21) What kind of principles, nevertheless, still operate in America? Who approves of them? What does their operation effect? What effect on God has the operation of these principles had? Why have they so affected Him? How long will they continue so to affect Him? What will then come?
(22) What Scripture was covered by our preceding study? What will this study cover? What does Edom represent? Why? What was Conservative Labor's stand as to the allied countries during the war? Explain 2 Kings 3:26, type and antitype, in detail. How long in America did Conservative Labor maintain its friendly attitude? How was this friendly attitude changed into hostility? How is this typed? What is the difference between the king of Edom in 2 Kings 3:9-12 and the one in 2 Chron. 21:8 antitypically? What is the fact and time pertinency of the application, type and antitype?
(23) What does verse 9 type? What additional particulars are supplied in the parallel account? What is typed by Jehoram (Joram) passing over to Zair? Describe the causes of, and procedures during the 1922 strikes. Describe the course and failure of arbitration efforts. Who appeared about to be victorious? How is
Elijah and Jehoram.
253
this shown in the type? What acts of Labor gave the occasion of their defeat? Describe Jehoram's night attack and the Edomites' flight, type and antitype?
(24) What were the results of the revolution, type and antitype?
(25) What revolt is described in verse 10? Why did it occur? What does the word Libnah mean? What is Libnah, type and antitype? What is the mission of the Epiphany-Enlightened Saints and to whom does it extend? Why do they oppose governmental reactionism in America?
(26) How long have they felt such resentment? How did they begin to show it? For what two things did John reprove Herod? What are the two activities of antitypical John called? What time feature corroborates the setting given to the two revolutions?
(27) What were Jehoram's worst wrongs? Describe the two kinds of high places and their connected works. How did God in general view these two kinds of high places? Under what circumstances and with what persons did He make an exception to this rule?
(28) Of which kind were the high places mentioned in verse 11? Why? What do Jehoram's high places and altars type? What corroborates this answer? What does Jehoram's building them represent? What practice on the part of officials is frequent in respect to denominational services? Why is this desired? Give illustrations of this practice in municipal, state and national officials. How does such a course build the antitypical high places and their altars?
(29) What do Judah and its mountains in verse 11 represent? What are their officials doing? How does God view this, especially since 1878? What is being done in the Catholic high place? What proves this?
(30) What other wrongs does verse 11 point out? What do the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah type? Why? What is symbolic fornication? What is meant by forcing it? What does Rome seek in this connection? Give three, from among many, examples of this. How have officials forced one another and private citizens to commit symbolic fornication? Against what movements especially has this gone on? What is this evil arousing
Elijah and Elisha.
254
throughout the land? How should we characterize Jehoram's acts, type and antitype?
(31) Of what do verses 12-15 treat? What did God do in the type? What two lines of thought are contained in Elijah's letter? When and by whom was this letter written and sent?
(32) What events and their time features in the type prove that antitypical Elijah would write the antitypical letter and send it to Jehoram after the World War and before the World Revolution? What does God no more do to His mouthpieces? How does He give them a knowledge of future things? What fact proves that the antitypical letter could not have been written until the events of verses 1-11, especially verse 11, were antityped? Before what time could the antitypical letter not have been written? Why not? How long were the antitypes of verses 1-11 being watched in their unfolding? What did the watcher well know? When was the last set of facts sufficiently clear to enable him to write all of the necessary facts into the letter? On what date was its circulation begun?
(33) What does verse 12 expressly state of the writer, sender and source of the letter? What does it do to Jehoram? Why? What expression proves that Elijah wrote and sent the letter to Jehoram? What follows from these facts? When was the letter likely written? With what claim do the typical and antitypical letters begin? How is this claim made in the antitypical letter? How does the antitypical letter claim it comes from Jehovah as the God of antitypical David? How can America be called a son of antitypical David? What only need we do in connection with these two letters? Why? What else should be shown?
(34) What two reasons are given for the coming punishments, type and antitype? Why are there just two reasons for them? Who are described, type and antitype, toward the end of the second column of the first page and in the bulk of the next column of antitypical Elijah's letter? Define antitypical Asa, Jehoshaphat and Jehoram. Where is this shown in the antitypical letter? What
Elijah and Jehoram.
255
were antitypical Jehoram's sins of omission? What is 100% Americanism?
(35) In what part of the antitypical letter are the sins of Ahab's house and of Jehoram, type and antitype, shown? What are these sins? What is discussed in two-thirds of the first column of the antitypical letter's last page? What is discussed in the rest of this column apart from its last four lines? What are we to understand is meant by antitypical Jehoram being less righteous than his six brothers?
(36) What should not be attempted with details of the future? Of what future things may we have some understanding? How do we get it? How many kinds of punishment did Jehoram receive? From what source and through what agents were they administered? Where is antitypical Jehoram's punishment forecast? How does it indicate its source and agents? What was the predicted first punishment, type and antitype? What was typically and antitypically forecast as the second punishment? How do the typical and antitypical letters correspond in these particulars?
(37) What two cautions should be heeded with reference to prophetical and typical future events? Why? Give illustrations on these points. Who prompted Jehoram's punishment? Who were the attackers of Jehoram? What do they type? Explain the reasonableness of these definitions from the meanings of the words and fulfilled antitypes. What means will Jehovah probably use to stir up the avengers?
(38) What does verse 17 show, type and antitype, in respect to the invasion and the treatment of Jehoram's people, substance, wives and children? Who of these escaped, type and antitype?
(39) What do verses 18-20 show? Of what two kinds did Jehoram's punishments consist? What suggests that the second antitypical punishment will be within Reactionism? Give a general description of the antitypical disease in its various forms. What may the two years' period of Jehoram's sickness type? What is typed by the people's making no burning for him? What may the eight years of his reign type? What is typed by his departing without being desired? by his sleeping with his fathers?
Elijah and Elisha.
256
his burial in the city of David? and in an un-royal sepulcher?
(40) What opinion do the fulfilled facts of the foregoing study warrant? What are some of the characteristics of a genuinely fulfilled antitype? What may we hope from this study for ourselves? Why?
(41) When was the preceding part of this chapter written? Of what fulfilled things did it treat? When was antitypical Elijah's Letter written? When as to these writings were the things of vs. 14-20 fulfilled? As what did they have to be treated in the pertinent writings? By what time had they all been fulfilled? What is the character of the forecasts, viewed from the standpoint of their fulfillment? In what administrations did Reactionism continue in its evil course unpunished? With what did this punishment start? Amid and mainly through what did the forecast punishment come? Through what two sources? Who were Reactionism's external foes? Who were the antitypical Philistines? Arabians?
(42) How did the external foes of Reactionism attack it? What did they accomplish in general? In particular, as to its figurative sons? Wives? People? Possessions? By what means was Reactionism's death brought about? How was this accomplished by the Republicans? By the Republican Progressives? Who acted treacherously to the party of Reactionism in the 1932 campaign? How? What resulted therefrom? In what defeat did this appear? With what did Reactionism die? How was it regarded in death? How is it remembered? What do the above facts do as to our forecast made in 1923 and 1924?
Servant of God, thy fight is fought;
Servant of God, thy work is wrought
Ling'rest thou yet upon the joyless earth?
Thy place shall be in Eden's bowers,
Far from this mournful world of ours,
Among the sons of light that seek a diff'rent birth.