THE KEY TO THE ELIJAH TYPE. ITS CHRONOLOGY ALSO HELPFUL. THE ELIJAH ANTITYPE'S FIRST FIVE CENTURIES. THENCE TO 799. PROTESTERS AGAINST PAPAL ABSOLUTISM AND IDOLISM. AT ANTITYPICAL ZAREPHATH. THREE ATTEMPTS TO AROUSE A REFORM MOVEMENT. THE REFORMER MOUTHPIECE RESUMES PUBLIC ACTIVITY IN TIME OF CONTROVERSY. MEETS THE CIVIL POWERS. THE GREAT PAPAL SCHISM. TWO SETS OF REFORMERS AND THEIR REFORMATIONS. A FAMINE OF BIBLES. THE STORY OF MARY JONES' BIBLE. ITS EFFECTS. ANTITYPICAL ELIJAH'S COURSE FROM 1804 TO 1914. ANTITYPICAL ELIJAH'S ANOINTING OF ANTITYPICAL ELISHA. A SUMMARY OF THE ANTITYPES OF 1 KINGS 20-22. THE REFUTATION OF CERTAIN ERRORS ON ANTITYPICAL ELIJAH'S ADVENT. NATIONALISTIC EUROPE'S EXPERIENCES AND CONTACTS WITH ANTITYPICAL ELIJAH DURING THE WORLD WAR. THREE ATTEMPTS TO CAPTURE ANTITYPICAL ELIJAH AND THEIR RESULTS. BEREAN QUESTIONS. 

‍

WHILE reviewing J. F. Rutherford's statement of his "third new view" given in "The Tower" of August 15, 1919, we promised the friends details on those parts of the Elijah type not given by our dear Pastor. While giving these we will also examine some of Brother Olson's views on some phases of the subject. Vagueness is a mild characterization of his views on this subject. All of us accept the Scriptural thought expounded by our dear Pastor in re the typical character of Elijah to the effect that he types the Christ Class in the flesh as God's mouthpiece to the world seeking to reform it (Mal. 4:5, 6; Matt. 11:14, see Diaglott). This thought of the Reformer Mouthpiece of God to the world is the key that enables us to unlock the Elijah type. We are, therefore, to look for the antitype in the Reform movements in the world carried on by the Faithful. The Elijah type furnishes also certain chronological data enabling us to place the various events of the antitype. Next to the 

Elijah and Elisha. 

8 

key these chronological data are the most important features enabling us to construe the type. These will enable us to test Brother Olson's and J. F. Rutherford's views on various features of Elijah in antitype. 1 Kings 17:1-4, referring to events prior to 539, when antitypical Elijah fled into the wilderness, gives us our first chronological clue. 1 Kings 18:1 by the expression "the third year" (of his wilderness experience) gives us our second chronological clue; consequently the events of 1 Kings 17:1-24 were fulfilled before 1259 A.D., which began the third antitypical year of the antitypical Elijah's wilderness experience; for two symbolic years of 360 literal years total 720 literal years; and 539 A.D. plus 720 years would bring us to 1259 A. D. Another chronological feature is the time of the drought, 3 1/2 years (Jas. 5:17); this would bring us to 1799 A. D., within a few years after which the antitypical rain broke the drought. The two awakenings (1 Kings 19:5-7) mark the years 1829 and 1874; while the 40 days' journey end in 1914. These chronological features will greatly assist our construing the antitype. 

(2) Our chronological data show us that all of the antitypes of 1 Kings 17:1-24 precede 1259, while Brother Olson makes the scene of the dead child antitype the Reformation events between 1517 and 1799, with its awakening corresponding to the revival of foreign missionary work for the heathen, beginning 1792. He says that the antitype of Elijah's address to Ahab occurred from 325 to 539. We understand it to have occurred from 33 to 539 as follows: It began with our Lord, the Head of the Elijah class, making His good confession before Pilate, the representative of antitypical Ahab (1 Tim. 5:15; John 18:37), claiming that He and His Own were the exclusive (no dew or rain except at their word) mouthpiece of the Divine Revelation. This same claim was made in pantomime by St. Paul before Felix, Festus and Agrippa, 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

9 

representatives of antitypical Ahab. During the Pagan Roman persecutions from 64 to 313, this same claim was made by the Faithful before Roman Magistrates, Governors and Emperors. When Pagan Rome changed into Christian (?) Rome, and the Emperors became "orthodox," the Faithful, contending against the errorists before these Emperors and their representatives by word and deed, acted out the same antitype, and this continued until they were in 539 compelled to go into the wilderness. 

(3) Vs. 2-7. The Catholic party developing Papal errors and gaining the chief influence among great and small, and the Faithful being more and more driven into the background, the Lord through the principles of His Word and through His Providences indicated to the Elijah class His will that they go more and more into the isolated condition, the wilderness (vs. 2-4). Briefly stated the following was the course of these events: The great falling away began along clericalistic lines (2 Thes. 2:7); then about 100 A. D. it began to be marked by doctrinal errors on the organization of the Church. Traces of the immortality of the soul can be found as early as in the writings of Justin Martyr, a converted Greek philosopher, who was beheaded about 165. A little later belief in the Millennium began to be undermined. About 230 the first steps toward error on Christ's relation to the Father began to be taken, and the doctrine of their equality was fixed at the Nicean Council, 325, while Trinitarianism was completed at the first Council of Constantinople, 381. With the setting aside of Millennarianism and the introduction of human Immortality and of the Trinity, eternal torment found a fertile garden, in which it grew. Next in the Nestorian controversy, 428-431, decided at the Council of Ephesus, 431, and in the Eutychian controversy, 444-451, decided at the Council of Calcedon, 451, errors on the relation of Christ's human and divine natures triumphed. 

Elijah and Elisha. 

10 

From 412-529 errors on sin, the human will, justification, election and free grace triumphed. In every one of these controversies the faithful Elijah strove against the errorists; and an unorthodox class of theologians, though not of Elijah, as defenders of vestiges of Truth against the encroaching errors, stood in part with the Faithful. These theologians as sectarians founded sectarian systems, some of which passed away after many hard experiences, and some of which, like those of the Nestorian and the Coptic Christians, continue to our day. These Sectarians, as opposers of the ever triumphant Catholics, we understand to be the antitypes of the ravens, who gave some nourishment to the Faithful during the next period, 539-799. During these years, 539-799, Arianism died completely out, the last Arian nation, the Longobards, being entirely converted to Catholicism before 700. Brother Olson says that the Arian faith and people, his antitypes of the widow of Zarephath and her son (his treatment of the antitypical widow and her son is very vague and ambiguous), continued until after Waldo's time, 1173-1217. This statement is historically untrue. (See article on Arianism in McClintock & Strong's Cyclopaedia.) Waldo as well as the other Reformers from 799 until 1530 A. D. were all Trinitarians. Nothing therefore that he gives on the antitype of the Widow of Zarephath, her son, and Elijah's relation to them is historically true. Will he kindly cite only one authority to prove that Arianism was professed until and after Waldo's time before 1530 A. D.? and that Waldo was an Arian in faith and practice? 

(4) Cherith (cutting, dividing, 2 Tim. 2:15) represents the little Truth that was left with the Faithful after the above-mentioned errors were introduced. It was held in the presence of the peoples (Jordan) by those who were driven back into a more or less isolated state.

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

11 

(5) There were four notable controversies between 539 and 799, during which the antitypical ravens, sectarians, nourished the antitypical Elijah: (1) whether there is now one nature in Christ or two (544-553), decided at the second Council at Constantinople, 533; (2) whether there is now one will in Christ or two (633-680), decided at the third Council of Constantinople, 680; (3) whether Christians are to give religious veneration to images or not (717-787), decided at the second Council of Nice, 787; (4) whether Christ as a Human Being was as truly God's Son as He is as a Divine Being (782-799), decided at the Frankish national Synod at Aachen, 799. Divisions, sects, were formed by these controversies. The little Truth (Cherith) that was brought over from the former period on the subjects: God, Christ, Holy Spirit, Man, Sin, Free Grace, Election, the Church, etc., was dried up during these controversies. The last of these was decided when Felix of Urgel, Spain, the leader against the Catholics, renounced his view and accepted the Catholic view after a six-day debate at the Council of Aachen, 799. Thus with the advent of the Papal Millennium, 799, antitypical Cherith dried up, and the antitypical ravens ceased to feed Elijah. It is this event, with what happened in connection with it, that enables us to fix the date when antitypical Elijah received word to go to antitypical Zarephath, smelting place. 

(6) Vs. 8-16. Keeping in mind the key to the Elijah type, i.e., that we are to look for antitypical Elijah's activity in connection with protesters against error and in connection with Reform movements, we will be able to trace the antitypes of these and the following verses of this chapter. Our beloved Brother John Edgar showed us how the Counterfeit, the Papal, Millennium was from 799-1799. Such a Millennium of course had to have as its forerunner the drying up of the antitypical Cherith, and the inactivity of the 

Elijah and Elisha. 

12 

antitypical ravens within the domain under Papal control; and antitypical Elijah would have to remove to such territory as would be measurably outside the absolute control of the Pope, and under the control of a party antagonistic to such Papal Absolutism. Such territory we find in Northern Italy, in Southern and Eastern France, in Switzerland and in Germany; for in this territory, under more or less State protection, people lived who were opposed to the Pope's Absolutism and to some of the peculiar practices of the Church of Rome. The leaders of this party from 799-840 were first Emperor Charlemagne, and later his eldest son, Louis, called in history Louis, the Pious, who succeeded his father as Emperor in 814. Charlemagne and especially Louis resisted the papal claims to supremacy in the Church, standing for the rights of the Franco-Longobardo-Germanic clergy against the Pope's claims, and insisted on his subordination to the Emperor in the State. Furthermore, they opposed the Idolism of the Papacy as it was manifest in its saint, angel, relics and image worship. On these questions they were supported by many of the clergy, nobility and people of their dominions, the countries mentioned above. This party, therefore, consisted of the protesters against Papal Absolutism and Idolatry, and is according to our understanding the antitype of the Widow of Zarephath. They were an antitypical Widow, because they were bereaved of the support and fellowship of the ever increasing powerful party standing for Papal Supremacy and Idolism. It was to the former party, as to a supporter, that the Lord by certain principles of His Word and by His Providences led the Elijah class, especially in the persons of two of its leaders, a Claudius, afterward Bishop of Turin, Italy, who in Church History is called the first Protestant Reformer, and who died in 839, and an Agobard, afterward Archbishop of Lyons, France, who died in 840. It is 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

13 

certain of the former and it is highly probable of the latter that they with other consecrated brethren came with Felix of Urgel, the last raven, from Spain, the scene of the last and fourth controversy of the period 539-799 to attend the debate mentioned above at the Frankish national Synod at Aachen, 799. As the outcome of the debate all of these saw Cherith entirely dried up, and the ravens no more giving the Elijah Class antitypical bread and meat. While thus engaged they met Louis, the Pious, who was then ruling over a part of his father's Empire in Southern and Southeastern France and Northwestern Italy. At their earnest request he invited them to the privileges of his monastic educational institutions, where among other things Louis' views against Papal Supremacy and Idolism were taught these young men. They were very hungry for the Scriptural instructions obtainable in these institutions; and Louis later invited some of them, notably Claudius and Agobard, to his court as counselors, teachers and priests. After they had thus been fed with the knowledge obtainable from the protesting party, all of these young men became very active in advocating reforms antagonistic to Papal Supremacy and Idolism; especially was this the case with Claudius at Turin from 813 to 839 and Agobard at Lyons from 813 to 840. 

(7) With these briefly sketched facts in mind let us look at the type. Zarephath, smelting place, represents the trying position of the Protestors against Papal Absolutism and Idolism. Its belonging to antitypical Zidon, fishing, implies that they lived in a sphere out of harmony with the general trend of Nominal spiritual Israel, and yet were more or less compromising (fishing, merchandising) with it. The widow being at the gate of the city represents the prominence of the protesting party. The two sticks represent Antipapal Absolutism and Anti-idolism. Collecting them represents gathering Biblical, factual and reasonable

Elijah and Elisha. 

14 

arguments on these subjects. Elijah's finding her there, and requesting food and drink to be given him, and that before she should prepare it for herself and her son, who represents the reform movements of the Protesters, are typical (1) of the consecrated brethren coming from Spain finding the Protesters in public as a prominent party studying and working against Papal Absolutism and Idolism; and (2) earnestly seeking from these protesters as the latter's first activity, instruction along the line of such Truth as they had in their power to give. Antitypical Elijah then promised them subsequent nourishment along these lines. The barrel represents the Bible which Charlemagne and Louis had had copied by the monks, and placed in the churches and monasteries of Lombardy, France and Germany. The meal represents the little Biblical Truth that they found in the Bible. The cruse of oil represents the spirit of understanding on certain Biblical subjects (Matt. 25:1-12). The protesting party as shown above gave the antitypical Elijah the desired Truth, and then followed feasts that sustained throughout the antitypical drought, the protesting party and their reform movements, the latter for a century, as antitypical Elijah promised. 

(8) Louis, the Pious, in 813 sent Claudius to Turin, and Agobard to Lyons with the express charge to work against Papal Absolutism and Idolism. They, especially the former, supported by numerous likeminded brethren waged a valiant fight along these lines, even casting the images and relics out of the churches. This brought Claudius in conflict with the Pope, who was told by the former, while protesting against his reform activities that, if he, the Pope, would act as an Apostle, he would respect him; but if not, Matt. 23:2-4 applied to him! Both the oral and literary activity of these brethren centered especially upon Claudius, their champion, the hatred of the Papal party; but it heartened the Protesting party and 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

15 

kept its reform movement (the widow's son) active, especially in Lombardy, France and Germany, resulting in the French, Longobard and German clergy and rulers gaining laws and powers that gave them liberties, later called the "Gallican Church Liberties," and a liberal spirit above those found anywhere else in Christendom. This spirit and these liberties enabled many of the French and German clergy under the leadership of the Metropolitan Hincmar, Archbishop at Rheims, France, 845-882, and the Metropolitan Hatto I, Archbishop at Mainz, Germany, 891-913, successfully to resist Papal Absolutism. This spirit kept France and Germany relatively free for a long time from the gross idolatry that reigned elsewhere in the worship of angels, saints, images and relics. This spirit enabled a Ratrammus ably to refute Transubstantiation (Idolism) which was being advanced as an idolatrous basis for the Mass by its originator, his abbot, Paschasius Radbertus, who died, 865. Yea, without the support of such a party, animated by such a spirit, and supporting such liberties, antitypical Elijah could not have survived amid the existing Papal spirit. 

(9) Vs. 17-24. As above indicated, throughout the ninth century reform movements advocated by antitypical Elijah were kept alive by the Protesting party. The widow's son lived. But early in the tenth century, which history calls "the dark century," the above described reform movements (the widow's son) died and nothing was done to resuscitate them until the middle of the next century. The effort at resuscitation was not attempted by the Protesting party (the widow), which was during this time deeply depressed, overpowered and overawed; but it was done as a nonpartisan work (Elijah taking the dead child from its mother to his own chamber) entirely in the consecrated religious domain. In all it required three long efforts to be made against Papal Absolutism and Idolism,

Elijah and Elisha. 

16 

before a reform movement along these lines could be permanently established (the awakening of the dead son). In all three of these movements the two objects of reform, Papal Absolutism and Idolism, were contended against. 

(10) The celibacy of the priesthood, freeing the clergy from social, and thus measurably from national ties, binds the Roman Catholic Clergy to the Pope's supremacy rather than to that of the States where they live. Hence Papacy has stood for it. Whatever advanced it advanced the Papacy; whatever weakened it weakened the Papacy. Hildebrand (1015-1087), afterward as Pope called Gregory VII, both before and after becoming Pope, stood alike against the immorality and the marriage of the clergy, and adroitly turned the sentiment of the people against the marriage of some, as well as the immorality of others of the clergy, claiming that both alike were adultery. In Lombardy many of the clergy were grossly immoral. Hildebrand sought to enforce both morality and celibacy on these. For the latter he was resolutely withstood by the Longobard clergy and nobility, at whose head stood Guido, Archbishop of Milan. In the ensuing conflict allegiance to Rome was renounced. For 30 years, 1046-1076, the struggle continued, and Rome won. Antitypical Elijah failed to arouse a permanent reform against this feature of Papacy's Absolutism, in whose interests much blood was shed in this conflict. Simultaneously from 1045-1079 a reform movement was attempted against Idolism in the form of Transubstantiation by Berangar of Tours, France, one of the ablest men of his day, who aroused quite a controversy, but was forced to give up by Hildebrand, 1079; and the reform movement against Idolism failed of results at the hands of Hildebrand, one of the three most powerful Popes. These unsuccessful efforts against Papal Absolutism and Idolism antitype Elijah's first unsuccessful effort to resuscitate the widow's 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

17 

son. This simultaneous and unsuccessful effort at inaugurating a reform movement was the first of such efforts since the close of the ninth century, 150 years before, during which time the antitypical child was dead. 

(11) A second and unsuccessful effort at reform against Papal Absolutism and Idolism received its impulse from Peter Abelard (1079-1142), the ablest teacher and theologian of the twelfth century. Among other things he advocated the use of Reason in interpreting Scripture doctrines and Church Government. His principles led him and his pupils into a spirit antagonistic to the reigning spirit; and some of these, like Peter of Bruys, Holland, Henry of Lausanne, Switzerland, in Southern France, from 1106 to 1148, and Arnold of Brescia, Lombardy, 1136-1155, in Italy, attacked Papal Absolutism. Considerable excitement arose, as a result, amid which Peter, 1126, was burned at the stake, Henry, 1148, was condemned to life imprisonment, and Arnold was strangled, 1155; hence there was a failure in their efforts to form a successful reform movement against Papal Absolutism. Simultaneously Abelard was terribly persecuted, and forced to be silent, and his able pupil, Folmar of Triefenstein, Germany, was forced to give up his fight against Transubstantiation, Idolism. Thus a second time antitypical Elijah sought to arouse a reform movement against Papal Absolutism and Idolism and failed. The widow's son failed a second time to come to life. 

(12) The third attempt to arouse a reform movement against Papal Absolutism and Idolism was made by Peter Waldo, whose activities were from 1173 to 1217, and by his colaborers, the French and Italian Waldensians. In the French movement, especially, a reform against Papal Absolutism was carried out, while the Italian Waldensians added to this a reform against Idolism. This movement spread over large

Elijah and Elisha. 

18 

parts of Europe; and a papal crusade and inquisition (for details see B 335-337, 341, 343), especially under Innocent III, the most powerful of Popes, sought in vain to overthrow it. It lived and today lives, being the oldest of existing Protestant movements. Waldo and others, arousing it into activity, are the antitype of Elijah in his third and successful attempt to raise the widow's son to life. And the antitype shows that the protesting party from that time onward acknowledged the faithful servants of God as His mouthpiece; for many Antipapists who did not become Waldensian Reformers stood with the Faithful in the antipapal cause. 

(13) If Church history is searched up to 1259, the above-described works of Reform will be found to be the only marked ones; and these antitype Elijah's works of this chapter. We call the attention of those brethren who have read Brother Olson's explanation of 1 Kings 17 to note in contrast with the above specific description of the reform works of antitypical Elijah, the vague and unhistorical statements of Brother Olson on these types. He correctly fixes 1259 in harmony with 1 Kings 18:1 as the beginning of the third antitypical year; but he must have been asleep and dreaming, when he overlooked the statements of this verse, which prove that the antitypes of the seventeenth chapter preceded the antitypical "third year" of this verse, for he makes the antitype of 1 Kings 17:17-24 take place between 1517 and 1799, even claiming that the foreign missions revival toward the end of the eighteenth century antityped the awakening of the child! He has incurred great responsibility in misleading guileless brethren unacquainted with Church History! 

(14) Properly to understand 1 Kings 18:1-46 two things must be kept in mind: (1) the key: Elijah representing the Church as the Reformer Mouthpiece of God to the world, and (2) his encounter with the 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

19 

priests of Baal, according to v. 1, occurring during the third year of the drought, therefore some time between 1259 and 1619. This latter date was one year after the commencement of the great war between the Catholic and Protestant powers, called the Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648. If these thoughts are kept in mind, we will readily see, both as set forth in the Bible and in our dear Pastor's writings, how grossly erroneous was J. F. Rutherford's claim, Z '19-244, that antitypical Elijah's slaying of the antitypical prophets of Baal occurred in 1917 and 1918! 

(15) Both by the Parallel Dispensations and the Pyramid, as our dear Brothers Edgar have shown, the year which is 50 years after 1259 is marked as the beginning of the reformatory activity of antitypical Elijah following the Waldensian movement. Marsiglio, the parallel of Zerubbabel, the first of this line of Reformers, began his reform work in 1309. He is the first one of antitypical Elijah to whom "after many days" (following the inauguration of the Waldensian movement), "in the third year," 1269-1619, the Lord's command came to step forth on the stage of reform activity in the presence of the European Civil Rulers, antitypical Ahab. Let us summarize some aspects of the history of that period and the antitypes will become clear. Brother Olson's time, 1517-1799, for this antitype contradicts his time, "toward 1799," for the awakening of the antitypical Widow's son and the sacrifice of the antitypical prophets of Baal. 

(16) Phillip IV, the Fair, 1285-1314, one of the most powerful of French kings, quarreled with Pope Boniface VIII, 1294-1303, almost throughout the latter's pontificate. Boniface in several bulls publicly attacked Phillip; because the latter wanted to appropriate certain revenues which Boniface wanted. In his bulls the most extravagant claims of absolute power over Church and State were made by the Pope, among other things asserting that rulers were subject 

Elijah and Elisha. 

20 

in temporal matters to the Pope, were their representatives in office, and must therefore conduct civil affairs according to the Pope's directions on pain of anathema and freeing of their subjects from the oath of allegiance. Boniface then sought to interfere in the affairs of France, and called a council to examine Phillip's affairs at Rome. Had the Bible in its influence (rain) been on the earth the laws (asses and horses) of the French Church and State would not thus have been trampled under foot by the Pope. Civil and Ecclesiastical France arose in mighty protest against the Pope's claims and course, siding unanimously with the King. The Clergy, led by the Dominican theologian, John of Paris, asserted the Gallican Church Liberties, and at the King's behest began to search for arguments (fountains and brooks) to preserve their doctrines (asses) on the powers of the French Clergy; while the Civil Power, especially through the nobles and lawyers led by the advocate, Peter DuBois, sought arguments to sustain their views (horses) in the secular law. Thus there was a sore famine (lack of civil rights whose support is in the Bible teachings) in antitypical Samaria (the State). Ahab represents the autocratic civil rulers, the State party, and Obadiah, the Catholic Church party which stood out against Papal Absolutism. Boniface was defeated in his efforts against Phillip; and with him Popedom, which he found at the very summit of power in the earth, began to decline. Boniface and his successors utterly failed against the French; rather from 1305 to 1377 the popes were compelled to live in France, from 1309 to 1377 at Avignon, subject to the French government. Boniface and his successors were, however, more successful in their conflict with the Germano-Italian Emperors and clergy with whom they waged warfare similar to that which Boniface carried on with Phillip. In Germany and Italy strong, but not very successful efforts were made to preserve

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

21 

the legal rights of the Civil and Ecclesiastical party, especially the former set of rights, as against Papal pretensions. Similar conflicts were waged in other countries, notably Britain. It was thus manifest that there was a dearth of legal and ecclesiastical power as against the Papacy in antitypical Samaria. Each of the anti-papal-Absolutism parties (Ahab and Obadiah) sought in its separate sphere (vs. 5, 6) by legal, ecclesiastical and Scriptural arguments (fountains and brooks) to preserve its set of laws and the privileges guaranteed by them. The Franco-German liberal party had for centuries (v. 4) sought to shield the so-called heretics from papal persecution, among other things preventing the legal introduction of the Inquisition into Germany. As we saw previously, they more or less protected the teachers (the hundred prophets) who stood out against Papal Absolutism and Idolism. Yet as a class they were more or less compromising with Rome, only then earnestly fighting the Pope, when he sought to overthrow their rights. From this we can readily see, as against J. F. Rutherford's claim, that Obadiah does not type the Great Company, though doubtless some individuals of that class are involved in the Obadiah picture; for Obadiah's course is in some ways Great Company-like. 

(17) Vs. 7-18. It was while these struggles were going on that God aroused first Marsiglio, 1309, then later as his colaborers John of Jandun, Michael of Cesena, General of the Franciscan order of monks, and William Occam, a prominent member of the same order, who with lesser lights appeared from a Biblical standpoint as the ablest defenders of the rights of the State and the Church as against the Papal Absolutism. Their views were so far in advance of those of the Franco-Germano-Italian anti-papal clergy, that they were at once by these recognized as the spiritual kinsfolk of the so-called "heretics" of old, antitypical Elijah; and this clerical party (typed by the conduct 

Elijah and Elisha. 

22 

of Obadiah, vs. 7-14) feared to have the civil rulers think them associated with such "heretics." However, unable to divert these faithful men from their course (v. 15), they introduced their views to the French rulers and later to the Germano-Italian Emperor, Louis, the Bavarian, etc., preparatory to these rulers receiving antitypical Elijah and discussing matters with him (v. 16). There was some difficulty in making the civil rulers believe in the innocence of these Reformers (vs. 17, 18), since the former had been deceived by the Papal party into believing that "the heretics" were mainly responsible for the evils in Christendom. But in due course they succeeded in proving to the civil rulers that the trouble was due to the civil powers' yielding to Papacy's claims. This lesson was largely learned by the rulers before Wyclif, who for years had been defending the English King, Parliament and People against papal claims, appeared as a doctrinal Reformer in 1378. Thus antitypical Elijah succeeded in part in convincing the civil powers of Europe that Papacy's unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactual claims were mainly responsible for the current corrupt conditions in Church, State and Society. And what in this respect they failed to achieve completely was accomplished by the Papal Schism. 

(18) Vs. 19-25. The year 1377 witnessed the return of the Papacy from Avignon to Rome; and the next year the great Papal Schism began, lasting until 1417, by which Christendom was treated to the unedifying spectacle of two and sometimes three rival popes anathematizing one another and one another's adherents, and seeking by base diplomacy to steal from one another the support of various States and influential individuals. This schism called forth Wyclif (1378-1384) and Huss (1391-1415) as Reformers, who with many supporters cried out for a Reform of doctrine, organization and practice along Biblical lines. When rogues quarrel the truth comes out! Hence each 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

23 

Papal party exposed the wickedness of the other. The Reformers cried out to the rulers to call for a Reformation. The rulers became convinced of its necessity and throughout Christendom set into operation policies having this end in view (vs. 19, 20). Certain civil rulers induced some of the leading Catholic theologians and prelates of the more liberal kind, who with shame acknowledged the corruption in church discipline and life, to demand reform (v. 20). Notable among these were Cardinal D'Ailly of France, Gerson, Chancellor of the Paris University, Nicholas Clemanges, Rector of the Paris University, Cardinal D'Aleman, Henry of Langenstein, Dietrich of Niem and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, with a horde of others great and small (vs. 19, 20). Thus by the exposures of ecclesiastical evils two reform parties came into prominence (1) a Biblical one, antitypical Elijah, demanding a Biblical reform of doctrine, organization and practice and (2) a Clericalistic (Baalistic) one which strove for an external reformation of life, leaving the doctrines, organization and practices of Rome untouched. The antitypical prophets of Baal stood for Clericalism, but not for Papal Absolutism, claiming that a general council was superior to the Pope. 

(19) Wyclif and Huss, etc., appealed to the people as well as to the rulers, and aroused a universal sentiment for reform; but the people did not respond fully to the kind these Reformers wanted. They halted between two opinions (v. 21). The charge that they were but few compared with the other Reform party antitypical Elijah acknowledged (v. 22), and turned into an occasion of a test as to whose reformatory sacrificial principles and work would meet with God's manifested approval. (Answer by fire, Lev. 9:24.) Assembling at Carmel (garden, fruitful) represents that practical results from the reformatory sacrifices were sought for. Each reform party claimed that its 

Elijah and Elisha. 

24 

own program was the only practical one; and antitypical Elijah counseled the people to choose between the two and their principles (vs. 21, 22) according to the results, as the manifestation of God's acceptance (v. 23, 24). Antitypical Elijah could safely do this, because he knew Satan would not reform his kingdom. The people generally considered this a proper way to decide (v. 24). Each bullock represents the humanity of the respective offerers. The pieces represented the separate participants in the two reform movements. The wood represented the Scriptures and arguments used by each side. No fire being put under either bullock represents that each side was to leave it to what was in reality its God, Jehovah or Satan, to manifest acceptance of the work. Antitypical Elijah naturally deferred to the vast number of the other Reform party, in the use of the first chance to reform the Church (v. 25). 

(20) Vs. 26-29. The Clericalistic (Baalistic) Catholic Reform party found the Popes and the college of Cardinals their worst obstacles in the way of reform, and by these were continually impeded in, and finally defeated from accomplishing any results. Not that they did not labor most arduously to obtain them; for never was harder effort expended on a cause. Supported by kings and emperors, who required the calling of three general councils, (1) at Pisa, 1409-1412, (2) at Constance, 1414-1418, and (3) at Basel, 1431-1449, they made most strenuous efforts at reform. But refusing to reform Romish doctrines, organization and practices, and limiting their efforts to reforming Papal Absolutism and the morals of the Church in head (pope) and members (clergy) they stood for the general Catholic system of Clericalism, Baalism; and thus every effort of theirs was frustrated. This reform party thought it was laboring for Jehovah, but as Baal worshipers they were serving Satan, and they got no response; for Satan did not want their 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

25 

Reformation (v. 26). They certainly trampled upon the Church (altar) by their exposures, e.g., at Pisa after terrible exposures they deposed the two opposing Popes, elected another, and as a net result of their labors had three Popes on their hands, all three having numerous followers! At Constance, where Huss, prosecuted by D'Ailly, was martyred, the most monstrous crimes, 72 in number, were charged and proven against Pope John XXIII, who was consequently deposed. Great reputations were blasted. Matters went even worse at Basel. The Catholic Church, the altar, in its hierarchy, head and members, was trampled under foot! 

(21) To the confusion of the Catholic Reformers the course of John Huss, and of many of his and Wyclif's followers brought the Catholic Reformers into more or less contempt, as their fruitless efforts became more and more apparent, and were through the teachings and ridicule of antitypical Elijah set at naught (v. 27). "After their manner" they cut themselves with public confessions of, and penances for their wrong doings, and labored so hard that many of them died of sheer exhaustion (v. 28)! And though their hopes of reforming the Church were one after another frustrated by crafty Popes and intriguing Cardinals and their supporters, they continued their labors into unparalleled lengths. The Council of Basel lasted 18 years! Imagine a Convention lasting 18 years! And the holy Fathers were certainly longwinded; not a few of them orated eight days in a stretch with only brief pauses for necessary refreshment; and to prove that these were only average efforts, others drew out their long-windedness in speeches of thirteen days' duration! Oh! They certainly "prophesied until evening"! But to no avail (v. 29). Their principles and their works were set aside or diverted; so that after their reform efforts ceased, about ten years after the Council of Basel,

Elijah and Elisha. 

26 

Popes, each one worse than his predecessor, culminating in Alexander VI, 1492-1503, perhaps the most wicked of all Popes, succeeded one another in a debauch of wrong doings as wicked as those of the Popes of the tenth century or of any other century. 

(22) Vs. 30-38. Antitypical Elijah, in the persons of John Wessel, who died 1489, and his colaborers in Netherlands and Germany, and of Savonarola, martyred, 1498, and his colaborers in Italy, worked among the people, attracting very favorable attention, especially from 1479 onward. ("Come near me.") They aroused a spirit of genuine consecration among not a few ("repaired the altar," v. 30). Their appeal was to all the consecrated (twelve stones, the twelve tribes of Spiritual Israel) on the basis of the Bible as the sole source and rule of faith and practice, of Jesus as the only Head of the Church, of the Priesthood of all consecrated believers and of Justification by faith. Thus they gathered together the true Church, the altar. Luther and Zwingli a little later, espousing the same principles, began the antitypical sacrificing, and were shortly joined by numerous colaborers. The trench around the altar represents the sphere within which their reform labors would be confined, i.e., the Bible. The two measures of meal, the capacity of the trench, were its two parts, the Old and New Testaments, full of truths. Therefore they limited their reformatory efforts to Biblical doctrines, organization and practice, as far as these were then due (v. 32). The wood represents Scriptural passages and Scriptural, reasonable and factual arguments used in their reform efforts; the pieces of the bullock represent individually the humanity of the antitypical Elijah. The four barrels of water represent the four main principles of the Protestant Reformation: (1) the Bible, the sole source and rule of faith and practice, (2) Jesus, the only Head of the true Church, (3) Justification by Faith alone, and (4) the exclusive Priesthood of Consecrated

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

27 

Believers. The first pouring of the water represents these four truths taught by the Lutheran Reformation (v. 33); the second, the same truths taught by the Zwinglian Reformation; and the third, the same truths taught by the Episcopal (the English, but not Henry the Eighth's) Reformation led by Thomas Cranmer (v. 34). 

(23) These teachings covered and surrounded the True Church (altar) and were found everywhere in the Bible (the trench). The prayer of Elijah represents the ardent and confident longings, evidenced by their reformatory labors, on the part of the Faithful for a true reformation, and for the conversion of the people to Jehovah (vs. 36, 37). Through the real Reformation that was effected, Jehovah manifested that He accepted the sacrificed humanity of the Faithful (the bullock), the Scriptural passages and the arguments (the wood) used, the True Church (altar), the teachings of the four cardinal principles of the Reformers (the four barrels of water) and the historical testimonies cited for corroboration (the dust) (v. 38). Almost entire Europe was converted to Protestantism and against Clericalism, Baal worship; and had it not been for the intrigues and frauds of the Jesuits, and more especially for the violence of the "Holy" Inquisition and of Catholic armies and mobs, apparently all Europe would have been converted, and would have remained converted to Protestantism (v. 39). The sacrificing was over before 1618. 

(24) Additional to the constructive [sacrificial] work of the reformers, they did a simultaneous destructive work in the religious controversies of those times. The Faithful called on all to require of the clericalistic teachers of Rome that they face the questions in controversy, by which course the latter were captured. Kishon (crooked) represents the crooked course of Romish errors, by refutation of which the Faithful with the sword of the Spirit "slew" the anti- 

Elijah and Elisha. 

28 

typical prophets of Baal (v. 40). The beginning of the antitype of this verse starts with the Reformation and progresses for a hundred years. 

(25) The (very limited) circulation of the Bible from 1517 to 1619 was the "sound [indication] of abundance of rain." The Bible, so circulated, was appealed to by antitypical Elijah as a warrant that the civil power (Ahab) could appropriate (eat and drink) to itself from the usurping Papacy its own proper powers as marked out in the Bible (v. 41). And the civil rulers acted on this principle, as the history of Europe abundantly proves, since shortly after the Reformation began. While this began almost with the Reformation, it greatly increased as a result of the Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648. Elijah's going up to the top of Carmel types the Elijah class seeking the acme of fruitfulness from a spread of Bibles; and their ardent prayers for it are typed in the last part of v. 42. The beginnings of the antitypes of this verse, including the first part of the antitypical Elijah's prayer, carry us back to the Reformation's beginning. 

(26) The Reformation, as we know was "a Reformation by sects." Hence Sectarians served antitypical Elijah, and are typed by Elijah's servant. In all there were seven Reformations by sects from about 1525-1799, typed by the sevenfold going of Elijah's servant to see if there was prospect of rain (vs. 43, 44). They were the following: (1) Lutheran, (2) Presbyterian, (3) Baptist, (4) Unitarian, (5) Episcopalian, (6) Congregational and (7) Methodist. Five of them started between 1525 and 1560; hence the antitype of' these verses begins almost with the Reformation's start. The Quaker movement is ignored because of its disparaging the Bible. 

(27) Vs. 43-46 help us to locate the period of the rain by pointing out events that preceded and followed it. To publish Bibles, unsanctioned by the Papacy, was an act of rebels (the sea) in Rome's eyes. Hence it

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

29 

was only from this symbolic sea that a promise of a rain of Bibles could come. Hence antitypical Elijah told Denominationists to look for Bibles to come from those who revolted against Rome's arrangements as to the circulation of the Bible. The seventh time of the servant's going and looking occurred in the Methodist Movement, which began, not as Vol. VII teaches, in 1728 (in which year Wesley was ordained as an Episcopal Minister and thereafter for ten years labored as such in that Church, in harmony with its principles and arrangements); but in 1738, when he was "converted," and began the movement that developed in a number of years into Methodism. The "little cloud" (v. 44) represents (Rev. 14:14) the troublous teachings of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as opposed to Kingcraft, etc., emanating from the illuministic and revolutionistic agitators of France before and during the French Revolution, 1748-1804, and resulting under the Lord's Providence in helping antitypical Elijah (Rev. 12:15, 16). These troublous and partly true teachings were an expression of human power (like a man's hand), against Papacy's errors, and gave promise of full power from the Bible teachings ("the clouds," v. 45) on true Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. By these two sets of teachings the Papal Ecclesiastical powers (heaven, v. 45) were completely overshadowed. Antitypical Elijah through the Methodist Church, which at first was a Christian Liberty, Equality and Fraternity movement against the Church of England, told the Civil Powers to prepare for the shaking that would occur in Church and State, as a result of the truths that the illuministic and revolutionistic agitators were proclaiming; and thus prepared the Civil Powers in a measure against the shock that the French Revolution gave, when it broke like a tidal wave upon the shores of Society (v. 44). While both the French Illuminists' and Revolutionists' teachings ("little cloud") on natural Liberty, Equality and Fraternity

Elijah and Elisha. 

30 

with their outworkings in the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars (the little cloud's part of the wind); and while the true Bible teachings on Christian Liberty, Equality and Fraternity ("clouds") with their outworkings, the war (the "clouds'" part of the wind) against Rome's binding the Bible, darkened with trouble the Papal powers (heavens); the downpour of Bibles (rain) occurred, through the Bible Societies formed especially from 1804 to 1816, coming as a result of the Bible teachings laden with trouble to Rome (clouds) and their accompanying war (wind) on Rome's prohibition of the Bible. This combination of events: (1) the contentions and acts of the French Illuminists, Revolutionists and Militarists on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity against Priestcraft, Kingcraft, Aristocracy, etc., (2) the true teachings of the Bible on those subjects, and their resultant war against Rome's prohibition of the Bible, forced the civil powers organized in a concert of nations (the chariot), before the rain came, to give their unfriendly attention (rode and went) to the subject of the union between Church and State (Jezreel, [nominal] seed of God, the mutual dwelling place of Ahab and Jezebel); with the result that they did not even invite the Pope to participate in the peace conference at Vienna following Napoleon's final defeat, 1815, which act shows the reality of the modern estrangement between Church and State (v. 45). As might be expected antitypical Elijah by faithful service in teaching (girding up his loins), especially in the Methodist Church, preceded the civil powers in giving unfriendly attention to the Union of Church and State, much to Papacy's chagrin (v. 46). 

(28) It will be noticed that we agree with Brother Olson that the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars were connected with the downpour of Bibles. But the connection was that of an occasion, and not that of a cause or source. Our explanation refers to these 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

31 

events as included in the "little cloud" and its share of the "wind." He does not mention the Illuministic agitations and the consequent Revolutionistic agitations at all, the former of which we think were the "little cloud" when first seen, which of course grew larger in the revolutionistic agitations. Montesquieu's book on the "Spirit of the Law" published 1748 was the foundation of these Illuministic agitations. Voltaire, Rousseau and many others contributed to the little cloud, which is otherwise spoken of as the flood out of the Serpent's mouth. But the antitypical "clouds" and their share of the "wind" were the real source of the downpour—a thing not mentioned by Brother Olson at all. One thing is sure that the downpour of Bibles came not from, out of, the French Revolution and Napoleon's wars, but from, out of, the Christian teachings on true Liberty, Equality and Fraternity starting in the Methodist movement, and the agitation for the spread of Bibles, a war against Rome's stand on the same. It will be noticed that the text says that not only the "clouds" but the "wind" also darkened the heavens. It must have been a wind like those of our Western tornadoes, clouds of wind, moving very rapidly. 

(29) Let us now consider the story of how the first impulse was given to start Bible Societies which spread the Scriptures, as a generous rain, out of the clouds of Bible Truth on true Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. In each of the seven reform movements, typed by the sevenfold quest of Elijah's servant, the effort was to obtain a wide circulation of the Bible; but the effort failed until after the last of the seven, Methodism, was inaugurated. A Welsh Methodist Minister, Mr. Charles of Bala, and a Welsh Methodist damsel, Mary Jones of Llanfihangel, were the agencies that the Lord used to give the impetus to the movement. This damsel, born 1784, was poor, bright and pious, and had from childhood intensely longed for a 

Elijah and Elisha. 

32 

Bible, a thing which was then very scarce in Wales. At ten she began to save the money that was given to, or earned by her, and that other children would have spent for sweets, in order that she might buy a Bible. She saved everything that she could get for six years, always keeping her purpose in view, when at length she had enough for her Bible! What poverty that required rigid saving for six years to buy a Bible! And, glorious thought, what devotion! She had heard that Mr. Charles of Bala, 25 miles away, was selling Bibles. In the Spring of 1800, bare-footed, this consecrated maiden, filled with the most intense longings ("Elijah prayed earnestly") for a Bible, walked 25 miles to Bala to buy one. But Mr. Charles' stock was all sold, except a few copies already promised to others; and the publishers of Welsh Bibles had gone out of business! She broke down in tears of disappointment at the news. But her tears plead more strongly than her words. Mr. Charles let her have one of those that he had promised to another; and joyful beyond the power of words to describe, bare-footed she walked 25 miles back to her home. "The famine of Bibles," emphasized by this incident, which, being continually in his mind, suggested the idea of a Bible Society to him, prompted Mr. Charles to seek to organize such a Society for exclusive publication of the Scriptures. In the Fall of 1802 at a Tract Society's meeting held in London, Mr. Charles gave point to his plea for a Bible Society by telling the story of Mary Jones and her Bible. The audience was electrified by the Bible spirit of the true Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, seen in Mary Jones and Mr. Charles. The story was incorporated in a tract pleading for Bibles for the whole world, and aroused a powerful movement throughout Britain and later in other lands for Biblical Liberty, Equality and Fraternity implied in a spread of Bibles, the antitype of the "clouds and wind," which led first to the formation of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

33 

1804, and then to that of other Bible Societies. "Despise not the day of small things!" Thus through this humble, consecrated Methodist damsel, and through this humble, consecrated Methodist Minister, a movement was started that led to the formation of vast Bible Societies, and to the spread of Bibles or parts thereof by the hundreds of millions in over nine hundred languages broadcast throughout the earth! The Bible is the torch of true Liberty, Equality and Fraternity; and its emancipation, especially from 1804 onward, has made impossible the Absolutism of the Papacy over the Modern World! Praised be our God for this great blessing! 

(30) Above we noted the fact that the antitypical "third year" was from 1259 to 1619, during which the antitype of 1 Kings 18:1-40 took place. It will further be noticed that Jas. 5:17 tells us that the drought lasted 3 1/2 years, and that immediately after this period (v. 18) the rain came. In the record of 1 Kings 18:1-40 and 41-46 apart from v. 1 the time element is not mentioned, but the duration of the events in 1 Kings 18 was about a year and a half; for we know from the Bible that in the antitype it was about a symbolic year and a half. In the type the events at the foot of Carmel (vs. 20-40), seem to have occurred the day before the rain as the following facts would prove. On account of the drought the sacrifice must have been near the sea, because of getting the four barrels of water three times in quick succession. After 3:00 P. M., "the time of the evening sacrifice," building the second altar, digging the trench, killing the second bullock, cutting it into pieces, taking and leading the 450 prophets of Baal to Kishon, several miles North of Carmel, their execution by one person and the return to the foot of Carmel occupied considerable time. The top, the highest part, of Carmel, 1742 feet high, was 9 1/2 miles Southeast of the foot of the Mountain at the Sea. Elijah under the circumstances 

Elijah and Elisha. 

34 

could not have climbed up to this point before dark. Hence the events on the Mountain top, requiring objects to be visible at least 6 miles away, the shortest distance to the Sea, must have been at least the day after the sacrificing at the Mountain's foot. 

(31) Lack of space will force us to be brief in our comments on Elijah in 1 Kings 19:1-21. Vs. 1 and 2 type Papacy's anger (certain Protestant clergy, especially in the Church of England, showed the same spirit) at the Reform work culminating in the downpour of Bibles. This anger was occasioned by the Civil Powers' unfriendly course toward the union of State and Church, which convinced the Papacy that the State favored some of antitypical Elijah's principles and acts. This anger reached its culmination in the anathemas against "The Pestiferous Bible Societies" from 1816 to 1825. (B-321, 322.) The flight of v. 3 began, therefore, between 1816 and 1825. Through the Stone movement which began 1804, and which rejected the idea of denominations, sectarianists (Elijah's servant) were dismissed. Henceforth the true Church kept itself clear of them as a servant. Without the creeds it was content with the Bible (Beer-sheba, well of the oath), which Barton Stone and Thomas Campbell claimed as the only creed. The isolatedness and despondency of God's saints until the Miller movement are typed in v. 4. Elsewhere we will sufficiently expound vs. 5-8, whose antitypes bring us to 1914. With v. 9, as we saw several times in the preceding chapter the antitype goes back, and follows another set of pictures, each picture being given to a completion, and not being completely antityped before the next is antitypically begun. The cave scene (vs. 9, 10) we understand to represent the condition of disappointment and chagrin on the part of the brethren, 1844, 1845, incidental to the failure of their expectation in re the Lord's return. Amid this experience the Lord began to give the brethren an understanding of 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

35 

the great tribulation and the coming kingdom (vs. 11, 12). They began to come out of their disappointment toward 1846, when the Lord began to commission them to teach and empower (anoint) Elisha. That year the anointing of antitypical Elisha began. In the antitype the time order of the three commissions (vs. 15, 16) seems to be changed; for, as we will show, antitypical Elisha's anointing began before 1874 (2 Kings 2:1), while the anointing of the others ended by 1932, and antitypical Elijah was after 1874 commissioned to do it. The rest of the chapter we will elsewhere explain, except the 12 yoke of oxen, which we believe represent the humanity of antitypical Elisha in the twelve tribes of Nominal Spiritual Israel (Num. 17:2, 3), in all of which were some antitypical Levites. The latters' humanity the antitypical Elisha sacrificed to follow antitypical Elijah (v. 21). It was his own humanity; the difference of expression is due to the use of different types. 

(32) Here we may well consider those facts connected with antitypical Elijah's anointing antitypical Elisha. The first of these facts is God's making known to antitypical Elijah that he was to anoint antitypical Elisha to be prophet in his stead, i.e., train him to become God's mouthpiece to the world, when the time would come for antitypical Elijah to cease from such mouthpieceship. This anointing was given antitypical Elisha through antitypical Elijah's associating the former with himself in the office powers of his work, symbolized by Elijah's casting his mantle over Elisha. In the following providential way the Lord indicated to Bro. Miller as the then leader of the Elijah class that antitypical Elijah should associate antitypical Elisha with him in the exercise of his office powers: Bro. Miller and the other most prominent Elijah leaders were becoming old and infirm; and their age and infirmities were the providential indication that they put some of the burden of the work upon younger 

Elijah and Elisha. 

36 

and stronger shoulders. On this point Bro. Miller, in his booklet, Apology and Defense, written in July, 1845, speaks as follows: "My labors are principally ended. I shall leave to my younger brethren the task of contending for the Truth [italics ours]. Many years I toiled alone. God has now raised up those who will fill my place. I shall not cease to pray for the spread of the Truth." [White's Life of Wm. Miller, page 373.] How do we know that these younger men for the most part were crown-losing new creatures? We answer: Shortly after Bro. Miller's death they proceeded to make a sect of Adventists and, as the Prince of Adventism, gave the corrections [charger], refutations [bowl] and instructions in righteousness [spoon] pertinent to the Second Advent Chronology. 

(33) The second fact is the act by which antitypical Elijah cast his mantle upon antitypical Elisha. We will point out how Bro. Miller performed his part in the antitype as an example of how his assisting Little Flock brethren may have performed their part in the antitype. We will quote from pages 386 and 387 of White's Life of Wm. Miller: "On the 8th of September [1846], Mr. Miller commenced a [lecturing] tour into Canada. He went by way of Lake Champlain to Burlington, Vt., where he preached in the evening of that day. There he met Elder Buckley, who accompanied him on his tour. From this place he went to Essex, Vt., where Mr. M. gave two discourses. On the 12th they commenced a two days' meeting in Cambridge, Vt., where there was a good attendance. On Tuesday the 15th, they commenced a meeting in Montgomery, Vt., which continued over the following Sabbath, Mr. Miller generally preaching twice a day. While in this place he was taken by a severe pain in one of his toes. He was soon relieved of that, when the pain commenced in his left shoulder. He then desired to return home, but was persuaded to continue his journey. On the 22nd he gave two discourses in 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

37 

South Troy, Vt. The meeting was held in a large hall which had formerly been used for a ball room. While he was preaching in the evening, the windows were pelted with eggs, clubs, stones, thrown by some rude fellows of the baser sort, who were outside of the building. Some of their missiles entered the room. One stone about the size of a hen's egg struck the desk in front of Mr. Miller, where he was speaking … The audience was somewhat agitated; but he requested them to be quiet, and proceeded with his discourse. No one was injured and good evidently resulted from the interruption; for it aroused the old gentleman's energy, and gave additional interest to the remainder of the sermon. On Thursday, the 24th of September [September 24, 1846, is the date indicated at the foot of the Pyramid's large step], they commenced a conference [corresponding to a convention among us] at Derby Line, Vt., which continued four days. The pain in Mr. M.'s shoulder had increased considerably and resulted in a tumor of considerable size, which was much inflamed. Yet he preached six times [in the four days] with a good degree of vigor." In this quotation all italics are ours. We, by them, are emphasizing certain points pertinent to our subject. It will be noted (1) that Elder Buckley was his companion and fellow worker on this trip; (2) that on September 24-27 (four days) they commenced a conference or convention at Derby Line, Vt.; (3) that at Montgomery between September 15 and 21 Bro. Miller became sick; (4) that this sickness increased, resulting in a tumor of considerable size; (5) that this decreased the number of times he was expected to preach, so that he preached only six times while his usual program required it to be done eight times; (6) that this increased the number of times that Elder Buckley had to preach, he taking over the two sermons that Bro. Miller otherwise would have preached; and (7) that as a result Bro. Miller gave Bro. Buckley

Elijah and Elisha. 

38 

some of his work to do—i.e., associated him with him in his work. By so doing, Bro. Miller as the Elijah leader cast antitypical Elijah's mantle on a representative of antitypical Elisha. Thus we see how the anointing of antitypical Elisha began. 

(34) As for the third act—antitypical of Elisha's drawing back somewhat when Elijah cast his mantle over him, we must conclude that in some way in the case at hand, as a representative of the Elisha class, Elder Buckley allowed some selfish sentiment ["kiss my father and mother" as against the thought expressed in the words, "forget thy father's house"—selfishness] to prompt him to hold back in sacrificing as faithfully as he should have done in the opportunities offered him by Bro. Miller's infirmities forcing him to put some of his labor on Bro. Buckley; and in the latter's so holding back, he kissed his father and mother—rendered some allegiance to selfishness. Bro. Buckley selfishly allowed sick Bro. Miller to preach too often, relieving him only twice, whereas had he been filled with sacrificing love, he would have taken more of the burden off the sick man's shoulders. Of course, there were others than Bro. Miller and Bro. Buckley involved in these three antitypes; but all of them showed the spirit of the classes to which they belonged. 

(35) We have not space to review the absurd and unfactual explanation that Bro. Olson offers on Naboth, whom he claims types the Parousia Truth, and his vineyard, which he claims types the Truth people (1 Kings 21), further than to remark that the scene was antityped in the persecution of the French Huguenots, at the instigation of the Roman Catholic Church through the prearranged false witness of the French Clergy and Nobility in the supposed interests of the civil power, which coveted the privileges of these Protestants. The latter for many years had a subordinate government of their own (vineyard) in France, which they refused to relinquish. The whole 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

39 

antitype was fulfilled some time before 1700. Nor have we space to review his equally absurd and unfactual explanation of Ahab's two battles with the Syrians (1 Kings 20) further than offering the key to the chapter, whereby the real antitype and the erroneousness of his explanation can be readily recognized. Here the Syrians represent the Radicals. Those who several centuries ago were considered Radicals are now considered Conservatives; for the radical Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, etc., in their opposition to the Present Order, even in its Democracy, are now the antitypical Syrians. But centuries ago, when Autocracy (antitypical Ahab) reigned in the State (Samaria), Democracy was radical. The first battle (1 Kings 20:1-21) represents the centuries-long conflict between the hosts of Italian Democracy (antitypical Ben-hadad) and European Autocracy (antitypical Ahab), resulting in the complete triumph of the latter over the former. This triumph was complete about the beginning of the Reformation. The antitypical second battle (1 Kings 20:23-34) was the effort of Democratic Holland, 1572-1650, and Democratic England, 1642-1688, to overthrow Autocracy (antitypical Ahab), which effort ended in failure. And because Autocracy through its course connected with the Wars of the Spanish Succession, 1692-1697, 1704-1712, compromised its victory by large concessions to Democracy in these two countries, its doom at the latter's hand was predicted by statesmen of Autocratic lands.—1 Kings 20:35-43. 

(36) 1 Kings 22:1-40 types the conflict between the Radicals (the antitypical Syrians), especially the French Revolutionists and Autocracy (antitypical Ahab) supported by Aristocracy, especially in Britain (antitypical Jehoshaphat). The prophets that deceived the King represent the political, educational, clerical, aristocratic, social and financial mouthpieces of Autocracy that misled it, partly as represented in the Holy

Elijah and Elisha. 

40 

Roman Empire, into warring with the Radicals of Europe, particularly those in Republican France. Micaiah represents the liberal class of European statesmen of which Charles Fox, the British Statesman, one of the greatest debaters and orators that ever lived, was a leader, which first halfheartedly consented to participation in the war on Revolutionary France, etc., which later advised against it, predicting defeat to Autocracy, and which as a result fell into the latter's disfavor. Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah (commerce), represents those diplomats like William Pitt, the Younger, who welded with finances the autocratic nations of Europe into what seemed an irresistible alliance of powers (iron horns) against Democratic France, etc. During the conflict Autocracy was defeated (Ahab wounded) at the hands of venturesome Napoleon (the man who at a venture drew the bow), and the Holy Roman Empire was destroyed, 1806 (Ahab carried out of the battle). Autocracy as a result was very greatly weakened, being compelled about the middle of the century, through the revolutions of 1848 and later events, to begin to grant a constitution and the ballot to almost every nation of Europe not previously having these. By this course Autocracy died. Yea, the change has become so general that Democracy is now no more considered radical. Now the radical Socialists, the Communists, the Syndicalists and the Anarchists are the antitypical Syrians. Thus, whereas formerly Democracy was antitypical Ben-hadad (the view of 1 Kings) latterly in the European political world, Bolshevism became this antitype (the view of certain parts of 2 Kings). 

(37) A brief statement of the antitype of 1 Kings 21:17-28 is in place here. When Autocracy (Ahab) in the person of Louis XIV of France took possession of the Huguenots' domain (the vineyard) after suppressing them (killing Naboth), the pertinent principles of the Lord's Word (the Word of the Lord) 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

41 

aroused the faithful Little Flock (Elijah vs. 17-19) to encounter and denounce Autocracy for its wrongs against the Huguenots, particularly against their Little Flock representatives, forecasting its destruction at the hands of partisans (dogs). These denunciations came especially, but not exclusively from Little Flock members in England, whither many of the Huguenots fled for refuge, though some found it also in Holland, Switzerland, Germany and even in America, in which countries also members of antitypical Elijah joined in these denunciations of France's Autocracy as against the Huguenots. While Autocracy charged these denunciations to the alleged personal hatred (mine enemy) of antitypical Elijah, it was actually due to Autocracy's wickedness against the Lord (v. 21). Antitypical Elijah also forecast the overthrow of every political system that would smack of Autocracy (posterity), with all false teachers who defiled its powers (wall), regardless as to whether these were more or less restrained (shut up) or free (left, at large), reducing such systems to the condition of the destroyed wicked kingdoms of the past, and this as an expression of God's wrath against Autocracy (v. 22). He also forecast the destruction of the Romanist Church (Jezebel) at the hands of partisans (dogs, v. 23), while she would be entrenched in the powers of a union of Church and State (walls of Jezreel, the dwelling place of Ahab and Jezebel). Partisans (dogs) would destroy Autocracy's supporters in governmental power (city), and anarchists (fowls) would destroy them when their governmental powers would be no more (field, v. 24). The evil deeds of Autocracy are typically characterized in vs. 25, 26. Antitypical Elijah's denunciations of Autocracy in France roused it to a measurable repentance (v. 27), which through the principles of God's Word occasioned antitypical Elijah both to recognize it and to recognize from the Bible that the remnants of Autocracy would not be 

Elijah and Elisha. 

42 

destroyed during Autocracy's days; but in its successor's days—the days of allianced Europe typed by Jehoram, Ahab's son (vs. 28, 29). 1 Kings 22:41-48 treats of Democracy—liberty-loving America from about 1860 until 1919. The destruction of many of America's merchant ships through the U-boat warfare from 1914 to 1917 is typed in v. 48, and its refusal to join hands with the European nations while acting in their individual capacities, as against Germany, before it entered the war, is typed in v. 49. 

(38) Next will be given the antitype of 2 Kings 1, from the understanding that it was fulfilled just before, and during that part of the World War which was before "that Servant" passed beyond the vail. But before discussing these matters we feel that we ought to refute some errors on antitypical Elijah that J. F. Rutherford preached at the Cedar Point Convention and later published in the Tower (Z '22, 334). In the same article the darkening of his right eye and his eating and drinking with the drunken (Zech. 11:15-17; Matt. 24:48-51) are seen in his denying that the day of preparation began in 1799, and in his teaching instead that it began in 1874 (see C 23 for the refutation); in his denying that our Lord came to His temple in 1874 and in his alleging instead that it was in 1918 (for the refutation please see Jesus' and Mark's use of the pertinent passage as fulfilling in 29 A.D., and therefore, according to the parallel dispensations, also in 1874 as our Pastor properly explained the subject (Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:27; Mark 1:2-8); and in teaching that Isaiah's vision (Is. 6:1-11) of his offering his service, his lip-cleansing and his instructions for his mission, treats of matters from 1919 onward, utterly ignoring the fact that beginning with Marsiglio's work, 1309-1328, progressing through the reformation by sects and culminating in a nucleus of the sanctuary class becoming cleansed in 1846, the Church was given a part of the lip-cleansing for its mission of

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

43 

declaring the things stated in Is. 6:8-13, and utterly ignoring the fact that John (John 12:40, 41) quotes Is. 6:10 and applies it to the Jewish Harvest and that therefore, according to the parallel dispensations, it applies from 1874 to 1914, until the Time of Trouble, when the time for the wasting of the cities, etc., came. These and other errors, apart from the errors on Elijah, contained in Z '22, 332-337, we will not further discuss here. 

(39) In Z '22, 334, J. F. Rutherford sets forth the thought that the Elijah antitype did not begin to fulfill until 1874 and was completed in 1918. With his usual hypocrisy, while elaborating his "new view" he quotes from our Pastor as though the former were in harmony with him, and thus deceives "the unlearned and the unstable." He claims that the passage, "Elias verily cometh [present tense] first, [so far the passage refers to the first advent of the Elijah class—His advent in the flesh from A. D. 29, until He leaves the world sometime yet in the future] and shall [future tense] restore all things [in the Millennium, in His Second Advent]," means that the Elijah class will first come in 1874 and by 1918 will have restored to the Church the Truth that was lost to the Church formerly! Hence, he teaches two kinds and times of restitution, one for the benefit of the Church, beginning 1874, and one for the benefit of the world, beginning 1925! Merely to state his thought that there are to be times of restitution for the Church ought to be sufficient for its refutation; for restitution is typed by the jubilee and refers exclusively to what was lost in Adam. Such things are not actually restored to the Church and the application, covert or overt, of the great cycle ending in 1874, as pointing to blessings for the Church, is absurd. On 1925 being the beginning of the Jubilee for the world, we would say, this cannot be true for two reasons: (1) That date would have to be reached by a great cycle, if it introduced the antitype of Israel's 

Elijah and Elisha. 

44 

Jubilee. The types suggest the rule of squaring the lower period for reaching their next higher period. Thus, the number of days in the week ending a week after the Sabbath of the Passover, Nisan 15, must be squared to reach the Jubilee day, Pentecost, the period next higher than the Sabbath (Lev. 23:15, 16); and the number of years of a Sabbath cycle ending in a Sabbath year must be squared to reach the Jubilee year, the period next higher than the Sabbath year. Hence, we see that the square of the lower period leads up to and introduces the next higher period; and as the seven Sabbath cycles with their Jubilee year are the highest typical period, the next higher period must be the antitype, or great cycle. Hence, to get the antitypical cycle we must square the highest typical period—50 years—and the resultant 2,500 years, constituting such a great cycle, lead up to and introduce the antitypical Jubilee—in 1874. There was no antitypical cycle leading up to and introducing 1925; therefore that year could not mark the beginning of the antitypical Jubilee. 

(2) God, Himself, in the only passage that speaks of there being 70 Jubilees, expressly tells us that they would all be kept during the desolation of the land, 607-537 B. C. (2 Chro. 36:21); consequently the 51 cycles since the last typical Jubilee held before the desolation of the land, cannot be followed by Jubilee years, since these Jubilees were kept during the desolation. Therefore, these 51 cycles are of 49 years each and not of 50 years. Therefore, the cycles following the last before the captivity lead up to and end in 1874 as our Pastor taught, and not in 1925 as J. F. Rutherford's theory claims. These two points being true, there was no correct way of reaching 1925 as the beginning of the antitypical Jubilee. Therefore, 1925 could not be the date for the beginning of the antitypical Jubilee: 1874, and 1874 alone, is the date for that event. J.F. Rutherford's perversions on this subject 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

45 

only add to the already overwhelming proof that he is eating and drinking with the drunken, and that his right eye is darkening more and more.* 

(40) Having shown the fallacy of his new setting of Elijah restoring all things by 1918 and the antitypical Jubilee for the world beginning 1925, we might dismiss his entire view as sufficiently refuted; but we will present a number of reasons against the thought that antitypical Elijah first put in his appearance in 1874, because the Lord desires the Sword of Truth to be thrust into the right eye of "the foolish," "unprofitable shepherd," who in his efforts to cure the effects of the sword-thrust, will darken his right eye all the more, will let go of further truths that contradict his view and invent new errors in their place, as he has done after every sword's thrust into his right eye in the past. Here is the refutation: 

(1) The fulfilled facts antitypical of Elijah's acts recorded in 1 Kings 17:1—19:21; 21:17-29, prove that antitypical Elijah became active while our Lord was in the flesh and, so far as these passages are concerned, continued in such activity until 1914. For details please see B 249-266 and the discussion above. 

(2) The fulfilled facts antitypical of 1 Kings 19:19-21 and 2 Kings 2:1-25, prove that antitypical Elijah, after functioning for many centuries, called antitypical Elisha in 1846, afterwards journeyed with him to antitypical Gilgal, 1874, to antitypical Bethel, 1878, to antitypical Jericho, 1881, to antitypical Jordan, 1914, and separated from him in 1917, since which time antitypical Elisha functions without antitypical Elijah. For details please see Z '04, 252, pars. 4, 5; Z '15, 286, pars. 5-9; P '27, 18-39. 

* The above two arguments were first published early in 1920, shortly after the error under review began to be taught. Of course, the facts of 1925 and since disprove the view under review; for it failed of fulfillment.

Elijah and Elisha. 

46 

(3) The Bible chronology connected with antitypical Elijah proves that he began to function before 539, and that he continued to function up to and years after 1799. Elijah's flight (1 Kings 17:2-5) types the same thing as is symbolized by the woman's flight into the wilderness (Rev. 12:6), which occurred in 539; and as she remained 1,260 years in the wilderness, so did antitypical Elijah remain in isolation until 1799. Again, Elijah's closing the literal heavens 3 1/2 years against rain (1 Kings 17:1; 18:1; Jas. 5:17, 18) generally speaking types the same general thing as is symbolized by the two prophets preventing the symbolic heavens from giving rain from 539 to 1799 (Rev. 11:3, 6). 

(4) Antitypical Jezebel as the persecutor of antitypical Elijah is set forth as active against the true Church during the Thyatira period, which ended over 500 years before 1874 (Rev. 2:20). 

(5) Beginning in 1309 by a reformation through individuals and in 1517 by a reformation through sects, antitypical Elijah restored the many teachings from symbolic Babylon. Hence, antitypical Elijah centuries before 1874 began to restore the lost truths. 

(6) The restoration of these truths had progressed so far that the Sanctuary class—antitypical Elijah—was cleansed from the main defilements of the papacy and had in its possession the many truths by 1846. 

(7) Interwoven with the Elijah type are secular events typing happenings synchronizing with, and related to some in antitypical Elijah's experiences and dating centuries, before 1874 (1 Kings 20:1—22:40). For details please see above. 

(41) To the above seven Biblical reasons may be added the Pyramid's corroboration which gives, at the foot of the large step toward the south end of the Grand Gallery, September 24, 1846, as the exact day and year of antitypical Elijah's beginning to anoint antitypical Elisha, and, at the point of intersection of 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

47 

the top of the step and the projected vertical line of the Grand Gallery's south wall, June 27, 1917, and July 18, 1920, as the exact days and years of antitypical Elisha's and Elijah's appearances, respectively, as separate and distinct from one another. For details please see the last chapter of this book. Hence the Elijah functioned centuries before 1874. 

(42) Having thus disposed of these twists, we now take up the more pleasant task of explaining the antitype of 2 Kings 1:1-18. Our dear Pastor gave us the clue to this chapter when he applied Ahaziah in his sick condition as a type of Europe diseased by politics and war. We have already pointed out that Ahab represents Europe in its autocracy; that Ahaziah (of Israel) types Europe as divided into countries acting independently and separately from one another; and that Jehoram (of Israel), who for a while was a coregent of Ahaziah, represents Europe in its countries acting in concert with one another. We will later point out that Moab in 2 Kings—not everywhere else—represents the Central Powers. Its rebellion against Ahaziah (v. 1) represents these powers with Italy, forming and maintaining the Triple Alliance and using it against the separated and concerted European powers, which was a rebellion against Europe as consisting of powers acting separately from one another and in concert—antitypical Ahaziah and Jehoram. It will be noticed that in the type, not so much Ahaziah as Jehoram warred against Moab (2 Kings 3:4-27). Accordingly, in the antitype, not so much individual nations as the European concert, helped by Labor—Edom—and America—Jehoshaphat—warred against the Central Powers, though all these countries entered the war individually, e.g., Austria, Servia, Belgium, etc. Thus they began as separate nations (antitypical Ahaziah) to war. Ahaziah's fall (v. 2) types these separate European governments while pursuing high ambitions (upper chamber) in politics (Samaria) falling

Elijah and Elisha. 

48 

through their half concealed and weak fabric (lattice) into the conditions threatening the World War; his landing represents the events leading to, and bringing about the archduke's murder, and his early sickness types the resultant unmanageable crisis into which Europe came in its separate countries acting independently. His calling for the messengers represents Europe's turning to the military party in each country for help, and his sending them to Baal-Zebub of Ekron for a solution of his condition represents European countries appealing to militarism, or war—actually Satan (Matt. 10:25)—for a solution of their sick condition and for some assurance of continued existence as independent countries. Baal-Zebub—Lord of flies, so-called, because Baal [Satan in disguise] was supposedly the destroyer [Ekron—destruction] of plaguesome flies—types militarism [actually Satan] the supposed destroyer of plaguesome and otherwise unsolvable conditions. In making an appeal to militarism—Satan—Europe sinned. It should have appealed to God, that is to Him as He is represented in the principles of Truth, Justice and Love; and had the appeal been heartily made to God, which implies subjection to His will, the death of antitypical Ahaziah in a childless condition would not have set in—God's Kingdom would have been established as his peaceful successor, or figurative son. 

(43) It was because the European nations refused to act in accord with the Golden Rule, and because they acted in accord with selfishness—Satan's spirit—that they ruined themselves as independent states through selfish politics and the World War—antitypical Ahaziah died. The gross violations of Truth and Righteousness involved in an appeal to militarism instead of to Truth and Righteousness for an assurance of continued existence, occasioned the messenger of the Lord—"that Servant"—to arouse the antitypical Elijah to send, through the military parties in the 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

49 

pertinent countries, a rebuking message to Europe and a prophecy of Europe's independent national dissolution (v. 3) as a precursor of their final destruction altogether. This message was certainly given immediately after the war began, especially through the published sermons and the public lectures, and through the conversations of the Truth people with outsiders on the subject of the World War. The question which Elijah asked (v. 3) is mis-rendered in the A. V. It should read: "Is there really not a God in Israel that ye are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, a god of Ekron?" The rebuke contained in this question implies antitypically that in Christendom, Truth, Justice and Love, as the principles of Jehovah's government and people, were to be found and acted out with respect to the conditions, but that despite these things Christendom was making an appeal to Satan's principles of error, injustice and selfishness to solve its troubles and obtain assurance of continued existence in its separate states. Therefore, the Lord's message by antitypical Elijah to Christendom was that it had sinned so greatly as to make its evil plight fatal to the independence of the separate states of Europe, through weakening them preparatory to their utter destruction in the revolution following the war, which destruction is to occur in their united capacity, as is typed by Jehoram's death at Jehu's hands. 

(44) This message was proclaimed throughout Christendom and thus came to the attention of the war parties of the involved countries, and from these it came to the governments themselves, typed by Elijah's address to the messengers and their telling its contents to Ahaziah, whose question (v. 5), "Why are ye turned back?" shows that antitypically the war parties were taken aback by the rebukes that came from antitypical Elijah to the extent that mentally they were halted in their mad war spirit. From them antitypical Ahaziah learned the criticisms that God's faithful

Elijah and Elisha. 

50 

Saints made against Europe's committing the great sins of entering and prosecuting the World War, and he also learned from them that Jehovah sentenced Europe in its independent national activities to death, through a weakening of each one of the involved nations to such an extent that they had further to combine for their preservation (Zeph. 3:8), and as its price had to give up independent national activity (v. 6). Ahaziah's question as to what kind of a man came up to meet them and to deliver to them such a message corresponds to the question that the national rulers asked the war parties, "What kind of people have presumed to intercept your war spirit and criticize our resort to war as against the principles of Truth, Justice and Love?" The messengers' answer that it was a hairy man types the thought that the war party answered that the interceptors and reprovers were recognized as powerful (hair represents power as can be seen from Samson's hair) in their use of the Bible—Bible Students; and their answer that he was girt with a girdle of leather, types the thought that the war parties described antitypical Elijah as one who was engaged in a service of reproof of wrong-doing because of its opposition to God's Law and of proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God. That this is the symbolic meaning of being girt with a leather girdle seems to appear from the fact that John the Baptist, whose whole mission was one of reproof for wrong-doing and of declaring the coming of God's Kingdom, was so girded to symbolize his special work (Matt. 3:4). As from the messengers' description Ahaziah recognized their interceptor and his reprover as Elijah, so the European powers recognized in their reprover and judge the same class as throughout the Age has reproved for Sin, Righteousness and Judgment to come (v. 8). It will be seen that this activity of antitypical Elijah is set forth in part from another standpoint in antitypical Aaron's confessing Christendom's 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

51 

sins over Azazel's Goat and in the judgments of Ps. 149:5-9. 

(45) To be reproved for gross sin was something that the pride of Ahaziah resented; accordingly, antitypical Ahaziah resented the rebuke. Three times typical Ahaziah sought to possess himself of Elijah (vs. 9, 11, 13). These three attempts to capture Elijah, type three different efforts of the warring powers to justify their course, and by such attempted justification to capture antitypical Elijah in the sense of restraining him from his criticisms and judgment of the warring powers by their supposed refutations of his accusations. The first line of thought that was advanced to justify certain European states, e.g., Russia, Servia, Germany and Austria, etc., in their war course, was the argument of the Divine Right of kings, which they claimed was being overridden by their opponents. Thus they claimed justification for their part in the war. The first captain of fifty (v. 9) represents the leaders among those who made this claim, and his fifty represent those who supported them in the claim of the Divine Right of kings. The first captain and his fifty found Elijah sitting on the top of a hill, literally the mountain. This mountain represents the kingdom, and Elijah's sitting on its top types the fact that at that time, from early Fall of 1914 onward, the entire eventual Elijah class was in the embryo Kingdom, i.e., the last one of those who would prove faithful had been begotten of the Spirit, and henceforth no one else would be invited to the high calling; for all embryo new creatures who will overcome are by us to be regarded as already in the highest or heavenly phase of the Kingdom—sitting on the top of a mountain (Rev. 14:1); and certainly by October, 1914, almost all of us understood that the last one of the Faithful had been begotten of the Spirit, and a little later came to see that the harvesting that yet remained was of a gleaning character. Moreover,

Elijah and Elisha. 

52 

the fact that Elijah was then on the mountain's top, implies that he had previously reached and ascended the mountain. His reaching the mountain also types the fact that the Church somewhat before early Fall, 1914, reached the time when the Kingdom beyond the vail would be working to overthrow Satan's Empire, which working began September 21, 1914, after the outbreak of the World War. This is in harmony with our Pastor's secondary thought on the antitype of Elijah's coming at the end of the 40 days—1914—to Horeb, the Mount of God (1 Kings 19:8), i.e., that the Church in the flesh would at that time come to the time when the Kingdom beyond the vail would stand up to overthrow Satan's Empire through the great tribulation (Dan. 12:1). Thus when the would-be justifiers of Europe's war from the standpoint of the Divine Right of kings sought by their supposed refutations of antitypical Elijah's criticisms and sentence, to capture—restrain—the Faithful in their criticizing and judging, they came upon this class lifted above them by the glorified Kingdom battling against Satan's Empire. The captain's addressing Elijah as a man of God, types the fact that the accuser and judge of Europe (Ps. 149:5-9) was recognized by the Divine rights advocates as a people who were devoted to the Lord. The captain's statement, "The king hath said, Come down," was antitypically given in pantomime: the arguments on the Divine Right of kings used by its defenders in pantomime demanding from antitypical Elijah to permit himself to be restrained from his rebukes of, and judgment against, the "kings" and "nobles." 

(46) Elijah's answer (v. 10), "If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven and consume thee and thy fifty," was also in the antitype enacted in pantomime. Actually the Truth people did not so address the defenders of the doctrine of Divine Right of kings. But their actions expressed those

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

53 

thoughts. As servants of God earnestly desiring to refute the arguments of the Divine Rightists, they drew down from God's Word the truths that devoured the Divine Rightists—destroyed them as defenders of that doctrine, but, of course, not as individuals. Accordingly, we understand the fire of v. 10 to be truths derived from the Bible, which is found in and is externally at least accepted by the symbolic heavens. The following are some of the truths that antitypical Elijah drew down from the Bible, kept in the symbolic heavens, and thereby overthrew the Divine Rightists: (1) The kings of the earth were not Jehovah's special appointees, vicegerents and representatives, but while permitted by God for a time, they were actually officials of Satan's Empire; (2) Not a few of their acts, especially their war acts, and not a few of their policies, laws and characteristics were thoroughly contrary to God's principles—Truth, Righteousness and Love; therefore God did not sanction their acts, especially their war acts, etc.; (3) They had for centuries at the behest of, and in fellowship with, apostate church systems, persecuted and oppressed God's faithful people and crushed the Truth that they proclaimed; and (4) The Divine Right doctrine was evidently an error, because nations on both sides were basing their claims on it as against one another. These four general lines of thought with corroborative Bible passages and historical facts the Faithful used in opposing the arguments for the Divine Right of kings, and thereby as with a symbolic fire—destructive truth like any other destructive agency may properly be symbolized by fire—symbolically destroyed—overthrew—the Divine Rightists, who were especially, though not exclusively, Catholics, particularly their clergy. 

(47) But all of the war-waging nations did not claim the Divine Right for their rulers. Those of them that rejected the Divine Right of kings set up another 

Elijah and Elisha. 

54 

claim—that they were warring to maintain Democracy and national Self-determination, i.e., The Divine Right of Democracy, and that, therefore, they were justified in waging war. Ahaziah's sending the second captain with his fifty, types these countries sending their mouthpieces on the subject of Democracy and national Self-determination with their supporters on the mission of restraining, by arguments on those lines of thought, antitypical Elijah from his criticisms and judgment of the kings and nobles (v. 11). This second captain's speech, generally speaking, types the same lines of action that we saw pantomimed in the antitype of the first captain's speech, though the antitypes appealed, of course, to different lines of thought. The first said, "Come down"; the second added to that charge the word "quickly." This addition types the greater assurance and earnestness that the Democracy and Self-determination advocates had in their arguments, and their confidence in being able by their arguments quickly to restrain antitypical Elijah's criticisms and judgment of the kings and nobles. 

(48) Elijah's answer types the same general lines of action in antitypical Elijah as characterized his course toward the Divine Rightists; but, of course, this appeal was to different lines of Biblical truths in overthrowing those who claimed that the national aspirations for Democracy and Self-determination were of Divine Right and, therefore, justified their waging war in their preservation. The symbolic fire that antitypical Elijah used to destroy symbolically antitypical Ahaziah's second set of mouthpieces and their supporters was especially the following truths: the Times of the Gentiles were ended; the lease of authority given the Gentile powers to rule the earth having expired, they no longer possessed even the limited right to rule and carry on governmental functions. Therefore, while they would previously have been justified to wage a defensive war for their right to national

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

55 

Self-determination and Democracy, they no longer had that right; for their lease had expired; the lease—the right to rule—was given to another—God's Kingdom—the owner was evicting them as undesirable and rightless tenants, and their fighting to hold on was in violation of the rights of the owner and of the rights of the Ruler to whom He had given earth's dominion. The advocates of national Self-determination and Democracy could not answer this line of truth—this symbolic fire destroyed them as successful defenders of their claims. Such advocates consisted especially, but not exclusively of Protestants, particularly of their clergy. 

(49) There was a third set of reasons given, not as a justification, but as a palliation of Europe's waging the World War. And those who set this view forth were typed by the third captain, and their supporters were typed by his fifty. As it was in the cases of the other captains' antitypes, so it was in the case of the third captain's antitypes: they in pantomime acted out the humble conduct and speech of the third captain. Those who antityped the third captain did not manifest the pride and arrogance of the Divine Rightists and Self-determinationists. They admitted that the pertinent Bible truths condemned the views of the first two sets of advocates, "fire came down from heaven and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties" (v. 14). The third captain's falling down on his knees before Elijah types the fact that the third set of advocates subjected themselves to the views of the Elijah class to the effect that the war was not to be justified from the standpoint of Truth and Righteousness, that therefore the war was wrong, and that participation therein was wrong, so far as Truth and Righteousness were concerned. The third captain's plea for mercy for himself and his fifty, types the fact that the palliationists' course of argument showed that they did not want the principles 

Elijah and Elisha. 

56 

of Biblical Truth and Righteousness to be used as the measuring rod of their excuses; for they realized that they could not come out of such a measuring process otherwise than by being overthrown. The palliationists conceded that the causes of the war were on both sides contrary to Christian Principles and Truth, and that the war acts and policies of both sides were likewise contrary to Christian Principles and Truth, which Principles they, therefore, did not desire to have used against them, as they pleaded guilty of their having been, and of their continuing to be, violated. But in palliation they argued that the stress of national, racial, territorial, economic, financial, commercial, political, cultural and psychological conditions made the war unavoidable for imperfect, sinful beings under the evil conditions and in the evil spirit in which the nations of Europe had been living toward one another. That antitypical Ahaziah sent forth these palliationists, not to justify, but to extenuate his course, shows how clearly and unanswerably the principles of Truth and Righteousness in their condemnation of the war had been presented by antitypical Elijah. These palliationists were more especially, but not exclusively, certain financiers, politicians, economists, scholars and labor leaders. "That Servant" well knew the truthfulness of these palliating conditions; for nobody ever set them forth more clearly and sympathetically than he did, and that in Vol. 4, nearly 20 years before the war began. Therefore, when the palliationists set forth these extenuating circumstances, he saw at once that their attitude in the matter and their statement of the case were correct for the conditions. Hence, he counseled the Church by his speeches and actions not to oppose or fear such pleas, but to accept and set them forth (as evidenced by special tracts, Vol. 4 renamed and featured, etc.) as the proper explanation of the actual conditions from man's standpoint—"Go down with him; be not afraid of him." 

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

57 

(50) Elijah's going with the third captain and his fifty to the king types the fact that the true Church accepted the restraint imposed on it by these pleas, and faced the rulers throughout Europe with these palliationists, and set these palliations forth as the extenuating circumstances of the war. Such a course was proper in a Priesthood touched with sympathy for fallen man and the woes that his own follies and sins bring upon him. But while the antitypical Elijah set forth these palliations, they did not make him alter his criticisms of the unrighteousness of the war, nor make him alter the judgment that he had as the Lord's mouthpiece pronounced upon the kings and nobles, whose course of appealing to Satan (for such is exactly what their resorting to arms was) for an assurance of a continuance of their existence, Jehovah had decided would result in Europe's death so far as independent national political activity is concerned, and additionally would result in such a weakening of the nations as would insure their destruction in the coming revolution (v. 16). And it has proved in fact to have been so fulfilled. The war led to such conditions that European nations had to enter combinations; and to secure guarantees of their existence they must act in harmony with these combinations, as they have increasingly been doing since shortly after the war began. This has meant the curbing, the diminishing and finally the extinction of the isolated, independent action of European nations in European problems—antitypical Ahaziah, gradually dying, is now dead. We need, therefore, not expect such an isolated national European policy to be re-established until after the Revolution; antitypical Jehoram (v. 17)—Europe acting in concert—has succeeded antitypical Ahaziah and will remain active until antitypical Jehu destroys him. 

(51) The above interpretation of 2 Kings 1:1-18 is not at all forced; it is natural, harmonious and factual.

Elijah and Elisha. 

58 

It fits perfectly into the Biblical setting of the Elijah type; and we may well have the assurance of faith in its truth. We are satisfied that the key that our Pastor gave us to the chapter—that the sick Ahaziah represents Europe diseased by its political activities previous to and leading up to the war and dying from certain standpoints as a result of the war—is the correct one, and that thereby we have been enabled to unlock the entire chapter by the Lord's grace. We may also be very sure that J. F. Rutherford's placing the antitype of this chapter (Z '19, 245, pars. 5, 6) after our Pastor's death, yea, after the release of the seven brothers in 1919, is false. Indeed, he has woefully confused the entire Elijah picture—just as we should expect of one who is eating and drinking with the drunken, and whose right eye is ever increasingly darkening.—Matt. 24:48-51; Zech. 11:17. 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) Whose views will be reviewed in this chapter? Whom does Elijah type, and in what respect? What two things materially help us to construe the antitype of Elijah's experiences? Give the various chronological periods of Elijah, type and antitype. 

(2) Of what period does 1 Kings 17:1-24 treat? Prove this, and refute an opposing view both as to its beginning and ending. What is the antitype of verse 1? Why? Why is an opposing view not true? 

(3) Give a brief statement of the antitype of 1 Kings 17:2-4. Give details of the course of error up to A. D. 539. Who were the antitypical ravens? What did they do to antitypical Elijah? What occurred to Arianism between 539 and 799? Refute an unhistorical view of Arianism. 

(4) What is typed by Cherith and Jordan and Elijah's being there? 

(5) What four controversies occurred between 539 and 799? What were their results for Truth and error? Give some particulars of the last controversy. What three events immediately followed its end? 

(6) What helps us to trace the antitype of 1 Kings 17:8-24? What had to precede the Papal Millennium? Why?

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

59 

What resulted to antitypical Elijah from the advent of the Papal Millennium? Where was there a protesters' movement? Who were its leaders? Against what did they protest? Who belonged to this party? Whom did they antitype? Why? Show how certain leaders of antitypical Elijah came to this party. What were the relations of this party and these leaders? 

(7) What are typed by Zarephath? Its belonging to Zidon? The widow at the city's gate? The two sticks? Her gathering them? Elijah's finding her? His request? Her son? Elijah's promise? The barrel? The meal? The cruse of oil? Giving Elijah the food? And the continuance of the oil and meal? 

(8) Show the activities of antitypical Elijah in the ninth century; its effect upon the Papacy, the protesting party, and upon the Church life of Lombardy, France and Germany. Cite several cases showing this. 

(9) Contrast the condition of reform movements in the ninth and tenth centuries. Of what was this antitypical? Who did not and who did seek to arouse reform movements? Of what was this antitypical? How many efforts were required to arouse a permanent reform movement? Of what was this the antitype? 

(10) What typed the effort to arouse a reform movement? Give the facts of the antitype in its two forms. What were the effects? How were they typed? 

(11) What was the antitype of Elijah's second attempt to awaken the widow's son? Who was the leader in the antitype? In what two ways was the second attempt at arousing a reform movement active? Who took part in them? What was the result? 

(12) What antityped Elijah's third effort to awaken the widow's son? Describe its two parts. What was done in opposition to it? What was the outcome, type and antitype? 

(13) What is the vocal and silent testimony of Church history on the antitype? State and refute another view on the antitype of Elijah's efforts to awaken the widow's child. 

(14) What two things must be kept in mind, if one would understand 1 Kings 18:1-46? How do these things refute an erroneously given antitype?

Elijah and Elisha. 

60 

(15) What is the date for the following reformatory activity of antitypical Elijah? What two lines of evidence prove this? Through whom was it inaugurated? Show the relation of these antitypes to 1 Kings 18:1, 2 and point out inconsistencies of a contrary view. 

(16) Give the facts and results of the controversy between Boniface VIII on the one hand, and Philip IV of France and the French ecclesiastical and civil parties on the other hand. Show how these facts antitype 1 Kings 18:2 (last clause)-6. In what other countries did Boniface and his successors wage a similar controversy? What were the results? What did those conditions manifest? What are the antitypes of the famine, of Ahab and Obadiah, of the horses and asses, of the fountains and brooks, and the search for them? What is the antitype of Obadiah's shielding the prophets, and of his general course? How does this refute an opposing view? 

(17) What persons were the leaders in antitypical Elijah at the time of these events? Describe, type and antitype, the meeting and conversation of Elijah and Obadiah. Describe, type and antitype, Obadiah's telling Ahab of Elijah's presence, and the meeting and conversation of Ahab and Elijah. What was the result of the conversation, type and antitype? 

(18) Describe the great Papal schism. What effect did it have on antitypical Elijah, on the two and three Papal groups, on the civil rulers, on the rather liberal clerical party? What two reform parties rose as a result? Who were the chief representatives of each? What did each strive to attain? Trace these things, type and antitype. 

(19) What did all classes except the Papal Court desire? How did the people stand? What did antitypical Elijah do in these circumstances? Explain, type and antitype, the assembling at Carmel of Elijah, of the prophets of Baal, of the king, of the people, Elijah's address to the people, the proposition of an answer by fire to the suggested sacrifices, the two bullocks, their pieces, the wood, the absence of fire, and Elijah's giving the first opportunity to the priests of Baal to sacrifice? 

(20) By whom was the Catholic reform party impeded and foiled? Describe their reform efforts before and during the Councils of Pisa, Constance and Basel? What

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

61 

was the character of their reform efforts and the real cause of their unfruitfulness? Describe, type and antitype, their dressing the bullock, calling upon Baal, the lack of an answer, their trampling on the altar. 

(21) Explain, type and antitype, Elijah's mocking Baal's prophets, their crying aloud, cutting themselves, their bleeding, their prophesying until evening and the lack of a response. 

(22) Explain, type and antitype, Elijah's inviting the people to come near him, his repairing the altar, his making the altar of twelve stones, the trench and its capacity, the wood, cutting the bullock in pieces, pouring four barrels of water on the wood, and its threefold repetition. 

(23) Explain, type and antitype, the water covering the altar and filling the trench, Elijah's prayer, the fire consuming the bullock, wood, stones, dust and water. 

(24) Of what twofold character was the reformation work? How were the Romish mouthpieces captured? Explain, type and antitype, the Kishon and the slaying of the prophets there. When did the antitypical slayings begin? 

(25) Explain, type and antitype, the sound of the abundance of rain, Elijah's charge to the king to go up and eat and drink, Elijah's climbing to the top of Carmel, and Elijah's prayer for rain. When did these antitypes begin? 

(26) What does Elijah's servant and his sevenfold quest for rain-signs type? Why is Quakerism ignored? 

(27) What is typed by the sea, in 1 Kings 18:43, by looking at it, and by the seventh going of Elijah's servant? When did, and when did not this antitype begin? What is typed by the little cloud, its likeness to a human hand, and the clouds covering the heavens? What is typed by Elijah's message to Ahab, by the rain from the little cloud and the rain from the clouds, by Ahab's chariot and his flight to Jezreel, and Elijah's preceding him to Jezreel? 

(28) Compare and contrast this view with another view of the antitype of the little cloud and the clouds, and show why this view is more exact and complete. 

(29) What was sought in each of the seven sectarian reform movements? When did it attain success? Who were the two persons especially antityped by Elijah's 

Elijah and Elisha. 

62 

longing for rain during the seventh quest of rain-clouds? Tell of Mary Jones' saving, journeying and successfully asking for a Bible. How and with what near and remote results was this incident used in appeals for Bible Societies? 

(30) What was the duration of the antitypical third year? How long did the typical and the antitypical famines last? Give the proof that the sacrificing and the rain occurred on two different days. 

(31) Explain, type and antitype, Jezebel's anger, its cause, its two results, Elijah's coming to Beer-Sheba, the dismissal of his servant, his despondency, the sleep under the juniper tree, the angel, his twice awakening Elijah, the two cakes and two cruses of water, his twice eating and drinking, and his 40 days' journey to Mt. Horeb. What course, illustrated by four distinct acts in 1 Kings 18:40, 41, 42, 43, does the antitype of 1 Kings 19:9-21 take? What does the cave scene type? What is typed by Elijah's seeing the vision outside the cave? What is typed by the anointing of Hazael, Jehu and Elisha? How do the time order of the statement of the command enjoining their typical anointing and the time order of the typical and antitypical fulfillments differ? What is typed by Elisha's hesitation to follow Elijah, the latter's rebuke, Elisha's plowing with twelve yoke of oxen, being with the twelfth, and his sacrificing one of them, feasting the people, and then following after, and ministering to Elijah? 

(32) What is the first fact connected with antitypical Elijah's anointing antitypical Elisha? What is meant by the latter's anointing? How was it done? How did God reveal to antitypical Elijah that he was to anoint antitypical Elisha? What does Bro. Miller say on this point? How do we know that these younger men were members of antitypical Elisha? 

(33) What is the second of the three pertinent facts? Of what fact was Bro. Miller's pertinent act a part? What is a summary of Bros. Miller's and Buckley's pertinent acts from Sept. 8, 1846, to Sept. 27, 1846, as given in White's Life of Wm. Miller? What seven points are to be noted in this record? What work was begun as indicated in points (6) and (7)?

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

63 

(34) What was the third pertinent fact? How did this drawing back occur in Bro. Buckley's case? Of whom was he in such a spirit a representative? 

(35) What is typed by Naboth, Jezebel, the two false witnesses, Naboth's vineyard, Ahab's coveting it, Naboth's murder in 1 Kings 21? By when was the antitype completed? What do Ahab and Ben-hadad in 1 Kings type? In 1 Kings 20? Their first battle? By when was it completed? What is typed by their second battle? What compromised the results of the victory? To what prediction did this compromise lead? 

(36) Whose conflicts are typed in 1 Kings 22:1-40? Whom do its false prophets type? What did they do with autocracy? What is typed by Micaiah and his prophecy? By Zedekiah and his prophecy? By the battle following? By the wounding, the carrying out of the battle and the death of Ahab? 

(37) What did Autocracy do after overthrowing the Huguenots? What did this arouse antitypical Elijah to do? Where especially were these denunciations made? Where else? Why in such countries? What was a false and a true source of these denunciations? What are the details of antitypical Elijah's denunciatory forecasts as typed in vs. 21-24? What do vs. 25, 26 type? V. 27? Vs. 28, 29? 1 Kings 22:41-49? 

(38) What parts of Elijah's history have been given antitypically in these columns? What is purposed in this article under study? What precedes this discussion? What has J. F. Rutherford been doing recently with the Elijah type? What other connected errors does he teach? Briefly refute each of these. 

(39) What chronological error has he been teaching respecting antitypical Elijah's time of activity? From what two sources does he offer proof? Explain and refute his view on two times of restitution for antitypical Elijah. What two arguments refute his 1925 date for the Jubilee's beginning? 

(40) What do these considerations sufficiently do with his new restitution views? Why are further arguments offered against his perversions on antitypical Elijah? What do the antitypes of 1 Kings 17:1-19:21; 21:17-29 prove as to the time of antitypical Elijah's activity?

Elijah and Elisha. 

64 

What do the antitypes of 1 Kings 19:19-21; 2 Kings 2:1-25 prove as to the time of antitypical Elisha's activities? What does the Bible Chronology prove as to the time of antitypical Elijah's activity? What are the three parallel events given in Revelation? When did they occur? How does the Jezebel type prove some of antitypical Elijah's activities to have been hundreds of years before 1874? What two facts prove that antitypical Elijah began to restore the Truth centuries before 1874? By what date preceding 1874 had he restored the main truths? What contemporaneous events prove antitypical Elijah's activities to have been many centuries before 1874? 

(41) What is the Pyramid's testimony on this subject? How is this testimony given? What follows from the above arguments? 

(42) What clue is helpful to open antitypically the related acts of Elijah and Ahaziah? Briefly point out the antitypes of Ahab, Ahaziah and Jehoram. What is the antitype of Moab's rebellion against Ahaziah and Jehoram? What pertinent peculiarity is seen in both the type and the antitype? How were the typical and the antitypical wars entered by the pertinent nations? What is typed by Ahaziah's walking, fall, upper chamber, Samaria, lattice, landing, early sickness, messengers, their call, their mission, Baal-Zebub, Ekron and their question? To whom should the appeal have been made in type and antitype? What should have been the result? 

(43) Why was Ahaziah—type and antitype—ruined? Who was the messenger of the Lord to antitypical Elijah? How and to what message was antitypical Elijah aroused? Through what was his message delivered? What is the proper rendering of 2 Kings 1:3? Explain the message—type and antitype. For what did the death of antitypical Ahaziah prepare? 

(44) Where was this message given and to whose attention did it come? To whom did they give it? What is implied antitypically in Ahaziah's question to the returned messengers? What did Ahaziah—type and antitype—learn from the messengers' answer? What is typed by Ahaziah's question respecting his messengers' interceptor? What is typed by the various features of their answer? Prove the antitypical significance of the leather

Elijah—Type and Antitype. 

65 

girdle. What conclusion did Ahaziah—type and antitype—draw from the answer? How is antitypical Elijah's activity in this respect elsewhere Scripturally set forth? 

(45) What was the direct and later the threefold indirect effect of this rebuke on typical and antitypical Ahaziah? What was the first line of thought by which certain European States sought to justify their participation in the war? What are typed by the first captain and his fifty? What by Elijah's being on the top of, and his reaching, the mountain? What is typed by the first attempt to arrest Elijah, calling him a man of God, and demanding his surrender? 

(46) How was Elijah's answer to the first captain antityped? What was typed by the fire, the heaven from which it came, Elijah's calling for fire from heaven and its consuming the first captain and his fifty? What four lines of thought especially constituted this fire? Why could such truths be symbolized by fire? Who were the special defenders of the Divine Right of Kings? 

(47) What second thing was advocated by certain countries in justification of their war acts? What is typed by the second captain and his fifty and their being sent by Ahaziah? What does the second captain's speech type and how was it antityped? Why was the word "quickly" used by him—type and antitype? 

(48) How is Elijah's answer—type and antitype—related to his former answer? What are the differences in the antitype? What truths were the antitypes of the fire called down upon the second captain and his fifty? What was their effect? Who especially defended the Divine Right of Democracy? 

(49) Whom does the third captain and his fifty type? How was his speech antityped? Show the contrast—type and antitype—between his and the other two captains' speeches. What is typed by his falling on his knees, his plea for mercy? What palliations did his antitypes offer for the nations waging the World War? What did such palliation pleas from antitypical Ahaziah prove of antitypical Elijah's presentations against the Divine rightists? Of whom did the palliationists especially consist? What is typed by the charge of the Angel of the Lord to Elijah?

Elijah and Elisha. 

66 

(50) What is typed by Elijah's going down to, and with, the third captain? Why was Elijah's course in this—type and antitype—justified? What did that course not alter in his previous utterances—type and antitype? What condition did the war force upon the nations of Europe? In what has this resulted? Until what will this result last? 

(51) What are the leading characteristics of the above explanation? How may we view it and J. F. Rutherford's view of the antitype and of antitypical Elijah in general, from the standpoint of Scripture, Reason and Fact? 

‍

‍